Auditory Cues Alter the Magnitude and Valence of Subjective Sexual Arousal and Desire Induced by an Erotic Video
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although women and men rate their subjective arousal similarly in response to "female-centric" erotic videos, women rate their subjective arousal lower than men in response to "male-centric" videos, which often end with the male's ejaculation. This study asked whether ratings of subjective sexual arousal and desire using the Sexual Arousal and Desire Inventory (SADI) would be altered if this ending was present or absent, and whether including or excluding the accompanying soundtrack would influence the magnitude and direction of the responses. A total of 119 cis-gendered heterosexual undergraduates (59 women and 60 men) viewed an 11-min sexually explicit heterosexual video that ended with a 15-s ejaculation scene. Two versions of the video were created, one with the ejaculatory ending (E+) and one without (E-). Participants were assigned randomly to view one of the two versions with (S+) or without (S-) the accompanying soundtrack, after which they completed the state version of the SADI. Women and men found both sequences without sound less arousing on the Evaluative, Motivational, and Physiological subscales of the SADI relative to the S+ sequences. However, on the Negative/Aversive subscale, women found the E + S- sequence more negative than did men, whereas this difference was not found with sound. Thus, women and men were sensitive to the auditory content of sexually explicit videos, and scenes of sexual intercourse ending with explicit ejaculation increased the Evaluative and Motivational properties of subjective sexual arousal and desire. However, this occurred in women only when the auditory cues signaled a clear and gratifying sexual interaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".