Associations Between Contents of Pornography and Sexual Satisfaction and Function Among Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pornography offers a wide variety of sexual contents and has documented potential positive (e.g., higher sexual satisfaction) and negative associations (e.g., lower sexual function) with sexuality. The aims of this study were to describe the proportion of use of five different contents of pornography (i.e. group sex, passion and romance, gender-bending, taboo transgression and forbidden sex, power, control, and rough sex pornography), to examine gender-based differences in the frequency of use of these contents, and to examine the associations between the frequency of use of these contents and sexual satisfaction and function, considering potential differences among genders and individuals with and without a romantic or sexual partner, and controlling for frequency of masturbation. A sample of 827 young adults (503 women; Mage = 23.44) completed online self-report questionnaires. Results of path analysis indicated that, controlling for frequency of masturbation, the use of passion and romance pornography was associated with higher sexual satisfaction, whereas the use of power, control, and rough sex pornography was associated with lower sexual satisfaction. Cisgender men’s use of power, control, and rough sex pornography was also associated with lower sexual function. These findings suggest different associations between pornography use and sexual satisfaction and function depending on the pornographic contents used.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".