MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404533185 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae143

Anatomic maps of erogenous and aversive sensation zones of the breasts, vulva, and vagina: a questionnaire-based study

2024· article· en· W4404533185 on OpenAlexaff
Jenna Stelmar, Michael Zaliznyak, Sandeep Sandhu, Dylan Isaacson, Erin Duralde, S Smith, Gail Knudson, Maurice M. Garcia

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClitorisVulvaSensationLabiaPleasurePsychologyVaginaIntroitusMedicineSurgeryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Erogenous sensation zones (ESZs) elicit sexual pleasure upon stimulation. General ESZ maps exist, but they do not assess internal areas of the body, differentiate between individual structures, or quantify the importance of individual ESZs to sexual pleasure. Maps of aversive sensation zones (ASZs), or bodily areas individuals dislike having touched during sex, have not been described. AIM: To create detailed erogenous and aversive sensory maps of the vulva, vagina, and breasts, and assess the importance of each erogenous structure to sexual pleasure. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire was administered to 441 sexually active cisgender women (mean age 48.9 ± 15.5 years) from March to June 2020 via Qualtrics. Respondents selected ESZs and ASZs from anatomic illustrations and rated each ESZ's importance to their sexual pleasure. Respondents' reasoning for choosing each ASZ was queried. OUTCOMES: Heat maps of ESZ and ASZ selection frequency, ESZ importance ratings, and ASZ reasoning. RESULTS: More respondents selected ≧1 areas of the vulva as erogenous (82.0%), in comparison to the breasts (77.4%) and vagina (59.4%). The two most erogenous areas of the breast were also the most aversive: breast tissue (57.8% ESZ selection; 5.4% ASZ) and nipples (42.7%; 6.5%). Respondents most commonly reported these areas as aversive due to: "It's overly sensitive" and "It hurts."The most frequently selected ESZs of the vulva were the vaginal introitus (50.8%), periurethra (42.6%), and glans clitoris (41.3%). The top ASZs were the anus (34.0%) and perineum (7.9%), with primary reasons being: "It's gross," "It hurts," and "I'm ashamed/embarrassed."Of the five ESZs of the vagina, the superficial anterior (48.1%) and superficial posterior (32.9%) regions were the most selected. The cervix (6.8%), superficial posterior (5%), and deep posterior (3.4%) regions were the top ASZs due to "It hurts" and/or "It's overly sensitive." CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Erogenous and aversive sensory maps could help identify sexual concerns, inform preoperative counseling, and track sensory changes. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study captured detailed maps of internal and external ESZs and ASZs of the breasts, vulva, and vagina. Limitations include recall bias and inclusion of only cisgender women, rather than all people who share the same anatomy, irrespective of gender identity. CONCLUSIONS: Erogenous sensation was most prominent in the vulvar structures, including the vaginal introitus and glans clitoris, followed by the superficial surface of the vaginal canal. Aversive sensation associated with the anus primarily came from feelings of judgment and shame, while other ASZs were reportedly due to pain and sensitivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207