‘How’ Matters More Than ‘How Much’: Demographics, Usage Context, and Sexual Well-Being Related to Partnered Teledildonics Use in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on sex toys has mostly studied female or community samples of non-connected sex toy users. Less is known about connected sex toy use (i.e. teledildonics) among men, or the sociodemographics and sexual well-being associated with their usage. A convenience sample of 617 cisgender men who used connected sex toys was recruited among Kiiroo company's listserv and social media (i.e. Discord, Reddit) to respond to an online questionnaire assessing their demographics, sex toy usage (e.g. frequency, motivations), and sexual well-being (e.g. sexual satisfaction, pleasure, self-esteem, functioning). Descriptive, comparative, and binomial multivariable regression analyses were conducted. Partnered teledildonics use, compared to exclusively solo use, was significantly associated with relationship status, higher number of sex toys and sexual partners, higher sexual desire, ability to orgasm with a partner, and sexual self-esteem. This study helps us better understand male teledildonics use and the contexts in which it is associated with higher sexual well-being.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".