Literature DB >> 29448047

Genital lubrication: A cue-specific sexual response?

Megan L Sawatsky1, Samantha J Dawson2, Martin L Lalumière3.   

Abstract

Women's genital responses are sensitive to the presence and intensity of sexual cues, yet some stimulus features (e.g., male vs. female actors, consensual vs. non-consensual interactions) have little influence on the magnitude of response-a phenomenon called low cue-specificity. Genital responses are typically assessed using vaginal photoplethysmography, a measure of vaginal vasocongestion, itself a precursor to lubrication. One explanation for low cue-specificity is the preparation hypothesis: Women genitally respond to almost all sexual cues because lubrication functions to protect genital organs from potential injury should vaginal penetration occur. In order to test the preparation hypothesis, both vaginal vasocongestion and introital lubrication were assessed in a sample of 20 women in response to sexually explicit films. While patterns of vasocongestion were consistent with low cue-specificity for gender cues and type of sexual activity, lubrication was specific to women's most preferred sexual stimulus categories. These results are inconsistent with the preparation hypothesis.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cue-specificity; Genital responses; Photoplethysmograph; Sex differences; Sexual psychophysiology; Vaginal lubrication; Vaginal vasocongestion

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29448047     DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.02.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Psychol        ISSN: 0301-0511            Impact factor:   3.251


  9 in total

Review 1.  Assessing Paraphilic Interests Among Women Who Sexually Offend.

Authors:  Katrina N Bouchard; Heather M Moulden; Martin L Lalumière
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 5.285

2.  Prepared for Pleasure? An Alternative Perspective on the Preparation Hypothesis.

Authors:  Meredith L Chivers
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2020-10-09

3.  Four Additional Questions for the Preparation Hypothesis.

Authors:  Kirstin Clephane; Anneliis Sartin-Tarm; Tierney K Lorenz
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2020-07-18

4.  The Preparation Hypothesis Bristles.

Authors:  Martin L Lalumière; Megan L Sawatsky; Samantha J Dawson; Kelly D Suschinsky
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2021-10-28

Review 5.  The Empirical Status of the Preparation Hypothesis: Explicating Women's Genital Responses to Sexual Stimuli in the Laboratory.

Authors:  Martin L Lalumière; Megan L Sawatsky; Samantha J Dawson; Kelly D Suschinsky
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2020-02-05

6.  Transcriptome profiling of lncRNA and co-expression network in the vaginal epithelial tissue of women with lubrication disorders.

Authors:  Jingjing Zhang; Jing Zhang; Shengnan Cong; Jingyi Feng; Lianjun Pan; Yuan Zhu; Aixia Zhang; Jiehua Ma
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-11-10       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Can the Vaginal Photoplethysmograph and Its Associated Methodology Be Used to Assess Anal Vasocongestion in Women and Men?

Authors:  Megan L Sawatsky; Kelly D Suschinsky; Sofija Lavrinsek; Meredith L Chivers; Martin L Lalumière
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2021-06-18

8.  The Preparation Hypothesis of Women's Genital Responses: A Questioning Look.

Authors:  Roy J Levin
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2021-01-04

9.  Understanding heterosexual women's erotic flexibility: the role of attention in sexual evaluations and neural responses to sexual stimuli.

Authors:  Janna A Dickenson; Lisa Diamond; Jace B King; Kay Jenson; Jeffrey S Anderson
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 3.436

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.