ArticleArchives of sexual behavior2024
Genital and Subjective Sexual Arousal in Androphilic Women and Gynephilic Men in Response to the Copulatory Movements of Different Animal Species.
Article in Archives of sexual behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Does the Evidence Refute the Male Choice Hypothesis? A Response to Wilczkowski (2026).Archives of sexual behavior · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research has repeatedly shown marked differences in men's and women's sexual response patterns; genital response in men tends to be elicited by cues that correspond to their sexual preference (preferred gender), while women's genital response is less sensitive to gender cues and more sensitive to the presence and intensity of other sexual cues (e.g., sexual activities). We tested whether the cue of copulatory movement in a general sexual context elicited a genital response in androphilic women but not in gynephilic men. If so, women should react to stimuli depicting not only the non-preferred gender but also other animal species differing in phylogenetic distance to humans. We studied the genital and self-reported arousal of 30 gynephilic men and 28 androphilic women to two sexual videos depicting penetrative human sexual intercourse (female-male and female-female) and nine videos depicting animal copulation. Neither women nor men showed genital or subjective sexual arousal to non-human sexual stimuli. Moreover, both sexes demonstrated a highly cue-specific pattern of arousal. Our results suggest that copulatory movement displayed in non-human species is not a sexual cue that can elicit genital or subjective sexual arousal in humans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.