Associations Between Solitary Masturbation Parameters and Sexual Arousal in Partnered Sexual Activity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

comments

1. The interpretation in terms of complementary and compensatory models should be more cautious

The authors frame the study within complementary and compensatory models. They hypothesize that men would show a more compensatory pattern, whereas women would show a more complementary pattern. This is an interesting theoretical approach, but the results do not fully support this interpretation.

In men, solitary sexual desire was a positive predictor of overall sexual arousal, which the authors themselves describe as partially contradicting the expected compensatory pattern. At the same time, none of the masturbation-related variables predicted penile erection, and age was the only significant predictor of erectile response. Therefore, it may be too strong to conclude that the findings in men are consistent with a compensatory model. A more accurate interpretation would be that associations between masturbation parameters and partnered sexual arousal were limited and weak in men.

In women, the findings are more consistent with a complementary model, as sexual arousal and vaginal lubrication were positively predicted by solitary sexual desire and the sensory dimension of the subjective orgasm experience, while lubrication was negatively predicted by negative attitudes toward masturbation. Nevertheless, these findings should still be interpreted cautiously because the study is cross-sectional and correlational. The data do not allow the conclusion that masturbation enhances partnered sexual functioning; they only show that more favorable masturbation-related parameters are associated with higher self-reported arousal and lubrication.

2. The explanatory power of the regression models is modest, especially in men

The regression models in men explained only a very small proportion of variance: adjusted R² = .026 for overall sexual arousal and adjusted R² = .045 for penile erection. This indicates that the predictors included in the model account for only a limited part of individual differences in these outcomes.

The models in women were stronger but still modest: adjusted R² = .112 for sexual arousal and adjusted R² = .061 for vaginal lubrication. Although the authors mention the relatively modest explanatory power in the limitations section, this point should also be reflected more clearly in the Discussion and Conclusions.

The authors should emphasize that masturbation parameters represent only one possible set of factors associated with sexual arousal. Other relational, psychological, and contextual variables are likely to play an important role, including relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, sexual communication, frequency of partnered sexual activity, anxiety, body image, and overall mental health.

3. The measurement of sexual arousal and genital response is limited

Sexual arousal, penile erection, and vaginal lubrication were assessed using selected self-report items from the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale. The authors state that only the items assessing arousal and penile erection/vaginal lubrication were included in the analyses. While this is a practical approach, it limits the precision and depth of the outcome assessment.

Penile erection and vaginal lubrication are physiological responses, but in this study they were assessed only through participants’ self-report. Such measures may be influenced by recall bias, social desirability, embarrassment, or differences in how participants interpret the items. This is especially relevant for vaginal lubrication, which may be less directly observable than penile erection and may be more strongly influenced by subjective interpretation.

The authors should consistently refer to these outcomes as self-reported sexual arousal and self-reported genital response, rather than implying physiological measurement. This distinction should be made clear in the Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusions.

4. The sample has limited representativeness

Participants were recruited through non-probability online sampling via social media and digital platforms such as X, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, and LinkedIn. This recruitment strategy is understandable for a study on sexuality, but it increases the risk of self-selection bias.

Individuals who are willing to participate in a study on masturbation and sexuality may differ from the general population in terms of sexual openness, attitudes toward masturbation, comfort discussing intimate topics, and education level. In fact, 71.4% of the sample had a university degree, which further limits generalizability. 

This limitation is acknowledged, but it should be more strongly reflected in the interpretation of the findings.

5. The inclusion criteria restrict the scope of the conclusions

The study included participants who had engaged in heterosexual sexual activity within the past three months and had masturbated at least once in their lifetime. As a result, the findings apply only to cisgender individuals involved in heterosexual sexual activity.

This limits generalization to non-heterosexual individuals, transgender and non-binary individuals, people without recent partnered sexual activity, and people without masturbation experience. Although the authors acknowledge this limitation, the Abstract and Conclusions should more explicitly specify the population to which the findings apply.

6. Important relational and sexual variables were not controlled

The regression models included age as a covariate and masturbation parameters as predictors. However, sexual arousal during partnered sexual activity is highly dependent on relational and contextual factors.

The authors should consider including, or at least more thoroughly discussing, variables such as relationship status, relationship duration, relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, frequency of partnered sexual activity, quality of sexual communication, presence of sexual difficulties, anxiety, depressive symptoms, body image, and use of pornography or other sexual stimuli during masturbation.

Without these variables, it is difficult to determine whether the observed associations are specifically related to masturbation parameters or whether they reflect a broader sexual and relational profile of the participants.

Author Response

The interpretation in terms of complementary and compensatory models should be more cautious

The authors frame the study within complementary and compensatory models. They hypothesize that men would show a more compensatory pattern, whereas women would show a more complementary pattern. This is an interesting theoretical approach, but the results do not fully support this interpretation.

In men, solitary sexual desire was a positive predictor of overall sexual arousal, which the authors themselves describe as partially contradicting the expected compensatory pattern. At the same time, none of the masturbation-related variables predicted penile erection, and age was the only significant predictor of erectile response. Therefore, it may be too strong to conclude that the findings in men are consistent with a compensatory model. A more accurate interpretation would be that associations between masturbation parameters and partnered sexual arousal were limited and weak in men.

In women, the findings are more consistent with a complementary model, as sexual arousal and vaginal lubrication were positively predicted by solitary sexual desire and the sensory dimension of the subjective orgasm experience, while lubrication was negatively predicted by negative attitudes toward masturbation. Nevertheless, these findings should still be interpreted cautiously because the study is cross-sectional and correlational. The data do not allow the conclusion that masturbation enhances partnered sexual functioning; they only show that more favorable masturbation-related parameters are associated with higher self-reported arousal and lubrication.

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We completely agree that our original interpretation regarding the theoretical frameworks needed to be more cautious, and that the cross-sectional nature of our data requires strict care to avoid any causal implications.

In accordance with your recommendations, we have thoroughly revised the Discussion and Conclusions to ensure a more descriptive and balanced tone. Regarding the findings in men, we have clarified our interpretation based on our original hypotheses: as we had anticipated that masturbation parameters would either show no relationship or a negative one under the compensatory framework, the lack of significant associations found for self-reported penile erection actually aligns with our expected pattern. However, to fully incorporate your valuable feedback and accurately nuance this, we have explicitly stated in the text that the relationship between masturbation parameters and partnered sexual arousal appeared limited and weak, and that solitary sexual desire emerged as a positive correlate that partially nuances this pattern. Furthermore, we have removed all predictive or causal phrasing throughout the text (such as "predicted by" or "shaping"), replacing them with purely associative terms like "associated with" or "positive correlate" to better reflect the coexistence of these variables. Finally, although the cross-sectional nature of the study and the inability to establish causality had already been acknowledged in the Limitations section, we have now explicitly reinforced this warning in the Conclusions, stating clearly that the data do not allow for inferences regarding whether masturbation enhances partnered sexual functioning. We believe these adjustments have significantly improved the rigor of our manuscript.

 

The explanatory power of the regression models is modest, especially in men

The regression models in men explained only a very small proportion of variance: adjusted R² = .026 for overall sexual arousal and adjusted R² = .045 for penile erection. This indicates that the predictors included in the model account for only a limited part of individual differences in these outcomes.

The models in women were stronger but still modest: adjusted R² = .112 for sexual arousal and adjusted R² = .061 for vaginal lubrication. Although the authors mention the relatively modest explanatory power in the limitations section, this point should also be reflected more clearly in the Discussion and Conclusions.

The authors should emphasize that masturbation parameters represent only one possible set of factors associated with sexual arousal. Other relational, psychological, and contextual variables are likely to play an important role, including relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, sexual communication, frequency of partnered sexual activity, anxiety, body image, and overall mental health.

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the explanatory power of the regression models is modest, particularly in men, and that this limitation should be more clearly reflected in the interpretation of the findings.

In response to this comment, we have strengthened the Discussion and Conclusions to explicitly acknowledge that masturbation parameters account for only a limited proportion of the variance in sexual arousal outcomes. Specifically, we now emphasize that these parameters represent only a subset of the broader factors that contribute to sexual functioning.

Accordingly, we have incorporated additional text to highlight that sexual functioning is a multifactorial phenomenon that cannot be understood in isolation, and that other relational, psychological, and contextual variables likely play an important role.

Furthermore, we have expanded the Discussion to underscore the need to consider the complex interplay of factors beyond masturbation parameters, in line with the reviewer’s suggestion. This revision aims to provide a more balanced and cautious interpretation of the results, consistent with the modest explanatory power of the models.

We believe these changes address the reviewer’s concern and improve the clarity and theoretical framing of the manuscript.

 

The measurement of sexual arousal and genital response is limited

Sexual arousal, penile erection, and vaginal lubrication were assessed using selected self-report items from the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale. The authors state that only the items assessing arousal and penile erection/vaginal lubrication were included in the analyses. While this is a practical approach, it limits the precision and depth of the outcome assessment.

Penile erection and vaginal lubrication are physiological responses, but in this study they were assessed only through participants’ self-report. Such measures may be influenced by recall bias, social desirability, embarrassment, or differences in how participants interpret the items. This is especially relevant for vaginal lubrication, which may be less directly observable than penile erection and may be more strongly influenced by subjective interpretation.

The authors should consistently refer to these outcomes as self-reported sexual arousal and self-reported genital response, rather than implying physiological measurement. This distinction should be made clear in the Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusions. 

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that sexual arousal, penile erection, and vaginal lubrication are physiological processes that, in the present study, were assessed through self-report items from the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale, and therefore should not be interpreted as direct physiological measurements.

Although these variables were originally based on self-report measures, we acknowledge that this distinction may not have been sufficiently explicit throughout the manuscript. Following your suggestion, we have revised the text to consistently refer to these outcomes as self-reported sexual arousal and self-reported genital responses (i.e., penile erection and vaginal lubrication) across the Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions, as well as in the table titles.

Furthermore, the decision to include only three of the five items comprising the scale was methodologically justified.

We hope that this clarification improves the transparency of the measurement approach and prevents potential misinterpretations regarding the nature of these variables.

 

The sample has limited representativeness

Participants were recruited through non-probability online sampling via social media and digital platforms such as X, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, and LinkedIn. This recruitment strategy is understandable for a study on sexuality, but it increases the risk of self-selection bias.

Individuals who are willing to participate in a study on masturbation and sexuality may differ from the general population in terms of sexual openness, attitudes toward masturbation, comfort discussing intimate topics, and education level. In fact, 71.4% of the sample had a university degree, which further limits generalizability. 

This limitation is acknowledged, but it should be more strongly reflected in the interpretation of the findings.

>>> Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the potential impact of self-selection bias associated with non-probability online sampling. We agree that individuals who choose to participate in sexuality research may differ systematically from the general population, particularly in terms of sexual attitudes, openness, and willingness to discuss intimate topics.

In response to this comment, we have strengthened the manuscript in two ways. First, we have explicitly incorporated this issue into the interpretation of the findings within the Discussion section. Specifically, we now contextualize the results involving attitudinal variables (e.g., negative attitudes toward masturbation) by drawing on methodological literature indicating that volunteers in sexual research may present more permissive or less variable attitudinal profiles (Wiederman, 1999; Arcos-Romero et al., 2025), which could influence the observed associations.

Second, we have reinforced this point in the Limitations section by introducing the concept of voluntary sexual research bias, emphasizing its implications for sample representativeness and the generalizability of the findings (Dawson et al., 2019).

We believe these changes address the reviewer’s concern and improve the overall rigor and transparency of the manuscript.

Arcos-Romero, A. I., Álvarez-Muelas, A., Cervilla, O., & Sierra, J. C. (2025). Psychosexual characterization of volunteers for a laboratory study of sexual arousal: Gender differences. Sexuality & Culture, 29, 698-709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-024-10292-2

Wiederman, M. W. (1999). Volunteer bias in sexuality research using college student participants. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551968

 

The inclusion criteria restrict the scope of the conclusions

The study included participants who had engaged in heterosexual sexual activity within the past three months and had masturbated at least once in their lifetime. As a result, the findings apply only to cisgender individuals involved in heterosexual sexual activity.

This limits generalization to non-heterosexual individuals, transgender and non-binary individuals, people without recent partnered sexual activity, and people without masturbation experience. Although the authors acknowledge this limitation, the Abstract and Conclusions should more explicitly specify the population to which the findings apply.

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that the inclusion criteria limit the generalizability of our findings to a specific population. Following your suggestion, we have revised both the Abstract and the Conclusions to more explicitly specify the population to which the findings apply. We now clearly indicate that the results pertain to cisgender individuals engaged in heterosexual sexual activity with prior masturbation experience and therefore should not be generalized to other populations.

We appreciate this suggestion, as it has allowed us to improve the clarity and precision regarding the scope and generalizability of our findings.

 

Important relational and sexual variables were not controlled

The regression models included age as a covariate and masturbation parameters as predictors. However, sexual arousal during partnered sexual activity is highly dependent on relational and contextual factors.

The authors should consider including, or at least more thoroughly discussing, variables such as relationship status, relationship duration, relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, frequency of partnered sexual activity, quality of sexual communication, presence of sexual difficulties, anxiety, depressive symptoms, body image, and use of pornography or other sexual stimuli during masturbation.

Without these variables, it is difficult to determine whether the observed associations are specifically related to masturbation parameters or whether they reflect a broader sexual and relational profile of the participants.

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that sexual arousal in partnered contexts is influenced by a wide range of relational, psychological, and contextual factors beyond those included in the present study.

In line with the aims of this research, our analyses focused specifically on masturbation-related parameters while controlling for age. However, we acknowledge that factors such as relationship characteristics, sexual functioning and satisfaction, frequency of partnered sexual activity, psychological well-being, and contextual influences may also play a significant role.

Following your suggestion, we have strengthened the Discussion section by incorporating this consideration directly into the interpretation of our findings. Specifically, we now emphasize that the observed associations should be interpreted with caution, as they may reflect broader relational and sexual profiles rather than the isolated contribution of masturbation parameters. In addition, we have expanded the Limitations section to explicitly acknowledge the absence of these variables.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a thoughtful paper that considers the implications of masturbation-related (solitary) desire, frequency, and negative attitudes on sexual arousal during partnered sex. The introduction effectively describes the compensatory and complementary models that have been proposed to explain the masturbation-partnered sex relationship. This study is strengthened by its relatively large sample size (n = 1,028), inclusion of women and men, and comprehensive set of variables/predictors. The writing is clear and appropriately detailed, and the research hypotheses are well-specified. I have a few suggestions for improvement, listed below.

 1. For the instruments section (starting on p. 4, line 158), it may be helpful to include at least one item from some of the scales for readers to get a general sense of these questionnaires. In particular, it would be beneficial to provide an item from the Sexual Desire Inventory related to masturbation (perhaps somewhere around lines 166-167), as well as an example item from the Negative Attitudes Toward Masturbation Inventory.

2. The Results section would benefit from an additional table summarizing the sexual history characteristics of the male and female participants. For example, what is the frequency distribution of masturbation for men and women in the sample? Are most participants masturbating at least once every week, once every 1-2 weeks, once per month, or less frequently? Since the solitary sexual desire variable was a significant predictor in several of the regression models, it would be helpful to get a sense of its distribution in the sample (e.g., median score and interquartile range/percentiles for the scale).

3. In the instruments section (p. 4, lines 192-193), I believe that the original Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale is implemented so that higher scores indicate worse sexual functioning rather than better. Please double-check that the validated Spanish version is reverse-scored where higher values indicate better functioning.

4. In the data analysis section (p. 5, lines 199-201), please consider adding 1 or 2 sentences on the missing data procedure. For example, does the missForest package use multiple imputation or single-value imputation?

5. In the data analysis section, you provide a well-written explanation of your covariates and predictor variables (lines 207-210). However, you do not show all of these predictors in the regression tables (Table 1 and Table 2, respectively). I think it would be beneficial to mention/list these predictors in the footnote of each regression table even if you do not show the non-significant coefficients in the tables.

6. Under the participants section, one of the inclusion criteria is “having engaged in heterosexual sexual activity within the past three months” (p. 3, lines 134-135). In the Discussion section, you mention that the “sample was restricted to cisgender individuals engaged in heterosexual relationships” (p. 8, lines 339-340). Does this statement mean that individuals who reported a bisexual orientation were excluded from the sample? Or, alternatively, does this sentence mean that participants who were currently in a heterosexual sexual relationship were included in the analyses, regardless of their reported sexual orientation?

7. In the Discussion section, you might consider adding a few sentences about the ways that sexual techniques during masturbation could potentially be negatively associated with arousal during partnered sex. There has been some suggestion in the clinical literature that idiosyncratic masturbation practices that do not transfer/are not easily applied to partnered sex could potentially interfere with sexual arousal.

Author Response

This is a thoughtful paper that considers the implications of masturbation-related (solitary) desire, frequency, and negative attitudes on sexual arousal during partnered sex. The introduction effectively describes the compensatory and complementary models that have been proposed to explain the masturbation-partnered sex relationship. This study is strengthened by its relatively large sample size (n = 1,028), inclusion of women and men, and comprehensive set of variables/predictors. The writing is clear and appropriately detailed, and the research hypotheses are well-specified. I have a few suggestions for improvement, listed below.

For the instruments section (starting on p. 4, line 158), it may be helpful to include at least one item from some of the scales for readers to get a general sense of these questionnaires. In particular, it would be beneficial to provide an item from the Sexual Desire Inventory related to masturbation (perhaps somewhere around lines 166-167), as well as an example item from the Negative Attitudes Toward Masturbation Inventory.

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the Instruments section to include illustrative item examples from each scale, thereby providing readers whit a clearer understanding of their content. Specifically, we added example items from the Negative Attitudes Toward Masturbation Inventory, the Sexual Desire Inventory subscale assessing solitary sexual desire, the Orgasm Rating Scale, and the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale.

 

The Results section would benefit from an additional table summarizing the sexual history characteristics of the male and female participants. For example, what is the frequency distribution of masturbation for men and women in the sample? Are most participants masturbating at least once every week, once every 1-2 weeks, once per month, or less frequently? Since the solitary sexual desire variable was a significant predictor in several of the regression models, it would be helpful to get a sense of its distribution in the sample (e.g., median score and interquartile range/percentiles for the scale).

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. Following the reviewer’s recommendation, we have included a new table summarizing the sexual history characteristics of the participants, stratified by gender.

Specifically, the table reports the distribution of masturbation frequency for men and women using detailed categorical data (n, %), allowing for a clear comparison of frequency patterns across genders. In addition, consistent with the reviewer’s suggestion, we have included descriptive statistics for solitary sexual desire, reporting the median and interquartile range (P25–P75) to better characterize its distribution in the sample.

The table also incorporates additional relevant variables (e.g., age at first masturbation, negative attitudes toward masturbation, and subjective orgasm experience dimensions), thus providing a comprehensive overview of participants’ sexual history characteristics.

Regarding the choice of descriptive statistics, means and standard deviations were used for variables for which the mean provides a more informative characterization of variability and group differences (e.g., negative attitudes and subjective orgasm experience dimensions). In contrast, medians and interquartile ranges were reported when a more robust description of central tendency was considered appropriate, as well as for solitary sexual desire in line with the reviewer’s suggestion.

The new table has been added to the Participants section as Table 1, and it is now referenced in the manuscript accordingly.

We believe that these additions improve the clarity and interpretability of the findings, particularly by providing context for the role of solitary sexual desire observed in the regression analyses.

 

In the instruments section (p. 4, lines 192-193), I believe that the original Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale is implemented so that higher scores indicate worsesexual functioning rather than better. Please double-check that the validated Spanish version is reverse-scored where higher values indicate better functioning.

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have clarified in the manuscript that, although higher scores in the original Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale indicate poorer sexual functioning, in the present study the scores were reversed so that higher values reflect better sexual functioning. This decision was made to facilitate interpretation and to ensure consistency with the directionality of the other measures included in the study.

 

In the data analysis section (p. 5, lines 199-201), please consider adding 1 or 2 sentences on the missing data procedure. For example, does the missForest package use multiple imputation or single-value imputation?

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have clarified the missing data procedure in the Data Analysis section. Specifically, we now indicate that missing values were imputed using the missForest algorithm, which applies an iterative procedure based on random forest models fitted on observed data. Although the method relies on an ensemble of trees, it converges on a single, robustly imputed data matrix.

 

In the data analysis section, you provide a well-written explanation of your covariates and predictor variables (lines 207-210). However, you do not show all of these predictors in the regression tables (Table 1 and Table 2, respectively). I think it would be beneficial to mention/list these predictors in the footnoteof each regression table even if you do not show the non-significant coefficients in the tables.

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that explicitly listing all predictors included in the regression models would enhance clarity and transparency. Accordingly, we have added a note to the footnotes of Tables 1 and 2 specifying all covariates and predictors entered in the analyses, even when their coefficients are not displayed in the tables. This information has been incorporated in the revised manuscript.

 

Under the participants section, one of the inclusion criteria is “having engaged in heterosexual sexual activity within the past three months” (p. 3, lines 134-135). In the Discussion section, you mention that the “sample was restricted to cisgender individuals engaged in heterosexual relationships” (p. 8, lines 339-340). Does this statement mean that individuals who reported a bisexual orientation were excluded from the sample? Or, alternatively, does this sentence mean that participants who were currently in a heterosexual sexual relationship were included in the analyses, regardless of their reported sexual orientation?

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In the present study, inclusion was based on a behavioral criterion—specifically, having engaged in heterosexual sexual activity within the past three months—rather than on self-identified sexual orientation. Therefore, participants were included regardless of whether they identified as heterosexual, bisexual, or another sexual orientation, as long as they reported current engagement in heterosexual sexual relationships.

This decision is consistent with the conceptualization of sexual orientation as a multidimensional and potentially fluid construct, encompassing behavior, identity, and attraction (Institute of Medicine, 2011; Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2015). In line with this framework, we operationalized sexual orientation through current sexual behavior, which was most directly relevant to the study aims. This approach is further supported by evidence indicating that sexual behavior and self-identified sexual orientation do not always align (Diamond, 2016).

To avoid potential confusion, we have clarified this issue in the Limitations section of the manuscript by explicitly stating that the inclusion criterion was based on sexual behavior rather than on self-identified sexual orientation label.

Diamond, L. M. (2016). Sexual fluidity in male and females. Current Sexual Health Reports, 8, 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-016-0092-z

Institute of Medicine. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for better understanding. The National Academies Press.

Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2015). Sexual fluidity and related attitudes and beliefs among young adults with a same-gender orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1459–1470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0420-1

 

n the Discussion section, you might consider adding a few sentences about the ways that sexual techniques during masturbation could potentially be negatively associated with arousal during partnered sex. There has been some suggestion in the clinical literature that idiosyncratic masturbation practices that do not transfer/are not easily applied to partnered sex could potentially interfere with sexual arousal.

>>> Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that considering the potential influence of masturbation techniques on partnered sexual arousal provides an important clinical perspective, particularly in men. Accordingly, we have added a paragraph in the Discussion section addressing how idiosyncratic masturbation practices—characterized by specific patterns of stimulation that may not be easily transferable to partnered sexual activity—could limit the transfer of sexual arousal in male participants.

In this addition, we draw on clinical literature to explain how repeated exposure to highly specific forms of stimulation may contribute to conditioned arousal patterns, which may not readily generalize to partnered sexual contexts. This framework may help explain the absence or weakness of associations observed in men, particularly with respect to penile erection, as well as potential difficulties in achieving adequate physiological responses during partnered sex.

We hope that this addition helps clarify the mechanisms underlying the patterns observed in our results and addresses the reviewer’s suggestion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed the main concerns raised in the previous review. The manuscript has been revised to provide a more cautious interpretation of the complementary and compensatory models, clearer acknowledgment of the modest explanatory power of the regression models, and more precise wording regarding self-reported sexual arousal and genital responses. The limitations concerning sample representativeness, restricted inclusion criteria, and the absence of relevant relational and psychological control variables have also been appropriately expanded.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for addressing all of my previous suggestions and comments!

The presentation of results has been greatly improved with the addition of Table 1 and the footnotes for the multiple regression models. I appreciate the details in the Methods section including some example items from the self-report scales that have been incorporated into the text. Moreover, the additional information added to the Discussion section (e.g., how sexual orientation was operationalized in this study; effects of idiosyncratic or "non-transferable" masturbation techniques) helps to further contextualize the research in an effective manner. 

I have no further suggestions for improvement at this time. I am grateful for the opportunity to have reviewed your manuscript and feel that it will be a useful contribution to Behavioral Sciences.