Article

How Customers Evaluate Genitalia versus Torso Sex Toys on

Amazon.com: A Content Analysis of Product Reviews
Nicola Döring 1, * , Veronika Mikhailova 1 and Pari-Gole Noorishad 2

1 Faculty of Economic Sciences and Media, Institute of Media and Communication Science,
Technische Universität Ilmenau, 98693 Ilmenau, Germany; [email protected]
2 School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Sex toys are widely marketed on the Internet. Browsing for, buying, and reviewing sex
toys online are popular cybersexual activities. The aim of this study was to investigate consumers’
experiences with different types of realistic sex toys via online product reviews on Amazon.com.
Toys were categorized in a 2 × 2 design regarding their representation of the human body (genitalia
sex toys representing reproductive organs only versus torso toys representing larger parts of the
human body) and their depiction of gender (toys representing female versus male body parts).
Informed by feminist discourses on sex toys as well as sexual script theory and consumer research,
the study explored the overall evaluations (RQ1), most frequently addressed characteristics (RQ2),
usage patterns (RQ3), and perceived effects (RQ4) of the four groups of sex toys. A quantitative
manual content analysis of N = 778 online sex toy reviews showed that 79% of consumers gave
popular realistic sex toys positive ratings (RQ1). The most frequently mentioned characteristics were
quality, material, and shape (RQ2). Most reviewers were men and used sex toys for solo sexual
Citation: Döring, N.; Mikhailova, V.; activities (RQ3). An additional qualitative analysis of n = 69 reviews addressing the perceived effects
Noorishad, P.-G. How Customers
of sex toy use revealed that consumers predominantly mentioned positive effects (RQ4). Genitalia
Evaluate Genitalia versus Torso Sex
sex toys received better evaluations than torso sex toys and were perceived to be complementary
Toys on Amazon.com: A Content
tools to enhance sexual arousal, whereas the use of torso toys entailed anthropomorphization and
Analysis of Product Reviews. Eur. J.
symbolic social interactions. Implications for future research and design of different types of sex toys
Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022,
12, 563–578. https://doi.org/
are discussed.
10.3390/ejihpe12060042
Keywords: sex toy; vibrator; masturbator; sex doll; male torso toy; female torso toy; cybersexuality;
Academic Editor: África
online product review; online content analysis; sexual script theory
Martos Martínez

Received: 14 April 2022

Accepted: 24 May 2022
Published: 1 June 2022 1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Once considered a taboo, sex toys of various forms and shapes are nowadays mass-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in produced, openly advertised, and vastly available in online shops [1,2]. Sex toys are defined
published maps and institutional affil- as material objects used to generate or enhance sexual arousal and pleasure in both solo and
iations. partnered sex [3]. They come in a plethora of options and different designs, ranging from
mainstream battery-operated vibrators [4] to technologically advanced remote-controlled
smart devices [5]. Browsing for sex toys online has become a popular cybersexual activity
with about 50% of young women and men in different Western countries reporting this
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. behavior [6] and about one-third having used the Internet to purchase a sex toy [7]. Con-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. venience, the possibility of a private and discreet shopping experience without societal
This article is an open access article judgment, and the opportunity to familiarize oneself with previous experiences of other
distributed under the terms and
users via online product reviews have been identified as the main motivating factors for
conditions of the Creative Commons
purchasing sex toys online instead of in-person [7,8].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
As a result of the benefits of buying sex toys online, the use of sex toys is ramping
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
in Western countries. Recent studies show that 63% of heterosexual men and 65% of
4.0/).

Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12, 563–578. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12060042 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ejihpe
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 564

heterosexual women report intimate product use both during solo and partnered sexual
activities [9]. Despite such wide prevalence, research on sex toys is relatively sparse,
particularly in the context of consumer experiences. However, sex toy users themselves
make these experiences visible and easily accessible to the broader public and the scientific
community by writing online product reviews.
Amazon.com is the largest e-commerce platform in the Western world. It also sells sex
toys and allows consumers not only to search for and buy products but also to read and
publish online product reviews. Researchers often collect information on online product
reviews via Amazon due to its popularity and predominance in the online market [10].
Amazon’s Sexual Wellness Products section includes several thousand sex toys of different
types and customer reviews on almost all these products. Thus, the aim of the present study
is to explore customers’ experiences with popular sex toys based on the online product
reviews published on Amazon.com.

1.1. Online Sex Toy Reviews

Online product reviews are “peer-generated product evaluations posted on company
or third-party websites” [11]. Consumers’ reviews usually consist of a star rating ranging
from 1 to 5 stars and a written comment about the product [11]. Online reviews can be
considered as electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) because of their vast availability, ease of
access, and interactive nature [12]. Many researchers agree that eWOM plays an important
role in customers’ attitudes toward products (e.g., [13–15] Given that online reviews are
written by those who have used the products, people perceive them as credible sources and
tend to trust online reviews more than the general product information provided by the
vendors themselves [16,17]. However, it is important to highlight that only a small portion
of customers leave product reviews. Usually, customers who were exceptionally satisfied or
unsatisfied are more prone to writing a product review [15]. Hence, both very positive and
very negative experiences seem to be overrepresented, while more balanced experiences
might be underrepresented in product reviews, even though consumers consider balanced
reviews the most helpful and credible [11].
Online sex toy reviews can be helpful in exploring users’ experiences with various
sex toys. First, the star rating of products provides a quick impression of the overall
evaluation of the sex toy by the reviewer [10]. Furthermore, descriptions and narratives in
a review help assess the technical characteristics of sex toys (e.g., size or smell), provide
information related to the utilization of sex toys (e.g., use during partnered sex or solo
sex), and perceived effects of their use (e.g., orgasm intensity). Online reviews reflect users’
experiences and might also help readers of reviews form impressions about sex toys [18,19].

1.2. Current Study

The aim of the current study is two-fold. First, we want to explore sex toy experiences
that are publicly shared in online product reviews. Writing and reading public reviews of
intimate products are, historically, fairly recent activities that did not exist in the pre-Internet
era when sex toys were mainly marketed via mail order businesses [3].
Second, we are interested in the differences and similarities between the reviews of
the different types of sex toys. Keeping in mind that sex toys come in different designs and
shapes, we focused on realistic sex toys that resemble human bodies. We categorize realistic
sex toys in a 2 × 2 design according to their representation of the human body (genitalia
sex toys representing reproductive organs only versus torso toys representing larger parts
of the human body) and their representation of gender (toys representing female versus
male body parts). We talk about the gender of the sex toys because, as material artefacts,
they do not have a biological sex for procreation. Instead their design is the result of a
social construction of differently gendered and sexualized bodies.
The rationale behind this categorization is rooted in ongoing polarized debates about
the benefits and risks of realistic and, hence, gendered sex toys, particularly in a heteronor-
mative and patriarchal society [3]. On one side, sex toys (dildos and vibrators in particular)
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 565

are endorsed by several feminist researchers and activists as empowering. In the context
of heterosexual relations, vibrators can help women enjoy solo sexual activities and reach
orgasms effortlessly and more independently from sexual partners, particularly from male
sexual partners [20]. For heterosexual men, vibrators can also be liberating because they re-
duce performance pressure during partnered sex with women and can be used during solo
sex regardless of sexual identity [21,22]. On another side, advanced sex toys such as torso
sex toys, full-body sex dolls, or sex robots are argued to be dangerous because they invite
anthropomorphizing: sex toys representing larger parts of the human body or the full human
body might invite users to perceive and treat them like an artificial sexual partner [23].
Some feminist researchers and activists have raised concerns about female-bodied sex dolls
and sex robots in particular because they allow men to objectify and abuse artificial women,
a behavior that might foster the sexual objectification and abuse of real women [24,25].
These polarized feminist debates on sex toys addressing the empowerment and disem-
powerment of women are linked with sexual objectification theory [26] and sexual script
theory [27].
In line with sexual objectification theory, realistic sex toys representing genitalia or
larger parts of the human body can push traditional beauty norms [28]. Browsing through
the Sexual Wellness Products section on Amazon.com at the time of data collection showed
that most torso toys sold on the platform represent White, slim, young, non-disabled,
cis-gender bodies. Research on full-body sex doll reviews and online forum discussions
highlight that some male users indeed praise the super-natural beauty of their female dolls
while complaining about the many flaws of real women [29]. Beauty norms can negatively
affect men, women, and non-binary people alike, but researchers have demonstrated that
women are particularly negatively impacted by strict beauty norms disseminated via
mainstream media content and sexual product design [30,31].
The design of sex toys is not only relevant to appearance-related beauty standards
but also to sexual behaviors. According to sexual script theory [27,32], the characteristics
and functionalities of sex toys can shape their typical use. A common criticism of realistic
sex toys is that they perpetuate the “coital imperative”, that is, their design (i.e., male and
female genitalia) supports the idea that the main sexual activity and source of pleasure is
penetration [33]. However, the feminist sex toy criticism is partly based on heteronormative
assumptions, ignoring that different toys such as penis-shaped vibrators are also used by
transgender people, during sex between women, and to penetrate heterosexual men [3].
Furthermore, the assumption that users of realistic female-bodied torso or full-body sex
toys are driven by questionable (namely sexist, objectifying, and abusive) motives attaches
stigma to the use of those toys [34].
Consumers also discuss sex toy usage with a focus on toy characteristics such as
packaging, functionality, ease of use, and cleaning. Previous research on sex toy–related
online reviews has pointed to both positive (“the hottest toy ever”) and negative (“not in any
way comparable to sex”) usage experiences [9]. In a content analysis of N = 100 online sex toy
reviews from popular magazines and websites, Rossolatos [35,36] found that reviewers’
experiences reflect both liberation through enhanced pleasure and “orgasms on the go”
but also compliance to a logic of sexual efficiency in the sense that toys promise quick and
easy orgasms.
The current study is the first to examine and compare online product reviews of
four different types of realistic sex toys in a 2 × 2 design (see Table 1). The four research
questions of the current study address evaluations of and experiences with the four types
of sex toys. For each research question, we are interested in the general results across all
toys combined as well as in the differences between the four types of toys.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 566

Table 1. Quota sample of Amazon product reviews of four types of sex toys.

Genitalia Sex Toys Torso Sex Toys

(n = 419) (n = 359)
Male body sex toys Vibrator Male torso sex toy
(n = 329) (n = 226) (n = 103)
Female body sex toys Masturbator Female torso sex toy
(n = 449) (n = 193) (n = 256)
Note. N = 778. For visualizations of the toys addressed by the online reviews.

The first research question (RQ) targets overall sex toy evaluations via star ratings:
RQ 1: What overall evaluation (star rating) do customers give to sex toys in Amazon
product reviews, and do these evaluations differ between the four types of realistic toys?
Furthermore, we analyzed reviews containing information on (1) characteristics of
the toys, (2) usage of the toys, and (3) perceived effects of the toys to answer the following
research questions:
RQ 2: Which product characteristics of sex toys do customers mention in Amazon
product reviews, and do these characteristics differ between the four types of realistic toys?
RQ 3: How do customers describe their use patterns of sex toys in Amazon product
reviews, and do these use patterns differ between the four types of realistic toys?
RQ 4: How do customers describe the effects of their sex toy use in Amazon product
reviews, and do these effects differ between the four types of realistic toys?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Research Ethics
The current study employs a quantitative research approach and a 2 × 2 design
incorporating four types of realistic sex toys, namely genitalia versus torso toys and male
body versus female body toys (see Table 1). For data collection, we used media content
analysis with online product reviews as the unit of analysis [37]. We followed an open science
approach, that is, the codebook, data file, and data analysis scripts are publicly available via
https://osf.io/b9dxa/.
Online reviews represent the opinions of a small group of sex toy users. However,
the non-reactive data collection procedure allows us to collect data in a naturalistic setting:
the Internet. Moreover, it is important to examine consumers’ preferences and attitudes
toward sex toys given that their public online reviews can be influential on the opinions of
potential consumers.
Using Amazon product reviews for the purpose of research appears to be ethically
justified given that they are publicly accessible from any web-enabled device and do not
require a user account to view them [38]. Previous empirical studies on Amazon product
reviews share the same ethical position and consider the product reviews as public domain
(e.g., [19,39]). To protect the privacy of the reviewers, we did not collect their usernames or
any other identifying information.

2.2. Sampling and Data Collection

Data collection took place in October 2018 in the Sexual Wellness Products section on
www.amazon.com. The website was accessed using the incognito mode of a web browser
in order to avoid algorithmic patterns from previous user settings, preselected product
suggestions, and biased search results. As the comparison groups were predefined by study
design, we only assessed realistic genitalia and torso sex toys representing either male
or female genders. For the group of genitalia sex toys, we selected the reviews from two
best-selling and, hence, most reviewed products (one best-selling penis-shaped vibrator
(G Spot Rabbit Vibrator with Bunny Ears for Clitoris Stimulation, PALOQUETH) and one
best-selling vagina-shaped masturbator (Vibrating Male Masturbator Cup, PALOQUETH),
resulting in n = 598 reviews. Torso sex toys had fewer reviews per product; thus, to balance
out the total number of reviews, we collected reviews for this group from a total of nine
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 567

best-selling torso toys (six male body and three female body toys), resulting in the group
sample of n = 525. Amazon’s best sellers rank calculation is based on the number of sales
within a product category and is updated hourly; therefore it can only be valid at the time
of data collection.
Second, we applied the following inclusion criteria to the collected reviews: (1) the
review contains enough information to be coded (i.e., more than a single word), (2) the
review matches the selected product (i.e., it contains meaningful information related to
the specific sex toy), and (3) the review is written in English. This resulted in a final quota
sample of N = 778 Amazon product reviews suitable for further data analysis (see Table 1).
After the pretest of the codebook, all collected reviews were coded by a single coder.

2.3. Instrument
2.3.1. Codebook
The codebook was developed for the present study based on existing literature on sex
toys and consumer research. We elaborated the codebook inductively by considering the
specific characteristics of intimate products. The codebook contains 19 variables in four
topic-specific blocks related to the four research questions (see Table 2). In addition, formal
categories such as review title, date of publication, name and type of sex toy, as well as the
coding date were included.

Table 2. Inter-coder reliability of the 19 codebook variables related to the 4 research questions.

Category Gwet’s AC1 Agreement %

Category for RQ1
Star rating 1.0 a 100 a
Categories for RQ2
Sex toy quality 0.70 78
Sex toy size 0.88 93
Sex toy weight 0.94 95
Sex toy shape 0.68 82
Sex toy smell 0.98 98
Sex toy material 0.82 91
Sex toy packaging 1.0 100
Sex toy price 0.94 95
Categories for RQ3
User gender 0.77 81
Type of sexual activity 0.71 76
Functionality of the sex toy 0.71 84
Functionality evaluation 0.66 74
Ease of use of sex toy 0.72 80
Ease of use evaluation 0.77 79
Cleaning of sex toy 0.95 97
Cleaning evaluation 0.94 95
Categories for RQ4
Positive effects 0.92 93
Negative effects 0.88 90
Note. a Star rating as a metric variable simply to be copied from Amazon to the data file reached a reliability
coefficient of ICC = 1.0.

The first block related to RQ1 contains the star rating of sex toys as assigned by the
reviewers. The second block focuses on product-related categories related to RQ2 and
covers typical characteristics of durable consumer products derived from studies by Kotler
et al. [40] and Archak et al. [16]. More specifically, the categories include assessment of a
sex toy’s quality, size, weight, shape, smell, material, packaging, and pricing. The third
block comprises categories related to the product’s use. First, it indicates the gender of
the person who used the sex toy (men/women/both) and the type of sexual activity in
which they used the sex toy (solo/partnered/both), both determined based on the review
narrative. Second, it includes the utilization-related categories “functionality” and “ease of
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 568

use” as derived from studies by Kotler et al. [40] and Archak et al. [16]. In addition, the
category “cleaning” was included due to the prevalence of this topic in previous research
on sexual products [41,42].
The fourth and final block of variables linked to RQ4 addresses categories related to
the perceived positive and negative effects of sex toy use. These categories were created
inductively from the collected Amazon reviews and deductively from studies on the
negative and positive effects of sex toy use [21,43–45].

2.3.2. Pretest
To pretest the codebook, two independent coders coded 100 randomly selected re-
views. Overall, all variables showed good to almost perfect reliability with Gwet’s AC1
varying between 0.68 and 1.0 (see Table 2). We selected Gwet’s AC1 (first-order agree-
ment coefficient) to calculate inter-coder reliability coefficients for nominal variables as it
is typically less affected by prevalence and marginal probability than other measures of
chance-corrected agreement [46]. Inter-coder reliability for star rating was measured with
the intra-class correlation coefficient [47].

2.4. Data Analysis

We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive statistics (means and frequencies)
and inferential statistics (t-tests, chi-square tests). The alpha level was set at 5%. Due to the
exploratory character of the study, no corrections for cumulative Type I error rates were
applied. All analyses were performed with R version 4.1.2 [48]. Descriptive statistics and
t-tests were calculated with R base package, for chi-square tests and effect sizes packages
gmodels [29] and rstatix [49] were used, respectively.
Additionally, we conducted a qualitative content analysis of the perceived positive and
negative effects of sex toy use to get deeper insights into the consequences of sex toy use.
Qualitative analysis followed an inductive thematic approach as it allows for data-driven
analysis [50]. First, we collected all reviews explicitly addressing positive and/or negative
effects of sex toy use on the user’s sexual health. Second, the reviews were examined in
detail and short codes were assigned to each of them. The codes were then examined for
common themes. Ultimately, all reviews were coded into identified themes. If a review
mentioned multiple effects, multiple themes were coded. In addition to providing verbatim
quotes, we also report descriptive statistics (frequencies) for the identified types of positive
and negative effects. MS Excel Professional Plus 2019 was used for qualitative analysis.

3. Results
3.1. Sex Toy Evaluations
RQ1 assessed the overall star rating that customers gave to sex toys in their Amazon
product reviews. Overall, consumers gave fairly high evaluations to the selected best-
selling intimate products, with about 79% of reviews containing a four- or five-star rating.
Across all sex toys, the vibrator received the highest star rating and torso sex toys the
lowest (see descriptive results in Table 3). Group-wise, realistic genitalia sex toys received
significantly higher ratings (M = 4.67, SD = 0.81) than torso toys (M = 3.62, SD = 1.50), t
(532.27) = 11.83, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.87, 1.22], d = 0.87. Male body–shaped toys received
higher ratings (M = 4.36, SD = 1.28) than female body–shaped toys (M = 4.06, SD = 1.28), t
(776) = 3.27, p =0.001, 95% CI [0.12, 0.49], d = 0.24.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 569

Table 3. Average star ratings of sex toys in Amazon product reviews.

Star Rating
Product Type n %
M SD
Vibrator 226 29 4.83 0.60
Masturbator 193 25 4.48 0.97
Male torso 103 13 3.34 1.71
Female torso 256 33 3.74 1.38
Total 778 100 4.19 1.29
Note. Amazon’s star ratings follow a five-star system with one star being the lowest rating and five stars being
the highest rating.

3.2. Sex Toy Characteristics

RQ2 examined the product characteristics that were mentioned most frequently in
Amazon product reviews of sex toys. The eight most common characteristics reviewers
mentioned were: quality, size, weight, shape, smell, material, packaging, and price.
Across all comparison groups, product quality, material, and shape were addressed
most frequently. The smell of the sex toy was the least mentioned characteristic. Regarding
within-group differences, users of genitalia sex toys were more concerned with overall
quality (χ2 (1) = 38.53, p < 0.001, V = 0.22), material (χ2 (1) = 9.06, p = 0.003, V = 0.10),
and price (χ2 (1) = 10.85, p < 0.001, V = 0.11) compared to users of torso toys. Users of
torso toys addressed the characteristics size (χ2 (1) = 93.66, p < 0.001, V = 0.34) and weight
(χ2 (1) = 65.35, p < 0.001, V = 0.29) more frequently than users of genitalia sex toys (see
Table 4).

Table 4. Frequency of mentioned product characteristics of genitalia versus torso sex toys in Amazon
product reviews.

Genitalia Torso
Total
Product Sex Toys Sex Toys
(N = 778) χ2 (1) p V
Characteristic (n = 419) (n = 359)
n % n % n %
Quality 373 48 244 63 129 36 38.53 <0.001 0.22
Material 366 47 218 52 148 41 9.06 0.003 0.10
Shape 335 43 165 39 170 47 5.01 0.025 0.08
Size 229 29 62 15 167 47 93.66 <0.001 0.34
Price 190 24 122 29 68 19 10.85 <0.001 0.11
Packaging 113 15 86 21 27 8 26.34 <0.001 0.18
Weight 83 11 10 2 73 20 65.35 <0.001 0.29
Smell 50 6 18 4 32 9 6.85 0.009 0.09
Note. The characteristics of the sex toys are presented in descending order based on the frequency of their being
mentioned in online reviews.

Within the gender comparison group, sex toy quality (χ2 (1) = 8.67, p = 0.003, V = 0.10),
size (χ2 (1) = 19.65, p < 0.001, V = 0.16), and weight (χ2 (1) = 16.16, p < 0.001, V = 0.14) were
mentioned significantly more frequently in the reviews of female body toys compared to
male body toys. In turn, reviews of male body toys addressed product packaging more
frequently, χ2 (1) = 12.57, p < 0.001, V = 0.12 (see Table 5).
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 570

Table 5. Frequency of mentioned product characteristics of male versus female body toys in Amazon
product reviews.

Male Body Female Body

Total
Product Sex Toys Sex Toys
(N = 778) χ2 (1) p V
Characteristic (n = 329) (n = 449)
n % n % n %
Quality 373 48 178 54 195 43 8.67 0.003 0.10
Material 366 47 148 45 218 49 0.97 0.325 0.03
Shape 335 43 129 39 206 46 3.44 0.063 0.06
Size 229 29 69 21 160 36 19.65 <0.001 0.16
Price 190 24 69 21 121 27 3.67 0.055 0.07
Packaging 113 15 65 20 48 11 12.57 <0.001 0.12
Weight 83 11 18 5 65 14 16.16 <0.001 0.14
Smell 50 6 27 8 23 5 3.00 0.083 0.06
Note. The characteristics of the sex toys are presented in descending order based on the frequency of their being
mentioned in online reviews.

3.3. Sex Toy Use

RQ3 assessed how Amazon reviewers described their use of sex toys. Overall, 54% of
sex toy users represented in the product reviews were men, and 46% of sex toy users were
women. Solo sex was the most common type of sexual activity in which the sex toy was
used (69%) according to the analyzed reviews.
By analyzing the genders of the sex toy users represented in the reviews, we found that
user gender significantly differed between genitalia versus torso sex toys, χ2 (3) = 44.23,
p < 0.001, V = 0.24 (see Table 6). Women represented in the product reviews were more
likely to use genitalia toys as opposed to torso toys, and men were more likely to use
torso toys as opposed to genitalia sex toys. Solo sexual activities were more common for
torso toys, whereas using a sex toy with a partner was more typical for genitalia sex toys,
χ2 (3) = 11.30, p = 0.01, V = 0.12.

Table 6. Frequency of mentioned user gender and type of sexual activity for genitalia versus torso
sex toys in Amazon product reviews.

Genitalia Torso
Total
Sex Toys Sex Toys
(N = 778) χ2 (3) p V
(n = 419) (n = 359)
n % n % n %
User gender
Women 219 28 154 37 65 18
Men 423 54 185 44 238 66
44.23 <0.001 0.24
Both 12 2 5 1 7 2
Unknown 124 16 75 18 49 14
Sexual activity
Solo sex 534 69 270 64 264 74
Partnered sex 84 11 52 12 32 9
11.30 0.01 0.12
Both 33 4 25 6 8 2
Unknown 127 16 72 17 55 15
Note. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Regarding gender resemblances of sex toy use, women were more likely to use male
body toys, whereas men were more likely to use female body toys, χ2 (3) = 621.89, p < 0.001,
V = 0.89 (see Table 7). The contexts in which sex toys were used differed significantly,
χ2 (3) = 106.43, p < 0.001, V = 0.37. Female body toys were mostly used in solo sexual
activities, whereas male body toys were more frequently used during sex with a partner.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 571

Table 7. Frequency of mentioned user gender and type of sexual activity for genitalia versus torso
sex toys in Amazon product reviews.

Male Body Female Body

Total
Sex Toys Sex Toys
(N = 778) χ2 (3) p V
(n = 329) (n = 449)
n % n % n %
User gender
Women 219 28 215 65 4 1
Men 423 54 10 3 413 92
621.89 <0.001 0.89
Both 12 2 10 3 2 0
Unknown 124 16 94 29 30 7
Sexual activity
Solo sex 534 69 162 49 372 83
Partnered sex 84 11 67 20 17 4
106.43 <0.001 0.37
Both 33 4 20 6 13 3
Unknown 127 16 80 24 47 11
Note. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

We examined three main topics of consumers’ use of sex toys: sex toy functionality,
ease of use, and cleaning. In general, Amazon reviewers reported that sex toys exceeded
their expectations regarding functionality, were easy to clean, and easy to use. All three
topics were mentioned more often in reviews of genitalia sex toys than in reviews of torso
sex toys (see Table 8). Reviewers of genitalia sex toys indicated that these types of sex toys
function better than expected (59%), are easy to use (86%), and are easy to clean (76%).
Reviewers found torso toys significantly more difficult to use compared to genitalia sex
toys, χ2 (1) = 49.43, p < 0.001, V = 0.65.

Table 8. Frequency of mentioned utilization-related topics for genitalia versus torso sex toys in
Amazon product reviews.

Genitalia Torso
Total
Topic Sex Toys Sex Toys χ2 df p V
(N = 778)
(n = 419) (n = 359)
n % n % n %
Functionality mentioned 517 66 325 78 192 53 50.30 1 <0.001 0.25
Functionality 325 100 192 100 37.81 2 <0.001 0.27
Better than expected 262 51 191 59 71 37
As expected 197 38 116 36 81 42
Worse than expected 58 11 18 6 40 21
Cleaning mentioned 155 20 102 24 53 15 11.12 1 0.001 0.12
Cleaning 102 100 53 100 13.43 1 <0.001 0.28
Easy to clean 103 66 78 76 25 47
Not easy to clean 52 34 24 24 28 53
Ease of use mentioned 111 14 73 17 38 11 7.39 1 0.007 0.09
Ease of use 73 100 38 100 49.43 1 <0.001 0.65
Easy to use 70 63 63 86 7 18
Not easy to use 41 37 10 14 31 82

In the gender-resemblance comparison group, product functionality and ease of use

were mentioned more often in reviews of male body toys than in reviews of female body
toys (see Table 9). Cleaning was reported significantly more frequently in reviews of female
body toys, χ2 (1) = 25.05, p < 0.001, V = 0.18. Users of male body toys said that the toy
exceeded their expectations regarding functionality more often than users of female body
toys, χ2 (2) = 27.64, p < 0.001, V = 0.23. Reviewers also found them significantly easier to
use (χ2 (1) = 9.41, p = 0.002, V = 0.29) and easier to clean (χ2 (1) = 9.39, p = 0.002, V = 0.23).
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 572

Table 9. Frequency of mentioned utilization-related topics for male versus female body toys in
Amazon product reviews.

Male Body Female Body

Total
Sex Toys Sex Toys
Topic (N = 778) χ2 df p V
(n = 329) (n = 449)
n % n % n %
Functionality mentioned 517 66 237 72 280 62 7.97 1 0.005 0.10
Functionality 237 100 280 100 27.64 2 <0.001 0.23
Better than expected 262 51 147 62 115 41
As expected 197 38 62 26 135 48
Worse than expected 58 11 28 12 30 11
Cleaning mentioned 155 20 38 12 117 26 25.05 1 <0.001 0.18
Cleaning 38 100 117 100 9.39 1 0.002 0.23
Easy to clean 103 66 33 87 70 60
Not easy to clean 52 34 5 13 47 40
Ease of use mentioned 111 14 48 15 63 14 0.05 1 0.826 0.004
Ease of use 48 100 63 100 9.41 1 0.002 0.27
Easy to use 70 63 38 79 32 51
Not easy to use 41 37 10 21 31 49

3.4. Sex Toy Effects

For RQ4 the effects of sex toys mentioned in Amazon product review were investigated.
We identified a total of n = 53 positive and n = 16 negative self-reported effects in our corpus
of N = 778 reviews.
Positive effects were grouped into six main themes: (1) compensation for lack of a real-
life sexual partner, (2) increased sexual pleasure, (3) addition to partnered sex, (4) improved
mental health, (5) practice for future partnered sex, and (6) positive effects beyond sexual
pleasure (see Table 10). Compensation for lack of a real-life sexual partner was the most
reported effect. Reviewers considered sex toys both as a temporary replacement of an
absent sexual partner (e.g., “I am a widow now and currently do not have a gentleman friend so
it comes in handy for me”) and as a more permanent “better” solution to having one (e.g., “It
only costs money once, will never leave you and won’t mess with your head”).

Table 10. Frequency of mentioned positive effects of sex toys in Amazon product reviews.

Theme Example n %
“I am a widow now and currently do not have a gentleman friend so it
Compensation for lack of a comes in handy for me” (review of a vibrator)
20 38
real-life sexual partner “This is a good time!!! I dress her up, talk to her, and give her what she
needs! No drama, no STDs.” (review of a female torso sex toy)
“Using this gives me some of the most intense orgasms I’ve ever had!”
(review of a masturbator)
Increased sexual pleasure “The 7–8 inch penis always stays hard so when you’re ready to cum the 13 25
penis stays hard which gives me a harder more intensive orgasm”
(review of a male torso sex toy)
“With my new magical friend, we can both get what we need and it has
brought our sexual relationship to a whole new level and our intimacy
Addition to partnered sex is much closer and deeper” (review of a vibrator) 11 21
“It definitely added fun while playing because it makes you feel like
three people have sex together” (review of a male torso sex toy)
“Definitely something to consider if true inner peace is something that
Improved mental health interests you” (review of a masturbator) 4 8
“Helped me get over my ex” (review of a female torso sex toy)
“Definitely good practice for the real thing” (review of a masturbator)
Practice for future partnered sex “It makes you work on your technique for the actual thing. If you get 3 6
some” (review of a female torso sex toy)
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 573

Table 10. Cont.

Theme Example n %
“Its pretty good when you’re bored or having trouble sleeping for
Positive effects beyond sexual sure!” (review of a masturbator)
2 4
pleasure “I’ve been knocking boots with it twice a day and my abs are starting to
show again. lol its a great workout.” (review of a male torso sex toy)
Note. N = 53 Amazon reviews that address perceived positive effects of sex toys. Percentages may not add up to
100 due to rounding.

Negative effects were grouped into five main themes: (1) addictiveness, (2) inconve-
nience of use, (3) ineffectiveness, (4) problems with an existing partner, and (5) psychologi-
cal tension (see Table 11). Almost half of the mentioned negative consequences involved
the risk of getting addicted to a sex toy (44%) (e.g., “The only thing that I worry about is the
more I use it, the more I like it and I might not ever leave the house again”).

Table 11. Frequency of mentioned negative effects of sex toys in Amazon product reviews.

Theme Example n %
“The only thing that I worry about is the more I use it, the more I like it
and I might not ever leave the house again . . . ” (review of a vibrator)
Addictiveness 7 44
“Now I can’t sleep without this every night!” (review of a male torso
sex toy)
“I am a little older so a good hard erection is not as easy anymore. So
that is the only issue I have had is being able to get inside the toy.”
(review of a masturbator)
Inconvenience of use 4 25
“It is hard for me to cum with the dick bending and making a cracking
sound. It is uncomfortable and loud. I almost woke my parents up”
(review of a male torso sex toy)
“Does not provide any more intense of an orgasm than using perhaps a
homemade device, to be quite frank” (review of a female torso sex toy)
Ineffectiveness 3 19
“Have to use other things this doesn’t really help” (review of a female
torso sex toy)
Problems with an existing partner “Girlfriend doesn’t need me anymore” (review of a vibrator) 1 6
“it felt like I was holding a baby, which made the sex very
Psychological tension uncomfortable. I’m definitely not interested in being a pedophile” 1 6
(reviews of a female torso sex toy)
Note. N = 16 Amazon reviews that address perceived negative effects of sex toys. Percentages may not add up to
100 due to rounding.

4. Discussion
The aim of the current study was to explore consumers’ experiences with realistic sex
toys via product reviews on Amazon.com. A total of N = 778 online reviews were collected
in a 2 × 2 design covering genitalia versus torso sex toys as well as male versus female
body sex toys.
We first assessed the overall evaluations (star ratings) consumers gave to best-selling
realistic sex toys (RQ1). According to Amazon’s five-star rating system, most reviewers
(79%) evaluated the best-selling sex toys from the selected categories positively by giving
the products 4 or 5 stars. Consumers gave better ratings to genitalia sex toys compared
to torso toys, and they gave better ratings to male body compared to female body toys.
A star rating can indicate the overall valence of a review and therefore provide a quick
overview of consumers’ experiences [22,24,28]. Thus, high star ratings of sex toys point to
highly satisfactory user experiences with the respective intimate products. In particular, our
results suggest that mainstream genitalia sex toys provided users with more satisfactory
experiences than torso sex toys, and male body–shaped toys more satisfactory experiences
than female body–shaped toys. Genital shape and anthropomorphism alone, of course,
cannot fully explain the differences in the overall evaluations of selected sex toys. The qual-
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 574

ity of the specific products in the sample, their intended use, or differences in functionality
between the toys of the same group are also expected to influence star ratings. Furthermore,
it should be kept in mind that all sex toys in the sample were ranked as best sellers by
Amazon. Although Amazon’s best seller rank is based on the number of sales only and
not on the product evaluation, products in this category can be expected to receive overall
higher star ratings.
We then examined the characteristics that consumers mentioned most frequently in
their Amazon reviews of sex toys to get a deeper insight into the specific attributes of the
sex toys (RQ2). Our results showed that general product quality, material, and shape were
the most frequently mentioned characteristics across all types of sex toys. Reviewers were
mainly concerned with sex toys’ overall quality such as their durability that is needed for
smooth usage (e.g., “Fantastic quality. Excellent density in structure. Will last for a very long
time”, “Total crap. [ . . . ] Broke after first usage”). To be effective in generating or enhancing
arousal, sex toys must be comfortable to use (e.g., a penis-shaped vibrator should not cause
pain on insertion or distract a user by slipping out of their hands). Thus, reviewers paid a
lot of attention to the material and shape of sex toys. Reviewers’ evaluations of the shape of
sex toys entailed comments on their sexual appeal (“Breasts are not 36DD as shown on picture”
[female torso toy]; “At first glance I fell in love with the pretty and sleek design of this bad boy”
[vibrator]). In line with sexual objectification theory and previous empirical findings, this
suggests that the design of the sex toys can push traditional beauty norms. It is especially
visible in the reviews of female torso sex toys that were often commented on as having “too
small”/“well rounded” breasts or a “curvy contour” of the waist. The lack of appearance
diversity among torso sex toys contributes to the issue, although this claim is not supported
by empirical data and is based on the observation during data collection.
Consumers of genitalia sex toys were significantly more concerned with quality and
material compared to consumers of torso sex toys, while consumers of torso sex toys
addressed size and weight more frequently. A possible explanation for this difference is
that vibrators and masturbators have been on the market for a longer time than human
torso sex toys and many consumers consider them to be mainstream products [4]. Therefore,
their general functionality, look, and shape are already familiar to most people. Conversely,
male and female torso sex toys are less widespread, considerably larger, and less portable
than genitalia sex toys [28]. Not only does the storage of such toys require extra space,
but their weight might pose an issue for some users (e.g., for people with disabilities).
Furthermore, due to their larger dimensions, their ability to provide orgasms “on the
go” [36] is limited. Hence, consumers addressed the size and the weight of torso sex toys
as the most relevant factors in their reviews.
The users of male body toys addressed the packaging of sex toys two times more often
than users of female body toys. It is assumed that statistically most users of male body toys
are women [51]. Thus, women may address the appropriateness and discreteness of the
packaging of sex toys more frequently given society’s stigmatized attitudes toward female
users of intimate products. Nevertheless, this explanation is challenged by the small effect
size of the difference we found as well as the overall low number of reviews that address
this characteristic.
Regarding sex toy use (RQ3), our results showed that most sex toy users mentioned in
the product reviews were men. While research has shown that sex toy use is somewhat
more common in the female population [9], male users seem to write Amazon product
reviews disproportionally more often. Our results showed that product reviewers predomi-
nantly reported about solo sexual activities but also mentioned partnered use of all four
groups of toys. This observation adds to earlier research focusing on traditional vibrators
only [20–22,44].
Three main utilization-related topics were investigated in the context of sex toy use:
sex toys’ functionality, ease of use, and ease of cleaning. Users of both male and female
torso sex toys reported torso sex toys to be difficult to use compared to a vibrator or a
masturbator. This is most likely due to the naturally larger size and weight of torso sex
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 575

toys that require some time to get accustomed to before comfortable use (e.g., “there is no
spine, makes it hard for it to be on top, flops around too much and when you pop out its annoying
to go back in since you have to pick the whole thing up”). Moreover, the general functionality
of the selected best-selling torso sex toys was evaluated as worse than that of the selected
best-selling genitalia toys. Many reviewers indicated that their expectations regarding
functionality were not met. Combined with a more difficult use, results suggest that the
use of torso sex toys was too complex and not intuitive enough for most reviewers, which
can explain their overall lower star ratings (see Table 3).
Reviewers most frequently mentioned the topic of cleaning sex toys in reviews of
female body toys as compared to male body toys. This finding is expected considering the
general design of the product. Resemblance with female genitalia could be problematic
for cleaning given that a vagina is bent inwards. Conversely, sex toys that resemble male
bodies are usually shaped after an erect penis, so they can be cleaned much more easily.
Certain risks associated with improper cleaning of sex toys (e.g., STI transmission) have
been repeatedly raised in previous studies (e.g., [41,52]). However, a low number of reviews
addressed the risks of improper sex toy cleaning in this study.
We also explored the perceived positive and negative effects of sex toy use (RQ4). In
line with current research, consumers more frequently mentioned perceived positive effects
of sex toys compared to negative effects. The N = 53 reviews that mentioned positive effects
revealed that the use of sex toys helps to compensate for the lack of a sexual partner and to
increase sexual pleasure (i.e., provide more intense and frequent orgasms). For genitalia
sex toys, compensation for the lack of a real sexual partner typically meant that consumers
could perform solo sexual activities in the temporary absence of a partner. For torso sex
toys, some reviewers considered their toys as a complete replacement of a partner, or even
as a better alternative to one (“And not once have I heard him complain saying he’s tired nor that
he has to go”). This points to the anthropomorphization of those sex toys that are not limited
to mere genitalia but represent larger parts of the human body and thus invite perceiving
and treating the toy as an artificial partner [28]. The anthropomorphization of sex toys
should, however, be evaluated with caution. In line with sexual objectification theory,
earlier studies have already raised concerns that sexist, objectifying, and at times abusive
use of human-like sex toys can lead to objectification and abuse of real-life sex partners,
especially women (e.g., [24,25,34]). We have not found any evidence of physically abusive
use of human-like sex toys in our sample; however, a number of reviews (predominantly
reviews of torso sex toys) considered sex toys more appealing than a real partner for having
no feelings, emotions, or complaints (“Don’t worry about upset feelings. There are none away.
It’s much easier and less trouble than a divorce or a nasty break up with a girlfriend. Just throw her
out and away and get a nice new model to choose from on Amazon”). Whether such opinions can
impel objectification and emotional abuse of real-life partners present fruitful directions for
future research.
Only n = 16 product reviews included perceived negative effects of sex toy use, with
the most mentioned effect being the risk of getting addicted to the toy. Researchers have
already highlighted addiction to sex toys as a concern [53]. However, the overall low
number of negative reviews does not allow us to draw meaningful conclusions about the
prevalence of this issue compared to other negative effects, such as the inconvenience of
use or sex toys’ failure to enhance sexual sensations. Nevertheless, such low numbers of
negative reviews could mean that people who leave product reviews perceive sex toy use
as a mainly beneficial activity that has a positive impact on their life.

5. Limitations, Future Directions, and Implications

One of the main strengths of this study relies on the distinctions we made between
different types of realistic sex toys. Earlier studies either had a single focus on mainstream
products such as dildos or vibrators, or did not differentiate between different types of sex
toys at all. However, the results of the study can only be considered as preliminary and
further deeper investigation into the topic is needed. The collected product reviews refer to
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 576

one best-selling, penis-shaped vibrator and one best-selling, vagina-shaped masturbator

only, as well as to only a few best-selling torso sex toys. Hence, the results can be influenced
both by the limited selection of products as well as their best-selling status. Future studies
could cover reviews on more product examples for the four sex-toy types. In addition,
a wider variety of intimate products should be investigated, such as remote-controlled
vibrators and masturbators, torso toys with combined male and female genitalia (i.e.,
intersex), or full-body toys.
Furthermore, it should be noted that not all consumers leave product reviews. The
reviews we analyzed in the present study might provide an initial introduction to the topic,
but they only represent the opinions and experiences of a small proportion of sex toy users.
Moreover, due to the anonymity of collected reviews, the sociodemographic characteristics
of the reviewers are unknown. The conclusions about the genders of sex toy users were
made based on the review narratives and the pronouns consumers used. It is not possible
to know how the reviewers tested the sex toys before writing their evaluations (e.g., if they
used the sex toys as indicated in the products’ user instructions).
Finally, the study is mostly based on research conducted on sex toy use in Western
countries, where human sexuality is fairly liberated and openly discussed. In diverse
cultural contexts, the results should be used with caution. An exploration of sex toy use in
more conservative countries where sexuality is still considered a taboo topic and where
religious norms may limit the openness of sexuality is recommended for future studies.
The product characteristics and effects of the sex toys addressed in product reviews
might inspire product design and marketing. For example, providing and promising
high-quality materials for all toys and ensuring easy handling of torso toys are key issues
for customers. Sex educators and clinicians aiming to put sex toy use on the agenda can
point their clients and patients to product reviews or use example reviews as conversation
starters. Debating, developing, and exploring wholesome, diverse, and inclusive sex toys
and use patterns remains an important task.

6. Conclusions
The current study contributes to and expands the existing research on sex toy use
and perceived effects of usage by (1) focusing on actual user experiences as reflected in
online product reviews and (2) comparing realistic genitalia sex toys with torso sex toys
representing male and female bodies. The findings highlight that consumers openly share
their intimate experiences with sex toys online and that these experiences vary depending
on different types of products. This includes torso toys whose users are—together with
users of full-body sex dolls—the subject of stigmatization and criticism by certain feminists.
The public sharing of torso toy experiences, the partnered use of torso toys reported in
9% of the reviews, and also the predominantly positive perceived effects of their use
could point to partial de-stigmatization. Furthermore, we found some indicators of people
anthropomorphizing torso toys in product reviews. More specifically, some users saw the
torso toy as an artificial partner and perceived this as a positive effect.
Over the last few decades, the online marketing of sex toys has presented more and
more abstract designs of sex toys (e.g., vibrators elegantly shaped as silver cylinders) and
predominantly framed sex toys as wellness products. Torso toys divert from this trend of
minimalistic toys in their hyper-realistic, explicit, openly sexualized design (e.g., female
torso toys with gaping labia and DD breasts). It is still unclear if torso toys, along with sex
dolls and sex robots, will gather larger customer groups and contribute to sexual well-being
as they become more visible and more openly discussed and evaluated on the Internet.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, data collection, N.D.; codebook pretest and
revision, data analysis, data interpretation, N.D. and V.M.; original draft preparation, N.D. and V.M.;
review and editing, N.D., V.M. and P.-G.N. All authors have read and agreed to the final version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 577

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The study follows an open science approach, that is, the codebook,
data file, and data analysis scripts are publicly available via https://osf.io/b9dxa/ (accessed on 13
April 2022).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Piha, S.; Hurmerinta, L.; Sandberg, B.; Järvinen, E. From filthy to healthy and beyond: Finding the boundaries of taboo destruction
in sex toy buying. J. Mark. Manag. 2018, 34, 1078–1104. [CrossRef]
2. Wilner, S.J.S.; Huff, A.D. Objects of desire: The role of product design in revising contested cultural meanings. J. Mark. Manag.
2016, 33, 244–271. [CrossRef]
3. Döring, N. Sex Toys. In Encyclopedia of Sexuality and Gender; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–10. [CrossRef]
4. Rosenberger, J.G.; Schick, V.; Herbenick, D.; Novak, D.S.; Reece, M. Sex Toy Use by Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States.
Arch. Sex. Behav. 2012, 41, 449–458. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Flore, J.; Pienaar, K. Data-driven intimacy: Emerging technologies in the (re)making of sexual subjects and ‘healthy’ sexuality.
Health Sociol. Rev. 2020, 29, 279–293. [CrossRef]
6. Döring, N.; Daneback, K.; Shaughnessy, K.; Grov, C.; Byers, E.S. Online Sexual Activity Experiences Among College Students: A
Four-Country Comparison. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2017, 46, 1641–1652. [CrossRef]
7. Daneback, K.; Mansson, S.-A.; Ross, M. Online Sex Shops: Purchasing Sexual Merchandise on the Internet. Int. J. Sex. Health 2011,
23, 102–110. [CrossRef]
8. Ferguson, A. The Sex Doll: A History; McFarland &Company: Jefferson, NC, USA, 2010.
9. Döring, N.; Poeschl, S. Experiences with Diverse Sex Toys Among German Heterosexual Adults: Findings From a National
Online Survey. J. Sex Res. 2020, 57, 885–896. [CrossRef]
10. Lee, S.-G.; Trimi, S.; Yang, C.-G. Perceived Usefulness Factors of Online Reviews: A Study of Amazon.com. J. Comput. Inf. Syst.
2018, 58, 344–352. [CrossRef]
11. Mudambi, S.M.; Schuff, D. What Makes a Helpful Online Review? A Study of Customer Reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Q. 2010,
34, 185–200. [CrossRef]
12. Huete-Alcocer, N. A Literature Review of Word of Mouth and Electronic Word of Mouth: Implications for Consumer Behavior.
Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1256. [CrossRef]
13. Cui, G.; Lui, H.-K.; Guo, X. The Effect of Online Consumer Reviews on New Product Sales. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2012, 17,
39–58. [CrossRef]
14. Park, D.-H.; Lee, J.; Han, I. The Effect of On-Line Consumer Reviews on Consumer Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of
Involvement. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2007, 11, 125–148. [CrossRef]
15. Zhu, F.; Zhang, X. Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales: The Moderating Role of Product and Consumer Characteristics.
J. Mark. 2010, 74, 133–148. [CrossRef]
16. Archak, N.; Ghose, A.; Ipeirotis, P. Deriving the Pricing Power of Product Features by Mining Consumer Reviews. Manag. Sci.
2011, 57, 1485–1509. [CrossRef]
17. Hajli, N. Ethical Environment in the Online Communities by Information Credibility: A Social Media Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics
2018, 149, 799–810. [CrossRef]
18. Heng, Y.; Gao, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Chen, X. Exploring hidden factors behind online food shopping from Amazon reviews: A topic
mining approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 42, 161–168. [CrossRef]
19. Hong, S.; Pittman, M. eWOM anatomy of online product reviews: Interaction effects of review number, valence, and star ratings
on perceived credibility. Int. J. Advert. 2020, 39, 892–920. [CrossRef]
20. Lieberman, H. Intimate Transactions: Sex Toys and the Sexual Discourse of Second-Wave Feminism. Sex. Cult. 2017, 21, 96–120.
[CrossRef]
21. Reece, M.; Herbenick, D.; Dodge, B.; Sanders, S.A.; Ghassemi, A.; Fortenberry, J.D. Vibrator Use Among Heterosexual Men Varies
by Partnership Status: Results From a Nationally Representative Study in the United States. J. Sex Marital Ther. 2010, 36, 389–407.
[CrossRef]
22. Reece, M.; Herbenick, D.; Sanders, S.A.; Dodge, B.; Ghassemi, A.; Fortenberry, J.D. Prevalence and Characteristics of Vibrator Use
by Men in the United States. J. Sex. Med. 2009, 6, 1867–1874. [CrossRef]
23. Björkas, R.; Larsson, M. Sex Dolls in the Swedish Media Discourse: Intimacy, Sexuality, and Technology. Sex. Cult. 2021, 25,
1227–1248. [CrossRef]
24. Ray, P. ‘Synthetik Love Lasts Forever’: Sex Dolls and the (Post?) Human Condition. In Critical Posthumanism and Planetary Futures;
Banerji, D., Paranjape, M., Eds.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 91–112. [CrossRef]
25. Richardson, K. The asymmetrical ‘relationship’: Parallels between prostitution and the development of sex robots. ACM SIGCAS
Comput. Soc. 2016, 45, 290–293. [CrossRef]
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12 578

26. Fredrickson, B.L.; Roberts, T.-A. Objectification Theory: Toward Understanding Women’s Lived Experiences and Mental Health
Risks. Psychol. Women Q. 1997, 21, 173–206. [CrossRef]
27. Simon, W.; Gagnon, J.H. Sexual scripts. Society 1984, 22, 53–60. [CrossRef]
28. Döring, N.; Pöschl, S. Sex toys, sex dolls, sex robots: Our under-researched bed-fellows. Sexologies 2018, 27, e51–e55. [CrossRef]
29. Su, N.M.; Lazar, A.; Bardzell, J.; Bardzell, S. Of Dolls and Men: Anticipating sexual intimacy with robots. ACM Trans. Comput.
Hum. Interact. 2019, 26, 1–35. [CrossRef]
30. Feingold, A.; Mazzella, R. Gender Differences in Body Image Are Increasing. Psychol. Sci. 1998, 9, 190–195. [CrossRef]
31. Moradi, B. Addressing Gender and Cultural Diversity in Body Image: Objectification Theory as a Framework for Integrating
Theories and Grounding Research. Sex Roles 2010, 63, 138–148. [CrossRef]
32. Gagnon, J.H.; Simon, W. Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality; Aldine: Chicago, IL, USA, 2002.
33. Faustino, M.J. Rebooting an Old Script by New Means: Teledildonics—The Technological Return to the ‘Coital Imperative’. Sex.
Cult. 2018, 22, 243–257. [CrossRef]
34. Hanson, K.R. The Silicone Self: Examining Sexual Selfhood and Stigma within the Love and Sex Doll Community. Symb. Interact.
2021, 45, 189–210. [CrossRef]
35. Rossolatos, G. Good Vibrations: Charting the Dominant and Emergent Discursive Regimes of Sex Toys. Qual. Rep. 2016, 21,
1475–1494. [CrossRef]
36. Rossolatos, G. Toy stories: On the disciplinary regime of vibration. Semiotica 2017, 2017, 145–164. [CrossRef]
37. Macnamara, J. Media content analysis: Its uses; benefits and best practice methodology. Asia Pac. Public Relat. J. 2005, 6, 1–34.
38. AoIR. Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. 2019. Available online: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf (accessed on 13
April 2022).
39. Manchaiah, V.; Amlani, A.M.; Bricker, C.M.; Whitfield, C.T.; Ratinaud, P. Benefits and Shortcomings of Direct-to-Consumer
Hearing Devices: Analysis of Large Secondary Data Generated From Amazon Customer Reviews. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2019,
62, 1506–1516. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Kotler, P.; Armstrong, G.; Saunders, J.; Wog, V. Principles of Marketing, 3rd ed.; Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2001.
41. Anderson, T.A.; Schick, V.; Herbenick, D.; Dodge, B.; Fortenberry, J.D. A study of human papillomavirus on vaginally inserted
sex toys, before and after cleaning, among women who have sex with women and men. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2014, 90, 529–531.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Schick, V.; Rosenberger, J.G.; Herbenick, D.; Reece, M. Sexual behaviour and risk reduction strategies among a multinational
sample of women who have sex with women. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2012, 88, 407–412. [CrossRef]
43. Fahs, B.; Swank, E. Adventures with the “Plastic Man”: Sex Toys, Compulsory Heterosexuality, and the Politics of Women’s
Sexual Pleasure. Sex. Cult. 2013, 17, 666–685. [CrossRef]
44. Herbenick, D.; Reece, M.; Sanders, S.A.; Dodge, B.; Ghassemi, A.; Fortenberry, J.D. Women’s Vibrator Use in Sexual Partnerships:
Results From a Nationally Representative Survey in the United States. J. Sex Marital Ther. 2010, 36, 49–65. [CrossRef]
45. Watson, E.D.; Séguin, L.J.; Milhausen, R.R.; Murray, S.H. The Impact of a Couple’s Vibrator on Men’s Perceptions of Their Own
and Their Partner’s Sexual Pleasure and Satisfaction. Men Masc. 2016, 19, 370–383. [CrossRef]
46. Wongpakaran, N.; Wongpakaran, T.; Wedding, D.; Gwet, K.L. A comparison of Cohen’s Kappa and Gwet’s AC1 when calculating
inter-rater reliability coefficients: A study conducted with personality disorder samples. BMC Med Res. Methodol. 2013, 13, 1–7.
[CrossRef]
47. Bartko, J.J. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as a Measure of Reliability. Psychol. Rep. 1966, 19, 3–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria,
2021; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 13 April 2022).
49. Kassambara, A. Rstatix: Pipe-Friendly Framework for Basic Statistical Tests. R Package Version 0.7.0. 2021. Available online:
https://cran.r-project.org/package=rstatix (accessed on 13 April 2022).
50. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [CrossRef]
51. Morales, E.; Gauthier, V.; Edwards, G.; Courtois, F.; Lamontagne, A.; Guérette, A. Co-designing Sex Toys for Adults with Motor
Disabilities. Sex. Disabil. 2018, 36, 47–68. [CrossRef]
52. Marrazzo, J.M.; Coffey, P.; Bingham, A. Sexual Practices, Risk Perception and Knowledge of Sexually Transmitted Disease Risk
Among Lesbian and Bisexual Women. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health 2005, 37, 6–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Waskul, D.; Anklan, M. “Best invention, second to the dishwasher”: Vibrators and sexual pleasure. Sexualities 2020, 23, 849–875.
[CrossRef]