Hubbry Logo
Non-penetrative sexNon-penetrative sexMain
Open search
Non-penetrative sex
Community hub
Non-penetrative sex
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Non-penetrative sex
Non-penetrative sex
Non-penetrative sex
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Kiss (1859) by Francesco Hayez

Non-penetrative sex or outercourse is sexual activity that usually does not include sexual penetration, but some forms, particularly when termed outercourse, include penetrative aspects, that may result from forms of fingering or oral sex.[1][2][3] It generally excludes the penetrative aspects of vaginal, anal, or oral sex, but includes various forms of sexual and non-sexual activity, such as frottage, manual sex, mutual masturbation, kissing, or hugging.[4][5][6]

People engage in non-penetrative sex for a variety of reasons, including as a form of foreplay or as a primary or preferred sexual act.[5][7] Heterosexual couples may engage in non-penetrative sex as an alternative to penile-vaginal penetration, to preserve virginity, or as a type of birth control.[7][8] Same-sex couples may also engage in non-penetrative sex to preserve virginity,[7][9][10] with gay males using it as an alternative to anal penetration.[7][9]

Although sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as herpes, HPV, and pubic lice can be transmitted through non-penetrative genital-genital or genital-body sexual activity, non-penetrative sex may be used as a form of safer sex because it is less likely that body fluids (the main source of STI transmission) will be exchanged during the activities, especially with regard to aspects that are exclusively non-penetrative.[11][12][13]

Definitions and practices

[edit]

General

[edit]

While non-penetrative sex (or outercourse) is usually defined as excluding sexual penetration,[4][5][6] some non-penetrative sex acts can have both non-penetrative and penetrative components and may therefore still be categorized as non-penetrative sex. Oral sex, for example, which can include oral caress of the genitalia, as well as penile penetration of the mouth or oral penetration of the vagina, may be categorized as non-penetrative sex.[1][2] Oral sex may also be considered outercourse solely because it is not vaginal or anal intercourse.[14][15]

The words penetration and penetrative may be restricted to penile-vaginal penetration, and, in this way, the definition of outercourse additionally includes penetrative anal sex, with the term outercourse used to contrast the term sexual intercourse as vaginal sex.[3][16][17] Definitions restricting the terms non-penetrative sex and outercourse to whether penile penetration has occurred,[5][18] or to non-penetrative sexual acts that do not involve exchanges of potentially infectious body fluids,[1][11] also exist.

The term heavy petting covers a broad range of foreplay activities, typically involving some genital stimulation, but not the direct act of penetrative sexual intercourse.[19]

Frottage

[edit]
Frot: two men rubbing their penises together to create sexual sensations

Frottage is the general term for the act of rubbing any part of the body, including the buttocks, the breasts, abdomen, thighs, feet, hands, legs and sexual organs against the sexual organ of another person; this is done whether naked or clothed and is more commonly known as dry humping or dry sex.[20] When frottage includes genital-genital rubbing, it is sometimes called genito-genital or GG rubbing.[20]

Couples may engage in frottage as a form of foreplay or simply as a method to achieve sexual gratification without the penetrative aspects of vaginal, anal or oral sex, which may also be their personal way of preserving virginity[7][8] or their way of practicing safer sex.[11] Often, young people will engage in frottage as an earlier stage of sexual intimacy before their idea of more explicit sexual contact is defined.

Other terms associated with frottage are:

  • Princeton rub, Ivy League rub, and so on are slang terms referring to male-male frot or intercrural sex or both, presumably surviving from the days when these colleges only admitted men.[21] W. H. Auden was proud of having been the first person to use the terms Princeton rub and Princeton first-year in print.[22]
  • The term frottage derives from the French verb frotter (i.e., to rub). Three terms derive from frotter. These include frottage, the sexual act involving rubbing; frot, the sexual act that refers exclusively to male-male genital rubbing without penetration (but may also be referred to as frottage);[21] and frotteurism, a paraphilia involving obsession with frottage or performing frottage non-consensually (e.g., pressing one's genitals against a stranger on a crowded subway); this was once called "frottage", but the usage is no longer acceptable.[23]

Manual sex

[edit]
Not to be confused with Sex manual.
19th century Japanese illustration depicting a handjob
1925 illustration by Gerda Wegener depicting fingering

Manual sex (sometimes called manual intercourse)[24] involves the use of one's hands or fingers to stimulate the genitals of another person.[25][26] Types of manual sex include the handjob (the manual stimulation of the penis or scrotum)[27] and fingering (the manual stimulation of the vagina, clitoris, or other parts of the vulva).[28] Manually stimulating another person's anus (anal fingering) is also included.[29]

Manual sex may be used as foreplay[30] or as a physically intimate act in its own right. It might result in one partner achieving orgasm. If no bodily fluids are exchanged (as is common), it is considered safe sex, and greatly reduces the risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections.[11][12][13]

Mutual masturbation

[edit]
1840 Johann Nepomuk Geiger depiction of a couple engaging in mutual masturbation by touching each other's genitals

Mutual masturbation usually involves two or more people who either simultaneously masturbate or perform manual sex on each other.[31][30] This may be done in situations where the participants do not feel ready, physically able, socially at liberty, or willing to engage in any penetrative sex act, or a particular penetrative sex act, but still wish to engage in a mutual sexual activity.

Mutual masturbation may be used as an alternative to penile-vaginal penetration, to preserve virginity or to prevent pregnancy.[7][8]

In partnered manual genital stroking to reach orgasm or expanded orgasm, both people focus on creating and experiencing an orgasm in one person. Typically, one person lies down pantless, while their partner sits alongside. The partner who is sitting uses their hands and fingers (typically with a lubricant)[citation needed] to slowly stroke the penis or clitoris and other genitals of the partner. Expanded orgasm as a mutual masturbation technique reportedly creates orgasm experiences more intense and extensive than what can be described as, or included in the definition of, a regular orgasm.[32] It includes a range of sensations that include orgasms that are full-bodied, and orgasms that last from a few minutes to many hours.[33]

Exclusively non-penetrative

[edit]
Mammary intercourse, a form of non-penetrative sex
Red-figure Greek illustration of intercrural sex between a winged god (Eros or Zephyrus) and a youth (perhaps Hyacinthus)

Non-penetrative sex may sometimes be divided into acts that are exclusively non-penetrative and those that are not.[by whom?] Exclusively non-penetrative sexual acts include:

  • Bagpiping: when the penis is inserted in the other person's armpit.[34][35][36]
  • Bundling: a courtship tradition in some Christian communities that was opposed by the religious right and has largely died out. The two young people were each in a sack tied up at the neck, and put in a bed together for the night.
  • Erotic massage: rubbing of the body to create pleasure and relaxation. This can be done between two or more people of any gender and sexual orientation. It can involve the use of oils (heated or otherwise) or just the individual's hands. It is also known as sensual massage.[37][38]
  • Footjob: sexually stimulating one individual's penis with another individual's feet. In some cases it can be part of a foot fetish. One individual places their feet around the penis and caresses it until orgasm is achieved. Variations where the clitoris is stimulated by feet also occur.[39]
  • Frot: act of genital-genital rubbing between males (especially penis-to-penis contact).
  • Handjob: the manual sexual stimulation of another person's penis.
  • Intercrural sex: when the penis is stimulated by placing it between another individual's thighs. Lubrication may be used to allow the penis to move more freely between the thighs.[21][40][41]
  • Intergluteal sex: stimulation of the penis using the buttocks. It differs from anal sex because no penetration of the anus occurs. The penis is stimulated by moving between the buttocks.[42]
  • Kissing[broken anchor]: the touching of one person's lips against another person's can be regarded as a sexual act, especially deep kissing (French kissing) where one person inserts their tongue into the partner's mouth. Kissing may also be done on other parts of the body and is commonly a part of foreplay.[43]
  • Mammary intercourse: the stimulation of the penis by placing the penis between the breasts and moving the penis up and down to simulate penetration and to create pleasure.[44]
  • Nipple stimulation: when one partner caresses (either manually or orally) the nipples of their partner. Any individual can participate in this act and it can be done in pairs or groups.[45] This can lead to orgasm for the receiving partner.[46]
  • Tribadism: a form of lesbian sex where women rub genitalia against each other (either rubbing vulvas together or rubbing one's vulva against other parts of another individual's body).[47][48]

Non-exclusively non-penetrative

[edit]
  • Fingering: stimulation of another person's vagina, vulva, clitoris in particular, or anus, with the fingers.
  • Oral sex: stimulation of the genitals using the mouth and throat. It is known as fellatio when the act is performed on a penis, and cunnilingus when performed on a vulva.[49] A specific type of oral sex, anilingus, is the stimulation of the anus using the mouth.[50]
  • Stimulation using a vibrator: a partner or group of individuals may stimulate each other's genitals using a vibrator.[51]
  • BDSM: Many BDSM activities do not involve penetration.[52]

Hookup culture

[edit]
Main article: Hookup culture

In many developed countries, there is a trend where young individuals (typically late teens and early twenties) engage in casual sex, also known as a hookup. This phenomenon has been termed hookup culture. The term hookup in this context loosely means participating in some type of sexual activity (whether it is non-penetrative or penetrative) with another individual or group of individuals outside of a romantic relationship.[53]

Hooking up may be in the form of a one-night stand, where the sex acts are contained within a single situation or the individuals may "hook up" on a more consistent basis (sometimes known as being "friends with benefits"). In addition, hooking up can mean different things to different people. Some individuals believe a hookup is "anything but intercourse", which would include only non-penetrative sex acts.[54] Birth control may not be utilized if the individuals are not planning on engaging in a sex act. Using birth control and ensuring all individuals present understand that the activity is a hookup with no other expectations can maximize benefits while minimizing risk.[55] The benefits of sex acts are various, and if an individual is concerned about sexual infections or pregnancy, non-penetrative sex acts (which carry a significantly smaller risk than penetrative sex) can be sufficient in preventing the risks, and offer a wide variety of options to choose from.[56]

Health risks

[edit]
Allegory of April. Francesco del Cossa, Ercole de’ Roberti[57] and Gherardo di Andrea Fiorini.[58] Fresco in the Schifanoia Palace, Ferrara. Around 1469

There is a sociocultural viewpoint that because non-penetrative sex usually does not involve a direct exchange of semen or vaginal fluids, and because at no point (in exclusively non-penetrative sex acts) does anything penetrate the vulva, vagina or anus, these acts are risk free. Although the risks associated with non-penetrative sex acts are significantly less than those associated with penetrative sex, there are still risks that can occur.[11][12][13] There is a slight risk for pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) with certain non-penetrative sex acts.[59]

Pregnancy can still occur with anal sex or other forms of sexual activity where the penis is near the vagina (such as intercrural sex or other genital-genital rubbing) where sperm can be deposited near the entrance of the vagina and can travel along the vagina's lubricating fluids; the risk of pregnancy can also occur without the penis being near the vagina because sperm may be transported to the vaginal opening by the vagina coming in contact with fingers or other non-genital body parts that have come in contact with semen.[60][61][62] Contrary to a common misconception, it is not possible to get pregnant from semen released in a swimming pool or any body of water without penetration. The sperm cells would be quickly killed by the chlorinated water and would not survive long enough to reach the vagina.[63]

Like non-exclusive non-penetrative sex acts, STI transmission varies for exclusively non-penetrative sexual activities; some common STIs transmitted through exclusively non-penetrative sex acts, and how they are contracted, are the following:[64]

  • Crab lice (also known as pubic lice or crabs) can be spread through close contact with an infected person
  • Chancroid is spread through skin-to-skin contact when an infected individual has sores present and these sores come into contact with another individual (generally in the genital area)
  • Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is spread through coming into contact with various body secretions (saliva, genital excretions, blood etc.)
  • Genital warts is similar to herpes, but caused by a different virus. It is also spread by skin-to-skin contact with the genitals
  • Herpes can be spread through kissing or anytime an infected mouth or genitals comes into contact with another individual's mouth, genitals or hand (when it occurs on the genitals, it is known as genital herpes)
  • Human papillomavirus (HPV) is spread through skin-to-skin contact
  • Molluscum contagiosum is spread through close contact with an infected person (sharing personal items or close skin-to-skin contact)
  • Scabies is spread through close contact with an infected individual
  • Syphilis can be spread through kissing or manual sex, but is much more likely to be spread through vaginal, anal or oral intercourse
  • Trichomoniasis (trich) can be spread through sharing sex toys or any time genital fluid is passed from one person to another

With regard to non-exclusive non-penetrative sex acts, the risks somewhat increase because there is penetration (either of the vagina, anus or mouth) and there is the potential for bodily fluids (semen, vaginal secretions, saliva) to be exchanged. In addition to the aforementioned STIs, the following can be transmitted through non-exclusive non-penetrative sex acts:[65]

  • Chlamydia is generally spread through vaginal or anal intercourse; in rare cases, it may be spread through oral sex
  • Gonorrhoea is generally spread through vaginal or anal intercourse, though it may also be spread through oral sex
  • Hepatitis B can be spread through oral sex

Many individuals are concerned about the risk of HIV/AIDS.[13] Generally, a person must either have unprotected sexual intercourse (vaginal or anal), use an infected syringe or have the virus passed from mother to child to be infected.[13] A person cannot be infected from casual contact, such as hugging; however, there is some risk if HIV-infected blood or genital secretions (semen or vaginal secretions) enter an open wound.[13]

The only way for complete protection from pregnancy or STI risk is to completely abstain from all sexual activities. However, there are several ways to decrease the risk, should a person decide to be sexually active.

Some barrier methods include:

  • Condoms, which can provide STI protection
  • Dental dams, which offer STI protection during oral sex
  • Latex gloves or finger cots, which can be used during manual sex to prevent the risk of STI transmission[66]

If a person is concerned about the minor risk of pregnancy from non-penetrative sex, there are also several hormonal contraceptive birth control methods that can be used. Dual protection (using both a barrier device and hormonal method) can be significantly effective at preventing both pregnancy and STI transmission.[67]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Non-penetrative sex

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Non-penetrative sex, also referred to as outercourse, denotes sexual activities that exclude penetration of the , , or by a , fingers, , or objects. These encompass intimate physical interactions such as manual genital stimulation, frottage (genital-to-genital or body rubbing), intercrural thrusting ( between thighs), kissing, and caressing erogenous zones. Empirical studies highlight its role in sexual expression, often yielding orgasmic potential comparable to penetrative acts while prioritizing tactile and frictional pleasure over insertion. Promoted in contexts for and STI prevention, non-penetrative sex reduces transmission risks relative to coital intercourse by minimizing mucosal exposure to bodily fluids, though skin-to-skin contact or incidental fluid transfer retains some hazard. Peer-reviewed analyses affirm its viability as a contraceptive alternative and intimacy enhancer, particularly for individuals with erectile challenges or post-surgical recovery, where it correlates with sustained sexual and relational satisfaction. Defining characteristics include variability in cultural acceptance—ranging from endorsement in safer-sex to restriction in abstinence-focused paradigms—and its empirical linkage to lower rates without fully eliminating infection vectors like or HPV.

Definitions and etymology

Core definition and scope

Non-penetrative sex constitutes sexual activities that do not involve the insertion of the , fingers, , or objects into the , , or , thereby relying on external anatomical contact for stimulation. This functional boundary distinguishes it from penetrative acts, where mechanical insertion breaches internal bodily orifices, altering the dynamics of , , and potential fluid transfer through direct internal pathways. The emphasis lies in surface-level interactions that target erogenous zones without crossing these anatomical thresholds, aligning with practices designed for via extrinsic mechanics rather than invasive entry. The scope encompasses external genital contact, such as frottage involving genital-to-genital or genital-to-thigh rubbing; non-insertive manual stimulation of the genitals; and oral-genital contact, though the latter introduces classification variability since it entails insertion into the , an orifice not typically emphasized in non-penetrative delineations focused on lower-body orifices. Included variants feature dry humping, where partners achieve stimulation through clothed or unclothed body grinding without parting or entering orifices, and mutual limited to external handling of the , , or . Kissing, caresses, and other bodily proximities qualify when sexually motivated, extending the domain beyond genitals to holistic external intimacy. Ambiguities persist regarding borderline acts, such as shallow digital probing or application; these are excluded from non-penetrative categorization if any insertion occurs, as the act shifts from purely extrinsic to one involving internal , irrespective of limited depth. From a mechanistic standpoint, non-penetrative practices inherently prioritize superficial sensory over penetrative depth, reflecting an intent to sustain through sustained external pressure and motion without the causal commitment to orifice traversal.

Etymological origins

The term "petting," referring to deliberate physical contact short of , entered widespread American colloquial usage in the amid reports of youth "petting parties," which involved kissing, caressing, and manual stimulation and were often sensationalized in media as scandalous deviations from Victorian norms. This moralistic framing portrayed such acts as precursors to immorality, with national media in the highlighting them as post-World War I rebellions against repression, though they typically excluded penetrative elements. Alfred Kinsey's reports, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), reframed petting clinically as "deliberately touching body parts above or below the waist," documenting its prevalence through empirical surveys and shifting discourse from judgmental slang to objective sexological analysis. This mid-20th-century transition emphasized varied non-insertive practices, influencing broader terminology in academic and medical contexts to prioritize data over cultural stigma. The descriptive phrase "non-penetrative sex" arose in this sexological tradition, encompassing a range of genital and non-genital contacts without insertion, while "" specifically emerged in early materials as a for non-insertive alternatives promoted during the initial outbreak to reduce transmission risks. These terms marked a progression from archaic, value-laden expressions like petting to neutral, harm-reduction-oriented language in and clinical discourse.

Historical and cultural contexts

Pre-modern and ancient references

In ancient , the Kāma Sūtra, attributed to and dated roughly between 400 BCE and 200 CE, details external genital stimulation through manual touching, pressing, and oral acts (aupariṣṭhaka) as integral to sexual union, often serving as preliminary or standalone practices to heighten pleasure without penile-vaginal penetration. These techniques are framed within broader categories of embraces, kisses, and marks on the body, emphasizing sensory arousal over procreation, though textual emphasis remains on heterosexual norms and marital contexts. Archaeological evidence from , spanning the Archaic and Classical periods (c. 800–323 BCE), reveals —genital friction between the thighs—as a common non-penetrative form, particularly in pederastic pairings between adult men (erastai) and adolescent boys (), avoiding anal penetration to preserve the youth's future civic role. This is substantiated by over 200 surviving vase paintings, primarily red-figure from 570–470 BCE, showing the erastes embracing the eromenos from behind with thighs clasped, corroborated by poetic references to thigh intimacy in works like ' Clouds (423 BCE). In the , medical texts such as Soranus of Ephesus's Gynecology (c. 100 CE) address non-coital alternatives indirectly through contraception advice, including shallow penetration or post-ejaculatory maneuvers to avert conception, reflecting pragmatic considerations amid sterility concerns, though explicit endorsement of manual or oral methods is absent. Pompeian frescoes from before 79 CE further attest to depictions of manual stimulation and oral-genital contact in brothels, baths, and private villas, indicating cultural familiarity with such acts despite scarce literary documentation, likely due to societal focus on procreative intercourse and reticence toward non-reproductive pursuits. Overall, evidence remains fragmentary, constrained by perishable materials and elite biases in surviving records favoring penetrative or mythical narratives.

Religious and philosophical perspectives

In Abrahamic traditions, non-penetrative sexual acts outside marriage are typically deemed sinful, as they arouse and serve as precursors to , thereby threatening marital exclusivity and familial cohesion. Christian interprets :28—"everyone who looks at a with lustful intent has already committed with her in his heart"—as prohibiting any premarital genital contact or stimulation, including manual or frictional acts, which conservative scholars view as violations of bodily purity ordained for spousal union alone. Such practices are seen to erode , fostering habits that destabilize future households by prioritizing immediate gratification over covenantal commitment. Islamic similarly classifies non-penetrative intimacy with non-spouses—such as touching or fondling—as , constituting steps toward (unlawful ) that undermine and societal order. Texts emphasize avoiding "looking, touching, and being alone" with potential partners, as these acts kindle desire incompatible with the preservation of legitimate lineages and communal moral fabric. Enforcement of such restraints historically aimed at causal outcomes like reduced illegitimacy and strengthened patriarchal authority, prioritizing collective stability over individual impulses. Eastern philosophies, particularly , advocate restraint in sexual matters to uphold social harmony and hierarchical roles, regarding premarital non-penetrative acts as breaches of propriety that disrupt familial duties and procreative imperatives within wedlock. Sexuality is framed as a regulated function for lineage continuation, with extramarital expressions—even non-genital—deemed corrupting to moral cultivation and interpersonal equilibrium. Western philosophers like critiqued sexual drives as expressions of the insatiable will-to-life, wherein non-procreative acts, including non-penetrative ones, provide transient relief but perpetuate existential suffering by affirming blind perpetuation without advancing species renewal. In his view, such indulgences thwart denial of the will—the path to transcendence—while failing the metaphysical aim of , rendering them metaphysically futile amid the causal chain of desire and dissatisfaction. Some individuals, influenced by these religious or philosophical commitments to chastity, practice celibacy or limit sexual activity to non-penetrative, non-oral acts such as kissing, cuddling, frottage, or mutual masturbation, thereby avoiding oral and anal sex for reasons of personal conviction or doctrinal adherence.

Twentieth-century developments and modern prevalence

The publication of Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948 and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female in 1953 marked a pivotal advancement in sexological research, systematically documenting non-coital behaviors such as petting and manual stimulation as common components of expression. These reports revealed that, among married females who had achieved prior to , only 17% attributed those experiences primarily to penetrative , implying that non-penetrative activities accounted for the majority of pre-marital sexual outlets in this subset. Kinsey's findings, drawn from extensive interviews, challenged prevailing norms by quantifying the prevalence of such practices at 20-50% across samples for partnered manual and frictional stimulation leading to , though methodological critiques later highlighted potential sampling biases toward more sexually active respondents. During the 1980s AIDS crisis, initiatives emphasized risk-reduction strategies, positioning non-penetrative acts like oral-genital contact and mutual manual stimulation as viable alternatives to intercourse to minimize transmission. The CDC and related campaigns advocated for behaviors with lower per-act transmission risks, such as without semen exchange, contributing to broader awareness and adoption in safer sex education. This shift correlated with elevated reporting in subsequent surveys; the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) documented lifetime oral-genital experience among approximately 74% of men and 71% of women aged 18-59, reflecting increased normalization amid health-driven discourse, though self-reported data may understate due to residual stigma. Contemporary data from probability-based surveys indicate lifetime engagement in non-penetrative practices exceeds 70-80% for adults, with alone reported by over 80% of men and 70% of women born after 1942, and higher rates in LGBTQ+ populations where alternative genital stimulation is more routinely documented. In heterosexual monogamous contexts, prevalence remains stable at similar levels, often as adjuncts to coital activity rather than primaries, per analyses of national samples showing consistent patterns since the despite varying cultural attitudes. These figures, while robust across U.S.-focused studies, warrant caution given potential underreporting in conservative subgroups and the influence of evolving survey methodologies on apparent stability.

Types and techniques

Non-genital physical intimacy

Non-genital encompasses tactile interactions such as kissing, caressing, and full-body contact that stimulate sensory nerves and foster emotional bonding without involving genital regions. These acts serve as precursors to by activating erogenous zones distributed across the body, including the neck, ears, inner thighs, and forearms, where light touch elicits heightened sensitivity due to dense concentrations of mechanoreceptors and free nerve endings. Kissing, ranging from gentle lip contact to deeper oral involvement, triggers physiological responses that enhance attachment and desire. Studies indicate that such contact promotes oxytocin release, a associated with pair-bonding, as observed in ecological momentary assessments linking touch intensity to elevated oxytocin levels. Caressing involves stroking erogenous non-genital areas like the nape of the or small of the back, which surveys of over 700 participants identify as potent for generating erotic sensations through somatosensory cortical mapping. Full-body embraces, such as prolonged hugging exceeding six seconds, maximize oxytocin and serotonin output, contributing to sensory escalation akin to foreplay mechanics. Sensual massage extends these techniques by systematically applying pressure and strokes to amplify via endorphin pathways, with empirical showing touch-based stimulation reduces stress markers while heightening sensory in targeted zones. This form of intimacy leverages anatomical responsiveness, as neuroscientific mappings confirm non-genital regions like the inner thighs respond to tactile input with arousal potential comparable to more direct stimuli in self-reported intensity. Overall, these practices build cumulative tension through cascades, emphasizing relational proximity over isolated genital focus.

Manual and frictional genital stimulation

Manual genital stimulation refers to the use of hands to directly contact and manipulate a partner's external genitalia, targeting sensitive areas such as the clitoris, labia, or penile shaft and glans to induce arousal through pressure, stroking, and circular motions. Techniques differ by anatomy: for females, emphasis on clitoral hood retraction and rhythmic rubbing activates approximately 8,000 nerve endings concentrated there, while for males, encircling the corona with varying grip simulates thrusting dynamics. Lubricants may be employed to optimize glide and prevent skin irritation from excessive friction. Frictional stimulation, known as frottage, involves non-insertive rubbing of genitals against a partner's body, genitals, or clothing, generating pleasure via sustained mechanical shear on erogenous tissues. Grinding or humping through clothes on the buttocks during hugging, often from behind, provides genital stimulation via friction and pressure, potentially leading to erection, lubrication, or orgasm without direct skin-to-skin genital contact, while enhancing emotional closeness and foreplay. In a standing position, a woman may rhythmically rub or bounce her genital area against a man's erection (often through clothing), known as grinding or dry humping, which indicates sexual arousal, attraction, and desire for intimate stimulation or foreplay; it provides clitoral stimulation for her and friction for him, and can be teasing or flirtatious (e.g., during dancing), serving as a prelude to further activity without implying immediate intercourse. In Reddit and forum discussions, experiences vary greatly depending on individuals, but a common pattern reported is that the male tends to orgasm first during dry humping. This is often attributed to intense direct friction on the penis through clothing, leading to quicker climax, while females may require more specific or prolonged clitoral stimulation and often report taking longer or not orgasming at all from dry humping alone. Some users report females orgasming first or multiple times when controlling the pace. In male-male contexts, this often manifests as penis-to-penis contact, where synchronized grinding leverages the ' sensitivity for reciprocal without penetration. Biomechanically, the practice exploits skin-on-skin traction to stimulate Pacinian and Meissner corpuscles, amplifying and pre-ejaculatory responses. Intercrural sex entails inserting the between the receiving partner's closed thighs, followed by forward thrusting to create enveloping friction akin to coital motion but externally. This method confines contact to the penile shaft and perineal region, reducing mucosal exposure compared to insertive acts. data from targeted surveys indicate usage rates up to 82.9% among certain female cohorts, though broader heterosexual adoption remains lower. Mutual masturbation combines these elements bilaterally, with partners facing or adjacent while manually stimulating each other, fostering synchronized pacing and visual cues for enhanced efficacy. A 2023 study of heterosexual adults found recent engagement in 48.3% of men and 53.8% of women, correlating with elevated sexual and satisfaction scores. attainment in such partnered manual scenarios reaches 65-81% for clitoral-focused , outperforming penetrative methods for many women due to precise targeting of external clusters.

Oral and adjunct practices

Oral practices within non-penetrative sex include , defined as stimulation of the or using the mouth, lips, and ; , involving oral contact with the ; and , targeting the . These methods qualify as non-penetrative by excluding penile insertion into vaginal or anal orifices, though the may probe superficially to elicit sensory responses via endings in erogenous zones. Techniques emphasize variability in pressure, speed, and patterns—such as flat- laps, pointed flicks, or suction—to align with real-time partner feedback, fostering through direct neural stimulation rather than mechanical depth. Empirical data from a 2020 U.S. survey of over 1,000 adults revealed that more than 80% derive pleasure from , attributing satisfaction to its intimacy and targeted clitoral or focus, though 73.5% also noted enjoyment in the act's playful elements. A Canadian study of heterosexual university students found 73% of men and 69% of women rating receipt of as "very pleasurable," underscoring gender-specific peaks in orgasmic potential when techniques adapt to anatomical sensitivities like the clitoris's 8,000 nerve endings versus penile distribution. Variability persists due to individual sensory thresholds, with effective practice hinging on verbal or nonverbal cues to refine loops of stimulation and response. Adjunct tools, such as external , enhance these practices by delivering vibrational stimuli to genitals without insertion, often applied to the , , or shaft for amplified feedback. Devices like or wand-style vibrators enable non-penetrative augmentation, with users reporting broader erogenous mapping through adjustable intensities that complement oral efforts by sustaining via mechanical oscillation on surface tissues. This external focus preserves the non-penetrative boundary while leveraging consistent energy transfer, distinct from manual friction by introducing programmable patterns tailored to sensory endurance.

Health implications

Pregnancy prevention efficacy

Non-penetrative sex, by definition excluding penile-vaginal penetration, prevents through the absence of direct deposition into the , which is required for sufficient motile to traverse the and reach the fallopian tubes for fertilization. viability outside the body diminishes rapidly due to exposure to air, temperature changes, and drying, rendering external ineffective for conception unless transferred internally in viable quantities. Activities such as dry humping with clothing intact, including grinding or humping on the buttocks during hugging, eliminate risk entirely in most cases, as cannot penetrate fabric barriers to enter the vaginal canal, though a minor risk may exist if semen contacts the vulva through thin fabric. Potential failure modes include inadvertent transfer via fingers, shared fluids, or proximity to the after external , though such scenarios yield negligible probability due to low and concentration post-transfer. fluid may contain trace from prior emissions but typically insufficient for fertilization without deeper deposition. Medical consensus holds outercourse as approaching 100% effective when strictly limiting genital fluids from vaginal contact, contrasting sharply with the withdrawal method's typical-use of 22%, where and timing errors enable internal exposure. No peer-reviewed studies document pregnancies solely from pure non-penetrative acts in controlled cohorts, underscoring the method's biological reliability absent in boundary adherence.

Sexually transmitted infection risks

Non-penetrative sexual activities, such as manual stimulation, genital rubbing, and oral-genital contact, present varying risks of (STI) transmission depending on the and contact type. Blood-borne viruses like exhibit negligible transmission risk absent direct blood exposure, such as through open cuts or shared needles during mutual or fingering; multiple public health analyses classify these acts as carrying zero or extremely low likelihood without fluid exchange into the bloodstream. In contrast, skin-to-skin contact facilitates efficient spread of viruses like human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes simplex virus (HSV), which do not require fluid exchange and can transmit via shedding from genital or surrounding skin. Clothed activities like grinding or humping through clothes reduce but do not eliminate STI risks if bodily fluids are exchanged. HPV primarily spreads through direct epithelial contact, with studies documenting positive HPV DNA detection in 9.7% of virginal women engaging solely in non-penetrative sexual contact over follow-up periods. HSV transmission occurs via mucosal or cutaneous contact with active or latent lesions, yielding annual rates of 5-10% in discordant heterosexual couples without consistent barriers, even absent visible outbreaks. These realities underscore that non-penetrative acts do not preclude substantial risk for contact-dependent STIs, challenging assumptions of inherent "safety" in avoiding penetration. Oral-genital and oral-anal practices elevate risks for bacterial infections, particularly pharyngeal and , as pathogens from infected genitals can colonize the throat during or . CDC data affirm that and transmit via , with pharyngeal prevalence reaching 3.1% among men exposed only to urethral infections through receiving from women. Transmission probabilities for from infected genitals to throat range from 5.6% to 15.6% per act in some estimates, while throat infections similarly arise from oral exposure, though less frequently documented. Pharyngeal cases contribute notably to overall STI burdens, with at least 40% of female and 50% of male diagnoses involving non-genital sites potentially linked to oral practices. Barrier methods, including condoms for manual or frictional acts and dental dams for oral contact, mitigate but do not fully eliminate risks, as they fail to cover all transmissible skin areas and depend on consistent, correct application. CDC guidelines emphasize that while latex barriers reduce fluid-transmitted STI acquisition, skin-contact viruses like HPV and HSV persist in uncovered regions, rendering protection incomplete.

Physical health benefits and drawbacks

Non-penetrative sex reduces physical strain on erectile function, enabling sexual activity without reliance on sustained penetration, which benefits individuals with erectile difficulties. A 2023 study of men aged 50 and older found that non-penetrative partnered activities correlated with greater sexual satisfaction despite erectile challenges, as they diminish pressure to achieve or maintain erections for intercourse. Similarly, a 2024 analysis of partners of men post-radical prostatectomy with erectile dysfunction showed that non-penetrative practices enhanced overall sexual fulfillment by shifting focus from penile erection. It also lowers risks of insertion-related trauma, such as microtears in vaginal or anal tissues, which occur in up to 20-30% of penetrative encounters per gynecological reports on causes. Non-penetrative alternatives like manual or stimulation avoid such mechanical stress, resulting in reduced reports of acute pain or discomfort during acts. from grinding or dry humping, however, including through clothes on the buttocks during hugging, can cause or , though physical risks remain low overall when consensual. Medical sources document cases of flushed, swollen penile or vulvar leading to minor wounds that heal in days but risk secondary if untreated, particularly with vigorous or prolonged contact without . Oral-genital contact introduces jaw strain risks, including aggravation from sustained mouth opening or repetitive motion. Clinicians report TMJ symptom flares, such as pain or popping, during , especially in those with preexisting disorders, potentially limiting activity duration and causing post-act soreness. Physiologically, orgasm attainment—a measurable endpoint of —shows variability; clitoral-focused non-penetrative methods yield higher female rates than unassisted penetration alone (where only 18-25% of women ), yet aggregate data reveal a 20-40 gap, with men achieving climax in 70-90% of encounters versus 50-60% for women across partnered types. This disparity may contribute to residual physical tension in unfulfilled participants, though direct causation remains understudied.

Psychological and relational impacts

Non-penetrative sexual activities, such as mutual manual , kissing, and frictional genital contact, can trigger oxytocin release through skin-to-skin contact and , promoting emotional similar to other forms of . This hormonal response aligns with principles, where secure partners in committed relationships experience enhanced relational closeness and trust without the physiological demands of penetration. In longitudinal studies of early marriages, higher overall sexual satisfaction—including diverse practices—bidirectionally correlates with sustained relationship quality over 4-5 years, suggesting non-penetrative elements contribute to variety and responsiveness in stable pairs. However, in casual or uncommitted contexts, the same oxytocin-mediated bonding can foster unintended attachment, increasing vulnerability to emotional distress. Studies on hookup experiences report rates of approximately 72-78% among participants, with women experiencing roughly twice the incidence (46%) compared to men (23%), often linked to mismatched expectations and post-event anxiety. This aligns with causal patterns where non-penetrative acts, intended as low-commitment alternatives, still activate pair-bonding mechanisms, potentially leading to relational confusion or one-sided investment. Regarding satisfaction, non-penetrative practices may offer short-term novelty and in relationships but show limited of equaling penetrative for long-term fulfillment. In dyadic analyses, sexual satisfaction strongly predicts future relationship satisfaction, particularly for men, yet exclusive reliance on non-penetrative methods has not demonstrated buffering against declines in overall marital . Among older couples, non-intercourse intimacy sustains some desire but often correlates with reduced peak satisfaction compared to penetrative-inclusive routines. Potential drawbacks include escalation pressures, where partners perceive non-penetrative sex as preliminary, fostering feelings of inadequacy or unmet needs in 15-20% of cases per self-reported relational data from casual encounters transitioning to ongoing dynamics. Insecure attachment styles exacerbate this, with avoidant individuals reporting lower intimacy and excitement from such activities, contributing to cycles of dissatisfaction or avoidance. Empirical patterns indicate these impacts are more pronounced when practices substitute rather than complement penetrative in committed bonds, potentially straining communication and equity.

Societal and ethical debates

Promotion in casual and hookup contexts

In , which gained prominence among young adults in the post-2000s period as a norm of uncommitted sexual encounters, non-penetrative sex is often positioned as a low-risk, low-commitment entry point for physical gratification without the perceived obligations of penetrative intercourse. This framing aligns with broader cultural shifts toward casual intimacy, where activities like manual stimulation, dry humping, and mutual masturbation are marketed as boundaries that preserve and minimize relational entanglements. However, longitudinal surveys of college students reveal that such practices frequently occur alongside or transition into more invasive acts, with one analysis of recent hookups showing penetrative sex (protected or unprotected) comprising about 58% of encounters compared to 41% non-penetrative, indicating limited efficacy as a standalone restraint in casual settings. Media and resources have amplified this promotion, portraying non-penetrative options as empowering alternatives in casual contexts. For instance, a December 2022 Teen Vogue guide highlighted dry humping, hand stimulation, and side-by-side as accessible for those "not ready" for intercourse, emphasizing pleasure and while framing them as routine in exploratory hookups. Such coverage, echoed in broader hookup-oriented narratives, tends to underscore physical safety and immediacy over potential psychological sequelae, despite evidence from hookup progression data where initial non-penetrative boundaries erode in 36-60% of first-semester college experiences, often escalating to oral, vaginal, or anal involvement. Empirical reviews challenge the downplayed emotional dimensions, with a 2020 synthesis of 71 studies on ual relationships and experiences documenting prevalent negative outcomes like and lowered mood, particularly post-encounter, even in non-penetrative scenarios integrated into hookup dynamics. College-focused research further links broadly—including boundary-testing variants—to elevated depression risk, with women reporting disproportionately adverse reactions such as emotional distress in meta-analytic aggregates. These findings suggest that promotional narratives, by prioritizing low-commitment appeal, overlook causal pathways where repeated casual engagements foster attachment mismatches and erosion, as evidenced by short-term prospective links between hookup frequency and heightened anxiety or depressive symptoms. Prevalence data affirm non-penetrative acts as a common casual staple, with over 40% of first-year college hookups involving such behaviors per cohort tracking, yet the normalization rarely addresses how they serve as gateways amplifying overall exposure to these unintended relational and costs.

Critiques from abstinence and monogamy advocates

Abstinence advocates, including participants in the True Love Waits campaign launched in 1994 by the , maintain that non-penetrative sexual activities constitute a violation of commitments to sexual purity, extending beyond intercourse to include behaviors such as petting and mutual stimulation, which they argue foster moral erosion and habituate individuals to gratifying sexual impulses outside marital bounds. These proponents posit that such practices represent incremental slippage toward full premarital sexual involvement, undermining the discipline required for lifelong and increasing vulnerability to relational instability. Empirical data supports advocates' concerns regarding long-term marital outcomes, with analyses of U.S. National Survey of Family Growth data indicating that women with any premarital sexual partners—encompassing non-penetrative encounters—experience approximately 50% higher odds of compared to those who abstain until , even after controlling for early-life factors like family structure and . This elevated risk persists across partner counts from one to eight, suggesting that early non-committed sexual experiences, regardless of penetration, correlate with diminished marital durability, as they may normalize provisional attachments over covenantal permanence. Monogamy proponents, drawing on data from religious communities emphasizing marital exclusivity, highlight superior health metrics in committed contexts; for instance, long-term mutually unions—prevalent among evangelicals adhering to norms—exhibit markedly lower transmission rates than non-monogamous or premarital arrangements, with or reducing HIV and other STI incidences by orders of magnitude through minimized partner accumulation. Similarly, Institute for Family Studies research on evangelical populations links strict within marriage to enhanced outcomes, including lower depression and anxiety rates, attributed to the stability of singular, procreative-oriented bonds over fragmented casual encounters. From a philosophical standpoint rooted in natural law traditions, advocates contend that non-penetrative sex deviates from the inherent teleological purpose of human sexuality as oriented toward procreation and spousal unity, decoupling pleasure from reproduction and thereby contributing to societal fertility declines; in nations with widespread acceptance of non-procreative sexual norms post-1960s, total fertility rates have fallen below replacement levels (e.g., 1.6 births per woman in the U.S. by 2023), exacerbating demographic contraction and straining family structures without offsetting cultural incentives for childbearing. This shift, they argue, erodes the causal linkage between sexual expression and familial propagation, fostering environments where individual gratification supplants collective generational continuity.

Empirical evidence on long-term outcomes

Longitudinal analyses of sexual behavior patterns indicate that reliance on non-penetrative practices in place of penetrative intercourse substantially lowers cumulative STI incidence over time, as transmission risks per encounter are markedly reduced for pathogens requiring mucosal or fluid exchange, though skin-to-skin contact can still transmit or HPV in rare cases. This effect holds in cohort studies tracking young adults, where those favoring outercourse report fewer lifetime diagnoses compared to peers with early penetrative histories, independent of use inconsistencies. However, non-penetrative sex in serial casual partnerships offers no safeguard against emotional and psychological fragmentation, with quantitative reviews of 71 studies documenting heightened , anxiety, and diminished among participants, particularly women, following such encounters. A six-month follow-up of students engaging in hookups, inclusive of non-coital acts, revealed poorer subsequent psychological health metrics, including elevated depression scores, relative to non-participants. These outcomes persist longitudinally, correlating with challenges in forming stable attachments later, as multiple partner exposures disrupt pair-bonding mechanisms irrespective of penetration. Within established marriages, integration of non-penetrative activities as adjuncts to intercourse enhances overall satisfaction, with from men aged 50+ showing inverse associations between such practices and erectile difficulties, alongside elevated sexual and relational fulfillment scores. Casual non-penetrative engagement prior to or outside commitment, by contrast, aligns with diminished long-term relationship quality, mirroring broader premarital partner count effects in national surveys where higher histories predict marital dissolution risks up to 50% above virgin-marriers. Adherents to conservative sexual frameworks, which restrict penetrative acts and emphasize bounded non-penetrative intimacy, demonstrate superior marital outcomes in population data; Republican couples, proxying such norms, report "very happy" unions at 65% versus 54% for Democrats, with parallel stability advantages persisting post-controls for demographics. Claims overstating harms of these approaches, often from progressive-leaning critiques, underweight this evidence, as conservative newlyweds sustain comparable or higher satisfaction despite potential short-term constraints.

References

  1. https://www.smsna.org/patients/did-you-know/outercourse
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11056093/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4064672/
  4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9279283/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10903707/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4240060/
  7. https://www.lybrate.com/topic/non-penetrative-sex-important-facts-to-know/44f9acdee7513db4572900951cfb0bf6
  8. https://www.naturalcycles.com/cyclematters/sex-without-penetration
  9. https://www.choosingtherapy.com/non-penetrative-sex/
  10. https://www.better2know.co.uk/blog/outercourse-what-it-is-how-to-practice-it-and-its-benefits/
  11. https://issuu.com/usuextension/docs/the_2022_utah_college_sexual_behavior_survey_init/s/21600644
  12. https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a63116017/what-is-intercrural-sex/
  13. https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/05/26/409126557/when-petting-parties-scandalized-the-nation
  14. https://www.womansday.com/relationships/dating-marriage/a54947/history-of-dating-in-america/
  15. https://time.com/4337410/history-dating-rituals/
  16. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/be64e16a-c029-4e4d-b6f9-0bc169f6dab7/content
  17. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-world-history-of-sexualities/sexual-science-in-history/BFFCA60E1B8640105DA8728DA048770A
  18. https://sacred-texts.com/sex/kama/kama209.htm
  19. https://archive.org/stream/kama-sutra/KamaSutra_djvu.txt
  20. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/8/2/47
  21. https://academic.oup.com/book/5867/chapter/149129135
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8567737/
  23. https://www.iflscience.com/pompeiis-suburban-bath-frescoes-reveal-insights-into-roman-sexuality-75408
  24. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/how-far-is-too-far-before-marriage
  25. https://www.bereanpatriot.com/biblically-how-far-can-christians-go-physically-sexually-before-marriage/
  26. https://voices.lifeway.com/discipleship-evangelism/6-ways-to-know-if-a-sexual-act-is-a-sin/
  27. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/27259
  28. https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/77490/what-is-the-punishment-for-unlawful-non-penetrative-sex
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4235616/
  30. https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat11/sub76/entry-4486.html
  31. https://www.samwoolfe.com/2020/08/schopenhauer-on-sex-and-romantic-love.html
  32. https://philarchive.org/archive/WOOSSE
  33. https://www.healthline.com/health/healthy-sex/abstinence
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1447862/
  35. https://www.butler-bowdon.com/alfred-kinsey---sexuality-in-the-human-female.html
  36. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218623/
  37. https://icpsr.umich.edu/web/HMCA/studies/6647/summary
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6327665/
  39. https://gss.norc.org/content/dam/gss/get-documentation/pdf/reports/topical-reports/sextrend042-13.pdf
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7641941/
  41. https://time.com/98088/the-most-erogenous-parts-of-the-female-body-ranked-by-science/
  42. https://elifesciences.org/articles/81241
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010945213001822
  44. https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/cuddle-and-hug-your-way-to-better-health
  45. https://www.healthline.com/health/how-to-increase-endorphins
  46. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/07/neuroscientists-sex-brain
  47. https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/oxytocin-the-love-hormone
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609519314705
  49. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19317611.2023.2237950
  50. https://www.wellandgood.com/lifestyle/what-is-frottage-sex
  51. https://www.grindr.com/blog/what-is-frotting
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10994778/
  53. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/jounal-article-info/JSM-Sexual-Medicine/Heterosexual-Women%25E2%2580%2599s-Most-Reliable-Route-to-Orgasm-during-Partnered-Sex-Versus-Masturbation-12135
  54. https://journals.lww.com/menopausejournal/fulltext/2025/10000/masturbation_frequency_and_experiences_among_us.3.aspx
  55. https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-is-oral-sex
  56. https://www.verywellhealth.com/oral-sex-5079507
  57. https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/oral-sex-techniques
  58. https://bespokesurgical.com/2020/03/09/oral-sex-in-america/
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293015327_Was_it_good_for_you_too_An_analysis_of_gender_differences_in_oral_sex_practices_and_pleasure_ratings_among_heterosexual_Canadian_university_students
  60. https://dame.com/blogs/sexual-wellness/intro-to-external-vibrators
  61. https://www.buzzfeed.com/negestikaudo/non-penetrative-external-sex-toys
  62. https://bedbible.com/hands-free-vibrator/
  63. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/abstinence-and-outercourse/how-effective-are-abstinence-and-outercourse
  64. https://www.verywellhealth.com/dry-humping-8686784
  65. https://www.bedsider.org/features/95-um-can-i-get-pregnant-if
  66. https://www.healthline.com/health/healthy-sex/outercourse
  67. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/dry-humping
  68. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method/how-effective-is-withdrawal-method-pulling-out
  69. https://www.thewellproject.org/hiv-information/hiv-transmission
  70. https://gmhc.org/resources/hiv-transmission/
  71. https://www.cdc.gov/sti/about/about-sti-risk-and-oral-sex.html
  72. https://www.cdc.gov/condom-use/resources/dental-dam.html
  73. https://www.cdc.gov/sti/prevention/index.html
  74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39490901/
  75. https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/friction-burn-penis
  76. https://www.issm.info/sexual-health-headlines/jaw-disorders-and-their-effect-on-sexual-health
  77. https://tmj.org/living-with-tmj/stigmas-and-related-topics/intimacy/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11217024/
  79. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29079939/
  80. https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-6220/full/v7/i2/17.htm
  81. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/275795
  82. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mental-health-nerd/202408/how-non-sexual-physical-affection-enhances-sexual-connection
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4472635/
  84. https://ifstudies.org/blog/confronting-the-toll-of-hookup-culture
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8853360/
  86. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/strictly-casual/201405/after-casual-sex-do-we-feel-rush-or-regret
  87. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27077235/
  88. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/202107/older-lovers-say-they-want-regular-sex-not-intercourse
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5184218/
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886919303630
  91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38596765/
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3613286/
  93. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/02/ce-corner
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886921000568
  95. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/non-penetrative-sex
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2932467/
  97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32991206/
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7871523/
  99. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/having-sex-with-lots-of-different-people-depression
  100. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2015_Vrangalova_ASB.pdf
  101. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2812%2900351-5/pdf
  102. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/11525/research.pdf?sequence=3
  103. https://wpln.org/post/30-years-later-the-evangelical-purity-movement-still-impacts-sex-education/
  104. https://ifstudies.org/blog/testing-common-theories-on-the-relationship-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability
  105. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38571758/
  106. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/premarital-sex-and-greater-risk-of-divorce/
  107. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2372732220943228
  108. https://ifstudies.org/blog/sex-and-the-single-evangelical
  109. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14885/
  110. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/reproductive-health/articles/10.3389/frph.2024.1364352/full
  111. https://www.verywellhealth.com/stdsti-risks-of-dry-humpingskintoskin-contact-3133093
  112. https://www.healthline.com/health/healthy-sex/frottage-hiv-risk
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3213401/
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8579856/
  115. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379734380_The_Longitudinal_Relationships_among_Casual_Sex_and_Psychological_Well-Being_in_Chinese_College_Student
  116. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-impact-of-casual-sex-on-mental-health-5179455
  117. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19317611.2023.2169850
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10989935/
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X22001119
  120. https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-republican-marriage-advantage-partisanship-marriage-and-family-stability-in-the-trump-era
  121. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstreams/b2c4a10f-3ec6-4975-bade-0073032e618c/download
  122. https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3206&context=gradschool_theses
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.