How We Research

Dot Sexual exists because sexual-health answers online are often confident, commercial and impossible to verify. Our job is the opposite: show the reader exactly what an answer rests on.

The short version: we start with a real adult question, build a source packet before writing, cite claims at the sentence level, publish disagreements and unknowns, and correct the record visibly.

The research desk workflow

1. Find the question. We collect recurring, generalisable questions adults ask in public forums and search engines. We paraphrase patterns; we do not copy a person’s story.
2. Screen for safety. We discard anything involving a minor, a request for personal diagnosis, an emergency, abuse detail, illegal-drug instructions or a question that cannot be answered responsibly in general terms.
3. Build the evidence packet. Before drafting, we list every material claim the article needs to make and attach the strongest available source, publication date and access date.
4. Compare before we conclude. If guidelines, clinics or studies differ, the range and the reason for disagreement go on the page. We do not average conflicting instructions into a fake certainty.
5. Write in the reader’s words. Headings keep the shape of the question. The opening capsule gives the direct answer, followed by evidence, exceptions and red flags.
6. Run the pre-publish checks. Citations must support the exact sentence, numbers must match the source, links must open, and medical or legal wording must stay inside general information.
7. Review and update. Living pages carry an evidence-checked date and an update log. New evidence, broken links, changed prices and reader-flagged errors trigger review.

What you will see on an article

• A clearly labelled question: either a paraphrased recurring adult question asked online, or a genuine reader submission after our form opens.
• A short answer capsule near the top.
• A “How we answered this” note explaining the source types used and any important disagreement.
• Numbered citations beside the claims they support—not a decorative source list dumped at the end.
• Practical charts or timelines where comparing dates, sizes, prices or study results is the point.
• A red-flag section on medical-adjacent topics and a reminder that a reader’s own clinician or discharge sheet overrides general information.
• “What we don’t know” where evidence is thin, old, indirect or missing.
• A typed reference list with title, publisher, year where available, link and access date.
• An update log for substantive changes.

Our source hierarchy

1. Guidelines and official bodies — for example WHO, national health services, public-health agencies, regulators, specialty societies and official programme authorities in the countries covered.
2. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarise a body of human evidence.
3. Randomised and other controlled trials, read for population, dose, duration and measured outcome—not just the headline.
4. Observational studies, surveys and government statistics, with limits stated.
5. Primary legal material — statutes, rules and court judgments for the countries and jurisdictions covered.
6. Official product, laboratory and clinic pages — used for specifications, pack contents, instructions, prices and availability only, not as independent proof that a product works.
7. Everything else — background and discovery only, never the sole support for a health or legal claim.

Reddit and other forums sit below this hierarchy for facts: tier zero. They help us discover wording, confusion and follow-up questions. They do not establish what is true.

How we use public forums ethically

• Manual, read-only research. Dot Sexual does not post, reply, seed links, run disguised brand accounts or try to steer threads.
• Patterns are paraphrased. We do not publish usernames, profile links, screenshots, exact post text or identifying life details.
• We do not pretend a forum pattern was emailed to us, and we do not invent a reader’s name, age or city.
• Any item indicating a minor or a school context is discarded.
• A repeated forum claim is treated as a hypothesis to check against primary sources, not as a finding.

Product, price and country checks

For condom width, lubricant ingredients, toy materials, test menus and delivery packaging, the useful evidence is often a label, standard, catalogue or dated checkout screen. We record the country or market, the brand’s exact wording, the pack or page checked, the currency where relevant and the date. Prices are snapshots, not promises.

We do not claim “hands-on testing” unless a physical check was actually done and the method is described. We do not copy another website’s chart values and present the work as our own. When our own packaging or pack photograph is used, names, addresses and order numbers are redacted before publication.

AI assistance and human responsibility

Dot Sexual is an independent, AI-assisted research desk. AI may help collect questions, organise sources, draft structure and generate original flat illustrations. It is never cited as an authority and it does not replace reading the underlying source.

The publisher remains responsible for approval. A page should not publish if a claim cannot be traced to a source a reader can open and check.

What we will not do

• Invent search volumes, statistics, interviews, case stories or expert reviewers.
• Turn a personal medical question into a diagnosis or treatment plan.
• Publish dosage advice for an individual.
• Hide a conflict between sources because one answer is cleaner.
• Sell a “cure” for a normal body function.
• Silently rewrite a substantive error. See our corrections policy.

The boundary

Good research can explain what published sources say in general. It cannot examine you, see your reports or know your medicines and history. For personal care, use Talk to a real clinician. Dot Sexual’s limits are also set out in the medical disclaimer and legal disclaimer.

Last reviewed: 21 October 2026.