Straight answers.

No, and that's a design decision, not a legal hedge. MetaQon Intimacy Wellness is an advisory wellness system. It identifies patterns, explains what's likely limiting you, and shows what's worth investigating and with whom. Diagnosis and treatment stay with your qualified clinician, where they belong.

Sometimes. But "stress" and "age" are the two answers people are handed when nobody has looked properly. Underneath them sit specific, addressable things: sleep debt, a medicine started eight months ago, hormonal life-stage change, pain that taught the body to brace, an untreated metabolic issue, or an unrepaired conflict that never got named. Which one it is changes everything about what you should do.

Then you don't. Consent is resolved per item and always to the stricter of your two settings. If either of you keeps something private, it is never entered into a shared view, never summarised into one, and never revealed as existing. Couples' features are entirely optional. The system works perfectly well for one person alone.

No, and we won't build it to. Compatibility, fidelity, attachment style, orientation and trustworthiness cannot be read from biology, and any product claiming otherwise is overreaching. What the system can do is show where two people's capacity, rhythms and stress are pulling in different directions, which is a solvable problem, not a verdict.

No. It starts with your experience and your context, which is where the most useful information lives anyway. If you already have results, or if a practitioner recommends looking further, those refine a picture that already exists. They never generate conclusions on their own.

Because the underlying physiology isn't ours. It is established, peer-reviewed and cited. What we contribute is integration and ordering: reading well-known mechanisms as one continuous system, and being explicit about what each finding can and cannot support. Practitioner review sits above sensitive output, every recommendation is tagged with its owner, and the audit trail is immutable. It's built to strengthen your judgement, not substitute for it.

You need to be qualified, not necessarily a physician. It's built for clinicians, psychologists, sexual-health and relationship specialists, pelvic-health practitioners and health coaches, with each layer scoped to what that profession can responsibly act on. Sensitive domains remain professional-owned regardless of who's holding the account.

No, and the distinction is the heart of how this works. A conventional genetic report reads your genes and tells you something about you. We use genetic sensitivity for something narrower and far more useful: understanding how your pathways tend to express, so that your symptoms, life context, history, blood biomarkers and wearable signals get interpreted against your biology rather than the average person's. Two people with identical bloods and identical sleep can sit in very different places, and sensitivity is part of why. It explains the expression. It never predicts the person, it is consulted last, it never speaks on its own, and where it disagrees with what your body is actually doing, your body wins.

Six streams, read together. Your symptoms and how much they distress you. Your life context and your medicines, with timelines. Your past experiences, which are biological information rather than background colour, gathered only with your consent. Your blood biomarkers where they exist and are warranted. Wearable-derived signals such as sleep, recovery, autonomic state and cycle phase, which supply the continuity a single blood draw cannot. And genetic sensitivity, last and least authoritative, to interpret the rest against your own biology. No single stream is sufficient alone, which is precisely why they are read together.

Every quarter, or every six months if that suits your life better. At each review the whole picture is re-read: what moved, what didn't, what stopped being the limiting factor, and what should now take its place. The guidance is then recalibrated against the body you have now. A protocol written against last spring's biology is a guess by autumn, and guidance that never changes was never personalised to begin with.

The things that move the balance: nutraceutical guidance reasoned from the specific pathway rather than a shotgun stack, food and nutrition recommendations, sleep guidance, lifestyle and movement sequencing, breathwork and relaxation for the nervous system's guard state, and nature immersion. They are deliberately ordinary, because ordinary daily inputs are where most of the real movement in this domain comes from. Note what is not on that list: drugs, hormones, procedures and dosing. Those belong to your clinician, and nothing here substitutes for them or works around them.

Both, because they aren't separable. Bodies affect how two people treat each other, and how two people treat each other affects bodies. Reading only one side is exactly why so much advice in this area fails.

Privacy is a design precondition here rather than a feature. Every intimate variable carries an explicit, revocable permission; shared computation is confined to what both people have approved; sensitive domains stay professional-owned; and a review layer with an audit trail governs what gets presented and to whom. The system is designed to operate within applicable wellness and data-protection frameworks.

It won't promise pleasure. Nobody honestly can. Pain, illness, medicines, depression, sensory differences and simply not being interested right now are all real, and no amount of good context overrides them. What we offer is a far better chance: fewer wrong turns, less time lost to the wrong explanation, and a clear view of what's actually within reach.