Perceived emotional and sexual satisfaction across sexual relationship contexts: Gender and sexual orientation differences and similarities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite general perceptions of committed romantic relationships as the most satisfying context with which to engage in sexual activity, acceptance of casual sexual contexts has increased in recent years. Yet little research has examined sexual and emotional satisfaction outside of the committed relationship context. Further, most satisfaction research has focused exclusively on heterosexual samples. The present study aimed to investigate sexual and emotional satisfaction derived from seven sexual relationship contexts and note similarities or differences based on gender and sexual orientation. Data were drawn from an online survey of 6,955 sexually diverse participants. Sexual satisfaction was stronger than emotional satisfaction within casual sex contexts (one night stand, first date, sex with a friend, and hookups) than within more committed contexts (married, living together, committed unmarried relationship). Men found all contexts except for sex in a committed unmarried relationship significantly more sexually and emotionally satisfying than women. Emotional and sexual satisfaction were significantly different across sexual orientation groups in casual sexual relationship contexts but not in more committed relationship contexts. Gay men reported gaining the most sexual and emotional satisfaction out of casual sex contexts, with lesbian women reporting the least out of casual sexual contexts. Overall, this research found that a wide variety of relationship contexts, including casual sexual contexts, can be a source of both sexual and emotional satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".