Why have sex? Reasons for having sex among lesbian, bisexual, queer, and questioning women in romantic relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has traditionally cited pleasure and reproduction as the primary reasons to engage in sex. However, recent research suggests that there are many psychosocial reasons that women engage in sex and that relational factors such as relationship duration may also influence why women engage in sex. Few studies have examined reasons for sex among sexual minority women, although research has suggested that reasons may be similar to and different from those of heterosexual women. Using the YSEX? survey measure, the current study examined reasons for having sex among 229 lesbian, bisexual, queer and questioning women, aged 18–59 currently in a romantic relationship. The most frequent reasons women reported for engaging in sex were reasons related to pleasure and love/commitment. Contrary to theories of love and attachment, women in the current study did not report significantly different reasons for engaging in sex depending upon the duration of the relationship. Women in earlier stages of their relationship were just as likely to report engaging in sex to feel close to their partner, as were women in later stages of their relationship. In addition, women in later stages of their relationship were just as likely to report engaging in sex out of a physical desire for their partner as were women in earlier stages of their relationship. The strengths and limitations of the study, along with implications of the results are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".