Factors Influencing the Sexual Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study examined the rewards and costs that lesbians and gay men experience in their sexual relationships. Participants were 23 lesbians and 15 gay men who completed questionnaires and participated in a semi-structured interview. Frequently identified sexual rewards included emotional and physical intimacy, feeling accepted and supported, communication, and a positive view of self. Sexual costs included feeling vulnerable and negative social and cultural attitudes toward same-sex relationships. Sexual rewards and costs tended to cluster into three main categories: relationship factors, sexual factors, and factors related to being a sexual minority. The participants' responses illustrate the limitations of applying conventional (biomedical) models of sexual response to men as well as to women. Moreover, they strengthen calls for theories of sexual functioning that are based on diverse experiences and that consider sociocultural, political, economic, relational, psychological, and medical factors. KEYWORDS: Lesbiansgay mensame-sex relationshipssexualitysociocultural factorsfeminism ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the women and men who were interviewed for this study as well as Marvin Claybourn, Shannon Glenn, and Angela Weaver for their assistance with the interviews. Notes 1. This study was conducted in 2002–2003. In 2003, marriage was legalized for same-sex couples in British Columbia and Ontario. However, it was not until June 2005 that a court ruling made same-sex marriage legal in the province of New Brunswick. In July 2005, the Canadian government enacted legislation providing marriage for same-sex couples across all provinces and territories. 2. The Rewards/Costs Checklist is available from the authors.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it