A Qualitative Comparison of Young Women's Maintained versus Decreased Sexual Desire in Longer-Term Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated sexual desire in young, heterosexual women in longer-term relationships. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with women who self-identified as belonging to one of two study groups: “the passion is still alive” (Mean age = 24.0 years, n = 10) or “wondering where the passion has gone” (Mean age = 24.8 years, n = 10). Analysis was conducted using grounded theory methodology to investigate experiences of women in these two groups. Although women in both groups reported some common meanings and experiences, sexual desire was also described and experienced differently by women in each group. Categories distinguishing two groups included an ability to stay mentally present, sexual particularity, importance of sex in one's relationship, feeling desired, effectiveness of partner's sexual initiation, relational intimacy, the interpretation of monotony and routine, and sexual communication. Most differentiating factors were linked to personal and relationship factors, followed by partner factors. Women in the “passion is still alive” group appeared to embrace certain inevitabilities about sexual desire in long-term relationships and were more likely to recognize that their sex life required attention and maintenance as their relationship progressed. The findings point to factors that could be valuable to younger women who are in longer-term relationships.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".