Does relationship status matter for sexual satisfaction? The roles of intimacy and attachment avoidance in sexual satisfaction across five types of ongoing sexual relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are individuals more sexually satisfied in casual sexual relationships or more serious, long-term romantic ones? How are intimacy and attachment styles related to sexual satisfaction in different types of sexual relationships? The present study explored sexual satisfaction across five different types of ongoing sexual relationships: friends with benefits, casual dating, exclusive dating, engaged, and married. A sample of 475 individuals (24 males and 71 females in each group) completed online measures of sexual satisfaction, relationship intimacy, and attachment style. First, engaged individuals reported higher sexual satisfaction than all other relationship types except exclusive dating; no other significant differences emerged. Second, intimacy and sexual satisfaction were positively correlated within each relationship type; however, correlations were stronger for exclusive dating, engaged, and married relationships compared to friends with benefits and casual dating relationships. Third, attachment avoidance, but not attachment anxiety, emerged as a significant predictor for sexual satisfaction in all relationship types except casual dating. These results suggest that there may be different underlying processes involved in sexual satisfaction in different relationship types. Despite similar levels of sexual satisfaction across relationship types, there was variability in the roles of intimacy and attachment avoidance for sexual satisfaction. This variability, however, was not limited to “casual” vs. “serious” sexual relationships, as important differences also emerged between friends with benefits and casual dating relationships. Implications, limitations, and possible directions for future research 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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".