The Relationship Between Body Image and Domains of Sexual Functioning Among Heterosexual, Emerging Adult Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Research suggests that body image affects sexual functioning, but the relationship between specific types of body image (evaluative, affective, and behavioral) and domains of sexual functioning (desire, arousal, and orgasm) has not been investigated. AIM: To determine whether, and to what degree, body image concerns (evaluative, affective, and behavioral) influence aspects of women's sexual functioning (desire, arousal, and orgasm). METHODS: Eighty-eight sexually active women in heterosexual romantic relationships completed surveys assessing evaluative, affective, and behavioral body image and sexual functioning. Body composition data also were collected using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sexual functioning was assessed using the desire, arousal, and orgasm subscales of the Female Sexual Functioning Index. RESULTS: Hierarchical multiple regression analysis indicated that poor evaluative, affective, and behavioral body image were detrimental to women's sexual functioning. Specifically, dissatisfaction with one's body predicted decrements in desire (β = -0.31, P < .05) and arousal (β = -0.35, P < .01). Similarly, feeling that others evaluate one's body negatively predicted decrements in desire (β = 0.22, P < .05) and arousal (β = 0.35, P < .01). Feeling negatively about one's appearance predicted decrements in arousal (β = 0.26, P < .05). Negative thoughts and feelings about one's body during a sexual encounter (body image self-consciousness) predicted decrements in arousal (β = -0.37, P < .01) and orgasm (β = -0.25, P < .05). CONCLUSION: Findings from this study suggest important linkages between body image and sexual functioning constructs and indicates that interventions to improve body image could have concomitant benefits related to sexual experience.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".