Beyond the Bedroom: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Responses to Partner Touch in Women With and Without Sexual Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women with female sexual problems (FSP) are more likely than unaffected women to demonstrate negative appraisals, negative affect, and avoidance of sexual activity. Research suggests affected women also experience negative affect and avoidance in response to intimate partner contact for fear it will lead to sex. This online study examined whether women with FSP (N = 157) and without FSP (N = 129) exhibited different perceptions, affective reactions, and behavioral responses to hypothetical touch occurring outside sexual activity. Women (Mage = 30.70; SD = 6.66) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions representing hypothetical interactions with their partner (affectionate, sexual, or no touch), and answered questions about their perceptions of their partner’s sexual intentions and their own anticipated negative affect and behavioral avoidance. Women with FSP reported higher perceptions of sexual intent, negative affect, and avoidance in the sexual touch condition, and higher negative affect in the affectionate touch condition, than women without FSP. Results highlight that women with FSP have more negative reactions to partners’ hypothetical affectionate and sexual touch than women without FSP. Interventions for FSP may benefit from targeting women’s perceptions, affective reactions, and behavioral reactions to partner touch when it occurs outside of explicitly sexual contexts.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".