The costs and benefits of sexual communal motivation for couples coping with vulvodynia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Most women with vulvodynia-a prevalent, chronic, vulvovaginal pain condition-engage in intercourse with their partners despite experiencing pain. Their motivation for doing so appears to be interpersonally oriented (e.g., to meet their partners' sexual needs), but the costs and benefits of such motivations are unknown. We tested whether sexual communal strength (being responsive to a partner's sexual needs) and unmitigated sexual communion (focusing on a partner's sexual needs to the exclusion of one's own needs) were associated with sexual function, and sexual and relationship satisfaction in couples with coping with vulvodynia. METHOD: In an 8-week daily experience study, 95 women diagnosed with vulvodynia and their partners reported on sexual communal strength, unmitigated sexual communion, sexual function, and sexual and relationship satisfaction on days when sexual activity occurred. RESULTS: On days when women reported higher sexual communal strength, both they and their partners reported greater sexual function and satisfaction, and their partners reported greater relationship satisfaction. When women's partners reported higher sexual communal strength, both they and the women reported better sexual function, partners reported greater sexual satisfaction, and women reported greater relationship satisfaction. On days when women reported higher unmitigated sexual communion, they reported poorer sexual function and lower sexual satisfaction, and both the women and partners reported lower relationship satisfaction. When women's partners reported higher unmitigated sexual communion, they reported poorer sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: These novel aspects of sexual motivation should be targeted in psychological interventions aimed to improve the sexual and relationship well-being of affected couples. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".