Sexual well-being of sexual minority women in dating relationships who have experienced childhood sexual abuse and/or adolescent and adult sexual victimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have examined the sexual sequelae of child sexual abuse (CSA) for sexual minority women (SMW), particularly SMW in dating relationships. We examined the impact of CSA on several aspects of sexual well-being. Participants were 299 SMW in a non-cohabiting dating relationship who completed an online survey that assessed CSA, adolescent and adult sexual victimization (AASV) and their behavioural, motivational, and cognitive-affective sexual responses. Four groups were formed based on sexual abuse experiences before the age of 14: No lifetime sexual abuse (NSA Group); AASV only (AASV Group); CSA limited to fondling (CSAfon Group); and, CSA involving attempted/completed vaginal, oral and/or anal penetration (CSApen Group). Women in the CSAfon and CSApen groups were significantly more likely to report having experienced AASV (77% and 56%, respectively) than were women in the AASV and NSA groups (32%). Women in the CSApen Group reported significantly lower sexual desire and sexual satisfaction, and more frequent negative automatic sexual thoughts than women in the other groups but no differences in their frequency of sexual behaviours, sexual duration, sexual esteem, or sexual anxiety. The AASV Group did not differ from the NSA Group on any of the sexual well-being variables. Overall, women in all four groups generally reported positive sexual well-being. These results suggest CSA involving attempted/completed penetration with or without subsequent AASV negatively affects only some aspects of SMW's sexual well-being. They also suggest SMW who have experienced sexual abuse can and do enjoy healthy sexual well-being within the context of a dating relationship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".