Holy Grail or nice option: The meaning of penile-vaginal intercourse in “unconsummated” relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research to date on heterosexual couples that have never been able to engage in penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI) has been conducted almost exclusively outside of Canada and the United States and is primarily problem-focused, examining biomedical treatments of sexual dysfunction that cause the inability to have PVI (or unconsummated marriage as it is referred to in the literature). Almost nothing is known about the experience of the individuals affected by this phenomenon. This study used a phenomenological approach to answer the question: what is the lived experience of individuals in heterosexual relationships who have been unable to have penile-vaginal intercourse despite wanting to do so? The focus of this paper is on answering the following questions: (1) what is the meaning of PVI? and (2) what is the impact of the inability to have PVI on the relationship and sex life of individuals in heterosexual relationships who have been unable to have PVI? The study involved semi-structured interviews with 17 individuals residing in Canada and the United States. Study findings indicated that although all of the participants expressed a desire to be able to have PVI, the majority described satisfying relationships and sex lives without PVI. However, even participants who described satisfying sex lives tended to view PVI as having special significance over other sexual activities. Implications for healthcare providers and 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".