Persistent Genital Arousal in Relationships: A Comparison of Relationship, Sexual, and Psychological Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder/Genitopelvic Dysesthesia (PGAD/GPD) is characterized by sensations of physiological genital sexual arousal (and/or other types of genitopelvic dysesthesia) that occur in the absence of subjective feelings of sexual desire. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare relationship, sexual, and psychological well-being in partnered individuals with and without distressing symptoms of PGAD/GPD. METHODS: The sample (N = 65 individuals with vulvas and vaginas, N = 11 individuals with penises) of 152 partnered individuals (N = 76 with and 76 without PGAD/GPD symptoms) participated in a one-time anonymous online survey. OUTCOMES: The questionnaires assessed relationship satisfaction (Couple Satisfaction Index-Short Form, CSI); sexual satisfaction (Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction, GMSEX); sexual functioning (Female Sexual Functioning Index, FSFI, or International Index of Erectile Functioning, IIEF); sexual distress (Sexual Distress Scale, SDS); and psychological well-being, as determined by the presence of depression and/or anxiety symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS). RESULTS: Among individuals with vulvas and vaginas, those with PGAD/GPD symptoms reported significantly lower relationship and sexual satisfaction, greater sexual distress, and more symptoms of depression and anxiety than their counterparts in the control group. In addition, these individuals with PGAD/GPD symptoms also reported significantly worse sexual functioning (arousal, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain), and they were significantly more distressed about each aspect of their sexual functioning difficulties compared to those in the control group. Among the small sample of individuals with penises (N = 11), descriptive analyses revealed that total sexual functioning scores did not differ across the PGAD/GPD symptom and control groups. In addition, 64.5% of the total sample with PGAD/GPD symptoms managed unwanted genital arousal by avoiding sex with their partner, while 55.3% managed their symptoms by having sex with their partner, and some individuals with PGAD/GPD used both strategies. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The finding that PGAD/GPD symptoms impact relationships indicates that treatment for PGAD/GPD should include consideration of the well-being of one's intimate relationship(s). STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This study added to the small literature on experiences of PGAD/GPD in relationships, and it was the first to assess sexual satisfaction. Limitations include the small sample of individuals with penises, and the cross-sectional, correlational design, which does not allow for causal conclusions to be drawn. CONCLUSION: Results emphasize the importance of continued research of this population (and their partners) in order to improve diagnosis, intervention, and recognition within the medical community. Mooney KM, Poirier É, Pukall CF., Persistent Genital Arousal in Relationships: A Comparison of Relationship, Sexual, and Psychological Well-Being. J Sex Med 2022;19:234-248.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".