Sexual Attitudes, Erotophobia, and Sociosexual Orientation Differ Based on Relationship Orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consensual non-monogamy (CNM) is an overarching term for relationship orientations that differ based on the degree to which consensual sexual and emotional needs are fulfilled outside of a dyad. Despite the diversity of CNM relationship orientations and growing research examining CNM, it is unclear whether the sexual attitudes, inclination to approach/avoid sexual stimuli (i.e., erotophobia-erotophilia), and sociosexuality differ among individuals who identify with distinct CNM relationships. Further, as the agreements made in CNM relationships permit for extradyadic relationships, important differences might emerge for CNM and monogamous individuals. A convenience sample (N = 641) of individuals who self-identified as monogamous (n = 447), open (n = 80), polyamorous (n = 62), or swinger (n = 52) provided ratings of their sexual attitudes, erotophobia-erotophilia, and sociosexuality. Results indicated that swingers had the most permissive and instrumental attitudes, were the most erotophilic, and were the most unrestricted sexually. Conversely, monogamists scored the lowest on these traits. No differences emerged between relationship orientations for attitudes towards communion and birth control. These findings have important implications for sexuality research because they reinforce the view that some underlying differences and similarities exist between monogamous and CNM individuals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".