Being Responsive and Self-Determined When it Comes to Sex: How and Why Sexual Motivation is Associated with Satisfaction and Desire in Romantic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Couples experience greater satisfaction and desire when they are motivated to meet each other’s sexual needs (sexual communal strength); however, doing so at the expense of one’s own sexual needs (unmitigated sexual communion) can detract from satisfaction and desire. Self-determination theory suggests engaging in sex for pleasure and value (autonomous reasons) versus out of pressure and obligation (controlled reasons) may account for these differences. Across two dyadic studies, one cross-sectional (N = 103 couples) and one longitudinal (N = 147 couples), people higher in sexual communal strength had sex for more autonomous and less controlled reasons, and in turn, reported greater satisfaction and desire, overall, in daily life, and over time. In contrast, people higher in unmitigated sexual communion endorsed more controlled reasons for engaging in sex, and in turn reported lower satisfaction. Partners of people higher in sexual communal strength reported less controlled reasons for engaging in sex, and in turn, both partners felt more satisfied, whereas partners of people high in unmitigated sexual communion endorsed more controlled reasons and reported lower satisfaction. This research furthers our understanding of when and why being motivated to be responsive to a partner’s sexual needs enhances or detracts from sexual and relationship quality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".