Is Spontaneous Sex Ideal? Beliefs and Perceptions of Spontaneous and Planned Sex and Sexual Satisfaction in Romantic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual satisfaction is critical for relationship quality and people hold lay beliefs (implicit theories) about what makes for satisfying sex. A common belief in Western culture is that spontaneous sex is most satisfying, but this idea has not yet been studied. In pre-registered analyses of two studies – a cross sectional (N = 303 individuals) and a 21-day daily experience study (N = 121 couples) – we found support for two distinct beliefs (spontaneous sex as satisfying; planned sex as satisfying). Across both studies, people held stronger beliefs that spontaneous sex is satisfying compared to planned sex, but stronger spontaneous sex beliefs were only associated with higher sexual satisfaction in Study 1. In Study 1, when people perceived their most recent sexual experience as planned (versus spontaneous), they felt less sexually satisfied, but this was not the case for those who endorsed stronger planned sex beliefs. In Study 2, endorsing stronger planned sex beliefs was associated with a partner’s lower sexual satisfaction at baseline. There were no associations between perceptions of the extent to which sex was spontaneous and sexual satisfaction at baseline or in daily life. Future research could test whether beliefs about spontaneity and planning have value in clinical settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".