Sexual Desire Emerges from Subjective Sexual Arousal, but the Connection Depends on Desire Type and Relationship Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to models of responsive sexual desire, desire emerges from sexual arousal. This study examined how sexual desire type (dyadic-partner, dyadic-other, solitary) and relationship satisfaction affect the connection between subjective sexual arousal (SSA) and desire. Women (N = 100; 27% with sexual interest/arousal disorder symptoms) reported SSA while viewing a sexual film. Solitary and dyadic responsive sexual desire were assessed immediately before and following the film (immediate desire) and three days later (delayed desire). SSA predicted higher immediate solitary desire. SSA also predicted higher immediate dyadic desire, and this link was stronger for those with higher relationship satisfaction; for those with low relationship satisfaction, SSA was unrelated. For delayed desire, SSA predicted higher dyadic-partner desire, regardless of relationship satisfaction. SSA also predicted higher dyadic-other desire, yet this association was stronger for those with low relationship satisfaction; for those with high relationship satisfaction, SSA was unrelated to dyadic-other desire. Findings support the theoretical premise that desire emerges from arousal, but that this connection is dependent upon additional factors, specifically the target and timing of desire and participants’ current relationship quality. Relationship satisfaction may affect the motivational value of sex with (and without) a current partner.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".