Placing a child's or partner's needs above my own: Impacts on a couple's sexual relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parent couples often struggle to maintain satisfying sex lives perhaps because partners have different priorities to balance including the self, their relationship with each other, and their relationships with their children. Given that parents are increasingly involved in supporting adult children, it is important to examine how prioritization of other's needs over one's own shapes a couple's sexual relationship. In a sample of 179 parent couples with university student children living at home, we examined whether prioritizing one's partner's (i.e., partner‐centrism) and/or their child's (i.e., child‐centrism) needs above one's own were associated with couples' sexual relationship outcomes (sexual desire, satisfaction, and frequency). The results showed that higher partner‐centrism was positively associated with sexual satisfaction for both men and women. Having a partner who prioritized them and not their child was beneficial for men's sexual relationship. In contrast, it was important for highly child‐centric women that their partner was also child‐centric. The findings highlight the importance of examining the ways in which parents prioritize their own and other family members' needs when working with couples. It may be especially beneficial for men's outcomes when they feel prioritized and for women when they feel that their partner shares their goal to prioritize children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".