Attraction Toward One’s Partner is Associated with Sexual Desire, Satisfaction, and Distress Among Couples Coping with Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sexual incentive motivation model suggests that attractive stimuli activate the sexual response system. Attraction toward one’s partner has been linked to greater sexual satisfaction, but no quantitative studies have examined its links to sexual desire or distress among those with sexual dysfunction. We examined associations between daily attraction toward one’s partner and sexual satisfaction, desire, and distress for individuals with Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (SIAD) and their partners. Participants (N = 227 couples) completed daily online surveys measuring attraction for one’s partner, sexual desire, satisfaction, and distress. Multilevel models showed that on days when women and gender diverse individuals with SIAD reported higher attraction for their partner, they and their partners reported higher sexual satisfaction and desire, and their partners reported lower sexual distress. On days when partners reported higher attraction, both they and participants with SIAD reported higher sexual desire and partners reported lower sexual distress; however, women and gender diverse individuals with SIAD reported higher sexual distress. Daily fluctuations in attraction may be important for daily fluctuations in sexual wellbeing among couples coping with SIAD. Findings may inform novel treatment targets for SIAD.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".