Predictors of duty sex frequency in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Duty Sex-the act of engaging in sex out of a sense of duty or obligation to a partner-is a commonly reported reason why women have sex, with studies indicating associations between Duty Sex and sexual dysfunction, as well as nonconsensual sexual experiences (NSEs). AIM: This study sought to examine the associations between Duty Sex frequency, sexual function, and NSEs using comprehensive, validated measures of sexual function and NSE histories in a large community sample of women. METHODS: Six hundred and fifty-eight women with (n = 293) and without (n = 365) NSE histories completed measures of sexual function and sexual motivations. RESULTS: Women with NSE histories reported more sexual pain, lower sexual satisfaction, and more frequent Duty Sex. The relation between NSE history and Duty Sex remained after controlling for the variance in sexual function. The type of NSE behavior, but not the timing of the first NSE nor the perceived impact of the experience, predicted Duty Sex frequency. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should consider sexual motivations, particularly Duty Sex, when treating women with NSE histories or who experience sexual dysfunction. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: To our knowledge, this was the first study to examine how NSEs relate to all domains of sexual function and sexual motives, revealing a link between NSEs, sexual function, and Duty Sex. However, we were unable to account for what percentage of sexual encounters are considered Duty Sex. Therefore, our measurement of Duty Sex lacks specificity, which may explain the relatively low variance accounted for by the models in our analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There are consequences of NSEs, including difficulties with communicating sexual boundaries and impairment of sexual function, that may contribute to the increased likelihood of engaging in Duty Sex.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".