The Impact of Sexual Consent on Sexual and Relationship Well-Being in Chinese Romantic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-quality sexual relationships significantly contribute to the development and maintenance of romantic relationships, with effective sexual communication playing a crucial role. In particular, how partners communicate and feel about sexual consent is essential for sexual and relationship well-being. There is limited research on sexual consent within established romantic relationships, and existing findings are mixed. Our research addresses this gap through three studies using cross-sectional, dyadic, and dyadic daily diary methods conducted in China. In Study 1 (N = 392 adult individuals in romantic relationships), individuals who felt higher internal consent and used more explicit-verbal cues to consent to sex during their most recent sexual encounter experienced greater sexual and relationship satisfaction. These effects extended to individuals’ partners in Study 2 (N = 235 mixed-gender adult couples). Internal and explicit-verbal consent were associated with higher sexual satisfaction for both partners, while implicit-nonverbal consent was only associated with an individual’s own sexual satisfaction. Study 3 (N = 103 mixed-gender adult couples), a 21-day dyadic diary study, confirmed that daily internal and explicit-verbal consent were linked to both partners’ daily sexual and relationship satisfaction. However, daily passive consent was associated with lower daily sexual satisfaction for both partners and was associated with increased daily sexual distress for the person who provided passive consent. Our research highlights the critical role of internal consent and explicit-verbal consent communication for promoting sexual and relationship well-being.
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 | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".