Exploring Sexual Reminiscing After the Death of a Romantic Partner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The death of a romantic partner results in major changes to the surviving partner's psychological and physical well-being, yet post-bereavement sexual experiences are often disregarded in both research and clinical settings. Continuing bonds theory suggests that an internal emotional bond can persist between the bereaved and the memory of the deceased after the physical end of the relationship; that is, continuing bonds are often maintained through reminiscing about the deceased. On this premise, we suggest and demonstrate that sexual bonds are also maintained through reminiscing. A sample of 165 Canadian individuals who were bereaved of a prior romantic partner were recruited via Leger panels, social media, and online grief forums to complete an online survey. Sexual reminiscing was very common (80.5% of participants sexually reminisced about the deceased), frequent (31.8% of participants sexually reminisced about the deceased once a week or more), and generally positively valenced. We used multiple regression to understand who sexually reminisced more frequently and who evaluated those experiences as more positive. Results indicated that stronger general continuing bonds, higher past sexual satisfaction with the deceased, and higher posttraumatic growth were positively associated with sexual reminiscing frequency, while stronger continuing emotional bonds and past sexual satisfaction were positively associated with sexual reminiscing valence. Findings regarding their relevance to individuals and clinicians (e.g. couples and grief therapists) are discussed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".