Sexual Rejection Behaviors Used by Men with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder: Associations with Couples’ Sexual and Relationship Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in men, characterized by persistent and distressing low sexual desire, is associated with worse sexual and relationship well-being. Sexual rejection is a common and emotionally laden event that may be especially salient among couples coping with HSDD given likely desire discrepancies between partners. How men with HSDD reject their partner’s sexual advances (i.e., deflecting, hostile, reassuring, or assertive rejection behaviors) may reflect their attempts to regulate emotions and have implications for well-being. In this study, men with HSDD (N = 51) reported on their sexual rejection behaviors and both they and their partners reported on sexual and relationship outcomes; results were not adjusted for multiple testing to prioritize discovery. Deflecting sexual rejection was associated with both partners’ lower sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and perceived partner responsiveness, and men with HSDD’s greater sexual distress. Hostile rejection was associated with partners’ lower sexual satisfaction and both couple members’ lower relationship satisfaction. Reassuring and assertive behaviors were associated with men with HSDD’s higher sexual satisfaction and perceived partner responsiveness. Reducing less adaptive rejection strategies, like deflection and hostility, and increasing more adaptive strategies, like reassuring or assertive rejection, may be intervention targets to help couples coping with HSDD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".