Who Is “Doing It”? Casual Sex and WellBeing in Singlehood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The casual sex literature has mostly ignored the fact that casual sexual encounters typically occur in the broader context of lives lived single. This study aimed to address this gap by examining the casual sex experiences of single people. Using a discovery (Study 1, N = 747) and replication/extension (Study 2, N = 483) design, we investigated the frequency and characteristics of casual sexual relationships during singlehood and explored factors distinguishing singles who do and do not engage in casual sex in the domains of attachment, singlehood satisfaction, and wellbeing. Within our samples, 15.1% and 26.1% of singles reported being sexually active. These sexual relationships were characterized by limited exclusivity, low emotional closeness, and little interest in transitioning to a committed romantic relationship. Across both studies, singles engaging in casual sex reported lower attachment avoidance, greater sexual satisfaction, and higher self‐perceived mate value compared to those not sexually active, challenging previous research linking casual sex participation with negative outcomes. Considering casual sex as one part of lives lived single may provide a clearer picture of both decisions around casual sex opportunities and thriving during singlehood.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".