Sexual satisfaction of partnered men who have sex with men: A test of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher sexual satisfaction benefits not only overall relationship satisfaction but also psychological well-being, physical health, and quality of life. Research on sexual satisfaction in partnered men who have sex with men (MSM) has been hampered by the lack of a validated theoretical model. The goal of this study was to validate the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction (IEMSS) MSM in both monogamous and consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships. Participants were 184 (132 monogamous and 52 CNM) self-identified men who were in a relationship of at least 3 months with another self-identified man who completed an online survey. In keeping with predictions based on the IEMSS, all the IEMSS model components (relationship satisfaction, balance of sexual rewards and costs, balance of relative sexual rewards and costs, equality of rewards, equality of costs) were significantly associated with sexual satisfaction for both groups of men supporting the model’s validity, although equality of rewards was not uniquely associated with sexual satisfaction for monogamous men. The authors found no differences between monogamous and CNM MSM in either their sexual satisfaction or the IEMSS components. These results add to a growing body of research that counters negative stereotypes about both same-gender and CNM sexual relationships, as well as providing valuable information for clinicians aiming to enhance the sexual satisfaction and sexual experiences of men in same-gender relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".