By Grace Schwenck
This blog is a summary of our published article:
Schwenck, G. C., Bergeron, S., Huberman, J. S., Impett, E. A., Oliveira, H., & Rosen, N. O. (2024). Daily and prospective associations between responses to sexual rejection and sexual well-being and relationship satisfaction in couples coping with Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-03066-2
Coping with low desire
Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (SIAD), or clinically low sexual desire, is one of the most common sexual concerns reported by women and most frequently addressed in couples’ therapy [1, 2]. Studies suggest that 7% to 23% of women experience symptoms of SIAD [2]. Characterized by persistent low sexual interest and arousal, SIAD can significantly impact sexual and relationship satisfaction. Research has shown that sexual rejection, where a partner’s sexual advances are declined, is a common issue for couples coping with SIAD, and has been linked to distress and lower relationship satisfaction [3]. Responses to sexual rejection, such as understanding (responsiveness, reaffirming positive regard towards a partner), resentful (expressing anger, guilt-inducing), insecure (responding with feelings of sadness or hurt), and enticing (attempting to re-initiate sex or change a partner’s mind) may affect in both partners’ sexual well-being.
Interpersonal factors and dyadic interactions play a crucial role in managing sexual desire difficulties, with clinical and theoretical models emphasizing the importance of partner responses in maintaining relationship satisfaction [e.g., 4, 5]. Past studies suggest that positive, understanding responses to sexual rejection are associated with greater sexual and relationship outcomes, while negative responses like resentment are linked to poorer outcomes [6]. However, further research using daily and prospective analyses is needed to better understand how responses to sexual rejection— whether understanding, resentful, insecure, or enticing—play a role in couples’ sexual and relationship well-being over time.
What did we do?
We recruited 232 couples where one couple member, a woman or gender-diverse individual who was assigned female at birth, met criteria for SIAD. Of these couples, all 232 of them completed the baseline survey, 200 couples completed 56-days of daily diaries, and 170 couples completed the 6-month follow-up survey. In the surveys, we asked each couple member to independently complete measures of responses to sexual rejection, sexual satisfaction, partner-focused sexual desire, sexual distress, and relationship satisfaction.
Our study tested the prediction that both daily and 6 months later, when individuals with SIAD perceived and/or their partners reported greater understanding responses to sexual rejection, and lower resentful and insecure responses, both couple members would report greater sexual and relationship well-being. We did not have any predictions for enticing responses to sexual rejection because of prior mixed findings.
Photo by Couplehealthcare on Pixabay
What did we find and what does it mean?
Interestingly, our findings suggest that responses to sexual rejection were more strongly tied to same-day outcomes than long-term effects, with five times more significant associations observed in the daily data compared to the prospective analyses. There were some intriguing patterns in the daily associations. For example, all types of responses to sexual rejection were linked to increased same-day sexual distress for both partners. This finding highlights how sexual rejection itself can be a significant emotional challenge. For partners of individuals with SIAD, all response types were also associated with greater sexual desire for their partner. It is possible that partners of individuals with SIAD may be more likely to initiate sexual activity, and experience sexual rejection, on days when they experience greater sexual desire.
Key findings:
- Understanding responses were linked to greater relationship satisfaction, especially over time. However, these responses may also lead to short-term sexual distress, likely due to avoidance of sexual communication or activity.
- Resentful and insecure responses were linked to poorer sexual and relationship outcomes for both partners. Interestingly, partners showing insecure responses (e.g., seeking reassurance) sometimes reported greater sexual satisfaction over time, possibly due to increased relationship-promoting behaviors from the individual with SIAD.
- Enticing responses, where partners attempt to reinitiate intimacy, showed mixed results. While these efforts were occasionally associated with improved sexual satisfaction, they were also linked to sexual distress. These mixed findings may be due to whether enticing responses were perceived as non-coercive and respectful of boundaries, or as insistent and misaligned with the individual with SIAD’s needs.
What can we do with this information?
These findings suggest that responses to rejection present a valuable opportunity for clinicians to engage both partners in addressing sexual challenges. Therapists can use psychoeducation to help couples understand the immediate and long-term effects of these responses. They can work with partners to foster supportive reactions, such as understanding, while discouraging unhelpful behaviors, like resentment. For instance, clinicians might help partners recognize and manage insecurities, avoid negative thought patterns, or explore strategies for reinitiating intimacy in ways that feel respectful and authentic. Importantly, tailored interventions should consider each couple’s unique dynamics and individual needs. By shifting the focus from individual responsibility to relationship dynamics, these findings pave the way for a more compassionate, collaborative approach to navigating sexual desire challenges.
Photo by Kaya85 on Pixabay
References
[1] Péloquin, K., Byers, E. S., Callaci, M., & Tremblay, N. (2019). Sexual portrait of couples seeking relationship therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 45(1), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12328
[2] Witting, K., Santtila, P., Varjonen, M., Jern, P., Johansson, A., Von 1493 Der Pahlen, B., & Sandnabba, K. (2008). Female sexual dysfunction, sexual distress, and compatibility with partner. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5(11), 2587–2599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00984.x
[3] Dobson, K., Zhu, J., Balzarini, R. N., & Campbell, L. (2020). Responses to sexual advances and satisfaction in romantic relationships: Is yes good and no bad? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(6), 801–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619888884
[4] Prekatsounaki, S., Gijs, L., & Enzlin, P. (2022). Dyadic sexual desire in romantic relationships: The dyadic interactions affecting dyadic sexual desire model. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(1), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02165-8
[5] Rosen, N. O., & Bergeron, S. (2019). Genito-pelvic pain through a dyadic lens: Moving toward an interpersonal emotion regulation model of women’s sexual dysfunction. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(4–5), 440–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1513987
[6] Schwenck, G. C., Bergeron, S., Huberman, J. S., Oliveira, H., Impett, E., & Rosen, N. O. (2023). Comparing responses to sexual rejection and sexual and relationship well-being in couples coping with Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder and community couples. The Journal of Sex Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2282617
