Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Chop1n t1_j3efqm4 wrote

This is so poorly written as to be infuriating.

tl;dr when there's any kind of perceived gap in levels of sexual interest between partners, it doesn't bode well for the relationship. Surprising absolutely nobody. If only the study had anything more interesting to say than that, but it doesn't.

438

TylerJWhit t1_j3g0t96 wrote

The question one must ask, and you'd do well to do so now, is to inquire as to why this study in particular was needlessly verbose and increasingly complicated when it would have sufficed to be as succinct as possible in their analysis and conclusion that disparities in sexual desire between mates lead to unsatisfactory relationships between the aforementioned mates.

Stated otherwise: Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick

204

NightMgr t1_j3gjgmg wrote

Ask George Orwell and “Politics of the English Language.”

18

FjordExplorher t1_j3hbpdv wrote

Stated otherwise response would be a valid play in Poetry for Neanderthals

5

oooANUooo t1_j3ldtby wrote

Kevin, are you saying you want to go to “SEA WORLD” or you want to “see the world?”

2

Mattaruu95 t1_j3lugpr wrote

It’s like the architect in the matrix movie.

1

herbertfilby t1_j3fcqyv wrote

/r/deadbedrooms label these HL and LL, and the differences in libido result in all the misery there.

93

Cash907 t1_j3ir0e0 wrote

What else would you expect from a psypost article? I’m only shocked they haven’t been banned from this sub by now.

2

FwibbFwibb t1_j3kvzhx wrote

> Surprising absolutely nobody

Are you saying scientists should only study topics that will have surprising results?

0

Chop1n t1_j3lp1bk wrote

Of course not. But this is an article written about the study on a for-profit website. Clearly they wanted to make the study seem much more interesting than it actually is by being needlessly verbose and ambiguous about it. Which is all too common in garbage journalism in general.

3

Chance_Implausible t1_j3dbnfi wrote

Anyone take this apart yet? I'm curious about the "too much control" but too lazy to read.

178

InterminousVerminous t1_j3dtfto wrote

It’s pretty limited. They were closely studying heterosexual couples where the male had an obsessive sexual passion and the female had an inhibited sexual passion.

Here’s the meat:

Results showed that obsessive sexual passion interacts with inhibited sexual passion in their effects on sexual satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction of partners was reduced when men exercised little control over their sexual passion (obsessive sexual passion) and their female partner exercised too much control (inhibited sexual passion).

“Because partners in sexual relationships typically use each other as reference points to evaluate their sexuality, they cannot think of their sexual passion as an individual matter,” Busby told PsyPost. “Consequently, when one person feels or is labelled as obsessive in their sexuality the other partner is likely to have the opposite label.”

167

InterminousVerminous t1_j3dtpwm wrote

To add,

“It was interesting and surprising that for females obsessive sexual passion toward their current relationship was never a negative,” Busby said. “This is likely because in general females are more likely to have an inhibited sexual passion style, so they and their partner may be likely to feel like she is a bit obsessive when in fact she is in a healthy and normal place regarding her sexual passion whenever she isn’t inhibited.”

“Even if she is actually obsessive about her sexuality with her partner, this may be a net positive situation as she and her partner evaluate the sexual relationship as more important than the typical couple, so it does not appear to have any negative effects.”

Overall, the study showed that inhibited sexual passion had a strong negative effect on sexual satisfaction of both partners.

108

iceyed913 t1_j3ews4a wrote

>Overall, the study showed that inhibited sexual passion had a strong negative effect on sexual satisfaction of both partners.

The only thing resolute that can be gained from this is that not being horny is not conducive to a healthy sexual relationship. Well euh... Kudos

108

ruMenDugKenningthreW t1_j3fqvtb wrote

You mean to tell me that disagreements in the frequency of sex can have negative effects on relationships?

​

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle! What will those science folks cook up next?

30

InterminousVerminous t1_j3h7wtv wrote

It is nice to know that females with higher drives/more willingness to have sex/more obsessiveness over sex that are paired with male partners with lower/inhibited desire typically don’t have the relationship issues seen when it’s the other way around, though there are still issues. That’s one thing I got out of it, but I could have misinterpreted.

8

razialx t1_j3dtrv5 wrote

I wish my my app Apollo would let me block entire domains. Instead I’m constantly playing the game of “block the serial psypost poster”

Why do we still allow this trash site on this sub. This isn’t science. It’s garbage click bait articles based on tiny surveys designed to get results. If we made a spreadsheet of all the psypost headlines about sex it would become very apparent that it’s all rubbish.

65

ubermeisters t1_j3ec2d3 wrote

huge same! I've literally messaged the mods probably a dozen times. I block every single user that posts this domain along with a couple other that are owned by the same interests. at this point I'm starting to think one of the mods is part of the website admin.

21

[deleted] t1_j3exwbr wrote

TLDR: Find a partner with similar sexual frequency and everyone happy

20

[deleted] t1_j3g0ru3 wrote

one issue is that libido is known to decrease with age in both men and women but it tends to happen faster in women. so if someone wants a long-term relationship there has to be some flexibility because there will most likely be years where their sex drives become out of sync.

24

grnrngr t1_j3e06oc wrote

If your partner has passionate sex with everyone but you, and you don't have any sex, passionate or otherwise, is that "too much control," "not enough," or "just enough?"

Asking for a chump.

15

show_me_your_secrets t1_j3fwwt8 wrote

I got to the part where they mentioned BYU and immediately realized there couldn’t possibly be any credibility here.

13

FloodMoose t1_j3df03j wrote

I suppose zero is also bad...

12

SocialMediaDystopian t1_j3g4o9s wrote

What a garbled mess.

Also- seems sexist. Says that inhibited sexual style is "problematic" ( the style that women more often have) - right after saying that when women are "obsessive" and their male partners are inhibited, it's "surprisingly" almost always a net positive.

Ie inhibited style is only a problem when the female partner exhibits it (or both do- but even here the implication is if the woman can be "less prudish" there's no problem).

No discussion of what might be driving "inhibition" in any of these cases.

And again- a garbled f-king mess. Ah....psychology. To think I studied it :S

12

AutoModerator t1_j3d1ry5 wrote

Vote for Best of r/science 2022!

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Lillianroux19 t1_j3gkwtg wrote

I find it interesting but I find it wrong. Just going by my experience with the ladies I had been married to. One of 5 years, one of 11 years, one that I'm still married to going on 24 years. Almost seemed a little biased to be honest.

1

Arentanji t1_j3h3k2h wrote

I wish we had the survey they used and the raw data. I question their conclusion that women have inhibited sexual passion more frequently. Did they assume that? Or did the data lead to that conclusion? Very unclear from the article.

−1