Navigating Women’s Low Desire: Sexual Growth and Destiny Beliefs and Couples’ Well-Being

ABSTRACT

People’s beliefs about how to maintain sexual satisfaction have been associated with how they navigate sexual differences, but research has yet to explore the consequences of these beliefs for couples facing a distressing sexual issue. The current research extends past work on sexual growth beliefs (i.e., the view that sexual satisfaction requires continuous effort to maintain) and sexual destiny beliefs (i.e., the view that sexual satisfaction is the result of natural sexual compatibility with a partner) to couples for whom these beliefs might be especially consequential – those coping with sexual dysfunction. In a dyadic longitudinal study of 97 couples coping with women’s clinically significant low desire and arousal, we tested how sexual growth and destiny beliefs are associated with sexual, relationship, and personal well-being. We found that endorsing greater sexual growth beliefs was associated with higher sexual desire for both partners, whereas, with some exceptions, endorsing greater sexual destiny beliefs was linked to lower sexual desire and relationship satisfaction, more conflict, and more depressive and anxious symptoms. However, these effects did not persist one year later. Our findings highlight the implications of sexual growth and destiny beliefs for both couple members when navigating a chronic sexual difficulty.

Notes

¹ We also tested the associations between sexual growth and destiny beliefs and another measure of desire – the partner-focused dyadic subscale of the Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI; Moyano et al., 2017; Spector et al., 1996). Consistent with when desire was assessed with a modified version of the desire subscale of the FSFI (Rosen et al., 2000), as assessed by the SDI, women with FSIAD’s sexual growth beliefs were associated with their own higher sexual desire, b = 3.45, SE = 1.15, t(92) = 3.01, p = .003, and women with FSIAD’s partners’ sexual destiny beliefs were marginally associated with their own (i.e., the partners, not the women with FSIAD) lower sexual desire, b = −1.49, SE = .80, t(92) = −1.87, p = .065. Uniquely for the SDI at Time 2, partners’ sexual destiny beliefs were associated with women with FSIAD’s lower sexual desire at Time 2, b = −2.44, SE = 1.01, t(63) = −2.41, p = .019. None of the effects predicting sexual desire were moderated by women’s duration of FSIAD or either partner’s perceptions of sexual compatibility. Finally, controlling for both partners’ perceived sexual compatibility, the effect of a partner’s sexual destiny beliefs on their own lower sexual desire was still marginally significant, b = −1.46, SE = .81, t(90) = −1.80, p = .076, as well as the effect of women with FSIAD’s sexual growth beliefs on their own sexual desire, b = 2.81, SE = 1.04, t(90) = 2.69, p = .009, and the effect of partners’ sexual destiny beliefs on women with FSIAD’s lower sexual desire at Time 2, b = −2.37, SE = 1.04, t(61) = −2.28, p = .026. However, other associations were not replicated with the SDI. Specifically, women with FSIAD’s sexual growth beliefs were not associated with their partners’ sexual desire, b = −.81, SE = 1.06, t(92) = −.76, p = .449, and neither were their sexual destiny beliefs, b = −.97, SE = .79, t(92) = −1.23, p = .223. Similarly, controlling for both partners’ perceived sexual compatibility, women with FSIAD’s sexual destiny beliefs were no longer associated with their partners’ sexual desire, b = −.63, SE = .84, t(90) = −.75, p = .456, and neither were their sexual growth beliefs, b = −.95, SE = 1.07, t(90) = −.89, p = .376.

² We conducted independent samples t-tests to test whether there were key demographic differences (i.e., age, relationship duration, FSIAD duration) in women with FSIAD who did vs. did not complete Time 2. There were no significant differences in age, relationship duration, or FSIAD duration, indicating that those who completed Time 2 were not significantly different in key demographic variables from those who did not participate at Time 2. In addition, we conducted an additional independent samples t-test to compare the sexual, relationship, and personal well-being outcomes of partners of women with FSIAD who completed Time 2 to partners of women with FSIAD who did not. Similar to comparisons in women with FSIAD, there were no significant differences in any outcome variable for partners, indicating that the partners of those who completed Time 2 were not significantly different in our key variables of interest from the partners of those who did not participate at Time 2.

Additional information

Funding

This work has been supported by a Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) graduate scholarship awarded to Stephanie Raposo, a SSHRC Insight Grant awarded to Amy Muise, a SSHRC postdoctoral fellowship awarded to Serena Corsini-Munt, and a Canadian Institutes of Health Operating Grant awarded to Natalie O. Rosen.