Monday, December 14, 2020

Some participants described sexual boredom as feeling obligated to engage in undesired sexual acts

Perceptions of sexual boredom in a community sample. Leonor de Oliveira,Joana Carvalho & Pedro Nobre. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, Dec 8 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2020.1854405

Abstract: This study explored the definitions of sexual boredom in a large community sample of Portuguese individuals. A thematic analysis of written responses to the question “What is sexual boredom for you?” was conducted with 653 participants aged 18 to 75 (M = 33.14; SD = 9.01) of multiple genders, sexual orientations, and relationship types. Three main themes were identified: definitions of sexual boredom, predisposing and maintenance factors of sexual boredom, and managing of sexual boredom. Sexual monotony, sexual desire, and hedonic value stand out as defining features of sexual boredom. Findings suggest the need of a multidimensional measure of sexual boredom.


Discussion

This thematic analysis identified diverse definitions of sexual boredom, as well as individual,
interpersonal, and practice-related factors involved, and, finally, management paths.
Participants frequently defined sexual boredom with aspects of sexual monotony, lack of sexual
desire and lack of hedonic value. Monotony is a core feature of general boredom (Fenichel, 1951;
Geiwitz, 1966; Perkins & Hill, 1985; Zuckerman, 1979) and research verified that monotonous
stimuli led to decreases in judged hedonic value (Berlyne, 1970). Sexual monotony is central to
the definition of sexual boredom (Watt & Ewing, 1996), which was negatively correlated with sexual
satisfaction and sexual desire (Carvalheira et al., 2014; Stulhofer et al., 2010).
Some participants described sexual boredom as feeling obligated to engage in undesired sexual
acts. We are unaware of similar findings in previous research. In the context of general boredom,
research concluded that boredom is a function of the level of effort required to attend to stimuli
that are not intrinsically captivating (Leary et al., 1986; Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993). Being
bored with an obligation in a more mundane situation may not cause much distress, however
this might not be the case for mandatory sex.
In addition, participants identified sexual boredom could be a result of having sex with the
same partner. These findings may be partially explained by the sexual strategies theory (Buss &
Schmitt, 1993) that postulates sexual boredom in males restores mating behavior in the presence
of novel females (see Dewsbury, 1981). According to this view, desire for sexual variety is not
observed in women (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Schmitt et al., 2001), but our study suggests sexual
boredom linked to having sex with the same partner is too found in women. Possibly, some
people, independently of gender, may have a non-monogamous orientation, which may be in the
genesis of their sexual boredom.
Our findings suggest sex frequency may also play a role in one’s assessment of sexual boredom.
Although no previous research addressed sexual boredom and sex frequency, some studies
reported sex frequency predicts sexual satisfaction in couples (e.g. Frederick et al., 2017; McNulty
et al., 2016; Schoenfeld et al., 2017). Further research is needed to determine if low sex frequency
can trigger or result in sexual boredom.
Finally, our research implies having low or no emotional connection with a sexual partner
may contribute to sexual boredom for some. There are no previous studies addressing this link,
although emotional connection to a sexual partner was found as an important component of
sexuality in long-term couples (Lemieux et al., 2004), friends with benefits (Lehmiller et al.,
2011), and individuals reporting having “great sex” (Kleinplatz & Menard, 2007).
Our findings highlight potential cognitive, emotional, and physical mechanisms of sexual boredom,
namely distraction, negative affect, and fatigue – all of which were previously related with
boredom proneness (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986; Malkovsky et al., 2012; Mercer-Lynn et al., 2014),
or with decreases in sexual desire (Maserejian et al., 2010; Murray et al., 2014). However, there is
no research on individual factors of sexual boredom we are aware of. This study indicates that
similarly to general boredom, sexual boredom may have relationships with attentional processes,
affect, and physical well-being. More importantly, it suggests sexual boredom is linked to personal
distress, emphasizing the need of further examining this construct as a sexual problem with
impact on sexual relationships.
In addition, our participants linked partner and relationship factors to sexual boredom.
Although we did not find research concerning partner factors in sexual boredom, some studies
indicate partners’ poor sexual skills impacted negatively sexual desire in women (Basson, 2001;
Brotto et al., 2011; Gehring, 2003), whilst partner responsiveness was positively associated with
sexual satisfaction in women and men (Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2019). Within relationship factors,
were identified themes of lack of passion or eroticism, relationship issues, and duration of
relationship - which were previously related with decreases in sexual desire (Klusmann, 2002;
Murray et al., 2014; Murray & Milhausen, 2012; Sims & Meana, 2010). Only the studies of
Tunariu and Reavey (2003, 2007) explored relational aspects of sexual boredom, suggesting poor
sexual communication and relationship length could lead to sexual boredom.
Engaging in solitary practices and lack of sexual stimulation during partnered activity were
two reasons our participants related to sexual boredom. We know masturbation was related with
boredom (Gana et al., 2001), and sexual boredom (Carvalheira et al., 2015), but there seem to be
no studies regarding partnered sexual practices and sexual boredom. Moreover, several participants
reflected on a general sense of frustration stemming from sexual disappointment, as when
sex does not meet expectation. This could be in part related to the over-emphasis placed on sexual
variety and novelty (Tunariu & Reavey, 2007), which sets unrealistic expectations, and consequently
leads to frustration (Metz & McCarthy, 2011).
Several participants referred potential stages involved in managing sexual boredom. Some
mentioned acknowledging changing sex patterns allowed them identifying sexual boredom, while
others reflected on solutions to overcoming this, or identified potential constraints doing so.
Participants in this study named engaging in novel sexual behaviors (e.g. try new positions,
using sex toys, practicing BDSM, etc.) as potential solutions for overcoming sexual boredom.
Previous research suggested introducing sexual novelty to combat negative consequences of sexual
boredom could be helpful for couples in long-term monogamous relationships (Matthews
et al., 2018).
From the participants’ answers we also extracted some potential constraints, which may possibly
interfere with adopting new practices to fight sexual boredom, namely sexual beliefs and
ignorance of sexuality or one’s body. Research shows dysfunctional sexual beliefs play a role in
sexual dysfunction (Nobre & Pinto-Gouveia, 2006), and specifically in sexual desire in men and
women (Carvalho & Nobre, 2010, 2011). As well, poor sexual skills, such as unwillingness to integrate
the sexual skills necessary to uphold exciting sex, was postulated by Tunariu and Reavey
(2007) as a factor leading to the onset of sexual boredom. Our study adds evidence for the
importance of sexual education in managing sexual problems, an area of clinical intervention
with people with sexual difficulties for some time (Annon, 1976).


Limitations

This study aimed to explore definitions and dimensions of sexual boredom in a heterogeneous
sample of the community. Like many studies of sexuality, participants volunteering to take part
in the investigation may not resemble the general population in several aspects, especially in what
concerns openness to discuss sex related matters. Although our findings are not meant for generalization,
it is possible that they more closely reflect women’s sexual boredom, as they made up
most of our sample. In addition, the investigators responsible for the analysis were both women
psychologists, which may have also influenced the process. Another drawback of this study relates
to the potential influence of survey content on our participants’ answers to the open-ended item.
We are mindful that the participants’ attitudes and responses may have been primed having
answered questionnaires on some aspects of human sexuality before providing their definitions of
sexual boredom. This study did not assess intercoder reliability as, similarly to Braun and Clarke
(2019), we believe this would bear a positivist assumption there is a reality in the data that can
be accurately captured through coding. Our final coding matrix is purposely a simplification of a
complex construct and a product of these authors’ choices. While acknowledging this we also
stress the importance of rendering dimensions of sexual boredom intelligible, as most of the individual
and interpersonal aspects of sexual boredom were not yet known.


No comments:

Post a Comment