Abstract
Research suggests a general link between sexual boredom and sexual desire, but its understanding is currently very limited.
To identify distinct (latent) groups of women and men in long-term relationships based on their reported levels of sexual boredom and sexual desire.
Latent profile analysis (LPA) was conducted in an online sample of 1223 Portuguese participants aged 18 and 66 years (mean ± SD, 32.75 ± 6.11), using indicators of sexual boredom and partner-related, attractive other–related, and solitary sexual desire to categorize participants. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was carried out to explore predictors and correlates of the latent profiles.
Sexual boredom was assessed by the Sexual Boredom Scale, while sexual desire was measured with the Sexual Desire Inventory.
As compared with women, men reported higher levels of sexual boredom and sexual desire. LPA indicated 3 profiles in women and 2 profiles in men. Among women, P1 was characterized by above-average sexual boredom, below-average partner- and attractive other–related sexual desire, and very low solitary sexual desire; P2 by below-average sexual boredom, attractive other–related sexual desire, and solitary sexual desire and above-average partner-related sexual desire; and P3 by above-average sexual boredom, attractive other–related sexual desire, and solitary sexual desire and below-average partner-related sexual desire. In men, P1 was characterized by high sexual boredom, above-average partner-related sexual desire, and high attractive other–related and solitary sexual desire and P2 by below-average sexual boredom and above-average partner-related, attractive other–related, and solitary sexual desire. The latent profiles did not differ according to relationship duration. Overall, the sole consistent correlate of the latent categorization was sexual satisfaction.
In women, above-average levels of sexual boredom were linked to below-average levels of partner-related desire, which suggests likely benefits of helping the couple to minimize or cope better with their sexual routines. In men, participants in the 2 profiles did not differ in partner-related sexual desire, suggesting that clinical interventions dealing with male sexual boredom should investigate factors beyond the current relationship.
This study explored different facets of sexual desire and used LPA, rendering advantages over previous research. The male sample has lower statistical power than the female sample.
Patterns of sexual boredom and sexual desire among individuals in long-term monogamous relationships are distinct and consistently related to sexual satisfaction in women and men and to relationship satisfaction among only women, which have important clinical ramifications.
Introduction
Previous research suggests a link between sexual boredom and sexual desire without, however, clarifying their potential mutual influence or underlying mechanisms. The current body of knowledge indicates that those in long-term monogamous relationships could be especially affected by low sexual desire and might present with varying degrees of sexual boredom.1-3 Therefore, this study intended to distinguish groups of men and women in long-term romantic relationships concerning their levels of sexual boredom and several dimensions of sexual desire.
Sexual boredom might be best understood under the framework of general boredom. Boredom is the fleeting psychological state4-6 that occurs when the environment is perceived as unstimulating, repetitive, or monotonous7-10 or when there is an inability to create interesting activities for oneself.11-13 Some individuals are more susceptible to boredom and will tend to experience boredom more easily.14,15
Sexual boredom is thought to be a trait or tendency to feel bored with the sexual aspects of one’s life,16 particularly with monotonous or not really pleasurable sexual activity stemming from individual-, relationship-, or practice-related facets of sex.17 Sexual boredom, also defined as boredom with boring sex (dull, mechanical, and overrehearsed),2 is said to be a distinct form of a disliked experience, having characteristics unique to itself.16 However, previous studies have not yet clarified what is specific to sexual boredom and what truly distinguishes it from other constructs, including sexual desire.18
Sexual desire can too be understood as a subjective feeling triggered by external or internal stimuli that can result in expressed sexual behavior or not.19 Sexual desire problems are among the most common of all sexual disorders,20 especially in women.21,22 Sexual boredom, however, is believed to affect more men than women according to at least 2 studies.16,23 This is in line with evolutionary perspectives arguing that (1) sexual boredom in men would be adaptive to restore mating behavior with a novel female once sexual satiation was achieved with a previous female24 and (2) men are more oriented to short-term mating.25,26
Managing sexual boredom in relationships might include the exploration of sexual novelty, but failure in doing so can lead to the progressive waning of sexual desire.17 This is in line with research reporting associations between sexual boredom and low sexual desire or interest.1,17,27,28 Interestingly, associations with high sexual desire or interest,1 including hypersexuality,29-31 have been reported in the literature as well.
Low sexual desire has been linked with lower sexual and relationship satisfaction,32 with relationship duration,33-36 and with partner familiarity.3,37 Likewise, sexual boredom is associated with relationship issues, partner behaviors and attitudes (eg, partner’s selfishness or lack of empathy), and sexual monogamy in long-term relationships.2,17,23
Considering that previous research indicates that individuals in long-term, monogamous, and cohabiting relationships could be a group particularly affected by sexual boredom and low sexual desire, the current study aimed to identify different combinations (latent profiles) of sexual boredom and sexual desire among men and women in long-term cohabiting relationships. In addition, it was intended to test how sociodemographic variables as well as sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction correlated with these profiles. Drawing on these examinations, we hope to answer the following research questions (RQs): (RQ1) Are there different profiles of sexual boredom and sexual desire in monogamous coupled women and men? (RQ2) Do these profiles differ in sexual orientation and relationship duration? (RQ3) Do profiles differ in levels of sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction?
Methods
Participants
Participants in this study were 1559 Portuguese individuals (mean ± SD; age, 32.8 ± 6.1 years). Women composed most of the sample (81.1%); 31 (2.1.%) participants were transgender, and 3 (0.2%) preferred not to state their gender. A total of 1355 (86.9%) participants identified as heterosexual, 43 (2.8%) as lesbian, 20 (2.8%) as gay, 133 (8.5%) as bisexual or pansexual, and 1 as asexual, while 7 (0.5%) reported their sexual orientation as other or preferred not to say. College education was cited by 84.2% of participants. The average duration of the relationship or marriage was 9.6 ± 11.9 years, with cohabitation time of 6 ± 4.7 years. Almost half our participants did not have children (47.5%), while 34% had 1 child and 18.5% had ≥2 children.
Procedure
Participants were recruited via Instagram and Facebook to participate in an online study. Advertisements informed of inclusion criteria and displayed the survey link, where a general description of context and purpose was provided and followed by informed consent. The description included authorship, affiliations, and funding sources and the primary author’s email contact for any questions or concerns. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Porto University.
To join the study, participants had to be ≥18 years old and in a monogamous cohabiting relationship lasting at least 12 months. Invalid responses were scrutinized and deleted, including those pertaining to underaged individuals and those who self-reported to be single, nonmonogamous, or in relationships for less than a year. Participants who disclosed not being Portuguese or nonbinary were also excluded.
Measures
Sexual boredom scale
The Sexual Boredom Scale16 is a self-report measure with 18 items that assess the tendency to experience boredom with the sexual aspects of one’s life, designed for sexually active nonclinical populations. Participants used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) to record answers. Higher scores reflect higher sexual boredom. The scale has 2 subscales: sexual monotony and sexual stimulation, each with 9 items. The first subscale refers to sexual routine and tedium (eg, “Sex frequently becomes an unexciting and predictable routine”), while the second indicates sexual excitement and constraint (eg, “I would not stay in a relationship that was sexually dull”). The Portuguese adaptation of the Sexual Boredom Scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.93) but revealed an unidimensional factor structure, which resulted with the removal of 3 items due to low loadings.38 In the current study, the Cronbach alpha was 0.92 for the total scale, 0.91 for the sexual monotony subscale, and 0.83 for the sexual stimulation subscale.
Sexual desire inventory–2
The Sexual Desire Inventory–2 (SDI-2) evaluates 2 facets of sexual desire: dyadic sexual desire and solitary sexual desire.39 This self-report measure consists of 14 items with a 9-point scale ranging from 0 (no desire) to 8 (strong desire) to anchor answers, with higher scores translating higher sexual desire. More recently, a 3-factor model of the SDI-2 was proposed, with the dyadic sexual desire dimension divided into partner- and attractive person–related dimensions.40 The Portuguese version41 of the SDI-2 used in this study reported a Cronbach alpha of 0.90 for the total score. Internal consistency was acceptable for all 3 dimensions. The Cronbach alpha was 0.91 for solitary sexual desire, 0.88 for partner-related desire, and 0.88 for attractive person–related desire. The current study obtained similar levels of reliability for all 3 subscales: a Cronbach alpha of 0.88 for total score, 0.92 for solitary sexual desire, 0.88 for partner-related desire, and 0.86 for attractive person–related desire.
New sexual satisfaction scale
The New Sexual Satisfaction Scale27 is a 20-item scale consisting of 2 dimensions of sexual satisfaction: ego centered and partner/sexual activity centered. Each subscale has 10 items, ranging from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (extremely satisfied). Higher scores indicate higher sexual satisfaction. In the current study, we used a Portuguese validated version of the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale.42 The Cronbach alpha was 0.95 for the total score, 0.93 for ego-centered sexual satisfaction, and 0.93 for partner/sexual activity–centered sexual satisfaction.
Global measure of relationship satisfaction
The Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction43 is based on the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. The 5 items composing the scale consist of word pairings (eg, very bad/very good, very unpleasant/very pleasant), with a 7-point scale to anchor answers (1, full endorsement of a negative term; 7, full endorsement of a positive term) so that higher scores indicate higher relationship satisfaction. In the present study, which used the validated Portuguese version of the scale,44 the Cronbach alpha for the measure was 0.94.
Analytical strategy
To identify groups of participants with distinct patterns of associations between sexual boredom and 3 facets of sexual desire, we employed latent profile analysis, a robust analytic approach that allows model-based grouping of heterogeneous populations.45 This person-centered statistical approach is a mixture modeling technique, and in this study it divides the latent space composed of sexual desire and boredom indicators into distinct profiles, each representing a group of participants who share similar characteristics.46 LPA also offers some advantages over cluster analysis, such as obtaining probabilities of profile membership and permitting the use of continuous and categorical variables.47,48 Following standard recommendations,47-49 we explored latent models with 1 to 5 profiles. In selecting the model with an optimal number of profiles, we used the Bayesian information criterion (BIC), sample size–adjusted BIC, and P values associated with the bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (BLRT). Lower values of the BIC and sample size–adjusted BIC indicate a better model fit to the data, while a significant BLRT result suggests that the model with an additional latent profile has better fit than the previous one (k – 1). In addition, we inspected entropy, where values ≥0.80 indicate low classification uncertainty,49 and the average predicted probability for each profile. Models with ≥1 very small profiles (<5% of the sample) were not considered.
After the optimal model was selected, its profiles were regressed on a set of potential correlates: sexual orientation, relationship duration and satisfaction, number of children, sexual satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Descriptive analyses were carried out with SPSS version 25 (IBM), while R package mclust 5 was utilized for LPA and the exploration of covariates.50,51
Results
An independent samples t test was conducted to compare the women’s and men’s scores in the several variables. Women reported significantly lower sexual boredom (−0.031 ± 1.001) as compared with men (0.14 ± 0.961; t[1506] = −2.55, P = .011), while men presented significantly higher scores in all sexual desire dimensions as compared with women. Specifically, men’s partnered sexual desire (0.362 ± 0.544) was higher than women’s (−0.089 ± 0.774; t[1475] = −11.226, P < .001); men’s attractive other–related sexual desire (0.603 ± 0.89) was higher than women’s (−0.141 ± 0.955; t[1539] = −12.382, P < .001); and men’s solitary sexual desire (0.379 ± 0.686) was higher than women’s (−0.09 ± 0.91; t[1529] = −0.0835, P < .001). Regarding sexual satisfaction, no significant differences were found between women (0.021 ± 1.017) and men (−0.095 ± 0.92; t[1483] = 1.713, P > .05). Finally, no significant differences were found concerning the relationship satisfaction of women (0.01 ± 1.015) and men (−0.046 ± 0.926; t[1398] = 0.858, P > .05).
Latent profiles and their correlates
The final sample for this analysis included 1000 women and 223 men. Following the standard procedure, we tested models with 1 to 5 latent profiles by sex. As shown in Table 1, in the female sample, models with 3 and 4 latent profiles were superior to the rest. Although a significant BLRT P value for the 4-profile model suggested an improvement in fit over the 3-profile model, posterior probabilities per profile were slightly lower vs the 3-profile model. In addition, the reduction in Akaike information criterion and sample-adjusted BIC scores was substantial when moving from 1- to 2-profile solutions and from 2- to 3-profile solutions but not between 3- and 4-profile solutions. Similarly, inspecting changes in log-likelihood showed that the “elbow”49—the point where adding an additional profile ceases to substantially contribute to model fit—was reached with the 3-profile model. Thus, the model with 3 latent profiles was retained. In the much smaller male sample, selection of the 2-profile model was based on the same logic. In this case, it was also the estimate of entropy that suggested the superiority of the 2-profile solution over the single- and 3-profile solutions.
Latent profile analysis models: classification fit parameters.a
| Sample: class model | Log likelihood | BIC | SABIC | BLRT,b P value | Posterior probabilities | Entropy | Smallest profile, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | |||||||
| 1 | −4968.87 | 10 034.45 | 9989.98 | ||||
| 2 | −4861.71 | 9896.12 | 9816.72 | .001 | 0.88, 0.89 | 0.62 | 36.3 |
| 3 | −4753.25 | 9755.18 | 9640.84 | .001 | 0.88, 0.84, 0.86 | 0.69 | 15.8 |
| 4 | −4734.62 | 9793.9 | 9644.62 | .006 | 0.80, 0.80, 0.81, 0.78 | 0.67 | 8.8 |
| 5 | −4723.60 | 9847.85 | 9663.64 | .170 | 0.81, 0.73, 0.87, 0.86, 0.85 | 0.75 | 7.9 |
| Male | |||||||
| 1 | −954.53 | 1984.77 | 1940.40 | ||||
| 2 | −932.56 | 1973.26 | 1909.87 | .001 | 0.90, 0.98 | 0.87 | 17.0 |
| 3 | −920.64 | 1981.86 | 1899.46 | .011 | 0.90, 0.91, 0.82 | 0.76 | 17.0 |
| 4 | −912.73 | 1998.49 | 1897.08 | .131 | 0.89, 0.83, 0.80, 0.82 | 0.69 | 10.8 |
| 5 | −907.96 | 2021.38 | 1900.96 | .531 | 0.88, 0.79, 0.66, 0.81, 0.87 | 0.66 | 12.1 |
| Sample: class model | Log likelihood | BIC | SABIC | BLRT,b P value | Posterior probabilities | Entropy | Smallest profile, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | |||||||
| 1 | −4968.87 | 10 034.45 | 9989.98 | ||||
| 2 | −4861.71 | 9896.12 | 9816.72 | .001 | 0.88, 0.89 | 0.62 | 36.3 |
| 3 | −4753.25 | 9755.18 | 9640.84 | .001 | 0.88, 0.84, 0.86 | 0.69 | 15.8 |
| 4 | −4734.62 | 9793.9 | 9644.62 | .006 | 0.80, 0.80, 0.81, 0.78 | 0.67 | 8.8 |
| 5 | −4723.60 | 9847.85 | 9663.64 | .170 | 0.81, 0.73, 0.87, 0.86, 0.85 | 0.75 | 7.9 |
| Male | |||||||
| 1 | −954.53 | 1984.77 | 1940.40 | ||||
| 2 | −932.56 | 1973.26 | 1909.87 | .001 | 0.90, 0.98 | 0.87 | 17.0 |
| 3 | −920.64 | 1981.86 | 1899.46 | .011 | 0.90, 0.91, 0.82 | 0.76 | 17.0 |
| 4 | −912.73 | 1998.49 | 1897.08 | .131 | 0.89, 0.83, 0.80, 0.82 | 0.69 | 10.8 |
| 5 | −907.96 | 2021.38 | 1900.96 | .531 | 0.88, 0.79, 0.66, 0.81, 0.87 | 0.66 | 12.1 |
Abbreviations: BIC, Bayesian information criterion; BLRT, bootstrapped likelihood ratio test; SABIC, sample size–adjusted BIC.
Bold rows indicate best model fit.
The BLRT compares the current model with the previous one (k – 1 profiles).
Latent profile analysis models: classification fit parameters.a
| Sample: class model | Log likelihood | BIC | SABIC | BLRT,b P value | Posterior probabilities | Entropy | Smallest profile, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | |||||||
| 1 | −4968.87 | 10 034.45 | 9989.98 | ||||
| 2 | −4861.71 | 9896.12 | 9816.72 | .001 | 0.88, 0.89 | 0.62 | 36.3 |
| 3 | −4753.25 | 9755.18 | 9640.84 | .001 | 0.88, 0.84, 0.86 | 0.69 | 15.8 |
| 4 | −4734.62 | 9793.9 | 9644.62 | .006 | 0.80, 0.80, 0.81, 0.78 | 0.67 | 8.8 |
| 5 | −4723.60 | 9847.85 | 9663.64 | .170 | 0.81, 0.73, 0.87, 0.86, 0.85 | 0.75 | 7.9 |
| Male | |||||||
| 1 | −954.53 | 1984.77 | 1940.40 | ||||
| 2 | −932.56 | 1973.26 | 1909.87 | .001 | 0.90, 0.98 | 0.87 | 17.0 |
| 3 | −920.64 | 1981.86 | 1899.46 | .011 | 0.90, 0.91, 0.82 | 0.76 | 17.0 |
| 4 | −912.73 | 1998.49 | 1897.08 | .131 | 0.89, 0.83, 0.80, 0.82 | 0.69 | 10.8 |
| 5 | −907.96 | 2021.38 | 1900.96 | .531 | 0.88, 0.79, 0.66, 0.81, 0.87 | 0.66 | 12.1 |
| Sample: class model | Log likelihood | BIC | SABIC | BLRT,b P value | Posterior probabilities | Entropy | Smallest profile, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | |||||||
| 1 | −4968.87 | 10 034.45 | 9989.98 | ||||
| 2 | −4861.71 | 9896.12 | 9816.72 | .001 | 0.88, 0.89 | 0.62 | 36.3 |
| 3 | −4753.25 | 9755.18 | 9640.84 | .001 | 0.88, 0.84, 0.86 | 0.69 | 15.8 |
| 4 | −4734.62 | 9793.9 | 9644.62 | .006 | 0.80, 0.80, 0.81, 0.78 | 0.67 | 8.8 |
| 5 | −4723.60 | 9847.85 | 9663.64 | .170 | 0.81, 0.73, 0.87, 0.86, 0.85 | 0.75 | 7.9 |
| Male | |||||||
| 1 | −954.53 | 1984.77 | 1940.40 | ||||
| 2 | −932.56 | 1973.26 | 1909.87 | .001 | 0.90, 0.98 | 0.87 | 17.0 |
| 3 | −920.64 | 1981.86 | 1899.46 | .011 | 0.90, 0.91, 0.82 | 0.76 | 17.0 |
| 4 | −912.73 | 1998.49 | 1897.08 | .131 | 0.89, 0.83, 0.80, 0.82 | 0.69 | 10.8 |
| 5 | −907.96 | 2021.38 | 1900.96 | .531 | 0.88, 0.79, 0.66, 0.81, 0.87 | 0.66 | 12.1 |
Abbreviations: BIC, Bayesian information criterion; BLRT, bootstrapped likelihood ratio test; SABIC, sample size–adjusted BIC.
Bold rows indicate best model fit.
The BLRT compares the current model with the previous one (k – 1 profiles).
Figure 1 describes the 3 selected latent profiles in the female sample. The largest of the 3 latent profiles (P2, n = 484) was characterized by below-average sexual boredom, above-average partner-related sexual desire, and below-average attractive other–related desire and autoerotic desire. The third profile (P3, n = 358) exhibited above-average levels of sexual boredom, attractive other–related sexual desire, and autoerotic sexual desire. The smallest latent profile (P1, n = 158) was distinct in its low partner-related sexual desire and barely existing autoerotic desire. There is a clear difference between P2 and the other 2 latent profiles, which scored above average in sexual boredom and below average in partner-related desire. As shown in Table 2, the 3 profiles differed significantly from each other in 3 of the 4 indicators used to generate latent profiles. The exceptions are average levels of attractive other–related sexual desire, which were not significantly different in P1 and P2.
Latent profiles of sexual boredom and sexual desire in Portuguese women (n = 1000).
Latent profile descriptive information.
| Mean (SE) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | Profile 1 | Profile 2 | Profile 3 | F or t (P value)a |
| Female, No. | 158 | 484 | 358 | |
| Sexual boredom | 0.42 (0.92) | −0.69 (0.49) | 0.65 (0.96) | 535.9 (<.001)b |
| Sexual desire for partner | −0.95 (0.87) | 0.23 (0.48) | −0.20 (0.72) | 261.2 (<.001)b |
| Sexual desire for attractive others | −0.28 (0.95) | −0.30 (0.89) | 0.12 (0.94) | 27.99 (<.001)c |
| Autoerotic sexual desire | −1.26 (0.39) | −0.15 (0.87) | 0.45 (0.55) | 335.4 (<.001)b |
| Male, No. | 38 | 185 | ||
| Sexual boredom | 1.75 (0.57) | −0.17 (0.68) | 20.98 (<.001) | |
| Sexual desire for partner | 0.42 (0.44) | 0.37 (0.53) | 0.46 (.65) | |
| Sexual desire for attractive others | 1.01 (0.68) | 0.50 (0.91) | 4.39 (<.001) | |
| Autoerotic sexual desire | 0.80 (0.52) | 0.29 (0.69) | 5.8 (<.001) | |
| Mean (SE) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | Profile 1 | Profile 2 | Profile 3 | F or t (P value)a |
| Female, No. | 158 | 484 | 358 | |
| Sexual boredom | 0.42 (0.92) | −0.69 (0.49) | 0.65 (0.96) | 535.9 (<.001)b |
| Sexual desire for partner | −0.95 (0.87) | 0.23 (0.48) | −0.20 (0.72) | 261.2 (<.001)b |
| Sexual desire for attractive others | −0.28 (0.95) | −0.30 (0.89) | 0.12 (0.94) | 27.99 (<.001)c |
| Autoerotic sexual desire | −1.26 (0.39) | −0.15 (0.87) | 0.45 (0.55) | 335.4 (<.001)b |
| Male, No. | 38 | 185 | ||
| Sexual boredom | 1.75 (0.57) | −0.17 (0.68) | 20.98 (<.001) | |
| Sexual desire for partner | 0.42 (0.44) | 0.37 (0.53) | 0.46 (.65) | |
| Sexual desire for attractive others | 1.01 (0.68) | 0.50 (0.91) | 4.39 (<.001) | |
| Autoerotic sexual desire | 0.80 (0.52) | 0.29 (0.69) | 5.8 (<.001) | |
Between-profile difference. F value for women; t value for men.
P1 ≠ P2 ≠ P3.
P3 ≠ P1, P2.
Latent profile descriptive information.
| Mean (SE) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | Profile 1 | Profile 2 | Profile 3 | F or t (P value)a |
| Female, No. | 158 | 484 | 358 | |
| Sexual boredom | 0.42 (0.92) | −0.69 (0.49) | 0.65 (0.96) | 535.9 (<.001)b |
| Sexual desire for partner | −0.95 (0.87) | 0.23 (0.48) | −0.20 (0.72) | 261.2 (<.001)b |
| Sexual desire for attractive others | −0.28 (0.95) | −0.30 (0.89) | 0.12 (0.94) | 27.99 (<.001)c |
| Autoerotic sexual desire | −1.26 (0.39) | −0.15 (0.87) | 0.45 (0.55) | 335.4 (<.001)b |
| Male, No. | 38 | 185 | ||
| Sexual boredom | 1.75 (0.57) | −0.17 (0.68) | 20.98 (<.001) | |
| Sexual desire for partner | 0.42 (0.44) | 0.37 (0.53) | 0.46 (.65) | |
| Sexual desire for attractive others | 1.01 (0.68) | 0.50 (0.91) | 4.39 (<.001) | |
| Autoerotic sexual desire | 0.80 (0.52) | 0.29 (0.69) | 5.8 (<.001) | |
| Mean (SE) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | Profile 1 | Profile 2 | Profile 3 | F or t (P value)a |
| Female, No. | 158 | 484 | 358 | |
| Sexual boredom | 0.42 (0.92) | −0.69 (0.49) | 0.65 (0.96) | 535.9 (<.001)b |
| Sexual desire for partner | −0.95 (0.87) | 0.23 (0.48) | −0.20 (0.72) | 261.2 (<.001)b |
| Sexual desire for attractive others | −0.28 (0.95) | −0.30 (0.89) | 0.12 (0.94) | 27.99 (<.001)c |
| Autoerotic sexual desire | −1.26 (0.39) | −0.15 (0.87) | 0.45 (0.55) | 335.4 (<.001)b |
| Male, No. | 38 | 185 | ||
| Sexual boredom | 1.75 (0.57) | −0.17 (0.68) | 20.98 (<.001) | |
| Sexual desire for partner | 0.42 (0.44) | 0.37 (0.53) | 0.46 (.65) | |
| Sexual desire for attractive others | 1.01 (0.68) | 0.50 (0.91) | 4.39 (<.001) | |
| Autoerotic sexual desire | 0.80 (0.52) | 0.29 (0.69) | 5.8 (<.001) | |
Between-profile difference. F value for women; t value for men.
P1 ≠ P2 ≠ P3.
P3 ≠ P1, P2.
The 2 latent profiles in the male sample, presented in Figure 2, significantly differed from each other in all but partner-related sexual desire—which was above average (in the context of the total sample). P2, the larger profile (n = 185), displayed below-average sexual boredom and lower levels of attractive other–related and autoerotic desire as compared with P1, the smaller profile (n = 38), though still above average overall. Notably, individuals classified in P1 were characterized by very high levels of sexual boredom.
Latent profiles of sexual boredom and sexual desire in Portuguese men (n = 223).
Covariates of latent profiles by sex
In the final step, regression analyses—multivariate multinomial (female participants) and logistic (male participants)—were carried out to explore the 6 conceptually selected predictors and correlates of the latent profile classification. As presented in Table 3, only 1 significant correlate was observed in the case of men. When compared with participants classified in P2, those in P1 reported substantially lower sexual satisfaction (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.89, P < .01). Among women, several indicators reached the threshold of statistical significance. As compared with the largest profile (P2; reference), being classified in either of the 2 remaining latent profiles (P1 and P3) was associated with lower relationship satisfaction (AOR = 0.92, P < .001, and AOR = 0.89, P < .001, respectively) and lower sexual satisfaction (AOR = 0.81, P < .001 and AOR = 0.86, P < .001). In addition, the odds of reporting strictly heterosexual orientation were substantially lower among women classified in P3 vs P2.
Predictors and correlates of latent profiles of sexual boredom and sexual desire.
| AOR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sample | Profile 1 | Profile 3 |
| Female, No.a | 158 | 358 |
| Sexual orientationb | 0.81 (0.42-1.56) | 0.51** (0.31-0.83) |
| Length of relationship | 1.00 (0.98-1.02) | 1.00 (0.98-1.02) |
| Relationship satisfaction | 0.92*** (0.88-0.96) | 0.89*** (0.85-0.92) |
| Sexual satisfaction | 0.81*** (0.78-0.84) | 0.86*** (0.83-0.89) |
| Male, No.c | 38 | |
| Sexual orientationb | 0.67 (0.22-2.07) | |
| Length of relationship | 0.98 (0.92-1.05) | |
| Relationship satisfaction | 0.93 (0.85-1.01) | |
| Sexual satisfaction | 0.89** (0.83-0.96) | |
| AOR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sample | Profile 1 | Profile 3 |
| Female, No.a | 158 | 358 |
| Sexual orientationb | 0.81 (0.42-1.56) | 0.51** (0.31-0.83) |
| Length of relationship | 1.00 (0.98-1.02) | 1.00 (0.98-1.02) |
| Relationship satisfaction | 0.92*** (0.88-0.96) | 0.89*** (0.85-0.92) |
| Sexual satisfaction | 0.81*** (0.78-0.84) | 0.86*** (0.83-0.89) |
| Male, No.c | 38 | |
| Sexual orientationb | 0.67 (0.22-2.07) | |
| Length of relationship | 0.98 (0.92-1.05) | |
| Relationship satisfaction | 0.93 (0.85-1.01) | |
| Sexual satisfaction | 0.89** (0.83-0.96) | |
Abbreviation: AOR, adjusted odds ratio.
Reference: profile 2 (n = 484).
1 = exclusively heterosexual.
Reference: profile 2 (n = 185).
**P < .01.
***P < .001.
Predictors and correlates of latent profiles of sexual boredom and sexual desire.
| AOR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sample | Profile 1 | Profile 3 |
| Female, No.a | 158 | 358 |
| Sexual orientationb | 0.81 (0.42-1.56) | 0.51** (0.31-0.83) |
| Length of relationship | 1.00 (0.98-1.02) | 1.00 (0.98-1.02) |
| Relationship satisfaction | 0.92*** (0.88-0.96) | 0.89*** (0.85-0.92) |
| Sexual satisfaction | 0.81*** (0.78-0.84) | 0.86*** (0.83-0.89) |
| Male, No.c | 38 | |
| Sexual orientationb | 0.67 (0.22-2.07) | |
| Length of relationship | 0.98 (0.92-1.05) | |
| Relationship satisfaction | 0.93 (0.85-1.01) | |
| Sexual satisfaction | 0.89** (0.83-0.96) | |
| AOR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sample | Profile 1 | Profile 3 |
| Female, No.a | 158 | 358 |
| Sexual orientationb | 0.81 (0.42-1.56) | 0.51** (0.31-0.83) |
| Length of relationship | 1.00 (0.98-1.02) | 1.00 (0.98-1.02) |
| Relationship satisfaction | 0.92*** (0.88-0.96) | 0.89*** (0.85-0.92) |
| Sexual satisfaction | 0.81*** (0.78-0.84) | 0.86*** (0.83-0.89) |
| Male, No.c | 38 | |
| Sexual orientationb | 0.67 (0.22-2.07) | |
| Length of relationship | 0.98 (0.92-1.05) | |
| Relationship satisfaction | 0.93 (0.85-1.01) | |
| Sexual satisfaction | 0.89** (0.83-0.96) | |
Abbreviation: AOR, adjusted odds ratio.
Reference: profile 2 (n = 484).
1 = exclusively heterosexual.
Reference: profile 2 (n = 185).
**P < .01.
***P < .001.
Discussion
This study examined whether there were different patterns of associations between sexual boredom and 3 facets of sexual desire in monogamous men and women in long-term cohabiting relationships (RQ1). The LPA identified 3 distinct profiles in women and 2 profiles in men samples. Among women, P1 was characterized by above-average sexual boredom, below-average partner- and attractive other–related sexual desire, and very low solitary (autoerotic) sexual desire; P2 by below-average sexual boredom, above-average partner-related sexual desire, and below-average attractive other–related and solitary desire levels; and P3 by above-average sexual boredom, below-average partner-related sexual desire, and above-average attractive other–related and solitary sexual desire. In men, P1 was characterized by high sexual boredom, above-average partner-related sexual desire, and high attractive other–related sexual desire and solitary sexual desire and P2 by below-average sexual boredom and above-average partner-related, attractive other–related, and solitary sexual desire.
We also analyzed if the profiles differed across sexual orientation and relationship duration (RQ2). According to the findings, P3 women had lower odds of being exclusively heterosexual when compared with P2 women. No differences were found regarding length of relationship among the different latent profiles in either sex.
Furthermore, we analyzed if the latent profiles differed by levels of sexual and relationship satisfaction (RQ3). P2 women reported higher relationship and sexual satisfaction than P1 and P3 women. Among men, those in P1 were characterized by significantly lower sexual satisfaction than P2 men.
Sexual boredom and sexual desire latent profiles
Results of this study suggest that sexually bored women (P1 and P3) either feel little desire for their partners but desire other attractive persons and report solitary desire or are characterized by low sexual desire in general. The combination of higher sexual boredom with lower partnered sexual desire was previously described by clinicians52-54 and corroborated by qualitative research.3,17,23 Higher levels of autoerotic desire and sexual desire for attractive others could be related with women’s ability and resources for managing this effect in long-term relationships; speculatively, women could be using masturbation or fantasizing about attractive others as means to manage sexual boredom.
Men in this study, as compared with women, reported higher levels of sexual boredom and generally higher sexual desire. In common with women, those with lower sexual boredom presented with above-average partnered sexual desire, and those with above-average sexual boredom presented the highest levels of attractive other–related and solitary sexual desire. Contrary to women, men in the 2 profiles presented with levels of sexual desire above average in all dimensions. Within the men’s sample, though, participants who were characterized by high sexual boredom (P1) reported higher sexual desire when compared with men who reported low sexual boredom (P2) but no differences in partner-related sexual desire. The fact that attractive other–related sexual desire was higher than partner-related desire in the groups of men and women with higher sexual boredom could add to evolutionary theory,24,26 specifically to men’s25,26,55 as well as women’s orientation toward short-term mating strategies.37 However, sexual boredom might not be particularly significant for men’s partnered sexual desire.
Furthermore, that the small latent profile of men who experienced high levels of sexual boredom also had high levels of sexual desire might add to the link between boredom and hypersexuality and its clinical implications.56,57 Higher boredom proneness was recently related to clinically significative compulsive sexual behavior.58 Men are known to experience higher levels of boredom proneness59,60 and sexual boredom, according to the current study and to previous literature.16,23 Men with a higher tendency to sexual boredom might require and seek more sexual stimulation, which might become problematic or not.
Finally, sexual boredom was related with differences in partnered sexual desire in women but not men. This is relevant in the context of sexual desire discrepancies, which are a common reason for seeking sexual therapy.61 Women are thought to experience more declines in desire in long-term relationships.62 Although this is likely related with the pleasure gap between heterosexual men and women,63-65 it might also be related with an inability to manage sexual boredom in long-term relationships,17 whether women are paired with men or other women. In this study, relationship profiles did not significantly differ in relationship length, as expected from previous studies,33-36 suggesting that sexual boredom might be a better predictor of sexual desire in long-term relationships.
Differences in sexual and relationship satisfaction
According to our findings, a combination of higher sexual boredom and lower partner-related sexual desire was associated with lower sexual satisfaction in both sexes and lower relationship satisfaction in women only. Our results add evidence to previous literature reporting a negative link between sexual satisfaction and sexual boredom.1,17,27 As well, the literature establishes a correlation between sexual desire issues and lower sexual and relationship satisfaction32,66 and between high dyadic sexual desire and high sexual satisfaction in both sexes.67 Relationship satisfaction, however, has been significantly related to dyadic sexual desire only in women, not men.68 This is in line with our findings and implies that women’s sexual desire is context dependent69 and oriented toward relationship rewards.62 That women’s sexual desire might be more interwoven with relationship satisfaction than men’s, even for those who might not be exclusively heterosexual (P3), is likely related to gender-specific socialization, which stigmatizes women’s singleness and privileges couple relationships70-72 and teaches women to value sex in the context of heteronormative romance.
The groups of women and men who displayed the highest sexual boredom also presented the highest solitary and attractive other–related sexual desire, but they were less likely to be sexually satisfied than those with the lowest sexual boredom and highest sexual desire for their partners; this suggests that partnered sexual desire is crucial to the appraisal of sexual satisfaction in both sexes. This is likely related to the emphasis that society places on partnered sex to the detriment of solo activities and fantasy.
Study strengths and limitations
The current study’s biggest strength resides in the use of LPA instead of cluster analysis. Even though the latter is more commonly used in the literature, LPA—which has, to the best of our knowledge, never been used to address the linkage between sexual boredom and desire—allows a more rigorous and objective classification. In addition, our study assessed several dimensions of sexual desire, which enables finer observations. The current work comes with some limitations, one being the use of a nonprobabilistic and relatively young sample that does not allow generalizability. This is mostly related with overarching issues of volunteer bias in sex research and self-reporting. A more specific concern of this study was the lower power in the male sample, which might not have allowed us to extract the real variability of the measure constructs in men.
Conclusions and implications
This study indicates that sexual boredom is intertwined with sexuality in long-term relationships, and it allowed us to identify subgroups of individuals regarding sexual boredom and different facets of sexual desire who might benefit from a common intervention based on their shared characteristics. Individuals with lower levels of sexual boredom, most of our sample, seem to have higher sexual satisfaction in long-term relationships. Conversely, higher levels of sexual boredom, rather than relationship length, might be linked to low sexual desire as well as high sexual desire. Specifically, having less sexual boredom seems related with having more sexual desire for a partner, while more sexual boredom relates with more solitary sexual desire and more sexual desire for attractive others—yet with less sexual satisfaction. This could mean that sexual satisfaction is especially influenced or informed by partnered sexual desire to the detriment of these other dimensions of sexual desire—reflecting a socially constructed hierarchy of sexual activity, where partnered sex and therefore couples are ranked as most desirable and privileged.
Our results also implicate that people prone to sexual boredom might require active implementation of sexual novelty in partnered sexual activity as this seems most important for their enjoyment of sex. While autoeroticism and fantasy, specifically fantasizing about attractive others, might be used to manage some level of sexual boredom, they do not seem enough to elevate partnered sexual desire or sexual satisfaction or to overcome sexual boredom in the context of long-term relationships. Thus, clinicians should attempt to explore with clients the existence and management of sexual boredom in their relationships and guide them through the exploration of sexual novelty with their partners—whichever shape or form that may take. In doing so, they should also assess for problematic/compulsive sexual behavior, which might also gain from introducing novel and pleasurable partnered sexual activity. Nevertheless, it could be beneficial to simultaneously help clients de-hierarchize sex to identify new sexual stimuli outside the socially constructed heteronorms around gender and sexual activity, which are very much focused on the value attributed to partnered sex.
Moreover, our data add evidence that men present with higher levels of sexual boredom and sexual desire as compared with women. Despite this, women’s partnered sexual desire appears to vary according to the level of sexual boredom, as in higher sexual boredom pairs with lower sexual desire for partner, whereas men’s above-average level of partnered sexual desire does not differ by high or lower sexual boredom. Seemingly, women-partnered sexual desire might be particularly sensitive to variations in sexual boredom and will likely benefit if women are helped to minimize or manage their coupled sexual routines. Results also add to the idea that men, as well as women, could have evolved through short-term mating attributed to declines in desire owing to familiarity and/or increases in response to partner novelty. As for men, participants who had above- and below-average sexual boredom did not differ in their reported levels of partner-related sexual desire. This suggests that clinical interventions dealing with male sexual boredom should look into factors beyond the current relationship.
At last, considering that the underlying mechanisms of sexual boredom cannot be fully uncovered by the current analysis and that previous research has not yet been able to provide a model or theory of sexual boredom, further studies should focus on using confirmatory methodologies. This shall include not only the study of predictors and mediation effects among the several sexuality constructs included in this work but also longitudinal and dyadic studies that could reveal more subtle aspects that are acting to prevent or promote sexual well-being in relationships.
Funding
None declared.
Conflicts of interest: None declared.
