This article was downloaded by: ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"]

On: 02 October 2013, At: 12:52

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sex Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

What is Sexual Satisfaction? Thematic Analysis of Lay

People's Definitions
a a b
Patrícia Monteiro Pascoal , Isabel de Santa Bárbara Narciso & Nuno Monteiro Pereira
a
Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon
b
iSEX , Association for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, Lusófona University
Published online: 26 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Patrícia Monteiro Pascoal , Isabel de Santa Bárbara Narciso & Nuno Monteiro Pereira , Journal of Sex
Research (2013): What is Sexual Satisfaction? Thematic Analysis of Lay People's Definitions, Journal of Sex Research, DOI:
10.1080/00224499.2013.815149

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.815149

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 0(0), 1–9, 2013
Copyright # The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
ISSN: 0022-4499 print=1559-8519 online
DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2013.815149

What is Sexual Satisfaction? Thematic Analysis of Lay People’s Definitions

Patrı́cia Monteiro Pascoal and Isabel de Santa Bárbara Narciso
Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon
Nuno Monteiro Pereira
iSEX, Association for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, Lusófona University

Sexual satisfaction is an important indicator of sexual health and is strongly associated with
relationship satisfaction. However, research exploring lay definitions of sexual satisfaction
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 12:52 02 October 2013

has been scarce. We present thematic analysis of written responses of 449 women and
311 men to the question ‘‘How would you define sexual satisfaction?’’ The participants were
heterosexual individuals with a mean age of 36.05 years (SD ¼ 8.34) involved in a committed
exclusive relationship. In this exploratory study, two main themes were identified: personal
sexual well-being and dyadic processes. The first theme focuses on the positive aspects of
individual sexual experience, such as pleasure, positive feelings, arousal, sexual openness,
and orgasm. The second theme emphasizes relational dimensions, such as mutuality, romance,
expression of feelings, creativity, acting out desires, and frequency of sexual activity. Our
results highlight that mutual pleasure is a crucial component of sexual satisfaction and
that sexual satisfaction derives from positive sexual experiences and not from the absence
of conflict or dysfunction. The findings support definitions and models of sexual satisfaction
that focus on positive sexual outcomes and the use of measures that incorporate items linked
to personal and dyadic sexual rewards for both men and women.

Sexual satisfaction is considered an important compo-
nent of sexual health, a sexual right, and an outcome
of sexual well-being (World Health Organization,
2010). Within the field of couples research, various
authors (e.g., Fincham, Beach, Vangelisti, & Perlman,
2006; Gottman & Silver, 2007) have emphasized
the interaction among sexuality, communication, and
conflict within the couple. Not only can sexual problems
reflect difficulties with power management, communi-
cation, and conflict within the couple (Metz & Epstein,
2002), they are strongly related to relationship
dissatisfaction (McCabe, 1999; Rowland, van Diest,
Incrocci, & Slob, 2005). In this field of research sexual
satisfaction is a central dimension in the study of
relationship quality, classified as the ‘‘barometer for
the quality of a relationship’’ (Sprecher & Cate, 2004,
p. 241). Therefore, the understanding of the meaning
of sexual satisfaction within the context of dyadic
heterosexual committed relationships is crucial.
As McClelland (2010) pointed out, the study of sexual
satisfaction is still in its infancy, and most research has
This study was supported by a grant with the reference SFRH=
BD=39934=2007 from the Foundation of Science and Technology.
Correspondence should be addressed to Patrı́cia Monteiro Pascoal,
Faculdade de Psicologia, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-013 Lisboa,
Portugal. E-mail: patriciapascoal@campus.ul.pt
been conducted using self-reinforcing definitions of sexual
satisfaction and single items to measure the construct of
sexual satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction has also been
mainly studied within the context of heterosexual
committed dyadic relationships. Within this relational
context, several quantitative studies have demonstrated
that sexual satisfaction is related to sexual functioning
(Frank, Anderson, & Rubinstein, 1978; Heiman et al.,
2011), sexual frequency (Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs,
2001; McNulty & Fisher, 2008; Smith et al., 2011), sexual
communication (Byers, 2011), relationship satisfaction
(Sprecher, Christopher, & Cate, 2006), nonsexual physical
intimacy (Heiman et al., 2011), and emotional intimacy
(Rubin & Campbell, 2012). Even though these correlates
seem well established by quantitative studies, our
literature review revealed three problems in the study of
sexual satisfaction: scarce conceptual definitions of
sexual satisfaction, few theoretical models for the under-
standing of sexual satisfaction, and inconsistency in the
indicators (e.g., frequency of orgasm) used in different
measures of sexual satisfaction.
Some definitions of the concept of sexual satisfaction
are global, vague definitions that stress the subjective
appraisal of one’s current sexual relationship without
specifying any indicator (Lawrance & Byers, 1995, p.
268; Sprecher & Cate, 2004, p. 236). Existing theoretical
 PASCOAL, DE SANTA BÁRBARA NARCISO, AND PEREIRA
models of sexual satisfaction stem mainly from social
exchange models (e.g., Lawrance & Byers, 1995; Peck,
Shaffer, & Williamson, 2004), and most research on sex-
ual satisfaction lacks a theoretical framework through
which results can be integrated. Finally, despite these
shortcomings, there are several measures that assess
sexual satisfaction, most of them not based on theory
and without a clear definition of the concept of sexual
satisfaction (for exceptions, see the Global Measure of
Sexual Satisfaction by Lawrance & Byers, 1995; and
the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale by Stulhofer, Busko,
& Brouillard, 2010). Existing measures also focus on
different underlying implicit approaches to sexual satis-
faction, meaning that researchers have differed in their
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 12:52 02 October 2013
implicit operational definitions of sexual satisfaction.
For example, there are measures based on different
indicators, such as (a) the absence or presence of clinical
criteria for the diagnosis of sexual dysfunctions (Rust &
Golombok, 1985, 1986); (b) the quality of communi-
cation and conflict management (Hudson, Harrison, &
Crosscup, 1981); (c) relationship closeness and global
satisfaction with sexuality (Wiegel, Meston, & Rosen,
2005); (d) the integration of individual and relationship
correlates of sexual satisfaction (Stulhofer et al., 2010);
(e) affective responses resulting from a subjective
evaluation of several sexual dimensions of a relationship
(Lawrance & Byers, 1995); and (f) gender specificities
(Meston & Trapnell, 2005; Pinney, Gerrard, & Denney,
1987). As most of the existing measures were developed
based on researchers’ understandings of the construct of
sexual satisfaction, rather than laypeople’s understand-
ing of the term, we do not know if the researchers’
conceptualizations represent colloquial understanding
of the concept. These shortcomings compromise the
building of a solid and consistent body of knowledge
about the concept of sexual satisfaction and preclude
comparability among studies.
Current Study
Even though sexual satisfaction has a central role in
the study of sexual health and couples’ satisfaction,
the literature reveals a particular lack of qualitative
research on the meanings of sexual satisfaction (for
a review, see McClelland, 2010).
In line with previous research on the definition of
sexual terms (Byers, Henderson, & Hobson, 2009),
the goal of this exploratory study was to investigate
lay definitions of the concept of sexual satisfaction.
Through an online survey, we asked both men and
women who were in committed, cohabitating, hetero-
sexual relationships for their definitions of sexual
satisfaction. Using thematic analysis, the present study
explored these written definitions of sexual satisfac-
tion as a first step in filling the gaps in this area of
research.
2
Developed within a postpositivist paradigm and
within the theoretical frame of family systems, which
advocates that human systems are complex and
interinfluential, our main research question was this:
‘‘How do individuals in committed, exclusive, hetero-
sexual relationships define sexual satisfaction?’’
Method
Recruitment
The present study was based on a convenience sample
from a large online study about sexual satisfaction. The
sample was collected using snowball sampling methods.
The principal researcher sent e-mails to acquaintances,
colleagues, and students, inviting them to participate
in the study and directing them to the informed consent
page. To be included in the present study, participants
had to (a) be older than the minimum consent age of
18; (b) have Portuguese as their first language; (c) be het-
erosexual; (d) be in a committed, exclusive relationship
for at least one year; and (e) be cohabitating with their
partner. The survey was conducted between January
and April 2008.
Participants
A total of 760 participants, 449 women and 311 men,
completed the online questionnaire. All participants
were from Portugal, and the majority lived in the Great-
er Lisbon area (n ¼ 461; 57.8%). The mean participant
age was 36.05 years (SD ¼ 8.34, age range: 20 to 69).
There were 422 (56%) married participants and 338
(44%) participants living in common-law relationships.
The mean duration of marriage was 9.95 years (n ¼
422, SD ¼ 8.25, range: 2 to 39), and the mean duration
of common-law relationships was 4.65 years (n ¼ 338,
SD ¼ 8.2, range: 2 to 29). The sample was highly
educated, with 574 participants (75.4%) possessing at
least an undergraduate degree and 81 (10%) current
undergraduate college students; the remaining parti-
cipants had fewer than 12 years of education.
Procedure
The survey was approved by the university ethics
committee. First, 30 individuals, all known by the prin-
cipal researcher (colleagues, acquaintances, and friends),
piloted the full survey and evaluated the interface, visual
display, length, and comprehensibility of the instruc-
tions and survey items. The online survey was adminis-
tered by a technician who had a username and password
to access the server that was updated regularly and
checked for potential intruders. No personal infor-
mation was collected that could identify the participants
and no Internet Protocol (IP) addresses were recorded.
 LAY DEFINITIONS OF SEXUAL SATISFACTION
The informed consent page had information concerning
the nature and aims of the study, the names and posi-
tions of the researchers, anonymity and confidentiality
(e.g., nonrecording of IP addresses), inclusion and
exclusion criteria, compensation, and contact details for
the principal researcher.
The participants initially completed a background
questionnaire assessing demographics (e.g., sex and resi-
dence) and history variables (e.g., existence of sexual
problems and history of previous cohabitation). The
participants then completed a series of questionnaires
that are reported elsewhere (Pascoal, Narciso, & Pereira,
2012, 2013). At the end of the questionnaires, the parti-
cipants were asked to respond to four open-ended ques-
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 12:52 02 October 2013
tions concerning their sexuality. In the present study,
answers to only the first question were analyzed:
‘‘How would you define sexual satisfaction?’’
We included open-ended questions throughout the
survey to control for attention, commitment, and motiv-
ation (e.g., What is your profession?) and consistency in
the responses (e.g., How many children do you have?
versus Do you have children?). Two members of the
research team independently examined responses to
these questions to determine problematic responses
(e.g., jokes or derogatory language). When problematic
responses were detected, the participants were excluded
to increase the validity of the study. There were 22 (3%)
Figure 1. Thematic map of written definitions of sexual satisfaction.
problematic responses. There was 95% consistency in
the researchers’ evaluation of problematic responses.
Missing answers were highlighted so that individuals
could have the opportunity to complete the survey and
not miss questions unintentionally. On average, indivi-
duals took 40 minutes to complete the survey. The drop-
out rate was 40% and occurred, on average, 25 minutes
after starting the survey. There was a final debriefing
page that included information on public resources that
participants could contact if they had experienced
psychological or emotional distress during the com-
pletion of the survey. Only four participants did not
answer the question about the definition of sexual
satisfaction.
Data Analysis
We used QSR (2011) Nvivo9 software to store,
explore, and organize the qualitative material. The data
set used in the present analysis constitutes the written
answers to our question ‘‘How would you define sexual
satisfaction?’’ We used Braun and Clarke’s (2006)
approach to thematic analysis to identify themes in
participants’ written definitions of sexual satisfaction
and to build our thematic map (Figure 1). We adopted
a realistic approach, looking for semantic themes
across the whole data set. Specifically, we followed
3
 PASCOAL, DE SANTA BÁRBARA NARCISO, AND PEREIRA
their six-phase method for thematic analysis to describe
how patterns of meaning combined into broader
conceptualizations=themes. The main themes, sub-
themes, and codes presented were found after repeated
reading of the written definition, paying careful
attention not only to patterns of themes across defini-
tions but also to contradictions, ambiguity, and incon-
sistencies both within and across the definitions.
We organized our themes hierarchically in three levels
of analysis. At the first level are the codes that we
identified across the data set. At the second level
are the subthemes, where different codes were com-
bined because they shared an underlying meaning.
Subthemes are also called themes within a theme,
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 12:52 02 October 2013
because subthemes can be identified within the third,
and last, level. At the third level, are the main themes:
less concrete, more global and abstract (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). The principal researcher and an under-
graduate trained rater in qualitative methodology
coded the data independently. When disagreement
occurred, a specialist in qualitative methodology and
family psychology was consulted until a consensus
and agreement was reached. We then established
our final thematic map (Figure 1).
Results
Thematic Analysis
In the initial phase of the analysis (data familiariza-
tion) we found there were two distinct types of answers:
the short, straightforward definition, and more complex
answers in which different concepts were intertwined
and adjectives and examples were used to enrich the
definition. Some examples of more complex definitions
(those that included more than one code, or where
different codes were present to express a more global
concept) are presented later in this section.
In the early stage of the analysis, we found the follow-
ing codes at the first level: positive feelings, pleasure,
orgasm, sexual openness, arousal, desire, romance,
expression of feelings, mutuality, creativity, and acting
out desires (for a brief description of codes, see
Table 1). After repeated reading of participants’ written
definitions we grouped the first-level codes into different
broader themes based on a shared underlying meaning.
Positive feelings, pleasure, orgasm, sexual openness,
arousal, and desire were grouped under the main theme
of personal sexual well-being because these codes reflect
an individual’s subjective positive sexual experience. The
remaining first-level codes were grouped under three dis-
tinct second-level themes, all of which were grouped
under the main theme of dyadic processes. Therefore,
dyadic processes is comprised of three subthemes: inti-
macy, frequency of sexual activity, and ludic sexuality.
Among those, intimacy includes the first-level codes
4
romance, expression of feelings, and mutuality, and
ludic sexuality includes first-level codes creativity and
acting out desires (for a graphic representation of the
relation between codes, subthemes, and themes, see
Figure 1). Participants’ most frequent codes were
pleasure and mutuality, and these appeared very often
intertwined with each other.
Personal sexual well-being. The codes grouped
under this main theme (positive feelings, pleasure,
desire, orgasm, sexual openness, and arousal) represent
meanings of sexual satisfaction that focus on individual
positive physical and emotional experiences that are not
strictly dependent on the existence of a sexual partner.
Almost half of the participants referred to pleasure to
define sexual satisfaction. Among these, it was common
to find participants who specifically associated pleasure
with positive feelings and also those that differentiated
pleasure from orgasm. An example that illustrates the
first aspect was: ‘‘To feel pleasure, not having prejudice,
and to experience happiness in the end’’ (man, 60 years
old, coded for pleasure, sexual openness, and positive
feeling). The following examples illustrate the second
aspect: ‘‘the ability to experience pleasure even if it is
not translated into an orgasm, but the orgasm feeling
persists over time’’ (man, 42 years old, coded for pleasure
and orgasm) and ‘‘satisfaction with one’s sexual life as
a whole. It does not imply necessarily to reach orgasm,
but it means to have as much pleasure as possible’’
(woman, 31 years old, coded for pleasure and orgasm).
In contrast, only a few participants mentioned desire,
arousal, and orgasm in their definitions of sexual
satisfaction, three codes which represent phases of the
traditional model of sexual response but which here
appeared linked to dyadic processes (e.g., mutuality).
Finally, a small number of participants included indi-
vidual sexual openness to define sexual satisfaction, and
this code appeared mostly as an individual characteristic
that was a facilitator to experience sexual satisfaction.
In the main theme of personal sexual well-being, the
codes that defined sexual satisfaction appeared as parts
of definitions which included other codes that were
grouped under the main theme of dyadic processes.
Dyadic processes. Dyadic processes was a main
theme in which we included the definitions of sexual
satisfaction that imply being in a relationship. Inte-
grated within this main theme at the second level were
intimacy, a subtheme which aggregates the codes usually
associated with being in a close relationship; frequency,
which refers to the frequency of sexual activity between
two partners; and ludic sexuality, a subtheme in which
the codes included accentuate the playful components
of sexuality that are not necessarily dependent on being
in a close relationship (see Table 1).
Within the main theme of dyadic processes we
also found definitions where different codes belonging
 LAY DEFINITIONS OF SEXUAL SATISFACTION

Table 1. Hierarchical Organization of the Thematic Map with Description of Codes

Main Themes Subthemes Codes

(Third Level) (Second Level) (First Level) Description Examples

Personal sexual Pleasure Pleasure as an aspect of sexual satisfaction or To feel pleasure

well-being pleasure equated to sexual satisfaction
Positive Positive feelings, such as happiness,
feelings relaxation, well-being, joy, peace, serenity,
comfort, balance
Desire Feeling desire or being desired, both
within and without the sexual context
Orgasm Reaching or having orgasms
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 12:52 02 October 2013
To share pleasure
To have a sexual, pleasurable experience
To feel at peace and at ease with oneself during
sexual activity
Happiness
Fulfillment and joy
Growing desire until orgasm
To feel desire as in the beginning of the
relationship, believing in its possibility and
desiring sex with your partner
To have many orgasms

To feel pleasure beyond orgasms

To feel aroused and reach orgasm
Sexual Feeling free of prejudice, feeling completely To feel trust and freedom of inhibitions
openness at ease or without inhibitions No shame
No prejudice
No guilt
Arousal Feeling aroused or excited within or To feel excitement or restlessness
without a sexual context Desire and arousal
Dyadic Intimacy Expression of Expression of feelings and of relationship To feel one is evolving in the relationship and
processes feelings dynamics that this can be felt in sexual activity,
growing together
To express sexually what our relationship is
To feel the rhythm of our love, to see it
happening; when the relationship is broken,
the sex will not work
Romance Courtship behaviors in nonsexual contexts To feel that mysterious bond, the feeling that
exists in any action toward the partner
To feel that sex is not the only sexual act; the
seduction of each other to have sex
Mutuality Feelings of reciprocity, closeness, and To feel and give pleasure
bonding in sexual activity To fully share the moment
To feel completely embedded in one’s partner
Ludic sexuality Creativity Need to create novelty and surprise Games, play, the need and will to experience
in sexual activity new things
To create surprises
To break the routine
Acting out Expressing and practicing one’s own or To say what you like and express your inner
desires the partner’s unusual or unexpected wishes
sexual preferences and activities
Frequency Frequency of sexual activity To have plenty of sex
To have sex daily
Regular sexual activity

to this main theme were intertwined. Mutuality, which
is integrated in intimacy, was the code to which most
participants referred. Participants’ use of mutuality was
usually intertwined with other first-level or second-level
themes that belonged to dyadic processes, such as the
second-level theme frequency, e.g., ‘‘Compatibility
between habits, preferences, desire, and frequency’’
(man, 40 years old, coded for mutuality, desire, and
frequency), expression of feelings and frequency,
e.g., ‘‘Sex, not only for sex, but sex for [expressing]
love, preferably with frequency but always when there
is mutual need and with a lot of tenderness’’ (man, 36
years old, coded for expression of feelings, frequency,
desire, and mutuality); mutuality and ludic sexuality,
e.g., ‘‘To feel well with yourself, to satisfy your needs
and desires and to satisfy the secret desires and needs
of one’s partner’’ (woman, 30 years old, coded for acting
out desires and mutuality); or ‘‘To be able to fulfill my
own and my partner’s desires, to be an instrument to
her private and secret desires’’ (man, 47 years old, coded
for acting out desires and mutuality).
Complementarity between main themes. Within each
main theme, complex definitions of sexual satisfaction
included the complementarity between the subthemes
and codes that were integrated in that same main theme.
We would like to highlight that most complex defini-
tions were characterized by presenting personal sexual
being codes complemented by dyadic processes’ codes
and subthemes, our two main themes. The following

5
 PASCOAL, DE SANTA BÁRBARA NARCISO, AND PEREIRA
quotes ad verbatim are examples of definitions where
different codes and subthemes from both the main
themes of personal well-being and dyadic processes were
intertwined and complement each other: ‘‘ . . . orgasm;
the pleasure I give and that I receive, the bond we feel
during and after [sex], the seduction, the exploration,
the discovery of new pleasures and situations, with no
shame, with trust and self-disclosure, feeling gradually
more at ease’’ (woman, 36 years old, coded for orgasm,
pleasure, mutuality, expression of feelings, creativity,
sexual self-confidence, and romance); ‘‘To give yourself
away, relaxation, eroticism and romance in order to
experience unique pleasure’’ (man, 41 years old, coded
for positive feelings, romance, and pleasure); and ‘‘Physi-
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 12:52 02 October 2013
cal and emotional satisfaction, the feeling to be just one,
the acknowledgment that our mutual understanding
takes a material bodily form’’ (woman, 30 years old,
coded for expression of feelings and mutuality).
Discussion
Research on sexual satisfaction has been increasing in
recent years. However, studies have been mainly quanti-
tative, the concept has not been consistently defined,
there are few theoretical models developed to under-
stand it, and there are many diverse measures that take
different approaches to the concept. In the present
study, we explored the colloquial meanings of sexual
satisfaction, taking a qualitative approach to start to fill
in these gaps in the literature on sexual satisfaction.
As with other research concerning written definitions
of sexual constructs (Shaughnessy, Byers, & Thornton,
2011), we found a diversity of meanings attached to
the concept of sexual satisfaction. In relation to our
research question, our findings support the existence of
two main themes that define sexual satisfaction: per-
sonal sexual well-being and dyadic processes. The con-
nection between the main themes is consistent with
family systems theory because it demonstrates that sex-
ual satisfaction within committed relationships is a
two-dimensional concept where personal and relational
dimensions are interinfluential.
Examining the definitions of sexual satisfaction
grouped under personal sexual well-being revealed
pleasure as the main subtheme. Pleasure was usually
intertwined with the most prevalent code grouped under
dyadic processes: mutuality. The participants empha-
sized that satisfaction comes from mutual pleasure.
These definitions emphasized the relevant role of orgasm
for a sexually satisfying experience; however, the results
also stress that mutual pleasure is more than simply the
experience of simultaneous orgasm. Pleasure is a sexual
motive (Meston & Buss, 2007) that has not been suffi-
ciently clarified or defined in previous models of sexual
satisfaction (e.g., Basson, 2000). Consistent with other
researchers, we believe the concept of pleasure requires
6
further clarification (Rye & Meaney, 2007), and its role
in sexual satisfaction should be examined due to the
relevance of sexual satisfaction for sexual health. Our
participants’ definitions included aspects of the tra-
ditional model of sexual response (desire, arousal, and
orgasm), but these codes were not used frequently by
our participants. Furthermore, our results demonstrate
that even though sexual functioning is part of sexual sat-
isfaction for some participants, this should be seen from
a dyadic process approach, as most definitions of sexual
satisfaction stress the importance of pleasure, desire,
and arousal as a mutual experience.
The World Health Organization (2010) emphasizes
sexual health as a state of well-being. Similarly, our find-
ings do not support the definition of sexual satisfaction
as simply the absence of dysfunction or negative
emotions. Under the main theme of dyadic processes,
frequency of sexual activity was another important
subtheme in participants’ definitions. Consistent
with previous research (Higgins, Mullinax, Trussell,
Davidson, & Moore, 2011; Smith et al., 2011), some
men and women noted that frequent sexual activity
was important to their sexual satisfaction. However,
there was no mention by the current participants of
concrete numbers to identify a satisfactory average
frequency. According to our results, accomplishing
a balance between one’s own and one’s partner’s desired
frequency of sexual frequency is necessary to achieve
sexual satisfaction, rather than a specific number or
regularity of sexual encounters.
Expression of feelings was not a common code, but its
presence seems to support the literature that highlights
sexual satisfaction as the barometer of relationship satis-
faction (Sprecher & Cate, 2004). As discussed, parti-
cipants’ most frequent themes were pleasure and
mutuality, which were very often intertwined. Therefore
we propose that for heterosexual people in an exclusive
dyadic, cohabitating relationship the concept of sexual
satisfaction could be defined as the emotional experience
of frequent mutual sexual pleasure.
Existing models of sexual satisfaction are mainly
derived from interpersonal exchange models. Within
the subtheme of intimacy, our results indicated
mutuality as a code of special relevance. This result is
supportive of the social exchange theory and the role
specified by Byers, Wang, Harvey, Wenzel, and Sprecher
(2004) of the perceived balance between partner
exchanges (i.e., mutuality) to achieve sexual satisfaction.
The vast majority of the current participants’ sexual
satisfaction definitions focused on the positive aspects
of sexuality (e.g., pleasure, well-being); in other words,
they focused on rewards rather than on the absence of
negative aspects or sexual costs. These findings are
partly supportive of social exchange models, but they
seem to indicate that sexual satisfaction relates more
to the presence of positive aspects of sexual experience
(i.e., sexual rewards) than to the absence of negative
 LAY DEFINITIONS OF SEXUAL SATISFACTION
aspects (i.e., sexual costs). Theoretical models and
measures of sexual satisfaction seem to be more in
accordance with people’s meanings of sexual satisfaction
if they focus on the positive aspects of sexual satis-
faction. Our results also highlight some aspects that
have not been consistently addressed in existing models
and measures of sexual satisfaction, namely, the two
codes under the subtheme ludic sexuality: creativity
and acting out desires. These codes are not dependent
on having a committed close relationship and may be
one example of a dyadic process necessary for sexual
satisfaction that is applicable to different types of dyads
(e.g., dating and one-night stands).
Concerning the diversity of existing measures of sex-
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 12:52 02 October 2013
ual satisfaction, the overall finding of a two-dimensional
definition of sexual satisfaction is consistent with a few
operational definitions of sexual satisfaction used in
prior research (e.g., Meston & Trapnell, 2005; Stulhofer
et al., 2010). Our study revealed that both women’s and
men’s meanings of sexual satisfaction are embedded in
a net of relational (dyadic processes) and individual
(personal sexual well-being) concepts, which reinforces
the use of measures that focus on both individual and
relational aspects of sexual satisfaction for both genders
(e.g., Stulhofer et al., 2010). The inexistence of defini-
tions that mention lack of dysfunction or relational con-
flict suggests that items addressing these issues may not
be the most appropriate to assess sexual satisfaction.
Measures that focus on the positive aspects of sexual
satisfaction should be preferred for research purposes
with nonclinical samples of heterosexual individuals in
a dyadic exclusive relationship recruited from the
community.
There were limitations of the present study. Our find-
ings were based on a volunteer sample; thus, our study
participants may have been more at ease with sexual
topics than individuals who did not volunteer for our
study. Also, the questions were preceded by a set of
standardized questionnaires on sexual and relationship
variables, which may have influenced the participants’
definitions of sexual satisfaction, leading to higher
levels of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction.
Our participants were all involved in exclusive, dyadic,
committed relationships, which may explain the major
focus on relational aspects. Sexual satisfaction may
assume different meanings for individuals involved in
other types of relationship structures or dynamics (e.g.,
friends with benefits or polyamory). Researchers should
replicate the current findings in more heterogeneous
samples. A major methodological shortcoming was that
the analysis was conducted using written descriptions
concerning the meaning of sexual satisfaction. This was
a descriptive study, and we could not explore or deepen
the meanings of particular words, synonyms, and expres-
sions used to differentiate concepts that are semantically
similar to one another. Neither could we understand the
processes underlying and explaining the interrelations
found and others that were not mentioned. Even though
we used family systems theory as a theoretical frame-
work, we did not study interdependence, which should
be addressed in future studies with samples of individuals
involved in close relationships. Future studies should also
address the distinction between the features of sexual sat-
isfaction and the processes involved in achieving sexual
satisfaction. The roles of ludic sexuality, sexual self-
confidence, and frequency of sexual activity in individuals’
sexual satisfaction should be studied in individuals in
different types of relationship as well in as those not
currently involved in a relationship.
By studying written definitions of sexual satisfaction
by laypeople in the context of committed relationships,
we hoped to open the door for future studies that might
reveal more complex understandings of sexual satis-
faction. Our participants’ definitions reflected key corre-
lates of sexual satisfaction observed in quantitative
studies, namely, sexual variables (frequency and
functioning) (Smith et al., 2011; Stephenson & Meston,
2010) and relational variables (expression of feelings and
intimacy) (Rubin & Campbell, 2012), but the current
study has highlighted the interrelatedness of these con-
cepts. Our study provides several modest contributions
to the field of sexual satisfaction. A key finding from
our study was that participants in our sample tended
to define sexual satisfaction in ways that emphasized
the presence of pleasure and mutuality, rather than
the absence of sexual problems or dysfunction. This
indicates that meanings of sexual satisfaction are more
associated with positive outcomes and experiences dur-
ing sexual activity than with the mere absence of sexual
costs. This finding stresses the role of positive experi-
ences and goes beyond the view that sexual satisfaction
derives from experiencing problem-free sexual activity.
With regard to research with heterosexual samples
in committed exclusive relationships, we believe our
findings support (a) the definition of sexual satisfaction
as a two-dimensional construct with a focus on per-
sonal sexual well-being and on dyadic processes,
especially intimacy; (b) the theoretical framing of
models that stress the role of sexual rewards; and (c) the
use of measures of sexual satisfaction that focus on the
positive aspects of sexuality rather than on the absence
of sexual dysfunction, sexual problems, or relationship
conflicts. The findings here suggest that to promote sexual
satisfaction, for example, in clinical settings, attention
should be given to aspects that are not directly linked to
sexual functioning, such as a balance between the desired
frequency of sexual activity, creativity, and intimacy. We
believe that our findings have clinical implications, in line
with Bancroft’s (2002) notion that knowing the factors
that heighten sexual satisfaction can enable more effective
clinical responses to individuals with sexual problems.
Overall, our study supports a sex-positive approach to
sexual satisfaction as a springboard for future research
on this topic.
7
 PASCOAL, DE SANTA BÁRBARA NARCISO, AND PEREIRA

References Meston, C., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 36(4), 477–507. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2
Meston, C., & Trapnell, P. (2005). Development and validation of
Bancroft, J. (2002). The medicalization of female sexual dysfunc-
a five-factor sexual satisfaction and distress scale for women:
tion: The need for caution. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31(5),
The Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Women (SSS-W). Journal
451–455. doi:10.1023/A:1019800426980
of Sexual Medicine, 2(1), 66–81. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.
Basson, R. (2000). The female sexual response: A different model.
2005.20107.x
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 26(1), 51–65. doi:10.1080/
Metz, M. E., & Epstein, N. (2002). Assessing the role of relationship
009262300278641
conflict in sexual dysfunction. Journal of Sex and Marital
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there
Therapy, 28(2), 139–164. doi:10.1080/00926230252851889
a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views,
Pascoal, P. M., Narciso, I., & Pereira, N. M. (2012). Predictors of body
conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Person-
appearance cognitive distraction during sexual activity in men
ality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 242–273. doi:10.1207/
and women. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(11), 2849–2860.
S15327957PSPR0503_5
doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02893.x
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Pascoal, P. M., Narciso, I., & Pereira, N. M. (2013). Emotional
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/
intimacy is the best predictor of sexual satisfaction of men and
1478088706qp063oa
women with sexual arousal problems. International Journal of
Byers, E. S. (2011). Beyond the birds and the bees and was it good for
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 12:52 02 October 2013

Impotence Research, 25(2), 51–55. doi:10.1038/ijir.2012.38

you? Thirty years of research on sexual communication. Canadian
Peck, S. R., Shaffer, D. R., & Williamson, G. M. (2004). Sexual
Psychology=Psychologie canadienne, 52(1), 20–28. doi:10.1037/
satisfaction and relationship satisfaction in dating couples: The
a0022048
contributions of relationship communality and favorability of
Byers, E. S., Henderson, J., & Hobson, K. (2009). University students’
sexual exchanges. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality,
definitions of sexual abstinence and having sex. Archives of Sexual
16(4), 17–37. doi:10.1300/J056v16n04_02
Behavior, 38(5), 665–674. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9289-6
Pinney, E. M., Gerrard, M., & Denney, N. W. (1987). The Pinney
Byers, E. S., Wang, A., Harvey, J. H., Wenzel, A., & Sprecher, S.
Sexual Satisfaction Inventory. Journal of Sex Research, 23(2),
(2004). Understanding sexuality in close relationships from the
233–251. doi:10.1080/00224498709551359
social exchange perspective. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, &
Rowland, D., van Diest, S., Incrocci, L., & Slob, A. K. (2005). Psycho-
S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships
sexual factors that differentiate men with inhibited ejaculation
(pp. 203–234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
from men with no dysfunction or another sexual dysfunction.
Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., Vangelisti, A. L., & Perlman, D. (2006).
Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2(3), 383–389. doi:10.1111/j.1743-
Relationship satisfaction. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.),
6109.2005.20352.x
The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 579–594).
Rubin, H., & Campbell, L. (2012). Day-to-day changes in intimacy
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
predict heightened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sex-
Frank, E., Anderson, C., & Rubinstein, D. N. (1978). Frequency of
ual satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis. Social Psychological and
sexual dysfunction in normal couples. New England Journal of
Personality Science, 3(2), 224–231. doi:10.1177/1948550611416520
Medicine, 299(3), 111–115. doi:10.1056/NEJM197807202990302
Rust, J., & Golombok, S. (1985). The Golombok-Rust Inventory of
Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2007). The seven principles for making the
Sexual Satisfaction (GRISS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology,
marriage work. London, England: Orion Books.
24(1), 63–64. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1985.tb01314.x
Heiman, J. R., Long, J. S., Smith, S. N., Fisher, W. A., Sand, M. S., &
Rust, J., & Golombok, S. (1986). The GRISS: A psychometric
Rosen, R. C. (2011). Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness
instrument for the assessment of sexual dysfunction. Archives of
in midlife and older couples in five countries. Archives of Sexual
Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 157–165. doi:10.1007/BF01542223
Behavior, 40(4), 741–753. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9703-3
Rye, B. J., & Meaney, G. J. (2007). The pursuit of sexual pleasure.
Higgins, J. A., Mullinax, M., Trussell, J., Davidson, S. J. K., & Moore,
Sexuality and Culture, 11(1), 28–51. doi:10.1007/BF02853934
N. B. (2011). Sexual satisfaction and sexual health among
Shaughnessy, K., Byers, E. S., & Thornton, S. J. (2011). What is cyber-
university students in the United States. American Journal of
sex? Heterosexual students’ definitions. International Journal of
Public Health, 101(9), 1643–1654. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300154
Sexual Health, 23(2), 79–89. doi:10.1080/19317611.2010.546945
Hudson, W. W., Harrison, D. F., & Crosscup, P. C. (1981). A short-
Smith, A., Lyons, A., Ferris, J., Richters, J., Pitts, M., & Shelley, J.
form scale to measure sexual discord in dyadic relationships. Jour-
(2011). Sexual and relationship satisfaction among heterosexual
nal of Sex Research, 17(2), 157. doi:10.1080/00224498109551110
men and women: The importance of desired frequency of sex.
Lawrance, K.-A., & Byers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 37(2), 104–115. doi:
term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model
10.1080/0092623X.2011.560531
of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2(4), 267–285.
Sprecher, S., & Cate, R. (2004). Sexual satisfaction and sexual
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00092.x
expression as predictors of relationship satisfaction and stability.
McCabe, M. P. (1999). The interrelationship between intimacy,
In J. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook
relationship functioning, and sexuality among men and women
of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 235–256). Mahwah, NJ:
in committed relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,
Lawrence Erlbaum.
8(1), 31–38. Retrieved from http://www.sieccan.org/abstracts/
Sprecher, S., Cate, R. M., Harvey, J. H., & Wenzel, A. (2004). Sexual
vol08no1.html
satisfaction and sexual expression as predictors of relationship
McClelland, S. I. (2010). Intimate justice: A critical analysis of sexual
satisfaction and stability. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, &
satisfaction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(9),
S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships
663–680. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00293.x
(pp. 235–256). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McNulty, J. K., & Fisher, T. D. (2008). Gender differences in response
Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2006). Sexuality in close
to sexual expectancies and changes in sexual frequency: A short-
relationships. In A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge
term longitudinal study of sexual satisfaction in newly married
handbook of personal relationships (pp. 463–482). New York, NY:
couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(2), 229–240. doi:10.1007/
Cambridge University Press.
s10508-007-9176-1

8
 LAY DEFINITIONS OF SEXUAL SATISFACTION
Stephenson, K. R., & Meston, C. M. (2010). Differentiating
components of sexual well-being in women: Are sexual satis-
faction and sexual distress independent constructs? Journal of
Sexual Medicine, 7(7), 2458–2468. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.
2010.01836.x
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techni-
ques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stulhofer, A., Busko, V., & Brouillard, P. (2010). Development
and bicultural validation of the New Sexual Satisfaction
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 12:52 02 October 2013
Scale. Journal of Sex Research, 47(4), 257–268. doi:10.1080/
00224490903100561
Wiegel, M., Meston, C., & Rosen, R. (2005). The Female Sexual
Function Index (FSFI): Cross-validation and development of
clinical cutoff scores. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 31(1),
1–20. doi:10.1080/00926230590475206
World Health Organization. (2010). Measuring sexual health:
Conceptual and practical considerations and related indicators.
Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.
who.int/hq/2010/who_rhr_10.12_eng.pdf