Sexual intimacy and relationship happiness in living apart together, cohabiting, and married relationships: evidence from Britain

Abstract

Research on relationship happiness have traditionally compared cohabiting and married relationships. Studies including LAT relationships are scarce and have disregarded sexual aspects of the relationships. This paper compares how married, cohabitating, and LAT relationships in Britain differ with respect to sexual intimacy (defined as emotional closeness during sex, compatibility in terms of sexual preferences, and interest in having sex with a partner), and relationship happiness. Rich data from the British National Study of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL-3, 2010–2012) are used to estimate ordered logistic regression models. Cohabiting individuals share the same levels of sexual intimacy as those married, but they are less happy in their relationship than those married. LAT individuals enjoy overall greater sexual intimacy than coresidential individuals but they are less happy in their relationships. Women in LAT relationships feel less often emotionally close to their partner during sex than married women. By knitting the sex research with the demographic literature, this paper offers new insights in understanding the nature of partnerships, opening up new venues for future research.

Full text

Sexual intimacy andrelationship happiness
inliving apart together, cohabiting, andmarried
relationships: evidence fromBritain
Alexandra‑Andreea Ciritel1,2*
Introduction
Sexuality is woven into the formation and maintenance of many close romantic relation-
ships, and the literature suggests that sex generally strengthens the bonds of relationships
(Debrot etal., 2017; Schwartz etal., 2013). Various dimensions of sexuality, such as sexual
frequency or sexual satisfaction, are related to relationship satisfaction and stability (Muise
etal., 2016). Aspects such as emotional closeness during sex, compatibility between part-
ners in terms of sexual interest, and preferences are considered central in defining a fulfilling
sex life (Mitchell etal., 2011), yet they have received limited attention in previous research.
Emotional closeness during sex is related to the feelings of bond, love, and security between
partners during the sexual act; compatibility in sexual preferences refers to different sex-
ual activities, such as oral, anal, vaginal sex, or engaging in verbal fantasies, to name a few,
that partners want to practice together; compatibility in sexual interest refers to partners
Abstract
Research on relationship happiness have traditionally compared cohabiting and mar‑
ried relationships. Studies including LAT relationships are scarce and have disregarded
sexual aspects of the relationships. This paper compares how married, cohabitating,
and LAT relationships in Britain differ with respect to sexual intimacy (defined as emo‑
tional closeness during sex, compatibility in terms of sexual preferences, and interest
in having sex with a partner), and relationship happiness. Rich data from the British
National Study of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL‑3, 2010–2012) are used to
estimate ordered logistic regression models. Cohabiting individuals share the same
levels of sexual intimacy as those married, but they are less happy in their relation‑
ship than those married. LAT individuals enjoy overall greater sexual intimacy than
coresidential individuals but they are less happy in their relationships. Women in LAT
relationships feel less often emotionally close to their partner during sex than married
women. By knitting the sex research with the demographic literature, this paper offers
new insights in understanding the nature of partnerships, opening up new venues for
future research.
Keywords: Relationship happiness, Sexual intimacy, Cohabitation, Marriage, Living‑
apart together relationships
Open Access
© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate‑
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-022-00178-2
Genus
*Correspondence:
aa.ciritel@soton.ac.uk
1 Centre for Population Change,
University of Southampton,
Building 58, Southampton SO17
1TW, UK
2 FMR Global Health, Paris, France

Page 2 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
wanting to have sex at a similar frequency (Mitchell & Wellings, 2013; Mitchell etal., 2011).
ese aspects are important, because they reflect different facets of both sexual difficulties
(Witting etal., 2008), and relationship quality (Štulhofer etal., 2013; Yoo etal., 2014). e
lack of feelings of closeness, and sexual incompatibility could impact partnership stability
(Lodge & Umberson, 2012). In addition, they might differ by partnership type.
Sex research and demographic literatures have begun to look closely at partnerships
but have focused mostly on sexual frequency (Schröder & Schmiedeberg, 2015; Yabiku
& Gager, 2009) or sexual satisfaction (Laumann etal., 2006; Schmiedeberg & Schröder,
2016). is paper represents the first attempt to bring together these literatures to
understand how different dimensions of sexuality are related to partnerships. For con-
ciseness, I adopt the term sexual intimacy in partnerships to refer to emotional close-
ness with a partner during sex, compatibility between partners in sexual interest, and in
sexual preferences. is work focuses on sexual intimacy and relationship happiness as
pieces in the puzzle of understanding differences across partnership types.
Cohabiting couples enjoy a higher frequency of sex, being characterised as a “sexier”
living arrangement (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). Moreover, low sexual frequency has
a stronger influence on relationship dissolution for cohabiting than for married cou-
ples (Yabiku & Gager, 2009). However, these studies are based on old data capturing a
time when cohabitation was a premarital, not a long-term arrangement. More recent
studies conducted in Germany, show that being in a cohabiting or married relationship
is not associated with changes in sexual frequency and sexual satisfaction over time
(Schmiedeberg & Schröder, 2016; Schröder & Schmiedeberg, 2015). In Britain, married
women are more likely than cohabiting women to report difficulty with sex or lack of
respect/appreciation as reasons for their partnership ending (Gravningen etal., 2017).
However, it is still not clear how other aspects of sexual life are related to partnerships,
especially in other contexts than the US or Germany.
Studies which compared relationship happiness1 across marriage and cohabitation were
mostly conducted in the US (Brown, 2004; Lee & Ono, 2012; Musick & Bumpass, 2012),
where cohabitation is of shorter duration than in the UK (Cherlin, 2009). Comparison
studies including LAT2 relationships are scarce (Lewin, 2017; Tai etal., 2014), and have not
considered any sexual aspects of the relationships. Since the definitions of “commitment”
and “partnerships” are continuously changing and being redefined by both researchers and
couples themselves (Berrington etal., 2015; Perelli-Harris etal., 2014), and given the pre-
marital sex-permissiveness increase in Britain (Mercer etal., 2013), there is a gap and need
for understanding how sexual intimacy differs across different intimate partnerships. is
paper fills in this gap, shedding light on how relationship happiness and sexual intimacy
compares in three types of partnerships: married, cohabiting, and LAT.
Comparing marriage andcohabitation
Sexual intimacy
Cohabiting couples may share similar levels of sexual intimacy as married couples, espe-
cially in societies, where cohabitation is more prevalent and accepted. e diffusion
1 Relationship happiness is sometimes used interchangeably with relationship satisfaction.
2 LAT is generally used to refer to unmarried non-coresidential couples who identify themselves as being in a steady
relationship (Haskey and Lewis, 2006).

Page 3 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
theory posits that the selection of cohabitation declines as it becomes more socially
accepted and practiced (Liefbroer & Dourleijn, 2006). Some studies have shown that the
benefits of cohabitation are similar to marriage with regard to self-rated health (Perelli-
Harris etal., 2018), and psychological well-being (Musick & Bumpass, 2012). Cohabiting
partners share similar economic (Eickmeyer etal., 2019) and social resources as married
partners (Musick & Bumpass, 2012): they are as likely as those married to pool their
incomes, and the amount of interaction with friends and family does not differ in mar-
ried and cohabiting relationships. In the UK, cohabitation is highly prevalent (Beaujouan
& Ní Bhrolcháin, 2011), being also an accepted form of parenting (Carter & Duncan,
2018). Studies conducted in Britain show that marriage and cohabitation are perceived
as being similar relationship types, and cohabiting couples see themselves as committed
as married couples (Carter & Duncan, 2018). Moreover, similar to those married, cohab-
iting partners share one household and may have interlinked daily schedules.
Relationship happiness
Despite similarities between marriage and cohabitation, a large body of research has
underlined that cohabitors often differ from married couples. For example, in Britain,
marriage is still perceived as conveying a greater expectation of permanency and a
higher commitment than cohabitation (Berrington etal., 2015). A wedding is seen as a
sign of public commitment not shown by cohabitation (Berrington etal., 2015). Moreo-
ver, married partners benefit from legal rights regarding inheritance, housing, and rights
to the matrimonial home, financial support, and pension schemes, whereas those cohab-
iting or in LAT relationships do not enjoy most of these rights (Duncan etal., 2012).
In effect, cohabiting couples are offered little access to family courts in case of separa-
tion and neither do they have rights of inheritance after the death of a partner (Barlow,
2014). Given the higher commitment and legal safety of marriage over cohabitation, it
might be that those married will be happier with their relationship than those cohab-
iting. However, a recent study conducted in the UK shows no differences in life satis-
faction between marriage and cohabitation, particularly for men (Perelli-Harris etal.,
2019). Given these conflicting results, the current research does not provide a definitive
direction for a specific hypothesis to be formulated on the differences in relationship
happiness between marriage and cohabitation.
Comparing LAT withmarriage andcohabitation
Sexual intimacy
Quantitative and qualitative studies in Britain underline that sexual fidelity is an impor-
tant characteristic of LAT relationships, being the central element in defining commit-
ment (Carter & Duncan, 2018; Carter etal., 2016). is might be, because LAT partners
lack the combined social, and economic resources characteristic of married and cohabit-
ing relationships (Eickmeyer etal., 2019). Moreover, pooling incomes to pay a mortgage,
raising children together, sharing finances to pay household bills are important structural
investments in coresidential relationships that are usually avoided in LAT relationships
(Carter etal., 2016). Some LATs define their relationships in terms of mutual support
and affection, expressing willingness to have a long-term partnership and to solve any

Page 4 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
difficulties (Kobayashi etal., 2017). Consequently, sex might be considered an important
(and perhaps the only) resource (and investment) for LAT partners.
At the same time, sex might not universally be a very important aspect of defining
LAT relationships. e narratives of Roseneil’s (2006) interviewees suggested that a sex-
ual partner is less important to have a secure and happy life than friends are, the author
arguing that LATs de-prioritise sexual/love relationships in favour of friendships. More-
over, living apart is a way of keeping an emotional distance from a partner and control
over one’s life, especially if the other partner has a very different lifestyle or their own
children (Carter & Duncan, 2018). Furthermore, some individuals have admitted that
being in a LAT relationship requires less commitment and lacks a certain amount of
emotional and sexual intimacy as compared to being in a cohabiting or married relation-
ship (Carter etal., 2016). Hence, it might be that LAT couples will enjoy less sexual inti-
macy compared to coresidential couples.
Relationship happiness
Studies have found that, overall, LATs enjoy lower levels of relationship satisfaction
compared to married or cohabiting couples (Lewin, 2017; Tai etal., 2014). For example,
in the US, LATs were less happy than those married, but they did not differ from cohab-
itors (Lewin, 2017). Moreover, LATs receive less support from their partner (defined as
the amount of talking to a partner about one’s worries, and of relying on a partner in
times of need) than both married and cohabiting respondents (Lewin, 2017). In Brit-
ain, LATs do not have any legal rights compared to those married or cohabiting, despite
some of them wanting legal protection similar to marriage in terms of inheritance, and
child maintenance upon divorce (Duncan etal., 2012). e lack of legal protection may
foster a parallel lack of sense of security for some LATs, which would, in turn, affect rela-
tionship happiness.
However, it should be noted that LAT, cohabiting, and married relationships can
reflect different stages in the life-course. Moreover, LAT and cohabiting relationships
can be stages on the way to marriage. erefore, sexual intimacy and relationship happi-
ness are expected to change throughout the life-course.
Gender, sexual intimacy andrelationship happiness
e sexual behaviour of men and women differ, mainly explained by cultural ideas that
women are more supportive, emotional, and reactive, while men are less emotional,
more independent, and proactive, which shape gendered behavioural norms (Ganong
& Larson, 2011). Women “romanticise” the experience of sex by placing importance on
being in a committed relationship (Regan & Berscheid, 1999, p. 75), equating sex with
expressing emotions, and love to a partner (Mitchell & Wellings, 2013; Umberson etal.,
2015). For women, the aim of the sexual act is pair-bonding (Hughes & Kruger, 2011),
while men describe sex as being more a need, with no emphasis on feelings (Gabb &
Fink, 2015). erefore, for women, the best context for satisfying sex is a long-term,
monogamous relationship, because they feel safer, more comfortable, familiar, and emo-
tionally connected with their partner as compared to how they feel in casual sexual (or
less committed) relationships (Armstrong etal., 2012; Peplau, 2003).

Page 5 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
Given that men’s and women’s experiences of emotions and sexual intimacy are differ-
ent, the analysis will be conducted separately for women and men. Two general hypoth-
eses on the link between men’s and women’s partnership type and sexual intimacy are
formulated in this paper;
Hypothesis 1: Given the greater sensitivity of women’s sexuality compared to that of
men, sexual intimacy will differ by women’s partnership type.
Hypothesis 2: Among men, sexual intimacy is not expected to differ between those in
married, cohabiting, and LAT relationships.
Research on gender differences in relationship happiness comparing those married
and cohabiting offer mixed findings. Married men report higher levels of relationship
satisfaction than cohabiting men, in the US and Europe (US: Brown & Kawamura, 2010;
Europe: Stavrova etal., 2012). e link between relationship type and relationship satis-
faction does not differ for women in the US, but in Europe married women are happier
in their relationship than cohabiting women. In the UK, Perelli-Harris and colleagues
(2019) found that married women are happier than those cohabiting but no differences
were found for men. Given the contradicting findings, no hypotheses are formulated
with respect to how relationship happiness differs among men and women in married,
cohabiting, and LAT relationships.
Methods
Sample
e 2010–2012 National Study of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3) data are
used for this study. Natsal-3 is a cross-sectional nationally representative survey carried
out on 15,162 residents in Britain, aged 16–74years with the aim to study people’s sex-
ual and reproductive behaviours (NatCen Social Research, 2019). A multistage, clustered
and stratified probability sample design was used and participants were interviewed in
their homes.3
Natsal-3 applies specific filters to capture a subsample of sexually active individuals
eligible to respond to items about sexual intimacy and relationship happiness. Natsal-3
restricts the sample to people whose last sexual act with any of their last 3 sexual part-
ners was in a “living together/married” or “steady” sexual relationship, and whose rela-
tionship is ongoing (Natsal-3 defines an “ongoing relationship” if the respondents are
willing to have sex with that partner again). Natsal-3 restrictions include people not sex-
ually active in the past year (20%), unknown number of partners in the past year (3.3%),
not willing to have sex again with the sexual partner (4.9%), married, cohabiting and
LAT sexual partners in a relationship less than 1 year (4.7%), casual relationships ongo-
ing (2%). is implies that Natsal-3 does not ask the questions about sexual intimacy and
relationship happiness to 34.9% of the sample.
I excluded another 21.8% of the sample as it follows: 17% of individuals who
declared two or more sexual partners in the last year before the interview to be able to
identify the respondents who have sex only with their married or cohabiting partner,
focusing on “most recent” sexual relationships. Among monogamous and sexually
3 After weighting to adjust for unequal probabilities of selection and to match the British population in terms of age,
gender, and geographical region, the Natsal-3 sample was broadly representative of the population living in Britain as
described by the 2011 Census (Erens etal., 2013).

Page 6 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
active respondents in the past year who could have been in the analytical sample, I
excluded those in a same-sex relationship (0.6%), as on the one hand, their number is
too small to be included in a distinct category or in a separate analysis (91 individuals
in the total sample) and, on the other hand, the sexual and relationship behaviours,
and sexual evaluations among LGBT population are likely to differ from those of het-
erosexuals (Green, 2012). Furthermore, respondents with missing data related to the
start of the relationship (0.9%), and other data inconsistencies related to either being
sexually active in the past year (3.2%), coresidential respondents having sex outside
of their relationship or respondents without a clear coresidential relationship status
(0.1%) are also excluded from analysis. All these decisions reduced the sample size to
6572 cases (3985 women and 2587 men; for more details about sample exclusion, see
Additional file1: TableS2). LATs are identified in Natsal-3 as “steady sexual” relation-
ships, where individuals had been together for at least 1 year and the relationship is
ongoing.
Dependent variables
As the analysis is run separately by gender, I collapsed those response categories less
than 5%, according to statistical guidelines (Arminger, 1995). Moreover, having a bigger
cell size within each response category allows to test for model assumptions4.
Emotional closeness during sex is measured as “I feel emotionally close to my part-
ner when we have sex together” on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 “always” to 5 “hardly
ever”. e response categories 3 (“sometimes”), 4 (“not very often”), and 5 (“hardly
ever”) are collapsed into “not often”. e recoded outcome has the following response
categories: 1 “Not often”, 2 “Most of the times”, and 3 “Always”.
Compatibility in sexual interest is measured as “My partner and I share about the
same level of interest when having sex” on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 means
“agree strongly”, and 5 “disagree strongly”. e same scale is used for measuring com-
patibility in sexual preferences, which is measured with the item “My partner and I
share the same sexual likes and dislikes”. e response categories 4 (“disagree”), and 5
(“strongly disagree”) are collapsed into “generally disagree”, for both outcomes. ese
outcomes have the response categories: 1 “Generally Disagree”, 2 “Disagree”, 3 “Agree”,
and 4 “Agree strongly”.
Finally, the fourth-dependent variable measures overall relationship happiness
with a partner on a 7-point Likert response scale (where 1 means “Very happy”, and
7 “Very unhappy”). is scale is reversed so that higher scores correspond to higher
levels of relationship happiness. As the only response category with answers below 5%
is for the score of four (“4”) for those in LAT and married relationships, relationship
happiness variable is not recoded as this response category does not have an explicit
meaning, being rather an ordered score from the scale.
e highest correlation among these four indicators,
r=
0.51, was between compat-
ibility in sexual preferences and compatibility in sexual interest, and most intercorrela-
tions varied around 0.30 suggesting they are measuring different aspects of a couple’s
relationship.
4 e model assumptions are tested based on unweighted data as the weights for complex survey design do not allow to
check for regular model assumptions (parallel line assumptions using Brant test).

Page 7 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
Independent variables
e main independent variable is partnership type, which refers to married, cohabit-
ing, and LAT couples, derived according to respondents’ sexual past. e analytical sam-
ple includes heterosexual respondents whose last sexual act was in a ‘living in/married’
or “steady” relationship. Using the sexual relationship status, the legal, and mixed de-
facto partnership status respondents are classified into5 a) married; b) cohabiting, and c)
LAT.
In the analysis, factors that may explain sexual intimacy and relationship happiness,
and may also reflect selection into different types of relationships, such as age and edu-
cation (Kalmijn, 2013), were controlled for. Age is generally associated with decreased
sexual frequencies, and sexual desire (Kontula & Haavio-Mannila, 2009; Waite & Das,
2010). Nonetheless, even if it is less frequent, sex is still practiced and enjoyed at older
ages (Gott & Hinchliff, 2003), as people reinvent their sexual life when adult children
leave the parental home (Forbes etal., 2017). Age is categorised in groups: 16–29, 30–39,
40–49, 50–59, and 60 + years, each one broadly representing peoples’ life stages. e
first age group6 is larger than the others, because few individuals are married, and have
children at young ages. It roughly captures adolescence, and the “emerging adulthood”
period of life (Arnett, 2000). ose aged 30–39 could be generally viewed as young
adults. In the UK, Stone et al. (2014) defined individuals between 16 and 34years as
“young adults” arguing that transitions to adulthood are being postponed to later ages.
e age groups of 40–49 and 50–59 broadly represent those in mid-life. e last age
group represents older adults who are at a life-stage when they generally experience the
empty nest and become grandparents. e respondent’s educational attainment meas-
ures the highest academic qualification the respondent holds.
Studies warn that relationship duration is negatively associated with sexual frequency
(Klusmann, 2002), sexual satisfaction (Schröder & Schmiedeberg, 2015), and relation-
ship happiness (Brown etal., 2017). In the paper, relationship duration measures the
time in years, since the respondent began their current sexual relationship.7 Having chil-
dren negatively affects both sexual and relationship satisfaction (Umberson etal., 2010).
In this work, the number of children is a categorical variable, with the largest category
having 3 or more children.
Poor physical health negatively affects a person’s interest in having sex (Graham etal.,
2017), and relationship happiness (Galinsky & Waite, 2014). In this paper, the respond-
ent’s health is a dummy variable indicating if, in the last year, the respondent has had
any health condition or disability which affected his/her sexual activity or enjoyment in
any way. Social psychologists argue that previous sexual experiences impact how peo-
ple evaluate their present relationship (Kelly & ibaut, 1978). Having had multiple sex-
ual partners before marriage decreases marital quality, for women (Rhoades & Stanley,
2014) and sexual satisfaction for men (Heiman etal., 2011). In this study, the number of
5 A small number of inconsistencies (18 married individuals whose last sexual act was with a “steady” sexual partner and
1 respondent without coresidential status whose last sexual act was with a “living in/married” partner) are not included
as it is difficult to ascertain their circumstances.(see Additional file1: TableS2).
6 is age group might be heterogenous in experiences of sexual intimacy and relationship happiness; as a sensitivity
analysis I omitted those younger than 20years old but results did not change very much, therefore I kept in the adoles-
cents to have a bigger sample size (results not shown, available upon request).
7 Natsal-3 measures the relationship duration as month and year of first sex with respondents’ most recent sex partner.

Page 8 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
heterosexual and homosexual partners the respondent ever had is a categorical variable,
topped up at more than five lifetime sex partners. Having experienced sexual abuse is
related to behavioural and mental health outcomes (Jones etal., 2015) and may affect
sexual intimacy and relationship happiness as well. In this work, respondents’ experi-
ences of sex against their will are measured by a dummy variable (yes/no).
Analytical strategy
Descriptive analyses are undertaken to examine how sexual intimacy and relationship
happiness vary by partnership type and gender. Subsequently, a proportional odds model
(POM) was used to analyse the data. Because the outcome variables are measured on
Likert ordinal response scales, the POM is the most suitable type of regression analysis.
Analyses were carried out using STATA statistical software (version 14.0 MP).
One POM is estimated for all four outcome variables, where the effects of predictors
are allowed to differ by gender. e multivariate model includes partnership type as the
key independent variable controlling for age, partnership characteristics (relationship
duration, parenthood status), respondents’ health and disability status affecting sexual
life and enjoyment in the last year, number of sex partners, attempts of sex without
respondents’ will, and level of education.8
As none of the independent variables have more than 1% of missing cases, the missing
data are treated in a listwise deletion fashion. Brant test were used to test for the paral-
lel line assumptions specific to proportional odds models (Brant, 1990; Williams, 2016).
Since the Brant test indicated model violation for all the outcomes for females, and for
relationship happiness for males, multinomial models were estimated as robustness
checks. In general, the size, the significance, and the direction of the coefficients from
the main independent variable did not vary to a great extent in any of the models (results
not shown, available upon request of author). Another series of analyses were run with
relationship duration grouped to account for possible nonlinear relationships between
partnership duration and each outcome. ere are no major differences between the
models with relationship duration grouped and linear, and this suggests the tendency
to evaluate more negatively the sexual intimacy aspects as relationships unfold (results
not shown, available upon request of author). All these analyses reassure the reader that
the POM using the complex survey design weights are the best models to answer to this
paper’s research questions.
Results
Descriptive results
e distribution of the dependent variables by partnership type and gender, and the esti-
mated probability values of the design-based Rao–Scott F statistic (Rao & Scott, 1984),
are summarised in Tables1 and 2.
e majority of marrieds, cohabitors, and LATs declare they “always” feel emotion-
ally close to their partner when having sex. LATs share higher compatibility in sexual
8 A more complex analytical strategy tested the robustness of those associations between the main independent variable
(partnership type) and the outcomes but it did not show relevant differences in results compared with the simpler mod-
els shown in the paper.

Page 9 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
interest and sexual preferences with their partner compared to marrieds or cohabitors.
e largest proportions of married, cohabiting, and LAT individuals are the happiest
(score 7—very happy) with their relationship.
e distributions of dependent variables by gender are presented in Table2. Most
males and females report feeling “always” emotionally close to their partners when hav-
ing sex. However, more females than males declare they do “not often” feel emotionally
close to their partners. e largest proportion of men and women agree being compat-
ible with their partner in terms of sexual interest and preferences, and are the happiest
with their relationship.
Table 1 Distribution of dependent variables by partnership type; Natsal‑3 (2010–2012)
Natsal-3, own computations, weighted results; the Chi-square tests of independence (with Rao–Scott correction)
suggest that there is a signicant relationship between gender and the indicators for compatibility in sexual interest, and
preferences, and relationship happiness at p < 0.001
Emotional
closeness (%) Marrieds Cohabitors LATs
p
value (Chi-square
test)
Not often 8.7 9.0 9.6 0.228
Most of the time 31.0 30.5 26.2
Always 59.8 60.4 63.9
Not answered 0.4 0.2 0.3
Compatibility in
sexual interest (%)
Generally disagree 26.9 26.2 16.3 0.000
Neither agree or
disagree 15.5 13.5 9.1
Agree 38.2 37.3 40.6
Agree strongly 19.1 22.8 33.7
Not answered 0.4 0.2 0.3
Compatibility in
sexual preferences
(%)
Generally disagree 8.5 8.2 6.5 0.000
Neither agree or
disagree 14.2 11.9 11.0
Agree 53.3 53.0 48.5
Agree strongly 23.7 26.7 33.6
Not answered 0.4 0.2 0.3
Relationship
happiness (%)
1. Very unhappy 8.2 6.1 7.3 0.000
2 7.2 9.5 7.7
3 6.3 7.7 10.7
4 3.0 4.7 5.6
5 8.3 8.6 10.4
6 19.7 22.9 20.8
7. Very happy 46.8 40.4 37.2
Not answered 0.3 0.2 0.3
N (unweighted) 3386 1352 1384 6572
Total % 100 100 100 100

Page 10 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
Multivariate regression ndings
e differences in sexual intimacy and relationship happiness between those in LAT and
cohabiting relationships relative to those married are shown in Table3 (females) and
Table4 (males), and LAT and married relationships are compared to those cohabiting
in Additional file1: TableS1. is section presents the results on all partnership types
comparisons. e results are presented in proportional odds ratios. Following the sug-
gestion of Agresti (2007, p. 185) and for ease of interpretation, a cumulative odds ratio
greater than 1 is interpreted as a tendency towards higher values on the ordinal scale,
while a cumulative odds ratio lower than 1 as a tendency towards lower values on the
scale.
Model 1 in Tables3 and 4 investigates the association between partnership type and
emotional closeness to a partner during sex, which is significant for females but not for
males. Females in LAT relationships tend to report lower emotional closeness to their
partners as compared to those married; the odds of being in a higher rather than in a
Table 2 Distribution of dependent variables by gender
Natsal-3, own computations, weighted results; the Chi-square tests of independence (with Rao–Scott correction) suggest
that there is a signicant relationship between gender and the all key indicators, at p < 0.05
Emotional closeness (%) Female Male
p
value (Chi-square test)
Not often 10.1 7.6 0.000
Most of the time 31.9 28.7
Always 57.6 63.3
Not answered 0.4 0.3
Compatibility in sexual
interest (%) 0.021
Generally disagree 27.2 23.6
Neither agree or disagree 13.2 15.5
Agree 37.3 39.3
Agree strongly 21.9 21.3
Not answered 0.3 0.3
Compatibility in sexual
preferences (%) 0.000
Generally disagree 7.1 9.3
Neither agree or disagree 11.5 15.3
Agree 53.2 52.0
Agree strongly 27.8 23.0
Not answered 0.4 0.3
Relationship happiness
(%) 0.001
1. Very unhappy 8.8 6.7
2 8.1 7.2
3 7.9 6.3
4 3.9 3.3
5 8.5 8.8
6 18.4 22.4
7. Very happy 44.0 45.0
Not answered 0.4 0.3
N (unweighted) 3985 2587
Total % 100 100

Page 11 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
Table 3 Proportional odds regression models for emotional closeness, compatibility in sexual interest, sexual preferences, and relationship happiness for females
Proportional odds model (POM)
Females Emotional closeness Compatibility in sexual interest Compatibility in sexual preferences Relationship Happiness
Variables Model 1 p value Model 2 p value Model 3 p value Model 4 p value
Partnership type (ref.
Marrieds)
Cohabitors 0.87 (0.70–1.08) 0.210 1.03 (0.84–1.24) 0.773 0.90 (0.74–1.09) 0.296 0.60*** (0.50–0.72) p < 0.001
LATs 0.77* (0.61–0.97) 0.028 1.37** (1.10–1.69) 0.004 0.92 (0.74–1.14) 0.483 0.57*** (0.46–0.69) p < 0.001
Age groups (ref. 16–29)
30–39 0.85 (0.69–1.04) 0.131 0.95 (0.79–1.14) 0.600 1.04 (0.86–1.26) 0.653 0.95 (0.79–1.13) 0.569
40–49 0.87 (0.67–1.11) 0.258 1.03 (0.81–1.30) 0.779 1.13 (0.89–1.44) 0.305 0.77* (0.62–0.94) 0.014
50–59 1.33 (0.98–1.80) 0.063 1.65*** (1.25–2.16) p < 0.001 1.35* (1.01–1.79) 0.041 0.81 (0.61–1.07) 0.149
60+2.08*** (1.39–3.10) p < 0.001 1.77** (1.25–2.48) 0.001 1.40 (0.99–1.97) 0.053 0.88 (0.61–1.24) 0.457
Relationship duration 0.96*** (0.95–0.97) p < 0.001 0.98*** (0.96–0.99) p < 0.001 0.98*** (0.96–0.99) p < 0.001 0.99* (0.97–1.00) 0.036
Number of natural
children (ref. 0)
1 0.70** (0.55–0.87) 0.002 0.80* (0.65–0.96) 0.022 0.80* (0.64–0.98) 0.039 0.74** (0.60–0.89) 0.002
2 0.78* (0.62–0.97) 0.032 0.84 (0.68–1.01) 0.066 0.94 (0.76–1.15) 0.560 0.76** (0.62–0.91) 0.003
3+0.81 (0.63–1.03) 0.091 0.99 (0.79–1.22) 0.897 1.02 (0.81–1.29) 0.827 0.71** (0.57–0.88) 0.002
Health and disability
problems (ref. No)
Yes 0.68*** (0.56–0.81) p < 0.001 0.47*** (0.40–0.56) p < 0.001 0.69*** (0.57–0.82) p < 0.001 0.86 (0.74–1.00) 0.061
No. of sexual partners in
life (ref. 1)
2 0.86 (0.64–1.12) 0.27 0.76* (0.59–0.96) 0.025 1.04 (0.80–1.33) 0.771 0.86 (0.65–1.11) 0.254
3–4 0.70** (0.54–0.88) 0.003 0.69*** (0.56–0.84) p < 0.001 1.03 (0.82–1.27) 0.817 0.83 (0.66–1.03) 0.105
5+0.70** (0.56–0.87) 0.001 0.63*** (0.51–0.75) p < 0.001 1.01 (0.81–1.23) 0.962 0.79* (0.64–0.95) 0.017

Page 12 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
NATSAL-3 data, own computations; weighted data; N number of subpopulation analysed (females); Models 1, 2, 3, 4 include: partnership type, age groups, relationship duration, number of children; respondent’s health
and disability status in the last year, number of sexual partners (heterosexual and homosexual) in life, if someone attempted sex without respondent’s will, educational attainment; the results are presented as odds ratios;
POM: proportional odds model; condence intervals in parenthesis; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
Table 3 (continued)
Proportional odds model (POM)
Females Emotional closeness Compatibility in sexual interest Compatibility in sexual preferences Relationship Happiness
Variables Model 1 p value Model 2 p value Model 3 p value Model 4 p value
Attempt sex without
respondent’s will (ref. No)
Yes 0.63*** (0.52–0.74) p < 0.001 0.68*** (0.56–0.81) p < 0.001 0.76** (0.62–0.92) 0.006 0.84* (0.71–0.98) 0.027
Educational attainment
(ref. None)
Degree level qualifica‑
tion 0.78 (0.57–1.04) 0.094 0.57*** (0.56–0.81) p < 0.001 0.78 (0.59–1.02) 0.073 0.93 (0.68–1.27) 0.668
Other higher and
advanced level 1.05 (0.77–1.42) 0.736 0.67** (0.51–0.86) 0.002 0.96 (0.73–1.26) 0.777 0.89 (0.64–1.22) 0.463
GCSE, O‑level/equiva‑
lent/other 0.97 (0.73–1.27) 0.807 0.84 (0.66–1.05) 0.125 0.90 (0.69–1.15) 0.393 0.99 (0.72–1.34) 0.935
N3940 3940 3940

Page 13 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
Table 4 Proportional odds regression models of emotional closeness, compatibility in sexual interest, sexual preferences, and relationship happiness for males
Proportional Odds Model (POM)
Males Emotional closeness Compatibility in sexual interest Compatibility in sexual preferences Relationship Happiness
Variables Model 1 p value Model 2 p value Model 3 p value Model 4 p value
Partnership type (ref.
Marrieds)
Cohabitors 0.86 (0.66–1.11) 0.261 0.99 (0.77–1.27) 0.987 1.07 (0.83–1.38) 0.588 0.79a (0.61–1.00) 0.051
LATs 1.04 (0.76–1.41) 0.795 2.10*** (1.59–2.78) p < 0.001 1.52** (1.15–2.01) 0.003 0.55*** (0.41–0.71) p < 0.001
Age groups (ref. 16–29)
30–39 0.71* (0.54–0.92) 0.013 0.99 (0.77–1.25) 0.912 0.86 (0.67–1.09) 0.231 0.84 (0.67–1.05) 0.136
40–49 0.88 (0.63–1.21) 0.438 1.06 (0.79–1.41) 0.694 1.22 (0.91–1.61) 0.171 0.81 (0.62–1.06) 0.125
50–59 0.77 (0.54–1.10) 0.157 1.45* (1.01–2.05) 0.039 1.36 (0.96–1.92) 0.082 0.83 (0.58–1.17) 0.281
60+1.15 (0.75–1.76) 0.517 2.19*** (1.49–3.22) p < 0.001 1.66** (1.14–2.42) 0.008 1.01 (0.67–1.50) 0.963
Relationship duration 1.02 (0.98–1.02) 0.882 0.98*** (0.96–0.99) p < 0.001 0.98*** (0.96–0.99) p < 0.001 0.99 (0.98–1.00) 0.169
Number of natural
children (ref. 0)
1 1.48** (1.13–1.92) 0.004 1.02 (0.80–1.30) 0.855 1.26 (0.97–1.62) 0.073 1.02 (0.80–1.31) 0.844
2 1.04 (0.81–1.34) 0.737 0.85 (0.67–1.06) 0.162 0.99 (0.77–1.25) 0.927 0.93 (0.73–1.17) 0.531
3+1.01 (0.81–1.34) 0.965 0.79 (0.60–1.02) 0.080 0.96 (0.73–1.24) 0.759 0.85 (0.65–1.09) 0.215
Health and disability
problems (ref. No)
Yes 0.80 (0.62–1.02) 0.080 0.69** (0.54–0.86) 0.001 0.75* (0.59–0.93) 0.010 0.73** (0.58–0.91) 0.007
No. of sexual partners in
life (ref. 1)
2 0.73 (0.51–1.04) 0.149 0.77 (0.54–1.07) 0.118 0.71 (0.48–1.04) 0.083 0.89 (0.60–1.31) 0.556
3–4 0.73 (0.51–1.04) 0.084 0.69* (0.51–0.91) 0.010 0.78 (0.58–1.04) 0.093 0.59** (0.42–0.82) 0.002
5+0.64** (0.47–0.85) 0.003 0.70** (0.55–0.88) 0.003 0.72** (0.56–0.91) 0.007 0.64** (0.48–0.83) 0.001

Page 14 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
NATSAL-3 data, own computations; weighted data; N number of subpopulation analysed (males); Models 1, 2, 3, 4 include: partnership type, age groups, relationship duration, number of children; respondent’s health
and disability status in the last year, number of sexual partners (heterosexual and homosexual) in life, if someone attempted sex without respondent’s will, educational attainment; the results are presented as odds ratios;
POM: proportional odds model; condence intervals in parenthesis; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05., a = 0.051.;
Table 4 (continued)
Proportional Odds Model (POM)
Males Emotional closeness Compatibility in sexual interest Compatibility in sexual preferences Relationship Happiness
Variables Model 1 p value Model 2 p value Model 3 p value Model 4 p value
Attempt sex without
respondent’s will (ref.
No)
Yes 0.85 (0.53–1.35) 0.496 0.82 (0.52–1.29) 0.400 0.94 (0.59–1.49) 0.795 0.75 (0.47–1.17) 0.204
Educational attainment
(ref. None)
Degree level qualifi‑
cation 0.74 (0.50–1.10) 0.142 0.52*** (0.36–0.73) p < 0.001 0.69* (0.48–0.98) 0.040 0.58** (0.37–0.87) 0.010
Other higher and
advanced level 0.79 (0.53–1.16) 0.238 0.79 (0.56–1.10) 0.166 0.78 (0.55–1.11) 0.173 0.65* (0.42–0.99) 0.046
GCSE, O‑level/equiva‑
lent/other 0.85 (0.57–1.25) 0.416 0.80 (0.56–1.13) 0.202 0.93 (0.64–1.32) 0.684 0.63* (0.40–0.97) 0.036
N2561 2561 2561 2562

Page 15 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
lower category of the emotional closeness outcome are about 23% lower among women
in LAT than among those in married relationships. ere are no differences in emotional
closeness between women in married and cohabiting relationships, or between those in
LAT and cohabiting relationships (Additional file1: TableS1).
Model 2 investigates the link between partnership type and respondents’ reported
compatibility in sexual interest with their partners. is outcome is associated with
partnership type similarly for women and men. Among men, the odds of those in LAT
reporting higher rather than lower compatibility in sexual interest with their partner are
more than double than those of married (OR = 2.10), and cohabiting (OR = 2.11; Addi-
tional file1: TableS1). Among women, the odds of those in LAT relationships reporting
higher rather than lower compatibility in sexual interest are about 37% and 33% higher
than those of married and cohabiting, respectively. Cohabiting women are no different
to married women in their sexual interest compatibility with their partner.
Model 3 investigates the link between partnership type and compatibility in sexual
preferences with a partner. e outcome is associated with partnership type for males,
but not for females. Men in LAT relationships tend to report being more compatible
with their partner in terms of sexual preferences than married, and cohabiting men
(Additional file1: TableS1); the odds of reporting higher levels of compatibility in sexual
preferences among men in LAT are about 52% and 42% higher than among married,
and cohabiting men, respectively. Cohabiting men are no different than those married in
their reports of compatibility in sexual preferences.
Model 4 investigates the link between partnership type and relationship happiness.
is outcome is related to partnership status similarly for men and women. ose in
LAT and cohabiting partnerships are significantly less happy in their relationship as
compared to those married (Additional file1: TableS1). However, the relationship hap-
piness difference between cohabiting and married men is nearly significant (Table4,
p
=
0.051), so caution is needed when interpreting this result.
Concerning control variables, it is interesting that women aged 60+ are more likely
than those aged 16–29 to report high levels of emotional closeness during sex (Table3).
In addition, men and women aged 50+ tend to report higher levels of compatibility in
sexual interest, and preferences with their partner (Table4). Gabb (2022) found that
despite body capabilities had changed, couples at an old age embraced these changes
and enjoyed sexual intimacy, especially if their adult child had left the parental home.
Considering the findings of this study, it might be that individuals at later life stages are
going through a new phase of rediscovering and accepting themselves and their partner.
e results might also be explained by the ‘sexual wisdom’ accumulated over the years
(Forbes etal., 2017). Sexual wisdom is a term coined by Forbes etal. (2017) to explain
why in their study later ages were associated with high sexual quality of life: it is the
acquisition of knowledge, skills, and preferences during life (sexual wisdom).
Relationship duration is negatively associated with all outcomes for women. For men,
only compatibility in sexual interest, and preferences tend to decrease with relationship
duration. Women with one child tend to report lower levels of sexual intimacy, while
those with more than one child report lower levels of relationship happiness. Men with
one child compared to those childless report reduced emotional closeness during sex.
Having had health and disability problems in the past year is related to reduced sexual

Page 16 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
intimacy for both men and women. Women with 5+ and men with 3+ sex partners in
life report lower levels of relationship happiness. Sex attempts without women’s will are
associated with lower levels of sexual intimacy, and relationship happiness. More edu-
cated women and men report lower compatibility in sexual interest with their partners.
For men, being more educated is also associated with reduced compatibility in sexual
preferences, and relationship happiness.
e results support the general expectation, that sexual intimacy would differ by wom-
en’s partnership status (Hypothesis 1), showing significant associations with emotional
closeness during sex, and compatibility in sexual interest (but not with compatibility in
sexual preferences). e results do not support Hypothesis 2, that sexual intimacy would
not differ by men’s partnership status, showing significant associations with compatibil-
ity in sexual interest, and preferences (but not with emotional closeness during sex).
Discussion
is study brought together the sex and demographic literature on partnership dynam-
ics to provide new insights on how sexual intimacy and relationship happiness differ
across married, cohabiting, and LAT relationships in Britain.
First, the nature of LAT is defined more by the sexual dimension of the relationship
compared to coresidential relationships; men and women in LAT are more compatible
with their partners in terms of sexual interest as compared to those married and cohab-
iting. Moreover, men in LAT relationships also share more similar sexual preferences
with their partner than coresidential men. However, LAT, cohabiting, and marriage are
not demographic categories with distinct boundaries, representing rather relationship
stages. Individuals usually start their relationship by dating, a period which may be fol-
lowed by moving in together, and eventually marriage. erefore, it is expected that sex
will be more important in the first stage of the relationship development as sex is a “glue”
for relationships, promoting bonding, security, and reinforcing the feeling of happiness,
love, and commitment (Muise etal., 2016; Schwartz etal., 2013). Perhaps the “glue” will
gradually be replaced with non-sexual aspects, such as sharing or buying a house, hav-
ing joint finances or children which are more commonly a characteristic of coresidential
relationships. In addition, in the absence of joint investments, such as buying a house,
paying the mortgage together, and having children, sex may be a more important invest-
ment and valued resource for LATs, and this may explain why they enjoy greater sexual
intimacy than coresidential couples.
Second, cohabiting relationships are similar to married relationships in their sexual
intimacy. Earlier studies have found that cohabitors report higher sexual frequency than
marrieds, being characterised as a ‘sexier’ living arrangement (Blumstein & Schwartz,
1983). Nonetheless, more recent studies reveal no significant differences between
cohabitation and marriage in sexual frequency and sexual satisfaction changes over time
(Schmiedeberg & Schröder, 2016). e findings from this paper add to these latest stud-
ies, and might be attributed to the theory of diffusion, which stipulates that as cohabita-
tion is more accepted and spread in a society, the narrower the differences between these
two relationships become (Liefbroer & Dourleijn, 2006). Since cohabitation is highly
accepted and spread in the British society (Beaujouan & Ní Bhrolcháin, 2011), and sex

Page 17 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
outside marriage is practiced at younger ages across cohorts (Mercer etal., 2013), it may
be that marriage and cohabitation provide a similar social and emotional context for
expressing intimacy, and evaluating sexual aspects.
ird, cohabiting individuals report lower levels of relationship happiness than mar-
ried individuals, a finding in line with past research (Perelli-Harris etal., 2019). is
result might be explained by the findings from the qualitative research conducted in
Britain (Berrington etal., 2015); participants stressed that marriage signals a more com-
mitted relationship than cohabitation, and conveys a greater expectation of permanency
(Berrington etal., 2015). Moreover, the results of this study might mirror the different
legal treatment of marriage and cohabitation in Britain; as marriage is more protected
by law than cohabitation (Barlow, 2014), married couples might feel more secure and,
consequently, are happier than cohabiting couples.
Fourth, those in LAT relationships report lower levels of relationship happiness than
those married, a finding in line with previous studies (Lewin, 2017; Tai etal., 2014). e
result might reflect the different degrees of commitment, and emotional security these
two relationships entail. In Britain, LAT relationships are seen by some as lacking the
strong commitment, emotional, and sexual intimacy a cohabiting or married relation-
ship entails (Duncan & Phillips, 2010, Carter etal., 2016), whereas marriage is generally
perceived as involving the ultimate commitment, being a promise for a life-long partner-
ship (Berrington etal., 2015). In addition, since LAT couples do not benefit from any
legal rights, they may feel less secure in their relationship compared to married couples.
e lack of legal protection against the risks of joint investments in case of dissolution
may, in turn, explain the lower levels of LATs’ relationship happiness. However, these
findings may also suggest a selection effect of those who are happier with their relation-
ships into marriages, this being one of the main limitations of this study.
Also, given that LAT couples are more sexually compatible with their partner but less
happy in their relationship than married couples makes us question the role of physical
distance. Is it that LAT couples are less happy in their relationship than those married
due to distance? Or is distance (and not living together) a reason for LAT couples to
enjoy their sexual life more than married couples?. is paper does not answer these
questions due to data limitations but leaves them as a suggestion for future work.
is paper provides new evidence, that, among men, those in in LAT partnerships feel
less happy in their relationships than those cohabiting. It may be that a cohabitating rela-
tionship is perceived by men as a more secure type of relationship, where they receive
more support (Lewin, 2017), social, and emotional benefits than in an LAT relationship.
However, since this difference very closely brushed the limit of statistical significance,
the findings have to be interpreted with caution. Future (qualitative) research is needed
to shed light on how the meaning of a cohabiting relationship differs from that of an
LAT relationship in terms of love, security, and health among men.
Married women more often reported being emotionally close during sex to their part-
ner than those in LAT relationships. Women prefer long term committed relationships
to casual sexual relationships or short dating relationships to express sexual intimacy,
because in the former, they feel more protected and secure (Peplau, 2003). It is known
that in Britain marriage entails the romantic view of a life-long relationship with ‘’the
one’’ and represents the ‘’eternal commitment’’ (Berrington etal., 2015, p. 336–337),

Page 18 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
which offers important emotional and psychological security (Berrington etal., 2015).
In contrast, LAT relationships have not been characterised by such a high level of com-
mitment, but by greater autonomy, space, and freedom as compared to coresidential
relationships, benefits which were more often reported by women (Duncan etal., 2014).
Consequently, marriage may provide a more secure, and comfortable context for women
to express their emotional side during sex compared to LAT relationships.
ere are several limitations to this study. First, to respond to sexual intimacy and
relationship happiness questions, individuals needed to be sexually active in the last year
before the interview. erefore, the sample might be selective of those more (sexually)
satisfied in their relationship, and perhaps of those with greater sexual intimacy than
those who are not sexually active. Furthermore, Natsal-3 restricts the sample to indi-
viduals in a sexual relationship for at least 1 year. is leaves out relationships of shorter
duration and limits the generalisability of the results. However, the results confirm the
broad literature on partnership differences in relationship happiness, underling the posi-
tive benefits of marriage (Lee & Ono, 2012; Musick & Bumpass, 2012). Finally, given the
cross-sectional nature of Natsal-3, the analysis is merely descriptive. It would be useful
if demographic panel data collects information about people’s sexual intimacy aspects
so that longitudinal analysis can be applied to investigate the link between changes in
sexual intimacy or relationship happiness and partnership stability.
Despite these limitations, this study represents an important contribution to the
understanding of the changing nature of partnerships, using a unique database which
asks about emotional closeness and sexual compatibility, aspects understudied by fam-
ily demographers, especially with national representative data. While cohabitation and
marriage offer seemingly similar contexts for expressing intimacy and sexuality, LAT
offers a distinct context, where the non-coresidential aspect seems to have a positive
impact for physical intimacy, even if LATs are less happy with their relationship. Finally,
this work suggests that experiences of sexual intimacy are different among men and
women in the same relationship type. More research is needed on other sexual aspects
of relationships to shed new perspectives on the nature of partnerships.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s41118‑ 022‑ 00178‑2.
Additional le1: TableS1. Odds ratios from proportional odds regression models for key independent variables
with response categories switched. TableS2. Natsal‑3 (2010‑2011) sample broken down in categories which are not
part of the analytical sample due to filters.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Author contributions
AAC is the single author of this paper, responsible for the its concept, design, analysis, interpretation and writing‑up. The
author read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council ES/J500161/1 as part of the PhD thesis of
Alexandra‑Andreea Ciritel, conducted at the University of Southampton, UK.
Availability of data and materials
The data set analyzed during the current study are available in the UK Data Service repository, SSN 7799, [https:// beta.
ukdat aserv ice. ac. uk/ datac atalo gue/ studi es/ study? id= 7799].

Page 19 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 13 May 2022 Accepted: 13 September 2022
References
Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Wiley & Sons Inc.
Arminger, G. (1995). Specification and estimation of mean structures. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.),
Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 77–184). Plenum.
Armstrong, E. A., England, P., & Fogarty, A. C. K. (2012). Accounting for women’s orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college
hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review, 77(3), 435–462. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00031 22412
445802.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American
Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003‑ 066X. 55.5. 469.
Barlow, A. (2014). Legislating for cohabitation in common law jurisdictions in Europe: Two steps forward and one step
back? In K. Boele‑Woelki, N. Dethloff, & W. Gephart (Eds.), Family law and culture in Europe: Developments, challenges
and opportunities (pp. 77–94). Intersentia.
Berrington, A., Perelli‑Harris, B., & Trevena, P. (2015). Commitment and the changing sequence of cohabitation, childbear‑
ing, and marriage: Insights from qualitative research in the UK. Demographic Research, S17(12), 327–362. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 4054/ DemRes. 2015. 33. 12.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work and sex. William Morrow.
Brant, R. (1990). Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics, 46(4),
1171–1178. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 25324 57.
Brown, S. L. (2004). Moving from cohabitation to marriage: Effects on relationship quality. Social Science Research, 33(1),
1–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0049‑ 089X(03) 00036‑X.
Brown, S. L., & Kawamura, S. (2010). Relationship quality among cohabitors and marrieds in older adulthood. Social Sci-
ence Research, 39(5), 777–786. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ssres earch. 2010. 04. 010.
Brown, S. L., Manning, W. D., & Payne, K. K. (2017). Relationship quality among cohabiting versus married couples. Journal
of Family Issues, 38(12), 1730–1753.
Carter, J., & Duncan, S. (2018). Reinventing bouples. Tradition, agency and Bricolage. Palgrave Macmillan.
Carter, J., Duncan, S., Stoilova, M., & Phillips, M. (2016). Sex, love and security: Accounts of distance and commitment in
living apart together relationships. Sociology, 50(3), 576–593. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00380 38515 573689.
Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. Knopf.
Debrot, A., Meuwly, N., Muise, A., Impett, E. A., & Schoebi, D. (2017). More than just sex: Affection mediates the association
between sexual activity and well‑being. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 287–299. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 01461 67216 684124.
Duncan, S., Carter, J., Phillips, M., Roseneil, S., & Stoilova, M. (2012). Legal rights for people who ‘Live Apart Together’?
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 34(4), 443–458. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09649 069. 2012. 753731.
Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2010). People who live apart together (LATs) – how different are they? The Sociological Review,
58(1), 112–134.
Duncan, S., Phillips, M., Carter, J., Roseneil, S., & Stoilova, M. (2014). Practices and perceptions of living apart together. Fam-
ily Science, 5(1), 1–10.
Eickmeyer, K. J., Manning, W. D., & Brown, S. L. (2019). What’s mine is ours? Income pooling in American families. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 81(4), 968–978. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jomf. 12565.
Erens, B., Phelps, A., Clifton, S., Mercer, C. H., Tanton, C., Hussey, D., Sonnenberg, P., Macdowall, W., Field, N., Datta, J., Mitch‑
ell, K., Copas, A. J., Wellings, K., & Johnson, A. M. (2013). Methodology of the third British national survey of sexual
attitudes and lifestyles (Natsal‑3). Sex Transm Infect. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ sextr ans‑ 2013‑ 051359.
Forbes, M. K., Eaton, N. R., & Krueger, R. F. (2017). Sexual quality of life and aging: A prospective study of a nationally repre‑
sentative sample. Journal of Sex Research, 54(2), 137–148. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 499. 2016. 12333 15.
Gabb, J. (2022). The relationship work of sexual intimacy in long‑term heterosexual and LGBTQ partnerships. Current
Sociology, 70(1), 24–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00113 92119 826619.
Gabb, J., & Fink, J. (2015). Couple relationships in the 21st century. Palgrave Macmillan.
Galinsky, A. M., & Waite, L. J. (2014). Sexual activity and psychological health as mediators of the relationship between
physical health and marital quality. The Journals of Gerontology Series b, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,
69(3), 482–492. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ geronb/ gbt165.
Ganong, K., & Larson, E. (2011). Intimacy and belonging: The association between sexual activity and depression among
older adults. Society and Mental Health, 1(3), 153–172. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 21568 69311 431612.
Gott, M., & Hinchliff, S. (2003). How important is sex in later life? The views of older people. Social Science & Medicine, 56(8),
1617–1628.
Graham, C. A., Mercer, C. H., Tanton, C., Jones, K. G., Johnson, A. M., Wellings, K., & Mitchell, K. R. (2017). What factors are
associated with reporting lacking interest in sex and how do these vary by gender? Findings from the third British
national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles. British Medical Journal Open, 7(9), 1–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/
bmjop en‑ 2017‑ 016942.
Gravningen, K., Mitchell, K. R., Wellings, K., Johnson, A. M., Geary, R., Jones, K. G., Clifton, S., Erens, B., Lu, M., Chayachinda,
C., Field, N., Sonnenberg, P., & Mercer, C. H. (2017). Reported reasons for breakdown of marriage and cohabitation

Page 20 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
in Britain: Findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal‑3). PLoS ONE, 12(3),
e0174129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 01741 29.
Green, A. I. (2012). The symbolic power of civil marriage on the sexual life histories of gay man. In L. M. Carpenter &
J. DeLamater (Eds.), Sex for Life. From virginity to viagra how sexuality changes throughout our lives (pp. 146–160).
New York University Press.
Haskey, J., & Lewis, J. (2006). Living‑apart‑together in Britain: context and meaning. International Journal of Law in
Context, 2(1), 37–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1744 55230 60010 30.
Heiman, J., Long, J., Smith, S., Fisher, W., Sand, M., & Rosen, R. (2011). Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness in
midlife and older couples in five countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(4), 741–753. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10508‑ 010‑ 9703‑3.
Hughes, S. M., & Kruger, D. J. (2011). Sex differences in post‑coital behaviors in long‑ and short‑term mating: An
evolutionary perspective. The Journal of Sex Research, 48(5), 496–505. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 499. 2010.
501915.
Jones, D., Marks, G., Villar‑Loubet, O., Weiss, S. M., O’Daniels, C., Borkowf, C. B., Simpson, C., Adimora, A. A., & McLellan‑
Lemal, E. (2015). Experience of forced sex and subsequent sexual, drug, and mental health outcomes: African
American and Hispanic women in the Southeastern United States. International Journal of Sexual Health, 27(3),
249–263. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19317 611. 2014. 959631.
Kalmijn, M. (2013). The educational gradient in marriage: A comparison of 25 European countries. Demography, 50(4),
1499–1520. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13524‑ 013‑ 0229‑x.
Kelly, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. Wiley.
Klusmann, D. (2002). Sexual motivation and the duration of partnership. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31(3), 275–287.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10152 05020 769.
Kobayashi, K. M., Funk, L., & Khan, M. M. (2017). Constructing a sense of commitment in ‘Living Apart Together’ (LAT )
relationships: Interpretive agency and individualization. Current Sociology, 65(7), 991–1009. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 00113 92116 653237.
Kontula, O., & Haavio‑Mannila, E. (2009). The impact of aging on human sexual activity and sexual desire. The Journal
of Sex Research, 46(1), 46–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 49080 26244 14.
Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., Glasser, D. B., Kang, J.‑H., Wang, T., Levinson, B., Moreira, E. D., Nicolosi, A., & Gingell, C. (2006).
A cross‑national study of subjective sexual well‑being among older women and men: Findings from the global
study of sexual attitudes and behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(2), 143–159. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10508‑ 005‑ 9005‑3.
Lee, K. S., & Ono, H. (2012). Marriage, cohabitation, and happiness: A cross‑national analysis of 27 countries. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 74(5), 953–972. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1741‑ 3737. 2012. 01001.x.
Lewin, A. C. (2017). Health and relationship quality later in life: A comparison of living apart together (LAT), first mar‑
riages, remarriages, and cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 38(12), 1754–1774. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01925
13X16 647982.
Liefbroer, A., & Dourleijn, E. (2006). Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using
data from 16 European countries. Demography, 43(2), 203–221.
Lodge, A. C., & Umberson, D. (2012). All shook up: sexuality of mid‑ to later life married couples. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 74(3), 428–443. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1741‑ 3737. 2012. 00969.x.
Mercer, C. H., Tanton, C., Prah, P., Erens, B., Sonnenberg, P., Clifton, S., Macdowall, W., Lewis, R., Field, N., Datta, J., Copas,
A. J., Phelps, A., Wellings, K., & Johnson, A. M. (2013). Changes in sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain through
the life course and over time: Findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal). The
Lancet, 382(9907), 1781–1794. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0140‑ 6736(13) 62035‑8.
Mitchell, K. R., & Wellings, K. (2013). Measuring sexual function in community surveys: Development of a conceptual
framework. Journal of Sex Research, 50(1), 17–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 499. 2011. 621038.
Mitchell, K. R., Wellings, K., Nazareth, I., King, M., Mercer, C. H., & Johnson, A. M. (2011). Scripting sexual function: A quali‑
tative investigation. Sociology of Health & Illness, 33(4), 540–553. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467‑ 9566. 2011. 01318.x.
Muise, A., Kim, J. J., McNulty, J. K., & Impett, E. A. (2016). The positive implications of sex for relationships. In C. K. H.
Reis (Ed.), Advances in personal relationships: Positive approaches to optional relationship development. (Vol. 1).
Cambridge University Press.
Musick, K., & Bumpass, L. (2012). Reexamining the case for marriage: union formation and changes in well‑being.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(1), 1–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1741‑ 3737. 2011. 00873.x.
NatCen Social Research. (2019). Natsal. http:// www. natsal. ac. uk/ home. aspx.
Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: how do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science,
12(2), 37–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1467‑ 8721. 01221.
Perelli‑Harris, B., Hoherz, S., Addo, F., Lappegård, T., Evans, A., Sassler, S., & Styrc, M. (2018). Do marriage and cohabi‑
tation provide benefits to health in mid‑life? The role of childhood selection mechanisms and partnership
characteristics across countries. Population Research and Policy Review, 37(5), 703–728. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11113‑ 018‑ 9467‑3.
Perelli‑Harris, B., Hoherz, S., Lappegård, T., & Evans, A. (2019). Mind the “happiness” gap: the relationship between cohabi‑
tation, marriage, and subjective well‑being in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Norway. Demography,
56(4), 1219–1246. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13524‑ 019‑ 00792‑4.
Perelli‑Harris, B., Mynarska, M., Berrington, A., Berghammer, C., Evans, A., Isupova, O., Keizer, R., Klärner, A., Lappegård, T., &
Vignoli, D. (2014). Towards a new understanding of cohabitation: Insights from focus group research across Europe
and Australia. Demographic Research, S17(34), 1043–1078. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4054/ DemRes. 2014. 31. 34.
Rao, J. N. K., & Scott, A. J. (1984). On Chi‑squared tests for multiway contingency tables with cell proportions estimated
from survey data. The Annals of Statistics, 12(1), 46–60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1214/ aos/ 11763 46391.
Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1999). Lust: What we know about human sexual desire. Sage.

Page 21 of 21
Ciritel Genus (2022) 78:32
Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2014). Before ‘I Do’. What Do Premarital Experiences Have to Do with Marital Quality Among
Today’s Young Adults? (The National Marriage Project). University of Virginia.
Roseneil, S. (2006). On not living with a partner: Unpicking coupledom and cohabitation. Sociological Research Online,
11(3), 111–124.
Schmiedeberg, C., & Schröder, J. (2016). Does sexual satisfaction change with relationship duration? Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 45(1), 99–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10508‑ 015‑ 0587‑0.
Schröder, J., & Schmiedeberg, C. (2015). Effects of relationship duration, cohabitation, and marriage on the frequency
of intercourse in couples: Findings from German panel data. Social Science Research, 52, 72–82. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. ssres earch. 2015. 01. 009.
Schwartz, P., Serafini, B. J., & Cantor, R. (2013). Sex in committed relationships. In A. K. Baumle (Ed.), International handbook
on the demography of sexuality (1st ed., pp. 131–165). Cham: Springer.
Stavrova, O., Fetchenhauer, D., & Schlösser, T. (2012). Cohabitation, gender, and happiness a cross‑cultural study in thirty
countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1063–1081.
Stone, J., Berrington, A., & Falkingham, J. (2014). Gender, turning points, and boomerangs: returning home in young
adulthood in Great Britain. Demography, 51(1), 257–276. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13524‑ 013‑ 0247‑8.
Štulhofer, A., Ferreira, L. C., & Landripet, I. (2013). Emotional intimacy, sexual desire, and sexual satisfaction among part‑
nered heterosexual men. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14681 994. 2013. 870335.
Tai, T., Baxter, J., & Hewitt, B. (2014). Do co‑residence and intentions make a difference? Relationship satisfaction in mar‑
ried, cohabiting, and living apart together couples in four countries. Demographic Research, 31(3), 71–104. https://
doi. org/ 10. 4054/ DemRes. 2014. 31.3.
Umberson, D., Pudrovska, T., & Reczek, C. (2010). Parenthood, childlessness, and well‑being: a life course perspective.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72(3), 612–629. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1741‑ 3737. 2010. 00721.x.
Umberson, D., Thomeer, M. B., & Lodge, A. C. (2015). Intimacy and emotion work in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual rela‑
tionships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 77(2), 542–556. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jomf. 12178.
Waite, L., & Das, A. (2010). Families, social life, and well‑being at older ages. Demography, 47(Suppl), S87‑109.
Williams, R. (2016). Understanding and interpreting generalized ordered logit models. The Journal of Mathematical Sociol-
ogy, 40(1), 7–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00222 50X. 2015. 11123 84.
Witting, K., Santtila, P., Varjonen, M., Jern, P., Johansson, A., von der Pahlen, B., & Sandnabba, K. (2008). Female sexual
dysfunction, sexual distress, and compatibility with partner. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5(11), 2587–2599. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1743‑ 6109. 2008. 00984.x.
Yabiku, S. T., & Gager, C. T. (2009). Sexual frequency and the stability of marital and cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 71(4), 983–1000. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1741‑ 3737. 2009. 00648.x.
Yoo, H., Bartle‑Haring, S., Day, R. D., & Gangamma, R. (2014). Couple communication, emotional and sexual intimacy, and
relationship satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40(4), 275–293. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00926 23X. 2012. 751072.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.