Lydia Victoria Kula Mathi’s research while affiliated with Kingston University and other places

Partner number sexuality” (P#S) refers to how many partners individuals have/are interested in having. Those with P#S outside of monogamous desires and/or practices commonly face stigma in North America and elsewhere. Yet theories of sexuality do not always make room for diverse P#S. One theory that does is sexual configurations theory (SCT), which visually models gender/sex and sexuality (van Anders, 2015). In this study, we investigated what insights SCT could provide into P#S, whether SCT was useful to those with minoritized P#S, and how those with minoritized P#S made use of SCT. To do so, we conducted online interviews, asking participants (N = 26) to complete two SCT diagrams and report on their experience. We used template analysis to analyze transcripts and compiled “SCT heatmaps,” aggregates of SCT diagrams. We constructed 11 major themes, including diverse understandings of eroticism and romantic/platonic relationships, the impacts of hermeneutical injustice (the injustice of knowledge systems) on participants’ abilities to conceptualize and discuss their P#S, and how SCT facilitated conversations about P#S. The heatmaps showed that participants made use of most of both SCT diagrams, showing branchedness in P#S between “eroticism” and “nurturance,” and between status, identity, and orientation. Our study highlights that the lived experience of partnering, especially of those with minoritized P#S, extends far beyond commonly understood categories, and that SCT is a useful tool that can accurately reflect diversity in P#S.

Low sexual desire in women partnered with men has been the subject of controversy and research over the past decades, including both as construct and diagnosis. Despite discussion surrounding the causes of low desire, there is a gap in research about how women themselves understand the causes of their low desire and the potential consequences of these causal attributions. In the current study, we investigated this by asking 130 women who had low desire and were partnered with men about their attributions for low desire. Through content analysis, we identified five attribution categories: psychological/individual, relational, biological, sociocultural, and/or sexual orientation/identity/status. Many participants chose more than one category, indicating a multifaceted nature of women’s causes of low desire. We then quantitatively assessed women’s feelings of responsibility for, and emotions surrounding, their low desire. Our findings indicate that the majority—but not all—of women have negative feelings about their low desire. However, the specific emotions they experience are related to their attribution patterns. This underscores the significance of investigating various facets of women’s attributions regarding low desire in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their emotional experiences and desire overall.