Menstrual cycle-driven vs noncyclical daily changes in sexual desire.

BACKGROUND

Past research on the association between sexual desire and the menstrual cycle has provided inconclusive results and has not considered the potential influence of psychological and physical changes that are frequently associated with the menstrual cycle.

AIM

To test the strength of association between the menstrual cycle (and associated symptoms) and changes in sexual desire.

METHODS

Prospective daily reports across 2 full menstrual cycles (2 months) from a sample of female university students (n = 213), were analysed. Analyses tested for average effects of the menstrual cycle on sexual desire, individual differences in these effects, and cyclical and noncyclical associations between sexual desire and the 9 menstrual cycle-related changes. Note that data presented in the current article come from a larger study from which other reports have been published.

OUTCOMES

Target variables were (1) daily change in sexual desire and (2) daily reports of 5 psychological changes and 4 physical changes that are commonly associated with the menstrual cycle.

RESULTS

Results showed that when considering average effects across participants, the menstrual cycle was associated with a small midcycle increase in sexual desire. However, multilevel analyses showed large individual differences in how the menstrual cycle influences sexual desire. Specifically, some participants showed a midcycle increase, others a perimenstrual increase, and others no change across the menstrual cycle. Moreover, results demonstrated that psychological changes were more important for predicting sexual desire as compared with physical changes.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

These results suggest that daily measurement of sexual desire across multiple menstrual cycles may be an important tool in the assessment of sexual desire among some females.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

Strengths of this study are the daily assessment of sexual desire and all symptoms for 2 menstrual cycles and multilevel analyses that allow the study of individual differences. Limitations include limited measurement of sexual desire based on only 2 questions and the lack of measures of relationship status and sexual orientation.

CONCLUSION

Emphasis is placed on the need to apply more rigorous research methods and to abandon simplistic average-effects models that are based on outdated theories and stereotypes.