Female sexual desire, response, and behavior.

Elsmore et al. (1994) mailed a long sex survey to 78 married couples. They asked wives how often they wanted sex, how their body responded, and how happy they were in the marriage.

The team sorted answers into five sexual response types. They then compared wives in happy marriages to wives in unhappy marriages to see which types showed up most.

Five clear patterns emerged, such as 'high desire, high satisfaction' and 'low desire, high distress.' Wives in happy marriages mostly fit the first pattern; wives in unhappy marriages fit the second.

The survey only described the patterns. No treatment or therapy was tested.

Norris et al. (2024) also built a typology, but for reinforcers, not sex. Both studies used free-choice data to sort people into types. The method is the same; the topic is different.

Butler et al. (2021) tracked how long preference types stay the same. They found edible items stay stable for a year. F et al. never re-tested the wives, so we do not know if sexual types stay stable.

Wilson et al. (2024) showed that video mode gives the steadiest preference ranks. F et al. used paper surveys. If they had used face-to-face interviews, the types might have shifted.

You now know that typologies from simple choice data are possible, but you must check if the types last. Before you label a client as 'low motivation' or 'sensory seeker,' re-assess in a month. Use the same mode each time—switching from video to photos can move the ranks. If the type holds, you can write goals with confidence; if it drifts, you know the label was temporary.