discussion

stisfi.d *nh ln.n ll6i.e6 d @bp6!!d to i.Lrtil€ n 16. Itis bFrh6t h4 not
ben suppon d thrcugh this study Gable 49), A lurpnsiig yicld of rhis study rs thal
no diF€r€nces w€r€ foud b.twer inf.nil€ Esl6 ed Imal€s rsgdding iheir nrilal
$lisf&tion, nE failft !o 6nd a diffcmcc betren md and mmd @ b.
a,tEibutc.l to th. f&i dEt fch.lec fa@ phtsical ab$ or dE rhMt of sorbq wifc by
thei. hubands dE to theh inability to prcdu€ childr€n. Socially they be@c oulcdr
od h4 to fe hMililrioN ar rhc fdily 8!th.rines.
The $ul1s e not in lire with pdios €st*hcs, As clov€r cr al. (1999)
argu€d ihat fenale menbqs ol coupl6 exp.dsnc6 mrilal &d sexu,l disadsfa.lion
tbs fi.ir m16. 6 d*ribd h chaprer M&iral S,rda.rion The hlTolnsis ws
nade qhilc ouid*ine lhc f&1 dsr primdily wonen s Mciion io inl€rriliry wnhout
m exdimiion of how rh. other dmb.r of rh€ ouple is Factilg ro rhe sc ev€nl
o. how @h !€rh.ds qpqic@ is !f,€.ring the oth6 p6nEr i5 alEys ! deline in
rheir Miial $iisfa.tion (GFil, 1997).
Simildly, inf€rtile E.D & wno h.d not shom diff.dt pan€m of sxual
elisfa.lion (Table 50). Orc d.|. do nor $pton d. nyF1h6is rhrr infenilc n n ed
wom€n would differ in th.n slal sdisfaction. Result of rhis salysis d@s not
indicar. thal id.rtil€ women e l.s likely ro exually erisry 6 .onpdd lo men.
ft€ BdB Ftrai.ing lo 86dq dmebq i! @nal and *xual edsfe on e in
@ntrssr with lnc 6.dings of Afe.t dd Disod (2003) s indicared i. ftvid
ftmte eho dsluared thc diflftn€d in Fychological disrtlss, @iial stisf.crioq
dd sud s.dsf&tion. He Eport d lLal hsb6ndr Ev€lted noE disfEs in neir.l
ed sexual stisfaction 4 .ompd€d to wiv.s,
'ft€ rejecdor ofthb htlollesis mighl b€ alrribnled ro ih. f&1(a di$wd ii
ch,piq Squd $tisfa.tion) rh.l ene ofih. @upl6 Eponcd that inf.riilily poblen
245