ovr.news
About

Cultural differences drive higher rates of marital sexual inactivity in South Korea

Read on psypost.org · 7 November 2026
Cultural differences drive higher rates of marital sexual inactivity in South Korea
Photo: psypost.org

Headline and summary by local AI

Researchers Hyoungbin Moon and Young-Hoon Kim from Yonsei University in South Korea analyzed how cultural and psychological factors influence marital sexual activity in South Korea and the United States.

The study, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, compared married individuals in both nations to identify why some couples experience a lack of physical intimacy. The researchers found that South Korean participants reported higher rates of sexual inactivity across all age groups than those in the United States.

While the study did not prove cause and effect, it showed that a promotion focus, a mindset oriented toward growth and achieving goals, correlated with lower rates of sexual inactivity in both countries. Conversely, a prevention focus, which prioritizes avoiding losses and maintaining safety, did not significantly predict inactivity in either nation. Daily communication time also played a major role, as couples who talked more frequently were more likely to be sexually active.

This connection was notably stronger in South Korea, which the researchers suggested might be because long working hours leave less time for couples to connect. In the United States, higher family income had a stronger negative association with sexual inactivity than it did in South Korea. The study had some limitations, including its reliance on self-reported data and its focus only on traditional intercourse.

Because the data was collected at a single point in time, the researchers cannot determine if a lack of communication causes inactivity or if a lack of intimacy leads to less communication.

Selected and summarized by local AI How we work

More in Discovery

Browse all Discovery articles

Anything you want to add?

What made you doubt it?

What's wrong with this article?