What Sexual Shame Actually Is

When that conviction attaches to sexuality, it takes on a particular quality. A 2026 narrative review in Sexual Medicine Reviews defines sexual shame as negative self-evaluation activated by sexual experiences, thoughts, desires, and behaviours — involving the felt sense of being inherently flawed and abnormal as a sexual being (Coates & Meston, 2026) — a sense not of having done something wrong, but of being wrong, at the level of who one is sexually.

Tangney and Dearing (2002) draw the same distinction Brown does between guilt and shame: guilt says I did something bad, shame says I am bad. Guilt is oriented toward action and can prompt repair. Shame is oriented toward identity and prompts hiding. And because sexual shame targets identity — targets the part of a person that desires, responds, needs, and wants — it is both harder to locate and harder to address than a specific guilt about a specific act.

Brown’s research also documents how shame functions: in silence, in secrecy, and in the conviction that one is uniquely afflicted. Shame grows in the dark. The antidote, Brown (2010) argues, is not the absence of vulnerability but its opposite — the willingness to be seen, to speak the thing that has been kept hidden, and to discover that it does not result in the rejection that shame has always predicted. Shame resilience, in her framework, is not the eradication of shame but the development of a practice that interrupts its spiral: recognising it, naming it, speaking it to a trusted person, and receiving empathy in return.

For sexual shame, this is both the most important truth and the most difficult one. What heals shame — what actually interrupts the architecture of it — is being known and accepted. And sexual shame is precisely the kind of shame that most people carry in the most complete silence of their lives.

Where It Comes From: The Script We Inherited

Sexual shame is not innate. Research is consistent on this point: it is learned. It arrives through specific channels — cultural, familial, religious, relational — and becomes part of the internal script through which a person relates to their own sexuality (Coates & Meston, 2026).

Gagnon and Simon’s (1973) sexual script theory offers a useful framework here. The theory proposes that sexuality is not simply driven by biology but organised through social learning — that each of us carries an internal script for what sex is, what it means, who is allowed to want it, how it is supposed to unfold, and what kinds of desire are permitted. These scripts operate largely below conscious awareness: they feel less like rules we have accepted and more like simply how things are.

Sexual shame, in this framework, is what happens when a person’s actual desire, body, or experience fails to match the script they have been given. The script says one thing; reality says another; and the gap between them is filled with shame.

The content of the script — and therefore the specific texture of sexual shame — varies across individuals and contexts. But several sources are strikingly consistent in the research.

Childhood, family, school, and peer environment. Early experiences leave lasting impressions on sexual attitudes. Parents, carers, or other adults who avoid or shut down conversations about bodies and sexuality—whether through silence, anxiety, moralising, or criticism—do not simply teach children what is or is not appropriate; they can also teach that something about the body, desire, or curiosity itself is risky or shameful, a lesson that may be absorbed long before it can be named (Fisher, 1988; Kiely & Alderson, 2010; Coates & Meston, 2026). School environments can deepen this shame when sexuality education is reduced to biological processes, risk management, and STI prevention, with little room for pleasure, consent, relationality, or the idea that sexuality can also be a source of connection, enjoyment, and agency (Fine & McClelland, 2020; Lameiras-Fernández et al., 2021). Peer cultures matter too. Sexual teasing, harassment, ridicule, homophobic policing, and appearance-based judgement can teach young people that sexuality is something to get right, hide, or defend rather than something they are allowed to grow into with curiosity, consent and self-respect; in adolescence, sexual harassment has been linked with shame and depression (Svindseth et al., 2020). Teaching consent and bodily autonomy early in life is vital work for carers and school systems. It deserves an article of its own and more space than I can give it here.

As a sex therapist, consent is often where I begin with clients, precisely because it was never taught.

Religion and purity culture. Religion and purity culture. For many people, religious or spiritual traditions offer comfort, meaning, and an affirming framework for sexuality. For others, particularly where teachings construct sexuality as inherently sinful outside of narrow prescribed conditions, these frameworks can become potent sources of sexual shame. Research has found that exposure to conservative religious sexual norms can be associated with elevated sex guilt and sexual shame, especially around masturbation, non-normative desire, and premarital sex (Leonhardt et al., 2020). Flanagan’s (2021) qualitative research on Northern Irish women, for example, describes participants using words like dirty, bad, and slut for their sexual selves—language absorbed from religious and cultural environments that offered no framework for female sexual entitlement. This is not about any one religion being inherently harmful. The common thread is any teaching, from any tradition or community, that equates sexual desire itself with moral failure and leaves people without safe, supportive places to make sense of their sexuality.

For some readers, these teachings will feel deeply familiar; for others, they may sit alongside experiences of genuine care and belonging in faith communities. If you recognise parts of your own story here, it does not mean you have to abandon your beliefs or community. Instead, you might begin by gently noticing which messages about sex and desire have left you feeling small, afraid, or wrong, and exploring whether those messages still serve the kind of relationship you want with your body, your pleasure, and the people you love.

Gender socialisation. Cultural expectations about gender carry powerful — and largely implicit — sexual rules. Women are often taught that sexual desire is dangerous, that their worth is tied to sexual unavailability, and that asserting sexual need is morally suspect. Men are often taught that sexual vulnerability, sexual difficulty, or any desire that does not fit a narrow heterosexual masculine script is grounds for humiliation. Brown’s (2012) research on gendered shame found that while shame feels the same for men and women, it is organised differently: women experience a web of conflicting, often impossible expectations around who they must be; men experience a single, devastating imperative — do not be perceived as weak.

Negative sexual experiences. Unwanted, coercive, embarrassing, or shaming sexual experiences can produce sexual shame that operates quite apart from cultural context. Van der Kolk’s (2014) foundational work on trauma and the body is directly relevant: when a sexual experience is traumatic, the shame does not stay contained within the memory of the event. It migrates into the body — into how the body responds during intimacy, what it anticipates, what it braces against. The nervous system carries a warning learned from a specific moment, but applies it to all of them.

Systems, stories, and sexual shame. For some people who have experienced sexual abuse or assault, contact with the legal system can bring validation, protection, and a sense that what happened to them is being taken seriously. For many others, particularly in adversarial court settings, the process itself can feel exposing and shaming. Survivors describe feeling as though they are the ones on trial: having their clothing, choices, memory, and body scrutinised in front of strangers, or being asked to repeat their experiences in ways that do not take into account how trauma affects the brain and body’s ability to recall detail (Department of Justice Canada, 2017; No to Violence, 2020). Even when laws are written with protection in mind, processes that are not trauma-informed can leave people feeling blamed, disbelieved, or as though they have done something wrong simply by being assaulted, adding another layer of sexual shame to something that was already profoundly painful (Department of Justice Canada, 2017; National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2018).

Alongside legal systems, many people now make sense of their sexuality in the middle of constant online commentary about sex, identity, and justice. Social media can be a place where people find language for their experiences, discover that they are not alone, and encounter more affirming narratives about bodies, desire, and consent. At the same time, online spaces can amplify comparison, calling out, and public shaming: people are exposed to idealised images of sex and bodies, moral certainty about what “good” sex or “good” politics should look like, and rapid, often harsh judgements about others’ desires, identities, or histories. In many of these conversations, long-standing norms about whose pleasure matters, whose bodies are considered acceptable, and whose sexuality is seen as dangerous or irresponsible continue to shape what is praised and what is condemned, even when those norms are not named directly. For someone already carrying sexual shame, seeing their fantasies, relationship structure, or trauma responses framed as wrong, harmful, or “not radical enough” can deepen the sense that they are failing both sexually and politically, even when their actual sex life is consensual and grounded in care.

This section aims to name these pressures without suggesting that people should avoid seeking justice or engaging with social change. As a therapist I name these pressures and invite you to notice how systems and stories—including legal processes and online conversations—may be shaping the beliefs you hold about your own sexuality, and to gently ask whether some of those beliefs are rooted more in shame than in your own values.

What Sexual Shame Does to the Body

Sexual shame does not simply produce emotional pain. It produces real, measurable physiological effects on how the body responds sexually — and understanding the mechanism helps explain why telling someone to simply relax or let go rarely reaches what is actually happening.

Bancroft and Janssen’s (2009) Dual Control Model of Sexual Response is the most influential framework for understanding this. The model proposes that sexual response is governed by two opposing systems: the Sexual Excitation System (SES), which responds to sexually relevant stimuli and moves a person toward arousal; and the Sexual Inhibition System (SIS), which responds to perceived threat and applies what the model calls a brake (Janssen & Bancroft, 2023).

The key insight is that the inhibition system responds to psychological threat as readily as physical danger. That includes shame, anticipated rejection, self-surveillance, body embarrassment, performance anxiety, or any internal signal that being sexually present is risky. When the inhibition system is activated by shame, it does not distinguish between a genuine external threat and the feeling of being fundamentally wrong as a sexual being. It applies the brake. And the accelerator — regardless of context, attraction, or desire — cannot override it.

As sex therapist Jennifer Vencill explains: “If you’re feeling anxious, shameful or having emotions like guilt around sexual activity, that is likely going to disrupt your body’s sexual response. It’s going to be really difficult to experience sexual desire. It might be difficult to experience physical arousal and orgasmic functioning, and might actually put you at risk for sexual pain if you’re anxious and tensing up your body” (as cited in Mayo Clinic, 2024).

Research supports this across populations. A 2023 study found that sexual shame was significantly related to reduced sexual desire, with cognitive reappraisal — the capacity to reconceptualise one’s emotional response — emerging as a significant predictor of desire (β = 0.343), and this effect not differing significantly between men and women (Sævik & Konijnenberg, 2023). Research on body image and sexual functioning found that evaluative body shame was significantly associated with reduced sexual desire, difficulty with arousal, and difficulty with orgasm (Woertman & van den Brink, 2016). Research has also found that shame after consensual sexual activity is common — and that it has a direct effect on how present and alive a person is able to feel during sex.

The body, in other words, is an honest reporter of the shame the mind has been taught to carry.

How Gender Shapes Sexual Shame

Sexual shame doesn’t land the same way for everyone. The specific texture it takes on — what triggers it, what it attaches to, how it’s expressed — is deeply shaped by the gendered expectations each person has absorbed about what their sexuality is supposed to look like.

For men, dominant cultural expectations around masculinity construct the “proper” sexual male as active, confident, reliably responsive, and free of vulnerability (Connell, 1995). The expectation is that men always want sex, are always physically ready for it, and never struggle with it. These are physiologically impossible standards, but they function as implicit criteria against which many men continuously, often unconsciously, measure themselves.

When a man experiences sexual difficulty — when desire is absent, when arousal is unreliable, when he finds he is not present in his own sexual experience — the shame that follows doesn’t say there are many ordinary reasons why this might be happening. It says there is something wrong with me as a man. Brown’s (2012) research found that when men attempt to reach out around shame, they frequently encounter the cultural expectation — sometimes from the very people closest to them — that such disclosure is itself a form of weakness. The result is a compounding: not only is the shame experienced privately, but the very act of seeking help carries its own shame.

For women, the gendered architecture of sexual shame is different but equally constraining. Brown’s (2012) research on gendered shame found that while shame feels the same across genders, it’s organised differently: women experience a web of conflicting, often impossible expectations around who they must be. Cultural messages tell women that sexual desire is dangerous, that their worth is tied to sexual unavailability, and that asserting sexual need is morally suspect — while simultaneously being expected to be sexually available and responsive in relationships. The result is a double bind: shame for wanting too much, and shame for not wanting enough.

For people whose gender or sexuality doesn’t fit neatly into binary or heteronormative categories, sexual shame often carries an additional layer: the shame doesn’t just say you’re doing it wrong, it says you shouldn’t exist at all. This territory — where shame is tied not just to sexual difficulty but to identity itself — is addressed more directly in the companion articles in this series.

The point is this: sexual shame is universal, but the way it’s constructed and the specific messages it carries are deeply gendered. Understanding that helps explain why the same therapeutic approach doesn’t land the same way for everyone, and why real change requires working with the particular cultural architecture that built the shame in the first place.

How Sexual Shame Shows Up in Relationships

This is the dimension that is perhaps least discussed — because when sexual shame is present in a person, its effects do not stay contained within that individual. They travel into the relationship, and into the space between partners.

Sexual shame does not go away when a person enters a relationship. It reorganises around the relationship. The partner becomes the person whose gaze is most feared, whose evaluation carries the most weight, and whose potential rejection feels most catastrophic. What this produces — often over years, without either person having a language for it — is a progressive narrowing of sexual and emotional intimacy.

Research consistently shows that shame and fear of being truly known are two of the strongest forces driving sexual avoidance in relationships. When shame lives in a person’s relationship to their own sexuality, it does not stay contained there — it gradually builds a wall between partners. One partner may withdraw from sex without knowing why. The other may feel rejected without understanding what is actually happening. What the research makes clear is that it is rarely about desire, or attraction, or love. It is about the fear that genuine closeness — real intimacy, not just physical contact — will expose something that cannot survive being seen (Radu & Morales, 2025; Arslan & Yilmaz, 2024).

What this means in lived experience is something most couples who have been together for years will recognise, even if they have never had words for it. Sex that used to feel connected gradually becomes something that is either avoided or performed. Conversations about sexuality become difficult to initiate, then impossible. One or both partners begins to manage — to go through the motions of sexual engagement while privately retreating behind a managed self-presentation that allows function without genuine vulnerability.

Schnarch’s (1991) work on differentiation and intimacy is useful here. He describes the difference between other-validated intimacy — seeking reassurance from the partner as the condition of sexual engagement — and self-validated intimacy — the capacity to remain emotionally present and self-directed even in the face of potential rejection. Sexual shame, almost invariably, produces other-validated dynamics. The person carrying shame is preoccupied with their partner’s evaluation; their sexual self is organised around managing how they are perceived, rather than experiencing what is actually happening. The partner, often without knowing why, senses the absence — the person is physically present but emotionally elsewhere — and over time the distance between them widens.

Partners of people carrying sexual shame frequently experience this as rejection, or lack of desire, or a sense that they are doing something wrong. Without understanding what is actually happening, they may internalise their partner’s shame-driven withdrawal as a reflection of their own inadequacy. The relational consequences of individual sexual shame are rarely contained to one person.

When Shame Drives the Act: What Happens When the Pressure Has Nowhere to Go

There is one consequence of sexual shame that I want to name directly, because it is widely misunderstood — and because understanding it changes the picture considerably.

Sexual shame does not only produce avoidance. For some people, it produces the opposite: sexual behaviour that feels driven rather than chosen — behaviour that happens in a kind of disconnected state, that is kept secret, and that is followed by a wave of self-disgust.

The mechanism is a pressure dynamic. When a desire has been sufficiently shamed and suppressed, it does not simply go quiet because it has been told to. The unexpressed, unacknowledged part of a person builds its own weight — and that weight eventually finds expression in behaviour that bypasses the conscious, value-oriented self entirely (Carnes, 2001). Research published in the Journal of Sex Research found that among sexual minority men, both internalised sexual shame and difficulty regulating distressing emotions were significant contributors to driven, compulsive-feeling sexual behaviour — with shame as the underlying organising experience, and emotional overwhelm as the pathway through which it found expression (Cienfuegos-Szalay et al., 2022).

What the person experiences is not pleasure. It is relief — the brief, temporary release of something that has been building for a very long time — followed by the return of shame, often in intensified form. The cycle is not about desire being met. It is about a whole person who has never been given a legitimate place for part of who they are, finding the only release currently available to them. That is not a moral failure. It is what happens when something real is denied existence for long enough. And what that means in practice is that focusing on the behaviour alone — trying to stop it, manage it, or contain it — addresses the exit without addressing what is driving the person toward it. The work, when it is done well, goes underneath: to the shame itself, to the part that was never allowed to be known.

What Therapy Might Look Like

I want to be careful with language here. Words like healing can sound like there’s a finish line — a day when shame is gone and everything is neatly resolved. For most people, it doesn’t work that way. It’s not a straight line, and it doesn’t feel like arriving at a final destination.

And none of this is pathological. Coming to therapy does not mean something is wrong with you. It can mean you have been carrying something heavy for a long time, often without support, and are beginning to look at it through a different lens — or several different lenses — with someone who understands the territory.

What I see instead, in people who stay with this work over time, is a gradual softening. The part that feels desire, the part that is terrified of what that means, the part that polices and shames — all of them become a little less rigid, a little less at war with each other. The system spends less energy hiding and managing. There is more room simply to notice, “This is what I feel,” without the immediate attack.

That said, every person is different. What works for one person may not land the same way for another. Some people benefit from naming and working through specific shame-based thoughts. Others need more body-oriented work — tracking what happens in the nervous system when shame shows up, and building capacity to stay present with it. Some people need the structure of clear therapeutic tasks. Others need a slower, more relational process where the focus is less on fixing and more on being genuinely known.

The approaches that work best are the ones that start from a simple premise: there is nothing wrong with your sexuality. The distress comes from the messages you have absorbed, not from who you are. Working with those shame-based beliefs, gently making space for what has been hidden, and reducing the need to avoid parts of yourself — that is where the research shows real change happens (Pachankis et al., 2015). These tools can be adapted to what makes sense for each person.

Thought work on its own is usually not enough when shame has been there for years and is tied to identity. When shame is built into the architecture of the self, change tends to come through new relational experiences — not just new thoughts. Sitting with someone who holds your sexuality as fundamentally valid, and who stays steady when you bring the most hidden material, creates a live counter-example to the old belief that these parts are disgusting or unlovable.

From a trauma lens, this makes sense. Chronic shame often operates less like a simple belief problem and more like a trauma response, involving real brain-body changes and a nervous system that has learned to stay on high alert under ongoing threat (Nicholson et al., 2022). So the work is slower and more relational. It involves mind and body (van der Kolk, 2014). And it asks me as the therapist and other therapists to hold the full picture: the cultural context that built this shame, the neurobiological weight it carries, and the very specific question of what a bit more ease between parts can realistically look like for this particular person, in this particular life, right now.

Key Takeaways from the Blog

If you’ve spent years feeling like something about your sexuality is fundamentally “wrong,” please know that you aren’t broken—you are likely carrying sexual shame. Here is what I want you to know as we consider working together:

• You are not the problem. Shame convinces us that we are “bad” at our core, whereas guilt is just about our actions. In our sessions, we work to untangle your identity from these painful feelings so you can stop seeing yourself as flawed and start seeing yourself as deserving of connection.
• The “rules” you live by weren’t written by you. Much of what we feel about sex comes from “scripts” we inherited from family, religion, or culture. These aren’t facts; they are learned patterns. Together, we can examine these scripts and begin the process of unlearning the ones that no longer serve you.
• Your body is trying to protect you, not fail you. Using the Dual Control Model, we can see that shame acts like a “brake” on your sexual system. If you struggle with desire or arousal, it’s often because your nervous system is sensing a psychological threat. My goal is to help you move from “bracing” to “softening”.
• You don’t have to hide to be safe. Shame thrives in silence and secrecy. By choosing to speak these hidden things in a safe, non-judgmental therapeutic space, we interrupt the shame spiral. Being known and accepted is the most powerful antidote to the walls shame builds between you and your partner.
• Therapy is a place of “softening,” not “fixing.” You don’t need to arrive with a “perfect” sexuality or a clear list of goals. My approach is to help your internal system become less rigid and at war with itself, making more of “you” available to yourself.

Take the First Step

I understand how difficult it is to reach out about these topics. I do not flinch from this material, and I do not judge those who bring it. Whether you are navigating sexual avoidance, driven behaviours, or a general sense of disconnection, you are welcome here. You do not need to arrive knowing what to say, or what you are, or what any of it means. Everyone is welcome here. You just have to be willing to start.

I offer sessions at my practice in Goodwood, Adelaide, as well as online for clients across Australia and internationally.

Book your first session here.

This article is for general information and is not a substitute for personalised therapeutic advice. If you are experiencing distress, please connect with a mental health professional or your GP.

For immediate crisis support in Australia, contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or text 0477 13 11 14. For LGBTQIA+‑specific peer support, you can contact Rainbow Door on 1800 729 367 (10am–5pm) or QLife on 1800 184 527 (3pm–midnight). If your mental health emergency is life‑threatening, call (000).

References

Arslan, G., & Yilmaz, M. (2024). Sexual shame and emotional disconnection: The mediating role of fear of intimacy. Journal of Relationship and Psychotherapy Counseling Theory, 1(1), 1–12. https://www.jrpct.com/index.php/rpct/article/view/3

Bancroft, J., & Janssen, E. (2009). The dual control model: Current status and future directions. Journal of Sex Research, 46(2–3), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902747222

Brown, B. (2006). Shame resilience theory: A grounded theory study on women and shame. Families in Society, 87(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3483

Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection: Let go of who you think you’re supposed to be and embrace who you are. Hazelden.

Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. Gotham Books.

Carnes, P. (2001). Out of the shadows: Understanding sexual addiction (3rd ed.). Hazelden.

Cienfuegos-Szalay, J., Rendina, H. J., Grov, C., & Parsons, J. T. (2022). Sexual shame and emotion dysregulation: Key roles in the association between internalized homonegativity and sexual compulsivity. Journal of Sex Research, 59(5), 610–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1963649

Coates, A. G. C., & Meston, C. M. (2026). Sexual shame: A narrative review. Sexual Medicine Reviews, 14(1), qeag005. https://doi.org/10.1093/sxmrev/qeag005

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.

Department of Justice Canada. (2017). The impact of trauma on adult sexual assault victims. Government of Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/trauma/p2.html

Fine, M., & McClelland, S. I. (2020). Pleasure and sex education: The need for broadening both content and measurement. American Journal of Public Health, 110(2), 145–148. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305320

Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia–erotophilia as a dimension of personality. Journal of Sex Research, 25(1), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551448

Flanagan, R. (2021). The internalization of shame: How religious cultural socialization has impacted on Northern Irish women’s intrapsychic sexual scripts. Sexuality & Culture, 25, 1614–1630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09840-9

Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Aldine.

Janssen, E., & Bancroft, J. (2023). The Dual Control Model of sexual response: A scoping review. Journal of Sex Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2207978

Kiely, E., & Alderson, S. (2010). The silent treatment: Parents’ narratives of sexuality education with young people. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 12(4), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050903514455

Leonhardt, N. D., Busby, D. M., & Willoughby, B. J. (2020). Sex guilt or sanctification? The indirect role of religiosity on sexual satisfaction. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 12(2), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000240

Mayo Clinic. (2024, April 16). Hope for a satisfying sex life: Overcoming shame, stigma and bothersome symptoms. https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/living-well/hope-for-a-satisfying-sex-life-overcoming-shame-stigma-and-bothersome-symptoms/

National Sexual Violence Resource Center. (2018). Lifespan: Tools for trauma-informed practice. https://www.nsvrc.org/lifespan-tools-trauma-informed-practice/

Nicholson, A. A., et al. (2022). Minority stress and the brain: Neurobiological correlates of sexual minority stress. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

No to Violence. (2020). Trauma-informed responses to sexual assault.

Pachankis, J. E., et al. (2015). A transdiagnostic minority stress treatment approach for gay and bisexual men’s syndemic conditions. Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Radu, E., & Morales, L. (2025). Shame proneness and fear of intimacy predicting sexual avoidance in couples. Journal of Assessment and Research in Applied Counseling, 7(2), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.jarac.7.2.24

Sævik, K. W., & Konijnenberg, C. (2023). The effects of sexual shame, emotion regulation and gender on sexual desire. Scientific Reports, 13, Article 4042. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31181-y

Schnarch, D. M. (1991). Constructing the sexual crucible: An integration of sexual and marital therapy. W. W. Norton.

Svindseth, M. F., Nilsen, W., & Wichstrøm, L. (2020). Adolescent sexual harassment, shame, and depression. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(2), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431619870610

Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. Guilford Press.

van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.

Woertman, L., & van den Brink, F. (2016). The relationship between body image and domains of sexual functioning. Sexual Medicine, 4(3), e182–e189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2016.02.004