In a series of two studies, an interaction was demonstrated between male commitment and female sexual valuation. When wives believe their husbands are committed to them, they view being desired for sex by the husband - as well as sexual frequency itself - positively.

When women perceive less male commitment they view both sexual valuation and sexual frequency negatively.

Study 1:

Wives who perceived that their husbands were relatively less committed were less satisfied with their marriages to the extent that those husbands valued them for sex; wives who perceived that their husbands were relatively more committed, in contrast, were more satisfied with their marriages to the extent that those husbands valued them for sex.

Study 2:

Sexual valuation in the form of increased sexual activity was positively associated with women’s satisfaction when they believed their husbands were highly committed to a long term relationship, but negatively associated with women’s satisfaction when they believed their husband were relatively less committed.

The authors explain these relationships in terms of evolutionary biology. Women prefer to avoid short term sexual partners (high risk):

The idea that women’s responses to sexual valuation may depend on the commitment level of the partner can be understood from an evolutionary perspective. Parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972, 1985) posits that women tend to avoid short-term sexual encounters due to their high level of initial obligatory parental investment (i.e., at minimum, 9 months incubating the off- spring). Such investment requires considerable time, effort, and energy, so women have evolved to prefer long-term committed relationships, which carry the large benefit of biparental care for offspring.

The introduction to this paper cites previous research that shows women tend to view sexual valuation or sexual attention negatively:

Research supporting objectification theory (Bartky,1990; Fredrickson &Roberts,1997; Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge 1998; Moradi & Huang, 2008; Myers & Crowther, 2008; Tolman, Impett, Tracy, & Michael, 2006; Tylka & Hill, 2004) suggests that women’s responses to sexual valuation are primarily negative.

They point out a paradox: if women dislike most sexual valuation, why so they try so hard to look sexy?

Given that sexual valuation should signal a man’s interest in pursuing a sexual relationship (see Bogaert & Brotto, 2014), sexual valuation in the absence of long-term commitment may create anxiety and other undesirable emotions because it violates women’s preference to avoid casual sex and short-term relationships (Buss,1989; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Clark & Hatfield, 1989). Indeed,in a classic study, Clark and Hatfield (1989) demonstrated that 100% of women rejected the offer of sex with a male stranger (see also Clark, 1990; Clark & Hatfield, 2003)

For example, Hill et al. (2012) demonstrated that women’s increased motivation to attract a long-term partner predicted their motivation to purchase products that enhanced their sexuality. Accordingly, sexual valuation may lead to feelings of satisfaction and contentment only when it is aligned with its ultimate goal—that is, when it comes from men who are committed to long-term relationships.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-015-0622-1.pdf