Want to have more sex? Men, stop helping with the chores

[steve55]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/wa ... 17047.html


No good deed goes unpunished.

That famous phrase from Clare Booth Luce apparently applies to married men, according to a new study that finds men who help with the housework tend to have less sex.

The University of Washington research, published Wednesday in the American Sociological Review, suggests that heterosexual couples have more “sexual encountersâ€￾ when each partner takes on traditional gender roles.

“Where the male is doing the male tasks and the female is doing the female tasks, those are the couples (who) are having more sex,â€￾ UW Associate Professor of Sociology and study co-author Julia Brines said in an interview with the Toronto Star.

You can find a PDF copy of the study at the bottom of Brines’ UW page.

The study had some other interesting findings. For instance, twice as much time is spent on “femaleâ€￾ chores (34 hours) each week than on tasks more typically considered “maleâ€￾ (17 hours).

Couples who participated in the study, most of whom split some of the "female" chores, reported having about five “sexual encountersâ€￾ each month on average. But in those homes where the man stuck to his 17 hours of dude duties, the couples had 1.6 more sexual encounters per month.

Do the math: The female in the relationship is taking on 68 more hours of housework per month than the male is in exchange for about two sexual encounters.

“If the activity is coded as masculine or feminine and it expresses ideas about what makes the opposite sex interesting, attractive, alluring, mysterious, that seems to be related to sexual activity and possibly sexual desire,â€￾ Brines tells the Star.


The data was based on information taken from 4,500 couples polled as part of the U.S. National Survey of Families and Households, conducted between 1992 and 1994.

More recent studies on married couples and sexuality roughly match up in terms of the number of sexual encounters. A 2005 study by the National Opinion Research Center found that married couples have sex on average about 66 times per year, slightly more than once per week. Interestingly, the survey’s director, Tom Smith, points out that despite all the humorous anecdotes suggesting otherwise, married couples have sex more frequently than their single counterparts.

But with all of the changes in gender roles, and presumably gender equality, over the past two decades, does the UW study’s information still hold up?

It does, according to Brines.

“It’s not what it was 50 years ago; there was a lot of change in the division of household labor in the '70s,â€￾ Brines tells the Star. “But the pace of change started to slow down in the '80s, and by the mid-1990s it kind of remained stuck and you’re pretty much at the same point.â€￾
.

[Ghost]

.

[noog]

Ok. I think I'll steer clear of the chores.

[Andrewww]

34 hours of chores per week ? What were they doing ? Cleaning the house every day ?

[steve55]

Women don't respect manginas. Period.

Amen to that. Very true!

[publicduende]

Women don't respect manginas. Period.

I love cooking for myself and my wife. And after she does the dishwashing we usually have the best sex ever. Does that make me a mangina?

[terminator]

I NEVER do chores for a woman as I live alone (but I have to do them myself - probably an hour a day to keep dishes done, incl. vacuuming/floor cleaning once a week, washing clothes - 2 loads a week...) Guys need to abandon women entirely so she has to live alone and do her own chores. On TV I saw a news item about College students and college guys had better-kept houses than college girls (and we all know what pigs college guys are - so girls are worse pigs).

[ClearView]

Women don't respect manginas. Period.

I love cooking for myself and my wife. And after she does the dishwashing we usually have the best sex ever. Does that make me a mangina?

What's important is that you have a good sex life. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with being a man and cooking either. Would be interesting to know for research purposes if your great sex life ramped up even more if you stopped cooking.

[abcdavid01]

All the famous chefs? Men.

And that's sexism folks.

[publicduende]

Women don't respect manginas. Period.

I love cooking for myself and my wife. And after she does the dishwashing we usually have the best sex ever. Does that make me a mangina?

What's important is that you have a good sex life. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with being a man and cooking either. Would be interesting to know for research purposes if your great sex life ramped up even more if you stopped cooking.

It wouldn't change radically. I mean, I am an OK chef, but not one who can literally give a woman an orgasm just by tweaking a recipe
The point is another as well. My wife works a tiring job (project manager in a factory) outside London and until a few weeks ago she had a more than 3 hours a day commute. I only had an easy tube ride back from the City, and more than half of the weekdays I would be back before her. She would arrive exhausted at 8:30 in the evening. Would you really ask someone in her situation to cook, just for the sake of "looking dominant? Wouldn't it be a better, more factual sign of respect to call her and start cooking so that, by the time she's back, she can find a nice dinner ready? The tradition then is always, who cooks doesn't do the dishwashing. After her tea and my coffee, she knows I showed respect towards her with a simple fact that doesn't cost me anything, and she appreciates that. Of course by 9:30/10 we will be both chilled out and ready for some bedtime action.

A few people here love to call me mangina for my more open stance on gender equality and women's right to develop in a "multidimensional" way. The truth is, I have a very dominant personality and my wife knows it and actually loves it (anther good thing about Colombian ladies, after their round bums! ). Making her cook when she's already exhausted surely wouldn't help her being relaxed for our nighttime session, but again, that's not the point. To the rather vacuous satisfaction of reaffirming my male dominance, or "alphaness" or whatever you want to call it, I prefer a simple act of respect and domestic collaboration.

This where the better harmony in the couple comes from: facts, small and big, that show respect, love and empathy. For how much easier it might be to melt her heart with the right words, or twist her will through unlikely PUA tricks, no woman worth her salt will believe in a relationship that's not built on a two-way exchange of such concrete acts.

[ClearView]

Women don't respect manginas. Period.

I love cooking for myself and my wife. And after she does the dishwashing we usually have the best sex ever. Does that make me a mangina?

What's important is that you have a good sex life. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with being a man and cooking either. Would be interesting to know for research purposes if your great sex life ramped up even more if you stopped cooking.

It wouldn't change radically. I mean, I am an OK chef, but not one who can literally give a woman an or***m just by tweaking a recipe
The point is another as well. My wife works a tiring job (project manager in a factory) outside London and until a few weeks ago she had a more than 3 hours a day commute. I only had an easy tube ride back from the City, and more than half of the weekdays I would be back before her. She would arrive exhausted at 8:30 in the evening. Would you really ask someone in her situation to cook, just for the sake of "looking dominant? Wouldn't it be a better, more factual sign of respect to call her and start cooking so that, by the time she's back, she can find a nice dinner ready? The tradition then is always, who cooks doesn't do the dishwashing. After her tea and my coffee, she knows I showed respect towards her with a simple fact that doesn't cost me anything, and she appreciates that. Of course by 9:30/10 we will be both chilled out and ready for some bedtime action.

A few people here love to call me mangina for my more open stance on gender equality and women's right to develop in a "multidimensional" way. The truth is, I have a very dominant personality and my wife knows it and actually loves it (anther good thing about Colombian ladies, after their round bums! ). Making her cook when she's already exhausted surely wouldn't help her being relaxed for our nighttime session, but again, that's not the point. To the rather vacuous satisfaction of reaffirming my male dominance, or "alphaness" or whatever you want to call it, I prefer a simple act of respect and domestic collaboration.

This where the better harmony in the couple comes from: facts, small and big, that show respect, love and empathy. For how much easier it might be to melt her heart with the right words, or twist her will through unlikely PUA tricks, no woman worth her salt will believe in a relationship that's not built on a two-way exchange of such concrete acts.

No argument here. I see what you're doing as being a good person and good partner. Nothing wrong with that and in fact it should get more kudos on this forum.

A lot of guys in the PUA scene compensate for their insecurities by going overkill on dominance with women. It may be fine in in the early days when a guy is picking up a woman but in a long term relationship I have always seen a disintegration of the relationship as a whole. At some point care, love and compassion need to be cultivated for a good relationship. It needs to be mutual to work though. I keep repeating this to one of my friends who has a death wish when it comes to women. He wants a long term relationship with all those good qualities but then openly admits that he goes out of his way to pick the most "troubled" and "damaged" women he can find. I keep telling him that until he makes an active decision to pick women with positive attributes he can't expect good odds at having a positive relationship.

[publicduende]

A lot of guys in the PUA scene compensate for their insecurities by going overkill on dominance with women. It may be fine in in the early days when a guy is picking up a woman but in a long term relationship I have always seen a disintegration of the relationship as a whole. At some point care, love and compassion need to be cultivated for a good relationship. It needs to be mutual to work though. I keep repeating this to one of my friends who has a death wish when it comes to women. He wants a long term relationship with all those good qualities but then openly admits that he goes out of his way to pick the most "troubled" and "damaged" women he can find. I keep telling him that until he makes an active decision to pick women with positive attributes he can't expect good odds at having a positive relationship.

From the little I have read, yes, much of the PUA teaching and preaching is about letting the "alpha in you" pop out and impress the random cutie found in a bar or on the street. Provided one is successful in bedding that cutie on that night, will a PUA guru tell him what to do with that young woman past the first-date bedroom gymnastics stage? Will a PUA guru tell him how to go past physical appearance and recognise those qualities that make a young woman solid LTR or marriage material?

To me it sounds like a typical case of "give the poor man a fish" instead of "teach him how to fish". Very fitting with the "perfect result now" mentality rampant in the US and much of the Western world. Without refined discerning skills in telling the juice from the dregs, it's no surprise many of these self-referential playboys are pathetically challenged when it comes to settling and finding a woman who will love them for who they are, and longer than a couple of nights.

[Jester]

From the little I have read, yes, much of the PUA teaching and preaching is about letting the "alpha in you" pop out and impress the random cutie found in a bar or on the street. Provided one is successful in bedding that cutie on that night, will a PUA guru tell him what to do with that young woman past the first-date bedroom gymnastics stage? Will a PUA guru tell him how to go past physical appearance and recognise those qualities that make a young woman solid LTR or marriage material?

To me it sounds like a typical case of "give the poor man a fish" instead of "teach him how to fish". Very fitting with the "perfect result now" mentality rampant in the US and much of the Western world. Without refined discerning skills in telling the juice from the dregs, it's no surprise many of these self-referential playboys are pathetically challenged when it comes to settling and finding a woman who will love them for who they are, and longer than a couple of nights.

So true.

Probably the PUA/"playa" stuff is probably best kept in reserved till you know you have the one you want. Clark Kent takes off the glasses.