What We Think We Want vs What We Really Want

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

This is really a broader issue (as below), but the immediate impetus for this is a new study that just came out.

Better sex life linked to division of housework : U.S. study

Couples wanting to improve their sex lives may want to look at how they divide household chores, because men and women who follow traditional roles have sex more often than other couples, researchers said on Wednesday.

In a study that analyzed the roles of 4,500 heterosexual married couples in the United States, researchers found that when women handled the cooking, cleaning and shopping, and men did yard work and car maintenance, they had more active sex lives.

The reason this is remarkable is because I’ve seen many women commenting on these issues over the years, and the impression you would get is the exact opposite from this study. That a guy who helps with the dishes and laundry etc. would get his spouse/SO more in the mood and so on.

But I don’t think people are lying about what they want. I think what people want is very complex and sometimes people don’t realize why they are attracted to things, and they might want something on one level but be repelled by it on another and vice versa. In this case, the notion is that while women consciously like a guy helping them with their housework, they are also attracted to masculinity, and stereotypical “female” tasks are negatively associated with masculinity.

[It should be noted that the data this study used is 20 years old. The study co-author is quoted as saying she doesn’t think that much has changed in the interval, but you never know.]

This may also be part of the much-discussed phenomenon of women being attracted to Bad Boys and repelled by Nice Guys. While women consciously like nice guys better than bad boys, all else being equal, they may also at some level associate some of the traits that Bad Boys have with masculinity and conversely for Nice Guys.

Of course, this is not something unique to women. I can’t think of offhand examples involving men as regards to attraction to women specifically, but I’m sure the same applies to men as well. And not just sexual attraction either, there’s no doubt that this is a general human trait.

One outstanding example is the success of various marketing campaigns which focus on non-logical “image” messages. Very few people will consciously admit to themselves that they bought a given overpriced product because they think it will make them look cool, but the enduring success of these marketing campaigns leaves little doubt that quite a lot of people do just that. No doubt all these people think they’re buying the products because of such-and-such ostensible advantages it offers, but that’s just because they don’t understand themselves and their true desires well enough.

The upshot of all this is that it significantly limits the extent to which people’s purported desires can be treated as definitive, in studies and surveys or even political polling. The natural thing is to assume that if X% of people say they would prefer this and Y% say they would prefer that, that this settles things (at least at this time, and subject to quibbles about methodology). But the underlying truth is that people may think they prefer something that they actually don’t, on an emotional level, and their reaction to actually getting what they think they want might be quite different than they think it will be (even absent emerging facts)

[Cheesesteak]

I don’t think this is the result to take away. This study mentions couples where the men do all of the traditionally female work.

That’s different than having a guy who helps. When the man “helps” with cooking/cleaning/shopping, that is a statement of traditional roles. He his helping the woman handle her traditional duties.

I think when the man takes over those duties, it’s going to be more frequently a sign of problems with the relationship than it is a sign of a healthy distribution of chores. As in, it’s more likely that the woman is a lazy slob who refuses to clean. In a relationship where the woman does all the traditionally male chores, I’d think it more likely the man is a lazy slob who won’t mow the lawn.

Obviously, there are going to be couples where the change in roles is totally healthy, they’re doing what they enjoy, I just think that’s going to be less likely and the statistics would skew towards less healthy relationships.

[ITR_champion]

Here’s a link to the actual study, for those who would like to read it.

Feb13ASRFeature.pdf

I’m open to the possibility that some people may be attracted to things but not aware of it, and that there can be multiple levels of attraction existing within one person. Indeed, it’s obviously true in some cases, such as with alcoholics who desire to quit drinking but are unable to do so.

I’m skeptical of whether studies like this are actually sniffing out such cases correctly. The article finds a negative correlation between men’s share of the housework and frequency of sex among married couples. Okay, supposing for the moment that the data is accurate, I don’t see any reason to swallow the authors’ interpretation of it. They seem to assume that all sexual decisions are based on an exchange between the woman and the man. The woman doesn’t want to have sex, but agrees to do so in exchange for the some “resource” from the man. I don’t personally see any reason to accept this notion.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Cheesesteak

I don’t think this is the result to take away. This study mentions couples where the men do all of the traditionally female work.

I don’t think that’s correct. The particular article I linked to happens to cite some numbers for the specific example in which men do all the traditionally female housework. But the study itself was broader than that.

@ITR_champion

The article finds a negative correlation between men’s share of the housework and frequency of sex among married couples. Okay, supposing for the moment that the data is accurate, I don’t see any reason to swallow the authors’ interpretation of it. They seem to assume that all sexual decisions are based on an exchange between the woman and the man. The woman doesn’t want to have sex, but agrees to do so in exchange for the some “resource” from the man. I don’t personally see any reason to accept this notion.

I don’t think that’s the assumption. At least not mine anyway.

But frequency of sex is likely tied to attraction. And this study suggests - to me, at least - that attraction (for heteros) is related to activities sterotypically associated with the opposite sex, and is lessened by activities stereotypically associated with the same sex. (If anything, the opposing notion - that frequency would be positively correlated with helping with the housework - is the one that carries the implication you object to.)

I would imagine had a study been done in converse - i.e. about women engaging in activities that men do not find feminine - it may have produced similar results.

FTM, it’s very possible that couples who have a more “traiditional” division of household labor also have a more traditional view of gender roles generally, and this cofactor also plays a role, acting on the men as well as the women.

[Thanks for the link, BTW.]

[suranyi]

@ITR_champion

Here’s a link to the actual study, for those who would like to read it.

http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf
I’m open to the possibility that some people may be attracted to things but not aware of it, and that there can be multiple levels of attraction existing within one person. Indeed, it’s obviously true in some cases, such as with alcoholics who desire to quit drinking but are unable to do so.

I’m skeptical of whether studies like this are actually sniffing out such cases correctly. The article finds a negative correlation between men’s share of the housework and frequency of sex among married couples. Okay, supposing for the moment that the data is accurate, I don’t see any reason to swallow the authors’ interpretation of it. They seem to assume that all sexual decisions are based on an exchange between the woman and the man. The woman doesn’t want to have sex, but agrees to do so in exchange for the some “resource” from the man. I don’t personally see any reason to accept this notion.

I’m a little unclear about what the authors consider “core housework”. For example, is childcare included? I can say that if I had let my wife handle all the childcare duties when my son was a newborn, I wouldn’t have had sex for months.

[Zoe]

Several of you mentioned a man “helping” with the housework. Give me a break. “Helping” implies that it is her job and he is assisting. The same goes for when she does traditionally male responsibilities. They may choose which tasks they willl do, but that is sharing the work, not “helping.”

As for how it affected their sex lives, maybe he was tired too at the end of the day.

I think the study is really dated.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@ITR_champion

Here’s a link to the actual study, for those who would like to read it.

http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf
I’m open to the possibility that some people may be attracted to things but not aware of it, and that there can be multiple levels of attraction existing within one person. Indeed, it’s obviously true in some cases, such as with alcoholics who desire to quit drinking but are unable to do so.

I’m skeptical of whether studies like this are actually sniffing out such cases correctly. The article finds a negative correlation between men’s share of the housework and frequency of sex among married couples. Okay, supposing for the moment that the data is accurate, I don’t see any reason to swallow the authors’ interpretation of it. They seem to assume that all sexual decisions are based on an exchange between the woman and the man. The woman doesn’t want to have sex, but agrees to do so in exchange for the some “resource” from the man. I don’t personally see any reason to accept this notion.

At least two very significant shortcomings occur to me, and they both pertain to the fact that there is a baseless assumption/adolescent tendency to take frequency of intercourse as a proxy for satisfaction with the sexual component of the relationship.

First, it would have been more valuable to find out how satisfied the couples are with their sex lives, regardless of how frequently it’s taking place (and the marginal difference between the two cohorts appears to be only one additional time per week).

Second, because this is based on self-reports, it may be those who adhere to traditional gender roles perceive sexual frequency as important and may be more prone to overestimate the frequency of their relations. There does not seem to be any independent corroboration of reported frequency (and how could there be).

This even occurs on this board. You often see more callow posters boast about Stakhovanite levels of intercourse. (At least once daily, and twice on Sundays!) Frankly, that sounds exhausting. What if you just want to read one night and then go to bed? And how much is one enjoying it if it starts to take on the nature of an obligation?

What the study shows is that those who arrange their households more traditionally self-report slightly greater sexual frequency. What remains to be determined are (1) the reliability of these self-reports, and (2) apart from frequency, levels of satisfaction.

[even_sven]

I would imagine that couples that choose an traditional distribution of household labor are doing so because they have reached an agreement to do so. In order for it to work, the wife usually has to take on quite a chore burden, and I’d guess that if she wasn’t comfortable with that situation, she’d get fed up pretty quickly. I know that when I feel like I’m doing more than my fair share of the work, I tend to just stop doing it and either he picks it up or it doesn’t get done.

So in the group that has a more equitable distribution of household labor, you are going to have those who actively chose it, AS WELL AS those that defaulted to it because they cannot reach an agreement.

I’d imagine the key to a happy marriage is having some kind of agreement, but I honestly don’t think that it matters precisely what that agreement is.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@even_sven

I would imagine that couples that choose an traditional distribution of household labor are doing so because they have reached an agreement to do so.

I’d think exactly the opposite. Doing something in the traditional manner is more likely to be the default arrangement if no discussion or agreement has taken place.

If you have two couples, one in which the woman is the primary childcare provider, and one in which the man is, which do you think is more likely to have come to an explicit agreement about it?

If you have two couples, one in which the woman takes the man’s name when they are married, and one in which the man takes the woman’s name, which couple is more likely to have explicitly agreed to that setup?

[even_sven]

@iamthewalrus_3

I’d think exactly the opposite. Doing something in the traditional manner is more likely to be the default arrangement if no discussion or agreement has taken place.

If you have two couples, one in which the woman is the primary childcare provider, and one in which the man is, which do you think is more likely to have come to an explicit agreement about it?

If you have two couples, one in which the woman takes the man’s name when they are married, and one in which the man takes the woman’s name, which couple is more likely to have explicitly agreed to that setup?

This study compared strict gender divisions in housework with all other arrangements, not just complete reversals (which I’d imagine are relatively rare.) I’m commenting on this study, and this study looks at housework and various degrees of non-traditional housework arrangements. I couldn’t tell you how last names or whatever affects sex lives, because I don’t have any information on that and neither do you.

The “default” of not actively choosing an arrangement is that stuff sits and sits until someone gets sick of it and does it. Often it is 50/50 who finally gets sick of the sink being full of dishes (I speak from experience here.) And if you do have a “traditional” arrangement and the woman really doesn’t like it, it’s very quickly going to change into one of these non-arrangements as she protests by not doing it.

So what this study is doing is comparing a group that has an arrangement to a group in which some have arrangements and some do not. It’s not surprising that they foudn the results they did.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@even_sven

This study compared strict gender divisions in housework with all other arrangements, not just complete reversals (which I’d imagine are relatively rare.) I’m commenting on this study, and this study looks at housework and various degrees of non-traditional housework arrangements. I couldn’t tell you how last names or whatever affects sex lives, because I don’t have any information on that and neither do you.

I think you’re misunderstanding my examples. My point was not that either of my examples have anything to do with sex lives, but about the relative likeliness that a given setup was the “default” or was the result of an agreed-upon arrangement.

You claimed that a traditional gender-based division of labor was likely the result of an explicit agreement. I think that’s just totally wrong. A traditional gender-based division of labor is for many people the default state, arrived at without contemplation or agreement.

The “default” of not actively choosing an arrangement is that stuff sits and sits until someone gets sick of it and does it. Often it is 50/50 who finally gets sick of the sink being full of dishes (I speak from experience here.) And if you do have a “traditional” arrangement and the woman really doesn’t like it, it’s very quickly going to change into one of these non-arrangements as she protests by not doing it.

That’s a very culturally-influenced interpretation of how things will progress without an explicit agreement. Specificly, it is a very feminist western empowered-female way of looking at things. For someone with as much multicultural experience as you have, I’m surprised that you think that that’s how the division of labor always goes. In Cameroon, was the division of labor in a given household generally arrived at by an explicit agreement in each household, or were there strong cultural influences that dictated what was women’s work and what was men’s work?

There are lots of households where the dishes will sit unwashed not until “someone gets sick of it”, but until the woman washes them, because the man wouldn’t dream of washing a dish.

You are claiming that there’s a correlation between traditional division of labor and having come to an explicit agreement on the division of labor. I’m not convinced that exists. In fact, I think it’s more likely to go the other way.

[Ludovic]

I personally, wanna huh.

[Acid_Lamp]

The study is beyond dated. Most people I know in my age group (25-40) Share chores as a matter of course and have perfectly acceptable sex lives. That burden can and does change when children are involved, but most of us raise an eyebrow when we hear about a rigidly “traditional” relationship.

[even_sven]

@iamthewalrus_3

I think you’re misunderstanding my examples. My point was not that either of my examples have anything to do with sex lives, but about the relative likeliness that a given setup was the “default” or was the result of an agreed-upon arrangement.

You claimed that a traditional gender-based division of labor was likely the result of an explicit agreement. I think that’s just totally wrong. A traditional gender-based division of labor is for many people the default state, arrived at without contemplation or agreement.

That’s a very culturally-influenced interpretation of how things will progress without an explicit agreement. Specificly, it is a very feminist western empowered-female way of looking at things. For someone with as much multicultural experience as you have, I’m surprised that you think that that’s how the division of labor always goes. In Cameroon, was the division of labor in a given household generally arrived at by an explicit agreement in each household, or were there strong cultural influences that dictated what was women’s work and what was men’s work?

There are lots of households where the dishes will sit unwashed not until “someone gets sick of it”, but until the woman washes them, because the man wouldn’t dream of washing a dish.

You are claiming that there’s a correlation between traditional division of labor and having come to an explicit agreement on the division of labor. I’m not convinced that exists. In fact, I think it’s more likely to go the other way.

Well yeah. I’m an American and feel fairly confident about commenting on American culture. Fifty years ago, “traditional” arrangements were the default. But families and norms have changed a lot since then, and very few modern women are taking on an extra 27 hours of housework a week without giving some thought to what is going on. Equality in housework hasn’t really been a daring or unusual topic since the seventies. It may be different in some isolated, very religious, or minority communities. But given that half of kids are born to single moms, 1950s era household organization is hardly a driving force today.

Let’s look at possible arrangements:

Man prefers traditional, woman prefers traditional = traditional, harmony
Man prefers modern, woman prefers modern = modern, harmony
Man prefers modern, woman prefers traditional = few people complain about their spouse taking on a larger chore burden, so this is most likely to be traditional and harmonious.
Man prefers traditional, woman prefers modern = Oh no! Trouble! Strife! A woman who strongly prefers an equal arrangement is probably not going to give up so easy, and so there will be a more equal but troubled relationship.

Of course, some women would prefer modern arrangements in their hearts, but may actively choose a traditional arrangement to keep the family happy and at peace or whatever. That’s still going to end up with a traditional, harmonious relationship.

[BrainGlutton]

Couples wanting to improve their sex lives may want to look at how they divide household chores, because men and women who follow traditional roles have sex more often than other couples, researchers said on Wednesday.

Probably because it can happen even when the woman is tired.

[Lasciel]

I’m surprised that I’m the first post to mention the possibility that women who are ok with “traditional” chore division are also much more likely to be the ones that when the husband asks for sex, he gets it, whether the woman is “in the mood” or not.

A wife who can tell her husband to wash his own dirty socks is also more likely to tell him he’s welcome to whack one out in the family room while she gets her beauty sleep tonight, in my opinion.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@even_sven

Well yeah. I’m an American and feel fairly confident about commenting on American culture.

I’m also an American, so I don’t think either of us win this argument based on personal experience.

Equality in housework hasn’t really been a daring or unusual topic since the seventies.

And yet, women still do the vast majority of housework. It’s not as striking a disparity as it was in the 70s, but it’s still significant. And based on the slopes of those lines, it’s not really changing much any more.

It could be that most of those women are happy with the arrangement where they do more housework than their husbands, but if so that’s surprising to me. I’ve met very few people of either gender who enjoy doing housework. I have, however, met lots of men who feel little social pressure to do it, and lots of women who feel more.

[huck]

@Lasciel

I’m surprised that I’m the first post to mention the possibility that women who are ok with “traditional” chore division are also much more likely to be the ones that when the husband asks for sex, he gets it, whether the woman is “in the mood” or not.

A wife who can tell her husband to wash his own dirty socks is also more likely to tell him he’s welcome to whack one out in the family room while she gets her beauty sleep tonight, in my opinion.

This was my thought, too.

Also, does the study control for whether both spouses work outside the home, and how much? and whether the couple has kids?

Because I think housework(childcare also) is much more likely to be shared between couples who both have jobs. And having been married for a long time, I think how much sex a couple has has as much to do with schedules and energy levels as it does continued attraction.

So if both spouses are working and doing housework/childcare (versus each doing only one job so to speak), there is likely to be less time and energy for recreation of any kind.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Further commentary: Does a More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex?

Slightly different take, though.

When I asked Esther Perel, a couples therapist whose book, “Mating in Captivity,” addresses the issue of desire in marriage, about the role sexual scripts play in egalitarian partnerships, she explained it like this: “Egalitarian marriage takes the values of a good social system — consensus-building and consent — and assumes you can bring these rules into the bedroom. But the values that make for good social relationships are not necessarily the same ones that drive lust.” In fact, she continued, “most of us get turned on at night by the very things that we’ll demonstrate against during the day.”

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

This may also be part of the much-discussed phenomenon of women being attracted to Bad Boys and repelled by Nice Guys. While women consciously like nice guys better than bad boys, all else being equal, they may also at some level associate some of the traits that Bad Boys have with masculinity and conversely for Nice Guys.

Longitudinal data suggests physically aggressive men tend to have more sex partners

After controlling for physical attractiveness, general health, and other factors, the researchers found that violent behavior was significantly and positively associated with the number of sex partners among men but not women. “Results for men indicated that for a unit increase in violence between waves, there was an 8% increase in the number of sex partners reported from previous waves,” the researchers wrote.

Increasing levels of education were also longitudinally associated with increases in men’s number of sex partners. But this was not the case for verbal intelligence and good grades in high school.

The “findings suggest that women still find physically aggressive behavior sexually appealing and that the sex appeal of intelligence seems to depend on the physical aggressiveness of men,” Seffrin told PsyPost.

“So, despite the status rewards that come along with having high intelligence in a modern industrial society, aggressive men continue to be rewarded with greater mating success when compared to their less aggressive male peers who have comparable levels of intelligence and physical beauty.”