Gender Inequities in Household Labor Predict Lower Sexual Desire in Women(pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Gender Inequities in Household Labor Predict Lower Sexual Desire in Women
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36112330/
80 comments
People who are tired have less sex drive news at 11
Already the title is wrong and this seems to be rather low quality research. "Predict" would indicate a causation, but they only found a correlation. Plus all of the data was self-reported, so the overall mood of the reporting person will probably affect both factors, thereby creating a spurious correlation.
The exact same data in the paper could also be used to argue that sexually satisfied housewives feel less burdened by the household work. That's why those that do feel burdened are those that also have a low sex desire.
The exact same data in the paper could also be used to argue that sexually satisfied housewives feel less burdened by the household work. That's why those that do feel burdened are those that also have a low sex desire.
It's long been true that woman shoulder a larger proportion of household mental, emotional, and physical labor. Doing dishes, raising children, decorating walls, scheduling appointments, organizing everything, etc.
Additionally, many men, when left on their own, cultivate a home life just a hare nicer than that found in a horse barn.
It's not surprising to me, then, that women find men who take part in maintaining the household more attractive.
Additionally, many men, when left on their own, cultivate a home life just a hare nicer than that found in a horse barn.
It's not surprising to me, then, that women find men who take part in maintaining the household more attractive.
What we really need is a study with this method that assesses using housework as a seduction technique. I go scrub a few pots and she's ready.
I remember reading a study that said women’s appreciation increased as the amount of domestic labor he took on increased. However, her sexual attraction for him increased as his gym / other cool activities increased, even if it was done with time taken from domestic activities.
So if you want to be friends, do the dishes. If you want better sex, hit the gym.
So if you want to be friends, do the dishes. If you want better sex, hit the gym.
Seriously? In developed countries much of housework is either neurotic and unnecessary (sweeping floors every day) or sign of extreme laziness or unhealthily low energy (leaving dirty laundry around). Either case will be obviously correlated with people not finding themselves or each other sexy. If it's just practical issues, there are plenty of dishes one can just throw into oven or pressure cooker and eat from paper plates. Or if you are middle class, hire professional cleaners to come every other week. But these issues are rarely practical. Could be a husband who doesn't respect his wife's personal time. Or a wife who pours her general anxiety into unnecessary busy work and then nags husband to do the same. Either way, resolving underlying issues rather than focusing on particular chores is needed for enjoyable marriage.
My own experiments conclude:
If do more house work: not doing it right less sex else if do less house work: not doing enough less sex else less sex
If do more house work: not doing it right less sex else if do less house work: not doing enough less sex else less sex
That needed a taxpayer-sponsored study? Could have just asked married guys about headaches...
[deleted]
Speaking in general real-world terms, I'd think complaining about unfairness in the division of labor would only matter for sexual desire in women if the man wasn't at a level the woman respects.
If a broke husband with a massive beer belly while sitting planted in front of the TV and covered in pretzel crumbs told his wife to clean all of the dishes and vacuum the house and then do laundry, anybody would probably mentally check out of that relationship eventually, and deservedly so.
But if a wealthy, hard-working, and fit husband asked his wife to do 100% of the housework, that's probably not going to dampen sexual desire in the slightest.
If a broke husband with a massive beer belly while sitting planted in front of the TV and covered in pretzel crumbs told his wife to clean all of the dishes and vacuum the house and then do laundry, anybody would probably mentally check out of that relationship eventually, and deservedly so.
But if a wealthy, hard-working, and fit husband asked his wife to do 100% of the housework, that's probably not going to dampen sexual desire in the slightest.
Why would said wealthy, hard-working, and fit husband not just hire a maid?
Besides, it's often not just about the fact that someone has to do household labor. A lot of women are realizing that said ideal husband somehow expects their partner to clean up after them, essentially taking over the role of his mother. This is despite both parties often having a full-time job.
A lot of men demonstrate a form learned helplessness, and pretend they are unable to do even the most minimal form of household labor - often including things as trivial as putting the dishes they used in the dishwasher, or putting dirty laundry in the hamper. This needlessly complicates what should've been a trivial chore, and breeds resentment.
A commonly-heard sentiment is that women feel like they have to care for their husband as if he is another child. Their husband expects them to act as his mother and a maid in one. I am not really surprised that this is a turn-off.
Besides, it's often not just about the fact that someone has to do household labor. A lot of women are realizing that said ideal husband somehow expects their partner to clean up after them, essentially taking over the role of his mother. This is despite both parties often having a full-time job.
A lot of men demonstrate a form learned helplessness, and pretend they are unable to do even the most minimal form of household labor - often including things as trivial as putting the dishes they used in the dishwasher, or putting dirty laundry in the hamper. This needlessly complicates what should've been a trivial chore, and breeds resentment.
A commonly-heard sentiment is that women feel like they have to care for their husband as if he is another child. Their husband expects them to act as his mother and a maid in one. I am not really surprised that this is a turn-off.
> essentially taking over the role of his mother.
I hear this complaint a lot, but the inverse is also true. Many women expect their male partner to take over the role of her father. Any relationship that has severely asymmetric exchange of value is ultimately doomed.
But it seems reasonable to me that in a healthy relationship, each partner at least partially replaces the role of the other's parent, so long as the exchange is balanced.
Relationships of all kinds are ultimately built on value exchange. Parasitic relationships are those in which the value exchange is severely unbalanced. And these kinds of parasitic relations inevitably end, either because the node getting sucked dry realizes it and cuts the bond, or because the parasite eventually sucks its host dry of all potential value and then cuts the bond to look for a new host.
I hear this complaint a lot, but the inverse is also true. Many women expect their male partner to take over the role of her father. Any relationship that has severely asymmetric exchange of value is ultimately doomed.
But it seems reasonable to me that in a healthy relationship, each partner at least partially replaces the role of the other's parent, so long as the exchange is balanced.
Relationships of all kinds are ultimately built on value exchange. Parasitic relationships are those in which the value exchange is severely unbalanced. And these kinds of parasitic relations inevitably end, either because the node getting sucked dry realizes it and cuts the bond, or because the parasite eventually sucks its host dry of all potential value and then cuts the bond to look for a new host.
> Why would said wealthy, hard-working, and fit husband not just hire a maid?
You might be overthinking a generalized extreme example designed to illustrate my point.
You might be overthinking a generalized extreme example designed to illustrate my point.
[deleted]
Each partner sharing in household work is common sense, however details are up to them. Doing dishes in bulk every 2 days is an equally valid alternative to scrubbing one plate immediately after eating a snack. Also household chores including providing for the household, doing taxes, balancing checkbook, changing light bulbs, doing small repairs, changing oil in cars... Someone who doesn't equally share in every one of these chores may want to cut their partner some slack on others rather than leaning into 4th wave feminism.
women demonstrate learned helplessness far far more frequently. pretending they could not learn how to change a car's oil, fix a flat tire, or kill a bug, etc. but we have normalized it as a society. Same with men often having to treat their wives like children by handling all the finances, etc. But again, it's normalized and nobody says a thing
I don’t know a lady who couldn’t kill a bug but I know plenty of guys who can’t change a tire.
cope
I think your impression of what constitutes 'normal' in this regard is a few generations out of date.
And only for a very narrow bit at the top of the socioeconomic heap - once a week, my great-grandmother would wring and then chop the neck of the Sunday chicken, so I doubt she had a second thought about smacking any insects that threatened her pantry.
[deleted]
Many wives would still want to have a (professional and social) life even if their partner is wealthy and hard-working. If you take all care of kids and of the house, it's quite hard to have time to be something. It's also exhausting in a bad way.
Having said that, wives often discount the bits that their husbands do for their household. It goes like: Thing A is something only my husband knows how to do, so he would be doing it; whereas we are both capable of doing B so let's share it fairly.
Things A tending to be large, more-spaced-out endeavors such as fixing things.
Having said that, wives often discount the bits that their husbands do for their household. It goes like: Thing A is something only my husband knows how to do, so he would be doing it; whereas we are both capable of doing B so let's share it fairly.
Things A tending to be large, more-spaced-out endeavors such as fixing things.
My wife and I had our second baby in October. I'm on paternity leave to help out. My wife is currently very sleep deprived due to breastfeeding at night, and she is also prone to anxiety from messy spaces. Our first child can tear up the house pretty quickly. A couple days ago, my wife was saying that she _felt_ like I wasn't helping out, even though the rational portion of her mind knows that I am.
We just got our house exterior painted. Yesterday she insisted on helping out with some of the "handyman" work, and learned how to wire up some light fixtures.
We just got our house exterior painted. Yesterday she insisted on helping out with some of the "handyman" work, and learned how to wire up some light fixtures.
> But if a wealthy, hard-working, and fit husband asked his wife to do 100% of the housework, that's probably not going to dampen sexual desire in the slightest.
The wealthy, hard-working and fit wife may be not that happy to do 100% of the housework while the wealthy, hard-working and fit husband sits in front of the TV.
The wealthy, hard-working and fit wife may be not that happy to do 100% of the housework while the wealthy, hard-working and fit husband sits in front of the TV.
If you add up all the things that somebody could be resentful about I am sure that all of them would correlate to low sexual desire, and the more of them that are present the less the desire.
The flip side is that 20% or so of women were sexually abused as children and that creates a situation where no matter how many current time causes of resentment you remove and no matter how many positive things you try to add it is like trying to get a fish to fly. There is a reason why they don’t let victims of sexual abuse serve on the juries of people like Danny Masterson because one person’s indulgence can permanently deprive the victim and their partners of what is an important part of life for most people.
The flip side is that 20% or so of women were sexually abused as children and that creates a situation where no matter how many current time causes of resentment you remove and no matter how many positive things you try to add it is like trying to get a fish to fly. There is a reason why they don’t let victims of sexual abuse serve on the juries of people like Danny Masterson because one person’s indulgence can permanently deprive the victim and their partners of what is an important part of life for most people.
Except victims of this kind of trauma usually become hyper sexual...
Some do. Some do the opposite. Some people are hyper sexual in some social contexts and asexual in others. Either way it has a persistent harmful affect on the victim and people around them.
Others just figure that a year in prison is not enough to pay for damage that lasts a lifetime, particularly when it affects the people around you in a cryptic way, and look for opportunities to hurt other people.
Others just figure that a year in prison is not enough to pay for damage that lasts a lifetime, particularly when it affects the people around you in a cryptic way, and look for opportunities to hurt other people.
> The flip side is that 20% or so of women were sexually abused as children
What country/city/area is this? I find this exceptionally hard to believe.
What country/city/area is this? I find this exceptionally hard to believe.
My number can be found here but you can find other numbers on it too..
https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/
There are some therapists who see couples who say that when sex is not working for a couple and the simple things don’t work that the cause is almost always past abuse. It is an N=1 experiment but I can say talking about that with my partner led to some revelations 2 days later that were dimly remembered but later confirmed by others who were involved.
https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/
There are some therapists who see couples who say that when sex is not working for a couple and the simple things don’t work that the cause is almost always past abuse. It is an N=1 experiment but I can say talking about that with my partner led to some revelations 2 days later that were dimly remembered but later confirmed by others who were involved.
Not having victims of a specific crime serve as juries of a trial for that crime isn’t specific to sexual assault.
In the case of masterson it is a sexually specific crime. A sexual abuse victim would not be disqualified from serving on a jury for, say, bank robbery or embezzling.
The main issue is that if happens to you it makes a wound that doesn’t ever heal and you are very inclined to want to pass your trauma forward to somebody…. If you knew that person crossing the road in front of you was a molestor you might think about not applying the brake…
The main issue is that if happens to you it makes a wound that doesn’t ever heal and you are very inclined to want to pass your trauma forward to somebody…. If you knew that person crossing the road in front of you was a molestor you might think about not applying the brake…
You’re assuming sexual assault victims not being the jury of sexual assault trials is somehow special to sexual assault victims because of how sexual assault is. In reality any victim of a crime is not eligible for jury to trial the exact same crime- victims of embezzlement are likely to be thrown out of embezzlement trials, gun violence victims from gun violent trials, etc. sexual assault isn’t somehow special in that case and has no correlation with the other claims you’re making.
The shit people sign their name to on the internet...
I’ve found going from ‘this is something that is true generically’ to ‘this is something I’ve lived’ turn -7 downvotes to +200 upvotes but I’d rather not air dirty laundry.
I can say it makes people like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Book
go Batman on people’s asses and lead to situations like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offe...
I can say it makes people like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Book
go Batman on people’s asses and lead to situations like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offe...
Yet as an older study found, Men Who Do More Housework Have Less Sex[x]. The only way to have a healthy sex life then is for everyone to not do that much housework.
[x] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housew...
[x] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housew...
Sounds like the science says we should bring back domestic servants!
Better sex life for husband and wife, and the wife can be relieved that the maid won't be at all interested in her husband!
(Though if anyone's ever done a paper on it, I bet 'has domestic servants' is also negatively correlated with sexual activity...)
Better sex life for husband and wife, and the wife can be relieved that the maid won't be at all interested in her husband!
(Though if anyone's ever done a paper on it, I bet 'has domestic servants' is also negatively correlated with sexual activity...)
Wealthy couples, i.e. the kind of folks with domestic servants, do have more sex, but not with each other.
This study makes a causal claim (“… suggests that this association was mediated…”).
The article you refer to speaks of correlation, but the last paragraph is also reading the correlation as causation.
I have a hard time thinking of how to get around all the potential confounders starting with the genetic or psychological traits of the involved women and men, that might cause both: a “traditional” stance on how housework is shared and the strength of sexual desire.
This is why I am quite skeptic that there is an interesting thing to learn here. Sadly I have not found a way to read the whole study.
I have a hard time thinking of how to get around all the potential confounders starting with the genetic or psychological traits of the involved women and men, that might cause both: a “traditional” stance on how housework is shared and the strength of sexual desire.
This is why I am quite skeptic that there is an interesting thing to learn here. Sadly I have not found a way to read the whole study.
[deleted]
That would be an unconventional explanation for why people with children have messy houses.
I have a kid, at some point we give up trying to keep everything tight because the little devil would immediately make it a mess again. Now we do the bare minimum.
That's the explanation.
That's the explanation.
Agreed, at some point it's just too much following a three year old around and cleaning up. We just tidy up his play room once a week and try to instill a bit of "keep it tidy" in him with some success.
I've heard it described as "like trying to brush your teeth while you're eating an Oreo".
This may be observer bias. People who have no children and a really messy house may just visit their friends instead of calling them to visit.
My theory is that people with no children whose houses get messy have the disposable income to throw the old house away and just buy a clean one.
People with children have enough sex to reproduce but not much sex generally speaking. Ask anyone with children
Those studies talk about different things: sexual desire vs the actual sex had. Is it possible that the men who do less housework are the macho types, and while the wife might have lost the desire for her husband, she still would have sex with him just to avoid quarrels?
It's also possible that women's expectations of masculine behavior have changed in 30 years...
> It's also possible that women's expectations of masculine behavior have changed
in 30 years...
That shouldn't change desire - desire is instinctive.
All the brain cells in the world aren't going to make you more attracted to someone just because of your definition of feminine/masculine.
IOW, heterosexual women are still going to be attracted to traditionally masculine traits. It's almost a tautology - if they weren't, they wouldn't be heterosexual.
Same goes for heterosexual men.
That shouldn't change desire - desire is instinctive.
All the brain cells in the world aren't going to make you more attracted to someone just because of your definition of feminine/masculine.
IOW, heterosexual women are still going to be attracted to traditionally masculine traits. It's almost a tautology - if they weren't, they wouldn't be heterosexual.
Same goes for heterosexual men.
> That shouldn't change desire - desire is instinctive
Contextual desire triggers are at least partially shaped by experience.
Contextual desire triggers are at least partially shaped by experience.
> Contextual desire triggers are at least partially shaped by experience.
If that were even remotely true, then the arguments about sexual orientation being a choice would be valid.
I don't buy either of those arguments, and for pretty much the same reason.
If that were even remotely true, then the arguments about sexual orientation being a choice would be valid.
I don't buy either of those arguments, and for pretty much the same reason.
I think you are missing the point. I think we both agree that there is a non-conscious process by which humans experience attraction. Let's call this process X.
I am a heterosexual male. I therefore am attracted to humans with female biological sex characteristics. If I am walking down the street and see an individual from behind. Lets say they are slightly overweight (increasing waist diameter) and wearing clothing that somewhat masks their hip size. Process X now lacks inputs about typical secondary sex characteristics that can be identified from behind.
If it's an individual with short hair and wearing baggy pants, then process X decides it is less likely that the individual is a biological female, but if it is an individual with long hair and a skirt, then process X decides it is more likely that the individual is a biological female.
This is an example of contextual desire triggers are at least partially shaped by experience.
It can be seen outside of desire too; consider disgust. Bitter flavors tend to trigger disgust in kids. However, take a random new food and mix an emetic with it; watch them react with disgust to that food in the future.
I am a heterosexual male. I therefore am attracted to humans with female biological sex characteristics. If I am walking down the street and see an individual from behind. Lets say they are slightly overweight (increasing waist diameter) and wearing clothing that somewhat masks their hip size. Process X now lacks inputs about typical secondary sex characteristics that can be identified from behind.
If it's an individual with short hair and wearing baggy pants, then process X decides it is less likely that the individual is a biological female, but if it is an individual with long hair and a skirt, then process X decides it is more likely that the individual is a biological female.
This is an example of contextual desire triggers are at least partially shaped by experience.
It can be seen outside of desire too; consider disgust. Bitter flavors tend to trigger disgust in kids. However, take a random new food and mix an emetic with it; watch them react with disgust to that food in the future.
> I think you are missing the point.
I think it's because your point is orthogonal to my point which was in response to the someone upthread who implied that masculinity as a definition is changing, and that change means that women are finding the new definition attractive.
My argument is that it doesn't matter what the prescribed definition of masculinity is, women are going to find attractive what they've always found attractive.
Same with men.
If it were at all possible that experiences in ones life can change what that individual feels attracted to, efforts to "cure" homosexuality would have been successful.
I think it's because your point is orthogonal to my point which was in response to the someone upthread who implied that masculinity as a definition is changing, and that change means that women are finding the new definition attractive.
My argument is that it doesn't matter what the prescribed definition of masculinity is, women are going to find attractive what they've always found attractive.
Same with men.
If it were at all possible that experiences in ones life can change what that individual feels attracted to, efforts to "cure" homosexuality would have been successful.
> If that were even remotely true, then the arguments about sexual orientation being a choice
No, they wouldn't.
“Shaped by experience” is not “choice” and “at least partially” does not mean “definitely specifically as to gender orientation”.
No, they wouldn't.
“Shaped by experience” is not “choice” and “at least partially” does not mean “definitely specifically as to gender orientation”.
> “Shaped by experience” is not “choice” and “at least partially” does not mean “definitely specifically as to gender orientation”.
I see where you're going with this, but I still respectfully disagree - gender orientation (whatever the hell that is - do you mean trans people?) is not the same thing as sexual orientation, which is specifically "who you are attracted to", not "the gender you identify as". It's about sex, not gender.
And if experience can shape someone's sexual orientation, then the "pray the gay away" type of efforts would have succeeded. A lot of homosexual people in the past did not want to be that way, and yet no experience they had, or sought out, managed to change who they were attracted to.
So yeah, the argument "experience can shape your sexual orientation" is, IMNSHO, complete hogwash and at odds with reality as we've seen in the homosexual demographic.
I see where you're going with this, but I still respectfully disagree - gender orientation (whatever the hell that is - do you mean trans people?) is not the same thing as sexual orientation, which is specifically "who you are attracted to", not "the gender you identify as". It's about sex, not gender.
And if experience can shape someone's sexual orientation, then the "pray the gay away" type of efforts would have succeeded. A lot of homosexual people in the past did not want to be that way, and yet no experience they had, or sought out, managed to change who they were attracted to.
So yeah, the argument "experience can shape your sexual orientation" is, IMNSHO, complete hogwash and at odds with reality as we've seen in the homosexual demographic.
>IOW, heterosexual women are still going to be attracted to traditionally masculine traits. It's almost a tautology - if they weren't, they wouldn't be heterosexual.
Setting aside that "traditional masculinity" is a moving target, plenty of heterosexual women are attracted to non-traditionally masculine traits. Desire isn't merely instinctive. Humans aren't rutting animals hardwired to fuck in the presence of phereomones and sexual display. A person's definition of feminine and masculine absolutely informs, if not defines, who and what they find attractive.
Setting aside that "traditional masculinity" is a moving target, plenty of heterosexual women are attracted to non-traditionally masculine traits. Desire isn't merely instinctive. Humans aren't rutting animals hardwired to fuck in the presence of phereomones and sexual display. A person's definition of feminine and masculine absolutely informs, if not defines, who and what they find attractive.
> Humans aren't rutting animals hardwired to fuck in the presence of phereomones and sexual display.
No one made that claim.
> A person's definition of feminine and masculine absolutely informs, if not defines, who and what they find attractive.
Nonsense. If that were at all possible, all the "pray the gay away" processes would have worked. It hasn't.
What humans find sexually attractive is hardwired. If you want to claim it's a choice, you're going to be arguing with more people than me.
No one made that claim.
> A person's definition of feminine and masculine absolutely informs, if not defines, who and what they find attractive.
Nonsense. If that were at all possible, all the "pray the gay away" processes would have worked. It hasn't.
What humans find sexually attractive is hardwired. If you want to claim it's a choice, you're going to be arguing with more people than me.
And yet there are heterosexual women who remain heterosexual despite not finding traditional masculine traits attractive. They are attracted to men, but are not turned on by big muscles and aggression and alpha male posturing or what have you. And likewise with heterosexual men. That sexual orientation is genetically determined does not presuppose sexual attraction is restricted to a masculine and feminine binary.
> They are attracted to men, but are not turned on by big muscles and aggression and alpha male posturing or what have you.
Not finding desirable the traits that you think are masculine traits does not mean that they do not find masculine traits desirable. It just means that what you think is the masculine traits, is wrong.
Not finding desirable the traits that you think are masculine traits does not mean that they do not find masculine traits desirable. It just means that what you think is the masculine traits, is wrong.
So your argument is that masculine traits are defined as any traits a heterosexual woman finds attractive in a man, therefore heterosexual women are universally attracted to masculine traits.
I guess I can't argue with that.
I guess I can't argue with that.
> So your argument is that masculine traits are defined as any traits a heterosexual woman finds attractive in a man, therefore heterosexual women are universally attracted to masculine traits.
No, my response was to the original poster of this thread who implied that if we prescribe a new norm for what "masculine" traits are, then women would stop finding the old masculine traits attractive.
If it were possible to change what people find sexually attractive all the efforts to "cure" gay people would have worked.
My argument is that just because someone has prescribed what masculinity is, doesn't mean that women are going to stop finding the old definition of masculinity more attractive.
Sexual attractiveness just doesn't work like that; you can tell people (and even get them to agree) what a man or a women should be, but that doesn't mean that they are going to find examples of that definition attractive.
No, my response was to the original poster of this thread who implied that if we prescribe a new norm for what "masculine" traits are, then women would stop finding the old masculine traits attractive.
If it were possible to change what people find sexually attractive all the efforts to "cure" gay people would have worked.
My argument is that just because someone has prescribed what masculinity is, doesn't mean that women are going to stop finding the old definition of masculinity more attractive.
Sexual attractiveness just doesn't work like that; you can tell people (and even get them to agree) what a man or a women should be, but that doesn't mean that they are going to find examples of that definition attractive.
Two things can be true. It can both be true that your sexual desire has an inherit, non-mutable component, while ALSO being partly shaped by your experiences. Just because a homosexual person can't be conditioned to be attracted to the opposite sex does not mean their life experiences can't have some impact on the kind of person they are attracted to.
I'd also say that
> If it were possible to change what people find sexually attractive all the efforts to "cure" gay people would have worked.
is a pretty flawed assumption.
Even if we assume sexual attraction is purely based on experience/environment that does not imply that the techniques attempted by the various gay conversion "therapies" would be successful in changing it.
I'd also say that
> If it were possible to change what people find sexually attractive all the efforts to "cure" gay people would have worked.
is a pretty flawed assumption.
Even if we assume sexual attraction is purely based on experience/environment that does not imply that the techniques attempted by the various gay conversion "therapies" would be successful in changing it.
> No, my response was to the original poster of this thread who implied that if we prescribe a new norm for what "masculine" traits are, then women would stop finding the old masculine traits attractive.
I believe I'm the poster in question and I didn't mean to imply that. What I did mean to imply is that masculine traits that elicit desire are viewed through a cultural lens.
If "reliable" or "competent" or "virile" are attractive to women, the ways of signaling that can change over time.
I believe I'm the poster in question and I didn't mean to imply that. What I did mean to imply is that masculine traits that elicit desire are viewed through a cultural lens.
If "reliable" or "competent" or "virile" are attractive to women, the ways of signaling that can change over time.
This argument is completely in conflict with my experience; there is nothing inherently feminine about a skirt, long hair, and earrings. Yet, if you dress a man in them, see how desire changes in heterosexual observers of both genders.
Another example: facial hair is a secondary sex characteristic for males, and indeed we see that facial hair on women, is relatively universal at reducing attractiveness for heterosexual men. However, the "most masculine" big bushy lumberjack beards are rarely the most attractive, and desirable facial hair across cultures and times has varied greatly.
Another example: facial hair is a secondary sex characteristic for males, and indeed we see that facial hair on women, is relatively universal at reducing attractiveness for heterosexual men. However, the "most masculine" big bushy lumberjack beards are rarely the most attractive, and desirable facial hair across cultures and times has varied greatly.
> This argument is completely in conflict with my experience;
I don't think it is - I didn't define what I thought were masculine or feminine characteristics. Your counterexamples from your experience (skirts, for example) aren't necessarily feminine characteristics anyway: kilts, long hair and jewellery (earrings and more) have all long been worn by men.
I also didn't say that "more" masculine characteristics are more attractive; all I'm saying is that prescribing a new norm for men or women does not in any way mean that hetersexual men or women are going to stop finding the base masculine/feminine traits less desirable.
I don't think it is - I didn't define what I thought were masculine or feminine characteristics. Your counterexamples from your experience (skirts, for example) aren't necessarily feminine characteristics anyway: kilts, long hair and jewellery (earrings and more) have all long been worn by men.
I also didn't say that "more" masculine characteristics are more attractive; all I'm saying is that prescribing a new norm for men or women does not in any way mean that hetersexual men or women are going to stop finding the base masculine/feminine traits less desirable.
I think you're proving aidenn0's point: standards of masculine or feminine attractiveness vary across time, place, and culture, even if the lower-level instinct-based standards remain unchanged.
Desire is not just instinctive. To continue the example: a skirt, long hair, and jewelry can conform to either masculine or feminine standards of attractiveness, depending on who, where, and when you ask (and on the specific styles of said skirt and jewelry). Desire is rooted in instinct, but "nurture" clearly plays a huge role in shaping it.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that "women's expectations of masculine behavior have changed in 30 years." The underlying instincts of romantic/sexual desire don't need to change for this to happen.
Desire is not just instinctive. To continue the example: a skirt, long hair, and jewelry can conform to either masculine or feminine standards of attractiveness, depending on who, where, and when you ask (and on the specific styles of said skirt and jewelry). Desire is rooted in instinct, but "nurture" clearly plays a huge role in shaping it.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that "women's expectations of masculine behavior have changed in 30 years." The underlying instincts of romantic/sexual desire don't need to change for this to happen.
Housework is just tiring, and after dusting, cleaning or vacuuming, no one wants to have sex.
Immediately after cleaning? Sure, but I feel better when the house is clean, which puts me in a more receptive mood for sex. A messy house, even just floors that need mopping, is like having little bits sand in your socks. It's nothing that's going to kill, but it goes grind away at one's mood.
There is a limit though - as life goes on and becomes more complex, there will never be a case where all pending business is taken care off and there are no worries. For example, children and pets will continuously generate little messes and handling them one by one will leave no time for anything else. With age, one's and one's partner's energy levels also become limited and if they do all the work as soon as it's pending, they will have no energy for anything else. Have to pick and choose and learn to tune out things that are not realistic to immediately address?
oblak(1)
Is vacuuming that tiring…? Maybe wear earplugs, that’s what I do.
[deleted]
or just don't share a household with sexual partners?
Clearly both studies were funded by an international consortium of
dishwasher, vacuum cleaner and washing machine manufacturers.
You can't really take any of these studies at face value.
Way too many variables involved, the only thing we can tell is the bias of the researchers.
Note that the data comes entirely from self-report (two surveys of a few hundred women each). Other studies suggest that people's perceptions of how much household labor they do aren't very accurate, so the causality could be: relationship problems -> less sex, more resentment -> more bias in the perception of labor division.
Also, a different study [0], which used self-reported data too, found the opposite conclusion. To be honest, I'm not sure how to reconcile the difference. I look forward to other people's comments on the papers' methodologies.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4273893/