Married men who do more housework get less sex

[Redfairen]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say: the more housework married men do, the less sex they have, according to a new study published Wednesday. Husbands who spend more time doing traditionally female chores -- such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping -- reported having less sex than those who do more masculine tasks, said the study in the American Sociological Review.

"Our findings suggest the importance of socialized gender roles for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage," said lead author Sabino Kornrich, of the Center for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid.

"Couples in which men participate more in housework typically done by women report having sex less frequently. Similarly, couples in which men participate more in traditionally masculine tasks -- such as yard work, paying bills, and auto maintenance -- report higher sexual frequency."

His study, "Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage," looks at straight married couples in the United States, and was based on data from the National Survey of Families and Households.


http://www.france24.com/en/20130130-more-housework-less-sex-married-men-study

[Seeking Serenity]

1. Uh-oh.

This oughta be good.

[mike_c]

4. move over and pass me a beer, please....

[4Q2u2]

40. Madagasgar Penquins

Smile and wave boys, smile and wave. Not getting in the middle of this either. I will sit this car crash out.

[robinlynne]

5. lol. I was sitting here pondering exactly how to reply....

[HarveyDarkey]

17. Uh Oh is right

[loudsue]

2. Maybe because they realize how tired you get trying to work 2 jobs?

Duh? Tired makes you a little less sexy. It's the busy method of birth control.

[blogslut]

3. I call shenanigans on that study n/t

[we can do it]

24. GMTA - sounds like BS

[cthulu2016]

38. because you don't like it?

[blogslut]

39. I would like to see the actual study

It could be possible that the researchers formed a hypothesis and then manufactured controls and questions designed to back it up.

This bit from the article is a bit of a red flag:

"The results suggest the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity," Kornrich said.

[JDPriestly]

146. The headline language "get more sex" is a sexist giveaway.

That is not the point of view that a person has who sees his/her spouse as a partner.

Who is "getting" sex?

There is just something wrong, offkey about the use of that word with regard to sex.

[mythology]

111. The data is nearly 20 years old

I would imagine that the social norms that chore 1 is a man's job and chore 2 is a woman's job has changed given both the increased time in which women have been more prominent in the work force, but also with the specific recent economic issues that have had a higher impact on men's employment than women's.

[surrealAmerican]

6. Perhaps the causal relationship ...

... is the other way around: maybe men who have less sex are more inclined to do housework.

[Thor_MN]

143. In the casual relationships, I'd guess it would be the opposite

Unmarried men who don't houseclean at all, probably aren't getting any.

[bluedigger]

160. I've done a study and I can confirm that supposition.

Damnit.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Perhaps men empathetic enough to join in housework chores as a group may also be more honest?

Thanks for the thread, Redfairen.

[jberryhill]

8. With their wives? Or in general?

[Berserker]

42. I think

In general

[IMG][/IMG]

[zappaman]

50. Jury results on your post...

At Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:55 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I think
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2285645

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is rather sexist.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:01 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It is humor.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Considering the OP, some off-the-wall comments are to be expected. I take the post to be humorous rather than sexist.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's funny. I bet I know who this alerter is and their sense of humor is nonexistent. Sorry, some of find this funny.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The whole thread is sexist but it's still here.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[tabasco]

84. Thanks for letting us know about this frivolous alert

Hilarious!

[Le Taz Hot]

102. There was a time when this would never have been allowed

to stand. "Whipped" is a sexist term in and of itself, nevermind the connotation that dishes are women's work and men who do dishes are "whipped." But sexism is now acceptable on DU. 52% of the fucking population and we have to put up with this shit on a "liberal" message board. (No, I wasn't the alerter but that's only because someone got there before me.)

[Hekate]

114. Right you are, Taz

[LittleBlue]

116. Thank god. DU =/= North Korea

No one wants to be part of a forum that is perfectly PC even in attempts at humor.

To the people offended by the term "whipped", stop abusing the report function.

[Katashi_itto]

149. The hand wringing brigade is at it again

[Le Taz Hot]

151. Actually,

it's the "Sisterhood of Perpetual Outrage." If you're going to try your hand at insult, at least get the terminology correct. It's the term the bullies around here use to try to intimidate the feminists on the board. It doesn't work but they continue to try nonetheless. Bless their hearts.

[Katashi_itto]

194. Ahhh an attempt at a "biting comment" ..zzzzzz

[Scootaloo]

141. Par for the course

Sexism? In MY DU Jury? It's more common than you think!

[Scootaloo]

142. "I think in general"

Now there's a lie.

[Aerows]

9. Uh huh.

And what about male-male households and female-female households. It sounds like a bunch of excuses to me. Now I like girls, but let me ask the ladies - who do you find more attractive, a guy who participates or a guy who doesn't do anything around the house?

If this doesn't sound like men trying to get out of housework, I don't know what does. My parents have been married for over 50 years, and he cooks. Does that sound like a bad marriage, or does this sound like a bullshit study?

[indepat]

10. Does this mean wives typically prefer their man to be a macho, macho man?

Never having been a macho, macho man, I wonder if the macho, macho man is typically a better lover or is the macho, macho man so enamored and obsessed with his own macho persona that he thinks only of himself.

[wryter2000]

18. More sex doesn't necessarily mean a good lover

Macho macho guys can have lots of sex that isn't necessarily good for their lovers.

[Nay]

54. The macho man who doesn't do housework will invariably report that he has more sex than

he actually does, because his whole idea of manhood is that he's gettin' plenty. So I'd say the machos are not lying about the housework, but prob are lying about the sex.

[narnian60]

55. Oh, yeah! So true.

[CTyankee]

11. Total B.S. A caring man with no preconceived ideas of "his" role vs. "hers" is de facto

a more welcome sex partner to her.

[FBaggins]

177. I think you've hit on the secret. The study is accurate.

They probably asked the men how much "women's work" they do.

The ones who said none - because there is no such thing... had wives who loved and respected them in return. The ones who thought that much of what they did was really their wife's responsibility because she was a woman... shouldn't be surprised at the results.

[CTyankee]

178. yep. great reply. absolutely right. my sons in law are stellar examples....

great dads and great husbands and lasting marriages...what does that tell ys?

[Evoman]

12. Yeah, and it's possible that an asshole who doesn't help around the house

also has the personality that cajoles his wife into sleeping with him, chooses a more sexually submissive wife, and/or lies about getting laid more.

[mia]

75. You. Are. Correct. n/t

[bama_blue_dot]

94. Wow..

You just explained my marriage in one sentence..

[sadbear]

13. Tell me about it.

The wife who does less housework gets less sex, too.

In fairness, I do all that "masculine" stuff, too. Doesn't change a damn thing.

Perhaps the reason there's less sex is because the wife works a job that exhausts her, keeping her from both "traditional" housework and sex.

[Bok_Tukalo]

14. Well, duh

<OPE>

[OldDem2012]

15. Trashing....3....2...1....Bye-Bye!! nt.

[MrSlayer]

16. You'd think it would be the opposite.

Score some extra points for helping out and all.

Go figure.

[BlueJazz]

22. Reminds me of a joke: A man gets a visit from God. "You've been good so I'll...

...grant you one wish...and one wish only."
Man: Cool, I want you to build a bridge from California to Hawaii.
God: Well, geez..that's gonna' take a huge amount of time with having to put pilings thousands of feet deep.
Man: Oh...OK...Let me have the talent to fully understand Women.
God: Ah..you want that bridge 2 lane or 4 lane??

















d

[MrSlayer]

31. Haha!

My mom always said "There is many a true word in a joke".

[smirkymonkey]

44. I believe it is. Nothing kills desire like resentment.

Women who resent their husbands for not pulling their weight would seem to be more likely to have less interest in having sex with them. I am calling BS on this study.

I love a man who has the maturity to pitch in around the home, it makes me feel like he doesn't take me for granted. I can only speak for myself, but the more resentful I feel, the less I want him.

[Sadiedog]

58. Hmmm, why would you score extra points for doing what needs to be done to run a household?

My husband helps all the time but I do notice that he expects great accolades for doing the chores traditionally considered womens work. I am thank full that he helps but I also expect the same in return.

[MrSlayer]

66. Going above and beyond the call of duty deserves a reward.

It's pretty much why we do anything that we don't want to do. There's a great episode of The Big Bang Theory that explains the concept perfectly.

http://m.

[Le Taz Hot]

152. Yeah, what is that?

I don't notice any great kudos coming from the Espoused One when I pay the bills or do the grocery shopping.

[Le Taz Hot]

106. OK, now, see,

that whole "helping out" thing indicates that the primary responsibility of housework is the woman's and the guy is just bein', well, a real good hubby if he "helps out" around the house. BOTH people live in the house, both dirty dishes and laundry, both track in guck on the floors, both use the bathroom so there is no earthy reason why BOTH shouldn't do the housework. Btw, yardwork gets equal play in this scenario.

[MrSlayer]

121. So, working at a job doesn't count for anything?

The prime responsibility of the guy is to go out and bust his balls to support the family. It's not like he sits around all day drinking beers and scratching himself. I've been on both sides of it and I'd much rather do the domestic chores than run 4" rigid pipe 90 feet in the air in zero degree weather at a refinery. When I do that and then I also do some dishes and the like I absolutely want a little extra "consideration".

If all things are equal then all things are equal. But if they aren't, the person doing the extra should get a reward.

[Le Taz Hot]

123. You didn't just say this:

"The prime responsibility of the guy is to go out and bust his balls to support the family." and ' the person doing the extra (housework) should get a reward. "

Dude, what century are you living in?

Nah, I'm just going to let that one sit there.

[liberal_at_heart]

125. wow. right?

I am a stay at home mom. My husband is on disability now, but he use to work in an office. I'm a bit of a slob. Have been all my life, way before I ever met my husband. He is a bit of a slob too though. The house is always a little messy, but when things really need a good cleaning, we pick a day to clean and we both clean.

[MrSlayer]

129. Everyone is different.

My wife and I are both (relatively) young and healthy. When I'm killing myself on a job and she's not, she does the bulk of the domestic stuff. When I'm out of work as I am now and she's not, I do the majority of the domestic stuff.

The working person gets the extra consideration over the staying at home person because it's harder.

Since neither of us are slobs, it's never that difficult a thing to maintain. Routine dusting and mopping keeps everything nice.

I don't really care if you disapprove of how we run our house.

[liberal_at_heart]

131. didn't say you had to care

I'm not the one married to you.

[MrSlayer]

134. Exactly.

But your implied "oh dear, isn't he a Neanderthal?" type of response to the other joker's objection says otherwise. As if I'm doing something wrong and your way is right.

Good day.

[liberal_at_heart]

137. I do think it is neanderthal thinking but like I said I'm not married to you

What I think doesn't matter. I never care what others on here think about me. I don't blame you for not caring what I think about you.

[MrSlayer]

139. Fair enough.

I don't see how you draw that conclusion but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I sincerely wish you a good day this time.

[liberal_at_heart]

140. okay that made me smile. You have a good day too. Hope I did not offend and if I did I apologize.

[MrSlayer]

144. Nah, it's cool.

[MrSlayer]

126. It is a traditional scenerio, yes.

You can mix and match as you like to fit the situation or the "century". Sometimes both people have to work, which is where my equal is equal thing comes in. Sometimes the woman is the breadwinner and she gets the extra consideration for going above and beyond. Feel free to fit it to same sex couples and marriages as well.

Don't just cherry pick. Don't neglect the whole of the post.

[liberal_at_heart]

128. sex as a reward?

I guess different people have different concepts of what sex is for but I've never had sex with my husband as a reward.

[MrSlayer]

133. Yeah.

Maybe a quickie right there on the kitchen floor. Maybe an unexpected bj during a movie.

You never salaciously think to yourself "That was really nice of him to do, I know what he'd enjoy." and take care of him?

I'm really easy to handle. But again, everyone is different.

Obviously her prizes take different forms. She can always get extra sex from me.

[liberal_at_heart]

136. I guess for me it's just not directly relatable, maybe indirectly

Sure him doing something nice for me causes me to feel appreciative, happy, and affectionate, and those feelings may lead to a desire to make love to him. But I never felt a need to reward him for engineering a telecom network. I was always very proud of him and appreciative but never felt the need to just give him sex as a reward.

[MrSlayer]

147. Haha! Well it's not like that exactly.

Not like giving a dog a milk bone for peeing outside.

"Hey! I saw you pick up that piece of paper. Pants. Off. Now!"

Obviously, or perhaps not so obviously considering my crude description, it's much more complex than that. I suppose a psychologist could bullshit an entire book series out of the concept. Assuredly, we still have a lot of heat in our relationship but my house doesn't look like Caligula's ballroom.

And we're talking about really going above and beyond and all that. Just throwing a chicken in the crock pot doesn't get you the Penthouse forum experience.

[Le Taz Hot]

130. "Sometimes both people have to work."

That's where I was going with the century reference. It's something you didn't seem to acknowledge in the post I responded to. Btw, that "traditional scenario" is only true on TV. The reality for most people in this country, throughout it's history, is that BOTH partners work, whether inside or outside the home. Given that this is the case, my original premise stands: Housework is unisexual.

As for the "rewards," that's just weird. Sex as a "reward" is such an outmoded concept.

[alarimer]

173. Many women work all fucking day AND the have to do all the damn housework.

Boo fucking hoo.

[MrSlayer]

175. I know. Read down.

Read it all before knee jerking please.

[TheKentuckian]

19. Thankfully, I find the opposite true. I'd hate to resent cooking.

[maggiesfarmer]

20. If anyone finds the text of the complete study report, please link or post it.

interesting topic, but a number of questions:
- how was this study conducted?
- the leading paragraph mentions this was based on survey data, but there's a number of references to study participants. my question is whether this data is based on a controlled study or a survey of people about their actual behavior (I believe the latter but would like details to clarify)?
- how random or selective was the survey? what questions were asked? how big was the population?
- how were questions worded in the survey? what order were they in?
- how often were both spouses in a given marriage included in the study?
- do we understand how likely survey respondents are to exaggerate their sex lives, even in an anonymous survey?
- how statistically significant was the correlation? they are incredibly vague and use language that doesn't suggest the degree of correlation at all

I'm open minded, but as yet all this article has done is raise questions.

[Go Vols]

26. .

http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf

[maggiesfarmer]

48. thanks! I gave it 10 minutes of overview, mostly focused on the data section....

My conclusion is that there appears to be enough here to warrant further research by some graduate student in psychology, but not enough to draw a conclusion just yet.

- sample size is >4000, which is significant by my standards
- data was gathered 1994 - 1996; the authors readily admit this questions whether their findings would still apply today
- the authors used some statistical methods for handling incomplete data that many will object to. I don't have the stat background to comment further but they do cite the methods they used and discuss their application
- data suggests that more egalitarian marriages have sex 1.6 times less per month, over a 20% reduction that's significant
- paper doesn't provide a sample survey, so complete understanding of the question order and wording isn't obtainable, but the authors do discuss question formation around the two topics

[Texasgal]

21. What the hell is a "masuline task"?

what a bullshit study. UGH.

[Rex]

29. Well, you know, like paying the bills!

Because women cannot write or count good.

Seriously, I thought this was from The Onion!

[winter is coming]

59. LOL, my mom always paid the bills. n/t

[Rex]

95. This seems all akin to, our charts say 'women should stay in the kitchen' dogma.

But I am never one to question science, although maybe I should after reading about this study.

[winter is coming]

162. I'm pretty skeptical about any statistics that rely on people

self-reporting about their sex lives. Yes, some will be both honest and accurate, but I suspect many won't.

[Rex]

195. I agree, too subjective.

nt.

[TheCowsCameHome]

43. Typo. Masculine "tusk"

[bluestate10]

46. Yard work, digging up the garden, cleaning the storm gutters, painting.

I have doubts about the study conclusions. I know some masculine men that don't do wash or cook and are always complaining about getting no sex.

[Union Scribe]

167. Something like...

Wife: "Honey, there's a bear in the yard."
Husband: (rips off shirt) "I'm on it."

Maybe. I dunno.

[Texasgal]

184. heh!

Thank you for that!

[One_Life_To_Give]

23. If both do the same quantity of work, maybe

If group a spends ten hours a week, repairing cars, building and gardening. While group B spends ten hours a week cooking, vacuuming etc. While in both cases the Spouses spend 16+hrs a week on housework. Then it may be reasonable. I think it's a mistake to not account for relative measures of quantity.

[Fire Walk With Me]

25. Scientific poll on what women think of their ass:

30% said: too big.
30% say: too skinny.
40% love him just the way he is.

[Rex]

27. Is this from The Onion?

No? Series? This is real?

[Romulus Quirinus]

28. I'll take this with a grain of salt.

The Institute is named after Juan March Ordinas, and is part of his Foundation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_March_Ordinas

Mr. Ordinas was banker who played a pivotal roll on the Nationalist side of the Spanish Civil War, at one point the seventh wealthiest man in the world. It shouldn't be shocking that they would do research to show that following *clap clap* TRADITION leads to more sex, lol.

Also, you'll notice if you read the paper itself (link provided up-thread by another helpful soul) that it is an enormous wall of text without the traditional formatting of a scientific paper, which is frustrating for anyone trying to skim. I'll post a follow-up when I find the relevant information because bogosity posing as science really rustles my jimmies.

In support of the supposition that the author has an axe to grind, here's another paper by Kornich in the "Journal of Family History." Italics are added by me:

Household Services in the Twentieth Century

Sabino Kornrich, Center for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, Juan March Institute, Calle de Castelló 77, 28006 Madrid, Spain Email: skornrich{at}march.es

Abstract

The division between home and market has long been a key dimension of family life and shifts across the home/market boundary are important for both gender inequality and the family. Two shifts across this boundary occurred in the twentieth century: women’s movement into paid labor and a decline in household labor. One stylized conception suggests that as women moved into paid labor, they used their new resources to purchase replacements. This article takes up this question, asking whether women’s movement into market labor led to the commodification of the home. It does so by combining evidence from primary and secondary sources about women’s reliance on services to offer a picture of how services have been used. The article argues that household labor is infused with emotional and relational content which has made it difficult to replace.

[bluestateguy]

30. Um...

Yeah, I better not say anything here.

[Sheldon Cooper]

32. lol

[name not needed]

33. oh boy

[RKP5637]

34. ... "get less sex" ... at home ...

[NoOneMan]

35. Too busy cleaning to have an affair

Im not sure what to think of this thing. Maybe they also know how to listen to "no thanks" more often.

[alphafemale]

36. What if both spouses are men?

This is one of the most contrived things I've read in a long time.

[liberal N proud]

37. That does it, this is the last time I wash dishes or vacuum

And damn if I am going underwear.

We will see if things change.

[Z_I_Peevey]

41. Clearly, then, the answer is to avoid marriage.

Cohabit, share chores, enjoy lots of extra (ahem) time together.

That is what the study was oh-so-cleverly promoting, right?

[LiberalFighter]

45. I would question the study

Someone posted this response to a similar study

[Vattel]

47. So???

It might be that husbands that do more housework, on average, have less available time and so have less time for sex. Correlattions by themselves don't prove dick about what causes what.

[mike_c]

49. despite my snarky answer above...

...I will be showing this article to the girlfriend.

[DJ13]

51. Dont need it as often

We've got the vacuum.

[Le Taz Hot]

110. . . .

[randome]

52. That depends on how good they are at it.

Not the housework. Heh.

[HockeyMom]

53. Maybe THEY are too tired

after all that physical work

[0rganism]

56. sounds like the beginning of a case for gay marriage

"Our findings suggest the importance of socialized gender roles for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage"

or alternative arrangements of some kind. Thank you Sabino.

[kimbutgar]

57. I call bs on this study

When I was dating my hubby he stayed at my apartment one weekend while I was skiing. He cleaned my bathroom and vacuumed my apartment. I was turned on by that so much he got lucky several times when I returned home. And I started thinking of him as marriage material. Being married previously to a guy who NEVER lifted a finger to help even when I was sick was a major turn off and I was lucky I divorced him before I had a child with him. Sorry this report was put out by a male chauvinist pig.

[Starry Messenger]

60. Totally can't be true.

Nothing hotter than a guy doing dishes and sweeping around the area rugs. *swoon*

[laundry_queen]

61. Maybe, just maybe

Those who do 'feminine' (barf) chores must do so because their wives work and they, as a couple, are busier in general, and as a result, are more tired at the end of the day than husbands who don't help out doing 'feminine' chores. Those who dont' help out are more likely to be 'traditional' and probably are more likely to have wives who don't work, and are therefore less tired. The article doesn't say.

[Yo_Mama]

62. Correlation is not causation

It's perfectly possible that the correlation noted here arises because households in which men do more of the housework are busier households overall, and therefore both spouses have less time, and sex takes a backseat.

Most men with working women end up doing more chores when there are young children in the household, for example, which takes up more of the woman's time at home. And anyone who's ever had young kids knows that it cuts into the sex life and time.

[Paulie]

72. Exactly

The study accounts for number of children per age split but not appear to be controlling for the number of total children.

One child vs two is worlds different especially if there is an age split with the kids; eg One kid under 2 vs two kids one 1 and other 6.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

172. the authors are not implying causation. it's hard to say what they are implying

without reading the actual study though

[Yo_Mama]

174. The lead author definitely is

"Our findings suggest the importance of socialized gender roles for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage," said lead author Sabino Kornrich, of the Center for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid.

And I'm calling bullshit on that. The findings may well be true, but that statement is not solidly supported by the findings.

[Glassunion]

63. This home cook begs to differ.

Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)

The better my food, the more amorous my wife gets. I'm all but guaranteed a fantastic evening if I make sushi.

Food can be sexy. It can be an erotic adventure for your eyes, nose, and mouth. It can fan the flames of desire. If I lay out something that is beautiful, thoughtful, and tasty our bond becomes stronger.

Maybe I'm just taking that masculine position of bringing home the carcas to the next step?

Hardly manly, but my wife appreciates it.
For when she had the flu... Beef stew.


For when she was is the mood for a steak house.


I think it's the gesture she loves.

[Beearewhyain]

89. Ummm, kinda off topic

but a beautiful sear on the steak, perfectly cooked and a very nice plating. If I may ask, how was it prepared? The reason I ask is I lost the ability to use a grill (moved into an apartment) and it looks like the sear is either pan or broil. I am very curious how you got it so even and caramelized.

Nonetheless, nice work!

[Glassunion]

104. Thank you.

You are correct, that steak was cooked indoors. I have an advantage over most home cooks as my grandfather was a food chemist and my father a chef in several NYC restaurants. So by the age of 8, I was performing a decent "mise en place" for my father with a 10" chef's knife and was working the stove by the age of 10.

My way of the perfect sear was born from many a messed up steak (I used to have a very fat dog). I go by feel. I literally poke the steak with a finger to determine doneness. This same method works for many meats such as scallops, pork chops (I leave them a tad medium to medium well), salmon, duck breast, etc...

Here are the best tips I think I can give... These steps are just for beef, assuming the piece of meat is an inch and a half thick...

1. Get the steak to room temp. I usually sit the steak out on the counter for about an hour or so. A cold steak does not cook as evenly nor does it retain juiciness.

2. Season it once it is at room temp. Here is what I do to season: Kosher Salt... I salt both sides of the steak then let it sit for about 3 minutes. The salt will open up the surface of the steak to let in a bit of flavor. I then rub in fresh ground pepper and coarse garlic and then take fresh ground coffee (finely ground) and rub it on both sides of the steak.

3. Get a pan (either stainless or cast iron, I use stainless) over the highest heat setting. I have a gas range and will put that sucker on 11. Also turn your hood fan on high before you start, as there will be smoke.

4. Once the pan is hot, about 60 seconds over the heat. Put in an oil that can handle high heat. I would use either sunflower, peanut, canola or sesame. Put in just enough oil to place the steak in, don't put in too much (you don't want to fry it, you want to caramelize it). If the oil instantly smokes, you are using an oil that cannot handle the heat and should dump it and try another. Sunflower and peanut I have found can handle the highest of heats.

5. Slowly place the steak in the pan. Don't drop it as you will splatter oil if you do. Once you have the steak in the pan leave it alone. Do not move it, or press on it or anything. For the next 4 minutes, that steak does not exist in your universe. I will at this point put a platter screen over the pan to prevent flame ups and splattering.

6. After 4 minutes, flip it over and let it cook for two minutes.

7. Here is where feel comes in handy. After two minutes, I start poking it with a finger (clean your hands).

If the steak does not rebound from being pressed, it is under cooked.
If it slowly rebounds it is rare.
If it rebounds it is medium rare (this is what you see pictured from my earlier post).
If it is slightly firm and rebounds it is medium.
If it is firm it is medium well.
If it is hard it is well done.

8. Once it is at the firmness you want, remove it from the heat and cover it on a cutting board. I use a bowl to cover it. Then let it rest for about 5 minutes. Resting is quite important as this will allow the meat to retain its moisture.

9. Enjoy it.

For every additional 1/2 inch of meat I would add an additional 30 seconds per side.

[Beearewhyain]

118. Copying and saving

Fantastic tips! Thanks!

I have been a bit out of sorts lately because I had been doing most of my meats on a charcoal grill. Weber 22" to be specific (I swear by its versatility) and for most steak apps I would make a hot side and a "cool" side, sear both sides at about 6-700 degrees for 30 seconds to a minute depending on thickness and then move to the cool side and cover. After five minutes or so, do the finger test (took me way too long to realize tongs don't cut it in this regard) and flip again if necessary.

However, indoor cooking has made me think I don't know what I am doing on the proteins I used to grill but the tips you gave me give me hope. The coffee tip is something I am totally going to use.

BTW, is that a NY strip cut or something else?

Cheers!
B

Edited to add: Real Men Cook!

[Glassunion]

120. Good eye... It is a NY strip.

No where near my favorite, (I'm a ribeye kind of guy... perfect balance of fat) but good none the less if you accompany it with a decent sauce. That sauce you see on the plate over the potatoes is a bacon based rue that I massaged into a gravy.

My favorite sauce for red meat as of late is a red wine reduction. I've served it with a skirt steak and a sirloin and both worked out quite well.

As to real men cooking, could you imagine a white guy, cooking in the kitchen for his African wife... In Georgia... In the 60's?

Or better yet, a white guy, cooking in the kitchen for his Japanese wife in the 40's?

This is where I come from. The men in my family were in the kitchen way before it was cool. This was the life of my father and grandfather.

[Beearewhyain]

122. Artists always push boundaries

But a very significant and rich history you have my friend.

[smirkymonkey]

168. That would ...um...work for me.

You must be a very happy man.

[Glassunion]

197. Quite happy.

[Raine]

64. IMO study funded by "macho" men who refused to do housework. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

105. you're probably right

[GreenStormCloud]

65. I was about to do the dishes.

I am still going to do the dishes.

[fadedrose]

71. Doing housework is tiring and it's hard,

What does the survey or whatever say about women who do more housework than other women? Less sex, I bet, cause they're too tired to take a shower till morning instead getting all primed for the slob watching Tv.

[davidn3600]

67. It plays into the stereotype that women find macho men or alpha males to be sexier than other men

[GreenStormCloud]

69. A stereotype with some basis in truth.

Please notice that I said "some", not "completely".

Humans have been shaped by hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Female sexual attractions are based on many factors, and being a macho man is only one of them, but it is one. There are several books that I can recommend on evolution and sexual attraction if you are interested.

FWIW - My wife works the evening shift (I have night shift, different days from her.) and I have just finished doing the day's dishes and taking out the trash and making the bed.

[seabeyond]

70. yada yada yada. evo psych. i cannot believe anyone is still buying into this cult. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

73. Not a cult. Established science.

You want to believe that it is all nurture and nature has no part. But we are a mix of both, and nature does have a strong influence.

[seabeyond]

76. nah. the scientists say, please, stop.... but their following sucks the garbage up. check out

real science.

1. Evolutionary psychology is attempting to elucidate the functional organization of the brain even though researchers currently cannot, with very few exceptions, directly study complex neural circuits. This is like attempting to discover the functions of the lungs, heart, etc., without being able to conduct dissections. Although psychological evidence indisputably reveals that cognition has structure, it is less clear that it does so with sufficient resolution to provide convincing evidence of functional design. Can the current state of the art in cognitive psychology successfully cleave human nature at its joints? Maybe, maybe not. Despite these reservations, it is worth noting that virtually every research university in the world has a psychology department. Grounding psychology in an explicit framework of evolved function cannot help but improve attempts to unveil the workings of the brain. It is far easier to find something if you have some idea of what it is you are looking for.

2. The domains of cognition proposed by evolutionary psychologists are often pretty ad hoc. Traditionally, cognitive psychologists have assumed that cognitive abilities are relatively abstract: categorization, signal detection, recognition, memory, logic, inference, etc. Evolutionary psychology proposes a radically orthogonal set of 'ecologically valid' domains and reasoning abilities: predator detection, toxin avoidance, incest avoidance, mate selection, mating strategies, social exchange, and so on. These latter domains and abilities are derived largely from behavioral ecology. Although mate selection surely involves computations that are fundamentally different from predator detection, it is not so clear that the organization of the brain just happens to match the theoretical divisions of behavioral ecology. The concept of 'object' is obviously quite abstract, yet it is equally obvious that it is an essential concept for reasoning about mates, predators, kin, etc. The same goes for other 'abstract' abilities like categorization and signal detection. Ecologically valid reasoning about domains such as kinship may require cognitive abilities organized at higher levels of abstraction like 'recognition.' On the other hand, numerous experiments show that reasoning can be greatly facilitated when problems are stated in ecologically valid terms. Negating if-p-then-q statements becomes transparently easy when the content of such statements involves social exchange, for example. The theoretical integration of more abstract, informationally valid domains with less abstract, ecologically valid domains remains a central problem for evolutionary psychology.

3. Evolutionary psychology (and adaptationism in general) has devoted considerable theoretical attention to the issue of design, the first link in the causal chain leading from phenotype structure to reproductive outcome, but has lumped every other link into the category 'reproductive problem.' This failure to theorize about successive links can lead to spectacular failures of the 'design' approach. Three examples: 1) evidence of design clearly identifies bipedalism as an adaptation, but what 'problem' it solved is not at all obvious, nor does the 'evidence of design' philosophy provide much guidance (though more detailed functional analyses of bipedalism are further constraining the set of possible solutions). 2) Language shows clear evidence of design, and there are several plausible reproductive advantages to having language, so why don't many other animals have language? 3) It can be very difficult to determine whether simple traits are adaptations simply because there is insufficient evidence of design. Menopause may be an adaptation, but it has too few 'features' to say based on evidence of design alone (some 'features' of menopause, like bone loss, seem to indicate that it is not an adaptation). Very simple traits will not always yield to a 'design analysis,' simply because there isn't enough to grab onto.

*

6. Finally, even the best work in evolutionary psychology remains incomplete. Two examples: 1) evolutionary psychologists have made several predictions about mate preferences, and these predictions have been verified in a broad range of cross-cultural contexts. However, the empirical data have not been subjected to many alternative interpretations. It is possible that they can be accounted for by other theories, and it will be difficult to be fully convinced that the evolutionary interpretation is correct until it withstands challenges from competing paradigms. The record on this account, however, is quite good so far. Competing theories such as the "social role", "structural powerlessness" and "economic inequality of the sexes" hypotheses have been tested in a number of studies and have received little, if any, support. 2) The cheater detection hypothesis, on the other hand, has withstood a blizzard of competing hypotheses, but it has been confirmed in only a very limited number of cross-cultural contexts: Europe, and one Amazonian group. Adaptations must be universal, and the variation seen in even the limited cross-cultural cheater detection studies suggests that further studies are warranted.

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/problems.html


you might want to check out 3 and 4 also, seeing how you are into established science. and these are only the MAJOR problems with it.

[GreenStormCloud]

79. You are trying to claim that we are not animals.

Animals have behaviors that they are born with, commonly called instincts, that were shaped by evolution. To believe that humans are somehow without inborn instincts, also shaped by evolution, is to believe in Special Creation for humans. Evolution shaped us too, including our brains. By observing aspects of animal behavior and comparing it to ours we can learn much about ourselves.

Human culture also plays a strong role, but not the only role.

[seabeyond]

80. so really, you are just making it up as you go to fit the story you want. that is all evo psych is

Obviously what real scientist says does not count.

But hey, if the cult makes you feel better about yourself, go for it. There is plenty of info out there on this pop science

[GreenStormCloud]

85. I can easily list names of real scientists.

Perhaps you are familiar with the magazines, Scientific American, Discover,& Science News. I subscribe to and read them all.

I do not claim that sociobiology has all the answers, but it certainly has some insights into the origins of various human behaviors.

[seabeyond]

86. guesses. story telling. they take todays thinking and apply it to beginning of time

Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:39 AM - Edit history (1)

To make their story tell what they want. Did you read the issue with this fake science that I gave you by a real scientist

[GreenStormCloud]

90. Dawkins is also a real scientist.

As is Matt Ridley. His book, The Agile Gene won the award for the best science book published in 2003 from the National Academies of Science.

I can easily list many more. You are selecting only those scientists that agree with your political ideology. Real science has no politics.

Again, I do NOT claim hat sociobiology has all the answers, but I do claim that to dismiss it is a serious mistake.

[seabeyond]

92. dawkins wrote his book what? in the 70's? even 2003 is out dated. they are finding things out

today that is turning what they thought only a few years ago upside down. these men came up with theories on data that is now showing to not be true. yet you and others want to convince us there is a validity in it that does not exist.

[galileoreloaded]

161. You are arguing with an agenda that can't allow the proof of

our recent cave dwelling and selective genetic traits to exist because it attacks the panglossian vision.

The funny part is that people will deny this even while allowing the bad boy down the street with tattoos, a motorcycle and no long term prospects to defile their teenage daughter knowingly. "Sexy sons" is a powerful motivator, and its uncomfortable to confront for animals invested in promoting the control mechanisms that it requires from a rigidly structured society in order to define their place.

Just know you are right and try not to argue with screeching agendas.

[seabeyond]

163. wow, if you did not manage to pile in a lot of loaded bullshit into this one post

good job.

[galileoreloaded]

165. I'm a giver!

Ohhh that rascally Ockham and his pesky theories.

FYI, I love knocking down ego defenses so lets get to it!

[seabeyond]

166. a man, no... no you are not a giver. per your evo psych. that would be the woman.

you... would be the taker. gonna preach it? learn it.

[galileoreloaded]

176. in all honesty, evo psych is a misnomer

i prefer just calling it what it is.

Human biology paired with genetic traits selected by evolution. All firm big D democratic concepts with 100% less woo woo.

I'm sorry you don't like to be a predictable Human? A fellow misanthrope maybe? We should get a handshake!

[seabeyond]

179. but it is the woo woo that is being spouted. not biological biology.

the biological biologist call it the bullshit it is.

you do not get the title of reputable while selling the nonreputable.

[galileoreloaded]

180. The concepts espoused are repeatable and to a skilled observer

reproducible at will.

It's tough when we get reminded that as humans we are merely simple monkeys with thumbs and the ability to engage our higher functioning (lying, cheating, rationalizing) to over ride our lower functions (inherent morality) and claim individuality.

We humans are merely gurgling biology in an emotional matrix and the skilled observer can predict 95% of behavior. Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. (of course you will take offense and blame me though won't you, probably engage in shaming next. Predictable)

*shrug*

[seabeyond]

185. this is the atheist version of the patriarchy of religion. no more. for those men to use in the

name of science, and as much as the flying spaghetti monster they sneer.

have at it haus, this study is an example of stupid to present your argument. reality does not need to get in your way with the promotion of the garbage.

[galileoreloaded]

196. Shaming no matter how veiled in prose is still an attempt to shame, but of course I called it.

But shaming tactics only generally work on the one employing it, merely because it works on themselves.

Utterly predictable and I win the battle and the war.

[leftstreet]

82. So rich men get ladies by taking out trash and digging gardens?

[GreenStormCloud]

83. Social status plays a big part for female mate selection.

It has been observed in chimps that the higher the status of the male, the better his ability to select females of choice. A high-status human or chimp male will be better able to feed and defend the female's children which will greatly increase their chance of survival to maturity.

[seabeyond]

87. do you think it might have something to do with women NOT allowed to work, dependent on man to EAT

and not so much innate? that in a mere couple of decades women have thrown that cutsey little evolutionary psychology theory out the window once they were able to provide for themselves and not dependent on man?

ya think?

totally amazing how centuries women were held to this theory because they had no ability to provide for themselves, then booooom, all of a sudden it got busted up with a little freedom, independence.

but fuck, much simpler to just pretend otherwise.

[GreenStormCloud]

91. Put your strawman back in the barn.

I have NOT claimed that social status was the ONLY factor, only that it was A factor, among others.

[seabeyond]

93. it is not a strawman when i address the exact point you put out. you are the one that said women

dating men of higher status was yada yada yada.

i argued that point. i argued it well. i blew your theory out of the water with reality, fact.... history. it isnt guesses. it is there to actually see. you want to ignore what is in front of your face, and hold onto a made up story and proclaim it as a truth.

no strawman, my friend. argue what i say. i am curious. i am curious about women dependent on men to eat, thru mens dominance and control. and women being told that is an innate character. by MEN. then, when women are no longer dependent on men, that is no longer an issue. no longer an innate character of women. they evolved that much in a mere couple decades.

or, with independence and freedom. you know... conditions changing.

[davidn3600]

103. Yeah but the open doors for women hasn't really changed their habits

In the past, women depended 100% on the male provider in the family. She really couldnt work very much because she was expected to stay home and take care of the family.

That mentality has not really changed a whole lot. Women are working now, but they view their careers as more supplemental once married. In other words the male is still expected to be the chief provider. And women view their own income as supplemental to the finances. Statistics show after a woman is married and has a child, she's less likely to apply for upper management positions. She loses the intrinsic motivation to advance in a career. And this is where the men shoot ahead in the corporate world. It is where women decide to put their career aspirations on the back burner and put their family first.

Today....young, single women actually make more money than young, single men. The women are on equal footing. The gender wage gap is gone. Once you get past age 35 and 40 though....that gender wage gap is as large as ever. This is a glass ceiling that feminism is having a very difficult time breaking through. There isn't really much you can do politically about it. You can pass the equal rights amendment and some wage laws. That might help some. But really this is a social problem. Women and men need to change the way we view marriage and family. We still view men as leaders. We still expect men to be providers. And most women still slink into that way of thinking.

And it's also why women don't advance in politics. Only about 15% of the congress is female. It's not because the doors are closed. They are open. The problem is women are very hesitant to go through those doors because they don't feel as if they belong in that role. It's ultimately a feeling they have as a result of social programming. Our laws are not sexist anymore. But our society still is.

[seabeyond]

107. that wouldnt have to do with that evo theory but more the dynamics we have to work with

In our world today which is quickly shifting forward. More and more fathers are picking up the lower paying jobs and being the one focusing more on the children and more women are bringing the higher check in. Again, which counters the argument of an innate characteristic.

Yes, many families feel there needs to be parent with kids. Only two parents. And generally the mom. But, it is shifting like so many things.

[tama]

135. In hunter gatherer tribes

the rule of thumb is that men hunt and women gather and cook. Both can do horticulture. In large anthropological survey hunters bring generally bit more calories, but in ecosystems where there is not much to hunt, tribe is fed by women and men just talk politics.

The "past" you are referring to is monetized patriarchal hierarchy and definition of "work" as direct participation in the hierarchy in terms of earning money. On family farm all members of family work according to their abilities, neither sex is "provider".

I question whether directly participating in monetized power hierarchy is truly "women's lib", as wage slavery for men and all humans is slavery, not liberty, but that's another discussion.

[liberal_at_heart]

101. men who help cook and clean get the ladies because they give the lady

a much needed break so she can go take a warm bath. The ladies are a lot more in the mood when they are relaxed.

[smirkymonkey]

169. So true.

[tama]

127. We are animals

with very adaptive brains (neuroplasticity) and big difference between us and chimps is that once chimps learn a skill to perform a task, they cannot unlearn it. We can unlearn and then learn to do same task in other way. That is why our cultural evolution has been so much faster than that to chimps.

[Bonobo]

186. Woo. The Earth isn't warming either I suppose and Jesus rode a dinosaur.

Human are animals. They have been subject to millions of years of evolutionary pressure just like every other organism.

Humans are, in fact, an ape - like it or not.

A thin veneer of culture changes little of the primary structures of the brain if any.

You just sound ignorant when you deride science.

[seabeyond]

187. evo psych is a whole other animal of story telling. but then....

i get you are into the garbage also.

[Bonobo]

188. You have created, as usual, a strawman to diassemble.

Bad science is bad science.

To believe that humans are not the result of evolutionary processes is idiotic woo of the highest order.

[seabeyond]

189. i am challenging the evo psych. that is what was being spewed. because i challenge what was being

spewed, that is not creating a strawman. it is calling out the bullshit

you guys are a trip with your strawman gripe.

talk about the facts of evolution and i am with you.

talk about made up stories to fit an agenda with guess and might of beens... presented as facts, and i will call out the bullshit.

[Bonobo]

190. Well it sounds like you are attacking the entire concept of evolutionary psychology as if

evolution could play no part in the understanding of the differences between the genders.

That sounds insane to me. If I am mistaken, I apologize. Maybe in the future you should be more clear that you do not reject that approach out of hand as you seem to suggest.

[seabeyond]

191. i am attacking, as is real scientist attacking, evo psyc. that is not the same as evolutionary

theory. as i said, two different concepts. one is guesses and story telling for the purpose of agenda that uses bullshit studies like these.

[Bonobo]

192. I am in agreement that this study is foolish. nt

[rightsideout]

68. My wife's been bugging me to change the oil in the Prius

So if I change the oil out in the snow after splitting a cord of firewood . . . .

[Courtesy Flush]

77. I can vouch for this!!! nt

[daleo]

78. Less doesn't necessarily mean worse

[Chorophyll]

81. Oh, how I long for the old "unrec" button.

And a poop-flled sock to swat people with.

[UtahLib]

138. LOL- Thanks, I needed that.

Your post helped to uncross my eyes after reading that ridiculous study.

[onestepforward]

88. I think a man vacuumming is pretty darn sexy! n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

108. I have always found a man who really, I mean really knows how to cook very sexy

There's something about the care and preparation that goes into preparing a good meal. I don't know what it is, but it is sexy.

[Zorra]

96. They "GET" less sex? hmmm. nt

[seabeyond]

99. amazing huh, that the story is all about the men and how much they get, the womans sexuality

and amount of sex she gets seems to be totally irrelevant.

oh, and it is only like 1.6 more sex for an added 68 hours of work for a woman in a month. if i read it correctly. so let a man sit around, and he might get it up a little more often. or is the suggestion it is only the woman who decides when there is sex.

this whole study is fuckin stupid.

oh, and it was 1992-1994. they had to hunt down a study that would work for them. and today it is no longer relevant, it is all about the same regardless what gender does what.

again, if i read it correctly.

it had a whole lot of wrong in it.

[Le Taz Hot]

113. Yeah, I caught that too.

Not "engaging" in more sex but "getting" more sex. Also, the "women's work" and "men's work" terminology makes this whole study highly suspect.

[B Calm]

97. Well now, my wife will love this post!

[Zoeisright]

98. Not in my house.

n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

100. traditional women are obligated to have sex

Time after time you hear how a traditional wife is suppose to make herself available to her husband. How her body doesn't really belong to her. It belongs to God and her husband. This kind of thought is probably why they think they have the right tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. I have a very liberal husband who does not demand anything from me. I don't know how we compare to more traditional couples, but I can say we are both happy in every way possible. I read on another post exhaustion may also be a factor and I think that could be true as well.

[seabeyond]

112. i dont get this. i did not read where the woman is solely responsible for amount of sex.

Maybe the man is having issue and too tired. Or maybe they are both too busy and tired. Maybe the comment should be women or couples have more sex when...

We are acting like the sex is all about and all for the men. Are we not on a liberal progressive board.

And that would only matter if this was a decent study that might be true. Read it and it is a crap study from two decades ago and States today it is not relevant.

Geeesh.

[liberal_at_heart]

117. just simply offering a hypothesis why traditional men may have more sex

If the women are taught that they should have sex with their husband to make God happy then you might have a situation where traditional men might be having more sex. Of course if the wife is having sex with the husband that means she is having sex too. So if it were true then traditional couples would have more sex than non-traditional couples. Not just tradtional men are having more sex than non-traditioanl men. Unless they are having sex with themselves of course. I don't agree with the study. I think the whole study is stupid and wrong. Just offering up a theory. That's all. The reason I mentioned the women is because they are the ones being taught that it is God's will to have sex with their husband.

[seabeyond]

154. no... you missed the point. everyone is talking about men having more sex. guess what. women are

having more sex also. it is not all about the men. women are not the arbitrator of sex. the lack of sex is as often cause the guy is not in the mood as the woman.

the whole attitude of people on these threads, and the study is dated, and a caveman attitude and male perspective. it is stupid. but more, it is wrong.

i get what you are saying, but that is not what i am talking about.

[Politicalboi]

109. How is paying bills manly?

So basically, you pay for sex. Makes the woman feel obligated. I would think if there is less housework, there would be more time for sex.

[Hekate]

115. I call BS on this study

[LittleBlue]

119. My fiancée is this way

My fiancée, who is Japanese, didn't like when I tried to clean up after a meal we had privately. First time I did it, she looked at me like I had walked in wearing high heels. She told me it wasn't for the man to do this after she had cooked the meal, and later made me promise not to let her parents ever catch me doing it, or they would wonder about me.

She does the ironing, washing, etc and I don't get in her way because it makes her uncomfortable, like I'm invading her domain and she doesn't want me in the washroom.

[slackmaster]

124. My recent observation is that a 54-year-old unmarried man who lives alone and does all the housework

...gets no sex whatsoever.

ETA not that I care much at this point in my life.

[reverend_tim]

145. Now that I stopped laughing.

I can add to that:

Not doing all the housework does not help either.

I watched that show about hoarders the other day, just to make me feel better about my nest.

[slackmaster]

158. A friend of mine died a year ago yesterday. I helped her family clean up her stuff.

She wasn't really a hoarder per se, rather someone who couldn't throw anything away.

After clothing, furniture, housewares, and artworks were hauled off to the Salvation Army, most of her belongings consisted of cardboard moving boxes (about 50 of them) containing mostly paper that should have been disposed of as much as 20 years earlier.

She kept all of her statements from banks, credit cards, loans, etc., utility bills, notices from various organizations, newsletters, catalogs, school papers, work documents - EVERYTHING. With the statements and bills were all of the regulatory notices, marketing inserts, and the mailing envelopes they came in, all tossed somewhat haphazardly into boxes. The older stuff was organized into file folders that were put into boxes and never looked at again.

I filled up a large "Herby Curby" type recycle bin four times, and had several bonfires to get rid of everything that had sensitive personal information. It took me about four months to sift through all of that to make sure no valued family photos, financial documents, etc. were lost. I found some real gems in there. The effort was worth my time.

I had already resolved not to burden myself with such things, but now I'm hard-core. I open all of my mail every day, and aggressively dispose of stuff I don't want to live with. It's been a liberating experience.

[reverend_tim]

164. Not that bad yet. but I fear it.

Both of my grandmothers, had a lot of stuff. My father had a couple of very full outbuildings. One sister is down to paths on the second floor of her house. I need to do a big spring cleaning.

[Le Taz Hot]

153. OK, that was funny!

Sorry 'bout the sex part, dude. I'll send out some positive vibes for ya.

[slackmaster]

159. No worries, really. I'll turn 55 on Sunday. I've had more than my share of fun.

But thanks!

[Deep13]

132. or fatigue for all the housework. nt

[quaker bill]

148. Over 27 years of marriage

We have had periods where I was doing a larger share of the housework and periods where I was doing a smaller share. The division of labor depended on who was working which job and how many hours. There were times when I was pulling 50 - 60 hour weeks and did little, and times when she was doing the 50 - 60 hour deal and I was doing much more.

Other than a brief interval when we were both pulling huge hours at work, I have noticed very little change in frequency.

I would say that it increased a bit when I got promoted enough that she was able to quit working. I think this had more to do with available time and energy than anything else, as we are quite egalitarian in all other things.

One other thing I will grant is that things got much better in our relationship generally when we stopped sharing cooking duties. This is mostly because we have very different approaches to stocking a pantry and preparing meals, which was a cause of regular arguments. I now cook once in a while, and buy just what I need that day, and she gets out of the kitchen. I clean up my mess when I am done and hand the kitchen back to her. We are much happier now....

[seabeyond]

155. that is the difference i see. being a stay at home, i get everything done at the house. so we both

have more free time and down time. makes life easier for both of us. that simple. and lucky us.

[rucky]

150. You mean all this time...

all I've had to do is pay my bills?

[raccoon]

156. I don't believe that. And no, I didn't read the article. I just flat don't believe it. nt

[seabeyond]

157. good because once you read the actual info, it is a bullshit head line and not

even the reality.

the study was two decades ago. and it even says today, there is no difference. i do not even get why it is a story.

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.

[CBGLuthier]

170. Nonsense

I am a male and am the primary caretaker of the house. I do 90 percent of the dishes solo, today I mopped half the house it took an hour and half. I also did two loads of laundry. OK I don't fold because I suck at it but she is used to that limitation.

And by god tonight I am going to share some quality time with my wife as we do a few times a week even after 27 years of marriage.

So pffffffffffftttttt to that study.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

171. i wish i had the actual study. i wonder if its based in self-reports and what they controlled for

if its true, it's really sad news.

[seabeyond]

181. this one gives a little more info, i think

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/want-more-sex-survey-says-stop-helping-chores-213917047.html

[La Lioness Priyanka]

182. i found the original work. it's long and i'll read it later

[madrchsod]

183. gee.....i`ve done that stuff since i was a kid.....

when i was a kid my grandmothers and sisters taught me how to clean, cook,iron,and wash clothes(wringer washer) and a clothes line . my mom and dad "taught" me about how to have a loving home and how to settle disagreements. been married for almost 40 yrs now and i guess we ain`t in that survey.

[OnionPatch]

193. Not in this house.

nt

[JesterCS]

198. LOL!

In my experience, its the exact opposite, especially if I'm not ASKED to do, but just do it to get it done