Study: Traditional gender roles means more sex in the relationship

[davidn3600]

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

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

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

[RKP5637]

1. Me Jane, You Tarzan. n/t

[NoOneMan]

2. I think they should have also asked about sexual satisfaction of both partners

As well as life satisfaction and relationship satisfaction. I do not think more may always automatically equate to the best of all possible worlds

Another interesting thing to ask: do the men & women get more or less sex than they want? Men who do housework may want less sex; they may have less aggressive and more cooperative personalities that somehow translates to sexual behavior. So, perhaps they are getting all the sex they want anyway, but merely want less because they are different type of people.

[smirkymonkey]

6. Good point.

As I said in another thread, with most women more resentment = less desire. Many women resent it when men expect them to carry the bulk of the weight around the home. I would be much more inclined to sleep with a partner that I felt respected me enough to share the household chores.

[DreamGypsy]

3. A couple of corrections...

...of mistakes in the article:

1. The UDub researcher is Julie Brines, not Julia.
2. The article at Julie Brines website (http://www.soc.washington.edu/people/faculty_detail.asp?UID=brines) is entitled Economic Dependency, Gender, and Housework and was published in 1994. The pdf of Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage from the American Sociological Review is available here: http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf

[Spazito]

14. Here is the info directly from UW on this study...

and the article is dated Jan 29, 2013:

It states the following:

"The new study, published in the February issue of the journal American Sociological Review, shows that sex isn’t a bargaining chip. Instead, sex is linked to what types of chores each spouse completes.

The findings come from a national survey of about 4,500 heterosexual married U.S. couples participating in the National Survey of Families and Households. The data were collected from 1992 to 1994, the most recent large-scale survey available that measured sexual frequency in married couples. Brines says that it is unlikely that the division of housework – which did not include child care in this study – and sex have changed much since then."

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/01/29/more-sex-for-married-couples-with-traditional-divisions-of-housework/



It appears there is a new 'study' based on badly outdated data from 1992 - 1994.

[cthulu2016]

4. Or visa versa

[Spazito]

5. LOL, the study based it's research on data over two DECADES old...

"One of the study’s drawbacks is its reliance on data that is now two decades old.

The study looked at 4,500 heterosexual couples polled as part of the U.S. National Survey of Families and Households, conducted between 1992 and 1994."

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/01/30/less_housework_equals_more_sex_for_married_men_study.html

Pathetic, imo, to even give this 'study' credence based on data that is beyond outdated.

[DreamGypsy]

15. You and TheStar are correct...

...the cited article Egalitarianism, Housework,and Sexual Frequency in Marriage in the American Sociological Review, says in the abstract:

Using data from Wave II of the National Survey of Families and Households, this study investigates the links between men’s participation in core (traditionally female) and non-core (traditionally male) household tasks and sexual frequency.

From the National Survey of Families and Households: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/nsfh/design.htm we find:

NSFH WAVE 2: THE FIVE YEAR FOLLOW-UP (1992-94)

So, potentially interesting historical conclusions, but twenty years is a long time for data like this.

Sorry for my (self-deleted) incorrect conclusion.

[Spazito]

16. No problem, your post encouraged me to look further...

into the issue and that's always a good thing, imo.

[DreamGypsy]

7. Love / Sex

A thought not specifically germane to "traditional gender roles' and "sexual frequency", but one I have appreciated at various points in my life, is a line from Tom Rapp's song Love / Sex:

Love will get you through times of no sex
Better than sex will get you through times of no love.

Tom is best known as the leader of the 60's-70's psychedelic folk rock group Pearls Before Swine.

Oops, gotta go do the dishes now.

[Initech]

8. Me man. You woman. Uga uga!!

[Sivafae]

10. I don't even know where to begin with this particular study. Too many variables uncounted for.

The first time I read this story today, it was information that was collected by a researcher in Madrid, ES. Now it is someone at the University of Washington.

What about age of participants? What about health and general state of the relationship? What does the other half of the relationship have to say about these matters? Is she just giving it up because it is easier than not? Does she see it as her marital obligation rather than her own desire?

What about gay and lesbian couples?

Then on top of it all this information was collected from 1992 to 1994. I think the whole thing reeks like yesterday's diapers.

[u4ic]

11. Was the .6 extra a quickie?

or premature ejaculation?

[11 Bravo]

12. Damn! I did laundry and cooked dinner tonight. Does this mean I'm not getting any this evening?

Never mind ... my wife just read over my shoulder and told me not to worry,

[customerserviceguy]

13. I do all the cooking, all the dishes, all the laundry

and the vast majority of the shopping and meal planning.

This study seems to explain a lot...

[uponit7771]

17. interesting