6 ms·

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 housew

by tsol 4y ago

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-housework-have-less-sex/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housew...

Aloha 4y ago
Housework is just tiring, and after dusting, cleaning or vacuuming, no one wants to have sex.
- oblak 4y ago
  - spacemadness 4y ago
    This is such a weird and oddly charged comment.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  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.
  - cat_plus_plus 4y ago
    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?
- astrange 4y ago
  Is vacuuming that tiring…? Maybe wear earplugs, that’s what I do.
mbg721 4y ago
That would be an unconventional explanation for why people with children have messy houses.
- rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 4y ago
  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.
  - bsagdiyev 4y ago
    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.
    - doubled112 4y ago
      I've heard it described as "like trying to brush your teeth while you're eating an Oreo".
- thriftwy 4y ago
  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.
  - mbg721 4y ago
    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.
- pharmakom 4y ago
  People with children have enough sex to reproduce but not much sex generally speaking. Ask anyone with children
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jokethrowaway 4y ago
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.
988747 4y ago
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?
nonrandomstring 4y ago
Clearly both studies were funded by an international consortium of dishwasher, vacuum cleaner and washing machine manufacturers.
notahacker 4y ago
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...)
- optimalsolver 4y ago
  Wealthy couples, i.e. the kind of folks with domestic servants, do have more sex, but not with each other.
kbrkbr 4y ago
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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
aidenn0 4y ago
It's also possible that women's expectations of masculine behavior have changed in 30 years...
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > 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.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > That shouldn't change desire - desire is instinctive Contextual desire triggers are at least partially shaped by experience.
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > 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.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > 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”.
        lelanthran 4y ago
        > “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.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
or just don't share a household with sexual partners?

by tsol 4y ago

Aloha 4y ago

Housework is just tiring, and after dusting, cleaning or vacuuming, no one wants to have sex.

oblak 4y ago
- spacemadness 4y ago
  This is such a weird and oddly charged comment.
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
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.
- cat_plus_plus 4y ago
  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?
astrange 4y ago
Is vacuuming that tiring…? Maybe wear earplugs, that’s what I do.

mbg721 4y ago

That would be an unconventional explanation for why people with children have messy houses.

rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 4y ago
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.
- bsagdiyev 4y ago
  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.
  - doubled112 4y ago
    I've heard it described as "like trying to brush your teeth while you're eating an Oreo".
thriftwy 4y ago
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.
- mbg721 4y ago
  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.
pharmakom 4y ago
People with children have enough sex to reproduce but not much sex generally speaking. Ask anyone with children

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jokethrowaway 4y ago

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.

988747 4y ago

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?

nonrandomstring 4y ago

Clearly both studies were funded by an international consortium of dishwasher, vacuum cleaner and washing machine manufacturers.

notahacker 4y ago

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...)

optimalsolver 4y ago
Wealthy couples, i.e. the kind of folks with domestic servants, do have more sex, but not with each other.

kbrkbr 4y ago

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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

aidenn0 4y ago

It's also possible that women's expectations of masculine behavior have changed in 30 years...

lelanthran 4y ago
> 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.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > That shouldn't change desire - desire is instinctive Contextual desire triggers are at least partially shaped by experience.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > 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.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > 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”.
      - lelanthran 4y ago
        > “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.

jjtheblunt 4y ago

or just don't share a household with sexual partners?