3 ms·

From the graph on page 40 of the original report, it appears that the couples where men did little of the "core work" (core work being indoor chores like cleani

From the graph on page 40 of the original report, it appears that the couples where men did little of the "core work" (core work being indoor chores like cleaning, cooking, etc.) had sex almost 5 times a month. Couples where men did nearly all of the core work had sex slightly over 3 times a month. So the article really does mean [amount of sex] - 1.5

japaget 13y ago
Not necessarily. "Almost 5" could be 4.8 and "slightly over 3" could be 3.2, and 4.8 = 3.2 * 1.5.
- cynwoody 13y ago
  That ratio is just an interesting coincidence. From page 38 of the report† (page 13 of the PDF), it's plain they are asserting a reduction in frequency from 4.8 times per month to 3.2 times (a delta of 1.6, not 1.5, as in the article): To illustrate the substantive size of these effects, Figure 1 shows predicted values for sexual frequency, varying the share of house- hold labor performed by men while setting all other variables to their means. As the figure shows, shifting from a household in which women perform all of the core household tasks to one where women perform none of the core household tasks is associated with a decline in sexual frequency of nearly 1.6 times per month. Given a mean sexual fre- quency in this sample of slightly over five, this is a large difference. The figure repre- sents two extreme values, but even house- holds in which men do 40 percent of core household task hours report substantially lower sexual frequency than households in which women perform all core housework. †http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf