Post: #1

http://nyti.ms/1cXAhzT

Roissy's been saying this for a while, but here it is, tucked away in the MSM. It's a long article so I'll pull some choice quotes for a cliff's notes:

Quote:A study called “Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,” which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do — then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn’t just the frequency that was affected, either — at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.

And the author goes on to relate from her professional experience:

Quote:But as a psychotherapist who works with couples, I’ve noticed something similar to the findings. That is, it’s true that being stuck with all the chores rarely tends to make wives desire their husbands. Yet having their partner, say, load the dishwasher — a popular type of marital intervention suggested by self-help books, women’s magazines and therapists alike — doesn’t seem to have much of an effect on their libido, either. Many of my colleagues have observed the same thing: No matter how much sink-scrubbing and grocery-shopping the husband does, no matter how well husband and wife communicate with each other, no matter how sensitive they are to each other’s emotions and work schedules, the wife does not find her husband more sexually exciting, even if she feels both closer to and happier with him.

and the piece de resistance:

Quote:Brines believes the quandary many couples find themselves in comes down to this: “The less gender differentiation, the less sexual desire.” In other words, in an attempt to be gender-neutral, we may have become gender-neutered.

one more:

Quote:While past research has shown that men have higher rates of infidelity than women, those rates are becoming increasingly similar, particularly in younger people in developed countries, where recent studies have found no gender differences in extramarital sex among men and women under 40. This may be because younger women are more likely to be in peer marriages — and conditions in peer marriages make female infidelity more probable than in traditional ones.

The problem with this article is that the author trying to dance around the issue of sex - basically saying "well, not having sex doesn't mean you're not happy". She refuses to recognize the obvious answers, though. The conclusion is that marriage is more about finding a long term roommate. In a couple years, maybe she'll have a followup article exploring why men don't want to get married anymore.

An aside, I learned a new term from this article, "lesbian bed death". According to Wikipedia, the term comes from a finding that "lesbian couples in committed relationships have less sex than any other type of couple, and they generally experience less sexual intimacy the longer the relationship lasts."[/quote]

Post: #2

Good article. Cowardly, appeasing final paragraph.

She pulled out at the end.

Post: #3

Other than the closing, that's extremely honest for NYT. Is their editor ill or something?

Post: #4

I don't know about infidelity rate, I think they're just hide it better.

Post: #5

It is a very interesting article, even if the author was doing a bit of "mirror climbing" to avoid breaking the PC rules.

Thanks for posting it, I think that it fits perfectly with the Backtothekitchen month at ROK.

Honestly that was my favourite sentence: "the vacuuming would have killed the weight-lifting vibe.”

It demonstrates clearly that women are turned on by men that behave as men, not as housewives. Another proof that gender neutrality is an huge lie, and traditional roles are the best for both sexes.

Post: #6

(02-07-2014 02:45 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Other than the closing, that's extremely honest for NYT. Is their editor ill or something?

The NYT has these fits of honesty with respect to gender relations. I'm pretty sure they've covered the "men dropping out of society" story. They had an article a few months ago that asserted that most women like being sexually submissive. I think the SWPL readership loves to read about red pill topics, as long as the editorial slant is to end up at "well, this is the reality, but surely we can mold this reality to fit the modern fem-liberal value system".

Post: #7

What is sort of crazy is how precise the numbers are.

Quote:The risk of divorce is lowest when the husband does 40 percent of the housework and the wife earns 40 percent of the income.

Like someone is going to calibrate their life to make sure he hits these ratios.

My bad on the dupe post

Post: #8

My personal favorite part was the exchange Kaiserfranz mentioned. Even better in context

Quote:“So if I got out the vacuum, then you’d be turned on?”

His wife thought about it for a minute. “Actually, probably not,” she said slowly, as if hearing the contradiction even as she was speaking it. “The vacuuming would have killed the weight-lifting vibe.”

I just love how the author put the spotlight on the hamster getting stopped in its tracks.