Does a More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex?

[ZNP-TBA]

This is a long article but a great read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html?_r=1

Some experts:

In one study, 34 percent of adulterous women said they were ‘happy’ in their marriages.

23 percent of married mothers have a higher income than their husbands.

‘The values that make for good social relationships are not necessarily the same ones that drive lust. Most of us get turned on at night by the very things that we’ll demonstrate against during the day.’

Husbands who cook, vacuum and do laundry have sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those who do not.


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

Interesting interview with a male stripper:

 

[Beargryllz]

If you're not having sex constantly then what is the point?

 

[Cloudpatrol]

Compelling read.

Taking cues from social expectations removes people from base needs and desires. Does a woman want her husband to help with the dishes because it’s what she really needs/wants or because that is what she is told ‘helpful men around the house do’? So, she can tell her friends, when they compare notes?

It isn’t popular, but I agree wholeheartedly with the article’s assertion that (speaking in generalized population sense here): “The less gender differentiation, the less sexual desire.”

Before committing to a car, house, field of study…people ask penetrating questions, do research and negotiate. Yet, often marriage (arguably more significant of a commitment) is entered into without the same pre-diligence.
Having candid conversations about sexual desire, expectations with chores, child-rearing, discipline, money earning/spending, long-term goals, weaknesses…

Doing so sets the stage for a comfort with open dialogue and laughter. Allowing for free discussions re: sex once married. Feeling free to mention interests or even admitting a level of boredom - without the other partner freaking out!

Most people aren’t aware of the positions that Masters and Kinsey found -overall participants- experienced the greatest satisfaction with. The ancient Indian, Arabic sexual texts provide more inspiration than a life-time of experimentation could allow! A little bit of Googling and playful initiative and married couples can find new things in each other even after many years.

Yeah, there are kids, work stress and dirty dishes. But, at the most basic level we are animals who will exert energy for the rewards we want. Some effort is required! People find the wherewithal to do the things they want and consider worthy of attention.

Each individual couple needs to figure out what REALLY makes each other tick and how to divide labor in a way that honors that.

…always fascinated by the “shirt-sniffing” studies referenced in the article. Any serious relationships I have had, I incidentally LOVED the Guy’s natural smell.

(Magic Mike not really my thing but highly appreciate the male form - the success of those films parallel what the guy in the vid was saying. Interesting that Gay revue’s = +income.)

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Threads like this make me glad I'm asexual.

 

[brainstormer]

The more the sexual polarity between the man and the woman (i.e. the more masculine the man and the more feminine the woman), the more the sexual attraction between the two.

Blurred gender role differentiation reduces, or even kills, sexual attraction.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

The more the sexual polarity between the man and the woman (i.e. the more masculine the man and the more feminine the woman), the more the sexual attraction between the two.

Blurred gender role differentiation reduces, or even kills, sexual attraction.

Maybe for you, but it might be different for others.

 

[brainstormer]

Maybe for you, but it might be different for others.

I'd say for most. Research supports this. The study in the OP is an example.

 

[ceecee]

The more the sexual polarity between the man and the woman (i.e. the more masculine the man and the more feminine the woman), the more the sexual attraction between the two.

Blurred gender role differentiation reduces, or even kills, sexual attraction.

Sure thing.

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

The more the sexual polarity between the man and the woman (i.e. the more masculine the man and the more feminine the woman), the more the sexual attraction between the two.

Blurred gender role differentiation reduces, or even kills, sexual attraction.

Personally, I'm a lot more into nerds and artsy guys. Stereotypical masculine men do nothing for me. Maybe I'm just weird though.

 

[anticlimatic]

Personally, I'm a lot more into nerds and artsy guys. Stereotypical masculine men do nothing for me. Maybe I'm just weird though.

It isn't the particular role that matters, it's the disparity relative to the preferred roles of the individuals.

Leaning on 'stereotypes' or general sexually irrelevant attributes like 'nerdy' or 'artsy' is insufficient. I think there should be a vocabulary of dichotomous sexual attraction fundamentals to work with. Maybe one exists, or we can all start one? Word pairs like:

Clear/Ambiguous
Aloof/Focused
Decisive/Distractible
Intense/Encompassing
Projective/Receptive

etc, etc?

I'd say I'm ambiguous, attracted to clear. Focused, attracted to aloof. Distractible, attracted to decisive. Intense attracted to encompassing. Projective attracted to receptive.

etc, etc...

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

It isn't the particular role that matters, it's the disparity relative to the preferred roles of the individuals.

Leaning on 'stereotypes' or general sexually irrelevant attributes like 'nerdy' or 'artsy' is insufficient. I think there should be a vocabulary of dichotomous sexual attraction fundamentals to work with. Maybe one exists, or we can all start one? Word pairs like:

Clear/Ambiguous
Aloof/Focused
Decisive/Distractible
Intense/Encompassing
Projective/Receptive

etc, etc?

I'd say I'm ambiguous, attracted to clear. Focused, attracted to aloof. Distractible, attracted to decisive. Intense attracted to encompassing. Projective attracted to receptive.

etc, etc...

Well as the terms "feminine" and "masculine" are themselves stereotypes, I think that responding with stereotypes was appropriate. Interesting, but I'm not comfortable with discussing my sexuality online with strangers.

 

[kyuuei]

I think this article is forgetting one thing... Well, actually, like, a hundred things.. but one main thing that can crash the shit out of it immediately: humans are not biologically designed for monogamy. As long as relationships have been a thing, going outside of them has been as well. The adultery statistics, the money statistics, none of this has to do with why people are or are not happy or stimulated in marriages.

It is a conscious decision by us as people (whether brought up that way and using pre-established social protocols or simply valuing it within ourselves) to only have one partner at a time.

Most of this article is not surprising. A well-known stereotype is women having less sexual drive with more responsibilities. Prominently displayed with the "housewife with a headache" stereotype. Most humans do. It's why soldiers get terrified the army is putting chemicals in their food to make them less able to have sex. That's not it. It's that you're under stress and have more to think about, thus the drive goes down. You're telling me when men do similar things that housewives do their sex drive goes down as well? Shocking information.

I wonder what all those poor single men living alone do to avoid living in filth and maintain a good sex drive.

People are not that great at relationships.. those who are tend to be in them already. People aren't honest with themselves and/or others, or are willing to compromise in the face of loneliness or any other number of reasons, and end up with people incompatible to their lifestyle yet sexually exciting, or 'safe' selections that are not as stimulating. It happens. A lot.

New ideas are going to change results. That does not mean the idea or concept is negative. If I see data like "housewives have lower sex drives than their husbands!" and then "men in the homes have decreased sex drives!" then I'm more likely to blame the chores of the house and stay-at-home parenting than I am equality in the home.

I've known many many men who cheat on their wives while deployed or while gone from home, and genuinely care about them and go home to them and feel happy in their marriage. I've known wives that cheated on their husbands while they were deployed. That's life. It happens a lot. Equality in the workplace, at home, and in relationships is not going to increase adultery.. or decrease it. The mechanisms for why people are adulterous have nothing to do with how equal to their partner they are.

TLDR: This is a sloppy compilation of random assorted facts that are difficult to verify and are so loosely connected to the concept of equality in relationships that you might as well have used elmer's stick glue to slap it all together yourself on a board with magazine clippings.

 

[Yuurei]

The more the sexual polarity between the man and the woman (i.e. the more masculine the man and the more feminine the woman), the more the sexual attraction between the two.

Blurred gender role differentiation reduces, or even kills, sexual attraction.

Nope. Niether myself nor my husband truly fit into gender roles and there is no lack of sex ( or attraction) in this house.