Hal 9000

First off, the ASA study and Carlson's study do overlap and use much of the same data. Carlson has merely changed some of the criteria and chosen to reduce the demographics down to a favourable grouping. One can easily look at his track record of "studies" and deduce that this is a guy who has the answer he needs and finds ways of getting there rather than building a study in order to find an answer. Nevertheless, I was never interested in arguing the question posed in the "study", my argument is that a "study" can be anything the author or interpreter want it to be. And, considering that we've learned there are many studies on the topic all conflicting with Carlson, my point remains; you can't believe a "study" just because someone says so. P.S - Until the ASA formally accepts this "study", I think I'll stick to the findings made by nearly every other sociologist. Because you believe all "new studies", I've compiled a few that might interest you. http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/17/devout-catholics-have-better-sex http://ww2.kqed.org/pop/2015/05/11/new-study-suggests-the-beatles-arent-as-important-as-you-think/ http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

OK, so i'm not going to quote all 50 pages of the report. I have said at least twice that this housework issue is not my issue and therefore have "no dog in the fight" as Dr. Phil would say. The following quotes are merely shown as evidence that not all studies are accurate as perceived by the MSM. What I left out was excerpts from some people who are mentioned in the report that argue that men doing more housework makes the marriage happier and thus more frequent sex (still unproven)...because you already believe that. I also left out portions that touch on sex as a commodity that women possess and use as a tool for personal gain. With that said; the actual report and all the data collected from several resources shows that "gender-traditional" couples have more and better sex than "egalitarian" couples and housework plays little (if any) role in sexual frequency. ASA : "The claim that couples who share house work have more sex has captured substantial public attention. In the popular imagination, husbands’ contributions to housework seem decisive, the implications of which were recently spun in a headline: “Men: Want More Sex? Do the Laundry!” This claim appears to have originated in an unpublished survey conducted by Chethik (2006). It so captured the popular imagination (or at least that of reporters) that it led to an Associated Press story subsequently featured online by media giants ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and smaller sites like the Huffington Post and China Daily. Sex is an understudied but important component of marriage, continuing to be a central area of spousal concern and conflict (Elliott and Umberson 2008). Sexual activity is linked to marital satisfaction, but there have been few recent attempts to understand the organization of sexual frequency in marriage (Call, Spre- cher, and Schwartz 1995; although see Gager and Yabiku 2010; Yabiku and Gager 2009). Romantic and sexual scripts are often highly gendered outside marriage (Udry and Chantala 2004), and we suspect they remain so within marriage. Although the notion that egalitarian marriages are sexier was widely broadcast in the media, there is little empirical support for this view. The claim rests on results of a small scale (N = 300) survey and reports of couples in therapy conducted by Chethik, which, while intriguing, are difficult to evaluate (Chethik 2006; cf. North 2007). Moreover, other research suggests that for all the benefits of peer marriage, more egalitarian couples are more likely to have unsatisfactory sex lives and experience a lack of passion due to habituation, and these differences are not explained by a shortage of time.While couples in more traditional marriages may experience a range of marital difficulties, lower sexual interest is especially a problem among egalitarian couples. More recent research finds that husbands’ housework is positively linked to sexual frequency, but women’s own housework hours are even more strongly associated with sexual frequency, suggesting that greater egalitarianism may not be associated with higher sexual frequency (Gager and Yabiku 2010). Our results do not support the notion that more egalitarian divisions of labor are associated with higher sexual frequency. Instead, we find that households in which men do more traditionally male labor and women do more traditionally female labor report higher sexual frequency. This suggests that among heterosexual couples, the relationship between housework and a couple’s sex life is governed by a gendered set of sexual scripts. We note three plausible mechanisms that might link sexual frequency to gender traditional divisions of housework: (1) gender traditional divisions of labor increase sexual desire and thus sexual frequency, (2) both result from gender traditional beliefs or are ways of doing gender, and (3) gender traditional arrangements may increase relationship satisfaction, which in itself leads to greater sexual frequency."

Wait, are you and Black Dog actually saying that you believe any study without question? I really need to know. I've heard about people who believe everything they read, but never thought they actually existed. Are you one of these people, or do you think a study like this could be wrong?

When I get to a computer I'll find the actual study as reported by the ASA and quote if for you. I'd suggest you read it, but clearly a biased summary is good enough for you and Cyber.

I just told you I did. In fact, I quoted a large chunk of it (as sort of a 2nd part to post #154) but because I didn't give an opinion Charles deleted it.

Exactly, and there is no "study" in what you posted either. That's why I rounded the word in quotations. Your article was nothing more than a salacious headline and a different mook's opinion. As for the actual study, you clearly haven't read that yet - ironic!

Do we even know wether Jenner was/is gay? I mean, if he was gay then, is she all of the sudden "straight" now? If he was straight then, is she gay now? Am I even allowed to wonder this stuff? It's all too much to take in.

I didn't immediately read the article because first off, I didn't really care one way or another. I doesn't apply to me and doesn't apply to the topic at hand. Secondly, I pretty much knew that I'd be reading not a study, but some persons opinion of a study. When I see that, I know the biasses that come into play and no matter what was said would not amount to "fact-finding evidence-based research", but merely someone's political agenda. Well, after WCR inspired me to read the article, what I found was exactly what I expected to find. And, not only did I read that article, but I followed every link and every link from those links and some of the articles supported this position, while others showed the same "study" and same finding and interpreted them 180 degrees opposite. In the end, I eventually linked to the actual "study" and found that they basically said there is no empirical evidence to show that equal housework correlates to better sex or even relationships. They also pointed out that this was a baseless study that was picked up and misinterpreted by everyone including the AP. ​The only thing we know for sure is that some women admittedly withhold sex as punishment for men not doing what they're told and other women using sex as a reward for men doing (what they consider) their share. Yeah, this is healthy! You are the one believing "opinions" as facts, I choose to be more hesitant when I hear the words "new study".

...

If she was always a woman, she'd best give back her gold medal!

Here is an article with a "study" with stats, should I believe this to it's entirety? "This will be long – sorry about that. I think it’s important, and I don’t want to break it into too many parts. By the way, some of you who think, “this does not apply to my wife” will be wrong. There has been a lot of news recently about the “Fifty Shades of Grey” trilogy. It’s being called by some “mommy porn” but it’s audience is far wider. As I understand it, the book features a young virgin woman who willingly becomes a sex slave to a billionaire who is into bondage, domination, and sadism. According the blurb from the publisher, “the couple embarks on a daring, passionately physical affair, Ana discovers Christian Grey’s secrets and explores her own dark desires.” In other words, they have a lot of BDSM sex. I bring this up because it’s not an isolated indecent. HBO’s new series “Girls” reportedly (I’ve not seen it) features a lot of sex which is not at all loving towards the women, and one character is openly into being sexually submissive. There has been a 30% increase in the sale of “erotic novels” in the last year. Women are responsible for the majority of the growth, and 95% of the total audience for such books. Much of the increase in sales may be because e-readers allow women to buy sexual content without having to face a clerk, and several publishers have jumped on this by setting up very sexual erotic fiction lines aimed at e-readers. These stories are not just sexed up versions of the romance novels of the past; there are many detailed sex scenes. Much of it is kinky to the extreme, and a good deal of it is sex where the woman is submissive, bound, or hurt as part of the sex act. To be blunt, much of this is hard porn, and not very nice hard porn at that. There are no lack of theories on why this is happening, and what it means. Some see it as women reacting to their discomfort over having more power and authority. Others see it as women finally coming out from under the shadow of men sexually. (By being sexually submissive? How does that work?) Still others see it as expressing a female need for a strong sex partner in a world where most men have become wimps. Some see it as harmless, some as troubling, and some proclaim it good and healthy. My take is most of these women are bored sexually and romantically, and they are looking for a thrill. I think there is a natural tendency for women to be the less aggressive partner in sex, which is why this type of fiction works for them. I also see it as a disturbing trend and a future source of sexual problems for couples." - See more at: http://www.the-generous-husband.com/2012/05/05/a-disturbing-trend-in-female-sexual-preferances/#sthash.nwZRzRRt.dpuf

If it is a stunt, then he's gone way beyond what is necessary. My question; why Caitlyn with a "C" and not "K" like the other Kardashians? Hmmm.

Oh, I thought you were asking something else - lol! We already share the work equally (as far as I know). Our chores are somewhat unconventional, I do all the laundry and plants and most of the dishes while she BBq's, tends the animals and mows the lawn. We share in most other chores and running the kids to their things, and utilize the kids when we can.

What would I do? WoW!, that's a personal question.

I didn't originally read it because whenever i hear the words " a new study reveals", i have to wonder. I mean, who decides whats fair or equal. If it's true, fine, but I wonder if men and women have the same idea of what is equal housework. Men probably think they do an equal amount, but if their wives don't feel they do enough - then what? Men should do half the housework anyway, and i'd wager that the majority of men do. P.S - I'd give up one date night per month to have her do all the house work......lol!

Personally, I never read the article when BD posted it because i don't find it relevant to the topic.

Black Dog: It's probably time men got with the program then. If a woman doesn't do as she's told, she can hit the bricks Sorry, i should've given this some context

Well, i've seen the women that Scotty is talking about, the ones that regret being in the situation of "having" to work. I've seen too many latch key kids and too many kids run through the foster system from families that are broken or just too vacant to be decent parents. However, as WCR alluded, I have 2 houses, 2 nice cars and some expensive toys and without my wifes income, that would not be possible. Our kids do fine also, so yeah, I'm all for women working.

I see where you're going, but I don't know if that's true.

I don't think he was saying feminism is a bad thing. He was asking if we (as a society) are better off because of it.

Yes, quite amusing. It's also left a lot of women struggling to survive financially, domestic murders (both ways) and a lot of kids growing up in poverty. But yeah, lets have a laugh.

The first sentence..."Has feminism benefited more than the very few?" Are you able to change the thread title? Or, ask him to, Because that would be more constructive than what you're currently doing.

I don't think it's just a matter of wages, it's cost of living etc. The costs of living are generally tied into what we'll pay...or what sellers or Government can get away with charging. Just to look at 1965 numbers as a comparison, people now earn on average about 7x what they did then, however, costs for everything (gas, rent, food, alcohol etc) have increased at least 10x. And houses, they have increased 30x relative to what a person's earning were. In 1965 an average car price was approximately 30-35% of your yearly income, now that cost is closer to 75%. A house price was generally equal to 2 years salary, now they are set at about 6-7x your yearly salary - all these are averages - of course. So, to say that we've built a society where working women are essential to the financial success of a family, I think is fair. Did costs go up because there was more money to be had or did women work because costs somehow skyrocketed - it's a chicken and egg discussion.

He's asking a question, obviously in the hopes of generating some dialogue. I don't think he made any statements that need to be proven.

Are you saying that you disagree with my comment?