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...)

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I've heard it described as "like trying to brush your teeth while you're eating an Oreo".

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.

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.

People with children have enough sex to reproduce but not much sex generally speaking. Ask anyone with children

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?

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

> 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.

> That shouldn't change desire - desire is instinctive

Contextual desire triggers are at least partially shaped by experience.

> 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.

I think you are missing the point. I think we both agree that there is a non-conscious process by which humans experience attraction. Let's call this process X.

I am a heterosexual male. I therefore am attracted to humans with female biological sex characteristics. If I am walking down the street and see an individual from behind. Lets say they are slightly overweight (increasing waist diameter) and wearing clothing that somewhat masks their hip size. Process X now lacks inputs about typical secondary sex characteristics that can be identified from behind.

If it's an individual with short hair and wearing baggy pants, then process X decides it is less likely that the individual is a biological female, but if it is an individual with long hair and a skirt, then process X decides it is more likely that the individual is a biological female.

This is an example of contextual desire triggers are at least partially shaped by experience.

It can be seen outside of desire too; consider disgust. Bitter flavors tend to trigger disgust in kids. However, take a random new food and mix an emetic with it; watch them react with disgust to that food in the future.

> I think you are missing the point.

I think it's because your point is orthogonal to my point which was in response to the someone upthread who implied that masculinity as a definition is changing, and that change means that women are finding the new definition attractive.

My argument is that it doesn't matter what the prescribed definition of masculinity is, women are going to find attractive what they've always found attractive.

Same with men.

If it were at all possible that experiences in ones life can change what that individual feels attracted to, efforts to "cure" homosexuality would have been successful.

> 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”.

> “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.

>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.

Setting aside that "traditional masculinity" is a moving target, plenty of heterosexual women are attracted to non-traditionally masculine traits. Desire isn't merely instinctive. Humans aren't rutting animals hardwired to fuck in the presence of phereomones and sexual display. A person's definition of feminine and masculine absolutely informs, if not defines, who and what they find attractive.

> Humans aren't rutting animals hardwired to fuck in the presence of phereomones and sexual display.

No one made that claim.

> A person's definition of feminine and masculine absolutely informs, if not defines, who and what they find attractive.

Nonsense. If that were at all possible, all the "pray the gay away" processes would have worked. It hasn't.

What humans find sexually attractive is hardwired. If you want to claim it's a choice, you're going to be arguing with more people than me.

And yet there are heterosexual women who remain heterosexual despite not finding traditional masculine traits attractive. They are attracted to men, but are not turned on by big muscles and aggression and alpha male posturing or what have you. And likewise with heterosexual men. That sexual orientation is genetically determined does not presuppose sexual attraction is restricted to a masculine and feminine binary.

> They are attracted to men, but are not turned on by big muscles and aggression and alpha male posturing or what have you.

Not finding desirable the traits that you think are masculine traits does not mean that they do not find masculine traits desirable. It just means that what you think is the masculine traits, is wrong.

So your argument is that masculine traits are defined as any traits a heterosexual woman finds attractive in a man, therefore heterosexual women are universally attracted to masculine traits.

I guess I can't argue with that.

> So your argument is that masculine traits are defined as any traits a heterosexual woman finds attractive in a man, therefore heterosexual women are universally attracted to masculine traits.

No, my response was to the original poster of this thread who implied that if we prescribe a new norm for what "masculine" traits are, then women would stop finding the old masculine traits attractive.

If it were possible to change what people find sexually attractive all the efforts to "cure" gay people would have worked.

My argument is that just because someone has prescribed what masculinity is, doesn't mean that women are going to stop finding the old definition of masculinity more attractive.

Sexual attractiveness just doesn't work like that; you can tell people (and even get them to agree) what a man or a women should be, but that doesn't mean that they are going to find examples of that definition attractive.

Two things can be true. It can both be true that your sexual desire has an inherit, non-mutable component, while ALSO being partly shaped by your experiences. Just because a homosexual person can't be conditioned to be attracted to the opposite sex does not mean their life experiences can't have some impact on the kind of person they are attracted to.

I'd also say that

> If it were possible to change what people find sexually attractive all the efforts to "cure" gay people would have worked.

is a pretty flawed assumption.

Even if we assume sexual attraction is purely based on experience/environment that does not imply that the techniques attempted by the various gay conversion "therapies" would be successful in changing it.

> No, my response was to the original poster of this thread who implied that if we prescribe a new norm for what "masculine" traits are, then women would stop finding the old masculine traits attractive.

I believe I'm the poster in question and I didn't mean to imply that. What I did mean to imply is that masculine traits that elicit desire are viewed through a cultural lens.

If "reliable" or "competent" or "virile" are attractive to women, the ways of signaling that can change over time.

This argument is completely in conflict with my experience; there is nothing inherently feminine about a skirt, long hair, and earrings. Yet, if you dress a man in them, see how desire changes in heterosexual observers of both genders.

Another example: facial hair is a secondary sex characteristic for males, and indeed we see that facial hair on women, is relatively universal at reducing attractiveness for heterosexual men. However, the "most masculine" big bushy lumberjack beards are rarely the most attractive, and desirable facial hair across cultures and times has varied greatly.

> This argument is completely in conflict with my experience;

I don't think it is - I didn't define what I thought were masculine or feminine characteristics. Your counterexamples from your experience (skirts, for example) aren't necessarily feminine characteristics anyway: kilts, long hair and jewellery (earrings and more) have all long been worn by men.

I also didn't say that "more" masculine characteristics are more attractive; all I'm saying is that prescribing a new norm for men or women does not in any way mean that hetersexual men or women are going to stop finding the base masculine/feminine traits less desirable.

I think you're proving aidenn0's point: standards of masculine or feminine attractiveness vary across time, place, and culture, even if the lower-level instinct-based standards remain unchanged.

Desire is not just instinctive. To continue the example: a skirt, long hair, and jewelry can conform to either masculine or feminine standards of attractiveness, depending on who, where, and when you ask (and on the specific styles of said skirt and jewelry). Desire is rooted in instinct, but "nurture" clearly plays a huge role in shaping it.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that "women's expectations of masculine behavior have changed in 30 years." The underlying instincts of romantic/sexual desire don't need to change for this to happen.

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

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.

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?

This is such a weird and oddly charged comment.

Is vacuuming that tiring…? Maybe wear earplugs, that’s what I do.

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

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

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.