Arnold Schwarzenegger makes seventy cents on the dollar AND he has to wash the dishes?

Arnold Schwarzenegger makes seventy cents on the dollar AND he has to wash all the dishes?

A recent* study found that married men who perform what are traditionally considered chores for men–mowing the lawn, fixing roofs, building stuff–get more sex than their feeble, girlish counterparts who perform household tasks more traditionally associated with ladies (washing dishes, doing laundry, sobbing openly when Little Foot’s mom dies). The study’s lead author summed it up as such, “Households with a more traditional gender division of labor report higher sexual frequency than households with less traditional gender divisions of labor.”

From this extremely helpful and relevant study, we have deduced the obvious: men who are pussies get less sex. Also, chores for men involve machines. Gender roles are helpful because they streamline everything.

Before we go any further, it’s worth noting that at least one article covering this study begins, “No good deed goes unpunished.”

To the science!

In the new study, sociologists from the University of Washington in the United States found that on average couples jointly spent 34 hours a week on traditionally female jobs and 17 hours a week on tasks generally considered to belong to the man’s domain.

Typically husbands did about one-fifth of the household’s “female” chores and just over half of “male” household work. On average the couples said they had sex about five times in the month before they were questioned for the study.

But what about all those girly men who don’t see lifting a mop or vacuum as some great indignity? Their progressivism is actually a curse! A curse on their penises:

Those in marriages where the wife did all the traditionally female tasks reported having had sex about 1.6 times more per month than those where the husband did all the “feminine” jobs.

Who are these people?

The analysis was based on a national survey of 4,500 American married couples carried out between 1992 and 1994, the most recent large-scale study that measured how often husbands and wives had sex.

Wait. This data is from the early ’90s? How is this relevant? The researchers cut us off at the pass and insisted that it was unlikely things had changed much since then… because they insisted it. For their part, they also said that men shouldn’t take this as incentive to stop doing female chores because it could “increase conflict.”

Julie Brines, another of the report’s authors, said: “The results show that gender still organises quite a bit of everyday life in marriage.

“In particular, it seems that the gender identities husbands and wives express through the chores they do also help structure sexual behaviour.”

She added: “Marriage today isn’t what it was 30 or 40 years ago, but there are some things that remain important.

“Sex and housework are still key aspects of sharing a life, and both are related to marital satisfaction and how spouses express their gender identity.”

Did anyone pause to wonder that perhaps in situations where men do more housework… the women may also have a job and thus can’t be an eager dick hole all the time?

A Norwegian study from last year yielded similar findings, by the way, this time equating chore equality with higher divorce rates. Both studies–plus lots of information everywhere–should come as a helpful reminder not to develop skills, interests or a personality and instead succumb to our obvious genetic disadvantages and embrace our femininity.  And get shinier hair.

However! Before all you lady readers go out and quit your jobs and drop out of school, please keep in mind that the researchers have no way of assessing the quality of the sex anyone here is having. The most they can say is that adhering to traditional gender roles leads to sex roughly one and a half more times a month. If anything, that extra 1.6 couplings could really be “two minutes of sport fucking then he falls asleep because he’s exhausted from patching all those roofs.” Is this a victory for traditional values?

We’re not sure.

*Not really, apparently.

(Toronto Star via ABCThe Telegraph)