Yet as an older study found, Men Who Do More Housework Have Less Sex[x]. The only way to have a healthy sex life then is for everyone to not do that much housework.
[x] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housew...
[x] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housew...
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...)
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's the explanation.
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.
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 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 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.
No, they wouldn't.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
I guess I can't argue with that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.