A recent study of 7,000 married couples

[Sleeping in EQ]

found that sexual frequency increased .06% for every 1% increase in weekly housework that husbands handled.

It also found that while husbands are doing about twice as much housework as husbands did in the 1950s, they still do about 10 hours a week less than do wives.

The study was conducted by researchers at Montclair State University.

[Jeff Lebowski]

.06%? That hardly seems worth the effort.

[Jarid in Cedar]

.06%? That hardly seems worth the effort.

Yep

My ADR6300 is saving a beer for Kelly Heaps.

[pellegrino]

So if contemporary husbands are doing about twice as much housework as husbands did in the 1950s, are they getting twice as much action?

[Donuthole]

.06%? That hardly seems worth the effort.

Seriously. So you could double your efforts and only improve your sex frequency by 6%. If you were having sex once a week, you would go from 52 times/year to 55 times/year. For doing TWICE AS MUCH WORK!

[Donuthole]

So if contemporary husbands are doing about twice as much housework as husbands did in the 1950s, are they getting twice as much action?

No, they are getting 6% more action.

[Sleeping in EQ]

So if contemporary husbands are doing about twice as much housework as husbands did in the 1950s, are they getting twice as much action?

Apparently not. Which means that both husbands and wives are getting screwed; or rather, the opposite.

[creekster]

So if contemporary husbands are doing about twice as much housework as husbands did in the 1950s, are they getting twice as much action?

As the late but great Billy Preston (has there ever been a cooler more gravity defying afro than 1974-ish Billy Preston?) famously sang:

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin.


Don't ask me how I know.

[pellegrino]

No, they are getting 6% more action.

if even that

[wuapinmon]

found that sexual frequency increased .06% for every 1% increase in weekly housework that husbands handled.

It also found that while husbands are doing about twice as much housework as husbands did in the 1950s, they still do about 10 hours a week less than do wives.

The study was conducted by researchers at Montclair State University.

I find guilt and drugs work better than doing the dishes.

[statman]

So if I do all the housework, I get 6% more sex?

Ummm, not worth it...

[doctorcoug]

So if contemporary husbands are doing about twice as much housework as husbands did in the 1950s, are they getting twice as much action?

Nope, this totally follows diminishing marginal returns.

[statman]

Nope, this totally follows diminishing marginal returns.

Which is why the conclusions of the study is a load of hores#it. The 0.06% increase in frequency for every 1% of housework is a strictly linear relationship - a line with a slope of 0.06. Sorry, but no way is this linear.

In reality, I guarantee you this is a curve, not a line. You go from 0 to 10% of housework, you get a bigger bump than if you go from 90% to 100%.

The 0.06% per 1% might be an average increase over the entire sample, but because talking in averages implies a linear relationship, it's meaningless.

It doesn't really tell anyone anything - except of course that on the average women are ungrateful for the housework we men do. They mitch and boan about us not doing enough, but when we do, say double our housework output from 16.6% to 33.3%, we get a whopping bump in sex of 1%. So instead of 1.8 times a week, we get 1.818 times per week. Once more in the course of a year. For double the work. Big freaking whoop.

Based on this study, I'm cutting my output to zero. But I'm feeling kind of needy this evening, and the house is kinda cold because of the blizzard. I'll make the cut to zero housework starting tomorrow...

[Indy Coug]

found that sexual frequency increased .06% for every 1% increase in weekly housework that husbands handled.

It also found that while husbands are doing about twice as much housework as husbands did in the 1950s, they still do about 10 hours a week less than do wives.

The study was conducted by researchers at Montclair State University.

This is a classic example of where statistical significance and practical insignificance walk hand in hand.

[marsupial]

I set up a chore chart for danimal, sort of like the kids have. Five stars=action. It works out pretty well.