The past few years have shown a great change in societal concepts and constructs. Focusing on relationships, there has been what some may call an evolution; the definition and ideas of a traditional couple has been constantly changing and developing. With a more liberalization of society, we see that traditional gender roles have been one of the major things to have changed (Bianchi, Sayer, Milkie, & Robinson, 2012). We can credit some of these changes and influences on media. Media surrounds us, and as society changes and grow, so does the media, in order to cater towards the newest trends, and views of today’s society. These multi-mass media sources are not only influencing readers, but they are catered towards society by being easily accessible, and covering topics humans are generally interested in – sex and relationships.
One of the biggest sources of relationships and sex advice comes from Cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitan, or “Cosmo” for short, is a magazine and an online hub for those looking to read about sex advice, relationship facts, and other topics similar to those. A Cosmo article, “Couples Who Divide Housework Equally Have More Sex”, written by Eve Peyser introduces a recent study conducted by Daniel Carlson and his colleagues, which argue that couples who share housework equally have more sex. The article begins by introducing Cornell University professor Sharon Sassler, one of the authors of the study, who argues that couples who are more “non-traditional” in terms of sharing housework, have more sex. Traditionally, it is said to be the woman in the relationship who usually would conduct most household work (Bianchi et. al., 2012). Sassler argues that “couples who adhere to more egalitarian division of labour are the only couples who have experienced an increase in sexual frequency compared to their counterparts of the past.” (Carlson, Miller, Sassler, & Hanson, 2016). The article then goes on to discuss the importance of this finding, as it states how previous articles, such as the New York Times Magazine, argues against this. The New York Times Magazine wrote about a study that suggested that more traditional households, where husband and wife do more traditional gender based chores around the house report higher sexual frequency. The Cosmo article then closes off by stating despite these arguments, Sassler is able to justify findings because she compares data taken from more recent years, in 2006, whereas the New York Times Magazine study based their research from data taken from the mid 90’s. Peyser finishes the article by suggesting that the result of Sassler’s study could be due to the evolving gender-roles in society. Sassler’s study is able to take into account not only these changing times for couples, but also how it pushes for a more equalized agenda between men and women in relationships.
The study conducted by Sassler and her colleagues, The Gendered Division of Housework and Couples’ Sexual Relationships: A Reexamination, takes a look at how the division of housework in couples affects their sexual frequency in the early 21st century, compared to data obtained from couples 20 years prior. Researchers did this by analyzing data from the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) taken from 1992-1994 and the Marital and Relationship Survey (MARS) taken in 2006. Researchers explain that the reasoning behind using the NSFH was because it is one of the few sets of data that is able to provide data about couples in the early 90’s (Carlson et. al., 2016). It is evident that there are expected roles of men and women within relationships, and these roles tend to shape the relationship dynamic and satisfaction. Sassler and colleagues argue against these traditional roles, stating that feelings of fairness and satisfaction with division of housework are central to a relationship. Previous research has suggested that for couples, gender is generally reinforced through interactions with each other (Potuchek, 1997). In recent years, Sassler reports that men have increased their portion of housework, and women have reduced theirs, due to the increase in women entering the workforce (Bianchi et. al., 2012). This narrows the gender gap in household labour, pushing towards a more balanced division between man and woman. Men have also increased their involvement in child care (Carlson et. al., 2016). Brines (1994) found that households where women in the relationship earn more, are more educated, or work more hours in a week still do more housework than their male partners. Moving onto the analysis of the study, researchers divided couples into three types: conventional couples (woman does majority or 65% or more of housework), egalitarian couples (male partner does 35%-65% of housework), and counter-conventional (male partner does major or 65% or more of housework) (Carlson et. al., 2016).
Results showed that couples from the MARS shared housework more equally than those from NSFH2. It was found that 63% of women did more housework reported by MARS and 80% from NSFH2 (Carlson et. al., 2016). Results found in MARS revealed that couples who shared housework equally had sex on average 6.8 times a month, which is 0.5 times more than conventional couples, and 2 times more than counter-conventional couples (Carlson et. al., 2016). Data reported from NSFH2 showed very little difference in sexual frequency from conventional couples and counter-conventional couples, suggesting that a more equal division of house work leads to an increase in sexual frequency. Overall, results showed that women in conventional relationships were less satisfied in division of housework than women in egalitarian relationships. For men, lower levels of satisfaction were linked to counter-conventional relationships compared to egalitarian relationships. The results of this study suggest that both men and women seem to be more satisfied in egalitarian relationships, where division of housework is more equal. Based on these results, researchers suggest that sexual frequency is at its highest when both men and women are satisfied in the relationship. Since both men and women are satisfied in the relationship when housework is divided equally, this leads to more positive feelings for the partner, an increase in mood, and overall happiness. Furthermore, the increase of these feelings not only promote a happier and a more equal relationship, but also that happier and more satisfied couples would tend to have more sex, increasing sexual frequency and sexual satisfaction. Researchers say their most notable finding is that the division of housework and egalitarianism has changed over the past 20 years (Carlson et. al., 2016). Over the past decades, gender roles in relationships continue to change over time, therefore this strongly suggests that more equality in relationships lead to an increase in sexual frequency.
The results of Sassler’s study are not uncommon. Another study done by Carlson, Miller and Sassler focused on the effects of division of housework among middle to low income couples. This study is very similar to the first, as it focuses on the division of housework directly relating to sexual intimacy, but with a new addition – social class. Over the past few decades, there has been a shift in traditional to non-traditional arrangements in couples (Bianchi et. al., 2012). Despite this, some scholars say that the shift has not been perceived among couples all over the social class spectrum, specifically those that belong to middle lower classes (Carlson, Miller, & Sassler, 2018). Previous research has suggested that greater relationship satisfaction has been linked to lower levels of negative behaviour within relationships (Carlson et. al., 2018). Couples that have a better understanding of each other emotionally and physically score higher on tests that measure kindness, forgiveness, positive thoughts, and overall had better relationship quality and well-being (Carlson et. al 2018). Housework tasks, such as laundry, cleaning, cooking, dishes, taking out garbage, bill paying, shopping, etc. are usually associated with female and male type housework. Laundry, cleaning and cooking are usually seen as “female-typed” housework, whereas taking out garbage and yard work are “male-typed” housework (Carlson et. al., 2018). Carlson explains that this categorization of tasks is usually associated with each gender respectively – a point Sassler does not go into detail. Nonetheless, this goes onto show how gender roles are perpetuated through “masculine” or “feminine” tasks that either men or women in relationships are usually expected to do. In order to analyze the shift of this equal sharing of housework among social classes, Carlson and his colleagues took data from MARS and NSFH2. The methodology of this study is very similar to Sassler’s; they use the same set of data collected from the same two sources. In order to analyze how division of housework is related to relationship wellbeing, researchers assessed numerous topics, a few of them being sexual frequency, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction. Couples were asked general questions that related to these outcomes, for example, “how happy are you with your sexual relationship” from the NSFH2 and “I am satisfied with our sexual relationship” from MARS. Participants recorded their answers that ranged from very unhappy to very happy. Results showed that when female partners did majority of the housework, their partners reported less sexual satisfaction, as compared to those couples who share housework equally. The most notable finding from this study that sets it apart from Sassler’s is that not only does the division of housework lead to higher relationship quality, but also the division of certain tasks over others plays a role in satisfaction. In addition to this, researchers also found that there is a significant shift towards a more equal division of household labour in middle and lower-class couples. Carlson credits this shift to changes in work and perhaps family structures (Carlson et. al., 2018).
Other studies have shown that men and women generally perceive household tasks differently. Susan M. Shaw focused on gender differences in the perception and definition of household labour. Shaw wanted to explore whether household activities and work that are done by women and men in relationships are defined as labour or leisure, and wanted to see whether these differences are gender based. The study was conducted using data collected from 60 married couples in Halifax. These couples were selected from random households from working class, middle, and upper-middle class couples around the city. Participants were asked to complete diary entries in the span of 2 days where they listed their activities for a typical weekday and weekend day. After the entries, each participant was interviewed, having husband and wives interviewed separately. Similar to the study conducted by Sassler, Shaw explains the significance of gender roles in relationships and the influences it has on the perception of housework by male and female partners. Shaw found males were more likely to define household work as leisure and less likely to define it as work. In addition to this, men’s perception of household chores was that they felt more freedom, in terms of their choice of participation in household work (Shaw, 1988). Males tended to feel less obligatory to carry out these chores, and even when doing work, considered it optional and more leisure-like (Shaw, 1988). The only difference was cooking, as males perceived this to be less leisure, and more work. Shaw proposes the reasoning for the gender differences in meaning is that household chores and labour are commonly associated with “women’s work” (Shaw, 1988). Similar to Sassler’s study, Shaw’s results aid in explaining the significance of the perception of household chores through male and female perspectives. This study emphasizes the significance in gender roles in relationships, showing that they do exist through perceptions of household chores.
Previous literature has shown a significant increase in sexual satisfaction with couples who share housework equally, these researchers credit these changes to a natural shift in gender roles that have occurred over the last few decades. Experts argue that due to the evolving nature of relationships, many couples in today’s society are more “non-traditional”, meaning that housework is not done traditionally by majority of women only, but is divided more equally. Although there is significant evidence of this, researcher Kornrich, Brines, and Leupp (2012) disagree. A study conducted by Kornrich and her colleagues assessed whether equal division of housework lead to an increase in sexual frequency, specifically focusing on how men’s participation in housework is linked to sexual frequency (Kornrich et. al., 2012). Kornrich argues that traditional gender roles are key in maintaining behaviour and gender display in marriage. Kornrich explains that the argument of equal division of housework leads to more sex is essentially restating the claim that women exchange sex for men’s participation in housework, and this seems to relate to social exchange theory (Kornrich et. al., 2012). Sex, in its most basic use can be used for exchange (Kornrich et. al., 2012). Evolutionary speaking, social exchange theory for sex generally states that both partners participate in sex in order to exchange resources (Kornirch et. al., 2012). This exchange can benefit both partners and can include things such as time, commitment, and other resources (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). Using this theory of exchange, there is evidence that women usually exchange sex for men’s participation in household chores (Kornrich et. al., 2012). Kornrich explains that women withhold sex from men if they feel as though men are not carrying their share of the household work (Kornirch et. al., 2012). These arguments made about social exchange theory by Kornrich shows that she recognizes the possibility that egalitarian relationships can lead to increase in marital frequency. Despite this, researchers still test whether equal division of housework does in fact lead to an increase in sexual frequency. They did this by using data from NSFH2, which consists of data collected from 1992-1994 and included data that measures both sexual frequency and participation in household labour. Results showed that couples with traditional division of housework (where the woman does the majority) reported more frequent sexual activity. Furthermore, results suggest that when men do “core” work, which is usually work done by women, sexual frequency is lower than when men do “non-core” work. These findings suggest that both men and women seem to be more “attracted to” or “turned on” by their partner when each partner does housework that pertains to their gender (Kornirch et. al., 2012). Kornrich explains this by saying how more traditional “masculine” tasks done by men is related to how sexually attracted their partners are to them (Kornrich et. al., 2012). This ties into the statement that when both women and men carry out tasks that are gender-specific, such as men taking out the garbage, and women cooking, this elicits an increase in attraction which leads to the probability of having more sex. Although the underlying neurological mechanisms behind this attraction have not been thoroughly studied, Kornrich proposes the idea that the importance of gender roles in relationships heavily influences sexual attraction; when you see your partner carry out masculine, “manly” tasks, you are more sexually turned on by this. Even if this is the case, there are some arguable points to be made about the design of Kornrich’s study. First, the data collected from NSFH2 is taken from decades ago. This problem also arises in Sassler’s study, but they counter balance this by using data from MARS which contains data collected from 2006. Kornrich recognizes the importance of having data being recent, as she states that the data collected from NSFH2 is the only set of data that measures division of housework and sexual frequency to her knowledge. Sassler argues against Kornrich’s results because the data used in Kornrich’s study is too old to be generalizable. Therefore, it is more likely that couples were more traditional decades ago. Another factor that Kornrich fails to address that Sassler points out is there are many other things that affect a couple’s sexual relationship, such as children, age of children, religious beliefs, and total number of house spent doing housework (Carlson et. al., 2016). These factors, Sassler argues also tie into a couple’s sexual frequency. These two arguments strengthen Sassler’s findings against Kornrich because Kornrich fails to take into account these factors, especially childcare. Childcare is a large factor in determining a couple’s ability to have sex (making time outside of taking care of children to be intimate), but also the division of childcare has an impact on a couple’s general relationship satisfaction. This is exactly what researchers Carlson, Hanson and Fitzroy studied.
Carlson and his colleagues studied whether division of childcare is associated with sexual intimacy and overall relationship quality. As previous research has mentioned, division of housework does seem to have an effect on a couple’s relationship satisfaction and sexual frequency. Carlson wanted to take this a step further and discuss one of the most important tasks couples carry out – having children and taking care of them. Previous research has already highlighted that the sharing of household labour and responsibilities that go along with this can be problematic for couple’s happiness, stability, and sexual intimacy (Carlson, Hanson, & Fitzroy, 2016). Even though these topics have been discussed, a major limitation of these previous studies is that many of them do not focus on childcare. This lack of research in the division of childcare has been ignored and therefore, research in this area is crucial in order to understand relationship satisfaction and dynamic. The study was carried out using data collected in 2006 from MARS. Researchers examined how division of childcare and responsibilities associated with childcare are associated with marital satisfaction and quality, including sexual frequency and quality of sex. Results showed that when women did the majority of childcare, they were less satisfied with the division of childcare and therefore had lower levels of relationship satisfaction (Carlson et. al., 2016). Although researchers thought that equal division of childcare would lower relationship quality and sexual intimacy, because it would limit the time couples spent together, the major findings of this study was that they found no evidence of this (Carlson et. al., 2016). Results also suggest that men’s participation in childcare was generally associated with higher relationship satisfaction. This finding suggests that egalitarian arrangements of childcare generally produce higher levels of relationship satisfaction and intimacy, thereby increasing sexual frequency and overall relationship quality (Carlson et. al., 2016).
The importance for couples to be satisfied have played a major role in motivating researchers to study how this can be achieved and how household arrangements can have an effect on it. Previous literature explains that relationship dynamic from traditional to more non-traditional as shifted over the years. A contributing factor to this is that women over these years have been entering the work force – limiting their times as home makers and now working many hours and sometimes even more than their male counter parts. This change has effected the dynamic of a couple’s relationship, and having both partners work full time cuts into previous time spent on the actual relationship. Researchers Gager and Yabiku studied how sexual frequency is being affected by this division of time, when both partners are not only doing housework but also paid work. It is clear that in the recent years, there seems to be a “time-crunch” in typical everyday life (Gager & Yabiku, 2010). People are constantly busy with work, outside commitments, and social life. Partners need to take time to invest in personal relationships, to improve relationship quality, satisfaction and one of the most important aspects of relationships – time to engage in sex. These factors all play into building a strong relationship so that both partners are satisfied and feel valued. Partners not only spend time working outside at a paid job, but also time participating in household labour. This division of time between household labour and their working jobs is what researchers wanted to focus primarily on, and how this time-crunch plays a role in a couple’s sexual frequency. They did this by examining data collected from NSFH, which contained data from couples who were asked how often they engaged in sex with their partner in a month. Researchers used this number and multiplied it by 12 in order to gauge the average time couples usually had sex in a year (Gager & Yabiku, 2010). Researchers presented three different hypotheses, the first being that the greater the time spent on housework would leave less time left for sex. Second, those who work hard in household labour would work hard in trying to make time to have sex; the general statement “work hard, play hard” being presented by researchers to explain this (Gager & Yabiku, 2010). Lastly, a general hypothesis presented was when division of housework was mostly done by the woman, it may lead to greater sexual frequency as they believe it to be their traditional role as being the woman in the relationship (Gager & Yabiku, 2010). Researchers found that when both partners spent more hours on housework they reported to have more sex, concluding that when couples spent more time doing household chores, they “worked hard” and “played hard”. This finding only adds onto the general consensus found through previous literature, which is that equal division of housework and now more hours spent on housework lead to more sex.
The Cosmo article seems to report Sassler’s findings well, without overly exaggerating the findings of Sassler’s study. Peyser, the author of the Cosmo article delivers a clear message, and it’s that equal division of housework leads to more sex (Carlson et. al., 2016). Not only does Peyser report facts taken directly from Sassler’s study but also reports conflicting findings, making the strength of Sassler’s arguments more powerful to Cosmo readers. It is clear that despite the lack of scientific writing in usual Cosmo articles, this article delivers the findings of Sassler’s study well, and can be concluded that readers of this Cosmo article are receiving a well-informed claim made by the article. The Cosmo article is able to deliver a good source of scientific studies to the general public, while breaking down the discoveries in these studies, such as Sassler’s findings. A limitation that occurs over this general area of discussion is the lack of research on division of housework among homosexual couples. Many of the studies previously mentioned focus on heterosexual couples, and the usual gender roles and relationships between man and woman. Expansion in this area would not only perhaps lead to new findings but also cater towards most types of couples. Sassler’s study does a great job in capturing the relationship dynamic between egalitarian couples, and the Cosmo article reports this evidence well, supporting Sassler’s arguments.