<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://therationalmale.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Rollo Tomassi]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://therationalmale.com/author/counterflow1/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Choreplay]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/choreplay.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2321" alt="Gardening" src="https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/choreplay.jpeg?w=460&#038;h=276" width="460" height="276" /></a></p>
<p>One of the more entertaining debates I&#8217;ve had in my post-red pill awareness has been discussing the issue of men doing more &#8220;chores around the house&#8221; so as to more equitably distribute domestic duties amongst couples. The operative beneath this canard is that a more idealized state of gender neutralized bliss can be attained in a couple if only the male partner would feel it incumbent upon himself to assume chores that the female partner feels she&#8217;s entirely overburdened with.</p>
<p>Hmmm,..this presents a quandary for the Feminine Imperative; how would a Strong Independent Woman® motivate her live-in lover (sometimes known as &#8216;husbands&#8217;) to pick up the domestic job slack? Why of course, resort to the strategy that worked so well in convincing him to monogamous commitment – bait him with the <del>obligation</del> promise of <del>unrestricted</del> less restricted sex! It&#8217;s so simple in its form, so elegant in its function,..enter Diane Mapes&#8217; <a href="http://www.today.com/id/23015839/?GT1=10856#.UQkitUqb_vg">Choreplay</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Gals make passes at guys who wash glasses.</strong></p>
<p>I had a party not too long ago where a funny thing happened. One of the guests — a 30-something, single straight guy — came out to the kitchen and volunteered to do my dishes. “That way you won’t be stuck with a huge mess after everyone leaves,” he said, filling the sink with hot, soapy water.</p>
<p>As he started scrubbing wine glasses, I glanced over at my guests. Every woman in the room was staring at him with what can only be described as pure, unadulterated lust.</p>
<p>Behold the appeal of the dishy man.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, that&#8217;s right gentlemen, Roissy had it all wrong, in girl-world washing the dishes is the undiscovered catalyst for &#8216;gina tingles. Athol Kay and his MAP? Get the fuck outta here, it&#8217;s vacuuming and dusting that inspire &#8220;what can only be described as pure, unadulterated lust.&#8221;</p>
<p>Side Note: Have a look at the date this article was published (2/13/2008, <em>just before Valentines day</em>) it&#8217;ll be important when we get to today&#8217;s bonus round.</p>
<blockquote><p>Are there any benefits, aside from soulful glances and the satisfaction of a sparkling clean floor, that exist for men who share the load (laundry and otherwise)?</p>
<p>That’s hard to say, although there are some interesting indicators. A recent survey by Parenting Magazine found that “choreplay,” i.e., husbands pitching in around the house, was what put 15 percent of moms in the mood.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ooh, a whole 15%?! Would this mean the other 85% were turned off?</p>
<p>You know, I&#8217;ve been married for over 16 years now and in that time, on occasion, I&#8217;ve performed many domestic duties for no other reason than it was a necessity. I have changed my daughter&#8217;s diaper, I have cleaned toilets, I&#8217;ve done laundry, I&#8217;ve vacuumed, etc. However, in 16 years never have I had my wife be consumed with an uncontrollable lust to give me a spontaneous blow job or pin me down on the kitchen floor, tear my pants off and ride me to glory after my having put away the dishes. Neither have I ever heard the words, &#8220;damn, you looked so hot ironing my blouse yesterday, fuck me you stud, fuuuuhhck MEEE!!&#8221; proceed from her lips while in the throes of passion.</p>
<p>And in the interest of being fair, I&#8217;ve never been turned on, nor do I consider it foreplay with my wife, when she&#8217;s the one doing the chores. I have been greatly turned on by the sight of her in lingerie; sweat pants, a t-shirt and a toilet bowl brush in hand? Not so much.</p>
<p>However some of the most memorable sexual experiences I&#8217;ve had with her (and other women in my sexual past) have come after I&#8217;ve done something particularly masculine or I performed well doing something that benefitted me with a lot of social proof. For instance, my wife seems to like sex after I&#8217;ve had a good heavy lifting day at the gym. She also seems very amorous after social engagements I bring her along to for my work.</p>
<p>So the moral of this story is, as always, base your assessments on a woman&#8217;s behavior &#8211; NEVER on her words. Any woman telling you you look hot in an apron or she loves how you pee sitting down is selling you something. It&#8217;s up to you to determine what she&#8217;s selling.</p>
<p>Ah, but what <em>is</em> she selling?</p>
<blockquote><p>Research conducted by Laurie A. Rudman, a psychologist at Rutgers University, also seems to point to a hot soapy love connection. Her study, recently published in the journal Sex Roles, looked at feminism’s impact on romantic relationships. Among other things, she found that men with feminist partners reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.</p>
<p>“We didn’t ask who was doing the dishes or taking care of the kids,” says Rudman. “We asked broadly about the quality of the relationship and about the agreement of gender roles in the relationship. But we did find that if men were with a feminist woman, they had more sexual satisfaction and their relationship was more stable. Men benefit from having a feminist partner.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Oh ho ho, that&#8217;s it! Feminist women get hot seeing their men in an apron, and boy do<em>they</em> ever benefit. So you see guys, you&#8217;re going about this all wrong; you <em>benefit</em> from locking down a feminist woman and embracing the gender neutral sexiness of traditionally feminine household chores.</p>
<p><strong>Back to the Future!</strong></p>
<p>Ah, 2008 what heady time it was, but unfortunately I need to step back into my <del>phone booth </del>DeLorean time machine and fast-forward to January 30th, 2013 where, not to be outdone by her 2008 assertions of Choreplay, the exact same media has a new take on intergender chore assignments. Take it away 2013 <del>feminine imperative</del> <a href="http://todayhealth.today.com/_news/2013/01/30/16758810-husbands-who-do-her-chores-have-less-sex-study-finds?lite">Diane Mapes</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Hey, fellas, put down those vacuum cleaners and pull out the lawn mowers.</p>
<p>Married men may think helping around the house may up their hotness quotient in the bedroom, but what really matters is the type of chore. Heterosexual married men who spend their time doing yard work, paying bills and changing the oil have more sex than husbands who spend their time cooking, cleaning and shopping, according to a new study on the subject of housework and sex.</p>
<p>&#8220;Households with a more traditional gender division of labor report higher sexual frequency than households with less traditional gender divisions of labor,&#8221; says Sabino Kornrich, lead author of a study that appears in the February issue of the American Sociological Review. &#8220;Housework is something that people use as a very important way to express gender, masculinity and femininity. We weren&#8217;t surprised to think that sex might be more tied to this type of gender expression.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>So, let me get this straight, the yard work, manual labor, auto maintenance, home remodeling and pressure washing hotness that I replaced with soapy dish washing, ironing boards and laundry detergent was actually what inspired &#8220;what can only be described as pure, unadulterated lust?&#8221; Whoda thunk?</p>
<p>You mean to tell me all that shit I ate in 2008 about being a neanderthal 50&#8217;s throwback for expressing that Men&#8217;s work is what women really find sexy was all just horse shit slung from the feminine imperative?</p>
<p>I realize I&#8217;m goofing on this, but I remember reading Mapes&#8217; first article in 2008 and started thinking about why a man doing &#8220;woman&#8217;s work&#8221; would be in any way sexy or at all arousing for a woman. As usual it&#8217;s always a good start to reverse gender roles in order to get a better understanding of any social contrivance or perceived &#8220;double standard&#8221;. The equalist mindset can never logically stand up against this reversal.</p>
<p>Would a guy get sexually excited to see a woman doing traditionally masculine housework? In 16 years of marriage I&#8217;ve never had my wife do, much less offer to do, things around the house (on a regular basis) that I assumed as a husband from day one. I get the dirty jobs. I mow the lawn, clean up the dog shit in the back yard, I have trash duty, clean the pool/spa, install the nice new acrylic sinks and marble countertops she picks out, plunge the toilets when they back up, install the garbage disposal, fix what I can on her car, wash the cars,&#8230;you get the idea. And of all those (with the exception of maybe seeing her wash my car in a thong bikini) I can&#8217;t say as I&#8217;d get turned on by seeing my wife do any of that. So what is the intrinsic appeal of seeing a guy doing the dishes Mr. &amp; Mrs. Gender Equalist?</p>
<p>The role reversal of putting a man into a traditionally feminine role doesn&#8217;t have real arousal value. It has a power value for sure, in that it temporarily casts a man in a submissive role, but after the novelty of having a guy perform those behaviors repeatedly wears off, does it still have that arousal value? My wife doesn&#8217;t wear lingerie for me <i>every</i> night, but she does so often enough that the arousal value of it still turns me on. However doing the dishes is something so mundane and so monotonous that any thrill that might be associated with it wears thin in a month.</p>
<p><strong>The Mapes Effect</strong></p>
<p>I can&#8217;t end this article without drawing attention to what I&#8217;m sure most of my readers are getting about the 5 year shift in attitude with regards to these articles. It&#8217;s easy to pass these off as some flighty progression in feminine self-understanding, but remember Diane Mapes draws a paycheck for writing these articles in well read media sources. She&#8217;s a media arm of the feminine imperative.</p>
<p>What we&#8217;re graphically witnessing is the fluidity with which the feminine imperative can realign itself socially to better affect its propagation. You see in 2008 the message to men (that resonated with women) was Fem-Up; stop being so insecure in your masculinity and do the dishes and laundry – the payoff will be more sexual access. In 2013 the message to men (again resonating with women) is Man-Up; stop being such a house frau and get out int the yard and mow – the payoff will be more sexual access.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t be fooled into thinking that this is just another example of women&#8217;s fickle <a title="Duplicity" href="https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/duplicity/">duplicity</a>. A <em>lot</em> has happened socially in the five years between these articles; the End of Men, Kate Bolick, feminine triumphalism, men &#8220;checking out&#8221;, kidults, &#8216;late term&#8217; spinsters unable to find &#8220;acceptable&#8221; men, etc. and a whole slew of other gender shifts occurred between both these articles. What Mapes&#8217; most recent article represents is the feminine imperative reworking an outdated feminine social convention to accommodate women&#8217;s Man-Up needs in 2013 that it actively extinguished itself in the Fem-Up years leading up to 2008.</p>
]]></html><thumbnail_url><![CDATA[https://i1.wp.com/rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/choreplay.jpeg?fit=440%2C330]]></thumbnail_url><thumbnail_height><![CDATA[264]]></thumbnail_height><thumbnail_width><![CDATA[440]]></thumbnail_width></oembed>