The associations among satisfaction with the division of housework, partner's perceived attractiveness, emotional intimacy, and sexual satisfaction in a sample of married or cohabiting Norwegian middle-class men

Abstract

Satisfaction with the division of housework has been shown to affect women's sexual satisfaction, but this relationship has rarely been studied in men. What are the relationships among men's satisfaction with the division of housework, their perception of their emotional intimacy with their partner, their perception of their partner's sexual attractiveness, and their sexual satisfaction? In the autumn of 2011, a selfselected online survey about men's sexual health was carried out in Norway, Croatia, and Portugal. A total of 657 Norwegian men over 18 years of age completed the entire questionnaire. The results from the present study stemmed from 220 healthy and married/cohabiting men, who had completed the questionnaire. The mean age of participants was 44 years and the majority belonged to the upper middle class. Path analysis showed that the association between men's sexual satisfaction and their satisfaction with the division of housework was partially mediated by emotional intimacy. The hypothesized mediating effect of partner's sexual attractiveness on the relationship between sexual satisfaction and satisfaction with housework was not supported. The findings from this study provide new insights into the links between gender roles, intimacy, and male sexual satisfaction.

The Division of Child Care, Sexual Intimacy, and Relationship Quality in Couples

“…Consistent with this, they found that increases in husbands' and wives' performance of non-traditional housework tasks were associated with decreases in sexual frequency, and for wives, sexual satisfaction. Although the actual division of housework was not found to predict husband's sexual satisfaction, research suggests that men's subjective assessment of the division of labor is central to their sexual satisfaction (Traeen, Štulhofer, and Carvalheira 2013).…”

“…They explained this by arguing that a traditionally gendered division of labor was necessary to enact the sexual scripts that lead to sexual arousal. Although the actual division of housework was not found to predict the husband’s sexual satisfaction, men’s subjective assessment of the division of labor is linked to their sexual satisfaction (Traeen, Štulhofer, and Carvalheira 2013).…”

Intimacy and Smartphone Multitasking—A New Oxymoron?

“…Emotional Intimacy Scale. The Emotional Intimacy Scale, developed by Sinclair and Dowdy (2005), is a measure of romantic intimacy (see Murray & Hazelwood, 2011;Sˇtulhofer, Ferreira, & Landripet, 2014;Traeen, Sˇtulhofer, & Carvalheira, 2013). The measure contains five questions, such as "I can share my deepest thoughts and feelings with this person," rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).…”

Propiedades psicométricas de la versión en español de la Escala de Intimidad Emocional en personas heterosexuales, gais y lesbianas en pareja

“…Tanto en la aproximación multidimensional como unidimensional y, tal como se observa en la literatura internacional en las últimas décadas, existe consenso en que el aspecto emocional de la intimidad es un componente fundamental de las relaciones de pareja, clave para el ajuste y bienestar psicológico, y característica esencial de una relación de pareja satisfactoria (Miller, 2015;Prager, 2014;Štulhofer et al, 2014;Traeen et al, 2013).…”

“…La EIE presenta ventajas en comparación a otras escalas que miden el mismo constructo, principalmente debido a su brevedad, fácil administración y a su foco en la intimidad emocional percibida en una relación cercana. Esto ha implicado su amplia y creciente utilización en investigación en los últimos años, incluyendo personas en pareja, con buenos índices de confiabilidad, la mayoría de las veces incluso más altos que en el estudio original y manteniendo la estructura propuesta (Amichai-Hamburger, & Etgar, 2016;Carvalheira & Costa, 2015;Guschlbauer et al, 2019;Hesse & Tian, 2020;Lonza et al, 2020;Carvalheira et al, 2014;Šević et al, 2016;Štulhofer et al, 2020;Traeen et al, 2013;Veit et al, 2016). Pese a su amplio uso, se desconocen estudios que confirmen la estructura factorial de esta escala.…”