No surprise really

"The results suggest the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity," Kornrich said.

http://www.france24.com/en/20130130-...ried-men-study

The "pussification" of the American male is evolving.....

"yes dear, I'll finish the dishes as soon as I'm done checking my email - Have a nice day at work, honey"

..... now what was I saying....??

Gender bending is the recipe for failure.

I would agree with his to an extent. I believe in traditional roles in heterosexual relationships. While my best meals have been the work of men, and I find comfort under the hoods of most automobiles, a man that takes charge of outdoor chores and other masculine activities can get a few more cool points with me.

A "secure man" can take on many gender roles, and think nothing of it...it does not impact his masculine side one bit. I know many men who stay at home with the children whilst the wife works, and who cares? It's a TEAM effort. Many times a wife will work and her hubby attends school later in life, or vice versa. I don't think there needs to be a defined set of roles, because you can't really define individualism.

I love to cook and be cooked for, but I also won't be cutting any grass. If I see a wasp, I call a man lol. I like being dependent on men for certain things, but other than that...I am too independent to always have them around.

Lord knows it would be easier to hobby if I worked at home.

A "secure man" can take on many gender roles, and think nothing of it...it does not impact his masculine side one bit. I know many men who stay at home with the children whilst the wife works, and who cares? It's a TEAM effort. Many times a wife will work and her hubby attends school later in life, or vice versa. I don't think there needs to be a defined set of roles, because you can't really define individualism.

I love to cook and be cooked for, but I also won't be cutting any grass. If I see a wasp, I call a man lol. I like being dependent on men for certain things, but other than that...I am too independent to always have them around. Originally Posted by London Rayne

I agree for the most part, but the question want about what he was comfortable doing, but what we as women find sexy in a man. I know a lady whose husband put her through med school, so when she started making money, he retired. A man like that deserves the privilege. Just like you said, the relationship has to be a partnership, or else the only thing that will be important is who makes the most money. If a man has no more value than his earning potential, such as the manly things like being resourceful, strong, understanding and driven, you need to re evaluate why you're with him.

So where does taint tickling come into play?

STFU pyramider lol. Tiffani...exactly. The HOBBY is about money..real life is not. Neither of my first 2 hubbies made more, or had more education than I did. It was not even a factor. I just can't be with the clingy types.

So where does taint tickling come into play? Originally Posted by pyramider

Well, I can only speak for myself, but before any taint ticklin' goes down, those are just some of the attributes I need to see in a man. I do my best to weed out men who give buttholes a bad name (and I've actually met a couple of buttholes that I like).

I just can't be with the clingy types. Originally Posted by London Rayne

Didn't you know? Clinginess = lurrve let some people tell it.

Bluck..I just threw up my Duck Curry!

A "secure man" can take on many gender roles, and think nothing of it...it does not impact his masculine side one bit. I know many men who stay at home with the children whilst the wife works, and who cares? Originally Posted by London Rayne

Other men?

We're wired to identify ourselves as providers --- in the literal sense of the word, not the hobby definition. A man who loses his job, loses his identity in a way a woman does not.

When we meet a new man, or an acquaintance, we don't ask who they're dating, or if they're married, or anything relationship oriented. We ask, "What do you do?" And it's not a generic question. We're not looking for hobbies, or an answer about raising kids. We're looking for how you fend for yourself. Or, if you're retired, how did you successfully fend for yourself in the past.

If a man says he stays at home and raises the kids full time, and that's his life's aspiration, a part of my brain flicks an off switch. Nothing personal towards men who do that. Good for you. I just can't imagine having any genuine desire to want to get to know you.

When women get together --- at least civilian women (and this is a stereotype, so I know it's not universally true, but true enough to be valid), one of the FIRST questions they ask each other is about their relationship status.

And who a woman is partnered with (or worse *gasp* they're not partnered at all!) has a very significant bearing on how they're perceived by other women.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm not saying this is individually applicable. But it is definitely the way it is. At least in the demographic I'm a part of.

I don't judge a man by where his paycheck or identity comes from. I know women who find a drug dealer more appealing than a guy who supports his children whilst the wife works...I am not one of those people. FYI, I am not talking about how I view men in the hobby, but in general. I am not here to find a mate or fall in love, so here it would be a bit different. In the real world, a man's status or job title means nothing to me. I fall for HIM, not his faux sense of self that a career tends to breed. If I have a choice between a CEO and a Welder, I will always take the latter.

Men who have to actually work hard for a living, especially with their hands, tend to be better lovers, more attentive, and more appreciative. Not always the case, but I have noticed a trend amongst certain uber professionals and how they value relationships.

You are spot on, Proud of Texas!

And who a woman is partnered with (or worse *gasp* they're not partnered at all!) has a very significant bearing on how they're perceived by other women.

And it's not just with women, it's men too. I've noticed it in my civilian business that as a single woman with no significant other I have to really prove myself to my clients and when networking with my peers. It's like I'm standing on one leg until I show them otherwise. But I digress...

What I'm learning from having younger siblings is that it's beginning to be more socially acceptable to let a woman take care of the financials. It has a lot to do with the ratio of available good men to women. Women are feeling that they have to lower their standards to get a man.

My mother, afraid that my standards are too high, has told me to 'make myself a man'. You feed him, dress him, take him to church, and teach him how to act in public. That's understandable in a time when, like you said, a man's sole identity was in his work or skills. If nothing else, he had the skills to pay the bills, or could at least prove himself useful. But in a time when men are not learning to work with their hands anymore (except to maneuver an Xbox controller), and they're not mowing their own yards, checking the fluids in your car before you get in it, or even taking out the trash, if I'm the sole breadwinner, it's like a slap in the face. No, you are not getting any tonight. Biatch. LOL

I kid, I kid.
Being a country girl, I have a thing for skilled blue collar men, as were most of the men I grew up admiring. But I love my white collar gents as well. But I wouldn't be myself if I couldn't find the exception to my own rules. I live in a condo, so there are no outside chores for a man to do. My car is so computerized that we would be damn fools to try to tinker with it before taking it to the dealership. Just being thoughtful is a great way to a woman's heart (and taint) no matter what you do.