This research simply seems made for an OLO debate:

Surveys of 242 college undergraduates and 289 older adults conclude that having a feminist partner "is linked with healthier, more romantic heterosexual relationships," writes LiveScience.

The Rutgers University research, published this week in the journal Sex Roles, "bust(s) stereotypes that peg feminists as ugly lesbians," LiveScience says.

Both men and women are prone to holding negative views of feminists, the authors say. Along with the sexually unattractive stereotype, some women also view feminism as a movement for victims, or for women who aren't competent enough to achieve success on their own merit, LS writes.

Among the findings:
• College-age women with feminist male partners said they had higher quality relationships that were more stable than couples involving non-feminist male partners.
• Feminists college men with feminist partners reported having more equality in their relationships.
• Older women reported greater relationship health and sexual satisfaction with male partners who were perceived to be feminist.
• Older men with feminist partners reported more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.

For more info, google-news "Rutgers" + "feminism".

Thoughts?

>>Older men with feminist partners reported more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.<<

err... greater than....?

How stupid is this research. It is based on an assumption that the men interviewed have 'tried out lots of women' and even then, for any comparison to be valid, MUCH data would need to be known about the women concerned...the mindset of the men at the time.. and was it the same each time...and the prevailing social conditions.. and so it goes on.

No..this is not the 'stuff of OLO debates' it is total rubbish.
Probably reflects some 'book' that one of the researchers has penned and is simply picking a volatile controversial issue to make money.

1/1/ 05 "Oh.. the ATKINS diet is the besssstest ever" (find the full story in my BOOK)
1/1/06 "Ooooh..that ATKINS diet produces awful side effects" (find the full story in my BOOK)
1/1/07 "New research confirms the ATKINS lo carb diet is really beneficial" ((find the full story in my BOOK)

annnnnd....so it goes on.

No..I haven't a clue of any of those dates have any real world significance.. just making a point.

THE BEST IN BED ARE...... those who "respect and love their husbands" and those who "love their wives as Christ loved the Church"

WHY ? simple.. because according to the good book.. it's how we are supposed to function. and.. finally...no, I don't have a 'book' to launch.. its already been written :) and its a best seller.

Its true.

My survey sample* are feminist and have brilliant relationships.

Thats 100%. Extrapolating to the population as a whole all fantastic, attractive, erudite, feminist and godly women are also brilliant in bed.

(*Sample size optimised at n=1, 95th percentile error margins either 1 or 0.)

Boazy, thanks for posting. I always like to run scientific data by a creationist.

ChrisPer, thanks for bringing your independent research to the table. I also tested the results in a controlled domestic environment, and was rewarded with a saucy arse-slap and a resounding "you betcha, babe!" Nice days work.

Ha, botheration, priceless!

Next time I receive insults from a misogynist on OLO I'll know what kind of boring sex life he must have. : +)

Botheration wrote:

"This research simply seems made for an OLO debate"

THERE IS NOTHING TO DEBATE. Of course it's true.

It's as obvious and well-established as evolution.

Oops, I forgot.

There are people who still "debate" the fact of evolution.

Feminists better in bed? That's like saying, "Librarians are novel lovers." Or, "Architects have huge erections." Or, "Accountants know how to score." et cetera. In our society there are vast individual differences in the way men and women interpret their roles. This is to be expected in a society whose hallmarks are choice and diversity.
However, research into the sexual practices of people is very limited and often unreliable.

The greatest obstacle is the difficulty of surveying a representative, random sample of the population. It's easy enough to discover how people will vote or which brand of soap they use, but it is much more difficult for researchers to inquire in depth into the sex lives of complete strangers. Understandably, many of those sampled will refuse to respond. Since these people differ in unknown but perhaps significant ways from those who are willing to answer, the results of the survey may be biased.

In addition, many who do answer may not always tell the truth. No sex researchers have yet been able to fully overcome these problems.
Having said that I will add that in general, sexual attitudes have become more permissive. One interesting effect of the changing relationship of the sexes is that the responsibility for a successful sexual encounter has been largely shifted from the female to the male encounter. A common problem in the past was female "frigidity" - the inability of a woman to achieve orgasm or even to enjoy sex.

Today, "frigidity" has all but disappeared; instead, the same problem is more likely to be labeled as one of poor "performance" by the male.

Foxy, as usual, you wander in with good sense and compassion. You are quite right about sexual surveys - though there have been comprehenisve and ground-breaking surveys, like Kinsey's, it is very common for people to lie. Men routinely exagurate the amount of partners they've had, while women underestimate, leading to an impossible imbalance.

Nevertheless, it seems entirely possible to me that people in relationships in which they view each other and social and intellectual equals – who honestly admire and like each other on many levels – are going to have a raunchier sex life than those invested in outmoded gender roles. I'm certainly not surprised by these findings.

By the way, Boazy, you cited this:
>>Older men with feminist partners reported more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.<<

And wondered, "err... greater than....?"

It means that older ("older" means older than the other, college-aged group in this survey) men with feminist partner reported more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction than older men whose partners did not consider themselves feminists. Sorry the original article wasn't clearer - I just cut and pasted it.

I think everyone should note that the findings were true for both women who considered themselves feminists and MEN who considered themselves feminists

Hi Botheration.. I hope my 'creationist' credentials were duly represented :)

Steven still need some counselling though.. he is calling evolution a 'fact' :) but of course he really means (and I agree) "Natural selection" is a valid life process..

It stil bears repeating though.. the best sex is that had by people who are right with their Creator. Its a different type of sex too.. in the sense of... it is seen as part of the marraige relationship.. in context..and it is also an expression of a value system which is under God.

I think it can best be described as that which you feel when you meet that special person, who touches you so deeply, that no other matters... in the love department, you have been met at the utter depths of your soul...and being. Thats what Gods love and indwelling Spirit is like.

Yes.. I think its time for a verse :)

Philippians 4:7

7And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

COMMENT
If you don't know it..... it means you don't have it. Even when you do have it, you won't fully understand it, So.. perhaps some introspection and reflection is in order ?

According to recent articles we're now entering a period of stability rather than flux in sexual norms, values, and practices, and there is general agreement among researchers that the sexual revolution which characterized the 1970s is over. Opinion polls show substantial tolerance of diversity in sexual behaviour, but they also show a continued commitment to marital fidelity and a declining interest in promiscuity.

The epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases may have played a part in this trend, but it also seems that the sexual climate now calls for caring and commitment rather than rebellion and experimentation.

The most important result of the past years of change, perhaps, has been widespread acceptance of newer concepts of sexual morality.

Many people still adhere to the stern rules of earlier generations, and seem not to believe in sexual morality at all. But increasingly, judgements about right and wrong in sexual matters are based on the attitude that moral behaviour is that which involves mutual affection and respect and does no physical or psychological harm to those involved. Of course the real question mark hanging over contemporary sexual attitudes and practices is AIDS.

We are used to associate sex with the most loving, life-giving human impulses. The equation of sex with death is something our culture is utterly unprepared for, and wrenching changes are needed to deal with it.

nonsense. thousands of years of practical experience have demonstrated that a 'master-slave' relationship provides the best sex. that's why moslems have 4 wives and as many concubines as they can afford.

sensible people, moslems. jews and mormons too, when they can escape the strictures of capitalist civilization.

capitalists by comparison achieve the similar results with mistresses, at much greater expense. they have to use 'chains' of gold and diamonds, furs and apartment titles. this poisons their relationship with doubt about who is the slave.

feminists, of course, agree with this analysis. they just disagree about who should be the slave. their current freedom to excel in commerce gives them the power to at least keep a toy-boy or two. but they are not satisfied: they want a stable with supplicant studs in leather straps. i'm available...

Nice one, botheration - but for once I agree with Steven: there's no debate needed, it's self evident.

Many years ago, as an undergraduate student, I used to wear a button that proclaimed proudly "Women on Top!"

In the intervening quarter century, nothing much has changed in that department :)

Dear CJ,

"Women on Top" ... As you point out CJ, nothing much has changed in the last quarter century.

Interaction between men and women carry symbolic meanings that may not be immediately obvious.

For example, the "door ceremony," in which men open doors for women, symbolically reinforces the idea of female dependency and delicacy, while asserting men's paternalism and control. Although on the surface it seems no more than a courtesy, the ceremony helps underscore existing patterns of inequality - which is one reason why a woman who opened doors for men would draw reactions of discomfort rather than gratitude.

Just as interesting as the question "why" men open doors for women is the question of "which" doors they open for women: certainly not the symbolic doors that lead to positions of power, wealth, and influence...

‘Oils aint oils’
It would be interesting to know what the surveyors’ definition of a ’feminist’ was –and whether all respondents’ shared that definition…

‘Oils aint oils’
It would be interesting to know if the surveyors’ & respondents’ shared the same mental gauge –which measured ‘good sex’ on the same scale…

‘Oil aint oils’
It would be interesting to know if one survey– amongst one population – however well constructed, could give meaningful results…

Ah but, who needs to know about oils when you have –‘good sex’

Foxy, your point about door opening is very interesting. I am not sure that it meant to be a demeaning assertion of the power of men over women, but I would certainly agree that its a power thing. The person in power opens the door and ushers through the other. I am a female professional, and when ushering clients to my office, always open and hold the door for them, male or female. Its not really something that I have given a lot of thought to, it just seemed the polite thing to do, but really I guess it reinforces that fact that I am leading the way. I know I certainly get uncomfortable when someone pre-empts me and gets the door instead.

Country Gal,

You got it in one. It is a power thing!

A power thing in some situations - courtesy in others.

I'm in the habit of opening or holding doors for others (both male and female when the circumstances seem appropriate). No sense of power in it that I've ever noticed. I appreciate it when others open or hold a door for me.

The following may diverge from the original topic but is in my view relevant to the comments about power and door opening.

William Farrel had some interesting points to make about the supposed power nature of the stuff that men have traditionally been expected to do for women in his book "The Myth of Male Power". Change the differentiation of the players from gender to race and ask who the roles would suggest has the power.

If a coloured person is expected to give up a seat for a white person on public transport is that because they have more power in society? If a coloured person is supposed to open the door and hold it open so the white person can go through is that because they have more power?

Watch a powerful person who enjoys the trappings of power get into or out of a car and see how often they have hired help to open the door.

Try it on anything where the roles are assumed to be about power and see if it holds. Sometimes it will, others will seem very much off the mark.

We needed/(still need) feminism to address some significant gender based limitations of opportunity for women and men. That does not make all the claims put forward valid. I suspect that in most cases things like opening doors are a mark of servanthood rather than an experession of power.

R0bert

Explain OLO please

Social life is saturated with messages about which sex is dominant and about how men and women ought to behave. In particular, all forms of the mass media, from television soap operas to the lyrics of popular songs, tend to emphasize fairly traditional gender stereotypes.

Perhaps the most insidious of these media presentations is the one commonly offered in advertising. Women are typically portrayed either as sex objects, in an attempt to market various products to men, or as domesticated housewives, in order to market home-maintenance products to women.

Market research has shown that one of the most effective ways for advertisers to reach a male audience is to associate a product, however remotely, with a seductive smiling female. The sexuality of women is thus exploited by having glamourous models stroking new automobiles, cradling bottles of whiskey, or being sent into raptures by the odour of a particular after-shave.

Advertising directed at women, on the other hand, shows females delighted beyond measure at the discovery of a new instant soup, or thrilled into ecstasy by the blinding whiteness of their wash or toilet bowl. In fact, the vast majority of television adds that use women models are for kitchen or bathroom products.

When men and women appear together in adds, the men are always shown as taller than the women. The women never hold the advertised product in a firm grasp, and are rarely seen giving the men instructions.
The eyes of the men in adds focus on the product or on important people, but the eyes of the women focus on the men, whom they gaze at or cling to in apparent admiration. In fact, what is remarkable about advertising is how little its gender stereotypes have changed over the past quarter century. Men are the voice of authority on 80 percent of television commercials, including those directed at women.

At the core of the inequality of men and women is the difference in their earnings. Unequal earnings are a constant reminder of the broader social inequality of the sexes. "He who pays the piper calls the tune."

Dear Phoenix 94,

OLO is 'On line opinion.' So what's yours?

Foxy what's with the off topic moving target? That's not your normal style.

I disagree with your interpretation of some things and think that you are taking a very one dimensional view of the issue, the adds you describe exist but so to do the ones where the woman is in control and the male is a bumbling buffon.

Pay differences exist but depending on who you believe they may have more to do with career choices than a gender based division of power.

Your points about power are a very one sided portrayal of the issue which ignores completely other indicators which might paint a different picture - deaths in the workplace, expected lifespan, suicide rates etc.

Both women and men have suffered from roles and gender stereotypes imposed on them by society. Things that probably have had some relevance in the past but have much less now.

We need to work together to open up opportunities for both genders to undertake roles traditionally the domain of the other, not to ignore the issues facing one gender as we focus on the percieved benefits available to that gender.

R0bert

Dear Robert,

I'm not having a good day ...I've just been told at work - that I'm
not going to receive the promotion that I was promised a year ago for the job that I've been 'unofficially' doing all year. They want me to continue doing the job, but they aren't prepared to recognise it -
'officially.' (As in more money - and correct title). I love my job, but ...

Dear Robert,

I forgot to add:

Men only call themselves 'feminists' in the hope of getting a more intelligent root.
Kathy Lette.

Hey Foxy. Sorry to hear you got done over. Time to start looking around for something else?

Yeah, Foxy, so sorry to hear about you getting shafted. In a manner of speaking.

So much of this goes on in the workplace and it really sux the big one. Even though you love your job I also would think its time to start looking for a new one even if, on one level, you might consider it cutting off your nose to spite your face. Who knows, if you give in your notice they might realise they need you enough to actually pay you what you're worth?

What also sux is how we were always told as kids that if we worked hard for something we would get rewarded. Yeah. Right.

Foxy, do you prefer Kathy or Foxy?
I'm sorry to hear about the junk at work. That sounds very crappy.

Hope I'm not adding to your bad day, I generally like the honesty of your posts so I'm not trying to pick on you.

I don't generally call myself a feminist, but sometimes it's the closest label I can find to describe my preference for equality of opportunity regardless of gender.

I'm feminist when feminism is about a fair go for women and men, not when it's about dumping on men. Feminism has given us the tools and language to talk about gender issues. It's made it relatively easy for people to consider stepping outside traditional gender roles. I'm a full time single dad and that role is made easier by the awareness of gender issues which feminism has created.

I hope your week gets better and that you find a way to turn the stuff at work into to something good.

R0bert

All interesting posts!
My 2 cents, I believe most its about overcoming your "conditioning"
As a child and then in middle age we are conditioned to represent the "norm" By being introduced to to the "abnormal" most fall into two categories. One of curiosity as to anothers belief, alternately to deny an alternative position.
So you have the curious and the fixed. Personally I did it the hard way, first I was a denyalist, then curiosity overcame my fixed perceptions.
All made for an interesting life!!
fluff4

foxy: "Men only call themselves 'feminists' in the hope of getting a more intelligent root. Kathy Lette."

Well I've never actually called myself a 'feminist', but I have noticed over the years that women like to be treated as equals and tend to respond accordingly :)

Re Foxy's work situation - aren't you supposedly able to just go out and get a better job and negotiate more equitable treatment these days? I thought that's what WorkChoices is all about - you've never had it better, Foxy!

Thanks everyone for your comments. I apologise for having gone off the mark - it was inappropriate to whinge about my workplace situation.

I just find it frustrating that in corporate and other workplaces, women find themselves promoted - up to a point.

Women may be 44 percent of the work force, but they are less than 5 percent of the senior executives; they may be 71 percent of class-room teachers, but they are only 2 percent of school principals; they may be half the population, but they have very few seats on boards of the nation's leading corporations.

Why do women stop short of the top? One reason, no doubt, is the attitude of many men. Corporate leadership is a kind of old-boy network; there is no old-girl network to speak of. There are still many men who feel a woman should be at home, or in bed, or having babies -(look at the criticism of Julia Gillard) - rather than hiring, firing, and ordering men around.

In an atmosphere of often earthy male comaraderie, the combination of female competence and sexual attractiveness can be unsettling and even threatening. Another reason may be that the socialization process tends to produce women who lack the self-confidence and determination to compete with men for career goals.

Women are taught from childhood to be nice, to defer to men, to listen without interrupting, to be supportive rather than competitive.
The few women who do rise toward the top tend to be those who have learned to behave in some respects in a "masculine" and assertive way,
for this is the style that the corporate world understands.

Other women, whose management style is less abrasive and more caring, are - thus far - less appreciated at the higher levels of the corporate culture.

Anyway, I won't say any more on this subject - and I again apologise for this little rant. One thing I don't want to be is - boring!

Dear Botheration,

You asked what gender am I on one of my other posts... I'm a female, in my fourties, of Russian ancestry, married, with two children...