HAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

I didn’t read it that way. The previous paragraphs only referred to whether women thought it was *important* to have sex in a marriage, ie whether marital harmony and sexual satisfaction were related. Most women said no. It didn’t refer to sexual satisfaction or actual quantity/quality of sex, etc, etc. The later paragraph (the one you’re objecting to) referred to whether they were satisfied with their sex lives.

What would annoy *me* about this article (if I thought these surveys were sufficiently interesting to be annoyed about them…) is the fact that it never defined what it meant to be satisfied with sex. That women think that sexual satisfaction and marital happiness is unrelated has no bearing on that women who are satisfied with their marriages are satisfied with their sex lives.

In other words, the article says little about quantity of sex, which is the root of Twisty’s complaint. But it confuses correlation and causation by omitting that crucial piece of data. Which always chaps *my* hide.

In a patriarchy, “satisfied with one’s sex life” always means “has a lot of sex.” It never, ever means “content to have little or no sex.”

And still doesn’t validate what appears to be your interpretation, because it means that the article wasn’t assuming that their views were invalid.

Your apparent interpretation would only be correct if the article established a relationship between womens views on the need for sex with the actual reality of sex in marriage, regardless of patriarchal assumptions about the quantity. It never did. It merely said that though women didn’t think sex was important, there was a correlation. It would have tipped over into your interpretation if it had said that women’s marital satisfaction was caused by sexual satisfaction—particularly given patriarchy’s frequent frigidity accusation.

So it stopped short with a bad statistical assumption.

Actually I take this back. It would have fallen under your interpretation if it had actually bothered to connect views on the *importance* of sex in marriage with the relationship between quantity of sex and actual satisfaction. Instead it said something like,

“Despite the fact that some children don’t like fresh fruit, children who eat fruit report more frequent trips to the playground.”

That’s what annoys me about articles like this. I hate statistics.

What I’m saying is that this study accounts for an apparent disparity in its results by assuming that the women are prevaricating or are, at the very least, being disingenuous. If half of your respondents are lying, what good is your study?

“What I’m saying is that this study accounts for an apparent disparity in its results by assuming that the women are prevaricating or are, at the very least, being disingenuous. If half of your respondents are lying, what good is your study?”

With the “what good is your study”, I’d say you are completely correct, given the article, which is a summary of some much larger work that’s probably only available in Korean. The article SUXX0Rz and if it’s a reasonable summary so does the study—at least its logic and conclusions.

My point otherwise is that you can’t conclude that they are saying that the female respondents are being disingenuous. The could also just as well be saying that the women are themselves simply unaware of this relationship). At best you can say that they think that the result is counterintuitive, even though there’s no actual logical connection ever established—and the counterintuitive interpretation comes from the article-writer, not the institute, as far as we know.

The article is just bad.

It seems that this could also point to a society where a woman’s wishes simply don’t matter. So the assumption is that women don’t need sex just like they don’t need to sit down with their husband when he eats, but should stand behind him and serve the food.