They Say It's The Package In The Back Of Your Pants, Boys
Men with big bucks give women a better bang, according to some recent research. Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor of the Times of London writes of a study that links the frequency of a woman's orgasm's to a man's bank balance. Hmmm...does that include really repellant to pretty-much unfuckable wealthy men, or is there no cutoff for the physically undersexy and perhaps underbathed?
"Women's orgasm frequency increases with the income of their partner," said Dr Thomas Pollet, the Newcastle University psychologist behind the research.He believes the phenomenon is an "evolutionary adaptation" that is hard-wired into women, driving them to select men on the basis of their perceived quality.
However, it fits into a wider body of research known as evolutionary psychology which suggests that both men and women are genetically predisposed to ruthlessly exploit each other to achieve the best chances of survival for their genes.
The female orgasm is the focus of much research because it appears to have no reproductive purpose. Women can become pregnant whatever their pleasure levels.
Pollet, and Professor Daniel Nettle, his co-author, believed, however, that the female orgasm is an evolutionary adaptation that drives women to choose and retain high-quality partners.
He and Nettle tested that idea using data gathered in one of the world's biggest lifestyle studies. The Chinese Health and Family Life Survey targeted 5,000 people across China for in-depth interviews about their personal lives, including questions about their sex lives, income and other factors. Among these were 1,534 women with male partners whose data was the basis for the study.
They found that 121 of these women always had orgasms during sex, while 408 more had them "often". Another 762 "sometimes" orgasmed while 243 had them rarely or never. Such figures are similar to those for western countries.
And yes, in case you're wondering, I'm guessing the figures for "number of Chinese people lying on sex surveys" may be similar as well.
But, let's say the study is right: Two possibilities -- first, that people who aren't as stressed out about making ends meet can relax and have more fun in bed, and second, that the men become sexier to the women because they're rich (per the way men evolved to seek beautiful women and women evolved to go for providers).
Interestingly, there's a lot of feminist hue and cry about "lookism," but little or none about girls who are golddiggers. Or grls. Or wimyn. Etcetera.
The article is here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5537017.ece
The comments are fascinating. Some dispute the results (a study of 5000 women) based on personal experience (a study of 1 woman). Others make capital (women as gold-diggers versus men as beasts). And lots aim to "explain" the results in various ways, usually with the intention of undermining the research.
Norman at January 19, 2009 2:20 AM
> the men become sexier to the
> women because they're rich
A man who's achieved wealth is more likely to be aggressive and alert and energetic, right?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 19, 2009 5:37 AM
Crid - no, I'd say a young stud was more likely to be aggressive and alert and energetic. Richer generally means older, because it usually takes time to acquire wealth.
Same problem with polygyny - it's the old guys who can afford multiple wives, the young ones have to make do with imaginary virgins.
Norman at January 19, 2009 6:22 AM
Norman, here in Hollywood, I like to call it the "Eastwood effect": Seven kids by five women. (Quincy Jones did that too.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 19, 2009 7:25 AM
It falls under "Thank you Captain Obvious" to point out that a significant percentage of women are attracted to men's bank accounts, but I think what will also be a notable causative factor is that men with more money are also going to be more *confident*, and women love confidence like men love a hot body.
DavidJ at January 19, 2009 7:29 AM
This is a serious study? I wonder who the women were...? My BF is pretty sizeable in both departments, but I wouldn't necessarily tell him to take a hike if he didn't have any money. I mean, really, Freewheelin' Franklin said "Pot will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no pot." Sex is better than pot, or money, IMNSHO. And if I needed money, I could always sell some sex, eh? o.O
(...women love confidence like men love a hot body.
This is very true, too, although I've known a few really shitty (and monetarily lacking) guys who came off as being totally confident, only to be found out to be the shits they really were when it was too late for the women involved!)
Flynne at January 19, 2009 7:57 AM
Women, actually, seem to have evolved to prefer men with status and potential. People didn't have "holdings" in the Pleistocene, except what they could carry with them.
Lucky for me, pot makes me feel like somebody clocked me with a frying pan, so I can make do with only money. I've had pretty good success with earning my own, so far. And I've always found it cheapest to give away sex for free.
Amy Alkon at January 19, 2009 8:03 AM
DavidJ - Captain Obvious might well say that "a significant percentage of women are attracted to men's bank accounts." But the research identifies money as a main factor. I expect they have done a factor analysis and quantified the effect of each factor. If so it's a bit more than the useless captain has to offer.
Norman at January 19, 2009 8:15 AM
"The female orgasm is the focus of much research because it appears to have no reproductive purpose. Women can become pregnant whatever their pleasure levels."
That seems an odd point of view. You'd think that more orgasms = more sex = more pregnancies. Other species don't seem to go in for female orgasms much, and they get by. Some species presumably don't even go for male orgasms. For honey bees and preying mantises, sex = death for the male, so there can't be much point in an orgasm.
Norman at January 19, 2009 8:31 AM
>> so there can't be much point in an orgasm.
That is the thought I won't be able to get out of my head today.
Eric at January 19, 2009 8:58 AM
"And I've always found it cheapest to give away sex for free."
I know, that's exactly how I do it.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 19, 2009 9:12 AM
One thing I've never said to my b/f is, "Oh baby, your paycheck makes me so hot!" But I agree with Amy that people who have less stress can relax more & have more fun. In bed and out. And financial stress is one of the biggest types there is.
Sandy at January 19, 2009 9:21 AM
Good to know all this time it's just the shitty economy and not my lack of foreplay skills.
smurfy at January 19, 2009 10:22 AM
Foreplay. The word is wrong. It's *all* play.
Norman at January 19, 2009 11:08 AM
If the woman has less stress because the man has a cash stash, it can only mean that he's paying more than his share. It's not just that he's rich, but that he's providing her with stuff. That hypothesis should be testable.
Norman at January 19, 2009 11:13 AM
"One thing I've never said to my b/f is, "Oh baby, your paycheck makes me so hot!""Sandy
but would he have ever made it to boyfriend if he had been a slacker?
seems like this is why it's pay for play on a date, at least form an evolutionary standpoint...
so do we have an "ism" for needing wealth? I mean it's only fair if there is lookism, their should be something for that wealth requirement.
Interesting how lookism is only an issue with well bred humans in advanced cultures. I doubt anyone else has the time to worry over it.
SwissArmyD at January 19, 2009 1:06 PM
We are supposed to be the most similar to the bonobo monkeys who use sex for conflict prevention. The females have sex with everyone including each other, and I think the males do too, and then I guess they're all just too blissed out to fight. Human females should be doing the same!
Chrissy at January 19, 2009 1:28 PM
"but would he have ever made it to boyfriend if he had been a slacker?" ~SwissArmyD
I've had a few slacker boyfriends, and one of them even made it to husband. But honestly, I don't know if my current beau would have made it to boyfriend if he had been a slacker. My standards have changed due to having to support the one I was married to. Not saying I want to be supported, just that I'm glad my man is self-sufficient.
Sandy at January 20, 2009 9:47 AM
Heh, I think it's a bonus when both parties in a relationship are self-sufficient! o.O
Flynne at January 20, 2009 10:10 AM
Definitely, Flynne.
Sandy at January 20, 2009 11:17 AM
Eww, bonobos can keep that. Do you really want to have sex with everyone? That stinky guy on heh subway included? The girl with fuzzy teeth? Some standards, pelase!
momof3 at January 20, 2009 12:43 PM
Just so long as we don't need to have sex with bonobos.
Norman at January 20, 2009 2:24 PM
This reminds me of the private school my son goes to, and the women there. I have to scratch and scrimp for the $12,000 a year for a 1st grader, while most of the folks are rich with their BMW's, and range rovers. Anyway, I found it interesting that out of all the 1st graders in the school, my son was the only one with divorced parents. I wondered if that was strange, and now I know that money CAN buy love. Why would someone divorce a man who made a million a year? It would be foolish. The point is that in this day of huge divorce rates and even lower marriage rates, these families all manage to have perfect marriages???? Money is the answer. They probably have more orgasms too, in their huge mansions...ha!
mike at January 22, 2009 4:51 AM
The most interesting aspect for me is that :
a. There were differences found in experiencing orgasm in a sample of women
b. These differences correlated to the amount of money their men made
This simple findings alone suffice to create various forms of logical creativity to account for the perceived mismatch between what is and what ought.
As we might expect from scientists working in evolutionary sciences, the researchers themselves pose a hypothesis as to how these findings might be a part of an evolutionary ‘strategy’.
In 2005 the Times published another article about this subject which stated that female orgasm’s are a hereditary trait. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article531094.ece . Combining these two might yield some interesting possible coping mechanisms, to be filed under ‘What’s a girl gotto do?’ (to name a few possibilities):
- She finds out that she has the right gene-pool and, going against her emotions (that will give her the wrong impression that about any men will do) advertises herself as build from the right genetic material and thereby enhancing the possibilities of any feminine offspring that might be the result of her offspring and will actively search for the best material provision for their offspring
- She finds out that she doesn’t have the right gene-pool and faces a moral dilemma. She can either lie about her orgasms for whatever reasons and running the risk of being caught in a lie but, with the possibilities of the latest law, still attain a remarkable material compensation for lying. (How’s that boys ?). In this case, the moral guilt of depriving other women, that have the right gene-pool but are deprived of the best possibilities, remains. A new-age course in modern spiritualism might help to reconnect in this case. Or, she faces a horrible truth and settles for both a less earning man and by this fact alone decreases her ability to experience orgasms with him. But she has no moral guilt, and thereby earns a place in heaven.
Ivo Vos at January 22, 2009 3:24 PM
"Money is the answer. They probably have more orgasms too, in their huge mansions...ha!"
*Oh, darling* she moaned as she slid across the 800-thread-count Egyptian cotton sheets with hand-stitched embroidery imported by the most exclusive shop on Rodeo Drive, *I love you*!
This stuff writes itself.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 23, 2009 8:38 PM
Leave a comment