Women have orgasms from bigger bank accounts

Saw this in the news this morning ... I guess my wife must be an exception, because I certainly am not rich.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5536873.ece

The Chinese Health and Family Life Survey targeted 5,000 people across China to conduct in-depth interviews about their personal lives, including detailed questions about their sex lives, income and other factors. Among these were 1,534 women with male partners whose data formed the basis for the study.

They found that 121 of these women always had orgasms during sex, while 408 had them “often”. Another 762 “sometimes” orgasmed, while 243 had them rarely or never.

There were, of course, several factors at work in causing such differences but, said Pollet, money was one of the main ones. He said: “We found that increasing partner income had a highly positive effect on women’s self-reported frequency of orgasm. More desirable mates cause women to experience more orgasms.”

This is not an effect limited to Chinese women. Previous research in Germany and America has found similar responses.

Huh, makes perfect sense to me.

I have them rarely/never, and my bf is not unwealthy.

I would ask whether they accounted for all the other things that a higher income can provide that might have had a more direct effect than the amount of money in the bank account. Like increased leisure time, increased sense of security, better health care, better aesthetic care, easier access to child care (meaning it's easier to have "just us time")...

Maddie beat me to it.

Maddie is correct. CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.

edited 8th Feb '11 6:18:08 PM by silver2195

No no of course it is, this study is telling men to throw wads of cash at the women they're having sex with. Makes perfect sense to me.

Maybe higher income = better sex ed.

@ Silver 2195

Um, in Madraguda's statement, the increased wealth is still the cause, just indirectly.

More desirable mates cause women to experience more orgasms.

Well, duh!

I was hoping this thread was going to be about women looking at surprisingly positive bank statements and spontaneously orgasming.

You're a millionaire? moans

edited 8th Feb '11 8:08:24 PM by LeighSabio

THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN TEST THIS FOR SURE IS TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY HAD SEX WHILE ON A MOUNTAIN OF MONEY!

ahem...

Correlation is not causation. This study is misleading. The information itself is valuable, but would be more so if they followed it up.

I was hoping this thread was going to be about women looking at surprisingly positive bank statements and spontaneously orgasming.

You weren't the only one >.>

Maybe all those rap music videos are onto something!

Now I need to acquire ludicrous currency!

Great, more attempts to find "scientific" backing for the idea that men should have more power than women.

See women! It's better for your sex life and general happiness if you date a man socially and economically superior to you! Hey everyone, giving women power is destructive to the human species, as women are only interested in men more powerful than them, it's scientifically proven! I have a degree in Evolutionary Psychology! If we don't unempower women, the human species will die! Nobody will ever have any kids! Kill the homosexuals! Enslave the women! ... And all is right with the Patriarchal world.

It's China; what do you expect?

@ Ukonkivi: Your strawman fallacy is showing. When did the article say anything about superiority?

I think the general point of the article is that people love money.

What the study shows: the more wealth a man has, the higher his value as a long-term mate, because of greater ability to provide things like Maddy listed.

How the study gets strawmanned:

(Jump tp 3:07)

God, everyone's using "strawman" here. I give up trying to be pacifistic and say "oh, forgive me, I was feeling very emotional! I hope you don't all hate me."

Using hyperbole from time to time doesn't mean you're some offensive raving lunatic. This is not a Strawman, I essentially believe that this is the agenda behind such claims. I see this as a very likely reasoning behind such claims. People have been trying to use "science" to back sexism for years. And in this case, they're saying yet again, that women are attracted to more powerful men. The natural line of logic progression follows like this: It is in women's biological psychology to desire a stronger man. Women hold out their pregnancy for an "able" man. Therefor, for population/reproduction, men need to eclipse women in terms of power. Therefor, the empowered woman reduces population. It's not hard to draw the obvious implicit meanings from such things. Or attack what you see as a problematic tendency.

There's no "Strawman" here, this is a totally logical things to suspect someone doing this of. There's nothing wrong with using hyperbole to draw together a point. And the culture here against doing this here as loud, irrational, annoying, emotional, insane, offensive, and so forth, is getting annoying.

What Mad said. Also what Uki said.

And what horrid reporting. First of all, the subtitle says "Women’s sexual pleasure is directly linked to their partner’s wealth, says new research". And then: Of course it's only evaluating women, not men. Talk about fishing for conclusions. And the article isn't even trying to be neutral about it: it's basically saying "Go get yourselves a rich guy, ladies! It's the only way to have good sex and be happy!"

edited 8th Feb '11 11:24:16 PM by jewelleddragon

Nowhere in the study did it say that a powerful/rich man had to be more powerful than a powerful/rich woman. As a matter of fact, I'd imagine that women felt best when both partners were rich/successful.

Ukon: What...? I'm sorry it seems like you drawing conclusions from ostensibly nothing.

edited 8th Feb '11 11:12:20 PM by MarkVonLewis