Why rich men are better in bed: Women have more orgasms with wealthy partners, study finds
[PDF of article]

This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, as pointed out in the article. According to the article, women have more orgasms with rich guys. But what about women who make more than their male partner, the ones who have plenty of money? Those who make enough money to be financially independent. Are they doomed to have pleasureless sex for the rest of their lives?

In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.
– Tony Montana

Evolutionary science is becoming more and more popular, and I believe it is steadily making its way into pop culture. Its theories are not exactly common knowledge just yet, but I think it’s only a matter of time until most people will have learned various tidbits in that field.

For example, evolutionary “science” says that I will prefer a younger woman with long hair, probably blonde hair so because it catches the eye and is rarer. Also, because it is easier to tell the health of her hair if it is lighter. I will prefer blue eyes because it is easier to see signs of attraction (dilating pupils) in lighter eyes. I will prefer a woman who has wide hips because she will be more suited to bearing children. I will prefer a woman with larger breasts because it is indicative of her ability to provide for my child, and also because it is easier to notice the symmetry of her breasts.

I’m tired of all these gotdang studies and trying to figure out men and women. It’s all asinine. Malissa had chestnut hair. She was tall and rather skinny. Her eyes were brown. She had none of the evolutionarily attractive traits that are so highly regarded. I fell in love with her because of her personality, her mannerisms, and a bunch of other things that had nothing to do with my supposed evolutionary instincts. When will we see that we can overcome these base animal instincts? It is in a man’s genes to spread his seed, to find the youngest and healthiest women to bear his child. It is not even necessarily in his instincts to raise those children, only to impregnate the woman. It is in a woman’s genes to find the most suitable man to mate with, to receive his superior genetic material so that her offspring will be better than the rest of the competition. Nowhere in her is she coded to require that the father be the one who sires the children. She can bring in another man to raise the children.

Yet there are happy families. There are pair bonds that remain completely faithful for the entirety of the relationship,sometimes ones that last until death. I doubt we were genetically coded to enjoy YouTube videos and to enjoy being whipped by a dominatrix. Human beings are human because we are sentient creatures with a large amount of cerebral matter. Whether we were the creation of God or not, I don’t believe that humanity as a whole go to where it is today by doing nothing but listening to our most primal instincts. Otherwise, we’d really be like animals.

The fact is that we do NOT live in an animal kingdom. We live in a world created by humans who were bright enough to stop concentrating on eating and fucking, smart enough to think about more intellectual matters like science and engineering. We have the modern metropolis, automobiles, space shuttles, supercomputers, all because we did something with our brains. We have great writers and philosophers, we have TV shows and movies, all because we are beings with gray matter.

I think that these studies are excuses for people to behave in unacceptable ways. They’re reasons and justifications for people, a license for women to be gold diggers and for men to cheat on their wives. These studies are great for educational purposes, sure. But I wouldn’t put too much stock in them. I don’t care much about evolutionary science for practical purposes. Why look back? Sure, millions of years of evolution shape just about everything about who we are. But why not look to the future? Why not take control? Why fall back into the safety of these studies that pardon us for bad behavior?

I have faith in men and women. I think at this point I need it…people are usually scumbags one way or another. Perhaps my idealism needs to be checked…sigh.

Addendum: Why Women Have Better Sex With Rich Men [PDF]

If female humans have acquired the ability to have powerful orgasms, they argue, then women will have evolved that ability for a reason. “Women’s capacity for orgasm could be an evolutionary adaptation that serves to discriminate between males on the basis of their quality,” said Pollet. “If so, then it should be more frequent in females paired with high-quality males.”

This, I don’t understand. From an evolutionary point of view, there is no contraceptive to be used during sex. If a female is having sex with a male, it should be assumed that at the end of the mating, she will have received his genetic material regardless of whether or not she orgasms. I am aware that a there is some kind of improvement of the reception of the sperm when a woman orgasms, but frankly, I think she’s gonna get knocked up either way. Having an orgasm does not help her determine the quality of a mate BEFORE the deed.

  • The researchers found several factors influenced the women's enjoyment of sex. However, one of the biggest turned out to be the income of their partner.

    How the fuck can you be at that level of education/research and still get tripped up by causality vs. correlation? I learned that shit in high school.

  • That's what everyone was saying on Digg.com lol

    And I really am tired of all these bullshit studies….

  • Gary

    On this topic, I think it's quite easy to get lost in the blur between love and sex. It's important to keep in mind, that the two are distinct, even though there's a strong ideological tendency for the amalgamation of the two. That's where the problem lies.

    I think the original study's intent- not neccessarily the article, focused on sex as a discrete entity in the objective sense. Sure, there are problems with this, as in the social sciences, it's seldom and difficult to isolate and measure specific phenomena. In anycase, the case for the union of love and sex is a subjective, social construct. I'm sure these guys knew that.

    Which is why I don't think that these studies are meant to encourage any sort of regression into animalism nor attack the idea of love. Rather, they are simply looking at sex from an objective, naturalistic viewpoint- not sex as love.

    The evolutionary psychology arguement for the preference of blondes, light colored eyes and all that- speaks only in terms of sex, not love. I doubt anyone is trying to dictate whom people should fall in love with, nor is it excuse making since there are studies that show that what they are saying is quite true.

    Put quite bluntly, there are a lot of hot women out there that men would like to fuck, but love is an entirely different matter. You may check someone out because they're good looking, but that's an entirely different matter from falling in love with them. What evolutionary psychology explains, is why some people are beautiful and others aren't.

    Love itself is a much more complicated, social phenomena. From a more holistic point of view, with evolutionary psychology and sociology in play, I'd say that love was a neccessary "meme" that came about as a social cohesive for modern 19-20th century civilization and reinforcement of the family strategy.

    From a historical point of view, it's more of a modern, Western idea than anything. Travel back in time to ancient civilizations, or even today in areas less influenced by European imperialism and I doubt people would care much for "love." For them, the intimate close social relationship between man and woman is more a matter of survival and even then, still somewhat distant from sex.

    As a self-proclaimed nihilist and one who has abandoned conventional and traditional notions, I have to disagree that "free sex" is neccessarily unacceptable and inherently bad.

    I've enjoyed reading your posts on love in the past and still continue to do so. I don't really care much for the ideological injection of "romance" and pure love and hence I don't comment on such matters. I do, however, agree fundamentally that love is an important facilitator of the life partnership of two people, I think the family "strategy" is still relevant for people like you and I, without radical lifestyles.

    That said, I think the biological undercurrents are still strong in the family "strategy"- in fact, it is the entire basis of it. I'm using as an extreme here as an example, but no one would date a bum. Women do look for someone powerful. Men do look for someone attractive.

    In anycase, I don't think it's permissable to use a moralistic or ideologically charged discourse here. Nothing is concrete and people behave as freely as the natural flow of things permit. Why adhere to an extremist ideological dogma, and even moreso, why criticize people for simply being people?

    Tony Montana, whoever he is, he's right! I don't think it's just this country. Money is a measure of a man's value, beauty is a woman's. I'm talking about sexual value here. Love is another, much more complicated story but in all modesty, it comes after the initial sexual attraction.

  • Great to hear from you Gary. You've written a rather well constructed comment. Tony Montana is played by Al Pacino in the Brian De Palma film "Scarface".

    Because this is an inherently emotional topic for me, I can't seem to come up with a cohesive response. But here's my attempt at one.

    I'm very opinionated on this topic. I will openly admit that my ideas are judgmental. However, I am glad to say that my opinions are not borne from some religion. I don't conform to "traditional" or "conventional" ideas. My beliefs are my own. That they happen to fit into some conservative view is a coincidence. I don't feel that I'm following any extremist ideology, only a system of values that I have consciously built.

    Perhaps I'm being too idealistic, too "transcendent", but I refuse to be a slave to physical and sexual attraction. I don't check girls out because there isn't a girl out there that is so gotdang sexually attractive that I'd have to ogle her. Physical beauty, sexual attraction, it can be manufactured. The idea I'm trying to express is this: I have gone past the point of being interested in a female because she is pretty. I have carved away most of that base desire in my mind. Instead, I judge a woman on her character, her personality. The physical, to a certain degree (for I cannot claim to be perfectly free of superficiality) no longer matters. In this way, I am most free to find a woman who is emotionally and psychologically compatible with me.

    Take for example a girl I saw on one of those dating sites I use. She was very attractive, enough to be a model or to star in Hollywood. But she was disgusting to me, and I wouldn't fuck her so long as I'm in control of my facilities. Why? Her profile had something along the lines of, "Anyone who says attraction doesn't matter is a liar." Everything about her profile screamed, "I'm a superficial blonde bimbo!" Good for her, she can easily get those rich fellows. Me, if I had a billion dollars I wouldn't want her. She's what I call a cunt.

    I am critical of people, but not for them being "people". Those
    who act without inhibition are in my eyes no better than animals. I value the ability to control oneself. If we were so free and so uninhibited, we'd have a mess on our hands.

    If we acted on every impulse that we ever got, there would be chaos. How many times have you had the urge to kill some asshole who was rude to you? How many times have you had the impulse to wipe the floor with some prick's arrogant smile? Maybe not you and I, but there are others who do. Other not so benign males with a lot of aggression and poor impulse control would surely result in a surge of murders and rapes.

    If we all acted on those thoughts and emotions, well, it would still be the survival of the fittest, a Darwinian world of animal behavior. My example is extreme, but it's the best I could come up with. With a lot of things, it's a slippery slope. And I speak from a place of experience, not theoretical knowledge. I am not judgmental from a high horse: I've been down some paths that I would rather not return to.

    "Free sex" is no foreign idea to me. I don't think it's the end of humanity that people are having casual sex. With that said, I may not be the most educated person on these matters, but the way I see it is this: if we never invented the condom or the pill, these people would have to deal with the risk of pregnancy. And then casual sex wouldn't be so casual anymore. Sure, there are various other "contraceptive" methods. But they're not very foolproof. Caving into sexual cravings is the same as giving in to the impulse to murder, rape, and to take by force: poor impulse control is probably on somewhere in the DSM-IV.

    Clearly you've got quite the academic mind when it comes to this sort of thing. Me, I don't break things down into strategies or any of that. Tony Montana is right, and it upsets me that people are judged in such ways. These studies and articles, they depress me. They depress me because they tell me that as a man, my goal in life is to work hard and make tons of money so that I can fuck a beautiful woman, who will provide me with healthy and beautiful children. When you boil it down, it looks rather bleak. There has to be more to life than eating, fucking, and making money.

    At the end of the day, it's about discipline and self-control. I've had bad thoughts, many of them. Sexual thoughts, murderous thoughts, dishonest thoughts, the whole gamut of darkness. But as was said about Batman Begins (or The Dark Knight, I forget which), self-control is like a muscle. The more you work it out, the more effective it is, the stronger it gets. I'm not saying people ought to be uptight, walking around with a stick up their asses. But I respect people who make conscious decision while being cognizant of their thought process. I respect people who have the willpower to be in control of themselves, that every decision they make is not one out of sheer whimsy or on an impulse, but one that is at least nominally thought out, and not simply later justified.

  • That would be from Batman Begins.

    Any such studies are bullshit in my opinion; does it come as any surprise that women are gold diggers? Maybe I suffer from availability bias here.