FUCKED UP BULLSHITE is this?
i'll tell you, IT'S SOME FUCKED UP UNTRUE BULLSHITE
i am SO livid i can't even express it.
i DO know women who will exploit themselves for a buck. they are not in my circle but i know them. they do NOT make up the bulk of women out there. they are SO VERY FEW it's not even worth mentioning.
there are ASSHOLES everywhere. it goes beyond gender, religion, color, status, intelligence. you're either a nice person OR YOU'RE NOT. it has nothing to do with what is between your legs
Wealthy men give women more orgasms
Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor
Scientists have found that the pleasure women get from making love is directly linked to the size of their partner’s bank balance.
They found that the wealthier a man is, the more frequently his partner has orgasms.
“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.
The study is certain to prove controversial, suggesting that women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers.
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. ................
Posts
DEBTOCRACY- A GREEK FILM WITH LESSONS FOR IRELAND
13 years ago
6 comments:
I'm afraid your reaction is all too typical when confronted with this sort of scientific data. I haven't read the study, so admittedly, I cannot comment on whether it was well-designed and controlled, and therefore whether we should accept it as valid. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the study is right, and women do experience more orgasms with wealthier partners. Let's further assume that this really is representative of some evolutionary adaptation (and not just a culturtal quirk unique to this particular group of women). Why is that offensive? It doesn't mean that women are assholes, or gold diggers--it simply means that for most of the history of our species, there was a reproductive advantage in a female's bonding herself to a good provider. I'd argue that the fact that modern women aren't simply gold diggers proves that our genetic legacy does not define our fate. Likewise, while it was once reproductively advantageous for men to impregnate as many women as possible, we nowadays see a guy who does that as reprehensible. What WAS does not define what OUGHT TO BE.
I wish people would consider this before exploding in anger when studies like this are published.
i explode in anger BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S NOT TRUE.
there is not a doubt in my mind it's not true
#1 - i don't even think 1/2 of the women out there know what an orgasm is (why? because they were taught sex is dirty and they shouldn't enjoy it. yes, i believe that). i also think some of those not in the above category are too embarrassed to tell their partner what gets them off (yes, i know this as well. FOR A FACT)
#2 - you sound fairly well read. you're just wrong here. i know what i'm talking about
#3 - the data was from a culture not our own
#4 - the data was obtained through questions not by hooking women up to an orgasm meter. women who would sleep with poor men then rich men (same woman by the way or it wouldn't be valid). i'd also have to insist the women not know if the f**kee was rich or poor
#5 - what about lesbians? do they get off on rich women or poor women or none or both?
#6 - this is one of THE most bogus 'studies' i have ever heard of
The first thing you ought to notice is that I said very clearly that I was assuming the study is valid. While I have some experience in survey research, I haven't done enough with sexual behavior to know if surveying is a reliable means of assessing female orgams.
I'll also point out that the culture in which the study is conducted may or may not be relevant: if you accept as given (as I explcitly did in my previous comment) that the study's results indicate an actual evolutionary trait and not merely a cultural distinction, then you'd expect to see a similar result across human cultures, whether wealth is measured in Ferraris or yams. Indeed, if these results CANNOT be duplicated in multiple cultures, we'd have to assume they represent something unique about the original study population.
Insisting that the women not know whether there partner is rich or poor doesn't make much sense if you're assuming (as the author seems to) that wealth is the factor which is influencing the likelihood of orgasm. If you saw the same pattern of results when females did not know the wealth of their partner, then you'd have to conclude that either 1) there are signals of wealth which are reliably detectable by women or 2) some other characteristic correlated with wealth is causing the change in rate of orgasm.
Lastly, two methodological points. You're incorrect to suggest that the same woman would have to be tested against men of different wealth. Observational studies may not allow for causative inference (i.e., "wealth causes more female orgasms") but in the presence of an underlying causative hypothesis (i.e., "we think women will orgasm more with rich partners due to the evolutionary advantages that this conveys") then correlational research can still be very persuasive. Secondly, your question about lesbianism is interesting, but does not in and of itself change anything about this study.
You insist that you "know this is not true"--how? have you done research that disproves it? Or do you simply believe that your personal observations trump actual research?
i've done my own research. it was not necessarily aimed at orgasms but it did include the topic. it only involved a certain segment of women but it was conducted over many years.
i'll give up (or open one of my ears to you) on a few of the things i said, but not the same woman sleeping with a rich man and a non-rich man. that must occur for any study to be valid. i'd also not give up my position on the interview process. it is not sound enough for me
at the same time, i also believe my personal observations trump this dude's 'research' (which i still think is a LOAD O' STEAMIN' SHITE)
In the studies that support a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, they don't take a random nonsmoker and then force them to smoke to see how it impacts their cancer risk--that would be unethical. Similarly, here there's not really any obvious way to manipulate the partner's wealth level to see how it effects her rate of orgasm. However, just as we can accept that cigarettes increase lung cancer risk, we can have some degree of comfort drawing a connection between wealth and orgasms. As I said before, an observational study such as this cannot show causation--after all, maybe there's some third trait which causes some men to be better lovers and better providers--but, given the author's assumption that this is an evolutionary characteristic, it is not unreasonable to assume that the relationship is causative.
I'll agree with you that survy research is iffy given the sensitive nature of the question. Many women may not have adequate experience to recognize when an orgasm occurs, or the recall period of the survey may be too long for the subjects to remember accurately. However, this can be addressed fairly easily with additional study. If a validation study was able to show that the survey used in this experiment produces a reliable and accurate estimate of the woman's rate of orgasm, then there is no problem using the data as it was collected.
Lastly, it's probably fair to point out that no one study makes or breaks a field of inquiry. This is suggestive, but we would certainly want to see corroboration before we'd rely too highly on it.
I also still don't see why this study makes you angry. Fine, you have complaints about the method, but I don't see why the conclusion should be offensive one way or the other. As I pointed out above, there are other behaviors which may once have been 'evolutionarily advantageous' but which we would not today condone as moral or proper. I'm sure there are some people who might choose to interpret this as "women are gold-digging whores," but those are doubtless the same idiots who think it's okay for men to be players just because 'it's how we evolved.' At the end of the day, this is science, and it's descriptive, not normative--value judgments come from someplace else.
i am angry because it does indeed portray women in a certain way. it steers into that stereotype. you say only an idiot (my word not yours) would interpret the study this way. not true at all. there was also some sort of 'study' released a little while ago that said women are happier when they do housework. THAT made me angry as well.
some women (and men) love to do house work. it does not make up their lives though. there is so much more than can contribute or take away from happiness.
the orgasm study is flimsy at best and effed up at worst.
and don't you sleep?
Post a Comment