... to find the idea that women choose men for their money insulting?(201 Posts)
a new study says women's orgasms are linked to the size of their partners' bank balances.
I am so fed up with reading all the time about how women select their mates solely for financial reasons. I never considered marrying a man for money. I was brought up to have my own career and make my own money.
I know there are obvious examples of young, beautiful women and hideous older rich men. I'm not saying some women don't do this.
But on a broader basis, isn't more true that men capable of making money are simply more attractive partners for many reasons, such as intelligence, confidence, attractiveness, etc.?
Did you choose your partner because of his bank balance?
all dh had in the bank when we met was a ginormous overdraft, so...no!
sure that's not sperm bank
Think it's a load of tripe just used to fill a page.
I shudder to think what mine would be like if DH was rich then - probably blow me nubbin off!
I don't find it anymore insulting than the other myriad of criterion human beings use to select a mate.
It's not money per se but the availability to provide for one's offspring. That is at the primal core of attractiveness for many species. It's one of the ways a male demonstrates his fitness as a mate.
Similarly, men might select young, beautiful women because they are hard-wired to find a female desirable on her ability to perpetuate his genes.
Nope, met my DH when a teenager, and didn't care about such things...maybe if I had been choosing a partner as an adult woman I would have been more picky!
All our money is, and always has been shared, as well, so I have never had that sense of my own money either - although I certainly don't need to ask permission to spend it !
NO, pre-dc I earned far more than DH, now it's very much the other way round.
Good job he is better at sharing "his" money than I was
I chose DP in spite of his bank balance!
How the hell can an orgasm be linked to the size of their mans bank balance? Puts a whole new slant on the phrase size doesn't matter
that's an AA Gill article who is a chauvinist if you take his articles seriously but is highly amusing if you don't
no, i didn't choose my partner for his bank balance (like anybody would admit that). i happen to work ft which works for us but i know many couples where the women don't work but works for them too as the husband and wife see the relationship as a true partnership. there are a small number of couple i know where the wife gets an "allowance" -- that i find . i think the working should trust the non-working partner in terms of responsible spending, not set an allowance.
agree with you that lots of men tend to derive their self worth from their jobs/careers. Hence this improves confidence, etc. but the career may not necessarily be a lucrative one but one that just fulfills them. i suspect those men would be pretty self-assured too.
Probably has more to do with their abilities to fake an orgasm. Never done that myself mind you.
No-o-o-o. Not exactly. After my exdh though, who was so useless with money that he drove us deeper and deeper into debt, I did want someone who was careful (not stingy iykwim) with money.
The fact that he was quite 'comfortable' wasn't the point, it was that he wasn't profligate.
And obviously, being tall, dark and handsome was COMPLETELY irrelevant.
I don't think it makes a difference to the orgasms though......
Arrghh! Good thing I already have someone then or I'd have no chance
Not seen the study, but I think goodnightmoon has spotted the truth. If it had said that women (especially if planning a family) feel more comfortable with a man who is a good provider, hard working, competent, organised etc it would make more sense.
But I should add that it wasn't the money or the looks that made me fall in love with him- it was that we just 'got' each other. So the rest was a bonus.
YANBU to be insulted at the notion that all women choose men for their money.
Although the idea that marrying for money is confined to young women and old men is a bit naive. You only have to look at some of the bug ugly premiership football players to see that!
Women are evolved to choose men who will better provide for themselves & the children.
There was a time when this meant strong & big men.
These days, physical security is less of an issue and men no longer hunt the food, so physical strength is less important. We think consider intelligence, education, reliability ("Will he take off and leave me with babies?"), and yes, money.
worrying about money would be a bit of a turn off. I did try a rich bloke once. He was very nice but very dull. Then met dp, a penniless postgrad and realised I had to make my own money.
I dunno, if you don't use the criterion of "true lurve", then money seems to be a sensible alternative!
I think the idea is that it isn't entirely a conscious decision-making process. Nor foolproof of course, sadly...
Agree with Expat there I think nature does have a lot to contribute subconciously when we are making our choices for life partner.
That said my first love was 10 years older than me, long term unemployed (an artist), with a child from a previous relationship - he broke my heart when he dumped me. He was wise to do so though.
I think the generalisation of that study is more insulting. At the end of the day there will be women who choose men for their money, and possibly have better orgasms as a result because that's what turns them on! And plenty who don't.
It's like "all men are bastards" - no, some women are bastards too. Everyone is different, but unfortunately you will always get this guff because journalists are always looking for a reason/angle to write a story to stay employed.
What Expat said. It's in our genes - we're looking for resources, rather than money per se, but it can amount to the same thing in this society.
My DH was broke when I married him. Good pecs though.
Wouldnt have been attracted to a drifty, no ambition, needs to be mothered type man no matter how sexy looking or fun he was.
Think expat's post hits nail on head.
picking up on what expat said - it seems strange to me that women have supposedly evolved to be attracted to the "alpha male" who can provide for them - when that man's success means he is more likely to have babies with multiple women, putting the initial woman's offspring at risk of not being cared for.
chandellina (and others) - its a bit more complicated than that.
A woman produces relativley few eggs and therefore few chances to produce offspring in her life so usually women are generally very choosy about partners with whom they might wish to have a child.
A man has millions of sperm being produced every hour and he wants to spread them around as far and wide as possible - so men are not so choosy.
The 'battle of the sexes' boils down to the essentially opposing set of reproductive needs of women and men.
A woman though has a very tricky job of choosing a man who she feels will not only give her a healthy and strong child but also stick around afterwards and provide for the child. One way she can do that is to continue to make the man sexually happy even after their child is born.
meanwhile the man has to convince th ewoman he is a healthy he man and also he is going to be a good provider. Which is why men buy women expensive gifts during courtship to convince them they have the means to provide for a child.
Of course some women unfortunatley choose men who decide not to stick around or do but also sleep around afterwards with lots of other women. Some women choose men who turn out to be poor providers.
I cannot rememeber why women choose to be unfaithful after they have had a child. There doe snot seem to be much of payoff.
Its a very tricky thing this sexual politics - its burned into our genes.
Well, that's one school of thought anyway.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.