... to find the idea that women choose men for their money insulting?

[goodnightmoon]

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?

twinset - re "I do find it odd that people think that women have to choose a man that will provide for them."

We don't have to, but we tend to.

Why do you find it odd? You just said you married your first husband for money

They are focusing on the female orgasm dittany. So yes to rich women with poorer men, but no to male orgasms, whether with women or men.

Yes I married him for money but think that my behaviour was shocking and something I am eternally ashamed of. I know women who have married for money, or stay with their husbands for money and I always wonder why. They could leave and have less or earn for themselves. As a maturish woman in my thirties it is not something I would do now. I do have a difficult relationship with money though that does come from my marriage and although I like nice things money makes me feel uncomfortable.

I suppose so fallenmadonna.

I think it is an odd decision for women today in our country. While I accept that men still earn more women can and do support themselves. My dp works but is not the main breadwinner. If I need a partner for anything it is for support at home not financial. The need for financial support is not and should not be gender specific.

Because dittany if you are going to make a science out of this subject then you are going to have to start defining variables.

The 'orgasm' thing is the hook on the story, really, isn't it? I agree with dittany's reading of it as a sexist bit of nonsense in the way it's been done.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with knowing what you want in a life partner and choosing accordingly.

I was married to a poor and unambitious chap who was however very handsome and built like Adonis for 18 years and had to work hard sometimes 3 doing jobs and live in crappy places (or with parents) never go on holiday or go out and always be worried and arguing about money. Now I am divorced and have met a lovely man who I fell in love with before I knew he was well off. I can tell you even though the second one isn't the Brad Pitt type, the lack of worry about money and the sheer admiration of his abilities as a provider make all the difference (and in the bedroom too)for once I am happy with my man. So yes money makes a difference.
and Monkeygi your first one and mine were separated at birth weren't they hun? (sorry to other posters- we know each other in the real world)

I am very aware of old habits dying hard, most people knew about the abusive situation I was marrying into but turned the other cheek because I was marrying into money. I know I disapointed my family by not marrying somneone I met after I left my husband because he had money. At the time my dd and I were living in temporary accomodation and I know that people thought I was mad not to allow a knight in shining armour to come along and rescue me.

My sister is dating a plastic surgeon, my mum is over the moon even though she has never met this man because he is rich. My sister is a nurse, my mum sees this as a wise career choice as she will meet a nice doctor and settle down.

I do think that if you are a woman who is soley interested in money you can go out there and get if for yourself. I dont earn a huge wage but have gone from living on the streets with a baby to earning £40K a year in seven years down to sheer determination. If I wanted to earn more I would.

Neddie I would not want to marry someone who is lazy and did not take his obligations to his family seriously. My dp works hard but I dont rely on him finacially.

The research paper explicitly states that it is part of research into female orgasm. The data is all about female orgasms. The only conclusions that can be drawn, such as they are, are to do with orgasms. All else is spin and speculation.

I don't know if there is a similar body of research into the male orgasm.

In some ways,I did marry for money
Nasty early first marriage that left me with loads of debt,and second time around I craved security.
DH offered that,has a very secure very well paid job.
I do love him though

There is no need to do a study to see if the male orgasm is a direct adaptation. It's a no brainer. Without male orgasm, the sperm doesn't reach the egg. It's about the most obvious example of functional design you can get. Female orgasms are much more complex!

I would imagine so dittany. I can remember my family being delighted when I was the first one to go to university as I could marry well. My mum was distraught when I turned down my Oxford place as she thought I had more chance marrying someone with money there. I understand though my mum has had a very hard life marked by poverty and she wanted better for me. I just found it disapointing that she has never felt I could escape poverty for myself. I wonder what my own daughter will do.

Actually when i found out how 'corporate' my DP is i was quite dissappointed - am more of a bohemian type myself

The money comes in handy, and thankfully he enjoys what he does but if wanted to chuck it all in for something that only paid a fraction that he was passionate about i'd support him all the way.

i have reflected on 'why exactly was it that i did'nt chose a rich one?'....

still wondering

it sure helps to marry a man that can earn good money.

No Dittany. They haven't. That is spin. This is defo a case where you need to be shooting the messanger!

I didn't say I thought it should be studied from a scientific perspective dittany. But that is certainly dominant at the moment. I mean if you are looking at sexuality from a 'scientific' perspective, you are going to have to start narrowing things down. Do I think that you miss out on a lot if you do that? Yes. But you can't do the stats if you don't. And you've got to do the stats.

To be fair to the authors, they haven't drawn any firm conclusions. But
I don't doubt that they come to this subject with their own ideas and that is going to influence the study they do and thus the findings they make.

Dittany - did you read the paper?