... 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?

And women don't choose - its simply saying women with wealthier partners appear to have more orgasms not that women conscioulsy choose wealthy men so they can have more orgasms. All that's at stake here is a few orgasms for people who would normally be non the wiser.

I will own up and say I have not read the paper. Just commenting on what people are posting on here.

Unfortunately there are loads of women who do.

I didn't - we were both penniless students when we got married, and afterwards I insisted on us living on my income (which was a bit smaller than his) as I refused to be financially dependent on him (also because we had stressful jobs, and I always felt it was important that we should both feel we could walk away from our jobs without a major impact on our lifestyle).

When he was earning loads of money was actually when he was least attractive, in fact. That's because all that sitting at a desk all day was nothing like as conducive to good looks as spending all day outside doing physical work....

So I can definitely refute the one about orgasms being better the higher his bank balance

resources have been around forever, Dittany. But you are misunderstanding - it isn;t saying women prefer men with more resourses, just that they appear to be more sexually satisfied. Nothing about gold digging at all! It's all inference and if we stopped studying stuff because of the, yes, sexist, inferences of media eejits, then we'd all be living in caves - again!

I have just asked dp if he thinks I am with him for his momey. He laughed and said no because he gives all his money to his gold digging mistress. He suspects I am with him for his cleaning and sexual prowess.

But dittany isn't saying resources haven't been around forever. Rather that men haven't been the source of them for women for ever. In particular in the era of human history crucial to evolutionary psychology thoeory.

The authors also told me that if you partner was more handosme you seemed have more orgasms. And, trust me, these guys are lovely, but neither are what you'd call classicaly handsome. (I did tell them about MN and it's possiblites!)

LOL @ cleaning and SP!

Twinset I am glad you are back.

Did they control for that then? Or do wealth and attractiveness co-vary?

Loptser - I wonder whether a man would seek revenge if his wife suddenly earned more than him or would he just think lucky me?

When it happened to me it felt so fortunate it like I was getting double dibs.

It doesn't claim any causal link dittany. Correlation yes.

There ARE women who do this and I know a lot of them. Good friend of mine broke an engagement when she realised that he was never going to be able to support her (she was a lawyer and earnt a lot more than him) She has regretted it ever since, he is married with 3 kids and ironically now earns a fortune!

I can see if being a SAHM and having a certain quality of life is important to you then it would be a consideration. But it is so changeable it is very odd to base a marriage on this (unless someone has heaps of private income), jobs can be lost, divorce etc.

I can see how ambition and drive are attractive qualities rather than money itself, prefer to earn my own myself (so I can spend with abandon in Space NK and not feel guilty about it!)

I strongly suspect they would also co-vary, yes

When it happened to me I felt so fortunate it was like I was getting double dibs.

[My brain instantly stopped working as well!]

That's true, but its also not just resources.

The main point is Dittany, you need to be doing a Ben Goldthingy on this. AA Gill is probably a lovely bloke but with a massive ego and so he puts whatever spin on this that gives him succour - same with all the other journos. But it;s their spin, it's not the study.

And, another important factor - for an adaption to be manofest now it only needed to have an adaptive function at some point in our evolutuonary past, and not necessarily be adaptive today. Many adaptations are maladaptive today in modern culture - like our liking for fat, sugar and salt!

Must have a bath. Back soon.

Well, in this study it is just resources. If their discounting of confounding variables is to be believed.

This is all very well, but who hasn't lied about having a flaming orgasm, for crying out loud?

Unless there were eletrodes attached to the subjects while they were being attended to by said 'rich men', it all seems like any other cobblers survey where you can say whatever you like.

I think love is the most important thing in a relationship. Sometimes love can go out the window when you are constantly bickering about money. i don't think i could marry someone for their money but having been utterly poor and missing my children grow up because of having to work long hours to support them, I now am much happier to be a SAHM and be looked after. I know I can go out and have it all- but basically (oh you'll love this)I don't think you can. I want to be a SAHM mum and be looked after financially, I'm not ashamed of it either, why do people make women who take into account their partners ability to provide as some kind of monsters. Animals wouldn't choose a mate who couldn't protect or nurture their young if necessary. Awaits rotten tomatoes being hurled .......