... 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?

unfortunately a quick scan of any "rich list" shows that indeed the best way for a woman to become rich is to marry rich. (or be an heiress)

but does this really mean ALL women are "hard wired" to look for a rich man? Isn't it more of a historical, societal thing that, like Dittany says, the resources were not otherwise available to women? But now they, in theory, are. (in this country at least)

Personally I prioritised marrying a man I knew would be a supportive husband, and a good father and friend over any of the vacuous vain tossers or rich blokes I have met - so it bugs me when friends or relatives tell me how "lucky" I am because I believe you make your own luck...

ABetaDad - I think you're right! I don't think it's the case, but would be a daft generalisation some might make.

Cos it's not a definitive study FM and it's about trying to see if orgasm has functional design not if women prefer anything. It's descritive not prescritive. The guys have just written up their results and said 'there are corrolations - nothing definitive - more studies needed'

Um, Dittany, I have lost the thread of what your main objectins to the study - or the study's findings - are. If you can tell me I'll try to be clearer for you - after 8ish when DS is asleep. Until then, you have to play second fiddle, sorry.

And the fact that man can orgams without ejaculating doesn't change the evolutionarty finctionsl design of male orgasm as compared with female orgasm. It is a no brainer.

Chand - any scan could tell anyone anything. It's great when science tests anecdotal knowledge.

"but does this really mean ALL women are "hard wired" to look for a rich man? "

Listen veree carefully - I will say thees onlee once...Non

chandllina that is not gender specific the quickest way for anyone to become rich is to marry someone who is rich. It does not mean they cannot do it for themselves.

no, of course not, but the reality is that only a few women make the list, and mainly through marriage.

MT - please tell us what men and women are hard wired for, if anything? i really want to know!!

am sure there are more men, although have to say I am not one to look at rich lists, hvaing lived with a man who thought of them as his yearly literary highlight.

I know of at least 3 women who've done this, after having been on the prowl for men who fit the bill. They do care for their partners but they know where their breads buttered, can't be bothered to earn their own money obviously and have a sense of entitlement imo.

me and dh have both earnt more than one another at various times in our relationship. Was dating a lottery millionaire when I met dh who was a peniless student fell in love and ditched the millionaire who was DULL. Dh now eanrs 3x as much as me through his choice and the career he's chosen but we scarped along on my nurses salary for many years and I bought our first flat to live in myself.

It's more important to me that he's a hard worker who values money and I've always known I'll work even after having kids, I like to contribute.

Is this study actually saying rich men are better in bed? Because I've read that successful men often have more testosterone which is the driving force of their ambition. This could then be true that successful (and therefore richer) men have better and more sexual bedroom skills. It could mean this has nothing to do with how the women view the man at all. Unless we're better at faking it when a diamond necklace or fabulous handbag is at stake, or we want to please our man a little more because his ego is more fragile.

Hellloooo Neddie! (waves frantically)

Well said hon. Certainly, for me, financial security does equal peace of mind, which in turn equals being more relaxed in the bedroom area. So that might be a reason for better orgasms, I suppose.

Or perhaps it's just because my 2nd dh is more 'goal orientated' than my exdh was......

The study shows a correlation between female orgasm frequency and male partner income. To draw any conclusions about the link between that and the adaptiveness of the female organism I think you need to either make a link between the requirement for male-provided resources in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (which is what dittany is questioning if I understand correctly), or explain how the idea of a 'high quality' male partner might have itself changed without changing the effect on the female orgasm.

And I do understand the caveats given by the authors regarding their results. I've referred to them myself. I'm talking around the study. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

Divineintervention - that explanation is certainly not discounted by the authors as far as I can see. Although they'd prefer it to be something else I suspect, they are very honest about the conclusions that can be drawn.

TBH my DH earns very well and I'm a happy woman in the department too, if not a little demanding and bossy . But my EX bf was rich (new and old money), really rich, and completely useless in bed. The first encounter with him I genuinely wanted to say Is it in yet? super

OMG Dittany - I never said they were unattractive at all!

You have very obvioulsy not read the paper either, yet you put so much effort and vehemence into your arguments against it.

I am totally aghast at your behaviour here. You really need to be able to recognise froiend from foe, becasue firing off indiscriminatly, all cylinders, won't help anyone - least of all the people you think your speaking for. It will in fact only disempower them - and you.

I orgasm best when I'm really relaxed. If I had married a wealthy man and didn't spend quite a lot of my waking minutes worrying about money and longing to move house I might be able to relax more. See... quite simple when you think about it

The female orgasm has a function - it dips the neck and opening of the womb downwards towards the pool of semen that has been (hopefully) deposited at the top of the vagina by the man. Ths maximises the chance of successful fertilisation. I have seen this on a video on TV a few years back.

If a woman is more likley to orgasm with a certain type of man then I suppose that type of man and more especially his genes will gradually become more represented in the population.

Stil not sure why wealthy men should bring more powerful orgasms to women though and what benefit that brings to the human population as a whole by their genes becoming better represented.

Are the wealthy men like the dominant stag in a deer population? Surely the fittest most hunky blokes would be better to fullfil that role in a human population?

But sex is a good stress relief as well, I can remember dp and I pouring over bank statements and bills and then thinking sod this for a game of soldiers and having a shag instead.

DD has just groaned "Oh no not the old man" at Paul Weller.

Sorry wrong thread!

but wonder if his partner gets orgasms?

I don?t know what you mean by ?hardwired? Chandellina. We are hardwired to have two legs, two arms, a central nervous system, blood clotting ? but these things still go wrong sometimes, as we see, all the time. But by the same token, these things occuring then don't falsify or refute the default template from being 'two arms - two legs - central nervous system, blah blah. And most mammals have that configuration anyway. I'm just using it as a broad example.

There is enough evidence now to discern a dfefinite human nature, and also sychological gender diufference, which is most marked in our sexuality. But these observances are not enough to say ?men are better at this? and ?women are better at this? ? we can only talk in descritive averages not prescritive specifics. Sex differences exist but they are much more nuanced and compex than what was previoulsy thought ? which was that men were superior. In evolution, we actually see true equality between sexes expressed in amazingly complex and fascinating ways ? so any man that attampts to tell you evolution shows you that men are better, you can safely inform them that such views are no more than wishful thinking. The same applied vice versa too, of course. The same with any would be lothario. Men aren?t ?hardwired? to be unfaithful andf women faithful. That?s all misconstrued rubbish.

thanks for that. the phrase "hard wired" was used elsewhere on the thread as an explanation for women marrying rich and men marrying beauty, and i've heard it before for this argument, generally from unattractive, poor men.

If i had chosen my husband that way then maybe we could buy our own house instead of renting!!!!

No, i def didn't chose mine that way!

There are catalogued differences between the male and female brain. Most men have better spacial awareness - hence why women can't read maps! Apparently the typical female thing to do is to turn a map the direction in which you are going - I do that all the time, but im quite a good navigator - i do tend to think i have a more male orientated brain though. Im not so good at multi-tasking .

Two things from my paragraph though - Most men (so its not always so) and Different as opposed to better!

Mens brains are affected by hormones in a different way to womens, something to do with certain hormones not being able to cross the blood brain barrier in the male or female (cant remember which) unless joined to another protein. So not only do they produce different hormones at different levels, they react differently to them.

Those are a couple of examples that i can remmeber. So it is feasable for men to have a different attitude to fidelety than women. Maybe they are driven by an innate desire to spread their seed as widely and as often as possible. The mother however is driven to nurture the seeds that have been sown? Im not saying this is so - but could be?

Certain things are "hardwired" and that is very much a nature vs nurture argument. An addictive personality might be hardwired in the genes - there are genes that have been isolated that seem to make people more addictive (if thats the right word). But equally, a child of an alcoholic may have a drink problem as this is their "normal", saying that, often children of problem drinkers go on to not drink at all because of this.

I think that society has a lot to do with how men and women behave towards each other. And im going to shut up now because ive just realised i haven't read the OP and am just responding to the last few posts

The thing is women can read maps. It's not that difficult. Or rather some women can and some women can't. It's not proof of anything.

nkf - its sort of a jokey paradigm, that women can't read maps - same as saying men can't multi task. However it is shown that the part of the brain responsible for spatial awareness is more highly developed in males than in females. Boys tend to do better in those tests where you have to define 3d shapes on 2d media. but its different not better.

It doesn't of course prove anything, but as generalisations go - try not to think about it next time you have to read a map, then check to see if you have turned the map around - apparently most women do this.

There are catalogued differences LEM. But these are still averages. There are plenty of women who have no problem reading maps - like yourself!

Yes, men might have a different attitude to fidelity than women, but that does not make them hardwired to cheat. That's why men look at porn on average more than women - they think about sex more (not fidelity per se) but this doesn't mean they actually do it more (wanking, notwithsanding).

Not sure your ideas on psychology are up to date LEM, but I'm not particually up to date either. You might likethis. It's by one of the authors of the orgasm paper too, so ties in nicely.

Well, it is proof of something nkf, if it's shown to be statistically relevnet.