I ain't sayin she's a gold-digger...

[Oneironaut Zero]

...but science might be. Ladies (and gentlemen), thoughts?

[Carôusoul]

We always knew.

[Serkat]

"...More desirable mates cause women to experience more orgasms" Oh wow, no shit? More desirable mates also cause men to experience more orgasms. It's generally a good idea to fuck someone you're attracted to rather than some 5$ crack whore. Why do we need a study to confirm this? Reminds me of the Dumb Studies of 2008 thread. Can add one to the list for 2009! Also, the study never "suggested" that women are gold-diggers (although in a way they are, but that has nothing to do with the study); there are so many secondary variables involved in the relevant data that it's ludicrous to claim that correlation would imply causality. Rubbish. Apart from that, it's well known that money is a factor in male attractiveness because money implies power, social proof and (secondarily) the ability to care for wife and family. I thought it would be quite obvious to any human above the age of maybe 15 that people experience higher levels of sexual arousal with more attractive partners... so what's the point of this study again?

[Oneironaut Zero]

"...More desirable mates cause women to experience more orgasms" Oh wow, no shit? Reminds me of the Dumb Studies of 2008 thread. Can add one to the list for 2009! Also, the study never "suggested" that women are gold-diggers (although in a way they are, but that has nothing to do with the study); there are so many secondary variables involved in the relevant data that it's ludicrous to claim that correlation would imply causality. Rubbish. Apart from that, it's well known that money is a factor in male attractiveness because money implies power, social proof and (secondarily) the ability to care for wife and family. I thought it would be quite obvious to any human above the age of maybe 15 that people experience higher levels of sexual arousal with more attractive partners... so what's the point of this study again? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but your post seems like a self-contradiction. First you say that the study is rubbish, then you say the conclusion reached should be common sense. ...What?

[Serkat]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but your post seems like a self-contradiction. First you say that the study is rubbish, then you say the conclusion reached should be common sense. ...What? Yeah, I didn't put that so well. I AM saying that the conclusion reached is correct BUT I am saying that it is (a) a pointless study because it's common sense and (b) the reasoning in the Times article is flawed (though not necessarily so in the actual paper). It is essentially the same as making a study about whether men would rather fuck a 10 or a 2 when given the choice. Why would you even do that? Instead of making a study about something as absurd as the relevance of money for orgasms, why not make an actual study about all factors pertaining to the orgasm in females? You would find that attractiveness plays a big role (which is obvious anyway) and it's known that money is an aspect of attractiveness in males, so you just gotta add them up and thereya go... I don't really know where I'm going with this, all I'm wondering is why you would wanna waste 5000 people's time with this unless you're some giant satanic dick in a lab coat. Furthermore I'm saying that attractiveness and money interact with one another in much more complex ways than suggested by the article. Money can and often is simply a side-product of what constitutes an attractive male. Money itself doesn't necessarily have much to do with it and Dr. Buss (who is quoted) is probably aware of this. There are plenty of possible interpretations for causality in this and the dumbest is making it sound like women get off on heaps of money. Which is nonsense but what the article's reasoning comes closest to. I'm criticizing that this is just another heap of correlating data... entirely useless unless you go at with a theory of the inner workings of the correlation. Which seems not to be the case here.

[Carôusoul]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but your post seems like a self-contradiction. First you say that the study is rubbish, then you say the conclusion reached should be common sense. ...What? I think he meant the study is rubbish because its so obvious.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Yeah, I didn't put that so well. I AM saying that the conclusion reached is correct BUT I am saying that it is (a) a pointless study because it's common sense and (b) the reasoning in the Times article is flawed (though not necessarily so in the actual paper). It is essentially the same as making a study about whether men would rather fuck a 10 or a 2 when given the choice. Why would you even do that? Instead of making a study about something as absurd as the relevance of money for orgasms, why not make an actual study about all factors pertaining to the orgasm in females? You would find that attractiveness plays a big role (which is obvious anyway) and it's known that money is an aspect of attractiveness in males, so you just gotta add them up and thereya go... I don't really know where I'm going with this, all I'm wondering is why you would wanna waste 5000 people's time with this unless you're some giant satanic dick in a lab coat. I believe it is part of a much larger study. The article states that the female orgasm is a huge area of study, so I'm assuming this was only a small piece of information from a multi-faceted study of different things. I'm sure The Times printed this particular study up because it's just one of the interesting little tidbits that men and women would enjoy contemplating...which I think it is. I mean, it's always fun to assume what's common in some women as compared to most women. I dunno about you, but I found it entertaining that such a idea was actually tested and quantified.

[Serkat]

Sorry, I always add stuff after I send... Furthermore I'm saying that attractiveness and money interact with one another in much more complex ways than suggested by the article. Money can and often is simply a side-product of what constitutes an attractive male. Money itself doesn't necessarily have much to do with it and Dr. Buss (who is quoted) is probably aware of this. There are plenty of possible interpretations for causality in this and the dumbest is making it sound like women get off on heaps of money. Which is nonsense but what the article's reasoning comes closest to. I'm criticizing that this is just another heap of correlating data... entirely useless unless you go at with a theory of the inner workings of the correlation. Which seems not to be the case here. I believe it is part of a much larger study. The article states that the female orgasm is a huge area of study, so I'm assuming this was only a small piece of information from a multi-faceted study of different things. I'm sure The Times printed this particular study up because it's just one of the interesting little tidbits that men and women would enjoy contemplating... Well, I can't comment on it. Yes, it is a large area of study but mostly just interwoven with the general questions of intersexual attractiveness and plain old biology on the other side. They might have as well studied the influence of weight, age, number of scars, posture, number of friends ETC ETC ETC which is nonsense if you relate it to orgasm when quite obviously those are just aspects of male attractiveness and male attractiveness has an influence on the orgasm of course. Also I don't see what the whole deal with the female orgasm being such a godforsaken conundrum is. That's like asking "Why does a dick need to get hard before putting out the man juice? Why not just stick it in, let it out and leg it?" Sure it's a reasonably interesting question but they make it sound like this has been puzzling philosophers since the dawn of time. What a load of garbage. Whoever came up with the idea that evolution intended women to be birth-machines, and out of all species, in humans? Like it's not humans who have some of the most complex sexual interactions. Why wouldn't a female have the ability to experience sexual pleasure, that doesn't even make any sense. I mean, it's always fun to assume what's common in some women as compared to most women. I dunno about you, but I found it entertaining that such a idea was actually tested and quantified. Yes, but I'm pretty sure that the correlation between income and attractiveness is an old hat. Women like successful socially confident alpha males and those are mostly found making lots of money because the economy is dominated by males and dominant males get the better jobs.

[Techno]

Vaginas are like wallets. Both smell good brand new, and when you can stuff them both up till they can't be stuffed no more, you feel great. Money = Sex

[Xaqaria]

"...More desirable mates cause women to experience more orgasms" Oh wow, no shit? More desirable mates also cause men to experience more orgasms. It's generally a good idea to fuck someone you're attracted to rather than some 5$ crack whore. Why do we need a study to confirm this? I think the actual important part of the study is what exactly is desirable. If the 5$ Crack Whore passed a STD test, was smoking hot and didn't actually use the crack, just sold it for profit, would you sleep with her? I ask because it seems like you picked that as an example because you think she would be obviously disgusting physically, but the study is saying that women wouldn't go for it, because 5$ isn't enough. If we were talking about a 500,000$ Crack whore, on the other hand... The study shows that what is desirable is not necessarily a physical attribute (money, not beauty) but it can still effect us physically (girls get off on cash). You think that is common knowledge? Before reading this, I personally would have assumed girls that go for rich guys still may not enjoy sex with them.

[Serkat]

Hello, I think the actual important part of the study is what exactly is desirable. If the 5$ Crack Whore passed a STD test, was smoking hot and didn't actually use the crack, just sold it for profit, would you sleep with her? I ask because it seems like you picked that as an example because you think she would be obviously disgusting physically Exactly. I was using "5$ crack whore" as a pejorative term for an unattractive individual. "5$" wasn't refering to net worth, but price per half hour. Since, I'm a man it's not really relevant whether or not I'd sleep with her. but the study is saying that women wouldn't go for it, because 5$ isn't enough. Not at all. (I'm assuming you are talking about net worth or income, rather than price of the aforementioned crack whore). If we were talking about a 500,000$ Crack whore, on the other hand... In that case, it would be only for the money which is an exception and there will probably be no orgasms had. Similarly to a hypothetical case where the rich guy had no dick which is presumably unattractive to the point where a wad of cash in your vagina is not a sufficiently erotic substitute for a cock. The study shows that what is desirable is not necessarily a physical attribute (money, not beauty) but it can still effect us physically Well, of course. Apart from personality, having lots of female friends is not a physical attribute, for instance. Yet it effects women physically (as in: generates attraction). You think that is common knowledge? Before reading this, I personally would have assumed girls that go for rich guys still may not enjoy sex with them. The study never claimed that being rich is the be-all end-all to being a good lover... it just gives averages. It also never implied that the girls "went for rich guys". They just happen to be with wealthier men for undisclosed reasons. If they weren't in fact attracted to those men, they wouldn't have the orgasms as laid out by the study... And money in and of itself is not an attraction-maker (would a girl fuck a moose with ass pimples because it has grand real estate property - I think not) Money is just something that goes well with successful and confident men. If you yourself are a upper middle class chick it is fairly unlikely you'd get with some lower-middle class guy so there are a lot of other variables involved as well.

[Xaqaria]

... And money in and of itself is not an attraction-maker . If money weren't in and of itself an attraction maker, then there would be no correlation between money and orgasm. There would be a statistically insignificant number of women who married rich and do have orgasms and a statistically equal number of women who married rich and don't have orgasms. Statistically speaking, the study showed that money does actually have a direct effect on attraction. Obviously there are other factors involved, but one need not look at those other factors when trying to find the effects of one variable in a statistical environment. You could argue, however, that the study is flawed and that another possible conclusion is that attractive men who perform well in bed are more likely to have more money.

[grasshoppa]

Science has proven why I don't have a girlfriend. NEED CASHFLOWZ

[tkdyo]

this article is quite amusing. So, were these guys not allowed to use the rather simple methods for stimulating an orgasm? because if not then I can see how it being all mental would play a part.

[DuB]

this article is quite amusing. So, were these guys not allowed to use the rather simple methods for stimulating an orgasm? because if not then I can see how it being all mental would play a part. The study was correlational in nature, rather than experimental. Participants likely gave retrospective accounts of sex and orgasms in their normal lives. While this approach helps to attain a more naturalistic view of participants, it also causes significant problems in interpretting the results. For one, causal inferences are impossible (hence one of the fundamental mantras of science: correlation does not imply causation). The link between a man's wealth and a woman's sexual satisfaction could be (and almost certainly is) mediated by any number of variables. Unfortunately, the research methods offer few clues, if any, as to what these may be. My personal opinion is that this link is little more than a statistical artifact and of no practical significance. I found the news author's interpretation of the research to be amusing. "The study is certain to prove controversial, suggesting that women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers." "...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." Something tells me that the researcher did a prolonged facepalm upon reading this synopsis. I am saying that it is a pointless study because it's common sense Some of our most profound discoveries have come from challenging "common sense." So-called common sense is not a reliable predictor of outcomes. It is desirable and indeed necessary for scientists to challenge the assumptions of common sense, which often turn out to be misguided. Additionally, the well-documented hindsight bias (aka "I-knew-it-all-along effect") illustrates that our views of what constitutes common sense are often fickle - and thus essentially meaningless.

[shannyball]

LMAO! I have a great sex life and we are PO' and I am a woman

[shannyball]

Also I don't think that it is just a "money" thing I think that it is a security issue. If you can't feed your family, you can't pay simple bills and you are always looking for just enough to provide for your needs then you are most likely constantly fighting as well. It is not the easiest thing in the world for a woman to achieve orgasm and with stress added to that it may be immpossibal. We are creatures of emmotions and stress in tied up in that.

[Serkat]

Some of our most profound discoveries have come from challenging "common sense." So-called common sense is not a reliable predictor of outcomes. It is desirable and indeed necessary for scientists to challenge the assumptions of common sense, which often turn out to be misguided. Additionally, the well-documented hindsight bias (aka "I-knew-it-all-along effect") illustrates that our views of what constitutes common sense are often fickle - and thus essentially meaningless. Well, when I say "common sense", of course I am really basing this on more recent findings in evolutionary psychology and psychology of the sexes myself, not the prevalent belief of our culture. I don't mean "common sense" as in "what mom always told me" or what the majority of the population thinks. Of course it's not some innate knowledge I possess or something I can deduct purely by logical reasoning. Still it would seem to me to be profoundly obvious that more desirable partners equate greater sexual pleasure which is the main point of the study, aside from all the other variables, another one of which shannyball just pointed out. This is not something that needs to be challenged by science. That's like "challenging" gravity. Like making the billionth study about the fact that daily physical activity is healthier than sitting on your ass all day... So my point - that you seem to agree with - stands which is that I don't really see what the point of the study is. And my point when I said that it's common sense is that it's simply a waste of time because anybody, including the researches, could have predicted the results so there's really no new insight to be gained. It's the same coffee, different cup. It's like they arbitrarily picked two variables and now have a correlation that fits into a model they had beforehand. So what's the point. Really I would have found it much more interesting, had they made the whole thing a long-term small-sample study and given poor guys more money and taken the money from rich guys... or something along those lines, I'm not a scientist myself . Something that would actually make it possible to distinguish between psychological attractiveness of the male and his monetary value and the interaction between those 2 aspects. The whole area is deeply interwoven with economic psychology and sociology so I don't see how they can just put up this correlation (even though it's correct) without putting a lot of thought into the profound effect that money has on people's life, health, social status, possibilities and psychological well-being. Hell, it even goes to the point where you need to ask... what about food prices in the region, what about health care prices, what about social perception of money, what about actual life quality along the range of income, what about the prevalence of psychological problems in different classes, esp. sexual ones? What about the correlation of changeable physical appearance (health, weight, trimness, fitness) to income? On top of that the economic and social advantages that attractive people are simply born with and that have been known of since forever.

[Man of Shred]

i think the article is a crock of shit. the only thing required to give a female a good orgasm - for a guy all he needs is fingers, a toungue that moves, and a penis. and most importantly knowing how to use them. the only reason why i think that article would say that is because gold diggers are just plain full of shit anyway.

[tommo]

I think it would also be better to do "Really I would have found it much more interesting, had they made the whole thing a long-term small-sample study and given poor guys more money and taken the money from rich guys." that. Plus they probably interviewed the partners together, of course the women would exaggerate. I don't know this though, just guessing from the description, saying what COULD have happened. You can't really judge from an article on a study, studies are usually inconclusive in themselves. However I did like the title + OP lol. Oh and also, 'scientists' do common sense studies all the time just to get money.

[shannyball]

i think the article is a crock of shit. the only thing required to give a female a good orgasm - for a guy all he needs is fingers, a toungue that moves, and a penis. and most importantly knowing how to use them. . That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Not true not at all. If you believe this then you know nothing about how to please a woman and it doesn't sound like you would be a very considerate lover. It takes more than a tongue and some digits, that is a very immature statement. It takes emotional stability, and maybe money plays a part in it because financial stability reduces stress.

[AirRick101]

I just re-watched "Indecent Proposal" and realized that I need to make more money. John Gage proved that money can buy love....it just didn't apply to the main characters, is all.

[SKA]

Bogus scientists. Why don't they stop wasting their time on senseless bullshit like that and find humanity some cures for AIDS and Cancer. Are these senile scientists and their infantile studies funded with taxmoney?

[Universal Mind]

the dumbest is making it sound like women get off on heaps of money. Women do get off on heaps of money, but not necessarily on the men who have the heaps money. You could leave a box with a million dollars on a woman's doorstep. When she opens the box, she is going to have twelve orgasms. That's what makes things confusing without studies like the one Oneironaut posted. I agree that there is a major correlational factor that confounds it, but at least it shows the hidden correlation. Women usually LOVE rich men, and it is ordinarily hard to tell if the woman is at all attracted to the man himself or just the money he has. The study at least addresses that and puts a little bit of light on it. One thing I know for certain is that women are attracted to high social status, which is usually correlated with wealth. Look at the way women react to rock stars and movie stars, even the ones who have lost all of their money. Mick Jagger could have $0 and live at the Salvation Army and still sleep with a different model every day of his life.

[tommo]

Bogus scientists. Why don't they stop wasting their time on senseless bullshit like that and find humanity some cures for AIDS and Cancer. Are these senile scientists and their infantile studies funded with taxmoney? No shit. Yeah I'm pretty sure it's tax money. Comes from the Government USUALLY. Otherwise it's just whoever has the money and wants to fund it. My guess is that they ARE just senile, albeit rich, scientists and were hoping to find evidence that they could get bitches still.