Size Apparently Really DOES Matter
Posted by: Wendy Atterberry
Filed in:
sex
1:30PM, Tuesday January 20th 2009
A new study reveals that when it comes to a woman’s pleasure during sex, size does indeed matter, but not in the way you may think. Apparently, men with large incomes give women more orgasms than men with smaller ones. The Chinese Health and Family Life Survey interviewed 5,000 Chinese people about their personal lives, including questions about their sex lives, income and other factors. Of the 1,534 women surveyed with male partners, 121 reported always having orgasms during sex, while 408 more had them “often”. Another 762 “sometimes” came while 243 had them rarely or never. These figures are similar to those for western countries. While there were several factors responsible for these variances, money was attributed as the main factor. Study author, Dr Thomas Pollet, said: “Increasing partner income had a highly positive effect on women’s self-reported frequency of orgasm. More desirable mates cause women to experience more orgasms.” Dr. Pollet believes this phenomenon “is an ‘evolutionary adaptation’ that is hard-wired into women, driving them to select men on the basis of their perceived quality.” So basically, he thinks women are biologically predisposed to be gold-diggers. Surely there are other reasons women may have orgasms more frequently with wealthy men. Perhaps men with larger incomes are more sexually confident; Maybe they have less anxiety about their flaws and, um, shortcomings, making them better lovers; Or, maybe, just maybe, this study is totally bogus. [Times Online]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
par3
wrote on January 20 2009 @ 01:41 pm: [report]
basically what they’re saying is that a woman’s vagina is analogous to an ATM machine where you can place deposits. the more deposits the more noise and beeping. geez get with it people.
Rose
wrote on January 20 2009 @ 02:11 pm: [report]
The other factor that occurred to me is that, maybe if you’re (as a couple I mean) financially secure, you find it easier to relax and enjoy sex. You get to come, instead of worrying about if the money will.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on January 20 2009 @ 02:14 pm: [report]
This just proves that Chinese women are getting into the habit about lying on studies as well.
theothergyllenhaal
wrote on January 20 2009 @ 02:52 pm: [report]
Well, that ruins my day.
Chelle
wrote on January 20 2009 @ 07:43 pm: [report]
That’s ridiculous. My current boyfriend gets me off pretty much the entire time we do it and he’s a poor boy. I’ve slept with guys with money and they were actually no good in bed.
MarriedWhiteMale
wrote on January 20 2009 @ 10:02 pm: [report]
Oh wonderful!!! Since I’ve been laid off for over ten months now I guess my Wife is really screwed . . . I disagree with the reports findings as back in the day when I was “poor” I never left my partner unsatisfied. Nor when I had a great income either. It’s NOT about money, it’s about caring for your partner and giving pleasure.
bytwenty8
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 10:41 am: [report]
um…
i hate to be the debbie downer (or maybe i don’t care). is there a reason the guy in this photo has so much melanin when the article’s double entendre is related to size?? can you NOT go digging in the racialized sexual stereotypes bin?? PLEASETHANKYOU?? will the next article feature oh-so-ultra-salacious jezebels from south of the border—fawning over some WASP?? i’m completely down for sexual liberation—including for my people—just watch how you reinforce your fetishizing!!!
Tivi Jones
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 03:58 pm: [report]
I’d like to see a study on men’s pleasure with relation to income, I’m pretty sure it would be pretty standard across the board. Those bastards….
and yeah, um, what’s up with that picture?? I don’t think it was a very good choice with relation to the title & content of the article.
benglish320
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 06:09 pm: [report]
It’s not the money itself women are attracted to, it’s the simple fact that a man’s brain is hardwired to try to provide some kind of protection for his mate, and the woman’s brain being hardwired to go after a mate who has that ability. Unfortunately, in today’s society, money is often portrayed as the greatest source of protection. We humans have basically been running on a social system that’s 20,000 years behind.
In reality it’s the confidence. I may be a guy, but every woman I have ever talked to is attracted to the same thing: confidence. Confidence can come from several factors, one of them having lots of money or fancy things if your a weaker-minded individual. I am confident because I know what I want, that I’m a good person, and I’m an excellent partner.
Sojourner
wrote on January 24 2009 @ 01:50 pm: [report]
Step off your feminist high horse for a minute and think about what they’re actually saying. Evolutionary pressures over the last millions of years have created some differences in the way men and women behave. Women, who were, and still mostly are, the main caretakers of children learned that for their offspring to survive they would need resources to cloth and feed them. Women who chose partners with little resources often starved themselves or had their children starve - or freeze, or be exposed to the elements - you get the idea. Women who chose men with more resources to spare didn’t die and their children survived to reproduce. Making it probable that a preference for men with resources would be an evolutionary advantage and be passed down through generations. It has nothing to do with women being hard wired as gold diggers. And it certainly doesnt mean that women with poor mates can’t orgasm. But it does mean that its more likely that women will favor men with resources. You don’t get mad when female moose chose men with larger antlers cuz they’re more likely to survive; don’t flip out over this.
And I’m not saying that other factors which several commentors have brought up aren’t valid. Just that its annoying that feminists across the board seem so ready to throw out evolutionary history because it might mean that men and women are (gasp) different.
Allie
wrote on January 25 2010 @ 03:49 am: [report]
This person seems like a sexist guy, if he wasn’t sexist he wouldn;t try to make it sound as if women are only after money. Also there were other studies done about female orgasms, they say physical attraction and symmetry of the male also plays in frequency of the orgasm too,as he has mentioned. But you know scientisits will always try to make their study seem the better one, thats why he says money seems more important.
This is why i think this person is more of a sexist person, you can tell by how he describes most of the story. He didnt need to say gold diggers, gold diggers are different then women who want a normal family and a sense of security.
-Again, as i mentioned, he has mentioned that there are OF COURSE other factors. So don’t worry about it guys, he is just some sexist guy who is using his qualifications to make it more believable to people.
-Also, the reason why it could be is, that if theres more money (wheter male or female) theres less stress on paying the bills and so on, so it lets the woman be stress free when in bed.
Bottom Line
Physically attractive men and symmetrical men (which is basically the same thing, since we find symmetrical men physically attractive) also have a factor of orgasm frequency, meaning they also cause women to orgasm more then the less attractive partners.
The person who done the research seems a bit sexist to me, judging by his words, and i think he wants to get some quick fame through this research.
The other researches done about physical attractiveness and symmetry were done by scientists with many many years of experience in that field and have had many good findings.
Personal Experience:
I have dated a wealthy man, he was average looking, wasnt that great in bed. He finished too quickly. I have also dated guys who arent that rich, average you can say, to below average, but they were oh so good looking, you would drool. I did have a orgasms almost every time we done it. The only times we didnt were when we didnt have sex or i was mad at him.
Dont let this stupid study sink into your head.