«

»

Jan 21 2009

New study explains women!

You sexually unfulfilled girls will be happy to know that your problem has been analyzed by brilliant evolutionary psychologists at the University of Newcastle who have been working round the clock to unlock the unknowable mysteries of women’s orgasmicality.

Their conclusion: You have not been boning wealthy men.

Rich dudes, quoth the sexperts, are able capitalize on women’s hardwired predisposition to be physically gratified by money, causing their partners to sexplode with greater frequency than they do when putting out for mere Joe Sixpacks.

Because the brilliant evolutionary psychologists grasp the little-known fact that all women are straight, there is no word on whether wads of cash influence the number of orgasms “gay” girls experience. Thus it is my conjecture, based on this exciting new research, that “lesbians” only exist because they were, in their formative years, unable to find rich enough guys, thus giving them the erroneous impression that sex with men was kind of gross.

[Gracias, Deana]

66 comments

1 ping

  1. phiogistic

    FTFA:

    “Among all the discoveries, however, a mystery has remained: what is the point of the female orgasm?”

    LOL! LOL!

  2. B. Dagger Lee

    So I was just holding out for Bill Gates? At last, confirmation that I’m not cheap.

  3. R

    First time posting. I just had to this time because that is the most complete pack of bullshit I’ve ever read. Personal anecdote, my first boyfriend was pretty well off. Our sex was ok. Then we broke up, and I got my current boyfriend, who is dirt poor. We have amazing sex. My satisfaction had nothing to do with their bank accounts and everything to do with how our interests and values intersected, and most especially it had to do with how they treated me. Second boyfriend is far more caring and attentive to me and my needs.

    “Women need to connect mentally for really great sex, it’s not just a physical thing. It needs to be someone you respect, and rich men get that sort of respect.”

    Very true, except for the “needs to be rich” part. No man is going to get my respect simply because he’s rich. He only gets my respect if he’s not a misogynist jerk. Funnily enough, I haven’t noticed that being rich made anyone a nice person.

  4. Citizen Jane

    Sometimes the excuses people come up with for their sexism are simply fascinating. It is possibly the most fascinating when they pretend that their sexist blathering is actually scientific inquiry, despite that everyone with a second grade education can plainly see there is none.

  5. virago

    What a load of crap? What about all those studies you hear about sex being better when a woman is in an egalitarian relationship with a man who (gasp) treats her like an equal human being instead of a sex object? That said, the thought of sex with Donald Trump doesn’t turn me on even with all those billions or whatever. Something about his puckered lips makes me want to heave. Maybe hiring some gorgeous cabana boy on the side would help. Alas, I’m destined to be poor and celibate it seems. LOL.

  6. Mendacious D

    It remains a mystery to me why they haven’t figured out an explanation for why women seem to hold evolutionary biologists in such low regard.

    Perhaps someone will commission a study.

  7. Alderson Warm-Fork

    Yeah, and there’s not the slightest chance that such a correlation might just be that Chinese women with rich husbands are less stressed and more able to relax – i.e. why is it presented as “women having sex with rich MEN” rather than the, closely correlated, “women with financial security and comfortable surroundings having sex”? Because the wealth has to be HIS wealth, so it can symbolise his manpowerfulness. Just knowing that comfort and security are good for people would be boring.

  8. ElizaN

    “Those stupid women. They can’t help being golddiggers, it gives them hysterical paroxysms.”

  9. Irlandese

    This is rich (no pun intended). Perhaps women have been blessed with the ability to achieve orgasm as (hopefully) one last barrier to completely doing away with any standards as to who we choose to mate/procreate with? Of course, when we are actually given that choice…many on our planet are not.

  10. D

    Believe me, even the evolutionary biologists are laughing their asses off about this one. The field of evolutionary psychology is joke to most people in science – including the men.

  11. incognotter

    Twisty, I love you.

    (But then, given the difference in our circumstances, I guess that is a foregone conclusion. ;-)

  12. cafesiren

    How do you write an entire piece about women’s orgasms without once mentioning a clitoris?

    No, wait: I know that answer. (hint: rhymes with “shmatriarchy”)

  13. Rachel S.

    “Rich dudes, quoth the sexperts, are able capitalize on women’s hardwired predisposition to be physically gratified by money…”

    My first response: ew.

    My response now that I’ve read the article and thought about it: ew.

    I don’t want a guy who f***s me with his checkbook… cause sooner or later, he’s going to f*** me with his checkbook.

  14. Jonathan

    I wonder how many more ludicrous excuses the P can come up with as to why anyone would have sex with that hideous self-referencing disease-bag Hefner?

    I swear, if their next “study” concludes that greenbacks and diamonds give off human sexual pheromones, I’m going to give those researchers one hell of a wedgie.

  15. Wendy

    Haha Rachel S.! That last sentence made my day!

  16. dina

    This might as well be called: why stupid women fake more orgasms with rich men.

  17. Hollywood Marie

    For some reason, I refuse to believe that “high-paid escorts” are having the best orgasms ever.

  18. VibratingLiz

    This “research” serves a noble purpose: As long a man can go on believing that all women are biologically-wired god-diggers, he never has to entertain the possibility that a woman’s rejection of him might have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that he just might possibly be a repugnant narcissistic dickwart with epic hygiene issues and the personality of day-old roadkill. No, of course not, it’s been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that he’s just not filthy rich enough for the greedy bitches.

  19. Citizen Jane

    @Mendacious D

    “It remains a mystery to me why they haven’t figured out an explanation for why women seem to hold evolutionary biologists in such low regard.

    Perhaps someone will commission a study.”

    I believe SMBC has that one covered.

    http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1067

  20. CassieC

    Although at some level, that study clears things up quite nicely. There is no gender or sexual difference: men, real men, are just women with so much cash they have a special “wallet” called “family jewels”. Size does matter, you see. And we’re really all lesbians.

    *goes off to giggle*

  21. thebewilderness

    Evo psycho is so very modern a science that they have adopted the newest methods of scientific inquiry. Surveys. The “Family Feud” scientific method of inquiry that cares not one jot for the the facts but only for what the survey says.
    Whaddaya wanna bet they surveyed their wives, concubines, and servants.

  22. Interrobang

    I read an actual scientific paper (and I don’t have the reference now, alas) once where the female scientist who wrote it was describing mate choice among female ducks, and the evolution of complex reproductive tracts in duck species where rape is common. (Females of duck species where rape is not common have simple reproductive tracts, that is, ones that don’t have spirals in them and suchlike. Fancy that.)

    The author actually described one of the reasons for mate (re)selection by female ducks as being because the male ducks were “good stimulators.” I kid you not.

    I think the authors of this piece of evo-psych crap (and all of the sexist popular articles about it) need to go read that paper ten or twelve times, and think about that.

  23. Mendacious D

    Citizen Jane:

    Thanks for the heads-up!

    Evo-psych: justifying double-standards since wayyyyy too long ago.

  24. Cranky Old Coot

    “It is possibly the most fascinating when they pretend that their sexist blathering is actually scientific inquiry,”

    And Citizen Jane, don’t forget to add that these kinds of “thinkers” always claim that THEY are the only ones who use LOGIC. You know, like Rational Feminists (TM) are the ONLY ones who have ever HEARD of reason.(snark,snark)

  25. Lu

    Interrobang, is this the paper (or a once-removed citation to it)?

    http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000418

  26. B. Dagger Lee

    “Forced copulation” is a mating strategy of animals, and is different than rape, an activity which takes place solely among humans.

  27. Rayedish

    Evo-psych: Propping up cultural fables since the 19th century

  28. AoT

    I can’t help but think that the people who do these studies are going to be looked at by people a hundred years from now in the same way as most people now look at Nazi apologists sixty or seventy years ago. They are responsible for so much pain and oppression it amazes me. Like the recent study about how women’s relationship to food and eating is an evolutionary result of being able to get pregnant. It couldn’t be anything to do with socialization.

  29. yttik

    Shouldn’t we actually, like evolve, before we go employing all these evolutionary psychologists?

  30. Kelsey

    “However, for the week or so in each month when women are at their most fertile they are programmed to seek out the men with the “best” genes – the ones most likely to ensure their children survive. That means the man with the biggest muscles, the squarest jaw or, nowadays, the biggest bulge in his wallet. Such men are hard to keep so, once impregnated, women may return to their gentler long-term partner and trick him into bringing up a child that is not his.”

    When I read this paragraph, I can’t help but hear a gentle-sounding voiceover in my head. Hmm, kind of like on a nature show. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that we’re obviously no better then animals. Worse, actually, because we’re so conniving. Honestly, “tricking” poor, innocent men into being cuckcolded just so we can have the experience of screwing someone with a square jaw? For shame, ladies, for shame.

    AoT, can you link to that study?

  31. Frumious B.

    Maybe hiring some gorgeous cabana boy on the side would help.

    Well, duh. Women who bone rich guys might have more orgasms, but nothing says they are having more orgasms with the rich guys.

  32. norbizness

    I’m definitely getting a business card that just contains the information: “[Real name], Sexpert.”

  33. Craroline

    Well sure, all female animals are somewhat “hardwired” to be interested in men with access to resources (not necessarily money, but brains, sense of humor/social skills, physical health, strength, etc). That’s not rocket science. Any self-respecting “evolutionary psychologist” would know that variations between the two patriarchy-approved genders are way smaller that variations within each “gender,” so it’s pretty pointless to even discuss. (i.e. no decent guys I know would fuck a girl who didn’t have intelligence, sense of humor/social skills, physical health, strength, etc.)

    I did four “evolutionary psychology” classes for my anthropology degree, and worked on 2 research projects on the topic, and this sort of article (like most “Men Are Different From Women!” articles) would have been laughed out of the class. Its agenda is clear. But this is just the sort of article that gets published all the time in pop-psychology forums, giving evolutionary studies a bad name. IBTP!!!

  34. thebewilderness

    It was my understanding from the interpreter of the study that women have orgasms to send a message of loyalty to their partner because evolutionarily speaking everything about a woman having sex is about the partner.

  35. SoJo

    ” it is my conjecture, based on this exciting new research, that “lesbians” only exist because they were, in their formative years, unable to find rich enough guys, thus giving them the erroneous impression that sex with men was kind of gross.”

    Love you Twisty

  36. Becki Jayne

    How do these sexperts know that these women are faking it more frequently with rich dudes? I have oodles of experience with research and one thing I’ve learned is respondents aren’t completely honest even in the best scenarios.

    I’m a lesbian so this “study” *cough* is a bunch of bunk in my world.

    Best ‘gasms evah have been with women — rich and poor. The emotional connection woman to woman makes for great sex, heightens the pleasure. Plus, we know what to do, where to do it, and aren’t shy about asking does this feel good? Is this better? What’s the best?

    Best orgasms have been with my partner of 14 years. She’s not rich financially but wealth is not merely defined by the size of the bank account…. My two cents.

  37. Becki Jayne

    P.S. Love you, Twisty!

  38. Becki Jayne

    Oops! Omitted an important word… How do these sexperts know that these women are NOT faking it more frequently with rich dudes?

  39. virago

    Maybe hiring some gorgeous cabana boy on the side would help.

    “Well, duh. Women who bone rich guys might have more orgasms, but nothing says they are having more orgasms with the rich guys.”

    Well, duh, Frumious B., I was being sarcastic. I think that would be obvious to anyone who read my post. Maybe you should learn to recognize sarcasm before insulting other people’s intelligence.

  40. caitlinate

    Or it’s because they had bad relationships with their fathers and were doomed, DOOMED, from the start. Yep, I’ve actually heard that one posed as a query.

  41. SKM

    no decent guys I know would fuck a girl who didn’t have intelligence, sense of humor/social skills, physical health, strength, etc.

    Yeah, funny how these “evolutionary psychology” explanations erase all of us who are chronically ill and not especially strong who nevertheless have no trouble finding partners.

  42. Jodie

    Craroline says: “(i.e. no decent guys I know would fuck a girl who didn’t have intelligence, sense of humor/social skills, physical health, strength, etc.)”

    This bothers me — if you’re not healthy, strong, or intelligent, somehow this makes you someone no decent man would want? Healthy and strong are ephemeral traits; intelligence can be measured in so many ways. Please rethink this.

  43. SKM

    Oh, I should add, no trouble finding “decent” partners! Whatever that means.

  44. Amananta

    Yes, my orgasm is so terribly mysterious it takes me all of three minutes to give myself one with a vibrator. Because I’m female, and all complicated and stuff, you know.
    I guess I must be some weird anomaly since my orgasms (with other people) have always been directly tied to how much they pay attention to what they’re doing and listen to what I tell them about how it feels.

  45. Unree

    virago, although the “duh” may cut against this interpretation, I really did read Frumious B. to be applauding you, kind of an amen-sister high-five. I’m reading Frumious B. in the context of her other comments. Regulars here would take a reference to the “gorgeous cabana boy” just as you intended.

  46. Tierney

    I am inspired to try my hand at evolutionary psychology: men have evolved to hate women because the rule on the savanna was eat or be eaten. Everyone allows that a man’s favorite part of mating is the “thrill of the chase.” Put another way, a man’s sex drive triggers his hunting instinct; thus, during sex, men never know if they are fighting or fucking. They can’t tell the difference, and they don’t want to.

    I offer in support of this theory an overabundance of sexually predatory acts by men, which outnumbers the quantity of orgasms given to women by men (rich or otherwise) by at least 893 trillion.

  47. CassieC

    @ Craroline

    gah. Humans are hardwired hardly for anything – we’re very very plastic. I recommend reading “The Mismeasure of Man” by S.J.Gould and “Not in our genes” by Lewontin.

  48. Starlight

    I guess all men seem poor to me. Poor use of vocabulary, poor manners etc. Explains why I am a lesbian!

  49. Shell Goddamnit

    I second the recommendation of “The Mismeasure of Man” – a good primer on bad science, why it’s bad, and how good science is different.

  50. phiogistic

    I posted to the timesonline article musing that perhaps publishing things like “women are hardwired to be gold-diggers” and “women are generally attracted to gentler looking men” but “when women are at their most fertile they are programmed to seek out the men with the “best” genes” and “lesser males were doomed to become evolutionary dead ends” (all quotes from the article) contribute to violence against women. Strangely, they didn’t publish my comment.

  51. CJ

    Straight women don’t have more orgasms because straight men don’t know, or care, what or where a clitoris is…or that most of us can’t come without it’s direct and persistent stimulation.

    Fuck and un-fuck them all.

    CJ.

  52. Craroline

    SKM and Jodie:

    relatively. evolutionarily adaptive traits don’t have to be good enough for our lives to be ideal, moral, etc, they just have to be good enough that our children live to the age of puberty. i didn’t mean to offend, my point was that BOTH men and women pursue sex with people who have reasonably good health and social skills, which are evolutionary adaptive traits in humans. it’s sort of a given, that, since people can consciously choose their sexual partners, there are going to be criteria they favor, and yes, a lot of this is hardwired, but gender differences can’t be studied objectively anyways.

    I agree that pop-psych has WAY overblown the idea of hardwired traits because it’s beneficial for money-making ventures to exaggerate the differences between men and women. (i might check out that Gould book to see what he has to say, does he discuss gender at all?)

    That being said, i am a fan of evolutionary studies, especially when it comes to language, addiction and the brain, consciousness, different kinds of abstract thinking, and social skills.

  53. kel

    You know when you see a headline of a story but don’t bother clicking the link?

    I assumed that “rich men give women more orgasms” was going to be explained as “rich men are more likely to be enlightened therefore they are more likely to do sexy things that turn their partners on”.

    I wondered if that could be right and if they had done the research properly (like HOW did they know the women were orgasming?) but still was not interested enough to click on the link.

    How wrong could I be?
    “Women report more orgasms because rich men are better providers and when we lived in caves a better provider meant more meat and money is like meat, isn’t it?
    I mean, women could only really gather nuts and berries back then so what did they know about anything?

    Of course, a woman would enjoy sexual intercourse more with a man who somehow was richer in a pre-fiscal society and having more orgasms with these Providers somehow made women have more children, passing on The Gene For Coming More Because Your Partner Is Rich.”

    Evo psych is terrible.

  54. Unsurprised

    Oh Newcastle University, my alma mater, you continue to find ways of making me regret ever setting foot on your campus.

  55. Donna

    This “research” serves a noble purpose: As long a man can go on believing that all women are biologically-wired god-diggers, he never has to entertain the possibility that a woman’s rejection of him might have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that he just might possibly be a repugnant narcissistic dickwart with epic hygiene issues and the personality of day-old roadkill. No, of course not, it’s been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that he’s just not filthy rich enough for the greedy bitches.

    Word.

  56. Donna

    Evo psycho is so very modern a science that they have adopted the newest methods of scientific inquiry. Surveys. The “Family Feud” scientific method of inquiry that cares not one jot for the the facts but only for what the survey says.
    Whaddaya wanna bet they surveyed their wives, concubines, and servants.

    Researchers have been known to question women about their sexuality in front of their husbands. In places like Saudi Arabia. I’m suuure they got accurate answers.

  57. Hollywood Marie

    Re this statement: “There is no word on whether wads of cash influence the number of orgasms “gay” girls experience. Thus it is my conjecture, based on this exciting new research, that “lesbians” only exist because they were, in their formative years, unable to find rich enough guys, thus giving them the erroneous impression that sex with men was kind of gross.”

    I would like to respectfully disagree. I think the conclusion we were to draw is that rich men give women BETTER orgasms than poor men, but women give women the BEST orgasms. I’ve done a personal study and that’s my conclusion (except I didn’t bother sleeping with men). But I think you got the last part right. Anyway, here it is broken into equation form:

    poor men

  58. polly styrene

    And someday soon they will explain men as well….

    I have a dream actually that evo psychs will one day UNDERSTAND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION: Which is:

    1)Mutations occur randomly
    2)Those organisms with mutations that are favourable to survival are more likely to breed, and thus the mutation becomes more widespread.
    3)That’s it.

    What the evo psychs believe is – as someone pointed out – in intelligent design. IE 5,000 years ago, our genes just anticipated western capitalist society. And they thought ‘Hmmmm, maybe the body in which I’m existing 5,000 years hence would be better off if it could be shagging a rich dude with a big house”.

    Actually they destroy their own theory. Because as they point out, orgasm has no reproductive function. And therefore there is no reason for women who have more orgasms to breed any more than women who have none. Which is not in line with the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

    *Bangs head on portrait of Charles Darwin*

  59. Craroline

    Ok, this fan of ev. studies has to nerd out on you guys again.

    It is true that the female orgasm doesn’t have a direct evolutionarily adaptive function. But nipples on men don’t serve a direct evolutionarily adaptive function either.

    But since males and females are more alike than they are different, right down to the basic genetic level, they have a lot of shared traits, just cuz. As long as it isn’t detrimental for men to have nipples and women to have orgasms, their genes won’t go to the trouble to make sure they don’t have those shared traits.

    You just never hear about studies on men’s nipples because society doesn’t find them terrifying.

  60. Hollywood Marie

    Damn, my equation didn’t show up.

  61. Hedgepig

    Craroline,
    Don’t be afeard to nerd out. I find ev studies jolly interesting in spite of myself.
    Nice comparison between male nipples and the female orgasm.

    I do think society (American society in particular) seems to be finding nipples of any kind, on anyone, utterly terrifying nowadays.

  62. Kuleana

    Huh. The university where I work has been talking about how they might have to cut funding in some areas. Perhaps we should all urge our friendly neighborhood universities to cut funding for ev psych first, and when the poor widdle ev psych dudes find themselves without a job I guess they just won’t be getting laid anymore!

  63. mearl

    Who wants to bet that the rich dudes’ wives interviewed for this study gave those answers to ensure that the bankroll didn’t suddenly get cut off when their Trump-resembling husbands read the study?

    I’d also observe that if a woman married some dude in order to be rich, then yeah, maybe money does turn her on enough to make her more orgasmic. Like some other blamers stated above, I value equality, shared interests, intimacy, and those sorts of frivolous things, so oddly enough, I have no problems with orgasm in my sex life with attractive, non-rich guys my age.

    And I also wonder how orgasmic these women are when their rich hubbies leave them for trophy second wives, or when they catch the hubbies cheating, or when they discover the hubbies’ penchant for Thai sex tours when they go away on business.

  64. The Idol of Byzantium

    Long-time reader, first-time comment. Someone made this point already above, but I’m another one willing to bet that the purported quality of rich wife sex can be better explained by the relative financial security of the woman involved. I wonder what they’d find if they were to study women who had made themselves financially secure by their own effort, rather than simply by marrying rich. I know that I certainly feel hornier when I’m not thinking about my student loans. Ill bet guys too feel more in the mood when there’s something in the bank account and no danger of eviction of starvation.

    I’ve really never understood the “But money and nice cars turn women on! I don’t need to exercise/bathe/groom/have a decent personality!” thing. Am I really, honestly, supposed to become physically aroused–like, actually feel some response down yonder–at the sight of a sheaf of bills or a luxury car, rather than when I see an attractive-by-my-standards male person (I happen to be hetero) in some state of undress and/or position that floats my boat? ‘Cause I don’t. So either the evo-psych guys are wrong, or I’m not fit to survive in the wild, before the invention of luxury cars and cash.

    The funny thing about the evo-psych arguments re: rich men/hot women is that you could easily look at it another way and ask: why wouldn’t I–assuming I were in the market for help producing and preserving spawn, which I’m not–want a healthy-looking, young, strong, unblemished dude? Wouldn’t attributes like health/youth/strength be advantageous when it came to procuring food for said spawn and protecting it from danger? Very similar to the arguments made as to why men are “hardwired” to want women far too young and attractive for them.

    I’m willing to buy the idea that human beings generally are programmed to use any mreans available to seek security and a good chance for survival. But that can mean a lot of things. For some women, who have been taught that their only way to attain the broad human goal of security/survival is through a man, this means marrying rich, all/most other qualities optional. For me, it means keeping my job, gaining experience for future jobs, building my skills, and budgeting wisely.

  65. Frumious B.

    Virago,
    So was I.

  66. virago

    Well, Frumious B., maybe I did take it the wrong way, but even Unree (who was defending you against my comment) said:

    “virago, although the “duh” may cut against this interpretation,”

    My original comment about the cabana boy was obviously sarcasm because I was talking about it in the context of sex with Donald Trump (like that would happen)with a big LOL on the end of it. You could have clarified your comment a little more, because I actually ran across people on other blogs who phrased things like you did, and they were dead serious. OTOH, I suppose I could have asked you to clarify your comment before I jumped down your throat so I guess it can cut both ways.

  1. links for 2009-01-21 « Embololalia

    [...] New study explains women! Because the brilliant evolutionary psychologists grasp the little-known fact that all women are straight, there is no word on whether wads of cash influence the number of orgasms “gay” girls experience. (tags: badscience gender sex) [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>