Wealthy men give women more orgasms

I want to know how the researchers are so sure these women had orgasms.

And all you guys make me laugh. So sure about your prowess? :shk:

I finally found where they moved this thread to, and since I'm the OP, I figure I should at least make one comment, so here goes !

The results of this study are not suprising to me in the least. I'm definately a man, and I have no problem admitting I find money pretty sexy, so why wouldn't women find it sexy as well ?

Anyway, thanks everybody for reading, the interesting comments, and a very lively discussion, indeed !

Best, vv

reply to post by visible_villain


People consider different things to be sexy and unsexy. Some people have fetishes, considered to be fetishes because they're unusual, not standard. This doesn't mean that everyone has similar programming to find something sexy. One mans trash is another mans treasure!

The article is trying to justify women having orgasms as being some exploit, and not surprising that the guy talking about it, this Dr. Thomas Pollet, is a man. Honestly, what's so hard to understand about it? Wanna know why women orgasm? Same reason as men do, to enjoy sex. If there was no stimulation and ultimately no orgasm, what motivation would there be for women (as a whole) to have sex at all? (or men for that matter)

Doing a study like this is flawed to begin with, since people are sexually diverse. It's quite possible that the ones in the study were in fact gold diggers who have a money fetish of some sort, but what does that prove exactly? This is assuming the women had genuine orgasms even, orgasms themselves vary oh so very much.
You can't generalize it like this because people have sex for different reasons to begin with! Some people are content with and wish for that one partner to have for life, while others would die before settling down with one.

Ideally you'd have to do a study like this by picking a lot of completely random women, and having them have sex with some poor guy, and the same woman then going to the rich guy, and average out the number of orgasms. Even then that wouldn't say very much.

Just goes to show how science is going down the wrong path where trying to grab funding for research and studies goes to useless but noisy things like this, instead of the quieter more important useful things. Disgusting how unscientific these "scientific studies" are.

Did they even consider what part of the cycle a woman is on when they're waiting with the counter? That affects things quite a lot, at least for me, if not all women to some degree. I'm wondering if that guy even knows that. There are just way way too many factors for me to list, and I'm not even fully aware of all of them. Therefore this study is such a comical useless oversimplified incomplete waste of money.

I myself don't consider money to be sexy, unsexy if anything, because I don't like what money does to a person. The person is what's sexy to me not the bank account, sorry.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by Sara1]

This thread receives a failure commisioned by the God of Failology.

I respectively inform you all that the thread has been failed.

:bash::bash: