Some more misogynist 'research' to come from the ‘scientists’ of Newcastle University - otherwise famous for promoting the notion that women like pink because it reminds them of 'ripe berries' whereas men like blue because it looks like a 'happy sky', things they were used to looking at back in those highly influential days we spent in pre-history which thousands of years of civilisation have done nothing to overwrite.
This time, they are suggesting that women are more likely to orgasm if they're having sex with a rich man. I know, right? This alleged research was gathered by 'asking women about their sex lives', surely an inexact science if ever I heard one.
Pollet, a man, 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.”
Oh, so that's that then is it? Well, I'm going to conduct my own research, using my memories of sexual exploits, and if they agree with your research we'll call it science, shall we?
A (somewhat edited!) list of Posie's lovers:
My finger, c.1985- Took a while to master, but generally a came up with the goods. Income: Mine, so medium.
Darren, c.1988: Not a chance. Income: Medium.
Indigo, c.1990: Oh goodness, maybe once? Income: High.
LeAnne, 1991: Short lived but sweet! Income: Low.
William, 1991-1992: Very good. Income: Medium.
Terence, 1992: A rebound, AWFUL. Income: Medium.
Raif, 1999: Oh holidays! Oh sun! Oh wonder! Income: Unknown.
Cristoff, 2001: Far too quick to notice. Income: High.
Name unknown, 2001: I can only imagine not. Income: Unknown/Suspicious.
Max and Oliver, 2002: Oh dear, thankfully too drunk to remember. Income: Hiiiigh x 2.
Leon, 2004: Yes. Income: Low, with pretensions to fallen aristocracy.
[Quiet spell, cf. Me, Ted and my Head.]
Gerald, 2008: A swine, but parfait in the boudoir. Income: High but with pretensions to working class ennoblement.
So that’s a:
Yes!: High - 2; Medium – 2; Low -1 ; Unknown – 2.
No!: High - 3; Medium – 2; Low – 0; Unknown – 1.
So, that's not even the full list and it proves you wrong, Pollet. Stick that in your Bunsen burner and smoke it.
Another douche bag is Dave Buss, Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas, Austin, who raised this question in his book The Evolution of Desire and believes female orgasms have several possible purposes.
“They could promote emotional bonding with a high-quality (my italics) male or they could serve as a signal that women are highly sexually satisfied, and hence unlikely to seek sex with other men,” he said. “What those orgasms are saying is ‘I'm extremely loyal, so you should invest in me and my children’."
Oh naff off, Dave. You wouldn't know a 'signal of satisfaction' if you were trapped up there in the dark for whole a week. Maybe, just maybe, females orgasm for reproductive purposes, to encourage sex? Or maybe women actually have a sex drive?
Otherwise, yes I do agree: to an extent. It's like the novelist Rosamund Lehmann (who had LOTS of sex) said about boffing Cecil Day Lewis: the great thing about being in bed with a poet is that you know he's always thinking about poetry. You feel second best: a sure recipe for desire!
It's a bit like that with money, I guess. Especially for stupid people i.e. the overwhelming majority. Men wouldn't be aroused by money because it threatens their masculinity (a gender construct). As Valerie Solanas wrote: women give milk, men give money.
Finally, it is interesting to consider that Simone de Beauvoir was a firm believer in women marrying a greater intellect - which for the sake of argument could be compared to wealth - whereas this just 'isn't possible' for the male. She didn't manage it, of course, as Satre was an idiot and de Beauvoir was a Goddess. In fact, perhaps it precisely this ambition that gives credence to Lady Astor's observation that paradoxically 'every woman marries beneath her'?