Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Evolutionary Psychology, and Morons.

Scientists have found that the pleasure women get from making love is directly linked to the size of their partner’s bank balance.
They found that the wealthier a man is, the more frequently his partner has orgasms.
“Women’s orgasm frequency increases with the income of their partner,” said Dr Thomas Pollet, the Newcastle University psychologist behind the research.
Or at least so a recent article that V.V.F linked to me seems to indicate. But wait! There's more!
He believes the phenomenon is an “evolutionary adaptation” that is hard-wired into women, driving them to select men on the basis of their perceived quality.
The study is certain to prove controversial, suggesting that women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers... 
However, it fits into a wider body of research known as 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. 
The female orgasm is the focus of much research because it appears to have no reproductive purpose. Women can become pregnant whatever their pleasure levels.
Of course, all of the above is sheer idiocy. Nothing good ever comes out of Newcastle (proving Constantine right), and the reason I find myself intensely skeptical about "evolutionary psychology" is due to theories such as the above. The "question" of the female orgasm is stupid - the pleasure of orgasm is another reason women are drawn towards having sex naturally. The fact that they can become pregnant without achieving orgasm is beside the point. Secondarily, a higher ratio of orgasms amongst women who are financially well off fits easily into Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (someone who is say, starving, and constantly has to worry about survival probably doesn't put a lot of effort into achieving orgasm, nor would one imagine their partner find such a thing a primary concern. There are, of course, exceptions. But seriously...) and thus doesn't need further "solution". A first year psych student knows that shit.

Finally, suggesting that women "evolved" the female orgasm so that they could make their richer (since when did money have an evolutionary advantage?! Or anything to do with evolution?) partner feel more safe is... Uh...

8 comments:

Karmaghna said...

“Women’s orgasm frequency increases with the income of their partner,”

Bullshit! The only thing that increases is the rate at which they lie.

Albiana said...

Oh shit. Further proof that --pseudoscientific no less-- that I'm doing it wrong. Great.

I am the financial workhorse and breadwinner in my family. By twice my husband's income.

So do I ask him about the frequency and quality of his orgasms because of this role-reversal?

Or is my income still relative to my own "economic stimulus package?"

((by the way, my word verification for this blurb? "mispork" HILARIOUS!))

Ron said...

Maybe the focus on the women is misplaced. It could be that the more affluent men are superior lovers.

Pallas Renatus said...

Sigh... evolutionary psychology is a perfectly valid study... it's just co-opted by idiots pretty much daily.

The people most skeptical about evolutionary explanations for specific quirks are evolutionary psychologists themselves.

I'm of the particular opinion that more rich dudes have had more opportunities to bang more gold-diggers, and thus statistically are more likely to have half an idea of what they're doing in bed. Of course, that assumes that everything is rate-adjusted for the number of sexual acts. If not, odds are rich dudes just have more time for bangin'.

Gordon said...

My immediate thought is correlation rather than causation. This just looks like demographics to me.

The more you earn, the more likely it is that you are healthier than those who make less money than you.

(Jobseekers have other things to spend their money on than Bikram Yoga.)

The healthier you are, the better your sex life, especially as you age.

Which means I agree with your analysis, Jack, but I suspect it extends further than being psychologically better off.

Jack Faust said...

@Gordon: I didn't mean to insist that my reason for assuming the theory is flawed is the only one. There appear to be about a dozen flaws that I could point out about it, and so I stuck to the most rudimentary explaination.

I agree with you, however. It's correlation, not causation.

Psyche said...

And that the secretions emitted during arousal aid in sliding the penis in the vagina, and the contractions during orgasm aid in guiding the sperm to the appropriate place. An unaroused woman engaged in sex sounds like rape to me.

Besides, orgasms an end in and of themselves, not to propagate, but for pleasure. That offspring (sometimes) result is a side effect. We do it 'cause it's fun.

gwodder said...

maybe women who like to fuck rich guys are aroused by rich guys