Post: #1

According to a new international study, rich women report significantly higher sexual satisfaction than women of low socioeconomic status.

I can't remember where Roosh said it, but I recall one of his writings in which he stated that it's easier to bang affluent girls because they have more leisure time to think about sex and are not distracted by stress caused by economic duress or misfortune. This study seems to support that notion.

The implication for Game is that rich women are better targets for approaches than poor women, because they are more likely to be into sex.

Post: #2

Isn't that the same for both sexes to an extent?

Post: #3

(01-19-2014 02:25 AM)blkgatsby Wrote:  Isn't that the same for both sexes to an extent?

Having one's sexual pleasure depend on things like economic status is a very female thing, in my view. Guys are simply not wired that way. Their sexual pleasure triggers are beauty, youth, and various other things that have no clear connection to something like status.

Post: #4

The headline was misleading and/or pathetically biased. The study looked at PEOPLE'S level of sexual satisfation, not just women's. This reminds me of the old satirical line about how the Washington Post would cover the end of the world: "World to End Tomorrow: Women, Minorities Hit Hardest."

But if we're gonna focus on women, I think the writer reached the wrong conclusion. And I hope she and her minions are reading this. Because I don't agree with her that the reason poorer women enjoy sex less has to do with stress. I think it's because poorer women are statistically more overweight than richer ones -- and no one wants to spend that much time aboard a fattie.

Think about it. When you get with a woman with a toned, fine body you want to spend a lot of time there. You savor that, like you would a good steak or wine.

But when you end up with a woman who disrobes and you realize she has more than a few folds, you're like "Oh the humanity!" and you hold your nose and take one for the team.

And, by the way, this writer, Emily Shire, is cited for her bias and anti-male ideas on the Web page Crimes Against Fathers, for an anti-men's rights movement piece she wrote. So what we'd want to do here is make sure BIASED and EMILY SHIRE show up in the Google searches.

And judging from that bottom pic, her inner fattie is just waiting to break out.

Post: #5

^^^ Interesting, Days of Broken Arrows. The original write up -- which is not by Emily Shire -- reports that the effect is larger for women:

Quote:“People of a lower socioeconomic status claim to be less satisfied sexually, which especially applies to women, who seem to be more influenced by these factors,” explains Dolores Ruiz, the main author of the study, to SINC.

The reporting by U.S. News was pretty similar and emphasized the larger effect of affluence on women as well. The sub-title of the U.S. News piece reads as follows: "A Spanish study shows that women with a higher socioeconomic status are more sexually satisfied."

None of this is intended to be a defense of Emily Shire.

Post: #6

(01-19-2014 02:42 AM)Consul Wrote:  ^^^ Interesting, Days of Broken Arrows. The original write up -- which is not by Emily Shire -- reports that the effect is larger for women:

Quote:“People of a lower socioeconomic status claim to be less satisfied sexually, which especially applies to women, who seem to be more influenced by these factors,” explains Dolores Ruiz, the main author of the study, to SINC.

The reporting by U.S. News was pretty similar and emphasized the larger effect of affluence on women as well. The sub-title of the U.S. News piece reads as follows: "A Spanish study shows that women with a higher socioeconomic status are more sexually satisfied."

None of this is intended to be a defense of Emily Shire.

Actually, that study does the same thing: surveys people, but puts women in the headline. So I shouldn't fault Emily Shire for just copying the bias. My guess is that it was there as a way for them to sell the study to the US media.

The only place it singles out women is when it comes to sexual abuse. The rest is seems to me to be neutral:

"In this case, socioeconomic factors influence men as much as women, even at the different times analysed and with the different types of partner. “Those people with a lower socioeconomic status are always those who use less contraception,” Ruiz points out."