Wealthy men give women more orgasms

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

BMBiology

temporarily banned~!
Removed
20+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
3,420
I knew male pharmacists were better than the average joes!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5537017.ece

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.

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.

Pollet, and Professor Daniel Nettle, his co-author, believed, however, that the female orgasm is an evolutionary adaptation that drives women to choose and retain high-quality partners.

He and Nettle tested that idea using data gathered in one of the world’s biggest lifestyle studies. The Chinese Health and Family Life Survey targeted 5,000 people across China for in-depth interviews about their personal lives, including questions about their sex lives, income and other factors. Among these were 1,534 women with male partners whose data was the basis for the study.

They found that 121 of these women always had orgasms during sex, while 408 more had them “often”. Another 762 “sometimes” orgasmed while 243 had them rarely or never. Such figures are similar to those for western countries.

There were of course, several factors involved in such differences but, said Pollet, money was one of the main ones.

He 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.”

This is not an effect limited to Chinese women. Previous research in Germany and America has looked at attributes such as body symmetry and attractiveness, finding that these are also linked with orgasm frequency. Money, however, seems even more important.

David Buss, professor of psychology at the University of Texas, Austin, who raised this question in his book The Evolution of Desire believes female orgasms have several possible purposes.

“They could promote emotional bonding with a high-quality 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’."

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I would think wealthy men should receive more orgsams from women.
 
+1 rep to the OP


i'm pretty sure the p value to this study was like 0.0000000000000000002312556
 
Last edited:
LMFAO

BMBiology, it is sad that you are a male.
 
Knowing that you are just a pre pharmacy student, I have more wealth (and more women) than you. :smuggrin:

Not if you have student loan debt and the prepharm kid doesn't. Then the kid is welthier than you.
 
Not if you have student loan debt and the prepharm kid doesn't. Then the kid is welthier than you.

By your standard, if you buy a house and you are in debt then I am wealthier than you.
 
Last edited:
Not if the interest rate is 2.3%! :thumbup:

Interest rate is irrelevant. If you have a student loan debt and your asset is smaller than the debt owed, then you're in the red for now. If so, a prepharm with less debt than you is wealthier.
 
By your standard, if you buy a house and you are in debt then I am wealthier than you.


No, not at all. Your educational debt (smart debt) is not hedged with a collateral like a house. When buying a house, more often than not, liability (debt) is smaller than the asset (value of the house). Therefore, your networth is not significantly affected.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
No, not at all. Your educational debt (smart debt)

You are right. I am glad we agree that pharmacists, even with student loans, are better off than pre pharmacy students.
 
You are right. I am glad we agree that pharmacists, even with student loans, are better off than pre pharmacy students.

I know I'm right. But the topic of this discussion isn't about being "better off." It's about wealth. And in terms of wealth, if you have more debt than the prepharm kid, you're not "better off" in terms of "welth."
 
I know I'm right. But the topic of this discussion isn't being "better off." It's about wealth. And in terms of wealth, if your have more debt than the prepharm kid, you're not "better off" in terms of "welth."

Really? I always thought the person with more wealth is better off.
 
Really? I always thought the person with more wealth is better off.

Most likely. But what makes you think you have more net wealth than the kid? Net Worth and Net Wealth, somewhat related, are different. Though they both use the same liability as a subtraction, Net Worth measures everything you own minus the liabilities and Net Wealth measures the amount of income generating financial asset minus the liabilities.

And because you probably have a large liability in terms of loan debt with small income producing financial asset, I doubt you would be "better off" in terms of net wealth compared to a student with a smaller liability.

But don't despair, you'll one day catch up and surpass the student. Then again, the student won't be a student forever either.
 
Most likely. But what makes you think you have more net wealth than the kid?...And because you probably have a large liability in terms of loan debt with small income producing financial asset, I doubt you would be "better off" in terms of net wealth compared to a student with a smaller liability.

First you said student loan is a smart debt but now it is a liability? I think you are trying to split hair here.

Wealth is not just about money, it is also the ability to make money. So even if you invested $100,000 in a pharmacy education and now you are making $125,000 a year as a pharmacist, you are well off and have more wealth than most students.
 
BTW, here's the definition of wealth:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wealth

3. Economics.
a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.

I would say a Pharm.D fits that definition.
 
First you said student loan is a smart debt but now it is a liability? I think you are trying to split hair here.

No, I'm not. Every debt, smart or not, is called a "liability." It's an accounting term.

Wealth is not just about money, it is also the ability to make money. So even if you invested $100,000 in a pharmacy education and now you are making $125,000 a year as a pharmacist, you are well off and have more wealth than most students.

Oh hell...why don't we just define wealth as all things good in humanity..ability to love, ability to protect the poor and young...ability to foster world peace.. Give me wealth or give me death!
 
Oh hell...why don't we just define wealth as all things good in humanity..ability to love, ability to protect the poor and young...ability to foster world peace.. Give me wealth or give me death!

No, no, no. See above for the definition of wealth. So caring for your granny is not wealth. Sorry.
 
Your net wealth is still below the student's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth

Wealth as measured by time
Wealth has also been defined as "the amount of time an individual can maintain his current lifestyle for, without any new income." For example if a person has $1000, and their lifestyle dictates $1000 per week of expenses, then their wealth is measured as 1 week. Under this definition, a person with $10,000 of savings and expenses of $1000 per week (10 weeks of wealth) would be considered wealthier than a person with $20,000 of savings and expenses of $5000 per week (4 weeks of wealth).

http://cornerstonewealth.com.au/resources/Fact Sheet - Net Worth vs Net Wealth.pdf
 
I forgot to tell you that I was being sarcastic when I wrote, "you are right". Sorry, I did not mean to mislead you or get your hope up.
 
I forgot to tell you that I was being sarcastic when I wrote, "you are right". Sorry, I did not mean to mislead you or get your hope up.

Well, considering you really don't understand where interest rate fits in the wealth calculation, net worth regarding purchase of house, and how to use the term liability, I'm shocked you know how to use sarcasm.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth
Wealth has also been defined as "the amount of time an individual can maintain his current lifestyle for, without any new income."

http://cornerstonewealth.com.au/resources/Fact Sheet - Net Worth vs Net Wealth.pdf

Dont tell me you are using a website in Australia to make your point.

If you take a look at the wikipedia page, it has many definition of wealth including the ability to make money. Is it that difficult for you to admit that most pharmacists are wealthier than pre pharm students? Why try to make an argument out of something so obvious?
 
According to your definition of wealth, then the U.S is the poorest country in the world since it owes so much debt. I know we are in a recession but we are not doing THAT bad.
 
Dont tell me you are using a website in Australia to make your point.

If you take a look at the wikipedia page, it has many definition of wealth including the ability to make money. Is it that difficult for you to admit that most pharmacists are wealthier than pre pharm students? Why try to make an argument out of something so obvious?

Because I've seen many pharmacists who are up to their eyeballs in debt and are barely floating. The measurement of wealth has to account for everything. Because I know you went to USC and you're a fairly recent grad, it's obvious you have liabilities larger than your asset. This puts your net worth and net wealth below a typical prepharm student. Sure, you're more likely "better off" because your income outweighs your liabilities more so than a student's income minus liabilities. But using a strict term of "wealth" in a measurable term, you do not have more wealth. You're better off... Oh.. and certainly not sure about "more women."
 
:smuggrin:

According to your definition of wealth, then the U.S is the poorest country in the world since it owes so much debt. I know we are in a recession but we are not doing THAT bad.

Nope. How much is US debt? About 10 Trillion. Who are the debt securities holder? 25% by foreign countries... more than 50% is held by the Federal Reserve. So we're loaning money to ourselves. Deficit spending is not the worst thing in the world.

That being said, the US wealth is not measured by debt alone. It's asset minus debt. And I would say our asset is quite large...

Networth = asset - liabilities
 
Last edited:
We can talk about the US deficit spending and the budget if you would like... Certainly we can find something to argue about.
 
First you said student loan is a smart debt but now it is a liability? I think you are trying to split hair here.

Wealth is not just about money, it is also the ability to make money. So even if you invested $100,000 in a pharmacy education and now you are making $125,000 a year as a pharmacist, you are well off and have more wealth than most students.

since when was the ability to make money considered "wealth"?
 
Dont tell me you are using a website in Australia to make your point.

If you take a look at the wikipedia page, it has many definition of wealth including the ability to make money. Is it that difficult for you to admit that most pharmacists are wealthier than pre pharm students? Why try to make an argument out of something so obvious?


Does it matter what website one uses to make one's point? Isn't it about being right?

Most pharmacists are wealthier than MOST prepharm kids. I totally agree.
But You're a recent graduate, I don't think you fall into that "Most" category considering your educational debt sitting there and your spending habit is more likely different than when you were still in PharmD program. By the way, back when you were a pre-pharm kid, did you always think that MOST pharmacists are wealthier than prepharm kids?
Itoverzyvox is absolutely right. You're will be out of debt although I don't know when, 10 years, 20 years perhaps. And I'll be on my way catching up with you after 4 years in the PharmD program. But that doesn't matter, the original was not who is more wealthier than the other person. The point was whether you're wealthy or not at of right now (with your $200,000+ debt) Think about it before making another senseless comment.

It is so obvious that you're hearing yourself but you're not willing to listen to others' point of view, eps. Itoverzyvox's. And I have to admit, He/She is absolutely right on this argument.

As for the women part, you're pretty arrogant making that comment because you don't even know me. If that's the case you probably think you have more women than all the prepharm guys on this forum or US for that matter. As far as I concern, male npharmacists are more insecure about women interesting in them since they think they are SOOOOO WEALTHY. :rolleyes:
 
That being said, the US wealth is not measured by debt alone. It's asset minus debt. And I would say our asset is quite large...

Networth = asset - liabilities

and a pharmacist's wealth is not measured by debt alone. Again, here's the definition of wealth:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wealth

3. Economics.
a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.

So don't tell me a pharmacist license is not considered as "wealth".
 
If you're a pharmacy student you will have the potential to build wealth (although that won't be until after you graduate and land a job). A pre-pharm would probably have more wealth than you because you are probably several tens of thousands of dollars in the hole. Wealth is the equity you have and so most individuals in professional schools have negative wealth since they are in debt (all liabilities).

Example: I make less than six-digits, but I have retirement savings in the six digits in addition to assets, some of them equity-building, with value in the six-digits. I will also be inheriting assets in two decades or so whose value at that time will probably be in the seven digits. (Parents are going to get a second house to retire into rather than downsize).

Thus, a young retail pharmacist has greater earning potential than me but probably has significantly less wealth than I do (they may still have a negative net worth if they haven't completely paid off their debt). Granted, over the course of his or her career, they may surpass me in wealth because they can generate more disposable income each year to save and invest (though they still might not be able to beat my wealth-building potential as I can live with remarkably low expenses).

Another scenario: You have two new pharmacists. One takes a job in a cush Californian suburb for $120k while another takes a job in the boonies like West Virginia or something for $90k. Is the Californian pharmacist wealthier? No. Both of them are in debt from their student loans and don't have any other assets so they both have negative wealth (the difference is insignificant). Over the course of their careers the Cali pharm gets one of those grossly overpriced Cali homes (losing over a hundred thousand to the bank through his mortgage) and incuring other greater expenses due to California's higher cost of living. The West Virginian pharmacist rents some dirt cheap apartment and lives frugally, managing to put about half his salary into savings and investments. He saves enough for some dirt cheap WV House (exactly the same quality, SF, as the Cali house but a fifth the price) and pays for it in full. Ignoring other factors like having a secondary income earner, raising kids, and changes in real estate markets, the WV pharmacist will end up significantly wealthier than the Cali pharmacist despite making only 3/4th the other's salary.

The wealthiest people in this country are the baby boomers because they are just retiring (and thus at the peak of their net worth as they haven't eaten into their savings yet).

PS: Being with women who like you only because you're wealthy is a great way to lose wealth. I hope you have other qualities that make you more attractive other than your earning potential. :)
 
Last edited:
So don't tell me a pharmacist license is not considered as "wealth".[/quote]

No, it is not. Not if you're out of a job. Not if you're working one day a week. Come on. What about all the people with an engineering or computer science degree without a job. Can they considered their license as "wealth". You need to go back and check on your definition of "wealth":rolleyes:
 
If you're a pharmacy student you will have the potential to build wealth (although that won't be until after you graduate and land a job). A pre-pharm would probably have more wealth than you because you are probably several tens of thousands of dollars in the hole. Wealth is the equity you have and so most individuals in professional schools have negative wealth since they are in debt (all liabilities).

Example: I make less than six-digits, but I have retirement savings in the six digits in addition to assets, some of them equity-building, with value in the six-digits. I will also be inheriting assets in two decades or so whose value at that time will probably be in the seven digits. (Parents are going to get a second house to retire into rather than downsize).

Thus, a young retail pharmacist has greater earning potential than me but probably has significantly less wealth than I do (they may still have a negative net worth if they haven't completely paid off their debt). Granted, over the course of his or her career, they may surpass me in wealth because they can generate more disposable income each year to save and invest (though they still might not be able to beat my wealth-building potential as I can live with remarkably low expenses).

Another scenario: You have two new pharmacists. One takes a job in a cush Californian suburb for $120k while another takes a job in the boonies like West Virginia or something for $90k. Is the Californian pharmacist wealthier? No. Both of them are in debt from their student loans and don't have any other assets so they both have negative wealth (the difference is insignificant). Over the course of their careers the Cali pharm gets one of those grossly overpriced Cali homes (losing over a hundred thousand to the bank through his mortgage) and incuring other greater expenses due to California's higher cost of living. The West Virginian pharmacist rents some dirt cheap apartment and lives frugally, managing to put about half his salary into savings and investments. He saves enough for some dirt cheap WV House (exactly the same quality, SF, as the Cali house but a fifth the price) and pays for it in full. Ignoring other factors like having a secondary income earner, raising kids, and changes in real estate markets, the WV pharmacist will end up significantly wealthier than the Cali pharmacist despite making only 3/4th the other's salary.

The wealthiest people in this country are the baby boomers because they are just retiring (and thus at the peak of their net worth as they haven't eaten into their savings yet).

Great examples. I could not agree more :thumbup:
 
What about all the people with an engineering or computer science degree without a job. Can they considered their license as "wealth". You need to go back and check on your definition of "wealth":rolleyes:

An engineering or computer science degree is a degree like a Pharm.D., not a license.
 
An engineering or computer science degree is a degree like a Pharm.D., not a license.

Same *hit, different smells.
It is just a piece of document or paper saying you have completed the education and requirement and have the right to practice blah blah blah but you actually have to get your &ss out there and work for your salary, then that is when you're generating "wealth". Otherwise, it's still a piece of 'f paper.
 
IT'S OVER!

I hereby declare ItsOverZYvox the Winner! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

I think I will reconsider about attending USC.
 
and a pharmacist's wealth is not measured by debt alone. Again, here's the definition of wealth:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wealth

3. Economics.
a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.

So don't tell me a pharmacist license is not considered as "wealth".

Pharmacist license does not have a monetary or exchange value. Go ahead and try to sell it on Ebay. Or is it useful for you to appropriate or exchange? No. So, to use the definition you provide, pharmacist license can not be defined as wealth. Because you can never exchange it with anything of value.

Now, you as a licensed pharmacist have an income potential. But how would you incorporate your income potential in calculating your net wealth or net worth?
 
Last edited:
IT'S OVER!

I hereby declare ItsOverZYvox the Winner! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

I think I will reconsider about attending USC.


You should go to USC. Heck...SC must be letting everyone in now...by looking at the quality of pharmacists we're spitting out.. I guess the quality of students must've declined since I graduated. We used to be a top 5 school when I was at SC.. I guess not no mo. :smuggrin:
 
Another scenario: You have two new pharmacists. One takes a job in a cush Californian suburb for $120k while another takes a job in the boonies like West Virginia or something for $90k. Is the Californian pharmacist wealthier? No. Both of them are in debt from their student loans and don't have any other assets so they both have negative wealth (the difference is insignificant). Over the course of their careers the Cali pharm gets one of those grossly overpriced Cali homes (losing over a hundred thousand to the bank through his mortgage) and incuring other greater expenses due to California's higher cost of living. The West Virginian pharmacist rents some dirt cheap apartment and lives frugally, managing to put about half his salary into savings and investments. He saves enough for some dirt cheap WV House (exactly the same quality, SF, as the Cali house but a fifth the price) and pays for it in full. Ignoring other factors like having a secondary income earner, raising kids, and changes in real estate markets, the WV pharmacist will end up significantly wealthier than the Cali pharmacist despite making only 3/4th the other's salary.


:smuggrin::smuggrin: I think we have a real life scenario here.. It's comparing Mikey-WVU vs BM bio dude. My money is on Mikey... him and his frugal self driving a beat up Taurus living in a singlewide .. vs. BM flaunting his check by check lifestyle.. It'll be scary when Mrs. WVU finishes.. what will they do with all that money!!
 
You should go to USC. Heck...SC must be letting everyone in now...by looking at the quality of pharmacists we're spitting out.. I guess the quality of students must've declined since I graduated. We used to be a top 5 school when I was at SC.. I guess not no mo. :smuggrin:

You're right about that. They have lowered their standard on admitting students into the program. But again, it depends on each individual student. I know some great current USC students and recent graduates.
 
Well, so much for this wealth definition debate. I take issue with the study/article. Seems the variable at hand is a man's wealth...not what women are hard-wired to seek for in a partner. Why is this even a correlation?
 
Top