Women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers

Galvasean

blinding wrote: »

It is pretty well documented that 1 out of every 8 children is not by the father that they are supposed to be from.

Define 'pretty well documented'.

javaboy

spinandscribble wrote: »

if its true then god played a funny trick on me and made me attracted to bums.

I'm a leg man myself.

meditraitor

Personally Im a breast man :pac:

As for gold digging woman, been unlucky enough to have been involved with one but in my experience they are far and few between.

xzanti

I fcuking knew it... no wonder I haven't came in years...

blinding

Galvasean wrote: »

Define 'pretty well documented'.

My "uncle" told me.:D

javaboy

xzanti wrote: »

lol.. I got dumped yesterday.. but that cheered me up haha

xzanti wrote: »

I fcuking knew it... no wonder I haven't came in years...

Sounds like you should have been the one doing the dumping!

Terry

xzanti wrote: »

I fcuking knew it... no wonder I haven't came in years...

You've never met me.
I'm awesome.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

But how did he know that the orgasms weren;t being faked?

Macha

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

But how did he know that the orgasms weren;t being faked?

Bingo. Someone finally realised the fatal flaw in self-reported survey results.

Methodology is boring but unfortunately vital to the validity of the results.

nyarlothothep

I heard from a chinese person that gold digging among females is part of the culture in China, or there is a sub culture of it, take it any way you want. There is some truth to it, but I can't see how you can take findings like these and then make generalizations about humanity in a fundamental sense.

Evolutionary mechanisms are conditions imo not determiners and historically we don't strictly follow these conditions, for example with religion--->celibacy. Or even now, people from higher socio economic backgrounds have less children than those from lower ones. We are the only species to be consciously aware of our evolutionary past and we are well on the way to taking charge of our future evolution and it won't necessarily be uniform either. Different sections of humanity could pay for different genetic alterations. Also mating selection is also based on genetic similarities. For example we are more attracted to people with similar faces, mindsets, talents etc. So its not solely a uniform preference for the "alpha" male, or female.

Personally I think its rather simplistic to reduce the complexity of human behaviour and society to fundamentals as you get a grossly distorted picture. If there was any rule to the study of humanity its that it is a soft science with many variables which doesn't permit generalizations.

asdasd

Bingo. Someone finally realised the fatal flaw in self-reported survey results.

Methodology is boring but unfortunately vital to the validity of the results.

The report says

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.

The women more frequently reporting orgasms ( not "faking" orgasms) are married to , or dating, richer guys. So there are two solutions

1) Women get better orgasms with richer guys, or
2) Women with richer husbands lie about better orgasms.

2) sounds extraordinary. Why lie in a private survey? Why would the lying correlate with your partners income?

Macha

asdasd wrote: »

The women more frequently reporting orgasms ( not "faking" orgasms) are married to , or dating, richer guys. So there are two solutions

1) Women get better orgasms with richer guys, or
2) Women with richer husbands lie about better orgasms.

2) sounds extraordinary. Why lie in a private survey? Why would the lying correlate with your partners income?

Why is option 2 so extraordinary? Correlation is not causation.

I could equally make the argument that women with richer husbands are better liars and use this data to successfully support my case. The difference between the my claim and the claim made by the authors of the study is something that is impossible to quantify with self-reported data: the objective truth.

If the researchers were half-way decent, they would have included this caveat which probably wasn't considered important enough to include in the article.

I really can't stand these stupid studies that attempt to "prove" some ridiculous generalisation, normally about gender differences, for the apparant benefit of..well, no one really (except maybe people in pubs and on internet boards who can now proclaim "aha! I knew it".

A recent one was given short shrift in Ben Goldacre's column Bad Science:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/25/genderissues

I love evolutionary psychologists, because the ideas, like "girls prefer pink because they need to be better at hunting berries" are so much fun. Sure there are problems, like, we don't know a lot about life in the pleistocene period through which humans evolved; their claims sound a bit like "just so" stories, relying on their own internal, circular logic; the evidence for genetic influence on behaviour, emotion, and cognition, is coarse; they only pick the behaviours which they think they can explain while leaving the rest; and they get in trouble as soon as they go beyond examining broad categories of human behaviours across societies and cultures, becoming crassly ethnocentric. But that doesn't stop me enjoying their ideas.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

asdasd wrote: »

The report says

The Chinese Health and Family Life Survey targeted 5,000 people across China for in-depth interviews

The women more frequently reporting orgasms ( not "faking" orgasms) are married to , or dating, richer guys. So there are two solutions

1) Women get better orgasms with richer guys, or
2) Women with richer husbands lie about better orgasms.

2) sounds extraordinary. Why lie in a private survey? Why would the lying correlate with your partners income?

3) Chinese women are inherently progammed to be gold diggers...

Terry

asdasd wrote: »

The report says




The women more frequently reporting orgasms ( not "faking" orgasms) are married to , or dating, richer guys. So there are two solutions

1) Women get better orgasms with richer guys, or
2) Women with richer husbands lie about better orgasms.

2) sounds extraordinary. Why lie in a private survey? Why would the lying correlate with your partners income?

Because everybody's having a good time.
Except you.
You're still talking about the end of the world.

asdasd

I could equally make the argument that women with richer husbands are better liars and use this data to successfully support my case. The difference between the my claim and the claim made by the authors of the study is something that is impossible to quantify with self-reported data: the objective truth.

The survey didnt advertise itself as testing how many orgasms people had related to income. So lying is impossible. The women merely filled in data, what came out in the wash is that there was a correlation between the wealth of their husbands and their reporting of orgasms. I dont even know if the scientists were looking for this, and it would not be clear to the form-filler that it was being looked for.

I can't see the opportunity to lie.

Darkbloom

asdasd wrote: »

The survey didnt advertise itself as testing how many orgasms people had related to income. So lying is impossible. The women merely filled in data, what came out in the wash is that there was a correlation between the wealth of their husbands and their reporting of orgasms. I dont even know if the scientists were looking for this, and it would not be clear to the form-filler that it was being looked for.

I can't see the opportunity to lie.

You can't see the methodology. Questions can easily be slanted to give the result you want from the subjects in order to support an already-reached conclusion. Happens all the time.

asdasd

You can't see the methodology. Questions can easily be slanted to give the result you want from the subjects in order to support an already-reached conclusion. Happens all the time.

Jesus there is a huge clutching at straws here. Unless the paper said someting like
" Being a rich girl with a rich partner(lucky you!) how many orgasms does your wonderful provider give you!!!"

I cant see it.

Macha

asdasd wrote: »

The survey didnt advertise itself as testing how many orgasms people had related to income. So lying is impossible. The women merely filled in data, what came out in the wash is that there was a correlation between the wealth of their husbands and their reporting of orgasms. I dont even know if the scientists were looking for this, and it would not be clear to the form-filler that it was being looked for.

I can't see the opportunity to lie.

It is universally accepted among social researchers that any self-reported answers should be treated with caution.

How exactly is lying impossible? They are asked a question and can decide whether to answer it truthfully or not. Often, the subject may not even by doing it consciously. And how do you know that it was not clear to the participant what data the researchers were looking for?

The prevalence of the social desirability bias is well documented and I could equally argue that women who find wealthy husbands are experts at making themselves socially and sexually desirable. Moreover, taboo subjects, such as sex, are even more open to the impact of this bias than other subjects, such as the weather, etc.

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

emeraldstar

Darkbloom wrote: »

I wonder if this bitter little study was motivated by the fact that he looks like this?

Hehehe, favourite bit of that site: "...Friends (under construction)"

stovelid

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers

I would have thought the physical rigours of a career in prospecting would have precluded most women, myself.

Darkbloom

asdasd wrote: »

Jesus there is a huge clutching at straws here. Unless the paper said someting like
" Being a rich girl with a rich partner(lucky you!) how many orgasms does your wonderful provider give you!!!"

I cant see it.

No, you're clutching at straws based on little to no evidence whatsoever. I've studied statistics and I know something about bias. The guy's a total snake-oil merchant.

asdasd

The prevalence of the social desirability bias is well documented and I could equally argue that women who find wealthy husbands are experts at making themselves socially and sexually desirable. Moreover, taboo subjects, such as sex, are even more open to the impact of this bias than other subjects, such as the weather, etc.

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

Hmm. i dont think that it is socially desirable to get maintain that a women gets better orgasms from richer partners, the social desirability would run the other way. The taboo would be the "gold-digging" idea that y'all are arguing against. In other words no woman is going to answer the question "Did you marry him for his money" in the affirmative ,even if ( particularly if) they did. The social desirable response is to mention love.

Anyway you seem to be arguing that women are not unconsciously getting better orgasms with richer blokes but consciously lying about it - even in a private survey - to keep their man happy somehow.

Golddiggers either way.

Macha

asdasd wrote: »

Hmm. i dont think that it is socially desirable to get maintain that a women gets better orgasms from richer partners, the social desirability would run the other way. The taboo would be the "gold-digging" idea that y'all are arguing against. In other words no woman is going to answer the question "Did you marry him for his money" in the affirmative ,even if ( particularly if) they did. The social desirable response is to mention love.

Bizarre logic. I don't even know where to start. It never ceases to amaze me how people will come up with the most convoluted logic, just so that they can grasp, with their fingertips, onto their idea of how things should be.

asdasd wrote: »

Anyway you seem to be arguing that women are not unconsciously getting better orgasms with richer blokes but consciously lying about it - even in a private survey - to keep their man happy somehow.

I'm saying it's a possibility and that the study doesn't prove anything but that people are incredibly gullible and will believe anything.

asdasd wrote: »

Golddiggers either way.

Speechless...I love, love, love, the way the women get slated and the men get a clap on the back. And who said feminism is dead?

Terry

Am I the only one who thinks the researcher can't score?

Darkbloom

julep wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks the researcher can't score?

I linked his picture a couple of times suggesting as much.:D

EamonnKeane

Maybe Ayn Rand was right and rich people are rich because they are inherently good. Then everyone wins!

Eric Cartman

easiest way to make a woman cum, hand her your visa card

Darkbloom

Eric Cartman wrote: »

easiest way to make a woman cum, hand her your visa card

I tend to find that a bit abrasive myself.

Silverfish

taconnol wrote: »

Speechless...I love, love, love, the way the women get slated and the men get a clap on the back. And who said feminism is dead?

Do you remember the massive furore over the 'goldigger' Heather Mills, who got 47 million from Paul McCartney? All the articles and threads and goldigger jokes?

Guy Ritchie just got 50 million from Madonna and........silence.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

It is universally accepted among social researchers that any self-reported answers should be treated with caution.

The prevalence of the social desirability bias is well documented and I could equally argue that women who find wealthy husbands are experts at making themselves socially and sexually desirable. Moreover, taboo subjects, such as sex, are even more open to the impact of this bias than other subjects, such as the weather, etc.

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

Ok Tac - lets try a bit of word association and tell me what you feel

OVERDRAFT

[Jackass]

If they find us hot cause we have money then maybe they should start paying for some of their own sh*t...

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

Ok Tac - lets try a bit of word association and tell me what you feel

OVERDRAFT

Nrrrggghhh...can't resist.....arm reaching to dial number of my sugar daddy.....gah!

Oh wow, I think that reaction alone is basis for a paper on women, word associations and sugar daddies! Does anyone have Nature's number? I think I have their headline story for the February issue.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

Nrrrggghhh...can't resist.....arm reaching to dial number of my sugar daddy.....gah!

Oh wow,

There goes Tac disproving the theory.

Is there no end to this womans depravity.:p

Is it true that you think telephone banking is hot?

javaboy

A lot of rich people are probably conscious of the whole "money can't buy happiness" thing. Maybe some of the women filling in the survey exaggerated their answers to feel better about their empty emotionally deficient lives.

In other words, if they have the fancy cars and the big house and the country club membership, why shouldn't they have the sex life to match? So if asked they'll say they have great sex even though it might be a lie. And as for the survey being anonymous, admitting something to an anonymous survey still means admitting it to yourself. Subconsciously, that might be a hard step for a lot of people.

Húrin

Darkbloom wrote: »

Haha, my thoughts exactly Hurin.

I wonder if this bitter little study was motivated by the fact that he looks like this?

Wow, in that second pic with the old man, is the late night basement of a pub in Liverpool, where I have been. Amazing coincidence.

Tirabaralla wrote: »

Hi there ^_^

I agree that we are still instinct...but from this to say that we are all survival instinct and nothing else...it's quite sad.

If this is true we probably cannot trust our own thoughts to be true.

Don't take this as a given. It's a popular idea in our culture (because it is nihilistic) but that doesn't make it true. If you ever read any books, read Neitzsche's works, and the New Testament.

Latchy

Silverfish wrote: »

Do you remember the massive furore over the 'goldigger' Heather Mills, who got 47 million from Paul McCartney? All the articles and threads and goldigger jokes?

And she still wasnt happy

Guy Ritchie just got 50 million from Madonna and........silence.

A fool and his/her money are easily parted .

Seifer

Húrin wrote: »

Don't take this as a given. It's a popular idea in our culture (because it is nihilistic) but that doesn't make it true. If you ever read any books, read Neitzsche's works, and the New Testament.

Lol and give The Lord of the Rings a read too because it has as much relevance to the subject matter as the New Testament.

javaboy

Húrin wrote: »

Wow, in that second pic with the old man, is the late night basement of a pub in Liverpool, where I have been. Amazing coincidence.

That's funny it reminded me of the Cavern Club when I looked at it first. I'm fairly sure it's not though.

Tirabaralla

Húrin wrote: »

If this is true we probably cannot trust our own thoughts to be true.

What?

Silverfish

latchyco wrote: »

And she still wasnt happy




A fool and his/her money are easily parted .

So you think that if its a woman who gets money, she's a gold digger, whereas if its a man who gets the money, the woman's a fool?

or do you just respond with the first thing that comes into your head?

Tirabaralla

It's a quite hilarious thread, isn'it?

Terry

Silverfish wrote: »

Do you remember the massive furore over the 'goldigger' Heather Mills, who got 47 million from Paul McCartney? All the articles and threads and goldigger jokes?

Guy Ritchie just got 50 million from Madonna and........silence.

She had to put up with a vegetarian scouser.
He had to put up with... well I don't know what the **** Madonna is, but she doesn't seem sane.

asdasd

Originally Posted by asdasd
Hmm. i dont think that it is socially desirable to get maintain that a women gets better orgasms from richer partners, the social desirability would run the other way. The taboo would be the "gold-digging" idea that y'all are arguing against. In other words no woman is going to answer the question "Did you marry him for his money" in the affirmative ,even if ( particularly if) they did. The social desirable response is to mention love.

Bizarre logic. I don't even know where to start. It never ceases to amaze me how people will come up with the most convoluted logic, just so that they can grasp, with their fingertips, onto their idea of how things should be.

Where's the bizzare logic. You linked to the wiki page on people giving social desirable answers - since being a gold-digger is not socially desirable I dismissed the argument.

As for the "we can't accept self-reporting" we would need to ignore census results. The people involved self answered questions on a form, like a census. The results were private. why can we not trust it again?

It never ceases to amaze me how people will come up with the most convoluted logic, just so that they can grasp, with their fingertips, onto their idea of how things should be.

galwayrush

Silverfish wrote: »

Do you remember the massive furore over the 'goldigger' Heather Mills, who got 47 million from Paul McCartney? All the articles and threads and goldigger jokes?

Guy Ritchie just got 50 million from Madonna and........silence.

That had something to do with having more legs to stand on.:D

Húrin

asdasd wrote: »

As for the "we can't accept self-reporting" we would need to ignore census results. The people involved self answered questions on a form, like a census. The results were private. why can we not trust it again?

That form where 90% + of Irish people claim to be Catholics? :pac:

Eric Cartman

Darkbloom wrote: »

I tend to find that a bit abrasive myself.

point taken.... but i have to say theres a few girls i know who like me a lot more now that i have a car and a good job

Silverfish

Eric Cartman wrote: »

easiest way to make a woman cum, hand her your visa card

Eric Cartman wrote: »

point taken.... but i have to say theres a few girls i know who like me a lot more now that i have a car and a good job

And there's a few men I know who are complete dip****s, does that mean all men are dip****s?

shqipshume

Untrue
Although women are attracted to powerful charismatic men,who are strong.Money has nothing to do with it in majority of cases.
I would say it depends on how their parents raised them.
I know girls who's parents immediately ask their daughters what their bf does for living when first start dating and how much money he makes:eek:

Only thing i care about is he is working a steady job as shows perhaps more maturity and self responsibility.How ever in saying that if he lost his job thru no fault of his own i would not look at him any differently.
I am far from money grabber that's for sure

Latchy

Silverfish wrote: »

So you think that if its a woman who gets money, she's a gold digger, whereas if its a man who gets the money, the woman's a fool?

a fool and his/her money are easliy parted .

50/50 An old ( but very true at times ) statement

or do you just respond with the first thing that comes into your head

No, that's just an instant response because I didn't feel I needed to give an in depth, deep analytical one at the time .:rolleyes:

Blazer

mickeymoney wrote: »

On a scale of 1 to 10, Id still give Mary Harney one.

You Sir are a sick sick man..my advice is to immediately find the nearest pair of gardening shears and lop the john thomas off.
This is for your own good and will save you the humiliation of ever being found out if you ever did this vile deed.