Five con­nec­tions be­tween $$$ and sex.

Five con­nec­tions be­tween love and money.

Elle (Canada) - - Elle - By Molly Doan

BET­TER SEX & RICH PEO­PLE As if the lives of the 1 per­cent weren’t en­vi­able enough, sev­eral re­cent sur­veys link wealth to in­creased sex­ual sat­is­fac­tion. Span­ish re­searchers an­a­lyzed the coun­try’s first sex­ual-health sur­vey and dis­cov­ered that peo­ple from less-pros­per­ous so­cioe­co­nomic groups are less happy with their sex lives. The sur­vey found that, for women in par­tic­u­lar, those who make more money have a greater aware­ness of their needs and ca­pac­ity for de­vel­op­ing their sex­u­al­ity.

A sim­i­lar sur­vey of Chi­nese women found that those with richer part­ners re­ported more fre­quent or­gasms—and this was af­ter rul­ing out fac­tors like age and the length of the re­la­tion­ship. Of course, there’s Bay Street-fi­nancier rich and then there’s Trump-level ex­cess. Wealth-con­sult­ing firm Prince & As­so­ci­ates, Inc., re­cently re­leased a sur­vey of 600 in­de­pen­dently well-off men and women, all with a net worth of at least $30 mil­lion. Both gen­ders claimed that hav­ing money made their sex lives bet­ter (63 per­cent for the men and 88 per­cent for the women), but each de­fined “bet­ter sex” dif­fer­ently. Men saw it as “more fre­quent sex with more part­ners” while women fo­cused on qual­ity over quan­tity (no sur­prise there). Over h

twice as many fe­male re­spon­dents re­ported hav­ing ad­ven­tur­ous sex: 72 per­cent of the women be­longed to the mile-high club. But does that re­ally count if you have 24-7 ac­cess to a pri­vate jet? a “hot­ter” date & a posh pen­t­house We’d like to think that love at first sight has noth­ing to do with how stylish his (or our) crib is, but stud­ies show that signs of wealth in­flu­ence how at­tracted we are to oth­ers. Re­searchers at Cardiff Metropoli­tan Univer­sity in the U.K. asked un­der­grads to rate pho­tos of a mem­ber of the op­po­site sex. The pho­tos were of the same fe­male or male model in ei­ther a lux­ury or stan­dard apart­ment. While men thought the woman in the photo was equally at­trac­tive in both set­tings, fe­male par­tic­i­pants judged the male model to be sig­nif­i­cantly more ap­peal­ing when he was stand­ing in the high-sta­tus flat. A sexy out­fit & high- fly­ing spend­ing dreams If your date seems ex­tra-ob­sessed with the Bent­ley you spot­ted out­side the restau­rant, it might have to do with your risqué out­fit. A study pub­lished in the Jour­nal of Ex­per­i­men­tal So­cial Psy­chol­ogy tested whether men use con­spic­u­ous con­sump­tion as a mat­ing strat­egy. Male re­search par­tic­i­pants were greeted by a fe­male ex­per­i­menter dressed ei­ther provoca­tively—tight shirt, short skirt—or plainly (the con­trol group). The ex­per­i­menter then showed them pic­tures of dif­fer­ent ob­jects, from func­tional (toi­let paper) to the not-so-prac­ti­cal (a Maserati). Each im­age flashed on the screen for one sec­ond, and the re­spon­dents had 25 sec­onds to jot down as many as they could re­mem­ber. Sin­gle guys re­called more of the lux­ury prod­ucts af­ter chat­ting up the “sexy” ex­per­i­menter (43 per­cent) than when they talked her mod­est coun­ter­part (33 per­cent). The girl­friends of the men in com­mit­ted re­la­tion­ships were prob­a­bly happy to know that a short skirt and heels did noth­ing for their boyfriends’ sports-car-in­clined mem­o­ries: They re­called the same pro­por­tion of lux­ury prod­ucts re­gard­less. sex ap­peal & a tight­wad at­ti­tude There’s no need to drain your bank ac­count in the name of love. Re­searchers at the Univer­sity of Michi­gan claim that savers are sex­ier. They ran ex­per­i­ments in which par­tic­i­pants were asked to view fic­tional dat­ing pro­files and rate them for com­pat­i­bil­ity and at­trac­tive­ness. Each po­ten­tial match was iden­ti­fied as ei­ther a spen­der or a saver. With ev­ery­thing else on the pro­file re­main­ing the same, in­clud­ing the head­shot, savers were deemed to be sig­nif­i­cantly more phys­i­cally at­trac­tive than spenders. Not sur­pris­ingly, par­tic­i­pants also saw them as hav­ing more long-term dat­ing po­ten­tial. liv­ing to­gether & ac­cu­mu­lated wealth Mov­ing in to­gether—in ad­di­tion to be­ing slightly ter­ri­fy­ing—can have a huge fi­nan­cial im­pact. Stud­ies show that cou­ples who shack up be­fore ty­ing the knot ac­cu­mu­late less wealth than cou­ples who wait. (And they are more likely to di­vorce— an­other costly en­deav­our.) A re­cent ar­ti­cle pub­lished in De­mog­ra­phy, how­ever, finds an up­side to shack­ing up: While cou­ples who move in only with the per­son they even­tu­ally wed start off their mar­riage with 5 per­cent less wealth than those who have never lived to­gether, they also ac­cu­mu­late wealth—sav­ings and as­sets, such as a house—twice as fast as the wait­ing-for-mar­riage-to-move-in pairs. The au­thors con­sider co­hab­i­ta­tion “lay­ing the ground­work” for fu­ture fi­nan­cial suc­cess. n

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.