Because Tasmin Lucia Khan is a hottie, I'm willing to accept the explanation that she was having a little 'personal fun time' just as she went to air. The official explanation given was that she was late to work, and was gasping from exertion.
Luckily, the clip is on Youtube, so let your own ears be the judge. Though, women reading news as if they were caught in a moment of passion might be one way to bring viewers back to news on network and cable TV.
For whatever reason, I don't think women get the same degree of titilation from hearing men engaged in what sounds like sexual endeavors. Wonder why that is?
Idle speculation on my part, women don't need to guess when a man has reached his moment, but men aren't afforded the same luxury. We (for the most part, there are some unmistakeable and unfakeable physical cues, too) have to take the word of our partner that she has been satisfied, so the auditory cues of the approach of that moment are a signal that we've done something right and will likely be rewarded with future and frequent access to more happy fun together time, which is why when men hear women making those noises, even in an unrelated context, we get a bit excited.
Speaking of orgasms, howabout this article regarding wealth and getting off?
True, load of bollocks, or just another poorly designed study meant to reinforce the presuppositions of the people who conducted the study?
Without actually hooking these women up to devices that measure the physical manifestations of an orgasm, it could be that women with wealthy partners simply assume that any sort of sexual peak is close enough to an orgasm that they call it an orgasm, while women with poorer partners demand a greater degree of physical satisfaction before they admit to being satisfied. Also, what about lesbians? If the comparative wealth of your partner is a key factor in female arousal, then does that mean the partner with the bigger salary is the one with the less satisfying sex life in a lesbian relationship? Back to straight relationships, is this effect comparative, and based on the upbringing of the woman? If you were raised in a impoverished household, then some guy making $100K a year might rock your world, but if you were daddy's special trust fund girl, then any man bringing home less than $5M a year might seem poor to you, and therefore doesn't set off the evolutionary biological response that this study claims to have uncovered. Is this why Madonna (allegedly) cheated on Guy Ritchie with A.Rod? A.Rod had a bigger 'bank account', so that made Madge more receptive?
I'm guessing that this study is a load of bollocks, and I'm basing this claim primarily on the above photo that one of the study's authors has up on his CV page (sorry, I just can't trust the research of any Ph.D candidate with a freakin' eyebrow ring, sorry, dude, just not credible, and the Daily Mail article describes Pollet as already having a Ph.D but his CV describes him as still being a Ph.D candidate, and lists Daniel Nettles as a Prof, but couldn't find Nettles on Newcastle's website, so don't know what that means, but do see that Nettles and Pollet are listed as co-authors on quite a few papers, and I know much excellent research has been done by grad students and Ph.D candidates, so that doesn't factor into my negative suspicions regarding this particular study, instead, it's my personal antipathy towards survey based studies, that douchy smirk, and that damn eyebrow ring)
No comments:
Post a Comment