According to the Times of London, wealthy men give women more orgasms. Wow, that's quite a generalization, even if it's supported by alleged scientific research. Certainly the 100+ comments on the Times article uniformly seem to agree that this ludicrous generalization is a pile of rubbish." According to one reader, A Walton of Leicester, England: "That means in America and Britain, there will be a lot of disappointed ladies this year. Perhaps they should form a hit squad against Brown and Bush: for ruining there (sic) love life.
These statistics certainly don't leave room for the variables I've seen in my years of practicing therapy. I'm not a researcher so my opinions are based on clinical experience and just plain old common sense. Women may be receptive, but that doesn't mean they're passive. In fact, passive women have more difficulty having orgasm than active and assertive women, for a host of reasons. Sex is a two-person experience and a woman who feels she is not an active participant or does not want to be actively participating, will have difficulty experiencing orgasm. I also think women who feel better about themselves have better and more frequent orgasms and it is the ability to be actively receptive and take responsibility for her part in meeting her needs that allows her ongoing sexual satisfaction in a relationship.
Women who are anorgasmic due to inadequate knowledge, use of SSRI's, religious or cultural proscriptions, span the range of socioeconomic class and men who are anorgasmic have similar etiologies and exist among all income groups. The same holds true for men.
There's also a question about what defines wealth. I don't think a man who measures his self worth based on income necessarily feels powerful and strong. I'm certain that there are men in all income brackets who feel good about themselves and make love to their women in a way that helps bring them to orgasm. There are men who are blessed with a wealth of intelligence, creativity, resourcefulness, and kindness in all income brackets that arouse a woman in a satisfying way.
I think the most significant factor in forming a satisfying and loving relationship is whether or not a man can be humble. Arrogance and contempt for women spans the range of incomes. When a man shows disrespect and disregard for his lover, and focuses solely on his own gratification, he will not find himself with a very responsive partner.
Arrogance is the opposite of humility and excessive self-importance is synonymous with what's referred to as ego. I'm not speaking about the clinical use of ego, but rather the vernacular use of the word ego, which is defined by grandiosity and contempt for others. The paradox of a big ego is that the bigger the ego, the worse the self-esteem. An out of control ego can hurt you in any area of your life. Ego can be helpful to men in business and in love, but when his ego is out control, he'll fail in both areas of life.
Bo Peabody is an entrepreneur, venture capitalist and Internet executive who co-founded Tripod.com, one of the earliest dot-coms, in 1992 has a history of success in business to this day. Years ago I read a profound piece he wrote in Inc. Magazine called "Lucky or Smart" In it he wisely advises: "Use your ego when it is called for, and check it at the door when you sense that it will get in the way. Unchecked egos are the most destructive force in business." I've seen over the years how right Peabody is about the dangers of ego, but not just in business: Unchecked egos are also the most destructive force in love.
