In the new study, published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, evolutionary biologists from Newcastle University looked at the Chinese Health and Family Life Survey, which includes information on the sex lives, income, and education of 5,000 people across China and based on interviews and questionnaires. Of the 1,534 women in the study who have husbands and boyfriends, researchers found that 121 reported always having orgasms during sex, 408 said they often had orgasms, 762 sometimes had orgasms, and 243 had them rarely or never. Lead researchers Dr. Thomas Pollet and Prof. Daniel Nettles said that though several factors correlated to the number of orgasms a woman reported having during sex, one of the biggest was the income of their partner.

The British papers reporting this story take it as more evidence that, as the Daily Mail put it, "for many females, money, status and success remain a key ingredient in sexual attraction." However, the scientists themselves acknowledge that bias could explain their findings, suggesting that women who have frequent orgasms may overestimate their partner's income, that women with wealthy partners exaggerate how much they enjoy sex, or that women who orgasm easily select partners who are wealthy.

Clearly there are many other factors that call this scientific evidence into question, since scientists did not actually measure the number of orgasms the women had, and factors such as the woman's income level, or how income may contribute to the stress level of the couple were not discussed in the articles. But since the papers have so many examples of famous rich men with younger, hotter women, such as Hugh Hefner and Donald Trump, this research just proved wrong the assumption that "women involved in such relationships do it for the lifestyle - and put up with the sex," according to the Daily Mail.

Dr. Pollet says the findings are "consistent with the view that female orgasm has an evolved adaptive function," and claims that women may orgasm more frequently if their man is rich to indicate that they would be good marriage material, adds The Telegraph. Since the points out that "women can become pregnant whatever their pleasure levels," and that female orgasm "appears to have no reproductive purpose," clearly the theory presented in the study that "the female orgasm is an evolutionary adaptation that drives women to choose and retain high-quality partners" makes sense, since a rich man is always a high-quality man.

Many women can probably come up with their own anecdotal examples of "poor" males who are good in bed (though it is much easier for newspapers to find a picture of Hugh Hefner than that starving artist guy you dated in college), and just yesterday, the Telegraph published another piece, this one claiming that wealth does not equal happiness. According to research from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, during a recession, life expectancy falls and rates of mental illness increase, and men who use wealth, power, or status to define themselves are particularly at risk. Lasting friendships, marriage, and belief in something bigger than yourself are all proven to have a more positive effect on happiness than the size of a person's wallet. To sum up: all of this stuff is confusing, contradictory, and most likely utter bullshit.

Wealthy Men Give Women More Orgasms [Times of London]

Women Get More Pleasure In Bed From Wealthy Men [The Telegraph]

Why Rich Men Are Better In Bed: Women Have More Orgasms With Wealthy Partners, Study Finds [The Daily Mail]

Men, Listen Up: Money Does Not Make You Happy [The Telegraph]

Alla Prokopov and Galina Royzman are personal shopping superstars. In what the Times calls "a city of big-league saleswomen, where it’s possible in a fancy store for a person working on commission to earn $250,000 or more annually," these two are still anomalous, and a Russian Mob joke is almost irresistible.They work apart from Bergdorf's normal team of shoppers, have their own "VIP dressing room," a team of assistants, high-profile "private clientele" and are highly elusive: initially the store doesn't want a reporter talking to "their Russian stars."

They do everything as a team, racking up some of the store’s highest sales numbers, according to executives. It’s not unusual for a client to spend $25,000 to $50,000 with them in a morning of shopping, although once a client dropped around $360,000; and just six months ago another spent $275,000. That was in a single day. Despite working through at least two recessions, the women say they usually meet their annual sales goals.

The pair work with a number of high-profile Russians (an ever-expanding luxury market), various Europeans, and wealthy New Yorkers — although naturally all identities are confidential. While obviously judgment and knowledge of a client's tastes (and, apparently, rad makeup) are necessary, both shoppers are known for their honesty. “'We learned a long time ago never to lie to a customer. If we don’t think a dress is right for her, we tell her.'" Which, when you're talking couture prices, is not a small matter.

No question these women are good at what they do — and that it's fascinating to get a glimpse into their world — but is a job like this, totally dedicated to luxury, an embarrassment in times like these? Bergdorf's seems to feel so; apparently the implicit frivolity of the occupation and the prices of the clothes were behind the store's reluctance to allow press access to the shoppers. But I think this is a miscalculation on their part: we expect a certain grotesque excess from the rich, and catering to wealth is not anything to be ashamed of, especially when it's a finely honed and specific skill. Far more patronizing is the attitude that we can't handle the existence of wealth, that we require everyone to make a sanctimonious pretense of frugality for a few weeks. Have your Christmas parties! Buy your expensive stuff! We can take it. Also: where do we fill out an application for mysterious elite shopper positions? And is discretion mandatory?

East or West, They Speak Chanel [New York Times]

Says Newsweek's Johnnie L. Roberts:

Unofficially, profligacy became passé on Oct. 6, when disgraced Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld appeared at a congressional hearing after the firm's historic $600-billion bankruptcy. He encountered a blizzard of scorn over his half-billion-dollar compensation and baronial lifestyle: a $21 million Park Avenue penthouse, a $25 million estate in Greenwich, Conn., and an estimated $200 million art collection.

Since then, we've seen Vogue slumming it at Wal-Mart and luxury ad numbers drop.

It seems like even if the uberwealthy are not personally suffering, it's now in poor taste to flaunt what you've got. Call it conspicuous austerity: a newfound sensitivity has made restraint temporarily chic. And not all luxury brands can keep up: according to the New York Times,Time Style and Design, which closed before the economic downturn, now feels anachronistically tone-deaf as the totaled items "would cost more than $51 million, or about 340 times the annual income of its average reader." As one woman told The Guardian, "now, when someone admires my dress, I never say it is by Balenciaga or Bottega Veneta. I tell them it's an old Phillip Lim. This neatly conveys the message that, just like everybody else, I've cut back on shopping and am happy to wear something by a modest label." And according to the article, luxury goods makers are taking different tacks: "highlighting heirloom appeal, ", "cultivating a guilt-free image" by teaming up with charities, or allowing secret splurging with sites like Gilt.com, that send purchases in unmarked brown boxes. Says The Guardian article, "the web offers the perfect opportunity for a new breed of 'stealth shoppers', embarrassed about flaunting their wealth, or what is left of it."

While asceticism is a reality for most of the world right now, it seems unlikely that everyone with riches of this magnitude will be able to maintain such a low profile after the novelty really wears off: empathy has its limits, after all - that or the luxury industry will get wily enough to get around peoples' guilt altogether. The Depression, as we know, saw some of the starkest contrasts the country has ever known, and historically speaking, great poverty has never dampened the relative pleasures of money much. If restraint is in with people who can afford it, well, they can afford to get tired of it in a year, too - which is probably what the $175-billion global luxury market is counting on.

Luxury Shame [Newsweek]
Celebrating Luxury In The Time Of Melancholia [New York Times]
Stealth Shoppers Shun Stores And Splash Out On Luxuries Online [The Guardian]

The money/beauty tradeoff is nothing new — the thing is, there are just as many lovely women, apparently vying for an ever-shrinking number of big spenders. "There's much more competition,'" says one self-described golddigger. Adds another: "'When we go out there are usually four guys buying us drinks. Now there is only one...Guys just aren't going out as much. Plus, men aren't buying bottle service so there are no tables to invite women back to.'" Ted Morgan, co-author of How to Marry a Multi-Millionaire: The Ultimate Guide to High Net Worth Dating, says, rather distastefully, "There is an increased sense of desperation among women about dating, and men can sense this." As to less permanent relationships, a piece in today's Telegraph says that wealthy men are cutting back on mistress-associated costs, too: "More than three-quarters of the adulterous multi-millionaire men surveyed said they planned to spend less money on gifts and treats for their lovers, and 82 per cent planned to cut their regular payments."

Of course, it goes both ways: "Will I knowingly date somebody who is in the sh—ter right now? Probably not," says "Sammy." Basically, it's a straightforward barter system and everyone needs to pull his weight. What's weird is that none of the women seem prepared to rearrange their social lives: they'd rather vie with more competition at the same pricey bars each weekend than maybe take up a hobby or date the way the rest of us do. The thing is, all the women quoted in the piece are employed — real estate brokers, models, even women who themselves work in finance. And yet the goal of marrying — or at least dating — up seems so entrenched that even as they're fully pragmatically aware of the situation, they can't break out of it. If that's a dream to someone, it's depressing enough — finding everlasting love with a Mr. Big who — whoops! — also happens to be a gazillionaire is unlikely. But the pragmatism is more dismaying still. If there's an upside to this financial devastation, hopefully it's that some people will be forced to reevaluate, get lives that have nothing to do with Carrie Bradshaw and, maybe, be the happier for it.

Desperately Seeking Sugar Daddies [Page Six Magazine]
Wealthy men cut gifts to mistresses during financial crisis [Telegraph]

It's really not shocking that since all other modes of self-expression — clothes, food, closet organizing, home decor — have been farmed out, music, the most judgey of all media, should follow. We've all known the anxiety of seeing some judgmental hipster ass reach for our CD book or the shallow elation of having the same person ask casually what it is you're playing. Music conveys taste, sophistication, irony, confidence — this is not news. What shocks me is not that people would want to leave this task in professional hands — but, rather, that they're not embarrassed to admit publicly that they don't have individual tastes and opinions.

Of course, I'm sure they don't admit the music has been curated. (Do they study up, so they can casually drop the names of obscure artists if people ask?) That would defeat the whole purpose. And this sort of casual domestic treachery is the name of the game nowadays — think about the spate of weird commercials in which people try to pass off supermarket desserts as homemade and cheap candles as boutique! But doesn't something in them rebel at relinquishing this most personal of synecdoches? More to the point, as anyone who's logged any time in retail can tell you, being at the mercy of even the most tasteful other's musical whims can be the cruelest kind of torture.

"Hiring someone to make those decisions for you suggests that you simply don't know who you are," says Gary Susma in EW. Well, maybe, but that strikes me as a bit harsh: the truth is, I'm always delighted to get a recommendation or a mix from a friend whose musical tastes I respect — and I'm flattered when people like the bizarre mixes I dish out with regularity (and yes, a part of me is kind of wondering how you get into this racket!) Nowadays, the music you play is judged harshly and often unfairly and I think it's a natural defense to slough off one superficial burden in a superficial world, where we're judged on enough things we can't control. But most of us have the break in place that knows not only that we'd be embarrassing ourselves with our naked insecurity, but that we'd be buying into a culture that fosters it. Is lack of embarrassment a privilege of the new wealth? Makes poverty feel bearable!

Does This Song Match My Sofa? [NY Times]
Do We Really Need To Hire Personal Playlist Consultants? [EW]