The commentary below is from our friend over at The Manchild Swagga.
Ok ladies, this question is sure to raise a few brows, so let me explain the reason behind this:
I was watching a relatively new program yesterday - The Doctors - they had a panel discussion about a woman's attraction to money. Apparently, an informal study found that women are not only more attracted to men with money, but also more passionate in the bedroom - so much so that orgasms occur more often. The panel went on to discuss theories related to "Golddiggers" and ulterior motives, which really didn't make for a comprehensive, nor compelling discussion, so as this discussion quickly turned into a "YAWNER", I decided to put a different slant on this. I did find something online (read the article here) that delved a little deeper, but I really didn't find enough information to break this down from a theoretical standpoint. After all, this theory could very well be some "chemically" induced afrodisiac that goes back thousands of years.
So, is money/wealth the ultimate afrodisiac? Here's my theory (as I take this back to the caveman era): From the early days of B.C., we had caveman and cavewoman - and naturally, the strongest and most capable caveman endured. The strongest caveman was resourceful and skilled as a hunter; as a result, he was able to capture and kill the finest dinosaurs and animal species. He enjoyed the finest of T-Rex sirloins, while the less powerful caveman was only able to pick berries and salad greens - he simply lacked the strength and power that was needed to survive in an untamed world. Now the cavewoman was attracted to the brute and brawn of a man - and simply put, ADT and Brink's security were nonexistent back then, therefore the strength of a caveman meant alot - it equated to security - and security equated to survival. So who wins the girl 9 times out of 10? The big, strong masculine caveman. And I am assuming that out of 10 women, 1 is probably a vegetarian, so she was cool with Mr. Scrawny Caveman. But the majority of women at that time flocked to Mr. Strong Caveman. He was the man.
Of course, as the scrawny caveman lost out on luring the finest of women, over time he had to invent things like technology, sushi, cars, airplanes, books, stoves, etc. not only to balance the playing field, but to mitigate the potential threat of extinction. He did a great job of putting a monkey wrench in the Strong Caveman Domination theory, and to ensure that he would have staying power, he invented a nasty word to describe the strong man once dominated over the land: GOON. The scrawny caveman owned businesses and created major power moves in life, while the strong caveman had to work security jobs and earn meager pay to stay afloat. So what did the strong caveman do to compensate? He invented boxing, football, soccer and basketball, began to earn legions of fans around the world, he unionized, and now (today), he is "balling".
So, I think that I get it. Woman need security, financially and emotionally. The brute strength of muscles and intelligence create a balance that should appeal to a woman. But let me ask you, are rich men better lovers?? What's more attractive, brains or brawn?
Speak your piece...