After years of debate, new research has found women enjoy themselves in bed more if their man has lots of money and makes them laugh
A study looking at women's orgasm intensity, frequency and sexual satisfaction found that ladies are onto a winner if their partner was funny, self-confident and their family were high earners.
Psychologist George Gallup and his colleagues at the University of Albany surveyed straight female college students in relationships about how often they had orgasms during sex.
Hot topic: Researchers also found women had better sex with men who had more self-confidence
Researchers also looked at their partner's family income, body measurements, personality, and how good looking they were.
Their looks were judged by the woman's friends to give a less biased score.
Findings concluded that orgasm intensity was related to how attracted the women were to their partners, how much sex the couple had per week, and ratings of sexual satisfaction.
Women who have partners whose friends consider him good looking were found to have more intense orgasms.
Other findings said the intensity of orgasms were a marginally better indication of sexual satisfaction than how frequently women experienced them.
Men with broad shoulders were found to be more likely to have a sexually satisfied partner.
Women who started having sex at earlier ages had more partners, experienced more orgasms, and were more satisfied in bed with their partners.
Professor Gallup said: "We also identified a [series] of partner psychological traits - motivation, intelligence, focus, and determination - that predicted how often women initiated sexual intercourse.
"Their partner's sense of humour not only predicted his self-confidence and family income, but it also predicted women's propensity to initiate sex, how often they had sex, and it enhanced their orgasm frequency in comparison with other partners."
Celebrating the Feminist Who Knew the Power of Makeup
An airbrushed photo of Rubinstein. Photo Courtesy of The Jewish Museum
Women are ditching their dark eyeliner and heavy lipstick in favor of the barefaced look that's filled the runways and our celebrity Instagram feeds. This departure from over-the-top makeup is refreshing, even liberating. Some women think we should be able to present ourselves however we want and not be beholden to someone else’s standard of beauty. But there was a time whenwearing makeup was the act of empowerment.
Like the army of models who marched down Marc Jacobs’ statement-making spring 2015 runway sans makeup, the women of the suffragette movement in 1911 marched in New York with red swiped across their lips as a symbol of freedom. The lipstick they wore was made by Helena Rubinstein (1872-1965), a feminist and beauty titan who founded the world's first beauty salon and whose cosmetics empire spanned seven decades and four continents. She is the focus of "Helena Rubinstein: Beauty is Power," an exhibit that just opened at the Jewish Museum in New York City.
Before Rubinstein, makeup was only used by actresses and prostitutes and was looked down on by the middle class. But she believed in the importance of self-invention and showed women that beauty was not something that was simply inherited or accessible only to the wealthy. Rubinstein felt that every woman's identity was her own to define and create—and makeup was a tool to do this.
"By encouraging women to define themselves as self-expressive individuals in a world that discouraged non-conformity, Rubinstein contributed to the modern woman’s empowerment,” the exhibit’s curator, Mason Klein, told ELLE.com. “I think a lot of people, even when I talk to women, take that subjectivity for granted today. The degree or sense of individuality that Rubinstein fostered was very new and profound.”
Rubinstein fled her home in Poland when she was 16, faced with the prospect of an arranged marriage. She moved to Australia where she launched her eponymous beauty brand starting with a skin cream. She then went to Paris and London, opening the world’s first beauty salons along the way. These beauty salons were modeled after the literary salons of Europe, making them a place where women could not only get their hair and makeup done, but learn how to do it themselves, and discuss art and culture. Rubinstein was an avid art collector as well as beauty expert, and filled her salons with sculptures and paintings.
At the outbreak of World War I, she left Europe and moved to the United States, where she continued to expand her empire. “Rubinstein came to New York in the wake of the tsunami of modernism and at a time where women wanted the right to express themselves, represent themselves, and vote,” explains Klein. “Rubinstein felt that the new woman should also create herself on her own terms, rather than in accordance with some predetermined standard of beauty."
Rubinstein was ahead of her time in many ways. She was the original self-made woman, and the first woman to be the face of her own brand, often starring in her own campaigns. Long before Kim Kardashian, Gisele, and Beyoncé took control of their public images and started cultivating themselves as living, breathing brands, the 4'11" beauty mogul understood the power of self-promotion. Featuring her own face was a part of her business, and she often had the photographs manipulated to make herself look younger. She was selling youth-enhancing skin cream, after all.
"She was the brand, she had to remain beautiful," says Klein. Throughout her career she also commissioned many artists (including Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso, and Andy Warhol) to paint her portrait—the "make me look younger" clause stood strong for many years.
Women make better bosses than men because they are fairer and have more scruples, according to a new study.
The study found that when there were conflicting interests, women board members tended to make fairer decisions than men
Companies with female board members are more likely to make decisions that benefit everyone from investors to staff and not just themselves and other directors, the study added.
Business school researchers said the findings show that having women in the boardroom is not just good for equality but good for business too.The study for the International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics surveyed 600 board directors about their approach to decision making and other corporate issues.
It found that when there were conflicting interests, women board members tended to make fairer decisions than men.Female directors were more likely to consider how the decision would affect others, whether it is employees, investors or stakeholders for instance.
To do this, women on the board were also more likely to use others in the decision making process, which led to a much more co-operative feeling within the company itself.As a consequence, female influenced companies were generally more successful than male dominated ones, it found.
The study was conducted by strategic management professor Chris Bart of Canada's McMaster University and Gregory McQueen of A.T.Still University in Arizona.Of the 600 board members studied, 75 per cent were male and it found men were more likely to take decisions based on rules, regulations and traditional methods.
Women, however, were more likely to try new ways and 'more prepared to rock the boat' it said.Professor Bart said: "We've known for some time that companies that have more women on their boards have better results.Our findings show that having women on the board is no longer just the right thing but also the smart thing to do.
"Companies with few female directors may actually be shortchanging their investors."Britain's top businesses are making some progress in promoting women though they still have some way to go according to recent reports.There are now just seven companies in the FTSE 100 which have no female directors, of which five are mining companies.
But a similar study from 2010 showed there were 21 of the 100 without a single female director, suggesting things have moved forward.Yet in 2010 there were only two female chief executives and although there were four by the end of 2012, two of these have since left their jobs as well.
Gregory McQueen said: "Women seem to be predisposed to be more inquisitive and to see more possible solutions."At the board level where directors are compelled to act in the best interest of the corporation while taking the viewpoints of multiple stakeholders into account, this quality makes them more effective corporate directors."
Previous studies have shown that corporations with women on the board perform better and are less likely to go bankrupt.
Australians are paying up to 200 per cent more for lipsticks, moisturisers and colognes than overseas customers, a consumer group has found.
A Choice study of the prices of popular makeup brands such as Revlon, MAC and Clinique revealed that the same products bought in the United Kingdom and the US were costing Australian customers as much as $20 extra.
For example, a Revlon Colourstay Ultimate Suede Lipstick costs $25.92 on the David Jones website, while the same lipstick is priced at $15.09 on the website of UK chemist store, Boots, and $7.89 at Walmart in the US.
A MAC lipstick costs at least $10 more in Australia than in the UK or $20 more when compared to US prices.
The emergence of online shopping has made Australians more aware of the price differences between products sold domestically and overseas.
Choice journalist, Kate Browne, said it was ‘‘easier than ever to run a price check online to compare product prices’’.
‘‘Many Aussies don’t like what they’re seeing,’’ she said.
Consumer and local retail pressure has led to some brands recently lowering their prices by as much as 40 per cent. Brands such as Shu Uemura, Lancome and Clinique have announced lower prices, but Choice warned that the reduction of only a couple of flagship products could be a marketing ploy.
Browne said ‘‘there is no way price differences this size can be explained by the usual arguments we have about supposedly higher costs of doing business in Australia’’.
Price discrimination is an issue Aussie consumers face in many markets’’.
The review followed an earlier study conducted by the consumer group, where Choice compared more than 200 prices and identified "an approximate 50 per cent price difference between what Australians and US consumers pay for more or less identical products", such as music downloads, games, software and computer hardware.