A study says that the more money you make, the less sex you have

>

couple_sex That "money does not give happiness, but helps" is a mantra that we repeat with the hope that a Primitive will help us to corroborate our feeling . Many of us think of that pile of money as a passport to an easier life, of whims and, why not say it, debauchery. However, it's not always like that. In fact, according to a study conducted by Lovehoney , a British sex toy company, people with the highest incomes have less sex . Take it now!

The study is based on a survey of 1,600 people in the United Kingdom that distinguished three groups, those with low incomes (less than 15,000 pounds sterling), means (between 15,000 and 50,000) and high (above 50,000). This survey yielded quite striking data. For example, only 4% of people with higher incomes have sex every day , a poor percentage, which is multiplied by three in the case of lower-paid employees. Of course I think this has an explanation that also has to do with age, since, normally, young people are the most prolific in sexual matters … and those with the lowest salaries. At least I think so.

In addition, a third of the people with higher salaries surveyed confess that they only give a romp once a week, while only 17% of people who enter less than 15,000 pounds do so only once a week. In addition, the more affluent also lose with those who have average income in weekly sex volume. 44% of the 'rich' are venting several times a week, while in the case of the middle class, the percentage of those who have several relationships a week amounts to 54% .

In terms of the value they give to sex, 20% of people with less income score 10/10 on the importance of having sex with a certain frequency, while only 10% of those who enter more than 50,000 pounds They give the highest score to the importance of sex in their life.

Although they lose in quantity, the poorest pockets gain in improvisation and imagination. And I confess that it is a fact that disturbs me a little. It assumed that the people with the least income were the ones who managed as best they could to have relationships wherever they needed to be. However, it is the lined ones who have had the most frequent outdoor sexual encounters (83%) . Sure, I guess inside a Porsche Cayenne and not inside a small Citroën Saxo with 250,000 kilometers … So anybody! As for the re-counter-overpriced trios, 45% of those with incomes over 50,000 pounds have proposed a three-way adventure, much more than just 19% of those with incomes below 15,000 pounds.

Thus, according to these data, we can draw several conclusions that are little thought and flickering:
1. Those who have more pasta spend too much time to earn money and little to meet their sexual needs .
2. Those who earn less money are comforted by trying to have sex every day . And in some cases they do! How much envy!
3. People with lower incomes value sex more than covered people.
4. The vast majority of people belonging to the wealthy classes, have no qualms about having a romp in the street .
5. In addition, practically half of them dream of having a romp with two other people . As if they did not spare half with a …

(Photo: file)

23 comments

  1. >

    Then the unemployed should be …
    Ains.

    May 12, 2014 | 13:28

  2. >

    IT IS JUST THE OPPOSITE.

    WHEN YOU LESS MONEY YOU HAVE, LESS FUCKS.

    THE RICH ARE PUTTING DOWN TO FUCK, BECAUSE THEY GO WHEN THEY GIVE THEM.

    May 12, 2014 | 13:46

  3. >

    That diselo to those of Wall street charging 1 million of average to the year and going of furcias every day or almost every day, and I do not speak by the film no xD.
    Another thing is the typical self who scratches his head to bring money home from 7 in the morning to 9:00 pm and when he gets home the only thing he wants is to dine and go to bed.
    How do you do these surveys? OEMEGE

    May 12, 2014 | 13:49

  4. >

    So I do not know what I'm doing here.

    May 12, 2014 | 14:01

  5. >

    But did not they say that sex was free? What's more to be a billionaire than to be poor? They were?

    May 12, 2014 | 14:17

  6. >

    This news has no basis, everyone knows that if you have bitches what you are playing are boats and whores.

    May 12, 2014 | 14:19

  7. >

    that's why we have people who have been unemployed for more than 4 years and have children of 2 and 3.

    May 12, 2014 | 14:32

  8. >

    to see luminaries of the article, the people who earn a lot of pasta spends little time at home and with the family if you have pasta logically you have a secretary and if it is a tia then the same (this is as valid for aunts as uncles) aunt or uncle who spends a lot of time in the curro, for that reason he earns more, usually earns more etc … if you do the statistics / survey those who answer say what they do with their respective partners since surely the account will be in pairs, but what they do not say are HORNS THAT STICK YOU WITH YOUR SECRETARIES ETC …

    May 12, 2014 | 14:38

  9. >

    When you are poor, it is not that you fuck less, you simply fuck with the same or the same one. In short, it is not that the poor fuck more, but that they have more children …

    May 12, 2014 | 14:42

  10. >

    It would be interesting to know if the study has made a rich or a poor.

    May 12, 2014 | 14:49

  11. >

    If the owner is true, I must be a multimillionaire, but I have not heard …

    May 12, 2014 | 17:07

  12. >

    I just fell into the account. San Sebastian was always a rich city, so, at least when I was a teenager, fucking was not a sin but a miracle …

    May 12, 2014 | 17:09

  13. >

    That study has been paid for by rich people, for the poor to conform.

    May 12, 2014 | 17:23

  14. >

    Because the poor have more children ?. Simply because they can not go to the movies, the theater, dinners, drinks, etc. They do what they can to entertain themselves. Now, if they do with it, little, because if you get pregnant right away, a lot of drought. What happens, especially in impoverished areas of the world, especially women, only have their bodies to negotiate (sounds hard, but it is reality), that's why it is easier than with rich women, simply because it is a ticket for out of poverty. The rich woman does not need to use sex so much to satisfy her needs, she is more independent to achieve her desires by her own means. And on the other hand, rich men, for example, footballers, end up going to bed with models … ..Doubt is the same as always, we choose quantity or quality ……

    May 12, 2014 | 17:54

  15. >

    Well I do not block … I do not have a hard and fuck less than a casao … here something fails …

    May 12, 2014 | 17:56

  16. >

    It depends. I worked all day like a beast, I earned a pasture and I ended up so
    I said that at night I just wanted to sleep. I ended up leaving everything and with depression.

    May 12, 2014 | 19:09

  17. >

    There is more to see the squat profile that favors the PAH. They have children and more children, and almost all are after losing their jobs or help.

    With how cheap condoms are …

    May 12, 2014 | 22:36

  18. >

    Italeri and other similar comments, I do not know the veracity of this study, but there is still one thing worse than the lack of credibility or not of that type of analysis, and it is the petty and sibylline use that is made by certain characters that disguised as Democrats, use any public forum (let alone private, where nicks disguise the moral misery that really identifies them) to pour jokes in bad taste or proffer insults or slander free, in order to damage the image of those who have lost everything or almost everything (those affected by the mortgages referred to by this character and his acolytes, the same ones that justify in the most perverse and sibylline way possible the loss of their legitimate possessions in the hands of entities that in the best of the cases have been decapitalized by a nefarious management, and later "rescued" by that social and democratic State of Law that our Constitution consecrated, although in a purely virtual way according to the events that we are suffering in these last years of deepening of the preexisting socioeconomic inequalities in the wake of this systemic and ideological crisis created by those who now postulate themselves as "saviors of the pillars of the same"). It is already well of repulsive and false allusions taking advantage of any forum, there are things that of course neither the democracy nor the privacy that gives you a certain nick can hide, and that is that moral misery and imposture always emerge, and more in the times that they run, where greed, uprising, social depredation and plutocracy occupy a privileged place in that delirious sublimation of the exploitation of man by man called globalization.

    May 12, 2014 | 23:46

  19. >

    lie

    May 13, 2014 | 1:04

  20. >

    Then … I should be f ******* like a "degenerao" … because that of the pasta … as it is not in plan macaroni … and not so …

    May 13, 2014 | 1:30

  21. >

    Jenaro, son, not for being behind a nick I'm talking just because. I speak from the experience of the newspaper reader of newspapers.

    You only have to read the news about evictions and occupations, especially those of single mothers without resources and you will see how right I am. It is not a case, nor two. The vast majority of news on the subject in which data are provided give me the reason and is somewhat bloody.

    May 13, 2014 | 2:10

  22. >

    What a gilipollez, you comfort yourself thinking that?

    The one who has money fucks when he wants, if he has no one with whom, there is always someone who will be behind, and if there is no one, he has no problem paying it.

    It only takes as much as the wenches come to those who have money … for you to say, that we fuck less.

    May 13, 2014 | 12:26

  23. >

    Waves, just do not worry that if all humanity were extinguished, safe and put their hands in the fire would repopulate a prostitute without money and with few males to copulate, look at it that way, if it does not sleep hahahahahahaha bizarrescacacacaca note =]

    May 13, 2014 | 19:41

Comments are closed