Rich women may have better sex, but it's not for the reason you think A Spanish sex survey found that wealth matters, even in the bedroom. Poor women are far more likely to be abused
_Sadhbh Walshe_ (http://www.theguardian.com/profile/sadhbh-walshe) _theguardian.com_ (http://www.theguardian.com/) , Wednesday 22 January 2014 It seems that everything comes more easily to wealthy people, even stuff that doesn't (necessarily) have to be paid for, like _sex_ (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/sex) . Rich people, rich women in particular, are having a better time in the bedroom than their poorer counterparts according to a _recent analysis_ (http://www.agenciasinc.es/en/News/Women-with-a-high-economic-status-claim-to-have-better-sex) of the first Spanish Sexual Health Survey by researchers at Barcelona's Public Health Agency. This disparity in enjoyment levels between the rich and the poor has little to do with what you might be thinking – that the wealthy can buy their way to better quality lovemaking – and more to do with the disturbing fact that sex is more stressful for poor women because they are less likely to practice safe sex and more likely to be abused by an intimate partner. It shouldn't come as a big surprise that women who are more likely to be abused by their partners or for whom sex is more likely to result in an unwanted pregnancy would enjoy it less. What is newsworthy is that socioeconomic status plays such a definitive role in deciding who gets to have a good time in the bedroom and who doesn't. The _survey revealed_ (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/18/why-do-rich-women-have-better-sex-lives.html ) , for instance, that women with a primary (high school) only education were nearly four times more likely than women who were university educated to have suffered sexual abuse and that both women and men of lower socioeconomic status invariably used less contraception. The survey's primary author, Dr Dolores Ruiz, has _called for_ (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540952/The-secret-lively-love-life-Banish-money-worries-Affluent-people-re port-higher-levels-sexual-enjoyment-off.html) the introduction of new public polices to reduce the inequalities that the survey identified. In _Spain_ (http://www.theguardian.com/world/spain) , this might happen. In the more puritanical _United States_ (http://www.theguardian.com/world/usa) , however, where the same inequalities are evident, I wouldn't hold my breath. There's no corresponding study that I know of that has looked at sexual satisfaction among different socioeconomic groups in the US. There is plenty of data, however, about the higher rates of _intimate partner violence_ (http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/Pages/economic-distr ess.aspx#disadvantaged) in disadvantaged communities and lower rates of _contraceptive use_ (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html) among poorer and less educated American women that mirror the findings in the Spanish study. According to a _2004 report_ (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC4QFjAB&url=http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/20500 4.pdf&ei=nd7fUp6JD6PF7AbMgIHoDA&usg=AFQjCNEfTLdFqXJAdn260myuBrfSa3W3Ww&sig2= jGMqcKv0QBIAq9d4UPQYww&bvm=bv.59568121,d.ZGU&cad=rja) (pdf) by the National Institute of Justice, women in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods in the US were more than twice as likely to be victimized repeatedly or severely injured by their intimate partners than better-off women. Meanwhile, data compiled by the Guttmacher Institute in December 2013 shows that unintended pregnancies are increasingly concentrated among poor and less educated women. Like their Spanish counterparts, American women of lower socioeconomic status could benefit from some public policy changes that would reduce the inequality that is wreaking havoc with their sex lives. Instead of making birth control more accessible to poor women or taking steps to reduce the risk of violence, American lawmakers, particularly conservative ones, have been working hard to obstruct any progress on either front. Since 1995, over _700 anti-abortion measures_ (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/chart-day-2011-reproductive-rights) have been passed around the country. Not content with this successful erosion of women's reproductive rights, conservative lawmakers have turned their attention in the recent past to restricting access to birth control. The GOP-controlled House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in 2011 to _defund Planned Parenthood_ (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49830.html) , the nationwide organization that provides birth control and healthcare to low-income women.[and which also promotes various behaviors that many people consider morally repugnant] Fortunately that vote died in the senate but the enthusiasm for restricting women's access to contraception did not. In March 2012, a measure introduced by Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo) known as the Blunt Amendment, which would have potentially denied millions of American women birth control by allowing any employer with a moral objection to opt out of the Obama administration's new coverage rule, was only _narrowly defeated_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/birth-control-exemption-bill-the-blunt-amendment-killed-in-senate/2012/03/01/gIQA4tXjkR_ story.html) in the senate. It would be nice to think that if conservative lawmakers were aware that their ongoing efforts to restrict access to birth control are probably succeeding only in making the sex lives of low income women less pleasurable, they might back off a bit. But somehow I don't think that the sexual fulfilment of poor women is a high priority for the mostly male and wealthy GOP. Reducing violence against women, low-income and otherwise, doesn't seem to be much of a priority to conservative lawmakers either. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that was passed in 1994 is credited with _significantly reducing_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/vawa_factsheet.pdf) , among other things, intimate partner violence and intimate partner homicides of both women and men. When the act expired in 2011, it took the House of Representatives a _year and a half_ (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/violence-against-women-act-reauthorization-house-senate-vote s) to reauthorize it, during which time republican lawmakers tried to pass a watered-down version stripped of protections for diverse populations. Even with VAWA in place, however, low-income women continue to suffer disproportionately from intimate partner violence and little is being done to help them. With these ongoing efforts to erode women's rights (collectively known as the "war on women"), it's hard to imagine Americans engaging in a national conversation any time soon on making sex more enjoyable for anyone, never mind women who are poor. That's kind of a shame, because sex really ought to be one of life's simple and safe pleasures, instead of the political hot-rod it has become. For now, Americans had best content ourselves with living vicariously through our European counterparts as they try to level the sexual playing field. Until Congress ends its war on women, which is mostly a war on economically disadvantaged women, bedroom inequality is here to stay. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
