Women orgasm more with wealthy partners

[Oolon Colluphid]

... in China, anyway.

Evolution and Human Behavior Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 146-151 (March 2009)

Partner wealth predicts self-reported orgasm frequency in a sample of Chinese women

Pollet and Nettle
There has been considerable speculation about the adaptive significance of the human female orgasm, with one hypothesis being that it promotes differential affiliation or conception with high-quality males.

We investigated the relationship between women's self-reported orgasm frequency and the characteristics of their partners in a large representative sample from the Chinese Health and Family Life Survey.

We found that women report more frequent orgasms the higher their partner's income is.

This result cannot be explained by possible confounds such as women's age, health, happiness, educational attainment, relationship duration, wealth difference between the partners, difference between the partners in educational attainment, and regional location.

It appears consistent with the view that female orgasm has an evolved adaptive function.

[premjan]

They might just be faking it.

[Bane]

Huh?

Smells biased to encourage snobbery.

[premjan]

It makes some sense though. Making sure that their children have material sustenance is a major prerogative for female's mate choice. It might make sense even in other animals.

[Bane]

Yes, that is possible and makes sense if we think about it only biologically.

It's entirely possible, though, that they fake it.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Yes, that is possible and makes sense if we think about it only biologically.

It's entirely possible, though, that they fake it.
But they were self-reporting, and presumably not in front of their husbands, so why would they lie?

[premjan]

Perhaps a rich mate just puts them more at ease.

[Anne]

But, anthropologically speaking, she wants to marry rich and fuck the strong for the genes.

Although stress does decrease both sex drive and ability to orgasm, which could account for it...

[4321lynx]

Or as other posters point out, they're faking it. It was self-reported, you know, "It's nothing personal, it's just business". :)

[premjan]

I think prostitutes are good at making the right noises too.

[BigEvil]

Yes, that is possible and makes sense if we think about it only biologically.

It's entirely possible, though, that they fake it.
But they were self-reporting, and presumably not in front of their husbands, so why would they lie?

I don't think that it is a question of simply why they would lie, it would be "Why would they lie more than women in the other groups?"

There may be some exaggeration, but wouldn't one assume the exaggerations to be spread out to all the groups of women and not just concentrated in one group.

[Anne]

Because they think they are actually doing it less, and thus need to lie to look equal to their poor sisters?

[Notta]

I find that the more a man pays me, the better my orgasm. :D

(What? Isn't that the way everyone feels?)

[BigEvil]

Because they think they are actually doing it less, and thus need to lie to look equal to their poor sisters?

or perhaps the poor sisters are lying to keep from looking like sex fiends.

Of course the op didn't state who was having more sex, but who was having more orgasms.

Maybe the poor sisters are doing it wrong. Or the men the poor sisters are having sex with are doing it wrong.

[Cliché Guevara]

Sorry, didn't read the research or the thread. I just saw on the index page: "Women orgasm more with BigEvil" and I had to wander in with a resounding "Right on!" :D

[Anne]

Because they think they are actually doing it less, and thus need to lie to look equal to their poor sisters?

or perhaps the poor sisters are lying to keep from looking like sex fiends.

Of course the op didn't state who was having more sex, but who was having more orgasms.

Maybe the poor sisters are doing it wrong. Or the men the poor sisters are having sex with are doing it wrong.

Proof that the study is flawed!

[Oolon Colluphid]

More from the paper:
If female orgasm is adaptively designed for discriminating male quality, then it should be more frequent in females paired with high-quality males. There is evidence consistent with such an effect in Japanese macaques, where females display the orgasm-like clutching reaction more often when mating with high-ranking males (Troisi & Carosi, 1998). Two studies on humans have also found comparable effects. Thornhill et al. (1995) found that young women reported copulatory orgasm more frequently if their partners were more symmetrical. Shackelford et al. (2000) found that women paired with more attractive males were more likely to report orgasm at their last intercourse than women paired with less attractive males. [...]

In this study, we investigated for the first time in a large population cross-section the relationship between women's self-reported orgasm frequency and the characteristics of their partners. The data are from the Chinese Health and Family Life Survey, which was a large-scale investigation of sexual attitudes, behavior, and sexually transmitted diseases in a nationally representative sample of the Chinese population, carried out in 1999–2000 ([Parish et al., 2003] and Parish et al., 2007 W.L. Parish, E.O. Laumann and S.A. Mojola, Sexual behavior in China: Trends and comparisons, Population and Development Review 33 (4) (2007), pp. 729–756.

[...]

2. Methods

The Chinese Health and Family Life Survey sampled 60 villages and urban neighborhoods chosen in such a way as to represent the full geographical and socioeconomic range of contemporary China excluding Hong Kong and Tibet. [...]

The survey was carried out by structured computer-administered interview. In view of the sensitive nature of the questions, additional measures to ensure privacy were adopted (Parish et al., 2003). The interview took place away from each respondent's home, and for sensitive questions, the respondent could enter her responses directly into the computer.

The dependent variable we analyzed was self-reported orgasm frequency with current partner (“When having sex with your current partner, how often did you have an orgasm?”). There are five response categories, which we treated as an ordinal scale (1=never, n=61; 2=rarely, n=182; 3=sometimes, n=762; 4=often, n=408; 5=always, n=121).

Our two independent variables of interest, partner income and partner height, are based on the woman's report, not the partner's. However, for a subsample of 57 couples, the interrater reliability of respondent and partner reports has been calculated and is substantial [...]. Partner income was as directly reported for 90% of the respondents and was imputed from a categorical response for the remainder, as the respondents did not give an exact figure. [...]
So if they were lying, they were doing so in private and to a computer.

[BigEvil]

More from the paper:
Partner income was as directly reported for 90% of the respondents and was imputed from a categorical response for the remainder, as the respondents did not give an exact figure. [...]

Not sure how this is worked out. If I am reading this right, in 10% of the cases, the man is considered wealthy simply because the woman says he is, without giving an exact figure.

Who determined if the man was wealthy in the other 90%? Was it the female responder or was it the researcher based upon the income reported?

IMHO, to justify the conclusion, the actual income of the male shouldn't matter, just the female's perception of wealth.

I could easily be missing something.

[Anne]

So if they were lying, they were doing so in private and to a computer.


An no one would ever do that... ;)

[Oolon Colluphid]

IMHO, to justify the conclusion, the actual income of the male shouldn't matter, just the female's perception of wealth.
Our two independent variables of interest, partner income and partner height, are based on the woman's report, not the partner's.
So it doesn't say whether she considered the income good, bad or indifferent.

[BigEvil]

Rereading the paper:


Thornhill et al. (1995) found that young women reported copulatory orgasm more frequently if their partners were more symmetrical.


and

Our two independent variables of interest, partner income and partner height

I am assuming they are using the height as some sorta controlling feature. If a specific group of women (the ones with the wealthy partners) lied it would disrupt the symmetrical association also. I am assuming the symmetrical features worked out right, so they can trust the income features.

Just trying to work this through my head as a brain exercise.

[epepke]

Last time I looked at a bottle of good lubricant in the store, it was around $40. That might have something to do with it.

[Anne]

Nice to see you back... ;)

[DMB]

I think it's quite simple. If you're lying there worrying yourself sick about paying the bills while he's banging away at you, you're not giving enough of your attention to what's going on at the moment to actually reach orgasm. In fact you may not even have managed to get aroused enough in the first place.

If you don't have to worry about the bills, that's one obstacle removed...

[LoneWolf]

I think it's quite simple. If you're lying there worrying yourself sick about paying the bills while he's banging away at you, you're not giving enough of your attention to what's going on at the moment to actually reach orgasm. In fact you may not even have managed to get aroused enough in the first place.

If you don't have to worry about the bills, that's one obstacle removed...

This sounds like the most reasonable explanation.

[Cath B]

I think it's quite simple. If you're lying there worrying yourself sick about paying the bills while he's banging away at you, you're not giving enough of your attention to what's going on at the moment to actually reach orgasm. In fact you may not even have managed to get aroused enough in the first place.

If you don't have to worry about the bills, that's one obstacle removed...

And worrying about the impact of another baby too.

And I reckon this could happen subconsciously even if you are using effective contraception.

[espritch]

Rich men might actually be better lovers. There is a pretty direct correlation between status and testosterone levels in in male apes. And in human societies, status and wealth are pretty closely tied.

Also, rich guys probably tend to be more confident.

[premjan]

Wealth is probably just one of many correlates of status.

[BigEvil]

Most of the posts in this thread seem to be attempting to rationalize the conclusion of the study in ways that I don't think can be supported.

Imho, the study says that women find wealthy males sexually satisfying in the same sense that they find good looking males to be attractive. It doesn't have to be rationalized. They like it because they like it.

I probably will not be able to explain this articulately, but the study says that women have evolved to like it, thus they like it. They are hardwired to like it.

The explanations of less stress, better lovers, or worries about contraception do not work because of this part of the study:

This result cannot be explained by possible confounds such as women's age, health, happiness, educational attainment, relationship duration, wealth difference between the partners, difference between the partners in educational attainment, and regional location.

It appears consistent with the view that female orgasm has an evolved adaptive function.

What I get from this is, women find wealthy males to be sexually satisfying in the same way that they find sugar to be sweet. It is an inherrent part of their nature that has been produced by evolution.

[LoneWolf]

BigEvil, I see what you are saying and you may be right, but I just can’t see how the study could exclude all those other variables. There are all sorts of possible variables that could be at play. Hell, maybe successful men ARE better in bed. Successful people tend to be assertive and take charge kind of people. Maybe that crosses over into bed as well? I don’t know. Maybe not. But I just don’t see how the study could account for all the possible variables.

[Philosophickle]

I think we should test the theory.
Women should have sex with me the day before payday and the day after payday. We may need a large sample group in order to ensure accuracy.

[BigEvil]

BigEvil, I see what you are saying and you may be right, but I just can’t see how the study could exclude all those other variables.

As I stated earlier, I am trying to simply work this out as a mental exercise on my part. I don't have any real interest in the conclusion itself, so I figure this is as good a study as any to see how studies are done. Your question of how they can exclude variables is the type of thing I am interested in.

You state:
maybe successful men ARE better in bed. Successful people tend to be assertive and take charge kind of people. Maybe that crosses over into bed as well?

Well, did the study show that women with lovers that they describe as assertive or take charge have more orgasms on average?
If they asked that question, then it could be ruled out.

I don't know all the questions that were asked, and certainly there could be some pertinent ones that were not asked. But the variables could be ruled out if done correctly.

Consider this:

Scientists go out and collect data and make a general statement about the data.

Another group of scientists see the data and the statement and want to know more specific information. They do a new study specifically designed to test the first statement and eliminate variables to get a more specific idea.

Another group of scientists, do a new study to test both of the previous studies and further eliminate variables.

And so on and so on.

This appears to be what has been done here, imho. This isn't the first study. They cite several previous studies at the top of the abstract, so imho, it can be assumed that they had a good idea of the type of variables that they needed to eliminate. What they have found is consistent with the previous studies and in addition eliminates variables that the previous studies did not. Thus they are able to come to a more specific conclusion.

Have they eliminated all the variables? Probably not, but they feel they have eliminated enough to draw their conclusion.

It is assumed, at least by me, that further studies will be done to test this study and the previous studies and eliminate even more variables.

As to what variable was specifically eliminated and how, one would have to have complete access to the study. We, of course, only have access to what Oolon has posted.

[ninewands]

Women orgasm more with wealthy partners

well, Duh!

[Amen-Moses]

Although not true in all cases (Former Presidents for example) wealth is related to ability, I get paid shit loads of money (a lot more than the majority of those I work with) because of my ability.

In my experience people who are good enough at something to become "wealthy" are also good at a lot of other things, some really annoying people just seem to be good at everything (and are usually bloody rich!).

Mind you I like to keep my money so I generally avoid women. ;)

Amen-Moses

[Monad]

I think it's quite simple. If you're lying there worrying yourself sick about paying the bills while he's banging away at you, you're not giving enough of your attention to what's going on at the moment to actually reach orgasm. In fact you may not even have managed to get aroused enough in the first place.

If you don't have to worry about the bills, that's one obstacle removed...

Plus if he's got his mind on other things like bills he's not going to be particularly effective either.

[BigEvil]

I think it's quite simple. If you're lying there worrying yourself sick about paying the bills while he's banging away at you, you're not giving enough of your attention to what's going on at the moment to actually reach orgasm. In fact you may not even have managed to get aroused enough in the first place.

If you don't have to worry about the bills, that's one obstacle removed...

Plus if he's got his mind on other things like bills he's not going to be particularly effective either.

According to the study, the frequency of orgasms increases irregardless of this. Maybe the man is stressed, maybe he isn't. The frequency of orgasms increases if the male is wealthy.

The study is saying that these rationalizations do not explain it. According to the study, it is explained by evolutionary adapted function and not social conditions.

[Garrett]

Received my email joke of the day, and it reminded me of this thread.

A drunk stumbles up to a woman in a bar and says “Hey baby, how about coming back to my place for a nightcap?

“That’ll be the day!” she says

”Well, howzabout having dinner with me tomorrow night then?”

“That’ll be the day!” she says

“Okay, why don’t we take my corporate jet and spend the weekend in Rome?”

“This’ll be the day.” She says

[Garrett]

I think the best explanation would involve psychology, not genetic adaption.

[Anne]

Or the old:

Will you sleep with me for a million dollars?

Yes.

Will you sleep with me for $20?

What kind of a woman do you think I am?

We've already established that, now we're negotiating price!

[Oolon Colluphid]

I think the best explanation would involve psychology, not genetic adaption.

I think the point is that psychology is adaptive, and that means inherited. Without going into the old nature vs nurture thing (tl;dr version: it's both :rolleyes:), there's a genetic component in human behaviour, just as there is in (eg) spider web-building behaviour. Try Pinker's The Blank Slate or Ridley's Nature via Nurture... then move on to Barrett, Dunbar and Lycett's Human Evolutionary Psychology (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Evolutionary-Psychology-Louise-Barrett/dp/0691096228).

[Febble]

I think the best explanation would involve psychology, not genetic adaption.

False dichotomy.

[Cath B]

I think the best explanation would involve psychology, not genetic adaption.

Are they mutually exclusive?

[Cath B]

Sorry, replied before reading Febble's post.

[Cath B]

Sorry, posted again without reading Oolon's post :o:D

[BigEvil]

I think the best explanation would involve psychology, not genetic adaption.

I think the point is that psychology is adaptive, and that means inherited. Without going into the old nature vs nurture thing (tl;dr version: it's both :rolleyes:), there's a genetic component in human behaviour, just as there is in (eg) spider web-building behaviour. Try Pinker's The Blank Slate or Ridley's Nature via Nurture... then move on to Barrett, Dunbar and Lycett's Human Evolutionary Psychology (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Evolutionary-Psychology-Louise-Barrett/dp/0691096228).

I haven't read any of those but I have read "Evolution For Everyone" by David Sloan Wilson. In it, he argues that evolutionary theory should be used more in many different areas not normally associated with evolution. A more integrated viewpoint, so to speak. It seems to me that psychology and evolutionary theory would be or should be integrated.

[TySixtus]

I think people are dancing away from the issue because they're worried it is somehow sexist, or paints women as prostitutes. It does neither, if you take your emotions out of it. As an adaptation it makes perfect sense.

Perhaps the trick is to not be so concerned with a man's status? We are all of us very shallow creatures. Deal with it.

[Garrett]

I think the best explanation would involve psychology, not genetic adaption.

Are they mutually exclusive?
No. They both provide explanations. I bolded a key word this time.

[Garrett]

I think the best explanation would involve psychology, not genetic adaption.

False dichotomy.
Is not.

[Garrett]

I think the best explanation would involve psychology, not genetic adaption.

I think the point is that psychology is adaptive, and that means inherited. Without going into the old nature vs nurture thing (tl;dr version: it's both :rolleyes:), there's a genetic component in human behaviour, just as there is in (eg) spider web-building behaviour. Try Pinker's The Blank Slate or Ridley's Nature via Nurture... then move on to Barrett, Dunbar and Lycett's Human Evolutionary Psychology (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Evolutionary-Psychology-Louise-Barrett/dp/0691096228).
Sure. But the details about how that adaptiveness occurs are less revealing than the details of the psychology involved. imo

[Garrett]

I think people are dancing away from the issue because they're worried it is somehow sexist, or paints women as prostitutes. It does neither, if you take your emotions out of it. As an adaptation it makes perfect sense.

Perhaps the trick is to not be so concerned with a man's status? We are all of us very shallow creatures. Deal with it.
So dance up to the issue without being sexist or painting women as prostitutes while not being concerned with a man's status.

[TySixtus]

What?

[Garrett]

lol Exactly!

[4321lynx]

Exactly is right.

Status enters into mating behaviour of all apes. Men & women, apes with slightly different DNA from chimpanzees, behave similarly. Only the perceived symbols of status differ.

Suffles away grunting, knuckles to the ground, supporting weight of moneybags over shoulders...

[TySixtus]

lol Exactly!

I'll take it you don't know what you were trying to say, either.

[Febble]

I think the best explanation would involve psychology, not genetic adaption.

False dichotomy.
Is not.

Why? Don't you think that psychology is genetic?

[Amen-Moses]

Hey, I just love being ignored. ;)

So why can't it be simply that successful men are better in bed?

Amen-Moses

[BigEvil]

Hey, I just love being ignored. ;)

So why can't it be simply that successful men are better in bed?

Amen-Moses

Because it doesn't appear to have anything to do with technique.

[Amen-Moses]

Hey, I just love being ignored. ;)

So why can't it be simply that successful men are better in bed?

Amen-Moses

Because it doesn't appear to have anything to do with technique.

I didn't see anything about technique mentioned and anyhow as you say it doesn't really have anything to do with it, two people can use the same technique and one of them will still be better!

Success often comes hand in hand with the ability to satisfy the customer, that's a skill that is very unappreciated.

Amen-Moses

[BigEvil]

Hey, I just love being ignored. ;)

So why can't it be simply that successful men are better in bed?

Amen-Moses

Because it doesn't appear to have anything to do with technique.

I didn't see anything about technique mentioned and anyhow as you say it doesn't really have anything to do with it, two people can use the same technique and one of them will still be better!

Success often comes hand in hand with the ability to satisfy the customer, that's a skill that is very unappreciated.

Amen-Moses

Pardon my lack of articulation. I struggle with it sometimes. Let me try it this way.

You are equating wealth with success. If they are wealthy they are successful. In the study, there is no separation between those that started out poor and managed to become wealthy and those that were born into wealth.

Are successful (wealthy) men better lovers? If the standard is frequency of orgasms, then yes they are. What makes them better lovers? The wealth.

They don't appear to be better in any other regard. Its not that they are more confident or more caring or more intelligent or more educated. Had it been any of those things, it would have also showed up amongst those whose partners were not wealthy. The study was designed to eliminate those variables.

And the study didn't just state that wealthy men are better lovers. It also stated that men who meet a certain height characteristic are better lovers. What makes them better lovers? The height.

The study does not exist in a vaccuum. It cites a previous study of Japanese macaques that shows a similar conclusion. And a few other studies that find other items (attractiveness and symmetry) that makes men better lovers.

Of course, none of this means that a short, ugly, poor man will not bring a woman to orgasm nor does it mean that a tall, handsome, rich man will. It just means that the tall, handsome, rich man will have an easier go at it. He has a natural advantage.

[Amber Robot]

Are successful (wealthy) men better lovers? If the standard is frequency of orgasms, then yes they are. What makes them better lovers? The wealth.

Is this not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

What if the answer is that women who are married to wealthy husbands find themselves very relaxed and stress-free most of the time, thus allowing them to have a better sex life?

There isn't enough information from the simple statement "women orgasm more with wealthy partners" to determine the true cause.

[BigEvil]

Are successful (wealthy) men better lovers? If the standard is frequency of orgasms, then yes they are. What makes them better lovers? The wealth.

Is this not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

What if the answer is that women who are married to wealthy husbands find themselves very relaxed and stress-free most of the time, thus allowing them to have a better sex life?

There isn't enough information from the simple statement "women orgasm more with wealthy partners" to determine the true cause.

But there is more than the information from that statement. If as you suggest, it could be that women are relaxed and stress-free, then that would show up in the study irregardless of wealth. The study was able to eliminate that.

The study seems to show that if the male is wealthy, it has a psychological effect on the woman making her more likely to orgasm. It doesn't appear to only effect certain women but all women. Thus suggesting its biological. Its consistent with other studies all of which, taken together suggests that it is an evolved trait.

[Amber Robot]

The study seems to show that if the male is wealthy, it has a psychological effect on the woman making her more likely to orgasm. It doesn't appear to only effect certain women but all women. Thus suggesting its biological. Its consistent with other studies all of which, taken together suggests that it is an evolved trait.

Ok. I didn't know the details the study. I got to the thread late and was only really commenting on the last few posts that I had read. Sorry...

[BigEvil]

Let me add this.

The study cites another study that finds women orgasm more with partners they find attractive.

Why?

Why would women orgasm more with partners they find attractive?

No one appears to be contesting that this is wrong, that it isn't the physical attraction, its really that they are stressfree.

Being attractive does not neccessarily imply increased orgasms. But the study shows that it does in fact increase the frequency of orgasms. The study showing increased frequency of orgasms with wealthy partners came to that conclusion the same way the attraction study did.

I don't know the exact method they used but I imagined it works something like this:

# of orgasms of women experiencing stress = x
# of orgasms of women experiencing stress but have wealthy partners > x
# of orgasms of women not experiencing stress = y
# of orgasms of women not experiencing stress but have wealthy partners > y

Thus they could eliminate stress from the equation. Following this method, they could eliminate a whole host of varibles and apparently did. Thus isolating it to just wealth.

In addition, there is an evolutionary adaptive explanation that would explain the results along with other studies done to other animals that show the same or similar results.

[BigEvil]

The study seems to show that if the male is wealthy, it has a psychological effect on the woman making her more likely to orgasm. It doesn't appear to only effect certain women but all women. Thus suggesting its biological. Its consistent with other studies all of which, taken together suggests that it is an evolved trait.

Ok. I didn't know the details the study. I got to the thread late and was only really commenting on the last few posts that I had read. Sorry...

Well, the title is titillating. And the conclusion isn't what most people (male or female) want to hear. As a non-wealthy male, I certainly would like for the opposite conclusion. My first instinct was to rationalize it away, and it appeared to me that that is what a number of people were doing. But the study looks solid to me.

[Amber Robot]

Do the partners have to actually be wealthy, or just the women think they are wealthy? I.e., was a double-blind study done?

[BigEvil]

Do the partners have to actually be wealthy, or just the women think they are wealthy? I.e., was a double-blind study done?

From the study:

Our two independent variables of interest, partner income and partner height, are based on the woman's report, not the partner's.

[Amber Robot]

Do the partners have to actually be wealthy, or just the women think they are wealthy? I.e., was a double-blind study done?

From the study:

Our two independent variables of interest, partner income and partner height, are based on the woman's report, not the partner's.

So, it sounds like you don't have to actually be wealthy, just convince her that you are. ;)

BTW, what did the study conclude about partner height?

[BigEvil]

So, it sounds like you don't have to actually be wealthy, just convince her that you are. ;)

Yes, I came to that conclusion also.

BTW, what did the study conclude about partner height?

Upon reviewing it, I think I misunderstood the stuff about the height.

In one part of the paper it cites a study about partners being more symetrical. Later it talks about one of the independent varaibles they were interested in, was partner height. I somehow thought of these two as being the same or related. Not so sure of that upon review.

What is posted from the study doesn't say anything more about it other than it was an independent variable that they were interested in.

The parts of the study that have been posted are post 17183 and post 17613 from the first page of the thread (I don't know how to link them).

[4321lynx]

So, it sounds like you don't have to actually be wealthy, just convince her that you are. ;)

Yes, I came to that conclusion also.

BTW, what did the study conclude about partner height?

Upon reviewing it, I think I misunderstood the stuff about the height.

In one part of the paper it cites a study about partners being more symetrical. Later it talks about one of the independent varaibles they were interested in, was partner height. I somehow thought of these two as being the same or related. Not so sure of that upon review.

What is posted from the study doesn't say anything more about it other than it was an independent variable that they were interested in.

The parts of the study that have been posted are post 17183 and post 17613 from the first page of the thread (I don't know how to link them).

Did they investigate any correlation of partner height to penis length/size?:cool:

[court and spark]

The study is wrong; the older we get, the more we orgasm with no partners, ladies can I get a witness...

[Nohweh]

:thumbdown: These wealth=no stress hypotheses smack of typical male chauvinism. The poor, poor female is relieved of her indigenous situation of poverty to experience orgasmic bliss in the presence of a "successful" male.

May I suggest it has more to do with pride than anything? The woman is proud that she has snagged a wealthy mate. She is also proud of her ability to reach sexual satisfaction. She is driven, period.

I would also suggest that the study tells us more about the Chinese culture than humanity in general.