I think it depends on the person’s own standard of living and financial situation. If I had no financial stress/made enough to support companionship without a stronger financial partner, what I prioritize will be different. e.g., physical attractiveness, height, muscles, charm, etc.
Historically, both men and women were very concerned about finances in selecting a marriage partner, especially in the upper SES bracket. “Old money” families typically only married other “old money” families in order to maintain their wealth. It’s only more recently it became some what of a taboo for women to express their interest in prospective male income. They weren’t “gold diggers” then, unless the prospective spouse didn’t have the same level of wealth. I think then, they were considered “social climbers.” Regardless, it’s a matter of priorities and trade-offs. e.g., If you weren’t wealthy, but came from a prestigious family, “new money” suitors could’ve been considered a great marriage partner a hundred years ago. Human nature remains the same.

Agreed! I don’t think any emotionally healthy person chooses a mate solely on ONE characteristic. I think this article simply highlights a priority filter in what men/women use in selecting a potential mate. If an average-looking man making $250K is a total jerk, then more often than not, only a like-minded jerk of a woman would likely be interested in him (and mostly his money, at that).

People value different things based on their circumstances and upbringing. My college roommate was the daughter of an executive, gorgeous and wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. She was a kind person and she would’ve undoubtedly taken care of her man and family very well. She would not entertain dating anyone who didn’t come from money, though. She grew up wealthy and expected to maintain her standard of living. Since she was gorgeous and a decent person, she didn’t have any problem finding boys interested in her. We lost touch so I don’t know what she ended up doing, but in seeing how many boys were after her, sure, why wouldn’t she only consider boys with a stronger financial background if everything else is relatively the same (nice, decent guy, etc.)

I think too many people overrate themselves and then feel angry about others not agreeing with their market value. It’s the same problem at work. If you keep loosing your job, the common denominator is you. You’re the problem, not all the “bad managers” who can’t “appreciate” your work. Accept reality and work on/improve yourself. If you’re not attracting the type or “level” of mate you want-work on you! Lose weight, increase muscle mass, groom yourself, wear better outfits, smell better, get a better-paying job, pay off your debt, etc.

Excellent reply! There are plenty of people for every type. The mismatch comes from unrealistic expectations. If a man has attractive women fawning all over him, whatever the reason (wealth, charm, attractiveness, height, status, etc.) he can be selective about whom he chooses and will likely pursue the wealthiest and most attractive. Why? Because he can. Is he a “god digger” or “shallow” in opting for the “best” option for him? Not unless he’s only committing to someone because of those external factors. For practical reasons, it behooves everyone to be mindful of income, fiscal responsibility and values alignment in selecting a marriage partner. Financial issues in a marriage are one of the top reasons for divorce and a significant cause of stress for many. The point is that if one has the OPTION to pursue a more financially stable, and ideally more well-off person (male or female), that is likely to be a quality “selling” feature for a prospective mate. Men and women need to be honest with themselves in their “market value” and accept their desirability level. Being a “good person” is not really a “selling” feature. That’s a basic and assumed expectation. It’s like power steering and power windows and locks in a car. These are now standard features in every car and not even really “considered” by most car shoppers. Those are given features, already assumed. Same with “good” men/women. Given. Assumed. Expected. That is not a selling feature. It should come standard. So what else distinguishes you/are you offering? Attractiveness? Financial security? Incredibly funny and charming? Be realistic about what you have to offer a prospective partner. If you’re not having any luck with the men/women you keep pursuing, re-evaluate your market value and adjust.

Most if not all women do not care how the money is earned. He could have won the lottery or inherited the money and women will still prefer him over the lower income guy….

This writer is falsely assuming guys care only about looks and women only care about money but it is more men care about looks and personality but women care about looks,money,height,personality ECT. A lot of women have way more standards when it comes to dating than men

? I’m confused you are running into homeless people on dating sites?

How many people do you see or know on a daily basis who are together and when you look they are ugly or just not to your standards having a partnership with another person. Like get real just walk in a grocery store and you know I’m right. Looks matter yeah but it’s always in the eye of the beholder when it comes to beauty. And you am damn well sure that they grew up looking for what would be considered more attractive to them. Also they tend to have beautiful kids.

Then stop looking for a man. Seriously the need for companionship is overrated so get over it