I think this has changed for many educated women. Not the ones that want to be SAHMs and live in luxury. Those women will always exist. But for many educated women who want to work and use their degrees, they don’t need a man to support them. I always knew I would work and make a good salary. When I was dating, my emphasis was on personality, appearance, character, and maturity. I was most attracted to tall, fit, attractive, adventuresome, nice, sexual, fun, caring men that I could see myself exploring the world and raising a family with.

I was never attracted to the 5’7” guy who made more than me. I didn’t have to date for money, because I knew I could always make my own. When I see an attractive women with a rich. short/ugly man, I always assume she couldn’t/wouldn’t work and needed someone to support her.

My husband had great potential and a fabulous body. He has more than lived up to his potential and his body is still in wonderful working condition.

**attractive

*attracted

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women are such bad liars.

A woman married to a 30 year old Sales engineer with a trust fund AND who brings in at least 200k per year, not including bonus, nonchalantly says, "oh, I don't care much for money"

LOL That is why you specifically selected for a guy who had the kind of degree and job prospects to give you the life you want in addition to ensuring he had generational wealth.

? How many men do you think come from money such that all these women out there are only picking those men? Yes, *people* with money are catches. You think women from family money aren't great catches?

They say “can’t buy me love.” Untrue. Women often find themselves sexually attracted to rich men. Not so with men. Certainly a man might marry a woman because she’s rich, but her wealth doesn’t make her any more sexually attracted to her.

Something like 90percent of women go for 10 percent of the men. We are in for a major societal change in mating habits. This has been hastened by technology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband made 30k when we tied the knot. He's now at 160k. My requirement was potential. He had two stem degrees and was entering a Ph.D program the summer we married.

The index-investing approach to gold-digging. Nice

I’m this example of a guy - married 20 years, and add the height thing too-5’ 6”

Anonymous wrote:My husband made 30k when we tied the knot. He's now at 160k. My requirement was potential. He had two stem degrees and was entering a Ph.D program the summer we married.

The index-investing approach to gold-digging. Nice

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single man here making 280k at age 32. I’m 5’5 though :/

Honestly I would rather be a 6’2 guy making 60k.

Height requirements seem like a harder limitation than salary requirements. I can’t even date women who are 3 inches shorter than me because short women all want super tall guys to compensate for their own shortness.

See Table 5.5 on page 48 of this famous economic study of on-line dating. The authors estimate statistically that a 5'5" man needs to earn about an additional $200K a year to be as attractive as a 6 foot man making $60K, so would need to earn $260K. To be as attractive as a 6'2 man earning $60K, he would need to earn $290K.

https://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf

So your estimate is just about dead on accurate, congrats.

This does control for other things ("all else equal"), like facial attractiveness, etc.

WTF?? I'm a guy but don't get this. If I were a woman, I would *much* rather a 5'5" guy earning $260K than a 6'0" guy earning $60K. The average woman is like 5'4" so he's still taller than you. And oh boy is your life a hell of a lot easier if your spouse brings in an extra $200K!

I’m a 5’7” woman, and I totally agree with you!!

I even find Napoleon syndrome to be kind of hot to be honest. A 6 foot plus dumb dumb who sails through life on looks would not be for me.

Anonymous wrote:I guess my $100k salary, benefits, pension, and three months of time off each year makes me undateable…. I’ll go cry somewhere now. Sheesh…. I would want to date a lazy gold digger anyways.

Yep. If you’re not willing to:

1). Live on your current salary

2). Quit your job and do (nearly) all domestic tasks and completely support your wife’s career.

3). Take on at least 50% of the childcare and housework while both of you work, even if that means missing out on career advancement or some social things you might want to do.

If you are thinking that you making $100k means that your wife needs to work, but at the same time you expect to come home to her wrapped in Saran Wrap and holding a martini, then you are SOL.

My husband made 30k when we tied the knot. He's now at 160k. My requirement was potential. He had two stem degrees and was entering a Ph.D program the summer we married.

You know what I can't stand-people who lie about the reason they can't get dates. E.g., I'm vividly aware that 5'6" foreigners easily get dates, but as a 5'7" American I get dumped after people who see my treatment of others. When 90% of women say I'm too much of an a$$h*le to be husband-material after giving me a fair shake. I'm going to lie about ALL of them because one woman whose ex was short wants a tall man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single man here making 280k at age 32. I’m 5’5 though :/

Honestly I would rather be a 6’2 guy making 60k.

Height requirements seem like a harder limitation than salary requirements. I can’t even date women who are 3 inches shorter than me because short women all want super tall guys to compensate for their own shortness.

See Table 5.5 on page 48 of this famous economic study of on-line dating. The authors estimate statistically that a 5'5" man needs to earn about an additional $200K a year to be as attractive as a 6 foot man making $60K, so would need to earn $260K. To be as attractive as a 6'2 man earning $60K, he would need to earn $290K.

https://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf

So your estimate is just about dead on accurate, congrats.

This does control for other things ("all else equal"), like facial attractiveness, etc.

WTF?? I'm a guy but don't get this. If I were a woman, I would *much* rather a 5'5" guy earning $260K than a 6'0" guy earning $60K. The average woman is like 5'4" so he's still taller than you. And oh boy is your life a hell of a lot easier if your spouse brings in an extra $200K!

It depends. No one wants to date a short guy with a chip on his shoulder about it.
And as long as your combined income is enough to pay your mortgage, all of your needs, and some of your wants, I don’t know that life is always easier with more money.
For example, if he needs to have a $100k car and always wants his wife to remain thin, keep a perfect home, and dress and look a certain way, it might be easier to be married to the 6’2” fireman with no such expectations.

I guess my $100k salary, benefits, pension, and three months of time off each year makes me undateable…. I’ll go cry somewhere now. Sheesh…. I would want to date a lazy gold digger anyways.

I have seen super tall girls go after short guys to get average offspring. Used to be very common with jockeys for example.