- Joined
- Apr 3, 2013
- Messages
- 5,133
- Reaction score
- 448
Everyone keeps saying that having lots of money is the ultimate factor that a woman looks for in a guy. That is wrong.
All of this is based off of the fact that women are only interested( be it consciously or subconsciously) in quality genetics, even if they deny it; they are bounded by the laws of evolution.
Money isn't as important as looks or height.
I know short ugly rich guys that can't find dates no matter what.
Money is an indirect indicator of genetic quality.
Looks and height are direct indicators of genetic quality
Having money means you have a good probability of having good genes. However...
If you are tall and good looking, then you must have good genes.
If you are rich, you may or may not have good genes. After all, in such a scenario, you could have inherited the wealth from a intelligent businessman grandfather but you yourself may not have inherited specific gene for such creativity since genetics is still based on probability.
Thats the difference.
All of this is based off of the fact that women are only interested( be it consciously or subconsciously) in quality genetics, even if they deny it; they are bounded by the laws of evolution.
Money isn't as important as looks or height.
I know short ugly rich guys that can't find dates no matter what.
Money is an indirect indicator of genetic quality.
Looks and height are direct indicators of genetic quality
Having money means you have a good probability of having good genes. However...
If you are tall and good looking, then you must have good genes.
If you are rich, you may or may not have good genes. After all, in such a scenario, you could have inherited the wealth from a intelligent businessman grandfather but you yourself may not have inherited specific gene for such creativity since genetics is still based on probability.
Thats the difference.
Last edited: