Since this topic is popping up again, I’ll indulge you a piece of new research.
The cost of being an ugly man?
The thing you won’t be after reading this.
Remember, if you’re offended, that must mean you’re ugly.
“My students often interpret this result as saying that women really care about money, but that is not what it says at all— $186,000 is a huge difference in income. If women didn’t care about looks and only cared about money, the figure would be much, much lower. This says that despite the impression that on the marriage market women really care about income, the evidence suggest that they also care about looks. They just care about income too.”
They care about not starving in the street after being abandoned. The fact it’s common this abandonment happens in our time is a bountiful supply of evidence that the fear is just.
Sample bias in the gold diggers versus everyone else. The pool wanting looks is all, the pool willing to overlook Darwinian fitness (good genes, high IQ correlates to good looks) for cash is a minority, and would that minority be faithful? Look at adultery stats, no. So really they do get both, just by lying about the looks thing to secure cash first. Most women are too honest to cheat, so they go right for the looks as long as he’s stable and sane.
Sex should not be confused with breeding. Marrying someone doesn’t mean breeding with them nowadays, in the era of the starter marriage. If they ask non-gold diggers about who they would breed with, in either sex, the number would soar because it’s critical to your baby’s health that they possess good genes.
Which sex invests more metabolically, again?
Ignore the lookism at your peril. Women naturally gravitate toward better-looking men (better genetic fitness) during times of hardship, for multi-layered protection. You want women to give you a chance? Fix the economy.
The manopshere won’t tell you things like this (and without twisting the findings) because they want shekels more than your wellbeing.