Correct - but one must also note that, under some circumstances, one or both participants are simply looking for a short-term "hook-up," and under other circumstances, one or both participants are striving for a long-term relationship and/or marriage.
Depending upon the time-horizon, the relative importance of various components of SMV may vary somewhat.
One's criteria will probably also vary considerably in different phases of life. A 17-year-old college freshman can thus not seriously view himself as good "marriage material." He - and the group of women in his usual social circles that he can plausibly court - are thus not looking to find a mate for life. And a 29-year-old woman nearing "The Wall" will likewise have shifted criteria. She might, e.g., wish to create a child with a stunningly handsome man, and then subsequently "settle down" with a boring provider with few options who is thus willing to nurture the other man's seed. Catchword: DUAL MATING STRATEGY.
While beauty is one major factor there are other factors that can adjust the number up and down. Wealth adjust up, poverty adjusts down.
SMV is NOT symmetrical! Males attach very little importance to a woman's wealth - since it's unlikely that he'll ever benefit from it. While women routinely expect the man to make 157% as much as the women.
And so on, and so forth.
Regards,
Yup—I mentioned the money issue for a couple of reasons.
Many young women have insane college debt.
That has got to be a couple of points negative for anything more than a one night stand.
That is like starting a horse race with a cement block on the jockey.
As for female wealth—what it means long term is that if things go south the man will not be the one paying alimony and/or child support—long term that has got to be a plus.
For one night stands the SMV is almost all about looks.
Anything with longer time horizons has to take all other factors into account.
Otherwise known as "alpha f*x, beta bux."