a very nicely worded post.
I especially appreciate the artistry of the line: "Personally, I think it's a bit "magic wand-ish" to conflate the atavistic attracting power of certain physical characteristics with the purely cognitive process of sizing up a guys bank account."
However, in my mundane prose, I must state that you have overstated the issue in your post. I think that a woman, in choosing a mate, should (maybe "ought to") consider whether this man will be able to provide a stable and safe environment for the raising of children, i.e., for her and for her children. This demands a consideration of his "pocketbook potential."
Does that mean that a millionaire should win out over a tow truck driver? NO! But a stable tow truck driver should win out over a dude who can't keep a job for more than two months.
admittedly, there are some woman who marry for money, but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether the man's income or income-potential is a legitimate consideration in choosing a mate, and I agree with those who say "yes."
Mundane or not, "overstated" is a pretty ironic charge coming from the guy using a functional adolescent (the "dude who can't keep a job for more than two months.") as his foil in the "marriage material" contest. You might as well compare an adult to a high school freshman.
Sorry, but I regard trotting out such a cypher to support your point as disingenuous as crafting public policy based on the putative "old person" that has to eat dog food in order to afford "Depends."
Even so, the issue wasn't overstated by me: it was rebutted by me.
I think that a woman, in choosing a mate, should (maybe "ought to") consider whether this man will be able to provide a stable and safe environment for the raising of children, i.e., for her and for her children. This demands a consideration of his "pocketbook potential."
I might be inclined to agree with you if what we saw 'in the wild' was a pass/fail standard, but that is most definitely NOT what we see.
What the men on this thread are reporting is being graded pass/fail on "comeliness," with money acting as an exponent to the calculation.
Were I to look for an analogous rhetorical shell-game to defending financial "consideration," my first choice would BE "Choice."
Despite loud protestations about sovereignty over their own bodies, such women prove to be remarkably unconcerned by any infringement aside from those which touch on abortion.
The rhetorical maneuvering I've seen so far is another expression of the same type of duplicity. Rational self-interest is being used to camouflage naked avarice.
Does that mean that a millionaire should win out over a tow truck driver? NO!
The question you should be asking here is not "should they," but "do they." And answering THAT question with anything but a negative leaves your credibility in the dust.
admittedly, there are some woman who marry for money, but that is not the issue here.
That is exactly the issue here. Plausible deniability is not going to get you benefit of the doubt when practical experience allows no doubt.
Men aren't offended by prospective mates qualifying them, they're offended by the weight and single-minded attention given to their finances in that qualification.
The issue is whether the man's income or income-potential is a legitimate consideration in choosing a mate, and I agree with those who say "yes."
And I agree most Freeperettes wouldn't fall under the assertions I've put forward, but most women aren't Freeperettes.
What I can't understand is how the most strident defenders of 'financial consideration' on this thread have expressly rejected it in their own lives. It resembles nothing else, so much as American college students defending "The Revolution."