Maybe in addition to be good looking and earning money, that dude also was not looking for trophy wife and had different preferences. Dude sounds like catch.
I'm not talking about a specific man and physical attractiveness is just one of many aspects. In aggregate, it seems reasonable to believe that the gender imbalance causes men to lower their standards.
The interesting think for me is that all discussions about relationships on hn boils down to money and looks (gym for guys, I guess makeup and diet for girls).
And the idea of match is "willing to let me pay for her". There is no other standard for suitable partner ever mentioned. No expectation of shared values or similar livestyle (except valuing looks). No expectation of mutual support.
And the experts on what women want are people who "dated" over dozens of people last year - meaning none of them trying for long term stable relationship.
And everytime I read those discussions I kind of think I would not want to date them either. Mostly because they primary think in hierarchies instead of relationships and because I would not want a guy that would use his money as leverage over me.
It gets a lot easier to understand when you realize that most women are looking for a life partner while most men are looking for a sex partner. You are more careful with life partners, so there will always be a surplus of men available for dating looking for sex, and most of them will fake looking for a life partner just to get more opportunities since there are so few women who are into the same things.
This means that for you as a woman dating is first and foremost about separating life partners from sex partners. Your advice goes in that direction. But it is totally worthless for men, most women they meet will be looking for a life partner so they are not hard to find. Instead men face the problem that most women are very reluctant to date them, so men mostly need advice how to get more dates.
You'd be surprised at just how many women are looking for sex partners rather than life partners. But women are taking a lot more risks when they have casual sex: the chance of pregnancy, a higher chance of disease, a higher chance of being physically harmed. There's also, to be blunt, a higher chance of really bad sex.
So women apply a higher standard to their casual sex. They want to know that somebody is going to be kind and considerate. That's going to take several dates, which means they're also looking for somebody who's interesting over the course of several evenings. And once they've found that person, they'll often want more -- not a lifetime, but weeks or months.
Maybe that turns into a commitment, but the stereotype that every woman is looking for a ring misreads the situation. If you go on each date assuming that sex is completely off the table for the first week, you'll find that a lot of women are willing to have sex after that without visiting a judge or priest first. And being genuinely interested in them during that time, rather than just counting down the days, will improve your odds.
Which would be ok if they subsequently did not complained constantly about loneliness and being single. Partner for regular sex is relationship still, as much as partner for any regular activity.
And complained about women they date being primary interested in them paying for them. Like, he trying to attract her primary on money, who is going to take that offer?
If males look for sex date and women look for relationship, you have mismatch. And no group should feel angry or entitled about the other not being interested in them - they want fundamentally different things. In that case, he is not getting date because he is player and women around happen to be not interested in that.
And then he sees another dude in long term relationship with a woman that seeks that and is all offended about unfair world.
And also I kind of thing that if this is the need, prostitution should be an option. It is kind of same thing, except transaction is clear from get go.
I think the open secret is that prostitutes don't count, because the sex isn't about having orgasms, but about having one's merit validated. They must earn the thing that they cannot buy. Sex is the ultimate compliment, being chosen by a woman who dubs him worthy -- ideally, the most desirable woman (as perceived by other men). And for many, the more the better -- a second time doesn't count as much.
They generally don't get that, and will give other reasons why they can't just hire somebody. But I believe that's the real reason: it's the one thing that they cannot buy, and therefore matters most when they have all the money in the world.
This way, it simultaneously objectify women making us basically boardgame victory token and simultaneously giving women too much power or too much consequence of having sex.
The assumption that the decision to have causual sex is somehow result of valuing the dude is imo wrong.
Indeed, another common false assumption is that sex is something women don't want, especially casual sex. They're invested in the idea that sex is something a woman has to be bribed into, preferably with a lifetime commitment to her and her children.
Not only is that incredibly demeaning to women, it's self-defeating. If they could just believe that many women actually enjoy sex for its own sake, if they can have it without being abused, harassed, and stuck alone with the consequences, they could get themselves laid a lot more.
