> a woman that is looking for a man with a nice income, is really no different than us looking for a girl with big tits or with an interest in a special that.
I hear this connection a lot, but I think it's a bit flawed. A person preferring a certain kind of physique or build doesn't necessarily indicate anything about his/her values. But a desire for comfort and luxury indicates a hell of a lot about a person's values.
I think more equivalent would be saying a guy who looks for a woman with large breasts is similar to a woman looking for a very tall man, and either partner looking for money/luxury/comfort/status/inheritance/titles is the same thing.
I'm a rather great admirer of the Stoic tradition, I have not so much use for luxury or comfort, and I think it's potentially corrupting. I've been with a few women who prioritize luxury and comfort and things like that, but it's clear pretty early on that they're going to be funding their own luxury and comfort, whereas I'm more Spartan and would rather enjoy nature, reading books together at a cafe, laying in bed listening to classical music, and things like that. There is no fine dining, shopping trips, or things like that with me - because frankly, I'd be miserable doing that sort of stuff and a man shouldn't be miserable with his woman.
If you're strong and set those groundrules early, you can usually have a pretty good few year run with a girl who is only mildly interested in luxury/comfort. A girl who is obsessed with it, maybe you can't get on her official boyfriend -> fiance -> husband track, but that's a good thing for the man who doesn't want to be immersed in consumerism, luxury, and comfort.
So no, I disagree with the looks/money equivalence - most people have a preference for a certain set of looks which doesn't necessarily indicate anything, but a strong desire for luxury/comfort is a big red flag to people who don't want that life - though it might be perfect for a guy who does like fine dining and luxury too.
Good looks on a gal are correlated with fertility, so a guy who marries her will have a chance at a higher reproductive success. A guy with resources can afford to take care of said children, as opposed to letting them starve to death, so she gets a higher RS as well.
Justifying behaviors with evolutionary arguments doesn't make any sense. Stealing and raping generally increase your chances of reproducing, yet they're still immoral.
I don't think seeking wealthy mates is immoral because it doesn't hurt anyone. If someone enjoys that kind of thing, good for them. If they're in it for the conspicuous consumption, I just probably wouldn't enjoy hanging out with them, let alone marrying them.
I didn't read the parent post as justifying so much as explaining. Evolutionary or physiological explanations for behavior are useful in understanding the behavior. Some evolutionarily advantageous behaviors are morally positive, while some are morally negative (such as the examples you listed). With a proper understanding of the origins of desirable and undesirable behaviors (and, perhaps the reasons why they are considered desirable or undesirable), a society can better encourage and enforce the essential moral values that unite the society and allow it to function.
It's about values and reproduction. Humans are living things, and EVERYTHING about the behaviour of living things is about reproduction. Values, in humans, are all about reproduction, directly or indirectly.
Men desiring attractive, fertile looking women is built-in.
Women desiring high status men is also built-in. But which women find high status (banker versus starving artist for example) depends on culture and the particular woman.
I hear this connection a lot, but I think it's a bit flawed. A person preferring a certain kind of physique or build doesn't necessarily indicate anything about his/her values. But a desire for comfort and luxury indicates a hell of a lot about a person's values.
I think more equivalent would be saying a guy who looks for a woman with large breasts is similar to a woman looking for a very tall man, and either partner looking for money/luxury/comfort/status/inheritance/titles is the same thing.
I'm a rather great admirer of the Stoic tradition, I have not so much use for luxury or comfort, and I think it's potentially corrupting. I've been with a few women who prioritize luxury and comfort and things like that, but it's clear pretty early on that they're going to be funding their own luxury and comfort, whereas I'm more Spartan and would rather enjoy nature, reading books together at a cafe, laying in bed listening to classical music, and things like that. There is no fine dining, shopping trips, or things like that with me - because frankly, I'd be miserable doing that sort of stuff and a man shouldn't be miserable with his woman.
If you're strong and set those groundrules early, you can usually have a pretty good few year run with a girl who is only mildly interested in luxury/comfort. A girl who is obsessed with it, maybe you can't get on her official boyfriend -> fiance -> husband track, but that's a good thing for the man who doesn't want to be immersed in consumerism, luxury, and comfort.
So no, I disagree with the looks/money equivalence - most people have a preference for a certain set of looks which doesn't necessarily indicate anything, but a strong desire for luxury/comfort is a big red flag to people who don't want that life - though it might be perfect for a guy who does like fine dining and luxury too.