There's been a lot of recent PPD drama over the shift in women's dating priorities between 30 and 18. The subtext being: betas beware, because a woman dating you at 30 might be eying your wallet, not your bulge.

There is a lot of truth to this. I agree with the redpill aphorism that women are attracted to the same things - confidence, charisma, good looks - at 30 as they are at 18.

However, redpill doesn't hit the mark all the way. It fails to recognize that there is a genuine shift in women's sexual attraction between 18 and 30. No, they don't become genuinely lustful for traits like "having good credit" and "being a dadbod". However, they do become genuinely turned off by traits such as "being lazy" "financial irresponsibility" "playing too much video games" "smoking weed all day" and so on and so forth. Things she didn't care at all about her college fling doing.

If Mrs AFBB found herself married to the stereotypical loser teenage dirtbag, she wouldn't put out for him either because all his irresponsible traits would actively turn her off.

I'm not sure the implications to this, if any. Betas still need to beware. I guess it's inaccurate to say women stifle their sexual attraction to alpha losers in order to chase betas for money, because I think if the average woman found herself teleported into a marriage with Mr. sexy loser dirty-mattress-on-the-floor, she would deadbedroom and divorce rape him in short order. So it would be more accurate to say that women can choose between alpha losers they can't maintain sexual attraction to, responsible betas they can't maintain sexual attraction to, or the rare responsible high betas they can maintain sexual attraction to (alpha bux). Since these are so rare, the vast majority of women can't pull off getting one, so despite chasing them end up with men in the second category. I would probably even argue that in the courting and marriage honeymoon phase they think they have the AB jackpot but end up disappointed down the line. But that's a post for another day.