Us young women, hold the most selective power especially for accessing affluent men than any other women due to our sought after youth by men, young women are pursued by affluent, high-value men. This selectivity, rooted in youthful appeal, justifies our high financial expectations in potential partners. It's rational for us to utilize this phase (ages 18-29), deemed as the period of highest selective power, to secure a well-off partner, rather than settling for less. In fact you guys saying that women "hit the wall" post-30 amplifies the urgency to capitalize on this youthful phase we have and to be high strategically hypergamous and play the dating game and men like chess so that we can get the best man as our time is more valuable than men’s in this phase and it is scarce compared to most of our life and we won’t have this level of selective power ever again due to becoming old. I always encourage young women to be strategic and discourage them not mess around, partake in hook up culture, in this phase especially not with cheap men like you. Thus, a $20 coffee date is inadequate for us young women, the women with the most selective power just as rich men of high status markers are the men with the highest selective power of all men and can get any of the desirable individuals in the opposite gender just as us young women can. The goal is to secure a prosperous future with a financially stable partner and family, making young women's time during this period especially valuable, more valuable than men’s. The refusal to accept low-budget dates is further reinforced by the availability of affluent men willing to invest more in courtship with us young women; aligning with the principle of hypergamy and the pursuit of upward mobility. So why wouldn’t we, the women with the most selective power turn down your $20 coffee date? Are you really that disconnected with evolutionary psychology, how reality and dating works?

Men aim to impress and court women so he can capture her, a coffee date can be seen as lackluster, something a woman can enjoy by herself or with friends at a much lower cost even. In pursuing a long-term relationship, women often evaluate a man's financial standing to ensure a secure future, especially when considering family. This principle is deeply rooted in traditional cultures where financial competence in men is valued for family sustenance. For instance, Eastern European women, often holding traditional values, may seek financially stable men unlike their western counterparts who might be more open to casual, less expensive dates. Marrying for financial stability over love is a conventional notion as it aligns with practical and realistic needs of a family. Aspiring for a traditional nuclear family, especially one with a stay-at-home mother, necessitates a substantial income, estimated at $150,000 annually, akin to the financial requirement of the idealized 1950s middle-class nuclear family. This romanticized family model proves challenging for lower income brackets, often leading to a different family structure where both parents and even children contribute financially.