Optimal strategy for men is to procreate as many children as possible. Beauty is a rough proxy for health. In a prehistoric setting, young beautiful women should procreate more healthy children than older uglier ones.

Since women cannot just procreate that many babies, their optimal strategy is to nurture and care for the ones they have, with as much help from the father as possible. In a prehistoric setting, wealthier men should make better providers and taller men should make better protectors.

It is all evolution.

I would argue there is some selection bias going on here. If we assume that both sexes are trying to maximise their evolutionary fitness then a beautiful woman marrying a less attractive man would indicate there are other factors involved. Money is the most obvious, and despite anecdotes against it, money has shown to have a positive correlation with happiness.

Well, that might be true. My previous relationship didn't work out and at the time we started dating I've being considered more attractive than my partner. Now things are quite opposite. My new SO is much more attractive than I am and so far everything seems great for us.

Lloyd: "What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me hooking up"

Mary: "Not good"

Lloyd: "Not good as in 1 in 100?"

Mary: "I'd say more like 1 in a million"

Lloyd: "So you're saying there is a chance? Yeahhhh!"

to give us hope ...

''Men are very sensitive to women's attractiveness. Women seem to be sensitive to men's height and salary''

if this is true women are more scientific thinking in this respect - they are looking at 2 well-defined measurable quantities -height and -salary -- men look for -attractiveness that cannot be defined or measured

money