The studies weren't asking about marriage success, but about mating success. Female preferences can be pretty different between those two.

You're the first person in this comments section who seems to know how the world works.

Fair distinction. Still skeptical that money isn't a stronger predictor (even ruling out explicit prostitution) but sure, testosterone effects matter to sex appeal.

Who a woman chooses to marry and who she has sex with are two entirely different things.

San Fran millionaire coder bro versus Bronx construction bro.

The West Coast has a glut of coder bros. In NYC men with a college education are the buyer's market.

I remember a very strange reading from a "geek girl" years ago, where she went on and on about deriding the men who were, by all measures, her own peers, and she went on and on about how now that she's realized her own worth she's pulling jacked scientist-adventurers and such and the other guys were losers all along.

I remembered this after thinking about how my lowly bachelor's degree and a pretty face have earned me a warmer reception by the Academic community outside the campus than inside where I'm currently living (despite being at the moment a terrible catch). It clicked.

I wouldn't, however, write a spiel trash talking women with the same level of education and a similar physique to mine just because I can, say, bat above my own league right now.

I can only imagine the Construction worker knows how to use his body well. At the end of the day we are all animals.

If I understand the article "mating success" means number of sex partners per unit time for them. There is the obvious spurious correlation that guys who work out to get big may be doing so because they are trying to play the field and attract more women. Smaller guys who are married or monogamous would have fewer sex partners, and may have other priorities than getting jacked. It's like saying women with dyed hair and lots of makeup have more sex partners, if that was true it would not be clear that means they are actually more attractive, just promiscuous

> More than money or its earning power? I'm skeptical.

It’s considerably easier to lie about money than it is physique if one’s aim is just getting laid.

According to the article, this is solely measuring numbers of sexual partners. I might be more inclined to believe this, whereas money / earning power might predict better success at long-term pair bonding.