ove, a desire to grow and learn about each other as life changes, and so much more.

In all honesty, if men and women want to date based solely on money and looks, that is going to happen whether there is a planned event or not. I do, however, wonder about the final statement made on the Pocket Change website, "This genetic cleansing is how the wealthy stay beautiful."

How can this be? Doesn't it take two to make a child? Wouldn't it logically take both a beautiful woman and a handsome man to create a beautiful child, or does money plus an ugly man plus a beautiful woman make a beautiful wealthy child? You do the math, but there seems to be a flaw in the logic behind that statement.

A couple of quotes sum it up best. First, Bill Wundram, Iowa Quad Cities Times, says, "In the fin

Just hours after the "Natural Selection Speed Date" event was held on February 7 in New York, commentary and polls sprang up everywhere to discuss the "fairness" of an event wherein wealthy men and beautiful women need only apply.

As for the men, the criteria for wealth ranged from a salary of $200,000.00 for men aged 25 and below to $500,000.00 for men aged 30 and above. A man who was not gainfully employed or did not have a salary within those limits could still qualify with invested assets of at least $1 million or a trust fund of at least $4 million.

The only requirement for the women was that they had to be beautiful, based on the judgment of celebrity matchmaker Janis Spindel. To determine beauty, she required five pictures, nothing more nothing less. No additional information would even be accepted.

According to a blurb on the Pocket Change website, the sponsors of the event, "Pocket Change is honoring the age old union of wealthy men and hot girls. Society has taught us to not publicly acknowledge the obvious - no longer dear friends. Women want money in a man, men want beauty in a woman - this is a factual force of nature. Women don't ask 'So, what does he do for a living?' because they're interested in his personality and guys don't ask 'is she hot?' because they're concerned with character. Guys know that money buys them the car, the house and the trophy wife. This genetic cleansing is how the wealthy stay beautiful."

Wow! What a statement about where we are as a society. While it is true that men are more visual and are thus attracted to women based first on their appearance, what happens when the woman gains weight, becomes ill, or freckles start to show where once there was just creamy, smooth skin? Is she still beautiful or will she be thrown over for a woman who has not gained weight, been stricken by a disease, and has stayed out of the sun to retain her creamy complexion?

And what happens to the man if he loses his job or his investments fail? Does the woman turn her desire to the next man on her list who makes enough money to keep her in the manner in which she is accustomed?

While I do agree that men are attracted by beauty and women don't want to live paycheck to paycheck, there is much more to relationships and marriage than these two factors. In addition to beauty, which looks different to everyone, and financial provision, which varies from one household to the next, men and women want basically the same thing: to love and to be loved for who they are, not for the money they make or the size of their thighs. No one wants to wake up in the morning only to check their bank account or look in the mirror to see if they will still be married at the end of the day. This world is scary enough without throwing in the uncertainty of love based solely on such measurements.

In any relationship, attraction is based on a variety of qualities. What is attractive to me isn't the same as what's attractive to someone else, but attraction that leads to marriage must be based on more than good looks and money to survive. It must be based on trust, mutual respect, shared interests, love that is actively working toward staying in love, a desire to grow and learn about each other as life changes, and so much more.

In all honesty, if men and women want to date based solely on money and looks, that is going to happen whether there is a planned event or not. I do, however, wonder about the final statement made on the Pocket Change website, "This genetic cleansing is how the wealthy stay beautiful."

How can this be? Doesn't it take two to make a child? Wouldn't it logically take both a beautiful woman and a handsome man to create a beautiful child, or does money plus an ugly man plus a beautiful woman make a beautiful wealthy child? You do the math, but there seems to be a flaw in the logic behind that statement.

A couple of quotes sum it up best. First, Bill Wundram, Iowa Quad Cities Times, says, "In the fina

uld even be accepted.

According to a blurb on the Pocket Change website, the sponsors of the event, "Pocket Change is honoring the age old union of wealthy men and hot girls. Society has taught us to not publicly acknowledge the obvious - no longer dear friends. Women want money in a man, men want beauty in a woman - this is a factual force of nature. Women don't ask 'So, what does he do for a living?' because they're interested in his personality and guys don't ask 'is she hot?' because they're concerned with character. Guys know that money buys them the car, the house and the trophy wife. This genetic cleansing is how the wealthy stay beautiful."

Wow! What a statement about where we are as a society. While it is true that men are more visual and are thus attracted to women based first on their appearance, what happens when the woman gains weight, becomes ill, or freckles start to show where once there was just creamy, smooth skin? Is she still beautiful or will she be thrown over for a woman who has not gained weight, been stricken by a disease, and has stayed out of the sun to retain her creamy complexion?

And what happens to the man if he loses his job or his investments fail? Does the woman turn her desire to the next man on her list who makes enough money to keep her in the manner in which she is accustomed?

While I do agree that men are attracted by beauty and women don't want to live paycheck to paycheck, there is much more to relationships and marriage than these two factors. In addition to beauty, which looks different to everyone, and financial provision, which varies from one household to the next, men and women want basically the same thing: to love and to be loved for who they are, not for the money they make or the size of their thighs. No one wants to wake up in the morning only to check their bank account or look in the mirror to see if they will still be married at the end of the day. This world is scary enough without throwing in the uncertainty of love based solely on such measurements.

In any relationship, attraction is based on a variety of qualities. What is attractive to me isn't the same as what's attractive to someone else, but attraction that leads to marriage must be based on more than good looks and money to survive. It must be based on trust, mutual respect, shared interests, love that is actively working toward staying in love, a desire to grow and learn about each other as life changes, and so much more.

In all honesty, if men and women want to date based solely on money and looks, that is going to happen whether there is a planned event or not. I do, however, wonder about the final statement made on the Pocket Change website, "This genetic cleansing is how the wealthy stay beautiful."

How can this be? Doesn't it take two to make a child? Wouldn't it logically take both a beautiful woman and a handsome man to create a beautiful child, or does money plus an ugly man plus a beautiful woman make a beautiful wealthy child? You do the math, but there seems to be a flaw in the logic behind that statement.

A couple of quotes sum it up best. First, Bill Wundram, Iowa Quad Cities Times, says, "In the fin

on their appearance, what happens when the woman gains weight, becomes ill, or freckles start to show where once there was just creamy, smooth skin? Is she still beautiful or will she be thrown over for a woman who has not gained weight, been stricken by a disease, and has stayed out of the sun to retain her creamy complexion?

And what happens to the man if he loses his job or his investments fail? Does the woman turn her desire to the next man on her list who makes enough money to keep her in the manner in which she is accustomed?

While I do agree that men are attracted by beauty and women don't want to live paycheck to paycheck, there is much more to relationships and marriage than these two factors. In addition to beauty, which looks different to everyone, and financial provision, which varies from one household to the next, men and women want basically the same thing: to love and to be loved for who they are, not for the money they make or the size of their thighs. No one wants to wake up in the morning only to check their bank account or look in the mirror to see if they will still be married at the end of the day. This world is scary enough without throwing in the uncertainty of love based solely on such measurements.

In any relationship, attraction is based on a variety of qualities. What is attractive to me isn't the same as what's attractive to someone else, but attraction that leads to marriage must be based on more than good looks and money to survive. It must be based on trust, mutual respect, shared interests, love that is actively working toward staying in love, a desire to grow and learn about each other as life changes, and so much more.

In all honesty, if men and women want to date based solely on money and looks, that is going to happen whether there is a planned event or not. I do, however, wonder about the final statement made on the Pocket Change website, "This genetic cleansing is how the wealthy stay beautiful."

How can this be? Doesn't it take two to make a child? Wouldn't it logically take both a beautiful woman and a handsome man to create a beautiful child, or does money plus an ugly man plus a beautiful woman make a beautiful wealthy child? You do the math, but there seems to be a flaw in the logic behind that statement.

A couple of quotes sum it up best. First, Bill Wundram, Iowa Quad Cities Times, says, "In the fin

hich varies from one household to the next, men and women want basically the same thing: to love and to be loved for who they are, not for the money they make or the size of their thighs. No one wants to wake up in the morning only to check their bank account or look in the mirror to see if they will still be married at the end of the day. This world is scary enough without throwing in the uncertainty of love based solely on such measurements.

In any relationship, attraction is based on a variety of qualities. What is attractive to me isn't the same as what's attractive to someone else, but attraction that leads to marriage must be based on more than good looks and money to survive. It must be based on trust, mutual respect, shared interests, love that is actively working toward staying in love, a desire to grow and learn about each other as life changes, and so much more.

In all honesty, if men and women want to date based solely on money and looks, that is going to happen whether there is a planned event or not. I do, however, wonder about the final statement made on the Pocket Change website, "This genetic cleansing is how the wealthy stay beautiful."

How can this be? Doesn't it take two to make a child? Wouldn't it logically take both a beautiful woman and a handsome man to create a beautiful child, or does money plus an ugly man plus a beautiful woman make a beautiful wealthy child? You do the math, but there seems to be a flaw in the logic behind that statement.

A couple of quotes sum it up best. First, Bill Wundram, Iowa Quad Cities Times, says, "In the fin

ove, a desire to grow and learn about each other as life changes, and so much more.

In all honesty, if men and women want to date based solely on money and looks, that is going to happen whether there is a planned event or not. I do, however, wonder about the final statement made on the Pocket Change website, "This genetic cleansing is how the wealthy stay beautiful."

How can this be? Doesn't it take two to make a child? Wouldn't it logically take both a beautiful woman and a handsome man to create a beautiful child, or does money plus an ugly man plus a beautiful woman make a beautiful wealthy child? You do the math, but there seems to be a flaw in the logic behind that statement.

A couple of quotes sum it up best. First, Bill Wundram, Iowa Quad Cities Times, says, "In the final analysis, love is the only reflection of man's worth," and Joanne Woodward, wife of actor and very rich man, Paul Newman, sums it up this way: "Sexiness wears thin after a while and beauty fades, but to be married to a man who makes you laugh every day, ah, now that's a real treat."

In the final analysis, love isn't just riches and it isn't just beauty. Don't worry about your bank account or whether one ear is lower than the other, find a man or a woman who loves you for who you are and do the same in return. There is no better substitute.