I meet a guy who's a ladies man.

[paloftoon]

Beauty is what turns the head but personality is what keeps the attention fixed. Nobody who bases their social life on "good looks" is worth the effort. Just as someone who demands a high level of income in a partner is unworthy of attention.

If you love someone, that person ought to be beautiful to you because seeing them elicits pleasure.

Income can be a tricky subject. Someone might demand a high income because maybe they make a high income, and they don't want someone else to take advantage of what they have themselves. In the US, we definitely live in a society where we encourage on the surface that people should meet based purely on love. In general conversation, from time to time I hear so and so saying I'm dating this person with this great job and he has all these things and I know that the real implication is that they have money even though they don't admit it even 1-1.
I don't think a person should be looking specifically for money, but I do think a person should consider the combination of all factors for a romantic relationship. For a platonic relationship, this should not matter at all unless the person is asking you to pay for them.

Like you wouldn't want to date someone who has no job and never wants to get a job at all unless your intention is to be a sugar daddy or you don't mind being one to said person.

 

[Magna]

The adage, "Beauty is the eye of the beholder", is applicable here.

You might think he's ugly, but others don't.
It's very cliche for people to say that people go by personality and not looks (so much).

I think most people tend to go for a combination of both, and then a lot of people don't match up because we have things we are picky about that maybe we should or shouldn't be picky about.
Some of it is timing and luck.

Maybe asked beard guy what he does for work and does he have a workout routine that maybe you could consider as well.

^I agree with all of this. Overall attractiveness is adjustable. What this means is that while physical attractiveness is something that is high on most people's list, there are also other factors that add to (or subtract from) overall attractiveness (ie "the whole package").

Examples:

Generally (always exceptions) women are attracted to men that are taller than they are, good looking and either good providers or have potential to likely be good providers (e.g. motivated, positive, personable, outgoing, intelligent, etc). High marks in one of those areas can compensate for lower marks in other areas. If a man is shorter or less than ideal in attractiveness but is a great provider with a great disposition then he can still be sought after, etc.

Online dating has radically changed the face of human relationships (and not for the better) but it's also provided actual accurate data as to preferences of the sexes like never before in history.

 

[Au Naturel]

Income can be a tricky subject. Someone might demand a high income because maybe they make a high income, and they don't want someone else to take advantage of what they have themselves. In the US, we definitely live in a society where we encourage on the surface that people should meet based purely on love. In general conversation, from time to time I hear so and so saying I'm dating this person with this great job and he has all these things and I know that the real implication is that they have money even though they don't admit it even 1-1.
I don't think a person should be looking specifically for money, but I do think a person should consider the combination of all factors for a romantic relationship. For a platonic relationship, this should not matter at all unless the person is asking you to pay for them.

Like you wouldn't want to date someone who has no job and never wants to get a job at all unless your intention is to be a sugar daddy or you don't mind being one to said person.

If neither one of us has a job it might work out. In many respects, poverty brings great freedom but most people aren't able to see that. Or maybe they really want security instead of freedom. And I've seen a sugar-daddy relationship actually work out because it evolved into something else. I suspect that is a low-probability event.

If the plan is to raise a family, that's a bit different. Children often do not do well when raised in poverty. At least one partner has to have a useful income - or at least good prospects - or you shouldn't let it get very far. But it doesn't have to be middle-class level. Working-class kids from loving homes usually do well.

But this is not a good prospect for a relationship: