SUMMARY

Scott Herb interviews 15 University of Cincinnati college women, challenging them to build an ideal man using a $15 budget across looks, height, income, humor, and loyalty, revealing priorities like humor over wealth.

STATEMENTS

• College women generally allocate around $3 per category when building an ideal partner with a limited $15 budget, balancing traits without extremes.
• No women selected the highest income option of $250K, indicating financial stability like $100K is sufficient for their ideal man at this age.
• Loyalty emerges as a non-negotiable trait, with zero women choosing the lowest level where the partner cheats with their best friend.
• Height preferences vary by the woman's own stature, often seeking partners just a few inches taller, such as 5'10" for a 5'6" woman.
• Sense of humor is highly valued, with two women opting for the top $5 level, equating it to celebrities like Tom Holland.
• Many women deprioritize looks to afford better income or humor, settling for 7-8 out of 10 attractiveness.
• Self-reliance influences choices, as several express they can provide for themselves and prioritize emotional traits over material ones.
• Income choices cluster around $75K-$100K, reflecting current life stage where peers aren't wealthy, but future earning potential matters.
• Shorter heights like 5'7" or 5'4" are acceptable sacrifices for other desirable traits, offering hope for men of average stature.
• Results show balanced spending but extremes in humor and loyalty, highlighting fun and fidelity as key to relationship satisfaction.

IDEAS

• Women often sacrifice physical attractiveness for financial security, choosing average looks to fund higher income levels.
• Height isn't a deal-breaker for many, as shorter women comfortably select partners only slightly taller than themselves.
• Loyalty overrides all else, with every participant avoiding options implying infidelity, even at the cost of other traits.
• Humor ranks as a top emotional priority, sometimes outvaluing height or income, with references to comedic icons like Tom Holland.
• Self-sufficiency empowers choices, as women emphasize providing for themselves and dismiss high partner earnings as secondary.
• Social media temptations like Instagram bikini pics are dismissed humorously, with suggestions to delete apps for fidelity.
• College age influences realism, leading to moderate income expectations around $100K rather than extravagant wealth.
• Personal humor compensates for a partner's shortcomings, allowing women to "carry the weight" in funny interactions.
• Materialism is acknowledged but downplayed, with participants calling out categories as superficial yet proceeding thoughtfully.
• Trends reveal gender insights: women prefer loyal, funny partners over rich ones, contrasting potential male preferences in reverse surveys.
• Budget constraints force trade-offs that mirror real-life compromises, making the exercise a proxy for relationship realities.
• Short men have viable prospects, as multiple women opt for 5'7" heights without regret.
• Future-oriented thinking appears, with low current income acceptable if growth is implied.
• Celebrity benchmarks like "Matt Rife level funny" personalize abstract traits into relatable standards.
• No one maxes out income, suggesting emotional connection trumps luxury at young ages.

INSIGHTS

• Relationship priorities in young women favor emotional reliability over material excess, fostering sustainable partnerships beyond superficial allure.
• Budgeted trade-offs illuminate self-awareness, as participants balance personal strengths like humor with partner needs for harmony.
• Loyalty's universal appeal underscores fidelity as a foundational human need, transcending other attributes in mate selection.
• Humor emerges as a relational glue, compensating for physical or financial gaps and enhancing long-term compatibility.
• Age-specific realism tempers ambition, prioritizing immediate joy and mutual support over distant wealth accumulation.
• Height and looks yield to deeper values, revealing that genuine connection often eclipses aesthetic ideals in practice.

QUOTES

• "Honestly I'd rather be happy than rich. Cuz I can make money too. Like I have to be able to provide for myself."
• "I'm very loyal so I want somebody who reciprocates that."
• "We'll just delete IG off his phone. We'll put a man in his place."
• "They have to be tall and they have to be funny and that's it."
• "These are so like materialistic things but..."

HABITS

• Prioritizing self-reliance by focusing on personal earning ability rather than depending on a partner's income.
• Compensating for a partner's lack of humor by injecting personal wit into the relationship dynamic.
• Enforcing digital boundaries, such as deleting social media apps to curb temptations like viewing bikini photos.
• Starting evaluations with core values like loyalty to ensure foundational relationship strength.
• Adjusting expectations based on one's own physical traits, like accepting shorter heights relative to personal stature.

FACTS

• Zero out of 15 college women chose the $250K top income option, opting instead for $100K averages.
• No participants selected the lowest loyalty level involving cheating with a best friend.
• Two women maxed out humor at $5, associating it with high-caliber comedians like Tom Holland.
• Only one woman chose the tallest 6'4" height, while several accepted 5'7" or shorter.
• Two women picked the lowest $50K income, reflecting college-age peers' modest earning realities.

REFERENCES

• Tom Holland as a benchmark for average sense of humor.
• Matt Rife as an example of very funny personality level.
• Instagram (IG) as a source of relational temptations like bikini pics.

HOW TO APPLY

• Assess your non-negotiables first, like loyalty, by allocating maximum budget to them before considering secondary traits.
• Evaluate trade-offs realistically, such as reducing height expectations to afford better humor or income.
• Benchmark traits against relatable figures, using celebrities like Tom Holland to define humor standards.
• Factor in personal strengths, like your own earning potential or wit, to balance partner shortcomings.
• Review choices holistically, switching allocations if emotional priorities like fun outweigh material ones.

ONE-SENTENCE TAKEAWAY

Young women prioritize loyalty and humor over wealth and height in ideal partners, emphasizing emotional bonds for fulfillment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Cultivate humor as a core strength, since it consistently ranks high in partner desirability.
• Build self-reliance early to reduce pressure on a partner's income, fostering equitable relationships.
• Avoid infidelity risks by committing to loyalty, as it's universally rejected in mate selection.
• Embrace moderate heights and looks, redirecting energy toward deeper compatibility factors.
• Experiment with similar budget exercises to clarify personal values before serious dating.

MEMO

On a crisp afternoon at the University of Cincinnati, Scott Herb approached young women with an intriguing proposition: Construct your dream partner using just $15 across five traits—looks, height, income, sense of humor, and loyalty. The exercise, designed as a lighthearted street interview, quickly unveiled the nuanced priorities of college-aged women navigating romance in an era of self-empowerment and realism. With each category priced from $1 to $5, participants faced inevitable sacrifices, mirroring the compromises of real relationships. What emerged was not a checklist of superficial demands, but a collective emphasis on fidelity and laughter over fortune and stature.

One after another, the women deliberated thoughtfully. A 5'5" student opted for a 5'7" partner at $2, preserving funds for a $100K income and solid loyalty, declaring, "I'd rather be happy than rich." Another, standing at 5'2", splurged on "Matt Rife level funny" at $5, accepting average looks and wandering eyes in trade. Height proved flexible—shorter women rarely insisted on towering ideals, choosing 5'10" companions to match their own frames. Yet loyalty stood unyielding; not a single interviewee tolerated the $1 option of a cheater entangled with her best friend. Instead, they funneled dollars toward "no games" fidelity, often at humor's expense.

Income choices further highlighted generational pragmatism. None reached for the $250K pinnacle, clustering around $75K to $100K—figures aspirational yet attainable for their life stage. "These are so materialistic," one admitted, before settling on $50K to max out Tom Holland-esque wit. Social media's shadow loomed in jest, with quips about deleting Instagram to curb bikini-pic temptations, underscoring modern digital pitfalls in trust-building. Self-sufficiency echoed throughout: Many affirmed they could "provide for myself," diminishing wealth's allure and elevating mutual respect.

As Herb tallied results from 15 interviews, patterns crystallized. Averages hovered at $3 per trait, but extremes told richer stories—no top earners selected, two minimal incomes chosen, and loyalty unanimously fortified. Humor snagged two $5 bids, affirming its role as relational rocket fuel. Height's sole 6'4" pick contrasted multiple 5'7" acceptances, a nod to "short kings" finding favor. These insights, born from playful constraints, suggest young women seek partners who spark joy and security, not opulence— a blueprint for enduring connection amid fleeting campus crushes.

Ultimately, the survey transcends fun, probing deeper questions of value in an age of apps and ambitions. Would mid-20s women skew richer? Herb ponders a male counterpart, building ideal women. For now, the Cincinnati coeds' verdicts resonate: True ideals thrive on loyalty's bedrock and humor's spark, with the rest negotiable. In a world quick to commodify love, their budgets remind us that heartfelt trade-offs often yield the richest returns.