College Girls Have $15 to Build Their Ideal Man

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.