Having acquired some life experience and reading works of literature, especially classical ones, any intelligent person sooner or later understands that most people living on our planet love two things: material well-being and idleness. Money gives freedom, and it consists mainly in the absence of the need to work hard and the opportunity to do something pleasant and fun.
The stereotype of a certain special feminine prudence, consisting in the desire to marry without fail the rich, was firmly entrenched in public consciousness. Can one say about commercialism that this is a sophisticated form of prostitution? To answer this question, you should briefly dive into the behavior of representatives of the animal world.
Even with a superficial study of the behavior of animals or birds, it is easy to make sure that a female of any species selects the most viable male for mating, if she is given such a right. When males decide this question among themselves, it passes into the plane of natural selection. In any case, the strongest gets the preemptive right to reproduction. He can better perform the functions of a getter and protect offspring. Choosing a larger and more energetic individual, the female shows some mercantile character. What is this if not a calculation for greater prosperity in the future, or at least for the period of offspring rearing?
In humans, everything happens in approximately the same way, except that the selection criteria differ from those accepted in the animal kingdom. After civilization has mastered commodity-money relations, power and even intelligence have given way to the number of accumulated material values or their symbols. The right to inherit capital created the conditions for even weak males to have a certain appeal. Hebrew wisdom says: "Gold makes smart, gold makes beautiful." Now we can say about commercialism that this completely natural quality in human society has acquired a distorted form and can negatively affect the genotype of offspring.
However, women would not be women if they had not learned how to solve this problem in ways that are accessible to them, even if by deceiving their officially registered male patrons who are not carriers of genes acceptable to them. According to statistics obtained in the United States (it is not known which way, however, by the way), approximately every fifth husband brings up children who have not survived from him. Moreover, the richer the society and the more wealthy heirs in it, the obviously the greater the difference between the motivation for marriage and fertilization. The smallest it is in those countries where the process of initial accumulation of capital and the amount of cash in a man’s pocket at least somehow corresponds to the degree of his enterprise or vitality, and the mercantile nature of girls has a certain logical basis.
However, in this case, one can’t do without distorting natural laws, because people, unlike animals, have moral values that are also transmitted as hereditary traits in the process of upbringing. When selecting "their man", many women, alas, are guided not by the principle of reasonable sufficiency, but by another criterion - "the more, the better." In the sense of money. So, we can say about commercialism that this quality is useful, but within reasonable limits, when it is not identical to greed, but is a simple concern for the ability to grow up viable and healthy (both physically and mentally) offspring.
But what about the commercialism of men? If you do not take into account the aforementioned desire to ensure their own well-being at the expense of a rich dowry or alphonism, then this quality can be useful for representatives of the stronger sex. Choosing a beautiful woman, a man subconsciously seeks to ensure that his children are healthy and happy, and the care that he will show towards them will give maximum results. As a rule, representatives of the stronger sex are more likely to focus on appearance than on other criteria, perhaps more important.
