You may have seen this before. It went viral in 2007 and has been circulating ever since — one of those things the internet simply refuses to forget.

A woman posted on Craigslist looking for a husband who earned at least $500,000 a year. She described herself as spectacularly beautiful, articulate, and classy. She was 25. She wanted to know why the women landing wealthy husbands weren’t always the most beautiful ones — and what she was doing wrong.

An anonymous response appeared — widely shared, widely attributed to a Wall Street banker, never officially confirmed. It was sharp, cold, and written entirely in financial terms.

He told her that what she was proposing was a simple trade.  Her looks for his money. And that it was, from his perspective, a bad deal. Because she was a depreciating asset. And he was an earning one.

I’ve shared the full exchange above as an image. Read it if you haven’t. It’s worth it.

So — who was right?

Neither of them, really. And both of them, a little.

She was transactional. Openly, unapologetically transactional. She wanted money. She was offering beauty. She thought that was a fair exchange. And there’s a version of the world where that logic makes a certain kind of sense. Yes, people have been making similar arrangements for centuries.

His response was cold. But it was also the fact that this is the part people don’t always sit with – mathematically accurate about one thing. If the foundation of a relationship is a trade, then both sides need to keep delivering. And neither beauty nor wealth is guaranteed forever.

Which is exactly the point I am making.

The criteria question — for both sides

I work with successful men and women from all over the world. And I ask everyone the same question early in our conversation – “what are you looking for in a partner?”

The answers are always interesting. And they almost always include some version of: attractive, financially stable, positive personality.

Those aren’t wrong things to want.

But they’re surface things. And surface things shift.

The woman from that Craigslist post was building her entire criteria on two surfaces.  Her looks and his income. The banker’s response pointed out exactly why that’s fragile. What he didn’t point out was perhaps because it suited him not to – is that his side of the equation is just as fragile. Financial success can stop. Careers end. Markets crash. Health changes.

So if you’re a successful man whose top criteria are looks, height, and a warm personality. I understand. Those visual things matter. But ask yourself honestly: if your financial situation changed significantly, would she still be there? And if her looks changed…would you?

And if you’re a woman whose primary criteria is financial security.  Same question in reverse. If that security disappeared, what would be left?

What actually holds

In my experience — and I have watched a lot of relationships begin, develop, and either thrive or fall apart — what holds over time has very little to do with the surface criteria people lead with.

What holds is character. Emotional maturity. The ability to handle difficulty without running. Shared values. Respect. And the decision — made consistently, not once, but to be the person your partner needs.

Those things don’t depreciate. They often do the opposite.

I’m not saying don’t have standards. Have them. But if your top three are all surface; looks, money, personality — consider adding a few that go deeper. What kind of person are they when things go wrong? How do they treat people who can do nothing for them? What do they actually value — not what they say they value?

That woman in 2007 was looking for a trade. The banker declined.

But the women quietly thriving in the relationships she envied — the ones married to wealthy men that she couldn’t figure out? My guess is they were offering something that didn’t depreciate.

And the men who found them knew the difference.