Because it's a no contest knockout.
Those who come from backgrounds favouring arranged marriages often, if not entirely, have had their sexual choices restricted. This is a very real thing that happens. It is not politically influenced, it is physically influenced by families.
This is why I cannot understand the analysis of political influence over romantic choices being made by women (or us as a society) in the exploration of this topic, nor can I understand the attack on the equal rights movement. Moreover, I am surprised that people are interested and even lured in by these arguments, before subscribing to a full time political view that the reason dealing with women can be frustrating is due to some kind of societal convention or political movement. Why is there a need to take your eye off the ball? Why is there a need analyse wider communities and structures in order to take a position on romantic or sexual relationships?
Even in taking into consideration legal and financial issues, ultimately the choice on how to act is made by the individual. How often do women take into account these structures when making a romantic or sexual choice? It is interesting that a woman would pass over a perfectly decent individual, or have the luxury to consider it at least, for another guy simply because there are one or two boxes that have not been ticked on her checklist, but then go off with another guy who has almost no decent qualities very quickly. The second guy has something and she doesn't really know what. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with who is president, how far the civil rights movement has come, equal pay issues or real world history. It is not even a financial motivation.
There is a really good post from The Kidd which should be in the treasure chest.
I've had women in my life who were begging me for some dick while their boyfriend was begging them for some pussy...that right there illustrates the powerful dynamic involved once you stop doing for you and start doing for them.
In this example, the woman in question has access to a partner but prefers Kidd's partnership, which is harder to attain than the partner she already has. Not only that, but the pursuit of the desire is morally questionable and yet she does it anyway. This motivation is quite significant and should not be taken lightly as it holds some kind of strange (and perhaps wonderful) power. So powerful, that societal values and common morals are put aside to pursue the desire.
It is this motivation that we should, as a forum, should be exploring. The whole point of the marriage thread was to explore the motivation for marital success against the natural raw motivation, whatever that is, resulting in the choice made by the individual. I think that's the question we should be trying to answer.