We’ve all seen it. A stunning, well-put-together woman, laughing beside a man who seems, for lack of a better word, entirely unremarkable. Instantly, our minds race to find a logical explanation. "He must be rich," we conclude. But then they climb into an ordinary sedan, not a luxury convertible. The next thought is a grasp at straws: "Maybe they're related?" But a moment later, a passionate kiss shatters that theory, leaving us in a state of genuine confusion.

This scene plays out everywhere, leaving many men feeling bewildered. We see the woman of our dreams holding hands with someone we can only describe as an enigma, and we can’t make sense of it. There's a persistent myth that for every woman, there’s a lineup of suitors from which she meticulously selects the absolute best. But reality is far more chaotic and far less calculated. More often than not, the beginning of a connection is simply a matter of impulse.

The Myth of the Methodical Choice

Let's be clear: a woman's decision to connect with someone is rarely a checklist-driven process. The idea that she’s sitting with a magnifying glass, comparing candidates, is a fantasy. The truth is that timing and internal state are paramount.

You could have approached her a week ago and been met with indifference, or a month ago and been dismissed entirely. But today, for a constellation of unseen reasons, she was in the right headspace, the right mood, and a connection became possible. However, this window of opportunity is incredibly fragile. If her blood sugar had dipped, if she'd been anxious about a work deadline, or if she’d only gotten three hours of sleep, that window would have remained shut. No meeting, no relationship, no future.

This means that your perceived value—how handsome, wealthy, or charismatic you are—is often secondary to the circumstances of the moment. The "questionable guy" with the great girl? He wasn't necessarily the "best" option; he was the option who showed up on the one day she was open to it. Had you been there that same evening, the story might have been yours. The connection was less a grand selection and more an impulse buy—like grabbing a pack of gum at the checkout. You see it, you feel a fleeting urge, and you think, "Why not?" The decision can be influenced by anything from the atmospheric pressure to a song she heard on the radio. It's not a cold calculation; it's a spark in a moment of readiness.

Circumstance Is Stronger Than Preference

For men, attraction can often be an immediate, powerful force. You see a woman, and the desire is instant. For women, however, desire often builds more gradually, seeded by circumstance. The belief that she was destined to meet you and only you is a romantic fairy tale. The reality is that being in the right place at the right time accounts for the vast majority of success. The remaining sliver is a matter of taste.

Think of the countless stories that defy logic. The wife of a wealthy, successful man has an affair with her driver. Is he objectively "better"? No. He was simply there. A high-powered executive becomes involved with an unassuming employee. Why? He could have his pick of anyone. But he chose the person within his immediate reach.

We also see incredibly successful men married to very ordinary women who don't seem to fit the glamorous lifestyle. How does this happen? Perhaps when he was building his empire, he didn't need a distraction; he needed peace and quiet. He chose a partner who provided tranquility. Had he been 18 and looking for a thrill, he would have made a completely different choice. The "quiet one" was simply the right person for that specific time in his life.

Why the "Perfect Man" Finishes Last

This brings us to one of the most frustrating paradoxes for men. You can walk out of the gym, feeling powerful and looking your best, only to see an unkempt guy in sweatpants, casually lounging with a girl who looks like she just stepped off a runway. How is this possible?

It’s because in the world of relationships, there is no linear correlation between how "cool" you are and the quality or quantity of your romantic prospects. Many men operate under the false assumption that if they just perfect their physique or buy a faster car, women will naturally flock to them. But women don't know what a posterior deltoid is. They aren't universally impressed by the roar of an engine.

There is no single male archetype that appeals to all women. Even the supposed pinnacles of male charisma are divisive. Some find Ryan Gosling too aloof. Others find Tom Hardy too brutish. Brad Pitt might be seen as too polished. If even these men can't appeal to ten out of ten women, what does that say about the rest of us? Taste is subjective and, more importantly, it’s unstable.

The Dynamic Nature of Desire

A woman’s preferences are not carved in stone at age 18. They are fluid, constantly reshaped by life experiences. If her last partner was aggressive, she might now crave someone calm and gentle. If he was passive, she might now seek someone decisive and bold.

It’s a common scenario: five years ago, a woman told you, "You're just not my type." Today, you reconnect, and she says, "Where have you been? I'm so happy to hear from you." She might not even remember her previous dismissal, because she is, in effect, a different person with different needs. The type she's drawn to at 20 is different from her type at 30, and different again at 40.

This means you can do everything "right" when meeting a woman—be charming, witty, and confident—and still be met with a "no." Conversely, you can be nervous, mumble your words, and somehow walk away with her number. It wasn't about your perfect performance. It was about showing up at the right time.

The Illusion of a Deeper Connection

Once a connection is made, a process of rationalization begins. A woman doesn't consciously think, "I chose him because he happened to text me on a Tuesday when I was bored." Instead, she constructs a narrative to explain her impulsive choice: "I chose him because he's so attentive," or "caring," or "responsible." She has to package the randomness of the encounter into a story that makes sense to herself, her friends, and her family.

It’s like buying a pair of wildly expensive sneakers on a whim. The next morning, you don't admit it was because the salesperson was charming and you were in a great mood. You tell yourself, "They're the most comfortable shoes I've ever owned. The brand is reliable." You justify the impulse after the fact.

On a first date, when chemistry sparks, it’s easy to believe you’ve found a unique, irreplaceable bond. But in reality, if another reasonably attractive person had been sitting in that same seat, the same conversation might have unfolded. Your date would likely have sent the same excited text to her friend from the restroom: "Wow, he's so great."

It's time to sober up from the illusion. The reason so many men get stuck on "the one that got away" is because they invent a narrative of cosmic significance around a chance encounter. A polite smile from a receptionist isn't a secret invitation; it's her job. We see what we want to see and call it destiny.

So, when we ask, "Why did she choose him and not me? I'm better," we're asking the wrong question. It was never a competition of who was "better." It was a matter of who was there when she was hungry for a connection. When a person is full, they can be picky about the finest meal. But when they're starving, the simplest food can feel like a feast. He just happened to be there when she was ready to eat. That’s the whole secret.

References

• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  This book explores the two systems that drive human thought: System 1 (fast, intuitive, and emotional) and System 2 (slower, more deliberative, and logical). The article's central argument that relationship choices are often "impulsive" and later rationalized aligns perfectly with Kahneman's description of System 1 making a quick, intuitive decision that System 2 then works to justify after the fact. The "expensive sneakers" analogy is a classic example of this cognitive process.
• Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. Stanford University Press.
  This foundational study introduced the "propinquity effect," which demonstrates that physical proximity is one of the largest predictors of friendship and romantic relationship formation. The research, conducted in a student housing complex, found that people were exponentially more likely to become friends with those living physically closest to them. This directly supports the article's core thesis that being in the "right place at the right time" and choosing the partner who is simply "at hand" (like the driver or the co-worker) are powerful forces in relationship formation, often overriding abstract preferences.