Disclaimer: You are not a gold digger because you want to date upward.
Relationships are as complex as they are fascinating. The concept that in every relationship there is a “reacher” and a “settler” is a provocative idea but what does this mean?
At its core, the idea suggests that in any romantic pairing, one partner (‘the reacher’) is perceived to be putting in more effort or is considered to be less ‘desirable’ in conventional terms than the other partner (‘the settler’). In other words, one person in the relationship settles for the other.
I first heard this concept on an episode of ‘How I Met Your Mother’ and I thought about it deeply, it was a lens through which to examine the power dynamics in relationships.
First, it is important to acknowledge that relationships are rarely, if ever, perfectly equal in all aspects. People bring different strengths, vulnerabilities, and qualities to a relationship. This theory has been oversimplified to focus on two things – physical appearance and financial capability.
Let me explain.
When a medium-ugly guy dates a hot girl who ordinarily would be considered out of his league, he is seen as the reacher and she is considered to be settling for someone who presumably has less social currency. Another example is when a poor girl dates a wealthy man and is seen as a “gold digger” because of the disparity between their social classes.
Side note: Social currency differs from social class. Social currency refers to your social influence. For example, pretty privilege, BBL, high social media following, popularity, and reputation, all contribute to your social currency.
Although the examples above are great for the settler-reacher theory, human interactions are much more complex than that. Let’s be real, who doesn’t want to be with someone better than them (I mean, other than insecure men on that toxic masculinity vibe like Andrew Tate)?
Real men do not want to be with ordinary women so they can shine as per “head.” Do you know how amazing it is to be partners with a superstar? An ambitious person whose goals you can support and you end up thriving and shining together? To me, the settler-reacher theory makes sense until it doesn’t. What happens if I’m better looking than a guy, but he is wealthier than me? Who is settling and who is reaching? What happens if I’m dating a man who has more money than I do, but my family is wealthy and connected, and his family is lower class from Okokomaiko? Is there a balance or am I still settling?
It’s quite complicated when we view relationships this way and viewing oneself or one’s partner as a reacher or a settler can be limiting and potentially damaging. It may lead to a power imbalance, where the ‘settler’ feels superior, or the ‘reacher’ feels inadequate, leading to resentment and insecurity.
I believe in being with someone who is doing better than you, someone who can challenge and motivate you. Why is it okay to want to be in rooms with people better than us at work, to connect with people we aspire to be like on LinkedIn but suddenly when it comes to something as important as a life partner, we “settle”?
I’m a star in my own right, and I want to be with a formidable man. I don’t want to be the star of a mediocre relationship, a one-eyed man amid the blind. Deep down you know when you’re dating someone who is “beneath you”, you find yourself having to tell unnecessary lies, to change people’s perceptions of your partner.
Basically, all I’m saying is there is nothing wrong with aiming for the stars when choosing a partner but in aiming for the stars, do not lose out on someone who complements you.
