一名40歲的香港女子，年薪超過300萬港幣，事業與經濟條件皆相當優渥。她希望尋找一位在年齡、收入與人生階段上都能與自己相匹配的男士作為結婚對象，而不是單純的交往或妥協式的選擇。在這樣清楚且高標準的期待下，她決定不走一般交友管道，而是選擇訴諸專業婚姻介紹所。

為了提高成功率，這名女子一次性支付7萬港幣，購買婚介所標榜的高級配對服務。在婚介所眼中，這無疑是一位出手大方、條件頂尖的「超級客戶」，因此對方也展現出高度積極的服務態度，在短時間內陸續為她安排了18位男士進行配對與約會。表面看來，數量充足、安排密集，似乎誠意十足。然而，現實卻與預期產生巨大落差。這18位男嘉賓最終全部未能打動她，沒有任何一人進入進一步交往的階段。據了解，配對失敗的核心原因並非性格不合或互動冷淡，而是最基本的客觀條件落差過大。有些男士的收入與她相距甚遠，有些則年齡明顯不符，無論在人生規劃、社交圈層或價值觀上，都難以形成她所期待的「同頻對話」。

隨著一次又一次失敗的約會累積，這名高薪港女的不滿情緒逐漸升高。她仔細計算後發現，平均每一次見面成本接近1萬港幣，但換來的卻是明顯不符合當初所承諾條件的對象。這讓她開始質疑婚介所的專業度與誠信，認為對方在銷售服務時過度美化配對成功率，實際上根本沒有足夠符合她條件的男嘉賓資源。在失望與憤怒交織下，她認定婚介所未能兌現合約中所描述的服務內容，要求立即終止合約並全額退款。同時，她也選擇向香港消費者委員會投訴，希望透過第三方介入進行調解，討回一個公道。此舉不僅是為了金錢本身，更是對高端婚介市場「是否真能匹配高端需求」的一次公開質疑。

這起事件也引發外界更廣泛的討論。有人認為，高收入女性在婚戀市場本就面臨結構性困境，條件越高，可選對象反而越少；也有人質疑部分婚介機構以話術包裝服務，實際供給與宣傳嚴重不對稱。無論立場如何，這名香港女子的經歷，某種程度上揭示當代都市高收入族群在情感市場中的孤獨與現實矛盾，也讓「金錢能否買到對等婚姻機會」成為值得深思的問題。

A 40-year-old Hong Kong woman earning over HKD 3 million annually enjoys a highly successful career and strong financial standing. She hopes to find a marriage partner whose age, income level, and stage of life closely match her own, rather than settling for a compromise or casual relationship. With clear expectations and high standards, she chose not to rely on ordinary dating channels but instead turned to a professional matchmaking agency.

In pursuit of a higher chance of success, the woman paid HKD 70,000 upfront for the agency’s premium matchmaking service. From the agency’s perspective, she was an exceptionally valuable client with top-tier qualifications, prompting them to adopt an enthusiastic and proactive approach. Over a relatively short period, the agency introduced her to a total of 18 male candidates, arranging multiple meetings and dates. On the surface, the service appeared attentive and abundant in quantity.

However, reality fell far short of expectations. None of the 18 men ultimately captured her interest or progressed to a deeper relationship. According to sources familiar with the situation, the failures were not due to personality clashes or poor communication, but rather fundamental mismatches in objective criteria. Some candidates earned significantly less than she did, while others were far outside her preferred age range. Differences in life planning, social circles, and values made it difficult for her to achieve the sense of mutual understanding and compatibility she was seeking.

As the unsuccessful dates accumulated, the woman’s dissatisfaction grew. Upon closer calculation, she realized that each meeting cost her nearly HKD 10,000 on average, yet not a single recommended candidate fully met the conditions that had been promised at the time of purchase. This led her to question the agency’s professionalism and integrity. She suspected that the agency had exaggerated its success rate during the sales process and that it simply did not possess a sufficient pool of male candidates who met her criteria.

Feeling misled, the woman concluded that the matchmaking agency had failed to honor its contractual commitments. She demanded the cancellation of the agreement and a full refund, and also filed a complaint with the Hong Kong Consumer Council, requesting third-party mediation to resolve the dispute. For her, the issue was not merely about recovering the money, but about holding the agency accountable for what she saw as false promises.

The case has also triggered broader public debate. Some argue that high-income women face structural disadvantages in the dating and marriage market, where higher standards paradoxically result in fewer viable choices. Others point to questionable marketing practices among certain matchmaking agencies, suggesting a serious mismatch between advertised services and actual resources. Regardless of perspective, the experience of this Hong Kong woman highlights the loneliness and contradictions faced by high-earning urban professionals in modern relationships, and raises a deeper question: can money truly buy access to an equally matched marriage opportunity?