Would you consider dating or marrying someone who didn't exactly "give you butterflies" so that you could have a comfortable life?

Is being with someone for financial reasons something that you could live with?

What if someone close to you chose to?

Money ain't everything but sometimes people who have lived lives of deprivation, among other reasons marry for money or the status it gives.

I couldn't see anybody marrying Lil Wayne for example, unless they were literally starving or owed money to the mob or something.

babynoz said:

Money ain't everything but sometimes people who have lived lives of deprivation, among other reasons marry for money or the status it gives.

I couldn't see anybody marrying Lil Wayne for example, unless they were literally starving or owed money to the mob or something.

There you go.

sure.

The idea of marrying for 'love' is a modern concept, and there's nothing wrong with it.

But, it certainly is not superior to marrying for money and posterity.

Now, I'm against forced and arranged marriages for posterity, but if a person wants

a husband (or wife) that will take care of them for the rest of their life and ensure

their children are well brought up, why not?

The divorce rates in countries that marry for 'love' is far far higher than those that

marry for financial reasons. The main reasons, one can point out, is out of financial

necessity. If you're marrying for love, afterall, you don't "need" the other person

to take care of you--you just need a partner. However, this isn't always the case,

and it's been shown that people who marry for financial security are just as happy

in their marriages (and moreso) than love.

George Friedman's book "The Next 100 years" shows this to be true, and I've always

felt that in some regards it is.

Personally, if I marry, it will be for love. But, the notion that love is the only reasons

you SHOULD get married is just silly. It's a modern concept, and yes--a modern

concept that is gaining increasing traction. An interesting side affect, in addition to

urbanization, is that it also contributes to the global birthrate slowdown.

Who would I have to marry for $? I'd only marry for Love...hopefully [meaning "hopefully" she'd love me as much as I love her....& not just my $] . Most of the time, woman tend to do that bullshit. ...

At this point, I'm cynical enough to say I'd marry for just about any reason other than love because love is so fickle and ephemeral anyway and I don't have a whole lot of faith that any marriage started for that reason would last.

At least if you base your marriage on other shit...like people who go into marriages because their families arrange it or whatever, their marriages tend to last longer than people who marry for "love".

Sure, barring abuse and if we really got along very well. But only just because of the money, no, of course not. Well, if I could live one place doing what I wanted to do and he lived someplace else and didn't bother me just sent me the money, that might work. Unrealistic but it would work.

morningsong said:

Sure, barring abuse and if we really got along very well. But only just because of the money, no, of course not. Well, if I could live one place doing what I wanted to do and he lived someplace else and didn't bother me just sent me the money, that might work. Unrealistic but it would work.

money can not buy happiness

it does not make it easy to be held or touched by someone you dont care for

and not worth the emotioal trauma

i rather b broke

ThisOne said:

money can not buy happiness

it does not make it easy to be held or touched by someone you dont care for

and not worth the emotioal trauma

i rather b broke

*laugh* ...And love can?

Look, plenty of people marry for love wind up emotionally traumatizing each other, or at least, miserable. Marrying for love is no guarantee that you'll be blissfully happy.

And I doubt that all the people who married for reasons other than love, are all miserable and regret their decision. That argument is a nice little cliche but it's too simplistic and life and people are more complicated than that.

I'd have no problem with marrying someone that I'm not in love with, solely to have children and raise them together, or as some kind of business arrangement where I'm compensated, or whatever reason.

Uh, no.

Analyst said:

ThisOne said:

money can not buy happiness

it does not make it easy to be held or touched by someone you dont care for

and not worth the emotioal trauma

i rather b broke

*laugh* ...And love can?

Look, plenty of people marry for love wind up emotionally traumatizing each other, or at least, miserable. Marrying for love is no guarantee that you'll be blissfully happy.

And I doubt that all the people who married for reasons other than love, are all miserable and regret their decision. That argument is a nice little cliche but it's too simplistic and life and people are more complicated than that.

I'd have no problem with marrying someone that I'm not in love with, solely to have children and raise them together, or as some kind of business arrangement where I'm compensated, or whatever reason.

what kind of children will you bring up if they never see emotion and are raised in an environment where they see you out 4 some kind of financial gain 4 being their mother?

these days "Love" is underrated and not a strong influence as it should be

yes i am simplistic but on a whole also happy, and money is not the reason behind it

ThisOne said:

Analyst said:

*laugh* ...And love can?

Look, plenty of people marry for love wind up emotionally traumatizing each other, or at least, miserable. Marrying for love is no guarantee that you'll be blissfully happy.

And I doubt that all the people who married for reasons other than love, are all miserable and regret their decision. That argument is a nice little cliche but it's too simplistic and life and people are more complicated than that.

I'd have no problem with marrying someone that I'm not in love with, solely to have children and raise them together, or as some kind of business arrangement where I'm compensated, or whatever reason.

what kind of children will you bring up if they never see emotion and are raised in an environment where they see you out 4 some kind of financial gain 4 being their mother?

these days "Love" is underrated and not a strong influence as it should be

yes i am simplistic but on a whole also happy, and money is not the reason behind it

Who said anything about telling the kids about the arrangement? No set of parents tell their kids EVERYthing that goes on between them - do you see parents going, "Sweetie, daddy has erectile dysfunction and I haven't gotten any for a few months and that's why I'm always so short-tempered?". I don't see any reason why the kids would need to be informed about any of that.

And as long as the kids are loved by the parents and the parents don't tear each other down in front of the kids, I don't see how the relationship between the parents would adversely affect the kids. I don't believe that a kid needs to see their parents making out and groping each other in order to grow up to be a stable adult.

And "Love is underrated" is total bullshit considering that the overwhelming majority of marriages are because the two parties "love" or think they "love" each other.

Interestingly enough usually within a few years they hate each other and are heading to divorce court.

I'm all for marrying for other reasons, as long as both parties know how the other feels and everybody is upfront and goes into it honestly about what they want. Like, "Okay, I want to marry now for this reason and I can make this a beneficial arrangement for you too if you'd be willing to do it", and both parties get something they want out of it.

If that happens to be money, or children, or some other thing, that's no one's business but theirs, and I bet those couples are probably happier and stay married longer than the ones who jump the broom for love and then divorce because one day they wake up and don't love each other anymore and then they shuttle their babies from house to house every weekend.

Analyst said:

ThisOne said:

what kind of children will you bring up if they never see emotion and are raised in an environment where they see you out 4 some kind of financial gain 4 being their mother?

these days "Love" is underrated and not a strong influence as it should be

yes i am simplistic but on a whole also happy, and money is not the reason behind it

Who said anything about telling the kids about the arrangement? No set of parents tell their kids EVERYthing that goes on between them - do you see parents going, "Sweetie, daddy has erectile dysfunction and I haven't gotten any for a few months and that's why I'm always so short-tempered?". I don't see any reason why the kids would need to be informed about any of that.

And as long as the kids are loved by the parents and the parents don't tear each other down in front of the kids, I don't see how the relationship between the parents would adversely affect the kids. I don't believe that a kid needs to see their parents making out and groping each other in order to grow up to be a stable adult.

And "Love is underrated" is total bullshit considering that the overwhelming majority of marriages are because the two parties "love" or think they "love" each other.

Interestingly enough usually within a few years they hate each other and are heading to divorce court.

I'm all for marrying for other reasons, as long as both parties know how the other feels and everybody is upfront and goes into it honestly about what they want. Like, "Okay, I want to marry now for this reason and I can make this a beneficial arrangement for you too if you'd be willing to do it", and both parties get something they want out of it.

If that happens to be money, or children, or some other thing, that's no one's business but theirs, and I bet those couples are probably happier and stay married longer than the ones who jump the broom for love and then divorce because one day they wake up and don't love each other anymore and then they shuttle their babies from house to house every weekend.

do you really think those parents are able to demosnstrate love towards their children when their main focus is money?

i know of women who marry 4 the wrong reasons and their kids are often neglected because Daddy is having an affair, mummy is getting her hair done and Jnr is playing nintendo

i know this woman who married to come into the country, they had a kid and later divorced. The kid was used as a financial bargaining tool, she got what she wanted - money wise - but the boy was always neglected, often had some kind of sickness, and is overweight and not cared for.

but she has a great life and leaves him with who ever or where ever......

he is always at the shopping centre all on his own, she drops him off early and picks him up late, and his dad has moved on and never sees this kid

ThisOne said:

Analyst said:

Who said anything about telling the kids about the arrangement? No set of parents tell their kids EVERYthing that goes on between them - do you see parents going, "Sweetie, daddy has erectile dysfunction and I haven't gotten any for a few months and that's why I'm always so short-tempered?". I don't see any reason why the kids would need to be informed about any of that.

And as long as the kids are loved by the parents and the parents don't tear each other down in front of the kids, I don't see how the relationship between the parents would adversely affect the kids. I don't believe that a kid needs to see their parents making out and groping each other in order to grow up to be a stable adult.

And "Love is underrated" is total bullshit considering that the overwhelming majority of marriages are because the two parties "love" or think they "love" each other.

Interestingly enough usually within a few years they hate each other and are heading to divorce court.

I'm all for marrying for other reasons, as long as both parties know how the other feels and everybody is upfront and goes into it honestly about what they want. Like, "Okay, I want to marry now for this reason and I can make this a beneficial arrangement for you too if you'd be willing to do it", and both parties get something they want out of it.

If that happens to be money, or children, or some other thing, that's no one's business but theirs, and I bet those couples are probably happier and stay married longer than the ones who jump the broom for love and then divorce because one day they wake up and don't love each other anymore and then they shuttle their babies from house to house every weekend.

do you really think those parents are able to demosnstrate love towards their children when their main focus is money?

i know of women who marry 4 the wrong reasons and their kids are often neglected because Daddy is having an affair, mummy is getting her hair done and Jnr is playing nintendo

i know this woman who married to come into the country, they had a kid and later divorced. The kid was used as a financial bargaining tool, she got what she wanted - money wise - but the boy was always neglected, often had some kind of sickness, and is overweight and not cared for.

but she has a great life and leaves him with who ever or where ever......

he is always at the shopping centre all on his own, she drops him off early and picks him up late, and his dad has moved on and never sees this kid

Unless they're capable of only thinking and feeling one thing at once...absolutely.

Just because they may not be with one another for love doesn't mean that they're incapable of feeling love, period. See, this is what I'm talking about when I say your line of thinking is too simplistic and people are more complex than that.

And those women you're talking about, are just neglectful mothers. What about all the women who DID marry for love (or get knocked up by a guy they love) and then neglect their kids, or turn their heads and pretend not to see it when the guy slaps the kids around or rapes them or whatever? And you know it happens just like I do, so don't deny it.

And what about all the parents who get nasty in custody proceedings to try and hurt the other spouse because they're broken-hearted and want revenge, so they use the kids in a game of tug-of-war? That happens too.

Like, don't try and bullshit a bullshitter, here...there's millions of examples of people who married for love and turned out to be fucked-up parents, so you don't even have a leg to stand on, on that one either.

NO. But when you love someone you should be able to see all the things that make them wonderful and the things that make them stinkers. And if you can live with both aspects of them then that's love. This notion that you just love and don't take into consideration that they have a drug addiction, trouble keeping jobs, a highly different sex drive, or spending habits that our out of control is ridiculous. I can still love you, but I wont stay with you if you are out of control. I don't need that shit.

Analyst said:

ThisOne said:

do you really think those parents are able to demosnstrate love towards their children when their main focus is money?

i know of women who marry 4 the wrong reasons and their kids are often neglected because Daddy is having an affair, mummy is getting her hair done and Jnr is playing nintendo

i know this woman who married to come into the country, they had a kid and later divorced. The kid was used as a financial bargaining tool, she got what she wanted - money wise - but the boy was always neglected, often had some kind of sickness, and is overweight and not cared for.

but she has a great life and leaves him with who ever or where ever......

he is always at the shopping centre all on his own, she drops him off early and picks him up late, and his dad has moved on and never sees this kid

Unless they're capable of only thinking and feeling one thing at once...absolutely.

Just because they may not be with one another for love doesn't mean that they're incapable of feeling love, period. See, this is what I'm talking about when I say your line of thinking is too simplistic and people are more complex than that.

And those women you're talking about, are just neglectful mothers. What about all the women who DID marry for love (or get knocked up by a guy they love) and then neglect their kids, or turn their heads and pretend not to see it when the guy slaps the kids around or rapes them or whatever? And you know it happens just like I do, so don't deny it.

And what about all the parents who get nasty in custody proceedings to try and hurt the other spouse because they're broken-hearted and want revenge, so they use the kids in a game of tug-of-war? That happens too.

Like, don't try and bullshit a bullshitter, here...there's millions of examples of people who married for love and turned out to be fucked-up parents, so you don't even have a leg to stand on, on that one either.

we can argue both sides till we both turn blue - and i am not trying to bullshit anyone

yes i am simplistic so yes 4 me not everything is about money

and thinking like that makes things easier and clearer

i do not want to b with someone i do not love - for me its not worth it

i have a great job so financially i am independant - so what's in it 4 me??? or 4 someone like me???

I'm not even sure in western society we only marry for love.

I think one of the big reasons to get married is also not wanting to be alone.

I know lots of couples that aren't totally in love with eachother, but they have fun together, take care for eachother and well, not be alone.

Maybe I should have married for money. I very much live by the idea I donb't need anybody, I take care of myself, but it also has a lot to do with pride, and i'm not sure if it makes me happy.

Why shouldn't I marry someone who takes care of me??

imago said:

sure.

The idea of marrying for 'love' is a modern concept, and there's nothing wrong with it.

But, it certainly is not superior to marrying for money and posterity.

Now, I'm against forced and arranged marriages for posterity, but if a person wants

a husband (or wife) that will take care of them for the rest of their life and ensure

their children are well brought up, why not?

The divorce rates in countries that marry for 'love' is far far higher than those that

marry for financial reasons. The main reasons, one can point out, is out of financial

necessity. If you're marrying for love, afterall, you don't "need" the other person

to take care of you--you just need a partner. However, this isn't always the case,

and it's been shown that people who marry for financial security are just as happy

in their marriages (and moreso) than love.

George Friedman's book "The Next 100 years" shows this to be true, and I've always

felt that in some regards it is.

Personally, if I marry, it will be for love. But, the notion that love is the only reasons

you SHOULD get married is just silly. It's a modern concept, and yes--a modern

concept that is gaining increasing traction. An interesting side affect, in addition to

urbanization, is that it also contributes to the global birthrate slowdown.

Good point. I think when you put two people together and they get along, people start to care about eachother.

You don't have to be totally in love at first.

And financial security takes away a lot of stress!

Doesn't half of this country's population marry for money or monetary status anyway? Not profiling, but just saying...

oh and one more thing - an example of why ppl should never have kids 4 financial gain is....

the jackson kids

nuff said

Money is probably the only reason why I would ever marry.

Of course I would stay with someone for the money, as long as everything is clear on both sides. I wouldn't want to spend my life with somebody I don't really love, but I wouldn't mind a couple of months of "marriage" and fucking if I am guaranteed a nice sum of money and no ties in the end. It's like going to work - somebody pays you for what you have to offer, even if you don't really love doing it.

ThisOne said:

oh and one more thing - an example of why ppl should never have kids 4 financial gain is....

the jackson kids

nuff said

Basketball and Football wives marry for that very reason. As soon as the kids are born, then they are headed to divorce court trying to get "their share" and most do actually get it. The kids are the cash cow...sadly. I'm just saying, though it's not right, people do it all the time.

As far as the question, if you would had asked me this 5 years ago, I would have said hell no...BUT now..I'm rethinking my stance. After going through loser after loser, picking men with my heart and getting my heart broken into billions of pieces...marrying using my MIND instead of my heart is starting to look like a better option and if he has money, the more the merrier. Love can be overrated and even if you are in a relationship with someone you truly love, it doesn't mean that you will be happy with them or that it will work out.

[Edited 8/19/12 4:40am]

I'm fortunate enough that I don't have to.

Were this a different time and place and my circumstances different I probably would.

Hell no! Gifts are not everything, even having the same interests without the money is not everything if there is no respect or boundaries.

Would you consider dating or marrying someone who didn't exactly "give you butterflies" so that you could have a comfortable life? No.

Is being with someone for financial reasons something that you could live with? No.

What if someone close to you chose to? They did, in order to keep the money and it makes me sick every time I think of it. We no longer have any contact.

alphastreet said:

Hell no! Gifts are not everything, even having the same interests without the money is not everything if there is no respect or boundaries.

It's not about gifts, it's providing you a better life (financially speaking)

[Edited 8/19/12 6:45am]

robertlove said:

alphastreet said:

Hell no! Gifts are not everything, even having the same interests without the money is not everything if there is no respect or boundaries.

It's not about gifts, it's providing you a better life (financially speaking)

[Edited 8/19/12 6:45am]

Once again, I would not. I don't like accepting money from people and feel that I would have more respect for myself if I paid off debts with my own money. I won't even let family help me with that.

I love my freedom too much to marry someone for less than love.

But even though I wouldn't marry for money, I probably wouldn't hook up with a pauper either. You can love someone greatly but have enough logic to know marrying them might mean excessive struggling and stress.

And in response to the people that think a child would not be affected by parents that married for money, I disagree mostly. My parents had a loveless marriage (not from the start but by the time I came around) and I was deeply affected by it. I believe the reason I avoid relationships and have trouble with affection is because I didn't have a good example of those things growing up. It's easier to be alone for me.