Which is more important to you in a relationship? Would you rather be with someone who can provide you financial security and comfort even though you don't truly love them or someone who makes your heart leap with joy but they are the brokest, neediest, debt driving mofo with hand out that you ever did meet?

discuss...

I guess this question is only for women. Any man who who's looking for financial security from his woman isn't a man, IMO.

uPtoWnNY said:

wha??.. really? no exceptions?

I’ll take love over money any day, but the ability to financially take care of oneself and/or a family is important.
I can’t afford nor do I have the desire to take care of another person financially for the rest of my life. If I were married and my partner fell on rough times/lost a job/ whatever for a period, that’s one thing. But the expectation would be that that’s a temporary situation.
If they became disabled and were no longer able to generate an income, that’s another thing too.
Of course, if I won the lottery, then I really wouldn’t care.
But other than that, we had better both be contributing to taking care of the household.

DesireeNevermind said:

Yep, that's how I was raised, to handle my business no matter what. Carrie's exactly right. I'm not looking to live off any woman. My late mother had a word for men like that, and I can't say it here.
[Edited 1/4/10 11:10am]

I can't decide - maybe it's a toss up or maybe it depends where one is at in their life. there are people who truly love money and the lifestyle it can bring but i also think there are people who will put up with some of the most unbelievable bullshit when it comes to love.

I have, and have always had ... my own $
and I encourage all women to do the same

Relationship has zero to do with $ for me

We both have "our ( shared) money " and we both have our OWN money - always have and always will !

I would be uncomfortable any other way

If you don't have money, its gonna be much harder to find love.

Mach said:

Preach that shit!!!!

I wish some of my female friends would wise up and ditch the losers who are mooching off them. They deserve better.

I may be too young to discuss the financial aspect of a relationship, but I tried to stay in a loveless relationship once and I still feel uncomfortable when I think of it. So first option sounds like sheer torchure to me.

How about love AND money

I can't be attracted to someone for a serious relationship who has no hustle, ambition or gumption. It doesn't have to manifest itself as having "money" but the potential, capacity, and desire to bring something to the table that will enhance OUR financial security as a family is a MUST.

I'll fuck a broke muthafucka all day, but he sho can't stay.

SCNDLS said:

uPtoWnNY said:

I do preach it
and my daughters have learned well to be self supportive I also strongly encourage my sons' partners to be so ...

I feel/think A LOT of stress in relationships is due to unbalanced $ crap

if you both spend - you both should make and I also believe that each person should have their own - seperate from "relationship" $ at all times ...

if he wants to but a 500$ Fly rod, totally cool - if I want a 500 $ snowmobiling trip cool ... we have our own cash for that then if WE WANT and new whatthefuckever WE have $ for that

DesireeNevermind said:

well i don't think anyone female or male should be looking for that. make sure you are financially secure for YOURSELF!! quit being lazy and depending on a man or woman to save you. & your kids in some cases.

yes. it just comes down to where you put most value into. however,
i never understood why people think you could only have one or the other or why love and money are comparable. if you love someone and they love you, then work together to be financially secure. and yes...if one of you is a dead beat or not contributing to taking care of business, then maybe you need to have a talk.
love should not = money.


now DesireeNevermind, give me some money!! umm i mean.. i looooove youuuu.

DesireeNevermind said:

Damn, that shit rhymes.

uPtoWnNY said:

that's some old fashioned sex roles! Not many men can make more than Oprah.

Mach said:

Absolutely.

ufoclub said:

But at least have your own thing going.

I ain't sayin' she a golddigger, but she ain't messin' with no broke...

Kidding. IMO, in a relationship, if there is no love, you could have a swimming pool full of Ben Franklins and it wouldn't matter. I'd rather die broke and happy, then rich and alone.

ufoclub said:

Oprah is not the norm and Steadman had his own shit when she met him so he wasn't "looking for financial security" from O. He prolly had more than her, in fact.

Acrylic said:

If I'm rich, best believe I wouldn't be alone

These days I'll just take the money.

Thanks.

SCNDLS said:

I'm talking about me going after Oprah... that would be a funny movie.

SCNDLS said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Broke bastid!

i don't want nobody's love nor their money. just their goodies

CHIC0 said:

silly chile

and here's another thing....


if people are in love yet they are struggling terribly in the financial department, aren't one or both parties likely to look for money in the next relationship? what's that saying? "love don't pay the rent or put food on the table." somethin' like that.

DesireeNevermind said:

I think where some people get confused is that "love" doesn't magically make a relationship work. Neither does money, though.

Acrylic said:

This I totally agree with.




Why does alone have to equal unhappy, though?

I’d rather have a great relationship AND a boat load of money. But if I don’t get either, I’m still gonna die happy.