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.

Very interesting POV.

I agree with most of that.

Older Jewish women seem to love me...maybe I'm fishing in the wrong pond...

sunflower7 said:

I would'nt I knew two girls who did, and they both cheated on their husbands, probably still do. I remember tha one of them before she got w/her husband, held a party. That party was for men, who knew that they were there to compete for her as their future wife. I found that shit to be soooo funny..these educated, rich, and handsome men actually attended and she found her docotor. She wanted to set me up, sayin... " girl he will let u walk all over him."

Wow.

...uhm...

She's not Colombian, is she???

I sure would. I'd put on a pair of gloves and jack his little teenie weenie off every night.

PurpleJedi said:

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.

Very interesting POV.

I agree with most of that.

Older Jewish women seem to love me...maybe I'm fishing in the wrong pond...

Chile, you ain't even fishing in the right ocean.

You been looking for fish, when a good big o'le eel will treat you right.

Are we talking about sea life here?

^^

..................................................................................................

imago said:

PurpleJedi said:

Very interesting POV.

I agree with most of that.

Older Jewish women seem to love me...maybe I'm fishing in the wrong pond...

Chile, you ain't even fishing in the right ocean.

You been looking for fish, when a good big o'le eel will treat you right.

Are we talking about sea life here?

You whore!

vainandy said:

imago said:

Chile, you ain't even fishing in the right ocean.

You been looking for fish, when a good big o'le eel will treat you right.

Are we talking about sea life here?

You whore!

I'm talking about marine life, honestly!

PurpleJedi said:

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?

No.

Actually I don't wish to marry at all.

It's already a miracle somebody managed to get me to the isle, and as it turned out, I should have stuck with my first adagium: marriage is only necessary if your not from the same country or if you have kids. Than the legal stuf gets relevant.

No.

There would have to be chemistry, spitual connectedness, romance, and so on...

A majority of people that get married for love is a new and luxuruous concept.

Untill the 1960's the only way for women to provide for themselves is by marrying.

So, for centuries, women have teamed up with a man in order to survive.

I think that 80% of the people on earth are struggling to get by and survive.

For sure that the women of that 80% marry for survival, not for love.

Do you really think all these Asian, Eastern-European, African and Arabic women marry their ugly, old, aggressive and abusive husbands because of love?????

No. For the majority of women, marriage is their best change of survival. Unfortunately.

sunflower7 said:

No purp, born and raised in africa

vainandy said:

I sure would. I'd put on a pair of gloves and jack his little teenie weenie off every night.

imago said:

PurpleJedi said:

Very interesting POV.

I agree with most of that.

Older Jewish women seem to love me...maybe I'm fishing in the wrong pond...

Chile, you ain't even fishing in the right ocean.

You been looking for fish, when a good big o'le eel will treat you right.

Are we talking about sea life here?

x 1,000,000

dJJ said:

A majority of people that get married for love is a new and luxuruous concept.

Untill the 1960's the only way for women to provide for themselves is by marrying.

So, for centuries, women have teamed up with a man in order to survive.

I think that 80% of the people on earth are struggling to get by and survive.

For sure that the women of that 80% marry for survival, not for love.

Do you really think all these Asian, Eastern-European, African and Arabic women marry their ugly, old, aggressive and abusive husbands because of love?????

No. For the majority of women, marriage is their best change of survival. Unfortunately.

Yes, it truly is despicable that in this day and age, women should still be bound to a man for survival.

...checking airfare to Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Middle East...

I don't know what all the fuss is about

after 10-15 years of marriage a lot of people are in marriages that don't have a lot of love left and they sure aren't married because of MONEY

So I'd say yes

MARRIAGE = MONEY AND BUREAUCRACY

then and now

ZombieKitten said:

I don't know what all the fuss is about

after 10-15 years of marriage a lot of people are in marriages that don't have a lot of love left and they sure aren't married because of MONEY

So I'd say yes

Sometimes "love" can be muffled & hidden beneath layers of crap that life throws at you.

But in the end it's still there.

However, if you never really HAD it to begin with, then yes you wind up in a loveless marriage.

Either way, it sucks and if you're gonna be miserable anyway, might as well be RICH while you're at it.

PurpleJedi said:

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? That will never happen

What if someone close to you chose to? Not my business really, but I think it would affect our friendship/relationship in a negative way

JoeTyler said:

MARRIAGE = MONEY AND BUREAUCRACY

then and now

So is that a NO to marriage in GENERAL?

PurpleJedi said:

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?

nope.

MacDaddy said:

PurpleJedi said:

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? That will never happen

What if someone close to you chose to? Not my business really, but I think it would affect our friendship/relationship in a negative way

Judging by your fantastic lifestyle, I'd be willing to bet it's YOU who needs to look out for the golddigger!

PurpleJedi said:

MacDaddy said:

Judging by your fantastic lifestyle, I'd be willing to bet it's YOU who needs to look out for the golddigger!

I'm not rich, but my life is comfortable.

typo edit

[Edited 8/20/12 8:59am]

MacDaddy said:

PurpleJedi said:

Judging by your fantastic lifestyle, I'd be willing to bet it's YOU who needs to look out for the golddigger!

I'm not rich, but my life is comfortable.

PurpleJedi said:

sunflower7 said:

No purp, born and raised in africa

JoeTyler said:

MARRIAGE = MONEY AND BUREAUCRACY

then and now

That's what I always believed about it. It don't really benefit anyone, most of all men. But that's for another topic. Don't want any diversions, you know?

I'm getting married on saturday and money has nothing to do with it... except it's costing us a whole lot of it!

RicoN said:

I'm getting married on saturday and money has nothing to do with it... except it's costing us a whole lot of it!

Congratulations!!!