Would you marry for MONEY?

[lithe]

when i say that money is relatively important, it doesn't mean that my estimation of my partner would go down based on temporary financial hardship. it just means that success isn't as inconsequential, or as superficial, as some make it out to be. no one here is saying they would marry purely for money, but rather that success is a nice addition to an already attractive person with positive mental/emotional/physical attributes.

[rawb]

you seem to use the terms interchangably, but money is such a bullshit measurement of success and ambition though.

there are so many ways to arrive at a place where you are flush with cash that are either negative, lucky, or fleeting. personal wealth is just another material thing that can be taken away or given, and after a certain base level (i have a roof, i have food), no longer affects happiness or my ability to love another person.

shit's trife to me. maybe we have different definitions of what makes a person successful.

[lithe]

hm, i agree, to a point. i suppose i was too lax with qualifying words like "money" and "success". success is a lot more than than the accumulation of wealth, but relative wealth is required in order to live a life with the freedom, the time, and the means, to do that which makes you happy.. and that's what success is.

[mapleleaf4ever]

Originally Posted by mikey

But one the other hand if a cougar wanted to buy me a bentley, and for me to play pool boy for her i think i'd do it.....

In a flash I would do the same. Hell I can't even swim good... But I'd rock the Speedo for an extra $200.

[Liqwid]

obviously. i hate working!

~dalyn

[diva]

Originally Posted by rawb

in my opinion, whatever you call it, it's an unattractive quality.

if my partner's estimation of me will go down in any way because i catch some hard times, then fuck that bitch. that shit's lame.

some people find sloth to be an unattractive quality

If my partner suddenly went broke because of bad luck, that would be one thing... the whole purpose of partnerships are so we can have someone to lean on when the going gets tough.

BUT if my partner went broke because he suddenly decided to take a few years off of reality and working hard for a living, i'd definitely walk away. They'd be taking advantage of me and we'd probably start having very few things in common.

There are a lot of men and women out there who basically support their significant others and get next to nothing in return for it. Relationships are supposed to be reciprocal, or at least mutually beneficial. It's just as horrible as not having the self-esteem to leave an abusive relationship.

Another thing i'd like to bring to your attention is the fact that different people have varying dreams and aspirations. A friend of mine wanted nothing more than to become a mother. She'd dreamt of it her entire life. Just like people grow up wanting to become doctors or lawyers, she wanted to raise children. There's no way she could have done that had she not chosen a partner who would be able to support her and a few children. Not living in this province anyways.

[diva]

Originally Posted by rawb

you seem to use the terms interchangably, but money is such a bullshit measurement of success and ambition though.

there are so many ways to arrive at a place where you are flush with cash that are either negative, lucky, or fleeting. personal wealth is just another material thing that can be taken away or given, and after a certain base level (i have a roof, i have food), no longer affects happiness or my ability to love another person.

shit's trife to me. maybe we have different definitions of what makes a person successful.

Some people have a higher base level than others, though.

Money might not always be an indicator of success, but lack thereof (when all other things are equal) can be a sign of low ambition and drive.

I don't think robin and I are saying that we need a man with millions in order to be happy. I do think that we're both pretty driven women who have stated that they'd look for the same quality in a potential partner.

I think you're confusing "not poor" with "loaded".

Most successful people, and by successful I mean people who follow their passions, don't end up poor. If someone is happy living from paycheck to paycheck and can find success in whatever job/career is allowing them to do so, then more power to them. In the end happiness is what matters.

I know for a fact that happiness, more often than not, is really fucking hard to find when you don't know if you're ever going to get out of debt, or be able to provide for the child your wife just accidentally got pregnant with. It's easy to say that you'd be happy living out of a cardboard box ass long as you were with the love of your life, but that shit never happens.

After infidelity, the number one reason for strife in a relationship is financial worries.

[Big Bank Hank]

1. yes....but they should be hot too , or if not least multimillionaire and no pre-nup

2. no.....if i meet girls and i can tell they are a good person , but i am not attracted to them to begin with , i never let anything creep in......can only be friends on.....if u are attractive why settle for anything but what u think u deserve......but sum girls do so much work on themselves to become mega-hot, so if they become hot(and they werent b4, and they were still into me) i'd give them another shot.....i like girls that really take care of themselves.......if i was in love with a girl and she got hurt or disfigured or something i would still love her though

[rawb]

Originally Posted by lithe

hm, i agree, to a point. i suppose i was too lax with qualifying words like "money" and "success". success is a lot more than than the accumulation of wealth, but relative wealth is required in order to live a life with the freedom, the time, and the means, to do that which makes you happy..

i disagree, i think the chase for wealth often leaves you without the ability to truly explore life and enjoy yourself.

having more doors open for you doesn't translate into being more fulfilled, especially if you're pulling 10 hour days in a job you only kind of like. i find the simple things in life make me feel way better than any 5 star hotel or $3,000 bartab or (completely theoretical) nice apartment.

[LLaaUUrrYYn]

1. I wouldnt marry someone for the plain fact that they were rich. HOWEVER, if I just so happen to meet a wealthy man who wines and dines me..buys me things.. doesnt want me to work..I think I could fall in love with the IDEA..and maybe the man. Only because life has never been that simple for me! (Note: If you are rich and would like to wine dine me.. please msg me at notreallyagolddigger@hotmail.com -thanks ;P)

2. As far as attraction goes..if i wasnt attracted to him, and vise versa we wouldnt be in a relationship. I might marry a man who might have people thinking "He is the ugliest man I have ever seen" But people have different tastes. I think that looks grow on someone the more you know them. A woman can be beautiful but her attitude is so horrible that to everyone who knows her.. Shes ugly. ;D

[rawb]

Originally Posted by diva

Another thing i'd like to bring to your attention is the fact that different people have varying dreams and aspirations. A friend of mine wanted nothing more than to become a mother. She'd dreamt of it her entire life. Just like people grow up wanting to become doctors or lawyers, she wanted to raise children. There's no way she could have done that had she not chosen a partner who would be able to support her and a few children. Not living in this province anyways.

that's awesome and i'd hope that a someone who had dreams to be a painter or a musician could find a mate who makes enough money to support them while they chased their dream, but due to trife shit it's very hard for a man to do that.

still looking for a girl who's cool with me becoming a world chess champion but i seriously don't see that happening.

[diva]

Originally Posted by rawb

that's awesome and i'd hope that a someone who had dreams to be a painter or a musician could find a mate who makes enough money to support them while they chased their dream, but due to trife shit it's very hard for a man to do that.

still looking for a girl who's cool with me becoming a world chess champion but i seriously don't see that happening.

true, but she found him.
he wanted a wife who would stay at home and she wanted to do it. i'm just trying to say that it's not shallow to want security, or to pass up someone who can't offer you what you want.

[stephen_c]

this sounds like reality to me.

http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmi...ng_advice.html

What Are Women Really Attracted To?

The male sex drive is uncomplicated and honest. Men are visual. The hot-blooded sexual response to the sight of a good-looking young woman has been hard-wired into the male brain thanks to millions of years of evolution -- the average guy can no more stop ogling, lusting and urging to merge than he can stop eating or sleeping.
But what about women? Just what do they find attractive about men? Read any typical survey and you'll be informed that what really turns them on is a sense of humor, confidence, consideration of others, etc. In other words, according to women, all you have to do is to be a nice guy and they'll come running.

reality check time
-----------------
Never listen to what a woman says -- always pay attention to what she actually does instead. The two are quite frequently worlds apart, because women are masters at self-deceit and equally adept at lying to themselves about their own behavior.

Cross-cultural evidence from different societies consistently reveals that what women really want from men are economic resources. Studies with college coeds show that when shown photographs of men dressed in high-status uniforms (suits, ties, expensive watches, etc.) and low-status uniforms, these women would be significantly more willing to enter into relationships with the more expensively-attired males regardless of the man's physical appearance.

To a woman, attraction is simple: green is very good-looking. And these same studies found that college men were convinced that magnifying their status (implying greater earning power) would lead to increased sexual activity.

Thus men were forced to rely on such attraction tactics as driving expensive cars, bragging about accomplishments, and emphasizing present or future earning power, while women, on the other hand, packaged themselves as commodities with make-up, jewelry, hairstyles, and shape-revealing clothing.

Evolution says women want more sex, not money

talkin' about an evolution
------------------------
Evolutionary psychologists like Dr. David Buss believe that present-day mate selection behaviors were founded in the Stone Age. Buss' recent survey of over 10,000 people in 37 countries, on six continents, reports that men consistently prize physical attraction and youth in their potential mates, while women value ambition, status, and financial resources.

In evolutionary terms, men seek out sexually desirable females whose youthful features indicate good health and the ability to bear children, while women look for mates with abundant enough resources to provide for their children.

So does this mean that women are genetically programmed to seek out only high-status men with lots of money and resources, and to disdain more average guys with lesser earning power -- that what women really go for is that big bulge in a man's pants (his wallet)?

women want sex too
--------------------
Enter Dr. Tim Birkhead of the University of Sheffield (England), author of the ground-breaking Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition. With research spanning the broad spectrum of the animal kingdom, Birkhead discovered that female promiscuity -- that is, females having sex with multiple partners, sometimes regardless of their resources or status -- is the norm rather than the exception.

In fact, females of most species, from damselflies to penguins, routinely copulate with several different mates. And this is especially true among the higher mammals, such as chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom humans share approximately 99% of DNA.

According to Jane Goodall (The Chimpanzees of Gombe), a female chimp may mate with different males of her group as many as 50 times a day, and will actively seek out low-status chimps from other bands for even more sexual encounters.

And bonobos, who act and appear even more similar to humans than chimps, are the real swingers of the animal kingdom -- they participate in virtual gang-bangs and sex (even lesbian sex) solely for the sake of pleasure.

so why the money angle?
------------------------
Of course, for women the implications are staggering. According to Birkhead, human females are genetically programmed to be promiscuous. And if Birkhead is right -- that we share common evolutionary behavior with chimps and bonobos -- this means that women should be attracted to and willing to have sex with men regardless of status. Women should not be using dating and marriage as a business.

Yet in human society, women are still selling it and men are still forced to pay for it.

Why?
-----
Because women think with their vaginas -- that is, they use their awesome sexual power to control, manipulate, and get what they want from men. And men let them get away with it.

But in this day and age of equal rights, when women are earning excellent incomes and claim that they have no need for men to support them any more (but still hypocritically expect men to pay for them), maybe it's time for women to finally be honest.

Maybe it's time for women to jettison the manipulative greed, which so characterizes their gender, and seek out men of any status, as apparently nature has intended. Maybe it's time for women to start having sex for the sake of enjoyment instead of cold-bloodedly using it as a tool to feather their own nests.

the choice is yours
------------------
Men, you have two choices: either continue on as financial slaves and sacrifice your manhood on the altar of female greed; or stand up for yourselves right now -- refuse to be sex-ploited any longer.

Then maybe, just maybe, women can be as nature intended: sexually honest, like men.

[rawb]

Originally Posted by diva

Some people have a higher base level than others, though.

Money might not always be an indicator of success, but lack thereof (when all other things are equal) can be a sign of low ambition and drive.

so how much money do you have right now esi? because i know you have incredible drive and ambition. but apprently due to your own earmarks you are not an ideal mate because your 'big money' is in the theoretical future. luckily you're a girl and that's socially acceptable.

Most successful people, and by successful I mean people who follow their passions, don't end up poor.

i think there are entire religions/brad pitt movies/chuk pahlinuk books based around the fact that material possesions and money often make people miserable. not to toot my own horn but as someones whos lived both paycheque to paycheque and what i consider very comfortably, i can say that eating baked beans and watching every penny did not make me sad, and i would say it strengthened the relationship i was in at the time.

I know for a fact that happiness, more often than not, is really fucking hard to find when you don't know if you're ever going to get out of debt, or be able to provide for the child your wife just accidentally got pregnant with. It's easy to say that you'd be happy living out of a cardboard box ass long as you were with the love of your life, but that shit never happens.

yeah i talked about that like 4 replies back but thanks, my heart strings are tugged. real happiness is also really hard to find when you're pulling two jobs so your wife can spit out 3 kids she can play mommy to.

i've always found unions between people less about the fulfillment of personal desires and more about the beautiful give and take of people who like each other.

[Goat]

i think there are entire religions/brad pitt movies/chuk pahlinuk books based around the fact that material possesions and money often make people miserable.

You forgot communism.

But well said.

[diva]

Originally Posted by rawb

i disagree, i think the chase for wealth often leaves you without the ability to truly explore life and enjoy yourself.

having more doors open for you doesn't translate into being more fulfilled, especially if you're pulling 10 hour days in a job you only kind of like. i find the simple things in life make me feel way better than any 5 star hotel or $3,000 bartab or (completely theoretical) nice apartment.

i don't know rawb. really successful people love their jobs. i think it would be hard for me to have a job i only kind of liked and work hard enough at it that i became a success.

ambition->more open doors->success/fulfillment (whatever that means to you) because no one makes shit money at a job that they're really good at. someone will always want you to work for them if you're the best (whatever skill you have to market here).

i think it's easy for you to say that, but would you really be just as happy if you couldn't afford to live dt, buy video games, clothes and shoes every month?

poor=the new fat

[rawb]

Originally Posted by diva

i don't know rawb. really successful people love their jobs. i think it would be hard for me to have a job i only kind of liked and work hard enough at it that i became a success.

ambition->more open doors->success/fulfillment (whatever that means to you)

but not money.

because no one makes shit money at a job that they're really good at.

school teachers, artists, public service lawyers...
think of how many famous artists/inventors died poor
but left their mark on society

someone will always want you to work for them if you're the best (whatever skill you have to market here).

try working in the tech industry.

i think it's easy for you to say that, but would you really be just as happy if you couldn't afford to live dt, buy video games, clothes and shoes every month?

those things give me enjoyment and take my mind off work and let me relax, but they don't define me and don't make me a better or worse person. i like to spend money but i'm fully aware that it's just a fleeting distraction from 'real life'. : )

[diva]

Originally Posted by rawb

so how much money do you have right now esi? because i know you have incredible drive and ambition. but apprently due to your own earmarks you are not an ideal mate because your 'big money' is in the theoretical future. luckily you're a girl and that's socially acceptable.

It's also socially acceptable for an old guy who's loaded to choose the hottest looking woman he can find, even if it means dumping the homely looking high school sweetheart. It's a lot harder for an older rich woman to do the same.

I didn't say anything about "big money". That's not what drives me at all and I would find a guy who was all about money and couldn't have a conversation with me about the article I read in this week's economist to be a turn off.

Like I said, meeting someone who was going somewhere would be the biggest indicator. I don't think i'm a horrible person for not wanting to marry a bum.

Originally Posted by rawb

i think there are entire religions/brad pitt movies/chuk pahlinuk books based around the fact that material possesions and money often make people miserable. not to toot my own horn but as someones whos lived both paycheque to paycheque and what i consider very comfortably, i can say that eating baked beans and watching every penny did not make me sad, and i would say it strengthened the relationship i was in at the time.

I could say the same thing about the fact that billions of people are miserable right now because they don't have material possesions and would be ecstatic if they had money to be able to provide themselves with a few of them.

Eating baked beans and watching every penny would make me sad. Call me a shallow bitch, but I was really sad when I had to line up at the food bank with my mom and couldn't afford to do the things that most of my friends could do. I know that I was a lot less sad once I didn't have to go through all that stuff anymore and knew that my parents could afford to help me out with university.

It's not about the fact that material things make people happy. I can probably find you reliable data to prove that people who are lower down on the socio-economic ladder end up being less happy than the people who don't have to worry about money.

Originally Posted by rawb

yeah i talked about that like 4 replies back but thanks, my heart strings are tugged. real happiness is also really hard to find when you're pulling two jobs so your wife can spit out 3 kids she can play mommy to.

Then you don't marry a woman who wants to be a housewife. It's a personal choice. I think it should be a person's choice to forgo being with someone who wont help them get to where they want to be in life.

Originally Posted by rawb

i've always found unions between people less about the fulfillment of personal desires and more about the beautiful give and take of people who like each other.

It should be about both. Wanting your desires filled should not be looked down upon. It's when those desires go unmet that people get into relationship trouble.

That's all I was trying to say.

[yoko*]

:145:

[diva]

Originally Posted by rawb

but not money.

you've got a point there

Originally Posted by rawb

school teachers, artists, public service lawyers...
think of how many famous artists/inventors died poor
but left their mark on society

teachers, even public service lawyers make salaries that are higher than the canadian average. they're not poor.

they might have left their mark on society, but a lot of artists lived very depressed lives and didn't get recognized for their greatness until they were dead.

Originally Posted by rawb

try working in the tech industry.

how do people get jobs in the tech industry? do they not get hired according to experience and skill? if you were the hardest working/most experienced/skilled person at your office, wouldn't you be the last to get a pink slip?

Originally Posted by rawb

those things give me enjoyment and take my mind off work and let me relax, but they don't define me and don't make me a better or worse person. i like to spend money but i'm fully aware that it's just a fleeting distraction from 'real life'. : )

you don't think you'd be a different person if you weren't in the position that you were in now? don't you think that your sense of fulfillment in life, or your ability to take your mind off of work and relax, has anything to do with the fact that you don't fit the definition of a struggling 20something year old?

[rawb]

they might have left their mark on society, but a lot of artists lived very depressed lives and didn't get recognized for their greatness until they were dead.

but in the end they had ambition and were ultimately successful.

how do people get jobs in the tech industry? do they not get hired according to experience and skill? if you were the hardest working/most experienced/skilled person at your office, wouldn't you be the last to get a pink slip?

not if someone in india with 3/4ths of your skill work for 1/10th your wage.

(x) jobs > (y) very skilled employees = no one cares

you don't think you'd be a different person if you weren't in the position that you were in now? don't you think that your sense of fulfillment in life, or your ability to take your mind off of work and relax, has anything to do with the fact that you don't fit the definition of a struggling 20something year old?

i would be a different person, but i can't say i'd be more or less fulfilled.

after being able to live and eat, money doesn't define me. it's there and nice to have admittably, but ...

all i know is that i've been struggling and i've been well off, and guess which one made me a better person and helped me realize what was truly important to me?

[diva]

Originally Posted by rawb

all i know is that i've been struggling and i've been well off, and guess which one made me a better person and helped me realize what was truly important to me?

yes, it made you realize what was important to you. someone else might have had the exact same experience and come away feeling exactly the oposite. everyone's different.

people replied that they wouldn't let money be a factor in choosing a potential mate in this thread; i just wanted to point out the fact that some poeple might think the exact oposite.

=)

[bebu*funfun]

Originally Posted by yoko*

The first topic was raised during a lunch at earls with the girls.


1. Would you or could you or do you plan to marry for money?
Yes, No, or under what circumstances if any circumstances at all?

2. Would you marry/partner someone who was absolutely perfect person on the inside, (everything you'd ever asked for) but was not very physically attractive in your eyes?

first off..awesome place to have lunch

1. money's a bonus, not something i specificially look for in the opposite sex. i think its career/lifestyle that's more important than if they have money. he could be a drug dealer and be rich, but that's not someone i want to spend my life with. even with dating right now, i look for a guy who has a stable lifestyle along with goals and hopes for the future. one, i find that extremly attractive to see and second its a security thing as well (man who takes his job/life seriously most likely takes relationships seriously as well). he doesn't have to be rich, and if he doesn't want to work, i can "take care" of the family if needed...thats if my career can support it. money's not an issue AT ALL.. happiness and enjoying life is more important than anything.

2. physical looks do play a part in attraction, but if he is "perfect" in the inside i trully believe that within time id adapt to his physical looks and find him attractive inside and out as well. a guy can easily win me over with just his heart and gestures. then again a guy can also win my heart if he's good in bed as well. if the guy is absolutely hideous, yes it would be difficult, but i dont think id talk to him in the first place. kinda lame, but the truth.

[rawb]

Originally Posted by diva

yes, it made you realize what was important to you. someone else might have had the exact same experience and come away feeling exactly the oposite. everyone's different.

true, but i've never thought to myself

"wow now that *blah* has some cash, they're really a better person"

[Esoteric]

Everyone has a set of criteria by which they evaluate potential life partners or significant others. Here's how I figure it breaks down:

1) Attractiveness. Whether they are physically attractive, have extremely high sex appeal without being physically perfect, or simply the kind of person someone wants to be with, attractiveness plays a large role in a person's decision to marry.

2) Emotional Compatability. Some people are passive and need more assertive mates. And vice verca. Others require similar personality traits to the ones they possess, i.e. an assertive person might require a similarly assertive mate simply because they cannot stand passive people.

3) Religious Compatibility. This criterion is seldom used but it bears mentioning.

4) Financial Security. Say what you want to say about the issue, denying this consideration exists is purely naive. With financial security comes an independence many couples lack and consequently find themselves arguing over. I'm not sure of the statistics but I believe the second largest reason for divorce is financial (next to infidelity)

5) Ambition/Satisfaction with Life. Some people love life. Some people are constantly stressing. Some people have drive to achieve certain goals. Other people are happy to remain static throughout their lives.


Now, having established these criteria, it must be pointed out that (obviously) not everyone ranks these criteria in the same manner. Men and women value these criteria differently. Individuals value these criteria based on their personal experience and general attitudes about life.

While women and men certainly both value attractiveness in a mate, I think it is safe to say that men put more stock in this criteria.

Futhermore, I would find it hard to believe that anyone could completely discount financial security as a criteria, but I also think it safe to say that women are more interested in a man's financial status than vice verca. Men are not typically attracted to women simply because they have money, while women exibit this behaviour far more often.

Now however you personally rank these various criteria (and you may also have personal criteria I have failed to list here) decides whom you will get involved with romantically and whom you will not. Several of the criteria I listed coinside with one another. Mainly emotional and religious criteria with financial and ambition criteria being somewhat related as well.

The point is EVERYONE has a ranking system which they use to determine who will be your mate. While rawb obviously puts no stock in a woman's financial situation, diva finds it more important. Gender probably has a significant role to play there but also their life experience plays a role.

Rawb coming from a more privileged background puts less stock in finances because they have never been a factor in his life. While diva's less privileged background inclines her toward thinking about such things.

At any rate, that's how I figure this whole thing breaks down.