Money or Love

Which are you looking for in a relationship?

If you are having problems in your relationship, which would make you stay?

^^
Agree with DP!! Always love...... 🙂

Agreed, money is easy to find love isn't.

Money or love ? .... well actually ... At this point, I'm not sure. In this stage in my life, defining which is more important is very difficult. Its the truth.

I guess I could go w/ the right thing & say "Love" but I'm not really looking for tha right now nor do I want someone else to pay my way. However, the all mighty dollar has caught my eyes, that's for sure.

Love. Money comes and goes.

Money does indeed grease the skids, but I think it makes people stronger to weather all the dips and dives of life. If you can't look at someone in the bad times, share them, be at someones back, then you shouldn't be there.
I've said it once, I'll say it again. I do not care if a man is a ditch digger or a king, what matters is his heart.

Posted by venusianbull
Money does indeed grease the skids, but I think it makes people stronger to weather all the dips and dives of life. If you can't look at someone in the bad times, share them, be at someones back, then you shouldn't be there.
I've said it once, I'll say it again. I do not care if a man is a ditch digger or a king, what matters is his heart.

Well said VB!!!! Some people have such a sense of entitlement as if the world owes them something in relationships. Especially during these hard times there are so many people without work. I read some statistic that in Conneticut 1 in 4 people have jobs. That is a lot of jobless people. It is true that when times are tough alot of marriages fail. I would not be romantically interested in someone who has no ambition and is jobless, but sometimes people are in transition until they figure what is next for them. As long as they have that ambition and are putting it all together I can be okay with that. I definately don't get together with someone because of the size of their bank account, the car they drive, their title.....etc.. My Ex-BF from 2005 was extreamly wealthy and he was the biggest dick I have ever came across. A few years before that I dated another wealthy guy, and he was even a bigger dick than the last BF. Money is not everything. I would rather have someone I mesh minds well with and their is respect, kindness, and generosity.

I make my own money and don't need someone else to provide for me.

PD

*there*

Love. Hands down!

Anybody can make money. Anybody can spend money. Anybody can have money; Money is the 1 thing most of us DON'T spend our entire lives looking for unlike love. Money comes & goes. Money is the 1 thing that can be taken/stolen & replaced, unlike love. If your love is real, NO ONE can strip you of it/take it from you. Love last alot longer than money does.

Money is important, BUT in order for me to even care what kind of money you have OR how you're managing/saving your money, I'd have to care about & love YOU as a person 1st.

Money is only the most relevant in the beginning (dating/courtship) & in the end (divorce lawyers lol). But what keeps a relationship afloat in the middle is love. Love is the ONE thing you can't BUY no matter how charming, successful or attractive you are. Love is def. more unique than money, therefore love matters most to me on the priorities list.

You should always LOVE a person 1st. Them actually having money & using it wisely should be the bonus/ICING on the cake, NOT the entire cake itself

However, I can understand why some couples stay together b/c of money. Sometimes it's economically a better financial decision to stay together vs. split up.

They were actually discussing this on CNN last week. They talked about how the divorce rate is still high, BUT yet the rates have dramatically decreased since the "recession." People are STILL having the same ole relationship/marital problems like before, BUT it's just that they are sticking it out longer for financial reasons. For instance, it might be too expensive for a couple to split up or divorce if they own/rent a house together while yet 1 of them was just laid off. In this scenario, it'd make more sense to stay together until BOTH people are financially dependent enough to branch back out on their own & start over.

Some people stay for financial reasons b/c of the kids or joint things they share (bank accounts, mortgage, etc.) The only time I think 2 people should def. NOT stay for financial reasons is if the relationship has experienced abuse of any kind (physical, emotional, sexual, drug abuse, etc.) In those cases, it's not worth risking/losing your life.

But generally, I'd never encourage someone to put money over their own happiness. With the right motivation, determination & direction, there is NOTHING someone can buy you that you can't eventually buy/get yourself. It's NOT worth it staying in an unhappy environment/relationship all for the sake of having financial security that you could've given yourself. As the saying goes, "You can do bad all by yourself!"

People shouldn't enter relationships for any reason other than extreme like/love for another person, therefore they shouldn't stay in a relationship if those 2 things start lacking. Staying for all the wrong reasons completely DEFEATS the purpose of being in the relationship to begin with! Hell, after all, nowadays you don't have to be in a relationship just to get spoiled and/or have everything handed to you on a silver platter. There are plenty enough sugar daddies/mamas who will spoil you & yet not ever expect/demand commitment from you. And if a person cares so much about money, they should stay AWAY from relationships & just stick to the non-commital way of being a gold digger =P

@Pretty: I agree that money IS important, BUT I think someone's financial status should matter more to each person themselves moreso than judging someone for what's in another person's wallet.

You said that you wouldn't date someone who was unemployed at the time you met them? Understandable, BUT what really matters? Does the amount of money they have in their wallet matter OR does their drive/motivation to get/save/spend money matter? In this recession/economy, there are PLENTY of Doctors, lawyers, etc. who ARE driven & who normally ARE financially stable, who are without jobs...BUT just temporarily! For all you know, you could've met a man who was unemployed this week & yet found a new job next week, BUT you'd never know b/c you assumed that him not having a job meant that he was less of a provider.

Plus, money can be taken from you overnight. You can meet a man today who seems to "have it all" but yet tomorrow his car, wallet, house, etc might be stolen or burn down! Then what? People with money can lose it just as fast as they earned/spent it.

That's why I say it's all about how someone manages/saves their money that tells the true story of whether or not they are a good provider. A man whose ALWAYS had a job for the past 20 years but yet just so happened to be laid off this month is just as good a provider vs. the man who actually has a job right at this moment.

Simply having money doesn't guarantee that those coats for the kids will be bought or that the bills we be paid. Simply having money doesn't prove anything. Simply having money doesn't guarantee that you know how to use/spend/save/manage it; it doesn't guarantee that the bills will be paid. Hell, if that were true the foreclosure rate wouldn't be sky high!!! There are PLENTY of people who technically HAVE jobs/money that aren't responsible with their finances.

That's why I think someone's habits regarding money is more important than the actual dollar amount in their wallet. And if a woman has her "own" shxt it shouldn't really matter what he has, considering after all, if she's REALLY got it going on, her kids should STILL be taken care of and/or have a roof over their heads, right?! Women love to claim independence, BUT when it comes down to it, some still expect for the man to "provide" the very things she can provide for herself.

The way I see it, as long as I have my own education, money & drive, my family/kids won't suffer if my man just so happened to be laid off.

If people would learn NOT to be so co-dependent on the other person & learn how to provide for THEMSELVES, they wouldn't be looking so sad the minute their parnters get fired or laid off. An entire family shouldn't fall down all b/c the man doesn't have a job; if that happens, that says moreso about the woman than the man, especially considering the woman was supposed to have enough money/education/drive for HERSELF that she could take care of herself & her family regardless of whether or not someone was pitching in or not.

People who live about their means are usually the 1s who prioritize what's in someone ELSE's wallet the most. The woman with little education or little money is always going to prioritize money more than love b/c of her lack in knowing how to be independent & to live a good/comfortable life with OR without another person.

The same goes for children. Yes, children SHOULD have both parents, BUT just b/c a woman is left to fend for herself with her children doesn't mean that she's any less of a provider. Sure, it'd be NICE if the father would pitch in & help build the family structure, BUT if he doesn't, that shouldn't make/break the family dynamic IF the mother is doing what she's supposed to.

Problem is, some women want a man to be something (cough: provider) that even she can't be by/to herself. Women want to be co-dependent but yet got the nerve to be measuring a man's "manhood" all on what's in his wallet. If women would spend MORE time making sure their OWN wallets offer enough financial security for themselves, they wouldn't be so deadset on what someone else has going for them or not.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a man who has money, especially if the woman has it too, BUT straight measuring a man's ability to provide strictly on whether or not he currently has a job is a flawed system of measurement.

Plus, there are PLENTY of rich/financially stable people who PROVE that love without happiness is pointless. Even those who "have it all" can be miserable & still feel like they are "missing" something if ALL they have is money & nothing else. Love may not pay the bills, BUT the woman who needs a man to do everything isn't paying the bills either! Money that's ill-managed doesn't pay bills either!

Both please. Thanks.

Here's my thing. If you just want money, to be spoiled & to have basically everything LESS than a commitment, there's nothing wrong with prioritizing money over everything else. BUT relationships aren't business partnerships, nor should they be treated like 1. If a person feels that love is less important than money than they oughta ALSO choose the single life more than a relationship/marriage.

What I would look for in a relationship is love. To seek "relationship". I really want to know if I could love that person, and could they love me or what would make them give love to someone. Even if it isn't me.

What would make one enter a relationship or stay in a relationship for me is love. Wanting to commit and committing (sp?).

Is relationship about getting to know someone and let them get to know you? Whatever potential is in you, or who you are based on life experience or upbringing? Will that help one to determine what the other will bring into the relationship?

IMHO, I don't think money really has any place in the beginning of a 'relationship'. Is it possible to have the same conversation of getting to know each other with someone over a shared home-made cup of coffee in your thermos, as you can have at a 5-Diamond restaurant? Money is like one of the results of what a person can accomplish, like developing something through effort and desire and perhaps a little opportunity thrown in. So even if they lost everything, they know how to restore it back because what it took for them to achieve it, is still available to them because that is who they are and what they can do. They have that wisdom or knowledge. Money (since it's the comparison here) didn't make them, they made the money, right?

All the posts are so thoughtful. I truly appreciate them all. Please continue....

There's no right or wrong response and the honesty posted here is great

@beetle

no, not a trick question.

a thread on the Relationships board

Eh. Love don't pay the bills. I think people need to snap out of it and be realistic.



Love is great, but money is necessary. I want and need both.

Not saying he needs to have lots of money, just that our ideas about finances need to be in sync. Money should be important to him as it is to me.

This song best describes my current state of mind 😄 AND I LOVE THIS SONG 😄

Say you were waiting for the train/bus, (your car getting an oil change, standing in line for something, w/e) and a person that is attractive to you stands next to you and and starts a friendly chat with you. You can tell this person is at least interested in your opinion of the train schedule, the vehicle, a billboard on the wall, w/e and vice versa. Remember, I said 'the person is attractive' to you, so not someone easily forgettable (after all, we don't want relationships with people we forget). What would be your initial thoughts about this person?

Posted by CappyLuv30

Initial thoughts: "Wow he's hot. What does he want from me? Why's he talking to me? What's his motive? He's hot."

LOL I kid you not.

LOL

cappyluv, What's "hot"? is that what triggers those questions?

Posted by CappyLuv30


But if I had to choose between love and money....Love wins.

So love initiates your interest in developing a relationship and is what will keep you committed when problems come?

hey guys, i did want to comment on some of the responses...

so the following posts are just that ... I'm not hogging the thread! 🙂

Cappyluv,

Yes, I do get the "hot" word in that sense. 🙂 But what is motivating you to askyourself those kinds of questions? you mention skepticism. so, should he NOT find you interesting?

I may be wrong, but I noticed that all the guys (so far) chose love over money as their relationship motivator and keeper, and the women have varying opinions.

Anyone can answer the following, would like the male perspective as well.

Is it because being a provider is a "given" for men. It's wired into them, so it doesn't take much conscious thought about it? It's something they "DO".

Love, on the other hand, may not necessarily seem to be a "given" for them, but more a pursuit of a gift. Is the stimulus for men making money more for the pursuit of what it (money) will provide for them to receive the love of the object of their affection, rather than just having money? (Did I ask that right?)

Or is that the women who are more concerned about the guy providing only due to the possibility that they (the women) could lose their jobs or not make enough money to support the family?

So if they are single women and can support themselves, is it that they want to have a little more to raise their standard of living? Not loving?

Could it be that men value love more than women?

Could this be why the male millionaires (mentioned on this thread by a few women) were dicks, because they weren't feeling the "love" from their women?

Again, I'm only going by the responses and the men agree on choosing love together 100% so far...

Posted by CappyLuv30

Hmmm never saw it from that perspective. I guess I'm just too cautious when it comes to all this love stuff. It takes me a bit to warm up.

I like this psychoanalysis. 😉

Ok, you are looking at him from the prospect of a romantic relationship (i.e.: he's hot! -- 😉)

I get your point. Love is your motivator -- but what makes you even consider him that way that maybe scares you? Is it something tangible/intangible?

cappy,

"hook me mentally/intellectually to really impress me"

I see. And you have said that love is what makes you begin and stay in a relationship. So what you say makes sense.

As far as my asking you about being afraid and you said it's not being afraid it's more "caution", I think you're mixing the two. Talking to someone is one thing, and no, I don't think you are afraid to simply "talk" to someone. But that is not what this scenario is. You are not having a casual conversation with someone forgettable, hence your questions to yourself:

"What does he want from me? Why's he talking to me? What's his motive?"

Do you see what I mean? You have "caution" because he interests you on more than the subject of the conversation and caution does have a fear factor. YOu are already thinking of having to open up to him and could you, if the opportunity presented it. You are beginning to "care" what he thinks about you and so on. Do you see what I mean?

cappy, I'm not questioning you to dispute your response about love being your motivator, because you are solidifying it even more. What attracts you is intangible. But please, continue.

I guess I'm just wondering when the other posters on this thread said that a guy not having money could sour their relationship or that they (the women) would not even enter into one with a man who lacked capital (for various reason, which BTW, several others really challenged so eloquently), how would they know if he had money or not in the very beginning? Is he wearing expensive shoes, or something? I'm not saying he should appear homeless in order for one to know he's broke, so let's not go to extremes. But I'm curious as to what, if you are attracted to someone, is really going on?

Posted by CappyLuv30

Posted by pathfinder

Could it be that men value love more than women?

Possibly. Like you mentioned, men are wired differently therefore that 'nurturing' side that we have, they lack. Tis why when a man is in love, they are love sick. All googly eyed and what not. We're more emotional. Love comes easier to us. Maybe we also take love for granted more than men because of this.

click to expand

Interesting.....

Comments on this, anyone?

^ Agree with the Scorp. 100% .

Hmmm, it looks like I've been talking to myself .... cappyluv, why did you delete/hide your comments?

Posted by Beetleguese


My comment was intended to imply that the answer should be a no-brainer; if one puts their needs before their partner's the love is not there. So yes, money sure makes things a whole lot easier, but it comes and goes, real love lasts a lifetime through thick and thin. Obviously many people have differing opinions on what love is...imo above all else it should be selfless.

I agree, it should be a no-brainer, but from who's perspective? Maybe those that chose money feel that their answer is a no-brainer for them.

You said money makes things a whole lot easier. What does it make easier if the relationship is having problems? Unless, money is WHY the relationship is having problems, I guess...

I still have to say, the guys that have posted here are unanimous in their valuing Love more than money, and this is very interesting to me. Makes me look at my husband from a different viewpoint... Hell, it makes me look at all men from a different viewpoint...

It's making me feel all warm and fuzzy...

🙂

Posted by QLIbraMale
why even be in a relationship if moneys more important than love? just marry your wallet or purse lol. Love is an incredible experience lol.

Love is an incredible experience... that money can't buy, right?

I agree money has it's place, because we do need it to exchange for "things".

Are those things what make us feel valuable?

Posted by Beetleguese
Money can enhance a divorce...plenty of couples start out with modest finances and are perfectly happy together. They become more successful, accumulate assets, and start taking each other for granted. Consumerism extends into their emotional needs, cheating and/or boredom often follows.

B, no doubt, you are deep. 🙂

Do you think, then, that it can be the amount of money that effects the relationship -- not just money, per se? Like, if there is real love there, more money will only enhance it, but if the love is becoming stale, then more money will hurt it?

Posted by PandorasBox
both. one influences the other. they are capable of enhancing each other.

Pandora, this is an either/or question 🙂 "Both" doesn't really show much of a commitment to a choice. Is money what you are looking for in a relationship and will make you stay, or is it Love?

Posted by krysrenee7
@Pretty: I agree that money IS important, BUT I think someone's financial status should matter more to each person themselves moreso than judging someone for what's in another person's wallet.

Touch?

Posted by krysrenee7
If people would learn NOT to be so co-dependent on the other person & learn how to provide for THEMSELVES, they wouldn't be looking so sad the minute their parnters get fired or laid off. An entire family shouldn't fall down all b/c the man doesn't have a job; if that happens, that says moreso about the woman than the man, especially considering the woman was supposed to have enough money/education/drive for HERSELF that she could take care of herself & her family regardless of whether or not someone was pitching in or not.

In the context of your post, I see what you mean here, krys*, about the women having her shyt together. But are you taking into account the reality that depending on the size of the family, 1 income may not cut it -- especially the female's? We KNOW in this society, men make more money than women doing the same job. So that can add stress to the female as well, considering her azz is tired when she gets home and the man still may want loving or her participation in handling the household because he's not used to the "shift", just like she's not, right?

"Men work from sun-to-sun, but women's work is never done..."

j/s

🙂

Posted by krysrenee7
@Pretty: I agree that money IS important, BUT I think someone's financial status should matter more to each person themselves moreso than judging someone for what's in another person's wallet.

That's why I think someone's habits regarding money is more important than the actual dollar amount in their wallet. And if a woman has her "own" shxt it shouldn't really matter what he has, considering after all, if she's REALLY got it going on, her kids should STILL be taken care of and/or have a roof over their heads, right?! Women love to claim independence, BUT when it comes down to it, some still expect for the man to "provide" the very things she can provide for herself.

The way I see it, as long as I have my own education, money & drive, my family/kids won't suffer if my man just so happened to be laid off.

I agree with this, especially when one or both are bringing their own children into a new relationship. Otherwise, it Could appear that relationship is not truly founded on love. It may appear like "I love because I need you." Not, "I need you because I love you."

Posted by krysrenee7


Problem is, some women want a man to be something (cough: provider) that even she can't be by/to herself. Women want to be co-dependent but yet got the nerve to be measuring a man's "manhood" all on what's in his wallet. If women would spend MORE time making sure their OWN wallets offer enough financial security for themselves, they wouldn't be so deadset on what someone else has going for them or not.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a man who has money, especially if the woman has it too, BUT straight measuring a man's ability to provide strictly on whether or not he currently has a job is a flawed system of measurement.

Plus, there are PLENTY of rich/financially stable people who PROVE that love without happiness is pointless. Even those who "have it all" can be miserable & still feel like they are "missing" something if ALL they have is money & nothing else. Love may not pay the bills, BUT the woman who needs a man to do everything isn't paying the bills either! Money that's ill-managed doesn't pay bills either!

well, i dropped a jaw on this one...

damn, girl, who are you?

🙂

Posted by CancerLeoCam

Lovers always seek their own level. Lack of love and sensitivity makes me run. "Loving" someone is a way of being. It encompasses you completely. If not, artifice is discovered in time.

Unfortunately, it seems money to survive can keep you from love that you ALSO need to survive. I'm not trying to be a wiseman. Just the facts.

Although I'm not saying that one must have alot of money. But would a lack of sufficient money stop a man from pursuing love? (I say a "man", because a man posted it)

"Sufficient" is relative, of course. Because if that is the case, then is pursuing money first and already having enough before beginning a relationship any different than someone seeking someone with it in order to start one?

As I've posted, all the men on this thread unanimously agree that love is what they seek to begin and stay in a relationship. However, your post presents a thought-provoking point. That although the men's use of money appears to be more honorable than the women's (on this thread), is it really any different?

Anyone can answer as I'm not sure if CLC has left the thread 🙂

Posted by Beetleguese


I've seen it countless times, the excess of money often illuminates the lack of genuine love to begin with, or it is akin to the apple in the garden of eden...temptation...I've got it all and now I want more.

Money does not buy happiness, trust me I know, money can make a person comfortably miserable. Few and far between are those with genuine love and money.

If money is your prerequisite to love, you may have the former, but never the latter.

Love is definitely your motivator and keeper, BG.

You mean having more money than one needs would lead to temptation/boredom, etc., if there is no genuine love there, right?

What if one partner wants more money (than needed -- for honorable purposes like, travel, philanthropy, investing, inheritance, etc.) and the other is content to live with what is already there? They have what they need and a little more, but they are not rich. Yet, the other partner wants to be rich (for the listed reasons, they say), and can see how they can become rich, but this is causing contention in the relationship. Could the true motivator of the relationship be exposed?

Posted by Beetleguese
If one's own needs outweigh those of their partner's then so be it, nothing wrong with that, so long as the person is not deluded into thinking that they are in love.

*for bold text* = I didn't want that thought to get lost.

I'm wondering if being "in love" is what is more being spoken about here on this thread, not so much loving someone.

We want to stay "in love" with someone, not simply love them, becasue you can love someone and not be with them. But you will not be "in love" with someone and want to be apart from them, right?

Posted by pathfinder
Which are you looking for in a relationship?

If you are having problems in your relationship, which would make you stay?

i didn't read the 5 pages of comments but im going to assume that nobody said they are looking for a relationship with somebody who has a lot of money because nobody wants to sound like a golddigger lol

Love, I want to travel that's all I want to do and I have the money but I have no one to love and travel with and enjoy 😢

LOL ^

Posted by i love ewe

Posted by pathfinder
Which are you looking for in a relationship?

If you are having problems in your relationship, which would make you stay?

i didn't read the 5 pages of comments but im going to assume that nobody said they are looking for a relationship with somebody who has a lot of money because nobody wants to sound like a golddigger lol

click to expand

Weellll....they may not be goldiggers, but a few said they wouldn't get involved with someone if they didn't have money -- didn't say it had to be "a lot" though

🙂

Posted by sweethearts
Love, I want to travel that's all I want to do and I have the money but I have no one to love and travel with and enjoy 😢

Stay positive. I think Love will find you.

🙂

Posted by PandorasBox
Money is a bloody cursed thing.. But some curses come in beautiful little temptin packages dont they?

lol