Poll
39%
61%
Women and Marriage; is it for Love or Money?
I've sat back and listened to many women speak about what is important to them in a relationship, and heard various things, so I wanted some feedback on a broader scale.
What is more important for women in a relationship? Money or Love?
Can a women love, and accept being married to a poor man, with the possibility of raising their social status with hard work, or is the temptation of finding a man with the proverbial silver spoon too great?
Re: Women and Marriage; is it for Love or Money?
Originally posted by Stoic
I've sat back and listened to many women speak about what is important to them in a relationship, and heard various things, so I wanted some feedback on a broader scale.What is more important for women in a relationship? Money or Love?
Can a women love, and accept being married to a poor man, with the possibility of raising their social status with hard work, or is the temptation of finding a man with the proverbial silver spoon too great?
I find this idea sexist.
Originally posted by Naz
I find this idea sexist.
Explain why you feel that this is a sexist subject, because I really don't see it that way. Would you feel the same way if I switched the gender to male instead of female concerning this topic?
I, realize that there are women that have their own careers, and don't need a man to pay or help pay their bills, but I've also heard women in these situations say that they would prefer to date a man that makes a similar salary as they do. I guess this topic is what you make of it.... however I apologize to those women that feel that this subject is sexist.
Depends on the person, generally I would say it goes like this but there are sometimes the rare person who goes on Love but:
-Children, this is the first thing on their minds and Marriage is usually a stepping stone towards it.
-if their young, its simply street cred/brag rights, brag to their friends that they have marriage etc etc, "damn I bet your jelous that ime married" same thing could be for children, but marriage is the case of this thread.
-Money is indeed important, because this links in with children, they often want to spoil the child rotten and be able to buy whatever they want for it and themselves, this is especially selfish kind of women who makes a guy into a credit card, ignoring the fact that a guy who doesnt mind being treated like this is using her as a sex bag.
It depends on age as well, younger girls may be leaning towards brag rights and material possessions, older may be for other things. Many of the reasons are linked to children, brag rights etc
Originally posted by Burning thought
Depends on the person, generally I would say it goes like this but there are sometimes the rare person who goes on Love but:-Children, this is the first thing on their minds and Marriage is usually a stepping stone towards it.
-if their young, its simply street cred/brag rights, brag to their friends that they have marriage etc etc, "damn I bet your jelous that ime married" same thing could be for children, but marriage is the case of this thread.
-Money is indeed important, because this links in with children, they often want to spoil the child rotten and be able to buy whatever they want for it and themselves, this is especially selfish kind of women who makes a guy into a credit card, ignoring the fact that a guy who doesnt mind being treated like this is using her as a sex bag.
Originally posted by Stoic
Explain why you feel that this is a sexist subject, because I really don't see it that way. Would you feel the same way if I switched the gender to male instead of female concerning this topic?I, realize that there are women that have their own careers, and don't need a man to pay or help pay their bills, but I've also heard women in these situations say that they would prefer to date a man that makes a similar salary as they do. I guess this topic is what you make of it.... however I apologize to those women that feel that this subject is sexist.
Here is what makes it sexist:
Originally posted by Stoic
Can a women love, and accept being married to a poor man, with the possibility of raising their social status with hard work, or is the temptation of finding a man with the proverbial silver spoon too great?
Re: Re: Women and Marriage; is it for Love or Money?
Originally posted by Naz
I find this idea sexist.
It all boils down to the dark recesses of what Man And Woman are. Even if a women says she is enlightened and doesn't care about the money its not true. Men are the providers. From pre civilization humans we "Men" have been programed to attract a mate. How did we do this ? We went hunting and brought back a hunk of Elk flesh to feed her. We Built a Shelter for her to be warm and safe from Saber tooth and cave Bears. Times have changed and modern social construct tell women they are equal(which they are in intellect) and can make their own money and be independent and such but those "programed" behaviors are still there. I have many Married friends. And i have seen trouble in their marriage . At a glance your like ,whats the problem, they both work ,they both have good jobs but the wife makes More money than the Husband and that is a constant issue. Case in point: She is a Hospital administrator 6 figure a year earner. Her husband is a Paramedic. He loves his job,and its an admirable job that he worked hard for two years to get the education to do it, but she is always on his case to go back to school and be something More. Why? He makes a good living doing what he enjoys but, she makes More money and this,weather she realizes it or not ,goes back to The Men should be the "Bread winners". It will always be this way. She emasculates him because he doesn't make as much or more than her. I have seen this many times. Its just the nature of us.
Originally posted by SanctuaryMarriage was a sexist thing to begin with. Unmarried women were basically children, and marriage was a man promising to not take advantage of the woman.
Yeah all women wantz teh babiez, even though the rate of childless women has doubled in the last 30 years.Here is what makes it sexist:
It would be a sexist subject if it as about men also, but you did it about women because that stereotype actually exists and it is "acceptable" to talk about women like that.
Divorce is even worse. Losing half of what you own to an abusive emotional *****. It's ridiculous people still feel the need to get married.
Despite how sexist it sounds, women are programmed to find a stable man who can support the family. By stable, I mean a big strong man with lots of testosterone and large in stature so they can be sure the man will hunt down the beasts and survive.
Since it is not the optimal hunting male that is preferred now but we are still stuck with the same mate selecting genetics, the stability has switched from hunting to money and shelter.
Yes. unfortunately, Sanctuary, it's because the women want to be able to raise their children. Regardless of what modern mores have done to us, we still can't shuck our genetics which have a large influence on our behavior.
Of course, just like all things, there are exceptions. And the exceptions are increasing as gender becomes more and more blurred.
For and in depth look into mate selection and tons of things sex, please review the following thread:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=461930
It's quite long but pretty much addresses this thread from the science side.
thread = sexist
generalization = wrong
I'd bet neither are the best indication of who a woman marries. Time and monetary commitment, proximity, likeness, probably way more important than finances or "love"
oh, and additionally, given that love is an ambiguous label that humans attribute to certain mental states and not a measurable empirical phenomenon, it is likely that subconsciously, a woman looking to marry up, would gain those mental states for people with more money.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's quite long but pretty much addresses this thread from the science side.
lol, that is by no means definitive and plays almost no role in the discussion of love. (Interesting though, however there is lots of social psych stuff on this you might find interesting)
Love is a subjective label for a mental state, and thus, might be wholly unrelated to biological attraction processes.
Originally posted by dadudemonYou seem to contradict yourself a bit there. On the one hand you say we can't "shuck" our genetics, yet admit that the more gender roles get blurred the more they become unimportant. A bit odd.
Despite how sexist it sounds, women are programmed to find a stable man who can support the family. By stable, I mean a big strong man with lots of testosterone and large in stature so they can be sure the man will hunt down the beasts and survive.Since it is not the optimal hunting male that is preferred now but we are still stuck with the same mate selecting genetics, the stability has switched from hunting to money and shelter.
Yes. unfortunately, Sanctuary, it's because the women want to be able to raise their children. Regardless of what modern mores have done to us, we still can't shuck our genetics which have a large influence on our behavior.
Of course, just like all things, there are exceptions. And the exceptions are increasing as gender becomes more and more blurred.
For and in depth look into mate selection and tons of things sex, please review the following thread:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=461930
It's quite long but pretty much addresses this thread from the science side.
It's obviously a question whether it is all genetics or whether there's more upbringing influences, but that's the type of discussion that would be interesting. The blind acceptance of the stereotype in the face of empirical prove of the opposite though, is what is sexist. The generalization based on nothing is what Naz and Sanctuary find wrong, I believe.
there is also the fact that humans can toilet train their children, which shows how mailable the genetic influences on behaviour can be.
Even just to say women want a man who can protect and provide, those two things will be defined in radically different ways for different women.
It also goes both ways. Personally, physical attractiveness of a girl is not the main turn on to me. Lots of "hot" girls (which really means girls who dress sluttish and don't have any real personality) repulse me.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, that is by no means definitive and plays almost no role in the discussion of love.
Actually, it plays a large roll in love. So large, in fact, that it is how humans even survived. If we are talking about the same things....are we?
Originally posted by inimalist
(Interesting though, however there is lots of social psych stuff on this you might find interesting)
I'm quite interested, actually.
Originally posted by inimalist
Love is a subjective label for a mental state, and thus, might be wholly unrelated to biological attraction processes.
True that the word "love" has different uses. Doesn't Latan have 4 words for "love"?
Anyway, love in the context we are speaking is romantic love. In which case, love is a hell of a lot more chemical than people would like to admit. Quite a few "involuntary" things happen when one thinks that they are "in love".
Originally posted by Bardock42
You seem to contradict yourself a bit there. On the one hand you say we can't "shuck" our genetics, yet admit that the more gender roles get blurred the more they become unimportant. A bit odd.
Not really. Humans constantly go against what their programmed to do genetically. Shouldn't seem strange that I say we can't shuck our genetics but do so anyway. The genes which influence our behavior are still there...you can't get rid of that without gene-therapy which probably doesn't exist for that yet.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's obviously a question whether it is all genetics or whether there's more upbringing influences, but that's the type of discussion that would be interesting.
One could derive, from reading my post, that it is both. One could also come to that conclusion from reading my other posts on similar subjects.
Yes, I know that that point is not directly aimed at me. But that is what it is.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The blind acceptance of the stereotype in the face of empirical prove of the opposite though, is what is sexist. The generalization based on nothing is what Naz and Sanctuary find wrong, I believe.
Cool. I find generalizations to fail when singularly used.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, it plays a large roll in love. So large, in fact, that it is how humans even survived. If we are talking about the same things....are we?
the question is "do women get married for money or love"
why women are attracted to people is moot. Unless you believe love comes before attraction?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm quite interested, actually.
not my subject of expertise, so I really can't recommend anything. I'd say look into the mere exposure effect and the relationship between subjective love and the amount of resources immediately put into the relationship.
Originally posted by dadudemon
True that the word "love" has different uses. Doesn't Latan have 4 words for "love"?Anyway, love in the context we are speaking is romantic love. In which case, love is a hell of a lot more chemical than people would like to admit. Quite a few "involuntary" things happen when one thinks that they are "in love".
actually, what I am saying is that love is NOT chemical
the chemical limbic activation for love is no different than "Highly excited". It is the other parts of the "conscious" brain that interpret that as love based on other situational factors.
There is no "love" brain state. Love is an entirely subjective human experience.