Originally posted by Burning thoughtVery true. I am very involved with someone who is much younger than I am and makes less money. Money does NOT make a relationship.
imo love is the only real contract, everything else including marriage can be broken, including money, children etc, their not strong glue, love is.What with the credit crunch going on at the moment those material money grabbers may end up dating a pauper when their fortune crumbles.
Originally posted by Rogue JediIt's certainly a good start.
So when the one person wants to get married and voices it to their partner, and the partner is elated at the prospect of wedding this particular person, and they agree to get married, it's a good thing ✅
I think a big problem is that we live in a society with often unrealistic expectations about how life should be. Marriage, to a large extent, involves working at it. It means sacrifice, often putting the other person first, something very difficult to do in a me-centered culture, a culture hellbent on selling the illusion of a perfect life.
Originally posted by MindshipEvery relationship I have ever been in I put her first, always, and it always came back on me.
It's certainly a good start.I think a big problem is that we live in a society with often unrealistic expectations about how life should be. Marriage, to a large extent, involves working at it. It means sacrifice, often putting the other person first, something very difficult to do in a me-centered culture, a culture hellbent on selling the illusion of a perfect life.
The one I am in now, she is always putting me first, or at least always wanting to know what I want to do in a given situation, even though it might conflict with what she wants, so that we might find some middle ground. I am very comfortable with it that way, even though it was quite an adjustment for me.
Ideally it should be 50/50 at all times, but let's get real, that aint gonna happen.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Every relationship I have ever been in I put her first, always, and it always came back on me.The one I am in now, she is always putting me first, or at least always wanting to know what I want to do in a given situation, even though it might conflict with what she wants, so that we might find some middle ground. I am very comfortable with it that way, even though it was quite an adjustment for me.
Ideally it should be 50/50 at all times, but let's get real, that aint gonna happen.
Originally posted by MindshipIndeed I am. And there will be times when I need to be put first. I believe in the end it will all balance out. We will bring balance to the force haermm
As time goes by, there will be moments when she'll want you to put her first. You sound ready and able to reciprocate. 👆
Originally posted by dadudemon
However, love literally is a "mind state" that can be measured and found the same in humans. Did my thread talk about the MRIs done on "in-love" people? I thought it did....
blah, I hate to do this man, but I've been studying all day for an exam tomorrow morning and working an a major research paper due Thursday. I want to reply to what you said, but probably wont get the chance, and I know I often forget about it if I don't reply immediately.
not that I don't think you understand what you are saying, just there is likely a jargon issue between how you are describing this stuff and how I understand it. If you can point me even in the general direction of the MRI stuff you are talking about, I'll look at it, just because they will probably be laying it out in a way that is really easy for me, again, not that I don't think you know what you are saying.
I don't think we are too off, I just think you are putting the label "love" on something that is not so specific. Its a form of attribution error I've noticed people make, especially when it comes to neuroscience. Its an attempt to describe neuro functioning based on subjective experience, and not the other way around. I'm just sort of interested in how these researchers describe "love" and the like, as what you have suggested is that there would be a measurable way to describe how much of a subjective feeling a person has at any time, which I can almost assure you (why I want to see the studies) is not possible.
Originally posted by Mindship
It's certainly a good start.I think a big problem is that we live in a society with often unrealistic expectations about how life should be. Marriage, to a large extent, involves working at it. It means sacrifice, often putting the other person first, something very difficult to do in a me-centered culture, a culture hellbent on selling the illusion of a perfect life.
Well said.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What utter nonsense.I earn sagnificantly more money than my partner does mostly due to the fact that my education level is higher than his (I hold a BA (hons) and an MA), and therefore easier to get much higher paid job - without any actual labour.
My partner has no problem nor an issue that I earn, and will most probably always earn more than he.
This doesn't threaten his ''manhood'' or any other macho shit people like to think all men have complex about.We for example have an agreement that once we have children he will be staying at home and I will be working.
The logic behind that is that break in my career would be more costly to my future career than would him.
He has established himself with experience and would have little problem getting a job to the level he deserves.
I need to build my career in a rat race where anyone who falls behind gets left behind.My partner is a chef by the way.
And he is not threatened that I have University and he doesn't. He has chosen this career because thats what he loves to do and enjoys doing.
It will be illogical for him to think that he will earn more than an investment banker or financial planner.I find generalisation like this rather ignorant.
You are the exception. And its not a generalization. A friend of mine is a marriage counselor and i know the stuff is supposed to be confidential but he tells me about his clients all the time. the number one thing he said that was destructive to a marriage is that the women makes more money and is unhappy that the spouse does not. The second most destructive is the husband does not work and the third is infidelity so please be mindful before you start throwing out the "Ignorant" word
Sugar Momma 😆
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.
If you switched the gender and tried to claim that "men only marry for financial stability and not out of love", I would find that sexist too. I'm appalled you would imply that a women would not be able to sacrifice out of love.
Of course people in general would prefer to date someone from the same background and financial situation as themselves, I think this is a general truth for everyone, but to say that someone of either gender, because of their gender, wouldn't marry someone they love because that person isn't rich enough, is sexist.
Originally posted by chithappensI don't see how the person that proposes matters in this. If anything, it gives the man more chance to get with a "woman with a silver spoon", don't you think?
Women hardly ever propose so I don't see your point.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
You are the exception. And its not a generalization. A friend of mine is a marriage counselor and i know the stuff is supposed to be confidential but he tells me about his clients all the time. the number one thing he said that was destructive to a marriage is that the women makes more money and is unhappy that the spouse does not. The second most destructive is the husband does not work and the third is infidelity so please be mindful before you start throwing out the "Ignorant" wordSugar Momma 😆
Why should she be mindful. You obviously are ignorant on the subject, especially seeing how you only quote your personal experience (which, might as well be made up, for example, I know 50 marriage councelours and they all tell me that women making more money is never a reason for breakin up).
On top of that "You are the exception. And it is not a generalization...", that's a joke, right?
Originally posted by Bardock42Why should she be mindful. You obviously are ignorant on the subject, especially seeing how you only quote your personal experience (which, might as well be made up, for example, I know 50 marriage councelours and they all tell me that women making more money is never a reason for breakin up).
I must concede to your point. You don't know Who i know but, what i said was fact. According to your philosophy of the thread, she could be lying and may not even be Married. So that makes anyone on here ignorant if they believe anything that is said on any thread.
Good argument.
😑
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I must concede to your point. You don't know Who i know but, what i said was fact. According to your philosophy of the thread, she could be lying and may not even be Married. So that makes anyone on here ignorant if they believe anything that is said on any thread.
Good argument.😑
You are obviously right that her "evidence" is just as anecdotal as yours...but "she did it, too" doesn't make what you said any better, now does it?
Originally posted by inimalist
blah, I hate to do this man, but I've been studying all day for an exam tomorrow morning and working an a major research paper due Thursday. I want to reply to what you said, but probably wont get the chance, and I know I often forget about it if I don't reply immediately.not that I don't think you understand what you are saying, just there is likely a jargon issue between how you are describing this stuff and how I understand it. If you can point me even in the general direction of the MRI stuff you are talking about, I'll look at it, just because they will probably be laying it out in a way that is really easy for me, again, not that I don't think you know what you are saying.
I don't think we are too off, I just think you are putting the label "love" on something that is not so specific. Its a form of attribution error I've noticed people make, especially when it comes to neuroscience. Its an attempt to describe neuro functioning based on subjective experience, and not the other way around. I'm just sort of interested in how these researchers describe "love" and the like, as what you have suggested is that there would be a measurable way to describe how much of a subjective feeling a person has at any time, which I can almost assure you (why I want to see the studies) is not possible.
No worries.
Also, I agree that it is describing subjective experience based on nerurology. (Your other way around.) The love "mind-state" is measureable.
Here's one...not quite on point with what I was getting at:
"“Brain areas activated when someone looks at a photo of their beloved only partially overlap with the brain regions associated with sexual arousal,” said Arthur Aron, one of the authors from the State University of New York-Stony Brook. “Sex and romantic love involve quite different brain systems.”
Specifically, the scientists found that “love” activated the right ventral tegmental area (VTA) and dorsal caudate body of the brain, which are regions associated with motivation to win a reward. According to another author, Lucy Brown of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, this may explain why romantic love can feel like such a driving factor. In addition, this association may help us understand why depression, murder, and suicide are so strongly related to rejected love."
http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=274
Ah, here's a much longer versions:
""Male brain - female brain
In their work with the lovestruck, the scientists found brain differences between men and women.
"The men had quite a bit more activity in the brain region that integrates visual stimuli. This isn't surprising considering that men support the porn industry and women spend their lives trying to look good for men," says Dr. Fisher.
But she adds there's probably a more anthropological reason at work. Simply put: A man's evolutionary mission is to spread his seed. That won't work if he mates with an 80-year-old grandmother.
"Men have to be able to size up a woman visually to see if she can bear babies," says Dr. Fisher.
The women's brain activities were a bit more puzzling.
The scientists found that women in love had more activity than men in the areas of the brain that govern memories. Dr. Fisher theorizes that this is a "female mechanism for mate choice." There are no visual clues for whether a man is fertile, but if a woman really studies a man and remembers things about his behavior, she can try to determine whether he'd make a reliable mate and father.
Thus, if it sometimes seems like a woman remembers everything -- good and bad -- about a man, "it's not just her being picky. It's an old Darwinian evolutionary strategy."
What's love got to do with it?
In the end, Drs. Fisher and Brown say what they learned from lovers' brains is that romantic love isn't really an emotion -- it's a drive that's based deep within our brains, right alongside our urges to find food and water.
"This helps explain why we do crazy things for love," says Dr. Brown. "Why did Edward VIII give up the throne for Wallis Simpson? The systems that are built into us to find food and water are the things that were also active when he renounced the throne of England."
Now their research is centered on the flip side of love. They've recruited college students who'd just been rejected by their sweethearts. Again, the scientists performed MRI's while these students looked at photos of the objects of their affection.
This time, the results were different, Dr. Brown says. The insular cortex, the part of the brain that experiences physical pain, became very active.
"People came out of the machine crying," she said. "We won't be doing that experiment again for a long time."
This is what I was talking about.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/14/love.science/index.html
I'm trying to find a medical source with all of that delicious science stuff and not the digested versions.
Alas, I am too lazy to continue.
We can be sure that that study and the interpretations of data are not the end all be all of what "love" is. But it brings us closer to an understanding.
He's closer to being correct.
Money is the #1 reason for divorce. Specific reasons are uknown. Still lookin'. (took me five seconds for this first one)
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/35097/top_reasons_people_divorce.html