[effy2014]

I am neither a cynic nor skeptic. Love is our raison d'être. IMHO, it makes humans who we are. Successful relationships depend on love.

I think the part of the "answer", if there is one, depends upon a proper definition of love. If love is defined as chemistry alone, I would agree with the skeptics. I do not believe in love at first sight and I agree with Still that it grows in a developing relationship. My SO had plenty of money in her marriage and plenty of emptiness and unhappiness. As CW writes, the trade of material possessions for love is a no brainer.

I am sure you would all be surprised if I told you that I was reading a book about love (I hear the groans). It's entitled Love Sense by Dr. Sue Johnson. She advances the theory that love is an emotional attachment and dependence on another. It does not give you a theory on how you fall in love, but I agree with her wholeheartedly. I am truly attached and emotionally dependent on my SO.

People fall in love for all of the qualities and characteristics that many have mentioned. Money and looks can certainly be factors, but each of us has our own "list" that accords different weight to the qualities and characteristics meaningful to us. But we should only marry or commit when we are emotionally attached and dependent. It's the glue that keeps people together when the stress of life rains down on us. The lack of an emotional attachment causes people to think that bringing 3rd parties into their bedroom will make them happier when they are just chasing the elusive life changing attachment.

[jen1447]

What about your genes Jen? And you were never in love?

My genes are no different, and of course I've been in love silly. I went thru the required romance disaster at a very young age tho and I was forced to kind of reconcile the realities before I should have had to - that whole "yes you can actually live without this person" acknowledgement has a way of taking the power out of the concept of true love. I'm not saying love (whatever it is) doesn't exist, but you're best off when you get on terms with it rather than letting it control you.

[atskitty2]

sp, you took the thread right out of my mouth
As my thread on socioeconomic compatibility developed & as I thought more about it, I was going to direct my thread this way, more specifically

I think this is about what it is we need/want & what we value as we discussed in my thread, and I believe it's sp who brought that point to light. One of my girlfriends is hell bent on finding a handsome RICH man the second time around - she's dated very little in the 10+ years she's been single. It's very sad to me.

I think for me, I'm keeping it all open. I have had love. I believe it was genuine love, and that was great. We were financially comfortable as well, and that was great.
Sometimes I don't know if I'd bother getting married again anyway. But if I did, I can't say I'd marry only for money. I can say that I would NOT marry someone due to lack of it. Make sense? At my age, I simply don't wish to put myself in a position of potential financial hardship with a man who cannot manage money, or work to earn his way. That's just not a sacrifice I'll make.
Looks, while I wouldn't marry for that, are important to me moreso than ever, oddly enough. I'd really like to have a lusty, passionate experience with my mate, as that was lacking previously.

[effy2014]

I do find it interesting that the women are more cynical than the men are about love and emotional attachment. Conventional wisdom would be the reverse. Perhaps it's the type of man drawn to post on a woman's forum. Or maybe the women are men and the men are unicorns.

[atskitty2]

^^lol

[DreamP346]

I do find it interesting that the women are more cynical than the men are about love and emotional attachment. Conventional wisdom would be the reverse. Perhaps it's the type of man drawn to post on a woman's forum. Or maybe the women are men and the men are unicorns.

Uh oh, Effy, you caught me.

Because I think its because most us are smart women who weren't brainwashed into believing our prince charming would come along and save the day. We thought for ourselves and have made decisions based on logic and experience, either way that may lead.

A lot of my belief in marriage is colored by my understanding of marriage from my culture where arranged marries are still the norm. Back in my parents days, the first time a couple would even talk to each other was on the wedding night. But still people made it work and most couples were happy. When these marriages were set up, financial stability was a major determining factor. Also, for many poor women, marrying a man with money may be the only option to survival. That is why I say marrying for love is often a western luxury. To me, neither option is deplorable. It's like sex for money. I have no problem with it. Marrying for money in so many ways is legal prostitution. If somebody can make it work, then good for them.

Marriage is a financial partnership. Even marriages with poor intimacy can survive if there are other factors such as social and financial stability. Why do we see so many women on this forum complaining about, "everything else is perfect except the sex." I truly believe marriage is a business that 2 people built together and children are the product that they create and distribute. Love makes it so much nicer and fun but it is not needed for it to be successful.

[Magnetism]

I wouldn't ONLY marry for money/looks, but I think both have a role in finding a long-term mate. I've seen female friends date guys that have no jobs, are broke, and have no ambition. They don't turn out well. I think it's important for a partner to have financial stability and goals.

As far as looks, sexual attraction is important. If it's not there, it's going to be hard to have sex.

With that aside, character, compatibility and love matter. What I find attractive or financially appealing may not be appealing to someone else.

[jns]

Money is reasonably well defined although there is disagreement on what a lot of money is. Looks are not so well defined, especially if you are going across ethnic and societal boundaries. My wife doesn't consider herself as beautiful or cute. She is definitely too short for the ideal in the society she grew up in. Her skin, although light, is not light enough. I look and I see something different. Short lends itself to cuteness. I would prefer that she got some sun to darken her skin a bit, but I am not disappointed. In the USA, she is cute and exotic. The same thing works the other way. She sees me as handsome because I am tall and fair skinned. I see myself as relatively ordinary in most ways. It is a good mix where I see her as beautiful and she sees me as handsome but neither one of us sees ourselves as a real catch.

I think the ability to earn money and the ambition to actually do that are important for a relationship in at least one of the partners. I have less of a problem with one earning a lot less than the other as long as the ambition is there. The one earning less doesn't really have to earn money, just be ambitious about something, whether it be starting a family or growing vegetables to take to a soup kitchen.

[effy2014]

I couldn't disagree with you more, SP. It has nothing to do with Prince Charming. I do not believe that most or even many solid marriages are business arrangements based upon money or looks. People look for emotional connections to be happy.

A lot of my belief in marriage is colored by my understanding of marriage from my culture where arranged marries are still the norm. Back in my parents days, the first time a couple would even talk to each other was on the wedding night. But still people made it work and most couples were happy. When these marriages were set up, financial stability was a major determining factor. Also, for many poor women, marrying a man with money may be the only option to survival. That is why I say marrying for love is often a western luxury. To me, neither option is deplorable. It's like sex for money. I have no problem with it. Marrying for money in so many ways is legal prostitution. If somebody can make it work, then good for them.

Marriage is a financial partnership. Even marriages with poor intimacy can survive if there are other factors such as social and financial stability. Why do we see so many women on this forum complaining about, "everything else is perfect except the sex." I truly believe marriage is a business that 2 people built together and children are the product that they create and distribute. Love makes it so much nicer and fun but it is not needed for it to be successful.

What makes you think arranged marriages were happy ones? Certainly not because they stayed together. The same cultural pressures that made a woman accept a man she had never met compelled her to stay with that man forever. They made it work because they had to. As for happiness, who would know? A woman's feelings rarely mattered.

Marriage may be a financial partnership but that is not all a marriage is or should be. Yes, people poorly matched may be able to make a financial partnership work . . . but at what emotional cost? A lifetime of unhappiness? As for the men and women who write that "everything else is perfect except for the sex", they are liars. When you ask even basic questions the truth comes out. Sex is the first thing to suffer when the underlying emotional connection is torn or shattered. Sex is generally a symptom, not a cause of marital difficulties.

What happens when one or both feel lonely, unappreciated or deprived of the intimacy they need and want? One or the other will cheat to fill the void. Or turn to porn. Maybe they will try to add a third person because there is no connection to break. But if they stay together, is a "successful marriage"? Only if you define the goal as "stay together no matter what." If success has any emotional component, then the marriage has survived but the contracting parties have been defeated.

I don't need a Princess but I do need emotional attachment. BB found happiness with a monetarily poor woman who was wealthy in the ability to fulfill his emotional needs. I found it with a barely-high school graduate whose giving spirit and passion keeps me emotionally fulfilled every moment of the day. My previous relationships, ones in which contracting theory played a part, were miserable failures. I'm glad I'm not the cynic.

[Something_Awesome]

I wouldn't ONLY marry for money/looks, but I think both have a role in finding a long-term mate. I've seen female friends date guys that have no jobs, are broke, and have no ambition. They don't turn out well. I think it's important for a partner to have financial stability and goals.

As far as looks, sexual attraction is important. If it's not there, it's going to be hard to have sex.

With that aside, character, compatibility and love matter. What I find attractive or financially appealing may not be appealing to someone else.

Looking for financial stability is not the same as looking to marry someone wealthy.