marrying for love, money, a combination?

[LittleTiger]

However, I believe people can learn to love each other as long as nothing significant is missing.

 

'...the sex is kind of bad...'

 

I think that says it all - unless you think that sex is not significant in marriage?

[smoky eyes]

'...the sex is kind of bad...'

 

I think that says it all - unless you think that sex is not significant in marriage?

 

Bufff, I don't know. I think it is significant, but I also know we managed to carry on with it being indifferent for quite a while, to the point where I had almost decided it didn't matter to me. Nor do I want to get blinded by the all the sparks flying with the other lover, not that that's all there is there either.

[carhill]

Any thoughts?

 

You're 29, in the early stages of mature adult life. Examine the third choice.

[Mr. Lucky]

I'm not sure why it's been decided that "I don't really love" the poorer guy, except that apparently if I really did I'd be so head over heels that none of this would matter. I do love the poor guy, but I'm also trying not to shoot myself in the foot; being with him will mean a) being the primary breadwinner, b) possibly being borderline poor forever anyway and c) a lot of other headaches like moving him to my country to increase MY gainful employment chances thus going through a lot of red tape and separation and pretty much erasing his chances of getting a good job which I didn't enter into because they didn't seem directly relevant.

If you truly love him, why do you have so little faith in him? There's lots of immigrant success stories, some beyond one's wildest dreams...

 

Mr. Lucky

[edgygirl]

If you truly love him, why do you have so little faith in him? There's lots of immigrant success stories, some beyond one's wildest dreams...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

It sounds like he probably doesn't haven't degrees, a formal education. And women can tell when a man won't get there professionally-wise... some men are just not ambitious or care about their professional life and bringing money home.

[knitwit]

I am going to throw out a few cliches that, in my experience, have been true:

 

Love isn't enough. It is necessary, but not sufficient. To find out if what you have IS enough, you must know yourself, know what is most important to you, and what will work for you. To thine own self be true.

 

You don't appear to have "it" with Guy #1, the money-maker. Five years is a blink in the eye when you are happy with someone. He is not your fella.

 

I think you're smart to question the future with Guy #2. Have you sat down and discussed your concerns? You might be surprised! I know two men who got their **** together when their S/Os laid it all on the line. Neither had college degrees- they both went for training in trades, and both make decent, family-sustainable incomes now.

 

I also have to say, it rocks to have one's own degree(s), one's own career. I bring in the bigger income in my family- in fact, pretty much all the wives I know who are working are bringing in the bigger income. At least in the US, it is becoming a lot more common.

 

I don't care that my DH doesn't make as much money as I do. I would care- a lot- if he didn't work, period. I would care a lot if he didn't pride in his work, if he didn't value working. His work ethic, and his actions, meet my emotional needs, my values, in this area.

 

Dr. Harley of "Marriage Builders" has "financial support" as one of the most common emotional needs in women. If this is one of your needs, it is important that you know it, and make your decisions based on it. You will be MUCH happier with a guy who can and does meet your emotional needs (and vice versa).

 

Again, I think it is very smart of you to be thinking clearly about what you need/want in a partner. 29 is a great age for this, IMO. You are old enough now to have your personality fairly settled, your likes/dislikes are being established. You have a great opportunity to find the guy who really fits with you.

 

If you suspect that Guy #2 isn't your guy after all, start dating (but let him know, of course!). I had a few "near misses", really good guys who just weren't entirely right for me. You'll find your guy if you keep looking!

[findingnemo]

You're right there - but you try making a marriage work without it! Unless of course it's openly a 'marriage of convenience'.

 

There is nothing wrong with somebody choosing to marry for money. Provided they are honest about it and accept what they are giving up......and being honest means the husband knows about the arrangement too. In my book, it's a heinous crime to pretend that you love someone when you don't - if they marry you based on that lie, you're basically stealing their life!

 

It's a pretty safe bet that a woman who marries a man she doesn't love (or lust after) for security will be 'happy' until she approaches middle age and the children are becoming independent. That's when she suddenly forgets the original 'deal' and comes down with a nasty case of GIGS.

 

Very true. What happens if you meet someone you love later? An A. Unfortunately women who marry men who don't earn more than them, who are less educated than them or are not as smart as them also often develop GIGS. There is a reason love and compatibility are generally thought to be building blocks of M.

 

Guy #1 really has nothing going for him except the money which can cease to exist tomorrow, and perhaps a sense of adventure (traveling). Don't you want to go to Paris and take evening walks in the rain with the person you love? Go on safari in Africa and make good love in the wilderness? He isn't your kind of lover - the sex is bad. That is BAD for long term prospects.

 

Can't you find a guy who is educated, smart, financially stable, from your country who is good in bed that you can love? You're 29, you have time.

[LittleTiger]

Bufff, I don't know. I think it is significant, but I also know we managed to carry on with it being indifferent for quite a while, to the point where I had almost decided it didn't matter to me. Nor do I want to get blinded by the all the sparks flying with the other lover, not that that's all there is there either.

 

'Quite a while' is not the rest of your life!

 

You had almost decided? Almost means that it did still matter.

 

So just imagine - indifferent sex for the rest of your life?!

[smoky eyes]

 

Can't you find a guy who is educated, smart, financially stable, from your country who is good in bed that you can love? You're 29, you have time.

 

That was the initial plan: leave boyfriend, move back to my home country, get on with it. It all got a bit derailed. We'll see. I'm going home to see the family in a few months anyway. Perhaps I'll see if I can see signs of a future with Guy #2 by then, and if not...

[smoky eyes]

'Quite a while' is not the rest of your life!

 

You had almost decided? Almost means that it did still matter.

 

So just imagine - indifferent sex for the rest of your life?!

 

True, true. It seems a shame though. Oh well.

[findingnemo]

That was the initial plan: leave boyfriend, move back to my home country, get on with it. It all got a bit derailed. We'll see. I'm going home to see the family in a few months anyway. Perhaps I'll see if I can see signs of a future with Guy #2 by then, and if not...

 

It's good to be practical and not think in terms of love:love: only. Perhaps he's a singer or an actor or even a painter? Who knows? Go home and take a break even if you decide #2 is okay. Sometimes stepping out of a situation will expose you to other possibilities.

[soccerrprp]

OP,

 

I wonder if and when you select your partners that you will be so greatly influenced by your need to find someone who has the right income potential that you are not looking for material comfort instead of a meaningful, healthy relationship? What if how much the person makes IS more important than you finding love? What if you are the type to compromise your emotional instincts to that of material wealth. I wonder if you are one prone to settling for material wealth at the expense of your emotional health? Just some questions...

 

You may likely find someone that you "love" and makes a very good salary, but is that "love" of the salary? Of the material potential? And if you have children, what does that say about the type of environment you are willing to raise them in? I don't know you, of course, but be careful of what you desire here.

 

I know someone like you. Someone I dated. She's still looking for someone to "love" her. She wants a family, but her monetary expectations have thus far hindered her from finding "true love." And she does want "true love." She recognizes the infinite importance of emotional support, affection and commitment needed for a healthy life. She wants to raise children in a supportive, loving environment. Will money guarantee that? No.

 

What is acceptable income for you? Other than the basic needs, enough to travel? Is there an end to your income requirements or are you destined to look for the partner that makes the most? Does it matter if he's happy in his job? Whether he spends enough time with you and your future children?

 

Eh. I know. It's not only about love, but a relationship overshadowed by anything else is a long road to regret and sadness.

 

Just my 2-cents....

[concerned-friend]

'...the sex is kind of bad...'

 

I think that says it all - unless you think that sex is not significant in marriage?

 

I missed that bit. Because she mentioned it, it must be significant. In which case I'd vote for neither.

[smoky eyes]

OP,

 

I wonder if and when you select your partners that you will be so greatly influenced by your need to find someone who has the right income potential that you are not looking for material comfort instead of a meaningful, healthy relationship? What if how much the person makes IS more important than you finding love? What if you are the type to compromise your emotional instincts to that of material wealth. I wonder if you are one prone to settling for material wealth at the expense of your emotional health? Just some questions...

 

You may likely find someone that you "love" and makes a very good salary, but is that "love" of the salary? Of the material potential? And if you have children, what does that say about the type of environment you are willing to raise them in? I don't know you, of course, but be careful of what you desire here.

 

I know someone like you. Someone I dated. She's still looking for someone to "love" her. She wants a family, but her monetary expectations have thus far hindered her from finding "true love." And she does want "true love." She recognizes the infinite importance of emotional support, affection and commitment needed for a healthy life. She wants to raise children in a supportive, loving environment. Will money guarantee that? No.

 

What is acceptable income for you? Other than the basic needs, enough to travel? Is there an end to your income requirements or are you destined to look for the partner that makes the most? Does it matter if he's happy in his job? Whether he spends enough time with you and your future children?

 

Just my 2-cents....

 

Those are all good questions and I do ask myself them (although, with respect, I think you're projecting a little of your ex onto me). It is ironic that I'm the author of this thread, because I'm really, for REAL, not particularly materialistic (I am currently renting a room in a house with a bunch of people and a dying cat although I could afford better because I'd rather go on a few more weekend trips this summer).

 

All the guys I dated in my early 20s were penniless (who isn't at that age)? With my ex, I realized that money doesn't buy happiness, but it buys a good time. We were a nice couple, affectionate, always had a great time together, it's not like I was selling out. I didn't have the "butterflies," but I think we could have built a good family. So the opposite question is, how much are the butterflies worth?

[findingnemo]

The butterflies are priceless!!!

[CarrieT]

The butterflies are priceless!!!

 

But, but, but.... the butterflied are ephemeral and DO NOT LAST!

 

That is what is known as the Honeymoon Period and usually diminishes after nine to fourteen months (hence the need for long engagements).

[findingnemo]

That is true, Carrie. But the idea of going into an M with zero butterflies is a bad one. Smoky needs to find a way to make guy #2 work or leave them both and wait to meet one with most of the things she needs.

 

And still, the butterflies are priceless. While they may disappear, they tend to come back...and disappear again...and come back. That's love.

[Nyla]

Financial security may be high on someone's list of priorities but it certainly isn't one of the five love languages.

 

"Gifts" is a love language. Can't buy gifts with no money.

[mitchell]

I don't think you "love" either of these guys. If you're here asking this question, you certainly don't "love" either one enough to get married.

 

When you meet the "one", you won't be here asking this question.

[LittleTiger]

"Gifts" is a love language. Can't buy gifts with no money.

 

I think perhaps you need to brush up on your understanding of love languages.

 

'Receiving gifts' is a love language and it has nothing to do with money or financial security.

 

When someone with that love language receives gifts, they feel loved because of the thought behind the gift, not the value of the gift.

 

If they have a favourite wild flower, for instance, and their partner makes a special journey to pick a single flower to give them, they will feel loved. However, if their partner bought them a Porsche or a Ferrari, and they couldn't drive or had no interest in cars, they would feel hurt, not loved.

[KathyM]

I don't think you should marry either one of them necessarily. If you marry the guy you are not in love with, your ex, then you will live as roommates basically, and you will always feel like you missed out on something (being married to someone you love). If you marry the guy who has poor potential to support a family, you will always be struggling, and lack of money to pay the bills will erode those feelings, and you'll find yourself questioning your decision to marry him later on. You really do need both love and some amount of ability to support a family if you intend to have a family. You may want to figure out if there is a way that you both could manage with your current finances and consider maybe just having one child and living a more modest lifestyle with more modest vacations. It might work. I know several young couples in their 20s who are married and have one or two children, and have very modest incomes but they manage just fine, but live rather modestly. Maybe it is doable with this new guy, but you need to figure out what the budget would be and if you could afford to raise one child on the family income you would be making. I know several couples who have made it work. But if there is no way that your combined income could support a child, then it's probably best to let him go.

[TiredFamilyGuy]

Tricky issue, OP. So far I'm with the "marry neither" camp.

 

Sure, Marriage is -hell yes! -a contract and fiscal and logistical arrangement so i've no problem with you settling. If you go with the guy-you-think-will-be-poor, no probs. But if the other guy thinks you're in love with him when you really are so not, that spells disaster. Or creepiness. Just think you could just wait until it all went wrong and say "I only married you for the money". Or he could get sick and you could say "But I only married you for the money you could earn" or he might lose his job and you could say "I only married you for the money" etc etc. etc. you get the idea, I'm with Mr Lucky on this one.

[Nyla]

I think perhaps you need to brush up on your understanding of love languages.

 

'Receiving gifts' is a love language and it has nothing to do with money or financial security.

 

When someone with that love language receives gifts, they feel loved because of the thought behind the gift, not the value of the gift.

 

If they have a favourite wild flower, for instance, and their partner makes a special journey to pick a single flower to give them, they will feel loved. However, if their partner bought them a Porsche or a Ferrari, and they couldn't drive or had no interest in cars, they would feel hurt, not loved.

 

Receiving gifts is my love language, so I know what that entails.

 

I once had an ex give me a paperback book for Christmas. I was disgusted because of how cheap it was.

 

While the gifts I receive from my husband do not have to break the bank, I would get turned off if my husband gave me some measly paperback book for a special occasion.

 

Thank you for the lesson. I think it might be helpful for you to realize that there are different elements to love languages, which you may not be aware of.

 

There is nothing wrong with wanting someone financially stable, but marrying someone for money is very misguided.

 

When my husband and I met, we both had very good jobs. The recession was very hard on both of us and my husband was unemployed for an entire year, while I returned to school in order to further my education. Our marriage is stronger for having gone through financial hardship. I learned that money can be gone in an instant.

 

I knew a woman who said she wouldn't marry a man who didn't own a home. I thought she was shallow and money grubbing. Women who think like her have nothing to hold their marriages together when financial difficulties hit them.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Nyla

[LittleTiger]

Receiving gifts is my love language, so I know what that entails.

 

I once had an ex give me a paperback book for Christmas. I was disgusted because of how cheap it was.

 

While the gifts I receive from my husband do not have to break the bank, I would get turned off if my husband gave me some measly paperback book for a special occasion.

 

Thank you for the lesson. I think it might be helpful for you to realize that there are different elements to love languages, which you may not be aware of.

 

I am very aware of how the love languages work - and of the psychology behind them.

 

If you were 'disgusted' that your ex gave you a 'cheap' paperback book for a special occasion it was because:

 

a) the book wasn't special to you in any way, ie he put no thought into choosing the gift.

 

b) your own language defines 'cheap' as 'not special'.

 

c) your ex had enough money to buy something of reasonable value (and perhaps he usually did) but he chose to buy you something cheap on this occasion.

 

Those are just obvious possibilities of what might be going on but different people have different underlying psyche which will affect their reaction to the gifts they receive.

 

If the same book had been an 'out of print' favourite that you had been looking for for several years and he had spent months on the Internet searching for it, and if it had then cost ten times the price of a normal paperback, I suspect your level of appreciation would have been entirely different.

 

Same gift, but with a very different meaning - for you.

 

My post was a response to your comment that giving and receiving gifts requires financial security. In most cases, it doesn't. Not unless the cost of the gift is important within the receivers own personal value system.....and, I should clarify, that doesn't make the person shallow or greedy, it just means that their experiences in life have taught them that having money is important.

[Nyla]

I am very aware of how the love languages work - and of the psychology behind them.

 

If you were 'disgusted' that your ex gave you a 'cheap' paperback book for a special occasion it was because:

 

a) the book wasn't special to you in any way, ie he put no thought into choosing the gift.

 

b) your own language defines 'cheap' as 'not special'.

 

c) your ex had enough money to buy something of reasonable value (and perhaps he usually did) but he chose to buy you something cheap on this occasion.

 

Those are just obvious possibilities of what might be going on but different people have different underlying psyche which will affect their reaction to the gifts they receive.

 

If the same book had been an 'out of print' favourite that you had been looking for for several years and he had spent months on the Internet searching for it, and if it had then cost ten times the price of a normal paperback, I suspect your level of appreciation would have been entirely different.

 

Same gift, but with a very different meaning - for you.

 

My post was a response to your comment that giving and receiving gifts requires financial security. In most cases, it doesn't. Not unless the cost of the gift is important within the receivers own personal value system.....and, I should clarify, that doesn't make the person shallow or greedy, it just means that their experiences in life have taught them that having money is important.

 

You did say "most" cases, which means that you realize that there are some situations where the cost of the gift makes a difference. Again, thank you for your lesson. I choose to define Love Languages in a way that makes sense for me and my marriage. Hope that makes sense.

 

For example, if my husband only spent $300 on my engagement ring, I would not have felt loved because that would have shown that he doesn't think I am worth the cost of a nicer ring.

 

For special occasions, I don't think a cheap drugstore gift is appropriate, unless we are talking about a sentimental card. I would never do such a thing to anyone I care about. My ex only wanted to spend ten dollars on me at Christmas and I thought that was tacky. He could have spent more and yes, if it was a special book I would have been happier.