Marry for Money not Love

1shauna1

I can provide for myself. I just want a man who can provide for himself!

AsaThorsWoman

They also had a major issue with my cheese platter I brought to dinner.

Such a snob... with her cheese.

laynerich15

Girls Take note of this.

iLoveMyPitbull1225

makes sense. love is overrated.

likitisplit

I know of great guys out there -- journalists, teachers, non-profit dudes -- who will probably make great dads. But I personally wouldn't wouldn't advise women pair up with them because, realistically, his salaries just wouldn't be enough to cut it for what they want out of life. But, but, but, "Bank accounts shouldn't matter at all!" And while I agree with that in theory, sorry, a man who can provide for a woman and their children is just much more attractive.

Right, women?

Right

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(14)00003-8/abstract

Abstract

Sex differences in the framing effect within the mating domain (and the underlying negativity bias) were investigated. In three separate studies, men and women evaluated eight prospective mates, each of which was described using either positively or negatively framed attribute information. The key difference between the three studies was the temporal context of the relationship for which the mates were considered (long-term versus short-term) and the quality of mates that were presented to the participants (high quality versus low quality). Overall, women exhibited larger framing effects than men (and in three of the four experimental conditions), and this sex difference was driven by women's greater sensitivity to negatively framed information. This robust sex effect is a manifestation of the greater vigilance that women show within the mating domain (consistent with parental investment theory). At the attribute level, women displayed stronger framing effects than men in 10 of the 11 cases where significant results were found, and these were on attributes that accord with evolutionary principles (e.g., women exhibited larger framing effects for Earning Potential and Ambition while men yielded a larger effect in only one instance for Attractive Face). Finally, the sex differences in framing effects became stronger when evaluating short-term mates as compared to long term ones (in accord with the general guiding principles of Sexual Strategies Theory). The current paper situates the framing effect within an adaptationist framework and proposes, that in many instances, the pattern with which individuals succumb to it is an instantiation of ecological rationality.

What about all of the cases where significant results were not found?

SemperAnticus1643

I'm not one to marry for money at all. I have dated men that made/had good money though:

1. Trust Fund Baby. Very nice, funny and treated me well. Didn't work out cause his mother wouldn't get out of our relationship.

2. Oilfield Worker. Very attractive, very nice, treated me well outside of the fact that he slept with his ex wife while we were together. That's an immediate break-up in my book.

3. Banker/Finance. Very attractive, treated me well, engaged. Didn't work out cause we were young and he wasn't ready for marriage.

The man I married was working part time at minimum wage when we got married. His pay went up the longer we stayed together and he was making decent money up until the point of our separation. Our pending divorce does not come down to money. It was other aspects of the relationship that were lacking.

Point: My Dad taught me a long time ago that I shouldn't be with someone for their money. I was a smart woman. I live in an age where I can go to college and make a decent living by myself. I don't need a man to "take care" of me. My aunt once told my Dad that her daughter better marry a rich man to provide for her taste in clothes and lifestyle. My dad's response was that his daughter would have her own money. When I got married, I made sure that if anything were to go wrong, I would be able to maintain the lifestyle that I had. Sounds pessimistic to think of my marriage that way but that's how my mind works. I have to take care of myself and my children. I have told the guy that I'm dating that I will not "need him" but I will "want him" if things were to get serious. For me, there is a big difference. So IF I ever marry again, it will be for love and not money.

AllOutof_Bubblegum

There is some merit in this. I love my husband dearly, but if he'd been an aspiring actor or musician when he proposed, I would have re-thought my "yes". At the very least I would have asked him to reshift his focus to a career so he could support the family we both wanted.

That said, money certainly comes second to love. There was a guy a few years before my husband proposed, who begged me to run away with him, he promised me I'd want for nothing, and he'd always take care of me. He had a good promising career, and he made good money. I was quickly becoming bored with his antics though, and rejected his proposal of being his "kept woman". Now I'm married to my husband, and while we don't make much money, it's enough to get by plus put a little in savings. And I'm happier than I ever would have been with that moneyflinging man-twa--uh, I mean...guy.

odusgolp

There is some merit in this. I love my husband dearly, but if he'd been an aspiring actor or musician when he proposed, I would have re-thought my "yes". At the very least I would have asked him to reshift his focus to a career so he could support the family we both wanted.

I married a musician. I'm divorced now.