Would you marry for money?

jonsnow

I think most rational people weigh up the whole package.Most people tend to go for someone with around the same earning capacity as themselves.Ireland has clear class parameters.People might date people from other social backgrounds but they almost invariably settle down with someone from around the same background as themselves.ie guards/teachers/nurses/social workers, accountants, engineers and solicitors, doctors and dentists.You are mad if you marry someone purely because they have money and you are equally mad if you do not consider it a factor to be taken into consideration at all.You are trying to build a life together what you both earn does and should matter.

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

I'm more interested in things like the kind of person he is, and actually wanting to be with him for HIM rather than his bank account.

Your a rarity so.

Dudess wrote: »

... Gold Digging B***

Women are rarely blatant 'gold digging b*****' but without doubt the mans financial status is in quite high up that check list that all women have.

Men have a checklist too but it's quite short and money is hardly ever on it.

If Angelina Jolie worked selling donuts in that little kiosk on O'Connell St, I can guarantee it that there would be a thread entitiled:

"Anyone see that babe selling Donuts??" :eek::eek:

If George Clooney was unknown and was a builder most women wouldn't look twice. Few horny chicks might.

Abitar wrote: »

And with such a high rate of male 'yes' answers... we're the bitches.

The men are being honest, wimminz be trying to save face :cool:

/legs it

we'llallhavetea_old

OutlawPete wrote: »

Your a rarity so.



Women are rarely blatant 'gold digging b*****' but without doubt the mans financial status is in quite high up that check list that all women have.

Men have a checklist too but it's quite short and money is hardly ever on it.

If Angelina Jolie worked selling donuts in that little kiosk on O'Connell St, I can guarantee it that there would be a thread entitiled:

"Anyone see that babe selling Donuts??" :eek::eek:

If George Clooney was unknown and was a builder most women wouldn't look twice. Few horny chicks might.



The men are being honest, wimminz be trying to save face :cool:

/legs it

you're callin me a liar?????!!!! :mad:

you're probably right about the george clooney thing except its not money that makes him more attractive, its the roles he plays etc, we get swept up in it.

but in real life, i would not marry a man because he was rich, tbh any wealthy lads i've come across are complete toss pots and i cannot relate to them, give me a poor, well hung man anyday :pac:

Abi

OutlawPete wrote: »

The men are being honest, wimminz be trying to save face :cool:
/legs it

/trips pete up


Troll! :pac:

OutlawPete

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

you're callin me a liar?????!!!! :mad:

Yes, but your cute when you lie, makes me want you :cool:

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

you're probably right about the george clooney

Damn straight sister.

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

thing except its not money that makes him more attractive, its the roles he plays etc, we get swept up in it.

This is no offense to you personally, more to women in general (:pac:) but women 'get swept up' in life, not just movies.

I have mates getting married and the women are in cloud cuckoo land spending money they do not have and the guy are afraid to say anything in case they wake up like Mr Bobbit did :cool:

They are all about the dress, the flowers, the hair etc etc.

Same with women's magazines, they are fantasy magazines.

At least when guys have magazines we just wanna see your bits, but women's magazines airbrush the fcuk out of each other.

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

but in real life, i would not marry a man because he was rich,

No, I don't think you would, however are you not going to be more attracted to a guy who looks like he can look after you and protect you but he isn't that great looking?

Over a guy whos good looking alright but he's in debt, no job and he can't provide for you.

Which one would would you be more attracted to?

Both have massive knobs by the way :pac:

plein de force

no
i'd have to be really into the guy mentally, emotionally and physically to marry them

Cupcake_Crisis

Definately not. Money cant stop someone being a tool and driving you mad

Is that a long way of saying 'in love with'?

we'llallhavetea_old

OutlawPete wrote: »

Yes, but your cute when you lie, makes me want you :cool:

whats your bank balance like? :P

I have mates getting married and the women are in cloud cuckoo land spending money they do not have and the guy are afraid to say anything in case they wake up like Mr Bobbit did

They are all about the dress, the flowers, the hair etc etc.

ew.

No, I don't think you would, however are you not going to be more attracted to a guy who looks like he can look after you and protect you but he isn't that great looking?

Over a guy whos good looking alright but he's in debt, no job and he can't provide for you.

Which one would would you be more attracted to?

Both have massive knobs by the way

honestly? i've never had much money and don't really think i ever will. so its always going to boil down to personality, looks, knob size etc.

suppose i can't really answer your question because i need to know the two men in question. and also, thats his debt, not mine!

DazMarz

Yes I would. I'd have no problem with that. If they wanna divorce me after I do my bit of philandering, I get half their money anyway. They'll just have to put up with my drinking, gambling, going to see Chelsea games ad nauseum, screwing around and so on. Once I'm not on a leash, I'd defo marry for money: preferably a blind, deaf, mute, nymphomaniac billionaire who owns Diageo, a casino and shares in Chelsea Football Club

(yes, I am a complete misanthropic scumbag. You gotta problem with that?!):D

OutlawPete

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

whats your bank balance like? :P

Let's just say it fluctuates :cool: ..

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

i've never had much money and don't really think i ever will. so its always going to boil down to personality, looks, knob size etc.

Fair enough but from my own vast (:)) experience in this area and even just watching friends, women nearly always will be attracted to a guy who looks flush compared to a guy who isn't.

If a girl says to her mate that she a good looking guy, first thing her mates will say is 'what does he do, has he got money' whereas I think guys wouldn't care if she worked in McDonalds if she had a cute bottom.

I think that's almost a primal thing for women to want to be with someone that can take care of them. No matter how much "equality" there is, men are men and women are still women and we cannot escape certain qualities that our sexes naturally are prone for whatever reason that might be.

I'd make a cracking house husband though :cool:

DetectivFoxtrot

OutlawPete wrote: »

This is no offense to you personally, more to women in general (:pac:) but women 'get swept up' in life, not just movies.

I have mates getting married and the women are in cloud cuckoo land spending money they do not have and the guy are afraid to say anything in case they wake up like Mr Bobbit did :cool:

They are all about the dress, the flowers, the hair etc etc.

feckin sweeping generalisation OP! I'm surprised at you. I am SO not like this, neither are a lot of women. tsk!

Abi

DazMarz wrote: »

Yes I would. I'd have no problem with that. If they wanna divorce me after I do my bit of philandering, I get half their money anyway. They'll just have to put up with my drinking, gambling, going to see Chelsea games ad nauseum, screwing around and so on. Once I'm not on a leash, I'd defo marry for money: preferably a blind, deaf, mute, nymphomaniac billionaire who owns Diageo, a casino and shares in Chelsea Football Club

(yes, I am a complete misanthropic scumbag. You gotta problem with that?!):D

Oooh... what a catch! Wanna come hang out in mai mansion?

we'llallhavetea_old

OutlawPete wrote: »

Let's just say it fluctuates :cool: ..



Fair enough but from my own vast (:)) experience in this area and even just watching friends, women nearly always will be attracted to a guy who looks flush compared to a guy who isn't.

If a girl says to her mate that she a good looking guy, first thing her mates will say is 'what does he do, has he got money' whereas I think guys wouldn't care if she worked in McDonalds if she had a cute bottom.

I think that's almost a primal thing for women to want to be with someone that can take care of them. No matter how much "equality" there is, men are men and women are still women and we cannot escape certain qualities that our sexes naturally are prone for whatever reason that might be.

I'd make a cracking house husband though :cool:

i think you're getting confused with what "someone who can take care of them" means to some women.

to me it means a man that worries about me and will defend me and cook me dinner and rub my back until his hand bleeds. not someone who goes and buys me stuff.

OutlawPete

DetectivFoxtrot wrote: »

feckin sweeping generalisation OP! I'm surprised at you. I am SO not like this, neither are a lot of women. tsk!

I didn't say 'All' but ..

I have had too many mates who lost their jobs and their wives went next, to not have that opinion.

Yet, I haven't one mate who left his wife for financial reasons.

Let's face it, part of the reason women are attracted to men is because they can take care of them.

DetectivFoxtrot

OutlawPete wrote: »

I didn't say 'All' but ..


Let's face it, part of the reason women are attracted to men is because they can take care of them.

computer says no.

I like taking care of him!

OutlawPete

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

to me it means a man that worries about me and will defend me and cook me dinner and rub my back until his hand bleeds. not someone who goes and buys me stuff.

I hear you, but that is romance.

I am talking about finance.

Let's be honest here, by far the largest source of stress in most relationships is money. It's the number one cause of arguments between couples.

we'llallhavetea_old

OutlawPete wrote: »

I hear you, but that is romance.

I am talking about finance.

Let's be honest here, by far the largest source of stress in most relationships is money. It's the number one cause of arguments between couples.

well, that's kinda it then. i want romance (:eek:) not finance.

DetectivFoxtrot

OutlawPete wrote: »

Let's be honest here, by far the largest source of stress in most relationships is money. It's the number one cause of arguments between couples.

agreed. but that doesn't automatically mean people will marry for money though

consultech

The "women" in this thread are gas. Face facts ffs; Generalisations exist for a reason. You don't see too many lookers during the morning 9-5 commute, fact.

Dudess

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

want romance (:eek:) not finance.

Song-check time (albeit the opposite sentiments being expressed):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XecTPWJu0wk

OutlawPete

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

well, that's kinda it then. i want romance (:eek:) not finance.

Yeah, so did the women who married friends of mine.

Only, when fights over money matters became everyday occurrences for them, the romance quickly died.

I know three guys who courts forced them from "their" family homes when relationships went sour.

I can only speak from experience and I see women choosing bastards with money and walking all over guys that are not doing so well financially all the time.

DetectivFoxtrot

consultech wrote: »

The "women" in this thread are gas. Face facts ffs; Generalisations exist for a reason. You don't see too many lookers during the morning 9-5 commute, fact.

Am confused

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

Song-check time (albeit the opposite honest sentiments being expressed)

FYP

Dudess

OutlawPete wrote: »

FYP

Oh dear, me feels another song check in me waters...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhUcSbbURyc

(greed that is...)

consultech

DetectivFoxtrot wrote: »

Am confused

They dont need jobs

OutlawPete

DetectivFoxtrot wrote: »

agreed. but that doesn't automatically mean people will marry for money though

I didn't say that they would

DetectivFoxtrot

consultech wrote: »

They dont need jobs

hmmm.... but I'm sh1t hot and I need a job

consultech

DetectivFoxtrot wrote: »

hmmm.... but I'm sh1t hot and I need a job

If you're sh1t hot then I've got a job for you!

Abi

Oh daor..

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

Oh dear, me feels another song check in me waters...

I'll just leave this here ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vwNcNOTVzY

OutlawPete

Abitar wrote: »

Oh daor..

Distract them, moon again :pac:

Dudess

Think you're being very unfair, Pete. These aren't the women I know - most of us are just attracted to guys we like. If he has money, well and good; if he doesn't, not a concern. Of course there are women who are obsessed with flash shite, just as there are men who are. For every woman who's attracted to a rich guy just because of his money, there's a blokey tosser who's attracted to a flash-crap-obsessed woman just because she's a trophy girlfriend.
And as we'llallhavetea says, being "looked after" does not necessarily have much or anything to do with money...

Call me naive but would most women really live with and have sex with a man whom they don't particularly care about/fancy just because he has a lot of money?

Abi

OutlawPete wrote: »

Distract them, moon again :pac:

No thanks. My ass still hurts from the last time

consultech

Dudess wrote: »

Call me naive but would most women really live with and have sex with a man whom they don't particularly care about/fancy just because he has a lot of money?

No-ones peddling the "all women are prostitutes" card in fairness. However most women - whether it suits your pride of gender to admit it or not - consider money one of the boxes to tick in choosing a partner.

Dudess

My gender doesn't in the least stop me from admitting money is a box to be ticked when choosing a partner (that might not always mean vast riches either). But that's quite a leap from "most women will only marry for money"... which is what you were insisting earlier.
I don't know where you get the "most" from either - your own experiences? In which case, maybe examine why it's only bitches you end up with...

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

Call me naive but would most women really live with and have sex with a man whom they don't particularly care about/fancy just because he has a lot of money?

See that's what happens when ever this topic comes up.

It's the same each time.

I didn't say that a women would go with a guy for "Just because he has a lot of money".

I said, a woman will be far more attracted to a guy who is financially secure than one who isn't. That's what I said and have always said on this matter.

I think that is why so many relationships break up as women have finance on that check list, it attracts them to guys and then when the money is gone, they see the real guy they married.

Again not ALL women but a hell of alot.

I'm not saying they married for 'just' money but it is a part of the reason.

I also have a friend who lost home and his wife did not leave him and they are struggling to get back on their feet. She genuinely loves him but her kind are rare in my experience.

OutlawPete

Abitar wrote: »

No thanks. My ass still hurts from the last time

You say that like it's a .. :pac:

The Lovely Muffin

No, I wouldn't marry for money.

I'd rather be in a happy marriage/relationship with little or no money, than an unhappy marriage/relationship with plenty of money.

Dudess

OutlawPete wrote: »

I said, a woman will be far more attracted to a guy who is financially secure than one who isn't.

But the thread is asking "Would you marry for money?" which isn't the same as the above.
And yeah, if there were two guys equally attractive to a particular woman in every way but one is financially secure and the other isn't (and again, that does not necessarily mean colossal wealth) what would be wrong with her choosing the financially secure guy? That is not the same as being a gold-digger.

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

But the thread is asking "Would you marry for money?" which isn't the same as the above.

Yes and I understand your criticism of the Poll but you directed that at me as if they were my views.

Dudess wrote: »

Think you're being very unfair, Pete.

Call me naive but would most women really live with and have sex with a man whom they don't particularly care about/fancy just because he has a lot of money?

I don't think that at all about women, otherwise you would all be down in the Horseshoe Bar where the Ferrari drivers hang out.

It's not that at all, it's that it's a 'selection tool' for you. You do it without if thinking about it. I've worked in clubs and seen it at work, girls know when a guy has is broke and avoid them like the plague.

A woman ways a guy up in a totally different way than he would way her up.

One thing I have noticed about women is they ALWAYS look at a guys shoes, always. If David Attenborough ever does a documentary in a nightclub, this is one thing he can't miss.

Why, I have no idea, but they do

Dudess wrote: »

And yeah, if there were two guys equal to a particular woman in every way in terms of personality and attractiveness but one is financially secure and the other isn't (and again, that does not necessarily mean colossal wealth) what would be wrong with her choosing the financially secure guy? That is not the same as being a gold-digger.

No and I didn't say nor imply that it was.

I would say it goes far far beyond "equal attractiveness".

I would say if a guy is a 9 on looks but looks broke and another guy is a 7 but looks like he won't have any trouble paying for the cab, he's the guy your talking to.

consultech

Dudess wrote: »

I don't know where you get the "most" from either - your own experiences? In which case, maybe examine why it's only bitches you end up with...

Several assumptive personal attacks (to which, I'm far too articulate to ever need to stoop to by the way) later you still have no basis for that statement. Im in a happy, mutually supportive (financially and emotionally) relationship, and have been for 6 years now. I don't have any history of being with "bitches".

I'm whole-heartedly sorry to have to shatter your impression of men who apparently have a poor opinion of women because they've "been with a load of bitches".

Kimono-Girl

Purple_Bobbin wrote: »

No, I wouldn't marry for money.

I'd rather be in a happy marriage/relationship with little or no money, than an unhappy marriage/relationship with plenty of money.

thats rubbish who wants to be broke nd happy!

id rather be happy and have the money!


i am marrying for money mwahahahahaha, i want my income to be all mine and his 100k annual income to be ours!

*i am going to get such an ass kicking when he see's this

Fear Uladh

No. It would be a boring marriage.

we'llallhavetea_old

OutlawPete wrote: »

Yeah, so did the women who married friends of mine.

Only, when fights over money matters became everyday occurrences for them, the romance quickly died.

I know three guys who courts forced them from "their" family homes when relationships went sour.

I can only speak from experience and I see women choosing bastards with money and walking all over guys that are not doing so well financially all the time.

well, i suppose we have very different circles of friends.
when i look to the future, i hope that i have a wee house for me and my little 'un. thats my hope, i never think, oh sure i'll be settled with some lad and have a nice big house.
maybe i'm in the minority, but i cannot fathom the idea of relying on a man to provide for me and my daughter.

Dudess wrote: »

Think you're being very unfair, Pete. These aren't the women I know - most of us are just attracted to guys we like. If he has money, well and good; if he doesn't, not a concern. Of course there are women who are obsessed with flash shite, just as there are men who are. For every woman who's attracted to a rich guy just because of his money, there's a blokey tosser who's attracted to a flash-crap-obsessed woman just because she's a trophy girlfriend.
And as we'llallhavetea says, being "looked after" does not necessarily have much or anything to do with money...

Call me naive but would most women really live with and have sex with a man whom they don't particularly care about/fancy just because he has a lot of money?

same here, me and my friends just look for someone we like, looks first obviously and then hopefully a nice personality once you get talking to them.

OutlawPete wrote: »

It's not that at all, it's that it's a 'selection tool' for you. You do it without if thinking about it. I've worked in clubs and seen it at work, girls know when a guy has is broke and avoid them like the plague.

A woman ways a guy up in a totally different way than he would way her up.

One thing I have noticed about women is they ALWAYS look at a guys shoes, always. If David Attenborough ever does a documentary in a nightclub, this is one thing he can't miss.

Why, I have no idea, but they do

I would say it goes far far beyond "equal attractiveness".

I would say if a guy is a 9 on looks but looks broke and another guy is a 7 but looks like he won't have any trouble paying for the cab, he's the guy your talking to.

who are these fcuking women??!!! :mad:

cannot relate at all.

i just go for the type of lad thats wearing a t-shirt and jeans

Dudess

consultech wrote: »

Several assumptive personal attacks (to which, I'm far too articulate to ever need to stoop to by the way) later you still have no basis for that statement.

I asked, I did not state. And it was twice on this thread, once on another thread, and that's all I remember. I alluded to those things based PURELY on some pretty awful comments about women you made, I didn't just post them for the laugh. You can't seriously expect to say stuff like you've said on this thread without pissing women off.

I'm whole-heartedly sorry to have to shatter your impression of men who apparently have a poor opinion of women because they've "been with a load of bitches".

Why on earth would some men have a poor opinion of women other than because of their own personal experiences?

Dudess

OutlawPete wrote: »

It's not that at all, it's that it's a 'selection tool' for you. You do it without if thinking about it.

Less of the "you" - I am NOTHING like that.

candlelover wrote: »

thats rubbish who wants to be broke nd happy!

id rather be happy and have the money!

The comparison was between broke and happy v rich and unhappy.

consultech

Dudess wrote: »

I asked, I did not state. And it was twice on this thread, once on another thread, and that's all I remember. I alluded to those things based PURELY on some pretty awful comments about women you made, I didn't just post them for the laugh. You can't seriously expect to say stuff like you've said on this thread without pissing women off.

Why on earth would some men have a poor opinion of women other than because of their own personal experiences?

Whether asking or stating; You're deductive reasoning is tediously basic (at best). It doesn't reflect well on the intelligence you've shown in other threads at all.

The Lovely Muffin

candlelover wrote: »

thats rubbish who wants to be broke nd happy!

id rather be happy and have the money!


i am marrying for money mwahahahahaha, i want my income to be all mine and his 100k annual income to be ours!

*i am going to get such an ass kicking when he see's this

Why is it rubbish?

Just because yourself (and others) don't agree with it, does not mean it is rubbish.

It's my personal preference to be in a happy marriage/relationship rather than
an unhappy marriage/relationship.

Money isn't the most important thing (for me anyway), happiness is. Yes, money helps, but for me, happiness is much more important.

Dudess

consultech wrote: »

Whether asking or stating; You're deductive reasoning is tediously basic (at best). It doesn't reflect well on the intelligence you've shown in other threads at all.

All a bit rich coming from you when you're trolling misogynstic crap, which as I said, was the root of what I alluded to. Inflammatory yes... but it's ok for you to be?