Love and money

[Lava]

Can real love flourish between rich and poor? Or must the poorer one be after the richer one's money? :)

Lava

[Technosoul]

Two rich people could share life and not drain each other economically.

Two poor people who try to get rich off the other are headed for trouble, they will end up making each other poorer.

Now if you have a rich person married to a poor person then love can flourish as long as the rich person has an unlimited and unconditional supply of money. Or if the poor one is not trying to take advantage of the other's wealth in a manner that would be seen as a threat to the wealthy one. And as long as the wealthy one is not thinking they can use money to buy love.

Men want sex, women want security which is represented by money. Nothing wrong with a girl who want's to be a stay at home mom looking for a man who has a good job, that she is also attracted too in a romanic way. That was the foundation for that "old time marrage". Things are a bit more complex nowadays.

That however can ruin the real natual seclection processes. Like a female cat would pick the tom cat who is the strongest, and can out fight the other tom cats for the "rights" of mating. That keeps the gene pool strong so that the fittist genes are passed on to the next generation. Likewise the male would pick the female what is the most attactive and healthy looking, in theory.

Money is a false power, a false sense of fitness. Overcoming the other fat cats economically has nothing to do with physical genes that would be passed on - you could be rich like Larry Flint but be in crumby health - not really a good choice for a mate relative to reproduction which is the purpose of "love" and romance biologically.

Well, those are some thoughts on the topic.

Technosoul.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by Lava, Can real love flourish between rich and poor? Or must the poorer one be after the richer one's money? :) Lava

I hardly believe so. Socio-economic differences are huge. Not only for the standard of living of each one, but also because of staunchly different values, the way the rich and poor are socialized, the way they come to perceive and understand the world etc.

Because economics is the absolute primary source of power, the rich person will always feel that they had a lot to offer to the poor one and they will want to be in control in the relationship, always feeeling like the other one owes them quite a lot.

The poor one often has to put up with this feeling of "unequal ground", usually has to defer to the rich one, the rich one's family typically looks down upon the poor partner, etc.

And that applies even when the rich one is the man and the poor one (be it gorgeous!) is the woman. At a first glance, both are believed to bring equally valuable resources to the table (male money and female beauty, respectively), but in reality the male money weighs waaaaay more than the female beauty.

I am coming from a family of this sort: father coming from a (formerly) rich family - "formerly" because they lost everything to natioanlization when communists came in in 1944, but they still preserved the rich "aura" anyway...plus some resources that they had managed to hide from communists - and mother (very cute!) coming from a downright poor family.

I witnessed many parental problems during my childhood, I continue to witness them today, though they did stay together because in that country at that time, divorce was still quite frowned upon. But i honestly do not believe they were overall terribly happy.

Would not recommend the arrangement, unless you are a gold-digging woman primarily interested in the money and plan to get a divorce as soon as you qualify for some of his share.

[Lava]

I know it can be that way Syracusa, but does that imply it always is?

Lava

[syracusa]

I think MOST of the times. Not ALL the times, but MOST of the time.
It is a powerful factor, it always surfaces in some shape or form.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Lava, Can real love flourish between rich and poor? Or must the poorer one be after the richer one's money? :) Lava

I don't know.

[castille]

I don't know about American society, but from my experiences poor women marrying rich men are quite common, acceptable, and everyone is happy. The poor woman gets to bring up her children under happier circumstances, with the ability to give them a better education.

Its a win-win for everyone - the man gets prestige, the woman gets to bring her child up in a better home, and the child has more opportunities in life.

[syracusa]

Again, sweet old sweeping statements, stereotypes and generalization - in the castille tradition and the "Cindarella" story.

Hate to break it to you, but in reality it doesn't quite play out that way.

The rich man typically does not think that the "prestige" he got out of marrying a hot (yet poor!) woman more than balances out what HE had to offer. Chances are he will tend towards being a controlling jerk throughout the marriage. Many women - be they poor and gorgeous - get fed up with that after a while. Problems appear, conflict develops, divorce comes up, the woman gets her share and goes (in the US).

In traditional countries like yours, where divorce is still a no-no, the poor party...well, she/he learns to put up with all that. But harmony and happiness? Less likely.

The most harmony and happiness comes out of marriages where both are rich.

[Lava]

Well, I had some thunkage about this today. That thing about 'I contributed loads, you didnt' strikes me as coming from lack of respect. In healthy love both respect each other, and it is to be expected that each will bring different qualities to the table. Money is by no means the only thing we need.

Money is important, sure, but doesnt the attitude you talk about Syracuse come basically from a lack of respect being there in the first place in such relationships?

In the US it appears - to me a complete outsider at least - that pairing up is a money game before anything else. And I think that is basically a consequence of the way US society is set up. Here in UK money is really not the no1 deal in pairing up - it is for some, but for most its not.

Maybe a more fundamental question is: will there be respect between the people when the lurv has worn off?


Lava

[syracusa]

Lava,

I completely agree.

The more the economic and social system emphasizes finances as being the most important thing period, the more "money games" unions you will see.

I had touched on this on an old thread I had started months ago, called something like the "Female gold-digger and the laissez-faire" state.

In a capitalist society like the US, family's self-reliance is huge; therefore money is huge, therefore, the provider role is huge. And the more he provides, the more rights and privileges in the relationship he claims.
Try to beat THAT with "other things that matter" ...such as "me being hot"; or "nice"; or "a good mom"; or whatever.

You're right, a lot of money-men will get a major ego kick for the moment for having acquired a hot, young wife.
But hot young wives become "not-so-hot-anymore, old" wives.
So then here you make the transition from Ivana Trump ...to Marla Trump... to the new-exotic-model-of-the-day Trump.

This has less to do with respect, true love, humanity blah blah and more with a negociation for a sought-after lifestyle for both parties.

[Lava]

I agree too.... but have no idea who these people are:
> So then here you make the transition from Ivana Trump ...to
> Marla Trump... to the new-exotic-model-of-the-day Trump.

Lava!

[syracusa]

Ughhh...

Ivana Trump - first wife of Donald Trump, the American real-estate mogul.

Marla (Maples) Trump - the second wife of the same.

New-exotic-model-of-the-day Trump - the model he is about to marry (his third marriage).

But it works for them.

[castille]

Originally posted by syracusa, Again, sweet old sweeping statements, stereotypes and generalization - in the castille tradition and the "Cindarella" story. Hate to break it to you, but in reality it doesn't quite play out that way.

Thats because you live in America, where everyone puts their personal pleasure ahead of their duty and responsibility.

In traditional countries like yours, where divorce is still a no-no, the poor party...well, she/he learns to put up with all that. But harmony and happiness? Less likely.

Like I said, when you are poor and do not possess the ability to make your fortune, your children are your hope. Would you rather doom your children to a generation of starvation when you could give them a better life, at the expense of a little "love"? (and does love matter if you are living in poverty?)

The most harmony and happiness comes out of marriages where both are rich.

Not necessarily. Money doesn't make one happy.

[Samildanach]

My parents were pretty happy and they both started out with nothing, both ended up pretty well off though, cause they stuck together during the hard times and made the most of the opportunities they had. I think there is a lot to be said for an equal partnership and I agree with Castille, money definitely does not make one happy, its a nice add on if anything, an enhancer if you will, kind of like a nice bottle of wine with the meal. :)

[syracusa]

I (partially) agree with both you casttile and samildanach.

Well...yes, for someone very poor, if you get an opportunity to marry a better-off person, it is understandable how you would want to do it, it is very tempting. As castille said, what's a little "love" for the promise of a secure future? I agree.

However, what I said is that the "better-off" person most of the times turns out to be demanding and controlling in the relationship. It is exactly because he(she..less often) KNOWS that he saved you from a sucky life and you went ahead and said yes with a big grin on your face...that he now believes you owe him big.
And even in marriages power games exist, people have egos, conflicts appear....and then the balance of power is too tilted in one direction, making the other one miserable as heck.

Or are you talking about marriages where the poor female just shuts up, is always submissive and does what she's told - wearing an eternal grateful smile on her face for having been rescued from sucky poverty?
If yes - then maybe.
But last time I checked with the psychologists, self-effacing people were not necessarily the happiest ones.

Samildanach - yes there is something to be said about equal partnership. Actually, just the other day I was checking an article in a scientific journal about "MEDS" marriages. (Marriages of equally dependent spouses).

They have a lower divorce rate than many other types of couples (incentives for both to stick with the plan!) but their rate is still not as low as the rate of well-off / rich couples. But like you said, just because you don't divorce does not mean you are happy.

You would be surprised what the rich couples are willing to put up with in their marriages only to preserve appearances, the estate inctact, not to have to divide it, or lose some economic and social advanatges etc. There are too many things at stake when they make such alliances, too much to lose via divorce. Think about how JFK was cheating on Jackie Kennedy like mad...and she never flinched, although she knew about it? What about Hillary? You learn to swallow the bitter pill or else.

In fact, the lowest divorce rate is the divorce rate of the rich (save Hollywood, which is a special case) and the highest is that of the poor (they've got almost nothing to lose when they divorce).

Money is the best marriage stabilizer...as in "not get a divorce" - scientifically established!

But does that mean they are happy and really love each other, whatever "love" is? That's another story.
Again...like you said...happiness comes from commitment, mutual respect, genuine affection and pulling together for the well-being of the family.

[Lava]

Originally posted by syracusa, However, what I said is that the "better-off" person most of the times turns out to be demanding and controlling in the relationship. It is exactly because he(she..less often) KNOWS that he saved you from a sucky life and you went ahead and said yes with a big grin on your face...that he now believes you owe him big.

Going in with that attitude is pretty much dooming it to failure I would think. Love is more about giving than demanding.

Lava

[bishop]

would a proper interpretation of this question be something like a billionaire marrying someone living in the projects?

i've never seen such an example, although i'm sure something like that had to have happened at least once.. rich people come in different varieties - not all of them were born into wealth. take bill clinton for example. and likewise, some rich people have become very, very poor. take a gambler, or someone who loves to invest on margin.

for people born into wealth/poverty, i'd say that that the chances of a successful marriage with a member of the opposite extreme are poor.. but, i also realize that there are shades of grey that make the situation a bit more dynamic than what seems to be discussed here. for most people, wealth/poverty are fluid realities that can change over time; they are not fixed.

[syracusa]

True.

[castille]

I would imagine that personality is more important to a marriage than money.

After all, money is an object, but personality is human. Bill Gates marrying Miss Ethiopia can succeed if both of their personalities are compatable.

I know one couple - the husband owns at least 100 investment properties and runs his own oil company, while the wife came from a rural family who were lucky to have food. The husband is the breadwinner, while the wife provided emotional support and looked after the kids.

They are very happy. The oil man gets a source of human companionship in the unemotional world of oil drilling (try spending a month on an oil rig!), the wife gets a secure future for her kids with a rich husband.


On the other hand, if Bill Gates and Martha Stewart had conflicting personalities, they'd still be unhappy.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by castille, I would imagine that personality is more important to a marriage than money. After all, money is an object, but personality is human. Bill Gates marrying Miss Ethiopia can succeed if both of their personalities are compatable. I know one couple - the husband owns at least 100 investment properties and runs his own oil company, while the wife came from a rural family who were lucky to have food. The husband is the breadwinner, while the wife provided emotional support and looked after the kids. They are very happy. The oil man gets a source of human companionship in the unemotional world of oil drilling (try spending a month on an oil rig!), the wife gets a secure future for her kids with a rich husband. On the other hand, if Bill Gates and Martha Stewart had conflicting personalities, they'd still be unhappy.

You know the functionalist THEORY. Male bread-winnner does this, female nurturer does that, everybody happy - power, economic inequality not an issue.

While the theory sounds nice, the statistical reality shows something different.
For one thing, your oil guy - in the real world - was standing a very low chance to end up with a woman coming from a family where she barely had a roof over her head. That he did anyway - that's another story. But chances for this kind of thing to happen are low in general.

In real life, money begets money. "Good families" live in their own world, with establishments (such as neighborhods, clubs, schools, etc) designed to act as "good breeding" grounds and gate keepers.

No matter how much we like to idealize the "ideal situation" - Succesful Man marries Poor-but-oh-so-Cindarella-woman - things don't work like this in real life.Besides there's no shortage of hot women among the rich families, on the contrary ...you are more likely to find hot women in well-to-do families than in those that come from poverty.

Beauty itsef has a lot to do with economics, with family history etc (and I am not talking about plastic surgery).

And if people still believe that the US is that perfectly "classless" society, impeccable meritocracy... where the smartest and the hardest-working guy simply gets the most beautiful girl...they are naive, to say in the least.