Love Tales 2: Is loving the person for the money ever right?

bumpy · Aug 24, 2005

The second part of the Love Tale series questions, to find out more about the ideas people have about love or what constitutes love.

If someone come up to you and tells you that the reason for staying with the significant other is because of money, most if not all would not think too highly of the person or the relationship in question. BUT is money as a factor in a relationship always bad, or is it bad only if it is excessive.

1) A jobless bum
If your friend told you the date was someone who is jobless and quite broke and is a stone throw away from being a hobo, most would have no trouble telling the friend that it is ok not to carry on dating the person.

2) Minimum Income (ie: Person should be Rich): $200,000
If it is ok not to date a jobless bum then what about not dating a person unless they make at least $200,000 a year. The income is a mere condition, it does not mean she will date any person who makes $200,000. It is a mere condition just as the person must be a male for the heterosexual female but it does not mean she will date any guy. So if all her other reasons for dating the guy is legimate, like the guy treats her nice, kind, understaing, supportive, etc is it still wrong?

Truth:
What would your advice be if the girl were to go up to the guy and told him upfront that one of her conditions is that her boyfriend must make at least $200,000. Assuming that other than that the guy likes the girl a lot and they BOTH enjoy each other's company. The guy turns to you and ask for YOUR advice. Would the fact that the girl is loyal make a difference?

Loyalty:
Let us assume that the girl will not switch to a richer guy. But we do not know whether the person would carry on in the relationship if the money is gone because that is in the future and there is no time machine.

[Note: I may have use gender terms but that is only because I have trouble phrasing it in a clear neutral manner. Switch accordingly.]

ash_bct · Aug 24, 2005

I can only put this in terms of ME. Much easier that way

BTW I voted "Everyone has their own reasons"

I would NEVER date a jobless bum! No way, no how. I will not take care of someone who can not take care of themselves.

I work with a lady who is in a much less lower postition than I am who makes minimum wage. She has recently let her boyfriend of 2 or 3 months move in with her and all he does is play video games, sleep, or go drinking with his friends, ALL on her cash. Drives me batty as all she does is b*tch and complain!

On the other hand, I really could care less if people are together for reasons other than genuinely liking/loving each other if I don't have to listen to it all day! Why is it any of my business?

So I can't really answer your question, because again, why is it my (or anyone's) business? I have my own relationship to keep up!

purity · Aug 24, 2005

I think money would only be an issue if my other half wasn't working, but COULD if they wanted to. Or if he was working as an actor/artist/singer/*insert other male dreamjob here* earning minimum wage until he got his 'big break' when he could be earning double at a supermarket and we were just about to have the house repossessed!

So long as both parties are pulling their weight, and you can pay the bills and have a bit left over, then money shouldn't matter. That's not to say that if I met a millionaire I'd turn him down

bumpy · Aug 24, 2005

Originally Posted by ash_bct

On the other hand, I really could care less if people are together for reasons other than genuinely liking/loving each other if I don't have to listen to it all day! Why is it any of my business?

So I can't really answer your question, because again, why is it my (or anyone's) business? I have my own relationship to keep up!

Good point.

But imagine if the above question was posed to you by your best friend or sibling or someone you cared about. He/She wanted you advice on the matter because it is something they are facing. Yeah it is their business but they have come to you for advice.

pandybear · Aug 24, 2005

i don't quiet get the poll answers, so much for dying my hair red

i think that if you meet someone and fall in love instantly only to find out later that he has nothing then you should try to work together and deal with the issue as a couple, if he doesn't change and is spending all your money then i think it should be time to move on because if a man loves a woman he should look after her and not just sit around and do nothing.

when you first meet someone it's usually a few different factors that attract you to them, for me it's personality, then do they have goals and hobby's in life, are they outgoing and love their family, do they like simular things to me, eg travel, fishing, are the prepared to try new things, i can't stand closed minded people and can they make me laugh, hold me when i cry and be understanding and faithful, if by chance they have all those things then i also like them to be career orinatated, i like a man who wants to work and try's hard in his job. i also love a man who can be a mix, casual yet sophistocated, can take the initutive (sp?) and have fun yet be serios when it's needed.

so yes, money is important but if that's all he has then it's not going to be enough for me.

if other people are with someone for money and it makes them happy then good for them but i think they are missing out on what real love feels like.

luckily i found a man with everything i wanted plus he happens to have a good job too

rosiemac · Aug 24, 2005

Money should never be the reason to be with someone IMO.

I left a husband who earns a very good salary, i had a brand new house, new car every 2 years, but at the end of the day money isn't everything.

I have a couple of friends who are in loveless marriages but because their husbands earn good money their quite happy staying there

gilly · Aug 24, 2005

I am not in a relationship, but I do know that money is not the answer to everything IMO. If you have loads of money and are not happy then that does not make sense really ....

kellyyfaber · Aug 24, 2005

uh yeah, well...I didn't "get" the poll answers but... I don't think I could date anyone who was "barely keeping their head above water" when it comes to money. I am ambitious so I expect my significant other to be ambitious as well. I don't have a figure worked out in my head as to what the "minimum income" should be but I expect someone to be at the same bracket that I will be. It's not necessarily the "broke" part that would bother me, rather than the lack of ambition.

ugaimes · Aug 24, 2005

Originally Posted by Kellyyfaber

uh yeah, well...I didn't "get" the poll answers but... I don't think I could date anyone who was "barely keeping their head above water" when it comes to money. I am ambitious so I expect my significant other to be ambitious as well. I don't have a figure worked out in my head as to what the "minimum income" should be but I expect someone to be at the same bracket that I will be. It's not necessarily the "broke" part that would bother me, rather than the lack of ambition.

Haha, we voted the same thing

I'm a social worker- never gonna make the huge bucks. While I don't necessarily need a hubby who pulls in 100 G's a year (though that'd be nice), there is a modest amount of income that I'd like to see him making just so that our family could live comfortably.

bumpy · Aug 24, 2005

Originally Posted by Kellyyfaber

uh yeah, well...I didn't "get" the poll answers but... I don't think I could date anyone who was "barely keeping their head above water" when it comes to money. I am ambitious so I expect my significant other to be ambitious as well. I don't have a figure worked out in my head as to what the "minimum income" should be but I expect someone to be at the same bracket that I will be. It's not necessarily the "broke" part that would bother me, rather than the lack of ambition.

The choice of "minimum" is to be understood in reference to the post itself. It generally means that the person would only date a "rich" or a relative well to do person. It can be encapsulated in the phrase:
"I will not even consider going out with anyone who makes less than [insert a 6 figure digit] a year."
Hope that clears up any doubt.

ugaimes · Aug 24, 2005

Originally Posted by bumpy

The choice of "minimum" is to be understood in reference to the post itself. It generally means that the person would only date a "rich" or a relative well to do person. It can be encapsulated in the phrase:
"I will not even consider going out with anyone who makes less than [insert a 6 figure digit] a year."
Hope that clears up any doubt.

Oops, well then I misvoted. Having a minimum 6-figure income is in no way important to me (my monetary standards aren't that high!!).

darkeyedgirl · Aug 24, 2005

I don't care how much a guy makes, as long as he's got a sense of humor, he's intelligent, he's respectful, and he's not a drunken angry maniac.

Oh and he can't smoke, either.

Money ain't got nothin to do with all of that stuff.

However nuf being said... I'm a hard worker with a full time job (and a job on the side), so I wouldn't date someone who was lazy or didn't wanna work! I LOVE TO WORK and I have some major ambition... so the guy I'm with, should, too.

purr · Aug 24, 2005

If she was born into money I would understand her position. Not only does she have a lifestyle she's accustomed to and understably wants to keep, but she probably equates money with success and happiness because of the way she was raised. I'd tell her whatever works for her or as my mom says, "whatever floats your boat" (in this case yacht

)

Personally, I wouldn't be attracted to anyone once I found out they were a jobless, or had a dead-end job. He could be making next to nothing if he had a job he loved, but I don't want to be with someone who works in a dead-end job with no room for advancement, and no ambition to find something better.

kellyyfaber · Aug 24, 2005

Originally Posted by bumpy

The choice of "minimum" is to be understood in reference to the post itself. It generally means that the person would only date a "rich" or a relative well to do person. It can be encapsulated in the phrase:
"I will not even consider going out with anyone who makes less than [insert a 6 figure digit] a year."
Hope that clears up any doubt.

oops. I guess I should've read the post before voting. Oh well, lol.

kellyyfaber · Aug 24, 2005

Originally Posted by ugaimes

Oops, well then I misvoted. Having a minimum 6-figure income is in no way important to me (my monetary standards aren't that high!!).

we were the only ones who voted on that one (by accident)!!! LOL!! Hey--it's a good thing we're cute.

vespacat · Aug 24, 2005

Some of my friends and the majority of the professionals where I work (large corporate law firm) earn a six figure salary or more.

To me, money does not define who one is. In fact, I would be inclined to agree with a prior post that some people with a lot of money feel a certain entitlement to anything, likely because they also possess power that comes along with being wealthy and working for a prestigious company. Despite that wealth, they are also some of the stingiest people in terms of donating to charity. I've seen it many times where I work.

That said, I have friends who make a lot more money than I do (six figures), and although it may affect where we choose to indulge in an evening of entertainment, they are no different in terms of political beliefs, morals, and social conscience than one who is a radical, left-wing advocate for the underdog. Some of my friends donate big bucks to worthy causes. I can appreciate that.

So equating love with money, and choosing to be with someone based on their income doesn't really jive with me. I see the person aside from their financial endowments. I suppose it could be a result from working with wealthy people on a daily basis and seeing their "humanity", that in reality they are no better or worse, happier or more miserable than anyone else.

bumpy · Aug 25, 2005

Originally Posted by vespacat

Some of my friends and the majority of the professionals where I work (large corporate law firm) earn a six figure salary or more.

To me, money does not define who one is. In fact, I would be inclined to agree with a prior post that some people with a lot of money feel a certain entitlement to anything, likely because they also possess power that comes along with being wealthy and working for a prestigious company. Despite that wealth, they are also some of the stingiest people in terms of donating to charity. I've seen it many times where I work.

That said, I have friends who make a lot more money than I do (six figures), and although it may affect where we choose to indulge in an evening of entertainment, they are no different in terms of political beliefs, morals, and social conscience than one who is a radical, left-wing advocate for the underdog. Some of my friends donate big bucks to worthy causes. I can appreciate that.

I spent some time in Toronto and got to know one of the seven sister firms and it seems that the people there do give time to the less fortunate. They may not donate money but many of them do Pro Bono work.

ugaimes · Aug 25, 2005

Originally Posted by Kellyyfaber

we were the only ones who voted on that one (by accident)!!! LOL!! Hey--it's a good thing we're cute.

bren.1 · Aug 25, 2005

Money is important, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor. I agree with those who stated that as long as the other person isn't a jobless bum, who could work, there shouldn't be monetary conditions.

For the past few years, my DH has been going to school and working part-time. It was tight for us, and sometimes I got really frustrated to lose all my money to bills. I did it, because I knew it would pay off in the end. (pun intended!) He starts a job as a nuclear med tech next week, making slightly more than my teacher's salary. We'll finally be able to pay off bills and buy a house.

He turned down a job that was alot more money--about $25,000 more per year. That job was in Baltimore, about 1 1/2 hours away. We would have moved closer, since I want to keep my job, but he still would have to commute an hour. His work days would be 12 hours long, so he would have stayed in Baltimore during the week.

In the end, he took the hospital job so we don't have to move, and can see each other every day. It's enough money for us, and there's something to be said for quality of life.

rockcat · Aug 25, 2005

I would feel like a user if I went out with someone for their money. On the other hand, if I went out with someone who didn't work and therefore had no money, I would feel used. (been there, done that, unfortunately - well he had a job, but it didn't work out type thing)

My BF and I make approx. the same amount. We will never be rich. We've been together over 4 years and plan to get married, just aren't in a hurry. On a happiness scale of 1-10, I would say I'm about a ... 12!

Love Tales 2: Is loving the person for the money ever right?

TCS Member

Thread starter

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

Thread starter

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

Thread starter

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

Thread starter

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member