Honest change my view...I don't think its a good idea for a woman to get into a relationship solely for financial stability or gain.
(tagging NSFW for mentions of SW)
For context, I'm a woman I have been seeing a rise of content geared around being with a man just for his money. I find it incredibly off-putting but I'm creating this topic as I legitimately want my opinion challenged. I also don't want to come off as judgy or preachy, I just have my own biases (that I want challenged)
Reasoning for my argument:
Yes the economy in much of the western world is awful right now. But that's a temporary problem. Financially entangled relationships and marriages are for the long run. Yes there's break ups and divorces as an option if things dont work out. But why gravitate to an almost life-long solution to a problem that is technically temporary?
Women say they want to date man with money but if tomorrow we woke up, and the economy was what it was pre-pandemic, they would want to be with who cherishes them and brings happiness into their lives (and thats a good thing)
Relationships where one partner is financially dependent on another creates a dichotomy. This dichotomy can dictate what kind of person you are to this man. If a woman say "I just want to get into a relationship for financial stability" She has to tear apart every part of her identity just to keep this relationship alive. Relationships that are 50/50 with emotionally mature partners don't see this as much.
A man solely providing for a woman is just a dangerous and unrealistic expectation. Right now, if women are struggling financially so are men, the dating pool for men with money is incredibly small. The dating pool of men with money who aren't secretly trying to weaponize it against you is tiny.
Now for exceptions...
One exception to this argument, You both want kids and your lifestyle requires the man to be the sole financial provider for the family. Even so, that can be dangerous as you have kids and a solely relying on a man
A sort-of exception, is if you're a sex worker and are mentally equipped for the gold digging lifestyle (note: this isn't something that most women are realistically emotionally equipped for)
But other than that, as a woman, if you aren't having kids nor are you a sex worker, you should not date with the preconceived notion that the man is the one who pays your rent and bills. A man can treat you to a paid date, He can buy you gifts. But going into a relationship expecting the man to cover most rent and bills is not a good idea.
/u/Cinnamon_Ocelot (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards
I mean I guess my attempt to change your view is that there are so many reasons someone can date someone: status, money, emotional stability, love, etc.
I would argue that if you're going to discount one of those reasons as being bad then you should discount all of them that aren't love. Which isn't a bad argument that I didn't disagree with, I just think it's dismissive of so many people and the things they care about.
We all have different priorities in relationships and to say one person's priority order is wrong from our point of view discounts their lived history and experiences that got them to where they're at.
Okay, I see your point
But I think getting into a relationship for love vs needing something intrinsic (ie status, money, emotional stability) are two different things.
I think what i'm trying to say is that it's different to love someone and also have reasonable needs, but if your sole reason for getting into a relationship is out of need, then things could become messy.
Is it anyone's sole reason though? Even if you say it's solely for money there's a lot of assumed traits that go into that kind of relationship. Generosity for one, having money they don't share kinda defeats the purpose. Maybe there are traits like good hygiene or 'not racist' that are taken for granted until the person encounters someone with money but without that trait.
It reminds me of a Dmitry Martin joke: "the sexiest part of a woman: skin. Because if you're a woman with no breasts I'll still be willing to have sex with you." (Paraphrased from memory).
You don't realize you need that at first, but if someone brings it up you're like "well yeah, they obviously have to have X". Sugar daddies still have some expectations applied to them, even if it doesn't seem like it.
Statistically, people are really bad at judging love vs. lust.
It's fantastic if you can marry someone you already love, don't get me wrong. But for most young people who get married, it's not really love, yet. It's lust and attraction and even affection, but not love.
Love is something you build over time. And that can start from a relationship that is based on lust or romance, but also a relationship that starts from practicality.
But what’s morally different than getting into a relationship with someone for love vs finances? Finances are stability, and stability is just as important as love for humans. If you shouldn’t need other people for stability, why is it okay to need other people for love?
Isn't this why everyone gets into a relationship though?
I hear what you are saying, but ALL intimate relationships are based on a need. I think society has come to think of an intimate (dating) relationship as a way to specifically fill an emotional need, but as we see with "FWB" relationships, physical needs are also on the table.
So what makes dating for financial needs better or worse than dating for emotional or physical needs?
I don't disagree with you but also passing too much judgement on people's reasons for their decisions can lead to some sticky situations also.
I guess people's reasons are their own and if both parties are happy and satisfied then it doesn't matter?
A women being 100% financially dependent on their husband can very easily lead to an abusive relationship, and most relationships aren't abusive right from the start, so at the start both parties might be happy and satisfied.
I mean I guess my question is are you going to all of your friends who are in this situation and being like "no girl leave him this could turn abusive"? Probably not.
I do say to my friends that say they want to be trophy wives that I think that isn't a great idea, but I'm a man, so it's hard for me to convince them.
If a man can contribute to elevating my life financially, health wise or intellectually I just don’t care how attracted I am to him! Only other loophole I would consider is advance emotional intelligence
status and money are extrinsic (coming from outside) emotional stability can be intrinsic or extrinsic depending on if you have it or gain through growth of yourself or if someone provides it. if it is provided it is extrinsic aswell.
status and money are extrinsic (coming from outside) emotional stability can be intrinsic or extrinsic depending on if you have it or gain through growth of yourself or if someone provides it. if it is provided it is extrinsic aswell.
Status and money are extrinsic, not intrinsic.
Why would you choose a life of poverty?
Someone who has financial stability is someone you can build a life with.
Someone who can’t hold a job down for more than a few months at a time is not.
Relationships and marriage are partnerships. If your partner is not able to be financially stable and support themselves, who do you think is going to end up being responsible for that?
Wanting someone to support you 100% financially is not what most people mean when they say they are looking for “financial stability.”
Okay, I agree with you. We should want to be with partners who are financially stable. By "seeking a man for financial stability" I dont mean finding a man who is financially responsible, I'm specifically referring to being with a man for financial stability.
Financially responsible means having financial stability…
Those are the same thing.
A person responsible with their finances is going to be someone who is consistently living within their means/budget, not putting themselves in unnecessary debt, and likely has savings that they could tap into if there is an emergency or they simply wish to splurge on something.
That is financial stability.
That is an extremely important trait no matter what you want in a serious, long-term partner.
From the very first sentence of the thread:
What does "solely" mean to you?
How do you know it is “solely” about “financial stability?”
1: That’s incredibly judgmental considering you don’t know why the relationship started.
Financial stability is a universal trait that people look for in relationships. OP agreed with that exact sentiment.
OP agrees that this is something people should look for in a serious, long-term relationship.
The better question is why you don’t look for financial stability in women… 🤷🏻♂️
You can't always know. Sometimes people are blatant about it and sometimes they aren't. Is that relevant to having a general opinion that getting into a relationship solely for financial gain is bad?
If you were looking at a relationship where one partner was the provider and assuming that it was solely for financial gain, it would be. Thankfully, that's not what's happening here.
It wouldn't be any different than judging a wealthy man who says "I solely value female partners for how big their tits are and I don't care about their personalities and intelligence".
People also value attractiveness. Solely valuing that wouldn't be a good idea, though.
So you don't know what "solely" means?
Ding ding ding!
Everything else has been invalidated.
You don’t know… because you have nothing to do with those relationships.
So stop assuming that you know more than you do. 👍
Should you look for financial stability in a partner?
Yes…
Ok then… so if someone says they look for that in a partner, why do you automatically conclude that this is the ONLY thing they are looking for.
If you are misunderstanding everything you're reading and don't know what "solely" means, sure.
I'm going to try to make this even clearer to you, because you somehow still aren't getting it. If I see a couple with a 70 year old man and a 23 year old model with gigantic tits, I can't assume that he is only with her for her tits if I don't know them. It could be true love.
However, I can generally say "it is bad for a man to only want to be with a woman for her tits". When I say that, I'm not automatically assuming that the man in the couple I saw is doing that. I don't know them. Since I know there are some men who only or at least mostly value women for their looks, I can make a statement about how that attitude is bad. That doesn't mean I'm assuming that's the case in every instance of a 70 year old man with a 23 year old model.
I never did. Here's another comparison to try to help you to understand:
Let's say racism is bad. A white man crosses the street as a black man approaches him on the sidewalk. It would be wrong to assume we know more than we do about the white man's intentions. Maybe he was planning to cross the street regardless. However, we can still generally say racism is bad even if we acknowledge that we can't always know if somebody is being racist. It doesn't mean that we assume that every white man crossing the street in a similar instance is racist.
The thread is specifically talking about people who are only looking for this. You're trying to change the topic of the thread to win an argument. Again, it's like if somebody made a thread that said "cmv: racism is bad", and I tried to counter by saying "but how can you know if somebody is racist?". That's just trying to change the topic rather than actually engaging the topic.
You don’t need to make anything clearer…
You’ve already invalidated your argument.
You can’t know why a relationship you are not involved in began…
So why are you pretending to know the reasons why it started?
You can’t… it isn’t your relationship.
We have all already agreed that looking for financial stability in a partner is something you SHOULD do.
Your entire argument is based on:
Things you can’t possibly know about a relationship between OTHER people who chose to be together.
That somehow looking for financial stability in a partner (which we have all agreed is something you SHOULD do) is some malicious thing that women, in particular, need to be stopped from doing.
You’ve discredited your argument repeatedly…
What if somebody tells me?
Again, I explained this. You didn't read what I said or your reading comprehension is woeful. I can't pretend to know if a white man crosses the street because he is racist. I can know if he tells me it's because a black man was approaching. Either way, I can broadly say racism is bad. How is it possible that you can't understand this?
Is the reason for your lack of reading comprehension that you have me confused for the OP?
Because love shouldn't be linked to money. If you love someone, you love them for what they are, not for what they have. Why should I care if my loved one is poor or rich when my feelings are there? To me it seems like people are just "choosing" who they "love" instead of just listening to their heart. True love is really rare nowadays sadly.
What if you have feelings for someone and he is poor, do you just say "ah fuck my heart says I love him but he is poor so no chance" or what?
I think it depends on why he’s poor. If he works hard and just doesn’t make much then that’s fine. But if he’s lazy, entitled, irresponsible, etc then that would also make him a bad partner.
You can love someone and still not be able to build a life with them…
If you are not financially stable, you cannot build a life for yourself, let alone with others.
Like I said, nobody wants to be with the person that can’t hold a job for more than a few months.
Nobody wants to be with someone who puts themself in crippling amounts of personal debt.
It’s not about having large amounts of money, it’s about the fact that you aren’t a responsible person with the money you do have… Life isn’t some hallmark movie or fairytale story. If you can’t hold a job and sustainably live within your means, you are not financially stable enough to be in a serious relationship.
I largely agree with you (and finances were not on my priority list when I wed, and I am very happy with the outcome).
However, I think that many people treat “financial stability” as a kind of proxy for a host of adulting skills and traits.
For instance, if you are independent, driven, and career-minded, and want to marry someone who is also driven, independent and career-minded, then filtering out people who are not “financially stable” might be an okay place to start. That would be fine, right?
What if you never got support for your career ambitions because they weren’t important to your family of origin, and you feel like you’ve been missing out on those values, and you meet someone who has those skills/mindsets and is likely to support that in you as well as in himself. Wouldn’t that also be nice? Why wouldn’t that be a plus?
What makes financial stability in a partner dangerous, isn’t the partner’s financial situation. It’s the dependency and the loss of autonomy that comes from not developing your own financial stability. But if your partner’s financial stability supports you in achieving your own, AND if it is not the only reason you are with your partner, then it doesn’t seem to necessarily be a problem in and of itself.
The biggest reason in my mind for not making financial stability as a relationship goal is simply one of mutual respect and humanity. Men aren’t ATMs, and it’s unethical and objectifying to use them as such. Men lose their jobs sometimes, or suffer downturns in fortunes, and if you plan to be married to one, you need to take seriously the idea that for richer and for poorer might be a challenge you need to face as a couple. Cause life.
This is sort of what i'v been sating too. I think a lot of it boils down to want vs need. Needing to be with a man for financial stability seems dangerous.
Also, you brought up another point I forgot to add in. Marriage is for "Richer and for poorer", men lose jobs, men aren't always financially stable
My grandfather always used to say - "Don't love money, but love where money is".
If there's a choice between being with a stably employed partner with a good income, or someone who is poorly educated and unemployed, I'd go with the employed one every time.
Taken to the extreme, this attitude results in dependency like you say, but early child-raising almost inherently requires this period of dependency anyhow. Should you continue it after the early phase? No, that's not a great idea.
Should someone's weath not be a factor at all when chosing a partner? Also no.
There where a lot of good responses here but I really like yours. As I was reading through the replies I couldn't get "Dont love money, but love where money is" out of my head. Nonetheless, your overall response helped broaden my stance. I wouldn't say my opinion has shifted far to the other side to the argument but rather I now feel more neutrally on the topic than I did when I made this post Thank you!
Δ
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MissTortoise (16∆).
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards
Thank you! It's also a good attitude to have when choosing a career
As any human.
Well...yes thats a given
Edit: adding context
I bring up male/female relationships because the uptick of content encouraging women to date solely for a man's money
If it's a given don't state specifically women.
Which cesspits are your frequenting where you see this "uptick of content encouraging women to date solely for a man's money" ?
a) They're not wrong. It's being pushed everywhere. The "engagement" algorithms thrive on ragebait and echo chambers like that. "Female Dating Strategy" was a notorious subreddit that advocated for only dating "high-value men" in a way that many people found very gold-digger. Do one search for "modern women are" or "male loneliness epidemic" and your algorithm will start getting inundated with this shit. On second thought, don't do that, just take my word for it.
b) LGBTQ+ relationships are already outside the conservative social norms, so the whole "do you date-to-marry someone for their money" is a much less clear-cut wedge issue. The male-dating-rich-female relationship dynamic is likewise outside the norm for people who consider this issue important.
My self, I couldn't care less. I want a partner who wants me, treats me with warmth, and brings me peace. The details of how we reach that point are just steps along the way.
Pretty much everywhere besides reddit at this point. I think it's attached to the way politics are leaning in the western world these days
Interesting, because I see something completely different in my bubble as 30y woman from Poland. Both social media and older generations of women are advising to prioritise career and independence, in case men will get abusive or will decide to break the relationship, leaving kids with you. We have a new wave of this discussion in Poland after the recent release of the movie Dom Dobry (Good Home) about how the husband turns into an abuser and isolates the wife and keeps manipulating her to stay.
This also tracks with data, women are pushing the decision about kids to a later time, prioritising their career (until they are safe in their job role) and no before in history we had such a high level of employment among women.
So if anything women now care less about men's financial situation than in previous generations, because now we can afford to have an independent life. We are pretty much the first generation of women that can do so freely, without judgement of the population.
I completely agree with this comment. It was the point I was trying to make.
[removed]
Sorry, u/amonarre3 – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I think it probably "depends ". If it is done in a way that enables you to accrue capital then I don't think it is necessarily a bad idea.
Like if the man is paying your rent and taking care of general needs, and you're still working or studying and developing your skills, then it may work out okay.
Okay, true but hypothetical scenario....The woman is studying and taking care of her financial needs in this relationship, but when she got into the relationship in the first place was it out of "need" or was it out of preference?
If it was because before she got with him, she was on the brink of homelessness and couldn't get by, then that's a problem in itself. The moment he decides she's not pretty, interesting, or there is an unrelated incompatibility between the two, what happens? She's just on her own again.
Do you somehow think this doesn't happen between people who married, "for love"?
Well that's the crux of the matter. Be in a situation where a man can help you but not one where you literally depend on him.
Just because she got with him for money doesn’t mean he doesn’t love her.
Who said that dating "for financial stability" necessarily means that the man solely provides? That's a really outdated view of what financial stability means. Financial stability also includes all the situations where both contribute equally (or proportionately), especially in a market where a double income is now the norm for the affordability of a mortgage etc.
I don't think that it's unreasonable to have financial stability as a life goal, and thus also be one of the reasons for dating. Wanting financial stability doesn't require or imply an opportunistic intent in the sense that you're assuming.
I mean... solely? Does this ever actually happen? In fact, is it even possible?
Does any human ever have just one motivation for doing anything, especially something as complex as dating/love?
I think this view is going to end up as a kind of a useless tautology, because there are too many factors to consider to make any actual rule about it.
Basically, when all is said and done:
If your desire for financial stability in a mate is excessive, then your desire for financial stability in a mate is excessive.
You shouldn't date ANYONE just for financial stability regardless of gender.
Said by people who are wealthy enough that food every day on the table is a guarantee like all the other “money doesn't buy happiness” claims that are basically uttered by people in the top echelons of wealth on the planet.
When one have troubles paying for bread, clothes and a roof suddenly money buys a lot of happiness and marrying someone whom one doesn't truly love for it looks quite attractive.
Yeah, having way too much money doesn't buy you happiness.
But having enough money sure does help buy you non-misery.
It might be wrong to marry for money, but there’s nothing wrong with hanging out with rich people until you fall in love.
This one's smart ^ rich guy, come swoop them up
Rich people gain wealth through virtuous means?
Both irrelevant to the opinion, and misguided. Maybe he’s a pediatric oncologist.
Maybe. Maybe not. He doesn’t even have a damn name so we need to confront possibilities instead of being pollyannish.
It really depends on where you live. It's tough to get a meaningful career as a woman in a lot of countries.
It's worth considering that the content you are seeing is designed specifically to illicit the off-putting feeling you experienced. It's also designed to encourage "engagement" in the form of links, likes, dislikes, and comments.
It's apparent rise could be a result of you having watched one video on the topic and now you are being fed more of the same. The amount of actual content or it's popularity has not changed, you are just being exposed to it now. Another possibility is that in some corner of the internet this topic has become the controversy de' jure for people to "engage with" (argue about). It will quickly fade as the arguements grow stale and the next "hot button" issue is discovered/manufactured.
Vanishingly few people out there believe that one should date someone solely for financial stability. And of those that do, they are either shockingly dumb or completely self centered. In either case they probably lack whatever commitment or skills would be required to successfully enact their scheme. They also lack what it takes to have any kind of healthy, functional relationship.
Is it a solid foundation for a loving, respectful and equal relationship between two people? Probably not.
Could it provide some people (either from Western or not Western countries) in extreme financial hardship an opportunity to gain financial stability, and to not constantly worry about putting a roof over their head or where their next meal is going to come from? Yes, it could.
For some this may be a more immediate and important consideration than any others. They may prioritise that sense of economic security over finding their soul mate or having an equal partnership. In those instances, and where the man also understands and is happy to start a relationship on that basis, who is anyone to tell them they shouldn't?
as a man, I going to say.... no human being, should get into any kind of relationship, for to quote "financial stability".
If you get payd for a certain service. No matter what exactly the kind of service that is, you are not living the "stability" dream.
So girl, just don't. Do not get into any kind of relationship that even comes close to what we right now are talking about. And with same sex, swapped sex, whatever, same thing applies. Do not get into a relationship, where the one human being, gets to be the reliant on the other human being. The reliant on the other one, is gonna get really fucking messed up.
First of all, you’re not coming across as judgmental or preachy, as you put it, your line of reasoning here is coherent and I don’t subscribe personally to the idea there is anything thst cannot be uttered and challenged.
Marriage historically wasn't about romantic love but propagation within constrained reproductive windows, where infant mortality was high, political alliances were sought, resources (financial as well) necessitated allocation. Your post implicitly views long-term relationships devoid of their broader historical context of what eventually cemented into societal proxies and scripts.
Particularly in more precarious eras, where survival hardly ever was guaranteed across millennia, cultures had evolved rituals to minimize loss amidst propagation. Through that lens, reproduction trumps emotional and relational stability — it was imperative for humanity to pass on its genes through a constrained time window of reproduction at the ages of sexual maturity. That is, you are putting the cart before the horse here so to speak.
As others have mentioned, I’m unconvinced anyone is marrying for a single preset criterion - relationships, and by extension, marriages are the consequence (ideally) of a multi-causal dynamic system calculus. Financial viability in itself doesn’t perpetuate a relationship but it is a catalyst and symbolic proxy (primarily for women) of the capability to provide safety and stability. It’s a shorthand, compressed, and made legible to sort suitors. It’s a crude metric for relational viability but within a broader historical lens where survival was the chief concern it was adequate
Beneath your words what I also hear is some fear, the point of financial entanglement is fear of entrapment, of being dictated and powerless against the party with access to more leverage within the relationship. That’s valid. Safety for women was scarce and it’s only through unprecedented social and technological advancements (progress, contraception…) that we have got to the point of challenging the anachronistic social machinery and its assumptions. Financials are only the proxy of that too but the burning question here is;
“How do we, as a species, implement a system that is able to sort with efficacy and the least amount of friction into relationships while preventing the accumulation of destabilizing leverage, that will result in the relationship eventual disintegration?”
At present, there is no system but collective fumbling. I would love to see one devised.
Financial stability is not a short term goal, people want life long financial stability.
these are not mutually exclusive things and even during a booming economy, poverty and hardship still exist, they just exist in smaller numbers.
tearing apart every part of your identity is not a good idea, but relationship don't demand this they demand that you contribute something of value.
A super common arrangement is the man provides financial stability and the women looks after the home and kids. Both contribute.
a women who marries a wealthy man generally (it varies a little from state to state) get a tremendous amount of legal protecting. The protection varies from getting half the assets to getting half the assets plus an ongoing alimony check.
that just legal protection, you could also be in love.
[removed]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
I’m going to steer in another way, for me dating with financial status in mind is shallow.
But at the end of the day, it’s not sustainable. I believe in epicurean principles, I also believe 99% can realize themselves the bad situation they are.
A rich person profits in term of having a hot wife for example. Or a hot bf (check Kris Jenner) If it’s all that matters to you, why not? Just have fun. The rich person will leave a soon as you’re not hot anymore and you’ll be stuck. But you had your fun, you were conscious about the reality of this relationship. So you do you.
Life is not about “you shouldn’t” it’s more about “am I ready to face consequences for my wants and needs”
This is true for everything and everyone
A financially stable man is a responsible man. Isn’t being good with finances part of being an adult? I wouldn’t date a woman who’s irresponsible with money it just shows immaturity to me.
As far as the whole power dynamics arguments, yes if you marry a rich man he does hold power over you, but what does that exactly mean? What can he legally do to you that’s any different than a 50/50 marriage?
Lastly, domestic violence actually increases the more financially unstable you are. Poor women are twice as likely to experience domestic violence. Bad finances are a big stressor and most poor families can’t afford daycare so the mom has to stay at home and the man usually works long hours for little pay.
A person's time to love comfortably is a temporary timeframe too. What does it matter that the temporary financial situation fixes itself when at that time, you will be older and potentially not able to enjoy that financial time?
Also, entangled relationships and marriages are a similar timeline to the previous comment, not "the long run." Both are temporary but last a good chunk of your life, why are you phrasing it like they are completely different?
What if you are older? Let’s say you are a low income divorced/widowed woman in your 60s and meet a man who is willing and able to provide for you financially in exchange for companionship. He’s lonely, you’re running out of options, and you won’t be able to work for much longer. When that happens, your income will drop so much you may not be able to afford your housing and may end up homeless or having to live with others who may not want to take care of you.
You don’t hate this man, you like him very much as a friend but there is not the traditional attraction you’d expect in a relationship.
I don’t think this is a bad thing, and a very logical solution to a societal problem.
Well in a developed country she would probably be able to apply for welfare so she wouldn't have to whore herself out like you're suggesting
You’re absolutely not able to retire on welfare. I’ve seen many of my clients end up in this situation. What do you do for the homeless, do you volunteer every week too?
In my opinion, the body is a form of property one is born with. Like any other property a person owns, one should be free to do as one wishes with it. We assign different values to the things we own, and those values vary from person to person. Some people value money above all else, some are drawn to beauty, and others to kindness. All of these values can change over time, just as someone might come to rely on another person’s money.
Someone might married someone due to their kindness. The partner may be kind at the beginning of a relationship but grow tired of childishness later on. I believe that people who marry for financial stability, whether a man marrying a woman, a woman marrying a man, or any other pairing, are generally aware of what they are getting themselves into. It is therefore their own responsibility to equip themselves to deal with the consequences that may follow.
Could you give me other examples of women dating men for financial stability other than the two reasons you exempted? Gold diggers/sugar daddies and one income households? Those two pretty much covers the entire spectrum of financial dating.
It's like saying i don't think people should eat food except for when they're hungry or get pleasure from it. You just exempted everyone besides maybe competition eating and even that's a strech.
Average earnings for women, adjusted for inflation, are higher today than pre-covid. Even given the Trump administration's antagonism to DEI, which caused a massive dip.
I think this is a bit of a bait and switch (although likely not on purpose by you). What I mean to say is, I don't think you're purposely being misleading, but your own preconceptions are clouding your thoughts on the matter.
In the start of your post, you say "a woman should not date a man solely for financial stability or gain" which I completely agree with. In fact, I don't see anyone here arguing against that. It's just common sense.
As your argument goes on, however, you start to attack the very concept of a woman being reliant on a man financially. This is what I will argue can be reasonable, given the right circumstances. Here are the statements you made that I will be commenting on:
I agree there is a dichotomy; however, I don't believe a dichotomy is a non-starter. In most heteronormative relationships, the male counter part is physically stronger and larger than the female. That is a stark dichotomy of physical power, yet it's rarely seen as an issue in healthy relationships.
Similarly, with a financial dichotomy, one of the partners usually had a more lucrative income stream. Even though this dichotomy often follows the previous one where it's usually the male counter part with the higher income, there is a MUCH smaller gap here.
There are quite a few couples where the female is the main or sole breadwinner while the male is in charge of childcare and the domicile. Common? Not really. But definitely more likely than the female being physically stronger.
Why am I going into all this detail? My point is that a dichotomy is not an inherently negative thing. In fact, many times a financial dichotomy it is seen as a boon when it comes to childcare. Kids are a massive burden on time and energy. Being a full time parent (mother or father) is not a walk in the park.
Unrealistic, yes. Dangerous? I disagree. This is no more dangerous than living outside your means. In fact, most dually-employed couples increase their cost of living to account for the extra income. If one of the couple were to lose their income, there would be significant financial stress placed on the other partner, similar to a single income family losing their breadwinners job.
Is it slightly more risky, sure? But you also have to think of it practically. Many people have children. The cost of childcare is incredibly high in some areas. In fact, it can often cost more per year than one partner could earn. In those scenarios, it is financially prudent to have one partner perform full-time childcare which will actually save the family money.
All that in mind, is it a bad thing to want a partner that is financially solid enough to "hold the line"? Not I think it's a totally fine thing to look for. But I do agree, it should never be the sole reason for a relationship.
Again, depends on what you want. If you are honest and up front that you plan to take care of the domicile, children, and/or other things in life it's not an unrealistic expectation. Are you likely to find someone who can do this? Probably not. Is it possible? Absolutely.
I think the key is honesty and communication. So long as you are honest and straightforward it won't be an issue. The biggest issue would be misalignment.
[removed]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Date a man? No, turn him into date :)
What in the inception? Nyways, Christian Walker agrees
Can I do it as a guy tho?
[removed]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Curious on your opinion of the inverse question.
Should someone avoid dating/marrying someone without financial stability, holding everything else equal?
[removed]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
This is against basic human gender roles
The man provides and protects, the woman nurtures and cares. It is completely normal for a woman to seek a man's ability to make resources (in the case today, that is money), and for men to seek a woman's abilities to make a home.
Relationships should never be 50/50, it should be 100/0 in masculine areas, and 0/100 in feminine areas. Marriage and childbirth are in sharp decline in developed countries precisely because of feminazis who want equality, which is the greatest threat to humanity.
[removed]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
[removed]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
What view do you want changed? Your view is basically "woman shouldn't do X unless it's make sense". Yeah? Duh. This is true for literally anything
If men can marry for looks, women can marry for money.