# Money important when considering partners?



## Thrifty (15 Jan 2008)

Love watching the Jane Austen period dramas and the most recent one Sense and Sensibility. One thing that always strikes me is that although they’re all so supposedly delicate in talking about certain matters this does not apply to money and it’s very much one of the first things that’s looked at in considering future partner. I always though this was an old fashioned idea that seemed certainly to have gone out in the sixties and seventies during my parents generation. 

But I feel it’s become quite an important issue again just from talking to friends. Perhaps I’m wrong but one male friend of mine feels he won’t really get a ‘good’ girlfriend because he hasn’t got his own place and lives in a shared house with others. I don’t know what he means by ‘good’. It seems it’s not so much as building your lives together anymore as bringing your share to the table and hoping your partner can match it. Perhaps it’s because people are settling older or maybe I’m just being cynical but I have noticed it more and more. I’m curious as to other people’s experience/ opinion on whether money/property is important to people when considering potential partners. I’d like to think relationships haven’t become that mercenary but listening to one or two female friends with agendas for potential boyfriends I’m starting to feel romance is dead.


----------



## Caveat (15 Jan 2008)

I think a _degree_ of financial comfort/stability is usually but not always desirable.  

To place this as one of the most important criteria in choosing a partner though sounds to me to be selfish and shallow.  I know quite a few women and men who are unimpressed with wealth and it's trappings and have more important concerns - like love obviously


----------



## ninsaga (15 Jan 2008)

Caveat said:


> I I know quite a few women and men who are unimpressed with wealth and it's trappings and have more important concerns - like love obviously



Yep.... such as this [broken link removed] perhaps


----------



## triplex (15 Jan 2008)

Thrifty:
_Love watching the Jane Austen period dramas and the most recent one Sense and Sensibility. One thing that always strikes me is that although they’re all so supposedly delicate in talking about certain matters this does not apply to money and it’s very much one of the first things that’s looked at in considering future partner._

If you have a read of 'Goergette Heyer's Regency World' by Jennifer Kloester, it seems that money was the most important thing when choosing a partner in the Regency age.. interesting book...

maybe they were very 'modern' in their views - or is 21st century society 'old-fashioned'?


----------



## ClubMan (15 Jan 2008)

triplex said:


> If you have a read of 'Goergette Heyer's Regency World' by Jennifer Kloester, it seems that money was the most important thing when choosing a partner in the Regency age.. interesting book...


For the specific section of society dealt with in these books presumably?


----------



## Gordanus (17 Jan 2008)

a middle class woman had few opportunities to earn her own living (except poorly paid jobs like being a gorerness); parents wanted to ensure a decent future; parents provide dowry; husband provided livlihood.  Most marraiges were fiinancial joinings of families. 
Applies to a lesser extent today because in theory both parties are capable of earning a living.  But you will notice that people tend in general to marry  those of similar earning power.


----------



## lightup (18 Jan 2008)

Gordanus said:


> But you will notice that people tend in general to marry those of similar earning power.


 
I think this may have less to do with 'what have you got' and more to do with similar attitudes and goals.

For example, a very ambitious and hard working person would surely respect the same qualities in a partner and may find it hard to relate to a more easy-going, less ambitious person.


----------



## Pique318 (18 Jan 2008)

Let's face it, none of us like 'Gold-diggers' and if we had a friend who was being fooled by one, then we'd tell that friend.

Nothing wrong with dating/marrying someone who's well off, but to do it just because they're well off and have damn all reason other than that, well then I'm sorry, all bets are off.


----------



## Vanilla (18 Jan 2008)

Personally don't think money or background is important in one's partner. Love and attraction, the ability to just be good friends and sticking power, the knowledge that this person will back you up no matter what, humour and kindness- all these things are much, much more important.


----------



## z104 (18 Jan 2008)

Have to agree with Vanilla 100%. I've heard women say that marry for money and you'll grow to love them.

I think that's a recipe for disaster.


----------



## PM1234 (19 Jan 2008)

I think the problem is other peoples reactions ie if someone who doesn't have much money meets someone who does, other people assume that money has to be the attraction. Which says a lot more about the people saying it!

Marrying someone for money would be a long sentence indeed.

Carrie from Sex and the city said it best _


I'm looking for                     love. Real love. Ridiculous, inconvenient, consuming, can't-live-without-each-other                     love. And I don't think that love is here in this expensive                     suite in this lovely hotel in Paris._


----------



## homeowner (21 Jan 2008)

Thrifty said:


> Perhaps it’s because people are settling older or maybe I’m just being cynical but I have noticed it more and more. I’m curious as to other people’s experience/ opinion on whether money/property is important to people when considering potential partners. I’d like to think relationships haven’t become that mercenary but listening to one or two female friends with agendas for potential boyfriends I’m starting to feel romance is dead.


 
I dont see women looking for well off partners as top criteria any worse than a man putting looks and dress (or chest!) size first in his list of criteria.


----------



## Purple (21 Jan 2008)

PM1234 said:


> Carrie from Sex and the city said it best _
> 
> 
> I'm looking for                     love. Real love. Ridiculous, inconvenient, consuming, can't-live-without-each-other                     love. And I don't think that love is here in this expensive                     suite in this lovely hotel in Paris._



The ability to quote sex in the city is not a virtue. 

Income is a factor for many people when choosing a partner but I don’t think it should ever be near the top of the list.


----------



## triplex (21 Jan 2008)

it's a person's _attitude_ to money which i would consider important...what they actually earn doesn't bother me..


----------



## ClubMan (21 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> The ability to quote sex in the city is not a virtue.


Neither is pretending not to know the real show title!


----------



## Purple (21 Jan 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Neither is pretending not to know the real show title!



Touché!


----------



## PM1234 (21 Jan 2008)

If its an apt quote does it matter where it comes from.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (21 Jan 2008)

TBH, being rich isn't important.  Earning enough to support themselves and attitude to money is though.  YMMV


----------



## z106 (21 Jan 2008)

It's a good question by the OP.

I think it certainly does apply to some extent for women being attracted to men but not vice versa.


----------



## Purple (21 Jan 2008)

qwertyuiop said:


> It's a good question by the OP.
> 
> I think it certainly does apply to some extent for women being attracted to men but not vice versa.



Men aren't that shallow. We look for breasts and ass


----------



## z106 (21 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> Men aren't that shallow. We look for breasts and ass


 
Well that's exactly it purple.

I think you pretty much can bring it down to money for women and looks for men.
They are definitely driving factors.

Apparently some reporter mentioned to donald trump does he think he'd be able to pull his wife without the cash.

To which he replied would his wife be able to get him without her looks !!


----------



## Purple (21 Jan 2008)

I'm a big fan of breasts and ass so don't knock 'em (don't think you can write the T-word and I got a warning for bad language for doing a row of * a while back).


----------



## PM1234 (22 Jan 2008)

I'm still unsure.  This thread seems to be split too much into men v women but maybe that is because there are more men than women in higher earning jobs.   

Personally I think that while some people might have a list of ideal requirements in a partner - good looks, education, property etc, these things are just 'ideals'. I would think for the majority of people when they meet someone they like, that list changes to accommodate the person they've met. 

Again I think that the biggest problem is other peoples perceptions of a relationship where money is involved, which can arouse suspicion and mistrust in what might have been a good and longlasting relationship for the two people involved (was going to write perfect relationship but no such thing  - I know I know!!!)


----------



## beautfan (29 Jan 2008)

I'm a big SATC fan and remember that esposide very well.  We do have to remeber that Carrie got was it $4 dollars a word for Vogue and bough Jimmy Chooes for everyday wear.

I myself think money is important when considering a partner.  I don't earn $4 a word for vogue but I'm use to owing my own money and wouldn't want ot have to fund someone else.


----------



## casiopea (29 Jan 2008)

Is it that ambition/drive is important now rather than money? I know many couples where one may not be earning much/anything but is working towards something (starting a business, studying PhD etc).  Though theyve no money now they have the potential to earn and support a family, and are passionate about something - this is attractive.


----------



## MrMan (29 Jan 2008)

> I myself think money is important when considering a partner. I don't earn $4 a word for vogue but I'm use to owing my own money and wouldn't want ot have to fund someone else.



Another incurable romantic.




> I got a warning for bad language for doing a row of * a while back).



As in I think your a ****, I'm not calling you any names but did you really get a warning for calling someone 4star?


----------



## Harlequin (29 Jan 2008)

I would prefer to have a partner who earned less money and was around more than one who earned more and was constantly working or thinking about work. Some of the fellas I went to college with put career and ambition ahead of _everything_ else and that just wouldn't suit me, no matter how much money they were earning or how many expensive presents I got 'to make up for it'.

However... I would find financial recklessness, work-shy laziness and total lack of ambition big turn-offs in a partner, even if they were an otherwise lovely man. It wouldn't be a particularly equal relationship if one party is doing all the working and earning and the other is doing all the spending. 

It'd be different if I had children though - having one stay-at-home parent and one working parent means two of you are working, rather than one of you working while the other plays the PS3 or goes shopping all day. Or like Casiopea said - if one is studying, that's a different story.

And Triplex - I've read Jennifer Kloster's book as well and read a lot of Georgette Heyer and Jane Austen generally. The financial stuff being so up-front is very different but understandable in a time when women had virtually no ability to earn any money to help the family out. All they could do was budget and scrimp. Love's all very well but it doesn't mend the roof or put food on the table!


----------



## triplex (30 Jan 2008)

_Love's all very well but it doesn't mend the roof or put food on the table!_ 

totally agree!


----------



## Gordanus (1 Feb 2008)

But isn't it interesting that the taboo has now changed so entirely; we now talk freely about sex but nobody mentions money???


----------



## Harlequin (1 Feb 2008)

Except here!!


----------

