Would marry a girl for money?

[New_Journey]

Lets say in the past you were a couple, but you didn't love her like you did to others, but she was in love with you. Now you two started to hang out again, you still don't love her, but you like her, sex is great, she is very submissive and feminine.

Also, lets say her parents have a lot of money, properties and mansions, they know about you from the past, and they want you to be part of that family in the now.

Would you marry her knowing that you never gonna love her the way you loved in the past?

Asking for a friend.

 

[crowolf]

There is a lot to unpack here. What do you mean "you don't love her"? Do you define "love" as a strong thrill of emotions? Maybe she is a secure partner, which you see as "boring"?

Some people (mainly those that are not into game and hardcore red pill schemes) will define love as something you work for. As in 2 people putting a lot of effort to make things work out long-term. To communicate, compromise, etc.. I don't know about all of that because I'm far from considering marriage, but as far as I know, in todays world (especially western) - it's the woman who has most of the rights. So if you marry just for money, and you divorce in a year or so, I don't know what will you be getting.

On the other side, this almost sounds to me like being a gigolo. If you are okay with that, sure. It's like you are sacrificing your integrity.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Once upon a time, every divorcee who wanted to kill the sh*t out of their ex got married for love.

 

[Dr.Suave]

You dont believe in unicorns and this rich girl passes the boner test, so the real question is: Why wouldnt you marry her for money?

 

[Manure Spherian]

Lets say in the past you were a couple, but you didn't love her like you did to others, but she was in love with you. Now you two started to hang out again, you still don't love her, but you like her, sex is great, she is very submissive and feminine.

Also, lets say her parents have a lot of money, properties and mansions, they know about you from the past, and they want you to be part of that family in the now.

Would you marry her knowing that you never gonna love her the way you loved in the past?

Asking for a friend.

We should actually bring back dowries. Not joking.

And sh-t can romantic love. You can grow to love each other.

 

[New_Journey]

There is a lot to unpack here. What do you mean "you don't love her"? Do you define "love" as a strong thrill of emotions? Maybe she is a secure partner, which you see as "boring"?

This is a very interesting question. The way he told me was feeling different happy emotions. Example if she leaves you don't care, in contrast with the one you love, if she leaves you'll miss her.

Once upon a time, every divorcee who wanted to kill the sh*t out of their ex got married for love.

True that

Why wouldnt you marry her for money?

He feels weird, like he feels using her for sex and money. And the guys doesn't need money. I said if she's hot and he likes her they can date some time and see how it goes.

You can grow to love each other.

Those that really happen in men?

 

[Manure Spherian]

Those that really happen in men?

I think if a man, as you said, likes a woman, has satisfying sex with her, raises children with her, spends time with her family, and so on, can grow to love such a woman. When you referred to love not as strong as with someone else, it reminded me of romantic love, a notion that I believe has damaged marriage.

 

[Clockwerk50]

I think you can argue both sides, but personally, I wouldn’t. Issues would likely arise where the woman might not fully respect the man due to the financial imbalance. Even if she is submissive, her family’s wealth and influence could put him in a position where he has little control over major decisions and he doesnt have great starting position to negotiate. Her family would also likely be involved in the relationship, and she might ultimately have the final say in important matters. For some reason I see the roles to be reversed.

I’ve only known one guy who married a woman with significantly more money (her family wealthy politicians in Acapulco), but in that case, the financial gap seemed offset by the fact that he was a white Canadian while she was Mexican.

Of course, this is strictly in the context of marrying for financial gain rather than other factors.

 

[Manure Spherian]

View attachment 14078

Does this go for raising children as a nuclear family?

 

[Clockwerk50]

Does this go for raising children as a nuclear family?

I suppose. If the man is living in her home, especially one tied to her family, it can create an imbalance where he has less authority in decisions. If both of you own the home it gives both parties equal footing and she won’t hold all the leverage.

Not sure if this answers your question with my point of view.

 

[New_Journey]

I suppose. If the man is living in her home, especially one tied to her family, it can create an imbalance where he has less authority in decisions. If both of you own the home it gives both parties equal footing and she won’t hold all the leverage.

Not sure if this answers your question with my point of view.

But what happens if a guy already owns a house? But if lets say the dad wants both living together in another of his big houses?

 

[plumber]

you probably heard this before. what matters is her interest level, not yours. you can have a nice life as your telling it. you would need to be loyal....

over time when he see and feel her stand with and for him, he can grow stronger feelings for her. it is possible.

If he plans to have lots of side bets and such. he should pass as the girls daddy could be a bad enemy.


its funny how looking for oneites can keep us looking. keep this question later to refer to after the next oneites does the crazy stuff.

 

[Clockwerk50]

But what happens if a guy already owns a house? But if lets say the dad wants both living together in another of his big houses?

I don’t know. If he has his own home and sells it to move in with her, I’d argue that he’s making a mistake because he’s giving up his independence and financial security. The opportunity cost is high since he’s trading ownership for a situation where he may have less control.

If he has his own home, rents it out, and moves in with her without selling it, it could be a smart move because he retains an asset and a backup plan if things don’t work out.

I guess my question would be: why is he getting married if he’s not truly attracted to her? Is it because she’s submissive and there’s a scarcity of women like that? Is it about the money? It almost sounds like an arranged marriage for political and economic reasons, and I’m not well-versed in that dynamic, nor am I sure if those marriages lead to happiness. But then again, who am I to judge.

 

[The Duke]

Hell no. That's what weak faggots do.

Count on no one but yourself.

The fact this dumbassery even comes up is concerning.

 

[Vanderdonck]

It's probably a sounder reason than quote-unquote love. But I would need there to be an understanding that it's a business arrangement.

Personally I prefer to build up my own life, though no man is an island, better not to trade on favors from in laws unless you're REALLY dedicated to her.

 

[jhonny9546]

People stay together for reasons such as status, wealth, or genuine connection.

Status- or wealth LTRs often involve people seeking to fulfill their needs rather than experiencing genuine love and respect. These relationships can be tumultuous, characterized by a lack of respect and diminished femininity.

In contrast, genuine connection LTRs involve mutual respect and femininity from her, but individuals may meet their needs independently.

Both types of relationships can last a long time, but only the individuals involved can determine whether staying in the relationship is preferable to being single. Ultimately, it is a personal choice.

Consider my cousin, who is in a LTR with his high school girlfriend. She chose him because he is set to inherit her father's company. They had children (primarily to bind him to her) and subsequently married and merged their finances. He resides in her home, and she covers all expenses, including vacations. She has secured her "survival" and cultivated the "image" of a respectable family woman. However, their relationship is not based on mutual affection or chemistry.

In this situation, the man benefits from financial security and an easy job (earning well while doing little). However, his masculine needs remain unmet. Additionally, he is subservient to her family.
If he were to cheat on her without her knowledge, it would still be wrong, but at least he would be fulfilling his own needs.

He remains in the relationship because he possesses sociopathic/narcissistic tendencies and enjoys the associated "status" people give him, because of the name of the business. But he know he has not value to his own eyes.

Maintaining independence is essential.
Being in a genuine LTR, also.
He will eventually realize that he is unhappy.
If he desires to be a man, this is not the path to take.

You need to be the captain of the ship, not a member of the staff.

 

[Dr.Suave]

Hell no. That's what weak faggots do.

Yes, but he would be a fagg0t living in a mansion, at least until she gets bored of him.

 

[New_Journey]

genuine love

genuine connection

mutual affection or chemistry.

What the fvck do all these feel good words even mean for a man?

his masculine needs remain unmet. Additionally, he is subservient to her family.

This is the typical cause and effect fallacy.

He's not masculine because he lives there, he is not masculine because that's how he is. A prize is not the prize because he has material things, its because he has inherent value, he knows. A masculine man no matter the circumstances, will remain a masculine man.

Consider my cousin, who is in a LTR with his high school girlfriend. She chose him because he is set to inherit her father's company. They had children (primarily to bind him to her) and subsequently married and merged their finances. He resides in her home, and she covers all expenses, including vacations. She has secured her "survival" and cultivated the "image" of a respectable family woman. However, their relationship is not based on mutual affection or chemistry.

I don't see this a bad thing. How do you know he's nto getting his needs met? He doesn't fvck his wife? Has he told you?

Hell no. That's what weak faggots do.

Count on no one but yourself.

The fact this dumbassery even comes up is concerning.

Faggots don't typically marry women, you mentioning that, is actually concerning.

 

[RickTheToad]

Lets say in the past you were a couple, but you didn't love her like you did to others, but she was in love with you. Now you two started to hang out again, you still don't love her, but you like her, sex is great, she is very submissive and feminine.

Also, lets say her parents have a lot of money, properties and mansions, they know about you from the past, and they want you to be part of that family in the now.

Would you marry her knowing that you never gonna love her the way you loved in the past?

Asking for a friend.

These days, many women are out earning men in many fields. So, yea, that is a possibility. I earn around $130k from my salary, whereas my GF earns around $160k. I also earn another six figures on top of my salary from my real estate and investments.

 

[New_Journey]

These days, many women are out earning men in many fields. So, yea, that is a possibility. I earn around $130k from my salary, whereas my GF earns around $160k. I also earn another six figures on top of my salary from my real estate and investments.

So you earn around $230k vs you GF $160k?