Would marry a girl for money?

[Manure Spherian]

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

You never got around to this. What do you mean love but not love as one had in the past? This implies a romantic notion of love and genuine love can result from going through life together.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Hell no.

 

[Manure Spherian]

Hell no. That's what weak faggots do.

Count on no one but yourself.

The fact this dumbassery even comes up is concerning.

Marriage is a sexual and an economic union and a conjoining of two families, not just two lovebirds. I don’t see how considering the wealth one brings is an element of fagg0try.

I believe the individualistic, romantic view of marriage has deteriorated marriage. Of course family court/divorce industry did the final wrecking.

 

[RickTheToad]

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

Give or take a few, but yes. Day job is a physicians assistant. Side job is renting and managing my investment properties.

 

[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.

Is this friend you?

 

[New_Journey]

Is this friend you?

No.

 

[plumber]

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.

some of this is all about self talks.

the OP case is a little different. but the key is how the man manages his own mind. everyone's ship is within a larger ship or ocean. if the man can be captain of his own ship, while managing his own ship he might work together with a larger ship to increase his own ship.

If a woman is in love with a man, and its for sure not for money... that's a good thing for the man. red pill 101 is that the girls should like the man more than the man likes the girl. this avoids the problem where the man gives in to the woman's emotions.

 

[BeExcellent]

Advice from the old lady:

The father-in-law is the patriarch in this scenario and he will call the shots. Period. You or your friend will be expected to father her children, be a respectable husband & father, reflect well on her & her parents.

His sexual loyalty will be required and expected.

The father-in-law, if he is smart will continue to own & control all assets (so your friend will own no interest in family assets and he may be required to sign a legal agreement that he gets nothing in the event of infidelity.)

So her dad is going to control things, make no mistake about that.

 

[zekko]

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?

Yeah, I agree with this. I've always kind of thought that relationships tend to work better when there aren't so many strong emotions involved.

 

[jhonny9546]

He doesn't fvck his wife? Has he told you?

She cheated, He forgave her.
She now tried to cheat again.

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.

I didn't understand this part

If a woman is in love with a man, and its for sure not for money...

Can he provide that lifestyle through his company?
Then he will be loved for that.
So he'll get ****ed for that, and not out of genuine attraction.

@BeExcellent
In most cases, it is the father-in-law who chooses the "good match", even if the daughter is unhappy with the choice, she will be devoted to representing the image of the "happy family".
In that case, 2 things could happen: 1, she will remain like that, 2, the discontent and frustration changes her and she no longer accepts the authority of the father and at that point she will do her own thing.