comment: >
  
  If you marry someone for money you’ll end up having to earn every penny.
context: /u/MDofReddit (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 think the problem with loving someone for their looks or money is that people can lose their money, or find someone else who is richer. we can lose our looks or our partner can eventually become bored with our bodies/style. ideally, we should seek a more permanent connection or have multiple (3+) points of attraction. we should, if we can, wait until we have found a person to whom we can become securely connected. >
  
  There's no such thing as a permanent connection in an adult romantic relationship.  There a few fixed characteristics about a person worth betting a relationship on. Everything from personality, intelligence, and preferences are subject to change over one's lifetime. All it takes it one serious brain injury or economic depression. I think the best we can hope for is our partners not changing too much for our liking or us growing to love (at least accept) the changes they undergo. >
  
  there is a difference between "more permanent" and absolutely permanent. >
  
  I don't think personality or values are more permanent, assuming these are the qualities you are using as reference. The person you fell in love with typically changes over the years in more ways than one. Say they were a shy homebody when you got together. 10 years later they blossomed into a outspoken traveler you barely see anymore. Say they were once an avid liberal but sometime later they grew more conservative in their values. 
  With kids and other responsibilities thrown in the mix, you and your partner are bound to be different people at some point. More often than not they change into something you no longer like-- into something that isn't secure anymore. Not that anything ever was definite from the start, especially if you got together in your 20's. 
  I suppose the only constant a couple can be sure of is change. Whether they choose to break up or grow from it is probably up to how much of the change detracts from their overall satisfaction with the relationship.  
  So yeah money, looks, personality, values are all mutable qualities. They are things that attract you initially but I wouldn't bet on them to have a lasting relationship. Love is a choice and choosing to love and adapt in spite of the changes is probably the best route for long term satisfaction. >
  
  
  Love is a choice and choosing to love and adapt in spite of the changes is probably the best route for long term satisfaction.
  
  commitment is not synonymous with love. commitment is the choice regardless of love, love is a feeling and like all other feelings, it is largely involuntary. at best you could try to repress your feelings or avoid certain thoughts. you can certainly avoid contact which could help reduce a feeling of love. >
  
  Okay let's swap love with commitment then.  My point still stands regardless of word choice unless you actually have something to refute. >
  
  no i have nothing to refute. my initial statement seems perfectly compatible with yours after that word change. >
  
  Depending on who you're talking to, both are pretty looked down upon, are you under the assumption that one is viewed as worse than the other? Because generally in a relationship where one is dating for money, the person with the money is dating the other for their looks, so both generally happen at the same time. >
  
  but dont you think it is human nature? Both of these options are chasing different kind of successes. >
  
  
  but dont you think it is human nature?
  
  Not at all. Being sexually attracted to someone is a biological thing. You wouldn't even understand what money is without extensive socialization, let alone value it as a factor to attraction >
  
  I want to push back against this. A lot of sexual selection in nature is based on the male’s ability to survive, which in turn is often based on the male’s ability to acquire resources. At its core, money really about resources. Better food, better shelter, better ability to provide for and protect offspring. This isn’t a universal rule, but it’s prevalent enough to argue that the ability to acquire resources is a ‘biological thing’ and perhaps even more fundamental than ‘first-order’ sexual attraction. >
  
  But that's heuristics on ability to acquire resources, i.e bigger muscles, taller frame, etc.
  Their biology wouldn't understand that a guy has a lot of money, just as it wouldn't understand that a guy had a huge pile of wood beside his cave for the winter back in those days. >
  
  Yeah thinking through this a bit more, you are right. >
  
  In a divorce/break up you can sometimes keep some of that money, but you can't keep the good looks.
  Money benefits more all round, looks benefit the individual, and fade over time. >
  
  In a divorce/break up, you can sometimes maintain access to the good-looking children your beautiful spouse helped you to produce. 
  Attractiveness benefits more all round by being passed down to the next generation. Money just helps you until it's spent. >
  
  
  you can sometimes maintain access to the good-looking children 
  
  r/nocontext >
  
  
  I would like to put the emphasis on the fact that we are talking about a girl who DOES NOT plan on taking advantage of all your money. We are talking about a decent girl who probably would not agree for a date had it not been for your money.
  
  Then that's isn't really "marrying someone for their money". As you said, it's normal to look for security or any other kind of personal gain in relationships. Marrying someone with their finance in mind or starting a relationship with someone based on their looks is a long shot from marrying someone specifically for their money or good looks. 
  Also, I've never seen someone argue against what you said anyway. Even at its most extremes, being a gold digger or only get into relationship with people for their looks are both frowned upon. >
  
  Someone's looks are superficial. Marrying someone for looks doesn't mean that I get a safe, stable life. They're not at all the same thing.
  
  Imagine if you asked out a girl today and she said "sorry no", but in 5 years when you make a lot of money and decide to ask her out again, she agrees. Maybe you did not have the looks it took for you to reach the date milestone, but now the money and your success makes up for it.
  
  There's nothing especially wrong with wanting stability. >
  
  No but there's something wrong with faking emotions for the person when what you're really attached to is the stability. 
  Same with toxic relationships where someone's made to take care of the other person. They aren't loved as a person but just for their labor. >
  
  Sure - my point is just that they're not the same thing. >
  
  Im.sorry what aren't the same thing? >
  
  Marrying someone for looks versus marrying someone for money. Money is often (not always) indicative of some other characteristics: ambition, success, etc. that leads to a comfortable life and stability. Good looks are just good looks; physical desire with nothing else necessarily attached. I acknowledge that both aren't necessarily "the right thing", but I feel that it's a lot more rational to marry someone who represents more stability over someone you just might be more physically attracted to. >
  
  marriage isn't a business. 
  I don't even want to use the argument that "looks generally means good genes, which means healthier offspring who have a higher chance of mating and continuing the family line" to argue about "rationality".
  Because marriage and relationships aren't a business. It's sad people look at it so pragmatically. >
  
  Sure - I agree with you and I never stated otherwise. >
  
  I mean beauty is a factor for almost everyone when dating.  
  marrying a rich husband is a great way to gain wealth so seems desirable, why not.  
  As far as comparing the two factors morally, who knows.
  Don't think your come back in five years line will go over that well though. >
  
  
  marrying a rich husband is a great way to gain wealth so seems desirable, why not.
  
  The way I see this is... The person marrying the rich husband isnt rich, they are just married to someone who is... Just like the rich husband does not become pretty by marrying the pretty girl. >
  
  united states divorce laws are rather favorable to the women.  your networth for sure goes up. 
  unsure about other parts of the world >
  
  Imagine spending more than 1 hour with any human………….now don’t judge any marriage. >
  
  There is always a reason behind wanting to date the person for money where as that isn't true with attraction. Attraction is a natural and healthy thing to seek in a relationship.  If you are committed to someone because you find them attractive,  you are doing it for a healthy reason. 
  You can never say the same thing about money.  A person can contribute in ways other than salary. They can raise a kid,  grow and cook food,  repair clothes,  develop community relationships that provide needs,  etc. 
  You are adding a level of cynicism to a person that is unreasonable when talking about a committed relationship.  Now if it's a person that is emotionally abusive and unsupported about their partners, it looks as they fade its different.  That's unhealthy.  Obviously an over emphasis on looks can be unhealthy. 
  Hopefully this distinction is clear.  Caring about looks can be a natural thing.  Caring about money necessitates greed. A couple can be dirt poor, and be happy in a committed relationship. You can be genuine in a relationship because of attraction. If you are dating someone for money its because you want nice cars, or a nice house,  or vacations, or status.  It's a means to get something else you want and have someone else provide it for you >
  
  I disagree with OP, but your point is null. Someone can be attractive to another person because of their money. >
  
  I am talking about physical attraction here.  You can't see a naked body out of context and be attracted to its wealth.  Because of this,  a person will always be authentic in their attraction to a person for their looks but the same can't be said for wealth. 
  In this way they aren't the same. One is inherently more open to suspicion. The intentions are questionable with one and not the other >
  
  Lol, so you’d be more ok with someone only being attracted to you for your looks than if they were attracted you for your money? To me they both feel shallow and undesirable in a partner >
  
  
  Lol, so you’d be more ok with someone only being attracted to you for your looks than if they were attracted you for your money? 
  
  Absolutely. Being "attracted to your looks" is pretty much how sexual attraction works. It's about desirability of a body, to you know, touch their body to your body? Where does the string of numbers representing some bank account appear in that scenario? >
  
  A better title for this post would be attracting rather than marrying/dating. Nobody marries or dated someone exclusively for their looks. 
  There’s a conversation to be made that attracting a partner with your financial status and/or ability to provide in society is no different than looks which is a mark of genetic capability. Both just show you would be good to reproduce with. >
  
  Jordan Peterson has some excellent YouTube videos on this topic (sorry no link) where he describes the “mate selection process” (my words).  In short, he cites hard data from hundreds of years and describes most if not all mate selection behaviors as what I consider “lizard brain” driven.  If true we shouldn’t be judging anyone for their mate selection priorities. >
  
  If someone who is ONLY with their partners because of looks, then I think many/most people would agree that they are shallow. Just like gold diggers are shallow.
  Looks are like the keys to a house; if you don't have the key, you don't have access to the inside to see what its like.
  If I think someone is horribly ugly, I wouldn't want to consider them as a romantic partner, so I don't get to learn of their other traits. Looks are the first thing you see.
  But it shouldn't be the only or even main factor. Or else you're shallow.
  If a girl likes a guy who she would have liked anyway but coincidentally he's rich, there's no problem with that. If she's specifically with him for the money (and of course, genders reversed works too), and would not be with him if he wasn't rich...
  then she's just a long term, exclusive prostitute.
  
  We all love successful people don't we?
  
  Not me. I couldn't care less how successful someone is materially. I do care about looks, but the most important thing is whether they have strong values that align with mine or not. >
  
  Yes, both are incredibly stupid and lead to a fucked relationship. >
  
  Yeah, both of those are fucked up.
  Who marries for looks? >
  
  the assumption is that its wrong, fundamentally its not , its just not as fulfilling as doing it for love , so the person doesnt feel special , and usually most of the people doing it lie about their reasons for marrying someone , if both parties are upfront and admit they were shallows its not inherently wrong >
  
  Well looks makes younactually attracted to them as as a person albeit physically only. 
  Their money isn't them. >
  
  Yes it is.  One is driven by financial desires, the other is driven by sexual desires. >
  
  Marrying for looks is shallow.  Marrying for money is predatory (unless the person who has the money is OK with it). >
  
  looks/beauty is subjective , Money isn't. 
  Money can be comparative , beauty is purely subjective. >
  
  Neither (marrying for looks or money) are bad, per se, right. And money and looks are both somewhat versatile features. Looks will get you good treatment and attention. Money gets you entry into lots of experiences.
  The problem with both is that neither keeps you married or makes your marriage happy. 
  Dr. John Gottman has researched marriage for 40 years. He honestly can tell you in 15 minutes whether a couple will stay married. It's all based on how they talk to each other and treat each other.
  His biggest predictor of the success of a marriage is whether the couple "lean in" toward one another - do they recognize small gestures one makes to the other? Do they acknowledge each other's feelings? Do they lean in to treat each other well.
  Many couples don't. And their marriages fail (what is it, about 50% or so of marriages now?)
  And I would bet that having looks and money don't predict having a personality that actively cares for your partner, year after year. 
  So, yeah, marry for looks or money. Just be OK with needing to look again in a few years and keep the number of a good attorney in your back pocket in the meantime. >
  
  I think that Marrying someone for their money or their looks is essentially the same (frivolous reasons at the end). For most people its not because it all comes to the expectations they have. Someone marrying anybody just for their money comes with an all around security from the benefits what they where looking for, and usually is believed that those people have a manipulative behavior towards their partner. but with the other way around people usually hope this good looking person to be nice because we wrongly thend to associate those things. The term "gold digger" comes from this mistake, where someone was thinking they got the jackpot when they where the slot machine.