True or false: Most women marry for security

[CatWoman]

a friend just said that to me.

I don't agree.

what say you?

[hippywife]

1. Not this one.

When I got married, I owned my own three bedroom condo, a new car and had an excellent job. I was content with being single.

[WCGreen]

35. Did Hippyhusband marry for security....

Cause let me tell you, It was one of the reason, but not the primary one, that I married......

Ad also one, but not the only one, of the reasons we stay together...

[hippywife]

51. Nope.

I gave up all that I had back home and moved here. I haven't worked a corporate job since. We have given up much, materialistically speaking, and willingly. We like living simply out here in the boonies and giving to others in need when we have a little extra. We both contribute equally to the household expenses. Many times we are paycheck to paycheck but we appreciate having the time together rather than the hectic ratrace of trying to snatch the golden ring this society seems to esteem.

It's not easy at times but we are very happy with our choices.

[nini]

2. 50 years ago maybe

but today.. I doubt it.

[devilgrrl]

3. Not most but some may do that...

:shrug:

[southlandshari]

4. .....

:spray:

Sorry, I couldn't help it. I don't agree either.

:hi:

[merh]

5. There are still some women who do.

There are those that go to college to get their MRS degree in pre-wed, there are those that are afraid to be alone so they settle for what they think they can get.

But that ain't me - I'm rather selfish, if the relationship doesn't fulfill my needs, I call an end to it. I'd rather not waste my time or the other person's time.

I know plenty of women/men involved in long term relationships and marriages that are lonelier than I could ever be living alone.

[CatWoman]

16. I still hope to marry for love and companionship --

not security.

[merh]

17. I'm right there with you.

But I know many that are in terrible relationships, lonely relationships, because they fear being on their own. How sad it that. :-(

[Left Is Write]

6. I married for the KitchenAid mixer I knew I'd get as a wedding gift.

:P

[Gormy Cuss]

8. Now there's a savvy woman

:woohoo: :woohoo:

[In_The_Wind]

7. false ...

Money can't buy happiness.

[Porcupine]

9. Yah, but it'll buy you a bride any day.

Sorry but broke guys, even gainfully employed broke guys, don't get dates. Drug addicted guys with bling dont' seem to have problems.

Hmmmn, of course it could be that sober women in their right mind refuse to engage in mating behavior. Either/or the effects the same.

[In_The_Wind]

36. But - not me.

I've been offered wealth. I once dated a man every American has heard about for the past 20 or more years. He's quite wealthy but that wasn't enough for me.

:shrug:

[Porcupine]

37. Hey good for you. Maybe there's hope for the rest of us. n/

.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. Not anymore

[johnnie]

11. I think some do

Just like some men I know who married for the same reason. Not monetary reasons, just to be secure that they won't be "alone" the rest of their lives. Most of them are paying a lot of cash each month now for that security and are alone.

[purr]

12. Not me.. hubby was eyeball high in debt.

[PassingFair]

13. Not any more!

And I certainly didn't waste any time with rich older men when I was young and on the prowl....

We marry for compatibility.

Back in the day when we were BARRED from having living wage jobs, we would have HAD to marry for security.

[China_cat]

14. Maybe rich republicans

but any woman with half a brain today knows that one income isn't going to support a family and unless she's marrying real wealth, there's not going to be any 'security' unless she helps provide it.

[mcar]

15. Me neither

When we got married, my husband didn't have a job. That was 20 years ago -- he's been working ever since and so have I. I never looked at marriage as him having to provide for me. We're partners.

[Chicago Democrat]

18. Correction: All people marry for security!

Was else is it for? love?! ha! that helps but from what I have seen it resembles 'roommates plus' or a corporate merger with benefits.

esp in gay world.

[pitohui]

19. of course it's true, marriage is a financial and legal agreement

you don't have to get married to love somebody and share yr life w. him

however, if you want to get the cheaper rate on car insurance for him and the spousal health insurance for you, if you want to be able to easily inherit and get the tax breaks for each other...then you gotta get married

yes, marriage is abt financial security

this is why gay marriage is such a big deal, no one can stop two roommates from loving ea. other but they can sure fuck w. their ability to provide financially for ea. other

you don't need a piece of paper to hold you together if you truly love each other forever, you need the piece of paper to keep the rest of the world from grabbing pieces of your assets better shared w. your loved one

[Misunderestimator]

20. You are right... Everyone marries for security...

At least those who are fortunate to be able to marry. Being able to provide security for someone you love is a security in itself. And why wouldn't two people who love eachother want to benefit from all those other perks you mention?

Great post! :thumbsup:

[CanuckAmok]

38. a fianancial and legal agreement which can be broken at any time...

...without penalty.

At least in BC.

[Misunderestimator]

52. But at least while the marriage stays intact, the benefits and security...

are there, where they do not exist outside the bounds of the marriage contract.

[BuelahWitch]

21. I wouldn't

Unless he was a Canadian who was good in the sack...

[havocmom]

22. No such thing as security

so you might as well pair up with someone who makes you laugh and rings your bells!

[Hardrada]

23. Best reply yet.

I married someone who I thought would be compatible. I knew we would both work. Our relationship has lasted now (barring a few bumps) for 35 years.

Also it is good Buddhist truth to know that all is transient and possessions are fleeting. Best to have relationships based on amiability and compatibility.

[gardenista]

25. Amen. Women who "marry for security" are probably often disappointed

to find that no such thing exists.

[shanti]

28. been there, done that

it did NOT pay the rent!

[NashVegas]

24. I Thought Most Everyone Marries for Security

I think people in this thread have a limited definition of security. It's not just financial, it can also emotional, or mental. It's *knowing* you're going to have someone fun to rub toes with on a regular basis, too.

[havocmom]

26. Emmotional or mental can also be iffy as time goes by

Some gentlemen accept their own aging better than they accept it in a mate. Sad but true. And I suppose it can go the other way too.

I would rather have a mate cheat physically than emmotionally shut me out in favor of a newer model.

[shanti]

27. some do...

i never did tho....to my detriment - twice.

[Ellen Forradalom]

29. I can't even figure out why I married

Let alone why anyone else does. There are way too many women and men marrying (the same and opposite sex) to pin the majority on marriages on a single motive.

[LeftyMom]

30. I married out of stupidity and divorced for survival

but I sure wasn't getting any security (fincancial or emotional) out of that jerk.

[UTUSN]

31. I Want to mARRY yOU wITHout sECURITY /T

[RobinA]

32. True

I think this applies to many women, not all. Most women I know did. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way...

[DawgHouse]

33. I wouldn't say most marry for security.

But I do think that older and wiser women consider security to be important.

[Starlight]

34. Being older & wiser, I'd never consider marrying for any other reason.

As a stupid young girl, I married & eventually divorced TWO irresponsible boys. I & my children suffered for many years as a result.

Now I know better. I'd never even consider marrying a man who didn't have education, money and ambition. In addition to all the warm & fuzzy traits, of course. :)

[Withywindle]

39. What kind of security do you mean?

Because I would definitely marry for the emotional security of a lifelong companion, someone to grow old with, if I felt it was a possibility with a particular person and we were both deeply committed to the very long haul. (My partner and I have lived together for four years now...I hope it'll happen with him, I hope we can make that leap of faith and that heroic effort, but I think it's still too soon to tell, if either of us has qualms. Only time will tell, really).

Emotional security IS possible, if you have partners who are really honest and really willing to be deeply committed, with all the boring times and painful times and awkward silences and lulls without sex and bursts of too much sex and uncomfortable interactions with relatives and difficult decisions about moving for jobs and living aesthetics and elderly parents and medicine and death that entails. Financial security I don't believe really exists at all for folks like me (lower-middle-class like my parents before me), but I'll tell you, there is NO WAY IN HELL I'd ever let myself get financially dependent on another person as long as I'm physically capable of holding down any kind of job.

I don't even look at a man's wallet because, simply put, if I don't earn it myself, then that means I can't afford it. Period. (That goes for credit too; don't do it except in EXTREME emergencies.) My partner and I split the bills and groceries as fairly as we can, with a slight adjustment because I make a little bit more than he does. (He's a little younger and didn't finish college; I'm a little older and did.)

I'm not willing to let myself get addicted to a standard of living I couldn't afford on my own if I had to. I believe that to do anything other than that corrupts relationships; resentment is inevitable if one partner is carrying an unbalanced financial load.

(Hey, ladies, looking for a Mr. Bankbook to pay for a McMansion for you to live in without a job? There's a word for what you are. Several, in fact. They have more syllables the higher the class--but honestly, given the choice I would rather be rented for an hour than bought for life.)

edit: I should say I learned this the hard way - I was involved with a man from a wealthier background than me. We were together for seven years, engaged for five of them, and the marriage just never happened and eventually he dumped me. Money issues and expectations were ultimately what did us in as a couple. I loved him deeply; I did not love his attitude about wealth at all. But I was also guilty of relaxing too much into the lifestyle HE was used to. It's not that he wasn't hardworking; he was. It's not that he expected things he hadn't earned; he didn't. It was just that, at the end of the road, he had a big inheritance waiting for him eventually, I don't, and he got paranoid I was some kind of golddigger; I guess his family said so because I wore a thrift-shop dress to his sister's wedding... (Well, EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME /Steve Martin)

[Heidi]

40. I didn't feel insecure before I married.

For me, anyway, your friend would be wrong. But I don't know the reasons other women marry. :shrug:

[BikeWriter]

41. Two of my wives did, I think.

[Heidi]

42. What kind of security, BikeWriter?

I'm asking because I don't understand the mindset that anyone can get something as nebulous as "security" from someone else.

[BikeWriter]

43. I've been over this with therapists...

One seems to think I subconsciously sought out women who needed financial and emotional support in their lives.

[Heidi]

44. I guess that could happen.

One of my dearest male friends in the world is a lifelong "rescuer." :shrug:

[BikeWriter]

47. I had a Friend who was that way, too...

We called it The White Knight Syndrome.

[Heidi]

48. I see it two ways:

People who use relationships to "rescue" needy human beans gain a great deal of control; and those who look to others to rescue them relinquish a great deal of autonomy. I was raised to make my own way. :shrug:

[BikeWriter]

49. In my case, I never tried for control...

I think I mostly did it for the positive feedback.

[RebelOne]

45. Totally false.

I was married once and will never do it again. I can provide my own security.

[Withywindle]

46. Actually, though, my other post notwithstanding...

...isn't "security" of some sort the only reason TO marry?

You don't need to marry to have love.

You don't need to marry to have sex.

You don't need to marry to have children.

You don't need to marry to have someone to share living expenses with.

You don't need to marry to have someone to make crucial medical decisions for you; as long as your parents or siblings are still alive you have other Next of Kin.

You don't need to marry to have health care if you fight for a good job...unions....OK, well, maybe even marriage won't help you here.

Granted, I'm 36 and never married--but I think I'll start really stressing about it when I'm, say, 60+ and in NEED of some physical/medical/emotional security.

[lakemonster11]

50. Well, I guess I would say it's more true

that most women will not marry insecurity.

That is, if the man they're involved with seems shiftless or even through no fault of his own (lack of education or training, bad economy, etc.) has a hard time holding down a job, a woman is less likely to marry him than if he has a steady income (or, if they are very young, good education or training and a good work ethic).

This might make some women look like they're superficial or even gold-diggers, but I think it's probably just realism in most cases. Marriage, unlike dating or cohabitation, ties a couple together financially and legally. It would be unwise for one to take as a business partner someone who seemed likely to be a drain on rather than an asset to their joint business ventures, even if he or she were a great friend.

This might be a cold way to look at marriage, which, ideally, should be about love and companionship, but it's also important to remember that financial disagreements are one of the top relationship-killers.

[LostinVA]

53. Yes and know -- I read about a study a year or two ago

That said the majority of women 18-35 said they never would have gotten married if they could: 1.) afford to live on their own, 2.) weren't pressured by their family to marry. However, the majority of men the same age said they got married to have someone to take care of them, and this would still stay married no matter what. So, I guess you could say the guys get married for security more than women.

After I read this, I asked married friends, male and female, about this, and most agreed with it. My 80+ year-old grandmother said she would never have gotten married if the times and circumstances hadn;'t made her get married (money, society).

Very interesting!

[cfield]

54. False, at least for me.

I married for love, I married my best friend, and I wouldn't have settled for less.


Edit to clarify