This. |
|
I would not marry for either.
But if someone close to me asked that question, I would say marry someone who respects you, cares, has compatible values, is family oriented, and ideally had a happy childhood. Chemistry fades over time and you're left with the personality and family baggage, pick wisely, you got only this one life to live, make it count. |
+1000 |
Then it wasn't love, just infatuation. |
| I married for both, and so far its worked out. 23 years together, married for 20. I was completely upfront, well before engagement, that I hoped to be a SAHM. I am very grateful that my DH is a good guy, and we still have a spark all these years later. |
| Love. Just because you have money doesn’t mean you will be happy. |
| I married for love but he had potential to be successful and he succeeded beyond whatever one could hope for. I'm still very much in love. FWIW, I also had a very successful career. |
| I tell my girls to look for both. Of course you need compatibility, but nobody wants a scrub. |
Lol, please do report back when they are 30 and you tell your girls to freeze their eggs.
|
+1001. I married for love and that didn’t last. Now I have neither love nor money. |
| Why not both? My DH lived in a crappy apartment when I met him but we had incredible chemistry and I knew he’d be very successful. 30 years later and it’s all good! |
| Married for love, money arrived through hard work later in. Would not have it any other way. |
Same. I could have married for money several times but knew I would be miserable. |
I don’t know anyone who has kids before 30…and I am 47. That is ridiculous. |
Average maternal age in the US is 27.5. You live in a bubble |