Anonymous wrote:All of these posts about guys they married when they had nothing are besides the point. You knew when you married them that they were hardworking and ambitious -- hence, they WERE bringing something to the table.

Your stories aren't relevant.

I am stunned. Being attracted to anyone is caused by an assortment of factors. If you're a woman who only wants to have a relationship with another woman are you going for the slob who has horrific personal hygiene and has zero interest in ever working, and looking at you as a meal ticket? This isn't about gender. It is always about the individual, pheromones and characteristics that one is drawn to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible for a woman to love a man independent of his status or wealth or what he brings to the table?

If the answer to this was no, how would any guys in high school ever have girlfriends? I mean, I wasn't a jock or anything and I wore normal clothes, listened to normal music, and had several great relationships over the years.

Those are girls in HS not women

All of these posts about guys they married when they had nothing are besides the point. You knew when you married them that they were hardworking and ambitious -- hence, they WERE bringing something to the table.

Your stories aren't relevant.

I just shake my head at people like OP. Of course women can love men. No different than a woman can love a woman or a man can love a man. It is a reaction to the person. Are some people materialistic? Of course. But plenty of women fall in love with men when they have no money at all.

Grow up, OP.

I really have to wonder what's happened to society to make people ask these questions so often. The generations I saw before me didn't seem this confused. Just like with friendships you have to find someone you have some common ground with to be able to enjoy things together naturally, makes you feel safe, and challenges you. When you feel safe that challenge will feel like a positive change. Relationships with the opposite sex really aren't that different. There are different responsibilities when creating a family together or getting married that places more responsibility on each partner, but the general love/respect/friendship part remains the same. There is also a different love bond with sex that you get when you commit your body to one person that is more vulnerable than with other relationships. Probably doesn't work as well with the multiple partners people keep having with others because you don't make yourself vulnerable then really. Did you never have a sister or a mom or a friend that was a girl?

Just like women need to understand that a paid job is the only way to have a responsibility in this world, men as well need to understand this for themselves. Capitalism/monetization is one way to create change, but isn't the only way. They need to see that women bring their own energy to the relationship and respect it. I don't know that religion needs to come back into the lives of everyone per se but it really seems like many people these days have no understanding of what humans are capable of for themselves and for others. And no understanding that money is related to the responsibility of the family in the same way that care is related to the responsibility of the family.

Did you really think all the love songs and stories and religions from the past centuries are all just made up? You have the right answer with your capitalism trumps all an generations before you are just confused? Society is really going downhill.

I'll put it this way. My attractiveness to women noticeably increased after getting an MBA.

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible for a woman to love a man independent of his status or wealth or what he brings to the table?

If the answer to this was no, how would any guys in high school ever have girlfriends? I mean, I wasn't a jock or anything and I wore normal clothes, listened to normal music, and had several great relationships over the years.

No, no they can not love a man in the way the man believe he should be loved. In other words, the man will never be loved "unconditionally."
Men are objectified as success objects.

Anonymous wrote:
I think a lot of men think all women are materialistic and only go for a certain type of man because they literally don't see the women *they* aren't interested in.

This is a great answer and very often true. I think what OP means to ask is do highly desirable women go for a man despite his status and wealth. That answer is complicated, because those types of women often have a lot of options.

Obviously. My husband had nothing when we met. He was renting a room in someone’s basement, waiting tables to survive, and going to college. I was already a graduate, working, and a homeowner. He moved in with me and gradually got on his feet with my support - moral and financial.

I think a lot of men think all women are materialistic and only go for a certain type of man because they literally don't see the women *they* aren't interested in.

of course

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible for a woman to love a man independent of his status or wealth or what he brings to the table?

Are you kidding? You poor damaged soul.

Also your personality is part of "what you bring to the table."

Yes! I met my husband when we were both just out of college and had no money of our own, had starter low paying jobs, etc. He was amazing and we fell in love and then managed life together as we became more successful, had kids, etc.

Is it possible for a woman to love a man independent of his status or wealth or what he brings to the table?