Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

Literally only the last thing you listed has anything to do with someone being a good person. And the second bolded indicates that you don't understand mental illness at all. He sounds like someone whose family valued appearances and presenting the right image, despite dysfunction. So he looked good on paper, but was perhaps under a lot of pressure to maintain appearances or realized that he didn't actually want the life he was supposed to. And you picked him based on that resume, only to find that he was a flawed person, like everyone else, and perhaps the strain of continuing to keep up appearances was too much. It's not your personal failure, and seems odd to frame it that way. There's no way to look at someone and know exactly who they'll be in a decade, or how they will react to all the things that life throws at them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

What is your definition of a “good guy”? It seems the vast majority your requirements were about wealth and earning potential not about the quality of the man. Lot of bad people can be wealthy, clean cut, go to the right schools, have the right job, preppy, etc.

Yup, this struck me too. OP was focused on superficial things.

DP. Perhaps she was.

But thread after thread, post after post, on DCUM in recent years has yammered about how women need to snag men who have specific (high) incomes, certain college degrees, certain types of career paths, etc.

There's a definite fixation among some women with income and lifestyle, since some posters talk about staying married only to maintain their lifestyle, at least until kids are gone. I am NOT saying OP was one of those people, at all. It sounds like she definitely had more than money in mind and he put on a very good "front" for the world.

But let's not pretend that at least on DCUM, there is a huge emphasis for some people on money, educational level, homes, "providing" for the family as yardsticks for marriage material.

And people who fall for that nonsense often end up miserable. The same thing with real estate/neighborhoods. People make themselves miserable to afford a house in a particular area because that is what was drummed into their heads. Same for private schools, enrichment programs, youth sports, etc. It is easy to lose your moral compass in this competitive environment.

I know many many people that married for love instead of money security and ended up miserable. Different backgrounds. Hidden addictions. Just lower standards in the family they married into. Both men and women just drifing off after realizing they couldn't handle marriage. It happens both ways.

I'm not sure what "marry for love" means in that context. It sounds like people who were driven by different cultural propaganda: fairy tales, rom-coms, princess movies, etc. You are setting up a false choice: either Prince Charming or Gordon Gekko. I think that if you have your head on straight, then you have a better chance of finding someone who has the same views of marriage, family, commitment, etc. But you have to be willing to forego some money and some of the romantic ideals.

That's not what I meant at all. Beta males and women who are caring and responsible and loving don't always stay that way.

Beta males? If you talk like that, I assume you are some aspie who has to read books on how to have relationships, and that you have no idea how people actually work.

It's true that people can change, but this is about maximizing the chances of finding a good spouse. If you have a good sense of what makes a successful partner for marriage and look for that, you don't necessarily need to choose between "marriage for love" and marriage for money.

Fine but maximizing doesn't always work. I'm sure OP saw other things in her spouse beyond money. It just doesn't always work. That's why there are annullments and divorces.

Of course it doesn't always work. But OP leads with all sorts of things that have no correlation to being a good spouse: "went to the right schools", "lived in a nice house", "clean cut and preppy", etc. Maybe OP should have paid more attention to the dysfunctional parents than his nice house. That's the point.

He should have been prepared enough to lead a similar life to his upbringing. Shouldn't have been too stressful for him. Many parents are a bit dysfunctional. We don't even know what that means in this particular case. Is there any correlation? He got along with them and his friends. Being a good friend, getting along with others, and being able to handle your life well before marriage and having some money to make a marriage work are definitely pluses to a marriage working out well. I think there are a lot of bad influences out there for people these days. Who knows what actually set him off.

You don't seem to be able to join issue here, and you seem oddly invested in making excuses for OP. Are you self-conscious because you married someone who turned out to be a bad choice?

My point was simply that it is a false choice between "marriage for love" -- by which people mean some sort of rom-com ideal -- and marriage for money. If you want a good marriage, you need to get away from the rom-com ideal and the focus on money because neither of those is a good indicator of who is going to be a good spouse. So, yes, people can come from a dysfunctional family and nevertheless be a great partner. (My spouse is one such person.) And no, having enough money to live well before marriage doesn't really tell you who is going to be a good spouse. If you believe that, fine, but I don't think that's true. But it seems bizarre that you seem to want to suggest that a person picking a spouse has almost no agency or control. So, yes, it's possible that you pick well and things turn out poorly, but it is certainly possible to minimize the chances of that by focusing on the things that make someone a good spouse, rather than money or the rom-com ideals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

Why are you internalizing it as a personal failure?

Anonymous wrote:OP, people are incredibly good at hiding who they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

What is your definition of a “good guy”? It seems the vast majority your requirements were about wealth and earning potential not about the quality of the man. Lot of bad people can be wealthy, clean cut, go to the right schools, have the right job, preppy, etc.

Yup, this struck me too. OP was focused on superficial things.

DP. Perhaps she was.

But thread after thread, post after post, on DCUM in recent years has yammered about how women need to snag men who have specific (high) incomes, certain college degrees, certain types of career paths, etc.

There's a definite fixation among some women with income and lifestyle, since some posters talk about staying married only to maintain their lifestyle, at least until kids are gone. I am NOT saying OP was one of those people, at all. It sounds like she definitely had more than money in mind and he put on a very good "front" for the world.

But let's not pretend that at least on DCUM, there is a huge emphasis for some people on money, educational level, homes, "providing" for the family as yardsticks for marriage material.

And people who fall for that nonsense often end up miserable. The same thing with real estate/neighborhoods. People make themselves miserable to afford a house in a particular area because that is what was drummed into their heads. Same for private schools, enrichment programs, youth sports, etc. It is easy to lose your moral compass in this competitive environment.

I know many many people that married for love instead of money security and ended up miserable. Different backgrounds. Hidden addictions. Just lower standards in the family they married into. Both men and women just drifing off after realizing they couldn't handle marriage. It happens both ways.

I'm not sure what "marry for love" means in that context. It sounds like people who were driven by different cultural propaganda: fairy tales, rom-coms, princess movies, etc. You are setting up a false choice: either Prince Charming or Gordon Gekko. I think that if you have your head on straight, then you have a better chance of finding someone who has the same views of marriage, family, commitment, etc. But you have to be willing to forego some money and some of the romantic ideals.

That's not what I meant at all. Beta males and women who are caring and responsible and loving don't always stay that way.

Beta males? If you talk like that, I assume you are some aspie who has to read books on how to have relationships, and that you have no idea how people actually work.

It's true that people can change, but this is about maximizing the chances of finding a good spouse. If you have a good sense of what makes a successful partner for marriage and look for that, you don't necessarily need to choose between "marriage for love" and marriage for money.

Fine but maximizing doesn't always work. I'm sure OP saw other things in her spouse beyond money. It just doesn't always work. That's why there are annullments and divorces.

Of course it doesn't always work. But OP leads with all sorts of things that have no correlation to being a good spouse: "went to the right schools", "lived in a nice house", "clean cut and preppy", etc. Maybe OP should have paid more attention to the dysfunctional parents than his nice house. That's the point.

He should have been prepared enough to lead a similar life to his upbringing. Shouldn't have been too stressful for him. Many parents are a bit dysfunctional. We don't even know what that means in this particular case. Is there any correlation? He got along with them and his friends. Being a good friend, getting along with others, and being able to handle your life well before marriage and having some money to make a marriage work are definitely pluses to a marriage working out well. I think there are a lot of bad influences out there for people these days. Who knows what actually set him off.

You don't seem to be able to join issue here, and you seem oddly invested in making excuses for OP. Are you self-conscious because you married someone who turned out to be a bad choice?

My point was simply that it is a false choice between "marriage for love" -- by which people mean some sort of rom-com ideal -- and marriage for money. If you want a good marriage, you need to get away from the rom-com ideal and the focus on money because neither of those is a good indicator of who is going to be a good spouse. So, yes, people can come from a dysfunctional family and nevertheless be a great partner. (My spouse is one such person.) And no, having enough money to live well before marriage doesn't really tell you who is going to be a good spouse. If you believe that, fine, but I don't think that's true. But it seems bizarre that you seem to want to suggest that a person picking a spouse has almost no agency or control. So, yes, it's possible that you pick well and things turn out poorly, but it is certainly possible to minimize the chances of that by focusing on the things that make someone a good spouse, rather than money or the rom-com ideals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

What is your definition of a “good guy”? It seems the vast majority your requirements were about wealth and earning potential not about the quality of the man. Lot of bad people can be wealthy, clean cut, go to the right schools, have the right job, preppy, etc.

Yup, this struck me too. OP was focused on superficial things.

DP. Perhaps she was.

But thread after thread, post after post, on DCUM in recent years has yammered about how women need to snag men who have specific (high) incomes, certain college degrees, certain types of career paths, etc.

There's a definite fixation among some women with income and lifestyle, since some posters talk about staying married only to maintain their lifestyle, at least until kids are gone. I am NOT saying OP was one of those people, at all. It sounds like she definitely had more than money in mind and he put on a very good "front" for the world.

But let's not pretend that at least on DCUM, there is a huge emphasis for some people on money, educational level, homes, "providing" for the family as yardsticks for marriage material.

And people who fall for that nonsense often end up miserable. The same thing with real estate/neighborhoods. People make themselves miserable to afford a house in a particular area because that is what was drummed into their heads. Same for private schools, enrichment programs, youth sports, etc. It is easy to lose your moral compass in this competitive environment.

I know many many people that married for love instead of money security and ended up miserable. Different backgrounds. Hidden addictions. Just lower standards in the family they married into. Both men and women just drifing off after realizing they couldn't handle marriage. It happens both ways.

I'm not sure what "marry for love" means in that context. It sounds like people who were driven by different cultural propaganda: fairy tales, rom-coms, princess movies, etc. You are setting up a false choice: either Prince Charming or Gordon Gekko. I think that if you have your head on straight, then you have a better chance of finding someone who has the same views of marriage, family, commitment, etc. But you have to be willing to forego some money and some of the romantic ideals.

That's not what I meant at all. Beta males and women who are caring and responsible and loving don't always stay that way.

Beta males? If you talk like that, I assume you are some aspie who has to read books on how to have relationships, and that you have no idea how people actually work.

It's true that people can change, but this is about maximizing the chances of finding a good spouse. If you have a good sense of what makes a successful partner for marriage and look for that, you don't necessarily need to choose between "marriage for love" and marriage for money.

Fine but maximizing doesn't always work. I'm sure OP saw other things in her spouse beyond money. It just doesn't always work. That's why there are annullments and divorces.

Of course it doesn't always work. But OP leads with all sorts of things that have no correlation to being a good spouse: "went to the right schools", "lived in a nice house", "clean cut and preppy", etc. Maybe OP should have paid more attention to the dysfunctional parents than his nice house. That's the point.

He should have been prepared enough to lead a similar life to his upbringing. Shouldn't have been too stressful for him. Many parents are a bit dysfunctional. We don't even know what that means in this particular case. Is there any correlation? He got along with them and his friends. Being a good friend, getting along with others, and being able to handle your life well before marriage and having some money to make a marriage work are definitely pluses to a marriage working out well. I think there are a lot of bad influences out there for people these days. Who knows what actually set him off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

Literally only the last thing you listed has anything to do with someone being a good person. And the second bolded indicates that you don't understand mental illness at all. He sounds like someone whose family valued appearances and presenting the right image, despite dysfunction. So he looked good on paper, but was perhaps under a lot of pressure to maintain appearances or realized that he didn't actually want the life he was supposed to. And you picked him based on that resume, only to find that he was a flawed person, like everyone else, and perhaps the strain of continuing to keep up appearances was too much. It's not your personal failure, and seems odd to frame it that way. There's no way to look at someone and know exactly who they'll be in a decade, or how they will react to all the things that life throws at them.

Exactly, I had the same thought as going to a good school doesn’t make someone a good person. Watch the Woodstock documentary on Netflix about all the kids in 94 at that festival. These were preppy kids assaulting women and destroying a farm.

Op here. This is really illuminating to me. His family do love presenting a certain image to disguise or distract from their dysfunction. It wasn’t apparent to me at first but I realized pretty quickly after marriage that my MIL is a narcissist who emotionally abused her children for control. She is obsessed with portraying a certain image perhaps at the detriment to her family. I did not connect the dots and was initially drawn by his nice appearance, yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

Literally only the last thing you listed has anything to do with someone being a good person. And the second bolded indicates that you don't understand mental illness at all. He sounds like someone whose family valued appearances and presenting the right image, despite dysfunction. So he looked good on paper, but was perhaps under a lot of pressure to maintain appearances or realized that he didn't actually want the life he was supposed to. And you picked him based on that resume, only to find that he was a flawed person, like everyone else, and perhaps the strain of continuing to keep up appearances was too much. It's not your personal failure, and seems odd to frame it that way. There's no way to look at someone and know exactly who they'll be in a decade, or how they will react to all the things that life throws at them.

Exactly, I had the same thought as going to a good school doesn’t make someone a good person. Watch the Woodstock documentary on Netflix about all the kids in 94 at that festival. These were preppy kids assaulting women and destroying a farm.

Op here. This is really illuminating to me. His family do love presenting a certain image to disguise or distract from their dysfunction. It wasn’t apparent to me at first but I realized pretty quickly after marriage that my MIL is a narcissist who emotionally abused her children for control. She is obsessed with portraying a certain image perhaps at the detriment to her family. I did not connect the dots and was initially drawn by his nice appearance, yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

Literally only the last thing you listed has anything to do with someone being a good person. And the second bolded indicates that you don't understand mental illness at all. He sounds like someone whose family valued appearances and presenting the right image, despite dysfunction. So he looked good on paper, but was perhaps under a lot of pressure to maintain appearances or realized that he didn't actually want the life he was supposed to. And you picked him based on that resume, only to find that he was a flawed person, like everyone else, and perhaps the strain of continuing to keep up appearances was too much. It's not your personal failure, and seems odd to frame it that way. There's no way to look at someone and know exactly who they'll be in a decade, or how they will react to all the things that life throws at them.

Exactly, I had the same thought as going to a good school doesn’t make someone a good person. Watch the Woodstock documentary on Netflix about all the kids in 94 at that festival. These were preppy kids assaulting women and destroying a farm.

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

What is your definition of a “good guy”? It seems the vast majority your requirements were about wealth and earning potential not about the quality of the man. Lot of bad people can be wealthy, clean cut, go to the right schools, have the right job, preppy, etc.

Yup, this struck me too. OP was focused on superficial things.

DP. Perhaps she was.


If you think that going to the right schools is a guarantee of being a good person you are very, very naive. Most of the Harvard grads I know are tremendous a-holes and that is part of why/how they got in.
But thread after thread, post after post, on DCUM in recent years has yammered about how women need to snag men who have specific (high) incomes, certain college degrees, certain types of career paths, etc.

There's a definite fixation among some women with income and lifestyle, since some posters talk about staying married only to maintain their lifestyle, at least until kids are gone. I am NOT saying OP was one of those people, at all. It sounds like she definitely had more than money in mind and he put on a very good "front" for the world.

But let's not pretend that at least on DCUM, there is a huge emphasis for some people on money, educational level, homes, "providing" for the family as yardsticks for marriage material.

And people who fall for that nonsense often end up miserable. The same thing with real estate/neighborhoods. People make themselves miserable to afford a house in a particular area because that is what was drummed into their heads. Same for private schools, enrichment programs, youth sports, etc. It is easy to lose your moral compass in this competitive environment.

I know many many people that married for love instead of money security and ended up miserable. Different backgrounds. Hidden addictions. Just lower standards in the family they married into. Both men and women just drifing off after realizing they couldn't handle marriage. It happens both ways.

I'm not sure what "marry for love" means in that context. It sounds like people who were driven by different cultural propaganda: fairy tales, rom-coms, princess movies, etc. You are setting up a false choice: either Prince Charming or Gordon Gekko. I think that if you have your head on straight, then you have a better chance of finding someone who has the same views of marriage, family, commitment, etc. But you have to be willing to forego some money and some of the romantic ideals.

That's not what I meant at all. Beta males and women who are caring and responsible and loving don't always stay that way.

Beta males? If you talk like that, I assume you are some aspie who has to read books on how to have relationships, and that you have no idea how people actually work.

It's true that people can change, but this is about maximizing the chances of finding a good spouse. If you have a good sense of what makes a successful partner for marriage and look for that, you don't necessarily need to choose between "marriage for love" and marriage for money.

Fine but maximizing doesn't always work. I'm sure OP saw other things in her spouse beyond money. It just doesn't always work. That's why there are annullments and divorces.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

Literally only the last thing you listed has anything to do with someone being a good person. And the second bolded indicates that you don't understand mental illness at all. He sounds like someone whose family valued appearances and presenting the right image, despite dysfunction. So he looked good on paper, but was perhaps under a lot of pressure to maintain appearances or realized that he didn't actually want the life he was supposed to. And you picked him based on that resume, only to find that he was a flawed person, like everyone else, and perhaps the strain of continuing to keep up appearances was too much. It's not your personal failure, and seems odd to frame it that way. There's no way to look at someone and know exactly who they'll be in a decade, or how they will react to all the things that life throws at them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I picked right. He went to the right schools, lived in a nice house, parents still together even if dysfunctional. He presented himself well, clean cut and preppy. He had a decent job upon graduation from graduate school. He was kind to his parents and animals and a loyal friend.

10 years later, hes had multiple mental breakdowns as he cannot apparently handle stress of adulthood, has had drinking problems and cheated on me.

What did I do wrong?

What is your definition of a “good guy”? It seems the vast majority your requirements were about wealth and earning potential not about the quality of the man. Lot of bad people can be wealthy, clean cut, go to the right schools, have the right job, preppy, etc.

Yup, this struck me too. OP was focused on superficial things.

DP. Perhaps she was.

But thread after thread, post after post, on DCUM in recent years has yammered about how women need to snag men who have specific (high) incomes, certain college degrees, certain types of career paths, etc.

There's a definite fixation among some women with income and lifestyle, since some posters talk about staying married only to maintain their lifestyle, at least until kids are gone. I am NOT saying OP was one of those people, at all. It sounds like she definitely had more than money in mind and he put on a very good "front" for the world.

But let's not pretend that at least on DCUM, there is a huge emphasis for some people on money, educational level, homes, "providing" for the family as yardsticks for marriage material.

And people who fall for that nonsense often end up miserable. The same thing with real estate/neighborhoods. People make themselves miserable to afford a house in a particular area because that is what was drummed into their heads. Same for private schools, enrichment programs, youth sports, etc. It is easy to lose your moral compass in this competitive environment.

I know many many people that married for love instead of money security and ended up miserable. Different backgrounds. Hidden addictions. Just lower standards in the family they married into. Both men and women just drifing off after realizing they couldn't handle marriage. It happens both ways.

I'm not sure what "marry for love" means in that context. It sounds like people who were driven by different cultural propaganda: fairy tales, rom-coms, princess movies, etc. You are setting up a false choice: either Prince Charming or Gordon Gekko. I think that if you have your head on straight, then you have a better chance of finding someone who has the same views of marriage, family, commitment, etc. But you have to be willing to forego some money and some of the romantic ideals.

That's not what I meant at all. Beta males and women who are caring and responsible and loving don't always stay that way.

Beta males? If you talk like that, I assume you are some aspie who has to read books on how to have relationships, and that you have no idea how people actually work.

It's true that people can change, but this is about maximizing the chances of finding a good spouse. If you have a good sense of what makes a successful partner for marriage and look for that, you don't necessarily need to choose between "marriage for love" and marriage for money.

Fine but maximizing doesn't always work. I'm sure OP saw other things in her spouse beyond money. It just doesn't always work. That's why there are annullments and divorces.

Of course it doesn't always work. But OP leads with all sorts of things that have no correlation to being a good spouse: "went to the right schools", "lived in a nice house", "clean cut and preppy", etc. Maybe OP should have paid more attention to the dysfunctional parents than his nice house. That's the point.