<p>AUgirl…I’m sorry but your wrong… Love has nothing to do with how much money you have - it should be separate. To prevent yourself from being in a financial situation though like you said just try as hard as possible in life and if you do and never give up you will get to where you need to be.</p>
<p>A happy medium is ideal, but I doubt the OP aimed for that being a choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:). Agreed.</p>
<p>Money can buy love. It can buy MY love.</p>
<p>So yeah, money.</p>
<p>It makes me sad how many people are choosing money.</p>
<p>I agree. Love has nothing to do with how much money you have and should be kept separate.</p>
<p>BUT You also can’t rely on another person to give you the money. So when you do combine them, then it gets tricky… and you potentially pass by your true match by weighing in money. And you become blind sighted by money.</p>
<p>If it’s seperate, then you know that YOU, and YOU alone have to provide for yourself. Then your true love will come… and you’ll be rich/able to afford your bills and be in love.</p>
<p>How great is that?</p>
<p>Love… but it would be nice if they had some money too.</p>
<p>
<br>
haha</p>
<p>And AUgirl, i think you’re missing in the point- you shouldn’t be mooching off someone you love anyway. i was just going through the thread and found this:
</p>
<p>:facepalm:</p>
<p>lol.</p>
<p>That post was more of a …joke. Other than the love part… I think I’m more interested in love than money. Unless the love is an unhappy love?</p>
<p>And I think you and I are arguing about what we agree over. XD Because I think you shouldn’t mooch off someone you love either. XD That being said, I don’t want someone mooching off of me either. But I guess if I love them and they love me then the “What’s mine is yours” concept really kicks in there! =)</p>
<p>agreed
10 char</p>
<p>I’d so much rather work really hard with someone I love to make a life for ourselves than to come home to a beautiful house and an old billionaire I married but didn’t love.</p>
<p>^ I agree to that so totally much.</p>
<p>Then you begin to despise everything and everyone. And you don’t want to go home. And then you find someone that you actually do love… and you tear your marriage apart. And it’s even worse if you have kids.</p>
<p>=(</p>
<p>How about a balance of the two or three, including power?</p>
<p>I’d like that :)</p>
<p>Hmmm, how about this alternative question: Would you rather completely and fully embrace **chastity <a href=“which%20here%20shall%20be%20taken%20to%20mean%20celibacy%20–%20no%20non-platonic%20relations%20allowed%20whatsoever,%20a%20renouncement%20of%20eros”>/B</a>, **poverty <a href=“here%20the%20question%20will%20split%20–%20poverty%20as%20defined%20by%20the%20US%20government%20and%20%5BI%5Dextreme%5B/I%5D%20poverty%20as%20defined%20by%20the%20world%20bank.%20Oh,%20and%20if%20one%20chooses%20something%20other%20than%20this,%20then%20please%20assign%20a%20monetary%20value%20to%20the%20other%20two%20–%20how%20much%20would%20you%20need%20to%20make%20in%20order%20to%20not%20renounce%20love%20(eros)%20or%20liberty”>/B</a>, or **obedience<a href=“say,%20you’re%20forced%20into%20a%20relatively%20unpleasant%20and%20boring%20job%20that%20you’d%20rather%20not%20do,%20and%20have%20to%20take%20orders%20from%20someone%20you’d%20rather%20not.%20Kind%20of%20like%20the%20typical%20American%20white%20collar%20job,%20actually%20–%20perhaps%20this%20is%20what%20most%20here%20would%20accept”>/B</a>. </p>
<p>In order of undesirability, I would list them as obedience, chastity, poverty (for US poverty) and poverty, obedience, chastity (for extreme poverty, and given a relatively minor chain of obedience. I’d never trade my liberty for security, of course).</p>
<p>I would value chastity and obedience up to the point of having all my physiological needs met (to within a reasonable degree of security – ie no threat of sudden starvation, or constant fear of death by murder, or whatever. I’d be willing to go hungry or put myself in some peril, though, in order to not have to remain chaste or obedient.</p>