True on many levels, however, I thinking living with and living on someone are two totally different things.


azrae1 you never cease to amaze me, You are the Yoda of the Threads.

Sorry for the double post everyone

Well, My ex supposedly left because she found her "soul mate"....rather than money.....but she not only left me...she left her 2 little girls behind as well and she moved 1700 miles away. He will not move so she can be near her children. Would you leave financial stability and your children for your "soul mate"?
Well, I wouldn't leave the children and there maybe other issues as well. I'm sorry you had to go through that.

thanks God Im poor, so if any woman comes to me the only thing will get is emotional stability

Yes I would, I would rather have nothing and be happy then have everything in the world and be sad..

I believe I would like to clarify the question first:

Based on the responses I am not sure if some equate emotional security with love. For me, it is not the same thing.

1. Emotional security (LOVE) vs financial security

or

2. a person who is Emotionally secure in themselves vs being financially secure?

"Emotional security: the measure of the stability of an individual's emotional situation. A person who is susceptible to bouts of depression being triggered by minor setbacks is said to be less "emotionally secure". A person whose general happiness is not very shaken even by major disturbances in the pattern or fabric of their life might be said to be extremely emotionally secure."

Personally I believe a blend of both qualities in a man is preferable, although there will be times during the course of a lifetime when there may be an absence or degradation of one or the other. This is where 'love' comes in.

A lack of either, depending on the degree, is going to be a stress factor in a relationship. I am not sure how a person would remain financially stable if they were not also somewhat emotionally secure.

I think one has to be emotionally secure in oneself, as I do not believe another person can provide that - the fact that they are emotionally secure does not equate to your being the same.

Thank you, Britty but if you had to sacrifice one for another which would you choose? If you mate had to reduce his job time to show you he loves you, would you allow it or make the sacarifice of other things for his devotion & time?

I would not expect him to cut his job time to show he loves me -
I would expect to know that regardless, but in order to spend more time together I would certainly be happy if that was more important to him than work.

I do not think that possessions makes up for time spent together.

I'd definetly choose financial over emotional.

emotionally confused about now thank you.I have passed up opportunities for marriage with rich men,five to be exact,I never thought of it because I would have to wake up with that person as well as go to sleep with that person,I couldn't do it if I were not 'emotionally' comfortable with HIM,that is why I turned them down,I am alone now and not rich but I am not unhappy either,so....I am emotionally secure,but like everybody that could change,it is an on going stride I believe we have to keep working at,did I confuse anyone yet?

is there really an security in either category

I find it funny every woman wants emotional even though they would never date a bum.

in todays society it is funny how a man wants nothing to do with a bum either,it works both ways and you are missing the point.

I say fu** emotional security, fu** happiness, fu** love, all I need is MONEY. Love and happiness don't put food on the table or pay the bills, money does. As long as I have food on my table and a warm place to sleep at night, I have true happiness, and love.