What qualities do women want/value in a relationship?

Tokmon

Pollycat said:

Tokmon said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

CharllieSays said:

"Up until the early part of the 20th century"

People had to endure a lot of things throughout history that made them miserable. For most of history, marriage was the 'sale' of a woman from one man (her father) to another (her husband). We were essentially property and treated as such. It doesn't mean we want to go back to that now. At least most of us don't. I'm sure some people would love that!

Being single is far better than being stuck in a house/bed with someone you have no interest in. Most adults realise that, hence the drop in marriage rates. If you don't enjoy something and don't need to rely on it for survival, then why would you bother? You're not getting any benefit out of it. Love is the only thing left that is still valued, so people still look for that. By 'love' I mean finding someone who you are compatible with physically, intellectually, emotionally, etc. And it isn't about being perfect, as everyone has a range of things they need, things that want, things they will compromise on and things that are absolute red lines. My 'perfect' isn't perfect at all (my sister finds the men I like a turn off and vice versa). Maybe celebrities come close for some people, but I doubt the majority of us give more than a few seconds thought to dating a multi millionaire actor or model or whatever. That's unrealistic.

My point was for hundreds of thousands of years love wasn't the number on priority. Marriages were based on mutual needs and what is best for the family and the community. 
Now it's based on the individual. People break families apart because they're ''not happy anymore''
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong I'm saying you can't change thousands of years of evolution within a few decades.
Marriage rates are at an all time low so whatever we are currently doing isn't working.

Why does marriage rates being at an all time low suggest things aren't working?

Marriage should be something that couples only do when they feel they want to spend the rest of the lives with each other and trust each other 100% in sharing all their assets and everything they own. 

According to this thread, it seems that marriages can work well even though everything is not shared:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6265730/people-who-are-married-live-with-long-term-partner-do-you-still-have-a-seperate-saving-accounts#latest

I'm not doubting marriage can work well even though everything is not shared and i agree there are many reasons to not have everything in joint names. But the point I'm trying to make is that you should at least trust your partner 100% that you would be happy to share everything (even if you don't do it) because getting married effectively means everything is legally shared.

Anyone who decides they need a "secret running away fund" just in case or feels their partner would spend every penny they have unnecessarily if finances were completely shared really shouldn't be getting married. Plus there is nothing wrong with being together without being married.

Pollycat

Tokmon said:

Pollycat said:

Tokmon said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

CharllieSays said:

"Up until the early part of the 20th century"

People had to endure a lot of things throughout history that made them miserable. For most of history, marriage was the 'sale' of a woman from one man (her father) to another (her husband). We were essentially property and treated as such. It doesn't mean we want to go back to that now. At least most of us don't. I'm sure some people would love that!

Being single is far better than being stuck in a house/bed with someone you have no interest in. Most adults realise that, hence the drop in marriage rates. If you don't enjoy something and don't need to rely on it for survival, then why would you bother? You're not getting any benefit out of it. Love is the only thing left that is still valued, so people still look for that. By 'love' I mean finding someone who you are compatible with physically, intellectually, emotionally, etc. And it isn't about being perfect, as everyone has a range of things they need, things that want, things they will compromise on and things that are absolute red lines. My 'perfect' isn't perfect at all (my sister finds the men I like a turn off and vice versa). Maybe celebrities come close for some people, but I doubt the majority of us give more than a few seconds thought to dating a multi millionaire actor or model or whatever. That's unrealistic.

My point was for hundreds of thousands of years love wasn't the number on priority. Marriages were based on mutual needs and what is best for the family and the community. 
Now it's based on the individual. People break families apart because they're ''not happy anymore''
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong I'm saying you can't change thousands of years of evolution within a few decades.
Marriage rates are at an all time low so whatever we are currently doing isn't working.

Why does marriage rates being at an all time low suggest things aren't working?

Marriage should be something that couples only do when they feel they want to spend the rest of the lives with each other and trust each other 100% in sharing all their assets and everything they own. 

According to this thread, it seems that marriages can work well even though everything is not shared:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6265730/people-who-are-married-live-with-long-term-partner-do-you-still-have-a-seperate-saving-accounts#latest

I'm not doubting marriage can work well even though everything is not shared and i agree there are many reasons to not have everything in joint names. But the point I'm trying to make is that you should at least trust your partner 100% that you would be happy to share everything (even if you don't do it) because getting married effectively means everything is legally shared.

Anyone who decides they need a "secret running away fund" just in case or feels their partner would spend every penny they have unnecessarily if finances were completely shared really shouldn't be getting married. Plus there is nothing wrong with being together without being married.

I agree.

I'm not even sure that someone who feels they need a "secret running away fund" should be in a serious relationship, let alone get married.

But then again I'm coming from a long relationship where we've had periods where one of us earned significantly more than the other (I more than him, he more than me) continuing into retirement and we've not had separate finances for many years other than the investments that have to be in one individual's name.

But we are digressing into the subject of the thread I linked to.

sevenhills

Tokmon said:

Plus there is nothing wrong with being together without being married.

I am divorced, but I believe very much in marriage, as it brings legal rights and responsibilities.

Things like pensions and wills at the very least. Surely women want to be secure in their old age and want the best for their children?

I am currently single, I don't have a big pension, but I joke with a same sex friend that we should marry, so that when one of us dies, the other will get the dead friends pension. It would be great to have a partner to share, leave it to. I am not 60 yet, so still time.

Tokmon

sevenhills said:

Tokmon said:

Plus there is nothing wrong with being together without being married.

I am divorced, but I believe very much in marriage, as it brings legal rights and responsibilities.

Things like pensions and wills at the very least. Surely women want to be secure in their old age and want the best for their children?

I am currently single, I don't have a big pension, but I joke with a same sex friend that we should marry, so that when one of us dies, the other will get the dead friends pension. It would be great to have a partner to share, leave it to. I am not 60 yet, so still time.

I'm not against marriage, I am just against people marrying the wrong person by rushing into it. 

Someone would be far less secure in their old age if they married someone who they aren't 100% sure about just to get the legal rights associated with it and then end up getting divorced and losing half their assets they have built up over their life!. 

74jax

sevenhills said:

Tokmon said:

Plus there is nothing wrong with being together without being married.

I am divorced, but I believe very much in marriage, as it brings legal rights and responsibilities.

Things like pensions and wills at the very least. Surely women want to be secure in their old age and want the best for their children?

I am currently single, I don't have a big pension, but I joke with a same sex friend that we should marry, so that when one of us dies, the other will get the dead friends pension. It would be great to have a partner to share, leave it to. I am not 60 yet, so still time.

Mothers and fathers would most likely wish to be secure and the best for their children.
You can also Will anyone whatever you wish, you don't need to marry to do that. 

AskAsk

sevenhills said:
Surely women want to be secure in their old age and want the best for their children?

marriage doesn't really provide security as you can get divorced.  it provides s show of commitment but there are lots of people stuck in a marriage and they can't get out so commitment has way gone.

children from families where their parents are not married but co-habit do not fare any worse than those in a family where their parents are married.  the modern family now often have unmarried parents.

gozaimasu

Interesting discussion going on for many months since January.

OP mentioned "affection" and I would say that survey reflects that women want affection that doesn't always lead to sex. Men give affection expecting it to lead to sex. This expectation is a turn off for women.

I've been alone for 5 years and I don't know if I can do another relationship for the rest of my life. I was previously in a relationship for 7 years. At the time we met, we earned the same, but as the years went on, I was more educated than them and had higher earnings potential. It just didn't last, and now I don't think I can accept someone who earns less than me unless they have more savings than me that can make up the financial gap. Otherwise we could never share the same lifestyle and standard of living that I already have (let alone the one that I would aspire to if I was in a couple).

The majority of people in the top 10% of earners in the UK are men, and they are more likely to accept a woman who earns less than them because they get to stick their penis somewhere without having to pay a prostitute. I don't think women in the same wage bracket are as likely to accept men who earn less than them because they want equality.

gozaimasu

CookieMonster said:

34-40 Money, Status, Give me a child

Disagree with this only because I'm in that age bracket and do not want a child. It's a struggle to find someone who hasn't already got someone up the duff, had a failed relationship and abandoned the child that came out of their penis. Probably because they didn't use condoms and expected the women to rely on hormonal contraception alone. Yeah I'll deffo be alone for the rest of my life but society hasn't so far advanced as to allow us to go to a clinic to end things.

sevenhills

gozaimasu said:

The majority of people in the top 10% of earners in the UK are men, and they are more likely to accept a woman who earns less than them because they get to stick their penis somewhere without having to pay a prostitute. I don't think women in the same wage bracket are as likely to accept men who earn less than them because they want equality.

That is a very interesting way of phrasing it.

My preference would be a woman with less wealth than myself, I would very much like to look after and care for someone, so long as I am not being taken advantage of.

sevenhills

Tokmon said:

Someone would be far less secure in their old age if they married someone who they aren't 100% sure about just to get the legal rights associated with it and then end up getting divorced and losing half their assets they have built up over their life!. 

I don't think it works like that, not exactly sure how it works though.

But I do know that money follows the children and rightly so.