Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

There was a bit of off-topicness on this earlier. I thought it merited discussion. To quote the previously said stoofs:

This is mostly correct.

A man is unlikely to date a woman who has nothing, as much as a woman is unlikely to date a man who has nothing. This mostly applies when a relationship is starting.

If two people are in a long-standing relationship, and one suddenly loses the ability to bring in money (A disability, for instance), there's still a good chance of the group staying together. This is the main exception to the above.

Note that this isn't neccessarily true in nations or areas where the Majority is poor.

Remember, a night with a prostitute cost significantly less than a diamond ring, so it is an accurate conclusion that a man who pays for such an item isn't planning on a one night stand.

your math love equation thing is too simple, you ahve to calculate variables like what if the money goes away? sometimes people will leave and sometimes they will stay together through thick and thin. that would make money /= love.

and the start of the relationship? you can only look at some people and tell if they have money or not (usually extreme cases)

but then you also have to consider the nature of love, if they are just chasing the money is it love or is it a 24/7 job? OR is it a love for money?

and in the diamond ring situation what if the other party says no? you are offered money and said no? that would also make love /= money

overall I'd say no. any relationship that is motivated by money is not a relationship that is founded on love

Women only go for guys who have enought money to last them until they day. Most women marry 70 year old men who are rich so when they die they can get all of their money.

Money only equals love if you're a -female dog-. Money does, however, equal happiness because money improves your quality of life.

But some people can have anything i nthe wolrd and still feel unhappy and empty inside.

Too much of a good thing can be bad.

Money does not equal love...
Money DOES attract beauty, though...
Even the poorest pauper can find love, but that love is not likely to win any beauty pageants...

If love is your goal, then you need not be concerned about money...
But if landing a beautiful person is your goal, you had better be loaded.
XD

(Yes, there are always exceptions...)

Like me, for example! Har har

Was, Wynni. Was. :lol: I'm sure your husband still thinks you look better than Mae West.

Also, I still think Happiness is a prerequisite of Love, and money can be used to obtain Happiness. In cases where the item that causes Happiness cannot be bought, well, then you start saying money can't buy you everything.

If we assume that E=Love and M=Money, then we must assume that the constant (i.e speed of light in a vacuum, although in this case probably the overall [female dog]gyness of the person in question, in minus form) be required to thoroughly intesify the amount of money in love, and therefore minus amounts of money=minus amounts of love, so we can only assume that if you want Love to => 1, then the correct answer would be E=mc2.
So in some occasions, yes.

hmm interesting care to explain the 2 in your equation? also I'm afraid I don't follow you logic behind the use of a negative in terms of money wouldn't you more money to intensify love? though all these changes would render your overall equation still >= 1 because you'd have a negative... but then wouldn't love then be in the negatives and if you think about it conceptually wouldnt that be a bad thing?

just curious :)

Well money cannot directly equal love, and so you need a way of intensifying the loviness of money, asumming money is a minus then C posifies it, and if its a positive then C negafies it.
It all depends on how much money you have. If you are in debt, people won't like you.