Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Is it better to marry for love or stability?

80 replies

lostperson · 20/09/2021 00:21

On behalf of my friend. Is it better to marry someone who is stable or someone with low income but you love.

OP posts:

BrilliantBetty · 20/09/2021 10:23

Needs to be both.
You can't get married if you don't love them. Or if the relationship/ lifestyle is not going to be stable and comfortable

Shoxfordian · 20/09/2021 10:30

Wait and marry someone who has both

VienneseWhirligig · 20/09/2021 10:31

When I married DH neither of us had a pot to piss in, but we were both working full time and he had a strong work ethic. Over the years we became comfortable and my career took off, so it is possible to marry for love and then with the right foundations get the stability later, but I wouldn't have been so sure if he had been workshy.

SimoneSimone · 20/09/2021 10:31

If she marries for stability, what happens if the stability goes? What is she left with?

MrsSkylerWhite · 20/09/2021 10:33

Both. Neither’s good without the other.

Angrymum22 · 20/09/2021 10:47

Marrying for stability (money) leads to a soulless existence. I am the high earner in DH and my relationship so I have always wanted to be with him rather than needing to be with him. Without love I’d have left years ago.
I often wonder if many of the posters on MN relationship boards have married for stability when they post about unfulfilled relationships. How can you be with someone you don’t love?

Gorl · 20/09/2021 11:04

Don’t marry either. Wait for a better option or live a fulfilled life alone.

adultchildofalcoholicparents · 20/09/2021 11:06

I often wonder if many of the posters on MN relationship boards have married for stability when they post about unfulfilled relationships. How can you be with someone you don’t love?

My sense is that people married for love, and, all too often, a partner's lack of willingness to be an adult evolved over time. They kept giving someone the benefit of the doubt and then they're enmeshed with children etc. and don't see a way out of the relationship.

I sometimes think that sociologists would benefit enormously from slipping in a question to the census that asked people about whether they'd break up with their partner if they could see a reasonable way out.

Lots of people are together for a lack of confidence that life can be any better.

Original poster

lostperson · 20/09/2021 11:10

Now I'm curious how many married for stability & not love & how it turned out ? If comfortable to answer ..

OP posts:

nyktipolos · 20/09/2021 11:17

I think neither. Marriage is a serious legal and financial decision that shouldn't be entered purely for love or purely because the other person is financially stable.

Dp earns a 5th of what I do. Financial stability is the reason we aren't marrying. My kids financial stability.

Marrying just for love or just for the other person's money or ability to manage their money well, is a recipe for disaster. Things change, people change, sometimes people fall out of love.

I think a genuine affection for eachother and proper mutual respect is the basis, for a good marriage or relationship.

sloutside · 20/09/2021 12:04

I would say it has to be both.
I wouldn't marry someone I didn't love just for "stability" money
On the other hand I wouldn't marry someone I loved if their financial situation would put my own in jeopardy - harsh as that sounds.
The marriage could end in divorce for any number of reasons which you can't foresee on the wedding day. In that divorce I could end up losing a large proportion of my own hard-earned assets (I'm in another country where the marital home automatically becomes jointly owned on marriage even if one party owned it outright beforehand. This would then be split in the event of a divorce unless the other party agreed not to take their share. And pre-nups aren't worth the paper they are written on here)
So no, I absolutely would not marry someone who was not in a stable financial situation, at least equivalent to mine, and that means owning their home outright.
I'd live with them and all the rest - but marriage, no

Yes, that makes me sound harsh and perhaps grabby - but I need to protect myself. I've had enough relationships go wrong and seen what happens to others in divorce to know that I need to ensure my own financial stability and not rely on a man to provide it.

You only have to look on Mumsnet once a day to see horror stories of financial issues in relationships.
Having suffered at the hands of a cocklodger I would now also be very wary of living with anyone who had a history of unemployment and sporadic jobs (yes, it might be through no fault of their own but I'm never risking that again)

TreeSmuggler · 20/09/2021 12:07

It's a false dichotomy isn't it? Everyone doesn't choose between either passionate love with a starving artist with mental health issues, or boring indifference with a dull millionaire? Most people don't get either, they get an average person. In fact you are rarely choosing between two people, why would you be getting two proposals at the same time? The question is do I want to marry the person I am with/who is asking/who I am asking? Judge them on their own merits, not against another imaginary person.

BasicDad · 20/09/2021 12:08

both...marriage is for love and equitable partnerships. What is one person's equitable will vary from one to the next. It's much easier when you're younger.

TractorAndHeadphones · 20/09/2021 12:10

Plenty marry a man for whom they have affection but doesn’t tick all the boxes. I’d rather marry a stable man like this than a low-income ‘one true love’ because financial issues make love dry up quickly.

TractorAndHeadphones · 20/09/2021 12:11

Also to add - a low income earner wouldn’t be compatible with my lifestyle anyway so the question of them being a one true love wouldn’t even arise…

TreeSmuggler · 20/09/2021 12:12

However I will say that stability doesn't equal being rich or marrying for money, far from it. I'd describe my DH as stable, because he works, saves money and doesn't have habits like gambling, excess drinking, lots of shopping, etc. He doesn't buy on credit cards or take out loans except eg mortgage. He doesn't earn much though, I earn more, but the money he does earn he takes care of. I can 100% say I will never come home to find our joint accounts drained or baliffs at the door. To me that is stability.

DrSbaitso · 20/09/2021 13:00

Well marriage is a financial contract, so whether you knew and intended it or not, it's always about money.

Still, I wouldn't recommend marrying without love as that sounds like an utterly wretched existence.

I actually had two suitors or whatever you'd call them. I married the one I loved. He had less money, but between us we had enough, and things aren't bad now. I haven't regretted it yet.

WhoIsPepeSilva · 20/09/2021 18:10

@lostperson

Now I'm curious how many married for stability & not love & how it turned out ? If comfortable to answer ..

Well I picked the wrong guy so I'm divorced now. I wouldn't change my mind about what I was looking for in a relationship, just make a better choice of partner in future.

Picking a partner that has aligned values for things is important IMO, mine said all the right things but really felt very differently to me and didn't let the real him out until after we were married.

WimpoleHat · 20/09/2021 18:16

To quote the inimitable Nancy Mitford, if you’re going to marry for money, make sure it’s for really big money….!

On a more serious note - marrying for money, must be a mistake. That said, if money matters to you (which is fair enough - better to be honest with yourself), then consider that that factor might have the potential to sour a relationship longer term….

PermanentTemporary · 20/09/2021 18:20

I love budgeting in beige slippers I also like dirty sex and going out drinking.

Being married is nearly intolerable at times. It's brilliant at others. You need to be with someone who absolutely lights your fire and the person who you're most pleased to see and the person you really want to talk to.

If an unstable person is lighting your fire, save the wedding money and get therapy.

miltonj · 20/09/2021 18:25

Love

SheABitSpicyToday · 20/09/2021 18:26

Love!

twinningatlife · 20/09/2021 18:39

Generally men are expected to marry for love and women are expected to marry for (financial) stability (on MN anyway)

onlychildhamster · 21/09/2021 10:50

I married for love but we were just fresh out of university so neither had any money of our own. But I was probably marrying down as awful as that sounds cos my parents are wealthy and his mum is a single mum whose kids qualified for free school meals. I stayed in Europe to be with him and our early married life was quite unstable, we only had a civil registry marriage- if I had returned home to live with my parents like everyone in my country does, I would have had an easy stable life without any money worries.

But fast forward 6 years and he earns far more than me, I couldn't pay the mortgage without him. Financial circumstances do change.

TellySavalashairbrush · 21/09/2021 13:00

In my twenties I would have said love 100%, now in my late forties, stability 200%. Its not about money for me, its about reliability, calmness, kindness and no drama. Love alone is not enough imo.

Flip

1 2 3 4