posted August 17, 2015 08:19 PM            

For the aspects, I'd look at mars (for woman) or venus (for man) and at the seventh (house of partnerships) and second house (possession and material holding (finances))
Maybe the moon too (for feelings)

posted August 17, 2015 08:34 PM            

Speaking of romantic love.

I don't "go for" money in love, that's something I have to earn on my own.

posted August 17, 2015 09:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNY10:
I just don't like weakj men. A strong man can make a women's life so much easier, and I am not talking financially.

---

posted August 17, 2015 09:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free Leon:
Is a man obligated to make a woman's life easier? Is his value really measured by his ability to aid a woman?

---

Yes I believe so. A man who is a husband or serious partner has an obligation to make his wife/partner's life easier by helping raise a family, being financially responsible, he should be someone who wouldn't take risks or bring in harm to the family (for example, road rage incidents), he should be stable enough to get along with you, your children, your family. He should be stable enough to be a man who keeps his word, who doesn't lie. I believe these things can make the partner's life easier. And vice versa.

posted August 17, 2015 09:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNY10:
Yes I believe so. A man who is a husband or serious partner has an obligation to make his wife/partner's life easier by helping raise a family, being financially responsible, he should be someone who wouldn't take risks or bring in harm to the family (for example, road rage incidents), he should be stable enough to get along with you, your children, your family. He should be stable enough to be a man who keeps his word, who doesn't lie. I believe these things can make the partner's life easier. And vice versa.

---

So if a man decides to take the unselfish route of not contributing to the ever-increasing 7.5+ billion population, he is weak? Is his innate purpose really to procreate and serve a family?

posted August 17, 2015 09:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gabby:
I'm not trying to be rude or insensitive I'm just wondering what would make the difference because I'm slowly changing my views and thinking about someone's financial status as an important thing when considering a partner, I've never done that before.

I'm going to check out my progressions.

---

Oh I didn't think you were being rude. I am of the opinion that looking at someone's financial status is not wrong. In America, I know that is considered somewhat superficial, but I come from a culture that emphasizes realism more than romanticism. We are sort of trained to look for partners that not only you are capable of loving, but also someone that you can last a lifetime with. And when looking for someone long lasting, you have to look at their financial status because it gives you an insight into their goals, their saving habits, and other things that show how responsible they are.

posted August 17, 2015 09:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free Leon:
So if a man decides to take the unselfish route of not contributing to the ever-increasing 7.5+ billion population, he is weak? Is his innate purpose really to procreate and serve a family?

By your definition Einstein, Tesla, and countless other men who changed the world are "weak".

---

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that a man's sole purpose is to procreate and serve a family. A person should have many purposes. And if a man chooses to be a lover/partner/husband to someone then he has a responsibility to bring to the table something that can make the relationship easier.

The thread asked love or money, and I said I want stability. If a man didn't want children, then that is fine, but "his purpose" in the relationship would be to make the partner's life easier. Isn't that what companionship is all about? It doesn't have to be financial. For example, an emotionally stable man would comfort his partner who was having a bad day instead of abusing her.

I also said vice versa.

posted August 17, 2015 10:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNY10:
Oh I didn't think you were being rude. I am of the opinion that looking at someone's financial status is not wrong. In America, I know that is considered somewhat superficial, but I come from a culture that emphasizes realism more than romanticism. We are sort of trained to look for partners that not only you are capable of loving, but also someone that you can last a lifetime with. And when looking for someone long lasting, you have to look at their financial status because it gives you an insight into their goals, their saving habits, and other things that show how responsible they are.

---

posted August 17, 2015 10:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free Leon:
@BNY10 Your first post suggested that being able to make a women's life easier is indicative of strength in a man. I suppose I just disagree with that. In my opinion following the status quo and sacrificing your dreams/all hopes of contributing something great to the world in order to selfishly pass on your genes and serve people who see you as a source for finances is not a sign of strength, not in today's world at least. It takes strength to put the survival of the species above the desire to procreate/raise more humans who will consume more of our dwindlng resources.

---

posted August 17, 2015 10:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gabby:
I think BNY10 isnt saying anything to be offensive. Simply stating that in the culture they were raised this 2 love/money are very typically connected and mans value is based on his ability to provide for his potential wife and family.
It's honestly a new concept for mens value NOT to be based on their ability to provide....look at cave men they were honored for their ability to drag home the largest animals for food to provide for their own.
Women wanted those men because they appeared to be able to provide the best and give the strongest genetic lines for their offspring. It's unfortunately a very natural thing for women to want the strongest best provider...even female animals seek this out when looking for a mate.

---

posted August 17, 2015 10:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free Leon:
Well said. Many women still want men who serve as the main provider, and I have no problem with that in itself, but I tend to forget that when I'm constantly bombarded with the concept of "strong, independent women who don't need men". I have no problem with that either, in fact I encourage self-sustainability. I take issue when the two are combined, and a woman or man thinks its okay to leech off someone while maintaning an entitled attitude i.e. "I'm exempt from all responsibilities and can do whatever I want while you support my selfish behavior".

---

I agree feeding off someone and thinking "I don't have to do anything but be pretty" is such an ugly concept. It's kind of sad for the women who are never going to find out their personal value because they never bothered to look for it. I see a lot of American woman on TV and in movies glorified for being these kind of woman. I feel sad that society is teaching young girls that this kind of horrible disrespect for themselves is ok.
In general woman who seek out partners solely for money with no intention of being a giving equal partner are doing themselves a great disservice.

posted August 17, 2015 11:06 PM            

What I would want in the relationship - is for both of us to be self-sufficient and able to support ourselves (hopefully doing something we are each passionate about)

Even if I was in love with someone... if I felt like they weren't able to support themselves, I wouldn't jump right in.
I'd encourage them to find ways to earn a living and be self-sufficient.

posted August 17, 2015 11:14 PM            

Free Leon -

quote:

---

Many women still want men who serve as the main provider, and I have no problem with that in itself, but I tend to forget that when I'm constantly bombarded with the concept of "strong, independent women who don't need men"

---

Everyone is entitled to their views...
You sound a bit irritated.. but BNY is not speaking for everyone. She is speaking for herself.

I absolutely do not want a man to serve as the main provider, nor have I ever had such desires.
I'm both strong and independent and don't actually "need" anyone in a practical sense.
I don't think healthy relationships are based on "need" anyway - since that only leads to further codependence.

posted August 17, 2015 11:23 PM            

I haven't cared. I don't let myself be taken advantage of but if a guy/girl pulls his/her weight (doesn't have to be money, though I'm pretty good about putting "monetary value" on intangibles like making me laugh, something many people will pay a lot of money for, for example) then I'm okay with it, but I think I'm unusual that way.

Psychologically I wasn't raised on romance novels where a woman is typically taken by someone rich (or becomes rich), even if it's a pirate or brutish landlord or some such (but she brings out the sweetness in him, ha!) and instead was raised on media where women/females typically took care of themselves and I'm sure that has had a huge affect. Even so I heard many girls (and both women and men, mothers and fathers, to girls) say things like, "It's just as easy to fall in love with someone rich as someone poor." Astrologically speaking my Mars-Uranus in Sag pretty much let me shrug that off, and perhaps my Libra stellium also caused me to question it and balance it with another view.

My 5H Sag stellium also prefers freedom and so is careful of anyone having power over me, including money. Though really I think had I been straight and raised on romance media I'd probably want a guy who give me plenty of room to roam while funding my trips around the world (including by myself). OTOH, Sag passion can throw away practical considerations sometimes and Libra wouldn't want to be unfair.

posted August 17, 2015 11:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
Thanks Gabby!

Free Leon -

Everyone is entitled to their views...
You sound a bit irritated.. but BNY is not speaking for everyone. She is speaking for herself.

I absolutely do not want a man to serve as the main provider, nor have I ever had such desires.
I'm both strong and independent and don't actually "need" anyone in a practical sense.
I don't think healthy relationships are based on "need" anyway - since that only leads to further codependence.

Also, there are many other women in the world like me!
It depends on ones astrological make-up as well. My chart is full of cardinal signs with an exalted Sun and Mars.
BNY might have a more feminine chart.

---

posted August 17, 2015 11:55 PM            

I honestly think Venus-Saturn aspects can make a person think practically about love. I think transits to the 5th house COULD inspire a person to think more about a partner's wealth, relative to whatever children they will be raising together.