What type of mate would you prefer in the long run? A or B...?

Question

a) someone who is financially stable, has no family burdens, is a nice person, but isnt affectionate (or when they are affectionate, it just doesnt feel right), looks at the "physical" alot, and doesnt communicate well.

b) someone who is NOT financially stable, has family burdens, dont quite know what they want to do with their life just yet, however, communicates well, very attentive, very affectionate, and loving.

Which one, and why?

Answer 1

b has more hope than a in my opinion

because remember, you aren't marrying or seriously dating the person's family

you're dating that person

so if b's family situation gets straightened out, everything else seems to work out already so you'd be good to go.

besides a lot of us don't know what we wanna do with our lives yet. it's the 21st century phenomenon. There's many young adults today who have the opportunity to decide now, unlike the one's from say the 50's and 60's who did not get to live out their dreams and had to go right to work. If there's signs like they're trying to see what they wanna do, wait it out. If not, (after you've waited say a few months) bye bye bye

see you need to be financially stable too, in the end. if a nor b works out, whoever you pick or go to later, you need money
that's the new workin' girl ethic kickin in
you need it

if you wanna try to depend on one of them, well, you see b is not fin. stable, and with a, though he is, with his relationship problems you'll probably end up leaving him anyway

so you need your own money.

and a) sounds like he needs more time to explore, not settle down, not quite yet. You need affection now, you can't be waitin' on this dude to give it to you and he's not emotionally mature yet.

bank on b) while setting up your own bank account just in case neither of them work out

Answer 2

Well, I see this as yours confusion to choose a guy :))

See, finance is something to me absolutely non relative to relationship. My parents asked me be stable to get married and I usually say whats the point -

Is marriage a liability? Then many said yes (Its' something that takes a part of yours salary every month and it never reducess its instalment, the principle amount keep on rising every time) Lol

To me marriage is an asset - I think a wife is a friend, a partner. To me she is someone that you dont ask permission to hug but just hug, u don't have to knock the door to enter her door. She knows you need her and you are together with a choice.

A financially unstable guy if is really capable would not take much time to be stable and unburden himself & that time yours life will be a blessing . but leaving a mate for these two problems will be a big price in future (unless you gurantee the same emotions from other guy) lol

To me its tough to teach a guy how to communicate well - because he wont obey you as he there would be a lot of options for him/her for the mates who won't pressurize him to learn communication.

One must also Ask how much one can support him/her for that two problems rather creating such cheap embarassments & baby comparisons.

To me the question is not unhealthy, its from the wrong direction of thinking. You may not feel happy with (B) - also focus on the life uncertainities, may be you have to live without stability the whole life with him.

so be careful :))

Answer 3

Neither a or b because both people got major problems
I know everyone is not perfect we all have flaws but there
are certain flaws you have to avoid a person that need a lot
of help because in some case it can drain all your energy
and change who you are as a person negativity reaps
negativity so be careful of who you choose as a mate
because sometimes they can be a good person but have
lots of issues to far out of your reach to help them resolve
and can pull you down in a rut along with them the sex might
be great the conversation great even the communication
could be great but if they have tons of issues or an issue that
is really big you better take that in consideration because his
or her issues will be a part of your relationship because it is
apart of them are your ready to rationalize compromise
concerning those issues or issue??

Answer 4

A. honey because at least I can groom him! As for answer B. The word burden should never be a part of any description of anyone I am in a relationship with! Just my personal opinion a guy who can only take care of me sexually and all that you described while he is broke, unemployed, and all that turns me off! A man has to be A Man in my book!

Answer 5

I was with (A) for nearly 12yrs. Divorced. I dealt with it just fine for so many years, but finally realized I could not spend the rest of my life--nor did I want to--with someone that was not romantic, affectionate, nor loving. I had no financial concerns and had anything I wanted. But it the end, it wasn't enough to keep me in the marriage.
I now have (B). We're doing alright financially, and there's ex's and kids to deal with and crazy schedules, but I love him so much that I don't care about that. I want to be with him regardless. It would have been easier to stay with (A), but I was so unhappy. Now I'm happy, truly happy.

Answer 6

B You can always solve money problems, family trouble and pick a career. But if you tie yourself to someone who does not know how to communicate or show affection and love, all the money in the world will not make that a happy union. If a couple has good communication, they can get through ANYTHING.

Answer 7

So you're asking us to chose between Donald Trump & Kevin Federline?

How about C. None of the Above ???

If B doesn't know what they want from life and has family burdens how much emotional support can they provide?

Answer 8

I would pick B b/c i would much prefer someone who is attentive, very affectionate and loving. No one can't live w/o love. I would pick love over anything.

Answer 9

B. cuz u wont go anywhere with A
What kind of a relationship is it without communication
Besides everyone needs to feel loved

Answer 10

A; it's easier to teach someone to communicate than to teach them to be a good provider.