A relationship where you are both very much in love with each other but everything is so full of passion including your arguements and you may have to make financial sacrifices or a relationship where you arent exactly in love with your partnet but they takes very good care of you you get along very well and hardly any arguements and have alot of materialistic things. (personally i have had both and i prefer the first)
2007-03-26 10:00:20 · 15 answers · asked by ~Jennifer~ 1 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
you know I never really understood why people like Chris answered other people's questions. Was it to get a point for acting like a total jacka$$? No wonder it says in his profile he likes to remain invisible. I would to if I acted like that
2007-03-26 10:10:18 · update #1
I'm not a big fan of intense passion in a long-term relationship, so I'd have to pick option B. While passion is great on a short-term basis, I prefer my long-term relationships to be stable and mostly predictable. Passion is not a good foundation to build a stable relationship on.
2007-03-26 10:35:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first
2007-03-26 10:22:30 · answer #2 · answered by Valentina 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first
2007-03-26 10:07:09 · answer #3 · answered by Ghanaian Princess 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question almost seems directed at women, since those are usually the two choices women have to make. As a guy, I want several things out of my marriage:
1) Stability.
2) Reliability.
3) A helper.
4) Sex.
Passion is fine, but I can be passionate and have passionate arguements and conversations with my brother. I'm lucky to have it with my wife, but it's not a must. Money is fine, but I'm the bread winner and I make sure there's food on the table, and enough for my wife to have fun. The amount of money and passion in a relationship is typically seen as the husband's responsibility, not only in our culture, but in almost every other culture world wide.
But honesty and reliability and sex are seen (again, in most cultures, not just our own) as the woman's responsibility. So often in our culture, men are forced to choose between honesty and reliability, and sex. Likewise, women are forced to choose between passion and money. (My wife jokes that most guys, like most cars, come in two models, sport, and working.) I try to make sure my wife doens't have to choose, and she makes sure I don't have to choose.
2007-03-26 10:30:06 · answer #4 · answered by Sean J 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I prefer the first. You can have alot of materialistic things but love is something that you can never just create.
Love is very special. Love makes you have wings.
Love is the best thing that anyone can find.
2007-03-26 10:09:07 · answer #5 · answered by Boo8081 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first one :o)
2007-03-26 10:34:56 · answer #6 · answered by Sinking Slowly 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think to many men had option 2 I know I never have so i think i would try 2
2007-03-26 10:13:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am in a very passionate relationship...fights are passionate, the sex is passionate, our likes, dislikes are passionate...it wears me out but it is better than luke-warm, that's for sure.
2007-03-26 10:04:55 · answer #8 · answered by smecky809042003 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would rather have a relationship where we are both madly in love:) all that other **** means nothing if you cant share it with the love of your life!! and besides when i die i cant take my wealth with me!! so would i rather b rich and never experience love or poor and spend everyday with my love i choose poor!!
2007-03-26 10:08:48 · answer #9 · answered by notyochic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've had both also and i would choose the first one always! I'm so much happier
2007-03-26 10:04:16 · answer #10 · answered by Babe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋