Simple. I ask you again, Gunda. Do you love your dogs? They would starve to death without you. You haven’t signed over 50% of your worth to them, have you?
If someone looks after a wheelchair cripple, do they really love that person or is it only real love if they hand over half their money to the wheelchair cripple, too?
Money. Say money. I’ll give you 20 dollars if you say money lol
My bad. I thought I clearly answered your question already in my recent post. If you don‘t get that there‘s a huge difference between the love someone feels for dogs/pets and the love for a person, which is based on romantic affection and sexual desire, then no one can help you.
Now regarding the money. I never said love has anything to do with money. A rich person can fall in love with a poor one just like the other way round. The thing with money in a partnership has only to do with taking over responsibility. If someone doesn‘t want their partner to stay at home or give up their career to take over the main work at home and to be there for the partner and/or kids, then there is no moral (and there also should be no legal) reason for financial responsibility for anyone. But if both partners agree in division of tasks in form that one of them stays (mainly) at home to do the housework and to take care of the family while the other becomes the main provider, then yes, in case of separation, the money both earned from that time on (without any inheritance) or rather what is still left from that income and earned possession/assets/pension should be shared 50/50. The work and care for the family is just as important as any profession.
Hundreds of words, no answer. Let me try again, Gunda.
Two people are married and have a sexual relationship and their marriage is 100% equal. They make the same amount of money and keep separate finances. Then one gets permanently injured the week after their marriage and can’t work or even walk. The other partner looks after the crippled partner for the next 40 years until death but they still do not share finances in any way. The able partner pays for everything. Their relationship is totally unequal and dependent.
Is that not real love?
Obviously it is real love and you are crazy and feminist which I admit is redundant.
rip john miles
Seriously, Reggie. You create a problem where no problem is. In your scenario, where the healthy, able partner fulfills the financial obligation and both consider the each other as equal - you really think I or any feminist would have a problem with that? Are you really that stupid or are you just too stubborn, for that you only hear what you want to hear? Likely you‘re both. Your scenario describes an ideal relationship, where the vow to take care for each other in good and in bad times is taken seriously. As it should.
The issue is (and always was) what if not? What, if that very couple for example lived 20 years happily together before one of them ends in a wheelchair due to a permanent illness without being able to work again - and the „able“ partner doesn’t want to pay?
Or to use the scenario from my post, where they found a family with one partner being the (main) provider and the other staying at home to take care of the kids and the household, with no or low income, Let‘s say they separate after 20 years and the former (main) provider refuses to pay?
Again, hundreds of words with no answer. IS IT LOVE, GUNDA?
thanks, you led me to this awful song:
but this one is great 
I had gone 30 years without hearing that song, and would’ve been happy to have gone another 30.
If the emotion of love was there at least some time of their marriage, then sure it‘s love. Alone the fact that the „able“ partner lives up by the vow and keeps on taking care and providing full financial support, is a strong indication for love, but that’s not necessarily always the case. One of my sister-in-law filed for divorce for reasons my whole family understands and blames solely my brother, yet she still was looking regularly after my brother after separation when he got severely ill. At that time love was long gone. She did not do this out of love, but simply out of feeling a moral responsibility. And btw., just to prevent any misunderstandings, she also knew that there was no money to expect from him, as he wasted all his half from the house selling long ago, without giving anything to his daughters, like his ex-wife did.
More nonsense, but at least I give you credit for answering.
What if there was never equality? What if a woman marries a wheelchair cripple who has never worked and looks after him until he dies? Does she not love him because the relationship is never equal?
Your notion that love only exists when it is shared between equal partners is absurd and simplistic.
I always answered your questions, while you still didn’t answer any of mine yet. But I am used to you being a hypocrite.
First, there’s clearly a need to note, that we both obviously use the word equality on different issues. You seem to relate the word equality on the status of health and income of both partners. I don’t. When I speak of an equal partnership, I mean that both have equal say regarding decisions.
With these differences in mind, that we both use the word equality on different things, a woman (or man) who marries a wheelchair cripple who has never worked and looks after him/her until he/she dies, must indeed feel love. They clearly are not equal when it comes to who has the better health and income. But neither plays a role if a relationship is based on love. Health and income also doesn’t play a matter when it comes to assess, if both have an equal relationship, hence if both consider each other as equal for that no one of them generally has the final say in decisions.
What if they keep separate finances with no shared financial decision making power, Gunda? One has millions and the other has nothing and they don’t share decision making power. Is it still love?
PS: OBVIOUSLY it is love. You are just very simplistic and insist on love fitting into your little mental cubbyholes. It doesn’t. Love takes many forms, including forms that you find difficult to accept.
No Dumbo, that isn‘t love at all. Love is about wanting the best for their partner. Wanting to do everything for him/her. To make him/her happy. How could that be, if only the dominant ones opinion counts at the end? How could this exploiting and controlling attitude not affect the submissive partner eventually in a negative way? Whereas a submissive person very well can feel love for the dominant (and I don‘t refer to sexual role play here). The lower the self esteem of a person, the poorer they are and the stronger the hierarchical structure between the gender (hence brainwashing) was in the cultural/religious society they grew up in, the higher such a person accepts their submissive role and can fall in love with a dominant.
I have to hand it to you, you answered clearly. I disagree totally but I can’t say you didn’t answer.
Sadly, I can‘t say the same about you. Contrary to me, you still didn‘t answer any of my questions. But yes, we disagree on what love is. I never would suppress and dominate my partner. I consider my partner as an equal, regardless his health status and how much income he has. You at the other side, are an egomaniac control freak without the capacity not just to feel love, but not even to grasp it.
Ask your questions. All I ask is that you don’t bury them in hundreds of words. Ask clearly and concisely and I will almost always answer.
what the fuck is your problem?
concise enough?
