[QUOTE=Big;7120]Ok, so a high percentage of families break up due to financial problems. Obviously many women and men marry for financial security and prestige first and other things like "True Love" a distant secondary motive.

---

First of all, I think this is a fallacy. Families breaking up due to financial problems (asserted, not defended, but I suspect this is probably true) does not mean that people marry for security and prestige as their primary motive. I would suspect that whatever the motive for marriage, when there are financial problems it places stress on the individuals and on their relationship.

Secondly, I agree with PM01 - the question is too complex to be described in such simple terms.

pm1, No need to make it difficult. Nature has developed appropriate mechanisms for each specie. What is right for a dog is not right for a human. That's why there are differences between humans and dogs.

But when you see an older fat bold guy with a beautiful young woman, you know she can’t possibly enjoy a sexual activity with him. So, you know what she is after.

Or a great looking male marrying a so so looking female that is not even a great person but comes from an influential family.

Then she married for the love of money, did she not? I don't think I am making this difficult. I think it is innately difficult to attempt to predict the morality of nature.

matclone,

I also included a vice versa scenario. Security was always important and I am saying overly relying on it has often caused health problems for children of the couple.

pm,

I am saying the love of money is not a part of a successful mating mechanism as was developed by nature.

Big,

I would say that you are wrong about people marrying primarily for security or money. I dont think the majority of people marry for love either but it is not for security because the divorce rate is so high. Now I have no idea how this relates to kids because like PM said there is no way to determine whether children are affected because of the reason their parents are together.

Big, this is your question so you are free to dismiss contributions that do not support your premise. Perhaps I missed it, but where is the support for your hypothesis?

I think you received some pretty clear responses addressing the original post. I will bow out here and read what others have to say.

I've never claimed to understand women, but I'd guess the vast majority of them would not separate love and money in the way Big suggests: they go together.

I'd also venture a guess that security has always been a factor in human marriage or mating.

I wholly agree with you, Matclone.