I'm not saying I value one over the other. I'm saying love is love, and fucking is fucking.
People act like love is supernatural when there's fucking involved, but it's just love with fucking involved lol.


But anyway, on to your point (which I actually think has alotta merit)...


>I could easily say that you shouldn't be a friend unless you
>can afford it, based of a history with needy, demanding, or
>just outright trifling friends. To which most people would
>retort, well you can be a friend without spending money or
>giving people things. I'd say the same applies to romantic
>love, so I don't understand why people need to meet a
>financial threshold to engage in later but not the former?


I can't be mad at this point, but the major flaw with this point is that my saying that
it's a good idea to get your money before your relationship is based on a history
of "needy, demanding, or just outright trifling" women. It's just based on the reality
of dating.


I think I've stated elsewhere in this post that if one just so happens to find a
relationship free of any financial obligation, then that's an awesome thing, but I
wouldn't be *looking* for a relationship if I wasn't getting $. Of course people can
do what they want, but it's not practical to me. Reasons...
Earlier in this conversation, you (or maybe the other guy) was talking about how
there's more to an intimate relationship than other kinds of love. Well, to be frank
money is usually (MUCH more often than not) part of that... yall wanna go out,
wanna do something special for each other, yall have a child, you need gas to
get to her house, all kinds of stuff. Some of that overlaps with friendship, and some
of it doesn't... but you can guarantee that friends + relationship is more expensive
that just friends and a relationship is more expensive than friends.
And I know, folks wanna trip "YOU'RE REDUCING RELATIONSHIPS TO MONEY!",
nah I'm just factoring it in, because it's reality... we need to do more planning as a people.