Love or $$$$

[Pats]

I answered love. It's more important than money. I answered that way because I feel like that's what I have and haven't and am content. My income is small and I'm fine with it - have everything I need plus a little more and I've always been able to make do with whatever my financial situation is - never wanted to be rich because it changes people. I do have love - love of God, love of family and love of pets and that makes me happy.

 

[Transmission]

Being in love with someone would make me happier than having a lot of money.

 

[Thinx]

I said I would take my chances, personally I haven't found it too hard to make adequate money for my needs, which are modest. Love, even friendship, is a lot trickier, for a person of my socially minimal preferences.

 

[dragonfire42]

I already appear to be incapable of feeling romantic love, may as well get some money.

 

[Aspychata]

Love hit 45%, 25% say money, 20% take their chance, 10% prefer to not decide. l think this is espcially interesting because of being on the spectrum. It seems we have similar thoughts in comparison to others in general.

For some reason, l thought love wouldn't rate so high due to the obvious challenges yet l was surprised to see this wasn't true.

 

[Crossbreed]

The OP strikes me as a false dichotomy, like "Love or Food?" We need both and they are not mutually exclusive. They can be hierarchical, where we grant more precedence to one over the other, but lovers still must eat or they won't be lovers (in any sense of that word) very long. This is especially true for a spouse and children.

Within that caveat, I say love, first. Fund your love with money, as necessary.

 

[Butterfly88]

I want love. I'm not rich but I have enough money to meet my basic needs. I've wanted a wife for a while now so that is much more important to me than wealth. Money doesn't buy happiness but love is important to me.

 

[Gracey]

It would be nice to run an experiment to test the theory

I'm sure I could easily ponder my conclusion replete and resplendent in the Caribbean on my yacht.

 

[Misery]

Romance can go take a long walk off a short pier, straight into a lake full of piranhas and other chompy things. Never had any interest in it whatsoever.

 

[Aspychata]

The OP strikes me as a false dichotomy, like "Love or Food?" We need both and they are not mutually exclusive. They can be hierarchical, where we grant more precedence to one over the other, but lovers still must eat or they won't be lovers (in any sense of that word) very long. This is especially true for a spouse and children.

Within that caveat, I say love, first. Fund your love with money, as necessary.

It's just a open question. Because some of us have a difficult time with emotions, l wanted to know if posters still want love or do they rely simply on the struggle of paying the bills which can be difficult for some of us.

My friend from another state strikes me as being on the spectrum and she does struggle with holding a job. Yet l was surprised to hear her say she still hopes for some type of meaningful relationship despite her issues handling emotions.

 

[Bronzelincolns]

so basically this is a choice between sex and money?

...gimme the cash.

 

[Crossbreed]

so basically this is a choice between sex and money?

Love is far more encompassing than sex, by itself.

 

[Bronzelincolns]

Love is far more encompassing than sex, by itself.

depends on the context. in this one it's referring to romantic involvement, which would include sex.