I always find takes on material and financial power in relationships to be interesting. This idea that one must limit themselves to mingling solely with people in their tax braquet is beyond me. If one party is so financially well, healthy & independant, then does it matter if —

— the person you say you love, is as financially able as you are?

Don’t get me wrong, I am no fool. As a matter of fact I’m always on here talking loudly about getting prenups and keeping your receipts for everything. However, if their inability to get you something that you —

— can get on your own, for yourself, with your own finances, makes them ineligible to be with you... that’s kinda weird to me.

If I “got me” why does it matter if my partner can’t “got me” in that same specific way too?

What happens in the “off” days when we’re not showering eachother in luxuries?

I wonder if those ideals are rooted in our own illusions of grandeur. Our beliefs that we only are great or worthy or “of value” because we can afford certain luxuries?

Damn capitalism lol.

And as corny as “money doesn’t make you happy” is (Yes we know. Its easier to cry in a Porsche than in a 1998 Toyota) it still holds true... what if the person who stimulates you the most isn’t someone from the same tax bracket as you, or doesn’t belong to the same country club?

Are our ideals of relationships based solely on what we can both get off of eachother materially?

If you are able to get something specific on your own, why must your partner’s ability to get it for you be a determining factor in whether or not they can be with you?