What do you value?

ComfortableJeans · 2026-03-01T17:44:30+00:00

Option 3.

You can make a tight budget work, and if you're smart, you can make a hard life work.

Someone who I'm in love with and attracted to is an easy choice. I don't need all the fancy things if at the end of everything I'm with someone who loves me, who I'm in love with.

Honestly, it's like, not even a close call.

Without wanting to sound weird, having been in positions of quite extreme financial hardship, I can truthfully say that naked cuddling with skin to skin contact and sleeping with someone when you're both deeply in love has done more for my mental and emotional well-being than money ever has.

Even just the gentle breathing motion of someone you love pressed against your chest while you both lay there can pretty quickly evaporate a bunch of troubles if you take the time to consciously appreciate it.

Not to be shitty at all, but sitting here and really thinking it out, it really almost feels as though I'm choosing between meaning and vapidity.

Barely-moral · 2026-03-01T17:32:57+00:00

I pick option 3. The only reason I have more money than the bare minimum needed to survive is to attract and keep a partner.

Talking_Tanuki · 2026-03-01T17:51:45+00:00

I chose option three. My plan was to focus on getting myself into a better financial position instead of relying on his income. My husband isn’t especially ambitious, and I’m fine with it. I love him for who he is and how he treats me, not for his ambition or money. He’s the only person I can spend all day with and never get tired of.

I don’t think I could handle the other two options. I’m not interested in casual dating or being a trophy wife, and money by itself can’t make up for a lack of emotional connection or attraction.

Perfect-Reading-761 · 2026-03-01T17:48:50+00:00

B and C are linked, ones personality links into how attractive you find them.

Downtown_Werewolf_44 · 2026-03-01T17:59:01+00:00

Option 3 by far.

I've been living on a tight budget before and I can make it works.

The other options seems sad as hell.

Bernouttheday · 2026-03-01T17:35:57+00:00

Option 3. Any relationship is a sharing of time and mind. Intimate relationships also involves each of you opening yourselves up to the other's chaos. Struggling together with someone that I'm attracted to physically and personality-wise is far preferable to the first two.

Independent-Mail-227 · 2026-03-01T17:43:21+00:00

Option 3, starving so my family have something to eat is easier than finding a family worth starving for.

BrigidFairy · 2026-03-01T18:03:56+00:00

Option 3 - being depressed together that we can’t afford a home, children etc sounds more appealing than the other options lol, and there’s always a chance things will get better

bondepart · 2026-03-01T18:06:08+00:00

Option 3. I’d rather be happy and poor than unhappy and rich.

Lysa_Bell · 2026-03-01T18:24:59+00:00

Option 3. There arent a lot of people not struggling financially rn. So who gives a shit about money.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-03-01T19:14:45+00:00

I would say option 2 but that’s only because this scenario is unlikely for me as a demisexual and a sapiosexual. If I genuinely like someone as a person, and I have that emotional and intellectual connection, I WILL feel the spark, I will feel attraction. For me C leads to B…

So I guess it’s a scenario that just wouldn’t happen for me. And otherwise I obviously pick option 3. Without C there’s just no relationship, period.

NiaMiaBia · 2026-03-01T19:35:12+00:00

Single - but option 3 if I had to choose.

I refuse to struggle financially.

Equivalent_Dance2278 · 2026-03-01T19:42:21+00:00

I can’t maintain any attraction for someone if I don’t like their personality and humour. If I don’t like someone after talking to them, they become repulsive. So I can’t have B without C.

I choose option 3.

-Shes-A-Carnival · 2026-03-01T21:36:55+00:00

b and c i dgaf money, I wouldn't struggle. thos is what I married

Lift_and_Lurk · 2026-03-02T02:07:02+00:00

Most young couples start as option three anyways and then build their financial success together

badgersonice · 2026-03-02T16:38:44+00:00

It really depends a lot on what you mean by “financially unstable”.

Being with someone I don’t enjoy would be so awful, and being with someone unattractive would make it extremely difficult to connect romantically.

So I’d gladly take attractive enough and personable… if “financial insecurity” just means basically any regular American these days. Everyone is financially insecure or just one medical bill away from struggling. I don’t insist of the dude being a 1%er, and I’m able to provide pretty well.

But… if if by financially insecure, you mean we are both together barley able to make ends meet and have to choose monthly between paying the rent and buying groceries, or it you mean he’s genuinely shit with money and has spent himself $80,000 into debt on sports gambling, then in that case I’d pick option 2 over that guy. (To be fair, though, I also genuinely would not be able to like the personality of a guy who is willing and able to gamble away our chance at affording kids— I am not a fan of gambling).

I am financially stable enough on my own that I really do not have a huge fuss about money, and him making less than me really does not bother me. But I do know that real money problems (the kind I’ve never had myself) are a leading cause of divorce.

I won’t pretend to be above caring about money if by “financial insecurity” you mean there’s a good chance my kids with this man would go hungry…. Well, more hungry than they would choose to on their own because they “don’t like that”, lol.

Creative_cacti · 2026-03-01T17:56:09+00:00

A & C. Attraction can grow even if it'snot there initially, speaking from personal experience. I want to be one of those sweet older couples who are still madly in love and take walks at the park holding hands. I cry when I see couples like that. Looks always fade anyhow.

And if anything this economy and being low income has taught me is that money really, really does matter, especially having good credit.

icypiee · 2026-03-01T21:01:42+00:00

Option A hands down

I’ll always like a handsome rich man

SummerTomato1 · 2026-03-01T17:47:28+00:00

You left out D, the most important: Someone kind with integrity who is reliable and always there for the people in his life when they need him.

ThatBitchA · 2026-03-02T00:31:38+00:00

Why do I have to only pick 2?

What's the purpose of only 2 when I can get the 3 I desire.

AutoModerator · 2026-03-01T17:28:25+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

mnt68 · 2026-03-01T17:41:10+00:00

Option 1 & 2 are a divorce lawyer‘s income stream.

Option 3 goes the distance.

I’d go with option 3.

Lemon_gecko · 2026-03-01T17:48:19+00:00

Option 1 is for FwB, Option 2 is mostly friend, Option 3 is kind of relationship but in misery....

AngeAware · 2026-03-01T17:52:37+00:00

Option 3

My mother always said "not all that glitters is gold." She warned me that a more modest lifestyle is better than being a kept woman in a loveless marriage or "maybe he'll grow on me" situation. She almost went that route herself.

She felt so much dread while seeing that man and just kept thinking about how much she missed my father. She left him and married my father. 30+ years later they're still like lovesick teens. They struggled together in school and both became 200K white collar professionals.

mrcs84usn · 2026-03-01T17:52:48+00:00

Interpersonal compatibility is paramount to the success of the relationship. I don’t care how rich/stable/intelligent you are. If we don’t get along with each other, the relationship will fail.

OwnerSebi · 2026-03-01T18:08:03+00:00

Option 3

Pnina310 · 2026-03-01T18:22:17+00:00

Option 3

Flightlessbirbz · 2026-03-01T18:40:05+00:00

I chose option 3. Like I wouldn’t choose someone who wasn’t working and was going to leave me working two jobs just to get by, or was happy for us to just live in their parents’ basement indefinitely or something. But most people under 40 or 50 who have average jobs are struggling in this economy, and that’s just how it is.

There’s always the potential for things to get better financially as long as you’re both working, but if you don’t connect with them emotionally or don’t find them attractive, there’s little chance of that ever changing. In fact, it’s likely to get worse.

kmb218 · 2026-03-01T18:47:25+00:00

If I really had to pick one and staying single is not an option, I would pick option 3. I cannot be in a relationship with someone I don’t like or don’t find attractive. If it was only the partner struggling financially and I was fine, I would probably not mind it as much for now since I would hope they will figure out the financial difficulties by the time we move in together (which would not be anytime soon). I would still enjoy the relationship though.

If option 3 meant I will constantly be financially struggling for the rest of my life (not just my partner), then I would choose option 1, have a casual relationship with the guy and seek deep emotional bonds elsewhere.

oppositegeneva · 2026-03-01T18:52:41+00:00

I feel incredibly blessed that I have ABC but with this hypothetical scenario I would go with B&C

If my husband was for some reason suddenly unable to work I would obviously stick with him

DMmeClownPics · 2026-03-01T19:19:06+00:00

Option 3. I’m already poor. I’m used to it. It’s doable. I can absolutely be physically attracted to someone even if they’re not conventionally attractive, and that’s not at all an issue for me. What matters is that I like how they look. Not how other people feel about it. Based on that, Option 3 is what I currently have and I’m pretty have with it.

LaFrescaTrumpeta · 2026-03-01T22:15:36+00:00

lesbian chiming in, both of my major relationships were option 3, my priorities tend to be C > B > A

Feeling_Ad_1034 · 2026-03-02T00:30:06+00:00

If I had to choose one, Option 3.

I've got A down as a single dude. I spin plates for B, and I have friends (mostly men) for C.

A committed relationship is a huge risk, and when all my needs are met, the only reason for one is I do want to have kids someday. I'm fine with dying alone. I'm around a lot of retired boomers for work and marriage doesn't seem too attractive based on the way they interact with each other.

avocadolanche3000 · 2026-03-02T01:18:47+00:00

Option 3 easily.

CelicnisGhost · 2026-03-02T01:47:20+00:00

I think you need to clarify just what "struggle financially means".

Cause if it means "you have a beater car, rent your place, and can't afford vacations every year, but your kids don't go hungry" I'm going option 3.

If it means "you are the living embodiment of those fake game ads where a mother and daughter are freezing in a house with holes instead of windows" I'm going option 1.

DGenerationMC · 2026-03-02T02:06:56+00:00

My own peace.

If a person can not impede on that, add to it and allow me to add to theirs, lovely!

So, obviously, Option 3 is the closest to that.

half_avocado33 · 2026-03-02T02:08:22+00:00

Option 3

Money doesn't keep me warm at night. But we can work a tight budget. Actually, we already did that in the past.

Ronniebbb · 2026-03-02T03:34:14+00:00

Hell I'm already in option 3....lower mainland BC is insanely expensive lol 😂

DecisionPlastic9740 · 2026-03-02T04:29:07+00:00

Options 2 easily

guiltymorty · 2026-03-02T12:46:46+00:00

Option 3. I don’t care for financial stability, as long as we’re not talking chaotic instability (gambling, alcoholic, can’t keep a job, extremely reckless). Like I assume it means normal person but just low or average income? Then it’s completely fine. I’ve only ever dated broke men (not by intention - but looks, personality and values are way more important).

Looks are important bc I need that for sexual attraction. I’m not one of those people who will suddenly see someone as attractive bc I get to know them better/ have an emotional connection. Initial physical attraction is important.

Personality and values (ethical, moral, political and so on) needs to be aligned for LTR. And that is important, because misalignment in this department will lead to resentment down the line which kills warmth and attraction. Can’t desire someone you’re constantly annoyed by.

waffleznstuff30 · 2026-03-02T15:12:35+00:00

Option 3 hands down?

I want the companionship and affection of someone I find attractive and want to spend time with. And in the absence of being able to do things? We could enjoy each other's company

AutisticRats · 2026-03-02T15:28:16+00:00

Option 2.

Just like how beer is an acquired taste for most people, there is no reason we can't find an acquired eye for a partner who is stable and provides good company. Also just like how I eat plenty of food I don't particularly like the taste of, I need to reason I wouldn't be able to have intimacy with someone I don't find attractive.

Financial struggle causes stress which can impact a relationship. If it is a tight budget, but well managed then that wouldn't be too bad. Option C is the most important of the three by far.

In fact if I could have A&B, or just C, I would choose option C.

abaxeron · 2026-03-02T18:14:27+00:00

you can only pick two of them

A+C.

I'm an adult, I know how to handle things.

PrecisionHat · 2026-03-02T18:33:53+00:00

Well, normally each category is more of a spectrum; it is probably more akin to a skill tree in a video game. If you aren't familiar, usually in these skill trees you assign points into different skill "paths" so you can fully invest into one or two categories or you could go for something more rounded and put points into all the categories.

If forced to choose by your method, though:

I guess I'd want physical attraction + personal connection. Struggling financially would suck, but people can be happy with less (and I'm assuming we have enough to at least survive together).

C is essential for long term success; you need to connect with your long term partner.

B is important too because, well it just is lol.

A is the least necessary.

Emergency-Sell-6713 · 2026-03-03T05:55:58+00:00

The problem is that there's no realistic scenario where picking option 3 would mean losing your job and getting fucked so catastrophically that you end up losing financial stability.

Werevulvi · 2026-03-05T00:10:13+00:00

I would choose option 3. I don't have a lot of money, so if I was with a man who also didn't have a lot of money, yes we'd likely be living paycheck to paycheck. And I would kinda hate that because I'd prefer a little bit more financial stability than that, like I dunno, average income would be more than enough for me. But I'm also not struggling so much that I fear not having a roof over my head and food on the table, and that is doable.

So yes I would choose to forego financial stability in a relationship if it meant the guy was attractive and someone I click really well with as a person. Also because finances is probably the most likely of those 3 factors to change over time anyway. Like, people can get promoted, hired or sacked without a moments notice. And like my own income could improve over time as well, even if his didn't. So yeah I do think money is the least important (of those 3 variables) especially at the start of a relationship.

PattayaVagabond · 2026-03-06T00:29:11+00:00

I value neurotypicality over all else.

I would rather date a neurotypical 5/10 than a model who is neurodivergent.

Theawkwardmochi · 2026-03-07T00:31:22+00:00

C and A. C is obvious - the one true foundation of lasting happiness.

Financial stability is extremely important as well - so that you don't have to worry about survival or a roof above your head and can enjoy each other's company. "Stability" doesn't mean "a lot of money", it just means you're not at risk all the time. I don't care how much my partner makes as long as they aren't a financial liability (I'm not talking about supporting a partner who currently cannot work, which is normal and fine, more about situations like the person gambling away all the money and stuff like that).

Head-Living2526 · 2026-03-08T00:32:41+00:00

All 3 suck, but Option 2 is by far the worst. Attractiveness is the most important thing to me.

stats135 · 2026-03-01T17:55:39+00:00

B is a must right off the bat, so the question is really just option 1 or 3, and that really depends on how financially (un)stable we are talking about.

I mean if I'm gonna need to work two 8 hour shifts a day to make ends meet, then it doesn't really matter how much I like her company, since I'd never have time to enjoy it.

ResponsibilityAny217 · 2026-03-02T00:52:11+00:00

Probably

option 1 then 2 then 3.

Idk y this sub loves poverty so much but it's genuinely terrible and I hate it.

Option 1 & 2, fucks up one area of life, poverty Opt 3 fucks up nearly every area of life. So that's the trade off.

A fucked up relationship but stability everywhere else Opt 1 and Opt 2. Vs happy relationship but fucked up life in every other aspect option 3.

I hate poverty more than I would hate being with someone I'm not attracted physically or emotionally.

Plus you can do damage control for options 1 and 2 easier than you can option 3.

Option 1 I guess my friends would be my more important and valued relationship than husband here but at least he's hot and hopefully the sex is good. So like a Fuck buddy marriage of conscience rather than a loving marriage. Low maintenance maybe. Maybe we'll have hobbies and adventures we'll share at least.

Option 2 sounds painful for us both, damage control could be to open the relationship. Get our physical needs elsewhere than from each other. But we'll still be friends and build a life together.

Or maybe damage control would be telling your husband get a six pack then just look at his body, don't look at his face I guess.

Or maybe just don't live together.

Option 3 sounds very nice but I wouldn't fuck up my life for a happy relationship. That's not a good trade ruin the rest of my life for a happy relationship, pass I'd love a happy relationship but not at the expense of everything else. Climbing out of poverty is harder to do as damage control than 1 & 2. If we can even climb out that is. Or we just live and die impoverished.

Being financially stable and single would be preferable to all of these.

Edit : I thought of another way to put it. If relationships are values at about $20-$50. Then trading financial stability for $50 is a bad deal.

aslfingerspell · 2026-03-01T19:28:44+00:00

A and B.

Attractiveness is something I want and financial instability is something I want to avoid.

Personality and company is a bonus. I am fine with that being mediocre or even below average as long as it doesn't contradict core values of me.

Junior-Campaign-6326 · 2026-03-01T19:29:40+00:00

A and C.. physical attractiveness goes away after awhile. Finances are important to women and I'm not willing to compromise on that. As long as he's providing I'm ok.

TRY1NGMYB35T · 2026-03-01T21:43:40+00:00

Option 2 (A+C) is the obvious answer. Looks fade, if I'm looking for a partner in life it is far more important that I like them then that I'm attracted to them. Financial stability will make any relationship more solid.

TheRedPillRipper · 2026-03-01T23:08:36+00:00

Option 1

As an extrovert I derive a ton of emotional and social fulfilment outside of a relationship. My besties I’ve had since age 5 and I meet at least once a month. Usually for drinks, dinner and a little debauchery. If my partner and I do not or connect at even a minimum level, I’m good.

Additionally, hypothetically if money was a factor that would be primary determining factor.

wellendowedgoat · 2026-03-02T03:50:08+00:00

I prioritize physical attractiveness, especially facial attractiveness, for longterm relationships. Otherwise, I can't get get invested in them in any serious romantic way, even if she has a good personality, millions of dollars in the bank, high intellect, is a virginal virtuous maiden and has a banging body.

Personality would be second. Her finances would be dead last.

So even if I had little money and she had little money, I'd rather work like a dog, struggle to make ends meet, and be with a beautiful woman, than have a luxurious life and be with a woman that looks meh. Out of the available options, option 3 sounds like a no brainer. On a personal level I only care about the pursuit of things like social status, social capital and money to have a better chance in getting beautiful women or more beautiful women compared to before, otherwise my materialistic needs, my socialization needs, my desire to show off fancy things and to be recognized/respected by other people is almost non-existent.

QuestioningThink · 2026-03-02T10:40:48+00:00

Option 1 or 2. Financially struggling men are the worst kind of people to be around. They always end up taking it out on the woman they’re with. Romantic love/“the spark” is a manipulation tactic created by men plus my friends and family members to emotionally fulfill me.

pie-mart · 2026-03-02T20:27:14+00:00

Option 2. I want someone i love and am not struggling with. I did that before and I was so drained. I don't need to be rich or well off. But I refuse to struggle for "love"

Unless I am already broke af I don't wanna date someone who will make me struggle.

Tylikcat · 2026-03-03T21:25:55+00:00

I'm doing just fine financially. I could afford to support a partner, though most folks I find interesting (not just sexually interesting, but that too) are grown ass adults and have a lot of stuff going on. I'm not interested in taking on a dependent. But then... I am not in a hurry to live with a partner and combine finances, either. I'm not having kids at this point, and most folks who would need to be supported have other problems. It's not a total rule out, but I see this as unlikely to come up.

Title	What do you value?
Author	LastBlackSamurai99
Upvotes	11
Comments	77
Date	March 1, 2026 5:28 PM UTC (5 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1ri37nj/what_do_you_value/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-do-you-value.1574505 https://theredarchive.com/post/1574505

Comments