What is the meaning behind this quote? " A womans loyalty is tested when her man has nothing,A mans loyalty is tested when he has everyting"?

[citroen]

What does this quote mean to you? Do you agree or disagree with it?

[Bandit74]

Biologically guys place a lot of value on a girls looks, while women pace a lot of value on a guys wealth and his ability to provide.

When a man has nothing he might not have that many options when it comes to dating, so hell likely be loyal to anyone that's willing to date him at his lowest. If a girl if with a man when he has nothing it shows that she likes him for him. It also tests her loyalty because she could likely find a better provider, so if she stays it proves her loyalty.

When a guy has everything the situation is kinda reversed. The guy now has a lot of options, hell likely have access to beautiful "model type girls". Meanwhile the girl he's with likely can't match the competition in terms of looks, so her mans loyalty will be tested.

In both scenarios they are being tempted with "better" options, so if they stay loyal to their partners in these scenarios then they really love each other for who they are rather than what they have.

I think most relationships are based partly on superficial qualities but celebrity relationships are a perfect example of this. A typical celebrity relationship is a guy marrying a girl, whom he wouldn't have been interested in if it wasn't for the way she looks. And its a girl marrying a guy who she wouldn't have been interested in if not for his money/status. Both sides face a lot of temptation, but long-term one, possible two things are going to happen:
1. her looks will fade
2. his money will run out

Usually the former rather than the latter but regardless, their relationship is headed for the shitter unless there was something "real" holding the together.

[Aneswar]

Really appreciate your words

[Shut_Up_And_Marry_Me]

It's the ultimate double test of kings! Does the woman leave when the guy can't provide anything? Does the guy leave when he can get any other woman he wants?

I sort of agree but I don't really like what it implies. It implies that men and women are whores and sluts. lol.

[Kshppatel]

There's a whore and slut in all of us that wants to come out we just have to have the power to say no whore no slut you stay down there where you belong... Whore!

[citroen]

Thanks

[Shut_Up_And_Marry_Me]

@Kshppatel The thing is this test won't really work on everyone. People with strong principles to begin with would be fucking insulted to even be tested. I know I do. I think the people doing it are fucking idiotic trash to even DARE TO SUGGEST that I might fail.

[soriana1022]

This is my opinion (I could be wrong)- Women are stereotyped at timed to be financial stab ability seekers and just focused on being that (which is not always true) and would much rather for where the $$$ is high rather than low (which is not true) so that brings it to choosing having "$$$ v. $0.00"... Successful men are stereotyped to only wanting a trophy wife (appearance) yet if you're a man with everything one can ever need why would you go with (1 trophy wife v. Whichever many you can have).

[citroen]

Thanks

[DivaMonae]

It means will they remain true and loyal to each other? Do they really love each other like they claim they do? Or will she leave him in his time of need or will he leave her if he can have something better?

The question reminds me of a lot of people's vows "Thriugh richer or through poor" a lot of people say these words but the question is can they own up to them?

And yes I completely agree.

[skyysarahtops]

Basically it means, "a guy who doesn't have the looks, money, social status a girl wants, the girl would cheat and look for better. if the guy has the looks, money and social status, girls would be lining up for his money, a guy would be confident to get any girl and get what he wants"

[citroen]

I agree thanks

[Tractorbeam]

It means most women are likely to jump ship, if her partner's financial assets take a downturn. She's not likely to stay and do the hard yards, while he becomes rich again. She's not even likely to do the hard yards if he starts off poor, with a good plan and effort to match.
I'll give you an example: Brad Pitt couldn't even get a date, when he first went to Hollywood. That all changed when he became rich and famous, but he was still the same man.

When a man has everything, women will be throwing themselves at him. He will get a lot of temptation, and that will test his loyalty.

[citroen]

Why do most men hate brad pitt, my ex bf hated him, why?

[Tractorbeam]

@Asker, I don't hate him. What gives you that idea? I reckon he's great.
He just happens to be a good example of how mercenary women are. Some of those women who didn't want to know him must be kicking themselves now.

[citroen]

Because you are sarcastic about him, of course he could get a date before he was famous, and there is plenty of other actors you could have chosen from, you chose him, i smell a hint of jealousy some where

[Juxtapose]

You're totally reading this guy the wrong way to the point where I'm wondering if you're autistic lady.

[Ms_Facesitter]

When a man has nothing, it's safe to say that you could look around and find someone who's doing better for himself. Will you go for Mr better or will you stay with the guy you're currently with to see what he's actually worth? If you only look at the outside, what they have, how they look, you're probably going for that Mr. Better. But if you know the person, even when he's down, you know that he's going to fight to get back up to his feet. Loyalty when you have other options, but decide to stay and work together to achieve something beautiful out of 'nothing'.

[Mariena_Anne92]

Goes both way, sometimes man can leave too when woman don't have anything left to offer and sometimes woman change and leave too when they have everything , much more than man. I once read something that says, when man makes more money, they tend to find or need more woman. But when woman makes more money, they feel likes they don’t even need a man anymore.

[D_Bone_Steak]

To me, I think it's speaking to a woman's hypergamy and then a man that has everything is simply going to have other options... so the temptation when you have like 6 different chicks hitting on you.

All I know is I don't wear a wedding ring because it makes me a target to get hit on by chicks.

[reptocarl]

I disagree with it. I don't like grouping people as being a certain way because we're all individuals. What it means is if a man was wealthy, popular and had the world at his fingertips that he is most likely to cheat on his wife, rat his friends out etc. For the woman it means she would cheat on her poor partner because the wealth man above can provide her with all she doesn't have.

[TooHot2Care]

Are you gonna leave when he’s at rock bottom or are you gonna stand by him so the two of you can build this shit together.

now that he’s won, is he going to cheat? I mean women are throwing themselves at him now, so he can…. Or does he just want you and only you?

[DermalPunch]

Easy. Most women don't want a broke man. Men lkke women. When he gets the money, all the women who wouldn't look twice at him when he was broke are ready to steal him from the one who was there when all he had was his character.

[lightbulb27]

true. seems obvious. if she sees her man as low value, she can lack security... it be the time to find security elsewhare. for him, when he has everything, he want more than he originally could attract.

[crazycagurlz]

It isn't disloyal to leave a man who has nothing. It would be disloyal to cheat on him, but why would anyone stay with a man that has nothing just to cheat?

It is disloyal for a man who has everything to cheat.

[Anonymous]

I totally agree,

It means ( if a man has no money to make her happy, and a house and a car and all he have is his loving heart and the woman lives him and is still with him through it all, thats when you'll know she's loyal.) ( if a man has everything in this world a lot of women would want him for his money and house and car, but he would only want the one he loves)

[Opinion Owner]

Loves him*

[Pinay_ako]

I never ever think men are bank accounts. I think of them as a partner to live life together happy and compromise.

[FreyaRed]

Opportunism and hubris are as close as to each other like love and hatred. However I don't think it's sex dependent

[PizzaDaddyo]

A woman could easily leave if the man has nothing to offer. When a man has something to offer he’s stuck with the women that left.

[Anonymous]

The quote is on the money. A woman wants a man of status and power, and if he doesn't achieve it, she will usually leave. A man with great power and status can have any woman he wants, so no need to stick to one.

[citroen]

Yes , it is on the money i agree thanks

[AJElectric]

The obvious, exactly what it says. Though this comment can now be both ways these days.

[citroen]

Whats the obvious? It has more than one meaning !

[AJElectric]

Shutupandmarryme. Said what i was going to. Not exactly but exactly.

[citroen]

Ok thank you

[Djaay]

Women aren't LOYAL , they're just INTERSTED
Women who are traditional and born-again in spitrit are loyal to the LORD and the GOD of the Bible then loyal to the man who makes her as one with him a ND the LORD.

[qqqqq0000]

When a man’s broke, the woman has other better options. When a man’s rich, he has other better options.

[qqqqq0000]

I think its a dumb stereotyping quote, but its how I understand what it means.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

My ex fiancé once told me that and then he left when he got much successful…

[imawfulatusernames]

For me this quote shows nothing but misogyny. If a mans loyalty is tested because he’s got everything he was never loyal, if a woman’s is tested when her partner has nothing same thing and visa versa.

[TheSpaceGnome]

It implies most women are shallow gold diggers and most men are shallow cheaters. Neither of which is true.