Okay, I'll be the first to reply. If I were in my younger years, no. But I'm 67 yrs old and there's a lot to be said about a good friendship.

At my age I would marry a good friend I had a great deal in common with; someone I liked a lot; someone whose company I enjoyed, though I didn't actually have a passionate love for. And I would marry a person like this even though he didn't have money to "keep me" in the lifestyle of the pampered. If he has money, so much the better.

Would I marry him if I just liked the money more than the man? Nope, not for any amount.

PS. I'm still married to my only husband and we've been together 46 years.

I agree with Mona; if I was her age.. lol

I'm 44, we would have to be good friends, it can't be just for the money. Money isn't everything; I need peace in my life right now; couldn't pay me enough to shack up with someone I don't have feelings for.

Newdawn, the answer would be yes if he was a good man and I liked him.
Its not hard for love to grow for someone thats good to you
and takes care of you.
I would never in my older years(where I am now) marry a man
I liked and he didn't have money.
If he is my age and doesn't have money......then he wasn't
a very good money manager IMO.

I love to tease~ Why not! I've married once for love, the next time will be for money! (married 17 years and no end in sight!) I will say I would not settle for less than I have now in all respects. I often wonder about women who leave a established home, good provider and father, to take up with a lazy boozer. Is this for love?

here's another twist on the question:

does money make the man more attractive?

I think it's sometimes the case when I see an older man and a much younger woman, the stability and lifestyle can be very attractive, imo.....
is that wrong ? I have no clue.

I've been married for 35 years to the same man, sheesh, we were 22, such kids. It flies by fast though.....lol.....

Many would argue that I did, although I did and do love my husband very much, since it was clear from day one that he was going to be virtually the sole source of income for our family.

But if I were single, and still in my current situation regarding disability etc., and there was a kind, good-hearted, financially comfortable (not rich, but could take care of things like my medical needs, a decent roof over our heads, blah blah) man with whom there was mutual friendship, respect, some reasonable level of compatibility on the physical end of things - yes, I'd very seriously consider it. Now chasing a man for his money, that's sleazy gold-digging IMO.

Besides, love can grow in the oddest of ways and places if given the chance, just as the most passionate love can fade and die over time (as too many of our members are sadly discovering).

This question invites further thought into "What is love?"

If love is a verb, love would exist between two people who regularly take action to demonsrate that they care for one another, as lmlh suggested. Sharing one's finances could be one of many acts of caring & generosity in this context. If one partner is more financially stable than the other, why not marry to share those resources?

However, if love is a *feeling* then caring acts don't count for much. Mainly *chemistry* & physical attraction are priorities. Whether the parties are conscious of it or not, in this context, when you marry for money, you do so not to share resources so much as to support an image. Two people can agree (subconsciously sometimes) that they want to be beautiful people in beautiful cars going to beautiful places, but demonstrate little in the way of true caring. The priority here is bolstering a desired persona.

So, you have two scenarios with women marrying "for money" but the motivations behind the scenes are very different.

" does money make the man more attractive?"

I'm just going to go ahead and answer for Faron and I.

No.

Yes. 42 years and counting. I am coming to the conclusion in my late 60's that choosing and staying married are not always related. There is a skill in staying married independent of money. But security of some money takes one of life's stresses away.

I'd be more likely to divorce to avoid bankruptcy over health costs.

-Lena

Here is a link that might be useful: Health Care Costs Encourage Divorce

No but I wish my mother would :oP (Did ya read that mom?) heh heh

"I often wonder about women who leave a established home, good provider and father, to take up with a lazy boozer. Is this for love?"

Be aware that there may be things going on in that "established home" with the "good provider and father" that make the "lazy boozer" look like a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. Some of the most perfect-looking families are the most dysfunctional; Daddy in the Brooks Brothers suit and the brand-new Mercedes beating the snot out of Mommy (being very conscientious about not leaving any visible marks that would show in her yoga outfit) and playing "secret games" with the kids, but because they LOOK good they're the last family anyone suspects of having problems and aren't as likely to be investigated as a lower-social-status family that doesn't look as pristine to the casual observer. I've mentioned before about having a history of abusive relationships, and one of the worst b@st@rds looked to the outside world like Prince Charming, but in private he was a completely different person. A few of my relatives appear to be what one would write off as "lazy boozers" because they're longhaired bikers who don't work "the right kinds of jobs" and like to have a few beers on weekends, but they'd never lay a hand (or a harsh word) on their wives or children and they'd get up at 2am in an ice storm to come help you get your car started. What you see and what is can be two completely opposite things.

"does money make the man more attractive?"

Speaking only for myself, the reason the man may or may not have money can drastically affect his attractiveness much more than whether or not he has it at all. A very wealthy man who has made his bucks in a less-than-ethical (IMO) fashion and then uses that money like a steamroller over other people to do whatever he dang well pleases is, IMO, infinitely less attractive than a man who works a "regular job" that doesn't make a fraction of what Daddy Warbucks gets but doesn't pretend that having two nickels to rub together somehow gives him permission to behave like a putz.

Nah, I couldn't just marry someone because I liked them and they had money. I know I'd be miserable.

After I left my first husband, I was literally a broke single mom. I dated a nice guy who was well off, and he proposed to me. I gave serious thought to settling down with him because I knew that my kids and I could have a better life. But I just didn't love him. So I said no.

I ended up meeting the love of my life a month later...a man who was broke! Together we worked it out and got comfortable, tho.

BUT, that was then. Now, if something happened and I were to ever be in a situation to remarry, I'd say maybe. I think if he were financially stable and better off than me, then yes. Anything less than that, no. If I were mad about a man who was broke or less financially stable than me, I'd say no to marrying or shacking up. I'm at that point in my life where I just do not want to raise any one else.

Heavens no. During the 16+ years that my ex and I were together, the business that we started together and he ended up running on his own (making it clear he only wanted my help initially in helping to finance the endeavor) did very well and he made a lot of money. I'm here to tell ya that money in no way buys true happiness. Oh, it might provide a sense of security in that there aren't money "worries" that so many people live with, but even now that I'm back in that place where I do have a few nervous flutters over finances on occasion, I'm still infinitely happier with a modest income and modest possessions than I ever was with a comparatively wealthy man. Of course, it also has a lot to do with the man himself. But the question was whether we would marry for money, and that's pretty much not a quality that I would consider in choosing a mate if I were in the market for one. In fact, my own experience has been that sometimes, the more money a man has, the more of an arrogant jerk he becomes in the process of acquiring it.

Larry king says, "When you marry for money you earn every penny of it". Meanwhile he's been married eight or is it nine times? (lol)

It's funny how many women would marry for money depending on the circumstances. Most of the older women would marry for money if they had friendship, respect and so on and I agree.

I didn't get married until I was thirty and then it was to a much older man with money. Would I do it again? I would now, but I wish I would of found someone my own age back then and struggled with him.

Now he is gone and so is the bulk of the money.

And now at 59 I would marry not so much for money (although his finances should be in order) but for companmanship and a comfortable life and adventure and in return I would give him a beautiful home and true happiness.

I may regret talking about all of this tomorrow morning.

.....Jane

My answer basically reflects my circumstances now. If it was the difference between my kids starving or not, probably if the man was still a good man. If it was just me starving, I would probably just starve while enjoying my own company and making my own decisions.

My perspective may be different in a few years but right now, the thing I want most in the world is not money but time to myself.

No, I don't think so. I'm not so sure about the growing to love someone. Well you probably could on some level, but I think you would be short changing yourself. I've been married for 27 years and he still makes my knees go week. I cannot imagine exchanging the deep, and yes, passionate love for something that may or may not develop.

Material success is not as important to me as happiness. Of course as others mentioned, money makes many things easier and we all need it. I also agree with tish - if I had starving children, etc. that would weigh in on my decision. My parents brought me up to be self-sufficient and able to take care of myself if need be.

I agree with the old saying "money can't buy happiness."

tina

Nope. No way.

It's abundantly clear to me from observing life that money does not buy happiness. I've seen too many people with money who are miserable and many people with nothing who are happy.

Now, it would be nice to happily fall in love with someone who had money, if I were single. I'm not saying that you CAN'T be happy if you have money. But you have to be happy to begin with, the money being the cherry on top rather than the foundation of the relationship.

Not to mention that unless the potential spouse with the money has agreed to the arrangement as is, knowing I'm not in love with him and just marrying him for money, I'd find it very unethical to enter into the marriage under false pretenses.

I think that a good question, to start with, would be..."Am I happier with or without this person?". Remeber that money is not the root of all evil, rather it's the love of money.

After my marriage of 20+ years was over, I started dating two men who were as different as night and day. One made my heart flutter and the other was more like a great friend. After months of this back and forth, it finally occured to me that I was just looking for some badly needed excitement in my life. The relationship with suitor #1 was becoming quite immature and more like infatuation, rather than blossoming into love. Just because someone can make you feel like you're 16 again, doesn't mean that feeling will, or should, last. If that were the case, publishers wouldn't have a repeat market for their romance novels, IYKWIM.

Suitor #2 was steady as a rock, owned his own home and had a great job. The more time I spent with him, the more I ended up liking myself. As time passed, I found his killer sense of humor and all the things we had in common. He was the one I married.

Today, I can't imagine life without him. He's opened doors to international travel, been great with my kids, and loves me unconditionally, as I, him.

I don't believe that anyone enters a relationship without getting something in return. Now, that something might be the undefinable love, security, parenting or a host of other things. For me, it's a question of how a person makes me feel about myself.

Having stable finances can offer many other benefits. One could find a calling in various volunteer efforts, making for a wonderful life. Money only goes so far, though. I couldn't imagine ever marrying somebody whose touch would make me cringe. No amount of $$$ is worth that. Character is a biggie for me, also. I need someone that I can respect and vice versa.

Just to throw another twist into the topic, my DH's business clients who are over 45, successful, & single again have no interest in marrying. They don't want anybody else getting their hands on their hard-earned wealth. They're not millionaires or anything, just successful, well paid men. It's sad, really, that they're cynical of good companionship and love. They'll use their wealth as a incentive to attract a pretty 35-year-old live in bed partner. But no marriage. Even many of the married guys complain a lot about their wives' spending.

I mention these just because seems to me there's a disconnect here between what women think and what men think.

I found the responses interesting and some quite touching. However, my own response is simple and has no real insight. There is no way in hell I'd marry for money.

I don't have a fairytale expectation of marriage (if I ever enter the realm). I have had knee-buckling passion-- a number of times. I know passion and the great energy of a "new love" and I know they don't last-- I am ok with that. I do expect to have a lasting love, companionship and respect for and from the person I share my home and life with. It doesn't have to be crazy love-- but a love, yes. I very much value my independence. I didnt spend the majority of my life working on my education, career and friendships in order to "sell out" in my own home.

LOL Jason!!!

Would I marry for $$$...??!?!?

Depends how "Hot" She is...........JUST KIDDING!!!!
(I'm more concerned with the car she drives....)

;-)

I'm now reminded of my fave ZZ-Top song, "Every girls' crazy 'bout a sharp-dressed man"

Faron

I think Jackie Kennedy said - "The first time I married is for love, the second time is for money and the third time is for companionship."

I married for love 32 years ago and I am still happily married.

I know a woman who married for love, to a man who was also wealthy. Ten years later, the love died, and the money was not enough to sustain the marriage.

No, I wouldn't marry a man for his money, but I honestly would have to say I wouldn't marry a man who had bad finances either! I guess I'm snobby enough to not want to give any of my hard earned money to a man who couldn't hold a job. Now, if he was a hard working person who was employed but just didn't have alot of money, that would be different.

But to be totally honest, at my age I don't think I'd ever get married again if God forbid anything happened to my hubby or he left me!

It would be nice to meet someone to go out with or travel with, but I really don't think I'd want to complicate my life and my kid's life with another man - especially if he had an ex wife and kids and all that baggage.

Maybe I just can't picture being married to anyone but my DH, and if circumstances were that I was truly single, I'd feel differently, but deep down, I really don't think so! I think my attitude is sortof been there did that!

Yes, awm03. You are describing what sociologist Warren Farrell, in his book "Why Men are the way They Are," described as the phenomenon of "women as sex objects, men as success objects." This has always existed, but cultural norms of the past (say 25 yrs. or more ago) supported the notion that if a man wanted sex, marriage was (more or less) a requirement. Of course we know that things went on outside of wedlock, even then, but women were far more protected, imo, in the past. Only 26% of women w/children are married today. I don't feel any ill will or have a negative attitude toward unwed mothers. I'm simply asking, who does that state of affairs benefit? The women? The children? Today having children outside of marriage is acceptable, but while unwed mothers enjoy greater acceptability, they do so at what cost? So many struggle to raise their off-spring alone, often on meager wages, & often with no health insurance.

The men in your husband's company can enjoy the best of both worlds, thanks to this development of our culture. Furthermore, since there is no longer soceital pressure on men to marry, even if children come on the scene, I wonder if this doesn't further perpetuate their "success object" status. Those pretty 35 yr. olds are aware, I'm sure, of how difficult it would be to get one of these guys to commit. The men are viewed more than ever then, as "hard to get." Do they then, become more object-like?

Add to that, most women are employed in lower paying jobs than men, which also perpetuates the view of men as success objects. However, in Farrells's book, "Why Men Earn More" his research shows that it is a myth that women earn less for the same work. There are many factors that explain why men do earn more. Unmarried women, like Funkyart, have long earned more than unmarried men on the same career path. Farrell argues that these women have made big investments & sacrifices for their careers & their sweat equity has paid off. When women marry, they often choose to have more "balanced" lives & may leave careers that are higher paying, go part-time, or otherwise limit their involvement in their careers, resulting in lower pay. Also, women often choose more fulfilling jobs (child care, teaching) that are not as well-paying as jobs in construction, or business, for example. Tradtionally male careers that are high-paying are often less gratifying and more physically depleting than traditionally female careers. Farrell encourages women who seek higher pay to consider seeking non-traditional training & career paths.

What does this mean to the young women I see working in Wal-Mart, or the grocery check out, who have a baby at home, & are doing it all alone? Maybe we do need to encourage our girls & young women to pursue different career paths. But, frankly, it's true; I'd rather be a receptionist in an air-conditioned office than doing heavy-lifting in the noon-day sun on a construction site!

Here is a link that might be useful: books about wage disparity, gender issues

DH married *me* for money (not really)! I was a journeyman engineer back in 1989, he was a Spec 4 in the Army, nobody he worked with could believe he lucked out into marrying a GS-12! Of course, by the time he got out, went to college on the GI bill, and got about 5 yrs experience, he was earning nearly as much as I was (he was in private industry and I was still working for Uncle Sam). After I had our first child, I dropped to part time and he earned more. A year after our second child was born I quit my job and now we're dependent on his income (having gone through all our non-retirement savings building this house).

So, I may not have married for money but I sure do have to stay married for it (in this economy, and 5 yrs out of the workplace) LOL!

James Taranto has covered the topic of the myth of wage disparity as well, which is where I first read about it.

To explain DH a bit, he wonders what's wrong with these men that they can't be happy in a marriage. He sees them as being socially & emotionally undeveloped. Fun to golf with, fine to do business with, but no deep connection otherwise.

Have had the money, the fairy tale love, and a try at other types of money or not, some worked longer then others. What I learned is at 67 for me I am very happy being the only one who lives in my home. It takes alot of work even if you are just friends, and I don't wish to . So no not for money or love again.

Yes, I will marry for money. Please send me your account statements and I will consider your proposal.

>>>>Nah, I couldn't just marry someone because I liked them and they had money. I know I'd be miserable.What Sheesharee said, and that's why I'll always have my own career, and whatever my beloved, hardworking, handsome DH of 17 years makes is "just gravy"

I also agree with what CarolOH said >>>>I wouldn't marry a man who had bad finances either! I guess I'm snobby enough to not want to give any of my hard earned money to a man who couldn't hold a jobBut ultimately I agree with what Tina said
>>>>I've been married for 27 years and he still makes my knees go weak

While there is a diverse patch work quilt of sentiments & wisdom on this thread, I would say that I agree with nearly everyone who has posted! There is wisdom to be found in all of these approaches.

But I probably resonate the most with Themommy1 when she says, "It takes alot of work even if you are just friends, and I don't wish to . So no not for money or love again."

Yes, after this marriage is over, (which will probably be due to dh's demise more than likely since he is 8 yrs. older) no more husbands, for any reason! Probably for that matter, no more cats after this cat! Some creatures are just irreplaceable!

Nope, I couldn't. Being in love with my husband, and he with me, has enriched our lives so much~ and subsequently, our children's lives, as well. I can't imagine what kind of values they would have come away with if they'd been raised in a loveless marriage, albeit even one where their parents were respectful friends. My husband is a physician, but I hope no one thinks that I don't really understand "the other side of the argument". I can honestly say that I would have married him even if he had not been wealthy. He's a great guy and my best friend. I can't even wrap my head around the idea of living these past 26 1/2 years in a loveless marriage, just for the money. Wealth can't make up for the emptiness that kind of marriage brings, I would think . . . at least not for me.
Lynn

stinker-gardener and I also have the "no more cats after this one " togeather. I love my Tabby cat, but when she is gone I will move the table under the window and enjoy her veiw.

I think Jane was asking more about marrying (for love or money, that is the question!) when you're older, so I assume no kids involved. Let's say (since this is hypothetical) that you don't have kids, are in menopause, don't want kids, and/or any kids from previous marriage(s) are grown and out of the house.

Hmm, then I think my answer might be "maybe", as long as we enjoy each other's company, if he's willing to support me in a platonic relationship just to have someone to come home to each night (or hang out with if he's retired). Don't know if there's a man alive who would go for that arrangement though - would be easier to get a housekeeper/cook (better one than I am!) and have one of his buddies as a roommate to hang out with.

I'll admit it - I must have physical chemistry with a man. That's something that's really important to me, and has become more so, the older I've gotten (and the more I've come to know what, *ahem*, pleases me). (TMI?)

Ajsmama, yes, I got that impression too, that Jane was talking about marrying later in life for money, & maybe not even the rolling in the dough, let's take the Rolls Royce kind of money. Maybe she's just talking about marrying for a modicum of financial security. When one is past their prime in terms of being a vital part of the work force, when one is past their prime in terms of energy & health, one often must make different sorts of choices than they would have made in their youth.

As I said in my last post, I think I'd personally prefer to wallow in the joys of being alone once my husband is no longer with me, but I also feel uncomfortable being harsh, or dismissing a woman in her 50's, 60's or beyond who doesn't have the luxury to make that choice. Who knows, maybe I won't have the luxury to make that choice! That's my 1st preference, but it's hard to say what hand I will be dealt down the road.

While I would not advise a 20 yr. old w/her entire life ahead of her, no health problems, & the ability to work to take that path, would I really say to a 67 yr. old woman, "Come on, Ernestine, get your priorities straight, where's your romantic side?" Ernestine needs to survive! She needs health insurance. Maybe I sound cold & unfeeling, but if she can "get by with a little help from her friends" what is so dreadful about that?

I agree, there is something to be said for the security, but the arrangement still makes me uncomfortable if *he* expects to share a bed and *I* don't find him attractive. I know women have been doing it (most often against their wills, with much older men) for centuries, but I'd really have to be desperate to put *myself* in that situation. But who knows, if you need a roof over your head...

Dear Ajsmama, no, I wasn't envisioning anything that would be disagreeable to either party in any way! Though as you suggest, such arrangements I'm sure do exist. Every situation, couple, life is so different, that it becomes rather frustrating to make sweeping generalizations. I can just imagine that there are situations, where "marrying for money" as vulgar as it sounds, is not necessarily "gold-digging." The point is almost moot, however, since it is probably very rare for an older man to wish to take on further responsibility during his golden years & share his hard-earned nest egg.

To be honest, there is a person we all know in our group here, who has serious health issues, who is struggling to heal & to make ends meet. She has no health insurance. Gainful employment has been hard to come by. She's a great, hard-working, determined lady, but for crying out loud, she needs help! I've wished that a knight in shining armor would swoop in, provide her w/health insurance, take her to her doc appts., & let her stay home & heal the way she needs to! Do I care if either of them feels this is the great romance of their lives? No! But wouldn't there be love there in order for someone to do that? Not the chemical, fuzzy feeling variety, but the kind rooted in acts of caring? Would she be a gold-digger to accept this care? I hardly think so. I wish this could happen, but it only would in a fairy tale.

I wasn't thinking gold-digger, I see your point, in fact I was thinking of the same person when you first mentioned it. I hope she finds a way, whether on her own or with a "knight in shining armor" to get the care she needs. While many people may be divorcing (I think someone posted a link) b/c of healthcare costs, this is a situation where if someone has good health insurance and would be willing to add her to his/her policy, it would be a lifesaver. I would still hope for a platonic relationship though.

Even in cases where medical conditions are not an issue, but simply putting a roof over your head, I don't consider it gold-digging. Just survival. And while women in various cultures have been doing it (or being forced into it, even just b/c there was no other choice) - think Medieval Europe, not necessarily anywhere in the 21st century - for centuries, I have to get back to the unstated assumption in OP's question that things are not that desperate. I don't think she's asking about marrying for mega-bucks either, but let's consider the case where you are "comfortable" - you have a roof over your head, food on the table, and as yet no large medical bills. If you met someone you liked, but didn't love (and I'm throwing in didn't find physically attractive either), but had the chance to marry him just to be *more* financially secure, incl. retirement/healthcare/nursing home b/c you're in your 50's and have to think about that, would you accept?

Maybe I should be flattered if a man found me still attractive enough to want s*x 10 years (or more) from now, but I'd really have to think about that, assuming that's the one thing he'd require from me. In 10 years my answer might change (if I'm still not working).

Right now, I'd say if I were working and supporting myself and had some retirement nest egg (even though it's not what it used to be), I'd pass. But do it nicely, so if things changed and he was still interested I could take him up on the offer ;-)

Interesting discussion! I've had a ringside seat for 15 years at the marrying-for-money, trophy-wife circus. My kids attend a very exclusive, very pricey private school. Our joke is we're the token middle class family there :).

Anyway, this place is a marvelous venue for observing the phenom of women marrying men who are often older and always wealthy. Within this general group there are divisions:

-There is what I call the 'original wives' club. These women are first wives, who married the doctor/lawyer/indian chief when they were both starting out, with good earning potential but long before the money appeared. Many are nurses who married doctors, legal secretaries who married attorneys etc. A good smattering of college romances in there. Original wives are generally close(r) in age to the husband. They look their age, but VERY well maintained.

-Trophy wives. These are always a lot younger and a lot more good looking than their partner. They are second, or sometimes third, wives. Their children often have half-siblings who are decades older. They are seriously into high maintenance mode. They are arm candy...when they appear with their spouse at any event they are dressed, made up and toned to the nines. Funny aside: I learned long, long ago to NEVER ask or assume that an elderly guy at a PTA event or back to school night is a grandfather. No,he is the dad on his second (or third or...) go round at fatherhood.

Both sets tend to be SAH; it is also common that the husbands are minimally involved in the life of the family. They are way too busy working to afford the best house, the luxury car and of course the pricey prep school. The wives tend to complain that they have all the responsibility and that the husbands drop in occasionally to bask in the fatherly glow, then they are off again. OTOH the domestic responsibility is eased by a lot of help-household workers, hired out jobs and so on. If they're not working, the dads are often indulging in their own expensive pasttimes without the family. Lots of golf, deep sea fishing, private plane excursions.

Travel usually consists of lavish trip several times annually. But, those trips are the only extended family time rich dad spends with the kids. Otherwise, it is original/trophy mom, the kids and the household help who hang out together. Wait, I forgot--a lot of the trophy wives get carted off at least once annually for a couples' only vacay with hubby. The wives like to sigh as they 'complain' that their money honey just has to have his week alone with her every year in Jamaica/Paris/Italy/Fiji. Such a burden.

Sound cynical? Who, me???? I will say that these families and marriages do work in many cases. I will also say that the downside can be brutal. I've seen many divorces over the years and they tend to be nasty and prolonged. Wives who have been pampered housewives for a decade or more have to fight hard to get money out of the divorcing spouse. They worry a LOT about living because almost none of them have financial resources or job skills. Usually they end up leaving the MacMansion and moving into comfortable but much more modest houses. OTOH, most of them seem a lot happier once they are single and finished with the divorce.

So, who knows? I'm married to a guy who is roughly equal to me in education, earning power and work ethic. My last raise brought my income a tiny bit higher than his and when I asked him how he felt about that he crowed "I feel like I can see early retirement coming closer...yippee." He also likes to call himself my trophy husband :). I think I've got a pretty good deal.

Ann

Ajsmama, I always love your candor! You speak your unvarnished truth. No political correctness or pandering to the party line for you! I respect & enjoy that about you! Case in point: "I'd pass. But do it nicely, so if things changed and he was still interested I could take him up on the offer ;-)" Your honesty & vulnerability make me want to both chuckle AND sit up straighter & take notice of what you say (& give you a hug, 'cause I think that's so special & such a breath of fresh air!)

Runninginplace, your reply was so well-written. I so enjoyed it! You grabbed me from your "priceless" first line, "Interesting discussion! I've had a ringside seat for 15 years at the marrying-for-money, trophy-wife circus." Wow, who could stop reading after that! You make a lot of keen observations. You should be selling your writing about what you witness in your environment, through short articles or a long novel or blog entitled, "Token middle class family."

I agree with you Stinky gardener I enjoyed reading Ann's comments and she is an excellent writer indeed.

....Jane

I've been reading over the newer answers from the last couple of days. This has been a very interesting discussion!

I agree totally with you Aunt Jenn (and that wasn't TMI LOL). For me, at least at this age, the physical side is very important. I also understand what someone responded about *new love*, those lustful feelings, etc. that often do not last. That is not what I am talking about. The physical side, when enjoyed with someone you truly love, is a rewarding, joyful part of a good and happy marriage. While NOT the most important part, it IS a part that is important to me.

Runninginplace, your comments about the *knight* got me thinkging. Certainly a different kind of marriage that what appeals to me, I can see your point and how both parties could benefit from this.

My MIL has been widowed for about 7 years. She is dating a man, finally! My hubby and I have discussed the possibility of them marrying. I know they are very fond of each other, enjoy each other's company and I think one of the main things for them is just the companionship, having someone to spend time with, do things with, etc. I do not believe (if they do marry), that it will be like their first marriages. Both had a loving marriage, raised children together with that partner, and planned to grow old together. However, I do believe they could have a happy marriage and possibly even love, although not the same as their *first loves*.

This thread has shown me there can be different types of love and marriages. I hope to never be in the position to consider those options, but who knows what we would do if the situation presented itself?

tina