...I have acknowledged that there is a long history in western society of women choosing husbands based on his ability to support her, and of course, non-support has long been grounds for divorce.
...And as far as "paying" or providing support, or sharing the good fortune, if one in his later years wants the company of a younger woman, more likely than not, there's going to be a financial arrangement.
Actually women in all human societies choose husbands or long-term partners who can support them and their children well. Women will sometimes cheat on their actual or potential long-term partners and seek to get inseminated by a man who may have better DNA but fewer resources to support her. "Better" means better looking, stronger, healthier, etc. But the woman will stick with the guy that can best support her and her children as long as he treats her right.
The idea that women selflessly fall in love and stick with men no matter what long term support the man can offer is a peculiarly western idea. Most traditional societies don't buy into the idea of romance and love as the most important reasons to marry. Even in western societies we pretend marriage is all about love and romance and is not a fundamentally economic partnership. But when is the last time you saw a beautiful, sexy high-powered female lawyer marry a male bus driver? :lol:
Women are absolutely driven by their biological and psychological makeup to trade sex for resources ($); and men are driven to trade their resources ($) for sex. That doesn't mean that there's no such thing as romance or love. But if you view male female relationships through the prism of evolutionary biology/psychology, you will better understand relationships between the sexes.