Would you choose short love at at 20 years old or life long love at 45 years old?

Definitely 45. I feel like “happily ever after” (assuming 20–40 years, right?) is better than 7 years, no matter when those years take place.

@pdworkin There are ALWAYS magic beans.

45.

Seeing that I already have a perfect SO, I’d sell the wand to some poor sucker for some good records and cigarettes.

for sure the latter

Speaking from actualy experience, (not by choice, I was forced into it), I can say that whatever happens – love at any age is wonderful. I was married to my first husband 13 months, second 9½ years, and current husband and I just celebrated our 34th anniversary, and still going strong.

I’ll go with the 2nd choice.

Realistically speaking, one should embrace love at any age. But, if I could only have one, I’d choose lifelong love at 45. Gives you plenty of time to have fun before hand, too!

i finally met my one true love when i was 57

45, of course. The time before that is when you learn what it is to be ready to find life long love.

@pdworkin and I thought I was going for the record at 40! Congrats to you!

Given the choice, and my present life experience, I would choose 45. but like others have said earlier, take it when it comes. Love can be true for a short time, just as love can be true forever.

Will you give me the option of eternal life while you’re at it? If so love at 45, if not love at 20. Not only because 45 is a long wait for me, but I’m just the kind of guy that finds love at 45 and lives to be 46. Not very lucky. Plus who will tell me I won’t get hit by a bus tomorrow?

I’m no longer 20, nor have I met him!, so I’ll say 45! :D

Are those the only choices? Feh!

Probably that latter, although the first is very tempting. 45 just gets you more.

Also, here’s a catch – both of you don’t have to be 45!