Do younger men seriously want older women?
Do most men really desire a wife old enough to be their mother? If you've been reading female newspaper columnists over the last few years you'd think so.
As a man in his early thirties I do sometimes find a certain appeal in some older women, in my experience they tend to be more friendly and less feminist-minded than women my age and younger. The are easier to talk to. Their greater fund of experience has shown them what a load of trash the current vogue for emasculating men through girl-power is. They have also long grown out of the adolescent girl's penchant for bad boys; they appreciate a good man. Some of them also come with the added bonus of being well versed in the feminine arts of cooking, sewing, and pouring their man a nice cool beer when he requires one!
But as much as I might (in theory) enjoy their company, I wouldn't want to marry one. I guess the female journalists would call me a 'caveman'.
Apparently, so their story goes, women are now achieving such heights of financial success that they have no time to build a relationship with a man until their late thirties or early forties, and then they have no need for a man-as-provider, so they choose youth and looks instead. The female columnists also try and complete their theory by pointing out that young men, too, are also more likely these days to have 'less of a problem' with equality with women, with deferring to a woman with greater years, experience, wealth and therefore power.
This is all part of the feminists usual agenda: get angry about supposed abuse of male power over women (the tendency for men to prefer women for their youth and looks), then try to portray sex differences as merely cultural conditioning.
The reality is that as women earn more they don't desire young impoverished men, they desire men who earn even more! It gets to the point where millions of them are pricing themselves out of the dating game. "Where are all the 'suitable' men?" they opine. What they are actually asking is: "Where are all the multi-millionaire men who are just dying to date a power-hungry middle-aged career woman like moi?"
As usual with feminist journalists, the true facts are being warped, spun and distorted to satisfy their wishful thinking. Here's how it works. A survey is commissioned by some organisation that has a vested interest in promoting the idea that older women want to marry younger men and/or these unions are highly successful - usually it will be a woman's magazine. So the survey questions are leading in the way they are phrased, to make it more likely that they get the answers they want.
You may think to yourself: well what's the point of even bothering to do the 'research' if it's all fixed? But that is not how these people think. Alternatively, survey data or study statistics are simply quoted selectively and in misleading ways to arrange a picture that they find pleasing. It's not journalism per se, its public relations.
A lot of this current media trend is being fed by the existence of one couple: Demi Moore (42) and her boyfriend Ashton Kutcher (27). To a feminist journalist, this one celebrity couple alone is proof of a wide-ranging trend across the entire Western world. They are apparently going to get married. Listen carefully; you can hear the female journalists squeal with glee.
But have there ever been so many social-trend conclusions built on such a minor incident?
It's all so much sound and fury!
Now, here is the rub: these older women celebrities may be middle-aged or old but they certainly don't look it. What you get when you date a Demi Moore, a Joan Collins, or an Elizabeth Taylor is a glamour-pussy. It's a woman who is not only beautiful, but essentially younger than her years. She's clearly not a representative example of the average woman of her age. She is not attractive to a younger man because she is wealthy, but rather because enormous resources have been expended in making her seem younger. The body has been toned, conditioned, made firmer and nubile by personal trainers and dieticians. The face has been tightened up, lifted, and botoxed. She is adorned with the most expensive apparel and scents. She takes a great deal of care in her appearance. These are not the average women-next-door. They are rich old gals, approaching their twilight years possessed with a crazed obsession to hold onto youth. A younger man is merely an accessory towards this end.
While I find the media promotion of the idea that more and more young men are settling down with older women rather misleading, I certainly wouldn't condemn any individual couple. After all, it would be nothing short of curmudgeonly to condemn a couple's love on the basis of an age gap.
However, there is a darker side to this phenomenon. If there is a strong media promotion of the idea that men in their twenties should settle down with women in their forties, and if this encourages more of these type of couples to form, this will cause much heartache. The lifestyle, wishes, and plans a man in his twenties will have will be jarringly out of synch with those of a woman in her forties. Conceiving and raising a family will almost certainly be impossible. I fear that many of these partnerships - if they last - may start out as something exotic and exciting but end up in disillusionment and heartache.
Also, there is undoubtedly a potentially unstable power-imbalance of a 40-something woman with a 20-something man. Women, of whatever age, usually tend to wield a great deal of power in relationships as they usually have the superior skills at what some people would call managing interpersonal relationships, and others would call psychological manipulation. A woman dating a man young enough to be her son is going to have an even greater edge in this arena.
So are men who date the older lady looking for a substitute mother? Perhaps some are, but in general I think not. There will always be a small minority of men who settle down with an older woman. However, the majority of young men and older women will not be going out of their way to seek this type of arrangement as a long-term relationship. Sure, young men may find older women sexually attractive, but it is with a temporary conquest in mind. It's a thrill simply because it goes against the grain and their natural tendencies. In other words: it's a fetish.
But at the last moment Mrs Crossley, who denies his claim that she is a "career divorcee", dropped her claims against her 62-year-old husband and today's case - eagerly awaited by lawyers as a defining moment for the validity of pre-nups - did not go ahead.
Prior to their 2006 marriage, the couple had taken legal advice before agreeing that they would not seek a share of the other's assets if their marriage ended.
The test case for the pre-nup was given the go-ahead by judges at the Court of Appeal, who rejected Mrs Crossley's claim that the contract was invalid and she should be able to go through the normal, lengthy divorce court procedure. (i.e. this woman - with a history of gold-digging - thinks she has the right to tear-up contracts when it suits her)
After the separation Mrs Crossley, 50, had claimed a share of husband Stuart's £45 million fortune to add to the £18 million she received after her three previous divorces - one to polo millionaire Robert Sangster. (so shes already rich through sucking money off other men, yet she sees it as her 'right' to even more of another person's money. This is not some poor women just fighting for a modest amount to live on, this is a greedy woman who'se already set up for life courtesy of her previous victims)
Born Susan Dean, the former model had previously been married to Kevin Nicholson, whose family founded the Kwik Save supermarket chain, and Peter Lilley, the adopted son of Lilley and Skinner shoes chief Thomas Lilley. (Funny how she always ends up with rich men, isn't it? If I was cynical I'd almost suspect there is a pattern going on here).
Mrs Crossley took her case to the Court of Appeal after Mr Justice Bennett - also the judge in the Sir Paul McCartney/Heather Mills divorce battle - agreed to short-circuit procedures because the Crossleys were only married for 14 months, had independent wealth but no children, and had signed the agreement.
Lord Justice Thorpe, giving the appeal court ruling in December, said: "If ever there is to be a paradigm case in which the courts will look to the pre-nuptial agreement as not simply one of the peripheral factors of the case but a factor of magnetic importance, then it seems to me that this is such a case."
Family lawyers had been expecting clarification from today's hearing on whether pre-nups should be made legally binding in English and Welsh law, as they are in the US.
Suzanne Kingston, head of family law at Dawsons Solicitors, said: "We had hoped that the Crossley case would give us judicial guidance about the enforceability of pre-nups.
"However, given that Mrs Crossley has decided to adhere to the terms of the pre-nup and taking on board the comments made by the Court of Appeal in December, it is likely that courts may be pretty robust when looking at pre-nups in certain circumstances.
"Those sorts of circumstances will be where both parties are properly legally advised, where there has been disclosure of the financial asset base, where there has been no pressure or duress to sign the pre-nup and, in particular, in circumstances where there is a short marriage and no children." (so even if you have a pre-nup, if you've been married over a certain - currently unspecified - length of time, the judge can still seek to null it.)
Ms Kingston added: "This case will almost certainly mean that it is appropriate for wealthier couples to consider now whether a pre-nup would be sensible in their case and to take at least preliminary legal advice on whether or not to have one drafted." (advice, advice, advice.... remember the whole game is always about feeding the lawyers more money)
She said there have been calls from the legal profession for pre-nups to be given proper statutory recognition, making them enforceable and binding.
London is now the world's divorce capital, with wives achieving far higher awards than they could expect elsewhere.
As Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills negotiate over their settlement, divorce lawyers say that a pre-nuptial agreement might insure others against costly litigation.
But Marilyn Stowe, dubbed the Barracuda, who specialises in big money divorce cases, said legal acceptance of the pre-nup would be a disaster. (Barracuda? I think the term 'vulture' would be more appropriate. And a quick google around her name revealed this article, which makes her philosophy and sympathies quite clear.)
"I have come across many pre-nuptial agreements in the past, made in other countries - and their terms are usually grossly unfair to the poorer spouse," she said. (such as the career divorcee above who is worth £18million. Yes, technically she is the 'poorer' spouse when compared to her wealthy husband. The difference is though, that he has made his money by providing value to society, she has made her money through, well... a certain part of her anatomy, basically. And I don't mean her brain).
"Fortunately, I am not sure that our Government has the will or wherewithal to bring in a contentious law that would probably only ever benefit the very rich."
(Why would it only 'benefit' the very rich? Why shouldn't any man with assets be allowed to give himself some level of protection? And, anyway, even aside from that, why SHOULDN'T rich men be protected by the law? Its like saying 'Theres no need for stealing luxury sports cars to be considered criminal, because this would only benefit the very rich." The law should be about impartial justice for all, not emotive 'payback' for those jealous of the rich and wanting to 'stick it' to them. Especially if they are men).
