Men who marry/live with much younger women

Let's see, there's Dennis Kucinich, 60 years old...and his wife Elizabeth, about 31 years younger, or half his age.

There's Keith Olbermann, 48 years old...who's been living for six months now with a 23-year-old, less than half his age.

And then there's 63-year-old Fred Thompson and his "hottie" wife Jeri, who is 40, or 23 years his junior.

They are different because?

You are absolutey correct in that the first post to answer nailed it exactly...

based on sexual prudery?

There's your answer.

But seriously, folks...I guess I just sense some hypocrisy here.

Either what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, or it's sauce for neither, seems to me.

That's why people are bringing it up.

FRED's hypocrisy.

:shrug:

While GHW Bush and Brent Scowcroft were sent to the woodshed.

involved in telling other people whom they can and cannot marry.

never vote for him. Way too much other stuff on there to even bother thinking about who/what he's married to.

Everyone on DU pumps their fists and goes "Way to go, dude. Way to go, Keith, way to go, Dennis, you macho dudes, gettin' yourselves some young a**."

But if Fred does it, he's a dirty old man.

"What did the President know, and when did he know it?" Also, Thompson's voice has become immortalized in recordings of the Watergate proceedings, asking the key question, "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?"<7> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson

Any lawyer knows you only ask a question if you already know the answer. Mr. Butterfield was brought into Nixon's White House from his DOD assignment in Australia

"In 1968 Richard Nixon was elected as president of the United States. Nixon's chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, had studied with Butterfield at the University of California. Butterfield later claimed that Haldeman contacted him and suggested that he became Deputy Assistant to the President. However, Haldeman claimed that it was Butterfield who asked him for a job.

Butterfield retired from the USAF and took up the post. Butterfield supervised internal security. This meant he had to work closely with the Secret Service. Butterfield also helped to organize the installation of the secret taping system in the White House."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbutterfield.htm

Bob Haldeman hints that Butterfield was CIA while in Australia and maybe in the White House :

"I am told that Rose Mary Woods believes Butterfield was a 'plant'. And I have to agree she may have a point."...

"Was the White House filled with plants from other agencies, most particularly the CIA ? The overwhelming evidence is that it was. But was Butterfield one of them ? It's hard for me to believe it--but the 'facts' in the story he constantly gives the press disconcert me. Although I still consider him a personal friend."

H. R. Haldeman, pages 268-269, The Ends of Power

So maybe during the campaign someone can ask Thompson, "What did YOU know and when did YOU know it", assuming that Butterfield was a CIA plant in the Nixon White House. That isn't so far-fetched now finding out that Bob Woodward himself was briefing in the WH and that a Joint Chiefs of Staff spying operation on Kissinger (The Moorer-Radford Affair) was going on during that time.

Knowing the current CIA/GOP money scandal arising from the Cunningham case Carol Lam was investigating, you'd think that an old intelligence hand from the past, thoroughly versed in what the 'Company' needs covered up, would be trotted out for one last lap.

I am sorry. A 23 year old could be smart, wonderful, & pretty BUT she also does not have life experience and a broader understanding that comes with maturity. It is just the way it works. These men are going for passion and sex. And, that is fine. Like people say, it is their business...

But, it is about SEX. Let's at least be HONEST.

How do you know what they talk about at the dinner table, or while they're doing laundry? I'm 14 years younger than my spouse...can you just say right off the cuff that it's all about sex for him, and I'm not mature enough or have enough life experience to hold his attention otherwise?

It takes two to tango

In my case it was sooo not about the money!

I'd say that's not the reason Haruka is marrying me. I suspect it has everything to do with love.

My guy is 17 years older then me. I found this out when early in the relationship we were watching a movie and talking and he started a sentence with "So when I got back from Nam" ~thudddd~ I was born in 1970...hehe. Frankly it just didn't matter to me. He's honest, affectionate, caring, stable and he makes me laugh. He is no rich politician and I am no great beauty so sometimes it really is just two people finding each other and make each other's world a better place.

Even if I'm female, not male.

There is a significant age difference between myself and Haruka. I feel in love with her DESPITE the age difference, not because of it. I love HER. It's why I'm marrying her in September. Sex is great, but it would take more than that to make me marry someone.

Some of these guys may just want "trophy wives," but some probably honestly love their wives. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt -- I know what it's like.

about KO being w/ a younger woman? I think everyone's happy for Keith that he has a girlfriend he's really nuts about, but I don't think anyone was holding him up to be a "macho dude" because his girlfriend was younger.

And Fred is a republican asshole, whether he's with a younger woman or not.

:kick:

Or at least one with certain reservations.

:D

thats my best explanation.

Glad for anyone of any age, sex, color, sexual persuasion, etc etc that can find someone to be good with.

It's their lives.

A political party based on Christianity that touts marriage and repudiates divorce....that is all about condemnation for not fitting a certain mold.....they do it to themselves.

This is not about the fact that Thompson is divorced, and you know it.

Just because this is Kucinich's 3rd wife and she's only 29 yrs younger than him; theres something wrong with that? huh? :shrug:

considering that my dad was 18 yrs older than my mom, I certainly don't have a problem with people finding love outside of some silly age window...I pretty much owe my existence to that sort of thing. ;)

Life can be a hard scary road at times. Finding someone who will gladly hold on and help you through it is someone worthy of love, regardless of their age.

Love between adults is, well, love.

BFD.

My wife is <horrors> OLDER than me.

Are you living out some kind of fantasy by posting this? What's the point>?

No. Just wondering why some DU'ers rah-rah Keith and Dennis for their choices and express revulsion and disgust when some Republican does the same thing.

It's like when a Republican gets outed as gay. Do they think it's disgusting because he's gay, or do they think it's disgusting because he's gay and yet he preaches about the evils of being gay? In that case I sure hope it's the latter.

I'm obviously not a DU man who rah-rahs about establishing relationships with younger women.

Jeez, did you even read my post?

when you can drive a new one?

And there's usually more junk in the trunk.

:thumbsup:

Bah!

...a woman's zenith is in her late 30s, I would think it more appropriate that a woman be the one "trading in for a newer model."

Those factors, along with the crushing over-population the world is facing (less offspring with older female-younger male pairs), make it clear that December-May is the direction we need to be heading! ;)

is no substitute for the skill and patience that age brings.

Just sayin'.

It does seem that would be more logical considering the data.

and relationships :rofl:

Because I cannot believe that you are here trying to talk progressive politics with fellow adults if THAT is your attitude toward women.

...have better owner's manuals. They're interactive and will tell you what you're screwing up.

Just saying... :shrug:

Keith has spoken of wanting to experience fatherhood--of course he's going to go after good breeding stock.

:evilgrin:
rocknation

If a man wants "good breeding stock," perhaps he should marry a cow.

on edit: Oh, and nobody can give anybody "eternal youth"--nor "financial security," for that matter. Financial security means supporting yourself. Anything else is taking chances.

In fact, I do it so well, hubby's having to have his manhood snipped so I don't do again after this one's born. My stock's doing pretty well for nearly ancient fallopian tubes. ;)

:hi: Berry - excellent point in your thread, overall!

Her mom married quite late and had 4 daughters from 1939 (when she was 32 to 1949 at age 42).

that was WAY back in 1914.

I think he was looking forward to a lengthy "trying to conceive" period. :evilgrin:

when the first stopped nursing, i got pregnant immediately. no breeding problems here!

Money didn't even exist until fairly recently, far too recently to be a factor in the traits in humans today. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes no sense whatsoever for a young woman to be attracted to an old geezer. He would have been less able to do the physically arduous things necessary to support his offspring in the prehistoric era and most people didn't live that long anyway. We are socialized to believe that men are sexually viable their whole lives while women have a much shorter shelf life.

My impression is that among great apes, it is generally the older males who are dominant, and hence most sexually attractive; to what extent that's a reflection of patterns of physical developement that are different in chimps to humans I don't know (I think that the physical peak of great apes is nearer death and further from birth than for humans), but my belief is that there *is* at least some ethological basis for the attraction of young women to men older than they are. That said, I'm far from an expert on this, so don't take this as gospel.

Then there is no basis for comparison there.

I believe in evolution as the basis for speciation and certainly natural selection has played a role in the development of our characteristics. But "evo-psych" strikes me as mostly made-up stories to reinforce the status quo and sexist stereotypes. Yes, there is research that has found behavioral differences between the genders but the findings are much more subtle than we are led to believe by hyped up media reports that scream things like: Men Are Naturally Promiscuous!! Women Just Want To Stay Home And Cuddle Their Baybeez!! Males Are Innately Good At Math!! Females Have A Gene For Mopping Floors!! What you'll find is these reports either ignore, downplay, or deny social factors. You'll also notice that women always get the shitty end of the evolutionary deal, whatever it is they're talking about.

What it really drives home is that there's no way behaviour could *not* be subject to exactly the same evolutionary pressures as every other aspect of an animal's developement.

It is *not* the case that everything we do is for the purpose of ensuring the greatest possible reproduction of our genes, but it *is* the case that our minds evolved for that purpose, and no other. Society has changed so much so quickly than in many cases we're using them to ends other than that, but that goal is what has driven them to be the way they are.

But Dawkins puts this far better than I can - he's arguably the best pop-science writer I've ever come across, as well as being a scientist of the first water. I cannot recommend "The Selfish Gene" strongly enough, and unless you've read it I would not recommend scoffing at evolutionary behaviourism.

As to basis for comparison between great apes and humans, if it makes sense in an ape for a female to be attracted to a silverbacked male, it's entirely possible that that's a holdover among humans even if it no longer makes sense (N.B. "Is possible", not "is" - I'm a mathematician, not an ethologist, and all I'm doing is putting forward one possible scenario).

"WOMEN ARE INNATELY ATTRACTED TO OLDER MEN!! RESEARCH ON APES PROVES IT!! THE NATURE/NURTURE DEBATE IS OVER!!"

Next thing you know I'm at a barbeque with some doofus who informs me that I better stop being so picky because my eggs are getting old and my shelf life is expiring soon and what with my advantageous hip-to-waist ratio, that would be such a waste. Yes, that happened to me. And yes, he cited some pop-science crap to back it up. :eyes:

There's a great deal of very interesting science in evolutionary behaviourism; the fact that some people may talk nonsense about it too shouldn't be allowed to obscure that.

It's worth noting that Dawkins, at least, is careful not to go too far in what he claims for his field (although he can and does go quite a long way). Just because evolutionary pressures must underly all human motivations doesn't mean that it's possible to put together a comprehensible explanation of them in terms of them - in particular, the differences between the environment we're now in and the environment we evolved to cope with makes that a silly thing to try.

They grow up in the same culture we do and it's disturbing to me how many of these supposedly "neutral" researchers who are "just reporting the facts" fail to disclose or even acknowledge that. Seems to me that an older male scientist might be inclined to accuentate data that supports his thesis that young women are hot for him and his contemporaries. He might also be inclined to ignore data that doesn't support it.

I don't know about you but it's amazing to me how pretty much all of the underlying evolutionary pressures that you describe just so happen to fit perfectly with traditional gender roles and male privilege.

"It's amazing to me that pretty much all of the underlying evolutionary pressures that you describe just so happen to fit perfectly with traditional gender roles and male privilege."

What would amaze *me* would be if the theories *didn't* fit the data.

If ethologists suggested that evolutionary pressures would lead to something very *different* to the social structures we see, *that* would be a reason for being sceptical about the subject.

Also, in passing, can I say that I think you may be overestimating the importance of the study of human behaviour to ethology. Humans are much trickier to study the behaviour of than other animals, for a variety of reasons, among them that the environment they evolved in and the environment they live in are so different. My belief (although again, I should stress that I'm very much not an expert on this) is that most ethology involves other animals - parasitic wasps are a favourite subject of study, as are sticklebacks, cuckoos and the social insects.

To parse complex theories of animal and human behavior. You and Dawkins may be recommending caution, but they're not listening to you.

Carson District judge calls offense 'natural impulse'

Oh well...at least he gave the guy a stiffer sentence than the one recommended. Sigh...

One can use evolutionary arguments to try and explain why people act in the ways they do. They *don't*, though, tell us anything about how we *should* act.

The judge may or may not be right that it's a "natural impulse" for men to be attracted to underage women (I suspect that he is, at least to some extent). However, that doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is morally acceptable to act on those impulses, or how doing so should be punished.

Theft, murder and rape are all very natural impulses. We can explain them all in terms of evolutionary biology. But that doesn't mean they're not evil.

"If the balance of our lives had not one scale of reason to poise another of sensuality, the blood and baseness of our natures would conduct us to most preposterous conclusions; but we have reason to cool our raging motions, our carnal stings, our unbitted lusts..." -- Othello, I,iii

Morality is a very unnatural thing indeed (n.b. this is a massive oversimplification - there are actually all sorts of ethological advantages to altruism, that yield up things a lot like morality) - but that doesn't mean it's not a good thing.

Would that be different? Would you consider those situations aberrent? Deviant? How would they differ from the man going after the young girls which, according to the judge, is a natural impulse and only manmade laws and social compacts keep the majority of men from giving in to their urges? Do you think the judge might have a different opinion in those cases? Why did the judge find it necessary to even make that statement about natural urges? Do you think evo-psych theories have any place in legal opinions?

If asked "is a man trying to have sex with underaged girls aberrent or deviant?" I'd be inclined to answer "yes", although I'd prefer to define my own terms first, but what it's an abberation/deviation *from* is moral principles, not anything to do with evolutionary behaviorism.

I don't think that evolutionary psychology has any place in legal opinions, except in exceptional circumstances (I suspect the judge brought it up to try and excuse paedophilia, which I think is unforgivable, but I don't know for certain).

I don't think quantum mechanics has any place in legal opinions, either, but that's not a weakness of quantum mechanics.

I *do* think that ethology may have some limited place in legislating - it may help predict human behaviour, and hence work out what laws one needs to pass - but any such place would be very limited indeed if, as I believe to be the case, it's much harder to explain human actions in terms of evolutionary motivations than it is for animals with simpler behaviours, and we have other better ways of predicting people's actions.

They ARE value-laden terms, though. Whether, and why, a particular behavior by a particular type of person is considered "normal" or "deviant" depends on who is doing the judging, and what they believe. If a person believes, for example, that men are innately aggressive and that women are innately passive, then that belief is going to translate into behavioral expectations for himself/herself and others.

And you know, I'd have less of a beef with evo-psych if it's preeminent researchers would take some responsibility for how their work is being grossly overly simplified by everyone from major newspapers to college presidents to conservative pundits to judges to Barbeque Doofuses across the land.

Think I'm exaggerating? Get a load of this blog post I came across just today on Feministing.com: Women are suffering from twice the stress as men, because we let them wander from the kitchen. They joined the workforce, and it isn't something they are meant to handle. Ask any psychologist that has a basis in biology, women were never meant to leave the kitchen. Twice the stress as men is the price you pay for trying to assume too much. Not a day goes by that I don't read or hear some variation of this crap.

How do they continue to act like the utmost paragons of scientific neutrality in the face of this? Why aren't they going out in the media to denounce it, if they are as careful about their conclusions as you say? Perhaps they just enjoy the publicity and notoriety. Steven Pinker in particular seems to have no problem being embraced by the anti-feminists who routinely cite his work. (Well, actually Pinker is a bad example since he's pretty openly anti-feminist himself and has expressed some definite ideas about social policy, but you get my point.)

that the second law of thermodynamics is regularly quoted as an argument in favour of creationism?

If they knew that sweeping statements about physics that weren't true were being made all over the place, including by college presidents and in major newspapers, and their work was being cited to justify them. And I especially would if those same physicists were creationists themselves, and used their work to promote creationism a la Pinker and anti-feminism.

When an MIT oceanographer named Carl Wunsch had his work, and an interview he gave, distorted in that BBC global warming skeptic propaganda piece that came out recently, he immediately went to the papers and TV stations to roundly denounce what was being reported and clear his good name. I guess he could have just thrown his hands up and said "Oh well, I can't help what people do with my research!" But he was a little more responsible than that.

You have two younger women, identical in every way except one is quite attractive and the other quite unattractive. Which of the women is going to have the larger choice of potential mates?

You have two older men, identical in every way except one is wealthy and the other lower middle class. Which one of the men is going to have the larger choice of potential mates?

Would the answers to these questions hold true over different cultures?

Would the answers to these questions hold true in Rome at the time of Ceasar?

And in the second example with the older men, doesn't that prove that there is no NATURAL basis for women being attracted to old geezers?

Money existed in the Roman Empire. How long has money existed and how would it be a factor in the development of human traits, considering that we are pretty much identical genetically to people who lived 50,000 years ago? Have you noticed that women are making their own money these days? How do you suppose that impacts their mating decisions?

For a little insight into that, I'd suggest you head down to your local trendy watering hole (if you have one near you) on a Friday at Happy Hour and watch the middle-aged men lined up at the bar, twirling their Mercedes keys and hoping to catch the eyes of the young hotties. Watch as the nubile young ladies mostly disdain them in favor of men their own age.

Would this hold true over different cultures? Depends on the status of women in them.

Would this happen in Rome at the time of Caesar? Probably not.

Amazing what happens when women get a few rights and economic opportunities.

Hollywood, the media, Hugh Hefner, and the pop-psych peddlers are lying to you, bud.

And in the second example with the older men, doesn't that prove that there is no NATURAL basis for women being attracted to old geezers?

I never intended to show that women are attracted to old geezers, just that they are more attracted to men who can be better providers.

I note that you did not respond to my first example, so you must agree that, all else being equal, men prefer attractive women over unattractive ones.

Assume the men are the same age as the women then.

Does the poor guy or the wealthy guy have the greater choice of potential mates?

Would this happen in Rome at the time of Caesar? Probably not.

You really think this?

I would be quite surprised if it were not true in the time of Caesar.

There are very few, if any, other animals who have a permanent season of rut as humans do.

Why do you suppose that humans are so different from other animals in this respect?

Socialization would probably be a better explanation for why women would choose the wealthy men over the impecunious ones. "Better provider" is subjective. Has there been a specific gene identified in female humans that enables them to discern "providing" ability? I don't think so. This is one problem with evo-psych; it attempts to come up with simplistic explanations for complex human behaviors.

As for what I said about the time of Caesar, I was drawing a comparison between the status of women in that culture and that of women in the U.S. today. Surely you agree that a modern American woman, particularly a financially successful one, has more choice over when, whether, or whom she will mate with.

"Attractiveness" is another quality that is a lot more subjective and influenced by cultural trends than it's made out to be. And sure, a lot of guys will automatically go for the more "attractive" woman and ignore the other one, without bothering to get to know either one of them. They may be somewhat influenced by biology but they are also choosing to be shallow asses. Obviously, many people use other criteria besides looks to choose their partners, as evidenced by the rather ordinary appearance of most of the couples I see walking around.

Famous guys like Michael Douglas and Bill Maher are NOT representative of the general population, despite all the attention their personal lives are given. The average guy is NOT going to get a supermodel or Catherine Zeta-Jones to go out with him, yet I see guys all the time thinking that will be the case. Those would be the ones twirling their keys down at the Hormone Hut every Friday. The media is doing older men no favors by promoting the notion that young women want them.

Why do you suppose that humans are so different from other animals in this respect?

Unlike animals, humans have the intelligence and capability to contemplate and consider the consequences of their choices.

As you can see, I'm very leery of evo-psych and I think everyone should be. Unlike say, global warming, there really is no consensus among researchers on its theories. Then there's the sloppy biased reporting by the idiots in the media. They will take research that finds a subtle difference between the sexes, and turn into a headline that screams a sweeping generalization. What's happening is that it is naturalizing stereotyping, discrimination, and all sorts of disagreeable things. For example: There was a controversial book that came out a few years ago that claimed that men are biologically predisposed to rape and that the onus was on women to prevent it by monitoring our own behavior. Do you know that judges and legal experts have cited that book to justify giving light sentences to rapists? :wow: So this stuff is not just harmless cocktail chatter, nor is it scientists just presenting objective and neutral data. It's biased and agenda-laden. It's affecting public policy and people's relationships with their partners and families.

Sorry for the randomness of this post. It's just the way my thoughts are flowing this morning.

"Attractiveness" is another quality that is a lot more subjective and influenced by cultural trends than it's made out to be.

It has been fairly conclusively shown that facial beauty, at least, is determined by two factors. Those factors are symmetricality, with the more symmetrical face being considered more beautiful, and "averageness" wherein a composite average of many faces is considered to be more beautiful than any of the single faces used to make up the composite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty

A strong indicator of physical beauty is "averageness". When images of human faces are averaged together to form a composite image, they become progressively closer to the "ideal" image and are perceived as more attractive. This was first noticed in 1883, when Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, overlayed photographic composite images of the faces of vegetarians and criminals to see if there was a typical facial appearance for each. When doing this, he noticed that the composite images were more attractive, than as compared to any of the individual images. Researchers have replicated the result under more controlled conditions and found that the computer generated, mathematical average of a series of faces is rated more favorably than individual faces.

There is good evidence that a preference for beautiful faces emerges early in child development, and that the standards of attractiveness are similar across different cultures. Averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism may have an evolutionary basis for determining beauty. Meta-analyses of the empirical research indicate that all three are attractive in both male and female faces and across a variety of cultures.


And sure, a lot of guys will automatically go for the more "attractive" woman and ignore the other one, without bothering to get to know either one of them. They may be somewhat influenced by biology but they are also choosing to be shallow asses.

If you take two younger men, identical in every way except that one of them is ugly, the other handsome. Which of these men is going to have a greater choice of potential mates?


Unlike animals, humans have the intelligence and capability to contemplate and consider the consequences of their choices.

What does that have to do with humans being in a permanent state of rut?

In your examples of the wealthy/non-wealthy men and the attractive/non-attractive women you are considering them outside of certain contexts. Contexts are everything. A man in an Armani suit wearing a Rolex will probably be more successful with women than a guy in a cheap suit and a Timex. But what is it about "Armani suit" and "Rolex" that makes them effective markers of wealth and possible ability to provide? Socio-economic and cultural context.

Similarly with the women: A young woman with resources and the access to things like orthodontia as a child, a healthy diet and leisure time to exercise, hair dye, cosmetics, breast implants, and a stylish wardrobe will generally be considered more attractive than the young woman who doesn't have those things. Certainly, a lot of those efforts serve to enhance the natural appearance but many of them serve as socio-economic and cultural markers as well. Depictions of women considered beautiful in Caesar's Rome don't look much like Paris Hilton to me.

That is nothing new to the world..

As to what men find to be sexy outfits..

http://channels.isp.netscape.com/men/package.jsp?name=fte/stilettoheels/stilettoheels&floc=wn-nx

Men's choice for the top five clothing items that add sex appeal:

1. Stiletto heels
2. Slit skirts
3. Stockings
4. Mini-skirt
5. Jeans and a T-shirt

Jeans and a T-shirt are not particularly expensive, neither are they in any way immodest.

In fact, none of the items listed have to be all that expensive.

But what is it about "Armani suit" and "Rolex" that makes them effective markers of wealth and possible ability to provide?

They cost a lot of money.

The lack of discovery of the "ability to calculate the cost of random items and articles of clothing" gene? I dunno, maybe the Human Genome Project made a press release about that and I missed it.

Whatsa matter, are you worried now that when you get your Mercedes, the hotties won't be lining up for you like the scientists promised?

At any rate, I'm never going to agree with you so this argument is done. Buh bye. :hi:

"You have two younger women, identical in every way except one is quite attractive and the other quite unattractive. Which of the women is going to have the larger choice of potential mates?"

Change "women" to "men" in your example and the answer is the same. Same for your second example. If, as your hypothetical example asserts, all other factors besides looks (in the first example) and wealth (in the second example) are equal, do you think any potential mate - male or female - would pick the "less attractive" or "poorer" option? Again, assuming all else is entirely equal.

You are creating an artificial gender differential where there isn't one.

With "trophy husbands"?

I can think of Roseanne Barr.

The poster is correct in this case. In thier example, the "trophy husband" would be one of those two.

Usually they are beautiful. Arm candy so to speak.

Oh yeah, they rarely have money of their own either.

Is that true with trophy husbands?

Actually, you make my point for me, trophy husbands are wealthy and/or famous. That shows women are more interested in wealth/power in a mate than they are looks.

men haven't "married for money"?

But how many well known examples can you point to?

But women with money/influence is a much smaller percentage than men.

Just like we now have a subset of African American millionaires, some of whom are voting Republican, the world is changing.

Then they inherit the money.

So there are plenty of older women with money.

I already posted the only example I could think of a younger trophy husband.

the actual reasons behind a marriage. Which was my point behind the Trophy Wives thread.

As far as famous December/May relationships:

Cameron Diaz, 33, and Justin Timberlake 24
Madonna, 47, and Guy Ritchie, 37
Barbara Hershey, 57, and Naveen Andrews, 36
Geena Davis , 49, and Reza Jarrahy, 34
Courteney Cox, 41, and David Arquette, 34
Julianne Moore, 44, and Bart Freundlich, 35
Sheryl Crow, 43, and Lance Armstrong, 34
Francesca Annis, 61, and Ralph Fiennes, 42

A book was written about such relationships in 2000 and a very popular movie, Prime addressed the same subject.

I note though that most of those on your list are only nine or ten years apart..

My wife is nine years younger than I am.

Most trophy wives are considerably more than nine years younger than their husbands.

I did think of another example.. Elizabeth Taylor.

His step mother is more than 20 years his father's junior. (They've been married for 35 years.)

Does his mother consider her a "trophy wife"? Probably - although he hadn't even met her when they divorced. And she came with her own business and money. And she clearly adores him. And....and....and....

But I hear a lot of folks on these threads talking about "codgers" and "geezers" and whatnot. I simply find older men attractive. I will look at "eye candy" but have 0 interest in having sex with them, let alone a relationship.

Give me Harrison Ford ANY day over somebody like Heath Ledger. Age and skill simply trumps youth and enthusiasm in my book. :)

Old age and treachery will defeat youth and skill every time.. -Greek proverb

LOL!

But I love lines on a man's face. And my husband has a bit of a Sean Connery thing going on (with about as much real hair!) Of course, I doubt Mr. Connery wears those expensive toupees at home and I love kissing the top of my husband's head!

A couple of years after his wife died. She is relatively wealthy while he is a retired police officer.
My mother thinks that the whole thing is sick.

And young rich men generally only marry relatively rich women or at least one's that come from rich families. Even if he doesn't care, his family often will try to pressure him out of a relationship with someone who isn't up to their financial standards.

Actually I understand the hypocrisy factor here as far as right wing nuts but I suppose I've I wanted to, I could come up with a list of women dating or marrying younger men. Demi Moore comes to mind immediately.
The curse of fading testosterone? The viagra generation?

There is a whole psychology mindset ie. trophy wife, fear of impending mortality, basic, good old patriarchy, behind the older man with younger women---I was keeping it light

I developed a "theory" a while back, barring some sort of sociopathy, men that go for young women as partners tend to get exactly what they deserve, at least on my socio/economic level. I imagine it might holds true for those who are monied, or more in the public eye.

Why my theory doesn't really work, is women are still the "second sex"

seeing them as "Father Figures" in some cases or as a "break" from males nearer their own age who just aren't as "interesting." Then there's the "Gold Diggers" who've been around since the beginning of time...who see a "Golden Goose" and wait to catch the "eggs" if they can ditch the "Pre Nupts" or get a great lawyer who will overthrow the "Pre-Nup" and find a way to get the money...particularly if there is a child involved...whether through "Test Tube Baby" intervention or "donated sperm."

It does seem we've gotten pretty "primative" in our biological selections lately. :eyes: "Survival of the Fittest" or the "selection of the Lion King" who kills off all the cubs of those who mated with his prized female before he met her. HIS CUBS are the KING OF THE JUNGLE...the others have to file lawsuits to get their inheritance.

to me.

Right-on! You always say what I think...<g>
Lee

Those sound mutually exclusive to me.

know how else to say it!

Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher, etc) creep you out?

My husband is several years my junior and we have been very, very happy for many years. Many see older women/younger man as more balanced in terms of power (I won't specify about my relationship; too personal).

I think it's a valid question, your mileage may differ.

me as creepy.

am learning about his wife), and Keith Olbermann. Just because I find the age differences of their partners creepy, that doesn't affect how much I admire them all.

weren't played out in the public arena, but I know that's too much to hope for in this celebrity/media obsessed society. And I AM a hypocrite--I jumped into this thread, so...

Until this thread, I didn't even know DK had been married 3 times!

Who cares? Neither you nor I are attempting to impose our personal views on someone else's relationship. It's just not something we'd be comfortable with. Yet when it comes to gay marriage, people seem to think that their sensibilities should override the rights of others to enter into the relationships they choose. If someone like Fred Thompson is opposed to gay marriage, I'll be happy to let him know that I find his marriage distasteful. Other than that, I'll keep my opinion to myself. ;)

And the response on this board is disappointing. I'm 14 years younger than my husband. Some could say that older woman/younger man balances power. Others could say that older man/younger woman balances out maturity, as most men mature emotionally later than women. And then what would you say about age-diverse same-sex couples? I'd say in my experience, compatibility in personality is the most important factor in a relationship.

that! I say if it works for you (and them), Hoorah! :hi:

The age difference DOES matter. It is disappointing because Keith is such an intellect, you would think he would pursue a woman of a little more maturity and depth of experience. He choose the sex & passion. Disappointing. But, TYPICAL.

Do you actually KNOW anything about Keith's girlfriend? Have you had a conversation with her? What DO you know about her besides her age?

are usually choosing the assumed admiration and envy of other men (i.e. arm candy). There's NO innate reason a young blonde bombshell is innately more sexually responsive or passionate than an older, and/or plainer woman. I too would think men of accomplishment like Keith or Dennis wouldn't need this, but I guess it's one of those subconscious needs that anyone can have.

Such characterization here is disappointing. I thought we were supposed to be all about diversity and supportive of those who may not look exactly like us in the Democratic party.

I'm 14 years younger than my spouse. I guess I'm creepy to some, a trophy wife or a toy for others to make snarky comments about.

Funny when I married, I simply thought I was embarking on the greatest adventure life has to offer with my best friend...probably like most who have participated in these threads when they made a life commitment.

My biological father was 11 years older than my mother and her father was much older than her mother - I don't know why a big age difference makes me feel creepy, it just does. Like I said in post 80 - if it works and it's consensual, more power to you and them!

...simply because it's not the life you live, would you? I've read many of your posts here on DU, and find your opinions to be valuable...so this one particular post really caught me off-guard. And it's not just you, I've seen "creepy" used in other threads about age-diverse relationships, both here in GD and the Lounge, and it concerns me! Not aimed at you specifically, but are interracial relationships and same-sex relationships also distasteful in some way to those not personally involved in one?

I'm glad you're honest, and I appreciate your lack of hypocrisy. That's why I'm interested in continuing this discussion, because I hope you can give me some honest answers and some insight as to why this has been such a hot topic.

I'm just wondering how six years difference is more palatable than 11 years, 14 years, 20 years and so on? Is there a cut-off, and what is it? Is the cut-off different when the man is older compared to when the woman is older? What about same-sex relationships? Does the attractiveness (or lack thereof) or wealth of either party make a difference? Number of previous marriages? The age of the younger spouse when married?

Same sex relationships are not creepy to me. A large age difference in said same sex relationship does give me the creeps (I'm sorry to continue to use that term - unease - is that better?).

I don't know if this has anything to do with it but I was sexually abused as a child and as a teen. I know this is about consenting adults but perhaps those experiences in my life have colored the way I view relationships between people with such a gap in age. I don't know, I'm just throwing out a guess.

As far as a cut off, for me it is if the man (or woman) is old enough to parent said partner. ???

What do you think?

All interesting answers, and thank you for them! I guess I look at the power-structure of a relationship, regardless of the age of the parties, and I get creeped out when it's too one-sided. So I can understand where you come from based on your childhood experiences, as abuse is all about power.

Since my husband was technically old enough to father me, I'll have to disagree with the last one. :p

...when they can afford them. Not always, of course, but you won't go broke betting that way.

The difference, if there is an important one, may lie in which ones get all sanctimonious about matrimony.

Life's funny that way.

I was always attracted to men much older than me because their maturity appealed to me as contrary to the juvenile behavior of my peer group at that time, when I was in my twenties. It seemed like I didn't need to have a baby if I married one of them because they already were big babies.

On edit: I forgot to add, that my peer group of available single women over sixty-five for the most part don't want to remarry, which if those men want a wife they have to go trolling in younger waters.

I don't want to pass judgment on any individuals.

now if it was a woman with her much younger trophy husband, THAT would be another story...

;)

my late husband was fifteen years older than me. Both were great guys and also looked younger than they were and they were healthy up until the time the disease that would kill them took over.

The downside was being left widowed at a younger age than most women.

They're all okay by me. I'm married to a man 12 years my junior and we are about to celebrate our 11th anniversary after 15 years together.

Lock me up now--wouldn't want it to catch, would we?

DK, KO, and FT's choice of companionship is fine by me. If they piss me off for something else, I'll be glad to chime in.

Not condemning you, OP--it's just that I can take Fred Thompson to task for many, many things. Choosing an adult he likes is definitely not one of them.

she married a guy 6 years younger. She's a happy 55 year old.

whereas the other two seem to me to be married for the social and economic reasons.

And we characterize relationships we personally know nothing about. That being the case, I thought DK was soul partners with his first 2 wives as well. What happened to them? Is he still soul partners with them, but just not married to them?

I choose not to characterize what is private and not known to me. I don't know the personal details of KO's and Thompson's relationships, therefore I cannot speculate on the reasoning behind them.

I'm not saying this to pick on Kucinich...just pointing out how ridiculous your statement is...unless you meant it as such and forgot to insert your :sarcasm: in.

We are giving our superficial opinions on this. Obviously none of us truly knows what goes on between them. And what do you know about his first 2 wives to say they were his soul mates? I have read about their meeting and I have read Elizabeths letters about her husband, and I think there is a strong relationship there.

And I think pictures can say a thousand words, and I often use pictures to read people.

But because I don't know anything about them I can't say that they were not his soul mates at the time. And you're characterizing a relationship based on what you've read by one party. Does Dennis think she is his soul mate, and did he think his other wives were not? Look I'm not saying the DK and Elizabeth are not the real thing. Just saying that you seem to be picking and choosing here.

And what about pictures? Are you casting aspersions on certain relationships because of the attractiveness or wealth of one of the parties?

:eyes:

...but men, expecially older men, seem to want marriage more than the women who are their age. I think this is a factor. IMO with older men it is a control issue where they want to make sure they tie down the woman in their lives for dominance and the sense of security. I am not trying to trash men, I understand the desire for control - it is just that most men even older men, have not reached the maturity to realize that you really never control anything, you just have to figure out how to cope with it or leave the situation. Because of our roles and the sexism we live with daily, most women have lived with that realization for a lot longer and already know it.

I LOVE what Andy Rooney said when he apolgized to older women for the men their age in banana colored golf pants chasing the young waitress at the local diner. He said that everyone has heard of the saying, "Why buy the cow if you get the milk for free?"

He suggested a new saying that will become a classic for older women: "Why buy the whole pig if all you want is a little sausage?"

:rofl:

Cat In Seattle

Seriously, most women I know, young and old, who are married say they probably would not marry again if they were widowed or divorce - and it's not because of loyalty. They just know they can be happy on their own. Maybe because they have more friendships than men tend to.

At any rate, the May-December romances I witnessed in my youth were pretty creepy and my friends who participated in them were usually more than a little mixed up. None of them lasted.

inferior...this shit gets really old.

In fact, I was trying to be empathetic/sympathetic. I just spent a weekend watching my 80-something lonely father-in-law try to chat up a 50-something waitress while a group of 6 women his age sat at a table behind us having the time of their lives.

Sadly, I think men are generally more socially isolated than women.

I just hear soooo much ridiculous criticism about men on these boards. I have just the opposite experience with my mother but it is due to her personality. I have to disagree in general about men. I agree that many older men are out of touch emotionally but as long as they have a watering hole to go to, they tend to be ok.

I probably wasn't all that clear in my original post.

I'm the kind of person that thinks both sexes get a raw deal in a society that tries to push us into acceptable roles or stereotypes. I think younger women suffer immensely because they are forced at times to be overly social. In many ways, things are changing, but in others they seem to get worse.

I tend to agree.

**

tend to clarify?

:rofl:

Seriously, I can reproduce faster than most spores. I'm only glad I've spent most of my life in either no relationship or committed ones because, if not, I'd have a gazillion children.

marriage is generally a better deal for a man than for a woman. He gets someone to take care of him, clean up after him, cook for him, laugh at his jokes, etc. She may not be appreciated for that or respected for anything else. Who needs it?!

**

From what I've observed, older widows don't want to remarry. They seem to feel free for the first time in their lives. Why would they want to get involved with a man their own age or older who will probably expect them to cook, clean and be a nurse? (Been there, done that.)

I remember visiting my dear MIL after she was widowed. There was great sadness and we all offered love and support as we sat around her dining table. Suddenly, she said, "I'm cold...and...I'm going to turn up the heat! Because now I CAN."

IIRC, the idiom is a reference to The Canterbury Tales, and the husband's name is January, not December.

I'll have to remember that one. Thanks! :hi:

:rofl:

I think Kucinich's marriage ended hopes he may have entertained of becoming a serious candidate. The thought of Elizabeth Kucinich, Jeri Thompson, or Judi Giuliani filling the already absurd role of "First Lady" is enough to make me want to leave the country for 4 years.

Sorry if I have offended anyone but Thompson and Giuliani are weak men and clearly need fussing, nursey,(yet sexy, eyelash-flapping) follower spouses and Kucinich and his spouse should follow their inner lights and join an ashram, or start a mood ring business.

Olberman is wisely not running for public office and can screw around with anyone or anything he pleases-so long as it is not against the law.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Fred Thompson is a man that likes his whiskey straight and his women young. He jumped on singer Lori Morgan, whose husband Keith Whitly had just died from alcohol poisoning, like a fly on a cow turd. Tommy boy has a few skeletons in his closet and they will rattle like a bamboo wind chime in a hurricane if he runs for President.
:dem:

his mouth, bones are gonna fly out.....

Don't Republicans usually do this sort of thing for us?

As far as Lorrie Morgan goes, I'm thinking Fred traded up here. Since her latest face job, she's looking a little asymmetrical.



Cat hiss at Thompson's current wife all you like, one tick in her favor is she doesn't look knifed up any. (of course I've not seen any close up pictures, but the physique, while buxom, seems to hang with the natural graces of middle age. I find that a positive example that more women should follow.

...I don't think I would enjoy that type age discrepancy simply for the difference in our life experiences and other generational idioms.

If you have alot in common and love one another -- just like a couple with NO age difference. And, some younguns can have a hell of alot of life experiences and maturity. Often more than someone technically more "mature." Some people are "old souls."

I would think he would want a little more in a woman. Why don't intelligent men want a equal in intellect & beauty....

Bummer.

I don't know where you're going with beauty?

Oh boy. Some of the comments on this thread...

when there's a 3-decade difference in ages, how else can you see it? It isn't a crime. Just kinda bizarre. A big generation gap can be harder to overcome than some people think.

Jeebus.

http://www.sugardaddie.com/

Thanks, Dr. Phil, for ruining my brain.

Good lord. Arm trophies and superficial men.

she looks older than that one pic most people have seen. but i would like him to run just to see how Republican women would react to her.

for a long time, and she's an attorney I imagine the GOP women will accept her. They accept the likes of annie coulter

I thought most of the guys my age were hopelessly immature, so I wound up with someone somewhat older. Come June 4th, we will be married 26 years.

The only down side to the age difference is that I have wound up being a caregiver at a fairly young age, due to Hubby's kidney failure. Ah, well. The contract did say "in sickness and in health."

and whether that segment of the voting public would be okay with the prospect of Thompson's buxom, visibly much-younger wife as First Lady. (She would not be mistaken, for example, for Laura -- or Barbara -- Bush). Thompson is at the center of a lot of hoopla concerning his candidacy, and I hadn't seen that note addressed.

Kucinich is running for Pres as a Democrat, with a different base, and Keith Olbermann is not running.

even John boy McCain...

And one that was ten years younger, I've come to the conclusion that age isn't that big a deal. What is the big deal are the same things that make any relationship work, truth, honesty, compatibility, love and mutual interersts. You can find those factors at any age.

Oh, and though I broke up with both those women, it wasn't over age, it was some of the normal things that couple break up over. Now I've been happily married to a woman two years younger than I am, so go figure:shrug:

Jumping on a people because they have a spouse that is either much older or younger than they are is just wrong in my opinion. Who cares, it's none of my business, and if they're happy, more power to them. There are much more legitimate reasons to criticize a politician.

more power to those whwho manage a functional marriage, regardless of age, race, gender or species.

when I was 23, you couldn't have gotten me interested in a man who was in his 40s or 50s, no matter how much $$ he had. I would have been like, Oh, gross!

... that women who marry/cohabitate with men twice their age do so of their own free will.

It is not a moral issue, a lot more men (and probabl women also) would do it if they could.

the formula for deciding whether a woman was too young for a man or not. It seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. It goes like this, take half the mans age and add 7 years.
Therefore:
If the man is 20 the girl should be no younger than 17.
If the man is 50 the woman should be no younger than 32.
If the man is 70 the woman should be no younger than 42.

Fred Thompson falls within the bounds of the formula.

Am I a lucky woman or what!!!

It has never even been a factor in our marriage, or life... It is normal to us...

like 80 ish...I'm 50 ish and married to a younger man...I like my way better.

Does that make me bad? Apparently to some DUers, I am either crazy or a moneygrubbing tart after his money! HAHA - he never had any!

I know this may come as a surprise to some of you, but a relationship is much more than sex and money. It is much more than finding a mate to procreate with. It is much more than security. For me, it was about finding someone to laugh with, talk with, cry with, love with, someone to share your deepest secrets and fears, without them holding it over you, judging you and loving you just the same. Some people never find that I guess--I did and am happier/more content for it.

The only thing I may regret about this relationship is that chances are I will be widowed and left alone....but if you ever chance upon finding your soul mate--age matters not.

Of course, nothing is guaranteed is it? It could turn out to be me left alone.

Thank you -- some of the clueless, hurtful, and judgemental comments on this thread are astounding me.

My husband is 8 years younger than me.

It has worked out very well for both of us!

Geezers love arm candy :shrug: even if she is screwing to pool boy on the side.

None. Zip. Nada.

No difference between any of them since they all made choices for themselves; as we all do. To each their own.

That one party, the Republicans, are in favor of regulating who may and who may not marry.

It is the hypocrisy that most people on this thread are commenting on.

You can also ask why a 31 year old hottie is chasing after Jurassic Kucinich in the first place...

It take two to tango..

Doug D.

And, Haruka loves being a gold digger, even if I don't have any gold. She's very much looking forward to being a trophy wife after we get married in September.

... that they are with hot young sex toys whose mental capacities they do not value at all, and the women are only with them to gain wealth and status.

How is it any of our business? Why should we judge them? Everyone has things that they look for and value when looking for a potential mate/spouse. If these men only value the sexual attractiveness and youth of the women, and the women only value the wealth and access of these men, as long as both parties know what they are getting into, best of luck to them. They are adults and can make their own choices in life.

I've known people who have gotten married for worse reasons.

We "see" it this way only because we're acculturated to see it this way. Actually most women age better than most men. Whether this is because they take better care of themselves thru beauty routines, diet & exercise, etc. is, as far as I know, impossible to tell.

Don't believe me? Compare the above photo of Nancy Pelosi and the Chimp. In fact she's several years older than him, but looks much better.

I've chosen to refrain from commenting

sort of

:thumbsup:

Hot young wife + ugly old and wealthy man = awesome medieval fabliau potential

as Chaucer said 600 years ago: "man sholde wedde his simylitude. Men sholde wedden after hire estaat, for youthe and elde is often at debaat."

as far as I'm concerned. And as far as some people saying something along the lines of "way to go" KO and Dennis (not that I've ever seen that here, at least in those silly terms), maybe it's something along the lines of .... okay, brace yourself .... they're happy for them ... ya know, happy Keith and Dennis may actually be happy! Can you imagine that? Hey, I can ... a happier and healthier DK and KO probably mean better things for this world. Beyond that, I'm not privy to what these couples think and what makes them tick, no matter how much People or similar rags may tell us we can know. So I leave it at that, and that's enough for me.

Oh, sorry, I thought we were signing up.

Now THAT'S something I can support.

:D

My problem with Republicans- like Fred Thompson- has to do with the fact that, among other things, they want to stick their theocratic noses into the bodies and personal lives of all the OTHER consenting adults in this country.

I do know of a friend who was 34 when he met his wife, who was 18 at the time. They've been happily married for about 15 years.

People rag on age differences, and sometimes they become problems, but really, that problem is something to be resolved between him and her. And sometimes they do resolve these problems and have a happy relationship.

you got it.