Again I wonder, as I have met quite afew precocious bright SYTs in their late teens and early 20s. Btw me no cradle snatcher hor, just keen social observer
Perhaps, but again I seem to observe the opposite. Let me give a you a concrete eg. look at say the late Lo Hwei Yen and her hubby Michael. Almost a 10 year age gap with Michael being the older one in that relationship. And I know of afew couples quite similar to them with quite similar traits and attitudes.
I don't think this only applies to "nowadays" really. I think this has probably always been the case, some men with trophy wives/mistresses, other men wanting to play svengali etc. And again I think you are being unfair to alot of current SYTs out there who may not just be au fait with their manolos, jimmy choos and christian louboutains but also familiar with say camus and murakami (not just the designer but writer as well
)
On a sort of separate issue, I do at times notice quite ok looking and sometimes even good looking men in relationships with plump or even at times fat women. Never could put a finger on that one save for the general 'do not judge a book by its cover' analysis or perhaps the power of $. The film "Shallow Hal" also comes to mind as well
Oh and before I forget, I think the most fascinating 'courtesean' of sorts of the 20th century was probably Pamela Harriman who had affairs with numerous world movers and shakers like Agnelli, Murrow, Rothschild, Paley and Niarchos. She probably mastered the art of satisfying THE alpha male both sexually and intellectually.
Fact is how many are like Ashton Kutchner? (And I wonder whether even Ashton shall still be with Demi in a decade's time:p) A good eg. would be Ralph Fiennes, he was with Francessca Anis who was 17 years his senior for 10 years and then they split as he appeared to have eyes for younger women (ironically I gather they met on the stage of Hamlet where she played his mother
)
Actually it's natural to be a cradle snatcher, I'm sure when you go to FL or WL, there's no point in NOT going to SYT, because it really defeats the purpose of the act of seeking young flesh.
About Ralph Fiennes, my guess is that it was a deep Freudian thing for him. A man who can have any woman he wants will only want to seek the utopia of the woman who loved him the most.
Let's not forget Keanu Reeves falling in love with Diane Keaton and the same goes for Ashton who's own mother is a good 10 years older than his father and they had a fantastic marriage. Younger guys like the two of them go for depth, but only time can tell I guess.
Because as of now, Demi Moore is still one hot lady.
Men wanting to play Svengali to SYT. It's the nerd/intellectual equivalent of sports jock talking about sex in the locker room. But you know the thing is, in both examples, the nerd and the jock are doing so to fill up an insecurity inside them. Of course, all men have their insecurities, so that's really a moot point.
You know the thing about my being unfair to SYT? That wasn't my point in saying that all of them are shallow intellectually. I meant shallow spiritually. A person can tell you the difference between the two Murakamis, she knows her Van Gogh, her wine vintages, her Manolos, all these and she could have studied Ivy League -- but she may not have a true heart. There are so many well educated and savvy women out there, it would be impossible not to find pretty girls of intellectual depth.
So yes, I was stereotyping but I will not go into examples. I suppose you would know better given that you probably have more SYT friends than I do.
It's just that given that I do have friends within the creme de la creme, they are surprisingly, pretty shallow compared to their counterparts elsewhere.
Lastly on Pamela Churchill Harriman, imho I don't think her story was so fascinating, it was more the social conditions that she was put in, the times that she lived in that were interesting. She's a product of her times -- a woman, a divorcee trying to survive in a patriachial society, where a woman's (seemingly) best (though not only best) option at a good life was to bask in the reflected glory of a rich and or powerful man. You've not read the book, probably glanced at the cover, but she was hardly an intellectual.
And some of the best relationships she had, ie: with Churchill and Beaverbrook were non-sexual. :p
In Pam's case, I think her appeal was her simple calmness and ability to cocoon the men she was mistress to. Most of her men were second generation rich, not exactly alpha male in my definition, unless you mean money and power. Harriman, Agnelli and Rothschild were born into wealthy families and I don't think men like that would appreciate the ballsiness of an American lady, which she was not.
The thing about being English and titled, was that she was pretty staid in her belief that she had to depend on men to make her living. To be fair, given the living standards that she wanted, that was her best recourse. In the end, she did prove to be somewhat of a career girl given her French ambassador posting under Bill Clinton, whom she raised funds for.
Times change as do people and attitudes. So it is amazing that there are still women who want to be tai-tais because really, I think a woman who thinks that is looking down on herself.