40 and Fabulous! This NYT Piece Shows Why Love After 40 is Your Time to Shine

I find myself writing this over the weekend, a time perfect for pondering deep topics with a cup of tea and a delicious brunch spread before.   This isn't about business or jobs, but rather a crucial aspect of human relationships—something that everyone, regardless of their involvement, discuss.  

What triggered this post was the New York Times article “He Wanted to Date Younger Women Which made me angry at him — and then at myself.”  

In the article, Ann Garvin scoffs at the idea of "sexist ageism," yet ultimately finds herself regretting how much she conformed to it. She realizes she hadn't been paying close attention to Jim, who "had been there for me for 15 years." Only now does she consider that he might find her interesting and attractive, crow's feet and all.

Post my status as a ‘once married man’, I haven't been personally involved in a romantic relationship (and have no plans to that effect). However, my fascination about this complex and beautiful aspect of human connection remains strong. I find myself actively reading and observing to gain a deeper understanding of romance. More so as I step through the doors of middle age and beyond.  

I delighted at Stephen King’s pronouncements about “Love among the ruins.” “Sometimes the embers are better than the campfire.”  

Not being a participant in the erstwhile youthful indulgence unburdens you so much that you gain some courage to share your views about it, knowing that those who know you well won’t read between the lines. Again to quote King “Don’t bother trying to read between the lines, and don’t look for a through-line. (because there’s none)”

Now, coming to sixty-two-year-old Garvin’s NYT article, you understand that her essay on sexist ageism went viral, her outrage sounding fair. Why should a woman who has gone beyond forty be rejected by men as they prefer younger female company? Despite she venturing to instruct the world against the “cultural disdain for women over 40,” her own vision of romance was clouded by traditional perspective of ageism and sexism.  

Sixty-two, in an Indian context, is “too old for that kind of a thing,” particularly for women, but who should say what life should be for someone else? Or why should we judge them on the basis of their love life or lack of the same?  

But forty plus is a context that fits many cultures. People who are usually judgemental about other people’s romance life (yes, they could be that jobless) admit albeit grudgingly that forty plus women deserve partners and the comforts of committed relationship available to all women shouldn’t elude them.

In recent times though, the change in expectation is all too evident. Forty plus women look for younger, more physically agile men, but feel outraged when men of their age look for younger women. What they fail to understand is that older men also have preferences in terms of who they date.  

But, truth be told, age or physicality may not be the only preference in romance. If good physique is all that is required, women may have to end up with military men, security guards and athletes. And there won’t be anything to keep you hitched beyond physical attraction. Once the attraction wears off, you only feel repulsion and resentment. Whatever quirk you thought was cute at the height of your infatuation would become the chief source of your irritation later.  

If relationship is the criteria, the more important aspect is love and reciprocation. Like in Garvin’s case, what’s in front of you may not be obvious, but you know when you get the hint of interest. And if you are looking for good company, take the hint with both your hands and be grateful for what you get. And, for god’s sake, respond quickly.

I’ve more to talk about romancing as people with disability, but that’s for another day.