In May 2020, gossip columns began reporting on Crystal Hefner's (nee Harris) new romance with aerospace engineer, Nathan Levi, after a number of perfectly timed paparazzi pictures emerged. For context, Crystal married the magazine mogul Hugh Hefner in 2012 and the couple were married for 5 years, before Hugh's 'sudden' death at the ripe old age of 91.
Despite several of these publications reporting the recent pictures positively- ignoring the fact that the public comment sections were less so- it can't be denied that in 2012, when news of the Hefner's New Years matrimony went live, Crystal was vilified by the press. She was denounced as a Gold Digger.
The term Gold Digger was popularised by Kayne West in his 2009 classic of the same name. In case the musical lyricism evades you, the first part of the chorus repeats "Now, I ain't sayin' she a gold digger, (When I'm in need) But she ain't messin' with no broke n******". Kayne, makes a good point. No women would be "messin" with a man unable to provide for the four kids Kayne later details. Children are expensive, even for a woman blessed with an ass like Jennifer Lopez (again refer to Ye's lyrics.) Do you not think that ensuring your partner can provide child support for a theoretical child once the relationship reaches a natural end, a point the song bemoans, is all that bad a thing?
Returning to Crystal's plight, I myself looking back, realise the amount of judgement that I had towards her and probably still do for women marrying men far older than them. But with time and a questioning mind, I'm asking myself and indeed you; was the vilification of Crystal in the media for marrying a man three times her age justified?
Let's say for arguments sake that Crystal was a Gold Digger. Crystal began her time at the Playboy mansion as one of Hugh's many 'girlfriends'. She would have had to bide her time to elude the competition. Crystal was 26 years of age when she married Hefner- a positively old hag compared to some of Hugh's past flames. Hugh was 86. The term Gold Digger suggests a mercenary nature. A con of sorts. By using her feminine wiles, like every Eve before her, assets lauded especially by a man in Hefner's line of work, Crystal was able to dupe Hugh and sift through his gold lined pockets.
Except the legendary ladies man and model didn't boast an extraordinary sex life, according to Crystal. Instead the couple enjoyed boardgames, in particular Uno. Hugh like many an ageing artist, was relegated to a collector- happy to deal, display and assess the view.
But surely, this line of thinking does a disservice to Hugh? Surely a man who built a magazine empire on the backs and fronts of bunnies, had at least some semblance of common sense and a knack for business, even in his advanced years. You'd think such a man would be able to sniff out manipulation. He was a master at Uno for gods sake...
It would seem that the pair boasted an unconventional, yet mutually beneficial relationship. Hugh retained his legendary status with his companion Crystal on his arm, and Crystal got to live in the infamous mansion and I presume other benefits, because surely, what's mine is yours? Upon his death, however, his assets were not split 50/50, as I'm sure the media expected. Crystal received a paltry £3 million (before tax) alongside the house she and Hugh had called home, and the rest of Hugh's £32 million fortune, was divided equally amongst Hefner's 4 children.
I understand that Crystal got more out of the deal than Hugh, but why was she the one denounced in the press? At the time of their marriage, Hugh's own son was old enough to be her father. Perhaps if Hefner had not been a millionaire would the situation be looked upon differently?
No longer a taboo subject, the business of Sugar Babies (not to be confused by the later 90s and 2000s icons: the Sugarbabes) is frequently discussed online. More often than not, this is in a humorous capacity and even looked upon enviously. There are many screenshots of people DMing more attractive Insta-models for pictures with spoons or other inanimate objects to prove to their foolhardy potential 'Daddies' that they are who they are masquerading as. The internet truly has created more opportunities for people, Bill Gates was right; "It’s wild what’s going on.”
The wide acceptance online of requiring a Sugar Daddy is interesting. Perhaps this is due to the age of those online contributing to meme culture, largely millennial or generation z, arguably less conservative than our parents and willing to entertain different values. But are they willing or do they need to? Students are a large quota of those applicants making up Sugar Baby sites. They are looking to acquire an additional income on top of their current wage in order to support themselves through the educational system. They are already working standard jobs and these are not enough to fund them. The solution is pandering to an older benefactor, but not for free. This is not the Ellen show.
Why are Sugar Babies now accepted whilst Gold Diggers, with Crystal in these ranks, still being relegated to villainy? Is the issue that the sanctity of marriage is at stake?
A large reason I'm writing this, is because I've discovered that maybe I'm not so different from Crystal or Kayne's Gold Digger Baby Mama (refer to the song, not Kim!). During the Covid-19 crisis, like a lot of people, I've been thinking about my finances. Without discussing specifics, I work in the commercial theatre industry and although better than the subsidised, I don't make a lot compared to my counterparts of the same age in different sectors. Like many people in my age bracket, I echo a fear about the property market as tangible evidence of a generational divide. I understand that unlike my parents and the boomer generation, it is unlikely that I will own my own house outright or even be able to secure a great mortgage whilst earning the pay I currently do, without help.
I've been thinking about my options and as a hypothetical, one that comes to mind is 'marrying up'. I need to team up with someone on a higher wage than I'm on ... far higher. To secure a future, in an ever increasingly expensive economy, I am going to have to entertain all facets of what makes a partner desirable, even if this appears mercenary. One important factor needs to be salary. (Please note I'm not saying that the only reason to marry someone is for their money, but the importance of it needs to be recognised.) This is not a new idea. From time in memoriam, marriages have secured a balance of equity and financial exchange. Marriage has often been bartered for power or financial gain, for example, a bride price or dowry was exchanged to seal the marriage. Crystal Harris' situation is therefore not unique- women have married older men to secure their futures for millennium. Perhaps the issue with Gold Diggers nowadays is the value of gold they seek- maybe if they aimed for lower hitters, they wouldn't be party to such judgement.
In a world where students require a benefactor to further their future, it is increasingly evident that money is a powerful bargaining tool and a necessary inducement. Relationships continue to be founded on this. We literally cannot afford to judge other women or men for decisions they deem necessary to live their lives, even if their reasons are not always clear to us. Maybe we shouldn't all aim for the Hefner's of the world, but if they are willing, why is it anyone else's business?
No comments
Post a Comment