Well, one of them is an abusive drunk, one is a cult member who has multiple ex-wives who've basically fled the marriage, and one is Tim Walz. Think I'd pick Walz.
Nah, money makes you look young, but it also seems to turn a lot of people into real assholes. Tbh, though, I think people are mistaking handsome for youthful - I don't really think either of them look any younger in the face than Walz, it's just the hair.
Superstar actors are more attractive than the general population? Next your going to tell me that a professional athletes of his age are in better shape.
Actually, I'm pretty sure professional athletes of his age would be in worse shape. Professional athletes tend to give their bodies a pretty brutal beating for years in the sprint towards pushing themselves to the absolute extreme limits of what the human body can do. This is also not healthy or natural, just on the other end of the scale from a sedentary lifestyle.
I mean, I got your point, I just felt like it was worth pointing out that athletes aren't necessarily symbols of health, especially not in the later stages of life.
If you're lucky enough to have all your original hair and teeth at 60, and don't let yourself go to shit, this is easily doable. Here's me (53) at a costume party last weekend.
Lemmy: "No one can do this without money!!!"
Uh, no. A little luck and a lot of self-care is more like it.
You look how I expect 53 to look, well maintained not young. People are aging more slowly for sure. I look at pictures of my mom at my age and we don't look the same age.
But if you don't have money (for gym or weights, Retin-A, good sunscreen, a job that doesn't stress the fuck out of you) it really is more difficult. Stress is so aging, rich or not, but less stress is easier with money.
I agree, 45-55 looks similar but somehow 55-65 usually doesn't. It's a change like adolescence.
I do think Martha Stewart has the right approach to cosmetic work, what she does is what I'd do if my purse was bottomless, and I had to be in the public eye.