Wealth is absolutely more advantageous than youth. Even in scenarios where an older person is buying the time and attention from a youthful person, the withholding of wealth can mean poverty and all the suffering that comes with that. The withholding of youth only incurs (at worst) suffering of loneliness, which is objectively less detrimental than poverty. In the instance of the Corgans, she was a wealthy heir to a fashion empire, meaning any imbalance of power was minimized from the outset of their relationship. As much as there are notions of who benefits more from a relationship, that is seperate from notions of power within a relationship. I don’t tend to care much about power imbalances among the wealthy, as the objective suffering is negligible in most instances. Conversely, power imbalances within relationships where one is wealthy and the other comes from poverty should be heavily scrutinized. Situations where a partner’s basic financial wellbeing are predicated on that relationship can lead to situations where the disadvantaged partner can be abused in brutal ways. The fear of loosing your home and ability to feed yourself will always be vector of gross power that individuals can yield towards awful ends. The reality is that wealth inequality in relationships leads to more abuse than age-gaps. Situations where one partner has all the (relative) economic ability leads to situations where women are exceedingly faced with abuse or homelessness. Alimony laws and the like exist for good reason and should be protected for these very reasons.