This is an evolutionary psychology thing, isn't it. I think that's generally considered bunk these days.
I've noticed a suspicious tendency for evolutionary psychology to be heavily biased towards claiming there's a natural order for older men to have sex with younger women, and younger women (oh how conveniently) wanting to be with older men. I'm suspecting that evolutionary psychology theory was developed by a handful of middle-aged men having an existential crisis: men want to be with younger women to convince themselves they're not losing their youth and vigour procreate with, and women want men to look after them so are therefore all attracted to older men who are more likely to have a stash of resources put aside.
Except that last bit doesn't work, because if all this is being presented as some kind of evolutionary throw-back, we need to factor in that our nature-dwelling ancestors weren't known for having long-term investments and pensions because berries didn't last that long. Theoretically then, if women are programmed to be more attracted to providers, all women should be attracted to anyone young, fit and healthy enough to chase down a bear, or to climb a tree to get the best apples. And even that is bollocks, because it seems more likely that women did all their own hunting and fishing anyway.
And anyway, if it was in fact the case that all older men made great providers and therefore younger women couldn't get enough of them, then men's berry-pensions would be depleted in very short order, leaving them and any previously born children destitute. So shagging too many young, fertile women would be the absolute worst thing to do.
And now I'm going to haul my peri-menopausal carcass to bed while repeating all that stuff to myself in a comforting manner.