A little bit strange relationships

optogirl

fryup wrote: »

really :eek:

if it was Holland i wouldn't be surprised but holy catholic Spain??? (did the pope know?)

I think the Catholic Church's stance on sex with minors has been proved time & again

Sofiztikated

optogirl wrote: »

I think the Catholic Church's stance on sex with minors has been proved time & again

The age of consent in Vatican City has only recently been increased from 12.

Guy:Incognito

Sofiztikated wrote: »

The age of consent in Vatican City has only recently been increased from 12.

To 12 and 3 quarters ?

sbsquarepants

[

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well done you.

I'd say a lot of the doubt people harbour (in general I mean, not in your particular case) stems from the fact that it's quite common to see wealthy older men with much hotter, much younger women.

I'd say you'd struggle to find a single example of a hot young wealthy woman hooking up with an old broke man.

Funny that. It's almost as if having money makes old geezers more attractive somehow!:D

Pintman Paddy Losty

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think we're disagreeing here much to be honest pal.

I just view 'mutually beneficial' relationships to be unromantuc at best and downright exploitative and tragic at worst.

Of course if you ask any of these couples they'll claim they love each other deeply but realistically that's rarely the case. One or both are usually lying or deluded.

Canis Lupus

Panthro wrote: »

Portia di Rossi and Ellen DeGeneres.

Portia is an absolute ride, Ellen is not.
There, I said it.

Ellen is 15 years her senior and the boyish one which probably doesn't help but Ellen was quite pretty back in the day and nowt wrong with her for a 59yr old either.

Carry

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

I don't think we're disagreeing here much to be honest pal.

I just view 'mutually beneficial' relationships to be unromantuc at best and downright exploitative and tragic at worst.

Why? Every relationship is mutually beneficial in some way or another, that's the whole point. Why else would people couple up? For men it is more often than not to just get a ham sandwich, a leg-over and a homely home, or for women it's (emotional) security, kids or whatever. For most it's just having a partner to get on with and share the burden of life or not to be alone. "Romance" is just hormones in the first couple of years.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Of course if you ask any of these couples they'll claim they love each other deeply but realistically that's rarely the case. One or both are usually lying or deluded.

How do you know?
I feel that your perception of what love has to be is a tad limited. Just let grown-ups decide for themselves.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Carry wrote: »

Why? Every relationship is mutually beneficial in some way or another, that's the whole point. Why else would people couple up? For men it is more often than not to just get a ham sandwich, a leg-over and a homely home, or for women it's (emotional) security, kids or whatever. For most it's just having a partner to get on with and share the burden of life or not to be alone. "Romance" is just hormones in the first couple of years.

Don't be silly. Of course I know relationships are mutually beneficial. I used that term as a euphemism for what I see as shambolic excuses of a relationship when there is a large imbalance in the respective ages and/or wealth of either partner.

These sugar daddy type relationships are essentially the same as when a man from Western Europe heads over to find a Thai bride. It's the exact same concept. A wealthy man(or in rare cases women) uses his advantaged position in order to take advantage of someone struggling financially. The Thai wife in return sacrifices genuine physical and emotional attraction in exchange for financial security.

I'm not saying any of that should be illegal or outlawed. I just find it all rather sad for all involved.

Not for me thankyeeverymuch!

How do you know?
I feel that your perception of what love has to be is a tad limited. Just let grown-ups decide for themselves.

Do you have children?

Would you be happy if your son in his twenties came home with a man like Stephen Fry? Would you have the same blasé attitude.

Of course not. You'd be outraged because it's creepy as fúck.

Carry

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Don't be silly. Of course I know relationships are mutually beneficial. I used that term as a euphemism for what I see as shambolic excuses of a relationship when there is a large imbalance in the respective ages and/or wealth of either partner.

These sugar daddy type relationships are essentially the same as when a man from Western Europe heads over to find a Thai bride. It's the exact same concept. A wealthy man(or in rare cases women) uses his advantaged position in order to take advantage of someone struggling financially. The Thai wife in return sacrifices genuine physical and emotional attraction in exchange for financial security.

I'm not saying any of that should be illegal or outlawed. I just find it all rather sad for all involved.

Not for me thankyeeverymuch!

Don't be silly? Now there is a novel way to show others that you run out of sensible arguments, isn't it? I don't tolerate such form of reply. I can be very prickly if that happens again.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Do you have children?

Would you be happy if your son in his twenties came home with a man like Stephen Fry? Would you have the same blasé attitude.

Of course not. You'd be outraged because it's creepy as fúck.

Would I now.

Again, how do you know? Or is it rather your projection?
Besides, I don't do outrage.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Carry wrote: »

Don't be silly? Now there is a novel way to show others that you run out of sensible arguments, isn't it? I don't tolerate such form of reply. I can be very prickly if that happens again.



Would I now.

Again, how do you know? Or is it rather your projection?
Besides, I don't do outrage.

I think completely avoiding the whole argument is more of a sign of someone running out of arguments :rolleyes:

And for someone who doesn't do outrage you seem pretty fired up over the simple phrase "don't be silly".

Anyway, I think you've answered my question. It's clear you're not a parent. If you were you wouldn't continue with this ridiculous notion that you'd be completely fine with your young son or daughter arriving through the door with a overweight 60 year old man.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not all, just the vast bulk of them.

You can pretend you don't make generalisations or value judgements based on previous knowledge and experience but everyone does.

My experience of life has taught me that most relationships that have a large age or wealth gap, and particularly those that have both, are for the most part not based on love, mutual attraction or respect.

sbsquarepants

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

It's entirely possible to be hot, stable, smart, kind and "homely".

It's "entirely possible" to run 100m in 9.58 seconds:D

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's "entirely possible" to run 100m in 9.58 seconds:D

Highly academic = no social skills

Into makeup = shallow, vain

Hot = bitch, probably stupid

Plain = desperate, probably unstable

Successful = probably sociopathic

Intelligent = ugly

I think that covers all the usual AH assumptions.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Candie wrote: »

Highly academic = no social skills

Into makeup = shallow, vain

Hot = bitch, probably stupid

Plain = desperate, probably unstable

Successful = probably sociopathic

Intelligent = ugly

I think that covers all the usual AH assumptions.

You forgot gay= paedo .... which is apparently the case if you criticise a gay man.

ohnonotgmail

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You forgot gay= paedo .... which is apparently the case if you criticise a gay man.

Well no you haven't called him a paedo. But you have made it clear that you think he is a pederast.

sbsquarepants

Candie wrote: »

Highly academic = no social skills

Into makeup = shallow, vain

Hot = bitch, probably stupid

Plain = desperate, probably unstable

Successful = probably sociopathic

Intelligent = ugly

I think that covers all the usual AH assumptions.

Well, I don't mean to boast - but personally, I make way more assumptions than that!:)

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Well, I don't mean to boast - but personally, I make way more assumptions than that!:)

Me too!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ken.

Mod-This started off as a nice thread now knock it the fück off. I've a good mind to delete the last 4 pages.

odyssey06

Mod- Please delete if the thread is no longer open for business.

Professor Richard Dawkins and former Dr Who actress Lalla Ward... who were introduced to each other by scifi writer Douglas Adams.
Small world for people who have ranged across space and time!

Erstwhile Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik and 'Cheeky Girl' Gabriela Irimia ... how did they even meet???

Laura Trott and Jason Kenny of the British Olympic track cycling team ... it's like a eugenics plot to create the supercyclist.

Tom Cruise and Katie (now thankfully free!) Holmes.

Ken.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Erstwhile Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik and 'Cheeky Girl' Gabriela Irimia ... how did they even meet???

Hard to know who got the raw deal in that one.

odyssey06

Conspectus wrote: »

Hard to know who got the raw deal in that one.

Sadly it could be us...

Lembit Opik is pushing for a planetwary wide defence against asteroids:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jul/21/jupiter-asteroid-lembit-opik

So my theory, now hear me out even though it sounds like an Outer Limits episode, is that the Cheeky Girls are actually alien fembots sent to distract our last best hope from his mission?

Pintman Paddy Losty

Robert Duvall and Luciana Pedraza. Married when he was 74 and she was 33.

Yuck!

sbsquarepants

odyssey06 wrote: »

Professor Richard Dawkins and former Dr Who actress Lalla Ward... who were introduced to each other by scifi writer Douglas Adams.
Small world for people who have ranged across space and time!

.

I'd never heard of her, looked her up expecting some pre pubescent Lolita - she's 66 years old ffs!

optogirl

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'd never heard of her, looked her up expecting some pre pubescent Lolita - she's 66 years old ffs!

The thread is about unusual couples, not just ones with age gaps

sbsquarepants

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm 43 - sure you're barely out of nappies, carry on my good man!:D

sbsquarepants

optogirl wrote: »

The thread is about unusual couples, not just ones with age gaps

Am I missing something so? What's unusual about them?