Relationships - Age limits

coffee_cake

Candie wrote: »

Men seem to tell each other that they get better with age, so it makes a relationship with a younger woman seem possible to them. It's bizarre, you hear men who have little relationship experience (in one case I encountered have never even had a girlfriend) talk about how the girls will be queueing up when they're in their 40's or something - mainly men who women aren't interested in anymore or never were. You'll see quite plain men talking about women losing their looks, when they themselves never had any to begin with. You have to admire their self belief, if nothing else.

Yes, we know men can father children up to their 120's or whatever, but not many actually get to? It's a very slim chance to rely on.

I have a ten year cut off. If a relationship gets legs and we grow old together, there's no way I want to spend my last active years - when I should be wearing purple and spitting and travelling the world - changing adult diapers and pushing an elderly and infirm partner to his elderly care appointments in his wheelchair. I'm not going to stack the odds against my later happiness. I only have one life.

Sure we could all be knocked down by a bus tomorrow etc., etc., but it's not nearly as likely as winding up spending decades of your life as a nurse when you have a partner decades older. My chap is nine years my senior, that's the absolute max I'd go, people need to be pragmatic, not rose-tinted romantic.

but, like, my biology, man

Limechime

Limechime wrote: »

Who knows what any one individual woman wants, plenty do like older men. In any case, I'd always advocate going after what you really want rather than settling, if you don't get it at least you tried.

I'd always advocate for examining your expectations and being realistic about life. Both genders.

Limechime

Limechime wrote: »

So would you advise some a person to not bother asking someone out because they are too attractive for them?

Nope, work away. But if you find yourself enjoying the company of someone who you may once have considered not as good looking as you would like, then it's okay to be happy with that and not consider it settling for less.

Limechime

Limechime wrote: »

Ok I just got a sense you had a problem with 40 year old men asking out 25 year old women. Each to their own I say.

I'm guessing you're nowhere near 40 yet.

seenitall

Candie wrote: »

Yes, we know men can father children up to their 120's or whatever, but not many actually get to? It's a very slim chance tI have a ten year cut off. If a relationship gets legs and we grow old together, there's no way I want to spend my last active years - when I should be wearing purple and spitting and travelling the world - changing adult diapers and pushing an elderly and infirm partner to his elderly care appointments in his wheelchair. I'm not going to stack the odds against my later happiness. I only have one life.

Sure we could all be knocked down by a bus tomorrow etc., etc., but it's not nearly as likely as winding up spending decades of your life as a nurse when you have a partner decades older. My chap is nine years my senior, that's the absolute max I'd go, people need to be pragmatic, not rose-tinted romantic.

Wise words, that's my thinking too. Being at the coalface of this issue, so to speak.

I'm 44, and recently I've began to cop on that I have now started capturing the imaginations of 70 year old widowers and divorcees. Pure depressing! One was actively pursuing me earlier in the year, and I've recently met another one for whom I was obviously in his age range (in his view).

The 51 year old who I'm seeing at the moment, then pipes up: "Good for them!" which I can only take to mean, if we were to stay together, he might see me as too old for him in a decade or so... honestly! (with a roll eyes )

Malayalam

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Any near 40 year old turning up at my door trying to date my 25 year old daughter is getting a slap

Ruh Roh! My daughter's lad is about 13 years older than her. I have obviously been far too lenient. Come here to me, ya little.... :mad:

seenitall

seenitall wrote: »

Wise words, that's my thinking too. Being at the coalface of this issue, so to speak.

I'm 44, and recently I've began to cop on that I have now started capturing the imaginations of 70 year old widowers and divorcees. Pure depressing! One was actively pursuing me earlier in the year, and I've recently met another one for whom I was obviously in his age range (in his view).

The 51 year old who I'm seeing at the moment, then pipes up: "Good for them!" which I can only take to mean, if we were to stay together, he might see me as too old for him in a decade or so... honestly! (with a roll eyes )

But men age like fine wine donchakno? At least that's what they say themselves :P

Mister Vain

There's a 12 year age gap between me and a new girl at work who has expressed an interest in me. One of the lads told me she likes me. I got chatting to her briefly the other day and she seems nice. Thinking of asking her out. We work in different areas though so its hard to get a chance to talk to her properly.

vetinari

I mean you're not even going out yet so I'd say fire away.

It becomes more of a thing if ye end up in a serious relationship.
Guys might not have a biological clock the same way as a woman does but I doubt you'd want to be looking after a baby at say 45.
You will probably be on a "faster" timeline if things go well than she would be.

Wells Drab Swamp

Wells Drab Swamp wrote: »

I think there's no basis for a relationship between a 17 year old and a 27 year old

Well by all means think that - but not while under the illusion that thinking it makes it true.

There has been two people on this tiny thread alone telling you they did have a basis for a relationship - entered it - and are still in it. And a third person saying they entered one - had loads in common - but other factors not related to age eventually broke them up.

So - straight away on the face of it - your comment does not track with the reality around it.

Wells Drab Swamp wrote: »

a 17 year old is a 5th year in school

Odd then that all the 17 years olds I knew in my life were in or entered their first year of college. For example the entry requirements of NUI - which I checked randomly - say "Students must normally have attained the age of seventeen years by 15 January following entry to a Constituent University or Recognised College of the University."

I was certainly well finished 5th year myself when I was 17. But to be honest I do not measure the maturity of an individual by the level of school they are attending or not attending. I have never found that a useful measure of much at all in fact.

Wells Drab Swamp wrote: »

whereas the 27 year old has been through school, maybe college, and work, and should have way different interests.

Interesting that you are in a position to dictate what the interests of any given individual - let alone an entire group of them grouped on an arbitrary attribute like age - "should" be.

But I genuinely see no merit or truth in your claim here about "should". There are many things to be interested in in this world and I find many - if not most - of them are perfectly capable of transcending age.

I see no merit or truth in it in my own life either. For example I was relatively recently taken to Dingle by a wonderful boardsie to "other voices". I was 38 at the time. His nephew who was also there was just turned 18 and just in his first year in college. And I found him entirely relatable on many subjects and interests.

We talked for hours on subjects of music - science - anti religion - meditation - computer gaming - and more. I at no point in the conversation felt that the 20 year gap meant I should not be sharing all these interests with him. Quite the opposite in fact as it was wonderful we were able to bring different perspectives - including due to our age - onto shared interests.

Many interests I have and hold today formed first in my early to mid teens. They do not have to go away with age. Maybe _yours_ did - and that's perfectly ok! But that may be leading you to extrapolate assumptions about people in general that are in fact only true of people like yourself.

Kivaro

Candie wrote: »

I have a ten year cut off. If a relationship gets legs and we grow old together, there's no way I want to spend my last active years - when I should be wearing purple and spitting and travelling the world - changing adult diapers and pushing an elderly and infirm partner to his elderly care appointments in his wheelchair. I'm not going to stack the odds against my later happiness. I only have one life.

Sure we could all be knocked down by a bus tomorrow etc., etc., but it's not nearly as likely as winding up spending decades of your life as a nurse when you have a partner decades older. My chap is nine years my senior, that's the absolute max I'd go, people need to be pragmatic, not rose-tinted romantic.

What happens if you become incontinent or invalid before your older partner?
Bit of a selfish view if there is a real connection/love there, but to each her own I guess ........

ginandtonicsky

Candie wrote: »

Men seem to tell each other that they get better with age, so it makes a relationship with a younger woman seem possible to them.

And tell each other that women get worse, lose their looks, get desperate, turn baby-mad and will ride anyone and thank them for it :pac: It's like some sort of arrogance over the very fact of their own biology, but as you say, how many 70 year olds do you know reproducing with women half their age?

Most people in relationships and having families are within a few years of each other, that's the comfort zone for the vast majority of people.

Limechime wrote: »

It's hardly a mystery, men are attracted to youth and fertility in women for evolutionary reasons.

So are women, from a strictly physical attraction standpoint. 26-year-old Jon in the office is a hell of a lot hotter than Stephen, Jon being fit and full of youthful energy, Stephen being a balding pot-bellied 40-something. I'm still not going to go anywhere near Jon if I were to meet him in a pub or on tinder or whatever, because at 33 we're at totally different life stages and I can't be dealing with the bs of that mid-20s life. Wouldn't go near Stephen either for that matter.

Tell me how

Candie wrote: »

It's bizarre, you hear men who have little relationship experience (in one case I encountered have never even had a girlfriend) talk about how the girls will be queueing up when they're in their 40's or something

Some people might say this in a self-deprecating manner possibly because they don't want to admit the truth. I think a lot of this type of speak comes from a place of very low self esteem and it's a false bravado more than any overriding god complex. I say a lot, there are some who do believe it of course.

Candie wrote: »

You'll see quite plain men talking about women losing their looks, when they themselves never had any to begin with. You have to admire their self belief, if nothing else.

I think both genders do this and often women say it more, even though they are maybe more polite in how they say it. I was on a bus once and was standing in the aisle by two girls in their early twenties. One of them was commenting on the singer Christina Aguilera who was pictured in the glossy mag they were looking at and said "look at the state of her, you'd think someone would tell her she hasn't looked well in 10 years." Her friend said, "yeah, she's like she put her fake tan on before her shower".

Candie wrote: »

I have a ten year cut off.

......

My chap is nine years my senior, that's the absolute max I'd go, people need to be pragmatic, not rose-tinted romantic.

Did you have that cut off before you met him? If not, and he was 12 years your senior, would you have walked away?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Well by all means think that - but not while under the illusion that thinking it makes it true.

There has been two people on this tiny thread alone telling you they did have a basis for a relationship - entered it - and are still in it. And a third person saying they entered one - had loads in common - but other factors not related to age eventually broke them up.

So - straight away on the face of it - your comment does not track with the reality around it.



Odd then that all the 17 years olds I knew in my life were in or entered their first year of college. For example the entry requirements of NUI - which I checked randomly - say "Students must normally have attained the age of seventeen years by 15 January following entry to a Constituent University or Recognised College of the University."

I was certainly well finished 5th year myself when I was 17. But to be honest I do not measure the maturity of an individual by the level of school they are attending or not attending. I have never found that a useful measure of much at all in fact.



Interesting that you are in a position to dictate what the interests of any given individual - let alone an entire group of them grouped on an arbitrary attribute like age - "should" be.

But I genuinely see no merit or truth in your claim here about "should". There are many things to be interested in in this world and I find many - if not most - of them are perfectly capable of transcending age.

I see no merit or truth in it in my own life either. For example I was relatively recently taken to Dingle by a wonderful boardsie to "other voices". I was 38 at the time. His nephew who was also there was just turned 18 and just in his first year in college. And I found him entirely relatable on many subjects and interests.

We talked for hours on subjects of music - science - anti religion - meditation - computer gaming - and more. I at no point in the conversation felt that the 20 year gap meant I should not be sharing all these interests with him. Quite the opposite in fact as it was wonderful we were able to bring different perspectives - including due to our age - onto shared interests.

Many interests I have and hold today formed first in my early to mid teens. They do not have to go away with age. Maybe _yours_ did - and that's perfectly ok! But that may be leading you to extrapolate assumptions about people in general that are in fact only true of people like yourself.

No, it's not only true of a certain kind of person - be careful there as you do what you accuse others of, btw.

A man of 27 has life experience that a teenager hasn't. A man in a relationship looking to introduce a teenager into an adult relationship with much older people, before they've had much in the way of independent life themselves is denying that child - yes, legally a child - much in the way of opportunity to develop independent of the influence of a much older person playing a large role in their life.

I can't imagine her family being thrilled about a man a decade older than their teenager (who is immature enough themselves to think a seventeen year old is equipped to handle that kind of relationship) - which you've often talked about - has their happiness at the centre of their concern.

People react negatively because it's a negative situation for a teenager. You obviously can't see that but that is the telling part. Have all the talks about music or poetry or whatever that you want, but you were an adult man in a relationship looking to pursue a teenager, and that doesn't sit right with most people for very, very, good reason.

I'm sure you'll tell us that everything is great and her family are all on board, but the reality is they have little choice if they want to remain a part of her life, since she is basically spending her young adulthood living in an alternative parentally structured situation where she is very much disadvantaged in terms of maturity, experience and power.

You have your opinion of the situation, few will share it.

Kivaro

Kivaro wrote: »

What happens if you become incontinent or invalid before your older partner?
Bit of a selfish view if there is a real connection/love there, but to each her own I guess ........

Anything could happen anyone at any time. Knowing something will most likely happen is a different thing. I wouldn't leave my partner for any reason, but neither would I choose a relationship where my happiness is all but certain to be sacrificed later in life as I likely face decades of caring for an elderly spouse followed by more decades as a widow.

Not signing up for that life isn't selfish, it's pragmatic.

RWCNT

Deleted User wrote: »

Except no where in my post did I do any such thing. I was discussing the users opinion of such a requirement - which is false and (s)he has not returned to defend.

Further I think you will find there is a difference between defending and justifying a position - and explaining why a position does not require defending or justification. Doing the second is in no way doing the first. I was doing the second. You appear to want to imagine I was doing the first.

I do not think the age difference in question requires and defence of justification per se by any kind of automatic decree. Rather - whether it requires one entirely depends on the motivations and reasons behind the people pursuing such a relationship.

If a person around the age of 27 was targetting a 17 year old - specifically because that person was 17 years of old - then for sure that 27 year old should be held to account for it with healthy suspicion. We would want to be sure that such a person is not indulging his Ephebophilia rather than his genuine interest in a given individual.

But many relationships in our world develop _despite_ not because of something that would in other situations or contexts normally be a barrier. And I see nothing wrong with that. Then - or now. Nor does a line as erudite (not) as "what the **** man" seem inclined to suggest why I might or should.

Why would I "return to defend"? What else have I to discuss with you? I've made my position clear, as have you.

This is also the third time that you've explained why you don't need to defend your actions. People may not agree with you, but I'm sure they understand what you mean. There's really no point in repeating yourself. Holy mother of God though, "I wasn't defending my position, I was explaining why I didn't need to defend it" is the most pedantic attempt at a point score I've seen in some time.

Anyway, I'm sorry if you found my expression of shock to be crass, I'm very much a plain speaker and the polar opposite of yourself in that regard. I genuinely wish you, your partner and the new arrival the best, however I may feel about the circumstances of you getting together first over a decade ago.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

No, it's not only true of a certain kind of person - be careful there as you do what you accuse others of, btw.

What have I "accused" anyone of exactly? Take care yourself before recommending it to others. All I am suggesting is there are types of people for whom it is true - and the user is clearly one of them - and those for whom it is not - like myself. This is not a controversial claim I suspect.

Candie wrote: »

A man of 27 has life experience that a teenager hasn't.

On average maybe that is true. But average is not totality. And I have met people who had experiences at 16 that many of us never have at 40 50 or even beyond.

However this statement from you appears to be unconnected to the statement from me you are replying to. The claim that someone _might_ (as opposed to your inference here they certainly do) have experiences a teenage has not - is an entirely separate notion to the assertion I was addressing that someone at 27 "should" have different interests to someone at 17.

I see no reason to think there is any such "should". At all. And quite often I have seen the opposite entirely. Including myself. And certainly a perceived or real difference in their levels of life experience does not automatically suggest something like that is likely or true or required to be a "should".

If you ever want to meet my partner and inform her that she was denied "opportunity to develop independent of the influence of a much older person playing a large role in their life" then perhaps we can do that sometime. She would enjoy the laugh. Because she appears in no way to have been denied any such thing - or suffered any detriment in her development or potential at all outside the realms of your imagination.

Plus there appears to be an assumption built into your statement there. When you write a person has been denied "opportunity to develop independent of the influence of a much older person playing a large role in their life" - built into that statement is the assumption that such an influence is a bad thing. Not an assumption I am willing to make. Especially given the majority of us develop under some level of influence of much older people playing large roles in our life. Most often our parents!

So your use of the word "denied" there appears to assume a requirement - benefit - or ideal that you have not actually established.

Candie wrote: »

I can't imagine her family being thrilled about a man a decade older than their teenager (who is immature enough themselves to think a seventeen year old is equipped to handle that kind of relationship) - which you've often talked about - has their happiness at the centre of their concern.

And as I wrote earlier in the thread - not sure if you saw the post in question - they were not thrilled by it at all at first. It took them time. 2-3 years for the most part. But now 10 years on in the relationship - they are 100% accepting of it.

Candie wrote: »

People react negatively because it's a negative situation for a teenager.

Says you. And I am sure there are many negative situations of that type. But that does not mean all of them - or even the majority of them - are. A leap you _appear_ to want to make. But I am afraid I can not make it with you without good (or in this case any) reason.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Did you have that cut off before you met him? If not, and he was 12 years your senior, would you have walked away?

I'm nothing if not a sensible person, and I just don't get involved with people who I feel would ultimately not be in my best interests. I don't want to be a young widow. I wouldn't get involved with someone more than ten years older, and I'm rarely attracted to anyone more than ten years older anyway.

We all have our preferences, and mine is to have someone to grow old with. That might not happen, but if I was with someone decades older then I'd know for certain it wouldn't and I would rather avoid it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Says you.

As I said, you have your opinion of the situation and that's fine. Few will share it but that's hardly news to you at this point, I'm sure.

RWCNT

RWCNT wrote: »

Why would I "return to defend"? What else have I to discuss with you? I've made my position clear, as have you.

Agreed. I think we both have made our position clear. What I think is not the same however is I have moved to explain my position - not just make clear what that position itself is. I do not think I can say the same of you. Which is what I meant by "return".

RWCNT wrote: »

There's really no point in repeating yourself.

I do not agree. Quite often that is how conversation works. People repeat themselves - with modifications each time to explain the same thing a different way - all the time in an effort to lead people to see their point of view. This is how conversation works. And it is - to my mind - a good thing.

RWCNT wrote: »

"I wasn't defending my position, I was explaining why I didn't need to defend it" is the most pedantic attempt at a point score I've seen in some time.

If you say so - but since it was no such thing - and was not intended to be any such thing - you are evaluating the statement by a criteria of your own invention. Which is the most pedantic attempt at a point score I've seen in some time. Second only to the statement of "And yet you just spent an entire post defending your position." in the first place which likely fits your evaluation better than anything I said as being a statement made for no reason but to try - and in that case fail utterly - to score a cheap shot.

No what I was doing was exactly what I said - pointing out the very real and important different between defending a position - and explaining why a position does not warrant or require defense.

And it is an important distinction for a reason _much_ more important that your false interpretation of it as "points scoring". It is important because one side of that distinction build in the assumption something is wrong and requires a defense. A linguistic "guilty until proven innocent" move that I do not feel is warranted in this scenario.

And that is nothing personal against you - so I hope you do not parse it as such. But something I believe is important. There are many situations where I see people - intentionally or erroneously - construct an approach that builds in an automatic assumption of guilt that the target is then expected to defend against. And it is useful to point out when this is not warranted and the target has nothing to defend in the first place.

RWCNT wrote: »

Anyway, I'm sorry if you found my expression of shock to be crass, I'm very much a plain speaker and the polar opposite of yourself in that regard. I genuinely wish you, your partner and the new arrival the best, however I may feel about the circumstances of you getting together first over a decade ago.

Not sure what the opposite of plain speaker is meant to imply here - or if it is some kind of dig or not. I will assume not - but I am unsure how I can speak any plainer than I am on the subject.Or be more open and honest about myself and my life while speaking on it.

But appreciate the well wishing. This is child number three for us and her first so it is a roller coaster time of excitement and nerves. I wonder does it ever stop being such no matter how many kids a person has. 1 5 or 10 - is it always a roller coaster of jitters and emotion every time?

Candie

Candie wrote: »

As I said, you have your opinion of the situation and that's fine. Few will share it but that's hardly news to you at this point, I'm sure.

I dunno if it is or not. I find online there are more people who get worked up about minor aspects of the lives of people they do not even know. And not even just "online". Just in specific _types_ of places online.

Whereas in real life I barely get any reaction to many things that get highly emotionally charged reactions online.

Take for example a post I made on a thread not too long ago. In it I happened to mention that my 7 year old daughter (now 8) was learning to load aim and shoot a particular kind of rifle - and had gotten it down under 10 seconds. (Example of another girl around that age doing exactly that here).

Not a single person has even raised an eye brow - let alone reacted negatively - to hearing that. Here on boards however someone got mightily upset.

So it kinda is "news to me" in a way. Because outside of a few vocal people on a single internet forum - hardly anyone seems to have issue with it at all. We internet forum people are a strange race

As I said her parents and siblings had an issue at the start - and I understand entirely why - but they got over it with a little time.

Tell me how

Candie wrote: »

I'm nothing if not a sensible person, and I just don't get involved with people who I feel would ultimately not be in my best interests. I don't want to be a young widow. I wouldn't get involved with someone more than ten years older, and I'm rarely attracted to anyone more than ten years older anyway.

We all have our preferences, and mine is to have someone to grow old with. That might not happen, but if I was with someone decades older then I'd know for certain it wouldn't and I would rather avoid it.

I agree with the decades difference viewpoint. I was just curious if your acceptable bandwidth had moved because of meeting your partner.

I think that true love causes us to think differently about things because the context in how we view them has changed. That being said, I think we all have either subconscious tolerances and we just don't allow ourselves to explore romantic feelings if someone falls outside of this in the same way we don't think of say, friends exes, in such a way.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Status symbols.

That's part of it of course. Just like a woman going out with a wealthy man. Who's got a larger potential dating base? An office junior guy driving a cubicle at 25, or a 35 year old business guy with a couple of mill in the bank? On average people tend to pair off with "equals" in looks, status and age. Where they don't it tends to be richer, often older men with younger better looking partners.

It has little to do with evolution from a biological perspective, and much more to do with social evolution.

Well yes and no and the two have large overlaps. The biological facts are women have a finite time to have kids that's physically bounded and that reproductive biology means a woman's fertility peaks in her early to mid twenties and slowly declines from there, though it's not nearly as rapid as some seem to think. EG it's not in free fall by 30 or anything like it. Even at 40 a woman's average chances of a birth are still running at around half of when she's 25. The risks of genetic damage and difficult pregnancies and births do increase after the early 30's. Getting pregnant after 35 is even referred to if unkindly as a "geriatric pregnancy".

Some studies concluded that both parents age was a factor in this, but when studies looked at older men/younger women pairings(and vice versa) the stats showed that it's the woman's age that is the biggest factor by far. Except for autism. Older men are more likely to sire autistic children. Not a big effect, but present. Men's fertility also declines but much more slowly. To the degree that sprem donor facilities in Europe and the UK upped their age limit to 50 for donors. Interestingly the health of a women's eggs didn't seem to be the issue, but the overall physical environment. IE a woman of 25 who received donated eggs from a woman of 40 will have nigh on the same risks and outcomes as another woman of 25 with her own eggs. Fascinating stuff. Though the obvious reason would be that pregnancy and birth are bloody hard on the body and a 25 year old will be on average more able to take such a toll.

Then again folks differ. One of my grandmothers had her last kid at 45 and she reckoned it was the easiest pregnancy and birth of the four she had. Folks differ in other ways. EG in my family and on both sides the widowers vastly outnumber the widows(only two widows in living memory). They tended to marry younger women too. Roughly between 8 and 20 years younger. In recent years two male rellies were the ones nursing and then mourning their wives. Not usual at all, as it's normally the other way around and age gaps certainly increase the risk, but you really don't know how things will turn out, even for folks the same age. I'm sure we all know as I do young enough equal aged couples where they ended up in that horrible position of looking after a failing partner.

ginandtonicsky wrote: »

So are women, from a strictly physical attraction standpoint. 26-year-old Jon in the office is a hell of a lot hotter than Stephen, Jon being fit and full of youthful energy, Stephen being a balding pot-bellied 40-something.

Yeah, but c'mon you're hardly competing like with like G. In extremis Brad Pitt even if he was an "ordinary bloke" when he was 40 odd was in the top percentile of male looks and would blow 90% of the 26 year old Jon's in the office(leaving out the aitch in "John" would be a hanging offence anyway ). It's like saying yer wan from Modern Family Sofia Vergara is a good example of a 45 year old woman. Yes they're extremes, but you could go the other way and compare 26 year old Jon, gone fat around the middle since college nursing a future of crap health(and who could well be balding too) and a 40 year old cross fitter who is all sinew and energy. May even have a full head of hair with it.

Though I would say that men age faster on average in one way and that's mentally. IMHO and IME men are far more likely to settle on a way of thinking and doing and ride that to the grave. They get into a mental rut. Much more than women in my experience. Plus they rarely get a second wind the way many women do after menopause. Given the choice between hanging out with a random average bunch of middle aged strangers for an afternoon, give me a bunch of women any day of the week.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I agree with the decades difference viewpoint. I was just curious if your acceptable bandwidth had moved because of meeting your partner.

I think that true love causes us to think differently about things because the context in how we view them has changed. That being said, I think we all have either subconscious tolerances and we just don't allow ourselves to explore romantic feelings if someone falls outside of this in the same way we don't think of say, friends exes, in such a way.

It's like you can meet someone and really like them and know it could go further, but if you find out they're married then a switch flips. I have a switch that too big an age gap flips as well (as well as other issues like drug use or excess drinking etc).

I don't want to be alone in old age, and while it may happen anyway I'm not going to stack the odds against myself. It's just a personal preference.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno if it is or not. I find online there are more people who get worked up about minor aspects of the lives of people they do not even know.

Oh, I'm not remotely worked up or even interested in your life.

My only issue was the teenager you started having a relationship with when you were in your late twenties and she was seventeen.

Kids and guns aren't really relevant.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

It's just a personal preference.

^ Agreed personal preference is very important here.

When I have been asked in the past about entering a relationship with an age difference I have often given the same advice. Which is to sit down alone and write down all the things you want from a relationship openly and honestly for yourself. All your goals and hopes and dreams and so forth.

Then read down that list and ask yourself if anything on that list is precluded by the age difference in question. If it is - then that should be informative to you. For you -for a good example - this is a requirement to have a certain kind of "old age" period together. And as you point out a large age difference would impinge likely on that ideal.

Candie wrote: »

Oh, I'm not remotely worked up or even interested in your life.

I hope nothing in my post suggested that I thought you were. I was responding to your line "Few will share" and was not talking about you in any way but this invisible and seemingly non-existent crowd to whom you were referring.

Candie wrote: »

Kids and guns aren't really relevant.

Only so much as I was exampling how reactions I only see online are not something I extrapolate to meat space. When you say "few will share" my position I simply am not seeing much to suggest that is true at all. Any negative reactions I see to minor things like age differences and kids with guns and so forth - tend to be a minority of online voices only. So I reckon "few will not share it" is just as likely true.

However - whatever else I might say about myself - I can certainly say that the positions I hold have never been formed on the basis of who - or in what numbers - agree with it. But whether the position is itself internally rational and explainable to me. And I see no reason per se to automatically assume that there is a negative here. Certainly not in they dynamics of "denial" you have constructed.

paleoperson

Candie wrote: »

Oh, I'm not remotely worked up or even interested in your life.

My only issue was the teenager you started having a relationship with when you were in your late twenties and she was seventeen.

Kids and guns aren't really relevant.

I agree.

Get the hell outta here with that nonsense. Parading it around the place and we're not even on the subject. You should be in jail for putting that sort of risk on your daughter and others more like.

Jail? Which law is being broken here exactly? If there was an issue perhaps there would be a law against it. But wanting to jail people for a non-existent law based on some personal sensibility that has been invoked - is likely more what is "parading" here.

Further I am not sure what "risk" we are talking about here. As a parent for example I think the vast majority of concerns I will have towards my daughter when boyfriends start coming on the scene - will be entirely independent of age. Hers or theirs.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

^ Agreed personal preference is very important here.

And since we are very unlikely to do anything other than repeat ourselves ad infinitum, I'll exercise my preference to leave it there rather than clog up the thread with the experiences of one person and some very, very, wordy posts.

paleoperson

Deleted User wrote: »

Jail? Which law is being broken here exactly? If there was an issue perhaps there would be a law against it. But wanting to jail people for a non-existent law based on some personal sensibility that has been invoked - is likely more what is "parading" here.

Reckless endangerment including of a minor.

Deleted User wrote: »

Further I am not sure what "risk" we are talking about here. As a parent for example I think the vast majority of concerns I will have towards my daughter when boyfriends start coming on the scene - will be entirely independent of age. Hers or theirs.

To me it isn't credible that a person of sound mind wouldn't understand the risks of putting firearms in the hands of a child.

I'm sure you'll also act like a loon when boyfriends start coming on the scene if she survives until then, no fear of that.