I posted a somewhat sarcastic story a few weeks ago about liking older guys. What I said was that back when I was a sophomore in high school, I had a crush on a senior.
Yeah yeah, I know, that's not what you guys mean when you ask me if I'm into older guys, but come on, are you really serious when you ask that question? I mean how many 18 year old girls do you really think exist who are romantically (not financially) interested in someone 40 or 50 or 60 or more? You do know it's not as common as you think, right?
Anyway, well that was a few weeks ago and earlier today I was clicking through some stuff on Youtube and was watching a Dr Lindsay Doe clip (https://www.youtube.com/user/sexplanations) on when and how it's appropriate to hit on someone. She covered tons of criteria, but then hit on the age gap issue.
She used that math formula that I'm sure we've all seen in various jokes and other settings, but she referred to it as the [b]socially acceptable age gap[/b]. If you're the older person and want to hit on someone, take your age and cut it in half and then add seven. That's the limit of your socially acceptable age gap. I love it. [center]
[/center]
So, if you're 20 ([b][u]20 / 2 = 10[/u][/b], [b][u]10 + 7 = 17[/u][/b]), then 17 is the youngest person you should hit on. If you're 30, then 22 is the youngest. If you're 40, then 27 is the youngest. If you're 50, then 32 is the youngest. If you're 60, then 37 is the youngest. And so on.
Another curious thing is that she presented this as gender neutral! So if you're that cougar on the hunt, keep these limits in mind! ;)
What do you think? Do you agree? Disagree?
I'm 18 so if I were out there on the hunt (lol, I've never hit on someone in my life, but I suppose I can theorize!!), the youngest person I should approach is 16. That actually makes sense. Younger than that would be a little creepy.
How about reversing the formula to figure out my upper limit? That comes to 22. Wow, okay. Again, makes sense. Much older than that and I'd feel very self-conscious, inadequate, out-of-place, unequal, etc, in the relationship. But at 18, I feel like I could be in a relationship of equals with someone 16 to 22. I like this. :)
Btw, none of this means we can't be sexy friends and flirt a little, right? ;)
Haha. Makes sense to me. I think those age ranges are reasonable. Granted, as with every relationship, it comes down to the people involved, but I've always been more interested in and attracted to men around my own age. Having said that, I did have a friend with benefits who was 13 years younger than me, but we weren't in a romantic, long-term relationship, per se... 😏
This (A/2)+7 thing is just a silly rule from over a hundred years ago. I created a much better scale based on the decade of your age and the maximum and minimum deemed socially acceptable:
10s +-3 years 20s +-5 years 30s +-7 years 40s +-9 years 50s +-11 years
This system accounts for a much wider range of ages and also highlights how one partner might be seen as a socially acceptable age when the other isn't.
@Qwerty14 I do like that your formula takes in account the different social norms for the older and younger persons in the relationship, but as a math person, I can't deal with the rough transitions of the decades.
I'm not sure I would agree on the age restrictions, but I do think it's silly for men or women to think that someone 20+ years their junior would ever truly be interested in a relationship. Seriously, even if we were madly in love, in 20 years you're in the prime of life and I'm most likely dead. I would never saddle someone with that responsibility. as attractive as I might find you.
@TexasGrandpa I hear you, but love is love, right? And these weren't presented as "restrictions" but rather as a guideline on what is socially acceptable.
I made a post on this subject back in 2016, as it relates to the gezer syn drone. https://similarworlds.com/2329742-I-Absolutely-Love-Women/76710-In-Praise-of-Older-Women-I-have-seen-a-trend-among
Most people are truly more comfortable with those they have life experiences in common. Man walking on the moon, the Vietnam war and so forth. That isn't saying of course you couldn't be friends but long term romantic relationships just aren't likely to last.
@lasergraph Just read your post. Love it. But for the record, I do plan on doing my own laundry when I move to my first college dorm in a month! 😂😂😂 And some of us do pay attention at least a little to politics and economics and all that. But yeah, I was 8 when President Obama was elected.
Hmmmm... I don't think I can agree. I'm 69, so half that plus 7 would be 41½. It's possible I could have the relationship I'm looking for with someone of that age, but I would think terribly unlikely. I'm looking, primarily, for a companion, not sex.
@IAmJess I think a number higher than 41 would probably be more appropriate for me, [b]however[/b], if there were a special person to come along, someone who could really "get" me and be a good companion for me, I would [i]gladly[/i] have that person as a companion. Numbers don't matter to me, but the quality of a person, does.
It wouldn't matter what my social circle thought. For one thing, there are very few people in it. But to those few, I'm sure it would be quite acceptable.
@PhoenixPhail But that is what the post is about. It's about what you social circle would think ("socially acceptable").
Dr Doe used this formula to estimate what would be the minimum socially acceptable age to date. Since you are now saying you would want someone older, you are basically agreeing now? Initially you said you disagreed (meaning you think a lower age would be socially acceptable)???
Interesting! I guess from socially acceptable standpoint, it kinda makes sense. But I consider most things "socially acceptable" to be bullshit and this falls under that. 😅 But it is interesting, nonetheless!
@Carver Well yes, of course it's all bullshit because the bottom line is that if two people genuinely like each other, then it's all up to them.
But the "socially acceptable" thing kinda goes to public behavior. So if I'm at a party and someone way way way older than me comes over and is hitting on me, creeper flags will be going off all over the room I'm sure and this is kind of a guideline for that poor guy. :)
@Goralski Lol, well, as with most things in life, once alcohol enters the equation, all bets are off.
But, that doesn't really change any of this. Alcohol might increase your chances of success with someone (although it also raises all kinds of worrisome consent issues), but it doesn't change what is socially acceptable, right?
Assuming you are 46, your [b]socially acceptable age gap[/b], according to Dr Doe, would be 30. So if you showed up with a 30 year old partner at some event or function, presumably no one would bat an eye because this is what she calls "socially acceptable". But you show up with someone 18 and suddenly people are talking. Right? I think that's what she means.
@SW-User I don't think she came up with the formula. I've heard it before in different contexts, mostly humorous. She just used an existing formula to describe socially acceptable age gaps.
Do you agree that this roughly describes what is socially acceptable? Have you ever dated outside this range for yourself?
