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 socially acceptable age gap. 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.
So, if you're 20 (20 / 2 = 10, 10 + 7 = 17), 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? ;)
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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 Hmmmm ... to compare formulas, we should focus on their impact at the extremes, so...
Dr Doe's formula above: If you are 20, your youngest partner should be 17 If you are 30, then 22 If you are 40, then 27 If you are 50, then 32
Your formula: If you are 20, your youngest partner should be 15 If you are 30, then 23 If you are 40, then 31 If you are 50, then 39
At the youngest extreme of each decade, your formula actually results in a narrower age range (except for the 20 year old), and your formula says it is acceptable for a 20 year old to date a 15 year old (maybe it's me, but that seems VERY socially unacceptable).
Plus, your formula creates awkward "transitions" ... a 29 year old on your scale can only date down to 24 years old, but when they hit their 30th birthday, they can now date 23 year olds??? This happens at each decade transition and makes no sense.
@IAmJess No it makes perfect sense. Society treats people in higher decades with more leniency to how young their partner is allowed to be.
But you did discover the issue with my formula. See when I created it I based it on the lowest age being 16 as that is the legal age of my country (and most western countries). So really 16 is the limit for a 20yo and same goes for 18+19yos. Once you're an adult, dating someone who's under 16 just comes off creepy.
Side note: the (A/2)+7 model is only good for the young years. It was created in a time when girls would be married off as teens so it didn't need to account for higher numbers. Most still feel a stigma in older men dating young women, especially if the man is in his 40s and the woman in her 20s. My scale accounts for this but the (A/2)+7 rule doesn't
Society treats people in higher decades with more leniency to how young their partner is allowed to be
But your formula gives less leniency than Dr Doe's formula.
But you did discover the issue with my formula
Easily solved with IF-THEN-ELSE statements.
especially if the man is in his 40s and the woman in her 20s
Dr Doe's formula only "allows" this combination in the earliest 40's and only with the oldest 20's. I see your argument for tightening it up, but you need to tweak your formula so the transitions don't cause backward steps.
@IAmJess I don't needa do anything to my scale. It's fine as is. It's just meant to give someone an observational glimpse into how their relationship may be perceived. It isn't a formula or a rule like that outdated (A/2)+7 rule. It is just a way of understanding society's view of your relationship.
Also I may have faultered a little in explaining the scale. Someone who is 30 can only date someone who is 24+ because you must include the year they're currently in (ie their 31st year). So based on that I guess the scale is more plainly put: +-2, +-4, etc. Just take one off each level.
The real interest of the scale comes from when someone who is 30 wants to date a 24yo. See to them it's socially acceptable but to the 24yo it could be seen as taboo because their limit is 28yo. I've actually seen these types of scenarios happen and it's really interesting to see how the friends of each party view the relationship
@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.
