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 »
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.
@PhoenixPhail Well, as stated in the story, Dr Doe was using this formula to describe what would be socially acceptable for you. She wasn't saying any more or any less than that.
So, do you think your social circle would accept you dating someone in their early forties? Would you want to? Would you prefer someone older or younger?
You say you disagree. So you'd like to see a lower number than 41?
@IAmJess I think a number higher than 41 would probably be more appropriate for me, however, if there were a special person to come along, someone who could really "get" me and be a good companion for me, I would gladly 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)???
