Age Difference within Relationships

[Murphy]

How great of an age difference within relationships (sexual) is to much of a difference? Is it okay for an eighteen-year-old to get together with a forty-year-old?

Also, how young is too young in general? Is a fourteen-year-old mature enough for a healthy relationship? As an example.

[Anthropos]

Is it okay for an eighteen-year-old to get together with a forty-year-old?

I wish you good luck! :thumb001:

[Crusadersword]

I think within the boundaries of someone's age group is more appropriate. Someone who will accompany you for the rest of your life as one. That is hardly possible when you have a 20+ year age gap.

[Stefan]

Is a fourteen-year-old mature enough for a healthy relationship? As an example.

No, neither are people my age. Maybe some odd individuals, but in a generalized view, not even close.

[Murphy]

No, neither are people my age. Maybe some odd individuals, but in a generalized view, not even close.

Do you believe this is a product of modern society?

[Grumpy Cat]

The "creepy factor" is: your age/2 +7

So, I'm 28, that means 28/2 +7 = 14 + 7 = 21

So the minimum age I can date before it becomes creepy is 21.

[Stefan]

Do you believe this is a product of modern society?

Partially, but I think it has always been the case to some extent. It is probably more noticeable in modern society because there is more time given to people for growing up, but I think you'll always be inexperienced at such a young age. Teenagers are too fickle, and change their mind too much. We especially don't think ahead and of the consequences. I think there needs to be time for us to mature in other aspects before thinking of serious relationships. Of course there are individuals who differ from this generalization I've made.

[jerney]

The "creepy factor" is: your age/2 +7

So, I'm 28, that means 28/2 +7 = 14 + 7 = 21

So the minumin age I can date before it becomes creepy is 21.

Maybe this is a double standard but I find it a lot more unappealing if a 28 year old female is dating a 21 year old male than the opposite. It might be because I see males who are younger than me, and even my age sometimes, as boyish, and that's creepy for me and huge turn off.

I've always preferred guys at least a few years older than me because I need a man, mkay.

[antonio]

How great of an age difference within relationships (sexual) is to much of a difference? Is it okay for an eighteen-year-old to get together with a forty-year-old?

Also, how young is too young in general? Is a fourteen-year-old mature enough for a healthy relationship? As an example.

A healthy relationship must be based on healthy members. So if alternative for a healthy (meaning clever or attractive or righteous) 40 y.o. is an unhealthy (meaning stupid, unatractive...) 20 y.o. it would be wiser to choose the first. Assuming that this one that I give you for free is a life lesson very difficult to interiorize when you're under 30 y.o.

PD. When 40y.o. will become 60 y.o. or 80 y.o. it's not your currently matter. It's unwiser even for the wisest to make plans such unrealistic elapsed. God only knows!

[Germanicus]

The current Mrs Germanicus is 4 yrs younger.........:thumb001:

[Tony]

The "creepy factor" is: your age/2 +7

So, I'm 28, that means 28/2 +7 = 14 + 7 = 21

So the minimum age I can date before it becomes creepy is 21.

So when you'll be 70 you will be ok dateing a 42 years old woman (28 years of difference) but I can't date a 23 years old woman (since I'm 33)?

I'm curious , where your math rule come out from?

[Grumpy Cat]

I'm curious , where your math rule come out from?

I've heard it around, but I looked on Google to try to find the origin with no luck.

Just this.


The half-your-age-plus-seven rule is a mathematical guide to judge whether the age difference in an intimate relationship is socially acceptable. Mathematically speaking, the rule is (Minimum Age) = (Age of the Older Individual) / 2 + 7.

For example, if Shane is 30 and wants to date Kristen, who is 20, he would be in violation of the rule, since the minimum age being 22. Notice, however, that the age difference matters less as the potential partners grow older. In this case, Shane would have four years to wait before the age difference in the relationship was "socially acceptable".

Note that what is implied by "socially acceptable" is largely a cultural construct, and has varied over time. Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall were 26 and 89 at the time of their relationship.

[Cail]

So when you'll be 70 you will be ok dateing a 42 years old woman (28 years of difference) but I can't date a 23 years old woman (since I'm 33)?

I'm curious , where your math rule come out from?

Actually you can, 33/2+7=16.5+7=23.5 :).

[Praamžius]

Im 72 years old and no women want's to date after 60+ years age.So i have to be creepy.And most nowadays stupid girls loose virginity at about 14-16 years of age with older man.And i don't see anything bad about it as human body is ready for reproduction at that age.

[Grumpy Cat]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Half_Your_Age_Plus_Seven_Graph.JPG

[Brynhild]

The word Cougar is bandied around these days, and I'm in that age range! :puke: Younger blokes would be good for one thing but I don't wish to relive an age where I've already been. I much prefer the company of a man who is around my age, slightly older. I'm more comfortable with someone of my generation.

[Grumpy Cat]

The word Cougar is bandied around these days, and I'm in that age range! :puke: Younger blokes would be good for one thing but I don't wish to relive an age where I've already been. I much prefer the company of a man who is around my age, slightly older. I'm more comfortable with someone of my generation.

Yes, I prefer older men, myself. But I did date a younger guy before. It didn't last very long.

[Praamžius]

But what about guys who are young outside , but very mature inside?

[Amapola]

I would suggest that you are at least from the same generation for practical reasons.

[Murphy]

I would suggest that you are at least from the same generation for practical reasons.

But you'll make an exception for me of course, my Moorish Princess ;)?

[Germanicus]

But you'll make an exception for me of course, my Moorish Princess ;)?

Having Moorish blood in you Papist you would be an ideal suitor...:):):)

[Bridie]

Quite frankly, once you fall in love, age doesn't seem to really matter.

[Murphy]

Quite frankly, once you fall in love, age doesn't seem to really matter.

I agree.

Will you marry me, then?

[Bridie]

I agree.

Will you marry me, then?Ok ok... it doesn't seem to matter, within certain limits. :D :p

I think once you get past a certain age, maybe 25 - 28, age gaps become kinda irrelevant.

[Murphy]

Ok ok... it doesn't seem to matter, within certain limits. :D :p

I think once you get past a certain age, maybe 25 - 28, age gaps become kinda irrelevant.

So you wont marry me?

[Bridie]

So you wont marry me?Oh alright then... I'll add you to my harem. :wink :p

[Murphy]

Oh alright then... I'll add you to my harem. :wink :p

Too late :(. I am sure someone else will have me!

[Bridie]

Too late :(. I am sure someone else will have me!Bugger. :pout: I was looking forward to having one bloke from every European nation in my harem... it'd be like Noah's Ark for the male species. :D

[Murphy]

Bugger. :pout: I was looking forward to having one bloke from every European nation in my harem... it'd be like Noah's Ark for the male species. :D

I have this thing for monogamy, sorry :p.

[Bridie]

I have this thing for monogamy, sorry :p.Blah!!! What are ye??? A Christian or something? :wink


:p

[poiuytrewq0987]

I definitely wouldn't date someone who is 40 years old. Because once I turn 40, the chick would be 60. :eek: Unless you're into dry pussy, I would turn the other way if a 40 yr old chick tries to pick me up.

[Bridie]

I definitely wouldn't date someone who is 40 years old. Because once I turn 40, the chick would be 60. :eek: Unless you're into dry pussy, I would turn the other way if a 40 yr old chick tries to pick me up.
A 40 year old with a 20 year old is just sick. :sick2:

[The Khagan]

Who doesn't like milfs though?

[poiuytrewq0987]

Who doesn't like milfs though?

Not me, I'm not a pervert, thanks.

[Guapo]

Who doesn't like milfs though?

Milf does a body good.

[Solwyn]

*Looks around*

It's been a while, this seems like as good a place as any to jump in and start posting:)

I know people who have dated others well below them in years. For a spare few it has worked but for most, it has not. It's been my experience, just in dealing with people on a daily basis who are in their early 20s, that I am worlds apart from them, and I will be 38 in a few days. I don't consider that to be really old or worldly, but still, enough of a gap that it shows. My priorities are different.

Personally, if a man 15-20 years younger than me found me interesting, I'd laugh at him.....unless he was just hunting for a cougar, in which case I might be tempted to use him and throw him out when I was done:D Well no, not really, I'd probably be too busy laughing at him......but you know, the machine gun pecker that accompanies male youth does have a certain appeal. :dev

Hell, if a man who was 30 found me interesting I'd probably laugh at him, but then I like men who are my age or older.

[The Khagan]

Well, would a man 20 years younger than yourself really be a man? I mean, that's more of a boy. Also, illegal in most US states :D

[Tabiti]

Depends not only on age difference, however on life period of both partners. 10 years are much if one of the partners is 15, the other - 25, but acceptable if one is 30, the other - 40, for example. Of course, if we are talking for Western culture here. There are completely different societies with different levels of acceptance and there's no need to discuss if a marriage between 13 year old girl and 70 year old man is normal.
For me, I've never liked possible partners more than 5 years older than me, not because they are "old", but because their different needs and life style. For example a 30 year old men would want to create a family, children, serious career, etc, while I'm still quite far from these things. I know many 20 year old girls, involved into relationships with 30+ men and that brought them only not really wanted early family life and children. I don't care what was the normal age to get married in past and I'm not going to create discussions gere, I care for my own needs for now.

[lei.talk]

I would suggest that you are at least from the same generation for practical reasons.in most times and locations,
it has been and is most practical for girls
to ally their selfs with established/success-full men -

the preceeding generation.

how long-lasting are relationships between youngsters?

what need one say
regarding the children raised by resourceless children?

the modern situation ensures the poor remain so. http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

[Amapola]

Yes, I am aware of it, but now we don't need that gap anymore, and two people belonging to the same generation are bound to have more things in common. There are exceptions, and surely it might not work with everybody like that, but still...

[Allenson]

An 18 year old lad and a 40 year old woman? Sure, tame that cougar, mate. ;)

The other way around is a little creepy.

[Crux]

An 18 year old lad and a 40 year old woman? Sure, tame that cougar, mate. ;)

The other way around is a little creepy.

I completely agree, I don't even consider 16 year olds doing mature women to be creepy. The other way around ofcourse is pretty much creepy.

[Octothorpe]

Mind the age gap. :rolleyes:

The first wife was eight years my senior (a crazy redhead, wild as deer and twice as lithe), but it only lasted a few years. The current missus is just three months my junior, and quite compatible.

[jerney]

I completely agree, I don't even consider 16 year olds doing mature women to be creepy. The other way around ofcourse is pretty much creepy.

It's creepy as hell, if not creepier. Any woman who is ok having sex with a teenager has issues. Teenage boys are just so gross and boyish, I find even the thought disturbing. :shrug: I'd say the same about a man who has sex with teenaged girls too, though.

[Murphy]

Teenage boys are just so gross and boyish, I find even thought disturbing.

I am neither gross nor boyish.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think it's natural for the man to be older than the woman, for a number of reasons mentioned previously. Due to our current modern way of life the age at which maturity is reached is higher than in the past (18-21 maybe should be 'age of majority' for modern society, rather than 14 or 16 as in times past), but once beyond that age it shouldn't matter how big the gap is.


Yes, I am aware of it, but now we don't need that gap anymore, and two people belonging to the same generation are bound to have more things in common. There are exceptions, and surely it might not work with everybody like that, but still...

Wouldn't it be more necessary today than in past times? A generation ago only some small post-high school education was needed if that, 2 generations ago many men didn't finish high school and could make a good living in manufacturing or farming. Today that is simply not possible, the age limit at which the average man finds some measure of financial stability is past 30 and growing in Europe with North America rapidly closing the gap.

Viewed in terms of when men reach financial stability and 'start a family', in the WWII era generation and before it was common for men to do this around age 18-20, so it was common for them to find a life partner from someone they had gone through high school with, and especially in rural areas it was not uncommon for them for two people who had known eachother from a very young age through school, neighbors church, etc. Thus they would be around the same age, maybe 1-3 years apart.

In the '1968 generation' or 'baby boom' generation university education was standard for the middle and upper classes, so it was common for the middle class and upwards to meet while in university or in the workplace, thus an age gap of a few years or so on average, not too much more.

Today, most people don't complete their education until mid 20s or later. Unlike the past couple generations, the 'life path' is less standardized and thus people do not meet through the educational system or semi-arranged relationships through church/civic/neighborhood organizations as in the past 2 generations, so a larger age gap is to be expected.

[Loddfafner]

If it is the younger partner who takes the initiative, it is kinky. If it is the older one who hits on the younger, then it gets creepy.

[Crux]

It's creepy as hell, if not creepier. Any woman who is ok having sex with a teenager has issues. Teenage boys are just so gross and boyish, I find even the thought disturbing. :shrug: I'd say the same about a man who has sex with teenaged girls too, though.

Yeah but in the eyes of many people that boy would be one lucky chap but if the opposite occured everyone would feel sorry for the girl and would want to bludgeon the older male.

[jerney]

Yeah but in the eyes of many people that boy would be one lucky chap but if the opposite occured everyone would feel sorry for the girl and would want to bludgeon the older male.

yeah but it doesn't change the reality that both of the older partners have issues.

[Murphy]

oh rly....:lol00002:

I do have a baby face yes, but I am not gross and I am not "boyish" as in the context of being immature, which I assume Jerny was referring to.

Also, I did not give you permission to post my picture did I :)?

[Peachy Carnahan]

Well if Jimmy krankie needs a stand in i think you may have a job.

[Murphy]

Well if Jimmy krankie needs a stand in i think you may have a job.

Oh, wow. You have hurt my feelings once again. Why must you be so cruel :rolleyes2:..

[lei.talk]

Yeah, but, it doesn't change the reality
that both of the older partners have issues.what are these "issues"?

please, more substance than :puke: or "creepy".

[Bridie]

what are these "issues"?

please, more substance than :puke: or "creepy".Probably something to do with desperately trying to regain lost youth by using a young person with whom the older one could never have any true intellectual rapport, nor any other type of rapport other than sexual for that matter.

[Tolleson]

Aemma reminds me often that I am 15 days her senior. :D

[Crux]

Probably something to do with desperately trying to regain lost youth by using a young person with whom the older one could never have any true intellectual rapport, nor any other type of rapport other than sexual for that matter.

But the younger person would enjoy being used. It's a win win situation.

[Camilla]

As for me, I prefer men that are about 35-40 y.o. (I'm 18).

I don't see it as a problem and that can easily exist and both can be happy. It depends just on how you feel.

[Svarog]

As long as you have fun who cares? Unless you're talking about marriage here

I've been with girls of my age and with women even 5-15 years older than me. now 18 and 40, dunno, could work for like few months i am sure but c'mon, be serious.

And yea, we kiddos like older girls too, it's cool when a dude is like 20 years older but when guy is with a 10 years older chick that's uncool? Just mind your own business ppl.

In generally i avoid girls younger than me

[Stegura]

I had a 19 year old Russian girlfriend over the Summer. I was 26 at the time. But even with seven years between the two of us there was still massive maturity gaps. I'm 27 years old now, I really shouldn't be messing around with girls under 21 years of age anymore.

[Solwyn]

Well, would a man 20 years younger than yourself really be a man? I mean, that's more of a boy. Also, illegal in most US states :D

16 in Canada darlin'. Used to be 14. As for official adulthood in Canada, depending on what province you are in, it is either 18 or 19. :D

[Bridie]

But the younger person would enjoy being used. It's a win win situation.They may think they would. Fact is that children (and I consider teens as such) often don't understand the emotional repercussions of their actions, particularly the longterm emotional repercussions. This is why they still need the selfless, loving guidance of authority figures (usually parents, grandparents etc) who have their very best interests at heart.



As long as you have fun who cares?Life is not all about fun. ;)

[Goidelic]

There are greater age gap relationships than those think. For example, my great-grandfather, his father was 81 and his wife was 26 when they fathered him. I have my great-great-grandfather's death & birth certificate for verification, as well as great-great-grandmother. My great-grandfather told my grandfather this and then to his son, my father, quite strange for such an age distance. But I suppose it worked out in some shape or form.

I know in Australia a man fathered a child at 92, and apparently an Indian guy plans on fathering children in his 100s, well if that's his dream & goal, then so be it I suppose. Maybe when (if?) the life longevity is skyrocketed & anti-aging kicks in we'll be fathering people at 500 and anatomically/physically looking in our 20's, but that's a bit out their. :p;)

[Svarog]

Life is not all about fun. ;)

I was not talking about life, I was talking about dating. :cool:

[Aemma]

Aemma reminds me often that I am 15 days her senior. :D

That looks so good written down! :P :D


But the younger person would enjoy being used. It's a win win situation.



But honestly, I don't know anybody that would "enjoy being used." :confused:

[Svarog]

But honestly, I don't know anybody that would "enjoy being used." :confused:

Define Used :p

I have no problem with being used by a female in the previously described way, might even enjoy it, who knows.. might fall asleep? :/

[SwordoftheVistula]

I've dated girls almost 30 in the past (older than me at the time), but now tend to go for early 20s or lower.

Once you get beyond that age, it's like shopping for Christmas decorations in January: a chance to find a bargain, but the selection is very picked over.

[Atlas]

I have been with (very) older girls too. In fact, when you reach 25, most girls are in a relationship if not married with kids so what do you expect ? Just go for the younger ones.

[Druantia]

Probably something to do with desperately trying to regain lost youth by using a young person with whom the older one could never have any true intellectual rapport, nor any other type of rapport other than sexual for that matter.

thats harsh:p, im 23, my fella is 40 and we cherrish each others company and conversion. I know that i am not his intellectual equal but i also know that i am far from dim, i also like the fact that he's smarter then me as it's comforting knowing that im with some one who will not do or say stupid things like most young man are so prone to doing.:thumb001:


But the younger person would enjoy being used. It's a win win situation.

I have no intentions of being used and neither does he:(


But what about guys who are young outside , but very mature inside?

Never meet one:D


Maybe this is a double standard but I find it a lot more unappealing if a 28 year old female is dating a 21 year old male than the opposite. It might be because I see males who are younger than me, and even my age sometimes, as boyish, and that's creepy for me and huge turn off.

I've always preferred guys at least a few years older than me because I need a man, mkay.

i agree, iv been approached by some young men before and after laughing probably to much hurting their ego in the process i was weirded out by the very idea. and one of the chaps was only one year younger then me.

[lei.talk]

Probably something to do with desperately trying to regain lost youth by using a young person with whom the older one could never have any true intellectual rapport, nor any other type of rapport other than sexual for that matter.that sounds unnecessarily complex psychologically - even freudian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis#1890s)

and as most persons do not use characters from the miqra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh) as role-models
or turn to the shisha sedarim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud) for counsel,

shall we skip such "deep" psychological analysis
and proceed directly to: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)."

meaning that - perhaps - the single woman in her late thirties/early forties
who invites the two nineteen-year-old construction workers
(from across the hall) in to her apartment

simply desires several hours of sexual satisfaction
without aggravating her wrist-injury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpal_tunnel_syndrome) from the office.

consider it from my perspective:
have you seen a nude woman in her sixties? fifties? forties?
some females in their thirties are visually repellent.

in contrast, i am (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=865817#post865817) not (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=135521#post135521).

there is a simple reason that it is labeled a "sexual relationship"
and some one at their hormone-peak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia#Characteristics) is an ideal partner
because that is the only type of relationship
in which they are interested.


obviously, the covies of eternal pædomorphs
that scurry from one artificial social activity to the next
as a distraction from the pointlessness of their consumerist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism) wage-slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery)
would not be included in healthy human activities
(it is beyond their psychological capacity).
Originally Posted by Tallulah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallulah_Bankhead) http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/kiddo/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=178870#post178870)
But honestly,
I don't know anybody that would "enjoy being used". :confused:

Svarog http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/kiddo/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=178931#post178931)
Define Used :p
I have no problem with being used by a female...perhaps,
the two of you are referring to this type of interaction (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=726818#post726818)?

[Aemma]

that sounds unnecessarily complex psychologically - even freudian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis#1890s)

and as most persons do not use characters from the miqra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh) as role-models
or turn to the shisha sedarim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud) for counsel,

shall we skip such "deep" psychological analysis
and proceed directly to: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)."

meaning that - perhaps - the single woman in her late thirties/early forties
who invites the two nineteen-year-old construction workers
(from across the hall) in to her apartment

simply desires several hours of sexual satisfaction
without aggravating her wrist-injury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpal_tunnel_syndrome) from the office.

consider it from my perspective:
have you seen a nude woman in her sixties? fifties? forties?
some females in their thirties are visually repellent.

in contrast, i am (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=865817#post865817) not (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=135521#post135521).

there is a simple reason that it is labeled a "sexual relationship"
and some one at their hormone-peak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia#Characteristics) is an ideal partner
because that is the only type of relationship
in which they are interested.


obviously, the covies of eternal pædomorphs
that scurry from one artificial social activity to the next
as a distraction from the pointlessness of their consumerist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism) wage-slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery)
would not be included in healthy human activities
(it is beyond their psychological capacity).perhaps,
the two of you are referring to this type of interaction (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=726818#post726818)?

;) No of course I didn't mean it that way dear lei.talk :D Who doesn't like to be used in such a way? ;) :D I meant "used" more in the sense a woman would use such a term. As much as the whole sexual liberation thing did wonders for us women, many of us are still attached to notions of sex and feelings/emotions being inextricably bound.

By the way, that sounds like it was some Christmas present you got there. Were that good of a boy were ya now? ;) :D

[Moonbird]

The "creepy factor" is: your age/2 +7

So, I'm 28, that means 28/2 +7 = 14 + 7 = 21

So the minimum age I can date before it becomes creepy is 21.

Well, I'm 26 so this rule would mean I could date someone as young as 20. That's sounds really too young for me.:eek:

But I know plenty of guys in my age who are dating 20 year old girls.

[Tom Cat]

My dad was 37, and my mom was 17 when they got married.

Personally, I don't see anything morally wrong with this arrangement. However, after sharing their lives for 41 years, he passed away at 78, leaving her alone at 58. She never married again, and passed away at 85.

My wife is 13 months older than I am. I sometimes kid her about being her toy boy. :D

[Magister Eckhart]

It depends on the ages in question. A 10-year age different at age 18 is already pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable, while a woman aged 40 or older and a man aged 60 is really less unreasonable, especially if one or the other is on their second marriage. It depends on exactly how much of the attraction can be purely ascribable to lust.

In regards to dating, I would put the cap at a 7 year age difference from woman to man if the woman is 18 or older. Marriage of women of 15 or older to men 15-20 years their senior is acceptable, but only in cases of matrimony.

In all cases, lack of assent on the part of the woman's father makes the relationship unacceptable. A woman's first loyalty is to her blood, and forsaking such makes her an unworthy example of her kind.

Likewise, a man must pursue relationships with his name and the honour of his family in mind. Seeking after a woman for any purpose other than eventual matrimony is an affront to any sense of family honour and disgusting in itself.

As regards women too young to be involved with men at all, I should think it depends on her older sisters. If she is the eldest woman of the family, she should be socialised with men no earlier than 15 years of age. If her elder sister has been socialised, it seems to me that perhaps 13 to 14 is acceptable, but by no means desirable, as it is rare at those ages for any form of domestic or social training has been complete.

[_______]

some ppl i have dated have pretended to be older or younger :/

[Efim45]

just saw the equation, i am stupid.

[The Journeyman]

I think older women only prefer one-night stands with younger guys. In a relationship they want a mature man to "sweep them off their feet" and take them places, be successful and financially stable.

[Agrippa]

For a man an older woman must have serious advantages (material, social, attractiveness etc.) which balance out for her age, especially once she is beyond 35.

Because from a biological point of view, which is decisive for many behaviours humans have, it can make a lot of sense for a young woman to marry an older man, but the opposite only in rather extreme cases, because the older the woman, the less likely is a successful impregnation.

The male sperm quality and libido might also decrease somewhat, but that is of secondary importance, as he can still have a son or daughter as high standing as he could have produced with 20, only probabilities decrease slightly. But he can additionally offer a more calm and stable personality in comparison to younger men, which is now willing to invest in family and children, material wealth and social status probably, as well as general experience and a "wiser" attitude.

Therefore that older males take younger women is normal, the opposite is not a problem, but not "as normal" and usually the "arguments" must be pretty good, unless there is something wrong with the guy, like with "fat lovers".

A woman beyond a certain age can rather provide the material wealth for her lover - so that he can take younger mistresses again. Otherwise it makes little sense, whereas the old and proven male, which showed his merits in life already, can give on his proven good traits genetically.

Because a young man is a promise, an old man fulfilled it (or not).

Actually human females go mostly for cues which are about "promising social, material, survival success and a stable partner", it is about evaluating the traits they can observe and project what they get from that into the future.

Whereas a male sees primarily what is there and once the female is sexually mature and fertile, little can get better, but many things worse, with the crucial breaking point somewhere between 35-45, because after that the fertility and attractiveness of most females decreases rapidly.

So the perspective is a completely different and it is easy to understand while males go more for "the visual" and "moment", while women often consider many things going beyond that, since they have to, for their reproductive success and not failing once they might get pregnant...

As for the age difference, people should decide by themselves, once the potential partner hits sexual maturity (girls between 14-17, males have a longer general maturation, but are sexually capable around the same age and there is less to lose for them).

Usually I would consider about 16 a good age limit.

The age difference then is an issue between the potential partners, and probably the relatives too to a certain degree. If the parties agree, it doesn't matter how big it is.

Same for women and men. Because even if I would think that an 18 year old young man marrying a 60 year old woman is not right in the head or very greedy if she is rich, I wouldn't want to intefere in their personal decisions - unless I'm the father of course, because the decision of the 18 year old would be against his and my biological interests, especially if he plans to be faithful even...

But that are individual cases then, otherwise I think there is no good rule for that, only ideal situations, so advices and guides. Usually males are finally mature between 21-25, females between 16-19, so I would consider this ideal for young couples - but they should mate like they want if it is about age, because a good partner is hard enough to find and age is surely of secondary importance...

Later in life, the male should look for at least about the same age or younger, but to make up limits is uninteresting, since it becomes, with growing age, more and more individual, though obviously it is in every males biological interest, regardless of his own age, to get a fertile woman.

Women must consider that they have a "high phase" for their partner value in the sexual selection, which decreases from about 21-25 on. If they don't use that time of their's good, for finding a good partner and beginning to found a family, they will always have to suffer from that false decisions in their best age (16-30).

A man can balance things out if being socially successful or staying attractive and charming, for a woman this is much harder to achieve, even if being higher level.

Therefore the time in question must be used appropriately and since most woman don't want to grow old alone, they should also care for a partner which might stay with them with family and children, even at older age.

Because finding a sexual partner in the "high phase" is an easy task for every average or above average women, but finding the partner for founding a family and raising children is a different matter. And the arrogance of many younger women can quickly vanish once they themselves hit the "turning point"...

[Magister Eckhart]

Having given it some thought, it may be eugenically beneficial if men began considering younger mates in general. With Downs' Syndrome rates on the rise and general birthrates in decline, we have to consider that from an evolutionary point of view we're in trouble. We were really better off biologically speaking before there was such a thing as "dating" and when men and women simply got married and had children. To be entirely honest, I'd not be against bringing back arranged marriages as a social institution.

[Boudica]

If they are 18 or under, no more then 2 years. It is a bit creepy when you see an older man and his thought to be daughter, when it turns out that they are boyfriend and girlfriend.... I think that a 7-8 year difference is good for people under 40, but after 40 I think that all of the people have matured enough in a way that the age doesn't matter at all. (unless it's a 40 year old with an 80 year old of course, lol.)

[Agrippa]

Having given it some thought, it may be eugenically beneficial if men began considering younger mates in general. With Downs' Syndrome rates on the rise and general birthrates in decline, we have to consider that from an evolutionary point of view we're in trouble. We were really better off biologically speaking before there was such a thing as "dating" and when men and women simply got married and had children. To be entirely honest, I'd not be against bringing back arranged marriages as a social institution.

I too think that could be a good idea, but not as a must and for sure with the potential spouses having something to say about the decision.

I'm against forced marriages, to make that clear, but it would have been ideal to make a fixed date like saying: It is our custom that a woman marries before 23 and if you don't find an appropriate partner yourself in meantime, our family and social group can search for potential partners to choose from...

That would be ideal I guess, if having the potential to alter society like one wants, because individual freedom and decisions should be guaranteed, but things should be guided to what is good for both the longer term individual and group interests, rather than being crippled by individual shortcomings and negative societal influences and tendencies.


If they are 18 or under, no more then 2 years. It is a bit creepy when you see an older man and his thought to be daughter, when it turns out that they are boyfriend and girlfriend.... I think that a 7-8 year difference is good for people under 40, but after 40 I think that all of the people have matured enough in a way that the age doesn't matter at all. (unless it's a 40 year old with an 80 year old of course, lol.)

Such a rule would make it hard to impossible for older, probably successful and proven males, to still found a family and raise children later in life.

This is therefore detrimental for both the group and the males.

40 is the crucial limit for females, when they are no longer as interesting, fertile and attractive, this is therefore not "matured", because mature they are long before that, even before 20, but "aged".

I can understand where this is coming from, especially from the female perspective, but if such relations with a younger woman are based on the free decision of the woman, I see no problem whatsoever, whether some think that's creepy or not.

I think it is creepy if a fat woman has a thin man too - probably even if one has a strange nose or looking stupid, who cares?

Based on what I think is creepy or "not ideal", also from an Eugenic point of view, many marriages would have to be forbidden.

Age is just one factor and like explained in males surely not the most decisive one.

So it is better to make some general guides, but otherwise leave it to the individuals and their families in question, rather than making irrational rules which do more harm than good and only prevent people WHICH WANT TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP, with no OBJECTIVE ARGUMENTS AGAINST to have such, rather than making "a better world..."

[Magister Eckhart]

I too think that could be a good idea, but not as a must and for sure with the potential spouses having something to say about the decision.

I'm against forced marriages, to make that clear, but it would have been ideal to make a fixed date like saying: It is our custom that a woman marries before 23 and if you don't find an appropriate partner yourself in meantime, our family and social group can search for potential partners to choose from...

That would be ideal I guess, if having the potential to alter society like one wants, because individual freedom and decisions should be guaranteed, but things should be guided to what is good for both the longer term individual and group interests, rather than being crippled by individual shortcomings and negative societal influences and tendencies.


I do not share your concern with individual freedoms, but I think we can compromise on the point by saying "responsibility" comes before "rights".

[Peyrol]

How great of an age difference within relationships (sexual) is to much of a difference? Is it okay for an eighteen-year-old to get together with a forty-year-old?

Also, how young is too young in general? Is a fourteen-year-old mature enough for a healthy relationship? As an example.

I'm 21 years old...my range is from 16 to 40, simply :)

[Barreldriver]

How great of an age difference within relationships (sexual) is to much of a difference? Is it okay for an eighteen-year-old to get together with a forty-year-old?
.

Well, I'm 21 and have been seein' a 40 year old for about 2 months now. :p I don't see it as a big deal. I say to each their own.

[Breedingvariety]

Well, I'm 21 and have been seein' a 40 year old for about 2 months now. :p I don't see it as a big deal. I say to each their own.
Are you thinking of long term relationship?

[Barreldriver]

Are you thinking of long term relationship?

At this moment not really, I ain't never been too big on long term commitment.

[SaxonCeorl]

I've always found age differences in relationships interesting. One of my best female friends is 25 and her boyfriend is 37. My problem is that I'm 25 and I'd feel like a creep if I dated even a 19 or 20 year old woman. I would like to find a way to overcome this perception, because I agree with the social/biological arguments made by Agrippa and Magister. Let's face it, there's nothing that compares to the beauty of an 18-24 year old woman. I'd like to get married around 30-34 to a woman in the 22-25 range; I just hope I won't feel like I'm taking advantage of her.

[Bridie]

For a man an older woman must have serious advantages (material, social, attractiveness etc.) which balance out for her age, especially once she is beyond 35.

Because from a biological point of view, which is decisive for many behaviours humans have, it can make a lot of sense for a young woman to marry an older man, but the opposite only in rather extreme cases, because the older the woman, the less likely is a successful impregnation.

The male sperm quality and libido might also decrease somewhat, but that is of secondary importance, as he can still have a son or daughter as high standing as he could have produced with 20, only probabilities decrease slightly. But he can additionally offer a more calm and stable personality in comparison to younger men, which is now willing to invest in family and children, material wealth and social status probably, as well as general experience and a "wiser" attitude.

Therefore that older males take younger women is normal, the opposite is not a problem, but not "as normal" and usually the "arguments" must be pretty good, unless there is something wrong with the guy, like with "fat lovers".

A woman beyond a certain age can rather provide the material wealth for her lover - so that he can take younger mistresses again. Otherwise it makes little sense, whereas the old and proven male, which showed his merits in life already, can give on his proven good traits genetically.

Because a young man is a promise, an old man fulfilled it (or not).

Actually human females go mostly for cues which are about "promising social, material, survival success and a stable partner", it is about evaluating the traits they can observe and project what they get from that into the future.

Whereas a male sees primarily what is there and once the female is sexually mature and fertile, little can get better, but many things worse, with the crucial breaking point somewhere between 35-45, because after that the fertility and attractiveness of most females decreases rapidly.

So the perspective is a completely different and it is easy to understand while males go more for "the visual" and "moment", while women often consider many things going beyond that, since they have to, for their reproductive success and not failing once they might get pregnant...

As for the age difference, people should decide by themselves, once the potential partner hits sexual maturity (girls between 14-17, males have a longer general maturation, but are sexually capable around the same age and there is less to lose for them).

Usually I would consider about 16 a good age limit.

The age difference then is an issue between the potential partners, and probably the relatives too to a certain degree. If the parties agree, it doesn't matter how big it is.

Same for women and men. Because even if I would think that an 18 year old young man marrying a 60 year old woman is not right in the head or very greedy if she is rich, I wouldn't want to intefere in their personal decisions - unless I'm the father of course, because the decision of the 18 year old would be against his and my biological interests, especially if he plans to be faithful even...

But that are individual cases then, otherwise I think there is no good rule for that, only ideal situations, so advices and guides. Usually males are finally mature between 21-25, females between 16-19, so I would consider this ideal for young couples - but they should mate like they want if it is about age, because a good partner is hard enough to find and age is surely of secondary importance...

Later in life, the male should look for at least about the same age or younger, but to make up limits is uninteresting, since it becomes, with growing age, more and more individual, though obviously it is in every males biological interest, regardless of his own age, to get a fertile woman.

Women must consider that they have a "high phase" for their partner value in the sexual selection, which decreases from about 21-25 on. If they don't use that time of their's good, for finding a good partner and beginning to found a family, they will always have to suffer from that false decisions in their best age (16-30).

A man can balance things out if being socially successful or staying attractive and charming, for a woman this is much harder to achieve, even if being higher level.

Therefore the time in question must be used appropriately and since most woman don't want to grow old alone, they should also care for a partner which might stay with them with family and children, even at older age.

Because finding a sexual partner in the "high phase" is an easy task for every average or above average women, but finding the partner for founding a family and raising children is a different matter. And the arrogance of many younger women can quickly vanish once they themselves hit the "turning point"...I feel sorry for you Agrippa. You know only about biology and what's biologically viable and nothing of love or the complex human condition, emotions and thought processes that form the basis of inter-personal relationships and families. Your words are childishly simplistic and cold. This is the stuff the Nazis were made of.

[la bombe]

I don't care what other people do. If someone is at least 16 and fully mentally capable, it's their choice. One of my friends is dating a man who is about 40 years older than her, and has been since she was 19. I find it odd, and would never do that, but it works for them.

I've been with men who are significantly older than me, and I will never do it again. There are just too many issues and weird things to deal with.

[Bloodeagle]

It took me a while to mature into an adult, so my first marriage, to a woman my own age, was a failure. However, when I was approaching 30, I did settle down with my current wife, who is 7 years my junior and this age difference, seems to have benefited the both of us. :)

[Efim45]

If I make it to 100, my wife can be 57 years old! Hot dog!
If I dated a girl when I was 1, she could've been 6 and a half years old!

[Curtis24]

The reality is that it depends on status rather than age. Most people wouldn't find it creepy at all if a billionaire 50-year old man dated a 20 year old girl. But if the 50-year old man was say a bricklayer, the situation changes quite a bit...

And yeah, I don't find age differentials in dating strange or inappropriate. Like it or not, many young women naturally find older, high-status men attractive. To try to pretend otherwise is just social engineering..

[Wyn]

Most people wouldn't find it creepy at all if a billionaire 50-year old man dated a 20 year old girl.

I think they probably would, because of the obvious money-grabber-meets-cradle-snatcher connotations.


But if the 50-year old man was say a bricklayer, the situation changes quite a bit...

Only insomuch as there wouldn't be any 'gold-digger' accusations.

[Curtis24]

Maybe so, but for "50-year old rich man" let's substitute "George Clooney". Would you think its creepy for George Clooney to date a 20-year old girl? Would most people? Probably not...

Anyway, I of course think people should do what they want.

[Curtis24]

I feel sorry for you Agrippa. You know only about biology and what's biologically viable and nothing of love or the complex human condition, emotions and thought processes that form the basis of inter-personal relationships and families. Your words are childishly simplistic and cold. This is the stuff the Nazis were made of.

nvm - I really don't enjoy these types of arguments anymore.

[Wyn]

Maybe so, but for "50-year old rich man" let's substitute "George Clooney". Would you think its creepy for George Clooney to date a 20-year old girl? Would most people? Probably not...

I would, yes, and I'd predict that most people I know would, too. :shrug:

[Magister Eckhart]

I feel sorry for you Agrippa. You know only about biology and what's biologically viable and nothing of love or the complex human condition, emotions and thought processes that form the basis of inter-personal relationships and families. Your words are childishly simplistic and cold. This is the stuff the Nazis were made of.

You say this, and then you call him a Nazi? :rolleyes:

At any rate, this whole "marry for love" nonsense is a little over a hundred years old... which is about when our birthrates started to decline. So stand by this simple-minded embrace of human emotion-- in which case, why even bother with marriage in the first place? "The complex human condition, emotions, and through processes that form the basis of inter-personal relationships" should not be so confined!

The other option, that which Agrippa endorses, as would anyone who has looked at the statistical projection for survival of our culture and our people, is to uphold a society that preserves culture and tradition. There is no evidence whatever that, for example, arranged marriages are any more loveless than the marriages for "love" that seem so common these days. If they were, why have divorce rates risen rather than declined? Your hippy approach to relationships hasn't exactly proven to be for the benefit of our kind here - quite the contrary.

Leave the foolish sentimentalism to the artists and get society's two feet back on the ground again.

[Agrippa]

I feel sorry for you Agrippa. You know only about biology and what's biologically viable and nothing of love or the complex human condition, emotions and thought processes that form the basis of inter-personal relationships and families. Your words are childishly simplistic and cold. This is the stuff the Nazis were made of.

Your "false arguments" remind me of people which tell others that "life is not just sleeping and eating".

Of course it isn't, but try to stop both, sleeping and eating for one week and after a prolonged time you can be glad to live if others intervene, because you don't make it much longer.

Same here, people try to ignore some basic truths and principles, as if facing reality would be in itself something bad, rather than something WE HAVE TO WORK with or WILL FAIL inevitably and big otherwise. What's bad about "breeding" for example?

It is just in the heads of those which were indoctrinated by harmful memes or are too weak to face reality, because in the end, if our ancestors wouldn't have "bred", we wouldn't be here and life, as we know it, wouldn't exist without the biological principles at work.

What do some people think of themselves, that they consider these rules and facts unimportant, something they can just ignore or play down in their life?

Do you really think what I am or think is all biologistic and nothing else?
Of course other considerations come to my mind, but these very important BASICS for biological and cultural success being highly underrated, rarely mentioned and many people, even if they know them, try to "sugarcoat" it for weak minds, which can't stand the facts and reality.

But that's the big problem, because if our social and cultural rules work against the biological principles and do so, which is the worst, even without considering them to begin with, only more harm can be done and will be done, to those following this false social and cultural rules without being enlightened, as well as future generations and finally the culture and species as a whole.

Also, on which else should be base such rules than what's meaningful for the people, the individuals and group as a whole, which has to mean that we consider the biological factor, which is the most important single factor in this respect?

Probably just personal taste and preferences? I don't hope so...


Maybe so, but for "50-year old rich man" let's substitute "George Clooney". Would you think its creepy for George Clooney to date a 20-year old girl? Would most people? Probably not...

Anyway, I of course think people should do what they want.

Well, the greatest problem with Clooney is that he is a leftist and doesn't want (or even can't get) children on his own. So every girl he "occupies" will "just lose years" in a way.

Otherwise he is obviously above average biologically and has better qualities in most respects than most 20 year old, so obviously, it would be good for men like him to have many children, regardless of how old they are. And if there is a good relationship with a 20 year old woman, fine...

[Curtis24]

I would, yes, and I'd predict that most people I know would, too. :shrug:

Fair enough, but doesn't he already date 20-year old women :P

[Wyn]

Fair enough, but doesn't he already date 20-year old women :P

I have no idea, but it's 'creepy' if he does. ;)

[Black Sun Dimension]

I dont mind dating girls 2 years younger than me.

[Troll's Puzzle]

Your "false arguments" remind me of people which tell others that "life is not just sleeping and eating".

people who say that obviously haven't seen my life :laugh:

[Bridie]

At any rate, this whole "marry for love" nonsense is a little over a hundred years old...
Not true at all. Ever read Jane Austin? And even further back feelings of love were always a factor in marriage. Nevertheless, I didn't say it was all about love. Obviously the "complex human condition" involves more than just that.


which is about when our birthrates started to decline.Untrue. They didn't significantly start to decline and become a problem until the 1960's in most countries. In others (such as Ireland and Spain), not until even later than that. It has more to do with chemical contraceptives being widely available and educational and personal freedom opportunities for women increasing.



So stand by this simple-minded embrace of human emotion-- in which case, why even bother with marriage in the first place? "The complex human condition, emotions, and through processes that form the basis of inter-personal relationships" should not be so confined! Many people who don't even want children (and thank goodness that some don't because not all people are suitable to become parents) or can't have children still desire to find a life companion and lover to share their life with. Many times they will want to marry to solidify that union and create some security. Marriage isn't always about producing babies.



The other option, that which Agrippa endorses, as would anyone who has looked at the statistical projection for survival of our culture and our people, is to uphold a society that preserves culture and tradition.
There's not much good in preserving a culture and tradition that has no humanity. It can't all be about cold, hard science or the worth, inspiration and relevance just disappears.



There is no evidence whatever that, for example, arranged marriages are any more loveless than the marriages for "love" that seem so common these days.
Go to England and enquire about all of the Pakis (from arranged marriages) using cheap b&b's and motels for a couple of hours to screw their bits on the side and I think you'll see some very concrete evidence. Add to that the incredibly high rate of domestic violence and even relatively higher rates of spousal murder among such populations.



If they were, why have divorce rates risen rather than declined?Because it became legalised.



Your hippy approach to relationships hasn't exactly proven to be for the benefit of our kind here - quite the contrary.Nothing hippyish about it. I just have life experience, that's all. You (and Agrippa) are obviously very niave. Get back to me in some years time when you actually have some experience of real life and relationships.



Leave the foolish sentimentalism to the artists and get society's two feet back on the ground again.What would life be without art?




Your "false arguments" remind me of people which tell others that "life is not just sleeping and eating".

Of course it isn't, but try to stop both, sleeping and eating for one week and after a prolonged time you can be glad to live if others intervene, because you don't make it much longer.

I've always been a vocal advocate of increasing birth rates among certain demographics... but idealising immature females (teens) as mothers (or baby factories), and especially those immature females marrying men who are miles away from them in terms of personal, intellectual and emotional development just because they think that they will still have the ability to create a pregnancy and provide financial support is not the way to go. (By the way, it has been scientifically proven that as men age, the viability of their sperm does decrease... and quite dramatically after the age of about 40. I've posted such articles before.) There's not much use in just supporting baby making for the sake of baby making. It has to be about creating healthy, happy, bonded families.



Same here, people try to ignore some basic truths and principles, as if facing reality would be in itself something bad, rather than something WE HAVE TO WORK with or WILL FAIL inevitably and big otherwise. What's bad about "breeding" for example?

As I said, "breeding" should not be the issue. It should be about creating functional families.



It is just in the heads of those which were indoctrinated by harmful memes or are too weak to face reality, because in the end, if our ancestors wouldn't have "bred", we wouldn't be here and life, as we know it, wouldn't exist without the biological principles at work.

The danger in just speaking of "breeding" and ignoring human psychological issues is the creation of dysfuntional children. Your words speak to me as if to say that motherhood is all about getting pregnant and giving birth and fatherhood is all about the ability to imprenate a woman. There's much more to it than that.



Do you really think what I am or think is all biologistic and nothing else?
I've been reading your posts for years now, Agrippa, and yes, I really think you're all about cold, hard science. It's a worry, to be honest. If everybody thought like you we'd not even bother with families, we'd just have baby-making factories. And why not? Baby-making factories would be a good idea, no? There'd be lots of breeding going on and the "basic principles of life" would be fullfilled.


Agrippa, you (armchair) theorise endlessly about biological success and breeding, but it's all just hot air. If not, you'd have made your own personal contribution to "the cause" many years ago by now, and if you had, you'd no doubt have a very different opinion today. One more well-rounded and realistic.

[Curtis24]

Agrippa, you (armchair) theorise endlessly about biological success and breeding, but it's all just hot air. If not, you'd have made your own personal contribution to "the cause" many years ago by now, and if you had, you'd no doubt have a very different opinion today. One more well-rounded and realistic.

I'm sure Agrippa can defend himself, but this is unnecessarily hostile. Agrippa has made no personal attack on you, but here you are essentially calling him a loser. Furthermore, Agrippa has contributed to the cause, in that, like it or not, his presence at this website is responsible for putting it at a standard above the rest. Go to the homepage and see how many new threads created are for racial classification... Furthermore, how do you know what the impact anything he has said has had on people? Its certainly impacted me.

You seem to be reacting in a very immature, emotional manner. "Go get some real life experience and get back to me!" etc. That is insulting in the extreme, and totally uncalled for. I don't understand why are you taking Agrippa's ideas as a personal attack.


It has to be about creating healthy, happy, bonded families.




I don't see how anything Agrippa has said argues against this. For the most part, healthy, happy, bonded families aren't being created in our current society( divorce rates are skyrocketing, rampant use of prescription drugs). I also don't think that what Agrippa proposed destroys the possibility for romantic love. All he said was that people should marry young, and have their marriages solidified through community bonds and community pressure. Like our grandparents did.

As for arranged marriages based on eugenics, its really unnecessary, in that humans have an innate tendency to be attracted to those of equal biological status, so to speak. Like it or not, in any society, people form themselves into biological castes. The real question is whether they're able to actually have children, vs. partying their life away...

[Magister Eckhart]

Not true at all. Ever read Jane Austin? And even further back feelings of love were always a factor in marriage. Nevertheless, I didn't say it was all about love. Obviously the "complex human condition" involves more than just that.

Untrue. They didn't significantly start to decline and become a problem until the 1960's in most countries. In others (such as Ireland and Spain), not until even later than that. It has more to do with chemical contraceptives being widely available and educational and personal freedom opportunities for women increasing.

A hundred years, two hundred years; we're going to squabble over a petty century? A century is a blink of an eye.

If you want to trace the problem to Jane Austin, the general conclusion remains the same: liberalisation of society and the increase in individual autonomy and triumph of idiot sentimentalism, mostly at the hands of women.


Many people who don't even want children (and thank goodness that some don't because not all people are suitable to become parents) or can't have children still desire to find a life companion and lover to share their life with. Many times they will want to marry to solidify that union and create some security. Marriage isn't always about producing babies.

No, often times it's more political than that, depending on one's social position and personal investment in the union. Mostly, though, it's about continuing the family line.


There's not much good in preserving a culture and tradition that has no humanity. It can't all be about cold, hard science or the worth, inspiration and relevance just disappears.

More of this post-enlightenment "humanity" nonsense.

"'Die Menschheit' ist ein zoologischer Begriff oder ein leeres Wort."

Culture and tradition are the only things that elevate us above the beasts - this sentimentalism and rule of emotion only achieves the opposite of cold scientism, except that while scientism turns us into machines the idiot sentimentalists would see us all become beasts, slaves to our emotions.


Go to England and enquire about all of the Pakis (from arranged marriages) using cheap b&b's and motels for a couple of hours to screw their bits on the side and I think you'll see some very concrete evidence. Add to that the incredibly high rate of domestic violence and even relatively higher rates of spousal murder among such populations.

Yes, because this has nothing to do with Mohammedanism or their non-European culture...:rolleyes:


Because it became legalised.

In the seventeenth century.


Nothing hippyish about it. I just have life experience, that's all. You (and Agrippa) are obviously very niave. Get back to me in some years time when you actually have some experience of real life and relationships.

I love it when simpletons lecture me on "life experience".

"Those who speak often of experience are often lacking in ability."

Both my wife-to-be and myself have much to offer against your petit bourgeois claims of "life experience" defending this silly sentimentalism. Granted, I can imagine her being more given to such sentimentalism, but that is what one expects from women - which is why it is the masculine element that shapes successful societies.


What would life be without art?

Lacking sentiment and feeling. I never made any assertion that we should get rid of art - only that to turn the entire society over to the sentimentalists and artists turns it into a miasma of sentimentalists and hedonists. The vulgar mob glorifies artists and leaves art to decay as a result. It is as Hoffmansthal observed - the artist does best when he remains in his temple.

[alexandra]

i often think men that are 30+ dating women in their early 20's (or younger) do so because they can't find a woman their own age gullible enough to date them because they can see through their bullshit. people in their early 20's are still naive.

[Curtis24]

i often think men that are 30+ dating women in their early 20's (or younger) do so because they can't find a woman their own age gullible enough to date them because they can see through their bullshit. people in their early 20's are still naive.


I think they do so because they want to have sex with young women :p

[Bridie]

I'm sure Agrippa can defend himself, but this is unnecessarily hostile. Agrippa has made no personal attack on you, but here you are essentially calling him a loser.
Not a loser, but a hypocrite.



If you want to trace the problem to Jane Austin, the general conclusion remains the same: liberalisation of society and the increase in individual autonomy and triumph of idiot sentimentalism, mostly at the hands of women.

Who said anything about tracing problems back to her? I was using her works as evidence that further back than a century romantic love in relation to marriage was a huge issue. A common theme of literature from 18th and 19th century England was 'marry for love or money'?



In the seventeenth century.
Well I have no idea about the US. It varies between countries... but ok, it's more complex than just when it was first legalised. For example, in the UK it was legalised in 1857, but restricted to the innocent party in a marriage where adultery could be proven. It wasn't until 1969 that divorce as we know it today (freely available) was allowed. I'd imagine divorces were similarly restricted in the US at that time also. And then in other countries, such as Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal divorce was only legalised within the last 30 years.

[la bombe]

i often think men that are 30+ dating women in their early 20's (or younger) do so because they can't find a woman their own age gullible enough to date them because they can see through their bullshit. people in their early 20's are still naive.

Very true, I've found that if a man is still single (or has never been married) by that point, it's for a reason.

[Bridie]

I think they do so because they want to have sex with young women :pThey could go to prostitutes for that. I'd say it has more to do with them trying to recapture their lost youth. (By taking away some else's.)

[Curtis24]

Actually, i always thought that Jane Austen supported the strict, monogamous system she portrays in Pride and Prejudice. Because of it, Lizzy is prevented from sleeping with Mr. Willoughby, and eventually is given the time to see the true worth of Mr. Darcy. The point is that the system, while strict, reins in emotions and prevents men and women from hurting themselves...

[Curtis24]

They could go to prostitutes for that. I'd say it has more to do with them trying to recapture their lost youth. (By taking away some else's.)

Come on now, you guys really think that the reason men try to seduce young girls is because the older women are too hard to get? :P

[Wyn]

A hundred years, two hundred years; we're going to squabble over a petty century? A century is a blink of an eye.

Yes, and Georgian-era Anglophonic literature isn't really going to be the best barometre for this sort of thing. A few years back, or perhaps more recently than that, I recall that anthropologists estimated that less than 10% of marriages worldwide are 'love-based,' so to speak.

But that love between the male and female within the marriage has always been encouraged, can't really be denied (I'm thinking of the Biblical commandment that husbands love their wives). I suppose it's traditionally expected/assumed that love come later, post-ceremony.

Quite clearly, there's a reason that pre-marital romantic love is often a feature of fairytales, legends etc. ;)

[Bridie]

Come on now, you guys really think that the reason men try to seduce young girls is because the older women are too hard to get? :PNo, I think it's because those guys are trying to recapture their spent youth, as I said.

As for older women being harder to get for older guys, well they probably are... for older guys. The only ones that are still single by that age have probably been used to being promiscuous for most of their lives (so are probably quite superficial) and would reject an older guy because they still want a younger guy to screw. Plus older women are most likely more demanding and therefore intimidating, whereas younger women are generally more easily dominated and manipulated.

[Dario Argento]

For me it's either 3 years younger or older. a 6 years old span. Not more than that. You'll never see me screwing 17 years old girls or 40 years olds either.

[la bombe]

I think it's so much nicer to be with someone within your own age range. You tend to have more in common because you're at the same point in your lives.

Some of the older guys I've been with have been rather demanding and condescending about my supposed 'immaturity' (even though they were quite immature themselves) and my choices in life, whereas guys around my own age tend to be more understanding of what I'm going through.

[Curtis24]

No, I think it's because those guys are trying to recapture their spent youth, as I said.

Men are have an inborn strong sexual attraction to youth in women. This is not to say that men don't want longterm relationships with older women, or that older women can't be sexy(they can), but the reality is that older men go after younger women for the sheer physical pleasure that comes from sex with the young, not because of a psychological neurosis.


As for older women being harder to get for older guys, well they probably are... for older guys. The only ones that are still single by that age have probably been used to being promiscuous for most of their lives (so are probably quite superficial) and would reject an older guy because they still want a younger guy to screw. Plus older women are most likely more demanding and therefore intimidating, whereas younger women are generally more easily dominated and manipulated.

Younger women are harder to get a relationship with, because they have more options and there's more intense competition(young, attractive men). Generally, from what I have seen, if an older man is with a younger women, its because he's more successful, not less, than the average man. Why else would the young girl be with him? If young women were so easy for a 30-year old man to manipulate, you'd see more such pairings. As it is, they're fairly rare. And by talking with female friends, they've told me they're instantly distrustful when hit on by an older man.

I'm sure there are some men who are psychologically unbalanced and that's the reason they go after twenty-somethings, but I can't see those guys being successful in seducing them at all, seeing as they're crazy.

[Bridie]

I think it's so much nicer to be with someone within your own age range. You tend to have more in common because you're at the same point in your lives.

Some of the older guys I've been with have been rather demanding and condescending about my supposed 'immaturity' (even though they were quite immature themselves) and my choices in life, whereas guys around my own age tend to be more understanding of what I'm going through.I think that's the crux of it. There has to be common ground and a connection based on understanding each other for a relationship to work. I've personally found age to be somewhat irrelevant, although I must admit that I've always preferred older men. My fiance is more than 10 years older than me, and it works for me not because of age, but because of the connection we have.

[Bridie]

Men are have an inborn strong sexual attraction to youth in women. This is not to say that men don't want longterm relationships with older women, or that older women can't be sexy(they can), but the reality is that older men go after younger women for the sheer physical pleasure that comes from sex with the young, not because of a psychological neurosis.



Younger women are harder to get a relationship with, because they have more options and there's more intense competition(young, attractive men). Generally, from what I have seen, if an older man is with a younger women, its because he's more successful, not less, than the average man. Why else would the young girl be with him? If young women were so easy for a 30-year old man to manipulate, you'd see more such pairings. As it is, they're fairly rare. And by talking with female friends, they've told me they're instantly distrustful when hit on by an older man.

I'm sure there are some men who are psychologically unbalanced and that's the reason they go after twenty-somethings, but I can't see those guys being successful in seducing them at all, seeing as they're crazy.I didn't say that they're psychologically imbalanced as such. Just that they're trying to be young again by engaging in a relationship with someone who's the same age that they wish they were again. It makes them feel younger to be with a younger woman and socialise with younger people. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing on his part, but unfair on the young woman, if he ends up with one. If it was 100% about sex, those guys wouldn't bother with a relationship with a younger woman, they'd just go to prostitutes or screw around.

[Curtis24]

I didn't say that they're psychologically imbalanced as such. Just that they're trying to be young again by engaging in a relationship with someone who's the same age that they wish they were again. It makes them feel younger to be with a younger woman and socialise with younger people. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing on his part, but unfair on the young woman, if he ends up with one. If it was 100% about sex, those guys wouldn't bother with a relationship with a younger woman, they'd just go to prostitutes or screw around.

Well, I think its because men enjoy feeling young with a young woman, but that this doesn't make them neurotic or somehow immature. You can enjoy being with a youthful woman without wanting to be innocent or childlike yourself, without wanting to "be that age" again. The whole physical aspect of being with a young-looking woman is also so important to many(but not all) men, as I said, and not just in a sexual manner.

I agree with you that its all to often unfair to the young woman unfortunately....

Also, almost no man actually wants to have sex with a prostitute, its something men are forced into, if they can have any other sexual partners they will do so. So if its "only about sex" they would still choose to have non-prostitute sexual partners, if they could.

As for myself, it completely depends on the woman's unique personality, and not age or life situation.

[Cato]

I work with a girl that I like. She's 19. I'm 34, so she calls me an old dude. :) And yes we've gone out. It's not serious, just a couple of friends from work meeting up and talking about mutual interests, work-related bullshit, etc. For her age she's very level-headed and stable and she plays the guitar. Nice.

She has an English surname too. :)

[Bridie]

Well, I think its because men enjoy feeling young with a young woman, but that this doesn't make them neurotic or somehow immature. You can enjoy being with a youthful woman without wanting to be innocent or childlike yourself, without wanting to "be that age" again. The whole physical aspect of being with a young-looking woman is also so important to many(but not all) men, as I said, and not just in a sexual manner.

I agree with you that its all to often unfair to the young woman unfortunately....

Also, almost no man actually wants to have sex with a prostitute, its something men are forced into, if they can have any other sexual partners they will do so. So if its "only about sex" they would still choose to have non-prostitute sexual partners, if they could.

As for myself, it completely depends on the woman's unique personality, and not age or life situation.I didn't say that wanting to recapture one's lost youth makes them bad or mentally ill or anything. There's nothing wrong with it as long as they're not hurting anyone. My concern would be for the young woman. I wouldn't want an old man using my daughter to in an attempt to feel young again, let's put it that way. I would prefer that one day my daughters marry men of a similar age (I hope they'll marry fairly young) so that there's a power balance in the relationship and they share common ground and can understand each other. I would be horrified and very hostile toward the man if either of my daughters in their late teens or early 20s came home with a man 20 years older than them. One can't help but be protective of their children.

[alexandra]

I work with a girl that I like. She's 19. I'm 34, so she calls me an old dude. :) And yes we've gone out. It's not serious, just a couple of friends from work meeting up and talking about mutual interests, work-related bullshit, etc. For her age she's very level-headed and stable and she plays the guitar. Nice.

She has an English surname too. :)

weird.

[Bloodeagle]

Come on now, you guys really think that the reason men try to seduce young girls is because the older women are too hard to get? :P

Older women are extremely easy to get! :p

[Agrippa]

Not true at all. Ever read Jane Austin? And even further back feelings of love were always a factor in marriage. Nevertheless, I didn't say it was all about love. Obviously the "complex human condition" involves more than just that.

The bourgeois type of romantic love is a fairly new thing, especially in its importance for culture and the individual life. It is like it is with childhood, which was seen very differently in the past as well and surely not like modern Americans think about it, for which it seems reasonable to rather let x adults die to save on baby nobody wanted for example.

Both of that, romantic love and the new perspectives of childhood, are not just bad, but they could develop a WEAKENING AND DESTRUCTIVE CHARACTER, if being unchecked by higher priorities.


Untrue. They didn't significantly start to decline and become a problem until the 1960's in most countries. In others (such as Ireland and Spain), not until even later than that. It has more to do with chemical contraceptives being widely available and educational and personal freedom opportunities for women increasing.

In fact the birth rates were in decline for quite some time in the West, because after the Medieval-Feudal society broke up, you first had an increase of birth rates, especially among the workers and poor, with less restrictions than in the Christian-Feudal society and greater general wealth, productivity.

The Demographic change/transition occured then at different times in different countries, earliest in the France.

Here the Swedish example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Demographic_change_in_Sweden_1735-2000.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

Obviously child mortality, hygiene and other factors improved the survial rate, but just consider that before that change, Europeans were EXPANSIVE, after that, they were biologically in DEFENSE ONLY and the only way to expand biologically would have been to directly eliminate others, because from the Demographic point of view, the growth rate of Europeans became slower and slower, weaker in comparison to others, which now had, with the European help and technology, much higher birth rates...


A century ago, Europe was home to 25% of the world's population. While the population of the continent has grown, it hasn't come close to the pace of Asia or Africa. As it stands now, around 12% of the world's people live on this continent, but if demographic trends keep their pace, Europe's share may fall to around 7% in 2050.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe

And thats with all the unwanted elements included, like Gypsies and the various foreign, non-integrable immigrant groups.


Many people who don't even want children (and thank goodness that some don't because not all people are suitable to become parents) or can't have children still desire to find a life companion and lover to share their life with. Many times they will want to marry to solidify that union and create some security. Marriage isn't always about producing babies.

Well, essentially it is, that's why this institution was made up by law and custom.

It is about forming a family and social unit, which has to include children, at least if you are capable too and your traits are not too bad, to say it that way.


There's not much good in preserving a culture and tradition that has no humanity. It can't all be about cold, hard science or the worth, inspiration and relevance just disappears.

You strangely assume that science and facts are detrimental to humane approaches, as if irrational and affective reactions are always more humane?

Make me laugh!

The most inhumane cultures were highly irrational and had no idea whatsoever of science. Guess what, that was big reason for their cultural degeneration, because they had no CHECK to control for irrational rules and approaches.

Why shouldn't we have humane considerations, while following rationality? If there would be a critical conflict, the longer term collective interests and ratio must come first, but as a rule of thumb, inside of the group, most of the time one can be more lenient and simply more humane, than our current Liberalcapitalist society is in many respects.

One of the reasons for that would be, that we would have a more effective and efficient group, with people in tune with what are the priorities and beyond that, the group would work for the happiness of its members, rather than the profits and powers, the corruption and manipulation of a few or irrational motives, which just cost ressources - and form limits by superstition.


Go to England and enquire about all of the Pakis (from arranged marriages) using cheap b&b's and motels for a couple of hours to screw their bits on the side and I think you'll see some very concrete evidence. Add to that the incredibly high rate of domestic violence and even relatively higher rates of spousal murder among such populations.

There are many reasons for that and "funnily" such incidences occur sometimes more often in the urban areas, like in the traditional villages. You know why? Because there is, even among them, no longer a concordance between the pretension and reality. The Western influenced urban way of life is not easily compatible with what they think of as traditional, which is the only traditional they have left quite often.

Also, there are a lot of forced marriages and completely different approaches than what one would need or want, from my perspective, in Europe, so it is not really comparable.


Nothing hippyish about it. I just have life experience, that's all. You (and Agrippa) are obviously very niave. Get back to me in some years time when you actually have some experience of real life and relationships.

I have, actually if you have more "real life experience" and don't let yourself be blindfolded, you can just agree with what I said if you want to have a functional society.


I've always been a vocal advocate of increasing birth rates among certain demographics... but idealising immature females (teens) as mothers (or baby factories), and especially those immature females marrying men who are miles away from them in terms of personal, intellectual and emotional development just because they think that they will still have the ability to create a pregnancy and provide financial support is not the way to go. (By the way, it has been scientifically proven that as men age, the viability of their sperm does decrease... and quite dramatically after the age of about 40. I've posted such articles before.) There's not much use in just supporting baby making for the sake of baby making. It has to be about creating healthy, happy, bonded families.

Well, I too said that the libido and sperm quality decreases over the years, but not all men are the same and some have even in this respect better results than many young ones.

Additionally, who cares about sperm motility if there are millions and millions of them, carrying even in men beyond 40 in their vast majority the genes of the father, nothing else. These genes of the father are therefore our primary concern, and not the age of the man.

Because a young idiot with fast sperms? Who cares!

You really think you can make up a rule for that, after which old men CAN NOT found a healthy, happy, bonded family?

I would say to you then, "better get a life..."


As I said, "breeding" should not be the issue. It should be about creating functional families.

You even said marriage is not about "breeding", well, that is your opinion, and it is false.

Because in the end, over many generations, the results matter more than anything else and what can you say about what happened, biologically, in the last hundreds of years in Europe? Nothing good to begin with.

That way, you foster degeneration and nothing else.

Functional families being created the way I described and not by some sort of false ideals of a Consumer society and Romantic love in the "Hollywoodesque manner". Seriously, women these days are much too demanding, because society puts them in charge in the relationship and that's exactly why it doesn't work any longer. Males are more corrupted in various ways too, but still, that doesn't mean you can spare women from a change, surely not.

Actually all this biologistic debates are not for women ears primarily, because I know from experiences and "real life experiences" too, that females are sometimes close to INCAPABLE of dealing with the facts in a rational way, because they want to have it emotionally cosy and being distracted from reality at the one hand, by nature, and being strengthened in their attitude, unfortunately, by the current anti-biologistic society.

If you talk about simple facts in that matters, males are just WAY MORE likely to accept it and deal with it than females, which feel sometimes even THREATENED by such notions.

I know that very well, but fact is, people have to be enlightened and especially THE LEADERSHIP and ALL POLITICAL ACTIVISTS should know the truth and adapt their views and actions accordingly, because otherwise, it will just, like so often in mankind's history fail.

And now there is no reason to, because WE KNOW ENOUGH and our knowledge is GROWING, so that we can check various problems which our ancestors couldn't and that's the way to really improve the individuals, our groups, culture, race and species as a whole.

Everything else is just irrational nonsense which will lead us into ruining the great potential this great species has.


The danger in just speaking of "breeding" and ignoring human psychological issues is the creation of dysfuntional children.

Where did I ignore it? Do you think because I don't mention the obvious in everyone of my posts I personally completely ignore it? Rather not.


Your words speak to me as if to say that motherhood is all about getting pregnant and giving birth and fatherhood is all about the ability to imprenate a woman. There's much more to it than that.

Sure, but that's the most important part and if that doesn't work, like sleeping, eating and digesting in your life, you die and everything else is meaningless - so you might consider many other things, but THAT ARE THE REAL PRIORITIES, the CORE.


I've been reading your posts for years now, Agrippa, and yes, I really think you're all about cold, hard science. It's a worry, to be honest. If everybody thought like you we'd not even bother with families, we'd just have baby-making factories. And why not? Baby-making factories would be a good idea, no? There'd be lots of breeding going on and the "basic principles of life" would be fullfilled.

That is exactly why women feel threatened, they feel threatened in their function and now comes the funniest parts of all:
Many feminists don't want to get children, because children make them dependent from men and they don't care for their own genes neither, but at the same time they fight with hate against every approach of artificial reproduction, yet alone an artificial womb!

They simply don't want to let the males and group get away, they want to destroy or at least blackmail it, and want to use their natural irreplaceability for changing society.

How many Radical Feminists talk about how society "should be, that women get more children again".

Well that's all crap, because when our societies were the opposite, we had enough children and now we haven't and no Feminised country has!

Also what do we know about the future?

We have to do what's good and necessary, I always laugh about people which tell me that they think it is creepy for a baby to be produced in a tube, in-vitro fertilisation.

Now to me it is much creepier if a child being born with defects or because of various sexual affairs of the mothers, after which this bitch doesn't even know who the father MIGHT BE.

If there are valuable and healthy children, good families, general social environments for raising them, it is better than what we have now and other solutions from you? I didn't hear one.


Agrippa, you (armchair) theorise endlessly about biological success and breeding, but it's all just hot air. If not, you'd have made your own personal contribution to "the cause" many years ago by now, and if you had, you'd no doubt have a very different opinion today. One more well-rounded and realistic.

First of all, sometimes messages are more important than individual actions, because they can be multiplied and have a far greater effect than what you can do on your own.

However, you also miss the point of realism, because realism doesn't have to mean practising something, with many of those IN social and emotional situations are often UNABLE to stay rational with their attitudes, because they are too much affected.

It is like talking with two partners about their divorce, and that this is no good idea, that the reasons for it are negligible and they might regret it some years on, but they are unable to see it, because of their emotional involvement.

The same with people, and especially women, in this respect. They don't want to see, they are often emotionally blocked, so what does that tell my about their "realism" and how "real situations" influence that.

Also, what do you know about the rest of my life? I didn't share too much, I don't want to.


personal contribution to "the cause" many years ago by now

You know zero about my personal situation and can't make a judgement about it.


I didn't say that wanting to recapture one's lost youth makes them bad or mentally ill or anything. There's nothing wrong with it as long as they're not hurting anyone. My concern would be for the young woman. I wouldn't want an old man using my daughter to in an attempt to feel young again, let's put it that way. I would prefer that one day my daughters marry men of a similar age (I hope they'll marry fairly young) so that there's a power balance in the relationship and they share common ground and can understand each other. I would be horrified and very hostile toward the man if either of my daughters in their late teens or early 20s came home with a man 20 years older than them. One can't help but be protective of their children.

You know what, I can understand that and agree with it to a certain extend - BUT in the end it solely depends on the man in question.

Because would you prefer any younger male before any older one?

If yes, that would be just RIDICULOUS and completely irrational.

So in the end, it is not about age, but age being ONE SINGLE FACTOR out of many which you can consider both for your personal choice, as well as that of your young daughters.

You want to make a decision in such a situation based on this ONE SINGLE and surely not most important factor, alone?

Strange I'd say.

Probably you would be more lucky to have a good guy aged 40 as a son in law for your 20 year old, once she had various bad guys aged 20...

Obviously I wouldn't recommend a guy which is 20 years older for my own daughter neither, but if she, by chance, meets such a guy, it would solely depend on this MAN IN QUESTION how I would react in detail.

Because that her boyfriend is 20 like her is meaningless too without knowing anything else.

[Bridie]

I've said everything I need to say in this thread, no need for me to repeat myself or expand on certain points.

Where my accusation of hypocrisy came from though, Agrippa, is my frustration at so many people (not just you, by a long shot) feeling entitled to preach on and on about what everyone else should be doing and sacrificing (in this case, having as many children as practically possible and from a very young age) when they've never done it, nor made the personal sacrifices entailed, themselves.

[Agrippa]

I've said everything I need to say in this thread, no need for me to repeat myself or expand on certain points.

Where my accusation of hypocrisy came from though, Agrippa, is my frustration at so many people (not just you, by a long shot) feeling entitled to preach on and on about what everyone else should be doing and sacrificing (in this case, having as many children as practically possible and from a very young age) when they've never done it, nor made the personal sacrifices entailed, themselves.

Well, not everyone's situations is the same you know, there can be different reasons for the same outcome, be it good or bad.

However, if you read my older posts, I usually don't attack people too strongly for not having enough children, like some others do, because I know the reasons for their decisions and behaviour.

We all are stuck in this society and system which is anti-biologistic and anti-natal.

If a woman tells me about her situation now, I might have a great personal understanding and sympathy, but still what she does, following the same path as most better educated and more intelligent women these days, she acts wrong.

So that I can understand a false decision and see where it is coming from still doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

As for all the problems mentioned, they CAN NOT be solved on an individual base, that is IMPOSSIBLE, it MUST BE A COLLECTIVE EFFORT and change of society, according to the rules mentioned and some additional ones, or otherwise we are doomed.

It is not about me always just talking about what individuals should do or not, but how the group should organise itself, so that the VAST MAJORITY of the group members, individuals will do AUTOMATICALLY what's right, because they:
- understand the necessity and legitimacy
- feel and know BOTH the pressure AND support for doing so coming from the group, for example by the direct consequences on their social status

If you have a crappy system which is anti-biologistic, anti-natal, anti-male, anti-family, pseudo-individualist, corrupted, strongly Capitalistic and Plutocratic, highly distorted and manipulated and so on - what the hell do we expect to get?

Obviously the people won't act like they should, because the system itself is degenerated and those which do what would be better have a harder time then those which don't, which results can only be detrimental.

Fact is, you sentence against just shows it:

nor made the personal sacrifices entailed

that something is wrong, if people see children as a burden which tears them down, something which has to be accompanied with "personal sacrifices".

Whether this is the case, in certain respects or not, it is a question of perspective in and of a society, whether they see children as a blessing and necessity, something which naturally happens to fertile couples ones they hit a certain age, which keeps up the bloodline and group, forms a general tradition, or just say it is "an individual decision which will result in a lot of personal sacrifices".

That's the way our youth being raised, it is something "to plan in advance", somewhere for the future, it is costly, takes your time, ruins your youth, is bad for the job and career, makes you dependent, blabla...

Where are the positive effects, if you don't really like that little toddlers so much, that your brain being shut off?

If going after what many of our young ones being taught and told, not too much.

AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

If you keep it that way, we will never have higher birth rates, as for the individuals the subjective and at best objective advantages as well must be greater than the disadvantages to bring forward a pro-natal policy.

But for that, among other things, we need a better attitude towards BREEDING to say it blunt and answer once again what you said.

Because it is not just about "happy romantic love", but it is about a positive attitude to look beyond oneself, into the future and the greater whole, the group. And this means, it exactly means, that the "rule of blood" and "breeding" must be VALUES, not just something to ignore.

From that can stem many consequences which would alter society to a new framework in which having no children will be the greater burden for most, and having some an achievement and advantage, in many respects.

This has to be done.

We must bring ratio and rules back into the system if it is about partnership-marriage, family and breeding, because now we know a lot of emotions and how they can go up and down, and obviously, without the material and legal background, it is obviously not enough for having stable and fertile grounds for families...

[Bridie]

Fact is, you sentence against just shows it:


that something is wrong, if people see children as a burden which tears them down, something which has to be accompanied with "personal sacrifices".

Whether this is the case, in certain respects or not, it is a question of perspective in and of a society, whether they see children as a blessing and necessity, something which naturally happens to fertile couples ones they hit a certain age, which keeps up the bloodline and group, forms a general tradition, or just say it is "an individual decision which will result in a lot of personal sacrifices".

That's the way our youth being raised, it is something "to plan in advance", somewhere for the future, it is costly, takes your time, ruins your youth, is bad for the job and career, makes you dependent, blabla...
It's true, our current socio-economic systems have negatively influenced the way people view family and child-bearing. All of the personal sacrifices you've listed relate to financial standing. (Even the "ruins your youth" idea. Youth culture is something propagated by current economic conditions, media and big business, since trying to stay young beyond one's years entails spending money. The more insecure and desperate people become, the more money they're likely to spend. Plus, single, free and easy people have more expendible income to put into luxuries and are more likely to be frivolous with their money - a good thing for those wanting to expand limited markets, create new markets or reap larger than would otherwise be expected profits.)

But those weren't the sacrifices I was speaking of. Being 100% responsible for the lives of other little people is a big deal... and it's 24/7. Stress, constant worry, prolonged severe sleep deprivation, frustration, anxiety, fear, guilt that you can't give more, constantly being nagged at and having to break up fights, mounds and mounds of housework, much work and no appreciation, having to rush your 4 year old to the emergency department of the hospital at 3 o'clock in the morning because they got up through the night and ate a glass bauble off the Christmas tree thinking that it was a sweet... ah well, I think you get my meaning. :p Parenthood DOES entail many personal sacrifices, but yes, it provides unmatched joy and fulfillment also. I'll bet you're thinking that the things I've listed don't sound that bad, and they don't, true. It's having to live them everyday of every year with no relief for years on end that is bad. :D

Anyway, I think it's true that if you want to change the world, you first have to start with yourself.

[Agrippa]

It's true, our current socio-economic systems have negatively influenced the way people view family and child-bearing. All of the personal sacrifices you've listed relate to financial standing. (Even the "ruins your youth" idea. Youth culture is something propagated by current economic conditions, media and big business, since trying to stay young beyond one's years entails spending money. The more insecure and desperate people become, the more money they're likely to spend. Plus, single, free and easy people have more expendible income to put into luxuries and are more likely to be frivolous with their money - a good thing for those wanting to expand limited markets, create new markets or reap larger than would otherwise be expected profits.)

But those weren't the sacrifices I was speaking of. Being 100% responsible for the lives of other little people is a big deal... and it's 24/7.

I considered time, health (pregnancies are not exactly the healthist thing to do), energy and even a more limited social scope as well. It is very much about money, but not only so.

This relates perfectly to the fact that the people with the lowest birth rates have the higher income and more to spend - EVEN IF THEY WOULD HAVE children, it would be true for MANY at least. Though it is clear that they probably, especially the women, would have never made it that far on the career-job ladder, with having children early on.


Stress, constant worry, prolonged severe sleep deprivation, frustration, anxiety, fear, guilt that you can't give more, constantly being nagged at and having to break up fights, mounds and mounds of housework, much work and no appreciation, having to rush your 4 year old to the emergency department of the hospital at 3 o'clock in the morning because they got up through the night and ate a glass bauble off the Christmas tree thinking that it was a sweet... ah well, I think you get my meaning. :p Parenthood DOES entail many personal sacrifices

First of all, I wrote in other threads more than once about the idea of "clan-like", but less limiting and more flesible, social frame- and networks, because one huge problem of the deconstructed society of the West is, that the mothers and parents are often ALONE with a lot of problems, which is a totally unnatural condition!

In the past GROUPS OF WOMEN which knew each other would have raised children TOGETHER and being integrated, again, in an even greater social network of the family, extended family, village or neighbourhood.

Now this is all broken down to often highly stressed parents, even single mothers more and more often, with little to relate to, little support and no appreciation, no status, no back up.

In the past it was clear, if you are a married women and don't get pregnant, you had a problem. Not always fair, surely not, I don't want to blame people for defects they can't change, as long as they don't hurt others at least, but fact is, it was the will and wish of the women to have children, to give birth, because that RAISED THEIR SOCIAL STATUS!

Today it decreases it rather and the social networks don't grow through marriage and children as much neither, in comparison to very "sociable career women" - at least in their best age. Later in life they may regret, but later is often too late, especially for more children.

Also having children means a lot of work, while the "individual fun aspect" is there with 1 or 2 children, the additional motivation for MORE CHILDREN is not necessarily.

So again, without the additonal "breeding, status and appreciation" effect through the group, even of those which get children, more than 2-3 will be the exception, without such rules like I described them. But in meantime that would be necessary to keep up especially the more valuable (biologically and culturally) bloodlines in the time to come, since the effects of the Demographic catastrophy and dysgenic trends are already HUGE.


but yes, it provides unmatched joy and fulfillment also.

But look what people communicate to the young ones! Do they say that? Not even so!

They always want to threaten the young ones with "the horror of getting a baby", so they can prevent them from getting children before having "full education, career and an ideal partner" - but what do you think, if you tell young people all the time how horrible it would be if they get pregnant, while telling them much less about the positive aspects, what kind of attitude will you create for the REST OF THEIR LIFE?!


I'll bet you're thinking that the things I've listed don't sound that bad, and they don't, true. It's having to live them everyday of every year with no relief for years on end that is bad. :D

I know how hard it can be and it is not supposed to be always fun. Fact is however, the "stress to be perfect" and the lack of a natural social environment made it WORSE than it was in the past and the social structures and attitudes don't make the perspective more attractive neither. Which is the problem I meant.


Anyway, I think it's true that if you want to change the world, you first have to start with yourself.

Humans are a social and cultural species, to change the world, you have to change your perspective on it first, and then that of other people.

Because if more and more people change their perspective on things, the structures and behaviour might change, once this change affects the group as a whole.

It is a lot about the worldview people have.

If the majority is Liberal and/or Leftist, obedient slaves for the Plutocracy, what do you expect?

If you yourself behave differently, quiet and unnoticed, you probably just help the system to go on, rather than changing it. As we know from other threads, you can't even determine where your children will go.

So probably you get children, which in turn will just be race mixers and obedient slaves of the Plutocracy - great job done, until the mixed line dies out too.

No real perspective, the real perspective is to change the structures, so that the failures being prevented to begin with, not just for you and your children, but the whole group and in a way even mankind.

Obviously doing something small on your own can be better than nothing, and might serve as a role model even, but every role model is just as good as the people which communicate it.

Because if there are perfect families around which live exactly like we both might propose it, but they being shown as something "strange", while the Hedonistic-Materialistic way of life being promoted 24/7 through all channels of power in this Liberalcapitalist society, what will be more important?

In the end, it is a fight for the hearts and minds of the people. If the true Europeans and rational, higher Idealists don't make it, other's will and I suppose you won't like the outcome much more than what I propose, rather on the contrary...

[Cail]

I'm currently with a woman older than myself (just started). I'm 22, she's 29 (Italian). Sometimes it's kind of odd actually, i've never had such experience before, and it's definitely different, completely different angles of perception of human existence through personal relations (can't think of any simpler way to describe the idea). She's much more to give intellectually and spiritually, much deeper and more interesting person. I dunno, might be just a coincidence that all my previous gfs were bimbos of a sort (more or less).

[Sabinae]

This thread is priceless....

[Agrippa]

I'm currently with a woman older than myself (just started). I'm 22, she's 29 (Italian). Sometimes it's kind of odd actually, i've never had such experience before, and it's definitely different, completely different angles of perception of human existence through personal relations (can't think of any simpler way to describe the idea). She's much more to give intellectually and spiritually, much deeper and more interesting person. I dunno, might be just a coincidence that all my previous gfs were bimbos of a sort (more or less).

With 29 she is still in the "very good age" for a woman, which is, especially if the man is young himself and doesn't plan for too long into the future, the main thing. However, since women age often faster in the mid-time of life (but live longer overall as we know), this can become a problem for a longer term relationship, though it must not be.

[Loki]

I didn't say that wanting to recapture one's lost youth makes them bad or mentally ill or anything. There's nothing wrong with it as long as they're not hurting anyone. My concern would be for the young woman. I wouldn't want an old man using my daughter to in an attempt to feel young again, let's put it that way.

Well I am 38 and it feels perfectly normal for me to date girls in their 20's - I do not do so because I want to recapture lost youth, or because I cannot get older women (I surely can easily, but not interested mostly) - but it is purely because I prefer them at that age, from both a physical attraction and character point of view (fairly unspoilt by the worries of life). And because I can.

If I look at myself, I think that I can offer way more to a girl now than I could 10 years earlier - from just about every perspective. I'm smarter, wiser, more knowledgeable, more understanding of the female mind, more sexually experienced and in general far more able to please them. I look at other guys who are 25 and basically feel sorry for their girlfriends, as they can get so much better. :p So I don't think in my case it is a selfish choice. It would be mutually beneficial. It most certainly is by mutual consent. I don't date stupid women, I date those who are attracted to me and want me above those of their age - and I don't blame them for it.

Also, in my life the reason I have not settled down by now is mostly circumstantial and not because I wasn't able to. I've actually declined a few opportunities along the line because I knew I'd be able to get better ones at some point in my life. And really, I don't regret being single at this point as I'm having lots of fun!

[Bridie]

But look what people communicate to the young ones! Do they say that? Not even so!

I think things are much worse in this regard in Europe (from observations I've made in various European countries) than in Australia... so yes, I can see how this is an important issue for you. Austalia is still relatively family oriented and traditional in comparison. (Well, maybe not the Eastern states, but here in Western Australia where we tend to be more backwards, it is.) Really, going on my experiences in Europe, it almost seems like a lost cause there... when low birth rates are sustained even for one generation, it is very difficult to reverse. Partly because there are less fertile women coming through to the next generation, but also because those men and women coming through tend to want smaller families themselves due to it being the familiar for them. It just seems normal to them. On top of that, females that are raised with no siblings or only 1 or even 2 siblings miss out on learning valuable childrearing skills from a young age, making motherhood that much more difficult for them to cope with and navigate. With a couple of generations of low birth rates, societies become very child and family unfriendly due to socio-political and economic policies coming to favour single people, older people and those with only 1 or 2 children. (Who are the bulk of the voting public, afterall.) Of course, this is the society that you would be dealing with now, so you do have my sympathies.

I still think though that the only ideal solution would be to advocate young people marrying and having families... not couples of one old and one young just because its biologically possible. Grandparents have an important role in the size of young families coming through too. I've read studies showing that young families who have the support of Grandparents are more likely to have larger families and they cope better than those without. (So less likely to be dysfunctional.) If you advocate old men having babies with young girls just for the sake of being able to possibly create a pregnancy and provide financial support, there are going to be a whole lot less Grandfathers coming through for the next generation (as they most likely won't survive long enough to ever see their grandchildren), and that will be very much a shame and a loss.

[Bridie]

Well I am 38 and it feels perfectly normal for me to date girls in their 20's - I do not do so because I want to recapture lost youth, or because I cannot get older women (I surely can easily, but not interested mostly) - but it is purely because I prefer them at that age, from both a physical attraction and character point of view (fairly unspoilt by the worries of life). And because I can.

If I look at myself, I think that I can offer way more to a girl now than I could 10 years earlier - from just about every perspective. I'm smarter, wiser, more knowledgeable, more understanding of the female mind, more sexually experienced and in general far more able to please them. I look at other guys who are 25 and basically feel sorry for their girlfriends, as they can get so much better. :p So I don't think in my case it is a selfish choice. It would be mutually beneficial. It most certainly is by mutual consent. I don't date stupid women, I date those who are attracted to me and want me above those of their age - and I don't blame them for it.

Also, in my life the reason I have not settled down by now is mostly circumstantial and not because I wasn't able to. I've actually declined a few opportunities along the line because I knew I'd be able to get better ones at some point in my life. And really, I don't regret being single at this point as I'm having lots of fun!I know, I know... you're a proud man Loki. ;) You shouldn't take it so personally and feel the need to defend yourself.

[Agrippa]

I think things are much worse in this regard in Europe (from observations I've made in various European countries) than in Australia... so yes, I can see how this is an important issue for you. Austalia is still relatively family oriented and traditional in comparison. (Well, maybe not the Eastern states, but here in Western Australia where we tend to be more backwards, it is.) Really, going on my experiences in Europe, it almost seems like a lost cause there... when low birth rates are sustained even for one generation, it is very difficult to reverse. Partly because there are less fertile women coming through to the next generation, but also because those men and women coming through tend to want smaller families themselves due to it being the familiar for them. It just seems normal to them. On top of that, females that are raised with no siblings or only 1 or even 2 siblings miss out on learning valuable childrearing skills from a young age, making motherhood that much more difficult for them to cope with and navigate. With a couple of generations of low birth rates, societies become very child and family unfriendly due to socio-political and economic policies coming to favour single people, older people and those with only 1 or 2 children. (Who are the bulk of the voting public, afterall.) Of course, this is the society that you would be dealing with now, so you do have my sympathies.

That's how it is. In my area, a woman having 3 kids, even 3 kids from the same guy and being a local is already EXCEPTIONAL - if a family with more than four kids runs around, this is, especially if it is a local family, "a looker" and there are even people ready to criticise them, just for having more than 3 kids!

Stupid things like "didn't you used a contraceptive", "too horny", "too much sex" - I mean even people which are themselves no angels in no way get "critical" at some times, as if they feel THREATENED by people living a DIFFERENT FAMILY LIFE.

Also, because it threatens THEIR Lifestyle and "new bourgeois" moral, which is more Hedonistic-Materialistic and Capitalistic-career oriented!


I still think though that the only ideal solution would be to advocate young people marrying and having families... not couples of one old and one young just because its biologically possible.

Well, as I said, I wouldn't make up a rule for that. If two people find each other at the same age, nice, if they have a different age and it works out - nice too!

Fact is however, from all I know, including personal experiences, the best theoretical match is always that of a younger female and a MODERATELY OLDER male.

For example along the maturation line (16-21 : 21-25) or beyond. With a very good match being around 21 : 30.

Because then the male is already more settled down, experienced, calmer, probably socially successful etc.

From my experience, women at the same age are almost always, at least "in the practical issues" far ahead.

To give an example, they tend to organise themselves more independently earlier, take responsibility earlier and move out of the parents' home earlier.

Very rarely I saw young men at the age of 17 being mentally as "mature" in a pragmatic respect as young women. This is not just good, because the radical, risk-taking and highly Idealistic aspect which goes beyond oneself is part of a young man - more than a young woman.

But still, it is a fact.

Therefore I would say actually, that the younger a woman is, the less likely she will have a really appropriate partner of exactly the same age.

Because for a pre-20 women a post-20 men is just the natural thing to go for, once she is sexually mature herself and strives for a LONGER TERM and SERIOUS relationship.

Remind you, we might talk just about an age difference of 2-10 years for the ideal constellation, but these years seem to be ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL for many.

So while I don't care about age differences in general, I consider, everything else equal, a MODERATELY OLDER male vs. younger female ideal.

Also because women are, like mentioned:
- earlier mature (physically and mentally)
- age on average earlier



Grandparents have an important role in the size of young families coming through too. I've read studies showing that young families who have the support of Grandparents are more likely to have larger families and they cope better than those without. (So less likely to be dysfunctional.)

That is true and I agree with it. But from my personal observations I can just say that these families are just GENERALLY less dysfunctional, less often divorced, single mothers, changing male partner, problems with the care for the children or problematic behaviour of them etc.

The grandparents sometimes would help as much as in other families, but since everything is broken up or was never together to begin with...

But yes, I completely agree, the ideal situation is when grandparents ARE THERE and READY TO HELP.

That is actually an important part of the duties of the elderly and obviously part of the social networks and family support I referred to before, which is, painfully lacking in too many.


If you advocate old men having babies with young girls just for the sake of being able to possibly create a pregnancy and provide financial support, there are going to be a whole lot less Grandfathers coming through for the next generation (as they most likely won't survive long enough to ever see their grandchildren), and that will be very much a shame and a loss.

Well, I did never actually promote "old blokes plus young girls" as IDEAL, I just said it is an option, and a respectable one, if it works for those involved.

I spoke before about the "single factor age" and if considering what's ideal for a daughter, surely a much older guy isn't what any parent would have in mind.

Probably a moderarely older, more reasonable, socially and materially better off one, but not a really aged one. Even though a 40 or even 50 year old guy must not be doter...

Yet, this is an individual question for which I think it is wrong to make rules. And especially the very good men, those with excellent genes and memes, should just spread those if they can and want as long as they can and want.

Simple as that.

If they decide to invest indirectly in their offspring present, that's the norm and good.

If it is about what I would RECOMMEND, as a guide for the people and what's best if wanting to know what to search for, then I would always say MODERATELY OLDER male + younger female, like explained above.

Directly after that comes about same age - then much older man + young woman, then moderately older woman + younger man and the worst case scenario is definitely much older woman + young man.

That's "the ranking" from what I know and observed equally.

But I wouldn't limit that kind of decision by any sort of rules, it is up to the individuals involved primarily and it has to work for them, with biologically completely irrational being just the "much older woman + young man", unless she pays her lover other women and the children which he has with them. Not saying that this was never done...

Also consider, that if the male is much older, he must balance this "age disadvantage" out, so as a rule of thumb, the older guy might have above average traits if getting the chance to even try a second or third relationship with a young and fertile woman.

This is no big option for many of the older men anyway, since obviously, the majority of males doesn't age too good or has so much to offer to balance it out neither, many even lack the will and energy for a restart, even if not being in a family already to deal with a much younger woman...

[Curtis24]

The age difference thing is something I have often thought about, in that the option to date 20-year olds will probably be open to me even into my 40s. Does anyone who has done this care to share some tips/advice etc. on this matter?

[Loki]

The age difference thing is something I have often thought about, in that the option to date 20-year olds will probably be open to me even into my 40s. Does anyone who has done this care to share some tips/advice etc. on this matter?

Stay young to the eye. Exercise and keep your body and mind healthy. Don't smoke.

[Nurzat]

my dad is 14 years older than my mom and they're ok. on the other hand, my grandma was 4 years older than my grandpa

[Agrippa]

my dad is 14 years older than my mom and they're ok. on the other hand, my grandma was 4 years older than my grandpa

That's the point: If it worked for them, it is fine.

Since there are surely more important things to consider than the age difference...

[Dario Argento]

What would you people think of a 16 years old girl with a man that is in his mid twenties?

[Loki]

What would you people think of a 16 years old girl with a man that is in his mid twenties?

Well that's obviously getting into illegal territory. Let her grow up first!

[Don Brick]

What would you people think of a 16 years old girl with a man that is in his mid twenties?

And would this man happen to be you by any chance? :rolleyes:

Don´t take it too seriously. ;)

[Agrippa]

What would you people think of a 16 years old girl with a man that is in his mid twenties?

Well, depends also on what kind of 16 year old, most are already mature, some less so. I knew girls in school which had significantly older partners.


Well that's obviously getting into illegal territory. Let her grow up first!

Not here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Age_of_Consent.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

But for that we have a debate on its own:
"Age of consent"
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21861

"14-17 years old" was the, obviously most reasonable, majority vote.

I personally would go for 18+ as minimum now and 15 seemed to me too young even when I was 22, because I was approached once and made that decision.

Yet it always depends also on the circumstances and individuals in question, I for sure know that there are 16 year old girls, actually even younger ones, which are by no means children (some behave obviously like the worst bitches and are the exact opposite of "innocence"). If its about them, I don't care, since if they can go for various and even the wildest sexual activities, what difference does it make if they form a probably even more stable relationship with an older man.

Actually, if being so consequent about it, one would have to make sexual activities before a certain age illegal per se, otherwise everything else is just hypocritical.

I would say 16+ is the mark which must be met if the guy is beyond a certain age. I wouldn't recommend that neither for the girls, but as I said, it depends on the individuals and I wouldn't be happy if a 15 year old European would fuck around with various foreigners of the same age neither...

Age is always just one factor and the bigger problem in this respect is the early sexualisation of the youth in general probably and the promiscuous kind of this sexualisation, rather than anything else.

[Black Sun Dimension]

What would you people think of a 16 years old girl with a man that is in his mid twenties?

I wouldnt date someone THAT young. The girl im currently dating is 20, two years younger than me, but she is a woman and more mature than me.

A 16 years old is still a teenager.

[Dario Argento]

And would this man happen to be you by any chance? :rolleyes:

Don´t take it too seriously. ;)

I'm not in my mid twenties. I just turned 23.

And what would you think if the sexes were reversed? A 16 years old guy with a girl in her mid twenties.

[Bloodeagle]

What would you people think of a 16 years old girl with a man that is in his mid twenties?

I think it is super pervy, from a cultural point of view, but this would be perfectly legal up here.

[Curtis24]

I personally would go for 18+ as minimum now and 15 seemed to me too young even when I was 22, because I was approached once and made that decision.


You were propositioned by a 15-year old?? I had always heard stories about Europe, but I didn't think it was that bad o_O

[SwordoftheVistula]

Very true, I've found that if a man is still single (or has never been married) by that point, it's for a reason.


i often think men that are 30+ dating women in their early 20's (or younger) do so because they can't find a woman their own age

That's silly. Men and women are different, so they have different characteristics they are looking for in eachother. Men usually look for physical attractiveness and/or as someone to have their children, so in both cases this directs them towards women around age 20 as the ideal. Women usually want a man with financial and emotional stability, so this generally directs them towards older men.

Also, women have much more of an emotional need and desire to be in a relationship than men.

[Curtis24]

Women usually want a man with financial and emotional stability, so this generally directs them towards older men.

.

Except in modern society, where its more often "cocky attitude"

[Bridie]

Except in modern society, where its more often "cocky attitude", "style over substance", etc.There's no hard and fast rule. Generally, different types of women want different types of men. Intelligent women usually want an intelligent man that can match their intellect. Bimbos generally want a man who will raise their social status (money, social standing). Vain women want a man who looks great, sporty women want a man who's into sports, artistic women want a man who appreciates the arts etc etc. Some women like to dominate and will likely go after MUCH younger guys, some women like to be dominated and will likely go after MUCH older guys (those that aren't doing it for the cash, that is) and women who want more of an even distribution of power in their relationship with more of a sense of companionship will likely want to pursue a relationship with a man of a similar age to hers. The variables go on and on.

Humans are rather complex creatures really...

[Curtis24]

There's no hard and fast rule. Generally, different types of women want different types of men. Intelligent women usually want an intelligent man that can match their intellect. Bimbos generally want a man who will raise their social status (money, social standing). Vain women want a man who looks great, sporty women want a man who's into sports, artistic women want a man who appreciates the arts etc etc. Some women like to dominate and will likely go after MUCH younger guys, some women like to be dominated and will likely go after MUCH older guys (those that aren't doing it for the cash, that is) and women who want more of an even distribution of power in their relationship with more of a sense of companionship will likely want to pursue a relationship with a man of a similar age to hers. The variables go on and on.

Humans are rather complex creatures really...

Well I'm not sure if you'e familiar with the concept of "Pick-up art", but I have seen friends do this in bars and clubs and unfortunately it works. A lot.

Anyway, in a nacissitic society, narcissitic men are king.

And I guess this goes back to what Agrippa was saying, which is that nowadays relationships are based on supeficial social interactions rather than substance. But boy, when the money runs out...

[Bridie]

Well I'm not sure if you'e familiar with the concept of "Pick-up art", but I have seen friends do this in bars and clubs and unfortunately it works. A lot.

Anyway, in a self-centered society, self-centered men are king.Hmmm... I have no idea what "pick-up art" is really, but if it's sleazy, cocky men pretending to be rich and socially dominant in order to pick up a slut for the night, I'd imagine it works so well because of the environment and the types of women that frequent them. Namely bars and clubs.

[Curtis24]

Hmmm... I have no idea what "pick-up art" is really, but if it's sleazy, cocky men pretending to be rich and socially dominant in order to pick up a slut for the night, I'd imagine it works so well because of the environment and the types of women that frequent them. Namely bars and clubs.

Yeah, and in today's environment, majority(probably vast) of young women, as well as young men, frequent bars, clubs, and binge-drinking parties.

[Agrippa]

You were propositioned by a 15-year old?? I had always heard stories about Europe, but I didn't think it was that bad o_O

With 22 I was no old guy neither and looked fairly young. Also, with 15 most of them fuck around these days anyway.

Still I felt uncomfortable and considered her too young, also because of the way she was, not just the numerical age. Some are women that age already, she wasn't.


There's no hard and fast rule. Generally, different types of women want different types of men. Intelligent women usually want an intelligent man that can match their intellect. Bimbos generally want a man who will raise their social status (money, social standing).

I know what you mean, but there is a lot of hypocrisy in this. Because for what traits are they looking and why?

"Intelligent man" too just means = higher status, better genes, better social constellation.

Of course there is this "he can understand me", "inspire me", "make me laugh" issue, but even that is, biologically, "the check" of the more intelligent women to constantly look for a partner which has traits which in turn are "advantageous" both for the own social status, the partnership quality and stability, as well as the children.

Don't forget, social status is not always the same. F.e. among rather left-liberal and many rightwing people I usually had contact with, so people "with ideals", a more intelligent and eloquent man can be more of a value than among some prolls, in which being "physically strong" or having "the newest proll-style" and "drying a good car" is more important than that.

In fact, this is a lot about long-term vs. short-term orientation. Because the lower classes go earlier from school to work = earlier money.
They go for partners which are attractive or above average wealthy NOW - in their or around their age segment usually.

There is no real long term plan, whereas many more "intellectual" people go for either males with generally good and "promising" traits or those "which already made it and have the good traits too.

Usually, the latter just has to mean an older guy, because about 20 practically nobody has proven himself or is really settled down in the higher segment. Most are not very interested in founding a family neither.

The time ideal for becoming a parent is just different in females and males too, for females it is about 20, in males about 30.

You see the match...


Humans are rather complex creatures really...

But in reality, behind every of such decision and preferences are biological-psychological mechanisms, some healthy, some distorted-degenerated.

If you look at it from a certain analytical perspective, it is often quite easy to understand decisions people make, because they are always based on something. Coming from the genes, early influences to the later social environment and personal experiences...


Hmmm... I have no idea what "pick-up art" is really, but if it's sleazy, cocky men pretending to be rich and socially dominant in order to pick up a slut for the night, I'd imagine it works so well because of the environment and the types of women that frequent them. Namely bars and clubs.

Alcohol and drugs are a major factor for the "new female behaviour".

A lot of them wouldn't act the way they do without.

Also there is a lot of social pressure. For example when I was going to school, "acting Lesbian" was "not cool" or even considered by most.

But since the media on various levels, from pop-movies to pornography promoted it, many girls are now considered "prude" or "backward" if not kissing other girls and making poses, especially in front of men.

So there is a real social pressure for girls, starting around 13, to participate in such activities and it is considered rather "normal" in many social environments, high and low equally.

This is a real and tangible change in JUST SOME YEARS primarily because of the massive media influence.

Additionally, there are now a lot of alcoholic drinks which are easier to consume for women, "alco-pops" - they taste sweet but have a high alcohol percentage.

This increased the level drunkenness among women drastically, because real and good cocktails are too expensive and the classic alcoholic drinks like beer, wine and liquor being not that liked by younger girls in particular.

With those sweetened cheap drinks, they get introduced in the "drinking culture" earlier, as it was with smoking.

This is really influential and changed the sexual behaviour of young females minimum as much, rather much more, than pornography in my opinion, which too made up, together with the popcultural images, new role models.

How you can put crap into the heads of the people a relative of Freud has shown with "public relations", a better word for propaganda, both politically and economically.

I mean calling cigarettes "torches of freedom" from the Feminist-Cultural Marxist perspective and encouraging women to smoke, which was considered "bad behaviour" and "un-feminine" before is just a master piece!

Today, in some areas of Europe women smoke more than males by now and drunkenness too increases.

Smoking of women in particular is a perfect example for social manipulation:



By the mid-1920s smoking had become commonplace in the United States and cigarette tobacco was the most popular form of tobacco consumption. At the same time women had just won the right to vote, widows were succeeding their husbands as governors of such states as Texas and Wyoming, and more were attending college and entering the workforce. While women seemed to be making great strides in certain areas, socially they still were not able to achieve the same equality as their male counterparts. Women were only permitted to smoke in the privacy of their own homes. Public opinion and certain legislation at the time did not permit women to smoke in public, and in 1922 a woman from New York City was arrested for lighting a cigarette on the street.

George Washington Hill, president of the American Tobacco Company and an eccentric businessman, recognized that an important part of his market was not being tapped into. Hill believed that cigarette sales would soar if he could entice more women to smoke in public.

In 1928 Hill hired Bernays to expand the sales of his Lucky Strike cigarettes. Recognizing that women were still riding high on the suffrage movement, Bernays used this as the basis for his new campaign. He consulted Dr. A.A. Brill, a psychoanalyst, to find the psychological basis for womens smoking. Dr. Brill determined that cigarettes which were usually equated with men, represented torches of freedom for women. The event caused a national stir and stories appeared in newspapers throughout the country. Though not doing away with the taboo completely, Bernays's efforts had a lasting effect on women smoking.



http://www.prmuseum.com/bernays/bernays_1929.html

Bernays was of course a Jew and it is worth to watch this documentary, "How to Brainwash a Nation":

sZ8ZvYNlxiM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ8ZvYNlxiM

...

[Moonbird]

Well I am 38 and it feels perfectly normal for me to date girls in their 20's - I do not do so because I want to recapture lost youth, or because I cannot get older women (I surely can easily, but not interested mostly) - but it is purely because I prefer them at that age, from both a physical attraction and character point of view (fairly unspoilt by the worries of life).


Hmmm....problem is that these girls in their 20's don't stay like that forever. So either you have to bite into the sour apple and accept staying with someone who's growing old or you have to remain single. ;)

[Moonbird]

The time ideal for becoming a parent is just different in females and males too, for females it is about 20, in males about 30.

You see the match...


Generally females aren't mature enough to have children when they are about 20. There are exceptions to this rule but not many. I'd say between 25 and 30 is a good age for women to start a family, for men I'd say over 30.

[Loki]

Hmmm....problem is that these girls in their 20's don't stay like that forever. So either you have to bite into the sour apple and accept staying with someone who's growing old or you have to remain single. ;)

How about biting into a fresh apple, which will eventually turn sour? :) That's even better than biting into a sour apple right from the bat. ;)

I'm not dating girls over 30, I don't have to.

[Óttar]

I'm not dating girls over 30, I don't have to.
You make it seem as if a guy dating a female over 30 would do so only if they were resigning themselves to a glum fate. There are plenty of women over 30 that I'd be thrilled to go out with.

[Curtis24]

You make it seem as if a guy dating a female over 30 would do so only if they were resigning themselves to a glum fate. There are plenty of women over 30 that I'd be thrilled to go out with.

WEll obviously, I and most men would rather date Monica Belluci at 30 than an average looking 20 year old. But the number of 30-something women who are beautiful enough to outcompete women in their twenties are few and far between.

This situation is one more of the tragedies of feminism...


Generally females aren't mature enough to have children when they are about 20. There are exceptions to this rule but not many. I'd say between 25 and 30 is a good age for women to start a family, for men I'd say over 30.

This has more to do with upbringing than some biological fact. For most of human history, women were able to birth and raise huge families under the most brutal of conditions. Truth is, lots of women nowadays probably aren't even mature enough to have a family by 30 either...

[Curtis24]

Hmmm....problem is that these girls in their 20's don't stay like that forever. So either you have to bite into the sour apple and accept staying with someone who's growing old or you have to remain single. ;)

Right, but a man doesn't have to stick by a woman as she ages. You don't "have to" accept staying with an aging woman, you can go find a younger woman, or just not bother dating either(which a lot of men are doing - expect a new thread soon). Unfortunately, a lot of women who delay marriage too long are going to end up screwed.

[Logan]

The age difference would be their concern. I would think it a factor amongst others. Not the uppermost.

Legal is uppermost.

[askra]

not more of 10 years of difference,
i don't want to marry a woman to become my carer when i will be older and vice-versa.

[Piparskeggr]

I think one's age, plus or minus 3 - 4 years is a good range.

Of course, since we are talking about people, YMMV. ;)

[rhiannon]

I think the most successful relationships or marriages are between individuals within the same generation. There are many more shared commonalities in these situations. I know there are also some strong relationships between couples with greater age differences....but in general, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Ideal age spread should probably be no greater than three years.

I will admit wholeheartedly to the fact that it bothers me the way women dating much younger men are called Cougars....all the while no one batting an eye at the SCADS of men doing the exact same thing with much younger women...

[Han Cholo]

I think the most successful relationships or marriages are between individuals within the same generation. There are many more shared commonalities in these situations. I know there are strong relationships between couples with greater age differences....but in general, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Ideal age spread should probably be no greater than three years.

I will admit wholeheartedly to the fact that it bothers me the way women dating much younger men are called Cougars....all the while no one batting an eye at the SCADS of men doing the exact same thing with much younger women...

Younger men do all the time. :p We call those people "raboverdes" here.

On the other hand, I currently a girl 1 or 2 years older than me. Not really a big deal as it's not a giganting difference. Any significant discrepancy we could have would be cultural rather than generational. :) I usually prefer girls slightly younger than me as well though not more than 3 or 2 years. I don't limit myself anyway but most people I interact closely are around my age.

[Curtis24]

I think the most successful relationships or marriages are between individuals within the same generation. There are many more shared commonalities in these situations. I know there are strong relationships between couples with greater age differences....but in general, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Ideal age spread should probably be no greater than three years.

I will admit wholeheartedly to the fact that it bothers me the way women dating much younger men are called Cougars....all the while no one batting an eye at the SCADS of men doing the exact same thing with much younger women...

Its not as unusual, since young women can find older men of high status attractive; yet a young man will very rarely find a woman much older than himself attractive. You really think it is that strange or wrong for a woman in her twenties to want to date an older and succesful man?

[BiałaZemsta]

You really think it is that strange or wrong for a woman in her twenties to want to date an older and succesful man?

That would be strange.

[Lux Aeterna]

I'm 23, and I usually go for older guys, like anything from 25-30+. I think the reason for that is that I take older guys more seriously than those around my age or younger. I usually want something "real" and stable, and I feel there is a bigger chance I can get that with a guy that's older than me. But I try to not discriminate, I know there are great guys around my age too, but they seem to be more rare. So it feels "safer" to go for an older guy, and besides, I'd hate to look older than a boyfriend of mine, that would stress me alot lol.... But fortunatley, I look younger than my actual age, so that shouldn't be a big problem.

[Gamera]

Younger men do all the time. :p We call those people "raboverdes" here.

On the other hand, I currently a girl 1 or 2 years older than me. Not really a big deal as it's not a giganting difference. Any significant discrepancy we could have would be cultural rather than generational. :) I usually prefer girls slightly younger than me as well though not more than 3 or 2 years. I don't limit myself anyway but most people I interact closely are around my age.

I used to have a girlfriend who was 9 years older than me, we were together for 2 years. Even though we pretty much never thought about it, it did bring some trouble indirectly. And those problems were some of the reasons why we ended up breaking up. I did learn a lot from that experience however, so I don't regret anything. But I wouldn't recommend such relationships to most people.

Then I had a girlfriend for a short time who was 5 years older than me, though it was never an issue. Now the one I'm interested in is 2 years older. I guess one could say I'm "improving". :D

On another personal story, my paternal grandfather was 5 years younger than his wife, and they were one of those rare cases of couples who met very young, and had a loving marriage that lasted for over 50 years, until my grandmother passed away. You don't see such things that often anymore.

[Han Cholo]

I used to have a girlfriend who was 9 years older than me, we were together for 2 years. Even though we pretty much never thought about it, it did bring some trouble indirectly. And those problems were some of the reasons why we ended up breaking up. I did learn a lot from that experience however, so I don't regret anything. But I wouldn't recommend such relationships to most people.

Then I had a girlfriend for a short time who was 5 years older than me, though it was never an issue. Now the one I'm interested in is 2 years older. I guess one could say I'm "improving". :D

On another personal story, my paternal grandfather was 5 years younger then his wife, and they were one of those rare cases of couples who met very young, and had a loving marriage that lasted for over 50 years, until my grandmother passed away. You don't see such things that often anymore.


This is because of increased individualism and a fake sense of inflated self-worth.

[Boudica]

When I see a younger girl with a man 20 years older or more, one word comes to mind. GOLD DIGGER.

[Han Cholo]

When I see a younger girl with a man 20 years older or more, one word comes to mind. GOLD DIGGER.

What about if it's the opposite? :cool:

[Moonbird]

How about biting into a fresh apple, which will eventually turn sour? :) That's even better than biting into a sour apple right from the bat. ;)

I'm not dating girls over 30, I don't have to.

Well, I meant you would have problems when that fresh apple eventually would turn sour.


Right, but a man doesn't have to stick by a woman as she ages. You don't "have to" accept staying with an aging woman, you can go find a younger woman, or just not bother dating either(which a lot of men are doing - expect a new thread soon). Unfortunately, a lot of women who delay marriage too long are going to end up screwed.

Yeah, lots of men have practised that trick of not staying with an aging woman. ;)


Its not as unusual, since young women can find older men of high status attractive; yet a young man will very rarely find a woman much older than himself attractive. You really think it is that strange or wrong for a woman in her twenties to want to date an older and succesful man?

No, not as long as the man knows it's because of his money and nothing else.

[la bombe]

Every guy I'm currently interested in is in the 23-28 range and I think that's for the best.

[Saruman]

It has been my principle since childhood that I should not marry an older woman than myself.
Actually biologically men should be older from 3 to 8 years than women.

Men can make babies at 50, theoretically by then they can make 100 babies, a 1000. Woman can't deliver 100 babies. So going from that basic we see things are rather different.

Men are attracted primarily by females physical features obviously, so physical attractiveness plays greater role than in men, because for males additional features are taken into account such as: social success, dominance. And ofc women are more attractive then men obviously on avg.
At 18 or earlier most women go into peak attractiveness stage, that may last until mid, late 20s, Alpha females can be in great shape in 30s, even 40s.

Males at earlier age obviously on average cannot still achieve those prerequisites of social success, dominance etc.
Of course in addition women mature faster than men.

Marriage I view primarily as a contract for having and raising good offspring.

Few illustrative anecdotes:
not long ago I heard my female 1st cousin talking to another "You cannot date a man that is same age as you, he should be older than you!!". A non-feminism-adjusted attitude.
Also a women commenting on marrying her daughter "Ah it's easy for you, but when will my daughter deliver kids? You have a son of her age and that's totally different".

Men are men and women are women. Unless we speak of degenerated forms of feminism that are responsible for the plight of European (and derived) civilization in solid part.

[Moonbird]

not long ago I heard my female 1st cousin talking to another "You cannot date a man that is same age as you, he should be older than you!!". A non-feminism-adjusted attitude.


Comments like this are very common among girls. Most have the opinion that the man should be at least 2 years older. Girls dating someone who's the same age or younger even sometimes try to conceal their boyfriend's age.

[Loki]

Well, I meant you would have problems when that fresh apple eventually would turn sour.


Why? :) Everyone gets old. I'm not that shallow. :p And that depends on what "sour" means, too.

[ikki]

old men and young women, and correspondling old women and young men is the natural combination.

[Agrippa]

For women the social status, material wealth, intelligence, personality traits other factors are as important as physical attractiveness, that's just natural and the main reason for many women having older partners.

Men on the other hand look primarily for physical attractiveness as a clue for fertility and generally good traits, probably psychological compability and faithfulness as well, but for being attracted to a less attractive and/or older women, a much bigger "other advantage" is being needed for most normal men, than for women - usually the "I take the older one but get young-fertile ones too or afterwards" - unless it is a very special person.

Men don't care for a women being younger or older, but if having free choice, they will always go for the "optimal age" which is between 16-30, to make it closer, the absolute optimum, which is between 18-25.

So if a man is younger, he will go for older women too, if he is the same age - same age - if he's older: Younger.

I know I said that already, but this eternal biologically determined principles need to be repeated, because some confuse personal taste and options with what's common and normal in the species.

Obviously, age differences are always relative and in the end, especially if talking about male attractiveness, a lot depends on how a guy ages too. I mean after all, I don't think most women - even much younger ones - would put a guy like George Clooney in the same category as the average man of his age...

[BiałaZemsta]

Actually biologically men should be older from 3 to 8 years than women.

Source?

I would not want to date someone 3 years older or younger than myself. The age gap would lead to us having less in common. And marriage is not just for breeding and raising children. It is a way to legally bind a man and a woman together who love eachother. There is much more to love than physical attraction and breeding. On a side note, I feel like many people that make statements that the guy should be older are actually quite shallow and are wishing that it was true so they could hook up with younger women. If they truly believe that the point to marriage is sex, and there is mostly just physical attraction, then I have pity for them. Also, I do not believe that women are mostly attracted to a mans success and social status. That too would be quite shallow. Personality, physical attraction, being able to relate, and steadiness should be what people are looking for in a relationship.

[Agrippa]

Source?

I would not want to date someone 3 years older or younger than myself. The age gap would lead to us having less in common.

With 3 years? You must be joking!

Even the disco-generation knows no such "big gaps" for 3 years and even more so, females are about 3 years ahead with their maturation, also psychologically on average.

So in fact, a 21 years old male has more in common with an 18 years old female than 18:18.


And marriage is not just for breeding and raising children. It is a way to legally bind a man and a woman together who love eachother.

And love is there to bind man and woman for raising children.

That is the only reason why gay marriage is a perversion actually, because the natural marriage is that of a man and woman founding a family.


There is much more to love than physical attraction and breeding.

Yes, but most of it being part of the process, whether you realised that already or not.


On a side note, I feel like many people that make statements that the guy should be older are actually quite shallow and are wishing that it was true so they could hook up with younger women.

Look, you are now 19 years old.

That means you are in a phase of your life when most attractive/optimal age women are at the same age or actually older and might even say to you, that you are "too young for them".

So you just feel threatened by older males, that's all.

Once you aged beyond the optimal female's age, you might look at things differently, because at least for a new relationship, every male which doesn't go for a younger women is abnormal...

There can be good reasons for same age or even slightly older female partners later in life too, sure, but that's about compensating the age issue, and by default: Younger.

Same for women: Older.

Ask most women, they will say the same. If not, they being brainwashed.

Throughout all cultures, women prefer older males - just not too much older if talking about "average guys" at least, so just being in the biological range.

Women mature earlier and age earlier.

It is therefore just natural that the best match is always an (relatively) older man.


Also, I do not believe that women are mostly attracted to a mans success and social status.

Yeah. Even those looking "for personality" might just look for a provider, those looking for intelligence, look for the potential for the male's success and higher social status, the favourable genes for their offspring.

Fact is, there are mainly two types of women, if having the choice (many don't have too much choices to begin with):
- Looking for promises, so good traits in males which didn't "pay out so far", but are promising - that can be a young guy which is intelligent, handsome, healthy and shows signs for being able to dominate and provide, but achieved little in society so far.
- Looking for what the male has achieved already, which proves not just that he can provide, conquer & defend, but also that he has proven good genes.
The latter will be more often true with older guys, the first might prefer younger partners and invest more, but the final goal of both is the male's success and quality.


That too would be quite shallow. Personality, physical attraction, being able to relate, and steadiness should be what people are looking for in a relationship.

Well, that's what we were saying. You don't make up a contradiction, don't you see that?

The things you mention are just what's important for breeding and raising children, like social status and wealth of the male too...

We're just talking about priorities.

All women go for the same things if being normal, the difference is just in their priorities - what's more important to them if they don't get the "full package".

Obviously, all of them want to have the handsome prince and hero, who is wealthy, accepted in the group, dominant in the group, cares for her, loves her, is faithful and ready to take responsibilities, intelligent and educated, etc., etc.

Now the problem is, most males are not like that, if there are such "perfect males" around at all.

So if you have a pool of males to choose from, women can prioritise:
"Is it more important that he is intelligent or strong?"
"Is it more important that he is young or rich?"
"Is it more important that he is monogamous and faithful or that he has status and can provide?"
"Is it worse that he is poor or that he is sick?"
"Is it worse that he is insensitive and brutal, or that he is hypersensitive and subdominant?"

And so on.

That are options they can go for, and obviously, many females don't understand or accept the decisions and priorities of other females, like:
"How can you choose the old fuck..."
vs.
"How can you go with the poor loser..."

Well, fact is, some of those options being prioritised by society too, so they are more accepted than others.

In traditional societies, going for the successful, high status and wealthy male would be just the normal and accepted thing, going for an attractive and young, but lower level male, probably even from a lower social class, even caste or race, totally inacceptable.
Liberalism and Cultural Marxism changed that...

People being always "superficial" in a way and always "rational" in another, question is just, what's better for them on the longer run, what's better for their bloodline, what's better for their group.

That should be promoted and being the norm in a healthy community and system.

Individual preferences: They will always exist nevertheless...

[BiałaZemsta]

With 3 years? You must be joking!

Even the disco-generation knows no such "big gaps" for 3 years and even more so, females are about 3 years ahead with their maturation, also psychologically on average.

So in fact, a 21 years old male has more in common with an 18 years old female than 18:18.



And love is there to bind man and woman for raising children.

That is the only reason why gay marriage is a perversion actually, because the natural marriage is that of a man and woman founding a family.



Yes, but most of it being part of the process, whether you realised that already or not.



Look, you are now 19 years old.

That means you are in a phase of your life when most attractive/optimal age women are at the same age or actually older and might even say to you, that you are "too young for them".

So you just feel threatened by older males, that's all.

Once you aged beyond the optimal female's age, you might look at things differently, because at least for a new relationship, every male which doesn't go for a younger women is abnormal...

There can be good reasons for same age or even slightly older female partners later in life too, sure, but that's about compensating the age issue, and by default: Younger.

Same for women: Older.

Ask most women, they will say the same. If not, they being brainwashed.

Throughout all cultures, women prefer older males - just not too much older if talking about "average guys" at least, so just being in the biological range.

Women mature earlier and age earlier.

It is therefore just natural that the best match is always an (relatively) older man.



Yeah. Even those looking "for personality" might just look for a provider, those looking for intelligence, look for the potential for the male's success and higher social status, the favourable genes for their offspring.

Fact is, there are mainly two types of women, if having the choice (many don't have too much choices to begin with):
- Looking for promises, so good traits in males which didn't "pay out so far", but are promising - that can be a young guy which is intelligent, handsome, healthy and shows signs for being able to dominate and provide, but achieved little in society so far.
- Looking for what the male has achieved already, which proves not just that he can provide, conquer & defend, but also that he has proven good genes.
The latter will be more often true with older guys, the first might prefer younger partners and invest more, but the final goal of both is the male's success and quality.



Well, that's what we were saying. You don't make up a contradiction, don't you see that?

The things you mention are just what's important for breeding and raising children, like social status and wealth of the male too...

We're just talking about priorities.

All women go for the same things if being normal, the difference is just in their priorities - what's more important to them if they don't get the "full package".

Obviously, all of them want to have the handsome prince and hero, who is wealthy, accepted in the group, dominant in the group, cares for her, loves her, is faithful and ready to take responsibilities, intelligent and educated, etc., etc.

Now the problem is, most males are not like that, if there are such "perfect males" around at all.

So if you have a pool of males to choose from, women can prioritise:
"Is it more important that he is intelligent or strong?"
"Is it more important that he is young or rich?"
"Is it more important that he is monogamous and faithful or that he has status and can provide?"
"Is it worse that he is poor or that he is sick?"
"Is it worse that he is insensitive and brutal, or that he is hypersensitive and subdominant?"

And so on.

That are options they can go for, and obviously, many females don't understand or accept the decisions and priorities of other females, like:
"How can you choose the old fuck..."
vs.
"How can you go with the poor loser..."

Well, fact is, some of those options being prioritised by society too, so they are more accepted than others.

In traditional societies, going for the successful, high status and wealthy male would be just the normal and accepted thing, going for an attractive and young, but lower level male, probably even from a lower social class, even caste or race, totally inacceptable.
Liberalism and Cultural Marxism changed that...

People being always "superficial" in a way and always "rational" in another, question is just, what's better for them on the longer run, what's better for their bloodline, what's better for their group.

That should be promoted and being the norm in a healthy community and system.

Individual preferences: They will always exist nevertheless...

The 3 years has everything to do with my age. A 16 year old girl is too young for me, and a 22 year old is too old. So I agree with you on that. Ok I did get carried away with my post, but I guess I am only speaking from my own experience. Growing up, guys were dating girls and girls were dating guys who were the same age or in the same schooling level. I never bothered hooking up with a girl younger than me, and never needed to because there were plenty in my age group that were available. Actually, I was never the outgoing type. Girls always approached me, and I always had a girlfriend or close friend that was a girl, all being my age (give or take a few months). In reality, I never even thought about age because that was just the way it was. Here is what I notice among the generation of my grandparents. The man is older than the wife in the relationship. Then the husband dies, and the wife lives by herself for another 15 years. Now, if they were both closer in age, they could live together longer.

[Boudica]

What about if it's the opposite? :cool:

Eh, if a young guy wants to fuck grandma, good for him...... :bullet puke

[Storm]

Grannies is what's 'in' these days..

[StonyArabia]

3 years up and 3 years down that's how it usually goes.

[Osweo]

On another personal story, my paternal grandfather was 5 years younger than his wife, and they were one of those rare cases of couples who met very young, and had a loving marriage that lasted for over 50 years, until my grandmother passed away. You don't see such things that often anymore.
I can top a five year figure in my arbol genealogico... ;)

In 1851, my Great Great Great Grandad, Ralph Wilson, was 21 but his wife Esther was 34. THey already had a one year old kid, too. That's a THIRTEEN years older woman! :p They went on to have plenty of other kids, no problems.

[Logan]

I can top a five year figure in my arbol genealogico... ;)

In 1851, my Great Great Great Grandad, Ralph Wilson, was 21 but his wife Esther was 34. THey already had a one year old kid, too. That's a THIRTEEN years older woman! :p They went on to have plenty of other kids, no problems.


A stones throw away from you, my grandfather married a lady twenty-two years younger. :wink

[Sahson]

I can top a five year figure in my arbol genealogico... ;)

In 1851, my Great Great Great Grandad, Ralph Wilson, was 21 but his wife Esther was 34. THey already had a one year old kid, too. That's a THIRTEEN years older woman! :p They went on to have plenty of other kids, no problems.

I think I have a wilson in my maternal lineage... but then who doesn't? the queens mother?

[SwordoftheVistula]

not more of 10 years of difference,
i don't want to marry a woman to become my carer when i will be older and vice-versa.

People become infirm at different ages. Some in their 50s, others reach 90s or over 100 while still going strong.

Also, the concept of living for years of having to be cared for is stupid.

As for the '3 years' rule, it makes sense or even narrower gaps for young men up until their early 20s or girls in their early-mid teens, especially since in most cases the legal age of consent in western countries is around the 16-18 range. Once past high school age for women or past mid 20s for men, I don't see any concerns for such. Even just my friends and social circles, within a couple years after I finished college, soon ranged all over the age spectrum.

[Curtis24]

I also think its silly to think that men and women have to "relate" to each other to have a successful relationship. You don't need to both be fretting over college finals, or your social security check, in order to be attracted to and love each other.

From what I've seen, successful relationships happen when the two people are of equal attractiveness/status. In the case of extremely beautiful women, sometimes finding an older man is the only way they can get a mate equal to them. I know that in my own experience in both high school and college, the really hot girls usually dated older guys outside the school system.

Same rule applies to extremely successful men - it is difficult for say a famous, older actor to maintain a relationship with his equally old wife, when young women are always throwing themselves at him. Of course, in our culture, the man is forced to keep his indiscretions secret

[Han Cholo]

Has any woman here dated someone younger than them? Or any man someone older? The rationalization I've read until now seems of the typical age gap regarding gender in couples (Older man and younger girl) and the points are understandable and quite valid but what would be the motivations and reasons of the other way around? An older female with a younger male? As we already know those relationships do exist and happen as well, but what's the psychology between them?

[Curtis24]

The following is an analysis according to evolutionary psychology, which I find to be a legitimate way to explain human behavior. But many don't, so if you don't, don't bite my head off :P

First, as I pointed out, the older woman could be beautiful to the point where she outcompetes younger girls. Remember: with (most) men its all about looks. A man tries to get with the best-looking woman he can, and sometimes the best-looking woman is going to be older than his age group. But usually not...

The other reason why a man will date an older woman, and more common, is that the man is of low status and can't compete for women his own age... and yes, there are always exceptions, so don't anybody get offended :P

As for why an older woman would date a younger guy, it depends on what her options are. If she's not attractive enough to get a man her own age of high status, then dating someone younger would be better. But its not always better. Remember, its all about status - its better for a 40-year old woman to date a 40-year accomplished man, but if she can't get that, than its better to date young. Its better for a 40-year old woman to date an unemployed 20-year old than to date a 40-year old ditch digger - the young man may have potential, but the older man has proven himself not to(at least, according to the standards of modern society).

Also, in some cases the young man could have something going for him, being extremely handsome etc., which would attract older women.


There's also a third kind of scenario, which you see in Hollywood, where young men will date famous older actresses. In my opinion these kinds of relationships tend to be superficial - the young guy is trying to make a name for himself.

[Agrippa]

The 3 years has everything to do with my age. A 16 year old girl is too young for me, and a 22 year old is too old. So I agree with you on that.

Obviously, 3 years for a 19 year old mean something different from 3 years for a 23 year old, yet alone 35 an so on. 3 years, especially younger than the male, is nothing later in life and better fitting than the same age.


Ok I did get carried away with my post, but I guess I am only speaking from my own experience. Growing up, guys were dating girls and girls were dating guys who were the same age or in the same schooling level.

One of the main reasons for that is because they meet each other in school.

That's like couples coming up at a working place.

We could question whether that's always so good anyway, if looking at "how stable" those relationships happen to be, often because of the rather premature boys/men.


I never bothered hooking up with a girl younger than me, and never needed to because there were plenty in my age group that were available.

Sure. You are 19, you are just entering the "optimal age for females" which starts at 17 and lasts to 25.

So you have still 6 years to go :cool:


Actually, I was never the outgoing type. Girls always approached me, and I always had a girlfriend or close friend that was a girl, all being my age (give or take a few months).

School?


In reality, I never even thought about age because that was just the way it was. Here is what I notice among the generation of my grandparents. The man is older than the wife in the relationship. Then the husband dies, and the wife lives by herself for another 15 years. Now, if they were both closer in age, they could live together longer.

Look, that's no issue, because what matters most is the relationship they had and what came out of it and of course, there is NEVER a guarantee, because a 21 year old can die in a car accident, war or because of a disease as well and we all get older.

Some make it healthy to their 80's, other's don't reach their 50's, that's life.


In 1851, my Great Great Great Grandad, Ralph Wilson, was 21 but his wife Esther was 34.

The same with Mohammed.

Funny though, that his wife was very wealthy and influential, wise and a good help for his "career" and we all know, how young the girls were who followed his first wife...

After being on the top and having lived with this older woman for so long, he eventually went to the other extreme.


An older female with a younger male?

I had somewhat older females, when I was myself in the respective age - so they were older than me, but still in the optimal wider range below 30.

That's the point.

Normal males will always go, if having the choice and being not afraid of the younger woman and that she will cheat them or make other problems, for the wider range of the optimal age from 17 to 30, regardless of how old they are themselves.

For example I wouln't have had a problem with a relationship with a woman of 30 years of age when I was 21 myself, simply because she might still have been "hot", to say it blunt. The older, the better for her age to say it like that. Yet if talking about the future of such a relationship - the man can stay fairly attractive and good in shape up into his 50's and beyond, while most females can't, and then add to that the age difference...

It is clear that older male - younger female is the optimum, same age is ok, older female usually a problem, even though that doesn't mean it can't work well, since it depends on the individuals in question.


The other reason why a man will date an older woman, and more common, is that the man is of low status and can't compete for women his own age... and yes, there are always exceptions, so don't anybody get offended

That's also part of the older man takes younger woman thing, because some males might get their social success and status later in life.
Once they gained that favourable, advantageous position, they will obviously try to use it to their sexual-biological favour.

That's nothing wrong, but perfectly normal. I mean just think about the results of it being the other way around: The dumbass school heart-throb will get all the women, while having no good traits other than superficial ones, and probably don't even cares for the women he takes, especially at his age.

On the other hand, you have an older man, which worked hard for his social success, having generally good traits, but probably even "worked through his youth" and had, if at all, just occasional short term relationships most of the time.
Now he is successful, settled down, ready to go for a longer term relationship and invest into a woman and children: Ideal case, especially for a younger female which want good genes, a good father for her children and gain social status and wealth herself.

Almost free choice for the "later in life" Alpha male.

That's perfect.

The only problem with that comes from one issue: Which kind of competition makes males more or less successful later in life. If the typical corrupted chafferer gets the greatest success and then "takes it all", it is a problem, because his corrupted genes, bad for the group, will spread and fuse with the favourable genes of the attractive, intelligent and generally good girl/woman.

That's the only problem, the question of which kind of success had a man, and how - just look at some (often Jewish) Oligarchs in Russia and how they made "their fortune" - not always the kind of variants of which one wants to see more, or even masked by a more beautiful appearance after the mixture...

Anyway, throughout human evolutionary history, most of the time, the late alpha males had the best and "proven good" genes. They struggled for their position, now they take the prize.

For good traits to spread, they need good carriers = young, fertile, attractive, faithful and so on women.

Same for the women - they choose from the best, those "who made it".

[_______]

Has any woman here dated someone younger than them? Or any man someone older? The rationalization I've read until now seems of the typical age gap regarding gender in couples (Older man and younger girl) and the points are understandable and quite valid but what would be the motivations and reasons of the other way around? An older female with a younger male? As we already know those relationships do exist and happen as well, but what's the psychology between them?

i dated a boy two years younger than me when i was 21. bad idea!

[Turkey]

granny trannies!

[Han Cholo]

i dated a boy two years younger than me when i was 21. bad idea!

Why?

[_______]

Why?

he had too much growing up to do! it was hard work!

[Joe McCarthy]

In theory I don't have much of a preference either way, but as I mostly shun pop-culture and despise modern music whilst being content to read classic literature, that places barriers between me and most young people. This was an issue even when I was a teenager. As such I've usually had older, more worldly, or very well educated women.

[NSFreja]

Has any woman here dated someone younger than them? Or any man someone older?
I have always dated men younger than me.. hmmm.. except for my oldest daughter's father, he was 8 years older than me..
Haven't had many relationships though, but as far as i can see, a man about 5+ years younger than me, is great... LOL
But well, i am old compared to many of you here and 5+ years younger means like end of their 30's and around 40 years old...
But for the moment, i am in some kind of relationship with a man that is 15+ years younger than me and so far it feels great for both of us... but who knows if it will last forever.
People do say to me that they think it is a bad idea to date someone younger, but why should it be that? I mean, no one think it is wrong with men dating younger women.. can't see the problem with women dating younger men. IF feelings are there, and everything else seems to be okay, then why not just go for it.. and to h*ll with what other thinks.. it is, in this case, my life and my choice..
We only have 1 life to live so, take chances and live instead of hold back and maybe regret things when it is too late..

[SwordoftheVistula]

...my oldest daughter's father...i am old compared to many of you here...

I think this was explained in one of Curtis' posts.

For most people though, the assorted explanations laid out in Agrippa's posts hold true.

[NSFreja]

I think this was explained in one of Curtis' posts.

For most people though, the assorted explanations laid out in Agrippa's posts hold true.

Well, sorry for posting then...

[SwordoftheVistula]

Well, sorry for posting then...

Oh no, please, by all means, it certainly helps to have people give real world examples :cool:

[Curtis24]

On the other hand, you have an older man, which worked hard for his social success, having generally good traits, but probably even "worked through his youth" and had, if at all, just occasional short term relationships most of the time.
Now he is successful, settled down, ready to go for a longer term relationship and invest into a woman and children: Ideal case, especially for a younger female which want good genes, a good father for her children and gain social status and wealth herself.

Almost free choice for the "later in life" Alpha male.



Yes, but this phenomenon causes problems in the feminist niveau. Women expect to marry the "alpha male" when they get older - yet he wants to marry younger women. I often wonder if our government will begin passing laws mandating that older men are not allowed to have sex with younger women... I think Aristophanes wrote a play about this :P

[Agrippa]

Yes, but this phenomenon causes problems in the feminist niveau.

You mean the Liberalist an Cultural Marxist ideologies in their attempt to destroy the traditional role models, family structures and biological future of Europe?


Women expect to marry the "alpha male" when they get older - yet he wants to marry younger women.

What else? For what reason should such an alpha male, if being secure about himself and his position, search for a women which is no longer in the optimal age, no longer as sexually attractive, no longer as idealistic and loving, no longer as fertile and probably already on the road down from the hill...?

The women which don't get their alpha male in time, just wasted their best years.

It is not about them to complain, if they don't have the right male when hitting the age of 30 - probably with one exception, if the male deceived and manipulated them, but even then, one could say they failed in recognising the true character and decisions of the man - though that would be somewhat more unfair of course.


I often wonder if our government will begin passing laws mandating that older men are not allowed to have sex with younger women... I think Aristophanes wrote a play about this :P

Well, that would be insane, because the Plutocrats themselves would lose by that too.

After all, what's being rich without young and beautiful women for a healthy and sexually active male?

That's like being duped - the real prize being lost to...whom?

The "Democratic" politicans can't be truly free, because they must fit into the absurd morals of the mass, which the Plutocracy itself established.

But they rule the rules and manipulate from the background, nobody cares as much about what they do, it doesn't even come to the public knowledge most of the time, and from what we know, they "are active" for sure.

The Rothschilds too bred themselves up by taking only the more attractive and favourable women from other Jewish and non-Jewish dynasties obviously...

[la bombe]

When I see a younger girl with a man 20 years older or more, one word comes to mind. GOLD DIGGER.

I've dated guys who were 20 years older than me and I'm not a gold digger. I just thought I didn't care about age, but having been with multiple of them, I realized that dating MUCH older men is definitely not for me. Men who are 40+ tend to be extremely sent in their ways (to the point of being incapable of changing anything at all), carrying a crapload of baggage and somewhat condescending and controlling. At least in my experience, I obviously can't speak for everyone.

[Loki]

I think if one has to take out a calculator to determine if another person is "dating material" (after inquiring about birthdates) then it's a little silly. You meet someone, have a chat, if you gel and get along well, who gives a fuck about age.

[Agrippa]

I think if one has to take out a calculator to determine if another person is "dating material" (after inquiring about birthdates) then it's a little silly. You meet someone, have a chat, if you gel and get along well, who gives a fuck about age.

Generally I agree on this, but on a serious note about that, for a longer term relationship one has to consider the prospects of a relationship, which could cause a problem - but so could same age/or other age relations too of course.

Anyway, the greatest problem in this respect is very obvious, it is about a fertile man regardless of his own age wanting to found a family, first time or new one, doesn't matter neither.

Because if he wants that, prospect are better or worse depending on the females age and from a certain age of his, he can just go for younger ones, if he wants family and children...

[Curtis24]

Agrippa, do you think the system we have now - people wait until they're older to have a child - can eventually develop into a good system? Things like fertility technology, and government welfare to single mothers, could really change the way things are done.

[Moonbird]

I think if one has to take out a calculator to determine if another person is "dating material" (after inquiring about birthdates) then it's a little silly. You meet someone, have a chat, if you gel and get along well, who gives a fuck about age.

Ahhh....remember this famous quote ? :p



I'm not dating girls over 30, I don't have to.

:D



Because if he wants that, prospect are better or worse depending on the females age and from a certain age of his, he can just go for younger ones, if he wants family and children...

A man is physically fit enough to have children after the age of 50, but not that many of them are still mentally young enough to have small children anymore at that age.

[Agrippa]

Agrippa, do you think the system we have now - people wait until they're older to have a child - can eventually develop into a good system? Things like fertility technology, and government welfare to single mothers, could really change the way things are done.

Not really. Even if they would freeze the eggs and sperm of they young, build artificial uteri - it is not the best thing to do to start so late in life with family, especially for the females.

In many cases, the longer they wait, the harder it gets to fit into the role as a mother and partner of the male.

This is just against the "traditional role model", that's it, and they risk - if not wanting it directly - to breed out and ruin the European biological base that way.

It can't be good, it is not competitive.

Many people just talk about the birth rates, but also talk about the birth age, because if there are two groups in a population, one has 2 children with 20, the other with 40, just calculate it...

The reproductive success can also depend on when you get your children, not just at how many.

Having so few children so late, is a double-hit, it makes it impossible to gain a healthy biological standard and demography again.

And of course: Which females get their children too late - mainly those which are "higher level", have generally good traits.

This means, as a rule of thumb: One woman gets better education, probably does a better job - but has no or not enough children.

Whereas a high level woman with 10 children "produces" possibly 5 males of which - in an ideal case - all can be higher level, and 5 daughters which can again have more children.

So this is: 1 academic-high level women at the job market, probably doing something males could do as well, or what she could do with children too if getting the help from the family and community vs. x5 high level variants in an ideal case in every generation.

Losing high level women for being "in the job" for just one generation - for ALL GENERATIONS, the genpool and mempool, because both the biological as well as socio-cultural bloodline being cut, doesn't work out on the longer run, it is just a huge loss, a huge dysgenic trend which ruins the base of all higher level populations, the accumulated genetic quality, fought for and paid for with blood and tears over hundreds and thousands of generations, being lost or at least drastically reduced.

If you don't make being a successful mother of valuable children something which is good for the social status and wealth of the women - and men - in your system, you just don't get rid of that problem.

Eugenic programs just add to that, but the basic for the higher level variants is, that having children and family, following the rules of blood becomes something "wanted" and people with plans and ambitions try to achieve, because they gain status, acceptance, social positions and material advantages through it.

Bourgeois people, women and couples in particular, can't win right now. Even if "helping single mothers" - what I would always do if their children are acceptable at least - won't change that.

Because the state will never be able to "help them" to see the advantage that way, because they can make more money in the job, get more acceptance in the job, independence and options, social status and wealth, productivity and a superficial "meaning of their life" in the Liberalcapitalist system.

The only way out of that is to positive discriminate mothers, fathers, families and make them the winners in the system, by giving them always advantages and higher esteem and status than those without valuable children.

As long as having children can mean to fall down socially, you got a problem, even with Eugenic programs, since to force people to get children is hardly the way to go, one has to change the system to a "family and children first" society, in which the advantages of being a mother in particular should be obvious and clear to everyone.

Just to give an example, even for studying or if it is about job application, social help or social status in society through the mass media, the local social networks and political organisastion: Mothers first, mothers first, mothers first...

Like it was throughout all of human history, in all successful human societies. Getting children, valuable children accepted by the group, must be a win, must be a victory for the woman.

Now it is the other way around and even many women which would like to have children emotionally, but are controlled and intelligent, well-educated and so on, try to prevent it from happening, because other priorities seem to be more important in the Liberalcapitalist social environment.

That must be changed, especially for the higher level women which are the future of the group, because most valuable future children and group members will be born by them, or not born at all.


A man is physically fit enough to have children after the age of 50, but not that many of them are still mentally young enough to have small children anymore at that age.

What? Older men have often more of an ambition for a stable family and children, than younger men, which fight for their social status and are more often still in the "spread your sperm indiscriminately" mode.

They have also more patience and experience, being quite often the better fathers actually...

Mentally young enough to have children? Ever saw mentally retarded 19 year old proll-fathers of unwanted children?

Do you really thing they do better than some alpha or beta males, well-educated, patient, planned and experienced, in their 50's?

Rather not.

[BiałaZemsta]

Agrippa, would you say that age matters in a relationship where reproduction and breeding is not the focus? For example, a man and woman like each other a lot and want to live together and form a partnership.

[Agrippa]

Agrippa, would you say that age matters in a relationship where reproduction and breeding is not the focus? For example, a man and woman like each other a lot and want to live together and form a partnership.

The question would be then - in such a relationship without a longer term goal and reproductive success - on what this relationship would be based upon.

For example if those two partners being primarily together because of the "good sexuality" - it matters.
If they are together because of the same activities - it matters.

If they are together because they being "in tune with each other", having a very similar mindset, general interests and way of living and thinking, it might be least important of all, because for soul mates, for which that is the primary focus, age might be least important.

But in reality, even most "soul mates" have different interests, for which age could be a problem and in most cases, family and children are for many an issue too, even today - even if just for one of the partners...

A young woman mating an (idiotic) old man which says "I don't want children, just a young partner" is as irrational, as the young man with the old, infertile woman.

Actually, those are real problem cases if talking about older males and males in general, old guys which want younger women (for their sexual and other activities), but no children. Because what they do is just "occupying" the young women and taking away their best years, which nobody can give them back.

Sure, they might gain other advantages, but if losing "their best years", while they themselves would want children, nothing can compensate for that - for the group neither.

[Pallantides]

Generally females aren't mature enough to have children when they are about 20. There are exceptions to this rule but not many. I'd say between 25 and 30 is a good age for women to start a family, for men I'd say over 30.

My maternal grandmother had 4 kids before she turned 20(the first she had when she was only 16) and 2 more she got later when she was 22 and 24.

[Moonbird]

What? Older men have often more of an ambition for a stable family and children, than younger men, which fight for their social status and are more often still in the "spread your sperm indiscriminately" mode.

They have also more patience and experience, being quite often the better fathers actually...


My experience is that older fathers often seem to get irritated very quickly when children scream and play in a loud way. They want to spend their free time more and more in peace and quiet.


Mentally young enough to have children? Ever saw mentally retarded 19 year old proll-fathers of unwanted children?

Do you really thing they do better than some alpha or beta males, well-educated, patient, planned and experienced, in their 50's?


No, of course not. Teenagers as fathers is seldom a good idea. The best age for men to become fathers is probably between 30 and 40. Some may be mature enough at 25 but I'd say that they are not the majority.

[Agrippa]

While I'm less convinced about the rest, I surely agree with this overall:


The best age for men to become fathers is probably between 30 and 40. Some may be mature enough at 25 but I'd say that they are not the majority.

[Boudica]

I guess that my mother was very fertile for a 40 year old, she became pregnant with my little sister while being on birth control and being the age that she was.

[CelticViking]

I've only been to dinner dates and movies with men 1-5 years older than me and 1-2 years younger than me. I get along better with men my own age though.

[Contra Mundum]

I think within the boundaries of someone's age group is more appropriate. Someone who will accompany you for the rest of your life as one. That is hardly possible when you have a 20+ year age gap.


But the woman will get an inheritance and life insurance and enjoy the rest of her life. Better than being with a dude her own age and both croaking around the same time broke. Some women are just attracted to older men because of the mature father figure image. They feel more secure.

[EuroAmericanProud]

I tend to prefer women my own age.

[Queen B]

I have never dated a younger guy. Usually a couple of years older, up until 8 years older.

[Caismeachd]

I am 30 now and dated briefly a girl who was only 21. That's the youngest. The oldest was 11 years older than me. I was 25 and they were 36. The best/most stable relationships I've been in have been with girls just slightly older than me.

[Hurrem sultana]

i am 22

i dated 2 guys,one was 24 ,other was 22(younger than me 3 months)

[StonyArabia]

3 years and 3 years down is often the ideal which many people follow here.

[Mortimer]

younger or older is both ok. younger=more juvenile but older=more mature, both has positive and negative aspects

[Hurrem sultana]

3 years and 3 years down is often the ideal which many people follow here.

it is true,for me the ideal has always been 2-3 years older guy

[Queen B]

3 years and 3 years down is often the ideal which many people follow here.

Depends on the age, I d say. For a 18 y.o. o, 3 ages is an ideal difference, while f.e. 8 years is way too much. When I was that age, I wouldn't day anyone that older. Now, that I am 28, dating a guy in his 35, (he looks not more than 30 though), is a good difference.

[Hurrem sultana]

Depends on the age, I d say. For a 18 y.o. o, 3 ages is an ideal difference, while f.e. 8 years is way too much. When I was that age, I wouldn't day anyone that older. Now, that I am 28, dating a guy in his 35, (he looks not more than 30 though), is a good difference.

it depends i am 22 and i would not be able to date a 32 year old,,a bit too bif difference.He is most probably done with education long time ago,with job and experience,,while i am just a student :D

also later on when i want to go out have fun,he will be at an other stage in life.I know that from a couple here,,,they are still married only because of traditional reasons-divorce is "wrong!"


But this all depends on persons,some older people behave / look younger,and some younger behave/look older

[Queen B]

it depends i am 22 and i would not be able to date a 32 year old,,a bit too bif difference.He is most probably done with education long time ago,with job and experience,,while i am just a student :D

also later on when i want to go out have fun,he will be at an other stage in life.I know that from a couple here,,,they are still married only because of traditional reasons-divorce is "wrong!"


But this all depends on persons,some older people behave / look younger,and some younger behave/look older

If I were 22 again (buhaha), I wouldn't date a 32 y.o man either :lol:.
In my 23s, I started dating my (now ex) boyfriend, who was 3 years older.

[Hurrem sultana]

I agree it all depends on age,i guess when you are over 30 it is more or less not important important and then it is more about personality(but still over 10 years is always too much in my book)

[Tony]

I am 30 now and dated briefly a girl who was only 21. That's the youngest. The oldest was 11 years older than me. I was 25 and they were 36. The best/most stable relationships I've been in have been with girls just slightly older than me.

Same situation, I'm now with a woman who is older than me and it's now 6 years, the way longest story I ever head.

[Hurrem sultana]

mom is 2 years younger than dad,grandma was 2 years older than grandpa,other grandma was same age

one aunt is 8 years older than her husband

so it is usually same age,,or females being older in my family :D

[Vixen]

As a teenager, I never really got along with people my own age. All of my friends were much older than me and by the time I was 16 I would not look twice at men under 21. My fiance is 20 years older than me... but he looks no older than 35 and is really young at heart and such a fun person to be around. Those who don´t know us have often assumed that I am a gold digger... they are always shocked to find out that I am financially very well off and have a higher income tham him. :D I had never dated some one so much older than myself untill I met him. Usually though, I would never date anyone who was not at least 5 years older.

[rashka]

I think it is awful that the man be much older than the woman. I think that only in certain cases can he be much older for example if a 50 year old man wants to have a baby then he can have a 30-40 year old wife.

[Hurrem sultana]

I think it is awful that the man be much older than the woman. I think that only in certain cases can he be much older for example if a 50 year old man wants to have a baby then he can have a 30-40 year old wife.

I agree i am against that

and i see too often guys over 40(singles) trying to find 25-30 year olds for marriage...and later they get surprised when their woman finds someone her age:coffee:

[lepa]

My great grandfather was 11 years older than my great grandmother. When they married, my great grandmothr was 23, and my great grandfather was 34.

[Tony]

I agree i am against that

and i see too often guys over 40(singles) trying to find 25-30 year olds for marriage...and later they get surprised when their woman finds someone her age:coffee:

Men tend to seek fresh flesh, for many reasons...

I'm curios about Mary's opinion on this subject, theoretically she should support a couple where he is way more aged then her, I assume.

[Hurrem sultana]

Men tend to seek fresh flesh, for many reasons...

I'm curios about Mary's opinion on this subject, theoretically she should support a couple where he is way more aged then her, I assume.

well she is older than her husband(she said)

[Sultan Suleiman]

I agree i am against that

and i see too often guys over 40(singles) trying to find 25-30 year olds for marriage...and later they get surprised when their woman finds someone her age:coffee:

Basic biology honey :coffee:

Men have longer "reproduction carriers".

[Hurrem sultana]

Basic biology honey :coffee:

Men have longer "reproduction carriers".

yeah a man can become a father at 70 too,does not mean it is naturally normal to marry a 20 year old:coffee:

[Mary]

Men tend to seek fresh flesh, for many reasons...

I'm curios about Mary's opinion on this subject, theoretically she should support a couple where he is way more aged then her, I assume.

My mom was in her early 20s when she met my dad. My dad was like 40. I'm a few months older than my man. I think it really depends on the people involved and the kind of relationship you have.

[Vixen]

My mom was in her early 20s when she met my dad. My dad was like 40. I'm a few months older than my man. I think it really depends on the people involved and the kind of relationship you have.

Exactly.

[Hurrem sultana]

My mom was in her early 20s when she met my dad. My dad was like 40. I'm a few months older than my man. I think it really depends on the people involved and the kind of relationship you have.

but we all know why your dad married your mom(because of you) ,and if it is true he was her professor then that is not a great example :coffee:

[Mary]

but we all know why your dad married your mom(because of you) ,and if it is true he was her professor then that is not a great example :coffee:

Why is it not a good example? :confused:

[Hurrem sultana]

Why is it not a good example? :confused:

because a professor should not make his students pregnant:rolleyes2:

[Mary]

because a professor should not make his students pregnant:rolleyes2:

He's still banging his students and his secretary. He's 70+ by now. Some guys just can't help it. My mom isn't the only woman he made pregnant, you know.

[Hurrem sultana]

He's still banging his students and his secretary. He's 70+ by now. Some guys just can't help it. My mom isn't the only woman he made pregnant, you know.

so you have many sisters and brothers out there:coffee:

[Mary]

so you have many sisters and brothers out there:coffee:

A few, that I know of anyway.

Point is: relationships are different.

[Hurrem sultana]

A few, that I know of anyway.

so it does not bother your mom?

[Mary]

so it does not bother your mom?

Not really, she's divorced from him since a long time back.

[Hurrem sultana]

Not really, she's divorced from him since a long time back.

well why am i not surprised:wink


funny how he lost the woman when he was everything a man should be,no?