November 20th, 2007

Previous Entry Next Entry
02:07 am - on may-december romances and karaoke with strippers...
The other day, Steph and I were playing Scruples with friends when I was given a pretty interesting question. The premise was that if I get divorced, would I invite my new girlfriend to spend the night with me while my adolescent children were home. This transgressed into a conversation about how as I'd be in my mod 40s, my new girlfriend was likely around 19, which led to my commenting about how one of my life goals is to bed an 18 year old once I turn 36, just because there's something magical about banging someone half your age.

Amazingly, I am still in a relationship.

Anyway, Steph and Kim stated that they thought it was wrong for someone in their 40s to be dating a teenager. George and I maintained that while a little out of the ordinary there was nothing specifically wrong with it. Obviously one could look at the breakdown of our little survey of four and determine that, well... men are pigs. This may be true, but I actually had a little more logic to it than that. The girls theorized that because of the age difference between say, a 43 year old man and a 19 year old woman, the two could never have a compatible enough life experience to have a relationship and that it could only be about raunchy, dirty, unbridled sex and that that was slimy. While I have no problem with basing a relationship on raunchy, dirty, unbridled sex, I personally feel that assuming two people aren't right for each other because of their ages is just as prejudiced as assuming they can't be together because of their races, religions or genders. It just seems wrong to me. Maybe the 19 year old is amazingly mature. Maybe the 43 year old is amazingly immature. Maybe neither and they're just people.

I've always heard the "rule" that you should only date people who are older than half your age plus seven. But does that really hold true? So I'm wondering, how do other people feel about this sort of thing.

Also, Pittsburgh people: I've decided to get a group of people together for some post-Thanksgiving karaoke on Friday. Not just karaoke, BAREOKE! At the Tennyson Lodge. Basically, its karaoke while strippers dance around you. Its great fun. Anyone else interested in going with us? (men and women welcome, of course)

(64 comments | Leave a comment)

on may-december romances and karaoke with strippers... - on may-december romances and karaoke with strippers... - graffiti.maverick Page 2 — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at


Page 2 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
From: dcalle Date: November 25th, 2007 - 12:48 am (Link)

It's a good rule of thumb

Personally I think half your age plus seven is a great rule of thumb. That would mean that, for an unmarried me, the range is 23 to 52. I will tell you that that would be pretty much perfect - I wouldn't want to seriously date a college student and I don't think I'd be attracted to a women in her mid-fifties even if she looked great for her age.

However - I think of it as a rule of thumb, not a moral law, and would only apply it to serious dating. Would an unmarried me hook up with a college girl? Sure. And I don't think it would be unethical.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: November 26th, 2007 - 03:15 pm (Link)

Re: It's a good rule of thumb

see, I think that looking at is as a rule of thumb is fine. But you're speaking purely on levels of your own personal attraction. I certainly understand that. For instance. I tend to not date blondes. I'm just more attracted to brunettes and redheads. That said, I would never say "brunettes should never date blondes because their intelligence level is too disparate to have a real relationship." I know plenty of intelligent blondes. I just happen to prefer brunettes. I'd say your age example fits in their just as well.
From: dcalle Date: November 27th, 2007 - 03:32 am (Link)

Re: It's a good rule of thumb

There's more to it than just attraction - I also think that a mature adult (mental age over 30) really has no business in a serious relationship with the typical 18 year old girl. Most 18 year olds are really children and adults really should treat them with kid gloves - I just don't think it's good for them emotionally.
[User Picture]From: kdavoli Date: November 26th, 2007 - 07:40 pm (Link)
I have a rule about ME not dating people who are younger than 19, but that's not because of the age differential. The age-of-consent (in my own little mind) stays at 19 whether I'm 27 or 87.
And I have no rule about myself not dating older partners, no matter how much older.

In general, I don't think it's skanky.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: November 26th, 2007 - 08:31 pm (Link)
out of curiosity, where did the magic number 19 come from?
[User Picture]From: kdavoli Date: November 26th, 2007 - 08:45 pm (Link)
19 is the smallest age of any partner I have ever had (regardless of my age at the time) where the good sex outweighed the drama. Younger than that, and (historically) the drama has outweighed the sex every time.
Page 2 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

• Go to Top