If you're gonna have a midlife crisis,
you might as well do it right.
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)