The age formula for dating

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2012 8:54 PM GMT
    Have anyone heard of this? I got this from a friend last night when we were talking about dating and relationships. He said the minimum age one usually date would be half of one's age plus 7. In other words, if you are 30, the minimum age you would date is around 30/2+7 = 22. If you are 20, then the formula yields 17.

    For me, it sounds about right.

    I know some ppl are gonna say that age doesn't matter in a relationship, and other are gonna post examples of their relationship with a much older or much younger guy. There will always be exception

    But do you think this formula hold true for the majority of the population?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 16, 2012 9:09 PM GMT
    Don't be silly. There are no formulas or love potions. Be honest, you did the math, and now you're trying to hook up with 21 yr olds.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2012 9:12 PM GMT
    ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/
    Adjective:
    Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2012 9:41 PM GMT
    I do it intuitively, really. I feel like people 22 to 34 for me are best for me. I will still consider people outside of it but my cut off is before 20 and beyond 39. I don't date "teens" because most of them don't really satisfy in terms of maturity and most people beyond a certain age are at different stages in their life than I am. They come from a different generation (albeit a usually more relatable one compared to the one I am in).

    But that's just meeeeeee. :3
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Oct 16, 2012 9:42 PM GMT
    It's a perfect measure that should be universally followed without question.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2012 9:54 PM GMT
    I had always heard 1/2+8, which means if you're 30 then the youngest you should date is 1/2(30)+8 = 23, and the oldest you should date is (30-8 )*2 = 44.

    I think the idea behind it was not that you actually can't/shouldn't date someone outside of your range, rather that if you stay within this range, it will not warrant negative attention from society. Of course, I really think it depends on the people involved, not on some equation.
  • biggamehunter

    Posts: 87

    Oct 16, 2012 10:02 PM GMT
    No is not true for me. I am 25, so (25/2 =12.5 + 7 = 19.5) I will not date someone under 21. That being said I could see it being about right as I get older adn the ages all start to be over 24
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2012 10:35 PM GMT
    Damn. ....34 that works for me . Now go tell the 34 year old that. Lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2012 10:46 PM GMT
    Who cares, if there is chemistry? People who are hung up on age, are the "agists!' My BF is 10 years older than me, and we have an amazing relationship.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2012 10:59 PM GMT
    Nope. Mines is 21, but I don't really go for anyone below around 25. Also, if I double my age and subtract 7, is that my supposed to be my high-end number? That would be wrong too...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2012 11:09 PM GMT
    Apex0111 saidNope. Mines is 21, but I don't really go for anyone below around 25. Also, if I double my age and subtract 7, is that my supposed to be my high-end number? That would be wrong too...


    Nope, take your age, subtract 7, then double.
  • booboolv

    Posts: 203

    Oct 16, 2012 11:24 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidDamn. ....34 that works for me . Now go tell the 34 year old that. Lol


    I'm with Alph13... bring on the 32 year olds... If you think you can keep up! icon_twisted.gif
  • ncsudude

    Posts: 27

    Oct 16, 2012 11:46 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidDamn. ....34 that works for me . Now go tell the 34 year old that. Lol


    I'm 34!!! icon_biggrin.gif
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Oct 16, 2012 11:47 PM GMT
    bitch please. this is the formula:

    (my age + your age) X 1,000 = how much you better have after taxes per year to spend on me for it to work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2012 11:50 PM GMT
    calibro saidbitch please. this is the formula:

    (my age + your age) X 1,000 = how much you better have after taxes per year to spend on me for it to work.



    calibro your so sexy!!!!!! and did you know that jewish people come from outer space i saw it on a youtube videoicon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2012 11:52 PM GMT
    It seems like a decent formula to go by if you are completely lacking in judgment. For me I think it goes a bit too low on the age spectrum, but to each his own.

    But really, I'm more interested in a formula that tells you what body fat % range your potent romantic interests should have. Flame on!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2012 11:55 PM GMT
    Hawk_Guy13 said
    Apex0111 saidNope. Mines is 21, but I don't really go for anyone below around 25. Also, if I double my age and subtract 7, is that my supposed to be my high-end number? That would be wrong too...


    Nope, take your age, subtract 7, then double.


    and one of the other bonuses is that it gives you an idea of intelligence
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2012 12:57 AM GMT
    If I were to only pick guys around my age, given my preferences, I wouldn't have much to tell. Since I never compromise on body type I guess it's fair that I compromise on age.
  • barriehomeboy

    Posts: 2475

    Oct 17, 2012 12:59 AM GMT
    I'm 57. I just dumped a cute young muscley 32 year old. The numbers mean nothing. And yes he was hot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2012 1:07 AM GMT
    That would make my range 31 - 45. I'm OK with that, but following any formula too rigidly is foolish. I don't think that age difference matters as much as life stage and maturity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2012 1:10 AM GMT
    The minimum age for sex is 18, unless your local jurisdiction's law allows for younger.

    The minimum age for love cannot be set by law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2012 1:34 AM GMT
    OK, so where is the 38 year-old for me??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2012 2:00 AM GMT
    Do you have a recipe for apple pie?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2012 3:56 AM GMT
    Lol, I don't think the OP meant that this should be adopted as the first of the 10 gay commandments, I think he was throwing it out there as a formula that is not a law but a describer of what generally works. It's a model of the most successful relationships, not a hard and fast rule. Sociology would tell us that rule is probably dead on balls right on. Proximity, commonality of interests, similar cultural background, plus an advancing tolerance of difference with age would all be pretty damn good social predictors of successful relationships. At age 20, the youngest being 17 is going to be very, very accurate. The age of late teens to 20 is a time of life that is marked by a profound difference in common slang, a period of highly self focused major life changes, extreme differences in life experience, really coming into an adult world for the first time. That person is not going to have a lot in common with someone 44. But as the model predicts the range of age that is appropriate becomes a lot larger as you become more experienced in life, and start to learn those small differences of age, are far less significant than the differences in character, honor, decency, compassion, sincerity, and trust. With greater experience we gain the awareness, somewhat painfully at first, that the differences that last are the not the superficial differences we thought pointed at a legit decision. And in that we begin to look at the person instead of the social symbols they display, and accordingly we see people less for their age and more for who they are.

    I think when taken as a model and not a law, the model has a shit ton of merit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2012 3:57 AM GMT
    Well what do I do then? I do not...ever look my age. I do have a no under 21 rule for dating guys. Other than that rule why set more limits?