Tal --

The thread closed before I could respond to your reply to my post: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1332468

I'd like to, in turn, respond:

1. <Iced Tea, I want to respectfully suggest that you are on the wrong side of this issue...>

If, as you say in your original post on the previous thread, there is "no wrong way to love," then how, exactly, can one be on the "wrong side" of this issue? It would seem that what you were originally saying is that there IS no wrong side, that we should not judge others for their opinions/preferences, and that anything is OK. I'm a bit confused as to how this paradigm applies favorably to your point of view but not to mine -- maybe there's no wrong way except the one that disagrees?

2. <...relationships that some people instantly adjudge "wrong" or "creepy" or "improper"...>

Noting that something makes one feel creepy or creeped out is very different from judging that thing or situation to be "wrong" according to whatever criteria one is using. In pronouncing my gut reaction to be "wrong," are you not doing the very thing you accuse me of (arbitrarily judging and labeling)?

While I admit I'm often creeped out by age-gap relationships, I've also been careful to state that they aren't inherently wrong or bad -- just that often the age-gap creates power imbalances that can be difficult to overcome. And, as I've also pointed out, there will be exceptions/outliers, as many of the posters on the other thread have discussed. But, if it works for the particular couple, then (as I've said before), good luck and happiness to them. (And yes, there are studies on age-gappers and power imbalance, some of which are available online).

3. <The other complaint made my people I can't quite wrap my head around is that we should never be with people significantly older than ourselves, because they'll grow incapacitated, and then we'll have to care for them, or arrange for their care.>

Although other posters mentioned this, I did not (nor do I agree with that line of reasoning).

4. Back to "There's no wrong way to love." By definition, we're including all possible subsets: any age (minor or not), any degree of consanguinity, any degree of persuasion/coercion/intimidation, any mental, emotional, or physical disability, any disparity between the partners. To even stipulate "consenting adults" effectively limits and nullifies the "no wrong way" dictum.

Think about that for a moment. This definition includes not only relationships between people of different ages, sexualities, ethnicity, culture, education, language, intelligence, and whatever else, but also situations that might make us squirm: intimate relationships between close family members, minors/children and adults, teachers and students, bosses and employees, mentally disabled persons and those with power over them, etc. While age-gap may indeed be one of the more benign manifestations of power-imbalance relationships and might indeed work beautifully for a particular couple, I would argue that a blanket prescriptive such as "no wrong way to love" might not work out terribly well for many others who need social and legal protections (minor children, for instance).

But, back to the original topic. For those who want analysis and discussion of age-gap relationships, here's some interesting reading:

1. May-December Age Paradoxes: An Exploration of Age-Gap Relationships in Western Society:

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=psychpubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3D%2522age-gap%2Brelationships%2522%2BAND%2B%2522power%2522%2B%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C45#search=%22age-gap%20relationships%20power%22

2. Age-Gap Relationships: The Attractions and Drawbacks of Choosing a Partner Much Older or Younger Than Yourself, by Jill Pitkeathley and David Emerson (book).

3. When It Comes to Dating, Do Age Differences Matter?:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201308/when-it-comes-dating-do-age-differences-matter

From the conclusion of the Psychology Today article you suggested (3).

"What can we draw from this finding? The authors offer an interpretation worth pondering: It may that while age seems paramount in the abstract (all things being equal, men desire younger women, and women desire older men), in practice, when two people actually go on a date, the age difference might not have as much importance as other considerations, such as physical attraction and a compatible personality."

Yes -- complicated, isn't it? The question that conclusion begs, though, is what might be considered "compatibility" -- and whether that looks different for an age-gap couple vs. an age-similar one. Some people, for instance, might view compatibility as mutual physical desire/attraction, and for one date (or several), that's all they need. Whether or not that physical attraction can compensate for other imbalances over the long term would depend on the couple.

For most relationships, there would (at least theoretically), come a point when other elements are more important: is there enough besides physical attraction to keep them happy together? Such as equality, respect, and mutuality. If there's a power imbalance anyway, it would be tougher.

I might add that diversity which doesn't allow dissenting opinions or ideas is not really diversity.

& one would sincerely hope that was just tremendously unfortunate
Phrasing.

I am so glad you expressed point number 4.

sadly, It boggles the mind how inequitable power distrabution and ethics go right out the window in some situations.
For instance i recall the indignation both my adoptive pardnts expressed when ---- was sent to prison. His crime? Taking his girlfriend all over the country on his motorcycle. (He was 45 she was 15!) he was a lifelong friend and business partner.

In an additional sad example, the day i moved out to college my adoptive father brought home a 16 year old he'd found prostituting at a truck stop he gave her my bedroom. My adopted mother began to drink heavily from the family wine barrels and five gallon glass jars next to the wine press in thd barn by the vineyard .

So thank you so very much for clarifying point number four.
It is tremendously appreciated,

Iced Tea:

You seem very eager to find some fault with what I've written - so much so, that you've even taken the liberty of inventing a quote, wrongly attributing it to me, and then using it as the basis for insinuating that my tolerance for different forms of adult romantic relationships would lead to approval of pedophilia. Not cool.

To be clear, I have not said, "there is no wrong way to love". What I said was, "there is no 'right' way to be a couple". That's quite a different thing. I also said, referring to *consenting adults*:

"...different people find happiness in different ways. Different people have different needs, and different preferences, and who is to say that any one is right or wrong? Where two people find happiness together, regardless of age gap, culture or race difference, sexual orientation, or anything else, I think we ought to celebrate that - especially as ex-Mormons."

I stand by those statements. And yes, I think your claims that relationships with significant age gaps are necessarily about "ego strokes", "money", or are necessarily "inequitable", are illiberal, presumptuous, and wrong. Certainly, any relationship might be about the things you mention, but that doesn't necesssarily emerge from age (or race, or the sexual orientation of the partners, for that matter). After all, in the end, relationships are about *two humans* sharing their lives together. Not two "ages" or "races", etc.

On your point (2), no, I'm not at all doing "the same thing" as you when I suggest that your views as wrong. The reason why is that your rash judgments emerge from ignorance and/or elitist prejudice, in that they either ignore or discount the testimonies of many millions of happy couples which don't fit your ideal. By contrast, I'm reporting facts: relationship happiness comes in different ways to different people, and you have no valid basis for disparaging or trivializing that happiness, or alleging that relationships which don't match your preferred external standards of "propriety" are about money, ego strokes, and abuse of power. How absurd.

My last point is that I don't think you even have any valid basis for your presumption that an "equitable relationship" - however you or "Paint in the Window" might define it - is simply "the best", at all times and all places for all people. To say such a thing requires an unbelievable amount of presumptuousness.

Some people, it might shock you to learn, value certain things above Western-style equality in a relationship. Depending on who they are, or their circumstances, they might value piety more, or security, or a sense of belonging, or tenderness, or the presence of passion, or fidelity. To put it more bluntly, they might actually value IN-equality in a relationship. One lady friend of mine once confided to me: "I want my man to be the leader". And she's a professional with her own successful business. I also know one very sweet young man who always wants a more domineering partner. His girlfriend is a decade older than he is. Is there something wrong with these two? I don't think so. But it seems like you might, because you have bought into the idea that there is some "ideal type of relationship", and that those which don't fit that ideal are not about genuine love or respect or admiration; and further, you've bought into the elitist presumption that that one-size-fits-all ideal is (in Paint's words) the "equitable relationship".

But humans come in all shapes and sizes, with all different types of personalities. We don't fit into the little box you and Paint have for us, nor do we want to try to fit in. We had enough of that with Mormonism.

Just my two cents.

Both inequitable relationships I used as examples- were older business men in the mid to late 1970s. Both used their money and power illegally, one by travelling across the country in a sexual relationship with a fifteen year old when he was 45. He was sentenced to prison .

In 1980 the other used his business and assets to keep an underage mistress in one of his houses ( whom he had found when she was prostituting at a truck stop at age 16) proclaiming himself heroic, a tarnished knight in armor rescuing a damsel in distress from a truck stop. He promptly took her home to the castle ( on a farm ) to have her himself.

Its just that however heroically he proclaimed himself, he was my father /albeit, by adoption- and that was my bedroom in my house the week I left for college. She (teen prostitute) had dropped out of school, and she was passed between my sdopted father, adopted brother, and friends until my mother got her & somebodys baby off the ranch sans teeth with airfare to somewhere.

Inequity/ land. Money. Workers. He really believed, both these men in the mid to late seventies really believed anything was ok.

By the way , my board name is painting in the WIN, because I believe you can reframe your life seeking through persistent pursuit and use of talents and overcome obstacles & injustices.

The board name painting in the WIN is intended to convey an individuals inherent right & capacity to make a better life. In the case of this board, its the ability to state domething is wrong in mormon history & present claims. & re design a life, reframe ones ideas, literally paint a new life. - one where obe wins.

differece between me and wife is 24 years and going strong

get her done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> differece between me and wife is 24 years and
> going strong

This is pretty much my story, too!!!

:)

Good on you, tevsi and get her done!

I believe that a lot of people are alone because they put arbitrary and unnecessary barriers on finding a mate.

Judgey types who think that if they find something "icky" it means it's wrong are no fun to be around anyway.

From my experience, it's a reaction based on jealousy and provincialism.

If a world existed where males and females were equal in every sense of the word, then relationships could be forged based on individual preference. Since no such world exists, many relationships are skewed toward male dominance of one type or another. Men still get to choose and women are chosen. In a society that values older alpha males, and devalues older females. Men are allowed and encouraged to choose younger partners.

Go to the senior dating cites and read the profiles and the wish lists of men over fifty. Very few men are looking for a woman who would be an equal match, financially, physically or emotionally.

Men, even men with little to offer, want and can attract younger women, because society expects for that to happen.

You can prance out a few cases where the attraction works in reverse, but I do not believe that is nearly as common.

I think that we're actually talking about two different things when we talk about Age-Gap Romances. First there is attraction and then there is relationship. You have to get through the attraction to get to the relationship. Men might find that a relationship with an older woman was very rewarding if they were able to get past the bias of the younger woman attraction.

Well, releve,
Since everything in this world revved around straight people, let's just pretend that the only type if relationship that we're discussing here is between a man and a woman.

Self centered much?

"Men still get to choose and women are chosen."

quick! go tell that 40 year old virgin that all he has to do is choose a woman...


"Very few men are looking for a woman who would be an equal match, financially, physically or emotionally."

it's not uncommon for a man that was plain or even goofy looking through his 20s to become quite handsome during his 30s - and with some attention to diet and exercise he can ride that handsome period for a couple of decades

or, to say it another way, a handsome 40 year old man can actually be "physically" higher rated by society than a lot of mildly attractive women in their 20s

and yes, there are some ugly older guys with hot younger women but in those cases fame is the operative factor - we think those relationships are more common than they actually are because, again, fame...

but for your average non-famous and non-wealthy 30s or 40s man dating a 20-something woman their relative physical attractiveness (in my experience) is generally pretty equal

Sonoma, you are quite right. I'm not gay and the discussion had done nothing to inform me of how gay people might view age-gap romances. To be perfectly honest, I don't know very much about what makes one gay or lesbian person attracted to another. I will gladly admit that as a sixty seven year old heterosexual female, there are large gaps in my knowledge. That being said, I cannot be accused of being unwilling to learn. Sorry, if I offended.

grubbygent nli, What? The question isn't does a non-wealthy, non-famous man in his 30s or 40s consider himself as attractive as a 20 something female. Of course he does. That's my point. The rest of my point is that he considers himself more attractive than a 30 or 40 something female with the same status. I believe it to be a societal bias.

Sorry releve,

I may have been a little too hard on you. I'm touchy when gays are excluded from the conversation.

For an idea of how one gay man sees the issue, I've copied what I wrote on an earlier version of this thread.


One of the best things about being gay has been the realization that what society teaches us about love is mostly bullsh!t.

It's amazing how many here have been conned into the notion that everyone is sexually attracted to the same type; that if given the chance, we all would choose to be with some Hollywood clone.

I'm sorry that so many people never realize that love AND sexual attraction are purely subjective and wildly disperate.

The level of ignorance to think that someone would only be in a relationship with a person of a different age because of money, is tragic.

I guess it's no wonder that so many are alone when they cut themselves off from even considering great swaths of the population because of what the average person thinks is appropriate.

In my community, there are those that are certainly obsessed with what would rightly be described as Hollywood good looks.

However...

There are those that are really into huge muscles.

There are those that are attracted to guys who are extremely skinny.

Some like younger guys, but an equal amount are into older men.

There is a major subset of the gay community affectionately known as Bears, who are large and hairy and generally older.

The Bear Community includes those who aren't physically Bears, but attracted to that type.

There are Otters who are hairy like bears, but don't have the girth.

There are Leather Daddies, and Cross Dressers, not to be confused with Drag Queens or the Trans-Gendered. There are Twinks and Plushies, and those who like to act out sex play as dogs and wolves.

There are a plethora of "affinity groups" all of which include "...and their admirers".

The spectrum of healthy sexual practices and desires is so much greater than what is portrayed by the media and our society. Most if this goes unseen, because the vast majority prefer to keep their sexual practices private.

Don't be conned by Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

What they sell as female beauty for example, is decided by a very narrow and very young segment of the gay community. And what they're really selling is clothes, accessories, shoes, cosmetics and etc. to women. They set an impossible standard for beauty because that's how you sell that endless supply of "things".

But that's commerce, not love, or sexual attraction.

After two long term relationships with men around my age (first was 4 years older, second was 4 years younger) and from similar socioeconomic backgrounds and the same race, I found the love of my life in someone totally different from me.

I'm white, he's black. I was raised LDS, he was raised without religion. I'm 6'2" 250lbs. He's 5'1" 125lbs. He's 15 years younger than me. And we are crazy about each other!

We both feel like we have found our perfect mate. And we make a gorgeous couple!

The idea that others might judge us because of our differences never comes up.

What we experience mostly is that people from all walks of life react very positively towards us, and seem to want to be around us because we're so damn fun, and nice, and happy and in love...oh and so damned cute!

My man is physically stunning, but even more attractive is his happy, sunny, positive disposition and outlook. His looks were what caught my attention, but it was personality and spirit that I fell in love with.

Lots of interesting information there. Thank you for reposting it. I guess I missed part of the thread.

I am a costume designer. Most of my work has been with dancers. The only gay men that I know are dancers and they all had partners who were dancers. Since male dancers must be very fit in order to do the work, they all look the same no matter how old they are. At a certain point they age out of the profession for the same reasons that most athletes do. The couples I knew all looked like a matched pair.

A response to Tal's post:


1. I noticed the post I referenced was last edited (http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1332468) at 07/23/2014 04:48AM. Now there is no reference to the phrase I argued ("no right way to love"). Now, it says "no right way to be a couple." As he points out, they're not the same thing. To accuse me of "making up" a quote and then using it against him when it may very well have been edited out from the original post after I responded -- well, not cool (if that, in fact, was what happened). Since I didn't screenshot the original, I cannot prove the phrase in question was there. That does not change the fact that I did not deliberately "make up" anything nor willfully misquote him (as he asserts I did). I would be more than happy to address "no right way to be a couple" on its own merits -- and I shall, below.

For now, though, I stand by my argument that removing any and all restrictions to a definition (saying there is "no right way to be a couple") means that the subsets now included in that pool might be much larger (and more unintentional) than originally thought. And some of those pairings might indeed, cause us to think there may be risky/inappropriate couplings included. Some of the ones I mentioned were: teacher/older teen student, boss-employee, close family members -- all of which would fall inside Tal's boundary of "consenting adults."
Not sure how this argument implies Tal is a fan of pedophilia.

Instead, I advocate that we look at the real-world dangers inherent in certain relationships. The situation of older female teacher/younger male student, discussed by Steve Albrecht (former police officer and domestic violence investigator) in 2012 in Psychology Today, illustrates how such relationships can have very real consequences: "For those scoffers who doubt there is any real harm to a male student who had a sexual fling with one of his 'Hot for Teacher' instructors, consider the real possibilities of an unwanted pregnancy, eighteen years of child support payments, sexually transmitted diseases, and lifelong feelings of shame... Since jail penalties differ widely in severity from state to state, the biggest damage to the female teacher is more often about killing her career and the shame factor from peers, colleagues, family, and strangers who recognize her name from the police blotter."

Physician/patient relationships (which may or may also not be age-gap ones), can have ethical, legal, and medical consequences, as noted in a 2003 Lancet article discussing the case of Dr. Amato, who had a romantic relationship with Mr. Romanus, the father of a 6-year-old leukemia patient in her care. The article notes that prohibitions against such relationships go back to the Hippocratic Oath and extend forward to the AMA and the UCLA School of Medicine Honor Code.

While there may be "no wrong way to be a couple," I'd argue that some couplings are off-limits for good reason. And, if there is truly NO "wrong way" to be a couple, then where do we draw those lines? (That's probably a topic for another thread).

2. More ad hominem attacks: "...rash judgments emerge from ignorance and/or elitist prejudice, in that they either ignore or discount the testimonies of many millions of happy couples.."

From my previous posts:

<But, if it works for the particular couple, then (as I've said before), good luck and happiness to them.>

<But (as I previously stated), if they're both getting something out of it, good luck and best wishes to them.>

<I DO find it creepy, even though I'm not going to pass judgment -- if they're both genuinely happy, that's just great.>

If this is what constitutes "rash judgment" and "elitism," fine. I thought I made it clear that I was expressing my personal opinion and gut reactions, not proclaiming that my feelings made age-gap relationships "wrong" for others.

I agree with JustAGal, who wrote: <You become aware when you notice the 40 to 50 year old men are eyeballing your 16 to 24 year old daughters. Yes - I was totally creeped out! If that makes a women/mother bad for automatically feeling repulsion at this scene, it is a free country to think what you want.>

Yes, I found it creepy when my 26-year-old daughter was pursued by a wealthy 42-year-old professor (very well-known in his field) in the academic department where she was doing research. I also found it inappropriate when my 39-year-old assistant director made remarks about the body and appearance of a 16-year-old female cast member in a show I directed. I find it creepy when 70-year-old men want to date me. If my aspersion to these romantic overtures somehow characterizes me as "unhappy," or invalidates my opinion, I'll take it. Call me all the names you want. :-)

Just because age-gap works well for some doesn't mean it comes without significant inherent risks and possible disadvantages, particularly if the couple fails to consider the lives that will be affected. Consider, for example, my great-grandparents, who married when she was 19 and he was 62. They'd managed to have four children in eight years when he (never of good health) died, leaving her impoverished. All four of the kids grew up in an orphanage, an experience Grandpa did not recall fondly. While it's true that a younger and healthier husband could have died suddenly as well, the odds would have been at least better that he might have survived to help raise his kids.

Last year, one of my students wrote candidly about her 80-year-old polygamist dad -- who barely knew her. He was about to die, leaving over a dozen wives with 50+ children, many of whom were still quite young. My student ended up dropping out to go home and care for family members left alone by her father's incapacitating illness and eventual death. I admire her for so doing, but fear that she may never be able to complete her education and help attain a better life for herself and her family.

But, as we all know, the fact that examples exist doesn't prove something universally true, false, "wrong" or "right" -- and, by the way, where are the studies/evidence/polls about these "millions" of happy age-gappers? Although Tal insists he's "reporting facts" and I'm "disparaging happiness," there's no actual evidence about these millions of happy couples cited in his response, either.

While we may, in theory, claim that there is "no right way to be a couple," I suggest that age-gap couples should, at a minimum, consider the human costs of their relationship, particularly to children (and step-children) involved.

3. Let's address the power imbalance and equality/mutuality issue for a moment, shall we? Tal writes: <My last point is that I don't think you even have any valid basis for your presumption that an "equitable relationship" - however you or "Paint in the Window" might define it - is simply "the best", at all times and all places for all people. To say such a thing requires an unbelievable amount of presumptuousness.>


If that's so, I'm not the only unbelievably presumptuous person out there. Although some couples may neither value nor desire equality and mutuality in their relationships, these qualities are, as Hara Estroff Romano explains in “Love and Power” (Psychology Today, 47.1 (Jan/Feb. 2014), p. 55-80), essential to a healthy long-term relationship in many ways: “But there's only one path to intimacy. It runs straight through shared power in relationships. Equality is not just ideologically desirable; it has enormous practical consequences. It affects individual and relationship well-being. It fosters mutual responsiveness and attunement. It determines whether you’ll be satisfied or have days (and nights) spiked with resentment and depression. ‘The ability of couples to withstand stress, respond to change, and enhance each other’s health and well-being depends on their having a relatively equal power balance,’ reports Garmen Knudson-Martin of Loma Linda University.” University of Virginia researchers W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven L. Nock concur, noting in their 2006 study that, for women, “marriage is happiest when it combines elements of the new and old: that is, gender equity and normative commitment to the institution of marriage” (“What’s Love Got to Do With It? Equality, Equity, Commitment and Women’s Marital Quality,” Social Forces 84.3 (1 March 2006), p. 1321-45).

I stand by my original argument that a relationship in which one partner, due to the age gap, has significantly more power, status, money, possessions, connections, and resources exposes the younger partner to risks and disadvantages, particularly if the relationship doesn’t remain warm and fuzzy.

4. Finally, let's tackle the issue of inappropriate relationships. Tal wrote: <... you have bought into the idea that there is some "ideal type of relationship", and that those which don't fit that ideal are not about genuine love or respect or admiration; and further, you've bought into the elitist presumption that that one-size-fits-all ideal is (in Paint's words) the "equitable relationship".>

Since I've never discussed, stated, or even implied that there is any kind of "ideal" relationship in any of my posts on this topic, this response doesn't fly. Also, it's not clear how suggesting that equality in relationships tends to make participants (especially women) happy, is "elitist." See the paragraph on equality and mutuality above.

Instead of putting people in a <little box>, I've argued that there are some groups of people who should have social and legal protections against those who would take advantage of them: student/teacher, boss/employee, teen/older adult. If that constitutes "putting people in little boxes," I'll take it.

4. If diversity cannot include dissenting opinions, it's not really diversity, is it?

5. Finally, I love what releve said:
<If a world existed where males and females were equal in every sense of the word, then relationships could be forged based on individual preference. Since no such world exists, many relationships are skewed toward male dominance of one type or another. Men still get to choose and women are chosen. In a society that values older alpha males, and devalues older females. Men are allowed and encouraged to choose younger partners.

Go to the senior dating cites and read the profiles and the wish lists of men over fifty. Very few men are looking for a woman who would be an equal match, financially, physically or emotionally.

Men, even men with little to offer, want and can attract younger women, because society expects for that to happen.

You can prance out a few cases where the attraction works in reverse, but I do not believe that is nearly as common.

I think that we're actually talking about two different things when we talk about Age-Gap Romances. First there is attraction and then there is relationship. You have to get through the attraction to get to the relationship. Men might find that a relationship with an older woman was very rewarding if they were able to get past the bias of the younger woman attraction.>

And, as Sonoma pointed out: we shouldn't restrict our discussion to hetero couples,either.

I suggest that the injunction to "Love On" be tempered with consideration for what might be best for the other person involved -- one's own infatuation, feelings, and desire notwithstanding -- and a deep contemplation of any costs to others who would be affected by such a relationship. Humans, fallible creatures that we are, have a tendency to persuade ourselves that what we desire is also good for the other person and will have nothing but happy results down the road. Sometimes, that's true -- but sometimes it isn't. We have to look at many sides of the issue -reducing any argument to a binary "right or wrong" approach does a disservice to honest intellectual inquiry and critical thinking (as well as informed debate) -- especially on a topic as incendiary and complicated as this one.

icedtea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...especially on a topic as incendiary and complicated as
> this one.

I don't see this topic as either incendiary OR complicated...no more so, anyway, than any other cultural change which our society has successfully transitioned through.

A little more than two hundred years ago the topic would have been relationships (genuine LOVE relationships--not the rape kind of "relationships") between free people and slaves (or freed slaves, or the offspring of freed slaves).

Eighty or ninety years later the topic would have been miscegenation (marriage, or marital-type relationships, between people of different races...and sometimes different ethnicities, particularly Latinos of hugely-varied racial origins).

A couple of decades later the topic would have been marriages, or serious relationships, between people of different social classes.

During the same period of time (and later, through the mid-1960s or so) the topic would have been marriages between Protestants and Catholics, or Christians and Jews. (The Clutter family murders, in 1959, had an inner tragedy which preceded the murders: the teenage Clutter daughter was deeply in love with a Catholic from her high school, but they were forbidden to marry because she was Methodist. This Catholic young man was, for a period of time, considered a suspect in the family murders for this reason, although he had absolutely NOTHING to do with the murders, but in that time and place (western Kansas), his relationship with a Methodist young woman was enough to put him on the suspect list. See: IN COLD BLOOD, by Truman Capote, for one of the most riveting books you will EVER read--I guarantee.)

From about the 1970s on, the topic would have been (VERY hesitantly, at first; this was TRULY incendiary because it could result in significant prison time) the topic would have been gay relationships (with actual, LEGAL, gay marriage so seemingly far into the future that it wasn't even on anyone's awareness radar).

And now that gay marriage will VERY soon be the law of the land everywhere, we're dealing with age-gap relationships.

As of "now," this is the current expansion of social change that we have begun to transition through (as these threads indicate).

This is the time when everyone is airing their fears, hesitations, doubts, prejudices, and deep personal opinions. We've been here before, on all of the previous social changes which are now considered ordinary...or very close to it.

I THINK we're almost at the end of this process. We have one step left to go that I can see: [roughly] polyamorous relationships of various kinds. That's going to take some deep thinking and some intense legal effort to work out (because of the complications introduced by more-than-two in a given relationship), but it's obvious that this is where we're heading, and will be dealing with very soon. (Probably right after gay marriage is truly the law of all of the land.)

In the meantime, we have this little bit of housekeeping to do: work our way through age-gap relationships.

This is going to be the easy one, especially compared to all of the others in our history. It is, inherently, NOT an incendiary topic...nor a complicated one. There are no laws concerned if the parties involved are all adults (and this IS what we have been discussing in these threads). There are some social attitudes that need to be tweaked a bit (starting with, maybe, a new TV sitcom about an age-gap relationship and how everyone in those characters' lives works their way through the acceptance process), but basically this is the "easy" one in American history. One way or another, though, age-gap relationships will soon be the "in" thing in many sectors of our society.

Of all of the successive transitions, age-gap relationships (which have ALWAYS existed, THROUGHOUT American history) is going to be so easy it will be over before anyone is really aware that we, as Americans, have passed a new cultural threshold.

It is happening, right now as I type these words.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to these threads, because you have all contributed to the process which is already in motion.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2014 06:48PM by tevai.

For what it's worth, there is the formula that the age difference between partners should be no more than half of the elder's age plus ten. 20/20, 30/25, 40/30, 50/35, 60/40, etc.

While the heart wants what it wants (to quote Emily Dickinson), the formula does keep two people within a shared frame of cultural references.

Iced Tea:

1.) My RFM edits are almost exclusively of spelling or punctuation errors I find after I've posted pieces. Sometimes I will re-cast a phrase if it is not clear upon re-reading. I did not change any phrase in response to your comments. The fact remains that you invented a quote - "there is no wrong way to love" - and then falsely attributed it to me, and then, using your invented quote as a rationale, implied that "my" position logically could lead to approval of pedophilia.

It is quite amazing that you would deny that in your latest offering, since the post in which you typed it sits atop this very thread. In it, you wrote:

"I would argue that a blanket prescriptive such as 'no wrong way to love' might not work out terribly well for many others who need social and legal protections (minor children, for instance)."

Again, I never said, "there's no wrong way to love". You did. I believe strongly that minor children require legal protection.

2.) I'm not sure where you're getting your information on logical fallacies, but describing a position as a "rash judgment emerging from ignorance and/or elitist prejudice" is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be if someone said, "Iced Tea is a dingbat; therefore, nothing she says can be correct".

But I have not said anything like that. I described your judgments as "rash", because they *are* rash; and I described them as emerging from ignorance and/or elitist prejudice *because they rely on ignoring or discounting the testimonies of millions of happy couples who don't meet your personal criteria for the 'right' kind of relationship*. That is, my description of your positions is accurate, and that description does not address your character. It is therefore not an ad hominem.

3.) Your quotes from "Psychology Today" and other sources miss the point. The reality is that many people have found happiness in relationships which others describe as "wrong", "pervy", "creepy" or "sinful". Or whatever. I think Sonoma and Tevai would join me in saying that we don't care about the pronouncements of academic ideologues insulated from the complexities of real humans in the real world (or religious control freaks like Mormon General Authorities) regarding how, and who, and where, and why, we should love.

And while you're spending hours scouring "Psychology Today" magazine, inventing quotes to wrongly attribute to me, seeing fallacies where none exist, and implying that your version of "equality" is the one true highest value for all people at all places, we and our significant others will be out playing baseball, ocean kayaking, going to concerts, laughing, writing notes to each other, making love, and enjoying life together. Even when there is a racial gap, or a ten or twenty year age gap, or the partners are gay, or a million other things.

4.) Your comments all indicate that you regard something like a Western-style "equitable" relationship (whatever that might mean) as ideal. Or are you now clarifying that you fully endorse relationships which you see as entailing power imbalances?

5.) Your comments here really give the game away. In them, you admit that in fact *you would be all in favour of a relationship between an OLDER WOMAN and a YOUNGER MAN*.

Ah, yes. Of course. The real problem for you - not that it should come as a surprise - is only when older men and younger women are in relationships, not the other way round.

And you would continue trying to stigmatize those relationships, thereby trying to make them more difficult for people to enter into - including the millions of intelligent, confident, successful, adult women out there who have every right to pursue happiness as they see fit.

Yes, that is elitist and presumptuous. It's sexist and illiberal, too.

I think women tend to age better than men. Traditionally, older men have held more money and power, hence the attraction for younger less experienced females. Moobs and pot bellies on older men are only attractive if the younger female is wearing dollar goggles.

And beer goggles. (I'm not talking about the OP btw, I don't know what he looks like. It's just that from personal experience, some older men want an attractive younger nursie type female to cater to their every whim, and they see this as a right if they have are well endowed on the wonga front.)

I also think it could be really damaging to a daughter if she sees her father in a sexual relationship with someone her age. It kind of tells her she has a sell by date, like her mother.

+1000!

Tal, in my previous post, I said, "call me all the names you want."

1). Nope. See my response above. Did not willfully invent. Did not imply you were in favor of pedophilia, just that if we remove all limitations on the definitions involved, then all subsets would be included (which is true). That argument makes no reference to any individual and implies nothing of the sort:
<I would argue that a blanket prescriptive such as 'no wrong way to love' might not work out terribly well for many others who need social and legal protections (minor children, for instance).>

And this:
<removing any and all restrictions to a definition (saying there is "no right way to be a couple") means that the subsets now included in that pool might be much larger (and more unintentional) than originally thought."

See, no reference to Tal anywhere -- not even a hint. The salient point here is about blanket prescriptives: that creating an all-inclusive rule might lead to problems when subgroups that shouldn't be included, are -- like minors. I'm glad to know we both agree that social and legal protections for minors are necessary.

Also, I addressed "no wrong way to be a couple" on its own merits in the post above -- and there's no response to that.

2). Ad hominem attacks: Yes, I think that labeling someone an "elitist," "unbelievably presumptuous," and accusing them of "rash judgment" and "ignorance," (plus assuming they're "unhappy") because they disagree with you is ad hominem. If you need a refresher on ad hominem attacks, try this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem

Looks like there's some labeling, inflammatory epithets and emotional appeals out there without analysis or reasoning. Besides, that's a non-response that fails to address the issues. Simply repeating the assertion that my arguments arise from "ignorance" and "rely on ignoring or discounting the testimonies of millions of happy couples" doesn't do it: where's the evidence for those millions -- or even any kind of thoughtful, reasoned analysis and discussion about why this position is "ignorant" or how suggesting that age-gap relationships can have very real costs is "rash" and "prejudiced?"

3. I never outlined any version of equality, nor implied that it was an ideal -- just that <Although some couples may neither value nor desire equality and mutuality in their relationships, these qualities are, as Hara Estroff Romano explains in “Love and Power” (Psychology Today, 47.1 (Jan/Feb. 2014), p. 55-80), essential to a healthy long-term relationship in many ways...>

Romano is a credible source who's done research on this topic for years and interviewed many couples and women about equality in relationships. Are you now arguing that equality is unimportant or that the research which finds most women are happier in marriages which feature equality is "presumptuous" and "ignorant?"

You characterize the evidence presented as "pronouncements of academic ideologues insulated from the complexities of real humans in the real world..."

Interesting, since the previous post criticized lack of evidence to support my ideas. So, I cited some well-researched studies published in credible sources (including peer-reviewed journals), they're dismissed with the generalization above -- even though these researchers arrived at their conclusions by interviewing real-life people involved in complex relationships in the real world.

From my previous post:
<While we may, in theory, claim that there is "no right way to be a couple," I suggest that age-gap couples should, at a minimum, consider the human costs of their relationship, particularly to children (and step-children) involved.>

How is this NOT "real-world," as well as the situations described, including the relationships between a student and teacher, doctor and patient's parent, my student, my daughter, and my great-grandparents?

I think you miss the point here, which is that anyone involved in an age-gap relationship should consider the social, familial, and personal costs involved at least as much as their own desires.

4. <implying that your version of "equality" is the one true highest value for all people at all places>

No, I've never stated or even implied that there's any kind of "ideal" relationship out there for everyone -- not even close. In case you missed it, I've stated at least three other times that if age-gap (or any other kind) of relationship works for an individual couple, good for them.

5. <*you would be all in favour of a relationship between an OLDER WOMAN and a YOUNGER MAN>.

Nope. Notice that in both the student/teacher and doctor/client situations referenced, the relationships were older woman/younger man. Also, I've used gender-neutral phrases like, "younger partner," and "participant," as well as describing my personal feelings about a relationship in which one partner is old enough to be the other's biological parent. It doesn't matter who's older or younger.

Even if I were inclined to do so (and I'm NOT), I wouldn't date someone in my kids' age bracket out of respect and consideration for them. As other posters have noted, that situation usually doesn't work out well for the children.

6. How is it "stigmatizing" these relationships to observe they may not work for everyone, that they come with very real risks and consequences, and that participants should consider the human costs before engaging?

Other posters have mentioned how these relationships can affect the children and step-children, as well as the social dichotomies that seem to be present with respect to gender and age-gap relationships. Are you going to call them <elitist and presumptuous...sexist and illiberal>, too?

7. This has been interesting, and I'm glad many diverse voices and opinions have contributed to a spirited and often heated discussion of this topic (as Tevai said very well above), but I think I'd rather be off hiking with my kids, whipping up a nice batch of vegan curry, and enjoying some laughter, adventure, and maybe a bit of peace and quiet. Cheers!

icetea I appreciate your reasonable responses to Tal, especially when he did label you '"elitist," "unbelievably presumptuous," and accused of "rash judgment" and "ignorance," because you disagree with him. Relationships with large age gaps DO have more potential to be a power imbalance than ones where the ages are close together.

-that doesn't mean all age gap relationships are bad.
-that doesn't mean that all relationships close in age are good.

I do not say this in ignorance, I have seen big problems with some of these relationships, including one with one of my children. I was SO glad that didn't last.

I am happy when people make it work, whether they are the same age or 20 years apart. But I do (and have) seen power imbalances. They do exist.

High five for being so calm while Tal makes claims that you are unhappy and whatever else. This discussion has been very intriguing to me.

Also can I have some of your vegan curry :)?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2014 08:13AM by fidget.

When their father and I divorced at fifty, my daughters were worried that their father would marry a woman their age. Instead he married his cousin.

I never stated or implied I was in favor of older woman/younger man pairings. That quote did not come from one of my posts. Go back and check -- none of mine have been edited.

Iced Tea - No time to respond in detail to everything, but just a few quick points:

1.) Any screen shot would confirm to you that none of my posts have been edited in response to anything you've said;

2.) Describing a judgment as "rash", and a position as "elitist", does not address the character of the person making the argument. It describes *the judgment* and *the position*. That's why it's not an "ad hominem". You asserting otherwise doesn't change that fact;

3.) On "older woman/younger man pairings", your exact quote was:

"Men might find that a relationship with an older woman was very rewarding if they were able to get past the bias of the younger woman attraction".

This statement contains none of the snippy disdain present in your comments on the reverse situation. I think it is therefore reasonable to view that statement as constitutive of tacit or implied support for older woman/younger man relationships;

4.) On pedophilia, I already copied your quote which implied that "my" position (which you invented and attributed to me wrongly) would allow minors to be unprotected from sex predators, so I'm not sure how you can still deny it.

By the way, I never typed "there is no wrong way to love", and your insinuation that I did, and then revised it out of existence after reading your post, is as egregious a "mistake" as the invention and incorrect attribution of the quote in the first place. Why not just say, "sorry - I guess I remembered it wrong"? That happens sometimes;

5.) You can't type hundreds of words which endorse egalitarian relationships (as you define "egalitarian") as superior to other forms of relationships, and then *also* claim that you don't think there's a best type of relationship. You are contradicting yourself;

Gotta run.

iceteas judgment is not "rash", or "elitist". What icetea mentions is well written and described.

There can be power imbalance, and to constantly describe someone that mentions this as 'rash' and 'ignorant' amoung other things, shows that you refuse to acknowledge that someone can disagree and it is ok.

I, and many others, have seen these power imbalances. It is not always the case in age gap relationships, but it is not 'rash' to point out that they exist.

this thread makes me not want to be in another relationship ever again. And I'm kind of hot!