As an adult, I've dated anywhere from about 2 years younger than myself to 8 or 9 years older. I don't know if I'm technically more mature than others my age, but I maintain a level of detachment and logic that comes off that way. Regardless, it doesn't affect what relationships I seek out as much as it will later in life. I haven't finished graduate school, I still live with my parents, and I haven't decided if I want to start a family in the next couple years or earn a PhD. I don't expect my age group to be in much different of a position, nor do I "penalize" them for it. My ideal is maybe 2 or 3 years in either direction so that it's more likely that we like the same things, though I'd set the cap at about a decade older, lest it appear he should be hanging out with my dad instead of me. My experience has shown that age has little overall bearing on maturity or goals and desires in life. The youngest boyfriend I've had, who's just about to turn 22, has a better head on his shoulders and has developed more opportunities for himself than the now-28 year old that cheated on me with his current girlfriend and plays League of Legends every night. Besides, I don't want you to take care of me, nor do I need you to be able to take care of me right now or in the near future. I just want to know that we have the same ultimate goals, and that they're on similar timelines. As far as a sexual relationship goes, 18 to however old he can get away with while still being attractive to me is fine. My only criteria for sex are mutual attraction, a certain level of health and hygiene (I have a serious fear of herpes), and no apparent erectile dysfunction. Perhaps that belongs in the health category, but ED is no light matter. What's the point of being with someone in a sexual or romantic fashion if you aren't having sex?
Every time I read this stuff, it processes in my head like "I want to have kids, so HE needs to be able to take care of ME and THEM" as opposed to "I want a guy who is loving, caring, and I have a great time with. Of course it would be ideal if one of us had the income to support us, if we decided to have children." Also, yes, if all the guys your age want to drink, fuck, and not doing anything, you are surrounded by shitty people. I was working two jobs and going to graduate school, living on my own a month after getting back from home at the age of 22. In CHICAGO, not some bumblefuck town where shit is cheap. A lot of my friends were in the same boat. At 24 I finished said masters and I'm halfway home to 100k. I must be a unicorn. When I date, she has to be on par or on pace with her finances. Its a partnership these days, women can make money and actually with maternity leave packages getting better and longer in a lot of "white collar jobs", women are needing less "support" and "provisions". Then again, I'm 100% support of adopting so she can keep working, I can keep working, and we're both adding to the pot. I also don't want to lose any future argument with "I had to carry your child for 9 months!" Even though it was her idea and she pushed for it. But when it comes back to the core of the problem. Once everyone can go to bars, who cares? If one can get into a bar, and the other can't? That is some fucked up shit. That's pretty much it for me. I'm speaking 'Murica, don't care about those other savage lands.
For me, I think it depends more on shared values than age. I've known some immature and emotionally stunted 38 year olds and some 22 year olds who had their lives together, and vice versa. The only thing that would hold me back from dating someone more than a year or two younger than me is the fact that people change so much in their 20's. I believe the latest research claims that the average age of full myelination of the brain is around 28-29 years old. The last part to myelinate is the frontal lobe, which is where things like judgement and personality reside. I'm 29, and I would hesitate to date someone younger than 27 just due to the fact that he may be changing a LOT more than I will over the next few years.
While I agree with you that pure youth for status tradeoffs are emotionally hollow and somehow disgusting, I think another phenomenon is relevant. Some of the other women have referred to it: current men’s emotional maturity in the early through mid- twenties. Teaching professional students mostly in this age range, I have been struck by a massive dichotomy in emotional maturity between the sexes lately. Most (but not all) of the women seem like directed young adults. However, many (but not all) of the men are essentially children. They have no idea what they’re doing or wanting to accomplish, have massive entitlement issues, have little interest in adult relationships outside “friends with benefits” status, and essentially act like I did when I was 17-18. I’m not claiming that I was some paragon of maturity in my twenties - but, my God, I was in better shape at that time than some of the overgrown adolescents I teach and have employed. Don’t get me wrong, some of them are quite intelligent and likeable. The age group just seems palpably less mature than twenty-somethings of years past. As for myself, the highest age difference I have experienced for actual dating (as opposed to less formal arrangements) was: she was 21, I was 29. I had a lot in common with her and found her really witty and charming. However, it definitely impacted our long term viability as a couple.
Oh, don't worry. All the mature, accomplished and successful men your age don't know why they'd put up with you either.
Re: Re: Age Difference A slight miscommunication. I was answering under US law, not Canadian. I have no clue what law governs porn produced in Canada. In the US one of the governing laws appears to be the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act and accompanying regulations. This law is the one at the beginning of US porn where the disclaimer says "This film complies with the record keeping requirements..." So that's a federal regulation of porn production. Or one of them at least. Which is separate and distinct from a local state's age of consent. For Canada... no clue. Maybe they simply decided to make the age of porn be higher than the national age of consent just to be safe or to fall in line with international (or Western) standards. I wonder if there's a treaty on it? That would be kind of a hilarious one to negotiate.
I was just about to post this. While I find a lot of what Toxic said to be laughable, there is a grain of truth. There are a lot of man-children (and for that matter, woman-children) these days. They muddle through high school, get sent to college because it's what Mommy and Daddy want them to do, spend their four years there, and then flounder for the next 5 years before figuring things out. While there's nothing wrong with questioning what you want to do with your life, a lot of these guys don't really care. They don't see anything wrong with being aimless. Their goal should be "Live life, but pay attention so you can find your passion;" instead, it's "Life life aimlessly so that I don't need to work hard at a passion. After all, if I can't find it, then I don't have to work hard at anything!" Most people seem to snap out of it in their late 20s due to a combination of duty to family, discovery of something that challenges and intrigues them, and the realization that they haven't accomplished shit when they should be well on their way to doing something with themselves. In the meantime, they just exist, floating around in a sea of noncommitment. And I see how that can be frustrating if you're surrounded by them while you're actually trying to get shit done. The solution is to find new friends. And if you can't find any, maybe it's not everyone else who's immature; it might be you as well.
Re: Re: Age Difference In Canada age of consent is 16 between people who don't old positions of power over each other, or 18 between anyone. And I think there is a clause that lets people under the age of 16 bang if they are within 2-5 years depending on the youngest parties age.
Omegaham puts his finger right on the problem: It’s not the laziness – I’m lazy too; I get it. It’s not the urge the have sex with every interesting attractive woman possible, without ever even attempting to see if a commitment is possible – Again, I totally understand. I was there once. It’s not a lack of knowledge of your passion – If you don’t know it, you simply don’t know it. What I find most inexplicable and annoying is the total lack of interest in finding a passion. If I was a 25 year old woman, I would be thinking “Fuck you, and your 12 hour ‘Call of Duty’ marathons, pull your head out of your ass and figure out what you want to do with yourself.”
I just read this post to my wife. She's still shaking her head. It seems she doesn't share the same value system when it comes to a relationship.
oh my, dcc, please tell me you are not fully serious. 1. savings? 2. men can get sick and may not be able to work too. In a partner, I have always looked - for a PARTNER. It always ended up being someone either very close to my age, or just a few years older. Younger guys were usually immature/not as ambitious as I'd like (I do not need a 20something year old child), and older men were always at a very different stage in life than me, so I was not interested. Plus, a lot of older men have ex-wives and children, and I sure as hell wasn't gonna get anywhere near that kind of baggage.
Is everyone reading my posts in their entirety, or just picking and choosing? In no way am I suggesting that shit doesn't happen, and that sometimes the woman has to pick up the slack because something happened to the guy's job. Like I said: the principle guiding thing should be that both people feel that they can make it work long-term, and it's best if they are in the same place emotionally, financially and maturity wise. All I said was that when it comes to 'security,' a woman isn't necessarily a gold-digging whore or out of her mind for considering that characteristic as a factor. Imagine this scenario: two people meet, neither wants kids. The woman is successful in her work: she has a degree, a good job, good credit, savings. The man has a dead-end job, bad credit and lives from paycheque to paycheque. They get along great and are very compatible, personality wise. Over the long run, though, don't you think that disparity will rear its head? If they were to marry, it means that either they will forever be living off the woman's stability, or that the man will have to change. Personally, I don't think either option is fair. This brings me back to one of my other points: both people should be able to stand on their own two feet. As for kids, maybe I'm just a traditionalist. If I use my office environment for my own horribly unscientific and personal observance study, I see: - There are 12 people who work in my office. All but two are married. - Of the remaining ten people, four are married with young children. - Two of those four are expecting babies in the fall. - Couple 1: Guy works, wife stays home. - Couple 2: Both are working, but wife will take one year off for mat leave when the baby is born. - Couple 3: Guy works, wife stays home. - Couple 4: Both are working, but woman took two years off for mat leave, one for each kid. Yes, absolutely a couple can instead live off savings during this time, but I don't know many people who are are capable, at such a young age, of having enough money in the bank to carry a family of three or four for an entire year while the wife is off work. I don't think I'm completely nuts for thinking that, when it comes to having young children, the man is typically responsible for bringing in more income during that period than the wife is.
Most of my relationships have been with women who are the same age or slightly younger than me. The Girlfriend is 25 and I'm 27. I wouldn't have a problem dating her if she was 18 or 88, because it's a partnership we're both comfortable with and we have grown into. The oldest I've been with was 26 when I was 19, and it kind of scarred me because I found out the hard way she was married. I cannot deny the fact that I was/am immature for my age, especially when I was in college, but I can blame that on small-town syndrome. If you flat out refuse to date below your own age, based on the "maturity level of guys", you should get better friends or work on being a better person. I despise this generational rant about men who are immature or refuse to grow up. It all sounds like "I trudged 17 miles in the snow to get to school" to me. Immaturity exists at all ages and life stages and I think if your friends are more interested in Call of Duty than you, the problem might be you. There's no reason for me to stop doing ANYTHING I enjoy doing, whether it's Call of Duty or travelling or producing meth to settle down with a woman my age that claims to be my emotional superior. Fuck. That. Noise. Some women my age are more mature than me, some are less and not making that call on a person by person basis is foolish. It sounds a lot like "I only date black guys" or "I only date Ivy League grads" or "I only date a guy if he makes $100k/year" when the line we're fed is "love is all you need": it comes off as shallow, hollow and bitter.
Age difference means very little to me, because the line between "hookup" and "serious relationship" is really blurry in my view. If I spend time with someone, and it's fun for both of us, we'll keep doing it until it isn't. If that person is 19, or 49 (or you are), why not start down the path of companionship and let things fall out as they may? What's the downside? I like this post. It's a good articulation of the frustration I share. There are too many women who don't think about what they bring to a relationship except arm candy and access to sex. Admittedly, those are probably the two main objectives many (if not most) guys have in relationships, so whose fault is it? But you also said: If you're a gold-digging whore, own it. Stop backpedaling whenever you find yourself having an unpopular opinion.
Are there any women on the board who were in a stable, committed relationship during their pregnancies and child birth, and who were also the primary income earners during this time? I'm talking last trimester, birth, and until the child was six months to a year. I'm interested in how you found it, if it put a strain on the relationship, and indeed if it was even possible.
Are we talking about me personally, or my views towards child-rearing in general? For me, personally, if I ever have a child I'd want to be home with the baby and raise it until at least kindergarten age. I don't like the idea of strangers at daycare doing the job, especially while they're looking after six or seven other babies. Given that, it either means I have to have a job that allows me to work from home (which is possible, but hard. Anyone who has ever stayed at home with a baby knows how taxing it is on your focus and energy, and how much time it takes), or if I have a partner then he has to be the one who works. Mat leave pays for the first year, but only a percentage of your income up to a cap. It's not enough to live off of. I'm kind of amazed that financial planning doesn't seem to be a concern for a lot of the posters here. If it has no bearing in your relationships, does it just look after itself?
My husband and I earn about the same, I worked until the Friday before my c-section (which was on a Monday,) I received short term disability to counter some of the wages lost during my 6 week maternity leave. After those 6 weeks were up I went right the fuck back to work and started bringing in the same amount I did before I had a kid. Having a child doesn't make a woman weak and it only takes a small amount of foresight to plan for any time off work. Fortunately you've got 9 months to gestate the kid so at the very least you have that. Edited to add: My in-laws watch my daughter for us but I'm fairly certain that sending your kids to daycare so you can support and provide for them does not equal having someone else raise your kids. I think most people would find that thought pretty offensive, actually.
Was it hard for you, either physically or emotionally, to leave the baby and go back to work? Given a choice, would you have preferred the opportunity to stay at home with her? As an aside, not every woman has relatives close by who can be asked to watch a child long-term. Even if you do, I'm not sure where I stand on that one. When my cousins and I were young, we may have had sleepovers once or twice at my grandparent's houses, but they certainly didn't babysit us full-time. The way I see it, my parents have already raised their children. I don't know how fair it is for me to ask them to raise some more.
There's a huge difference between being a "gold-digging whore" and wanting to take some time off when you have a kid. I think most people want some time off to adjust, the only variable would be how much time you want and how much you can afford. It takes two people, and presumably two incomes to make a kid, and paternity leave isn't a thing, so I see where Dcc is coming from. However, it's that unreasonable expectation that the male's career is the primary means of support that is irritating, because it's so prevalent. Going back to the "men aren't grown-ups now" argument, you could make a case that more men are not "settling down" in the traditional sense because it offers no real benefit to their lives and because women approach those relationships with unreasonable expectations, such as "we're the same age/education level/location but I expect to be supported by your income, which should magically be higher than mine."
I think every mother would like the opportunity to stay home with their children. I also enjoy going to work even though sometimes I hate it, so there's that. The first few days were a little rough emotionally, but you'll find when/if you have kids that no matter how much you love your children (and it's more than you thought possible) that it's pretty awesome to spend time with adults after spending all your time with a baby. I didn't find it hard physically at all, by 6 weeks I was cleared after my cesarean so I could work as normal. I also have to use my 10 minute break at work to pump because I'm breastfeeding. Is it a pain in the ass some days? Yes. Is it hard? No. I'm not forcing her grandparents to watch her by any stretch of the imagination. It started out as a temporary situation and they enjoy watching her so for now we're rolling with it. It also works out where they only have her, at most, 4 hours a day because I go to work several hours before my husband. We're very fortunate that we have family close by that want to help with her. If we didn't we'd send her to daycare or a babysitter. Of course, the daycare-raising-children argument is a slippery slope. Are you going to homeschool? If not, I could use your argument to suggest that you are placing the burden of raising them on the school. Since the time spent at either institution per day would be the same, is there a difference? Where do you draw the line?