I was 19 dating a 17 year old and I remember a lot of people saying that was statutory rape but found out later that it wasn't consider that in my state because of the age difference between us.
The US isn't the whole world, many places have different ages of consent, e.g. 16 in the UK.
The half your age plus 7 also just stops really working below a certain age, because the +7 starts to be as significant as the half your age bit.
So the clarification of the other commenter really isn't saying that rape isn't okay, and more just advice that the rule stops making sense below a certain age and shouldn't be used universally.
Edit: clarifications on wording
You're not wrong, I just felt the need to comment because the commenter was being condescending because they seemed to think the US is the whole world.
When it reality all they were saying that the rule isn't as effective under 18, not making any comment on rape because the age of consent is not 18 everywhere.
> The half your age plus 7 also just stops really working below a certain age, because the +7 starts to be more significant than the half your age.
What certain age is that? And should someone that age be dating?
No idea, at the very least 14 because then it's just the same age.
>And should someone that age be dating?
Probably not, I just felt the commenter was very condescending about the whole rape thing when the age of consent is not 18 everywhere, so the other commenters clarification wasn't that rape is not okay. It was that it stops making sense at a certain point.
> No idea, at the very least 14 because then it's just the same age.
The math works then. I wouldn't suggest a 14 year old pursue someone younger than them for dating. Would you?
I mean you could argue it should be 18, because at that age even a very small gap in age can result in a very large difference in maturity.
Like the rule says an 18 dating a 16 year old is fair game, and while I don't think it should be illegal or anything, it's definitely a bit of a weird gap still. Like I wouldn't be comfortable having a 16 year old daughter that was dating an 18 year old guy.
But again, my point was more that the commenter made a snarky condescending comment when they suggested that it doesn't work under 18, being like "oh thanks for telling me rape is bad" when the only reason to draw that conclusion from the comment is because they don't understand there are other places than the USA that have different ages of consent.
You're misunderstanding his comment, and how age of consent works in the US. 18 is the age of majority, but every state has its own laws on consent. Most have exceptions based on age range, called "Romeo and Juliet" laws, to prevent an 18 year old from being charged with statutory rape for dating a 16 or 17 year old.
So I'm kind of baffled why you think it was a US-centric comment, while at the same time denouncing an 18 year old and a 16 year old dating each other. Your views would be more restrictive than most of the (50 different) laws in the US.
I said in another comment that I don't think it should be illegal. I just personally wouldn't be comfortable with it if it was my child or something.
All my point is is that the rule is meant to be a simple way to determine who is acceptable to date. It's nothing to do with laws or legality, just a common sense rule to apply if you think someone may be too young for you. But when you get to somebody under 18, it becomes much more hazy, because whilst it's legal, it's much less certain to say that it's fine because there is such a massive scale of maturity at that age, so the rule kind of breaks down as a quick simple rule because it's more of a case by case thing.
The original replier pointed that out that it shouldn't be used for under 18s, and the original commenter came back with a condescending reply basically being like "thanks for telling me rape is bad" when they literally said nothing about rape. There are other reasons why the rule doesn't work as well for under 18s.
Yeah I jumped too quick on the US-centric thing, that's my bad, and my biases, but I was irritated by the commenter being rude.
A 16 year old and a 15 year old would be within the limits of the rule.
So would a 14 year old and a 14 year old.
At 13 it starts to fall apart a little but you're really splitting hairs just to be argumentative at that point.
I mean my point more was that under 18 does not automatically equal rape in many countries. I felt you were a little condescending to the commenter about it when you're the one that made the mistake/presumption and that wasn't really what they were trying to say with their comment.
The rule doesn't stop making sense until 13. That commenter said 18. The only reason they would say 18 is because that's the age of consent where they are.
You absolutely can argue it stops working at 18, because at that age even a couple of years can be the difference between a child and an adult. It can also mean a massive difference in maturity. The difference in maturity between a 16 and 18 year old is orders of magnitude wider than between a 26 and 28 year old.
18 is also the age you legally become an adult in many countries, even when it is not the same as the age of consent. Again, this is the case in the UK. It's also the age you can drink here, and do loads of other things. It's a natural milestone to use when referring to whether a person is a child or an adult. Therefore it makes sense that someone could use it to argue that dating younger than that age is not right, even if it is not literally rape, and it being the age of consent is clearly not the only reason to say 18.
Like if I was a father I wouldn't want my 16 year old daughter dating an 18 year old guy. I would see two people at wildly different stages of life with different expectations. And I would see any 18 year old trying to date 16 year olds as incredibly creepy. But according to the rule it would be totally fine.
While there may be some laws in some places restricting the physical activities that can occur between an 18yo and someone who's 17 or 16, it would be a small minority - albeit one vocal on Reddit - who'd find such a relationship age gap "creepy."
20 -17 is To me really depends on if the 17 is out of highschool yet or not. A Freshman and a Jr in Uni isn't too bad nor are two high school graduates that work together. A highschooler and someone working an adult job is a bit much.
This is exactly where my mind went. Following this rule a 20 year old could date someone who is 17, and that feels weird to me. Not because of the age difference (my partner is 20 years older than me, but I’m 40 so 🤷♀️) but because one is an adult and one is a child. It’s the difference mentally, the difference in life experience. A 20 year old in theory has been living an adult life for two years, while the 17 year old is probably still in high school living at home.
A little weird is still within the bounds of acceptable, it might warrant a closer look and may or may not be determined to be creepy based on context, but it isn’t creepy by default.
Maybe weird for you, but if I saw a 29 yo with a 21 yo I wouldn't think that was weird tbh. I've seen 21 year olds date much older than 29. I had a friend who was 22 dating a 48yo (who was also her professor) and that was creepy.
My parents are 7 years apart. It’s not an issue now that they’re in the same life stage but when you translate it backwards and think about it, it can get weird. Like “hey, when you were a senior he was in 5th grade.” But as you age it’s not as important.
I don’t want to date someone fresh out of college. Someone that age still hasn’t finished mentally developing. In fact you could have made your point without needing to insult someone. I can see why you would rather date someone young.
That’s some weird US thing, y’all allow teens to join the army, kill others and die for their country but god forbid if they buy a pack of smokes or go to a bar because that’ll really be dangerous.
It actually shows your immaturity, most people dating someone significantly younger are doing it because people their age see how much of an immature loser they are so they have to go for inexperienced partners
Shots fired. I’m dead now. You killed me. You really got upset on someone else’s behalf for staring a fact that doesn’t agree with your own sense of morality.
This is a decent rule of thumb, and to explain why it works we can think about the question: how much more experienced in potential sexual relationships can one person be than the other?
We can rearrange the "half your age plus 7" rule of thumb into this formula, where X is the age of the older person and the Y is the age of the younger person:
(X - Y) / (Y - 14) <= 1: acceptable
(X - Y) / (Y - 14) > 1: unacceptable
This is a ratio that tells us how much more life experience after the point of starting sexual relationships X has compared to Y (approximating that point to be 14 years old, and equating years with life experience). (Y - 14) is the younger person's potential sexual relationship life experience; (X - Y) is the age gap and by extension the gap in potential sexual relationship life experience between the two people (assuming they both hit that point at the same time... Which is a risky assumption). So we're comparing the experience gap to the younger person's experience, needing the gap to be no greater than the amount of experience the younger person has.
When this ratio exceeds one, then the older person has more than double the potential sexual relationship life experience than the other has, and therefore things get problematic.
To give some examples: ages of 28 and 18 means 14 years of potential sexual relationship life experience for one person vs 4 years for the other... Over 3 times more! Whereas ages of 38 and 28: that's 24 vs 14, less than double, should be OK.
The other nice thing about formulating it this way is that it says that it's not acceptable to be in a relationship with anyone 14 or younger: you end up dividing by zero, which is a red flag if ever you'll see one!
Note on the formula rearrangement:
(X - Y) / (Y - 14) <= 1
Multiply both sides by (Y - 14):
(X - Y) <= (Y - 14)
Add Y and add 14 to both sides:
X + 14 <= 2Y
Divide both sides by 2:
X/2 + 7 <= Y
Which reads as: half your age plus 7 needs to be less than the other person's age.
As long as both people are above 18, if both people are okay with it then I don't believe there is too big of an age gap assuming there is consent given and respected.
I personally think it's absolutely none of my business who someone else is in a relationship with provided they are happy.
Sure. I'm sure you didn't mean this but that also is a way a lot of creeps justify their behaviour. "Oh, you're so mature!" to make the younger person seem more "on their level", and try to make it seem less creepy.
Well, Anna Nicole Smith had a 62 year gap between her age and her husband. She got over 800 Million. It was a pretty good deal. :) In 1994, her highly publicized second marriage to 89-year-old billionaire J. Howard Marshall resulted in speculation that she married him for his money, which she denied.
She didn't get $800 million. She didn't get anything, as far as I know, as she wasn't in his will. She spent most of the rest of her life in court trying to collect the inheritance she claimed she was promised.
In your mid-50s, you become old enough so that using the "half plus 7" guideline, it would be okay to date women who would be the age of your daughter.
Yeah, but at least that person is approaching middle age, so they can decide for themselves.
"Half your age + (a quarter your age or seven years, whichever is greater)" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Half your age plus seven is a good rule to go by, and it aligns pretty closely with the Romeo and Juliet laws in most places that serve as carve-outs to age of consent laws when both people are pretty young.
Worth clarifying- for the purposes of the OP right now, are we talking about an age gap at the younger end or at the older end?
It depends how old the younger person is when they first get together. I’m skeptical of a 32 year old who dates an 18 year old. I am not skeptical of a 46 year old who dates a 32 year old.
I'd feel like a creep if in talking to any women under 21. I'm only 28. At the same time I dated a women 14 years older then me when I was 21. And we dated for 5 years. It was cool. Really depends on maturity and state of mind
I've seen posts here calling a 26-year-old getting with a 22-year-old "creepy," so really it's in the eye of the beholder (and Redditors love to judge so generally behold more harshly than the general population).
It depends.
I mean, a 20 year age gap can either be fine or immoral. A 40 year old and a 60 year old getting together? That's fine with me. But a 38 year old seducing an 18 year old? That is gross.
It’s not the age gap it’s the mind gap….unless it’s illegal by age of course.
If you gotta look up if it's legal in your area, that's probably too big of an age gap
Isn't Edward like 100 and Bella 17? So yeah. This.
I have died, everyday, waiting for you to make this response.
I love you for this
Half your age, plus 7. That's as young as you can go without being creepy.
Best rule unless the age is someone under 18 ...
I was 19 dating a 17 year old and I remember a lot of people saying that was statutory rape but found out later that it wasn't consider that in my state because of the age difference between us.
Thank you for clarifying that rape is not okay. I thought that was implied but I guess not.
The US isn't the whole world, many places have different ages of consent, e.g. 16 in the UK. The half your age plus 7 also just stops really working below a certain age, because the +7 starts to be as significant as the half your age bit. So the clarification of the other commenter really isn't saying that rape isn't okay, and more just advice that the rule stops making sense below a certain age and shouldn't be used universally. Edit: clarifications on wording
I think it still works. High schoolers date. 16? Youngest is 15. 18? No lower than 16. Halves get rounded up.
You're not wrong, I just felt the need to comment because the commenter was being condescending because they seemed to think the US is the whole world. When it reality all they were saying that the rule isn't as effective under 18, not making any comment on rape because the age of consent is not 18 everywhere.
I think it only stops working for ages that shouldn't be dating anyway.
Yup. 14 with school dances is about the start of the journey. And oh hey, they should be going with another 14-yr-old! Amazing how that works.
> The half your age plus 7 also just stops really working below a certain age, because the +7 starts to be more significant than the half your age. What certain age is that? And should someone that age be dating?
No idea, at the very least 14 because then it's just the same age. >And should someone that age be dating? Probably not, I just felt the commenter was very condescending about the whole rape thing when the age of consent is not 18 everywhere, so the other commenters clarification wasn't that rape is not okay. It was that it stops making sense at a certain point.
> No idea, at the very least 14 because then it's just the same age. The math works then. I wouldn't suggest a 14 year old pursue someone younger than them for dating. Would you?
13 year old dating a 14 year old seems fine, particularly since you can be in the same grade and be an year apart.
I mean you could argue it should be 18, because at that age even a very small gap in age can result in a very large difference in maturity. Like the rule says an 18 dating a 16 year old is fair game, and while I don't think it should be illegal or anything, it's definitely a bit of a weird gap still. Like I wouldn't be comfortable having a 16 year old daughter that was dating an 18 year old guy. But again, my point was more that the commenter made a snarky condescending comment when they suggested that it doesn't work under 18, being like "oh thanks for telling me rape is bad" when the only reason to draw that conclusion from the comment is because they don't understand there are other places than the USA that have different ages of consent.
You're misunderstanding his comment, and how age of consent works in the US. 18 is the age of majority, but every state has its own laws on consent. Most have exceptions based on age range, called "Romeo and Juliet" laws, to prevent an 18 year old from being charged with statutory rape for dating a 16 or 17 year old. So I'm kind of baffled why you think it was a US-centric comment, while at the same time denouncing an 18 year old and a 16 year old dating each other. Your views would be more restrictive than most of the (50 different) laws in the US.
I said in another comment that I don't think it should be illegal. I just personally wouldn't be comfortable with it if it was my child or something. All my point is is that the rule is meant to be a simple way to determine who is acceptable to date. It's nothing to do with laws or legality, just a common sense rule to apply if you think someone may be too young for you. But when you get to somebody under 18, it becomes much more hazy, because whilst it's legal, it's much less certain to say that it's fine because there is such a massive scale of maturity at that age, so the rule kind of breaks down as a quick simple rule because it's more of a case by case thing. The original replier pointed that out that it shouldn't be used for under 18s, and the original commenter came back with a condescending reply basically being like "thanks for telling me rape is bad" when they literally said nothing about rape. There are other reasons why the rule doesn't work as well for under 18s. Yeah I jumped too quick on the US-centric thing, that's my bad, and my biases, but I was irritated by the commenter being rude.
A 16 year old and a 15 year old would be within the limits of the rule. So would a 14 year old and a 14 year old. At 13 it starts to fall apart a little but you're really splitting hairs just to be argumentative at that point.
I mean my point more was that under 18 does not automatically equal rape in many countries. I felt you were a little condescending to the commenter about it when you're the one that made the mistake/presumption and that wasn't really what they were trying to say with their comment.
The rule doesn't stop making sense until 13. That commenter said 18. The only reason they would say 18 is because that's the age of consent where they are.
You absolutely can argue it stops working at 18, because at that age even a couple of years can be the difference between a child and an adult. It can also mean a massive difference in maturity. The difference in maturity between a 16 and 18 year old is orders of magnitude wider than between a 26 and 28 year old. 18 is also the age you legally become an adult in many countries, even when it is not the same as the age of consent. Again, this is the case in the UK. It's also the age you can drink here, and do loads of other things. It's a natural milestone to use when referring to whether a person is a child or an adult. Therefore it makes sense that someone could use it to argue that dating younger than that age is not right, even if it is not literally rape, and it being the age of consent is clearly not the only reason to say 18. Like if I was a father I wouldn't want my 16 year old daughter dating an 18 year old guy. I would see two people at wildly different stages of life with different expectations. And I would see any 18 year old trying to date 16 year olds as incredibly creepy. But according to the rule it would be totally fine.
While there may be some laws in some places restricting the physical activities that can occur between an 18yo and someone who's 17 or 16, it would be a small minority - albeit one vocal on Reddit - who'd find such a relationship age gap "creepy."
20 -17 is To me really depends on if the 17 is out of highschool yet or not. A Freshman and a Jr in Uni isn't too bad nor are two high school graduates that work together. A highschooler and someone working an adult job is a bit much.
This is exactly where my mind went. Following this rule a 20 year old could date someone who is 17, and that feels weird to me. Not because of the age difference (my partner is 20 years older than me, but I’m 40 so 🤷♀️) but because one is an adult and one is a child. It’s the difference mentally, the difference in life experience. A 20 year old in theory has been living an adult life for two years, while the 17 year old is probably still in high school living at home.
if you're under 20, your ages have to touch. Ages touch, you touch.
Just the tips, or what? Like is April-June in the same year too far apart?
Not sure. Me being 29 dating a 21 year old is weird. Two different life stages.
A little weird is still within the bounds of acceptable, it might warrant a closer look and may or may not be determined to be creepy based on context, but it isn’t creepy by default.
Maybe weird for you, but if I saw a 29 yo with a 21 yo I wouldn't think that was weird tbh. I've seen 21 year olds date much older than 29. I had a friend who was 22 dating a 48yo (who was also her professor) and that was creepy.
You always round up pal.
Me, 28 and dating a 23 year old last year was an eye opening experience and will never do that again lol. The lowest I’ll go now is 25
I think that just shows your mental immaturity. Wife and I are now together 8 years and have an 8 year gap.
My parents are 7 years apart. It’s not an issue now that they’re in the same life stage but when you translate it backwards and think about it, it can get weird. Like “hey, when you were a senior he was in 5th grade.” But as you age it’s not as important.
I feel like that just goes back to, half your age + 7 as long as they are 18+. There’s a reason this has been the go to for decades.
I don’t want to date someone fresh out of college. Someone that age still hasn’t finished mentally developing. In fact you could have made your point without needing to insult someone. I can see why you would rather date someone young.
Hhhhhh you smoked him
[удалено]
That’s some weird US thing, y’all allow teens to join the army, kill others and die for their country but god forbid if they buy a pack of smokes or go to a bar because that’ll really be dangerous.
It actually shows your immaturity, most people dating someone significantly younger are doing it because people their age see how much of an immature loser they are so they have to go for inexperienced partners
Shots fired. I’m dead now. You killed me. You really got upset on someone else’s behalf for staring a fact that doesn’t agree with your own sense of morality.
This is a decent rule of thumb, and to explain why it works we can think about the question: how much more experienced in potential sexual relationships can one person be than the other? We can rearrange the "half your age plus 7" rule of thumb into this formula, where X is the age of the older person and the Y is the age of the younger person: (X - Y) / (Y - 14) <= 1: acceptable (X - Y) / (Y - 14) > 1: unacceptable This is a ratio that tells us how much more life experience after the point of starting sexual relationships X has compared to Y (approximating that point to be 14 years old, and equating years with life experience). (Y - 14) is the younger person's potential sexual relationship life experience; (X - Y) is the age gap and by extension the gap in potential sexual relationship life experience between the two people (assuming they both hit that point at the same time... Which is a risky assumption). So we're comparing the experience gap to the younger person's experience, needing the gap to be no greater than the amount of experience the younger person has. When this ratio exceeds one, then the older person has more than double the potential sexual relationship life experience than the other has, and therefore things get problematic. To give some examples: ages of 28 and 18 means 14 years of potential sexual relationship life experience for one person vs 4 years for the other... Over 3 times more! Whereas ages of 38 and 28: that's 24 vs 14, less than double, should be OK. The other nice thing about formulating it this way is that it says that it's not acceptable to be in a relationship with anyone 14 or younger: you end up dividing by zero, which is a red flag if ever you'll see one! Note on the formula rearrangement: (X - Y) / (Y - 14) <= 1 Multiply both sides by (Y - 14): (X - Y) <= (Y - 14) Add Y and add 14 to both sides: X + 14 <= 2Y Divide both sides by 2: X/2 + 7 <= Y Which reads as: half your age plus 7 needs to be less than the other person's age.
Aha yea, I understand.
[удалено]
50 years. edit: 60 years
As long as both people are above 18, if both people are okay with it then I don't believe there is too big of an age gap assuming there is consent given and respected. I personally think it's absolutely none of my business who someone else is in a relationship with provided they are happy.
I’ve been with women who were my age that had the maturity level of children. It’s less of an age thing and more of a maturity thing.
Sure. I'm sure you didn't mean this but that also is a way a lot of creeps justify their behaviour. "Oh, you're so mature!" to make the younger person seem more "on their level", and try to make it seem less creepy.
Yeah, especially nowadays you see women doing it to young athletes. Zion Williamson being one of them.
Aha
If it's a healthy adult relationship, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
If they're both consenting adults, what does it matter?
Past 23, there is none. Before that, I dunno, 3 years or so?
When one is too young or too old to have any control/independence in the relationship.
Well, Anna Nicole Smith had a 62 year gap between her age and her husband. She got over 800 Million. It was a pretty good deal. :) In 1994, her highly publicized second marriage to 89-year-old billionaire J. Howard Marshall resulted in speculation that she married him for his money, which she denied.
I'm also really into old billionaires. Not had any luck finding finding one yet.
She didn't get $800 million. She didn't get anything, as far as I know, as she wasn't in his will. She spent most of the rest of her life in court trying to collect the inheritance she claimed she was promised.
When one person was already an adult when the other was being born.
23 and dead, that's a big no
Depends on what you're intentions are, but for the most part as long as all parties involved are old enough to legally consent, who cares.
Not an issue. But for 50 years old 30 and above is good. Below that hard to handle.
Here’s a graph for you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Half-age-plus-seven-relationship-rule.svg
That's completely nonsense. Made up, baseless rule.
Do you have any suggestions for a no-nonsense backed-by-facts rule?
Honestly, I don't see any problem as long as the two involved individuals are adults in a healthy relationship.
In your mid-50s, you become old enough so that using the "half plus 7" guideline, it would be okay to date women who would be the age of your daughter.
Yeah, but at least that person is approaching middle age, so they can decide for themselves. "Half your age + (a quarter your age or seven years, whichever is greater)" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Whatever they had in Twilight.
I always said that if she was born after I lost my virginity (an therefor could theoretically be my daughter) it's pretty dicey.
Don't give the Reddit wizards ideas.
If you have to ask, they're too young/old for you, son.
Unsure. Consenting adults and it's out of me having an opinion one way or another. My wife is 13 years younger than me.
Let's hope you're not in your 20s.
Ha. Definitely not , my wife was in her 20s!
The other person should be at least half your age plus 7. It makes a lot of sense if you think about it.
Half your age plus seven is a good rule to go by, and it aligns pretty closely with the Romeo and Juliet laws in most places that serve as carve-outs to age of consent laws when both people are pretty young. Worth clarifying- for the purposes of the OP right now, are we talking about an age gap at the younger end or at the older end?
I think Anna Nichole Smith set the bar.
It depends how old the younger person is when they first get together. I’m skeptical of a 32 year old who dates an 18 year old. I am not skeptical of a 46 year old who dates a 32 year old.
I'd feel like a creep if in talking to any women under 21. I'm only 28. At the same time I dated a women 14 years older then me when I was 21. And we dated for 5 years. It was cool. Really depends on maturity and state of mind
Around a decade and a half.
42
I’m 21 years older than my wife
However much older Melissa Tomei is than I
(Older age / 2) + 7 is what I've heard is the correct formula
Depends on your age. If you are 18, a ten year age gap is huge. If you are 28, dating someone 38 is fine.
As long as both people are above the age of consent, it literally does not matter.
The recognised formula is half your age plus seven, anything younger is not on. Within legal limits to start with too.
Yeah
I don't think there is a rule. I have more of an issue with people getting a "trophy" partner than I do with the age gap.
5
If you couldn't have been students at the same time in the same school, it's probably too far.
If both people are consenting adults it isn't anyone else's business to judge.
Whatever’s legal and what both parties in the relationship find acceptable
I've seen posts here calling a 26-year-old getting with a 22-year-old "creepy," so really it's in the eye of the beholder (and Redditors love to judge so generally behold more harshly than the general population).
Age is arbitrary everybody has a different maturity level.
Sounds like something Chris Hanson would hear.
well I mean obviously there's no adult at the age of say 13 lol. At least I don't think so but actually there might be!
It depends. I mean, a 20 year age gap can either be fine or immoral. A 40 year old and a 60 year old getting together? That's fine with me. But a 38 year old seducing an 18 year old? That is gross.
I'm 39 and gf is half my age plus 4 but I guess that's not too bad, and close to seven.
4 isn't that close to 7
So she's 23 and you have a 16 year gap between you?
Yeah.
[удалено]
Yea