this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
614 points (94.5% liked)

memes

10491 readers
2267 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

They literally said that was the acceptable range.

You said your SO fails within that range.

Ergo, that's acceptable.

...as the original comment said, "Shit's not hard."

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

But 10 years ago when we met it would have been outside that range.

Half my age plus 7 would have been 4.5 years older then her age then. How can it be acceptable now, but not then?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That's literally how the formula is intended to work, since any given age difference means less the older the two parties are (ie. a 40 year old married to a 50 year old is no big deal, but that same couple at 16 age 26 years old is creepy, and illegally so).

If your partner was 4.5 years outside of the formula range when you met (and assuming when you met is when you started dating...not some stupid gotcha like "we met at church when I was a teenager and they were a young child, and we didn't see each other romantically for another 15 years! Haha!") it's probably a situation where it was indeed eyebrow raising when you started dating.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Because we assume that life experience is an inverse square relationship with age.