Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:17, 6 January 2015

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Who killed this article?

Seriously, not mentioning the "half you age plus seven" rule is just bad. It's a general rule of thumb used do define if age disparity is within ethical limits. I'm very sad to see it not only has been removed from this article, but there is even a redirect that points you to this hoples article. This article then skips the whole point. This article doesn't tell the reader the basics. There are references available to the "half your age plus seven" rule, it has been mentioned in movies and in xkcd.com those references should be a valid source for a pop culture guidline like this. I saw there was another topic here talking about this problem, but I thought I'd make a new one just to state how important this is. After reading this article, will the reader know the answer to basic questions about this topic? I think the answer to that question, sadly is no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.248.149 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to sign on to say I completely agree. Anytime a friend mentions they have a new older, or younger date, you can watch the people in the group quickly run the math. The bottom age limit is usually taken as x/2 + 7, with x as your age. The upper limit is usually taken as x/2 + x - 7. Similarly, this is often used to point out who is in the right/wrong of the relationship. If a man is 40, and he's dating a 28 year old, that's not normally considered too much of a social faux pas, depending on the people involved. But for a 28 year old to date a 40 year old is a bit strange (max 35). As such, it is feasible to show a range of values for healthy age disparity for both members of the relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.99.110 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Dick killed the article long ago. Actually, it's not entirely his fault. Somebody erased everything on the "Half your age plus seven" rule and put "TYRA SHOW!". I've been around Misplaced Pages long enough to know. Although I haven't registered until recently. AVanover (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's add the rule again but not call it "ethical" like the first comment does. It's not an ethical rule, it's rather a rule "what is usually accepted within a surrounding community" like the second says.

Also the explanations of slang like "cougar" or "quail from St.Quentin" was a usefull below-the-line reading. Exactness is fine but it's literally worthless to have a nothing but an exact article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.248.77 (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are arguments to be made on either side. I would suggest responding to Jimbo's comments below if you feel the need to reinstate. – RobinHood70 18:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"never date anyone under half your age plus seven" So a six-year-old wouldn't be allowed to date anyone younger than ten? 198.144.192.45 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

That's why it's labelled "a rule of thumb"...there are clearly situations in which it becomes inappropriate, or just plain non-sensical, to apply it. – RobinHood70 05:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Manther

"A male 40 years of age or older, who pursues younger women, typically more than eight years his junior."

I am 49 and my wife is 40. Does that make me a deviant? C'mon guys, this article is for the dumps! Rastapopoulos (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What is a Gold Digger?

Quoted from the main article:

"Gold digger—someone (typically a female) who develops a relationship with a much older partner or someone who she does not find attractive physically, intellectually or congenially for primarily financial reasons, especially to inherit the partner's wealth upon death (which is expected to come soon)."

I disagree with the notion that someone is considered a gold digger only when in a relationship with a "much older partner" or "someone she does not find attractive physically, intellectually or congenially." I think this is irrelevant to being a gold digger and thus loses a bit of relevance with the main topic of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.44.195 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in Lede and Body

A few editors have made valiant attempts to salvage this train wreck of an article, but the fact remains that there is little or no context to support an article with such a broad and amorphous subject area. Witness the blatant contradiction in the article lede and the first sentence of the body ("risen significantly" vs. "not once across all ages"). There does not seem to be any decisive research to support the contention that "age disparity in sexual relationships" is a verifiable or notable phenomenon, statistically speaking. Perhaps this article's title should be changed to Age disparity in sexual relationships in popular culture. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I partially fixed the contradiction by removing a sentence from the lede. The research cited in the article is still contradictory and indecisive. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how the phenomenon is historically, but recently it has garnered a lot of attention, particularly with 'cougars'. A lot of books written here aside from what is already in the article. So, I say I would have to agree with you that it is a popular culture thing.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Half Your Age Plus Seven "Rule"

I've removed the content concerning the legendary "half your age plus seven" rule on the grounds that it is inadequately sourced and unverifiable for inclusion in an article that is supposed to approach the topic from a scientifically verifiable standpoint. Of the three sources cited, one linked to a web comic and another linked to the advice column in a defunct lifestyle magazine. Neither of these sources seem appropriate to establish the existence of this "rule."

The third source links to an obscure Australian autobiography that attributes the "rule" not to Western dating norms but to Islamic marriage customs! This third source is the only one that approaches the reliability threshold, yet it does not seem sufficient to establish the existence of this phenomenon in Western culture. I think we need multiple, verifiable sources that do not contradict themselves before we go forward with adding this information to the article again. The graph is completely unnecessary and silly as well, since this "rule" is, if anything, an approximate "rule of thumb." Uncle Dick (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's rule of thumb. That's why quotations were put in it. So many people know this rule yet you consistently insist on a "reliable source". How about the world? the internet? forums? web comics? CULTURE! Seriously, I don't see how you can make an argument over this. It's rather silly. (Copied from Uncle Dick's talk page) The "half your age plus seven" rule is well known in society, especially urban areas and online. I don't see why you would consistently removed a section of cultural relevance. My source is reliable considering the context. But even if I didn't have a source, their would be no reason to delete it unless you're distanced from particular areas of society. The rule is pretty common in my area and it's used quite a lot online. You even see it in various media, such as this online comic: xkcd. Again, I don't see your point in deleting this section. A search on Google for "half your age plus seven" with the quotations reveals 6,090 results. Searching "divide by two add seven", the alternative name, with the quotations reveals 1,030 results. The main term on urban dictionary for half-your-age-plus-seven, of which there are five entries, reveals the first entry to have 10,020 thumbs up. How can you not accept this cultural phenomenon. AVanover (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that this "rule" exists as an Internet meme and schoolyard joke. According to the Misplaced Pages policy of Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Editor consensus has established that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Therefore, it cannot be used to verify the "half your age plus seven rule". Until reliable sources can be found to verify this rule, it should be excluded from the article. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a schoolyard "joke". It's a cultural phenomenon. You just proved it. You said "I'm not disputing that this 'rule' exists as an Internet meme ". The Internet is a part of culture. Technically, in this case, I could verify the fact that it's an internet meme (which you agree with) and it would be allowable on Misplaced Pages. So again, why would it not be included in this clearly relevant article? AVanover (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It may very well be a "cultural phenomenon", as you say, but where's the proof? Again, the standard for inclusion of any information on Misplaced Pages is verifiability. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Here's your proof: the “Half-Your-Age-Plus-Seven” Rule The age difference that is generally accepted by modern society varies directly with the age of the individuals involved in the relationship;' http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=sv&safe=off&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=+%E2%80%9CHalf-Your-Age-Plus-Seven%E2%80%9D++The+age+difference+that+is+generally+accepted&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=. Halfyourageplusseven (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The "half your age plus 7" rule is completely irrelevant unless it will stand up in a court of law. hint: it wont. anywhere. on earth. PS: wikipedia is not a tool of social engineering. Write a book instead. Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- It has no official legal status (and has not been claimed to have any official legal status), and is not serious relationship advice offered by a certified medical or psychological professional (and has not been claimed to be serious relationship advice offered by a certified medical or psychological professional), but nevertheless it is a somewhat notable cultural phenomenon whose exclusion from this page seems to be largely determined by "don't like it" reasonings. If Hampster Dance has a whole article devoted to it, I don't see why half-age-plus-seven can't be mentioned on Misplaced Pages... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with mentioning it as a cultural meme, BUT if it's noted in the article, it should definitely be mentioned to be taken with a massive grain of salt. Mainly because anyone who genuinely believes any validity or universality to this "rule" is either uneducated or gullible. It's something that's generally mentioned and then laughed off, not something required by society, or looked down upon if it's violated. It's a colloquial saying, not a real social norm. Furthermore, the lower half of this article is terribly written. It looks like something you'd find on Reddit. Please, PLEASE keep a modicum of reliability on Misplaced Pages. Things like this are what make it the joke that it's rapidly becoming. 68.237.141.218 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No one takes it as graven in stone, or confuses it with sound professional medical, moral, scientific, ethical, or psychological advice; however it is a fairly frequently-mentioned rough rule-of-thumb reference point among some. Anyway, it's been pretty much banned from this article by Jimbo Wales, regardless of notability... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is perhaps the worst article I have seen in Misplaced Pages in ages

Wow, what a bunch of useless nonsense. Can we stub it, or revisit deletion. It's random opinions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a perpetual battleground, and not in a good way. When "cougar" was a separate article, it was read out loud on U.S. network TV by David Letterman -- which, of course, was a signal to immediately merge the article. Etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is perhaps the most unhelpful comment to this article ever. Why so critical, after this article was mentioned on "The View" by name it was hit by huge editing and every time it reruns we get vandals. Come help build the article rather than be so critical and useless with your criticism. I don't like this article, so lets delete it or stub it? Come on... I've watched this page for a while and it gets good page hits. Outback the koala (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand the impulse that says when something receives major positive outside attention, that's the moment that it should pretty much be destroyed. This article has some long-standing problems, but I don't see how the rather rigid petty-bureaucratic approach which has mainly ruled this article for many months has done much to improve it... AnonMoos (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, unproductivity has seemed to overcome the page. I share your sentiments. Outback the koala (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside attention is of no particular concern. Popularity is not a marker of quality. The fact remains: the article is unreadable nonsense, full of random opinions. I'll do some editing of it right now - but the first step will be to remove everything that is unsourced, poorly sourced, and random opinions about slang terms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed large swathes of the article. It is by no means done. The sections I have removed were unsourced speculation or editorializing, which had been mostly marked as such for over a month, with no move towards sourcing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, not sure why "Cougar" is banned from Misplaced Pages notice (despite figuring in the title of the TV show Cougar Town etc. etc.) when Bunny boiler gets a separate article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion about that more general question, I just know that random slang is not helpful for this article. It occurs to me that if that is what this is all about, then the right thing to do is redirect Cougar (slang) to somewhere more appropriate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: upon looking into this further, it appears that the redirect of Cougar (slang) to here was not the result of any sort of formal process and can therefore be undone by anyone. What I would recommend, if you are interested in doing that, is that you not just revert to the last best version of the article that was there, but actually improve it to address concerns. I think the article, as it was written, was OR and dictionary definition - what it could be is an exploration of the slang term - it's origins and uses - with loads of sources. I have zero interest in working on that, myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Age of consent laws

This entire section was irrelevant to this entry and so I have removed it. What we need to be on guard against here (among other htings) is inappropriate POV pushing by pro-pedophilia activists cherry-picking research to put forward their agenda.

The section I removed contained two things: first, a highly idiosyncratic and poorly sourced (though, as a previous editor noted, it was sourced) view on age of consent laws, putting forward the dubious theory that age of consent laws are enacted by older women seeking to reduce competition. While this may be a view put forward by some sources, it is clearly a highly idiosyncratic view that doesn't belong here. (In order to properly address the issue of age of consent laws, you'd need a whole article, which is why we have one.)

Second, it contained some pop-culture fluff about "half your age plus seven" rules. I'm happy to address why that nonsense doesn't belong here if anyone wants, but in short: we'd need to have reliable sources to indicate the notability for the purposes of this article. (It is entirely possible that we should have an article devoted to that pop culture meme; I have no strong opinion about that.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your deletion. I was the one who reverted the original deletion, and did so only because there was no explanation provided. I should have reviewed all the material in the section before doing so; had I done so, I would have taken the same action you did. Most of the material is original research, or at the least doesn't merit inclusion per WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. However, I think we should retain the link to age of consent, which I've restored. Mindmatrix 16:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Age of Consent laws are relevant because they are one of the legal aspects that has to do with "Age disparity in sexual relationships". However, I tried to minimize discussion about them in this article and just mention them and redirect people to the relevant Age of Consent article. I also tried to clean out some original research, though the last section I added ("Sociobiological") is fairly original researchy. I am hoping some one will find the relevant discussion in the literature (I am sure it has been discussed), but if not I wouldn't mourn if the section were deleted. Kyle112 (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned Up

I stumbled upon this article and was appalled at the state it was in. I tried to remove a lot of the opinion and bias, and put some effort into making it presentable and adding some research. It still needs a lot of citations, and a significant expansion in the studies area and history area. I am hoping the History section will include examples of relations with significantly older and younger people from many cultures across time. And I am hoping the Studies section could be expanded to include more studies on more varieties of countries outside North America and the U.K. (I did add a citation about African age disparity, but I felt it was too specific to explain in the Studies section). Right now the Sociobiological section is looking like original research, but I know some one has put the idea forward before it's just a matter of tracking it down. I did this all on no sleep, so any suggestions, further clean up, or discussion is completely welcome!

P.S. The "half your age plus seven rule" is not a scientific metric, nor is it a world-wide consensus on how one should act. 24.113.239.246 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No one ever claimed that it was any of those things -- but the fact that the "half age plus seven" rule is de facto banned from this article, despite achieving a fairly substantial degree of prominence/notoriety, is one of those semi-arbitrary measures imposed in the name of "article improvement" which does not in fact lead to any observable significant improvement of the article in question... And I still don't understand why the "Cougar" article being read out on U.S. national TV by David Letterman was the signal to destroy the article. AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia, not an Urban Dictionary style online slang reference or a Trivia show style collection of sayings. If Half Your Age Plus Seven warrants discussion, than so do such headaches as "If There is Grass on the Field Play Ball", "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed", "Save yourself for marriage" and other aphorisms. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of quotes and lifestyle sayings. Kyle112 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no particular similarity or useful comparison between coarse expressions mainly used by 14-year-old boys trying to appear older than they actually are, and the "half-age-plus-7" rule, which is clever little bit of popular wisdom (though not intended to be serious advice from a certified medical or psychological professional) far from being confined to teenaged boys . AnonMoos (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter who uses them and which ones you think are witty, Misplaced Pages is not a compilation of aphorisms. Kyle112 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely fail to see how your beloved coarse sayings mainly used by 14-year-old boys trying to appear older than they actually are illuminates or validly compares in any way to the "half-age-plus-7" rule, or explain in any way why the "half-age-plus-7" rule should be de-facto banned from this article. In fact, they seem to be an irrelevant obfuscatory red herring. AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Because not every little social witticism, idiom, and aphorism is deserving of it's own article or section. If the incredibly popular "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder" saying doesn't get its own article, then neither should any other, including your poorly sourced "Half your age plus seven". If you can not understand this, then there is probably no explanation in the world that will convince you that your favorite pet saying shouldn't have prominence in a Misplaced Pages article. Jimbo Wales and many others have pointed it out to be unencyclopedic. Respond if you want, but this is my last reply to you. Kyle112 (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations -- if the goal was to have a childish adolescent gross-out competition, then you win hands down. However, if the goal was to find cogent and valid reasons why the "half-age-plus-seven" rule should not be included on the article, then you lose (since you haven't been able to come up with any such reasons). AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirections

If key words like "sugar daddy" or "toy boy" are redirected to this articel those expressions should be mentioned here. At the moment it is not obvious what this articel has to do with the key words. CBa--89.0.18.83 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

History?

There really probably should be a history section at the very least describing historical acceptance of these types of relationships. Maybe mention something about how, not even 100 years age women who weren't married by late 20's would likely end up being old maids. (not that the date or age is exactly correct, I just don't feel like looking it up in this particular moment. Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. I will have to find some citable sources before I add to the page; however, I do not believe that age disparity in sexual relationships is a modern phenomenon. I read a recent (scholarly) paper which suggested the age gap (particularly between an older male and younger female) has not significantly changed throughout generations, but rather, the societal norms have. As the article has not yet been renamed to the previously suggested "Age disparity in sexual relationships in popular culture" (which, if implemented, would exclude much very important history), and since no historical content has yet to be included, I will make an attempt to find the paper and introduce a new sections (or sections) focusing on historical age disparity and changing societal norms.Jtrnp (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The title and content of this page is biased and inconsistent with other Misplaced Pages pages regarding people of different demographics who are in intimate romantic relationships

The title of this page represents a bias. To be consistent across wikipedia, this page should be titled "inter-generational relationships." When people of different races date, it's an "interracial relationship," when people of the same sex date, it's a "same-sex relationship" and both are named as such on wikipedia. When two people who are of two different generations date, it's an "inter-generational relationship." No other type of dating is defined solely in terms of its sexual content. There is no wikipedia page for "race disparity in sexual relationships," for example. That would obviously be ridiculous and biased. Or imagine the page on gay and lesbian relationships being titled "gender disparity in sexual relationships." That would be laughably bigoted. Yet, this page does the same thing and trivializes and sexualizes real people in real relationships. Here wikipedia is restating the media bias that when two people of different generations date, it defined as a "sexual" relationship or, even worse, an "economic" relationship! (see below for more on that issue). It's like when we used to say gay people only dated for sex. Look how that sabotaged them for years to be able to be taken seriously and accepted by society for basic marriage and parenting rights.

Also, the section on "slang" names for these relationships is inconsistent. On the "same sex relationships" page, for example, there isn't a section devoted to all the homophobic slang used to characterize gay and lesbian relationships over the years such as listed on onlineslangdictionary.com: auntie – bear – bender – bottom – bum bandit – butch – carpet muncher – catcher – chickenhawk – chicken hawk – cub – drag king – dyke – fag – faggot – femme – flamer – fruit – gay – gaylord – GLBT – hasbian – homo – lemon – lez – lipstick lesbian – minge muncher – mo – nellie – nelly – pole smoker – poof – Poofter – queer – shirt lifter – versatile

Can you imagine? "The gender disparity between two partners is typically met with some disdain in industrialized nations, and various derogatory terms for participants have arisen in the vernacular..."

Or how about including a section in the page on interracial marriage on all the racist terms used to describe those relationships over the years? "The racial disparity between two partners is typically met with some disdain in industrialized nations, and various derogatory terms for participants have arisen in the vernacular..."

Giving voice to the history of such racist and homophobic bigotry is beneath wikipedia's standards, yet the editors so easily jumped on the pop culture bandwagon and gave voice to ageist terms like "cougar" and "cub" or "gold digger" and "trophy wife"! While it is true that some older women embrace the term "cougar," to be consistent, you would have to include in the gay relationships page that some gay men refer to themselves and each other as "bitches." Get it?

Finally, although popular opinion assumes that inter-generational partnerships have an economic disparity (such as sugar mamas and sugar daddies), there is no evidence to support that inter-generational relationships rely on economic dependency any more or less than relationships that do not have an age disparity. Relationships specifically organized around an "economic arrangement" should have their own page and not be automatically correlated with inter-generational relationships.

Unfortunately, it looks like the wiki editors unconsciously bought into the pop culture discrimination widely displayed regarding this subject.Amyluna13 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Slang terms

I added the POV template, because it's not written from neutral point of view. "The age disparity between two partners is typically met with some disdain in industrialized nations" - no source, that's true maybe in the Anglosphere. Also this part evokes the idea that all age-disparity relationships exist because of money and "money are central to the relationship", an obvious nonsense. --Prabanton (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A similar section was previously removed by Jimbo. Given the somewhat different nature of this section compared to the previous one, I didn't want to just remove it outright, but I'm inclined to agree with Jimbo's reasoning: it's not the most relevant section to this article. To me, the focus of this article is on the social impact and difficulties—except perhaps as passing references (e.g., "Those in such relationships are often referred to derogatorily by such terms as ..."), slang terms would be more relevant in a slang-related article. I'm also concerned that the section will turn into a miniature version of Urban Dictionary, as it was previously and which it borders on now, since this is prohibited by WP:NOT#DICT. – RobinHood70 18:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It may need a new POV template. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible illustration

Painting where the "old" has a bag of gold which his "young" counterpart lacks. AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

other images

Some entertaining images in commons:Category:The unlikely couples by Lucas Cranach (I)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Does it have to be a painting? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Religion and philosophy Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which unbiased picture should be the lead?143.176.62.228 (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• 3)
• 4)

• 5)
• 6)

Not sure if this one (pic5) is biased, since it depicts a 'dirty old' man. But most others from Cranach depict 'gold diggers' 143.176.62.228(talk) 00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked over Commons for a more appropriate painting (i.e., one depicting age disparity without the additional element of force). I found a few, and selected one in particular. The ones I considered, in case you folks have a different preference:

• 7) my choice
• 8)
• 9)
• 10)
• 11)

24.224.198.212 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Happy couple (pic3), Konstantin Somov (pic6), Maurycy Gottlieb (pic7) and Admiral Nelson(pic10) are all good. I'd vote for picture 6 or 10. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, "7" is supposed to depict a father and daughter (see Merchant of Venice)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

p.S. If you think the woman in "6" has gray hair, she doesn't -- she's wearing a powdered wig, according to the fashions of the time. AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of picture 10? It depicts a historically accurate age disparity (non-fictional and well documented). 143.176.62.228 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Photographs instead of paintings

Or perhaps a photograph of a well known couple?143.176.62.228 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• 11) Princess Beatrix
• 12) Bill Gates
• 13) Ashton & Demi

The age difference between Princess Beatrix and Prince Claus is over 12 years. There is no definition of a "significant" enough disparity. But does anyone think 12 years is not signifigant enough? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of terminology

One recent edit removed the quotations around various terms, which I believe to be incorrect. In searching Misplaced Pages, I found nothing specifically commenting on that particular usage of quotation marks, but I did find several things suggesting that neologisms (also Neologisms and new compounds) and jargon are generally considered undesirable. I'm wondering if we shouldn't "resolve" the grammar question by simply removing that section altogether. Anybody else have opinions on this? – RobinHood70 18:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Double standard

Why are all of these terms about women's sexuality listed under slang (most of them disparaging) but not negative slang about men being "dirty old men" or "cradle robbers"? And homosexual relations are ignored completely. This mainly seems like an article to bash women, not delve into an understanding of a subject. 63.143.216.178 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I reviewed the section. It looks like a reflection that is not based on published materials and we don't publish original thoughts. Since it showed little relevance to the article, I removed the section.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Clearly the proposed title is not favoured here. There also doesn't seem to be any broad consensus that another title is necessary. This does not preclude further RMs if desired, however. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Age disparity in sexual relationships → Age disparity in intimate relationships – I think the existing title with the word "sexual" is a bit narrow, particularly considering the content of the article. Not all age-disparate relationships (or even similar-age relationships, for that matter) include sex, where the title implies that such relationships are focussed entirely on sex. I'd like to suggest moving it to the title above, though I'm open to other suggestions as well, since it is a bit wordy either way. – RobinHood70 17:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Renaming this article to "Age disparity in intimate relationships" would be making this article too broad, considering that an intimate relationship can, for example, refer to a relationship between a mother and her child; this is despite the fact that the term intimate relationship is usually used to refer to a sexual relationship or one that includes sexual aspects. While the Age disparity in sexual relationships article is not only about sexual matters, it's about relationships that are sexual in addition to those other aspects that it addresses. There is no need to rename the article just to get across the point that the article is about more than sexual components. If it weren't redundant and were an improvement, I would suggest renaming the article to Age disparity in intimate and sexual relationships; but like I stated, I fail to see where the line would be drawn by indicating or possibly indicating that any intimate relationship where there is age disparity can be included. Or perhaps having no line in this regard is the point, and even friends that have an intimate, non-sexual age disparity relationship can be included. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically oppose, since "intimate" sounds like a vague euphemism, and could be confusing for some people or in some contexts. The article title could probably be improved, but I'm not sure that's the way to do it... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - the article is almost entirely focused on sexual relationships. In this case "intimate" would be a euphemism, and inaccurate to the content of the article. If the article were to be expanded to cover other kinds of relationship then the change may be valid, but the article would need changing first. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Age disparity in romantic and sexual relationships or other broad-topic title, but I agree that "intimate" is not the best word here. Red Slash 05:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "Intimate" is too unspecific and very wishy-washy.--Rushton2010 (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article may need to be checked for POV

This issue is so sensitive to many people, including myself (I am only attracted to men who are at least 25 years older than me). In my opinion, mentioning the "half your age plus seven" rule undermines the neutrality of this article by endorsing the perspective that intergenerational relationships that do not fit this rule are immoral. Also, the tone may have to be checked. Some of the content on this article bordered on offensive for me, someone who is not attracted to men who are anywhere close to my age. JRhorstman (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not Misplaced Pages's place to judge, just to report - whether an article is of a sensitive nature or not. The article is sourced and the sources support that the half-plus seven formula is a socially acceptable rule of thumb. I'm not going to bother quoting the sources here, because they're already in the article, which is where they belong. If you find the content of the article offensive, you have at least two options:

• Don't read it. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and material won't be removed just because it offends thine eyes.
• Read it, but don't assume that it's intended to offend you, rather that it's to support a point of view you don't personally agree with.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

JRhorstman -- read the comment of 15:23, 1 April 2011 above. Half-your-age-plus-seven is not serious relationship advice offered by a certified medical or psychological professional (and has not been claimed to be serious relationship advice offered by a certified medical or psychological professional), but it's a rough rule of thumb which has been circulating in some form among some people since at least 1951... AnonMoos (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Echoing what was said here, please see Misplaced Pages policies at Misplaced Pages:Offensive material and WP:NOTCENSORED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"half-your-age-plus-seven" rule - notability/OR concerns

I cannot find any reliable academic discussion of it. mentions it - citing this very article... I am not seeing any significant discussion of this in books. We need better sources; I am concerned over this topic notability; that entire section is ORis now. Is there any reliable source which discusses it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's in Stephen Potter's "Lifemanship", dating from 1950. 86.14.9.87 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you happen to have a page number for that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Condom Use?

That's a the biggest pile of bull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.92.11.108 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

International Stats

Found AUS and UK stats quite easily to broaden from US stats only. Could not find any from other countries. e,g, India has lots of stats on marriage ages but not on age difference at marriage ? Diggers2004 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC) PS: AUS and UK do not include raw data so cannot create a graph of table. Assumed that the graphs in their articles would be copyright and not available to wikipedia (perhaps this is why they don't want the public to have the data ??) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggers2004 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Unequal

The Unequal Marriage (1862), is a painting depicting the wedding ceremony of an elderly, high-ranking official and a young, visibly unhappy girl.

Adding this picture to the article suggests that age disparity leads to an unequal relationship. This is a point-of-view, so the picture should be removed. With this picture the article cannot be neutral. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The picture is also offtopic: it refers to an arranged marriage.

V.V.Pukirev - The Arranged Marriage.jpg

Happy couple_(8098153918).jpg

Couple_sitting_at_a_table.jpg

• EDIT: Moved suggested pictures to the 2013 discussion

143.176.62.228 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with having this picture, which you removed, as the lead image. I do see something wrong with the picture you replaced it with; the picture you used as a replacement is a typical middle age or old age couple (see the definitions in those articles for what is middle age or old age). "Age disparity in sexual relationships" is not so much about couples that are only a year or two, or a few years, apart (except for close-in-age matters with regard to age of consent); it's more about couples that are significantly apart in age. Then again, "a few years apart" is "significantly apart in age" to some people. Also do read the WP:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) policy carefully and thoroughly; being neutral on Misplaced Pages does not mean what you seem to think it means. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what the article says about couples that are significantly apart in age:

...the exact definition of a "significant" age disparity have developed over time and vary between societies...

These views are rarely uniform...

The couple in the picture clearly show an age difference. It depends on someones personal view whether this is significant or not (as mentioned in the article).

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by 'nothing wrong' with the previous picture of the arranged unequal marriage? I don't see how it suits the article. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked my post a little before you replied, and I stand by that post. The couple in the picture you added do not "clearly show an age difference" (well, the man does look older and the image description states that he is, but some couples who are the same age look a little or significantly different age-wise); they are a typical middle age or old age couple. The vast majority of romantic/sexual couples are a year or two apart in age, or a few years apart in age; that is the norm, and, unless talking about a close-in-age matter with regard to age of consent, is not much of an age disparity, if any at all, to whatever couple in question. As for an arranged marriage image, an arranged marriage is a part of the topic of age disparity in sexual relationships if the couple has a significant age difference. I don't care if the younger or older person is looking happy or sad in the image; I care about what image is better for the article. I have nothing more to state on the topic of your image preference. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Noting here on the talk page that the IP has also removed the image that I questioned. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no sources that proof there is a norm. The age different chart applies to the United States, but the world does not revolve around the US. It is mentioned in the article introduction that the views are rarely uniform. What you view as being the norm, may as well be an age disparity in someone else's view.

Both my suggested replacement pictures (see above) show a couple in which the man is older. Especially picture 1. However, I do not have a preferred replacement picture, but I do disagree with a biased picture showing a sad looking girl in it. Such pictures contradict with the articles introduction.

Although I did quote the article, we seem to disagree about the articles definition of a significant age difference. That's why I removed my replacement picture from the article. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Besides it being something that is witnessed by interacting with average couples or observing celebrity couples, there are WP:Reliable sources that show or outright state that it is the norm for romantic/sexual couples to be a year or two apart in age, or a few years apart in age. Romantic/sexual couples being the same age is the minority. That is not a matter that is regulated to the United States. And, no, I'm not interested in listing sources. Like I stated above, "I have nothing more to state on the topic of your image preference." Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I must repeat: I have no image preference. An introductory image however, should not show a bias and should show an age disparity. The article clearly states that there is no exact definition of a "significant" age disparity.

What you observe, from what you think are average couples, has nothing to do with objectivity. Hollywood does not set the definition, science does. I have not seen any reliable sources, so I will not just assume that there are any. All I have seen so far, are personal views. And as stated in the article: views on this matter are rarely uniform. Therefor, my assumed preference or your personal view about what would be a significant difference are unimportant. Unless you also dispute the content of the articles introduction. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You clearly have an image preference, as in you prefer that the image you removed not be the lead image. As many at this site know, I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, which is why I mentioned that aspect in my "00:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)" post above in addition to what is common sense/WP:Common sense. Yes, it is common sense that romantic/sexual couples being the same age is the minority. If you want sources showing that to be the case, Google Books, Google Scholar and various other sourcing outlets are at your disposal; I've been very clear that I am not interested in listing sources for you. I care not that you translate that as "you don't have the sources." I care not if you translate that as "those are only United States sources." If I were interested, meaning truly interested, in discussing this matter with you, then I would debate with sources (as is a common editing style of mine, as recently as this case). I, however, prefer not to debate with editors who show up to an article removing images based on their personal preference and acting as though the removals are supported by a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. Like other editors, I get tired of explaining what WP:NPOV actually means. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The removed image cannot be the lead image, as I have explained earlier. You have brought zero arguments into that discussion. Accusing me of doing disruptive editing or having a preferred image will get you no where (argumentum ad hominem !!!). There was never consent about the biased picture, see the 2013 discussion above . Therefor, it has been rightfully removed. If you are not interested in contributing to this article, then just don't. If you are, then please stop explaining your personal views and bring some facts into the discussion. We both have better things to do. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who has brought zero arguments to this discussion; as I've already been clear about above, I don't count an "it's non-NPOV/biased to me" type of argument as a valid argument for Misplaced Pages content. I never stated anything about not being interested in contributing to the article; I did, however, state things about not being interested in discussing this image matter with you. You kept pressing, and so here we are. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And there you are doing it again. Making accusations instead of bringing arguments into the discussion. Let's just stop this discussion, it will take us no where. Someones personal view is not an argument. The unequal marriage should have been (and can still be) suggested in the 2013 discussion above . 143.176.62.228 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been making arguments. So, yeah, I did it again my "01:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)" post. Someone's personal view is not an argument? As far as any personal opinion expressed above goes, then exactly...if not supported by a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. Otherwise, the personal views of WP:Reliable sources are allowed...with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the talkpage again, it's allready been explained to you. I rest my case. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read and comprehend the WP:NPOV policy. Your contribution history shows that you very much need to read it and comprehend it; I reiterate that I don't count an "it's non-NPOV/biased to me" type of argument as a valid argument for Misplaced Pages content. Hopefully, you have rested your "case." Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem, again...143.176.62.228 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of argumentum ad hominem is severely lacking. But I do sometimes enjoy the challenge of WP:The last word. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

List of notable couples

I'd like to suggest adding a list with notable disparity couples, such as:

• Former Queen Princess Beatrix & Prince Claus;
• Former President Nelson Mandela & Winnie Madikizela;
• Former President Johannes Rau & Christina Rau;
• Olivia Newton-John and Matt Lattanzi;
• Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher;
• Charlie Sheen and Brooke Mueller;
• And many others such as Madonna and people from royal families.

143.176.62.228 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• C-Class Anthropology articles
• High-importance Anthropology articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment