Talk:Age disparity in sexual relationships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For an August 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/May-december romance, for another see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Older men-younger women

---

Contents 1 Intro 2 Hmmm... 3 Hollywood marriages 4 Meaning of May/December romance 5 Social Criticism 6 VfD discussion 7 Harold and Maude? 8 NNPOV Line 9 Trophy Rule 10 Definition of a Gold Digger... 11 Evolutionary psychology 12 Watch out for pedophile POV 12.1 link to word etymology of psychological preferences 13 Lolita 14 Economics 15 Laura Wilder? 16 Good taste 17 "divide by two and add seven" 17.1 edit war 18 Intelligence Quotient 19 List of relationships with age disparity 20 "Historical" section tagged 21 DesiLu 22 "Motives" section. 23 "Response to criticism" subsection of "Social criticism" section 24 Slang terms 25 Utterly Tenditious 26 Terminology request 27 Sugar Daddy 28 TotallyDisputed

[edit] Intro

Shoudn't the article begin with a good definition (Wikipedia:How to write a great article)? The article just states that the topic is controversial. And I don't it gets any clear afterwards. The writing assumes that the reader knows what the topic is. --Highwind 14:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm...

'Age disparities in homosexual relationships are also common' Who else thinks this is poorly worded?

Addressed that as well as improving the lead generally for overview/NPOV. Autiger 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood marriages

I moved the following from the article "Older women-younger men" (which is now a redirect) to here (i.e., the talk page):

A new trend in age gap/may-december romance love. Demi Moore is 15 years older than her boyfriend Ashton Kutcher. Ewan McGregor is 5 years younger than his wife Eve Mavrakis. 34% of women are now dating younger men in the united states.

I decided not to merge the content into the main article, because we already have plenty of Hollywood couples listed. If someone really wants to list them all, might I suggest creating List of age-disparate couples? • Benc • 19:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of May/December romance

Could the origins of the term "May/December romance" be explained? I used to think the term applied to the length of the relationship, and it was a term for short courtings (though I guess 7 months isn't all that short). It still isn't clear to me why it means age desparity. -R. fiend 22:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. :-) • Benc • 23:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Social Criticism

I suggested (though anonymously, before logging in this morning) that the increased social acceptability of a seven-year age difference as partners get older may be related to the proporation of the age difference to the age of the younger partner. I think the sentence I used to convey this could stand editing for clarity. What do others think? eddieuny 14:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this would count as original research as it stands. If you can find sources which make the same suggestion, that would be great. I have to say I agree with you. Denni☯ 18:53, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

[edit] VfD discussion

archived at Talk:Age disparity in sexual relationships/VfD

[edit] Harold and Maude?

Surely a reference to the film Harold and Maude should be a part of this article, given the other film and pop-culture references, but I'm not quite sure how to work it in. Anybody? -- Seth Ilys 20:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NNPOV Line

"Few people are willing to defend extreme cases of age disparity such as pedophilia."

This line is not NPOV and needs rephrasing or something. "Extreme" is a value judgement and merely the opinon of the writer (though commonly held, admittedly). "Few people" is also rather a vague weasle term. What consitutes "many" or "few"? Also, there is a vocal minority who do defend "extreme" cases (see childlove movement) as those involving pedophila, who could be mentioned as the exception. Also some freethinkers, as represented by sites like logicalreality.com, and other groups, such as certain pagan groups, and so on. This dismissive line makes it seem as if no other opinion exists. --195.93.21.71 03:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)(Katey)

• I support the phrasing as it stands. The age difference often =is= extreme, if 'extreme' is a description of a deviation from the norm. While people might, for instance, accept a difference of seven years between partners, a value which falls near the norm, they would be less inclined to accept a difference of twenty-seven years, which lies at the extreme end of the difference scale. As for "few people", I think this is a generous overestimate. The more correct term is probably "virtually no one". Denni☯ 00:12, 2005 July 14 (UTC)

Everyone is missing a more basic point. There are extreme age-disparate relationships that are also not pedophilia. When Tony Randall was 75 he married a 25-year-old woman. If anyone thinks that is "pedophilia", he simply does not know what the word means. Nor was it pedophilia when Bill Wyman and Woody Allen wooed and married much younger women. If a relationship does not involve a prepubertal child, it is not pedophilia, PERIOD.

What are people not getting here? A five or six year age difference CAN represent a pedophilic situation, if the younger party is, say, 8--despite there not being an extreme age difference. A 50-year age difference as between (superannuated adult) Tony Randall and his (adult) wife is NOT pedophilia. --DJac75 03:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (Placing comment in proper chronological order Denni☯)

[edit] Trophy Rule

There should be a mention of the Trophy Rule: don't sleep with anyone half your age plus 7 years. i.e., if you're 24, don't go out with someone under 19. Is it not that commonplace? --Madchester 03:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Never heard of it. I'm thinking it's non-notable unless it's ever gotten a mention in pop culture like TV or a movie. Autiger 05:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of a Gold Digger...

Does it match up with the common notion of it; that is to say that a gold digger is a woman who marries or gets with a man, regardless of age, just to spend his money while feigning intrest in him?

Absolutely. This article, equating golddigging with age disparity, is outrageously inaccurate and misleading.

I agree. The term "gold digging" really is independent of the respective ages of the partners.

[edit] Evolutionary psychology

"However, younger male partners may be seeking an older female partner to whom fecundity is no longer an issue, so that there is no danger of parenthood."

Do you have a cite for this? If you do I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do w evolutionary psychology, which necessarilly explores peoples predisposition to reproduction. Sam Spade 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I rescued this article from VfD last year sometime, and it had a cite then. I have no idea where I would find it now. Denni ☯ 21:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thats weird. Not sure what to say now... Good job salvaging the article? Sam Spade 21:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it... [1]. Sam Spade 21:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Watch out for pedophile POV

Ever since the Internet began, pedophiles have been increasing their level of organization and implicitly trying to seize control of discourse about this topic. They seek to define separate, pseudoscientific terms such as "pedophile," "ephebophile," and "infantophile," but in reality, there are just two phenomena: attraction to sexually-mature individuals, and attraction to sexually-immature individuals. It legitimizes pedophilia to pretend that attraction to a seventeen year old girl is somehow a scientific phenomenon worthy of a special term, somehow on the same level as attraction to a seven year old girl. So take pedophile terminology with a grain of salt, knowing that they are seeking to advance their own interests with the promulgation of their terminology. - Naif 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Though I agree that we should be careful about pedophiles taking control of this topic, I object to the fact that "pedophile," "ephebophile," and "infantophile," and pseudoscientific terms created by sex offenders pedophiles. As a student of Psychology (working on my Master's as we speak), I can tell you that pedophilia is listed in the DSM-IV (302.2), which is used to diagnos mental disorders. Looking over your Userpage Naif, it appears that you are a student of philosphy, not psychology. Perhaps more research should be conducted before such a broad statement is made like you did above. It implies (at least to me), that you consider members of the psychological community as sex offenders pedophiles, since it is the psychological community and not the pedophiles that invented the terminology.--Azathar 06:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • It is a shame I cannot participate in this discussion under my logged-in name, for fear that some lunatic will cave my head in because of my sexual orientation. Neither one of you have a clue what you are talking about, in part because I'm guessing neither of you are pedophiles. To address Naif first (Naif being French for naiive, which seems to fit perfectly under the circumstances), how is it that if I'm attracted to an eighteen year old girl, I'm alright, mate, but if she's seventeen, I'm suddenly a pedophile? How is it that I'm 25 and attracted to an eighteen year old girl I'm alright, unless I'm 50 and then I'm a pervert? How is it that in many societies past and present, there are social parameters which allow for sexual contact between adults and children, with no stigma and hence no suffering attached, for either party? To get to the point, you're damn rights I'm attempting to "advance (my) own interests" - and where's the crime there? Do you not attempt to advance yours? To Athazar, you suffer from the same insanity which appears to have overtaken popular Western thought in linking pedophiles and child molesters. I have grave difficulties in believing you are a student of anything when you use this kind of language. The facts speak for themselves in that most pedophiles never have sexual contact with a child, and most sexual predators of children are firmly in the heterosexual (and not pedophile) camp. The DSM-IV may list pedophilia as a mental disease, but I suggest you not place too great a degree of credence on a document which in the past saw homosexuality as a mental illness until just recently. Both of you should get a grip on yourselves, prepare to open your minds to rational thought just a little, and visit Puellula, where rational adults discuss what it is to be a pedophile. My bet - you ain't got the balls. 68.148.196.162 02:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • 68.148.196.162, you may be the only one naive here. Naif is pulling our collective leg. He purports to be a moralizing crusader, but his edits are mild and his rant subtle and with a double edge. No, this place is becoming a hall of mirrors, and frankly the only way out is to drop the various pro and con poses and just call things as they are. Haiduc 03:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I know a bit more then you think, Mr./Ms. Anon, as I am related to a sex offender, my cousin is one. He was caught, arrested, tried and pled out, and goes to counseling now, so please don't try and tell me that you know anything about me. BTW, I am still close with my cousin, he made a mistake, has come clean and admitted what he did, knows it was wrong, and is working on making himself a better person. The family knows, and we are all giving him the benefit of the doubt, though, to answer the question that is probably forming in your head, would I trust him alone with my kids? My answer is I don't know. It will depend on his record since his crime, and how he has been living his life. Since I don't have any kids yet, I am not even worried about that at this time. As in all scientific pursuits, as knowledge is increased, changes are made to the texts of a science. Yes, the DSM (not version IV, btw) once listed homsexualality as a mental illness, but as our scientific knowledge has increased, it was removed. Please don't try to lecture to me and tell me to "get a grip" and that I "ain't got the balls" when you are afraid to use your real name in this discussion. And for the record, I do know the difference between a child molester and a pedophile. One is a person who acts on his sexual attraction to children, in disregard to current taboos, mores and laws, and the other is one who is attracted to children, but may or may not act them out. It's not illegal to be a pedophile, but it is illegal to act on those tendencies. Western society has tended to merge pedophile and child molester together, and I typed too fast and didn't seperate them. I have fixed my comments above by striking out the incorrect words and rewriting the correct words. But my point hasn't changed. If you don't like the fact that pedophilic feelings (and possibly child molesting activities) are wrong, then I suggest that you move to a new place where the culture is more in tune to your attitudes.--Azathar 05:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Azathar, you claim to be studying for your MS in psych and at the same time you make a statement claiming that feelings can be "wrong"?! May I suggest that in that direction lies a dangerous discourse filled with internal conflict and its repercussions? But I think your slip is telling, not so much of your own state but of the problems in dealing with this sensitive topic. Having said that, maybe we can move on to discussing the article, and not each other, so as not to become victims of a troll. Haiduc 09:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I object to being accused to attempting to pull some kind of joke. I admit my "rant" was a bit emotionally written out, but I stand by its essential truth. Being attracted to a seventeen year old girl is entirely normal and indeed healthy. (Not being attracted is also fine.) Being attracted to a seven-year old girl is disgusting, and anybody who acts on it deserves exile to some barren desert island in the middle of the ocean. -Naif 11:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Were it not such a serious issue, I would find it laughable that you criticise my unwillingness to use my real name in this discussion. Do you really think I'm interested in having my windows smashed and my tires slashed? I laugh at your suggestion that homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV because "our scientific knowledge has increased." Rubbish. It was removed because our attitude has changed. I'm pleased you understand the difference between a pedophile and a child molester, because this is a rare thing in the common perception, where I am as good as dead even though I have never had sex with a child. I would suggest, however, that you reexamine your thought processes in light of your suggestion that my feelings are somehow wrong. Feelings are neither right nor wrong. They are feelings, end of sentence. And as you your suggestion that I move to a different place, thanks, but I like it here, and I have just as much right to be here as you do. You may wish to focus some of your learned research on such cultures as the ancient Greeks or the modern Mekinahu, where prepubertal sex was/is not only accepted, but common, and where it did not bring about the end of the world. 68.148.196.162 01:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Obvious prepubertal sex doesn't bring about the end of the world. Neither does homicide--doesn't mean homicide is OK. Homicide is also very common/accepted in a war zone, and again, doesn't mean it's not a social evil. I am very skeptical about these claims that because a social phenomenon existed in one particular culture, should it be imported into our own. In those ancient cultures, people lived and died within twenty miles of their birthplace and were tightly woven into one village's social fabric. If you slept with a fifteen year old girl, you pretty much had her for life. In today's world, such behavior can be escaped relatively easy, and our codes need to be more strict. - Naif 02:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Homicide brings about the end of someone's life. Prepubertal sex brings about the end of someone's... hm.... well, I don't know. But it's sure not in the same league. Don't try me on the innocence stunt. That begins with being disabused of the existence of the tooth fairy, which, again, is not considered the end of the world. 68.148.196.162 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

To spell things out further, I believe "pedophile" is a legitimate scientific term. "Ephebophile" is a neologism advanced by organized pedophiles to presume that attraction to late adolescent girls is somehow a scientific phenomenon worthy of a term. "Infantophile" is also a dangerous concept because, again, organized pedophiles are seeking to define a practically non-existant community in order to make themselves look less sick. -Naif 11:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Practically nonexistant" is pretty much wishful thinking on your part. Both Masters and Johnson and Kinsey suggest that the percentage of pedophiles in society is higher than you might wish to believe. I would also suggest that the "sick" part of adult-child sexual relations is in the non-pedophile component of offenders who rape children against their will, often violently, as opposed to the pedophiles who seek an honest, balanced, and caring relationship with their young partners. Genuine pedophiles seek to do no harm. We can be content with a relationship which consists merely of hugs and the holding of hands if that is all that the relationship can sustain. We are very protective of our young friends. But perhaps you do not care to know that. 68.148.196.162 02:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I'm pointing out that "infantophilia" is a pretty much nonexistant community, not pedophilia. All sex researchers have a strong bias to overstate deviance because that is their career: to document it. So take their statistics with a grain of salt. Yes I agree child-rape is far more sick than a non-informed consentual pedophilia relationship. But children cannot give informed consent to sex. Deal with it. How can you believe that children cannot give informed consent to contracts but, wow, amazing, they can do so for sex? The contradiction is obvious to even the most sickly mind. I am glad that you are confining yourself to hugs and holding hands. But watch out for that slippery slope, and for how desire builds on itself when it is fulfilled. - Naif 02:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have had an instance when a child readily gave consent. I chose not to accept. It was not the first time I could have moved forward to sexual gratification had I wished to do so. How can children understand about sex? This is the 21st century, and rock videos hold the whole answer to your question. Children also understand masturbation, as I did at an early age. Children also talk about sex games such as "pickle tickle". They are not without interest ort awareness. I speak from experience. You obviously do not. 68.148.196.162 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

      The very fact that you bring up this incident shows that deep down inside, you know that self-discipline is something to be proud of. I've worked with people who are close to death, and they always talk about things they've denied themselves in life, not times when they indulged. I guarantee you on your own death bed when you are facing eternal nothingness, you, too, will be glad that you did not proceed. The only other thing I need to say is that if you constantly tempt yourself, you may slip up sooner or later. Perhaps avoid these situations entirely. -Naif 05:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This all a bit off the beaten path, but since we're here, a couple of things I do not get about kid sex.

1. Speaking as a historian, there is no precedent of it being integrated into any social structure, the bonobos and the Melanesians aside.
2. Promotion of it by someone who does so not by choice but by compulsion is suspect. I would be more readily persuaded by a neutral observer recommending it for x number of valid reasons.
3. What's the point, especially in a society as sex-toxic as today's? You expose the kid to enormous risk and harm, even if not from the sex act then from the "attention" of helpful officials. They'll be destroyed for life.

Haiduc 03:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think some obscure Tibetan tribe, the Lepcha people, had some sort of young girl--old man tradition institutionalized, but it's one tradition out of a million. Also, same situation in that they never left their community in their entire life. Finally, I would encourage a little less cynicism about gov't officials--of course some are bad apples, but they are generally only called in AFTER a crime has been perpetuated. It's like proposing we get rid of the police because one shot an innocent suspect. -Naif 05:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, the involvement of the authorities can be traumatic for a child. This is something that seems to be known in the profession. So children should not be exposed to that risk. Haiduc 11:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

With this I am completely in accord with you. I have no idea how many times I've read and heard of situations where "abused" children begged and pleaded that their "abuser" not be punished. All for naught, of course. Authorities have destroyed families on the presumption that they were doing good. So where is the abuse here? I agree that children should not be exposed to this risk, but it would also be nice if the authorities would act on understanding and compassion rather than on hatred and prejudice. 68.148.196.162 23:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

All of you make pretty good arguments, that at the same time seem to be confusing. There is 1 thing that I think, all of you have lost site of & that is the life of the child involved. What happens to the child emotionally can be devastating it's like their childhood has been killed/murdered lost forever never to be re-gained, they lose their childhood and are dragged into an adult world many years too early, when they are not emotionally & physically ready. It also controls the childs future emotional relationships, regardless of how many years passes or how many visits to a Psychologist. How do I know, by 1st hand knowledge, I was abused sexually by a member in my family when I was about 8-10yrs old, and even though I don't hate/dislike my abuser it did affect me to the point it was a major controlling contribution factor in all my adult relationships. To the child concerned, they really don't care if you are a 'child molester' or 'pedophiles' you screw up not just their childhood but their whole lives!!! Yes, most Authorities have destroyed the family but if it wasn't for the sick person who abused the child in the 1st place the family wouldn't have been destroyed. (ps) apologies for any spelling mistakes. INsaneity (2:40am 03/03/2006)

No one has lost sight of that, it is wrong to assume that. First of all, I don't think anyone would support the involvement of children in illegal activities. Sometimes wrong laws can be broken in protest of their unfairness as a message to the state, but this is generally something adults do. In this case, only those who would engage in it should it be legalized should have their views heard.

The concept that sex must necessarily emotionally devastate a child, murdering their childhood (what exactly IS a childhood?) and losing it forever (when you grow up, do you lose your childhood?) aren't concepts that would apply by default. One must look at the source of such trauma. If it is indeed the authorities, then while the adult would share blame for putting the child in an illegal situation that demands that, the situation would not exist if it were legal. Kind of like, if prayer were illegal for children, you would traumatize them by having the authorities interrogate you both if you prayed together, but that would not mean there is inherantly anything harmful about prayer. Such actions should be judged by their own merits: the reason it is outlawed is to prevent rape. All child sex is classified as child-rape because no agreement has come about on how a child can give consent, and if they have the faculties for it. Tyciol 17:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to word etymology of psychological preferences

I added a link to Defining Adult Attraction to Minors whic gives some of the etymology of the words we are having difficulty with. Hopefully it will help.--Azathar 20:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lolita

Ran across this while trying to throw together a stub for sexual minority. Is it really possible that this article does not contain the word Lolita? Or that it talks about Madonna, but does not mention Charlie Chaplin? Or Lewis Carroll (admittedly, not sexual in the narrow sense, but as for orientation…)? Not really my area of work on Wikipedia, but this could use some history between the 16th century and the present day. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is about sexual relationships, not platonic (romantic?) like Alice and Carroll. I don't think mention of him would really belong here. // paroxysm (n) 20:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so skip Lewis Carroll if we must (though I personally would make a distinction here between "platonic" and "unconsummated"), but what about Chaplin's series of marriages to much younger women, and Nabakov's Lolita, which is probably the most important fictional work about an inappropriate, consummated sexual relationship between a middle-aged man and a girl? Possibly also worth mentioning U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who, well into his sixties, married a law student in her twenties. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those other people should be included in this article, but we don't know Carroll had any pedophilic desires at all, which is why I assumed platonic. (Though it would have been cool if he did.) // paroxysm (n) 22:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the term Lolita comes from the relationship between Charlie Chaplin and Lita Grey. Nabokov gives a different explanation in the notes of The Annotated Lolita. Can anyone verify for certain how Nabokov came up with the name Lolita? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.249.254.72 (talk • contribs) 9 Jan 2006.

For certain? No because Nabokov never said. But in terms of citing for the claim:

• Here is a mention of it in the Sunday Times (of London). That's certainly citable.
• there's Kenneth Anger's Hollywood Babylon (which I don't have handy so I can't give you a page number, but it's where I first read this, maybe 20 years ago). Anger goes into quite a bit that came out in the course of their divorce trial, and on the whole it fits the picture.
• The Austin Chronicle review of Chaplin: Genius of the Cinema by Jeffrey Vance seems to suggest that biographer Vance asserts this; again, I don't have Vance's book handy.
• Chaplin's obituary in the New York Times doesn't mention this specifically, but does mention that Lita Grey's actual name was Lolita McMurry, which I didn't even know but which tends to support the theory.
• At [2] there is a mention of a short note in an academic journal by Bill Delaney "Nabokov's 'Lolita.'" (similarities of the characters in Vladimir Nabokov's to Charlie Chaplin) Explicator v56, n2 (Wntr, 1998):99 (2 pages). Explicator is, I believe, pretty much the leading newsletter for scholars of Nabokov. Again, I don't have access to that, but their abstract is "Vladimir Nabokov's book 'Lolita' presents the lead character, Humbert, who is interestingly observed to possess several similarities to the silent comedian Charlie Chaplin. For instance, Humbert and Chaplin were observed to be particularly attracted to young girls. Furthermore, Chaplin, who played the role of 'Verdoux' in 'Monsieur Verdoux: A Comedy of Murders' attempts to murder the proud Annabella while in a rowboat on a lake, but fails. Humbert, in 'Lolita,' also fails to achieve his plans to drown Lolita's mother in Hourglass Lake." Not the most compelling of arguments based on the abstract, but probably of interest if you really want to follow that up.
• If you just search on Lolita "Charlie Chaplin" you'll find lots of stuff on miscellaneous film criticism sites, but nothing I'd call definitively citable. Of these [3] on movies.yahoo.com is typical. Tim Dirks might be more citable, though he says merely, "The well-known scandal at the start of the century of actor Charlie Chaplin's second marriage and subsequent divorce to under-age actress Lolita McMurry may have been the original reference point for Nabokov's novel." Which means he doesn't even have his date right on the scandal.

So, nothing rock solid, but plenty to point at this conclusion. If you want, I'm perfectly willing to qualify it with "it is widely believed" and cite some reasonable subset of the above. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics

This edit by User:Paroxysm removed a passage that, while not particularly well-written, had at least one decent citation, and made an argument that probably could be better cited for. I'm calling it to people's attention because the edit summary—"ludicrous"—could easily lead one to overlook it as probably a reversal of vandalism (I almost did). This is not an appropriate edit summary when removing substantive material. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I usually prefer to use something like "rvv" when I'm reverting vandalism. On the other hand, when I'm reverting ludicrousness, I might use something like "ludicrous." I did not intend it to be read as something else. Sorry.

The paragraph was POV editorialism and I did not see any redeeming value in leaving it. // paroxysm (n) 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Wilder?

Are we really sure that Laura Ingalls Wilder had an *arranged* marriage, as suggested in this article? AlanH 17:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good taste

IMO, there is no reason to have MILF spelled out completely "uncensored." That's not good taste; Britannica would never do that. It's not withholding info to have it say "F——" instead. If someone is really confused on that, they can click the MILF link! This article could be referenced by a certain scholar or someone, but perhaps be (a) blocked for containing the word "F-ck" and (b) be considered less authoratative for the same reason.

Just my 2 cents

AlanH 17:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT censored. Purging an encyclopedia is not in good taste, either. // paroxysm (n) 20:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to censor Wikipedia. "Fuck" is a word that is so much a contemporary colloquialism that I personally can't think of anyone I know who is offended by it. At very worst, they consider it bad form. No one thinks they're going to h-ll for saying it. Denni ☯ 01:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Some might consider this whole page to be in bad taste: shall we delete the entire thing? Or is it just the thought of an older woman with a yonger man that you object to? Ewlyahoocom 21:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "divide by two and add seven"

I cut:

For this reason, a prevalent formula used to calculate the minimum socially acceptable age of the younger member of a relationship is often times referred to as the "divide by two and add seven rule". With this rule, the minimum age of the partner to a 24-year-old is specified as 19, and the minimum age of the partner to a 40-year-old is 27.

If this is citable from a reputable sociologist or some such, fine. If not this in nothing more than someone's opinion. - Jmabel | Talk 04:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be a reputable sociologist; if this is a widespread notion in popular culture, then it's worth mentioning. This is the first time I've heard it, but I'm no expert in what's hip these days. It only gets 88 Google hits, so maybe it's an emerging idea. ThePedanticPrick 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Where? In Bangladesh or in Baltimore. It makes a difference and is unusable without that information. Haiduc 04:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks to be a valid folk formula. It should go back in. Only 98 Google hits (ten for version with numerals) for that exact phrase, but they seem to show it as a widespread if not A-list meme. I can see why, it works pretty well: it approves a 14-year-old dating a 14-year-old, 16→15, 18→16, 20→17, 22→18... 26→20, 30→22, 40→27, etc... that seems to match about the usual limit before people (or the minor's mom) will give you THAT LOOK... In other words, its a pretty good objective description of the limit of what's considered proper, which I would think would be pretty darn useful to a reader... Obviously we are talking about the United States and/or the West in general... if necessary that could be stated... in the English Wikipedia there are many articles which assume that you are talking about the West unless otherwise stated. Herostratus 01:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting, as long as we mention it descriptive as well as prescriptive properties. How's this: "In keeping with modern American mores, a folk formula seems to have evolved so as to compute "correct" disparities of age between older and younger partners." Haiduc 01:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK with me, if you lose the scare quotes. Herostratus 12:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this "formula" in the Trophy Rule section above. It's a pretty widespread "rule of thumb". --Madchester 06:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if it was just made up here and now, it is certainly an interesting idea, this formula JayKeaton 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard this formula in several different places; I think that its google hit count is underrepresenting its usage. I'm going to put in a line like what Haiduc wrote. --24.235.229.208 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit war

Okay, if every line has to be cited, than most of this article should be deleted. The "half plus seven" thing is mentioned many times on the web, which makes it more legitimate than most of this article, and probably than most of Wikipedia. Either delete all statements in this article without a high-quality source or let them all be. You are being very POV by focusing on just that one line. --24.235.229.208 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's back in, with three cites. These are sufficient and it will remain in. Herostratus 03:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence Quotient

Without a doubt the lifespan of an organism is broken down into stages. As for beings of sentient capacities, supposedly human beings have a "mental age." Could it not be shown as well that people have a hormonal, neurological, and mechanical equivalent? In that, these varaiations should be with the "average" being bear a common synchronization. By "mechanical," I refer to physcial attributes or perhaps appearance of the organism but not "physical age" in the sense of actual (usual) space and time. The advancement of mental, hormonal, neurological, mechanical, or other capabilities/structures do not always fit into the common paradigm regarding the correlations between theses capabilities.

-- LGWJ 15:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of relationships with age disparity

What happened to the list, its survived a vote for deletion, but it is now gone, but the links are still in every article. After surviving deletion they did a very quick second vote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity (2nd nomination) where mostly the deleters voted from the first round, and few of the people who were interested in saving it, including me, were aware of a second vote.

[edit] "Historical" section tagged

Whild not necessarily questioning the truth of (most of) the statements in this section, I tagged it because because there are number of statements that I think need verifaction, these being:

• "Historically, unequal pairings are quite common, if not the rule."

The "quite common" is almost certainly true (so cites should be easy to find), the "if not the rule" I'm less sure is true, cites would be especially welcome on this.

• "In Classical Greece, men would typically marry around the age of thirty, and would take wives in their mid-teens, around half their age."

OK. If true, cites should be easy.

• "Similarly, women of influence have also initiated relationships with younger men."

This last seems especially problematatic. The word "often" is not used, so by strict logic the statement would be true if two such pairings existed in history, but obviously that is not what is meant. Individual anecdotal cases being of some, but relatively little, value in my opinion, I think some cite(s) of this being a widespread social phenomenon would be useful here.

Second paragraph, all presumably true, cites would be welcome though.

• "Monarchs have traditionally exercised the freedom to choose younger spouses"

I would be somewhat surprised if this is true. Marriages of ruling monarchs are often not made for reasons of personal preference, but for reasons of state. The needs of the state as expressed through the monarch's advisors carry a lot of weight, and marriages were often arranged through court diplomacy. Fecundity being a prime asset for a queen, I would not be suprised if older kings were often paired with younger brides, but not to satisfy the king's personal wishes. Cite or redaction definitely needed here.

• "Other historical examples..."

I'm kind of unsure ahow useful are a handful of individual anecdotes. If they highlight a general trend, them OK I guess, but statistical evidence is far better as a rule. If no such evidence exists, one must question how fitting a given assertion is to Wikipedia. Herostratus 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DesiLu

The section "Modern times" consists of an anecdote about one couple. I don't think we want to overload Wikipedia articles with anecdotes, besides which the marriage noted was over a half-century ago, so I'm not sure how "modern" that is, besides which speculation as motive is made (maybe they just thought it was romantic). So I think that ought to go, absent a compelling contrary argument Herostratus 15:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, it claims they were "seven years different in their ages", but their own wp pages say August 1911 and March 1917, which are only a little over 5.5 years apart. I wonder where this info came from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.231.59.254 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Motives" section.

• "Some older partners may seek the connection with the culture of youth, maintaining a connection with the fashion, the music, the media which their age group has ostensibly outgrown."

Good lord, why? Is this really true? Citations?

• "They view the generation gap as an obstacle to overcome, especially if they feel they have "missed out"."..

These really looks like unsourced speculation to me.

• "Younger partners may be searching for someone who is their superior, either socially or financially more secure, or to provide critical life guidance."

Can we get some citations here? There must be some surveys or research or something that this is based on. Also, is all this as equally true (if true at all) of females as males?

• "...seeking a parent figure, or just somebody to provide life guidance."

Again with the life guidance. The parent figure thing is interesting... I've heard that expressed (colloquially) in terms of type of partner sought, but not so much in terms of age of partner sought. Surveys, citations? This is beginning to read like someone's general speculation.

[edit] "Response to criticism" subsection of "Social criticism" section

I tagged this whole subsection. It just seem very rigoursly researched, and there's no citations to gainsay me. Herostratus 15:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slang terms

I redacted this entire section. The whole section looks fishy to me. To start with, "Daddy-Daughter Dating refers to younger women going out with older men." caught my eye.

That would strike me as pretty odd... so I looked it up. Remember, pop-culture stuff like slang is likely to be overrepresented on the web, if anything. I got three Google hits. One was this article... one was a porn site... one was a Japanese discussion forum, which contained a copy-and-paste of this entire section. In other words, the person placing the term in the article probably just made it up.

Please don't do that, editors.

This puts the who section into question -- "grave robbers", "cougars", and what have you. This is annoying. What I'm gonna do now is take out everything that looks fishy from this section. If editors want to put back terms with cites, fine. I removed:

• Grave robbing
• Cougar
• Mrs. Robinson (do people refer much to a 35-year-old movie?)
• "Toyboy", although I kept "Boytoy"
• Tadpoling
• GILF, FILF, and DILF, although I kept MILF
• Daddy-Daughter Dating, as noted above. Herostratus 00:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Slang doensn't have to be current, so Mrs. Robinson should be clearly OK. - Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cougar seems to be in pretty common use; someone should easily find a citation for this. - Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Mrs Robinson is perfectly modern slang term, I think most young people today get the general idea of what is meant by "Mrs Robinson", as in an older woman and the context it is used in will certainly give away the point carried with this slang term. JayKeaton 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The term 'Boytoy' is non-existant in England, where as Toyboy is widely used for such a relationship. I'm adding it back. Unless you can vouch for the whole of the world that a certain term isn't used then don't remove it. 84.64.252.12 19:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Utterly Tenditious

This article isn't remotely like a neutral presentation! —71.154.208.74 02:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion will be more respected and better heeded if you explain it. Please denote the sections you are at odds with, what you want them changed to, and why. Tyciol 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology request

Individuals who exclusively pursue age-disparate relationships are generally classified by psychologists as parasexual, that is, their behavior is qualitatively different from the norm. Individuals who occasionally pursue age-disparate relationships are not included in this category, except in the popular press.

Does anyone know what the term would be for an individual who occasionally pursues age-disparate relationships, as oppose to those who are exclusively attracted? Would it be pseudo- or ... it's almost like bisexuality in a way. So if homo+hetero=bi, then ephebo+teleio=? Tyciol 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar Daddy

It's ridiculous that sugar daddy redirects here. For one, the term is independent of age. Where i'm from, a sugar daddy can be young, old, your age, younger, or older than you. Secondly I highly believe that the candy sugar daddy is a more known and notable use of the phrase, the entry should go directly to that page. Theonejanitor 11:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that those celebrity examples are unnecessary to point out...

[edit] TotallyDisputed

"Younger partners may be searching for someone who is their superior... to provide critical life guidance." This article is vague and unencyclopedic. It doesn't make it clear how young the "younger partners" are, whether they are adults or not. It doesn't mention anything about sexual abuse and the connection between sexual abuse and age disparity in later relationships. It doesn't mention that the majority of intercourse experienced by girls 15 and under is "non-voluntary" i.e. coercion or rape. link This article needs a lot of work, I'm not sure whether it even should exist. Joie de Vivre 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)