Half-your-age-plus-seven

**Epaphras** · 09-14-2009, 02:36 PM

One of the common rules-of-thumb out there for determining age-appropriateness for dating/relationships is dividing your age in half and adding seven to it. You are free to pursue anyone that age or older, but not any younger. That works out to:

If you are 20, they cannot be younger than 17
If you are 25, they cannot be younger than 19.5
If you are 30, they cannot be younger than 22
If you are 35, they cannot be younger than 24.5
If you are 40, they cannot be younger than 27
If you are 50, they cannot be younger than 32
If you are 60, they cannot be younger than 37
If you are 70, they cannot be younger than 42

I would say you should add ten, not seven. That way when you are 20, you can't date anyone younger than 20. 25, no younger than 22. 30, no younger than 25. 40, no younger than 30. 50, no younger than 35.

Under the plus-seven scheme, once you get to 50, you are "allowed" to date people that are young enough to be your child (assuming you had one at 18). That's just wrong IMO. Under the plus-ten setup, at 50 there is only a 15-year difference, which is a lot but at those ages is not as severe as a 35 year-old and a 20 year-old.

What do you think? Is it a hard-and-fast rule?

***Art*** · 09-14-2009, 02:41 PM

I've never heard of this. I don't care for it.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 09-14-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

One of the common rules-of-thumb out there for determining age-appropriateness for dating/relationships is dividing your age in half and adding seven to it. You are free to pursue anyone that age or older, but not any younger. That works out to:

If you are 20, they cannot be younger than 17
If you are 25, they cannot be younger than 19.5
If you are 30, they cannot be younger than 22
If you are 35, they cannot be younger than 24.5
If you are 40, they cannot be younger than 27
If you are 50, they cannot be younger than 32
If you are 60, they cannot be younger than 37
If you are 70, they cannot be younger than 42

I would say you should add ten, not seven. That way when you are 20, you can't date anyone younger than 20. 25, no younger than 22. 30, no younger than 25. 40, no younger than 30. 50, no younger than 35.

Under the plus-seven scheme, once you get to 50, you are "allowed" to date people that are young enough to be your child (assuming you had one at 18). That's just wrong IMO. Under the plus-ten setup, at 50 there is only a 15-year difference, which is a lot but at those ages is not as severe as a 35 year-old and a 20 year-old.

What do you think? Is it a hard-and-fast rule?

I think it is silly that anyone would take such an equation seriously. For one thing, if you pursue someone older by a large degree, then you are violating their rule!

I have seen couples that really defy this, and what is this rule's justification for its numbers. Why not divide by 3, add 11? why those particular numbers? By what authority is this rule in existence? why not divide in half, add 5, 6, 9, or 3?

tmlfan123 · 09-14-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I think it is silly that anyone would take such an equation seriously.

+1

How anyone can think that human relationships can be reduced to this formula boggles my mind.

slap_j · 09-14-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Under the plus-seven scheme, once you get to 50, you are "allowed" to date people that are young enough to be your child (assuming you had one at 18). That's just wrong IMO.

What do you mean by "wrong"? Do you think it's immoral or are you just saying it feels a little skeevy?

I really haven't thought much about large age disparities in romantic relationships but my instinct tells me that these formulae are petty.

fenderguy962 · 09-14-2009, 03:10 PM

I'm with Art.

**Epaphras** · 09-14-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slap_j

What do you mean by "wrong"? Do you think it's immoral or are you just saying it feels a little skeevy?

To me, it just means something creepy about dating someone to whom you could (age-wise) be their parent.

rock_show_host · 09-14-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Under the plus-seven scheme, once you get to 50, you are "allowed" to date people that are young enough to be your child (assuming you had one at 18). That's just wrong IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

To me, it just means something creepy about dating someone to whom you could (age-wise) be their parent.

C.S. Lewis did it. His wife was 17 hears younger than he was.

**Skeeter** · 09-14-2009, 04:02 PM

This "rule" is a guideline, generally only applicable to people in their twenties. To treat it as a hard and fast rule is silly.

SccHarpGirl · 09-14-2009, 04:49 PM

crazymoose · 09-14-2009, 05:08 PM

I think it's a pretty decent guideline, but I think maturity levels and reasons for dating have a lot more to do with it.

I do like it though because the age range grows as you get older. I saw my 16 year old friend date a 12 year old, saying "Well, there's a whole bunch of married people who's age is more than 4 years different". It blew up in his face cause she wasn't nearly mature enough but that's another story...

**Rainer.** · 09-14-2009, 05:29 PM

My dad was 29 when he married my mom who was 19.

...so whatevs.

I think giving age rules to people in their 20s and older is silly.

conceived in fire · 09-14-2009, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazymoose

I think it's a pretty decent guideline, but I think maturity levels and reasons for dating have a lot more to do with it.

+1
The equation works at a general level but I know late teenage girls more mature than several 20-something guys. It all depends on the person.

**beanbag** · 09-14-2009, 06:49 PM

I have heard of that. if I were to follow that rule/guideline/whatever that would mean I would be "allowed" to date someone who was barely 18. as in, barely an adult. as in totally weird and rather gross. as in...in high school or just fresh out of high school.

I am at such a different place in my life. I have my own place. I have a degree from a university and am planning to pursue graduate school. plus, I've never gone for younger guys anyways, especially not ones who are comparable in age to my brothers.

I think it's just a bad idea, and whoever made it up intending for it to be used by 20-somethings is on something. life changes so much between 16 and 20-something, and the difference between an 18 and 22 year old is much greater than the difference between a 22 and a 26 year old. same number of years, completely different differences, for lack of a better term.

so to answer the question, I hate it and I think it's very silly.

just for the record--I have several family members who are far apart in age (9-15 years) and am related to some couples in which the wife is older than the husband.

people are unique and every relationship is individual, so to apply an across-the-board guideline for dating is just silly. (not saying you were doing that Sean, just commenting in general.)

crazymoose · 09-14-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dread Pirate Roberts

My dad was 29 when he married my mom who was 19.

...so whatevs.

I think giving age rules to people in their 20s and older is silly.

There will always be exceptions. I would argue though that most 19 year olds aren't mature enough to marry a 29 year old.

It all comes down to maturity really. Unfortunately there's no objective way to measure that.