What's your ultimate age limit (upper&lower!) when dating?

Larbre34

misstearheus wrote: »

Hate the thoughts of being late 40s / 50s stil single and child-less.

I should warn you that most men do not think in those terms at all. Yes, partly for the obvious reason, but more generally those life goals, if you like, do not often form part of a chap's thought process. So, if settling down and kids are important, id focus on the guy that desires that rather than what age they might be.

I'm 42 now and if I wasnt already taken, my realistic dating range would be 35-45. That old formula suggests I could date down to 28 but im fecked if i know what i might have in common with a 28yo woman.

SoundsRight

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Are we still talking about the lad who was quite obviously taking the p*ss when he mentioned 16 year olds?

Amazing the tangents these threads can go on.

I wasn't taking the p*ss. You want to eat the fruit when it's ripe. Also a reminder that's the lowest end of my range, 16-25. Some girls are late developers.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

SoundsRight wrote: »

I wasn't taking the p*ss. You want to eat the fruit when it's ripe. Also a reminder that's the lowest end of my range, 16-25. Some girls are late developers.

This is some top-notch WUM-istry right here. Giving me life right now, giving me life.

misstearheus

misstearheus wrote: »

Hate the thoughts of being late 40s / 50s stil single and child-less.

I once hated this as well. I was terrified of it happening. These days not so much. Life can turn in the blink of an eye. I do hope you get your hearts desire miss

Dalomanakora

misstearheus wrote: »

Hate the thoughts of being late 40s / 50s stil single and child-less.

There's no reason why you will be! Your late 40s is a whole decade away, so much can change in a decade.


Easier said than done, but ignore the worry. If you meet someone lovely, great! If you don't, there's nothing stopping you from making your own life and having children by yourself if kids is a definite want for you.


What's for you won't pass you by. Until then, enjoy the time you spend before kids and family come along

sbsquarepants

misstearheus wrote: »

It's getting to be srs bzns!

It's getting to be what now?

Deebles McBeebles

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's getting to be what now?

Software requirements specification business?

F*ck kids (not you, SoundsRight), have dogs.

1874

Flying Fox wrote: »

So the oldest you're willing to go is 7 years younger than yourself, if she looks the part.

What exactly are you offering to this attractive woman in her thirties? Why do you expect her to go out with someone at least 7 years older, when you yourself consider an older partner (or even one the same age) undesirable?

Women saying they won't go out with someone a year younger than them are just as silly imo. People really need to stop being so hung up on a number and just go out and see who you click with. Within reason obviously (i.e. a 25-30 year old with a teenager is wrong).

What an attitude, what business of yours is it? the thread asks a question, people are answering it, you'd think I said I wanted to go out with a 19 yo. From a realistic point you gravitate towards someone you are attracted to, some of that is physical and some not, while I dont consider everything is all about looks, Id want to be able to connect with someone and share other things, but whether you or anyone admits it or not, ultimately we are drawn to people we are physically attracted to, If I wasn't I simply wouldn't be in that kind of relationship with them.
Ive just found that most women my age look a lot older than me, Ive seen women in their early thirties that look in their forties, and Im sure women notice the same thing about about guys also. I knew a guy who went bald before he was 20 and another who was grey before 30.

Ive always looked younger than my age, I dont have a beer gut nor do I claim to be perfect, and a 7 year age gap is not significant. More than a ten year age gap might limit the possibility of a lasting relationship, but if you like someone, what does age matter? you actually seem to say that so you are contradicting yourself.
I woudnt know what someone I have not met finds attractive or desirable and neither would you, but women seem to date more around or greater than their age, and mostly not significantly less, I think thats just the way it is generally and guys the opposite.
If I met someone and it turned out they were 39 or 42 and I liked them, I wouldnt shut them down and say, sorry its outside my age range, goodbye.

Emme

misstearheus wrote: »

I'm 38. Desired Age-range I look for in the O.D. World is 33 - 43. The hope would be to find a guy 35 - 40. Preferably don't want younger than 35 or older than 40. But age doesn't matter a smidgen really...

Am almost 39... Hate the thoughts of being late 40s / 50s stil single and child-less.

I'm late 40s and that ship has sailed for me. It's not what I wanted but that's the way life went. Like somebody said, life can turn on you in a second. I'm also single and have a lot going on (busy job, elderly family etc.) so I'm not interested in dating. Just as well really when I read some of the posts here.

I'm not being horrible but I would advise you to broaden your net a bit. Be open to dating guys up to 50. Some 50 somethings are very fit these days, into cycling, triathlons etc. They would be very happy to date a 38 year old.

Men don't have a biological clock so as a woman gets into her 30s if she wants a child she has to upwardly adjust the age range of the men she is willing to date.

Dalomanakora wrote: »

What's for you won't pass you by. Until then, enjoy the time you spend before kids and family come along

This is a dangerous fallacy. If you want something you have to be proactive and take the steps necessary to get it. Learn from those who have failed. Do not depend on fate.

Reviews and Books Galore

Emme wrote: »

I'm late 40s and that ship has sailed for me. It's not what I wanted but that's the way life went. Like somebody said, life can turn on you in a second. I'm also single and have a lot going on (busy job, elderly family etc.) so I'm not interested in dating. Just as well really when I read some of the posts here.

I'm not being horrible but I would advise you to broaden your net a bit. Be open to dating guys up to 50. Some 50 somethings are very fit these days, into cycling, triathlons etc. They would be very happy to date a 38 year old.

Men don't have a biological clock so as a woman gets into her 30s if she wants a child she has to upwardly adjust the age range of the men she is willing to date.


This is a dangerous fallacy. If you want something you have to be proactive and take the steps necessary to get it. Learn from those who have failed. Do not depend on fate.

I wonder is it possible to freeze your eggs?

Emme

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I wonder is it possible to freeze your eggs?

Apparently the success rate of fertilization is very low and it is a very costly procedure.

mariaalice

My first husband was considerably older than me looking back I don't know what i was doing with him met my second husband on a dating site but it was amazing the number of men who lied about their age on dating sites.

The conclusion: The fell into few types immaturity they cant believes they themselves are 50 so they want a woman who is comparable with how they see themselves in their own head. Then there were creepy types etc.

Personally, don't think age makes much of a difference as long as it has not become fetishised in some way. There is a big difference between just happening to be involved with someone younger or older verse somone only seeking out someone younger or older.

Reviews and Books Galore

Emme wrote: »

Apparently the success rate of fertilization is very low and it is a very costly procedure.

Ah, that's a shame.

@marialice

Yeah, I'm a little but surprised mennlie about their age. Women do it all the time, but I feel like it's easier to hide it as a woman.

IMO, they'd have more chance with a woman who likes older men than finding a woman who don't notice the wrinkles around the eyes :P

1874

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Ah, that's a shame.

@marialice

Yeah, I'm a little but surprised mennlie about their age. Women do it all the time, but I feel like it's easier to hide it as a woman.

IMO, they'd have more chance with a woman who likes older men than finding a woman who don't notice the wrinkles around the eyes :P

Interesting and all, I avoided even bringing up the topic of seeking out a younger woman than me, to around the max age where having children was realistic or practical, partly out of concern of offending people (some on here) and partly as its not the topic of discussion, its not what the thread was about, that and freezing your eggs.
So whats you age limits (upper and lower)?

Emme

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Yeah, I'm a little bit surprised men lie about their age. Women do it all the time, but I feel like it's easier to hide it as a woman.

IMO, they'd have more chance with a woman who likes older men than finding a woman who don't notice the wrinkles around the eyes :P

I remember attending a speed dating event associated with a dating website. I was in my 30s at the time. A good proportion of the men said they were 39. These 39 year old men must have had incredibly hard lives, most of them looked older than the only man over 50 who was at the event

For some reason older men were never attracted to me even though I used to give them every chance. That doesn't include the obviously married sleazebags who chased anything in a skirt. Younger men always chatted me up even though I was interested in older ones (around 10-15 years my senior). So what people say they go for on paper might be very different to what they go for in real life.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

misstearheus wrote: »

I'm 38. Desired Age-range I look for in the O.D. World is 33 - 43. The hope would be to find a guy 35 - 40. Preferably don't want younger than 35 or older than 40.

You're 38, almost 39, and you would prefer not to date someone over 40? At the very least, you should be willing to consider men in their mid-40s.

Sorry to sound blunt, but single 40-year-old men, especially those who want children, are often looking at women in their early to mid 30s. If you're almost 39, you're likely to get more interest from men 45+.

All of the close-in-age couples I know met when they were quite young. In almost all cases I'm familiar with, any male friend who met his partner when he was 35+ is with a younger woman.

Reviews and Books Galore

1874 wrote: »

Interesting and all, I avoided even bringing up the topic of seeking out a younger woman than me, to around the max age where having children was realistic or practical, partly out of concern of offending people (some on here) and partly as its not the topic of discussion, its not what the thread was about, that and freezing your eggs.
So whats you age limits (upper and lower)?

Yeah, I'm into older women. Its easier for various reasons, and I do see why younger women can be into older men.

I guess I don't have any hard and fast rules beyond legality. I wouldn't date anybody below my own age personally.

Emme

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Yeah, I'm into older women. Its easier for various reasons,

Like they don't swell, they don't tell and they're grateful as hell???

Charles Ingles

Women should never date a man younger than them, it's embarrassing.
A man should never date a woman seven years younger than him.

howamidifferent

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Women should never date a man younger than them, it's embarrassing.
A man should never date a woman seven years younger than him.

WTF?

Plopsu

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Women should never date a man younger than them, it's embarrassing.
A man should never date a woman seven years younger than him.

Could you supply a grid ref for the rock that that's chiselled into?

Charles Ingles

howamidifferent wrote: »

WTF?

Just my opinion

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I'm 30, I suppose 25-40. There are people older than that who I fancy but wouldn't be interested in a relationship with them.

The standard formula has my lower limit at 22 but ew, no.

Wibbs

Alvaro Damp Gateway wrote: »

Sorry to sound blunt, but single 40-year-old men, especially those who want children, are often looking at women in their early to mid 30s. If you're almost 39, you're likely to get more interest from men 45+.

All of the close-in-age couples I know met when they were quite young. In almost all cases I'm familiar with, any male friend who met his partner when he was 35+ is with a younger woman.

Not a hard and fast rule by any means, but yep would resonate with my experience too.

Except in the cases of the rich and famous which have little bearing on most people's lives, in general men have about an extra ten years of leeway compared to women as far as dating mating and hatching goes. Obviously I mean in the sense of men with their heads and lives together. Again in general a man of forty with his shit together, healthy and reasonably attractive has more choice and casts a wider net than the equivalent woman around that age(just like the average woman of 25 has more options than men of that age, again in general). If he's above average in looks and/or position in life that net is cast wider again. Doubly so if he wants kids. Frankly he has time to dawdle, she doesn't.

Now I've known all sorts of couples outside the "norm" and they worked well* and it's pretty common, but If I were a woman in her late 30's looking to have kids I'd spread my net as wide as I could and no way would I limit my options to a couple of years either side of my age.




*funny enough I have noticed down the years that "outside the norm" couples were often more solid and successful than the more average run of the mill relationships and that included age gap relationships. Not just older men/younger women either, quite a few going the other way. One of the best relationships I've known she was 12 years older than him. Maybe they stay solid from spite at the curtain twitchers.

H8GHOTI

howamidifferent wrote: »

I'm male early 50's. Currently single. I've always been attracted to women in the early to late 20's. As someone else said. It's biology.Been married twice before, I was 1 year older than my first wife and 17 years older than my second. Both marriages lasted 11 years. My preference has not changed in all that time and its nothing to do with being predatory or looking to groom some naive innocent young girl. It's just natural attraction at play.First marriage I ended because she cheated. Second marriage we decided mutually to end due to differing aspirations at that point. Still great friends.Age is only a number for people to gossip about.

Differing aspirations anything to do with the 17 year age gap?

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Wibbs wrote: »

Again in general a man of forty with his shit together, healthy and reasonably attractive has more choice and casts a wider net than the equivalent woman around that age(just like the average woman of 25 has more options than men of that age, again in general). If he's above average in looks and/or position in life that net is cast wider again. Doubly so if he wants kids. Frankly he has time to dawdle, she doesn't.

Agreed entirely. A reasonably attractive 40-year-old man with a secure job has a decent prospect of attracting a woman in the 30-35 age bracket who wants to settle down and have kids. But a 40-year-old single woman will have almost no chance of dating men in their early 30s, most of whom are still chasing women in their 20s.

It might seem unfair, but that's biology for you. Once a woman hits her 30s, and especially her mid-30s, she's often just looking for a guy who will be stable, committed, caring, and a good dad. Maybe he's no Adonis, and maybe he's a few years older, but other things will matter more at that point.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Honestly there's nothing worse than some ancient millionaire type with a 22 yr old girlfriend.

It's just sad, what could they possibly have in common. Surely these assholes know that a woman of that age would never consider a relationship with them if they weren't mega rich. They can't be that deluded.

As for the women themselves. What kind of a shallow materialistic dope spends their prime yrs hanging out of geriatric men?

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Honestly there's nothing worse than some ancient millionaire type with a 22 yr old girlfriend.

It's just sad, what could they possibly have in common. Surely these assholes know that a woman of that age would never consider a relationship with them if they weren't mega rich. They can't be that deluded.

As for the women themselves. What kind of a shallow materialistic dope spends their prime yrs hanging out of geriatric men?

Mick Jagger's new lady. They have a two yr old.

Emme

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Honestly there's nothing worse than some ancient millionaire type with a 22 yr old girlfriend.

It's just sad, what could they possibly have in common. Surely these assholes know that a woman of that age would never consider a relationship with them if they weren't mega rich. They can't be that deluded.

As for the women themselves. What kind of a shallow materialistic dope spends their prime yrs hanging out of geriatric men?

An acquaintance admitted to me that he "sponsors" college girls. In other words a sugar daddy. He has a very successful lucrative career and is in his early 50s. He's not Brad Pitt but he isn't ugly either. There is no reason why he couldn't find himself a proper girlfriend in her 30s but he doesn't want that. He likes to do his own thing without any distractions or commitments. The girls seem happy to have somebody to pay the bills in exchange for... whatever. And he gives them free financial and career advice as well. A win-win for some but it seems a bit soulless and cold to me.

Deleted User wrote: »

Mick Jagger's new lady. They have a two yr old.

Jagger is a law unto himself, I wouldn't mind him. The one who really annoys me is Hilaria Baldwin. She was flaunting her alleged miscarriage and posing in underwear asking people to be kind. However she deserves a medal for putting up with Alex Baldwin.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Deleted User wrote: »

Mick Jagger's new lady. They have a two yr old.

A two-year-old named Deveraux Octavian Basil Jagger, no less. :pac:

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

Mick Jagger's new lady. They have a two yr old.

It's just so weird to me.

Jagger has a daughter 16 yrs older than this woman. He would've been 44 when she was born.

I mean wtf?

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's just so weird to me.

Jagger has a daughter 16 yrs older than this woman. He would've been 44 when she was born.

I mean wtf?

It is weird to me too and I'm quite open minded when it comes to ages gaps. Maybe it's his money or perhaps true love?

Emme

Emme wrote: »

Jagger is a law unto himself, I wouldn't mind him. The one who really annoys me is Hilaria Baldwin. She was flaunting her alleged miscarriage and posing in underwear asking people to be kind. However she deserves a medal for putting up with Alex Baldwin.

I saw that. Apparently she was trying to be open about a painful issue that isn't often discussed but I found it extremely odd. Standing there in her bra and knickers telling everyone she is probably miscarrying right now. What the hell like.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

When people get suddenly incredibly famous at a young age sometimes they kind of get stuck there, emotionally. Jagger has never exactly come across as any kind of powerhouse of introspection or anything.

Yeah I think his relationships are probably mutually exploitative and icky to look at, but I'm willing to believe he's mentally better matched with a 25 year old than a 60 year old.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Mick Jagger's new lady. They have a two yr old.

Backing up his point, surely? People have been amused at Jagger and his young ones since I moved out of home almost twenty years ago. At the time, it was a babymomma called Luciana something-or-other.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Backing up his point, surely? People have been amused at Jagger and his young ones since I moved out of home almost twenty years ago. At the time, it was a babymomma called Luciana something-or-other.

Oh I didn't really have a point when I posted that

howamidifferent

H8GHOTI wrote: »

Differing aspirations anything to do with the 17 year age gap?

Very definitely played into it but was not the only reason. My career was progressing becoming more demanding in terms of time and that became an issue in itself. Lots of other minor changes in both our lives ultimately culminated in us growing more independent and less reliant on each other which itself led to a "concious decoupling" as Gyneth Paltrow once said. :pac:

Wibbs

Lexi Dry Lumberyard wrote: »

When people get suddenly incredibly famous at a young age sometimes they kind of get stuck there, emotionally. Jagger has never exactly come across as any kind of powerhouse of introspection or anything.

Jagger is no dope by any stretch. Was studying economics before he went full time into music. Well above average in intelligence and in earlier interviews before he became guarded and guarded about the image was more than averagely self aware. He'd be the brains of the outfit, Charlie Watts the drummer coming behind him(and he's been with the same woman for decades, married since the early 60's IIRC and avoided the groupies like the plague throughout). Keith is somewhat streetsmart and knows how to play the "wild boy" act and was a great guitar player and writer in his day, but a towering intellect he isn't.

They belong to a very different generation too. Like the Beatles in their earlier days they were all more into the "old fashioned" have a laugh in your early twenties and then get a "proper job", get hitched and have kids. Most of those guys did just that, at least for a time, Jagger being the exception, even though he did get hitched early enough. He seemed to then get into the whole found a dynasty thing and have lots of "girlfriends" and affairs and usually at the same time. God bless his energy and bank balance. Most of that generation of musicians tended to stay in long termers, even with what must have been huge levels of temptation. Being a Beatle or a Stone would have meant a near endless queue of women lining up to shag you. They were famous to a degree barely understandable even today.

Emme

Mick Jagger studied at LSE (London School of Economics). He has a reputation for being tight with money as well as chasing youngwans. He's no oil painting so I can't figure what attracts them to him.

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Honestly there's nothing worse than some ancient millionaire type with a 22 yr old girlfriend.

It's just sad, what could they possibly have in common. Surely these assholes know that a woman of that age would never consider a relationship with them if they weren't mega rich. They can't be that deluded.

As for the women themselves. What kind of a shallow materialistic dope spends their prime yrs hanging out of geriatric men?

I dated 2 men in their early sixties this year, both attractive and successful.
One said his last girlfriend was 32 , younger than his daughter, beautiful, glamorous and an Daddy’s girl. The other had also a much younger girlfriend.

Both these men got dumped by their younger lovers when they got cancer.
**** happens, we’re all going to get sick as we age. Now these men can’t even find women their own age.

I’m sure if they had been in relationships with kind, experienced, women in their own age group , who maybe themselves had experienced illness or even bereavement they would now be with a loving caring partners who would understand what they need , who wouldn’t run away at the word chemotherapy .

Now both of them are on dating sites looking for something that’s unbelievably hard to find even in the fullness of health. Life is such a leveler.

Charles Ingles

Neighbour of mine has three kids with three different father's in her late thirties.
Every weekend different young fella no older than 22 in the house.
Woman should be ashamed of herself what an example for her kids

Katgurl

I'm a 40 year old female.

For a relationship I would say 37 to 55.

For more casual dating 28 to 55.

For a fwb 25 to 30.

Charles Ingles

Katgurl wrote: »

I'm a 40 year old female.

For a relationship I would say 37 to 55.

For more casual dating 28 to 55.

For a fwb 25 to 30.

Wow

Galwayguy35

Between 35 and 50 I suppose.

1874

1874 wrote: »

What an attitude, what business of yours is it?

Ive always looked younger than my age, I dont have a beer gut nor do I claim to be perfect, and a 7 year age gap is not significant. More than a ten year age gap might limit the possibility of a lasting relationship, but if you like someone, what does age matter? you actually seem to say that so you are contradicting yourself.

If I met someone and it turned out they were 39 or 42 and I liked them, I wouldnt shut them down and say, sorry its outside my age range.

No attitude, I'm simply replying to a post you made on a discussion forum. I'm not the dating police!

It's precisely because I think age is just a number than I find arbitrary limits silly. Like "I'll only go out with someone at least 7 years younger." It cuts out potentially wonderful partners who don't fit that criteria. Though I see from your latest post that you would go out with a 42 year old if you liked her. I think people in general have a much better chance of finding a good partner if they drop the checklist and get to know people naturally. So no contradictions here.

Btw I don't think 7 years is a significant gap at all for mature adults. I only think it's an issue if the younger one is still in their teens.

Katgurl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Wow

?

mariaalice

Deleted User wrote: »

I dated 2 men in their early sixties this year, both attractive and successful.
One said his last girlfriend was 32 , younger than his daughter, beautiful, glamorous and an Daddy’s girl. The other had also a much younger girlfriend.

Both these men got dumped by their younger lovers when they got cancer.
**** happens, we’re all going to get sick as we age. Now these men can’t even find women their own age.

I’m sure if they had been in relationships with kind, experienced, women in their own age group , who maybe themselves had experienced illness or even bereavement they would now be with a loving caring partners who would understand what they need , who wouldn’t run away at the word chemotherapy .

Now both of them are on dating sites looking for something that’s unbelievably hard to find even in the fullness of health. Life is such a leveler.

Ultimately people want to be with someone they fancy and are attracted too someone they want to have sex with I would find it a bit insulting if someone thought just because someone was in their 60s they should be looking for something different than anyone else.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

Ultimately people want to be with someone they fancy and are attracted too someone they want to have sex with I would find it a bit insulting if someone thought just because someone was in their 60s they should be looking for something different than anyone else.

That wasn’t my point. My point was when things get tough maybe someone closer to your age would be more understanding . Sex doesn’t matter when you have prostrate and bladder cancer....... certainly not as much as love, kindness understanding and companionship.

A lot of young women of 32 probably doesn’t want to be caring for a man in his sixties with prostate cancer and no sex life. So as a 62 year old you take your chances with loving someone decades younger & they mightn’t be there when you need them most.

Relationships come under pressure with illness, particularly when there’s a big age gap. This is the reality. With both these men I knew their younger partners left them when they got cancer. That was the only point I was making.

Feisar

Katgurl wrote: »

?

As a man outside your FWB range at 35 with a wife and a kid on the way, I agree with you. I was some sort of animal between 25 and 30. I get where you are coming from. Still nail you harder than Christ at 35 but I ain't the same animal I was.

Emme

Feisar wrote: »

As a man outside your FWB range at 35 with a wife and a kid on the way, I agree with you. I was some sort of animal between 25 and 30. I get where you are coming from. Still nail you harder than Christ at 35 but I ain't the same animal I was.

How hard does Christ nail you?