Talk:Age disparity in sexual relationships

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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 18:15, 16 June 2011 (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 Wikipedia policy of Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is perhaps the worst article I have seen in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)