Mid 40s woman. Husband is early 50s and aging fast. Children all grown up now. Mid 20s. SO NOW WHAT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know any women 47+ who have aged "extremely rapidly." All of my friends are still youthful and vibrant. Some going back to school, still enjoying concerts + travel, still super stylish. None of my friends have fallen off. Me included. 49 this year.

I'm a man in my 50s and I see a lot of women age 40-55 on the dating apps. You're fooling yourself if you think women after 40 look "youthful and vibrant". Just compare to photos of women who are actually youthful (under 30) and this is quite clearly. That said, some women over 45 have indeed aged extremely rapidly, others haven't. Possibly some of the latter group aren't using recent photos, or have photoshopped them in some way, who knows. But I assure you that at some point after 45, sooner or later everyone stops looking "youthful and vibrant".

Sure, but are you under the impression that 40-55 year old men on dating apps look good? At least the women in that age range are making an effort.

I have no idea what the men look like. Why would I look at them? Also I have no idea if men that age claim to look “youthful and vibrant”. I know that I don’t look youthful; I look like what I am, a man in his 50s. I am lean and strong - you can see veins and muscles because I lift. I am stronger than many men in their 20s and 30s including my younger self. I have no sagging gut like so many men have. But does that make me “vibrant”? I dunno.

Take your shriveled ballsack back to the red pill sites and eff off.

Oh dear, somehow I have upset a wrinkly aging cat lady.

Cry more.
I don't have cats but why are you trolling a moms' message board instead of something more manly?

Isn’t it time to feed your fur babies or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know any women 47+ who have aged "extremely rapidly." All of my friends are still youthful and vibrant. Some going back to school, still enjoying concerts + travel, still super stylish. None of my friends have fallen off. Me included. 49 this year.

I'm a man in my 50s and I see a lot of women age 40-55 on the dating apps. You're fooling yourself if you think women after 40 look "youthful and vibrant". Just compare to photos of women who are actually youthful (under 30) and this is quite clearly. That said, some women over 45 have indeed aged extremely rapidly, others haven't. Possibly some of the latter group aren't using recent photos, or have photoshopped them in some way, who knows. But I assure you that at some point after 45, sooner or later everyone stops looking "youthful and vibrant".

Sure, but are you under the impression that 40-55 year old men on dating apps look good? At least the women in that age range are making an effort.

I have no idea what the men look like. Why would I look at them? Also I have no idea if men that age claim to look “youthful and vibrant”. I know that I don’t look youthful; I look like what I am, a man in his 50s. I am lean and strong - you can see veins and muscles because I lift. I am stronger than many men in their 20s and 30s including my younger self. I have no sagging gut like so many men have. But does that make me “vibrant”? I dunno.

If you’re so secure in your age, why are you sadly comparing yourself to 20’s and 30’s men? Maybe you know a fit young guy is going to look a million times better than you.

Reading comprehension is not your forte. Did not say I looked better than men in their 20s and 30s. I said I was stronger than many of them, which is objectively true not a matter of opinion. This is the result of their laziness more than anything else. The 20/30yo guys in my gym are vastly stronger than me, as they should be, but they are not representative of men their age. In any event, I was not “sadly” comparing myself to younger men. I’m totally happy with who I am. More to the point, those younger men are not my competition because I’m not looking to date women that age.

I was responding to someone who said “are you under the impression that 40-55 year old men on dating apps look good?” Thus I was comparing myself to men my age, not younger men. But you didn’t notice this because you were just trying to score cheap points, which is lame, and again shows your poor reading comprehension.

Hm you sound very defensive and not that secure in yourself. And why are you so invested in why women after 40 call themselves vibrant? Let them be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know any women 47+ who have aged "extremely rapidly." All of my friends are still youthful and vibrant. Some going back to school, still enjoying concerts + travel, still super stylish. None of my friends have fallen off. Me included. 49 this year.

I'm a man in my 50s and I see a lot of women age 40-55 on the dating apps. You're fooling yourself if you think women after 40 look "youthful and vibrant". Just compare to photos of women who are actually youthful (under 30) and this is quite clearly. That said, some women over 45 have indeed aged extremely rapidly, others haven't. Possibly some of the latter group aren't using recent photos, or have photoshopped them in some way, who knows. But I assure you that at some point after 45, sooner or later everyone stops looking "youthful and vibrant".

Sure, but are you under the impression that 40-55 year old men on dating apps look good? At least the women in that age range are making an effort.

I have no idea what the men look like. Why would I look at them? Also I have no idea if men that age claim to look “youthful and vibrant”. I know that I don’t look youthful; I look like what I am, a man in his 50s. I am lean and strong - you can see veins and muscles because I lift. I am stronger than many men in their 20s and 30s including my younger self. I have no sagging gut like so many men have. But does that make me “vibrant”? I dunno.

If you’re so secure in your age, why are you sadly comparing yourself to 20’s and 30’s men? Maybe you know a fit young guy is going to look a million times better than you.

Reading comprehension is not your forte. Did not say I looked better than men in their 20s and 30s. I said I was stronger than many of them, which is objectively true not a matter of opinion. This is the result of their laziness more than anything else. The 20/30yo guys in my gym are vastly stronger than me, as they should be, but they are not representative of men their age. In any event, I was not “sadly” comparing myself to younger men. I’m totally happy with who I am. More to the point, those younger men are not my competition because I’m not looking to date women that age.

I was responding to someone who said “are you under the impression that 40-55 year old men on dating apps look good?” Thus I was comparing myself to men my age, not younger men. But you didn’t notice this because you were just trying to score cheap points, which is lame, and again shows your poor reading comprehension.

Hm you sound very defensive and not that secure in yourself. And why are you so invested in why women after 40 call themselves vibrant? Let them be.

+1 Why are you on here attempting to argue with women about how they are not vibrant after 45? How does this benefit you, or anyone? Surely you recognize that it’s not kind-spirited? Why are you so invested in making people feel bad about themselves?

“Vibrant” does not mean wrinkle-free, or without visible signs of aging. I have gray hair and wrinkles and I consider myself a very vital, active, and vibrant person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who in this area is aging fast in their early 50s? What do you mean OP by aging fast? 65-70 is what 55 was in the 1940s.

80 is what 52 was in 1978.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP mentioned her husband’s aging and asked a(n admittedly confusing) question about activities, and somehow this STILL turned into a debate about women’s looks.

Yup. As a 55 year old woman married to a 55 year old man. Retired. Adults kids grown and gone. Very active. Very happy. I could not give two fukcs what some 30-something year old thinks about the way I look, dress, or act. That’s one of the best things about being in my 50s. I’m happy, healthy, active, loving life…and simply have no fukcs left to give for stupid stuff like comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know any women 47+ who have aged "extremely rapidly." All of my friends are still youthful and vibrant. Some going back to school, still enjoying concerts + travel, still super stylish. None of my friends have fallen off. Me included. 49 this year.

I'm a man in my 50s and I see a lot of women age 40-55 on the dating apps. You're fooling yourself if you think women after 40 look "youthful and vibrant". Just compare to photos of women who are actually youthful (under 30) and this is quite clearly. That said, some women over 45 have indeed aged extremely rapidly, others haven't. Possibly some of the latter group aren't using recent photos, or have photoshopped them in some way, who knows. But I assure you that at some point after 45, sooner or later everyone stops looking "youthful and vibrant".

Dude, did you watch 'Halftime' on J. Lo? She's 52 and looking great. Don't think she'd pick you though.

Oh FFS what a painfully stupid comment. Do you think the women on the dating apps, the women you see every day, or the women on DCUM are anything like JLo? They're not. Do you think that JLo is at all representative of an age 40-55 woman? She's not. Bringing up JLo or any other actress/model in a discussion of how women look as they age is totally irrelevant, not least because photos of such women are generally heavily edited to remove any signs of age.

I think the point is that J Lo. shows that it is POSSIBLE to age well if someone works for it. I saw that she did two pull-ups unassisted at the gym which they showed on the special. That's something women have to train for if they want to achieve it. J. Lo. is #goals.

"It is possible to age well if you were already movie-actress hot to begin with, and if you have the money and time to devote to remaining hot, and if you have a team of publicists whose job is to make sure you look hot in all your photos" is not much of a point, really, and is certainly not applicable to anyone in this forum.

J. Lo started from nothing. If you look at her Fly Girl days, she was kinda chunky and had a big nose. Sure, she's had work done but she's definitely worked hard physically to have a fit and toned physique at 52.

+1

Nicole Murphy - 54
Halle Berry - 55
Tracee Ellis Ross - 49
Gabrielle Union - 49
Sanaa Lathan - 50

Plenty women age well, stay fit and don't go out of the house looking frumpy. Nicole Murphy and Tracee Ellis Ross both regularly post their workouts on social media. I know PLENTY women who are 45+ who look just as phenomenal as the celebs I named.

Lol we use to live next to an “A” lister. Her day started with her person trainer in the morning. Next up was the person chef had breakfast ready to go, followed by her team- her assistant, stylists, person shopper, makeup professional, etc. She had two live in nannies and house keeping. Late in the afternoon she would go for a run in the hills. The point being it is those women’s job to look the best they can and they have the resources and time to do it. Still when they stand next to a 20 something they will look old and frumpy. That is live.

BS. Gabrielle Union looks better than any 20 something.

No. Go watch “The Other Woman” Cameron Diaz(42), Leslie Mann(42) and Kate Upton (22). When the 22 year old stands next to the 42 year old you really see the difference. Just like if Gabrielle Union was standing next to Halle Lynn Bailey. People would think she is her mom.

Wrong again. Halle Bailey in her 20’s looks like a teenager and Gabrielle Union looks like her older 20’s sister, not her mom. I agree with you on Kate Upton and the other 2, but that’s because Cameron Diaz and Leslie Mann just look aged. Even Kate in that movie looks older, like 30, not 22, but still younger looking than Cameron and Leslie.

Gabrielle Union does not look like she is in her late 20s.

Do you want to see proof?

Here is Gabrielle Union right next to her 28 year old self.

If you cannot see the obvious difference well then you are obviously blind.

Ray Charles himself would tell you that you are BUSTED and to HIT THE ROAD JACK.

She looks older than herself in her 20s but definitely like a late 20s or early 30s woman. There are many 20-30 year olds who look older. And when she was 28 she looked like a teen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know any women 47+ who have aged "extremely rapidly." All of my friends are still youthful and vibrant. Some going back to school, still enjoying concerts + travel, still super stylish. None of my friends have fallen off. Me included. 49 this year.

I'm a man in my 50s and I see a lot of women age 40-55 on the dating apps. You're fooling yourself if you think women after 40 look "youthful and vibrant". Just compare to photos of women who are actually youthful (under 30) and this is quite clearly. That said, some women over 45 have indeed aged extremely rapidly, others haven't. Possibly some of the latter group aren't using recent photos, or have photoshopped them in some way, who knows. But I assure you that at some point after 45, sooner or later everyone stops looking "youthful and vibrant".

Dude, did you watch 'Halftime' on J. Lo? She's 52 and looking great. Don't think she'd pick you though.

Oh FFS what a painfully stupid comment. Do you think the women on the dating apps, the women you see every day, or the women on DCUM are anything like JLo? They're not. Do you think that JLo is at all representative of an age 40-55 woman? She's not. Bringing up JLo or any other actress/model in a discussion of how women look as they age is totally irrelevant, not least because photos of such women are generally heavily edited to remove any signs of age.

I think the point is that J Lo. shows that it is POSSIBLE to age well if someone works for it. I saw that she did two pull-ups unassisted at the gym which they showed on the special. That's something women have to train for if they want to achieve it. J. Lo. is #goals.

"It is possible to age well if you were already movie-actress hot to begin with, and if you have the money and time to devote to remaining hot, and if you have a team of publicists whose job is to make sure you look hot in all your photos" is not much of a point, really, and is certainly not applicable to anyone in this forum.

J. Lo started from nothing. If you look at her Fly Girl days, she was kinda chunky and had a big nose. Sure, she's had work done but she's definitely worked hard physically to have a fit and toned physique at 52.

+1

Nicole Murphy - 54
Halle Berry - 55
Tracee Ellis Ross - 49
Gabrielle Union - 49
Sanaa Lathan - 50

Plenty women age well, stay fit and don't go out of the house looking frumpy. Nicole Murphy and Tracee Ellis Ross both regularly post their workouts on social media. I know PLENTY women who are 45+ who look just as phenomenal as the celebs I named.

Lol we use to live next to an “A” lister. Her day started with her person trainer in the morning. Next up was the person chef had breakfast ready to go, followed by her team- her assistant, stylists, person shopper, makeup professional, etc. She had two live in nannies and house keeping. Late in the afternoon she would go for a run in the hills. The point being it is those women’s job to look the best they can and they have the resources and time to do it. Still when they stand next to a 20 something they will look old and frumpy. That is live.

BS. Gabrielle Union looks better than any 20 something.

No. Go watch “The Other Woman” Cameron Diaz(42), Leslie Mann(42) and Kate Upton (22). When the 22 year old stands next to the 42 year old you really see the difference. Just like if Gabrielle Union was standing next to Halle Lynn Bailey. People would think she is her mom.

Wrong again. Halle Bailey in her 20’s looks like a teenager and Gabrielle Union looks like her older 20’s sister, not her mom. I agree with you on Kate Upton and the other 2, but that’s because Cameron Diaz and Leslie Mann just look aged. Even Kate in that movie looks older, like 30, not 22, but still younger looking than Cameron and Leslie.

Gabrielle Union does not look like she is in her late 20s.

Do you want to see proof?

Here is Gabrielle Union right next to her 28 year old self.

If you cannot see the obvious difference well then you are obviously blind.

Ray Charles himself would tell you that you are BUSTED and to HIT THE ROAD JACK.

She looks older than herself in her 20s but definitely like a late 20s or early 30s woman. There are many 20-30 year olds who look older. And when she was 28 she looked like a teen

+1. I’m sure the angry Gabrielle Union hater will jump on me for this, but I really don’t see much of a difference between both pictures. Maybe slight weight gain in the more recent one? I’m not blind, maybe someone can explain because she looks like a 20 or 30 something to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone just proved to you that Gabrielle Union does not look like she is in her 20s and you are still in denial.

Sorry but you’ve proved nothing.

The picture proves that Gabrielle Union DOES NOT look the same right now as she did when she was 28. Conclusion. She DOES NOT look like she is her 20s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know any women 47+ who have aged "extremely rapidly." All of my friends are still youthful and vibrant. Some going back to school, still enjoying concerts + travel, still super stylish. None of my friends have fallen off. Me included. 49 this year.

I'm a man in my 50s and I see a lot of women age 40-55 on the dating apps. You're fooling yourself if you think women after 40 look "youthful and vibrant". Just compare to photos of women who are actually youthful (under 30) and this is quite clearly. That said, some women over 45 have indeed aged extremely rapidly, others haven't. Possibly some of the latter group aren't using recent photos, or have photoshopped them in some way, who knows. But I assure you that at some point after 45, sooner or later everyone stops looking "youthful and vibrant".

Sure, but are you under the impression that 40-55 year old men on dating apps look good? At least the women in that age range are making an effort.

I have no idea what the men look like. Why would I look at them? Also I have no idea if men that age claim to look “youthful and vibrant”. I know that I don’t look youthful; I look like what I am, a man in his 50s. I am lean and strong - you can see veins and muscles because I lift. I am stronger than many men in their 20s and 30s including my younger self. I have no sagging gut like so many men have. But does that make me “vibrant”? I dunno.

If you’re so secure in your age, why are you sadly comparing yourself to 20’s and 30’s men? Maybe you know a fit young guy is going to look a million times better than you.

Reading comprehension is not your forte. Did not say I looked better than men in their 20s and 30s. I said I was stronger than many of them, which is objectively true not a matter of opinion. This is the result of their laziness more than anything else. The 20/30yo guys in my gym are vastly stronger than me, as they should be, but they are not representative of men their age. In any event, I was not “sadly” comparing myself to younger men. I’m totally happy with who I am. More to the point, those younger men are not my competition because I’m not looking to date women that age.

I was responding to someone who said “are you under the impression that 40-55 year old men on dating apps look good?” Thus I was comparing myself to men my age, not younger men. But you didn’t notice this because you were just trying to score cheap points, which is lame, and again shows your poor reading comprehension.

Hm you sound very defensive and not that secure in yourself. And why are you so invested in why women after 40 call themselves vibrant? Let them be.

+1 Why are you on here attempting to argue with women about how they are not vibrant after 45? How does this benefit you, or anyone? Surely you recognize that it’s not kind-spirited? Why are you so invested in making people feel bad about themselves?

“Vibrant” does not mean wrinkle-free, or without visible signs of aging. I have gray hair and wrinkles and I consider myself a very vital, active, and vibrant person.

I regard it as a public service to remind you that sorry, despite your delusions, you are not "youthful and vibrant" after 45. You're better off gracefully facing reality.

You can call yourself something as much as you want but it's still not true. And frankly it's painfully cringe to hear you childishly insisting on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know any women 47+ who have aged "extremely rapidly." All of my friends are still youthful and vibrant. Some going back to school, still enjoying concerts + travel, still super stylish. None of my friends have fallen off. Me included. 49 this year.

I'm a man in my 50s and I see a lot of women age 40-55 on the dating apps. You're fooling yourself if you think women after 40 look "youthful and vibrant". Just compare to photos of women who are actually youthful (under 30) and this is quite clearly. That said, some women over 45 have indeed aged extremely rapidly, others haven't. Possibly some of the latter group aren't using recent photos, or have photoshopped them in some way, who knows. But I assure you that at some point after 45, sooner or later everyone stops looking "youthful and vibrant".

Sure, but are you under the impression that 40-55 year old men on dating apps look good? At least the women in that age range are making an effort.

I have no idea what the men look like. Why would I look at them? Also I have no idea if men that age claim to look “youthful and vibrant”. I know that I don’t look youthful; I look like what I am, a man in his 50s. I am lean and strong - you can see veins and muscles because I lift. I am stronger than many men in their 20s and 30s including my younger self. I have no sagging gut like so many men have. But does that make me “vibrant”? I dunno.

If you’re so secure in your age, why are you sadly comparing yourself to 20’s and 30’s men? Maybe you know a fit young guy is going to look a million times better than you.

Reading comprehension is not your forte. Did not say I looked better than men in their 20s and 30s. I said I was stronger than many of them, which is objectively true not a matter of opinion. This is the result of their laziness more than anything else. The 20/30yo guys in my gym are vastly stronger than me, as they should be, but they are not representative of men their age. In any event, I was not “sadly” comparing myself to younger men. I’m totally happy with who I am. More to the point, those younger men are not my competition because I’m not looking to date women that age.

I was responding to someone who said “are you under the impression that 40-55 year old men on dating apps look good?” Thus I was comparing myself to men my age, not younger men. But you didn’t notice this because you were just trying to score cheap points, which is lame, and again shows your poor reading comprehension.

Hm you sound very defensive and not that secure in yourself. And why are you so invested in why women after 40 call themselves vibrant? Let them be.

+1 Why are you on here attempting to argue with women about how they are not vibrant after 45? How does this benefit you, or anyone? Surely you recognize that it’s not kind-spirited? Why are you so invested in making people feel bad about themselves?

“Vibrant” does not mean wrinkle-free, or without visible signs of aging. I have gray hair and wrinkles and I consider myself a very vital, active, and vibrant person.

I regard it as a public service to remind you that sorry, despite your delusions, you are not "youthful and vibrant" after 45. You're better off gracefully facing reality.

You can call yourself something as much as you want but it's still not true. And frankly it's painfully cringe to hear you childishly insisting on it.

These women are delusional.

They are the ones who brought up being "youthful" after age 40, which is laughable.

They also brought up Gabrielle Union still looking like she is in her 20s despite the fact that an actual picture of Gabrielle Union in her late 20s was posted and in the picture she looks completely different than the Gabrielle Union of today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most black women look younger so that list doesn’t matter to us white women who are 40. The reality is that 40 is old and listing outliers doesn’t help your case. Either way, exercise, eat right, wear sunscreen and drink water. Stay as stress free as possible. Same for men!

+1

Some women think they look very different than they do, to reality. Fillers do NOT help, they only worse they severity of aging.