Weingarten/Manteuffel

[Anonymous]

Gross!

[Anonymous]

I used to like his column and chats, but I became increasingly aware that his opinion of himself was much higher than mine of him. He's one of those guys like Bernie Sanders: he was pretty progressive in his day, but at some point he decided that he was enlightened enough and had all the answers, and now he's not going to change his mind about anything.

PS I think the half the man's age + 7 is from the Nation of Islam, or at least I remember it coming up in Malcolm X.

[Anonymous]

This is not a good look for him. And I am closer to his age than her and I find him brilliant and completely unappetizing - I would not be getting involved or even touching him if I was under 50!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed by him too. He always wrote about Rachel as a mentor/mentee type of relationship, so cliche and downright disappointing of him.

I remember he used to bring up a "rule" that he made up about dating age gaps. That a man could only date someone no less than 7 years older than his oldest child/oldest daughter. Something like that? Whatever it was, I doubt 35/67 makes the cut!

From yesterday's chat:
Q: Significant other
Gene, several years ago you published a formula for calculating the minimum age for a prospective significant other relative to your age and your kids's ages, to prevent creepiness. I don't remember the details. How well does your current relationship fit?

A: Gene Weingarten
I don't make the cut.

Speaking of cut, we're ending now. Thank you all. Next week, same time and place.

----------
So, maybe he's a creeper but at least he's not a hypocrite about his previous opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed by him too. He always wrote about Rachel as a mentor/mentee type of relationship, so cliche and downright disappointing of him.

I remember he used to bring up a "rule" that he made up about dating age gaps. That a man could only date someone no less than 7 years older than his oldest child/oldest daughter. Something like that? Whatever it was, I doubt 35/67 makes the cut!

From yesterday's chat:
Q: Significant other
Gene, several years ago you published a formula for calculating the minimum age for a prospective significant other relative to your age and your kids's ages, to prevent creepiness. I don't remember the details. How well does your current relationship fit?

A: Gene Weingarten
I don't make the cut.

Speaking of cut, we're ending now. Thank you all. Next week, same time and place.

----------
So, maybe he's a creeper but at least he's not a hypocrite about his previous opinion?

Yeah, but he's a coward for running away immediately after that question.

So not a hypocrite, but a creepy coward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed by him too. He always wrote about Rachel as a mentor/mentee type of relationship, so cliche and downright disappointing of him.

I remember he used to bring up a "rule" that he made up about dating age gaps. That a man could only date someone no less than 7 years older than his oldest child/oldest daughter. Something like that? Whatever it was, I doubt 35/67 makes the cut!

From yesterday's chat:
Q: Significant other
Gene, several years ago you published a formula for calculating the minimum age for a prospective significant other relative to your age and your kids's ages, to prevent creepiness. I don't remember the details. How well does your current relationship fit?

A: Gene Weingarten
I don't make the cut.

Speaking of cut, we're ending now. Thank you all. Next week, same time and place.

----------
So, maybe he's a creeper but at least he's not a hypocrite about his previous opinion?

Yeah, but he's a coward for running away immediately after that question.

So not a hypocrite, but a creepy coward.

He didn't have to post the question at all. Or put the relationship out there for public consumption at all in the first place. So not completely a coward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed by him too. He always wrote about Rachel as a mentor/mentee type of relationship, so cliche and downright disappointing of him.

I remember he used to bring up a "rule" that he made up about dating age gaps. That a man could only date someone no less than 7 years older than his oldest child/oldest daughter. Something like that? Whatever it was, I doubt 35/67 makes the cut!

From yesterday's chat:
Q: Significant other
Gene, several years ago you published a formula for calculating the minimum age for a prospective significant other relative to your age and your kids's ages, to prevent creepiness. I don't remember the details. How well does your current relationship fit?

A: Gene Weingarten
I don't make the cut.

Speaking of cut, we're ending now. Thank you all. Next week, same time and place.

----------
So, maybe he's a creeper but at least he's not a hypocrite about his previous opinion?

Yeah, but he's a coward for running away immediately after that question.

So not a hypocrite, but a creepy coward.

He didn't have to post the question at all. Or put the relationship out there for public consumption at all in the first place. So not completely a coward.

It's better to out yourself than be outed by someone else. It was defensive and the bare minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's better to out yourself than be outed by someone else. It was defensive and the bare minimum.

What would being 'outed' mean in this case? He's not doing anything illegal. Presumably his family and friends know about it. According to the neighbor above, it's certainly not a secret. Most people couldn't care less who he is or who he dates. I don't understand your point?

[Anonymous]

The 'rule' comes from a play, THE MOON IS BLUE, about a May-December romance. The youngest a woman should be is half the man's age plus 7. (67x.5) + 7 = 41.

I hope his wife divorced him - it's clear he's as big a dog as the rest of the men who cheat. And you're right; men don't leave without having a soft landing prepared. Women leave because they are unhappy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 'rule' comes from a play, THE MOON IS BLUE, about a May-December romance. The youngest a woman should be is half the man's age plus 7. (67x.5) + 7 = 41.

I hope his wife divorced him - it's clear he's as big a dog as the rest of the men who cheat. And you're right; men don't leave without having a soft landing prepared. Women leave because they are unhappy.

The rule doesn’t come from the play, it was featured in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 'rule' comes from a play, THE MOON IS BLUE, about a May-December romance. The youngest a woman should be is half the man's age plus 7. (67x.5) + 7 = 41.

I hope his wife divorced him - it's clear he's as big a dog as the rest of the men who cheat. And you're right; men don't leave without having a soft landing prepared. Women leave because they are unhappy.

He didn't cheat on his wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'rule' comes from a play, THE MOON IS BLUE, about a May-December romance. The youngest a woman should be is half the man's age plus 7. (67x.5) + 7 = 41.

I hope his wife divorced him - it's clear he's as big a dog as the rest of the men who cheat. And you're right; men don't leave without having a soft landing prepared. Women leave because they are unhappy.

He didn't cheat on his wife.

I assumed that she left him (because she didn't want to spend her remaining time on earth dealing with a self-regarding manchild) and he turned to the nearest woman willing to soothe his ego)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'rule' comes from a play, THE MOON IS BLUE, about a May-December romance. The youngest a woman should be is half the man's age plus 7. (67x.5) + 7 = 41.

I hope his wife divorced him - it's clear he's as big a dog as the rest of the men who cheat. And you're right; men don't leave without having a soft landing prepared. Women leave because they are unhappy.

He didn't cheat on his wife.

I assumed that she left him (because she didn't want to spend her remaining time on earth dealing with a self-regarding manchild) and he turned to the nearest woman willing to soothe his ego)

That's what I think too.

[Anonymous]

You can be smart and witty and small and weak and broken at the same time. When a smart young woman hooks up with a guy like that it is because she is needing something:Money, affirmation, parenting..... and a man his age is seeking much the same: affirmation, denial of his mortality and the opportunity to parent in a way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can be smart and witty and small and weak and broken at the same time. When a smart young woman hooks up with a guy like that it is because she is needing something:Money, affirmation, parenting..... and a man his age is seeking much the same: affirmation, denial of his mortality and the opportunity to parent in a way.

Many people are drawn to their mate because the mate fulfills a need. In and of itself, is that a bad thing?