I think it's just one, or two, posters with a personal bad experience with May-December relationships that can't accept that not everyone shares their negative experiences.

If we reduce everyone to a numerical "marriageability" score, I think it's reasonable that as the relative age difference increases, the score is "reduced," but it's just one of many factors. And of course we are dealing with humans, not clinic lab tests.

This so obviously misandrist thread just reaffirmed that I made a good decision to look outside the DC area for a woman to date.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's gross, and I agree with others that it will lead to health issues.

But... if you are not ashamed to be seen with him, and you are okay with a greater risk of a damaged child, then go for it. It's your life.

Did your ex dump your bitter, nagging harpy ass for a hot younger woman? Because it sure sounds like you have an ax to grind. Let it go and move on! Find your own happiness and stop trying to push your bitterness off on others.

Sounds more like she dumped him for a younger, hotter man. JS.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's gross, and I agree with others that it will lead to health issues.

But... if you are not ashamed to be seen with him, and you are okay with a greater risk of a damaged child, then go for it. It's your life.

Did your ex dump your bitter, nagging harpy ass for a hot younger woman? Because it sure sounds like you have an ax to grind. Let it go and move on! Find your own happiness and stop trying to push your bitterness off on others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's gross, and I agree with others that it will lead to health issues.

But... if you are not ashamed to be seen with him, and you are okay with a greater risk of a damaged child, then go for it. It's your life.

I have no dog in this fight and my wife is a year older than me, but this junk science is baffling. The risk of having a "damaged child is 1 in 50 for men under 40 and 1 in 42 for men over 40. Meaning the likelihood of having a damaged child with an older man is remote, unless you are planning on having 50 kids.

Eh, if you're okay with having an ugly child, or less intelligent, then go for it.

Many of us want the fittest kid we can have. It's a biological urge
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/4728/20140324/the-older-the-dad-the-uglier-the-children-genetic-mutation-research-confirms.htm

You are behaving like a bad person.

Because they don't want to have sex with old men?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's gross, and I agree with others that it will lead to health issues.

But... if you are not ashamed to be seen with him, and you are okay with a greater risk of a damaged child, then go for it. It's your life.

I have no dog in this fight and my wife is a year older than me, but this junk science is baffling. The risk of having a "damaged child is 1 in 50 for men under 40 and 1 in 42 for men over 40. Meaning the likelihood of having a damaged child with an older man is remote, unless you are planning on having 50 kids.

Eh, if you're okay with having an ugly child, or less intelligent, then go for it.

Many of us want the fittest kid we can have. It's a biological urge
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/4728/20140324/the-older-the-dad-the-uglier-the-children-genetic-mutation-research-confirms.htm

You are behaving like a bad person.

I'm 47, and my DH is 59. He seems a lot older than I am. I really notice the age difference. It has felt this way during my 40's and his 50's.