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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

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.

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?

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!