I’m 32 and if a 23 year old asked me out I’d say “Aren’t you adorable?”, pat her head and send her on her way.
That’s a college student. Who came up with this math? 😆 It does not compute.
EDIT: This is not a comment on younger people’s intelligence, of course. I love how much more progressive and bright the generation after mine is (at least in my country). But yea, I’m much more likely to take someone in their 20s under my wing than out to dinner!
The rule is well-known and easy to calculate from the mind. But it does have flaws in that awkwardness regard.
Still weirds me out that according to the rule, a 75 year old could date a 45 year old. Maybe the graph should be called “Legally OK, socially questionable” - ie. the grey zone.
A version that would exclude this socially grey zone could be;
(age * 0.75) + 3.25
The .25 is added to make more numbers less strange. Round to nearest full number.
If the outcome is higher than the person’s own age, that indicates you’re too young to date. In this case the ‘minimum’ would be 14 for all involved, similar to the original formula.
For 20, it’d be 18.
For 25, it’d be 22.
For 45, it’d be 37.
For 75, it’d be 60.
For 90, it’d be 71.
Inversely, it’d mean that the maximum ages would be calculated as:
(age / 0.75) - 3.25
20 and 23.
25 and 30.
45 and 57.
75 and 97.
90 and 117.
What the rule is saying there is that a 12 year old shouldn’t date, because that region of the graph is actually outside of the lower and upper bounds, which intercept (cross) at “14 years old” on the x axis
Or you could interpret the UB and LB as having swapped, in which case 12’s LB is (-7, ×2) =10 years old.
I’m just musing it’s kind of stupid to make it a math problem “one size fits all”. Who the hell should have the right to tell 50 year grownups they can’t date lol.
I go by
(age/2)+7.For 27 that would be 20.5
I’m 32 and if a 23 year old asked me out I’d say “Aren’t you adorable?”, pat her head and send her on her way.
That’s a college student. Who came up with this math? 😆 It does not compute.
EDIT: This is not a comment on younger people’s intelligence, of course. I love how much more progressive and bright the generation after mine is (at least in my country). But yea, I’m much more likely to take someone in their 20s under my wing than out to dinner!
The rule is well-known and easy to calculate from the mind. But it does have flaws in that awkwardness regard.
Still weirds me out that according to the rule, a 75 year old could date a 45 year old. Maybe the graph should be called “Legally OK, socially questionable” - ie. the grey zone.
A version that would exclude this socially grey zone could be;
(age * 0.75) + 3.25The .25 is added to make more numbers less strange. Round to nearest full number. If the outcome is higher than the person’s own age, that indicates you’re too young to date. In this case the ‘minimum’ would be 14 for all involved, similar to the original formula.
For 20, it’d be 18.
For 25, it’d be 22.
For 45, it’d be 37.
For 75, it’d be 60.
For 90, it’d be 71.
Inversely, it’d mean that the maximum ages would be calculated as:
(age / 0.75) - 3.2520 and 23.
25 and 30.
45 and 57.
75 and 97.
90 and 117.
You think a 75 yo is taking advantage of a 45 yo? That 45 yo are not mature enough?
100 could date a 57 year old. 12 yo a 13 yo but not a 12 yo.
Works perfectly.
What the rule is saying there is that a 12 year old shouldn’t date, because that region of the graph is actually outside of the lower and upper bounds, which intercept (cross) at “14 years old” on the x axis
Or you could interpret the UB and LB as having swapped, in which case 12’s LB is (-7, ×2) =10 years old.
I’m just musing it’s kind of stupid to make it a math problem “one size fits all”. Who the hell should have the right to tell 50 year grownups they can’t date lol.