17 y/o girl and 29 y/o guy? should the guy know better?

DarkShadow

Stay single, stay happy.

tea_lover

If this has been posted already ignore me, I wouldn't usually post without having read all the replies but I only got through a few pages of this one.

Just a note on the age of consent issue - do bear in mind that there are exceptions depending on the relationship between you. If there is a position of trust which is being abused then the age is higher. This doesn't only apply to teachers, doctors, etc.

I have a very dear friend who's son got himself in a lot of trouble this way. He was mid 20s, the girl was 16 and they met via a group he volunteered with. He ended up with a custodial sentence and is now struggling to rebuild his life.

missbiggles1

annandale wrote: »

Four months from your 18th birthday isn't mid teens and as has already been posted there's someone on the thread who got together with their partner at 18 when he was 32 and they are still together..

To write it off saying it can't work is wrong because clearly there are people it does work for.

It isn't a question of whether or not it can work. In fact, most people would think that spending your life with someone you got together with when only 17 was quite the opposite of working.

Pop_Up_Pirate

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I totally disagree - most successful relationships are between equals - why would you want or expect anything else?

Disagree with this.
Generations ago divorce was uncommon. People worked at their marriages, and in a lot of them, the woman was subservient to the men.
No equality there as the women did what was expected of them, and without complaint.

Many of those marriages lasted (and still are lasting) decades whereas these days the divorce rate is higher than the staying together rate.

I think it has a lot to do with woman wanting equality.
(I'm a woman before you ask)

Stevie_Palimo

I see all the moral high ground brigade are out in force Today as usual picking over a silly fact and making a big deal out of it, I must say people on here get more petty all the time and need to realise that having an opinion is okay but ramming it down other peoples throats is not.

tea_lover

Pop_Up_Pirate wrote: »

Disagree with this.
Generations ago divorce was uncommon. People worked at their marriages, and in a lot of them, the woman was subservient to the men.
No equality there as the women did what was expected of them, and without complaint.

Many of those marriages lasted (and still are lasting) decades whereas these days the divorce rate is higher than the staying together rate.

I think it has a lot to do with woman wanting equality.
(I'm a woman before you ask)

Since when has staying in a miserable marriage been a sign of success?

missbiggles1

Pop_Up_Pirate wrote: »

Disagree with this.
Generations ago divorce was uncommon. People worked at their marriages, and in a lot of them, the woman was subservient to the men.
No equality there as the women did what was expected of them, and without complaint.

Many of those marriages lasted (and still are lasting) decades whereas these days the divorce rate is higher than the staying together rate.

I think it has a lot to do with woman wanting equality.
(I'm a woman before you ask)

Unless you're going back hundreds of years, I doubt very much that the women were subservient to the men - in many households the women were very definitely in charge.

Lily-Rose_3

Pop_Up_Pirate wrote: »

Disagree with this.
Generations ago divorce was uncommon. People worked at their marriages, and in a lot of them, the woman was subservient to the men. No equality there as the women did what was expected of them, and without complaint.

Many of those marriages lasted (and still are lasting) decades whereas these days the divorce rate is higher than the staying together rate.

I think it has a lot to do with woman wanting equality.
(I'm a woman before you ask)

Words fail me ... This cannot be a serious post.

tea_lover wrote: »

Since when has staying in a miserable marriage been a sign of success?

Exactly! I have a lot more respect and admiration for people who have been married and divorced 3 times, or who have never married, than I do for someone who has stayed in a marriage 35-50 years plus, but has been unhappy the whole time, and has just stayed there to 'save face.'

FGS, it's 2017, women don't HAVE to stay in rubbish marriages anymore, they DO deserve happiness, and they DO NOT have to be subservient to the men. 'The women did what was expected of them without complaint and this made marriages last?' :eek:

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Unless you're going back hundreds of years, I doubt very much that the women were subservient to the men - in many households the women were in charge.

Same here Miss B; all the women in my family, going back over a century (probably much further back,) were sassy and fiery, and were definitely in charge most of the time.

I was born in the mid 60's and don't ever ever remember women being subservient and controlled by their men. All the women I have ever known - friends and relatives have never been subservient to the man.

Can I ask what religion you are pop-up-pirate?

jp1964

I think it has less to do with age and more to do with maturity and outlook.

My daughter met a guy at work when she was 17, her manager in fact, and shortly after her 18th birthday they got together. She was and is very mature, sensible and confident, as is he. He was 30 at the time, and is now 41 and she is 29, and yes, they are still together, and have stayed together all that time. She was working part time and in college when they met, and when she went to uni, they moved to the town she was studying in together, he supported her partly all through uni, although she was also working, she now has her own business and he continues to do well.

They are now getting married next year, and I and my OH could not be happier, he is part of the family and has been for years. We had no qualms whatsoever about his or her age, we knew that our daughter had her head screwed on and was able to take care of herself, in fact she had walked away from many guys her own age as they were immature and caused problems. She describes him as her best friend, as he does about her.

They truly are the perfect match, they have stuck together through good times and bad, and it is clear that they both love one another's company. So lovely to see, and I could not have ever wished for a better future son in law and one day father of any grandchildren they have (and yes, they have said they want children, in case anyone thought I was assuming...)

Very much depends on the character of the two individuals, age really can be just a number.

Gavin83

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Not much.

Om the other hand, would people feel differently if the parties were two years younger?

Of course, the situation is completely different.

How old does a woman have to be before you consider her old enough to make her own decisions and therefore wouldn't have an issue with an age gap?

missbiggles1 wrote: »

A 12 year age gap would be largely irrelevant for 2 people in their 30s/40/etc - when one of them is in their mid teens and the other's nearly 30, it does.

In your opinion of course. I can't agree with this.