Relationships with someone younger

[Wereman]

Yay, ReiShark, welcome into adulthood. Go vote and enter your first shop, act and react with logic!

The above stated, legal age, this is this most important matter, which has been emphasized several times. In earlier times I tended to be skeptical of large age difference between partners. Though this has also to do with the fact that my parent's age difference was one year, which for me felt perfect.
But as time moves on you see that larger age difference between mates (disregarding the gender of both involved) seems normal and I can point a few examples in this community where the age gap between mates is large.

Here I'd like to add a quote from a novel that I've read earlier this year and had a rather huge impact:

"But then love always did have a way of surprising you, didn't it?"

When you really like a person and you get to know each other as time moves on you will go through various challenges that will test the strength of your bonds. One of the challenges can be age difference and it is unfortunate that some individuals in society will judge us on that and you'll get derogative terms like "sugar daddy", "boi toi" or "cougar". At times it may feel a choice that we are attracted to someone who is much older or younger, but character, personality can go a long way. There can be individuals of the same age but based on their behaviour your would never expect it.

For sure Rain, as it was mentioned previously, it never hurts to make advance, the worst thing that can happen is to get a no. But as mentioned above, you took up the courage to do so, and we will back you up.

[OhDeer!]

My friend who is 31 was attracted to my gal pal who is my age (17), they both has feelings for eachother but my gal pal's mother totally freaked out when she found out they are dating. I dont see anything wrong with older/younger relationships just some parents of the younger might :(

[Lt ReiStark]

My friend who is 31 was attracted to my gal pal who is my age (17), they both has feelings for eachother but my gal pal's mother totally freaked out when she found out they are dating. I dont see anything wrong with older/younger relationships just some parents of the younger might :(

Theres a reason that you're not a legal adult until you're 18, its because people under a certain age are dumb and young and full of a certain fluid, even me. The romantic feelings that a 17 year old have are vastly different from the more mature feelings of someone 31. As you get older relationships with an age gap get easier, but someone 31 shouldn't be dating a teen. Young and dumb people should date other young dumb people, no matter how mature they feel. maybe if he was 41 and she was 27. but 17 is not an age where you know what you want in life. stick with a 3 year maximum until you're 21 IMO.

[OhDeer!]

Theres a reason that you're not a legal adult until you're 18, its because people under a certain age are dumb and young and full of a certain fluid, even me. The romantic feelings that a 17 year old have are vastly different from the more mature feelings of someone 31. As you get older relationships with an age gap get easier, but someone 31 shouldn't be dating a teen. Young and dumb people should date other young dumb people, no matter how mature they feel. maybe if he was 41 and she was 27. but 17 is not an age where you know what you want in life. stick with a 3 year maximum until you're 21 IMO.

In some cases you could be correct on the other hand some people under 21 can have interesting life experiences and can be more mature than you might think. Not all people who are under 21 are "young and dumb" so why should they date someone who is?

[Drake Wingfire]

The young and dumb thing has never sat right with me, on paper it all makes sense, but when you get out into the real world... I just have a hard time believing a 17yr old who can do computer programing, who knows how to work a dang debit card, who uses social networks but knows what to look out for is some how stupid in comparison to a 40yr old who knows none of that. If society was truly set on making this a maturity issue more than simply a number to criticize by, then there would be some people who would never be allowed to drink, vote or screw out there. Hell, when I was 17 I was pretty well educated on sex and my parents and school had DRILLED in the whole stranger danger thing along with online seduction and deception. Its pretty much become a common part of school these days.

With age comes experience, yeah undoubtedly. But when you truly get out there into the real world you discover that many people just got old and stupid in one hell of a hurry and completley bypassed the "elder wisdom" chapter of their lives. Yet some how these people are still seen as more mature and intelligent simply cause Darwin hasn't called their number yet.

[Meer]

Sorry, but basic brain physiology says that until 19 or so, you ARE 'dumber' than someone who is 41. I use dumber in a completely loose sense of course as some teens are smarter than some adults. However, there're plenty of studies (and I can find and cite them if someone wants to call me a liar) that have concluded that the neural pathways in a teenager are simply not fully developed. In particular the pathway which connects the frontal lobe (where information is processed) and the limbic system (The "Emotional" brain).

"But Meer, what does that interesting piece of information mean!?"

Good question, I'm glad you asked. What this means is that teenagers up to a median age of 19 cannot, or have severe difficulties, in interpreting emotion. When faced with a series of pictures depicting people expressing different emotions via. facial expressions. These studies found that teenagers, and a stastically significant number of them to boot, could NOT discern which emotions the facial expressions were depicting. Older participants however had no issue with the task.

"That's bunk, maybe they were just stupid teenagers, Meer. That doesn't mean ALL teenagers can't do that! That's stupid. You're stupid. Stop being stupid!"

That's a fair point. Brain imaging scans (thermal I believe, which picks up areas of increased blood flow in parts of the brain being 'activated') confirmed this phenomena though. Teenage participants in the study showed a decided lack of activation in the aforementioned pathway (Frontal --> Limbic). Given what we know about brain development, and the life-long process of neural development as brain cells grow (or die) based on the amount of stimulation, the conclusion was that this area of the brain is simply undeveloped in teenagers up to the age of 19.

So it's not so much a matter of a 17 year old being too "stupid" to know what they're doing, it's that they simply do not have the neural pathways necessary to properly interpret and process emotion. THAT is why teenagers have a hard time figuring out what they want. While the study focused primarily on discerning emotion in others, it begs the question what effect does this disconnect between "emotion" (I believe it's the Hippocampus, someone can correct me if they want) and the frontal lobe have on discerning their own emotions? Is it love? Is it lust? Is it indigestion? They don't really know, and they don't know if the other person truely loves them (though they might think they do, because that's how it works on tv and movies, right) because at that point in life teenagers simply do not have the capacity to discern emotions.

But that last paragraph is pure conjecture on my part. The rest? The rest is SCIENCE!!

[Drake Wingfire]

This is pretty much what I was getting at... the extremely blunt blanketing of a group and putting stats before the individual. I believe we give adults way to much credit, brain development is one thing but all one can really do is gauge on the averages of a particular group which leaves canyon sized gaps of variance. Seeing as the adult mind is more developed.. based on own personal experiences, that would lead me to believe that the society we live in is rampant with adults who are either complete misanthropes and sociopaths or their brains never fully developed from their youth and they are stuck mentally under-developed. Age may neuropahthicly advance someone but that's all for nothing if they have been raised and grew up to be one of the average adults that we see out in public every day. The rather soulless people who don't look like they are so much living, more so just existing except for the occasional outburst.

The odds may be against youth simply because of development, but everyone at some point or another has known someone of their young age who really had a good head on their shoulders, who knew how to deal with problems and situations that most people would just brush off because they lacked the capability and fortitude to even engage it. I have seen adults who are horribly indecisive, who lack manners and ESPECIALLY lack control over their emotions (that last one is so common it disgusts me) I prefer to judge on a case to case basis with things like this as I hate to give people credit for something that they are not and belittle others simply because they are part of a group as hard as it can be at times to avoid stereotyping. To say that someone is pretty much incapable of having a successful relationship simply cause they fall inside a demographic is rather insulting and belittling to the individual, even more so when coupled with the notion that someone who is older is given credit without even having to live up to the expectations that come with it. That is my true opinion based on personal experience, I don't need to reference articles to have it.

[Meer]

With all due respect man, and I mean this only in an educational way:

If you start your post with a comment about "the blunt blanketing of a group", try to not rely on a blunt blanketing of a group to make your point.

"The average adults that we see out in public every day. The rather soulless people who... etc... etc."

That's just cold. I can also nearly guarantee you that the average adult has no relation to sociopaths or misanthropes. To state otherwise is... well, rather misanthropic. You don't know those people and shouldn't be judging, just as you argue they shouldn't judge teenagers. The fact is that neuropathic development plays a major role in... well, neural capacity. In this case it indicates a generalized inability to discern emotion by those under the median age of 19. That's a fact, and while you can dispute its relation to every single individual (as science relies on test samples and the generalizability of those samples), you can't dispute the fact that it's far more common in youth than adults. Far more common.

As for your comments about maturity, well, maturity isn't really a factor in my comment. The ability to handle a situation and emotional maturity are far different things and as you say not as easy to pinpoint. One relies on the ability to make the correct decisions, or at least avoid making stupid decisions in day to day life. The other refers to an ability to handle ones emotions and to successfully interact with others on an emotional level (Emotional Intelligence, which is seperate from Crystal or Liquid Intelligence which make up our standard concept of intelligence.) This of course turns into a cyclical argument when referenced in conjunction with my earlier comments about neuro-development in teenagers. You can't interact successfully with emotions if you have a cognitive inability to correctly identify the emotions you're dealing with.

I respect your opinion, and the fact that you have one; not a lot of people bother have opinions about things outside of which singer they like these days. However, saying you don't need to reference articles to form it and making it seem like a point of pride is the wrong attitude to take. While everyone is free to have an opinion, isn't it better to base your opinion on proven fact rather than an emotional appeal based on a perceived injustice? It strengthens your opinion while, and I mean this in a completely impersonal way, keeps you from looking like an ass; not that you do, but an uninformed opinion is a weakpoint in reasoning, not a strength.

[Drake Wingfire]

Well I'll admit some of the things I said contradicted later statements. Though let me address something here. My opinion was not solely based on emotion, that would be downright silly. The point I speak from is one of personal experience (just because I don't quote research doesn't mean its all nonsense), day to day life seeing and interacting with people (it kinda happens when you work in jobs where you interact with the public a lot). I don't outright refute scientific studies, but I do take them with a grain of salt and don't base my entire thoughts on a subject off of an article or two. Honestly when something or someone comes out to say that adults are so high functioning and teens are simply not, I can understand it all theoretically, but in reality I do not see so many shining examples and it doesn't speak well for itself when you see multiple (and I don't mean one or two) cases of something like parents being very spasmodic... yet their kids.. their teenage kids seem to know how to better conduct themselves in a public place and even if they look annoyed they don't lash out at random people they interact with like their "well developed" parents. So I took a sarcastic jab saying they were either misanthropes/ sociopaths or suffered from lacking brain development. (knowing some resources out there on the net someone is bound to say its an excusable illness  :roll: ) But I know the real reason is they simply refuse to conduct themselves and now that they have entered adult life they have this irrationally profound sense of entitlement, that everyone must respect them and do what they ask regardless of how immature and crazy they get  over something. Mainly because they know that the police can't just come in and smack them upside the head and take them away for simply being an asshole.

Though let me jump back on the rails here by pointing out the original subject context was relationships with someone younger than ones self. From that stand point I still see no problem with say someone in their mid 20s having a relationship with someone who is 18 or 19 to keep within the confines of the law. If this truly were as big of an issue as people like to make it out to be there would be no people married with a huge age difference, people would have made it a point to set some sorta bar at 1-10 years difference because there are generation gaps and people change constantly in the neurological aspect as they age.

The real part about your original statement that didn't sit well with me was this notion that teens cannot tell what they are truly feeling or what they want, as if all teens are just air filled bobble heads with raging hardons ready to hump anything that moves with 0 thought, im sure you didn't think yourself as the kind of teenagers you describe, even now looking back. But regardless of scientific undertones that's a rather sour statement  Akin to say that once someone hits 45 they no longer have a sex life and every single person of that age has a mid-life crisis and blows their money on prostitutes and fast cars because its par for the course.

[Meer]

Well, to be honest, as your personal experience directly contradicts numerous studies, both experimental and neuro-image based... I would have to say I would take your personal experience with a grain of salt over verified and repeated studies examining that very thing. While I don't doubt there are adults who have poor emotional control, that doesn't negate the fact that teens are biologically underdeveloped in terms of their connections between the prefrontal cortex & limbic system (double checked, it's the amygdala specifically).

As for your comparisons in the final paragraph, this is where the strength of having a mountain (and decades) of scientific inquiry to back up your opinion helps. There are no, at least to my knowledge, studies indicating a base and biological cause for mid-life crisises, so it's not comparable. I, however, once again have to point to the mountains of biological fact that point to the emotional instability of teenagers. It is well studied and well documented. I don't recall calling teenagers air-filled bobble heads either, that's simply a strawman fallacy which does little to refute my point. Finally, your assertion that I wouldn't say I was that way is 1) Wrong 2) A relativist fallacy. When I was a teenager I had poor emotional control and was a know-it-all, even moreso than I am now since now I actually know what I claim to know, rather than just say I do and hope nobody calls me on it. And, like just about every other teenage boy in the world I'm sure, was a walking hardon. However, as point 2 implies, it's a moot point. Even if I said I wasn't, it doesn't mean my point is invalid. "Well it isn't true for me, so it isn't true for anyone else" is a fallacy and much like the strawman makes for a weak-sounding argument.

Sorry to be crass about it but it sucks that you would rather imply numerous (and I mean numerous) studies are either incorrect or lying simply because you can't accept that they may have a point, and stating that "I see adults at my work explode!" simply does not hold a candle in terms of "proof" to back your claims. My original statement, as sour as you may feel it is, is rooted in fact and while that fact may be seen as harmful to the image of teenagers you wish to portray, it simply can't be ignored. Well, I mean, it can, but you'd simply be making a fool of yourself to try and argue to the contrary.

If you can provide me with 15 years or so of research that show there is no disconnect in the teenage brain between the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, I'll accept my portrait of teens as emotionally undeveloped is wrong. Not only that, I would personally pat you on the back for singlehandedly refuting decades of work by Ph.D holding psychologists. Heck, if you could provide me with a single non-anecdotal piece of evidence, I'll admit I could be wrong; but I'm sorry, simply stating your personal experience is not a valid source of information to draw a defendable position from when faced with verified psychological results.

[Drake Wingfire]

Hate to say it but you love beating that science drum to death don't you? You just can't seem to accept anything has any weight to it unless it has the word "science" tagged on at the end. (thats one beaten dead horse!) Once again I must try and get the point across that I am speaking from personal experience here, not some articles I read online and decided to base all my claims off of. I didn't think it was necessary to have to slap science on every statement for it to even register. I never implied that they were wrong, please read that clearly. My entire point that's been completley missed has been and always was that there are some things that a study just wont be able to factor in, there is and always will be a lot of "elbow room" in the end results because humans are not predictable machines, we can only get a vague gauge of things when it comes to matters like this. Please don't try and re-interpret that particular statement or look for some alternative meaning, its like it says right on the cover, nothing more, nothing less.

I wont be able to provide you with 15 years of statistics, studies or what ever other "qualified" validity you seem to be so stubborn on having to acknowledge anything because I am speaking from the side of personal human interaction and experience and I always was, just because I don't have some institutions label slapped on the end doesn't mean its something that never happened. ( I have many years of experience living around other people and noticing real life behavioral patterns, kinda happens that way). But I can slap the phrase "scientific study" on the end if you like, if that makes it more palatable?

-This study brought to you by Prof Drake of the university of Idontneedtoreadsciencearticlestohaveanopiniononeverylittlething.   :monocle:


(now Im just gonna let this topic steer back on track, that being relationships with people younger than ones self)

[Meer]

Your sarcasm aside, I don't see how any reasonable person could throw out decades of scientific research because someone with a vested interest in the research being wrong, says it's wrong (and uses nothing but their own anecdotal evidence to prove it). An opinion based on nothing is worth just that. As for "just reading some articles online", I'm sure you mean from respected international psychological journals, peer-reviewed for accuracy.

I "love to beat that drum" because it's the most reliable way we currently have to fully understand the complex nature of neural development. I'm sorry you don't like the results, but unless you can definitively prove otherwise... well, there they are. Your personal experience has no generalizability and cannot be applied to a large population, making it worthless as an indicator of any serious trend, which, as far as I'm concerned is the only way to approach a question like the one this thread asks. This is of course in terms of a broad-sweeping answer as there is individual variation between individuals, but within the same 'confines' of neural development. :)

That being said. If all you have to offer is bitterness and sarcasm without any facts, I'll gladly consider this conversation finished.

[Sasha]

I'm sorry you don't like the results, but unless you can definitively prove otherwise... well, there they are.

I am certain you could have quoted your mentioned author(s) conclusions along with your opinions for support to be constructive. Is it divided in to country? sex? race? what are the sample sizes/methods?

Your assumptions that evidence from samples weighs so heavily against inferred lack of proof as evidence is not supporting your claims.

It is otherwise no different from a religious argument where we are not capable yet to go beyond speculation.

As for your comparisons in the final paragraph, this is where the strength of having a mountain (and decades) of scientific inquiry to back up your opinion helps

If your information is this conclusive of psychologyneurology, then why we are even conscious?

I would have to say I would take your personal experience with a grain of salt over verified and repeated studies

You do not have to disprove or agree with peoples opinions on a community forum, would you suggest the original poster go word for word "by the book"? Does that work?

[Drake Wingfire]

Please see the now bold text highlighted parts of my last post.

Cheers!

[Meer]

I am certain you could have quoted your mentioned author(s) conclusions along with your opinions for support to be constructive. Is it divided in to country? sex? race? what are the sample sizes/methods?

Hi!

Yup, I could have but as I mentioned I would be happy to provide the articles to anyone who cares to assume I'm making it up or that the research is flawed.  As I've also mentioned it very well could be, but as of right now it's the best we've got. As you no doubt know psychology and the study of neurobiology is complicated, so I'm drawing from a series of studies that have used various methods and samples to reach roughly the same conclusions; There is a notable underdevelopment of emotional pathways and structures in the teenage brain. :)

Unfortunately many can't be accessed without access to a scholarly database (short of having the physical copy of the journal in your hands), usually these are provided by Universities to students, but I've downloaded them and re-uploaded to mediafire so you can take a look. The first one shows a marked increase in cognitive function over the adolescent years and can be used to infer that these functions are still in a state of development at these ages. The second one shows the differences I was mentioning earlier in facial recognition, with a comparison made between children, adolescents and adults. The trend, once again, implies a strong upward of facial accuracy in relation to age. Children are less accurate than adolescents, who are less accurate than adults. The third is a brain-imaging study which attempts to map the course of this development. As Figure I in the study shows, myelination (the final step of base development) in the prefrontal cortex does not occur until roughly age 16. As you no doubt already know, the brain functions based on synaptic signals being sent along the axons/dendrites/etc of neurons. Myelination refers to the process in which the axons of these cells are wrapped in a kind of membrane which speeds up this process (like water conducts electricity). I'm really simplyfing it but hopefully you get the idea. Development does not end at myelination though as neural synaptic pathways are still being developed via. the propogation of new neurons.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?s9v32hv3kslssbh
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ikff1ijj2mrzy1g
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?15dmqs5dssbyso4

Obviously this isn't inclusive of ALL of the studies done on the subject, I mean, that's a little unreasonable. As for divisions based on culture, race and such? Awesome question. I, personally, haven't seen much (though at least one of these studies does look at developmental differences in adolescent boys vs. girls) in terms of culture. There are studies that indicate a universal trend between cultures in terms of brain development, as I recall, but I would need to double check that. However, as we are in Canada and I assume the OP isn't dating someone from the other side of the world (It is possible they moved here I suppose), inter-cultural generalizability is a moot point in this discussion.

And here, just to illustrate my point about what myelin is:

Your assumptions that evidence from samples weighs so heavily against inferred lack of proof as evidence is not supporting your claims.

It is otherwise no different from a religious argument where we are not capable yet to go beyond speculation.

I admit, you lost me here. Are you implying that brain scans of neural activity when presented with emotionally-based stimuli (facial features of various emotions) and other such studies are as valid as no proof at all? I'm sorry, not trying to be rude, just trying to understand what your point is here.

If you're trying to say that it's still speculation, well, in that sense all of science is still speculative in that we don't know everything there is to know yet and currently held theories may be refuted in the future. Based on the facts we have now (decreased neural activation in the prefrontal cortex, an area which has been linked to higher cognitive functions of humans, in teens) though conclusions can be made. However, I don't see it as comparable to a religious argument since we have evidence of one, but none of the other. Neurophysiology and psychology are not based on faith, but evidence that we draw conclusions and new theories from.

If your information is this conclusive of psychologyneurology, then why we are even conscious?
You do not have to disprove or agree with peoples opinions on a community forum, would you suggest the original poster go word for word "by the book"? Does that work?

Hahaaa, I see what you did there with crossing out psychology. It's a valid point, and there are constant struggles between whether psychology is encroaching on the study of neurology. However, neurobiology is a part of psychological study as how the brain operates physically is incredibly important in understanding why we are the way we are, why it operates like that and other questions psychology asks. It also overlaps with other fields of study. I figured if I just said psychology though people would understand what I meant. As for why we're conscious? That's probably the $10 million question in psychology. It's what interests the hell out of me, personally. I don't see the relation to the current discussion though.

As for disproving/agreeing with other people, what's the point of expressing an opinion if you aren't willing to discuss it? It's like showing up at a party and then demanding nobody talk to you. Definitely, I love it when people disagree with me because if my opinion is wrong, or based on faulty proof, I'd love to hear about it so I can develop my opinion accordingly. As for claiming my info is conclusive and is the end-all-be-all of neurobiological understanding? Not a chance; would never dream of it. It is, however, stronger than personal opinion based on anecdotal evidence from scenes observed at a job working with the public. That being said, anecdotal evidence from scenes observed at a job working with the public is in turn stronger than other forms of proof as well. This isn't a matter of "I'm right, you're all wrong", this is simply a matter of "I think this way based on these studies which coincide with a larger number of studies as well". I welcome being proven wrong, because like anything, knowing what something isn't brings you a step closer to understanding what it IS. However, I won't simply just roll over and discard piles of evidence because of an anecdotal observation. :)

But thanks for questioning, any other questions/complaints? I'd be happy to hear them!