PDA

View Full Version : Live fast...die young



Woebot
28-12-2006, 04:03 PM
reading something recently (actually george melly's "revolt into style") and it struck me that i'd kinda half forgotten that one of the primal drives of rock'n'roll (see swears's thread) is about that acceleration of life.

for years (a whole decade?) i'd sort of shunted that into the back of my mind, the logic of that. but recently i've been spending lots of time with ailing and quite occasionally very senile relatives. very old age really isnt such a nice thing. perhaps drugs and hedonistic self-abandon, providing they lead to an early death ;), aren't such a bad idea?

Lichen
28-12-2006, 04:42 PM
I think a medium-paced existence is called for, hopefully leading to death before complete decrepitude sets in, but after the point at which your departure is considered tragic.

swears
28-12-2006, 05:35 PM
I dunno...there's something really infantile about complete hedonism, like a spoiled kid stuffing his face with pick 'n' mix. I suppose you can have some great experiences on drugs, but why would you want to be out of it all the time? I've known a coke-head and an alcoholic and they were both bright young people with a lot of potential that eventually became completely insufferable to be around.

zhao
28-12-2006, 08:48 PM
sure, sounds great. fill your body with poisons, confuse your mind, and destroy yourself physically and spiritually, go out in a "blaze of glory" which in reality is probably tubes sticking out of you on a hospital bed after a car-crash or overdose, last thing you see the indifferent look in a nurses eyes, leaving the people around you to pick up the pieces left by your reckless, stupid life.

fuck yeah! rock'n'roll!

or...

we can strive for a healthy, peaceful, and beautiful death. sure it is an act usually acompanied by misery, suffering, and ugliness, but I not only refuse to believe that it is necessary, but think that it is the wrong way to die -- the result of a wrong way of life.

death is an art. just like life. most are very, very bad at both.

the ideal is a disease free, guilt free, and elegant passing... one merely goes to sleep when he/she is ready, and does not wake up.

of course this is the ideal... I constantly battle with straying and staying on the path... but at least I know that there is a path.

recommended reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Book-Living-Dying-International/dp/0062508342/sr=8-1/qid=1167338852/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-7593313-5878810?ie=UTF8&s=books

DJ PIMP
28-12-2006, 09:06 PM
Being old needn't be entirely miserable. A recent brush with the elderly was the grandfather of an ex-partner. He was largely immobile but an altogether lovely man - always ready with a joke or story and a laugh.

"I've seen a great many seasons" he said poignantly, "...rugby and cricket that is".

I live downstairs from a woman of 80 and she is simply great. So vital and fresh. Aquarobics, gardening, lunching with friends. She says that age is a state of mind. I really cherish her company.

The "here for a good time, not a long time" notion can become self-fulfilling.

swears
28-12-2006, 09:40 PM
Kurt Cobain would be 40 next year.
The weird thing is, as I get older pictures of him look younger and younger. When I was a 12 year old, he looked like some gnarly, beardy grown up MAN, at 23, he looks like some mosher kid down the pub. Bit of a Dorian Gray thing going on for people my age I think.

noel emits
28-12-2006, 11:55 PM
Reckless self-abandon eventually leads to displeasure, discomfort and general suffering and is therefore not really hedonistic at all, in the proper sense. The road of excess...

Anyway, surely old age is a great time to get right into drugs?

mms
29-12-2006, 01:45 PM
sure, sounds great. fill your body with poisons, confuse your mind, and destroy yourself physically and spiritually, go out in a "blaze of glory" which in reality is probably tubes sticking out of you on a hospital bed after a car-crash or overdose, last thing you see the indifferent look in a nurses eyes, leaving the people around you to pick up the pieces left by your reckless, stupid life.

fuck yeah! rock'n'roll!

or...

we can strive for a healthy, peaceful, and beautiful death. sure it is an act usually acompanied by misery, suffering, and ugliness, but I not only refuse to believe that it is necessary, but think that it is the wrong way to die -- the result of a wrong way of life.

death is an art. just like life. most are very, very bad at both.

the ideal is a disease free, guilt free, and elegant passing... one merely goes to sleep when he/she is ready, and does not wake up.

of course this is the ideal... I constantly battle with straying and staying on the path... but at least I know that there is a path.

recommended reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Book-Living-Dying-International/dp/0062508342/sr=8-1/qid=1167338852/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-7593313-5878810?ie=UTF8&s=books

i sure hope you don't get hit by a car or fall over down the stairs zhao.

people should live and die the way they choose really, ideally.
this of course shouldn't involve cruelty to others .

the thing i've almost always found about full abandoned hedonism is of course, it hurts after a while, it's an offering (of yourself ) rather than an engagement with anything, it flashes before you, and can only be made sense of afterwards as an emotion, or something more like just hedonisim. It's often rather selfish, as we know.

Guybrush
29-12-2006, 04:32 PM
It seems to me like you are assuming that elderly people are having it rough just because their lives seem unappealing to you from where you currently stand. Is this not a very self-centric way of approaching reality? Maybe they find their joys in things we can faintly comprehend until we reach their age? That is not to say there are not hapless elders, though; learning about such humans always breaks my heart.

Woebot
29-12-2006, 04:53 PM
It seems to me like you are assuming that elderly people are having it rough just because their lives seem unappealing to you from where you currently stand. Is this not a very self-centric way of approaching reality? Maybe they find their joys in things we can faintly comprehend until we reach their age? That is not to say there are not hapless elders, though; learning about such humans always breaks my heart.

well not really. the 3 very old people i've been around alot recently genuinely find their condition thoroughly depressing and vexing.

i do have this fantasy image of myself as an eighty-year old jogging along the beach, but ageing (cancer and alzheimers in particular either one being the manifestation of DEATH, one for the body, t'other for the mind) are i'm sure tricky bullets to dodge.

more stories about happy old people please.

throughsilver
29-12-2006, 07:08 PM
My great, great auntie doesn't know who I am anymore.

It's horrible, and I'm not sure certain patronising straight edgers decrying rock and roll really understand the potential negativity of senescence. It can be peaceful and dignified. Conversely, it can also be a living hell. It seems to me that one or two people are hung up on the fact that drugs/hedonism/whatever have made friends annoying (not wanting to trivialise that, but I'm sure most of us have known people whose lives have been ruined by drugs. Doesnt make it blanket bad).

In terms of the hedonistic/decadent subtext, I'm all for it. If I had the money, I'd be all about it. Few things in art are as awesome as Wilde/Pater/Swinburne. And that's without getting into the age-old Hicks quotation about 'all the artists' being 'real fucking high on drugs'.

I'm in favour of living fast and dying young, as long as the end has been justified by the means.

the undisputed truth
29-12-2006, 08:46 PM
i think the rationale is...

...live fast, die young...leave a good looking corpse

or conversely...

....live slow, die old...leave a good looking corpse

whats funny about that is the narcissistic western tradition continuing even in death...

...we must at all times keep up appearances !!!

zhao
29-12-2006, 09:08 PM
'm not sure certain patronising straight edgers decrying rock and roll really understand the potential negativity of senescence. It can be peaceful and dignified. Conversely, it can also be a living hell.

that is why I became vegetarian (99% of the time). and really should go toward raw-vegan --- not only for the environment, not only for kindness to animals, but mainly BECAUSE THIS IS HOW TO AVOID DISEASE AND SUFFERING LATER IN LIFE. (one of, obviously. but the main one)


'all the artists' being 'real fucking high on drugs'.

how cliche and boring can you get?

but just so you know, I'm far from "straight edge". my first "summer job" in highschool was selling heroin - and not the tar bullshit by the way, top of the line China-White FYI. and also acid and weed on the side.

I have had many experiences with heroin, opium, cocaine, crack cocaine, chystal methane, ecstasy, marijuana, mescaline, LSD, mushrooms, GHB, quaaludes, etc., etc. and still occasionally smoke weed or eat some mushrooms. also am looking forward to trying DMT.

mind expanding is good to try when growing up. and I strongly believe in experiencing all that life has to offer. but this is precisely my point: getting hung up on drugs is a very, very narrow sphere of experience -- and the druggie is living a fraction of what life can be.

I feel sorry for people who discover drugs after age 25. that is just bad news. anyone over 35 still hardcore into drugs is just fucked up.

tht
29-12-2006, 10:43 PM
not sure about that, i can't imagine a more congenial way of being narcotised than being old, with plenty of money and no need to work, and a continuous supply of diamorphine/opium/valium etc.....again hallucinogenics are usually fairly clean too

the only drugs that will almost invariably cause at least a little bit of damage are coke/amphet and their deriatives ie the accelerants, and high levels of alcohol

very hard to talk definiitevly of senilesence when the risk factors vary genetically and environmentally, some will be near full senility at 65, then there are cases like elliot carter who is almost 100 now i think, and still writing some very difficult music, claude levi-strauss is about the same age too

the young person's fondness for the death insinct as seen in all those 27yr old rocks stars suicides, same old shit really, there has always been an appeal for taking agency in one's own death (classical antiquity, seppuku, martyrdom operations etc), then it was the 40ish liver failure, now even the stupidest canadian nu grunge lumpens would wait for presenile euthanasia in discreet swiss clinics rather than have their vomit flecked corpses in blurry flash video for all to see

zhao
29-12-2006, 11:21 PM
this kid at work, who is 25, says that when the subject of chain-smoking or something comes up: "I don't want to live long anyway". and I'm always like "umm... do you think that there is a slight chance that at some point in the next 25 years of your life you might change your mind about that?"

nomadologist
30-12-2006, 09:30 AM
Reckless self-abandon eventually leads to displeasure, discomfort and general suffering and is therefore not really hedonistic at all, in the proper sense. The road of excess...

Anyway, surely old age is a great time to get right into drugs?

ok there's a lot to respond to. anyone who is doing drugs to "expand" their mind IS wasting their time. anyone who does drugs to die younger might not get what they bargain for. Look at Iggy Pop and Burroughs.

The bigger problem with getting old in my mind is less the literal physical problems (which are bad and I plan to avoid them at all costs) than the fact that in our cultures you may as well be a leper if you're older than 60. If you're a woman, you might as well be a leper if you're older than 35 and have had the nerve to bear children and don't look good in a bikini anymore. Then after 60 if you dare to continue living you're like a stomach-turningly gross harpie monster who exists only to be fodder for gross-out jokes in PG-13 films. So you have not only the physical and mental decay to look forward to, but also total ostracisization and the feeling one gets from knowing how repulsive your presence is wherever you go.

So I'd love to shave off the nursing home years. The best way to do that without drugs (which might not work, I can think of really really really old lifelong drug users) is probably by dying of a heart attack at an early age. Or going to tanning salons and getting irradiated so you die in your 40s of terminal cancer. Unfortunately when cancer is bad enough the morphine drip doesn't even mitigate the pain.

I'm going to euthanize myself with opiates when the time comes. Unless they reinstate social security or something in the intervening 40 years or I make enough to retire to Lake Como or something.

nomadologist
30-12-2006, 10:02 AM
the only drugs that will almost invariably cause at least a little bit of damage are coke/amphet and their deriatives ie the accelerants, and high levels of alcohol


Actually, in terms of long-term, irreversible damage, the worst drugs are ecstasy and methamphetamine. Both kill really key dopamine channels, fry seratonin reuptake and release mechanisms, and in general reconfigure things about your brain chemistry that can't be reversed. Ecstasy at any dose is a neurotoxin, which means even a tenth of a "dose" is poisonous. Because it isn't usually a "drug of abuse" with a high risk of psychological dependency most people don't use it enough to incapacitate themselves. They still haven't figured out how bad its very long-term effects are. Meth permanently damages long-term memory and is seriously addictive. I'm sure its memory-obliterating effects are the reason why some people like it, though. I think withdrawal symptoms from meth are the most potentially lethal of all physically addictive drugs and include stroke seizure. In the U.S., cleaner and more efficient amphetamines are prescribed in pill form for ADD/ADHD maintenance treatment.

Coke is a stimulant--it will change your brain chemistry and definitely affect mood for longer than its high lasts, but its effects are temporary. Some people experience "cocaine psychosis" under its influence which can get pretty extreme (Naomi Campbell). The physical dependency is nowhere near as hard to overcome as the psychological addiction, but its physically damaging effects are not nearly as bad or as long term as amphetamines. Does dry out your skin and will make you look old if you insist on losing enough sleep. In the U.S., doctors also use cocaine-like stimulants (Ritalin) for ADHD/ADD in teens and preteens.

There are lots of pharmaceuticals that are insanely damaging, not to mention over the counter drugs that are bad for you in ways that would make people sue the manufacturers for if they were only told. They just don't tell you about them because the good guys (mostly white men) make money from those drugs instead of Columbians and other non-whites.

In terms of drug use being a sure-fire way to shave off those last terrible years--you could wear down your systems and organs and die younger, or you might just make your nursing home stay much much more torturous and expensive. Marijuana use has been linked to a decreased risk in Alzheimer's, which is another reason why it's stupid THC isn't used medicinally in the West as a general practice.

Drug use is worth incurred damage in my opinion if your experiences seem worthwhile or add something interesting and productive to your life. If they don't, or if they're a destructive force, you're wasting time and it wouldn't be worth future damage just to live out some rock and roll ideal (cliche). Sadly, I think drug use is the closest thing people have under capitalism to forging experiences outside of the "entertainment" modes clean and sober people use. Which is not to say that it absolves you from capitalism, but it's the only way I can think of to intellectually resist, say, the things TV tells me to want and like and do in any literal experiential way. It's a distraction, too, but at least its content is directed by me rather than advertisers who want to appeal to Texans who like Fox News.

Before drug use was pathologized barely a century ago, drugs (especially hallucinogens) were openly used across most cultures to perform rituals (to spiritual ends) and rites (to social ends) and addiction was unheard of. Science took these drugs and created exponentially stronger forms that are still essential to basic medical practices like surgery (benzocaine, lidocaine, topical anaesthesias) and post-operative pain management (opioids). Then people discovered they could medicate themselves and the rest was history...

Guybrush
30-12-2006, 11:22 AM
I wonder if ageism is going to decrease as the baby-boomers get older? Here in Europe the importance of elderly people delaying their retirement is constantly stressed, mostly because birth-rates are too low for the working population to sustain a reasonable welfare for an ever aging population.

Ageism, to me, is merely the most obvious manifestation of our society's contempt for weakness and, more poignantly, our society's dread of weakness; the weak remind us of what we are ferociously working to avoid—being helplessly at the mercy of an unconcerning society.

This (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~aging/ModuleAgeism.html#anchor732139) 1994 report is pretty illuminating.

Guybrush
30-12-2006, 11:27 AM
Nomadologist: I think your leper analogy is on the money, but does that not mean that the rock-'til-they-drop dinosaurs (Jagger et al.) are actually doing our society a huge favour by defying the prejudices against elders?

mms
30-12-2006, 11:29 AM
Before drugs were pathologized, drugs (especially hallucinogens) were openly used across most cultures to perform rituals (to spiritual ends) and rites (to social ends) and addiction was unheard of. Science took these drugs and created exponentially stronger forms that are still essential to basic medical practices like surgery (benzocaine, lidocaine, topical anaesthesias) and post-operative pain management (opoids).

well in europe anyway the drug most discussed or found in bodies etc as part of rituals and rites etc was the opium poppy, course it's still used used over europe and the middle east etc but up until the yellow peril public outcry in the late 1800's it was widely used as a very popular pain killer too, heroin was actually first synthesised in the uk.

i'm not sure if i'd like to die with yet more drugs in my system, my grandpa stayed healthy as he could by going on the slightly younger age group saga holidays and popped off with a heart attack in his 90's. he walked and cycled, and was as tough as old boots, basically he just got on with the things he wanted to as much as he could.

On the other hand my grandma who was pious and incredibly moany pretty much moaned herself to death, lost her head and looking for misery in everything as she did, everyone was quite relieved when she went.

nomadologist
30-12-2006, 12:06 PM
but just so you know, I'm far from "straight edge". my first "summer job" in highschool was selling heroin - and not the tar bullshit by the way, top of the line China-White FYI. and also acid and weed on the side.

I have had many experiences with heroin, opium, cocaine, crack cocaine, chystal methane, ecstasy, marijuana, mescaline, LSD, mushrooms, GHB, quaaludes, etc., etc. and still occasionally smoke weed or eat some mushrooms. also am looking forward to trying DMT.


Zhao: DMT was kind of a let down in my experience. other people i know thought it was great, so maybe it was just me. one of my friends described it like this: "it's like being shot out of a cannon into the far reaches of nowhere." i thought it was kind of harsh like mescaline, very short in the peak, and not quite as dissociative as it had been described to me and altogether lasted maybe 3 hours including the comedown. i don't like smoking anything much, either, so that could be why it sucked. in general i think LSD is 10x > DMT or any of the designer hallucinogens like AMT, 2ct7, blah blah.

P.S. do you live on the west coast, Zhao? in brooklyn, there are tons of 10- and 12-year-old street dealers who get bundles from their dads and rebag them into twice as many dimes cut with sand, which the dads don't mind as long as they use their own stamp so the poor quality stuff doesn't effect their own branding. failing math, but they're handy with the digital scale, then in jail by 18. you're an incredibly strong person for finding your way out of that. (have you read the sasha frere-jones article about this crazy "new" music he calls "cocaine rap"--he hilariously seems to think that hip-hop wasn't always full of lyrics about selling coke and crack, and heroin [the references to that are lost on most white people, tho] and that it is somehow an exaggeration of the truth when hip-hop artists talk about their formative years as dealers...)

nomadologist
30-12-2006, 12:36 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/health/05age.html?ei=5070&en=1b0f6ff21b244ada&ex=1167627600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1167480950-2NkDEfZyoH1edUGQLse5Fg

Guybrush, did you catch this article above in the times? It's about a study that proved that negative stereotypes regarding the elderly have immediate and statistically significant (in the sense of serious and tangible) effects on the memory, mood, coordination, mobility, etc. of elderly subjects in the study. It's a pretty amazing finding, especially if they're able to prove the same about negative reinforcement and other physical conditions or behaviors.

Ageism is ridiculous and maybe the last "ism" in America that isn't the center of a billion frivolous lawsuits. I wish it were, though. The way Americans worship youth in and of itself disgusts me. As soon as they hit 25, Americans stop taking care of themselves entirely, stop dressing well, gain 50 lbs + then complain about how their metabolisms "slowed down" when they were old (which must mean older than 20). American men then complain that their wives never want sex, then they have another beer with the guys and watch a 7-hour commercial, i mean, football game, and crack jokes about the Pussycat Dolls being their dreamwomen.

OK, I wonder if this is just American ageism: lately, I've been disgusted by how often men who are at least 40 (and apparently deep into a midlife crisis) leer at girls who are unarguably not even 15 yet (and nowhere near as attractive as the grown women) on the subway/street. I've noticed that this must be acceptable in some cultures, because Latino men do it openly and shout obscenities after the girls quite proudly. What annoys me more are the white men who think no one notices they're being slick and try to sneak very long, intent peeks at the 13-year-old girl standing in front of their seats, of course ignoring the disgusting old granny of a 30-year-old pregnant woman who needs a seat. I usually stare them down by glaring straight at their eyes till they startle and blush bright red. I can't decide whether it's because men are really such pathetic losers, or if it's our culture telling them Lindsay Lohan is ideal and basically anyone is hot if they're younger than 20 and "barely legal" (or whatever it is their favorite subscription netporn tells them those 35-year-old pros with pigtails and schoolgirl costumes are.) I find it supremely tacky and revolting. And I have a relatively high threshold for tacky/campy/kinky sexuality, hardly a prude. This is just too much, and it seems to get worse by the week.

nomadologist
30-12-2006, 01:16 PM
PS Living a hedonistic and decadent lifestyle, hoping to go out in a blaze of glory, is hardly unique to rock and roll. It has quite a history in literature and a lot of literary "merit". Nietzsche's whole Dionysian idea was a huge inspiration to Iggy Pop and David Bowie, among others.

swears
30-12-2006, 01:19 PM
The bigger problem with getting old in my mind is less the literal physical problems (which are bad and I plan to avoid them at all costs) than the fact that in our cultures you may as well be a leper if you're older than 60. If you're a woman, you might as well be a leper if you're older than 35 and have had the nerve to bear children and don't look good in a bikini anymore. Then after 60 if you dare to continue living you're like a stomach-turningly gross harpie monster who exists only to be fodder for gross-out jokes in PG-13 films. So you have not only the physical and mental decay to look forward to, but also total ostracisization and the feeling one gets from knowing how repulsive your presence is wherever you go.



Exaggerating a bit, no?

nomadologist
30-12-2006, 01:29 PM
hmm I wish I were exaggerating more. I work on the Upper East Side which is crawling with elderly women who are all desperately chasing after some version of their 20-year-old selves just to avoid feeling unwanted and revolting. of course, i think plastic surgery and anorexia make people look more repulsive, but men apparently don't. i just feel sad for these old women because it's too late, anyway. no one wants you anymore when you're female and older than--i'll stop exaggerating--45. they have everything money can buy and it still can't buy any convincing approximation of youth.

tht
30-12-2006, 02:21 PM
Actually, in terms of long-term, irreversible damage, the worst drugs are ecstasy and methamphetamine. Both kill really key dopamine channels, fry seratonin reuptake and release mechanisms, and in general reconfigure things about your brain chemistry that can't be reversed. Ecstasy at any dose is a neurotoxin, which means even a tenth of a "dose" is poisonous. Because it isn't usually a "drug of abuse" with a high risk of psychological dependency most people don't use it enough to incapacitate themselves.

sure but it will be a long time before the effects of it can be assessed in old age....maybe complete neurological anhedonia or perhaps low level symptoms for which there will be a new generation of seratonin system drugs, then it will be the kids and ssris repeating itself


Sadly, I think drug use is the closest thing people have under capitalism to forging experiences outside of the "entertainment" modes clean and sober people use. Which is not to say that it absolves you from capitalism, but it's the only way I can think of to intellectually resist, say, the things TV tells me to want and like and do in any literal experiential way. It's a distraction, too, but at least its content is directed by me rather than advertisers who want to appeal to Texans who like Fox News.

this all seems archaic, under god becomes under capitalism and the tv just feeding shit and all you can do is be seen to resist the cleanliness and sobriety of fox news........seems entrenched in sixites fear of suburbia and
affinity for gestures and aktionism, depravity as purity etc

that said i haven't done lsd dmt or any of that stuff, but is there anything in time of the hallucination that is discrete from the other temporary psychoses you can be sold or sent into?

swears
30-12-2006, 02:52 PM
I work on the Upper East Side which is crawling with elderly women who are all desperately chasing after some version of their 20-year-old selves just to avoid feeling unwanted and revolting.

Hmmm...well that just sounds like the enviroment you're in. I don't think it's so bad out in the 'burbs. To be honest, I don't generally find women over 35 sexually attractive, but that doesn't mean I think that they're "revolting"!

Guybrush
30-12-2006, 04:07 PM
What I found particulary interesting about that New York Times article was that the seventy-nine year old doctor said that depreciatory opinions about geriatrics was current even back when he was in medical school (which I assume means in the early 50s sometime). I have always had a (whimsical) idea that ageism is a product of the 60s and modern cutthroat individualism, but this seems to prove me wrong.

There are many interesting topics to discuss here, but I would like to separate elders obsession with looking ‘young’ from them being discriminated on the labour market and elsewhere (even if they may be distantly related—I imagine good youthful looks improve one's chances of getting hired for a job, for example). I also think olden men's (seeming) preference for adolescent looks is a slightly different topic.

Nomadologist's description of Upper East Side women makes me think of that scene in Godard's Breathless where Patricia is interviewing an author (I think) and he says something about the Paris women dressing ‘ridiculous’ in comparison with their American counterparts, an observation I interpret as meaning overly prudent and conservative. While this may have had some foundation at the time, it seems almost comical today: French women, along with their Latino counterparts, are the most dignified agers imaginable, their appearance masterfully complementing their age. Catherine Keener in Capote is a good example of a woman dressing befitting while remaining uppermostly sensual, I think:

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8281/keener6mf.jpg
...as I am sure Swears would agree.

In contemporary pornography actresses are for the most part given one of two labels: they are either ‘teens’ (18–25[-ish]) or ‘MILFs (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MILF)’ (25+). I believe this says something disturbing about our time.

nomadologist
30-12-2006, 10:03 PM
"In contemporary pornography actresses are for the most part given one of two labels: they are either ‘teens’ (18–25[-ish]) or ‘MILFs’ (25+). I believe this says something disturbing about our time."

Doesn't this prove that those things I was talking about ARE all related to ageism, Guybrush?

I mean, I'm not attracted to much older people of any kind, I understand only being attracted to people in your general age range. But there's something disturbing about male expectations for females w/r/t aging--like it shouldn't happen to women, when it does they are disposable, but it's perfectly natural for men. Watch TV for 15 minutes, women with kids being too old to want is the punchline to 90% of the jokes.

nomadologist
30-12-2006, 10:06 PM
Hmmm...well that just sounds like the enviroment you're in. I don't think it's so bad out in the 'burbs. To be honest, I don't generally find women over 35 sexually attractive, but that doesn't mean I think that they're "revolting"!

It's worse out in the burbs I've been in. I suppose the UK has nothing like America's obsession with plastic surgery and breast implants, etc. Just wait till you do.

nomadologist
30-12-2006, 10:07 PM
sure but it will be a long time before the effects of it can be assessed in old age....maybe complete neurological anhedonia or perhaps low level symptoms for which there will be a new generation of seratonin system drugs, then it will be the kids and ssris repeating itself



this all seems archaic, under god becomes under capitalism and the tv just feeding shit and all you can do is be seen to resist the cleanliness and sobriety of fox news........seems entrenched in sixites fear of suburbia and
affinity for gestures and aktionism, depravity as purity etc

that said i haven't done lsd dmt or any of that stuff, but is there anything in time of the hallucination that is discrete from the other temporary psychoses you can be sold or sent into?

Yeah I don't really think drug use gets you anywhere you couldn't necessarily go without drugs, but I'd also rather do drugs and sit and stare at a wall than watch TV. Any day.

Guybrush
30-12-2006, 11:58 PM
Doesn't this prove that those things I was talking about ARE all related to ageism, Guybrush?

I mean, I'm not attracted to much older people of any kind, I understand only being attracted to people in your general age range. But there's something disturbing about male expectations for females w/r/t aging--like it shouldn't happen to women, when it does they are disposable, but it's perfectly natural for men. Watch TV for 15 minutes, women with kids being too old to want is the punchline to 90% of the jokes.
They sure are, but I think other factors are more instrumental in creating conditions for discrimination of elders. To discuss them together would be to focus on the wrong things. Ephebophilia and men’s sexual preferences are such huge subjects in themselves.

The common attitude among my male friends (all of which are in their mid-20s) is that they always will have a preference for girls in, say, the 18–22 bracket. For them, meeting lecherous women in their early 30s is a jolting experience, these women being mere decayed versions of their nineteen year old selves (cf. your description of elderly Manhattanites), puerile and vacuous, yet lacking the vigour and winsome naïveté of their younger sisthrens. This is a harsh judgement, and one that is unfair and awfully sweeping, but I do think their concerns are honest. More crucially: I think they are common with older men too, Dissensus fave Žižek being a prime example.

In other words, I think middle-aged women's own behaviour is a contributing factor. However, I think you are right in that attitudes fostered by the entertainment industry are exacerbating the problems, maybe even creating them to an extent (Sex and the City being a convenient culprit in this respect―infantilism as dogma).

the undisputed truth
31-12-2006, 12:48 AM
FWIW I've met a few GILFs...

...G-moms ;)

nomadologist
31-12-2006, 01:36 AM
They sure are, but I think other factors are more instrumental in creating conditions for discrimination of elders. To discuss them together would be to focus on the wrong things. Ephebophilia and men’s sexual preferences are such huge subjects in themselves.

The common attitude among my male friends (all of which are in their mid-20s) is that they always will have a preference for girls in, say, the 18–22 bracket. For them, meeting lecherous women in their early 30s is a jolting experience, these women being mere decayed versions of their nineteen year old selves (cf. your description of elderly Manhattanites), puerile and vacuous, yet lacking the vigour and winsome naïveté of their younger sisthrens. This is a harsh judgement, and one that is unfair and awfully sweeping, but I do think their concerns are honest. More crucially: I think they are common with older men too, Dissensus fave Žižek being a prime example.

In other words, I think middle-aged women's own behaviour is a contributing factor. However, I think you are right in that attitudes fostered by the entertainment industry are exacerbating the problems, maybe even creating them to an extent (Sex and the City being a convenient culprit in this respect?infantilism as dogma).

I think that since women are always socially valued or devalued according to their sexual utility, in any situation, ageism for women is a function of their perceived sexual attractiveness and how well they are able to preserve themselves in their former glory as sexually attractive young women (because that is their only social significance). Thre's that, and let's not forget, their importance when it comes to pushing out kids and doing laundry.

What are you talking about, "lecherous" women? What does that mean? Are women lecherous as soon as they stop playing "winsome" and "naive"? Oh wait, I forget--women are naturally pure and chaste, and they are supposed to act naive because men think that men are naturally "dirtier" and must teach women about dirty things like sex. Yeah right. The average male (of any age, from what i can tell) couldn't find a clitoris with a compass and a map and trust me, 20-year-olds are no more naive or less lecherous than women in their 30s or 60s, they just know how to play dumb around men to get attention or things. (Because if I'm going have to play like I'm a blowup doll and rarely orgasm from sex I might as well get something out of the bargain, like gifts or money or something, right?)

I think what's sad about the elderly women on the UES is not that they're "decayed", it's that society is such that they have to go to such extreme ends to feel valued when they should not feel ashamed of being naturally 60-years-old and looking it. Many of these are extremely accomplished and intelligent women. But in the end, all that matters about women in the eyes of society is whether you are "fuckable" or at least how desperately you strive to portray yourself as some shadow of your formerly fuckable self as you have the nerve to get older and age. Otherwise you're an affront to the gaze and the symbolic order and all of that.

Maybe for males sexual attractiveness and ageism have little to do with one another, but for women those things are completely intertwine. And I thnk nothing could be further from the truth. Men freak out when they realize they're getting too old to attract these naive, winsome 18-25 year olds (silly because they probably NEVER did) and buy expensive cars and cheat on their wives with secretaries trying to get a corner office. Ageism and sexism and sexuality are all tangled up in one hideous knot, I would think.

nomadologist
31-12-2006, 01:48 AM
I don't like "Sex and the City" all that much, but that has nothing to do with "infantilism" and everything to do with the fact that in the end it is feeding you the same bullshit about women that everything else on TV is--that women are completely dependent on men and do everything just dreaming of the day they'll finally get married and be officially dependent on a man. What exactly do you find infantile about that show, or dogmatic? Don't quite get it.

I know it makes older men really uncomfortable to watch women talk openly about their sexual partners as "conquests" in the same way men might. But that part is the realistic part of the show. Women have one nights stands, casual sex, and talk about it in detail. The ones I know, anyway. The unrealistic/insultingly stupid part is where they try to make you believe ALL women think about in the end is some romantic ideal of prince charming whom they can marry and live with happily ever after. That women are unhappy when they have casual sex, that it feels bad or wrong to them, or isn't fulfilling because that's not how women are, "naturally" monogamous, rather than monogamous because they have only ever been conferred social and economic advantages insofar as they have agreed to live monogamously and as property that, much like cattle or land, is passed down patrilinealy from father to son-in-law. This is, of course, total bullshit. Some women want to get married, some women love nothing more than completely unencumbered sexual freedom. Nature and heteronorms are not the same phenomena.

swears
31-12-2006, 02:34 AM
OK, question: Do we find younger people attractive because a) we're conditioned to by society for some obscure reason, or b) because it's evolutionary trait...eg younger=more fertile/virile?

Our whole sex drive is geared towards procreation isn't it?

swears
31-12-2006, 02:45 AM
This brings up the whole politics of attraction.
I can't help who turns me on, I only find conventionally attractive 18-28 year old women sexually alluring. I know this is wrong but what can I do? I can't FORCE myself to want the intelligent but dumpy type can I?

nomadologist
31-12-2006, 02:49 AM
Some of both. There are legitimate reasons why youth would be more attractive across the board--because it signifies health, fertility, virility, etc. But procreation is a much more complex game than that. Part of evolution is not just reproducing, not just "surviving", but thriving. In some situations, it would make more evolutionary sense to procreate with a slightly older person who has more resources and who, therefore, is more likely to produce a child with you who has a higher likelihood of surviving longer and thriving. Or an older person who is healthier. There are all sorts of factors that are weighed in attractiveness when sex is performed in service of procreation. But that's never the only reason why it's performed.

Humans are literally "sex machines" as far as species go. We mate even when females aren't fertile. We expend tremendous energy and use insane amounts of resources seeking out sexual encounters that in all likelihood will not end in successful reproduction. Our secondary sex characteristics are very exaggerated compared to other primates/mammals: male humans have a much larger penis than even the most well-endowed of our close relatives in other species, female humans have breasts much larger than are functional. Humans are hairless and our offspring require extremely close attention and psychological nurturing far beyond what other species' offspring require. We have this brains and bodies that work together in a way that is hard to predict or pin down, especialyl with regard to sexuality. Our psyches are an insanely complex secondary sexual characteristic that is not easily accounted for by reductionist evolutionary "sociobiology."

nomadologist
31-12-2006, 02:52 AM
It's one thing for a 24-year-old male to be attracted to 18-25 year olds. It's another for a 40-year-old to prefer the fantasy of sleeping with 18-25 year olds to a real sexual relationship with a psychological peer. Being unhealthy in your sexuality is just as bad for your offspring as being physically unhealthy is, I'm sure. We just can't measure how bad, yet.

nomadologist
31-12-2006, 03:03 AM
I can't FORCE myself to want the intelligent but dumpy type can I?

You can't, but evolutionarily, it would make more sense to be attracted to someone who looks good AND is intelligent.

Personally I think men who can't deal with intelligent women are revolting. Men who think some completely busted girl is hot because she has an expensive manicure and lots of makeup and presents herself like a pornstar with the intelligence of a snail whose lobotomy was botched are a hoot. They're the types who are terrified of being challenged and think women should be ego-props. The best are the ones who are themselves dumb but rich and give women a lot of money to play this role for them. It would be one thing if the girls they were after were actually pretty but they're just heavily mascara-ed.

swears
31-12-2006, 03:11 AM
Obviously my ideal would be someone physically attractive and intelligent, I'm just saying it's a shame I'm so bound to physical attraction at all.

nomadologist
31-12-2006, 03:17 AM
physical attractiveness is completely subjective, i think the thing with males is they get hung up on wanting girls based on how attractive they think OTHER males find them, because women are supposed to confer status to men who "conquer" them based on how coveted they are as objects. instead of letting nature run its course by getting involved with lots of people in psychological ways and then seeing how far you can take it physically from there. people need to experiment more and stop watching TV and movies. porn is another thing, oh boy. makes men so terrible in bed when all they do is watch porn and have no real experience. guhh.

older women could show most men a thing or two about a thing or two, in summary ;)

the undisputed truth
31-12-2006, 05:26 AM
oh to be pretty and rich to even get a shot at the trophy women as status symbol...

...truth is, drunk enough and horny enough, a man will shag anything that moves. Young, old fat, ugly, non human

sometimes they don't even have to move...

...when it comes to breeding though, some of us are quite selective

the deal clincher though is, she gotta like pr0n...

nomadologist
31-12-2006, 06:36 AM
yeah, Undisputed, more reasons why men are so superattractive. I think I may turn lesbian for good at some point when I lose all patience for them. and move to venus or start an island where men aren't allowed to live. hell, i should probably just kick everyone off but me while i'm at it...

Guybrush
31-12-2006, 12:47 PM
I promise to write a more in depth explanation of what I mean in the new year (Happy New Year!), but for now I would like to point out that I was not criticising middle-aged women or them having a sex drive. Rather, I was questioning the attractiveness of middle-aged women behaving like they are nineteen years old, intellectually, not in their approach to lewdness (which I don't care for). When I wrote ‘winsome naïveté’ I was not thinking of some feigned cluelessness, but of the contagious joie de vivre that comes with having not yet experienced life's downsides. I think the first paragraphs of Rob Horning's ‘ “Poptimism”, the death of pop criticism’ (http://www.popmatters.com/pm/blogs/marginalutility_post/poptimism_the_death_of_pop_criticism) neatly sum up what state of mind I am striving to describe:

I always suspect people are being disingenuous when they foreground their alleged optimism. It seems like the kind of thing that would never occur to you to remark upon if you actually lived it. Real optimists are grounded in an instinctual self-reliance that isn’t pricked by the complaints and doubts of others. These people don’t need their hopefulness ratified at the expense of others. They seem to be completely secure in their own significance and can thus project an aura of unself-consciousness that directs energy out at others and tends to lift the moods of everyone around them.

That’s not the case for the self-professed optimists though. In the hands of these reactionaries, optimism is invoked to bash the nattering nabobs of negativism who have the annoying habit of questioning the status quo, of expecting more from the institutions that hedge individuals in, of seeking to resist culture-industry manipulation when it’s so much more pleasant and pleasing to simply give in. Self-proclaimed optimists want to shine the light on people who resist and humiliate them—they’d prefer to direct the tanks that rolled into Tiananmen than be the guy getting run over by them, and who can really blame them. (I’m sorry; I know that comparison is way over the top.) Naysayers always try to encourage people to ask more questions about what they are doing, to analyze one’s own motives, and that is admittedly irritating. Better to simply enjoy what has been made for us to enjoy rather than to ask why it sells our aesthetic capabilities so short. Why not just forget pride or any high-falutin’ notions of dignity and have fun, the fun you’re told to have? Optimism is a dogma to such people, an anti-critical code committed to finding the least-resistant path through the official culture being promulgated by the big media, big government, etc.
Eh, it's not entirely related, but it is a nice enough text. :) The ‘natural’ optimism he describes is exactly what I mean by ‘winsome naïveté’—I would think it is almost impossible to fake.

nomadologist
31-12-2006, 05:51 PM
still sounds weird, guybrush.

Guybrush
02-01-2007, 08:20 PM
First of all, I think we are digressing immensely since I contest Nomadologist’s view that:

Maybe for males sexual attractiveness and ageism have little to do with one another, but for women those things are completely intertwine.
All but one of Edith Stein’s examples of negative ageism, cited in the Berkeley report I linked to earlier, seem to be disengaged from the sexual realm:

Older persons falter for a moment because they are unsure of themselves and are immediately charged with being 'infirm.'
Older persons are constantly "protected" and their thoughts interpreted.
Older persons forget someone's name and are charged with senility and patronized.
Older persons are expected to 'accept' the 'facts of aging.'
Older persons miss a word or fail to hear a sentence and they are charged with 'getting old,' not with a hearing difficulty.
Older persons are called 'dirty' because they show sexual feelings or affection to one of either sex.
Older persons are called 'cranky' when they are expressing a legitimate distaste with life as so many young do.
Older persons are charged with being 'like a child' even after society has ensured that they are as dependent, helpless, and powerless as children.

But to continue the discussíon about attractiveness, I find this view remarkably retrogressive:

It's one thing for a 24-year-old male to be attracted to 18-25 year olds. It's another for a 40-year-old to prefer the fantasy of sleeping with 18-25 year olds to a real sexual relationship with a psychological peer. Being unhealthy in your sexuality is just as bad for your offspring as being physically unhealthy is, I'm sure. We just can't measure how bad, yet.Why do you have to be psychologically compatible to engage in a sexual relationship with someone (assuming that both participants are fully developed and over the age of consent)? Moreover, what exactly is ‘unhealthy’ about it?

This thread is shock full of hair-raising generalisations, this one, in particular, defies my experience:

physical attractiveness is completely subjective, i think the thing with males is they get hung up on wanting girls based on how attractive they think OTHER males find them, because women are supposed to confer status to men who "conquer" them based on how coveted they are as objects.

Oh, and lest we not forget: :) :) :)

nomadologist
02-01-2007, 08:36 PM
Ummm...of course it's full of "generalizations". That's what everyone talks in when they talk about sexuality and personal experience, unless they're being clinically scientific or psychiatric or psychological. Are you talking about clinical psychology? Nope. And psychological "compatibility" was never an issue I brought up. Psychological health in relationships is what I mentioned. I would say, in general, psychologists agree that it is more likely that you will be able to maintain a healthy relationship with someone in your age range, someone with whom you share at least some common experiences. You don't *have* to be "psychologically compatible" to engage in a sexual relationship. But you do have to be psychologically healthy in your attitudes toward sex in order to engage in a psychologically healthy emotional relationship.

Also: I never said ageism and sexism were the same thing, just that women face much harsher social consequences of ageism. These, along with the intensifying sexism women can expect to encounter as a consequence of aging, make the process more jarring for women (IN GENERAL, OF COURSE) than it is for men (who tend to be seen as "older and wiser and matured" as they age.)

Is Edith Stein the only authority on ageism? Pff.

nomadologist
02-01-2007, 09:04 PM
But to continue the discussíon about attractiveness, I find this view remarkably retrogressive:
Why do you have to be psychologically compatible to engage in a sexual relationship with someone (assuming that both participants are fully developed and over the age of consent)? Moreover, what exactly is ‘unhealthy’ about it?


Do I need to tell you what would tend to be unhealthy about someone over age 40 sleeping with an 18-year-old? The power dynamic would tend to be enormously skewed toward the older party so it would be highly likely that the younger party would be being used or taken advantage of in some way. Of course, it can happen in a perfectly healthy way, I'm sure. In my personal life I've had no problem sleeping with people some would consider "too old" for me. But very few 18-year-olds have the emotional maturity to be in a peer relationship with a 40+-year-old.

Of course, we're not talking in literal prohibitions here, but if you're at all into the Freudian model, it seems strange to object to this sort of general observation.

If you have never experienced women being treated as objects and desired based on the fact that sleeping with a women who is considered a highly desirable object among lots of males confers status then you live in some kind of Utopia, Guybrush.

Guybrush
02-01-2007, 09:17 PM
Also: I never said ageism and sexism were the same thing, just that women face much harsher social consequences of ageism. These, along with the intensifying sexism women can expect to encounter as a consequence of aging, make the process more jarring for women (IN GENERAL, OF COURSE) than it is for men (who tend to be seen as "older and wiser and matured" as they age.)
I never mentioned the word sexism, actually, I only use that term to describe ‘discrimination and/or hatred against people based on their sex rather than their individual merits.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism) I think where we differ is that I believe that ageism is almost entirely disconnected from sexuality, that it is a separate phenomenon, this depends on how you delimit the word, though; everyone is free to define it differently if they think it facilitates lucid thinking.

nomadologist
02-01-2007, 09:21 PM
I know you didn't mention the word sexism: I did. It is essential to the way women are treated as they age. Women are considered "past their prime" far earlier than men are in terms of literal age. This means that sex or gender is a factor in ageism-- which is, simply, discrimination based on age. Ageism's victims are considered "old." Women are considered "old" much earlier than men.

How could sexuality be disconnected from ageism? Part of the reason old people are seen as less "worthwhile", or a burden on society is because they are no longer fertile or virile, no longer attractive, no longer aesthetically pleasing...

Guybrush
02-01-2007, 09:45 PM
Of course, we're not talking in literal prohibitions here, but if you're at all into the Freudian model, it seems strange to object to this sort of general observation.

If you have never experienced women being treated as objects and desired based on the fact that sleeping with a women who is considered a highly desirable object among lots of males confers status then you live in some kind of Utopia, Guybrush.
I have not heard about the Freudian model, but I will gladely read about it if given a link. I object to that observation because I think every relationship (actually, most any situation)ought to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, I have experienced the situation you describe in the second paragraph, but it is far from common among my friends.

nomadologist
02-01-2007, 09:49 PM
It may not be common among your friends, but is it common in society? It is common in American society.

The Freudian model is long and complex. Have you read any Freud? I can summarize by saying Freud's psychological ideal for humans is health, which he understands (roughly) as the ability to deeply love and have "functional" relationships with others (in particular, a lover in a monogamous or at least a "committed" or "devoted" way).

Guybrush
02-01-2007, 10:16 PM
A few articles which reference him and a short psychological course in high school notwithstanding, no I have not. It sounds reasonable enough, though.

I have to go to bed, but let me summarise my objection:


i think the thing with males is they get hung up on wanting girls based on how attractive they think OTHER males find them, because women are supposed to confer status to men who "conquer" them based on how coveted they are as objects.
I think this is too pessimistic a view. My prolix wanderings earlier where all attempts to show that there are legitimate reasons for a forty year old man to be more attracted to a twenty year old than women (or men) of his own age, it all boils down to preferences. Yes, some men treat their partners as trophys, but far from all, and even those who do view her ‘trophyc’ qualities as subordinate, I think. Other qualities are vastly more important.

the undisputed truth
02-01-2007, 10:24 PM
in polynesian custom it was widespread for the aged 'chief' to take a younger wife...

...ain't nothing wrong with 40 yr olds shagging 18-20 yr olds if they're up for it

at least they'd get a better ride than some quickshooting teenager or twenty something just getting to grips with his piece...

nomadologist
02-01-2007, 11:19 PM
What if I were to ogle a 13-year-old boy on the subway? Would that be weird? Maybe my view is pessimistic in your mind, Guybrush, because you're male, right? You're probably one of the few decent males on earth, so you assume other men are decent, but they're not. Heh. I'm being realistic according to my experience.

do you know this from experience with men, Undisputed? hehe. because from experience--and counting the experiences of every girl i've talked to at length about this--older men aren't necessarily better in bed because they have more experience. you would think so, but you'd have a good chance of being wrong. the generation gap is such that a lot of guys 35 + were brought up with insane virgin/whore complexes and are terrible lovers accordingly. it's really a crap shoot for girls.

the only correlation i've noticed between one trait and good sex is that the guys who fit in least with heteronorms in terms of "straightness" and "masculinity" are best in bed. just in case you wondered. :cool:

the undisputed truth
03-01-2007, 04:15 AM
if the 13 yr old was pimped out with a come hither look I'd be hard pressed to tell their age and surely they're gagging to be looked such that it'd be shame and a disservice not too...

...all i know is I get better with age or maybe it's cos halfbred kiwi polynesian guys just do it better :p

the undisputed truth
03-01-2007, 05:05 AM
well actually if you reach around to the small of the back when shes climaxing and theres not a patch of sweat there then shes probably faking it...

...and I'd imagine many a 13 yr old boy was the muse to some of the greatest art in history

the undisputed truth
03-01-2007, 06:13 AM
you ever felt a girls back while shes coming or can you fake perspiration as well as a good moan ???

all i know is what i've experienced so exactly how many girls have you climaxed ???

...tell you what, go rub one out now and just when you're coming, feel the small of your back :D

ripley
03-01-2007, 06:31 AM
hey. what's the point of this?

what's the point of this discussion? what are you trying to prove?

edited to add: if I were the moderator I'd ban you for that last one, undisputed.

nomadologist
03-01-2007, 06:38 AM
i don't think there is one at this point. my original point was to talk about sexism and ageism being worse for women.

if you find anything i said offensive, i will erase it, ripley.

the undisputed truth
03-01-2007, 06:54 AM
hey. what's the point of this?

what's the point of this discussion? what are you trying to prove?



...in this case that subjective experience accounts for more than anecdotal evidence

that doing something, seeing it, feeling it and making it happen in the moment makes things a hell of a lot more believable to me than some woman on the net going on about what her friends said...

...i don't need any woman faking an orgasm it does me a disservice and demeans her. I couldn't give a flying fuck if you come or not but no woman should ever feel like they have to fake one to make some insecure dipshit feel 'manly'

and its just as well you're not moderating then isn't it...

...nice vanishing posts BTW nomad why'd you delete them ???

it does make mine seem out of context...oh well

...moving right along, as you were

NEXT...

mms
03-01-2007, 09:39 AM
...in this case that subjective experience accounts for more than anecdotal evidence

that doing something, seeing it, feeling it and making it happen in the moment makes things a hell of a lot more believable to me than some woman on the net going on about what her friends said...

...i don't need any woman faking an orgasm it does me a disservice and demeans her. I couldn't give a flying fuck if you come or not but no woman should ever feel like they have to fake one to make some insecure dipshit feel 'manly'

and its just as well you're not moderating then isn't it...

...nice vanishing posts BTW nomad why'd you delete them ???

it does make mine seem out of context...oh well

...moving right along, as you were

NEXT...

as ever, the complaint was aimed at you undisputed truth, and you are walking on very very thin ground already.

Grievous Angel
03-01-2007, 11:19 AM
you are walking on very very thin ground already.
Agreed.

swears
05-01-2007, 04:24 PM
I live like a middle-aged man now, so I don't see what I have to fear from getting old.

DigitalDjigit
09-01-2007, 10:03 PM
and trust me, 20-year-olds are no more naive or less lecherous than women in their 30s or 60s, they just know how to play dumb around men to get attention or things.


Do I need to tell you what would tend to be unhealthy about someone over age 40 sleeping with an 18-year-old? The power dynamic would tend to be enormously skewed toward the older party so it would be highly likely that the younger party would be being used or taken advantage of in some way. Of course, it can happen in a perfectly healthy way, I'm sure. In my personal life I've had no problem sleeping with people some would consider "too old" for me. But very few 18-year-olds have the emotional maturity to be in a peer relationship with a 40+-year-old.

This seems very contradictory to me.

Overall I think this was a good discussion and I generally enjoy reading nomadologist's posts but that needs some clearing up. Which is it: are 18 year olds immature and naive or not?

nomadologist
10-01-2007, 06:53 PM
some are, some aren't. and maybe the point should have been: what's lacking in the life of a 40+-aged person that they'd even go diving in the shallow end of the dating pool?

oh yeah, and in the first one "naive" goes in quotes--i was using it as Guybrush did. "winsome and naive"

swears
10-01-2007, 07:29 PM
some are, some aren't. and maybe the point should have been: what's lacking in the life of a 40+-aged person that they'd even go diving in the shallow end of the dating pool?



So they should just stay single? I hate people telling me "oh you should just stay single" like I'm some sort of imbecile incapable of a relationship. So to apply that to a whole demographic of people over 40 or whatever is a bit harsh.

nomadologist
10-01-2007, 07:34 PM
maybe. i mean, i don't personally have a moral objection to it (or really much of anything). but i do think there's an argument to be made from the clinical psychological perspective where it's hard to find "healthy" ground for a relationship between people who have more than 20 years between them.

swears
10-01-2007, 07:38 PM
Sorry, I thought you meant people over 40 dating anyone at all.:confused:

nomadologist
10-01-2007, 07:54 PM
hehe. that would be properly ageist, wouldn't it...