@89. Feeling a little bitter, are we? Most people don't pull that kind of thing. In the case of the girl who wrote in, she just seems to want to enjoy a relationship with an intelligent, mature man. I can relate. Many colleges only prohibit prof/student relationships if the professor is currently involved with their grades, exactly to prevent the porn-movie scenario of the dumb-but-hot student and professor.

This was the last place I was expecting to find anti-motorcycle bigotry, yet here it is. What is with the misplaced fear that people have of motorcycles? What's this? They're more dangerous? Who knew?

What if I was to say to taking one form of transportation to work carried with it a risk of 40 times more likely to die and 10 times more likely to be injured? Is that worth breaking up with someone over? If so, hearts should be breaking all over the US tonight because this is the difference between taking public transportation vs driving a car from the National Safety Council. That's right. All you automobile using lunatics out there are are living on the razor's edge! You're all obviously not relationship material risking your own lives so casually as you do every day behind the wheel of that death machine, your Toyota Camry. It is a fact that public transportation vs automobile is more of a safety improvement than private automobile vs motorcycle. Before you give me grief about not living close to the busline... Move. It's your life hanging here in the balance here, safety freak. Time that you sacrifice something to your safety gods.

No, I won't stop there. Everyone who doesn't telecommute to work is off my dating list. I mean, going outside? What if you were struck by a lightening? Or a meteor like in Siberia? I'm going to insist on a full DNA analysis to check for hereditary diseases that may shorten your lifespan before our first date. You expect me to die alone over here, or what, you monster! Put down that taco bell, and, what's that, a beer in your hand? Do you not read the monthly CDC morbidity reports for the sake of our future relationship, you heartless scumbag?

For fuck's sake. It is a bicycle with an engine attached, it is not an insane deal breaking neurotic death wish like going over Niagara falls in a barrel or playing Russian roulette for money like in the end of The Deer Hunter. Stop pretending that it is and make an attempt at being a reasonable relationship partner and try to understand what your boyfriend or husband sees in it by taking an MSF class or renting a scooter on your next tropical beach vacation.

@105 I described the only person I knew who did "pull that kind of thing". If you happen to know many of them, or to be one of them, please describe, or it didn't happen.

That one was already in her 40s and a "researcher" while I was 20 and a PhD student, so, not very likely to be jealous in any way of the laughingstock of that science department...

While she was pregnant, I heard her research coworkers jokingly wonder whether her child would sport a scar on his face - as her lover did. Later I heard her daily call her nanny from work. I sometimes happened to be in the room when her coworkers had to coach her on "her" research. It should have been embarrassing to watch, only she was such a bitch to any female PhD students, treating us as so many cleaning ladies, that the subject of "poor Nelly"'s ineptitude at science was just too amusing to not gossip about.

Just look at a scooter wheel with its little tire then look a a motorcycle wheel with it's street-worthy tire.

I learned to ride a motorcycle first and riding one of those toy scooters around . . . yes they go fast but they shouldn't.

Also:

"2. Helmets, closed toed shoes and jeans, at least. Every time."

Wearing "jeans" is as good as riding naked. Get real riding gear. Boots that actually cover the ankle should be a no-brainer.

"3. Black makes you look like a badass, sure, but brighter colors greatly improve the chances everyone else on the road will see you. My motorcycle is yellow."

You are still invisible from the front and the back, and your bike is ugly because it is yellow.
Ride like you are invisible. This is how I've survived on a skateboard and bicycle for most of my life (I traded them in for a bike five years ago).

"4. If you lose control, jump. I've never had to, but you do NOT want to be hanging on still if you hit a truck."

No: If you lose control, relax. Keith Code recommends practicing going limp from a riding position (on your bed or a thick carpet). Surfers don't need to practice.
If you're going to hit a truck you have either been following too close, don't know how the bike is controlled (counter-steering), or you're in one of the very rare situations when it is time to dump it, but be advised not to panic and think that you're there when you aren't.

@94 I don't see it as robbing anyone of their self-determination.

If I state early on in the relationship that smoking, binge-drinking, donorcycling (I love this one), cocaine and malt liquor are deal breakers, then it's only fair that I'll take steps towards ending the relationship - and this "no sex" advice is one - should any of the deal breakers come to be reexamined by he partner. He would be quite free to leave me and find another partner who has no such deal-breakers, if he becomes very intense about endulging in something I can't live with.

Not to say we couldn't be friends. And it's not cultural, it's personal. I personally can't be attached to a donorcyclist. I've been once, as a child, and this guy I considered a huge role model died at 26 although for once he wasn't speeding, just because a dog crossed his path and he swayed to avoid it and fell badly and died, his windpipe crushed by his helmet.

So, I don't get attached to donorcyclists ever more. Which doesn't mean I run around moralizing them, discriminating against them, or trying to make donorcycling disappear from the face of the Earth, which would indeed be bigotry.

Telling me I can't leave someone who I don't want to be with robs me of self-determination. FFS.

@110:
If you have agreed with your partner that it is ok to have sex on the side and to be quiet about it, then that is fine.

If your partner thinks you are monogamous but you have sex on the side and are quiet about it, that's not a lack of sincerity, that's a lack of honesty.
And you are increasing your partner's risk to contract an STI without him or her knowing that he or she is at increased risk.

On the motorcycling debate - maybe my perspective is a little more sour on them because I grew up around nurses. You don't have to hear very many stories of your mom or your older sister trying to help wash off the gravel that got embedded into someone's skin (or scrubbing off burned, dead skin) to develop a healthy appreciation of the dangers involved.

Which is not to say that I don't also appreciate the danger of fire in general and all of these metal contraptions harnessing controlled combustion to propel us through the world at superhuman speeds. If seriously and sincerely thinking about the reality of it (the ease with which something could go wrong, and the horrifying implications that could have) doesn't terrify you even a *little* bit, then either you're made of very stern stuff indeed, or you're lacking imagination and a sense of self-preservation.

My husband knew about my aversion to motorcycles specifically, and incautious driving generally, before he married me. Sappho, it isn't an abusive disregard for his sense of self-determination for me to ask him to continue to not engage in motorcycling. I'm a worrier with a gift for vivid imagination of worst-case scenarios - it would be abusive for him to be with someone like me and then ignore my concerns and do whatever silly or stupid thing struck his fancy. Just like it would be abusive for someone to marry a strictly monogamous person and then continually fuck other people.

It's not abusive to set a price of admission. It's abusive to agree to pay it, and then ignore that pledge.

I only personally know a half dozen college professors, but I know that two of them have had affairs with students. This must be as common as co - workers hooking up for us in the dreary old working world.
SB

For the nervous partner of a motorcyclist, I think Dan's advice is shit. For something like a mustache, which presumably Terry didn't care that much about, withholding sex is a kind of teasing way to say "please stop doing that thing that annoys me that you don't even like that much." If the boyfriend only vaguely wanted to ride the motorcycle, I think that Dan's advice could work, though it still wouldn't be my first choice. What I'd suggest for the nervous partner is that he/she think about whether there are circumstances in which the motorcycling will not worry him/her: will safety classes do it? Great protective gear? Restricting the places/times the motorcycling happens (only country roads and not freeways, for example)? Maybe the solution in which he never, ever brings it up or shows any sign of motorcycling would work for him/her (out of sight, out of mind). On top of that, how nervous is this really making him/her? Nervous enough that he/she will basically be unhappy as long as he's doing it?

I know that in my relationship, while I don't forbid my boyfriend anything... he is aware that there are things that he could do that would make me unhappy. And because he doesn't want me to be unhappy, he doesn't do those things. And I do the same for him. If I wanted a motorcycle and he really didn't want me to get one, I probably wouldn't. If you want something that your partner really doesn't want you to have, I think you have to think about whether you'd want it if it means you can't have them.

As for the student-professor relationship, it's pretty easy to meet professors outside of your department, actually. In most universities, there are usually general ed requirements; maybe you met in the class, waited until after the class was over, and eventually got together. Or maybe you didn't meet them in class at all. Maybe you work at a bar or restaurant frequented by professors and met them there. If you're not in their department and you're not going to take classes with them, I don't really see the harm. If your school's policy doesn't even allow it in those circumstances, though, he's taking a big risk in his career. Admittedly, it's not like you're considering it; you've already started, so in some ways, he's already taken the risk.

After scraping bits and pieces of cyclists flesh off the highways and rushing them to the hospital at least have him sign a card to donate his organs and respect the wishes of the card and remember kids there are two types of motorcycle drivers the ones who have had an accident and the ones who are going to have an accident and the most happy if they walk away are the guy or girl who ride in full leathers.

Um, the definition of "sex work" is any paid job in which someone is engaging in sexual activity as part of the duties of that job. It doesn't even need to involved physical sexual contact - no-touch stripping/erotic dancing or webcam sex shows (for money - some people with an exhibitionist bent do it for their own enjoyment, of course) are all sex work. SPT (that involves sexual activity; I'm still not clear on whether it necessarily does) is sex work, but sex work isn't necessarily SPT, and AFSPT doesn't know what the fuck ze's talking about when it comes to sex work. (By way of analogy, writing a scientific study for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal and writing a short story for The New Yorker are both writing. The former requires more degrees and is substantively different than the latter in terms of process, but both are writing work.) AFSPT simply thinks badly of sex work, so ze is reasoning that this form of sex work ze doesn't consider 'bad' thus cannot possibly be sex work.

Man, I can't believe all the irrational hatred there is here for motorcycles and the people who use them. Yes, there are idiots out there on two wheels -- so don't be one of them. I've ridden motorcycles for 15 years, and the only two accidents I've had were in parking lots.

To the original letter author: You should go actually read up on motorcycle safety, rather than clinging to ignorance. There are many, many choices that you make, that affect your safety, both regarding motorcycles and in life in general. A few very simple rules will start you (or your man) in the right direction:

1) Wear all the gear, all the time. This is such a common, ingrained thing among most good motorcycle riders that it is known by an acronym -- ATGATT. It doesn't matter if you're taking the bike down the street to fill it up with gas -- you wear full protective gear. You should only expose skin that you don't want. Do not waste time with denim (no matter how thick), and even leather is an inferior material. Go buy textile-based motorcycle jacket and pants. These things contain body armor at important places (spine, elbows, hips, knees), and the material they are made out of will protect you from the road. I've seen people spill a bike at 145 mph (on a closed race-track), and literally stand up and walk away, without so much as a bruise. Also, always wear a full-face helmet; the little kaiser helmets are for fucking idiots, and the 3/4 helmets will not protect you enough.

2) Take a motorcycle riding course. There is no substitute. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation runs classes continuously, and they're only $50 or so. These classes are excellent, and they assume zero knowledge. You can show up without knowing how to use a manual transmission. The only requirements are the ability to ride a bicycle, and a willingness to learn.

3) Ride appropriately. City streets are the most dangerous place to ride, since cars are constantly entering and leaving your field of view, traffic starts/stops so frequently, etc. Highways are one of the safest places to ride (at normal speeds, not insane speeds). A closed track is even safer, since they are designed for motorcycles (so they have long, safe areas to skid out on, in case the worst happens), but most people are not going to spend the money on going to a track.

4) Wear high-visibility gear. There are tons of high-quality motorcycle jackets available, with good visibility (high-viz orange or yellow, with reflective strips). There's no excuse for not wearing high-viz.

5) But ride like they can't see you.

6) Do NOT make the mistake of thinking that a bike that is less powerful is somehow safer. Below a certain range, a less powerful bike is actually more dangerous, because you cannot quickly accelerate or maneuver in order to control your position in traffic. I religiously avoid riding in the "blind spot" of other cars and trucks, and I know this has prevented incidents. I use the power and agility of my bike to keep me visible in traffic, and to avoid blind spots and other tricky spots. A less powerful bike would work against this. Do not buy a bike that is less than 600cc.

7) Do not buy a racing bike for your first bike. No matter what, you are simply not ready for it, because racing bikes are set up for maximum acceleration under the slightest throttle control. However, do not make the mistake of confusing the form or style of a bike, for being a racing bike. Most good bikes (including good first-timer bikes) have a style that is quite similar to racing bikes -- sleek, with a faring (the plastic cover around the body). The faring is not just for style -- it serves the useful purpose of efficiently pushing air out of the way, making the ride quieter and easier to control. You (or your guy) should read reviews of bikes, and specifically focus on how a bike handles, and what the acceleration profile is. A good first bike will have a smooth acceleration profile, and will have "general-purpose" handling -- good at all speeds.

I fully expect to have a motorcycle accident someday, just like I fully expect to be in a car accident one day. It will most likely not be due to my own actions, but that changes nothing. Because I know and accept this, I prepare -- I always wear all my gear (when riding), and I always wear my seatbelt (when driving). You should really educate yourself, get over the hysterical notion that motorcycles kill everyone who touches them, and understand what kind of behavior is risky, and what is not. As I've said, I've ridden for 15 years without injury, and everyone that I know who rides, rides safely.

@88

"Being in a LTR with someone who increases tremendously your risks of widowhood is something that must be carefully considered."

You mean like driving a car rather than taking public transit?

Crinoline (@10) -- yes, yes, and yes.
Any relationship that absolutely depends on others not finding out is probably best avoided -- because they always do.

@nuh uh

I have no hatred of motorcycles, nor the people who drive them.

One of my favourite people in the entire world, a very important person in my life rode a motorcycle. He died last year. Not from riding a motorcycle (that's not the point) but for those of us who are selective about who we bond closely with (quality over quantity), losing someone to death needlessly is something we're going to try to avoid in the few people we deeply care about.

@exnihilo (#106, 119):

THANK YOU! I too am disgusted with Americans mistaking the automobile as some sort of gold safety standard. They're usually too brainwashed to consider cars objectively. About 1 in 80 Americans die by car (counting only the kinetic damages), and obviously far more have a serious injury due to driving. However, motorcycles are indeed more dangerous to their users (mostly due to the presence of cars, which is no consolation for those of us killed by the mistakes of others).

MarleyBarley: your fears aren't unreasonable. They're just inconsistent and counterproductive. You might want to skip to my last paragraph.

Motorcycles are less sociopathic than cars. You're less likely to kill someone if you're on a motorcycle. You get better mileage (requiring fewer dead Iraqis (and fewer dead Americans due to lung diseases (and fewer life forms due to climate change, etc))), cause less congestion, consume less parking space, and cause less road wear. Perhaps the only reason we permit cars at all is that our government is too weak to fix the problem: any reasonable evaluation of the cost/benefit ratio shows that we should be dumping trillions of dollars into viable alternatives, making cars the least desirable alternative except for very specific purposes. And what the hell is up with SUVs? Driving an SUV while sober is about as dangerous to those around you as driving a car while legally drunk, and they're more dangerous for their occupants as well. Stupid Americans.

Oops--this turned into a rant against cars. I know that your point was more about sensible comparison of risks. Sorry to take that tangent.

I haven't seen data, but I'd like to speculate on a hypothesis: regularly driving a motorcycle makes you less likely to have a car accident, because you become a far better (more defensive and aware) driver. Not that that's worth much, since you're more likely to be killed in a traffic accident, but at least I bet you're less likely to kill someone. Come to think of it, I bet that those who spend, say, 10 youngish years regularly motorcycling (and taking safety courses/refreshers/etc) spend the rest of their lives driving far more safely--I'm going to pull a number out of my ass and speculate that the difference is easily a factor of 10.

Just one complaint: "it is a bicycle with an engine attached"--I think that's a poor comparison. While bicycles are ridiculously safe (6--20 times safer than just normal day-to-day life due to the enormous health benefits), the addition of the engine takes that advantage away. Americans mostly die due to lack of exercise, and so while regular (e.g. transport) bicycling increases life expectancy by around 7 years, if you add a motor, that advantage vanishes--now you're just in an un-armoured car, going at superhuman speeds with a bunch of large chunks of metal being controlled by other superhuman morons.

But I'm still with you: if I'd dump someone for one dangerous activity, I'd have to dump someone for any other. For example: regularly not going for a daily jog/bike/hike/dance/workout, or jaywalking, or eating any processed foods, or not eating enough leafy greens, or living in a polluted area, or not living in a country with health care...

@124

No, Thank you for the assist. To dance in the endzone on the issue...

Life is not about safe vs unsafe (nothing is actually safe since eventual death is a guarantee) it's about risks you're willing to take and risks that you're not. There is also opportunity cost in not taking risk... Living in your parent's basement until you die is actually quite safe, except that you've lost at life by simply not playing. Yes, of course everyone has the right to choose what levels of risk you'll assume in a relationship partner. That said...

What is frustrating for me is that everyone is sitting at a metaphorical blackjack table in every decision they make in life but suddenly when the motorcyclist lays down a hand people clutch the pearls and lecture you about your reckless gambling with your life. What? We haven't even moved from the same limit tables with the "I've been meaning to fix the brakes in my car" or "driving on the phone in my car" or "I should loose 40 pounds" let alone the "I should quit smoking" area of the casino. People are basically universally unpersuaded that someone who drives a car is reckless compared to someone who takes public transit. Why then should I take your danger of motorcycling argument seriously when this is almost exactly the same level of safety improvement? This is just hypocritical. We are not at the high roller tables over there with the free solo rock climbers, BASE jumpers, and white water rafters. There is a difference in risk that is lost in anti-motorcycle hysteria. It's like snakes or spiders or something. Climb off the dresser and see them for what they are.

I'll be the first to admit that motorcycling attracts a certain reckless demographic that prides itself on no safety gear, reckless and/or drunk driving. Were it not for the convenience of motorcycles they would have found another way to end up on the coroner's slab. These folks do nothing to help the statistics nor the image of motorcyclists.

On the other hand it's clear to me how much safer car drivers think driving is because cars hide the actual risks of the road from you as you cruise down the road in a comfy adjustable seat, wind free, climate controlled comfort, favorite song on the radio, soda and chips at the ready. It's easier to forget that you're one moment of inattention from the hospital yourself in that hermetically sealed distracting environment. Motorcycles do not hide this reality from you and consequently rational people are more careful when driving them.

As for the motorcycles are motorized bicycles comment. What I was going for there was that motorized bicycles and motorcycles share a common early history (look at those pics from 1900) and that you get to decide what you do with them. I know people who don't drive cars on freeways because they're risk adverse. I'm unconvinced that driving 25mph around town on a motorcycle is any more dangerous than riding a bicycle at 25mph around town. Given that I ride with full motoGP race kit on all the time I'm vastly better protected than someone wearing lyra and a styrofoam headband (bicycle helmet). But you're right and my bringing this up at all was just confusing. Bicycles are, of course, as you point out, vastly safer in the aggregate and an enormously healthier choice for people and countries alike.

@exnihilo

I walk. :p

124,125 Thanks for posts that give me material to think about. And thanks for bringing up the opportunity cost in not taking a risk. That's a big theme of mine. (It's one that's not brought up enough with the abstinence crowd. Sure you're not going to get an STD, unwanted pregnancy or crushed emotions, but you greatly increase your chances of never having a satisfying relationship and dying lonely and alone. I digress.)

I believe the reason so many people (myself included) have such an oh-my-god-don't-do-that kneejerk reaction to motorcycle riding is partly due to what you point out about how it attracts the reckless demographic but also because we (the non-motorcycle riders) don't understand the benefit in the risk:benefit analysis. I know the benefit of driving a car versus moving to a place where public transit exists. I understand the benefit in skipping going to the gym and eating the chocolate that's not on my diet. I've never understood the appeal in casino gambling or getting puking drunk, and I don't get what it is about motorcycles. For that reason, I tend to lump them together as activities with high risk and no benefit.

That's why in my first post on the subject (9) I suggested that WIMP talk to her boyfriend to find out what the appeal was in the motorcycle and possibly find a way that meets whatever it is that appeals to him while not over-worrying her.

@126

I telecommute and stay huddled permanently in a concrete bombshelter 13 stories below the surface of the Nevada while getting absurd amounts of cardio and eating a specially formulated longevity diet including lots of green leafy vegetables transported down from the surface. I pay a crack medical team to sit there in three 8 hours shifts a day just waiting for something to go wrong with me until I die. From my point of view anyone who does anything less is a reckless fool gambling with their life. :P

@127

So many things in life are about perspective and confirmation bias is powerfully real. My father put me on a motorcycle when I was 7. I've driven over 100000 miles on a motorcycle in my life. I wear the same $2000 / 25lbs of hot heavy gear that pro motorcycle racers wear that fall off motorcycles at 150mph and are generally racing again next Sunday. I don't believe I'm invincible but the reality is that one can always drive more safely to help mitigate risks. Consequently motorcycles do not feel dangerous to me just as cars do not feel dangerous to most people.

If I just walked out of the jungles of Papua New Guinea and was placed in a car on interstate 405, I would shit my pants. Hell, people from Iowa shit their pants when they fly to LAX and get in a rental car and try to go somewhere. I get the sense that's how non motorcyclists feel about motorcycles. More afraid of them than the actual risk warrants being afraid of them.

On the other hand on the other side of the world in Asia, scooters / motorcycles are the primary modes of transportation for entire nations. If translated into Vietnamese this WIMP thread would be fairly hilarious for anyone there to read. Of course they have the massive benefit of having little risk of being squished by an inattentive car compared to yours truly.

The reality of all this is that it's like reading books about how to sing and not actually singing. You're never going to be a better singer or understand singing by reading about it and not doing it. In the same way someone who doesn't ride just isn't going to get it. It's like describing a new fruit to someone that has never had one. Difficult and not the same at all as eating an actual jackfruit or a mangosteen.

Why do I ride, given the elevated risk? Well, do you remember the freedom, visceral experience and skill mastery that came with learning how to ride a bicycle when you were a kid? You could see your neighborhood in a new way and go places you couldn't walk to? Smell the freshly cut grass, the trees in bloom or the sea air the way you can't in a car. See places in an entirely new way by traveling through them instead of being trapped in a living room on wheels? Well, you can do all that and not get dead tired and sweaty with a very limited range like on a bicycle. Motorcycles are very cheap to own and operate and they have fantastic gas mileage and performance. The only way to actually experience it is to try it. Rent a scooter on your next rural beach vacation somewhere. It is fun, convenient and eco-friendly in exactly a way that a car isn't.

Ultimately it's the same reason anyone does anything. It feels good. Fatty salty foods taste good. Are they good for you? No. Is having a few drinks after work a healthy choice? No. I don't care. I'm going to continue to do these less than optimally healthy things since, opportunity cost wise, I may discover that I have brain cancer tomorrow and be dead in two months and I would have left all that risk enabled joy on the table. That's a remote chance so I take reasonably mild risks, yes, like motorcycling. If I am diagnosed with brain cancer I can belly up to the high roller table and try BASE jumping or cooking meth with Walter White.

@128

If only!!

Just kidding. Look, I think we can all agree that there's extremes of both ends of the spectrum, we all have our own spans of comfort zone in the middle.

P.S. I think in the context of a partner it's pretty ludicrous to compare say... smoking, to riding a motorcycle. If someone gets lung cancer and dies at least there can be some saying goodbye process, some mental preparation before it happens. Not one second everything's fine and the next second the person you love is wiped off the face of the planet forever. That kind of death is especially hard to deal with in my experience.

*exnihilo

Just to be clear, I don't judge people for wanting to ride motorcycles, it's your right to do, just like it's a smoker's right to smoke, a drinker's right to drink and my right to eat fried chicken like it's going out of style.

I just took issue with people acting like not wanting to be with someone because of their lifestyle choices is tyranny - no it isn't.

If someone decided they didn't want to be with me because I eat high-fat, high-salt, high-carb foods, and don't exercise like... ever, that's their fucking decision to make, and it doesn't infringe on my liberty in any way.

Um ... I've read all of the comments and can't believe that nobody has noted how shallow SSSH sounds. Her letter reads like bad fanfiction (of the adolescent kind). Would anyone normally describe their chosen field as "the wonderful world of engineering"?

As she is apparently SO enthralled by the ::coughs:: educational experience, she has - as we should all imagine - absolutely NO time to spend finding someone to spend the time (she already doesn't have) with. Not only that, but she and her new guy (woo, he's 20 years older which is such a compliment when compared to the boys around her) have so many things in common - if we can believe it - even more illegal than the involvement itself ... and let's not forget the exclamation mark.

I remember a letter a few months ago in which the LW exhibited the same exhilirating writing style marred by excessive exclamation marks.

If SSSH is going to continue to sneak around with the older guy, then she'd better get eyes in the back of her head. If engineering is still male-dominated, her fellow students certainly won't appreciate the perception that she's gotten a leg up over them (in more ways than one).

@130

Not ludicrous at all. Watching someone die slowly and painfully while bankrupting the family with expenses insurance won't cover is not preferable to them simply disappearing. It does not make it easier and it leaves you with vivid ghastly memories of them living in a way they never wanted to live that overshadow other more happy memories of them alive.

I'm old enough to have the experience of someone I know dying quickly from a heart attack and another dying slowly from cancer (lifelong smoker). Watching someone you love slowly fall apart is torture for all parties concerned. Case in point, my father whom died of cancer, asked my mother to bring his handgun into the hospital so he could end it. She declined. In any case, not a preferable situation.

My issue is that the tyranny is often not based in a lucid assessment of statistical risk with respect to other risks but in a knee-jerk phobic reaction akin to spiders or snakes.

I just hope Dan knows how lucky he is (I'm guessing he probably does) -- some men, no matter how long & devoted the partnership -- might think something along the lines of "if he's so selfish & shallow, I'll just keep my mustache & go elsewhere for a fulfilling relationship with a more selfless partner"

@confused but hopeful -- If you aren't normal, then neither am I, lol. I'm a chick who has fantasized about having a penis. Sometimes, it's just plain hot!

@exnihilo

Did you read my second post?

Your compare and contrast proves my point that it's ludicrous because they're so different you might argue one's better but I'd rather have a chance to say goodbye. People have different feelings and get to make different choices for their lives. The scenario you described can be massively improved with two things:

1. Socialized healthcare (check)
2. Euthanasia (I think they're working on that)

@exnihilo: My issue is that the tyranny is often not based in a lucid assessment of statistical risk...

Sure, but a person is free to break up with someone for whatever reason they want, even if it's based or faulty statistical reasoning or provably false assumptions. When it comes to deciding who we want to be romantically involved with, we're all tyrants.

132-Helenka-- Sure, I noticed the adolescent sound in SSSH. That's typical for young women in their late teens and early 20s. I'm not saying that all young women that age sound like that, but it's hardly unusual. She sounds naive to point of stupid, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

It's age-appropriate. I'll bet she wanted to be a ballerina when she was 5 too. It doesn't do much good to try to get children to skip over phases of their development. As long as the phase is harmless-- and that's key-- you don't try to talk them out of their silly ideas. You might explain that being a ballerina means lots of grueling work, but when you're not believed, you let your 5 year old run around in her tutu.

Thus with SSSH. Everything in her letter screams naive stupidity, and probably some day she'll think she looked as silly with that older man as she did in her glittery pink tutu. But she should grow out of it/him in her own time.

@Crin

Early 20's is too old for that shit.
Frankly, any girl over 15 is.

141-My--- So a 15 year old enthralled that a 35 year old is interested in her is fine, but a 22 year old involved with a man twice her age isn't?

I'm with the people who think withholding sex until your SO displays your aesthetic preferences is really controlling and dickish. Express your preferences (in a kind way) and then if s/he still has hair where you don't want any hair to be, either like it or lump it.

@144 does that go for body odor as well? bad breath?

@137.

"Sure, but a person is free to break up with someone for whatever reason they want, even if it's based or faulty statistical reasoning or provably false assumptions."

Ah, yes. Three cheers for illogical tyranny! In your face Enlightenment Era. Of course everyone has the right to dedicate their lives to animal grade reasoning, I'd just like to think we have the potential for more with our large and developed frontal lobes. Call me a dreamer.

@nihilo

I'm not sure you understand what the word tyranny means...

@ Crin

" 141-My--- So a 15 year old enthralled that a 35 year old is interested in her is fine, but a 22 year old involved with a man twice her age isn't?"

The 15 year old's enthrallment is developmentally normal, the 22 year old is making a stupider decision than can be excused by her age.

If a 22 year old just wants something physical, she's better off with a man who's aesthetically and sexually closer to his peak.

If a 22 year old wants a serious relationship there's a LONG list of reasons why a 44 year old is an atrocious pick.

It's her choice to make, but you just have a way lower opinion of 20-something's than I do (for obvious reasons).

@147

Since you've got the dictionary open look up hyperbole while you're at it, but I can play along too.

Tyranny.

Merriam Webster, definition 4: "an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act."

Being lumped into the death wish camp (donorcycle slurs above) and unfit as relationship material by not a small segment of the dating public, I view as a "harsh unjust acts" (ie Tyranny) for all the hypocritical car vs public transportation / walking statistical risk reasons we've already discussed. Yes, I'll be happy to defend until the day I'm run over by an 18 wheeler the right for anyone to not be in a relationship with someone else for any reason or no reason at all, logical or illogical. Doesn't change how I feel about being poorly evaluated in this manner as a class based on what I feel is more of a phobia against motorcycles than by a lucid assessment of actual risk? Clear?

Oh riiight, definition 4, after the common ones that people actually use in conversation.

You say hyperbole, I say whiny. You want to talk about irrational? How about getting so upset about someone not wanting a relationship with you that you go on and on about how wrong they are and try to statistically prove that they should stay with you. Maybe the more healthy attitude is "hey, their loss".

148-My-- Actually the reasons aren't that obvious. Remind me why I have a lower opinion of 20-somethings than you?

Ms Cute - Are you as tempted as I am to devise a Woodhouse Award? (I'm not inclined to confer it upon the front-runner, though.)

@151

Because I am 20-something. :p
I was 22 not too long ago.

I'm guessing those who think it's a stupid decision for a 22 yr old to have sex with a man in his 40s haven't had the pleasure of putting up with average 20 something het male sex.

Also: neither all commentors nor writers are American. I do not envision the car as some uber safe transport, especially as 2 immediately family members died in one. Even so looking at stats for motorcycles compared to cars... please. Stop trying to call bikes safe. Fun? Sure. Your choice? Sure. Safe? Bitch please. Just stop.

I'm another one at a university that has the same prohibitions (or lack thereof) mentioned in 22. My husband teaches in a department where I take courses. No one cares. I don't take his classes. I know a couple of people who have taken courses from the partners. No one cares. Someone else just grades it. It's not a big deal. In fact this thing about promoting someone's work for her boobs? Yeah ironically it just doesn't happen here. It just doesn't. You don't have to promote her work for her boobs, because there's no crime in fucking her to begin with.

Finally, it's gross to presume an entitlement to sex. If you're not the kind of person I want to have sex with, including but not limited to armed forces members, republicans, vegans, BDSM enthusiasts, smokers, cheap scroogey fuckers, fat people.... Well, exhibiting any of those behaviours is not going to make my panties wet and I'm not going to want to have sex with you. It's not "abusive" or "manipulation". It's simple cause and effect. If you want to turn me on, be clean and hygenic, dress well, smile a lot, be kind to kids and small animals, have a wicked sense of humour. If you want to turn me off, join the army, vote for Harper, gain 50lbs, start smoking. I'm unlikely to want to fuck if you do these things. I may get desperate and change my mind but in general I'd much rather fuck someone not doing those things, and I'll be thinking of it as desperation sex rather than actual satisfaction.

@150

Whiney? Ad hominem. If you don't want to communicate with me, don't. I've stated my case clearly, you've stated yours clearly. I already have agreed with you that anyone can leave any relationship for any reason or non-reason. I'm merely suggesting a refinement of the reason aspect from a motorcyclist's POV. We're done, no? No need to make this pejorative and attempt to regulate my use of hyperbole in the name of my attitudinal health.

In addition your major axe to grind should be with seandr who proposed (not me) that all relationships are tyrannical by nature (@137) which is to whom I was replying when you jumped on me for using tyranny in a dictionary defined sense that you personally deem illegitimate.

Mr. Ven,
I don't what criteria you'd use to confer a Wode-y. I would be at a loss, finding Wodehouse delightful, which is an adjective I can apply to none of the comments in thread.

@ wendy

You'd be wrong *waves*.

You're seriously saying you'd rather hang out with a developmentally stunted and/or predatory 40-something year-old man (aka below average) than an average 20-something man.

Re: A student sleeping with a professor: not a good idea, unless the two are in different departments (and even then, it could cost the professor his job.) Given the fact that the student wrote in, I'm inclined to believe this professor is in her department.

@mydriasis over at #148: I'm kind of fascinated by the narrow list of reasons you can see for starting a sexual relationship up with someone, and what the only meaningful criteria are: physical release (in which case the important criterion is that the man is at his aesthetic and physical peak, which you can't conceive as extending past mid-twenties), or long-term relationship, which a 44-year-old man is apparently unsuitable for.

Do you allow for a brief fling based on the mutual attraction that may come from shared interests, a common goal, a similar sense of humor, an appreciation of intelligence, shared artistic preferences?

I know what your own ideas of human attractiveness are, but do you allow for the fact that not everyone, not even all 22-year-olds, subscribes to such a narrow acceptable margin for establishing attractiveness? Some 22-year-olds out there quite legitimately find some 44-year-olds attractive. And not all 22-year-olds are offended when a 44-year-old has the temerity to be attracted to them.

Okay--anybody please feel free to jump in on this one, because I am NOT an expert on sex by any means (that's Dan's department)!!

We all have our own sexual preferences (which I've gone into in past Savage Love columns, so I won't here).

In concerning age preference of sex partners, I like guys within my own age group within five or seven years, ballpark, except that a lot of heterosexual men between 49-54 usually want women in their 20s and 30s who can still bear them children. So they're not into me.

No complaints, because I'm not looking, never wanted children, and already madly love who I'm with.

Latest Griz Watch: I'm down to 160-165 lbs. and leveling.
I have seen the future (well, mine, anyway) and it is gluten-and-sugar-free!! I bought a new tankini, white with black leopard spots for the beach season! Red wine is my new chocolate! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

You're seriously saying you'd rather hang out with a developmentally stunted and/or predatory 40-something year-old man (aka below average) than an average 20-something man.

@mydriasis: I think what you're saying implies that it's unreasonable for the 44-year-old to be attracted to the 22-year-old, not so much the other way around. But I don't think that necessarily applies in all cases. After all, everyone who lives past 44 has been both 22 and 44 -- they're just people.

I can certainly agree that the average mid-forties guy who goes around feeling entitled to date women in their 20s is likely to be a jerk, and indeed I think that all other things being equal, women who are interested in lifetime relationships should if anything be dating guys a tad younger than they are (given life expectancies and what not). But that's not everyone.

@Eirene

I think it makes sense for a 44 year old man to want to fuck a 22 year old woman. That's just nature.

I think it's developmentally stunted for a man to want a relationship with a 22 year old woman. Plus also: tacky as fuck.

@157--"You're seriously saying you'd rather hang out with a developmentally stunted and/or predatory 40-something year-old man..."

I love how those are the only two options.

So what exactly are your standards for proper male forty-something development? I'm getting close, so I need to know if I should start investing in elbow patches and smoking a pipe.

@LateBloomer

Fitting name then? :p

You really think that fashion is the same as a romantic relationship?

If you're developmentally on par with a 22 year old then you're probably not developmentally on par with other 44 year olds. (No one's buying the "she's really mature for her age" thing.)

Elbow patches are dope at any age, by the way.

Ms Cute - Your fondness for Mr Wodehouse led you to misread my Woodhouse. Perhaps you weren't feeling especially handsome, clever or rich.

Perhaps, though, as an admirer of Wodehouse, you can assist me. You may recall the season or two of Masterpiece Theatre just after the departure of Mr Cooke during which performers introduced their own programmes. I have a tape on which Fiona Shaw introduces Hedda Gabler, but alas never taped any of the Jeeves & Wooster episodes introduced by Stephen Fry. In one of them I recall his providing the proper pronunciation for five British names with rather a good number of superfluous letters in the spelling. Alas I can only recall four: Cholmondeley, Featherstonehaugh, Fotheringhay and Wriothesley. Can you supply the fifth?

Mr. Ven:
Was it Mainwaring?

Check this out. I think it's what you're referring to: http://www.jeevesandwooster.tv/quotes/Pr…

Also, and in general: http://www.jeevesandwooster.tv/quotes.ph…
Fry and Laurie were the most perfect casting imaginable IMHO

@164 While I grasp the general point you're making, I'm saying in my oblique way that it might be worth re-examining what you consider "development". I don't believe it's as linear as you seem to think.

Or maybe it's the term "relationship" you're loading with assumptions. Hard to tell.

In other news, how thrilling it must be for you to have this discussion with someone so much older and developmentally advanced than you are. I only do it out of charity, you understand.

Now excuse me while I dispense wisdom to my kids from behind a newspaper.

@Auntie Griz:
Do you think the new Smitten Kitten advert is an improvement? It freaks me out! (But I liked the red dildo.)

@168 migrationist: EEK! Yeah, the new ad freaks me out, too!
Just when I was starting to get used to the glowing red dildo....
Oy.

What is freaky about the new ad?

@nocute:
The pink one gives me shivers (and not the good kind).
All together look like an army of aliens...

I dunno, I see Christmas tree light bulbs.

@avast:
I am oldfashioned. Only real candles on the Christmas tree!

@mydriasis:
While my personal taste goes to men close to my own age (when I was starting to date my now-ex and realised that he was 7 years my senior, I almost broke it off immediately), and while I am a bit suspicious of the motivations of couples with large age differences, I know a few where it works quite well.

I had one objection to the old ad: the dildo was realistic-looking and visible and identifiable across the room, making my kids take an interest in what I was reading/writing.

I also thought that these looked like Christmas tree bulbs. Colorful! Cheerful! Friendly! Not sex toys, no sirree.
Fine with me.

@exnihilo: Three cheers for illogical tyranny!

When it comes to romance, yes, three cheers for emotions over logic! That's what makes romance fun and interesting and, well, romantic, at least for me.

But hey, feel free to evaluate your potential partners using an Excel spreadsheet if that's you're idea of what "enlightened" people do. Presumably, if your compatibility algorithm gives someone a high enough score, you would be morally obligated to fuck him/her because to do otherwise would illogical. Good for you, but I gotta be honest - that doesn't sound very hot.

While we're on the subject of logic, how is it logical to date a man who engages in a relatively high-risk behavior such as motorcycling when there are so many other men who don't? Most economists would advice you to focus your investment on a man with a higher likelihood of seeing his 65th birthday. To omit probability of premature death from your compatibility algorithm is illogical, Captain.

@mydriasis: I think it's developmentally stunted for a man to want a relationship with a 22 year old woman.

You're entitled to your opinion, but why should anyone give a fuck when an actual survey of such relationships would show that some such relationships work and others don't? And what personal stake do you have in this that makes you so judgy?

167-latebloomer-- Yes to your statement on how development isn't absolutely linear, but also, what if it was? Let's pretend that the young woman "should" be past being enthralled that an older man is interested in her but that this one 20 year old engineering student didn't learn at the appropriate age. It's still better late than never.

I liken it to a 10 year old who didn't learn to read when he was 6. Maybe the school system is to blame. Maybe he was sick with other troubles and so didn't learn. Maybe it's his own fault somehow. But one way or the other, I don't spend a lot of time blaming him or calling him stupid. I have compassion for him, stick him in a remedial course and help him catch up.

For myself, I wasn't interested in older men when I was 15 or 22, but I do remember my first love when I was 17. I was thrilled that someone I had a crush on was interested in me in return. I loved the way he loved me. I loved the way I looked in his eyes. We did have a fair amount in common but nowhere near the maturity needed to make a relationship work. Looking back, I can see how naive I was, but rather than call the young woman that I was stupid, I have compassion for her and a high opinion of her. I'm proud of her for diving in and learning what she needed to learn. That's why I'm easy on SSSH. She sounds misguided, but I have confidence that she'll learn.

If there's one thing we learn from Dan it's that the only important point when it comes to sex and attraction is that you not hurt anyone. Further, sex and emotion, for a great many of us, are inextricably mixed. So sure I can think that SSSH is being foolish for her attraction to the 40 year old man who has shown an interest in her, and that goes for her physical attraction and her emotional one, but if the relationship isn't hurting anyone, and Dan went into the rules for making sure no one gets hurt, then it's just a harmless learning experience. I see nothing worse in this than a young college woman experimenting with sex with women before deciding she's straight or experimenting with men before deciding she's lesbian. In this case, she's experimenting with a faculty member before (likely) she decides she's better off with someone her own age.

Holy shit, Dan. You are actually advocating that someone withhold sex because their partner wants to ride a motorcycle? I never thought that I'd see the day that you could be so incredibly wrong-headed on a subject. I'm no fan of motorcycles at all, but withholding sex as a bargaining tool is a sure way to diminish a relationship.

@mydriasis, Maturity is a function of life experience. I met my husband when I was 19 and he was 39, at a party. We started talking, and had a lot of experiences and philosophies in common. We didn't ask about age, we talked about things like euthanasia and the importance of family and income disparity. We didn't find out about the age gap until a few weeks later. I don't think he was stunted for wanting a relationship with me, rather, I have been forced by my experiences in life to be mature as early as possible and have never fit in with people my own age. I don't think that is necessarily the case with the LW, but to say anyone who gets into a relationship with someone significantly younger is emotionally stunted is an awfully broad generalization.
Ps. Our 12th anniversary is next month;)

I agree with seandr! Stop the presses. Now. Go stop 'em. ;) People can dump you for whatever reason they want to. You're not attractive to them anymore, you've taken up smoking/drugs/motorcycles/meat, you're at "different places in life" - etc, ad infinitum. Whatever. It's always sad when it happens & one can feels like their reasoning is unfair, but it is what it is.

There are strong arguments for the fun of riding motorcycles above. But people can just - feel how they fee about it. So what if it's knee-jerk, it's called feelings, not thinkings.

Ah, Mr. Venom, Ms. Cute, I thought a Woodhouse Award would be after Emma..? ;)

But I am so down for watching some more Jeeves & wooster, anytime, either way.

Ms Cute - ah, so I just substituted Wriothesley for Mainwaring, I think because it's pronounced with two syllables instead of four, making it a better fit with the others, though either makes a poor cousin of sorts. While Mr Fry prefers Cholmondeley, I opt for Featherstonehaugh, in part because Featherstone (salute to John Mortimer) is pronounced basically as it appears with three syllables and because Featherstonehaugh is pronounced in a sort of hybrid way by James Wilby in Maurice.

Ms Hopkins - That was my original intention. Ms Cute's misread (answered by the H/C/R reference) just gave me the idea that she might remember a detail that had vexed me.

But I do rather like the idea of a Woodhouse Award to accompany my Gertrude Award for overprotestation. I'm not sure on what one would base a Wodehouse Award.

The motorcycle trope is so tired. I was watching the Dick van Dyke show and even they did an episode where Rob bought a motorcycle and Laura stayed home and fretted about his safety. It aired in 1963. How far we've all come.

@tachycardia

You think maturity is only a function of life experience?

And you really mistook a 39 year old for a 19 year old? :p

It was meant to be a generalization, it's more often that I see the older partner capitalizing on a chance to move backwards than a younger partner sacrificing and collapsing life stages (which I think is less than ideal). You take typical life milestones like children/marriage out of the mix it gets a little bit simpler to bridge a gap but still.

I expect to have a normal lifespan and I'd like to have kids, so I would never date someone significantly older because

a. I don't want to spend several decades of my life slowly dying alone/in grief.

b. Studies are beginning to show how paternal age can have a nasty effect on children.

So yeah, things like a lifespan-shortening disease, like not wanting kids, or like having them when you're a teenager, these can all change age-gap dynamics, but they're only theoretical in my experience. Not the events, but them being the reason for age-gap relationships.

I have no doubt that your intelligence makes you appealing to older people, that's the reason I'm always given from everyone every damn time some inappropriately older man becomes interested in me (which is always. always has been.) but I find it hard to believe that intelligence/maturity are really what his cohort is lacking.

But hey, I'm cynical like that.

To be clear, no disrespect to you, or your SO, I don't know you and maybe the stars lined up (or maybe one of the cases I mentioned applies). My original point was that I didn't appreciate Crin's characterization of 22 year olds as being as immature and naive as she suggested.

@cocky

And I'd like to think that I look like Beyonce, doesn't make it true.

I'm not saying no one in their 40's is attractive ever, there's lots of people who are. But you can't argue with biology, once you stop growing, you start aging. I'm aging, and I'm nowhere near my 40s. I just read an article that said a lot of women think that their healthy lifestyle allows them to to be as fertile in their 30's/40's as they were in their 20's. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Nature isn't fair. Nature also isn't fair to men who see their sexual refractory periods lengthen with age, and their ability to achieve an erection decline - there's a multi-billion dollar industry based on the fact that men decline from their peak as they age, it's not a fringe assertion.

186-- Ah, now I'm seeing the crux of our disagreement. I've read over my posts on the subject and don't see where I've characterized 22 year olds as immature and naive. Sure some of them are, but I liken that to the way some students have trouble their freshman year and take some time off from college. SSSH sounds like she's on the naive side (she's only 20), but I can't see that she's hurting anyone or hurting herself.

This whole conversation is making me remember my 20-something self. One way I would characterize myself at that age was terribly judgmental. I was making decisions for myself and was certain that everyone else was oh so immature and naive while I was intellectual, sensible, and had the right life plan.

I'm embarrassed to have missed Woodhouse as Wodehouse, but given the pronunciation thing, I guess I was "reading" with my ears. Ah, a Woodhouse would be much easier, both for the father and the daughter in the case of this particular thread. (I'm substituting "catching a cold" for" "riding a motorcycle" in the case of Mr. Woodhouse. For Emma, of course, the point of comparison and the criteria are different.)

It would be fun to imagine a true Wodehouse. Dan could refer to sex as "the old oompus-boompus."

@Crin

;)

Re wimp, enough said about Dan's sexual blackmail advice I think, but what I would say to wimp is you have made your point, but he has chosen to take this risk for himself. Let him ride and be happy. If you really can't get over it, you might have to leave him, but try and be philosophical about it- life is dangerous.

oh wait- maybe someone else noticed this, but I just noticed this was the April 3 column!

@mydriasis, I didn't mistake him for 19, but I was thinking closer to 30. He has what some people would call a babyface and looked real cute in his ball cap. I do not think maturity is ONLY a function of life experience, many people have experiences they don't know how to cope with that don't immediately add maturity. But I think experience stimulates growth and maturity more than simply aging, I know plenty of people in their 40s and 50s who exhibit disturbing lacks of maturity similar to what you would expect from someone <25. (I also do not think everyone that age is immature or naive, but for those who are, that is when they generally overcome it). Aside from intelligence, some things that closed the gap for us were that I had moved out and been responsible for myself since I was 16 and we had both been previously married. As far as spending years dying alone or in grief, I love my husband, but I was okay before I met him and if there was ever a time we were separated by death or divorce, I will be okay again. I cherish the time we have had together, but tomorrow is not promised to anyone and nothing lasts forever anyways. The best we can do is to love people while we have them, for however long it lasts.

@191 cockyballsup:

The problem with men above 40 is not that they are infertile, but that their offspring is at increased risk for birth defects and chromosomic mishaps.

Hey Cocky, grab your pipe and slippers and bring your bald spot over to my place! We'll read newspapers and clear our throats a lot. It'll be a hoot! Being forty rocks!!!

@cocky:
You don't know that the early-30 somethings who don't want to date over-40s on their online profiles are the same who come on to you in a bar.

And if you are looking to date early-30 somethings, I have to ask you: what is your online profile saying about the age range you want to date? Because your post @198 sounds to me like you are looking for someone younger. If you don't want to date an over-40 guy, why should the under-40 crowd want to do so?

of course they are not the same ones, unless he lives in a tiny town! But I think his point is their idealized mate is not older than they are (hence the dating profile), but in "real life," especially in a bar when inhibitions are down, that becomes less of a factor. But cocky, this is a natural dichotomy, it shouldn't piss you off that men don't want someone older, that's basic biology (you should be glad they hit on you in the bars- it means you look younger than you are!).

@194 "tomorrow is not promised to anyone and nothing lasts forever anyways. The best we can do is to love people while we have them, for however long it lasts."

Beautiful. Thank you.

@171 & @172 migrationist & avast2006: I see weird alien lightbulbs, too!
I don't wanna fuck lightbulbs! Aiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!
Smitten Kitten, could you pleeeeeeeease bring back your glowing red dildo ad?

@194 tachycardia: Amen!
@196 migrationist: Bravo!! Well said.
To younger women in your 20s and 30s dating men in their 40s and up, and having kids with them: your choices are certainly your choices, but are you reading this post? It's something to think about.

Geez Louise, now I'm going to have nightmares about CHristmas tree lightbulbs.

Did I mention that I haven't had ANY chocolate, whatsoever, since New Year's?

@cockyballsup: I suggest you redefine what "peak" means. I was better at 40 than I was at 20, in every possible way.
I was calmer; I was smarter; I was much, much surer of myself. I was much better in bed, and more fun to be in bed with. I may even have been better looking; I know I certainly had more confidence in my looks and had found and grown into my sense of style.

The fact is, you're going to grow older whether you like it or not. To some men, who idealize or fetishize youth, you will be less appealing. But to others, you will become more attractive.

@ cocky

I get reminded that I will age and be less attractive every one of the billions of times I see an ad targeted at middle aged women (so several times a day). Sorry, but as a female I have dibs on the pity party. :p

Halle Berry is a stunning woman... but she's also not a representative sample of what people her age look like.

@ tachycardia

"I cherish the time we have had together, but tomorrow is not promised to anyone and nothing lasts forever anyways. The best we can do is to love people while we have them, for however long it lasts."

No one's promised tomorrow but we all have our own ways of planning for the future. I see senescence at work quite often and it scares the absolute crap out of me. It's a struggle to go through even if you have someone else to pick up the slack, let alone if your partner is dead. I don't really have any family, so if I'm alone I'm really alone in old age. I don't want to put myself in a situation where my best case scenario is dying disproportionately young.

@migrationist

Thank you.

FWIW, I like the new Smitten Kitten ad MUCH better than the previous one.

@myd, the usual way to plan caretakers for one's old age is to have (or adopt) children, who will thus be a generation younger than you. Counting on one's spouse to care for one in old age is a risky plan, unless you marry someone a generation younger than you. In fact, your best plan from a "terrified of growing old" perspective would be to marry someone 70 years old and rich; treat them really really well so they leave you their fortune, and then do the same for the boy toy of your choice when you get to be 70.

(Not recommending this as a retirement plan. But it makes more sense than your plan to marry someone your age and have them care for you in your senescence.)

@207: Whatever turns you on, Eirene.

@cocky

Re: Halle - You're missing my point. If you start off at the top of Mt. Everest and end up at the top of a tall building, you've still moved downwards, even if you're still up higher than everyone else.

If I were a Patrick Dempsey looking prof then I could do a lot better than Lena Dunham. There's lots of Kate Uptons in the world looking for a better GPA at least...

* or in shorter terms: just try to descend to my levels of superficiality.