Is a 60 year old who marries a 30 year old a creep?

[President Johnson]

Any guy who marries a woman young enough to be his daughter (or granddaughter) is automatically a creep in my book -and I treat him accordingly.

Well, technically that could be possible with an age difference of just 15 years or so. I don't think a 46 year old man who marries a 31 year old woman is a creep. At least not for that reason.

[LBJer]

People that say that a person who marries someone half their age is a "creep" are, I think, actually jealous.  Jealousy often disguises itself as morality in personal matters.

Lol. Not surprising that a take this out of touch would come from you.

Reported.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I voted "No".  What I really mean by that is "Not necessarily".

The fact is that not everyone marries for love, or because they think they are "in love".  Some marry for wealth and security.  Some marry for pure sexual attraction.  Sometimes, it's a transactional matter where one side provides 1/2 of the equation and the other parts of their lives are negotiated.

I'm at home with my wife of 30 years, whom I love more than anyone on this Earth, and who loves me in the same way.  God brought us together and keeps us together, and God is the center of our marriage.  But I realize that this isn't the deal for everyone, and people do stay married and happy in such situations. 

The guys who I think are creeps are 60 year old guys who trade in a loyal and faithful wife for a "younger model", or get divorced and "play the field" because they want to "live".  I suppose there's no fool like an old fool.  Personally, the most awful think I could imagine is being at family events with my sons and grandkids separate from my wife at the same place.  Lots of people do it.  I couldn't handle that, and I have no desire to walk down that path, and no envy for people who have.

[TheReckoning]

The guys who I think are creeps are 60 year old guys who trade in a loyal and faithful wife for a "younger model", or get divorced and "play the field" because they want to "live".  I suppose there's no fool like an old fool.

You know, this description kind of reminds me of a certain ex-president. I’m sure you must consider him a creep?

[Never Made it to Graceland]

The guys who I think are creeps are 60 year old guys who trade in a loyal and faithful wife for a "younger model", or get divorced and "play the field" because they want to "live".  I suppose there's no fool like an old fool.

You know, this description kind of reminds me of a certain ex-president. I’m sure you must consider him a creep?

Trump was sent by the Lord to defeat communism actually so all of his personal failings are irrelevant

[Mopsus]

No, but the thirty year old is.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The guys who I think are creeps are 60 year old guys who trade in a loyal and faithful wife for a "younger model", or get divorced and "play the field" because they want to "live".  I suppose there's no fool like an old fool.

You know, this description kind of reminds me of a certain ex-president. I’m sure you must consider him a creep?

I don't condone his adultery.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The question is not gendered, but a lot of answers posted here are.

[Schiff for Senate]

They have every right to marry and I support that right. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the matter. That said, however, I do have the right to my own personal thoughts on the matter. And yes, this is creepy in at least 99% of cases, even if it is completely consensual on both sides. That is literally a parent-child/generation age difference, and on a personal level I find it at best creepy and at worst disgusting almost all of the time.

To put this in historical perspective, John Tyler was 30 years older than his wife. His first child (from a previous marriage) was older than Tyler's second wife was, and Tyler's youngest child was born when he was seventy, making him 45 years younger than Tyler's oldest child. See how perverted that is?

(As an addendum to the Tyler story, he was born in 1790, and due to how disgustingly old both he and his son were when their children were born, he still has a living grandchild. Bletch.)

[Schiff for Senate]

Yes.

Why? Doesn't a 30 year old woman have agency to make her own choices?

Yeah. The 60 year old in the equation is still a creep though.

This, although tbh there's a solid chance the 30 year old has issues of their own (daddy issues? idk).

[Ferguson97]

The question is not gendered, but a lot of answers posted here are.

Yeah, but I mean... come on.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The question is not gendered, but a lot of answers posted here are.

Yeah, but I mean... come on.

Would the answer be different if the expected genders were swapped? If they were the same gender?

[DaleCooper]

Nobody's business.

[VBM]

The question is not gendered, but a lot of answers posted here are.

In like 99% of cases like this, the man is the much older one in the relationship

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The question is not gendered, but a lot of answers posted here are.

In like 99% of cases like this, the man is the much older one in the relationship

Okay, cool. That's not the question that was asked, though. And in any case, that answer is culturally easy to locate. What about the other cases?

[Ferguson97]

The question is not gendered, but a lot of answers posted here are.

Yeah, but I mean... come on.

Would the answer be different if the expected genders were swapped? If they were the same gender?

Yes, my answer is “weird but not creepy” regardless of gender.

[LBJer]

To put this in historical perspective, John Tyler was 30 years older than his wife. His first child (from a previous marriage) was older than Tyler's second wife was, and Tyler's youngest child was born when he was seventy, making him 45 years younger than Tyler's oldest child. See how perverted that is?

(As an addendum to the Tyler story, he was born in 1790, and due to how disgustingly old both he and his son were when their children were born, he still has a living grandchild. Bletch.)

Sorry, I don't see how a man fathering a child later in life is either "perverted" or "disgusting."  Many might say: "Good for him!"  I find it pretty awesome that the lives of only three generations of men in the same family could extend over almost the entire history of the U.S. as an independent nation.

There was a man who was a slave, and escaped and fought in the Union army during the Civil War.  He had a son who died in 2015,  during Obama's presidency.  Imagine--the son of a slave living to see the first African American president!  Inspiring beyond measure. 

[Schiff for Senate]

To put this in historical perspective, John Tyler was 30 years older than his wife. His first child (from a previous marriage) was older than Tyler's second wife was, and Tyler's youngest child was born when he was seventy, making him 45 years younger than Tyler's oldest child. See how perverted that is?

(As an addendum to the Tyler story, he was born in 1790, and due to how disgustingly old both he and his son were when their children were born, he still has a living grandchild. Bletch.)

Sorry, I don't see how a man fathering a child later in life is either "perverted" or "disgusting."  Many might say: "Good for him!"  I find it pretty awesome that the lives of only three generations of men in the same family could extend over almost the entire history of the U.S. as an independent nation.

There was a man who was a slave, and escaped and fought in the Union army during the Civil War.  He had a son who died in 2015,  during Obama's presidency.  Imagine--the son of a slave living to see the first African American president!  Inspiring beyond measure. 

Somehow, inspiring and perverted aren't mutually exclusive in this case, at least not in my eyes. Doing some quick mental math, it means he was at least 75 when his son was born (assuming the son lived a full century and his father was just 20 at the time of the war). That doesn't feel right at all.

[LBJer]

To put this in historical perspective, John Tyler was 30 years older than his wife. His first child (from a previous marriage) was older than Tyler's second wife was, and Tyler's youngest child was born when he was seventy, making him 45 years younger than Tyler's oldest child. See how perverted that is?

(As an addendum to the Tyler story, he was born in 1790, and due to how disgustingly old both he and his son were when their children were born, he still has a living grandchild. Bletch.)

Sorry, I don't see how a man fathering a child later in life is either "perverted" or "disgusting."  Many might say: "Good for him!"  I find it pretty awesome that the lives of only three generations of men in the same family could extend over almost the entire history of the U.S. as an independent nation.

There was a man who was a slave, and escaped and fought in the Union army during the Civil War.  He had a son who died in 2015,  during Obama's presidency.  Imagine--the son of a slave living to see the first African American president!  Inspiring beyond measure. 

Somehow, inspiring and perverted aren't mutually exclusive in this case, at least not in my eyes. Doing some quick mental math, it means he was at least 75 when his son was born (assuming the son lived a full century and his father was just 20 at the time of the war). That doesn't feel right at all.

Just because something feels right or wrong doesn't mean it really is.  Slavery felt right to many people at one time, and racial equality "perverse."

[Schiff for Senate]

To put this in historical perspective, John Tyler was 30 years older than his wife. His first child (from a previous marriage) was older than Tyler's second wife was, and Tyler's youngest child was born when he was seventy, making him 45 years younger than Tyler's oldest child. See how perverted that is?

(As an addendum to the Tyler story, he was born in 1790, and due to how disgustingly old both he and his son were when their children were born, he still has a living grandchild. Bletch.)

Sorry, I don't see how a man fathering a child later in life is either "perverted" or "disgusting."  Many might say: "Good for him!"  I find it pretty awesome that the lives of only three generations of men in the same family could extend over almost the entire history of the U.S. as an independent nation.

There was a man who was a slave, and escaped and fought in the Union army during the Civil War.  He had a son who died in 2015,  during Obama's presidency.  Imagine--the son of a slave living to see the first African American president!  Inspiring beyond measure. 

Somehow, inspiring and perverted aren't mutually exclusive in this case, at least not in my eyes. Doing some quick mental math, it means he was at least 75 when his son was born (assuming the son lived a full century and his father was just 20 at the time of the war). That doesn't feel right at all.

Just because something feels right or wrong doesn't mean it really is.  Slavery felt right to many people at one time, and racial equality "perverse."

Your point is actually a valid one, but still, it feels wrong to me to compare slavery with marrying someone with a 30 year age gap and/or having a child in your seventies.

[LBJer]

To put this in historical perspective, John Tyler was 30 years older than his wife. His first child (from a previous marriage) was older than Tyler's second wife was, and Tyler's youngest child was born when he was seventy, making him 45 years younger than Tyler's oldest child. See how perverted that is?

(As an addendum to the Tyler story, he was born in 1790, and due to how disgustingly old both he and his son were when their children were born, he still has a living grandchild. Bletch.)

Sorry, I don't see how a man fathering a child later in life is either "perverted" or "disgusting."  Many might say: "Good for him!"  I find it pretty awesome that the lives of only three generations of men in the same family could extend over almost the entire history of the U.S. as an independent nation.

There was a man who was a slave, and escaped and fought in the Union army during the Civil War.  He had a son who died in 2015,  during Obama's presidency.  Imagine--the son of a slave living to see the first African American president!  Inspiring beyond measure. 

Somehow, inspiring and perverted aren't mutually exclusive in this case, at least not in my eyes. Doing some quick mental math, it means he was at least 75 when his son was born (assuming the son lived a full century and his father was just 20 at the time of the war). That doesn't feel right at all.

Just because something feels right or wrong doesn't mean it really is.  Slavery felt right to many people at one time, and racial equality "perverse."

Your point is actually a valid one, but still, it feels wrong to me to compare slavery with marrying someone with a 30 year age gap and/or having a child in your seventies.

You seem to be basing everything on feelings here and nothing on logic.  If you're going to criticize other people's behavior as perverse, immoral, etc., you should be able to give at least some sort of logical underpinning for your position. 

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

To put this in historical perspective, John Tyler was 30 years older than his wife. His first child (from a previous marriage) was older than Tyler's second wife was, and Tyler's youngest child was born when he was seventy, making him 45 years younger than Tyler's oldest child. See how perverted that is?

(As an addendum to the Tyler story, he was born in 1790, and due to how disgustingly old both he and his son were when their children were born, he still has a living grandchild. Bletch.)

Sorry, I don't see how a man fathering a child later in life is either "perverted" or "disgusting."  Many might say: "Good for him!"  I find it pretty awesome that the lives of only three generations of men in the same family could extend over almost the entire history of the U.S. as an independent nation.

There was a man who was a slave, and escaped and fought in the Union army during the Civil War.  He had a son who died in 2015,  during Obama's presidency.  Imagine--the son of a slave living to see the first African American president!  Inspiring beyond measure. 

Somehow, inspiring and perverted aren't mutually exclusive in this case, at least not in my eyes. Doing some quick mental math, it means he was at least 75 when his son was born (assuming the son lived a full century and his father was just 20 at the time of the war). That doesn't feel right at all.

Just because something feels right or wrong doesn't mean it really is.  Slavery felt right to many people at one time, and racial equality "perverse."

Your point is actually a valid one, but still, it feels wrong to me to compare slavery with marrying someone with a 30 year age gap and/or having a child in your seventies.

You seem to be basing everything on feelings here and nothing on logic.  If you're going to criticize other people's behavior as perverse, immoral, etc., you should be able to give at least some sort of logical underpinning for your position. 

There are many logical reasons to question the healthiness of relationships with an age gap as severe as 30 to 60. Massive difference in maturity, a strong power gap born from both the maturity/experience gap and often financial/status gaps, which make many of the foundations of a healthy relationship(eg things in common, an ability to relate to one another, being able to act as equals) much harder to establish.

[Schiff for Senate]

To put this in historical perspective, John Tyler was 30 years older than his wife. His first child (from a previous marriage) was older than Tyler's second wife was, and Tyler's youngest child was born when he was seventy, making him 45 years younger than Tyler's oldest child. See how perverted that is?

(As an addendum to the Tyler story, he was born in 1790, and due to how disgustingly old both he and his son were when their children were born, he still has a living grandchild. Bletch.)

Sorry, I don't see how a man fathering a child later in life is either "perverted" or "disgusting."  Many might say: "Good for him!"  I find it pretty awesome that the lives of only three generations of men in the same family could extend over almost the entire history of the U.S. as an independent nation.

There was a man who was a slave, and escaped and fought in the Union army during the Civil War.  He had a son who died in 2015,  during Obama's presidency.  Imagine--the son of a slave living to see the first African American president!  Inspiring beyond measure. 

Somehow, inspiring and perverted aren't mutually exclusive in this case, at least not in my eyes. Doing some quick mental math, it means he was at least 75 when his son was born (assuming the son lived a full century and his father was just 20 at the time of the war). That doesn't feel right at all.

Just because something feels right or wrong doesn't mean it really is.  Slavery felt right to many people at one time, and racial equality "perverse."

Your point is actually a valid one, but still, it feels wrong to me to compare slavery with marrying someone with a 30 year age gap and/or having a child in your seventies.

You seem to be basing everything on feelings here and nothing on logic.  If you're going to criticize other people's behavior as perverse, immoral, etc., you should be able to give at least some sort of logical underpinning for your position. 

There are many logical reasons to question the healthiness of relationships with an age gap as severe as 30 to 60. Massive difference in maturity, a strong power gap born from both the maturity/experience gap and often financial/status gaps, which make many of the foundations of a healthy relationship(eg things in common, an ability to relate to one another, being able to act as equals) much harder to establish.

It's not even just that. It's as simple as, it feels gross. Mind you, if they're both consenting, and especially given the younger of the two is a solid 30 (and not a, idk, 18 or 19 year old teenager), they have every right to marry. It's quite possible there's a genuine feeling of affection between them. But overall, I think it's most always quite repulsive - and yes, that has more to do with pathos and culture than any hard facts or logic, at least for me.

[LBJer]

To put this in historical perspective, John Tyler was 30 years older than his wife. His first child (from a previous marriage) was older than Tyler's second wife was, and Tyler's youngest child was born when he was seventy, making him 45 years younger than Tyler's oldest child. See how perverted that is?

(As an addendum to the Tyler story, he was born in 1790, and due to how disgustingly old both he and his son were when their children were born, he still has a living grandchild. Bletch.)

Sorry, I don't see how a man fathering a child later in life is either "perverted" or "disgusting."  Many might say: "Good for him!"  I find it pretty awesome that the lives of only three generations of men in the same family could extend over almost the entire history of the U.S. as an independent nation.

There was a man who was a slave, and escaped and fought in the Union army during the Civil War.  He had a son who died in 2015,  during Obama's presidency.  Imagine--the son of a slave living to see the first African American president!  Inspiring beyond measure. 

Somehow, inspiring and perverted aren't mutually exclusive in this case, at least not in my eyes. Doing some quick mental math, it means he was at least 75 when his son was born (assuming the son lived a full century and his father was just 20 at the time of the war). That doesn't feel right at all.

Just because something feels right or wrong doesn't mean it really is.  Slavery felt right to many people at one time, and racial equality "perverse."

Your point is actually a valid one, but still, it feels wrong to me to compare slavery with marrying someone with a 30 year age gap and/or having a child in your seventies.

You seem to be basing everything on feelings here and nothing on logic.  If you're going to criticize other people's behavior as perverse, immoral, etc., you should be able to give at least some sort of logical underpinning for your position. 

There are many logical reasons to question the healthiness of relationships with an age gap as severe as 30 to 60. Massive difference in maturity, a strong power gap born from both the maturity/experience gap and often financial/status gaps, which make many of the foundations of a healthy relationship(eg things in common, an ability to relate to one another, being able to act as equals) much harder to establish.

But that's not the same as saying the older person is a "creep."  And while others may "question" any relationship all they want in terms of their private opinions, it's not their place to tell other consenting adults what to do.  Plenty of marriages and relationships where both partners are roughly the same age turn out poorly. 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

People are allowed to be grossed out at weird things, m'kay?