So even somebody your own age is simultaneously too old and too young for you. It turns out that the minimum age this rule allows dating is 14 — for extra credit, can you explain why?
The problem is that both the equation "y = x", which just maps age over time, and "y = x / 2 7", the dating-range formula, are each linear, an so at a certain point the lines grow unrealistically far apart, like where a 60 year old can date a 37 year old.
I see why there's a need for some sort of (legislative/social/whatever) barrier, and I see no better way to address the problem; but the point is that it doesn't work for everyone! Compared to /b/ you are almost flawless This is what is wrong with this fora.
So if you’re 13, you can date anyone over $13 \frac$. That means, to find the oldest age you can date, you have to double your age and take away 14.
But the $13 \frac$ year old can only date people who are at least $13 \frac$ — so you can date them, but they can’t date you. So, if you’re 16, the minimum age you’re supposed to date is 15; the oldest is 18. The youngest you can date is 13 1/2, but the oldest is 12.
And I also like that the current formula does work at the bottom edge of the range where anything that is actually "dating" typically starts; basically "13 is too young, and 14-15 should keep more or less in their grade level."What's wrong with a 60 year old dating a 37 year old?
I mean, I agree that the forumla is flawed, but I disagree on where the flaws start. So this is kinda unclear to me..all of you saying "what's wrong with a 120 year old dating a 40 year old?
I don't think that it's universally right to assume that a 16 or 17 year old isn't old enough to date.