The Half Plus 7 Rule

[Dustyblue]

Regarding age gaps in a relationship- I've only just heard this term & I find it confusing.

'Half plus 7' means take the age of the older person, halve it & add 7 years. That's supposed to be the acceptable range for an age gap, if I'm understanding it correctly.

So, let's say I'm 49 and my partner is 70, a 21-year gap. Half of 70 is 35, plus 7 is 42. I need to be older than 42, so at 49 we'd be acceptable.

But say we met earlier, when he was 50 and I was 29. Half of 50 is 25 plus 7 so I'd need to be 32 when I was only 29.

How strange! I guess the rule might work in some situations, but it just seems odd.

Anyone else heard this supposed rule?

Never heard of it. I was 42 and dh nearly 32 when we met. Been 12 years...

Obviously it’s not a rule, people can do what they want, and it’s fairly well known. But your worked example demonstrates its logic fairly well, because the idea is that theoretically a large age gap becomes less problematic as the younger party gets older

Yes.

It's supposed to work because it assumes that when you are younger you're more at risk to the power dynamics at play in large age gap relationships

Rules like that are ridiculous.
Whatever works, works. I know couples who make it work with a much larger age gap without it being an issue. I also know people who wouldn't date someone 3 years older or younger for some reason.
Trying to create 1 rule that works for everyone, never works.

I've heard of it and you have understood it correctly. As a general rule of thumb, a fifty year old should not consider dating a 29 year old. But it isn't the law or anything, just a guideline.

Yes I guess it does, in way, demonstrate the difference in points & stages of life.

I think it's meant to apply at the point you get together, as obviously it changes as you age.

And it's rule of thumb. not exact prediction of suitability. So those who don't conform to the rule when the meet at 50 and 29 might yet be fine (half plus 4) just as you were. But if it was half plus 4 when the the older party is 22, then it would be an partner who is underage, which obviously no-one would be recommending at that point.

I think it works as a general guideline, but not a hard rule. Generally speaking it's true that younger people are more vulnerable to power imbalances in age gap relationships, and a 10 year age gap is obviously much more pronounced if the youngest is 18 versus if the youngest is 60. So I think the rule works well in highlighting these nuances.

Having said that, there is something very arbitrary about the rule. So it's perfectly fine for a 50 year old to date a 32 year old, but a 31 year old would be out of the question?

I've only seen it on here. It sounds like a load of shite and what's needed is common sense.

I have heard of it but I don't think it's a good rule because it doesn't take into account that a young adult of under 25 is too immature still to be on equal footing emotionally and mentally with someone 10+ years older. The young adults that come across as mature they tend to have been neglected and had to be self sufficient, they might be brilliant in taking care of practical things, but it doesn't mean they aren't emotionally fragile and vulnerable. When they get with an older person, from the exterior with their mature demeanor they might float as sensible but to seek a big age gap dynamic in their young age reflects the manifestation of the well known 'mommy/daddy issues' which they will typically vehemently deny they suffer from.

It's a rough common sense rule of thumb, to see when the age gap in a relationship might be a bit iffy. It's widely known and understood, and not just on MN.

I love a good rule but this is a daft one. Any big age gaps are a bit silly anyway and show some issues on one side of the coin. Wayne Linekar anyone?

I prefer the 3 week/3 date rule.

As a rule of whose thumb? They shouldn't consider it? They can if they want to.

It sounds like the logic is that a bigger age gap is more problematic for a younger person with less life experience. I don't think it accounts for the problems of one partly being limited by old age and the other not.

The rule makes sense to me.

But say we met earlier, when he was 50 and I was 29. Half of 50 is 25 plus 7 so I'd need to be 32 when I was only 29.

What if you met earlier than that - you were 19 and he was 40? It starts to look iffy. A nineteen year old cannot have the knowledge and experience required to stand their ground when challenged by a forty-year old. It sets up a very unequal dynamic. So if you meet a couple of 49 and 70 you wouldn’t really bat an eyelid if they said they’d been together for five years. If they said they’d been together for thirty, you’d wonder what the story was there. A teacher and a student or a dad and the babysitter or something.

It’s a load of old bollocks mostly pushed by men who want to date much younger women without judgement,

Like the Macrons. They're 46 and 71. Big age gap, but comfortably within the half your age plus seven rule....now.

How did i not know that about Macron. That's disgusting! He met her when he was 15 and she was 40.

It makes no difference what the rule is for the Macrons now it's about who you should consider probably too young for you when you're thinking about asking them out, and it clearly works perfectly for the Macrons because it was not ok for Brigitte to be shagging a 15 year old, however much he said he wanted it.

It’s just a stupid rule.
+-5 years is ideal in my opinion. Now there are some other factors like biological age, libido etc so it could go to +-10 years. Anything beyong that it too much.