Talk:Age disparity in sexual relationships/Archive 3

Gorillas?
Not sure that the gorilla section adds anything useful in its current form. I don't think that silver hair is a sign of advanced age in male gorillas... AnonMoos (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Gone.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's try to build a bit of a consensus here, the gorilla model was taken mainly from this researcher, article found on "the free library"

Here is the link: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/IT+LOCKS+LIKE+GIRLS+GO+FOR+DARKER+HAIR%3B+Bald+men+sexy+too+says+survey.-a087065795

The Title:

IT LOCKS LIKE GIRLS GO FOR DARKER HAIR; Bald men sexy too says survey.

''"EXPERTS have discovered what most women find attractive in a man...his hair, or lack of it."

Psychologist Richard Davey reckons male locks are a major turn-on for the girls - and the darker the better.

More than 1,000 Welsh women were quizzed about the type of hair they prefer on men."''

.....

The article goes on to state:

"Grey or greying hair, like newsman's Huw Edwards', is also appealing as is the bald-look of rugby star Craig Quinnell. "

...........

'''The psychologist, Dr Davey, expressing somewhat surprise that the grey haired man would rank high on the list of attractions stated this: ''' .........

''Greying temples - like those of BBC news anchorman Huw Edwards - are a hit with 13 per cent of women.

''The attraction can be explained by gorillas in the wild.

"The grey-haired Silverback gorilla is highly respected. Their grey colour provides clear visual evidence of survival ability, a highly desirable trait to all females."

...........

So I think the Gorilla animal model should remain on the page, preferably without commentary Here is the link to the article that was removed http://www.defenders.org/gorilla/basic-facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.36.252 (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reductio ad absurdum. Could someone please check for sockpuppets? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Personality rights


Saying the actors/models in this setting depict a real couple is not a problem at all, because the photo is in the public domain. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are confusing copyright with personality rights and also using original research. We are not supposed to guess at relationships using original research. By imputing a sexual relationship we may be misrepresenting them and violating their personality rights. This may be a father-daughter relationship where the daughter is working on a living will or a health care proxy form, or helping him sign up for Medicare. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not using original research. The image can be freely reused. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet the models do not give up their personality rights. And we are not supposed to do original research ... well, just reread what I wrote before. The image must comply with Wikipedia's interpretation of personality rights. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither did the models depicted on the Unequal Marriage. You are assuming that they had an actual marriage and that it led to sex. That is original research. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Again you are doing original research to say that there were models for the painting. I think now you are just arguing for the enjoyment of arguing.
 * We are not commercially using this image. Please link the WP file to proof your claims. I cannot find WP:personality or anything like it.143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What source is there indicating that the couple is in a sexual relationship? For all we know, they could be father and daughter, doctor and patient, just friends.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The same goes for the people depicted in the Unequal Marriage. What source is there that the man depicted is not the father giving away his daughter to an undepicted bridegroom? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Initial response: WP:OTHERSTUFF, i.e. two wrongs don't make a right. A tu quoque fallacy does not address my actual point. After actually looking into it: That's the bloody name of the painting. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are making a non-argument. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I asked you what the source is for the implication that your picture represents a sexual relationship. I made an argument, and you stuck your head in the sand instead of responding to it, asking a question to which the answer is plainly obvious if you look at the name of the painting. If you continue this sort of asinine contrarianism, I will have no choice but to assume that you're either a troll or incapable of not acting like one. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And now your arguments are ad hominem. Since you are making it personal, just so you know: I don't care about this photograph AT ALL. But thanks for bringing this to our attention. There is no reason to assume the people portrayed in either this photograph or the Unequal painting are or where in a sexual relationship. So neither can be the lead image. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read the whole discussion before making non-arguments or trying to take a disussion out of its context. The only thing plainly obvious when you look at the name of the painting is that it is about a wedding. It doesn't say that the person standing next to the bride is her future husband. It might as well be her father, 'giving her away' to someone. If you continue this sort of false attributions, I will have no choice but to assume that you're either a troll or incapable of not acting like one. Eye for an eye.143.176.62.228 (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources? Here's one, and here's another.  Found those in under a minute.  The source you cite does not mention Pukirev or The Unequal Marraige at all.  Now, where are your sources that I asked you for?  The picture you wanted to add doesn't even have a title to support the idea that they're related (The Unequal Marriage does), and you've refused to cite a source.  Your "eye for an eye" attitude is an indication that you do not belong here.
 * The reason that I said you're acting like a troll is that I made an argument and asked you for sources, and you keep ignoring those requests. You keep trying  to change the subject.  At best, that's an indication that no one should give you any consideration when deciding consensus.  Consider that whatever you want, but your asinine contrarianism has no place here -- cite sources or GTFO.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

or , then sign your comment with  ''. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.''


 * Comment - Shouldn't the article title stay broad unless it becomes too big and needs to be split? Otherwise it's likely people will make new articles for non-heterosexual use cases. Elfguy (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. If you have more L/G sources, then add them here. The rename is irrelevant: big population surveys, of, say, married couples will naturally include gay couples (if legal in the country) even if not explictly stated. If there are so many non-het sources that the article becomes too long, then reconsider moving it at that point. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing prevents material on non-heterosexual relationships being added. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of the age difference
@User:AnonMoos and everyone else: regarding this edit, which was undone by AnonMoos, two issues are raised. Thank you for listening -- Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 14:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the math correct?: Yes, it is.  It is high school algebra to verify; see my reply below.  For those who are not algebraically inclined, please try some examples.  Pick an age for the older person--even numbers are easiest--and calculate half plus 7 to get the younger person's age.  Then calculate the difference in ages.  Notice that if you plug the difference and younger person's age into the new formulas you get the expected results.
 * 2) doesnt seem to add much: If two people, who are $D$ years apart, want to marry but they fail this age-based test, how long should they wait? The answer by the "half, plus 7" formula is that they should wait until the younger person is at least $14+D$ years old.  If it turns out that we have consensus that this is relevant then let's add it.


 * Adding the math: Let $A$ and $B$ be the ages of the two people and let $D = A − B$ be the difference in ages. The rule, "at least half plus 7" in symbols is:
 * We replace $A$ with $B ≥ A/2 + 7$ to get
 * Doubling both sides gives
 * Subtracting $B$ from both sides gives
 * (That last expression could be written as $B + D$ if you want to.) I hope that helps resolve #1 above.  — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Subtracting ⇭⇭⇭ from both sides gives
 * (That last expression could be written as $B ≥ (B+D)/2 + 7$ if you want to.) I hope that helps resolve #1 above.  — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (That last expression could be written as $2B ≥ B + D + 14$ if you want to.) I hope that helps resolve #1 above.  — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (That last expression could be written as $B ≥ D + 14$ if you want to.) I hope that helps resolve #1 above.  — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're well-intentioned, but if this provides a perspective that no-one has really cared about or discussed before, then it's "original research" in that sense, even if arithmetically correct. AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, when there are editors, such as yourself, who do not find this to be merely WP:CALC then we have to classify it as WP:OR (or find references). I continued the discussion to this point only because the original feedback didn't discuss whether this was WP:CALC, instead discussing whether it was mathematically accurate and whether it "added much".  Now that we have a statement that you would not participate in a consensus around a WP:CALC classification, I can give up knowing that, at least, it was considered.  Thank you — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

What if the inserted text were much shorter, such as having this text and reference note at the very end of ?: "Equivalently, both individuals should be at least 14 years older than their age difference." — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 14:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I request feedback for the one liner immediately above. By being so short, my hope is that it now passes both the WP:UNDUE and WP:CALC standards.  Thanks!  — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 16:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Reasons for age disparity
There is a statistics across countries on the lack of fertile women in certain groups of male ages. This should be accounted as a major reason I think. AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 09:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Heterosexuality
Several of the passages make sense and are true only if they are applied to heterosexual individuals. I have attempted to fix them so that they make sense and are true. — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 15:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"Mommy kink" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mommy_kink&redirect=no Mommy kink] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"Half-your-age-plus-seven" rule
instead of your comment "Nice try", please assume WP:GOODFAITH. I happen to have sympathy with the edit made by, who did provide comments to explain their reasonable edit — "Removed previous edit. As commentary/opinion. references do not seem to match what was written.". Clearly there is some disagreement as to whether the recently added and removed text should remain. Let's try to achieve consensus through discussions here. — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 19:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * In an edit comment, writes "Why should I start a conversation that could take a lot of time just to wait for an answer and for an edit that respects the rules by using valid reliable sources to validate the content."
 * I'll venture an answer. If you believe that I am not acting in WP:GOODFAITH then the proper thing to do is to report me.  If you are (at least tentatively) willing to assume that I am acting in WP:GOODFAITH then discussion is the most likely way to reach a consensus.  These discussions are a key ingredient in keeping Wikipedia strong.  — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 21:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. Historyday01 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected the article for a week and reverted the IP's edit. Please discuss the proposed change here. If consensus emerges I can unprotect the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Wrong title / missing content
The article only covers heterosexual relationships, but is labelled „Age disparity in sexual relationships“. Could the title be changed to „Age disparity in heterosexual relationships“? I‘m new to editing Wikipedia and I don’t think I‘m allowed to move the page yet.

Note: The German version also covers homosexual relationships, so there the current title is appropriate. Sehrgay (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well we could add over some of the translated content from Altersunterschiede in Partnerschaften. I wouldn't support a move, actually, as I believe the article could be improved to add LGBTQ+ relationships too. It was actually proposed to move this article to that exact title back in June 2023 and that was rejected, see: Talk:Age disparity in sexual relationships/Archive 3. I'll take a look at the German-language one and see what else can be added. I can say from a quick glance, that I wouldn't necessarily favor adding in any of the lists of long-time couples from that page since NONE of those charts have any sources! Historyday01 (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Update. The German-language one seems to be the most comprehensive. Diferència d'edat en les relacions sexuals (in Catalan), التفاوت العمري في العلاقات الجنسية (in Arabic), Diferencia de edad en las relaciones sexuales (in Spanish), Aĝo-diferenco en seksrilatoj (in Esperanto), fa:نابرابری سنی در روابط جنسی (in Persian), Différence d'âge dans les relations sexuelles (in French), 나이 차이와 성적 관계 (in Korean), Differentia de etate in le relationes sexual (in Latin), Differenza di età nelle relazioni sessuali (in Italian), Leeftijdsverschil tussen partners (in Dutch), Diferença de idade nas relações sexuais (in Portuguese), Åldersskillnader i sexuella relationer (in Swedish), Kalakihan ng agwat sa edad sa mga relasyong sekswal (in Filipino), and 性關係中的年齡差距 (in Chinese, traditional) all seem pretty short. Still perhaps something can be moved from those articles onto this one.Historyday01 (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)