top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 129 points 3 years ago (5 children)

Read the text 3 times before spotted the 36 on the pic. Where is the useless red circle when you have a brain fart?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago

    Honestly I've unironically missed the entirety of the image at first, I went directly to the text. And probably a lot of internet-savvy people would, this kind of image is useless decoration 90% of the time and people are trained to not look at it. Same concept as in that research where they asked people to find the current population number on a webpage and they had a very hard time, despite the value being in big red digits or something equally distinctive.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 116 points 3 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 76 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    That’s a ridden hard and put away wet 36.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    This is the second time this week I’ve ever heard this phrase in my entire life. I feel like I know what it means but I’m afraid to ask

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    It's a horse riding addage, a horse ridden hard gets dirty and messy, put away wet means it doesn't get cleaned. Basically a dirty worn old looking horse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 75 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    Homeboy is HAGGARD for 36! That man is at least 65.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 55 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Good advice from 1901. Especially the bit about not marrying women older, taller, or wealthier than you. Especially all 3. Even if she's like 1 day older, 1 inch taller, or $1 wealthier than you. You gotta man up and not tie that knot!

    /S

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 38 points 3 years ago

    These were originally labeled "56" and "17" because a Libertarian made the image.

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    42-year-old, here. Late-20s-hotties, give me a ring.

    Whaddya mean, "what does ring mean?"

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    If both parties are 18 and above, it is none of our business. Many men are into cougars and many women like sugar daddies. Whatever floats their boat.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Legally, yes. You can't and shouldn't prevent them from dating.

    But, it's still creepy, it's usually still predatory, and there can be a huge power imbalance. Basically, the main thing is whether either person can easily leave at any time - often the younger one can't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago

    I don't know man. If at 50 I ran into a 20 something that was into dating me, I'd feel more like prey than a predator. But, who am I kidding? If the roles were reversed and I was a 20 something encountering a 50+ cougar, I'd still feel like prey. It's definitely all about power dynamics, but I don't think making assumptions about adult people's situations based on age alone is appropriate or helpful.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    How is that any different than 18 year olds getting an apartment together and being too broke to easily move out if needed? And there are plenty of older people in the same boat financially. In fact most people live paycheck to paycheck.

    I guess what you really mean is that poor people should only date other poor people, to make it a fair power balance. /s

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 19 points 3 years ago (14 children)

    And if you're 18, you can only date someone who is exactly 18. Can't go any lower or any higher.

    Idk who told this to me, but what a weird contradiction. I guess it sorta makes sense.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Nope. If your age minimum for a partner y is determined by your age x with the function:

    y = 1/2 x + 7

    then the point where y = x is at y - 7 = 1/2 x. Setting y to x leads us to x - 7 = x / 2, which happens at x = 14.

    At x = 18, y = 18/2 + 7 = 9 + 7 = 16.

    Relatedly, if we invert the function, y - 7 = 1/2 x, thus 2y - 14 = x, which gives us the theoretical maximum for a possible partner. If a possible partner is older than that, you'd be understood to call them a cougar, or whatever the male equivalent is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (12 replies)
    [–] 12 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    With how stressful things have been lately? I might just look like that in just under a decade...

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 9 points 3 years ago*

    41 dating 25, we're both happy but guess I should hand myself in somewhere ;~;

    But yeah definitely looking younger than 36 based on these standards 😅

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    Yeah, that dude is not 36...

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Stephen Miller is 37, this tracks.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Makes you wonder whether there is a dating rule "based on science".

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›