Forum Suggestion: Zoomer and Boomer areas

[Pierce Manhammer]

If these changes were instituted I would want the forum to be read only for everyone on the board but those who pass the age required who should be able to post freely there.

Anyway it’s going to require more work from the mods and admins to institute and they already have enough to do as volunteers.

 

[BadBoy89]

Is a woman in her 40s too young or too old?

Too young or too old for what?

For attraction, babies, marketing, selling, and sex, yes.

For dinner parties, trips, companionship, cleaning up your house, no.

 

[SW15]

Too young or too old for what?

For attraction, babies, marketing, selling, and sex, yes.

For dinner parties, trips, companionship, cleaning up your house, no.

Plenty of men are having sex with women who are 40+.

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

@BadBoy89 remind me how old you are? Mid thirties?

Too young or too old for what?

For attraction, babies, marketing, selling, and sex, yes.

For dinner parties, trips, companionship, cleaning up your house, no.

 

[Serenity]

I don't think spreading out the forum with more sections will do anyone any good. The exchange of opinion between the younger and older generations is healthy, it forces everyone to think differently and may lead to overall better understanding. If we create artificial barriers to that, we'll remove this healthy stimulation. People who agree have little to discuss and there's little to learn from others like themselves.

More sections would also water down the forum, everyone who posts will have more limited exposure for their ideas and everyone who reads will be exposed to less. Most of discussions on this forum happening in one section is an advantage. The only good reasoning I see for splitting up into more specific sections would be if the main forum section gets way too much activity. As it is today I don't think the main section is overloaded, so more sections would hurt the forum more than it would help.

The sections other than Don Juan Discussion are already relatively low activity and limited exposure. We removed a forum section a couple of years ago or something because it was almost dead anyways. People seem to concentrate on the main forum section anyways, because it's the most engaging.

It seems your main argument is to reduce disagreement, which might look good at first glance, but going down that road will absolutely kill a forum. Age perspectives can be discussed and I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives of it.

TL;DR It would make this forum worse rather than better.

 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

Realistically your only going to engage in narratives and discussions you are interested in, raising the age doesn't diminish or enhance interest, only the interaction these posts see.

Maybe we just need respective corners for the old kooks and young Incels to circle jerk in and leave the rest of the forum for people who want to interface with each other respectfully

 

[SW15]

I don't think spreading out the forum with more sections will do anyone any good.

The sections other than Don Juan Discussion are already relatively low activity and limited exposure.

There's a need for contrasting viewpoints so more sections are not needed. Contrasting viewpoints do make for good discussions if the discussions can be had respectfully and not resort to petty bickering and name calling.

I've always felt that "Mature Man" could be more productive with a higher age range. The median man doesn't have his first marriage until 30 now. Raising "Mature Man" to 30 or 35 as the minimum age could make that section more productive. I have seen some very good discussions over time come out of "Mature Man".

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

The median man doesn't have his first marriage until 30 now. Raising "Mature Man" to 30 or 35 as the minimum age could make that section more productive. I have seen some very good discussions over time come out of "Mature Man".

The "Post-LTR/Marriage Man" sub-forum?

 

[SW15]

The "Post-LTR/Marriage Man" sub-forum?

Some of the topics applicable to that audience would be good for "Mature Man" with an older age starting point.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Some of the topics applicable to that audience would be good for "Mature Man" with an older age starting point.

Still, there are men who got married way before 30 and I think every man can learn from the mistakes in LTR.

The main problem is members devaluing other members because of a rigid inflexible mindset. Everyone can learn from everybody else, if you keep a flexible mindset and don't think 'my way is the only sensible way'.

I do think that all member should have their (approximate) age showing (20s, 30s, 40s, 50s) but even then, being 40 in America could be way different than being 40 in Europe or Asia, so even that doesn't really say much.

I just think that if you think you're mature enough for the Mature Man forum, you should show that in your attitude. Anyone who cannot deal with other people's (opposing) opinions is not mature enough for mature discussions and should just stay in the other DJ forum.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

There's a need for contrasting viewpoints so more sections are not needed. Contrasting viewpoints do make for good discussions if the discussions can be had respectfully and not resort to petty bickering and name calling.

I've always felt that "Mature Man" could be more productive with a higher age range. The median man doesn't have his first marriage until 30 now. Raising "Mature Man" to 30 or 35 as the minimum age could make that section more productive. I have seen some very good discussions over time come out of "Mature Man".

I've asked for it to be raised to 35 in a mod forum post, but didn't get support so that's where that is.

Calling a 25 year old "mature" is a joke, IMO. Most 30 year old guys wouldn't qualify even.

 

[Dr.Suave]

Plenty of men are having sex with women who are 40+.

But should they? (Assuming they can pull younger).

Meh, if the 40+ year old passes their boner test, who cares. Bang away, I guess

 

[FlirtLife]

Realistically your only going to engage in narratives and discussions you are interested in, raising the age doesn't diminish or enhance interest, only the interaction these posts see.

Maybe we just need respective corners for the old kooks and young Incels to circle jerk in and leave the rest of the forum for people who want to interface with each other respectfully

Calling other posters "old kooks" who "circle jerk" is your way "to interface with each other respectfully"... I see.

 

[FlirtLife]

There's a need for contrasting viewpoints so more sections are not needed. Contrasting viewpoints do make for good discussions if the discussions can be had respectfully and not resort to petty bickering and name calling.

I've always felt that "Mature Man" could be more productive with a higher age range. The median man doesn't have his first marriage until 30 now. Raising "Mature Man" to 30 or 35 as the minimum age could make that section more productive. I have seen some very good discussions over time come out of "Mature Man".

You talk about the importance of "contrasting viewpoints", but then acknowledge a forum area "could be more productive with a higher age range". Maybe those inconsistent views point to the same underlying problem: abusive members tend to be younger.

 

[AureliusMaximus]

Is a woman in her 40s too young or too old? Men in their 30s and 50s may answer that differently, and both be right.

Instead of taking sides, maybe those discussions would be better on age-specific forums. Forum members born 1997-2012 would have access to the Zoomer forum, but not the others. Another Millineal-specific forum for birth years 1981-1997, and one for Gen X from 1965-1980. Anyone born 1964 or earlier meets their peers on a Boomer forum.

Why would we ever have a snowflare area on the forum where people can cry, be offended and complain more?

 

[FlirtLife]

Those disagreeing with my suggestion have a theme: the belief all members have something valuable to contribute. If that's true, why do we need a block list? Have you blocked other posters, despite them having something to contribute?

I've noticed those abusive posters have something in common. Now not all younger people are abusive... but abusive posters tend to be younger. Maybe "The Mature Man" was set aside for just this reason, but I don't think a limit of 25 years old is enough (And let me acknowledge that @BackInTheGame78 has voted to raise that age, and other mods have voted for the status quo - so its known, but not consensus).

 

[FlirtLife]

Why would we ever have a snowflare area on the forum where people can cry, be offended and complain more?

Good example of why excluding younger posters like you can be valuable. Do you have anything to contribute besides insulting others as a "snowflake" who "cry, be offended"?

 

[AureliusMaximus]

Good example of why excluding younger posters like you can be valuable. Do you have anything to contribute besides insulting others as a "snowflake" who "cry, be offended"?

Damn; you're already triggered! That was way too fast...

You just proved my point.

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

There certainly are a number of griefers on the site. Never have truly understood why griefing people provides satisfaction to anyone, but it certainly seems to be in vogue.

One thing is playful good-natured ribbing then there is griefing. It's not productive.

 

[FlirtLife]

There certainly are a number of griefers on the site. Never have truly understood why griefing people provides satisfaction to anyone, but it certainly seems to be in vogue.

One thing is playful good-natured ribbing then there is griefing. It's not productive.

I suspect griefers (and trolls in general) skew younger. People who think time is valuable aren't wasting it.

One flaw in my idea: a forum for younger members may concentrate those same abusers in one place. Overall a better suggestion might have been one forum with a higher age requirement than 25.