Cannot be younger then your oldest child is always a good guide line. This is assuming your oldest is over 18.

count on me. To be honest, I was thinking 40ish as a lower limit for a 60 yo man, but when I imagine myself as the 60 yo, well, then I'm moving it down to 25 or so. For the right person only, of course.

I think anything over a twenty year disparity is really beginning to stretch things because, as RC pointed out, your date could be mistaken for your kid.

To what purpose one might add.

A decent standard.

It reminds of the estate planning case of a Johnson and Johnson her who wished to avoid the GST, but his lawyers couldn't find a way of avoiding it. For those who are unaware, the GST imposes another estate tax upon persons who are 39 and 1/2 years younger than the donor. Apparently the J&J donor was in his eighties, and his girlfriend was a bit younger than that. He wanted to gift to her a multi-millionaire dollar house but by the gift inclusional aspect of the Estate and Gift Tax plus the GST came home, it would have cost his estate the same value as the house. So he married her. Problem solved. (I don't remember the case citation and may have garbled the facts a bit).

The tax code seems to suggest that friendships more than 39 and one half years is too much. Go figure, they're such a bunch of fuddy duddies at the IRS.

Doesn't anyone here know the formula?

(Age/2)+7

So for a sixty year old man, 37 would be the minimum age. And good for the 60 y.o. man in that situation, but that's still a little creepy IMO. Still plenty of hot women in their 40's.

I've always liked that formula. Using the same formula, the guy would also be a potential date for a 106-year-old.

Talk about a Cougar. Rowwwrrr!