Age gap

Hmmm. I can't instantly think of any references specifically on power dynamics in relationships... I know there are some out there and lots of stuff I've read, but nothing comes immediately to mind. However, you'd probably get pretty much the same information, as the issues are nearly identical, by reading about codependency and family dynamics, because much of the issues that arise in those areas are related to power dynamics. Pia Mellody has some excellent books on the topic, and that would be a great place to start.

 

Uh, no. The study of human interaction and interpersonal power dynamics goes back probably 8+ decades. I always love it when someone drags out this tired, ignorant, and overused comparison.

I suppose it could be. But it is much more likely an understanding of what healthy, emotionally balanced and interactive power dynamics look and feel like. It is usually the age-gap apologists who are the ones with the internalized unconscious issues.

When the generalizations are based on research, studies, and the prevailing wisdom of those who have spent their lives studying power dynamics and relationships, I think the answer is yes. Would you seriously argue that there's no problem using heroin or crystal meth because a small portion of those who do don't end up addicted? Generalizations absolutely serve a purpose, and in cases like these, they can guide those who are seeking healthy relationships.[/quote][/quote]

 

Homosexuality was only meaningfully studied starting in the 1940s with Kinsey's work, and then there was a fairly long gap until the 1960s, when Masters and Johnson and other researchers started looking at that. It was only a few years after that -- 1973, I think -- when the APA removed homosexuality as a disorder.

In contrast to that, the study of relationships and all of the interpersonal communication, power dynamics, and other issues dates back to the beginning of the field of psychology, before the beginning of the 20th century. More recently, there are many researchers and clinicians that have done extensive studies of relationships and how imbalances such as age impact the balance and emotional health and stability of the relationship. So none of this is remotely new in any way, nor is there much in the way of controversy (as there was with homosexuality, mostly due to religious backlash) on the impact of imbalances in power dynamics.

People *always* pull out the "Well, homosexuality wasn't accepted for decades" argument when trying to argue that some other thing will be accepted in the future, but it's bullshit because, as stated above, it was really only studied for a short time before acceptance came about, and, additionally, nearly every other issue that some people claim controversy about relating to relationships or sexuality was also being studied around the same time, in literally thousands of studies worldwide.

As with everything I'm passionate about here, it's about helping to ensure that the tens of thousands of people who read EC each week -- about 9 out of 10 of whom aren't members -- get accurate information.

No, I do not, and even if I did, one of the most annoying issues when it comes to discussing topics like this is when people apply their own personal experience and attempt to generalize it or justify it as a norm or standard or proof-of-claim to a population on the whole. That's a really godawful way of providing accurate information; instead it makes a lot more sense to look at research, prevailing thinking among those who work with these populations day in and day out, and (a distant third, since it is a non-representative sample that would not necessarily generalize) the collective experience of the people on EC. However, if one chooses to use the third method, there are many, many reports on EC of people who eventually figured out why age gap relationships rarely work (again, qualified as relationships where the younger person is under 27 or so), and very, very few where the relationships actually do work, have worked for a significant period, and don't show signs of major unhealthy behaviors or interpersonal transaction patterns.

 

Interesting study, but near worthless in terms of looking at the actual health and dynamics of age-gap relationships, because it is only dealing with blind dates. Whatever problems and power dynamics are present are unlikely to show up after a single blind date. Additionally, since the dates are blinded, they aren't natural indicators of what draws people to them, potentially confounding one of the most common issues that come up in age-gap relationships, which is the codependency piece.

 

I haven't seen much research on sub-dom relationships. If we look at them from the perspective of current thinking on what defines "abnormal" (in terms of abnormal psychology), then one can argue that people who willingly go into these relationships and stay in them and appear to be happy and functional are not, in terms of abnormal psychology, experiencing an abnormal relationship.

That said, I would suspect that the majority of these relationships are equally unhealthy because of the power dynamics going on, and I would expect to see poor self-esteem and a lack of self-efficacy in the submissives in these relationships. In my very limited exposure to people in these relationships, that hypothesis appears to be an accurate one, but I wouldn't attempt to generalize it without a much larger and more formal study or data set to look at.

I want to be clear that I believe it is possible for a sub-dom relationship to be healthy, but I would suspect this is the rare exception rather than the rule.

 

You know, there's no absolute answer to that, in part because I don't think anyone has really done the sort of exhaustive research that would help determine that. The consensus from the professionals I've spoken to is that the age gap issue becomes less problematic as the younger person reaches a state of self-efficacy that typically occurs in one's late 20s... they are typically out of school, started on some sort of career, have been living on their own for some period, and generally functioning as an autonomous adult.

So for shorthand, we could say that after, say, 27 or 28, the gap in age tends to be less problematic because many of the power dynamics that would be present for someone younger than that will have gone away. Of course, there will be exceptions... the person that left home at 16 and has been functionally an adult since late teens, or the person with extremely poor self-esteem at 30, and perhaps still lives with parents and doesn't have a job or career.

So age isn't an absolute, but generally speaking, there are typical growth attributes that tend to come with age that allow us to make assumptions that turn out to be pretty accurate most of the time about how likely it is that a given age gap relationship will last and be healthy. (There are many that last but are incredibly unhealthy, and I don't consider those "successes.")

WIth all of that said, I think for someone under 27 or so, a gap of more than 3-4 years is likely to be problematic. If the person is under 21, the acceptable gap is probably even smaller, maybe 2 years. For someone over 27 or so, then the gap is less problematic and 10 years might not make a difference. I think in almost any case, a gap of 20 years is going to have issues, if not with power dynamics than with stage-of-life issues and things like long-term health concerns.

 

It all depends on the age of the younger person. If the younger person is, say 25 or 27, then the age gap starts to be less of an issue. If they are under 25, it's much more likely to be a problem because there are so many "stage of life" changes between, say, 18 and 25.

 

This was an interesting read. The problem with the Psychology Today stuff is that it's somebody's interpretation of the actual studies, which may or may not be accurate. One needs to actually go to the cited articles (fortunately they are cited at the bottom) to get a good understanding of what's really being said; pop magazines are notorious for selectively highlighting or taking study material completely out of context. In fact, there are several places where the article's author makes some rather unsupported leaps of conjecture (for example, the idea that "humility" and "humiliation" are related; I've seen no research or writing that remotely supports this idea).

One phrase that caught my attention in the Psychology Today article:

So this would tend to support the idea that the subs may, in fact, have self-esteem or other issues.

Additionally, the major study cited (the telephone study) had a number of methodological issues; for one, it didn't differentiate between doms and subs, and other data indicates that, to the extent there are issues with self-conscious affect (self-esteem, shame, etc) they are more likely among subs. This is a pretty serious problem with that study. Another cited study showed little difference between the controls (the non-BDSM people) and the evaluated subjects.

This is one of the major problems with a lot of the research (of all types, but especially in psychology). Methodology is often flawed, there is often a lot of sloppiness in identifying the evaluated groups, which means the sample populations don't generalize to the overall population.

The second article was actually pulling from many of the same primary sources as the first; one thing that caught my eye was the comment that those who participate were shown to have higher levels of dissociation. This is essentially referring to "numbing out" and often points to some sort of traumatic history in the individual (though for some reason the article neglected to mention that.)

This isn't to say that the articles are pointless; the authors make some interesting points, and on the whole, I will absolutely agree that individuals who participate in BDSM aren't inherently suffering from any form of personality disorder. But the article really says almost nothing (nor do the source journal articles I looked at) about the power dynamics between doms and subs, which was the primary point of the discussion here.