And as far as his West Point and college credentials, what interest would somebody with that level of education and that life experience want with somebody in her teens?
Look around at the 30 year olds full of man hate on their second divorce, with a pile of kids, with a full blown drinking (now drugs, too) problem, or who through some other serious personality disorder, never married--pr not for long, and those just a dozen years older with more practice at their particular disqualifying quirk and tell me where his interest would lie? In someone without all that baggage, maybe? While there might be few rare exceptions (nationally, in the day of internet and dating aps), they'd be hard to connect with.
So maybe he sought someone free of well practiced dipsomania, dysfunction, a 'reputation', or the who had the refreshing absence of deep resentments from a prior relationship.
Funny you never raise the question of what she would see in him?
In an age when the differences between 30 and 17 might not be so great in terms of music, culture, and the television shows they'd watched (unlike today where even today's pop culture is so last week), the differences might not be so vast a gulf as to be insurmountable, in fact, far closer than the 'generation gap' of today.
So if he wanted to look for a prospective mate, he'd be wise to look at young women who hadn't developed and ingrained the sort of behaviour that would render them a poor choice, and who were not already married (at least once).
From the accounts of those who were of legal age, the ones I find most credible, he did not make sexual advances. Only those with questionable testimony, forged documents, and such claimed impropriety. The former behaviour is the same sort of 'exploratory' courting which might indicate if a relationship had potential without the carnal entanglements of sexual activity. As has been repeatedly pointed out, observing the proprieties, a date or two either can walk away from unsullied except in the wild imaginations of tongue wagging gossips, a way to remain respectable, unless, of course, viewed through the poison prism of 40 years of "progress" and the gravitational fields of the Washington Post and Liberal Media.
I really don't give a rabid rat's ass what anyone thinks, in that most of the accusers here are women, and have never seen dating from a guy's perspective, nor, from the comments are they capable of even trying to. Their maternal instincts have kicked into overdrive, even denying the relative maturity expressed by young ladies then, who were often preparing to marry that fellow from high school.
So, enough. Count coup on this my last post here on this topic if you must, but you won't change my mind, and I won't change yours.
It is comical so much is being ignored in this, but this isn't why Moore lost. Look at the demographic divisions:
Among white men, Moore got 72%, White women 63% of the vote.
Among Blacks, though, the score was markedly different: Black men 6%, Black Women, 2%
Overall, 68% of the 66% of voters who are white, 4% of the 33% of voters who are black.
That's what shut Moore down at the polls.
Dating 17 year olds had diddley squat to do with it.
