Taking Tea in the Kasbah

Last Wednesday while I was away, we were treated to the witty and wacky banter of Gloria Richard and Sherry Isaac (which you can read about here). Thanks, again, to both ladies for looking after the kasbah and hosting last week’s Would You Rather…? Wednesday!

Two weeks ago, I presented y’all with the question “Would you rather have to live with an unrelenting, mischievous ghost or have to always be on the run from zombies. Much to my surprise it was nearly a slam dunk in favor of the ghosts, with only one person opting for the zombie marathon.

Personally, I wavered a bit. I took to heart all of your reasons for choosing ghosts – ranging from entertainment value and “character enhancement” for your home in favor of the ghosts to the obvious olfactory and germaphobia issues when dealing with zombies.

image credit ~ Mark Lobo via flickr

But I still wasn’t sold on the prospect of having to live with a ghost who would play all manner of pranks on me whenever, wherever, and however it chose. I worried I would never be able to rest in my own home.

And then I realized I really didn’t know much about the zombies, their culture, their mannerisms, or even how quickly they can move. I assumed they ambled slowly – persistently, yes, but oh… so… slowly. I also (wrongly) assumed that if they could yank an arm off just by pulling on a locked door, how hard could it be to keep them out of a securely locked house?

But as many readers pointed out, zombies are not only relentless, but also strong and more than a bit smelly. I’m not someone who spends a great deal of time on zombie lore, and as such was shown the flaws in my logic. I assumed zombies would be the easier of the two to deal with.

Apparently I was wrong.

image credit ~ AlicePopkorn via flickr

So, with reluctance wrapped in pretty bows of trepidation, I chose the live-in ghost. But only if the ghost can adhere to the Hours of Respite and Repose (generally midnight to 9am) which would have to be free from all shenanigans and buffoonery. I’m sure we can come to some agreement, right?


And now, for this week’s question:

Would you rather…

live forever as a 13 year-old

– OR –

live forever as a 65 year-old?


And you, intelligent readers? What age would you choose to remain at – the health and spunk of pre-adolescence or the wisdom and relaxation of retirement? What do you see as the pros and cons to each? Sit, sip, relax and share you thoughts. I always love to hear from you.

22 thoughts on “Wednesday’s “Would You Rather…?” question: Adolescence vs. Retirement

  1. 65 forever…no doubt. forever as a 13 year-old with an unfinished pre-frontal cortex? no thank you. i will get my 65 year-old body in rockin’ shape and hopefully not have dementia with which to deal. plus, pre-frontal cortex fully established. yeah, so i’m slower, wrinklier (i will probably change my mind about my thoughts on having a little work done), and a little less hip, so what?! i will have been-there-done-that and perhaps i will even have worked long enough to retire for 30 years and then do a new career. 65 or bust!

    • Yeah, that whole unfinished brain development thing is a big strike against staying 13 forever. I like having the wisdom that would hopefully come with being 65, that’s for sure. But if I was 13 forever, wouldn’t I have learned a few things and become a super, duper smart 13 year-old? Where is the creator of these wacky questions? I need clarification. Oh wait, that’s me.

  2. I’m going for the 13-year old. Why? You don’t know what you don’t know. At 13, I thought I knew A LOT. Ha!

    I also could eat anything I wanted in large quantities and never gain an ounce. I could stay up past 8:30 pm (my present bedtime). I also could read until midnight because I could stay awake and not pay for it the next morning.

    • I would love to have the resiliency that comes with being 13 again. I’m sure I thought I knew a lot, too. My 12 year-old certainly does.

  3. 13 was torture–I’m lucky I survived. No way I’d go back farther than 25, but 30-35 is as young as I’d even want to be again.

    Sixty is the new forty, and forty so far has been pretty awesome. So sixty-five, for me, would be awesome with a dash of maturity. Perhaps even a smidgen of elegance. Snort!

    • To be in my mid twenties again would be ideal, with that smidgen of elegance you mention thrown in to smooth out the rought edges of my ignorance. 🙂

  4. YES is my answer, Tami.

    Apparently you are unaware that I plan to live with the spunk and flair and abandon of a thirteen YO when I’m sixty-five.


    NEVER going to happen. Now, I must leave to find a mud puddle that requires my attention.

    • I expect nothing less from you than this kind of answer, Gloria. You had me at the words “spunk”, “flair”, and “abandon”. Sign me up! We should all live that way, no matter our numerical age.

    • Wish I were as spunky as you. And as witty to come up with this answer. I never comment on these questions because I get too caught up in trying to figure things out and then I can’t decide. So my answer is YES. I plan to live with the spunk and flair and abandon of a thirteen YO when I’m sixty-five. (that was totally original).

      • Always go with your first answer, Sara. That’s the one you want to choose anyway. 😉

        Gloria was on to something here with the combo 13/65 solution. Kind of skirts the point of choosing one over the other, but I’ll let it slide since it such a popular option here in the kasbah.

  5. The only way I’d want to be 13 again is if I could take my 55 year old brain with me. Otherwise, forget it. I’ll take 65, thanks 😉

    • That seems to be a popular strategy. A kind of cake and eat it, too approach, if you will. A good plan indeed.

  6. My initial was reaction was: *recoil* neither! And upon reflection, it’s still… neither! I don’t think being stuck at the same age would be much fun at all.

    • Neither isn’t one of the options, Ellen. 😉 The point of the game is to be forced to choose one of the two not so great choices. Or if you’re Gloria, you choose both and set a trend for others to follow.

      • But I’m not Gloria… and I was too tired to make a decision and give you a witty answer… have you noticed how everyone else is so witty?… So I bailed 🙂

        • You are witty, but I know what you mean when the wittiness just isn’t there at that moment to throw out into the blogosphere. I’m glad you commented even if you weren’t feeling witty that day. 🙂

  7. If I could be financially independent and have the awareness I have now and go back to 13 in a heartbeat, I’d do it. Otherwise, it would have to be 65. No way would I want to be stuck without being able to drive or work, and be dependent on others for everything!

    • Yes, being able to drive and be financially dependent would be key factors for me in making my decision. Also, I’d like to still be able to have a glass of wine now and again. 🙂

  8. on ,
    livrancourt said:

    Getting older sucks, but living with a 13 & 14 year old makes it a no-contest. I choose 65.
    And hearkening back to your previous post, your defense of zombies has me thinking I should include one in a short story or something. It’s a ‘do the thing that scares you the most’ kind of thing.

    • Getting older sucks in many ways, which is why I’ve seriously considered being 13 despite all its shortcomings.

      Ooh, a zombie short story from Liv? Yes, please.

Send me a Letter

Sending your message. Please wait...

Thanks for sending your message! I'll be in touch soon.

Whoops! There was a problem sending your message. Mind giving that another try?

Please complete all the fields in the form before sending.