Study: Men of All Ages Want Women in Their Mid-20s

[davidn3600]

Straight men of all ages tend to have their romantic sights set on women in their mid-twenties, while women prefer men who are about the same age as they are, according to a new study.

The survey out Friday, financed by the government-backed research funding group Academy of Finland, gathered data on 12,000 Finns and found that women, on average, are looking for partners who are about their age or slightly older. But men across the age spectrum have a sexual preference for women in their mid-20s. This remains true for men of all ages—men in their early-20s or younger are attracted to women older than themselves and older men are attracted to younger women.

The findings are similar to data culled from the dating website OKCupid, which found that male users of the site of all ages, by far, are looking for women in their early-20s.

http://time.com/3433014/men-women-dating-mid-20s/

[sendero]

1. Like so many behaviors of men and women.

.... that folks find so objectionable, it's about BIOLOGY.

We are nothing more than ADVANCED ANIMALS and EVERYTHING revolves around reproduction and survival.

[RKP5637]

3. Yep! Exactly! n/t

[Starry Messenger]

4. Is that why we kill and eat food with our bare hands?

[sendero]

7. Somebody...

... killed that food you eat, probably with advanced tools hence the ADVANCED, but yes.

[Starry Messenger]

9. Why don't women prefer younger men then?

If biological determination is true, then a younger man with more energy and erections would be the desired trait.

[TransitJohn]

12. Not really

A mature man is much more likely to provide a stable environment to raise young in, and that's the trait in play there.

[kcr]

15. A mature man was much more likely to keel over dead

It's bullshit.

[Starry Messenger]

17. +1

Love these threads.

[TransitJohn]

87. Lol

I think you think mature means something other than it does in this context.

[kcr]

91. What do you mean?

Mature man in the context of evo psyche means they were very likely to keel over dead. Life expectancy was much lower then. So the explanation that they'd prefer mature men is laughable. If women prefer older men now, it has nothing to do with evolution.

[seabeyond]

97. you know. this was my first "duh" calling out this crap. why the hell would i want an old man

that cannot protect me

we were told. wisdom.

wtf????

give me physical brute strength and virality.

[kcr]

107. Really. Imagine if we all decided to turn it around.

Hey, guys. It's just biology! Don't want the balding. The paunch. Hey! It's just biology! What can you do! Tribes needed the youthful muclemen to protect from the large fauna of the day. Life was brutal. Biological imperative, y'all. Give us the young, muscled hotties, please! Get a hobby, older men, and learn to cope.

Imagine if they were assaulted with that nonstop. Suddenly evo psych was bunk all along, yep!

[seabeyond]

115. absolutely...

right?

[Jim Lane]

422. What do you mean, "if"?

As a balding middle-aged man with a paunch, I can assure you that those factors diminish my sex appeal to women.

The OP doesn't surprise me -- it's in line with the stereotype that men are more likely than women to be superficial about a partner's physical appearance, while women are more likely than men to be superficial about a partner's socioeconomic status. My guess is that, although my appearance is a handicap, I'm still better off than a straight woman of my attractiveness level would be.

As for "Get a hobby" -- well, you're looking at it.

[Katashi_itto]

449. Lol King Leonidas of Sparta was age 50+ when he died.

While it has been established that King Leonidas of Sparta died at the battle of Thermopylae in August, 480 B.C., very little is known about the year of his birth, or for that matter, his formative years.

Paul Cartledge, the distinguished scholar and historian who has written countless volumes relative to the Spartans, has narrowed the date of the birth of King Leonidas to around 540 B.C. Therefore, if we go under the assumption that Leonidas was born anywhere in the years subsequent to 540 B.C., this would have placed him in the 50+ year old range.

Since we can't say with absolute certainty what the age of King Leonidas was when he fought at Thermopylae, the age attributed to him has come under scrutiny. To the naysayers, it might sound improbable (not impossible, mind you) especially in this day and age for a man in his 50's to have endured the rigors of ancient warfare for several days. When you factor in the stifling heat and humidity of Greece in August, along with the heaviness of his armor which probably would have comprised about half of his body weight. Modern males should emulate this by exercise and combat sports.

The Master of our Kendo school is 82.

The founder of my Aikido style I think was 90 when he died.

There is nothing magical about being fit. It simply takes discipline.

[NickB79]

108. Mature men became mature by being healthy and wealthy thousands of years ago

So even if they keeled over dead, their wives would be well-provided for, generally.

[kcr]

113. This is evo psyche we're talking about. Evolution doesn't happen over thousands of years. n/t

[seabeyond]

117. we are talking beginning of time. innate. no $$$. first crawling ashore.

[NickB79]

122. And you can measure wealth without money

Status in a tribe, such as cheiftan, shaman, or a good hunter/warrior.

And before money, there were skills to be bartered, who made the best stone tools, the most accurate throwing spear, etc.

And those men who were the best at these things tended to accumulate status and allies within early human social structure. The ones who didn't, often didn't live as long due to a poor diet or fights with other men.

[seabeyond]

123. now we take today, and create it into story telling of the past, to make it into

a biological science.

see how easily that works?

[LiberalLoner]

179. +1

[treestar]

355. Zero proof of any of those tendencies named

None whatsoever. The chief might have been the most desirable man to the women. Or he might not have been. I'd have preferred the young warrior over the chief. Most girls would.

[Warpy]

258. Healthy and wealthy? Who are you trying to kid?

Last edited Sat Sep 27, 2014, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Thousands of years ago we were largely nomadic. Men over 30 were likely to be tired and toothless and in decline. The biological determinism you speak of meant little girls started bearing children as soon as their menses appeared, at least half of which would die in infancy.

Wealth is not a consideration among hunter-gatherer societies and women provided 90% of the calories from their daily foraging.

That intrepid cave man stuff you're pushing has been completely debunked decades ago.

The favored age for women has increased slightly. Men used to think the best arm candy was in the last two years of high school. And yes, it's about arm candy to show off to their mates, not any sort of biological determinism. Consider how hard they fight paternity suits when the arm candy turns up pregnant because they whined about wearing condoms.

ETA: I should also point out that women in their mid 20s are at the far end of the safest years for childbearing, 18-26. That's another reason it's only arm candy that men are looking for, not the efficient spread of their precious DNA down the generations.

[treestar]

352. +1 and look at the Victorian years, when 25-26 would mean old maid

what happened to "biology" then?

[seabeyond]

356. not to mention a good segment of our male society chants, once a girl hits puberty, free game.

saying, that for them, biology/evolution/innate dictates the man wants the kid, you know. once she hits puberty. that would be as low as 10 in some instances. religions that go off that premise. countries rules by man that go off that premise.

and they too would argue evolution

even though we know until 20's a woman has as much problems in preg as a woman over 36.

[AngryAmish]

415. 26 is old maid in most of China

[treestar]

428. That's the last year of the best childbearing years

Though it appears China has had enough childbearing, and only wants one kid from each of the ladies in the 18-26 bracket. Modern China's not a real good example of biology, but of fighting it.

[treestar]

338. So all we want is the money

You know, that's at bottom of what you are saying.

This is for shallow people. Shallow men only want looks. Shallow women only want as much money as they can get.

Yet humans have brains. So why do shallow people define "biology?" Why not the smarter ones, who are the ones who have discovered the advances in science, literature, art, etc? It is misanthropic to make these supposed hard line rules about people and using the stupidest people's behavior as the basis.

[seabeyond]

344. you know, the average age difference between married couples is 2.3 yrs. lol

in the scheme of things, that woud be hooking up to the smae age. and that spread is becoming more narrow from 2.7 yr age difference.

seems to me, that factually, that statistic alone would call into question what some of these men proclaim to be an innate, bioogical fact.

[SammyWinstonJack]

128. It is bullshit.

[leftyladyfrommo]

29. Older women may not be looking for that much sex.

They are happy with someone whose kind of over that.

[Starry Messenger]

35. There are studies that suggest otherwise actually.

[leftyladyfrommo]

38. I'm just going by how my friends feel about it.

I'm sure there are older women who still really like sex.

The women I know have mostly moved on to other things.

[narnian60]

162. +100

[PasadenaTrudy]

435. I'm glad those days are over...

No more wolf whistles, groping, or having to put-out. Getting older has been liberating.

[leftyladyfrommo]

496. It really is, isn't it?

Then after 50 you just get invisible and that has it's advantages, too.

[JTFrog]

45. +1 n/t

[LittleBlue]

64. Because mature men have no material loss of fertility

They can lose 90% of their sperm and still have trillions left. I think I saw somewhere an increase in rare genetic diseases, but those are so rare they don't exert an evolutionary pressure.

So yeah, while youthful men are preferable to older men in appearance, their other factors of wealth, power and influence are by far more important. Young men rarely possess those.

[seabeyond]

66. male sperm starts deteriorating at 24. it would behoove a woman to grab 24 and under. maybe risking

upper 20's. physical strength starts deteriorating also. same with risk taker. in the time of brute strength, again, i can make the story the woman is gonna go young

[LittleBlue]

72. Right, scientifically we know that

But once again, it has to be significant enough to exert evolutionary pressure.

The advantages of wealth and power clearly outweigh a sperm degradation that is only perceivable with scientific instruments and statistics.

You are right about degradation. I only ask that you take a moment to think about how far we've come with genetic testing compared to our myth-believing ancestors.

[seabeyond]

74. the way man manipulates in the name of science. for mans story telling as fact. science. lol

[LittleBlue]

89. Man didn't consciously create these rules

They were forced upon us. Even the societal worship of feminine youth wasn't the result of a cabal of male leaders 20,000 years ago deciding "hey, we should make people believe these younger women are optimal."

The urge to make ads with women scarcely 18, the urge to push youth (cruelly) as the defining characteristic of female sexuality, this did not originate with advertising firms. This desire originated long before anyone saw an advertisement for anything.

[seabeyond]

99. uh, ya. men did consciously create these rules. duh. lol. like we are doing in this very thread.

today. why? cause it behooves man to do this. i .... woman. say. no.

[LittleBlue]

102. Question

Why does it behoove men do to this? If, as you say, "we" created these rules, how did we arrive at a consensus on younger women? What drove us to do this?

It makes little sense that we all spontaneously decided to have one preference without any reason for it.

[seabeyond]

106. seriously? how about dominance and power and control. no questions asked cause god or

science said so.

ya think?

[LittleBlue]

112. Men have always had control

Whether the woman is 40 or 14, from prehistory to about the 1960s, men had control over their wives ranging from absolute to dominant.

This would not have been a factor except in the last 40 years or so.

[seabeyond]

119. because they could kill them, if they did not buckle under. ya think? they cant now. all changes.

a really really fast evolution. right?

you do not get to kill us, and the whole world looks different. that has nothing to do with what is innate.

now, man no longer has that control over us. so now, they must create a new religion, and this is in the name of silence. control and dominance is innate in men, and submissive is innate in women.

a religion of patriarchy is borned, all in the name of science.

no different than over 2000 yrs ago.

[qazplm]

116. so you need youth

for dominance, power and control?

If it was about that, why are younger men into older women? Why wouldn't men prefer early 20s instead of mid-20s?

You way oversimplify it into "men bad, the end."

There's certainly an element of that there, no doubt, but it's there when men think more with their biology then their brain, not because men have somehow collectively identified mid-20s as the ideal age to exert maximum "dominance, power and control."

[seabeyond]

121. no. you need the power of story telling. just like religion.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

238. yes, this is what has happened. Men used religion to sell a bill of goods that the gods are men -

father figures. All the major religions have a male dominance at the head. Throughout history man went into places and sold the pagans and wiccans on these Father dominated religions and placed man above woman.

There is a reason that the science fields through out history have been studied, written and slanted toward the male.

It goes hand and hand with the religion/power structure.

Therefore all science places the importance of the male health and the maintaining of keeping the male the head of the power structure.

But, as technology advances the need for physical/brute force has lessened and women/brain/deduction and reasoning are now traits brought to the fore front and needed/desired and the whole religion/male dominance is caving in on itself.

very scary for the man who does not trust anything but the status quo.

[CrispyQ]

255. IMO, the patriarchy won't crumble until the big three are gone.

"Sometime after The Beginning, God was created by Man to Control Woman."

~Book 1, Chapter 1 of the Book of CQ



on edit: Regarding the science aspect, many years ago there was a study that determined that a baby sized aspirin a day was good for adults. Later I had read that the study had been done on men, not women. I don't know if they went back & did another study on women, but that was an aspect of sexism that I had not considered.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

259. I would buy that book!

[jeff47]

291. Re: Studies

Regarding the science aspect, many years ago there was a study that determined that a baby sized aspirin a day was good for adults. Later I had read that the study had been done on men, not women. I don't know if they went back & did another study on women, but that was an aspect of sexism that I had not considered.

Until recently, most studies along the lines of the "aspirin study" you describe were done on men.

The theory was that male and female biology wasn't different enough to matter - if it wasn't meant to affect a sex organ, it didn't matter what sex you used for testing.

So they used men because menstruation could complicate the results - they were worried about differentiating drug effects from hormonal effects as the women went through their cycle. Plus there would be 'marketing' complications - if enough subjects report pain while taking the drug, they have to report pain as a possible side effect. Even if the pain is menstrual cramps and unrelated to the drug - they can't prove it's unrelated.

So they just used men to avoid these kinds problems unless they absolutely had to use women, such as "does this birth control pill work". (Ironically, they first tested the pills in men when they were testing for toxicity before testing for effectiveness in women.)

It's only relatively recently that we've figured out male and female biology is different enough that you'd have to repeat something like the "aspirin study" on women.

[CrispyQ]

293. Thanks for that explanation, although

I would think a thorough study would want to discover if menstruation made an impact.

[jeff47]

303. The theory was menstruation couldn't possibly have an impact on anything

that didn't directly involve her sex organs or bleeding.

This whole "don't have to study in women" idea being wrong is why there's recently been a spate of drugs that were approved and then recalled. And why they're finally starting to study new drugs in women too.

[treestar]

319. Exactly. Being aware that people are becoming less religious

let's switch it to this "biological" imperative. No way around it.

[seabeyond]

321. i think it is so fuckin' in the face obvious. it really has me laughing.

the desperate need.

[joeglow3]

262. Just come out and say it: all men are pieces of shit.

The dance is tiring.

[kcr]

266. That's not true! We're sorry. We'll stop.

No more discussion of this. Everything will go on as usual. Old women are gross and should disappear.

There. All better now?

[joeglow3]

273. Then, if it is not evolutionary, why is it universal across all cultures?

[kcr]

277. Universal across all cultures (if true) does not mean evolutionary.

I think a huge source of the problem is not understanding evolution and the difference between biology and culture. There are plenty of things that are universally common that have nothing to do with biology and evolution.

[joeglow3]

292. Can you name a single culture ever where this wasn't true?

If not, why do you think that is?

[kcr]

300. If it isn't the case? There are plenty of reasons why this could be true.

Culture being the main one. But if this were indeed something that were innate? Then the minute little boys hit puberty they'd crush primarily on 25 year olds. But that's not what happens. The object of their crushes are generally closer to their own age. But in the old days they'd start pinning up posters (now it's the interenet) and those are mainly women in hte age group being discussed) The women society portrays as desierable are in their twenties. This is what drives the attraction, or the profession of that attarction. Reality is often different. Most men aren't in relationships with 25 year olds.

[wickerwoman]

324. Yes.

The Sitones in early Germania, the Mosuo/Naxi in Yunnan China, the Hopi, the Iroquois federation, several early Vietnamese and Indian societies. In terms of property and legal rights, pre-medieval Roman and Celtic women had significantly more power than they did after the church extinguished those rights.

[Shankapotomus]

295. Maybe it's evolutionary but

we are able to override it by using our minds and knowledge over instinct.

And scientists will tell you, due to the pace of civilization, our instincts are lagging behind our modern environment.

[seabeyond]

309. put up a prime 25 yr old man and an average 40 yr old. are you really suggesting a

woman would find the 40 yr old man more attractive?

attraction is a whole different animal than sexualizing a person.

i would sugest women have been well conditioned to understand there worth diminishes as she ages adn a mans entitled to the 20 yr old.

do you think those two basic and different conditions we set up in sexes may explain some of this?

men feel the right to the 20 yr old. per the study, the 20 yr old has no interest in that man

biological or cultural? conditioning?

[Shankapotomus]

336. Are you suggesting age should be a primary consideration

and she couldn't?

I'm not disputing people have been conditioned through evolution. But whatever evolution tells us we should be doing we can override it if we are conscious of the reasons for our behavior and our more primitive instincts interfere with some of our more advanced and developed needs.

[seabeyond]

339. i am saying it is story telling and i too can come up with a story. so do not tell me it is

science and factual, when that is not a truth.

[Shankapotomus]

346. Okay

Let's examine what it is you regard as an untruth because I'm a little unclear on that.

What is the story? That evolution gives us a strong suggestion of what to be attracted by?

[seabeyond]

350. i do not even know where to start... with this post. i ahve made so many statements thru out,

explaining my position.

what you say is pretty damn open. youa re gonna have to help me out. or peruse posts and come to an understanding of at least what i am saying. whether you agree or not

[Shankapotomus]

368. Actually I had read your previous posts

and just needed to re-familiarize myself with the discussion.

I think I see what you're objecting. The story of Evolution is being used as an excuse to excuse basically misogynist and dominant behaviors.

I agree it is often used to justify continued exploitation of women.

But the thing is even if certain behavioral traits are reinforced by evolution, it's not the final story.

Judgement can still be made on behaviors developed through evolution.

So it's not a huge capitulation to me as it may be to you to admit some of our evolutionary instincts can hurt us as a society but they are still behaviors coded within us we can override with conscious attention.

I'm sure the ancient fear coded into us of the ancestor of the dog hurt our relations with them for awhile. But it wasn't written in stone. It was overcome.

A male lion will literally kill the cubs of a rival male. Pretty much always, if they are given the chance (the females will try to prevent this).. That's an example of an existing but really shitty evolutionary behavior. Only the lion is just not intelligent enough to override that behavior pattern.

We, of course, are and have brought under control a great many behaviors.

[seabeyond]

372. even if certain behavioral traits are reinforced by evolution, it's not the final story.

point being the "if". we are clealuess. i can argue how it would be the other way around, a man would want one, and in a range that may even be older than him, for greatest survival.

we do nto know. no "if's" if there is no basis for an if.

Judgement can still be made on behaviors developed through evolution.

jedgments can certainly be made as we see, yet, when they are done by man, for man, used as a weapon against woman, all in a fable, then there is a problem.

[Shankapotomus]

379. I'm certain you know Evolution is not a fable

So your objection must be to the suggestion that men, all other things being equal, are hard-wired to be attracted to the physically healthiest female?

Um well yeah. I would say that's basically true if a man doesn't really do much thinking about it or about himself in relation to his attraction.

But there are so many reasons and benefits to thinking about our choices.

[seabeyond]

374. i am supposed to like pink, per men, because women picked berries. i am suppose to want an old man

when i am young, i am suppose to have emotional attachment when i want sex, i am suppose to not want sex as much as a man and i am supposed to not wnat sex at all when i am old, and no man is suppose to want sex with me at al cause i went out of 20's. though any of those have never held as my reality.

i am suppose to be so inept a man must take care of me. until laws proetected me instead of restricted me. then evolutionary wise, all of a sudden, whole generations of women evolved in a mere couple decades to take care of themselves.

when any "theory" created by man, is all about defining who i am, defining my sexuality, regardless of personal experience, to control and dominate me, in the name of science or a religion....

i bulk.

just the way i am. which probably would not fit into the evolutionary scheme of things on who and what a woman is, defined by man.

[Shankapotomus]

382. Actually evolutionary theory says

you have the instincts for survival coded within you. The mere fact that you're here is evidence.

Not to suggest that women are in any way weak, but there are many species of less intelligence and strength than the female of the human species surviving just fine.

So there is no question women can survive on this planet and survive well without the presence or assistance of men if you disregard the reproduction factor.

There is nothing in evolution that says they can't.

[seabeyond]

384. and a mere couple three decaes ago, that very argument is what helped to keep women

imprisoned in the control and domination thru men.

[Shankapotomus]

387. Evolution kept women imprisoned three decades ago?

Hmm. Not sure exactly what you're refering to here.

I know through out history evolution has been used by people other than scientists to justify all sorts of injustices. But that's not the science doing that; that's people abusing the science.

[seabeyond]

390. the reasons for laws made to subjagate women, was that women biologically did not have

me abilities of man. since religion, this has been used against women and blacks.

we are not happily jumping back in because men need ot have a religion in the name of science, to dominate and control.

scientists debunk this evo psych. i am not the outliear. evo psych and believers are.

[Shankapotomus]

393. So you're not an advocate

of evolution?

You don't accept any part of evolution or just the parts that say women are predisposed, on average like men, to certain behaviors?

[seabeyond]

398. i do not like, nor do i feel the validity of evo psychology. i think it is a flawed soft science.

with a heavy doage of male privilege and agenda. you know. we have been thru this before. we went thru all this not long ago. a year or more. scientists do not hold evo psych as a valid science. i also gave you the info on the why of that.

it is in this thread, i will link it ot you again.

and still.... you do not address what they did with the color pink. that should be an easy all out. well hell... they certainly fucked up on that one. instead, you ask me a question about not being an advocate of evo psych. when we are basing so much more, in the answers we are given, my life.... thru law and criinal justice, you can damn well bet i want more than hit and miss guesses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025590912#post226

[Shankapotomus]

400. My god

You work so hard in our discussions. I feel terrible. I'm a pain. I'll let you go.

[seabeyond]

386. you totaly ignored all my points in your reply. i just realize. all the points defining

me and my sexuality and experience, by a man in the name of science.

[Shankapotomus]

388. Okay

Let me look back. One minute.

[Shankapotomus]

391. Okay so you might be evolutionarily predisposed

to like pink and the other sexual stuff. I'm supposed to be a hyper-aggressive brute. You think that's a picnic for me? Let me tell you whatever evolution says women are predisposed to do is a lot better for humanity that what it says men are supposed to do. More men should be doing what women are allegedly predisposed to do. It would be a lot more gentle and kinder civilization.

But again, all of that can be overruled by our minds, culture, etc. It may be our basic template but we don't have to use it. At one time, those behaviors weren't as unconsciously reinforced as they became after thousands of years. And, the more we override them through culture, the less reinforced they will become over time. A lot of that crap is already fading away anyway.

[seabeyond]

394. you miss the point. pink. society has decided pink is a girls color. in the past pink was a boys

color. it is only recent times it has been declared a girls color. so what do the "brilliant" evo psych people do? the then have to fit girls love of pink to prehistoric time, to play their game.
berries

that is it

women picked berries. so girls like pink because the females picked berries

but wait. not long ago in history, girls did not liek pink per se. that as created by a society that conditioned girls to want pink to identify female.

do you get the stupid?

[Shankapotomus]

397. Oh evolutionary psychologists

I thought we were talking just straight evolution. Yeah, evolutionary psychologist are fucking nuts.

The few things I've read by them were just horrible. I don't get them.

I'm not sure even the correct evolutionary interpretation of our instinctual behaviors is going to paint a rosy picture of either sex anyway, but I have to plead ignorance on understanding what evolutionary psychologists are doing and how it relates to Darwin's Evolution.

Thanks for the discussion, didn't mean to keep you so long.

[seabeyond]

399. ok. well then, ignore my last post to you. nt

[Generic Other]

463. One question about learned behaviors vs. biological

Most cultures have had some form of arranged marriage for centuries, and this is something that has recently declined in favor of the notion of "romantic" love which implies a different sort of self-selection. Arranged marriages tended to be socioeconomic in nature. The typical arrangement was older male, younger woman. It is a conservative way to spread wealth and maintain power. I remember reading once about a Civil War widow collecting survivor's benefits a century after the war. It is a form of security that is embedded into our thinking. Jane Austen endorsed it. It seems conditioned and self-selection at the same time. Are the two mutually exclusive?

[treestar]

465. It depended

I think arranged marriages depended on land - you can find men marrying older women in history.

One interesting example that backfired:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodville

In India they are always married to people of similar age.

[Shankapotomus]

475. Sorry for the delay in replying

I'm not sure why my answer is more important than your own to that one but I guess if the question you are implying is can something be both conditioned and selected...I never thought about it. You could probably look back at history and see that, the further back you go, the more self-sufficient women were in terms of surviving day to day which would imply it's a learned behavior stemming out of increased in group cooperation.

But can it be both? I'm not sure an already conditioned behavior (if indeed it is conditioned) needs to be reinforced with both. A conditioned behavior would imply it is already an automatic behavior pattern. Why would an automatic behavior pattern need to be learned?

Women's relationship to technology, which is kind of like a helper relationship, I would think could be seen as analogous to their relationship with the male species. Women's use of modern technology is obviously a learned behavior borne out of their interaction with the new technology. Women rely on this new technology but can usually, with a small amount of relearning, switch back to an older form of doing the same task - usually manual - if they need to do so.

Lastly, a conditioned dependency on males would imply, when left to her own devices, a woman could not survive on this planet alone or in groups because they allegedly are supposed to be lacking the automatic evolutionary behavior patterns to do so. And that is clearly wrong.

I think the social contract between men and women, as flawed as it is, is an ancient contract between two capable animals both superbly adapted to survive on earth alone, if need be, except for reproduction of course. But look at all the solitary species that survive and reproduce.

In every other species, the females are adapted to support themselves, to feed themselves, to survive. Why would human females be any different?

I'd be interested in your own answer to your question.

[Generic Other]

479. I guess I was wondering

if learned behaviors could influence biology. Your response about our ability to adapt is a logical one. And your sense that the social contract is something independent of evolutionary behavior patterns makes sense. On the other hand, haven't we always self-selected for neotany? This has had to have effected our development in some sense.

What an interesting discussion. Sorry I have so little to offer!

[Shankapotomus]

480. From what I've read

a repeated behavior over time - thousands of generations - becomes an adaptation, whether physical or a behavioral pattern. But, over time, the same adapted behaviors and physical characteristics can change to still others.

P.S. I don't have much more to offer either. I just like discussing evolution.

[treestar]

305. Yes they did

In the Victorian Age, it took men a long time to be able to provide for a family, a social unit that had been created years ago and so started the preaching to relatively powerless women that at 17 they should marry 40 year olds. One shudders to think of what those girls endured. They could have had no idea before they got married.

[Generic Other]

473. And yet it provided for the daughters

In my mother's family all her sisters marriages were arranged. Pre-WW2. They married wealthy older men who offered stable homes, good names, family connections. My mother on the other hand said the men of her generation died in the war. She picked her own guy. Messed up the family tree.

[treestar]

487. Luckily and thanks to feminism, we don't have to be "provided for" any more

and don't have to marry older men we aren't attracted to in order to have a home.

I think of Jane Austen's character, Charlotte Lucas, poor thing. Has to marry a moron to get a place in the world. That was male supremacy.

[Generic Other]

490. The practice has not ended in Asia

And I have had students who were coerced into such arrangements. Not exactly force. I remember a girl crying in my office because she was going to Australia to marry a man she had never met. She could have said no but she risked her family casting her out.

Conversely, I knew a half Asian guy whose mother sent him back to Vietnam to find a wife.

I have heard from some that many arranged marriages turned out better than our method with its 50% fail rate.

[seabeyond]

491. i talked to an india woman who had arranged marriage.

all the way from dallas to amarillo. lol. 6 hour drive. she wanted to know about american women perspective on things and was non stop questions. but yes.... she was comfortable with the system of arranged marriages.

[Generic Other]

492. I felt powerless

All I could say to the girl was that it wasn't the custom in the West and she should not do anything she felt uncomfortable doing, but her obligation to honor her family's wishes trumped her reluctance.

I have often wondered about her fate. I hope she was happy.

[seabeyond]

493. you have abusive parents, you have loving parents.

from the conversation i had, loving parents really work, do all the work, in finding people they feel will be compatible and a good match. and they work at a gentle introduction and getting to know period.

i would imagine in the abusive situation, those considerations are not taken into consideration.

[whathehell]

402. Who "forced" them on you?

[treestar]

302. wealth and power are social, not biological

if you want to make it about biology, it has to be unaffected by the human mind and social constructions, which is almost impossible.

Primitive people lived in tribes, so the women did not have to worry about the "provider" role.

[pnwmom]

486. But they do have material loss of HEALTHY sperm cells.

Just as with women, the quality of their reproductive cells go down with age.

[Ampersand Unicode]

501. It's not just "rare diseases." Aged sperm are at higher risk for producing mentally ill offspring.

Which means 18-26 is probably the ideal time for men to produce healthy children too. Even if they can reproduce, the chances are higher that their offspring will have not-so-rare and very debilitating genetic diseases. Mostly mental illnesses and neurological problems like ADHD, bipolar disorder, autism, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, dyslexia, OCD, etc.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/27/study-children-of-older-fathers-at-much-higher-risk-of-psychiatric-disorders/

So it's not just 40+ women who have greater risk of producing children with Down syndrome. Older fathers are at higher risk of producing children with mental illness and learning disorders. I would guess that "older" might be as "young" as 30-35.

In which case, I sure hope George Clooney has had himself "fixed."



THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

[sendero]

136. An older man..

.. is more likely to be able to provide.

[seabeyond]

138. not when he is dead cause the 19 yr old took him down, or an animal. nt

[Starry Messenger]

148. Why?

Provider isn't a biological trait, nor does it cause babies. Sperm causes babies and any fertile woman would want a guy who has as many erections as possible to create them.

[hifiguy]

186. in long distant times, the mere fact that a male survived to

what was then maturity in a world that was red in tooth and claw indicated that he was an above-average specimen.

And people seldom keeled over dead from heart attacks in those days. Death was caused by infections, injuries and perhaps being eaten by a short-faced cave bear or saber-toothed cat.

[seabeyond]

188. ah. the women want the old man cause he is wise, lol. as his days are counted? lol

[hifiguy]

218. I doubt considerations of wisdom had anything to do with it

as such a concept would likely have been beyond the analytic and conceptual capabilities of the brains of proto-humans and early humans. Reflections of that nature come with the time to contemplate and the tools to do so. Time to contemplate such abstractions would have been de minimis at that era of human evolution given the nature of the environment in which our forbears lived. All that it would indicate would be above-average basic survival skills in a profoundly hostile environment, which would be a valuable quality to seek out.

It is well beyond the ability of even a Ph.D. in genetics and biology (which I am assuredly not) to sort out your misconceptions and mischaracterizations of the way evolutionary biology works and it is apparent they are driven entirely by ex post facto imposition of your ideology on the evolutionary process, which is in and of itself profoundly logically incorrect as well as being intellectually dishonest. I might suggest Dawkins' The Selfish Gene to begin with.

Ideology doesn't play much of a role at the molecular level.

[seabeyond]

221. even though scientists debunk evo psych. gotcha.

[hifiguy]

225. Link it. I'd like to read it

and if literally saying "gotcha" to rebut an argument I DID NOT EVEN MAKE is your idea of cleverness I rest my case.

I REPEAT, the only thing I said about evolutionary psych is that it should be subject to scientific investigation, not that the theory was correct or incorrect. I don't give a hoot whether it is a valid theory or not, but think it is an interesting question. Why is it necessary for you to consistently mischaracterize what I so clearly wrote? Perhaps that's all you have to offer the conversation? Whatever, it is massively and transparently dishonest from an intellectual standpoint.

Back to Equestria Daily for me. I have wasted enough time with you.

[opiate69]

414. Much like the "scientists" who debunk global climate change.

[kcr]

323. It also indicated he wasn't long for the world compared to someone younger

It would make more sense logically for a prehistoric woman to select a younger mate.

Really, the whole select a mate for youth makes more sense from a female perspective, not a male one. The spread the seed theory should mean that men would have boned as many women as possible and not be as discriminate. Women should be the ones focused on age, not men. But it's funny how it didn't work out that way.

[seabeyond]

326. we really do not know how it worked out. funny how male story telling shifted the fable

more like. lol.

the beginning, i see a whole lot of not know shit, and everyone in it together. i would think that would be the only way for the greatest survival.

[kcr]

329. Yep. We really don't.

You can take the same amount of very limited information and spin a tale that tells a very different story, equally as plausible. Not science.

[seabeyond]

333. point. and it wont be glorifying make sexuality. ergo, it is irrelevant. like this is not obvious.

we have seen religion do the same, and the results we all live.

[Xithras]

330. There's a purely biological reason why women would have less age preference than men.

With human females, increased age correlates directly to increased rates of birth defects and a lower overall fertility rate, with little reproductive upside.

With males the situation is a little different. While the rate of sperm mutations are higher in older men, the very nature of sperm means that only the healthiest are likely to fertilize an egg. This helps to weed out inferior sperm and reduces the odds of birth defects. Females have no similar mechanism to weed out inferior eggs. While the rate of birth defects does increase with the age of the father, the rate is much lower than experienced by women. The primary problem with older men, then, is simply a lower sperm count. The odds of an older male successfully contributing to a pregnancy are lower, but if one does occur, the odds of the child suffering from a disability that would lead to its death or abandonment are low.

Possibly more importantly, human males also have a slight biological advantage as they age. For reasons we don't entirely understand, the length of the telomeres in human sperm tends to increase as the male ages. Those longer telomeres are passed on to the offspring, and longer telomeres appear to be tied very closely to a humans rate of aging and their risk for cancer.

In other words, it may be harder for a women to actually conceive a child with an older man, but if she does so the offspring is likely to live a longer life with less risk of cancer. That means the child will have a longer period of healthy reproduction, which translates to biological success and an evolutionary advantage.

For women, there's little reason to have a biological preference. Younger men have a higher likelihood of causing pregnancy. Older men have a higher likelihood of generating healthier offspring. Both situations are potentially beneficial.

[seabeyond]

337. mens sperm starts degrading at 24. womens productive system starts in mid 30's. nt

[Xithras]

370. Different types of degradation.

Male degradation typically results in reduced sperm count and motility. This reduces the odds of a pregnancy. However, even men in their 80's are capable of generating sperm without defect.

Female reproductive degradation usually results in decreased ovum quality.

An older man is less likely to initiate a pregnancy, but as the healthiest sperm with the best motility are more likely to be the initiators of the pregnancy, the odds of the pregnancy being successful are much higher. Ova degradation, on the other hand, leads too higher rates of morality and birth defects no matter how efficient the rest of the female reproductive system is.

Part of the difference is the way they are created. A 35 year old woman is generally attempting to fertilize 35 year old ova, which have 35 years of accumulated genetic damage. Male sperm, on the other hand, live two months at the absolute longest (presuming no ejaculation, sperm typically exist between 40 and 70 days in the male body before they die off). The male body becomes less efficient at creating sperm as it ages, but most male bodies still produce a substantial number of genetically flawless sperm well into old age.

[seabeyond]

377. defective sperm as in handicapped children. i am not gonna do the research, but read up on old sperm

[Man from Pickens]

426. That's not quite how it works

in the overwhelming majority of cases a "defective sperm" is one that can't do its job of fertilizing an egg - but there are millions of them so some defective sperm in the bunch doesn't stop the good ones from getting through

that would be like say there's a problem with every GM car because some GM cars have an ignition problem

[seabeyond]

432. lower iq, autism, adhd, decreased fertility, genetic problems, miscarriage for the woman of any ....

increase in chance with an older male.

[bettyellen]

437. schizophrenia also

[seabeyond]

440. yes. that went in genetic disorders. correct. nt

[bettyellen]

441. sticking point for me- everyone blamed Mom for my brother's "emotional" disease way back when

[seabeyond]

442. ya. that is not good. i hear ya. and everything wrong in that.

but then, i would not blame anyone... jsut deal with the issue

there were other disorders in the catagory of genetic disorders.

[treestar]

343. Nope, older men's sperm also increases chances of birth defects

It is not "the nature" of sperm that only the best ones make it - that's ridiculous. No one has a way of knowing or measuring that.

Women and men tend to marry in their 20s and they marry each other. That's why they are called "generations." The generation that had children in the 50s was born in about the 30s. The Generations born in the 50s had children in the 80s. It's always been that way, and the few exceptions are harped on so men don't have to face old age.

[Xithras]

366. Sperm degradation typically results in decreased motility.

There is absolutely a way of knowing that, and it's basic male biology. Severe degradation of male sperm usually results in decreased motility. The less healthy a sperm is, the slower it tends to move. Since a normal male ejaculation results in the implantation of millions of sperm cells, higher motility rates cause the healthiest sperm to reach the ovum first. While there are certainly a large number of birth defects that can be transmitted while motility is maintained, the most degraded are weeded out by the nature of the fertilization process.

Yes, the odds of birth defects resulting from older fathers DO increase, but it's at a rate substantially lower than what is experienced by women. At age 50, the odds of a womans pregnancy resulting in a child with birth defects is about 1 in 40. For 50 year old males with younger females (25), the rate is closer to 1 in 1000. While that number is substantially higher than what a 25 year old woman would experience with a 25 year old man (roughly 1 in 1400), it's still a far lower defect rate than that experienced by women as they age.

[treestar]

369. There's no way those stats, even if true, argue that women

want to marry older men. Their sperm still degenerates. Even if it's not as fast, now that we know it degenerates, if that was all we cared about, we'd look for younger men when we wanted to have children.

Most people marry someone in their age group. That's why it is noticeable when there is a big age difference. When women are young, a young men are the most physically attractive to us.

Romance novels never include old rich men as the heroes. Young women do not want old men. They may have been forced to take them in the past, due to patriarchal social situations.

The few shallow gold diggers want the money, not the man. How a man could think that was a good thing for him is beyond understanding. Such a man would be a moron. And deserves to be fooled the way he is being fooled.

[Xithras]

376. I'm not talking about marriage.

Marriage and romance are societal creations. I'm talking about selective evolutionary pressures that were hammered into us before we even figured out how to walk upright.

Humans, almost uniquely, have a choice in how we respond to those biological pressures. We can give into them, we can override them, and we can even outlaw them. What we cannot do, however, is make them go away.

I'm a 41 year old man. Do I find 25 year old women pretty? Sure. If I were single and a 25 year old woman wanted to sleep with me, would I go for it? Probably...how many more chances would I get to do THAT in my life?

If a 25 year old woman wanted to marry me and have my babies, would I go there? Not in a million years. While the biological nudge may be there to make 25 year old women "attractive" to men my age, the intelligent and evolved part of me can sit here for an hour listing the reasons why it would be a terrible idea.

Part of the problem with this discussion is that everyone wants to run to one of the edges. They're claiming that biology doesn't matter, and it's 100% choice, or they're claiming that we're programmed to behave in a certain way. As with most things, the answer is in the middle. Our genes certainly do predispose us to like or dislike certain things. As evolved human beings, we aren't slaves to those predispositions and can override them if we choose. That doesn't make the predispositions irrelevant or nonexistent, but it does mean that they can be overridden by other factors.

If I were single, I might sleep with a 25 year old if given the opportunity, but I'd really only date someone in their mid-30's or later. Relationships require more than physical attraction.

[seabeyond]

378. do i find a 25 yr old man attractive? well sure. if he wanted ot have sex with me, well sure, if

not married. how many more opportunities will i have to get it on with youth?

youth.... is attractive. that is a given.

i am saying, that society allows men to believe it is their inherent right to that 20 yr old. kinda like the whole evo crap validates that mind thinking. while the women is continually told that after a certain age, she is throw away, so do not even go there, thinking entitled. that has NOTHING ot do with evolution and everything to do with societal conditioning.

[treestar]

448. It is 100% choice, we are humans and we have brains

Biology forces us to do nothing. Breathe and eat, maybe.

People always prefer the more attractive people and age is one factor. Do you think there are no homely 18-25 year old women? No fat ones? Go to a college campus.

Women prefer more attractive men, too. Youth is a big factor in that. There is no way to prove I have a "predisposition" to finding older men with money more attractive. I never have. It's bullshit, meant to announce that men have the advantage, as usual.

It is so weird how you are telling me how I am biologically programmed when I don't experience that.

If you really want a younger woman, go for it, but don't expect them to be actually very willing and expect to wait a long time, maybe never. No, we do not like your money that much. If you're George Clooney, maybe, but most men are not going to get the prize.

[seabeyond]

453. all the millions upon millions upon millions of women that have married poor,

across the globe, from beginning of time until today.

ya. it is about the money.

kinda like men are biologically inclined to rape. (i have never said this. there are evo psych that have written books on it). the zilions of men that do not rape would tell us otherwise.

[treestar]

464. True there are countless married poor men

The whole idea is weird. They keep repeating it, but it does not reflect reality. Maybe rich men marry who they think is the more attractive women, but in general rich men will marry women from rich families not the prettiest girl they can find no matter what her background.

[kcr]

345. So much wrong with this

Absolutely not true.

[treestar]

371. They do

In the past, women's preferences were not consulted. Women were told it didn't matter. They were told they had to be married, and to do the best they could and that the man had the choice. This was true through the Victorian age and up to at least the 1960s for most women.

Women freed from that do pick younger men where they can get away with it. Take Cher, for an example, with her string of boy toys. Or those escorts rich older women have.

[davidn3600]

10. That's what humans did for about 99% of our evolutionary history

Did they have Super Wal-Marts and McDonalds in the stone age? Don't think so.

[Starry Messenger]

11. Are we still in the stone age?

Humans have evolved.

This study is bad science.

[TransitJohn]

14. The human organism,

and, I would argue, intellect, has hardly evolved from the stone age, if at all. I think you are confusing social interaction with biological evolution. Which is 'bad science.'

[Starry Messenger]

16. This study used subjects from a dating website

A self-selected group will already have some predetermined qualities and interests that don't appear to be accounted for. Pop science at best and lazy researching.

[JTFrog]

46. +1 n/t

[TransitJohn]

84. All salient points, but

Has nothing to do with what I said.

[Starry Messenger]

88. You seemed to be supporting the science in the OP.

If otherwise, then you were unclear.

[TransitJohn]

93. I was clear.

You read an agreement into something when none was implied. Your own prejudices were in play there, not mine.

[Starry Messenger]

96. "I think you are confusing social interaction with biological evolution. Which is 'bad science.''

See post 31 for science refuting our stone age brains. Otherwise, you aren't making any sense, so will conclude this subthread as talking past each other.

My only "prejudice" is a dislike for sloppy research.

[seabeyond]

109. all the men, having mid life crisis, fucking up their life, cause they cannot let go of youth.

comprising a study.... on our sexuality. too fuggin funny. no thanks.

[sabrina 1]

144. There's no fool like an old fool! Lol, a dating website, probably a bunch of old guys who are

married whose wives find them so boring they think if they find some young woman, they will be less boring! Lol!

Fools and their money are easily parted. Another truism.

[bettyellen]

246. "His bubblegum phony pop psych is his hallmark. I'm embarrassed for him. " We will have to be

embarrassed, because this shit is shameless. Imagine scouring the web for cheesy studies like this, LOL.
I can't imagine!

[JI7]

360. wonder why the post you responded to here was Hidden

and by a 5 to 2 vote. to me that post pretty much told what this entire thread is about. i guess too much honesty for some.

[MerryBlooms]

395. Ageism and sexism used to be regularly dismissed on DU

but not these days. The OP was left but the honesty gets hidden and shouldn't be.
I'm sure if there were an equal pseudo science post about women not wanting short men, little d*cks or guys over 50, that shit would have been hidden toot-sweet, and should be.
Misandry!!11!1!!

[LiberalLoner]

180. +1

[treestar]

306. true, thinking you can order up a human body for your use

and that there will be no personality there except one you've already assigned, of the Stepford variety, is "biological" and impossible for men not to do.

[Ilsa]

22. No, we just kill with greater efficiency now.

And money has become the symbol for greatest chance of survival. But biology, quite often, still dictates desire in a mate, I believe is what the poster is saying.

[Starry Messenger]

31. Fast-Evolving Brains Helped Humans out of the Stone Age

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolutionary-psychology-brain-changes/

I hold the scientific opinion that human brains have evolved to be more advanced and complicated than evo psych allows for:

Just like our animal skin–clad ancestors, we gather food with zeal, lust over the most capable mates, and have an aversion to scammers. And we do still wear plenty of animal skins. But does more separate us from our Stone Age forebears than cartoonists and popular psychologists might have us believe?

At first blush, parsing the modern human in terms of behaviors apparently hardwired into the brain over eons of evolution seems like a tidy, straightforward exercise. And 30 years ago, when the field of evolutionary psychology was gaining steam, some facile parallels between ancient and modern behaviors lodged themselves in the popular conceptions of human evolution. "It's very easy to slip into a very simplistic view of human nature," says Robert Kurzban, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, citing the classic Flintstones stereotype.

Advances in neuroscience and genetics now suggest that the human brain has changed more rapidly—and in different ways—than was initially thought, according to a new paper published online July 19 in PLoS Biology.

"There's been a lot of recent evolution—far more than anyone envisioned in the 1980s when this idea came to prominence," says Kevin Laland, a professor at the University of Saint Andrew's School of Biology in Scotland and co-author of the new paper. He and his colleagues argue that today's better understanding of the pace of evolution, human adaptability and the way the mind works all suggest that, contrary to cartoon stereotypes, modern humans are not just primitive savages struggling to make psychological sense of an alien contemporary world.

if all we were is a collection of biological impulses based on reproduction, why would we have birth control? Or control any other biological impulse?

[seabeyond]

41. evolution told us, women were emotional and incapable of taking care of self. 4 decades, we speed

thru this supposed evolution at an amazingly unrealistic rate that once given the freedom, independence and ability to financially take care of our selves, we did it, well. and are fast forwarding on that track. a mere 4 decades, we light sped thru evolution.

or

the reason we were unable in the past was cause man had set up rules not allowing us to be able to take care of ourselve.

i dunno

this is the huge and obvious problem with evolutionary theory. the refuse to look at the conditioning and today, for the situation, and simply apply it and make it work, with the beginning of time.

it is all about innate. nothing about learned. nothing.... about learned. and that is the fail.

we do not even know what the behaviors at beginning of time is. we simply take todays behaviors and apply them to eginning of time in story telling. just simply, making shit up. that serves.... oh wait, men.

[Starry Messenger]

62. I just read a BBC article that said 30% of older women date younger men.

I don't think the study in the OP has much validity. It just serves an agenda.

[seabeyond]

68. and that will probably end up about the same as for men. why? because women can now do it.

we were not "allowed" in the past. see how fast evolution was for us women. in four decades, we totally jumped ot where men are.

this whole stuff is bullshit. a bunch of men grasping to it like men grasp to a religion.

[whathehell]

69. Yep, the more financially independent women become,

the more their behaviors mirror those of men.

[Ilsa]

103. Good analysis, reference. I'll definitely

Keep an open mind about it.

I guess it just seemed like the first impulse of those polled regressed into the "select a younger, fertile mate" mindset. It's certain to be more complicated than that.

[seabeyond]

125. or. i am getting old, i need youth to make me feel young again. either way. lol. nt

[Starry Messenger]

132. +100

Thanks for reading!

[Jackpine Radical]

420. Actually I do that. I did it again today.

The plum tomatoes were delicious fresh from being picked out of the garden. I ate them like grapes.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. Of course, and this...

is about deep wants, with some observations about how it works out in reality.

Males of most species prefer to spread sperm as widely as possible, with preference, if any, to females with the best probability of successful breeding. Females with a choice choose males according to their own criteria for the species.

Both of them look for healthy breeding partners with specific traits to improve the species.

Why does the fact that we are mammals with mammalian evolutionary traits upset some people so much?

Do they think we can't deal with them if we understand them?

Or do they believe we were created as a completely distinct being with no relationship to any other animals on the planet?

(Bad science = science I don't like)

[seabeyond]

30. this is used as a religion in the name of science to dominate and control, no different than

the patriarchal religions. when every instance of this "science" is establishing mans control and dominance thru story telling, and if people do not buy it they are anti science (or as in religious, going to hell), then it is all too obvious.

they take events of todays world, and instead of looking at todays world to see how it is created, they apply todays world to the beginning of time and create a story that works for men, to dominate and control.

like calling out religion, we call out this. that is why so many have issues with this creative storytelling crap.

[TreasonousBastard]

49. Don't be silly...

This is pointless arguing for argument's sake.

If you have a problem with science, answer it with science, not politics or polemics.

[seabeyond]

50. if i, along with real scientists, argue this bogus garbage, we have a problem with science.

ya. this is the argument men use, that hold on tight to this story telling for the sole purpose of dominance and control. lol

thanks, for perfectly giving us an illustration.

silly me. i am just a woman after all. we are not innately capable of anything more. so these men tell us, in the name of science.

[TreasonousBastard]

57. Personally, I don't differentiate the gender of...

whoever is talking when speaking of arguments.

Men are quite capable of making silly arguments, and I have noticed that in this forum they seem to make sillier ones, and more of them, than the women.

It's really very simple-- belittling a study just because you don't like it is silly, no matter who it is talking.

[seabeyond]

61. yet, i do not see you adn other men address your disagreements with men as ... silly.

give me a post, anywhere, in disagreement with men, that you stated, .... silly. to a man

you can claim but behavior does not show that to be a fact.

i though, am silly.

me.

[seabeyond]

63. btw. that would be the very silent conditioning we do of the sexes, that allow results like these

and then be defined as innate, rather than condition. and applied to the beginning of time. and then developing the story, that women are silly. see. listen to evolution

now you have a scientific valid reason to today, call me silly. science says so.

see. you gave me another perfect illustration to make my point.

very interesting. right?

[TreasonousBastard]

77. I have, but I'm not going to dredge up old posts to prove it.

[seabeyond]

86. well. unless i see, i am not buying. it is not a norm. something we do. we have created silly...

as feminine.

[Starry Messenger]

33. See post 31.

[TreasonousBastard]

52. I saw it, and...

that's no more settled than anything else in this thread. In some ways we have evolved, in other ways we may not have. Nobody's made a definitive list. Remember that we still have an appendix and a tailbone-- the brain might evolve faster than the body, but how much faster?

As far as human sexual relations go, you can pick a study to illustrate (but rarely prove) anything you want.

To get back to the original hot topic-- don't forget the fantasy aspect of all this. Women in their 20's represent one ideal. Just one.

[Starry Messenger]

59. This is the original topic.

Using subjects from a dating website that preselected an age preference to state that all men of all ages prefer this age is confirmation bias, not science.

It's like discovering that members of a website that is devoted to strawberry ice cream prefer strawberries and concluding that all humans prefer strawberries.

[seabeyond]

60. Nobody's made a definitive list."" (but rarely prove) anything you want."

yet. your reply to me, you tell me i am being silly.... and anti science. because i said just this

bogus. story telling. creating. no one fuggin knows.

yet. in that post, you demand (or we are insulted) that we acknowledge, accept as fact.

right?

[hifiguy]

249. There is a certain breed of lefty that is as implacably anti-science

as are the right wing bottom feeders. They are as profoundly uncomfortable with the fact that humans are highly evolved apes as are the fundymentalpatients and neither mindset cannot accept that we are forever imperfect products of an evolutionary process that had no agenda other than survival of the species through adaptation.

I laugh heartily at both groups. They'd rather believe than know. Which is boundlessly and inexplicably stupid.

[whathehell]

58. Um, some of us tend to "evolve" beyond basic biological instincts, but

only if, like women, we lack the social power to resist change.

[seabeyond]

71. this is not even about biological instincts. it is all about creating a religion, in the name of

science, to allow males dominance and control, patriarchy.

it is as much fable telling as religion. and we are in a time, that we watch another of these religions created, just like chrisitianity and all the others, that is all about male dominance. turly fascinating and amazing.

pretty soon they will claim, it was all done by a man in 7 days.

bah hahhaha

love it

[Starry Messenger]

98. Amazing how the same men defend their need to embody stone age biological imperatives

will rear up in offense with #notallmen when we discuss rape. Then they are mega-evolved beings who would never!!11 be so unsocialized.

[seabeyond]

100. my mouth drops open and hangs... lol. and this is it. absolufugginlutely.

they sit here and tell us, it is all in the bioogy and then say... but but but, not all men rape and some women rape. lol. you know. the 1.3% of women that rape.

btw... i am not stating all men rape, by what i said. that would be an obvious. all men do not rape. which would be a very argument i make.... when men pull out this biological bullshit.

another perfect example how we today are creating this garbage and has nothing to do with either science, or innate and biology.

they simply keep validating our position.

[hifiguy]

181. It's all about Darwinian Evolution

no matter how many people try to wish the facts away. It's a hard-wired strategy for insuring the continuation of the species.

[seabeyond]

184. as i said, a new religion for men in the name of science to dominate and control, patriarchy.

no diferent than chrisitianity written by men to have control and dominance in the name of god.

[hifiguy]

203. Oh, puh-leeeze.

I have no idea whether evolutionary psychology will stand up to scientific inquiry or not and i don't have a dog in the fight. It's an interesting theory and should be tested according to the scientific method. No scientist knows whether his or her theory will survive the scrutiny of the scientific method and be proven plausible or falsified untilthe process of experimentation and observation has been completed and the data analyzed within a proper methodology and subjected to peer review. It took a years before Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was proven correct by astronomical observations.

The point of an experiment or other controlled investigation is to discover more about the universe in which we live, and any scientist worth their salt knows that if you test a theory in accord with the scientific method and the hypothesis is proven true you learn something, and that it is disproved you also learn something. Good science is neutral because it doesn't give a shit about the outcome. The point of science is that anything proven contingently true OR disproved adds to the sum total of human knowledge, whih is the point of the entire enterprise.

When a phenomenon has existed for tens of thousands of years it just might be that it is an immutable part of human nature. Look at our closest cousins, the chimps and bonobos. The difference in the DNA of humans and them is LESS THAN ONE PERCENT. See http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives. We are not so different from our ape cousins as we like to think we are when you get down to the genetic building blocks.

[seabeyond]

208. the scientific community has already well debunked it. you are behind the eight ball. nt

[hifiguy]

220. Hardly. All I said was that it should be investigated.

Not whether it was correct or incorrect.

And link or your assertion is unproven.

[seabeyond]

226. Does evolutionary psychology have any problems?

Yes. Here are what I see as a few of the major problems currently faced by evolutionary psychology:

1. Evolutionary psychology is attempting to elucidate the functional organization of the brain even though researchers currently cannot, with very few exceptions, directly study complex neural circuits. This is like attempting to discover the functions of the lungs, heart, etc., without being able to conduct dissections. Although psychological evidence indisputably reveals that cognition has structure, it is less clear that it does so with sufficient resolution to provide convincing evidence of functional design. Can the current state of the art in cognitive psychology successfully cleave human nature at its joints? Maybe, maybe not. Despite these reservations, it is worth noting that virtually every research university in the world has a psychology department. Grounding psychology in an explicit framework of evolved function cannot help but improve attempts to unveil the workings of the brain. It is far easier to find something if you have some idea of what it is you are looking for.

2. The domains of cognition proposed by evolutionary psychologists are often pretty ad hoc. Traditionally, cognitive psychologists have assumed that cognitive abilities are relatively abstract: categorization, signal detection, recognition, memory, logic, inference, etc. Evolutionary psychology proposes a radically orthogonal set of 'ecologically valid' domains and reasoning abilities: predator detection, toxin avoidance, incest avoidance, mate selection, mating strategies, social exchange, and so on. These latter domains and abilities are derived largely from behavioral ecology. Although mate selection surely involves computations that are fundamentally different from predator detection, it is not so clear that the organization of the brain just happens to match the theoretical divisions of behavioral ecology. The concept of 'object' is obviously quite abstract, yet it is equally obvious that it is an essential concept for reasoning about mates, predators, kin, etc. The same goes for other 'abstract' abilities like categorization and signal detection. Ecologically valid reasoning about domains such as kinship may require cognitive abilities organized at higher levels of abstraction like 'recognition.' On the other hand, numerous experiments show that reasoning can be greatly facilitated when problems are stated in ecologically valid terms. Negating if-p-then-q statements becomes transparently easy when the content of such statements involves social exchange, for example. The theoretical integration of more abstract, informationally valid domains with less abstract, ecologically valid domains remains a central problem for evolutionary psychology.

3. Evolutionary psychology (and adaptationism in general) has devoted considerable theoretical attention to the issue of design, the first link in the causal chain leading from phenotype structure to reproductive outcome, but has lumped every other link into the category 'reproductive problem.' This failure to theorize about successive links can lead to spectacular failures of the 'design' approach. Three examples: 1) evidence of design clearly identifies bipedalism as an adaptation, but what 'problem' it solved is not at all obvious, nor does the 'evidence of design' philosophy provide much guidance (though more detailed functional analyses of bipedalism are further constraining the set of possible solutions). 2) Language shows clear evidence of design, and there are several plausible reproductive advantages to having language, so why don't many other animals have language? 3) It can be very difficult to determine whether simple traits are adaptations simply because there is insufficient evidence of design. Menopause may be an adaptation, but it has too few 'features' to say based on evidence of design alone (some 'features' of menopause, like bone loss, seem to indicate that it is not an adaptation). Very simple traits will not always yield to a 'design analysis,' simply because there isn't enough to grab onto.

4. Evolutionary psychology is founded on a model of ancestral human reproductive ecology (the EEA), yet the current version of this model is woefully out of date. Life history theory, the sub-discipline of biology devoted to understanding the fundamental aspects of the reproductive ecologies of plant and animals, has made enormous strides in the last decade or so. Little of this work has entered the 'mainstream' of human evolutionary psychology. Part of the problem is that the units of analysis for life history theorists (e.g., body size, mortality rates, taxonomic categories) are quite different than those used by adaptationists (e.g., strategies, design elements). Yet life history arguments are central to much work in evolutionary psychology (e.g., parental investment). Evolutionary psychologists need to get up to speed on the current state of the art in life history theory.

Hunter-gatherer theory is a related issue. Evolutionary psychology uses an odd mix of Kalahari and tropical Amazonian ethnography for its basic model of the EEA. Although much (if not most) work by evolutionary psychologists relies on indisputable features of the EEA such as women got pregnant and men didn't, it is time for evolutionary psychology to start talking more seriously with archaeologists and paleoanthropologists. We know a lot more about the past than we did even 10 years ago, and some of what we thought we knew has now been called into question.

5. Convergent evolution vs. phylogenetic inertia. In contrast to early approaches to the evolution of human behavior that emphasized chimp or gorilla models, evolutionary psychology relies heavily on convergent evolution type arguments. The emphasis is on functional design, with little attention paid to traits derived by descent from recent and not-so-recent ancestors. Birds are as likely to be used as models as are baboons or bonobos. Functional arguments also typically pay little attention to phylogenetic constraints. Although it is not exactly clear what kinds of constraints human ancestry might place on human cognition, it surely places some. A synthesis of primate cognitive ethology and human evolutionary psychology that takes into account both the convergent evolution of similar psychologies in response to similar ecological problems, as well as phylogenetic history, has significant potential (as most primatologists would argue, I think).

6. Finally, even the best work in evolutionary psychology remains incomplete. Two examples: 1) evolutionary psychologists have made several predictions about mate preferences, and these predictions have been verified in a broad range of cross-cultural contexts. However, the empirical data have not been subjected to many alternative interpretations. It is possible that they can be accounted for by other theories, and it will be difficult to be fully convinced that the evolutionary interpretation is correct until it withstands challenges from competing paradigms. The record on this account, however, is quite good so far. Competing theories such as the "social role", "structural powerlessness" and "economic inequality of the sexes" hypotheses have been tested in a number of studies and have received little, if any, support. 2) The cheater detection hypothesis, on the other hand, has withstood a blizzard of competing hypotheses, but it has been confirmed in only a very limited number of cross-cultural contexts: Europe, and one Amazonian group. Adaptations must be universal, and the variation seen in even the limited cross-cultural cheater detection studies suggests that further studies are warranted.

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/problems.html

here is just one scientist telling why evo psych fails. there are many many more REAL scientists explain why this fails. it is an easy search.

[hifiguy]

229. OK, that is a real link and I will read the article.

As I said, I do not have a dog in the fight, I am just curious.

[hifiguy]

242. That entire article is a list of problems to be addressed

to improve the discipline of the investigative and theorizing processes. No academic would ever call that a "debunking." It calls for an improved theoretical underpinning and more systematized methodology for conducting investigations. Now if those things prove impossible to implement the whole project may prove fruitless.

It can be read as a "debunkng" only by someone who has never in their lives read a serious critique of methodology. A call for methodological refiinement and improvements in a particular field of study is not a negation of the field of study itself. it is a call for more rigorous science.

[kcr]

245. It calls for a more rigorous science

You are essentially arguing semantics because it is clear that many are under the impression it is a serious science that is widely accepted when that is not the case. That is what is meant by "debunked"

[hifiguy]

256. Your subject line is exactly what I was trying to say the article said.

In other words - see if you can impose the necessary rigor on the intellectual construct so that it can be tested more rigorously within the scientific method. I would say that the opinion of science generally towards this field is what's called a Scotch Verdict - not (as yet) proved. Not rejected either. An "interesting yet incomplete" seems to be the appropriate call at this point and more investigation is clearly needed before coming to any hard and fast conclusions. Let the chips fall where they may.

[kcr]

257. Some scientists actually do reject it

I'm in their camp, quite frankly. I think it deserves the same level of serious inquiry as creationism. It's the same mode of science that The Bell Curve employs. It isn't really worthy of much consideration.

[jen63]

396. I'm glad I waited to reply

until I read through the thread. After the first few posts, this is exactly the thought that I had; "man that sounds really 'Bell Curvey' to me." I get so damned aggravated.....

[opiate69]

416. The author of that particular piece Sea posted....

Last edited Sat Sep 27, 2014, 09:46 PM - Edit history (1)

is an evolutionary psychologist! Pretty goofy to think a scientist if going to try to "debunk" or "refute" his or her own field of expertise. If one reads the entirety of the thesis, one comes away with a vastly different take than what you and sea are trying to claim.

[kcr]

418. Evolutionary biologist! Really!?

Oh, well okay, then. Because the word evolutionary, that means it's totally the same thing?

[opiate69]

421. My mistake... Evolutionary Psychologist. Theoretical Biologist

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Edward_H._Hagen

So, yes, Virginia, he's still not saying what you and your pal seem to think he is.

[Shankapotomus]

250. Those behaviors can be overruled by the mind (nt)

[sendero]

362. This survey..

... is about what is wanted, not what it obtained. People don't do everything based on their most basic makeup, but many want to discount that altogether and that is ridiculous.

People that pay close attention to what the masses of males and females do across almost all societies/cultures cannot help but notice that men want the best reproductive partner and women want the man most likely able to provide for a family.

This is basic stuff and it amazes me that people want to argue about it. No, not really, people are in denial as a state of being. The fantasy world is a lot more inviting than reality it would seem.

[seabeyond]

365. which would not have to do with beginning of time, but the time man created law where woman are

solely dependent on men for their survival and where men could legally beat a woman into submission and kill her.

ya. women were looking to be taken care of. law dictated that was the ONLY choice they had if they wanted to EAT.

had nothing to do with biology.

had everything to do with men in control and dominate.

now that men cannot control a womans finance and she has fiscal freedom and sexual freedom, and a man cannot beat a woman to submission or kill her, that shipped sailed.


you know

the fuggin BASIC stuff.

and it amazes me men pretend it not to be true to do this biological innate crap.

[LostInAnomie]

340. +1

Too bad so many on here are twisting themselves in knots to deny it.

[malaise]

375. Precisely

It's that simple

[MoonRiver]

438. We're "advanced?"

In my book we're pretty darned backward.

[aikoaiko]

2. Now there's a representative sample - Finns on OKCupid!:

[Oktober]

5. Duh...

[Cerridwen]

6. "Women’s and Men’s Sexual Preferences and Activities with Respect to the Partner’s Age: ..."

"Women’s and Men’s Sexual Preferences and Activities with Respect to the Partner’s Age: Evidence of Female Choice"

Title of the survey from the paywalled site: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001111

Abstract

Sex-differences in parental investment and in age-related fertility variations are expected to have shaped the sexual strategies for both sexes. To investigate sex-differences in sexual interest and sexual activity as a function of both the respondents’ and the objects’ age, we gathered observations from a population-based sample of 12,656 Finns. We found that women are interested in same-aged to somewhat older men and that this pattern displays itself across the measured life-span and that men show a tendency to be sexually interested in women in their mid-twenties. This tendency was also notable when the men themselves were younger or older than this age. Moreover, we found that sexual activity more closely mimics women’s than men’s sexual interest. We conclude that women show larger developmental plasticity than men with regard to the desired object’s age and that men’s heterosexual activity likely is constrained by female choice.

How it was reported by The Academy of Finland: http://www.aka.fi/en-GB/A/Academy-of-Finland/Media-services/Releases/The-Ideal-Age-of-Sexual-Partners-is-Different-for-Men-and-Women/

The ideal age of sexual partners is different for men and women

(25 Sep 2014)

New evolutionary psychology research shows gender differences in age preferences regarding sexual partners.

Men and women have different preferences regarding the age of their sexual partners and women’s preferences are better realised than are men’s. However, regarding the age of their actual sexual partners, the difference is much smaller. Psychology researchers at Åbo Akademi University in Turku, Finland, suggest that this pattern reflects the fact that, when it comes to mating, women control the market.

Grounding their interpretation in evolutionary theory, the researchers suggest that because women are more selective than men in their sexual behaviour, men are more unlikely than women to have sex with their ideal partners. Therefore, men’s actual behaviour follows more closely women’s preferences than the men’s own preferences.

<snip>

The study is part of the research project "Parent-Child Incest: Experimental Tests of Evolutionary Mechanisms", which is funded by the Academy of Finland (funding period 1 Sep 2012–31 Aug 2015, project number 260298).

Ah, corporate media. Adding to 19th century social darwinism ignorance and obscuring science since...at least the 19th century.

Yes, yes, I know. Questioning bad reports or questionable science makes me "anti-science."

[Starry Messenger]

85. I just wanted you to know I read your post.

Very appreciated!

[Cerridwen]

373. Thank you.

I appreciate that someone did read it.

It appears, from a quick skim of the replies, that you were the only one (one of a few?) who did.

[seabeyond]

381. i read it. i just feel men are conditioned into fantasy for the ideal partner and women live in the

real world of pragmatic when thinking of ideal. men are conditioned from a very young age, what is to determine their sexual want, with no deviation at all. they are hooked into a unrealistic expectation, hence the continual disappointment.

women are not conditioned in the same manner. so their expectations can be met

i do not see it as biological, but conditioned.

[davidn3600]

392. Both genders seem to think the other has unrealistic expectations

[seabeyond]

403. wrong. a woman want man her age. per study, man does not want same. wants the young woman. a woman

that does not want the old man.

unless you are saying it is fuckin an unrealistic expectation for a man to do a woman his age?

wow.

wow.

every time. one post from you. and you have me walking away shaking my head.

[davidn3600]

408. Women have different expectations of men...that's what Im saying

And it's no secret that men are visually-cued. That likely has to do with evolution.

[seabeyond]

412. actually that is another one of those myths men have hung onto. women are more visually cued

because they are more sexually fluid. a woman will get turned on by any combination. be it a man on man, man on woman or a woman on woman. where as the man, and i am sure it social conditioning that creates this for man.... a man is limited to his sexual preference. in other words, a hetero man will not get turned on with two men.

there have been two extensive studies on this where they actually wire up the brain instead of depending on a questionairre given in1980's with no controls. they have totally debunked that myth.

but, god forbid that science prove this a myth, cause men need to hold onto it.

kinda like testosterone makes men aggressive. studies today, state otherwise. cant give up the myth though.

actual biological science instead of story telling.

[treestar]

468. why would evolution happen to favor either sex?

There's no reason for it. Women have eyes too. I can see that men look better when they are younger, too.

These are excuses for male dominance. Like the stupid "has to spread his seed" thing, who says? How many children can each woman have in order for that to happen? Why would an ugly man get that chance? And why did marriage ever come about - men were in charge, they could have invented a system where they were never tied down.

[B Calm]

8. I always liked women in their mid 30's.

[WinkyDink]

13. NS, S. Delusion reigns supreme.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

251. ah, took me a second ... lol

Ns, S. indeed

[Johnyawl]

18. I've been sexually active for 45 years...

...I didn't need a scientific study to tell me this:

...men’s heterosexual activity likely is constrained by female choice.

[seabeyond]

19. so a man any age wants 20 something. the 20 something want only the 20 something. so.... man

is dissatisfied most of his life seeing that these 20 something do not want them, but a decade of their life?

i will take a 20 something. oh wait. that is not realistic. nor pragmatic. not gonna happen. live in the real world instead of fantasy. maybe this is why men arent getting it and are going around so angry and unhappy, and sexless.

whatever.

i think it says more about a mans inability to be pragmatic and face reality than anything biological.

a woman is told repeatedly from beginning of time to forever her worth is only in her youth. so life well teaches her, her place in the world avoiding unrealistic expectations.

a man is told repeatedly from beginning of time to forever his privileged and entitlement, deserve the young woman, so well conditioned his right to this woman.

yet... we choose to see it biological that all men think they have a right to that 20 yr old and culture has nothing to do with it.

[whathehell]

90. Correct...As a hot young 20-something, I had middle and old aged guys hit on me all the time and

I considered them a joke...I couldn't imagine why they'd think I'd want THEM.

I remember mentioning it to my father and he explained: "Men get a little silly at that age".

[seabeyond]

104. 19. i had to decide consciously, how i wanted to walk my sexuality in life.

did i want to use the really messed up 40 yr old. no. i couldnt do it. i could not figure out how to selfishly play, and do the man.

why the hell at 19 would i wnat 40, when i could play with 19

these men. that are trying to define me, do not get to. i do me much better.

[dotymed]

20. Not this 53 y.o.

heterosexual male. My oldest child (daughter) is 26.
I often go to the local pub, shoot some pool and drink a few.
For some odd reason, I attract young women in their 20's. While that is fine platonically and I find many of them attractive, that is as far as it goes.
I do not want the drama that usually accompanies a relationship with a younger lady. I like to be able to communicate on the same level. Many reasons..
I admit that I usually am attracted to a lady in their mid forties.
I am not interested in one night stands, maybe if I were, I would feel differently.
Most of my friends feel the same way.

[madokie]

21. I guess maybe thats why I like my 61 dang near 62 year old sweetheart wife

reminds me I need to wake her up before she sleeps her day away. Naw I better not be doing that, might be the same as stirring up a hornets nest

[gollygee]

23. Yeah I'm sure this has nothing to do with

Most advertisements for everything showing sexualized images of women of this general age, and almost every movie and TV show having a romantic lead of this general age.

[seabeyond]

32. who doesnt appreciate young and healthy. the difference is those that live in reality and those

that think they are entitled.

[NaturalHigh]

25. As my daughter gets older...

so does the age group that I find attractive. I think that happens to a lot of fathers. Of course, my wife is older than me, so maybe my ideal age group was always a little older.

[logosoco]

43. This is true for me as a mother/grandmother as well.

I see a nice looking guy and then I remember I am old enough to be his mom, and I look at him in a completely different way.
My husband is 7 years older than me (we've been together pretty much forever), and now that we are in the stage of life where we are, I tend to look at older men as more attractive. It makes me laugh sometimes, because i still remember being much younger and thinking "ew, what an old guy!".
But I know when we see an attractive young woman, he is looking at her, whereas I don't think he notices women in his own age bracket. I like to remind him, after he looks, that he could be her grandpa! All in fun!

[seabeyond]

47. personally, i feel that is the more natural way we evolve as we age. i know it is the same

for me, with my boys.

[Iggo]

26. Man! I gotta get me some study money! (n/t)

[irisblue]

192. ^^best post in this thread^^

[Triana]

27. I keep telling people this. Women and men. Especially women.

DO NOT BOTHER trying to date beyond this age - and especially beyond 35. You're DONE by that time. It's cruel and unfair and nasty but that's how it is. Find something else to center your life around than a man/kids.

[winter is coming]

56. Glad I never took your advice, 'cause I dated, married, and gave birth after 35.

Then again, I wasn't looking to center my life around a man/kids, either.

[Triana]

80. That's not common though, as I understand it.

Though it is becoming more common as women wait longer to get married and have families - to finish college, establish a career, etc. I think this is a good thing.

[JustAnotherGen]

451. I met my husband at 36

Can't speak for the rest of America - but in the North East (think Philly to Boston) there are tons of single never marrieds in their mid 30's to early 50's. I've also seen a lot of like-attracts-like. Hubby is a perfect example who wasn't dating anyone under the age of 34 when he decided at 40 he was going to settle down.

He might have looked at a 25 year old woman at that age - but he knew he wasn't going to get the same life experience that was relatable.

Conversely - two days before I met him by BFF made me pinky swear that I would no longer date anyone mre thn 4 years older than me.

[oregonjen]

65. Wow. I believe a person of any age if she/he so chooses, can find love and companionship.

Your statement shows a big dose of naïveté.

[LWolf]

410. Or a big dose of reality. nt

[Triana]

425. +1

LOT of people can't deal with it. Sneering at and attacking me. AS IF *I* made it this way. Pfft.

Whatever. My block list has gotten quite a bit bigger now!

[Le Taz Hot]

130. I got married at 48

and, up until then, had no problem with men showing interest in me. And I didn't look for it. And the man I married is 7 years younger -- didn't look for that either.

[Triana]

233. Of course. The problem MUST be me.

It's not a society that:

1. views women as less than human to start with and;
2. views them as throwaway service units once they reach a certain age or get a crows foot or their waist gets bigger than 25 inches.

Of COURSE.

I love the sneering I've gotten from other women here for stating simple reality of the society we live in and have lived in for thousands of years. "Well that didn't happen to ME so the problem must be with YOU!"

Wow. Just. Wow.

Oh yes. It's ALL just ME.

If I was THAT goddamned powerful, a WHOLE LOT of things would change. Yesterday. But -- and here's a NEWSFLASH! . . .

I'm not.

SNEER on, ladies. At least that way, you can blame another women instead of facing the reality of the world you live in. Convenient!

[Le Taz Hot]

247. Nobody's "sneering" at you.

But you made a statement that some of us disagreed with and offered you evidence to the contrary. You're taking this far too personally, my dear. Mellow out.

[treestar]

311. It is though

Your attitude must ward the men off.

[Avalux]

140. I feel sorry for you. Not sure what your personal experiences are...

but your rather bitter advice is bullshit. You're certainly not someone I'd want to know.

BTW - I'm well over your magic number of 35 and I'm having the time of my life.

[seabeyond]

142. it is a society, like this study, with the intent to throw away older women.

s loudly and clearly to us women, repeatedly, constantly.

a women states exactly the intent of society, and this study, and hte man that create this very OP, and you are going after her?

it really is ironic.

[Avalux]

146. The post was presented as personal opinion, advice.

I don't give a shit about the 'rules' of society or what is beaten into the heads of us women. I don't listen to people who tell us we must accept such things. In essence, the post is stating that because of the way things are, we should just give up and conform.

Why on earth would a woman make such a statement anyway?

[seabeyond]

152. i agree totally, and i do not stay queit either. man, does not ge to define me. man....

does not get to define my sexuality or experience.

i did not know how to sya it "nicely". sorry.

i thought it an interesting poit that society creates this thinking that is why the woman states it. maybe we all may get a flash of feel, that we are throw away. in my experience though, so often, i see and exprience a counter, that calls bullshit on this thinking.

thanks. i do agree with you

but i understand where the poster came from

though i do not agree. being a first time mom at 33

[Triana]

219. I didn't create the destroyed/destructive world we live in.

I am only sentenced to attempt to survive in it. You're attacking the wrong person.

And you - like others are who found companionship at or after 35 - are still unfortunately more of an exception, not the common experience of most women.

And that is not my fault. It is what it is. And I'm not to blame for it.

[Avalux]

278. Sentenced? Wow.

My hope for you is that you find a way to not only survive, but enjoy your life, and when you speak or write advice to others, that it's a positive message of empowerment and encouragement. I'm no pollyanna, but what is life, if we cannot see through the barriers and believe we can overcome? I have struggled through loss and hardship, but would never be where I am if I didn't believe that I have the power to overcome past experiences and society's labels.

The negative words you use are not helpful to you or anyone else. Why do you agree with that which you feel imprisons you?

[treestar]

314. I don't believe it

I know of many women who date at older ages.

[JI7]

342. a lot of peope are into sports, facebook etc which i never got into, do you live life by following

other people and seeing what is popular ?

because i would be turned off by some idiot guy who had nothing to offer other than conform to other's lives.

i never do this for a guy and i have no trouble finding guys . and it's even better as i get older .

[JI7]

209. speak for yourself

I guess the first problem here is you view relationships as a women centering her life around a man.

[Triana]

222. I do. Thankyouverymuch. And I won't apologize for that. n/t

[JI7]

231. why would a guy even want a woman to do that ?

Maybe that's the problem. Because I sure wouldn't want a guy who did that.

[Triana]

237. whether you know it or not, a great many men expect it.

And a great many women are too happy to oblige. It's rather a problem.

That's not to say "All" men or "all" women are that way. Certainly not. But I believe most still are. Carryover from Ozzie & Harriet type of society.

As you point out, it's unhealthy. And - not very smart.

[JI7]

243. my point is why would someone want it

I find it a turnoff if a guy would center his life around me.

[raccoon]

315. I agree with you there. That's been my experience and my observation.

"whether you know it or not, a great many men expect it.

And a great many women are too happy to oblige."

[bettyellen]

261. Miley Cyrus shared the same "wisdom" recently. Was probably mollied out, so you know...

I decided not to listen to her and ccurl up and die, LOL.

[jeff47]

299. Damn, guess I have to divorce my wife

Met when she was 39 & I was 34. Married while she was barely still 40. We now have two kids.

I really love her, but I wouldn't want to break your rule.

[treestar]

317. you know what is the intent of these kinds of articles/alleged studies

they've been doing it for years, and it applies to the 20somethings too. The man would replace you with a younger version if he could. (Not realizing how much they insult men by saying this). And that's supposed to mean the woman has less power in the relationship and should cater to his needs, as she can't replace him.

What kind of people need this to be happy? They'd be miserable in any relationship, since they can't relate. To the, a women is a thing, a status symbol.

[seabeyond]

325. tree, all my sexual life, men have defined my sexuality. at 20 i was suppose to want the 40 yr old

and in that time, shirt unbuttoned to chest, black hair, gold chains. eeeeew. cause he could take me on a trip to hawaii and give me stuff.

then i wasnt suppose to wnat sex as much as men. and i had to have an emotional attachment and all romantic and all the other eeeew.

and now i am not suppose to be sexually wanted which i find not to be the case also. and i am not suppose to wnat sex once again.

how about if i say no to men defining a lifetime of my sexuality.

[treestar]

334. Same here, sea, I must be of similar age

And yes, they need to quit telling us what we want, or how it is how it is and it's too bad it we don't like it, as it's not working!

[jeff47]

348. Not really. Finding someone sexually attractive is only part of what makes them attractive overall.

Yeah, 20-somethings are hot. Doesn't mean I want to date one.

In my experience, they haven't figured out who they are yet, so it's kinda a pain-in-the-ass to be around while they figure that out. Or at least it was back when I was a 20-something.

The study measured what we find sexually attractive, not who we want to date, nor what we would do if our current partners went away.

The "OKCupid" part is just really shitty science. Huge self-selection problem.

If you're an "old" man on OKCupid, you probably want a 20-something because:
1) They're hot.
2) They haven't figured themselves out yet, so they're easier to manipulate.
3) You're a shitty enough man that you couldn't keep a relationship going with a woman closer to your age.
4) Being on OKCupid is slightly less creepy than the places that "connect you with young women from" (insert impoverished country here).

[seabeyond]

353. i think the point is, youth is attractive. that simple.

the reality is though.

men are conditioned from day one that they are entitled to youth, even old. that is not a relaity. that is certainly how men are conditioned.

women are taught, from day one, that outside of youth, they are no longer worthy human beings.

i would suggest that conditioning of society colored the answers on the study and not biology.

[jeff47]

367. Again, sexually attractive is only one part of attractive.

And it's the overall attractive that controls who we want relationships with.

We're not mindless zombies that do whatever the TV tells us to do.

i would suggest that conditioning of society colored the answers on the study and not biology.

I think it's wrong to insist that men only find 20-somethings attractive because society tells them to. That if society declared 40-year-old women to be the most sexually attractive, we'd all suddenly find 20-somethings repugnant.

I think it's also wrong to insist that men only find 20-something attractive because biology tells them to. Just as we're not mindless zombies that blindly follow the TV, we are also not mindless zombies that blindly follow our dicks....or at least most of us are not.

In other words, just because she "looks good" doesn't mean we want to procreate with her. Which means it can't be all biology.

But there isn't and has never been a society that considers older women "the hottest", so it can't be all society - at least one society would have stumbled into "older women are hot" if biology had no role.

[seabeyond]

383. my point is simple. YOUTH is attractive.

put a 20 something man in prime up against an average forty year old, and betcha.... every woman would find the 25 yr old man sexually attractive.

old men are not the "hottest" either. ever.

[LadyHawkAZ]

380. Thanks for the info

I'll tell my guys to take a hike cuz I'm too old for them.

Said me, never.

There is no such thing as too old.

[whathehell]

423. Are you kidding?

You really think women are "done" by 35?...I don't know, Triana,

I was getting lots of hot looks well into my late forties, early 50's.

My sister, who is five years older than me, was married TWICE after the age

of 48 -- The first one ended in divorce and in the second, she was widowed.

[NuclearDem]

28. Hooray evo psych argle bargle!

[seabeyond]

34. ya know. it never ends. gotta get that toe in control and dominance at all cost. nt

[chrisa]

39. BRB Saber Cat Hunting

[leftyladyfrommo]

36. I heard this the other day and my reaction

was that this knowledge was really freeing.

I can just do what I want and just not worry about attracting unwanted men at all.

[chrisa]

37. Needs to be repeated: Reasoning > Biological Instinct

While men might be sexually attracted to women in their mid-20's, it doesn't mean that they'll actually pursue women in their mid-20's. When looking for women, men are just as complex in their desires as women are.

Secondly, OKCupid is not representative of the entire population of men. It represents online dating-using bachelors (and the occasional cheating bastard).

[leftyladyfrommo]

42. That's kind of an important thing to consider.

Maybe it's just that men who are interested in online dating services are into women in their 20's.

There are men out there who probably view this whole thing in a more mature manner. I do know some really neat couples who got together in their senior years. They seem very happy.

[seabeyond]

44. and that is a whole point we havent addressed. single from dating sight?

there is a whole lot in that alone, that would challenge this in the stupid ass evo theory.

problem with evo theory. they ignore what is in front of the face, to only apply to the past.

[Starry Messenger]

94. Bingo.

[jeff47]

307. Yeah, the OKCupid part is really crappy science

Huge problem with self-selection.

[wyldwolf]

40. mid-30s

[marle35]

48. They plan to study same-sex age preferences next

Should be interesting. I expect the findings for gay men and lesbians to be similar to their heterosexual (same gender) counterparts.

[Marr]

51. I expect biology is at play here, but so are media ideals.

We're bombarded with sexualized images of women in their early/mid-twenties. This is just my personal observation of course, but it seems to me that when men are sexualized or made to seem attractive in media imagery, the age range is considerably wider. It goes from high school athlete to 'the most interesting man in the world'.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

53. Yay! Another devisive, War of the Sexes thread based on horny fuckers'

opinions from an Internet dating site!

[LittleBlue]

54. Amusing watching people fight this. It's pretty simple- fertility rules all

That's why women in their 20s are preferred. Well, women are probably more fertile earlier but it doesn't have a material effect on the chance to produce offspring.

We are animals like any other, exceptional because of our intelligence, and yet like them still ruled by our programming.

[kcr]

67. It would be pretty simple, and make sense, if only 20 something year old women were fertile

But that isn't the case. You even acknowledge the inconvenient flaw in your logic and simply brush it off.

[LittleBlue]

70. We can scientifically measure fertility

but that doesn't mean a cave man would perceive the difference.

Fertility rules all. Hence why so many women report the feeling of being "invisible" after their 40s.

[LittleBlue]

76. That doesn't mean that the 13-year-old's

extra fertility would override the fact that women that young have a lower chance of surviving childbirth. So yeah, he would see younger women having children and dying at a higher rate. Also, that doesn't mean the caveman found the younger woman unattractive. Just that he prefers physical maturity if he has the option. It's not comparable to the 45-year-old woman, of whom he would have zero interest.

These preferences are expressed in evolution and we see them every day.

[kcr]

79. What evidence do you have that maternal survival was a factor in mate selection?

Many women didn't survive childbirth regardless of age.

[LittleBlue]

133. "Many women"? No.

Scenario 1: Man who prefers 13-year-old marries a 13-year-old. Girl gives birth but has complications due to her size. Cannot bear any more children afterward.

I refer of course to Margaret Beaufort. She barely survived. If she hadn't been a noble, it's unlikely she would have survived.


Scenario 2: Man who prefers 20-year-old marries 20-year-old. Her body is physically mature enough to carry and deliver a child.


Either one of these women could die in childbirth. The difference is that the 20-year-old has grown into her adult body. And with her adult constitution, she survives and can bear again. Thus more of the man's offspring who preferred 20-year-olds survives into adulthood. The man who prefers 13-year-olds will try for the rest of his life but never produce another child.

Evolution 101

[kcr]

139. That's not evidence

You have no evidence whether or to what degree prehistoric men considered if their mates would die in childbirth when factoring their selection.

[LittleBlue]

145. Women hit their fertility peak in their early to mid-20s

In humans, a woman's fertility peaks in the early and mid-20s, after which it starts to decline slowly, with a more dramatic drop at around 35.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility

So this is precisely why men prefer that age. They are at their peak fertility.

You sound like you're under the mistaken assumption that just because a 16-year-old has more eggs than a 24-year-old, that the 16-year-old is more fertile. She is not. This confirms the findings in the OP. I don't know why I bothered being distracted with the tangent you went on. My mistake.

[kcr]

149. Do you realize that evolution happens over hundreds of thousands to millions of years?

That is one fatal flaw with evo psyche. We're supposed to just take as fact that men wanted women in their mid twenties millions of years ago because they somehow intuitively knew that that was the peek. Don't look at all the social and cultural reasons. Let's ignore those by all reasons today why modern men have this preference, and just take evo psych on faith for completely illogical reasons.

[LittleBlue]

150. Evo psyche explains too much to be discounted

I think those who entirely discount evo psyche dislike the morality of the conclusions.

The link between peak fertility and sexual attractiveness is just too obvious to be obfuscated by the anti-evo psyche crowd.

[kcr]

153. No, it doesn't

You are looking at modern human civilization and drawing conclusions about the reasons for human behavior in the context of modern civilization and drawing conclusions based on assumptions that things haven't changed in hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Given that society and culture changes over the course of decades, never mind that frame of time, evo psyche explains zip.

[LittleBlue]

156. In what era of history have young women not been preferred?

And in what society? Show me one, and I'll show you a society beaten by more vigorous cultures that prized young women.

The preference is universal now. And I'm struggling to think of one instance where it wasn't. Can you show me one?

[kcr]

158. Aren't you proving my point if that is the case?

If those cultures are dominated, it is a cultural determination. Not innate and biological. If what you say is true, that doesn't help your argument for evo psyche. By the way, there are studies that show egalitarian societies do not show the same sexual preference for younger mates.

Those who think that the culture of their surroundings and time is the way it is and the way it's always been, and have no curiosity or capacity to acknowledge the differences of other cultures or history will be more likely to buy evo psyche nonsense.

[LittleBlue]

160. No, because you can't show me one culture that doesn't prefer young women

Hence why I asked you show a culture where older women were preferred over young.

Can you show me one? If you can't, then it's a universal trait where that trait so so utterly dominate it prevailed everywhere, in every environment.

[kcr]

161. No one is asserting that older women are or have ever been preferred over younger women

The claim is that men prefer younger women, specifically a very narrow age group, for biological reasons, and not cultural ones.

[LittleBlue]

164. It can't be cultural if it's universal

That's my point. Different cultures develop variations.

How likely is it that every culture in the world develops one way? It can't happen if it's just cultural, anymore than every culture simultaneously developing the same writing systems or cultural attire. That's how you know it's evolutionary.

[kcr]

165. The claim that it is universal is spurious

For instance, someone will point to a study. That study will be based on a social dating site. Or a survey of college students. There is little solid evidence that this is actually universal. But people will eat it up because it confirms their bias.

[LittleBlue]

168. Then find an example where it isn't

I'll tell you why, quite simply, we can't find one. Because the tribe who tried that, if one ever existed, produced fewer children than the tribe who preferred younger women. And then the larger tribe and smaller tribe experienced resource scarcity, which leads to conflict, and ultimately subjugation, enslavement or destruction of the smaller tribe to the larger one. Their beliefs being extinguished because it runs contrary to human biology.

In a nutshell, that's life.

[kcr]

169. But again. That would be culture. Not biology. Do you not see the difference?

It is not an innate biological drive in that case. Evolution deals with biological traits.

[kcr]

163. I'll try this analogy

Human beings have a biological imperative to eat so they don't starve to death. There is even some evidence for particular types of cravings, like for sweets and fats, to stave off starvation during times of famine. But the reason many people crave Big Macs is because of McDonald's and advertising, both artificial social constructs. We have our basic biological imperatives that are shaped by biology, and biology itself is shaped by evolution. The tendency to ascribe social aspects of human behavior to evolution is bunk. It's usually a means of rationalization to make it easy to ignore social ills.

[LittleBlue]

166. It's not social if every culture does it

What it means is that for a tribe to continue on, this trait must be present. Otherwise tribes that prized older women over young would out-compete the other tribes and spread their dominant behaviors. The opposite happened, if indeed such a thing is even possible, which it appears not.

That's evolutionary.

[kcr]

167. Every culture does it means it's not social? Really?

You don't know what evolutionary means. There's the problem.

[LittleBlue]

171. YES!

I think you don't know what evolutionary means. Evolution is just the process of a living organism passing on traits to help its offspring adapt to an environment, and ultimately thrive.

This includes psychological behaviors.

[kcr]

172. NO!

I can see the error you're making in another post. You think evo psych is talking about sociological traits. They're not. They're claiming it is a biological trait, which then means men just can't help it.

[LittleBlue]

173. Sorry, you can't even show me one instance of what you're saying

You can show me variation in music, writing, customs, artwork, architecture, and every other cultural thing.

You can't show me any variation in this. Because it's evolutionary.

[kcr]

174. Oh, really? No man ever dates, mates and has relationships with older women? Never happens?

Huh. I must be crazy, then? What was that movie, Mrs. Robinson? That never happened? So you want to tell me that all those other aspects of humanity have variety except men and who they want to screw?

[LittleBlue]

177. Of course they do

This is about preference, it doesn't mean that no man ever found an older woman sexy. I find older women sexy.

That doesn't mean it will influence evolution away from the general preference for younger women.

[kcr]

178. You are misunderstanding what evolution is

There are men who do not find older women sexy. They are overrepresented in our culture. They are defended (or explained) with, "But hey! It's biology! Because evolution!" That is what you are agreeing with and defending. When it is merely their preference. Many people have the perception that this is the norm because of culture. It is indeed quite common. But it is not a biological truth. You yourself see older women as sexy. But they are not often presented in our culture that way. That has nothing to do with biology.

Get it?

[LittleBlue]

183. Yes it is

Maybe not as much as one would prefer, but it is there. Cuddy from House was a sexual woman in her 40s. Polly Walker from Rome. Julie Benz. The Desperate Housewives. Do you want me to list every instance of older women being sexualized?

They just aren't as sexualized as often as younger women. Obviously because men prefer younger women. You're in denial over this.

[kcr]

185. They just aren't as sexualized as often. Exactly.

Do you honestly think that has no effect?

I'm not in denial. I'm only saying that it isn't biological. I honestly don't understand what's so hard about this.

[LittleBlue]

189. No. I think it's a product of evolutionary preference

This preference existed thousands of years before mass media. The media just makes money on those preferences. I don't see how anyone could actually believe mass media is the cause of it.

[kcr]

191. You do. With absolutely no evidence and a misunderstanding of what evolution is

Evo psych is bunk. But some want to believe it because it's easier. Social change is hard.

[LittleBlue]

198. HOW?

You do.

No, I don't. Your arguments don't make sense anymore.

I asked for examples and you can't even find one. Spell it with me now, e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n. That trait never existed. If it did, we don't know of it because that tribe died out.

How can you not see something so obvious? This isn't general relativity.

[kcr]

199. The trait exists all around you. You admitted to it yourself, dude!

[LittleBlue]

207. What did I admit myself?

Oh Jesus, you've lost the plot.

I'm still waiting for you to find a culture that prefers young women. Not one guy here or there, but an overall preference. You can't because it doesn't exist. /thread

[kcr]

212. That you find older women attractive.

How will the species carry on?

[LittleBlue]

217. Holy s*** dude

Do you understand the concept of preference?

You can prefer chocolate over vanilla, doesn't mean you can't also like vanilla.

[kcr]

224. I think I understand it quite a bit better than you understand the concept of biology n/t

[hifiguy]

269. There you go, being unreasonable and asking for

extrinsic evidence again.

Quit being silly and wanting to know. Just believe.

I think it is reasonable to surmise that it is possible that certain species-wide survival strategies became sufficiently imbued in the human brain over several hundred thousand years that they are functionally now a part of evolutionary progress. There are different kinds of brain wiring in the world, which I know personally as I am dx'd on the spectrum. If a particular kind of brain wiring had a secondary effect of contributing in some small way to the increased successful propagation of the species, there would be no reason for it to change. Maybe this is one of those wirings, maybe it isn't. It does seem to be a species-wide phenomenon though, and I don't think a valid cross-cultural experiment would be very hard to design in order to test the hypothesis discussed in the OP.

[seabeyond]

170. every culture use to say women did not have the capacity to take care of ourselves. once laws were

lifted in preventing us,and men were no longer allowed to beat us into submission, women went out and started providing for self in freedom and independence. one can argue the detriment being men feeling the need to create this false religion in the name of science.

how about if i do not unthinkingly buy into the fact that every culture thought we were incapable of simple thought?

[LittleBlue]

175. Not true

In feudal Japan, women controlled the finances of their husbands' vast feudal domains. They also served as warriors, the onnabugeisha.

Scandinavians i the viking expansion age also had more egalitarian laws regarding women, divorce and sexual freedom. They had women warriors.

Not all cultures viewed them as incapable.

[seabeyond]

187. and not all men want the twenty yr old and the number of women wanting 20 yr old is growing.

again. reinforcing the point.

[LittleBlue]

190. Then prove it by giving me a culture that doesn't prefer young women

Before we can even begin to discuss it seriously, we need at least one example of it. I gave you examples.

[kcr]

197. Do you think war is a biological imperitive and therefore nothing can be done about it?

I mean, few cultures have ever existed without it so no point in doing anything about war, might as well war it up! War, war, war! It's natural! Human beings were meant to fight! We evolved that way!

Seriously, such lazy thinking based on misunderstanding and misapplication of science is pretty horrific when you look at it, isn't it?

[LittleBlue]

200. War is the result of many things

Resource scarcity, geopolitics, even a king's ambition for land he believe is his.

You solve all those problems? Sure, something can be done about war.

What has solved large scale war between powers is nuclear weapons and international trade. Self-preservation overrides all. As evolution dictates.

[kcr]

211. Oh, of course, well, THAT is complicated.

It's okay to take all of those things into consideration, and therefore say that war is indeed not a biological imperative. But can't do the same thing for wanting twenty something hot bods. Nope. It just is and that's that. I see.

[seabeyond]

213. that is why i do not even bother here. all the contradictions ignored.

and just keeps on going, lol

[kcr]

215. It's fun though.

They do just keep on going. Hot bods! Just like air and water and breathing it is!

[Union Scribe]

264. 50 posts on this thread is not bothering? nt

[bravenak]

301. Do you like, go around, and count her posts like that?

Dude. That's not cool. Boy, you sho got lots of time for Seabeyond! I hope she's quite flattered that you count her posts and report to her how many she has per thread. I woukd do stuff like that, bu it takes so much energy to persue somebody in that manner. You must be very dedicated.

[seabeyond]

313. ha ha. actualy, didnt even take note of that post. i mostly ignore him. YOU,

on the other hand interest me. os i clicked on your post. only to see someone was talking about me. too funny. you made me laugh.

[bravenak]

322. I'm glad you can find it funny.

I find it funny too, but not the laughing kind. You get them all hot and bothered!! I guess I would ignore that shit too. It's like having somebody looking in your window complain about what you have on your TV. Far out man.

[LittleBlue]

214. How can you compare a state's decision to go to war

with a man's sexual preference? You're comparing the conscious actions of a government to the involuntary preferences of an individual.

We do have violent tendencies, though. And that, yes, is also evolutionary.

[kcr]

223. I know. Daring to question men's sexual preferences and how they come to be is risky.

What was I thinking? It's immutable and not to be questioned. Silly me, I forgot. But, seeing as I forgot myself and started, I might as well continue.

That is actually an argument people make, that war is just inevitable because it's human nature. Did you know that? The argument that a trait is innate and therefore there's nothing to be done is used to excuse all kinds of things. It's not about sexual preference. It's about how women are treated in society. How women aren't deemed sexual beings past a certain age, and rarely portrayed as sexual beings. And how that does indeed influence sexual preference. But talk about that? Naw! It's biology! But that claim is based on pseudo science.

And blustering along the lines of All socieities everywhere are like that! Okay. But even if your claim is true. Still doesn't make it biology. So shouldn't we do something about it? A man can still prefer whoever he wants to. But we don't have to continue to have a society that devalues women.

[LittleBlue]

227. What are you questioning?

We went to war a lot in history, mostly as a result of greed, need and violent tendencies. The ones who went to war recklessly died off. Those tendencies remain, like the preference for young women. Doesn't mean we will act on them, just like most single older men won't achieve a 20something. Despite preferences.

War =/= getting a boner. Sorry.

[kcr]

228. What do you mean, what am I questioning?

You don't think there's a reason to question how women are treated in society? That would explain a lot.

[LittleBlue]

232. You compared war to sexual preference

I'm telling you that the desires for war remain, just like the desires for women in their early 20s. Whether you will actually get the war you want, or the woman you want, is separate from that. Even if 50 year olds prefer young women, they won't get young women.

[kcr]

235. Nooooo, I didn't

I compared the same psuedo-science based rationalization of war to pseudo-science rationalization for sexism in society. The two things may not be the same, but the rationalization for them certainly are. Same thing with racism and the arguments that that is innate, too.

[LittleBlue]

236. Your argument actually went farther proving my point

Even our most destructive desires are passed down. Just like our preferences in younger women.

[kcr]

240. If these were innately biological we would have little to no social progress

You are conflating social pressures with biological ones. Do you really think there is a biological difference in the races? Surely not, I hope. But if you do, again, would explain a lot.

[LittleBlue]

252. There are biological differences between the ethnicities

Are you familiar with genetics?

Cystic fibrosis, the most common life-limiting autosomal recessive disease among people of European heritage

Sickle-cell anemia, most prevalent in populations with sub-Saharan African ancestry but also common among Latin-American, Indian, and Saudi Arab populations, as well as those people of Mediterranean regions such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy[13][14]

Thalassemia, most prevalent in populations having Mediterranean ancestry, to the point that the disease's name is derived from Greek thalasson, "sea"

Tay–Sachs disease, an autosomal recessive disorder more frequent among Ashkenazi Jews than among other Jewish groups and non-Jewish populations[15]

Hereditary hemochromatosis, most common among persons having Northern European ancestry, in particular those people of Celtic descent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health#Race_and_disease

Those are just a few of our biological differences. Aside from, you know, all the genetic mutations we can see. Like skin color, eye shape, etc.

Is this some sort of woo argument?

[kcr]

254. I apologize. I wasn't clear.

I meant, would you argue that there are significant biological differences between the races? Meaning more intelligent, aggressive, etc. I assumed given the context of the discussion that you would understand that was what I was asking. I wasn't talking about genetic susceptibility to diseases.

[treestar]

328. those are not biological differences

they only show that people more closely related to each other have more similar genes. Naturally biology provides that more closely related people have similar genes (including problems that arise genetically).

Males and females are biologically different only in their reproductive systems. Biologically, all people have brains, which they apply to their choices about reproduction. There is no imperative. You can marry a post menopausal woman. It can be done, and you have that choice. Therefore it cannot be biologically required.

[Union Scribe]

268. You sound like one of those 'cure the gays' people

You're claiming that a person's biology doesn't determine to whom they're attracted, and that it isn't an innate thing, and implying we should "do something about it". I haven't heard anyone outside right wing propaganda make such a claim.

[kcr]

270. No. Not what I'm saying at all.

I'm really interested in hearing how you're twisting my position, though. Where the hell is that coming from?

[Union Scribe]

275. It's coming from your awful arguments about the "preference"

to be attracted to someone. It's the same shit people say about gay people, how their environment made them that way not their biology. Yeah you're saying it about straight men, but it's the same ridiculous claim.

[kcr]

279. No. It's coming from awful distortions of my arguments.

I'm not the one claiming something is an innate biological preference, am I?

[Union Scribe]

283. No, you're *denying* that attraction is biological.

That's the whole point. Something biological is not a "preference." People do not choose to whom they are attracted. The post I initially replied to was dripping with rhetoric that, if aimed at another group, would and should be thoroughly repudiated by anyone on this board.

[kcr]

286. What I'm denying is that the notion that older women are non-sexual beings

and that few men find them attractive and that this is just biology and should be accepted because science. I'm not claiming that people can choose who they're attracted to. You are completely distorting my position. The notion that women's sexuality is tied to youth is a social construct, not a biological one.

[kcr]

282. Wait a minute. Are you claiming that it's never okay to question whether anyhing is innate?

Or if you do, you sound like a gay denier? Because I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

[Union Scribe]

285. I'm pretty sure you don't even know what you're arguing

so I'm going to just write off these few minutes as time well wasted and let you carry on with some of the worst arguments I've ever seen on DU.

[kcr]

288. Okay. I'll let you carry on with some of the worst distortion and conflating

I've ever seen on DU.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

498. For those who don't know who Margaret Beaufort was

She was the mother of Henry VII of England and therefore the grandmother of Henry VIII.

[leftstreet]

78. !!

Nicely stated

These evo psyche threads make DU look incredibly stupid. Thanks for an intelligent post!

[NickB79]

118. Most women weren't fertile at 13 thousands of years ago

Diet determines onset of fertility, and most humans didn't have a diet sufficiently nutritious to allow for menstruation until their mid-teens.

The idea of girls hitting puberty in their early teens as normal didn't come about until the 20th century.

[seabeyond]

127. and today, a girl having a baby is the same risk of a woman over 36.

it never jived biologically, but you will still hear the perverts argue their right to....

once hit puberty, free game.

that can be as young as 10, you know. religions claim this. granted the most extreme. countries of men ruling.

right?

[leftstreet]

129. So does that mean men haven't evolved?

Thousands of years to 'evolve' yet their evo psych biological need to fertilize everything but the lawn hasn't taken into account the fact that women are now fertile in their teens?

[seabeyond]

131. fertilize everything comes from religion, and science adopted. i can argue

that it would biologically behoove a man not to seed away, from both cometition and chance of keeping offspring. again. fable telling. created and told by man. to control. first thru religion. adn now thru science.

[kcr]

134. My point is the same. I doubt the age was 25.

I doubt there was this narrow window of fertility that gives legitimacy to the claim that there is a sole biologic imperative for wanting youthful hot bods, instead of acknowledging the cultural reasons. Human beings always assume that the way things are are the way things have always been and ignore the cultural and social pressures that change over time. Human beings do have certain basic biological imperatives but they are shaped by social pressures and those aren't static.

[seabeyond]

126. the whole argument is cavemen is so fuggin innately perceptive, that they would fine the mate that

produced the best... siting fuggin hip ratios. lmao.

[seabeyond]

81. the perverts use the same claim on wanting the 10, 11, 14 yr old. ya know.

and they do it on du.

evoution tells them they want the young.

i can build a whole story why a man would choose a woman ranging 22, 24 to 32. on the woman and mans biology.

and the woman would want 24.

19 men peak. but 24-28 is probably best for a woman.

[seabeyond]

83. oh. i am being amusing. or is that silly. me. nt

[LittleBlue]

95. I'm aware

Although I read an article on DU saying that perverted desires for kids as young as 10 or 11 are actually the result of an uncommon brain defect.

[Zorra]

55. And women of all ages don't want those men. nt

[Triana]

82. If they're smart, they don't! n/t

[treestar]

298. +1999999999999999999999999 nt

[DreamGypsy]

75. Lucille was fifty...and I was nineteen...

Well, Lucille was a woman and I was a boy
And it was obvious that she wanted more
Than a man her age could give her
And that was me
I was wild as a summer squall
Blowin' through town no direction at all
I was wilder than even she could believe
....more

It was crazy, but it sure was good.

[Skittles]

92. the younger the gal, the fewer men she can compare him to

[seabeyond]

135. that is so fuggin what it is. lol. also, another i see, they are not experienced enough to call

bullshit.

[KitSileya]

241. That is exactly what this is about.

These OK Cupid guys are looking for younger women because they are easier to fool. Pure and simple. How many of these guys have their birthdays wrong in their profile? "Ooops, I typed in 1987, not 1977, and now I can't change it."

I also like (not!) the poster who sagely pontificated about the correctness of the statement that "men’s heterosexual activity likely is constrained by female choice" on thread about an article about how men ages 15-85 want 20-something women, discarding all women over 30!

[treestar]

484. I read that in some feminist tract years ago

That men do not care about youth and attractiveness, but about control, and this drives the "preference" for younger women. Not that they are sexier. That they are more likely to be naive and easier to control.

[FreakinDJ]

101. Nice to look at - But what do you do in the morning

the findings are flawed in the fact they don't qualify it by the length of the desired encounter

[LeftyMom]

110. Who's buying all that MILF porn then?

[seabeyond]

141. you know. some pimply ass kid aving the audacity to get all up in my face and telling me

he would like to fuck me.

do not even get me start on the milf issue, giggle giggle says the little boy

[JonLP24]

272. When I was in Iraq

We were driving northwest of CSC Scania, near Al-Hilla. There were some (I imagine) locals walking on the side of the road and I swear this is true, one of them was wearing a "Got MILF?" t-shirt. I had no idea what to make of that if he knew what the shirt really said or maybe he did. I have no idea how much people over there know as far as American culture is concerned.

[seabeyond]

316. all about denigrating women, even in iraq. even if it is a punk ass kid, denigrating a grown women.

interesting though. thanks.

[JonLP24]

318. He was a grown man

Probably 30s, maybe 20s or 40s. Like I said down-thread once someone gets to a certain age I can't tell the difference until they get into old age.

[seabeyond]

331. i watched an OP on an org with milf talking about a member that die, have a bunch of grown men

reduce themselves into giggle over the term milf. yet. me saying it out loud, mother i want to fuck, got a hide cause it was too vulgar.

grown men. in 30's and 40's gigglin' over milf when the thread was actually about someone dieing. cant beat that one.

[seabeyond]

111. this OP created a thread, that is just priceless to me. i thank you. i have to get busy with life,

but..... i will absolutey make it back to play some more. just too too fuggin easy.

[AngryAmish]

114. Nobody has the right to police who anyone else is attracted to. PERIOD.

At it's core people are attracted to who they are attracted to. It does not matter if it is genetic. It does not matter if it is entirely cultural. It does not matter if it is nature, nurture or both. It is not anyone's place to change people sexual expression or inclination.*

For a long time straight people would police who homosexual people should be attracted to, even upon force of law. We have evolved past that as a culture.

*eexcept if your inclination is toward nonconsensual sex

[seabeyond]

143. who is policing? it does matter when men tell us it is innate and to buy into bullshit.

when using it as scientic fact that effects my life and every womans life. it effects our life as far as academia, criminal system, judicial sytem, govt, religion... every facet of our life.

you can damn well bet we are going to call it.

if that is to you.... policing people choice of attraction. then i cannot accomodate.

[kcr]

151. I can't help but notice

How those who are quick to accuse others of "policing" have absolutely no self awareness and don't realize they're really basically telling others to shut up and accept the status quo.

[seabeyond]

154. more. demanding we allow them to define my sexuality, experience in life, in the name of science. nt

[bettyellen]

265. laughing at this bullshit study is not policing. It's fucking OK Cupid, not rocket science.

but believe in it if you need to, by all means.

[davidn3600]

357. The study was financed by the Finnish government.

OKCupid was a different study used to compare.

It would be helpful if you would read the article.

[treestar]

485. You forgot pedophiles

We won't police old men wanting young women, but they better realize most young women are not interested.

[Marrah_G]

120. I think that it is a biological thing.

We are, after all, animals.

[ismnotwasm]

124. OK Cupid?

Now That's science

[Union Scribe]

280. "The findings are similar to data culled from the dating website OKCupid"

Two different things there.

[Tom Rinaldo]

137. I'm surprised with myself for being surprised by this

I actually thought men in their mid forties up would have polled preferring women in their mid thirties, splitting the difference in a sense between looking for "youth" and wanting a little more of "peer" type interactions with someone who has navigated the world as an adult for a decade plus. silly me.

[seabeyond]

155. these are the men having mid life crisis, not able to give up youth, willing ot destroy family

life for a grab at the big brass ring, one more time. lol

a bit skewed.

[Logical]

176. Seabeyond, are you honestly saying a middle aged man should not....

find 25 year old women attractive?

I never know if you object to men admiring attractive women or only have an issue with men being sexist jerks or acting on the admiration.

It is hard to tell if this place think men only admiring younger women is evil and disgusting.

[kcr]

182. Logical? Are you honestly saying men should not find older women attractive?

It's honestly hard to tell sometimes if this place thinks old women should accept it and learn to knit and pet their cats.

[Logical]

196. I find women of all ages attractive. And enjoy their company much more than I would....

with any 25 year old.

But noticing physical attractiveness is not evil.

Acting on it by being rude is.

[kcr]

201. No one is saying noticing physical attractiveness is evil.

Not the point.

[treestar]

349. Everybody finds younger people attractive in this society

Look at the soap operas, they hire men in their 20s/30s who have to work out all day to look like they should look. It's the commercialization that does that. Women are subject to it also. Of course we find 25 year old, handsome, worked-out men more attractive that men who look like Danny DeVito.

It's that there are so many more studies that solemnly inform us that when we were in our 20s, we seriously would consider a middle aged man. When we know we would not have. We are told we get less and less attractive as men get more and more attractive with time. We know it is not that simple. And that the idea is for men to be able to use their most intimate relationship to be in control.

This is going away, and the shallow men are getting more and more desperate.

[The2ndWheel]

202. Does that work for the older men that find younger women attractive?

Or are they just supposed to accept their age and learn to whittle and walk the dog?

[kcr]

205. Well, if they can't find a 20 year old who's willing, guess they're out of luck.

Not sure why that's my problem.

[The2ndWheel]

271. If older women aren't preferred for some reason

It's not anyone's problem.

[kcr]

274. How do we go from older men not being able to find 20 year olds

To no one wanting older women, and seeing that as the same? But again. Some things are truly eye opening.

[The2ndWheel]

287. You said those older men are out of luck if they can't find a willing 20 year old

Older women are out of luck if they're not seen or wanted.

Everyone that's old needs to just sort of go away into their hovel, because apparently nobody wants them.

[kcr]

289. Who said no one wants old men? That's not what you or anyone else said.

We weren't talking about unwanted old men. Just the ones who want 20 year olds.

[The2ndWheel]

297. Right, they're out of luck if they want but can't get the 20 year old

Just like older women who aren't seen as sexually attractive by someone. Neither of those are anyone's problem, it's just how it is.

[kcr]

304. There is a difference between someone being alone because they have narrow standards

And someone being alone because no one wants them because society has deemed them unworthy. Yeah, sorry, but I'm going to have to say that the former isn't my problem and I have a harder time feeling sorry for them. Sorry if you don't like that.

[The2ndWheel]

332. Which of course works for both women and men

The 40 year old guy who still lives at home for whatever reason may be a great guy, but society has deemed him unworthy, and not many women will be talking to him, young or old. That's not anyone's problem either, but it sucks for him.

[kcr]

335. Well, yes, if a woman has narrow standards

But look at the OP and what is being discussed, here. I didn't randomly decide to pick on old men. THere is context, here.

[seabeyond]

206. if that is going to be your choice, then i would suggest take up whittlin' and walk the dog.

cause per the study, those 20 yr old women do not wnat old men. they want like age. duh.... lol

[The2ndWheel]

244. So now the study is right?

[bettyellen]

267. Did you miss the first word in her post- IF?

It's a pretty important word that could help your comprehension here.

[The2ndWheel]

284. She went back to the study to affirm her hypothesis

Older men preferring younger women is wrong, but younger women not preferring older men is right. Or they're both true, older guys need to accept it and step aside, older women need to accept their lack of being preferred sexually, and everyone can have an easier day.

[seabeyond]

195. youth is attractive for all of us. no special there. specifically with the post you replied to,

i am discussing how the conditioning of our society influences not so healthy, nor productive behavior and it has nothing to do with biology. everything to do with our conditioning. it ... stunts us. in our growth

[Logical]

204. I agree with you on that 100%......

I have one son and 2 daughters. I have appreciated women's treatment so much more because of my daughters.

Men cause more issues in relationship than women do. I am sure some would disagree but at times men are just pure assholes.

I would not enjoy long discussions with most 25 year old women like I would with women my age. Personality is so much of any relationship. People forget that.

I love seeing these celebrity women with no makeup. Only because it show people they look like any other person you would see on the street. You throw $500 worth of hair and makeup artists at any women and they would look like stars also.

TV and movies and commercials and magazines add to much to this problem.

[seabeyond]

216. simply, i have yet gotten to a point where i am ignored as a sexual human being. i do not appreciate

men defining both my sexuality and my experience.

i keep getting older and seeing hwat i am being told is not correct.

i do not consider it a compliment to either man or woman. nor do i see it as a reality for either, either. lol

[Logical]

351. I doubt any women at this point think I am sexy. But I do not mind them thinking other men are. nt

[seabeyond]

358. i really do not get your point. nt

[jeff47]

310. The "OKCupid" men are. The other study wasn't all men looking for dates.(nt)

[bettyellen]

439. I only saw the three paragraphs above @ Time.com, no details of the Finnish study

even when I googled it. Do you have a link?

[jeff47]

446. It's post #6 in this thread. (nt)

[bettyellen]

456. thanks- am laughing at the old "men are more visually cued" bullshit- It's embarrassing that anyone

buys that crap. Women are just as visual- they just don't think that everyone gives a shit to hear them sit in judgement of every little thing they see like men often do. Men are conditioned to think their every thought is interesting or valuable and worth saying. Women self censor more because they are quite aware this is not the case.

[davidn3600]

364. So if a 40 year old man and a 24 year old woman fall in love...

...and legitimately love each other, they shouldnt be together because, according to you, the man is having a mid-life crisis and looking to destroy a family?

What the heck are you trying to say?

[treestar]

483. Does she really love him?

So if a 24 year old man falls in love with a 40 year old woman - oh, wait, that is biologically impossible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Édith_Piaf#Personal_life

Piaf married Jacques Pills, her first husband, in 1952 (her matron of honour was Marlene Dietrich) and divorced him in 1957. In 1962, she wed Théo Sarapo (Theophanis Lamboukas), a Greek hairdresser-turned-singer and actor[1] who was 20 years her junior. The couple sang together in some of her last engagements.

Piaf lived in Belleville, Paris, with her parents from 1915 to 1934. From 1934 to 1941, she lived at 45 rue de Chézy in Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. Alone from 1941 to 1952 and with Jacques Pills from 1953 to 1956. She continued to live there alone from 1956–1959. In her final years she lived at 23 rue Édouard Nortier in Neuilly-sur-Seine, France – alone from 1959 to 1962 and with Théo Sarapo from 1962 to 1963 until her death.

[stevenleser]

157. That also would have been my guess.

A 25 year old (male or female) is still likely doing the bar/club scene, into the latest pop music, hasn't figured out where their life is going and what makes them happy.

I don't know many forty-somethings that would like dealing with that.

[kcr]

389. And the reverse as well

Particularly if they're interested in a long term relationship. They can't ignore the fact a good part of their relationship will be with an elderly partner while they're still relatively young. Love can overcome a lot of things of course, but you don't see people seeking out relationships like that on purpose. Most people stay relatively within their own age group for a reason.

[tularetom]

147. That was true for me up to the age of maybe 40

After that I began to see how little I had in common with women in their 20's. By the time I was 40 I had a 18 year old daughter and that changed the whole way I looked at young women. Sure, they looked great, and it was fun to fantasize, but all these girls were somebody's daughter and I'd get pissed every time I thought of some old fart gawking at my daughter.

Now I have a granddaughter who is out of her 20's and another who will be in a couple of years. I know all their friends and although some of them are pretty hot, I don't have any interest in sex with a woman of that age group. First of all it would probably kill me and if it didn't my wife would if she found out. What I do fantasize about is those girls moms who would be in their 40's maybe early 50's. Yeah, I know they're still somebody's daughter but it's not the same.

[In_The_Wind]

159. Guess it's time for this lively little old lady to learn how to knit.

[GoneOffShore]

193. Not me. Women in their 20's scare me.

[daredtowork]

194. Good luck with that. nt

[tridim]

210. I still want to have kids, so I am forced to keep my options open.

I don't feel bad about it at all.

[liberal_at_heart]

230. While I agree with those who say it is biology, I don't see any reason we can't try to

overcome that instinct. I knew when I started dating my husband that he was legally blind. That didn't stop me from falling in love with him. I inherited a breast cancer gene from my mother, and may or may not have passed those genes onto my children. That didn't stop my daughter's boyfriend from falling in love with her or my husband from falling in love with me. My son has autism. He has not started dating yet and I don't know if he will have difficulty or not but he is very friendly, funny, kind, charming, and charismatic. I do believe that someday he will find someone that will love him. When we let ourselves be led around by our biology alone we miss out opportunities to know some pretty wonderful people.

[Baclava]

234. What the survery doesn't say - when asked, men don't really want to MARRY them.....just FUCK them

How could they leave that out

[merrily]

248. Yeah, the survey left out a shitload of stuff, like

what women want in a life partner is not necessarily what they prefer.

If someone were able to give older women an ironclad guaranty that the partner they "prefer" would love them forever and not chase after a 20 year old, if given encouragement, I'm guessing a single older woman might "prefer" a younger man to one who needs Viagra, among other things. Even that is a vast over-simplification.

Thing is, men and women are different in so many ways when it comes to relationships and sexual attraction. Besides, studies can't make up their minds about what is supposedly science, let alone human relationships. One year, it's everybody drink skim milk; the next, it's high fat dairy helps protect from cancer, so everybody dump the skim you bought after last year's study right down the drain and buy high fat dairy.

[Baclava]

253. give me a couple mil in grant money and I'll find out why 20 y/o women prefer men worth billions

I'm writing up my survey right now

[merrily]

281. Cause they don't know shit from shinola about anything.

See, I saved a couple mil.

BTW, before you write the survey, you write the grant request. Then, you pay yourself for writing the survey.

BTW, when I was 20, I affirmatively avoided getting entangled with males who had money. Wish I hadn't been quite so stringent, LOL.

[merrily]

239. Really? If you ask a 70 year old woman who she would rather have

truly lusting/loving her for the rest of her life, Ryan Gosling or Mitch McConnell, odds are she would say Mitch?

Really?

Just not buying it.

By the way, Gosling's baby mama is older than he is.

[Puzzledtraveller]

260. I'm 41, wife is 28.

We are best friends, it was never about age. I didn't know how old she was when we met, we just click like never before, we both knew it and trusted it and we just a baby girl born in April.

[JonLP24]

263. Same with me

but it doesn't really matter. I care about intelligence, honesty, and trustworthy.

I am in my mid-20s myself but when but once you get into the 20s everyone pretty much looks the same age until they start heading into their 40s.

[TheBlackAdder]

276. Incorrect: Most men like OLDER women. Older men who like women in their 20's never really matured.

Many of these guys live in a fantasy world where they think they are closet teenagers and somehow believe that women in their mid-20's find men in their 40's and 50's attractive. Besides some father complex, most women in their 20's find severely older men gross and, if the male approaches them outside of their boundaries, they will think of them as dirty and skeevy.

Just like how most teen boys find women in their 30's and 40's gross. That mentality does not escape most of them as they age.

Their unrealistic world sees themselves as being attractive to younger women. Some younger women might go out with an older man, to get things that they would note be able to get from their male peers, but that's a small subset of women. Yet, these delusions persist in a lot of men. Sort of like the Russian Bride thing. Do you really think that the normal hot Russian woman really wants a severely older or repulsive male for her to marry? That's another male fantasy. When she comes to the States, she'll hook up with younger Russian peers for at least emotional companionship or more.

You know that old adage, how men are really boys inside... with many, there is truth to that.

[kcr]

290. Well, apparently not only is this not the case, but now I'm being compared to a homophobe

for suggesting otherwise, upthread. DU is crazy.

[LeftyMom]

294. I find it interesting that the people giving men the least credit

are the people who think they're advocating for men.

Because their argument is that men are shallow and can't help it, but women want an equal partner.

If a woman said that thet'd lose their collective shit.

[kcr]

312. Yes. This same argument in a different context, and cue the whining about male bashing.

They'd be falling all over themselves to point out how men aren't like that.

[seabeyond]

320. ah, but this study is sexually empowering and bolstering for men. hence, it is a win. regardless

reality, fact or common sense.

[kcr]

341. But you can't argue with science!

I especially get a kick out of the DUers in this thread I've seen get angry about another DUer's ignorance about science in another matter. Even if I was on their side in that matter. I would love nothing more than to point it out to them except I don't want a thread hide.

[seabeyond]

347. it is a trip. nt

[JI7]

354. i have seen this a few times where some criticism of some hetero male weirdness is compared

to attacking gays. like WTF ????????????

[kcr]

361. I know

Not the first time. I don't get it, either.

[TheBlackAdder]

450. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I am following your reply.

I was responding to how most men view themselves as internally young, with only a small subset evolving with their bodies.

Most men I know, still view themselves as being young inside. With regard to women, they keep their views in line, where they always are attracted to younger women.

===

This is really important because the vast majority of marketing, as to what constitutes attractiveness, is geared towards the 20-something woman.

Now, whether it is marketing responding to the human male's desire for 20-somethings (which was probaby researched in full over the years by scores of companies and marketing firms) or men responding to the bulk of commercials depicting younder women as being the litmus for what attractive is, can be asked.

But, based on my years of continuing education and the interation with younger college students, my age, the various people I've discussed this topic with, I more lean towards the maturity of men internally as the natural cause--reinforced by advertisements.

===

It's kind of comical to see older guys thinking that much younger women will be attracted to them. The college students discuss this in class and they depict a sense of disgust when an older guy hits on them, regardless of what they look like or their wealth. But still, the older guys hold that fantasy.

[seabeyond]

454. excellent post.

i contend, that well be the difference etween the man that enters old age in health, balance and happiness, and hte one that striggles thru old age, cause he cannot accept the reality.

we see women that have a tough time too, and it manifests differently. it is not pretty either.

interesting.

i think women have less choice, nad more in face to accept. but... i do agree with the essense of your post.

and as a young women in early 20's. this would be my point. no interest in an old man. none. ever. i had my age guys to play with. i can honestly say, i did not have one young woman peer that went for an old man. i would see an aquaitance rarely have an older. but... it always thru us. none of us were into it. it is not a norm. wasnt in my time or group, anyway.

[Reter]

467. Bullshit

n/t

[TheBlackAdder]

502. Is that a 'floppy' you have there when responding to a sexual attractiveness thread? nt

[treestar]

296. lol that is not going to work out for most of them

as to the attempts to take the rare case of the young woman who married an older man for his money and make it biological imperative, The Victorian Age was over long ago.

[flvegan]

308. This thread didn't disappoint. n/t

[trumad]

327. Nope...

Same old character including the guy who started the Op.

[seaglass]

444. The OP has proven he has issues with women. Getting tired of him taking his

personal problems out on everyone here.

[trumad]

445. many many threads by this guy with the same type if meme

[awoke_in_2003]

359. I guess I buck the trend...

I married my 36 year old wife when I was 26.

[liberal N proud]

363. While true, I find older women just as attractive as I age.

[JDPriestly]

385. Confrims one thing: Men of all ages are stupid.

And 20-year-olds who marry men twice their ages are even stupider.

OK, ladies. You are 29. Your husband is 49. When you are 59, life will be good for you except that you will have a husband who, if still living, is 79. You will be ready to grandmother. He will be ready for the nursing home. You are going to be taking care of your grandchildren as well as your aging husband.

Forget it. Marry someone around your own age. Grow old together. It's great that way.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

401. You know what's even greater?

Being with someone you love, regardless of age difference.

Seems to be completely missed in today's world.

[JDPriestly]

413. I write from the vantage point of 51 years of marriage.

There is nothing better than growing old together. The memories are beautiful. Love grows as time passes. That's my experience.

[treestar]

431. If that were the consideration

the men on OK Cupid would be looking for someone they love. Instead, they are looking for a particular body. That was the point. They aren't looking for that. In fairness, they probably are not capable of it, or they'd word their ads in different terms.

[PasadenaTrudy]

436. Depends who you fall in love with

And not every couple has kids or grandkids to worry about.

[another_liberal]

404. Like comedian "Moms Mabley" said . . .

"There ain't nothing an old man can do for me but bring me a note from an young man."

[MadrasT]

405. OKCupid?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

457. IKR!

[seabeyond]

458. i like ikr. i had to look it up. that is a good one. thanks. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

460. saw another good one the other day ... {Ns,S} ... loved it, too :D

[seabeyond]

461. i saw you liked that one.

i am clueless. looked it up and am still clueless. ???

[Tuesday Afternoon]

462. {No shit, Sherlock}. I got it right away because that used to me one of my favorite come backs.

[seabeyond]

471. lol

i would have never guessed. thanks.

[Throd]

406. I'm 47. I think having sex with some 25 year old would be, well, kinda weird.

I'd rather be with a woman within 5 years of my own age, plus or minus.

[seabeyond]

407. i fgure the range of 5 yrs, plus or minus is our age. mostly. we cant really hit on bdays, lol

to get exactly the same age.

but 5 years, you are pretty much within the same generation. that has always been most comfortable for me, too.

[JEFF9K]

409. Women of all ages ...

prefer men with lots of money. So don't accuse men of being shallow!

[LostInAnomie]

411. Oh, boy! Now, youre in for it.

You're right, but you're still in for it.

[davidn3600]

417. Gender roles are very persistent

In its spring survey, Pew found nearly 80% of never-married women said finding someone with a steady job was very important to them in choosing a spouse or partner. Among men and women who had never married but wanted to, nearly a third said they were not financially prepared for marriage.

The problem, Pew explains, is the economic malaise of the last few decades—hidden for a time by a home-price boom—has shrunk the pool of available employed men. At the same time, women’s educational attainment and labor-force participation has generally risen.

Put simply, for today’s never-married women, a “good” man is harder to find.

Among never-married adults aged 25 to 34, the number of employed, available men per 100 women has dropped to 91 in 2012, from 139 in 1960. That means if all of 2012’s never-married young women wanted to find a young, employed man who also hadn’t been married, about 9% of them would automatically fail—due to a man shortage. (Of course, these women could find and marry divorced men, or older men.)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-americans-forgo-marriage-as-economic-difficulties-hit-home-153146122.html;_ylt=A0SO8xWWTCdUTlkAkV1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTExOWpkbnBwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1VJQzFfMQ--

[treestar]

430. Anyone ever think to ask the men?

Would they not prefer a woman with a steady job? I bet they would. People who want to marry want someone stable.

[davidn3600]

443. Men are FAR more flexible with that

I can't speak for every man in America. But men are definitely not like women are in this regard. A woman's income ranks incredibly low on a man's list of important things he wants in a woman. The vast majority really don't give a crap what a woman does for work. Today, the primary reason a man enters any relationship is for companionship and perhaps one day wanting children. That's it. Men don't view a woman's career as a basis for a relationship. He'll support her in any career endeavor that she has. But he's not going to consider such a thing a deal-breaker.

I've seen men marry unemployed women. Never seen it the other way around.

[treestar]

447. Men become unemployed after they get married

Their wives don't always leave them.

Still, I don't think an unemployed woman would be attractive to men for dating and marriage. It might be they she quits afterward her job to take care of kids. That's his privilege as it was in the 50s. Though there are a few Mr. Mom's, and there's nothing wrong with that. If they decide her career makes more money, why not?

If men want in a woman what you say, you're admitting they are hanging onto the old fashioned patriarchal values. They are right wingers in essence. If they don't give a crap how much she makes, maybe they should think about it more and then not complain so much that women want someone who makes money. The type of woman who expects a man to take care of the money is more old fashioned, and if you want to live by those values, why the complaints about those women? Don't pick those women then. Find one with a more modern view.

[davidn3600]

469. That's exactly what I said

The traditional gender roles are still here for the most part, even if they are not necessarily as blatant and strict as the 1950s. Most people in society still expect the man to be the breadwinner, even if the wife is taking in more money for the time being.

This is also one of the things preventing the wage gap from closing, btw. It has to do with societal pressures more than outright discrimination. Society gets accustomed to how things work/organized and there is a lot of resistance to change. You obviously see LOT more resistance on the right, but even on the left you see some of it just based on the premise of "that's how it's always been." And there isn't really a whole lot of push to change other than some segments of the feminist movement.

Women have some responsibility to be successful (in their careers) these days and be less reliant on men to provide. That is beneficial for both genders. But it's difficult for feminism to make much further progress with this. If men don't become more flexible with the gender roles themselves (even ones they apply to themselves), you will see very little movement here. This is an area even the Nordic countries who focus a lot of resources on gender equality are struggling with.

[treestar]

470. There's been a huge amount of change since the early 70s

No reason for more not to take place. There are stay-at-home Dads now. Many of these rules have relaxed a whole lot and will further.

[treestar]

429. Not really

Only the shallow ones. And you're probably overlooking the less-than-10s.

I see plenty of men with financial troubles with girlfriends. Maybe not the best looking ones in their 20s, lol.

[Starry Messenger]

477. Maybe that's just the case with you and your friends.

[marym625]

424. As a bisexual woman, I am ashamed to say,

I am no different than men when it comes to women I find attractive. I wish it weren't true. It's not true for actual relationships, but sexual attraction, a 20 something hottie....

Holy Toledo there's a lot of comments! am going to have to read later.

[bemildred]

427. I don't. nt

[ecstatic]

433. This brings to mind the "Princeton mom," who everyone criticizes

for suggesting that women should pursue relationships in college. I see a lot of people trying to silence "Princeton mom" and the author of this Time article. Personally, I think young women should be armed with ALL of the facts so they can know all the potential risks and make decisions they won't regret in 10-15 years. If a young woman wants a great career but also wants to be married with kids, she needs to at least be aware of how the statistics shift after college and/or after the 20s.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/living/princeton-mom-book-marry-smart-matrimony/

[PasadenaTrudy]

434. Lol

My 52 yr old boyfriend says he would have absolutely nothing in common with a woman that young. He likes women his own age. I guess he is more mature than most.

[paramajitinajar99]

452. I think it is true

I read this study the other day, and find it to be predominantly true. Before he was with me my bf was with women who were 23. He is 42. I think men like the adoration of young women, that they don't get from older ones.

[awoke_in_2003]

474. Welcome to DU

those are shallow men, IMO. I have always like strong women who were capable of taking care of themselves. When a woman can handle herself, yet still stays with you, you know you have a good one.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

455. Ironically, Bob Dylan(!) was the First to Rec this thread ...

Family
Dylan married Sara Lownds on November 22, 1965. Their first child, Jesse Byron Dylan, was born on January 6, 1966, and they had three more children: Anna Lea (born July 11, 1967), Samuel Isaac Abraham (born July 30, 1968), and Jakob Luke (born December 9, 1969). Dylan also adopted Sara's daughter from a prior marriage, Maria Lownds (later Dylan, born October 21, 1961). Bob and Sara Dylan were divorced on June 29, 1977.[345] Maria married musician Peter Himmelman in 1988.[346] In the 1990s, Dylan's son Jakob became well known as the lead singer of the band The Wallflowers. Jesse Dylan is a film director and a successful businessman.

Desiree Gabrielle Dennis-Dylan, Dylan's daughter with his backup singer Carolyn Dennis (often professionally known as Carol Dennis) was born on January 31, 1986, and Dylan married Carolyn Dennis on June 4, 1986.[347] The couple divorced in October 1992. Their marriage and child remained a closely guarded secret until the publication of Howard Sounes' Dylan biography, Down the Highway: The Life Of Bob Dylan in 2001.[348]

As of 2009, Dylan lives in Malibu, California, when not on the road.[349]

more at link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dylan

I could be wrong but, it doesn't appear that age was his Bob's first criteria when selecting a partner/mate.

cute thread, David

[alarimer]

459. People also lie their asses off on dating websites.

Besides which, what they say they want they might not have a realistic chance of getting.

I found guys on OkCupid to be horrible creepy assholes I wouldn't touch with someone else's body.

[Reter]

466. Sounds right to me

That's always been my preferred age of choice.

[treestar]

472. Every man would be Sonny Bono

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono

Poor Mary wasn't going to have lasted much longer had he lived.

Who knew he was the alpha male?

[tecelote]

476. 475 replies, 8345 views, 10 Recommends

[valerief]

478. That took a study????? nt

[TheVisitor]

481. I have to say, studies have proven men actually want...

young girls to reproduce with more than they do those of the legal age of consent... It is apparently natural male urge to seek younger girls... but you know, that's not a viable excuse to go out and do it...

also, sometimes i get angry and i swear i could just beat the crap out of someone for being infuriating - if i did this... it would be OK, right? because it's my natural urge in that very moment? well, because... testosterone, right?

we are all held to standards of basic human decency to live up to... and just because some of us are being unreasonable and detached from reality, doesn't give us all a free pass to do so...

[treestar]

482. It's so gross to think of my 14 year old self

being ogled at by grown men. Or any young girl I know of. Hard to believe this could really be considered natural in any way. It could hardly be a natural male urge. It's so disgusting to think of. Nature doesn't usually do that.

[seabeyond]

488. there is nothing to suggest it is "natural" and that they cannot help themselves.

there are men, who are pigs and they use biology as an excuse. we hear these men make comments like.... once she hits puberty, free game. puberty can be 10, for some girls.

they are creeps.

no one can argue that it is a biological imperative that a man fucks a kid. girls having babies have as many problems with defects and births as women over 36. the argument fails. biology would dictate that man wanted the 20-34 yr old. but then, this is what evo psych is all about. justifying male behavior with biology thru fable telling.

no where is there viable documentation stating that men are biologically inclined to the kid.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

489. A 20-year old woman is not necessarily better able to bear children than a 13-year-old.

Not all women will get taller and have hips that widen. That's a genetic thing. If your mom had narrow hips, you probably will too.
This is why C-sections are still necessary to prevent death in many women who are sexually mature, because they can't deliver vaginally. My mom had somewhat narrow hips but she was quite a bit taller than I am and had a bigger frame, so she was able to deliver vaginally but it was difficult with forceps. I have no deformity to my bones, I am just a petite person.

When I was young and started developing a woman's figure, my ribcage got big, my shoulders got big, and I ripped out my underarm seams in my dresses from stress. My hips never got any wider than they were when I was 14. I had a skirt my mother made for me in junior high in 7th grade. I was twelve years old. I could still wear the same skirt in college when I was 19. So I had to have my child by C-section.

The reasons one third of women used to die in childbirth was narrow hips and dysfunctional labor and also puerperal fever, which was a massive infection caused by male doctors with dirty hands examining women's vaginas when they were in labor. Ignaz Semmelweis washed his hands and spent many years trying to convince his fellow doctors to wash their hands before examining women.

There is a conflict between the size of the child's head, the size of the pelvic opening, and the fact that humans walk on two legs. When the woman's pelvis is not big enough, she will die because the baby's head is too big, unless she has a C-section which is a major abdominal surgery which will save her life. This is called in biology the "obstetric dilemma". Also the child's head must be small for many years and the child is dependent on the parents for many years.

[Dreamer Tatum]

494. Yup, we like evolution science when it's used to mock fundies

When it's used to point out other fundamental urges of our species, not so much.

[seabeyond]

499. yes. we call creationism what it is. storytelling. we are just clever enough to see the story tellin

Last edited Mon Sep 29, 2014, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

in evo psych also. with the majority of the scientific community backing us as a falied, fluffy, soft science. just like the majority of scientist call out climate change deniers.

you might want to really think about this parallell that some of the men are creating.... you know, fabricating, or hey, developing a new religion in the name of science. that of course is male centric.

[LanternWaste]

500. "Evo-Psych crap has validated my stupidity! I've never felt more enabled to be Creepy Old Guy!"

"Evo-Psych crap has validated my stupidity! I've never felt more enabled to be Creepy Old Guy!"