Is it creepy for older men to prefer younger women?

Post Reply New Topic

Agreed. It's probably an unfair expectation on my part, but I tend to assume that people who know what it's like to be judged for harmless lifestyle choices should know better than to do the same to others.



And I'll add to that, why the assumption that early human behavior is more natural than modern human behavior? Or that only one pattern of behavior can be natural at any given time?


Aside from the "don't judge others choices" thing, it seems to me that what most people do or try to do (or seem to do) strikes a pretty good balance between the urge to screw around and the urge to have someone to yourself. That is, have casual sex or short term relationships until the novelty of new partners wears off, then use the information gained from that time to figure what kind of person you want to partner up and build a life with.

Brains are more complex than digestive systems. It takes longer to make working changes to a complex system than to one that is less complex.

In addition, the basic physical differences between men and women regarding reproduction still exist and the associated hardwired bias in terms of agenda. Men can successfully pass on their genes using a scattergun approach - my wife's grandson has already fathered three children with three different young women and he's only 18! From an evolutionary point of view he's successful. This fundamental difference is also apparent in male behaviour. I'm sure things haven't changed since the days of my youth and visiting night clubs / bars: The average horny single young man would happily sleep with (a one night stand) with 90% of the available women in the bar if he had the chance. The average single woman tends to be far more choosy (generally).

This tendency for (single horny young men) to get into the pants of any available young woman is a successful strategy from the evolutionary perspective for men to propagate their genes; while such an approach for women isn't so successful for her to secure a suitable mate who can bond with her long term and help provide for her and the children. Curiously, in the example I gave above regarding my wife's grandson (an unemployed young bum), the young womens' needs are provided by the state; they all live on money and housing provided by the state and thus don't have a dependency on any support by the young man. In such circumstances it could be argued that young women have less incentive to be selective about their choice of mate; knowing that the state will provide everything and consequently getting pregnant may actually be considered a positive life choice for them nowadays, whereas fifty years ago the state and society would have been much less supportive to such unmarried young women.

Other mammals follow a similar pattern in nature. If resources are plentiful (food, shelter and security etc) then the females are receptive to breeding.

How one masturbates would indicate whether one was "naturally" monogamous.

If one masturbates while watching the same porn star each time, then one is "naturally" monogamous.

If one likes a little variety when one masturbates, then one is probably "naturally" wired for a bit of variety in coital adventures.

Do people who live in hunter-gatherer societies really have different digestive systems than people whose ancestors turned to farming quite a long time ago?

Natural selection depends upon individuals having characteristics that improve their own survival and reproductive capacity. And, it depends upon individuals who are less fit not surviving and contributing to the gene pool of subsequent generations.

Modern medicine guarantees that a lot more people are going to survive and reproduce than if we were living in a feral state. Eugenics movements of the 20th century have been abandoned. So, I don't see where human brains and body parts are really up for improvements, at least as a result of natural selection.

Boy, is he lucky. In America, he'd be sued for child support. And, if he wouldn't (or couldn't) pay, then its off to prison.

Or worse,you can't get a fishing license.

Since the topic is young women and old coots:

http://news.yahoo.com/husband-enlists-h ... 08832.html

A 60 year old guy, whose wife is half-his-age-plus-six, and who still wants some hanky-panky on the side. And, he probably isn't boning hexagenarians.

Not only do we get to have a second childhood, but our second childhood gets to be a lot more fun, thanks to Viagra.

Or duck-hunting.

Here is an example of what could happen to your wife's grandson in America:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpH3OXH-hDw#t=221[/youtube]

Technically he's supposed to pay child support... or he would have to if he could secure a job for longer than five minutes instead of sponging off his father all the time. In the UK if you don't have the income to pay child support you don't get sent to prison. There are calculations something along the lines that an individual needs a base income of X and above that a proportion gets set aside for child support up to a certain maximum. It is taken (taxed) at source if the person is employed as far as I'm aware.

Eh?

^^^I don't know if it's the same in other states but you can't get a hunting/fishing license in Ar if you don't pay your child support.
http://glossynews.com/society/health/20 ... izen-fire/

And for some folks fishing is more important than work..:)

And for some folks..

fishing is work..;)

Oklahoma City's Video Vigilante seems to catch quite a lot of dirty old men in the act:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScnsCeX4HSc[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=964hiazwHt4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdPHCrv2MMc[/youtube]

Mark Twain on the subject of dirty old men

http://www.classicreader.com/book/1930/9/