A race/gender question that I really hope doesn't turn into a war...

[otherlander]

Hi all,
So one thing I've been thinking about lately... It can be a compliment to tell a 20-something guy that he looks older, but not a 20-something woman. Similarly, it seems that with men, age has more connotations of experience / accomplishment, whereas women are more pressured to be / look young. It seems that we have to be either young and sexually attractive, or, if we can't look young, we have to be the mothers / nurturers, raising the next generation of men and hot young women. Otherwise, we turn invisible. I've seen it around here: If you're a depressed, upset 20-year-old woman, people go, "Oh, let's help the pretty girl." If you're a depressed, upset 50-year-old woman, people are much less inclined to be sympathetic.

This was all depressing the hell out of me, but then I thought to myself, Maybe this isn't an American-culture thing. Maybe this is just a white-American-culture thing. In other groups, which have been marginalized and not accepted into mainstream society as equals, and so have maintained their own distinct culture, things are different. Now, I'm not really qualified to talk about in what ways various cultures are different from the one that I grew up in and am still primarily a part of, so I'm asking any DU'ers who identify as part of a race, religious community, or subculture that isn't the dominant mythical-normative one (which is how I believe Audre Lorde put it): Do things look different from where you stand? Is there more value on taking care of elders? Is the problem of women turning invisible with age less / differently present? Does it matter whether said woman has children or not? What about men?

I hope I haven't overstepped any bounds in asking this; I am not saying it with animosity towards any groups; I realize that racism and restrictive gender roles are bad for everyone, not just women or particular racial groups. I look forward to the day when we can all just be people; in the meantime, I hope this thread will generate some informative / thought-provoking content.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Women are cast aside at 40. The male movie stars of the 30s/40s got younger co-stars in the 50s and

Myrna Loy, Irene Dunn, Ginger Rogers, Jean Arthur, Rosland Russell and Joan Crawford were replaced by:

Audry Hepburn
Leslie Caron
Grace Kelly

Bette Davis didn't have a great role after "All About Eve," and KHepburn went to the theatre and 'spinster' roles. Her slew of hits in the 1960s is THE exception to the rule.

[seabeyond]

2. i say throw away. i see women having as big if not bigger midlife than men

women hit 40 and the lucky ones get to be so balanced and healthy. really really hittin their own, about the time society throws them away. seeing how the women has come to such a centered and peaceful place, is easy to say... fuck it. i am NOT doing this anymore. want the rest of life to be MINE. mine mine mine i tell you. no one is missing with my parade.

it is a wondrous and fun time for me, as the message from all around, above and below telling me otherwise

interesting dichotomy.

edit: now have to get back to cleaning house for mil. geeezus, one would think after 15 years taing care of her son adn her grandkids.... but noooooo

about this time, i start getting pissed being married. lol

[Captain Hilts]

4. Same here. I'm Hell on wheels now. But not in popular culture. nt

[SoCalDem]

8. True.. the secret is coming to terms with what is..and not beating ourselves up over what

"could have been" or "should be"..

there's a reason why many widowed women do NOT remarry :evilgrin:

[Triana]

34. women: about the time society tosses them, is when they're at their best really...

...but they aren't as 'pretty' or have a gray hair so OUT to pasture they go.

Society has f*cked up priorities. And in this instance/issue, it's men who are driving it. They want PYTs (Pretty young things) - empty-headed is OK, immature is OK - but she has to LOOK GOOD and that's all that matters. By the time she becomes REALLY substantial intellectually and has a little life experience - she gets the boot.

Older women are invisible. Older men are invincible.

[SoCalDem]

3. Our lizard-brain parts are geared to look for the fertile-young-hot (women)

and for the good provider-protector (men)

It's just biology. We say we have risen above it, that we are thinkers, but deep down, we are what we are..

Women perceived to be past optimum fertility are good for caring for the young & chores, but are not lusted after or sought out that much, while males can hold onto their provider roles for a lot longer, and since the plan is to pass genes along, they want the young ones:(.

[seabeyond]

6. that is so full of shit..... an illusion told by men over and over ad nauseoun

until one wants to vomit.... to coddle and protect the fragile male ego.... always at all cost, protect that male ego

not that i have time to get into it right now

[Silent3]

14. What part of what you replied to is full of shit?

Do you think it's really more likely that at a basic, biological level that we're inclined toward perfect sexual egalitarianism? Do you believe that all gender discrimination is purely and completely a cultural overlay over a biological blank slate?

Or does it simply annoy you that anyone brings up matters of biology, whether what they say is true or not, because that's "making excuses"?

[seabeyond]

15. it is ignoring fact to spout young hot girls want old, an young men want young hot,...

old women like young hot. old men like young hot. young like young hot.

statisically couple marry with only a little age difference.

if it is all about biology, a woman coming to her cycle of preg would be fuckin anything handy, anything alpha, to impreg at all cost. not what is happening

yet this evo psycho babble state young hot want the old for sec. everything with survival would say no, but it is what is continually fed to us by society thru all areas by the old fart males.

[Silent3]

20. Behavior is about tendencies and degrees, not absolutes...

...and it's not about any one desire, but what actions are favored when various desires are balanced out.

Yes, I'm sure that for the most part everyone, male and female, tends to find youth more attractive than age. I think the preference for youth is generally stronger, however, and more often acted upon, by men. Further, I'd say that women more than men have a competing desire to find a protector/provider type, which can either modify their appearance-based desires or override them.

As for "a woman coming to her cycle of preg would be fuckin anything handy, anything alpha, to impreg at all cost", two things: First, restraint in who we fuck and when does have a large cultural component that tries to modify more basic behaviors. Second, it's not like a devious strategy has to be cultural, it can be biological. In bird species long thought to be monogamous for life, it turns out that a lot of "cheating" goes on, including females choosing different males to provide for their children than to father their children, tricking the male provider, the cuckold, into helping to raise the offspring of a different male.

Fucking the alpha male at every opportunity is a poor strategy, it is not, as you suppose, the most obvious biological choice -- the alpha male will have too many offspring of different mothers to be able to provide for them. Both pregnant human females and female birds with eggs to tend can benefit greatly, and their children be far more likely to survive, if a more personally dedicated male is found. Because biology has no moral compass, it's an even better strategy to fool one male into providing for the offspring of a more virile male, because the mother gets both the benefit of a dedicated provider and an increased chance that her own male offspring will be better at spreading her genes.

Since the behavior that maximizes the female's gene propagation works against most males, those males need a counter-strategy of avoiding females who would cuckold them, and/or a strategy to limit the female's opportunity to do so.

If everything about behavior were purely about survival, their would be no such thing as suicide. Considering biology is about looking at underlying, culturally-independent tendencies, not about finding absolute laws of behavior, and certainly not about proscribing how people should act.

[seabeyond]

22. statistically by far people marry same age range. you made my point. the unusual is a large age

span.

more acted on by male. well hell ya. forever being told old men are hot to young hot girls and forever of females being dependent on men to EAT, i would say hands down males act on it more than females. as you see females become independent, and wealthy in their own right, the more you see them going after young males. young males that want to be taken care of, just like the young females that want to be taken care of. the more women become independent the more you will see it balance.

people using people

history has always had female dependent on male for the simplest need in life. what do you think a female would go to. to meet her sexual desire, or to meet the need to eat and feed her kids.

and the rest of your post.... just goes on to state how we have so evolved ..... evolved, beyond the survivalist caveman days.

which is merely my point

[Silent3]

24. Marriage is different from fucking...

...which often goes on outside of marriage obviously, and tendencies are different from outcomes. What would be interesting to see is statistics on age differences in extramarital affairs.

The furnace in a house has a basic tendency to get hot. Without a thermostat, or if a thermostat is broken, a house with a furnace can get very hot indeed. That most homes are a comfortable temperature is not proof that furnaces don't have a tendency to get hot. You shouldn't confuse underlying tendencies with equilibrium outcomes -- a tendency is still a tendency even if competing tendencies and limiting factors keep that tendency in check.

and the rest of your post.... just goes on to state how we have so evolved ..... evolved, beyond the survivalist caveman days.

There has been some, but not much, biological evolution since the days of the cavemen. With a species such as ours, with relatively long life spans and low numbers of offspring compared to other species, biological evolution proceeds at a very slow pace.

[seabeyond]

25. and fucking on mate hits 15% of female and 20% male. no

we dont have the age break down in those situations... so not able to make any point with that.

though males profess and society since beginning of time, males gotta fuck around. and women dont. another of those biological phenomenons. but the more independent women become, the more we see the gap closing.

i hear the margin is tighter than a 5% difference.

and allows me to conclude. i have never suggested male and female behavior is not different. my argument is hands down, by far, it is learned and conditioned. not on a biological difference

[Silent3]

26. The argument isn't about how much can change...

...via cultural conditioning. It's about what the raw behavioral tendencies are underlying cultural conditioning.

For instance, we'd probably all like to think humans have a fairly good underlying moral character by nature, and that deviations from that are the fault of culture and circumstance. Seeing what often happens in electrical blackouts or in the rioting that often follows a win or loss of a Superbowl, however, you find that it's largely fear of the law that keeps many people in check -- when an opportunity comes along for bad behavior to be covered up by chaos and confusion, many people stand by ready to take advantage of that opportunity.

(By the way, your 15%/20% difference is about whether cheating occurs, while my question was about age differences in cheating. I would expect male/female cheating rates to be close, because to the extent they don't match, that means the women who cheat (or aren't married themselves and abet a husband's cheating) have to take on multiple male partners, otherwise there wouldn't be enough women for the cheating men to cheat with (unless they're having homosexual affairs).)

Although there have been exceptions, most human cultures have been male dominated throughout history around the world. To the extent women are slowly achieving more equality (in both good and bad behavior) that doesn't seem to indicate that we're moving culture out of the way of a basically more egalitarian innate behavior, but using culture to enforce more equitable conditions.

[seabeyond]

27. i understand was on age difference, and as i said, agreeing, no info, so no

discussion

as far as not enough difference, there are not that many cheating, so plenty to cheat with single and married, that is all insignificant.



"Although there have been exceptions, most human cultures have been male dominated throughout history around the world. To the extent women are slowly achieving more equality (in both good and bad behavior) that doesn't seem to indicate that we're moving culture out of the way of a basically more egalitarian innate behavior, but using culture to enforce more equitable conditions."

and i think i agree. i think this is my argument is that society conditions. be aware. and maybe it will not be culture being the influence, but a more innate egalitarian behavior.

[Silent3]

29. It's not like I have a pile of studies I can point to off the top...

...of my head, but as long as we can agree that cultural conditioning and learned behavior make a lot of difference, what I don't get is why so many people get very incensed when someone suggests that the underlying natural behavior is one way or another.

There are different models of innate sexual behavior seen among our fellow primates. I think it's a very interesting endeavor to find out what is basic for humans when you get culture out of the way, and how we then fit in among the other primates. Given the basics of human biology (some of which we share with most mammals) -- sperm is cheap and plentiful, eggs are rare, gestation periods are long, pregnancy is debilitating and makes women more vulnerable, offspring are very helpless and dependent for a long time, typically only females lactate, males are fertile more often than females for a greater span of years, etc. -- this all would tend to work out to age being a more important criteria for males evaluating females than vice versa.

Among bonobos (although it seems some dispute has arisen based on behavior of captive bonobos vs. wild) females fair better in social dominance compared to most other primates. The way bonobos use sexual contact to smooth out social conflict, however, I'd worry could be ruinous to their species if they were hit by a deadly sexually-transmitted disease. Since the position of females among bonobos is unusual among other primates, I'd expect human sexual behavior and dominance patterns to tend more toward what we see in the rest of the primates.

[seabeyond]

30. why is it bothersome? it has become a fad story to be told that allows male to continue dominance

from assumptions made, stories told, illusions created.

over the last year or two we have repetitively heard that males do this, males do that because they cannot help themselves. cavemen make them do it. biology. dna.

it is ALWAYS to boast the male ego. be it what a man does, or what a woman does, the bottom line is taking care of fragile male ego.

inappropriate, dominating, sexist and crude and vile behavior being embraced by male to subjugate female without any thinking about the conditioning, culture and evolutionary process of evolving and being human beings with conscience. or how the role they place women in make not a bit of evolutionary sense. just conforms to comfort males ego, again.

IF people were reasonable in their acknowledgment of this then i dont think there would be a stink

when a gender uses it to degrade, debase, dehumanize and say they have no control, then damn well should be challenged. by all. not just the gender that is being put upon.

[Silent3]

35. How does it "allow male dominance to continue"?

If you treat understanding biology as an "excuse" rather than an intellectual pursuit, biology is then also an "excuse" for women cuckold nice guys and cheat on them with young, bad boys.

Whatever the basic biology and behavior is, it is what is it. If you think the research is flawed because there's a pro-male dominance agenda afoot, say so. That people might exploit an understanding of our biology, however, is a totally separate issue from what the biology is. Maybe newer research will eventually uncover results you find more pleasing, but the likeliest biological truth is one that's anathema to sexual equality.

Where "taking care of fragile male ego" fits into this, I haven't a clue. (Well, I do have a clue, but it would take way, way more writing than I want to do right now to frame my speculation.)

[seabeyond]

37. firstly.... there is not anything in all that you say, that says much of anything

as far as the biological argument. so what you think i am arguing i havent a clue.

i started this post on a post that stated old men like hot young, and young hot women like old men. called that bullshit. still call it bullshit. nothing in your posts point otherwise.

nothing.

nada

it points and establishes culture/conditioning

[Silent3]

42. Biologically speaking, there's more reason for men...

...to care about the age of a female than for women to care about the age of a male. If you want to be very narrow about what you mean by what one person or another considers "hot", yes, there's a lot of room there for cultural conditioning, but biology will always be a strong component to something as basic as attraction. If culture could completely overpower natural attraction, no one would be gay. (Nor could anyone be gay if there wasn't a lot of room in a species for individual variation, because a predominately gay species would soon be extinct.)

All else being equal, biology tells me that a 20 year-old female has a much higher likelihood of finding a 50 year-old male attractive as a mate, one way or another, whether it's actual physical attraction or a decision to value other things over physical attraction, than does a 20 year-old male evaluating a 50 year-old female. The 50 year-old male might not be as virile as a 20 year-old, but he can still be fertile, and will often be a better provider with more social standing than a younger male. Cruel as it sounds (and biology is seldom kind), the 50 year-old female isn't likely to have as much to offer a 20 year-old male, at least not without culture and technology to override more basic biological imperatives.

Biology also tells me that the 50 year-old male, cultural conditioning aside, would likely want to fuck as many 20 year-olds as he can get away with. Biology also tells me that the 20 year-old female with her 50 year-old male mate is likely to find men closer to her age a tempting distraction, something she might risk if she can fuck one of them and not lose the 50 year-old man she values for other reasons.

That married people are often close to the same age (albeit still with a bias towards men being older) doesn't mean that age-based differences in attraction don't exist, but that other factors push the equation in the other direction. (One factor being that generational cultural differences facilitate same-age relationships.)

How much difference does it make to you in this argument if a 20 year-old woman is looking at a 50 year-old man and thinking, "Gosh, he's hot!" or "Well, he's not that hot, but I like him anyway."? To me, that's a moot point, but maybe that's what you're on about. If it is, I still don't see how that difference makes much difference in "perpetuating male dominance", or anything else.

[seabeyond]

44. and it is a cultural reason why the 20 yr old woman goes for the older male

again i argue,... biologically both want younger for reproduction and attraction

the ONLY reason a female goes for the older is security and that is cultural.

why YOUR need to make the old man something he isnt and tie it to young hot girls

[Silent3]

46. So the issue is that you consider "security" a purely cultural thing.

It's my opinion that the sense of security, the sense of evaluating men as providers and protectors, can be just as much a biological thing as evaluation of physical beauty or virility.

Certainly the fertility issue is biological. It's hard to argue that men aren't fertile longer than women, so there's less reason in evaluation of physical attraction for a female to weight male age as importantly as a male rates female age. The instinctual concern for fertility has little or nothing to do with any actual desire to have children, any more than when a man is aroused by a woman's breasts it's because he's intellectually evaluating the woman's capacity to nurse his future children.

Female birds can't look at male birds and see what kinds of cars they drive or what's in their 401(k)s, but clearly in some species the females are able to evaluate males on the basis of virility on one hand (on one wing?) and ability to provide and nurture on the other, each evaluation done using separate instinctual, not cultural, criteria.

That there is a biological aspect to the concepts of material security and protection in other species means there's little reason to rule that out in human beings.

I have no "need" "to make the old man something he isn't". I'm arguing for what makes the most sense in light of biology and evolution.

[seabeyond]

48. it certainly is pretty damn important a female "weight" male age in preg.

the older he gets less like to impreg. not to mention diseases and health of the baby, ejaculation is not as potent.

the thing about it is, you make the story factual and that is far from the case. i can also make my story as plausible as yours.

anyway

done

things to do

[Silent3]

51. "i can also make my story as plausible as yours"

No, not really.

I never said male age isn't important, just not AS important as female age. At age 50, with very rare exception apart from purely artificial techniques, the chance of a woman bearing offspring is practically zero. Male sperm counts at 50 are lower than at 20, but that doesn't reduce the chance of impregnating a woman that much, and the simple expedient of repeated intercourse easily raises the odds of conception. While I wouldn't be surprised if there can be some small effect, I don't think I've ever heard that the age of a father at conception has a very significant impact on the health of his offspring. The age of a premenopausal women has a far greater impact on viable births.

So far you have offered nothing plausible that counters the protector/provider issues either.

[seabeyond]

53. by DEGREES? lol,. now your argument is by degree.

caveman day, by the time women too old to not get preg anymore her and the man would both be dead. man didnt make it to 50

[Silent3]

56. My argument has been "by degree" from the start...

..as it should be with anything behavioral. I made that quite plain many posts ago.

Now you act surprised about that, as if I made some sudden shift, toss in an "lol" to show how very amused you are, and that's your big point? That's not an argument, that's a dishonest debate tactic.

I also used the ages of 20 and 50 as a convenient examples, not as central cornerstones to the argument I was making. Yes, average human life span was pretty short during prehistory (I've heard numbers like 20-25 before, even as low as 18), but that doesn't take greater ages out of the evolutionary picture (nor does it take into account effects of prepubescent death on average age of death -- if you managed to live long enough to reach puberty, you stood a good chance of living beyond the low average of general life expectancy).

While the complexity and environmental changes of modern human culture are a recent development, we've long enough been a species of learning and culture for that to have had an impact on the conditions of our evolution. The "elderly" (back when even 30 was getting up there in years) were important to the survival of small bands of humans because of the survival value of the knowledge they possessed. There would have been enough elderly people in successful human groups starting long enough ago that decisions to mate or not to mate with those elders would have had evolutionary impact.

[seabeyond]

59. so the old 18 - 25 was to old for man and needed the "hot" (and to argue any of them hot

is ridiculous)you chick at what 12, 13? again, the youngest of our girls, just starting puberty has tough as time with preg as our over 36 yr old women, when they start being effected with age.

[Silent3]

63. I'll try to pick through the broken sentence structure there...

...and try to figure out what you're getting at.

Where does 18-25 even enter into what I'm saying, other than that being a likely range for prehistoric average life span? I made no attempt to assign age desirability to that specific age range or any other range.

To the extent sexual attraction of males to females is geared to the likely fertility of females, it's going to drop off in two directions, both young and old. Obviously prepubescent females aren't fertile at all, and very young fertile girls have a higher risk infant mortality. Where exactly the "sweet spot" would fall for maximum fertility is hard to say, but you're just being silly if you're trying to make a "gotcha" out of the fact that fertility vs. attraction on the very young side hadn't been brought up by either of us so far.

[seabeyond]

64. talking from prehistoric driving us, life span 18-25, the "old" men (what 25)

want the youngs ones because best for impreg, except the very young fertile isnt the best, so has to be 16, 17 which is near old age or at least middle aged for prehistoric, .... biology, that you base argument

can you not SEE the ridiculous

what? 20 over the hill for those prehistoric women?

[Silent3]

67. Can you try using something resembling English grammar...

...and recognizable sentence structure, and posting whatever it is you're getting at again?

Whatever it is you're saying, all I can get out of it is that you're trying to attach way more importance to average lifespan than I ever did, then trying to play some sort of "ah-hah! gotcha!" game with your own made-up straw man version of something I never said.

The ONLY reason I brought up average life span was to set the stage for the relative population of older individuals, which would not be as insignificant as you tried to make it out to be, because the average age of fertile individuals would be higher than the low population average, and the group-survival value of having elders. You seem to be taking my point in completely the opposite way as a gambit to create some laughably small age interval for issues of fertility to play out in, and then have yourself a merry little laugh as if that was my argument, not your straw man.

Again, the dishonesty of your approach is showing.

[seabeyond]

52. btw... if it has nothing to do with desire to have children, kinda sorta switched direction

so why the fuck does he care about the age of fertilization. kinda it is implying it is all about jacking off. shoots to crap the whole argument you and others are making

[Silent3]

54. The whole point is that we have behavioral mechanisms that separate...

...desires and instinctual drives from higher logic. The only "logic" important to biology is overall benefit to the species, and improving odds (not certainty) that and individual will pass his or her genes to the next generation. When it comes to humans, with evolution being a very slow process, we've created an artificial environment where the "logic" of our instincts is further and further out of whack with the environment we live in.

We evaluate sexual attractiveness in ways most suited to promoting the propagation of humans who lived tens of thousands of years ago. Just because brute strength hardly matters for making a living important any more, broad shoulders still make a man more appealing. Just because we can feed babies formula doesn't make breasts less attractive. Just because we don't want to have children doesn't make us lose all interest in sex.

I'm doing the exact opposite of "shoot(ing) to crap the whole argument" I'm making, even if you haven't quite caught on to the logic of evolutionary biology yet.

If you can understand that sexual desire is a biological impulse, but that people can still desire sex even when they don't want to have children, why is it hard to understand that we can evaluate mates based on old inborn criteria of fertility, child-rearing and security even when culture and technology make many of those criteria moot points?

[seabeyond]

55. because you ignore a part of the arguemnt, promote specifics arguments

contradictive to the whole in what "appears" to be the sole purpose of male ego.

[Silent3]

57. Which arguments have I ignored?

The bad argument that compares near absolute lack of fertility to reduced fertility?
The bad argument that shows a lack of understanding of instinctual drives verses conscious reasoned decisions?

What I see is someone with a huge chip on his/her shoulder about "male ego", with that coloring his/her perception of everything. You don't evaluate actual arguments, you attempt to divine agendas, and respond accordingly.

[seabeyond]

58. you saying women in 30's "near lack" of fertility? how absurd.

and no, not bad argument just doesnt support your, old men want hot young girls and they want the old farts.

i do evaluate argument and yours fails. i dont have chip on shoulder, just with your failed argument. but now what, are you to accuse me of being a man hater?

[Silent3]

61. You pick a specific age, 30...

...which I use merely as an example, evaluate that in terms of absolutes as if everything hinges on it, restate the nuance-free, degree-free statement "old men want hot young girls and they want the old farts", which is utterly and entirely a different thing than what I'm saying, that there are good biological reasons youth will tend to be more important to males than females... throw in a few dishonest tactics like your sudden derisive "surprise" that I'm dealing in matters of degree, and I'm supposed to walk away thinking you're being honest and not pursuing an agenda?

[seabeyond]

62. all of thirties hardly a specific age. so tell me, when is this near impossible fertilization

you are talking, referring to caveman that died 18-25?

your argument fails. if the agenda i sit in is calling you on your failed argument, so be it.

[Silent3]

65. If I get a chance to find some hard stats...

...I'll post links to age-vs.-fertility for both men and women. I pretty sure we'll find a steeper, earlier drop-off for women vs. men.

On top of that, please keep in mind the effects of harsh conditions on aging and fertility. A 30 year-old prehistoric woman is very likely not as fertile as a modern 30 year-old woman. Besides, has anyone argued that men find 20 years-olds MUCH more attractive than 30? There go those annoying matters of degree!

For myself when I was young, I tended to prefer women older than myself. Now that I'm in my late forties, yes, I now find women younger than myself (politically incorrect as it might be to admit) more attractive than women my same age or older. I don't harbor any particular delusion that younger women are wildly "hot" for me either. If I spent some time working out a bit and getting myself in better shape, I bet I'd have a better chance of attracting a much younger woman than most women my age would have of attracting a much younger man.

[seabeyond]

66. *sigh* again all the way around and around again. hell ya now that you are getting old you

think youth looks awfully good.

hey, ... i am in 40's too, i think those hunky young virile guys looks hot too

my point

[Silent3]

70. What matters is the likelihood that such an attraction is reciprocated.

My point is that because of biology, cultural conditioning aside (which can either amplify or reduce natural tendencies), an older man is likelier to attract a younger woman than an older woman a younger man -- and yes, with some caveats, especially when all parties involved aren't very old yet. If I had to pin it down, I'd guess that the effect starts to kick in at least a little when "older" means 30 (I met a woman who was 33 when I was 21 and was with her for 12 years, so, yes, I'm talking tendencies), that such an effect is definitely fairly strong when older means 40, and pretty damn strong when older means 50.

That doesn't even mean, by the way, that there are lots of 20-something women hankering after 50 year-old men. Whatever than number is, however, it's likely significantly larger than 20-something men being hot for 50 year-old women. Culture might amplify or reduce that difference, but to the extent cultural effects might be neutralized, I strongly suspect a significant bias in favor of older men would come through based on what's left behind for biology to control.

I'm not saying anything about who an older person is attracted to, by the way, this is all about who the younger party is likely to find attractive. That you bother to say, "i am in 40's too, i think those hunky young virile guys looks hot too" makes me think you're missing this point, perhaps getting angry because you think someone is telling you differently that you know yourself who you are personally attracted to, or you think someone is telling you who you should or should not be attracted to.

Everything I've said so far is meant to be descriptive, not proscriptive, and it's all about general tendencies, not the very varied vagaries of individual behavior.

[seabeyond]

71. the general tendencies is to mate same age, and young with young.

that is the general tendencies. all the rest is a matter of degree and guess... and reasons for large span difference is assumptions and guess.

and biology, evolutionary behavior has no hold on a premise.

which has been one of my points from the beginning.

[Silent3]

72. The general tendency is for males to be at least a year or two older than females.

Check out these stats on age of first marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage

The fact that the age differences tend to be narrower in more developed countries says to me that modern culture is much more likely to be narrowing a larger underlying discrepancy than magnifying a smaller one.

I feel pretty confident that when things go outside of the more common differences of a few years, more examples can be found of older men attracting younger women than vice versa. To some extent this might be culturally magnified, but there's good reason to see the tendency as biological.

As for the fertility stats I wanted to look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility

(emphasis mine)

Erectile dysfunction increases with age, but fertility does not decline in men as sharply as it does in women. There have been examples of males being fertile at 94 years old. However, evidence suggests that increased male age is associated with a decline in semen volume, sperm motility, and sperm morphology. In studies that controlled for female age, comparisons between men under 30 and men over 50 found relative decreases in pregnancy rates between 23% and 38%.

Even if all men over 50 taken together have a fertility rate as high as 38% lower (to take the worst of the two figures) than men under 30, men right at 50 are going to have a smaller drop than that full 38%.

Contrast that to female fertility at 50, which is practically 0%. Further, 50 year-old women don't very often have much in the way of provider/protector status (whether judged culturally or by biological instinct) the way 50 year-old men more often do as a possible offset to any perception-of-fertility losses they suffer in attractiveness.

[seabeyond]

74. big fuckin deal. a year or two or five means squat at this age. geeesh.

that is not the argument. we are talking older men and younger women, as in a significant age difference, or has the discussion shifted AGAIN

nowhere have i argued decline is =, but it is.... again, so what. the optimal. we are talking the optimal for breeding in caveman day and the teenage male is the best to impreg. i know this information you posted. still does not make your point. regardless of the degree, women and men both can do preg twenties, thirties and forties.

and when we are talking about the biological reasoning of past being conditioned today, as i said on other posts, life span was not 50 so again, irrelevant.

hold on tight to hot young girls wanting old men.

[Silent3]

77. Whether you think "a year or two or five" means "squat" or not...

...is hardly the point. You broadly dismissed talk of biological tendencies as bullshit. Any statistically significant and fairly consistent result, even if it's not as big as whatever it would take to impress you, is not bullshit. It's even less reasonable to dismiss the biological/evolutionary component of attraction when there are clearly cultural factors that tend to narrow age differences which could hide an even larger biological effect than what we see as an end result.

Calling this bullshit is the kind of ignorant dismissiveness about science (applied only when you don't like what science suggests) that I expect out of Republicans.

Only a degree or two of warming over a decade? Big deal! Gotta be bullshit! :eyes:

You do understand the difference by the way, don't you, between average life span and range of life spans? That an average life span of 25 doesn't mean no one gets older than 25? You know, like an average yearly family income of $40,000 wouldn't mean that no makes more than that? That in fact people who make more aren't in fact trivially easy to find?

Here, take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_medicine

This mentions not only prehistoric life expectancies in a range from 25-40, but that (unlike today) life expectancies were higher for men than women. That would be further reason for men to evolve to take female age into greater account than women would have to.

[seabeyond]

78. except the old man cant defend and protect the young female so she says wtf... i will

go with the old man to protect me rather than a young stud.

right

fail in all ways. fails in protection and fails in reproduction.

and if you suggest 2 or 3 yrs as your PROOF of the age difference, then beyond absurd and no rational thinking on your part. i was taught and conditioned adn every girl i knew, we would marry someone a year or two older. we were also taught he would always be taller. every girl i knew. we would make lists.... was on all our lists. kid stuff. but the way it was. i never do what i am suppose to and damn good thing. being in 30's and easy enough to get preg both times, must have been because of the advantage having married a younger man.

every argument of yours has failed

now, look up ardi that is 2 million years earlier and how they contradict exactly what you are advocating.

[Silent3]

80. Are you capable of arguing subtleties?

Or must you take everything to an absurd extreme and then make a show of how you're laughing at how very absurd that is?

Are you capable of dealing with generalities and tendencies, without thinking any single example you can find that doesn't fit blows away any possible generality?

And I didn't say it way the 2-3 year difference was PROOF (ALL CAPS!!!!), but it's a damn good indicator of an underlying tread when that difference, and EVEN MORE (SOME MORE CAPS!!!!) is found in nearly every human culture the entire world over.

If that's all acculturated sexism, then how is acculturated sexism so effectively spread across continents, languages, religions, spans of historic time, etc? Seems to me that biology is a whole lot more universal than culture. But perhaps I've underestimated that Global Conspiracy of Men that's been in operation since before we even knew the earth was a globe.

Shall I make a grand show in your style of proclaiming how failed your every argument is and how you've lost every point? Funny, I feel perfectly comfortable letting my words speak for themselves, addressing individual arguments one at a time, and not having to boastfully declare an opponents total defeat.

If you have to proclaim victory instead of just letting it stand as apparent, it's a pretty good sign you're just full of shit and all you've got left is trying to be annoying brat.

[Gwendolyn]

89. Biologically speaking, one of the reasons why younger females might be attracted to older males...

...is that the testosterone factor has begun to wane somewhat. The most dangerous examples of all species are young males.

[la_chupa]

40. depends on how much $$ is involved

Hot young finds old + rich to be quite attractive

[seabeyond]

41. even at $ has nothing to do with attractive. but i get the humor. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. Ummm, Actually The Post Was Pretty Much Spot On And Is Established Fact.

Of course there are exceptions, but generally speaking the concept was absolutely correct.

[Sinti]

11. It's not nature, that's nurture

Matriarchal families, I come from one, don't have men as providers. They may have husbands, but the men don't provide. This has been true in my family for generations.

[seabeyond]

13. conditioning. old women like young men too, just not stupid or illusional enough

to know the young want us, unless there is something they want from us, like security, money or being taken care of.

youth... is hot for both genders

[Sinti]

16. Yes, and part of that I believe is nature

Good health in a mate and all that :)

The TV (and other media) really sells under-25 folks as being the only sexy on the planet. It's funny, my family is French - I was raised with the "women don't become interesting until they're 30" mentality, so it's really kind of hard to relate.

[seabeyond]

19. no mre so than if an older woman wanted to preg, would want young. male peaks at 19

the youngest of girl to get preg is NOT healthy preg. they have almost as many complications as the older woman. a guy at 19 is peak as far as impreg healthy. as he is in 20's the health of preg decreases. so biologically, why would a woman miss with a man in 20's and beyond? anymore than an old man would want impreg with old woman?

[AlienGirl]

32. Why would someone break that pattern? What motivates a person to act unlike a mammal?

I seriously want to know.

Tucker

[treestar]

36. No, that's social conditioning

The female lizard brain would have no reason to care about providing and protecting - the tribe would do it.

It was only when civilization began that the roles began to divide so much.

Besides, what about now? Women can work and don't need providers and protectors - they can do it on their own.

Women today expect an equal partnership.

[uppityperson]

47. IF men were looking for fertile women, it would be ones with big hips and fat since they would

be more likely to survive childbirth and have enough food to have the baby survive. Wide hips. Large. Lots of fat on them. Those women would have better overall chances of successfully carrying on the race.

So, why is it slender narrow hipped women are considered the ones to lust after?

[theHandpuppet]

81. Finally -- someone needed to make this point

And I can see no one has a counter to your logic.

[uppityperson]

87. That is because I am on everyone's ignore list, except you.

I have wondered about that.

So, IF the impetus was someone who could successfully give birth and raise another person up to the point they could make it on their own (successful breeding), and not sociological factors, women who were large enough would be the ones sought.

[notadmblnd]

68. I'm 50 years old and you would not believe the number of young men that chase me

The one person that I see the most right now is 39. But young men, in their late teens and 20's have hit on me. I don't consider myself a MILF either.

[Thothmes]

73. Wrong, it is our mammal-brain parts

are geared to look for the fertile-young hot women.

[seabeyond]

75. cause those cavechicks were so hot. another, you are so full of shit. nt

[jonnyblitz]

18. gay guys are cast aside at 35 years old, the common cut off

date on gay personal accounts on social websites. 35 is often the cut off age for a mate for gay guys OLDER than 35 as well.

[treestar]

33. I don't think that's true anymore

Back in the days you are talking about perhaps. But the experienced actresses of today keep working. There are plenty of them over 40.

[raccoon]

5. I don't think it's just an American thing. nt

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. Them's fightin' words!

Just teasin'!

Wow, you really have a great deal on your mind this morning.

[valerief]

9. Women suck everywhere, because men have stronger upper torsos and beat us. nt

[winyanstaz]

39. only if the woman lets them...they gotta sleep sometime you know.

;)
Thats when you tie them up in the bedsheet and sit on their chest with a frying pan..:P
That's what my momma always said anyways ....

[valerief]

60. The Burning Bed comes to mind. And I don't mean the hot sex kind of bed. nt

[BuyingThyme]

10. A fifty-year-old woman generally gets much more sympathy than a fifty-year-old man.

Not to totally destroy your thesis.

[seabeyond]

12. old men are told to buck up. man up. but then they have been told that all their lives

why suicide is so high for older men. i agree

[otherlander]

17. Yeah.

Expectations of machismo/ self-reliance also suck.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. American society doesn't place much value on maturity

from either gender, but it is worse for women.

Look at tv and movies. The female lead, regardless of the character she is playing, is always cast as a beautiful 35 year old. Even if the character is the head scientist of a big organization in which should take decades to rise to the top.

[Mari333]

23. here come the 'its human male nature' crowd piffle. anyway...LOVE YOURSELF

lol at them.
anyway, its really up to you. and me, each individual woman and man to decide for themselves how they want to percieve themselves.
Dont buy into the culture.
Love yourself.
we are not products.
we are wonderful, beautiful, delicious and delightful creatures.
Look in the mirror and say "OMG I adore you, you wonderful, beautiful divine YOU!"
and live it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

86. Huge Applaud For Your Post!

Probably could argue with you about many details related to the OP, but there is NOTHING in the body of your post that is arguable.

Best advice and best all around post in this entire thread.

:toast:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. Ridiculous Theory.

This is most definitely not a racially rooted concept. Furthermore, your assertion that overall, people are less willing to help the 50 yr old, is utter nonsense.

[otherlander]

82. No, it's not nonsense.

I see it happen. I see a million people offering this woman a place to stay because she got kicked out of college and her parents won't help her out, going, "Here, stay on my couch," "Oh, I have a spare bed," "Come have dinner with us, sister" etc, etc... And I see everyone I know suddenly becoming unable to do a goddamn thing if I ask them to help me find a place for this older woman to stay so she doesn't have to sleep at the fucking train station, and when I try to help, people act as though I'm doing something out-of-line, and if they accept what I'm doing, even then they can often only conceive of it as charity. Fuck that.
And I've noticed that certain groups of people, such as the Jewish and African-American communities, often seem to do a better job of looking out for their neighbors and older relatives than the white people I grew up around. So I asked a fucking question. Why don't you just go away?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. It's Total Nonsense.

And your use of 1 wee little personal example; as if the world is not bigger than your own, is really quite silly.

You just simply WANT the world to be that way because then it would give you something to type about and get attention with. You had this little silly spark of an idea that you didn't quite think through, but still had the impulse to decide "hmmm, this sounds like a good topic to rant about. Yeah! This'll give me some attention and accolades! I think I've hit on somethin here! rush rush rush rush Quick! Lemme post it so that the back patting can begin!!!!!". But you failed. Next time think your impulsive spur of the moment theories through. Your theory in this case is beyond silly, and as much as you WANT it to be true, so that you won't look silly as its creator, it simply isn't. You are wrong. Move on.

[otherlander]

88. Thank you for explaining my own motives to me.

And the process by which I generate posts.
I'm sure you're entirely qualified to do so.

[lunamagica]

31. I grew up in Central America.

Older women only have value if they are mothers/grandmothers.

To see how blatant the age discrimination is, just pick a news paper and look at the classifieds. All secretarial/clerk, and many other positions ask for a woman of "good appearance, 25 years of age or younger".

Believe me, there are many cultures/countries where older (esp single) women have it much worse than in America

[winyanstaz]

38. In the majority of Native American tribes....

Any Elder is given great respect.
Elders are served first, first in line for meals, listened to with great respect and their opinions carry great weight.
For a youngster to make fun of an Elder is the end of their acceptance in the community as anything other than a trouble-maker and they are shunned until they show some wisdom.
To live to be an Elder means you have had wisdom. Stupid people usually don't live long enough to be an Elder in Native world.
In many of the tribes, it is the women that are the true power and especially the Elders who are all called Grandmother (even if they have no children as they are still grandmother to all the children). All the male Elders are also called Grandfather.
Native men are wise enough to know that if the women are not happy..the tribe will not be happy and that the women will also take the welfare of the tribe as a whole into consideration. Their blood does not get hot for wars like a man's does.
Men and women..unless they are married are called either auntie or uncle as a way of respect. It is considered that all are related.
A man or woman may not marry inside their own clan..as that is too close a relative.
The men do the talking to people outside the tribe. Thje men then come back home and have a men's council. Then the headman takes it to the head woman and the women have their council and decide what to do. The head woman delivers what the women think to the head man and he tells the men's circle..and then they go tell the outside group what the tribe has decided.
Everyone's opinion is taken into consideration but the Elder's opinion is the deciding force.
I enjoy being an Elder and especially when I attend meetings and PowWows.
I have also accepted my role at this point in my life and I do not strive to be sexy etc..but rather to be dignified and neat and clean and let it be.
It is sad to me to see a woman still trying to be an age she no longer is. When your whole identity is wrapped up in being a sex object or a thing of beauty you lose your identity when the wrinkles appear.
Old can also be a thing of great beauty when it is accepted as it is.
We are like the fruit on a tree. When young we are the little green pips..as maidens we are like the flowers..as mothers we are like the ripe fruit and as grandmothers we are the ripened seed..and contain all potentials within...and same for the men....but myself? I think the men are more like the bees :P heheh

[Karenina]

43. I'll tell you what, Girlfriend

It's EVERYWHERE. Having been born to the privilege of observing, up-close-und-personnel:evilgrin:, racism and sexism in a multi-culti environment, will you accept empirical evidence? May I declare the ravages of patriarchy?

Utah Phillips transformed his gender ideas. I once heard him say in an interview that solving sexism would solve many of "mankind's" problems. Here's a bit on him and pacifism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gK0NaNS2Zo

[seabeyond]

45. solving sexism would solve many of "mankind's" problems... tis true. nt

[AngryAmish]

49. Many women complain about turning invisible when they turn older

Yes, young attractive women get a disproportionate amount of attention. If that is what one thinks is normal then being treated like everybody else seems like one are being treated unfairly. It is not.

Higher status people get treated better. I known when I'm in a suit I get treated better then when I walk around in old jeans and a Jesus Lizard t-shirt.

People who are perceived as more worthy get more attention. Everywhere.

[REP]

50. Women without children are useless to society

There are community services for women with children, but not for women without (in most cities). Suffer a loss of any kind, and it's not so bad, because there's no children involved. Want to be sterilized if you're a woman without children? Be prepared for the doctor to ask about what if your husband dies, and you meet someone who wants children - because you're just a dispenser; what you want doesn't matter.

I have intelligent friends, family and doctors; none of this has happened to me but I know plenty of women to whom it has; one of them posts here at DU.

[winyanstaz]

76. They are not useless to society..they are useless as sex objects

and baby dispensers to men. Big difference :)
Society is out of balance is the problem..meaning that the patriarchal society we live in has made this mess.
It is the male that is out of balance.
It is the male marching to slaughter innocents in wars..
It is the male that is raping and pillaging..
and it is the male that is out of balance and out of control and that is destroying the planet.
Sad thing is..we love them so we have put up with it for far too long.
How to help them change is the problem and the solution to all the mess.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. What A Crock LOL

And did you ever think that the Doctor was being caring and insightful; and that rather than 'treating her like a dispenser' the Doc was instead making sure this was truly something she would want, since if that scenario happened she might have REGRETS?

Such silliness lol.

[Thickasabrick]

69. Years ago, someone dressed up as an older woman to see what

it was like. This was in the UK so not sure if that makes a difference, however; the person became basically invisible. Where people had been polite or helpful before (she was an attractive 30 something), acted like she was part of the scenery.

It was sad.

[Karenina]

79. I'm able to shave 25 years off my perceived age...

which has allowed me to play fly-on-the-wall on many occasions. For years, I've tried to engage female DUers in discussion about what happens to how one is perceived when you hit the bottle. There seems to be some reticence about "going there..." :rofl: