# Why do men date women significantly younger?



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

As in 10 + years younger. Emotionally, Intellectually, Physically?


----------



## hauntology (Feb 12, 2012)

Because guys are supremely confusing, though mentally simple.


----------



## bromide (Nov 28, 2011)

HorrorHound said:


> Because guys are supremely confusing, though mentally simple.


Oh definitely, did you know that most men qualify as being in the MRDD category? Only a select few can even spell their names, and even that takes years of concentrated effort. It's a remarkable phenomenon.


----------



## SocioApathetic (May 20, 2012)

Actually, evolution suggests that men are attracted to fertile females who are able to successfully bear healthy offspring. As you know, the older a woman gets, the less likely she is able to produce eggs that will be successfully inseminated. There is also much risk for the mother if she has passed the prime age for pregnancy.

Women are usually attracted to older men because older males with more experience and better financial circumstances tend to be a source of security for the females, who will be certain that this male is able to provide for the future offspring that they will have together.

This is all experienced on a subconscious level. You will hardly find a man verbalizing the following, "Mmm...look at those fine child-bearing hips!". He might admire her appearance but it won't occur to him that he is selecting a partner with healthy features (facial symmetry and a healthy physique) that will be most favorable for -- yes, you guessed it -- their offspring.

This is just one factor which might contribute to the reason men find younger women attractive. I am very certain there is a social element as well.


----------



## hauntology (Feb 12, 2012)

Ha! But honestly, it's probably because they think it makes them "cool" or something...
:facepalm:


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> As in 10 + years younger. Emotionally, Intellectually, Physically?


Why date them? Because it works out. 

To a girl my age, my car is a dumpy 2001 station wagon. My clothes are simple T's. My part-time as a janitor during the year is an enormous turn-off. Relatively low social value. 

To a girl a few years younger, my car, my apartment, and my disposable income are all extremely high-value. And hell, a younger girl might be less learned, but she can be just as sharp if not sharper than my contemporaries. 

So it just kind of happens.


----------



## MyName (Oct 23, 2009)

Why do women date men who are significantly older?


----------



## Twoshoe (Mar 2, 2011)

Honestly: Hot bodies/perky + more suggestible, willing to go along with things. Makes a good fuck toy?!? and gives you social status when you go places in public.

--
Curiously, I've been attracted to women older than me for as long as I can remember, but I've been told I think like a girl, sooooooooooooo........


----------



## Sai (Sep 3, 2012)

a lot of stuff. Its more refreshing i think. Some younger women have less baggage with them. They also are more playful and cheerful, and for some men they are more attractive than older women.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Because they can. Women's looks generally peak in their teens and begin to decline rapidly in the late 20s. Want to argue that men aren't that shallow? Be my guest. 

The better and more controversial question is why do women date older men?


----------



## Mr Canis (Mar 3, 2012)

Because we can.


----------



## lastman (Apr 25, 2012)

MyName said:


> Why do women date men who are significantly older?


Takes two to tango I guess, right?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

There are more women doing it too - dating much younger men. 

But'chea - I got curious about this myself once and googled around to see what guys say about 'dating younger women.' Surprisingly (well I was surprised) very few of them went all pig-ape about their 'tight little bodies' *vom* but instead put emphasis on the idea that younger (less experienced) women have less emotional baggage. And a few of them said they're less serious, more fun pretty much. 

I have also known a lot of guys who don't value those things necessarily - and seem to be generally annoyed by younger women, and wouldn't want to "put up" with their "immaturity," or naivety. 

Anyway, as with anything, just depends on the person I guess.


----------



## lastman (Apr 25, 2012)

I also read that women mature faster then men, whether or not this is either physically or mentally or both, I am not sure.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Twoshoe said:


> I've been attracted to women older than me for as long as I can remember


Same. 

And I don't mind dating someone who is smarter, or even physically stronger than myself. 

I like to pat myself on the back and assume that I'm like this because my attraction is based upon respect, and because I'm not so insecure or gender-brainwashed to believe that I _must _be the dominant force in a relationship. 

Problem is, most girls I've been with haven't wished for egalitarianism. They've wanted me to be the dominant force in the relationship. 

Still looking for an equal.


----------



## Twoshoe (Mar 2, 2011)

lastman said:


> I also read that women mature faster then men, whether or not this is either physically or mentally or both, I am not sure.


That's a completely unverifiable statement that is simply folk psychology. The observed effects come from socialization & the current gender schema (i.e. boys are taught to be selfish and forceful, and girls ought to care about everyone and focus on others).


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Promethea said:


> There are more women doing it too - dating much younger men.
> 
> But'chea - I got curious about this myself once and googled around to see what guys say about 'dating younger women.' Surprisingly (well I was surprised) very few of them went all pig-ape about their 'tight little bodies' *vom* but instead put emphasis on the idea that younger (less experienced) women have less emotional baggage. And a few of them said they're less serious, more fun pretty much.
> 
> ...


The idea that younger women carry less emotional baggage seems like a laughable rationalization to me. People tend to mellow out as they get older and learn how to deal with their issue. Certain personality disorders practically disappear once you hit your 40s and 50s. Moreover, older women are generally much better at sex if you can get over the fact that they're not as physically attractive as they once were.

Maybe I just have bad luck, but every teenager/early 20's I've ever gotten to know on an intimate level has turned out to have the emotional maturity of a 12 year old (despite being good at faking maturity). If a guy isn't in that relationship for the sex, there's probably something going on there psychologically that prevents him from relating to women his own age.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

*presses pause*

Let me just note: I personally prefer men my own age. 5 yrs max (ideal scenario). 

Okay ... resume discussion 

*resumes play*


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

SuburbanLurker said:


> The idea that younger women carry less emotional baggage seems like a laughable rationalization to me. People tend to mellow out as they get older and learn how to deal with their issue. Certain personality disorders practically disappear once you hit your 40s and 50s. *Moreover, older women are generally much better at sex if you can get over the fact that they're not as physically attractive as they once were.*


Yeah I heard they grow scales when they get older. 



> Maybe I just have bad luck, but every teenager/early 20's I've ever gotten to know on an intimate level has turned out to have the emotional maturity of a 12 year old (despite being good at faking maturity). If a guy isn't in that relationship for the sex, there's probably something going on there psychologically that prevents him from relating to women his own age.


But anyway, there are a lot of bitter untrusting people of a certain age -- and they can all blame the typical dating experience. I personally find that guys around my own age are less trusting than younger guys. They have had some shrew rip their heart out at some point and they get vigilant. Not all of them of course, but its not rare.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Yeah I heard they grow scales when they get older.


Some guys are into scales 



Promethea said:


> But anyway, there are a lot of bitter untrusting people of a certain age -- and they can all blame the typical dating experience. I personally find that guys around my own age are less trusting than younger guys. They have had some shrew rip their heart out at some point and they get vigilant. Not all of them of course, but its not rare.


edit: totally misread your post, nevermind.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Its simple, a guy in his thirties who's having trouble with women his age has an advantage over someone who's 19 or 20. There's an amalgam of advantages on his side like age difference, money, independence, more experiences, etc. even if the girl isn't naive, he may feel a confidence boost he may not have with someone in his age group because of it. That would be the biggest reason in my opinion. 



Ningsta Kitty said:


> *presses pause*
> 
> Let me just note: I personally prefer men my own age. 5 yrs max (ideal scenario).
> 
> ...


Where did I leave my calculator?


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

Well, think about it this way: Women mature faster than men do on average. Remember that time in middle school when the boys still acted like complete idiots while the girls were a bit more mature than that? That's when they start to notice the high school or even college boys because those guys are, objectively, more mature than the boys their own age.

That said, I don't find men older than me attractive. I want to date a man around my age. There's someone for everybody.


----------



## theorycraft (Feb 27, 2012)

It's easier to exploit manipulate and take advantage of someone who is intellectually and physically inferior to you. This is why men date young women. Men actually don't like the interaction though and if they do they are delusional. It's just the hard sacrifice men have to make to get some easy pussy. 

It has nothing to do with women being more mature at a younger age (LOL) sorry ladies don't flatter yourself. Men are predators and killers by nature (watch season 2 game of thrones where the hound talks about the world being built by men who are killers) and we hunt young women like prey. Women of equal age or older are bright and don't fall for the same tricks and men look out for easy targets (fresh meat!). Sorry for being crude but the dating/sex game is very polarizing and exploitative if I am a 30 year old man with income a job a car a place to live and more experience I'm just going to crush (smush smush!) a inexperienced 18 year old girl who doesn't know shit about anything except them perky titties and onion boooooty! Again apologies for being vulgar but godamn teenage PUSSAY nomnomnomn.


















“Look at me. Stannis is a killer. The Lannisters are killers. Your father was a killer. Your brother is a killer. Your sons will be killers someday. The world is built by killers. So you better get use to looking at them…” 
(Sandor Clegane + Game of Thrones 2x09)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> As in 10 + years younger. Emotionally, Intellectually, Physically?


why do they need a reason? if they're both attracted to each other. who cares? it's none of my business


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

I wonder how common it is, such a significant age difference. I always kind of thought it was socially accepted for a man two years a woman's senior to be together, just seemed to be a lot of the older generation with that gap.
Ive heard some funny thoughts based on that there's girls and then there's women. Women being girls who are of age but have taken on so much of the male bravado and acts to seduce that they see right through men's bullshit and are wanting someone more sincere and honest than a young man playing this character for her.

I also heard of people of such a difference just clicking, just seem to do well with one another. Some you dont even noticed because of how mature they behave, they might be playful but they still get shit done.
Ive read that older women as mentioned for older men before in this thread, like younger partners because they're more fun.
Guess its people wanting a bit of sunshine in their life, not someone scathed by past relationships.


----------



## Azelll (Jan 19, 2011)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> As in 10 + years younger. Emotionally, Intellectually, Physically?


It's probably because it makes them feel more in control, or others like it cause it makes them feel younger. Personally I like girls my age or possible 1 or 2 years younger :| I can't see going out with someone 10 years or more younger. :\


----------



## Azelll (Jan 19, 2011)

theorycraft said:


> It's easier to exploit manipulate and take advantage of someone who is intellectually and physically inferior to you. This is why men date young women. Men actually don't like the interaction though and if they do they are delusional. It's just the hard sacrifice men have to make to get some easy pussy.
> 
> It has nothing to do with women being more mature at a younger age (LOL) sorry ladies don't flatter yourself. Men are predators and killers by nature (watch season 2 game of thrones where the hound talks about the world being built by men who are killers) and we hunt young women like prey. Women of equal age or older are bright and don't fall for the same tricks and men look out for easy targets (fresh meat!). Sorry for being crude but the dating/sex game is very polarizing and exploitative if I am a 30 year old man with income a job a car a place to live and more experience I'm just going to crush (smush smush!) a inexperienced 18 year old girl who doesn't know shit about anything except them perky titties and onion boooooty! Again apologies for being vulgar but godamn teenage PUSSAY nomnomnomn.
> 
> ...


XD just by reading this post I could tell you were INTP....... I hang out with to many INTPs :|


----------



## theorycraft (Feb 27, 2012)

i like your squirtle squirtle!


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

Because society deems women with traits that most young women possess as beautiful: flawless skin, skinny bodies, a naive attitude and because men are raised within that social construct, it is hard for them to value women for their other traits first, such as: wit, humor, intelligence, loyalty, and talent. This means that many men, even older men, will date younger women and vice versa. It is a cultural norm now.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> As in 10 + years younger. Emotionally, Intellectually, Physically?


I don't think all, or even most, men who sleep with women do so. I personally prefer women of my own age or older, but then again I think a lot of it is superficiality caused by society - younger is seen as more attractive.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

HorrorHound said:


> Because guys are supremely confusing, though mentally simple.


Not only is this a generalisation, it ironically is a very simplistic one.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SuburbanLurker said:


> Because they can. Women's looks generally peak in their teens and begin to decline rapidly in the late 20s. Want to argue that men aren't that shallow? Be my guest.
> 
> The better and more controversial question is why do women date older men?


Not all men are that shallow, and for that matter not all men are attracted to women.


----------



## hauntology (Feb 12, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> Not only is this a generalisation, it ironically is a very simplistic one.


Jokes my dear Skycloud, jokes.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

HorrorHound said:


> Jokes my dear Skycloud, jokes.


Fair enough, I did have a suspicion that it was a joke.


----------



## hauntology (Feb 12, 2012)

Aah, INTP's... :3


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

theorycraft said:


> It's easier to exploit manipulate and take advantage of someone who is intellectually and physically inferior to you. This is why men date young women. Men actually don't like the interaction though and if they do they are delusional. It's just the hard sacrifice men have to make to get some easy pussy.
> 
> It has nothing to do with women being more mature at a younger age (LOL) sorry ladies don't flatter yourself. Men are predators and killers by nature (watch season 2 game of thrones where the hound talks about the world being built by men who are killers) and we hunt young women like prey. Women of equal age or older are bright and don't fall for the same tricks and men look out for easy targets (fresh meat!). Sorry for being crude but the dating/sex game is very polarizing and exploitative if I am a 30 year old man with income a job a car a place to live and more experience I'm just going to crush (smush smush!) a inexperienced 18 year old girl who doesn't know shit about anything except them perky titties and onion boooooty! Again apologies for being vulgar but godamn teenage PUSSAY nomnomnomn.
> 
> ...


Ahahahaha this post just made my day!! DD


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Not all men are that shallow, and for that matter not all men are attracted to women.


It's an accurate generalization. I thought that much was obvious, especially when I don't consider myself part of that group.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SuburbanLurker said:


> It's an accurate generalization. I thought that much was obvious, especially when I don't consider myself part of that group.


It's accurate for some straight biological males, yes.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> It's accurate for some straight biological males, yes.


Who make up the vast majority of the male population.....hence the generalization. 

I wonder, will there ever be a discussion on human behaviour where someone doesn't randomly chime in and shout something akin to_ "but I know someone who -contradicts generalization-"_

Yes, there are always exceptions to every rule and generalization. We know that.


----------



## Mr Canis (Mar 3, 2012)

There's an important point that has not been made here... If you are 30 and you date someone 10 years younger, that can be quite a gap. If you are 20 and you date someone 10 years your junior, well, you get the idea... but as you get older, 10 years doesn't seem like a huge gap. If I dated a woman who was ten years younger, she would still be in her mid 30's. 

None of the sweeping generalizations being made by the posters in this thread make any sense with that perspective. A woman in her mid 30's is not some "plaything", nor is she "vulnerable", at least as a result of her age. The difference between a 35 year old and a 45 year old of either gender can be negligible. Both are adults, with some history.

Anyway, it's funny to hear people speak in absolutes about a perspective they are too young to have experienced...


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SuburbanLurker said:


> Who make up the vast majority of the male population.....hence the generalization.


And all of those billions of men are the same, enough for the generalisation to be true, in your opinion? Across all cultures and societies?


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

because sex that's why. :tongue:


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

muhahaha said:


> because sex that's why. :tongue:


How do you mean?


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> And all of those billions of men are the same, enough for the generalisation to be true, in your opinion? Across all cultures and societies?


No, you're right. We're all unique snow flakes. Some more obtuse than others it would seem.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SuburbanLurker said:


> No, you're right. We're all unique snow flakes. Some more obtuse than others it would seem.


That's just being fickle. Obviously most biological males are going to have a lot in common, but if most straight males were like as you claim, most would never be married to any woman over 30.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> That's just being fickle. Obviously most biological males are going to have a lot in common, but if most straight males were like as you claim, most would never be married to any woman over 30.


We're not talking about marriage here, we're talking about dating.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SuburbanLurker said:


> We're not talking about marriage here, we're talking about dating.


My point still applies. Do you see most straight 50 year old men dating 30 year old women?


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> My point still applies. Do you see most straight 50 year old men dating 30 year old women?


If most 50 year olds had the opportunity to date 30 year olds, there is no doubt in my mind that we would see that. People can't always get what they desire.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> My point still applies. Do you see most straight 50 year old men dating 30 year old women?


I see a lot of 50 year old men try.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

JJ Yossarian said:


> There's an important point that has not been made here... If you are 30 and you date someone 10 years younger, that can be quite a gap. If you are 20 and you date someone 10 years your junior, well, you get the idea... but as you get older, 10 years doesn't seem like a huge gap. If I dated a woman who was ten years younger, she would still be in her mid 30's.
> 
> None of the sweeping generalizations being made by the posters in this thread make any sense with that perspective. A woman in her mid 30's is not some "plaything", nor is she "vulnerable", at least as a result of her age. The difference between a 35 year old and a 45 year old of either gender can be negligible. Both are adults, with some history.
> 
> Anyway, it's funny to hear people speak in absolutes about a perspective they are too young to have experienced...


Agreed. Your comment quasi-sorta relates to why I posed the question. I find in the last 3 yrs, (I'm 32 mind you) that men interested in me are exceptionally older than me, or they are exceptionally younger. The young ones seem to be interested in sex, or a mommy. The older ones may be fantastic but most seem to just interested because they have wasted their time and NOW that they're older they are freaking out and willing. That's not a good feeling from my end. And men my age ... ugh, don't get me started. (just my IRL experience, obviously it's a big world). 

So alas, I had ladies night at my house last night where me and a few lady friends had a lively talk about men and dating in your thirties. And my personal frustration can be summed up in, 1) They are old enough to be my dad. 2) I'd be robbing the cradle *shutters* or 3) No Comment.

I think I may want to be asexual. Can someone do that? People become gay all the time. 
Can I like, just stop being attracted to men altogether? ". Hrmmm *ponders possibilities* :tongue:


----------



## Mr Canis (Mar 3, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Agreed. Your comment quasi-sorta relates to why I posed the question. I find in the last 3 yrs, (I'm 32 mind you) that men interested in me are exceptionally older than me, or they are exceptionally younger. The young ones seem to be interested in sex, or a mommy. The older ones may be fantastic but most seem to just interested because they have wasted their time and NOW that they're older they are freaking out and willing. That's not a good feeling from my end. And men my age ... ugh, don't get me started. (just my IRL experience, obviously it's a big world).
> 
> So alas, I had ladies night at my house last night where me and a few lady friends had a lively talk about men and dating in your thirties. And my personal frustration can be summed up in, 1) They are old enough to be my dad. 2) I'd be robbing the cradle *shutters* or 3) No Comment.
> 
> ...


I find calendar years to be among the worst possible ways to measure compatibility. Plainly there are bounds, I am not likely to even want to date either an 18 year old or an 80 year old, but it seems more likely that is the result of us likely having very little in common, more than it is the result of a pure measure of years. But when the example is not so extreme, I feel like the age difference often fades into the background. Older, younger, who cares. I am seeking a certain connection and I would be a fool to place a constraint dictated by a calendar upon it. Maybe it's because I behave like I am ten years younger than I am  hahhaha Maybe it's because that is my "internal" age, I don't know, but my "bell curve of connection/attraction" seems to center around ten years younger than my calendar age.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Btmangan said:


> Ahahahaha this post just made my day!! DD


 That post made me puke in my mouth a little bit. And then I swallowed it. Gross! :x And then ... I like ... envisioned the dude who made that post all old and nasty with no one to help wipe his ass. He'd be that creepy old man who hits on women all gross like, and then .. (hoping you are picking up my playful sarcastic intonation, you're not?! wtf, your INFJ I thought, pshh.) aa a a and then ... he's get's a clapper for christmas for his bedside lamp at the old people's home from some obscure random person who loves him but he never committed to because he was too busy chasing that pu tang! 

don't be a hater. His post was crude; all woman hater(objectifying) and shit. 
Like that adorable 3 yr old nephew I have who grabs everything he sees and says, "mine! mine!" .... 

yeahyeahyeah ... I realize I'm being a jerk. *But ya HAD to kudos the creepy guy*. 
*shakes head* I'm disappointed dear. Very disappointed. ".


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> As in 10 + years younger. Emotionally, Intellectually, Physically?


Because most human beings are selfish, and the older men see the younger women as more naive and easier to manipulate. What's sad is, some of the girls know it deep down inside but are to stupid/ignorant to do anything about it. In the end, both parties are responsible to varying degrees.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

JJ Yossarian said:


> I find calendar years to be among the worst possible ways to measure compatibility. Plainly there are bounds, I am not likely to even want to date either an 18 year old or an 80 year old, but it seems more likely that is the result of us likely having very little in common, more than it is the result of a pure measure of years. But when the example is not so extreme, I feel like the age difference often fades into the background. Older, younger, who cares. I am seeking a certain connection and I would be a fool to place a constraint dictated by a calendar upon it. Maybe it's because I behave like I am ten years younger than I am  hahhaha Maybe it's because that is my "internal" age, I don't know, but my "bell curve of connection/attraction" seems to center around ten years younger than my calendar age.


yeah. like the guys my age I date ... and we have so much fun, until I realize that they are 10 yrs younger (not in spirit) but also emotionally. That's sucks dude. I am very sure this is not the case with you. Because you said you would not put constraints and would be willing to date 20+ if she be the right gal for you. Maybe my problem is expectations. All in all, maybe it's time I lower my expectations. *ponders, intelligence - or emotional stability* 

No, this is not me men bashing. This is me frustrated, I'm sorry :sad:

BUT!!! I KNEW this would be a hot topic for conversation 

So I'll have to leave for whoever else wants to lap it up


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> My point still applies. Do you see most straight 50 year old men dating 30 year old women?


Because they could be rich and bitches love money. :laughing:


----------



## Mr Canis (Mar 3, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> yeah. like the guys my age I date ... and we have so much fun, until I realize that they are 10 yrs younger (not in spirit) but also emotionally. That's sucks dude. I am very sure this is not the case with you. Because you said you would not put constraints and would be willing to date 20+ if she be the right gal for you. Maybe my problem is expectations. All in all, maybe it's time I lower my expectations. *ponders, intelligence - or emotional stability*
> 
> No, this is not me men bashing. This is me frustrated, I'm sorry :sad:
> 
> ...


Never settle. Period.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

muhahaha said:


> Because they could be rich and bitches love money. :laughing:


what are you like 12? Leave Sky alone. Sky means well, just .. taking you seriously - 
dear sky, let's not take peeps seriously anymore. I think that might be for the best. *nods*

Dear silly man, don't forget ... Don't forget to pick up some wine too!


----------



## searcheagle (Sep 4, 2011)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> BUT!!! I KNEW this would be a hot topic for conversation
> 
> So I'll have to leave for whoever else wants to lap it up


Seems like you're always finding topics like this. Troublemaker. :wink:


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

JJ Yossarian said:


> Never settle. Period.


*cries all mellow dramatically* I'm not!!! I'm just all over some silly forum sharing my happy and making peeps I don't even know smile and it's starting to feel empty. I'm like ... a dirty old man! AHHHH *continues to sob!* Noooooooo!!!!! :tongue:


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> yeahyeahyeah ... I realize I'm being a jerk. *But ya HAD to kudos the creepy guy*.
> *shakes head* I'm disappointed dear. Very disappointed. ".


You're right dear. . . part of me knows exactly how creepy the message was. Another part of me loved it. I'm. . . flexible. And I don't just mean that I can put my foot behind my head (which I can). 

There's an aspect of myself that loves the very same things that I hate. 

Allow me to explain why I kudo'ed his message in true NT fashion, with pictures. 




























I'd love to build a better world. . . but I'd also _love to watch the world burn_. 

As I said. Flexible.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

JaySH said:


> My point was that, while your correct in that life experience and age do not necessarily go hand and hand, the life experience you have while younger is not nearly as well understood by most and, therefor, is not as significant in the growth of emotional intelligence without the maturity to not only handle it in the best way possible but to be able to relate it to other's pains and life experiences.


 are you like my bazorro world twin ? seriously this happened once before on the forum where someone sounded like they were in my head! WEIRD! I think we both should stop talking and being so cheap (2 cents my arse!) I say we charge ... ummmmm ... well I'm thinking they can pay us in unicorns or sea shells. What do you think? >.<


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> are you like my bazorro world twin ? seriously this happened once before on the forum where someone sounded like they were in my head! WEIRD! I think we both should stop talking and being so cheap (2 cents my arse!) I say we charge ... ummmmm ... well I'm thinking they can pay us in unicorns or sea shells. What do you think? >.<


Unicorns and seashells?.....naaaahh

I like pie....


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

JaySH said:


> Unicorns and seashells?.....naaaahh
> 
> I like pie....


yeah but I can't be eating exorbitant amounts of pie!!! I'll get fat! 
_*cries on the inside I can't live off of pie and scones*_


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> yeah but I can't be eating exorbitant amounts of pie!!! I'll get fat!
> _*cries on the inside I can't live off of pie and scones*_


Not if you found a way to just work it off quickly:wink:

Like...yoga...yoga would be good.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)




----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> HAHAH!!!! I hear ya ... nice >.<
> 
> well let's not forget though, my young pretty face was once my bread and butter,
> but alas, after 30, they take away your hot mama / stud muffin card ...
> ...


*raises hand*
I understood ...every word...I think...and...am thinkin .....I really like pie



Oh...and speak for yourself.(though I still wouldn't agree). 

My stud muffin card is fully active and validated....even with my less than perfect, slightly outta shape belly...and my slight receding hairline...I make that shit look good. 

Which, based on this thread, is good cause I'll need it for all the 23- yr olds


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

@_Ningsta Kitty_ - I wasn't offended, I just disagreed with you.
@_JaySH_ - I disagree with your assertion that understanding of life experiences is necessary for emotional growth. Understanding your emotions is certainly helpful in bettering the self, but your understanding of them doesn't make them more or less real. Unless your definition of emotional intelligence is understanding of emotion, I believe the traditional use of the term is a measurement of empathy. A common understanding of terminology is important in any discourse.

EDIT: I live in an area that's not particularly wealthy. My family is better off than most, but I've seen a lot of my peers having to deal with stuff that affected them drastically, some caved under the pressure and some moved on. It's possible that age really is important in understanding the stuff that happens to you, but the point of understanding varies drastically from person to person. This is my totally subjective experience, take it as you will.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Because men are shallow end of story, we want something to look at to show off the first thing a guy notices in a woman is her face if you want the truth.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

THIS THREAD'S DESTINY ...
PRETTY MUCH >>>


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

this is a turtle


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> yeah. I kinda noticed you seem shallow (referring to other thread we have been bombing tonight)
> 
> don't assume all men are this way. but thanks for the reminder of who the majority are. Whatever helps you feel good about yourself I suppose. Hey ... like making a fuss on this forum is making me feel better!  Isn't life grand! :tongue:


Like it or not but most men are shallow even the good ones.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

and i'm not shallow it's not my problem if you confuse honesty with shallowness..


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Liking how a woman looks isn't shallow, we all want someone we're attracted to. It's shallow when its your be all end all, that you would date an unstable woman simply because of her looks. Thats when its shallow and sad, to me thats basically a fuck buddy relationship that is bound to run into some kind of drama. 
Im pretty sure a man can be confident honest and still get sex from a willing woman because he isn't trying to sway her with bullshit.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

THIS THREAD IS POINTLESS BECAUSE MEN WHO DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE OPTION OF DATING WOMEN 10 YRS YOUNGER ARE RESPONDING AND WOMEN WHO LIKE MEN WHO DATE YOUNG RESPONDING. 
*IT DEFEATS THE FREAKING POINT.
*
IRRITATED CHICK!!!


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

The thing is us men get bored easily... we always want something new that's why so many old men date young women because many older women don't look up to scratch appearance-wise, you're only as faithful as your options and rich men have a lot more options because a lot of younger women are materialistic and after the money, and we don't care as long as we get sex.... so it's a partnership really, a twisted one but a partnership never the less.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

this is a kitten who can skateboard!


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

I don't take you seriously on the contrary you seem to take whatever i say 'seriously' hence why you discussed our debate on the previous thread to everyone on this thread.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> not necessarily. If a man said he was only attracted to women significantly younger than his own age it would feel the same to me as if he said he wasn't attracted to women at all. It's like, okay ... we all have our preferences. It's all good. again, you take me too seriously I think. and two ... if that is you in your avatar, I guess this means you are only attracted to women in high school?


WOW i've stated COUNTLESS times i mean older men not men in general.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

this is mini pizza. pizza is awesome and anything mini makes it that much more awesome-r


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> didn't you say you aren't shallow. maybe we define that different. in any case ...
> no offense but you look under 25.
> **points to previous post**
> why are you bombing this thread?
> ...


This ends here.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

snail said:


> The reasons will be different in some cases, but in many, it is a matter of sexualizing certain kinds of bodies that have been portrayed in the media as highly desirable status objects, without regard for emotional or intellectual maturity, or for how compatible the person will be in a long-term relationship.
> 
> The indicators of physical feminine beauty are generally also indicators of youthfulness and perceived fertility, and people who buy into evo-psych nonsense like to make such excuses for treating women's bodies as fungible commodities to be appraised according to certain beauty standards, because it is easier to say that they prefer women who are fertile and have good genes than to admit that they are just perverts who don't see women as equal human beings with more to offer than our bodies. . .


Yup, I completely disagree. I think you massively overestimate the media's influence on what men find attractive. And it sounds to me like you're demonizing natural male sexuality. Like your perception is totally clouded by ideological glasses.

But anyways..


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Gore Motel said:


> Could you be more specific about your experiences? emphasis on bolded part


Being upfront and saying I wasn't interested in a serious relationship, went over badly with guys in their late teens to mid-twenties in my experience. I also found they tended to get into fights at clubs when I just wanted to go out dancing. Older men never got blood on my dress because they got into a stupid fight and needed to prove their manliness. They are actually okay with just bowing out. Younger guys would ask stupid questions like: 'Are you looking at him?' Ummm... I might have. Was I not supposed to? 

Generally speaking, things were calmer with older men. They were up for companionship, monogamy and nothing too serious.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> Being upfront and saying I wasn't interested in a serious relationship, went over badly with guys in their late teens to mid-twenties in my experience. I also found they tended to get into fights at clubs when I just wanted to go out dancing. Older men never got blood on my dress because they got into a stupid fight and needed to prove their manliness. They are actually okay with just bowing out. Younger guys would ask stupid questions like: 'Are you looking at him?' Ummm... I might have. Was I not supposed to?
> 
> Generally speaking, things were calmer with older men. They were up for companionship, monogamy and nothing too serious.


All men are rivals, but the old vs young is a classic. lol. Cuz older guys have been getting the girls forever. There is always some guy ahead of you. First it is a grade or two, and it just keeps adding up until you wish you were young again.

It starts early. Older guys notice women earlier. They often make women grow up. Girls are treated differently once they hit a certain growth point. It is immediate change in the social world. It separates people quickly.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

increased fertility markers, hence more attractive. I've often had something for older women, so I'm an exception to this rule.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

HorrorHound said:


> Because guys are supremely confusing, though mentally simple.


it's easy to find things confusing if you approach a problem from a politically correct frame of reference to try and reason with it. For example, the idea that we are just blank pages for society to write on. Evolutionary psychology makes most things obvious. But I don't deliberately try to find an evo-psych explanation at such, I just consider all explanations, and usually the evo-psych one is most logical and direct.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

dizzycactus said:


> increased fertility markers, hence more attractive. I've often had something for older women, so I'm an exception to this rule.


Older men aren't very fertile.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

dizzycactus said:


> it's easy to find things confusing if you approach a problem from a politically correct frame of reference to try and reason with it. For example, the idea that we are just blank pages for society to write on. Evolutionary psychology makes most things obvious. But I don't deliberately try to find an evo-psych explanation at such, I just consider all explanations, and usually the evo-psych one is most logical and direct.


I think attraction is more multifaceted than what a single theory from evolutionary psych can cover.
In fact I would say this of most theories, especially in regards to humans that it's better to take on multiple perspectives as they are often lacking so best to know them all as they do have their value but not alone.

Especially considering not everyone is interesting in offspring, if it was all about fertility specifically then people who are infertile would be a turn off regardless of their looks. But human attraction and their psychology in general is not so simplistic as to be boiled down to fucking for kids, it's a useful perspective as it makes sense that something we are strongly motivated for at times be associated with perpetuating our species.
There's also the matter of homosexuals, evolutionary psych isn't really inclusive of them in this point about fertility.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

monemi said:


> Older men aren't very fertile.


Either they're fertile or not.

What's the point of allocating a degree to it?

It's relative to the man's genetics and his lifestyle (adequate nutrition and physical training).


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> Older men aren't very fertile.


I don't think it has to do with fertility. We have disconnected sex from procreation in our society. Darwin thought that humans were largely sexual selection. We breed on looks. Which is a major problem in my opinion. Other organisms for example, actually have to show raw performance in the environment to pass down their genes. Like a fast cheetah. Doesn't matter how he/she looks, if he/she is tough and fast. He/she adds true strengths to the gene pool of the species. Attractive people do not. We will be a bunch of peacocks, where our greatest adaptations are useless. They are short term strategies for survival. They cannot last.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eska said:


> Either they're fertile or not.
> 
> What's the point of allocating a degree to it?
> 
> It's relative to the man's genetics and his lifestyle (adequate nutrition and physical training).


Well, isn't that the point. Guys saying women aren't very fertile as they get older. My mother had an unplanned pregnancy in her 40's. My aunt had her last child at 47, no fertility treatments. Guys are saying older women's value go down as their fertility goes down. I see some state that their fertility is only valuable until the late 20's. But mens sperm quality decreases with age too. 

It's not just about peak fertility. Women's genetics and lifestyle are relative also.

ETA: I think what people forget is that the highest abortion rate for unplanned pregnancy is in the 40's. Women that do get pregnant when they're older, don't want a baby. Most have older children. They've already done the baby stage. They're done. Problem is, so few women have babies later on, many women assume they're infertile. They're not. If you're still having periods, you're still fertile.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Wellsy said:


> I think attraction is more multifaceted than what a single theory from evolutionary psych can cover.
> In fact I would say this of most theories, especially in regards to humans that it's better to take on multiple perspectives as they are often lacking so best to know them all as they do have their value but not alone.
> 
> Especially considering not everyone is interesting in offspring, if it was all about fertility specifically then people who are infertile would be a turn off regardless of their looks. But human attraction and their psychology in general is not so simplistic as to be boiled down to fucking for kids, it's a useful perspective as it makes sense that something we are strongly motivated for at times be associated with perpetuating our species.
> There's also the matter of homosexuals, evolutionary psych isn't really inclusive of them in this point about fertility.


Well, there's a distinction between a theory not accounting for certain manifestations of itself, as a theory not in itself covering every manifestation. 
Maybe that doesn't phrase it right. 

Imagine a box full of objects bouncing around in it. We could describe all the movements almost perfectly using fundamental rules, such as newton's laws (which in themselves aren't the most fundamental level of rules, but are more fundamental than describing the object's movements directly). And yet, the movement's themselves are very complicated. 

In the same way, we can identify fundamental rules that govern us, but we may not be smart enough to directly understand all the various ways in which those rules can manifest. But we can understand that, fundamentally, everything we see arises from those rules. So I see natural selection as the fundamental basis for all traits that life expresses, but I'll freely admit that I'm not of unlimited intelligence such that I can directly link every facet of our behaviour to it, although I can link maybe 80% or so, which is pretty good going for a single model being used by a being of limited intelligence. 

You say that infertile people would turn off others regardless of looks. But the issue there, is that, if they don't look infertile, how can we tell they are infertile? Evolution isn't magic, it's still bounded by physical laws and limitations. We evolved to generally avoid external cues for infertility, that doesn't mean it's a foolproof system that always knows if someone is infertile. Infertility is correlated with traits such as age, signs of starvation, malnutrition, disease etc, so it makes sense we generally avoid those traits when choosing mates. 

Homosexuality is an interesting topic with regards evolution. But it's worth bearing in mind that evolution is not a conscious process. Random mutations lead to variation in traits and a level of differing from the norm. If the genes that lead to these traits survive into the next generation, we have evolution. 
That doesn't mean every single trait we bear is optimal for our survival, or directly related to it. For example, a person who has a very favourable mutation could also have other unfavourable traits. They survive due to their mutation, others die out, and we end up with unfavourable traits introduced into a population, in spite of selection. For example, say the human race became confined to a small island. Short people will do better due to a decreased need for food, and the island doesn't have a huge food supply. But maybe, in this population, extreme shortness is caused by, for example, malnutrition during pregnancy of their mother, leading them to have other issues. It isn't that things are too simple to be covered by evolution, it's just that you frame evolution as something simpler than it is. 
Having said that, there is a theory that the genes that contribute to homosexuality may have been retained recessively because gay people cared for their family's children, and thus indirectly gave the gene pool that lead to their own homosexuality an advantage over gene pools that didn't contain it, and so their gene pool would keep occasionally expressing homosexuality even if those with the genes for it never directly reproduced.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

monemi said:


> Older men aren't very fertile.


But it's a much less significant variable with men, unless they're literally pensioners:









Although it does strike me as strange that male fertility seems to start so late, there. Perhaps I just learnt something new about male fertility. Need to do some research to verify.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

dizzycactus said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed we can't account for everything and we can see patterns but with evo-psych there is quite a degree of greyness where one can't apply objectivity. But that's perhaps more from my skepticism due to that fact that there seems to be many conclusions possible to draw from things, some that can be contradictory for what ever perspective one likes depending on what they're looking at.
A quote from Noam Chomsky in regards to Evo. psych
"You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

In regards to infertile people that was kind of my point in that maybe fertility isn't the word you're looking for because if it's actually about children then knowing someone can't have offspring should inherently be unattractive.
I suppose you would say that they see signs of fertility but I don't think we necessarily see signs of fertility, we just see things that signify qualities that we'd like in a mate, often summarized as overall health. Which citing how diverse gene expressions can be to accommodate for any environment, there could be an array of reasons that spur particular forms of attraction. 
I think the assumption is that we're all out to procreate even when we consciously do not want to and thinking this premise can account for all of humanity's behaviour seems to be a bold simplification. 

I think of all the theories to account for human behaviour in the modern day, evo-psych tends to take a back seat. It simply doesn't' encompass enough of the contextual complexities of life today and is difficult to test since it is often just inferences. I think one should be cautious to use evolutionary psych as a gold standard for explaining things and if one must attempt to explain human behaviour they best bring more than just evo. psych, because as I mentioned it may have it's strengths but like most theories it lacks a lot so to get the fullest picture it's best to use more than one.

*tl;dr: Where does one draw the line on attraction between biology and environmental factors? How do they interact to amount to the final outcome of attraction in regards to older women?*


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Wellsy said:


> In regards to infertile people that was kind of my point in that maybe fertility isn't the word you're looking for because if it's actually about children then knowing someone can't have offspring should inherently be unattractive.


Again, there is no inherent consciousness in evolution. If you're attracted to fertility, there's a good chance there's no part of your brain whatsoever that understands why you are. Say someone randomly develops a fetish for shoes. If that were somehow a good evolutionary choice, we might see it become normal. But at no point was there any process that lead this fetish to understand itself. Instincts arise by chance, and stay because they happen to work. Consciously realising someone is infertile being a turnoff would only lead to being unattracted to them if we had medical tests to determine infertility in the face of outward healthy appearance long enough for deciding consciously not to mate with people based on those test results to integrate itself into our inherent being. We're talking thousands of years, and only if there arises such a preference in the first place for it to integrate ourselves among us. 


> I suppose you would say that they see signs of fertility but I don't think we necessarily see signs of fertility, we just see things that signify qualities that we'd like in a mate, often summarized as overall health.


Circular reasoning. You say we like fertility because we happen to like health. I say we like health partially due to associated fertility. Obviously other qualities like facial symmetry and ratios etc contribute to attraction, it's just that men tend to be less likely to be attracted to an older woman because fertility cues are also an important trait in attraction. 


> Which citing how diverse gene expressions can be to accommodate for any environment, there could be an array of reasons that spur particular forms of attraction.
> I think the assumption is that we're all out to procreate even when we consciously do not want to and thinking this premise can account for all of humanity's behaviour seems to be a bold simplification.


That's an opinion, not an argument. Simplification is the key to understanding, to model reality as a specialised case of a set of general rules. 



> I think of all the theories to account for human behaviour in the modern day, evo-psych tends to take a back seat. It simply doesn't' encompass enough of the contextual complexities of life today and is difficult to test since it is often just inferences. I think one should be cautious to use evolutionary psych as a gold standard for explaining things and if one must attempt to explain human behaviour they best bring more than just evo. psych, because as I mentioned it may have it's strengths but like most theories it lacks a lot so to get the fullest picture it's best to use more than one.


Well, I've never said societal influences are completely irrelevant, but they can only change how we express instincts, not change the instincts themselves. Society is an expression of biology, not something completely separate. That's why it might even be fallacious to really conflate them as completely separate variables. Evolution leads to society, so everything even in society can be accounted for theoretically within evolution. 
For example, we need to urinate. Society determines how we express this. A toilet, or a hole in the ground? 
People seek social status, society determines how social status will be expressed, and how we will attain it. 

So there's a complex interplay between biology and society, but fundamental motivations will always be linked to biology rather than society, and thus evolution.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

dizzycactus said:


> But it's a much less significant variable with men, unless they're literally pensioners:
> 
> View attachment 237074
> 
> ...


Gambia | West Hunter I found where that graph came from. Rural villages of Gambia average paternal ages.  What you learned was the average age of mothers and fathers in rural villages of Gambia. It's harder to measure fertility by age than that. You realize Gambia has epic problems with failing to educate girls. You know what, never mind. That's more than I'm getting into right now. Measuring live births doesn't tell you fertility rate when you have to account for birth control and abortion. Even in Gambia, herbal abortion has a 45% success rate. Fertility statistics are skewed by live births. Men's sperm quality decreases at age 35 - health - 25 July 2013 - New Scientist 

People say women struggle getting pregnant after 35 and need fertility treatment. But most of their partners are close to their age. Many of them would have more success with a younger partner, just like men have more success with a younger partner. You need to measure the quality of the sperm and the eggs to determine fertility. Not skewed live birth rates.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

monemi said:


> Well, isn't that the point. Guys saying women aren't very fertile as they get older. My mother had an unplanned pregnancy in her 40's. My aunt had her last child at 47, no fertility treatments. Guys are saying older women's value go down as their fertility goes down. I see some state that their fertility is only valuable until the late 20's. But mens sperm quality decreases with age too.
> 
> It's not just about peak fertility. Women's genetics and lifestyle are relative also.
> 
> ETA: I think what people forget is that the highest abortion rate for unplanned pregnancy is in the 40's. Women that do get pregnant when they're older, don't want a baby. Most have older children. They've already done the baby stage. They're done. Problem is, so few women have babies later on, many women assume they're infertile. They're not. If you're still having periods, you're still fertile.


Men generally have a longer extent of time to their fertility.

IIRC, women can't get pregnant after having gone through menopause, which can happen in their 30s~50s, generally.

Men can still be fertile past the age of 70 and so on.

I think that's what they're referring to.

Apparently, the oldest woman to give birth was 69 years old, while the oldest man was 96 years old. (ever recorded)


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eska said:


> Men generally have a longer extent of time to their fertility.
> 
> IIRC, women can't get pregnant after having gone through menopause, which can happen in their 30s~50s, generally.
> 
> ...


It's not nearly as dramatic as people say it is. The frequency with which women hit menopause in their 30's is pretty rare. Average age for last period is 51. Menopause generally starts in the 40's and finishes the early 60's. Where on earth did you get the impression that menopause starts in the 30's? It's rare to hit menopause before 40. How much do you actually know about women's fertility? If the male body actually had to carry that baby for 9 months, it would never happen. The quality of men's sperm at 70 isn't magically better than the quality of the rest of their body. Just because there have been women that naturally had babies in their late 50's doesn't mean they have high fertility rates. Just some men have managed to impregnate a woman at 70 doesn't mean men in their 70's are particularly have good fertility.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

monemi said:


> It's not nearly as dramatic as people say it is. The frequency with which women hit menopause in their 30's is pretty rare. Average age for last period is 51. Menopause generally starts in the 40's and finishes the early 60's. *Where on earth did you get the impression that menopause starts in the 30's? It's rare to hit menopause before 40. How much do you actually know about women's fertility?* If the male body actually had to carry that baby for 9 months, it would never happen. The quality of men's sperm at 70 isn't magically better than the quality of the rest of their body. Just because there have been women that naturally had babies in their late 50's doesn't mean they have high fertility rates. Just some men have managed to impregnate a woman at 70 doesn't mean men in their 70's are particularly have good fertility.


Are you asking me these questions?

I never implied that men in their 70's have particularly good fertility.

I was clearly referring to the general extent of their time span regarding fertility.

I was simply pointing out that that is what is probably being referred to.


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

Instinct. They are more attracted to younger mates because they're the most nubile and capable of reproducing the healthiest offspring. A man doesn't have to think that on a conscious level or even want to have children, it's ingrained into basic human and animal nature.
The same is true of women only they seek out different things in a potential mate. Security being the main focus, therefore the age is more varied though they tend to prefer older more stable mates. 

This'll probably upset a lot of people, nobody likes to hear it like this, but that's nature.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Kebachi said:


> Instinct. They are more attracted to younger mates because they're the most nubile and capable of reproducing the healthiest offspring. A man doesn't have to think that on a conscious level or even want to have children, it's ingrained into basic human and animal nature.
> The same is true of women only they seek out different things in a potential mate. Security being the main focus, therefore the age is more varied though they tend to prefer older more stable mates.
> 
> This'll probably upset a lot of people, nobody likes to hear it like this, but that's nature.


I think it'll only upset ridiculous gender ideologues.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Kebachi said:


> Instinct. They are more attracted to younger mates because they're the most nubile and capable of reproducing the healthiest offspring. A man doesn't have to think that on a conscious level or even want to have children, it's ingrained into basic human and animal nature.
> The same is true of women only they seek out different things in a potential mate. Security being the main focus, therefore the age is more varied though they tend to prefer older more stable mates.
> 
> This'll probably upset a lot of people, nobody likes to hear it like this, but that's nature.


Not upsetting, but oversimplified and in Eska's example, drawing from bad numbers. Which reminds me of some strange posts I read about women being not being very fertile in their 30's. Most women shouldn't struggle with fertility in their 30's. Some women do. Some men do. But most shouldn't. A 35 year old man isn't going to be as fertile as an 18 year old. 

You're oversimplifying and not looking at the whole equation. Fertility is a cheap easy answer for those too lazy to think about it. 



Eska said:


> Are you asking me these questions?
> 
> I never implied that men in their 70's have particularly good fertility.
> 
> ...


You said women can't get pregnant once they go through menopause between 30-50. Those numbers are off by a decade. And the point is, men are more fertile younger, just as women are more fertile younger. If this all down to biology, it would be about men's biology too.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

monemi said:


> You said women can't get pregnant once they go through menopause between 30-50. Those numbers are off by a decade. And the point is, men are more fertile younger, just as women are more fertile younger. If this all down to biology, it would be about men's biology too.


I didn't refute your point, nor did I allude to it.

I was giving you a possible answer as to what people could be referring to.

Also,
I don't see how my numbers are "off"?



Eska said:


> IIRC, women can't get pregnant after having gone through menopause, which can happen in their 30s~50s, generally.


*Menopause Symptoms, Causes, Treatment - What is menopause? - MedicineNet*

"_The average age of menopause is 51 years old. But there is no way to predict when an individual woman will have menopause or begin having symptoms suggestive of menopause. The age at which a woman starts having menstrual periods is also not related to the age of menopause onset. *Most women reach menopause between the ages of 45 and 55, but menopause may occur as earlier as ages 30s or 40s, or may not occur until a woman reaches her 60s.* As a rough "rule of thumb," women tend to undergo menopause at an age similar to that of their mothers._"


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Attractiveness implies physical fitness and health.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@Eska -- You're prevaricating. What you quoted actually goes against your original statement. If you'd said "45-55" that would've been believable, but not "30s~50s".


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Attractiveness implies physical fitness and health.


Actually, that's false. Attractiveness is primarily established by cultural standards. There are and have in the past been cultures where morbidly obese women were considered more attractive, to the point where families would overfeed daughters with high calorie foods such as camel's milk or goat's milk.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> @Eska -- You're prevaricating. What you quoted actually goes against your original statement. If you'd said "45-55" that would've been believable, but not "30s~50s".


No.
I don't see the issue with my statement.

It clearly says "_but menopause may occur as earlier as ages 30s or 40s, or may not occur until a woman reaches her 60s_".

Although, I agree that my statement was not accurate.
It should have been "30s~60s", not "30s~50s".


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Actually, that's false. Attractiveness is primarily established by cultural standards. There are and have in the past been cultures where morbidly obese women were considered more attractive, to the point where families would overfeed daughters with high calorie foods such as camel's milk or goat's milk.


I knew I shouldn't have depended on humans thinking rationally. I actually guess it doesn't matter and there are no significant determinate factors in selecting a mate. Consider when my long hot dog dog tried to have sex with my little dog, it didn't matter if she was little.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> No.
> I don't see the issue with my statement.
> 
> It clearly says "_but menopause may occur as earlier as ages 30s or 40s, or may not occur until a woman reaches her 60s_".


Average age of onset is mid-40s.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Average age of onset is mid-40s.


What are you arguing? 
How I formulated my statement or the information provided by the website?

It clearly says that it can happen as early as in the 30s.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> What are you arguing?
> How I formulated my statement or the information provided by the website?
> 
> It clearly says that it can happen as early as in the 30s.


Menopause in the 30s is incredibly, incredibly rare in terms of statistics. It's essentially an outlier.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Menopause in the 30s is incredibly, incredibly rare in terms of statistics. It's essentially an outlier.


Ok.

My original quote;


Eska said:


> IIRC, women can't get pregnant after having gone through menopause, which *can happen* in their 30s~50s, generally.


I don't see how I was being fallacious.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@Eska -- Well, it looks to some people like you're implying that fertility goes to shit in the 30s based on age of onset of menopause, when it actually doesn't. You're technically not incorrect, but statistically speaking, as you're using outliers for your numbers, you're also technically incorrect. It's pretty simple. The best thing you could have said was something like "IIRC, women can't get pregnant after having gone through menopause, which usually occurs in the mid 40s." That would have been the "most correct" interpretation of the data.


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

Because they find old ladies yucky, whilst ignoring their own yucky-ness in comparison to their younger comrades. I guess novelty or maybe the pride of being able to score a younger girl.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> Either they're fertile or not.
> 
> What's the point of allocating a degree to it?
> 
> It's relative to the man's genetics and his lifestyle (adequate nutrition and physical training).


This is also a false statement because with both men and women, there are degrees of fertility. For men, for instance, you can quantify fertility with sperm counts and qualify it with checks of sperm motility.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> @Eska -- Well, it looks to some people like you're implying that fertility goes to shit in the 30s based on age of onset of menopause, when it actually doesn't. You're technically not incorrect, but statistically speaking, as you're using outliers for your numbers, you're also technically incorrect. It's pretty simple. The best thing you could have said was something like "IIRC, women can't get pregnant after having gone through menopause, which usually occurs in the mid 40s." That would have been the "most correct" interpretation of the data.


I did not elaborate any further than "menopause can happen".

I disagree with labeling my point as being incorrect, although, I understand your point.



koalaroo said:


> This is also a false statement because with both men and women, there are degrees of fertility. For men, for instance, you can quantify fertility with sperm counts and qualify it with checks of sperm motility.


I disagree.

Fertility
_the quality of being fertile; productiveness.
the ability to conceive children or young._

It is the ability, you either have that ability or not.

I believe that "potency" would be the accurate term.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eska said:


> I didn't refute your point, nor did I allude to it.
> 
> I was giving you a possible answer as to what people could be referring to.
> 
> ...


Even as early as 30's is not the norm. If you were trying to include all of the age it could happen, you'd go with 30-60's to demonstrate a wide age range. Women going into menopause as late as their 60's happens as frequently as they go into menopause in their 30's. It was an exaggeration and repeatedly, many posters who chalking things up to biology, are failing to acknowledge men's fertility going down with age.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> I did not elaborate any further than "menopause can happen".
> 
> I disagree with labeling my point as being incorrect, although, I understand your point.


Why make the upper limit lower than your research provided, then?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eska said:


> No.
> I don't see the issue with my statement.
> 
> It clearly says "_but menopause may occur as earlier as ages 30s or 40s, or may not occur until a woman reaches her 60s_".
> ...


You should realize that women in their 30's typically don't go into menopause and women in their 60's don't start going into menopause. That's like saying boys start puberty between 9 and 14. Most boys are 11-12 years old when they start puberty. 9-14 is an unnecessary exaggeration. Why would you make that exaggeration unless you were trying to make a point?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

monemi said:


> You should realize that women in their 30's typically don't go into menopause and women in their 60's don't start going into menopause. That's like saying boys start puberty between 9 and 14. Most boys are 11-12 years old when they start puberty. 9-14 is an unnecessary exaggeration. Why would you make that exaggeration unless you were trying to make a point?


That 45-55 range that he quoted from his research probably comes from a 95% confidence interval of menopausal age. So, I don't get why go "30s to 50s", inputting the lower outlier for his lower limit, but not putting in the upper outlier (60s) for his upper limit. Of course, this would also be a shit use of statistics, and I'm pretty sure even using a different confidence interval wouldn't make for the lower limit being in the 30s.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Why make the upper limit lower than your research provided, then?


I've already pointed out that that part was indeed inaccurate, I did not include the "60", I misinterpreted it as not inclusive of 60, which is why I've said 30s~50s(including 59, excluding 60).



monemi said:


> You should realize that women in their 30's typically don't go into menopause and women in their 60's don't start going into menopause. That's like saying boys start puberty between 9 and 14. Most boys are 11-12 years old when they start puberty. 9-14 is an unnecessary exaggeration. Why would you make that exaggeration unless you were trying to make a point?


I did not make an exaggeration on purpose, I was simply quoting the information provided by the website.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> I'm not talking about some historical association, I'm talking about research data. TBH, many women throughout history were getting married at more like 13.


Only nobles or daughters born in rich families as arranged marriage was a way to secure an alliance and even consummation had to wait until the bride was at least 15-16. The majority of the population, especially the poorer branches, usually married around 16-18 which was early but the men weren't much older than that and life expectancy was much shorter due to illness, poor hygiene and nutrition, wars and outbreaks.



> Well, it clearly does mean they've lost some of their fertility since that is exactly what the word means. It doesn't necessarily mean they have lost their sex appeal because a man can't actually see a woman's fertility, his brain can only guess at it based on external signs.


Which means that age-related fertility indicators are less pronounced than you think as not all women age similarly and there's no set age for puberty, making fertility rates more unsteady and fluctuating (although objectively 19-25 seems to be the most fertile years).



> They choose supermodels based on what men find attractive, not the other way around. It's not like if they choose fat, 35 year old women to be supermodels that suddenly men would find these things attractive.


In the 50s chunkier women were more attractive as they celebrated a decade of rebirth from wars and poverty, the 90s started to bring along the heroin-chic extremely thin look and in history pale, heavier women were considered more alluring because they represented nobility and abundance. Some cultures fetishize obesity, others child-like bodies. The thing is, once you grow up bombarded by the same oversaturated sexual images, your brain re-wires itself to seek that as an ideal but personal preferences are varied, both flat chests and androgynous looks or soft, curvy and thicker ones can be appealing but it's all subjective.

Sometimes someone is objectively attractive but doesn't do it for you. Age, ethnicity, body type, circumstances and personality are all factors and it's highly personal, it's also not set in stone.



> Things like implants and makeups are TRICKS. The brain evolved certain general rules to identify attributes that it find sexually attractive and beauty products are based on tricking these general rules.


Tricks can often result in lack of proportion and that's cool because it's their taste.
But let's not cherry-pick the standards and changes the human brain adapted to.



> We're not living there, but our brain still our. Evolution doesn't work fast enough to keep up with new technology and social structures. Yes, a woman can logically decide that one man or another is better for her, but that doesn't mean she can make herself be attracted to that man. My brain has terrible judgment on the women it falls in love with and no amount of logically knowing that these women aren't good matches for me is ever going to make me stop falling in love with them. I can choose to cut off contact with women who show certain traits that I know will conflict with my personality, but it still hurts every time.


If a woman logically decides that no matter how attractive a man is, he's a terrible fit, she can choose not to pursue him. Simple as that. Yeah, it can't be helped that sometimes my brain falls for terrible people or someone who doesn't return it or just enjoys playing hopscotch and changing its perception but the cool thing is... I don't have to act on it. Maybe it's because I'm likely to be asexual (or a demi) but I don't get the idea of falling in love with someone just because they look good, wtf, you call it love but is it really? It's deep infatuation, obsession, lust, idealization, whatever you have but your feelings build up internally based on your idea of the person not the person themselves. Which is pretty much logical but only one part of what constitutes attraction and why it's so subjective... otherwise humans would die out because everyone would be going after extremely good looking people (obviously picking each other, according to this logic) and no one else.




> Heh, well it's bad if you ONLY love her for her tits and ass, but at the same time it's almost impossible to ever love someone for ONLY their personality. Sexual attraction is a huge part of love whether we want to admit it or not.


Dude, I never said that it's bad to admit your sexual attraction, hell that's a huge part of it.
Maybe it's impossible to love someone just because of their personality (but I disagree) but it's ridiculous to claim love only because of their physical attributes, why not both? Someone might have a fantastic ass and an even better wit and sense of humor and creativity.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Karma said:


> In the 50s chunkier women were more attractive as they celebrated a decade of rebirth from wars and poverty, the 90s started to bring along the heroin-chic extremely thin look and in history pale, heavier women were considered more alluring because they represented nobility and abundance. Some cultures fetishize obesity, others child-like bodies. The thing is, once you grow up bombarded by the same oversaturated sexual images, your brain re-wires itself to seek that as an ideal but personal preferences are varied, both flat chests and androgynous looks or soft, curvy and thicker ones can be appealing but it's all subjective.


The whole idea that back throughout history there was a much different view of what is attractive isn't supported by any sort of reality I've ever seen. Sure there are some tribes in the middle of nowhere you can find that like much different things than we do, but the vast majority of people throughout most of history have been attracted to a pretty similar set of qualities. You talk about the ideal from the 1950s so I linked an article showing "pin up" girls from that era. They are far from "chunky" and if you look at the differences between the actual photos and the posters you can see that they did all the same things they do now with photoshop. They made the waists thinner, the busts bigger, the legs longer and the lips fuller. Maybe they are on average a little heavier than the current supermodels, but the difference seems pretty trivial compared to the wide range of differences between normal women. What is considered ideal now is slightly thinner than those women, but I doubt many men today wouldn't find the women in those 1950s pin-ups as very attractive.

Gil Elvgren's pin-up queens: 18 real women behind famous 1950s cheesecake pictures | Style | Life & Style | Daily Express


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> The whole idea that back throughout history there was a much different view of what is attractive isn't supported by any sort of reality I've ever seen. Sure there are some tribes in the middle of nowhere you can find that like much different things than we do, but the vast majority of people throughout most of history have been attracted to a pretty similar set of qualities. You talk about the ideal from the 1950s so I linked an article showing "pin up" girls from that era. They are far from "chunky" and if you look at the differences between the actual photos and the posters you can see that they did all the same things they do now with photoshop. They made the waists thinner, the busts bigger, the legs longer and the lips fuller. Maybe they are on average a little heavier than the current supermodels, but the difference seems pretty trivial compared to the wide range of differences between normal women. What is considered ideal now is slightly thinner than those women, but I doubt many men today wouldn't find the women in those 1950s pin-ups as very attractive.
> 
> Gil Elvgren's pin-up queens: 18 real women behind famous 1950s cheesecake pictures | Style | Life & Style | Daily Express


Of course there's a set of characteristics that men (and women, don't forget us queers) find appealing in women but one can argue that objectively the standards have evolved. Before the recent boom, having a huge butt and full legs was promoted as a negative thing although there's always been people who found those really attractive. Toned or sculpted bodies for women were added to the standards of what constitutes a healthy, fit woman only in the late 70s/early 80s as they were often considered 'too masculine' even in the androgynous jazz years. And even then, what was promoted as attractive by models and actresses wasn't exactly matching what individuals were actually attracted to.

Ad from the 50s
Evolution of female bodies through fashion (which has got little to do with sexual attraction)
Notions of beauty and attractiveness


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

@Karma All I'm saying is that pretty much every woman in your links looks attractive to me. I don't think there has been some big shift in what men find attractive. From what I can tell it's just that some men find a thin girl more attractive, some find a girl with big boobs and a big ass but a tiny waist attractive, some find a girl who is more "full figured" attractive and what we see through history is these three groups of guys sort of pushing and shoving in and out of mainstream. You see skinny runway models these days, but you will meet a lot of guys who aren't turned on by this at all. You also see a lot of gigantic asses on some women today, but you will meet a lot of guys who aren't attracted to this either. It's not that one day all the men who loved skinny women decided to go chase after the huge-assed women, it's that these men always existed on both sides and didn't always have a good model to point to as their ideal. Each of the historical trends mentioned in your article will appeal very strongly to a certain demographic of 2014 men and i assume our current trends would have appealed to a certain demographic of 1914 men too.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

@a1b2c3d4

Therefore attraction is subjective, there are some biological factors behind it but the human brain has proven to be incredibly adaptable and constantly evolving. Younger women might be more fertile and appealing but there's no definite objective and proven law to determine what drives older men to early 20-somethings since it's mostly subjective.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Karma said:


> @a1b2c3d4
> 
> Therefore attraction is subjective, there are some biological factors behind it but the human brain has proven to be incredibly adaptable and constantly evolving. Younger women might be more fertile and appealing but there's no definite objective and proven law to determine what drives older men to early 20-somethings since it's mostly subjective.


It really is pretty clear cut what drives men to younger women. Just because all men aren't the same doesn't mean there isn't a strong statistical coloration between specific traits and physical attractiveness. Those traits are based largely on indicators of fertility. That's not the ONLY thing any man ever wanted, but it's by far the biggest.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Karma said:


> @a1b2c3d4
> Therefore attraction is subjective, there are some biological factors behind it but the human brain has proven to be incredibly adaptable and constantly evolving. Younger women might be more fertile and appealing but there's no definite objective and proven law to determine what drives older men to early 20-somethings since it's mostly subjective.


this topic aside, I'm not a fan of the whole "but it's subjective" argument. something can be subjective and still be a tangible and/or useful phenomenon. any findings to be had in a soft science are going to be subjective in nature.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> this topic aside, I'm not a fan of the whole "but it's subjective" argument. something can be subjective and still be a tangible and/or useful phenomenon. any findings to be had in a soft science are going to be subjective in nature.


AMEN

I think what people need to understand is the difference between saying "statistically speaking X is true" and "X is always true". Everything outside of hard sciences is based on statistics and if something is true 87% of the time then you should be able to point that out and not have the other 13% throw in your face constantly. It should just be understood that we all know there is always some percent of people who react differently and that every individual is different, but that the group as a whole acts a certain way in general even if every member of that group doesn't.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> It really is pretty clear cut what drives men to younger women. Just because all men aren't the same doesn't mean there isn't a strong statistical coloration between specific traits and physical attractiveness. Those traits are based largely on indicators of fertility. That's not the ONLY thing any man ever wanted, but it's by far the biggest.


It's one of the factors but not the only one since the drop in fertility isn't as huge as you think.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> this topic aside, I'm not a fan of the whole "but it's subjective" argument. something can be subjective and still be a tangible and/or useful phenomenon. any findings to be had in a soft science are going to be subjective in nature.


This is why they play a part but they don't reflect 100% the truth because there isn't one.
Subjective findings can objectively make sense but when subjective things like attraction, morals and experiences are thrown in, along with plenty of contradicting studies, the mix it becomes harder to determine how strong the evidence is. I stand by my idea that the concept of attraction = fertility is extremely overblown and a convenient excuse I don't see the need of because it's your own choice anyway.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Karma said:


> I stand by my idea that the concept of attraction = fertility is extremely overblown and a convenient excuse I don't see the need of because it's your own choice anyway.


The thread is about why men date younger women and this is the answer to that question. Nobody is trying to make a "convenient excuse" for their sexual desires here.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Karma said:


> This is why they play a part but they don't reflect 100% the truth because there isn't one.


when has anyone claimed it to be a "100% truth"? it need not be anything close to that to be relevant



> Subjective findings can objectively make sense but when subjective things like attraction, morals and experiences are thrown in the mix it becomes harder to determine how strong the biological drive is.


if you're saying that the relationship between correlation/causation is more complicated than most would like to be believe, I agree, but when findings from studies show consistent patterns across multiple cultures from different demographics of a valid sample size, significant factors can be more easily made apparent



> I stand by my idea that the concept of attraction = fertility is
> extremely overblown and a convenient excuse I don't see the need of because it's your own choice anyway.


and I stand by mine that they don't need an "excuse" to begin with, just like I don't need an excuse to suck cock (well, unless they're trying to rationalize having sex with 9 year olds, but I'm under the assumption that no one hear is advocating that :tongue: )


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

To be fair, I took some shit over the fact my last girlfriend was 18 when I was 28 so I can understand why some people might think they need an "excuse", but I'm the last person in this world to care what anyone else thinks so it didn't bother me at all. TBH, I mostly just felt proud as hell about the fact I was having sex with a hot young woman when I am neither hot nor young.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> when has anyone claimed it to be a "100% truth"? it need not be anything close to that to be relevant


Then it becomes a factor but not THE main factor.




> if you're saying that the relationship between correlation/causation is more complicated than most would like to be believe, I agree, but when findings from studies show consistent patterns across multiple cultures from different demographics of a valid sample size, significant factors can be more easily made apparent


I added/switched a lot of stuff in my original post since I'm a major brainstormer but basically what I mean is that, while there are consistent patterns, those are constantly evolving and filtered through a great deal of personal interpretation so there isn't a main reason as to why certain factors play into relationships. Biological arguments are weak on their own and need a lot more fuel, as well as exploring all the possible explanations.




> and I stand by mine that they don't need an "excuse" to begin with, just like I don't need an excuse to suck cock (well, unless they're trying to rationalize having sex with 9 year olds, but I'm under the assumption that no one hear is advocating that :tongue: )


Dude. _Dude_. My position in this thread has always been that there's no need for excuses and being honest about liking younger looks is much better than this hypocritical circus of "I don't really chose to, it's just science". If it's between consenting adults, frankly, who the hell cares!


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Karma said:


> Dude. _Dude_. My position in this thread has always been that there's no need for excuses and being honest about liking younger looks is much better than this *hypocritical circus* of "I don't really chose to, it's just science". If it's between consenting adults, frankly, who the hell cares!


The problem isn't with what you are saying about nobody needing an excuse, the problem is with the fact that you think people advocating fertility being the reason men like younger women are making excuses instead of just trying to answer the question in the OP. You can question whether or not I am right, but please don't assume I am making some pseudoscience excuse to justify my attraction to younger women because that is not what is going on at all.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> The problem isn't with what you are saying about nobody needing an excuse, the problem is with the fact that you think people advocating fertility being the reason men like younger women are making excuses instead of just trying to answer the question in the OP. You can question whether or not I am right, but please don't assume I am making some pseudoscience excuse to justify my attraction to younger women because that is not what is going on at all.


I don't see a big deal in dating younger, I've dated younger myself.

This is a 38 pages long thread that has been up and running for years (probably it ain't so fertile anymore though it had a recent peak :tongue and the volleying between me and you has just been going on for a couple pages, I don't even remember what I answered first nor I particularly care. Pretty much debating the impact of biology vs personal taste/experience, mocking hypocritical societal myths and kicking boredom away.

I don't dispute that a younger woman is more fertile and biology drives humans but I still stand that it ain't as much proof as people have been arguing and a bunch of posters used it as some kind of concrete excuse which is frankly ridiculous since there's no need to.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> To be fair, I took some shit over the fact my last girlfriend was 18 when I was 28 so I can understand why some people might think they need an "excuse", but I'm the last person in this world to care what anyone else thinks so it didn't bother me at all. TBH, I mostly just felt proud as hell about the fact I was having sex with a hot young woman when I am neither hot nor young.


I don't even necessarily prefer younger women, so I don't need an "excuse" either. It's just the most logical answer, and thus the best model until someone presents a better one. Just because the answer on its own may not be 100% perfect doesn't mean we should avoid making any conclusions until we find a perfect answer, because it's likely we never will. Knowledge is all about a series of closer and closer approximations. 

It's like people arguing against it are anti-knowledge, arguing that we shouldn't try to find decent conclusions to anything in case we're wrong. We find the most likely and well reasoned argument at the time, then, if needs be, we further refine it later.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Karma said:


> I don't dispute that a younger woman is more fertile and biology drives humans but I still stand that it ain't as much proof as people have been arguing


You don't really understand it if you take it as "proof" in the first place. Proof is evidence, theory is not. A hypothesis doesn't prove itself, evidence does. But some hypotheses can be argued for on their intrinsic merits: their logical consistency, how well they fit current evidence, their agreement with previously proved theories (like evolution)


> and a bunch of posters used it as some kind of concrete excuse which is frankly ridiculous since there's no need to.


An excuse for what? You should use more precise language, it's hard to address statements that are so incredibly vague.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> People want to be accepted, but what they really want to be is accepted by someone as high up the ladder as possible. Getting acceptance from some incredibly ugly woman who is not interesting in the slightest doesn't really do much to make a person happy. Even insofar as it does it's only as a last-ditch friendship, not the woman of your dreams.
> 
> 
> Well, no. If you want to get right down to it everything really is just chemistry PERIOD. Even what we perceive as "free will" is just an illusion. Nature has rules and maybe there is a God who can break them, but we sure as hell can't.


Life IS will. This is why life cannot exist without it. You grow with effort. You don't grow with programming. What the illusion is is the absence of free will. Go do some pushups and study how it makes you feel. You'll feel trapped in your weakness. Then keep doing pushups and realize that you feel less trapped. And realize the strength of your will. Realize that freedom is your ultimate desire.


----------



## Mystic MagentaRose (May 7, 2014)

I'm older than my boyfriend, I'm 31 and he's 20. He told me he loves woman who are older. :happy:

I think it depends on the person. Each person is different.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

vinniebob said:


> couldn't the question also be phrased as to why younger women date older men?
> I do agree that younger females are attractive but as a 5W6 cannot date any one younger the 5 years then myself
> most men that do date 12+ years younger do so to feed their ego and the female get's paid for her youth


You did kidnap me that one time, but that may have just been for fun...

I thought we really had something.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

Zorya Polunochnaya said:


> You did kidnap me that one time, but that may have just been for fun...
> 
> I thought we really had something.


that was you?
I thought you looked familiar


----------



## AliceWonder (Dec 11, 2014)

Daydreamer_Sam218 said:


> I'm older than my boyfriend, I'm 31 and he's 20. He told me he loves woman who are older. :happy:
> 
> I think it depends on the person. Each person is different.


When I was 20 I liked women who were 30.
When I was 30 I liked women who were 30.
Now that I am 40 I like women who are 30.

But I don't limit myself.

The age thing generally doesn't matter, when a woman interests my mind - her age doesn't matter anymore, she becomes the most beautiful thing in the world to me. When a really hot women I was extremely interested in physically turns out to be dull, she no longer looks so attractive to me.


----------



## istaval (Dec 8, 2014)

kawaii loli-chans ヾ(。◕ฺ∀◕ฺ)ノ


----------



## pigeonbeard (Dec 8, 2014)

Oh my sweet summer child...


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Because older men are more likely to be able to provide and many women still emphasize importance of that in choosing a mate (though I assume as more women work and make money, they would be less likely to marry a guy for that reason alone, so even if a guy is interested, if a woman is not, it won't); also I think women mature faster than guys, and so sometimes guys their age just look immature and dumb to them. Maybe, I don't know, just tossing out ideas.

p.s. shoot, I just realized I answered why women would date such a guy, not vice versa. Okay, for men, I think it's probably sexual attraction and often younger are more attractive. also there's the child bearing thing.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

istaval said:


> kawaii loli-chans ヾ(。◕ฺ∀◕ฺ)ノ


I LOLed :laughing:


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

For the glory of santa!


----------



## Amaryllis (Mar 14, 2014)

Because they think significantly younger women look significantly more attractive.


----------



## HrMx13 (May 22, 2015)

Indeed, 20yo girls are way more attractive. They turn disgusting when reaching 30yo.


----------



## LJune (May 24, 2015)

I'll give you my ex-husband's number and you can ask his child bride.


----------



## LJune (May 24, 2015)

HrMx13 said:


> Indeed, 20yo girls are way more attractive. They turn disgusting when reaching 30yo.


I'm 30 and you are ridiculous.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Saying women become significantly more unattractive as they get older is a bit shallow.


----------



## LJune (May 24, 2015)

jennalee said:


> Saying women become significantly more unattractive as they get older is a bit shallow.


It's a bit "Dude doesn't have any idea what he is talking about".


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Especially when women are just at their best when they reach 30 actually.

Other than that I dont want to date a woman who is significantly younger than me, it'd feel like hittin my own brother. + the gap in mentality is just, no.

Women tend to date men who are older because they know what they want and are usually good at physically fillin them with vigourous attention


----------



## LJune (May 24, 2015)

Old enough to know better, but still young enough to do it anyway


----------



## HrMx13 (May 22, 2015)

I'm sorry if I've hurt some feelings. Disgusting may have not been the good word to describe 30yo women. I meant something more like, let's say, ready for having a child and be a mother. Which is reluctant to me cause I may be a bit immature, as lots of guys of my generation are. Nothing to do with their body which may still be ok for 4 or 5 years more.


----------



## LJune (May 24, 2015)

HrMx13 said:


> I'm sorry if I've hurt some feelings. Disgusting may have not been the good word to describe 30yo women. I meant something more like, let's say, ready for having a child and be a mother. Which is reluctant to me cause I may be a bit immature, as lots of guys of my generation are. Nothing to do with their body which may still be ok for 4 or 5 years more.


Baaahahaha... Aww.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

jennalee said:


> Saying women become significantly more unattractive as they get older is a bit shallow.


...but true. After age 30 the chances for successful pregnancy & healthy babies drop substantially along with chances for relationship success due to baggage. After age 35 its worse into the 40s. I also know many women who didn't age well into their 28-30s, in fact a lot of people kinda look like life kicked the shit out out them around this age & stuff gets worse with time for most ppl (guys included). Its a tough time when ppl get out of collage & reality sinks in. People can have a lot of emotional & financial baggage by age 30. Guys my age don't really take crap for long, for example I pretty much bail if I don't feel like I'm compatible with her and move on in less then 2 weeks.Thou this may just be me, *i'm sort of asexual-grey A* Chances of me being attracted are kind of slim / depend on personality. Sex is still better with a healthy fit person.

:/ I think besides the physical health bit what is attractive about young women is that they don't have all the internal damage a lot of ppl get during & post collage years. Its refreshing.

Most guys my age who didn't get married kinda lose interest, I hear the second wave is around 34-36, tho guys who made it that far without getting married usually seem to get together with a 4-10 years younger woman. I know right now I have 0 interest (other priorities and I haven't felt anything towards anyone for a long time).

There are some exceptions, however imo anyone can work it if enough effort & mentality change gets put into it. It also depends on who wants kids. Kids can be hell, at least 18 years of it ...


----------



## LJune (May 24, 2015)

Amazing. I kind of think all of you pessimists suck. Don't listen to them, Ladies! I never encounter this problem in the real world.


----------



## HrMx13 (May 22, 2015)

Yeah right @FreeBeer, and it's not a big deal because some young guys like MILFs too so that 30 yo women may still feel desired by some men, and no matter if those men may be kinda weird (and saying that liking 30yo women may be weird is not offensive, I mean it's the same for girls, come on which 20yo girl wants a 60yo man ? None).

EDIT : except if he's rich


----------

