Author tells women to marry early lest they lose "market value"

[ccharles000]

This is rich. Mark Regnerus at The Washington Post argues that people shouldn't wait long to get married. And by people, he means women.

Marriage will be there for men when they're ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion. Meanwhile, women's fertility is more or less fixed, yet they largely suppress it during their 20s -- their most fertile years -- only to have to beg, pray, borrow and pay to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s.
Countless studies? Endless anecdotes? Well color me convinced. *Eye roll*

I guess telling women that they better stop with all that work nonsense and get to the baby-making never gets old for some people.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/015052.html#comments

[aquart]

1. He hasn't read the latest info on male sperm.

It's really kinda defective in later years.

Basically, Nature thought we should all have kids at 21 and then die.

[MorningGlow]

23. Somebody shoulda told Terry Jones

No Joke! Monty Python's Jones to Be Dad at 67

And now for something completely scandalous?

Monty Python alum Terry Jones is causing a stir in his native Britain after splitting with his missus of 35 years and impregnating his 26-year-old lover.

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b120733_No_Joke__Monty_Python_s_Jones_to_Be_Dad_at_67.html

[girl gone mad]

88. That's messed up on so many levels.

Yikes.

[edbermac]

308. "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great"

"If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate."

[11 Bravo]

26. Hey, my boys were born when I was just shy of 42 and 45 years old.

And my wife, who was 35 when we married 19 years ago, is as gorgeous today as she was the day we said, "I do".

[cherish44]

218. I don't necessarily buy into the men get more marketable with age thing

sexually speaking anyway. When I was a 21 year old hottie and some middle aged guy hit on me, I'd be "Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww he's so olllllddddddd!" Even today when I go to bars I see the middle aged guys trying to hit on the young chicks getting shot down for the young studs with the tight firm butts. Sorry guys you have a shelf life too. And a rich older person, male or female is gonna get lots of dates. Some men would like sugar mamas too. BTW I've at 42 I've dated younger and I've dated older. I like 'em around the same age to be honest and I haven't had too many problems getting dates. I'm sure I can get an a-men for some of my middle aged sisters that not all men are looking for a Barbie doll.

[Hello_Kitty]

277. You get an a-men from me!

I was a stunner when I was younger but also a bundle of insecurity. Now that I'm 40 and don't give a fuck, my pulling power has increased tenfold.

[groovedaddy]

2. Hence, older men marrying younger women...only makes sense for women who know

they want to have children. Better to have them while you're young and have the energy (hopefully) for the demands of parenthood.
There is certainly nothing wrong with any adult, male or female, for not wanting children. It ain't for everybody! But then, IDIOCRACY may become a reality!

[SheilaT]

12. I didn't get married until I was thirty-two,

and had my two kids when I was thirty-four and then thirty-eight. Speaking for myself, I had a heck of a lot more stamina to deal with everything than I would have had I been in my early twenties when I'd had kids.

[groovedaddy]

16. Probably alot more maturity too...not sure on the stats, but I'd venture to say that you're

the exception and not the rule. Are you're children adult age now?

[SheilaT]

262. They are now 22 and 26.

I honestly think that those who think that anywhere past thirty is too old actually had their kids much younger, and they recall how exhausting having a newborn was, the challenges of toddlerhood, the anxieties of the teenage years, and conclude that it would be harder to start later.

But if (as my older sister did) you have your first kid when you're very young (she was 17), you have a lot of trouble realizing that it won't be a baby forever. Or two forever. Or any other age forever. When young you have a certain kind of energy -- in my twenties I could go to a party after work, stay out very late, get a couple of hours of sleep, and go to work the next day. I doubt I could function at a job today with only two or three hours of sleep. But I haven't tried it in about thirty years, so who knows?

What I do have at 60 (and at 40 and 50) that I didn't have at 25 is a stamina to hang in for the long term. I was well past 50 when my then teenage younger son got into trouble with the law -- possession of marijuana. It was a VERY difficult year, but I kept on telling myself that it would pass, that time would pass and he'd grow up. Well, it happened. Time passed. He went off to college (what he most needed was to get away from home and mom and dad), met a great girl during orientation week and they're still a couple. He graduates cum laude next month. Had I experienced that with him when I was under forty I really don't think I would have had any perspective to handle it.

On the down side, I'm going to be well into my sixties, maybe even seventies, before I have grandchildren and it's highly unlikely I'll live long enough to see great-grandchildren. But for me I'm glad it worked out this way.

[seabeyond]

60. 32 when i married. 33 and 36 when i had my kids. a lot more parents our age out

there in my kids schools. they are also the kids mine tend to gravitate to cause there is a stability in our lives.

[kcass1954]

280. I had mine at 32 and 41 - the youngest is 13 now.

I have a lot more patience now than I had in my 20's.

[Bucky]

197. Like that guy from Monty Python. He's 67 & his preggers GF is 26

But it's true love, this time. He's finally found his soul mate.

[seabeyond]

198. it is really the pool guy. evolution in play. n/t

[cherish44]

222. Of all the girls in my family (counting sisters and cousins) I married the youngest at 26

I was also the youngest to have her first child (age 29). And yes all the females in my family eventually married and had kids (and we all are college graduates!). They were all over 30 when they had their kids. While that would have been kinda of odd for my mom's generation, I'd venture to say women in their 30's are probably have almost as many babies as women in their 20s are nowadays.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Are they merely describing cultural attitudes, or actively endorsing them?

It occurred to me that this could be just a description of the realities of life in sexist cultures.

But if they actually are endorsing them, that's sick.

[paulsby]

4. it's describing the results of evolution

it's clear that (even though it's not politically correct) that on average, the factors that male's find most attractive in a potential mate are related to perceived youth/fecundity, etc.

look at desired waist/hip ratios, youthful appearance, etc./

women on average, don't weigh those factors the same, and preferentially weigh other factors more heavily

that's simply reality.

individuals vary bla bla, environment matters bla bla, but evolutionary drives are evolutionary drives

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Bingo!

:eyes:

[paulsby]

8. cute

but science is science. never ceases to amaze me how ideologues of ANY political persuasion will ignore scientific evidence when it disagrees with their biases/prejudices.

name ANY group, they will selectively ignore science when it conflicts with their prejudices.

thanks for confirming that.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. Eugenics and phrenology were considered science too.

But were debunked once it became apparent that much of the methodology and research was terribly flawed and designed to support preexisting assumptions.

[paulsby]

34. and you haven't debunked evolutionary biology

if you want to do that, go ahead.

evolutionary biology, common sense, and a million points of data, show that men, on average, tend to value perceived fecundity and youth as extremely important factors in mate selection iow who they find hawt.

so go ahead and try to deny that. with DATA not silly cartoons

hth

[seabeyond]

37. males peak at 19... you dont think women look at a young bod and say yum???? n/t

[paulsby]

49. i look at the data

try science.

i am talking about relative weighting of factors in mate selection.

of course women look at a young bod and say yum.

try data

Physical attractiveness: The influence of selected torso parameters in Archives of Sexual Behavior Volume 10, No 1 1981.
Fisher, M.L.; Voracek M. (June 2006). "The shape of beauty: determinants of female physical attractiveness". J Cosmet Dermatol 5 (2): 190–4. doi:10.1111/j.1473-2165.2006.00249.x. PMID 17173598
http://www.uoregon.edu/~sugiyama/docs/LSsugiyama-buss_c... F.; Wetsman, A. (2001).
"Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences 30 (3): 481–489. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00039-8. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ehbe-lab/acrobatfiles/pref... .

on average, women do not weight the parameters the same. duh.

men preferentially emphasize perceived fecundity and youth.

show me some CONTRARY data if you disagree.

[ismnotwasm]

153. Not evolutionary biology

An using the term "Debunk" is disingenuous. What you're describing is evolutionary psychology. Can you really falsify a "science" that describes current cultures biological drives via evolution while ignoring, completely in some cases, centuries of social conditioning?

[Quantess]

19. Science? Wouldn't a sociological study be more salient in this case?

Science doesn't dabble in "Readers Digest" style editorials like this one.

Edit to add: Please show me the "scientific" research for this conclusion. Since there is none, go ahead and show me the sociological research behind it. There probably isn't any of that, either.

[Hello_Kitty]

30. 'Readers Digest' style science reporting by the MSM is a travesty

It's one of the main reasons that so many people are scientifically illiterate. And the "differences between men and women" claptrap is a staple of crappy MSM science reporting. A few years ago there was an article with a blazing headline to the effect of "Science PROVES men are incapable of listening to women!!" Turns out the study, which was actually pretty legit, was done on schizophrenics and had to do with, I shit you not, the genders of the voices they hear in their heads. But the lousy "science reporter" extrapolated the findings to the general population.

[paulsby]

43. here's your cites. try science. it beats prejudice

that men preferentially value perceived fecundity and youth in potential partners?

Physical attractiveness: The influence of selected torso parameters in Archives of Sexual Behavior Volume 10, No 1 1981.
Fisher, M.L.; Voracek M. (June 2006). "The shape of beauty: determinants of female physical attractiveness". J Cosmet Dermatol 5 (2): 190–4. doi:10.1111/j.1473-2165.2006.00249.x. PMID 17173598
http://www.uoregon.edu/~sugiyama/docs/LSsugiyama-buss_c09CEforrequests.pdfMarlowe, F.; Wetsman, A. (2001).
"Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences 30 (3): 481–489. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00039-8. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ehbe-lab/acrobatfiles/preferred%20waist.pdf.

[Quantess]

63. Thank you, but I'm actually not disagreeing with that part of your argument.

In today's American society, how is it smarter for women to marry and have children young? This is about marrriage, not caveman sex.

Just because a woman is hot is generally not enough to make a man want to marry her. Sex, yes. Marriage, maybe not. Some men are superficial enough to care only about looks, and some women are superficial enough to care only about money, but I think those people are the minority. And I bet those couples get divorced as soon as they realize how little they have in common.

Divorce these days is so common, and divorce is statistically more common for couples who married in their teens and early 20s. So, how does marrying young benefit a woman who will probably soon be divorced, anyway?

Having children young is not necessarily helpful to women either. Especially not if she'll be divorced with children at age 23. In that case, the unmarried 23 year old will have a better playing field.

And women can keep their youthful good looks if they take care of their appearance. In contrast, a pretty woman who marries young and "lets herself go" (or a handsome man who marries early and "lets himself go") may find a harder time getting back in the game when they find themselves single again. Or, even if they stay married, people who "let themselves go" may not be sexually attractive to their spouse anymore.

I could go on, but that's all I can write for now.

Can you see now why this is more of a sociology or psychology question than a biological one? Thank you for taking the time to cite articles, though.

[paulsby]

65. oh well that is a somewhat different issue

the point is that the OP is correct about sexual market value.

a 25 yr old woman will, ceteris paribus, have more of it than a 35 yr old.

but she can overcome that with other factors, to a lesser or greater extent.

my point was just that there were underlying hard wired drives that significantly differentiate men and women in their optimal mate choice.

we can (and do) certainly rise above.

there is some credence to the fact that women who choose to wait too long (realizing that TOO long is variable) to have kids, are fighting a # of factors against them.

we make our choices and we live with them.

cheers

[seabeyond]

68. you are suggesting that genetically a male want youth. a woman would take a young body over an

old one too.

so what...?

biologically the male sexually peaks at 19 and the woman 42.

so the 42 yr old woman should get the 19 yr old guy

[paulsby]

70. if you would actually READ the studies

you would recognize that men VALUE youth in a partner much more (on average) than women.

that is my point.

once you actually LOOK at the data (which is so clearly in accord with observable life i might add), you will realize this.

women are different than men, and these differences are quite striking in terms of mate selection.

[Hello_Kitty]

93. And the studies merely observe behavior and speculate as to its cause

The problem with you amateur evo-psychers is that you don't read the studies either. Any credible and responsible researcher will NEVER make categorical assumptions about the causes of something as complex as a human behavior without the caveat that there may be many reasons for it.

[girl gone mad]

97. You seem to really, desperately want to believe that.

I think your need to believe in this idea is clouding your ability to rationally interpret data.

[Hello_Kitty]

101. No shit!

He accuses people who disagree with him of being self-serving but his posts reek of it.

[Quantess]

311. YOU don't read.

[Quantess]

148. the OP is primarily about MARRIAGE "market value"

It's not about wanting to have sex with a person based on their looks. The article is not about biological sexual attraction. You're framing it that way, but that isn't what the articles in the OP are about.

To say that a man's --or a woman's-- ideal marriage partner is based solely on their physical urges to mate with that person is thoroughly simplistic and just plain untrue.

Edit: And even sexual attraction is culturally influenced. In the first part of the 20th century, as women's lips go, the culturally defined preference was for significantly thinner lips. Into the 1990s and beyond, the look is for fuller lips. Other cultures think women look best with a plate wedged in their pierced lip.

[seabeyond]

74. this is stupid. cause male prefers a certain "look" it is evolutionary. any study with women prefer

the young male chest to the sagging old male chest, ergo, they too prefer youth to old????

[paulsby]

77. did you actually read the studies

this isn't that complicated.

men value certain factors more than women.

women value certain factors more than men.

on average.

it's not that complicated.

neither gender seeks out old wrinkly people.

duh/

[girl gone mad]

113. You are selectively interpreting studies.

It's clear that women are attracted to young, healthy men and men are attracted to young, healthy women.

Who they choose for a spouse (and why) is a bit more complicated than who they choose for a sex partner. Look at Anna Nicole Smith. Married the old money bags, but slept with young, attractive men. Societal values (in this case money) often conflict with evolutionary biology, but most of us are hard wired to want to fuck good looking people. btw, studies have also shown that good looking 40 year olds win out over average looking 20 year olds in both genders, so youth isn't necessarily everything.

[paulsby]

244. no, you are using anecdotes

the plural of anecdotes =/= data

hth

and then injecting strawmen. see your last sentence. i never said youth was everything

keerist. does nobody understand how to read a study (let alone a frigging abstract)

i never said, nor does ANY study claim that youth is "everything"

i will repeat this for you. slowly...

men (on average... note all behavioral gender differentiated behavior is of course - ON AVERAGE) value perceived youth/fecundity MORE than women do, on average.

it's like i say "men are on average taller and stronger than women" and you say "what about sheryl swoops and cheryl haworth"

keeeeeeerist

[Quantess]

312. Here you are still persistently focused on the caveman sex part.

Did I not bring to your unwilling attention that the OP pertains to

HOW IS MARRYING YOUNG GOOD FOR WOMEN?

[Quantess]

313. paulsby

you are a willfully ignorant person.

[Hello_Kitty]

120. I'm still wondering what use our prehistoric female ancestors would have for old codgers.

Money didn't even exist until very recently in human history. So since we humans are supposedly exactly like we were 100000 years ago, why would a young woman be at all attracted to a frail old geezer when a young stud would be far better able to bring back meat for her and the babies?

[seabeyond]

124. not to mention, what was old? 20, 25?????? n/t

[Tesha]

309. What use is a silverback gorilla? (NT)

[Matariki]

66. "science is science"

As if 'science' can't be influenced by a person's predjudices. As if 'science' is a static thing that never finds previous 'science' incorrect.

People toss the word 'science' around like so much superstition.

[paulsby]

69. and other people

such as the one i responded to, ignore any scientific data when it conflicts with their prejudices.

scientific ignorance is not limited to creationists. plenty of people (heck, most people) will simply discount, ignore, and do anything but look at scientific evidence when it conflicts with their prejudices.

and this science confirms what any person who is a student of human nature observes firsthand.

men place a higher value on youth and perceived fecundity than women.

that's OBSERVABLE phenomena.

what the scientific studies do is offer scientific support for a million points of observable stuff, and explain that it IS genetically/biologically based.

[Iris]

217. so where are you observing all these old guys with young women?

[Hello_Kitty]

231. On TV.

"The Girls Next Door" probably.

[Iris]

305. lol! n/t

[Blue_Tires]

50. lol....that is brilliant

[Kalyke]

175. "Women like pink things..."

:rofl:

That makes me laugh on so many levels!

A. I'm female.
B. I HATE pink. It's my least favorite color. I wish it didn't exist.
C. When I found out I was having a girl, I begged well wishers on our baby registry to NOT get pink - get peach or green, instead.
D. I've had to use pink - because of hand-me-downs - but I still never let my baby girl wear anything outlandishly pink. I give those away to charity straight up.
E. Pink looks ugly on most people who aren't "WASPY" - even when they like the color because it clashes with the average skin, which, at best, has a peach or yellow tint (notice I said those who aren't "WASPY." Those "real white" folks aren't in the majority anymore).

Cute Bingo piece. My husband would get a kick out of it and would agree, I'm certain, that the genius in the house isn't him. ;)

[Gabi Hayes]

210. that's one of the funniest things I've seen in quite awhile, and that includes the Palin candidacy.

where'd you get that (besides photobucket)? love the way it's labelled (URL-wise, via 'properties' tab), even

you should start a thread based on that picture

funniest thing is, both sides of the argument are hard to argue with:

the more men 'evolve,' the shallower they become...modern, comfortable physical circumstances (in 'civilized' society) begin to outweigh the biological imperative, more for men than women, who still yearn for a reliable provider, whether it be bringing home the actual, or virtual, bacon

[get the red out]

89. We could save this planet if we paid attention to this truth

Women who are not married at a certain pre-defined age and have no children should be executed via gas chamber because they are useless to the species, since we can have not moral compass past evolution and science. Proceed with the gassing, it is the only way to remove these useless creatures from the planet and save it.

It is time for us to finally move forward in our great evolution as a species.

[seabeyond]

92. we harp on evolution yet man insists males dont evolve. what kind of sense does that make. n/t

[girl gone mad]

90. Right..

women only care about how big a man's wallet is. That's why Bill Gates is such a sex symbol and Brad Pitt's career never really took off. lol..

[seabeyond]

94. if our caveman self was so prevelent, no poor man would marry, only alpha males would impregnate and

the beta males would take care of us and raise our children.

i know i am having to fight this on a daily basis

[aquart]

132. Alpha males do NOT have the most offspring. Not in apes, anyway.

The non-posturing good guy betas who share food, grooming, and babysitting get laid just as often and have as many, if not more, offspring as the chest-thumping alphas. You can imagine what a shock that was to the scientists.

[seabeyond]

135. bah hahaha, i saw that recently.... wink. n/t

[Odin2005]

123. You are confusing actual evolutionary psychology with pop-sci bastardizations of it.

pop-sci charlatans like to push the nature vs. nurture false dichotomy because it creates controversy because nurture is associated ideologically with the Left and nature with the Right. In fact there is no dichotomy, genetics and environmental influences are tightly interwoven together. Sad that idiots pushing right-wing cultural agendas have to bastardize perfectly good science for political purposes.

[Hello_Kitty]

194. And it's even sadder that they get some liberals to line up behind it.

It's disturbing the extent to which this particular brand of "junk science" has contributed to the decline of scientific literacy.

[aquart]

The flaw in this is it doesn't matter what men want.

The FEMALE does the choosing. As for evolution, I recall a male friend telling me that ANY woman could walk up to ANY man and say "Sex now. No strings. Follow me." And that man would follow her. So male DNA is pretty much obtainable.

Now a man can call up any woman, sure....but if she doesn't say YES, it's too damn bad.

Sorry you read all that patriarchal junk science for nothing.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. It's exactly what Regnerus is doing.

Basically, he's an older dude who wants to convince young women they should marry old dudes like him while they are young and cloaking it as "objective observation". This is nothing new. The much vaunted "man shortage" of the 80s, where women were given dire warnings that they had a better chance of dying in a terrorist attack than getting married after 40, turned out to be bullshit.

[cagesoulman]

7. Endorsing them.

Those old fucks who need Viagra get desperate sometimes.

:evilgrin:

[Occam Bandage]

9. I'm not seeing the scandal.

The earlier a woman chooses to get married, the better options she will have; her primary time-sensitive attributes are in most cases her beauty and her fertility, and both decline with age. There is not the same pressure for men, as their decline in appearance is offset by their increase in wealth, and when selling oneself as a potential mate, wealth is a more important trait in men than in women.

If a woman does not feel like getting married, or believes that the quality of her mate is not as important to her as her career, she of course would be best to disregard the advice. If she believes that a quality mate is essential, then she would be best to begin searching for a marriage as soon as possible.

I don't believe that describing a social situation is the same as endorsing it.

[paulsby]

13. correct

it's also a social situation defined by evolutionary/biological realities.

it is one thing to say biology sucks, let's create cultural paths that recognize a higher cause.

it is another thing entirely to deny biological reality.

[seabeyond]

31. then all of us women should be marrying beta men and going out mating with alpha men

having the beta men raise the children and take care of us.

nice to have it all wrapped up in a pretty bow by the caveman era

[paulsby]

33. you have an issue with reading comprehension

what we SHOULD do is not defined by our biology.

it is defined by our morals, religions, taboos, intellect, reason, drives, etc.

try to differentiate between what biology DRIVES us to do, and what we should do.

they are not necessasrily the same thing.

that's why we evolve societies, religions, moral codes, rules, laws, etc.

because we realize that what we are driven to do is not necessarily what we should do.

[seabeyond]

39. and since "evolution" has EVOLVED beyond how long ago, do you continually insist

you are genetically inclined, YET.... when it isnt so good for the male ego, we women should evolve beyond, hence why we dont do it

[paulsby]

52. evolution moves MUCH more slowly than law, society, religion ,etc

try science

Physical attractiveness: The influence of selected torso parameters in Archives of Sexual Behavior Volume 10, No 1 1981.
Fisher, M.L.; Voracek M. (June 2006). "The shape of beauty: determinants of female physical attractiveness". J Cosmet Dermatol 5 (2): 190–4. doi:10.1111/j.1473-2165.2006.00249.x. PMID 17173598
http://www.uoregon.edu/~sugiyama/docs/LSsugiyama-buss_c... F.; Wetsman, A. (2001).
"Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences 30 (3): 481–489. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00039-8. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ehbe-lab/acrobatfiles/pref... .

on average, women do not weight the parameters the same. duh.

men preferentially emphasize perceived fecundity and youth.

show me some CONTRARY data if you disagree.

[seabeyond]

87. you reject this genetic phenonmon with women, women all over not feeling the DRIVE

to fuck the aplha and marry the beta to raise the child. you tell me that "it is defined by our morals, religions, taboos, intellect, reason, drives, etc." all of this is in play why so man many many women do not follow their biological drive when it doesnt benefit male and his ego, yet you demand that all of us women respect the biological drive that cannot be helped or questioned with male, though we women easily overcome our own caveman drive

[Silent3]

155. Who is "demanding" that you "respect the biological drive"?

Here are three DIFFERENT things:

(1) What biology STATISTICALLY predicts as GENERAL PATTERNS behavior.
(2) What each person actually does.
(3) What each person should do.

Unfortunately on the internet it's impossible to talk about (1), and bring reasonable questions to bear about whether what someone says about (1) is actually true or not, without sadly predictable, grievance- and anger-ridden confusion with (2) and (3).

[Threedifferentones]

206. Paulsby Occam only said the first half of what you are talking about

We are talking about a SOCIAL reality, and describing it does not necessitate endorsing it. But, the links you have posted only go that far. You cannot prove a biological basis for women liking old men.

Your assertions that marriage preferences of men and women are largely based on biology are easy to poke through. If we imagine a human 10,000 years ago, it seems obvious the advantages older men hold today did not exist. Without society, wealth, rule of law, etc, we reasonably imagine men were literally depended on to bring home the bacon. Old men would be worse at this than young, possessing greater athleticism and quicker reflexes.

Homo Sapiens have existed for tens of thousands of years, and evolved for who knows how long before that. You think the preferences of modern women, which are almost certainly quite different from the preferences of the prehistoric women who make up 99.9% of our genetic history, are ingrained in our genetics?

The idea that psychology and other social observations are always grounded in genetics is absurd. Human beings will behave practically any way if they are placed in the right circumstances. Now that older men can obtain more resources than younger men, they make more attractive marriage partners. The biological reality here is that people know they need food and other resources, and are smart enough to plan their personal lives accordingly. You are not describing biology, you are describing a social tendency which has now existed for many generations.

Despite the length of the tradition of men hoarding wealth to win women, the idea that it has entered our genetic instincts is silly.

But, you are not simply wrong, which is why you are being flamed. Since it is a big leap to describe women's marital preferences as biologically based, people assume you have an ulterior motive to push the point. Hence, you come off as a sexist, someone who endorses the fact that women are valued more for sex than men, since it is after all unavoidably based on genetics.

[Hello_Kitty]

293. 'You cannot prove a biological basis for women liking old men.'

This. Honestly, it's like the old 7UP commercial: "Never had it. Never will."

[Hello_Kitty]

20. Gee, and the fact that men have greater access to wealth has nothing to do with social structures.

I mean, I'm sure the Human Genome Project will be identifying that "golddigger" gene in women any day now, along with the concomitant "can't figure out how to make her own money" one. After that they'll locate the "preference for plastic boobs and fake tans" gene on the Y chromosome.

[Occam Bandage]

25. It certainly does. The only difference between

what you have here said/implied and what the article in the OP has said is that you say it from a position of criticism, while he says it from a position of neutral observation.

Surely you would not deny that a 25-year-old woman has more marriage options than a 45-year-old woman does. Like the article, you recognize that men often seek physical appearance, and women often seek money. Like the article, you claim this is a social phenomenon. The distinction? You sneer at this situation, while he describes it. Your problem doesn't seem to be what the author has said, but rather that he has not reacted to it with the same offense you do.

I think that claiming there's no genetic component is bizarre. Any time a facet of human behavior exists in an overwhelming majority of independent cultures, it's likely there is a genetic component, though it is certainly not anything so simple as a "gene for that." Recognizing a genetic component to a behavior is not the same as endorsing that behavior in a society; racism and violence are certainly inherent traits in humans, but recognizing that isn't incompatible with the belief that those traits ought be suppressed.

[paulsby]

57. where the previous poster is wrong

is the claim that it's a social situation.

it is a social situation ROOTED in biology/evolution

it never ceases to amaze me that the same people who will readily accept science WHEN it supports their policies or prejudices will reject it or be woefully ignorant of it when it conflicts with how they WISH the world was.

you are correct. acknowledging biology does not mean one can't advocate for rising above.

society, religion, law, etc. are all our attempts to rise above our base desires.

[Hello_Kitty]

81. And it never ceases to amaze me

How people like you and Mark Regnerus will accept cultural phenomena when it supports your "scientific" assumptions but reject or ignore any that doesn't. The OP article is a case in point: When young women want to get married early he views it as an innate and authentic desire. OTOH he views women wanting to delay marriage with skepticism, and goes to great lengths to remind women of their declining market value and the necessity of stable marriages for a healthy society. Obviously, these recalcitrant women have been misled into denying their essential natures and must be brought into line with threats!

Seriously, paulsby, if certain behaviors are so "hardwired" into women then why do so many women rebel against them, necessitating often draconian steps by societies to get their compliance? Any insight into that?

[paulsby]

251. any student of human behavior

knows that both environment AND biology influence behavior.

men, for instance, are less risk averse than women.

it doesn't mean that SOME women are super adventurous and seek out tons of risk, and some guys are incredibly risk averse.

and behavior varies GREATLY amongst individuals. of both genders.

so, that is why so many women rebel against them.

some men totally fricking dig elderly women for pete's sake.

some women dig prepubescent boys.

see: individual variation.

again, provide some studies that conflict with those i presented.

of course you won't. but you will use logical fallacies to ignore science.

it's like some guy who claims sexual preference is a choice. i point to tons of studies, all kind of evidence, etc. that it is primarily an issue of biology, and he says "but SOME men have successfully gone through the gay cure (tm) so i'm ignoring all the evidence"

incredible.

[Hello_Kitty]

269. Then you agree that Mark Regnerus (the writer of the OP article) is full of shit, no?

Because he is making sweeping value judgments of individual decisions regarding marriage, and bolstering his case with "science". He is using evo-psych to scare modern women into second-guessing their choices and that should alarm you!

As for providing studies that conflict with those you presented, I don't have to. YOU were the one making the assertion about the innateness of male vs. female sexual attraction. Unless and until you can produce something that locates genes that determine a (heterosexual) male preference for females who look like Scarlett Johanssen and a (heterosexual) female one for males with the wealth of Donald Trump, you ain't got shit. All you have are observations and speculation based on them. Really. We haven't unfrozen someone from 100,000 years ago and gotten them to talk, and the fossil record doesn't reveal as much as you think. The bulk of evo-psych is based on observing modern behavior and extrapolating. I'm not arguing that it's not a legitimate science, but people with an agenda have invested way more authority in it (to explain human behavior and make social prescriptions) than it deserves, and most legitimate researchers in the field of evolutionary psychology will tell you that's the case.

I find it interesting that you bring up gay people, and the putative heritability of the trait of homosexuality, given that it rather flies in the face of sexuality as an evolutionary function of procreation. It's interesting how hardcore evo-psychers try to wrap their minds around it. Frankly, I don't care whether it's inherited or not, where civil rights are concerned. But that's a subject for another day. All I will say about that is good luck trying to persuade Ex-Gay Ministry idiots that homosexuality is determined by biology.

[Hello_Kitty]

'he says it from a position of neutral observation' Are you fucking kidding me?

:rofl:

It's an OPINION piece, and practically a full-page advertisement for early marriage. Well, early marriage for women that is.

[Matariki]

22. For the past 20 years

I've dated men 9 to 14 years younger than me. It hasn't particularly been by design, just worked out that way. I KNOW I'm not an expection.

Your idea that 'it's a social situation' is only your own perception and probably wishful thinking on your part.

Many men seem to erroneously think that money will compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness to women. That's wishful thinking.

[Hello_Kitty]

24. Tell me about it.

Back in my younger days I used to do the happy hour thing at the trendy local bars. Invariably, you'd see tons of balding paunchy divorced 50+ year old men lining the bars, twirling the keys to their expensive cars, desperately trying to catch the attention of the women in their 20s and 30s. We ignored them, in favor of guys our own age. Clearly, Hollywood and the MSM lied to them but I never felt the slightest bit sorry for them.

[Matariki]

54. "twirling the keys to their expensive cars"

:rofl:

Okay, kind of mean, but funny.

[Boojatta]

261. "We ignored them, in favor of guys our own age."

You ignored them in favor of guys your own age who happened to have no cars or merely in favor of guys your own age who happened to have cars less expensive than the cars of the old guys?

[Hello_Kitty]

301. This is Phoenix so it's pretty much a given that you have a car.

Public transportation being all but non-existent here, especially after 9pm. But yeah, a cute young guy with a Jetta generally did better than a 52 year old with a Mercedes.

[seabeyond]

302. i always had the new car so we would take mine. lookin like this poster doesnt get

males that dont have to play that stupid role of having to be the one to drive all the time. so sad

but really

at 18, 19, 20.... did we really care if it was an old beat up truck? was too busy playing, having fun, not worried about what he was driving, of all things. geeeesh, we were kids, playing, who gave a shit about the vehicle.

[verges]

268. And was there also a line

of 50+ overweight females hitting on the young studs?

[Hello_Kitty]

300. No. A few women who could be described as 'cougars'.

Slim, attractive, and obviously wealthy. They were usually pretty successful, truth be told. :shrug:

[Lilith Velkor]

307. "Slim, attractive, and obviously wealthy."

I am none of those things, and I'm pretty successful. :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

27. No social trend holds for all people.

Whether it holds for anyone in particular is merely a matter of probabilities (as you say, for you it hasn't been by design, it just worked out that way). I don't believe exceptions and limitations to trends utterly nullify them.

There are plenty of smokers who live happy, healthy lives free of lung problems. That doesn't mean that cigarettes do not, on average, lower lifespans of smokers.

[Matariki]

59. I'm saying that this 'trend' is in the mind of the author. Yours too perhaps.

I don't think there's a trend at all. Most people, men and women both, trend toward partners roughly their own age. I'm sure that marriage statistics would prove that.

The idea that men just need to flaunt wealth to attract partners who are younger and/or much better looking than they are is a Hollywood/Men's Magazine conceit. Not saying it never happens, just that it's not the real norm, certainly not to the point of being a 'social trend'.

[paulsby]

61. you are conflating two things

society generally trends/supports the choosing of partners (longterm) near one's age.

biology tends to make men want to seek young partners REGARDLESS of their (the man's) age.

Physical attractiveness: The influence of selected torso parameters in Archives of Sexual Behavior Volume 10, No 1 1981.
Fisher, M.L.; Voracek M. (June 2006). "The shape of beauty: determinants of female physical attractiveness". J Cosmet Dermatol 5 (2): 190–4. doi:10.1111/j.1473-2165.2006.00249.x. PMID 17173598
http://www.uoregon.edu/~sugiyama/docs/LSsugiyama-buss_c... F.; Wetsman, A. (2001).
"Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences 30 (3): 481–489. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00039-8. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ehbe-lab/acrobatfiles/pref... .

why? because evolution causes men, on average, to tend to seek perceived fecundity/youth.

biologically speaking, a 40 yr old woman has a much lower chance of being able to conceive and give birth successfully to healthy chilluns than a 20 yr old. scientific advances have SOMEWHAT overcome that, but the programming of biology is what it is.

*if* a 40 yr old man has enough "market value" to attract a 25 yr old mate, biology will drive him to do so, preferentially over a 40 yr old, ceteris paribus, on average.

can he make choices above and beyond his drives? of course. we do it every day. but drives are drives.

[Matariki]

71. I'm sure men *want* younger partners. Just as women *want* hunky younger partners as well

I want to have sex with Brad Pitt. Does that lower the 'market value' of men I actually do partner with?

Everyone wants the shiny things they see on tv.

This whole thing is absurd. Some dufus' jerk off fantasy justified by pseudo-science.

[paulsby]

72. the difference is that

men want it on average, MUCH more than women.

it has to do with how the two genders DIFFERENTIALLY value factors when they are attracted to a potential matet.

women value OTHER factors, on average, than men do.

[Matariki]

73. "men want it on average, MUCH more than women"

You keep telling yourself that.

[paulsby]

you keep ignoring scientific studies, like a creationist

discussing this with you, is like discussing evolution with a creationist.

when the data conflict with your prejudices, you ignore them.

typical of an anti-scientific ideologue

have fun at yer creationist meetings!

[Matariki]

106. Just bullshit 'studies' designed to prove someone's personal fetish.

Like the 'scientific studies' that prove global warming is a myth.

[seabeyond]

108. exactly. it is about that trashy.... n/t

[get the red out]

110. Clinging to the religion/science of what I say goes!

Many people will cling to either science or religion to justify their own immaturity and lack of morality and the fact that they are complete assholes and prefer to remain so without engaging in any kind of philosophical introspection.

[paulsby]

75. you keep ignoring scientific studies, like a creationist

discussing this with you, is like discussing evolution with a creationist.

when the data conflict with your prejudices, you ignore them.

typical of an anti-scientific ideologue

have fun at yer creationist meetings!

[Matariki]

83. You can find a 'scientific study' to prove whatever your personal prejudice is.

not impressed. And this particular article is all personal prejudice.

And you have fun with your magazines.

[paulsby]

84. i provide evidence, you provide ignorance. i provide cites. you provide nothing

Physical attractiveness: The influence of selected torso parameters in Archives of Sexual Behavior Volume 10, No 1 1981.
Fisher, M.L.; Voracek M. (June 2006). "The shape of beauty: determinants of female physical attractiveness". J Cosmet Dermatol 5 (2): 190–4. doi:10.1111/j.1473-2165.2006.00249.x. PMID 17173598
http://www.uoregon.edu/~sugiyama/docs/LSsugiyama-buss_c... F.; Wetsman, A. (2001).
"Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences 30 (3): 481–489. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00039-8. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ehbe-lab/acrobatfiles/pref... .

so, if all the science (and the million points of observable data) are all bunk, provide some CONTRARY data.

but of course you won't. you will just do the same thing that people who think sexual orientation is a "choice" do.

ignore science when it conflicts with your prejudice

[Matariki]

95. You're clearly desparate.

What does this crap you've posted supposed prove - that someone did a study of which hip to waist ratio men prefer? What does that have to do at all with the stupidity of the OP article? What does that have to do with what women prefer?

And don't you realize that both men and women's preferences change over generations depending on what images are presented as attractive? That has little to do with science - it's just marketing. And don't you also understand that what people might prefer visually in the opposite sex and who they actually chose as a partner aren't necessarily the same thing?

FACTS prove that people tend to marry in their own age group, not that women lose 'market value' for marriage as they get older. That's just some guy's fantasy.

[paulsby]

241. you provide

no evidence, no cites, no reason to believe the science is "bad"

what you are doing is just as ridiculous as any far right ideologue does when the data conflicts with the prejudice.

again, evidence?

nope.

[seabeyond]

243. reality.

http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2005-01-31-01-en.html

[paulsby]

247. nothing in that article

conflicts with the peer reviewed studies and the obvious conclusion.

men, on average, value perceived youth/fecundity more than women, on average.

again, no evidence. just prejudice

[seabeyond]

249. ah geez.... what evah. it isnt a reality, your supposition that you insist is a fact

further, reality refutes what you state and still you hold it up in fuzzy little fantasy of what you want to be

[paulsby]

252. again, you have no cites, no studies, no evidence.

it's like arguing with a creationist.

you have the same issue. ignore science when it conflicts with your prejudices.

not at all unusual. just sad.

[seabeyond]

254. your the one pat teenage daughter on head, kiss wife goodbye to run to coffee shop to ogle the teen

in a swimsuit. and i am sad,.

uh hu. bah hahhahaa

[paulsby]

257. so personal attacks

are your refuge.

you have no idea of my sexual preference, let alone my personal life.

sad, how those whose prejudices are offended by evidence, resort to personal attacks.

childish, sad, yet typical

[Matariki]

I honestly don't get what you claim to be 'citing' and what it has to do with the OP

I've provided you statistics numerous times showing that there is very little age difference in married couples.

Any 'studies' showing that men 'prefer' attractive young women does little more than illustrate what they like to masturbate to - since they clearly aren't marrying those women unless they're young themselves.

[Matariki]

263. You've been provided 'evidence' plenty

Even the article the OP links to cites the fact that married couples are very close to the same age

The age gap between spouses is narrowing: Marrying men and women were separated by an average of more than four years in 1890 and about 2.5 years in 1960. Now that figure stands at less than two years.

These 'studies' you've been linking to do no more than show what men 'prefer' to masturbate to - since they clearly aren't marrying women younger than themselves.

[get the red out]

96. And buddy, I'd bet you "provide" about an inch and a half

hence your desire to be handed youthful beauties via your great status as a male.

[paulsby]

256. yet another charmer speaks up

this one with a penis reference!

there's your tactic. when all the data points go against you, when the science is against you, but you must defend your prejudices at all cost - belittle the penis.

it's a grade school tactic, but it has a certain impish chahm.

personal attacks. the refuge of the desperate.

thanks for playin'

hth

[seabeyond]

79. how old are you. men and women want it MUCH more.... we are all just realistic enough

to know it isnt reality and we get on with life

[paulsby]

85. men and women

differentially value (iow weight) different factors in mate selection.

period.

i provide cites. you have what exactly to counteract the data?

[girl gone mad]

127. Lol..

I know a few hundred beta males who would beg to differ.

"Women only like bad boys", they tell me. "If only I knew how to act like a jerk, I could get dates."

What people say in a study is not necessarily reality. I've seen a study that demonstrated height was the single most important determinant in mate selection, even though the women in the study told researchers they were looking for other things (good personality, business success, etc.).

[verges]

266. I don't understand why

you're being jumped on here so hard. It seems to me that you're premise (not the article's) is that women tend to be more mature and are better able to value beyond mere physicality. And, that men start off as shallow jerks, and grow into older shallow jerks!

Maturity seems to be a missing element of this whole discussion. Women (I think) temd to mature sooner and better than men do. Which would also explain why a twenty year old woman might be interested in a forty year old man (twenty-year old males ARE for the most part idiots ) For the most part they aren't. But the instance of older male/younger female is higher than older female/younger male.

[dustbunnie]

273. Actually, the editorial does mention the fact that women -

mature earlier, both emotionally and intellectually.

It's normal to get all kinds of opinions on these topics. In a thread concerning pornography or prostitution, you'll have all kinds of women posting about what salivating pigs men are, and when the topic turns to this sort of thing, suddenly everyone's "the same."

[verges]

289. But, and I could very well be wrong,

it seemed that's what Paulsby was kinda saying!! And he's being crucified for it!! By the folks yelling it the loudest!

[dustbunnie]

296. Yes, I understand what he's saying as well. People are getting hung up -

on some 40-year-old male/20-year-old female type of relationship which is not what he's talking about really, at least, not necessarily that extreme. Most people haven't read the editorial, just the excerpt on Feministing, and are getting all worked up over some fundie writer's hope that people go back to marrying when they're very young. Ho hum. Some of his points are valid, such as that you can build more of a financial base as a team.

But story aside, it's a fact that men of all ages will still aim for the younger woman for salivating sexual reasons far more than those who want to marry older women, or older women who want to marry younger men.

[Matariki]

282. The POINT is that most twenty year old women AREN'T interested in fourty year old men

that's a masturbation fantasy on the part of the cited author - and certainly what most women in this thread are reacting to. Although it's such a dearly held belief for some people that they don't seem to grasp the facts.

From the article itself - even as the author cites the facts, that women marry men close to their own age, in the next paragraph ignores the statistics he just cited to project his own fantasy of why younger women are attracted to older men. Talk about blinders -

Regnerus, author of Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers, is also miffed that the age difference between couples is closing:

The age gap between spouses is narrowing: Marrying men and women were separated by an average of more than four years in 1890 and about 2.5 years in 1960. Now that figure stands at less than two years.

...Most young women are mature enough to handle marriage. According to data from the government's National Survey of Family Growth, women who marry at 18 have a better shot at making a marriage work than men who marry at 21. There is wisdom in having an age gap between spouses. For women, age is (unfortunately) a debit, decreasing fertility. For men, age can be a credit, increasing their access to resources and improving their maturity, thus making them more attractive to women.<\b>

[verges]

288. Of course they aren't. But it does happen.

And by my observation (hardly scientific, I know.) it happens often enough that it is noticable. And Older male/ younger female is more common than older female/ younger male. And this is because men value youth and looks more than females. This reflects badly on men. And remember, just because they are attracted, doesn't mean they are successful!!

There ARE psychological differences between the sexes!!

[Matariki]

291. It happens in TV far more than reality, as the statistics show.

Really, your 'observation' - name how many couples you know where the male is a couple decades older. My guess is you imagine that you've observed it a significant number of times. I mean apart from television.

As far as "just because they are attracted, doesn't mean they are successful" - that's why I called it a masturbation fantasy. Nothing wrong with that until you start making up scientific 'research' to 'prove' it's some far reaching phenomena - or cite 'anecdotal evidence' that comes largely from fantasy land. I'm 14 years older than my (male) partner, btw - so I have my own 'anecdotal evidence'.

[seabeyond]

62. you are right on. i have noticed of late a myth trying to take hold in this society. n/t

most people marry around their age

[lumberjack_jeff]

138. How many of them have you married?

What you're looking for in a date is different than what you're looking for in a spouse.

I don't see the controversy either. A man's primary marketable (in terms of marriage) attribute is wealth and earning capacity. A guy earns as much money as possible so he can attract the most attractive possible mate.

It doesn't seem all that debatable that women often use the same calculus.

[Matariki]

157. You make it sound like all women are prostitutes

All the women I know are far more interested in mutual compatibility over a guy's bank balance.

That's a very cynical idea you have actually. I wonder, how are *your* relationships? I can't imagine you have that much trust for women if you believe that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

203. Not that it's really germane to this discussion, but I've been married for 25 years.

Since we were 19 and 21 actually.

I find it really intriguing how almost every conversation with people defending the indefensible immediately becomes about me for pointing out the nature of the emperor's clothes.

I admit to seeing the world in a cynical way. But I think that anyone who doesn't see marriage as transactional is kidding themselves.

Women (in general) concern themselves with their looks for the same reason that men (in general) concern themselves about money.

Rhetorical exercise;
Suzy, a 30 year old advertising salesperson, is waiting at the restaurant table for her longtime boyfriend, Alex.

Alex is great. He's 32, has a similar job to Suzy. He's intelligent, charming and good looking. They get along well.

Over dinner, Alex pops the question. "Suzy, you're everything I'd ever hoped for in a wife. Please take this ring as a symbol of my love for you. I only paid $39 at Wal-Mart, which should be exemplary of my frugal and sensible nature, and knowing that you are the kind of person who recognizes that it's the thought that counts, and that marriage is not transactional, which is why you prudently purchase your clothes from goodwill and emphasize your inner growth instead of fancy hair and makeup. Will you marry me?"

What is going through Suzy's mind?
a) Of course, Yes! Your sensible nature is exactly what attracted me to you!
b) $39? Is that all I'm worth to you? And I spent $100 on this dress you puke!

[seabeyond]

205. a. ... hubby and i married on vacation in court house, i didnt want to spend on wedding, seashell

wedding rings ($4 mine, $6 his) cause i didnt want to spend the money and no diamonds cause i didnt want to spend the money

next question?

[lumberjack_jeff]

246. I guess I'm a spendthrift, we paid about $200 for the whole wedding.

Including the cake, dress and honeymoon.
(in fairness I think gifts actually paid for the honeymoon)

Nevertheless, I think exceptions prove the rule.

Our stories are noteworthy because they're unusual.

I think the only area of debate is the exchange rate between the various assets - every individual places a different value on them.

[verges]

271. Think of it as being a provider. nt

[Matariki]

275. Are you from the past?

"Provider"? What is that?

Healthy relationships are about what two people can CREATE together, not what they can GET from the other.

[verges]

287. No, I'm not.

But I do believe that we are descended from animals. And that ancestral memory, or instinct, works on a very subliminal level. Can people rise above this? Of course, and frequently do. Is this universal? Of course not.

[Iris]

216. You said it. When I read stuff like this, I keep my eyes peeled for all the May-Dec couples that

are supposedly out there. Funny thing is, I rarely see them. Most couples I see are with 3-4 years of each other. If anything, I know more couples where the man is a good bit younger (and I mean by 5 years or more) than the women.

[Matariki]

226. Yep, that's been the statistical average for over a hundred years. Close to the same age.

http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2005-01-31-01-en.html

But that doesn't stop people from twisting fact and calling it 'science'.

[Iris]

306. lol. That's exactly the age difference between me and my husband!

[Quantess]

10. With the high divorce rate,

many women who married young will be single later in life anyway.

And divorced women do frequently remarry.

Here's an understatement: I know of several committed relationships where the man and the woman are similar in age. How does the author reckon with this?

[dustbunnie]

220. The author is fine with it. That's what he's selling.

He's a fundie who wants people to marry when they're 20.

He proposes that women will have less of a chance to find a suitable mate as they get older since available men purportedly look for youth, and men who marry late find that their spermies lose their shelf life and they'll have less of a chance to impregnate a woman.

[damntexdem]

11. Hey, for a quick fix of market value, there's always prostitution.

Much less hazardous than marriage if market value is all that is of concern.

[karynnj]

14. How 17th century of them!

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old Time is still a-flying:
And this same flower that smiles to-day
To-morrow will be dying.

The glorious lamp of heaven, the sun,
The higher he's a-getting,
The sooner will his race be run,
And nearer he's to setting.

That age is best which is the first,
When youth and blood are warmer;
But being spent, the worse, and worst
Times still succeed the former.

Then be not coy, but use your time,
And while ye may, go marry:
For having lost but once your prime,
You may for ever tarry.

http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/poetry/art8650.html


I remember vividly protesting the inanity of the poem in high school in the 1960s.

[Matariki]

17. Some people live in such an intricately designed fantasy world...

[Fleshdancer]

18. Ugh. It's men like this that make me wish being gay was a choice.

:grr:

[Hello_Kitty]

21. Oh hell, he's got defenders right here on this thread

The Women Naturally Evolved To Be Subordinate To Men Brigade is out in full force upthread. :puke:

[Occam Bandage]

29. "There are inherent components to behavior"

is not "so we should continue with this behavior." There is certainly a genetic pressure towards infidelity, yet recognizing that is not the same as a declaration that people ought to cheat on their spouses.

[seabeyond]

35. since infedelity is 50/50 amongst gender today. the male is genetically pressured? and the

female is what? just a bitch???

[Fleshdancer]

38. no no no....

we're sluts when we have sex and we're bitches when we stop.

[seabeyond]

44. a guy wanted to date. i was a virgin on the first handful of no's. then a lesbian on the next

handful of no's.... then a slut when i dated a different guy.

i hear ya

one guy concluded i was virgin/lesbian/slut all wrapped up in one.

[Matariki]

121. Wow. What a peach. And you let him get away?

[seabeyond]

126. lol lol lol....sadly, yes. but then i caught myself a younger man. ooooops

i am suppose to genetically want the old fart

[Occam Bandage]

42. I think both men and women would be equally pressured genetically.

Why not? Both have a strong genetic advantage to a wide pool of sexual partners, a genetic advantage to one stable mate to assist in the raising of a child, and a genetic advantage to ensuring that the mate does not have other sexual partners. That would seem to me to result in the situation we have today.

[Hello_Kitty]

53. You know

If people were using this research - and mind you I'm not necessarily faulting the researchers, rather the people who use the research to bolster their world view a la Mark Regnerus - to gain insight into human behavior and to figure out how to incentivize people away from shitty behavior I'd have less of a problem with it.

However, the prevailing emphasis seems to be on:

Explaining to women why they must tolerate shitty behavior from men because, after all, the poor dear lads can't help but be shallow philandering dickwads with an occasional propensity to rape (they just gotta spread their seed, dontchaknow), for they're "hardwired" that way!

Explaining why women are still expected to control themselves, uphold the morals of society, AND be responsible for the actions of men.

Explaining why women are still too emotional for positions of leadership which should naturally go to men, who are more "rational" and "logical". I mean, of course, except for the aforementioned sexual stuff where the male "hardwiring" takes over and, once again, the poor dear lads are unable to help themselves.

[Occam Bandage]

67. I agree with you that the existence of preexisting conditions are often

used as justifications for those same conditions: "well, this is the way things are" is a common and universal roadblock to human progress. A major problem is that it is difficult to walk the line between explaining why humans act the way they do, and excusing humans for acting the way they do.

I remember the Harvard women-in-the-sciences scandal involving Larry Summers, when he suggested there might be an inborn component to men and women pushing the latter away from careers in the sciences. There was an enormous backlash, as would be expected. However, it seems to me the backlash was not aimed directly at what he said--for all we know, there is something about development of the brain in men and women that would make it slightly more likely for a given random man than a given random woman to develop an appreciation for science, and I don't think claiming that possibility is any more offensive than claiming that men might be slightly more likely to develop a certain type of colon cancer.

Rather, the backlash I think was aimed at the implication of his statement. It was said at a panel on institutional discrimination against women in the sciences. His implication was therefore that institutional discrimination is not a problem, and that the disparity between men and women in sciences was a result of men's genetic superiority and not the result of a schooling system that often encourages boys to go into science and girls to go into art. He was not claiming a genetic basis for human behavior as a means of understanding why that discriminatory environment exists; he was using it as a means of denying that there was even a problem.

[Hello_Kitty]

152. Which is why evo-psych should be taken with a ginormous grain of salt

For it is too often used to deny structural inequality between men and women and to uphold the status quo. IMHO, that's what Mark Regnerus is doing in his Op-Ed. He maintains that women's "declining market value" is a simple function of disparities in the innate sex drives in men and women and has nothing to do with social structures.

[Odin2005]

151. To be fair, a lot of that is pop-sci BS far removed from the actual research.

I agree with you completely with what you say about "gaining insight into human behavior and to figure out how to incentivize people away from shitty behavior". It's not as simple as "Gene X causes behavior Y", it's almost always more like "Gene X seems to contribute to behavior Y under Environmental Situation Z". The ideologues that bastardize Evo-Psyc in order to push conservative cultural agendas always forget the "Environmental Situation Z" part.

[Hello_Kitty]

159. As do many liberals, unfortunately.

You can see from this thread that there are so-called "progressive" dudes who are heavily invested in the notion that the subordination and objectification of women is the immutable natural order.

[Lorien]

82. Amazing to find so many on a "liberal" discussion board, huh?

Though in reality, yes-men do show more interest in women under 30 than in women over 30. I'm in my 40's and I realize that I will probably never find anyone at this point, but I never found anyone worthwhile in my 20's and 30's either, so it wasn't for lack of trying. It's a shame; we're more self confident and have our acts more or less together as we age, but we lose our value simply because we're no longer as "cute" as we once were. Youth is truly wasted on the young!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

181. Not surprisingly, there are way too many "typical American guys" in America

The guy who goes around proclaiming how "nice" he is, thinks he's a great catch because he has a job, a house, and car, but has no thoughts in his head that the mass media didn't put there.

[Lorien]

208. Yep; that's pretty much all that I've ever met on the internet dating sites

after I turned 35 I noticed that they all started acting as if I should feel "thankful" for their attention because I'm supposed to be past my expiration date. I'm fairly fit and these guys were overweight, unattractive and had poor personal hygiene. I wish that being gay were a choice, because I'm tired of nature driving me to find a mate that looks down on me both for my age and gender.

[get the red out]

115. Liberal men are exactly the same as their Bible-thumping brothers

I am convinced of it. They want our society to move past war but not misogyny, that's about "evolution" just like the fundamentalists say it is about the "Bible".

[Hello_Kitty]

140. You got it! eom

[Odin2005]

161. I'm a guy and that is a thought that has been tormenting me since my friend was raped.

:-(

[Fleshdancer]

187. ...

I'm terribly sorry to hear about your friend.

:hug:

[Odin2005]

190. Thank you.

:hug:

[seabeyond]

32. i am so there with you. n/t

[Greyhound]

48. Indeed. In America, men are walking ATMs and women only whores.

Is it any wonder that we're so fucked up here?:grr:

[get the red out]

142. I am married to a Republican and he is much better toward women

than the idiots on this thread. These liberal jerks are unbelievable. I wonder when the last time any of them got laid was? They are probably pissed to have to jerk off every day.

[seabeyond]

168. ha, tx repug male and defuncts this bullshit evolution made me do it, but then he calls

bullshit on the bible tells me to do it, too.

[get the red out]

173. Thank God my hubby isn't all Biblical

I couldn't be married to a fundy.

[seabeyond]

28. bullshit. by the time i was late 20's i was a commodity. no children, no divorce

no baggage and garbage.... i was the rarity that the men my age were wanting.

by the time i was in low 30's just thinking of marrying, i had the now divorced and the few that had never married to chose from.

author is full of bullshit and once again telling us women how to accommodate his gender

[Quantess]

45. "author is full of bullshit and once again telling us women how to accommodate his gender "

Exactly.

I think it's actually smarter for the woman to wait until at least mid 20s to get married and have children. Single women without children have an easier time finding a mate (how's that for an opinion). So by the time you're 30 and have a career, you will have a lot in common with the 30 year old men who have likewise been putting off marriage. And hopefully you've taken care of your appearance in the meantime.

[seabeyond]

56. exactly. i was late, but i got my playing around done. knew who i was, what i wanted

and satisfied to live a married life. 15 years, and marriage has been and is easy. real easy. husband and i sit in amazement how easy it is.

[dustbunnie]

230. You seem to be lending credibility to the article with this comment -

by the time i was in low 30's just thinking of marrying, i had the now divorced and the few that had never married to chose from.

Are you saying that by the time you hit your thirties the pickin's were getting slim?

[Quantess]

237. "the now divorced and the few that had never married" is a potentially large group of men.

She can answer for herself what she meant, but no, I don't see there is a "man shortage" at any age, really.

More like a game of musical chairs.

[seabeyond]

248. "game of musical chairs." .... true that. n/t

[seabeyond]

245. not slim. the not married where slim, which i chose, but the single wasnt slim at all...

divorced, there were more than enough to chose from. of course by the time BOTH male and female reach 30 the 'pickin" of a never before married is less. hardly gives credence to what is said in op

[dustbunnie]

260. I was just asking what you meant by that.

I agree with the poster above who said it's a lot like musical chairs. And as you say, the older you get, the more chances the musical chairs means hauling potential emotional baggage, children, support payments, etc.

[CaptJasHook]

36. "Sell when you can; you are not for all markets."

-As You Like it, William Shakespeare

This kind of stuff has been going on forever.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. So? Opinions are like assholes.

Everyone's got at least one.

[DiverDave]

41. Christ, another old white (?) guy telling women what

to do with their body's and lives.
If MEN were the child bearers, you just KNOW that abortion and birth control would be free and very easy to get.

It never ceases to amaze me that old men think they have all the answers when it comes to how women should live their lives.

[seabeyond]

51. and of course, it is the stroking of male ego and dissing the female

working on her insecurity

we have seemed to have left the 50's of dominance to have a taste to the promise land to only come into this time of these old white males working really really hard to condition us into our place once again

and thank you male.... you, wink, for your post. you dont know how much i appreciate and value your opinion.

[kiva]

80. I also disagree with this, smacks of 'you can't fight nature' nonsense.

But I do have a question about your post--you identified the author as old (that's probably a matter of perspective, he looks to be in his thirties), and white with a question mark. I've been curious about the tendency to include race in discussing issues here, and wondered if you think that has a bearing on his point of view? Again, not criticism, just curious.

[DiverDave]

100. No critisism taken

It just seems that the republican -read old white guys- point of view is that they know what a women should do with her life, when they don't have a clue.
Thats all I was saying.

[kiva]

131. Thanks, just wondering. There have been several threads

lately about how race affects our perceptions, and I've been paying more attention. :hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

111. While the article in the OP doesn't allude to race

There has been quite a bit of handwringing lately, from a wide range on the political spectrum - racists like Pat Buchanan to a disturbing number of liberals - that there is a "low birthrate" among Anglo-Europeans and that, for some reason, this is a bad thing. As I mentioned in another post, I'm white and when I was younger and expressed my desire not to procreate I got lectured a number of times about how too many of the "wrong" kind of children were being born. And some of these comments came from people I thought were progressives!

[Iris]

154. abortion and birth control? What about FREE childcare

that's where this argument would lead. If we have to have babies young, why not make it easier for us?

[Blue_Tires]

46. hell, I'm a guy and my market value has dropped steeply

but then again i don't have any $$$$ and don't want children. :think:

[Hello_Kitty]

58. I'm a childfree 40 year old woman and I'm right there with ya.

I detect an undercurrent in the OP article of handwringing over "low Anglo-European birthrates". It rather reeks of it, if you ask me. Not making any assumptions about your ethnicity, mind you, but I'm Caucasian and I do recall getting lectured about how not enough of the "right" kind of children were being born back when I was younger and made my preference for no children known.

And yeah, not wanting kids does make dating hard, especially for men but it's never been easy for me either.

[seabeyond]

64. i swear women walked out of the 50's and this is males strong desire to tuck us back in our

place with all this bullshit.

[Iris]

156. yet it never seems to work

[Missy Vixen]

211. My favorite was dealing with guys who already had kids, but wanted to date me

I have no children. I didn't want them. I love kids, but I am not made to be a parent, and I accepted that a long time ago. It was frustrating to me that there are men in the world who believe that if they just talked hard enough, or bugged me long enough, I would give in.

The childfree thing. Maybe it's the West Coast, but there are lots of guys here who really don't want to be a parent.

In the meantime, it's frustrating to me when women who date and marry younger guys get the "cougar" nickname. After all, it's fun to watch the shoe on the other foot, isn't it, ladies? Obviously, I'm married. I'm not trolling. If I'm out in public, though, the guys that approach me are invariably late 20's - 30's.

Of course, all this is IMHO.

[Blue_Tires]

47. dupe

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

55. The author is conditioned as many men are, AND as are many women

To obsess over the marriage and baby culture.

We'd be a lot better off if more people thought marriage and children aren't things you "MUST do in life".

[get the red out]

86. It would be nice for women to be considered human beings

as well as men. Assigning market value is disgusting. Our culture just emphasizes this. I used to buy into this stuff, felt I had no value as a person when I hit 30 and wasn't married, really wondered if I should still be alive. I am married now and never wanted kids, which is more unacceptable than not being married. But I just wish we had some decency and would try to get past this biological judgment on people instead of accepting it and reinforcing it. We are sentient beings, not mere animals. It is time we started behaving like we are self-aware and not making excuses for our animal behavior and attitudes with "studies" and "articles" that just keep the old shit going like we were lower than dogs.

I once saw a guy post a comment on a conservative site saying that breast cancer is GAWD's way of killing of women that didn't have children because they are useless eaters. Is that where we want to be as a society? Is that a value system? Do we excuse this shit by saying "biological correct"? Or do we finally grown up?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

99. That scumbag poster......

He's lucky I didn't see that post......I've seen many friend's MOTHERS die from breast cancer. What a useless idiot.

[get the red out]

103. Agree

The one friend I have that has suffered through that terrible disease is a mother of three who had her children young, as the fundies say you must to avoid breast cancer.

The guys on here saying they can't help themselves regarding their "evolution" have about the same moral, emotional, and psychological level as the fundamentalist christians too, they just tout "evolution" as their unbending woman-gating GAWD rather than the god of the Bible. They just feel free to be misogynist jerks because they opposed the Iraq war. The claim science gives them the upper hand as males but would get angry as a Bible thumper using that. Same guys really.

[seabeyond]

107. "evolution" as their unbending woman-gating GAWD rather than the god of the Bible

yup

[Berry Cool]

285. And what about the women who get breast cancer who indeed have no children?

Isn't it just as infuriating to think that these bozos are telling them they deserve to die for having failed to perform their womanly obligations to the planet?

[seabeyond]

102. Or do we finally grown up?.... over last decade, i would say no, we took a huge ass step

backwards

[get the red out]

105. And some of these so-called liberal males aren't much better than Bush

and all his fundamentalist jerks.

[seabeyond]

109. nope. not even. no difference. n/t

[cbc5g]

117. No, we are animals ... some are conditioned to be sentient

We are experience (conditioning) + genetics and nothing more. If you disagree with that then please provide concrete evidence.

[get the red out]

130. My brain works a touch better than a dog

I can make decisions, moral decisions that a dog never can. We consider many things wrong. We are capapble of changing our laws all the time. We may want to get revenge on someone that comits a crime against us but we can stop and use better judgement. How can we even decided torture is wrong unless we have this kind of reasoning power? How can we debate these things? This board wouldn't exist without the reasoning power that goes beyond mere instinct that I describe because we would all have the same instincts and have to obey, we would all either be at DU or Freeperland, there could be no difference if we had not evolved this reasoning power.

Do you disagree with these statements?

Of course, I am a mere woman so anything I say would be incorrect to a great big intelligent male like you, right?

[Hello_Kitty]

158. Well see, you are led by your girly emotions.

They render you unfit for important positions and leadership, which are the province of men, what with their being more "logical" and "rational" and able to think all spatial-ly and such. Of course, where sex is concerned, the poor menz are but slaves to their raging libidos and it is your province, as a more highly evolved and (suddenly) pragmatic, female to reign them in.

Mighty convenient how it all works out, ain't it? :eyes:

[get the red out]

174. And if that doesn't work go to Church and thump the Bible at the ladies

[Lorien]

91. So very true

my sister and I were raised to be totally self sufficient- mostly because our father had left our mother when we were young and she never trusted men again so she told us never to rely on one. I never felt pressured to marry or have kids, and I've never done either. Unfortunately, society judges single, child free women VERY harshly. As if we haven't "done our duty" by breeding and are somehow "out of control" because there's no man around telling us what to do (a guy actually told me as much once-that I needed to marry so that a man would "keep me in line" at all times). How many unhappy marriages do you know of? How many truly awful parents have you met? I know a few miserable people who dream of being single and free again but won't be, simply because they're too afraid of being judge by society. It's nuts.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

145. You are right, and men can be judged the same way too

I'm someone who has no interest in getting married or having kids, and I've encountered several people who immediately tag me with the "Peter Pan" label (I never want to grow up). I've even been called a "wannabe gigolo" (which is so laughable, I can't even begin to cry). I'm not interested in sleeping with a new woman every month and then moving on when I get bored. I'm just someone who'd be happy to find a woman with her own professional interests and career to maybe eventually settle down with if we get on well, live with, fashion a life together and not have the legal BS marriage places over you, or the pressures of children. Unfortunately, you get to the second or third date, and suddenly you are having the future talk and the idea of not wanting the traditional "white picket fence" life makes you a loser.

Society has sucked the joy of individuality from us all.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

182. You two might enjoy this joke:

A middle-aged social worker was counseling a woman who went on and on about her husband drank up his paycheck, ignored the kids, never helped around the house, had affairs with other women, and beat her up whenever she didn't obey his every command. The woman concluded by commenting, "I suppose you wouldn't let your husband treat you like that."

"Actually," the social worker said, "I've never been married."

The woman gasped, shook her head, and said softly, "You poor, poor thing."

[seabeyond]

185. isnt that funny. that is funny. thanks, happily married, but i am gonna use that

makes a good point and i am all for people making personal choices from within, not without as in societal norms and pressures.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

189. Ha

Good one!

[Lorien]

209. Lol! Yep, I've encountered that a time or two.

:thumbsup:

[Hello_Kitty]

98. The Megatheocorporatocracy will never accept that.

Your imperative is to follow the script. Consume and create new consumers.

[Forkboy]

76. Jesus, this economy is fucking up everything.

[Tim01]

78. Women don't HAVE to get married anymore.

They can have a job and everything,without a guy.

[cbc5g]

104. Uh it's a statement of fact, not opinion

Women find older, more confident manly and successful men more attractive..and men find younger women more attractive. There are exceptions to the rule, but that's the rule.



If you challenge that then you are really challenging biology. And that's a fight you will lose.

[seabeyond]

112. ya, cause the strong majority of people that marry are same age so gotta be fact

men want young and women want old, rollin eyes.....

[cbc5g]

122. Don't let emotions get in the way of logic

Never did I say women want old saggy nasty men. They want confident financially secure and stable men. That generally means older men. This site attracts many feminists so obviously there will be many exceptions here. That doesn't mean that the rule is wrong.

[seabeyond]

134. what person, male or female, doesnt want confident and stable.

as a whole, of course the exceptions.... who want the needy and whacky

[Matariki]

146. That is so dumb. By your 'logic' the majority of marriages would have big age discrepancies

which just isn't the case.

I suggest you are letting your emotions or insecurity color your 'logic'

[get the red out]

147. Rule? Shouldn't that be "trend"

Because at best that is what is being measured, not a rule but a trend. Can you even measure a rule? A rule implies that something MUST be a particular way. So what is it with this "rule" business? Scientifically speaking of course.

[seabeyond]

170. since my post was about fact and nothing about emotion, you chose "emotion" to put woman

in her place. do you think that is clever, convincing, or merely a jab..... and stupid, not at all subtle. did you giggle while you typed it. how old are you?

[Quantess]

192. I would guess definitely under 18,

based on his perceptions about male-female relationships. He apparently hasn't had much substansial experience with women, yet.


edit grammar

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

116. I guess I'm the exception

When it comes to dating, I'd rather date someone my own age....and the times I have dated someone considerably younger, it had less to do with the physical attraction to them as much as a strong emotional connection that made me forget how young they were. When it comes to sexual feelings and thoughts, I generally am more attracted to women a few years older than me.

[seabeyond]

118. married man 4 yrs younger and never wanted an old fart, regardless of the offers

gotta be fact

[Lydia Leftcoast]

183. I've never dated anyone who was more than two years older than I am

and most have been younger.

[seabeyond]

186. but male tells us we ALL want an old man. hm, sounds desperate. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

125. 'If you challenge that then you are really challenging biology. And that's a fight you will lose.'

How will we lose? Care to elaborate on that?

[Fleshdancer]

128. source please. n/t

[Iris]

162. yeah, I'd like to see that source as well.

EVERY woman sees an older man as attractive? wtf?

[Matariki]

139. Nearly every woman I know finds attractive men more attractive.

But if it makes you feel better about yourself to think otherwise, then go ahead.

[Quantess]

167. For one, that is not "biology".

:rofl:

Never mind that it's a dubious stereotype.

And so simplistic! Are you talking about who women want to have sex with based on looks, or who they want to marry?

You really haven't examined this idea of yours, have you?

[LiveLiberally]

114. Biology isn't destiny....and statistical probabilities apply to populations not individuals

These reductionist arguments about population propensities -- irrespective of their validity from an evolutionary perspective -- all ignore one fundamental fact. Population data applies to just that -- populations.

Cross-cultural factors influencing attractiveness and fertility are very well-established biologically. But they are only meaningful in terms of understanding population trends; moreover, their influence in a particular society is determined in large part by cultural constraints.

As a population, men favor fecundity and youth. As individuals, the majority of single older men in the U.S. (>45) find partners within their own age cohort. As a population, women favor men of means. As individuals, women in the U.S. overwhelmingly marry men of similar means and education.

I could go on and on, but a simply analogy makes the point. As a population, smokers have a much greater risk of contracting lung cancer; as individuals, a smoker's (or former smoker's) known risk of contracting lung cancer in the next 10 years varies from 1% to 30%, depending upon a host of variables (age, sex, packs per day, genetic factors, overall health etc...) In purely statistical terms, the probability of an individual smoker contracting cancer in a 10-year period is even more indeterminate -- he or she either will (100%) or they won't (0%)

Am I suggesting that smokers shouldn't be concerned about lung cancer? Absolutely not. What I am suggesting is that even when the variables are well-established, there is enormous variability in applying population statistics to individuals. The cultural variables influencing attractiveness and reproductive success are not only poorly understood, they are in many countries in a period of rapid transformation. When it comes to fertility and attractiveness, it would be the height of absurdity to equate biology with destiny.

[AspenRose]

119. Pardon my language, but FUCK THEM.

[JerseygirlCT]

129. Doesn't this same nonsense reappear

every few years?

I never see any mention of what benefits marriage imparts to women vs. men. Most of what I've seen on that subject says men are far happier married than women are.

Maybe this is all part of this guy's campaign to make sure all the women he meets are feeling scared and desperate enough to take someone like him seriously.

[get the red out]

137. It does reappear every so often

I wonder if anyone has done any studies to see if it comes up in bad economic times as opposed to good? I seem to remember it coming up back in the early 90's before Clinton got us out of economic problems.

[JerseygirlCT]

141. Yeah, wasn't there a big Newsweek cover on the topic or something?

Women who aren't married by a certain age (can't remember what it was) would never have a chance... or something on those lines.

[get the red out]

143. Yes, and I ended up getting married at 37

Should I tell my husband he needs to divorce me?

[JerseygirlCT]

144. LOL...

He obviously made a wise choice.

[seabeyond]

172. screw every few years... it is every other day. men desperate to get dominance

over women. there is another really stupid one on cnn today, different from this one.

throwing the shit at us right and left, pathetically demanding we accept our place in this world, and it isnt pretty for any woman, only the stroking of the male ego.

[Matariki]

133. I had a theory way back when - that as women gain economic power of their own,

men would start paying more attention to their own looks.

And I've certainly noticed more and more tv and magazine ads with hunky, shirtless young men than I ever remember seeing 20 years ago.

I don't think this is about some pseudo-scientific evolution theory at all. But simply a matter of economics and the social equity of men and women. As women gain more equality it seems certain men like the cited author are nearly desperate in their attempt to prove otherwise.

[get the red out]

150. Or eliminate competition for jobs from females

during difficult economic times.

Now this isn't science, but an old lady I once knew, brilliant artist, told me that during WWII women were told they were capable of working in factories and accomplishing many things in the work world; then after WWII they were propagandized to get back into the kitchen and have babies because all the men were returning and needed jobs. Not science, but boy was she a smart lady. I wonder if we are seeing a bit of this now?

[Matariki]

160. Interesting theory. I've seen things written about that idea of the 50's actually

never occurred to me that happening now. We live in a time that families have a difficult time getting by on less than two paychecks, so I wonder how that would work out.

[JerseygirlCT]

219. I think you're absolutely right

put crudely, the equation has been looks and youth/fertility as traded for financial security.

As women have their own security, and frankly, as assistive reproductive technologies continue to improve, men may just find that they've got to add something far beyond that old formula to be attractive to prospective mates.

(Disclaimer: this is in the most crude and generalized terms. I certainly didn't choose my husband because of his earning power at the time - neither of us was earning much at all! I looked for intelligence, humor, and someone who would be a good father. I got them!)

[seabeyond]

221. further, once a woman gets beyond 25 and all the cinderella conditioning of our role

growing up, then the woman sits in her own and much much tougher to convince to do the old deed. takes a special man for a woman to give up that independence and freedom

[Matariki]

242. "I looked for intelligence, humor, and someone who would be a good father."

I think that's far more the norm than this ridiculous article (and many on this thread) wants to promulgate.

[JerseygirlCT]

255. I rather hope so!

Generally, I think women are a whole lot smarter than the "oh no, you'll never get a man, you're already in your 30s!" scare articles seem to imply.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

315. I think you've got something there

Once you know who you are, you also know whom you could be happy with. I'm not impressed with men who have money and worldly success but don't have an interesting mind or a kind heart or a sense of humor.

[DFW]

136. Over here, German women have a joke about men over 30:

Mr. Regnerus had better not start telling his theory in Germany.

Women here have a saying that men over 30 are like public toilets: they are either taken or they are full of shit.
I have no idea of this guy is taken, but it certainly sounds like he is very much full of shit.

[Gator_Matt]

149. Sounds like Sparta

If producing children is your only ambition, the article may be correct. Otherwise, it sounds like something from Good Housekeeping during the 1950s.

Remember that just because one writer has that opinion, it does not make it so. Gender equality is pretty much unstoppable at this point. In my field (science no less), there are just as many (if not more) women than men pursuing higher degrees.

[ismnotwasm]

163. This shit again?

Yawn.

I guess someone has to dust it off every so often and pretend it's a new concept. This one has always irritated me since it concentrates on simple fucking and breeding and, as usual with these little studies, not taking in the whole of a evolving, increasingly complex society. As well as ignoring that females had a very active and leading part of evolution.

Don't worry ladies. We live past menopause for very good, strongly adaptive reasons. Then there are side benefits such as no pregnancies, great sex if you find the right partner, and no need to tolerated sexist assholes and their tired old same old same old.

[KamaAina]

164. Excuse me while I

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Matariki]

165. Statistics on age difference between marriage partners

http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2005-01-31-01-en.html

In the period 1906-1910, the average age at marriage was 26.3 for women and 29.8 for men. Thus, men were 3.5 years older than their wives on average (applies to all marriages, both between those who had not previously been married and those who had). This pattern remained fairly stable for almost 50 years, both in terms of the age at marriage and the age difference between the bride and groom.

The age at marriage fell steadily during a period beginning around 1950 – the golden age of the nuclear family: up to the end of the 1960s, the men's age at the time of marriage fell by around 4 years to 26.5, and women's by around 3 years to 23.7. The age difference during this period also fell by a good six months.

At the beginning of the 1970s, however, this trend began to reverse: along with women's increasing education levels and participation in the labour force, more liberal abortion laws, better contraception, the increase in cohabitation outside marriage etc., the marriage age began to increase. Today, in 2002, the average age of men at the time of marriage is 35.5, and women are 32.1 on average. The increase has therefore been slightly higher for men, and the age difference between men and women is back to about the same level as 100 years ago, i.e. 3.5 years.

[Quantess]

Thank you. n/t

[Odin2005]

166. This is why one shouldn't have idiots with agendas interpret data.

[Kalyke]

169. Gave birth at 37 to my second.

And we were using birth control.

Speaks volumes to my fertility.

Market value, my ass (which is STILL HOT).

[seabeyond]

176. i had a condom baby at 36, wink

my second too. hence, my drilling in boys, when become sexually active, condom and the pill. lol

[AspenRose]

227. 36 with the first kid, 39 with the second

And married at 31...to a guy younger than me.

:thumbsup:

[seabeyond]

253. me too. lol lol. look at all of us. THIS is what the

guys must be afraid of. all of us not falling into form they decree

i was 32, kids 33 and 36, hubby four years younger

[PassingFair]

171. By the time women reach their 30's and 40's the DON'T WANT TO GET MARRIED...

so there's some truth in there...

Just not the truth they're pushing!

[Hello_Kitty]

179. It's why they have to scare the holy shit out of us when we're young.

This is nothing new. As others have pointed out, the tired old "ZOMG you're going to be a lonely old cat lady!!1!eleventy" trope is dusted off about every other year or so because they don't dare let too many young women discover the truth for themselves.

[PassingFair]

180. I am raising 2 girls.....

and contrary to the way I was brought
up to dream of Prince Charming, and
ASSUME that children are part of the
deal, they are aware that they
have OPTIONS.

I KNOW why women CRY at weddings!

[alarimer]

177. By "market value", he actually means before they become fully realized human beings.

Before they gain such traits as self-reliance and independence, which right-wingers do not like in women.

It has little or nothing to do with youth per se. Just another way of right-wingers wanting to control women.

By marrying early, they interrupt or postpone their own careers for their husbands'. Not that this always happens but it often does. Or quits school
so she can put her husband through college, etc.

Contrary to what some posters on this thread think, he is masking his right-wing beliefs with "evolutionary psychology" which in my opinion is not really a science
at all. Just a load of crap. Certainly it does not follow many of the rules of science. There is not a lot of evidence behind it, merely a lot of conjecture.

[Hello_Kitty]

184. Thank you. And as someone else in this thread pointed out:

There is a tendency for proponents of evo-psych (which is essentially observing behavior and making guesses about its origins) and evolutionary biology, which is also about making observations but with a lot more empirical evidence behind it.

[cherish44]

178. Girls, face it. Our reason for being is to catch a man and have babies

If we aren't sexually attractive to men (read: young and fertile) we are basically useless and only taking up valuable space and resources from those who can attract a mate and breed.

[Iris]

215. and if we follow this guys advice, we can do it while we're young, have the kids, and then toss the

men while we still have a lot of life left!

[Dappleganger]

188. OP, the more I read your posts...

the more I hope for a son-in-law like you one day!!

You are one smart dude. :D

[Ilsa]

191. I'm not for sale. Neither are my friends' daughters. nt

[omega minimo]

193. if male "maturation" matched female "most fertile years" ..........

"women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation)."

[Juche]

195. Like it or not, its actually true

From an evolutionary perspective you want a woman who has as many years of productive child bearing years in front of her as possible. I think it is 'natural' (from what I've read of anthropology) to find women most attractive in the 15-17 range (aka illegal in today's culture) because they have 20-25 years of productive child rearing years ahead of them.

On another note women generally prefer men who have good incomes and no debt over men who have less money and more debt.


Here is something cool that will rebuild your faith in humanity. David Sloan Wilson theorized that since we evolved in small groups, and since mating requires finding someone to spend decades on end with that we make people's personalities a 'huge' part of how attracted to them we are. So he did experiments where he did things like asking people in middle age to look at high school yearbook photos and rate the attractiveness of people they knew, then he asked strangers to rate the same people. His assumption was that the people who knew and liked/disliked the people in question would give totally different ratings for attractiveness than the total strangers, since the strangers would be going solely on looks and the people who knew them would be going on looks and personality.

http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources/publications_resources/DSW13.pdf

The results? It varied based on who was doing the judging (some people made personality far more important, some far less) but in general about 30-80% of attraction is based on non-physical attraction.

Point is a 50 year old woman and a man who makes $7/hr who are great people with great personalities are probably going to be considered more attractive than a rude, hateful supermodel who is 19 and a man who makes 150k a year. At least after you get to know them.

I'm such an optimist.

[Hello_Kitty]

201. You keep telling yourself that.

And remember, when you're trying to chat up the hot babes at the bar - you know, the ones who display the most "childbearing promise" - and they are shooting you down, it's because you're broke and not because you're unattractive or boring or have hygiene issues. :eyes:

[Juche]

202. Science is science

The goal is not to uphold culturally approved attitudes, but to find the truth.

You have spoken heavily against fields like phrenology, but you have to understand what you are doing is the same thing. You think science should exist to uphold the social status quo and not to get to the truth (no matter what the truth is). You are no different than phrenologists in that regard.


FTR when women shoot me down I'm pretty sure its because they are intimidated by my awesomeness. Not my lack of hygiene.

[Hello_Kitty]

212. Bullshit is bullshit.

I mentioned phrenology once. Exaggerate much?

You think science should exist to uphold the social status quo and not to get to the truth (no matter what the truth is). You are no different than phrenologists in that regard.

No, actually, it's what proponents of evo-psych do. They latch onto any observation or explanation that bolsters their contention that gender differences are genetic and immutable while downplaying or outright ignoring any evidence that doesn't. And most of them argue that deviating from your biologically prescribed gender role is folly, especially if you are a woman. Mark Regnerus, the author of the OP article is a perfect illustration of this:

He applauds the young woman who wants to marry at age 23, as if she is following her true and basic desires (that so happen to fit into his worldview):

"So while many young Americans mark their days in the usual ways -- by hitting the clubs, incessantly checking Facebook, Twittering their latest love interest and obsessing about their poor job prospects or how to get into graduate school -- my applause goes out to those among them who've figured out that the proverb was right. One of those is Jennifer, a 23-year-old former student of mine. She's getting married this fall. It wasn't religion that made her do it. It wasn't fear of being alone. It was simply affection. She met Jake while still in college and decided that there was no point in barhopping through her 20s. Her friends balked. She stood firm. Now they're bridesmaids.


Meanwhile, he contends that women who wish to delay marriage are responding to "peer pressure" (based purely on anecdotal reports):

In my research on young adults' romantic relationships, many women report feeling peer pressure to avoid giving serious thought to marriage until they're at least in their late 20s. If you're seeking a mate in college, you're considered a pariah, someone after her "MRS degree." Actively considering marriage when you're 20 or 21 seems so sappy, so unsexy, so anachronistic. Those who do fear to admit it -- it's that scandalous.

Is it possible that at least some of the women who report being cautioned to avoid marriage might have been immature for their ages and the people who knew them well were aware of that and didn't want to see them make a big mistake? Is it possible that others were with guys who were kind of "bad news" and the people close to them were concerned about that? Regnerus doesn't seem to consider any of those individual variables, or if he does he obviously doesn't consider them important enough to discuss. Nope, he implies that women who succumb to "peer pressure" and delay their marriages are making a mistake, whereas women who opt for that staple of the 1950s, the MRS degree, are somehow "rebels".

The OP isn't science, it's an editorial, and a crappy one at that.

[seabeyond]

223. shoots the whole male evoluntionary theory, the old bag at 23. wtf.... should be 15. n/t

[Juche]

225. Go disprove evolutionary psychology then

Find legitimate fault (by fault I don't mean 'I don't like it, therefore its not true')in the work of the evolutionary psychology thinkers out there, post them up and I'll read them. From what I see you are just pissed that they aren't telling you what you want to hear, which makes you no different than people who have used 'science' to justify other cultural biases like race or gender inequality.

FTR, I'm not and wasn't referring to the editorial, but to the concept that women are more sought after as mates earlier into their child rearing years. Women should do what they want with their lives, but if anyone seriously thinks a woman who is in her late 30s is going to be as sought after as a mate as a woman in her late teens or early 20s I've got some land to sell you on the moon. A woman in her late teens has 20-25 years of procreation ahead of her, a woman in her late 30s has 5-10 years at best. By and large people will find younger, prettier women more attractive than older, less attractive women. I don't know why that is controversial.

Women prefer men who have more power, status and wealth over men who are ridiculed, humiliated and broke. Do you see me getting defensive? Nope.

Overall my understanding is compassion, kindness, empathy and friendship are fundamentally the no. 1 thing people look for in a mate (at least from what I've read of Daniel Goleman). But after that, people want things they have evolved to want because what we evolved to want is what helps us survive. Young, attractive women are more fertile and wealthy, powerful, respected men have more resources to devote to their children. So by and large that is what we want.

Women can and should do what they want. When or where did I imply women should be forced to give up careers or get married when they aren't ready?

I also think a man who is intelligent enough to become a neurosurgeon and earn 500k a year, but wants to become an artist who earns 15k a year should follow his dreams. But, by and large, women will find him more attractive with 500k a year over 15k a year. It doesn't mean he should do anything he doesn't want to do. One of the agendas of evolutionary psychologists (Pinker, Wilson, Wright) is to help us understand so we can overcome our destructive, oppressive side. Not to indulge in them.

[Hello_Kitty]

228. No, YOU have to prove it. The burden is on you. That's how scientific proof works.

Evolutionary psychology has produced nothing but observations of behavior and speculation as to the causes. There simply isn't the kind of empirical evidence to support it as there is with evolutionary biology, which is a different discipline with which evo-psych is frequently, and erroneously, conflated. That is not to say that evo-psych is not a legitimate science, far from it, but making categorical assumptions about human behavior based on it, while ignoring environmental factors, is sloppy, to say the least.

[Juche]

232. Here

http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/publications.html

[Hello_Kitty]

236. Whatever. Observation and speculation.

There are some very smart and credible people doing research in evolutionary psychology. And they don't agree with each other and challenge each other's assertions. They talk about environmental factors. They also make it clear that they are extrapolating to the past from modern observations and take great pains to advise the reader to take it all with a grain of salt and realize that whatever they've published is not the be-all and end-all. That's a GOOD thing. The problem many of us have, if you would pay attention, is with the sloppy interpretation of legitimate research by the MSM and asshats with an agenda like Mark Regnerus (of the OP).

[Matariki]

233. PEOPLE are more sought after *sexually* in their youth. No kidding. Men and women both.

All you're proving is what people prefer as jerk off material. It has nothing to do with who people choose and GET as marital partners.

The fantasy that certain men seem to want to promote is that those 20 year old women prefer men much older than them because of money. The FACTS don't support that fantasy. The average age difference in married couples is about 3 1/2 years or less.

The statistics for later or second marriages still has the same average age difference.

http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2005-01-31-01-en.html

[Matariki]

213. You wouldn' t know science if it bit your weeny

because this 'study' ain't it.

[Juche]

224. Actually I would

I also know defensive assholes when I see them too.

kisses

[Matariki]

229. That's right pal - all the women on this thread are 'defensive assholes'

because we really love being told what we're attracted to or when we should breed by some troglodyte :rofl:

Why don't you point out WHERE in the author's self serving little anecdotal screed there is ANY hard science? You can't, because it's NOT there. Like I said, you wouldn't know science if it bite you on the weenie.

[Juche]

234. No, the ones who insult me are

And as I said earlier, I wasn't referring to the author himself but the concept that men prefer younger women.

Here is a study.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1325986/dating_preferences_show_that_older.html

[Matariki]

240. That's like me doing a scientific study to prove that I perfer Brad Pitt

to some dumpy old guy. That's just funny. And it means nothing.

[Juche]

264. nevermind

bad joke

[Bucky]

196. Well, ladies? What the hell ya waiting for? Get married already! Sheesh

What? This thread has gone to 200 replies and your STILL not married? Blow the cobwebs outta them wombs and start procreating RIGHT NOW!! Schnell, schnell!! Oh, you're all hopeless...

[TwilightGardener]

199. Gee, really? Your stock as a marriageable woman goes down as you age?

Get out.

[Burma Jones]

200. The Washington Post is trying to make itself relevant by being a RW alternative

to the ostensibly Left Wing New York Times........

So, there is a parade of RW shills given space in the Post. Headlines are regularly tilted rightward. The OP ED pages today have:

1. A defense of torture
2. A warning to Obama to beware being "intellectual"
3. An anti-environmentalist piece
4. An anti UN piece (bemoaning the WHO as bureaucratic and unexamined)
5. And their regular "On Faith" section
6. And the subject piece by the Associate Professor from UT Austin about marryin' young-------and, I would have to assume, often.....

[ChairmanAgnostic]

204. paris hilton loses value w/ each day, for entirely different reasons.

so it must be true.

[LanternWaste]

207. It's bad enough my friends and their wives criticize my taste in women...

It's bad enough that my friends and their wives criticize my taste in women, now Science is also telling my that my tastes for women my own age is abnormal. :evilgrin:

Or could it be that the author of the article in question is merely translating existing data to better suit his own preconceived notions, calling it a hard fact, and expecting me to believe it?





I'll go with the second option-- as I really don't want more than one wife, either... :P

[walldude]

214. LMAO.. tell the hairy knuckle dragger that

we have come a long way since the days of using rocks to scratch pictures on cave walls and dragging women around by their hair. Fucking moran.

[Skittles]

235. I'm 52 and a 35 yr old guy asked me out last week

and no, I have never, ever wanted to be married

[Hello_Kitty]

238. Tsk tsk, You should both read the article in the OP and repent!

For your failure to do your duty to society by procreating and consuming!

[seabeyond]

259. blasphemy. how dare you not follow these males interpretation on how we all ought to

behave.

not very many of us is following their norm, but they keep demanding, insisting, insulting and whining that we must

cause dna tells us too

[pink-o]

239. Geez, humans are fuckin' stoopid. This whole "marriage" thing!

What a crock, trying to control sexuality and reproduction--it's led to nothing but suffering, frustration and misunderstanding! We should take a hint from Bonobos, our closest chimp relatives!

Read on:


Sexual social behavior

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in bonobo society observed in captivity, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation. With the exception of a pair of Cohan gorillas observed doing so,<20> Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex.<21> In scientific literature, the female-female behavior of touching genitals together is often is referred to as GG rubbing or genital-genital rubbing. This behavior, however, has not been established as any more sexual in nature than a friendly greeting.<6>

The sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it.<22> Bonobos never form permanent relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by gender or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo. When Bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and allowing for peaceful feeding.<23>

Bonobo males frequently engage in various forms of male-male genital behavior, which is perceived by some scientists as being sexual (frot).<24><25> In one form, two males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "penis fencing".<26><27> Frot also may occur when two males rub their penises together while in face-to-face position. A special form of frot called "rump rubbing" occurs to express reconciliation between two males after a conflict, when they stand back-to-back and rub their scrotal sacs together. These practices, however, have only been observed in captivity. There is little knowledge of the Bonobos' sexual behavior in their natural habitat.

Bonobo females also engage in female-female genital behavior, (tribadism), possibly to bond socially with each other, thus forming a female nucleus of Bonobo society. The bonding among females allows them to dominate Bonobo society - although male Bonobos are individually stronger, they cannot stand alone against a united group of females.<27> Adolescent females often leave their native community to join another community. Sexual bonding with other females establishes the new females as members of the group. This migration mixes the Bonobo gene pools, providing genetic diversity.


Here's the link:

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

[Enrique]

250. as if women need to be told this

as if the culture doesn't apply enough pressure. :eyes:

[southernyankeebelle]

258. WOW PRICELESS - HAS ANYONE SEEN THESE YOUNG

WOMEN WHO ARE SO SKINNY THAT THEIR BONES CRACK WHEN THEY WALK. THEY MARRY THESE OLDER GUYS FOR ONE THING AND IT AIN'T THEIR LOOKS THAT IS FOR SURE. ITS THE MONEY BABY. I HAVE A RELATIVE THAT MARRIED AN OLDER MAN THAT WAS WEALTHY BUT HAD NO CLASS. WHEN YOU SAT AT A DINNER TABLE HE WOULD TALK WITH HIS MOUTH FULL AND FOOD FLYING OUT OF HIS MOUTH. THAT WAS THE LAST TIME I WENT TO THEIR HOUSE FOR DINNER. I AM GLAD AM NOT CLOSE TO THEM. I THINK THEY ARE DIVORCED NOW. SHE DIDN'T LOVE HIM SHE MARRIED HIM FOR HIS MONEY. WHAT TRASH.

[Skittles]

314. those are two people using each other

they both get what they deserve

[Brooklyns_Finest]

265. The article makes sense

Well, a little. My sister got married at a young age (22). It was the worst mistake of her life. She did not have an education, and was not financially stable. She proceeded to have 3 kids with a dude who started off nice, but is now abusive. It is only a matter of time before she gets a divorce. SHe should have just stayed single.

On the flip side, I am a 30 year old guy, who makes a very good salary, drives a nice car, with a nice apartment. I am also above average looking (At least I think I am). The women who would not give me the time of day 5 years ago, are now clamoring to date me. Honestly, I don't bother to date < 27 year old women, because the 27 and up crowd are so easy to pick up. The desperation does not really set in until they turn 32ish. At that point, I hear their sad story of not being able to find a man, dating is tough, blah, blah, blah. That goes on until they reach about 37, where they no longer give a damn. At that point, they stop looking for marriage and are content with being alone, having flings with younger guys, some even turn to women (I know, it is not a choice, but I have seen it happen, sexuality is a spectrum).

I think the target age for women to get married is 25-30. I think that is the prime age for marriage. At that age, they should be emotionally, physically, and financially ready for marriage.

I am prepared to be flamed!

[seabeyond]

267. worked for your sister didnt it? yet it makes sense? do you know

how many guys i have listened to crying about just finding a nice woman to marry.......

target age to marry 25-30. i bet statistically you will find the majority of BOTH genders marry 25-30. where is the flamebait

[Brooklyns_Finest]

272. It didn't work for my sister

SHe married way too young. If she waited a few years, she would have been in a better position. On the flipside, the 36 year old I was dating at 28, was just as pathetic. She told me that when she was younger, she had all these options, but she just waited, and waited. Now she was buying me meals from Boston Markets (I guess she couldn't cook), and making me slurpies. The old lady might have been "using" me, but I doubt it.

Well, you might be right about finding a nice girl (or guy for that matter). That is always tough, at any age.

[Matariki]

274. And what about you - when does your desperation set in?

Do you want to get married? If so, why haven't you yet?

[Brooklyns_Finest]

279. Fair question

I ask myself that question quite often. A lot of my friends are getting married now. In fact, where I live now, all of my close friends are married and a few have kids. Back in my hometown, my childhood friends are starting to get married. I was just at a wedding a few weeks ago for my friend from junior high. Seeing this actually gets to me. I ask myself, how long can I stay in-the-game. I don't know. I want to get married, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

If I don't get married by 35, then I really don't see myself getting married at all. I really don't want to be in that situation. The reason I am not married yet has to do with my lifestyle. I spent time in the military, traveled a bit, attained an advanced degree, moved cross country, and now, I am trying to build my career. I work a stable job now (SSA). I am actively looking for a life partner. I would actually like to meet someone from work (we have 62K employees). I think I am in a good position, but I do believe my clock is ticking.

[Matariki]

283. Why do you say your 'clock is ticking' - because you want children?

I think it's odd to put an 'expiration date' on yourself like that - and on women too.

Anyway, good luck to you. Hope you find a happy & fulfilling relationship.

[Hello_Kitty]

284. Stop putting women into categories and you might succeed in finding a life partner.

Believe it or not, women are individuals, just like you. The 32 year old you dismiss as "desperate", the <27 year old you dismiss as being a too-advantaged coquette, and the 37 year old you think is looking for a fling are complex people too. I understand that doing this kind of shorthand makes dating easier, and believe me I've been there, but relationships require more effort.

[Hello_Kitty]

276. Your sister's experience pretty much refutes the argument of the article.

She's the poster child for why early marriage is a bad idea for women.

I find it amusing how you characterize 32 year old women you date as 'desperate'. Seems to be more a reflection of you, than them. :rofl:

[Matariki]

278. I think his experience refutes it too. According to him he's well off and older

yet he hasn't managed to marry to any of those fertile 23 year olds.

I notice also that after women go through being 'desperate' they 'give up' and 'have flings with younger men'. But when men 'have flings with younger women it's 'evolutionary science' not desperation. This thread is a laugh riot.

[Hello_Kitty]

281. It sure is.

:rofl:

[Brooklyns_Finest]

292. Actually

I have little luck with the under 25 crowd. At that age, they want to date guys their own age. I look young, but they can sense the "oldness" in me. With that said, I am headed to Miami in a few weeks for the post spring break parties. There will be a young crowd.

[Matariki]

294. That was exactly my point - your experience is counter to the wishful thinking of the article.

[Mari333]

270. heh. the kid who wrote the article

looks like hes about 12 yrs old.
little wanker.

[dustbunnie]

286. I think that's the poster's pic.

The writer of the article has been married for over twenty years, so he's at least in his forties.

[Quantess]

290. I photo googled "Mark Regnerus"

[Hello_Kitty]

299. OMG, he looks like a cross between John Boy and David Koresh!

No wonder. :scared:

I thought he was much older.

[Berry Cool]

295. If you think this is bad, I've seen WOMEN write pieces in which they urge their fellow females

to marry early and have children ASAP, like they did--because they will have more life options that way. After all, you can have a career, start a business, etc., at any age you like (so these women think), but your babymaking window is open only a short time and you have to strike while the iron is hot.

I read a column by one of these women the other day. She's very young, married at about age 22 or 23, and quickly had 3 or so kids. Now she's about 28 or 29 and warning young women that they should either follow her example or find themselves dried-up old maids on the shelf who can't have babies. She figures that by the time her youngest leaves the nest, she will be only 45 and will have half her life left to do whatever she wants.

I would just love to ask women like her what women are supposed to do who DON'T happen to find Mr. Right by age 23--especially a Mr. Right who can financially support them and their children from age 23 right through to 45 when they are done with the mommy track. Or who just plain don't feel like spending their 20s popping out kids and raising children.

[Hello_Kitty]

297. I've seen those pieces too.

Usually written by Upper East Side socialites who act like their experience is universally applicable. Like every woman has a rich husband and nannies and cooks and personal trainers who can relieve them of the drudgery of early motherhood.

[seabeyond]

298. both my kids

are in accelerated courses in school. son took SAT in 7th grade. other son took 8th grade test this year in 5th grade. the majority of parents at the larger gathering for 8th grader was my age, in 40's. the one this year for fifth grader, ALL the parents were older parents.

15 yrs our marriage has been easy. provided a secure and safe environment for our children. working together, happy, no fights. we both got married AFTER living on our own, doing our thing, playing. and now, we are doing what we want to do, raising our children. we aren't rushing thru it so we can begin our lives.

people make their choices, and either way, it is ours to make it good, or not so good.

[TankLV]

303. WTF?!!! This is sooooo fucking wrong on sooo many levels...

there is really nothing to say to IDIOTS like this...

I hope somebody cuts off his testicals so he won't reproduce his idiocy.

And I'm serious...

[seabeyond]

304. i think

the best part of these threads are when men actually post like you. not the cut the testicles off thing, i am anti violent, even with stupid, lol, but the rest of your post.

it warms my heart and a confirmation the world hasnt totally spun out of control.

[dusmcj]

310. self-selection - who'd want to hook up with tards of either gender who think like this ?

This is the 'banish them to an island' method made easy - people who think this way aren't worth um, your time to begin with. So let them associate with their own kind and not confuse things for the rest of us. Fuck freely and have a nice day. I love people who think women are breeding chambers and I'm a font of sperm and income. Conservative pieces of shit. "The Rules". Right.

Of course this is in a country where teaching abstinence passes for government family planning policy and the question of whether evolution should be taught in schools still comes up every few years. Why expect anything else. Primitive tribes, they'll make good pets, or fertilizer.