Do you think we're (humans) meant to be monogamous?

[Jennifer26]

As for older men dating younger women, that's probably a good reproductive strategy and has endured over a long period of time for that reason. Hate it or love it, it is what it is.

From a purely biological standpoint, this makes no sense. Older men's sperm increases the risk of birth defects, and lower fertility.

[clv0116]

From a purely biological standpoint, this makes no sense. Older men's sperm increases the risk of birth defects, and lower fertility.

 

Successful human procreation is a lot more complex than mere conception. Whether you have grandchildren, and great grandchildren, has a lot less to do with how easy it was to get pregnant than a lot of other factors. Has to have been or it wouldn't have been a popular strategy.

 

Of course those pressures to survive are vastly reduced now, but apparently our genome has not adapted to the luxury we find ourselves in quite yet.

[NoIDidn't]

Successful human procreation is a lot more complex than mere conception. Whether you have grandchildren, and great grandchildren, has a lot less to do with how easy it was to get pregnant than a lot of other factors. Has to have been or it wouldn't have been a popular strategy.

 

Of course those pressures to survive are vastly reduced now, but apparently our genome has not adapted to the luxury we find ourselves in quite yet.

 

I totally DISAGREE with you. Please provide some links to support your theory.

 

Just because it was done in the past, doesn't make it a viable strategy. It was only because older men had more resources and power.

 

I doubt this is a viable strategy.

 

I see nothing beneficial to the older man/younger woman strategy other than giving the woman another father. Which is basically what many in those times thought they were doing anyway.

 

Which also has nothing to do with monogamy vs. polygamy/polyamory.

[clv0116]

Just because it was done in the past' date=' doesn't make it a viable strategy.[/quote']

 

Actually if it was done in the past and children survived to reproduce, it was by definition a viable strategy. Is that hard for you to comprehend? As for not having anything to do with monogamy, if you read the thread you'll see I wasn't the one to bring this up.

 

Go cuss out JS for that if you like.

[NoIDidn't]

Actually if it was done in the past and children survived to reproduce, it was by definition a viable strategy. Is that hard for you to comprehend? As for not having anything to do with monogamy, if you read the thread you'll see I wasn't the one to bring this up.

 

Go cuss out JS for that if you like.

 

 

It was practically the only option given to women at the time. A girl could have loved the boy next door, but her daughter would have more of a chance of marrying him when he got old, than she ever would.

 

Again, you didn't provide anything other than an attempt at challenging my intellect. Do you have any real stats to support what you claim? Any actual scientists supporting your view? Or the fact that two relatively fertile people reproducing is evidence enough for you?

 

I did ask about "benefits" and what makes it "viable", not simply results. I can do a weight loss study and tell all the people to starve themselves and get results, but obviously starving oneself is not a viable long-term strategy.

 

I still fail to see what old man/young woman paring has to do with monogamy, regardless of who brought it up. This is JMO, please feel free to ignore this part.

[clv0116]

It was practically the only option given to women at the time. A girl could have loved the boy next door' date=' but her daughter would have more of a chance of marrying him when he got old, than she ever would.[/quote']

 

So? Motives don't matter, outcomes matter. Genes don't care about motives. If the girl refused, became a spinster and failed to procreate successfully, that trait would tend to get selected out. Fair or nice or fun or whatever don't even get to weigh in.

 

The same principle DOES apply to monogamy. Apparently some semblance of monogamy is a good reproductive strategy for humans. It's widespread, popular even, as a reproductive strategy in humans. That means it must have worked well enough, and better than most other competing strategies.

 

 

 

I still fail to see what old man/young woman paring has to do with monogamy' date=' regardless of who brought it up. This is JMO, please feel free to ignore this part.[/quote']

 

Why don't you get together with Jersey, start this discussion again if you want to pursue it?

[Rooster_DAR]

There are many scientific studies and research that show older men and younger women contribute to longevity and survival of the species. I have read up quite a bit on this, but here's one article that describes this theory if you will.

 

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/old-men-chasing-young-women-good-thing-14203.html

 

Cheers!

 

 

I totally DISAGREE with you. Please provide some links to support your theory.

 

Just because it was done in the past, doesn't make it a viable strategy. It was only because older men had more resources and power.

 

I doubt this is a viable strategy.

 

I see nothing beneficial to the older man/younger woman strategy other than giving the woman another father. Which is basically what many in those times thought they were doing anyway.

 

Which also has nothing to do with monogamy vs. polygamy/polyamory.

[angie2443]

There are many scientific studies and research that show older men and younger women contribute to longevity and survival of the species. I have read up quite a bit on this, but here's one article that describes this theory if you will.

 

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/old-men-chasing-young-women-good-thing-14203.html

 

Cheers!

 

There was also a study that showed that women who had healthy children in their forties lived longer than the average female. This doesn't mean that people 40 and above should all be having or trying to have babies. This simply means that if you take 2 older people and one can produce a healthy child while the other can not, the former is aging slower. What happens to all the unhealthy offspring that would be produced if all these old men decide it is their duty to try and spread their old genes around in the hopes of increasing logevity?? Who's going to take care of these children when the men die from old age? Make no mistake, for the majority of men, there comes a point where the majority, if not all, of their sperm becomes unhealthy and they run they run the chance of infertility or producing high needs children. Are these men going to devote what they have left of their lives to taking care of these children or is the mother going to be left with the burden by herself because these men are dying of old age.

[luvstarved]

There are many scientific studies and research that show older men and younger women contribute to longevity and survival of the species. I have read up quite a bit on this, but here's one article that describes this theory if you will.

 

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/old-men-chasing-young-women-good-thing-14203.html

 

Cheers!

 

As with many scientific studies, valid information is used to come to unrelated conclusions...

 

This study seems to be trying to figure out why we all just don't die

when we are done reproducing. It asserts that women hang out because

their nurturing characteristics promote good child-rearing and thus

advance the species. It asserts that men may hang out because if

they live to be older, they have good genetic stuff that could be passed

on to promote longevity in the species, plus it just creates more babies.

 

I am not sure where the argument gets turned into "being a dirty old man

is a good thing."

 

First, the presumption is that these dirty old men actually reproduce, which

is different - sorry, guys! - from mere f**king!

 

Second, if these guys have good genetic stuff they have it when they

are young, so not sure why waiting until they are older makes any

difference...

 

Third, the study presumes that we have to justify our existence beyond

our reproductive years. Maybe we just continue to hang out because

God wants us to have some golden years.

 

Fourth, I don't really see where we are heading toward extinction to the

point that we have to maximize all possible combinations of reproductive

potential.

 

Fifth, the study seems to argue that women hang out because they have

value to add to child rearing, while men's value is only in providing quality

sperm, and increasing numbers. Do you guys really like to be seen that

way?

 

In other words, the study has some validity but I don't see where it really

applies to our current society, especially when this study would be more likely to be

used as justification for dirty old men lusting after sweet young things

than for some old fart having kids late in life, which it purports to address.

 

You can't talk about reproductive behavior and leave out the reproducing

part in this sort of context.

[angie2443]

As with many scientific studies, valid information is used to come to unrelated conclusions...

 

This study seems to be trying to figure out why we all just don't die

when we are done reproducing. It asserts that women hang out because

their nurturing characteristics promote good child-rearing and thus

advance the species. It asserts that men may hang out because if

they live to be older, they have good genetic stuff that could be passed

on to promote longevity in the species, plus it just creates more babies.

 

I am not sure where the argument gets turned into "being a dirty old man

is a good thing."

 

First, the presumption is that these dirty old men actually reproduce, which

is different - sorry, guys! - from mere f**king!

 

Second, if these guys have good genetic stuff they have it when they

are young, so not sure why waiting until they are older makes any

difference...

 

Third, the study presumes that we have to justify our existence beyond

our reproductive years. Maybe we just continue to hang out because

God wants us to have some golden years.

 

Fourth, I don't really see where we are heading toward extinction to the

point that we have to maximize all possible combinations of reproductive

potential.

 

Fifth, the study seems to argue that women hang out because they have

value to add to child rearing, while men's value is only in providing quality

sperm, and increasing numbers. Do you guys really like to be seen that

way?

 

In other words, the study has some validity but I don't see where it really

applies to our current society, especially when this study would be more likely to be

used as justification for dirty old men lusting after sweet young things

than for some old fart having kids late in life, which it purports to address.

 

You can't talk about reproductive behavior and leave out the reproducing

part in this sort of context.

 

Great post!

 

I read the blog a long time ago. I think it just twist a few facts to stroke men's egos and make them think that they can mate forever.

[GorillaTheater]

What happens to all the unhealthy offspring that would be produced if all these old men decide it is their duty to try and spread their old genes around in the hopes of increasing logevity?? Who's going to take care of these children when the men die from old age? Make no mistake, for the majority of men, there comes a point where the majority, if not all, of their sperm becomes unhealthy and they run they run the chance of infertility or producing high needs children.

 

Stop talking smack about my sperm, Angie.

[luvstarved]

Great post!

 

I read the blog a long time ago. I think it just twist a few facts to stroke men's egos and make them think that they can mate forever.

 

Well it isn't about "mating", that's what gets me.

 

Every argument they trot out about science and biology is wrapped

around the idea of creating more humans, and that is the LAST thing

on these guys' minds.

 

Their argument is bulls**t right out of the box because NONE of them

talk about wanting to create as many humans as possible, and NONE

of them are about changing diapers and paying child support and

gleeful reactions to the pregnant female form.

 

They should shut up because if anything they bolster the argument

that men aren't any more to women than sperm donors, because the

only part of the process they are interested in is the conception...and

only that because they get an orgasm out of it.

 

Hey guys! Guess what! If women were oriented just to the thrill of

it, they too would rather f**k anyone except you after X number of

years. And many of us do feel that way. We just don't chase that

feeling and argue that it is involuntary and uncontrollable because

nature "wants" us that way. And even if we do feel that way, we

aren't so ridiculously obvious about it.

[angie2443]

Stop talking smack about my sperm, Angie.

 

I'm sure your sperm are just fine:). I was talking about the majority of old/older men, not all of them.

[angie2443]

Well it isn't about "mating", that's what gets me.

 

.

 

You're right about that! I think it's all about male vanity. I guess it's sort of understandable. Many people are happy in their relationships and yet still want to look attractive to others. They don't really want to hook up with the others. They just want to know they still have it. I think it's the same with these men who either blog about how younger women and older men should hook up and have kids or read the blogs about how younger women and older men should hook up and have kids. I don't think these men want to be raising kids when they are past 45, 50 or whatever. It's exhausing enough when your younger. I think they just want to think they can still reproduce so they can still feel manly. Maybe in some odd way, it is a way for men to think they can live forever.

[clv0116]

I see a lot of people mistaking a genetic payoff for something(s) it's not. Until we get our collective heads around the difference between ancient genetic programming and "how those behaviors help now" we're going no where.

 

If course the guys who like recreational sex with younger women are not NOW contributing to the species in a meaningful way. That's not the point. The point is that the behaviors they and their sweet young things are engaged in exist because they were useful historically.

[luvstarved]

I see a lot of people mistaking a genetic payoff for something(s) it's not. Until we get our collective heads around the difference between ancient genetic programming and "how those behaviors help now" we're going no where.

 

If course the guys who like recreational sex with younger women are not NOW contributing to the species in a meaningful way. That's not the point. The point is that the behaviors they and their sweet young things are engaged in exist because they were useful historically.

 

Well...that study was saying otherwise, not me...

 

But, going beyond that, I don't have any argument with nature and urges

and propensities and egos.

 

The argument that I have is with lack of free will and the assertion that

men are helpless victims of "ancient genetic programming".

 

If we're going there we might as well also justify killing someone over

a coat or pair of sneakers. Even if we don't use a club.

[Jersey Shortie]

Successful human procreation is a lot more complex than mere conception.

 

 

Why is it when you want to talk about this subject it's all about biology for women and all about "more complex" needs when it comes to men. Because previously you were hell bent on defending your stance all based on biology.

 

 

 

No need to be redundant, 'men' is adequate. As for older men dating younger women, that's probably a good reproductive strategy and has endured over a long period of time for that reason. Hate it or love it, it is what it is.

 

It also has nothing to do with the example cited no matter how much you love to twist it around, as noted in the animal kingdom when the dominant male becomes weak he is replaced.

 

Human society and reproductive challenges are different and different strategies are used to improve the odds of success.

 

 

Tell you what, I won’t complain about you robotic writing skills if you don’t whine about my more passionate ones. As for older men and younger women, we’ve discussed this before. Just because you see the benefit in it for *you*, science is a far cry from what you want your own agenda to mandate. You conveniently leave out information that challenges your view point on this consistently. I am ready to agree that in earlier days older men/younger women relationships were probably more prevalent. Due do the fact that women didn’t have the freedom and money that they enjoy now. However, while those relationships still occur, biologically, women are more prone to choose partners closer in age to them in this day and age. You forget to factor in important information as the honest facts about men’s own biology and the fact that we don’t live in a society that is as ready to pander to man whims. A lot of the ideaology behind an older man/younger woman relationship is set up based on a patriarchal society. If you want to talk biology, lets talk biology. But lets be realistic about men's biology.

[clv0116]

The argument that I have is with lack of free will and the assertion that men are helpless victims of "ancient genetic programming".

 

Well I don't see it as victims at all. They are engaged in harmless behaviors that make them and those they engage in those behaviors with happy. Why both parties are happy is an interesting question that studies like this can try to examine but I see no reason for disdain nor do I see any intrinsic harm being done.

[luvstarved]

Well I don't see it as victims at all. They are engaged in harmless behaviors that make them and those they engage in those behaviors with happy. Why both parties are happy is an interesting question that studies like this can try to examine but I see no reason for disdain nor do I see any intrinsic harm being done.

 

Then maybe you missed the topic as being about monogamy.

 

If some old widowed coot can get into a young woman's pants, I don't

give a rat's ass.

 

My disdain is for guys who have committed to MONOGAMOUS

relationships and then thrown the monogamy part out the window

with a sheepish "I can't help it" shrug. That is what I think is

inexcusable and far from "harmless".

 

S**t happens, and every case is different, but in most cases I

think this is a huge crock of selfish crap.

 

People who have not entered into a monogamous relationship can

call it biology or selfishness or an addiction to big tits, I don't care.

That's not what the topic is about.

[clv0116]

Why is it when you want to talk about this subject it's all about biology for women and all about "more complex" needs when it comes to men. Because previously you were hell bent on defending your stance all based on biology.

 

Conception and biology and procreation are *3* different things, and again, for the Nth time in this thread, procreation and selective breeding don't CARE about needs of anyone except the offspring. Stop thinking about yourself and realize that from a genetic standpoint only grandkids matter.

 

 

 

 

Just because you see the benefit in it for *you*, science is a far cry from what you want your own agenda to mandate. You conveniently leave out information that challenges your view point on this consistently.

 

See above. My reasons for dating younger are nothing to do with this thread, except for perhaps some subconscious influence driving me to want to pair off with a specific sort of mate.

 

 

 

 

I am ready to agree that in earlier days older men/younger women relationships were probably more prevalent. Due do the fact that women didn’t have the freedom and money that they enjoy now. However, while those relationships still occur, biologically, women are more prone to choose partners closer in age to them in this day and age.

 

So? What we are able to do now may, someday, have an influence on reprogramming our DNA since the pressures that mold what is a successful and what is an unsuccessful strategy change, but that doesn't go back and alter history.

[Rooster_DAR]

Interesting perspectives here...but I did not mean to take this thread off topic, it appears it has steered a bit.

 

D'oh!

[clv0116]

Then maybe you missed the topic as being about monogamy.

 

.....

 

 

My disdain is for guys who have committed to MONOGAMOUS

relationships and then thrown the monogamy part out the window

with a sheepish "I can't help it" shrug. That is what I think is

inexcusable and far from "harmless".

 

I share that opinion, have you really read what I posted before Jersey made it about her man-hating crusade? In humans I believe there is a huge procreative payoff for forming a strong durable pair bond.

[luvstarved]

I share that opinion, have you really read what I posted before Jersey made it about her man-hating crusade? In humans I believe there is a huge procreative payoff for forming a strong durable pair bond.

 

Yeah but I think of humans as more than walking gene blobs, the

procreative angle might as well be a discussion of amoebae and that

is not how I feel about us people.

 

Of course all that nature is part of what drives and defines us but

I think of people as having some transcendental qualities that make us

about more than optimizing the DNA.

 

If we were "just" animals driven by our instincts, we would not even

be asking these questions...

[Jersey Shortie]

Conception and biology and procreation are *3* different things, and again, for the Nth time in this thread, procreation and selective breeding don't CARE about needs of anyone except the offspring. Stop thinking about yourself and realize that from a genetic standpoint only grandkids matter.

 

Seems to me that you are thinking about yourself more then I am Clv. And I fully agree there are many factors that play a role. The difference is that I recognize that men aren't immune to biology anymore then women are.

 

 

See above. My reasons for dating younger are nothing to do with this thread, except for perhaps some subconscious influence driving me to want to pair off with a specific sort of mate.

 

Who said it had anything to do with this thread. I said it had to do with your own agenda. And I find irony in a person that just above told me to stop thinking about myself but defends his own needs based on "subconscious influences".

 

 

So? What we are able to do now may, someday, have an influence on reprogramming our DNA since the pressures that mold what is a successful and what is an unsuccessful strategy change, but that doesn't go back and alter history.

 

Who cares about changing history. The points that have been illustrated to you that just because things might have been true in the past, it wasn't all for biological reasoning and doesn't hold true the same ways in the present.

 

I share that opinion, have you really read what I posted before Jersey made it about her man-hating crusade? In humans I believe there is a huge procreative payoff for forming a strong durable pair bond.

 

While you're out trying to form pair bonds the rest of us will work on forming relationships. And we both know you don't think i hate men.

[clv0116]

Yeah but I think of humans as more than walking gene blobs, the

procreative angle might as well be a discussion of amoebae and that

is not how I feel about us people.

 

Of course all that nature is part of what drives and defines us but

I think of people as having some transcendental qualities ....

 

That's fine, but to ignore the instinctive portion of our humanity is a mistake as well. We are driven by instinct, and we also have other faculties to utilize. It's good to note that marketing and other human behavior experts are adept at leveraging 'instinctive' reactions in humans.

 

We are more instinct driven, and then we rationalize it later, than we realize.