BF interested in Young girls?????

[clv0116]

A woman is most fertile AND equipped to rear offspring in her early twenties, so it wouldn't make biological sense for men to have a preference for teenagers.

 

You're not thinking it through clearly. Pairing off with a 16 year old and a say, 24 year old, the younger woman has the potential to produce more offspring. There's no two ways about it given equally healthy specimens.

[clv0116]

Yes, I consider 16 a young teenager.

 

 

Well let's work this one out.

 

13

14

15

16 <- Looks right in the middle of "teenager" to me.

17

18

19

 

 

So 16 is a young teenager in much the same way 25 is "early 20s", that is to say, not.

[shadowplay]

You're not thinking it through clearly. Pairing off with a 16 year old and a say, 24 year old, the younger woman has the potential to produce more offspring. There's no two ways about it given equally healthy specimens.

 

Men are naturally polygamous, so if we're talking about biological instincts, they wouldn't be "pairing off" with any given woman.

 

It also wouldn't make sense for there to be a disconnect between when women are most fertile and when men are most attracted to them. The two naturally influence each other.

[clv0116]

Men are naturally polygamous, so if we're talking about biological instincts, they wouldn't be "pairing off" with any given woman.

 

I don't believe this is true either.

[shadowplay]

Well let's work this one out.

 

13

14

15

16 <- Looks right in the middle of "teenager" to me.

17

18

19

 

 

So 16 is a young teenager in much the same way 25 is "early 20s", that is to say, not.

 

 

Whatever you want to call it, it's younger than most men consider "ideal" even on a purely physical basis. A lot of sixteen year old girls aren't even fully developed (I know I wasn't) and still basically look like kids.

 

You may find girls this age most attractive, but I can guarantee you a lot of men would disagree.

[shadowplay]

I don't believe this is true either.

 

Explain the disconnect between age of highest fertility and when men would, according to your reasoning, find women most attractive. Doesn't make sense. Even if you look across species, the two invariably match up.

[clv0116]

Whatever you want to call it, it's younger than most men consider "ideal" even on a purely physical basis. A lot of sixteen year old girls aren't even fully developed (I know I wasn't) and still basically look like kids.

 

You may find girls this age most attractive, but I can guarantee you a lot of men would disagree.

 

This I completely agree with, I prefer women from late teens to late 20s, with early to mid 20s being usually the hottest. I just think saying a 16 year old is in his or her early teens is misleading and a little loaded.

[clv0116]

Explain the disconnect between age of highest fertility and when men would, according to your reasoning, find women most attractive. Doesn't make sense. Even if you look across species, the two invariably match up.

 

To be clear, I don't believe men are instinctively, for the most part, promiscuous as a primary means of reproduction. If you're gonna choose a mate (or mates) you want to get the one who can knock out the most replicants in her remaining career while still starting now.

[shadowplay]

As I recall, there was a study where men of all ages were shown faces of women of different ages and asked to rate how sexually attractive they found the women. Iirc, the average age was 24.

[the beholder]

Its creepy but its a fact that some men prefer young girls... never understood why though.

For eg. Woody allen went for a young girl who was the adopted daughter of his long time gf... disgusting right? But should we interfare with other ppls choices? Id want to quote him here "the heart wants what the heart wants."

But what is really confusing to me is why miley cyrus... can a grown man actually be attracted to some cheesy child star(I call it so because her work even doesnt reach teenage level for me)????

[shadowplay]

To be clear, I don't believe men are instinctively, for the most part, promiscuous as a primary means of reproduction. If you're gonna choose a mate (or mates) you want to get the one who can knock out the most replicants in her remaining career while still starting now.

 

So explain the disconnect I mentioned between peak fertility and age men find most attractive, and why it would be an anomaly compared to other animal species.

[clv0116]

As I recall, there was a study where men of all ages were shown faces of women of different ages and asked to rate how sexually attractive they found the women. Iirc, the average age was 24.

 

Interesting, I'd like to see that, but having sex with her face won't make babies.

[shadowplay]

Interesting, I'd like to see that, but having sex with her face won't make babies.

 

That would also imply an unlikely disconnect. On a biological basis men should be attracted to the facial age that suggests the right body age.

[clv0116]

So explain the disconnect I mentioned between peak fertility and age men find most attractive, ...

 

 

"If you're gonna choose a mate (or mates) you want to get the one who can knock out the most replicants in her remaining career while still starting now."

[clv0116]

That would also imply an unlikely disconnect. On a biological basis men should be attracted to the facial age that suggests the right body age.

 

I'm just saying that it would be less biased to show the whole woman.

[shadowplay]

"If you're gonna choose a mate (or mates) you want to get the one who can knock out the most replicants in her remaining career while still starting now."

 

You're still not addressing my question. If that were the case, women would reach their peak fertility at a younger age because the two naturally influence each other (when men find them most attractive and when they reach peak fertility.

[shadowplay]

I'm just saying that it would be less biased to show the whole woman.

 

People have evolved to be remarkably good at telling overall age based on face alone.

[clv0116]

You're still not addressing my question. If that were the case, women would reach their peak fertility at a younger age because the two naturally influence each other (when men find them most attractive and when they reach peak fertility.

 

Successful (in the gene game) males would go for the women who can produce the most surviving offspring in her remaining child bearing years. There's no other measure of success. When women are 'peak fertile' is irrelevant, in the end game it's all about numbers.

 

Men will also be protective and try to keep other men away from 'their' mate(s). Same deal.

[clv0116]

People have evolved to be remarkably good at telling overall age based on face alone.

 

It's a lot easier to tell if someone is sexually mature with the assistance of secondary sexual characteristics. I can't believe I have to explain that.

[the beholder]

I believe the reason behind it is what the society implicts as what sells rather than the natural reasons.

A healthy male doesnt goes in for thinking about how many kids the female could bear him in her lifetime by the urge which is naturally evoked by the most fertile female who is mostly in mid twenties.

And I think this is not just the natural case in adults but it starts right from the childhood... thats the reason why young boys have their crush on their female teachers... its just natural... they dont even consider the reproductivity or any crap that society feeds... thats how the hormones kick in

[the beholder]

It's a lot easier to tell if someone is sexually mature with the assistance of secondary sexual characteristics. I can't believe I have to explain that.

this is where you contradict yourself mate. I completely agree that it is easier to see maturity by secondary sexual characteristics but isnt it the fact that those are most profound in individual in their mid 20s than in any teenager...

 

And facial attractions also have a great influence on how men choose their partners... attributes such as plum lips have relations not only with the attractiveness but with firtility as well

[shadowplay]

It's a lot easier to tell if someone is sexually mature with the assistance of secondary sexual characteristics. I can't believe I have to explain that.

 

You're not making sense. Many women aren't fully developed at the age of 16, which is why they reach peak fertility later. You're really arguing that men are more attracted to girls who aren't completely developed vs women who are fully developed?

 

"When women reach peak fertility is irrelevant." Lol. Do you realize how foolish that sounds? Of course it's relevant; it's highly relevant because a guy will be more attracted to a woman he has a higher chance of producing offspring with.

 

The two regulate each other -- when a man finds a woman most attractive and when she is most fertile. Think about it: it makes sense for a woman to be most fertile at the time when men are more likely to have sex with her. If men were most attracted to women at age 16, then women would have evolved to be more fertile at that age. Likewise men will be more attracted to women when they are most fertile for the reason I mentioned above.

 

Add in the fact that men are biologically wired to be promiscuous and your argument makes absolutely no sense.

 

For what it's worth I just asked a male friend (25) whether most men find sixteen year olds more physically attractive than women in their twenties and he laughed and gave me a confused expression. He said "I highly doubt that," and added that he prefers women who look like women not kids.

[Paragon]

SHADOWPLAY,

 

It pains me to sit here and read your posts. They're all meaningless OPINIONS, what you THINK, what you FEEL, what 'makes sense' to you. You're just like everyone else in this thread--where's your degree in sexual psychology, evolutionary psychology, perhaps even biology? What's the last scientific book you read on such subjects--was it scholarly?

 

You talk about men who are attracted to younger women having a 'screw or two' loose. Where are your credentials to diagnose someone's mental health? Wait--you don't have any? Then perhaps you should refrain from diagnosing the OP bf's mental health instead of trying to sit here and say what 'makes sense' to you is true.

 

And as for your question you keep pressing on CLV, the one about "So explain the disconnect I mentioned between peak fertility and age men find most attractive"

 

It's not about quality of the child bearing age for men--it's ALLLL ABOUT NUMBERS. That's not what I 'think', it's not what 'makes sense to me', it's not just what I find in my social circle--it's FACT.

 

Again, the fact that you're even ASKING this question is a wonderful tribute to your LACK of knowledge about evolutionary psychology, evolution, natural selection, sexual selection, and sexual psychology in general.

[shadowplay]

SHADOWPLAY,

 

It pains me to sit here and read your posts. They're all meaningless OPINIONS, what you THINK, what you FEEL, what 'makes sense' to you. You're just like everyone else in this thread--where's your degree in sexual psychology, evolutionary psychology, perhaps even biology? What's the last scientific book you read on such subjects--was it scholarly?

 

You talk about men who are attracted to younger women having a 'screw or two' loose. Where are your credentials to diagnose someone's mental health? Wait--you don't have any? Then perhaps you should refrain from diagnosing the OP bf's mental health instead of trying to sit here and say what 'makes sense' to you is true.

 

And as for your question you keep pressing on CLV, the one about "So explain the disconnect I mentioned between peak fertility and age men find most attractive"

 

It's not about quality of the child bearing age for men--it's ALLLL ABOUT NUMBERS. That's not what I 'think', it's not what 'makes sense to me', it's not just what I find in my social circle--it's FACT.

 

Again, the fact that you're even ASKING this question is a wonderful tribute to your LACK of knowledge about evolutionary psychology, evolution, natural selection, sexual selection, and sexual psychology in general.

 

And what knowledge have you demonstrated of the above? Where's your degree in evolutionary theory? You accuse me of not backing up my arguments, but you're doing exactly the same when you claim your argument is "fact" despite that it relies on the premise that men are naturally monogamous, a hardly indisputable fact.

 

If anything the case you and CV make goes against evolutionary theory because many evolutionary scientists believe that men are actually promiscuous by nature.

 

Your "all about the numbers" argument makes no sense since it applies to my argument as well. If a woman is more fertile, she's more likely to produce offspring. If men are promiscuous by nature it would make sense for them to bed women who are most fertile.

 

And why is it that in all other mammals species peak fertility occurs at the time that females are mostly likely to reproduce. Do you think humans are magically some exception to this rule?

 

I don't need a degree to point out when an argument is illogical.

Edited October 3, 2009 by shadowplay

[Paragon]

And what knowledge have you demonstrated of the above? Where's your degree in evolutionary theory? You accuse me of not backing up my arguments but you're doing exactly the same

Uhm, you REALLY think I would call you out on your lack of credentials and true knowledge WITHOUT having some myself? Come on now

 

when you claim your argument is "fact" despite that it relies on the premise that men are naturally monogamous, a hardly indisputable fact. If anything the case you and CV make goes against evolutionary theory because many evolutionary scientists believe that men are actually promiscuous by nature.

 

Really? Show me where I said that--i'm sure you'll have a hard time since that phrase was never typed by my hands. Men are programmed to want to have as many offsrping as possible--that's their reproductive strategy, plain and simple. As for introducing polygamy and monogamy, that's irrelevant and there's far too much detail in that area to use that as a fact for one's argument, especially since in the end it's not about poly versus mono--it's about reproductive STRATEGIES, and in this case, a man's strategy is to inseminate a female(s) as many times as possible. In other words--numbers...

 

Your "all about the numbers" argument makes no sense since it applies to my argument as well. If a woman is more fertile, she's more likely to produce offspring. If men are promiscuous by nature it would make sense for them to bed women who are most fertile.

 

Survey says??? WRONG!! But thanks for playing That's flawed logik and and a misconception on YOUR part about how evolutionary theory and how natural and sexual selection work. Whether or not she's 75% likely to deliver or 95%, it doesn't matter. She's still fertile and young and the younger she is the longer she has to produce offspring and the less time she's had to be impregnated by another male. Hence, the men who evolved to get 'em young so to speak were more likely to reproduce. It makes NO sense to wait. You're telling me that you not only understand that, but you DISAGREE with that fact backed by scientific research, evidence, and theory? I would hope not...

 

And why is it that in all other mammals species peak fertility occurs at the time that females are mostly likely to reproduce. Do you think humans are magically some exception to this rule?

 

Are you kidding me? So, you're saying that humans are allowed no sexual diversity in this regard? That's like saying, "Well, all other mammals copulate at LEAST twice as much as humans in order to produce offspring, so this statistical difference CAN'T be the case because humans must fall lock step in line with other mammals!!" That's your principle, and it doesn't follow logik.

 

I don't need a degree to point out when an argument is illogical.

 

No, you don't, but you shouldn't be espousing your thoughts as truth trying to say that's how the world works when what your touting is simply your own thoughts on the subject--NOT fact.

 

And truth be told, it REALLY bothers me that you chose to IGNORE the fact that you judged and labeled the OP'S bf as having a screw or two loose without having the credentials to do that either. Why would you be so quick to judge someone, especially since that's her partner for over 6 years? Do you REALLY think that judgment will help her?

Edited October 4, 2009 by Paragon