threebyfate Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Hair on men doesn't bother me, as long as it's kept reasonably short and very clean. No comb-overs or spray on hair! If you're seriously balding, shave it off. If you're thinning a bit, no big deal. In all seriousness, everyone ages. That's a fact of life. Men and women age in similar AND different ways. We're all going to eventually die so stay healthy by taking care of the one body you're given. No amount of cosmetic surgery will help poor health.
chphan Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Hair on men doesn't bother me, as long as it's kept reasonably short and very clean. No comb-overs or spray on hair! If you're seriously balding, shave it off. If you're thinning a bit, no big deal. In all seriousness, everyone ages. That's a fact of life. Men and women age in similar AND different ways. We're all going to eventually die so stay healthy by taking care of the one body you're given. No amount of cosmetic surgery will help poor health. Err what the heck is a spray on hair? You mean hair spray?
zengirl Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Another example of gender hatred is thinking the opposite sex ages badly. It's funny how everybody here swears their own sex ages the best. Eh, I don't see a lot of that here. More analysis, less kneejerk "We look better!" And plenty of people don't fall along gender lines.
serial muse Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) I'd like to clarify this. Are you suggesting that men have no preference for younger women, or alternatively that the preference has nothing to do with their brains? OK, I'll summarize my own post. I was responding to a post that said this: "Women in their early 20s are at their hottest, women in their late 20s are still hot, women in their early 30s are still ok" "our brains evolved to what it is now at a time when most women died in their 40s and were becomming less fertile halfway 30s" 1. Our brains did not evolve to find so-called younger (20s) women more attractive than older (30s). Please, somebody, show me some data to support this. I'm begging you! 2. Which is why I think it's funny when people drag biology into this, to lend a quasi-scientific air to their preferences and subtly suggest that we are, after all, animals and thus are driven by our biological urges. Thus, it's not under our control, it's just "biology," so deal with it, ladies. Except that, from a biological standpoint - erm, no. Nice try though. 3. So am I saying that many, if not most, men do not actually prefer "younger" early 20s women? No, I am not saying that. Nor am I saying that biology plays no role - certainly, secondary sex characteristics matter when it comes to determining someone's fertility. Breasts, wide hips, etc. But why pretend that there is not a huge societal component to differentiating between attractiveness at age 20 and attractiveness at age 30? We have fetishized college students for several decades now. That was not the standard of beauty several decades ago. These things wax and wane. 4. Please note that I am talking about comparing women of varying ages within the childbearing years. I am not talking about post-menopausal women. 5. I just don't understand why guys feel the need to "justify" their personal preferences by abusing poor science. Leave science alone! It didn't hurt you. There there, science. Edited August 12, 2011 by serial muse
threebyfate Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Err what the heck is a spray on hair? You mean hair spray?
GorillaTheater Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Just for the record, I am one HOT 49-year-old man. And my wife looks pretty damn good, too.
zengirl Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 OK, I'll summarize my own post. I was responding to a post that said this: "Women in their early 20s are at their hottest, women in their late 20s are still hot, women in their early 30s are still ok" "our brains evolved to what it is now at a time when most women died in their 40s and were becomming less fertile halfway 30s" 1. Our brains did not evolve to find so-called younger (20s) women more attractive than older (30s). Please, somebody, show me some data to support this. I'm begging you! 2. Which is why I think it's funny when people drag biology into this, to lend a quasi-scientific air to their preferences and subtly suggest that we are, after all, animals and thus are driven by our biological urges. Thus, it's not under our control, it's just "biology," so deal with it, ladies. Except that, from a biological standpoint - erm, no. Nice try though. 3. So am I saying that many, if not most, men do not actually prefer "younger" early 20s women? No, I am not saying that. Nor am I saying that biology plays no role - certainly, secondary sex characteristics matter when it comes to determining someone's fertility. Breasts, wide hips, etc. But why pretend that there is not a huge societal component to differentiating between attractiveness at age 20 and attractiveness at age 30? We have fetishized college students for several decades now. That was not the standard of beauty several decades ago. These things wax and wane. 4. Please note that I am talking about comparing women of varying ages within the childbearing years. I am not talking about post-menopausal women. 5. I just don't understand why guys feel the need to "justify" their personal preferences by abusing poor science. Leave science alone! It didn't hurt you. There there, science. I like this. Loads. Yes, leave science alone! It is also true that the age associated with sex symbols (in modern times) has ebbed and flowed. People love to point out how young women were when they got married ages ago, but. . . (a) they were an extra mouth to feed and used for alliances in most cases and (b) weren't supposed to have sex (or babies) till they got married. Why would they still be chillin' around the house at 27? They couldn't go get a career in finance back in those days . . . And widowed women of good birth/money were often re-married at later years, and it wasn't considered some great insult. In fact, if she'd successfully bourne children before and still bled, she was considered even potentially more useful in some cases as she was "proven fertile."
chphan Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Holy cow. I seen that before but I always thought it was just a joke in sitcom. Didn't think it was actually real. LOL.
ptp Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) I kind of get what serial muse is trying to say but, she is pushing it to far. I could easily say where are the studies that show the reason men are attracted to younger women is purely sociological and not biological? Furthermore it is undeniable that women in their 20s are significantly more fertile than in their 40s. Thus IMO it is reasonable to assume that men are attracted to physical characteristics associated with a woman in her 20s than a woman in her 40s. Just because there are no scientific studies to prove something doesn't mean it isn't true. Edited August 12, 2011 by ptp
sally4sara Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Obviously I am speaking gross generalities but, just want to make that clear and that there are exceptions. No doubt women can gain wealth/power but, women are way more attracted to a wealthy powerful man than a man is attracted to a wealthy powerful woman. Also as a woman ages the risk of birth defects such down syndrome increases significantly after 35. There is such a clear link that Ob/Gyn docs use the term AMA (advanced maternal age). I'm not trying to argue with you or convince you of otherwise but What we have been attracted to in the past had much to do with cultural and social standards. As those standards change, so to does what we find attractive outside of the golden ratio. Middle and poor class men didn't show a tendency to be attracted to the wealth or status of women because the women of their time had very little of those things. McCain is an outlier example - he married his second wife for her money and today they don't even live under the same roof. As the job market is now less male driven, the chances of success over time is the opportunity of both genders. We will probably see the younger generations of men doing what some still consider to be something feminine - marrying for money and status. Men also have their own degrading of genetic material. As they age their sperm degrades and it has been linked to an increase in the odds of birth defects for fathers past the age of 35. Yet we see more and more pharm products to help them continue having sex - . Its as odd as the fact that women can now have children after menopause. That we learned how to make this possible is I guess an advancement but I'm not sure if the instance of more children born with downs syndrome and birth defects is going to be worth it.
sally4sara Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Another example of gender hatred is thinking the opposite sex ages badly. It's funny how everybody here swears their own sex ages the best. This might be the case if men of my own age bracket turned to cosmetic and surgical enhancement to appear younger in the same numbers women of my age bracket do. If men did this they would see the same results, but they don't do it as often so they tend to look older than their female counterparts. Yes, tanning is brutal. If you were into the GTL lifestyle in the past you will look much older than your age later on. I use to get picked on by my classmates in high school for not going tanning. No one was picking on me about it at the recent reunion......
Woggle Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Women who have plastic surgery and botox are pretty obvious as well. They look plastic just like the women on those Real Housewives show. Both men and women just need to accept they won't look the same forever. It doesn't mean they won't look attractive but they won't look 25 forever.
sally4sara Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Women who have plastic surgery and botox are pretty obvious as well. They look plastic just like the women on those Real Housewives show. Both men and women just need to accept they won't look the same forever. It doesn't mean they won't look attractive but they won't look 25 forever. Eh, its more about the skill of the surgeon and how much you're willing to spend. There are a lot of really good ones here in the Chevy Chase/ Bethesda area so there are lots of skillfully tucked ladies on the arm of their much older APPEARING husband around here even though they are roughly the same age.
ptp Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) I'm not trying to argue with you or convince you of otherwise but What we have been attracted to in the past had much to do with cultural and social standards. As those standards change, so to does what we find attractive outside of the golden ratio. Middle and poor class men didn't show a tendency to be attracted to the wealth or status of women because the women of their time had very little of those things. McCain is an outlier example - he married his second wife for her money and today they don't even live under the same roof. As the job market is now less male driven, the chances of success over time is the opportunity of both genders. We will probably see the younger generations of men doing what some still consider to be something feminine - marrying for money and status. Men also have their own degrading of genetic material. As they age their sperm degrades and it has been linked to an increase in the odds of birth defects for fathers past the age of 35. Yet we see more and more pharm products to help them continue having sex - . Its as odd as the fact that women can now have children after menopause. That we learned how to make this possible is I guess an advancement but I'm not sure if the instance of more children born with downs syndrome and birth defects is going to be worth it. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I can tell you in my circle of friends, women are definitely more attracted to older guys while almost none of my male friends would pick an older more successful woman over a young hot chick. I don't see that changing in the next generation or 2 maybe 50 years down the line you maybe right. Furthermore the links between AMA and birth defects is significantly stronger than advanced paternal age. Maybe I am misinformed and you can school me :-) but, to my knowledge men stay fertile for far longer than women. I do agree we are messing a lot with mother nature and it leads to increased birth defects and miscarriages. Edited August 12, 2011 by ptp
sally4sara Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I can tell you in my circle of friends, women are definitely more attracted to older guys while almost none of my male friends would pick an older more successful woman over a young hot chick. I don't see that changing in the next generation or 2 maybe 50 years down the line you maybe right. Furthermore the links between links AMA and birth defects is significantly stronger than advanced paternal age. Maybe I am misinformed and you can school me :-) but, to my knowledge men stay fertile for far longer than women. I do agree we are messing a lot with mother nature and it leads to increased birth defects and miscarriages. You can look up info on it on your own - might become important to you as you age. But the virile and fertile manly man image has made this kind of research an after thought that doctors have only been showing an increased interest in over the last 20 years. Much like the stories of royal court where if a woman failed to produce a child she was always blamed because no one ever stopped to think about men being incapable of fathering a child. But now that they are researching it more they are finding that APA has been linked to damn near everything from schizophrenia and autism to dwarfism and other skeletal abnormalities. I'm not sharing to make anyone feel less whatever men feel about the integrity of their swimmers, but because much of the standards we cite in debate is reliant on information that has already been found to be false. **** we still get taught that the earliest humans had a life span of 35 years based off of studies conducted when all we could use to identify age of a skeleton was whether or not their wisdom teeth had fully budded. But the later technology of carbon dating showed humans back then lived to be about the age a human today.
xxoo Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Both men and women just need to accept they won't look the same forever. It doesn't mean they won't look attractive but they won't look 25 forever. True! Beauty is not limited to youthfulness. It's really ok to look older than 25
serial muse Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) I kind of get what serial muse is trying to say but, she is pushing it to far. I could easily say where are the studies that show the reason men are attracted to younger women is purely sociological and not biological? Furthermore it is undeniable that women in their 20s are significantly more fertile than in their 40s. Thus IMO it is reasonable to assume that men are attracted to physical characteristics associated with a woman in her 20s than a woman in her 40s. Just because there are no scientific studies to prove something doesn't mean it isn't true. I think what I primarily was objecting to was the stance that XXX is "clearly" true because of YYY that is NOT science. It is certainly fine to form a hypothesis; until data are collected, nothing is proven or disproven. BUT it makes me cringe when I see people claiming things are fact that are not fact. People making up "facts" (which are generally, from what I've observed, merely strongly held opinion) to bolster their viewpoints - particularly on various gender issues - is one of the most egregious offenses, IMO, on loveshack. Keeping an open mind is a good thing. Objectivity is even better. The post that I objected to was rife with assumptions that are not science. That is not keeping an open mind. Just because something is not proven does not make it a good idea to assume it's true until it is (or isn't). That's really all I was trying to say. I don't deny that biology is important in attractiveness - that would be foolish. But to suggest that it's all biology is equally so. In my opinion, people generally prefer to say that something that they know will be an unpopular opinion is a "fact" so that they can avoid responsibility for thinking it or saying it. (To wit, "sorry ladies, it's just science.") It's easier to blame unpopular ideas on "biology" or "evolution" than on personal preferences or societal trends, because who could argue with biology? It just is. I guess I just think that's kind of cowardly. Edited August 12, 2011 by serial muse
KathyM Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 In a response to a previous thread I stated a possible reason men prefer younger women is that most women IMO age worse than men. Yeah there are exceptions to the rule and some men age badly and I don't want offend the ladies but what do you all think? I think how a person ages depends on lifestyle and genetics, not gender. If a person smokes, sits out in the sun a lot, eats very poorly, and does other bad things to their body, they are going to age a lot faster than if they lived a healthy lifestyle. Also, if they have good genes, that makes a big difference. I don't think gender has anything to do with it. From what I've seen, middle aged and older men look just as old as their wives do, sometimes older.
FitChick Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Not that many people want kids, as the plummeting population figures, smaller families and no-kid families show, so a woman's biological age is irrelevant. If anything, I've observed that most men live in fear that their girlfriend will get pregnant, trapping them in a life of servitude, no sex and child support for 18 years. I think that is one reason for the popularity of The Cougar. For you men who think women over 40 are all past it.
xoxoDaniellexoxo Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Even that is a stretch. Balding men are a major turn off. I think actually it can be sexy!! Jeremy Pivan, JP from the bachlorette are both HOT!!! Tom Cruise aged well, and so did Helen Mirren I can't remember where I read it but a magazine named her the hottest over 50 body and I agree!! She has taken amazing care of herself!
Eternal Sunshine Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 I actually didn't find JP from Bachelorette attractive because he is bald. He is still in great shape though at 34, no wrinkles and takes care of his body.
krz12 Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Tom Cruise I assume is surgeried top to bottom. He looks reasonably close to what he looked like in Top Gun. Setting aside immortal Asian women, IMO the answer is men.
anne1707 Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 I think actually it can be sexy!! Jeremy Pivan, JP from the bachlorette are both HOT!!! Tom Cruise aged well, and so did Helen Mirren I can't remember where I read it but a magazine named her the hottest over 50 body and I agree!! She has taken amazing care of herself! Not just for over 50s! She has just been voted Body of the Year against women half her age http://news.sky.com/home/showbiz-news/article/16041172
ptp Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 You can look up info on it on your own - might become important to you as you age. But the virile and fertile manly man image has made this kind of research an after thought that doctors have only been showing an increased interest in over the last 20 years. Much like the stories of royal court where if a woman failed to produce a child she was always blamed because no one ever stopped to think about men being incapable of fathering a child. But now that they are researching it more they are finding that APA has been linked to damn near everything from schizophrenia and autism to dwarfism and other skeletal abnormalities. I'm not sharing to make anyone feel less whatever men feel about the integrity of their swimmers, but because much of the standards we cite in debate is reliant on information that has already been found to be false. **** we still get taught that the earliest humans had a life span of 35 years based off of studies conducted when all we could use to identify age of a skeleton was whether or not their wisdom teeth had fully budded. But the later technology of carbon dating showed humans back then lived to be about the age a human today. I have looked it up on my own and Advanced Paternal Age doesn't seem to be nearly the hindrance that Advanced Maternal Age is. That is why I was asking for your assistance in the matter . It makes logical sense aswell because eggs sit there for a very long time while sperm are continuously reproduced. I have more than enough time to father children it isn't something that concerns me at all. My maturity/ability to raise a child that does concern me quite a bit.
Recommended Posts