Sexes 'upper hand' by age?

[Poutrew]

I'm an older guy, and I don't go to exceptional lengths to keep myself in shape - my attitude is hey, I'm still alive so I must be doing something right. I have noticed that that the older I get, the easier it is for me to get younger and younger women. Age wise, I wont go much below 35. I find too many adolescent attitudes in younger women below 35ish. They have the body, but not the brain... thing is, the older I get the more finicky I become. I find myself asking the question: 'what can this female bring into my life?' If it is only 'hot monkey sex', I tend to pass her onto the younger men. Maybe not getting enough when I was younger has toughened me up in my old age, or perhaps I have always had an 'I don't give a sh*t' attitude, but me being a cantankerous oldster has just brought it out more...

[Recon33]

Its not false hope....Its absolutely true...Just use common sense....

 

While women have tried to change the rules of this game(relationships/dating), the fact still remains, a woman's value is highly dependent on her looks/body...And it wont matter if the guy is 20 or 90...Women in your age group are at the peak of their desirability as most can maintain their looks and physique at the easiest time in their lives..

 

Sure, looks are important for guys as well, but really only when they are around your age and up to early 30's....Then, more average looking guys start to earn "points" for stuff like status, money, Alpha qualities, etc.....Are there people that will struggle their entire lives?? Sure...men and women.....but they are really the outliers..

 

The women that know this and pay attention to it are the one's in the gym and rocking a hot body(not necessarily a 20 something body) well up into their 40's and even 50s.....Not afraid to spend a few dollars on a boob job or some other body mods..They always make sure they look good, don't wear frumpy clothes, wear make up, etc...If you could see who those women are with, its either good looking guys, successful guys, or some with both qualities..

 

So what does all this mean for the average 20 something, struggling guy?

 

If you want your chance at the plate, then work on keeping yourself reasonably fit and have a good career/some money....Because while the scenario I posed is really the essence of it, the reality is that as women age, if they can't keep up their looks as well as they once could, then all those requirements they had for a guy when they were in their 20's.,well, they start getting crossed off the list...And then the two shall meet...

 

PS...Sorry in advance...I know some women are going to say this is complete BS, and I sympathize...I personally think its a bad deal for women, quite frankly..Its objectifying...I get it...Ive just seen too many instances to not see how this works, and the cosmetic industry/plastic surgeons/personal trainers/etc are all very busy....

 

TFY

 

I'm not doubting you, the reason I say that is because it's just as possible for someone who's struggling now to be struggling in the future as well. Also, I've never heard anyone mention this theory in the real world so it's not like it's a written in stone fact but what you're saying does make sense. Even so though, I'm not exactly thrilled about the thought of women who would pass me up now being interested in me for materialistic/superfical reasons when I'm older.

 

 

I was a struggling guy in my 20's.

I married the first woman who gave me sex on the regular.

That ended badly.

Now though, I get it.

sure I lost weight and have an ok job.

I've developed extreme DIY skills and great in bed.

 

But other than losing weight the only thing i did that got women interested was basically just not caring so much if they liked me or not.

I stopped trying so hard and stopped chasing.

I learned if a woman likes me, she will let me know so until then go meet more women and well i got other stuff to do.

 

I've adopted this type of mindset for a little while now and it's made me feel better about myself and I think it's important to have but as far as I can tell it hasn't made any girls more interested in me. I find it helps with the girls that already like you but it's not like it makes any of them who didn't at first change their minds or anything like that. Regardless, it's good to have for yourself.

[lucy_in_disguise]

Its not false hope....Its absolutely true...Just use common sense....

 

While women have tried to change the rules of this game(relationships/dating), the fact still remains, a woman's value is highly dependent on her looks/body...And it wont matter if the guy is 20 or 90...Women in your age group are at the peak of their desirability as most can maintain their looks and physique at the easiest time in their lives..

 

Sure, looks are important for guys as well, but really only when they are around your age and up to early 30's....Then, more average looking guys start to earn "points" for stuff like status, money, Alpha qualities, etc.....Are there people that will struggle their entire lives?? Sure...men and women.....but they are really the outliers..

 

The women that know this and pay attention to it are the one's in the gym and rocking a hot body(not necessarily a 20 something body) well up into their 40's and even 50s.....Not afraid to spend a few dollars on a boob job or some other body mods..They always make sure they look good, don't wear frumpy clothes, wear make up, etc...If you could see who those women are with, its either good looking guys, successful guys, or some with both qualities..

 

So what does all this mean for the average 20 something, struggling guy?

 

If you want your chance at the plate, then work on keeping yourself reasonably fit and have a good career/some money....Because while the scenario I posed is really the essence of it, the reality is that as women age, if they can't keep up their looks as well as they once could, then all those requirements they had for a guy when they were in their 20's.,well, they start getting crossed off the list...And then the two shall meet...

 

PS...Sorry in advance...I know some women are going to say this is complete BS, and I sympathize...I personally think its a bad deal for women, quite frankly..Its objectifying...I get it...Ive just seen too many instances to not see how this works, and the cosmetic industry/plastic surgeons/personal trainers/etc are all very busy....

 

TFY

 

There is no doubt that physical attractiveness for most (men and women) is all downhill past a certain age - say, 28.

 

And there are many people who do value women based primarily on their looks.

 

But, I don't think that's true for all men- any more than it is true all women value men primarily based on their earning power.

 

Happy relationships are about so much more than these shallow criteria, and I feel bad for people who, even in their middle age, haven't figured out what's important to them. Because evaluating your prospects heavily based on looks or income is misleading.

 

It obscures factors that actually determine if you will be happy with someone, aspects like being in the same place in life, being emotionally available, having the skills to be good partner and having shared goals and interests. There's a reason relationships between 25 year olds and 55 year olds are not common, regardless of what some men would like to believe. The 25 year old and 55 year old may find each other attractive but they have nothing in common. FortunatelY, I think most men and women are smart enough to realize this.

 

I think mortality rates are the biggest driver when it comes to the upper hand, because most people prefer those in their age range.

[Els]

1. I've never really agreed with the whole 'which gender has the upper hand at anything' question. How do you (disclaimer for the entire post: general 'you', not necessarily targeting the OP or anyone else) form a healthy R if it's all about 'winning'?

 

2. That being said, to answer your question - if by 'upper hand' you solely mean 'quantity' then sure, I guess. There are more women than men who pick mates largely based on money, and there are more men than women who pick mates largely based on physical appearance. Obviously, it's easier to gain 'money' as you get older, less easy to gain 'physical appearance'.

 

But... quantity does not equal quality. Frankly, I think quantity is just a confounding factor, in fact it makes it more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Sure, we should all try and take care of our careers and bodies, but not with the sole aim of pleasing as many opposite sex members as possible, because that won't lead to a quality R.

 

For instance, if you perceive that money will get you lots of women, and you spend 20 years working 100 hours a week at a job you hate in order to get that money. Now you are a multi-millionaire, and yes, there will be women. But how many of those women would stay with you if you fall into bankruptcy? Ditto for the women who place an inordinate amount of focus on their appearances and nothing else.

 

I mean, if that's what floats your boat, fine, but happy relationships, and life in general, is far more nuanced than that.

[road]

I never once felt I had the upper hand in dating, and I am now an older woman. I did have a social life and all, but I did not have the upper hand. The ONLY guys I would say I had the upper hand with were guys I didn't want to date, so I want you to think about that and mull that over. We can say, No, not interested. But in no way when I was dating did I ever feel I was calling the shots. I was mostly waiting around anxiously wondering if he'd ever call again or who else he was dating or if he was hanging with the ex-wife. So that is a myth, and I really think all it means is that you can't make a woman date you if she doesn't want to, period.

 

You have the same upper hand as anyone else. You denied those that where not rated high enough to suit you.

[road]

No...

 

Its objectifying that looks and appearance are a huge part of how men measure women....and to a degree how women are valued in society..

 

TFY

 

 

 

You are living in Egypt, the land of denial. For you chose to ignore no one wants to date the less attractive of the species. Basic biology and evolution can not be ignored. In speaking for men we all try to get the hottest mate that we can.

 

 

Observed from the women in life, media, and here, specially here through the years they complain they are single yet are not getting the high enough rated men to pursue them.

[road]

 

BTW, a beautiful woman is as beautiful, maybe more so, at 50 as she is at 25.

 

 

 

No way. Still way hot though the 25 version will be hotter. Exception weight. I know a 40 yo woman that was huge. Lost a ton, looks great. Wants a relationship bad now. Rusty at dating, good men out of circulation, pickings are slim.

[road]

1. I've never really agreed with the whole 'which gender has the upper hand at anything' question. How do you (disclaimer for the entire post: general 'you', not necessarily targeting the OP or anyone else) form a healthy R if it's all about 'winning'?

 

2. That being said, to answer your question - if by 'upper hand' you solely mean 'quantity' then sure, I guess. There are more women than men who pick mates largely based on money, and there are more men than women who pick mates largely based on physical appearance. Obviously, it's easier to gain 'money' as you get older, less easy to gain 'physical appearance'.

 

But... quantity does not equal quality. Frankly, I think quantity is just a confounding factor, in fact it makes it more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Sure, we should all try and take care of our careers and bodies, but not with the sole aim of pleasing as many opposite sex members as possible, because that won't lead to a quality R.

 

For instance, if you perceive that money will get you lots of women, and you spend 20 years working 100 hours a week at a job you hate in order to get that money. Now you are a multi-millionaire, and yes, there will be women. But how many of those women would stay with you if you fall into bankruptcy? Ditto for the women who place an inordinate amount of focus on their appearances and nothing else.

 

I mean, if that's what floats your boat, fine, but happy relationships, and life in general, is far more nuanced than that.

 

 

 

Quantity is meaningless. For if you are willing to date almost anyone you can date lots. One does not have to a 10 to date a lot if they have to have is a pulse. And for some maybe not even that.

 

 

Quality when you are a ten you will pull in a 10. Sometimes people get lucky and pull in someone way out of their league.

 

 

This is life people.

[BluesPower]

Road, I said beautiful not hot...

 

And I still maintain that a beautiful woman that is 25 will be beautiful at 50.

 

As far a hotness goes, I guess it just depends on what you are after. For me a grown woman is just way more attractive than a 25 YO. More mature, less drama, better sex.

 

Maybe you look for something different but now me. I think we may just differ on this point.

[thefooloftheyear]

You are living in Egypt, the land of denial. For you chose to ignore no one wants to date the less attractive of the species. Basic biology and evolution can not be ignored. In speaking for men we all try to get the hottest mate that we can.

 

 

Observed from the women in life, media, and here, specially here through the years they complain they are single yet are not getting the high enough rated men to pursue them.

 

 

And you are just blind.....Want and get are two different things..

 

Don't take my word for it....Just go to a place where couple's congregate and observe...You will likely see undesirable looking men with women clearly better looking than they are....Conversely, you won't see many good looking or successful men with unattractive or overweight women...

 

It practically never happens...

 

The reason why women complain, quite frankly, is that if you pay attention to the dynamic I mention you would probably see that they have a right to complain-especially now, where men have turned into whining little immature weenies that don't want mates or partners, because women can earn now, they want mothers or caretakers...Add that to the fact that good looking women outnumber men substantially, then good luck finding a solid good looking and successful guy, if you are a good looking/desirable woman...She will have mountains of competition...

 

Some guys like to think they are awesome, but having man boobs, being skilled at Xbox, and having a lousy low paying career/job, isn't the picture most good looking women have of a desirable guy..No matter how "nice: or "funny: he may be...

 

TFY

[salparadise]

Basic biology and evolution can not be ignored.

 

I'm surprised that no one else has alluded to this. What happens to the genes of men who prefer 60 year old women? Extinguished––immediately. What one thing can a man do to ensure maximum genetic proliferation? Mate with younger women, of course. Taking a 20 year old wife converts to the probability of a dozen progeny, regardless of the man's age.

 

We rationalize our preferences ad nauseam, as if it's all about conscious choice, yet we're nearly in denial of the strongest determinant –– biology. The exact same process that makes our motivation for sex so strong also shapes our preference in sexual attraction.

 

It's no coincidence that when people post about being attracted to older women, 50ish is age cutoff. Why? Menopause usually happens around age 51 and when estrogen levels drop visible changes that indicate fertility begin to fade. Pretty much all of the physical factors that men see as desirable in women are related to fertility –– ample breasts to nourish; hip to waist ratio for birthing; symmetry and proportion indicating quality genes and good health. These preferences are nearly universal (due to extinguishing vs. proliferation), yet we talk as if they are personal decisions. Nope. Biology.

 

Why do older men remain attractive to younger women. Same factors. Older men remain fertile, are usually wealthier and have attained some social status (able to boost a young woman's social advantages), etc., etc.

 

I like healthy 50 year old hotties. I can't help it, I'm just wired that way.

Edited November 29, 2016 by salparadise

[Els]

I'm surprised that no one else has alluded to this. What happens to the genes of men who prefer 60 year old women? Extinguished––immediately. What one thing can a man do to ensure maximum genetic proliferation? Mate with younger women, of course. Taking a 20 year old wife converts to the probability of a dozen progeny, regardless of the man's age.

 

We rationalize our preferences ad nauseam, as if it's all about conscious choice, yet we're nearly in denial of the strongest determinant –– biology. The exact same process that makes our motivation for sex so strong also shapes our preference in sexual attraction.

 

It's no coincidence that when people post about being attracted to older women, 50ish is age cutoff. Why? Menopause usually happens around age 51 and when estrogen levels drop visible changes that indicate fertility begin to fade. Pretty much all of the physical factors that men see as desirable in women are related to fertility –– ample breasts to nourish; hip to waist ratio for birthing; symmetry and proportion indicating quality genes and good health. These preferences are nearly universal (due to extinguishing vs. proliferation), yet we talk as if they are personal decisions. Nope. Biology.

 

Why do older men remain attractive to younger women. Same factors. Older men remain fertile, are usually wealthier and have attained some social status (able to boost a young woman's social advantages), etc., etc.

 

I like 50 year old hotties and I can't help it. I'm just wired that way.

 

If we were all to blindly go with pure 'biology', 95% of women would be in harems maintained by the richest and most powerful men in the land (because that confers the highest evolutionary advantage to their offspring, as well as the highest chances of the offspring being provided for), and only 5% of men would be breeding at all. I'm sure there are a few guys here who insist that is already the case , but I don't think you're one of them.

 

Sure biology plays a part, but the rational mind, cultural adaptation, etc cannot be discounted as well.

[salparadise]

If we were all to blindly go with pure 'biology', 95% of women would be in harems maintained by the richest and most powerful men in the land (because that confers the highest evolutionary advantage to their offspring, as well as the highest chances of the offspring being provided for), and only 5% of men would be breeding at all. I'm sure there are a few guys here who insist that is already the case , but I don't think you're one of them.

 

Sure biology plays a part, but the rational mind, cultural adaptation, etc cannot be discounted as well.

 

You're exactly right. This is the way it has worked in non-monogamous societies (past and present). Monogamy is a fairly recent societal adaptation. The predispositions are still with us. It's why youngish women tend to see the majority of men as undesirable. They're focused on the top five-percenters. It's not unlike our cousins the Mountain Gorillas. One dominant male mates with all of the females. Nearly all of the progeny in a clan have the same father. That predisposition is in our biology also, although we've developed a social organization that strives for 1:1 pair bonding and monogamy.

 

Monogamy was invented to distribute the women more equally among men, and to give those poor schmucks at the bottom of the totem pole a shot. Having two-thirds of the male population angry as hell as the Sultan for hoarding women when they have none does not make for a stable situation

[Popsicle]

It's fine to toot your own horn and think you're getting better with age (good for you!) but to think the opposite gender is suffering more is taking it too far. You're dreaming! I don't know why people think/wish the two are inversely related or related at all. If you're doing so well, I don't know why you have to think about how unwell the opposite gender is doing. Just enjoy yourself.

[Popsicle]

And you are just blind.....Want and get are two different things..

 

Don't take my word for it....Just go to a place where couple's congregate and observe...You will likely see undesirable looking men with women clearly better looking than they are....Conversely, you won't see many good looking or successful men with unattractive or overweight women...

 

It practically never happens...

 

Umm, it does happen all the time.

[Els]

You're exactly right. This is the way it has worked in non-monogamous societies (past and present). Monogamy is a fairly recent societal adaptation. The predispositions are still with us. It's why youngish women tend to see the majority of men as undesirable. They're focused on the top five-percenters. It's not unlike our cousins the Mountain Gorillas. One dominant male mates with all of the females. Nearly all of the progeny in a clan have the same father. That predisposition is in our biology also, although we've developed a social organization that strives for 1:1 pair bonding and monogamy.

 

Monogamy was invented to distribute the women more equally among men, and to give those poor schmucks at the bottom of the totem pole a shot. Having two-thirds of the male population angry as hell as the Sultan for hoarding women when they have none does not make for a stable situation

 

Yeah, that is definitely a factor. I think another factor in the development of monogamy is 'cultural evolution', which is more loosely defined. Once survival to reproductive age isn't a primary concern, humans aspire to other things that they otherwise wouldn't if they needed to concentrate on 'survival'. Pair bonding satisfies those 'higher needs' (emotional fulfillment, happiness, quality of life), even if it comes at a biological cost. Also, with modern medicine and a civilization that provides food and shelter to all who need it, 'survival of the fittest' doesn't apply as strongly anymore.

 

I mean, technically speaking, homosexual relationships have no basis in evolutionary biology, neither do people (men or women) who purposefully elect not to have kids. Yet both of the above exist and many of them are happy.

[thefooloftheyear]

Umm, it does happen all the time.

 

It "happens" but its clearly not what it appears...

 

If you want or care to know how it works, PM me and ill give you the answer..

 

TFY

[thefooloftheyear]

You're exactly right. This is the way it has worked in non-monogamous societies (past and present). Monogamy is a fairly recent societal adaptation. The predispositions are still with us. It's why youngish women tend to see the majority of men as undesirable. They're focused on the top five-percenters. It's not unlike our cousins the Mountain Gorillas. One dominant male mates with all of the females. Nearly all of the progeny in a clan have the same father. That predisposition is in our biology also, although we've developed a social organization that strives for 1:1 pair bonding and monogamy.

 

Monogamy was invented to distribute the women more equally among men, and to give those poor schmucks at the bottom of the totem pole a shot. Having two-thirds of the male population angry as hell as the Sultan for hoarding women when they have none does not make for a stable situation

 

Fortunately, for some guys anyway, women don't place as high a regard on just looks in the same way men do...I think that explains the why the guys lower on the food chain get a shot...

 

Like stated earlier, a guy can earn points for stuff like status, money, etc....I don't see the equivalent of the "trophy wife" happening with rich and successful women...For the most part, they get mocked for going for the "boy toy"....so to speak..

 

TFY

[Els]

Fortunately, for some guys anyway, women don't place as high a regard on just looks in the same way men do...I think that explains the why the guys lower on the food chain get a shot...

 

Like stated earlier, a guy can earn points for stuff like status, money, etc....I don't see the equivalent of the "trophy wife" happening with rich and successful women...For the most part, they get mocked for going for the "boy toy"....so to speak..

 

TFY

 

I think he meant 'lower on the totem pole of power/money', not appearance. Sultans tend to be pretty ugly...

[VeveCakes]

I actually find these days men have the upper hand. It has changed a lot since I was last single.

 

Women seem desperate for any guy to like them...men barely have to do anything to get a girl (in the under 30s). They have a lot of options because of online dating and pretty much make 0 effort.

 

Then the over 30s...I will have to say it sure as hell doesn't seem like men are aging well these days. Every guy I see online that is 30+ is very unattractive. Ones that are somewhat attractive seem crazy as hell. Then they get attractive again 45+, like they know they have to put more effort in now?

 

But this solely from online dating because I never meet men anywhere else.

[lucy_in_disguise]

I'm surprised that no one else has alluded to this. What happens to the genes of men who prefer 60 year old women? Extinguished––immediately. What one thing can a man do to ensure maximum genetic proliferation? Mate with younger women, of course. Taking a 20 year old wife converts to the probability of a dozen progeny, regardless of the man's age.

 

We rationalize our preferences ad nauseam, as if it's all about conscious choice, yet we're nearly in denial of the strongest determinant –– biology. The exact same process that makes our motivation for sex so strong also shapes our preference in sexual attraction.

 

It's no coincidence that when people post about being attracted to older women, 50ish is age cutoff. Why? Menopause usually happens around age 51 and when estrogen levels drop visible changes that indicate fertility begin to fade. Pretty much all of the physical factors that men see as desirable in women are related to fertility –– ample breasts to nourish; hip to waist ratio for birthing; symmetry and proportion indicating quality genes and good health. These preferences are nearly universal (due to extinguishing vs. proliferation), yet we talk as if they are personal decisions. Nope. Biology.

 

Why do older men remain attractive to younger women. Same factors. Older men remain fertile, are usually wealthier and have attained some social status (able to boost a young woman's social advantages), etc., etc.

 

I like healthy 50 year old hotties. I can't help it, I'm just wired that way.

 

Where are these men who want to father dozens of children? And these women who are so desperate to have a dozen kids, that they will pick a retiree to have them with based on his ability to buy her a house? The majority of people I know don't even want kids. There is no doubt biology plays a role, but in reconciling animal attraction with daily life in the modern world, I still maintain that other factors are more important to happiness than "ample breasts to nourish". Not to mention that the "biological" argument for desirability fails to provide an adequate explanation for gay relationships.

 

The argument that men can father kids until they die is also a bit of a fallacy. Yes, some men may be able to, but fertility issues impact both genders, and men's sperm also loses quality with age. Not to mention, many men develop erectile dysfunction and other health issues as they age, further eradicating their virility. The fact is, the twenties and thirties are the ideal time to have children for most people of both genders.

 

It is a myth that large age gap relationships were very prevalent historically. That may Be true for a small number of cultures and for those at the very top, but nowhere near prevalent enough to offer evidence for the "biological" argument for desirability. The overwhelming majority of marriages historically have been between peers (often cousins).

Edited November 29, 2016 by lucy_in_disguise

[salparadise]

Yeah, that is definitely a factor. I think another factor in the development of monogamy is 'cultural evolution', which is more loosely defined. Once survival to reproductive age isn't a primary concern, humans aspire to other things that they otherwise wouldn't if they needed to concentrate on 'survival'. Pair bonding satisfies those 'higher needs' (emotional fulfillment, happiness, quality of life), even if it comes at a biological cost. Also, with modern medicine and a civilization that provides food and shelter to all who need it, 'survival of the fittest' doesn't apply as strongly anymore.

 

I mean, technically speaking, homosexual relationships have no basis in evolutionary biology, neither do people (men or women) who purposefully elect not to have kids. Yet both of the above exist and many of them are happy.

 

Evolution is not one-hundred percent efficient, especially at the individual level. Variation and mutation serve to create new possibilities to be tested, and variation is necessary to keep evolution moving. Otherwise, we'd be less adaptable as a species. This sounds a bit like evolution has its own intent, but of course it does not.

 

Some traits seem to resist extinction because of benefit to the species in the larger scope rather than at the individual level and, like homosexuality, are hard to explain with simple cause and effect scenarios. It's probable that these have secondary benefits. Kin altruism for example is explained by proliferation of traits that are beneficial to the gene itself rather than the individual carrier. So we are more likely to risk our own life to save a person carrying a copy of my genes than for someone who is not –– particularly a young female nearing reproductive age, for obvious reasons.

 

Homosexuality may be a gene piggy-backing (traits are passed in bundles, not individually) on our extremely strong, and effective preference for sexuality and social alliances both in mating and generally. Even people who don't identify as homosexual default to it when isolated with same sex people for some length of time (prison, sailors at sea).

 

As for people choosing not to have kids... that one is easy and interesting. Evolution often finds it more effective to instill the desire for a behavior that achieves an intended result (replication) than to instill a desire for the result directly. I'm pretty sure my grandmother didn't actually want 13 children –– they were the result of my grandparents' overwhelming urge for sex regardless of consequences. Hunger and thirst is the same. We eat and drink because of the need to satiate the sensations, whereas the larger biological reason is something else.

[salparadise]

There is no doubt biology plays a role, but in reconciling animal attraction with daily life in the modern world, I still maintain that other factors are more important to happiness than "ample breasts to nourish". Not to mention that the "biological" argument for desirability fails to provide an adequate explanation for gay relationships.

 

 

Who said anything about evolution having our happiness as a goal? You're joking, right?

 

Homosexuality is much harder to understand (see previous post), but if you're arguing that attraction is not based on reproductive fitness... well, I don't think you'd be a worthy opponent for such a debate. You go ahead and make conscious decisions and pursue that happiness thing directly. I'm sure your shangri la is right around the corner.

[jen1447]

I mean, technically speaking, homosexual relationships have no basis in evolutionary biology, neither do people (men or women) who purposefully elect not to have kids. Yet both of the above exist and many of them are happy.

 

I'm pretty far from well informed on this sort of thing but my understanding is that modern humanity is bscly the blink of an eye in terms of overall evolution, and our little kinks and quirks might exist in such a narrow space that they don't even accurately reflect evolutionary trends at all. So while I know it's tempting to see patterns in different aspects of life, our current behaviors may ultimately be kinda meaningless in the big picture.

 

I have heard some mildly compelling theories for the biological veracity of female homosexuality specifically btw ....I think sal may have alluded to it above but it's bscly the notion that somehow a sexual bond between females furthers the group welfare in terms of breeding and raising young.

 

Otherwise I keep trying to get my GFs pregnant .....hasn't worked yet but I'm undeterred!

[Popsicle]

It "happens" but its clearly not what it appears...

 

If you want or care to know how it works, PM me and ill give you the answer..

 

TFY

 

I know how it works. A guy marries a woman and then she gets fat after marriage and kids. I see it all the time. As an outsider looking in, it still looks like a good looking man with an overweight woman. So yes it happens all the time. Just go to the mall on sat or sun and you'll see this all over the place.