Sexes 'upper hand' by age?

[thefooloftheyear]

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.

 

And they lived happily ever after??

 

TFY

[GorillaTheater]

All I've got to say to the folks talking smack about the attractiveness of women over 50 is this:

 

 

You've never met my wife. You wish you were as hot as she is.

[Popsicle]

And they lived happily ever after??

 

TFY

 

Sure. It is what you make it.

[Wade Lamare]

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.

 

Aimed @ me Popsicle?

 

I only posted the question in an academic fashion as I've seen it mentioned on many other websites and I was interested in peoples viewpoints.

 

I also think there is far more going on than the simple way many people view this.

 

We are all different people at different stages of our lives.

 

A man at, say, 40 is a different person to the callow youth he was at 15 or 20. Different things attract and interest him.

Just as a woman is a different person at 40 when compared to the girl she was at 15 or 20. At 15 she may have been interested in the good looking jocks, but at 30 or 40 a whole raft of other factors become attractive to her.

 

And I can assure you, I am under no illusions as to my looks. I was born fugly and I'll die fugly. In between I'll spend quite a bit of my time being fugly.

 

Luckily there is way more to life than being drop dead gorgeous or being fugly.

 

You can be fugly or handsome and still be a nice person to know.

 

However it has most certainly been my experience that several of the girls who wouldn't even give me the time of day when I asked them out as a very young guy, to the extent of laughing at me have now and for the last umpteen years made it clear that they would like a 'do over'.

 

Something's changed!

[elaine567]

 

Something's changed!

 

They grew up to realise that handsome princes are not all that they are cracked up to be.

We may all be drooling over [insert celebrity crush of choice], but would we seriously want to date them? Probably not.

[SwordofFlame]

I was thinking about this too. This idea that men get the upper hand with age makes sense in theory, but I feel like it gives some struggling guys in their 20's false hope. Some people are always going to struggle. And as long as women take care of themselves they should always be able to have some prospects.

 

I'm in my mid twenties and have been enjoying being single as best as I can and keep working on myself but I have a hard time believing that in ten years I'll be getting as much attention as a few of my successful guy friends got when they were 25. I guess I'll just have to wait and see but I'm skeptical.

 

It's simply supply and demand. Studies show that most women want to date someone near their own age. For a lot of men, ideally they want to continue dating women in their 20s even as they themselves get older and older. I'm referring to the okcupid study.

[BluesPower]

Recon you have a while before you have to worry about this one way or another.

 

But when I was out and about recently, a decent looking, confident, articulate, fairly fit man, basically has his pick of beautiful women between 40 and oh say 60. And let me tell you, there are just some super fine women on their 50's and 60's.

 

I am friends with one right now and brother she is hot.

 

So when you get older women are not an issue for most normal guys.

[NuevoYorko]

IMO, anybody who is looking at relationships between men and woman in relationship to which has the "upper hand" because of age or biology is in trouble.

[No_Go]

Out of curiosity have you seen a study that supports the piggy backing hypothesis?

 

I've seen a few stating that homosexuality itself can be adaptive behavior beneficial for populations. If I recall correctly one of them used male mice in isolation and those that mated within this all male population had better survival chance. However, if they add females to the group, they would revert their homosexual behaviors.

 

To the original question: the biological advantage if younger females is obvious, but I'm not sure how biology/societal factors determine the advantage of men. Biology should favor men with higher testosterone / more virile, but also with higher "social status" (or whatever group of traits will be perceived that way). But say in a situation of equal "social status" the younger should be winning the competition.

 

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).

[Woggle]

The fact that we view relationships in terms of having the upper hand as if men and women are opponents on opposite sides is why relationships today are in such a bad state.

[salparadise]

Out of curiosity have you seen a study that supports the piggy backing hypothesis?

 

I've seen a few stating that homosexuality itself can be adaptive behavior beneficial for populations. If I recall correctly one of them used male mice in isolation and those that mated within this all male population had better survival chance. However, if they add females to the group, they would revert their homosexual behaviors.

 

To the original question: the biological advantage if younger females is obvious, but I'm not sure how biology/societal factors determine the advantage of men. Biology should favor men with higher testosterone / more virile, but also with higher "social status" (or whatever group of traits will be perceived that way). But say in a situation of equal "social status" the younger should be winning the competition.

 

 

Yes, I have. I can't cite the specific study, but it's widely accepted by now and has been for a long time. I will reference Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene," and Robert Wright, "The Moral Animal," both of which describe the DNA-chromosome-gene transfer process in not so technical terms so that it's easily digested by lay folk.

 

When we talk about a gene for this and a gene for that, it's a gross oversimplification of how inheritance actually works. No traits are defined by one isolated gene, but by many that are distributed widely. Likewise, when a strip of genetic material (allele ?) is spliced into a new combination, it will be a duplicate of that allele from the parent. The genes contained therein may contribute wholly or partially to many seemingly unrelated traits, but because of their close proximity in the strip of DNA they tend to be passed together nearly always.

 

It's like if you're creating a new documentary film from archived footage... frames 312,313, and 314 would logically tend to be grouped together more often than say, frame 313 and frame 20,739. I should just refer you to Dawkins, Chapter 3, Immortal Coils for a great explanation.

 

Your explanation of the mice is consistent with what happens in prison populations. Homosexuality always emerges in the absence of females, and it is indeed a survival strategy for some men who aren't physically able to protect themselves. They form an alliance with a larger, meaner inmate until such time as they're released and return to heterosexuality.

 

The incidence of left-handedness is approximately the same as that of homosexuality in the general population. It would seem that with no obvious survival/reproduction advantage that we can determine in either, and with a 9:1 disadvantage in momentum, they would both simply extinguish. But for some reason they persist at that constant ratio, as far as we can tell. There is just a lot that we can't explain yet. But also a lot we can, especially now having mapped the entire genome.

[No_Go]

Thanks, I'll take a look in Dawkins book. I'm not questioning the concept of linked genes, just was wondering if particular regions related to homosexuality are discovered.

 

I think the 'politically correct' world limit largely understanding of human genetics... Especially of behavioral traits that are considered controversial. That's why I used to stick to bacterial behavior studies - genes accessible and no one takes it personal

 

Yes, I have. I can't cite the specific study, but it's widely accepted by now and has been for a long time. I will reference Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene," and Robert Wright, "The Moral Animal," both of which describe the DNA-chromosome-gene transfer process in not so technical terms so that it's easily digested by lay folk.

 

When we talk about a gene for this and a gene for that, it's a gross oversimplification of how inheritance actually works. No traits are defined by one isolated gene, but by many that are distributed widely. Likewise, when a strip of genetic material (allele ?) is spliced into a new combination, it will be a duplicate of that allele from the parent. The genes contained therein may contribute wholly or partially to many seemingly unrelated traits, but because of their close proximity in the strip of DNA they tend to be passed together nearly always.

 

It's like if you're creating a new documentary film from archived footage... frames 312,313, and 314 would logically tend to be grouped together more often than say, frame 313 and frame 20,739. I should just refer you to Dawkins, Chapter 3, Immortal Coils for a great explanation.

 

Your explanation of the mice is consistent with what happens in prison populations. Homosexuality always emerges in the absence of females, and it is indeed a survival strategy for some men who aren't physically able to protect themselves. They form an alliance with a larger, meaner inmate until such time as they're released and return to heterosexuality.

 

The incidence of left-handedness is approximately the same as that of homosexuality in the general population. It would seem that with no obvious survival/reproduction advantage that we can determine in either, and with a 9:1 disadvantage in momentum, they would both simply extinguish. But for some reason they persist at that constant ratio, as far as we can tell. There is just a lot that we can't explain yet. But also a lot we can, especially now having mapped the entire genome.

[Wade Lamare]

IMO, anybody who is looking at relationships between men and woman in relationship to which has the "upper hand" because of age or biology is in trouble.

 

The fact that we view relationships in terms of having the upper hand as if men and women are opponents on opposite sides is why relationships today are in such a bad state.

 

Yes, agree. But it's such an insidious opinion that I see time and again on various websites that I wanted to gauge the opinion here.

 

My own take on it is that there is no doubt some kernel of truth in this belief. How much truth is debatable.

Undoubtedly some men do improve, like a good wine, with a little maturity. The gawky, socially clumsy nerdy teen begins to turn into a man.

However, the same could be said for women, many girls who were 'at the back of the queue' in school mature into attractive accomplished women.

 

Our desires and aims also change. The bad boy/girl may be an exciting date when we are young and having fun but may not be such an enticing prospect when we ourselves mature.

The nerdy, slightly unexciting guy (for instance) who could barely get a date when younger suddenly finds that having a good steady job, dependable, honest, faithful and nurturing suddenly becomes highly attractive.

A girl may like a bad boy/ fun guy when young but unless he can make that jump when her tastes/desires change as she matures it leaves an opening for the former nerd.

I'm not so sure that it favours the guy over a girl in general but what I am fairly sure about is that it often favours an older man who has taken care of himself. Many men let themselves go quite a bit as they get older, as do many women. So a fit, healthy, trim member of either sex will be at a premium at any age. In the land of the blind a one eyed man is King.

 

I think both sexes attitudes change as they get older. Pure good looks become less important as we get older. I think, no real proof, that this is more true of women than men as I suspect that men remain more 'shallow' than women.

 

TLDR we change physically and mentally which affects our perception of other people and their perception of us.

 

Might think of some more tomorrow.

[salparadise]

Thanks, I'll take a look in Dawkins book. I'm not questioning the concept of linked genes, just was wondering if particular regions related to homosexuality are discovered.

 

I think the 'politically correct' world limit largely understanding of human genetics... Especially of behavioral traits that are considered controversial. That's why I used to stick to bacterial behavior studies - genes accessible and no one takes it personal

 

 

I don't think they've found anything like that. In fact, one fairly recent theory is that there may be the same genetic potential in all of us, but something that happens in the womb triggers the expression. It has been observed and documented that males born to women who already have several children have a statistically significant greater incidence of homosexuality than first-born males; the later in the birth order the greater the odds. I'm not promoting this theory- it's just something I read.

 

Yes, we humans have gotten pretty good at breeding all kinds of behavioral proclivities into our dogs and horses, and we prescribe all kinds of psychotropic medications to the mentally ill, yet we're in almost complete denial that that there's any biological component underlying the behavior of healthy humans. We're so attached to the concept of free will that we guard it with denial.

[road]

No matter how it is sliced those that have the attributes to be rated high whether man or woman will always never have problems getting dates.

 

 

The only thing that age effects is when people hit 60's there are more women then men. So with not enough men to go around women who were 9' and 10's that would date 9-10's when younger will give 8's a chance maybe eventually as the years go on and the pickings gets slimmer then 7's.

 

 

This tougher competition will make it harder for the mid tier women to compete in the range they had no problems when they were younger.

 

 

So the mid tier rated women will be taking away the men from the lowest tiered women making it harder for that group to pair up.

 

 

Though many women regardless of their rating after they bury their husband or wife to not want to date again so dating may not get as hard as it could.

 

 

Essentially when young you had what the other sex's wanted you had no problem getting a date. When old and you still have a high rating you will still have no problem getting dates.

 

 

Upper hand was and is and will be for those that are rated high regardless of age.

[NuevoYorko]

Undoubtedly some men do improve, like a good wine, with a little maturity. The gawky, socially clumsy nerdy teen begins to turn into a man.

However, the same could be said for women, many girls who were 'at the back of the queue' in school mature into attractive accomplished women.

 

Certainly. This gives no advantage of one sex over another.

[Wade Lamare]

Certainly. This gives no advantage of one sex over another.

 

So do you not think that there is at least a small grain of truth in it?

 

I hear, infrequently IRL, and all the time online, men saying that the dating scene is a different ball game for them as older men. Not talking OLD here but men genuinely wanting to date, have fun, FWB, LTR and actually going out and meeting women.

Men who are saying that they struggled as youngsters to get dates because they were too short, not handsome enough, not 'bad' enough, too quiet, not confident enough, whatever. They are saying that now, for some reason, they are in demand.

 

And women are saying, when they get older, "where have all the good guys gone." "They all seem to be gay or taken!"

 

As I've mentioned, I'm neither for nor against this opinion but I am wondering where this thought process comes from and how much of it is based in truth.

Are all these people deluded? Or perhaps they are trying to look at a fairly complex situation in a simple way?

 

My own view is that in reality we are not seeing a group getting the 'upper hand' but are merely seeing a levelling of the field.

 

A dating/life strategy of being quiet, dependable, studious, honest, faithful and nurturing while having fairly good career opportunities may not tick many boxes for a young girl who wants to partay and have fun,fun,fun, but will be desirable qualities when she is older and wanting to settle down, start a family etc.

[NuevoYorko]

So do you not think that there is at least a small grain of truth in it?

 

I hear, infrequently IRL, and all the time online, men saying that the dating scene is a different ball game for them as older men. Not talking OLD here but men genuinely wanting to date, have fun, FWB, LTR and actually going out and meeting women.

This site is rich with older guys - well, in their 40's at least, who evidently can't get any dates online ...

Men who are saying that they struggled as youngsters to get dates because they were too short, not handsome enough, not 'bad' enough, too quiet, not confident enough, whatever. They are saying that now, for some reason, they are in demand.

Perhaps they have improved with age. If they are a big drag to be around, it won't matter how old and desperate the women are.

 

And women are saying, when they get older, "where have all the good guys gone." "They all seem to be gay or taken!"

This may mean that they are finding many men that they find to be undesirable. It doesn't point to men having any kind of "upper hand."

 

As I've mentioned, I'm neither for nor against this opinion but I am wondering where this thought process comes from and how much of it is based in truth

Are all these people deluded? Or perhaps they are trying to look at a fairly complex situation in a simple way?

 

A dating/life strategy of being quiet, dependable, studious, honest, faithful and nurturing while having fairly good career opportunities may not tick many boxes for a young girl who wants to partay and have fun,fun,fun, but will be desirable qualities when she is older and wanting to settle down, start a family etc.

Hopefully, people mature and begin to value different things as they proceed in their lives. It doesn't point to any gender having "the upper hand."

 

Here is where I do agree with your premise:

 

1) As evidenced on this thread and many others around here, there is, sadly, still a large contingent of men who love to talk about how old men are "better" than old women because they may still be reproductively viable. Our cultures are heavily invested in making sure that women are mostly valued for their youth and beauty. It's a conscious choice to buy into this or not; for those who do, it makes sense that they will value old men and devalue old women, and only find value in women who are young and attractive.

 

2) When my grandfather was an old widower, he lived in a retirement community. The women who lived there were fighting over him. On average, women live 5 - 10 years longer than men. In this scenario, men definitely have an advantage over women in the dating world.