The deal with Argentine men and their "girl" friends

[STELLA53]

Exactly.

Human males are genetically hardwired to seek out females who can get the most children = young; and human females are similarly hardwired to find the male, who can give her children the best deal = a good provider.

This is well known and has been documented in the scientific litterature over and over again.

1. No. My library is in Europa and I am in Argentina. Besides, I read an untold number of scientific articles a year and it is impossible to store more than a small proportion of them. But I remember the conclusions.

2. The most common (and probably correct) explanation is that the closer a woman is to her menopause, the faster her biological clock is ticking and the stronger the sex drive, because she is nearing the end of her reproductive life.

Edit: I did find a couple of reasonably related links in my bookmarks:

"... especially as men have consistently shown a preference for attractive young women"
http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/technology/menopause-eases-sex-rivalry-1.423972
I think it is also true that women have consistently shown a preference for attractive, young wealthy men as opposed to old wealthy men. How does this tendency of both to prefer young over old -all other things being equal - demonstrate different genetic wiring between all men and all women? I trust the article will deal with this.

"The male volunteers were asked to rate the women for attractiveness purely on the basis of the sound of their voice. ... a finding in line with the previous research which suggests that higher voice tones are associated with youth and fertility in women."
http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20080206-117096
Sorry, assuming this to be true, I fail to see how it proves the hardwiring that men like youth any more than women do - all other things being.

"... Thus, men who prefer to mate with blond women are unconsciously attempting to mate with younger (and hence, on average, healthier and more fecund) women."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature
I do not dispute that adult men may prefer younger partners, but I am not sure that proves that adult women don't also prefer younger partners.

"In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man"
Yes, it's an socioeconomic causation. Gene hardwiring is irrelevant.

"When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/arti...ly-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature?page=2
See above. Socioeconomic causation.

"a more typical 50-year-old man .... When he buys a shiny-red sports car, he's not trying to regain his youth; he's trying to attract young women to replace his menopausal wife by trumpeting his flash and cash."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/arti...ly-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature?page=4If true, does this in any way prove men are genetically disposed to mate with young women any more than the converse?

Thank you for offering to substantiate your claim that:
1. Human males are genetically hardwired to seek out females who can get the most children = young,
2. Human females are similarly hardwired to find the male, who can give her children the best deal = a good provider.
First, let's clarify the term "hardwired." I understand you to mean that males and females have an innate genetic disposition to act as you claim. The opposite would be a socially inculcated disposition to exhibit the behavior. The old nature vs. nuture thing. Let me know if that is not also your understanding. I have not yet accessed any of the scientific studies you cite to prove your point. I intend to. But at the risk of coming across as smug, let me share a couple of preliminary thoughts.

Whether or not males are genetically disposed to mate with young, fecund females in order to produce large families or whether females are genetically disposed to mate with good providers has no relevance to the legitimacy of current societal norms and laws regarding sex between 30something men and teenage girls.
Our society has evolved to a point where we no longer act on primordial instincts. These days most societies do not conform to behavior that ages ago may have been necessary for survival. Norms change as society evolves. One of the norms that modern (western european) society deems correct is to protect youngsters from abuse by older people. Accordingly, most cultures have laws defining the acceptable limits of age for consensual sex. The exact age at which children are deemed capable of assent varies from culture to culture. I happen to think those cultures which sell off daughters at age 9 are backward and antihuman. Consensual sex between a 34 yr old man and a 16 year old girl is a closer question, but in any case it is not one that should be decided by reference to genetics.

As for the claims themselves - are you suggesting that all males in every society want lots of children? In the 1 child per family world of China, does the male hardwiring nevertheless manifest itself? What about the relatively low birthrates of western Europe and No. America? If those males are hardwired to want to find mates that can produce a lot of kids, something has evidently short circuited their male systems. At the very least, there is no need for these males to choose young females for their fecundity. Even a mid30s broad can produce 1.85 rug rats (or whatever the birth rate is).
In some less developed, less prosperous, especially agrarian societies, daughters are a liability and are likely to be married off at an early age just for economic reasons. How does this phenomenom relate to the wiring thing? Do any of the Psychology Today articles you cite talk about these socioeconomic issues?

As to the precis of each of the research pieces you cite I have made margin comments highlighted in bold print in the copied body of your reply.

 

[Postmodernchild]

Let's not forget Berlusconi. Power is an aphrodisiac to women, and they'll go for older man if they have certain qualities, sure.

I love the way feminists and their male defenders from Protestant countries try to demonize Berlusconi because of his sex drive.

what are we talking about here? what kind of women like these old clowns? FYI there are women who can take care of themselves and yet enjoy the company of an equal without having to take care of an old man. Misery loves company

 

[jp]

It is not pitifully limited, there is nothing wrong with its methodology, its conclusions are not speculative but quite precise, and it reflects real-world experience if you think about it.

If you think a sample size of 12 twenty somethings is representative of half the planet, there's not really much point in discussing why the methodology and conclusions are dubious.

 

[STELLA53]

I can agree that some ethical standards are absolute, transcending time and place. When populations are marginalized, oppressed, exploited or exterminated it is always appropriate to advocate for changes that empower the powerless.

More often though, our standards are a direct reflection of our own cultural origins. When we confuse the two we leave ourselves open to the charge of Cultural Imperialism or "Ugly American."

One of us is confused. I'm not sure who. Why do you find it necessary to to caution against championing those absolute ethical standards (which you concede exist) as if they should not apply to exploited populations or evolving societies?
At what point in the development of a society/culture do those absolute ethical standards (that transcend time and place) become subject to change? Not at all, right? So which ethical standards would you characterize as manifesting Ugly Americanism that have been mentioned here? The laws regarding statutory rape? Not sure any specifics were discussed.
I thought the discussion was about whether there are, in fact, some absolutes or whether there are none (because it has been that way for a long time in the other society and we have to accept things as they are). That and whether parents have the right to educate their kids without regard to the effect it has on others in the community.

 

[Mitch]

You are a supporter of abortion this is clear and you try to use some eloquent words to support your position . Tell me Miss Knowledgeable who do 40% or argentian woman abort a new soul. Were they all raped?

In New York the rate for hispanic and black woman is over 50% and all of this is supported for Family planning . In 98% of the cases abortion is a choice and is due to career with no respect for life and rights of the unborn.

http://www.cny.org/stories/Shocking-Statistics,4336

Why shouldn´t she try to be eloquent? "Eloquent words"? Hmmmm

 

[Celia]

To those of you who think old men are disgusting (I love em!), wonder what you think about the situation al reves, eg. Madonna and Jesus - can't remember the new guy's name, Ashton and Demi, Vivienne Westwood and Andreas etc...

 

[STELLA53]

Are you by any chance using your own personal standards, which you have been taught are "right"?

Not by chance. By design I am using the ethical standards developed by my contacts with my parents, extended family and friends, teachers and classmates and strangers met along life's journey complimented by my reading, travel, and personal relationships. In short, the sum of my life experience. I have developed a sense of right and wrong giving due respect for the cultures of others. Due respect does not foreclose disagreeing with the norms of other societies. For example, I oppose slavery and unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech. I disdain cultures that permit slavery and unreasonably restrict freedom of speech.[/quote]

In some cultures sexual relationships out of wedlock is taught to be completely wrong.
In some cultures homosexuality is taught to be totally wrong.
In parts of a certain country you are not allowed to drink alcohol before the age of 21 but you can be sent to war to kill and get killed at the age of 18. etc., etc., etc.

What is your point? I think societies that place unwarranted restriction on premarital or homosexual sex are oppressive. I would not want to spend much time there. With rare exceptions, I think wars are bad things. Except for justified wars I am against sending anyone of any age off to them. Alcohol is a nice thing if not abused. So is marijuana. So?

Assuming no objective harm is done:

How do you know what is good and bad morals?
How do you know what is right and wrong?
How do you know what constitutes offensive mores?
How do you know what constitutes sound ethics?

Are you using your own personal standards, which you have been taught are "right"?

See above. Of course, by definition I am the sum of my life experience. I strive to, in the words of Spike Lee, do the right thing.
I have no problem adopting and actualizing as best I can a philosophy that is of the view that certain individual or social conduct is good or bad, moral or immoral, right or wrong, offensive or acceptable, sound or unsound. It is not always easy to decide what is the right course of conduct or after having decided what is right, to do it. Like many others, I do the best that I can. I try to learn all the necessary info to make intelligent decisions on matters of politics. In my later years I have become comfortable with my ethics. I do not necesarily seek to impose my ethics on you unless I think it is appropriate. That doesn't mean I avoid debate.

BTW: Do you know why a girl's 15th birthday is celebrated the way it is in Latin America?
Because at 15 she is old enough to marry.

Today is my spouse's bithday. He is a very ethical person!!! Happy birthday, sweetheart.

 

[John.St]

Why do you find it necessary to to caution against championing those absolute ethical standards (which you concede exist) as if they should not apply to exploited populations or evolving societies?
At what point in the development of a society/culture do those absolute ethical standards (that transcend time and place) become subject to change? Not at all, right?

There are no absolute morals and ethics, they are changing all the time.

The jewish/cristian bible e.g.
allows a man to sell his daughter to prostitution if he needs the money (Exodus 21:7)
allows slavery (Lev 25:44)
allows polygamy (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
if a bride is not a virgin she must be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21)
thou shalt not kill, yet Tanach/the old testament is full of one genocide after the other (Joshua all over the place; 2. Kings 10)
the deity kills al the innocent babies in the great flood (Gen 7:10-)

Love thy neighbor and burn the witches.

Cannibals kill and eat other human beings.

The Greeks, Romans, Americans, Europeans, Asians - you name them, we've got them - had millions of slaves.

The Aztecs took tens of thousands of perfectly healthy young men and cut their hearts out.

The indigenious people of the Americas and Australia, ... were butchered time and again.

Cut a runaway slave's foot off , beat your wife, etc., etc., etc.

The number of what is today considered atrocities is legio.

Do you think the "perpetraters" felt wrong about it and felt guilty?

Of course not, they all knew they were doing the right thing, had good morals and ethics.
They weren't perpetraters, in their own environment and time, on the contrary they were righteous people.

Morals and ethics are what happens to be "the right thing" right now in a certain environment, country, culture.
Here today, gone tomorrow.

 

[John.St]

By design I am using the ethical standards developed by my contacts with my parents, extended family and friends, teachers and classmates and strangers met along life's journey complimented by my reading, travel, and personal relationships. In short, the sum of my life experience. ...

What is your point?
...
Today is my spouse's bithday. He is a very ethical person!!! Happy birthday, sweetheart.

My point is that moral and ethical standards, which one person have learned, values and consider absolute, not necessarily are considered as such by others, especially not by people from an other culture.

In Argentina your moral and ethics complex and my moral and ethics complex are not valid.

As long as nobody is actually harmed, the Argentinos' moral and ethics complex is right for the place and time and we have no more right to tell them otherwise than they have to tell us how to behave in our countries of origin.

There is no "right thing" outside it's proper environment.

Say happy birthday to your spouse

 

[John.St]

... First, let's clarify the term "hardwired." I understand you to mean that males and females have an innate genetic disposition to act as you claim. The opposite would be a socially inculcated disposition to exhibit the behavior. The old nature vs. nuture thing. Let me know if that is not also your understanding. ...
Whether or not males are genetically disposed to mate with young, fecund females in order to produce large families or whether females are genetically disposed to mate with good providers has no relevance to the legitimacy of current societal norms and laws regarding sex between 30something men and teenage girls.
Our society has evolved to a point where we no longer act on primordial instincts. These days most societies do not conform to behavior that ages ago may have been necessary for survival. Norms change as society evolves. One of the norms that modern (western european) society deems correct is to protect youngsters from abuse by older people. ... Consensual sex between a 34 yr old man and a 16 year old girl is a closer question, but in any case it is not one that should be decided by reference to genetics.

As for the claims themselves - are you suggesting that all males in every society want lots of children? In the 1 child per family world of China, does the male hardwiring nevertheless manifest itself? What about the relatively low birthrates of western Europe and No. America? If those males are hardwired to want to find mates that can produce a lot of kids, something has evidently short circuited their male systems. At the very least, there is no need for these males to choose young females for their fecundity. Even a mid30s broad can produce 1.85 rug rats (or whatever the birth rate is).
In some less developed, less prosperous, especially agrarian societies, daughters are a liability and are likely to be married off at an early age just for economic reasons. How does this phenomenom relate to the wiring thing? Do any of the Psychology Today articles you cite talk about these socioeconomic issues?

Check also the links polostar88 have given, two of the articles (physorg and sciencedaily) are among those I was referring to.

Yes, it's an socioeconomic causation. Gene hardwiring is irrelevant.

I disagree. I see it as the result of genetically coding to maximize the security her offspring's future, "socioeconomic xxx" is a description of a much deeper lying reasons. Richard Dawkins is discussing this at length in, if I recall correctly, "The Selfish Gene" and I find his arguments convincing.

By genetically hardwired I mean genetic disposition. And it has a lot to do with societal norms re. young girls and older men.

We are mentally living in the Stone Age, although we pretend not to.
As opposed to what we like to think, we humans are not very rational. I should say (with some handwaving) that we are between 25 and 40 percent rational, the rest is guided by feelings and "instinct" and if you think we are not mostly guided by this, I suggest you shout "fire", next time you are in a crowded theater or cinema - that'll teach you. I can suggest many other interesting experiments, which will demonstrate how we react by "instinct" instead of cool deliberation.

We all follow our "instincts" although we are capable of modifying our behaviour to some extent.

What is "abuse"? That depends on the social norms in the society we live in, and if the norm says it is aceptable for a girl, of whatever age above the local age of consent, to have sex with a man twice or thrice her age (here: twice and in his thirties), then that is not abuse. Norms change whichever way a society changes.

That daughters are a liability hardly relates to the genetical hardwiring and as far as I recall the articles in Psychology Today do not touch socioeconomy.

I don't claim that all men wants (which is an act of will) lots of children, but males are genetically coded to try to have as much offspring they can possibly have, a constant complaint from women whose man is following his "instincts", which women often claim is an act of will.

This genetic disposition does manifest itself in 1-child China. The rich pay their way out - pay the fine (I remember reading of a millionaire with 16 children) and the farmers drown their daughters because they lack the necessary money to do the same and because they feel, that it is better to have many sons - and when this is impossible, then at least one son.

As sentient beings we are able to counter some of our genetic dispositions. The low birth rates in the Northwestern world are caused by standard of living plus contraception in combination with the change in women's situation combined with their opposite genetic disposition: to economize with (meaning: finding the best possible, available father for) those few of their 400 eggs which have a chance to end as a child while they are fertile, as opposed to the man's "throwing" billions of sperms around.

What do people in the third world do? They get lots of children (except where the women have sufficient access to contraceptives and knowledge of their use).

Today there is no logical need for the males to choose young females for their fecundity but they are genetically hardwired to do so, which is probably the reason older women do their utmost to look young and thus more attractive (creams, plastic surgery, etc., etc.).

As I have written previously, many young women and girls are attracted to men who are much their senior and that fits precisely to the men's attraction to young women.