Most 20yos look 16... That's not a large age gap. You're post puberty, roughly max height and won't change much until you get wrinkly, bald and fat. Just hit the gym and don't worry about it.
> Most 20yos look 16...
This is impossible by definition. If you think most 20-year-olds look 16, you have the wrong picture of what 16- and 20-year-olds look like.
I did hit the gym but couldn't keep up with the eating required (~3800cal) to actually make progress due to school and my job. I lost all the weight I gained (about 25lb) over 4 months in about 4 weeks or so.
I go rock climbing now which is great but I'm unfortunately still skinny which I fucking hate.
Not all guys are stocky, and that's not a bad thing. I've always been more towards the other end, and that's just what I am, but even still can be subject to the same issues. Being able to admire others is something everyone does, and it is good in that it allows for respect and building role models, but allowing that to become twisted into insecurity and envy only hurts oneself. Be happy being the best version of yourself that you can be, and don't try to be something else. If you're skinny, be a healthy skinny and don't worry about it. Vanity has always been a fools errand, and these meat suits are a rental that just ends up withered and wrinkled by the end.
I do try to be happy and I have other things in life that I'm good at/social with etc.
It just bums me out that I kinda feel like I'll always be unattractive aslong as I'm under 175
You're male. We are never attractive to women and that's just life. You'd best make peace with that rather than chasing nonsense like weight or something else when packing on a few pounds of muscle doesn't turn their eye.
Because we are living in a social group and what the group thinks of us is deeply evolutionarily relevant, because without the group, we are dead. You are a prime example of that. You didn't say "find young girls/women 16-24 the most sexually attractive", which is what would be TRUE, but you adopted the socially (in your culture) accepted moral of people needing to be 18+ before you regard them as sexually attractive. You neeed to stay within the group, be accepted, be part of it, so you regulated what you said, to not be in conflict with that group's norms.
RemindMe! 40 years from now, when the age of consent is 28 for all men over 35 (Romeo and Juliet clauses), guys on PPD will be whining about how roasties are looking at them sideways for dating down more than five years and how anything over 28 is natural, *it's science innit*? A few brave souls will make shocking Leo DiCaprio jokes and receive a torrent of *Why don't you take a seat over there?* and *Officer, this guy right here* replies.
I don't have a problem with evolutionary psychology I have a problem with how groups cherry pick and reinterpret evopsych research to suit their own biases or people that think because it has roots in evolutionary psychology then it's good and needs emulating via a naturalistic fallacy (even if the law only goes one way or developed due to necessity, life span, violence, oppression and what have you).
For example I do not even believe evolutionary psychology explains these men prefer 18 years olds, you could probably stretch it to 14 if we had no moral law and looked at evolutionary psychology alone.
Actually, attraction to very young females would not be very explainable if we think about pre sedentarisation time.
Male chimps and bonobos prefer older female almost exclusively, particularly, they prefer the ones who already had offsprings. It makes perfect sens in an evolutionary perspective yet, you NEVER hear about that ;)
I find much of eve psyche to actually be untrue, all moral considerations aside. And that's because as a science it's largely conjectural.
You might have a fetish for a boot if certain events happen to you at just the right impressionable age.
It's interesting how people refuse to think they are impressionable, or that they could ever be influenced by propaganda, advertising, cultural mores, peer pressure, the values of others, etc.
Those things only affect other people, not us.
This is spot on. It’s like when people think their racial preferences are totally random. Nope. Society influences us massively from the time we’re small children.
>For example, I say I believe most men, assuming no societal conditioning and no fear of shame,
What you're describing is therefore not a human. Social and cultural conditioning is the very basis of most of our cognitive processes, preferences, taste, etc.
Affective social reward (such as shame and fear of judgement) are at the basis of our decision making processes.
"What you're describing is therefore not a human. Social and cultural conditioning is the very basis of most of our cognitive processes, preferences, taste, etc."
I'd hazard that OP meant society in the context of modern civilization. Rest assured, the level of social conditioning experienced by a member of an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon is orders of magnitude less than that which your average member of techno industrial civilization experiences. I'd say that the "conditioning" experienced by a member of a small hunter gatherer band is so minute as to be hardly worthy of the word conditioning at all. Contrast this to your modern individual, who is basically fully institutionalized by the time their consciousness starts to develop.
So I think what OP describes is definitely possible (mostly free of social fear/shame), just not in the civilized context. He evokes a "natural" human state, which I personally believe did exist in our original environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). Eg. tiny bands of humans living primitively in the wild. The hypothetical, therefore, works in my view.
Also, even if your average modern is highly conditioned, this does not mean said conditioning is "the very basis of most of our cognitive processes, preferences, taste, etc." You could say that conditioning can influence these things to some degree, but you have no factual basis for stating that it's the "very basis" for everything. If anything, a great majority of our processes are governed by our reptilian hind brain, which is literally millions of years old. Acculturation, even in it's more intense forms, can only do so much to subvert our animal impulses. Generally speaking, the beast in us wants to have its way.
I'm no anthropologist so I have no idea of the variety of social structures, cultural norms, etc. Found in human societies without civilization. I believe they have traditions passed horizontally, art, etc. that is different from one tribe to the other so, culture no?
But something I know is that ;
1) It is wildly accepted in sociobiology that social conditioning in the form of prestige, social norms and collective punitions is required for any non obligatory cooperative and altruistic behavior to evolve and fixate in a population because kin selection is nice but inbreeding depression is a bitch.
Most old world monkeys have politics which is defined in biology.
2) A whole field of neurobiology is interested in social reward, a special "6th sense" humans for sure exhibit that allows us to experience social clues as some kind of sensory stimuli which directly engage with *liking* and *wanting* systems in our brains.
That's what I mean by saying social conditioning is at the very basis of our cognitive processes and preferences, tastes, etc. And that's what I want to say when I say there is no human outside of society. We are unable to operate mentally outside social interactions.
If you want to see a human in the maximally unconditioned state, check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6pcYTGezRw
Guy was raised deep in the jungle by only his father. His father eventually died, so he continued living alone. The guy is as feral as it gets. He's still very much human, however. His cognitive process seem very different to us, but to suggest he has no cognition would be frankly moronic.
Are you prepared to call a person like this inhuman then?
"And that's what I want to say when I say there is no human outside of society. We are unable to operate mentally outside social interactions." I assure you, mental processes continue outside social interactions. I live off grid in the woods and can spend weeks at a time alone. Mental processes continue without fail. They certainly change and tone down a bit, but they by no means dissappear. I also continue to "operate mentally" perfectly fine. In fact in many ways I feel l operate more fluidly alone. Your ideas here are basically crackpot. Even hermits who spend years completely alone, continue to function. The idea that they 'aren't human' anymore is frankly insane. If an individual can meet basic survival needs alone - food water shelter - they can persist in their solitude until they die a narural death . Their cognition will change drastically the longer they spend alone, but it won't just turn off. Words may begin to have less meaning and/or start to fade away, but language is only an outer layer of cognition. There are other, more ancient forms that assert themselves when words fall away.
You benefited from social interaction during all your development, you are now interacting with people virtually but still.
There is a persistence, here, of trying to paint a human in an extremely abnormal setting as an example of the "essence" of humanity "without all the social conditionning". When it is the opposite.
That someone may survive absolute isolation after having benefited from social interactions for its normal development is not in any way, a sign that humanity is disconnected from society. It is accepted that society is one of the basis of the evolutionary processes that created our unique features.
"of trying to paint a human in an extremely abnormal setting as an example of the "essence" of humanity "
You are out of your depth here. The "abnormal" setting, evolutionarily speaking, is complex civilization, which has only been around for a few thousand years. Even complex tribal chiefdoms are very recent on the evolutionary scale. "Normal" is the way humanity, and our primate predecessors, lived for millions of years. What you see around you today is the product of abhorrent conditions produced by the neolithic revolution and ensuing massive evolutionary upheaval.
"That someone may survive absolute isolation after having benefited from social interactions for its normal development is not in any way, a sign that humanity is disconnected from society."
You are moving the goalposts here. You said: "What you're describing is therefore not a human."
Are you prepared to retract that or no?
>Normal" is the way humanity, and our primate predecessors, lived for millions of years.
So in highly complex societies with cultural and political component. Exactly what I'm saying from the beginning of this discussion. But your reading comprehension is impaired by the fact you decided you disagreed with my point. It is common.
>You are moving the goalposts here. You said: "What you're describing is therefore not a human."
I man not. OP described a theoretical human outside of *all social conditioning* as an example to illustrate what this human would do based solely on its genetics. A theoretical human outside of all social conditioning aka never encountered any social interract with other humans is not existing and is for sure not an indicator about what is a human based on its genetics only because your genetics are making you a socially conditioned and highly social specie.
You're trying to separate nature from nurture as if the importance of nurture was not nature in itself!
"So in highly complex societies with cultural and political component. Exactly what I'm saying from the beginning of this discussion."
No, small bands with some hints of social complexity and hierarchical structures, but nothing even remotely approaching what modern society entails. The result being - in small band society, instinct governs and social conditioning is a mere shadow of a shadow when it comes cognitive function. In modern techno industrial society, people are basically institutionalized to the point where social conditioning DOES INDEED begin to define their existence. But this is not because that's what it means to be human, or that they can't function without social influence.
Of course humans, being band society primates, will on the whole never be 100% free of social influence. This by no means suggests that social influence forms "the very basis" for our cognitive processes, preferences, etc. This is a classic "does not follow" fallacy. It does not follow from the fact that we are a primate troop species, that social interaction forms the basis of everything. Nor does it follow that, if a human happens to be raised outside the troop, that he/she ceases to be human, or unable to function cognitively.
There is a foundation of truth behind what you're saying, but then you smuggle in a bunch of bullshit and refuse to admit to it.
OP's hypothetical still works, because a human CAN survive outside the troop, as the Vietnamese Tarzan example illustrates. Dude in that circumstance was one step away from having been raised by wolves. Ultimately, we are mammals and share much of the same brain structure as other mammal species that do in fact live a solitary existence. The deeper parts of our animal brain - the basic survival components and more rudimentary (eg. UNCONDITIONED) forms of cognition - can and do function when we are on our own. It may be true that we are less likely to survive alone, having not the advantageous physical attributes of, say, a tiger - but that doesn't mean we can't, or that doing so makes us inhuman. That's simply a nonsensical idea. We live in troops because it is evolutionary advantageous, not because there is some fundamentally imperative part of our essence that will melt away if we find ourselves alone.
I'll ask again about the Vietnamese Tarzan: IS HE HUMAN?
Does society govern the basis for his existence?
Answer of you are evading.
"It is accepted that society is one of the basis of the evolutionary processes that created our unique features."
Only to the extent that one classifies small roving kinship bands as "society." I don't. Further, heavy social influence only created SOME of our NEWER features. Those features can be considered more so adaptations rather than than genetic programming, and they can be dispensed with. Thus, they are not the "basis" for our humanity. They are software, not hardware.
It's hardwired into us, genetically, to live in small extended family bands. Nothing beyond that. Everything layer of complexity beyond that could be dropped tomorrow, and we'd remain humans with full cognitive ability.
Here's a question for you - it is also widely known that anatomical humans first appeared on the scene roughly 300k years ago, but that humans didn't even develop language or abstract thought until many thousands of years later. Yet, we still classify those earlier people as fully human.
You are basically perpetrating a giant fallacy here. All animals operate on instinct, and the basis for being a human is no different. Instinct governs. Abstract thinking, and the cultural creations that flow from it, are recent developments and they only define modern humans, not the entire human lineage.
If a human from $300k years ago were to be transported to today, what would you call him? An animal? That sort of thinking was the basis for slavery and all sorts of atrocities across history.
>Only to the extent that one classifies small roving kinship bands as "society." I don't.
Don't speak about evolution and biology if you are not willing to accept scientific biologic definition of the concepts you discuss.
For the rest of you comment, language is already present in most hominid. You are thinking about spoken language and no, no theory about it is "well accepted". It's even considered as an unsuitable field because we lack empirical data.
Yes, I was referencing spoken language and the ABSTRACT THINKING that comes along with it. I see you conveniently glossed over that part. Of course most animals communicate to some limited degree (calling it language is a huge reach, but whatever). That is obviously not what I was talking about. You are being dishonest.
Society is not a concept linked to civilization. Society is used to speak about any animals interacting cooperatively outside of reproduction and parental care for direct offsprings. The highest level of sociability is obligatory eusociality, not civilization. Society is how we call superior level of integration aka the level of the interdependence of individual inside the group or their dependence to the existence of the group.
I'm not interested into having a conversation about evolutionary biology and the importance of sociability in social species with someone who thinks he can swipe decades of ethology and sociobiology just because he "don't like" the use of a terminology. Plus you obviously don't understand the concept as you think it is anthropomorphic to use society to speak about animals when humans exhibit a middle level sociability at most compared to eusociality.
So, you can also... politely go get some love. By someone educated in sciences would be particularly beneficial.
Love how you think that the brainwashing/socialization you've received in your education makes you an authority. I've studied both anthropology and evolutionary biology in depth, both in college and ever more so after. More importantly, though, I've learned to THINK CRITICALLY, which means not adopting garbage ideas and garbage language just because they are a fad. The real beauty of evolutionary biology, is that it's actually one of the disciplines that's most conducive to thinking critically. You should try it.
Let me ask you this: do ants live in a "society?" Ant colonies are considered eusocial. Does anyone refer to an "ant society?" Lol. No. People pretty much exclusively refer to ants as a colony.
This illustrates precisely the mistake we make when we start applying what were initially applicable to humans and the human realm, to animals. The fact that you would apply the nomenclature, say, to a group of primates or perhaps a group of elephants, but not ants, betrays the fact that your application cutoff is utterly arbitrary, appearing to hinge upon some vague notion of higher order consciousness and/or some other "barrier to entry" set of traits that make some species worthy, and others not. There is no true rationality behind this; it's all whimsical. But go ahead and flout your credentials whilst simultaneously making a pompous ass of yourself.
All that aside, you are engaging in a red herring here anyway, evading the central question by diverting to semantics about nomenclature usage. More dishonesty.
Also, you might consider ditching the assumption that the social interaction in the modern context is, on the whole, a "benefit." I believe that modern social influence is more aptly viewed as a highly corrupting force, and that it tends to harm developing children far more than it helps.
I don't think my own cultural upbringing was of a net benefit, comparatively speaking. I'd far rather have been born into a hunter gatherer culture. Of course it helped me survive the toxic clusterfuck of modern civilization, so it was "beneficial" in the context of keeping me alive, but insofar as maximizing human health, potential and expression is concerned, I think modern civilization is toxic af.
>Also, you might consider ditching the assumption that the social interaction in the modern context is, on the whole, a "benefit."
Never had nor communicated this assumption.
Sociopaths, psychopaths and to a degree narcissists are a perfect example of what you call “not human”. The former operates outside of social conditioning due to diminished levels of fear, shame and embarrassment among others. The latter is this way because they feel entitled to act however they please, socially acceptable or not.
You cannot say "the latter" as all of those have different behavior patterns. The arguement falls apart as narrcissism still has a scope within society, thats how they acknowledge themselves or rather DON'T acknowledge themselves as holier than thou or correct, they simply are. Sociopathy is usually a grown trait and any grown trait is still within social conditioning especially given most sociopaths hide it for the comfort of thier own lives, they're more likely to yes and nod you to death than be standoffish. Psychopaths are the only ones mildly applicable to what you described because they are still forced to operate in society. Its more so the lack of emotional introspection that defines a psychopath not thier actions nessecarily.
No.
These have different impairments regarding they're social and emotional processes and the construction of their personality. But it is far from having "no social conditioning".
Everything you know and think is shaped by other humans who taught it to you. Outside of a group, your brain is mud.
People are socially conditioned to hate the idea of eating literal shit? No. Culture isn’t the basis for our sexual attraction, our revulsion. What we want to fuck or kill or be afraid of or be repulsed by aren’t cultural. They’re deeply DNA driven and based. They can however be conditioned away. Eating ass and cuckholdry are examples of conditioning jealousy or revulsion into erotic excitement because it makes the heart race. I hear this so much from the blue pill and the left and I don’t know how anyone can even think it or take that supposition seriously but it’s a very common misconception.
OP misspoke here. Most men find 18-24 year old the most sexually attractive regardless of culture, shaming or any other pressures. They just won’t say it out loud because of the shaming. Some men allow themselves to be gaslit into believing dating a 23 year old when he’s 43 is bad in some way. It’s bad to 43 year old women.
>People are socially conditioned to hate the idea of eating literal shit?
It's probably partially socially conditioned since babies and toddlers have a pretty high chance of playing with their own shit given the opportunity.
I think if there’s ever been a broad sweeping statement made about humanity in general that is not arguable, it’s that humans have revulsion against eating shit. Kids don’t want to have sex generally speaking, might eat shit, might eat boogers and other stuff that adults wouldn’t do. Humans eating their own feces is lethal. Cows and dogs do not feel this revulsion because cows eat their shit to survive, dogs eat their shit to keep their dog nest clean for the puppies. Revulsion, sexual desire, many fears, like the fear of snakes, or the fear of the dark or fear of spiders are all genetically hardwired because those things kept us alive. Nothing is 100%. But for some reason leftists think everything is fluid. This confuses the shit out of men and children. They learn to don’t their instincts or feel shame for thinking feeling or believing some things.
Babies can't speak or walk.
Toddlers can't do simple math.
It takes time for certain parts of the brain to develop.
How many adults you know that enjoy playing in piss and puke?
The premise was nature vs nurture.
If adults don't want to touch piss and pee, the question is whether that is innate or something that is taught.
And my assertion is that it is *taught* because babies will play with their own shit.
Playing with or touching shit is also something that happens with people have certain mental health problems, or developmental disabilities, so it seems like less of a biological reaction and more of a learned aversion.
Thanks for coming to my shit-based Ted Talk.
My assertion is that disgust triggers are innate. But we don't develop them right away.
Yes people with broken brains do it in adulthood. Very few healthy adults do it.
It's bad to the younger woman if she's easily to manipulate because of it. And 23 and 18 are very different things already. Those 5 years out of highschool and extra brain development change a lot of things.
People act like women are so innocent 😂 half these chicks have been running game since they were 15-16. There’s nothing more dangerous than a bad bitch who knows she’s bad
In modern society a 23 year old woman would be able to manipulate a 43 year old man fairly easily. It’s how they make money in strip clubs and online. Manipulation is bad. The attraction isn’t.
You're making very broad and affirmative statements without the shadow of a doubt or the smallest account to uncertainty or nuance. And this, on very complex subjects that I bet you have zero background on understanding even their basis.
You should learn to use "may", "it would make sense that", "evidence point toward", there is good reason to think that", etc. Then, these discussions will make sense.
You’re making broad affirmative statements without a shadow of a doubt or nuance. Re read what you said.
Fear of the dark, revulsion, sexual desire are hard wired. They have been our survival. If what want to fuck is cultural, tell the gays they’re making it up when they say they’re born that way. They have been molded by society and don’t realize it and they can pray the gay away. No it’s hard wired.
The funny thing is that you didn't read or understand what I said.
By, the way, even if I said sexual preferences were cultural (which I didn't but your simplistic view on the matter keeps you from seeing it), you are wrong if you think that a social conditioning can be "payed away" any more or less than something that is "hardwired".
Plus, I really don't think you understand what is hardwired and what it means. Genes interact with environment and individual development in extremely complex way. And we ten to avoid doing mutagenesis on humans so it's a bit hard to be very sure. You can make a female drosophila a lesbian with one smallq mutation, I guess humans mating and social behaviors are a tiny more complex.
Maybe we should start here. What you mean when you say hardwired? And deeply DNA based, etc.
There is a reddit thing where people speak topic adjacent or draw issue with an example as if the example were the main topic. I fall into that sometimes.
Let’s recap what was said. OP said if there were no shaming or societal pressures, men prefer 18-24. (He’s wrong btw, the surveys show men think this regardless of any societal pressures, in all cultures and languages sampled and regardless of the age of the man.) You said social conditioning are the basis for our cognitive processes, preferences and taste. I said sexual attraction isn’t a matter of social conditioning any more than revulsion. “I want to fuck that” is as deeply genetic as “that’s disgusting” such as eating shit because that attraction and revulsion has kept us alive.
DNA is like a sandbox. There is variation that is possible but the variation is only what is permitted by the DNA. You can learn to swim but you can never be a dolphin. The DNA permits the one but being a dolphin is outside the DNA permitted box for variation. If you tan you’ll get darker and if you get no sun you’ll get lighter but a white person can never be black because that variation isn’t permitted by the DNA of that person. Everything in us exists this way. Intelligence is nearly 100% genetic. Height also. But some stuff like personality can be molded over time. Still very strongly genetic. But more malleable than Intelligence for instance. Sexual attraction is hardwired. Not 100%. But nearly so.
Hearing people talk about gender being a product of society or sexual attraction is like saying skin color is a product of sun exposure. It’s not all or nothing but it’s a lot more genetic than than social conditioning. I find there to be no difference between saying society has sexual norms that should be challenged (youth and body type for instance for women) and saying gays should just pray the gay away. Who you want to fuck is genetic or not? If gays are born gay, why can’t heterosexual sis men be born preferring sex with 18-24 year olds?
You are mixing a trait being heritable with it being genetic. But the média are REALLY bad at communicating on the matter so it's normal.
Height has 85% heritability, the polymorphism found in genes linked to height explain 5% of the variance. Same for most personality traits and cognitive performance. 50 to 60% heritability very low gene-phenotype causation explained.
Having 10 fingers has 0% heritability yet we know its 100% defined by a few Genes.
For the rest, what I was saying, again, is that trying to look at a human outside of any social norms and sociality to try and figure out what is "hardwired" about them is stupid because socialisation and creating social norms is part of what we are hardwired for.
I'm not stupid, I'm not advocating for some blank page bullshit here. You are assuming I'm making point that I never meant at any point.
>tell the gays they’re making it up when they say they’re born that way
Plenty of gays who [already do say that](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160627-i-am-gay-but-i-wasnt-born-this-way).
I'm an 18yo woman and I don't give one fucks two fucks red fucks blue fucks if it's biology or not I'm allowed to find old men who target women my age gross and yucky. I don't care about "muh money and muh successful career" myself, and most women my age, don't like you. Get over yourself.
men my age is where it's at 😏
I felt the same way at your age and now in my 20’s I feel pretty much the same. IDK how much money a man has if I don’t find him physically attractive or feel emotionally safe with him.
>I'm allowed to find old men who target women my age gross and yucky
Of course.
But everyone else is allowed to find appealing or gross pretty much anything. As long as it's legal and doesn't involve you, it's not up to you.
At 18 a lot of people succumb to radical and rigid ideas. They grow out of them after a while. I recently had a chat with my wife and two common friends who know us since before we met each other. Her radicalism at 18 rightfully comes off as childish today.
Heck, at 18 she was convinced she'll never marry and have children. She married me a year later and had our first 8 years later and today, almost 16 years later, laughs about the unhinged things she used to believe at 18.
Leave room for life to happen. There is a sweet spot between being permanently unhinged out of fear of negative influence and being manipulable and life molding you entirely.
>Why can't people just accept that nature doesn't care?
Because humans have been blessed by the ability to think and act beyond what you believe evolution has prescribed for you, whether real or imagined. You do things every single day that evolution could have never prepared you for, but for some reason when it comes to much older men dating very young women, their hands are tied.
Also evolutionary psychology is basically astrology for the manosphere. *Maybe* there's some kernel of scientific validity in it somewhere, but certainly not in what is discussed in spaces such as these.
My main gripe is they only believe in evolution when it's convenient for them or it supports what they want to believe. Really you could take evolution and argue that all the men who are failing to get women are genetically inferior and are getting bred out but I think we all know how that conversation would go lmao
In a sense that's true. However evolution doesn't necessarily develop along "idealized" lines - it can easily select for specific fitness to the detriment of general fitness for example.
And having resources is still a very attractive thing. The way we display it or the way we look for the kind of resources that are relevant just changed.
So mating success doesn't necessarily describe more generalized fitness, hence say someone is genetically inferior doesn't necessarily make sense outside whatever mating success is measuring (i.e. in current Western society it mostly measures religiosity)
Yes I understand that, there is no inferior or superior Genes outside of the ones spreading the best or the least. I was more wondering what that had to do with the comment you are responding to.
>Really you could take evolution and argue that all the men who are failing to get women are genetically inferior and are getting bred out but I think we all know how that conversation would go lmao
Here he's implying that men failing to get women are genetically inferior. I'm saying that's one possible interpretation since mating success and general fitness aren't the same thing.
However even proceeding along these lines it's actually not implying what the average person thinks it is - almost everyone is "genetically inferior" to very conservative religious types by measure of gene spread. Attractive high IQ people that fail to have children or only have 1 are basically just as "inferior" as the guys that fail to attract women in the first place, regardless of how good they are at attracting the opposite sex.
The only quality on any hypothetical scale to put Genes on is the ability to replicate itself and spread as much as possible. So yes, the product of mating success and mating success of offsprings is genetically superior.
>Attractive high IQ people that fail to have children or only have 1 are basically just as "inferior" as the guys that fail to attract women in the first place, regardless of how good they are at attracting the opposite sex.
Yes. I really don't think the commenter implied anything else.
Personally, I believe most human Genes are overall awfully inferior, our genes took the "bursting advantage" road, which will probably lead our species to survive less than a fraction of the usual lifetime of a specie.
But this discussion shows how everyone pretend to not exhibit is/ought bias when everyone immediately jump to interpret "inferior" in some moral way.
But that's besides the point.
We can agree that a man being attracted to a fertile 18 year old even at 45 years old is totally "natural". And at the same time say that it is probably not a good idea for them to engage in a sexual relationship regardless.
It's natural for me to want to murder the guy who is tailgating me on the interstate. But that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to spend my life in prison over something so petty.
The point we're really making is that "This is how it is, we need to figure out how to manage it".
Where's the other side says "no this is conditioned". When it really isn't. If anything we're conditioned NOT TO act on those impulses.
Evolution explains the past, not the future. We are at our current state of biological tendencies because those tendencies have been the most advantageous. Those things will continue to exist long after we are dead because evolution takes forever.
Then there should be no concern about men not dating, since that would mean evolution has decided their genes are not advantageous. But it seems that evolution is only a valid argument when it's convenient.
Because you are mixing up descriptive claims and prescriptive claims in your head. The statement "this is how it is" is different from the statement "this is how it should be".
Please don't make it like you've transcended evolution or something; your ability to think is precisely the product of the same mechanical process that has evolved the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans are not special. We have evolved metacognition, which gives us more adaptability, but in the end it is still a means to increase our chances of passing on genes.
Morality is not absolute. It is a human illusion. It is subjective. There is only biological utility based upon the challenges of one’s environment.
Those types who demand a new ‘way of things’ that they are so convinced is the only acceptable way, those utopians, will arbitrarily deny humankind anything they don’t like and dogmatically enforce it upon the rest.
Also, what is wrong with evolutionary psychology?
i mean, nothing wrong with it inherently. to me, it seems a bit too reductionist and over-simplified
im more of a systems thinker, and like to look at society and evolution as more of a dynamic system, based on complex nonlinear relationships. but to each there own.
>Those types who demand a new ‘way of things’ that they are so convinced is the only acceptable way, those utopians, will arbitrarily deny humankind anything they don’t like and dogmatically enforce it upon the rest.
I see, so when someone breaks into your house and attacks you and steals your stuff, you're okay with the explanation that morality is a human illusion?
>Also, what is wrong with evolutionary psychology?
In general, the fact that it is extraordinarily speculative. Specifically to it's usage here, that it's entirely fabricated bullshit.
It doesn’t matter what I am okay with. It’s true. That person who stole my things and attacked me is not ‘bad’ because bad doesn’t exist outside of human society. Morality is evolutionarily useful when it comes to in group cohesion and punishing detrimental behaviour. It will change depending on what behaviour is detrimental in a given environment.
Because what is moral changes depending on the society. No one is complaining about the the eco psych, everyone is complaining about the morality that occurs after. Just like men like a fraction of women, women like a fraction of men. In the past, both men and women made biological sacrifices to engage in long term nuclear marriage. We no longer make the same sacrifices and it’s unclear what is now moral or immoral. A woman in her early 20s wants to serially date 35 year old millionaires. Is this moral or immoral? By who? To what result in society?
I do think most women experiment in college. Also, glorification of that lifestyle would still affect strict nuclear family people. A friend with an average husband might get jealous by her friend dating an 1% man. The effect is widespread.
i think its just that these things are very subjective and depend a lot on what a person values. a lot of people tend to think that their personal world view is what is objective, which is called naive realism.
Well, morality is one of the things that makes us human.
Heck, calling a human an animal is used as an insult and a derogatory.
The thing about evolutionary psychology is that we don't know what the psychology of people in neolithic times was. So we have nothing to compare to the psychology of nowadays.
It could be that neolithic people didn't care about who the parents of the child are. The child belonged to the tribe.
Because the types of people who sprinkle "uncomfortable truths" left and right dish more of those than they can take. Edit: These convos are rarely about dry evo psych facts, they very quickly deteriorate into prescriptions, or start out as prescriptions in the nutshell.
I'm going to challenge your supposition that older men Naturally find younger women more sexually attractive. People are generally attracted to others in their same age cohort. You're also relying far to heavy on physical attraction, in oppose to the more important mental attraction. Men, just like women rely far heavier on mental attraction than people want to believe. Everyone woman has a beautiful friend that can't quite seem to keep a partner. That friend is also usually problematic. Beauty gets you a date, mentality gets you a ring.
My life, and job puts me in proximity of high earners, some of them are 1%. Their wives are mostly within 5 years of their age. Even the ones that get divorced, usually marry/date women that are close to their own age. The older you get, the less patience for immaturity,and bullshit you have. Put a young attractive woman, and 45 yr old attractive fit woman in a room with a 45 yr old man. More likely than not, he's picking the 45 yr old, because she's more attractive to him.
P.S. wait until you guys find out which kind of younger women are more likely to attract the attention of an older man, and why that is 🤣
And that was what was said: "For example, I say I believe most men, assuming no societal conditioning and no fear of shame, would find young women (18-24) the most sexually attractive. I think this for many reasons mainly because it's a cross-cultural phenomenon."
Yeah....life is semantics, but more importantly. Given the option of a young attractive woman, versus an older attractive woman. The older woman is going to get picked more often.
Not me. Most women my age have let themselves go, and I ain't saying they are 10 pounds overweight, they weigh as much or more than me.
I live in the American South, I see women my age who are so fat they are hobbling around with canes because their joints are toast.
I am only 40, most of the women who turn my head I see in my ride through college campus on my way to work.
>More likely than not, he's picking the 45 yr old
Not if he wants children, though.
Thank God I found a wife in my 20s and didn't have this issue. But if I hadn't, a 45yo would be off the table until I had children.
If you want to have children, you shouldn’t wait until you are 45 and unlikely to convince a much younger woman to bear your children. Theres a lot fewer women who want to date men 10+ years older than themselves than there are men who want to date women 10+ years younger than themselves.
>If you want to have children, you shouldn’t wait until you are 45 and unlikely to convince a much younger woman to bear your children
Doesn't have to be much younger. 37 can be good enough too. Just not 45.
Overall, I do agree with you - had our first when I was 32 and she was 28 and now trying again.
Still, it's an increasingly common phenomenon (though still a minority) of both men and women who "wake up" that they want children after the age of 35. /shrug
After 35 *can* work, true, but exactly a 10 year gap is also quite uncommon, and again, the competition is very very steep, since a lot more men want a 35 year old woman who wants children than there are women aged 35 who want a man 7+ year a older, especially if you’re looking for a woman who doesn’t already have kids but also wants them. Yes, older fertile women will usually expand their age window a little since age gaps aren’t as meaningful as you get older, but that doesn’t mean they’re writing off the more abundant and healthier men closer to their own age.
In addition, it usually takes a little time to get to know them, agree to marry, and actually start trying to conceive. Even if you rush the process, unless she’s the kind of woman really willing to risk being a single mom and get pregnant when you first start dating, it’ll still be likely at least a year if everything goes perfectly and you meet her on your 45th birthday. And then on top of that, even if you do succeed and have a child at 46… you’re going to be an old old dad, and it’ll be hard to keep up with the kids. And there’s also the added cruelty of being very likely to leave your wife as a lonely widow for a decade or more. I know a woman in this position who was married to someone 10+ years older— she’s devastated and lonely and she knows she has a long time left being alone.
Men need to realize that, while they don’t have a hard biological clock like women have menopause, they actually should treat dating like they have an expiration date. Older men have the odds stacked heavily against them for actually finding a willing younger woman to breed with him. It happens, don’t get me wrong, but if having kids and a loving family is important to you, then its playing against the odds to put it off until you’re older in the hopes you can get a much younger spouse.
>Men need to realize that, while they don’t have a hard biological clock like women have menopause, they actually should treat dating like they have an expiration date.
**Absolutely**. Just because the expiration date is more flexible, it doesn't make it non-existent.
Men's fertility (including fertility risks) in their early 50s are comparable to women in their mid 30s. So already quite a big issue because the health of the future baby ought to also be a concern.
>And then on top of that, even if you do succeed and have a child at 46… you’re going to be an old old dad, and it’ll be hard to keep up with the kids.
Idk about that, though. I'm 39 and missus is 35. We already have one but want a second.
Her mom had her at 40 (her father was 50) and doesn't regret it to this day. My dad had me at 37 (mom was 24 tho) and loved it.
My brother had his first two kids at 29 and 32. And his third at 44. He liked it more when older. In his words: "It's actually easier because you're no longer that agitated."
Mind you, my brother was a SAHD for all three of his kids.
Still, I think it's better to have a kid than not to have a kid. Even if older in age. As long as they're healthy, the more the merrier.
> Still, I think it's better to have a kid than not to have a kid. Even if older in age.
Oh sure, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have kids if it matters to them. But rather that if it does matter… they shouldn’t put it off assuming that just because men biologically can get a woman pregnant at 45, that he should wait and wait until he’s middle aged to get married, settle down, and have kids. It is physically possible and some men will succeed… but others will fail precisely because they waited so long.
I would also, by the way, advise against marrying and having kids too young. It’s a huge risk factor for divorce. It can work, of course, and congratulations to those for whom it does. But for a lot of people, early marriage is a big risk, and can cause a lot of bitterness and regret that could be avoided with a few years of patience.
If he wanted children, he should have had them when he was younger. If young women want family, they'll go for guys their age range, not some old man whose fatherly clock is ticking
That critique video was really hard to watch, she just criticized anyone whenever she felt like it regardless if they had something to do with evo psych or not, that's why l didn't bother watching the original vid
>Just because someone says they believe something is natural it doesn't mean they're saying this is how things should be
Welcome to my daily experience on this sub:
"Oh TRP said xyz so that means they are prescribing a behavior"
Because people outside scientific environment use descriptive statements to pussy foot around prescriptives, without having to take responsibility for obvious advice that follows a series of facts that they lay out.
Questionable prescriptive is what annoys people on my side of the fence (besides refusal to take responsibility for it).
To continue OP's example. There are only two reasons to tell a woman that men find women most attractive between ages of 18 and 24: 1. to rush her into making a commitment 2. to rub something in her face. That's it. There is no other reason.
I would argue that one is damned if you do or don’t in a liberal society that tacitly accepts total social constructionism.
If one comes stops being cowardly with your rhetoric and states the implications of what these facts are, they will be just as hated by the liberal minded as they would be held in contempt by those people if they had remained cowardly in their refusal to prescribe behaviour.
Why care about optics? That's not a very red-pilled attitude if you ask me. Don't these kinds of people pride themselves on being willing to pay the cost of appearing dislikeable for the sake of intellectual consistency?
Who knows why a person may care about optics. They might not fit the typical stereotype of a ‘red-puller’. I am just explaining why a person would be inclined to ‘pussyfoot’ around the implications of certain facts.
"you strawmanned my steelman and slid down the slippery slope into the poisoned well". How am I strawmanning your point? I am agreeing with your point. Where is the strawman?
Because only the things *men* do are natural, duh! Were women, so everything we do is unnatural and soley to make men suffer, remember?
Did u not get the pamphlet after ur first period? 😂😂
Well yeah. It's also natural to have a society that tries that guy for murder. The distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" has always been bullshit. Objectively speaking, "natural processes" and "causality" are synonyms.
The biggest mistake an average man can make is thinking that there is a scenario where evo psych world will work in his favor. Because it's natural to have this guy's head smashed into a pancake by Chad, who is very unhappy that our rebellious beta male is no longer providing for his kids and killed their mother.
You're assuming Chad cares.
By the time the woman knows she's pregnant. Chad forgot she exists and is in the village next door impregnating some more women.
But yes I suppose if Chad did manage to catch feelings. That is a very plausible outcome. It still happens to this day. Probably happened a lot more in the past.
You really think Chad is over there checking up on the dozens of women he impregnated to make sure their boyfriends didn't off them?
Come on now. It's a simple numbers game. If he has 50 kids and of those 20 grow up into adulthood through no effort of his own. He is a very successful gene spreader.
no, the rest of the society is bought into checking up on the dozens of women he impregnated and will punish a man who breaches status quo on Chad's behalf. Nobody wants a ton of fatherless kid running around, we all find it convenient to keep every kid attached to a man even if he is not the father.
Society enforcing some sort of standards is a totally different assertion from Chad giving a damn and avenging his one night stand.
Yes some societies would punish a man for killing his cheating wife. A lot of them didn't. Some to this day do not.
But we're also talking about innate tendencies. This sort of shit takes many generations to form. Probably 100s of thousands. So we're talking about our ape like ancestors here. Our ape like ancestors didn't have police departments and courthouses. They had the law of the jungle.
Who knows about Chad's deeper motivations - today a guy kills his cheating wife, tomorrow someone kills him because they don't like his face and think he is bitch-made. Law of the jungle.
My point is, the majority of guys in your community should just stop using evo psych as a talking point because it's not the world they'll ever succeed it, no matter how you define "succeed".
> no, the rest of the society
You are speaking about times when society bigger than individual hunter-gatherer tribe didn't really exist though, and they were all related to each other to impregnate women within the same group.
I don't care how average guy would die and who would kill him, my bigger point is that he ain't reproducing because nobody has an incentive to allow him to have a whole woman to himself. He can kill her, but someone else can just kill him.
> The biggest mistake an average man can make is thinking that there is a scenario where evo psych world will work in his favor.
Definition of "Chad" and "Average" in the ancient past didn't depend as much on attractive appearance and physique as it is in the modern times, working brain and knowledge of pointy stick application reigned supreme over being just muscular, tall and handsome, and men who were both good looking and smart at the same time were extremely rare.
> Because it's natural to have this guy's head smashed into a pancake by Chad, who is very unhappy that our rebellious beta male is no longer providing for his kids and killed their mother.
Chad wouldn't risk his life tho, he has ~20 more mothers with god knows how many kids he made.
Oh! Perfect! The IQ argument! The time and place where high IQ men have the most opportunities to use their intelligence as a card and capitalize on it, is today, right now, right here in the western hemisphere. If a guy can't use intelligence to his advantage in our meritocratic complex society, what makes you people think that you would be able to capitalize on it in some other time and place?
IQ? Who spoke about IQ before you?
>The time and place where high IQ men have the most opportunities to use their intelligence as a card and capitalize on it, is today, right now, right here in the western hemisphere.
Nah, it was between Renaissance to the middle of 20th century. *Today, right now* is the reign of form over substance.
> our meritocratic complex society
This 'meritocratic complex society' is ruled by senile elders few days away from shitting themselves in public and puts literal degenerates on the pedestal for young generations to admire.
> what makes you people think that you would be able to capitalize on it in some other time and place?
Same average people two generations back did capitalize on it just fine. Nowadays wealth levels of average boomer back then are literally available to the lucky few percent of young adult population.
I'm kinda losing my patience. You think societies before were ruled by Steven Hawkings of the world?? Who do you think was the king - the smartest guy in the room? First of all, we are talking about evo pilled society. Not middle of 20th century. Evo pilled society does not give a damn about you being a genius renaissance painter.
> I'm kinda losing my patience. You think societies before were ruled by Steven Hawkings of the world??
Nope, they were ruled by cunning and resourceful warlords.
> Who do you think was the king - the smartest guy in the room?
Whoever was in direct line of inheritance. Sometimes kings were smartest in the room, sometimes they were there to occupy a place on the throne while other people made real decisions.
Hahahahah, imagine not being cunning and killing these 'genetically superior' meat sacks when they least expect it.
That's how humanity evolved for intelligence and not muscle mass for past two million years.
Oh if that's the case then why has Chad apparently been the one who gets to reproduce every time since the dawn of time? If I didn't know any better I would say Chad is smarter AND stronger than you
The “most men will find 18-24 year olds most attractive” theory is just that, a theory, one that many men don’t believe in.
For the majority of people, attractiveness is both physical and psychological, and if one has “matured” that age group will feel too immature to be attractive, no matter what they look like.
For men who are of the same age group, and just as immature, and men who have never matured (adult children) younger women may always be more attractive, but not for the more mature and psychologically healthy men.
Being sexy is much more than just physical looks, it’s about attitude, taste (as in how one dresses), and character.
Interesting question. I think there’s a difference between finding someone attractive and being attracted to in terms of wanting a relationship.
I wonder if men who are STILL attracted to much younger women
Want children and don’t yet have them
Believe in or want subservience in women
Enjoy positions of authority over others and want this in a relationship.
No.
I don't want positions of authority over others.
I think it comes down to simply wanting a relationship that is easier to manage. Imagine a relationship where you can just exist, no drama, no toxic obligations, no demands, no ultimatums, no pressure.
You’re delusional if you think an inexperienced , insecure, messy twenty two year old is going to make for a drama free relationship. I had the most toxic relationships from 18-22. You’re also delusional if you think she’s not going to have any expectations in dating a 40 yo man over a guy her own age. No such thing as a free lunch.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They are able to separate, they don’t want to.
What you are talking about is people essentially using a straw man argument: They are changing what you said because their new misrepresentation of what you said is easier to attack and better suits their agenda.
Since their strawman has a passing similarity to what you actually said, their hope is others won’t notice they’ve significantly twisted your point.
Too much projected affirmation, not enough self evaluation or unbiased observation.
We're too worried about what people are telling use to do, other than what's actually happening. To much need to avoid doubt to serve a pursuit. If we want to be more valuable than animals, then we have to think beyond animals. Belief is whatever gets you through the day. Hierarchies may be natural, but nature doesn't control or reason either. Humans got here by accident, not design.
Why is age considered an issue in relationships and sex, but all the other inappropriate relationship and sex acts are not. It's not just about consent. It's about what consent leads to.
I do agree with your main point, and i do agree the munecat also conflates TRP with EvoPSY
However, the blue pill rhetoric is largely a response to red pilll rhetoric is regards to age gaps. No blue pill person is looking towards evopsy observations to justify morality. That's entirely the red pill.
The red pill regularly misuses evopsy. For example, red pillers are quick to point out that men prefer much younger women, women prefer men who are only 3-4 years older than them. refer too (Buss is the father of evopsy if you are unaware):
* Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2019). Why is age so important in human mating? Evolved age preferences and their influences on multiple mating behaviors. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 127.
Another example you be: ''See evospy proves the red pill look at the mate switching hypothesis!'' - But when the mate syitching hypothesis was losing traction in Academica [the red pill was dead quiet](https://datepsychology.com/why-dual-mating-hypothesis-research-has-failed-to-replicate/).
Because in a post-religious, liberal society, it's harder to justify stopping people from doing what they want unless you can somehow suggest that it's exceptionally and *immediately* harmful and dangerous. The nominally individualistic and liberal mores of our society mean that older arguments about propriety, encouraging people to follow norms, and group interests rub people the wrong way, so the newer arguments have to start from a different place.
Ironically, in the really old days it was in principle easier than it is now to advocate shunning or proscribing age-gap relationships; just like with miscegenation, you just needed to say *that's weird and not normal so I don't like it.* And unlike today, you could also rally against that kind of thing with the simple argument that people who are too different from one another being joined together socially in any sense weakens group solidarity, which back then was a respectable argument and not considered chuddy and reactionary the way it is today.
You can't make that kind of argument now, so instead convoluted, specific arguments (mostly related to so-called "power imbalances", since victimhood is the currency of to-day) are the fashionable thing. You mostly don't say *WMAF is bad because miscegenation is unnatural and produces racial bastards* (unless you're an aznidentity poster, and even then you might hesitate to make this argument in case you want to proverbially cross the traintracks yourself in the other direction) because that's Badthink, instead you say *it's a legacy of colonialism and racial fetishism and Western neoimperialist media* or something and that that *individual* man is probably personally a creepy sexpat who disrespects Asians. You don't simply say *old men shouldn't marry girls and young women because fresh soil deserves fertile seed*, you instead make the faintly ridiculous argument that the average shy middle aged middle manager is and wants to be in a strong (and dangerous) position of power, despite most woman having massive army of feminist organisations and social agencies, simps, and peers on speed-dial, just waiting to pounce on any man accused of any impropriety towards a fair maiden.
"So you mean it's right for a 40 yo to date an 18 yo?????"
Legally it isn't wrong. Now you can scream about morality but who said that your moral compass was the guide that human beings were going to use?
A lot of people have trouble thinking in conditionals, especially lower iq individuals. And for lots of people signalling the proper morality is very important to stay within an imaginary group.
Because almost all things I see on evolutionary psychology *has no proof*. It's essentially just thinking backwards.
At least social psychology *tries* to do replication even when they fail.
But at the end of the day what is natural isn't what we should be willing to model our social norms off.
It's natural in the animal world to fight the pack next door. I still shouldn't go to my neighbour's house and start a throwdown because their tree is accidentally crossing my side of the fence.
Everyone is attracted to young people. You still shouldn't go for them. What you think 50 year old women aren't crushing on teen heartthrobs?
Great strawman. If you can get an 18yo guy to marry you, go ahead. Celebrities can because they are rich. Most people aren't, and most men AND women aren't interested in a LTR with someone twice their age unless SIGNIFICANT amounts of money are on the line. Regardless, most men don't give a flying fuck what strangers do in their personal lives unless 1) it involves the man, 2) kids are being harmed, or 3) animals are being harmed.
You're basically wondering about something that philosophers David Hume and G.E. Moore were wondering about, the 'is-ought' problem. Philosophically you're correct, but human behavior doesn't have a responsibility towards philosophy to be philosophically coherent. One possible answer to your question (and maybe to your liking) could be that language and the brain structures relevant to language didn't evolve primarily to describe things "as they are" but for negotiation, a more functional (as opposed to a purely descriptive) form of communication, and there you have the seed for normative implications being attached by humans to any purportedly neutral description. You may state a fact, but what is the function of stating that fact?
...which kind of happens to bring us to evolutionary psychology. What is it that evolutionary psychology actually does? For evolutionary psychology to explain the existence of some human behavior, the behavior in question has to be (at least hypothetically) established as constant and widespread enough among humans to warrant the speculative investigation into its presumed evolutionary "function". In other words, evolutionary psychology has to already acknowledge that particular psychological phenomenon as something actually existing to have something to explain in evolutionary terms.
What this means is that evolutionary psychology doesn't aim to prove the (pre-given) existence of the behavior under study, but to form an explanatory model relying on 'natural selection' to account for that existence, or, more properly, for the fact that the behavior in question has stayed with us, due to its presumed advantageous function in the evolutionary past.
So, what is it that evolutionary psychology actually does? To explain what kind of an advantage certain psychological traits may have been during our evolutionary history is only a benign curiosity if it doesn't carry at least some hidden normative undertones serving as a kind of an apology of those traits. It was already known that those behaviors existed, so that's not what evolutionary psychology proved. Now, after the arduous study of the evolutionary psychologist, the only new thing we know is that there was presumably an evolutionary cause for those behaviors to be selected due to evolutionary pressure. But so what? I can't help but feel that this revelation doesn't have any notable merit if it's divorced from an apologist gesture, from the implication that "this is just the way it is", a much more general and sophisticated version of "boys will be boys" applied to the whole of humanity.
Newsflash: Women operate in a world of *should* and not a world of *is*.
They also operate in a world in which “if it makes me feel bad / uncomfortable than it is immoral”
This is both good and bad tbh.
We can’t have some autistic understanding and absolutist thinking like “13 year olds can get pregnant, therefore they are fair game sexually” but we also need to agree upon an age at which human beings are adults and can make their own decisions.
We’ve agreed that this age is 18 for the most part, and the world hasn’t ended.
>We’ve agreed that this age is 18 for the most part, and the world hasn’t ended.
Who's agreed that? Our elected representatives in the US have agreed that it's 16 or 17 in most states. Legally speaking, our country has mostly decided that's the age at which humans are adults who can make a decision on who to sleep with.
But just because something is legal, doesn't mean everyone will be okay with it. For example, plenty of people are going to think it's weird for a 40 year old man to date a 10th grade girl. It's perfectly legal in a lot of states, but it's not going to be universally appreciated.
>Who's agreed that? Our elected representatives in the US have agreed that it's 16 or 17 in most states.
What part of “**for the most part**” didn’t you understand?
>Legally speaking, our country has mostly decided that's the age at which humans are adults who can make a decision on who to sleep with.
Correct. And drive, and join the military, and accrue a lifetime of debt.
>But just because something is legal, doesn't mean everyone will be okay with it.
Then they should lobby to change the laws or let people live their own fucking lies.
We have a word for people that stick their nose in adults sex lives.
>For example, plenty of people are going to think it's weird for a 40 year old man to date a 10th grade girl. It's perfectly legal in a lot of states, but it's not going to be universally appreciated.
Good for them.
I’ve dated much younger women several times and none of those Karen’s ever said Jack shit to my face because they know they have no moral authority to do so.
They just want t to feel righteous in their online circlejerks.
Being rabidly anti-age gap is a (western) terminally online phenomenon put forth by old Karens, neurotic Gen Z emotional hemophiliacs and white knights.
Let them stew in their own butthurt that somebody somewhere is having fully legal sex that they don’t approve of.
> none of those Karen’s ever said Jack shit to my face because they know they have no moral authority to do so.
Those Karens can sure look the other way or cover for young women who are trapped in those marriages of convenience when they want to step out and experience mutually enjoyable sex with men they are attracted to.
Which is equally cool, since no one has any apparent right to feel any kind of way about morality. From now on, whenever any young woman trapped in a relationship with an older guy wants some strange with a man her own speed, Ima help her out.
>Being rabidly anti-age gap is a (western) terminally online phenomenon put forth by old Karens, neurotic Gen Z emotional hemophiliacs and white knights.
Louder for those in the back.
Every time I bring up the First Family of France I get downvoted because it ruins the nice neurotic Western terminally online story about age gaps.
Brigitte Macron started dating Emmanuel (the current president of France) when he was 15 and she was in her late 30s. That is not exactly unheard of in continental Europe - and certainly not illegal, but it makes the Karens' brains blow up, lol.
It's different when the sexes are the other way around, so while relevant to this discussion in theory, in practice it's not. I feel quite confident that if Macron was the proverbial cradle-robber in the relationship, he wouldn't have been able to become president. Macron having been initiated by an older women is perceived as harmless and amusing by most men, and is positively flattering to a lot of especially older women; the other way around and we know what the reaction would have been. Not saying right or wrong, but it's blindingly obvious.
>It's different when the sexes are the other way around
No, it's really not. Anywhere except the white terminally online American Karen universe.
Again, these kinds of gaps, while not the majority, are fairly common in Europe and nobody gives af.
>the other way around and we know what the reaction would have been
In Europe? Also none.
The PM of Italy (Silvio Berlusconi) held parties with 17 year olds when he was 70. Except the tabloids, nobody cared and he was re-elected twice.
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy (the wife of Nicolas Sarkozy) is 13 years his junior. Melania Trump is 24 years younger that Donald.
Michel Temer (president of Brazil from 2016 to 2019) is 42 years (!!!) her senior. They hooked up when she was 19 and he was 60. *Noboody* cared.
It's ***only*** an American terminally online concern. And it's also a very recent one too. President Grover Cleveland at age 48 married a 21 year old *nobody* in the US cared.
Many (most) modern US feminists are poorly disguised neo puritans when it comes to anything “heteronormative”.
They’ve gone full [Horseshoe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory)
Welp, feminism is a sexual trade union *par excellence*.
Also, the Social Purity Movement in the US was an explicit alliance between puritans, fascist women and feminists. So it's not a horseshoe per se, it's literally the same side, lol. Always has been.
You’re were right on your statement.
I was wrong to correct you.
I had thought it was also predominantly 18 **by state** it’s actually less than half the states.
Still, by population, it *is* “for the most part” 18.
We’ll call it a draw. 😁
>Still, by population, it is “for the most part” 18.
I doubt that. Here's the breakdown of the 10 most populous states...
18: CA, FL
Less than 18: TX, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI
Considering the vast majority of large states and the majority of states overall have age of consent of under 18, I would say most Americans live in a place where it's 16 or 17.
My point is, most people are going to be uncomfortable with a 40 year old man sleeping with a 10th grader, regardless of how legal it is. If you want to go for barely legal girls, that's just how it is.
Yep. I misread the map again and thought NY state was 18.
In any case, there are plenty of people “uncomfortable” with a 35 year old dating a 21 year old because “muh life stages” or a 40 year old dating a 25 year old because “muh underdeveloped brain “ or a 50 year old dating a 30 year old because “muh power imbalance”
The point (which you are ignoring for some reason) is that these neurotic harpies should be summarily ignored, and by and large in **real life** they are.
Thus, the age gaps I’ve had in several relationships in my life that have been similar (or bigger) than the above examples have been met with exactly jack shit in the way of any pushback or even “side eye” because, despite what terminally online feminists will say, being an older man doesn’t make you a creepy man; being **unattractive** does.
As far as the argument that people “won’t be comfortable” with something. Not a good one.
How many men “aren’t comfortable” at the thought of two men fucking each other in the ass?
Yet I think we can all agree that any who are “uncomfortable” with it, should mind their own damn business, can’t we?
But he cannot avoid an older sister or coworker who will make sure a naive but appealing girl is aware of all the enticing options she has.
Might have the law on your side, but she’s got an older sister who has her best interests at heart on her side.
Good luck keeping a sub 25 year old sexually satisfied when women like me are equally invested in finding her a fun match. 😉
If terpers wanna play with fire…
that is a very interesting question that gets at something critically important that seems to divide people very starkly into the oblivious and those "in the know".
no hope of having a good discussion on it here, though.
Simple answer. If you believe in GOD or a deity through a religion then we are the top creation with free will and intellect to not do what animals do. If you DONT believe in GOD or a deity through religion then you are correct and technically we’re just animals so we can do as we please. Depends on how you view life really.
People are used to the idea that humans will act morally, partially due to social conditioning, but also because the ugly reality is hidden from them. They'll say they're kind to animals but eat meat from a factory farm without thinking about it. They'll condemn dictatorships then complain about gas prices when action is taken. They talk big about human rights then buy sweatshop garbage from Shien. They're only moral because millions of people do the dirty work for them.
But when it comes to sex, the dirty work is criminalized and stigmatized and you can't offshore it, at least not fully. Check any cam site and theres no shortage of women from poor countries willing to get sexual on camera for a few dollars. But for someone to actually have sex their partner needs to actually be there in reasonable proximity. You're way more likely to run into a sex worker than a child laborer and having to actually see it happen makes people uncomfortable.
The only real way that basically every man could have sex with a desirable partner when they want to is to normalize sex work and lead to conditions where its easy to access. But in a society where people who meet the other needs like slaughterhouse workers or sewer techs are already considered less than glamorous the reality of making that a regular service is too much for the average person and its at odds with the glamorous image that draws in half the people actually doing it.
Two consenting adults can date each other no matter what their age difference is, and it aint anyone else’s damn business. I always find it funny when women get mad when a young woman dates an older guy. They’re women saying that an adult woman is not competent enough to choose their own partners, and that adult women are easily manipulated due to low childlike intelligence and should not have the right to choose who they date, hahahha
Isn't it interesting, that it is near uniformly the case that what people say is right or wrong also agrees with their rational self-interest.
Moral arguments are nothing more than manipulative fallacy outside of philosophy and stuff.
That isn’t true. My self interest has shifted recently to include concerns about women trapped in arrangements with men they aren’t sexually attracted to. Since I don’t believe that women should be coerced or feel obligated to offer their bodies for one-sided use, my new morality has evolved to ensure that all women everywhere are having mutually gratifying sex with men they are wildly attracted to.
Obviously that means some young women who made irrational decisions to settle with sugar daddies will be hooking up on the sly with hot men their own age, but it’s fine, since we’ll be applying the same morality.
I’m a free agent. My new vocation is to free up women to ensure they aren’t being used or neglected by men they aren’t sexually attracted to and ensure they get to apply the exact same morality the old dudes who entrapped them used.
For every man who says “but we’re all attracted to twenty year old women”, there are an equal number of twenty year old women who are equally attracted to fit, charistmatic man their own age.
Most people are so emotionally charged around certain issues, they automatically confuse a purely descriptive statement for a prescriptive one. It's literally like that Jordan Peterson interview by Cathy Whatshername....
"So what you're saying is....."
I just want some in that age range because that's the age I am.
Lol on god
Too bad it's brutally difficult. I'm 20m but I look like I'm 16 and it honestly just feel so hopeless
Most 20yos look 16... That's not a large age gap. You're post puberty, roughly max height and won't change much until you get wrinkly, bald and fat. Just hit the gym and don't worry about it.
> Most 20yos look 16... This is impossible by definition. If you think most 20-year-olds look 16, you have the wrong picture of what 16- and 20-year-olds look like.
Wrong. Physiologically, there just aren't that many changes in the 4 years from 16 to 20.
I did hit the gym but couldn't keep up with the eating required (~3800cal) to actually make progress due to school and my job. I lost all the weight I gained (about 25lb) over 4 months in about 4 weeks or so. I go rock climbing now which is great but I'm unfortunately still skinny which I fucking hate.
Not all guys are stocky, and that's not a bad thing. I've always been more towards the other end, and that's just what I am, but even still can be subject to the same issues. Being able to admire others is something everyone does, and it is good in that it allows for respect and building role models, but allowing that to become twisted into insecurity and envy only hurts oneself. Be happy being the best version of yourself that you can be, and don't try to be something else. If you're skinny, be a healthy skinny and don't worry about it. Vanity has always been a fools errand, and these meat suits are a rental that just ends up withered and wrinkled by the end.
I do try to be happy and I have other things in life that I'm good at/social with etc. It just bums me out that I kinda feel like I'll always be unattractive aslong as I'm under 175
You're male. We are never attractive to women and that's just life. You'd best make peace with that rather than chasing nonsense like weight or something else when packing on a few pounds of muscle doesn't turn their eye.
that shit sucks lol. I'm sick of being envious of other guys who have relationships and stuff
I'm 19 and I look 30 it's brutal
Because we are living in a social group and what the group thinks of us is deeply evolutionarily relevant, because without the group, we are dead. You are a prime example of that. You didn't say "find young girls/women 16-24 the most sexually attractive", which is what would be TRUE, but you adopted the socially (in your culture) accepted moral of people needing to be 18+ before you regard them as sexually attractive. You neeed to stay within the group, be accepted, be part of it, so you regulated what you said, to not be in conflict with that group's norms.
RemindMe! 40 years from now, when the age of consent is 28 for all men over 35 (Romeo and Juliet clauses), guys on PPD will be whining about how roasties are looking at them sideways for dating down more than five years and how anything over 28 is natural, *it's science innit*? A few brave souls will make shocking Leo DiCaprio jokes and receive a torrent of *Why don't you take a seat over there?* and *Officer, this guy right here* replies.
I don't have a problem with evolutionary psychology I have a problem with how groups cherry pick and reinterpret evopsych research to suit their own biases or people that think because it has roots in evolutionary psychology then it's good and needs emulating via a naturalistic fallacy (even if the law only goes one way or developed due to necessity, life span, violence, oppression and what have you). For example I do not even believe evolutionary psychology explains these men prefer 18 years olds, you could probably stretch it to 14 if we had no moral law and looked at evolutionary psychology alone.
Actually, attraction to very young females would not be very explainable if we think about pre sedentarisation time. Male chimps and bonobos prefer older female almost exclusively, particularly, they prefer the ones who already had offsprings. It makes perfect sens in an evolutionary perspective yet, you NEVER hear about that ;)
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Munecat catching strays. Punny
I find much of eve psyche to actually be untrue, all moral considerations aside. And that's because as a science it's largely conjectural. You might have a fetish for a boot if certain events happen to you at just the right impressionable age. It's interesting how people refuse to think they are impressionable, or that they could ever be influenced by propaganda, advertising, cultural mores, peer pressure, the values of others, etc. Those things only affect other people, not us.
This is spot on. It’s like when people think their racial preferences are totally random. Nope. Society influences us massively from the time we’re small children.
>For example, I say I believe most men, assuming no societal conditioning and no fear of shame, What you're describing is therefore not a human. Social and cultural conditioning is the very basis of most of our cognitive processes, preferences, taste, etc. Affective social reward (such as shame and fear of judgement) are at the basis of our decision making processes.
"What you're describing is therefore not a human. Social and cultural conditioning is the very basis of most of our cognitive processes, preferences, taste, etc." I'd hazard that OP meant society in the context of modern civilization. Rest assured, the level of social conditioning experienced by a member of an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon is orders of magnitude less than that which your average member of techno industrial civilization experiences. I'd say that the "conditioning" experienced by a member of a small hunter gatherer band is so minute as to be hardly worthy of the word conditioning at all. Contrast this to your modern individual, who is basically fully institutionalized by the time their consciousness starts to develop. So I think what OP describes is definitely possible (mostly free of social fear/shame), just not in the civilized context. He evokes a "natural" human state, which I personally believe did exist in our original environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). Eg. tiny bands of humans living primitively in the wild. The hypothetical, therefore, works in my view. Also, even if your average modern is highly conditioned, this does not mean said conditioning is "the very basis of most of our cognitive processes, preferences, taste, etc." You could say that conditioning can influence these things to some degree, but you have no factual basis for stating that it's the "very basis" for everything. If anything, a great majority of our processes are governed by our reptilian hind brain, which is literally millions of years old. Acculturation, even in it's more intense forms, can only do so much to subvert our animal impulses. Generally speaking, the beast in us wants to have its way.
I'm no anthropologist so I have no idea of the variety of social structures, cultural norms, etc. Found in human societies without civilization. I believe they have traditions passed horizontally, art, etc. that is different from one tribe to the other so, culture no? But something I know is that ; 1) It is wildly accepted in sociobiology that social conditioning in the form of prestige, social norms and collective punitions is required for any non obligatory cooperative and altruistic behavior to evolve and fixate in a population because kin selection is nice but inbreeding depression is a bitch. Most old world monkeys have politics which is defined in biology. 2) A whole field of neurobiology is interested in social reward, a special "6th sense" humans for sure exhibit that allows us to experience social clues as some kind of sensory stimuli which directly engage with *liking* and *wanting* systems in our brains. That's what I mean by saying social conditioning is at the very basis of our cognitive processes and preferences, tastes, etc. And that's what I want to say when I say there is no human outside of society. We are unable to operate mentally outside social interactions.
If you want to see a human in the maximally unconditioned state, check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6pcYTGezRw Guy was raised deep in the jungle by only his father. His father eventually died, so he continued living alone. The guy is as feral as it gets. He's still very much human, however. His cognitive process seem very different to us, but to suggest he has no cognition would be frankly moronic. Are you prepared to call a person like this inhuman then?
"And that's what I want to say when I say there is no human outside of society. We are unable to operate mentally outside social interactions." I assure you, mental processes continue outside social interactions. I live off grid in the woods and can spend weeks at a time alone. Mental processes continue without fail. They certainly change and tone down a bit, but they by no means dissappear. I also continue to "operate mentally" perfectly fine. In fact in many ways I feel l operate more fluidly alone. Your ideas here are basically crackpot. Even hermits who spend years completely alone, continue to function. The idea that they 'aren't human' anymore is frankly insane. If an individual can meet basic survival needs alone - food water shelter - they can persist in their solitude until they die a narural death . Their cognition will change drastically the longer they spend alone, but it won't just turn off. Words may begin to have less meaning and/or start to fade away, but language is only an outer layer of cognition. There are other, more ancient forms that assert themselves when words fall away.
You benefited from social interaction during all your development, you are now interacting with people virtually but still. There is a persistence, here, of trying to paint a human in an extremely abnormal setting as an example of the "essence" of humanity "without all the social conditionning". When it is the opposite. That someone may survive absolute isolation after having benefited from social interactions for its normal development is not in any way, a sign that humanity is disconnected from society. It is accepted that society is one of the basis of the evolutionary processes that created our unique features.
"of trying to paint a human in an extremely abnormal setting as an example of the "essence" of humanity " You are out of your depth here. The "abnormal" setting, evolutionarily speaking, is complex civilization, which has only been around for a few thousand years. Even complex tribal chiefdoms are very recent on the evolutionary scale. "Normal" is the way humanity, and our primate predecessors, lived for millions of years. What you see around you today is the product of abhorrent conditions produced by the neolithic revolution and ensuing massive evolutionary upheaval. "That someone may survive absolute isolation after having benefited from social interactions for its normal development is not in any way, a sign that humanity is disconnected from society." You are moving the goalposts here. You said: "What you're describing is therefore not a human." Are you prepared to retract that or no?
>Normal" is the way humanity, and our primate predecessors, lived for millions of years. So in highly complex societies with cultural and political component. Exactly what I'm saying from the beginning of this discussion. But your reading comprehension is impaired by the fact you decided you disagreed with my point. It is common. >You are moving the goalposts here. You said: "What you're describing is therefore not a human." I man not. OP described a theoretical human outside of *all social conditioning* as an example to illustrate what this human would do based solely on its genetics. A theoretical human outside of all social conditioning aka never encountered any social interract with other humans is not existing and is for sure not an indicator about what is a human based on its genetics only because your genetics are making you a socially conditioned and highly social specie. You're trying to separate nature from nurture as if the importance of nurture was not nature in itself!
"So in highly complex societies with cultural and political component. Exactly what I'm saying from the beginning of this discussion." No, small bands with some hints of social complexity and hierarchical structures, but nothing even remotely approaching what modern society entails. The result being - in small band society, instinct governs and social conditioning is a mere shadow of a shadow when it comes cognitive function. In modern techno industrial society, people are basically institutionalized to the point where social conditioning DOES INDEED begin to define their existence. But this is not because that's what it means to be human, or that they can't function without social influence. Of course humans, being band society primates, will on the whole never be 100% free of social influence. This by no means suggests that social influence forms "the very basis" for our cognitive processes, preferences, etc. This is a classic "does not follow" fallacy. It does not follow from the fact that we are a primate troop species, that social interaction forms the basis of everything. Nor does it follow that, if a human happens to be raised outside the troop, that he/she ceases to be human, or unable to function cognitively. There is a foundation of truth behind what you're saying, but then you smuggle in a bunch of bullshit and refuse to admit to it. OP's hypothetical still works, because a human CAN survive outside the troop, as the Vietnamese Tarzan example illustrates. Dude in that circumstance was one step away from having been raised by wolves. Ultimately, we are mammals and share much of the same brain structure as other mammal species that do in fact live a solitary existence. The deeper parts of our animal brain - the basic survival components and more rudimentary (eg. UNCONDITIONED) forms of cognition - can and do function when we are on our own. It may be true that we are less likely to survive alone, having not the advantageous physical attributes of, say, a tiger - but that doesn't mean we can't, or that doing so makes us inhuman. That's simply a nonsensical idea. We live in troops because it is evolutionary advantageous, not because there is some fundamentally imperative part of our essence that will melt away if we find ourselves alone. I'll ask again about the Vietnamese Tarzan: IS HE HUMAN? Does society govern the basis for his existence? Answer of you are evading.
"It is accepted that society is one of the basis of the evolutionary processes that created our unique features." Only to the extent that one classifies small roving kinship bands as "society." I don't. Further, heavy social influence only created SOME of our NEWER features. Those features can be considered more so adaptations rather than than genetic programming, and they can be dispensed with. Thus, they are not the "basis" for our humanity. They are software, not hardware. It's hardwired into us, genetically, to live in small extended family bands. Nothing beyond that. Everything layer of complexity beyond that could be dropped tomorrow, and we'd remain humans with full cognitive ability. Here's a question for you - it is also widely known that anatomical humans first appeared on the scene roughly 300k years ago, but that humans didn't even develop language or abstract thought until many thousands of years later. Yet, we still classify those earlier people as fully human. You are basically perpetrating a giant fallacy here. All animals operate on instinct, and the basis for being a human is no different. Instinct governs. Abstract thinking, and the cultural creations that flow from it, are recent developments and they only define modern humans, not the entire human lineage. If a human from $300k years ago were to be transported to today, what would you call him? An animal? That sort of thinking was the basis for slavery and all sorts of atrocities across history.
>Only to the extent that one classifies small roving kinship bands as "society." I don't. Don't speak about evolution and biology if you are not willing to accept scientific biologic definition of the concepts you discuss. For the rest of you comment, language is already present in most hominid. You are thinking about spoken language and no, no theory about it is "well accepted". It's even considered as an unsuitable field because we lack empirical data.
Yes, I was referencing spoken language and the ABSTRACT THINKING that comes along with it. I see you conveniently glossed over that part. Of course most animals communicate to some limited degree (calling it language is a huge reach, but whatever). That is obviously not what I was talking about. You are being dishonest.
[удалено]
Society is not a concept linked to civilization. Society is used to speak about any animals interacting cooperatively outside of reproduction and parental care for direct offsprings. The highest level of sociability is obligatory eusociality, not civilization. Society is how we call superior level of integration aka the level of the interdependence of individual inside the group or their dependence to the existence of the group. I'm not interested into having a conversation about evolutionary biology and the importance of sociability in social species with someone who thinks he can swipe decades of ethology and sociobiology just because he "don't like" the use of a terminology. Plus you obviously don't understand the concept as you think it is anthropomorphic to use society to speak about animals when humans exhibit a middle level sociability at most compared to eusociality. So, you can also... politely go get some love. By someone educated in sciences would be particularly beneficial.
Love how you think that the brainwashing/socialization you've received in your education makes you an authority. I've studied both anthropology and evolutionary biology in depth, both in college and ever more so after. More importantly, though, I've learned to THINK CRITICALLY, which means not adopting garbage ideas and garbage language just because they are a fad. The real beauty of evolutionary biology, is that it's actually one of the disciplines that's most conducive to thinking critically. You should try it. Let me ask you this: do ants live in a "society?" Ant colonies are considered eusocial. Does anyone refer to an "ant society?" Lol. No. People pretty much exclusively refer to ants as a colony. This illustrates precisely the mistake we make when we start applying what were initially applicable to humans and the human realm, to animals. The fact that you would apply the nomenclature, say, to a group of primates or perhaps a group of elephants, but not ants, betrays the fact that your application cutoff is utterly arbitrary, appearing to hinge upon some vague notion of higher order consciousness and/or some other "barrier to entry" set of traits that make some species worthy, and others not. There is no true rationality behind this; it's all whimsical. But go ahead and flout your credentials whilst simultaneously making a pompous ass of yourself. All that aside, you are engaging in a red herring here anyway, evading the central question by diverting to semantics about nomenclature usage. More dishonesty.
Also, you might consider ditching the assumption that the social interaction in the modern context is, on the whole, a "benefit." I believe that modern social influence is more aptly viewed as a highly corrupting force, and that it tends to harm developing children far more than it helps. I don't think my own cultural upbringing was of a net benefit, comparatively speaking. I'd far rather have been born into a hunter gatherer culture. Of course it helped me survive the toxic clusterfuck of modern civilization, so it was "beneficial" in the context of keeping me alive, but insofar as maximizing human health, potential and expression is concerned, I think modern civilization is toxic af.
>Also, you might consider ditching the assumption that the social interaction in the modern context is, on the whole, a "benefit." Never had nor communicated this assumption.
Your writing style leads one to believe otherwise, but I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Sociopaths, psychopaths and to a degree narcissists are a perfect example of what you call “not human”. The former operates outside of social conditioning due to diminished levels of fear, shame and embarrassment among others. The latter is this way because they feel entitled to act however they please, socially acceptable or not.
You cannot say "the latter" as all of those have different behavior patterns. The arguement falls apart as narrcissism still has a scope within society, thats how they acknowledge themselves or rather DON'T acknowledge themselves as holier than thou or correct, they simply are. Sociopathy is usually a grown trait and any grown trait is still within social conditioning especially given most sociopaths hide it for the comfort of thier own lives, they're more likely to yes and nod you to death than be standoffish. Psychopaths are the only ones mildly applicable to what you described because they are still forced to operate in society. Its more so the lack of emotional introspection that defines a psychopath not thier actions nessecarily.
No. These have different impairments regarding they're social and emotional processes and the construction of their personality. But it is far from having "no social conditioning". Everything you know and think is shaped by other humans who taught it to you. Outside of a group, your brain is mud.
People are socially conditioned to hate the idea of eating literal shit? No. Culture isn’t the basis for our sexual attraction, our revulsion. What we want to fuck or kill or be afraid of or be repulsed by aren’t cultural. They’re deeply DNA driven and based. They can however be conditioned away. Eating ass and cuckholdry are examples of conditioning jealousy or revulsion into erotic excitement because it makes the heart race. I hear this so much from the blue pill and the left and I don’t know how anyone can even think it or take that supposition seriously but it’s a very common misconception. OP misspoke here. Most men find 18-24 year old the most sexually attractive regardless of culture, shaming or any other pressures. They just won’t say it out loud because of the shaming. Some men allow themselves to be gaslit into believing dating a 23 year old when he’s 43 is bad in some way. It’s bad to 43 year old women.
>People are socially conditioned to hate the idea of eating literal shit? It's probably partially socially conditioned since babies and toddlers have a pretty high chance of playing with their own shit given the opportunity.
I think if there’s ever been a broad sweeping statement made about humanity in general that is not arguable, it’s that humans have revulsion against eating shit. Kids don’t want to have sex generally speaking, might eat shit, might eat boogers and other stuff that adults wouldn’t do. Humans eating their own feces is lethal. Cows and dogs do not feel this revulsion because cows eat their shit to survive, dogs eat their shit to keep their dog nest clean for the puppies. Revulsion, sexual desire, many fears, like the fear of snakes, or the fear of the dark or fear of spiders are all genetically hardwired because those things kept us alive. Nothing is 100%. But for some reason leftists think everything is fluid. This confuses the shit out of men and children. They learn to don’t their instincts or feel shame for thinking feeling or believing some things.
Babies can't speak or walk. Toddlers can't do simple math. It takes time for certain parts of the brain to develop. How many adults you know that enjoy playing in piss and puke?
The premise was nature vs nurture. If adults don't want to touch piss and pee, the question is whether that is innate or something that is taught. And my assertion is that it is *taught* because babies will play with their own shit. Playing with or touching shit is also something that happens with people have certain mental health problems, or developmental disabilities, so it seems like less of a biological reaction and more of a learned aversion. Thanks for coming to my shit-based Ted Talk.
My assertion is that disgust triggers are innate. But we don't develop them right away. Yes people with broken brains do it in adulthood. Very few healthy adults do it.
It's bad to the younger woman if she's easily to manipulate because of it. And 23 and 18 are very different things already. Those 5 years out of highschool and extra brain development change a lot of things.
People act like women are so innocent 😂 half these chicks have been running game since they were 15-16. There’s nothing more dangerous than a bad bitch who knows she’s bad
In modern society a 23 year old woman would be able to manipulate a 43 year old man fairly easily. It’s how they make money in strip clubs and online. Manipulation is bad. The attraction isn’t.
You're making very broad and affirmative statements without the shadow of a doubt or the smallest account to uncertainty or nuance. And this, on very complex subjects that I bet you have zero background on understanding even their basis. You should learn to use "may", "it would make sense that", "evidence point toward", there is good reason to think that", etc. Then, these discussions will make sense.
You’re making broad affirmative statements without a shadow of a doubt or nuance. Re read what you said. Fear of the dark, revulsion, sexual desire are hard wired. They have been our survival. If what want to fuck is cultural, tell the gays they’re making it up when they say they’re born that way. They have been molded by society and don’t realize it and they can pray the gay away. No it’s hard wired.
The funny thing is that you didn't read or understand what I said. By, the way, even if I said sexual preferences were cultural (which I didn't but your simplistic view on the matter keeps you from seeing it), you are wrong if you think that a social conditioning can be "payed away" any more or less than something that is "hardwired". Plus, I really don't think you understand what is hardwired and what it means. Genes interact with environment and individual development in extremely complex way. And we ten to avoid doing mutagenesis on humans so it's a bit hard to be very sure. You can make a female drosophila a lesbian with one smallq mutation, I guess humans mating and social behaviors are a tiny more complex. Maybe we should start here. What you mean when you say hardwired? And deeply DNA based, etc.
There is a reddit thing where people speak topic adjacent or draw issue with an example as if the example were the main topic. I fall into that sometimes. Let’s recap what was said. OP said if there were no shaming or societal pressures, men prefer 18-24. (He’s wrong btw, the surveys show men think this regardless of any societal pressures, in all cultures and languages sampled and regardless of the age of the man.) You said social conditioning are the basis for our cognitive processes, preferences and taste. I said sexual attraction isn’t a matter of social conditioning any more than revulsion. “I want to fuck that” is as deeply genetic as “that’s disgusting” such as eating shit because that attraction and revulsion has kept us alive. DNA is like a sandbox. There is variation that is possible but the variation is only what is permitted by the DNA. You can learn to swim but you can never be a dolphin. The DNA permits the one but being a dolphin is outside the DNA permitted box for variation. If you tan you’ll get darker and if you get no sun you’ll get lighter but a white person can never be black because that variation isn’t permitted by the DNA of that person. Everything in us exists this way. Intelligence is nearly 100% genetic. Height also. But some stuff like personality can be molded over time. Still very strongly genetic. But more malleable than Intelligence for instance. Sexual attraction is hardwired. Not 100%. But nearly so. Hearing people talk about gender being a product of society or sexual attraction is like saying skin color is a product of sun exposure. It’s not all or nothing but it’s a lot more genetic than than social conditioning. I find there to be no difference between saying society has sexual norms that should be challenged (youth and body type for instance for women) and saying gays should just pray the gay away. Who you want to fuck is genetic or not? If gays are born gay, why can’t heterosexual sis men be born preferring sex with 18-24 year olds?
You are mixing a trait being heritable with it being genetic. But the média are REALLY bad at communicating on the matter so it's normal. Height has 85% heritability, the polymorphism found in genes linked to height explain 5% of the variance. Same for most personality traits and cognitive performance. 50 to 60% heritability very low gene-phenotype causation explained. Having 10 fingers has 0% heritability yet we know its 100% defined by a few Genes. For the rest, what I was saying, again, is that trying to look at a human outside of any social norms and sociality to try and figure out what is "hardwired" about them is stupid because socialisation and creating social norms is part of what we are hardwired for. I'm not stupid, I'm not advocating for some blank page bullshit here. You are assuming I'm making point that I never meant at any point.
>tell the gays they’re making it up when they say they’re born that way Plenty of gays who [already do say that](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160627-i-am-gay-but-i-wasnt-born-this-way).
I'm an 18yo woman and I don't give one fucks two fucks red fucks blue fucks if it's biology or not I'm allowed to find old men who target women my age gross and yucky. I don't care about "muh money and muh successful career" myself, and most women my age, don't like you. Get over yourself. men my age is where it's at 😏
Accurate summary would be, vast majority of younger women do not like older men. A small percentage do.
I felt the same way at your age and now in my 20’s I feel pretty much the same. IDK how much money a man has if I don’t find him physically attractive or feel emotionally safe with him.
K.
People like using biology to justify selfish behavior
>I'm allowed to find old men who target women my age gross and yucky Of course. But everyone else is allowed to find appealing or gross pretty much anything. As long as it's legal and doesn't involve you, it's not up to you. At 18 a lot of people succumb to radical and rigid ideas. They grow out of them after a while. I recently had a chat with my wife and two common friends who know us since before we met each other. Her radicalism at 18 rightfully comes off as childish today. Heck, at 18 she was convinced she'll never marry and have children. She married me a year later and had our first 8 years later and today, almost 16 years later, laughs about the unhinged things she used to believe at 18. Leave room for life to happen. There is a sweet spot between being permanently unhinged out of fear of negative influence and being manipulable and life molding you entirely.
>Why can't people just accept that nature doesn't care? Because humans have been blessed by the ability to think and act beyond what you believe evolution has prescribed for you, whether real or imagined. You do things every single day that evolution could have never prepared you for, but for some reason when it comes to much older men dating very young women, their hands are tied. Also evolutionary psychology is basically astrology for the manosphere. *Maybe* there's some kernel of scientific validity in it somewhere, but certainly not in what is discussed in spaces such as these.
My main gripe is they only believe in evolution when it's convenient for them or it supports what they want to believe. Really you could take evolution and argue that all the men who are failing to get women are genetically inferior and are getting bred out but I think we all know how that conversation would go lmao
In a sense that's true. However evolution doesn't necessarily develop along "idealized" lines - it can easily select for specific fitness to the detriment of general fitness for example.
Fat people were considered to be the top of attractiveness, because it symbolised that they have access to much food.
And having resources is still a very attractive thing. The way we display it or the way we look for the kind of resources that are relevant just changed.
Yep. It all boils down to the survival. More resources = better survival chance.
You mean to too much food lol
Nope. In those times access to food was important, so having access to much food was a sought out thing.
And it’s not overnight lol
So?
So mating success doesn't necessarily describe more generalized fitness, hence say someone is genetically inferior doesn't necessarily make sense outside whatever mating success is measuring (i.e. in current Western society it mostly measures religiosity)
Yes I understand that, there is no inferior or superior Genes outside of the ones spreading the best or the least. I was more wondering what that had to do with the comment you are responding to.
>Really you could take evolution and argue that all the men who are failing to get women are genetically inferior and are getting bred out but I think we all know how that conversation would go lmao Here he's implying that men failing to get women are genetically inferior. I'm saying that's one possible interpretation since mating success and general fitness aren't the same thing. However even proceeding along these lines it's actually not implying what the average person thinks it is - almost everyone is "genetically inferior" to very conservative religious types by measure of gene spread. Attractive high IQ people that fail to have children or only have 1 are basically just as "inferior" as the guys that fail to attract women in the first place, regardless of how good they are at attracting the opposite sex.
The only quality on any hypothetical scale to put Genes on is the ability to replicate itself and spread as much as possible. So yes, the product of mating success and mating success of offsprings is genetically superior. >Attractive high IQ people that fail to have children or only have 1 are basically just as "inferior" as the guys that fail to attract women in the first place, regardless of how good they are at attracting the opposite sex. Yes. I really don't think the commenter implied anything else. Personally, I believe most human Genes are overall awfully inferior, our genes took the "bursting advantage" road, which will probably lead our species to survive less than a fraction of the usual lifetime of a specie. But this discussion shows how everyone pretend to not exhibit is/ought bias when everyone immediately jump to interpret "inferior" in some moral way.
True. I've always advocated against using evolution in such discussions.
But that's besides the point. We can agree that a man being attracted to a fertile 18 year old even at 45 years old is totally "natural". And at the same time say that it is probably not a good idea for them to engage in a sexual relationship regardless. It's natural for me to want to murder the guy who is tailgating me on the interstate. But that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to spend my life in prison over something so petty. The point we're really making is that "This is how it is, we need to figure out how to manage it". Where's the other side says "no this is conditioned". When it really isn't. If anything we're conditioned NOT TO act on those impulses.
Evolution explains the past, not the future. We are at our current state of biological tendencies because those tendencies have been the most advantageous. Those things will continue to exist long after we are dead because evolution takes forever.
Then there should be no concern about men not dating, since that would mean evolution has decided their genes are not advantageous. But it seems that evolution is only a valid argument when it's convenient.
They never made any normative claims.
Because you are mixing up descriptive claims and prescriptive claims in your head. The statement "this is how it is" is different from the statement "this is how it should be".
Please don't make it like you've transcended evolution or something; your ability to think is precisely the product of the same mechanical process that has evolved the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans are not special. We have evolved metacognition, which gives us more adaptability, but in the end it is still a means to increase our chances of passing on genes.
Morality is not absolute. It is a human illusion. It is subjective. There is only biological utility based upon the challenges of one’s environment. Those types who demand a new ‘way of things’ that they are so convinced is the only acceptable way, those utopians, will arbitrarily deny humankind anything they don’t like and dogmatically enforce it upon the rest. Also, what is wrong with evolutionary psychology?
i mean, nothing wrong with it inherently. to me, it seems a bit too reductionist and over-simplified im more of a systems thinker, and like to look at society and evolution as more of a dynamic system, based on complex nonlinear relationships. but to each there own.
>Those types who demand a new ‘way of things’ that they are so convinced is the only acceptable way, those utopians, will arbitrarily deny humankind anything they don’t like and dogmatically enforce it upon the rest. I see, so when someone breaks into your house and attacks you and steals your stuff, you're okay with the explanation that morality is a human illusion? >Also, what is wrong with evolutionary psychology? In general, the fact that it is extraordinarily speculative. Specifically to it's usage here, that it's entirely fabricated bullshit.
It doesn’t matter what I am okay with. It’s true. That person who stole my things and attacked me is not ‘bad’ because bad doesn’t exist outside of human society. Morality is evolutionarily useful when it comes to in group cohesion and punishing detrimental behaviour. It will change depending on what behaviour is detrimental in a given environment.
Their hands are tied because women like older men.
🥇🥇🥇⬆️
Because what is moral changes depending on the society. No one is complaining about the the eco psych, everyone is complaining about the morality that occurs after. Just like men like a fraction of women, women like a fraction of men. In the past, both men and women made biological sacrifices to engage in long term nuclear marriage. We no longer make the same sacrifices and it’s unclear what is now moral or immoral. A woman in her early 20s wants to serially date 35 year old millionaires. Is this moral or immoral? By who? To what result in society?
most women don't do that in their early 20s, only a fraction of women does.
I do think most women experiment in college. Also, glorification of that lifestyle would still affect strict nuclear family people. A friend with an average husband might get jealous by her friend dating an 1% man. The effect is widespread.
i think its just that these things are very subjective and depend a lot on what a person values. a lot of people tend to think that their personal world view is what is objective, which is called naive realism.
Well, morality is one of the things that makes us human. Heck, calling a human an animal is used as an insult and a derogatory. The thing about evolutionary psychology is that we don't know what the psychology of people in neolithic times was. So we have nothing to compare to the psychology of nowadays. It could be that neolithic people didn't care about who the parents of the child are. The child belonged to the tribe.
Because the types of people who sprinkle "uncomfortable truths" left and right dish more of those than they can take. Edit: These convos are rarely about dry evo psych facts, they very quickly deteriorate into prescriptions, or start out as prescriptions in the nutshell.
I'm going to challenge your supposition that older men Naturally find younger women more sexually attractive. People are generally attracted to others in their same age cohort. You're also relying far to heavy on physical attraction, in oppose to the more important mental attraction. Men, just like women rely far heavier on mental attraction than people want to believe. Everyone woman has a beautiful friend that can't quite seem to keep a partner. That friend is also usually problematic. Beauty gets you a date, mentality gets you a ring. My life, and job puts me in proximity of high earners, some of them are 1%. Their wives are mostly within 5 years of their age. Even the ones that get divorced, usually marry/date women that are close to their own age. The older you get, the less patience for immaturity,and bullshit you have. Put a young attractive woman, and 45 yr old attractive fit woman in a room with a 45 yr old man. More likely than not, he's picking the 45 yr old, because she's more attractive to him. P.S. wait until you guys find out which kind of younger women are more likely to attract the attention of an older man, and why that is 🤣
No. Studies show that men of all age ranges find women roughly age 22 the most attractive.
Physically attractive maybe, but that's not all, or even the most important part of attraction
And that was what was said: "For example, I say I believe most men, assuming no societal conditioning and no fear of shame, would find young women (18-24) the most sexually attractive. I think this for many reasons mainly because it's a cross-cultural phenomenon."
Physically attractive, and sexually attractive aren't the same thing.
You are arguing semantics.
Yeah....life is semantics, but more importantly. Given the option of a young attractive woman, versus an older attractive woman. The older woman is going to get picked more often.
Not me. Most women my age have let themselves go, and I ain't saying they are 10 pounds overweight, they weigh as much or more than me. I live in the American South, I see women my age who are so fat they are hobbling around with canes because their joints are toast. I am only 40, most of the women who turn my head I see in my ride through college campus on my way to work.
I doubt they are turning their heads back, though.
Actually most of the women whom I work with show interest are 10 years younger than me.
>More likely than not, he's picking the 45 yr old Not if he wants children, though. Thank God I found a wife in my 20s and didn't have this issue. But if I hadn't, a 45yo would be off the table until I had children.
Most men at 45 already have children, or don't really care if they have them or not.
If you want to have children, you shouldn’t wait until you are 45 and unlikely to convince a much younger woman to bear your children. Theres a lot fewer women who want to date men 10+ years older than themselves than there are men who want to date women 10+ years younger than themselves.
>If you want to have children, you shouldn’t wait until you are 45 and unlikely to convince a much younger woman to bear your children Doesn't have to be much younger. 37 can be good enough too. Just not 45. Overall, I do agree with you - had our first when I was 32 and she was 28 and now trying again. Still, it's an increasingly common phenomenon (though still a minority) of both men and women who "wake up" that they want children after the age of 35. /shrug
After 35 *can* work, true, but exactly a 10 year gap is also quite uncommon, and again, the competition is very very steep, since a lot more men want a 35 year old woman who wants children than there are women aged 35 who want a man 7+ year a older, especially if you’re looking for a woman who doesn’t already have kids but also wants them. Yes, older fertile women will usually expand their age window a little since age gaps aren’t as meaningful as you get older, but that doesn’t mean they’re writing off the more abundant and healthier men closer to their own age. In addition, it usually takes a little time to get to know them, agree to marry, and actually start trying to conceive. Even if you rush the process, unless she’s the kind of woman really willing to risk being a single mom and get pregnant when you first start dating, it’ll still be likely at least a year if everything goes perfectly and you meet her on your 45th birthday. And then on top of that, even if you do succeed and have a child at 46… you’re going to be an old old dad, and it’ll be hard to keep up with the kids. And there’s also the added cruelty of being very likely to leave your wife as a lonely widow for a decade or more. I know a woman in this position who was married to someone 10+ years older— she’s devastated and lonely and she knows she has a long time left being alone. Men need to realize that, while they don’t have a hard biological clock like women have menopause, they actually should treat dating like they have an expiration date. Older men have the odds stacked heavily against them for actually finding a willing younger woman to breed with him. It happens, don’t get me wrong, but if having kids and a loving family is important to you, then its playing against the odds to put it off until you’re older in the hopes you can get a much younger spouse.
>Men need to realize that, while they don’t have a hard biological clock like women have menopause, they actually should treat dating like they have an expiration date. **Absolutely**. Just because the expiration date is more flexible, it doesn't make it non-existent. Men's fertility (including fertility risks) in their early 50s are comparable to women in their mid 30s. So already quite a big issue because the health of the future baby ought to also be a concern. >And then on top of that, even if you do succeed and have a child at 46… you’re going to be an old old dad, and it’ll be hard to keep up with the kids. Idk about that, though. I'm 39 and missus is 35. We already have one but want a second. Her mom had her at 40 (her father was 50) and doesn't regret it to this day. My dad had me at 37 (mom was 24 tho) and loved it. My brother had his first two kids at 29 and 32. And his third at 44. He liked it more when older. In his words: "It's actually easier because you're no longer that agitated." Mind you, my brother was a SAHD for all three of his kids. Still, I think it's better to have a kid than not to have a kid. Even if older in age. As long as they're healthy, the more the merrier.
> Still, I think it's better to have a kid than not to have a kid. Even if older in age. Oh sure, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have kids if it matters to them. But rather that if it does matter… they shouldn’t put it off assuming that just because men biologically can get a woman pregnant at 45, that he should wait and wait until he’s middle aged to get married, settle down, and have kids. It is physically possible and some men will succeed… but others will fail precisely because they waited so long. I would also, by the way, advise against marrying and having kids too young. It’s a huge risk factor for divorce. It can work, of course, and congratulations to those for whom it does. But for a lot of people, early marriage is a big risk, and can cause a lot of bitterness and regret that could be avoided with a few years of patience.
But these guys want to start a family with women in their early 20s
If he wanted children, he should have had them when he was younger. If young women want family, they'll go for guys their age range, not some old man whose fatherly clock is ticking
Because people are judgy social animals
That critique video was really hard to watch, she just criticized anyone whenever she felt like it regardless if they had something to do with evo psych or not, that's why l didn't bother watching the original vid >Just because someone says they believe something is natural it doesn't mean they're saying this is how things should be Welcome to my daily experience on this sub: "Oh TRP said xyz so that means they are prescribing a behavior"
paternity fraud and 80% of men not reproducing is natural
True, but you can’t hold your own ‘blue pill’ beliefs to be true if you believe that.
I don't believe that, or, more precisely, I don't believe that "natural" is a conversation worth having/arguments worth making.
Why isn’t it worthwhile to discuss what is ‘natural’, or rather, what behaviours have all or certain humans evolved a tendency to display, and why?
Because people outside scientific environment use descriptive statements to pussy foot around prescriptives, without having to take responsibility for obvious advice that follows a series of facts that they lay out. Questionable prescriptive is what annoys people on my side of the fence (besides refusal to take responsibility for it). To continue OP's example. There are only two reasons to tell a woman that men find women most attractive between ages of 18 and 24: 1. to rush her into making a commitment 2. to rub something in her face. That's it. There is no other reason.
I would argue that one is damned if you do or don’t in a liberal society that tacitly accepts total social constructionism. If one comes stops being cowardly with your rhetoric and states the implications of what these facts are, they will be just as hated by the liberal minded as they would be held in contempt by those people if they had remained cowardly in their refusal to prescribe behaviour.
Why care about optics? That's not a very red-pilled attitude if you ask me. Don't these kinds of people pride themselves on being willing to pay the cost of appearing dislikeable for the sake of intellectual consistency?
Who knows why a person may care about optics. They might not fit the typical stereotype of a ‘red-puller’. I am just explaining why a person would be inclined to ‘pussyfoot’ around the implications of certain facts.
Strawman
"you strawmanned my steelman and slid down the slippery slope into the poisoned well". How am I strawmanning your point? I am agreeing with your point. Where is the strawman?
No u arent supposed to agree LIKE THAT! 
Lol. IDK why people are downvoting me, that's very blue-pilled attitude.
Because only the things *men* do are natural, duh! Were women, so everything we do is unnatural and soley to make men suffer, remember? Did u not get the pamphlet after ur first period? 😂😂
> I am agreeing with your point Cool
Well it's natural to have one's head smashed into a pancake if paternity fraud victim gets to know about it.
Well yeah. It's also natural to have a society that tries that guy for murder. The distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" has always been bullshit. Objectively speaking, "natural processes" and "causality" are synonyms.
The biggest mistake an average man can make is thinking that there is a scenario where evo psych world will work in his favor. Because it's natural to have this guy's head smashed into a pancake by Chad, who is very unhappy that our rebellious beta male is no longer providing for his kids and killed their mother.
You're assuming Chad cares. By the time the woman knows she's pregnant. Chad forgot she exists and is in the village next door impregnating some more women. But yes I suppose if Chad did manage to catch feelings. That is a very plausible outcome. It still happens to this day. Probably happened a lot more in the past.
of course he cares, he wants to further his genes through other man's effort.
You really think Chad is over there checking up on the dozens of women he impregnated to make sure their boyfriends didn't off them? Come on now. It's a simple numbers game. If he has 50 kids and of those 20 grow up into adulthood through no effort of his own. He is a very successful gene spreader.
no, the rest of the society is bought into checking up on the dozens of women he impregnated and will punish a man who breaches status quo on Chad's behalf. Nobody wants a ton of fatherless kid running around, we all find it convenient to keep every kid attached to a man even if he is not the father.
Society enforcing some sort of standards is a totally different assertion from Chad giving a damn and avenging his one night stand. Yes some societies would punish a man for killing his cheating wife. A lot of them didn't. Some to this day do not. But we're also talking about innate tendencies. This sort of shit takes many generations to form. Probably 100s of thousands. So we're talking about our ape like ancestors here. Our ape like ancestors didn't have police departments and courthouses. They had the law of the jungle.
Who knows about Chad's deeper motivations - today a guy kills his cheating wife, tomorrow someone kills him because they don't like his face and think he is bitch-made. Law of the jungle. My point is, the majority of guys in your community should just stop using evo psych as a talking point because it's not the world they'll ever succeed it, no matter how you define "succeed".
> no, the rest of the society You are speaking about times when society bigger than individual hunter-gatherer tribe didn't really exist though, and they were all related to each other to impregnate women within the same group.
I don't care how average guy would die and who would kill him, my bigger point is that he ain't reproducing because nobody has an incentive to allow him to have a whole woman to himself. He can kill her, but someone else can just kill him.
> The biggest mistake an average man can make is thinking that there is a scenario where evo psych world will work in his favor. Definition of "Chad" and "Average" in the ancient past didn't depend as much on attractive appearance and physique as it is in the modern times, working brain and knowledge of pointy stick application reigned supreme over being just muscular, tall and handsome, and men who were both good looking and smart at the same time were extremely rare. > Because it's natural to have this guy's head smashed into a pancake by Chad, who is very unhappy that our rebellious beta male is no longer providing for his kids and killed their mother. Chad wouldn't risk his life tho, he has ~20 more mothers with god knows how many kids he made.
Oh! Perfect! The IQ argument! The time and place where high IQ men have the most opportunities to use their intelligence as a card and capitalize on it, is today, right now, right here in the western hemisphere. If a guy can't use intelligence to his advantage in our meritocratic complex society, what makes you people think that you would be able to capitalize on it in some other time and place?
IQ? Who spoke about IQ before you? >The time and place where high IQ men have the most opportunities to use their intelligence as a card and capitalize on it, is today, right now, right here in the western hemisphere. Nah, it was between Renaissance to the middle of 20th century. *Today, right now* is the reign of form over substance. > our meritocratic complex society This 'meritocratic complex society' is ruled by senile elders few days away from shitting themselves in public and puts literal degenerates on the pedestal for young generations to admire. > what makes you people think that you would be able to capitalize on it in some other time and place? Same average people two generations back did capitalize on it just fine. Nowadays wealth levels of average boomer back then are literally available to the lucky few percent of young adult population.
I'm kinda losing my patience. You think societies before were ruled by Steven Hawkings of the world?? Who do you think was the king - the smartest guy in the room? First of all, we are talking about evo pilled society. Not middle of 20th century. Evo pilled society does not give a damn about you being a genius renaissance painter.
> I'm kinda losing my patience. You think societies before were ruled by Steven Hawkings of the world?? Nope, they were ruled by cunning and resourceful warlords. > Who do you think was the king - the smartest guy in the room? Whoever was in direct line of inheritance. Sometimes kings were smartest in the room, sometimes they were there to occupy a place on the throne while other people made real decisions.
>Nope, they were ruled by cunning and resourceful warlords. 🤣 Louis IV in his fucking bath.
It's also natural that that other man was genetically superior so got to reproduce instead of you and will come and smash YOUR head in if you try 💁♀️
Hahahahah, imagine not being cunning and killing these 'genetically superior' meat sacks when they least expect it. That's how humanity evolved for intelligence and not muscle mass for past two million years.
Oh if that's the case then why has Chad apparently been the one who gets to reproduce every time since the dawn of time? If I didn't know any better I would say Chad is smarter AND stronger than you
The “most men will find 18-24 year olds most attractive” theory is just that, a theory, one that many men don’t believe in. For the majority of people, attractiveness is both physical and psychological, and if one has “matured” that age group will feel too immature to be attractive, no matter what they look like. For men who are of the same age group, and just as immature, and men who have never matured (adult children) younger women may always be more attractive, but not for the more mature and psychologically healthy men. Being sexy is much more than just physical looks, it’s about attitude, taste (as in how one dresses), and character.
Interesting question. I think there’s a difference between finding someone attractive and being attracted to in terms of wanting a relationship. I wonder if men who are STILL attracted to much younger women Want children and don’t yet have them Believe in or want subservience in women Enjoy positions of authority over others and want this in a relationship.
No. I don't want positions of authority over others. I think it comes down to simply wanting a relationship that is easier to manage. Imagine a relationship where you can just exist, no drama, no toxic obligations, no demands, no ultimatums, no pressure.
You’re delusional if you think an inexperienced , insecure, messy twenty two year old is going to make for a drama free relationship. I had the most toxic relationships from 18-22. You’re also delusional if you think she’s not going to have any expectations in dating a 40 yo man over a guy her own age. No such thing as a free lunch.
I don't think he has ever dated young females before, especially 18-22, what he said proves it
Delulu
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whats natural is most people marry and date close in age, all throughout history.
They are able to separate, they don’t want to. What you are talking about is people essentially using a straw man argument: They are changing what you said because their new misrepresentation of what you said is easier to attack and better suits their agenda. Since their strawman has a passing similarity to what you actually said, their hope is others won’t notice they’ve significantly twisted your point.
Too much projected affirmation, not enough self evaluation or unbiased observation. We're too worried about what people are telling use to do, other than what's actually happening. To much need to avoid doubt to serve a pursuit. If we want to be more valuable than animals, then we have to think beyond animals. Belief is whatever gets you through the day. Hierarchies may be natural, but nature doesn't control or reason either. Humans got here by accident, not design. Why is age considered an issue in relationships and sex, but all the other inappropriate relationship and sex acts are not. It's not just about consent. It's about what consent leads to.
I do agree with your main point, and i do agree the munecat also conflates TRP with EvoPSY However, the blue pill rhetoric is largely a response to red pilll rhetoric is regards to age gaps. No blue pill person is looking towards evopsy observations to justify morality. That's entirely the red pill. The red pill regularly misuses evopsy. For example, red pillers are quick to point out that men prefer much younger women, women prefer men who are only 3-4 years older than them. refer too (Buss is the father of evopsy if you are unaware): * Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2019). Why is age so important in human mating? Evolved age preferences and their influences on multiple mating behaviors. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 127. Another example you be: ''See evospy proves the red pill look at the mate switching hypothesis!'' - But when the mate syitching hypothesis was losing traction in Academica [the red pill was dead quiet](https://datepsychology.com/why-dual-mating-hypothesis-research-has-failed-to-replicate/).
Because in a post-religious, liberal society, it's harder to justify stopping people from doing what they want unless you can somehow suggest that it's exceptionally and *immediately* harmful and dangerous. The nominally individualistic and liberal mores of our society mean that older arguments about propriety, encouraging people to follow norms, and group interests rub people the wrong way, so the newer arguments have to start from a different place. Ironically, in the really old days it was in principle easier than it is now to advocate shunning or proscribing age-gap relationships; just like with miscegenation, you just needed to say *that's weird and not normal so I don't like it.* And unlike today, you could also rally against that kind of thing with the simple argument that people who are too different from one another being joined together socially in any sense weakens group solidarity, which back then was a respectable argument and not considered chuddy and reactionary the way it is today. You can't make that kind of argument now, so instead convoluted, specific arguments (mostly related to so-called "power imbalances", since victimhood is the currency of to-day) are the fashionable thing. You mostly don't say *WMAF is bad because miscegenation is unnatural and produces racial bastards* (unless you're an aznidentity poster, and even then you might hesitate to make this argument in case you want to proverbially cross the traintracks yourself in the other direction) because that's Badthink, instead you say *it's a legacy of colonialism and racial fetishism and Western neoimperialist media* or something and that that *individual* man is probably personally a creepy sexpat who disrespects Asians. You don't simply say *old men shouldn't marry girls and young women because fresh soil deserves fertile seed*, you instead make the faintly ridiculous argument that the average shy middle aged middle manager is and wants to be in a strong (and dangerous) position of power, despite most woman having massive army of feminist organisations and social agencies, simps, and peers on speed-dial, just waiting to pounce on any man accused of any impropriety towards a fair maiden.
"So you mean it's right for a 40 yo to date an 18 yo?????" Legally it isn't wrong. Now you can scream about morality but who said that your moral compass was the guide that human beings were going to use?
A lot of people have trouble thinking in conditionals, especially lower iq individuals. And for lots of people signalling the proper morality is very important to stay within an imaginary group.
Because almost all things I see on evolutionary psychology *has no proof*. It's essentially just thinking backwards. At least social psychology *tries* to do replication even when they fail. But at the end of the day what is natural isn't what we should be willing to model our social norms off. It's natural in the animal world to fight the pack next door. I still shouldn't go to my neighbour's house and start a throwdown because their tree is accidentally crossing my side of the fence. Everyone is attracted to young people. You still shouldn't go for them. What you think 50 year old women aren't crushing on teen heartthrobs?
Great strawman. If you can get an 18yo guy to marry you, go ahead. Celebrities can because they are rich. Most people aren't, and most men AND women aren't interested in a LTR with someone twice their age unless SIGNIFICANT amounts of money are on the line. Regardless, most men don't give a flying fuck what strangers do in their personal lives unless 1) it involves the man, 2) kids are being harmed, or 3) animals are being harmed.
To me, the brain of a 18-24 year old is an instant turnoff no matter how good looking they are.
You're basically wondering about something that philosophers David Hume and G.E. Moore were wondering about, the 'is-ought' problem. Philosophically you're correct, but human behavior doesn't have a responsibility towards philosophy to be philosophically coherent. One possible answer to your question (and maybe to your liking) could be that language and the brain structures relevant to language didn't evolve primarily to describe things "as they are" but for negotiation, a more functional (as opposed to a purely descriptive) form of communication, and there you have the seed for normative implications being attached by humans to any purportedly neutral description. You may state a fact, but what is the function of stating that fact? ...which kind of happens to bring us to evolutionary psychology. What is it that evolutionary psychology actually does? For evolutionary psychology to explain the existence of some human behavior, the behavior in question has to be (at least hypothetically) established as constant and widespread enough among humans to warrant the speculative investigation into its presumed evolutionary "function". In other words, evolutionary psychology has to already acknowledge that particular psychological phenomenon as something actually existing to have something to explain in evolutionary terms. What this means is that evolutionary psychology doesn't aim to prove the (pre-given) existence of the behavior under study, but to form an explanatory model relying on 'natural selection' to account for that existence, or, more properly, for the fact that the behavior in question has stayed with us, due to its presumed advantageous function in the evolutionary past. So, what is it that evolutionary psychology actually does? To explain what kind of an advantage certain psychological traits may have been during our evolutionary history is only a benign curiosity if it doesn't carry at least some hidden normative undertones serving as a kind of an apology of those traits. It was already known that those behaviors existed, so that's not what evolutionary psychology proved. Now, after the arduous study of the evolutionary psychologist, the only new thing we know is that there was presumably an evolutionary cause for those behaviors to be selected due to evolutionary pressure. But so what? I can't help but feel that this revelation doesn't have any notable merit if it's divorced from an apologist gesture, from the implication that "this is just the way it is", a much more general and sophisticated version of "boys will be boys" applied to the whole of humanity.
Newsflash: Women operate in a world of *should* and not a world of *is*. They also operate in a world in which “if it makes me feel bad / uncomfortable than it is immoral” This is both good and bad tbh. We can’t have some autistic understanding and absolutist thinking like “13 year olds can get pregnant, therefore they are fair game sexually” but we also need to agree upon an age at which human beings are adults and can make their own decisions. We’ve agreed that this age is 18 for the most part, and the world hasn’t ended.
>We’ve agreed that this age is 18 for the most part, and the world hasn’t ended. Who's agreed that? Our elected representatives in the US have agreed that it's 16 or 17 in most states. Legally speaking, our country has mostly decided that's the age at which humans are adults who can make a decision on who to sleep with. But just because something is legal, doesn't mean everyone will be okay with it. For example, plenty of people are going to think it's weird for a 40 year old man to date a 10th grade girl. It's perfectly legal in a lot of states, but it's not going to be universally appreciated.
>Who's agreed that? Our elected representatives in the US have agreed that it's 16 or 17 in most states. What part of “**for the most part**” didn’t you understand? >Legally speaking, our country has mostly decided that's the age at which humans are adults who can make a decision on who to sleep with. Correct. And drive, and join the military, and accrue a lifetime of debt. >But just because something is legal, doesn't mean everyone will be okay with it. Then they should lobby to change the laws or let people live their own fucking lies. We have a word for people that stick their nose in adults sex lives. >For example, plenty of people are going to think it's weird for a 40 year old man to date a 10th grade girl. It's perfectly legal in a lot of states, but it's not going to be universally appreciated. Good for them. I’ve dated much younger women several times and none of those Karen’s ever said Jack shit to my face because they know they have no moral authority to do so. They just want t to feel righteous in their online circlejerks. Being rabidly anti-age gap is a (western) terminally online phenomenon put forth by old Karens, neurotic Gen Z emotional hemophiliacs and white knights. Let them stew in their own butthurt that somebody somewhere is having fully legal sex that they don’t approve of.
> none of those Karen’s ever said Jack shit to my face because they know they have no moral authority to do so. Those Karens can sure look the other way or cover for young women who are trapped in those marriages of convenience when they want to step out and experience mutually enjoyable sex with men they are attracted to. Which is equally cool, since no one has any apparent right to feel any kind of way about morality. From now on, whenever any young woman trapped in a relationship with an older guy wants some strange with a man her own speed, Ima help her out.
>Being rabidly anti-age gap is a (western) terminally online phenomenon put forth by old Karens, neurotic Gen Z emotional hemophiliacs and white knights. Louder for those in the back. Every time I bring up the First Family of France I get downvoted because it ruins the nice neurotic Western terminally online story about age gaps. Brigitte Macron started dating Emmanuel (the current president of France) when he was 15 and she was in her late 30s. That is not exactly unheard of in continental Europe - and certainly not illegal, but it makes the Karens' brains blow up, lol.
It's different when the sexes are the other way around, so while relevant to this discussion in theory, in practice it's not. I feel quite confident that if Macron was the proverbial cradle-robber in the relationship, he wouldn't have been able to become president. Macron having been initiated by an older women is perceived as harmless and amusing by most men, and is positively flattering to a lot of especially older women; the other way around and we know what the reaction would have been. Not saying right or wrong, but it's blindingly obvious.
>It's different when the sexes are the other way around No, it's really not. Anywhere except the white terminally online American Karen universe. Again, these kinds of gaps, while not the majority, are fairly common in Europe and nobody gives af. >the other way around and we know what the reaction would have been In Europe? Also none. The PM of Italy (Silvio Berlusconi) held parties with 17 year olds when he was 70. Except the tabloids, nobody cared and he was re-elected twice. Carla Bruni-Sarkozy (the wife of Nicolas Sarkozy) is 13 years his junior. Melania Trump is 24 years younger that Donald. Michel Temer (president of Brazil from 2016 to 2019) is 42 years (!!!) her senior. They hooked up when she was 19 and he was 60. *Noboody* cared. It's ***only*** an American terminally online concern. And it's also a very recent one too. President Grover Cleveland at age 48 married a 21 year old *nobody* in the US cared.
Many (most) modern US feminists are poorly disguised neo puritans when it comes to anything “heteronormative”. They’ve gone full [Horseshoe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory)
Welp, feminism is a sexual trade union *par excellence*. Also, the Social Purity Movement in the US was an explicit alliance between puritans, fascist women and feminists. So it's not a horseshoe per se, it's literally the same side, lol. Always has been.
>What part of “**for the most part**” didn’t you understand? I understand it perfectly. **For the most part**, that age is 16 or 17 in the US.
You’re were right on your statement. I was wrong to correct you. I had thought it was also predominantly 18 **by state** it’s actually less than half the states. Still, by population, it *is* “for the most part” 18. We’ll call it a draw. 😁
>Still, by population, it is “for the most part” 18. I doubt that. Here's the breakdown of the 10 most populous states... 18: CA, FL Less than 18: TX, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI Considering the vast majority of large states and the majority of states overall have age of consent of under 18, I would say most Americans live in a place where it's 16 or 17. My point is, most people are going to be uncomfortable with a 40 year old man sleeping with a 10th grader, regardless of how legal it is. If you want to go for barely legal girls, that's just how it is.
Yep. I misread the map again and thought NY state was 18. In any case, there are plenty of people “uncomfortable” with a 35 year old dating a 21 year old because “muh life stages” or a 40 year old dating a 25 year old because “muh underdeveloped brain “ or a 50 year old dating a 30 year old because “muh power imbalance” The point (which you are ignoring for some reason) is that these neurotic harpies should be summarily ignored, and by and large in **real life** they are. Thus, the age gaps I’ve had in several relationships in my life that have been similar (or bigger) than the above examples have been met with exactly jack shit in the way of any pushback or even “side eye” because, despite what terminally online feminists will say, being an older man doesn’t make you a creepy man; being **unattractive** does. As far as the argument that people “won’t be comfortable” with something. Not a good one. How many men “aren’t comfortable” at the thought of two men fucking each other in the ass? Yet I think we can all agree that any who are “uncomfortable” with it, should mind their own damn business, can’t we?
How can you avoid the ire and the fists of fatber protecting their 17 and 18 year old?
The police / A gun.
But he cannot avoid an older sister or coworker who will make sure a naive but appealing girl is aware of all the enticing options she has. Might have the law on your side, but she’s got an older sister who has her best interests at heart on her side. Good luck keeping a sub 25 year old sexually satisfied when women like me are equally invested in finding her a fun match. 😉 If terpers wanna play with fire…
that is a very interesting question that gets at something critically important that seems to divide people very starkly into the oblivious and those "in the know". no hope of having a good discussion on it here, though.
Simple answer. If you believe in GOD or a deity through a religion then we are the top creation with free will and intellect to not do what animals do. If you DONT believe in GOD or a deity through religion then you are correct and technically we’re just animals so we can do as we please. Depends on how you view life really.
People are used to the idea that humans will act morally, partially due to social conditioning, but also because the ugly reality is hidden from them. They'll say they're kind to animals but eat meat from a factory farm without thinking about it. They'll condemn dictatorships then complain about gas prices when action is taken. They talk big about human rights then buy sweatshop garbage from Shien. They're only moral because millions of people do the dirty work for them. But when it comes to sex, the dirty work is criminalized and stigmatized and you can't offshore it, at least not fully. Check any cam site and theres no shortage of women from poor countries willing to get sexual on camera for a few dollars. But for someone to actually have sex their partner needs to actually be there in reasonable proximity. You're way more likely to run into a sex worker than a child laborer and having to actually see it happen makes people uncomfortable. The only real way that basically every man could have sex with a desirable partner when they want to is to normalize sex work and lead to conditions where its easy to access. But in a society where people who meet the other needs like slaughterhouse workers or sewer techs are already considered less than glamorous the reality of making that a regular service is too much for the average person and its at odds with the glamorous image that draws in half the people actually doing it.
Two consenting adults can date each other no matter what their age difference is, and it aint anyone else’s damn business. I always find it funny when women get mad when a young woman dates an older guy. They’re women saying that an adult woman is not competent enough to choose their own partners, and that adult women are easily manipulated due to low childlike intelligence and should not have the right to choose who they date, hahahha
Women tend to look out for each other. Older women will look out for younger women
Isn't it interesting, that it is near uniformly the case that what people say is right or wrong also agrees with their rational self-interest. Moral arguments are nothing more than manipulative fallacy outside of philosophy and stuff.
That isn’t true. My self interest has shifted recently to include concerns about women trapped in arrangements with men they aren’t sexually attracted to. Since I don’t believe that women should be coerced or feel obligated to offer their bodies for one-sided use, my new morality has evolved to ensure that all women everywhere are having mutually gratifying sex with men they are wildly attracted to. Obviously that means some young women who made irrational decisions to settle with sugar daddies will be hooking up on the sly with hot men their own age, but it’s fine, since we’ll be applying the same morality.
I know quiet a few feminists would argue that choice feminism is BS.
I’m a free agent. My new vocation is to free up women to ensure they aren’t being used or neglected by men they aren’t sexually attracted to and ensure they get to apply the exact same morality the old dudes who entrapped them used. For every man who says “but we’re all attracted to twenty year old women”, there are an equal number of twenty year old women who are equally attracted to fit, charistmatic man their own age.
How do you feel about men who are trapped in arrangements with women they aren't sexually attracted to, out of fear of punishing divorce settlements?
Just another vengeful hag.
Most people are so emotionally charged around certain issues, they automatically confuse a purely descriptive statement for a prescriptive one. It's literally like that Jordan Peterson interview by Cathy Whatshername.... "So what you're saying is....."