Intergenerational mating

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 23, 2005, 03:07 AM | #

John, you attract some really weird correspondence ...  Did you know that? ...

Posted by Mrs. Blessed on June 23, 2005, 03:26 AM | #

This theory only works if you accept the idea that older women have a lot of sex with younger men if given the chance.  There doesn’t seem to be much evidence to support this.  You claim that “a gigolo is a 15-25 year-old boy who gives sexual services mostly to 40-60 year-old women.” In fact, the evidence seems to support just the opposite, which is that a gigolo is a 15-25 year-old boy who gives sexual services mostly to 40-60 year-old *men*.

Further, if the woman is healthy and her husband has done his duty, by the time she is forty and as horny as you claim, she is too busy raising her many children to worry about schtupping the poolboy.  I think the idea of sexually rapicious women only works in an era of easy birth control.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 23, 2005, 03:40 AM | #

Fred,

I think he invents this so called ‘correspondence.’

Posted by jonjayray on June 23, 2005, 03:46 AM | #

LOL

“I think he invents this so called ‘correspondence.’”

Mrs B:

Women in their 40s are pretty randy in my experience

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 23, 2005, 04:42 AM | #

“Mrs B: Women in their 40s are pretty randy in my experience” (—John “Casanova” Ray)

Note that he’s talking from experience.  He’s not just shooting from the hip here.  Mrs. B, you may not know it (some people don’t), but this man you’re talking to is the Don Juan of MR.com—you’d do well to listen to what he says, ma’am ... just a suggestion.  You might learn a thing or two about women in their 40s ... (and that’s just one of the ages he specializes in, trust me ...).

Posted by jonjayray on June 23, 2005, 05:20 AM | #

Fred
You old flatterer, you!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 23, 2005, 05:35 AM | #

Don’t mention it, John—after all, it’s only the God’s honest truth ... (and don’t worry—I’ll never divulge to Judy all I know about you ... Hey I’m mean but I’m not that mean! ...)

Posted by Guessedworker on June 23, 2005, 05:59 AM | #

The theory is rubbish ... almost.

Life expectancy 40,000 years ago probably did not pass 30-35.  Women, in particular, would have been giving birth somewhat regularly since puberty and under somewhat considerable risk of dying in the process.  The numbers of elderly women looking for a good time might have been rather insignificant, and any evolutionary impact therefrom accordingly slight.

However, if you fast forward to, say, just a few thousand years ago we do have the legends of old Wicca hags and their broomsticks, I suppose.  So some evidence that older women require ... better companionship is there.  But to imbue masturbation by women beyond childbearing age with an evolutionary impact does seem a very wierd idea.

Posted by friedrich braun on June 23, 2005, 08:21 AM | #

“we do have the legends of old Wicca hags and their broomsticks”

They were also known to fornicate with devils. How did that impact evolution?

Posted by Guessedworker on June 23, 2005, 09:37 AM | #

The devils got very smart and became marxist intellectuals.

Posted by jonjayray on June 23, 2005, 11:21 AM | #

“The devils got very smart and became marxist intellectuals. “

Good one!

Posted by Charles Copeland on June 23, 2005, 11:55 AM | #

Women in their 40s are pretty randy in my experience

What you mean is:
Women in their 40s are past their sell-by date.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 23, 2005, 12:47 PM | #

“Women in their 40s are past their sell-by date.”

That’s only true of unmarried women’s libbers, Charles.  Wives are as beautiful in their forties (and beyond) as they were at eighteen—even more so.  (Yes, deal with it, unmarried women’s libbers—it’s true.  Now eat your bitter little hearts out, ‘cause it’s too late, sweeties!)

Posted by Lurker on June 23, 2005, 02:40 PM | #

Its the women who are 30 plus who have already had children, theyre the ones to watch out for!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on June 23, 2005, 03:41 PM | #

I don’t see why it’s only the unsuccessful 18 year olds who are captured by randy grannies.  We’ve all seen “The Graduate”—surely it is the SUCCESSFUL grannies, with lots of worldly goods and no husband (he got too slow and was trampled by a mammoth) who seduce any 18 year old they want, 18 year olds being so randy they will take any and all offers they get. This in turn produces more children for the successful grannies (at least those before moenopause)—another benign evolutionary effect.  The fact that the dreamy 18 year old hunk, skilled at mammoth-slaying, will eventually settle down with an equally dreamy 18 year old bimbo, does not stop him having a go at a few grannies first.

Posted by James Bowery on June 23, 2005, 04:02 PM | #

Guessed worker is partially correct.  The theory is rubbish unless you start focusing on more recent selection—at which point cosmopolitan environments become a huge selective force.

Its easy for me to see how cosmopolitan environments could interact with the longer sexual life of women for very strong selection pressures.

The thing to look for is not so much individual men who succeed in avoiding sexual neutralization via infertile sex, but entire _ethnies_ which, in a cosmopolitan environment, are avoiding sexual neutralization—and conversely which ethnies are being neutralized.

Posted by Svigor on June 24, 2005, 08:11 PM | #

I forget how many third and fourth children are the result of cuckoldry, but it’s a lot.  I dunno how that impacts this…

Posted by Phil on June 26, 2005, 03:56 PM | #

The devils got very smart and became marxist intellectuals

LMAO

There are some real gems on this thread. (chuckle)

Now if a forty something woman looked like this, this 27 year old would most certainly not practice “ageism”.