Slog
News & ArtsFriday, January 6, 2012
Sex Desiring Young Women
Posted by Charles Mudede on Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 8:32 AM
WaPo:
Here’s something to look forward to: New research finds that women’s sexual satisfaction may actually improve as they get older.This discovery is not surprising. What's really surprising is that human males desire younger women more than older women. True, this is not surprising if you compare humans with other humans, but it is surprising if you compare humans with other primates. And for a comparison to have any value or substance it must compare the human animal with other animals.The study, published in the January issue of the American Journal of Medicine, looked at such sexual satisfaction-related factors as hormone use, frequency of arousal, lubrication, orgasm and pain during sexual intercourse along with sexual desire and satisfaction among 806 women ages 40 to 100 (median age 67; 63 percent post-menopausal).
The researchers found that, while sexual activity declined as women aged, about half of those age 80 or older reported being sexually satisfied most or all of the time.
Anyone who has glanced at the literature concerning chimpanzees (the human animal's closest relative) realizes that male chimps prefer established females, powerful females, females who have had even several children. Indeed, with bonobos (our erotic relative), young females are practically ignored and have to force themselves onto males. (Read Our Inner Ape by the Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal—however, much of his information on wild bonobos is drawn from the findings of Japanese researchers.)
So why do human males prefer younger women? Evolutionary psychology always has this dumb answer: Youth equals fertility. But if this is a natural law for us civilized humans, why is it not the law of the jungle? It seems we have completely mistaken a cultural phenomenon for a biological one. It is very likely that the desire for young women has no natural basis but is instead entirely a cultural construction. Indeed, the best sociobiologist in the business, Sarah Hrdy, goes as far as to see this strange kind of desire as emerging from the cultural institution of marriage. (In her brilliant paper "Female Sexuality and the Prehominid Origins of Patriarchy," Hrdy argues that youth has its value in the context of a long-term investment.)
And marriage only makes sense in the context of property relations. And cultures of property relations are mostly realized in agricultural or sedentary societies. And because these kinds of societies are new in the world, the desire for young women is not at all ancient, or profound, or in our blood. It's in our heads.
Another point Hrdy makes: "I am with my fellow feminist, evolutionary biologist Patricia Gowaty, who has argued that male preferences for neotenous traits might be due to juveniles being easier to dominate."
3
If male preference for young women (along with female preference for men of status) is purely cultural, why is it universal across cultures?
5
The researchers found that, while sexual activity declined as women aged, about half of those age 80 or older reported being sexually satisfied most or all of the time.
I am curious as to whether this study takes into account the fact that society is far more accepting of sex in general presently than it was during much of these subjects' lives.
6
You must have skipped over the second paragraph of your quote: "The researchers found that, while sexual activity declined as women aged, about half of those age 80 or older reported being sexually satisfied most or all of the time."
Male desire has nothing to do with the sexual satisfaction of women, it has everything to do with their physical attractiveness and availability. Charles, explain to me the evolutionary advantage of being attracted to a sexually satisfied post menopausal woman with a low libido? I think it's great that older women are sexually satisfied, but that doesn't do anything for my boner, sorry.
Male desire has nothing to do with the sexual satisfaction of women, it has everything to do with their physical attractiveness and availability. Charles, explain to me the evolutionary advantage of being attracted to a sexually satisfied post menopausal woman with a low libido? I think it's great that older women are sexually satisfied, but that doesn't do anything for my boner, sorry.
7
Or, you can compare human males from other cultures as well. The sun doesn't evolve around Americans or even American Caucasian men.
10
Not a slam against you, Charles. Sorry about that. I meant in terms of the way American men think and the whole youth culture thing.
11
Nice article, but that's a lot of sentences beginning with "And" in the penultimate paragraph there.
12
@10: in terms of the way American men think and the whole youth culture thing
You're saying that preference for young females is an American thing? How typically American of you to think that.
You're saying that preference for young females is an American thing? How typically American of you to think that.
13
Young women are preferable because they haven't learned to (or how to) demand sexual satisfaction, mayhaps?
14
Charles,
I disagree. Men are indeed for better or for worse, attracted to younger women due to fertility. It is quite natural and not dumb at all. It's another reason why some societies tolerate polygamy. The context must be human behavior not primate behavior. To be sure, we can use some primate characteristics. But comparing human activity with other human activity across cultures and time makes sense to me.
And, I while encourage (terrific!) sexual activity for women over forty, having (delivering) babies gets risky physically for them. At least, that's my understanding.
I disagree. Men are indeed for better or for worse, attracted to younger women due to fertility. It is quite natural and not dumb at all. It's another reason why some societies tolerate polygamy. The context must be human behavior not primate behavior. To be sure, we can use some primate characteristics. But comparing human activity with other human activity across cultures and time makes sense to me.
And, I while encourage (terrific!) sexual activity for women over forty, having (delivering) babies gets risky physically for them. At least, that's my understanding.
15
@6, 13. So men aren't turned on by and attracted to women who orgasm with them? Or am I the only one that finds my partner's turn on a turn on?
17
@2 I think that's an important point. Biologically, 'young' would mean right after the beginning of fertility, i.e. 13 or 14 on average and most men are not attracted to girls that age. Late 20s to early 30s would be middle-aged, i.e. roughly the middle of the fertile period, so I'd say we're not all that different from chimpanzees or bonobos in this regard.
18
Maybe older women get more sexual satisfaction because they're no longer having sex with college boys.
19
13 or 14 on average and most men are not attracted to girls that age
Most men in cultures that have statutory rape laws have trained themselves not to indulge any feelings of attraction they might have towards adolescent women. In cultures without such laws, women are frequently married off at 13 or 14 years of age.
I'll add that up until recent history, 13 and 14 year olds were considered adults, or very nearly so. It's only in the last 50-100 years that the definition of adolescence has been stretched to include the early 20's.
Most men in cultures that have statutory rape laws have trained themselves not to indulge any feelings of attraction they might have towards adolescent women. In cultures without such laws, women are frequently married off at 13 or 14 years of age.
I'll add that up until recent history, 13 and 14 year olds were considered adults, or very nearly so. It's only in the last 50-100 years that the definition of adolescence has been stretched to include the early 20's.
20
Start with the conclusion you wish to prove (men suck), work back from there to whatever reality you're confronted with. Isn't that the scientific method?
Also: good thing women aren't attracted to older men, or that might suggest causes for this phenomenon other than Men Suck/Men Are Pigs.
Isn't there some work out there about hip/waist ratios being highly predictive of a woman's attractiveness to (a majority of) heterosexual men? And doesn't that ratio reach its peak in most women sometime in their teens? And wouldn't that suggest that this is more than a cultural construct?
I realize that I'm kind of talking out my ass here, but that doesn't really seem to distinguish me from the researchers, at least as they've been represented here.
Also: good thing women aren't attracted to older men, or that might suggest causes for this phenomenon other than Men Suck/Men Are Pigs.
Isn't there some work out there about hip/waist ratios being highly predictive of a woman's attractiveness to (a majority of) heterosexual men? And doesn't that ratio reach its peak in most women sometime in their teens? And wouldn't that suggest that this is more than a cultural construct?
I realize that I'm kind of talking out my ass here, but that doesn't really seem to distinguish me from the researchers, at least as they've been represented here.
21
@2 and @17 are correct.
For most of human history, people got married between 10 and 14 and died in their early to mid 20s.
Actually, @18, that is not always the case. Usually older women are just:
a. less worried about pregnancy
b. more apt to ask for what they want and insist on it
c. less worried about what you think or how they look when they enjoy themselves.
For most of human history, people got married between 10 and 14 and died in their early to mid 20s.
Actually, @18, that is not always the case. Usually older women are just:
a. less worried about pregnancy
b. more apt to ask for what they want and insist on it
c. less worried about what you think or how they look when they enjoy themselves.
22
Man oh man. If this post isn't the perfect example of parsing everything through a ridiculously narrow ideological filter then I don't know what is.
You just want something to be true so bad that you hammer and hammer at the round peg of "science" to squeeze it into the square hole of your worldview. And even then it doesn't make any consistent sense.
Like pretty much everybody is saying here Charles, "young" isn't a cultural preference, it's relative to lifespan. And reproducing young was an evolutionary necessity. Humans, until very recently, only lived an average of 40 years or so.
This isn't something evolutionary psychologists just pulled out of their asses. It's been a settled matter in biology long before kooks in EP ever got their theoretical paws on the idea.
Good god this was a dumb post.
There may be cultural reasons for other forms of youth obsession. For instance it was at one point important for actors and musicians to be viewed as older - why nearly every actor in the 1930, 40, 50's looked 40 years old. Because grown ups were the ones with income to buy movies and music. Then in the late fifties a youth culture emerged with disposable income and then everybody wanted to appeal to teenagers.
Hey. That even fits with your world view visa-vi capitalism!
You just want something to be true so bad that you hammer and hammer at the round peg of "science" to squeeze it into the square hole of your worldview. And even then it doesn't make any consistent sense.
Like pretty much everybody is saying here Charles, "young" isn't a cultural preference, it's relative to lifespan. And reproducing young was an evolutionary necessity. Humans, until very recently, only lived an average of 40 years or so.
This isn't something evolutionary psychologists just pulled out of their asses. It's been a settled matter in biology long before kooks in EP ever got their theoretical paws on the idea.
Good god this was a dumb post.
There may be cultural reasons for other forms of youth obsession. For instance it was at one point important for actors and musicians to be viewed as older - why nearly every actor in the 1930, 40, 50's looked 40 years old. Because grown ups were the ones with income to buy movies and music. Then in the late fifties a youth culture emerged with disposable income and then everybody wanted to appeal to teenagers.
Hey. That even fits with your world view visa-vi capitalism!
23
@21 through "most" of human history - people didn't really marry at all. Not in our definition of the institution.
25
@16: Sexual stride does not equal reproductive stride. This is important only in that we're talking about evolutionary biology here, at least indirectly.
I think we need to distinguish between overall attractiveness/desirability and pure physical attractiveness. My impression is that the appearance of the 18-year-old body can light up the reptile centers of the brain, even if a guy really prefers an older sex/life partner.
I think we need to distinguish between overall attractiveness/desirability and pure physical attractiveness. My impression is that the appearance of the 18-year-old body can light up the reptile centers of the brain, even if a guy really prefers an older sex/life partner.
26
Political marriages notwithstanding, on average, women in the Middle Ages were married in their mid-20s. Puberty also started much later back then, meaning that fucking a 13/14-year-old would accomplish exactly nothing, except risk her life in childbirth if she did manage to get pregnant that early.
It's funny when people make shit up to suit their assumptions.
I'll add that up until recent history, 13 and 14 year olds were considered adults, or very nearly so. It's only in the last 50-100 years that the definition of adolescence has been stretched to include the early 20's.
Political marriages notwithstanding, on average, women in the Middle Ages were married in their mid-20s. Puberty also started much later back then, meaning that fucking a 13/14-year-old would accomplish exactly nothing, except risk her life in childbirth if she did manage to get pregnant that early.
It's funny when people make shit up to suit their assumptions.
27
@24: I was responding largely to the last statement in your posting, which falls into the category that evolutionary biologists call Just So Stories. It would find company with the incorrect but satisfying idea that giraffes' necks are long because they stretch for the upper leaves.
28
@26: My superficial knowledge of the subject is exactly the reverse of what you've said: Political marriages among the nobility might happen a person's 20s or later, but most people married in their early/mid teens. Can you give citations?
29
The sexual satisfaction of older women has nothing whatever to do with fertility. Unless you think those 80-year-olds (who are reporting satisfaction with no sex at all in many cases) are poppin' out babies. The preference for younger women is ingrained and holds across every human culture that I'm aware of. The higher fertility and reduced rate of birth defects of younger women is indisputable.
30
@28 is correct. The problem is the definition of a marriage is not the same over periods of time.
Common law marriages used to be the vast majority of all marriages, until very recently, in human history.
Common law marriages used to be the vast majority of all marriages, until very recently, in human history.
31
Anecdotally I'm finding that many young women prefer older men, how to explain that? I'm 35 and if asked, I would not have admitted to a conscious preference for younger women. But looking back over the last couple of years almost every woman has been 5 to 10 years younger than me. Many of them have told me that they prefer men older than themselves.
32
@19 Not universally. While American pioneer families might very well have married daughters off young and nobility would have made political alliances through marriage with daughters who weren't yet physically mature (though consummation would generally be held off until later), most western cultures for hundreds of years now have preferred marriage at a much older age. One of the conflicts in Romeo and Juliet is their young age (fourteen was seen as far too young to be married during Elizabethan times, and yet Juliet's father wanted to inappropriately marry her off, ultimately leading to her death with Romeo when she predictably rebelled). Marriage in the late teens or twenties was preferable, which stayed pretty close to the average age of first marriage for women up until the last twenty years.
This idea that western culture has been happily marrying and fucking thirteen year olds since the dawn of time simply isn't true. If the goal is to have children--and that was generally the goal--they would hold off for a fully physically mature woman who could survive childbirth, even if a betrothal might take place earlier. Even in ancient Rome, brides on their first marriage would typically be between fifteen and twenty. What use is a wife who will likely die and take your heir with her because her hips have yet to spread? The child brides described in the Old Testament and other literature are not accurate to all cultures and all historical periods.
This idea that western culture has been happily marrying and fucking thirteen year olds since the dawn of time simply isn't true. If the goal is to have children--and that was generally the goal--they would hold off for a fully physically mature woman who could survive childbirth, even if a betrothal might take place earlier. Even in ancient Rome, brides on their first marriage would typically be between fifteen and twenty. What use is a wife who will likely die and take your heir with her because her hips have yet to spread? The child brides described in the Old Testament and other literature are not accurate to all cultures and all historical periods.
33
@26 well. The onset of early puberty would then actually support the thesis that sexual attraction is biologically coordinated with youth since Charles is noting that is would seem that male sexual desire has skewed to younger and younger females.
But like I said. Youth is a relative concept. Clearly we have cultural obsession with physical youth.
However to then spin some conspiratorial anti-feminist based interpretation of what is basic biology is silly. Though I understand the reflex. We, those of us that don't believe in an interfering god, all want nature to not be arbitrary and harsh. We want nature to reinforce our chosen world views.
Look. I'm older than Charles. No 16 year old in her right mind wants to fuck me either. Unless she's got severe Daddy or economic issues. In which case it's likely this attraction is swinging on the psychological equivalent of a stripper pole.
I'm not holding it against the young women of this world that I find them desirable but they are not beating down my door.
This disparity in attraction isn't something personal or something I'll chalk up to an evil ageist collusion of capitalism and patriarchy. It's rooted mainly in biology. I wouldn't want to fuck me either.
Now. There are instances when sexist ageism is distinctly rooted in terrible cultural and economic biases (Hello, Jean Godden?).
But the vagaries of personal sexual attraction is not an appropriate hill to plant that flag on. At least in terms of scientific data to support the assertions I assume Charles is making.
But like I said. Youth is a relative concept. Clearly we have cultural obsession with physical youth.
However to then spin some conspiratorial anti-feminist based interpretation of what is basic biology is silly. Though I understand the reflex. We, those of us that don't believe in an interfering god, all want nature to not be arbitrary and harsh. We want nature to reinforce our chosen world views.
Look. I'm older than Charles. No 16 year old in her right mind wants to fuck me either. Unless she's got severe Daddy or economic issues. In which case it's likely this attraction is swinging on the psychological equivalent of a stripper pole.
I'm not holding it against the young women of this world that I find them desirable but they are not beating down my door.
This disparity in attraction isn't something personal or something I'll chalk up to an evil ageist collusion of capitalism and patriarchy. It's rooted mainly in biology. I wouldn't want to fuck me either.
Now. There are instances when sexist ageism is distinctly rooted in terrible cultural and economic biases (Hello, Jean Godden?).
But the vagaries of personal sexual attraction is not an appropriate hill to plant that flag on. At least in terms of scientific data to support the assertions I assume Charles is making.
34
Also, marriages were primarily economic arrangements until quite recently.
Studies on sex and childbirth are mostly due to church birth records and some physical anthropology. Age ranges differed by location and culture. Some marriages predate fertility (most infamous the marital systems in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc where children would frequently be married or at least formally engaged at 2 or 3, after surviving the high child death rate years, and the economic entanglements of families then began). Most marital records and birth records do not include miscarriage rates, of course, so the data is censored on the bottom end, and incorrectly records successful birth at the age of the mother or father, and is backdated 9 months.
I'm sure you can find fake data on the Interwebs that says otherwise of course, but they have text books sales right now at most university and college book stores, if you're actually interested, and most research data can be pulled up at public libraries or college/university libraries.
Studies on sex and childbirth are mostly due to church birth records and some physical anthropology. Age ranges differed by location and culture. Some marriages predate fertility (most infamous the marital systems in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc where children would frequently be married or at least formally engaged at 2 or 3, after surviving the high child death rate years, and the economic entanglements of families then began). Most marital records and birth records do not include miscarriage rates, of course, so the data is censored on the bottom end, and incorrectly records successful birth at the age of the mother or father, and is backdated 9 months.
I'm sure you can find fake data on the Interwebs that says otherwise of course, but they have text books sales right now at most university and college book stores, if you're actually interested, and most research data can be pulled up at public libraries or college/university libraries.
35
@30 I'd like a citation on that, as all of my research on this subject has found data agreeing with @26. Women who would survive childbirth were desirable for marriage and puberty happened at a later age on average, so there would be little use in marrying (or common law marrying) someone in her early teens.
36
@28 & 32...playing with the google yielded this gem:
From a 1997 briefing paper on age of consent the NSW parliament.
"A statutory age of consent to sexual intercourse for the purposes of the criminal law in the United Kingdom can be found as early as 1275. It was originally 12, was raised to 13 in 1875 and to 16 in 1885."
From a 1997 briefing paper on age of consent the NSW parliament.
37
@35, did you just ask Will in Seattle for a citation on something? Oh, you poor dear. Will doesn't do citations. Everything he has ever said in his entire life was pulled out of his back end moments before.
38
@36: a bit more detail on that 1275 record:
"An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age. "
"An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age. "
39
@35: Can you cite? I'm seeing references to puberty being 13/14 in middle ages, rising to something like 17 in the 19th century, then falling precipitously in recent decades.
40
@36 Young Roman women would generally enter their first marriage between the ages of fifteen and twenty. Guy, John: "Roman Life", page 21. Barron's Publishing Ltd, 1998.
So the British considered it acceptable to screw twelve year olds at one point in time, yet we know standards in the UK changed dramatically over the next few hundred years. They weren't the only people in the world, nor was that the only time period.
So the British considered it acceptable to screw twelve year olds at one point in time, yet we know standards in the UK changed dramatically over the next few hundred years. They weren't the only people in the world, nor was that the only time period.
41
@40: Point being that the British considered it normal to MARRY 12 year olds.
Your citation doesn't address my question.
Your citation doesn't address my question.
42
@41 The average age of marriage for most Northwestern Europeans from the late 13th century into the 16th century was around 25 years of age; the bride and groom were roughly the same age and a substantial number of women married for the first time in their thirties and forties, particularly in urban areas, with the average age at first marriage rising and falling as circumstances dictated.
Schofield, Phillipp R. 2003. Peasant and community in Medieval England, 1200–1500. Medieval culture and society. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. p 98.
Coontz, Stephanie. 2005. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York, New York: Viking Press, Penguin Group Inc. p 125-129.
Kertzer, David I and Marzio Barbagli. 2001. The history of the European family. New Haven: Yale University Press. p xxii
Schofield, Phillipp R. 2003. Peasant and community in Medieval England, 1200–1500. Medieval culture and society. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. p 98.
Coontz, Stephanie. 2005. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York, New York: Viking Press, Penguin Group Inc. p 125-129.
Kertzer, David I and Marzio Barbagli. 2001. The history of the European family. New Haven: Yale University Press. p xxii
43
You know the Middle Ages isn't actually any sort of set point for human biology and represents only a tiny fraction of the scope of not only human history but human culture. So why you guys are arguing over if a Lady in Essex got her period when is rather silly. There are lots of other data points to consider. Humanity has been on this rock quite some time and in other places than Europe.
44
@42: Alas, journal articles would be more useful in this context, allowing the rest of us to actually read what you're talking about. I'll have to make a note to look them up the next time I'm in the library.
45
@43: I think it's more that certain arguments being made here are based on 'facts' presented about marriage in the Middle Ages, and people are curious about whether those 'facts' are factual.
But you're right, this has turned into a bit of a bunny trail.
But you're right, this has turned into a bit of a bunny trail.
46
"Between 1616 and 1690, for instance, 85 percent of women were nineteen or older when married; just one in a thousand was thirteen or younger. The median age for brides at marriage was twenty-three years and seven months, and for men it was nearly twenty-eight years--not very different from the ages of today."
Bill Bryson, At Home.
Bill Bryson, At Home.
50
@49: Wasn't the whole point that your post was a vehicle for a vaguely relevant semi-intellectual circle jerk?
51
The average lifespan in the era we all seemed unusually obsessed about, the middle ages, was about 43 for women and 48 for men.
43 was OLD!
My Theory: I suspect a significant motivator for this thread is the natural tendency for people to want to hold the gaze of mortality as they get older. So we start getting insecure about things we see slipping by us: A career path now dominated by younger people; The sense that we are no longer looked at as attractive by the demographic we tend to desire; The loss of cultural relevance.
Basically: Those kids making fun of my out of fashion trousers and hair style.
So we look for some authority (at least it's science and not religion this time) out there to tell us... "Look it's not you... it's society man. Or it's this institution, man. It's all fucked up. If only these things was perfect reflection of ME everything would be cool and people would think I'm hot and relevant again!" And even better if you blame it all on somebody else. Somebody material identity group - men, gays, whatever. If only they would stop this thing they're doing somebody would think I'm SEXY!"
So here people go and selectively mine what ever outlier, scientific bubble, or historical tidbit that might backup a tenuous worldview.
But the fact is you get old. You get ugly. You get irrelevant.
It's only a theory, right?
43 was OLD!
My Theory: I suspect a significant motivator for this thread is the natural tendency for people to want to hold the gaze of mortality as they get older. So we start getting insecure about things we see slipping by us: A career path now dominated by younger people; The sense that we are no longer looked at as attractive by the demographic we tend to desire; The loss of cultural relevance.
Basically: Those kids making fun of my out of fashion trousers and hair style.
So we look for some authority (at least it's science and not religion this time) out there to tell us... "Look it's not you... it's society man. Or it's this institution, man. It's all fucked up. If only these things was perfect reflection of ME everything would be cool and people would think I'm hot and relevant again!" And even better if you blame it all on somebody else. Somebody material identity group - men, gays, whatever. If only they would stop this thing they're doing somebody would think I'm SEXY!"
So here people go and selectively mine what ever outlier, scientific bubble, or historical tidbit that might backup a tenuous worldview.
But the fact is you get old. You get ugly. You get irrelevant.
It's only a theory, right?
52
@49 If your point was that male sexual attraction to young women was a sexist by-product of the recent institution of marriage (which is tied to the development of private property economics) and modern phenom, then your point is entirely refuted by actual scientific facts.
53
Charles,
Speaking of desiring young women, did you read this?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na…
What I found curious about this story wasn't the fact that this 18 y/o Oklahoma mom shot an intruder in her home. It was the fact that her late husband and presumable father of her child was 58 y/o. He apparently died of cancer and she and her baby were living alone in her trailer.
Speaking of desiring young women, did you read this?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na…
What I found curious about this story wasn't the fact that this 18 y/o Oklahoma mom shot an intruder in her home. It was the fact that her late husband and presumable father of her child was 58 y/o. He apparently died of cancer and she and her baby were living alone in her trailer.
55
@48, nope. Though I did go by Sandy's Seafoods Market earlier....
@49, I suspect your point was, as it often is, that the poorly-understood examples of chimps and bonobos are more relevant to our truth as humans than the much-studied experience of hundreds of human societies, and I disagree with you.
Primates are not particularly relevant to us in terms of societies and behavior; the evolutionary tree is full of, indeed at times appears to be EXCLUSIVELY full of, very closely-related creatures (much more closely than humans and bonobos) who behave in radically different ways. Specifically, bonobos are not stand-ins for humans IN ANY WAY, and to believe otherwise is anthropomorphism, nothing less.
@49, I suspect your point was, as it often is, that the poorly-understood examples of chimps and bonobos are more relevant to our truth as humans than the much-studied experience of hundreds of human societies, and I disagree with you.
Primates are not particularly relevant to us in terms of societies and behavior; the evolutionary tree is full of, indeed at times appears to be EXCLUSIVELY full of, very closely-related creatures (much more closely than humans and bonobos) who behave in radically different ways. Specifically, bonobos are not stand-ins for humans IN ANY WAY, and to believe otherwise is anthropomorphism, nothing less.
56
@52, have you read the paper? I was not pulling that out of my ass. there is a science to this thinking,
57
Aside from all the semi-academic source arguments above (Bill Bryson is a prime reference?), compare the physical looks of a 18-year-old woman with a 50-year-old woman. Forget any other indicator. Who's more sexually attractive?
58
If we're going to compare humans to other animals, then we need to acknowledge that the fact that we walk upright and the fact that we have large brains means that childbirth (in which a baby's large head has to get through a woman's rigged-for-walking pelvis) is more difficult and dangerous for humans than for other animals. Before antibiotics, the death rate for women in childbirth was very high.
We also need to acknowledge that a human's idea of "older" is different from a chimpanzees. Most animals die before becoming old. When we think "older woman," she's what? Forty? Sixty? In prehistoric hunter-gathering cultures, thirty-five was old! These "established" females that the other apes prefer are probably the equivalent of twenty-five, not the equivalent of forty, and the young females are probably the equivalent of twelve or thirteen. Most twelve or thirteen year-old girls would indeed have to throw themselves at most adult men to get sex (and the girl monkeys do usually go for the alpha males, not their young agemates).
We also need to acknowledge that a human's idea of "older" is different from a chimpanzees. Most animals die before becoming old. When we think "older woman," she's what? Forty? Sixty? In prehistoric hunter-gathering cultures, thirty-five was old! These "established" females that the other apes prefer are probably the equivalent of twenty-five, not the equivalent of forty, and the young females are probably the equivalent of twelve or thirteen. Most twelve or thirteen year-old girls would indeed have to throw themselves at most adult men to get sex (and the girl monkeys do usually go for the alpha males, not their young agemates).
59
The Hrdy paper is an interesting read, although some of her groundwork and assumptions feel wobbly underfoot. For example, apropos of our discussion, she compares fertility of a 14 year old and a 24 year old (the girl's is lower than the woman's), as though they are the only points on the spectrum. I suspect that the fertility of an 18-year-old would be comparable to the fertility of a 24-year-old (although I'm not sure it would be any higher), and the 18-year-old would still look younger. But using that comparison wouldn't support her point. And God forbid we compare a 24-year-old with a 44-year-old.
Her definition of the word "young" seems to vary according to convenience, as well. The reader accepts that men generally find younger women more attractive, then suddenly, for the sake of comparing fertility, 'young' means 13 or 14, which isn't what we accepted when we agreed to the first point. etc.
(Good thing there aren't any women who find young women or young men attractive, right?)
FWIW, Savage-Lovers, Hrdy's refutation of Darwin's Coy Female, which is far more interesting to me, scientifically and sexually (and which is why I didn't recognize the reference at first), is widely cited in "Sex at Dawn," the book Dan was pushing so hard last year.
Her definition of the word "young" seems to vary according to convenience, as well. The reader accepts that men generally find younger women more attractive, then suddenly, for the sake of comparing fertility, 'young' means 13 or 14, which isn't what we accepted when we agreed to the first point. etc.
(Good thing there aren't any women who find young women or young men attractive, right?)
FWIW, Savage-Lovers, Hrdy's refutation of Darwin's Coy Female, which is far more interesting to me, scientifically and sexually (and which is why I didn't recognize the reference at first), is widely cited in "Sex at Dawn," the book Dan was pushing so hard last year.
60
@56 There is science to this thinking. It's very interesting and this was one of my favorite posts from you I've ever read. Honestly, all of my usual joking at your expense aside, thank you for drawing my attention to this.
61
I think the main reason I desire young women is because there is a much greater likelihood they'll put up with my bullshit.
62
@35 that the definition of marriage changed over time? Seriously, just read your own bible if you're that out of it.
No, I'm NOT going to do your work for you.
No, I'm NOT going to do your work for you.
63
@42 recorded marriages. Again, not including common law marriages.
Try reading old papal treaties and bishopric letters on the Problemes of Marriage Outfide The Churche and such like, especially those in France and Italy.
You keep thinking most stuff is written down and in English. Fact: Most of the history of the world was oral and most isn't in English.
Try reading old papal treaties and bishopric letters on the Problemes of Marriage Outfide The Churche and such like, especially those in France and Italy.
You keep thinking most stuff is written down and in English. Fact: Most of the history of the world was oral and most isn't in English.
64
Bad, bad Charles.
Hrdy agrees with my point about the last quote in your post.
You:
Another point Hrdy makes: "I am with my fellow feminist, evolutionary biologist Patricia Gowaty, who has argued that male preferences for neotenous traits might be due to juveniles being easier to dominate."
Hrdy, I added the all-caps for ease of comparison:
To those who fear that feminist perspectives constitute some spin- controlled monolith of politically correct opinion, it may be reassuring to note that I AM IN FAR CLOSER AGREEMENT ON THIS POINT WITH EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGIST DAVID BUSS THAT I AM WITH MY FELLOW FEMINIST, evolutionary biologist Patricia Gowaty, who has argued that male preferences for neotenous traits might be due to juveniles being easier to dominate.
Apology accepted.
Hrdy agrees with my point about the last quote in your post.
You:
Another point Hrdy makes: "I am with my fellow feminist, evolutionary biologist Patricia Gowaty, who has argued that male preferences for neotenous traits might be due to juveniles being easier to dominate."
Hrdy, I added the all-caps for ease of comparison:
To those who fear that feminist perspectives constitute some spin- controlled monolith of politically correct opinion, it may be reassuring to note that I AM IN FAR CLOSER AGREEMENT ON THIS POINT WITH EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGIST DAVID BUSS THAT I AM WITH MY FELLOW FEMINIST, evolutionary biologist Patricia Gowaty, who has argued that male preferences for neotenous traits might be due to juveniles being easier to dominate.
Apology accepted.
65
Another thing to consider is that, like the Victorians, our own definition of acceptable age for marriage and thus desireability as a partner, is shifting upwards right now. Moving towards 29-30 right now, had shifted down to 24-26 for a bit.
We are the product of our own perceptual filters: we filter out that which fails to meet our preconceptions, and fill in the gaps with what we "know" "must be" right.
We are the product of our own perceptual filters: we filter out that which fails to meet our preconceptions, and fill in the gaps with what we "know" "must be" right.
67
@66: That male preferences for neotenous traits might be due to juveniles being easier to dominate? No, it doesn't still stand. That was the point that tripped my bullshit alarms, and she's specifically saying that she doesn't agree with it.
The section of Hrdy's paper that you focused on (if, on the other had, that's what you're referring to) is interesting, but the foundational arguments don't ring true with me, so it's hard to get fully on board with the conclusions she makes. It almost feels like an exploratory section. The rest of the paper is much more robust.
The section of Hrdy's paper that you focused on (if, on the other had, that's what you're referring to) is interesting, but the foundational arguments don't ring true with me, so it's hard to get fully on board with the conclusions she makes. It almost feels like an exploratory section. The rest of the paper is much more robust.
68
Charles your cultural Marxism is really, _really_ leading you astray here. I think you would've defended Lysenko to the bitter end.
69
67, if you read the whole paper, then you have to admit the main part of my post holds water. but here is where i step in: i also agree with gowaty.
70
@ Charles, I'd like to see you respond to Fnarf @ 55. Was he correct about the point you were making, or wasn't he?
71
I completely disagree with Fnarf on this point. You cannot compare humans to humans alone. You will miss way too much. For example, if you studied lice in relation to humans only you would lose a large part of the picture. You have to compare lice and their evolutionary history with gorillas and chimps to see what's really going on with something like clothing lice.
Fnarf has never liked de Waal; I think that's a part of the problem. Lastly, Fnarf represents a kind of thinking that has condemned all forms of anthropomorphism as bad. The problem with this extremism is that it throws us, humans, right out of the animal kingdom.
Fnarf has never liked de Waal; I think that's a part of the problem. Lastly, Fnarf represents a kind of thinking that has condemned all forms of anthropomorphism as bad. The problem with this extremism is that it throws us, humans, right out of the animal kingdom.
72
Good answer. Not saying I agree with you more than Fnarf (I'm probably too ignorant of the topic to have an informed opinion, anyway), but good answer.
73
For once I like one of your columns, Charles Mudede.
I myself never understood how adult men, in their 40s, could really be attracted to teenage women, outside of it being a cultural artifact. I'm a female that age and I'm not at all attracted to teenage men, as "hot" as they may be, since my inner primate considers them much more as potential children than as would-be partners, and my inner human would have no patience to teach to 20 to 25 years-old males the basics of great sex. Surely I'm not a male, but can the male human brain be that different than the female one ?
Besides, I'm very happy to read in your column that all the other primates would find me a very desirable match ; too bad I'm not a bonobo.
@2 : I don't think that 20 would qualify as old in the jungle, since it did not qualify as old in the European countryside in the Middle ages, where life was much harsher - and quite colder - than in the jungle. Not to mention the wars, the epidemics, the taxes. People just barely survived, in the countryside, before the 19th century.
I derive that from data on around 3000 European peasants. I was convinced, while studying genealogy within a French/German family, that as I went further from now, I would find that the girls married younger than 18 or 21. Before the industrial revolution, people outside of the big cities lead the same lives that their ancestors had lead in the Middle Ages, so I had assumed that I would find younger ages of first marriage (widows and widowers don't count).
There is an abundant litterature describing 15-years-old girls as "women in full bloom" before the 19th century. Kings and the powerful did marry off their children before puberty, although they insisted that the union should not be consumated before 12 for girls. So I expected that the peasants had had the same marrying habits as their rich contemporaries, the same outlook on what constituted "young and ripe for marriage"
for girls.
Well they didn't. I've tracked the marriages as early as 1650 and I have found that most of the girls first married at 20 or older, and almost none did before being 18.
The families I've studied had no wealth whatsoever. In the villages where the various branches of the family lived (and inter-bred), many people died in infancy and in childhood, and as many as 90% of the deaths of each year were of people who had not reached their adult years.
Still girls never married before 18-20 for their first marriage. Boys were usually two to five years older at their first marriage, though there were many cases where the bride was older than the groom. The biggest age disparity was a man of 19 marrying a woman of 37, first marriage for both (he was a "natural child" and probably no other girl had wanted to marry him) ; widowers married widows, or girls 5 to 15 years younger, never more.
The only case of marriages at less than 18 that I found was some 120 years ago, so I still have context for it, from the family's lore. Two sisters (15 and 17) had just lost their father, and their mother was very ill ; she made certain to marry off both daughters before she died. The grooms were men who were 10+ years older, old enough to be well-established in their trades, and to provide well for their very young brides. The mother died within six months of the weddings.
More...
I myself never understood how adult men, in their 40s, could really be attracted to teenage women, outside of it being a cultural artifact. I'm a female that age and I'm not at all attracted to teenage men, as "hot" as they may be, since my inner primate considers them much more as potential children than as would-be partners, and my inner human would have no patience to teach to 20 to 25 years-old males the basics of great sex. Surely I'm not a male, but can the male human brain be that different than the female one ?
Besides, I'm very happy to read in your column that all the other primates would find me a very desirable match ; too bad I'm not a bonobo.
@2 : I don't think that 20 would qualify as old in the jungle, since it did not qualify as old in the European countryside in the Middle ages, where life was much harsher - and quite colder - than in the jungle. Not to mention the wars, the epidemics, the taxes. People just barely survived, in the countryside, before the 19th century.
I derive that from data on around 3000 European peasants. I was convinced, while studying genealogy within a French/German family, that as I went further from now, I would find that the girls married younger than 18 or 21. Before the industrial revolution, people outside of the big cities lead the same lives that their ancestors had lead in the Middle Ages, so I had assumed that I would find younger ages of first marriage (widows and widowers don't count).
There is an abundant litterature describing 15-years-old girls as "women in full bloom" before the 19th century. Kings and the powerful did marry off their children before puberty, although they insisted that the union should not be consumated before 12 for girls. So I expected that the peasants had had the same marrying habits as their rich contemporaries, the same outlook on what constituted "young and ripe for marriage"
for girls.
Well they didn't. I've tracked the marriages as early as 1650 and I have found that most of the girls first married at 20 or older, and almost none did before being 18.
The families I've studied had no wealth whatsoever. In the villages where the various branches of the family lived (and inter-bred), many people died in infancy and in childhood, and as many as 90% of the deaths of each year were of people who had not reached their adult years.
Still girls never married before 18-20 for their first marriage. Boys were usually two to five years older at their first marriage, though there were many cases where the bride was older than the groom. The biggest age disparity was a man of 19 marrying a woman of 37, first marriage for both (he was a "natural child" and probably no other girl had wanted to marry him) ; widowers married widows, or girls 5 to 15 years younger, never more.
The only case of marriages at less than 18 that I found was some 120 years ago, so I still have context for it, from the family's lore. Two sisters (15 and 17) had just lost their father, and their mother was very ill ; she made certain to marry off both daughters before she died. The grooms were men who were 10+ years older, old enough to be well-established in their trades, and to provide well for their very young brides. The mother died within six months of the weddings.
74
@63 I'm late in this discussion but the data I'm talking about is from recorded marriages in France and Germany - where there has been no "common law" marriage for quite some centuries.
The data of the past 3 to 4 centuries show almost no marriage of girls before 18, most of the marriages are after 20. I can't tell you what the average age at marriage is. Stillbirths are recorded, starting in the 18th century, most of them pertain to married couples ; and in the odd natural birth or stillbirth, the mother is never 13-14-15. She's more likely to be a solid 23.
Most of those acts are online, check out this site : http://www.archivesdefrance.culture.gouv…
for free access to the images of the French parish and civil registers.
The Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts, from 1539, made sure every baptism and burial was recorded in France ; of course most of the very old registers have not survived, this is why I have read data only from about 1650 on. From about 1730 on, the records are of a very good quality, the marriages are all there, and in French too, instead of latin ; the bride's full name is given, which makes it easy to find her birth act, and to check their real age at the time of her wedding. They did not get married at 13 or at 15. They did not give birth at those ages.
The data of the past 3 to 4 centuries show almost no marriage of girls before 18, most of the marriages are after 20. I can't tell you what the average age at marriage is. Stillbirths are recorded, starting in the 18th century, most of them pertain to married couples ; and in the odd natural birth or stillbirth, the mother is never 13-14-15. She's more likely to be a solid 23.
Most of those acts are online, check out this site : http://www.archivesdefrance.culture.gouv…
for free access to the images of the French parish and civil registers.
The Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts, from 1539, made sure every baptism and burial was recorded in France ; of course most of the very old registers have not survived, this is why I have read data only from about 1650 on. From about 1730 on, the records are of a very good quality, the marriages are all there, and in French too, instead of latin ; the bride's full name is given, which makes it easy to find her birth act, and to check their real age at the time of her wedding. They did not get married at 13 or at 15. They did not give birth at those ages.
75
Goddamnit, average lifespans in history mean NOTHING at all when you have a high child mortality rate. If you survived the wars (and weren't a slave) in Ancient Greece, you usually made it to your late 70s. Sure, that was only 2500 years ago, but still. It crashed a little due to quick-moving illness, but people have been dying of old age pretty much around the same time for at least a couple thousand years. 40 was never ancient in any culture we could recognize as culture.
76
Thank you 75! If you survived childhood diseases, and then survived childbirth (if a woman) and other dangers of young adulthood, like accidents or war, you were probably good to go well into old age, what with cardiovascular disease rates being much lower than they are for "modern" people.
77
@73,74: I completely believe what you're saying, that the records you found said that, but even within my own humble family, with earthy peasant origins, the age of marriage for women heads well south of 20 just two generations back. Grandma got married at 15, to the guy her parents had picked out for her. Cuz it was time.
I have to wonder how many people here insisting that it was unusual for teenagers to marry at any point in history have spent any time living in rural America, where it is not unusual to have classmates dropping out of 8th or 9th grade (13,14,15 years old) to get married and/or give birth. They certainly weren't any kind of majority. They were the kids who were fucking without protection. The rest of us (at least those of us who were sexually active) figured out that condoms are easily obtained, even in the sticks. I can't help but extrapolate back to a time when birth control as we know it now didn't exist and wonder how it was that NO teenagers ever got married.
Hard not to suspect sampling bias.
I have to wonder how many people here insisting that it was unusual for teenagers to marry at any point in history have spent any time living in rural America, where it is not unusual to have classmates dropping out of 8th or 9th grade (13,14,15 years old) to get married and/or give birth. They certainly weren't any kind of majority. They were the kids who were fucking without protection. The rest of us (at least those of us who were sexually active) figured out that condoms are easily obtained, even in the sticks. I can't help but extrapolate back to a time when birth control as we know it now didn't exist and wonder how it was that NO teenagers ever got married.
Hard not to suspect sampling bias.
78
@77, et al: My understanding that 17 as the age of puberty in the late 1800s was established using a group of low-income girls at a children's home, whose backgrounds likely account for a higher than typical onset of puberty. A bit of searching yields information suggesting that the age was 12-14 from Roman times until the 19th century, when it rose slightly, though not to 17.
Pre-emptive point being that kids could get knocked up at 13 or 14 long before the 20th century.
Pre-emptive point being that kids could get knocked up at 13 or 14 long before the 20th century.
79
@69: You mean that you, unlike Hrdy, agree with Gowaty. My problem with the butchered quote is that you reversed Hrdy's meaning. You get that, right?
Your quote begins where I start the all-caps:
I am in far closer agreement on this point with evolutionary psychologist David Buss than
I AM WITH MY FELLOW FEMINIST etc.
Did you get that quote from somewhere other than Hrdy's notes at the end of the paper? This is your out; you can blame someone else for willfully misquoting Hrdy to make it seem like she's saying the opposite of what she's saying.
Your quote begins where I start the all-caps:
I am in far closer agreement on this point with evolutionary psychologist David Buss than
I AM WITH MY FELLOW FEMINIST etc.
Did you get that quote from somewhere other than Hrdy's notes at the end of the paper? This is your out; you can blame someone else for willfully misquoting Hrdy to make it seem like she's saying the opposite of what she's saying.
82
@78 et al:
FYI: Age at menarche: a misunderstanding, Bullough Science 17 July 1981: 365-366.
Excerpts for those without access:
"Roman law, for example, assumed that females were mature at the age of 12, and classical writers described menarche as taking place sometime between the ages of 12 and 14.
Medieval authorities tended to agree. Much of our information comes from the later Middle Ages. One of the best indicators of medieval assumptions is in the gynecological text De passionibus mulierum, attributed to Dame Trotula, extant copies of which date from the 13th century. There are numerous copies of the English provenance, 18 at Oxford alone. In 12 of the English manuscripts there are tables on menarche, and the ages appear to vary according to the scribe's personal knowledge. Most of the Oxford copies put menarche at age 14; the most common other age given is 13."
"Present-day (PUBLICATION DATE WAS 1981) surveys conducted by a number of authorities indicate a variation between 12.5 and 14.5 in most of the world. The Bantu, some of the Maya, and some residents of New Guinea exceed 15 years. One isolated New Guinea group averages over 17, according to one observer (21). The fact that there is such a standard range today in spite of the differences in the state of nutrition would seem to verify that traditionally menarche occurred when classical and medieval medical authorities said it did, between 12 and 14 years of age, with individual and other variations. For the l9th century the data offered by Tanner suggest that the age 17 is derived from an isolated report on a small sample, and that it is well within the range of a standard deviation and should not be taken as an average."
FYI: Age at menarche: a misunderstanding, Bullough Science 17 July 1981: 365-366.
Excerpts for those without access:
"Roman law, for example, assumed that females were mature at the age of 12, and classical writers described menarche as taking place sometime between the ages of 12 and 14.
Medieval authorities tended to agree. Much of our information comes from the later Middle Ages. One of the best indicators of medieval assumptions is in the gynecological text De passionibus mulierum, attributed to Dame Trotula, extant copies of which date from the 13th century. There are numerous copies of the English provenance, 18 at Oxford alone. In 12 of the English manuscripts there are tables on menarche, and the ages appear to vary according to the scribe's personal knowledge. Most of the Oxford copies put menarche at age 14; the most common other age given is 13."
"Present-day (PUBLICATION DATE WAS 1981) surveys conducted by a number of authorities indicate a variation between 12.5 and 14.5 in most of the world. The Bantu, some of the Maya, and some residents of New Guinea exceed 15 years. One isolated New Guinea group averages over 17, according to one observer (21). The fact that there is such a standard range today in spite of the differences in the state of nutrition would seem to verify that traditionally menarche occurred when classical and medieval medical authorities said it did, between 12 and 14 years of age, with individual and other variations. For the l9th century the data offered by Tanner suggest that the age 17 is derived from an isolated report on a small sample, and that it is well within the range of a standard deviation and should not be taken as an average."
83
@57 Sarah,
Who's more sexually attractive, an 18 or 50 year old woman?
As a 50 year old hetero-male, it depends. At this point in my life 18 year olds look "unfinished" and their faces look devoid of character. More importantly, external features are only a part of attractiveness; there's a damn good reason why children still get made by older couples, and it is all about experience.
Frankly, part of our cultural bias is shown in clothing design. Mature women that have more body fat look like pressed hams in contemporary clothing. Put the 18 year old and the 50 year olds in looser, yet revealing styles and the skinny one looks like a stick, while the fuller figure has "more to show". Interestingly I think that holds when they're nude as well (not necessarily in bathing suits though). And, for the record, I am a more than a handful is a waste kind of guy, so there is the whole zaftig thing going for some guys as well.
Heh, I suspect part of the reason younger guys don't go for older women is because they're intimidated.
Peace.
Who's more sexually attractive, an 18 or 50 year old woman?
As a 50 year old hetero-male, it depends. At this point in my life 18 year olds look "unfinished" and their faces look devoid of character. More importantly, external features are only a part of attractiveness; there's a damn good reason why children still get made by older couples, and it is all about experience.
Frankly, part of our cultural bias is shown in clothing design. Mature women that have more body fat look like pressed hams in contemporary clothing. Put the 18 year old and the 50 year olds in looser, yet revealing styles and the skinny one looks like a stick, while the fuller figure has "more to show". Interestingly I think that holds when they're nude as well (not necessarily in bathing suits though). And, for the record, I am a more than a handful is a waste kind of guy, so there is the whole zaftig thing going for some guys as well.
Heh, I suspect part of the reason younger guys don't go for older women is because they're intimidated.
Peace.
84
I know this is nitpicky, but actually, we're just as closely related to bonobos as we are to chimps.
85
What's really surprising is that human males desire younger women more than older women.
Not all of us (or not in every case.) Four years ago, I was with a woman who was 49. She was pretty, in very good shape, and incredibly hot and sexy. I wouldn't have chosen any younger women over her.
Not all of us (or not in every case.) Four years ago, I was with a woman who was 49. She was pretty, in very good shape, and incredibly hot and sexy. I wouldn't have chosen any younger women over her.
86
It drives me a little crazy when people start citing the average age of marriage as like 12 or 13. Why? Because it's not only untrue, it doesn't make sense. Even nowadays (in the world of modern medicine and nutrition), 12 and 13 year olds are not physically equipped to give birth safely. Go back a couple hundred years, (when girls matured later due to poor nutrition, and we didn't have c-sections to cut the baby out when it couldn't fit through the girls underdeveloped hips), it was even worse.
Yes, nobility was prone to breaking this rule, but this only serves as an explanation as to why people sometimes erroneously think people married so young; we have better access to information about the nobility than to information about the peasantry, and people are more interested in the nobility than the peasantry. But the fact that nobility married this young is no more an indicator of what society as a whole did than the fashions of nobility reflect the clothing of society at large. Most people couldn't pull off the shit that nobility got away with. It does not make reproductive sense for evolution to be crafting males to want to fuck females who are not sexually mature, and 12 and 13 year olds are not sexually mature, not even today.
Yes, nobility was prone to breaking this rule, but this only serves as an explanation as to why people sometimes erroneously think people married so young; we have better access to information about the nobility than to information about the peasantry, and people are more interested in the nobility than the peasantry. But the fact that nobility married this young is no more an indicator of what society as a whole did than the fashions of nobility reflect the clothing of society at large. Most people couldn't pull off the shit that nobility got away with. It does not make reproductive sense for evolution to be crafting males to want to fuck females who are not sexually mature, and 12 and 13 year olds are not sexually mature, not even today.
87
@77 I thought I would find what you're saying (younger age of marriage) and I didn't. I'm talking about up to 10 generation back, not two...
I think if you could go up to 4-6 generations earlier in your own family, you would find an older age at marriage than 15 as well. What Lorran says seems pretty logical : it made no sense to get married at menarche, only to die in childbirth. So many people died young, that you wouldn't risk the life of the ones who had survived, in letting them reproduce too early.
I'd be quite happy, of course, to know if your family doesn't conform to my assumptions, for earlier periods (19th century and before) ; but then I'd like to know on which soil that happened. Is rural America an exception ? Is France an exception ? Is it more of an Anglo-Saxon vs Latin countries difference ?
Today, there is no epidemics of teenage pregnancies in France like there is in England or in America. Can't explain why. We have a lot of sex ed, like England, unlike America, but no visible teenage pregnancies at 13-15. There are some very discreet abortions each year in high school (16-18), but I've never heard of one in junior high - though I work in education.
Getting married at 13-15 did happen to Muslim girls in the 50s, though. And the families who did that to their daughters were considered very backwards.
I think if you could go up to 4-6 generations earlier in your own family, you would find an older age at marriage than 15 as well. What Lorran says seems pretty logical : it made no sense to get married at menarche, only to die in childbirth. So many people died young, that you wouldn't risk the life of the ones who had survived, in letting them reproduce too early.
I'd be quite happy, of course, to know if your family doesn't conform to my assumptions, for earlier periods (19th century and before) ; but then I'd like to know on which soil that happened. Is rural America an exception ? Is France an exception ? Is it more of an Anglo-Saxon vs Latin countries difference ?
Today, there is no epidemics of teenage pregnancies in France like there is in England or in America. Can't explain why. We have a lot of sex ed, like England, unlike America, but no visible teenage pregnancies at 13-15. There are some very discreet abortions each year in high school (16-18), but I've never heard of one in junior high - though I work in education.
Getting married at 13-15 did happen to Muslim girls in the 50s, though. And the families who did that to their daughters were considered very backwards.
88
@75 and 76 It may sound paradoxal but it's true.
It's horrible to read the registers and see the ages of the deceased of the year : dozens of children (20 days - 5 months - 2 days - five years- 18 months etc.), two or three females from 20 to 30, and suddenly a lone 71 or 84.
We've come a long way.
It's horrible to read the registers and see the ages of the deceased of the year : dozens of children (20 days - 5 months - 2 days - five years- 18 months etc.), two or three females from 20 to 30, and suddenly a lone 71 or 84.
We've come a long way.
89
@88: Nothing paradoxical about it. If you and I and Bill Gates were in a room together, the average net worth would be something like $20 billion. The median net worth would be yours or mine, though. I think median lifespan would be a more useful measure of this.
90
@87: I think the powerful anti sex-education, abstinence-only forces are responsible for the youth-pregnancy problem in the US ... U.S. kids who hear only abstinence-only information tend not use birth control when they, inevitably, experiment with sex. I'm sure someone here could enlighten us about the climate in the UK.
I think this discussion has turned into cross-talk, though thankfully still civil. I'm more interested in age of menarche, and how it informs the discussion of a particular minor point in Hrdy's paper (Why would adult males find adolescent females attractive?) than I am in age of marriage ... especially recorded age of marriage, which I (along with others) am uneasy considering representative of the whole population.
Which is to say that I think we may both be right.
I think this discussion has turned into cross-talk, though thankfully still civil. I'm more interested in age of menarche, and how it informs the discussion of a particular minor point in Hrdy's paper (Why would adult males find adolescent females attractive?) than I am in age of marriage ... especially recorded age of marriage, which I (along with others) am uneasy considering representative of the whole population.
Which is to say that I think we may both be right.
91
Great article to read and love the commentary.
I'd be interested in looking average age of certain periods once children reached 5 or so. It seems as though the death of infants skewed the average age down significantly - and I think I read that recently. That our average age has gone up by a few years once we hit 50 - that the medical advantage in dealing with age and decline has not done as much for us as the medical treatment of pregnant women and in treating the very young. That kind of info may well inform this discussion.
One point I would suggest is that there is an inverse relationship between belief that young women can be sexually attractive with the age of women. That is - and I hypothesize - that once a woman turns 35, she can is increasingly less likely to understand how younger women can be sexually attractive. I think I find a few data points in these comments to support that model.
I'd be interested in looking average age of certain periods once children reached 5 or so. It seems as though the death of infants skewed the average age down significantly - and I think I read that recently. That our average age has gone up by a few years once we hit 50 - that the medical advantage in dealing with age and decline has not done as much for us as the medical treatment of pregnant women and in treating the very young. That kind of info may well inform this discussion.
One point I would suggest is that there is an inverse relationship between belief that young women can be sexually attractive with the age of women. That is - and I hypothesize - that once a woman turns 35, she can is increasingly less likely to understand how younger women can be sexually attractive. I think I find a few data points in these comments to support that model.
92
If you ARE going to make inter-species comparisons, it might be worth noticing basic differences in the biology of the species you are comparing.
This study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles… - points out that chimpanzees do not experience menopause. In other words, a 50 year old female chimp is no less likely to get pregnant and have children than a 25 year old female chimp.
That one simple fact is sufficient to account for the universal human male preference for younger females, and for the absence of this preference in male chimps.
If you ARE going to make inter-species comparisons, it might be worth noticing basic differences in the biology of the species you are comparing.
This study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles… - points out that chimpanzees do not experience menopause. In other words, a 50 year old female chimp is no less likely to get pregnant and have children than a 25 year old female chimp.
That one simple fact is sufficient to account for the universal human male preference for younger females, and for the absence of this preference in male chimps.
93
@87 "Is rural America an exception ?"
Quite possibly. It was relatively easy to get new farmland in 19th C America compared to Europe. A new farm = income to support a new family.
@73 "I myself never understood how adult men, in their 40s, could really be attracted to teenage women, outside of it being a cultural artifact... Surely I'm not a male, but can the male human brain be that different than the female one ?"
Why not? Sexual desire is instinctive, not intellectual. It's evolved to result in reproduction. There's a pretty obvious evolutionary advantage for genes that cause the men who have them to want to have sex with 18 year olds, given the opportunity and regardless of their own age, over genes that cause the men with them to pass up 18 year olds just because they themselves are in their 40's. There's no such evolutionary advantage for women in their 40's to desire men in their teens.
Beyond that, a lot of our assumptions are different. For example, you talk of having no patience for teaching men in their early twenties how to have great sex, while I wouldn't expect a woman in her 30's or 40's to be any better at sex than a woman in her 20's. (I care much more how enthusiastic a woman is than any particular skills she may have. And, seriously, try finding a man who would perceive "teaching a young woman to have great sex" to be a burden!)
@92 Exactly!
Quite possibly. It was relatively easy to get new farmland in 19th C America compared to Europe. A new farm = income to support a new family.
@73 "I myself never understood how adult men, in their 40s, could really be attracted to teenage women, outside of it being a cultural artifact... Surely I'm not a male, but can the male human brain be that different than the female one ?"
Why not? Sexual desire is instinctive, not intellectual. It's evolved to result in reproduction. There's a pretty obvious evolutionary advantage for genes that cause the men who have them to want to have sex with 18 year olds, given the opportunity and regardless of their own age, over genes that cause the men with them to pass up 18 year olds just because they themselves are in their 40's. There's no such evolutionary advantage for women in their 40's to desire men in their teens.
Beyond that, a lot of our assumptions are different. For example, you talk of having no patience for teaching men in their early twenties how to have great sex, while I wouldn't expect a woman in her 30's or 40's to be any better at sex than a woman in her 20's. (I care much more how enthusiastic a woman is than any particular skills she may have. And, seriously, try finding a man who would perceive "teaching a young woman to have great sex" to be a burden!)
@92 Exactly!
94
@85, etc.: When I was in my 20s, I had an affair with a woman in her 50s (who was in a monogamish relationship, btw). I found her attractive. I also found women my own age attractive. I also found 18-year-olds attractive. Now I am in my 40s, and I still find women of those ages attractive.
My wife and I have our get-out-of-jail cards with lists of celebrities we can be forgiven for sleeping with in the impossible event that we have the opportunity. Helen Mirren is on mine, along with Penelope Cruz and Cate Blanchett ( I think both in their 40s). I think the youngest on my list is probably Scarlett Johansen, when she's on the list. But, you know, the list is an organic thing of undefined length and ever-changing contents.
Interestingly, Javier Bardem (Cruz's husband) is on my wife's list. If we could just work that out somehow ...
My wife and I have our get-out-of-jail cards with lists of celebrities we can be forgiven for sleeping with in the impossible event that we have the opportunity. Helen Mirren is on mine, along with Penelope Cruz and Cate Blanchett ( I think both in their 40s). I think the youngest on my list is probably Scarlett Johansen, when she's on the list. But, you know, the list is an organic thing of undefined length and ever-changing contents.
Interestingly, Javier Bardem (Cruz's husband) is on my wife's list. If we could just work that out somehow ...
95
@93 Old Crow,
I disagree about the probability of older women being better in bed compared to a woman in her 20s, in my experience practice most definitely makes perfect.
Peace.
I disagree about the probability of older women being better in bed compared to a woman in her 20s, in my experience practice most definitely makes perfect.
Peace.
96
I think these are the reason:
@Charles/Hrdy/whover: male preferences for neotenous traits might be due to juveniles being easier to dominate.
@61 I think the main reason I desire young women is because there is a much greater likelihood they'll put up with my bullshit.
@83 Heh, I suspect part of the reason younger guys don't go for older women is because they're intimidated.
My own experience with my ex, who was 16 years my senior, was that I was all kinds of cool and sexy in his eyes while I was young and in college, and he had a job and was the Authority On All Things (tm). When I graduated and got a job paying three times his salary, things between us went down the drain in a rapid spiral. We remained married for the next 8 years, bouncing in and out of marriage counseling and struggling to make it work, but the essence of the problem seemed to be that I wasn't naive and helpless and he wasn't the unquestionable authority figure he'd once been. A relationship between equals was of no interest to him. I think that's the case for many men.
Whether cultural or biological I really can't say.
@Charles/Hrdy/whover: male preferences for neotenous traits might be due to juveniles being easier to dominate.
@61 I think the main reason I desire young women is because there is a much greater likelihood they'll put up with my bullshit.
@83 Heh, I suspect part of the reason younger guys don't go for older women is because they're intimidated.
My own experience with my ex, who was 16 years my senior, was that I was all kinds of cool and sexy in his eyes while I was young and in college, and he had a job and was the Authority On All Things (tm). When I graduated and got a job paying three times his salary, things between us went down the drain in a rapid spiral. We remained married for the next 8 years, bouncing in and out of marriage counseling and struggling to make it work, but the essence of the problem seemed to be that I wasn't naive and helpless and he wasn't the unquestionable authority figure he'd once been. A relationship between equals was of no interest to him. I think that's the case for many men.
Whether cultural or biological I really can't say.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (96) RSS