|
|
| Author |
Message |
phenix
|
|
age, or WTF?
| 
Nov 9 20:50 UTC 2001 |
why do men love younger women?
why is highschool or "barely legal" such a big label?
whazup with that?
|
| 46 responses total. |
phenix
|
|
response 1 of 46:
|
Nov 9 20:56 UTC 2001 |
my thoughts to this:
note that i'm mostly pretty cynical at this point
1) they're young and stupid: no relationship experince + unrealistic
expectations = exploitible gf 2) relates to #1, they havn't had the guy who
belives in #1 whoelheartedly and therefore are not emotionaly or physically
scared 3) hey, let's face it, only young girls constantly pressured by society
can look like that. 4) remeber inexperinced? yha, swings the other way too, no
bad experinces, so more of an open mind 5) did i mention open minded? 6)
horribly craving of attention, so massive flirts anyway, that's my take what's
yours?
|
brighn
|
|
response 2 of 46:
|
Nov 9 21:59 UTC 2001 |
Male humans are wired to seek out females most likely to have a long and
productive child-bearing.
Female humans are wired to seek out males most likely to be able to support
their offspring.
I believe that would be the sociological analysis.
|
i
|
|
response 3 of 46:
|
Nov 9 23:38 UTC 2001 |
No, females are at least as interested in a male's genetic quality, since
they're investing sooo much in the kid(s) who've got half his genes. So
a quickie with a successful (hopefully your kids will be too), handsome
(good immunity to the many disfiguring diseases common in most primitive
situation) male who's just passing through (forget the limited & somewhat
inbred gene pool of you little tribe) can be a really smart move.
|
senna
|
|
response 4 of 46:
|
Nov 12 03:20 UTC 2001 |
Greg, have you been trolling at N'Sync concerts again?
In other news, I think there might be status issues involved.
|
phenix
|
|
response 5 of 46:
|
Nov 12 18:07 UTC 2001 |
n'sync? nah, brittney spears:)
|
vidar
|
|
response 6 of 46:
|
Nov 12 20:55 UTC 2001 |
<runs away screaming in horror>
|
phenix
|
|
response 7 of 46:
|
Nov 12 21:24 UTC 2001 |
huzah, we have found an icon so unholy it repells vidar
|
chaostic
|
|
response 8 of 46:
|
Nov 14 23:11 UTC 2001 |
It's because socity is so closed minded that any change in
the "normal" is a act of war to them.
Kids having sex? Get them!!!
Smoking Weed? Get Them!!!
Same Sex Marragies? Get Them!!!
And the pattern will continue until people accept change.
P.S. Brittney Spears and All Boy Bands Should be shoot
exicutioner Style!!!
|
vidar
|
|
response 9 of 46:
|
Nov 15 03:24 UTC 2001 |
I find it strange that people are so resistant to change. It's the one
thing that's actually constant in existence.
|
lelande
|
|
response 10 of 46:
|
Nov 15 20:06 UTC 2001 |
that was really profound. may i lick your asshole?
i don't disagree with the ethological points of view presented here (except
maybe to point out that it isn't in the best interest of a female to get
impregnated by a handsome drifter if she doesn't have a supportive family or
community to fall back on, and i bet dollars to donuts there's genetically
encoded support for that . . . to help explain why so many gals without
support get themselves knocked up by a drifter, i cite the basketball coach
from the novel version of 'the last picture show': "find 'em, fool 'em, fuck
'em, forget 'em."
now, as someone with a lot of experience fucking much younger girls, i believe
the phenomenon asked about in #0 often has a lot to do with fear and
apprehension on the male's part -- at the risk of being trivial. plenty of
different things can lead up to this fear/apprehension in a male's life; i'll
suggest not inarguably that it is a fear of revealing one's own emotions in
a situation where one doesn't feel a sense of control, as would be the case
for such a male in the presence of a peer or elder female -- or maybe it would
be better to generalize to females that he regards as equals, or superiors.
sometimes, however, it's just great fun to cum on a little girl's tits.
|
phenix
|
|
response 11 of 46:
|
Nov 15 20:44 UTC 2001 |
little girl?
why do i get the distinct impression were not talking an SSC encounter here.
|
lelande
|
|
response 12 of 46:
|
Nov 15 20:47 UTC 2001 |
what's SSC?
|
brighn
|
|
response 13 of 46:
|
Nov 15 22:16 UTC 2001 |
*S*afe und
*S*ane und
*C*onsensual
Presumably it's the C that Greggers is doubtifying.
|
phenix
|
|
response 14 of 46:
|
Nov 15 23:54 UTC 2001 |
ohh, yes, brighn is so keen
|
brighn
|
|
response 15 of 46:
|
Nov 16 05:24 UTC 2001 |
aw, sweetie, I didn't think you'd noticed
|
i
|
|
response 16 of 46:
|
Nov 17 01:06 UTC 2001 |
Re: #10
I'd say that human females have, for evolutionary purposes, virtually
always had a support network when they've elected to have a quickie with
a passing stranger. If her group is fairly inbred/isolated, then even a
risky & poorly supported pregnancy is "worth it" to the female who taps
into the unrelated genes.
|
vidar
|
|
response 17 of 46:
|
Nov 17 21:51 UTC 2001 |
Response # 9 was not in the least bit profound.
|
lelande
|
|
response 18 of 46:
|
Nov 17 23:35 UTC 2001 |
16
i like the point you make.
but does it leave room for the possibility of a female seduced despite the
alarm of her 'instinct'?
|
i
|
|
response 19 of 46:
|
Nov 18 01:43 UTC 2001 |
Re: #18
I'm not sure what situation alarming to her instinct you're referring to.
Certainly many females pick Mr. Wrong's genes over Mr. Right's genes. A
few factors worth noting here:
- Females aren't cloned from some perfect model with perfect sexual
preference instincts. Every one is a unique (ignoring identical
twins) genetic experiment with different instincts. Sexual
reproduction rolls the dice a *lot*, then relies on natural
selection to amplify the few really good die rolls.
- Being too picky is, overall, not a trait that's selected for. Having
some so-so kids fathered by so-so males passes on ones genes. Not
having kids because ones standards for "Mr. Right" were too high
does not pass on any genes.
- Sexual selection is a double 2-way genetic arms race. Selective
females means that males are being selected both for the ability
to favorably impress females (and it's evolutionarily cheaper to
fake being Mr. Right than to really be him) and for the ability to
select the right females to try to impress (failure at *any*
stage, from fertilizing her egg to live birth to survival of the
child to reproductive age is total genetic failure).
|
lelande
|
|
response 20 of 46:
|
Nov 18 23:53 UTC 2001 |
i see now. the mistake i was making was thinking that poor environmental
supports for pregnancy and child-raising would somewhat suppress the drive
to reproduce in the event of an outsider mate.
|
senna
|
|
response 21 of 46:
|
Nov 19 04:55 UTC 2001 |
I would think that it's obvious. People aren't rational, particularly not
about "reproductive drive." That's why it's a drive.
|
i
|
|
response 22 of 46:
|
Nov 19 06:03 UTC 2001 |
A female who's seriously hungry gets more interested in food & eating (and
less interested in everything else, including sex). A female who's starved
down to very low body fat becomes infertile. Beyond that, i'm not aware of
of any don't-get-pregnant-when-prenatal-nutrition-seems-doubtful *drive* (an
intelligent choice is another matter). There is a female drive to have kids
by a male with greater wealth/power (better able to provide for mother &
child); i'd guess that the interlock with the stranger drive (realizing that
his wealth/power are worthless, since he's only passing through) isn't even
remotely reliable.
|
kewy
|
|
response 23 of 46:
|
Nov 24 15:52 UTC 2001 |
female drive to have kids? Where did you get that one from?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 24 of 46:
|
Nov 24 21:30 UTC 2001 |
C'mon, you know that a woman isn't truly fulfilled until she has a baby!
<rather than pointing out I'm being sarcastic, I'll simply note that those
comments prior to yours were from men>
|