FIND MY POST HERE ON TEENAGE PREGNANCY (HERE, I'LL FIND IT FOR YOU "For Just About All Of Human Evolutionary History Females Have Been Getting Pregnant Almost As Soon As They've Reached Menarche, Which At That Time Was Around Age 14-16). It Was Only With The Advent Of European Christian Culture, Specifically During The Victorian Era, That Teen Pregnancy Became Looked Down Upon And Frowned Upon"). FOR NEARLY ALL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION MALES HAVE BEEN HAVING SEX AND REPRODUCING WITH FEMALES AS SOON AS THEY'VE REACHED MENARCHE (TYPICALLY ANYWHERE FROM AGES 14-16 IN OUR EVOLUTIONARY PAST). IT IS ONLY WITHIN THE PAST 100 YEARS OR SO, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ADVENT OF STATUTORY RAPE LAWS, THAT THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN ON THE DECLINE. THE DESIRE TO ENGAGE IN THIS BEHAVIOR (THE GENES THAT IMPEL US TO DICTATE THE REPRODUCTIVE LIVES OF FEMALES AND HAVE SEX WITH FERTILE FEMALES) IS STILL WITH US THOUGH. SO MALE-FEMALE RELATIONSHIPS IN WHICH THE FEMALE IS IN HER TEENS AND THE MALE IS MUCH OLDER SHOULDN'T COME AS A SURPRISE.
Thuh Thuh Thuh Thuh Thirteen! He Was Only Thirteen! This Is Rare, Though, Because This Case Involves An Older Female With A Teenage Boy. It's Typically The Other Way Around, In Which An Older Male Develops A Sexual Relationship With A Teenage Girl And It's This Way For Evolutionary Reasons. What Are Those Evolutionary Reasons? This: Females Are Fertile For A Shorter Period Of Their Life. Their Reproductive Lifespan Only Lasts From About Their Early Teens To Their Late 40s, So Males Try To Take Advantage Of These Fertile Years As Early As They Can, By Developing Relationships With Females Once They Reach Menarche. Hence You See A Preponderance Of Older Male With Under-Aged Girl Court Cases As Opposed To The Opposite!
And A Lovely Family So Many Years Later!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Report-Teacher-accused-of-sex-with-teen-student-7956887.php
Natalie Thiem Mozaryn, Is That You?!
https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/middle-school-teacher-arrested-sexual-132511826.html
Thuh Thuh Thuh Thuh Thirteen! He Was Only Thirteen!
http://www.ocweekly.com/news/how-did-a-fullerton-junior-high-teacher-abuse-boys-for-years-without-administrators-finding-out-7935181
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/03/03/fullerton-school-district-agrees-to-45-million-settlement-in-sex-molestation-lawsuits-involving-teacher/
https://thegoldwater.com/news/8964-Pedophile-California-Music-Teacher-gives-Students-Flutes-Covered-in-his-Own-Semen
"From The Skin Flute To The Real Flute" - Doug Flutie
when you 25 dating a 17 year old 
Pedophilia is associated with structural brain abnormalities and symptoms of neurodevelopmental disorders. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111
Pedophilia is now seen as a biological disorder with prenatal origins, and not as the repetition compulsion of an "abused abuser." sciencedirect.com/science/articl
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26703478?dopt=Abstract
7 ALL PREDATORS GO TO HEAVEN!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeJxkwrUwAA
The Pedophile Brain
In a study of women's facial features, Doug Jones measured various facial proportions, combined them into a single composite index and then correlated this index against age to produce a shape-for-age relationship. He then used this to predict the facial shape that an average woman of a given age would be expected to have. Comparing this predicted shape to a woman's actual shape gave a simple index of relative neoteny. When the faces were rated for attractiveness by subjects from five different cultural groups, he found that the ratings of female attractiveness increased as the difference between their predicted and actual ages increased: women whose predicted age was less than their actual age were considered more attractive. He then went on to do an analysis of the faces of magazine models. Compared against a standard shape-for-age graph, these women had faces that were the equivalent of a seven-year-old's. Their faces were exaggeratedly neotenised. In effect, facial neoteny appears to be a supernormal cue of youth the result of males choosing younger and younger-looking faces. Half hidden beneath this would seem to be a rather disturbing, if sad, explanation for paedophilia.(The Science Of Love)
In women, it is large pupils and widely spaced eyes, high cheekbones, a small chin and upper lip and a generous mouth that most men find attractive. Many of these female traits are characteristic of children and could signal youth and hence higher fertility.
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/10/pedophiles-are-long-term-maters.html
https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/pedophilia-viewed-in-terms-of-evolutionary-psychology.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-animal-connection/201111/why-do-rape-and-pedophilia-exist
"I Ain't Never Seen A 70 Year Old Hoe Witta 18 Year Old Pimp, But I Seen A 70 Year Old Pimp Witta 18 Year Old Hoe!" - Pomona Pimpin' Young (Silky Slim)
The Pedophile Brain
Christopher Ryan Have you ever felt sexually attracted to children, but not acted on it? This anonymous research may help others. http://ow.ly/agzz301kamb
Mysteries of the Mind: The Pedophile's Brain (HD)
In a study of women's facial features, Doug Jones measured various facial proportions, combined them into a single composite index and then correlated this index against age to produce a shape-for-age relationship. He then used this to predict the facial shape that an average woman of a given age would be expected to have. Comparing this predicted shape to a woman's actual shape gave a simple index of relative neoteny. When the faces were rated for attractiveness by subjects from five different cultural groups, he found that the ratings of female attractiveness increased as the difference between their predicted and actual ages increased: women whose predicted age was less than their actual age were considered more attractive. He then went on to do an analysis of the faces of magazine models. Compared against a standard shape-for-age graph, these women had faces that were the equivalent of a seven-year-old's. Their faces were exaggeratedly neotenised. In effect, facial neoteny appears to be a supernormal cue of youth the result of males choosing younger and younger-looking faces. Half hidden beneath this would seem to be a rather disturbing, if sad, explanation for paedophilia.(The Science Of Love)
There are at least two separate reasons why large eyes are part of ideal female beauty. First, as briefly mentioned in a previous post, large eyes (along with fuller lips, large foreheads, and smaller chins) are indicators of high levels of estrogen. And women who have higher levels of estrogen have easier time conceiving than women who have lower levels of estrogen. Women with larger eyes therefore on average make better mates than women with smaller eyes.
The second reason is that large eyes are a neotenous feature (characteristic of children and babies). Because human eyes do not grow in size during development as much as the rest of the face and the head does, the size of the eye relative to the face decreases as we grow. As we all know, babies (and infants of other mammalian species) have relatively large eyes compared to older children and adults. And, as a result, people (both men and women) who have large eyes are often perceived to be younger than they really are. (How old do you estimate the woman in this picture is, for example?) Because, as I explain in a previous post, men prefer younger women, they tend to prefer women with neotenous features, such as large eyes. That is another reason large eyes (typical of babies and children) are part of ideal female beauty.
Now you may balk at this explanation for the appeal of women with large eyes to men. You may (correctly) point out that men are not trying to mate with babies and small children; that would be highly maladaptive because they are not fecund. So, you may ask, why do men prefer women who, in essence, look like babies?
...
Probably the same process occurs with men’s preference for women with neotenous features. Because men prefer to mate with younger women, women come to possess more and more neotenous features, which make them look not only nubile and pubescent but eventually prepubescent, childlike and even infantlike. Men’s preference for blonde hair may have gone through a similar runaway selection. As PT Senior Editor Carlin Flora has pointed out to me before, many young blond children cease to be blond and their hair turns dark long before they reach puberty (as Carlin's did). So by preferring to mate with women with light blonde hair, men are often (maladaptively) attracted to prepubescent children. Their preference for women with large eyes may similarly be maladaptive. But men’s preference for women with neotenous features, and women’s possession of such features, may nonetheless have evolved via runaway selection.
This trend is explained in part by rich folk reverting to forager ways, in particular to more sexual promiscuity. From Evolutionary Biology of Human Female Sexuality:
Adolescent females with exaggerated [fertility] ornaments in nonhuman primates exhibit and elicit from males relatively little sexual interest. Human adolescent females appear to differ in these respects. This difference is likely another manifestation of the profound implications of long-term pair bonding in humans. Human female lifetime reproductive success has historically been influenced by [their] ability to attract male attention during adolescence. Men’s sexual interest in adolescent females reflects the fact that, typically, their reproductive success achieved through pair bonds was not maximized by attending solely to cues of current fertility but also to cues of [future] reproductive ability. [p.124]
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-animal-connection/201111/why-do-rape-and-pedophilia-exist
Rolf Degen
Pedophilic offenders were somewhat shorter than other sexual offenders. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01639625.2016.1254986 …
As men grow older, the age-range of their considered sexual partners widens, while women continue to prefer slightly older men. https://psyarxiv.com/hxstc/
Those of you familiar with human genealogical records may realize and understand that 11,12 or 13 year-old brides were quite common a few hundred years ago. Ironically, the legal “age of consent” in most U.S. states has progressively increased as the age of sexual maturity has declined. The age of maturity of girls (age of menarche) has decreased to a world wide average of ~11+ years today from an average of ~16 years or more 100 years ago. During the last 50 years, the legal age of consent in the U.S. has increased in many states from an age of 14 or 16 up to 18 and in at least one state the age of consent is 21. One has to wonder about the Constitutionality of a law allowing state control of citizens who have been old enough to vote for 3 years. (The same issue also applies to voting and drinking age statutes.) No better evidence of social activism and the unholy mixture of religion and politics can be found. This appears to be based upon social and political ideologies bringing together the fringes of the American political spectrum from the extremely liberal left wing of the women’s movement to the extreme right wing of the religious conservatives into common purpose for completely different and opposite reasons. This is not the only instance where these two groups who allegedly hate each other are pulling in the same direction! The possible mechanisms causing the relatively sudden decline in the age of menarche of girls after hundreds of years of stability is intriguing. The best bet for this change is artificial lighting and radiation from various technological sources ranging from cathode ray tubes of old fashioned televisions and computers. It should be observed that a large percentage of the world’s population lives in huge megacities whose skies are never dark. Although human brains are not quite as subject to optical radiation as birds, the optically sensitive pineal gland of both birds and humans responds to increasing optical radiation by the secretion of hormones directly affecting the release of sexual hormones (LH and FSH) of the pituitary. The process of increasing length of day and increasing radiation activates sexual behavior in birds. The same mechanism may operate in developing human brains resulting in an earlier increase in sexual hormone output from the pituitary. This phenomenon probably accounts for the tradition of spring as a season of romance and June as a month for weddings. The human pineal gland receives innervation from the optical tract via the superior colliculus of the thalamus. Before electric lighting, human births in the high latitudes, i.e., Scandinavia and Russia, etc. were very much a function of early spring. This would seem to suggest that although sexual receptivity was and remains an omnipresent behavior in northerners as it is in all humans, preindustrial northerners were highly fertile (ovulating females and males with high sperm counts) only in the early and mid-summer.
Clearly, human sexual function is much more complex than usually believed. It is important to understand that the importance of sex to human society far exceeds the need for reproduction. As a consequence of the unique evolutionary requirements of our species, reproduction could be considered a side effect of more important social behaviors—cooperation and group cohesion—intimately associated with human sexuality. This is, I know, a rather revolutionary idea but I would suggest that there is a lot of evidence for this point of view. It is now apparent that some distinctive human physiological characteristics of hormonal release patterns have evolved on the basis of high rates of sexual activity. Human societies were undoubtedly predicated upon extensive sexual relationships from our earliest ancestors up to the present time. It would be an understatement to suggest that the settled societies of the Neolithic brought massive and negative change to patterns of human behavior that began millions of years before. This normal and innate behavior has to be genetic.
In relation to the above remarks, we should note that sexually active hormones as well as sexual behaviors are a fact of human development from birth to death in humans. There is no specific age when sexual hormones and sexual behavior are suddenly apparent in humans of either sex. These hormones are present from birth and steadily increase in concentration and release parameters throughout early childhood up to full sexual maturity at about 14 for girls and 16 for boys. The current radical movement of gender neutrality has its origins in egalitarian socialism/Marxism rather than biology as it implies that humans gain gender identity from environmental influences. Nothing could be further from biological reality and closer to lunacy. Little girls act like little girls from birth as anyone who has ever raised a daughter knows only too well. It is probable that early exposure to sexual contact may accelerate the maturation of both sexes. Primitive as well as a few non-Christian societies make little to no effort to hide nudity or sexual contacts from children. Look up videos on you tube of Xingu Indians from the Amazon Basin. You will need to go through an age filter, but it is worth the effort. These Indians are completely naked except for beaded belts and various feathered head ornaments. They are also extremely uniform and attractive people. Their intra-tribal uniformity and inter-tribal differences suggest very close inbreeding for many generations. These people are certainly exposed to sexual contacts and behavior throughout their lives on what must be a daily basis. Young people in primitive societies may have matured earlier than at any time until the present. The intervention of strict religious condemnations of human sexual behavior may have sufficed to shield children from the sort of sexual exposure that is so common today in movies and television. The age of human sexual maturity may simply be returning to an age that is natural and normal for the species rather than declining as a consequence of environmental influences. Most of the alleged “damage” to children today as a consequence of sexual exposure may arise from the repressive social, religious and legal reactions to sex than from actual sexual exposure. Extreme measures calling attention to sexual behavior creates strong negative conditioning in the very children alleged to be victims by making them real victims of a repressive society. (This is similar to the delusion that divorce courts promote happiness.) Children in primitive, sexually open societies seem quite unaffected by either nudity or sexual exposure. This may be restated to imply that children are not negatively affected by exposure to normal human behavior sexual or otherwise. Stated differently, psychological damage to children in modern contemporary societies is produced by the very people pretending to “protect” children.
Certainly both sexes continue to grow and develop beyond sexual maturity, but from the standpoint of sexual and social behavior humans of that age (14 and 16) are mature. It is essentially preposterous to call sexually mature teenagers children. If they possess the biological capacity of reproduction, they are biologically adults. The comment that people of this age are “not emotionally mature” has no more realistic basis than some suggestion that they aren’t religious or rich enough for parenthood. What is emotionally mature? Can this term be defined without cultural clichés? This question is as valid today as it would have been 400,000 years ago. The idea of attaching sexual maturity or behavior to a certain age in humans has little basis in actual physiology and certainly human natural history. Our innate and normal sexual behavior may be more like Bonobo chimpanzees and their omnipresent and indiscriminant sexual activity regardless of age than we might readily admit. I suspect that this ancient behavioral connection is understood subliminally but heavily suppressed by most contemporary societies through law and religion. Living organisms especially humans are not easily reducible to a “one size fits all” paradigm. Very few 12 year-old girls are actually children in the 21st Century in either their behavior or physiology. There are many problems in the legislation of human behavior. Such efforts rarely ever work except to create human misery. It is a regular occurrence today to read the news about a boy of 18 or 19 prosecuted in criminal court for having sex with his girlfriend of age 14 or 15. From the standpoint of contemporary American culture and the law invented by that culture, he is an adult while she is a child. Nonsense! It is ludicrous because they are developmentally the same age and would have exactly the same behavior ten years into the future.
The suggestion that humans of this age are biologically mature does not imply that it is desirable for them to reproduce. Today, most teen pregnancies and subsequent births involve single, often poor, uneducated girls with little hope for the future other than the intervention of the state or their families. These babies, their mothers, the father, and their families often suffer in modern cultures. In the time of Homo erectus, pregnancy and new babies would have been celebrated irrespective of the age of the mother. The instinctual behavior leading to the pregnancy remains just as it was 500,000 years ago, but the cultural environment has changed. Today, however, there is little reason for any unwanted pregnancy to occur regardless of the age of the mother. Many very effective birth control pills, condoms, the “morning after pill” plus the general availability of RU486 as well as abortion are easily available to all women regardless of age as they should be.
In relation to this, it should be noted that today there are groups of people in the West who would like to believe that male or female sexual behavior is completely learned with absolutely no genetic behavior directing such activity. These people with few exceptions appear to be devoted egalitarians and socialists or devout Christians believing that all behavior is learned through environmental influences secular or religious and that humans are born as a “blank slate”. Or in the paraphrased words of Lenin, “a blank slate upon which the state writes.” This is, of course, complete and dangerous nonsense but it does illustrate the capacity of the human mind to invent and to believe concepts that are not just nutty but personally and socially destructive. More than anything, these concepts are grounded in a basic denial of the animal nature of humans and with that, a denial of reality. If sanity is defined as the ability to distinguish fact from fantasy or real from the imaginary; then, the advocates of such ideas are not only delusional, they are mentally ill. We all pay the price when such myopic and dogmatic people run for and gain public office. This definition probably fits all fanatics whose entire intellectual reality is based upon imaginary gods and demons.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201409/when-statistics-are-seriously-sexy
Scroll Down The Article Until You Reach This Graph And Then Begin Reading (That's The Best Part Of The Article)!
The first researchers who analyzed these singles’ ads observed something that, at first blush, seemed obvious and uninteresting: The average young man advertised for a woman who was, on average, one or two years younger than himself, and the average young woman advertised for a guy who was a year or two older than herself. That average age difference was frequently attributed to something about the “norms of American society” which (as the story went) stipulated that a woman “should be” younger, shorter, and less educated, so that she could “look up to” her male partner.
We took another look at data from singles’ ads in the U.S., and compared them to actual marriages around the world, and found that, when one looked more carefully, the standard explanation didn’t quite work out. For one thing, young men are not especially attracted to younger women. In fact, teenage boys violate the supposed norm by being attracted to older, college-age, women (despite a full awareness that their interests were not reciprocated). For another, gray-haired men were not interested in women one or two years younger, but instead interested in women ten or twelve years younger. Why the complications? We speculated older men’s interest in younger women was linked to the fact that women go through menopauseand are no longer fertile, and conversely for fourteen-year-olds lack of interest in eleven and twelve-year-olds (who are not yet fertile). Figure 1 shows some of the results of our research.
Scroll Down The Article Until You Reach This Graph And Then Begin Reading (That's The Best Part Of The Article)!
The first researchers who analyzed these singles’ ads observed something that, at first blush, seemed obvious and uninteresting: The average young man advertised for a woman who was, on average, one or two years younger than himself, and the average young woman advertised for a guy who was a year or two older than herself. That average age difference was frequently attributed to something about the “norms of American society” which (as the story went) stipulated that a woman “should be” younger, shorter, and less educated, so that she could “look up to” her male partner.
We took another look at data from singles’ ads in the U.S., and compared them to actual marriages around the world, and found that, when one looked more carefully, the standard explanation didn’t quite work out. For one thing, young men are not especially attracted to younger women. In fact, teenage boys violate the supposed norm by being attracted to older, college-age, women (despite a full awareness that their interests were not reciprocated). For another, gray-haired men were not interested in women one or two years younger, but instead interested in women ten or twelve years younger. Why the complications? We speculated older men’s interest in younger women was linked to the fact that women go through menopauseand are no longer fertile, and conversely for fourteen-year-olds lack of interest in eleven and twelve-year-olds (who are not yet fertile). Figure 1 shows some of the results of our research.
But if men are, in theory, seeking a fertile partner, why don’t sixty-year-old men advertise for twenty-two-year old women?
There are several possible answers to that question. For one thing, mate choice is reciprocal, and maybe the average aging fellow realizes that those twenty-two year old women are not going to be interested in him, unless he has a lot of wealth to make up for the fact that he is not only less physically fit than the younger guys who are also courting her, but also less likely to live long enough to help her take care of her children. Both sexes might also guess that it is harder to establish a comfortable relationship when one partner has old-fashioned values and a collection of Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett records, whereas the other is a modern progressive who doesn’t know what a “record player” is, and only listens to digital recordings of Jay Z, Rihanna, and Kanye West. Another possibility is that older men’s taste in women matures as they do, so that a 60-year-old man actually prefers the appearance of a nicely dressed 45 or 50-year-old woman over that of some young girl with a nose-ring, a tattoo, and her hair dyed pink.
"KELLY WENT FROM NOTHIN' TO PLATINUM TO GETTIN' CAUGHT SMELLIN' LIL GIRLS' BICYCLE SEATS!" - MR. FREE
A hebephile...prefers pubescents between the ages of roughly eleven and fourteen...
A hebephile...prefers pubescents between the ages of roughly eleven and fourteen...
..under the guidelines of reproduction and biological dysfunction suggested by Wakefield, the people that most conservatives would erroneously refer to as "pedophiles" are, in fact, far more "normal" than homosexuals.
A girl who has just started menstruating isn't nearly as fertile as she'll be a few years later, and her reproductive anatomy is still very delicate. Furthermore, there's some anthropological evidence that women who have their first child before the age of fourteen bear fewer offspring overall than those who become mothers in their late teens or early twenties. So although young females are high in "reproductive value" (in terms of the total number of their fertile years remaining), this evolutionary logic may not extend all the way down to gangly pubescent girls. Furthermore, the females reproductive value is rather moot in this sense for a hebephile, given that, to use the modern example, he'd lose his attraction for the girl around the time she gets her braces off and grows out of her Justin Bieber fan T-shirts. Still, in the ancestral past, hebephilia may have represented an adaptive strategy under conditions where the risk of cuckoldry (unknowingly raising, and therefore investing one's resources in, another man's child) was especially high. After all, assuming she was at least reproductively able, the younger the girl was, the more likely she was to be a virgin, thus virtually guaranteeing that man's paternity if she became pregnant. Depending on the most pressing adaptive problem for a man living in the ancestral past, different reproductive strategies varied in their effectiveness. And under such conditions of high paternity uncertainty (perhaps combined with high rates of STIs, as well, since youthfulness would also correspond with less prior exposure to sexually communicable diseases), impregnating say, a dozen pubescent girls over the life span may have been a more adaptive strategy - at the heartless level of the man's gene replication motives only - than a monogamous man raising two children together with an adult woman. (Incidentally, if such an adaptive trait were heritable, it could help explain recent genetic findings showing that identical twins raised apart are far more likely to share a hebephilic orientation than are fraternal twins raised together.)
...
A sole attraction to pubescent girls is another thing altogether, perhaps, but in keeping with this amoral, mechanistsic reasoning, and given that most of a woman's eggs are gone by the time she reaches the ripe old age of thirty, the inability to be attracted to young females who display visible signs of reproductive capacity (such as breasts and widening hips) would be decidedly abnormal...In the ancestral past, a man aroused more by women in their thirties or forties than he was by those in their teens or twenties would have been at a distinct reproductive disadvantage. Regardless of monumental changes since the Pleistocene days in our understanding of teenage emotions, our appreciation of older women, and the extension of the average life span, it's these youth-detecting ancestral men's brains that modern men still come standard equipped with. Age is just a number, yes, but as that number rises, the amount of a woman's eggs declines. That's not a sexist or ageist statement; it's simply a plain biological fact. (Note also that lust and love are wholly different; what inspires a man's lust will never change, but his love will adapt to whatever nature can throw at it, which certainly includes something as insignificant to an otherwise happy and successful marriage as his wife's menopause.)
None of this is to say that men who find women of more "suitable" ages attractive aren't exhibiting a biologically adaptive response. So long as the woman is still showing signs of being fruitful (whether by a genuine ripeness or false advertising by botox), the capacity to become aroused by, say, those forty-something women popularly known as MILFs...is clearly biologically adaptive. It's just not as adaptive as being attracted primarily to younger women. As we saw in our discussion of parental investment theory, men have more than enough (and then some) spermatoza to spare, so even if there's only the remotest chance of impregnating an older female, the inability to be aroused by her could work against a man's genetic interest. (It's basically the same principle at work behind most men's capacity to be aroused by pubescent girls, only it's applied to the other far end of the female reproductive age spectrum.)
This evolutionary logic is also why gerontophilia is so uncommon. An attraction to the elderly is apparently so rare, in fact, that even Alfred Kinsey doesn't mention it in his otherwise exhaustive Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. (He included plenty of other deviant sexual behaviors, such as pedophilia and bestiality, so it's a revealing omission.) Any man whose erections are reserved for women over sixty, no matter how lovely, active, and intelligent those ladies may be, isn't much of a threat to other males in the genetic arms race (he'll have a great sex life, though, with not only less competition but the appreciation, experience, and accumulated wisdom of his erotic targets).
Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us. Bering p. 198-200.
- I prefer my men 30+
Cheyenne Depreé
A few years after I left Montana State, I gave a lecture about
interpersonal attraction to a singles' group in Phoenix, Arizona, and one
of the older women in the group asked me why it was that men in her age
group all seemed to be prowling around for "young chicks." The other
older women all chimed in with their agreement, and as evidence, they
handed me a pile of singles' newspapers. Many of the ads were written by
men who listed their own age as being in their forties or fifties but
who were seeking relationships with much younger women.
I
lugged the newspapers home and showed them to my longtime friend and
colleague Rich Keefe. Rich had been in graduate school with me at ASU,
where we had studied how to apply behavioral learning principles to
clinical psychology. Like me, Rich had come to believe that psychology
needed to be updated by evolutionary thinking. We began to look at the
ads to see if the women's complaints held up, and if so, to ask what
evolution could tell us about it.
Several social scientists had previously analyzed data from singles' advertisements and had noted that women, on average, sought men a few years older than themselves. This
was one of the few known exceptions to a social-psychological law
called the similarity-attraction principle - the general tendency for
people to desire friends and romantic partners who are carbon copies of
themselves. For example, liberal, Jewish, nonsmoking mountain-bikers
are usually seeking a partner with the same interests and attributes
rather than hoping to expand their horizons by dating conservative,
Baptist, chain-smoking Harley riders. Earlier researchers expected that
the same rule would hold for age preferences, that older men and women
should prefer older partners.
When they discovered that age preferences violated the similarity rule,
the researchers blamed American cultural norms for the discrepancy. For
instance, sociologist Harriet Presser suggested that there was a "norm"
that "a husband should be, or at least appear to be, mentally and
physically superior to his wife. Not only should he be taller than she
(for the appearance of superiority) but also older (which gives him the
advantage of more time to become better educated and more experienced)."
Along similar lines, psychologist Leticia Anne Peplau and sociologist
Steven Gordon put it this way: "American culture encourages sex-linked
asymmetries in the characteristics of dating and marriages" in which,
for example, "women are traditionally taught to seek a man who is
taller, older...more occupationally successful."
Around
the same period, Julie Connelly published an article in Forbes magazine
in which she used the term "trophy wives" to refer to attractive younger
women who were the second wives of older, powerful American executives.
When social scientists were called on to explain the phenomenon, they
ascribed it to something about modern American culture. One sociologist,
for example, attributed the trophy wife syndrome to cultural images in
the media, which depicted the ideal man as a successful businessman in
his late forties or fifties, and the ideal woman as an ingenue in her
twenties or early thirties.
Keefe and I seriously doubted that the older man-younger woman
phenomenon was really a product of American cultural norms or modern
media images. We thought instead that it could be explained in light of a
couple of universal biological differences between women and men.
First, women undergo menopause a complete cessation of fertility, during
their forties. Men do not. On the other hand, women are highly fertile
during their twenties, and the features men find attractive in women,
such as rounded hips, full breasts, and lustrous hair, are indirect cues
to that fertility. A strong innate bias for those fertility cues would
easily account for the older men's preference for younger women. On the
other side, we suspect that women are seeking men who could contribute
indirectly to their children by providing food, protection, and other
resources. To the extent that men continue to accumulate resources and
social status with age, women would be expected to prefer older men.
Our theory did more than just reexplain the existing findings, it had new and testable implications.
If we were right, and men were seeking fertility, then the preference
for younger women would be very strong only in older men, not in very
young men (because for men in their late teens and twenties, their age
mates are highly fertile). But to test our ideas, we had to look at age
preferences in a different way. Earlier researchers had simply clumped together advertisers of all ages and reported an average age discrepancy for each sex. We
instead separated the advertisers into age categories, and this
revealed a pattern more complex than men wanting slightly younger women
and women wanting slightly older men. Indeed, the pattern Keefe and I
discovered fundamentally contradicted the standard social science
explanations of why men and women act life they do.
Women's preferences were not the problem: Keefe and I found
that women were acting just as earlier researchers had described. Women
were looking for somewhat older men, and this general patterned
persisted throughout their lives. We were actually surprised to find
that the preference for slightly older men even persisted among women in
their sixties, when there are a lot few older men to choose from.
The men's preferences, however, shifted dramatically according
to the age of the guys. The youngest men, despite the supposed societal
expectation that they should look for younger women to dominate, were
instead interested in a range of women. A typical guy of twenty-five was
interested in women as young as twenty and as old as thirty. In a later
study, we found that teenage boys were most attracted to women slightly
older than themselves - college-age women. Teenage boys expressed this
preference even though they realized the older women were unlikely to
reciprocate their interest. But as men aged, this preference for
partners their own age progressively shifted to an interest in women
younger and younger than themselves. A typical forty-five-year-old guy
wanted nothing to do with women his own age; instead, his preferences
ran to women five to fifteen years younger. And men of fifty-five were
even more extreme in their desire for younger women. In this sample
from the late 1980s, men who came of age listening to Elvis Presley were
eying the girls on their way to U2 concerts, while women of the same
rockabilly generation were hoping to woo a codger from the Frank Sinatra
era.
As one critic suggested, the singles' ads might
represent nothing more than fantasy. Who cares what people say, the
argument went; whom do they actually pair up with? Maybe the president
of the Acme Widget Corporation can attract a younger woman, but the
average Joe down on the receiving dock can only dream. So Keefe and I collected a random sample of marriages from Phoenix, the
city from which I had gotten the first samples of singles' ads. In a
pattern exactly matched to the singles' ads, age discrepancies between
men and the women they married got bigger with the man's age. Younger
men married women near their own age, and a reasonable number of young men married women slightly older than themselves. Older men married women increasingly younger than themselves - just like the rich and powerful CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations.
Stated
simply, then, our findings suggested that people's apparent age
preferences are not ultimately about age at all. Because women
contribute their own bodily resources to the offspring, men are seeking
cues linked to fertility and health. Because men contribute indirect
resources to the offspring, women are seeking cues linked to the ability
to acquire those resources. Men's resource acquisition and women's
fertility are correlated with age, but age itself is not the driving
force.
To someone with any background in evolutionary biology at all, our explanation might sound self-evident. But at the time, most social scientists did not think much about a link between human courtship and reproduction. And
when we started talking about our findings in these evolutionary terms,
we were often met with derisive sneers and claims that our account was
obviously wrong, along with arguments that our findings could be
explained in terms of the "norms of American culture."
Of
course, there are norms in American society indicating that it is less
typical and appropriate for a woman to pair off with a younger man than
with an older man. But even if a behavior is consistent with a norm,
that is no proof that the norm caused it. Sometimes a norm is
prescriptive (Thou shalt not marry someone under the age of consent, for
example), sometimes a norm is simply descriptive (men fantasize about
sex more frequently than women do, but not necessarily because they were
told they had to do so).
It is easy to generate alternative explanations for almost any
phenomenon. The trick is finding evidence that reflects on those
opinions. In the remainder of this chapter, I will describe our search
for further evidence that could distinguish between the normative an
evolutionary explanations for sex differences in age preferences, as
well as a few surprises that we discovered along the way.
Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life. Kenrick, p. 62-67
I'm A Teenage Boy (A Young HeartthRob). Rob Lowe Teenager
As predicted by the cad-dad theory of human mating strategies, the women
preferred the proper heroes for long-term unions. When asked which
character they would like to see their future daughters choose, they
also selected proper heroes. But when asked who appealed to them most
for short-term affairs, the women turned to the dark heroes -- the
handsome, passionate and daring cads.
The younger male, on the other hand, is likely to have a higher sperm
count. He excites you more sexually, but as yet he cannot provide for
you or your future children. However, the "sexy son hypothesis"
states that sons born of sexy strangers will mature to become sexy men
themselves, thus providing granny with plenty of grandchildren.
What Reproductive Strategy Do You Employ? Are You r-Selective Or K-Selective? I'm r Pimp!
I CHANGED MY MIND PIMP. I'M K! I'M K PIMP!
I CHANGED MY MIND PIMP. I'M K! I'M K PIMP!
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fatherhood-mortality-20150804-story.html
First Time Father At 40 And Gonna Out Live You Sho T!
First Time Father At 40 And Gonna Out Live You Sho T!
James Thompson @JamesPsychol 6 hours ago
Lifelong criminals:faster life history,low impulse&emotional control,faster physical &sexual maturation,more offspring,less care for them
A BRIDGE VIRGIN
(ABRIDGED VERSION)
(ABRIDGED VERSION)
 |
| "Like Bunny Rabbits" - Rabbit "Rabid" Kekai! |
 |
| I Don't Plan On Getting Married Or Having One Mate That I'll Spend The Rest Of My Life With. Why? Because That Will Limit My Reproductive Success. You See, I Have Superior Genes And I Need To Replicate These Superior Genes. So The Best Way To Do This Is Have Many Children With Multiple Genetically Superior Mates. I'm r-Selected Pimp! |
I CHANGED MY MIND. I DON'T PLAN ON EMPLOYING THE r-Strategy ANY LONGER. I'M CONFUSED AND I'M GOING TO CHURCH, JOE!
 | ||
| http://theadvancedapes.com/the-end-of-biological-reproduction/ READ THE 1st COMMENT BY angrrybuddha AND THE RESPONSE BY theadvancedapes  A COON'S AGE PIMP! |
#LakeShow
@JayEye13
I really hate dancing with white girls, they dance like they're getting electrocuted LOL!
The Above Photo Is Of Sebastian Telfair's Son. Sebastian Is Thirty (3 0) And His Son, Ethan, Looks To Be About Twenty (2 0); Give Or Take A Few Years. So That Means Sebastian Had His First Son Around Age 10 (Give Or Take A Few Years). (Pretty Early Age To Have A Child Don't You Think? Well, Not For Poor, Blacks And Browns From The Inner City!) Now, If This Isn't A Prime Example Of The Fast Life History Pattern Endemic Among (Particular To) Blacks Who Grow Up In Impoverished, Crime And Disease Ridden, Urban Environments, I DON'T KNOW What Is (They Unconsciously Recognize That Life Is Going To Be Shorty, Nasty, And Brutish, So Their Mind Calibrates Their Body To Mature Earlier, Take More Chances, And Have Sex And Reproduce As Early And Often As They Can).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XIRss_3jKE
Here We Are - Life history theory with Sarah Hill.
PLEASE LISTEN FROM THE 4:32 MARK TO ABOUT THE 17:21 AND PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION AROUND FROM THE 6:30 MARK TO THE 14:52 MARK!
http://web.csulb.edu/~kmacd/HUMNAT3.PDFhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XIRss_3jKE
Here We Are - Life history theory with Sarah Hill.
PLEASE LISTEN FROM THE 4:32 MARK TO ABOUT THE 17:21 AND PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION AROUND FROM THE 6:30 MARK TO THE 14:52 MARK!
https://z139.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/rushton-2011-life-history-theory-and-race-differences-an-appreciation-of-richard-lynn_s.pdf
Niggers And Other Peoples Whose Ancestors Evolved In Subtropical Climates Lean More Towards The Chimpanzee Life-History.
It's a #dad world and a #God-Fearing world.
YEAH,
SURE, KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT MR. MOM. REPEAT IT TO YOURSELF
EVERYDAY AND NIGHT AND CONVINCE YOURSELF THAT THAT'S THE TRUTH. NOW GO CHANGE THAT
KIDS DIAPERS. PUT SOME PAMPERS ON THAT THANG.
Tiki Barber Did What Most Males Want To Do And Wish They Could Do. He Acted On His Genes For Sexual Promiscuity. All Males Are Genetically Wired To Seek Sexual Variety (Have Sex With A Variety Of Different Females). The Only Thing That Prevents Males From Employing This Mating Strategy Are Cultural And Social Mores (Adultery, Infidelity, Promiscuity, Etc. Are Looked Down Upon And Punishable By Law* In Some Societies). This Is Why Monogamy Is Contrary To Evolved Male Sexual Behavior And Strategy.
*Down By Law
Why Is Monogamy, To Some Extent, In Conflict With Male Mating Strategy? Because Males Evolved To Impregnate As Many Females As They Can. So They're Less Discriminant In Regard To Choosing A Mate And More Inclined To Promiscuity. Why Did Males Evolved To Impregnate As Many Females As They Can? Because They Suffer Fewer Reproductive Costs From Mating Than Females. Females, If Impregnated, Have To Endure 9 Months Of Pregnancy Whereas Males Can Inseminate A Female And Leave Her (Which Most Do).
This Difference In Reproductive Costs Ultimately Stems From The Difference Between Male And Female Reproductive Cells (Sperm And Eggs). Sperm Is Small And Easily Produced In Comparison To Eggs And A Male Can Produce A Limitless Amount Of Sperm During His Reproductive Years, Which Typically Begin Around Adolescence And Continue Until Death. Females, On The Other Hand, Have A Shorter Reproductive Lifespan (Ending At Menopause) And Produce A Limited Number Of Metabolically Costly Eggs During This Time. (A Few Precious, Valuable Eggs Versus A Countless Number Of Cheap Sperm.)
So The Selection Pressure Was On Females To Be More Discriminating In Regard To Who They Had Sex With And Males To Be Less Discriminating And More Promiscuous. By Being Choosy A Female Reduces The Chances Of Being Impregnated By A Genetically Inferior Male Or A Male That Won't Stick Around And Invest In She Or Her Offspring. By Being Sexually Indiscriminate A Male Increases The Chances Of He Fathering Many Children And Thus Having Great Reproductive Success.
As You Can See, These Two Strategies Are In Conflict With One Another. Females Are Looking For A Faithful Male That Will Invest In She And Her Offspring, But Males Aren't Evolved To Be Faithful. They're Evolved To Increase Their Reproductive Success By Having Sex With As Many Females As They Can. This Is Why Monogamy Is More Beneficial To Female Reproductive Goals And Why Lifelong Monogamy Is Unsustainable (The Conflict In Mating Strategies Creates Too Much Divergence Between The Sexes).
"Girl, This Shit Crazy."
"Girl, This Shit Don't Make No Cent."
It's Crazy And Doesn't Make Sense Because You're A Dumb Fuckin' BEANER Or NIGGER. You're So Fuckin' Dumb (How Dumb r They Nigga?), You're So Fuckin' You Don't Even Realize You Think (Reason) This Way. You Just Do It Instinctively, Automatically, And Unconsciously.
The quintessential female is an individual specialized for making eggs. The large size of the egg enables it to resist drying, to survive adverse periods by consuming stored yolk, to be moved to safety by the parent, and to divide at least a few times after the fertilization before needing to ingest nutrients from the outside. The male is defined as the manufacturer of the sperm, the little gamete. A sperm is a minimum cellular unit, stripped down to a head packed with DNA and powered by a tail containing just enough stored energy to carry the vehicle to the egg.
When the two gametes unite in fertilization they create an instant
mixture of genes surrounded by the durable housing of the egg. By
cooperating to create zygotes, the female and male make it more likely
that at least some of their offspring will survive in the event of a
changing environment. A fertilized egg differs from an asexually
reproducing cell in one fundamental respect: it contains a newly
assembled mixture of genes.
The anatomical
difference between the two kinds of sex cell is often extreme. In
particular, the human egg is eighty-five thousand times larger than the
human sperm. The consequences of this gametic dimorphism ramify
throughout the biology and psychology of the human sex. The most
important immediate result is that the female places a greater
investment in each of her sex cells. A woman can expect to produce only
about four hundred eggs in her lifetime. Of these a maximum of twenty
can be converted into healthy infants. The costs of ringing an infant to
term and caring for it afterward are relatively enormous. In contrast, a
man releases 100 million sperm with each ejaculation. Once he has
achieved fertilization his purely physical commitment has ended. His
genes will benefit equally with those of the female, but his investment
will be far less than hers unless she can induce him to contribute to
the care of the offspring. If a man were given total freedom to act, he
could theoretically inseminate thousands of women in his lifetime.
The
resulting conflict of interest between the sexes is property of not
only human beings but also the majority of animal species. Males are
characteristically aggressive, especially toward one another and most
intensely during the breeding season. In most species, assertiveness is
the most profitable male strategy. During the full period of time it
takes to bring a fetus to term, from the fertilization of the egg to
the birth of the infant, one male can fertilize many females but a
female can be fertilized by only one male. Thus if males are able to
court one female after another, some will be big winners and others will
be absolute losers, while virtually all healthy females will succeed in
being fertilized. It pays males to be aggressive, hasty, fickle, and
undiscriminating. In theory it is more profitable for females to be coy,
to hold back until they can identify males with the best genes. In
species that rear young, it is also important for the females to select
males who are more likely to stay with them after insemination.
...
We are, first of all, moderately polygynous, with males initiating most of the changes in sexual partnership. About three-fourths of all human societies permit the taking of multiple wives, and most of them encourage the practice by law and custom. In contrast, marriage to multiple husbands is sanctioned in less than one percent of societies. The remaining monogamous societies usually fit that category in a legal sense only, with concubinage and other extramarital strategems being added to allow de facto polygyny.
Because women are commonly treated by men as a limiting resource and hence as valued property, they are the beneficiaries of hypergamy, the practice of marrying upward in social position. Polygyny and hypergamy are essentially complementary strategies. In diverse cultures men pursue and acquire, while women are protected and bartered. Sons so wild oats and daughters risk being ruined. When sex is sold, men are usually the buyers. It is to be expected that prostitutes are the despised members of society; they have abandoned their valuable reproductive investment to strangers...
On Human Nature. E.O. Wilson, p. 124-126.
Why is it so hard for people to be faithful? I feel like there's no excuse. It's not hard to want and value one person...
READ 'EM AND WEEP PIMP. I'M CRYING W/N. CRYING WITH LAUGHTER!
http://www.ted.com/conversations/3015/have_conservative_values_and_b.html
Autopilot Pimp! Y'all Are On Autopilot Pimp! I'm Flyin' The Plane Pimpin'!
Could it be that there's a part of the brain that overrides a wide variety of evolved modules which produce "instinctive" behaviors, and that this part of the brain is more active in liberals than in conservatives? Could it be that the reason why conservatives are generally happier than liberals is because conservatives' lifestyles feature more of the things that humans evolved to enjoy
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13347382-the-intelligence-paradox
This Book Succinctly And Lucidly Explains How Intelligent People Are At Odds (In Conflict) With The Way Our Ancestral Environment Programmed Our Minds To Function. In Other Words, Highly Intelligent People Have More Intelligence Than Is Necessary To Survive And Reproduce And This Ultimately Hurts Them In Certain Aspects Of Life. In Short, Our Ancestors Evolved A Number Of Modules (Mental Adaptations) That Allowed Them To Instinctively And Automatically Solve The Evolutionarily Familiar Problems That They Experienced On A Daily Basis, Such As Mating, Parenting, Favoring Kin, And Developing And Maintaining Friendships. People With A High IQ, However, Have The Intellectual Capacity To Step Out Of The Constraints Placed On Them By This Evolutionary Programming, Override These Mental Adaptations, Look At Things From A Novel Perspective And Solve Evolutionarily Novel Problems (e.g. Just About All Of The Inventions And Conventions Of The Modern World), But This Comes At A Cost. Although The Highly Intelligent Are Better At Academics, Science, Technology, Etc. They Are Less Successful At The Things That Come Naturally Or Instinctively To The Less Intelligent (e.g. Reproduce, Parent, Develop And Maintain Relationships, Etc) Since Their Abstract Reasoning Interferes With These More Basic Processes. (I Tried To Explain This As Clearly And Thoroughly As I Could. Hopefully You Got It, But If Not Read This http://phys.org/news186236813.html And Then Buy The Book. It's Written For The Layman And I Recommend That I Lay All Of You Mens.)
http://www.halfsigma.com/2012/06/the-intelligence-paradox.html
Black And Brown Girls, Your Low IQ Leads You To Have A Million Children By Age 22. You Have Such Low Intelligence That You Basically Operate On Instinct (Eat, Sleep, Work, Shit*, Sex). You Literally Don't Think, You Just Do. AUTOPILOT PIMP
*Eat That Shitty Ass Rich Nigga!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/10/maternal-urges-higher-iq-study_n_3734240.html
https://twitter.com/DevyMari Devyn Lee (DevyMari), Low IQ Black And Brown Girls Like You Don't Have The Intellectual Capacity To Understand And Hold Perspectives, Values, Preferences, And A Lifestyle That Are Contrary To How The Human Mind Evolved. So You Just Blindly, Automatically, And Instinctively Look At Things, Prefer Things, Value Things, And Do Things That Are In Harmony With The Way Your Mental Adaptations Program You To Be. In Other Words, Devyn Lee (DevyMari), You, Like Most Low IQ Black And Brown Girls, Do What Comes Naturally To You Such As Work At A Menial Job (Make Money), Socialize (Gossip), Make Friends, Find A Boyfriend, Have A Million Children (Become A Parent By Age 17), And Thank God For All Of This, Since You Don't Have The Intelligence To Step Outside Of This Evolutionary Programming To Look At And Do Things From A Different Perspective. You're A Robot, A Slave To Your Evolutionarily Familiar Mental Adaptations. (Did I Get That Rite, Mr. Kanazawa?)
I LUV U DEVi!
So To Sum It Up, Low IQ People Are On Autopilot. They Just Think And Do What Their More Primitive Modules (Mental Adaptations) Tell Them To Do. People With A High IQ Actually Fly The Plane (Can Override Their Circuitry). Their High Functioning General Intelligence Module Allows Them To Circumvent These Other Modules, Solve Novel, Complex Problems And Look At And Live Life From An Evolutionarily New Perspective.
LISTEN TO DR. SATOSHI KANAZAWA TALK ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTELLIGENCE MODULE AT ABOUT THE 7:40 MARK.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/how-did-general-intelligence-evolve
THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE.
I Fall In The 1/3rd Category. And I Continue To Go To Jail!
NOVEMBER 30th. See That Scar On Her Forehead? That's Not A Product Of Misfortune Or An Unlucky Accident. That's A Product Of A Low IQ. The Lower Your IQ The More Prone You Are To Unfortunate Events Occurring In Your Life (Disease, Disaster, Death). Why? because There Are Other Personality Traits Correlated With A Low IQ Such As Less Impulse Control, Less Foresight (Less Planning Ahead), Less Inhibition (Cautiousness), Etc. That Increase The Likelihood Of You Experiencing Negative Events In Your Life!
The Lower Your IQ, The More Prone You Are To Such Incidents (Accidents).
