Oolon Colluphid

Let's make some testable predictions. The female age relative to the male could be expected to be less important than the female being of breeding age. So men as they age still fancy young women -- when they were 20 they liked 20-year-olds; when they are 50 they still like 20-year-olds. Are there any cultures where post-menopausal (and by extension, simply older) women are considered more attractive than, say, late-teens? Anyone know how these deductions match up to reality? (Will consult Barrett et al )

Prediction: much less than social status, ie ability to provide for children. 'Dirty old men' might be found unattractive... unless they're very rich... conversely, a male in his prime who is poor and socially hopeless might be found less attractive.

I heard it was 91.3%

Cheers, DT

Doubting Didymus

Nonetheless, we must evaluate claims based on the merits of the claims themselves, and not on the intention or character of the authors. One day, trebaxian just might make an important point. It should not be dismissed because of who he is.

I agree. To do so, we must meet his assertions with counterexamples, and his arguments with working logic. Trebaxians intentions, whaterver they are, in posting this article should have no bearing on the course of scientific inquiry into said article. You may joke about trebaxian all you want within reason, but stay on this side of the ad hominem fence. (that is, ad hominem in the formal sense, not the common corruption of the term where it simply means 'insult')

Anyway. Lets forget about it and lighten up for the moment.

tronvillain

Yes, simply because Trebaxan Vir brought up the subject doesn't automatically make what he brought up wrong. That males appear to have an innate tendency to be attracted to young females is fairly apparent, and evolution accounts for this quite nicely. Where exactly is the controversy? It is probably true that there is nothing "unnatural" about being attracted to a fourteen or fifteen year old (probably even younger), but that says nothing about whether or not we should tolerate people acting on those feelings. Actually, as I recall the age of consent in Canada is fourteen.

Oh, and Totalitarianist, I was not attempting to be rude. I simply said that I had heard similar ideas before, found them plausible, and inquired what your point was. Perhaps my past abuses have made you overly sensitive to anything I say? *chuckle*

Totalitarianist:
While the evidence shows that humans have some tendency towards polygny, it also shows that we are far closer to monogamy than many other mammals (so much so that it is probably more accurate to say that we have atendency towards monogamy). After all, ten percent is a relatively small size difference - in gorillas (who have relatively large harems) the male is almost twice the size of the female. Another factor to consider - is the relative size of testes due to sperm competion, in which humans fall between chimps (females have sex with a lot of different partners) and gorillas (females have sex with closer to one partner). Finally, I will point out that cultures not requiring monogamous marital arrangements does not mean that the vast majority of men in those cultures are not married to a single woman. Indeed, if that were the case, one would expect it to be explicitely stated rather than the much weaker reference to marriage rituals.

Another

D.Didymus

I read and appreciate your note - but I have a partial difference of opinion (although in large part agree). In evaluating an position, I suggest the person making the argument is a valid data point. We would both agree that it is not among the most important, primary must be evidence and reason. But if a religious person forwards a "young earth" argument do we honestly believe he is arguing from the evidence ? Only if we also believe that person to be very ignorant. Usually the "underlying force" is religion and that is useful information because such positions are not subject to resolution the same way scientific discussions are (or at all).

Like many of the recent topics so generated, the "creator" of this topic wishes to inflame by demonstrating how something repugnant is plausible along darwinian lines and implying that it is therefore moral or acceptable. As that is his only motive, it is improbable that actual understanding will be advanced either by the post or the refutation. Although I grant it is not impossible, I have as yet not seen actual monkeys type Shakespeare.

tronvillain

What exactly is supposed to be repugnant? Finding young girls attractive? I don't find that repugnant. Actually doing anything about it is another matter, but simply finding them attractive does not bother me.

Doubting Didymus

How do you suggest we go about refuting the YEC position by using the authors religiousity as a premise? Any argument based on that would be ad hominem, no?

Yes, it may be useful to know the authors presuppositions, but to refute him on those grounds is failed logic. In trebaxians case, we know what areas to focus on because we know him, but if we really want to refute the argument, we must ignore his personal self entirely (a good suggestion in trebaxians case anyway).

Allow me to demonstrate: First, I grant trebaxian his point, as made in the linked paper, that natural selection may favour men who preferred just pubescent, and just pre pubescent women (even though this is not a very well supported conclusion). Adding the information from Nic Tamzek's cited paper like so:

This suggests that modern diet, rather than the foraging diet our ancestors had back when this selection would have been occuring, is responsible for a young start at fertility. The age that natural selection would have been optimising for, (if it was, in fact, doing this) would have been around sixteen, which is a largely accepted sexual minimum age anyway.

Trebaxians case is refuted.

Another

Thank you for your note. I believe, this subtle point aside, we probably have a great deal in common.

If someone has a YEC position based on religious grounds, you in fact cannot refute them as evidence and reason will always be subordinate to the Truth they find from their belief. That's why religious folks have crusades while the scientifically minded have meetings. Worse for him, I submit that trebaxian is neither, he is only a vandal.

Of course the point of the topic is plausible, and the summary of the above response...."of course, but what is your point ?" is beautiful and adroit. However, there is always the risk of making the topic originator appear legitimate with a measured and logical response. Conversely, the entertainment such people in politie and reasonable discussion risks 'guilt by proximity".

If an art critic reviews the work of a vandal as quite lacking in beauty, form and purpose - that does not quite do the job. It is more accurate to simply call the work of a vandal destructive, repulsive and unwelcome.

I agree that ad hom tirades are usually red flags for positions without substance. I also note that such often gives the negative attention that the immature or dysfunctional usually desire.

However, even this poor tool has appropriate uses in some circumstances.

Thank you again.

wonkothesane

I don't think that attraction to adolescent girls is at all "unnatual", since the entire concept of adolescence is a relativily recent, western invention.

In the past, and still in many parts of the world, you were/are either pre-pubescent, and a child, or going through puberty, or past puberty and thus an "adult", capable of having and raising children.

Now today, where we have children going through abnormally early puberty, the issue of attraction to children becomes, I think, an issue of concern.

The woman I married was 21 when I met her, but she is only 4 foot 7 and was 87 pounds when I meet her and she has a very child-like face and I *swore* when I first saw her that she was only 13 or 14...and I was still attracted to her, but worried that I was "a pervert"...in fact, most of the women that I've been attracted too are very short, petiet, and look younger than they actually are...(I do however, draw the line at girls under 18, but that doesn't mean that I'm not attracted to them...)

(Unfortunately, a *lot* of other men find my wife attractive, and she likes to sleep with them, which is why we are getting divorced...so if anyone knows a short, petiet, young looking single heathen female, I'm looking...)

- bryce

(Btw, *I'm* very short, skinny, and am often mistaken for a teen-ager myself, but I'm 32...)

Oolon Colluphid

[Warning! Those easily offended should look away now...]

A mate of mine at uni had a (not-to-be-taken-seriously -- he was a JW of sorts anyway ) saying: If they're old enough to bleed, they're bleedin' old enough.

Which may be crude, but is nevertheless biologically correct. It is culture that decides where the boundaries of what's acceptable lie: 'child' to 'adult' is a developmental continuum, which happens to be marked by puberty. But being a continuum, precisely where to 'draw a line' is inevitably arbitrary.

DT

Doubting Didymus

Not neccessarily true. Allow me to repeat myself from a few posts back:

Even if we accept that natural selection may favour men who preferred just pubescent, and just pre pubescent women (even though this is not a very well supported conclusion). Adding the information from Nic Tamzek's cited paper like so:

This suggests that modern diet, rather than the foraging diet our ancestors had back when this selection would have been occuring, is responsible for a young start at fertility. The age that natural selection would have been optimising for, (if it was, in fact, doing this) would have been around sixteen, which is a largely accepted sexual minimum age anyway.