Polanski: "Everyone Wants to Fuck Young Girls!"

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

Having blogged about Roman Polanski’s arrest, I reread an extraordinary interview Polanski gave to the novelist Martin Amis in 1979, the year after Polanski went on the run.

The interview originally appeared in Tatler and is collected in Amis’s excellent book Visiting Mrs Nabokov.

Here’s a section of the first quote it contains from Polanski.

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

Thirty years have passed since Polanski said those words, so he’s had time to reconsider them. Whether he’s actually done so, we don’t yet know. Perhaps he still thinks it’s true that everyone fancies little girls, and that the press was exaggerating the enormity of his crime, and that all this somehow excuses his behaviour.

Later in the interview, Polanski says he likes Paris, to which he’d fled, because it’s “very grown-up”.

Unlike the 13-year-old girl with whom he admitted having unlawful sex.



Humbert Humbert...???

what scum :puke:

[jobycom]

1. Age of consent in Paris is 15. It was 13 when Polanski was a kid.

In most of Europe it is between 13 and 15. I guess in his world he's right. The modeling industry and a lot of the film industry seem to be built on that principle.

[paulsby]

2. which is true

and i used to live in hawaii, where it was 14 (at the time).

but i think another fact to consider is that it's not JUST her age, it's the fact that he fed her drugs and alcohol and she STILL said no and he persisted to rape her.

it may not have been forcible in the "hold her down sense" but it was most definitely, as we refer to it in my penal code - AGAINST consent. granted a 13 yr old cannot legally give consent, but even if she COULD have from an age basis - she didn't.

polanski deserves jail time

[jobycom]

4. I commented on his general statement, not what he is accused of having done.

:shrug:

[paulsby]

6. i know

i'm simply adding on to what you said.

i see umpteen posts (NOT FROM YOU) where people said he "had sex" with a 13 yr old

he did not just have sex with her. he raped her, against her consent.

it was a forcible rape that was PLED DOWN to a statutory rape.

i think that's an important point that bears repeating. so i did :)

[jobycom]

14. That's why I've stayed out of it. I don't know what happened.

She claims she was drugged and kept saying no, he claimed she asked for the drugs and wanted to have sex. Since I don't know what really happened, I'm staying out of it, on questions of "rape" versus "sex" anyway.

[JuniperLea]

227. He admitted to it...

It's a matter of record. His statements are all over DU... even the testimony. He is an admitted rapist, period. There really is nothing else you need to know. If you really want to see it for yourself, you can find it here.

[barbiegeek]

280. He was an ADULT, she was a child. She DIDNT have a period yet

I'm sorry to bring up menstrual cycles, but the reality is.. she probably didn't have her period yet or if she did she had only had it for a year. Now seriously think about that. That is why I think he's a slime ball.

[Sixty_cycle_humm]

18. I read he sodomized her also

I think if that's true it makes it even worse for him in the court of public opinion.

[JPZenger]

46. While drugged, he raped her multiple times in one night, while she begged to go home

This is much more heinous than a typical consensual statutory rape charge.

[WeekendWarrior]

49. I've made this point before

...but you simply don't know this to be true. *I* think you're right. That it was against her wishes. But that's only conjecture, since we have only the victim's testimony to go by, which could have been either coached or an outright lie.

Again, I'm not saying this is the case. Because I don't know.

But Polanski claims it was consensual and merely filing charges against someone doesn't make them true.

So the point you feel that bears repeating is not a fact.

And the only reason I bring it up -- as I did before -- is because I believe someone accused of a crime should be given the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty. And if it applies to everyone else, it should apply to Polanski as well, no matter what we may personally think of him. And Polanski was not proven guilty of the crime you say he committed.

Under the law, Polanski is guilty of Unlawful Sex with a minor. That was the plea that he, the prosecutor, the judge AND the victim's family agreed to.

The only two people who know whether or not it was truly forcible rape are the victim and the perpetrator. And their stories differ.

We can all, obviously, choose who we want to believe. I choose the victim. But that doesn't make me right.

[DailyGrind51]

393. Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor...

"In 1978, Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor (a 13-year-old girl who he gave drugs and booze to and who testified she had repeatedly said no during the act) and then skipped out of the country before his sentencing. For details and context surrounding the Polansky case, read Bill Wyman's eviscerating review of the 2008 documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Wyman argues convincingly that the film whitewashes the details of the rape and is essentially an apologia for the famous director. Which means the film is of a piece with much of the media's treatment of Polanski (typically as a deeply troubled but ultimately misunderstood sprite;see image, for example)."

http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/28/should-roman-polanski-be-held

[redqueen]

397. Also known as statutory rape. (nt)

[pnwmom]

3. Two teens having sex is a very different thing. Even in his world he's wrong.

A 44 year old man plying a 13 year old with drugs and alcohol, then refusing to take no for an answer, is a rapist, by any definition, in any country of the world.

[jobycom]

5. Wasn't commenting on Polanski's charges, just on his statement, but "age of consent" means

The age of consent means a 44 year old man can have sex with a girl over the age of consent with no legal penalties whatsoever. Whether alcohol or drugs would have been a legal factor if there was a complaint would depend on the laws of the country in which it happened on drugs and alcohol. And refusing to take "no" for an answer by itself doesn't mean rape, unless there is force or threat involved. A man or woman can continue to try to seduce a sex partner if they've said no. Happens all the time. It's happening now probably in your home town, as we type.

Whether any of that applies to the Polanski case was not my point. I was just commenting on the story in the OP.

[karynnj]

15. I think you are wrong in thinking there was no force

"And refusing to take "no" for an answer by itself doesn't mean rape, unless there is force or threat involved." Between drugs and alcohol and her claim that she said no, there very likely was force in that he was stronger and refused to stop what he was doing. Unless you mean simply by "try to seduce a sex partner" being charming and trying to change her decision, it is rape.

[jobycom]

17. Again, you're talking about a specific case, I'm not.

But if you want to, remember that Polanski claimed that she asked for the drugs and didn't say no. So there are two sides, even if the media is treating her side as THE side. So we don't know for sure that she said no or felt forced.

That's why I'm not judging either way. I just don't know what happened. I can make a case either way.

[karynnj]

29. I was trying to speak both of that case and generally

If a woman says no, it should mean no - unless she explicitly changes her mind. In that case, the GIRL was too young to give consent and a 44 year old guy giving her drugs and alcohol is illegal and endangering a kid.

[GMA]

105. see both sides?

This was not a couple of teenagers deciding to get high together, and then the guy wanted to have sex. He was in his FORTIES. And after all the years of having feminists yell about date rape and date rape drugs, how can ANYONE say there was anything okay about what happened here?

[Odin2005]

263. There are plenty of posters here that think date rape is OK.

:puke:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Control-Z]

256. How can you make a case

either way? Do you think it is OK to give drugs to a 13 YO if she asks for them? It is not.

[Hannah Bell]

327. better back off; trying to discuss it calmly makes you a child rape apologist.

[DutchLiberal]

23. Force or threat doesn't have to be involved for it to be rape.

Read of lots of cases where the girl who was raped was too frightened or too shocked to move or resist after she said "no", so no force or threats were necessary by the rapist. You tell me that it doesn't "count" as rape then?

[Maru Kitteh]

47. You are wrong. No means NO. Refusing to "take no for an answer" IS RAPE

It looks like you have a dangerous lack of understanding of what rape is.

[Me.]

279. Exactly

Next the apologists will be claiming he didn't understand English well enough to get that

[redqueen]

51. "And refusing to take "no" for an answer by itself doesn't mean rape...

unless there is force or threat involved. A man or woman can continue to try to seduce a sex partner if they've said no."

Seduce?

You're changing the subject. If a woman says no as he is attempting to fuck her, and he continues, that is rape.

[jobycom]

84. You can deliberately misunderstand all you want...

But it is not uncommon in any courtship for one party to say no, then change their mind after a second proposal. If you think that's rape, then you are the one who doesn't know what rape is.

[redqueen]

99. You can try to change the subject all you want...

it doesn't change anything.

[jobycom]

110. I never once changed the subject. You just ignored the subject to hurl your insults because

it's much more tougher-looking and stuff to try to shut someone up by accusing them as soft on rape to win an argument to bother wondering if there's even an argument going on, isn't it? My last comment and my first are the same argument, and the fact that you dodged it shows me you realized that. I won't wait for an apology, though.

[redqueen]

112. Insults?

WTF are you talking about? (I stopped reading after insults, btw... cause damn.)

[Odin2005]

264. That mindset contributes to rape.

I hate this notion that "maybe" means yes, "no" means maybe. It's an excuse for the guy to be pushy.

Yes means yes, no means no, and if you keep on pushing it you're a rapist.

[deek]

274. Yes means yes, no means no

and if you keep on pushing it you're a rapist.

It really is that simple.

[jenniferj]

268. I have been raped so I do know what it is ......

...and you are getting creepy

[MilesColtrane]

120. " refusing to take "no" for an answer by itself doesn't mean rape, ...

...unless there is force or threat involved."

What the fuck?

[Gormy Cuss]

178. Refusing to take no for an answer does by itself mean that a rape charge is a real possibility

and any man who doesn't recognize that is playing with fire.

[cmkramer]

392. Let me get this straight

A man and a woman go out on a date. The man takes the woman home and asks her if he can stay over. She tells him no because she's tired and besides she has to go to work the next day. He says, "Awww come on please?" She says "Oh alright then". They proceed to have sex. At no time does she ever tell him to stop. The next morning, they get up, get dressed, have breakfast, say their goodbyes and head off to their respective jobs.

Are you really saying that this woman was raped?

[TorchTheWitch]

409. "oh alright then" is changing the no to a yes

If she said no and he still continued to push himself on her without her changing that no to a yes as you described, it is rape.

[jenniferj]

267. Wow...that is so wrong...

"And refusing to take "no" for an answer by itself doesn't mean rape, unless there is force or threat involved."
Actually, that is rape, if I say no and you carry on, that is rape and you are forcing yourself on me against my will, I don't want to be further seduced, I want you to stop....do think it only counts if the victim fights back and screams at you? What do you think no means? This truely scary..

[Retired AF Dem]

204. If he had done this in a mid eastern country

We wouldn't be wasting all this bandwidth today.

[seabeyond]

277. no.... she would already be stoned. nt

[treestar]

56. And these girls don't have fathers around

Polansky may prefer 13 year old girls, but if said girls had fathers around, he'd be dead. End of story.

[omega minimo]

167. She did not consent

[27inCali]

205. If the French want to act like filthy perverts

that's their business.

cultural relativism has it's limits.

[jenniferj]

309. Outside of Paris it is they don't

the fact that France is seen to condone Polanski and be soft of child rape is not something they want to see...
The French government has backtracked fast because of the outcry from the French people...


http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/former-prosecutor-says-he-lied-about-polanski-case-1.1491224

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm

[jhrobbins]

348. I'm not sure I understand your comment about 'cultural relativism'. It seems to me

that it is fairly important in understanding a society. How else can one understand, for example, the ancient Greeks practice of 'pedophilia'. I certainly do not condone it, but I have tried to look at it with an objective eye when researching it. It is my understanding that an ancient Greek family was shamed if their young man had not been chosen by an older male. Sexual mores are very fluid from era to era and place to place.
I DON'T CONDONE THIS, but I think what has been said is that these are questions open for discussion without hurling ad hominem attacks.

[Carni]

262. Maybe he should have stayed in Paris

with his 1940's time machine?

[Dorian Gray]

7. I never heard that quote before...

just goes to show the lack of remorse (which his running also showed) for his crime.

He didn't "fuck" her. He RAPED her. She repeatedly told him no.

[davidpdx]

8. Clearly some of the things he said after he fled made him look even worse

and may come to bite him in the ass. One would think if you've fled the country after being tried for a crime (putting aside the circumstances of the trial, which I know people will argue) maybe you should keep your mouth shut about what you've done. Certainly I haven't followed the whole story behind the saga what's going on, but damn that's just plain dumb.

[Bucky]

412. Not "made him look worse", but simply confirmed how bad he was

Seriously, it doesn't get much worse than drugging and raping a child. Being crass on top of that is not really a step down.

[redqueen]

416. Well said. (nt)

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

10. "wanting to" and forcing your urges on a child are two VERY different things

[stray cat]

11. In some countries you can have multiple wifes as young as 10

is that really a law we want here?

[Prophet 451]

12. Well, yeah, they do

Biological imperatives toward fucking is not the same as actually doing it though. I'm 33 and British, age of consent here is 16. That doesn't mean I actually fuck 16-yr olds. And it really doesn't include feeding them booze and drugs and raping them.

[seabeyond]

13. oh ufck the fuckin biology made me do it bullshit. it is male arrogance and privilige to rape girl

with no repercussion.

like women dont want to fuck the young guys too.... i am so gd tired of men going around yelling.... biology made me do it

[Prophet 451]

16. That's what I was saying

Biology might make you *want* to fuck but it can't make you actually do it.

[seabeyond]

20. biology makes women *want* to fuck too. how about that, gender non bias on the fucking. nt

[Prophet 451]

22. Oh, I'm sure

I'm surprised that biology would make women want to screw young men though. A woman's fertility is at a peak in the late teenage years but a man's is at a peak in his early-to-mid thirties so I would have imagined that biologically, a woman would have been drawn to that age group.

Of course, biology is often overruled by the mind so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise.

[seabeyond]

24. sexually men peak at 19. women at 42. and that is why this bullshit gonna

see life from caveman day is crap science. hell yes women want to fuck young men. hm.... which one looks more fun. and old man or a young man..... without the baggage and sags and bags.

works for both genders

but men like to believe biology controls. women want old farts. men want the girls. who do you think is embracing this so strongly and reverently.

[Prophet 451]

25. I stand corrected

I see your point on youth (although I still think James Marsters is the sexiest man alive).

[seabeyond]

26. really. lol. ha to google him. hm

i didnt see it. but maybe more in there than just the picture.

[Prophet 451]

40. I think it might be the voice

and the "snake hips" way of moving.

[seabeyond]

41. ah. i just saw his face, lol. nt

[girl gone mad]

32. Actually, male fertility does decline with age, sperm is healthiest and most abundant before 25..

the male sexual peak is usually before age 20, etc.

"A study published in 2000 found that, in couples who successfully go on to have a baby, the probability that the couple will take longer than a year to conceive is about eight per cent when the man is under 25, but almost doubles to 15 per cent when the man is over 35. What's more, a woman whose partner is at least five years older than her has less chance of conceiving within a year than a woman whose partner is the same age as her, irrespective of her age."

So, yes, by biological standards women would be attracted to young men, no more than 5 years older.

[Prophet 451]

39. I must have got mixed-up

I thought it was the other way around.

[seabeyond]

42. because we are working really really hard today convincing society of this. nt

[redqueen]

57. No shit.

It's truly pathetic how old perverts try to make reality fit their little fantasies.

[seabeyond]

60. i would be embarrassed as a guy if ego so precarious that i had to live under illusion hot

young girls want the old farts. makes no intellectuals sense let alone common sense. and regardless how women tell men, no.... we like hot bodies too, they insist we dont, we want them old

just as i get embarrassed for the fragile female ego that thinks her whole worth is in looks

[redqueen]

67. Great comparison.

I have to hope that eventually we as a species will evolve past this idiotic obsession with the superficial.

[treestar]

53. Why would that age apply to males?

I would think male fertility would be at its highest in teen years and then just slowly decline.

[Prophet 451]

109. It is, I got mixed up

Yeah, I'm just gonna call that one a senior moment.

[JonQ]

31. Generally biology would influence women

to fuck older men. As they would be more established, knowledgable and better able to care for children (in addition to proving their worth by having survived that long).

Of course when older women do have sex with younger boys they generally receive very light sentences compared to older males in the same scenario.

[girl gone mad]

33. That's not biology.

Every study that I've ever seen says young men are as capable at fathering as older men, and they actually get more joy out of it. A young man would be better able to protect a family and would likely survive longer, two factors far more important than being knowledgeable or established (that's what extended family is for).

[seabeyond]

37. and that is the story males tell themselves endlessly, .... pure crap, but strokes male ego

for sure.

[JonQ]

43. Also it's true

That's why in most societies it's older men marrying younger women. Those that don't adhere to this are somewhat of an anomaly.

A womans peak childbearing years are somewhat more limited, say 14-30. Perhaps a little longer if she's in good shape. But after that it gets dangerous for the mother and the chances of birth defects in the child skyrocket.

Men have a much more generous period of time.

Also consider the two different strategies.

A man puts relatively little effort in to reproducing, a few minutes effort and he's succeeded. Even if he sticks around to raise the kid that is considerably less work than actually bearing the child. His best strategy to spread his genes is to have sex with as many women in their child bearing age as possible.

A woman puts a tremendous amount of effort in to reproducing. In addition to the resources used in pregnancy and the not inconsequential risk of death, she is then stuck breast feeding, and raising the child until maturity. Her best strategy is to be picky, find the best man possible so that her efforts aren't wasted on a kid that turns out to be somewhat of a waste. So find the most intelligent, strongest, and successful man to impregnate her. That just makes good sense. And generally the 14 year old aren't the ones fitting that definition.

That's why, regardless of societal outlook on the subject men tend to be more promiscuous and choose younger mates, and women less so and choose older more successful ones. Of course there are always exceptions, that's why it's a trend, not a law.

This isn't a sexist screed, it's established biology. You can deny it if that makes you feel better, just as some deny evolution because "they don't want their granddad to be a monkey" but that has no bearing on the facts.

[seabeyond]

45. then that would be why in society like u.s a freedom in marriage without conditioning

men and women by far tend to marry with a 2-3 yr span of each other

by gosh

you got that right on

if we were talking about the control of evol psych (caveman theory) with us, girls would be fuckin the young alpha males until preg, dumping them and marry the older beta to take care of kids. not a damn beta man would get shit from female

lookie, that isnt what happens

on edit: you also ignore the biological facts about male peak age and how sperm declines in worth. that is science. not this pretend stroke male ego garbage

[JonQ]

52. Really we have freedom in marriage?

Cool, so 35 year olds are free to marry 16 year olds? I had no idea. Clearly you are being rational and in no way emotionally responding to facts you don't like.

"men and women by far tend to marry with a 2-3 yr span of each other"

And who tends to be older? Let's make a bet, I will say that in general heterosexual couples the male is older than the female. You take the bet that they are either the same age or the woman is older. You game?

"if we were talking about the control of biology on us, girls would eb fuckin the young alpha males, dumping them and marry the older beta to take care of kids. not a damn beta man would get shit from female"

Well, gosh, that never happens. Football stars never get fucked in highschool, it's always the shy pimply kid who developed a little slower than the others. And women never marry the guy who will take care of them, after fucking a bunch of strong handsome muscular types. You clearly understand how the world works and I appreciate your insight.

"lookie, that isnt what happens"

Indeed, that isn't *exactly* what happens.

"on edit: you also ignore the biological facts about male peak age and how sperm declines in worth. that is science. not this pretend stroke male ego garbage"

Males don't peak as early as females. I'm sorry that this is an emotional issue to you. To me it's merely factual, I don't have an axe to grind and it has nothing to do with my ego. The fact that you choose to project those motivations on to me simply illustrates where you are coming from.

So I have to ask, why is this an ego thing to you? Are you an older woman interested in younger men and seeking validation for your desires? If so don't bother, I have no problem with that, enjoy yourself.

[The Hope Mobile]

91. Can you say projection? You're saying its an emotional issue for the

other poster when it clearly is for you. Do your research. The other poster's facts are correct not yours. This is why sperm banks will not take "deposits" from older men. Its well established fact. YOU want to believe the opposite but one good google easily disproves your theory.

[JonQ]

298. I'm projecting their responses on to myself?

I think you don't understand projection.

Sperm banks usually set the age limit between 18-44. As my definition for older was late 20s to early 30s I would say that fits don't you? I have presented evidence to back my claims, she has not.


And as for it being personal for me, as I've said before I am currently dating (and will in all likelyhood marry) a woman 1.5 years older than I am. From an emotional standpoint I should be arguing counter to what I have been. But I don't formulate my beliefs out of emotion, but rather evidence and logic.

If anything the person I am responding to is coming from an emotional place as she is an older woman who definitely doesn't want to be seen as undesirable.

I have nothing to gain by "proving" my claim, other than simply being right. She has everything to gain by "proving" hers.

Try to be objective.

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

[The Hope Mobile]

316. I'm a psychologist - I understand projection.

Objectively speaking, as you have been unable to, the fact is that in general both genders prefer younger specimens. You are deluding yourself into thinking that women prefer older men. Untrue. It happens on both sides but it is the exception. Usually when it happens, its not biological but psychological.

You are projecting your desperation to be seen as attractive onto the men and women (you believe to be only women) on this thread who objectively realize that biologically both genders prefer/are more attracted to younger mates.

Your "evidence" talks strictly about the decline of quality in sperm and eggs over time. What that clearly reinforces is my statement that both genders prefer younger mates biologically speaking. Whether one happens at a quicker or slower rate is irrelevant - the preference for younger remains the same.

Emotionally, you are the one who cannot handle this. Sad.

BTW I'm in a long term relationship and have four amazing children - I have no need to prove my attractiveness as my partner has no problem demonstrating interest . . . I feel pretty confident in guessing that you're not and probably have rarely been and unless you deal with this immature perception of relationships (and the projection of your insecurities onto others), won't be.

[JonQ]

328. Surely becoming a psychologists requires some degree of reading comprehension

Your "facts" are wrong.

1) both men and women prefer younger mates. Explain then the discrepancy, whereby the average heterosexual couple consists of a woman dating/married to a man several years older than her? If they both sought out the youngest available specimen that should average out, no? Your claim is wrong on its very face.

2) A woman dating an older man is hardly the exception, a woman dating a younger man definitely is. That's why there is a term for such women (cougars) but not for such men. You wouldn't need a special term to define the norm. Consider for example that they sell scissors, and lefthanded scissors. Why don't they feel the need to differentiate the ones for right handers? Because that's the norm. Excellent, moving on.

3) I have no personal stake in this (as I've told you, dating an older woman, have been for over 5 years, going quite well). If I were using emotion based reasoning, as you are, I would be arguing the opposite of what I am.

4) My evidence had nothing to do with sperm quality, initially. That was in response to an argument initially made on the subject, I was refuting that. Again, reading comprehension is your friend. And the preference for younger mates (given sperm and egg degradation) would only be based on age if that were the only factor to consider in reproduction. Surely you didn't pick your mate solely on his age? I would hope not anyway. Age is one, of many factors involved.

5) Emotionally I have no stake in this. I have received numerous emotion based attacks, all from older women. What does that tell you?

6) You should have kept your receipt for your degree, your ability to psychoanalyze sucks, see if you can get some money back. About the equivalent of going to a doctor (a real one) with a broken bone sticking out of your skin and being diagnosed with lupus.

You were the one to make this personal and devolve in to personal attacks. Perhaps you should look in to that "projecting" theory you had going early.

Also, why is it that people practicing soft or pseudo sciences, such as psychology, often exhibit such contempt for real sciences, like biology? Jealousy? Inferiority complex?

Of course the only ones who would bother trying to diagnose such reasons would be other psychologists, and we could hardly expect them to denigrate their own profession now can we?

[The Hope Mobile]

355. Your desperation is . . . sad.

Most of the couples I know have a slightly older female but all within a range of a few years. Actually I know one 42 year old woman with a 29 year old man. She looks younger though. I don't know ANY reversed relationships. You have definitely not shown any evidence for your claim on this point.

1.What we all see is that you are the one making personal attacks. "spinster", "stupid", etc.
2.You brought up projection (ironically, a term from my "pseudo science" degree that I got with honors) when its clearly you projecting
as you are working towards being the male version of a spinster and it scares you to death.
3.I am in a healthy relationship. You, clearly, are not.
4.That's not emotional, its just fact . . . and there's a reason for it. Which is why you're fighting this so desperately.

[seabeyond]

357. as far as the age difference. a good five years difference is irrelevant as we grow older.

to even consider the older/younger phenomenon one would have to be talking a decade. as far as i see it.

[The Hope Mobile]

358. Agreed. I also have seen only two situations where

there is a significant gap in age in partners . . . and this happens regardless of who is older or younger.

1. There is some kind of psychological need on the part of the younger partners to meet a parental (usually) need. Missing father, emotionally unavailable mother, etc., to regain a feeling of protection, nurturing, etc. that they missed out on in childhood.

2. The older partner has genetic super genes and can get away with looking much younger . . . so in actuality the younger partner is still biologically attracted to the appearance of a younger partner.

At my age and in my situation, this is not a threat since I am already where I want to be in life and it sounds like you are too.

[seabeyond]

thumbs up

for me. lol lol.

serenity and peace. there is a real calming at this age. truly is the most settled and comfortable time in my own skin.

[JonQ]

376. I have referenced

spinster once, in response to your attack on me. I have never said stupid.

There must be some deep seated psychological reason for you to lie like this.

Or perhaps you're just lazy.

[The Hope Mobile]

359. PS "cougars" are just doing what's natural for older women.

It wasn't considered acceptable in society until recently but definitely would've been seen (and probably will be) with as much frequency as the older male/younger female relationships. These are BOTH the exception and neither of them are biologically driven.
They're psychologically driven OR the older partner still looks younger.
Its easy to prove this.

I'll start with this.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/population_trends/PT114ChangesintheDistributionof.pdf

At first marriage (during the 20s when there is a desire to reproduce) the median age gap has dropped from 2 years to one since the 60s)
At second marriage (during the 40s- when there is NO desire to reproduce) the median age gap has dropped from 7 years to 5 since the 60s)

That men are typically one or two years older is statistically insignificant, possibly just a result of societal norms or possibly due to the fact that women mature emotionally more quickly. There is no indication of a biological factor whatsoever. The fact that the gap is bigger (to a statistically significant degree) later in life (post-reproductive age) flies in the face of your biological argument.

[JonQ]

299. dupe.

[girl gone mad]

58. exactly right.

If we were going strictly by some biological imperative, the female's best reproductive strategy would be to have sex with alpha males while tricking betas into long term commitment. That way she would pass on the best genes to her children while giving them a stable home environment. Having multiple sex partners would also be a useful survival strategy and younger partners would provide healthier DNA.

Of course, our cave man imperative is about as meaningful in the modern world as rocket science would be to cave men, so this stuff is all kind of silly.

[seabeyond]

62. yet, yet, men live and die for this stuff. lol. and forgot, we would be fuckin every alpha

that came around sniffin during that time of the month

[JonQ]

116. And that doesn't happen?

Women don't have sex with strong alpha types, and then marry carrying supportive types?

Really? You don't see that happening all the time?

[girl gone mad]

138. Not really.

The Alphas I know do pretty well in the marriage department.

[JonQ]

187. Well as this particularly

line of argument is wholly based on personal anecdotes I don't think we're going to get very far.

[girl gone mad]

48. This is all just junk science.

Male sperm decays in quality and quantity with age.

Actually, pretty much everything you stated in your post comes from the pseudoscientific field of evolutionary psychology, not biology.

[JonQ]

55. Not really

sperm is manufactured daily. Whereas women are born with all the eggs they are ever going to have (barring breakthroughs in stem cell research perhaps). That is fact, you can deny it if you like.

But I'm reminded by your post of kirk cameron calling evolution pseudo-science.

Unpopular does not equal unproven.

[redqueen]

59. Google "sperm quality decreases with age".

You're mistaken about this. Just because it's continually produced does not mean it stays as good as it was when you were young.

[girl gone mad]

64. Several hereditary diseases are associated with advanced paternal age

Schizophrenia, Marfan, Alzheimer's...

[seabeyond]

66. drop in iq? nt

[JonQ]

81. Oh indeed sperm quality does drop

just much slower, and less dramatically than egg quality.

When I said older I meant 30s, you took it apparently to mean geriatric, that was not my meaning.

In general a womans reproductive ability is going to drop off faster than a mans, can you agree with that, or would you say they go at the same rate.

[seabeyond]

83. no, you are wrong again. google. nt

[JonQ]

87. No, I'm right again

that was a fun exchange.

[JonQ]

89. Oh my

See how it starts to drop off at 60?


And see how women start to dramatically plummet after about 30?




OMG! Science is sexist, ban it!

[girl gone mad]

115. Those charts are huge..

couldn't you have shrunk them? lol.

Sperm motility peaks at 25, quantity in the early 30s.

Couples are significantly more likely to conceive when the man is no more than 5 years older than the woman. If we are going by your evolutionary psychology standards, women would always prefer a man under 35, no more than 5 years her senior - and the closer to 25, the better.

[JonQ]

118. I provided evidence for my facts

could you provide evidence for the 5 years older thing.

And overall quality seems to peak in the 30s, which fits exactly with my argument.

[girl gone mad]

129. Actually, due to DNA mutations..

Peak sperm quality would occur in the 20s or even earlier. The less copying that has taken place, the lower the risk of diseases and birth defects.

[JonQ]

133. That's not really true

or supported by evidence.

[girl gone mad]

140. Are you for real?

You want to promote pseudoscientific theory here as real and dispute genuine biology?

:crazy:

[JonQ]

144. I've provided evidence

you have not. And you call me pseudoscientific?

Please prove that the rate of harmful mutations for sperm for males at 20 are substantial enough to affect their desirability as a mate. Otherwise you are grasping at straws.

You do see the difference between studies backed by the scientific method and simply making claims you want to hear right? Please tell me I'm not wasting my time here.

[girl gone mad]

150. I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to argue.

It seems to continually shift.

Mutations will increase with age. A woman who wants to ensure healthy offspring would be attracted to a male with the least mutated sperm, which means a young man. As a woman, I can tell you that I find the 25 year old Brad Pitt to be much more attractive than the current Brad Pitt, on a physical level.

[seabeyond]

153. all thru out you cannot stay up with this poster. nt

[JonQ]

173. Heh, that's funny, what *I'm trying to argue*

I think my argument was pretty clear (and obviously correct).

Everything after that has been in response to "scientific" claims others have made to counter it.

See here's how it works: I state that generally women would prefer a somewhat older mate, and men the opposite.

You through out something about sperm motility. I counter with other facts on sperm motility. So you act all confused and pretend I'm trying to change the subject to be about sperm motility away from my original statement.

I suppose it was a mistake to let you control the direction of conversation, I thought I was being helpful though and providing information you didn't already have. Apparently you aren't interested in learning, but rather forcing me to accept your incorrect views.

[girl gone mad]

184. You specifically stated that it wasn't true that DNA mutations..

in sperm increase with age.

You said yourself that men produce sperm every day. Do you actually understand how that process works? If so, then it should be obvious to you why sperm quality decreases in a relatively linear fashion.

You "let" me control the direction of the conversation? Think you might want to restate that?

You haven't provided any useful information. Nothing you've cited supports the claim that young women should be more attracted to old men.

[JonQ]

191. No, I never said that

I said that it was not a significant enough factor to alter reproductive strategies. Scroll up and reread.

"You said yourself that men produce sperm every day. Do you actually understand how that process works? If so, then it should be obvious to you why sperm quality decreases in a relatively linear fashion."

Heh, I think I'm in a much better position on this subject than you are. Do you understand how oocyte development works? How about the fact that they are not produced daily? Which do you suppose would be more prone to DNA defects?

"You "let" me control the direction of the conversation? Think you might want to restate that?"

No, that is right. I made a statement, you responded slightly off topic, rather than ignoring or steering you back on to topic I responded directly, in the hopes you would respond directly to my comments. You didn't, but I continued responding to your misdirections. So yeah, I allowed it.

"You haven't provided any useful information. Nothing you've cited supports the claim that young women should be more attracted to old men."

Except that it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, which rewards whatever strategy is most successful. A womans value, reproductively only, drops as she ages, so it makes sense for her to be desirable at a younger age. A man is able to prove his value the older he is, with no substantial inability to have children, so he gets more valuable, to a point.

[girl gone mad]

201. It doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

Men are healthiest and best able to provide for a family, from a historical perspective, in their 20s and early 30s. A woman would not want to mate with a man who was likely to die soon and not be able to provide for her. The younger a man is, the more likely he is to have healthy children, and the more child siblings he can provide. Couples are most fertile when the man is no more than 5 years older than the woman, regardless of the woman's age. There is too much contrary evidence for me to see much validity to your opinion. From a strictly biological perspective, women are better off with young men. Nature seems to bear this out. Teenager girls have teen idols, who tend to be no older than 25. Young love has always been celebrated. Male models, film stars and strippers are young or young looking. I've personally never known young women who are more physically attracted to old men, though we do tend to have more diverse tastes. I think you might be confusing social desire for status and money with genuine physical attraction.

[JonQ]

212. First off:

"Couples are most fertile when the man is no more than 5 years older than the woman, regardless of the woman's age."

You have provided no evidence for this claim, please stop making it without evidence. Simply repeating it over and over again does not count.

Let me try to explain this a different way. Let's assume that people didn't age past sexual maturity. Then the ideal mate would generally be the oldest (or the best of the older generations), right? There would be no advantage to being young so you would select among the older people because they have the most experience (a very useful trait) and have had decades to acquire resources to help you raise your kid. And by living that long either gender would have proven their worth to some degree, not getting eaten by a tiger is a definite survival trait that you'd want to pass on.

So if we were to take out natural decay then obviously greater age would be ideal. But we do have to deal with natural decay, so like most things in evolution a compromise is reached. You select the oldest mate that still has plenty of reproductive years available. For men that means young women (as women peak much sooner and the results are more severe) for women it's a somewhat older man (as I've shown, the effects in men are more gradual and less severe).

Does that make sense to you?

[girl gone mad]

259. The statistic is from a 2000 study.

"The older a man is, the longer it will take his partner to conceive, irrespective of her age. Women whose partners are at least five years older than them have less chance of conceiving within a year than women whose partners are the same age, or younger.

The research, which is published in the journal Human Reproduction, shows the chance of conceiving in six months decreases by 2 per cent for every year the man is older than 24."

Pretty sure you could have Googled that.

Not that studies which contradict your beliefs matter to you, since it appears that you would prefer to cling to some really outdated ideas about female sexuality.

To answer your question, no your theory doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know what reality you exist in, but here on planet Earth, women are generally most sexually attracted to young men. Teenage girls are most attracted to teenage boys. My two teenage neighbors have posters of Zac Effron on their wall, not some old, wise dude. Young people use the resources of the family/tribe/village, which minimizes the importance of experience and stockpiles of resources. Young men have a survival advantage that would always outweigh that of older men. Not getting eaten by a tiger is great, but if you're likely to die within a few years from disease and old age (which a 30 year old would be, historically), then it's pretty meaningless except to make your offspring more attractive to young females.

[JonQ]

285. So present the study

you really can't expect me to take your word for it now can you?

2% is not really a substantial difference. So lets say the situation is a 28 year old man and an 18 year old woman. That would make for and 8% difference, according to your hidden study. In a society with no such thing as birth control and few other forms of entertainment that would not present a significant obstacle. Especially considering that the limiting factor in tribal societies is not reproductive ability, but rather resources. In fact many tribal socities have rather strong cultural adaptations to limit reproduction, including infanticide, abortions, homosexuality, cycle based intercourse and so on. Look it up, tribal societies actually grow much slower than agricultural ones, and it's not because they don't know how to screw.

So fertility isn't actually a major issue, and a drop by a few percentage points would not hurt them. Being unable to provide food for a new infant would. That's where being older and more experienced would help. So again it appears you are holding post agricultural conditions (have as many kids as quick as possible and some will survive) to explain pre-agricultural adaptations. A bit of temperal displacement there.

BTW, zac efron is 22, if your teenage friends like him that would mean they like an older male doesn't it? And it's obvious from your retort that you didn't understand my scenario. I said assuming normal biological decay was not an issue, you responded as if it was. So try to work on your reading comprehension.

[girl gone mad]

402. Efron may be 22, but he looks younger and plays a teenage character..

Leonardo DiCaprio, for example was a teen idol who lost basically all of his teen appeal by the time he reached his mid-20s, and moved on to a more serious, adult film career.

You want to say that an 8% fertility difference is not significant in males, but a lesser one is in females? Silly.

You are trying to argue that men are most attracted to women in their peak fertility years, but women are most attracted to men ten years after they reach their peak fertility, strength, and virility? Can you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

[girl gone mad]

163. Science.

Study: Semen Quality May Start To Decline In One's 20's
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030210080435.htm

With each passing year, semen quality in adult men declines, suggesting that age plays a greater role in male fertility rates than previously thought, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

The study, published Thursday, Feb. 6, in the journal Human Reproduction, suggests that even healthy men may become progressively less fertile as time goes by.

"Prior studies on semen quality typically included men who came to fertility clinics," said Brenda Eskenazi, professor of epidemiology and maternal and child health at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health, and co-author of the study. "This is one of the first studies to focus on men with no known fertility concerns, giving us a better sense of whether age affects semen quality in a healthy population."

The researchers recruited 97 men between the ages of 22 and 80 who were employed or retired from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Samples were brought to the onsite research laboratory within two hours after collection to accurately measure sperm motility - its liveliness and direction of movement - and other indicators of semen quality. The researchers gathered extensive medical, lifestyle and occupational exposure history from the men, and excluded those who had smoked in the prior six months or had other relevant health problems.

While age had an effect on semen volume, the more significant impact was on sperm motility, which researchers found decreased by 0.7 percent per year. That means the chance of sperm motility being clinically abnormal is 25 percent at age 22, 40 percent by age 30, 60 percent by age 40 and 85 percent by age 60.

Progressive motility also started to decrease in men in their 20s by 3.1 percent per year. By age 30, the probability of progressive motility being clinically abnormal is about 50 percent, gradually increasing to 82 percent by age 80.

Study shows that genetic quality of sperm deteriorates as men age
https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2006/NR-06-06-01.html

New research indicates that the genetic quality of sperm worsens as men get older, increasing a man’s risk of being infertile, fathering unsuccessful pregnancies and passing along dwarfism and possibly other genetic diseases to his children.

A study led by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the University of California, Berkeley, found a steady increase in sperm DNA fragmentation with increasing age of the study participants, along with increases in a gene mutation that causes achondroplasia, or dwarfism. The first changes were observed in men in their early reproductive years.

Mutations in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR 3) gene (above) have been linked to achondroplasia, or dwarfism. Sperm analysis shows that mutations associated with dwarfism gradually increased by about two per cent for every year of age.

Earlier research by the same team indicated that male reproductive ability gradually worsens with age, as sperm counts decline and the sperm lose motility and their ability to swim in a straight line. In the current study, the researchers analyzed DNA damage, chromosomal abnormalities and gene mutations in semen samples from the same subjects – 97 healthy, non-smoking LLNL employees and retirees between 22 and 80 years old – and found that sperm motility showed a high correlation with DNA fragmentation, which is associated with increased risk of infertility and a reduced probability of fathering a successful pregnancy.

The study, “Advancing age has differential effects on DNA damage, chromatin integrity, gene mutations, and aneuploidies (chromosome abnormalities) in sperm,” appears this week in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“This study shows that men who wait until they’re older to have children are not only risking difficulties conceiving, they could also be increasing the risk of having children with genetic problems,” said co-lead author Andrew Wyrobek of LLNL.

[seabeyond]

164. i am so bad at googling, i had recently read this. i will document it for next time

then wont have to depend on another finding it.

thanks.

[JonQ]

179. Bad choice of a papers to post

From the article:

"Unlike the female biological clock - which reflects a marked decline in fertility in a woman's mid-30s - the male clock proceeds gradually, the researchers found."

That sounds eerily familiar.

“We know that women have a biological time clock,” said co-lead author Brenda Eskenazi of UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, “with an increase in risk of miscarriage and producing children with trisomy (an extra chromosome, such as in Down’s syndrome) as women age, and with a seemingly abrupt end of fertility around perimenopause. Our research suggests that men, too, have a biological time clock – only it is different. Men seem to have a gradual rather than an abrupt change in fertility and in the potential ability to produce viable healthy offspring.”

Unlike in women, the researchers found no correlation between male aging and chromosome changes that cause Down’s syndrome and other forms of trisomies – such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, triple X syndrome, and XYY in offspring – that are associated with varying types and severity of infertility as well as physical and neurological abnormalities. They did conclude, however, that some older men could be at risk for fathering children with dwarfism, and that “a small fraction of men are at increased risks for transmitting multiple genetic and chromosomal defects.”

Also they point out the flaws in their study:

Wyrobek noted that these differences in finding suggest that factors other than age may be involved, raising the possibility that socioeconomic or dietary factors or ethnic background may also be involved in how age affects the quality of human sperm.

“Since some forms of genomic damage change with age and others don’t,” he said, “overall genomic sperm quality cannot be measured by any single sperm test.”

[seabeyond]

185. we know what the woman body does. no surprise to us. the surprise is in you not

knowing about your own body and declarations you have made about the female body.

[JonQ]

193. Funny

you're a woman, so that makes you an expert on female reproduction.

You're also a human right? So clearly you would make an ideal doctor.

You can be a woman and not know a thing about female reproduction, that is learned, not innate knowledge. And as such is available to anyone.

[seabeyond]

207. lol. nt

[girl gone mad]

198. It should be clear to any unbiased observer..

that male fertility and sperm quality decrease with age, starting in a man's 20s. Therefore, from an evolutionary biology standpoint, women would be most sexually attracted to men in this age group. As the studies demonstrated, sperm motility decreases dramatically by a man's early 30s and genetic defects increase at a significant rate. The younger the man, the better the odds for successful fertilization and healthy offspring.

I am not sure why you're so desperate to believe otherwise.

Yes, later maternal age is associated with Down syndrome. Just like later paternal age is associated with schizophrenia, dwarfism, Marfan syndrome, Alzheimer's, autism, achondroplasia, Apert syndrome, etc.

Of course other factors are likely to be involved in diminished sperm quality. A healthy 40 year old will have better sperm than an unhealthy 40 year old. But a 20 year old will have even better sperm than either of them (plus more virility).

[JonQ]

213. Actually all studies have shown men are perfectly capable

of reproducing well in to their 30s with no significant increase in genetic disorders, or health risks to themselves. The same cannot be said of women.

I'm not sure why you are desperate to believe that older women are exactly as sexually attractive as younger women, when the facts clearly don't back that up. For your reference, I'm actually dating (for greater than 5 years) a women who is about 1.5 years my senior. So I'm not trying to prove anything on a personal level. For me this is about science, and facts. For others it seems to have struck a chord and they are frantic to disprove science to make themselves feel better.

[girl gone mad]

260. I have never said that older woman are as sexually attractive as younger women.

Why do you keep making that claim? There are many very attractive older women and men, but in general, both sexes reach peak human desirability before their 30s.

Paternal age could have as significant an impact on genetic disorders, miscarriages, and diseases as maternal age, with an increase in defects beginning in the 30s and rising sharply in the 40s. This is why sperm banks do not take sperm from men over age 40, and pay more to men under 30.

*A Danish population based study of 1920 affected births of 1.5 million live births concluded that paternal age is associated with cleft lip and cleft palate, independently of maternal age. Single gene mutations are the suggested mechanism.

* Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia -- one study found a 50% increased risk for fathers aged 35 years or more
* Congenital heart disease -- overall one study estimated that 5% of cases may be due to advanced paternal age
* Ventricular septal defect -- the risk if the father is over 40 is 69% higher than if the father is less then 40
* Atrial septal defect -- 95% increase in risk if the father is over aged 35

* Alzheimer's disease -- 4 studies concluded there was an increase risk with paternal age.
* Schizophrenia -- Virtually all studies have concluded that there is an increase risk with increased age of the father. One study estimated that about 25% of cases of schizophrenia could be attributed to paternal age. Another study concluded that if there was no family history of schizophrenia then the relationship was even stronger, with as many as 60% of cases of schizophrenia being due to paternal age.
* A population based study of childhood brain cancers reported to the Swedish Cancer Registry between 1960 and 1994 concluded that there is a paternal age affect, estimated to confer about 25% excess risk in fathers >35 years of age.
* Advanced paternal age has also been associated with increased risk of breast cancer and prostate cancer in their children.

*In April, 2007, the results of a large American study were published. This study concluded that both male and female age were associated with an increased risk of autism and related disorders even after adjusting for other factors. The older the parent, the greater the increase in risk.

You're not using scientific facts in this thread, you have only given opinions and outdated theories based on questionable logic. In addition, this is really bad information for young men who are thinking of starting a family and might delay having children on the false belief that paternal age is not a relevant factor in a child's health.

[JonQ]

286. Nope

I'm not going to let you get away with that claim. Maternal age is far more significant in producing genetic disorders than paternal age. And the risks start to increase at a younger age than in males.

And I never said paternal age was not a factor, that is a lie, please stop attributing it to me. Merely that maternal age was a much greater factor. Do you deny this? Because I will happily provide evidence to refute such a claim.

[girl gone mad]

403. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not maternal age is more signficant..

though I don't believe it does play a more significant role until a woman is in her mid 40s.

The fact that paternal age does have a significant effect the health of a child means that biologically, women should be most physically attracted to younger looking men. I know that to be true in the real world, too.

Interesting that once again you think you are "letting" me do something.

[JonQ]

425. Fortunately

science cares not one bit what you choose to believe.

[The Hope Mobile]

319. He's making that claim because he believes that is the argument and its really about

his own desperate need to believe that as a man who is heading toward middle age (physically not emotionally) his ability to find a mate is not decreasing (which it is) . . . or maybe even increasing.

What he doesn't realize is that the real reason why he is still not in a successful relationship is the negative projections he is placing on women in the first place, which is turning them off. He is in denial about this. He has serious trust issues when it comes to women and a lot of anger and passive aggressiveness. I could go MUCH further but will focus on the fact that he is DESPERATE to prove his theory to someone (especially women) even though there are huge leaps in logic which negate his whole line of thinking so that he can reassure himself that its not his fault that he isn't in a relationship.

[seabeyond]

320. damn you are smart. see, i knew all this, just couldnt express it nearly as clearly

or as well. lol

[The Hope Mobile]

323. awww shucks. lol

when he started claiming that we (all of us who disagree with him) were desperate and projecting that was the last straw. Its clear he's unhappy, lonely and desperate.

He also stated that I don't know what projection is which is humorous considering my master's degree in psychology. I see his type too often.

I actually don't want to be harsh with him (because in his mind that reinforces the perception that women are mean and can't be trusted) and its just not my nature normally, but sometimes I think a good dose of reality is what's needed. Hopefully there can be some benefit from this.

[seabeyond]

330. master's degree in psychology. i know. that was funny. but didnt want to trail along in your wake

on all your posts, posting reply. that was funny.

[JonQ]

334. That explains alot

my degree (and future degree) are both in real sciences. Where we use facts and do not have contempt for evidence, the scientific method, etc.

The people opposing me are pseudo-scientists, who don't use facts, who believe in a variety of disproven theories. Not much removed from a theology degree.

I kind of suspected, thanks for admitting it.

[The Hope Mobile]

343. the point being that I am well aware of what projection is and if you

don't agree with psychology why would you use that term in the first place??

[JonQ]

374. To openly mock you

and show you how silly such accusations are.

Sadly I failed to get through to you.

[Hannah Bell]

332. witch-hunters always go to personal attack. i wonder if i could find a study documenting that.

[seabeyond]

335. wow hannah. had never noticed, but i am absolutely seeing a pattern in your posts

interesting.

btw.... we can go ..... again. i am done with this conversation too.

[JonQ]

338. THis is what, the 5th time you've been done with this thread

you can't seem to commit.

[Hannah Bell]

342. exhibit a: poster implies there is an "interesting" pattern in my posts. which she declines to

state explicitly, so she can't be called on the implied charge, & it can't be defended against.

you should perhaps read more kafka.

[The Hope Mobile]

344. which is exactly what Jon Q did

[JonQ]

396. Incorrect

and libelous. Please refrain from further lies.

[JonQ]

329. Wow, this thread is full of amature shrinks

none of them any good though.

Seems to me quite a few older women are deflecting their desperation to remain physically attactive in to personal attacks on myself, when I offered nothing but reasoned arguments based on science.

Pray tell, by what evidence do you base your false and libelous claims?

But if we're going that route, let me guess: you are an older woman, declining in to spinsterhood whose significant other dumped her for a much younger woman. You seek to invalidate his choice, and validate your own ego, by deciding that he was somehow a freak, and in no way behaving appropriately.

See, psychoanalyzing from afar is easy.

[The Hope Mobile]

345. You keep proving our points. Thanks!

[Hannah Bell]

346. not to anyone with a functioning brainstem. thanks!!!

[The Hope Mobile]

349. What was your pointless statement about personal attacks??

Oh yeah! you just did it again!!! lol Thanks!!!

[Hannah Bell]

350. turnabout is fair play. thanks!!!

unlike the witchhunters, i limit my personal attacks to overt suggestions that they're stupid, not covert accusations that they're child molestors.

[The Hope Mobile]

352. Hmmmm - who suggested you are a child molester? (e not o)

So your suggestions, perceptions and your spelling are wrong. Right, Jon?

Funny that you would jump to another inaccurate conclusion, especially that one. We're just saying the denial, desperation, projection, loneliness, anger, hurt, insecurities are obvious. The need to prove to himself that an aging man is still attractive since he is alone . . . has nothing to do with child molestation. Go ahead and turn it into something else. It just reveals more about you!

We're just pointing out the obvious. Its also obvious we're not spinsters or anywhere near it. In your case "turnabout" is more like a schoolyard "I know you are but what am I?" kind of response. That's how we can see the immaturity.

[JonQ]

362. Scroll up

and see who started in on these attacks.

I know you won't, because your particular profession and mindset doesn't much care for collecting evidence.

[The Hope Mobile]

368. I already had but you're so blind to your anger and behavior that you

don't realize that you did. That's why you're single and desperate to prove your case.

The first attack was you stating that the many who disagree with you are projecting their desperation when its clearly you.
The second attack was you stating that we didn't know what projection was.

Shall I go on??

What are we desperate for when we already have what we want? The last thing I want right now is another partner. I'm more than busy with what I've got.

You want to find a youngster? Go for it. That's your best chance of meeting your match emotionally but she will grow . . . and if you don't she will quickly outgrow you. I bet that's familiar to you.

[JonQ]

372. Again, it was a mistake

for me to allow you to turn this in to some sort of personal pissing contest, I shouldn't have indulged this behavior by responding to it.

And the fact that you responded to my posts (containing scientific studies) not with countering evidence but rather with personal attacks suggests you know you are in the wrong.

But here's the thing, even if you were right in your psychoanalysis (you aren't, by a long shot) and even if psychology were a real science (it isn't, not even close) that would have absolutely no bearing on the evidence I presented.

You probably never did this as you aren't a real scientist but we spent many hours pouring over new scientific papers. We examined their methodology, the evidence they collected, analyzed their conclusions and statistics, and so on.

Do you know how many times we concerned ourselves with the hidden agendas or alleged personal issues with the writer? Absolutely zero. If fact had you brought that up as a real issue you would have been laughed out of the room.

So the fact that you have chosen to take that route proves to me two things 1) you have no counter evidence to produce, and 2) you do not have a scientific or analytic mindset. It's not your fault, people just think differently. Which is why your arguments have been so off the wall to me (but no doubt make sense to others). I'm trained to care only about the facts, you're trained to care more about the feelings.

So let's try an experiment. Respond to this as if you were a scientist, concern yourself only with demonstratably facts, no false psychoanalsysi (really you shouldn't be getting paid to do that).

We'll start simple: would you say that the average ages for heterosexual couples has both being the same age, men being older, or women being older?

[The Hope Mobile]

380. check the link I provided (I'm sure there's tons more), empirically the difference is insignificant

1 or less years now at first marriage.

At the time of the second (post reproductive years) its now 5 or less . . . . and the gap is tightening over time.

The first personal attack was you. You stated that those that disagreed with you were projecting (a psych term) and desperate. That's why I got involved in this thread. It was so obvious that THAT was desperate projection.

The second attack was your statement that we don't know what projection is.

I then explained to you what it was and pointed out that it was obvious you were doing it and that neither of us were desperate but your need to distort our argument into something it wasn't makes it clear that you are, in fact, desperate.

The third attack was on my degree. The fourth on my age and intelligence.

I don't know your age and I don't care. I also don't care what degree you hope to obtain or even what your IQ is. What I started posting about was your blatantly misdirected anger, projection, disrespect, and poor understanding of relationships and the fact that your evidence DOES NOT indicate that women prefer older men - only that you wish that was the case. My link, on the other hand, shows that women and men typically choose someone within their age group when they're young enough to reproduce and grow old with them. Women mature emotionally earlier. AFTER the reproductive years there is somewhat of a gap which is getting smaller but probably has to do with women being more emotionally mature. Obviously it doesn't support the case you're making for the biological desire to reproduce with older men because reproduction is no longer a concern in the 40s at the average time of re-marriage.

Its easy to KNOW that you are single because few women would tolerate this backward thinking and you haven't been able to deny that.
Of course I can not get your personal statistics, nor would I want to, but you haven't denied that you are single.

Seabeyond and I are not so neither of us fit your description of being desperate to get someone younger or older or whatever because we're not looking at all. You had no evidence but still you stated it mistakenly anyway. Because we're not emotionally invested. You are.

We're also not spinsters or elderly. What evidence do you have of that? None. Pot calling kettle black.

[JonQ]

382. Ok, so I'll ignore the rest of your post

you actually managed to hit on a point, the age gap is narrowing.

Of course the fecundity rate is also dropping. Which would suggest that as reproduction becomes less of an issue (we're having fewer and fewer children) so does age, not so?

Ok, would you say the humanity evolved in A) the post industrial US, or B) not the post-industrial US?

Of course many things are affecting that now, such as careers, financial issues, and education, none of which played a role in our evolution, or related to my initial statement.

You're doing better in that you did manage a half-response, but you're still falling back in to the old routine of personal attacks and wildly inaccurate psychoanalysis. Leave those out and just respond to that question, leave the attacks and lies out of the next response.

[girl gone mad]

406. And, yet again, you state that you are "allowing" others to reply to you.

Strange.

Psychology is not a real science, but evolutionary psychology is a real science that you take really serious?

Can you take a step back from this thread and realize why it looks to others like you have a personal need to believe in a discredited theory because it makes you feel better about yourself? That's not objective, and that's not science.

[seabeyond]

378. divorced brother for too long finally found an 18 yr old. sound fun? was cause

looking for women his age for years didnt net anything. he is too angry and women say no. tried 30's, tried 20's and still no takers. found a desperate 18 yr old with a little kid that needed someone to support her and he was 6 months in hell until she walked. her getting an abortion he didnt want. of course he wanted the baby and marriage, and even she said no way

but

she was sure to use him for 6 months.

[JonQ]

426. So you have a messed up family

I never once doubted that.

But I would hesitate to extrapolate from that to everyone else.

[JonQ]

361. This is really sad

[The Hope Mobile]

371. Yes, that's the point I've tried to make to you.

You want to believe something that is empirically untrue. Why? Because you're desperate. So desperate you project your desperation on others who clearly aren't. You attack their professions, their age, whatever you can desperately reach for. The fact is we're both living lives that prove that your arguments are false. Neither spinsters or elderly. Spinsters and elderly women don't have teenagers. Neither married significantly older men. (My husband is 10 months younger). Tell us about your happy relationship . . . the one you don't have because of your projections onto women. The evidence is clear . . . as our arguments have been. You're refusing to hear them and trying to turn them into something that neither of us feels. The first attack was you stating that the many who disagree with you are projecting their desperation when its clearly you.

[JonQ]

377. Post 327

let's consolidate this mess.

All my evidence and wisdom is scattered all over this page, all your psycobabble and libel is as well.

[The Hope Mobile]

384. chuckle.

Its clear you're wrong. I think you even know it deep down.

Its clear who started the "attacks" and actually you're still doing it and I'm still not. Sorry for you. I can and did prove my case and you can't.

Good luck and enjoy ignore!

[JonQ]

386. Post 91

your first post responding to me. You claimed my arguments were based on 'projection' and then went off on a tangent. A blatant lie and personal dig.

So I have demonstrated using evidence that you initiated this.

You will no doubt claim I am projecting again. I've noticed your disregard for real evidence.

[girl gone mad]

404. Why do you keep repeating this lie?

No woman here has expressed any need to believe that they are still physically attractive.

You, on the other hand, are doing just that. You seem to have a strange need to "prove" that men become more attractive with age, using junk science and wishful thinking.

[seabeyond]

405. .

:)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

423. How do you know all of that about him

from a few posts on Democratic Underground?

[JonQ]

123. I've also noticed you backed off the pseudoscience claim

good move. Try to be more careful about throwing that around in the future.

[girl gone mad]

136. Not a chance.

Evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience.

[JonQ]

139. Who said anything about psychology

that was your claim.

I'm going on factual evidence.

But out of curiosity, is it still pseudo science if it's backed by facts, but says something you don't want to hear?

[seabeyond]

143. no, you re not going off factual info. that is the problem. and you refuse it

which makes it worse.

[JonQ]

145. I did provide evidence

collected by researchers, you chose not to understand it. Post 89.

What scientific papers have you quoted?

[seabeyond]

149. you cant friggin read it..... nt

[JonQ]

180. No I can't, because you haven't presented it

you are correct in assuming that I cannot read things which I cannot see and which possibly don't even exist.

Quite astute, I may have misjudged you.

[seabeyond]

189. you are playing a fuckin childish game. cant read the graph. nt

[JonQ]

194. Then please explain what is wrong with the graph

I was hoping to educate you, but it seems you need some clarification on the subject.

[JonQ]

111. Oh, BTW

when you said I was wrong, does that mean you believe men and women lose fertility at exactly the same right?

[seabeyond]

122. no. you have so many wrongs in so many posts. when a wrong is pointed out you

ignore and just continue on with more wrongs. no one can stay up with all your wrongs. i have started at least 5 posts on different posts of yours and cannot begin to go thru all your wrongs

then

you make up things being said to have them refuted too

too much work

all around on about everything you are wrong or short sited.

no more. would take hours untangling the mess you made

[JonQ]

126. A gracious exit

to a lost battle. Heh.

I've provided facts, you supplied the rhetoric.

[seabeyond]

130. no. that graph so damn big i couldnt make head or tails out of it.

you conjure up an argument no woman has made. then waste time arguing it.

what win, .... a mess

what part do you not get

older women think young men attractive
older men think young women attractive

what is your fuckin argument you won

[JonQ]

135. First off, please put more effort in to your posts

if you expect me to respond to them, they are rather difficult to read. I think you'll find that forming coherent sentences is better at getting your point across.

My initial point was that men tend to prefer younger women and vice versa. That is supported by evidence. You and others seem to believe both men and women drop in reproductive potential at the same rate, I have provided evidence clearly countering this. As evolution only concerns itself with successfully passing on genes then whatever strategy does this best would be selected for, right? With humans that means men in their 20s to 30s hooking up with teenage or early 20s women. Simple enough.

Biology may point out differences between males and females, but that doesn't mean it's sexist and should be discarded.

[girl gone mad]

124. No one has said that.

Men can technically successfully conceive much later in life than women can, but the sperm quality and quantity declines with age, starting in the early to mid twenties. Therefore, if a woman wanted to ensure successful mating and the healthiest offspring, she would always be more attracted to a young mate than an old one.

[JonQ]

127. The person I was responding to had made that claim

In a post I stated that they don't drop at the same rate between men and women, she called me a liar and wrong. So she was disputing that claim, meaning she did think they dropped at the same rate. I've provided evidence countering her beliefs, and now she has insulted me again and vowed to leave.

[seabeyond]

132. you had so much shit in that post. i did not say a damn thing about anything dropping at same rate

i said male sperm start declining. where the hell do you get this shit

[JonQ]

137. Post 81

I said sperm quality drops with age, but at a slower rate than womens. You said I was wrong, meaning A) you didn't read my post and were just shooting from the hip, B) you believe what you said and that women do in fact lose fertility at the same rate as men or C) you mistyped.

Which is it?

[seabeyond]

147. if i could google, which i can, i would pull a study that would show you all the

problems with the aging sperm, and it starts relatively young. i cannot pull up the study, i am lousy at googling. basically there are a whole lot of things that happen to male sperm that makes it more imperative that the female mate with the male in prime.

do i think they go at same rate? no. obviously a man can still impregnate much later than a female can get preg.

i am saying, as both age, so does their reproductive abilities in many many ways.... biologically. and with the evol psycho babble the conclusion that the femael would repoduce with the younger prime alpha male is as reasoned of an argument that the young alpha male would mate with the young female. not the youngest, cause at the beginning of cycle the female has as many problems producing as the older (women in thirties) woman.

[JonQ]

168. You can't google?

Huh?

[seabeyond]

170. not good at it. the way it is. cant all be good at all things. puter pretty much beyond me

i try to google things and can never find what i am looking for

so?

[JonQ]

182. You just type in what you're looking for and it finds it

would you accept from me any of my statements, backed by alleged papers that I refuse to show you, on the grounds that I'm not very good at finding them and you should just trust me?

[The Hope Mobile]

162. EXACTLY!!!! The evidence Jon Q provides does NOT prove his point

His evidence only points to the fact that biologically both sexes are generally going to be attracted to younger specimens. It DOES NOT prove that younger women are going to be attracted to older men! There's a huge leap in logic there!! That's where the fragile male ego is involved. (And I bet someone on this thread's ego, especially!) SOME men desperately need to believe that they are still as attractive as they used to be. Sorry, just not true . . . and yes there are exceptions in both genders - that doesn't change the facts.

[JonQ]

225. Ha

the desperation on this thread is entirely coming from the womens side.

Yeah, you'll still be appealing at 40 as you were at 18, don't worry about it.

[seabeyond]

229. 40 as you were at 18, ... none of us have ever claimed to be. you are the one claiming MORE attrac

attractive at 40 than the hunky peaking 19 yr olds.

you

are funny

[JonQ]

234. I think in this context it would make more sense

to lament the fragile female ego, that needs to believe she will always be desirable to younger men, and she can always wait to get married and have kids.

Unfortunately there is a time limit on such things, and generally a 30 year old man is considered more attractive than a 30 year old woman, controlling for general level of attractiveness.

[seabeyond]

239. repeating for the umpteenth time, older women KNOW (pretty much) they are not attractive

to younger men, so no need stroking our ego.

and i totally disagree with you the 30 yr old male has it on a 30 yr old female in anyway.

prove it

[JonQ]

241. Well I provided you with charts

and data that was scientifically collected and you still denied their findings. So I doubt any evidence I provide on levels of attractiveness will be acceptable to you.

Apparently I overestimated you. I thought you merely wanted to be seen as more attractive, apparently you want to tear all men down instead. That's pretty low. I'm not sure what happened to you to have such hatred, but let it go. Hating men is not a healthy lifestyle choice, no more than hating women would be.

[seabeyond]

243. ahhhhhh, here we are and the ever predictable.... you hate males. nt

[JonQ]

245. It is coming across rather strongly

I suspect if you hear that alot from different sources there is a chance it might be true, or we could all be conspiring against you.

[seabeyond]

248. no, like any repug talking points you guys follow an absolute pattern.

just true to form

[seabeyond]

246. my 11 yr old son just walked in as i posted this. yesterday we were having gender

conversation and told him, how inevitably males reduced what i said to ...... you hate males.

i am the caretaker of father, two brothers, hubby, two sons, two nephews, all without females in their life, but me

my boys think it is a real hoot when males reduce my discussion to this

so as i post, son came in read my post and, yup.... silly poster.

gave him a chuckle anyway

but you also validated for him, a male consistency that he will probably never adopt in his life

so thank you

lesson learned for him

[JonQ]

253. Oh that's terrible to hear

you should not have sons. You are going to impress your particular brand of hate on them. No doubt you've taught him to hate the right things.

I have said nothing denigrating females on this thread. You have repeatedly bashed males. Not just individual males, but all men in general. Can you please explain how you are not bigoted in light of the fact that you believe negative stereotypes about all men?

Remember, real feminists want equality with men, they don't simply want to do away with them altogether.

[The Hope Mobile]

324. Projection again.

You are very fearful of women - it just comes out sounding like hate. And spare me the "I love women-sexually" blather. If you understood women, you'd be with one in a long term relationship. We all hear your anger.

[JonQ]

336. Ahaha, typical response

to a lost argument.

Next call me a racist.

Please tell me you got your psych degree out of a cereal box. Otherwise you overpaid.

[The Hope Mobile]

351. So sad. Are you also Hannah Bell because you couldn't get anybody

to agree with you?? That would fit the pattern.

At least I know what projection is . . . and don't use it and then knock the science it comes from.

I graduated summa cum laude and am in the National Honor Society for Psychology.

Like I said to seabeyond, your denial is so profound and desperate, there's not much point but I do hope you come to terms with your anger someday and figure out how to be in a healthy relationship . . . like seabeyond and I are.

[redqueen]

363. "your denial is so profound and desperate"

Screamingly so.

[The Hope Mobile]

369. Exactly! Thanks Redqueen. nt

[JonQ]

428. Yawn

An old tactic. Assigning your failings to your opponent.

[JonQ]

427. Please, don't ever refer to psychology

as a science.

It is at best a pseudo science. And frankly I don't care what honors you've recieved in it (assuming you aren't lying, you've lied quite a bit so far, so . . .).

Being a respected astrologist among the astrology community doesn't mean much outside of that group.

And obviously I was making fun of your "analysis", but you didn't get it. Not very keen on understanding people are you?

"Like I said to seabeyond, your denial is so profound and desperate, there's not much point but I do hope you come to terms with your anger someday and figure out how to be in a healthy relationship . . . like seabeyond and I are."

Hehe, I'm sure you and your cats are quite happy together (as long as we're making up assumptions about each other I've decided you are a cat lady).

[The Hope Mobile]

313. You're so missing the point. You're desperately trying to say that

YOU would be as appealing or more so at 40 than 18 and we're stating clearly that neither gender is as appealing at 40 as they are at 18. Connect the dots. Its not that complicated.

[seabeyond]

314. Its not that complicated... it really isnt. what boggles the mind. the obtuseness of the

behavior is amazing. truly, amazing. lol

i dont think a poster can be any more clear or simple in what you posted. if he doesnt get that, .... all is hopeless

[The Hope Mobile]

321. He doesn't want to get it. It has to do with his own personal issues

and his desperation to prove that he is still attractive and can still get a mate. In his case, it doesn't have anything to do with the physical/biological attractiveness. His perceptions of women, his anger, desperation, etc., are what's keeping him from having a successful relationship.

[seabeyond]

322. desperation to prove that he is still attractive and can still get a mate

desperation is key with this poster.

but this is why this evolution (grinnin) of the whole evo psych garbage pisses me off

the whole things smells of a pathetic desperation.

[The Hope Mobile]

325. Really, you gotta just feel sorry for him. You could argue till you're blue

in the face but he's not dealing with logic - he can't get beyond his emotions and his projections. This is why he's desperate. Desperation is not pretty/attractive.

Good luck with all those boys!! I have 3 boys, a hubby and a daughter. Thankful mine are growing up to be capable of healthy relationships. Sounds like yours are too!!

[seabeyond]

333. healthy relationships... doesnt it make all the difference in the world. with open communication

with my boys, we talk all things all the time, and they are getting pretty old. 12 and 15. so good stuff. but i see what they are capable of. and i see how this conditioning today are effecting so many boys, limiting them. i know it does not have to be. and i know it is so much better, boys living in balance and health, for their future journey.

it is my empathy for those so being conditioned and what that will bring them later in life that has me so concerned.

[The Hope Mobile]

347. Mine are 9, 13 and 15 and my daughter is 12. Awesome kids - all in the gifted program.

Guess WE'RE declining into spinsterhood lol

So both of us are in good marriages with bright, happy families . . . and somebody else . . . not so much . . . hmmmm. Oh, but we hate men and he's OK with women. Yeah, uh huh, sure.

[seabeyond]

353. i know... so funny. another of the key....

kids participating in those higher level AP courses. informed, educated, open, self respecting.

So both of us are in good marriages with bright, happy families . . . this is what my boys see. that reinforces for them they are on the right track, because out in their world they so often do not see this. it is easy for them to decide which path they want to journey down. i use to be concerned with the peer pressure, and outside conditioning. at 15 and seeing son develop, i am not at all concerned now.

it is all to do with the foundation they have to build on

[The Hope Mobile]

354. Exactly! When there is mutual respect in the home relationship

not neanderthal level disrespect of women or anyone who is blunt with them about their lack of logic.

[JonQ]

339. Now THAT is what I call projection

seems all the people who have a visceral hatred of my argument are . . . drumroll please . . . elderly women well past their peak, desperate to be seen as still sexy.

The whole thing smells of pathetic desperation.

You gals have no idea how entertaining your little hissy fit has been for me.

[redqueen]

373. Just FYI...

this post is very informative... just not in the way that you think it is.

[JonQ]

331. I am?!?

Wow I had no idea.

Where did I say that, my amateur shrink?

I know you pseudo-scientists don't put much stake in facts or evidence, as much as you do in emotion and conjecture, but humor me this once. Provide evidence for your claims (other than your opinions of course).

And also, by your logic wouldn't that mean that older women refuting my claims are in the same boat? They are desperate to feel that they are still attractive and so lash out at anyone who suggests otherwise?

Heh, of course not.

[The Hope Mobile]

356. Yes, if any woman here (or anywhere) was claiming that men prefer older women

(which we're not) then we would be in as much desperate denial as you. Our claim is that both prefer younger. Regardless of our age, we can live with that because we're in happy healthy relationships with happy healthy children as the result.

You keep fighting in one extreme (and inaccurate) direction with evidence that doesn't fit your premise. We are saying its the same for both genders but you're hearing that we are taking the same position as you but favorable to women and against men. THAT is projection based on anger. Anger is based on hurt. I'm sorry for your pain.

I don't need to provide the evidence . . . your level of protestation (I hit a nerve) does. Its a personal thing and my goal isn't to make you feel bad but I'm sure I'm right that you're single and NEED to believe your inaccurate theory about women biologically wanting older men to believe that your loneliness has nothing to do with your personally. You just be honest with yourself about that. That's my only reason for being honest with you about what is so obvious to most.

[JonQ]

360. Kind of proves my point

"I don't need to provide the evidence"

So when I made a casual, and accurate observation based on scientific observation with no personal element to it whatsoever that was proof that I was lashing out at women. When a bunch of elderly ladies then proceeded to attack me personally (not on an evidence basis, merely on personal and false anecdotes about myself) that was proof they are in healthy relationships and in no way in denial or anything.

Wow. Like I said, whatever you paid, you paid too much for that degree.

[The Hope Mobile]

366. No, I'm trying to be nice enough to you to allow you to be introspective.

you're single, I'm not - there's a reason

The evidence is in everything you say that you are angry and therefore lonely.

[JonQ]

375. I am not single

as I've stated before, multiple times.

Why do you persist in this lie?

Tell me about you father . . .

[The Hope Mobile]

381. bull - if you're with anyone its short term and I could go on . . . but it won't last til you grow

My father is a nationally respected psychologist. But . . . I thought you didn't believe in analysis?? Afraid of it?

[JonQ]

383. I don't think I will

bother responding, as it is irrelevant to the conversation (untrue, but that's besides the point). I have explained to you why.

The fact that you feel this little personal attacks prove anything just backs my argument that you have no interest in facts.

For instance, what if Darwin was a drunk who beat his wife? Would that disprove evolution? Following your logic train yes, following mine, no.

You see personal insults as a counter to dispassionately collected data. I don't.

[redqueen]

93. No interest in hair-splitting.

The myth that younger women are biologically driven to lust after older men is a myth.

Science will kill it eventually... it's just sad to see it clung to so desperately.

[The Hope Mobile]

326. EXACTLY! nt

I'm sure its easily disproven right now. Most relationships are between people of similar ages. If that were the preference you'd see many more May December relationships. They are the exception . . . and usually for psychological reasons not biological.

[TorchTheWitch]

410. of course it is

Walk into any singles bar. The young women are flirting with and going home with the young men. The guys in their 40's or older only get the attention of the young women who want to use them financially while they screw all the young men they're interested on the side. Even the unattractive younger women who know they can't compete with their attractive female peers are still focused on the young men who aren't interested in them.

[redqueen]

417. Yep... Viagra can only do so much, after all.

:evilgrin:

[girl gone mad]

61. It seems to me like you are the one in denial.

Like you desperately want to believe in a fantasy world where men get hotter and healthier with age, rather than in the real world where men go bald, get spare tires, sperm count drops, dna gets damaged and young women want to fuck young men.

[JonQ]

78. Indeed, it's a personal thing with me

that's why I've been the one routinely denying science and resorting to personal attacks.

[seabeyond]

80. what you really do not even kinda get is your whole argument is personal attack on females.

it really bottoms to a tit for tat.

handing you "biology" the same as you hand it to us. and hten you view it as personal attacks.

grow up

evolve already

[JonQ]

85. How exactly is a personal attack on woman?

Any more than deniers claim evolution is a personal attack on god?

Can you accept modern biology which states that woman are born with all the eggs they are going to get whereas men produce sperm daily? Or is that a personal attack on women?

I don't really care for people who deny science because it goes against their world view. Generally if you worldview is contradicted by facts I would say that you should change it. You like to believe, for some reason, that older women are more desirable than younger ones, the reproductive capability doesn't change no matter the age of the woman, that men and women age in identical ways. I point out that this is not true using estabilished biology, you claim this is an attack on women.

Explain yourself and your anti-science rhetoric please.

[girl gone mad]

90. No female here has tried to say that older women are more desirable.

You, on the other hand, are falsely claiming that older men are more desirable (eta: to young women).

[seabeyond]

94. you dont read posts, you dont think about answers, you attribute things to me i did NOT say

i am not here to rally for older women. do old men find young women attractive, absolutely. do older women find younger men attractive, absolutely

this is where you claim otherwise, regardless of women continually calling bullshit. what does that say about a man that tells women who they are attracted to and ignore what women say

does male sperm decrease in all kinds of manners as he ages, absolutely. that is scientific biology. yet you argue and ignore

those are the two points i argue. all the rest, .... garbage

what we did share with you is if the caveman psycho babble was true, what females position would be, and htat too you ignore.

it is not a pretty picture for most all males and especially the older male

[JonQ]

104. But you have an axe to grind

so your opinion is somewhat suspect. You had a case you wanted to prove then set out to generate data to back it. I simply went with the consensus.

I posted an excellent response to your claim that men and women lose fertility at the same rate, see response 89. It may hurt your feelings though, so be prepared to deny it.

"what we did share with you is if the caveman psycho babble was true, what females position would be, and htat too you ignore. "

And what position is that?

You could just as easily claim that if it were true, as science claims (derisive laugh) that men produce more muscle mass in general than women that that would mean women are always going to be at the mercy of men. Since that doesn't jive with your beliefs, and doesn't sound nice, then it must not be true and anyone who says so is sexist.

[treestar]

76. The trouble with this scenario that men who put it forth don't realize

(in spite of the fact it is not true, which any woman will tell you, but I guess female opinions don't count)

Is the notion that the man wants to spread his seed.

If the man could keep the women isolated, all of them, this might be true. But all the men are doing it. So even if the 18-30 year old babes have kids, who knows whose kid it is? It would be ineffective - screw as many of them as you can, so are the other men (and you're competing with them all, not just a certain age group) and your chances of your seed being the one that takes are very little.

It makes as much sense biologically for women to prefer the virile and good looking and younger men (they do - watch any soap opera to see what types of men women prefer) to pass on their stronger genes. If you are talking biology at this primitive level, his being "established" (in primitive societies how "established" can an older man be?) is nothing compared to the guy who is the biggest guy with the biggest muscles. I'm going to want my son to have that - so he can take care of himself as soon as possible.

The younger guy will have more seed to spread, too. My chances of getting pregnant are better with a younger man. At this biologically primitive level we are talking about, that is what matters. An older man has a few logs piled up and I'm going to work harder to get pregnant by him, and he may not even stick around but be out trying to impregnate other women?

No it'll be the one with the biggest muscles, who is the healthiest, and that will appear to be the young and good looking guy.

[seabeyond]

79. in primitive societies how "established" can an older man be?) and how old is old

this makes no sense. the old woman of 20? the old man of 18?

[JonQ]

92. Generally

women in their teens to early 20s, men in their late 20s or 30s.

And yes, men can be established even in primitive societies. For one they've lived that long, not a small feat in the primitive world. Also they can prove themselves as successful hunters, gathers, warriors, etc best able to provide food and security. You know, basic things most people care about.

[treestar]

97. Primitive societies live in tribes

The whole tribe contributes. If the young warrior gets killed, there is still a tribe to protect his children.

And the young warrior is going to get the girl, not the ancient medicine man.

This is biology.

[JonQ]

100. Who said anything about ancient?

I defined older for this scenario as late 20s, early 30s. And yes, there is a tribe working together, but that doesn't mean every individual is seen as interchangeable, so there is no need to choose mates.

Hell we have greater protections and fewer threats in our society, and still women tend towards the strong alpha male type.

Hence brad pitt is seen as more desirable than say jack black.

[seabeyond]

102. you are going to beginning of time, premising who we are today, with way back then

way back then..... what was old?

[JonQ]

106. Sigh

as I've said several times now, late 20s-30s. That would be considered fairly old. But still reproductively viable. By 30 most women were easing out of their reproductive portion of life and moving on to other things in our evolutionary history.

[treestar]

125. This does not mean that 30 year old men dropped their wives or whatever

and got themselves a nice fresh 18 year old while the 30 year old woman just had to be alone.

LOL, any time an old man, whatever is considered old, supposedly scores a younger woman, it leaves a younger man with nothing to do. The older women don't just sit around and figure that "biology" means their sex life is over.

Rich women can buy off boytoys just as well - it's not "biology" it's "society." Women try to get away with what they can, too. If it were "biology" Cher wouldn't be hanging around with men half her age. She'd realize she's past it. Why doesn't she accept that? :rofl: It's biology, isn't it? Why doesn't she stay home?

Of course all of this "primitive" "biology" presupposes completely shallow people who have no capability of an actual human relationship.

[seabeyond]

128. women at 30 dont stop producing. women all over world wide producing into 30's

my two are 33 and 36.

with the number of birthers and time to cool them, they go well into 30's

[JonQ]

141. Who said they all stop?

Again you are having trouble differentiating general trends from anomalies.

Having children in the late 30s is a new thing, in industrialized countries with modern medicine and fertility treatments. You don't think we evolved under those conditions?

Look up the average age for childbirth world wide. I think you will be surprised to find that 36 is not the norm.

[girl gone mad]

146. Having children in the late 30s is definitely not a new thing.

You really need to do some more research. Most women do not go through menopause until they are between 45 and 55.

[seabeyond]

152. you said at 30.... at 30, not in the 30's but at 30....... OMG..modern medicine and fertility trea

are you daft.....

women forever before birth control are suseptible to preg all thru their 30's.

you believe that a womman in 30's need modern medicine?

dont use that as your birth control

and NO nowhere did i say 36 is NORM. this is what makes it impossible to talk to you

tooo much, too much that isnt correct or have to be addressed in any given post of yours

done

[JonQ]

172. Perhaps you could use the google

to find out average ages for pregnancy worldwide, or what age is safe to have a child at, or how to form a complete sentence?

[seabeyond]

175. i know about birthin babies.... you on the other hand seem to think at 30 women

are done, unless of course they use modern medicine or fertility clinic

might read the study ggw posted you. as likely as the man being the issue, depending on his age

[JonQ]

183. Done? No, that is a lie

I never said that.

At that age fertility drops as rates of genetic disorders increase.

You do realize that don't you? Yes you can have a child at 45 and it be perfectly healthy, with no adverse health affects to you either. That is not the norm, or a particularly good idea.

Again, I'm arguing trends, you seem to believe isolated cases are a trend.

For instance, if I were to say most people are right handed you could always come back with an anecdote about someone you know who is lefthanded. To you that would disprove my statement. To everyone else it would not because I never said "100% of people are righthanded", merely that that is the trend. If I were to point that out to you you would come back with another anecdote about a lefthanded person you know (or perhaps you are lefthanded), and think you had proved your case.

[JonQ]

131. No they don't drop their wives

but generally they get married to younger women. Meaning a 30 year old marries an 18 year old, or so. So when she's 30 he's now 42 and also moving out of his reproductive phase. It works out nicely and doesn't leave youner men out in the cold.

You invented the claim of wife swapping, not I.

And of course there are counter examples, with humans there always are. I'm talking trends, not 1 to 1 correlations.

Surely you don't feel that in general men are seeking out only women their own age, and women are seeking out mostly younger men? That is clearly false.

[seabeyond]

134. who generally marries younger 30/18. generally means a norm. where? nt

[JonQ]

186. I think when is a better question

we've moved beyond that in the west, because reproduction is no longer the main reason people get married.

But for where, go to developing countries that need a high reproductive rate, and look at the trends there. It isn't people starting to have kids at 32. And generally it's older men with younger women. You must realize this. I think you're being intentionally obtuse at this point.

[girl gone mad]

158. Why would a woman be more interested in reproducing with a man..

who is going to be dead soon?

[JonQ]

195. I would hardly say a 30 year old is likely to be dead soon

even in tribes the life expectancy for those who make it out of childhood is well above 30.

But if 30 is near death for a man then what is it for a 30 year old woman with the additional stress of being pregnant (in a world with no doctors)? Surely that would make her even closer to deaths door. Birth isn't exactly a safe procedure.

[girl gone mad]

202. But we're talking about evolutionary psychology.

The human lifespan has only very recently seen a dramatic increase. Most of our ancestors would have been unlikely to even reach the age of 30, but you're claiming that a teenage girl should be naturally attracted to a 35 year old, based on biology and evolution? I don't buy it.

[JonQ]

215. Life expectancies on such populations are misleading

they may be in the 30s but that doesn't mean most people die at that age. It's skewed by a ridiculous infant mortality rate. For instance, if you have twin sons, one dies at birth the other lives until 90, their average life expectancy is 45. Technically true, but misleading. So the ones who lived past childhood would be expected to live well past 30, even though the average might stop there merely because so many didn't get out of childhood.

And yes, someone who lived to 35 in our history would have been A) still young and healthy enough to have a family (BTW I said late 20s to 30s, not 35) and B) proven as being at least somewhat competent to have lived that long.

[girl gone mad]

261. Yet more bad science on your part.

Yes, it's true that throughout history some humans lived to what we would consider old age, but the vast majority of humans did not.

It is not accurate to claim that lower infant mortality rates are the prime contributor to our increased lifespans. A smaller fraction of adults die at 20, at 30, at 40, at 50, and so on across the lifespan now than did historically. As a result, we live longer on average. Reductions in juvenile and infant mortality contribute to increased life expectancy at birth, but the same trend is evident if we consider life expectancy at 15, 20, 30, or even 80. We live much longer now than in the past.

There is ample skeletal and artifact-based proof that Romans, Egyptians, and Greeks were dropping dead in their 30s, 40s and 50s at much higher age-specific mortality rates than today. We can also tell from tomb inscriptions that that half of Romans who lived to age 15 (and therefore escaped juvenile mortality) were dead before age 45.

Based on evolutionary imperative, why would a woman be more attracted to a 35 year old with a 50% chance of mortality within 10 years than to an 18 year old with a much higher 10 year survival rate? That does not compute.

[JonQ]

282. As I'm sure you're aware

the advent of farming actually caused the life expectancy to plummet, counter-intuitive, but true. This is due of course to vastly increased population densities, increasing contact with other peoples, international trade, and of course greater livestock use. All leading to rampant plagues that were not a major factor prior to that. Read "guns, germs, and steel" it has a great deal of information on the subject.

Oh sure, tribal societies have diseases. But they tend to be the endemic repeating kind with low mortality rates (part of the reason they generally are wiped out on contact with farming societies through plague, no developed immunity to such pathogens). Plagues like those seen in the roman empire simply couldn't exist, they would burn themselves out too rapidly for a lack of hosts. Low population density is a great way to reduce disease spread.

So yes, romans had a very short life span, but that's not where we spent most of our evolutionary history is it? You're comparing evolutionary adaptations from one environment to conditions in another.

You may as well ask why did we evolve to sweat when we have air conditioning? Or fear of falling when we have parachutes?

Apparently we are talking two different things. I was referring to pre-civilization, the most formulation portion of our history from a biological standpoint. We've evolved since then of course, mostly in the area of disease resistance. But that doesn't mean we started with a clean slate, wiping clean everything we inherited prior to the domestication of grains.

And of course none of this means our ways our set in stone and cannot be changed by conscience force. No doubt our instincts tell us to lash out or run whenever someone annoys you, or a loud car horn goes off. But those can be restrained. In general though they do have an effect.

[seabeyond]

283. bottom line... we have evolved and none of this means anything. so many other variables

has much more influence on our behavior and who we are.

we just keep bringing this evo bs cause it is fun. thinking it gospel, like a religion.

kinda what everyone has been telling you

[JonQ]

287. You're right

evolution has no impact on who we are or how we behave.

When jesus created us from mud 6000 years ago he did so from a clean slate. We didn't evolve or anything, we were created to be perfect and in his image (until eve ate that damn apple of course).

[seabeyond]

291. what does 6000 yrs have anything to do with what i say. oh it doesnt

one of your many fake arguments no one is making. regardless of the immaturity of such argument, it is innately dishonest

[JonQ]

296. You don't seem to believe in evolution

or at least you feel that it is irrelevant. Typically those types of people believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

You're response was woefully inadequate so I gave it all the respect it was due.

[seabeyond]

301. you are wrong. again. i dont believe your made up stories told for male ego. nt

[JonQ]

304. This is sad

it's like arguing against the idea of the holy trinity with a staunch christian.

Me: present evidence, facts, logic refuting the idea.

You: nope, you're wrong, fuck you.

Me: present further evidence, facts, logic refuting the idea.

You: nope, you're wrong fuck you. I'm putting my fingers in my ears now, can't hear you!

[seabeyond]

305. nope, you are wrong again. you present people guessing as facts, logic (which fails)

and you ignore anyone elses "logic" so you can hold on to your story you tell self

[JonQ]

337. Enlightening

next tell me that I shall be struck down by god!

[seabeyond]

292. and yes i am right. new evolutionary discovery. read up.

now of ourse, i know that all this is just guesses but hey, i am not a moron to hang all of life by someones guesses




http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-fossils2-2009oct02,0,3420742.story

The most controversial aspects of the papers involve the authors' -- particularly Lovejoy's -- interpretations of what the fossils say about behavior. Of particular importance, he said, is that the sizes of males and females were about the same, and that the specimens do not have large, sharp canine teeth. Both findings suggest that the fierce, often violent competition among males for females in heat that characterizes gorillas and chimpanzees was absent in Ardipithecus.

That implies, Lovejoy concluded, that the males were beginning to enter into monogamous relationships with females and devoted a greater proportion of their time to caring for their young than did earlier ancestors.

"This is a restatement of Owen Lovejoy's ideas going back almost three decades, which I found unpersuasive then and still do," Pilbeam said. Hill was more blunt, calling Lovejoy's speculation "patent nonsense."

[JonQ]

297. Ok, so what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

That says nothing about age.

Also, I thought you weren't able to "google".

[seabeyond]

302. oh, golly gee, .... nothing. rollin eyes. nt

[JonQ]

340. Bingo

now stop deflecting.

[seabeyond]

208. you are picking your theory up from beginning of time. i am talking about beginning of time

males and females lifespan. you talk about the old. per beginning of time. what was old at beginning of time?

[JonQ]

217. See this is what I was talking about

your post is barely comprehensible. I'm not even sure what you're asking so how can I respond?

[treestar]

117. Someone who looks like Brad Pitt, even with no money

Always gets the girl, not the balding 40 year old, even if he's a zillionaire.

The young warrior will get the young girl over the 30 year old man, period.

Women are not "biologically" attracted to men due to their circumstances.

On that primitive level, they are attracted to the guy with muscles who looks healthy. If they ever settled for an older guy it was because of the patriarchal society that allowed the man to command the resources. Now, with women working, you see less of that, in fact none of it.

And why do rich women take on young boytoys? The same reason men might.

No, men do not have the advantages they wish they had.

[JonQ]

119. Really, you don't see any of that going on?

Somebody tell all those billionares to hide their 20 year old girlfriends, apparently that can't happen!

Ha.

[seabeyond]

142. that is not the norm. nt

[JonQ]

197. As defned by .. . ?

If we were to only take you as an example the norm would be to have children at 36.

That doesn't really hold up for others though.

[seabeyond]

209. i am not the norm, nor have i claimed to be. nt

[JonQ]

218. Good

then let's stop drawing conclusions on general trends from your experiences, ok?

[seabeyond]

220. never mind. nt

[lukasahero]

214. "If they ever settled for an older guy...Now...you see less of that, in fact none of it."

Hmmm. Guess I'll have to tell my 14+ yrs my senior husband that we no longer exist.... (I'll leave out the part that implies I "settled" for the man I adore.)

I work. He's retired for health reasons so his "command of the resources" isn't really high on the list of why I married him.

We have no children and no interest in them. So much for those biological imperatives.

I dated younger men and men my own age. I found them boring and immature.

Maybe we break the mold. Or maybe the mold is outdated and needs adjustment.

[seabeyond]

216. or maybe... you are just not the norm, like i am not. and that works for me.

as it obviously does for you.

[cherish44]

276. Well chances are the 20 year old who is married to the 70 year old billionaire

is most likely getting some action on side from the hot studly pool boy. Yeah old rich guys can attract young hot girls but they have to accept that these girls are in it for the cash, not for the amazing sex.

[seabeyond]

278. that is the other funny. like she isnt there using him. wtf.... it amazes me

the SMALL group of men that tell themselves these stories and truly buy into it

i see things in female gender that does the same

most of us walk with our feet on ground, in reality

[JonQ]

288. You didn't take my bet

remember, where I bet that on average women end up dating/marrying men that are older than they are to a statistically significant amount, and you would bet that they date/marry men the exact same age as they are?

Sure you do. So what are you willing to put on that?

[seabeyond]

293. you are so full of shit.... you totally use fabricated words for your arguments

go away.

i have a book to read

[JonQ]

295. No, I use real words

you can look them up, they're in the dictionary and everything. Perhaps you don't know them, but that doesn't mean that I made them up.

And if you don't want to continue then simply stop responding, don't insist that I leave and tacitly accept your arguments.

[LanternWaste]

308. it's also biology to eat and defecate when and where the urge strikes us

It's also biology to eat and defecate when and where the urge strikes us. However, it would appear that we use social mores to balance out those baser and more common instinctual urges we may receive.

That said, I'd love to see someone argue that urinating in the office break room is "simply biology".

[JonQ]

385. But the fact that we have social mores

to counter such base actions suggest that such base urges exist right? In fact that kind of proves it. Why have a stigma against urinating in public if no one would do it otherwise?

[LanternWaste]

388. Is that indeed the purpose of social mores?

However, is that indeed the purpose of social mores? Not as per Manicas in 'A Realist Philosophy of Social Science' or Carsten's 'After Kinship'

And if not, it's not quite a "proof".

[JonQ]

395. Ok, so what purpose do they serve?

Why tell people not to do something they would never consider doing?

We have a social stigma against stealing (for instance) because people do that routinely. We do not have one against giving all your money to some random person, as that happens very rarely.

Why ban some action no one would do anyway?

[LanternWaste]

400. The same reason we have a shared general morality.

The same reasons (plural) we have a shared general morality within the human species.


I could direct you to some appropriate, peer-reviewed texts and publications regarding the construct and purpose of mores if you're unsure. And I imagine you would allow the authors more validity than you do with posters on an internet forum...

[JonQ]

421. And this secret reason is?

[Odin2005]

265. Evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience.

[redqueen]

387. Perhaps... but as long as it's pseudoscience that you agree with...

(e.g. projection) then it's OK! ;)

[Odin2005]

389. Very true. whether it be this crap, anti-vaccine BS, Quantum Woo, or Alternative "Medicine".

[Gman2]

74. Biologically, young girls go for old guys, and screw around on them with young studs.

According to most modern biology. Relationship fidelity is so taught, for a reason.

[girl gone mad]

88. I don't go for old guys.

None of my friends, sisters, cousins or neighbors ever went for old guys.

It's interesting that I can think of about 200 young women in my life and not one of them married or even dated an old guy.

[The Hope Mobile]

96. Me neither! nt

[seabeyond]

101. i dont know anyone either. when i was young and the old men hit on me (30)

grossed me out. and my friends. we had all kinds of comments. now i hear old men (30) say, i think she likes me and a huge rollin of the eyes from all us old women.

illusions

to stroke the sensitive, fragile male ego

[JonQ]

107. Certainly

apparently no one does.

That's why there are as many "sexy" female actors still working over 40 as there are male.


That's why there are no trends of men dating younger women, or women dating older men.

[redqueen]

151. Seems to me that girls *with daddy issues* go for young guys.

Sadly, daddy issues are fairly common.

It doesn't make it some kind of biological fact... no matter how desperately some wish to cling to that myth.

[seabeyond]

154. daddy issues.... go with older guys. and yes. nt

re read your please....

:hi:

[redqueen]

174. OOPS! Yes, I meant to say *older* guys.

Thanks! :hi:

[seabeyond]

176. lol. nt

[lukasahero]

222. So what kind of daddy issues do you mean exactly?

I'd like to know why I married my husband.

[redqueen]

232. Sorry... *some* girls who go for older men.

IMO it's likely the VAST majority.

If you didn't have any issues, then it doesn't apply to you.

[lukasahero]

235. Sorry, redqueen, but that's a bit of a cop out

And I think you're only saying it to get out of explaining what you mean because you don't want to insult me. The "VAST" majority have issues but not me? I know I'm weird but I don't think I'm really that special. ;)

[redqueen]

238. I thought it was very obvious what I meant. It's hardly a rare assertion.

Absent fathers, fathers who don't show affection... there are many examples of this situation causing a woman to seek out a 'father figure' in a mate.

[JonQ]

244. So does that mean women who date younger men

have son issues?

How about you just tell us your preference, so we know the "right" way women are supposed to think, and then we can denigrate everyone who is different?

[redqueen]

247. LOL

No way am I wasting my time with you.

Feel free to read my other response. It's simple enough for you to grasp.

[JonQ]

249. You mean the ones where you

are blatantly insulting the majority of married women around the world?

Let me guess, you only date men younger than you?

[seabeyond]

250. why did i. i know better. why i ask. i have a good book to read, lol. nt

[redqueen]

252. Hah...

I was about to ask you earlier... why are you bothering? I figured you must be bored. :rofl:

[seabeyond]

254. rofl

next time hit me upside head

[Gman2]

190. Old guys is an exageration. Almost all women wind up with a guy a few years older.

Old guy, to raise and pay for offspring, young guy to widen the gene pool. Many species have this arrangement. Even the species that were thought life long partners. Male Ego, to fool fool into thinking that his wife, wants his obvious prowess, over young stud.

[seabeyond]

206. conditioning. men cheat, women dont. biology. that is what we knew

that is what both men and women were taught. and.... men cheated, women didnt. today, fuck the conditioning and lo and behold, 50/50. women cheat as much as men

when i was little in the 60's i was actively TAUGHT, TAUGHT in fantasizing marriage exactly what my hubby would be. and my girlfriends too. two things were always spoken, always on the list.

hubby taller
hubby older.

this was taught to us girls.

nothing biological there. we were 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 when it was always spoken to us, and readily conditioned us that men were to be older

every. one. of. my. friends.

i figure as we progress, this too will fall along the wayside aliong with statistics that showed men cheated above and beyond women.

i married a man almost 4 yrs younger than i. had kids in 30s

even with the conditioning.

[lukasahero]

226. LOL

I just read this after reading your post upthread to me and I'm dying laughing. You were 'conditioned' to want older men and married younger. I wasn't conditioned at all and married much older. Too funny. I think that when it comes to people, love and relationships it's all a frickin' crap shoot and to say we understand the patterns is a ridiculous farce meant to make us feel better.

:rofl:

[seabeyond]

230. works for me. nt

[seabeyond]

233. i think that is the point. too many variables come into play. nt

[lukasahero]

219. "Old" or "older"?

If "older", I've always gone for older guys - from 5 to 15 years older than me. But then, I'm 'an old soul'.

My weirdness aside, almost everyone I know has at least dated older men. How old are you? Am I just so old at 46 that I'm out of the loop with what's the norm now? (Although, my 21 yr old nephew is dating a 19 yr old girl. They've been together on and off for over 5 years....)

If you do mean "old" - define "old"?

[seabeyond]

242. wanted to add to the old/oler. i think as we age, five years is nothing either way. i dont even

see that in an older/younger scenerio. that small of a span does not even come into play. i think when talking older one has to be referring to a decade

just my opinion

[mitchum]

188. That's not biology, that's cultural conditioning perpetrated by patriarchal societies

[Gman2]

192. It shows up in nature regularly.

[JonQ]

196. And I suppose we invented it out of thin air?

Culture and biology are intertwined.

The fact that it holds true in nearly every culture does suggest there is a biological basis to it.

Can't blame everything on "the patriarchy".

[mitchum]

200. If you want claim that females are naturally grasping and venial creatures...

knock yourself out.
Because that is what you are doing...

[JonQ]

223. How exactly am I claiming that?

People are grasping creatures, always looking for the best deal possible. Do you think men just randomly select their mates? Of course not. They pick out whoever they think is the best woman they can get, the same is true for women. That you're trying to make this a "sexist" argument just shows you have little to offer the debate.

Unless, do you know many couples where one person readily agrees they settled on someone lower than them, that they could have done better but didn't bother?

[mitchum]

237. Well, you are claiming that women are driven by "who can give me the most stuff"...

while men are driven by the more "noble" drive of propagation of the species.
So, yes that is what you are claiming.
Or maybe you need to hang out with a better class of women, Sugar Daddy.

Look, rationalize all you want, that is still not going to prevent people from snickering at you when they see you escorting your younger trophy wife, girlfriend, paid date for the evening, or whatever.

[JonQ]

240. Wow, that was an impressive level of misinterpretation

Both men and women are driven by what best increases their chances of reproducing successful. As men and women reproduce differently those strategies are different.

Women do tend to care more about the status of a mate and factor that in far more than men do. Men tend to be more concerned with physical appearance in general than women.

The fact that you chose to make this personal suggests I struck a chord. Are you dating an older woman and somewhat embarrassed by it? Don't be, I'm dating a woman older than me, no worries.

For me this was never a personal vendetta, merely fact based. That others chose to make it personal suggests problems with them, not me.

[seabeyond]

210. bingo. ding ding ding. PRIZE. yes. that is exactly what "we" did for male ego

that is how so damn important and fragile your male ego is. you have to spout bunk science to be your definition of a man.

be free man, be free of the conditioned stereotypes. it is really wonderfully enlightening to not have to defend the stupid.

[JonQ]

224. Yeah, that's it

there are no biological differences in how we age. Fact is you are projecting your own inadequacies on to me. You can't stand the fact that you are getting older, and thus less sexually attractive, so you assume that it must be a lie, invented by evil men to keep you down, or whatever. Sorry, men generally age better than women. That's not my fault, take it up with nature, or god, or whoever you feel had hand in creating us.

I suppose we "invented" the idea that men have greater upper body strength than women just for our own egos.

Both the far right and far left have their science rejecting fundamentalists. The reason they reject science is different, but the arguments are eerily similiar.

[seabeyond]

228. i never claimed no biological difference. i love my age and dont fight it. i am well aware

i am not at the same sexual place today i was yesterday, and that is fine with me. i am not under any illusions. i dont need to tell myself stories

you on the other hand

men age better.... story told, illusions lived. and what for? you fragile and delicate male ego

[JonQ]

236. Your fragile ego

seems to have taken control of your higher reasoning.

You believe that men age in the same way as women even though facts contradict this (I know because I've presented many of them to you), why? Because you must believe it, you can't stand the fact that you are in decline at a faster rate than men your age. Just accept it, there are fundamental differences between the sexes. If your ego won't tolerate that fact then perhaps you should bow out of this conversation to avoid further challenges to your self esteem.

[jenniferj]

270. Older men can provide finacial security....

Women like older men if they are financially solvent and can provide a home and stable environment for any children..
Women go for younger men when they want good sex and are finanically independent and don't need to live with somebody...

[barbiegeek]

281. Nope, more likely to die cuz old and weaker defensively then a young male

[MineralMan]

19. Biology also gave Polanski a brain. He didn't use that part of

his body.

[Odin2005]

21. Wow, that's some major projection from Polanski there.

:puke:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. Are you actually shallow enough to not understand what that quote means?

Sex crimes receive intense media coverage, and the more desirable the victim the more coverage there is.

There is a reason for that. And there is a reason why this particular story has convulsed DU. And there is a reason the Elizabeth Smart story was so big while comparable stories about less attractive white children (with no swimsuit video footage to run as B-roll) were not.

Question:

Who is likelier to molest a child?

a) A crusader against child molestation.
b) A person chosen at random.

If you answered "b" then you need to reconsider your model of human nature.

(That does not mean that "a" is *likely* to molest, but is likelier than "b")

[downeyr]

35. Good point.

Plus, look at the state of America these days. If you want proof that what Polanski says is true in general, just look at the many different celebrities we've held up as sexual ideals before they reached the age of consent--Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson, Miley Cyrus, Hannah Montana, Taylor Swift, and Britney Spears.

[seabeyond]

38. use, manipulate, control.... all about power. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

221. the industry selected those girls for society

Society didn't choose them. And this is an industry notorious for sexual exploitation of women and girls and to which Polanski belongs.

It's no wonder most people can't recognize talent when the industry has for so long thrust before us mediocre or down right horrible cuties that are willing to show a lot of skin and shake their asses... and that goes for both genders.

[jenniferj]

272. That maybe why Hollywood is so quick to defend Polanski...

They make huge money sexualising underaged girls like Miley Cyrus....

[NashVegas]

284. Data?

For that assertion. Got any?

[redqueen]

398. Are you serious?

I figured that claim came straight out of his ass... never even occurred to me to bother to ask.

[Toasterlad]

28. Not Me.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

266. This whole situation makes me think of Humbert Humbert. nt

[redqueen]

315. Your post made me think back to the novel's ending...

and of the interpretations.

As I was Googling just now to refresh my memory... I found this:

One of the novel's early champions, Lionel Trilling, warned in 1958 of the moral difficulty in interpreting a book with so eloquent and so self-deceived a narrator: "we find ourselves the more shocked when we realize that, in the course of reading the novel, we have come virtually to condone the violation it presents (...) we have been seduced into conniving in the violation, because we have permitted our fantasies to accept what we know to be revolting".

Yep.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

408. True. One of the interesting things about Lolita

is the use of a doppelganger. The other man (Quilty) who is constantly following Humbert Humbert and Lolita is never really seen until the end, but always following them and a big part of the novel. We find out that he's a child pornographer and someone who is much less of a sympathetic figure, as he's completely corrupt, is a KNOWN child molester who escapes punishment from the community because of his status. He also and takes advantage of and abuses Lolita, as Humbert portrays himself as the one being taken advantage of. I think he is a device used to describe Humbert's nature. That book is so interesting.

[redqueen]

415. Have you read the annotated version?

I don't think I could have read it had that not been available. Without being able to think of it as an exploration of the idea of exile, and not strictly of this example of a middle aged man obsessed with adolescent girls. (I despise the term "nymphet.")

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

419. nope. what do you mean by exploration of exile?

[redqueen]

420. Nabokov was exiled from Russia with his family as a boy.

Apparently that concept shows up in a lot of his work. Alfred Appel was able to consult with Nabokov about the notes he wrote about the text, which allowed for some very interesting and revealing insight. In Lolita, the exile is manifested in Humbert's status as a pedophile. Here's a small excerpt: http://tinyurl.com/yelngun


It's a fascinating read... if you enjoyed the book, I recommend the annotated version most highly. You will not be disappointed.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

429. I'll definitely have to do that..thanks! nt.

[redqueen]

430. My pleasure!

If you remember this request after you get around to reading it, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about the book.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

439. Definitely! nt

[JonQ]

30. He seems repentant

let's let him go.

And it's surprising he used "grown up" as a compliment.

[closeupready]

34. Polanski was wrong then, and wrong now.

n/t

[Burma Jones]

36. When I was 13 I did...........

[proteus_lives]

44. Well, that's puke-worthy.

:puke:

Fuck Polanski and all his apologists.

[treestar]

50. If he was referring to 18-19 it might be ok

But 13? Really? Yuk.

Men are confusing. Well, I guess they are different. 13 year old girls by definition have no experience. why would they be more desirable to a man in his 40s than a woman who has some experience? It's weird. A man who prefers a young girl wants something other than good sex, from what I gather about the comments about people's "performance."

[seabeyond]

54. she has no experience, not mature brain yet and he can control, manipulate at will. nt

[treestar]

70. There you have it

He can tell her what is "supposed" to be done and there is a greater likelihood she will believe it.

When I think of myself at 13 or any of my younger family members, it creeps me out that anyone can suggest this was ever right.

[ShortnFiery]

63. Gee, we have more than a few folks who suffer from an intense need to

ADVERTISE their blessed self-righteousness. WHOA! :wow: :(

No wonder vicious and vindictive shows such as "Nancy Grace" enjoy such a following.

Just SAD to see such energy wasted on inconsequential bullshit. :(

[seabeyond]

65. female rape ignored is inconsequential? hence the problem. nt

[ShortnFiery]

68. Lord, yes ... get all in a lather over that truism and ignore the census worker who was MURDERED?

:(

[seabeyond]

75. females are being raped prostituted abuse tortured murdered world wide.

yes

it is an issue of mine.

[ShortnFiery]

95. Yes, ok and ripping up Polansky is going to affect the conduct of the sex trade? How?

[seabeyond]

108. when i see a pres of an industrialize nation condoning this behavior, excusing it and declaring

u.s. mean to want to prosecute a rapist, without ever mention what this man did, without ever speaking out for the victim of this man, .... i hear the world being told the rape of a 13 yr old girl so insignificant that it is not even worth a mention

when i hear hollywood powerful DEMAND the release of polanski and the actress stand up and speak out for this man, and not a mention of the rape of a 13 yr old girl, i hear them tell the world that the rape of female is so insignificant that it does not even rate a mention

when i think this thru, i see a world of men being told rape is inconsequential. and when i think it thru i hear the world telling every girl that is raped that she doesn't matter at all

i hear the world yell

girls are free game, go for it guys.

[redqueen]

69. So.... your post isn't self-righteous?

Is that what you think?

The reason this is getting so much attention is due to the defending. If no one had defended him, it wouldn't have blown up like this.

People tend to react badly to anyone who tries to defend rapists. That's not a "Nancy Grace" thing, where you're just trying to talk about doom news for ratings... that's a good thing, because the fact that people rationalize rape (and molestation, in this case) is why it's still such a huge problem.

[ShortnFiery]

71. Probably, but I try to own up to my faults .... Yea! I too sin, but still - it's not a good thing.

;)

[redqueen]

73. I hope you read more than the subject line. (nt)

[ShortnFiery]

82. No, I reserve my capacity for "ire" to real-time. IMO, Nancy Grace is the Glenn Beck

for "Let's take Vengence Now" crowd.

I'm sorry but the intensity sort of creeps me out like "law and order" scene on steroids. :shrug:

[seabeyond]

86. not into vengeance. never have. this has nothing to do with vengeance. awareness

yes. educate, yes. progressive evolution, right there.

nothing to do with vengeance.

[ShortnFiery]

98. Well, I'm the last person to claim to "know it all" ... that may be true for many - I hope so.

:-) :hi:

[seabeyond]

155. hugs...... lol lol

i am so tired with poster above. i dont even know what we are disagreeing about. lol

[redqueen]

113. If you had read my post, you'd have noticed the lack of intensity.

You sure pay very little attention to what you're posting about. Odd waste of time, that.

[guitar man]

72. I don't

I'm more into the 40 something milf types, never really cared for young girls, even when I was young. So no, not "everybody" wants to fuck young girls. What a pukebag. :eyes:

[seabeyond]

77. i just really appreciate it when a man says..... no, it is not all men.

on any number of issues.

i respect and appreciate that. i know it is true. but so often we are told endlessly, all men. my husband tells me it is their way of rationalizing their own behavior. it is not all men. i am seeing with this issue, it isnt even most men

i feel the same way whenever ANYONE tells me ALL women.

[guitar man]

159. thank you

It irritates me to no end to be lumped in and stereotyped about what I am "supposed to like". According to pop culture lore, as a middle aged man I am supposed to be longing to "dump the starter wife and minivan" for a corvette and a skinny 20 year old with plastic boobs and bleached hair. Why would I do that when I find myself attracted to plump women in the 35-50 range with large natural breasts and a bam booty?

[seabeyond]

160. oh, you are so cute and funny, lol

"dump the starter wife and minivan"

thank you for the dose of reality.

gosh, and i have one of those men that ripen to sweetness with age. lol

[guitar man]

161. I try

but Mrs guitar man says I'm a "sour old fart" sometimes :rofl:

[NashVegas]

103. Hey, You Know What? He's Probably Right

The thing is, most non-sociopaths are able to recognize the reasons you stop yourself from doing something that might be pleasurable (for you) that's also very harmful to others, and stop themselves from going there.

[redqueen]

114. He's not, though. He's just projecting. (nt)

[seabeyond]

156. listening to a lot of MEN saying no, not for them. i know a lot of men in real life not

interested.

[chrisa]

121. Typical perv.

They all think that everybody thinks like them, and that justifies their behavior.

And dear god, if someone needs to have sex with a 13 year old, which they would have absolutely nothing in common with, there's something mentally wrong with them. They're practically out of elementary school. Let them go do kid things, you wackos.

[Throd]

148. I'm a 42 year old man who finds the concept of fucking a 13 year old girl so very, very wrong

Fuck him for suggesting otherwise.

[seabeyond]

157. i would be pissed if i were a man too. but then there are things women state

that piss me off also

:thumbsup:

[Liquorice]

165. The good news is that France and Poland have seen the light

regarding this pervert:

"The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law".'
<snip>

"Speaking to reporters, French government spokesman Luc Chatel said: "We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job." '

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm

[seabeyond]

166. oh, they finally talk about the rape. THANK YOU for posting this

it was so troublesome for me the position the french govt took.

this, did my heart good.

thanks

[Liquorice]

177. I couldn't stand the way France initially reacted to it either. I was relieved

to find that they (and Poland) had stopped supporting this creep. Maybe they looked into the case further and realized they were defending a rapist.

[redqueen]

181. That is very good news indeed. (nt)

[MilesColtrane]

203. Now if only Hollywood would follow France's example.

[seabeyond]

211. maybe a few of the now a days big stars like pitt or others that think things thru will speak out.

[jenniferj]

273. Outside of Paris, the French general public are disgusted

by Polanski..They see a rich man, that has escaped justice and not a misunderstood victim that those on the art world think he is.....It is not looking good when their President is seen condoning the rape of a minor..

[flvegan]

169. This thread's not gone well.

Flames and tears. Saw it coming from the very beginning.

[seabeyond]

171. i think it has been incredibly good. was good for me anyway. but thanks

for you perception.

and a little comment at so many of threads

gets giggle from me

[Jack Rabbit]

199. Everyone wants to boil child rapists in oil, too

That still doesn't make it right.

But a stretch in the pokey is another matter.

[bhikkhu]

231. That's why we have laws

Which "everybody else" seems to respect and follow. I don't have much of an opinion about him myself, not knowing much about the whole case, but that's also why we have laws and lawyers and judges to sort the stuff out.

Having screwed up, he can deal with it the same as anybody else would have to.

[madmusic]

251. If he really said that, stick a fork in him. His goose is cooked. nt

Memes have a way of infecting courtrooms and this statement may even be admissible in evidence nowadays.

[Forkboy]

257. I really hate that saying.

:)

[seabeyond]

258. lol. thats cute. nt

[d_b]

255. i want to fuck young girls too

but I'm thinking more like 18-22.

[nomaco-10]

269. I don't want him tried and fried, BUT.........

he's not above the fucking law.

The kind of leftwing "FREE ROMAN" sentiment, hurts all dems and left wing sentiments.

I don't give a shit that he made some great movies, he needs to face the charges, and I HOPE that this country will give him a sentence of TIME SERVED.


DONE.

[EmilyAnne]

271. Certain posters with Karl Marx avatars who have been the most fervent Polanski supporters now

have support from their favorite website (World Socialist Web Site).

I believe that this editorial explains the thinking of most of Polanski's defenders.

People who support Polanski's extradition are "baying hounds of 'law and order', according to the authors.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/pola-o01.shtml

[redqueen]

310. Wow.

:puke:

[Hannah Bell]

341. for the record:

1. i'm not a "polanski supporter." i don't like witchhunts, liars, or strawman-mongers.
2. i've posted multiple times that sex with minors & giving drugs to minors are cut & dried criminal. the moral crusaders here can't hear because they're too obsessed with the sound of their own voices & their own self-righteousness.
3. my position has nothing to do with the position of wsws. i am not a member of their party, nor have i ever been, a fact which i've also posted multiple times & which the strawmen mongers & red-baiters choose to ignore.

[Mixopterus]

367. Same here

Arguing the particulars of a case and being disappointed with individuals who want MORE punishment and revel in said punishment does not make one a Polanski apologist.

All moral crusaders need to read some Immanuel Kant, even summaries of his work will do. According to him you are acting like irrational animals.

Martin Buber would also be a good recommendation, and maybe some Ross.

[Hannah Bell]

407. no response, what a surprise. serial prevaricators just keep on keeping on.

[anonymous171]

365. Figures. They only hate certain parasites. Fucking hypocrites. nt

[sendero]

275. Uh......

... not everybody. I prefer to have sex with women who know what they are doing.

[niceypoo]

289. I want to fuck young girls

...who are at least in their 20s.

[tjwash]

290. This thread has achieved....

Haven't read a fucking word of it, but am totally impressed that it takes several seconds to down arrow though it. :thumbsup:

[seabeyond]

294. bah hahahha. takes little to entertain you huh? lol. that is a good

thing

cute

[Hepburn]

300. Apparently so did Judge Rittenband....

...age 71 at the time of the Polanski case and shacked up with a 20 year old. Yes, she was legal...even tho she was over 50 years younger than good ol' Judge Larry who also seems to have liked the young stuff. And she was in addition to his other girl friend -- a bit older -- that he kept on the side. Remember ~~ this was back in the 70s and shacking up was not an accepted thing...even in L.A.

Oh, and in 1997, there were negotiations with Polanski for him to come back for sentencing. So WHY did that break down? Because the LA Super judge to which the case was then assigned Larry Paul Fidler ~~ another mega egotistic asshole ~~ would ONLY make agreements for Polanski to return if the case which would be in his courtroom AND on then CourtTV AND was televised for the sentencing of Polanski. This Judge Larry is the one who did the Phil Spector trial. Anyone watching the Spector case clearly could see what an asshole Fidler is, IMO.

Ooooooh, forgot one thing: The original Judge Larry belonged to a very swank L.A. all-white-no-Jews-allowed Country Club and he was overheard stating right before he was to sentence Polanski that he (the judge) planned to put "that fucking Jew" away for life.

That's on top of Rittenhand discussing the case directly with the media ~~ a bozo no-no for a judge ~~ and taking the DA and defense counsel in chambers and instructing them how he wished to have hearings on Polanski staged. Another mega judicial no-no.

BTW: Douglas Dalton and Roger Gunson ~~ the original defense atty and the DA on the Polanski case both have issued written statements confirming the conduct of Rittenhand. Let me tell you ~~ it is a cold day in hell when a DA and a Def Atty BOTH in writing agree that a judge acted like a complete and total asshole and violated his oath of office and confirmed the in chambers instuctions to both as to what they were ordered to say during any sentencing hearing. So, yeah, it looks like hell did freeze over since they both agreed to the unethical conduct of Rittenhand.

OK...that is the skinny which I know from being an attorney in L.A. County. Maybe it was not so unreasonable for Polanski to do what he did in leaving. Yes, he was charged with stat rape ~~ hearing as a Jew that the judge on the case called you out as a "fucking Jew" and wanted to send you away for life ~~ that might have had something to do with why he split.

I am defending what Polanski did to a 13 year old child? No... hell no ...but there are a lot of things behind the scenes that us locals know about and much of the public did not.

[seabeyond]

303. ya... and she wanted money. so? nt

[Hepburn]

306. Oh, look...IGNORED is talking to me.

Saying this just so IGNORED knows that I don't care to converse ever.

[seabeyond]

307. just cause you dont read post, doesnt mean i shouldnt talk about what you post. hint

discussion board.

[SacredCow]

311. I should find this thread amusing.....

Regarding Polanski, himself- I see no reason to protect him from any laws he broke. It doesn't matter that it was years ago, or that he's famous, or that his victim has moved on and isn't interested in pursuing charges, or that the age of consent is lower in France, or that his wife was murdered, etc... If the account is true (and it doesn't seem that he's made much effort to deny it happened), he's a scumbag rapist. A scumbag rapist that can direct films, but a scumbag rapist nonetheless. If he were a Republican Senator, would all of the threads/posts on DU defending him even exist? I think we all know the answer to that.

But what I should find funny is the indignation of so many people here who are insulted and enraged that he DARE speak for all straight men when he says "everybody wants to fuck young girls." Yet, some (NOT all and not even most, but some) of these same people think that I, as a gay man, am being overly-sensitive and dramatic when I get so completely and totally pissed the fuck off when the "all homosexuals are pedophiles" card is played- elsewhere, and even here on DU. In this very thread is a reference to NAMBLA and homosexual men who prey on boys. I don't pretend to know what's in this poster's heart, but I do believe that the point could have been made without alluding to an offensive stereotype that all gay men want to do is hump young boys.

So though this should be a LOL thread, I find myself simply being more depressed by typical human nature. I personally don't find ANY mean-spirited and unfair stereotyping funny. But neither is the smidgen of poetic justice from scumbag Polanski's comment completely lost on me.

[seabeyond]

312. gosh i am so with you on your post. i dont know that i saw any namba

posts and too be honest, have seen a few on another thread and couldnt remember what they were about. your post jogged my memory. but you are right on. and i am sorry for that. and it is bullshit when i hear that trash about gays

i would be pissed a member of my gender, my group telling me..... all of us, to validate their behavior.

pig, is a pig is a pig. whomever they attack

[closeupready]

318. I just made that same point.

The Vatican said the other day, to paraphrase, that because WASP church clerics molest young children, it's okay if Catholic priests do, too. Something like that.

Seriously pushing me further away from the church than I have ever been.

[Hannah Bell]

401. They said nothing close to "so it's OK if priests do it," but apparently upstanding

moral crusaders such as yourself think facts don't matter when discussing your pet demons.

[closeupready]

414. Poor baby. Can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag, so you shout 'DOODIEHEAD!'

Plonk.

[Hannah Bell]

432. they didn't say what the poster claims. this is fact. i called the poster a moral crusader,

which is what he is. not a doodiehead.

more straw men/lies from the moral crusaders.

if your cause is so just, why do you folks need to lie & build straw men? the facts aren't enough to make your case?

[closeupready]

317. & this is so like the Catholic Church justifying it's own 'ephebophilia' bec. Protestants do it, too

n/t

[anonymous171]

364. He did not "have sex" with her. He raped her. nt

[seabeyond]

379. so he really meant "everyone wants to rape a young girls. hey.... i just caught the everybody

i am a somebody. didnt know i wanted to fuck a young girl.

[Dirtyhairy]

370. There are a lot of people I would like to punch in the face,

but that would be against the law.

[ellie]

390. I haven't weighed in on this

because Polanski is a scumbag of the highest order. For the record, I don't want to have sex with young girls. Loons and pedophiles all want to believe everyone thinks like them because then they might have to face up to their truly horrible natures. Fuck this asshole.

[seabeyond]

391. a day into this thread and i jsut picked up on the "everybody" too. i dont

never have wanted to fuck a young, middle age, or old girl

[CoffeeCat]

422. That's exactly true about pedophiles...

Their twisted thought processes don't resemble reality. However, usually pedophiles
keep their sick thoughts to themselves, and they rarely admit their crimes or their
thought processes.

So, it's very rare that their depravity and completely skewed thinking is ever
exposed.

I think Polanski's celebrity status, power and constant accolades made him reckless.
He let his guard down and he let us know that he wants to molest 13 year olds, because...well, who doesn't?

It can't be just them, and their sick thoughts. They have to delude themselves into believing that
everyone is like them. And believe me--thinking that everyone wants to molest children--is the least
disturbing of their warped thinking. You really have to twist reality to do the things they've done
and not collapse from disgust. From blaming the victim to asserting that they weren't abusing the
child--it's all very disturbing.

Everyone is NOT like them, and 99 percent of the population finds them revolting.

[seabeyond]

424. yes. i find this often. someone choses a way they say EVERYONE. cannot just own for self

have to include everyone as part to be able to justify their behavior.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

394. This thread went well.

[redqueen]

399. deleted

[Bucky]

411. As I recall, Humbert Humbert didn't slip qualudes into Lolita's champaigne

[Hannah Bell]

413. uh, neither did polanski. you might read the transcript where polanski

asks the victim "is this a qualuude" & she tells him it is.

strange, huh?

you could also read the part where she tells the questioner she'd taken qualuude before.

it didn't knock you out unless taken in higher doses.

"In 1965 Methaqualone and an antihistamine combination were sold as the sedative drug Mandrax by Rousell Laboratories. At about the same time (1965) it was starting to become a popular recreational drug named mandies or mandrake. In 1972 it was the sixth best selling sedative on the market in the United States,<2> where it was legally sold by the name of Quaalude, and "luding out" was a popular college pastime.<3>

Usual effects include relaxation, euphoria, and drowsiness, also reducing heart rate, respiration, increased sexual arousal (aphrodisia) and parasthesias (Numbness of the fingers and toes)."

[redqueen]

418. How is that strange? What difference do you think it makes? (nt)

[Hannah Bell]

431. if it's not strange, you explain it.

i think it's strange you question me, but not the person who made the false claim.

[redqueen]

433. How is it strange? Answer the question.

Did you read all the testimony? She explains later how she knows what it is.

Please, do explain the relevance.

[Hannah Bell]

434. you mean when she tells the court she'd used qualuude before? sure, i got that.

why did polanski have to ask his victim what the drug was? explain.

why are you asking me to explain? i *can't* explain the testimony, i'm asking questions of the moral crusaders who claim to know exactly what happened.

all i know is, there's nothing in the testimony showing he "slipped quaalude into her drink".

but you don't question the poster making the false claim. false claims you don't mind. posters challenging the false claims, you attack.

[redqueen]

435. I'm asking you to explain why YOU think it's strange. Is that really so hard to grasp?

Fucking hell.

I don't know why Polanski did any of that... do you think you do? Please, by all means, share your opinion.

You're right that the poster who claimed it was put in her drink was incorrect. You still haven't explained why you think it was strange that she knew what it was.

[Hannah Bell]

436. you find it inexplicable, but you're asking me why i think it's strange?

well, thanks for admitting he didn't "slip drugs into her drink."

[redqueen]

437. I think we're talking past each other.

When you said "strange, huh?"... were you making a sarcastic reference how it's strange that her testimony contradicts what the poster said?

I read that as meaning that you thought it was strange that she knew what it was.

[Jersey Devil]

438. So what's the DU record for # of replies in a thread?

I bet some of the Bev Harris threads have this one beat by a mile!