Jakeface — not his real name — is a “Game” blogger, pushing 40, and living in Vietnam. Or visiting there? I haven’t read enough of his blog to be able to figure that out. Given that the name of his blog is “cedonulli,” which seems to be a pretentious reference to the Latin phrase “cedo nulli” ( “I yield to none”), I probably won’t be reading all that much more.
But I do know he likes Vietnam, because he’s the sort of guy who enjoys joking about having sex with “girls … so barely legal … it’s not even funny,” and in Vietnam, he says, he’s not the only one who thinks that 24-year old women are “old as fuck.”
Did I mention he’s pushing 40 himself?
Anyway, not long ago, Jakeface offered readers of his blog his deep thoughts on the subject of age, and why women over the age of 19 are already starting to look elderly to him. [Link is mildly NSFW]
He starts off by noting sadly that even in Vietnam, he still runs into Western women in their 30s who for some strange reason think they aren’t old hags.
even nice western girls are under the influence of western default cultural context. so many ridiculously illogical retarded things leave their mouths, that you can’t help but praise the heavens that you found a cultural base that still has a concept of sustainable biological imperatives.
“i’m 35 now, i’ve got my education and my career, i’m ready to settle down and have babies. why can’t i find a good man?”
it’s so hard to be jake, sometimes.
Jake apparently hasn’t found the shift key on his keyboard yet.
But he can’t blame these Western gals, he says, for being “indoctrinated by western culture,” and “so it would be unfair, short sighted, dumb to make fun of miss-35 for waiting till after the closing bell to place her bid.”
Well, just so long as Miss 35 doesn’t try to get her wrinkled claws into him:
when the same miss-35 makes some eyeballs your way though, and says “i think you’re attractive”, then things get a bit creepier.
Dude, if you’re going to write fiction, at least try to make the dialogue sound vaguely realistic.
Anyway, Jake informs us that this eyeball-making elderly lady of 35 with the world’s least creative pickup line is
like the homeless man wandering into the bentley dealer, making moves to go sit in the new continental gt. a clear case of a completely non-reality based self image. a delusion, painful to those who may have to be part of a conflicting reality. i totally get how 19 year old girls must feel, when the 65 year old liver-spotted shaking hands of the australian tourist reach for her thigh.
Yes, that’s right: when a 35-year-old woman hits on a man her age or even slightly older, she is like a 65-year-old man pawing the thighs of a 19-year-old girl.
That’s PUA math for you.
Actually, that’s the math that PUAs try to sell to their readers, and to themselves.
In reality the math that really counts for Western expats like Jakeface has to do with exploiting their relative wealth in countries where a sufficient number of women are poor enough that putting up with a PUA and his bullshit isn’t the worst option they have. In Vietnam, per capita income is a little over $1,100 (American). Per capita income in the US? About $43,000. That’s the real expat PUA math.
Anyway, Jakeface continues with his rant:
24 is super crazy, crazy old. for a girl.
17. 19. past that, if we’re going to get all about babies, is pretty sketchy.
Yeah, he really said that. Does he even believe it? Who knows? The average age for first births in the United States is 26; in the UK, it’s 30. The risks of pregnancy and giving birth over the age of 35 have been greatly exaggerated, and the vast majority of babies born to women later in life are perfectly healthy. Even if he doesn’t know any women his age who’ve had children,you might think he would have noticed the small army of female celebrities in their forties who’ve been popping out babies without either them or the babies exploding.
But Jakeface isn’t basing his conclusions here on a close reading of the medical literature, or even People magazine. Nope, as he makes clear, his opinions are coming straight from his dick and his “barely legal” obsessed brain.
who cares about what which culture says about it. that’s what my brain, freed from all the media propaganda, is finding attractive. at 24, you can already start to imagine what she’ll look like in 10 years. the outlines are set. the fantasy of youth eternal is already shattered.
24 is old-holy-fuck-you’re-countess-dracula, tell me about how life was in the 16th century.
Again, Jakeface by his own admission is almost 40.
in vietnam, that sort of age awareness seems to be the consensus, still. which makes vietnam ok in my book. it makes me think about applying for vietnamese citizenship. i want to be part of a culture that shares my innate values. a 35 year old vietnamese woman wouldn’t go “heeeey, soooo, how about some babies?” it’d be considered unfathomably rude, suggesting that my value wouldn’t allow me the choice of a 19 year old instead, that my fridge is only good for milk a solid week and a half past its expiration date.
Dude, you only have this “value” in countries where a good portion of the women don’t have good options. And you know it. That’s why you’re in a country with a per capita income that is literally 1/38th that of the United States.
and this isn’t personal, as in if you read this and you’re a 35 year old woman, i’m not making fun. i’m only talking about biological reality, and my own mating preferences. which also, mating preferences of any man with the option, and in his right mind.
Really? George Clooney, formerly the world’s most eligible bachelor, just got engaged to a 36-year-old.
it could still happen. jake might have some asian babies with a few 24 year old girls. there are two current contenders, which i’m hoping to replace with some 17 year olds, before some heat-of-the-moment questionable decisions.
it’s hard to take a step back, when you’re in the pet shop, surrounded by puppies.
For the sake of all that is good in this world, dude, do not breed. Do not saddle some poor Vietnamese teenager with your spawn.
That’s way cool, WWTH! (Not about Dubya, obviously – condolences.) Just knowing family names that far back is amazing. One side of my mum’s family has been traced back to the 15th century, but that’s all.
I’m related to Dubya also (via a common ancestor, Anne Hutchinson, who was kicked out of the Massachusetts Bay Puritan colony for being snarky to ministers). That makes us distant cousins, WWTH!!
Re: all the trolls, I don’t get why they’re so hung up on natural selection and adaptive behaviors, and yet they’re adamantly anti-evolution. “We’ve always done things this way and so we should continue to do things this way and never change because that would be going against nature and common sense!”
If we’d listened to MRAs, we’d still be swimming around in primordial muck while MRAs argued that meiosis was destroying the Western half of the puddle.
I was reading recently about an aboriginal Australian people in which (pre-contact) it was customary for a young women to be married off to a much older man – BUT she didn’t have to have sex with him if she didn’t want to, she was free to have sex with whoever she did want to, and her husband would provide for her and her kids. Institutionalized cuckoldry! It’s an MRA nightmare!
Buttercup,
Hi cuz!
I’m related to him through a guy named Robert Coe who sounds like a sanctimonious asshole. Not a surprise Barbara Bush is descended from him.
Nuke Dillon: I’m sorry you really don’t understand the biology. What good are a woman’s fertile years if they lie in her past where they can’t be accessed any more? The best place for them to be is in the present where they can be accessed right away or in the future where they can be accessed at a later date.
I’m sorry you don’t understand English, or biology.
A human being’s prime reproductive period is from mid-twenties to middle thirties. In both sexes the viable period of reproduction extends into the 40s.
But to the idea of “future vs. present” (since you were the one to argue the value of a woman was in her future, and so the younger the better): The issue, in terms of “biology” isn’t how many years are left to have children, but rather how many children live to breeeding age*.
Younger mothers tend to do poorly at both bringing to term, and at rearing the children they do bring to term. Furthermore they tend to have more in the way of complications at parturition, as well as a slightly higher rate of birth defects (the last is also true for later births). Men also tend to a higher rate of birth defects and diseases as they age.
So you Man B can expect that his 14 year old bride is more likely to die before she turns 20, than Man A is likely to see his 30 year old bride die before she is 60. In the intervening years the the older woman is going to have a “fertile window” of 10-20 years. The child bride a window of six. (the alignment in rural mortality of women in child birth is left skewed, and this study isn’t norming for death rates in cohort. Since we can assume the majority of women who are pregnant ARE NOT in the youngest cohort the 15 percent of the total deaths in that group are almost certainly a much higher percentage of the total)
This is in keeping with best practices in animal husbandry where (guinea pigs excepted), breeding non-mature female animals isn’t done; because they tend to die. In addition the strain of being pregnant, on top of the developmental costs of late adolescence means that immature breeding tends to shorten overall lifespan, which further leads to a loss of reproductive success.
Given that reproductive success lies in offspring who manage to breed successfully (see the discussion of “13” a Galapagos Finch who managed, for his entire life, to find a mate [or two] each season, and never had one of the resultant chicks live to breed†) this is a handicap. It means that any male who has children with a female who dies before the offspring can fend for themselves needs to oversee their subsequent care. This is an investment which hinders his ability to find a new mate (in your monogamous model), as the the women who look at him will see his children as a liability to that male’s ability to provide for/look after/help rear her children.
By the simple and very reasonable assumption that most reproduction in prehistoric times happened within marriage
Why? Because you wish it were so? There are a number of models (members of the Iroquoi Federation, as well as other tribal peoples on the Eastern Seaboard, some groups in the Polynesian Islands, and groups in the Lakota. The Navajo had a complex set of rules with “born for, and born to” (since they had a matrilineal set of rules for some aspects of inheritance, and patrilineal for others). The Peoples of the Pacific Northwest had a moiety system which still baffles me. The Eskimo peoples (Inuit is one specific tribal grouping), have very different sexual mores from non-HG societies.
In most of those cultures “out of wedlock” births were common; which was one of the reason missionarie described them as “wicked”.
, we can mathematically infer
This is where your inability to English well is biting you in the ass. You can infer, but not with any aspect of mathematics. To do that you would have to have a classified data set. That data set would need to have the confounding variables controlled, the outliers explained and a basic model to measure the data against. You don’t have any of that. You have a conclusion you wish to buttress and you are pretending 7-dollar words make up for your two-penny “evidence”.
Morevover you are pretending a cultural habit is a biological imperative. It’s not. With the exception of angler fish lifelong mating doesn’t happen (and even in them, monogamy isn’t a thing. Many female anglerfish have more than one parasitic sperm donor). Fidelity is a cultural norm (and, again, not in all cultures. Marriage, qua marrriage, is a habit we find in agricultural societies. In HG groups what we find are severable partnerships (some aspects of which remained in otherwise patriarchal societies like Rome, were either partner could summarily divorce the other; though women who did so were at a greater disadvantage than the males who did so).
So your sociology is as slipshod, and inexpert, as your understanding of basic evolutionary theory.
*Origin of Species, C. Darwin: 1859
† The Beak of the Finch, J. Weiner: 1994
This time with unborked links:
Nuke Dillon: I’m sorry you really don’t understand the biology. What good are a woman’s fertile years if they lie in her past where they can’t be accessed any more? The best place for them to be is in the present where they can be accessed right away or in the future where they can be accessed at a later date.
I’m sorry you don’t understand English, or biology.
A human being’s prime reproductive period is from mid-twenties to middle thirties. In both sexes the viable period of reproduction extends into the 40s.
But to the idea of “future vs. present” (since you were the one to argue the value of a woman was in her future, and so the younger the better): The issue, in terms of “biology” isn’t how many years are left to have children, but rather how many children live to breeeding age*.
Younger mothers tend to do poorly at both bringing to term, and at rearing the children they do bring to term. Furthermore they tend to have more in the way of complications at parturition, as well as a slightly higher rate of birth defects (the last is also true for later births). Men also tend to a higher rate of birth defects and diseases as they age.
So you Man B can expect that his 14 year old bride is more likely to die before she turns 20, than Man A is likely to see his 30 year old bride die before she is 60. In the intervening years the the older woman is going to have a “fertile window” of 10-20 years. The child bride a window of six. (the alignmentin rural mortality of women in child birth is left skewed, and this study isn’t norming for death rates in cohort. Since we can assume the majority of women who are pregnant ARE NOT in the youngest cohort the 15 percent of the total deaths in that group are almost certainly a much higher percentage of the total)
This is in keeping with best practices in animal husbandry where (guinea pigs excepted), breeding non-mature female animals isn’t done; because they tend to die. In additon the strain of being pregnant, on top of the developmental costs of late adolesence means that immature breeding tends to shorten overall lifespan, which further leads to a loss of reproductive success.
Given that reproductive success lies in offspring who manage to breed successfully (see the discussion of “13” a Galapagos Finch who managed, for his entire life, to find a mate [or two] each season, and never had one of the resultant chicks live to breed†) this is a handicap. It means that any male who has children with a female who dies before the offspring can fend for themselves needs to oversee their subsequent care. This is an investment which hinders his ability to find a new mate (in your monogamous model), as the the women who look at him will see his children as a liability to that male’s ability to provide for/look after/help rear her children.
By the simple and very reasonable assumption that most reproduction in prehistoric times happened within marriage
Why? Because you wish it were so? There are a number of models (members of the Iroquoi Federation, as well as other tribal peoples on the Eastern Seaboard, some groups in the Polynesian Islands, and groups in the Lakota. The Navajo had a complex set of rules with “born for, and born to” (since they had a matrilineal set of rules for some aspects of inheritance, and patrilineal for others). The Peoples of the Pacific Northwest had a moiety system which still baffles me. The Eskimo peoples (Inuit is one specific tribal grouping), have very different sexual mores from non-HG societies.
In most of those cultures “out of wedlock” births were common; which was one of the reason missionarie described them as “wicked”.
, we can mathematically infer
This is where your inability to English well is biting you in the ass. You can infer, but not with any aspect of mathematics. To do that you would have to have a classified data set. That data set would need to have the confounding variables controlled, the outliers explained and a basic model to measure the data against. You don’t have any of that. You have a conclusion you wish to buttress and you are pretending 7-dollar words make up for your two-penny “evidence”.
Morevover you are pretending a cultural habit is a biological imperative. It’s not. With the exception of angler fish lifelong mating doesn’t happen (and even in them, monogamy isn’t a thing. Many female anglerfish have more than one parasitic sperm donor). Fidelity is a cultural norm (and, again, not in all cultures. Marriage, qua marrriage, is a habit we find in agricultural societies. In HG groups what we find are severable partnerships (some aspects of which remained in otherwise patriarchal societies like Rome, were either partner could summarily divorce the other; though women who did so were at a greater disadvantage than the males who did so).
So your sociology is as slipshod, and inexpert, as your understanding of basic evolutionary theory.
*Origin of Species, C. Darwin: 1859
† The Beak of the Finch, J. Weiner: 1994
re breeding: When we were breeding snakes we were also breeding mice. We bred for color (entered them in shows too). And we bred for tempermant. Not only did aggressive males make for less pleasant cage (when they weren’t biting us), they didn’t seem to do as well in terms of breeding, it’s like the does had opinions.
After a moderate period of time (about three years) we had notably more docile male mice.
To the point we could do something which isn’t possible in the wild: allow more than one males mouse to inhabit a cage with female mice of breeding age.
All because males which fought (and any mouse who bit us) got fed to a snake.
My youngest Aunt is nine year younger than I. Then again, my youngest sister is 31 years younger than I.
But my grandfather was married three times. So my eldest aunt is 53 years older than my youngest. My mother was born fifteen years after her brother, which means my grandmother had her first child when she was 29, back in 1931.
My mother had two children with her second husband, they were both born when I was old enough to be seen as their (very young) father, and so I got pitying looks when people made that assumption.
I point out I didn’t get the, “you ought to be ashamed” looks my sister got when she was seen with them; even though she was at the upper end of this fictive “ideal age” for having children that Nuke and Jake are pushing.
What’s the bet the “prime age for breeding is 14” creepers think the likelihood of the girl dying in childbirth is a feature, not a bug? Then they can just go out and
get a new wifebuy a new slave and start the whole abuse process over.In Alaska, the term “Eskimo” is regarded as a slur, but we only have two tribal groupings that are connotated by that term, so it’s not hard for us to say “Yupik and Inuit.”
I knew “Eskimo” was outdated at the least, but not that it’s regarded as a slur – good to know that.
It’s a complicated thing; there isn’t (so far as I know) a good grouping term like, “Iriquois” or “Lakota”, and the peoples who are included in the cultural group are more than one tribe (I forget how many are encompassed in the area which runs across the north of Canada).
And I’m not at my best right now. On top of the wedding I just got some terrible news about a friend being diagnosed with an almost certainly fatal cancer.
So I’m probably lacking much of my usual nuance, and am feeling terse as all fuck.
Probably something strong to drink is order. That and a transcontinental trip.
Urgh. Best of luck to you and your friend, Pecunium.
Pecunium, I’m so sorry about your friend.
Nuclear Zimmerframe said:
Logic suggests that any man who wants a young woman for fertility reasons – “sustainable biological imperatives” – would want to marry and get children. I read nothing in this guy’s writing of “so, I married her, we already have our first kid, I love being a daddy and can’t wait for the second one.”
I also don’t see that he tried to get married early (or at all). Logic also say young men are more fertile. If maximum fertility is your priority, logic suggest you go the quiverfull route: Marry young (both the male and the female), use no birth control, and look after all the children and regard them as blessings. While I see problems with the Quiverfull mentality (and blogged about it), at least they are not hypocrites when they extoll the virtues of fertility.
Since he does not express a desire for siring and taking responsibility for the maximum amount of children (the logical conclusion of such an argument), his fertility argument is not logic, but rationalizing.
Well, I’m reading it as “men get turned on by traits that are indicators of fertility because evolution” rather than “Men want lots of children”.
But even with that generous reading of it, it’s automatically invalidated by a) everything everyone has said about most efficient reproduction being completely different from what he says it is and b) all the men who are turned on by doing things that have nothing to do with reproduction.
The horrible biology, it burns. I’ve only done a first year course on human evolution and sexuality and woah boy is it dripping with 70s-and-earlier gender essentialism and dodgy science but even so the ridiculous rubbish these people believe is not supported by the literature at all.
I grinned a LOT when my now-retired, well published old white dude lecturer (specialised in human sexuality, did studies on current hunter-gatherer societies, stuff like that) made fun of evolutionary psychology. Heh.
And I can understand being triggered by comparing humans to breeding animals but I do think it’s useful to address the gross arguments these people make. [TW: rest of this paragraph concerns breeding animals.] Responsible breeding of pets and livestock involves waiting until the animal is well mature, spacing pregnancies out, and the most valuble animals are proven breeders.
Also, yay Ally!
P.S. Thanks to Cassandrasays I’m now listening to Tricky. I have weird music taste wherein I’ve basically listening to the same handful of CDs for 10, 15 years with very little addition. Tricky – Maxinquaye is one of them. I almost can’t not sing along to Black Steel.
“I got a letter from the government
The other day
I opened and read it
It said they were suckers
They wanted me for the army or whatever
Picture me given’ a damn, I said never
Here is a land that never gave a damn
About a brother like me and myself
…
Public enemy servin’ time, they drew the line y’all
To criticize me some crime, never the less
They could not understand that I’m a black man
And I could never be a veteran”
I actually didn’t know he was out of Massive Attack. Weird.
Heh, if that’s weird, count me in. My last purchase of CDs was of not-very-recent Springsteen stuff. The previous one was almost a decade earlier, of George Winston’s season albums.
You know what would be fun, time travel to the time of early man, pick up a cave-person, teach him or her to read and unleash him on the manosphere.
😀 Kitteh. I only think it’s weird because it’s so limited. If I actually made any money (student, partner makes too much money to get student allowance !@#^%$^!@%#) I would like to buy CDs regularly just to try and find new stuff I like.
I’m not really a fan of buying individual songs/not having hard copies of music. I like paper books and actual CDs. Even though I spend most of my time on the internet. 😛
I pretty much stopped buying CDs after the Springsteen lot. I can go for months at a time not even thinking about listening to music – I’m in one of those phases now. I don’t want to start buying again, partly because of no money, and partly because of no space.
Zolnier – that’s a great idea! 😀
I don’t usually listen to music either. My music collection is almost entirely 90s Hottest 100 collections. But decided to give spotify a go and am on the free premium trial month.. I’ve been liking it because you can tell it you like a particular artist or are in a particular mood and it will give you a playlist to suit. So i get to hear new songs/artists without having to think about it too hard, and with low risk of dealing with music I don’t like. I think it’s mostly the effort involved in finding new music (and a helping of nostalgia) that kept me in my music rut for so long.
I put on Tricky and Massive Attack after CassandraSays mentioned it the other day and they were great. The main song I knew of theirs as Teardrop, so I always assumed Massive Attack was led by a female singer, but reading their biography I realised that the women on that album were all guest vocalists.
One singer I’d recommend who I recently fell for is Jeremy Messersmith. Anyone else like his stuff?
And all this music experimentation has led me to discover I’m into Indie Pop (north american rather than british though I like british too). Which could also be called Hipster pop I guess.. they all look like hipsters. The beards OMG the beards. I’ve been listening closely for problematic lyrics, and while I don’t always hear all the words or understand all the lyrics, it does seem to be pretty good in that regard.
I rather like the hipster beards I see in town – the guys are well-groomed and wearing interesting clothes and HATS. Much more appealing than the run-of-the-mill suits or tee shirts or hoodies most blokes seem to wear.