Categories
alpha males creepy entitled babies evil old ladies evo psych fairy tales hypocrisy irony alert mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles PUA racism sexual exploitation western women suck

Expat PUA blogger: "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."

I couldn't come up with a good graphic for this post, so here's a giant chicken kidnapping a young boy.
I couldn’t come up with a good graphic for this post, so here’s a giant chicken kidnapping a young boy.

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

429 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert
Robert
6 years ago

Aaah! HENRY the Second! I am abashed.

sparky
sparky
6 years ago

Gah! No, all this “fertility” talk by NuclearZ and Jakeface in the OP is just a cover; a rationalization for predatory behavior. Because, really, that’s what men like Jakeface are: they’re predators targeting the most vulnerable people they can, poor teenaged girls in an impoverished country. These men aren’t marrying these girls and having a bunch of children with them, they’re using them. These men don’t really care about how “fertile” these teenage girls are.

Lea
Lea
6 years ago

It’s so creepy that these guy talk about sexing underage girls and try to explain it away by talking about women like livestock or even a car. (They want one without too many miles on it.) They see deaths of women and children as just minor inconveniences. (Hey, her pain doesn’t hurt him at all, so why should he care?) They act as if our ancient ancestors never bonded out of love or mourned lost children or partners. They seem to think that all men see women and girls as toys. Sometimes your toy gets broken (or you break it) and you have to get a new one, but hey NEW TOY! So, what’s the problem? They want to believe that all men are like them and that they aren’t twisted, evil fucks. They want us to believe it too.

Never gonna happen.

Men seeking underage sex tourism are child molesters and no country in the world should give them a pass.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Young men have more fertile years ahead of them and are less likely to suffer erectile dysfunction.

Yeah, aren’t we forgetting the dudely side of the fertility and attraction situation? I’m married, and my husband is nearly 45. No ED or other penis-related issues thus far, but hey, clearly he’s passed his period of peak fertility. Sorry, honey, but nature wants me to be a cougar, so I’m off to find myself an impoverished 17 year old boy to “mate” with.

Doesn’t sound so nice when you flip the gender script, huh?

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

They act as if our ancient ancestors never bonded out of love or mourned lost children or partners.

Chimps display mourning FFS. It’s ridiculous to imagine our ancient ancestors didn’t care about people beyond their reproductive value.

Marie,
Wow! Blockquote Mammoth sure was hungry today!

Marie
Marie
6 years ago

@weirdwoodtreehugger

Marie,
Wow! Blockquote Mammoth sure was hungry today!

::blushies:: Well, someone had to feed it…

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
6 years ago

Uh-huh. You don’t see the problem with labelling one area “a special exception” and assuming that it won’t be extended to other areas? That once you carve off a ‘special provision” for something totally reprehensible, such as sex with children, it won’t be used in calling for similar provisions for things other people find reprehensible, such as maybe drug taking?

Having sex with children (or trafficked/enslaved adults) is a human rights violation. And if a Saudi national molested a child in the US, you better fucking believe I’d support his country prosecuting him.

Every “slippery slope” example you’ve presented falls so far short of the human rights issues in the international sex trade, it’s a wonder to me how you can even think of comparing them. We’re talking about slavery and rape, for god’s sake, not drugs or premarital sex.

On sexism in music: The rolling Stones, “Under My Thumb”. It’s pretty much a MRA utopian fantasy.

Aw, but I love polka! It and mariachi are the only two musical genres that are guaranteed non-frightening after watching/playing something scary.

Have you tried Zydeco? I find it impossible to feel unhappy while listening to Zydeco.

The media portrays rap as “licentious black people music”. It is portrayed as a monolithic genre comprised of lyrics only about drugs, sex and money. Its portrayal is so negative that rap is frequently cited as the ultimate example of morally corrupt music

And all by people who don’t even listen to it, or have only heard a couple of songs.

Hell, when I hear other white people talk about rap almost all the time they “hate all rap, except Eminem( (or insert other white rap artist, but it’s usually Eminem).What I’m hearing is “I can only relate to and stand to listen to music if it’s by someone who is white too.”

Which is funny coming from supposed Eminem fans, because he points this out in his music. It’s like they didn’t even listen to “White America”.

On Dan Savage: early in my sexual life, I really loved his column, because I got to see what a wide range of things fell under the heading of “normal” and discovered some interests I might not otherwise have had. And I’ve seen him be really right about things, like telling someone the “bad sex” she described was rape, or smacking down a Nice Guy who wrote in for advice on getting his hot friend to sleep with him. But as I’ve learned even more about feminism and consent and healthy relationships, I tend to agree with the criticisms – and there’ve been some really appalling things, like saying trans people should disclose on the first date, or starting the “blame blacks and Hispanics for Prop 8” meme. On balance, I’m not a fan.

I did enjoy his books, though, especially the autobiographical ones.

@Zimmerframe,

Let’s just think this through logically and dispassionately.

I see your misogynistic dogwhistle.

Zolnier
Zolnier
6 years ago

All the “biological” arguments for ephebophila fall apart when it’s awful proponents mention virgins. Why would Og the stereotypical cave man want a virgin for, a woman with a few kids has already proven she’s capable of carrying a child to term, more than once in fact.

The only reason you should be terribly concerned about the mother of your child being a virgin is if you’re some kind of warlock and need a very specific kind of kid for a ritual.

Also what is the man with the nice hat holding in that picture? H.G Welles didn’t invent the lightsaber did he?

katz
6 years ago

By the simple and very reasonable assumption that most reproduction in prehistoric times happened within marriages, we can mathematically infer that a male preference for young virgin girls will be common.

Evidence continues to suggest that he wants to marry a newborn baby.

seraph4377
6 years ago

@ zolnier – I’m going to guess that’s a cane.

Ally S
6 years ago

Girls who start reproducing about 17 leave behind the most surviving offspring and have therefore come to dominate in these societies.

There must be something very wrong with your math when it leads you to believe that 17-year-old cis girls “dominate” society.

Lea
Lea
6 years ago

Ally,
Remember that when these guys say a woman is “dominating”, they mean “She won’t touch my tingly bits and that’s mean!”.

Amused
6 years ago

Girls who start reproducing about 17 leave behind the most surviving offspring and have therefore come to dominate in these societies.

Really? How do you figure? Seems to me, you have grown up in a household where a man never did a second of child care, ever, and considered his parental function fully discharged upon blowing his load. Hence you know about as much about child-bearing as a hedgehog would know about making cassoulet. Here is the biological reality you continue to ignore (while lecturing everyone else on supposedly not understanding biology, no less): human reproduction is highly inefficient. Humans reproduce little and mature very slowly. That means, it’s a long process with many twists and turns, as well as multiple points of failure. Your reproduction isn’t actually a “success” until your offspring itself reaches maturity and reproduces.

And this is where environment plays a major role. Teenage girls are more likely than grown women to abort, miscarry or give birth prematurily. They are poorer; they are less likely to have a supportive partner; they receive lower quality prenatal care. Children born to teenage girls are more likely to be abandoned, abused, neglected, raised in dysfunctional households, sustain in-utero injury from high-risk behavior during the mother’s pregnancy, receive substandard healthcare and inadequate education, suffer from hunger and other effects of poverty — in other words, they have a greater risk of dying prematurely, acquiring debilitating chronic illnesses or growing up developmentally disabled.

So no, it doesn’t seem obvious enough to me to assume that girls who start to reproduce at 17 (1) leave behind the most (or the best) surviving offspring; or (2) that said offspring comes to dominate societies.

Let’s just think this through logically and dispassionately.

Oh, I am all for it. Alas, you lack the capacity for logic. This is due to one of two reasons:

A: You are stupid; or
B: You are blinded by your emotions.

Or, perhaps, a little bit from column A, a little bit from column B.

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
6 years ago

By the simple and very reasonable assumption that most reproduction in prehistoric times happened within marriages

What? Not only is a citation needed, but my own assfax find this counterintuitive. Every other animal manages to reproduce without marriage and there’s no reason to assume that prehistoric humans were any different.

katz
6 years ago

He might be less boring if he would actually engage. But nothing he says ever shows the slightest indication that he has read what anyone else wrote. He hasn’t even explained why virgins are supposed to be better, for instance.

moldybrehd
6 years ago

What? Not only is a citation needed, but my own assfax find this counterintuitive.

Sorry, but MRA assfax are *always* right – otherwise it’s misandry! /s

beegee
beegee
6 years ago

Troofax-evidence points to early humans being somewhat polygamous-both the “males” and the “females.” Marriage is a pretty recent development. Little bro’s been sold out by his own evopsych bros.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Evidence continues to suggest that he wants to marry a newborn baby.

He’s a much less attractive version of the kid who was always taking his shirt off in the Twilight movies!

Amused
6 years ago

By the simple and very reasonable assumption that most reproduction in prehistoric times happened within marriages

What? Not only is a citation needed, but my own assfax find this counterintuitive. Every other animal manages to reproduce without marriage and there’s no reason to assume that prehistoric humans were any different.

I chuckled at that too, since “prehistoric”, by definition, is a culture that has not yet embraced writing; and without written records, it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain a society’s marital customs and practices.

That said, ideas about what marriage is have varied widely across times and through different eras. Marriage-solemnizing rituals in Western culture — at least for people below the level of royalty or the priestly class — are a fairly recent tradition. For much of ancient history, you were married if you lived together under one roof, and the extended family decided you were married. The lines between marriage, concubinage and prostitution were very, very blurry. In fact, you can still see vestiges of this in working-class and poor people from many parts of Latin America: a couple that merely lives together in a marital-type relationship consider themselves married and refer to each other as husband and wife, without bothering with formalities.

Also: most prehistoric groups, at least in Europe and the Middle East, practiced incestuous endogamy. Playing the devil’s advocate, I can articulate some pretty compelling reasons why you should keep it in the family, so to speak — and in the ancient world, incest was THE NORM. Gee, are we not being true to our “real” natures, now that we don’t have uncles marrying their nieces and siblings reproducing with each other?

kittehserf
6 years ago

And these people couldn’t count on meat all the time since most animals were super sized back then and humans only had sticks and rocks to hunt with.

Eh, could we not reduce the tool-and-weapon-making skills of early people to this, please?

vaiyt
6 years ago

They seem to think that all men see women and girls as toys. Sometimes your toy gets broken (or you break it) and you have to get a new one, but hey NEW TOY!

Moreover, that’s a child’s way to view a toy. An adult knows toys have a cost.

AL3H
AL3H
6 years ago

@Ally

That is excellent news. 🙂

Re: “fertile years” debate.

I saw a documentary a couple of years ago. The presenter travelled to Africa to interview members of a particular hunter-gatherer tribe. In this tribe (due to the environment) women could gather enough food for themselves, but not enough for themselves and their children. One way they dealt with this was to enlist help e.g. from their mothers. Another way was for a woman to select a partner who was a good hunter and could supplement their (and their children’s diet). In this case, the limiting factor in how many children a woman could have had nothing to do with age and everything to do with access to food and a strong support network.

As an aside, my sister-in-law was very stressed after she had her baby. My brother was really stressed too. I think it was because of the support from her mum, and our family that they coped. So I think the support network being a limiting factor (as opposed to a woman’s age) argument is valid in Australia too.

I don’t have a YouTube link, but I think the series was Origins of Us, the tribe was the Hadza tribe and the presenter was Dr Alice Roberts.

All that being said, I am not an anthropologist, so I don’t know to what extent the cultural structure of this tribe was oversimplified for the documentary and to what extent similar structures are present in other cultures.

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
6 years ago

Troofax-evidence points to early humans being somewhat polygamous-both the “males” and the “females.

Well that would be consistent with our closest primate relatives.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

I’ve heard of a theory that a lot of paleolithic cultures pretty much just had sex with everyone else in the group. That it way it was easier to live communally. Nobody knew the paternity of any of the kids so they all just took care of them as a group.

I have no idea how true or well regarded that theory is and I don’t even remember where I heard it so I’m not trying to present this as troofax. Just putting it out there.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Since we’ve been discussing history, may I take a second to brag?

My mom has been doing genealogy research and she found out we’re descended from this guy http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_Rodes-13 who probably knew Eleanor of Aquitaine. She’s a big fan of hers and I like her too so this is pretty cool!

I’m also related to George W Bush on both sides of his family. That’s less cool.

kittehserf
6 years ago

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.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
6 years ago

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.

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
6 years ago

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!

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

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.

pecunium
6 years ago

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

pecunium
6 years ago

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

pecunium
6 years ago

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.

pecunium
6 years ago

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.

kittehserf
6 years ago

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 wife buy a new slave and start the whole abuse process over.

Leum
Leum
6 years ago

The Eskimo peoples (Inuit is one specific tribal grouping)

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.”

kittehserf
6 years ago

I knew “Eskimo” was outdated at the least, but not that it’s regarded as a slur – good to know that.

pecunium
6 years ago

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).

pecunium
6 years ago

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.

Pocket Nerd
6 years ago
Reply to  pecunium

Urgh. Best of luck to you and your friend, Pecunium.

kittehserf
6 years ago

Pecunium, I’m so sorry about your friend.

Rea
Rea
6 years ago

Nuclear Zimmerframe said:

Let’s just think this through logically and dispassionately… Man B can be expected to get twice as many offspring from his wife than man A…

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.

Kim
Kim
6 years ago

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.

hrovitnir
hrovitnir
6 years ago

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!

hrovitnir
hrovitnir
6 years ago

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.

kittehserf
6 years ago

I have weird music taste wherein I’ve basically listening to the same handful of CDs for 10, 15 years with very little addition.

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.

Zolnier
Zolnier
6 years ago

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.

hrovitnir
hrovitnir
6 years ago

😀 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. 😛

kittehserf
6 years ago

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! 😀

Kim
Kim
6 years ago

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.

kittehserf
6 years ago

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.