|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Big Bird, dearest, must we have this debate again? The reason I don't want to have it again is because I know I'm right and, as such, it�s so boring. And so irritating, since folks who posit what is contrary are just in denial about the truth (and always invites uncivil discourse and name-calling). We had the debate in this thread. Basically, women's fertility begins in the early teens and comes to a screeching halt in middle age - the menopause. With men, it simply does not. Male fertility declines - everyone knows this - but it doesn't just suddenly stop. Indeed, it doesn't stop at all, let alone suddenly and relatively young.
From this science paper....
| Quote: |
| "fertility does not decline in men as sharply as it does in women. There have been examples of males being fertile at 94 years old. Women's fertility peaks around the age of 23-24, and often deteriorates after 30" |
.
From here:
| Quote: |
| It's a touchy subject. "Advanced maternal age'' is formally defined: women who are 35 or older when they deliver their baby may have "AMA.'' stamped on their medical files to call attention to the higher risks they face. But the concept of "advanced paternal age'' is murky. Many experts are skeptical about the latest findings, and doctors appear to be in no rush to set age guidelines or safety perimeters for would-be fathers, content instead to issue vague sooner-rather-than-later warnings. |
There is a night and day difference between the decline in female and male fertility.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Fortunately for aging 'nearly thirty somethings' like yourself, we women appreciate the company of older men, due to your greater life experience and accumulated knowledge, know how and wisdom - despite your declining sperm count and accumulated DNA damage |
And money. Men usually have to wait until their 30s and 40s to achieve status and resources (I'm an exception, needless to say  having made an absolute crapload in my 20s).
Des O'Connor (70s) recently fathered a child to a woman in her early 30s. These things happen. 32 year old guys fathering kids to 70 year old women doesn't happen.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| The fact is, only some men can father children when they are 80. Not all. And the quality of the sperm is greatly reduced, and the likelihood of genetic damage hugely increased. |
According to the papers in the thread I linked to above, your statement is an exaggeration ("greatly", "hugely" � what an absolute load). See here, here and here. This is all old news to me; these links are all in the aforementioned 'find an Asian wife' thread. That thread, too, was full of folks in denial that we guys' fertility doesn't plummet like women's and in denial that men have a much bigger window of opportunity to reproduce and in denial that we can, do defensibly select younger women and in denial that women can, do select older male partners.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| According to the biological reasoning to which you are appealing, if a woman is looking for a man purely for reproductive purposes, she should choose a healthy specimen in his early 20s. So there! |
Women don�t choose males for reproduction per se. Women have a larger investment in reproduction � pregnancy, breastfeeding � and they, as such, are attracted to males who are (a) tall and (b) wealthy. In any case, study says �babies of fathers in their 40s, 50s and 60s suffered no more problems than those born to men in their 20s�.
Your comments about teenage girls and their posters on their bedroom walls are of what relevance exactly? My claim was that it is physically possible for guys of all ages to reproduce with a teen. What on earth do teens and their Westlife and New Kids on the Block posters have to do with that, much less refute it? Teenage girls are attracted to boybands, therefore the claim "old guys can impregnant young women" is false? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Big Bird, dearest, must we have this debate again? The reason I don't want to have it again is because I know I'm right and, as such, it�s so boring. |
Well some people just don't have a sense of humour, do they now. I've never had this debate with you before (unless it was so dull I can not remember) - so perhaps you have confused me with some other.
| quote wrote: |
| Big Bird wrote: |
| The fact is, only some men can father children when they are 80. Not all. And the quality of the sperm is greatly reduced, and the likelihood of genetic damage hugely increased. |
According to the papers in the thread I linked to above, your statement is an exaggeration ("greatly", "hugely" � what an absolute load). See here, here and here. This is all old news to me; these links are all in the aforementioned 'find an Asian wife' thread. That thread, too, was full of folks in denial that we guys' fertility doesn't plummet like women's and in denial that men have a much bigger window of opportunity to reproduce and in denial that we can, do defensibly select younger women and in denial that women can, do select older male partners. |
My partner is older and frankly I like men who have lived a bit. Far more interesting than a fresh and newly emerging man who has yet to have done much of interest. But, frankly, if I were choosing a man purely for reproductive purposes, I would choose a male in this late teens or early 20s. That's when the quality of his sperm is at the best it will ever be. You quote some study that says there is not difference between those children born to a man at 20 than those born to man at 60. In fact, you are quite wrong. For one thing, there is a significant increase in the risk of fathering an autistic or schizophrenic child once a man is over 40. You have been cherry picking the studies which best justify your rationale, no doubt. There are other implications too, if you can be bothered to research it. I'm not going to use a coffee break to write a bloomin' essay on it.
I am not quite sure why you feel so desperate to justify the 6/7 year age gap between you and your girlfriend. Frankly I couldn't give a toss if a 30 year old man and 22 year old woman get it on, or if a 22 year old man gets it on with 30 year old woman, man or whatever. I couldn't give a toss if a 50 year old man were shagging several 20 year old women in the very same toilet cubicle, if they were all happy about it. Up to them. However, you seem to suggest that anything but the combination of aged male and the recently come of age female is not 'right.' There are plenty of people much older than you and I falling in love with each other - why is that wrong?
You obsess on this idea that a woman is only attractive at the very peak of her fertility. Will you constantly be ridding yourself of your aging partners and replacing them with a 'newer model?' Then, if that is the case, I am a little sorry for you, as well as your unfortunate partners, who will only find themselves loved while their eggs are in great nick.
| Quote: |
| Women don�t choose males for reproduction per se. Women have a larger investment in reproduction � pregnancy, breastfeeding � and they, as such, are attracted to males who are (a) tall and (b) wealthy. In any case, study says �babies of fathers in their 40s, 50s and 60s suffered no more problems than those born to men in their 20s�. |
Exactly, most people don't choose for reproduction. They choose someone who makes them feel fulfilled and complements their lives. You make a lot of sweeping generalisations. I have never searched for tall wealthy men. Tall and/or wealthy men have come to me, and I have declined them because I didn't feel stimulated or intrigued. I have never cared if a man was rich or not, or tall or not. An ex of mine, who was quite well off when I was seeing him is now bloody loaded. I am not sorry I did not make my life with him, as he wished. I would have had a nice house, but quite a boring life. I do not need to live in a huge house or shag some bloody giraffe (which reminds me how I turned down a 6 ft 7 inch guy desperately in love with me - according to you I should have been all over him like a rash) - I need someone with whom I can experience life, someone with whom I can easily converse, and someone who I find stimulating emotionally, sexually and intellectually. The money is just a nice bonus. Anyway, i always assumed I could take care of myself financially.
| Quote: |
| Your comments about teenage girls and their posters on their bedroom walls are of what relevance exactly? My claim was that it is physically possible for guys of all ages to reproduce with a teen. What on earth do teens and their Westlife and New Kids on the Block posters have to do with that, much less refute it? Teenage girls are attracted to boybands, therefore the claim "old guys can impregnant young women" is false? |
My comments about teenage girls were meant to illustrate that young women are attracted to young men first and foremost. That is their clear preference. As a teen, I remember loving the music of Deep Purple and Led Zepelin, but being quite disappointed at what wrinkly old dinasaurs the old buggers had become! 
Anyway, my whole point was actually to demonstrate that if the most important trait in a potential partner is the quality of their fertility, then women too should be choosing partners straight out of highschool, because that is when a man's sperm is at its best quality - before years of genetic damage to his sperm have accumulated - damage that is passed on to offspring.
And mother nature certainly never intended that many 80 year old men hung on to life long enough to impregnate all those 15 year old girls.
Also, old men who think they are attractive to young girls are living in an absolute fantasy. Sorry, but you are deluding yourself if you think you will be attracting 20 year olds when you are 50, unless you hang out in train stations looking for young drug addicted prostitutes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Big Bird, dearest, must we have this debate again? The reason I don't want to have it again is because I know I'm right and, as such, it�s so boring. |
Well some people just don't have a sense of humour, do they now. I've never had this debate with you before (unless it was so dull I can not remember) - so perhaps you have confused me with some other. |
I meant I've had this discussion on here, not with you. Sorry for the unclarity.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| My partner is older and frankly I like men who have lived a bit. Far more interesting than a fresh and newly emerging man who has yet to have done much of interest. But, frankly, if I were choosing a man purely for reproductive purposes, I would choose a male in this late teens or early 20s. That's when the quality of his sperm is at the best it will ever be. |
Your comments about teens/20s men and sperm quality are straightforwardly not borne out by the evidence.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| You quote some study that says there is not difference between those children born to a man at 20 than those born to man at 60. In fact, you are quite wrong. For one thing, there is a significant increase in the risk of fathering an autistic or schizophrenic child once a man is over 40. |
I've been through all this before with Vicissitude. Total deja vu. What you've typed above is misleading. Siginificant increase in the risk, yes, indeed. But how remote are the chances still? A study above has the answer. It's still a very small risk. "Singificant increase in risk" sounds scary, sounds serious, but is it? No, because the chances are still remote. Elder fathers are not detered from fathering. To cite increases in risk without the wider context (of how risky it becomes after the increase) is innocently erroneous at best and dishonest at worst.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| You have been cherry picking the studies which best justify your rationale, no doubt. There are other implications too, if you can be bothered to research it. I'm not going to use a coffee break to write a bloomin' essay on it. |
I haven't cherry picked a single thing. Males of 40, 50 and 60 can father perfectly healthy children and in fact there's evidence in one of the aforementioned studies (the very big one) that's it's actually beneficial. Male fertility decreases, of course it does, but it is gradual and rarely comes to a complete stop. The risks to offspring increase - it's a fact - but the level of risk is still very low indeed. This is the evidence.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| I am not quite sure why you feel so desperate to justify the 6/7 year age gap between you and your girlfriend. |
Respectfully, stop making counterclaims to claims that don't exist and haven't been made.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Frankly I couldn't give a toss if a 30 year old man and 22 year old woman get it on, or if a 22 year old man gets it on with 30 year old woman, man or whatever. I couldn't give a toss if a 50 year old man were shagging several 20 year old women in the very same toilet cubicle, if they were all happy about it. Up to them. |
Exactly! But you know what? Some people disagree. Biologically and morally, there is absolutely nothing standing in the way of a 60 year old man and an teenage girl having a relationship assuming the relationship is consensual (and by definition legal), positive, and care is taken to prevent harm. Some people are so unreasonable, so indecent, so utterly uncivil, as to posit what is contrary.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| However, you seem to suggest that anything but the combination of aged male and the recently come of age female is not 'right.' There are plenty of people much older than you and I falling in love with each other - why is that wrong? |
Respectfully, stop making counterclaims to claims that don't exist and haven't been made.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| You obsess on this idea that a woman is only attractive at the very peak of her fertility. Will you constantly be ridding yourself of your aging partners and replacing them with a 'newer model?' Then, if that is the case, I am a little sorry for you, as well as your unfortunate partners, who will only find themselves loved while their eggs are in great nick. |
My genes condemn me to this fate. I had assumed thoughout life that my sexuality would age with my body, that at 29 I'd find 29 year old girls attractive. I've come to realize I prefer 'em young. Actually, I'm more interested in 20 year old girls now than when I was 20.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Exactly, most people don't choose for reproduction. They choose someone who makes them feel fulfilled and complements their lives. You make a lot of sweeping generalisations. I have never searched for tall wealthy men. Tall and/or wealthy men have come to me, and I have declined them because I didn't feel stimulated or intrigued. I have never cared if a man was rich or not, or tall or not. An ex of mine, who was quite well off when I was seeing him is now bloody loaded. I am not sorry I did not make my life with him, as he wished. I would have had a nice house, but quite a boring life. I do not need to live in a huge house or shag some bloody giraffe (which reminds me how I turned down a 6 ft 7 inch guy desperately in love with me - according to you I should have been all over him like a rash) - I need someone with whom I can experience life, someone with whom I can easily converse, and someone who I find stimulating emotionally, sexually and intellectually. The money is just a nice bonus. Anyway, i always assumed I could take care of myself financially. |
It's obviously and totally subjective, indeed! However, an in-built preference for tall and wealthy men is borne out by the evidence and emerged through evolution from our human ancestors and also their animalistic ancestors....with age far lower a priority for women than it is for men. Why are girls most fertile at 23-24? Naturally selected genes. Why this massive disparity between male and female fertility? Naturally selected genes. Again, kindly see the sources I posted in the 'find an Asian wife' thread.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| My comments about teenage girls were meant to illustrate that young women are attracted to young men first and foremost. That is their clear preference. As a teen, I remember loving the music of Deep Purple and Led Zepelin, but being quite disappointed at what wrinkly old dinasaurs the old buggers had become! |
All right. But the question is....would a teenage girl find Brad Pitt and George Cloony attractive, 30 years or more their senior? It's a yes. Would they find a moderately attractive, wealthy, slim, nice 40s guy attractive? It's a yes (not that I personally intend to sleep with teens at any time). Now, would teenage boys find 40 year old women attractive? It's possible if she was stunning - that's borne out by the evidence - but it's uncommon, because female beauty is bound up inextricably with youth.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Anyway, my whole point was actually to demonstrate that if the most important trait in a potential partner is the quality of their fertility, then women too should be choosing partners straight out of highschool, because that is when a man's sperm is at its best quality - before years of genetic damage to his sperm have accumulated - damage that is passed on to offspring. |
It's a false claim. See those papers in my previous post and you'll see this claim debunked.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| And mother nature certainly never intended that many 80 year old men hung on to life long enough to impregnate all those 15 year old girls. |
Mother Nature allows for the possibility. Why? Naturally selected genes. In our evolution, males with the capacity to father children long after the age of female menopause passed on their genes. Women whose reproductive capacity came to a screeching halt in middle age passed on their genes.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Also, old men who think they are attractive to young girls are living in an absolute fantasy. Sorry, but you are deluding yourself if you think you will be attracting 20 year olds when you are 50, unless you hang out in train stations looking for young drug addicted prostitutes. |
Big Bird, you're making predictions. It's not good science at all. I'm somewhat attractive and when I'm 50 I see no reason at all to believe I won't be a slim, attractive, extremely wealthy bon viveur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Your comments about teens/20s men and sperm quality are straightforwardly not borne out by the evidence. |
Well the jury is still out on that, but there seems to increasing evidence that it does.
| While inhaling Justin wrote: |
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Frankly I couldn't give a toss if a 30 year old man and 22 year old woman get it on, or if a 22 year old man gets it on with 30 year old woman, man or whatever. I couldn't give a toss if a 50 year old man were shagging several 20 year old women in the very same toilet cubicle, if they were all happy about it. Up to them. |
Exactly! But you know what? Some people disagree. Biologically and morally, there is absolutely nothing standing in the way of a 60 year old man and an teenage girl having a relationship assuming the relationship is consensual (and by definition legal), positive, and care is taken to prevent harm. Some people are so unreasonable, so indecent, so utterly uncivil, as to posit what is contrary. |
I see nothing wrong at all in a 19 year old girl taking a 60 year old lover. But, it is not a very common occurance simply because it is very unusual for a 19 year old to find a 60 year old man attractive. The 60 year old has to be exceptional in some fashion for this to work. Perhaps he has wonderful bone structure, like the ever handsome Peter Cushing. Or looks very youthful for his age (as did my father). Or is a compelling conversationalist. Or is extremely rich. Or is an economic life raft to a poverty stricken young girl from rural China. 19 year old girls don't generally go apeshit over 60 year olds. Sorry, but that's a fact.
| Quote: |
| Big Bird wrote: |
| You obsess on this idea that a woman is only attractive at the very peak of her fertility. Will you constantly be ridding yourself of your aging partners and replacing them with a 'newer model?' Then, if that is the case, I am a little sorry for you, as well as your unfortunate partners, who will only find themselves loved while their eggs are in great nick. |
My genes condemn me to this fate. I had assumed thoughout life that my sexuality would age with my body, that at 29 I'd find 29 year old girls attractive. I've come to realize I prefer 'em young. Actually, I'm more interested in 20 year old girls now than when I was 20. |
Then I have some sympathy for you. I do not judge you for that, as we can not help what we are compelled to want. You are likely to miss out on having a life companion who will love you faithfully over several decades. But I guess you understand that. I know for a fact though, that not all men are as compelled as you to seek out such young women. Fortunately for them I suppose. I also know of women who are eternally attracted to younger men. They are in an even worse predicament than you - unless they go to live in Jamaica.
| Quote: |
| It's obviously and totally subjective, indeed! However, an in-built preference for tall and wealthy men is borne out by the evidence and emerged through evolution from our human ancestors and also their animalistic ancestors....with age far lower a priority for women than it is for men. Why are girls most fertile at 23-24? Naturally selected genes. Why this massive disparity between male and female fertility? Naturally selected genes. Again, kindly see the sources I posted in the 'find an Asian wife' thread. |
I'm not going to look on the thread. I simply don't have time.
| Quote: |
| Big Bird wrote: |
| My comments about teenage girls were meant to illustrate that young women are attracted to young men first and foremost. That is their clear preference. As a teen, I remember loving the music of Deep Purple and Led Zepelin, but being quite disappointed at what wrinkly old dinasaurs the old buggers had become! |
All right. But the question is....would a teenage girl find Brad Pitt and George Cloony attractive, 30 years or more their senior? It's a yes. Would they find a moderately attractive, wealthy, slim, nice 40s guy attractive? It's a yes (not that I personally intend to sleep with teens at any time). Now, would teenage boys find 40 year old women attractive? It's possible if she was stunning - that's borne out by the evidence - but it's uncommon, because female beauty is bound up inextricably with youth. |
Well, I don't find George Clooney attractive, and he's less than 30 years my senior. Also, I'm finding Brad Pitt a lot less attractive than I did 10 years ago. Having said that, Clint Eastwood was a sexy bugger well into his 60s (hehe). Some men can be very attractive in their 40s but not all. Some men have certainly lost their appeal by the time they hit forty, slim or not, wealthy or not. Conversely, some men seem to get more attractive. But generally, speaking as an ex-20 year old, a man in his 40s is less appealing to a 20 year old than a man in his 30s. There are exceptions, of course. And there are some unusual men who are attractive in their 60s.
| Quote: |
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Anyway, my whole point was actually to demonstrate that if the most important trait in a potential partner is the quality of their fertility, then women too should be choosing partners straight out of highschool, because that is when a man's sperm is at its best quality - before years of genetic damage to his sperm have accumulated - damage that is passed on to offspring. |
It's a false claim. See those papers in my previous post and you'll see this claim debunked. |
No, it's not been debunked. As I said the jury is still out, but the evidence is becoming more compelling that it is preferable (from the point of view of optimum reproduction) for a man to have his kids sooner rather than later. If optimum fertility and health of offspring is what is the most important when choosing a mate, then both women and men should mate before they are in their late 20s. Fortunately, it's not such a big deal to most people, and we are mostly more complex than that.
| Quote: |
| Big Bird wrote: |
| And mother nature certainly never intended that many 80 year old men hung on to life long enough to impregnate all those 15 year old girls. |
Mother Nature allows for the possibility. Why? Naturally selected genes. In our evolution, males with the capacity to father children long after the age of female menopause passed on their genes. Women whose reproductive capacity came to a screeching halt in middle age passed on their genes |
.
She may have allowed for it, yes, but was certainly not relying on it! An eighty year old is sexually repulsive to the average woman. Why is that?
| Quote: |
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Also, old men who think they are attractive to young girls are living in an absolute fantasy. Sorry, but you are deluding yourself if you think you will be attracting 20 year olds when you are 50, unless you hang out in train stations looking for young drug addicted prostitutes. |
Big Bird, you're making predictions. It's not good science at all. I'm somewhat attractive and when I'm 50 I see no reason at all to believe I won't be a slim, attractive, extremely wealthy bon viveur. |
Chuckles. Well, I certainly will not begrudge you your young girlfriends if you can find them at that age. I will say "Good for you, mate!" But don't delude yourself that it will be easy. The wealth will certainly help, if you're not looking for true love that is! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: Question for Men Who've Lived in Both Japan and Korea |
|
|
| rooster_2006 wrote: |
| . I'm 21, handsome (so ajummas and girls in school uniforms say, anyway), and studied Korean at Yonsei for over 1,000 hours, and yet, despite all this, I've had to work very, very hard for very, very little success.? |
In Seoul, that just doesn't make any sense....
...something must be very wrong with you that you're not aware of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nicholas_chiasson
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Location: Samcheok
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You're just really naive or something, the girls can tell. After all you DID ask for relationship advice on DaveESLcafe, which is like asking if you're voting for Obama at a KKK Konvention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know who is right is wrong. But Justin is linking to alot of science. Big Bird is not.
| Quote: |
| Well the jury is still out on that, but there seems to increasing evidence that it does. |
For example, why don't you link to something here to back up this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IlIlNine
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Location: Gunpo, Gyonggi, SoKo
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
I don't know who is right is wrong. But Justin is linking to alot of science. Big Bird is not.
| Quote: |
| Well the jury is still out on that, but there seems to increasing evidence that it does. |
For example, why don't you link to something here to back up this point. |
Kind of like all the religion threads.
On topic:
OP: You gotta make a big pool of friends. If you're a nice guy, someone's gonna introduce you to someone nice! It's that simple.
You're being far too rational about it. As if it was a set of equations to minimize.
Think about this: You're trying to get a girl like Koreans study English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yea friends are important. One group of freinds I drink with, i never meet anybody, whilst the other group I meet loads of people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Well the jury is still out on that, but there seems to increasing evidence that it does |
This study says babies born to 60 year old fathers are (a) healthier than babies born to teen fathers, (b) as healthy as babies fathered by men in their 20s (yes, this decade is traditionally thought to be the best). The fact that 60 year old men can even reproduce in the first place is the whole point, however.
This study showed (a) daughters fathered by males aged 40-45 in one study (50s in another study) have the highest life spans, (b) daughters fathered by guys from 20-30 have the same lifespans as daughters born to guys in their 50s, (c) there is a "young father = shorter daughters' lives" paradox, (d) sons aren't affected at all by paternal age.
Contrast that to this paper, which says 53% of babies born to women over 45 result in spontaneous abortion, 18% for babies born to moms 35-39 (far more risky than the paltry odds of an elderly dad fathering a kid with problems). And "Generally, women's fertility begins to drop in your late 20s or early 30s and falls more rapidly after the age of 35". Compared to men, women's fertility sees wholesale difference.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| 19 year old girls don't generally go apeshit over 60 year olds. Sorry, but that's a fact |
No need to apologize, since it's a fact to which I haven't posited the contrary.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| No, it's not been debunked. As I said the jury is still out, but the evidence is becoming more compelling that it is preferable (from the point of view of optimum reproduction) for a man to have his kids sooner rather than later. If optimum fertility and health of offspring is what is the most important when choosing a mate, then both women and men should mate before they are in their late 20s. |
The scientific sources I've posted in this thread don't support the above.
| Big Bird wrote: |
She may have allowed for it, yes, but was certainly not relying on it! An eighty year old is sexually repulsive to the average woman. Why is that?
|
I'm not particularly interested. What is interesting to me is that women in their mid-late 30s and certainly afterwards are a biological liability from the perspective of reproduction. Women after the menopause can be of no reproductive utility. Males in their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s can be of the utmost reproductive utility to any women from puberty to 30 and even with results for offspring superior to those fathered by younger fathers. What's Darwin telling us about sexuality here? What I suspect to have taken place is that marriage/relationships for love and sexual attraction for the female have made only a very recent appearance and possible reproduction between older males and young women owes its existence to far older naturally selected genes in our evolutionary past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oreovictim
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Yea friends are important. One group of freinds I drink with, i never meet anybody, whilst the other group I meet loads of people. |
Ha, that's true. I've met some Korean guys and they'd introduce me to friends, and those friends would introduce me to more friends, too. But most of the time, a lot of these guys didn't want to introduce me to Korean women, just more guy friends who wanted to practice their English-e.
(Uh, JMO, who's that in your avatar? The dude from ELO?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nicholas_chiasson
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Location: Samcheok
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oreovictim wrote: |
Ha, that's true. I've met some Korean guys and they'd introduce me to friends, and those friends would introduce me to more friends, too. But most of the time, a lot of these guys didn't want to introduce me to Korean women, just more guy friends who wanted to practice their English-e.
|
got that right, its even better when they expect you to find them hot females english teachers to boot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oreovictim wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Yea friends are important. One group of freinds I drink with, i never meet anybody, whilst the other group I meet loads of people. |
Ha, that's true. I've met some Korean guys and they'd introduce me to friends, and those friends would introduce me to more friends, too. But most of the time, a lot of these guys didn't want to introduce me to Korean women, just more guy friends who wanted to practice their English-e.
(Uh, JMO, who's that in your avatar? The dude from ELO?) |
Well I work at a university so most koreans I drink with are students, and are a mix. Not that I'm hitting on them anyway. I actually normally drink with two different groups of foreigners, one composed more of new people Ive met over the last year, and the other, the old crew.
The guy in my avatar is Luke Kelly. One of the greatest trad singers of all time. He was the leadman for the Dubliners before he died. Here's a clip.
Raglan road
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuafmLvoJow
Foggy Dew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b605qq7xBzM&feature=related
I particulary like foggy dew,he dominates that song. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyhanlon
Joined: 09 Nov 2003
Location: 서울
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1. In Korea, a single man and a single woman can consume copious quantities of alcohol together at the woman's suggestion, with no one else around, and that has no relation to whether she wants to hook up or not. It's a perfectly normal, friendly but not sexual in any way activity.
2. Apparently you can't kiss a Korean girl until she loves you. |
no, no, a thousand times no! don't believe a word of it, mate. culture has nothing to do with it. i think these people are giving you the rose-tinted impression of korea which is often presented to foreigners, but ultimately people in korea are no different to anywhere else.
i totally admit though that finding a serious girlfriend is difficult to find in korea, since its still pretty much a taboo to go out with foreigners. itaewon and hongdae are of course exceptions, but you probably won't find a decent girlfriend in either of those places.
if you just want to relieve your frustration, go for the unholy trinity of ublove, korean cupid, and korean friend finder, or else get some korean mates to take you to a booking club. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Well the jury is still out on that, but there seems to increasing evidence that it does |
This study says babies born to 60 year old fathers are (a) healthier than babies born to teen fathers, (b) as healthy as babies fathered by men in their 20s (yes, this decade is traditionally thought to be the best). The fact that 60 year old men can even reproduce in the first place is the whole point, however.
This study showed (a) daughters fathered by males aged 40-45 in one study (50s in another study) have the highest life spans, (b) daughters fathered by guys from 20-30 have the same lifespans as daughters born to guys in their 50s, (c) there is a "young father = shorter daughters' lives" paradox, (d) sons aren't affected at all by paternal age.
Contrast that to this paper, which says 53% of babies born to women over 45 result in spontaneous abortion, 18% for babies born to moms 35-39 (far more risky than the paltry odds of an elderly dad fathering a kid with problems). And "Generally, women's fertility begins to drop in your late 20s or early 30s and falls more rapidly after the age of 35". Compared to men, women's fertility sees wholesale difference.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| 19 year old girls don't generally go apeshit over 60 year olds. Sorry, but that's a fact |
No need to apologize, since it's a fact to which I haven't posited the contrary.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| No, it's not been debunked. As I said the jury is still out, but the evidence is becoming more compelling that it is preferable (from the point of view of optimum reproduction) for a man to have his kids sooner rather than later. If optimum fertility and health of offspring is what is the most important when choosing a mate, then both women and men should mate before they are in their late 20s. |
The scientific sources I've posted in this thread don't support the above.
| Big Bird wrote: |
She may have allowed for it, yes, but was certainly not relying on it! An eighty year old is sexually repulsive to the average woman. Why is that?
|
I'm not particularly interested. What is interesting to me is that women in their mid-late 30s and certainly afterwards are a biological liability from the perspective of reproduction. Women after the menopause can be of no reproductive utility. Males in their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s can be of the utmost reproductive utility to any women from puberty to 30 and even with results for offspring superior to those fathered by younger fathers. What's Darwin telling us about sexuality here? What I suspect to have taken place is that marriage/relationships for love and sexual attraction for the female have made only a very recent appearance and possible reproduction between older males and young women owes its existence to far older naturally selected genes in our evolutionary past. |
I think from your posts, you have totally missed my point. I was very amused at the (very optimistic) idea of an 80 year old man still fathering away. Extraordinarily rare. Young women don't select for older men, which says something about what mother nature was intending. She was not intending for teenage girls to find elderly men for mates. This only happens because of power inbalances or sheer economics. An example: It's difficult for people to marry at the moment in Libya because men are supposed to provide certain things and many young men are currently finding they are not in position to ask for a woman in marriage (accoring to a Libyan friend of mine). He described to me how women over 25 in Libya are considered less marriageable. Until the are 25 (according to my friend who has 5 sisters and many female cousins), they hold out if they can for marriages with YOUNG men. Only after 25 do they accept what fate has in store for them and accept proposals from middle-aged (or older) men. Unless he has a high position and makes good money, they don't even consider it. Young women in general do not want old men and find elderly men sexually repulsive. Why is that? That suggests to me that nature wants them to mate with young men over old men. No young blonde would look twice at Rod Stewart if he was some nobody down the local boozer. Gross! Only the fact that he has fame and money has attractive women overlooking the considerable disadvantages of being with the old wrinkly git.
Yes, we all know that women's fertility declines more rapidly and more permanently than men's. I don't know why you keep reiterating it. A schoolkid knows this. And a school kid also knows that young girls don't fancy old grand-dads. Nature didn't intend it as the ideal combination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
