Age of first pregnancy in prehistory and male mate choice

In this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056757943 an argument is made that in prehistoric times women would concieve for the first time typically at about 17 and that because of this men have evolved preferences for girls under this age.

Is the reasoning right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you have any factual evidence of this or is your link to another forum the only thing that you can substantiate this nonsense with?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with buddha12. And the reasoning is not, imo, the right one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do mean? What's nonsense about it? It makes a lot of sense that men have evolved to go for the young females that haven't been impregnated yet because they can bear the most children.

It also explains the popularity of Jailbait and the schoolgirl image in the porn industry.

 

I've also seen this graph posted up a few times in some forums. It's taken from this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animal-Behaviour-Mechanism-Development-Evolution/dp/0130899364

What does it mean?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I know plenty of women that have not had kids. And they range anywhere from 18 an up. I even knew a woman who had not had intercourse until she married at age 34.
Back in the day like the 1940's- ? I know a few that married around 15. But that don't mean everyone wants a "kid" to "fool" around with. Besides today those "men". Are known as a pedophile. An yes I understand times have changed. But that don't mean that the male race always wanted a young female.
In my own opinion many "girls" under like 22 are immature. Although there are exceptions..

 

It means that anyone can make up a chart and put it anywhere that they want which doesn't make it factual but only entertaining. Without any real facts to support this nonsense I think it's a bunch of WOO WOO.

 

It wasn't until relatively recently that life expectancies reached anything over 50 or so, on average. In these "ancestral times" it might have been considerably less.
Right through until the 1800's and later girls were married off at 14. In some countries they still are.

Now given that your marriage age was 14, that you would reasonably expect a girl prior to modern contraception to get pregnant not too long after that, it is also quite reasonable to assume that many girls were up the duff before they hit 16. Inmany cases they were dead before 30, from disease, childbirth, conflict or what have you. Make hay while the sun shines, was probably the order of the day.

There is little to suggest, with regard to the OP, that it is unreasonable to deduce that the male preference for young girls is not an adaptation to their environment. That is, of course, changing and has been for some time. But it won't be wiped out overnight simply because you'd prefer it was.

Imagine a man in 1145 AD ... "my god, man, you cant marry her, she's 25! she'll be dead in a ten years, find one who'll be alive long enough to give you ten kids!"

There are plenty of facts to support it, Buddha12, and the assumption which follows is not unreasonable. You can't simply take your modern attitudes and apply them to times gone past.

In addition, there is also evidence to support the observation that modern girls take longer to mature on average than those in times gone by, and the rate of maturation can even vary between global regions and cultures. This applies to males as well, by the way.

 

Is there any evidence that men prefer younger girls more than random taste would account for? Personally, I prefer women who are a bit more mature.

 

Modern thinking, Fraggle. If you're talking that far back, there wasn't much on a man's mind other than begetting them. If a few lived, great.

All you're doing is reinforcing the idea that, for men, the idea was to have them. Anything beyond that pretty much came down to luck. Therefore, the more the better. Therefore, the younger the woman, the better.
It's pretty damned easy to see when you look at the third world. Who has all the kids these days? Who marries women as young as possible?
Oh yeah. Them.... and Alabama.

That's nice. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with male attitudes, but nice nonetheless.
So you can offer up an example of the modern man, Good on you. Fact is, most are still very much under the influence of the past.

Like healthy hair, social evolution doesn't happen overnight... but it will happen.

 

What are you really interested in?
That men want women whom they can have sex with, but who won't get pregnant - hence the preference for younger girls that aren't physically able to conceive?

 

No, Wynn, that's an aberration no matter how you look at it.

With regard to the OP, you might be on the right track, but not in terms of discussion of the premise.

 

Why?

Some claim that sex is a need, in the same manner that breathing and eating are a need. As such, pregnancy is an unwanted side-effect. Prefering women who won't conceive seems only logical.

There is also the painful and very visible fact of aging, even more so obvious on women.
Wrinkles, grey hair and yellowed teeth are not attractive. And these signs of aging can start to form early on.

 

... you may be right. The act itself is separate from the eventual result. Man is a unique animal in this regard. If it weren't true, pedophiles would not exist.

 

It's not separate.
Man is perhaps unique in the sense that he/she is able to mentally separate the two, to the point of convicning himself/herself that sex and pregnancy are two completely separate phenomena.

 

Not unique at all. We're probably the only animal to actually know that sex and procreation are linked.
Man simply justifies his instinct in this regard, not his knowledge.

All is justification.

 

"Man: a rational animal guided by instincts."


Doesn't that sound rather ... silly? And that's putting it extremely mildly.

 

Not at all. Man is an instinctual animal, our minds have simply developed to the point where we can rationalise just about anything in spite of knowledge.

And we do.
all the time.

Going back to the OP, and your question as to his purpose, what do you think now?

 

I think some people have not explored their bodies and their minds very well.
Many of the things that are officially called "insincts" and "needs" aren't that at all and can very well be controlled by will.

Of course, it seems that many people are frightened by this, it pulls the existential rug from under their feet.