I think it’s unfair that women should loose their attractiveness at a certain time of their life, although they still enjoy sexual pleasures long after menopause. Very unfair. Why is it so ?
Also unfair for men to a certain extent, but women are meant to be attractive; aren’t they the fair sex ?
And for women to be born unattractive is a also great injustice. They have less choice for partners, and are discriminated in their social and professional life.
(man speaking here)
I’m 35, I’ve got so much attractiveness, I’m loosing it all over the place. Yup, I just let it loose all over.
Women don’t automatically become less attractive when they hit a certain age any more than men do. Things may be a bit less high and tight (just like on the boys), but we make up for it with confidence, skill, and wisdom.
Of course, if you’re a shallow person, none of that will matter to you. But if you’re a shallow person, you’re going to be *extremely * unattractive once gravity gets a hold of you.
Um. That’s life?
It’s the cultural mores and way-too-successful advertising campaigns that are doing a lot of this mixed with our (Americans’) proclivity towards obesity.
We obsess about Hollywood and these rail thin, pretty people that are only pretty because of makeup and airtime (unless they are actually pretty…and they’re definitely out there. I’m talking to you, Miss on-the-cover-of-Vogue-and-looking-really-hot Knightley and Miss Longoria.)
I don’t know if women are supposed to be the fairer sex. I think that’s a relatively archaic quote from waaaay back in the day when patriarchies ruled all and women were more of possessions than anything (I’ll bet you it was that Shakespeare guy that made that term popular, at least for the purpose of this discussion).
In summary, life just is. Oh yeah, and we like Hollywood way too much. It’s like a second high school with the in crowd, the out crowd, the people wanting to snoop about relationships. It’s really annoying and trite, as far as I’m concerned, but I’m sure I’m influenced by it in some way, shape, or fashion (no pun intended).
Even an unattractive woman has options, in my opinion. It’s been my experience that any gal can snap her fingers and get laid, whereas there are VERY few guys that can do the same. (No hijack!)
I CAN say…unequivocally…and I don’t want to hijack (again)…is that I love being a guy. And I don’t know how you gals live with those vaginas. But I’m glad you do.
It’s evolution. Women are designed to be their most attractive to the opposite sex while they’re the most fertile.
Scondly, not all women lose their looks as they age. They may change, but many older women are still very lovely. What I think is unfair is the pressure that some women feel to look 25 when they’re forty, or feel worthless.
I remember one elderly man that I once met. His wife was pushing eighty, had lost her hair from cancer, and was painfully thin and frail. He told me that they’d been married for over sixty years, “And she’s still the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen.” And looking into his eyes, I could tell he meant it.
[QUOTE=DianaG]
I’m 35, I’ve got so much attractiveness, I’m loosing it all over the place. Yup, I just let it loose all over.
Women don’t automatically become less attractive when they hit a certain age any more than men do. Things may be a bit less high and tight (just like on the boys), but we make up for it with confidence, skill, and wisdom.
Of course, if you’re a shallow person, none of that will matter to you. But if you’re a shallow person, you’re going to be *extremely * unattractive once gravity gets a hold of you.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. As a 24 year old male, I see no problem with aging. Actually, I think it’s sexy when a woman can age gracefully. Aging is good. It’s better than the alternative.
Now, keep a wheelbarrow behind you to catch that attractiveness, bottle it, and let’s make some money, sweetheart!
Well, back in the day it would have been bad for our species if men had frequently mated with women past their age for fertility (fewer, less healthy kids), or if women had remained fertile until near the end of their lifespans (no mom to care for the kids).
So, having to rely on on my wits and what’s left of my looks is not a bad price to pay for the survival of human society.
Note: eyesight also fades with age.
It’s been hit on a couple times already, but genetics and passing on of said genetics is strong. We have some deep visual cues that we aren’t even aware of, yet, they come through and influence our choice of mates.
I know that when I get tangled up in relationships, I don’t settle for anything that isn’t very pretty and very smart. My time is the most important thing to me, and if I’m going to spend it with someone, I don’t want to compromise. Why is this? Well, if I’m going to spend time, the chance is there that it could end up being more. It’s all those damned dirty passing-on-of-genetics cues that speak to me.
Damn you!! Damn you all to hell!!!
I was recently watching the documentary “Grey Gardens” with the director’s commentary. In several scenes, “Big Edie” Bovier Beale is shown with her arms and cleavage exposed. She is 80-something in the documentary and her skin is sagging.
Anyway, they said that some people criticized them for showing her in that state–even though she was perfectly comfortable with it and obviously still felt like a beautiful woman. They determined that how people viewed Big Edie had a lot to do with their perceptions and fears of aging. If you look at her and see only sagging skin and old then that is more about you than her. It is only when you look past the physical that you can see the beauty and wisdom that age brings.
I think your perception of beauty changes as you age, as well.
I’m nearing 40. And about five years ago, a remarkable thing started happening. I started noticing truly beautiful older women. Stunning women in their 40s, 50s and 60s - older too. Their eyes twinkle. Their face shows wisdom. Their appearance is polished, but doesn’t have that “I’m trying so hard” look of someone who is 45 and fighting it to try and be 28.
It’s the combination of evolution and long-term monogamy and female exogamy. Humans tend towards monogamy, therefore as mentioned, males are driven to mate with the youngest females available ( longest fertile period ). Chimps are not monogamous, and show no such concern with age. Males don’t suffer such a large decline or outright loss of fertility with age.
Also, humans tend towards female exogamy; in other words, the girl usually runs off with the boy, not the other way around. Since the man stays with his home family/tribe/clan/whatever, historically ( but not so much now ), this has meant the male could accumulate more power and status with age. A woman, on the other hand, has historically needed to start from scratch in a new social heirarchy.
Therefore, older males tended to be as much or more powerful/high status and nearly as fertile as the younger, while older women lagged behind in both catagories.
Finally, once the appear, such sexual preferences tend to amplify themselves via a positive feedback loop. In Darwinian terms, it makes evolutionary sense to seek out a mate that others find attractive, because it makes it more likely that your children will be attractive. Keep that up for enough generations, and you have peacock tails, or big breasts.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Agreed. As a 24 year old male, I see no problem with aging. Actually, I think it’s sexy when a woman can age gracefully. Aging is good. It’s better than the alternative.
Now, keep a wheelbarrow behind you to catch that attractiveness, bottle it, and let’s make some money, sweetheart!
[/QUOTE]
You push the wheelbarrow, and I’ll cut you in, honey. 24, huh? Push that wheelbarrow shirtless, and I’ll up your take to 30%. 
I agree with **Dangerosa ** and others that aging gracefully is key. Nothing is more attractive than being comfortable in your own skin, which is a quality that many people don’t acquire until their 30s (at least). And nothing is *less * attractive than someone who is killing themselves to appear eternally 25.
Hey you, you in the hip huggers and the baby tee, and you in the baggy shorts and the backward baseball hat… desperation comes off you in big, stinky waves. Cut that out!
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Humans tend towards monogamy, therefore as mentioned, males are driven to mate with the youngest females available ( longest fertile period ).
<snip>
Also, humans tend towards female exogamy; in other words, the girl usually runs off with the boy, not the other way around.
[/QUOTE]
Both of these things are cultural, not genetically programmed. Strip away all of our cultually-imposed morals and ethics, and we’d fuck anything that caught our fancy, just like the chimps.
We have developed sexual monogomy as a way of making society function more smoothly. Our lives are much more complex than that of the chimps, so we needed to come up with ways to deal with jealousy and possesiveness, and to deal with inheritance of property.
Likewise, the same with the woman moving in with the man. This is not a universal custom, nor is it innate to humans to do so. With most mammals, the opposite occurs: males join female groups.
Who says women have to lose their attractiveness with age?
Ain’t nothing more beautiful than a mature woman who knows herself, knows what she wants, and knows what to do about it.
-20 year old male who would rather have a mature woman than the alternative any day of the week. (except Tuesday, that’s Sexy College Coeds porn day. Just kidding)
[QUOTE=Gymnopithys]
I think it’s unfair that women should loose their attractiveness at a certain time of their life, although they still enjoy sexual pleasures long after menopause. Very unfair. Why is it so ?
[/QUOTE]
Well, ISTM that if they play their cards right, by the time they reach a certain age, their partners will find them sexually attractive for reasons different from when both were in their twenties.
There’s a history betwixt The Lovely and Talented Mrs. Shodan and me, in other words. So, when she steps out of the shower, I am reacting not merely to what she is now, but what she has been - and done - for the last twenty four years (less three weeks).
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Both of these things are cultural, not genetically programmed. Strip away all of our cultually-imposed morals and ethics, and we’d fuck anything that caught our fancy, just like the chimps.
[/quote]
Prove it. It’s a human universal, to my knowledge.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
We have developed sexual monogomy as a way of making society function more smoothly. Our lives are much more complex than that of the chimps, so we needed to come up with ways to deal with jealousy and possesiveness, and to deal with inheritance of property.
[/quote]
Prove it is not instinctive. And yes, I’m aware that some cultures allow polygamy; even in such cultures, there tends to be a “First Wife”/concubine/whatever.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Likewise, the same with the woman moving in with the man. This is not a universal custom, nor is it innate to humans to do so. With most mammals, the opposite occurs: males join female groups.
[/QUOTE]
I said it is a natural tendancy, not a rigid program. It doesn’t have to be to have an evolutionary effect.
And the habits of other animals are irrelevant in this discussion.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Prove it. It’s a human universal, to my knowledge.
[/quote]
Well, *culture *is universal, meaning every society has one, and every culture has its restraints on sexuality. But then again, every culture has restraints on murder as well-- you don’t see criminal justice amongst the apes.
It’s nearly impossible to PROVE anything regarding human behavior. Firstly, we should look at the behavior of human’s nearest relatives, the apes. In human society, monogamy seems to have developed as a mechanism for raising children and inheritance of power or property. Since apes have none of these concerns, you don’t see similar behavior among them.
My husband works in a prison, and though his experiences, I have seen the results of people who were not raised with conventional morality. They simply cannot understand why they should obey society’s rules because they missed out on a crucial part of early socialization. Monogamy, to them, is often a bizarre and unfathomable concept. They only understand their own desires, and can’t see why they should care if their partner’s feelings are hurt by their infidelity. They exist outside of the shaming effect that keeps most of us in line with society’s expectations.
I disagree that the habits of other mammals are irrelevant. We are products of the same evolutionary processes, and we have behaviors in common. By comparing their behavior to ours, we can get an idea of what is instinctive and what is socially programmed.
Just because societies all have a behavior in common does not make it instinctive. Almost all human societies have religion, but that does not make worshipping a deity instintive.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
But then again, every culture has restraints on murder as well-- you don’t see criminal justice amongst the apes.
[/quote]
Not true; quite a few primitive cultures have no restrictions on murder, and everything goes to he who kills the most.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
It’s nearly impossible to PROVE anything regarding human behavior. Firstly, we should look at the behavior of human’s nearest relatives, the apes.
[/quote]
Won’t work, humans are too sexually weird.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
My husband works in a prison, and though his experiences, I have seen the results of people who were not raised with conventional morality.
[/quote]
Those are not normal people, under normal conditions; generalizing from them won’t tell you much about the rest of us.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Just because societies all have a behavior in common does not make it instinctive. Almost all human societies have religion, but that does not make worshipping a deity instintive.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it does; IIRC it’s called the Ballard Effect. A universal learned behavior tends to become an instinctive behavior. Also, there’s a fair amount of evidence that religion is inborn.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not true; quite a few primitive cultures have no restrictions on murder, and everything goes to he who kills the most.
[/quote]
True-- and some cultures like the Ik disdain what we would consider normal family bonds. If such behavior was instinctual, you wouldn’t see abberations like this.
In what way? Nearly every human sexual behavior has been observed in primates. They’ve been observed to have homosexual behaviors, fellatio, bizarre sexual positions. Female chimps have been seen using dildos. They will masturbate to pornography. They have been known to “molest” prepubescent youngsters and there have been observations of necrophilia.
Hmm. Tell that to the sociologists and psychologists who have devoted lifetimes worth of study to prisoners. On the contrary, they tell us a great deal about ourselves. They can tell us just what happens to a human being stripped of normal socialization. They are the “bare bones” of humanity-- what you get when concepts like compassion, impulse control and society’s rules (and the shame of violating them) are not taught.
If they exhibited tendancies toward monogamy or religious faith without having been taught them, then you could say that this indicates such behavior is instinctive.
I tried to research this Ballard Effect, but found nothing. Could you steer me toward it?
I have grave doubts about this concept. Let’s take forming lines. From early chilhood, we are taught to get in line and wait our turn. This has been occurring for generations, but having observed large numbers of kindergarteners, I have noticed no tendancy to automatically form a line until they are taught the practice.
It may be that the Ballard Effect is true when applied to* individuals*, not society as a whole.
As for religion being innate, from what I’ve heard, there are some studies which suggest that part of the brain may be triggered by religious experiences, but in my opinion, that proves nothing. There is a receptor in the human brain which seems specifically targeted toward THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Is marijuana smoking instinctive or inborn?
Hey, that’s life. You can’t blame Hollywood because guys are attracted to thin, pretty girls with big boobs. If guys liked fat chicks then every actress would look like Kathy Bates and all the skinny girls would be complaining that Hollywood wants everyone to look like a pumpkin.
And I don’t actually think it’s all that unfair. Girls in high school and college have the luxury of picking more or less any guy they want because all guys pretty much want them. Since women are generally attracted to men based on their accomplishments, not so much their looks, it evens out as they get older. As women get less physically attractive, men get more successful. It becomes about even in their 30s
Easy Ashton. Older women are attractive so long as they don’t look older. I’d rather have a 40 year old woman who looks 28 than a 28 year old who looks 40.
But yeah, while the young girls are hot to look at, they are usually so immature and dull that it’s a bit of a turn-off. “Yeaaaaa!! I’m DRUNK!!! WHEEEEEEEEE!!!”
Ok..maybe it’s not that much of a turn-off, but it’s still tedious.
I get a kick when I hear 20-something year old guys in bars talk like they are doing older women a favor by hitting on them. Doesn’t work that way dude. People don’t say “wow that older woman’s so lucky to be with that young stud”. The say “get a load of that hot older woman’s ‘boy toy’”. (which is fine too 
)
[QUOTE=Lissa]
True-- and some cultures like the Ik disdain what we would consider normal family bonds. If such behavior was instinctual, you wouldn’t see abberations like this.
[/quote]
You seem to be confusing instincts with rigid programming. People can defy instincts, which is why you see abberations; but the instincts are there, which is why they are only abberations.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
In what way? Nearly every human sexual behavior has been observed in primates. They’ve been observed to have homosexual behaviors, fellatio, bizarre sexual positions. Female chimps have been seen using dildos. They will masturbate to pornography. They have been known to “molest” prepubescent youngsters and there have been observations of necrophilia.
[/quote]
For one thing, we’re sexual all the time; that’s rare. The closest to us sexually are the bonobo, and they aren’t all that close, and the rest of their social structure is very different than ours.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
They are the “bare bones” of humanity-- what you get when concepts like compassion, impulse control and society’s rules (and the shame of violating them) are not taught.
[/quote]
For criminals that extreme, you are likely talking about people with genetic abberations, or damage to the brain. One doesn’t teach an emotion like compassion; it’s built in, like anger or hunger.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
If they exhibited tendancies toward monogamy or religious faith without having been taught them, then you could say that this indicates such behavior is instinctive.
[/quote]
No, quite a few instincts require at least a little outside stimulus to activate ( like some phobias ), or serious education to flesh out ( like language ).
[QUOTE=Lissa]
I tried to research this Ballard Effect, but found nothing. Could you steer me toward it?
[/quote]
I may have gotten the name wrong; try picking up a copy of The Blank Slate, as I think that’s where I read about it last. Plus, it’s all about this nature vrs nurture debate, and a good read.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
I have grave doubts about this concept. Let’s take forming lines. From early chilhood, we are taught to get in line and wait our turn. This has been occurring for generations, but having observed large numbers of kindergarteners, I have noticed no tendancy to automatically form a line until they are taught the practice.
[/quote]
A few generations in one culture isn’t much. A better example is language, which has a strong instinctive component. Even if a person could learn language with no instincts, it would be far harder and far slower than for someone “jump started” by having an initial set of language instincts. The second person would have a huge evolutionary advantage; even if language started out purely learned, any mutations that produced instincts in that direction would be selected for.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
As for religion being innate, from what I’ve heard, there are some studies which suggest that part of the brain may be triggered by religious experiences, but in my opinion, that proves nothing.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I was thinking of the studies showing that strong religiousity statistically tends to be inherited.