The focus of the article is: "guys! You should date women who are older than you, because women who are older than you are better than women who are younger than you!"I don't see it as trying to replace the notion that younger women are better so much as it is trying to displace it. Equal the playing field, as it were.
Is that really healthier than the notion that women who are younger are better? I don't know.
-koeselitz
You seem to be assuming there is a trend of mutual attraction, and of younger women dating significantly older men. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about men pursuing much younger women, unsuccessfully for the most part.Many, many men are unsuccessful for the most part regardless of who they pursue. It's just part and parcel of being the initiating party. If 1 in 4 attempts goes anywhere, that's not unusual.
Nearly 34 and still single (self-sufficient, French-speaking, mountain-biking women who want to put up a yurt and raise chickens in the back country aren't a hot commodityThis is because the dating world is a sad and wrong place.
Canadian researchers say they have found the first evidence to back up the theory that gay men have the evolutionary advantage of being "super uncles", a way of enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives and — indirectly, at least — making it more likely their genes are passed on.posted by Jaltcoh at 9:45 AM on February 18, 2010
Paul Vasey, associate professor in the University of Lethbridge's department of psychology, said his research found evidence that gay men may be more willing to support their nieces and nephews financially and emotionally. ...
Researchers conducting similar studies in the U.S. and England did not find any supporting evidence for the theory, said Vasey.
...One difference, though, was not slight at all: The homosexuals' mothers and aunts had had between three and four times as many sexual partners. They seemed to really like having sex with men.posted by vapidave at 5:08 PM on February 18, 2010 [1 favorite]
Camperio's explanation for all this relies, like Rahman and Wilson's hypothesis, on sexually antagonistic selection. Perhaps, he suggests, the mothers of some homosexuals have a "man-loving" gene. In women, it would be adaptive, causing them to have more sex and more children. But in men, the "man-loving" gene would be expressed differently, causing homosexuality. To the gay sons, that would be an evolutionary disadvantage—but one outweighed by the advantage to the mothers, who would have more than enough other children to compensate. And so gayness in men would persist in these families—as a side effect of a trait that is beneficial to the women.
« Older Robot ★ a ★ Day... | How to get the Vest you ever w... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Joe Beese at 6:12 PM on February 16, 2010 [4 favorites]