3 ms·

When you ask men who they are attracted to, at least on the surface, it’s always young women. I’m pretty sure the OkCupid stats showed that girls age 20 give or

When you ask men who they are attracted to, at least on the surface, it’s always young women. I’m pretty sure the OkCupid stats showed that girls age 20 give or take were peak attractiveness. Reality is of course that guys will “work for food” or attention. Women are different. It ranges — alot, and is more about EQ and scarcity. If you have a moderate baseline level of physical attractiveness, moderately fit (Jon two miles let’s say), not an asshole, and not living with mom, a 40-60 year old guy is a hot commodity.

fc417fc802 2y ago
This all makes perfect sense from a fertility (and thus natural selection) perspective.
- the_af 2y ago
  Agreed, but once you reach 60 (like Cruise and McGillis) you're well beyond the forces of natural selection and into the unnatural realm that our longer lives have granted us. Both of these actors are outcompeted in real life by younger people (sex/reproduction wise) yet one of them is still able to secure billing in "sexy roles" and the other isn't... and this is just one example. This could be natural selection acting against us, but since modern society is artificial anyway, why not make an effort to combat it?
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    > you're well beyond the forces of natural selection Are you? By all appearances this is a direct result of it. Visual indicators of age haven't been selected against in and of themselves as strongly with regards to men but a great many related things have been. Arguably your specific example might constitute an edge case that historically didn't occur with enough frequency to be selected against. Seems like little more than a curiosity to me. > why not make an effort to combat it? I don't follow. What are you arguing for here?
    - the_af 2y ago
      > Are you? By all appearances this is a direct result of it. This is a result of it when it no longer matters, in adults who no longer matter for breeding purposes. When natural selection acts on humans of age 60+, it's mostly irrelevant. There's nothing to select, they've already done their part. It's just that natural selection is blind and doesn't "know" when to stop -- but we humans know better (this is what I meant later by combat/countering it). > Arguably your specific example might constitute an edge case that historically didn't occur with enough frequency to be selected against. Seems like little more than a curiosity to me. Why would it be selected against? All else being equal, natural selection wouldn't exert any particular pressure on old people after they've passed their genes. It's "blind" to them. It certainly doesn't know anything about being media star material! ;) But it's not an "edge case" for modern humans, especially as we live longer and keep working well into our later years. Modern society doesn't always resemble what the forces of natural selection act upon anyway. > What are you arguing for here? The same as the thread starter, only with a focus on women since they get the short end of the stick in this aspect (in media).
      - hattmall 2y ago
        Except this seems like a direct result of natural selection, because older men can still pass on their genes. Older women can not as readily pass them on.
        the_af 2y ago
        Well, like I said, this is a result of it when it no longer matters. For reference, we're talking about 60+ year old men. And, like I also said, modern humans and our society don't reflect natural selection anyway; many things we do are "unnatural".
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        > modern humans and our society don't reflect natural selection anyway; many things we do are "unnatural". That's simply not true. Don't get hung up on the word "natural". It's nothing more than the result of a biased random walk (at least until the eugenicists get involved, at which point it goes meta). Some of the things selected for can get pretty abstract. Cooperative behavior for example. Despite often being to the short term detriment of the individual it is observed in the wild.
ccakes 2y ago
If you’ve never stumbled across the older OkCupid blog posts or Christian Rudder’s book (Dataclysm[1]) then I can’t recommend them enough. Super interesting content delivered by a smart and engaging writer [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21480734-dataclysm https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21480734-dataclysm

fc417fc802 2y ago

This all makes perfect sense from a fertility (and thus natural selection) perspective.

the_af 2y ago
Agreed, but once you reach 60 (like Cruise and McGillis) you're well beyond the forces of natural selection and into the unnatural realm that our longer lives have granted us. Both of these actors are outcompeted in real life by younger people (sex/reproduction wise) yet one of them is still able to secure billing in "sexy roles" and the other isn't... and this is just one example. This could be natural selection acting against us, but since modern society is artificial anyway, why not make an effort to combat it?
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  > you're well beyond the forces of natural selection Are you? By all appearances this is a direct result of it. Visual indicators of age haven't been selected against in and of themselves as strongly with regards to men but a great many related things have been. Arguably your specific example might constitute an edge case that historically didn't occur with enough frequency to be selected against. Seems like little more than a curiosity to me. > why not make an effort to combat it? I don't follow. What are you arguing for here?
  - the_af 2y ago
    > Are you? By all appearances this is a direct result of it. This is a result of it when it no longer matters, in adults who no longer matter for breeding purposes. When natural selection acts on humans of age 60+, it's mostly irrelevant. There's nothing to select, they've already done their part. It's just that natural selection is blind and doesn't "know" when to stop -- but we humans know better (this is what I meant later by combat/countering it). > Arguably your specific example might constitute an edge case that historically didn't occur with enough frequency to be selected against. Seems like little more than a curiosity to me. Why would it be selected against? All else being equal, natural selection wouldn't exert any particular pressure on old people after they've passed their genes. It's "blind" to them. It certainly doesn't know anything about being media star material! ;) But it's not an "edge case" for modern humans, especially as we live longer and keep working well into our later years. Modern society doesn't always resemble what the forces of natural selection act upon anyway. > What are you arguing for here? The same as the thread starter, only with a focus on women since they get the short end of the stick in this aspect (in media).
    - hattmall 2y ago
      Except this seems like a direct result of natural selection, because older men can still pass on their genes. Older women can not as readily pass them on.
      - the_af 2y ago
        Well, like I said, this is a result of it when it no longer matters. For reference, we're talking about 60+ year old men. And, like I also said, modern humans and our society don't reflect natural selection anyway; many things we do are "unnatural".
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        > modern humans and our society don't reflect natural selection anyway; many things we do are "unnatural". That's simply not true. Don't get hung up on the word "natural". It's nothing more than the result of a biased random walk (at least until the eugenicists get involved, at which point it goes meta). Some of the things selected for can get pretty abstract. Cooperative behavior for example. Despite often being to the short term detriment of the individual it is observed in the wild.

ccakes 2y ago

If you’ve never stumbled across the older OkCupid blog posts or Christian Rudder’s book (Dataclysm[1]) then I can’t recommend them enough. Super interesting content delivered by a smart and engaging writer [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21480734-dataclysm https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21480734-dataclysm