Verified by 
32COMMENTS
LOL
Source: StockSnap/Pixabay
Here's a straightforward question. Who do you think has the higher self-perceived "mate value"—a woman in her 20s, or a woman in her 40s?
Common sense would tell us that the 20-somethings would rate themselves higher on this dimension. New research published in Evolutionary Psychology, however, finds that the two groups score almost identically.
Why is this so? Before attempting to explain this counterintuitive finding, let's first take a look at how researchers define mate value. As you might expect, mate value refers to one's self-perceived desirability as a romantic/mating partner. It is defined by one's combined answers to the following four questions (rated on a 5-point scale):
1. Overall, how would you rate your level of desirability as a partner?
2. Overall, how would members of the opposite sex rate your level of desirability as a partner?
3. Overall, how do you believe you compare to other people in desirability as a partner?
4. Overall, how good of a catch are you?
Evolutionary theory suggests that certain demographic variables (e.g., age, income, etc.) would predict people's responses to these questions. For instance, younger woman should score higher than older woman due to their superior reproductive fitness. And people with higher socio-economic status should score higher than low-SES individuals, due to their economic advantage.
Surprisingly, researchers found very few reliable demographic differences in mate value. They write, "Contrary to theoretical expectations and previous findings with smaller samples, the differences were either very small (sexual orientation, age, education) or small (sex, socioeconomic status, relationship status) in terms of their effect size."
What, then, explained people's ratings on the mate value scale (MVS)? For one, there is a strong link between self-esteem and mate value; higher scores on self-perceived self-esteem translated to higher mate value scores. Also, relationship status and relationship history appear to play a role in shaping one's response to the MVS. They write, "Of all demographic variables, relationship status combined with relationship satisfaction was one of the strongest predictors of MVS scores, while the strongest effect was that being single with no (or only a few) previous sexual partners predicted a conspicuously reduced score."
So, what's the takeaway? Well, it's probably not the case that evolutionary theory is wrong. Instead, it seems we are quite bad at judging ourselves in the context of evolutionary theory. Desirable individuals underestimate their mate value, while less desirable individuals overestimate it. But maybe that's a trait that has been selected for.
Facebook Image: Liderina/Shutterstock
References
Csajbók, Z., Havlíček, J., Demetrovics, Z., & Berkics, M. (2019). Self-Perceived Mate Value Is Poorly Predicted by Demographic Variables. Evolutionary Psychology, 17(1), 1474704919829037.
Out of Your League? A Scientific Assessment of "Mate Value"
Submitted by Em on March 26, 2019 - 2:26pm
Only a man...
Submitted by Reader on March 26, 2019 - 4:20pm
Only a man would find it "counter intuitive" that a 40 year old woman would rate herself just as desirable as a 20-year-old. The questions used for the rating have NOTHING to do with reproduction. And not all people judge fertility as the most important aspect in a relationship. Look at the birth rate among educated women, especially the millennial generation.
Yup. This article perpetuates
Submitted by Anonymous on March 26, 2019 - 8:14pm
Yup. This article perpetuates sexist stereotypes. Two thumbs down.
Why don't you explain how?
Submitted by anonymous on March 27, 2019 - 10:18am
Why don't you explain how?
Only a woman
Submitted by Truthbombs on April 18, 2019 - 1:48pm
Only a woman would think that she's just as desirable at 40 as she was at 20.
Anonymous wrote:
Submitted by anonymous on April 18, 2019 - 3:54pm
Anonymous wrote:Only a woman would think that she's just as desirable at 40 as she was at 20.
You don't sound too bright.
The only thing that matters to most women is how desirable they are to the target pool of men who THEY are interested in, NOT the general pool of all men, as you mistakenly assume. So, the fact that a 40-year-old woman is not as appealing to a 20-year-old guy as a 20-year-old woman isn't really interesting to that 40-year-old woman. Because most 40-year-old women are not interested in some young guy who is only interested in quick and frequent sex, ejaculates in 20 seconds, has no income and no job, etc.
Likewise, not all 20-year-old women are thrilled by the fact that they are the "most desirable" in terms of being a sex object either.
"You don't sound too bright."
Submitted by Truthbombs on June 5, 2019 - 11:06am
"The only thing that matters to most women is how desirable they are to the target pool of men who THEY are interested in, NOT the general pool of all men, as you mistakenly assume."
lol, you're mistakenly assuming that a man in his 40's would rather date a woman in her 40's over a woman in her 20's.
Keep dreaming, LOOOOLLLLL
Anonymous wrote:
Submitted by anonymous on June 5, 2019 - 7:20pm
Anonymous wrote:"The only thing that matters to most women is how desirable they are to the target pool of men who THEY are interested in, NOT the general pool of all men, as you mistakenly assume."
lol, you're mistakenly assuming that a man in his 40's would rather date a woman in her 40's over a woman in her 20's.
False. Quote where you could reasonably draw that inference. You can't.
The point is that women in their 40's generally can find a man, and typically go for somewhat older and richer men. For one thing, there just aren't enough 20-year-olds who want to go with men in their 40's. So, sure, it's what 40-year-old men think they want, but it's not what they get. And many of those who can, actually think women in their 20's are too immature, flighty, and find another boyfriend in 6 months. Been there and seen that.
I stand by my original statement 100%, and you've presented not one iota of insight to argue against it.
wrote:Keep dreaming, LOOOOLLLLL
What I say is reality based and experienced-based. You're the one living in a silly bubble.
Try actually addressing something I've said, instead of making up what you think I assumed, which I didn't, and argue a point that I wouldn't disagree with in the first place. As the saying goes, you're just tilting at windmills, assuming that literary reference doesn't go, wooosh, right over your head
Okay honey
Submitted by Truthbombs on June 6, 2019 - 9:05am
You keep riding that Wishful Thinking Train. Maybe one day you'll arrive in a world where a woman in her 40's is just as desirable as a woman in her 20's.
A little short on facts, just
Submitted by anonymous on June 6, 2019 - 10:31am
A little short on facts, just dumb quips.
Haha. Mate "value" should be
Submitted by Lucifer A on March 26, 2019 - 9:25pm
Haha. Mate "value" should be determined by the mate in order to get a more accurate assessment as oppose to self assessment which will surely distort the results. Seems silly.
For example, a 40 year old, career minded spinster will likely have a false sense self confidence from an overinflated ego compared to a 20 year old fairly attractive but shy single girl.
However, if men as potential future mates were assessing both the women, a whole different result will be obtained.
Not rocket science if you ask me. End of the day, there are certain genuine standards when it comes to mate selection. Period.
Not rocket science, but you
Submitted by anonymous on March 26, 2019 - 10:58pm
Not rocket science, but you kinda flubbed your logic. What you say applies to how 25-year-old men might value women in their 20's vs. their 40's. But women in their 40's aren't generally interested in 25-year-old men. So they rate themselves by how the men they are interested in would rate them. And that target of men are around 50 years old, who are generally not interested in having another set of kids with a 25-year-old.
And so a 40-year-old woman's confidence isn't false at all, because she's not practically interested in 25-year-old men in the first place. Just like I don't have a false sense of confidence just because gay men, giraffes, or elephants aren't interested in me. My self-perceived value is not based on the evaluations of things that don't interest me.
Your high-school biology oversimplifications don't quite reach the level of rocket science, I'm afraid.
You haven't changed, have you
Submitted by Lucifer A on March 27, 2019 - 12:03am
You haven't changed, have you? Still talking the same nonsense and thinking it's the truth by giving some cock and bull explanation. You can keep deluding yourself that atypical cases are the norm but I will never lie let alone lie foolishly.
Firstly, NO 25 year old virile lad is going to settle with a 40 year old hag unless he psychologically suffers from some unresolved oedipus complex. Lol!
Second, if an affluent 50 year old man had a choice between a 25 year old "sexy" woman and career minded "bossy" 40 year old hag, chances he will definitely choose the former because even if he doesn't want children he would surely need sex just as any normal 50 year old heterosexual man would. So, rather than constantly bargaining for sex with a 'foul' mood 40 year old woman who will soon hit menopause, I am pretty sure he would rather be with a sexually enthusiastic and adventurous 25 year old girl. He most certainly wouldn't want to live a sexually deprived life with the 40 year old.
So, don't waste your time selling me another one of your "cock" theories, because in life, common things are common for a bloody good reason despite all the contradictory rubbish lies you say. Please dont exhibit first degree foolishness and embarrass yourself! Haha!
Anonymous wrote:
Submitted by anonymous on March 27, 2019 - 12:37am
Anonymous wrote:Firstly, NO 25 year old virile lad is going to settle with a 40 year old hag unless he psychologically suffers from some unresolved oedipus complex. Lol!
No, firstly nothing, because I already agreed with that. Can't you read? Try to understand -- what I wrote was exactly this: "What you say applies to how 25-year-old men might value women in their 20's vs. their 40's." What part of that are you having trouble grasping?
wrote:Second, if an affluent 50 year old man had a choice between a 25 year old "sexy" woman and career minded "bossy" 40 year old hag, chances he will definitely choose the former because even if he doesn't want children he would surely need sex just as any normal 50 year old heterosexual man would.
First of all, not all 40-year-old women are bossy hags, so you're just making that up to fit your argument. But if you want to go that route, a lot of 25-year-old women these days are overweight, and entirely unappealing to some men for that reason alone. And no, actually, a lot of men in their 50's will NOT prefer a 25-year-old because, as one of my friends who's slept with 100 women at least said, "They're too stupid and naive, and want another boyfriend in 6 months". And so they are not good prospects for many men.
And, like I said, a lot of affluent 50-year-old men on business trips have easy and instant access to beautiful young women, yet most don't exercise those opportunities. And you haven't addressed that. You just go on blathering.
wrote:So, rather than constantly bargaining for sex with a 'foul' mood 40 year old woman who will soon hit menopause, I am pretty sure he would rather be with a sexually enthusiastic and adventurous 25 year old girl. He most certainly wouldn't want to live a sexually deprived life with the 40 year old.
Boy, if you have to bias your argument that badly, with such foul descriptions on the one party but not the other, it shows how weak your argument is.
Your idealistic thinking of what a 25-year-old woman is generally like tells me you have little experience.
wrote:So, don't waste your time selling me another one of your "cock" theories, because in life, common things are common for a bloody good reason despite all the contradictory rubbish lies you say. Please dont exhibit first degree foolishness and embarrass yourself! Haha!
No, the only thing that sells to you is your own made-up fantasies and simple-minded high school biology.
So I repeat, because you seem to have extreme difficulty grasping basic concepts, it makes perfect sense that a 40-year-old woman puts a high value on herself, because she finds more satisfaction from her long-term relationship from the men that she's interested in than a 25-year-old who gets pawed at by men who value her only for sex. Being valued only for sex doesn't make a lot of woman feel valued. And that self value was the topic of this article, not the value placed on her by people she's not interested in.
What part of that are you having trouble grasping?
It makes sense to me because
Submitted by anonymous on March 26, 2019 - 10:45pm
It makes sense to me because self-perceived mate value is related to the subset of people who you would like to find you attractive. So, for example, a 45-year-old woman is more interested in men who are well-established and already have as many kids as they want, and so she doesn't really care all that much in any practical way about the value that a 25-year-old "boy" would put on her. Likewise, a 50-year-old man in many cases might find a 25-year-old to be interesting eye candy, but if he's got kids and a good marriage, he's not generally likely to want to trade in his 45-year-old wife for a 25-year-old woman who wants another set of kids.
It's a bit of a myth that every 50-year-old man will automatically want a 25-year-old as anything more than a fantasy in his mind. Even when 50-year-old men are on business trips far away from home and have plenty of money, most of them don't get a beautiful young escort for the evening even though they could easily do so and likely never get found out. And I think many women in their 40's in good relationships feel that the man they want to value them does so. Such women don't lower their self-perceived rating just because 25-year-old men aren't generally interested in them.
And this also is aligned with the strong correlation mentioned:
wrote:Of all demographic variables, relationship status combined with relationship satisfaction was one of the strongest predictors of MVS scores, while the strongest effect was that being single with no (or only a few) previous sexual partners predicted a conspicuously reduced score.
I would guess that fewer young women have relationship satisfaction, so that fits. They have too many men just pawing at them for sex, and in many cases no long well-established relationships at that point.
After reading this absolute
Submitted by Speechless on April 5, 2019 - 1:32am
After reading this absolute absurdity of an article, I realize that now that I, a female older than 25 years old, am no longer worthy of a fantasic and caring partner, nor anything good in this world. How could I have been so wrong and so delusional after all these years... To think that my value and my worth as a partner is dependent upon more than my sexual appeal? To even entertain the idea that men could possibly find value in me In anything other than my reproductive ability? My apologies. After all, How can I love myself and deem myself worthy if men don’t love me and find me desirable ?
Welcome to a man's world.
Submitted by Truthbombs on April 18, 2019 - 1:53pm
Men are told their entire lives that unless they are tall, educated, and have high socioeconomic status then they are not worthy of ANY partner.
Life doesn't give a crap about what you feel you "deserve". Better start getting used to it. You're older than 25, you say? It's all downhill from here for you. Enjoy.
Anonymous wrote:
Submitted by anonymous on April 18, 2019 - 3:50pm
Anonymous wrote:Men are told their entire lives that unless they are tall, educated, and have high socioeconomic status then they are not worthy of ANY partner.
A bit of an exaggeration. But even so, what do you expect? Why shouldn't women, or anybody, prefer men who work hard and succeed? At least two out of those three things are attainable by working hard.
wrote:Life doesn't give a crap about what you feel you "deserve". Better start getting used to it. You're older than 25, you say? It's all downhill from here for you. Enjoy.
Oh, so you feel the need to "even it up" by making the kind of statement you just said you apparently hated hearing about men? You sound bitter, and a likely failure in the dating department, I'd guess.
As for downhill from 25, nope, not all women feel that way at all.
And by the way, you sound both DUMB and BITTER, both qualities which are very unappealing to the majority of women. So good job there.
Hypergamy
Submitted by TruthBombs on May 17, 2019 - 11:37am
"At least two out of those three things are attainable by working hard."
The problem is the way hierarchies are structured. Even if every man rushed out tomorrow to pursue education and higher socioeconomic status, there would still be a hierarchy, and women would still peel off the top. Nothing would change.
"As for downhill from 25, nope, not all women feel that way at all."
lol It doesn't matter how you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it, it's just biology.
"And by the way, you sound both DUMB and BITTER, both qualities which are very unappealing to the majority of women. So good job there."
Oh no, whatever shall I do?? Hun, I haven't pursued women in years. You're playing with an empty hand there. Sorry.
Anonymous wrote:
Submitted by anonymous on May 17, 2019 - 1:21pm
Anonymous wrote:The problem is the way hierarchies are structured. Even if every man rushed out tomorrow to pursue education and higher socioeconomic status, there would still be a hierarchy, and women would still peel off the top. Nothing would change.
False. The vast majority men get married and have children.
wrote:"As for downhill from 25, nope, not all women feel that way at all."
lol It doesn't matter how you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it, it's just biology.
Actually, in a real sense, it's all that matters because we experience life through our emotions. If someone has an environment in which they are truly happy, then what you have to say about it is utterly irrelevant.
wrote:"And by the way, you sound both DUMB and BITTER, both qualities which are very unappealing to the majority of women. So good job there."
Oh no, whatever shall I do?? Hun, I haven't pursued women in years. You're playing with an empty hand there. Sorry.
A perfect example of DUMB: I never said I was a woman. And your guess that I'm a woman is also wrong. I have many women friends and enjoy their company. To me, by comparison, you therefore also sound BITTER.
Actually...
Submitted by Truthbombs on June 5, 2019 - 11:02am
"False. The vast majority men get married and have children."
Nope. Genetic studies have shown that, historically, only 50% of men reproduced, and of those 50% you can bet that a minority of them had the majority of the offspring.
Currently 70% of men 20-35 years old are UNMARRIED, and if a man is not married by the age of 35, it is unlikely that he ever will get married. These are hard statistical data, I'm sure you'll say you "don't feeeeeeeel that way", LOL. How can you say the "vast majority" of men get married? The majority are UNMARRIED. And there was a recent pole that showed that for men, 35% have not had sex or a relationship in the past year.
Fast forward to today - the average age of first marriage is climbing, and while the average age of first birth is climbing as well, it still lags behind the average age of first marriage. There are more out of wedlock births than ever - something like 55% of births these days are out of wedlock. The marriage rate is also falling, meaning less people are getting married - and the divorce rate is climbing. So the people who DO get married end up going their separate ways. What, exactly, do you think is happening here? It's pretty simple:
Women are "peeling off the top" in a dual mating strategy. They sleep around in their 20's with a small minority of immediately attractive men (tall, muscular, asshole behavior, etcetc), pursuing their "alpha fux", and getting pregnant by these men. Then, shortly after, they decide that they're "ready" and "mature enough now" to settle down with their "beta bux", and then go out and try to pick a man with the best income they can get for marriage.
However, because their "beta bux" husbands tend to be higher in agreeableness and conscientiousness, these women become bored and hence we have such a high divorce rate.
Women are still peeling off the top. They pick the top guys for alpha fux and they pick the top guys for beta bux - they just have different metrics for what makes a "top guy" in either category.
Of course you're free to say you "don't FEEEEEEEEL that way", LOL.
"Actually, in a real sense, it's all that matters because we experience life through our emotions. If someone has an environment in which they are truly happy, then what you have to say about it is utterly irrelevant."
More nonsense from you. AGAIN - it doesn't matter if you "feel" that it's not downhill after 25.
"A perfect example of DUMB: I never said I was a woman. "
Anonymous wrote:
Submitted by anonymous on June 5, 2019 - 7:43pm
Anonymous wrote:"False. The vast majority men get married and have children."
Nope. Genetic studies have shown that, historically, only 50% of men reproduced, and of those 50% you can bet that a minority of them had the majority of the offspring.
False. That is not the case in the modern wester world. Too low.
wrote:Currently 70% of men 20-35 years old are UNMARRIED, and if a man is not married by the age of 35, it is unlikely that he ever will get married. These are hard statistical data, I'm sure you'll say you "don't feeeeeeeel that way", LOL. How can you say the "vast majority" of men get married? The majority are UNMARRIED. And there was a recent pole that showed that for men, 35% have not had sex or a relationship in the past year.
You're incompetent with statistics, my friend. See, by the time a man is actually 35, it's no longer 70% of them who are unmarried because that is the average for the group including the vast number of unmarrieds in their early 20's. You got some numbers, but you applied them incompetently. And what's the nonsense about "feeling"? You sound dumb. I'm sticking to 100% statistics and logic.
Sure, a slight majority of all adult men are unmarried, but that doesn't mean the majority never marry? What part of that are you having difficulty with? That's a dumb as saying that most of the people in a crowded McDonald's have not been served -- sure, that's true, but they eventually ALL get served. You're confusing two statistics, because the EVENTUALLY get served, all of them! Likewise, the biggest change in recent years is simply that people are getting married LATER, not that they aren't getting married. Got it?
wrote:Fast forward to today - the average age of first marriage is climbing,
True, but that doesn't mean that fewer men get married.
[qoute]There are more out of wedlock births than ever - something like 55% of births these days are out of wedlock.[/quote]
And so that is a powerful argument AGAINST your point that 50% of men don't have children. Try not to step on your own argument!
[qoute]The marriage rate is also falling, meaning less people are getting married[/quote]
Well, duh, uh, yes, that is what it would mean if it's true. If fewer people marry, fewer people marry. Got it! But in fact, it's not true. People are getting married later.
wrote:Women are "peeling off the top" in a dual mating strategy. They sleep around in their 20's with a small minority of immediately attractive men (tall, muscular, asshole behavior, etcetc), pursuing their "alpha fux", and getting pregnant by these men. Then, shortly after, they decide that they're "ready" and "mature enough now" to settle down with their "beta bux", and then go out and try to pick a man with the best income they can get for marriage.
Generally, false. You're talking about a minority of women. Likewise, a minority of men sleep around with a lot of attractive women. But these "players" of both genders simply are not the majority of people who comprise the mass statistics which you're trying to address.
wrote:However, because their "beta bux" husbands tend to be higher in agreeableness and conscientiousness, these women become bored and hence we have such a high divorce rate.
Your point fails because you're talking about behaviors of a minority, and that doesn't comprise the mass statistics.
wrote:Women are still peeling off the top. They pick the top guys for alpha fux and they pick the top guys for beta bux - they just have different metrics for what makes a "top guy" in either category.
Another failed point, as it addresses only a small minority of behavior. The vast majority of men and women do in fact marry, not all of them have children, but that's made up by people who don't marry and still have children.
wrote:Of course you're free to say you "don't FEEEEEEEEL that way", LOL.
You really got stupidly hung up on that phrase by your own gross misunderstanding of what I originally stated, factually, not as a feeling of mine, on that topic. Since your memory and comprehension appear to be poor, I'll restate it. The point about feelings was that all that matters to middle-age women is that the men they are interested in could be interested in the women, and that that's all that matters to them because it's their life experience and experience is emotional. It doesn't matter to them as a life experience that younger men aren't attracted to those older women any more than it matters to me that giraffes don't find me sexually attractive. You could salivate about the fact that you could quote giraffe's sexual disinterest in me as a fact, and you'd be right, but as the experiences in life that I want, it doesn't matter to me. So what I said is logically 100% on target.
Try presenting arguments which aren't just uninsightful quips.
Is that your counter argument? LOL
Submitted by Truthbombs on June 6, 2019 - 9:18am
I'm getting kinda tired of teaching and correcting you, since I have to drag you kicking and screaming towards understanding. But here goes:
There's actually not much to reply to you in your post. Most of your responses are "not true, neener neener" like an child. Combined with the fact that you presented no data to back up your assertion that the "vast" majority of men get married and have children, it's pretty clear that you're strung up by your toes and just saying things to say them. But I'll see what I can do here:
"True, but that doesn't mean that fewer men get married."
Yes it does. Once a man reaches the age of 35, if he's in the "never married" category, he's unlikely to ever get married. So if the average age of marriage is increasing, it pushes more men into that "over 35, never married" category.
"And so that is a powerful argument AGAINST your point that 50% of men don't have children. Try not to step on your own argument!"
Not really, considering 1 man can impregnate multiple women. Here you're assuming parity in reproductive success which, as I already pointed out to you, is not true.
"But in fact, it's not true."
Except it is. Marriage rates are falling, and they're falling faster for men than they are for women.
"minority"
Prove it. :)
I guess that's it. I'll wait for some hard data from you. But I know it'll never happen so I'm not holding my breath, lol.
Anonymous wrote:
Submitted by anonymous on June 6, 2019 - 11:54am
Anonymous wrote:I'm getting kinda tired of teaching and correcting you, since I have to drag you kicking and screaming towards understanding. But here goes:
Sorry to say, you're actually the tiresome person here having difficulty grasping elementary statistics.
wrote:There's actually not much to reply to you in your post. Most of your responses are "not true, neener neener" like an child. Combined with the fact that you presented no data to back up your assertion that the "vast" majority of men get married and have children,
Actually, the information is READILY available. Google is your friend. But hey, I'll take the time to explain it to you.
Sure, the median age of first marriage was earlier in the past. Now (year 2018) the median is about 30 for men, and 28 for women. But note, what that means is that by age 30, half of men have married. Therefore, by age 35, it's easy to say that the majority of men have married. Sure, the average married status for all people aged 20-35 may well be only 30%, but by age 35, well over 50% have married.
What part of that are you having difficulty with?
wrote:"True, but that doesn't mean that fewer men get married."
Yes it does. Once a man reaches the age of 35, if he's in the "never married" category, he's unlikely to ever get married.
Yeah, but you see, a lot of guys are actually married by age 35, so your argument is a fail.
wrote:So if the average age of marriage is increasing, it pushes more men into that "over 35, never married" category.
Yes, but far more than 30% of men are married by the time they reach 35. You seem to have so much difficulty grasping that!
wrote:Not really, considering 1 man can impregnate multiple women. Here you're assuming parity in reproductive success which, as I already pointed out to you, is not true.
Actually, you're wrong, because the majority of women who have children don't have them by multiple men, or the reverse. The Census Bureau calls this MPF, or multiple partner fertility -- having kids with more than one partner. However, if you rule out all people who have no kids, and people who have only one kid (since you obviously can't have one just one kid with multiple partners), you're left with a smaller number of people who have multiple kids, and of those, only a small percentage have them with multiple partners. In fact, the percentage for American women is only 11.4%, and only 8.6% for men. So, actually, only a small minority of men and women have kids with multiple partners.
You've heard of the Census Bureau, right? And now you know it's called MPF, or "multiple partner fertility". And you know how to use Google, right? Go for it.
The bottom line is simply, MOST MEN GET MARRIED, period. The data easily proves it. Do you have to be led by the nose to the exact data, or do you know how to navigate basic census bureau data, as I have almost directly led you to above in the case of MPF? Or do you need closer supervision?
Consider changing your moniker to "falsebombs", "fakebombs", or maybe just "duds".
All you did was provide evidence that I'm right, LOL
Submitted by AbsolutelyBasedTruthBombs on June 8, 2019 - 11:20pm
lol Kid, I wish you could see how you're not refuting my argument at all, only nitpicking minor points in a, I have to say, FUTILE effort to "win on the internet". LOL
You just PROVED alpha fucks, beta bucks: women sleep around in their early 20's, a small minority of men have children by multiple women, and women are waiting until their late 20's early 30's to "settle down" with their beta bux husbands (who they then divorce - 80% of divorces being initiated by the wife: kinda doesn't count that a man "got married" if she doesn't give him children [see below] and then he just gets divorced).
Women peel from the top, bucko (aka they select the best *they can get*). I never said the top was static. Men circulate in and out. And a woman doesn't have access to the entirety of the ladder. Why do you think our divorce rate is so high and women file the majority of divorces? Jesus KID, this isn't hard to figure out.
"Sure, the median age of first marriage was earlier in the past. Now (year 2018) the median is about 30 for men, and 28 for women."
Yes, and as I pointed out, if a man is "never married" by 35, that means he will most likely never get married. Do you know how normal distributions work, you know with standard deviations and all that smart people stuff you probably missed out in in middle school? As the median age of marriage rises, more men hit that 35 mark without ever haven gotten married. And LO AND BEHOLD, as the median age of first marriage for men rises, the overall rate of marriage falls. A HERPA DURPA DOOOO.
"Actually, you're wrong, because the majority of women who have children don't have them by multiple men, or the reverse."
Hey dipshit, just because a woman only has kids with one man, that doesn't mean that that's the man she marries (heard of alpha fucks, beta bucks? Prolly not since you're a ignorant feminist shill, LOL) or that she provides children for the man she marries. LOLOL Actually you just PROVED MY POINT YET AGAIN - only 11.4% of women have children by multiple men - so if a woman is a single mom, impregnated by one of those 8.6% of studs, she's unlikely to provide her HUSBAND with children.
This is alpha fucks, beta bucks, moron. LOL
"Actually, you're wrong"
NOPE, and you haven't shown that I am. :D :D
"because the majority of women who have children don't have them by multiple men, or the reverse."
They don't need to, IDIOT, **LOL**. I just TOLD you, 1 man can impregnant multiple women. So it doesn't matter if that number is 1% or 10%. I'm sure in your tiny brainlet head, it's impossible for one man to have children by multiple women, and for those women to each only have one child, LOL.
"So, actually, only a small minority of **men** and women have kids with multiple partners."
THAT'S THE POINT, DIPSHIT. LOLOLOL How can you be so obtuse, LOL. A small minority of studs have all the sex during their 20's and with 8.6% of studs having at LEAST 2 children by different women. LOL
Consider changing your moniker to "slownonymous" or "lowIQnonymous" or maybe just "obtuse".
Thanks for proving my argument for me. LOL Bye.
What point exactly are you
Submitted by anonymous on June 9, 2019 - 12:34am
What point exactly are you making? You seem to be suggesting that only a few men sleep around in their 20's with lots of women, while most men don't sleep around at all. The stats don't support that lopsided scenario. You're just making that up. Rather, the statistics show that some men sleep around more than others, just like some women sleep around more than others. But the statistics do not show that a very small number sleep around with women who sleep around about the same but only with that small number of men. That's your pet theory, and you just made it up.
wrote:Women peel from the top, bucko (aka they select the best *they can get*).
As do men. The statistics are fairly even for the genders. Otherwise, support your assertion with data. You haven't, and you can't.
wrote:Yes, and as I pointed out, if a man is "never married" by 35, that means he will most likely never get married.
Yes, you've pointed that out many times, but in a false context of the average marriage rate for everyone in the 20-35 range, which is NOT the average for 35, not even close. In fact, the MAJORITY of men are married by 35, so yeah, fewer get married after 35 because, they're ALREADY MARRIED. Kind of hard to get married when you're already married.
wrote:Do you know how normal distributions work, you know with standard deviations and all that smart people stuff you probably missed out in in middle school?
I know EXACTLY what a normal distribution is, and the Central Limit Theorem, and standard deviation, and kurtosis and skew as higher order moments of the distribution. I know about the cumulative distribution function which is the integral of the normal distribution. I know that the discrete version of the normal distribution is the binomial distribution. I know that a natural process which has a lower bound is a Poisson distribution, which approaches a normal distribution when the lower bound is so distant it has little effect, etc. I know, for example, that two standard deviations equate to about 98th percentile, and three standard deviations to about the 99.9th percentile, etc. I know the exact formulas for the normal distribution, etc.
wrote:As the median age of marriage rises, more men hit that 35 mark without ever haven gotten married. And LO AND BEHOLD, as the median age of first marriage for men rises, the overall rate of marriage falls. A HERPA DURPA DOOOO.
False. That relationship is NOT a necessary relationship. Time of marriage and whether one ever gets married are two completely separate statistics, which may correlate, or not. It's entirely possible for people to get married later and later, but always still get married. And that is in fact, pretty close to what is ACTUALLY happening, namely, the median age of marriage is increasing, but the marriage rate is not changing much.
But your reasoning is actually fundamentally flawed in a mathematical sense. MEDIAN AGE OF MARRIAGE means it's an age where of all the marriages that are taking place, HALF of them are taking place at older ages. So, if the median age of marriage actually rises to 35, it necessarily means that just as many men get married AFTER 35 as men who get married BEFORE age 35, thereby CONTRADICTING the other premise of your same argument, namely that if you're not married by age 35, you'll likely never be married. Let's say the total marriage rate falls to 10%. If the median age of marriage is 35, then it means that 5% got married before 35, and 5% after 35 (taking 35 as point in time, not the full year, say, the birthday at midnight). What I've illustrated is that the median age of marriage, and the total marriage rate, are independent and different statistical quantities.
wrote:Hey dipshit, just because a woman only has kids with one man, that doesn't mean that that's the man she marries (heard of alpha fucks, beta bucks?
Sure, there are women who have kids by another man, but they are a small minority, not sufficient to comprise the mass statistics you're trying to claim.
wrote:Prolly not since you're a ignorant feminist shill, LOL)
Irrelevant comment, and shows your lack of real facts to argue with.
wrote:or that she provides children for the man she marries. LOLOL Actually you just PROVED MY POINT YET AGAIN - only 11.4% of women have children by multiple men - so if a woman is a single mom, impregnated by one of those 8.6% of studs, she's unlikely to provide her HUSBAND with children.
You just made that up in any sense of it happening a lot of the time. Sure, happens, but not that often, and not often enough to make much of a point. You haven't backed it up with statistics, you're only making up the assertion that anything close to a significant minority, or majority of women who have kids with only one man is having them with that 8%. I can see you're really grasping at straws.
wrote:This is alpha fucks, beta bucks, moron. LOL
You've repeated that quip about ten times now.
wrote:They don't need to, IDIOT, **LOL**. I just TOLD you, 1 man can impregnant multiple women. So it doesn't matter if that number is 1% or 10%. I'm sure in your tiny brainlet head, it's impossible for one man to have children by multiple women, and for those women to each only have one child, LOL.
You've now repeated that several times, but you have provided no data to back it up, at all.
wrote:THAT'S THE POINT, DIPSHIT. LOLOLOL How can you be so obtuse, LOL. A small minority of studs have all the sex during their 20's and with 8.6% of studs having at LEAST 2 children by different women. LOL
This is getting tiresome...repeating it yet again? You haven't backed that up. You just made it up.
Really, that's all you've got for an argument? Why don't you do some actual research instead of spouting nonsense off the top of your head? If even as many as 10-15% of kids had another father than the one they think is their farther, then 30-40% of kids would have a fake grandfather -- you can do that math, right? That's absurd.
But since you're so lazy, I'll present some data, which you can easily verify. In fact, detailed DNA studies have shown that the actual number is around 1-5%, with one study showing the upper bound is 3.7%. You have to realize that studies which rely on people who choose to have paternity tests are a strongly biased (self-selected) sample, so studies which try to ascertain the actual percentage in the general population have to be done more carefully.
Look, if you want to convince anybody that what you say is even remotely true, you need to present actual data and real arguments, not the failed arguments and incompetent use of statistics you've presented so far. Because otherwise, you're just spouting nonsense.
reposting, complete reply
Submitted by anonymous on June 9, 2019 - 12:35am
Anonymous wrote:You just PROVED alpha fucks, beta bucks: women sleep around in their early 20's, a small minority of men have children by multiple women, and women are waiting until their late 20's early 30's to "settle down" with their beta bux husbands (who they then divorce - 80% of divorces being initiated by the wife: kinda doesn't count that a man "got married" if she doesn't give him children [see below] and then he just gets divorced).
Both men and women sleep around in their 20's, by and large, and to pretty much the same degree. And, just like women, men wait until their late 20's and early 30's to settle down. That's obvious from the average age disparity being fairly close. So what difference does it make who initiates the divorce -- the result is the same for these statistics, as a divorce happens to both people at the same time, regardless.
What point exactly are you making? You seem to be suggesting that only a few men sleep around in their 20's with lots of women, while most men don't sleep around at all. The stats don't support that lopsided scenario. You're just making that up. Rather, the statistics show that some men sleep around more than others, just like some women sleep around more than others. But the statistics do not show that a very small number sleep around with women who sleep around about the same but only with that small number of men. That's your pet theory, and you just made it up.
wrote:Women peel from the top, bucko (aka they select the best *they can get*).
As do men. The statistics are fairly even for the genders. Otherwise, support your assertion with data. You haven't, and you can't.
wrote:Yes, and as I pointed out, if a man is "never married" by 35, that means he will most likely never get married.
Yes, you've pointed that out many times, but in a false context of the average marriage rate for everyone in the 20-35 range, which is NOT the average for 35, not even close. In fact, the MAJORITY of men are married by 35, so yeah, fewer get married after 35 because, they're ALREADY MARRIED. Kind of hard to get married when you're already married.
wrote:Do you know how normal distributions work, you know with standard deviations and all that smart people stuff you probably missed out in in middle school?
I know EXACTLY what a normal distribution is, and the Central Limit Theorem, and standard deviation, and kurtosis and skew as higher order moments of the distribution. I know about the cumulative distribution function which is the integral of the normal distribution. I know that the discrete version of the normal distribution is the binomial distribution. I know that a natural process which has a lower bound is a Poisson distribution, which approaches a normal distribution when the lower bound is so distant it has little effect, etc. I know, for example, that two standard deviations equate to about 98th percentile, and three standard deviations to about the 99.9th percentile, etc. I know the exact formulas for the normal distribution, etc.
wrote:As the median age of marriage rises, more men hit that 35 mark without ever haven gotten married. And LO AND BEHOLD, as the median age of first marriage for men rises, the overall rate of marriage falls. A HERPA DURPA DOOOO.
False. That relationship is NOT a necessary relationship. Time of marriage and whether one ever gets married are two completely separate statistics, which may correlate, or not. It's entirely possible for people to get married later and later, but always still get married. And that is in fact, pretty close to what is ACTUALLY happening, namely, the median age of marriage is increasing, but the marriage rate is not changing much.
But your reasoning is actually fundamentally flawed in a mathematical sense. MEDIAN AGE OF MARRIAGE means it's an age where of all the marriages that are taking place, HALF of them are taking place at older ages. So, if the median age of marriage actually rises to 35, it necessarily means that just as many men get married AFTER 35 as men who get married BEFORE age 35, thereby CONTRADICTING the other premise of your same argument, namely that if you're not married by age 35, you'll likely never be married. Let's say the total marriage rate falls to 10%. If the median age of marriage is 35, then it means that 5% got married before 35, and 5% after 35 (taking 35 as point in time, not the full year, say, the birthday at midnight). What I've illustrated is that the median age of marriage, and the total marriage rate, are independent and different statistical quantities.
wrote:Hey dipshit, just because a woman only has kids with one man, that doesn't mean that that's the man she marries (heard of alpha fucks, beta bucks?
Sure, there are women who have kids by another man, but they are a small minority, not sufficient to comprise the mass statistics you're trying to claim.
wrote:Prolly not since you're a ignorant feminist shill, LOL)
Irrelevant comment, and shows your lack of real facts to argue with.
wrote:or that she provides children for the man she marries. LOLOL Actually you just PROVED MY POINT YET AGAIN - only 11.4% of women have children by multiple men - so if a woman is a single mom, impregnated by one of those 8.6% of studs, she's unlikely to provide her HUSBAND with children.
You just made that up in any sense of it happening a lot of the time. Sure, happens, but not that often, and not often enough to make much of a point. You haven't backed it up with statistics, you're only making up the assertion that anything close to a significant minority, or majority of women who have kids with only one man is having them with that 8%. I can see you're really grasping at straws.
wrote:This is alpha fucks, beta bucks, moron. LOL
You've repeated that quip about ten times now.
wrote:They don't need to, IDIOT, **LOL**. I just TOLD you, 1 man can impregnant multiple women. So it doesn't matter if that number is 1% or 10%. I'm sure in your tiny brainlet head, it's impossible for one man to have children by multiple women, and for those women to each only have one child, LOL.
You've now repeated that several times, but you have provided no data to back it up, at all.
wrote:THAT'S THE POINT, DIPSHIT. LOLOLOL How can you be so obtuse, LOL. A small minority of studs have all the sex during their 20's and with 8.6% of studs having at LEAST 2 children by different women. LOL
This is getting tiresome...repeating it yet again? You haven't backed that up. You just made it up.
Really, that's all you've got for an argument? Why don't you do some actual research instead of spouting nonsense off the top of your head? If even as many as 10-15% of kids had another father than the one they think is their farther, then 30-40% of kids would have a fake grandfather -- you can do that math, right? That's absurd.
But since you're so lazy, I'll present some data, which you can easily verify. In fact, detailed DNA studies have shown that the actual number is around 1-5%, with one study showing the upper bound is 3.7%. You have to realize that studies which rely on people who choose to have paternity tests are a strongly biased (self-selected) sample, so studies which try to ascertain the actual percentage in the general population have to be done more carefully.
Look, if you want to convince anybody that what you say is even remotely true, you need to present actual data and real arguments, not the failed arguments and incompetent use of statistics you've presented so far. Because otherwise, you're just spouting nonsense.
Anonymous wrote:
Submitted by anon on May 17, 2019 - 2:22pm
Anonymous wrote:lol It doesn't matter how you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it, it's just biology.
Hey, genius, feelings (emotions) are an essential part of our biology.
You're too stupid to get the
Submitted by Anon on June 5, 2019 - 11:10am
You're too stupid to get the point
lol
Submitted by Truthbombs on June 8, 2019 - 11:07pm
If you're trying to say you have no point, I agree with you! LOL
Post Comment
advertisement
