Intergenerational mating

I have received the following request for information about what seems an interesting hypothesis

Someone once told me the sex drive of older women had an evolutionary effect on the intelligence of humans. We know that a 15 year-old boy has the capacity to fertilize a 20-40 year-old woman and have a baby. But as the boys grow old (probably beginning from the age of 18) their capacity to fertilize and sex drive continue to decrease. Naturally, a 45 year-old woman has more sex drive than a 45 year-old man while a 60 year-old woman has more sex drive than a 60 year-old man. We all know that MARRIAGE is a social fiction and it has no scientific basis in nature because nature supports polygamy (many wives) and polyandry (many husbands).

We know very well that a gigolo is a 15-25 year-old boy who gives sexual services mostly to 40-60 year-old women. An old woman isn’t sexually satisfied by the performance of her husband and she looks for a younger guy. Of course the marriage contract makes such betrayals difficult. But when there was no marriage 10-40 thousand years ago it is likely that old women had sex with young boys. This must have had a big effect on evolution. We know that the whites and the East Asians owe their high IQ to cold climates (http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm). Less intelligent men failed to hunt successfully in cold weather conditions and died. Also the women chose the more successful men for mating to have better children in the future. So the less successful men were also eliminated by the women by being not chosen (if not dead). This is the classical theory which we all know.

But is it possible that another third factor might have been influential? Let’s suppose that there are 100 men and 100 women at the ages of 15-30. Normally the 100 men might have sex with the 100 young women. But as we know that the old women (40-60 year-old) have more sex drive than the old men (40-60 year-old) they will of course prefer the young men for sex if there is not a legal contract like marriage among the couples. A 20 year-old man will surely prefer a young woman for sex if he is attractive enough (successful in hunting = intelligent). Otherwise he will have to have sex with old women and will never have a child. He won’t disturb (rape) the young women as he is sexually satisfied. And even among the animals we know that the old females do have sex with much younger males. The same goes for humans. In fact the sex drive of older women seems to play an interesting role in evolution. The older women aren’t satisfied sexually by the old men and they are forced to have sex with the young (but less successful and intelligent) men. They prevent the unintelligent men from having children and increase the IQ of the society in the future. When there was no marriage contract in the society (10 to 40 thousand years ago) even if only 5 percent of the young men were prevented from having children by being monopolized by older women in every generation I can imagine that it must have had a big long-term effect on evolution.

The theory (if it is not a joke) seems interesting to me but I couldn’t find anything about it on the internet. I would be pleased if you know anything about this subject.

Posted by jonjayray on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 09:26 PM in IQ and Heredity
Comments (18) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 22, 2005, 11:07 PM | #

John, you attract some really weird correspondence ... Did you know that? ...

Posted by Mrs. Blessed on June 22, 2005, 11:26 PM | #

This theory only works if you accept the idea that older women have a lot of sex with younger men if given the chance. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence to support this. You claim that “a gigolo is a 15-25 year-old boy who gives sexual services mostly to 40-60 year-old women.” In fact, the evidence seems to support just the opposite, which is that a gigolo is a 15-25 year-old boy who gives sexual services mostly to 40-60 year-old *men*.

Further, if the woman is healthy and her husband has done his duty, by the time she is forty and as horny as you claim, she is too busy raising her many children to worry about schtupping the poolboy. I think the idea of sexually rapicious women only works in an era of easy birth control.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 22, 2005, 11:40 PM | #

Fred,

I think he invents this so called ‘correspondence.’

Posted by jonjayray on June 22, 2005, 11:46 PM | #

LOL

“I think he invents this so called ‘correspondence.’”

Mrs B:

Women in their 40s are pretty randy in my experience

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 23, 2005, 12:42 AM | #

“Mrs B: Women in their 40s are pretty randy in my experience” (—John “Casanova” Ray)

Note that he’s talking from experience. He’s not just shooting from the hip here. Mrs. B, you may not know it (some people don’t), but this man you’re talking to is the Don Juan of MR.com—you’d do well to listen to what he says, ma’am ... just a suggestion. You might learn a thing or two about women in their 40s ... (and that’s just one of the ages he specializes in, trust me ...).

Posted by jonjayray on June 23, 2005, 01:20 AM | #

Fred
You old flatterer, you!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 23, 2005, 01:35 AM | #

Don’t mention it, John—after all, it’s only the God’s honest truth ... (and don’t worry—I’ll never divulge to Judy all I know about you ... Hey I’m mean but I’m not that mean! ...)

Posted by Guessedworker on June 23, 2005, 01:59 AM | #

The theory is rubbish ... almost.

Life expectancy 40,000 years ago probably did not pass 30-35. Women, in particular, would have been giving birth somewhat regularly since puberty and under somewhat considerable risk of dying in the process. The numbers of elderly women looking for a good time might have been rather insignificant, and any evolutionary impact therefrom accordingly slight.

However, if you fast forward to, say, just a few thousand years ago we do have the legends of old Wicca hags and their broomsticks, I suppose. So some evidence that older women require ... better companionship is there. But to imbue masturbation by women beyond childbearing age with an evolutionary impact does seem a very wierd idea.

Posted by friedrich braun on June 23, 2005, 04:21 AM | #

“we do have the legends of old Wicca hags and their broomsticks”

They were also known to fornicate with devils. How did that impact evolution?

Posted by Guessedworker on June 23, 2005, 05:37 AM | #

The devils got very smart and became marxist intellectuals.

Posted by jonjayray on June 23, 2005, 07:21 AM | #

“The devils got very smart and became marxist intellectuals. “

Good one!

Posted by Charles Copeland on June 23, 2005, 07:55 AM | #

Women in their 40s are pretty randy in my experience

What you mean is:
Women in their 40s are past their sell-by date.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 23, 2005, 08:47 AM | #

“Women in their 40s are past their sell-by date.”

That’s only true of unmarried women’s libbers, Charles. Wives are as beautiful in their forties (and beyond) as they were at eighteen—even more so. (Yes, deal with it, unmarried women’s libbers—it’s true. Now eat your bitter little hearts out, ‘cause it’s too late, sweeties!)

Posted by Lurker on June 23, 2005, 10:40 AM | #

Its the women who are 30 plus who have already had children, theyre the ones to watch out for!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on June 23, 2005, 11:41 AM | #

I don’t see why it’s only the unsuccessful 18 year olds who are captured by randy grannies. We’ve all seen “The Graduate”—surely it is the SUCCESSFUL grannies, with lots of worldly goods and no husband (he got too slow and was trampled by a mammoth) who seduce any 18 year old they want, 18 year olds being so randy they will take any and all offers they get. This in turn produces more children for the successful grannies (at least those before moenopause)—another benign evolutionary effect. The fact that the dreamy 18 year old hunk, skilled at mammoth-slaying, will eventually settle down with an equally dreamy 18 year old bimbo, does not stop him having a go at a few grannies first.

Posted by James Bowery on June 23, 2005, 12:02 PM | #

Guessed worker is partially correct. The theory is rubbish unless you start focusing on more recent selection—at which point cosmopolitan environments become a huge selective force.

Its easy for me to see how cosmopolitan environments could interact with the longer sexual life of women for very strong selection pressures.

The thing to look for is not so much individual men who succeed in avoiding sexual neutralization via infertile sex, but entire _ethnies_ which, in a cosmopolitan environment, are avoiding sexual neutralization—and conversely which ethnies are being neutralized.

Posted by Svigor on June 24, 2005, 04:11 PM | #

I forget how many third and fourth children are the result of cuckoldry, but it’s a lot. I dunno how that impacts this…

Posted by Phil on June 26, 2005, 11:56 AM | #

The devils got very smart and became marxist intellectuals

LMAO

There are some real gems on this thread. (chuckle)

Now if a forty something woman looked like this, this 27 year old would most certainly not practice “ageism”.

Next entry: Pretty good stuff from Mr Brown

Previous entry: Men! Leave those dishes. You will earn more lolly if the wife washes them.

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa