Idea for older DJ's

[Sting]

Alright Eileen, you didn't like Dr. Miller's paper or the studies on which he relies. Here's another one for you:

http://images.main.uab.edu/psychology/humatepref.ppt

And another one (by Russell Eisenman, Ph.D. -- University of Texas-Pan American):

http://www.socialpsychology.org/forums/professional/?read=552

"The second area, preference by aging males for younger and younger females, also invokes the gene-spreading explanation. Without this explanation, there is no way to understand why males, the older they get, prefer younger and younger female sex partners. Much of this may be reserved for sexual fantasy, but as Glenn Wilson (G. Wilson, 1992) points out, in sexual fantasy we often see what the person really desires. In real life, it is usually only the very wealthy or powerful who are actually able to live out their sexual fantasies.

As the man ages, he fears that his genes will not be as good. Just as men in general desire youth, attractiveness, and health in their female partners, so that their genes will be good ones and will be spread into future generations, so too the aging man seeks this. But, he seeks it even more so than usual, as he fears, perhaps unconsciously, that his genes are not as good now as they once were. To make up for this, his partner must have excellent genetic potential. The way to achieve this is to balance his aging with her youth."

I would rather not engage in a useless debate over whose facts are right, and whose are not. Suffice it to say, I've presented some scientific articles discussing the issue, and they appear to support the conclusion suggested by myfriend blu that men prefer younger women based on principles of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. If you have counter-evidence, by all means, please provide it. In doing so, I would politely request that you omit ad hominem attacks, as they weaken the credibility of your arguments.

 

[Aztec]

Sexy Malibu

Can you repost your pic?

 

[gentleman193]

new thread for pseudo-science BS

I like the happiness thread idea . . . but maybe we need a new thread for all of this pseudo-scientific BS, too?

UT Pan American? Is that a serious citation, Sting? Don't they sell those Ph.D's for $99.95 on Amazon.com?

The use of "science" as a political tool for those in power (read: old white guys) is historically far better documented than the mate selection mumbo-jumbo promulgated here. If you are interested in evolutionary biology go read E. O. Wilson -- a real evolutonary biologist -- or, god forbid, the late Stephen J. Gould (at least he stole his ideas from quality sources) and then come back here. But, better yet, start a new thread, and we'll debate your futher there.

mfblue, how many of those nubile young things have you opened lately? Telling women they are over the hill must be a new DJ move . . . but it stinks of bitterness. Somehow I don't think it's gonna get you far.

I like what Ovid -- the original DJ -- said:

"Nor should it be forgotten that women, who are getting on in years, have experience, and it is only experience that sets the seal of perfection on our natural gifts. They repair by their toilet the ravages of time, and by the care they take of themselves manage to conceal their age. They know all the different attitudes of Love and will assume them at your pleasure. No pictured representation can rival them in voluptuousness. With them pleasure comes naturally, without provocation, the pleasure which is sweeter than all, the pleasure which is shared equally by the man and the woman. I hate those embraces in which both do not consummate; that is why boys please me but little. I hate a woman who offers herself because she ought to do so, and, cold and dry, thinks of her sewing when she's making love. The pleasure that is granted to me from a sense of duty ceases to be a pleasure at all. I won't have any woman doing her duty towards me. How sweet it is to hear her voice quaver as she tells me the joy she feels, and to hear her imploring me to slacken my speed so as to prolong her bliss. How I love to see her, drunk with delight, gazing with swooning eyes upon me, or, languishing with love, keeping me a long while at arms' length.

"But these accomplishments are not vouchsafed by nature to young girls. They are reserved for women who have passed the age of thirty-five. Let who will hasten to drink new and immature wine. Let me have a rich mellow vintage dating back to one of our elder consuls. It is only after many years that the plane tree affords a shelter from the scorching sun, and fields but newly reaped hurt the naked foot. What! do you mean to tell me you would put Hermione before Helen? And would Althaea's daughter outrival her mother? If you would enjoy the fruits of love in their maturity, you will obtain, if only you persevere, a reward worthy of your desires."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ovid/lboo/lboo59.htm

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by Sting
Alright Eileen, you didn't like Dr. Miller's paper or the studies on which he relies. Here's another one for you:

*yawn* I'm tired of studies by men trying to prove that men are attracted to Barbie because of evolution. In my opinion, it's not credible science. Nature vs. nurture: Simply stated, you don't have enough genetic material to code that amount of detailed information. Use any excuse you want though. No skin off my back.

(Gould is my personal hero. He had a great sense of humor. Hens Teeth and Horses Toes had me smirking from cover to cover.)

I will add one more bit of food for thought. I’ve witnessed a lot of bitter attitudes on this forum in regards to women. Then I see the codes for HB8’s or HB9’s. I see nothing about trying to find women who are emotionally mature or educated or whom you have something in common or share common values with.

I find it difficult to feel any sympathy for grown men who haven’t learnt that there’s much more to life than getting jiggy with an HB9. I also find it difficult to find sympathy for any adult who’s gotten the screw in a relationship. Face facts. It happens to all of us at one time or another. The fact that it happened to you does not make you special. Whining about it is simply unattractive.

Oh, but what do I know. I'm just an old, uneducated, unattractive hag.

 

[Sting]

[Originally posted by gentleman123

UT Pan American? Is that a serious citation, Sting? Don't they sell those Ph.D's for $99.95 on Amazon.com?

The use of "science" as a political tool for those in power (read: old white guys) is historically far better documented than the mate selection mumbo-jumbo promulgated here. If you are interested in evolutionary biology go read E. O. Wilson -- a real evolutionary biologist -- or, god forbid, the late Stephen J. Gould (at least he stole his ideas from quality sources) and then come back here. But, better yet, start a new thread, and we'll debate your further there.

gentleman123,

I have no quarrel with you, nor did I hijack your thread. You can thank Eileen for that (I simply responded to Eileen’s request for scientific evidence). As for UT-Panamerican, here’s a link to some of the statistics concerning it:

http://www.panam.edu/2000/dynamic/i...me=/webfiles/PointsOfExcellence&banner=points

Here is some additional information on Dr. Eisenman:

http://www.panam.edu/dept/panamerican/Archived/5_1_03/Web/News/sexuality.html

As for Gould, the following might be of interest to you:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.2/alcock.html

As for me, I’m not inclined to waste further time on debating evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology or the like. There are far better minds for that (I’ll leave it to Drs. Miller and Eisenman). Suffice it to say, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

 

[Walden]

Re: Sexy Malibu

Originally posted by Aztec
Can you repost your pic?

Damn! we were doing so well.

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by Sting
As for Gould, the following might be of interest to you:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.2/alcock.html

As for me, I’m not inclined to waste further time on debating evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology or the like. There are far better minds for that (I’ll leave it to Drs. Miller and Eisenman). Suffice it to say, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

You seem bent on proving to me that men have no control over their thoughts and actions. I don’t understand why you’d want to do that. Unless you don’t want to feel responsible for your own bad choices when it comes to women and relationships. Or, maybe it has to do with feeling like you must be right, all the time.

 

[Eileen]

Re: Sexy Malibu

Originally posted by Aztec
Can you repost your pic?

I never publicly posted my pic and don't plan to.

 

[Sting]

Originally posted by Eileen


You seem bent on proving to me that men have no control over their thoughts and actions. I don’t understand why you’d want to do that. Unless you don’t want to feel responsible for your own bad choices when it comes to women and relationships. Or, maybe it has to do with feeling like you must be right, all the time.

I really enjoy it when someone tries to speculate as to my motivations. You asked for research, and I gave it to you. You weren't satisfied with the research, which was performed by two experts in the fields of evolutionary biology/psychology. Yet rather than provide counter-evidence, you continued with your ad hominem attacks against me. As my previous post indicated -- which wasn't addressed to you incidentally -- I'm finished with this one-sided debate. You're entitled to your opinions, and I'm entitled to mine.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread -- which was about creating a 25+ forum.

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by Sting
Yet rather than provide counter-evidence, you continued with your ad hominem attacks against me.

Ad hominem? What? You fancy yourself captain of the debate team now? Or wait, you’re studying to become a Barrister?

No wonder you’re here trying to figure out how to attract women. You’re incredibly obtuse and not in the least bit entertaining. Lightening up a tad would do you a world of good.

 

[Chrispy]

Originally posted by Sting


I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread -- which was about creating a 25+ forum.

I, too, am in favor of having a 25+ forum created. However, it might be a good idea not to put an "age" to it...maybe that's why it failed the last time it was created (too few 25+ yr old DJ's here). Maybe we can call it "Job by Day, DJ by night" or something to that extent - maybe the older DJ's are defined by the fact they aren't in school anymore and are working full-time. That way, the forum won't have posts about picking up girls in high school unless you're 25, working, and cruise high schools after work.

 

[T Dog]

First off , half of you guys haven't even posted your age on your profile, which would help out tremendously on whose advice to listen to or disregard.

Second, I totally agree that we need a 25+ and up forum. My life total changed when I hit 29. It just does. Can't say why, but I think that 99% of you older DJ's will agree. If you don't then the normal forum is fine for you.

So, I am willing to put up a yahoo group for us older djs as soon as you guys post your ages in your user file.

Or when you post here on Sosuave, simply type ODJ in the begining of the subject line and that will alert us Older DJ's that the post is contains subject matter of interest. I kinda like this idea better. It would certainly keep me coming back to Sosuave more often.



T Dog

 

[Sting]

Originally posted by Eileen
Ad hominem? What? You fancy yourself captain of the debate team now? Or wait, you’re studying to become a Barrister?

No wonder you’re here trying to figure out how to attract women. You’re incredibly obtuse and not in the least bit entertaining. Lightening up a tad would do you a world of good.

Benefits of a classical education. No, I'm not studying to become a barrister -- I am one. As for being obtuse, again, that's your opinion. If you read some of my other posts, you'll find that I can be quite engaging and "entertaining." However, I'm not here to entertain you, so it's a moot point.

Naturally, this post won't be the last word concerning my one-sided debate with Eileen, so I await her next witty repartee.

 

[Big Pappy]

ODJ, 25+

So, this is what happens when I stay away for a few days? Useless arguments offered and accepted?

Gentlemen, ladies, Please!

Let us all agree that although men all share certain physical similarities, as do the ladies, we are all different.

What one man likes, another may not. Same with the ladies.

Can't we just leave it at that?

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by Sting
Benefits of a classical education. No, I'm not studying to become a barrister -- I am one.

I’ll see your Law Degree and raise you tenure at a major university (Biological Science).

Sorry old chap; you’re not the only one around here who has a formal education. I’ve actually studied (and taught) what you're trying to debate. Rule of thumb: Know your audience.

Furthermore, I find it very hard to believe that someone with a “classical education” would believe anything he read on the Internet. Even my undergrads are well enough informed to research the source before presenting any information as fact.

In case you missed it, I just implied that you’re not being fully honest about your level of education. Not that it matters. I actually find the though of a barrister using a web page for evidence to be quite entertaining.

 

[Eileen]

Re: ODJ, 25+

Originally posted by Big Pappy
Can't we just leave it at that?

Oh Big Pappy, but I'm having so much fun playing with this one! Don't come along and spoil all my fun.

 

[gentleman193]

Sting and Eileen have clearly hit it off . . . British style. The Brits do everything a bit differently, you know, with those famous stiff upper lips, stiff suspensions, and all the rest.

Instead of ODJ (which reminds me too much of OJ) how about DJ+ in the subject? As in, DJ + job or other responsibilities which is at least part of the difference. Although the one big thread is also kind of impressive at almost 2k views.

Updating profiles to show age is excellent idea, easily done from the User CP link at the top, then "Edit Profile."

 

[Sting]

Eileen,

I'm confident that you recognize that peer-reviewed journals and noted experts put their work on the Internet to acquire a larger audience for their writings. Based on your logic, I would assume that if Gould and and Wilson's works (perhaps even Darwin's On the Origin of Species) were posted on the Internet (which they are), such posted works should be considered inherently unreliable.

Just admit that you've never heard of, nor read anything by, any of the individuals cited in my previous posts, and therefore you dismissed them out of hand. At the same time, if you honestly disagree with the positions taken by those individuals, why don't you send them an e-mail instead of arguing with me on an Internet message board? Perhaps it is you who wants to be right by arguing with an admitted non-expert in the fields of evolutionary biology/psychology, and therefore prove your superiority?

Regardless, whether documents posted on the Internet are, as we say in the law, "credible evidence," all depends on the qualifications of the author and whether the scientific community accords any credence to the particular work in question. Then again, the issue of "credible evidence" is typically a legal one, an area in which you admit you have no training. Using the logic of your previous postings, perhaps you should leave such things to the professionals.

Postscript:

Out of curiosity, by "tenure at a major university" do you mean that you're a tenured professor, or have you merely matriculated as a graduate student and are teaching undergradutes as part of your advanced degree program? If the former, I would accord you the respect that you are due, though I would question why you spend valuable research time on a message board. If the latter, I don't think anything more needs to be said.

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by Sting
Out of curiosity, by "tenure at a major university" do you mean that you're a tenured professor...

Bingo!

Amazing, isn't it! One never knows whom one might meet.

I'm on holiday. Even if I wasn't on holiday I’ve been down with an incredibly annoying bug. Since much of my research takes place outdoors this has been a bit of an indoor diversion for me. Don't you sweat it; I'll be back in the field playing with fishes and microbes soon.

Oh, and think about what you just said to me. Would it be fair for me to ask what a man with your education and position is doing here as well?

Postscript: You've misinterpreted my logic. I'm not saying that information posted on the Internet is inherently unreliable (well, it is for the most part, but I digress). I'm saying that using information without knowing or understanding its origins is sloppy. Even professional journals contain articles by "experts" that might not be reliable. It depends on who's financing the publication. I'd expect a man with your education to know that.

 

[Sting]

Originally posted by Eileen
Bingo!

Amazing, isn't it! One never knows whom one might meet.

I'm on holiday. Even if I wasn't on holiday I’ve been down with an incredibly annoying bug. Since much of my research takes place outdoors this has been a bit of an indoor diversion for me. Don't you sweat it; I'll be back in the field playing with fishes and microbes soon.

Oh, and think about what you just said to me. Would it be fair for me to ask what a man with your education and position is doing here as well?

Postscript: You've misinterpreted my logic. I'm not saying that information posted on the Internet is inherently unreliable (well, it is for the most part, but I digress). I'm saying that using information without knowing or understanding its origins is sloppy. Even professional journals contain articles by "experts" that might not be reliable. It depends on who's financing the publication. I'd expect a man with your education to know that.

As we say in the legal profession, you may think the judge is an idiot, but he is still the judge. Thus, while I may disagree with a particular legal decision (or question its origins/logic), it is still the law, or is at least is persuasive authority for other judges to follow. Although in your profession there are no judges per se, the persuasive effect of particular publications is still a powerful force, regardless of the academic institution with which a particular author is associated or from where s/he graduated.

For example, E. O. Wilson did not attend an Ivy League school for his undergraduate or masters degrees (he went to the University of Alabama, and *then* on the Harvard). http://dnr.metrokc.gov/swd/naturalconnections/edward_wilson_bio.htm

Likewise, Charles Darwin, although he went to Cambridge to study as a clergyman, began his career as an unpaid naturalist on the HMS Beagle. http://www.lib.virginia.edu/science/parshall/darwin.html

And perhaps the most remarkable story of them all was Albert Einstein, who, as the story goes, was a technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office because he couldn't even find a job as a professor. http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html

Thus, you never know whether a colleague of yours, despite your belittling of his credentials/theories, may become the next luminary of your profession.