Puberty occurs much earlier in modern societies. Recently postpubescent girls and boys are children, and most people are turned off by the personalities of children (which of course makes evolutionary sense, as well as cultural sense in most societies). The age group you’re thinking of is closer to 18 than to 15.
We have relatively gender-egalitarian norms now. In societies when older men are encouraged to date young women (and/or young men) the relationship is very asymmetric. We like having power-equal relationships, because we think it more moral, because we encourage sexual partners to be companions and friends rather than sticking to separate social spheres, and because it has become more valuable to have a partner who can help you socially and earn money than to have a fertile one.
Older women’s interest would be to encourage woman-boy relationships rather than discourage man-girl ones.
Relative to Victorian/Industrial age societies yes. If you compare it to pre-industrial societies it seems that the age of puberty is returning to its historical norm after a couple centuries of being unusually high.
Recently postpubescent girls and boys are children, and most people are turned off by the personalities of children (which of course makes evolutionary sense, as well as cultural sense in most societies). The age group you’re thinking of is closer to 18 than to 15.
Which raises the question of why in modern societies 15-year-olds have childlike personalities. For example, in Jewish society children were traditionally considered adults at 13.
Which raises the question of why in modern societies 15-year-olds have childlike personalities. For example, in Jewish society children were traditionally considered adults at 13.
Blame the Industrial Revolution. Adults went to work, and children went to school, which, unlike biological childhood, doesn’t end when people reach sexual maturity.
“We like having power-equal relationships, because we think it more moral, because we encourage sexual partners to be companions and friends rather than sticking to separate social spheres, and because it has become more valuable to have a partner who can help you socially and earn money than to have a fertile one.”
Who is “we”? Power and sex have deep links. Sexual attraction often does not follow modern egalitarian norms, or indeed norms at any part of history (this is famously exploited in romantic plots in books/movies/tv shows, and similarly frequently observed in practice). Sexuality is ancient, predates morality (and social animals in general), and is often amoral and even cruel. Sex and political correctness do not really overlap.
“Older women’s interest would be to encourage woman-boy relationships rather than discourage man-girl ones.”
This statement assumes genders experience physical attraction in “symmetric” ways. It is not obvious why this should be so, and there is some evidence it is not.
The word ‘evolutionarily’ seems to be doing no work here. Either women tend to be more drawn to high-status than youth and virility, or they don’t. Trying to say what a woman does “because of evolution” seems pointless. There are genetic traits and there are social traits, but there aren’t “evolutionary” traits, unless you somehow believe that evolution is affecting something other than the genetic traits the woman has.
Further, considering issues such as epigenetic gene modulation and expression, not to mention neurological concerns that while the result of genetics don’t provide a clear map from “mate selection” to “DNA,” it is entirely possible that any genetic preferences among women are naturally set to vary depending on the circumstances of their environment. In fact, this seems like a highly probable thesis for human beings in general, given the complexity of brains and the long development term for “attraction” in the human life cycle in men and women.
Puberty occurs much earlier in modern societies. Recently postpubescent girls and boys are children, and most people are turned off by the personalities of children (which of course makes evolutionary sense, as well as cultural sense in most societies). The age group you’re thinking of is closer to 18 than to 15.
We have relatively gender-egalitarian norms now. In societies when older men are encouraged to date young women (and/or young men) the relationship is very asymmetric. We like having power-equal relationships, because we think it more moral, because we encourage sexual partners to be companions and friends rather than sticking to separate social spheres, and because it has become more valuable to have a partner who can help you socially and earn money than to have a fertile one.
Older women’s interest would be to encourage woman-boy relationships rather than discourage man-girl ones.
Relative to Victorian/Industrial age societies yes. If you compare it to pre-industrial societies it seems that the age of puberty is returning to its historical norm after a couple centuries of being unusually high.
Which raises the question of why in modern societies 15-year-olds have childlike personalities. For example, in Jewish society children were traditionally considered adults at 13.
Blame the Industrial Revolution. Adults went to work, and children went to school, which, unlike biological childhood, doesn’t end when people reach sexual maturity.
Yeh, that’s more-or-less my working theory as well.
“We like having power-equal relationships, because we think it more moral, because we encourage sexual partners to be companions and friends rather than sticking to separate social spheres, and because it has become more valuable to have a partner who can help you socially and earn money than to have a fertile one.”
Who is “we”? Power and sex have deep links. Sexual attraction often does not follow modern egalitarian norms, or indeed norms at any part of history (this is famously exploited in romantic plots in books/movies/tv shows, and similarly frequently observed in practice). Sexuality is ancient, predates morality (and social animals in general), and is often amoral and even cruel. Sex and political correctness do not really overlap.
“Older women’s interest would be to encourage woman-boy relationships rather than discourage man-girl ones.”
This statement assumes genders experience physical attraction in “symmetric” ways. It is not obvious why this should be so, and there is some evidence it is not.
[comment deleted]
The word ‘evolutionarily’ seems to be doing no work here. Either women tend to be more drawn to high-status than youth and virility, or they don’t. Trying to say what a woman does “because of evolution” seems pointless. There are genetic traits and there are social traits, but there aren’t “evolutionary” traits, unless you somehow believe that evolution is affecting something other than the genetic traits the woman has.
Further, considering issues such as epigenetic gene modulation and expression, not to mention neurological concerns that while the result of genetics don’t provide a clear map from “mate selection” to “DNA,” it is entirely possible that any genetic preferences among women are naturally set to vary depending on the circumstances of their environment. In fact, this seems like a highly probable thesis for human beings in general, given the complexity of brains and the long development term for “attraction” in the human life cycle in men and women.