CBus Resident, WHAT? What the h*ll does Roger Moore’s decision to not keep playing a role that was no longer in his comfort zone have to do with social liberals? Take the comment at face value, and stop showing your personal prejudice.

Anna Banana, everything you've said is true, but put yourselves in the shoes of the non-abusive-Sugar-Daddies: Yes, they likely know, some men use this sort of position to be abusive to the woman, (just as we know that many men use the simple fact of their greater size and strength over the woman to be abusive). But these guys probably find themselves saying: 'Okay, but I'm just gonna, you know, essentially buy her nice things in exchange for sex and company, and I've made it clear she's allowed to exit the situation any time.' And yes, sometimes women abuse men physically and psychologically. But the question is: in the particular case is that necessarily going on?

I don't think I understand the point you're trying to convey. You say "but" like you're presenting a counterargument to what I've said, but I don't disagree with anything in your comment.

It's not my preferences, it's hetero preferences in general: yes a man being in his 50s is more likely to have flawed sperm, hence there's also some major ageist preference by hetero women for younger men. BUT, the evolutionary reason the ageism is much stronger against older women is the different roles in reproduction. The part men have to fulfill to spread their genes has much lower biological cost to us - we don't have to deal w/ carrying the kid, the birth or breastfeeding. A man can do the deed and run away & still proliferate his genes, whereas the women have to do all of the hard parts to proliferate theirs. Hence in ancient humans, male preference for women aged from teens to 30s would be selected for by survival of the kids in lines where males mated that way. Females who selected males from the teens to the 50s would also be likely to have their kids survive. But for moms over 40, in ancient times...

But for moms over 40 in ancient times, they'd be less likely to conceive in the first place, (and that's true for men too to some degree - our sperm-count gets less viable as we age), and less likely to survive rearing and childbirth. Hence men who mated w/ women over those ages would proliferate fewer offspring that way, hence that trait will tend to be crowded out by the other in the population over time. Also it's worth noting that something like Sugar Daddy's seems to occur in a lot of cultures: an older but prominent man is seen by some females in the society as an acceptable or even desired mate b/c she perceives that his resources increase the chance of survival and thriving of her offspring. Why don't men seem to go for Sugar Mama's as much? B/c her resources won't make up for the biological disadvantages of her age the way the wealthy man's will.

This is probably true for many people who don't find the brain the sexiest thing about another person. I'm not saying it's wrong to be most physically attracted based on reproduction potential, but there are certainly people who feel attraction to intellect that's more powerful than what they feel related to reproduction potential.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

That's how it usually goes in the clubs or bars or on the dating apps right? There'll be attractive men and women who aren't so brainy, and they're ignored so that all the flirting guys and gals can go for the less attractive but brainy types, right? C'mon man, that's just not how it usually works.

Superficial relationships typically aren't functional beyond the infatuation stage. Women are much more likely to be attracted to men with 'solid' traits; men are generally looks oriented. People who are attracted to 'brainy' and 'loyal' and 'creative' and 'kind' types are, evolutionarily speaking, evolving away from the cave-man apologia you continue to espouse.