age gap support community


OUR SPONSOR: Best Young and Old Dating - perfect and safe on-line community for the young and old singles to meet and find exciting romances, warm companionship and more!






An interesting study on Fox News

SummerBob
01-07-2008, 07:27 PM
I found this on Fox News. Not sure if it really belongs in the "relationship support" area or the "chit chat" section, but here it is. I found it thought provoking. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with everything written here, but I find it interesting.

Study: May-December Romances Good for Human Race

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

By Jeanna Bryner

AP

Married actors Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas, 25 years apart in age, who reportedly met when he told her 'I'd like to father your children.' He has, twice.

Older men who shack up with much younger women keep the Grim Reaper at bay for the human population and extend our species' lifespan, new research claims.

Even beyond movie stars and Playboy's Hugh Hefner, there is a tendency for older men to partner with younger women, according to the study, published in the Aug. 29 edition of PLoS ONE.

In less developed, traditional societies, males are about 5 to 15 years older than their female partners. In the United States and Europe, guys are an average of two years senior to their partners.

Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Human Body Center.

More interestingly, when older men father children, their genes seem to increase the lifespan of both sexes over evolutionary time.

How it works

Women often lose their reproductive capacity around age 50, but if men can still reproduce into their 70s, Darwin would say it's advantageous for males to live longer lives providing they can hook up with a woman capable of reproducing.
Related

Stories
o Earth-Shattering Study: Men Like Good-Looking Women
o Study: Female Beetles Have Sex to Quench Thirst

Natural selection should favor longevity-boosting genes, which would get passed down from fathers to both sons and daughters. So women would benefit as well in future generations, the scientists say.

Result: Over time, the older-guy-with-younger-gal lifestyle would lift the lifespan ceiling for both men and women in the next generations and so on.

"By increasing the survival of men, you have a spillover effect on women because men pass their genes to children of both sexes," said study team member Cedric Puleston, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University.

Anthropologist Cheryl Jamison of Indiana University, who was not involved in the research, called the results "fascinating."

Wall of death

From an evolutionary perspective, women who can no longer reproduce are non-players, and since it takes two, men partnered with menopausal women are also irrelevant.

Following that idea, natural selection should select for harmful mutations that impact women after menopause.

Over time, the discriminating genes would accumulate in the population, causing what evolutionary biologist William Hamilton called the "wall of death," in which mortality of women spikes at the onset of menopause.

Population records and everyday observations indicate that's not the case. Life expectancy for men and women in today's industrialized countries is 75 to 85 years, with mortality increasing gradually, not abruptly, following female menopause.

Men matter

To figure out whether male fertility could help explain human longevity, Shripad Tuljapurkar of Stanford University and his colleagues examined lifespan and fertility data from both men and women.

They studied four societies thought to closely mimic the lifestyles of our ancestors, including two hunter-gather groups, the Dobe !Kung of the Kalahari Desert in southern Africa and the Ache of Paraguay (one of the most isolated populations in the world), as well as the Yanomamo forager-farmers of the Brazilian Amazon and an indigenous group in Bolivia called the Tsimane.

The research team also looked at farming villages in the West African nation of Gambia and a group of modern Canadians.

In all six groups, women stopped having children on average by their 50s, while some men continued to reproduce. The average age after which men showed no reproduction varied among the groups:

— Canada: Men showed fertility until 55 years old.

— !Kung: 55 years old

— Gambia: 75 years old

— Yanomamo: 70 years old

— Ache: 65 years old

— Tsimane: 60 years old

Mate choices

Until now, the most popular explanation for the bounty of over-55s, called the "grandmother hypothesis," suggested women get a life extension in order to care for their children and grandchildren.

The new findings don't contradict that hypothesis, but help explain how men give women another boost over the "wall of death."

"I don’t think the finding conflicts with the grandmother hypothesis but rather that it can be considered along with it as explanations for human longevity — there doesn’t have to be a single gene or single selective factor," Jamison told LiveScience.

But why do men choose younger mates and females prefer older men?

"There is a lot of evidence from evolutionary psychology that men are seeking younger women and women are seeking older men," said anthropologist Martin Fieder of the University of Vienna, who was not involved in the current study.

Cases in point: At the age of 26, Anna Nicole Smith married 89-year-old Jeremiah Howard Marshall II. In 1995, actor Tony Randall, then 75, married and had two kids with Heather Harlan, who was 24 at the time. Last month, 90-year-old Nanu Ram Jogi from India reportedly became the world's oldest father when he announced his 21st child.

Evolutionary psychologists argue that older men have more resources to protect and care for the family, while younger, more fertile women give their male partners better means of passing along genes.

In a study of about 10,000 Swedish men and women, Fieder and his colleagues have found that men had the most children if they were partnered with women about six years younger than themselves.

So the benefits of "age-defying" couples go both ways. Plus, the human species gets a boost.

RebeccaSue
01-07-2008, 07:34 PM
what about birth defects? Just curious!!!

lynn59
01-07-2008, 08:10 PM
Well this isn't any new information. Considering some of the threads in this OW/YM side of things today, probably not a very welcome story either!

My opinion!

sheila4pd
01-07-2008, 09:01 PM
Well, imagine a 20 yr age gap couple OW/YM. Woman dies at 90, man still fertile at 70, marries 18 yr old female and produces longevous(?) children.

Perfect scenario! :D

PinkCat
01-08-2008, 11:40 AM
Well... conception is easier for women of all ages the younger their partners. Like a 40 y/o woman will have a better chance of conceiving with a 30 y/o man than with a 50 y/o man. So in the context of the theory in the OP, women can be "players" longer with younger men. I'd rather be a "player" than part of the "grandmother" contingent, so I'll stick to the younger dudes. Okay, one younger dude. :D

Sorry, this post is kind of ill-timed on the board right now... just an opinion.

entropyembrace
01-08-2008, 12:51 PM
There's the other side to this too... women have the strongest libido as they approach menopause while in men it's strongest while they are young. There's even a surge in female fertility just before menopause starts. :yes:

SummerBob
01-08-2008, 01:01 PM
What I don't understand is why a woman would write a story like this. (I'm assuming Jeanna is a woman's name).

I feel bad for the ladies. But, the story was in the news, and I thought you guys might want to hear what's being said in the media about AG love.

Rozie
01-08-2008, 01:32 PM
Well science is science...its neither bad nor good, so as a woman I can't fault the writer. And in fact, if the OM/YW combo is responsible for longeveity in the species, then I say WOOT!! We are looking at a society that is headed toward multiple relationships over a lifespan becoming the norm. I fancy the idea that the more interesting OW will snag the YM for a relationship in the first part of his life, then when she is gone from the earth, he can procreate. We'd then have a wealth of wiser, stable, well adjusted, experienced male parents, and that would have to be good for the human race. :bgrin2:

Just an addendum: I think in theory longevity has as much to do with mitochodrial DNA as any gene and mitochondrial DNA is passed from the mother to all her offspring. We do not get any mitochondrial DNA from our fathers. So I read this thing, put it together with what I know about aging and surmise that we really don't have the answers and basing our life choices on something so loosely understood is probably silly and dangerous.

PinkPanther_04
01-08-2008, 06:35 PM
Well this is pretty obvious, since longevity isn't subject to selective pressure unless it increases the reproductive success of your genetic line. I'm not sure why it would matter what the gender of the reporter was. This story isn't insulting to women or men of any age, it just states claims about evolutionary biology. And it's only about increased longevity as a result of particular mating patterns, not fertility or birth defects or the length of the female reproductive stage or anything else. Those are separate issues. And personally I'd prefer to see mating patterns that reduced fertility and/or longevity due to the problem we already have with human overpopulation, but that's just me.

It is kind of poorly written, though. It doesn't actually have any information on what this study consisted of or how it was conducted, it just sort of vaguely states the conclusions.

And this really makes no sense to me:
Following that idea, natural selection should select for harmful mutations that impact women after menopause.
Post-reproductive individuals are not subject to selective pressure. There would be no selection for harmful mutations at all. Harmful mutations would be able to exist and not impact reproductive success if they only affected individuals after the reproductive stage, but that is very different from saying that there is selective pressure for those mutations. So either the reporter doesn't understand what she's talking about (not unusual in popular media reports of scientific research) or this was just really poorly worded.

And this is complete nonsense:
"There is a lot of evidence from evolutionary psychology that men are seeking younger women and women are seeking older men," said anthropologist Martin Fieder of the University of Vienna, who was not involved in the current study.

Cases in point: At the age of 26, Anna Nicole Smith married 89-year-old Jeremiah Howard Marshall II. In 1995, actor Tony Randall, then 75, married and had two kids with Heather Harlan, who was 24 at the time. Last month, 90-year-old Nanu Ram Jogi from India reportedly became the world's oldest father when he announced his 21st child.
How do these examples provide evidence to support the claim? Statistics would be useful, but these anecdotes are not. So I wonder what the motivation was for the reporter to include these examples.



I really don't understand the apparent offense previous posters are taking to this story. This is the YW/OM side of the boards. I think we ought to be able to post threads pertaining to YW/OM issues, which aren't insulting to OW or YM in any way, without having to worry about whether it's a "good time" to post it due to whatever topics are being discussed on other parts of the board. All the comments defending OW/YM relationships just seem really out of place and uncalled for.

SummerBob
01-08-2008, 06:58 PM
You would never see anecdotes like these in a scientific journal. But this is a news story, and examples like these arouse interest from some in the public. It's "tabloidish".

Also, since these stories are in a separate paragraph, it's assumed they have nothing to do with Martin Fielder's theory that men seek younger women.

PinkPanther_04
01-08-2008, 07:16 PM
You would never see anecdotes like these in a scientific journal. But this is a news story, and examples like these arouse interest from some in the public. It's "tabloidish".
Exactly. It sure doesn't promote the idea that OM/YW relationships are normal in any way.

Also, since these stories are in a separate paragraph, it's assumed they have nothing to do with Martin Fielder's theory that men seek younger women.
Well, the second paragraph starts with "cases in point:" which means that the author is using those examples to illustrate the previous point.

SummerBob
01-08-2008, 07:23 PM
She never elaborates on the evidence the anthropologist bases his claims on. Instead, she adds her own examples and claims that these animate his points.

Also, some people may argue that the desire for younger/older partners is, for some, more natural than most would admit, but is repressed by "social norms" that have evolved in modern culture.

PinkPanther_04
01-08-2008, 07:32 PM
She never elaborates on the evidence the anthropologist bases his claims on. Instead, she adds her own examples and claims that these animate his points.
That's exactly what I mean. She's tying her tabloid nonsense to a claim that is supportable with valid evidence. Because she's apparently more interested in making YW/OM relationships seem weird than in actually supporting a claim she included in her own article. It's like she went out of the way to mention Anna Nicole Smith or something, as if that's her idea of what an YW/OM relationship is.

Also, some people may argue that the desire for younger/older partners is, for some, more natural than most would admit, but is repressed by "social norms" that have evolved in modern culture.
I'd say this may be true to an extent. Although, environmental conditions do change mating patterns in many species. So if YW/OM pairings are driven by fertility/maternal mortality and resource acquisition/protection, then where those factors become less of a concern you might expect to see some change in that pattern. That might explain why there is a greater average age difference between mating partners in less developed societies.

SummerBob
01-08-2008, 07:40 PM
Anna Nicole Smith is about the worst example of an AG couple anyone can use. There was no relationship whatsoever, only a woman who got rich and famous for being a gold-digger and then self destructed, and court battles over a divided estate that continue to this day. In the end, complete strangers will end up with a large chunk of that estate, and a baby who had nothing to do with the Marshall family. What a joke!

Mishigas73
01-09-2008, 01:19 AM
These "studies" just never fail to crack me up. I'm just wondering how I can get some cash to say things that have been said 1000 times before and call it "science".

And, add to the fact that this is from "Fox News". Even better....

All in all though, I guess I've just never been one to think that there's really some sort of real, hard "science" with all of this. I'm sure there are explanations, but I seriously don't think that there's too much in this to hang your hat on, in a "universal" sort of way.

Anyway, if anyone knows of some organization that is ready to put out some cash for the newest study that eggs are bad for you (or, is it good now?), let me know. I'll put in my two cents. :D

catlover
01-14-2008, 07:55 PM
aside from the questionable nature of fox 'news'..........

why even tout the importance of fertility in a dangerously over-populated world......

apparently a baby does more damage to the environment than a hummer (the car, that is) over the course of a year........

maybe younger men should be encouraged and/or rewarded (how about a tax break) for pairing with older women as responsible earth citizens

SummerBob
01-15-2008, 09:46 AM
Too look at it from a different perspective, a baby could grow up to become a scientist who makes revolutionary contributions to a field that drastically improves the environment. This would far more than make up for any "damage" he did to the environment for being here!

PinkCat
01-15-2008, 11:09 AM
Too look at it from a different perspective, a baby could grow up to become a scientist who makes revolutionary contributions to a field that drastically improves the environment. This would far more than make up for any "damage" he did to the environment for being here!

Hehe, not likely... the baby is more likely to grow up to be a consumer or a criminal, statistically-speaking (there are more consumers and criminals than environmental scientists). ;)

Overpopulation is a big deal, I seriously wonder sometimes why more people don't seem concerned about it.

SummerBob
01-19-2008, 08:18 AM
The bigger problem is human greed. If we would share, live for others instead of for ourselves and aspire to do good for the community then the world could accommodate many more people than it now does. For example, city roads and highways are clogged with bumper to bumper traffic because greedy developers only see dollars signs and greedy politicians only care about votes and more of your tax money. The same could be said for almost every social or logistics problem created by "over population".

But... we're getting off the topic of age gaps here.


EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum