Boys Vs Men and Girls Vs Women. Who’s Sexier?
Dr. Helen misinterprets (or perhaps avoids) the point that I made in my previous post attacking our culture’s need to hold up teenage attitudes of sexuality as “normal” and acceptable:
Women are often at their most fertile and attractive at the ages (18-22) that Swindle is describing. Men being attracted to women of this age is called normal. Should you act on it? Maybe not but that’s not the point that Swindle is making. He doesn’t even seem to think that you should be fantasizing about women who are of age–18-22. Why not? Why should men only be interested in “mature women,” especially for a fantasy?
I didn’t say it’s wrong for MEN to fantasize about WOMEN who are 18-22. I said it’s wrong for MEN to fantasize about GIRLS who are 18-22. Operative words that Dr. Helen chooses to filter out: “but still looking young and girly.” At 18 and 22 plenty of females can still look like they’re 15 or 16. (And most of them still act like it…)
What I am saying is that grown MEN should be attracted to grown WOMEN. And they should be MEN who are more concerned with starting a family rather than childish, little BOYS mesmerized by how good an orgasm feels and how exciting it is to have sex with a new body. Yes, Charlie, it’s “normal” for humans to act like animals and worship sex. But we need to be better than normal. As I wrote in my review of Still the Best Hope, we need to rise up from our animal nature — not revel in it and excuse its excesses.
Who is the healthier human being? The 50-year-old BOY who hasn’t grown up since he was 13 and longs to have sex with immature GIRLS who are young enough to be his daughter?
Or the MAN who focuses his sexual energy on a committed marriage and the responsible, mature WOMAN in his life who will be a strong mother, nurturing and defending his BOYS and GIRLS?
Which female is more likely to be leading a happy life? A 45-year-old GIRL who is most sexually attracted to BOYS who look like this?
Or the grown-up WOMAN interested in MEN who look like this?
It’s Father’s Day. When I’m done with this post I’m going to give my Dad a call and thank him for growing up, becoming a MAN, and deciding that he’d rather spend his life loving me, my Mom, and my siblings instead of idolizing some GIRL‘s body.
Update: How a Real Man Responds When a Married Girl Offers Her Body
I am with you Dave….but….lighten up a bit.
And, hey, Palin and an AR….looks like a pretty good time to me.
Just don’t turn your back on her or be between her and something she wants.
One more thing….lay off all of the ‘supposed to be’s and ‘should’s. Leave that stuff to the taliban.
The Taliban doesn’t do “supposed to be” and “should.” They do “must” and “do it and we’ll murder you.”
If males want to remain boys and live hypnotized to how great orgasms are then they can. But they’ll be happier if they grew up, became men, and got married instead. There are more interesting things in life than orgasms and unfamiliar genitals.
Apologies for being Buzzkillington.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f68VXKMZT1Q There. I lightened up.
All I’ll say is that, regardless of the validity of one’s logic, people react negatively to being lectured about who they should be sexually attracted to.
“I said it’s wrong for MEN to fantasize about GIRLS who are 18-22.”
No it isn’t. So every time a 30-year-old fantasizes about a 19-year-old he’s committing an immoral act? Regardless of whether he has sex with her or even considers trying to have sex with her?
Mind you, our notional 30-year-old has only just seen her on the street, so he has no way of knowing whether shes a “woman” or just a “girl,” as you define these terms. In fact, he has no way of knowing her age either. So, in true totalitarian fashion, he’s committing thought-crime without even knowing it or not being able to know the criteria for his “crime.”
Nevertheless, I hope we Skype again soon, David! =)
“So every time a 30-year-old fantasizes about a 19-year-old he’s committing an immoral act?”
No. I’s not an immoral act, it’s an unholy act.
And the issue is not whether she’s 19. The issue is whether she looks like she’s 30 or 12. Is he fantasizing about a 19-year-old who’s pretending to be a girl or a 19-year-old who’s trying to be a woman? That’s the difference
“Mind you, our notional 30-year-old has only just seen her on the street, so he has no way of knowing whether shes a “woman” or just a “girl,” as you define these terms.”
Yes he does. Does she look like a Mom or a businesswoman, or like a 15-year old girl excited to show off her new boobs? First impression won’t always be correct, but it’s a good start.
And yes, I look forward to talking with you again. Hope your summer’s going well.
“No. I’s not an immoral act, it’s an unholy act.”
Now you’re introducing arbitrary distinctions so you can keep moving the goalposts.
“The issue is whether she looks like she’s 30 or 12. Is he fantasizing about a 19-year-old who’s pretending to be a girl or a 19-year-old who’s trying to be a woman? That’s the difference”
I understand your point. It’s a good one, but it still doesn’t merit the use of words like “unholy.” Those are metaphysical terms, to be reserved for serial killers, not looking at the tits of the girl in the food court. To use such language to describe thoughts is to enter the realm of the totalitarian. If we’re talking about actions (i.e., relationships), words like “stupid” or “irresponsible” would be valid.
“Does she look like a Mom or a businesswoman, or like a 15-year old girl excited to show off her new boobs? First impression won’t always be correct, but it’s a good start.”
I refuse to accept that the criterion for unholy is a quick glance at someone to determine whether they look like a “mom” or not. And at what point does this criterion not apply? Is a 40-year-old mom wearing a sexy tank top at the beach to be considered “childish” and therefore off limits to fantasy? You’re criteria are arbitrary and thus no good measure of morality.
Happy Father’s Day to your dad. If I don’t respond to a rebuttal soon, it’s because I’m with my own father, but I’ll get to it eventually. Be well.
“Now you’re introducing arbitrary distinctions so you can keep moving the goalposts.”
Not at all. Lustful thoughts are not immoral. They’re unholy. It’s an important difference often lost in our Christianity-centric culture. But Judaism makes the difference clear.
“Those are metaphysical terms, to be reserved for serial killers, not looking at the tits of the girl in the food court.”
Not at all. Overcoming our base animal instincts to oogle a woman’s breasts is a key step in rising up from our animal nature. If we can’t get control of our sex drive how can we expect to control anything else about our lives?
“To use such language to describe thoughts is to enter the realm of the totalitarian.”
No, it’s not. It’s only totalitarian if I advocate for government to act to repress the thoughts or control those who have them.
“I refuse to accept that the criterion for unholy is a quick glance at someone to determine whether they look like a “mom” or not.”
Good. I didn’t make that the criterion. There aren’t holy or unholy people. Just holy or unholy acts. And how one dresses at any given moment fits into that. You were saying that a man can’t tell if a female is a “girl” or a “woman” just be looking at her. The point that I want to articulate here is that a female can be both and can shift back and forth. We as men should be striving to be with females who are trying to be women, not those who try and be girls.
“Is a 40-year-old mom wearing a sexy tank top at the beach to be considered “childish” and therefore off limits to fantasy?”
What does it say about a 40-year-old Mom that she chooses to dress like her 15-year-old daughter? Doesn’t sound like a very attractive fantasy. That’s really the thing here — fantasies are fantasies. But it’s hard to keep up the fantasies when you know that behind it is a painful reality.
David, has anyone mentioned to you that not everyone subscribes to your religious beliefs?
I don’t find your ex cathedra announcement that it’s “unholy” to be at all convincing.
We’re not talking about religious beliefs. We’re talking about secular values. My position does not come from my religious beliefs.
If lusting after 14-year-olds isn’t unholy then what is?
Uh, David, how can you say something is “unholy” without referring to religious beliefs?
Because holiness is a concept that transcends any one religious definition. Secularists can still recognize that a life buried in porn is less holy (secular translation: produces less peace and happiness) than a family life.
The legal age of marriage in ancient Rome was 12.
In Colonial Mexico it was 12.
In the southern United States it was 14.
The minimum age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls.
One in ten 16 year old girls in the colonial United States were married by age 16.
The idea that females needed to be at least 18 to marry originates in industrialized countries – it hasn’t been true for most of human history.
Your “rule” for what separates the girls from the women is very culturally specific, wouldn’t you say?
“Your “rule” for what separates the girls from the women is very culturally specific, wouldn’t you say?”
Nope. Humanity has advanced a lot in the past few hundred years. (And in eras where people were lucky to live to 30 or 40 then being 14 was middle age.) This is like saying, “Well they practiced slavery just a few hundred years ago. So what’s wrong with that?”
But I referenced ancient Rome on this point in my review of Dennis Prager’s recent book, which relates to this discussion. In ancient Rome they also didn’t see much wrong with letting one’s sexual demons run wild. They worshipped sex and youth in much the same way as many do today.
Oh, you aren’t really going to invoke the “average life expectancy at birth” argument, are you. Good heavens.
Average life expectancy at birth was low because about 30% of children died in the first year, and another 20% died before age ten. If you made it to age ten, your life expectancy was 50 to 55, depending on culture and century.
So that argument won’t fly.
Your argument is peculiar to late 20th century industrialized countries. In this country, many states allowed 14 year old girls to marry – some still do. Texas just changed the age within the last five years. Or did Texans suddenly evolve very rapidly?
As for your example, you’re right – every culture in the world supported slavery. Many still do. Only Christians ever tried to permanently outlaw it. The closest Jews ever got was the Year of Jubilee.
Your comments statement I”t’s an important difference often lost in our Christianity-centric culture. But Judaism makes the difference clear” shows a real anti-Christian bias, and absolutely no grasp of actual historical facts.
Judaism actually had a lower age of marriage for males than Christianity did (age for girls was identical).
I’m beginning to wonder why anyone takes you seriously.
“I’m beginning to wonder why anyone takes you seriously.”
Because you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with a straw man of me that you’ve constructed by getting hung up on various stray words and phrases rather than dealing with the main points. Reminds me of how Marxists debate:
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/06/08/7-reasons-why-the-right-should-not-seek-to-convert-the-left/8/
Lustful thoughts may be unholy, but that’s not the same as attraction being unholy. Lustful thoughts that are unholy are so no matter if directed at what you call women or girls. The only difference on the holiness front is lusting after a woman who is a potential marriage mate, and one who is not, with the former being marginally less frowned upon than the latter, though not considered particularly holy, and of course ones own wife vs another woman. Otherwise, surely you can leave Judaism out of it.
You don’t think adult men should be attracted to under-18 or under-21 females.
I pointed out that for most of human history, that’s precisely the demographic men typically married.
You said that was only because we’ve evolved and average life expectancy was so low.
I pointed out that average life expectancy, once you reached the age of ten, was not low at all. It was 50. Also, we haven’t “evolved” since most states still permit marriage in the range of 14-16 for girls. A lot of countries do too, for that matter.
So, if your going for the “evolution” argument, then first world people are more advanced beings than third world people. Racist much?
I also pointed out you were a Christo-phobic bigot, since you argued that male attraction to young girls was a function of Christianity, and Judaism didn’t do that. A hard case to make when the traditional legal age for a Jewish girl to betroth herself is 12 years and one day.
You then said I had constructed a straw man – by pointing out that your points are stupid, I suppose.
You are a juvenile, David. Maybe that’s why you find juvenile women dangerous – you are very much like them.
“You don’t think adult men should be attracted to under-18 or under-21 females.”
Incorrect. You missed the whole point of the article. I don’t think men should be attracted to under 21 females when they act like GIRLS instead of women. It’s fine to be attracted to an 18-year-old woman when she’s acting like a woman.
Because holiness is a concept that transcends any one religious definition. Secularists can still recognize that a life buried in porn is less holy (secular translation: produces less peace and happiness) than a family life.
Ah, so you didn’t really mean “unholy”, you meant some other word.
No, unholy is still the right word. Another way to understand it is that holiness separates us from animals. Why do you think we wear clothes in the first place?
But for scientific materialists we’re just another form of animal, not much different than any other. Hence why some atheists equate eating chickens with the extermination of the Jews during the Holocaust. Because if there’s no God then there’s really no basis for one form of life being any more valuable than another. We’re all just space dust. That’s where we began so that’s where we’ll end. Who cares if we act like animals and waste away our sexual energy oogling young girls instead of building a family?
Dave,
First of all, Ashley Olsen, or is that the other Olsen twin? is 26 years old so I would say she can make her own decisions of who to date as can other 18 year olds and up. I hear what you are saying, however, that men who are mature should date other mature adults. However, as a mentor once told me, you can lead a jackass around the world and it will come back a jackass. Age does not necessarily make someone mature. A young person can often be more mature than an older one. As I understand it, you say that it is “unholy” to fantasize about women who look young. But if they are over 18, I don’t see the problem. You don’t like that they “look young” but that is what some men find attractive. A fantasy is not a crime. Why does a man have to be attracted to a “mom” or a business woman to be “holy” whatever that means. People have all kinds of fantasies, they have a right to them. The law says that 18 and up is legal. I agree. Do I therefore think that a man who runs off from his family to be with an 18 year old is okay? Of course not. It’s terrible. But a fantasy is not, nor is a 40 year old man who is single and attracted to a 22 year old. If they are happy with that, so what? You may think him immature, fine. That’s your right. But it is not illegal nor even immoral.
“Why does a man have to be attracted to a “mom” or a business woman to be “holy” whatever that means.”
Because if he doesn’t then he’ll end up an unhappy, pathetic, broken human being.
“People have all kinds of fantasies, they have a right to them.”
Yes, people have a right to be stupid and unhappy. And I have a right to write that people’s fantasies are the source of their unhappiness. I have a right to write that they’re worshipping an idol and getting the same results that always come from idolatry. It’s one of the main themes of my writing. http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/06/06/10-years-after-high-school-are-millennials-finally-ready-to-cash-their-reality-check/
“The law says that 18 and up is legal. I agree.”
So do I. This isn’t about legal, it’s about Right and Wrong and what will produce happiness and what won’t.
“But a fantasy is not, nor is a 40 year old man who is single and attracted to a 22 year old. If they are happy with that, so what? You may think him immature, fine. That’s your right. But it is not illegal nor even immoral.”
And a 40-year-old man could be attracted to a 45 year old woman because she dresses and acts like a slutty teenager. And they’ll both end up unhappy. This isn’t a legal, age of consent discussion. It’s about values and maturity.
If it’s about happiness, then who is anyone to say what makes people happy? A 22 year old who is pleasant and fun or a 50 year old who is a “business type mom?” Many men would pick the former and that is their preference for their own happiness. Is this preference wrong? In whose eyes?
“A 22 year old who is pleasant and fun or a 50 year old who is a “business type mom?””
That’s not the choice that we’re talking about. “Pleasant and fun” is not a synonym for “immature.” Age isn’t the issue. Maturity is. The choice we’re talking about is a 22-year-old immature girl who wants to flash her boobs around and act like a teenage girl flaunting her sexuality OR a woman who wants to be a mom and/or have a career.
“Many men would pick the former and that is their preference for their own happiness. Is this preference wrong? In whose eyes?”
Of course many men would pick the 22 year old girl who jumps into bed on the first date instead of the mature woman who wants kids and a marriage. Isn’t it self-evident why such a decision would not lead to happiness long term?
You’re treating happiness as an absolute.
To view things in the way you’re arguing, it’s like saying that since you get happiness from being kicked in the balls, then everyone should get happiness from being kicked in the balls.
Happiness is relative. Always has been, always will be. You don’t get to define some value of ‘happiness’ that comports to whatever worldview you’ve chosen to derive your own personal meaning from.
You’re like the prepubescent child defining what ‘cooties’ is. There’s no actual logic or legitimate argument behind that determination, just a personal feeling that you, personally, don’t like something.
Fortunately, in the real world, you don’t get to impose that definition on other adults.
Helen is *entirely* correct, and you are *entirely* wrong.
Human males are evolutionarily adapted to view fertile young women in a positive, and even lustful, light (or you could similarly argue that we are created by God with that exact same viewpoint). Be fruitful and multiply is the quintessential defining characteristic of how the sexes view each other, and this is simply one facet of that imperative.
Get off of the bullshit argument about ‘girls vs women’, like there’s some kind of sharp and impenetrable line dividing the two. There isn’t, and an intelligent person realizes that.
Oftentimes, girls act like women, and women act like girls. And you know what? There isn’t one damn thing wrong with that.
If you choose to color your interactions with other human beings through a lens of some kind of restrictive, and evidentially unsupported, world view, go ahead. Just don’t expect the rest of us to give it any more credence than we give to a politician saying, ‘trust me.’
“Happiness is relative. Always has been, always will be.”
The empirical data disagrees with you. Certain ideas lead to more happiness than others. http://www.amazon.com/Makers-Takers-conservatives-generously-materialistic/dp/038551350X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340037823&sr=8-1&keywords=why+conservatives+are+happier
“Oftentimes, girls act like women, and women act like girls. And you know what? There isn’t one damn thing wrong with that.”
“Acting like a girl” by my definition = flaunting sexuality and being promiscuous. The same definition applies for boy. And yes there’s many damn things wrong with it.
“……“Acting like a girl” by my definition = flaunting sexuality and being promiscuous. The same definition applies for boy. And yes there’s many damn things wrong with it………”
It’s also being stupid and frivolous and petulantly self-centered in an egregiously florid way. In short, a narcissist that doesn’t appreciate good cooking and has horrid fashion sense. I almost took a fly at a guy that looked accusingly at me when I expressed disapproval for him taking a jug of hand-pressed apple juice from my refrigerator and pulling a sloppy slug from it. That sort of behaviour…….. wheh…….
David, this is quickly descending into farce. “I didn’t say it’s wrong for MEN to fantasize about WOMEN who are 18-22. I said it’s wrong for MEN to fantasize about GIRLS who are 18-22.”
So what’s your plan? Burkhas until you determine that the particular female of age 18-22 is acting appropriately to be a WOMAN and not a GIRL?
“David, this is quickly descending into farce.”
Only because you want to avoid dealing with the points that I’m actually making and instead want to argue with strawmen.
“So what’s your plan? Burkhas until you determine that the particular female of age 18-22 is acting appropriately to be a WOMAN and not a GIRL?”
No, you’ll tell immediately from a female’s appearance if she’s acting like a WOMAN or a GIRL. And we as men shouldn’t be attracted to teenage girls like we were when we were teenage boys. A girl showing off cleavage shouldn’t have power over us like she once did.
This needs to be said: People aren’t hardwired with their attractions. They do change over time as people change. People can do things which affect their attractions. Watch a bunch of porn and that’ll rewire someone’s attractions. Likewise, men who intend to have children some day (or already do) treat sex differently than the boys who just care about their orgasms.
“This needs to be said: People aren’t hardwired with their attractions.”
Finally, the crux of your position. I completely disagree. I am 45 and I still find the female form attractive. Females become physically mature at varying ages, some illegal, but the hourglass form and youthful glow has not stopped being attractive to me. Good luck telling your brain that it is immoral to want what it wants.
“I am 45 and I still find the female form attractive.”
Well, yeah. That’s not the point being made by the sentence you’re misinterpreting. I’m still attracted to the female form too. But I’m not attracted any more when a drunken, immature, 20 year old college girl comes along with her boobs hanging out. I was once, but I’m not any more. The problem is that too many men still are. Too many men are still attracted to immature, slutty girls who will only bring them unhappiness. They’d be happier if they pursued mature women and grew up. If they gave up their teenage boy sexuality for adult man sexuality.
Then you are talking about two different areas of attraction, physical and personality. They are not mutually exclusive. Plenty of smart, level headed young women. I married one. I was 37 and she was 21. You just have to know where to look. The reward for me is a wife who will always be much younger than me and who I have known as a young woman.
Men tend to remember their wives as they were when they first met.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/06/attractional-inertia.html
“What I think the reader in the Hell of the Formerly Cute is missing is that men tend to possess what can be described as an attractional inertia with regards to the women of their youth. It is hard for us to clearly distinguish between the woman that we are with now and the woman that she was twenty years ago, so long as the changes are not too dramatic and thereby create a cognitive dissonance. Not only that, but the history of a couple’s time together plays a big role, to say nothing of the natural chemistry, which doesn’t necessarily change with age. An objective observer might claim she is not as beautiful as she was when we met, and yet I find her every bit as attractive as I did then, if not more so. It’s not that I can’t see the little changes that age has wrought, but I have to make a conscious effort to notice them. For the most part, I see her simply as who she is, the same slender, pretty blonde that she always has been.”
So,
You see, on the beach, a 22 year old woman wearing a bikini.
Next to her, you see a 22 year old girl wearing a bikini.
Tell us, in your infinite wisdom, how it is that you always (and correctly) tell them apart. You don’t get to talk to them, you don’t get any interaction at all apart from what you see on first glance.
Prove that you always, and without failure, correctly identify the girl from the woman.
Prove that choosing one over the other will always make you happy or unhappy.
Bear in mind that your choice must be made only by the appearance of the girl in question, you are not allowed to speak or interact with her in any other way.
Those are your own defined rules for identifying girls from women.
It’s called evidence. Provide it. Or shut up.
“Tell us, in your infinite wisdom, how it is that you always (and correctly) tell them apart.”
Another Millennial with views comparable to mine: http://acculturated.com/2012/06/14/pin-up-girls-the-summer-of-modesty/
The woman is wearing a sexy bikini like this: http://acculturated.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/betty_grable_in_a_bathing_suit-7636.jpg?w=238&h=300
And the girl is wearing a string bikini like this: http://acculturated.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screen-shot-2012-06-14-at-12-00-25-pm.png?w=228&h=300
“Prove that you always, and without failure, correctly identify the girl from the woman.”
I don’t have to do that. It’s common sense that women who feel a need to show off more cleavage and more of their body are trying to attract attention WITH their body instead of their mind and personality. If someone dresses like a slut, she probably is a slut.
Um. From Betty Grable’s Wiki entry:
“Grable married famous former child actor, Jackie Coogan, in 1937. He was under considerable stress from a lawsuit against his parents over his childhood earnings and the couple divorced in 1939.
In 1943, she married trumpeter Harry James. The couple had two daughters, Victoria and Jessica. They endured a tumultuous alcoholism and infidelity plagued 22-year marriage before divorcing in 1965. Grable entered into a relationship with dancer Bob Remick, several years her junior, whom she remained with the rest of her life.”
I’m not sure she’s an example of a “women” as opposed to a girl.
I’m not talking about her, I’m talking about the bikini she’s wearing and in a modern context. This is another example of how you go to great lengths to avoid the plain as day point that I’m making: girls like to show off as much skin as possible to attract boys. Women are more modest and use their minds and personalities to secure relationships with men instead of boys.
No, Dave, you can tell immediately if you think she’s acting like a woman and not a girl.
And I recommend that you too learn how to tell the difference between Girls and Women. It’s an important thing for every man to do to avoid having his heart broken by immature girls.
So, you’ve managed to come up with a clear, unambiguous, bright line that absolutely and unfailingly allows people to make an immediate visual distinction between a woman and a girl in the 18 – 22 age range, without any actual interaction?
You should talk to James Randi, he has a prize available for your kind of magical seeming abilities (if you can actually prove them).
This is the biggest flaw in your thesis. You are simultaneously making several (apparently unsupported) presumptions.
First, you’re arguing that there is some kind of clear and infallible way to discriminate between ‘Women’ and ‘Girls’ within some defined range of physical age (hint number one, there isn’t).
Second, you’re claiming that some poor sap, upon interacting with said ‘woman child’, and perhaps becoming involved, is unalterably destined to become ‘unhappy’ (citation needed).
Third, your idea of ‘unhappy’ seems to be unalterably entwined with what you think of as ‘unhappy’, without any regard for what another may see as happy or unhappy.
You’re a prude, in the clear definition of the word. You look at something (whatever it may be) and decide that it offends you, and that you believe that it should equally offend any other person who sees what you’ve seen.
And you don’t understand when we don’t line up behind you in full support of your delusions.
“And you don’t understand when we don’t line up behind you in full support of your delusions.”
I do understand because I used to live promiscuously, date girls instead of women, and make much the same arguments you’re making now.
Dave – Just wanted to say kudos to you for sticking to your guns. I think you’re spot on with your assessment: we’re not animals and putting away such characteristics is necessary for adulthood.
mac :]
Thanks Mac. Appreciate the support.
Most of the Western world (including the U.S.) says 16 (the age of the older Kardashian in question) is the age of consent. She can operate a motor vehicle and be tried as an adult for murder. Funny, I don’t remember many conservatives being upset about the story of Sarah McKinley, who at 18 shot and killed an intruder. She married a man in her 50s when she was 16: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082716/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-shoots-dead-intruder-Justin-Shane-Martin-looking-prescription-drugs.html
The line at the time was that she was a rugged, competent individual exercising her American right to self-defense, and most defended Oklahoma’s age of consent laws.
Should we be calling 16 year olds “children” rather than “teens”? Doesn’t that help contribute to the problematic “extended adolescence” that Swindle bemoans?
Oh, and how about that Trayvon Martin “kid”?
Just questions….
This has nothing to do with age of consent.
“Should we be calling 16 year olds “children” rather than “teens”? Doesn’t that help contribute to the problematic “extended adolescence” that Swindle bemoans?”
Yes, we should regard 16 year olds as children and abandon the whole idea of “teenagers” (which is a fairly recent concept). But we should expect those 16 year olds to be trying to act like mature adults.
By creating this buffer idea of being a teenager we just give people an excuse to extend childhood indefinitely.
You are speaking of illogical fantasy. A girl who has attained puberty is biologically an adult, and I expect her to behave as one. She is an adult even though she may be an immature adult. It is illogical to say that someone is a child, and then expect adult behavior. It is absurd. Power brings responsibility and adulthood. The problem is that adults are not held to the standards that they need. If adults were held to high standards then we would have no reason to treat a 16 year old as a child. We would simply apply the same standards we apply to an adult woman to her.
David, I completely appreciate what you are saying intellectually.
However, I wonder if it is possible, however, for men to override their genetically coded preference for women in their teens and twenties.
As a woman approaching menopause, and who happens to have a small group of candid male friends, I can tell you that, without getting too gynocologically graphic, women’s bodies change for the worse as they get older and I don’t mean just their thighs or other things related to outward appearance.
I mean changes that impact one’s other senses, like smell, taste and touch.
Sane people, male and female, prefer freshness and newness in most things.
Men also crave variety even over beauty when it comes to sexual partners.
Now, one can keep a lid on acting on these urges through prayer, discipline, years of sound moral formation, fear of social stigma.
Not every man however knows these tools are at his disposal, and/or lives in a world without social stigma.
Just my two cents! I see everybody’s side on this one unfortunately.
Thanks Kathy.
“However, I wonder if it is possible, however, for men to override their genetically coded preference for women in their teens and twenties.”
I have no problem with men preferring women in their teens and twenties. It’s the girls in their teens, 20s and beyond that they shouldn’t be lusting after anymore.
I am unaware of any genetically coded preferences. I am as nuts for women as any man but I am not an animal. I specifically remember one sunny summer day skipping rope next to Lake Calhoun in MPLS when I was 28. Lot’s of people were about, and 3 plenty attractive perhaps 16 yr. old girls sitting next to a food kiosk eventually got my attention by purposefully loudly saying I was too stuck up to talk to them or notice them.
In fact I had NOT noticed them, though they were in my line-of-sight. I was amazed they’d felt in the least attracted to me and had no idea what they were even thinking about. This was not just a cultural filter that had suddenly kicked in but what was a deeply seated lack of interest and there was no shortage of 28 yr. old women to arouse such interest. I ignored them. I am not an opportunist, nor a hunter, nor a robot.
I suspect that in America this dialogue is somewhat enabled by the fact that Americans are fatter than they have ever been. In a city like Rio de Janeiro, where I have lived 4 times for short stints, women are far less prone to let themselves go and so one sees a corresponding lack of interest outside of age groups since there is more to choose from. One thing is true: young women in Rio don’t usually look like a caricature of what a human being is supposed to look like and that will be equally true for older healthy women among a population of fat men.
As for fantasies, it is the responsibility of each of us to make our actual lives our fantasies. In that way, we will happily reside within those lives. Things have gotten so bad in Rio from OUTSIDE sources that busstops have posters cautioning about sexual (child) tourism and there are men who go to Bangkok or Cambodia because they are sad morons.
The distinction he is trying to make is what is appropriate for women vs. what is expected of girls. I’ll post this link here for reference as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon
How about we split it?
You are both right and both wrong.
You are correct that oversexualizing 14-16 year olds, or pretty much any underage girls, is a rather serious issue, particularly when it comes to pop culture individuals.
You also have a basic point regarding 18-22 year olds who are still acting like underage girls. However, that is where you start wandering off into wholly, and rather excessively, subjective territory.
People should know, on sight, whether some 18-22 year old is acting like a “woman” or a “girl”? Just on sight?
What about 23-29 year olds acting like girls? 30+ year olds? Should we make a list of “waif” body type actresses, who often wind up playing characters below their actual ages? Can we then consider all the non-actresses who play similar games? How do we distinguish between the ones playing to attract men and those stuck in a juvenile mindset? And all by visual cues mind you.
You then want to move this from a mere cultural preference to an overarching, universal, moral judgement. And you do this not based on any specific doctrinal statement, but on that old reliable standby of self-evident natural law. (Even though you do not use that term for it, that is precisely what it.) Unfortunately that is the philosophical equivalent of “Because I said so!”, and convinces about as well without any actual evidence in support.
Of course none of that dismisses Helen Smith’s rather gratuitous acceptance of the sexual exploitation of prime breeding age females simply because they are, you know, prime breeding age females and it is all proper and natural to perv all over them provided you keep your freak to yourself or whatever. That does rather spoil her proper point about you overextending yourself and getting in an uproar that men, of any age, happen to find 18-22 year old women sexually attractive.
“People should know, on sight, whether some 18-22 year old is acting like a “woman” or a “girl”? Just on sight?”
Yes. Girls and women dress differently and carry themselves differently. The fashion attitudes of the average 14-year-old girl are different from those of the average 25-year-old or 45-year-old woman, most of whom dress in a more mature fashion. Now that doesn’t mean that you’re going to be able to tell every time and it’s possible someone you initially expect of being mature will reveal themselves to be immature (or vice versa) but you’re still going to be right more than you’re wrong. A girl who dresses like a slut will probably act like a slut. (Otherwise, why would she send off the message to all the men that she’s a slut?) You recall what Chris Rock said about girls with pierced tongues, right?
“What about 23-29 year olds acting like girls? 30+ year olds? Should we make a list of “waif” body type actresses, who often wind up playing characters below their actual ages?”
I’ve known middle-aged women known to act like girls. The body type has nothing to do with it. I’m talking about emotional and mental maturity.
“You then want to move this from a mere cultural preference to an overarching, universal, moral judgement.”
Yes, I will make this as an overarching, universal moral judgement: it’s wrong for middle aged boys to prey on immature girls. (And vice versa!) Sexual relationships and romantic relationships should be between equals. Do you need me to show my work for why this is the case? I can provide secular reasons to explain this “Natural Law” point. Or you could always start here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812904958/pjmedia-20
Except we are not talking about 14 year olds, or 25 year olds, or 45 year olds, but 18-22 year olds. Why do those others have an “average” but the 18-22 year olds do not?
As for the difference between mental and emotional maturity and physical appearance, if you mean the one do not refer to the other.
Appearance is not an exclusive or absolute determinant of mental status.
“Yes, I will make this as an overarching, universal moral judgement: it’s wrong for middle aged boys to prey on immature girls.”
Until you stop mixing physical maturity with emotional maturity, your judgement is invalid.
If they are middle aged “boys”, then they are just as emotionally immature as the girls, and there is nothing “wrong” with the relationship.
If you mean only because they are middle aged, then you are making a distinction based on physical attributes, and there would be nothing “wrong” with a middle aged “boy” having a relationship with a mature “looking” woman 18-22 years old.
You cannot have it both ways with your conflation of “appearance” and “maturity”, and the more you assert you can the more dismissably subjective your judgement becomes.
As for “secular” explanations of “natural law”, clearly you are confused about the difference between “faith” and “fact”.
Until you can present to me a physical document produced by “nature” regarding the topic, all you have are different interpretations written by different individuals of what is “right”. I might agree with all, some, or none of the presentation, as may others. I may even be able to produce an actual objective analysis of the issue. It remains that the “first cause” for the assertion is still purely individual, and accepting or rejecting it, even on the preponderance of evidence and culture, still involves an act of faith.
I am sure you want me, and others, to accept your conclusions as the starting point for determining whether they are correct, but you will just have to accept that is not going to happen.
But, just for the heck of it, let’s go that “natural” route:
http://news.discovery.com/human/old-dad-father-long-life-child-genetic-120613.html
Hmmm . . .
It seems there is a “natural law” that older dudes should be perving on the younger chicks in order to produce children with longer lifespans.
So should we all just tank the lifespans of our children in order to support your morality?
I could also link to economic statistics that earnings increase as we get older, naturally making older men more capable of supporting children.
Should we also tank the economic well being of our children in favor of your morality?
Then we can add in that younger women are, as Helen Smith noted, of “prime breeding age”, with relevant affects on surviving birth and having viable births.
So now we have to add those factors in favor of May-December sexual relationships despite your opposition.
Of course I’m willing to acknowledge just how subjective all of that is, despite it seeming to present a very strong objective case. Then again I will not call it “immoral” and indeed “unholy” for two undergrads or post-grads to have a relationship despite that data and its not being based on subjective cultural definitions of appearance and emotional development.
“If they are middle aged “boys”, then they are just as emotionally immature as the girls, and there is nothing “wrong” with the relationship.”
No, middle-aged boys (45 year old bachelors) are not at an equal level with 18 year old girls. They have more experience in manipulating people to get what they want.
“As for “secular” explanations of “natural law”, clearly you are confused about the difference between “faith” and “fact”.”
You seem to be going off on your own tangent about Natural Law. What I meant is that there are secular reasons why a life of marriage is superior to promiscuity.
As I said in my comment to your original post on this, which you refused to publish, any man who is not sexually attracted to a pretty girl in the 18 – 22 year age range is either lying to ingratiate himself with older women or has something wrong with him and should see a doctor forthwith.
What you are doing is shaming men for their natural sexual desires. You are helping those who want to marginalize men and criminalize their sexuality. The shame is yours.
The truth is, if you are talking about desirability for sex, I’d pick either of the Olsen Twins, or both at once if they up for it, over Sarah Palin, and so would most guys. (And I’m 62) I refuse to apologize or feel the least bit of shame over my natural sexual desires.
There is no difference between a girl and a woman. Ashley Olsen is dating some guy in his mid forties, the younger brother of Sarkozy. She’s worth half a billion dollars, has her own clothing line, and has been famous since about a year after she was born. That’s a particularly bad example, as the former Lizzie McGuire, Hillary Duff once said on Leno at age 17, she’d met the President, made millions of dollars a year, was famous, who was she going to date, a boy on a skateboard?
In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet was age 13, Romeo age 16. It is routine for young Hispanic girls/women to have kids at age 16. That perpetuates poverty but nevertheless it is fairly typical, and also highly correlated with single motherhood.
A man will always feel attraction to younger women, but in the course of things (fatherhood) will be protective of his daughters. No man would prefer a woman at the end of her fertility with many children by another man than a younger woman he can have a family with, I find the question pseudo-feminist, full of shaming for men’s natural desires.
At any rate, the question is moot. Total sexual freedom and women’s hypergamy unchained leads pre-teens to drool over Bieber, teen agers to drool over Chris Brown (BECAUSE not in spite of his beat downs) on Twitter, and women in their twenties to desire Alpha Male a-holes in their thirties. Women WANT older guys, who are socially dominant, particularly vs. them.
Gregory Peck belongs to a distant past that will never come again, one of severe constraints on female hypergamy and sexual freedom. ACTUAL guys women drool over include Russell Brand, Charlie Sheen, Tommy Lee, Mystery from VH1, and John Edwards.
With no need for providers (Welfare State), most women most of the time will choose SEXY (dominant, cocky-funny a-hole) over everything else in a man every time. This is reality.
The real problem here is not so much that men think women are sexy, it’s that increasingly, women think women are sexy.
Boys Vs Men and Girls Vs Women. Who’s Sexier?
The correct response is supposed to be, “It depends on who the observer is”.
“The correct response is supposed to be, “It depends on who the observer is”.”
Which is what I said in my original piece. The only ones who I gave a free pass for lusting after teenagers are other teenagers. People are supposed to pursue others at their own level of maturity.
“Who is the healthier human being?”
False dichotomy, Swindle. I’m no pollster, but my educated guess is that your average mature man BOTH finds young women attractive (including what you’d arbitrarily call “girls” of that age), AND is happy with & committed to the woman in his life. It’s a pathetic man-child who can’t appreciate the latter, and an unbearable prig (or desperate hack journalist) who can’t appreciate the former.
“BOTH finds young women attractive (including what you’d arbitrarily call “girls” of that age”
I don’t arbitrarily call young women girls. There are 18 year old women and there are 18 year old girls. There are 45 year old women and 45 year old girls.
My mistake. Instead of calling your distinctions “arbitrary,” I should probably have said “hermetic.”
“I don’t arbitrarily call young women girls. There are 18 year old women and there are 18 year old girls. There are 45 year old women and 45 year old girls.”
Huh?
And who get to decide which is which? Talk about “slippery slopes”.
That thunderous SNAP! you just heard was this point flinging back and hitting Dave in the head after being mercilessly stretched beyond all meaning.
“And who get to decide which is which? Talk about “slippery slopes”.”
Every man gets to make the decision whether he pursues girls or women. If you want to remain a teenage boy perpetually pursuing adult girls you can do it. Just don’t be surprised when you’re unhappy later.
“Every man gets to make the decision whether he pursues girls or women. If you want to remain a teenage boy perpetually pursuing adult girls you can do it. Just don’t be surprised when you’re unhappy later.”
Then you aren’t really talking about “looks” at all, are you?
If you think you can tell how mature a woman is just by looking at her, you are the one who has some growing up to do.
(happily married 20 years)
“Then you aren’t really talking about “looks” at all, are you?”
No, I’m talking about maturity. And you can tell a woman’s maturity by the clothes she chooses to wear. Teenage girls have different fashion sense than mature women.
And if a 30-year-old woman has a monthly budget for doing her nails that approaches, say……. half her rent, I’d say you can comfortably call her a ‘girl’……’>…….
Looks like you’re odd man out on this one, Dave. And I have to admit you’ve lost me on it, too. Nature made women most fertile and sexually attractive at the low end of their lifespan. And I’m sure Dr. Helen Smith can explain why that’s a good thing. Men remain fertile until death, not my fault. Just the way it is.
So I’m not worried that I still find young women sexually attractive. The fact is men and women have been selectively breeding each other for a couple million years or more. So, if older men find younger women attractive and younger women find older men attractive, I think it has enhanced the survival of the human race. Because if it hadn’t done so, the old/young attraction thing would have died out long ago.
Dave Swindle = Uptight, moralistic, prude.
I’ll fantasize about whoever I please, thank you. Isn’t that the whole point of fantasy???
And in real life I keep it legal. That means 18+, regardless of how old I am.
I don’t understand your woman/girl hang-up. People are people. Age is age. The semantic hair-splitting you indulge in is tiresome and pointless.
“I don’t understand your woman/girl hang-up.”
An immature girl wants to party and sleep around and flaunt her sexuality. A mature woman wants a career and a family.
“I’ll fantasize about whoever I please, thank you. Isn’t that the whole point of fantasy???”
Just don’t be surprised if fantasizing about things you should never have leaves you feeling unhappy.
Career and family are mutually contradictory. You can’t have it both ways. The immature teenage girl is the genesis of the career women. They both posses active rationalization hamsters. A serious girl/woman of any age is focused on family, and does not pursue a career. I intend to marry a girl with maturity, not someone who wants to have “fun” in their life.
>Just don’t be surprised if fantasizing about things you should never have
>leaves you feeling unhappy.
Actually, I’m VERY satisfied with my fantasies *and* my realities, thank you.
I’m sorry to hear that you think it’s and either/or proposition. You have my sympathies.
Gads, it is this sort of normative proselytizing that causes liberals to stereotype conservatives as moralistic tyrants. You slice and dice and semantically twist your way into an indefensible, arbitrary foxhole…then keep flogging that expired burro. Good luck with your puerile, sophomoric Puritanism.
“I said it’s wrong for MEN to fantasize about GIRLS who are 18-22.”
There are two kinds of men at play here.
Those who fantasize and those who lie through their teeth about not.
Being an adult is not repressing your desires (which happened a lot younger than 18 back in the day)but is instead controlling them.
Yes I fantasize about young women often. I have yet to act on any of them.
I’m man enough to aknowledge it.
Dear God. Angry, bitter, and pissed off about who other people are having sex with is no way to go through life. For someone talking about how unhappy everyone else is going to end up, you might read through some of your posts. You sound like one of those pastors who constantly rants about the homosexual agenda and then you catch them hiring a male hooker. I don’t know what’s going on with you, but no one gets this pissed off about what other random people they don’t know are doing in their personal lives without it being based on some kind of issue of their own.
If people don’t want to have families that’s their own business. Not everyone is going to be made happy by the same things. And the shaming language directed solely against men is getting really old. Focus some of your shame on the “girls” who don’t grow up instead of blaming men for their nature.
First, lose the caps and colored fonts, and stop accusing your fellow columnists of being disingenuous. Dr. Helen’s a smart and perceptive writer, and one of the best dealing with Men’s Issues today. She doesn’t deserve to be insulted like that.
Secondly, you’re confusing your issues. Christianity has always condemned anybody in a marriage who’s looking outside that marriage for sexual fulfillment. See for example, Matthew 5:28, “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” It sounds like this is what you’re talking about when you say “Or the MAN who focuses his sexual energy on a committed marriage and the responsible, mature WOMAN in his life who will be a strong mother, nurturing and defending his BOYS and GIRLS?”
But this has nothing to do with the age of the person a married man is lusting after. It’s equally wrong for a married man to be fantasizing about the hot 45-year old librarian next door as it is for him to fantasize about one of those girls in bikinis. It’s not an issue of maturity, it’s an issue of breaking a sacred contract that you made.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. And I mean it about losing the caps and colored font. It makes it really hard to take what you write seriously.
It’s hard to take seriously anonymous comments from people who call themselves Faust.
I put the MEN and WOMEN and BOYS and GIRLS in caps and font because that’s the whole point of what I’m saying that prompted Dr. Helen’s misinterpretation. I didn’t accuse her of being disingenuous. But as of the last comment she left that I responded to, she’s still avoiding the issue — and so are you:
“But this has nothing to do with the age of the person a married man is lusting after.”
Correct. Hence why I’ve made the distinction between GIRLS and WOMEN. I wasn’t thinking of Matthew 5:28 about not lusting after women other than one’s wife. That’s a separate point than me pointing out that teenage sexuality is different from grown-up sexuality. (And that we should pursue the latter if we want long-term happiness.)
Dave, I have made the mistake of trying to talk about this topic, from the maternal desire husband loving perspective, and have found people get very pissy about it. I get called a prude and all sorts of things. Some lady out there will be blessed someday to have you as a husband.
Thanks Liv. I’ve been married for 3 years. It’s much better than the life of promiscuity I led while in college.
I feel the same way. I would never want to go back to my crazy stupid years. I made so many unhealthy choices in my past. Perhaps condemning others for the same behavior is not the best route to take, but there is nothing wrong with illuminating an ideal and encouraging others to make healthy choices. Certainly every person is free to make their own choices and the same path is not the ideal for everyone, but there are definately paths that are more jagged than others.
And this is why PJ Media is seen as the front for the cultural Taliban in America.
Moral directives come from the deeply-felt, but utterly subjective, beliefs of the writers.
David, I wouldn’t let you near my daughter; I wouldn’t let you near my sister; I wouldn’t let you near my Mom. You’re way too creepy.
If they wanted to go see you preach behind a pulpit, scarlet letters stacked behind you, I’d object, too.
What, seriously? Dave is expressing his personal desire for a mature relationship and that makes him equivalent to the Taliban? Uh oh Dave, don’t wander to far off the hippy commune. Dang you are such a neanderthal.
I completely disagree with with David’s point of view but I find you John to be the creepy one. At least he has a rational for his belief system; you’re comments display a judgemental snobbery that is far more offputting.
Who sees PJ Media as the “front for the cultural Taliban”? If anything we get crap for being too pro-gay.
Would it confuse the hell out of you to learn that I’m not a Christian or a Jew and that I support gay marriage too?
“Would it confuse the hell out of you to learn that I’m not a Christian or a Jew and that I support gay marriage too?”
Then you are a sanctimonious hypocritical douche.
How am I being sanctimonious and hypocritical? My position is consistent: EVERYONE should strive to improve themselves so that someday someone will want to marry them. That includes gay people. (And I am more concerned that gay people find someone they can love for the rest of their lives and commit to in a religious ceremony according to their religious tradition than rushing to make sure every state government recognize such unions as marriage.)
I differ with conservatives who think that gay marriage changes the definition of marriage. It doesn’t. It just creates a new, separate institution for gay people. The definition of “chair” does not change whether the chair is made of wood, plastic, or metal. So too with marriage.
I am sorry, but sodomy is always immoral and has always been considered to be so since the origins of the Christian West. I will not go against our society and culture, and any tolerance for perversions like feminism and homosexuality leads to that.
Well, John. You don’t have to worry about me. I like cute sexy young girls. By the way, can I get your daughter’s number?
A young man was walking along the beach and decided to stop and sit for awhile on a park bench.
On the other side of the bench was a very old man, chin resting on his cane, staring intently in front of him.
After a while, the old man turned to the young man and said, “I really enjoy watching the young girls walk by in their bathing suits, but I can’t remember why.”
I’m starting to become that old man. I probably won’t ever stop watching the young girls in their swimming suits, but I am starting to forget why.
“I didn’t say it’s wrong for MEN to fantasize about WOMEN who are 18-22. I said it’s wrong for MEN to fantasize about GIRLS who are 18-22.”
I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing the distinction since the age range IS EXACTLY THE SAME. Unfortunately, this is an example of how our society is continually extending childhood well after the male or female has physically matured into adulthood. That itself isn’t healthy development for our society.
Dave, in order to focus carefully and prevent you from introducing irrelevancies, please let me stress that I am assume that ALL the females about to be hypothetically discussed are dressed modestly and act in a mature and non-provocative way.
Whe my wife was 18 I found her very sexy. Today, when she is 50, I find her equally sexy, and, interestingly enough, she has changed very little physically in 32 years. However, I continue to find 18-year-old females, and 21-year-old females, and 30-year-old females, and 40-year-old females, sexually attractive in a way that feels no different than when I first started finding women of those ages attractive. I even find 15-and 16-year old girls sexually attractive if their bodies are mature. I am talking here about a response to the way females of those ages ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK, when they are dressing and behaving in a mature and non-provocative fashion but not making any particular attempts to hide their natural beauty either.
Note that I have said nothing about behavior towards younger women; I am talking only about my experienced attraction and desire.
Answer me honestly. Based on what I have just said, do you think there is something wrong with me?
“I am assume that ALL the females about to be hypothetically discussed are dressed modestly and act in a mature and non-provocative way.”
Then they’re women and not girls.
“Based on what I have just said, do you think there is something wrong with me?”
You’re “normal” in the sense that most men are “normal” as the word is thrown around in the comments of this discussion. But we’re supposed to be better than normal.
What’s wrong with you is that you’d be happier if you weren’t in a state of perpetually having desires that can never be fulfilled. If you’ve got a hot wife then what are you doing idolizing 15 and 16 year old girls? How does that make your life better? Wouldn’t you be happier if all of your sexual attention was focused on your wife? Wouldn’t she be happier? I’m not a Christian or a Jew but there’s a reason why the 10 Commandments tell us not to covet. And it’s wholly secular — fantasizing about what we can’t have prevents us from all the happiness that’s already right at our fingertips.
Sorry David, but you are not going to be able to tell if a female between the age of 18 to 22 is mentally or emotionally mature or not based on how they are dressed. The only real way to tell how mentally and emotionally mature they are is by engaging them in extended conversations over a period of time. But physical attractiveness has very little to do with mental and emotional maturity. So stop trying to confuse the two as being one in the same.
Sorry Dave, but I have to go with other commenters who point out your residency in the mythical land of “Should”.
Except of course for John. (No. 21) He’s completely unhinged.
IMO, this is really rather stupid. Dave wants to make some arbitrary distinction between “girls” that are 18-22 and “women” that are 18-22, and that distinction is somehow based on those girls’/women’s behavior, as if there is some clear line between “girl behavior” and “woman behavior” that men ought to be able to easily discern. There is no such distinction, and the whole premise is ridiculous. Sometimes women act like girls, and sometimes even teenage girls can be mature beyond their years. So, at what point during the day are men supposed to decide if this hypothetical 18-22 year old girl/woman is attractive? When she is being serious and mature, or when she’s goofing off with her friends and acting silly? Or is our judgment of her physical attractiveness supposed to change as her behavior changes?
Someone in a previous comment said that you’re a Puritan, Dave. I think that isn’t quite right – you’re more like one of the Pharisees of Bibical times. You’re got this non-sensical rule that you want everyone else to live by, but you really don’t understand the topic yourself. Seriously, you ought to re-think all of this; the fact that you’re getting trashed in these comments is pretty powerful evidence that you’re not as right as you think you are.
“Dave wants to make some arbitrary distinction between “girls” that are 18-22 and “women” that are 18-22, and that distinction is somehow based on those girls’/women’s behavior, as if there is some clear line between “girl behavior” and “woman behavior” that men ought to be able to easily discern.”
I’ve defined the difference between “girl behavior” and “woman behavior.” In a nutshell: girls want to party, sleep around, and dress like prostitutes to show off their bodies. (Boys want much the same thing.) Women want a family, a husband, and maybe a career (The same thing men want).
“You’re got this non-sensical rule that you want everyone else to live by, but you really don’t understand the topic yourself.”
I’m not making a rule nor demanding anyone do anything they don’t want to do. I’m just stating an empirical fact: mature men who are married are happier than middle-aged bachelor boys who spend their time lusting after the same girls they chased in college. These comments do not offer any evidence that I’m wrong. Quite the opposite in fact — that I’ve hit a nerve and many men are guilty that they’re not trying to grow up.
Maybe part of the problem is that young women are not allowed to be mature until they’ve done this, that, PhD, postdoc, career… Maybe it is not unnatural for a twenty year old woman to be attracted to a mature man. Perhaps some women truly desire to be a wife and mother above all else. Maybe even some twenty year olds are ready to start a family. Likewise, mature men are attracted to fertile women. The real lockstep ideology comes from the hippy elders who discourage marriage and family at every turn and do not tolerate dissent. It’s all cool to demand free birth control and free aborshes on demand, but desiring to have a family is so neanderthal ya’ll. The hippy’s were cool when they were the counterculture, but now that they are running the asylum they are becoming dated. Maybe mature is the new cool.
*hippies
This whole 18 to 22 woman/girl thing you’re hanging your argument on is nonsense. Girls legally become women when they hit 18. It doesn’t matter a bit whether they are mature women or total knot-heads, they are women, not girls. Men are going to be attracted to attracted to them physically regardless of their personality or sense of responsibility or maturity, assuming they are remotely attractive.
What you want is for men to only be attracted to mature women. Which is fine and in the long run smarter for the men. But the bimbo’s are fun too.
“Girls legally become women when they hit 18.”
This isn’t a legal debate, it’s a values debate.
“Men are going to be attracted to attracted to them physically regardless of their personality or sense of responsibility or maturity, assuming they are remotely attractive.”
The physically attractive can become less attractive to the point where you have no sexual desire for them when you learn more about them.
“Who is the healthier human being?”
Who the hell are you to judge human “health”, you sanctimonious little douche? Finding teenage girls sexually attractive is what any man with a functioning pair is going to do. To condemn that reality is to condemn the human race. Health indeed. What a pathetic little twat.
This is enough to make John Simon, James Bowman, and Mona Charen slap their foreheads in unison and say, “Jeez, what a prissy buzzkill.”
I LOVE YOUG WOMEN AND DAVE IS A PURITAN
18-22 old females are sexier. No contest. You can’t fight evolution.
Though I’ve made a few responses, let me recap what seems to be your position:
First:
You’re making the claim that there is something, specifically, wrong with young women (girls) dressing in a way that may attract male (especially older male) attention, though you present no actual evidence that any harm is being done (from either side).
Second:
You’re making the claim that there is some kind of clear and absolute mechanism for distinguishing between ‘women’ and ‘girls’ by sight alone. That it is possible to completely and accurately determine the mindset and ethics of an 18 – 25 year old (woman / girl) from nothing else but an initial glance.
Third:
That any person who, for whatever reason, gets involved with one of the aforementioned young woman, is now axiomatically forced to be unhappy, regardless of the actual circumstances of the involvement.
What you seem to be saying is that anyone who doesn’t make the choices that you would make must, therefore, be unhappy.
Based upon the arguments that you’ve made so far, I’m firmly of the opinion that acting in direct opposition of your stated position is actually the best path to happiness I can think of.
When summarizing my positions you’d be closer to them if you actually quoted me.
“You’re making the claim that there is something, specifically, wrong with young women (girls) dressing in a way that may attract male (especially older male) attention”
Wrong. I didn’t say that.
“You’re making the claim that there is some kind of clear and absolute mechanism for distinguishing between ‘women’ and ‘girls’ by sight alone. That it is possible to completely and accurately determine the mindset and ethics of an 18 – 25 year old (woman / girl) from nothing else but an initial glance.”
Wrong. Why is it such a difficult point to understand that how people choose to dress makes a statement about their values? If someone dresses like a 14-year-old girl then it’s safe to assume that they have the mentality of a 14-year-old. Otherwise why would they dress that way?
“That any person who, for whatever reason, gets involved with one of the aforementioned young woman, is now axiomatically forced to be unhappy, regardless of the actual circumstances of the involvement.”
Wrong. Who is going to be happier: a man who lives his life as a bachelor screwing a new girl every week, or a family man who has children? There’s empirical data backing this up and I recommend the writings of George Gilder on the subject. See “Naked Nomads” http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812904958/pjmedia-20
“Based upon the arguments that you’ve made so far…”
Those aren’t the arguments I made. Those are strawman arguments made by passing scraps of my original arguments through the meat grinder of a mind that doesn’t want to understand them.
Dave, maybe if you tried restating things more clearly? You’ve got a whole lot of really smart people, and me, completely confused because every time we try to pin you down you say we’re misinterpreting you.
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/06/17/how-a-real-man-responds-when-a-married-girl-offers-her-body/
My argument, repeated again: there are two levels of sexual maturity. There’s the sexual attitudes you have as a teenager just going through puberty, the way you view the opposite sex when you’re a boy or a girl. Sex is just about fun and how great orgasms feel. But as we get older we’re supposed to grow out of this immature way of approaching sex. Why? Because living out teenage sexuality in practice — a life of promiscuity, a life in perpetual pursuit of the better orgasm — does not generate as much long-term happiness as a life of adult sexuality. Men and women treat sex like adults. They’ve found things in life more interesting and more meaningful than orgasms. Sex becomes less about me and my orgasms and more about nurturing intimacy between a husband and wife and then creating children.
But not everyone makes this leap. And everyone who thinks they’ve made this leap is always in danger of sliding back to acting like a boy or a girl instead of a man or a woman. So, to make clear for those who chose to selectively read my initial point: there’s nothing wrong or abnormal with a 50 year-old man being attracted to an 18-year-old female. But we as men should be attracted to her because she reminds us of a mature women. Not because she’s acting like a girl, wearing pigtails, flaunting her sexuality, trying to climb into bed with us, and allowing us an opportunity to be teenage boys again. At some point in a man’s development the word “girl” should no longer primarily inspire sexual longing.
Make sense? Men should pursue women, not girls. And being a “girl” means to be immature, like the fake woman above.
Better safe than statutory!
http://poykpac.com/CFG/know-your-ages-of-consent.jpg
So let me ask you a question: Are you ever going to write about something worth reading here at PJM or are you going to continue to write about what appears to be your own struggles with your biology? Because if it’s the latter then I’m outta here.
How about this: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/06/08/7-reasons-why-the-right-should-not-seek-to-convert-the-left/
Umm… as 20-something year old woman looking at this, can I offer another perspective?
All us females understand (even if we don’t like it) that from a purely appearance-based, unemotional, no-love-involved point of view, men are going to find us sexier when we’re younger. Like some people have said, it’s biology.
But there’s a big difference between a forty-five year old MAN who treats a younger woman with respect and consideration, in casual or professional situations, and a forty-five year old BOY who repeatedly asks her for sex. Are they both physically attracted to that younger woman? Possibly. Does one had different intentions than the other? Probably.
To me, it’s more an issue of respect than anything else. I see nothing wrong with highlighting the need for that.
Thank you. You got my point.
Then you point isn’t that looking at pretty girls is bad, but dating them is bad?
Do you really feel like you’re going to date the Jenner girls?
Charlie, you’re avoiding that the fantasies we feed shape our reality and affect who we are. Garbage in, garbage out. The more a man focuses on fantasies of what he cannot have the less happy he’ll be with what he has. Men continuing to focus on girly girls when they’re adults (and should be focusing on women) will only lead to long term unhappiness.
Dave,
You took a particularly circuitous route to get to your point. You want to criticize women without actually criticizing women. So you blame men for somehow causing women to be “girls” instead of “women.”
Don’t be a wimp. If you think decadent over-18-year-old-possessors-of-XX-chromosomes (dissemble that!) should not be rewarded with male attention, just say so and have the cajones to take the feminist backlash. Trying to appease the feminists with tortured logic just makes everyone mad.
“So you blame men for somehow causing women to be “girls” instead of “women.””
Where did I do this?
You’re encouraging men not only stay away from, but also to not even fantacize about “girls” (i.e. a code word for “immature women”). This can only be interpreted as a call for men to socially ostracize these women until they “grow up”. It’s actually a pretty good idea. Modern women need to “woman up” and quit living in a fantasy world.
I just want writers such as yourself to be more gutsy in addressing the “elephant in the living room” that is the perpetual female adolescence that feminism has created.
Thanks Captain.
But I don’t like to give a blanket condemnation of all feminism. You’re right that various strains of Marxism within feminism have contributed to an extended adolescence for many. By I don’t think the way to attack this is by attacking “Feminism” but rather by attacking Marxism. All feminism should mean is “equal rights for women.” (In this understanding it’s actually just emphasizing that the principles of classical liberalism apply to women too.) So, I prefer to identify as a conservative feminist and show how various neglected feminist ideas line up with conservative values.
Examples: we should make sure our wives and daughters are skilled with firearms. The way to reduce rape is to increase the number of states with concealed carry laws.
Another example: the Old Testament was the revolutionary feminism of its day. The war against idolatry in the Old Testament is a war against nature-worshipping sex cults who enslaved women and children for temple prostitution and human sacrifice. An Old Testament that begins with man and woman as partners is a radically different vision compared to what was the standard in the ancient world.
That war of course continues to this day: http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/06/18/occupy-oakland-protests-in-favor-of-child-sex-trafficking/
People do not necessarily get to choose their sexual orientation. Some men are attracted to mature women, some to barely post-pubescent girls (or even younger), some to other men and some to boys. And some have an unquenchable desire for food, alcohol, leisure, gambling or vengeance.
In other words, we all have desires for sin; it’s called temptation. Different people have different temptations to fight.
I’m so with you. Do they think past their pants – no!
I would fault David Swindle not for being to narrow, but too broad. Not only should one not marry an immature girl looking for sex, but one should not marry a “business woman” (aka careerist feminist harridan), nor should someone marry another man. This whole discussion is trapped in the conventional wisdom, and that is an issue.
Well David, my young fellow, you have certainly made many proclamations about how men and women are and should be, and in the idealism of youth these things will seem right to you.
I’ll be curious to see how you feel when you have more experience living. It is likely that you will get to an age where you realize that nobody died and made you king, and some of your presuppositions are incorrect. Or not.
In any event, all you have to consider is how YOU react to women at various ages. Should you have a son, you will get to mold him and explain to him how women are from your own perspective. I’d advise that you very carefully explain the difference between what people say, and their actions…
This seems to be a central issue. But you do not get to mandate what mine or any other man’s action is, nor what we will think, you can only mandate consequence.
In 20 or 30 years, you will be able to look back on your words and judge
Dave, are you aware that Dennis Prager, a man that you hold in high regard (as do I) has publicly stated on his radio show that he does not think it is abnormal for grown men to be sexually attracted to adolescent girls? Presumably he was speaking strictly from a biological/evolutionary perspective. I don’t recall him saying whether he considered it immoral or unholy.
As for being “better than normal,” I think your comment to Joseph S. that “What’s wrong with you is that you’d be happier if you weren’t in a state of perpetually having desires that can never be fulfilled” is off base. Most men know the difference between fantasy and reality, and I doubt that even the true ephebophiles (the correct term for those whose sexual preference is for mid-to-late adolescents) spends the bulk of their idle time pining for that which they know they can’t have.
As for those “erotically-charged” swimwear shoots, those photos are no different that what can be seen at some of the family style (meaning attendance is open to all ages, although the models have to be at least 14) photo shoots held here in Southern California. http://www.photodays.info/page1.htm
“Dave, are you aware that Dennis Prager, a man that you hold in high regard (as do I) has publicly stated on his radio show that he does not think it is abnormal for grown men to be sexually attracted to adolescent girls?”
I’d want to see the exact quote and context of what Prager said. And “normal” is not the standard I’m advocating for here. Teenage boy sexuality is normal, mature husband sexuality is historically abnormal. That’s the issue that you’re avoiding addressing.