A MORE Definitive Answer re: Age Differences ...

[Admin]

For those who felt my previous reference from a PhD was insufficient, consider this:

This old man

Aug 30th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Younger women plus older men leads to older women and more children

AFTER the nagging question of why we are here at all, the one about why we age and die comes a pretty close second. The former is still largely the province of philosophy. For the latter, though, biology has several explanations, all of which revolve around a trade-off between longevity and the ability to reproduce.

Since those who cannot breed are, evolutionarily speaking, dead already, natural selection does not usually design bodies that outlive their own fertility. But it does sometimes. And one of those sometimeses applies to humans—for women, who usually cease to be fertile in their mid-40s, routinely live until their 70s or 80s.
 
Part of the explanation is that a woman has not truly finished her reproductive work until her last child has reached an age at which he can fend for himself. This might get the average woman in a contraceptive-free society as far as her early 60s. But after that, something else is clearly happening. And two papers unveiled this week suggest what it is. The first of these papers, published in the Public Library of Science by Shripad Tuljapurkar of Stanford University and his colleagues, shows it could be a consequence of the universal pattern by which older men marry younger women. The second, published in Biology Letters by Martin Fieder of the University of Vienna and Susanne Huber of the Veterinary Medicine University in the same city, shows that this universal pattern is, evolutionarily, the most successful one that people can adopt.

Tearing down the wall

The observation that women should hit a “wall of death” after the menopause renders them infertile was made by Bill Hamilton, a British evolutionary biologist, in 1966. Clearly they don't. But Hamilton failed to understand why.

Hamilton's approach was purely abstract. He reasoned that harmful mutations which have their effect before the menopause (or, in the more sophisticated version, before the last child has fled the nest) will be eliminated by natural selection. Those that have their effect afterwards will not. They will thus accumulate without being winnowed out and will eventually be present in overwhelmingly lethal numbers.

Since then, what is known as the grandmother hypothesis has become popular. This suggests that women's encounter with the grim reaper is postponed because they can perform for their grandchildren services similar to those they performed for their children. This is plausible. Indeed, it is backed by data. But it may not be the only cause, and Dr Tuljapurkar has come up with a purely genetic explanation of a sort that would have been dear to Hamilton's heart.

Unlike women, men do not have their fertility cut off suddenly. Viewed as a sex alone, then, they should not face a wall of death. Rather, they should face a “slope of death” that rises as their fertility falls. Except, of course, that it takes two to tango. A man partnered with an infertile woman is, infidelity aside, as evolutionarily irrelevant as if he were sterile himself. He, too, should therefore hit the wall.

But—and this is crucial—because men almost always marry women younger than themselves, such reproductive irrelevance comes to them later in life. Indeed, if they remarry they can postpone it almost indefinitely. That means harmful mutations whose effects appear in old age can still be eliminated. And since a gene passing down the generations spends half its time in women, they get the benefit of this elimination as well. Hence no wall of death for either sex.

The question remains, though, why in human couples the man is almost always older. The usual explanation goes something like this: men prefer women who are young and therefore maximally fertile, whereas women prefer men who have proved themselves to be genetically fit (by surviving) and to be “good providers” (by accumulating status and material possessions). Both of those things take time.

That explanation might be true. But wherever the truth lies, the consequence should be an increase in fecundity that is related to the age gap. And Dr Fieder and Dr Huber found that there is.

They did so by studying the records of 11,000 adult Swedes. They compared the number of children an individual had with the difference in age between him and his partner, or her and hers.

Among those who had stayed with one partner during their reproductive lives, they found that the peak number of children was born to women with partners four years older than themselves. The most fecund men were those with partners six years younger. Clearly, in evolutionary terms, the age difference really is good for both sides. Toyboys, apparently, just do not deliver the goods.

[jb]

Huh???

Dan, this paper disputes at every turn the validity of huge age gaps.  I suggest you reread the last few paragraphs again.

When he states:

The question remains, though, why in human couples the man is almost always older.

You see in the last paragraph he is referring to a 4-6 age difference, and the reproductive capabilities associated with an older man and a younger woman, not a 25-37 year gap.

I think the paper can be summarized by saying that social scientists have finally discovered that people eventually grow old and die.   OMG~! Whatever would we do without the scientist and his wisdom.   

[Admin]

Huh???

Dan, this paper disputes at every turn the validity of huge age gaps.  I suggest you reread the last few paragraphs again.

When he states:
You see in the last paragraph he is referring to a 4-6 age difference, and the reproductive capabilities associated with an older man and a younger woman, not a 25-37 year gap.

I think the paper can be summarized by saying that social scientists have finally discovered that people eventually grow old and die.   OMG~! Whatever would we do without the scientist and his wisdom.   

jb,

Indeed, the reference did not extend to 20+ years age difference. It did, however, quite plainly indicate that older men and younger women seems to have some basis in evolutionary terms, evidence the following quotation:

But—and this is crucial—because men almost always marry women younger than themselves, such reproductive irrelevance comes to them later in life. Indeed, if they remarry they can postpone it almost indefinitely. That means harmful mutations whose effects appear in old age can still be eliminated. And since a gene passing down the generations spends half its time in women, they get the benefit of this elimination as well. Hence no wall of death for either sex.

Clearly this speaks to the potential positive effect of men coupling with younger, even much younger, women - for BOTH sexes.

BTW - I do not want to appear an apologist for promoting large age differences. At the same time, I clearly consider it everyone's free choice to seek a partner with whom they will be happy. Articles such as these, and ensuing debate, help to clarify for each RWD member which is the best choice for their particular circumstances.

- Dan

[jb]

I clearly consider it everyone's free choice to seek a partner with whom they will be happy.

And I very clearly agree. 

It's the constant barrage, and continued onslaught, of verbage directed primarily to the furtherance of the myth that FSU women actually want to marry a grandfather figure that I take exception to.  IMHO, nothing could be more wrong.

Just my 2 cents.

[William3rd]

Make it 4c- I will raise you my 2c worth, since I agree.

[BC]

In the grand scheme of things it probably started out like this:

The man with the greatest capability of providing food and safety was the mate most sought after.  Although the young, fertile woman may have admired many and had other admirers, the strongest of the men won. (Remember when it comes to conception, there are a lot of factors that play, including perceived security and safety by the woman.  There are quite a few papers out there linking stress with infertility.) 

I don't think monogamy was the name of the game back then, more like 'hold till you fold' (under the club of a stronger contender).  Since nature provided women the ability to bear many children and men only the ability to hunt and protect, the majority of surviving newborns were male.  After all, many males were expended trying to turn dinosaurs into steak and protecting their women.  Clans that mastered hunting to the degree that the male population increased dramatically were forced to search out and conquer clans with lesser weapons and protective skills in order to aquire women to balance things out.

In the times of club wielding tribes, the playing field was probably quite level and served well for the strongest clans to survive by ensuring the best genetic structures were promoted.

Thereafter things went downhill in genetic terms.. 

Enter the age when use of clubs and similar weapons for the purpose of acquiring mates was banned. Emphasis shifted from safety to security.. under the cloak of security comes the ability to feed and clothe, thus the most wealthy inherited the pick of the litter.  In the industrial age physical strength and youth was still rated as major bread winning abilities so the field although with bumps still remained pretty level.

Enter the modern age where the physical strength necessary to be a good provider (in relative terms) lies in the ability to push little buttons with fingertips in a coordinated manner and not broomsticks, shovels, hammers or plough, with ability rated by the number and color of 2 x 3 inch plastic cards that relieve stress.

Women in some geographic areas, seeing how simple it was to replicate these rather minor physical abilities, decided that the alternative of DIY was greater than available strong genetic material.. after all one could even acquire excellent genetic material with their own earnings and wealth without the need of a provider at all, either by artificial or natural means.. - practically any time they chose thanks to modern medicine!

This baffled very many lonely, rapidly ageing men holding multi-colored plastic cards, still driven by primal urges to leave their genetic legacy behind.

To their rescue, technology provided the means necessary to reach new geographic areas, and as millennia before they set out to conquer far off lands with unique and powerful plastic weapons in search of plentiful bounty in the form of young women in childbearing years.

That brings us up to today me thinks..

Don't underestimate the power of these primal instincts.. I remember a while back hearing stories about Italian men that would not only carry condoms, but also a sewing needle to poke a hole in the condom in order to prove their strength and power to the ladies..  You know what.. Italian or not, I believe it!

Ok.. I've had my say... LOL

[Admin]

I have to confess - I never for a moment considered my Mastercard or Visa to be the modern equivalent of a wooden club.

 

We may have to change the emoticon from a bat to a credit card.

- Dan

[BC]

I have to confess - I never for a moment considered my Mastercard or Visa to be the modern equivalent of a wooden club.

Dan,

Was one of my 'brighter' moments...

Well IMHE the ladies do seem to prefer rare metal coloured AMEX.. My wife didn't let up until her name was on one..

Guess we could also replace swinging with swiping..

 

[Turboguy]

Yes, it makes sense to me.  Primal man when he was upset with his wife would throw heavy rocks at her and she would think, yes, I have a strong man who will protect me.  I will be good to him.

Modern man when he is upset with his wife simply throws credit cards at her and she thinks yes, I have a man with a strong credit rating who will protect me.  I will be good to him. 

[BC]

Yes, it makes sense to me.  Primal man when he was upset with his wife would throw heavy rocks at her and she would think, yes, I have a strong man who will protect me.  I will be good to him.

I don't think he would have needed to lift a pebble, much less throw it.. he would simply grab a woman out of the next weakest guy's bed.

Happens all the time, even today.

[SANDRO43]

I don't think monogamy was the name of the game back then

I doubt it is now, either, on a deep biological/evolutionary basis (BTW, this was discussed back in February: http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=3617.msg67130#msg67130).

BC, since you appear to be interested in this topic and I assume you can read Italian, I would recommend you to read my source: Ti amerò per sempre ("I shall love you forever", I don't kow if an English translation is available) by Piero Angela, the science/technology divulgator whose programs you may have watched on Italian TV (e.g. Super Quark).