123go (a woman) writes:
Hmmm, no, sorry. This still doesn’t make sense. Growth and pregnancy don’t go together. Pregnancy stunts the growth of any animal. Even animals with indeterminate growth (grow throughout their entire lives, like snakes and crocs) will enter a cycle that stops growth so that they can become pregnant.
In human females, they start to mature faster than boys so that they can reach their max height faster, so that their body can work on widening the hips, and closing the growth plates. Even in modern day society, with girls having their first periods sooner, and growth happening faster, they’re still only seeing full sexual maturity at around or after 19 years of age, when the hips have splayed to open the birth canal.
The pelvis in both males and females doesn’t even start until they’re around 11-15, so that would preclude the ability to effectively carry a pregnancy. This would explain why teen mothers tend to need to have more c-sections in emergency situations, though more older females choose to have them done ahead of time.
Plus, according to the World Health Organization, women 19 and younger are apparently at greater risk of a wide number of adverse outcomes associated with pregnancy and delivery. The offspring they give rise to are also at a much higher risk for a number of adverse outcomes until they reach the age of two as well when compared to women 20+.
Apparently, according to fertility clinics, women 21-31 are in their prime, being the most fertile out of any age demographic, and having the best rates of health for themselves as well as their offspring. If males are looking for the best mates, would it not makes sense to then court young 20 year olds, so that you could be with them for all of their most fertile years?
Going with a younger female would mean standing the risk of stunting her development which would prevent her body from reaching full sexual maturity. It would increase her risk of dying in childbirth, increased risk of miscarriages, and the earlier the pregnancy, the worse the outcome for both the female mate, and the offspring.
Logically, if we’re looking at this scientifically, and based on the statistics, if you chose a younger mate than what was physically optimal in terms of reproduction, you would stand as a male to produce fewer offspring with such a female, and the ones that you had would apparently be weaker, more prone to preterm delivery, and other ailments. Compared to the more robust offspring that young 20 something women would give you. She would be healthy, and capable of providing more offspring soon after as well as their libido is apparently higher as well.
So I don’t think, that based on the evidence, especially with the thousands of articles spewing out of every journal of medicine every year about the dangers of adolescent pregnancy, that natural selection or evolution are the reasons for so many men’s fiction on young girls. If you think about it, it doesn’t explain why so many gay men prefer very young looking boys either. Maybe it’s something psychological. Or, if we’re going the evolutionary route for porn, maybe it’s the fact that most “teen”, “Lolita”, “jailbait” pornstars, aren’t actually teens at all, but actually slim women in their 20’s, which is actually quite common.
If not that, then maybe it has to do with a power fetish being that teens, male or female are often naive. Maybe some guys get off on the idea of being “first”, or more likely, the idea of not being compared to other sexual partners because there is an assumption of “innocence” and “virginity” with teens.
There are a lot of guys out there with chips on their shoulders, so being “the biggest someone has ever seen” in their minds at least, may be a big confidence boost for them. Plus, socially, mentally, physically etc. they would stand to be more powerful than a teen, and maybe that’s a turn on. After all, some people get their kinks from tying people up and hitting them. Feeling in power during sex is a huge turn on for some people.
Maybe on the other side of things, it could be that some dudes like to re-imagine their first sexual encounter, and this is their way of recapturing that. I don’t know, I’m not a psychologist, I’m just a scientist. But I definitely don’t think that attraction to girls that young has something to do with “evolutionary means” if they’re literally less efficient at popping out healthy brats without dying, hahaha.
This makes no sense. Study after study shows that all males are maximally attracted to all females age 16+. Other studies put maximal attraction at all females age 12+.
One study found that men reacted thus:
Age 16+ = maximal attraction
Age 15 = 90% of max
Age 14 = 80% of max
Age 13 = 70% of max
Age 12 = 60% of max
Age 11 = 50% of max
Age 10 = 40% of max
Age 9 = 30% of max
Age 8 = 20% of max
Age 7 = 10% of max
6-below = 0 attraction
As you can see, a 16 or 17 year old girl and a 18 or 19 year old woman are all the same for men. And they also the same as any mature woman of any age. According to men, once a female hits 16, she is simply a woman (if we define “woman” as “mature female”) and all mature females (or women) are equally attractive to men.
And if indeed there are increasing risks of pregnancy for girls aged 13-15, with the risks increasing as the girl gets younger, then men’s decreasing attraction to them as they get younger makes sense evolutionarily. On the other hand, it is rather difficult to impregnate a girl aged 13-15, although of course it can be done.
I don’t really care if maximal attraction to females aged 16-19 makes little sense evolutionarily. It doesn’t matter. Men are maximally attracted to females in these age ranges, obviously because they are fully developed by age 16.
The commenter suggests that the reasons that a lot men are maximally attracted to teenage females is due psychological reasons or a fetish. But why would these mysterious psychological reasons effect all males equally? Any psychological response experienced by all males would be assumed to be due to biology or an inborn or instinctual reaction.
Similarly, why would 100% of all males be maximally attracted to females aged 16-19 if it were merely due to a fetish? Fetishes are individualistic sexual preferences or attachments that are formed on the basis of experiences in childhood and puberty. Why would 100% of all males go through the exact same experiences in childhood and puberty that would cause them all to develop a fetish for girls age 16-19?
That makes no sense at all.
Evolutionary features in humans need not all make complete sense. As long as the trait is not dramatically maladaptive, it will tend to stick around.
Females are simply incapable of being rational about this teenage girl thing. Al of their arguments are based on emotions, and hence they are all irrational.