In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« DVD Journal: "Exterminating Angels" | Main | Question for the Day »

June 03, 2008

Always Chasing 20-Year-Olds

Donald Pittenger writes:

Dear Blowhards --

No links here -- I'm just passing along what I read from time to time and hope that you have come across something similar while wading the media content stream.

It has to do with men who seem to be perpetually fixated on women in their (early) twenties.

Being interested in, say, 23-year-old gals is what is expected for guys who are 25 or 26. But some men at age 35 or 36 slough off their 33-year-old wives for a new 23-year-old wife or girlfriend. And when that women starts losing her bloom of youth, she in turn gets replaced by you-know-what. By the time the man is in his 50s and 60s, I have to assume he is likely to be rich or powerful or both, because his physical attraction quotient is probably on the skids.

Why are some men this way? No question that women with slender arms, smooth skins -- especially without any of the first tell-tales of aging on the neck and under the chin -- and all the other attributes of a newly-adult body can be very attractive. This aesthetic factor seems central, so what matters is how men are motivated by this. There can be many reasons, some idiosyncratic. But the prime reason is that it's a male-ego thing: "Hey, look! See that I can still attract real babes!" This is the classic case where the woman truly is the "object" so beloved by feminist ideologists.

The secondary reason is probably the related factor of age -- the "I can still" element. (Few adults welcome the prospect of growing older. One possible exception was Salvador Dalí who once claimed that he wanted to be old or something like that; I read it years ago and forget the exact words. Keep in mind that he made a number of statements for the sole purpose of attracting attention. He finally got his wish, if that's what it really was.)

Unfortunately for the ideologists, most men seem to be more sensible than the stereotype suggests. My contention is that, if a relationship with the younger woman continues for longer than even a few weeks or months, it can be hard to sustain the women-as-object attitude. That is, that "relationship" will almost certainly evolve into a relationship and the man will have to regard the woman seriously as a human being. This kind of relationship-building is difficult to the extent that the two people differ in terms of shared background, outlook, and so forth. I think most adults beyond age 45 or so recognize the need such sharing -- especially generational sharing -- as reality.

So when a May-September (if not November or December) relationship is encountered, adults possessing more than a smidgen of wisdom will roll their eyes and think "What the hell is going on? What kind of fools are they?" And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of men would consider the guy with the young babe to be a minor species of jerk and perhaps not trustworthy on a number of dimensions. (A dab of envy might be in play here, but the contempt is more a matter of common sense. I think that any thought like "Wow! Wish that gal was mine!" would quickly be replaced by the realization that having her would probably be more trouble than worth.)

Nothing new in all that babble above? You bet! But it needs to be repeated now and then in our culture suffering in the aftermath of the Sixties.

Some of you will shout au contraire! Which is why we have our comments link below.

As for me, I'm out of here for a few days. If I can find convenient Internet access in Victoria, I'll check the comments and respond if can can add something halfway sensible. Otherwise, I'll be back this weekend.



posted by Donald at June 3, 2008


But the prime reason is that it's a male-ego thing: "Hey, look! See that I can still attract real babes!" This is the classic case where the woman truly is the "object" so beloved by feminist ideologists.

The secondary reason is probably the related factor of age -- the "I can still" element.

these are both minor -- *very* minor -- reasons for the pursuit of young women in the prime of their fertile bloom by men who have the option to pursue with a reasonable chance of success. the overridingly predominant reason is... wait for it...
hold on...
just oooone more second...

younger women look and feel better! the sex is hotter! they turn us on more!

yep, it really is about our penises, then, now, and forevermore.

thought experiment: offer a typical older man the opportunity for a long, hot, loving sexual relationship with a younger pretty woman on the one condition that his young muse cannot ever be seen in public with him. their relationship can only be expressed and consummated behind closed doors and away from prying eyes, ensuring that his ego will never be stroked in the way you'd expect an ego-centric man would want it stroked.

how many older men would take this offer? with enthusiasm?

answer: a lot. probably all of them. and with a degree of enthusiasm that'll make them feel like they're 22 again.

A dab of envy might be in play here,

oh, it's more than a dab.

but the contempt is more a matter of common sense.

in the matter of disapproving, clucking women, it's not contempt.
it's fear.

Posted by: roissy on June 3, 2008 6:57 PM

I've started a new series at my blog on the non-sensory appeal of younger girls, in part to dispel once and for all the myth that attraction to younger girls is primarily driven by hedonism or "I can still" posturing.

Sure, the physical appeal is there, but their personality, demeanor, energy level, and so on, are just as important -- in fact, more so if the attraction is lasting, rather than a brief "wow, these college girls are nice looking!"

C'mon, what was the real reason that Bill Murray's character is so hopelessly sucked into the world of Scarlet Johansson's character in Lost in Translation? Not physical: his wife was an icy nag. The Audrey Rouget character in Metropolitan also has plenty of youthful vulnerability and insecurity, which attracts older men into wanting to protect her, as well as youthful naivete and lack of cynicism. And she's not a hot babe. The more well-read can provide other examples.

Here are just a few non-physical allures of younger girls:

- Not being jaded about men or romance, since they haven't had as many souring experiences.

- Combining playful and bashful behavior, like a pound puppy eager to get a visitor to take it home. "Adopt me" behavior is incredibly hard to resist.

- Being more affectionate. When older women hug their partners, how often do they push themselves onto their tip-toes and lean into him, relying on him for support while they throw their arms around him? (Just one example.)

- Having a higher energy level or emotional responsiveness. It's much more rewarding to feel like we're provoking a favorable response in our partner, rather than feel like our efforts aren't appreciated.

I would modify the description of the "I can still" attitude, not as thumbing our nose at Father Time, like "Hey look at me! I can still ____, nah nah nah!" But rather: "Oh thank God, I still get to enjoy _____ for a little bit longer before I croak!"

A dab of envy might be in play here, but the contempt is more a matter of common sense. I think that any thought like "Wow! Wish that gal was mine!" would quickly be replaced by the realization that having her would probably be more trouble than worth.

Envy is at the root of the contemptuous response, but as you point out, the "more trouble than she's worth" is an after-thought, a rationalization to make the pain of cognitive dissonance go away. That's healthy of course; I hope I respond that way when I can no longer enjoy the energy of young girls, or I'll die incredibly miserable.

I very much doubt that the '60s counter-culture favors large age differences in relationships. They would consider it the antithesis of progressivism and modernism. In fact, Berlusconi and Putin provide better examples of the old man who loves young girls.

Posted by: agnostic on June 3, 2008 7:44 PM

Without wishing to take the bait and get all feminist on you, I must take issue with roissy, who I will henceforth think of as The Penis Guy.

Men who have secret affairs with young women are still reaping the ego-boost and reassurance that they're studs. Same goes for women with secret lovers.

I do think that smoothe young skin is attractive for biological reasons. Duh! However, with maturity comes the desire for genuine understanding and companionship. By middle age, the male has, presumably, already achieved his purpose of procreating.

So a continuing preoccupation with smoothe young skin seems like arrested development.

I'm not clucking or disapproving, Penis Guy, I'm just saying.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on June 3, 2008 7:57 PM

I have not found young women in their 20s attractive since I was in my early 30s. i find many of them to be complete ditzes.

Posted by: bob on June 3, 2008 8:15 PM

Oh my! Agnostic, your reasons make me feel sad for you. It sounds like you've had some unhappy relationships.

Are you looking for a woman or a puppy??

You sound like a parody of a personals ad: "Seeking a happy slim woman with no baggage."

The more you explain what you seek from young women, the sadder you sound. Sorry.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on June 3, 2008 8:19 PM

I love Roissy's blog. It's like reading about the mating habits of New Guinean tribesmen: they're still fellow humans, so much valuable wisdom is in play, but their lifestyles and value systems are so different from my own that I spend half the time shaking my head in amused disbelief.

Roissy and his ilk pay a heavy price for their goal of varied, hot sex. He seems to spend most of his free time in loud bars, trying to entice women two decades his junior with bits of string or bouncy balls, at parties watching drinking games (!), or engaging in the most vacuous conversations imaginable with women he desires but appears to despise all the same. I'm not sure if he even believes in the idea of a happy marriage or two people growing old together. Well, more power to him, but many men would probably be happier in the long run if they listened to Donald instead of Roissy.

Posted by: CyndiF on June 3, 2008 8:44 PM

As a woman happily married to a man nearly 10 years younger than I, I say "bravo for men who like older women." It's odd, though, that the double-standard still exists. The older man-younger woman thing seems to be more acceptable than the older woman-younger man thing.

As for me and my husband, we only notice the age difference when we discuss favorite childhood cartoons.

Posted by: Decca on June 3, 2008 8:58 PM

"Why are some men this way?"

There's the upside, covered well by Roissy and Agnostic, but there's also the lack of, or elimination of, a downside. In the post, you talk about a man trading in his wife for a new model every ten years or so. This would be impossible or at least extremely difficult under a traditional Western divorce scheme, available only to a King, if that. There may have also been extra-legal sanctions (shunning, beating the shit out of) for open and notorious serial hypergamy. There's a reason a lot of these guys have gorilla's covering their backs when they hit the town.

Posted by: CZ on June 3, 2008 9:06 PM

I agree with much of what Roissy said. It's really simple. Twenty-somethings are on average hotter than thirty-something women. WOmen don't age as well as men. Also, and this is important, men can get MUCH hotter 20-something women when they get older than they can when they're younger...they have more game, better jobs, more money, more status, rugged looks, and more confidence...all the things that women find attractive. It's not about realizing they've still got it, it's about realizing they've got it better than ever. Nobody tells men beforehand that their stock is going to rise with age.

Posted by: T. on June 3, 2008 9:30 PM

agnostic, I just want to tell you that I enjoy your blog. Good stuff.

Posted by: jonathanjones02 on June 3, 2008 9:40 PM

I actually question just how common these big-age-gap relationships really are. They get a lot of attention because they're unusual, and because celebrities and other well-known people sometimes get involved in them, but that doesn't necessarily translate into high numbers. Of course they're also a common Internet meme, but that certainly doesn't mean much ... mail-order bride marriages get a lot of attention online, but in real life account for something like one-quarter of one percent of all marriages in America.

Posted by: Peter on June 3, 2008 10:13 PM

With several important exceptions, I find younger women more attractive than older ones. Some of the reasons have already been mentioned, but let me add a few. Younger women tend to have their heads less filled with the sheer nonsense people pick up from a college education and watching television. Younger women are less likely to have a permanent grudge against men--though let me hasten to say, that that isn't always true. Young women have a kind of charm and enthusiasm that fades away as they grow older and absorb the aforementioned nonsense. And last but not least, the sanctimonious arrogance that some older women display really does take decades to develop.

Posted by: bryan on June 3, 2008 10:30 PM

Sister Wolf wrote

"By middle age, the male has, presumably, already achieved his purpose of procreating."

Should be "By middle age, the women has, presumably (hopefully) .........."

The male? No such limits.

Posted by: glennron on June 3, 2008 10:56 PM

I'm fifty-nine years of age and I've always been attracted to older women. (A proviso: said older women need to be good sorts and in good shape. Rare? Tell me about it!)

I like being this way. It's the only thing I have in common (kind of) with Prince Charles, so I'm holding on to it.

As far as dismissing younger women and teens as ditzes's a grisly utilitarian attitude that's little better than May-September lechery. Have you ever had an adorable niece show you how she can complete the dozen or so phases of painting her toe-nails in under three hours (with shortcuts)? Fifteen years later you're still beaming when the little toe-nail painter becomes a highly-paid management type. Have we forgotten what "cute" used to mean?

I know, I know...Yeats, Victor Hugo etc. And I've had numerous male friends who dearly want to jump on young girls. All I can say is: I don't get it...and I'm glad I don't get it.

Posted by: Robert Townshend on June 3, 2008 11:11 PM

As soon as I read this post, I thought "I wonder how long it will take Roissy to chime in." Then, when I read the comments...voila! First one out of the box.

I agree with the above comment to the effect of younger women lacking cynicism. By the time a young lady has been Roissied a few times, she will never be the same again...although I'm confident that few of the kind of girls I'm interested in would let a PUA get very far...which leads me to point out the western context of the discussion. There are still cultures in which a large majority of the girls save it for marriage. There are no PUAs there in the Roissy/Roosh sense, because all the game in the world won't bring about what the girls (and their families) won't allow to happen. If a good man (youthful, polite, respectful, sincere, deep financial roots) comes along, an age difference (ten years, twenty years, sometimes significantly more) simply does not have the ick factor that it does in places like America.

If you're thinking (cynically) that it's only the money, may I suggest that perhaps you haven't been in such places, nor met the participants? There are many girls who are very well-raised, very wise for their years, willing to consider marrying (marrying, not rolling in the sack with) an older man who are nonetheless *girls* and can and will fall hard (with deep and genuine emotion, no guile) for that older man, IF he is worthy (simply having money does not equal worth). It's a form of arbitrage, a magical one. Girl can fulfill her childhood fantasy of getting swept off her feet by a prince (or king, as the age case may be), man can fulfill the male yearning to be a knight in shining armor.

If a girl is young, the generational difference (lack of common cultural experiences) is a drawback, but it need not prevent a happy life together. A girl can make a man young again in many ways, inspring him, EXCITING him, to be the absolute best he can be.

But, alas, what I'm describing is undoubtedly a rare exception in countries like USA, where girls are among the ditziest in the world.

And now, if it pleases the posters, I call Gannon to the stand...

Posted by: Yakking Guy on June 3, 2008 11:16 PM

I'm afraid Roissy has it exactly right. It is sheer physical attraction, the visceral senses lighting up at the prospect of a close encounter of the young female kind. Maybe it's a "game" for some older guys, but I would bet that most older married men would gladly shell out money for a mistress or two if they could afford it, and if they could do so and still keep their older spouses. We know how rare this is. Having your cake and eating it, too is a luxury few men can afford and few wives would allow. However, I do know of one (wealthy) man in my area who actually kept a younger woman with the knowledge of his wife. Discretion was the word.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on June 3, 2008 11:28 PM

I concur with Roissy and Charlotte: Men simply like good looking women. That should come as no shock. Good looking women tend to be young. End of story.

Remember: Feminists like Gloria Steinem had no qualms about dating older, powerful men when they were young. Now that they're past their prime, they're trying to make it culturally suspect when younger women date older guys.

More feminist propaganda, and the media eats it up like a dog eats his own feces.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on June 4, 2008 12:24 AM

"Younger women tend to have their heads less filled with the sheer nonsense people pick up from a college education."

Hahaha! You guys are hilarious! I only wish you'd include photos with your comments. This might explain everything.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on June 4, 2008 1:26 AM

I'm confused about what we're talking about: settling down with someone? Having a quick fling with someone? Two very different things.

You'd have to shoot me before I'd settle down with a really young woman. They're boring. Not intrinsically, but to me. Been there done that. Don't want to listen to them talk about their feelings and friends, let alone put up with their appalling cellphone manners.

And the shared cultural/generational stuff that Donald mentions is totally lacking. You've got nothing in common besides (with luck) an interest in sex with each other. You're always having to try to communicate not just over the usual sex barrier (men and women speak different languages) but across a big age barrier too.

I registered this years ago when I was around 30 and had a brief romance with a 17 year old. One of the prettiest girls I ever dated, and a nice-enough (if very spoiled) kid. So the moment when her clothes started to come off was certainly a thrill. But we had less than zero to enjoy when we weren't having sex.

And, to be honest, even the sex ... Well, yeah, it was hot in some memorable ways, and I'm glad to have had the adventure. She was indeed ripe and great looking. But for her, where sex was concerned, there was still a lot of young-girl angst happening. I was one of her first lovers; she was full of new feelings and thoughts ... I suppose all that can have its charms if your tastes run in that joy-of-defloration direction. But I'd been there, and I'd already put up with that from more than a few girls. I was more in the mood for someone who'd developed a little worldliness and ease. We used up all our interest in each other in about two weeks. And that was fine. I have nice memories, and I hope she does too.

But enjoying looking at ripe young things? Sure, why not? And -- playing the game of "in an ideal world would you enjoy a short fling with ...?" -- again, sure why not? Bouncy-bouncy definitely has its appeal. Guys are wired to respond to the bounce, and I expect to be enjoying it when I'm in my 90s and in a wheelchair. Let's hope I behave in non-disgraceful ways, but no matter what I'll still be stealing looks at the cute nurses.

But as far as having an actual fling with a young 'un at my advanced age? (Let's assume that it'd be OK with the Wife, since we're in "in an ideal world" mode ...) Well, sure, why not? But first I'd want a written guarantee from God that I'd be spared all the other stuff that so often comes along with young women -- clinging, neediness, acting-out, excessive drama, daddy issues, destroying marriages just because, etc.

Look, it's a predicament, and it may simply not have a solution. Women peak in terms of their ripeness at about 18. But at that age most of them are messed-up idiots who know nothing about life, and often even about sex. By the time women wise up and develop expertise and worldliness (and savvy and ease where sex is concerned), they're physically showing some mileage. I don't know that there's any resolution let alone any totally happy solution to this fact. C'est la vie, apparently.

Exceptions allowed for, of course, but this does seem to be a basic fact about life, much remarked-upon in the literature of many different cultures.

It seems to me that there are ways not of solving the problem but of contending with it. Women can stay in shape and take care of themselves so that by the time they're in their 30s, 40s, and beyond, and they finally know their way around, they're still physically appealing. Men can accept the fact that worldliness, interestingness, and fine companionship don't often arrive in a tight 18 year old package, and can open up to the charms and allure of gals older than 20.

Some cultures allow gals and guys to have both long-term relationships and arrangements on the side. Others informally encourage older-younger relationships as good ways to start off sex lives -- the 15 year old boy is introduced to sex by the neighbor lady, the 15 year old girl is introduced to sex by Daddy's boss, that kind of thing. That way the younger person gets shown the ropes, while the older person gets the thrill of handling ripe young flesh (and the pleasure of passing along some wisdom and experience). Neither one expects anything longterm out of the encounter.

But we make all kinds of arrangements back-and-forth between the sexes all the time, don't we? A small for instance: Decent guys with mates learn how not to stare at every passing ripe young thing. We have strong instinctive urges to eyeball the passing bouncy parade, but we restrain ourselves out of consideration for the gal we're with. Meanwhile, a considerate gal with a guy mate appreciates his efforts, cuts him slack if he slips up from time to time, and (if she's really smart) even asks him about whether he finds this or that girl hot, and doesn't turn it into a testing or a jealousy thing. She enjoys his maleness -- she isn't angered by his predatory side. And she's appreciative of his efforts to control himself and is turned on by them too.

As for the aging, youth-obsessed alpha with too much money ... Eh, he'll do what he'll do, and that may well include numerous relationships with slim ambitious 18 year olds. But that ain't me, and that almost certainly ain't you. Fun to observe, maybe, but are there really many life lessons to be learned there?

In an ideal world would I enjoy a one-nighter with a fresh and charming 18 year old every couple of months? Sure. Meanwhile, back here on Earth ...

On a mostly unrelated note, I confess that I'm puzzled by the number of people who write that women lose that special something once they've had a little sexual experience. Wow do I disagree. I mean, I know what's being referred to, I think -- dewiness, innocence, unself-conscious avidity, etc. But 1) that's all gonna go one day soon anyway, 2) if we don't get all hung up about it, what replaces it can have its own charms -- savviness, playfulness, pleasure, ease ... Maybe I'm a callous bastard but I think it often does a person good to have his/her heart broken a few times. If you can make it thru that yet keep the interest and hope alive you've got yourself a very appealing package. And demonizing experience and heartbreak ... I dunno, it's self-defeating, isn't it? Experience comes whether you want it to or not, and heartbreak is often a part of that. Why insist on seeing those facts as depressing?

Maybe I'm a weirdo, but most of the really great sex I've had wasn't with dewy young things, it was with gals (some older, some younger) who'd been around some and who had developed some appetite for exploring this sex thing in the company of a passable guy (me). Yes, it can be a challenge acquiring experience without becoming callous, and without losing your freshness and responsiveness. But a number of people manage the trick.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 4, 2008 3:10 AM

Young girls have had their hearts broken plenty -- maybe not what we'd consider plenty, but from their point-of-view, pretty bad. I remember making my girlfriend in 6th grade bawl over the phone because I was no longer interested and just told her (hey, I was 12). All those boys they've had crushes on who danced with other girls right in front of them at prom, etc.

I don't think we were talking about teenagers being innocent in that sense -- we know that adolescence is a nightmare emotionally. We're talking about a larger cynicism about romance and men -- not from being heartbroken and learning that guys can hurt you, but from having 10,000 guys approach you in one way or another from age 18 to 23, all with the same lame pickup lines and eager leer in their eyes. After that experience, it's no wonder they conclude that all men are despicable dogs.

So, we're not looking for someone who believes that guys can do no harm (that wouldn't be bad either), but just someone who still has her respect for men intact. There are girls who are shielded or sheltered from the above, and they are fine too -- but they're the exception.

Others are saying it's mostly physical... hmmm, I guess this dimension may become more salient should I be forced to touch a 30-something woman, but up till now (at 27) I've always had PYTs to touch. Maybe I should touch some 30-something butt just to make the contrast stand out and really convince me that I've made the right decision.

About worldliness, etc., I think again you've been blessed by meeting the exceptions. Most educated 30-something women have zero level of culture, aside from reading The Da Vinci Code and perusing the expository labels in the Whole Foods cheese section ("Manchego comes from the land of Don Quixote..."). While we're hunting for exceptions, why not find young exceptions?

Fluid reasoning skills (IQ) decline pretty sharply after 30, although book smarts stay the same or increase mildly. So expect conversations and debates to be less logical with a 30 or 40-something than a 20-something.

Maybe it's just me, but if I want a real conversation about X, I find someone who knows a lot about X. It may be my girlfriend, but probably not, and certainly not across all cases of curiosity.

I also don't get the desire to "be at the same place in life." She's a female, and I'm a male, so that makes our lives fairly different right there. Why not take the same approach to age -- sure, the younger girl worries about things that are so NOT worth worrying about that you have to stifle your laughter.

But you don't have to think, "God, what a clueless ditz, shut up!" You could think, "Aw, how cute -- I remember being that clueless!" That's how people respond to the cluelessness of their nieces and nephews. Appreciating each other's differences is a viable alternative to trying to be on the same page.

Posted by: agnostic on June 4, 2008 5:01 AM

Well, Michael that was a nice diatribe, and some of it was true but I must disagree with some points.

If you're a fortysomething guy who keeps up with technology and the music scene (to cite two examples) then dating a 25-year-old is NOT a stretch. I have more in common with younger women because of this than women my own age, who often take up esoteric hobbies (i.e. wicca, those strange exercise classes, traveling to oddball places, exotic pets, cooking very smelly things that make them smell bad).

Second, I hate to sound like a Roissy-programmed machine, but again he made a great point: Sex is often better not because the woman has "skills," but because the man is excited by her hot, young body. That's why, in retrospect, the best sex I has was with my teenage girlfriend. She was near-flawless and I was so turned on I could hardly think. THAT is the point.

Finally, there is the anger issue. Older single women seem bitter too often. I encourage everyone to re-read the comments in this post by Sister Wold (whose Web URL is the friendly "") for a good example. BTW, Sister, regarding the "looks" of some of us, I look like Dustin Hoffman circa "All the President's Men" and once dated a Girl of the Ivy League.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on June 4, 2008 8:00 AM

Women don't age as well as men

Horsefeathers. Now that I'm so heavily into fitness I take much more notice of other men's fitness levels than before. Riding the train to work every day gives me plenty of opportunity. It is shocking how so many men let their bodies go completely down the toilet after age 35 or so. Having a bulging distended abdomen, in particular, is almost a badge of membership for the over-35 club, notwithstanding the fact that for men having a big belly creates an elevated risk of taking a premature dirt nap. Women, in contrast, seem to do a better job of staying physically fit after 35. Sure, they may get some wrinkles here and there, but those are superficial and not really important.

Posted by: Peter on June 4, 2008 9:26 AM

I haven't answered this post because... well, it seems insane.

I just returned from the Philippines, a society that is still macho and largely dominated by men. What a relief to get away from the constant moaning and groaning about the status of women and the depredations of men! I could go the rest of my life without talking or thinking about that crap.

The U.S. has become such a female dominated society, so rapt with anxiety about the status of women that even men spend their time worrying constantly about purported slights to women, and fear to even express, however hesitantly, their self-interest.

For my own part, I really don't give a shit whether my romantic or sexual life fits the political or social template of any group of individual. I could have brought home three 20 year old women from the Phillipines and set up house here in the U.S., if that were my desire. If anybody were to challenge me about that, my response would be to invite them in the back alley for an ass kicking.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on June 4, 2008 9:32 AM

Agnostic -- It seems to me that you're 1) defending your love of very young women, and 2) writing maybe more about your generation's predicaments than you realize. As for 1), enjoy away -- I can't imagine why anyone would want to get in your way, some fathers aside. But it's a fairly common thing for many men to find 18 year olds pretty, bouncy, fizzy -- and also emptyheaded and exhausting. As for 2), well, it's interesting to hear what you have to say and to get the snapshots of big-city dating and sex from Roissy. But it all has very little to do with the experience of previous generations. Like CyndiF, I enjoy reading this stuff but much of it has a horror-movie quality. Much of me is thinking "Has it really come to this?"

DOBA -- You're the rare 40 year old who has enough energy (and enough interest in new pop culture) to keep up with a kid. For many guys the energy question gets monumentally in the way. The girl after all wants to go out, dance up a storm, stay up late and then do it all over again in two days. By 40, most guys I've known have gotten to the point where they're up for that maybe a half dozen times a year. And that causes real stresses between gal and guy. As for your other point (pretty girls are hotter, because they're pretty): well, beauty isn't to be under-esteemed, and I certainly enjoy Roissy as a provocateur and performance artist. Back in the real world, though, the generalization doesn't correspond to my actual experience much. Some beautiful women I had romances were among the lousiest lays I ever had. They just weren't into it much. It was as though their participation was over -- being beautiful was supposed to be enough. Meanwhile, a lot ofthe hottest and most enthusiastic sex I ever had was with less-remarkable looking girls. They were rowdier, had more spirit, expressed it physically, loved being loved, etc. There's something I think of as "the sex gift," and some people have it and many don't. Many people really aren't into sex much. It makes them anxious, they wonder what it's all about, it strikes them as a lot of trouble ... After the initial 14-to-25 year old craziness when everyone's just nuts with hormones, what keeps you going? Many people kind of drop out, or settle down, or lose a lot of their previous interest ... It's like any hobby or interest in that way. Some people connect and keep connecting forever. For others the magic slips away. But now: beautiful and with the sex gift, that is a nice combo.

Peter -- Given how most men let themselves go it *is* pretty funny how picky they can be about women's looks, isn't it? Plus there are cycles ... When I went to a high school reunion in my late 20s, for instance, many of the gals were looking spectacular, including many who'd been plain Janes in high school. Meanwhile most of the guys were already going to seed. By 50, nearly everyone had lost it -- there were only a dozen or so people who still even looked a little like they'd looked as high schoolers.

ST -- Another great rant. The U.S. is an awfully pussified country, isn't it?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 4, 2008 10:04 AM

"Fluid reasoning skills (IQ) decline pretty sharply after 30, although book smarts stay the same or increase mildly. So expect conversations and debates to be less logical with a 30 or 40-something than a 20-something."

Have you tried that line on your advisor, Agnostic?

Posted by: CyndiF on June 4, 2008 10:42 AM

If the price is "keep[ing] up with ... the music scene", include me out.

Posted by: dearieme on June 4, 2008 10:59 AM

About worldliness, etc., I think again you've been blessed by meeting the exceptions. Most educated 30-something women have zero level of culture, aside from reading The Da Vinci Code and perusing the expository labels in the Whole Foods cheese section ("Manchego comes from the land of Don Quixote..."). While we're hunting for exceptions, why not find young exceptions?

Fluid reasoning skills (IQ) decline pretty sharply after 30, although book smarts stay the same or increase mildly. So expect conversations and debates to be less logical with a 30 or 40-something than a 20-something.

Though I agree with him in general, I think agnostic goes overboard here in defence of young girls. A good conversation with a beautiful, cultured, sophisticated woman can be an enormous pleasure too, and to get that combination you have to look at women in their late 20s or 30s (or, rarely, someone who has kept their looks into their 40s, like Clio). Raw IQ isn't really the issue. For most anything you need knowledge and sophistication to make anything really interesting out of your IQ and those things take time to accumulate. I will grant that such cultured women are always going to be the exception, but they are pretty much non-existent at 20.

Again, I don't want to deprecate the enormous charms of young girls, but there is gain as well as loss in women getting older, even from a man's perspective.

Why not link to some of Michael's thoughts on the Frenchwoman, the archetype for graceful aging:

Posted by: Thursday on June 4, 2008 11:30 AM

Mmph. A good many of these points of the advantage of dating younger could be made by women about men. Younger men less bitter (especially those whom I encounter here and at Roissy's website)? check. More enthusiastic about life? check. "Hotter"? check. Of course, I'm thinking of an 8-10 year age difference, not a 15-20 year one.

It seems absolutely preposterous to me that men who have clearly taken full advantage of the sexual revolution, probably behaving like cads at least some of the time, could be so lacking in understanding of why women might have good reason to become bitter during their years of singlehood. It seems equally preposterous that men can be so contemptuous of women who seem too eager to marry, and of those who don't manage to marry by age 26 or so.

I'm starting to wonder if men really aren't the logical sex, after all.

Posted by: alias clio on June 4, 2008 12:38 PM

Wow, quite a few comments on this one. Donald seems to have hit a nerve with some people. Personally, though I too find 2o year olds attractive (even though I am three times that age myself), I've always thought the the inability to be with anyone else to be pathetically shallow and immature.

Posted by: Lester Hunt on June 4, 2008 1:04 PM

Women peak in terms of their ripeness at about 18. But at that age most of them are messed-up idiots who know nothing about life, and often even about sex. By the time women wise up and develop expertise and worldliness (and savvy and ease where sex is concerned), they're physically showing some mileage.

That is the tragedy of women. And, in its own way, it is our tragedy too. Neither of us really gets what we want from the other, do we?

Agreed with the point about hot sex above. My enjoyment of sex is determined solely by how turned on I am, before and during. Her technical skill (which too often consists of various "teasing" and other delaying tactics) simply takes me beyond the point of maximum climactic pleasure (no more than ten minutes in). And no amount of technique can substitute for unattractiveness. At best it can provide a kind of more generalized "sensual" pleasure to compensate for the comparative absence of genuinely intense sexual satisfaction.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 4, 2008 1:13 PM

Technique does matter, of course, when she is performing oral sex on the man, though even there good technique is often not doing certain things. But even great fellatio is simply boring when it goes on much beyond, what, five minutes? Again, it's my degree of passion, of excitement, that determines how great the sex is for me. And that's determined by how desirable I find the woman.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 4, 2008 1:18 PM

Wow. It sounds like, since I'm in my 40, I've apparently lost my looks, my body, and my mind. I'm bitter and cynical. I can't carry on a decent debate. I'm sexually undesirable, out of touch with current trends, and generally ready for the glue factory.

In reality I'm married (as I said earlier, to a man nearly 10 years younger than I), I'm a World Music Director/DJ at a college radio station (in my spare time), and have friends ranging in age from 25 to 70.

I get that men want hot babes for sex (to put it in less esoteric terms than others have used). What I don't get is what you do the other 23 hours a day. There's a huge difference between a hot fling and a long-term relationship.

But mostly I consider myself lucky that I found a guy who values substance over shadow. Am I a hot babe? Hell no. But I wasn't a hot babe when I was 20 either. What I am your average, attractive woman who does her best to stay in shape and who happens to have a great brain, a wicked sense of humor, and a husband who (thankfully) thinks I'm great.

I wouldn't want a man who thinks a great ass is the hallmark of dating perfection. That just seems shallow and puts way too much importance on sex. Sure, sex is great, but it's really not smart to build a relationship on hot and heavy.

Posted by: Decca on June 4, 2008 3:02 PM

Agnostic, you want a woman who "still has her respect for men intact" but you yourself are so disrespectful of women! They're idiots if they're thirtysomething and sweet frisky puppies whey they're the 'right' age for you.

Days of Broken Arrows, thanks got getting to the "Women are so angry!" part of the discourse. I find that men who say this are invariably insecure guys who still fear/loathe their mommies and project this on to all women they encounter.

So what If I'm angry? I'm several other things as well, but the anger terrifies you? Most sane thinkers of either gender are quite angry about many things. Why must you insecure mommy-haters take is so personally?

Broken Arrows Guy, I'm sorry that you're short but it's not my fault! I's glad that you once datd a "Girl of the Ivy League" even though that sounds like a feature in Playboy magazine.

I am delighted by the defensive grandstanding in these commments and I must say, some of you sound like sulky child molesters, but please keep it coming!

Posted by: Sister Wolf on June 4, 2008 3:28 PM

Hmm, well maybe I should have chosen a word other than "technique." More like ease or comfort or "developed instinct" or something like that. Knowing how to flirt, kiss, mess with another's body, etc -- all that is great and for most people it has to be learned. (All the more reason to start off your sex life with an experienced partner by the way. Why invent the wheel all over again when you can just buy one?)

But what if the person who has acquired such techniques is frantic, or a drag in some way? The techniques don't really mean anything secure then. It can be a turn-on in a neurotic pervy way to let yourself be manipulated by someone skillful with ulterior motives, god knows. But maybe only for a night or a week. After that things can get destructive and really take it out of you.

Hmmmm, maybe a comparison ... OK: sports. Pick a sport you like, say tennis. Let's say you're a fan and a buff. You play pretty well yourself, and you know that there are people you enjoy playing with and those you don't. There are some people with tons of technique, who maybe even rank really high, but who are a drag to play with or even know. And there are lots of other people who never find the groove at all, despite endless trying. They may manage to acquire the basic skills (does anyone ever need anything beyond the basic skills?) but they miss out entirely on the music, the sense of fun. They play tennis well enough but they don't really get tennis. They remain stiffs.

A difference between tennis and sex is that with sex there's usually an emotional and imaginative component. But real sexual technique, it seems to me, involves taking the emotional and the imaginative into account. Good sex isn't a mechanical exercise any more than a smokin' piece of music is a purely mechanical exercise. There's some spirit and life in there.

Say you acquire the basic skills -- you get competent. And then what? Well, some people discover that during sex with a simpatico partner they (both of them) can get launched into another space-time-aesthetic dimension. They can enter the Zone. And they find they can do this fairly regularly, even semi at-will. (Incidentally there are techniques that can help people acquire and develop these abilities. Tantric and Taoist sexual techniques are very rewarding to explore!) These are people who have found the Sex Zone, as far as I'm concerned.

Meanwhile, tons of people never do find the groove in that way. They may enjoy sex, but it never delivers that kind of, forgive me, transcendental rapture, or if it does it's like a once or twice in a lifetime thing, and often freighted with tons of hope and despair.

But those who are familiar with and interact easily with the Sex Zone ... Well, it's a nice thing. They can often recognize each other. (It's a little like a secret club.) And they're marked not so much by how hot they look but by attitude and interest. It's like the way that two people who really dig and get tennis can recognize each other pretty quickly. It's a frequency-finding thing.

Anyway, once I grew past the "life is crazy and chicks are hot" stage, the kind of sex that really interested me was the kind I've been describing. And if you head in that direction you discover all kinds of interesting things about people and life.

For example: It's possible to have amazing experiences with a person who you otherwise don't like much -- you share a nice thing in the sack but have nothing else in common. It's like finding a dance partner who you love partner-dancing with but otherwise don't care for. Something larger takes over, and it's a treat -- maybe even the ultimate treat -- to participate in it.

Food's another useful comparison. Everyone enjoys food and eating. But for many if not most people, it remains a pretty blunt and basic activity. Hunger is sensed; food is reached-for; chowing-down occurs. Repeat in several hours.

Then there are the foodies -- those people who really, really get food pleasure, and for whom food can become a huge and rewarding part of life, the basis for friendships, travel, culture and thought, skills and shopping, even politics.

Part of this may be pretentiousness, but (in my experience tagging along with true foodies and learning from them) most of it's amazing and real. There's a food dimension or a food frequency that can be tuned into. And the people for whom food-and-eating is simply a matter of feeling-hunger, ripping open a bag, and stuffing themselves really aren't tuning into the food frequency. They're enjoying stuffing themselves, and good for them. But it's silly to deny that they're missing out on many larger and more rewarding food experiences.

It seems to me that all this is basic to culture too. Culture (as in art-pleasure) is based on very basic physical urges and pleasures. Hunger ... The fun of rhythm ... Movement ... The sex urge ... The hunger for stories ... The need for shelter ... All are basic to life. But what has produced culture is this: people have come along and explored these facts and experiences, and have whipped-up quite amazing fields: the many styles of architecture; music from the blues to gamelan music to Bach; literature; haute cuisine and raw-milk cheeses and Thanksgiving dinners ...

As well as, dare I say it, a genuine culture of sex. There's the basic sex urge, and if you're so inclined you can spend your life operating at the basic level. Feel-sex-urge; discharge-sex-urge ... But you can also take it to different levels and depths and heights. It can become something worth lifetimes' of exploration, just as music or art can.

One of the things that exasperates me about the U.S. is our touchiness about this. We both make too much of sex and deny it its real dimensions. We tend to make sex very literal, and to hit it too hard, and to get too defensive about our attitudes. The poetry and philosophy flee even as we exploit the sex reflexes commercially.

People are left bereft, and maybe even angry towards anyone who suggests that there might be something more to it than the mere experience of getting-hot and discharging-energy. But we're the naive ones and the weirdos. And we do ourselves a disservice if we don't open up a bit and show some curiosity. (IMHO, of course.)

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 4, 2008 3:40 PM

Have you tried that line on your advisor, Agnostic?

He himself pokes fun at it, the way older people who age gracefully poke fun at how they can't do all sorts of things anymore. And it's not a line -- it's just a statement of fact (look it up in any book on cognitive agiing; Ian Deary has a book on intelligence with a good chapter in it).

If you're looking for accumulated knowledge, obviously the 30-something is better than a teenager, on average. My point is that, even for the 30-something, how much knowledge has she really accumulated, even if she went to college? Hardly anything. Even with the 30-something, you're searching for the 90th percentile and above who read and consume culture a lot.

But rewind someone like Clio to when she was 23 -- bookish people start out bookish, so you can find roughly the same proportion of voracious readers at 23. Granted that their appetite has only had 5 or so years to consume stuff, compared to 15 or 25 years. But really, a bookish girl who just graduated from a good school has probably read most of the great works of the arts and humanities, been to museums and studied art history, been to concerts and studied music, etc. Hell, she probably did that in high school!

If it's just the love of consuming culture that you want, you can find that at roughly equal levels among 21 year-olds, probably more so since the personality trait Openness to Experience peaks during the college-ish years. The only real benefit of 30-somethings is that you could debate in great detail the merits of works that only the more refined know about. But c'mon, now you're talking "Whore of MENSA" material.

Posted by: agnostic on June 4, 2008 4:56 PM

This is just a great thread. I have more to say on everything in it, but I'll just sit back and enjoy the action for now. High quality posts (and posters), different perspectives, richness and salty goodness galore!

Keep it comin', people! I'm all eyes!

Posted by: PatrickH on June 4, 2008 5:14 PM

Agnostic -- That's a funny idea of "knowledge" that you've got! It's knowledge as a subspecies of book-l'arning. I'm betting that your concept of knowledge will expand as you grow older. But maybe that's just my declining intellectual powers speaking ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 4, 2008 5:16 PM

"Fluid reasoning skills (IQ) decline pretty sharply after 30, although book smarts stay the same or increase mildly. So expect conversations and debates to be less logical with a 30 or 40-something than a 20-something"


"And it's not a line -- it's just a statement of fact (look it up in any book on cognitive agiing; Ian Deary has a book on intelligence with a good chapter in it)."

For the sake of argument, I'll grant you your first point, that fluid reasoning skills decline sharply after 30 (not an area I know much about). However, your conclusion, that conversations and debates will be less logical with a 30 or 40-something than a 20-something, rests on the unsupported contention that fluid reasoning skills so dominate logical conversation that no other compensatory skills need be considered. I can think of several: greater knowledge (as you note), the lessons of experience, and the patience for following complex strands of material, to make a start. I'm sure your advisor pokes fun at the vagaries of aging. But I bet that, like Michael, he also smiles fondly at the confident ignorance of youth.

As a bookish 30-something who was once a bookish 20-something, I not only know more now, I am also much wiser. This may not be a key trait in a woman you just want to sleep with, but it makes all the difference in the world if you're going to be sitting across the breakfast table from her for the rest of your life.

Posted by: CyndiF on June 4, 2008 5:43 PM

Okay, I guess I don't understand what the young girl gets from this arrangement.

I don't think it's difficult to predict which men will be successful in life. Why settle down with an old guy with money if you could marry with a young man with a bright future? The greater the age difference, the longer you'll be a widow.

Posted by: blue on June 4, 2008 6:40 PM

The greater the age difference, the longer you'll be a widow.

Maybe that's a selling point.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 4, 2008 7:19 PM

i'm leery of this commonly heard older gentleman's refrain that younger women lack "worldliness". i haven't found that to be the case. most girls, by the age of 24, have accumulated some decent worldliness, at least enough that it isn't an issue.

granted, MB, 17 years old is really young when you are 30. but what about 22, 25? for the older man, a 25 year old girl 10 or 15 years his junior will feel like a breath of fresh air compared to his female peers. there is a big jump in personality "depth" after 22 or so.

btw, i wrote a post detailing in graphic horror what exactly happens to a woman's body past the age of 30 if she doesn't go out of her way to slow the deterioration. it's very NSFwiltingflowersfirebreathingfeministsorbetasuckups:

you have been warned.

and the experience thing is overrated. a woman with sexual experience is apt to bark orders at you in bed so that she can get off in the most efficient way that she has learned how to do. younger women are more open to sexual experimentation. and the dead fish/beautiful woman correlation... only applies if she feels like she's out of the man's league. pity fucks never inspire enthusiasm.

Posted by: roissy on June 4, 2008 7:38 PM

[Clio said] It seems [...] preposterous that men can be so contemptuous of women who seem too eager to marry, and of those who don't manage to marry by age 26 or so.

So true. I often think two things. Thank god for girls...and thank god I wasn't born female. I do not mean that in a disparaging sense...women really have it tough in so many ways.

Posted by: Yakking Guy on June 4, 2008 8:32 PM

And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of men would consider the guy with the young babe to be a minor species of jerk and perhaps not trustworthy on a number of dimensions.

I think Roissy summed it up nicely. For him, it's all about the simple pursuit of sensual pleasure. On the other hand, I've been told by someone who would know that as far as sensation goes, heroin beats sex hands down.

And that about sums it up for me. Whether I see someone who seems to be relentlessly pursuing the much younger or a formerly successful person who's know an addict, I tend to think the same thing. It's sad that someone who was probably capable of so much surrendered everything they could have been to their physical needs.

The only difference is the addict isn't probably causing as much damage to others in pursuit of his needs.

Posted by: Tom West on June 4, 2008 10:12 PM

oh, it's more than a dab.

This comment of Roissy's is just sad.

Either he's got such a paucity of imagination that he can't even imagine that not everyone share's his desires, or as it often comes across, he's desperate for everyone male to envy him. I honestly can't tell which one it is.

It reminds me of a very financially successful classmate I met at a reunion. He was a classic alpha, and he'd made a pile of money in the 20 years since graduation. While we hadn't been great friends at school, I talked with him at some length, just to see a different view of life.

And boy it was different. He'd burned through his marriage, no kids thank goodness, but he had no regrets. That was simply the cost of his success. The funny thing was he, like Roissy, could not imagine that I didn't envy his wealth. It was simply impossible to for him to conceive that I wouldn't trade my wife and children for his success if I could, just as it's impossible for Roissy to believe that any male wouldn't trade his life for Roissy's, if they could.

It was fascinating, and it will be interesting to talk to him again in 10 years. I can't imagine he'll change.

However, I amuse myself by mentally imagining both him and Roissy in the same room together. These men, both capable alphas who probably could have been successful in *whatever* endeavors they chose.

"You mean you could have had any 20 year old you wanted, and you chose to make money instead?"

"You could have made millions, but you chose to bed 20 year olds instead?"

And then both their heads explode from attempting to imagine the inconceivable.

Posted by: Tom West on June 4, 2008 10:28 PM

Women with small tits age best.

Posted by: ricpic on June 4, 2008 10:52 PM

Oldr women can rationalize away all of what Roissy says, but the men here should learn this from an older guy: Unless you're very very attracted to the woman you settel down with, you're gonna find her unattractive after a while -- especially when her looks fade.

All sex gets old with the same woman, but having a higher baseline of attractiveness at the outset will keep you from real problems down the road. There is a reason Viagra sells so much -- it's called marriage. Also, someone once brought up that Mike Ditka hawks viagra and have you seen his wife?

Our culture has become so feminist that when a natural coupling occurs (older man with younger woman), feminists (like one above) refer to the men as "child molestors." This, in fact, trivializes the actual victims of child molestation. But since when did feminists care about anyone but themselves.

Also, Michael, it's a stereotype that 25-year-olds want to go clubbing every night. Some of them do. What I have found is that 40-year-old women will also run you down. But instead of clubbing with a hottie, you get to waste money on "exotic travel" and boring jogging or dinner parites with a nottie. Please see "weird hobbies" above.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on June 4, 2008 11:03 PM

Here's another angle: the co-habiting or not co-habiting relationship.

Seems like most of the "be on the same page" and "have a good conversation partner" mostly apply when you're living with your girlfriend or wife. That's a big no-no for me. They just aren't as stable unless you start having kids.

And when you have kids, you couldn't care less if your wife is an intelligent, witty conversation partner because she'll be too busy raising them, and you too busy busting your hump to provide for them, to have long breakfast discussion about how blockbuster art museum shows are degrading high culture.

So, worst-case scenario: she's not the most interesting person to talk to, but you can still shoot the bull with her. Just don't move in together or hang out for 5 hours every day. If you do move in together, make sure it's when you're married and want to have kids. When you feel the urge for good conversation, call up or meet with the friends who you rely on for that. Pretty easy, right?

Posted by: agnostic on June 5, 2008 2:25 AM

This entire post is a monument to the life of the eternal adolescent that the U.S. now embraces.

Why do any of you give a fuck what any other bastard thinks of your love and sex life?

The answer: when you embrace the life of the eternal adolescent you are caught forever in the dynamics of the junior high school clique.

Folks, get a life. Decide on your own. Tell anybody who wants to discuss your love and sex life to go fuck themselves. If they won't desist, shoot them.

This, people, is called behaving like an adult.

Seldom do I feel that I have the answer for others, but in this case I do: Stop talking about your sexual and dating behavior within the junior high school clique. Adults form their moral lives by involving themselves in religion, or by embracing traditional moral values.

Teenage children gossip endlessly in the halls of the grade school in an effort to come to moral concensus. This is what you folks are doing.

What you are talking about here is not "dating." You are talking about "whoring." Dating is something that people do for a short time in order to get married. Whoring is switching partners repeatedly to get your jollies. I don't have anything against whoring, but I do have something against lying.

Anybody here got any desire to graduate from junior high school?

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on June 5, 2008 7:50 AM

There's nothing especially natural about older man/younger woman couplings, at least not for the woman. Without social factors to influence them, most women prefer men no more than 3 to 6 years older than themselves. My friends and I certainly did.

When you hear women on this site, or Roissy's, making "eww" comments about older men who chase younger women, it isn't mainly jealousy speaking (though no doubt there's some resentment at the tone of disgust in which you refer to us when we're older than 30). It's the memory of how we felt ourselves when young, being pursued by older men with whom we had nothing in common, entirely because of our youth, and knowing, too, that Older Man was often married (or divorced and bitter about it) and not necessarily any more interested than his junior counterpart in committing himself to permanence. I can think of exactly one female friend in all my years of adult life who actually preferred older men.

Incidentally, Days, you speak of women's lack of logic in the comments for the post that follows this one - but there was nothing especially illogical about what sister wolfe said, though it was certainly rather cliched. You see, it's difficult for us to account for the extreme hostility with which so many men refer to women, both young and old, without resorting to some form of extreme explanation for it.

Think about it. According to the kinds of comments I read here and on Roissy's blog whenever the subject comes up, the litany goes something like this: young women are all materialistic bitches, flakes, fools; old women are bitter, angry, frustrated feminists; women who look out for themselves financially are unfeminine; women who expect to be taken care of by men are gold-diggers; all real women really want is to have babies but they'd better not expect any of you to want to be fathers...I mean, Jesus Murphy, do you realise how you all sound sometimes? No wonder some women resort to psychological mind-reading in order to try to understand it.

I don't often read Extreme Feminist websites, but I'd swear that on those I've seen, I've never encountered half the level of hostility directed towards men that you boys aim at women. Most of their anger is directed at "right-wingers" and "fundamentalists".

Posted by: alias clio on June 5, 2008 9:12 AM

Oldr women can rationalize away all of what Roissy says, but the men here should learn this from an older guy: Unless you're very very attracted to the woman you settel down with, you're gonna find her unattractive after a while -- especially when her looks fade.

As I've noted before, it's a two-way street. Only in an ideal world do women show signs of aging while men remain young forever. In this real world, however, a very disturbingly high percentage of men physically go right down the toilet after age 35 or so. Maybe some women think that a balding man with saggy jowls and a 45-inch waistline is sexually attractive, but they're definitely in the minority.

Posted by: Peter on June 5, 2008 9:32 AM

*ricpic: 1st prize for the Best Comment Evah.

to those who call us "bitter": you can't stand that we see through you, pals. Simply: can't handle the truth.

Posted by: Tatyana on June 5, 2008 10:49 AM

I'll illustrate my last comment with this pictur. This is a woman with a teenage (very, very late teens) daughter. And we'd seen the similar picture of the girl; trust me - she can't compete with her Mom. Not on so many levels...

Posted by: Tatyana on June 5, 2008 10:52 AM

I've known four couples in which the man was at least a generation (~20 years) older than the wife:

A) Successful, 50ish executive, married almost 30 years with four children, abruptly divorces his wife and marries a woman in her early 20's. He had no real problems with the first wife, it was just that he was deathly afraid of growing old and thought that having a young wife would keep him young. Didn't know for sure what the woman's motivations were, but $$$ was widely suspected. Note: man dropped dead a few years later.

B) Successful, mid-50's professional divorces wife of many years (at huge cost) to marry mid-30's woman. Don't know what the man's motivations were, given that the woman was not all that young, had a teenager from a prior marriage, and was not particularly hot. The woman was a sort of screwed-up type who seemed to go from man to man quite frequently. Don't know if they're still together, but it seems doubtful.

C) Very well-to-do property owner marries a younger woman not too long after the death of his first wife. Despite a major age difference this case doesn't quite fit the usual mold; the man was about 85 at the time and the new wife 60ish.

D) Beautiful, mid- to late-30's college professor has a husband in his early 60's. Could have been a search for a Daddy figure, but no one really knows.

Posted by: Peter on June 5, 2008 12:37 PM

Even very attractive women (like the one in the picture Tatyana posted...she's a beauty) have this problem: they're never going to look better than they do now. A girl of 20 can look better as a woman of 30, because she can have a much better sense of who she is, and women who know who they are are much sexier than women who are "confused". But that same woman of 30 is very unlikely to look better at 40 than she does at 40 she's trying to hang on. There is zero chance of her looking better at 50 than at 40. So even a beautiful stunning sexy wonderful woman of 40 is simply not that desirable for anything long-term. No matter how good she looks now, tomorrow is another day.

clio, you know I admire you immensely, but you're blowing smoke. I'm 50 and my opportunities with much younger women haven't diminished at all. It's the same thing as it always has been: approach them the right way, talk to them the right way, and they respond. Older women just don't have that kind of option...they're not approached in the first place. Because men are still expected to do the work of getting things going, we can still have success with women much younger than us, providing we don't blow the approach. And we've had many more years of learning how to do that.

That means not pursuing women because of their youth, acting all bitter and desperate and the other botched approaches you and your friends suffered from older men in your youth. Believe me, no older man with any experience is ever going to come on to a young woman in a way that lets her know he's just interested in her smooth skin and pert firm breasts. No, it's going to be an approach that involves...spirituality. Yes, that's it. That one works like a charm.

And you know it does, clio.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 5, 2008 1:47 PM

There's nothing especially natural about older man/younger woman couplings, at least not for the woman. Without social factors to influence them, most women prefer men no more than 3 to 6 years older than themselves. My friends and I certainly did.

It's perfectly natural. What you mean is, their natural love of older men is directed at no more than 1 - 5% of the older male population. You and your friends may have been surrounded by ugly, boring, or passion-less older men. But change one, two, or all three of those off-putting traits, and the guy has a pretty good shot of attracting much, much younger girls.

It's especially true for teachers -- Thursday and I can vouch for that. If it were socially acceptable (i.e., not resulting in job loss), if they knew word would never get around, and if I had the desire to, I could've slept with 80 - 90% of my high school tutorees, and maybe 10 - 20% of 8th grade tutorees.

(Mostly because of professional ethics / legal deterrence, and not finding the majority of them hot -- especially the under-15 ones -- I didn't, of course. If I had met the cuter ones at a mall, though, things would have been somewhat different.)

Another thing: having a babyface. It shaves off 5 years at least, and if they are much younger and have had little experience in distinguishing among 24 vs 27 vs 30 vs 33 year-olds, it can shave off an extra 2 to 3 years. Add these 8 to your admitted 6, and that's a 14 year age-difference.

If Michael had hot sex with a 17 year-old when he was 30, I'm guessing he has a babyface too (large eyes, high eyebrows, not-so-sloping forehead, and smaller nose and chin, compared to other males). Her attraction must have seemed natural to her. Not being too tall also makes an older guy less conspicuously older. I'm 5'8, Michael's said he's 5'9, and I'm guessing Thursday is 6' or under as well. Ditto an ectomorphic, or at most mesomorphic, body shape.

I mention these traits because they're not exactly rare, so it will be perfectly natural for much younger girls to find themselves drawn to a non-trivial segment of older men.

Posted by: agnostic on June 5, 2008 2:56 PM

No, Patrick, I know nothing of the sort. The older men who approached me when I was between 20-35 had zero interest for me, even when they were attractive to look at and interesting to talk to. Frankly, they frightened me. Your experience is interesting but it's no more than one person's anecdotal evidence. And no - the evidence of several more men chiming in here to agree is not going to convince me that there are hordes of eager and willing young things rushing to embrace older men.

Of course men I know men that age don't let on that they're approaching you for your youth or firm flesh - but that doesn't mean that many women can't see through it. I certainly could. If any man, now or in my youth, ever dared to approach me on the grounds of my "spirituality", I'd box his ears so hard they'd be ringing until Doomsday.

And for the record, I'm scarcely much younger than you are, and it's been 8 years since I dated anyone my own age. The more recent men in my life have been anywhere from 4 to 8 years younger than I am. Part of that is because younger men are less likely to be "taken", of course, but part of it is my own preference for the greater niceness, sweetness, and playfulness of younger men. Bitter, jaded, or over-experienced old farts are no more attractive to me than angry hags are to you.

Naturally I don't expect this situation to last forever, but I mention it because I've grown mighty tired of the nasty, vindictive tone taken by men here towards older women. The tone of many of the posts here goes way beyond merely reminding us of the reality of women's aging. It has a gleeful, spiteful ring that I think you all deserve to be called on. Sorry for my angry tone, but it's been a bad week - my new admirer writes bad poetry for me; my computer has been "fixed" twice and it still doesn't work properly; my appointments get postponed; and j'en ai ras le bol.

Posted by: alias clio on June 5, 2008 4:14 PM

Well Clio, being in the same age range as you, and with a wife in the same range, I too am puzzled at all the scorn directed at "older" women. "Older" is in quotes because in blogospheric terms it essentially means any woman over age 30. I know I keep harping on the same point, but everyone seems to forget that men age too, and what's more we have this pesky habit of dying at ridiculously young ages.

Posted by: Peter on June 5, 2008 4:38 PM

Your experience is interesting but it's no more than one person's anecdotal evidence.

Well, yes.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 5, 2008 4:39 PM

I'm sure Roissy has met many young girls one would consider "worldly", as have I. But almost all of them, in addition, are sactimonious twats, inbued with the same PC bullshit as the young guys with the additional unknowing attitude toward the , by their lights, sexist/racist/ageist older guy. This is the generation that the colleges and helicopter parents have loosed upon the world. Living in Boston, the alleged Athens of America, where so many have been educated beyound the capacity of the intelligence, may have something to do with my attitude.

Ricpic is right on; check those big ol' 20-something boobies 15 years down the road. I have my ex-wife (40D) and my current girlfriend (34B) as exhibits.

I'm with the sex with young girls is overrated crowd. Yes, they're lovely to look at, way more so than most older woman, and that alone will put powder in your horn. But unless there are some new courses being taught at our colleges now, girls today probably have the same lame chops in the sack that their older sisters had back in my youth (unless they took older, experienced lovers). One of the best I've ever had was when I was 41 and she (a retired dancer) was 54. She was a back-clawing, porn-viewing, don't spill a drop, three-input wild woman, and was in great shape for her age. And I wasn't the only pony in her stable, either, nor the youngest.

But the best is what I'm enjoying with my current (and probably last) girlfriend. At 45, she's 5 years younger, but with her model's build and athletic background she still gets her ass checked out by guys half her age at the gym. But her obvious physical charms are not what makes it good; I've had younger and prettier women over the last 10 years. It's the way we feel about each other that turns me into Old Faithful.

But I'm a satisfied old beta man, not an unsated young blade, so my opinion is worthless!

Posted by: Brutus on June 5, 2008 4:39 PM

I dropped this comment on another thread too -- hope that isn't cheating, but it seems a propos here too.

Hmm, two more reflections?

1) An "age speaking here" alert ... The whole topic of "what turns me on" (whether addressed by a gal or a guy) is one that's hypnotically fascinating to young people. Which is as it should be. That said, it's also a question that -- while it retains its fun and fascination -- does diminish in importance as time goes by.

It starts to be just as fun to learn about what turns other people on. You get a sense of perspective vis a vis what flips your own switches. What gets you hot isn't any longer world-shatteringly important, it's fun, it's silly, it's of no great import in the larger scheme of things. Moments may even pass when you aren't obsessed by the question of what turns you on.

Also, the concept of "living for what turns you on" subsides into some kind of perspective for many people. The fact that some things turn you on is a nice aspect of life, but it does tend with time to stop being the one reason you get out of bed in the morning.

Which, amusingly, doesn't make the whole turn-on thing any less fascinating or fun than it once was. It just means that your appreciation of life generally has expanded. (It also means that your hormone levels and drives have subsided a bit too. But what are you gonna do about that? Time does pass, and there's no getting away from that.)

2) I think one unspoken theme or fact that underlies a lot of what gets raised in these conversations (this one and the 20-year-old-gals one) is this: The older set has some experience of life before '70s feminism, or at least of life when it wasn't as dominated by '70s feminism as it is now; while the younger set has no such experience.

They grew up with feminist moms, and feminist teachers and bosses, and a feminist pop culture too.

For the older set, the fact that there's now some irreverence around towards hyper-pious feminism, and that stuff like evo-bio is there to supply some hard-science ammunition, is just nice -- it represents a return to common sense. But it's a common sense that most of us on some level never lost touch with.

The young set, though, has never known anything but PC baloney. They've had their balls cut off, ridiculed, and demonized from Day One.

So when they emerge into the non-protected world, or they stumble into something like evo-bio, the reaction isn't a sigh of relief, it's an outburst of indignation and rage, followed by a huge amount of joyful stomping-around and pissing-on-icons.

Which is, FWIW, how I take much of the carrying-on over at Roissy's -- "You mean, I can swing my dick around AND IT'S OK? I can mess with a girl's feelings AND SHE MAY LIKE IT NO MATTER WHAT SHE ACTUALLY SAYS?" (Answer to both questions: Sure!)

From my point of view I think what goes on and gets said at Roissy's is fun, and a sign of a nice development. Young guys are ripping off the shackles that a scared, domineering, and pussified culture placed on them. Great!

But there's another question that follows too: once the high-spirited Apache war dances have run their course, what then? Do the kids adjust, accomodate, and move on? Or do they wind up forever locked into the mode they're in now?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 5, 2008 5:40 PM

The tone of many of the posts here goes way beyond merely reminding us of the reality of women's aging. It has a gleeful, spiteful ring that I think you all deserve to be called on.

i speak for myself here, not my commenters (some who admittedly thrash with spite.)

when i write about the effects that aging has on a woman's sexual market value much of the cruelty with which i do it is directed, like a necessary corrective, at those hordes of cosmo-reading supergrrls who insist they "still got it" and can't even fathom that the standards they held dearly at 21 are in any way subject to reevaluation at 31. my sadism is pointed like a laser beam at those -- men and women -- who don't know their place. it is gleeful, yes. i am the gom jabbar... crisis and observation... i am here to amuse myself. but it's not spiteful. in fact, i think the aging of women is the greatest tragedy in life. i love being in the company of beautiful women, love feeling them on me, around me, breathing them in, absorbing their radiating nourishment. to see it disappear so ruthlessly fills me with hatred for the jungle that rules us all. i want to see aging treated as the horrid disease it is and cured, so that a beautiful woman can bless the world with her gift eternally. or at least as close to eternal as possible.

but the fact that there are so many willfully deluded apparatchiks of useless feelgood lies and psychobabble propaganda means my sadism will never want for juicy targets.

Posted by: roissy on June 5, 2008 6:51 PM

"Seems like most of the "be on the same page" and "have a good conversation partner" mostly apply when you're living with your girlfriend or wife. That's a big no-no for me. They just aren't as stable unless you start having kids.

And when you have kids, you couldn't care less if your wife is an intelligent, witty conversation partner because she'll be too busy raising them, and you too busy busting your hump to provide for them, to have long breakfast discussion about how blockbuster art museum shows are degrading high culture."

Agnostic, that is adorable.

Anyone here even have kids? I've got 3. My wife and I spend probably 80% of our time and energy raising them, but during that precious hour when they're all in bed and it's just my wife and I, I thank my lucky stars my wife is a "intelligent, witty conversation partner."

It seems the prevailing viewpoint around these part is "marriage=death." If not that, than certainly "kids=no fun." Well I'm here to tell you that there is indeed life beyond the random hookup. It's not as viscerally exciting as single-hood, but the rewards are more sublime.

If you guys really are that bitter towards women in real life (which I highly doubt, except for maybe Roissy, and I know he will proclaim he is not bitter, but simply enjoying the fruits of womanhood, one at a time), than I say good luck to you, because you'll need it. Relationships aren't an all-or-nothing opportunity. Do I sometimes miss my single days? Hell yes! Would I go back if I could? Hell no!

I'm saying this because there's a hell of a lot if immaturity being exhibited here. Everyone should go through a period in their lives when sex is conquest. But that period isn't meant to last. It just gets sadder every year.

Posted by: JV on June 5, 2008 6:51 PM

"in fact, i think the aging of women is the greatest tragedy in life."

Jesus, roissy, that is pathetic.

Posted by: JV on June 5, 2008 7:10 PM

Yes, Roissy, I know better than to confuse you with your commenters. There was so much bile, condescension, folly, and spite in the comments on this post that I finally lost my blog-temper, which I don't do very often. The unfortunate PatrickH got the brunt of it, but he wasn't the worst, just the last straw.

Of course, I do think you're wrong about many things. And needlessly obnoxious about others. But in your case I often suspect you're teasing rather than that you mean your more outrageous posts to be taken literally.

Posted by: alias clio on June 5, 2008 7:29 PM

Why have you deleted the comment where Broken Arrow calles me a Fembot and then asks Roissy for a date??

Are you making sure things stay "civil," or are you against anyone having fun here (besides Roissy, whoever he is?)

Posted by: Sister Wolf on June 5, 2008 7:34 PM

Jesus, roissy, that is pathetic.

hey, i'm a romantic at heart. so sue me!

Posted by: roissy on June 5, 2008 7:35 PM

Oops, it's on another thread. Sorry! How like a woman of me to get confused! Maybe I'm having my period.

Carry on!

Posted by: Sister Wolf on June 5, 2008 7:37 PM

I suppose I should be honoured being relegated to the role of last straw, rather than that of the worst...what? Condescender, bitter-guy, bile-spewer?

I suppose. But I don't really. This pot may not be the blackest of the bunch here, but it still irks being called that colour by the kettle. Beam in your own eye there, clio, eh?

Posted by: PatrickH on June 5, 2008 8:22 PM

Beam - oh? And when - even under provocation - have I been in the habit of spewing bile, spouting bitterness, or condescending to fellow-commenters, PatrickH, here or anywhere else? Exasperation is usually as far as I get.

Just so you know, I didn't find you bitter or a bile-spewer, etc. - but I did think that comment of yours about how I was "blowing smoke", how young women could be cleverly courted by appealing to their "spiritual" side, and the comments about older women - was indeed condescending, in the true sense of the word. That is, it was looking from a secure height (secure in your own attractiveness, I mean) on the struggling females of your own age down below. I thought a good sharp retort was in order, and I delivered it, for once, rather than restraining myself in the interests of social harmony.

You aren't usually one of the disagreeable posters here, which is why I found the airy condescension of your comment so provoking.

Posted by: alias clio on June 5, 2008 8:48 PM

clio, I was obviously jesting about the spiritual bit. That is one of the worst, hoariest, most cliched approaches and would be the least likely, not the most, to win the approval of any woman, young or old. I could have written it a little more broadly, but perhaps you could have read it that way, too.

As for being "secure in my own attractiveness", I'm not. I simply believe, based on my experience, that women are generally open to at least considering a man, even an older one, if he approaches them in a way that isn't "hoary or cliched". This is not a criticism of women, needless to say. Girls will read boys' books, but boys won't read girls' books. Not fair, but true. And hardly a recommendation of boys' reading habits.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 5, 2008 10:02 PM

Power - world's oldest and most powerful aphrodisiac.

Money - world's second most powerful aphrodisiac.

Combine both and you get something better than full body bathing in pheromones.

Ever see a heavily aged, empty-pocketed old coot with a hot babe?

Sheeeet, no.

Doesn't take rocket science brains to do the math on this equation...

Posted by: Cowtown Pattie on June 5, 2008 11:23 PM

And when - even under provocation - have I been in the habit of spewing bile, spouting bitterness, or condescending to fellow-commenters, PatrickH, here or anywhere else?


Posted by: Tatyana on June 6, 2008 7:32 AM

This is so funny. As an attractive young twenty-something I can offer a different perspective. When my friends and I are in a bar, we know that we could hook up with any guy there, if we're just interested in sex that is. We see you old dudes lurking and we know that we can juice you for your money if we want. You are mistaken if you think we aren't disgusted by the thought of sex with you because young men are hotter than older men too. It's funny that you don't seem to realize that we're using you for money just like you're using us for our looks. Most of us have a younger guy on the side for the sex becuase old dudes don't cut it if you know what I mean.

Posted by: J on June 6, 2008 1:45 PM


You are in every way a repulsive insect. You are not worthy of attention from any man, old or young. Needless to say, old men who hang around in bars where the young congregate are pathetic, and I don't expect them to have any success with women there. One of the reasons for that is that the young women who themselves hang around in bars are all too often as worthless, vacant, depthless, moronic, solipsistic and despicable as you. Any man of any age that would want to insert his member into a pussy as inverted as yours deserves what he gets, rejection or acceptance. Either way, all you have to offer is the booby prize.

In terms of pickup, old guys have to master Day Game. That's our venue. That's where we shine. And that's where the interesting, un-drunk, literate mature fascinating beautiful women worthy of our time are to be found. And pickup can't be pickup coming from us. That's as useless an approach as trying to dress like some pimpled schlubbed-out twenty-something guy. Those are your kind of guys, J. Pallid, unformed, soft of body and mind, with a vocabulary of AT LEAST 300 whole words, some of them of more than one syllable. They're your speed, you shallow worthless bint. I'd recommend you not come around here again. WOMEN post here, and even when I get on the bad side of them (clio recently, Tatyana a while ago), you are not worth rebreathing their stale air.

If you think I'm being hard on you, you describe yourself as an "attractive young twenty-something". Twenty-somethings are all young, you waste of protoplasm. Learn how to write, learn how to think, learn how to have a genuine emotion somewhere, anywhere in that nullity you call your "personality".

Until then, go away. And have a nice weekend!

Posted by: PatrickH on June 6, 2008 5:11 PM

Haha, tables are turned, PatrickH gets pissy.

Posted by: JV on June 6, 2008 7:28 PM

PatrickH, you didn't really get on my wrong side, and I'm sorry I was so severe. It was the accumulation of rhetoric here that got to me, other men's as well as yours. I probably read too much of this stuff, esp. when I can't work (due to computer troubles).

I do think that J sounded rather nasty, but not much nastier than many of the male commenters that appear from time to time here and on Roissy's blog. Try to imagine what it might sound like to an unsuspecting woman who blundered on it. Please remember - I usually have a pretty broad tolerance for male grumbling about women, as I think I've shown, and even I sometimes find it overwhelming.

p.s. Tatyana was taking shots at me more than at you.

Posted by: alias clio on June 6, 2008 7:36 PM

[Eagerly awaiting J's comeback to PatrickH ... This could be good!]

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 6, 2008 8:01 PM

Don't argue, kids, you both disappointed mommy equally.
Although I must say, in this thread I am on *clio's side - not out of gender solidarity, more of naturally acquired experience.

And I do appreciate the masterful flattery, Patrick.

Enjoying this salon play tremendously, guys. Please, carry on.

Posted by: Tatyana on June 7, 2008 8:34 AM

only a female would write a blog about a [url=]fuck buddy[/url] and mention "feelings" in every damn paragraph.

only a female would need to lay out [url=]fuck buddy[/url] rules. guys are born with these stenciled on the inside of our eyelids.

I move to have this post thrown out, your honor.

Posted by: Chigreegirway on June 7, 2008 9:56 AM

Nothing to apologize for, clio. You are one of the posters here who has most caused me to sit back, examine my premises, my tone of voice, and my vocabulary (Chris W is another, squub, the shape-shifting Spike Gomes, others too). A good sharp rebuke is eminently tolerable coming from someone who knows how to write one. And, dear clio, you've got "good and sharp" down to an art.

I refuse to believe I wasn't on your "bad side" for even a moment or two. You do have one, you know. A "bad side". :-) But of course, as a Catholic, you know that.

Tatyana gave me a blast of her "bad side" a while ago. I agree, however, that the extended set of brackets was aimed at you, not me. So take that, clio!

Posted by: PatrickH on June 7, 2008 11:38 AM


Shape-shifting? Nah that's just a combo of me also modifying my premises and tone with contact to other's ideas, plus my bad habit of playing (emphasis on playing) devil's advocate for no good reason. Wilde's quote about consistancy is apropos here.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on June 7, 2008 1:54 PM

Well, PatrickH, I suppose you're right about being on my "bad side". But that was righteous indignation I felt then, not personal pique. You did sound rather complacent in that post about pursuing younger women.

I suspect that for most men, the hope that they can go on playing the stud with much younger women is as much a phantom hope as that women can go on playing the sex kitten into their 40s. I don't think the idea should be encouraged, though if they must try, well, they'll find out they're wrong soon enough.

You're quite wrong, you know, about how older women will never be approached for anything "long term". The bulk of the market for older women is older, divorced men. These men know that if they pursue too young a woman, it's unlikely she'll be available to them for the long term. 25-year-olds just aren't that interested in much older men except for a fling; those much over 40 have no hope with them. OTOH, if older men in this category pursue unmarried and childless women in the 33-40 bracket, they'll likely end up with one who will press them for marriage, which most such men don't want. Anyway, my older (divorced) female friends, all very attractive, have no difficulty finding men to date them, and these relationships apparently last for years. Not my scene, of course, because I can't get involved with divorced men (unless they get an annulment).

What I found hardest to understand is that, while nothing in any of your previous comments suggests that you have any desire for marriage, you and others who post here, also apparently disinclined to marriage, still feel free to pursue women who are at the very age when they are most likely to want marriage. Marriage, that is, not an "LRT", which really isn't the same thing at all. What gives?

Just remember that unless you make your intentions really clear in both words AND actions (many men will do the first but not the second), you could do a good deal of harm, however unintentionally.

p.s. I'm not picking on you specifically. This post is addressed to all the men who comment on their preference for younger women here.

Posted by: alias clio on June 7, 2008 4:11 PM

Oh my, I turn my back on this shit and look what I've missed!

I am new here, so I don't understand the culture here completely, but some things are clear.

Everybody had to kiss Clio's ass. And Clio has to remain charming, lest any of the men start accusing her of being a shrew.

PatrickH is a humorless hothead. Roissy is a guru to the sexually challenged male.

Am I right so far?

I am astounded by how much time you people are willing to waste on the subject of male-female relations. No wonder you don't get any sex!

The venomous attack on J really bespeaks a dangerously fucked up psyche. It is way out of order.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on June 7, 2008 7:14 PM

PatrickH is a humorless hothead.

I'm not a hothead!

Posted by: PatrickH on June 8, 2008 1:00 AM

The venomous attack on J really bespeaks a dangerously fucked up psyche. It is way out of order.

Am I right?

Well, yes you are! I think that PatrickH is a psyche indeed and it's high time he had it removed!

And poor J. Juicing older men for their money, all while being disgusted by even the thought of sex with them. And bragging about it. You're right, I shouldn't have attacked her. I should have contracted for her services!

Yes. Twenty dollars would be about right. Ideally, she would not be able to speak during the act, and I know just what kind of sex would make that happen!

So, twenty dollars it is, J. And remember, no teeth, or you only get fifteen!

Posted by: PatrickH on June 8, 2008 1:11 AM

As a guy in his forties, I like the charms and magic of a young woman. I like the women my age, and I like some women who are older than me. I even like sister wolf just because I sense something fun in her comments.

What's with the game? What kind of guy would want to teach other guys how to get laid? I can understand pushing your cart through a grocery store and thinking if this were the jungle, I'd kill that weaker looking guy and take his girl. I can't wrap my thoughts around seeing some sexually down-and-out dude in the bread isle and thinking, "I have to get on the Internet and teach this poor bastard how to get some pussy." If you're not going to care about women, then, be a MAN and try to also not care about other guys getting laid. This whole roissy thing sounds really like a form of "oprah" or "doctor phil" for dudes -- it is very womanly.

Posted by: s on June 8, 2008 2:55 AM

This was one of the all time greatest threads in internet history. It should be cast in bronze and placed in a park somewhere.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on June 8, 2008 9:50 PM

Wow, I agree with Charlton Griffin. I have been reading this for almost 3 hs!!! I love you people.

Posted by: M on June 9, 2008 2:12 AM

For most of my life I had an older-woman thing. Now that I'm middle-aged, and older women are in the geriatric set, not so much. Since I look younger than my years, I often have to pretend that middle-aged women, who may in fact be younger than me, are actually older than me, in order to get my older-woman kink on. More and more I am attracted to younger women. And it is a largely aesthetic thing, because when most women under 30 open their mouths (except in the good way), I hear culturally illiterate Barbies. The 18-30 year-olds of my youth in NYC were much better read, more culturally literate and far more articulate. If I ran into a pretty, toned, athletic young woman who spoke as well as she looked, I'd probably turn into Woody Allen.

Posted by: Bilwick1 on June 9, 2008 10:17 AM I glad I missed out on THIS comments thread!!!!!! Honestly, I think it was sort of a dumb subject.

But...whoever said that men age more gracefully than women is...a total nutjob.

Posted by: annette on June 9, 2008 10:28 AM

Not to worry PatrickH, I've had all of my teeth removed for that very purpose.

Posted by: J on June 9, 2008 11:31 AM

Michael was looking forward to your comeback, J. I think it was pretty good, and consider myself as having been bested. Well done!

Spike: Perhaps "protean" works better than "shape-shifting". Or how about "elusive", like the Scarlet Pimpernel. You're a hard man to pin down, is all.

clio: you and others who post here, also apparently disinclined to marriage, still feel free to pursue women who are at the very age when they are most likely to want marriage. Marriage, that is, not an "LRT", which really isn't the same thing at all. What gives?

Tough question, and one I can't answer right away. Despite my defence of certain positions re: older men/younger women pairings, I don't really pursue women of any age in particular. If a connection happens, then so be it. I've just found that they sometimes happen with younger women. Now, I've moved in fairly bohemian oddball circles for most of my adult life, and unusual pairings are so common that no-one's ever given a ratso's behind about even the oddest. For example, I was the "other" responsible for breaking up a long-term menage between a 30 year old guy and his two 20 year old bisexual "wives". Despite their "marriage" I got involved with both the young ones and things went kaplooey after that. Age just didn't seem to have much of anything to do with anything about that situation.

I hate to admit it, clio, but many of my connections have been with women who were attached, so questions of marriage-mindedness didn't arise. I don't do that any more, now that I no longer drink and use drugs, but none of the situations I was in seemed to have much to do with your question.

My attitude to "older" women, by which I mean women older than, say 35, even though I'm 50, is that I can and do find many of them incredibly sexy and physically desirable. I just don't seem to feel anything romantic for them. It's as if, once they cease to be in their prime reproductive years, my romantic core recognizes this, and goes to sleep. Meanwhile, the same older woman who makes my heart go snore, has got my little doggie wide awake and howling at the moon.

So, as I said, I'm not sure I can answer your question, because it doesn't quite seem to fit. But then again, I am "polymorphous" as you said, so maybe that's not really a surprise.

BTW, you know, I can't help wondering if the picture Tatyana posted is of her. Whoever she is, she's the kind of "older" woman that revs me up but good. So, "older" women are the farthest thing from chopped-liver in this guy's universe. It's just that they're objects of dry-mouthed, trembling lust rather than romantic love. Sigh. Why isn't that good enough for them?

Posted by: PatrickH on June 9, 2008 12:31 PM

Patrick, her info is in her LJ.

Posted by: Tatyana on June 9, 2008 2:05 PM

Well, Patrick, perhaps this inability to fall in love with older women has as much to do with their personalities as with their appearance. It's true that many women go through a fairly dramatic personality change as they get older. Not necessarily in a bad way (they don't all turn into angry shrews), but still less amenable to a romantic connection. But perhaps that isn't what you meant? Can't tell from what you've said here.

As I said, though, my concern was more for the younger women who fall into the hands of the older player-types. The women, that is, who are old enough to want to find a marriage partner soon, and young enough to have a realistic hope of doing so. They're the ones who are most likely to be injured by a man who wants them around for a few years but doesn't want to commit himself to anyone. My advice to men in such situations is that if you can't be a (gasp) Christian, you should at least try to be a gentleman, and be really careful not to mislead any woman about your intentions.

Posted by: alias clio on June 9, 2008 2:12 PM

It's sad and funny (not) how the disintegration of traditional morals has left pretty well everybody high dry and vulnerable, isn't it? Traditional catholic morality was, IMO, a little odd (masturbation can be fun, after all!), but with a moderate update or two, it would remove a lot of the stresses of the modern courting game. Imagine asking yourself, "How should I treat women?" and answering (gasp!): "I should do the right thing." The mind boggles.

Sigh. Maybe I should cease being a lapsed Catholic and become what Kathy Shaidle used to call herself: Relapsed Catholic.

And to end this ramble, you know, clio, you really are protective of other women, aren't you? I like that about you.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 9, 2008 2:40 PM

The thing to do, for relapsed Catholics who can't quite bring themselves to submit to the full weight of Church teachings, is to go to Mass without taking communion. At best, it might work to bring about a full conversion. At worst, you might be a little bored. Find one with good music. (In Ottawa, the cathedral on Sussex has a terrific choir that does Bach and Palestrina as well as sloppy modern stuff.)

I'm NOT proselytising, btw. Just suggesting an option. Ignore me if it doesn't interest you.

p.s. I feel protective to all the youngsters of either sex making their way through the cannibalistic shark-pool of modern courtship.

Posted by: alias clio on June 9, 2008 4:24 PM

p.s. I feel protective to all the youngsters of either sex making their way through the cannibalistic shark-pool of modern courtship.

clio, if you were protective of the male "youngsters" you'd be giving them advice on how best to get laid and keep the lays coming. you know, kinda like how i do. you want to protect a man's delicate and fragile ego and put a smile on his face? that's how to do it.
after all, men and women have different mating goals. spread the seed, hoard the egg and all that.
but patrickh's observation was spot on... you, like most women, circle the wagons when the sexual power of your sisterhood is threatened with usurpation by men learning better seduction techniques. perfectly natural, but at least be honest enough to own up to it without making absurd claims to sheltering the tender sensibilities of men and women equally.

Posted by: roissy on June 9, 2008 5:19 PM

"you want to protect a man's delicate and fragile ego and put a smile on his face?"

That is misguided. A fragile ego is not something to be cultivated, it's something to be transcended. I can't tell you how empty you sound, Roissy, and only because you advocate for a prolonged state of the pursuit of pleasure above all else. Everyone should go through a period of hedonism, and if one chooses to extend that period, than more power to you. But to proscribe that as a path that the masses should follow is a folly. It's empty and childish. There is nothing more pathetic and pitiable than a grown man with a fragile ego. I expect more from a fellow man.

Posted by: JV on June 9, 2008 5:53 PM

What, PatrickH is 50?!?!

Posted by: Sister Wolf on June 9, 2008 6:27 PM

Roissy - my advice (teasingly proferred, because I suspect his last comment was made in jest), wasn't given to a young male but to PatrickH, who acknowledges that he's getting on a little. So your suggestion misses its target. I'd give the same advice to old ladies of 30 who contemplated a fling with an 18-year-old.

When speaking to non-believers, I only suggest that they play fair and not misrepresent the kind of relationship, or non-relationship, that they want. There's more to sexual ethics than this, but at least it's a decent start.

A decent start even for you, Roissy. I mean, you don't want a Fatal Attraction type of girl chasing after you, do you? Most of them are not violent, unlike in the movie, but an angry woman is a thing to be feared; she can make your life miserable a dozen ways till Sunday without raising a finger against you.

Posted by: alias clio on June 9, 2008 7:30 PM

I am indeed a broken-down antiquated wreck of a man, Sister W, half a century upon this earth, and feeling it in my very bones. My very very bones. My soul is as dry and cold as the Gobi desert, and Death, Cold Death is the meditation of my days.

But I am as prickly, insecure, egotistical and narcissistic as any 16 year old punk. Ladies of the world beware! I make love with the skill of a teenager and the energy of a pensioner!

Sigh. I'll have to make do with J's offer, I'm afraid. Shameless girl that she is, she claims to have had her young straight twenty-something gleaming white teeth removed just for me. Well, I don't believe her! I will pay her the blood money she demands (twenty dollars), but I will be very very alert to any funny moves from her. She may be bewitchingly young and, well, young. And I, like men my age, get emotionally involved far too easily.

It matters not. I'll be ready for that minx. No matter what her plans. She'll not juice this codger. So, J, when's the meet?

P.S. Sister Wolf, do you have a boyfriend? What's your take on, oh, spirituality and such? I consider myself spiritual but not religious. How about you?

Posted by: PatrickH on June 9, 2008 7:46 PM

This is just to note that the present comment is number 102, marking the largest tally I can recall here at 2Blowhards for a single post. Thanks to all the commenters.

Posted by: Donald Pittenger on June 9, 2008 8:23 PM

But its such a shame its on such a dumb subject with such a one-dimensional view!! The way Donald set the argument up is so telling. "Men want 20-year-olds." OK. As the old joke goes..."And I want a yacht..." Do any of the over-40 male commenters "have" a 20-year-old??? Just curious. Because---having once been a 20-year-old female---it's not an accident if you don't. And as 40-something female---all you guys over 60 (over 55?)---hang it up!

Just to clarify a few misconceptions:

1) The only people who think men age more gracefully than women seem to be men---and men who are clearly highly divorced from reality and not looking in anything but funhouse mirrors. I had occasion recently (never you mind the circumstances) to see a hottie guy from my youth remove his shirt. It was surprising, and a reminder that years have passed. His chest hair was all grey!! Yikes. It shocked me, who had not seen him sans shirt since college. A 20-year-old would be rapidly reminded of their age gap physically, if even I was startled.

2) Twenty year old females vary rarely are interested in much older men, and even more rarely for the "long haul"---as in past getting the grade they want this semester. Why? In part---because men age too. Physically age, I mean. Not "mature" and "grow". I mean---age. A few may be girls who want daddy---but actually very few.

3) A guy I went to college with passed 40 and figured out he wanted to marry and have children. This was a guy who made his living as news anchor on TV---a damn goodlooking guy in his youth. He decided he wanted a 20-something. Humiliated, stunned, he retreated from the social scene a couple years later, realizing he couldn't get off first base with anybody who was any more than at most 5-6 years younger than him. As he pompously put it, "...twenties are out of reach, thirties are a stretch..." Yup. Michael Douglas pulling off what he did with Catherine Zeta-Jones was the exception, not the rule, and a vast number of men are neither as handsome or rich as Mr. Douglas. Get more handsome and more rich, and perhaps more women (any of us, but certainly 20-something) will care what you think!!!!

4) I just find it interesting and telling that you guys don't set the discussion up in questioning whether 20 wants you, or whether your wives or girlfriends would prefer 20-something themselves (and the answer--some days--youbetcha!!). You pompously set it up over all the ways women deteriorate as the years go by. Without noticing how many more women's weight, for example, let alone hairline, has changed far less than most men's. And hey guys---how about a little more liberal use of Grecian Formula? Why DO men think its so fine to go grey?? Women are at least considerate enough to use hair color!!!

Here's a toast to the utterly out-of-touch in this blog!!!!

Posted by: annette on June 10, 2008 10:34 AM

Men are like wine. Women are like cars. One matures. The other depreciates.

As for older women or men aging more gracefully, I'll just quote clio's indirect point that a lot of the lack of appeal of older women (to me, Patrick) may not be because of their deteriorating looks, but their increasingly waspish personalities.

Two reasons why that might be true, both of them involving ratios: as women go through menopause, their estrogen levels decline, causing the testosterone/estrogen ratio to increase. That ratio is in some respects as important a determinant of thought and behaviour as absolute levels of either hormone. Older women simply become more aggressive, less feminine as they age.

The other ratio of note is, well, let's call it bitchiness/sex appeal. "Bitchiness" is simply a woman shit-testing the hell out of men, and is a protective and selective mechanism that attractive women almost always have to end up using simply to avoid being nickled and dimed to death by unattractive men. If the B/SA ratio is too high (usually because sex appeal is too low), men simply won't tolerate bitchiness...we just walk away.

So older women, whose SA is declining (even an older woman sexier than almost all younger women is still almost certainly less sexy than her own younger self) who are simultaneously becoming more aggressive, dominating and generally unlovable because of an increasing T/E ratio are compounding a problem that's already getting worse because of declining SA.

It's this combination of increasingly masculine personalities and declining sex appeal that puts older women in the position of aging less gracefully than men.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 10, 2008 12:53 PM

And as 40-something female---all you guys over 60 (over 55?)---hang it up!

this is the fear of the older woman confronting the spectre of older men learning game to better attract younger women and passing her over that i write of.

Posted by: roissy on June 10, 2008 1:46 PM

Roissy---you're absolutely right!!!! You've seen through me!!!!! I'm so embarassed to be "caught"!!! I bet people around can't even look you in the eye because of your laser perceptiveness.

PatrickH---It appears you are quite the expert on "waspishness"--you give such excellent examples in your own writings. How could I argue with such an expert on waspishness---especially since you responded so...waspishly about being called "over the hill".

Honestly, Donald---2blowhards had gotten past this silliness for so long. What exactly was the point of your posting? Given that you posted your own wedding pic and---for example---you have not aged more gracefully than your wife--in case ya didn't know. If you guys can't think of anything to say...don't post!!! Or I guess perhaps I should not read...maybe that's the better idea. I hadn't hung out here for a long time....and I was eager to catch up. It too bad this is all that was going on!!

Posted by: annette on June 10, 2008 4:08 PM

annette -- If a blog is going to stay afloat, content needs to keep flowing. I'm not much of a link-blogger, so I write essays and the problem is to keep coming up with topics -- on the order of 200 per year, in my case. In addition, I think that I have to keep subjects changing to provide variety. This boils down to me being happy if I can come up with anything reasonably suitable.

In the case of the present post, I was mostly noting that there are some older guys who can't seem to get beyond dating or marrying fairly young women. This fact was triggered by a reference in that recent Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton, and one of his cronies was the case in point (I didn't mention this in the posting because my inspiration source didn't really matter).

As usual, I tried to spice things up to the extent that hooks were tossed in to get different people interested -- adding subthemes, if you will. These included physical attractiveness, aging, ego, wealth and power, respect and emotional maturity, along with perhaps another few. These are perennial items of interest to most people that I think can be tossed out as blog fodder from time to time, and like to think I do it sparingly.

I never claimed that I was youthful looking (good Lord, I'm 68 years old!) and I thought I made the point (without pounding a nearby table) that I didn't approve of older men obsessing on young women.

Beyond that, the comment thread did what it did, and comment threads can be pretty unpredictable; you write something you think readers can sink their teeth into, then off they go doing back-and-forths over an aside.

In any case, try to stick around because some changes for 2Blowhards seem to be in the offing.

Posted by: Donald Pittenger on June 10, 2008 5:33 PM

Roissy, game can only do so much for a man who is much over 40, even if he has kept in shape and kept his appearance generally. The youngest women, the ones in their 20s, may want him for a fling, as an experiment, but usually no more than that. Warren Beatties and Michael Douglases are not thick on the ground. Even Beatty had to accept a woman of 35, not 25.

The slightly older women, the ones in their late 20s and early 30s, might consider an older man, but are more likely to want a husband and family than an extended affair. They don't have much time to waste on such things and they know it. (That's why I pressed PatrickH on this issue.) They'll probably not accept a really older man as a husband - i.e. 50, not 35 - unless he's really successful, enough to offset the fact that he's likely to die sooner, and she'll lose his income to help support their children.

I just don't think that it's more realistic for men to expect that Game will work indefinitely than it is for women to think that their "SA" will endure into their late 40s. It could happen, in other words, but the odds are against it.

Posted by: alias clio on June 10, 2008 5:33 PM

annette, thank you for proving every point Roissy and I and others have made. What an absurd performance. You lack a sense of irony, my dear, or you wouldn't have led with your (aging) chin the way you just did.

As for my responding "waspishly" to J, Sister W said my response was indicative of a dangerously f*cked up psyche. Well, it's one or the other. Can't be both. In any case, J, the target of my response, proceeded in her own unruffled post-modern twenty-something way to hand me my ass, and in the process gave me a lesson in how irony works. I've learned something. How about you?

And...have you even read Donald's original post? Why would you feel justified in dumping your slops all over his head based on what he wrote? His view of men's "fixation" on 20 year olds was eye-rolling in its lack of sympathy.

Of course, you're really demanding that he simply refuse to accept comments like the ones in this thread, at least comments you don't like. That would certainly spare your feelings. But this has been a really interesting discussion, and has forced me to reexamine some of my own prejudices and behaviours. Lighten up, and maybe you'll get a chance to examine some of yours.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 10, 2008 5:41 PM

"men simply won't tolerate bitchiness...we just walk away."


P.S. PatrickH, I am happily married, thank you for asking. As for religion, I am a devout atheist and moralist, without much spirituality.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on June 10, 2008 9:50 PM

Now, Sister Wolf, play fair. The quote in full is "If the B/SA ratio is too high (usually because sex appeal is too low), men simply won't tolerate bitchiness...we just walk away." That's true. Ugly women don't get the chance to pull on our short and curlies more than once, and only for as long as it takes us to pay enough attention to them to realize what they're doing. Good looking women...well, Roissy once put a pic of Heidi Klum up on his blog, with the caption,"I will shit-test you till the day you die." Men would put up with it from her--her SA is through the roof. Other women...not so much.

Well, I guess the spirituality thing worked as well on you as it did on clio. I am going to have to rethink my "Game".

I do have a question, though. Why were you so surprised I'm 50? I'd like to think it's because of the energy and optimism of my comments, as well as the sense of innocence, if not naivete, I project. I'd like to think that, but...

Posted by: PatrickH on June 10, 2008 10:38 PM

It's biology. Yeah, the visuals are great and all if you're lucky -- and I am decidedly unlucky at 54 -- but I believe Darwin had a lot to say about this. We seek to mate with those who can survive childbirth and upgrade our lineage, which means young and hot. Between Darwin and Einstein, life as we know it is all explained.

Posted by: Glenn Abel on June 11, 2008 4:42 AM

It's biology. Yeah, the visuals are great and all if you're lucky -- and I am decidedly unlucky at 54 -- but I believe Darwin had a lot to say about this. We seek to mate with those who can survive childbirth and upgrade our lineage, which means young and hot. Between Darwin and Einstein, life as we know it is all explained.

Posted by: Glenn Abel on June 11, 2008 4:42 AM

I admit I'm trying to be the last poster on this "historic" thread. Here's a great way to end it...

Top that if you can!

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on June 12, 2008 12:09 PM

only a female would write a blog about a [url=]swingers[/url] and mention "feelings" in every damn paragraph.

only a female would need to lay out [url=]sex[/url] rules. guys are born with these stenciled on the inside of our eyelids.

I move to have this post thrown out, your honor.

Posted by: Chigreegirway on June 14, 2008 11:45 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?