Google Branded Sexist for Saying No to Cougars

[gmcboot]

Banthracis - However, the idea that we have no control over our baser nature is just not true. You also failed to answer my question, if this is all evolutionary, why a young woman would want an older and in some cases, OLD man. If it is evolutionary, she should be looking for only young men. Sorry, this is the same excuse people try to use as to why men cheat. They can't help themselves, it part of their nature. We have to spread out seed to keep the heard healthy and alive. That's crap. Men cheat because they want to, just like women cheat. The idea of that deep down our baser instincts take over and we cannot help ourselves in this situation is false. That excuse is used by men, and I am a man, to try to cover up for acting like a duche. If evolution was controlling out base natures, then women should be having babies with different men every time. Their evolutionary drive would make them find the best mate to have offspring with... every time. The guy they have a baby with a 22 is probably not the strongest most capable specimen when she is 32. He definitely isn't at 52 or 62. Or in the case of Anna Nichole, 742. If you people are going to make that argument then it needs to be applied to both sides of the equation... male and female. The argument is always only applied to the male side.. because it is used as a sad excuse.

Everybody just needs to be honest. Old men and old women (in some cases) want hot young things just because they want hot young things. Men and women cheat because they want to cheat. It not mother nature forcing them. It not beyond their control. Google is saying this site is family unfriendly because the idea of women exercising their rights like men when it comes to sexuality, scares someone there. OR they are related to Sarah Palin and are just freaking stupid... (like how I snuck Sara Palin in at the end... Classic).

 

[rooket]

Ugh, single moms = nymphomaniac. Been there, done that. They are bipolar. I woulnd't suggest it to my worst enemy.

 

[WarraWarra]

LMAO when was google supposed to be anything family related.

Google you are not China so stop learning China Govrm. tricks and forcing it on the rest of us.

GOOGLE also stop the Chrome force your users to accept new bull ---t changes to your website / search feature.

IF WE WANTED BING WE WOULD USE BING TO TORTURE OURSELVES AND NOT GOOGLE AS SUBSTITUTE.

Last time I checked USA was supposed to have democracy, freedom of speech, a constitution and a legal system maybe Google a USA company knows something we don't ?

 

[banthracis]

Read my post gmcboot. I specifically said that the opposite is true in cases where the female of the species lives longer/is fertile longer. It's the result of evolution that in mammals this occurs in males.

IT DOES apply to BOTH males and females. Unfortunately, you were born as a member of a species in which this bias is towards females.

Old men want hot young things because they want sex with hot young things. Sex drive has evolved to cause us to view young hot thing = sexually fit to produce offspring. Whether our desire is to procreate is irrelevant, the sex drive by nature causes us look for fit mates, and fit mates by evolutionary definition are young and hot. Whether other attributes such as intelligence and personality are natural, or more human defined is up to debate.

I never claimed this is a justification for cheating... stop assuming I'm making conclusion I'm not. I'm merely giving an evolutionary explanation for why this double standard exists.

I even state that there's nothing wrong with older women looking for younger men.

MY ONLY point is that in nature there is an evolutionary JUSTIFICATION as to WHY MEN WHO SEEK YOUNGER FEMALES are benefited in terms of fitness and why this behavior can evolve naturally. I also explain why the reverse DOES not naturally evolve in the opposite case, unless it's in a species with where females live longer/are reproductively fit longer.

 

[banthracis]

Oh about the why young women would want old men part. Evolutionarily an older male is fully capable of producing offspring, while a past middle age female is not. Hence, it is more likely for a female to seek an older male (who is still capable of reproduction) rather than a young male seek a female no longer capable of reproduction, evolutionarily speaking.

As to why a human female would pick the older male, this is where other factors besides physical fitness come in. In this case usually money as you stated. Unfortunately, this also goes into the realm of man conceived ideals and moves past a purely evolutionary analysis.

However, the point still exists that a young male has no evolutionary benefit in hooking up with a much older female. In the opposite situation, at least the male is still " sexually fit."

In social insects and species with females that are sexually fit for longer, the opposite is true.

 

[backin5]

[citation][nom]banthracis[/nom]I'm merely giving an evolutionary explanation for why this double standard exists. [/citation]

This is not an evolutionary explanation for the double standard, merely an excuse. It doesn't matter whether or not people have an underlying evolutionary motive for having sex at any given situation. The matter of fact is that both women and men have sex for more than just reproduction (and human beings are not the only animals to do so).

Are you suggesting that this evolutionary explanation makes it valid for society to allow men to have sex freely while prohibiting women from doing so?

Are you supporting the long-lasting sexist tradition that women who are interested in sex are sluts, while men interested in sex are just men?

This whole reproduction/evolution reasoning doesn't really justify any of those double standards. You wanna go back to the cavemen age? Be careful not to be devoured by a cougar, as unlikely as it might seem...

 

[banthracis]

backin5, you like a lot of people take a scientific conclusion about a very specific questions and try to apply to it everything.


I'll make it simple for you:

Question: Why is is that human behavior promotes old male/young female relationships, but not the opposite?

Answer: Human sex drive encourages finding of mates who are sexually fit, which equates to young and hot. A young female can mate with a much older male, as the male is still sexually fit, and may have other advantages. A young male, however, would have no benefit in mating with a much older female who is no longer capable of producing offspring.

This is a specific answer to a specific question. This conclusion in no way relates to prohibitions on free sex, sexist traditions, or for that matter ANY human values/ideals, as I stated multiple times.

The ONLY thing this conclusion answers is the above specific question. If you choose to infer other meaning from above conclusion than you're no better than those idiots who infer all Muslims are terrorists because a few of them bombed some buildings.

This is not an excuse for the double standard, merely an explanation as to why it exists.

It's like you asking why do I have to takes dumps?

Answer: Because there's an evolutionary advantage to being able to remove waste from your body...aka you don't die and therefor get to reproduce.

It's not an excuse, it's a scientific explanation for a behavior.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]banthracis[/nom]I agree with everything you say except that line. Homosexuality is actually much more common in the animal world than previously believed, and may in fact result in an advantage. The classic example is black swans. Often male/male pairing will steal nest's from females and the young raised by them have a much higher chance of survival to adulthood. Similarly, female/female pairings in albatross (once considered an epitome of lifelong monogamous pairing)are now discovered to be significant in number, and function by having 1 female of the pair solicit a male in a "relationship" and the pair raising the egg together afterward. This allows females normally unable to attract the best mates, the chance to reproduce with them and still be able to raise chicks. So basically, in situations of homosexuality found in nature, there is often a survival and evolutionary advantage to the behavior. Obviously, the applicability of these natural finding to human behavior is debatable.[/citation]


I'm confused by your remarks about the homosexual males. You are saying they take over the nests of females, and raise their young. Where is the reproductive benefit of this, to them? Their DNA is not passed along, the females is.

In your latter argument, you are confusing homosexuality with bisexuality. Bisexuality could have benefits, as it could create a stronger bond with others who could be helpful, but with reproduction - which strongly implies heterosexuality, it's not helpful as a means of perpetuating genes.

More to the point, I was referring to humans, not to birds. You could have argued that homos do well by proxy - they are more attentive to their relatives children and are more nurturing, thus increasing their survival rate. I don't believe it, but there are studies on it, and it's not like I am always right, so who knows?

Either way, it's far more normal for heterosexuality than homosexuality, and it's also more normal for men liking younger women.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]backin5[/nom]This is not an evolutionary explanation for the double standard, merely an excuse. It doesn't matter whether or not people have an underlying evolutionary motive for having sex at any given situation. The matter of fact is that both women and men have sex for more than just reproduction (and human beings are not the only animals to do so).Are you suggesting that this evolutionary explanation makes it valid for society to allow men to have sex freely while prohibiting women from doing so? Are you supporting the long-lasting sexist tradition that women who are interested in sex are sluts, while men interested in sex are just men?This whole reproduction/evolution reasoning doesn't really justify any of those double standards. You wanna go back to the cavemen age? Be careful not to be devoured by a cougar, as unlikely as it might seem...[/citation]

You're kind of confused, and not thinking clearly. You're probably too close to it think objectively.

Men cheating on women is far more normal, for obvious reasons. The reproduction rate is limited by a female, meaning even if she has 100 males, she can only have kids as quickly as she can have kids. So, having more males, in general, doesn't increase her reproductivity (unless in limited situations where the male is infertile, etc...).

However, a male can have more kids by fertilizing more females. Consequently, there is a huge benefit for him to propagate himself with multiple females. So, yes, it is more common for men to want more partners, as there is more of a benefit in passing DNA down to successive generations.

Another bad trait for men would be to have complete control over this. Men that did would have fewer sexual partners, and would be less successful breeding, thus it's of some biological importance that men do not ignore these instincts too easily. The ones that did had less children, and their DNA would have propagated less. Now, the opposite is also true - men that were so indiscreet to have no fear of who they were having sex with would be killed, or suffer severe consequences for it that might make reproduction less likely, as opposed to more.

 

[banthracis]

Regarding the example of albatross. It's not bisexuality as after the mating the male plays no role. It's the female/female pair that raises and nurtures the chick.

For more info read Lauren Young's paper on the matter.
Successful same-sex pairing in Laysan albatross
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18505710

In the matter of the Black swans, it's a case of male mates with female and then the male/male pairing drives away the female after she lays the eggs.

More details in a series of papers by LW Braithwaite.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR9810135.htm

I agree that heterosexual pairing are more common. My point is that the incidence of homosexuality in nature is much higher than previously thought and that in the cases that do exist, there is an often clear evolutionary advantage for the existence of the behavior.

I was objecting to your claim homosexual pairing are less successful in raising young, not your overall conclusions which I agree with.

 

[eddieroolz]

What a trivial complaint. Seriously, get something better to do...

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]am_inspire[/nom]TA152H - I see you're too lazy to change the way you think about the status quo here. You seem to forget that women claiming double standards won their right to vote only 100 years ago. You seem to forget that one of the greatest leaders of African American civil rights was a woman who refused to think that sitting in the back of a bus was 'just the way it is'.Men may be attracted to whoever or whatever for all the reasons you stated, but I don't see why you feel the need to rail against independent women who fight for their own rights and against double-standards. Do you feel threatened?NewJohnny - your anthropological filter is pretty rose-colored if you think that explains everything. You forget to mention that during much of history people were bought and sold as little more than property. That women were beaten by their husbands without any avenue for justice or reprieve. If we continue to justify the present using the past, then no - we would hardly make any progress as a species.Believe it or not, my historically-amnesiac contemporaries, a lot of progress has been made for humanity & human rights in the last century or two - and these good old days where women were subservient and didn't speak out for themselves and against the norm are gone. Prepare to be challenged.[/citation]

You must be a woman, and it's sad you hate what you are, but I can understand it (but, it's not easy being a man either, you just don't see all the problems). But, you won't change nature. What you got was because men agreed to it, not because women were so powerful they could get it without men wishing for it. We don't view females as enemies, as we view mothers, sisters, daughters, etc..., as very important and thus want good things for them.

That's the crux of the matter. You're into some weird war of the sexes, but forget it. There's too much collaboration with the enemy. Most people have others from the opposite gender that they love, and are very close to.

Based on your remarks, you're probably young, and don't know how easy it is to manipulate men yet, so you're frustrated.

But, keep plugging away. Get all frustrated, worked up, and keep thinking you'll change the way nature made things.

Oh, and by the way, the reason the lady was told to sit in the back of the bus wasn't because she was female. Men give up seats to females, moreso years ago, but you really wouldn't know much about that, would you?

 

[banthracis]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]What a trivial complaint. Seriously, get something better to do...[/citation]

You're obviously not a scientist. Scientific conclusion are criticized in precisely this manner, because we value accuracy and correctness of data and conclusions.

Unlike politician's we love to spin everything, in science you base conclusions on experimental evidence, and correct conclusions as warranted when given sufficient facts.

It's the equivalent of fixing a minor factual error to turn a good paper into a great one.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Women will complain about how nature made them until time ends, but the reality is, it's normal for a man to be attracted to a younger woman, and far less common for the reverse. Dumb women claim double standards, and societal issues, etc... These idiots will eventually understand it is just the way nature made people, and complaining will not change it. It's basically instinctive.The reason is simple, women lose fertility much sooner, and more dramatically, whereas even 70 year old men can have kids. From a purely procreative aspect, a woman over 40 or so is essentially worthless, whereas a man can easily still reproduce and if he has wealth, or material possessions, can offer the female an excellent chance to have and raise children to adulthood. Because bearing a child is so much more difficult, women's fertility is of a much shorter duration, and their attractiveness fades with it.Now, some twit will say some men like older women, or so on and so forth. This is true, just as there are homosexuals who fall outside of the norm, and efficiency of reproduction. But, by and large, it is more normal for men to be attracted to younger women than the reverse. Fair or not, complain or not, it's just how it is. It's not even fair for women to whine to use about it, we can't help it. We're designed that way, and it's not so great for men either. It's a lot easier to get along with a 35 year old that has some idea what she wants, than a 20 year old. But, the 20 year old is instinctively more attractive.[/citation]


while i agree with your reasoning , i have to argue rather or not a 40 year old woman is useless. my cousin whom is about 35 is with a girl that is 43 , she is beautiful and fit,and she has an 8 year old daughter she got froma p[riveious marriage, well my cousin and her just had a kid together (another daughter). so i can't say that 40 is totally worthless.

 

[demonhorde665]

hmm after reding more comments i'd like to add , while all teh scientific stuff may be true facts about bilogical wiring and instincts , it still should not be an excuse to treat women differntly than men.

its is one thing to say , "well the women should expect this attitude, but many of you folks are using comments like "what a bunch of dumb a-- women" which just makes you sound sexiest and then undermines your entire argument from the start.

yes women know the world they live in they might should expect sexiest views to rear up from time to time, it doesn't mean they should accept that treatment or those views. Expecting and accepting are two different things. I "expect" quite a few women view men as sexiest bullies, but i wil not accept and give in to that view should a woman peg me as such, so again tell me how your argument(s) is an excuse that they should accept unfair treatment ??

 

[descendency]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]it still should not be an excuse to treat women differntly than men.[/citation]
So, just because people are different doesn't mean you should treat them different?

So it's OK to make fun of retarded people since it's ok to make fun of normal people? or to make cripple people walk from the back of walmart's parking lot? or to force old people to take the stairs like the rest of us?

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]banthracis[/nom]Regarding the example of albatross. It's not bisexuality as after the mating the male plays no role. It's the female/female pair that raises and nurtures the chick. For more info read Lauren Young's paper on the matter.Successful same-sex pairing in Laysan albatrosshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18505710In the matter of the Black swans, it's a case of male mates with female and then the male/male pairing drives away the female after she lays the eggs. More details in a series of papers by LW Braithwaite.http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR9810135.htmI agree that heterosexual pairing are more common. My point is that the incidence of homosexuality in nature is much higher than previously thought and that in the cases that do exist, there is an often clear evolutionary advantage for the existence of the behavior. I was objecting to your claim homosexual pairing are less successful in raising young, not your overall conclusions which I agree with.[/citation]

OK, so you're talking about bisexuality, at best. That's not the same thing, at all. Besides, who's saying two male birds are having sex?

Homosexuality means excluding sex with the opposite sex, is bad for reproduction.

 

[banthracis]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]OK, so you're talking about bisexuality, at best. That's not the same thing, at all. Besides, who's saying two male birds are having sex? Homosexuality means excluding sex with the opposite sex, is bad for reproduction.[/citation]

Scientifically, homosexuality is defined as romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex. In general, the term is not limited to only those of the same sex that have sexual intercourse. In the cases of the albatross and black swans, courtship and other behavior is unchanged from a heterosexual pairing, with one of the pair members taking on the courtship behavior of the opposite sex.

If you're defining homosexuality as a term exclusive to same sex pairs practicing sexual intercourse, then yes you are correct.

 

[Guest]

Ok, so it starts out as cougars and sugar daddies, and ends up in childporno!
Cougars are dirty! they should allow a young guy to develop a relationship normally, not sexually pushed like most cougars are.
Same with sugar daddies bytheway.

 

[backin5]

[citation][nom]banthracis[/nom]... If you choose to infer other meaning from above conclusion than you're no better than those idiots who infer all Muslims are terrorists because a few of them bombed some buildings. This is not an excuse for the double standard, merely an explanation as to why it exists. [/citation]

A) I don't think all Muslims are terrorists. If anything, just because some terrorists consider themselves as Muslims, doesn't make them Muslims, but that's a matter for a different discussion.

B) Now I'll ask you simply: In your opinion does the whole scientific reasoning you gave for the existence of the double standard means Google (or anyone else for that matter) has a right to discriminate? If your answer is like mine, a big fat no, then the reasoning for the double standard is irrelevant to this discussion.