Does it seriousherly not bother any one that?
Bruce Willis is 20 years older than Milla Jovovich. Did that not come off as just a a bit creepy to anyone but me.
shareIt bothered me. I bet most people here who aren't bothered by it would've been if the genders were reversed.
shareExactly but that's WHY it's not creepy. Older, gainfully employed men can still successfully father and help raise a child. On average they earn higher wages than their younger counterparts as well so the young man, older woman having a child doesn't work out as well financially.
Older women can't reliably conceive and safely give birth, and most older women let themselves go so they look like jabba the hut, not something that attracts a younger male unless he's into her for her money which is a more creepy situation to me than age whether it be young man & old woman or old man and young woman.
To be fair there are many examples of men that also let themselves go but at the time, Bruce Willis wasn't one of them besides the deliberate fitting into the role as cast.
There's no such thing as "creepy" in biology, only what works and what doesn't. If two people's personalities are compatible that's far more important than age.
[deleted]
That makes no sense. There's nothing perfect "biological"(ly) about a couple that don't have children.
There's nothing perfect biologically about not having physical attraction. Men tend to keep their vigor, muscle tone, and general activity level MUCH higher further into their life.
Older women like to pretend they have experience on their side and that they're more "mature". The problem is these aren't assets in today's world. The internet can educate a person about almost anything and maturity is just a made up word implying you are past personal responsibility and have transcended to a point of not having fun and taking risks any longer, are essentially dying inside emotionally.
Pressure as a term can be considered a few ways, that there are varying degrees of it. Certainly a certain amount of pressure becomes unreasonable but at the same time any couple has to give and take, do things for their mate with the mutual understanding that some give will be reciprocated.
Dying around the same time? I don't feel it is relevant. Planning a lifetime around death instead of the right match in LIFE between two people seems to be ignoring that we are unique individuals, many of which would rather have a few dozen great years even if the last few are alone.
We just can't predict lifespan beyond vague averages for an average lifestyle, and if one or the other mate were significantly different enough in age then they may find love again after the death of a mate. It happens all the time for those who keep an open heart and LIVE life instead of becoming couch potatoes.
[deleted]
Actually most men, who can afford it, do want children after a certain point in life but many haven't found a woman they have confidence in to be a good life long partner, don't want a situation where there's a broken family.
Don't assume an age difference means a different "point in life". It has everything to do with personality. Some men... all they have is their career and reputation, and will make it a burden on their family as it is the entirety of their identity. Some men never grow up and may be less responsible at 50 yo than a woman at 25. Others walk a different path in life.
What's most important is to not make assumptions. Spending time with someone that makes you happy is a good thing even if it doesn't last forever.
It is all about looks. only AFTER that, does the rest matter. Hollywood is irrelevant, a land where people get plastic surgery and have professional makeup artists work on them before public appearances. Look at Hollywood stars when they get caught on camera at a beach or going to a store. They don't look especially attractive in their everyday lives, but there is a certain level of attractiveness need.
If a person is cold hearted, lazy or stupid, it reflects in their appearance. I'd never judge based on generic traits that people have no control over but 90% of the time the problem is a person refuses to respect themselves enough to stay healthy and active. They think going camping or rock climbing once a week is active while they sit around the rest of the time.
Biologically it IS all about having children. LGBT are genetic flaws in biology. They are still completely deserving of every right the rest of society has but throwing them into a discussion about biology tells me you are misusing the term biology when you meant some other term like sociology.
[deleted]
You missed the point which was that you can't reasonably generalize based on age instead of treating each person as an individual no matter what their age.
share[deleted]
It might depend on how large the age difference and whether you actually know they're much older or not. When I was 35 I looked younger than that, had mostly 20-something women hitting on me and 30+ y/o women assumed they were too old for me.
The same goes for women, some look younger at 45 than others at 30. Some even look 35 at 20. It has a lot to do with eating healthy and getting enough exercise, maintaining a good weight, not getting caught up in alcohol or drugs. If a person can't even treat themselves right how well would they treat a mate?
The same is true for older and younger mates. An older mate that treats themself well is better for a younger mate than someone of the same age that treats him or her like crap.
There's no evidence that LGBT people are the result of genetic flaws. Natural variation, yes, but to call them a flaw would be to ignore the potential benefits of having LGBT people in your tribe.
No sir, it is not all about having children. That's overly simplistic. It's also about contributing to society in other ways, or fulfilling other roles. It's very possible that LGBT people are evolutionally produced or selected for because having a certain amount of them actually helps society in some way, or confers certain benefits.
For instance, humans often live well into their elderly years, long past child bearing years in most cases. Why don't humans just die after shortly after their child bearing years, instead of continuing to consume their family's resources into their old age?
The answer likely is that they continue to fulfill other roles, such as helping raise other's children or acting as grandparents, or contributing in some other way via crafting or being called upon to dispense elderly wisdom. These non-child-bearing functions still help the clan.
In order for a village to be successful, not everyone needs to be having a bunch of kids. There's plenty of room for other roles without resorting to calling them genetic defects.
Remember, it's just not about procreation, it's also about a functioning society or tribe, where there's room for people in roles other than baby-maker.
And of course, let's not ignore the fact that lots of LGBT people do have children.
The greatest trick God ever pulled was convincing the world that He's good.