the movie is Moonstruck... used to be my favorite before this A crap took even that away! Now that she's history the movie is ready for another viewing!!!

Another female responding here. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I agree with a previous poster that usually the A partner/s looks/age have nothing to do with it (probably except in cases where a man enters his “mid life crisis” and looking for younger & attractive women to boost his/her fragile ego and vica versa). However, I would say in general, most A’s start as an attraction and/or emotional connection with the opposite sex which have nothing to do with age, physical appearance etc. It’s interesting that many times, people become involved with a person who is far less attractive (in physical appearance, personality etc.) than the spouse. It's all how the OP makes the WS feel, and like the previous poster has said - willingness/openness/availability factor etc.

In my case the OM was 15 years older than me - I was in my late 20's then. He is overweight and not someone I would describe as physically attractive – just average - but his friendship, the emotional connection and his care, interest & concern towards me, were the things that drew my attention. But as the emotional attraction & attachment towards him developed, he actually started appearing physically attractive to me as well...How weird!

Because OM was much older than me, I initially viewed him as sort of a “father figure” and therefore I felt safe being friends with him. Since he was a much older man, there was no way in my mind that it could turn to an A. Also, OM was reserved & introvert and appeared to have a certain “shyness” of character. This was also attractive to me and initially gave me more reason to feel ‘safe’ with him and with time I have let my “guard” down. Normally I’m very cautious towards the opposite sex and if the OM was of the same age group than me, I know I wouldn’t allow myself to develop a close friendship with him. The same would be true if OM was outgoing and extrovert. Personally I don't like/trust men who appear too 'loud', outgoing and charming and such characteristics/behavior put me easily "on guard".

The above was applicable on me as well.

During my friendship with OM I was very naive and certainly didn’t view him as someone who would in the end try to lure me into in A. However, afterwards (after the inappropriate friendship has ended) I’ve realized that he probably hit his “mid life crisis” at the time, although the early 40's might probably be too young for a man to have a mid life crisis...I'm not sure. And probably OM viewed my attention, concern and friendship towards him as flattering and this helped to feed his ego since I was much younger than him. I know OM viewed me as very attractive and probably that was a contributing factor too.

The opposite can apply as well (with older women and younger men). I know of a BH on these boards whose W was involved with a man 17 years younger than her and I have read about women who tell how younger men sometimes try to pursue them or "get after them". The world is a strange place sometimes isn’t it? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Your "curiosity" aside, apl, what is the reason for your question, and now your "clarification" of what the original question should have included?

This is beginning to sound more and more like "research" for a college term paper.

Why are a lot of men interested in younger women? I guess because 25 is more attractive than 50.

Here are some gross generalizations:

1) young people have less baggage.
2) they tend to be upbeat (life hasn't had as much time to grind them into pulp yet).
3) young people are less likely to have children from a previous marriage; they are less likely to have an ex at all for that matter.
4) they have less responsibilities, hence, they are freer to be spontaneous.
5) they have less in the way of life experiences and are easier to impress and easier to manipulate.
6) they tend to be less insistant on being right in each and every interaction and turning, even casual conversation, into a debate. They are less on the lookout for the slight that certainly must be hidden in the last kind remark.

I think that there is a difference in seeing someone as attractive from wishing to have a relationship with them.
In my sit., the OW was older . . . hmmmm . . .

apl, if you want the "easy" answers to your inquiry there are two "basic" reasons that apply to men:

1. From an Evolutionist point of view: it's because younger women are still fertile and the chances of procreating are greater, as well as the potential for "healthier" eggs (add to that, monogamy severly restricts the progeny possibilities);

2. From a Biblical point of view: That is how God created men and their level of testosterone. It is also why the Scripture contains the directive to Husbands to NOT forget the "wife of their youth."

Remember that, in large part because of the high level of testosterone, men tend to be HIGHLY visual. Why do you suppose the preponderance of television and print advertising stresses youth, appearance, and "sexiness" when targeting men? Call it "eye candy" for the very visual reasons advertisers know will get and emotional response by men and, by default, the TEMPTATION to disobey God and the covenantal agreement that is marriage. Anyone heard, for example, of "Girls Gone Wild" or "Playboy?" Any yes, there are also things for women that play to the same desires, such as "Chippendales."

It really IS that simple.

On the other hand, societal issues (weak self image, etc.) can add to the of appearing to "being so smart" to some young, naive, less experiened "thing."

To the point made by Suzet and others, for women (my wife's OM was 11 years younger than her) INFIDELITY usually begins as a "friendship/acquaintance" relationship that "grows" over time as more and more "barriers" are lowered. That's why most women who engage in infidelity are in Class II affairs and not "ONS" or "SA" type of affairs.

Hope that helps the research.

So, FH - why was so much testosterone added to the recipe if there was a Choice? Using your logic, seems less would have made the temptation issue moot. Or was it to energize evolution? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I'll stick with my original response - some men "need" younger women to salve their low self esteem, boost their fragile egos, and cling to youth. These are the same guys who agonize over losing their hair.

WAT
---------------
Before you know it they'll start claiming that people are made of atoms - just like rocks and stuff.

I think most men and women have an "age range" of what they find attractive. For myself and most of my female friends the men we find most attractive would be in ten year range of our own ages. Either 5 years younger, or five years older. Anything more than that feels creepy. Quite honestly when I see a wellbuilt 20 something although techincally he may be very attractive (6 pack abs, big arms, tanned, nice butt ect) but he would be missing a few lines, a few sags, a few grey hairs and for me at my age I have to see a bit of that otherwise that man is not physically attractive to me. I find my defintion of what I find attractive changes as I age.

For many men the age range is wider I think. It would be more in the 15 year range, either ten years younger or about five years older(if the woman is well preserved). That is what I have observed with my H and even some other men that I know. H no longer looks at women in their late teens or early 20`s. He looks at women in the late 20`s and up to women in their mid 40`s. He says he finds women in their late teens and early 20`s are too young and a physical turn off.

Of course you do have the odd balls that will go for people who are decades older or younger than themselves but I think that`s a sign of some sort of emotional problem. I think most people have a natural range and they will pretty much stick to that.

WAT, I don’t know what evolution has to do with this whole discussion...but for me, evolution and the creation of the world by God goes perfectly together and I don't understand the "debate" between scientists and Christians about this issue… Hasn’t God said in his Word Himself that in HIS timing a day can be equaled to thousands of years and vica versa? And God never explained in His Word exactly how and in which time frame the world were created by Him... Yes, He said 7 days, but in God's timing that could be equalled to 7 thousand (or even 7 million or 7 trillion years). IMO, that explains everything (and the existance of evolution).

Anyway, obviously one of the reasons why God created men and women as sexual beings was to ensure reproduction. For obvious reasons men need more testosterone than women to ensure proper sexual functioning and therefore reproduction... Let me explain: As you know, women don’t necessarily need to be fully sexually stimulated in order to conceive, but for a man to impregnate a woman he NEEDS to be sexually stimulated in order to get an erection otherwise intercourse and therefore reproduction would not be possible…and as you know the hormone testosterone controls the sexual drive of both men and women. And this obviously explains why men were created with so much testosterone. Real plain and simple isn’t it? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

If I may, please allow me to share something with you. The following paragraph is from the book ”The Purpose Driven Life” written by Rick Warren (a pastor):

It is not a sin to be tempted. Jesus was tempted, yet he never sinned. Temptation only becomes a sin when you give in to it. Martin Luther said, “You cannot keep birds from flying over your head but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair.” You can’t keep the Devil from suggesting thoughts, but you can choose not to dwell or act on them.

For example, many people don’t know the difference between physical attraction or sexual arousal, and lust. They are not the same. God made every one of us a sexual being, and that is good. Attraction and arousal are the natural, spontaneous, God-given responses to physical beauty, while lust is a deliberate act of the will. Lust is a choice to commit in your mind what you’d like to do with your body. You can be attracted or even aroused without choosing to sin by lusting. Many people, especially Christian men, feel guilty that their God-given hormones are working. When they automatically notice an attractive woman, they assume it is lust and feel ashamed and condemned. But attraction is not lust until you begin to dwell on it.

I cannot speak for other men but when my H sees an attractive women or a woman who may not be very attractive but has an one attractive attribute he instaneously has a mental flash. For my H attractiveness equals an immediate mental image.

I myself am not wired that way and my H finds this odd. If we would see a man my H thought I would find attractive he used to ask me if I was being immediately aroused, thinking dirty thoughts.

No of course not. Never. I am not wired to see a man on the street with a nice butt and to have an immediate mental image of what I could do with that butt. I think to myself "nice butt" and that`s it. Nothing more.

The same with me… We women are just wired differently. For instance, I will find certain attributes on men (like a six pack, nice shoulders and bi-ceps etc.) very attractive and admirable, but I will never get instantly aroused by it or mental images in my head… I can only get sexually aroused when there is an emotional connection and attraction towards a man. As explained by FH, usually men are very visual (and therefore get easily aroused by visual images) whilst us women are more emotional beings and need the emotional connection with a man first.

I didn't bring it up - FH did. But it has a LOT to do with it.

I was just challenging his logic for the amount of testosterone "added" to the mix if there was a Choice, since it also is responsible for the "temptation." Seems a really Intelligent Design would have accounted for this conflict.

Clearly, survival of any non-asexual species is dependent on innate sexual (reproductive) yearnings - whether consciously known to be reproductive or not.

A sound argument exists that men are attracted to younger women solely as a perpetuation of the species thing. Same goes for why men might be attracted to physically appealing women and vice versa - survival of the fittest/healthiest/ect. But I'd like to think our (humans)higher cognitive ability, compared to our cousins, and our societal skills and progression gives us the discretion to "override" base, innate yearnings. We can follow the rules when we want to. Thus, people who nonetheless succomb to biological "temptation" are, well, using the same cognitive ability and imagination to "justify" NOT following the rules.

Human males acquired the levels of testosterone we have very simply because it worked to perpetuate the species - as handed down by our mammalian "forebears" and their forebears, etc., etc., etc. as evidenced by similarly sexual reproduction amongst our cousins. Typically, males are the chasers. Real plain and simple isn’t it? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

WAT

Men are visual...so they seek out physically attractive women.

So.....how is this accounted for in terms of different cultural groups seeing different traits as attractive? What about in our country's earlier history of attraction to more shapely "heavier" women like Marilyn Monroe? I can remember the shift to "Twiggy" as an attractive female. And even she would probably look "weightier" than some top models we have now. "Blondes" are seen as more attractive in our country. Are their reproductive capacities better?

Haven't the French at times seen older women as more attractive? Some tribal cultures see heavier women as attractive, see it as an indication of their wealth...having the means to be fed well. Bodies with more fat can be needed for reproductive success, but can inhibit reproduction, too.

What about those who see others from different races or ethnic groups as more "attractive"...or less "attractive" even if the same age?

Maybe polygamy is the answer....just keep adding a newer, younger wife. Or, why bother to marry at all? Keep yourself free, non-attached, so you can easily make a "sacrifice" for the survival of the fittest. Procreate without attachment. On to the next attractive, young, fertile female. and on...and on......

As for myself, I'm a tactile female. Touch, touch, touch. Oh the possibilities! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Okay WAT, if you want to turn this into a discussion about Creation versus Evolution, I'll be happy to oblige you.

But please try your best to keep unsubstantiated speculation out of any such discussion.

To wit: "Human males acquired the levels of testosterone we have very simply because it worked to perpetuate the species"

Absolutely ZERO proof to substantiate such a conclusion, much less to state it as FACT. Some scientific speech there WAT.

To wit: "- as handed down by our mammalian "forebears" and their forebears, etc., etc., etc. as evidenced by similarly sexual reproduction amongst our cousins."

WAT, the level of either your intended deception or lack of knowledge is astounding. Either way, you state something that as FACT that is pure opinion on your part and NOT even substantiated by observance of nature, much less the application of the "scientific method." In the animal world, those "cousins of yours but not mine," the "driving force in reproduction is ESTRUS, not "testosterone induced sexual drive." When the female is in heat, the males are stimulated to copulate for reproduction. "Pleasure" in sex has very little do with it, nor does the "attactiveness" of the female. Likewise, "attractiveness" has little to with "which male" for the female in heat. Your "opinion" of testosterone as the "evolutionary basis" also holds little water when you consider asexual reproduction, but then I guess you'd consider those "animals" to be VERY distant "cousins" of yours anyway.

What is it with you WAT where the mere mention that ANYTHING might be related to God brings out the sarcasm in you and justifies, in your mind, touting opinion as "proven fact?"

heartmending, perhaps the answer to your question is very simple....."beauty" is in the eye off the "beholder." Hence there are "butt" women, "abs" women, "breast" men, "hair color" men (perhaps the attraction has to do with "mental acuity" level of blondes that society has foisted), "leg" men, etc..

Granted, none of those has much to do with testosterone levels that WAT likes to think "proves" evolution. It would seem to have more to do with SIGHT, VISION, having or not having eyes, than it does with any given hormone. Maybe we all should have "evolved" x-ray eyes? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Suzet, a very common attempt to "accomodate" evolution and "bridge the gap" between Creation and Evolution. There are substantial problems with this, however, in that fundamental questions are not answered. They are simply "ignored" in favor of evolution, so as not to "tick off" if you will, those who do not believe in God. Simply put, (I'll get into the details on another thread with you if you are curious about the actual reasoning and thought) not only is this "day/age" theory NOT supported by Scripture with respect to Creation, EVEN IF one to argue as you have for "thousands" or "millions" of years, there is simply NOT enough time in the "speculated age" of the universe to account for "evolution" of the inanimate universe, let alone the insurmountable problem of "life" arising from "Non-life." THE BASIC tenet of Biology is that "life begets life" and that "spontaneous generation of living things from nonliving things DOES NOT occur and has not occured," even while holding that in evolutionary thought it "must" have occurred. Why? Because the ONLY other alternative is that life came from life....a living "precursor" if you will....who is known as God. THAT scares the bejeebers out of evolutionists because IF God exists, then perhaps there IS more to life than "birth to death" and the toys we can accumulate inbetween.

Anyway, this "day/age" nonsense is often ripped out of context and applied to "origins" when it has nothing to do with that. It simply (a day is as a thousand years to the Lord) has to do with TIME, with ETERNITY, with God's PATIENCE and Man's impatience, with God's perspective that is NOT bound by the physical laws of our universe (hence even miracles CAN happen contrary to physical laws, like the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ).

I wonder, as a "ridiculous aside," how long it took Mankind to evolve the ability to "rise from the dead?" It CERTAINLY would seem to enhance the "survivability" of a given "mutation" and a "new species of survivors" wouldn't you think?

Anyway, you said, "And God never explained in His Word exactly how and in which time frame the world were created by Him." Suzet, this simply is NOT a true statement. It was followed by speculation that is NOT supported by biblical examination. God "explained" the HOW, He SPOKE the things into existance according to His design and His will. Do we understand what the processes were that God used when He commanded (spoke) things into existence? No, not anymore than a dog might understand when we tell it that we designed and built his doghouse in one day.

Likewise, the "timeframe" was carefully explained to be 6 literal days as we understand "day," so that there would be no confusion as to God's power or any "hint" that evolution and random chance were "involved" in God's will and design for the universe, our world, and Mankind.

God bless.

And look like a fool once again?

The reason I respond to such issues here is because I know it'll push your buttons and you'll shoot yourself in the foot yet again with your silly arguments. It's quite entertaining.

OK, one more time, why do males have nipples and how exactly did those kangaroos get back to ONLY Aus from Mt. Arawat? Knock yourself out. I've got to go launder my shoelaces.

WAT

Why younger women? Why do old guys drive corvettes, Porsches, Ferraris, etc... To see if they can, to live a fantasy, to prove they still have it, kind of like keeping up with the Jonses. Why do we buy larger and larger houses? To show we've made it or are making it. How many over 50 couples do you see with huge houses and an empty nest? It proves we still have it period. Kind of like the leader of the pack. In a pack of wolves the leader gets his choice of females. In the AF we used to call them trophy wives, a guy usually high ranking getting close to the end of his career Ds wife and marries a young cute bimbo, struts around base, etc... Trophy Wife! He has made it in life!

WAT, your ignorance and condescension are consistant, I grant you that. It's also not unexpected:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intellignce of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Chrits crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1 Cor. 1:18-25 NIV)

So let's look at your "foolishness" WAT. You think a ridiculous set of questions like "why do males have nipples and how exactly did those kangaroos get back to ONLY Aus from Mt. Arawat?" proves anything in support of evolution? Let me give you just two "possibilities," neither of which is "provable" by the criteria of the "scientific method," yet they are just as viable as POTENTIAL answers, based upon observation of what is in the physical world, as anything you could dream up.....

1."why do males have nipples" Because MAN was created first and woman was created out of Man to be the one to be his helpmeet, completer, spouse, and mother of his children. Appropriate "changes" were made in Eve's "body parts" to accomodate those roles.

Now, if YOUR theory were right, woman would have evolved first because you need the female for reproduction. Oooops, you also need the male for sexual reproduction, so if the male "evolved" from the female in response to that need, then it would "make sense" that he would have "residual nipples" that no longer needed to function with mammary glands and mild production. The absurdity of your question is quite revealing in, and of, itself WAT.

2. "and how exactly did those kangaroos get back to ONLY Aus from Mt. Arawat?" "Landbridges." And there is NOTHING that says Kangaroos could NOT have been in other parts of the world serving as food for other animals until hunted to extinction there, as in the case of the Carrier Pigeon, for example.

Now WAT, let me ask YOU a question as a confirmed and zealous Evolutionist.

HOW did life arise from nonliving parts, survive, attain reproduceability, and ADD information....all in defiance of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics that are the recognized "bastions" of Science? Having all the "necessary parts," even IF they were available, does NOT address HOW the parts were arranged in the very specific order that is needed and does NOT explain how the INFORMATION needed for change in KINDS of living things could occur. Let me give you an advanced hint, "so called Open Systems" like earth, do not answer the question of HOW available energy (such as from the Sun) IS coverted to useful energy, much less how it is applied to BUILDING anything requiring complex information.


P.S. "I've got to go launder my shoelaces."

You might want to try buying an new set of laces. Sounds like the Second Law of Thermodynamics is at work and you are fighting a "losing battle" with the shoelaces. Too bad all the laundry can do is make the shoelaces "look" new again by washing off some dirt while not "renewing" or "growing" new laces.

I have an acquaintance who is 38 and is dating a woman of 23. He cites her as a trophy.

In truth I believe he dates younger women because they are easier to impress.

He is a shallow and vacuous man IMO. His wide screen TV, sports car and chrome-and-black-leather bachelor pad impresses a 23 YO. Hands up any ladies here over thirty who would be impressed ?

See ? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Mature women can be far more discerning than their younger counterparts. I've actually dated woman of every age from 17 to 42. All Squid of course ! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hey Bob!!! I have a "Trophy Wife" and she is my wife. I "won" and the OM lost, so I got the "trophy!"

Whaddaya think?!?! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />