Helen Mirren....*sigh*

People don't act by instinct alone. I'm obviously referring to such standards as morality, psychology, information, free will, culture, conscience, awareness, laws, etc, etc. Let me give you some examples:

Sex: from a biological standpoint, sex means procreation of the species, yet some people have homosexual encounters, obviously without expecting any procreation at all, most human beings relate sex to feelings like love, understanding, confidence, sympathy, etc, human beings have created laws for having sex (like age of consent), some cultures have certain rules and expectations for sex (like finding honor in marrying a virgin), human beings have created numerous ways to prevent procreation, etc, etc.

See, people are very separate from instinct, because we act on what Piaget calls the stages of cognitive development. We adults are in a complex stage called "formal operational stage". Animals have sex only because instinct tells them that they must procreate, but we don't. We have created a big mental construct behind the act of sex. Which leads me to the following statements:

If it was for instinct or biology alone, it would be okay to have sex with teenagers, since they are already ovulating and are capable of getting pregnant. However, we, as smart human beings, understand that teenagers are not psychologically mature enough to really comprehend the implications of sexual intercourse or having a child of their own. Having sex with a 13 yo is wrong from the point of view of most religions, societies, laws, psychology itself, etc. And there's no reason to think that these aspects of the human race are not important, since we don't abide by our biological needs alone, like other animals do.

On the other hand, finding an older woman attractive is in no way weird, since there are many reasons why someone could find her attractive. You could simply find her maturity or intelligence appealing and therefore you could find her romantically attractive (a romantic attraction can very easily lead to sexual attraction). If someone knew her personally there could be a big number of shared experiences that could lead a man to find this particular woman attractive.

"...yet some people have homosexual encounters, obviously without expecting any procreation at all..."

I don't think any animals "expect" procreation, if anything humans might be one of the few or only animals that know sex leads to children (because of language) and may intentionally do it with a child in mind. I'm saying this is where the desire is coming from. When humans block out the child with contraceptives, it doesn't change the fact that this is where the desire is coming from, the lust and the qualities that result in it. Love and understanding, things like that, well humans are a social species that benefit by raising their children in communal situations. It makes sense for the mother and father to have a sense of love to raise the child and increase fitness. Different animals utilize different methods of child-rearing.

"yet some people have homosexual encounters"

Yes, and I do think that this would also be considered biologically deviant, although not in the same sense of attraction to something 'unhealthy'. Homosexuals (and supposed non-homosexuals who have such encounters) are in the minority. And having such an encounter also doesn't mean that defines your sexuality. Like you are saying, something can change, but then that would be considered weird. If you are a straight male (supposedly) and are attracted to a male, I don't think that's normal. If this were in a movie it would be interesting for that very reason.

"If it was for instinct or biology alone, it would be okay to have sex with teenagers, since they are already ovulating and are capable of getting pregnant."

In our society it's pretty hard to asses our evolved characteristics because due to language things evolve uniquely from the controlled natural world. The desire to have sex with teens is certainly there, but it's a stigma for many other reasons. Also, kids sexually mature faster now due to hormones in the food, ect, just throwing that in there. I think the teen comparison isn't valid, plenty of people are fine being with individuals who look like teens, or were teens like a year ago, so hows that proof of anything? In fact, many qualities that a mature teen has are very desirable to people, they just aren't 'allowed' to express it. Our 'values' definitely don't erase the biology that's there, I think this country is proof of this. We have so many people trying to overthrow these restrictive values stemming from Christianity and things like that. That's where people come up with ideas such as 'repressed sexuality'.

"On the other hand, finding an older woman attractive is in no way weird"

Ok, we should at least agree on this, that it is 'weird', because weird means unlike the majority. Just because you have respect for the OP's taste doesn't make them not weird, because most people do not agree with them. Being highly intelligent is also 'weird'. Although, considering what qualities people desire regarding sex, it does seem to me to be rather strange to find an advanced age appealing...

BUGS

Nothing you said removes the fact that people are not controlled by biology or instinct alone, right? There's still science, art, culture, laws, complex trains of thought, and other things behind us as humans. MANY things separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom, but I guess there's no real point in arguing this with you, since you kind of strike me as the kind of guy who thinks that it is perfectly fine to desire teenagers. I don't know if this is true, but judging by what you said, you kind of give that vibe, and if so, then you are just wrong. Morality and religion are still a construct of the human mind, and since our cognition controls our actions as much as our biological needs, then there's no point in saying that religion, laws, morality or society shouldn't have a matter in this issue.


"The desire to have sex with teens is certainly there, but it's a stigma for many other reasons."

Exactly. It is a stigma because psychology and the study of human development have proven that teenagers are not prepared to have sex in the same way as an adult is. As I said, religion, values, society, laws, they are all very valid standpoints. Why should they not be? They are all abstract concepts created by human beings, and we, as humans, have the ability of seeing an object beyond its obvious physical traits. We don't see sexual attraction only as a biological heritage, but instead, there are multiple ideals, representations and abstract constructs behind sex.


"In fact, many qualities that a mature teen has are very desirable to people, they just aren't 'allowed' to express it."

The thing is that there are almost no real mature teenagers. That's almost impossible from a cognitive or psychological standpoint. Mature people should know the difference between a real mature person and someone who just wants/tries/acts like a mature person. Should I point you to a good book about human development? There are many great works out there, you could start with Papalia's Human Development.

However, there's one point in which I agree, if you want to give the word "weird" the same definition as the word "uncommon", then I could accept that it is weird for the OP to find an older woman attractive. However, the word WEIRD has some obvious negative connotations, and thus, I can't agree that it is a right word to use in this case.

"There's still science, art, culture, laws, complex trains of thought"

Science is just understanding our world and surroundings, so we can better utilize it for our needs. Laws are a social and communal contract so we as a species can all benefit and preserve our fitness (freedom from death, theft, ect.). Culture varies and is complex, but humans have a lot of elements to shape their cultures. I still think they are mostly based from natural principals.

"since you kind of strike me as the kind of guy who thinks that it is perfectly fine to desire teenagers."

I'm a female and I don't think teenagers should have sex, at all. But I'm not blind to human nature. I'm sure there are very complex reasons why humans evolve certain cultural standards naturally. It's kind of difficult for me to explain why I think most of these traits are all natural and vary for geographic reasons because no other animals so far are advanced enough to evolve language, so I can't use them as an example. Maybe it would be easier to think about early hominid species, or homogeneous early societies.
I think you're displacing your own standards onto humans, I don't do that when I discuss things in a biological sense, and the whole world doesn't abide by your own standards anyway. That's enough proof that our culture isn't defining the biological programming. The only thing that is biological is the effect that humans pass down cultural standards and conform. If you were born into a different society you wouldn't believe what you believe.
But sure there are many aspects of people that deviate from what I would consider to make biological sense and that I would consider strange. I still think that when it comes to something as basic as sexual attraction a majority of our standards can match the desire to enhance fitness (intelligence, vitality, a body type that is sufficient for child-rearing). Plus, the OP admires this celebrity, but I doubt that if he were asked to describe the female he would want would he say they must be 60+. He just happens to admire this person and I consider that to deviate.

"The thing is that there are almost no real mature teenagers."

That also is true for many people who have recently become what our society considers an adult age, 18-25.

"However, the word WEIRD has some obvious negative connotations, and thus, I can't agree that it is a right word to use in this case."

It does, but who is anyone to get all riled up against anyone's taste in the first place. When would the negative connotation be justified? How would you feel if this person called a 'traditional' senior without Helen's Hollywood pampered face 'sexually attractive'?

BUGS

"Science is just understanding our world and surroundings, so we can better utilize it for our needs. Laws are a social and communal contract so we as a species can all benefit and preserve our fitness (freedom from death, theft, ect.). Culture varies and is complex, but humans have a lot of elements to shape their cultures. I still think they are mostly based from natural principals."

That's exactly my point. There are some BIG differences between humans and the rest of the animals. There's no point in assuming that someone is weird or abnormal just based on biological standpoints, since there is so much more to human beings than that. You think humans can be complex enough to create all of those aspects, yet the normal thing for us to do is act on mere instinct or biological programming?

Also, do you even understand what I'm saying about seeing an object beyond its obvious traits? Human beings have another certain ability that the rest of the animals don't, and that is to give lots of symbolic representations to a certain object. In this case, the object is sex. Meaning that there could be many reasons for finding an older woman attractive, and they could very well outweight the fact that she is not ovulating anymore.

Why do you keep eluding my points about the study of human development? Please start reading about the stages of cognitive development. It will clear up a lot of things for you. I think you will change your mind when you get more informed on the subject. After all, that's what information does, it gives people the tools to comprehend a certain subject better, and thus it changes the way in which you see things.




"there are many aspects of people that deviate from what I would consider to make biological sense"

Congratulations. That's also my point. Again, why should you use "biological standards" to assert that someone is weird for liking an older woman, when it is absolutely obvious that humans are much more complex than that?



It does, but who is anyone to get all riled up against anyone's taste in the first place.

Exactly. So who the hell is this guy who goes around saying that it is abnormal for someone to find an older woman attractive?

"You think humans can be complex enough to create all of those aspects, yet the normal thing for us to do is act on mere instinct or biological programming?"

My argument was, that many of those aspects are still biologically based. They do only pertain to humans, but those are our traits. Let's look at it this way, do you consider it strange to be attracted to people who are obese? What if someone said that they prefer a girl with pimples? What is your reaction and why?

"Why do you keep eluding my points about the study of human development?"

Because I really don't see how it's relevant, and I've taken psychology.

"That's also my point. Again, why should you use "biological standards" to assert that someone is weird for liking an older woman"

I think that poster you were arguing with was just trying to find a logical basis for where his stigma is coming from. Not everything applies to biology, or it's too complex to understand, but aversion to certain ages and body types is biological in my opinion. That could also explain why people tend to still remain attracted to men when they are older, although even that has limits.

"Exactly. So who the hell is this guy who goes around saying that it is abnormal for someone to find an older woman attractive?"

I'd still say it is abnormal. The last time I've heard a young person comment on the attractiveness of a female senior was...never.

My guess is that the poster had the typical aversion and was making an excuse for it. But it's not so unusual, if someone was commenting on how Gabourey Sidibe was sexually attractive, I don't think you'd find it important to defend them.

BUGS

You don't see why the study of cognition is relevant in this discussion? God... I guess that's why you aren't understanding my points at all. What was that about taking psychology? Did you take a single class? What class was it? Did you learn anything about the intricacies of the human mind? Did you learn what mental representations are?

It is irrelevant if many aspects of human life are biologically based, because we have gone way beyond biology or instinct in our decision making. That's where this important point that you've been missing comes into the mix: Human beings assign lots of symbols, representations and values to objects. Meaning that human beings assign certain moral values, cultural values, ideals, feelings and whatnot to the act of sex (and everything else really). A 64 yo woman like Mirren (which was her age when filming RED) does not look bad, is mature, smart, charming, can still have sex even is she's not fertile anymore, can be idealized, and all of this can be transitioned into a romantic feeling. Meaning that it is not weird for a man to feel attracted to her.

If you think that in order to be considered normal, a man should automatically stop feeling attracted to his partner when she stops being fertile, then you are absolutely wrong. And we don't even know the OP's age. Maybe he's just not in his 20s anymore.

You have not heard someone saying that a 60-something yo woman is attractive? And how is that relevant? Have you done surveys? Have you ever asked that particular question? I doubt that you have asked a relevant number of subjects about this matter, so your personal experience can not really be taken into account in this matter. It doesn't really mean anything.

What the other poster said about this matter is: "it's unnatural to find an old woman sexually attractive. That's because she's infertile. In biological terms it's almost the same as being gay. If you like old women you're a deviant". And my point was and still is that this is absurd, since biology is not our only standard when we act through life. Even if "liking someone" is biological heritage, there are still many cognitive processes behind the mere act of "liking someone".

If you think fat people can't be attractive to someone, then you are wrong. If you think people with pimples can't be attractive to someone, then you are wrong. If your point is that it is weird for someone to have a special fixation on people like this, then it is irrelevant, because the OP never said that he have a special fixation with older people! He said he find this particular woman attractive and that's it.

"What was that about taking psychology?"

Try re-reading what I wrote, if it wasn't understandable the first time.

"If you think that in order to be considered normal, a man should automatically stop feeling attracted to his partner when she stops being fertile..."

Both of us know that this happens. But people stay together for other reasons (usually). That doesn't say anything about what this person is attracted to, just because they are committed to their partner and family.

"Have you done surveys?"

Have you? Don't tell me you actually believe the majority of males find 60+ females, even celebs, sexually attractive. If you think you need a survey to prove this, then you are just splitting hairs. I know this to be true just as I know people would rather have more money than less money. I can't believe we can't at least agree on the formal reasons why things become stigmas. We know that the OP is in the minority, that should ring a bell head on. The question is why? You seem to think it's a coincidence, and that, given that humans "assign symbols and values to objects", we are all just randomized free-thinking individuals. Yeah right. As unmeasurable as I believe psychology to be, if this were so the science would be impossible.

"If you think fat people can't be attractive to someone, then you are wrong."

Why do you think I said that at all? And you didn't answer my question about your reaction to someone stating that. This just boils down to you respecting the OP for seeing beauty in older women, which you find OK because of your specific values, but I know that wouldn't apply to other comparable situations. I haven't encountered anyone open-minded enough to not react to others strange tastes.

BUGS

When have I ever said that the majority of people find 60 yo women attractive? All I said is that it is not weird for someone to do so, since there is a whole abstract construct behind likes/dislikes. The guy has his reasons. On the other hand YOU are the one who acts as if no one could find older women attractive, except for deviants, then you are the one who should be giving proof of this.

If you think that men automatically stop finding their couple attractive when they stop ovulating then you are simply wrong and you should take a few more classes of psychology because you didn't learn anything. How about taking Sexual Education? It's a good class and it will take you out of your mistake.

Again you are eluding my point about cognitive processes, which is the one that absolutely refutes everything you've said. The majority of people believe in a certain god or entity. Does that makes them right or normal? Are atheist abnormal because they are most likely a minority? Just because the US forces you to swear on the bible in a trial, does that mean that atheists are abnormal?

My reaction to someone stating that he likes a fat person would simply be "whatever". Why should I care if someone likes anyone? As long as it is not a child or someone directly related to me then I don't care.

How do you expect to convince me of something if you are clearly not informed in what you are saying? I'll say it again: READ A LITTLE ABOUT HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. Then you will make a stronger case. I've been studying human sciences for 4 years now (which covers education, psychology, communications and sociology), yet you think you can convince me that humans act mostly on instinct and biological programming???? Truly you can't be serious.

"When have I ever said that the majority of people find 60 yo women attractive?"

You're right, you didn't, I guess you're implying that what everyone desires should vary, correct? If not, what's the reason?

"I've been studying human sciences for 4 years now (which covers education, psychology, communications and sociology), yet you think you can convince me that humans act mostly on instinct and biological programming???? Truly you can't be serious."

If I were you I would just let your logic and words do the talking, not any 'credentials'. It's hardly a good arguing tool to declare I've been studying this for x amount of years!, really. Even if I think I have more experience than someone with something, I certainly never say that. I've seen stupid 'health care professionals'. They sure as hell have more education than I, that's for sure (I'm horrible with grades), but that never defines what someone knows, or common sense reasoning. Once again, simply put, I just don't agree with you that human cognitive attributes deviates from biological means, and I think that biology shapes most of human behavior. It's pretty pretension for you to keep declaring at me that 'I have no idea what I'm talking about', that I 'didn't learn anything' and 'need more classes' because I don't think that applies here. Did I once tell you you know nothing about biology? Which I've done for 4 years now. We just disagree. If the person you were arguing with needs 4 years of psychology courses to qualify for your standards, I still argue what he was saying wasn't dumb at all.

BUGS

The only reason why you don't agree with me is that you have no information about how other aspects of human development, besides biology, affect our decisions, likes/dislikes, general behavior, etc. That's my point in saying that you have to read more on the subject. Your point of view is what's often called "genetic determinism" or "biological determinism" and it is just not consistent with the study of cognition and behavior, and in fact it has not been proven, much less accepted, as a scientific truth. You can inform yourself in here, or you can look up other sourcers on your own: http://www.nurture-or-nature.com/articles/biological-determinism/index .php

Some conditions, such as Down syndrome, can be traced to an abnormality of chromosomes. However, behavioral traits, such as aggression, intelligence, and sexual orientation, are complex, so the search of a genetic basis for these is is both difficult and controversial.

You are making a statement that is not even accepted in the scientific community as fact. And that, girl, is MY WHOLE POINT. You can't make a statement such as "it is abnormal to find an older woman attractive" based only on biological programming, evolutionary heritage, genes, instinct, or whatever you want to call it, because human beings are much more complex than that, but you keep missing the point!

Yes, there are studies that look for a relation between biology and behavior, but this is not a scientific reality yet, and in fact it is a very controversial subject. So, when you start trying to prove such a point in here in the very simple way in which you are doing it, well, tell me how can I take you seriously? You are telling me that a well established scientific paradigm is wrong just because you say so?

I'm sure you will still say something like "no, no, that article and everything else I've read about it is wrong" just because you don't agree with it, but oh well, at least I tried.

I guess you read about biological determinism and how wrong you are and that's why you ran away instead of accepting your miskate. Typical.

Lol Why are you just now reviving this conversation? Was it really eating away at you that much?

I already told you why I 'left', I'm pretty sure that your reply had less information than it does now, because I wouldn't have not replied if your reply didn't indicate some sort of 'truce' between us. Either that or you weren't being hospitable, I don't really remember.

"And that, girl, is MY WHOLE POINT."

Calling me GIRL sounds like you're trying to belittle me. I didn't think you fancied a reply given your attitude, but maybe something isn't quite right with you. Either way at this moment, not really interested in this. Maybe later.

BUGS

My reply didn't have less information then, what the hell? Come one, just accept that you read about biological determinism and how wrong you were. After arguing so much about it you just didn't feel like replying after actually reading about the subject. The reason why I revived this conversation is because I was visiting the RED boards again and I saw this thread in the main RED page.

Are you 7 years old? No I didn't read anything I just got tired of this subject and your bullheadedness. I did not expect this to become so drawn out.

BUGS

Nope. You did read it, you found out you were absolutely wrong about everything and you didn't have the maturity to accept that you were wrong. That's it. A 7 years old who knows more about science than you? Wouldn't that be even sadder?

BUGS

What a coincidence! That's exactly what I did too a few minutes ago when I read your reply :) I'm glad we are now finally understanding each other.

*reading the whole discussion*


What... in... the... flying .... f.....


Are you people really so desperate to sound smart that you have to start discussing simple matters of opinion in terms of "studies on human developement" and such?

IMDB forums, wow.

Opinion is saying that someone is prettier than someone else. Saying that you can't or shouldn't find attractive someone who isn't menstruating anymore is not a matter of opinion, such statement is scientifically incorrect, but I see your point. People on the web (including me) tend to be a little bit too argumentative.