Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Biological explanation for the Lolita complex?

  • 28-09-2012 6:14pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22


    Using modern-day foraging societies as a guide, we can infer that the reproductive years for prehistoric women were generally between about 17 and 42. At a rate of one pregnancy every 3 or 4 years this would amount to 8 offspring.

    A 30 year old would have had about 12 breeding years ahead of her and be capable of giving a man about 4 offspring whereas a 14 year old would have had all 25 of her breeding years ahead of her and be capable of giving a man the full 8.

    Now, a man that fell in love with and committed himself to a 14 year old would have generally left behind more offspring than a man that committed himself to a 30 year old so that, in the long run, men that were susceptible to falling in love with 14 year olds would have become more numerous in the population than men that were susceptible to falling in love with 30 year olds, right?

    RIGHT?


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭JuliusCaesar


    more suited to Anthropology, where I've been watching your discussion. You won't get agreement for your rather dodgy point here either.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement