That's exactly why. The emphasis being on the word "cannot" and not being irregularly circumstantial. Your response likely alluded to circumstantial states and choices.
My point was that not all relationships have to result in kids. If that was the case, letting infertile young people marry fertile people would also be a waste of genetic material, as would same sex marriage. Hell, even two fertile people marrying and not having kids would be a travesty as well by your logic. Not every relationship needs kids.
I covered this before you brought it up because both homosexuality and infertility are considered irregularities in humans. Menopause is a regular cycle in humans. Then you inserted choice which I specifically avoided because I figured your only course of action would be to allude to a minority (irregularities) or unwillingness (choice) which, in turn, does not actually deal with this particular issue.
Unless you're going to argue gerontophilia you're pretty much not going to make a dent in the fact that, considering normal circumstances, it is a waste of genetic material and potential for older women to have younger men.
I'm well aware of the fact that from a biological perspective it is indeed not advantageous for younger men to be with older women. Because of that, that is why relationships between younger men and older women are not as common as younger women and older men. No one is disputing that, nor is anyone saying menopause is not a natural part of human biology. The reason I brought in choice was because humans are not solely slaves to our biology. Does biology influence a lot? Yes, especially our sexual preferences. But if that's all there was, people wouldn't be choosing not to have kids, or to have partners they can't have kids with. A man being with an older woman, while not terribly common, does happen, and it is not a "waste" of anything.
Let's take a male who is attracted to an infertile female. It is biology, not choice, which dictates his attraction to the person and it is biology, not choice, which dictates her infertility. In this sense they are indeed slaves to biological urges and his love for her, chemical and neurological, is triggered simply by his brain which does not take into account fertility but instead solely the prospect of fertility (i. e. she is female and capable of sexual activity).
That's what attraction is. So the same is true of homosexuals; choosing to go against that particular imperative is the choice element no different than choosing to leave someone you are attracted to who is infertile based on their infertility. That is the logical segment which goes against biological demands.
But in the case of non-irregularities that doesn't work. When you ejaculate in a vagina where the uterus has no eggs and is supposed to be void through natural happenstance you're wasting opportunity.
The good news is that I guess no one really minds that these individuals have chosen to fail to pass on despite having sexual behaviors indicating an urge to pass on. They will die the way they were born:
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
27Opinion
Of course, who cares?
If they are both adults
Sure, I see no problem with it.
If the woman is only 3,4 years older than okay..
Is there a law preventing them to do so?
How is this a question 😂
Do you know it is already allow?
No. That's a waste of genetic material.
You do realize not all relationships result in kids, right?
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said.
You said it would be a waste of genetic material, making it sound like it's a waste because a younger man can't have kids with a younger woman.
*older woman.
That's exactly why. The emphasis being on the word "cannot" and not being irregularly circumstantial. Your response likely alluded to circumstantial states and choices.
My point was that not all relationships have to result in kids. If that was the case, letting infertile young people marry fertile people would also be a waste of genetic material, as would same sex marriage. Hell, even two fertile people marrying and not having kids would be a travesty as well by your logic. Not every relationship needs kids.
I covered this before you brought it up because both homosexuality and infertility are considered irregularities in humans. Menopause is a regular cycle in humans. Then you inserted choice which I specifically avoided because I figured your only course of action would be to allude to a minority (irregularities) or unwillingness (choice) which, in turn, does not actually deal with this particular issue.
Unless you're going to argue gerontophilia you're pretty much not going to make a dent in the fact that, considering normal circumstances, it is a waste of genetic material and potential for older women to have younger men.
I'm well aware of the fact that from a biological perspective it is indeed not advantageous for younger men to be with older women. Because of that, that is why relationships between younger men and older women are not as common as younger women and older men. No one is disputing that, nor is anyone saying menopause is not a natural part of human biology. The reason I brought in choice was because humans are not solely slaves to our biology. Does biology influence a lot? Yes, especially our sexual preferences. But if that's all there was, people wouldn't be choosing not to have kids, or to have partners they can't have kids with. A man being with an older woman, while not terribly common, does happen, and it is not a "waste" of anything.
Let's take a male who is attracted to an infertile female. It is biology, not choice, which dictates his attraction to the person and it is biology, not choice, which dictates her infertility. In this sense they are indeed slaves to biological urges and his love for her, chemical and neurological, is triggered simply by his brain which does not take into account fertility but instead solely the prospect of fertility (i. e. she is female and capable of sexual activity).
That's what attraction is. So the same is true of homosexuals; choosing to go against that particular imperative is the choice element no different than choosing to leave someone you are attracted to who is infertile based on their infertility. That is the logical segment which goes against biological demands.
But in the case of non-irregularities that doesn't work. When you ejaculate in a vagina where the uterus has no eggs and is supposed to be void through natural happenstance you're wasting opportunity.
The good news is that I guess no one really minds that these individuals have chosen to fail to pass on despite having sexual behaviors indicating an urge to pass on. They will die the way they were born:
Childless.
Yeah. I don't see an issue.
I don't see why not.
They can no law against it.
Why shouldn't they?
yes of course
... gross
1 private opinion(s)Only the asker and the opinion owner can see it. Learn more