- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 912 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 24560
What do women think of men who aren't very sexually experienced?
I'm in my mid 30s and I've only ever had sex with one girl back when I was 14. Although I'm pretty good looking and women do give me signs of interest I've suffered social anxiety all my life and haven't been able to take things any further with them. Lately I've been making more of an effort to become social and I think I should be able to get a bird. Should I tell them I'm not very experienced or just go for it? I'm sure any woman will notice how inexperienced I am anyway. Will most women find it cute or sad?
|>>|| No. 24561
Well I'll be honest, I think women do prefer someone who knows what he's doing. But as long as you have everything else going for you it really shouldn't be a massive issue. Half-decent sex isn't complicated and once you get your end away a few times you'll quickly learn where to put it and what bits to rub. It is best to be honest about your inexperience and hopefully she'll be willing to guide you. At your age women should be mature about it. She might even think of you as a project.
|>>|| No. 24562
>At your age women should be mature about it
This. They might even see it as a good thing in a way, as they'd be able to just show you what they like/enjoy most.
|>>|| No. 24564
If you're willing to learn and eager to please, you're already well above average, regardless of your experience. An alarmingly large proportion of straight men are crap at shagging and have zero interest in improving.
How candid you are about your lack of experience is entirely up to you. If you feel like it'll be easier to be completely honest, go for it. If you'd prefer to be a bit more guarded, there's nothing wrong with saying "it's been a while and I'm a bit rusty".
Most women will tell you that one-night stands are usually disappointing, because it always takes time for people to learn each other's needs. It won't be anything out of the ordinary if you need a few attempts and a bit of guidance to get things right.
|>>|| No. 24565
>If you're willing to learn and eager to please, you're already well above average, regardless of your experience. An alarmingly large proportion of straight men are crap at shagging and have zero interest in improving.
Goes for women too. You reminded me of the piss poor performances I've witness at fetish clubs/ orgies. You'd think seeing kinky people having sex would be titillating turns out you are greatly mistaken. For the most part it looks like the last ditch depressing grind of the damned, nobody seems to be actually enjoying themselves or emotionally invested in what they are doing. That might just be because the guy looking disappointedly at them is putting them off though.
OP, If you can build up an emotional rapport with your partner you are doing better than most in my experience. If you are worried about the brevity of your performance work in foreplay at the beginning to compensate.
|>>|| No. 24566
Really good advice by everyone so far. Being honest is key. Try and talk about what worked or you both after sex. Be willing to reciprocate and not be selfish. Good luck to you.
|>>|| No. 24568
Very few things are as difficult to fake as sexual experience.
With most other things in life, you can get by faking it with a bare minimum of cunning because the majority of people are in and of themselves shit, or mediocre at best, at just about everything under the sun and will have trouble spotting a fake. But I digress.
Just be honest about your lack of experience. Because nothing is a bigger turn off than a sexual partner who gets you all ready to go, but then when the rubber meets the road can't deliver in the bedroom. You will probably think that the bigger embarrassment will be having to admit your sparse sexual history to a sexual partner. But trust me, it will very much be the other way round.
Being in your mid-30s, OP, there are certain things that you will probably never be able to make up for that you have missed out on, not having had frequent regular sex in your teens and 20s. But it is what it is, and it shouldn't discourage you. And from what some women I have been with have told me, solid experience also isn't a guarantee that you will satisfy a sexual partner. There are blokes who really just think about their own fun in the bedroom, and from a woman's standpoint, that is almost as bad, if not much worse than somebody whose sexual experiences have been few and far between. One lass that I had a three month fling with told me that she didn't have sex with her last boyfriend for almost the entire last year of the three years that they were together, because he was just so completely shit (meaning: egotistical) in the bedroom. And this was a lad who had had a few sexual partners before her.
Anyway, the take-home message for you is: Don't feel daunted. But also, get out there and get some finally! The movie "The 40 Year Old Virgin" actually isn't such a bad jumping off point with regards to the frame of mind you should be in. In the movie, Steve Carrell's character says to one of his coworkers at some point, while being pushed to pick up women in a club: "I don't think this feels right for me". And then his coworker says something like, "That's the point... you gotta try some wrong!!"
|>>|| No. 24569
Thanks, everyone. When I get a bird and it comes to the crunch I'll tell her I'm not very experienced and make a bit of a joke about it. Hopefully she'll find it cute or funny but if she doesn't like it that's her problem.
|>>|| No. 24570
Sex seems properly scary. I might just find joy in pastries instead.
|>>|| No. 24572
Well as they say in Cumberland, A woman for children, a sheep for pleasure, a meat and potato pie for ecstasy.
|>>|| No. 24573
I was just going to eat them, but now that you mention it a Cornish Pasty is basically a flaky fanny...
|>>|| No. 24575
This thread has helped me as well so thanks guys. For the most part I'm pretty asexual, but if I ever find someone I care about that much then I can imagine sex as a possibility, I always figured I'd just be up front with them about it.
|>>|| No. 24576
>For the most part I'm pretty asexual,
Most people aren't asexual per se, they just aren't self confident enough to want that out of their life. Meaning sexual gratification together with somebody else. But they will still rub one out every day, so it's not like they have been neutered entirely.
A lot of times, the label "asexual" is a mislabel because what's really behind it is that somebody has either given up on finding a sexual partner, perhaps after too much rejection, or because it just doesn't fully occur to them that they, too, have a right to find happiness, including but not limited to the bedroom.
In conclusion, I think asexuality is really a self image problem. Not one of actually having no, or no notable sex drive.
|>>|| No. 24577
I think people are too eager to self-diagnose with a convenient label, but there have always been a significant proportion of people with little or no interest in sex. That proportion is increasing rapidly due to the widespread use of SSRI antidepressants; these drugs cause significant sexual side effects in about half of patients, ranging from mild erectile dysfunction to complete loss of libido. There is some evidence that SSRI-related sexual dysfunction may be permanent in some patients, particularly those who started taking SSRIs during adolescence. Given that the NHS issues ~50 million prescriptions for SSRIs every year, there is likely to be an unseen epidemic of asexuality.
|>>|| No. 24578
Well I am on mirtazapine, which is also an SSRI. I have been taking it for a few years now, my physician still insists on regular blood tests about once a year, and it seems that my body tolerates the mirtazapine well (some patients suffer degenerative, but reversible changes to their blood cells after long-term use of mirtazapine, but I am not one of them).
One thing I did notice was that smoking and mirtazapine didn't mix well. I was still a smoker when I started taking it, and about three weeks later, I started getting quite noticeable erectile dysfunction. Not that it really mattered because I wasn't having sex with anybody, but the quality of my erections was deteriorating pretty badly. Probably all the plaque from the cigarette smoke had been bunging up my penis artery for years, but mirtazapine on top of it was the final blow. I've been off fags for five years now, and my erections have really recovered dramatically, despite still taking mirtazapine.
Did my sex drive diminish on mirtazapine? No, not really. I'm a little more mellow and laid back in general now than I used to be, and that also has an effect on my desire to actively approach women, but my sex drive is about the same as it's always been. The only thing I can say is that I am not as gung ho about meeting women and having sex with them anymore as I was in my early to mid-20s, but that was more than ten years ago, and as everybody knows, men experience the biggest testosterone rush between about age 18 and 24. After that, you might well say that your sex drive naturally declines steadily.
|>>|| No. 24579
I wasn't really labelling myself as asexual exactly, I think sexuality is a complex and fluid thing, so I think you worded it better when you said "People with little or no interest in sex". That'd be me. I've never taken any antidepressants though. I tried a one night stand once and had to get up and leave mid-groping because while my body was reacting, I just felt like shit and just wasn't into it. Maybe it'd be different with someone I'm in love with, maybe not. I figure I'll find out if that ever happens but otherwise sex has no impact on my life. Also realised a year or two ago that I've never felt lust. I'm just rambling now.
|>>|| No. 24580
Mirtazapine isn't an SSRI. It's a slightly oddball antidepressant, more closely related to the tricyclics. It does have some serotonergic effects, but it doesn't inhibit reuptake. Sexual side effects aren't associated with mirtazapine. It's useful precisely because of its weirdness - it has a completely different side-effect profile to the SSRIs and SNRIs, so it's a good second choice if sedation is likely to be well-tolerated or therapeutically useful.
If I were to speculate, I'd suggest that your softcock was caused by the synergistic effects of mirtazapine and nicotine on the sympathetic nervous system. The nicotine alone will be enough to have a noticeable effect - it's a strong vasoconstrictor, so it's basically the opposite of viagra.
In all seriousness, are you sure that you aren't gay? A non-trivial proportion of people with very little interest in sex (particularly but not exclusively working-class men) are just very deeply in denial about their desires. I'm not saying that you're definitely gay, or that you should go out and suck off a lorry driver on the off chance, but it's something you might want to bear in mind. Have you ever seen a psychotherapist?
|>>|| No. 24581
>In all seriousness, are you sure that you aren't gay? A non-trivial proportion of people with very little interest in sex (particularly but not exclusively working-class men) are just very deeply in denial about their desires.
I'm not sure that that's still very relevant nowadays. Even the "working class" has become slightly more gay friendly.
Some people just carry too much emotional baggage around with them to be able to truly attempt to attract members of the opposite sex. This can manifest itself in all sorts of ways, from bitter separations that you haven't been able to reach closure about, to difficult family relations.
Maybe there is still the possibility that somebody is in denial about their own sexuality. And why not. But the majority of guys that I know who don't have an active regular sex life and might appear asexual are just your typical geeks and nerds, who would very much like to meet a woman, but haven't got the faintest clue how to go about it.
|>>|| No. 24582
>I'm not sure that that's still very relevant nowadays. Even the "working class" has become slightly more gay friendly.
And what would you know about how difficult it is to come out?
|>>|| No. 24583
It probably still is more difficult coming out if you live on a council estate and get bullied by the neighbourhood chavs every day because they have picked up on you being slightly on the effeminate side. If you're born into upper middle class upbringing, you will almost invariably have much more open minded and supportive surroundings.
But there is also much more help available to you nowadays. There are always local support groups that you can turn to, even if nobody in your working class family wants anything to do with your homosexuality.
|>>|| No. 24584
Being gay and being effeminate are very different things. I used to know a very working class gay lad who'd scare the chavs off easily. He'd not only be able to beat them in a fight, but threatened to bum them after.
Call it victim blaming if you wish, but getting picked on (as an adult especially ) has every bit as much to do with how a person conducts themselves as it does the attitude of the belligerent.
|>>|| No. 24585
Yes, being gay and appearing effeminate aren't necessarily the same.
But I do remember one guy who went to school with me... I knew him since we were about eight. He was a fragile, delicate child, and as we progressed into puberty, he turned into what most people would have called a "sissy boy". A quite effeminate young lad, who was subject to a lot of school yard bullying. We sort of lost contact a while later because he went to a different school, but then a few years later, we met again through a mutual female friend. By that time, he had fully come out and really seemed happy with himself.
The point here is, in his case, it all sort of came together that way. He had always been quite effeminate, and he did end up coming out as gay.
Funny side note to the story - our mutual female friend was actually called Dorothy. We all got a laugh out of the fact that he was very literally a "friend of Dorothy". Well ok, so was I, but I'm straight.
I take it you are familiar with that gay slang expression, but if you other lads aren't, "friend of Dorothy" means a homosexual. Goes back to The Wizard of Oz, somehow.
|>>|| No. 24586
>In all seriousness, are you sure that you aren't gay?
I'm a pretty easy going person so something like that isn't something I'd deny, I'd just go with it. It's certainly something I've contemplated, and I don't see the point in fighting things like that. Actually if I found a deep connection with someone, anyone, male or female, my stance is that I'd be open to a relationship with them. I enjoy romance, it's just the sex that doesn't really appeal to me. When I said I've never felt lust I meant for anyone, and I have explored the possibility of being gay but it doesn't seem to be that simple.
>and might appear asexual are just your typical geeks and nerds, who would very much like to meet a woman, but haven't got the faintest clue how to go about it.
On this subject, I travel a fair bit and meet a lot of women, and I'm certainly not bragging but quite a few of them show interest to the point where I've turned down sex quite a bit over the years. Maybe if I was staying in those places and got to know them over time something would've happened.
|>>|| No. 24587
Yes, that's victim-blaming. Unless you think being effeminate is something to be ashamed of, in which case you're every bit as bad as the neighbourhood chavs, then the abuse is solely the fault of the abusers.
|>>|| No. 24588
>Yes, that's victim-blaming. Unless you think being effeminate is something to be ashamed of.
And it would be lovely to live in a world where you can leave your house empty with the doors and windows wide open and that not welcoming of trouble. In reality the insurance company will shake their head with contempt when you tell them you were burgled again and not pay up. I don't think they meant to victim blame, utopian desires must make way for what is pragmatic. If you make yourself an obvious easy target you are a more likely to be a victim. Crime and anti-social behaviour are inevitable components of society that can never be ousted, mealy minimized, and part of that responsibility falls to the individual to lock their doors and to be on guard.
|>>|| No. 24590
>Yes, that's victim-blaming
That's why I said:
>Call it victim blaming if you wish
Because regardless, you won't stop it being true.
The thing you must come to understand is that emotions are what make us human; hate, fear and repulsion are every bit as natural as love, kindness and respect.
Everyone has to deal with varying levels of good and bad in their lives, depending on who they are, where they come from, who they want to be and the choices they make. The idea of a universally tolerant utopia is something that I feel would be really quite frightening and sinister in practice.
|>>|| No. 24592
Well your appeal to authority of a blog written by nobody making baseless assertions certainly conviced me of nothing.
|>>|| No. 24593
At least the blog correctly calls itself a drain on society.
>*Trigger warning: rape.*
This is where they lost me. If you feel you can't even have a critical debate about what constitutes and doesn't constitute rape, and what you can and can't compare it to, without announcing it with a vapid "trigger warning" at the beginning, then nothing fruitful is going to come out of it.
As soon as we overcome the concept of special snowflakes, we will also overcome the concept of trigger warnings. The idea of there being a necessity of trigger warnings is an ignominious attempt to intimidate anybody who doesn't agree with you and doubts your moral superiority and your right to ignorance.
My dad killed himself when I was eleven, and I suffered years of emotional and physical abuse at the hands of my mum. But I would never ever label myself as a "survivor", which is another dumb term instrumental in making people feel like they've got a right to shut you up. I am open any time to discussing child abuse and traumatic deaths in the family with you. It doesn't trigger me, I don't expect you to not talk about it when I am around. As long as our discussion is kept mindful and respectful, we can talk about it any way you like. And without you having to give me a trigger warning.
Self-sage for derailing a thread that started out as something completely different.
|>>|| No. 24594
How nice that you feel you have the authority to condemn measures to help prevent victims of trauma having panic attacks simply because you don't need to use them. If only we all had that attitude! Get rid of wheelchair ramps, they just aren't trying hard enough to walk.
|>>|| No. 24595
>Get rid of wheelchair ramps, they just aren't trying hard enough to walk.
Oh do fuck off.
Also, you are insinuating that people used to drop dead with apoplexy left, right, and centre before the concept of trigger warnings was thought up by some self righteous social science graduates with too much time on their hands.
> to help prevent victims of trauma having panic attacks
Everybody has their traumas. Everybody has things that make them feel utterly uncomfortable. But as long as a minimum of respect and mindfulness is adhered to when their traumatic topic comes up in conversation, I don't think they've got a right to shut everybody else up. Or even to expect a "trigger warning" to be issued. Because the mere concept of trigger warnings itself falsely insinuates that you should feel "triggered" about something.
A bit like Richard Dawkins said - if you can't handle it, go home and hug your teddy bear, and come back when you are ready for adult life.
Having been an abuse victim and having lost my dad so tragically at a young age really fucked up my own life to some extent. I even had two years of therapy once. But that's my problem. I don't expect it to become the problem of people who just coincidentally happen to talk about something that has left me traumatised.
|>>|| No. 24596
Both myself, and an elderly drinking companion both have raging PTSD. We don't expect people to 'warn' us before topics get into the territories which will, quite literally, trigger us.
We just walk away and wish we could get in a fight.
|>>|| No. 24597
You don't, others do, so stop shitting on them why don't you? Jesus Christ.
>you are insinuating that people used to drop dead with apoplexy
No I'm not, and that betrays a total lack of understanding of what we're discussing.
>A bit like Richard Dawkins said
|>>|| No. 24598
Ah wait I've just realised what it is. You're both men who have trouble admitting when they need help because they think it's a sign of weakness. 'It's my problem and I have to deal with it all by myself'.
|>>|| No. 24599
You are right the guys comfortably talking about their trauma one of which talked about the help he sort and got, are afraid of asking for help because of their toxic masculinity because they (much like psychologist do) think trigger warning are a big pile of pointless signalling bullshit.
When your argument involves telling off PTSD and abuse sufferers for not dealing with their problems 'correctly' by confronting and dealing with them themselves, instead expecting everyone else to deal with them instead of them, and not having developed victim mentalities you should probably rethink your personal philosophy.
|>>|| No. 24600
>When your argument involves telling off PTSD and abuse sufferers for not dealing with their problems 'correctly'
Yeah I'm totally the one doing that here.
|>>|| No. 24602
Well I am an abuse victim (I am this lad >>24595), as well as a family suicide victim, if you must really call me a victim/survivor/(instert other inane label) of that. If you care enough to know, I don't think my dad intended to victimise me, his 11-year-old son, one bit when he put that noose around his neck in a fateful bout of deep depression. And then jumped off a stack of empty beer cases in our garden shed. There. Graphic enough to get the righteouslads in this thread to shut up for a change?
And I strongly believe that projecting my daemons on other people and expecting them to change conversation topics or to shut up just because I have entered the room would be an utterly wrong way of me dealing with my personal traumata. They are my problems, not yours. Because with all due respect, you wouldn't comprehend what these things do to you anyway. Get it? You are talking to somebody who has been through amounts of shit in his life that has other people routinely looking at me with their mouths open. And yet, I expect no trigger warnings, I do not expect to be treated any differently, as far as I am concerned, just carry on with your conversation and don't mind me at all. Show a bare minimum of respect, but again, don't mind me.
The problem with you righteouslads is that you have no problem yakking on about safe spaces, trigger warnings and survivors till you mouths run dry. But it is very evident that you have spent little time outside of your intellectual la la lands in the real world and actually talked to people like that. Somebody like me even. The world doesn't revolve around me, no matter how traumatised and fucked up I am deep down. And life also doesn't stop and start at my convenience. And if you lads could get that into your heads, you would do more for all the special snowflakes out there than you think you are doing now.
|>>|| No. 24603
>your typical geeks and nerds, who would very much like to meet a woman, but haven't got the faintest clue how to go about it.
As one of these people, I wonder how it fits in evolutionarily. There are a fair number of us, so I don't understand how this benefits the species in any way.
I suppose, perhaps, it's a common mental defect, but I wonder why it hasn't been bred out of us -- it would seem that it would be.
|>>|| No. 24604
>As one of these people, I wonder how it fits in evolutionarily. There are a fair number of us, so I don't understand how this benefits the species in any way.
Some evolutionary biologists think that all the behaviours that humans display are there because they serve a purpose. These behaviours or character traits have therefore been allowed by evolution to remain within the repertoire of potential human behaviour because they have proved as an evolutionary advantage.
Maybe the geeks are the ones who are destined to push and constantly refine human technology, which in the end benefits all humans and increases their chances of survival. Instead of procreating, that is how they ensure the continuation of human existence as a species.
According to this way of thinking, even psychopaths serve an evolutionary purpose. Because in deep human history, they were often the ones who "got the job done" when a tribe's survival was threatened and the more timid individuals wouldn't have had the heart to fight tooth and nail. Conversely, more sensitive individuals who are more receptive to subtle vibes and dangers and threats also contributed to a group's survival, where more cold blooded individuals would have put a tribe's existence in jeopardy.
It still doesn't explain why evolution has allowed some people to simply be all around complete fucking twats who obviously serve no purpose for humanity. But at least some of them will end up not passing on their genes in the first place. Because they are such utter twats.
|>>|| No. 24609
There's no real evolutionary imperative to engage in the sort of serial monogamy that is expected of young people in modern western society. A bookish but socially inept nerd might struggle in our culture, but they're a prime pick in a culture where arranged marriage is the norm. Your genes don't need you to sleep around, they just need you to find someone, eventually.
>It still doesn't explain why evolution has allowed some people to simply be all around complete fucking twats who obviously serve no purpose for humanity. But at least some of them will end up not passing on their genes in the first place. Because they are such utter twats.
Maybe bastardry is a recessive trait - if you've got one bastard gene you're basically OK but good at fighting off other tribes, if you've got both bastard genes then you're a total shit.
|>>|| No. 24610
>There's no real evolutionary imperative to engage in the sort of serial monogamy that is expected of young people in modern western society.
Culture is a bit more tricky to square with evolution than the behaviour of individuals. Because culture has been so fluid throughout human history and still today can come in so many different guises.
But one constant has indeed been monogamy in a great many of different cultures (although that isn't strictly true even today). Nowadays serial monogamy is more common, but that might simply also be because people live longer, or because other cultural changes have made it easier for couples to split up when they are no longer comfortable being together. But even so, people still generally prefer monogamy for the duration of any one relationship in our culture.
Monogamy could be a winning strategy that is hardwired in humans, to rear our young, because human children have an unusually long childhood and adolescence. Especially if you take into account that 3,000 years ago, people usually didn't live past age 40. And even puberty started about a full two to three years later than it does today. So humans in those days spent almost a third to half of their lives as children and adolescents. Most chimpanzees, with a life expectancy in the wild comparable to that of prehistoric humans, are fully sexually mature by age eight. On the other hand, this long childhood is commonly thought to be the key to why we are the planet's most advanced and most successful life form.
So maybe monogamy is the best way to ensure that we will make it into adulthood. Because it is such a long haul effort. You're now rightly going to say that people will split up at any point of their children's lives as they see fit nowadays; but when these behaviours and our preference for monogamy were formed and hardwired into our brains, life was much different, and much harder for single parents.
Even if monogamy, either lifelong or serial, is technically no longer needed to ensure the survival of children into adulthood, maybe the concept is just so deeply engrained in us that we choose to keep it up regardless.
|>>|| No. 24611
I think the best reproductive strategy in caveman times was to try and build a harem of little girls with ovaries full of eggs.
|>>|| No. 24612
Like the men on the Pictairn Islands. With no government around to restrict them the men basically reverted to prehistoric behaviours and started building harems of little girls.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 24613
Interesting points, but the reproductive drive is still there -- granted, not for everyone, but as in your original point, the implicit social knowledge to go about attracting a mate is simply not there.
|>>|| No. 24615
>and even puberty started about a full two to three years later than it does today.
I've never heard this before. Could you elaborate?
|>>|| No. 24616
I think I have read somewhere that the beginning of sexual maturity depends on living circumstances, i.e. the supply of food and nutrition, diseases, and other limiting factors. Mediaeval peasant girls are said to not have had their first period until age 16, and this was because peasants were usually poor, malnourished and had to work very hard physically just to get by; whereas in Roman times among aristocrats and the urban upper classes, it was almost the same as today, at age 12. I think I also read that the biologically possible minimum age for girls to start menstruating is about age eight.
So in the end, it's speculation at what age paleolithic humans became sexually mature. But I would guess that living conditions were similar to those of 12th century poor English peasants. Minus a few bits of technology that humans had evolved by then. So it's more likely that paleolithic humans matured more slowly and sexual maturity occurred later.
|>>|| No. 24617
Nah, it's the other way round. Prehistoric people were generally well-nourished and healthy. The lived in fertile habitats full of animals to hunt and grew up big and strong. Their bones were more robust than ours today and rarely show signs of malnutrition.
|>>|| No. 24619
Infant mortality was high, yes, maybe 60%. Though if you survived to 12 you could expect to live to about 50 and the most common age of death seems to have been about 70.
|>>|| No. 24620
No way. In caveman times most people were grandparents by the age of 12 and dead by 25.
|>>|| No. 24621
>and the most common age of death seems to have been about 70.
No. At least in pre-industrial times, making 70 was quite rare, and was usually reserved for the upper classes who had enjoyed lifelong good nutrition, medical care and no hard physical labour. In those social stratae, much like today, life choices were a key factor determining your life expectancy. Henry VIII led a famously unhealthy lifestyle despite all his wealth, and he died in very poor health aged just 55.
But the average person usually died much earlier. And even Aristotle, who led a privileged life within the Macedonian court and as one of his day's top academics, is said to have died at about 62. And Egyptian kings thousands of years even before that rarely fared better.
|>>|| No. 24623
What you're saying with this graph is that even at the best of pre-industrial times, people aged 70 made up only about a quarter of the population. That isn't very high. And at least past age 75, your life expectancy dropped off quite steeply, whereas nowadays apparently a whole third of the population in developed countries, e.g. the U.S., live to be 85.
And that at least partially corroborates my point that it was somewhat rare for people to live to age 70 or over in those days. Also, this graph doesn't say whether it refers to prehistoric or current hunter-gatherer cultures. And what about people who aren't or weren't part of any of these groups?
|>>|| No. 24624
The graph shows how common each age of death is different societies. The most common age of death in modern hunter-gatherer societies is about 70 and was it presumably similar in recent prehistoric societies.
|>>|| No. 24625
It may have been the most common age of death in relative terms; in absolute terms, though, only one in five to one in four people lived to age 70 or 75, while one in three people in the U.S. in 2002 lived over a decade longer than that.
I stand by my argument.
|>>|| No. 24628
I never thought this thread would've ended up here but I'm not surprised either. Never change, gs.
|>>|| No. 24630
When did a thread ever not end in a cunt off, or a vulgar display of geekery.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]