What would have been the evolutionary optimal age of female for a man to acquire back in caveman times?

Whatever age they could procreate was when they had children. You can't just say "naw earlier for reasons". Nature doesn't work on pedoclocks.

You watch too many anime.

>You watch too many anime

I don't watch any anime

I'm just a big history buff

Probably around 16, just because a woman can reproduce at 12 doesn't mean it's ideal or she's ready. That's not how evolution works. She needs hips and sufficient body fat and breasts.

>Whatever age they could procreate was when they had children.
Nobody said anything about procreating.
Opie asked about
>optimal age of female for a man to acquire
Ideally, you'd want to "acquire" a girl BEFORE she's had any reason to have contact with anyone's penis.
"Optimal" certainly wouldn't be *after* she begins menstruating.
Are you suggesting a cave-man should check per-pubescent girls every day for menses?
What kind of sick fuck are you?

20.
Prior to that she can't protect herself or her offspring.
16 was an adult but they needed time to get used to their adult body and feel confident in using it for protection.
Being able to reproduce doesn't mean anything in being an attractive mate; there is no evidence that humankind had deep well thought out or complex thoughts about mate selection other than:
- Alive
- Healthy
- Not frail
- Can cooperate
Try finding a pubescent frail creature that looked attractive at the end of the last age.
Not happening.
It's not a question of ethics; I don't have them and are not biased due to them.
It's a question of survival.
Do post-apocalyptic men [yes, in fiction, but it speaks volumes about our conscious understanding of the subject] seek strong or weak women? Same conditions people.
Same goddamn conditions.

For a caveman that fully implies the age at which they can breed. Otherwise they are just another mouth to feed that isn't carrying his genes.

>Are you suggesting a cave-man should check per-pubescent girls every day for menses?

Of course they did. They had superstitious rituals and everything centered around it. African tribes still do this today.

I take it this is just a pedophile thread and not an anthropology thread No wonder no one here knows anything. God damn it Veeky Forums.

Not user, but....
- Cavemen didn't even know what genes are
- No evidence Cavemen understood anything about procreation at all
- You're using presuppositions based on anachronistic personal incredulity
- Cavemen did not breed with young mates, we know this via age analysis from graves
- They took older, hardier mates; they were survival buddies they had sex with and "randomly" had children with; they didn't understand the process... not even bronze age people fully understood the process.

>Prior to that she can't protect herself or her offspring.
That's your job, retard.

There's no evidence of the "caveman owns frail woman" stereotype from 50s cartoons.
In fact, all evidence points to men being out most of the day hunting and gathering.
You need to read at least one book on the subject before you're qualified to shoot your mouth off.

There is strong evidence that monogamy was enforced with the rise of agriculture for social stability.

Polygamy causes social instability.

>acting in this thread like most of history females where given away from fathers from the age of 5
No, most of history was not comprised of muslim ideals.
Women were commodities.
Females were typically forced to be chaste until they were ready to give their daughters to men who could afford to keep the father well in old age.

Would be almost none of you insecure faggots. It's the only reason you guys feel safe with a 12 yr old for a gf.

1.) That has nothing to do with my post; that's not a counter-argument.
2.) This
>"Polygamy causes social instability"
Is a known and well-studies fallacious belief.
Humans are not naturally monogamous, and almost no species on this planet are monogamous.
3.) Citation?

>Humans are not naturally monogamous
When has "naturally" ever been an argument in relation to humans? We don't naturally live in houses or develop medicine either.

>acquire 13 year old wife
>have 3 kids right away
>16 year old bitch won't stop self-harming herself and fantasising about having fun with 17 year old Chad
>leaves kids to die while she focuses on hair, clothes, etc to deal with raging hormones
Adult women are headaches, kids are useless aneurysms. Getting kids and teens to do as you want is about as easy as teaching a cat dog tricks.

Actually, yes we do.
That is human nature.
Curiosity.

Humans build houses like Beavers build damns and birds build nests.
It's all perfectly natural.

Humans don't "do" monogamy.
Science has always pointed in the exact opposite direction 100% of the time.
Only 30% of humans, in collective studies over the last 10 years, actually know who their real father is according to randomized genetic testing... and only about 10% of people even admit it to their partners.

You're an idiot.
Genetics don't lie and nor do statistics.
Accept reality.

>What kind of sick fuck are you?
The very worst kind.

Fuck no.
I'll get a sexbot equipped with an artificial womb, fuck you nature ur not me mum

probably 18 or 21 depending on which state

300k, but only after a math phd

The counter argument here is naturally observable.

Monogamy is a far more stable structure for a society than polygamy. None, and I mean absolutely none, of the studies conducted on family structures EVER favour polygamy for long term prosperity or survivability.

J. D. Urwin, Sex and Culture (1934) concluded "Unwin's conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity"

Also, Polygamy and Domestic Violence is well proven. On top of that, Violence between in-group males in a polygamous society is always higher than monogamous cultures.

Kill yourself and pick up a bible you faggot. Virginal marriage and the control over women is vital to the development of a society. Because it still ensure everyone is getting a piece of action, and focuses their energies on other matters beyond sexual competition.

That's actually interesting.

>You're an idiot.
no U

>citations needed

>1934
Before science tackled social taboos, including the topic of sexuality.

Alfred Kinsey, considered the father of modern scientific research on human sexuality, stated that previous research was exceptionally biased and was used to support pre-existing religious beliefs.
His research is uncontested even today.
So if you don't know Alfred Kinsey, then you really don't know anything about human sexuality.

>statistics don't lie

I didn't use an ad hominem.
Google "ad hominem fallacy fallacy".

See
Why is every single field I'm well read in always seem like an island on Veeky Forums?
Idiots keep using fallacy fallacies and the arguments from ignorance... at least when they're not using straw man fallacies and false equivocations.

They don't.
The "there can be errors means that statistics are lies" is a false equivocation.

If it bleeds it's ready

Convert to Islam.

>Alfred Kinsey
>not biased as fuck
>Rockefeller foundation crony
K bro. Why not just cite catholic church funded research saying that gay people are evil.

>Alfred Kinsey

>Kinsey's research went beyond theory and interview to include observation of and participation in sexual activity, sometimes involving co-workers. Some of the data published in the two Kinsey Reports books is controversial in the scientific and psychiatric communities, due to the low amount of research that was done and Kinsey's decision to interview and sexually experiment with volunteers who may not have been representative of the general population. Kinsey justified this sexual experimentation as being necessary to gain the confidence of his research subjects. He encouraged his staff to do likewise, and to engage in a wide range of sexual activity, to the extent that they felt comfortable; he argued that this would help his interviewers understand the participants' responses. Kinsey filmed sexual acts which included co-workers in the attic of his home as part of his research; Biographer Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy explains that this was done to ensure the films' secrecy, which would have caused a scandal had it become public knowledge. James H. Jones, author of Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, and British psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple, among others, have speculated that Kinsey was driven by his own sexual needs.
>James H. Jones, author of Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, and British psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple, among others, have speculated that Kinsey was driven by his own sexual needs.
>taking this pervert seriously.

probably around 8.. that's the age when you can go balls deep in that pussy and she could probably help around the cave picking up rocks and stuff. they by 9 when she had her period it's baby time.. then by 20 she is dead because that is the life expectancy.

>by 20 she is dead because that is the life expectancy

wrong
if you reached 20, chances are you died at 40, not 21

the life expectancy was that low because many newborns didn't survive the first days/months, just like today Africa

this is the only valid answer

I can't believe a "scientific" board went on discussing it or proposing alternatives

even gypsies sell their daughters at 13; she get deflowered during the wedding party: if she is not virgin the other family wont get the money:

youtube.com/watch?v=THInODdvvMQ

from 12:25

Join ISIS. Then you can go to the ME and rape however much poon you want. Alternatively, you could just become a serial rapist here. Of course, youll die an early death, but you would have if you were a warlord in the 6th century too.

Before Kinsey completely ruined the field with his literally degeneracy. Almost everything after the second world war consists of anti-family orientated policy proposals. Almost every intellectual work from the social sciences between 1945 and 1975 is absolute cancerous bullshit.

well, Julia is 13 in Shakespeare play and Maria wasn't 15 either, when god fucked her

I'm having a bit of a problem with
>evolutionary optimal age (of female) for a man
because the advantage is not for the man.
"To spread my genes" is not a goal of an individual of the species, and he's certainly not well off with 20 babies. If he want's kids to support him when older, then getting a woman at 17 to pop out a few at a healthy age would be best, I think, as much younger and lower puts the womans life at risk.

Related, this list is interesting:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children

> you'd want to "acquire" a girl BEFORE she's had any reason to have contact with anyone's penis.
What you wanted is immaterial.

According to Huxley's Brave New World Revisited, prehistoric societies lived by the wolf pack model. There were the beginnings of specialization (hunter vs. gatherer).

Unless you were the alpha male, you didn't fuck. At all. The alpha male made sure of that. It's where government came from.

Also, because your tribe basically followed the migration of the nearest prey species, you didn't have intertribe breeding. Your tribe was mainly related - due to having only one source of male genes. The alpha male fucked his daughters.

And if you lived past 30, you were old.

from a purely biological standpoint, this is 100% correct.

...

Veeky Forums is pedo-central

>getting a woman at 17 to pop out a few at a healthy age would be best, I think, as much younger and lower puts the womans life at risk.

Wait to much and the men will get older too, which was always risky: since you can die any moment, you better set up your children as soon as possible, so they can be of some help later on.

Evolution doesn't operate for no reason: if a girl is bleeding, she is ready. If it's "too early" as you think, then nature would have opted for "bleeding at 17".

Or: it would be the natural thing for men of any age to fuck 13 year olds, however a concious beings and within a society we recognize it would be irresponsible to expose people at the level of a teenage minds (namely young teens) to this kind or relationship and its consequences

given the question asks for the best age of the female for the male (a male of unspecified age), his age isn't a variable to optimize.

Regarding the bleeding thingy, I would actually think that the time it starts is stronger influenced by food and out circumstances than the relation to the girls health are. In other words, if you take a caveman times female and "shock" her with healthy food, the system wouldn't adjust perfectly for this level of improvement and the hormones might trigger the first bleeding early (with 10-12, say), while the body isn't actually perfectly suited for giving birth.

> Or: it would be the natural thing for men of any age to fuck 13 year olds
No it wouldn't be...

> it would be the natural thing
Drive a car recently?

You tell me how surrounding yourself with steel and moving forwards at great speed due to controlled explosions of dead dinosaur byproducts is natural.

No 13 year old, male or female, can hope to raise a child by themselves in the post industrial world. To expose them to that process is therefore cruel and should be illegal.

Sorry pedos. You lose.

>take a caveman times female and "shock" her with healthy food

What the hell are you talking about?
The diet of hunters was similar to that of a wolf, so she's already used at ups and downs in availability of food; if you happen to have too much you'll try to preserve it or to exchange it with some tools or a good dog or some other food that can be preserved better than yours. The whole point was "let's survive longer", not "let's have a banquet on Sunday". Stop watching movies.

>No 13 year old, male or female, can hope to raise a child by themselves in the post industrial world. To expose them to that process is therefore cruel and should be illegal.

Literally what I said. It would be odd to have those kids make their own decissions or get old guys get away with it. But some argue that there is no biological reason for a man not to desire mate with a female once she hit the menstrual circle, which is a bunch of years below current consent laws. It wasn't in Shakespeare old English times (only a few hundred years ago), where you could marry a girl aged 12-14.

Because? They could get offspring out of it. You think nature has a trigger warning
"Caution, pic related has great milk bags, but she only witnessed the earth turn around the sun 13 times, don't bang!"?

>half their lives

You don't understand life expectancy. People didn't just drop over dead at 30. If you made it to 15, you were more likely to make it to 60-70 than die at 30.

bible said not to kill slaves under the age of 4, because they would probably still be virgins.

This implies 5 is the age to start sexing? (historically, not today)

Because of the age of consent you pedophile freakshow.
fuck off back to /r/eddit or wherever anus you crawled out of

>"shock" her with healthy food
oh wait, I got it: you mean to bring her here and feed her our processed foods? ah ah, oh lord, you must be one of those Americans that eat pills their whole life; ah ah, no Jimmy, that roasted rabbit they were having it's already the healthier food possible.

You might be misunderstanding me on purpose, but my post was (literally!)
>Or: it would be the natural thing for men of any age to fuck 13 year olds, however [argument for not doing it a human society]
So the "natural" here was referring to: A 40 year old caveman would naturally find himself getting a hard-on from pic related and make a baby

I understand that you have problems with this event (it's the conscious argument I agree with), but OP is explicitly asking when to start from the evolutionary perspective and that's the answer, as far as I can tell

MOAR

Why is what a caveman even remotely relevant to anything ? They might have thought it might be a good idea to rape, eat shit, cannibalize and put their dicks in a hornets nest as well.

Why are you under the delusion that it's somehow a justification for your pedophilia and your endless pedophiac image spam ?

we're not arguing that we condone pedos, at least I'm not. OP is talking about caveman times, a more primal, evolutionary driven time.

menstruation = maturity

HOWEVER, I think we can all be in agreement that post-industrialized society this is clearly wrong, and should not be condoned or practiced. To say that, purely biologically, a female is not ready to procreate at menstruation is scientifically inaccurate.

OPs question reads
>What would have been the evolutionary optimal age of female for a man to acquire back in CAVEMAN times?
Did you read it?

I have to google young looking girls myself,
but if you just want women to follow their cerebral programming, in 2010++ supported by Turing complete machines in their pocket,
consider

imgur.com/r/ChangingRooms

the caveman is relevant because that's that the fucking OP is about. See: .

learn a new word:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

and I said why is it a justification for your pedophile image spam ? Fuck off already wierdos

Re-branding pedohilia or dividing it up to terms don't magically make you not a pedophile nor get you off the hook. You still belong to the prison getting raped by 20 inmates everyday.

>3 pictures
>endless spam

buttmadhurtlord

Why do pictures of sexually attractive young women rustle your jimmies so much? Even if you consider such people preferences degenerate, this is Veeky Forums - make a scientific counter-argument or ignore the thread.

> justifying pedoposting
kek

> A 40 year old caveman would naturally
A 40 year old caveman would most likely be long dead of dysentery

After the 21 year of age the bones are fully-grown so the pelvic are less flexible thatswhy the risk of problem while birth is increased.also the chance for unhealthy mutations like downsyndrom are after the 36 year of age much higher.so the perfekt period for a woman to give birth is 16-21 but the years till the 36 birthday are also good

what part of I don't condone pedophilia, or ephebophilia do you not understand? I'm just making the completely factual point, AS IT RELATES TO THE FUCKING OP. That's how it was, deal with it.

Also, I didn't post anything.

ITT we all pretend there is some biological or evolutionary reason to wait an objectively random period of time after maturity

Consider the factors back then

>Lower mortality rate for you and her
>competition with other cave gangs
>her first menstrul cycle

Literally would say 10-11 years mate.

I agree completely. Lets fuck 3 year olds because I deny age of consent and rather insert my own subjective and vaguely defined age of "maturity" which gives me an excuse to be a pedophile xD

aww look how angry he is that everyone doesnt automatically agree with him

>its "evil" therefore i must be right
moralistic fallacies are rough my friend

i'm not arguing that it is obviously undesirable, but bad logic or reasoning on your part doesn't help the case you are trying to make

But there is user.

Have you ever seen the damage child birth has on a female under the age of 15...chances are you won't be getting a healthy petite wife for the future but rather redundant cum bucket that can't look after the the kids cause muh pelvic, muh complications.

Nature does not want you to fuck anyone under 15 in average, nature want you to wait and let her pussy mature then your peado dick can be inserted into usb 3 for optimal data transfer.

>maturity
>3 years old

can a 3 year old bear a child s-senpai?

"As a young man, Kinsey began inserting objects into his urethra initially drinking straws before moving on to pipe cleaners, pencils and finally a toothbrush to punish himself for having homoerotic feelings, and inserting toothbrushes continued throughout his adult life."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey#Personal_habits

Everyone actually agrees with me. It's you pedophile rapists that desperately try to justify your despicable pedophilia.

ITT we all forget that 200 years ago it was completely normal for girls to bear children right upon reaching maturity and the human race survived "muh complications"

objectively there is no reason

subjectively, ie ethically, there is a reason

btw i pick ethics :)

> age of consent is when they can physically do X
LMAO lets give 6 year olds driving license since they can physically drive cars.
Oh and lets allow 3 year olds to buy alcohol because they can drink easily.

You pedophile freaks are grasping at straws lol

i dont rape pedophiles, lets get that clear right now

>if you arent with me, you're against me
>if you don't support the nazis you're a jew
don't you have a rally to attend?

who is talking about age of consent? that would fall under subjectivity, ie ethics.

it is clear to me now that you're just a mad brainlet who picked what he thought was an easy side to boost his ego, and now you're just waist deep in your book of tryhard fallacies

oh well, i thought it could be an interesting discussion but its just more of the same

>im arguing on the side of "good" so therefore i have already won
makes for some very stupid arguments

>Everyone actually agrees with me

nope
Why don't you understand that there is a HUGE difference between a 10 years old girl and a 14 years old girl biologically ready for pregnancy? Go get some old photos of Chloe Moretz year by year, hopefully you'll figure it out by yourself.

> this wall of text will justify my pedophilia
kek
you didn't even refute what I said. You the age where they can breed have to be the age where I can fuck them, then I gave you some examples where the age where you are capable of doing something will lead to some disastrous outcomes if you actually did. You're just spitballing trying to get around the fact that you're trying to deny age of consent and just keep wanna be a pedo

>wall of text
silly nigger, you can't read

pubescent
But we are civilized now
>inb4 pedos try to justify fucking kiddies

fug

Cavemen lived in tribes and had a leader. Nobody really lived long enough to become an old pedo back then. People probably just "married" their same-age cousins from inside the tribe, with the man usually a few years older

kill, fuck, marry

>12
But in the middle ages puberty mostly happened around 15 for girls.

"some" of life is suffering.

>what part of I don't condone pedophilia, or ephebophilia do you not understand?
Pedophilia serves no obvious biological/evolutionary function, by definition.
Ephebophilia is defined as:
the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.
That's breeding age, and is/was a viable evolutionary strategy.
Besides, most girls that age are considered consenting adults everywhere except some US states.

what a little turd of a thread u shat out op

È lui o non è lui?