Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#27 - headkicker (06/15/2013) [-]
Just from reading this content, and not the article itself;

I love how it's neglected to mention that such choice kept humanity alive.
Older Parents have a shorter lifespan than younger parents (obviously).
It was necessary, when early human society consisted solely of men out working and hunting/gathering food and women staying at home to care for the young, for mothers to be able to look after their children solely by themselves for long periods of time.
I would rather know I have a fit 25 year old guarding my offspring than some rickety old 60 year old (who more than likely would not have survived childbirth anyway).
As a result; any 'long fertility' genes that exist in women were lost as men predominantly mated only with young, fertile women.
#21 - rosietheamazon (06/15/2013) [-]
hot   
FLUSHES
hot
FLUSHES
#19 - anon (06/15/2013) [-]
They got noone to blame but themselves, nobody wants an ugly ass old bitch.
User avatar #14 - cryingchicken ONLINE (06/15/2013) [-]
OR, OR, OR... Because of women being more fertile when young and less fertile after menopause men naturally chose younger mates.
User avatar #13 - gothiczombie ONLINE (06/14/2013) [+] (2 replies)
If you think about this logically for any length of time you will see that it is utter ********
1.Evolution isn't affected by what time in your life you have children.
2.Evolution doesn't care if something is pointless as long as it doesn't increase mortality rate before childbirth or reduces likelihood of conception for example tailbones.

If I am wrong I apologise but there seems to be no proof or logic behind this theory
 Friends (0)