Hacker News Reader

Comment by poisonarena | Hacker News Reader

>> "she was just 17, if you know what I mean" I used to cringe

took about 25-30 years to make men feel shame for something that was completely normal for thousands of years prior.

I see so many men, usually on reddit, completely lying or somehow brainwashed that thinking the beautiful girls they saw in highschool suddenly become disgusting or 'children'.

I can't help but think it has something to do with the western population decline.

Is it possible progressive and feminist ideology influenced women to have kids much later, when they are less fertile, and pressured men only to date this age group? I know I sound like a andrew tate or right wing maniac (especially to those redditors described above), but I can't help but wonder

View on HN

Teenage childbirth actually has a high risk of complications, versus birth in the 20-24 age range. (There is an entire WHO page about this.)

The brain goes through a lot of changes between 17 and 21-25. We have evidence of this. It's not just "feminists changing things". One consequence of your brain reaching maturity is that it is harder for people to manipulate you.

Marriage is not what it used to be in terms of economics either. Use your head, man. Fertility does not drop to nothing the moment a woman turns twenty. I say this as a non-redditor. I find it funny how people are so often concerned with female fertility and age, but the babydaddy is allowed to be old as the hills and not blamed for any birth defects, despite that advanced paternal age is associated with many birth defects and fertility struggles.

>It's not just "feminists changing things"

it actually was, christian feminists are directly responsible for this and then 3rd/4th wave feminism was responsible for the shame that you obviously now feel when hearing a song like "17".

>Use your head, man women in their 30s are less fertile, full stop, im not talking about childbirth in the 20s, or about marriage, or birth defects, or anything else you decided were my points that you are arguing against, I was talking about attraction and shame. But women women are designed for childbirth in their teens and 20s.

"Adolescent mothers (aged 10–19 years) face higher risks of eclampsia, puerperal endometritis and systemic infections than women aged 20–24 years, and babies of adolescent mothers face higher risks of low birth weight, preterm birth and severe neonatal condition."

Women are not designed for childbirth in their teens. Bodies keep changing a long time post the onset of puberty, into the late teens and early twenties. But dream on if you want to, dude. I'm sure increasing the risk of eclampsia will help the birth rate, nevermind the fact there's a lot more reasons people are having less kids.

Source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-...

The change is that we have socially and psychologically extended childhood.

So a 17 year old girl today represents someone much less self-actualized than a 17 year old lady 200 years ago.

But the result (for all persons) is a more skilled, highly specialized, more brainy vs. brawny (behaviorally) work force.

So I understand your argument correctly, are you saying to reverse Western decline we should renormalize middle aged men getting with minors?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com