Adulthood (and fertility/attraction)

[John_Doe]

The question of adulthood has probably been done a million times but do you think it makes more sense to base the concept on full-blown sexual maturity or just the ability to reproduce? For a while, I guess I was leaning toward the former (not on a case-by-case basis though, in terms of what is standard for an age group. Identical twins could start puberty at different times and things like diet play a role in that so the age when not having started it implies some kind of medical abnormality or problem seems significant to me) but now I'm really considering the latter because there is a black and white difference between a 10-14-year-old who has had her first period and a 9-13-year-old who hasn't, whereas the difference between that 10-14-year-old and a fully mature 12-16-year-old seems to be a difference in degree. There is a risk with pregnancy before full sexual maturity but there's also some risk with 'geriatric' pregnancies (35 and up) as well. Irregular periods are common after menarche (apparently, 80% of the menstrual cycles that the average girl will have after her first year of menstruating will be anovulatory) but they're also common in perimenopausal women (I think this is around 5 years before menopause, which is determined retroactively through having gone an entire year without menstruating). I'm used to the idea that girls mature earlier than boys but apparently spermatogenesis in boys is considered delayed if it hasn't occurred by 14 whereas menarche is only delayed in girls if it hasn't occurred by 15, so basing adulthood on the basic fecundity would challenge that.

This is off-topic (and the post in general is somewhat rushed) but apparently women are most conventionally attractive when they are ovulating (I wouldn't be surprised if sexual arousal is stronger for them at this time as well. That men are basically fertile all the time and women are typically only fertile 5-7 days in the month might partly explain male promiscuity). I just thought that was interesting because it seems to support the idea of average people being drawn to indicators of health and fertility. I've said this before: 'logically' I should prefer 17-24-year-olds over 12-15-year-olds but I don't, if there's a general difference at all for me. The interaction between estrogen and progesterone is apparently responsible for menstruation and low estrogen is a cause of anovulatory cycles, estrogen is also responsible for the development of breasts, the widening of hips and the proportional fat in a woman's thighs and bum (traits that straight men find sexually exciting). I am not trying to be a dickhead (I'm just interested in the topic) but women's estrogen/progesterone obviously decrease when they're perimenopausal and their ovaries produce very little after menopause (menopause before 40 is considered premature and before 45 it's considered early; something like 94% of women hit menopause after 45 and 99% after 40, the average age being 51, and both either indicate underlying medical issues or put women at risk in various ways), so it is strange that men are expected to prefer their own age group throughout their lifespan just because that's considered moral or non-exploitative or even just in-line with the monogamous ideal (to show that I'm not trying to dunk on women for hitting the wall at 40: men's sperm quality apparently peaks between 30 and 34; although sperm motility starts to decline as early as 25, and starts to decline at 35, and more significantly after 50, even if they tend to be technically fertile until death). Feel free to correct me on any of my information, I'm not well-read on this.

[Brain O'Conner]

As for what is considered full blown maturity, it gets very murky and thus arbitrary to have a definite age for it, but as for me personally, I would consider full blown sexual maturity once you are able to reproduce. There's a handful of studies you can find that dispels the myths around the dangers of pregnancy for the 10-19 age range that is exacerbated and goes into how they can bore healthy babies with the mother having little to no complications. The deaths and complications are mainly cause by the young woman's environment in that age range that can influence the lifestyle choices and the amount of education on pregnancy they receive that can affect their timing on when to see a doctor for checkups when they're pregnant and stuff, on top of knowing that they are pregnant to begin with.

[Curson]

My thoughts on this are: If 35 is the age that is considered "Advanced Maternity Age" (AMA), or previously known as geriatric pregnancy, then we must recognize that adulthood begins well before 18. If 18 truly is the age that you consider being an adult, then you have only 17 years before your fertility starts to drop.

[John_Doe]

My thoughts on this are: If 35 is the age that is considered "Advanced Maternity Age" (AMA), or previously known as geriatric pregnancy, then we must recognize that adulthood begins well before 18. If 18 truly is the age that you consider being an adult, then you have only 17 years before your fertility starts to drop.

If I'm not mistaken, it begins to decline; although I'm sure very gradually, as early as 25. Certain pregnancy risks increase then as well which is why I've said that, from a health standpoint, the absolute best time for a woman to get pregnant is from around two years after menarche up until 24 (again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this). If I'm not mistaken, general decline begins at 25 for both men and women which might be why Giedd assumed that the prefrontal cortexes of his subjects would finish developing by 25.

Brain O'Connor

There's a handful of studies you can find that dispels the myths around the dangers of pregnancy for the 10-19 age range that is exacerbated and goes into how they can bore healthy babies with the mother having little to no complications. The deaths and complications are mainly cause by the young woman's environment in that age range that can influence the lifestyle choices and the amount of education on pregnancy they receive that can affect their timing on when to see a doctor for checkups when they're pregnant and stuff, on top of knowing that they are pregnant to begin with.

You might be right but I have a hard time believing that there's no increased risk for girls who have just started menstruating (I didn't think/realize there were young teens who have died because of it although I can see how that would especially be a high possibility in pre-modern societies or for impoverished people). An increased risk wouldn't negate many, maybe even most, younger teens having more or less healthy pregnancies that go as planned. Even with girls and women 16/17 and older, irregular periods apparently correlate with various problems with pregnancy. From what I've read, I thought it was the general consensus that with older teens the risks are related more to socioeconomic issues than biological ones, however biased researchers might be against the idea of teen pregnancy.

[Brain O'Conner]

My thoughts on this are: If 35 is the age that is considered "Advanced Maternity Age" (AMA), or previously known as geriatric pregnancy, then we must recognize that adulthood begins well before 18. If 18 truly is the age that you consider being an adult, then you have only 17 years before your fertility starts to drop.

If I'm not mistaken, it begins to decline; although I'm sure very gradually, as early as 25. Certain pregnancy risks increase then as well which is why I've said that, from a health standpoint, the absolute best time for a woman to get pregnant is from around two years after menarche up until 24 (again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this). If I'm not mistaken, general decline begins at 25 for both men and women which might be why Giedd assumed that the prefrontal cortexes of his subjects would finish developing by 25.

Brain O'Connor

There's a handful of studies you can find that dispels the myths around the dangers of pregnancy for the 10-19 age range that is exacerbated and goes into how they can bore healthy babies with the mother having little to no complications. The deaths and complications are mainly cause by the young woman's environment in that age range that can influence the lifestyle choices and the amount of education on pregnancy they receive that can affect their timing on when to see a doctor for checkups when they're pregnant and stuff, on top of knowing that they are pregnant to begin with.

You might be right but I have a hard time believing that there's no increased risk for girls who have just started menstruating (I didn't think/realize there were young teens who have died because of it although I can see how that would especially be a high possibility in pre-modern societies or for impoverished people). An increased risk wouldn't negate many, maybe even most, younger teens having more or less healthy pregnancies that go as planned. Even with girls and women 16/17 and older, irregular periods apparently correlate with various problems with pregnancy. From what I've read, I thought it was the general consensus that with older teens the risks are related more to socioeconomic issues than biological ones, however biased researchers might be against the idea of teen pregnancy.

Oh no, I was not implying that there aren't increased risks for girls that young, especially for smaller girls, I was saying that most of those risks could be mitigated significantly if the younger person had proper support and services, especially people in the pre-teens. Go check out these studies here on Newgon and you'll see what I'm talking about: https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Teen_pregnancy. After reading these, you'll start to piece together and see how people, even some health organizations exacerbate the dangers of pregnancy for them like they're near guaranteed they're going to die or have lifelong complications, even though those things can happen to people of all ages. Also, go check out this post I made on here since you brought up Jay Giedd and stuff: https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=3271. I have interesting stuff I say that even anti's can't refute in a debate about consent and stuff, not that the whole underdeveloped and fully develop brain matter anyways since kids engage and understand things that are far more complex and dangerous than sexual activity

[John_Doe]

My thoughts on this are: If 35 is the age that is considered "Advanced Maternity Age" (AMA), or previously known as geriatric pregnancy, then we must recognize that adulthood begins well before 18. If 18 truly is the age that you consider being an adult, then you have only 17 years before your fertility starts to drop.

If I'm not mistaken, it begins to decline; although I'm sure very gradually, as early as 25. Certain pregnancy risks increase then as well which is why I've said that, from a health standpoint, the absolute best time for a woman to get pregnant is from around two years after menarche up until 24 (again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this). If I'm not mistaken, general decline begins at 25 for both men and women which might be why Giedd assumed that the prefrontal cortexes of his subjects would finish developing by 25.

Brain O'Connor

There's a handful of studies you can find that dispels the myths around the dangers of pregnancy for the 10-19 age range that is exacerbated and goes into how they can bore healthy babies with the mother having little to no complications. The deaths and complications are mainly cause by the young woman's environment in that age range that can influence the lifestyle choices and the amount of education on pregnancy they receive that can affect their timing on when to see a doctor for checkups when they're pregnant and stuff, on top of knowing that they are pregnant to begin with.

You might be right but I have a hard time believing that there's no increased risk for girls who have just started menstruating (I didn't think/realize there were young teens who have died because of it although I can see how that would especially be a high possibility in pre-modern societies or for impoverished people). An increased risk wouldn't negate many, maybe even most, younger teens having more or less healthy pregnancies that go as planned. Even with girls and women 16/17 and older, irregular periods apparently correlate with various problems with pregnancy. From what I've read, I thought it was the general consensus that with older teens the risks are related more to socioeconomic issues than biological ones, however biased researchers might be against the idea of teen pregnancy.

Oh no, I was not implying that there aren't increased risks for girls that young, especially for smaller girls, I was saying that most of those risks could be mitigated significantly if the younger person had proper support and services, especially people in the pre-teens. Go check out these studies here on Newgon and you'll see what I'm talking about: https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Teen_pregnancy. After reading these, you'll start to piece together and see how people, even some health organizations exacerbate the dangers of pregnancy for them like they're near guaranteed they're going to die or have lifelong complications, even though those things can happen to people of all ages. Also, go check out this post I made on here since you brought up Jay Giedd and stuff: https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=3271. I have interesting stuff I say that even anti's can't refute in a debate about consent and stuff, not that the whole underdeveloped and fully develop brain matter anyways since kids engage and understand things that are far more complex and dangerous than sexual activity

Thanks for the clarification. I haven't read the entire article but I agree, the medical risk seems to be exaggerated.

If I have to say it, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with teen pregnancy but, anti-natalist considerations aside (because I'm anti-natalist in practice despite viewing procreation as ideal), I think it's generally a bad idea in practice because it's such a huge commitment/burden to take on (and my intuition tells me that a 10-year-old will have less of an ability to cope with the challenges of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth than an older woman does). I think it's generally better that young women have some time to enjoy their freedom but I admit the line is arbitrary (15, 20, 25, 30, there's probably no standard age when everyone will be 'ready.' If nothing else, someone who wants to be a parent in this day and age should probably get a degree unless maybe they were born into great wealth, I don't know). Again, I'm not opposed to teen/preteen pregnancy on principle in all conceivable scenarios.

[Brain O'Conner]

If I'm not mistaken, it begins to decline; although I'm sure very gradually, as early as 25. Certain pregnancy risks increase then as well which is why I've said that, from a health standpoint, the absolute best time for a woman to get pregnant is from around two years after menarche up until 24 (again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this). If I'm not mistaken, general decline begins at 25 for both men and women which might be why Giedd assumed that the prefrontal cortexes of his subjects would finish developing by 25.

Brain O'Connor


You might be right but I have a hard time believing that there's no increased risk for girls who have just started menstruating (I didn't think/realize there were young teens who have died because of it although I can see how that would especially be a high possibility in pre-modern societies or for impoverished people). An increased risk wouldn't negate many, maybe even most, younger teens having more or less healthy pregnancies that go as planned. Even with girls and women 16/17 and older, irregular periods apparently correlate with various problems with pregnancy. From what I've read, I thought it was the general consensus that with older teens the risks are related more to socioeconomic issues than biological ones, however biased researchers might be against the idea of teen pregnancy.

Oh no, I was not implying that there aren't increased risks for girls that young, especially for smaller girls, I was saying that most of those risks could be mitigated significantly if the younger person had proper support and services, especially people in the pre-teens. Go check out these studies here on Newgon and you'll see what I'm talking about: https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Teen_pregnancy. After reading these, you'll start to piece together and see how people, even some health organizations exacerbate the dangers of pregnancy for them like they're near guaranteed they're going to die or have lifelong complications, even though those things can happen to people of all ages. Also, go check out this post I made on here since you brought up Jay Giedd and stuff: https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=3271. I have interesting stuff I say that even anti's can't refute in a debate about consent and stuff, not that the whole underdeveloped and fully develop brain matter anyways since kids engage and understand things that are far more complex and dangerous than sexual activity

Thanks for the clarification. I haven't read the entire article but I agree, the medical risk seems to be exaggerated.

If I have to say it, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with teen pregnancy but, anti-natalist considerations aside (because I'm anti-natalist in practice despite viewing procreation as ideal), I think it's generally a bad idea in practice because it's such a huge commitment/burden to take on (and my intuition tells me that a 10-year-old will have less of an ability to cope with the challenges of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth than an older woman does). I think it's generally better that young women have some time to enjoy their freedom but I admit the line is arbitrary (15, 20, 25, 30, there's probably no standard age when everyone will be 'ready.' If nothing else, someone who wants to be a parent in this day and age should probably get a degree unless maybe they were born into great wealth, I don't know). Again, I'm not opposed to teen/preteen pregnancy on principle in all conceivable scenarios.

I wouldn't necessarily say that a 10-year-old has less of an ability to cope with the challenges of pregnancy, at least on an intrinsic scale, than someone older. There are a lot of young people that are more resilient than people much older and vice-versa. It really depends on the person. Anyways, let me know what your thoughts are on the post I made about Jay Giedd's study on the brain.

[John_Doe]

Oh no, I was not implying that there aren't increased risks for girls that young, especially for smaller girls, I was saying that most of those risks could be mitigated significantly if the younger person had proper support and services, especially people in the pre-teens. Go check out these studies here on Newgon and you'll see what I'm talking about: https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Teen_pregnancy. After reading these, you'll start to piece together and see how people, even some health organizations exacerbate the dangers of pregnancy for them like they're near guaranteed they're going to die or have lifelong complications, even though those things can happen to people of all ages. Also, go check out this post I made on here since you brought up Jay Giedd and stuff: https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=3271. I have interesting stuff I say that even anti's can't refute in a debate about consent and stuff, not that the whole underdeveloped and fully develop brain matter anyways since kids engage and understand things that are far more complex and dangerous than sexual activity

Thanks for the clarification. I haven't read the entire article but I agree, the medical risk seems to be exaggerated.

If I have to say it, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with teen pregnancy but, anti-natalist considerations aside (because I'm anti-natalist in practice despite viewing procreation as ideal), I think it's generally a bad idea in practice because it's such a huge commitment/burden to take on (and my intuition tells me that a 10-year-old will have less of an ability to cope with the challenges of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth than an older woman does). I think it's generally better that young women have some time to enjoy their freedom but I admit the line is arbitrary (15, 20, 25, 30, there's probably no standard age when everyone will be 'ready.' If nothing else, someone who wants to be a parent in this day and age should probably get a degree unless maybe they were born into great wealth, I don't know). Again, I'm not opposed to teen/preteen pregnancy on principle in all conceivable scenarios.

I wouldn't necessarily say that a 10-year-old has less of an ability to cope with the challenges of pregnancy, at least on an intrinsic scale, than someone older. There are a lot of young people that are more resilient than people much older and vice-versa. It really depends on the person. Anyways, let me know what your thoughts are on the post I made about Jay Giedd's study on the brain.

I'm not scientifically literate enough to comment on much of it (and I didn't click on any of the links you provided in your post) but I guess it goes to show how easy it is for bad science to be popularized and taken for granted. The 'brain doesn't fully develop until 25' is a really common dogma that people cite as fact.

Apparently I got some things wrong. I remember reading that the subjects were 21 or something.

I agree, you find variation in different age groups, at least after a certain age (so far, as far I know, there are no infant prodigies).

[Brain O'Conner]

Thanks for the clarification. I haven't read the entire article but I agree, the medical risk seems to be exaggerated.

If I have to say it, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with teen pregnancy but, anti-natalist considerations aside (because I'm anti-natalist in practice despite viewing procreation as ideal), I think it's generally a bad idea in practice because it's such a huge commitment/burden to take on (and my intuition tells me that a 10-year-old will have less of an ability to cope with the challenges of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth than an older woman does). I think it's generally better that young women have some time to enjoy their freedom but I admit the line is arbitrary (15, 20, 25, 30, there's probably no standard age when everyone will be 'ready.' If nothing else, someone who wants to be a parent in this day and age should probably get a degree unless maybe they were born into great wealth, I don't know). Again, I'm not opposed to teen/preteen pregnancy on principle in all conceivable scenarios.

I wouldn't necessarily say that a 10-year-old has less of an ability to cope with the challenges of pregnancy, at least on an intrinsic scale, than someone older. There are a lot of young people that are more resilient than people much older and vice-versa. It really depends on the person. Anyways, let me know what your thoughts are on the post I made about Jay Giedd's study on the brain.

I'm not scientifically literate enough to comment on much of it (and I didn't click on any of the links you provided in your post) but I guess it goes to show how easy it is for bad science to be popularized and taken for granted. The 'brain doesn't fully develop until 25' is a really common dogma that people cite as fact.

Apparently I got some things wrong. I remember reading that the subjects were 21 or something.

I agree, you find variation in different age groups, at least after a certain age (so far, as far I know, there are no infant prodigies).

All it takes is some studying. Just research the things you don't understand. I didn't really think it was hard to understand at all and pretty straight forward in the post, but idk. And the brain variation across age groups, you don't need to be some prodigy to have a higher maturation index than someone older, it's just a result of their environment, which isn't rare at all for a much younger person to possess greater maturation index than someone much older. Again, I would recommend you do some studying. Curious, was there anything you didn't understand about the study at all?

[John_Doe]

I wouldn't necessarily say that a 10-year-old has less of an ability to cope with the challenges of pregnancy, at least on an intrinsic scale, than someone older. There are a lot of young people that are more resilient than people much older and vice-versa. It really depends on the person. Anyways, let me know what your thoughts are on the post I made about Jay Giedd's study on the brain.

I'm not scientifically literate enough to comment on much of it (and I didn't click on any of the links you provided in your post) but I guess it goes to show how easy it is for bad science to be popularized and taken for granted. The 'brain doesn't fully develop until 25' is a really common dogma that people cite as fact.

Apparently I got some things wrong. I remember reading that the subjects were 21 or something.

I agree, you find variation in different age groups, at least after a certain age (so far, as far I know, there are no infant prodigies).

All it takes is some studying. Just research the things you don't understand. I didn't really think it was hard to understand at all and pretty straight forward in the post, but idk. And the brain variation across age groups, you don't need to be some prodigy to have a higher maturation index than someone older, it's just a result of their environment, which isn't rare at all for a much younger person to possess greater maturation index than someone much older. Again, I would recommend you do some studying. Curious, was there anything you didn't understand about the study at all?

I didn't really spend much time trying to properly digest it because I'm not really passionate about the topic, to be honest.

I did find it interesting that some 8-year-olds have a higher maturation index than some 30-year-olds though. Does that apply to the prefrontal cortex myth?