Men under 35 should not breed. The title of this essay is not meant to provoke ageism any more than advocating for the increased intelligence and health of mixed raced children should provoke racism, women in the workforce with stay at home husbands should provoke misogyny or misandry or same-sex marriage causes more homophobia. There are biological stations we need to engineer into the cultural ethos of popular culture so as to normalize true statements. It is inconclusive whether men between 35 and 55 give their kids stronger DNA, but there is a pile of evidence to suggest men between 35 and 55 give their kids stronger DNA.
According to dozens of reports on government websites, men of a certain age window contribute in all ways to a fitter, healthier, happier, more giving, intelligent, physically stronger, more compassionate, better looking, less mentally ill, longer living progeny. The role is simple. Men of a certain age elongate the telomeres on their offspring’s chromosomes through longer telomeres on the older male sperm. The culture itself is enough ageist against 18 to 24 year old women being with 35 to 55 year old men. Portending the future hinges upon 35 to 55 year old men having offspring with 18 to 24 year old women and that being the normale role.
Women 18 to 24 have more spindle appearance on their ova than older or younger females, which, again, elongates the telomeres of their offspring. Remarkable as it though be, our culture is ageist and perhaps at the embryological level that is more damaging than the nihili faculties of single raced future generations. Eugenics tries for purity. The contest to eugenics embodies diversity. Since young women and older men lend stronger DNA through more telomerase on the parental reproductive cell DNA, the paradoxical agreement of “mixed generational kids” being the regular pattern, it ought not stir the culture, but clearly this is not the normal romantic relationship accepted by most the world.
The ageist culture of bigotry, prejudice and discrimination extends to a type of relationship that may add several years to life and a healthier population. IQ has been dropping since the Victorian Era. There are 16 diseases on the rise in America. Every one of those diseases is linked to shorter telomeres, as is the aforementioned lower intelligence. Something has to be done! In 20,000 years we may devolve into a lower species. The popular culture does little to satiate the desires of DNA reaching out to the proper match. We stand as a country that is vehemently against incest, in fact, incest is often a felony in many states, because incest can lead to inbreeding, which damages DNA through telomere attrition, and yet we forgo logic entirely when it comes to the evidence of older men with young women doing more present a job at natural selection through adaptation than proximous aged young couples procreating.
Venturing out into the dating sites proves difficult. Navigating the culture of the bigot is ersatz bittersweet poetry. While going after the “cougar” of a younger male with older female paradigm is a game, set, match, the reverse is seen as “creepy” or “weird” and a suicidal labyrinth out when older men, especially older men at an equal or lesser economic standing than the women of interest, as if democratic-socialism were not the rising political ethos amongst people born between 1995 and perhaps 2010, known as Generation Z or Post-Millennials. The paradigm sees an old man of the patriarchy trying to get a free pass when that man is not playing the part of a “sugar daddy” with his engorged wallet or the older man is skipped over and ridiculed immensely, despite each subsequent marriages and divorces choosing a younger and younger female mate to elevate his status from the neighborhood to the board room. The money thing is rich with hypocrisy. Why can’t we be of the same monetary status or below to date young women when women the same age or older don’t seem to take into account economics? It is confounding and bleek that an attraction to young women makes one a foe in most cases, or through conditioning, an anti-hero sucking in all the personal attacks that could egender to a peer review, or it that just paranoia? Anecdote and evidence suggests sapience in this matter.
Why wouldn’t the patriarchy set this longitude free on to the silver screen once more as the 30’s and 40’s of the 20th century linked Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall 25 years apart at their marriage? Well, then it was “cute”. Youth entitlement since the the 1940’s hipster scene to beatniks, hippies, yuppies and so on protesting whatever has been the coup de gras of subcultural neo-liberalism, as a resistance, since social justice is the wrath of the kids. Yet, retro culture forebodes. Never do we see the old man being personified again as the popularity of Bernie Sanders among the embittered, and rightly so, youth. The wise old man archetype is returning to both conservatives and liberals. With conservatives, that memoir is Donald Trump’s. History repeats itself. Either the patriarchy does not know the facts or the facts are known and older men, as more likely probable, are past the age where they would want to get married or have children in the first place, so the facts are quasi-forgotten or too hidden, but by whom? The old patriarch perhaps gets off on puppy love for nostalgic reasons or as a histrionic curmudgeon hates kids.
We can also be heroes. It is up to older men to not act as though biology entitles one to a mate, despite the urge to blurt forth to begin, “You know, it really is quite compelling…” to young women, because to hit on a young lady takes a certain finesse that facts don’t seem to comply at all online, offline, or even in literature. The trouble is there is no guide book for such exchange, because as previously noted, older women and women the same age do not mind intellectual accreditation in order to be pursued, while younger women take more of an affront to even, “Hi, how are you. Those shoes look pretty, “ that any other age group of women are flattered to hear; older and the same age, but younger ladies apparently do not accept as good timing and that’s fair. Everyone is quite different and some groups may want to hear, albeit indirectly, that a certain age of man would procure them healthier offsping. The trouble is that men this age may want children, but our economic system is uncouth when it comes to monetary stability enough to do so when both as a pair are likely not financially steady enough to bare young, which is sad. The financial instability means one of the partners has to be sound in accrued interest and it likely will not be the younger person, so the responsibility falls on the man almost every time in the May-December romance.
One can be genetically The Incredible Hulk and live in a tiny one bedroom studio apartment looking for his anti-corporate queen and she still won’t reciprocate love because the guy doesn’t live in a big house on the hill, even if she admires his bulky, muscled green skinned rage at the villainies of Corporate American life in the 2 party dictatorship of 2019. We also have this notion of “preference” being key, when preference is tidily always grounded in some form of social discrimination, something frowned upon at least by progressive thinkers. The reproach is quite quixotic and exhausting to make any kind of headway in contrast to the coaxing from friends to “talk to her,” or “make a move”. Any kind of greeting is based in a ricochet of a thousand ways to say no, or at the most in terms of societal politeness, a no, thank you.
When we can do better for our kids, we need to strive to do better for our kids. We have prohibited a great many things that do not warrant prohibitive measures; drugs, prostitition and gambling are in the ream of adult entertainment and are proven in the cases where legal to be less damaging that under the schedules of illegality. We have prohibited things that do warrant prohibitive measures: inbreeding, small toys for young children, toxic and damaging goods to people and animals, and gun purchases under a certain age, do better as restricted and taboo for safety reasons. We do not question how we regulate incest because the police and laws do what is necessary to protect the public. We do not question small toy regulation for young children because, again, the law does what it can. Maybe we shouldn’t question how we’re going to monitor breeding with men under the age of 35 and allow the law to do its job.
Men between 35 and 55 should breed more often. We know now that venturing outside intrafamilial sex gives us a healthier population. This is the new precipice one looks over when considering wanting to start a family. We know young women are more apt to give offspring a better chance at a more omniscient sentience and a decidedly buffer body than what incest / inbreeding guarantees. The information that an older dad does what a younger mom does is obviously a noted behemoth that can jump skyscrapers in an enraged fit to attack the patriarchy than without this information, from either selfishness or ignorance, abounds an adolescent that thinks they know everything and becomes more open minded by collegiate age.
Some things just take time and in time the picture becomes clear that there are things wrong with society. The Earth is no longer thought to be rotated by the sun. Slavery is no longer thought to be ethical. Polio now has a vaccine. There are indelibly things that are indeed new under the sun. Only a cro-magnon male would think gays, people of color and women are mentally deficient today, but before the 1960’s those were the accepted views. Pop culture changes. New things happen all the time, every day in the world. This information should not be avoided, despite not being self-evident. Older men in a clearing of 35 to 55 years old ought to do all the breeding beyond “preference” being rooted in prejudice. Men under 35 would do best, even for themselves, to not breed. Genetically, it is new information that ought to cling to the cultural psyche like Spider-Man on a slippery slope still has an iron-clad grasp despite the goofy clothing choices. Circular reasoning only goes down the drain in remark of “preferences” needing to be respected, when biology outweighs love in the case of incest giving Europe the Hapsburg Jaw and Incest Depression seen in redder, more conservative panaches.
This is not an argument of rich vs. poor. This is a matter of a future for our species. Would one date their opposite sex sibling even if they agreed upon not having children? The answer is an obvious negation. Let’s not forget the gaslighting of the Jews as “bigots” during the Holocaust as an example of how eugenic proponents favored purity over diversity and that this salient breadth is meant to strive against eugenics, for aren’t most couples the same age? What if they were all the same race? Would a white skinned person attracted most to brown skin people also be gaslit as being prejudiced despited mixed race children having more protected DNA? Let us consider that empathy is housed in the right supramarginal gyrus of the parietal lobe of the brain and that shorter telomeres in the hippocampus leads to bipolar, among other ailments of the human mind.
What then of short telomeres in the right supramarginal gyrus? Does that not prove a rather obvious point with dwindling empathy? Short telomeres vs. long telomeres isn’t even a debate. Let us ditch the old ways when the old ways are tantamount to brain damage. Let us embrace the old way when before 1912 and Wilhelm Weinberg said the opposite about older dads as telomere scientists do now since 2012, a full century since Weinberg, like Aristotle stated the sun rotated the Earth, only to be challenged, forthrightly and correctly by Galileo, when it was becoming clear and foreboding all over Europe that established religion had no idea what it was talking about. The old ways were prior to Aristotle when India knew the truth about the rotating Earth and sun. It is not an ornate supposition. The only challenge is using evidence to a country blasted by incorrigible, unfounded and debatable faith to create pop culture in a way that sometimes alters the ego of the population, but more often than not offers a fake image to a fake civilization.
We breed old studs to young fillies. Autumn drops a lot of seed. Spring next year is a pollen bring. This correctly matches up to an expression in the Fibonacci Sequence called The Golden Ratio Numerical Gap, the author suppositions on wit of necessity. The Golden Ratio Numerical Gap is the expression of all gaps in The Fibonacci Sequence that encompasses The Golden Spiral. We see these patterns in nature. We see Fibonacci in black holes, spiral galaxies, planetary orbits, roses, cones, fish through mammals, cloud formations, DNA and atoms. Gaps are part of nature. Perhaps we are connected in many different Fibonacci ways. This is not a choice. This is nature. Since we see the case, we are back to the denouement where women between 18 and 24 are meant to be with men between 35 and 55. Clearly, we’re all heroes.
The controversy is that by being an ageist, one is not always agephobic, as demisexuals prefer a connection beforehand, we prefer to enlighten by the cosmos. The universe being older than the galaxies being older than the stars being older than the sun being older than the Earth being older than the moon being older than the dirt being older than the water being older than the life being older than the sky being older than the human beings being older than robots, invention, revolution, fascism, communism, capitalism, money, etc., etc., etc. further down the pike, it should be obvious the universe prefers a certain level of decorum. Capes and underwear outside the leotard does not seem fitting for regular society, but some have a flare for the flamboyant.
Men under 35 should not breed for a number of reasons. It would be senile to keep up this trend. Malfeasant are the ways that it has also been found that men under 35 do, as one publication has pointed out, contribute a great deal to the genetic abnormalities of our species. We are all normal, but some are abnormally advanced and that surprises Reinhard Stindl of Denmark, who wrote the paradoxical sperm paper in the National Institutes of Health. There is a longitudinal study from the Philippines. There is the plethoric of article and paper on this finding. Men under 35 should nay reproduce.
Compounding the verbosity with the facts has lended the topic some thought. Insipid are the vicissitudes of being eons from even the undertaking consideration, is not, unlike the story of Dracula, despite Bram Stoker being 33 years older than his bride. Both the old man and the young women in Dracula were testimonials on life. He, being 400 years old, they being around 18, vampire lore as a fear mongering tactics may have actually meant something else. Perhaps , the metaphor is that old men lend testosterone to her and young women lend progesterone to him in a continual cycle, not yet understood scientifically, but personally mixed with his nightmares from ancient stories of things that become uncontrollable with time for both the sexes. The conjecture has mounds of evidence. No one expected William and Orville to send flight into the imagination of Stan Lee. Opulent reasoning does not exclude the “just so” stories of puppy love befitting our Valentine’s Day when your dad is on his third wife and step dad on his third, as well, both mares being young fillies in their fathers’ minds for over 30 years each of raw, sweet marriage.
Proximous age couples are ostensibly against nature. Older men, by several studies, provide ample reason for young women between 18 and 24 to date from 35 to 55 years old, for the sake of fitter children from both corresponding ages of parents. Embryologically speaking, this template makes a modicum of sense, when compared to incest being a felonious act, leading to the probable result of inbreeding in many cases.
While it is difficult to convince young women of an older man’s esteemed worth, one would be wise to know the information, even without the desire to reproduce, on some level enough to say to men under 35 that having children early, for the male, is probably irresponsible in the first case. It is a matter of sowing the wild oats for men in their 20’s anyway that ought to be supported, even at the reciprocation that older men might not find a mate due to agephobia and discrimination alone genetically does a type of Hampsburgian damage, when looked at from a dry, scientific perspective of intelligence, and disease, that underlying all the rigamarole typifies an urgency to breed sickness right out of the species, if such young ladies engender to a new paradigm.
