J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 03:38:35 am

Everything that makes men attractive is an indication of good quality genes, or was such an indication in the ancestral environment.  Everything that makes women attractive is an indication of good quality genes and/or fertility.

I can't imagine how you'd measure that. And I don't see it.

Men who wear uniforms have good-quality genes?

"Bad boys" who act out in ways that are not considered socially acceptable have good-quality genes?

Guys who take steroids to get bulging muscles have good-quality gees? (Well, but most women don't particularly go for that.)

Guys who act supremely confident have good-quality genes?

Guys who actually proposition women have good-quality genes?

Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

I just don't see it.

Tucci78 on April 30, 2011, 03:39:42 am
If extrauterine gestation becomes technically possible, what's to prevent a Belter (or a consortium of Belters) from acquiring the material means and the expertise to bake babies to order? 

Gaining germ plasm from sources as might suit him/her, the fixated pedophile pays the baby-bakery to gin up a conceptus, bring it to term, and hand him/her the little critter for to raise into the pervert's notion of an ideal child sex object.

Or the non pedophile might apply large doses of growth hormone and estrogen, so that at the age of three, the child is the size of a ten year old, has adult sized genitals, and adult secondary sexual characteristics, indeed hyperadult secondary sexual characteristics that would be incapacitating under earth normal gravity.

Tsk. Why be so timid in your hypothesis? Remember, we have in the Escape From Terra plenum the body-morphing capabilities of rejuvenation, with nanotechnological means to achieve physical habitus in a subject very much as desired.

Babette the Elder might have chosen to emerge on Mars looking younger than her granddaughter, were it to have been to Reggie's taste to bed a female partner who could readily pass as a little boy. 

The "non pedophile" (male or female) might secure a ward who, at the age of three, is fully adult in stature and the development of secondary sex characteristics, but with the mind of a very small child.

Gawd, the dumbest possible "dumb blonde" imaginable.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

sam on April 30, 2011, 04:48:06 am
Everything that makes men attractive is an indication of good quality genes, or was such an indication in the ancestral environment.  Everything that makes women attractive is an indication of good quality genes and/or fertility.

I can't imagine how you'd measure that. And I don't see it.

I do see it.

Men who wear uniforms have good-quality genes?

You won't see women going for males in bellhop uniforms.

Women (having poor judgment about male social hierarchies) tend, like small children, to overrate the capacity for violence as a measure of success and status.

Uniforms, in a certain social context, indicate power and success, or the capacity to get away with violence.  He who succeeds, probably has good genes.  If one man can kill another, the killer probably has better genes than the killed.  it is the capacity for violence symbolized by the uniform, not the uniform itself, that attracts women.

"Bad boys" who act out in ways that are not considered socially acceptable have good-quality genes?

Women are less capable of judging male social status than men are.  Ability to break the rules and seemingly get away with it is, in the ancestral environment, and perhaps in our environment, an indication of status.  Who has higher status?  Prince William or a thug?  The thug will probably have a lot more children, which is the ultimate measure of genetic success.

Women are notoriously incompetent in judging the extent to which a bad boy is successful in breaking the rules and getting away with it, but a preference for those who can successfully defy the rules will lead to a women collecting better quality semen.  Of course, in practice, they frequently wind up getting semen from those who unsuccessfully break the rules, but that is not what they are after.

Guys who take steroids to get bulging muscles have good-quality gees?

In the ancestral environment, where steroids were unavailable, and to a large extent in our environment, bulging muscles are an indication of good quality genes.

Guys who act supremely confident have good-quality genes?

That is a pretty good bet.

Guys who actually proposition women have good-quality genes?

The will to do what it takes to reproduce and survive  is a major part of what makes creatures actually reproduce and survive, often the major part.  If you look at creatures that are on the verge of extinction, and compare them with creatures that we cannot eradicate no matter how hard we try, the ones that are on the verge of extinction often just don't seem very enthusiastic about finding food, eating food, fighting, sex, taking care of their offspring, and all that stuff.   You have to be in it to win it.  So the woman who prefers the man that gets in her face is likely get better genes in his semen.

Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Sure - the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her has better genes that the guy who failed to get women pregnant, and the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her is now available, whereas the guy who got a women pregnant and failed to dump her is less available.  So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time, and, from the point of view of evolution, rightly so.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 05:04:43 am by sam »

J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 07:17:23 am

"Bad boys" who act out in ways that are not considered socially acceptable have good-quality genes?

Women are less capable of judging male social status than men are.  Ability to break the rules and seemingly get away with it is, in the ancestral environment, and perhaps in our environment, an indication of status.  Who has higher status?  Prince William or a thug?  The thug will probably have a lot more children, which is the ultimate measure of genetic success.

This is a silly JustSo story.

Quote
Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Sure - the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her has better genes that the guy who failed to get women pregnant, and the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her is now available, whereas the guy who got a women pregnant and failed to dump her is less available.  So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time, and, from the point of view of evolution, rightly so.

This is a pathetic JustSo story. A woman without a man will usually be able to raise less than half as many children, barring government interference. So "superior" genes need to be more than twice as good. Is that at all plausible? No.

A man who has nine children by single mothers has accomplished something, but consider the quality of the genes he has chosen. He has chosen the stupidest women around to have his children with, and then put those children into poor environments to be raised. If he's so superior, why didn't he do a better job of it?

quadibloc on April 30, 2011, 08:17:38 am
What is the man's incentive to leave a pregnant woman stranded? Say he does that once and runs off with another woman. He has one child he does not have to support. Then he does it a second time and he has two children he doesn't have to support. But at this point, it's only particularly stupid women who will run off with him, so the rest of his children are likely to be stupid. What has it gotten him?
What if the alternative is no children at all, instead of children with a mother with better genes, because he can't find a steady job?

So when he does have money, he uses it to seduce women, then he runs. Not hard to figure out.

SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 10:25:16 am
...and parts of the world where school break tourist spots often feature drunken fourteen year olds screwing in a great big pile.

What parts of the world, exactly, are you talking about? I have never heard such a thing, but I would be love to see your videos!

And when you say "historical standards", I am sure that many older readers screwed twelve year old girls back when screwing twelve year old girls was legal - we are not talking ancient history here.

Not is the United States, that is for sure. Where were you thinking about?

BTW, while size, strength, health and symmetry are factors in how women select sex partners are important, the primary factor during maximum libido (ovulation) is pheromones. Why? Because pheromones are a direct readout of a potential partner's immunological system, specifically, the 50-some genes that make up one's HLA (human leukocyte antigen). This is vitally important because partners with similar HLA (like your brother), lack the diversity found in partners with very different HLA. A combination of highly diverse HLAs, statistically ensures the genetic health of any progeny that arise from the union.

J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 11:35:43 am
What is the man's incentive to leave a pregnant woman stranded? Say he does that once and runs off with another woman. He has one child he does not have to support. Then he does it a second time and he has two children he doesn't have to support. But at this point, it's only particularly stupid women who will run off with him, so the rest of his children are likely to be stupid. What has it gotten him?
What if the alternative is no children at all, instead of children with a mother with better genes, because he can't find a steady job?

So when he does have money, he uses it to seduce women, then he runs. Not hard to figure out.

This does not seem to me like it particularly indicates superior genes.

Brugle on April 30, 2011, 11:45:49 am
Why does a woman have an incentive to get pregnant with someone else?

Come on, JT.  Instead of coming up with silly questions and long-winded irrelevant scenarios, try putting just a tiny fraction of the effort into answering your own questions.

The obvious incentive for a woman to get pregnant with "someone else" is to have a baby with genes that are more likely to exist several generations later.  The desirable qualities in a biological father are quite different from the desirable qualities in a man who helps raise one's children.  Is that so difficult to understand?

Of course, a man might not help raise children who are not biologically his.  So whether getting pregnant with "someone else" is a winning strategy depends on (among other things) how good men are at recognizing biological fathers.

What is the man's incentive to leave a pregnant woman stranded? Say he does that once and runs off with another woman. He has one child he does not have to support. Then he does it a second time and he has two children he doesn't have to support. But at this point, it's only particularly stupid women who will run off with him, so the rest of his children are likely to be stupid. What has it gotten him?

Stupidity (as defined by JT) is not the criterion of evolutionary failure.  The criterion of evolutionary success is the fraction of one's genes in the appropriate gene pool several generations later.  Is that so difficult to understand?

If having 15 "stupid" children produces more great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren than does having 3 "smart" children, then it is a superior evolutionary strategy.


Everything that makes men attractive is an indication of good quality genes, or was such an indication in the ancestral environment.  Everything that makes women attractive is an indication of good quality genes and/or fertility.

I can't imagine how you'd measure that. And I don't see it.

Men who wear uniforms have good-quality genes?

"Bad boys" who act out in ways that are not considered socially acceptable have good-quality genes?


Guys who take steroids to get bulging muscles have good-quality gees? (Well, but most women don't particularly go for that.)

Guys who act supremely confident have good-quality genes?

Guys who actually proposition women have good-quality genes?

Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Some of your questions are off-topic, since they don't apply to the ancestral environment.  The answers to some others are "quite probably yes--it depends on several things".

I just don't see it.

That's obvious.  There's nothing wrong with ignorance--all of us are ignorant of most of current knowledge.  However, you have a history on this forum of being aggressively ignorant: refusing to learn the basics of a subject yet subjecting us to long diatribes based on your ignorance.

I suggest that you learn a little evolutionary psychology.  I don't know if the Wikipedia article is any good--it starts out OK but I didn't want to read it all.

Face it, JT.  sams does know some evolutionary psychology.  Plenty of what he says is disputable, but your ignorant arguments make his arguments sound better than they actually are.

Quote
Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Sure - the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her has better genes that the guy who failed to get women pregnant, and the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her is now available, whereas the guy who got a women pregnant and failed to dump her is less available.  So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time, and, from the point of view of evolution, rightly so.

This is a pathetic JustSo story. A woman without a man will usually be able to raise less than half as many children, barring government interference. So "superior" genes need to be more than twice as good. Is that at all plausible? No.

A man who has nine children by single mothers has accomplished something, but consider the quality of the genes he has chosen. He has chosen the stupidest women around to have his children with, and then put those children into poor environments to be raised. If he's so superior, why didn't he do a better job of it?

This is an example of how your ignorant arguments make sam's arguments look better.  Rather than focusing on the questionable part of sam's answer: "So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time,", you focus on the parts that are, if not obviously true, at least highly plausible.

It is highly plausible that a man who has lots of children by women that you disapprove of will have more great-to-the-Nth-grandchildren than a man who has a few children by a woman that you approve of.  You (and I) may not like it, but refusing to face facts is not reasonable argumentation.

What is the man's incentive to leave a pregnant woman stranded? Say he does that once and runs off with another woman. He has one child he does not have to support. Then he does it a second time and he has two children he doesn't have to support. But at this point, it's only particularly stupid women who will run off with him, so the rest of his children are likely to be stupid. What has it gotten him?
What if the alternative is no children at all, instead of children with a mother with better genes, because he can't find a steady job?

So when he does have money, he uses it to seduce women, then he runs. Not hard to figure out.

This does not seem to me like it particularly indicates superior genes.

Is your (or my, or sam's, or anyone else's) opinion of what makes genes "superior" relevant to this discussion?  No.  We are discussing evolutionary success.  Genes that become more common in the appropriate gene pool after several generations are, by definition, evolutionarily successful.

You may wish that evolutionary psychology was based on your particular criteria of success, but it isn't.

J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 11:51:01 am
A combination of highly diverse HLAs, statistically ensures the genetic health of any progeny that arise from the union.

It gives a better chance that your immunological system will respond effectively to any particular disease.

It might sometimes lead to worse auto-immune problems, but for most people that's probably much less important than better disease protection. Disease is not the only thing that matters in genetics, but it's one big important thing.

Now, the last I knew this was one of those scientific speculations. We had solid evidence that HLA is central to immune response, and that people who are heterozygous for the limited number of genetic regions for HLA have more different immune responses than those who get two copies of the same things.

And there were some provocative studies that seemed to indicate women statistically found the smell of men's sweat more pleasant when it was from someone whose HLA genes were different from theirs. But under other circumstances (while pregnant? I forget) they found the smell of their relatives' sweat more pleasant.

The whole package makes sense once we accept the studies. But the last I knew the whole package had not been tested at all. Do you really believe the study where the women smelled cotton swabs with men's sweat on them and they did statistics? Does the rating the women gave correlate with their pregnancies? Does heterozygous HLA actually improve health?

It's a tenuous web, but it makes sense and it's easy to believe. If we gave it the sort of skeptical view that people give global warming, it would melt away fast.

We instinctively believe science that makes sense to us. We refuse to believe science that we dislike.

sam on April 30, 2011, 12:03:07 pm
Women are less capable of judging male social status than men are.  Ability to break the rules and seemingly get away with it is, in the ancestral environment, and perhaps in our environment, an indication of status.  Who has higher status?  Prince William or a thug?  The thug will probably have a lot more children, which is the ultimate measure of genetic success.

This is a silly JustSo story.

So say the politically correct whenever evolutionary psychology makes politically incorrect predictions:

Rather, it is observed reproductive success.  Famously, Napoleon Chagnon got in deep trouble for actually counting the offspring of killers, compared to non killers.  Killers had more sexual partners and more children, which result is deeply politically incorrect, precisely because it is quite obviously true.  So women are evolutionarily correct to be attracted to men who have killed, to be attracted to violent men.

Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Sure - the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her has better genes that the guy who failed to get women pregnant, and the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her is now available, whereas the guy who got a women pregnant and failed to dump her is less available.  So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time, and, from the point of view of evolution, rightly so.

This is a pathetic JustSo story.

Again, observation:  If you try picking up girls with a wing girl, you will have a lot more success than with a wing man, and even more success if you appear to treat your wing girl like a pest and a third wheel who you barely tolerate following you around.   Similarly, wearing a wedding ring helps a man to pick up girls, while for a woman, wearing a wedding ring deters men from hitting on her.

He has chosen the stupidest women around to have his children with, and then put those children into poor environments to be raised.

Doubtless he has put those children in poor environments, but not necessarily  the stupidest women.  In our present day society, university educated feminists seem even more apt to sleep with such men than anyone else, and in the ancestral environment, abortion was less available.

Sleeping with men who successfully break the rules is a sound evolutionary strategy for women.  (Recall that Lord Byron was "Mad, bad, and dangerous to know".)  Sleeping with men who have demonstrated reproductive success is a sound evolutionary strategy for women.  The man with nine illegitimate children by nine different mothers has demonstrated both.  Women are attracted to men that behave badly to women and get away with it,   Nice guys finish last.

J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 12:27:09 pm
Why does a woman have an incentive to get pregnant with someone else?

The obvious incentive for a woman to get pregnant with "someone else" is to have a baby with genes that are more likely to exist several generations later.  The desirable qualities in a biological father are quite different from the desirable qualities in a man who helps raise one's children.  Is that so difficult to understand?

See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later? You have assumed that the genes of a man who won't help raise his children will be "better" than those of a man who does help raise his own children, and that women will recognize this. But there is no reason whatsoever to believe either of these assertions. Unless somebody collects some actual evidence.

Quote
What is the man's incentive to leave a pregnant woman stranded? Say he does that once and runs off with another woman. He has one child he does not have to support. Then he does it a second time and he has two children he doesn't have to support. But at this point, it's only particularly stupid women who will run off with him, so the rest of his children are likely to be stupid. What has it gotten him?

Stupidity (as defined by JT) is not the criterion of evolutionary failure.  The criterion of evolutionary success is the fraction of one's genes in the appropriate gene pool several generations later.  Is that so difficult to understand?

If having 15 "stupid" children produces more great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren than does having 3 "smart" children, then it is a superior evolutionary strategy.

Yes. Provided it actually works, which has not been determined.

Quote
I just don't see it.

I suggest that you learn a little evolutionary psychology.  I don't know if the Wikipedia article is any good--it starts out OK but I didn't want to read it all.

I know considerable evolutionary psychology, enough to recognize some of the stupid arguments. You do not. You give uncritical belief to pop evolutionary psych, while you deny climate science. The difference is ... you want to believe one and you don't want to believe the other.

Quote
Quote
Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Sure - the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her has better genes that the guy who failed to get women pregnant, and the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her is now available, whereas the guy who got a women pregnant and failed to dump her is less available.  So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time, and, from the point of view of evolution, rightly so.

This is a pathetic JustSo story. A woman without a man will usually be able to raise less than half as many children, barring government interference. So "superior" genes need to be more than twice as good. Is that at all plausible? No.

A man who has nine children by single mothers has accomplished something, but consider the quality of the genes he has chosen. He has chosen the stupidest women around to have his children with, and then put those children into poor environments to be raised. If he's so superior, why didn't he do a better job of it?

This is an example of how your ignorant arguments make sam's arguments look better.  Rather than focusing on the questionable part of sam's answer: "So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time,", you focus on the parts that are, if not obviously true, at least highly plausible.

It is highly plausible that a man who has lots of children by women that you disapprove of will have more great-to-the-Nth-grandchildren than a man who has a few children by a woman that you approve of.  You (and I) may not like it, but refusing to face facts is not reasonable argumentation.

But consider -- he is having his extra children at the expense of those women. So here's the woman's reasoning: This guy has increased his own reproduction at the expense of these other women. He has lots of surviving children, they have few surviving children which they work their fingers to the bone to support. So if I get pregnant by his superior genes, I won't have as many children myself, BUT maybe my son will have genes that help him victimise a lot of other women in the next generation. OK! I'll do it! It's a good bet, provided I get a son.

His genes spread because he can outsmart women. Womens' genes spread if they can resist him. He has children with women who have loser genes.

Quote
Quote
What if the alternative is no children at all, instead of children with a mother with better genes, because he can't find a steady job?

So when he does have money, he uses it to seduce women, then he runs. Not hard to figure out.

This does not seem to me like it particularly indicates superior genes.

Is your (or my, or sam's, or anyone else's) opinion of what makes genes "superior" relevant to this discussion?  No.  

Well, yes. The whole point of pop sociobiology or pop evolutionary psych is to guess which hypothetical genes will be "superior" by increasing in frequency in the population.

I haven't looked at this Wikipedia link but it's the right topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

Pop sociobiology is precisely what we're doing here. We make wild assumptions about genes and then we predict which behaviors caused by the genes will "succeed" for the hypothetical genes.

And you are assuming that some speculations that some pop sociobiologists made 40 years ago are right, because they fit your preconceptions.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 12:35:09 pm by J Thomas »

quadibloc on April 30, 2011, 12:53:48 pm
See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later?
She doesn't.

She involves herself with the kind of men she likes - the guys who are her type.

The kind of men her mother and her grandmothers and her great-grandmothers and so on liked - to the extent that this facet of personality is inherited.

And she is more likely to be the descendant... of the kind of woman... who liked the kind of man... who left the most descendants.

J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 12:59:29 pm
Women are less capable of judging male social status than men are.  Ability to break the rules and seemingly get away with it is, in the ancestral environment, and perhaps in our environment, an indication of status.  Who has higher status?  Prince William or a thug?  The thug will probably have a lot more children, which is the ultimate measure of genetic success.

This is a silly JustSo story.

So say the politically correct whenever evolutionary psychology makes politically incorrect predictions:

Rather, it is observed reproductive success.  Famously, Napoleon Chagnon got in deep trouble for actually counting the offspring of killers, compared to non killers.  Killers had more sexual partners and more children, which result is deeply politically incorrect, precisely because it is quite obviously true.  So women are evolutionarily correct to be attracted to men who have killed, to be attracted to violent men.

You have missed the point entirely. Women who actually behave in ways that will increase their genes in future generations, don't pick men who are evolutionarily successful. They pick men who will make the women evolutionary successful.

The strategy you suggest for women is analogous to the following investment strategy: I want to make a lot of money on the stock market. So I will pick a stockbroker who has gotten rich handling accounts for his clients. I want a successful stockbroker and that's what it means for a stockbroker to be successful.

But what an investor actually wants is a stockbroker who will make money for his client, not a stockbroker who gets rich while his clients go broke.

Quote
Again, observation:  If you try picking up girls with a wing girl, you will have a lot more success than with a wing man, and even more success if you appear to treat your wing girl like a pest and a third wheel who you barely tolerate following you around.   Similarly, wearing a wedding ring helps a man to pick up girls, while for a woman, wearing a wedding ring deters men from hitting on her.

And this apples to reproduction how? You're looking at how women behave with easy contraception and easy abortion. So if you want to look at activities that produce many children, maybe you should look at how men picked up girls back when we didn't have those things.

And the answer was, you picked up poor women who had no prospects, and when you dumped them pregnant then pretty often they died, and pretty often their abandoned babies died.

Quote
He has chosen the stupidest women around to have his children with, and then put those children into poor environments to be raised.

Doubtless he has put those children in poor environments, but not necessarily  the stupidest women.  In our present day society, university educated feminists seem even more apt to sleep with such men than anyone else, and in the ancestral environment, abortion was less available.

So, what's the evolutionary payoff for being a university educated feminist? How are these women maximising their reproductive potential?

If a whole lot of people are in fact not maximising their reproductive potential, perhaps it might be worth considering the possibility that people do not do a very good job in general of doing that, and people who don't believe they are doing it are not somehow subconsciously doing it but in fact are not doing so.

Quote
Sleeping with men who successfully break the rules is a sound evolutionary strategy for women.  (Recall that Lord Byron was "Mad, bad, and dangerous to know".)

In the same sense that sleeping with rich men is a sound evolutionary strategy. After all, if you sleep with somebody who has inherited a billion dollars from his maternal grandfather, there's the chance that your child will inherit the right genes to inherit a billion dollars from his maternal grandfather too....  ;)  But money doesn't rub off between the sheets.

Quote
Sleeping with men who have demonstrated reproductive success is a sound evolutionary strategy for women.

I hope I have demonstrated by now why this is a stupid idea.

Quote
Women are attracted to men that behave badly to women and get away with it,

There are women like that. It may not be genetic.

I suspect a lot of the women who do that for awhile and then quit, are actually following the following strategy: It isn't convenient for me to marry and start a family now, but I want to have sex and play around some. So I will choose a man that I am unlikely to actually get serious with, and I will spend months or years having drama with him.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 01:03:49 pm by J Thomas »

J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 01:02:05 pm
See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later?
She doesn't.

She involves herself with the kind of men she likes - the guys who are her type.

The kind of men her mother and her grandmothers and her great-grandmothers and so on liked - to the extent that this facet of personality is inherited.

Good save!

Quote
And she is more likely to be the descendant... of the kind of woman... who liked the kind of man... who left the most descendants.

And she's more likely to be descended from the kind of woman who herself left the most descendants.

Women whose own genes tell them to sacrifice themselves for some particular kind of man and his own genes, will eventually be a dying breed.

sam on April 30, 2011, 01:26:43 pm
And when you say "historical standards", I am sure that many older readers screwed twelve year old girls back when screwing twelve year old girls was legal - we are not talking ancient history here.

Not is the United States, that is for sure. Where were you thinking about?

In 1895, age of consent in Delaware was seven.  In 1901, age of consent in the US was generally around ten.  In Australia, in 1970, fourteen for girls of good character, twelve for girls of poor character.