The Cougar Threat

Color me unimpressed by Mark Penn's "microtrends" based on Marc Ambinder's writeup. Penn mostly seems to be playing his favorite sport of defining groups arbitrarily and then finding that if you slice up the population in random ways, you can get interesting-but-meaningless results. That said, this is funny:

Within the past ten years, the number of women who sought younger male boyfriends has quintupled. These are the "cougars," Penn writes.

I'm not sure I understand why they're cougars? Because it's an alternative to being a cat lady? Relatedly:

There are about 109 million straight women in America now compared to 98 million straight men; the gender ratio in the African American community is 56 to 44, female to male. The surplus of single women "are left out of the institution of marriage."

But how much of this is simply accounted for by the fact that men live longer than women [UPDATE: I mean, of course, that women live longer than men]? I'm not sure it makes sense to think of widows as "left out" of the institution of marriage.

Comments

But how much of this is simply accounted for by the fact that men live longer than women? I'm not sure it makes sense to think of widows as "left out" of the institution of marriage.

Not sure what the answer is to your question, but I'm pretty sure the question you're asking isn't the one you intended to.

Posted by gorillagogo | August 20, 2007 4:59 PM

You really need to correct that error in your next to last sentence.

Posted by Ugh | August 20, 2007 4:59 PM

My favorite was the "Philo-semites" - the "growing number of people want to date Jewish men and women" (politicalwire).

I don't even know what to say about it. Needless to say, I can't wait to plunk down 20 something dollars to learn more.

Posted by Steve W. | August 20, 2007 5:00 PM

This post you have a picture for, but the Natalie Portman post you don't? Priorities, fella.

Anyway.

The surplus of single women "are left out of the institution of marriage."

Yet another reason to favor legalization of polygamy. There are no rational arguments against legal polygamy; all arguments against legal polygamy are simply bigotry.

Posted by Al | August 20, 2007 5:00 PM

"But how much of this is simply accounted for by the fact that men live longer than women?"

In the black community, a larger part of the female surplus is probably due to the high numbers of strong black men in jail.

Posted by Juan | August 20, 2007 5:01 PM

The ones I feel sorry for are the women seeking younger female boyfriends.

Posted by William Burns | August 20, 2007 5:02 PM

Cougars = "Ages of Love" 40+ women. "Kittens" = 20-29 year old women. Mark Philippoussis, 30-something non Nobel-prize-winning former tennis star was asked to select among a set of superficially attractive, age differentiated ladies, and finally picked - drumroll - a kitten, not a cougar.

Rowrrrr....

BTW, I have a sneaking suspicion that, on average, women live longer than men.

Posted by Andrew | August 20, 2007 5:06 PM

That cougar needs a dentist. It's teeth look like candy corn.

The surplus of single women "are left out of the institution of marriage."

--Doesn't divorce allow more people to have a shot at "the institution of marriage." Just looking for the silver lining and all...

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 20, 2007 5:14 PM

You'd never heard the phrase "cougar", Matt? It's certainly not new. I'd imagine DC hotspots, given the large young male community, would be filled with them.

Posted by cure | August 20, 2007 5:19 PM

I don't believe the stmt about men living longer than women is correct -- maybe before WW2, but I don't believe this is true any more. This is table 100 from "Statistical Abstract" http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/vitstat.pdf

Posted by Pierre de Fermat | August 20, 2007 5:20 PM

I like how they're seeking "younger male boyfriends." Cuz apparently those younger _female_ boyfriends just don't cut it anymore.

Posted by Galen | August 20, 2007 5:23 PM

God, I can't believe that there's someone that actually wants to legalize polygamy, and from the line you quoted, I'm guessing you mean the one-man-many-women variety. Yes, that's just what we need, destroying monogamy altogether and reducing women to another form of cattle. You say polygamy opponents are bigots, but polygamy has never been a good deal for women and serves only further to subjugate them.

I'm for gay marriage, because I think it goes toward the values of equality and monogamy. I'm for polygamy because it obviously does not.

Posted by Lev | August 20, 2007 5:33 PM

"The surplus of single women "are left out of the institution of marriage."

Been there, done that.

Marriage isn't all that great.

Posted by Terry C - Wingnuts R WATBs | August 20, 2007 5:38 PM

Matthew, I think this is what you are looking for.

http://www.urbancougar.com/

Posted by the new | August 20, 2007 5:38 PM

On a somewhat more serious note, isn't it interesting that older women seeking younger men get called "cougars" but older men seeking younger women are either perfectly normal or "dirty old men" depending on the age difference?

"Cougar" implies a kind of virility and sexily predatory nature, as if it's seeking prey that wants to be caught. And of course the implication is that because men are supposed to be lustful there's a sort of synergy -- the predator and the prey both want the same thing, so the prey wants to get caught.

Flipping the gender roles around, however, we find that older men are "dirty old men," which implies the sex they want from the younger women is against the women's desires/best interests, or the younger women are "trophy wives" whose youthful sexuality is purchased with financial security, or the age difference is normal because the men are expected to take care of the women and need the additional age to achieve financial security while the women are supposed to get financial security by marrying a guy who has proved to have promising future.

Posted by Galen | August 20, 2007 5:41 PM

Yet another reason to favor legalization of polygamy. There are no rational arguments against legal polygamy; all arguments against legal polygamy are simply bigotry.

Oh, please - I agree with Lev.

Polygamy subjugates women.

Posted by Terry C - Wingnuts R WATBs | August 20, 2007 5:42 PM

I prefer Mountain Lions.

Posted by Gregorio | August 20, 2007 5:44 PM

Lev -

New around here? It's gotten hard for me to keep track of who is (or is becoming) a regular commenter or not. If you've been reading for a while, my apologies; either way, $20 on the barrelhead says Al was taking the piss.

Not to mention that judging people for opinions they haven't expressed can backfire. I'm a man, and I theoretically have no problem with polygamy, so clearly I'm interested in turning women into cattle.

(Or maybe not.)

Posted by Quarterican | August 20, 2007 5:44 PM

"Cougars?"

Ummm, big, scary pus...

...never mind.

Posted by Milo Johnson | August 20, 2007 5:44 PM

If there was no polygamy, there'd be no Big Love; hence, I support polygamy. There! I knew I'd agree with Al on SOMEthing!

Posted by Gregorio | August 20, 2007 5:47 PM

Not that I'm an expert on these terms, but I'm guessing that a 32-year-old woman with a 27-year-old boyfriend would be in 'cougar' territory, whereas a 32-year-old man with a 27-year-old girlfriend would be be entirely unremarkable. Yet another asymmetry in gender norms.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | August 20, 2007 5:51 PM

I hate to encourage Al, because I'm pretty sure he was taking a dig at gay marriage, but he's right, polygamy should be legal. Polygamy between consenting adults only subjugates women who want to be subjugated. The law shouldn't be concerned with that.

Posted by too many steves | August 20, 2007 5:56 PM

either way, $20 on the barrelhead says Al was taking the piss.

Now that's a phrase with which I am not familiar.

But, assuming you mean it is a put on or some such, you got me. I do support legalization of polygamy (all plural marriage, actually). But the "all arguments against legal polygamy are simply bigotry" was just a play on Matthew's contention that all gay-marriage opponents are necessarily bigots because there are no rational arguments against gay marriage. I probably should have explicitly linked one of Matthew's posts on the subject.

As to the contention made elsewhere above that polygamy necessarily subjugates women: that's nonsense. While some polygamists subjgate women, so do some monogamists. There is nothing inherently subjugating about plural marriage. Indeed it seems to me to be a rational response to a situation in which there are far more marriage eligible women than men.

Posted by Al | August 20, 2007 5:58 PM

"cougar", in popular parlance refers to a 40+ woman dating a significantly younger man (also known as "tadpoling" (it's a movie reference). so, no, a 32 year old woman with a 27 year old man is not a "cougar".

female life expectancy is still longer than male...but it gets a lot closer after age 60. (in other words, dudes who don't croak by age 60 live almost as long as women.)

further, at age 25 there are significantly more single men than women...by age 60...women are basically f___ed (the dudes are dead or taken).

Posted by Nathan | August 20, 2007 6:00 PM

as for polygamy....historically it occurs in societies with massive income inequities (much greater than our own)...such that a woman is better off being the fourth wife of a high-status male than being the first wife of most males.

in other words, polygamy (in the societies in which it occurs) is pro-female and very negative for most males (they don't get anyone).

Posted by Nathan | August 20, 2007 6:03 PM

My husband is two years younger than me -- does that make me a cougar? 'Cause that would be kinda cool and make me sound much more interesting than I actually am.

Posted by Mnemosyne | August 20, 2007 6:04 PM

"by age 60...women are basically f___ed (the dudes are dead or taken)"

Wouldn't those women who can't find an available man logically have exactly the opposite problem from the one you propose? :)

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Posted by Galen | August 20, 2007 6:05 PM

Sorry, too many steves, but these women "choosing" polygamy wouldn't be making informed choices. They would most likely be women raised in very religiously conservative- often Mormon- environments, where subjugation to one man as one of many women is viewed as the norm. They would not be choosing their subjugation, it would be presented to them as the only way to salvation, to perpetuate the society. Much as people try to support the mandatory burqa interpretation of Shariah by saying it is culturally relative and one would be arrogant to judge it, I believe that if many of these women WERE given the full information and full agency that EVERY human being deserves, they would not choose to be subjugated/ objectified in this manner. Don't fall into the easily relativistic trap, Steve. Just because I think polygamy is wrong doesn't mean I think we should bomb rural Utah; just because I think fundamentalist interpretations of Shariah are wrong doesn't mean I think we face a culture war. It is our duty as thinking men and women to uphold the values derived from self-knowledge, empathy, empirical reasoning, and comprehensive study of history in the face of fanatics and fundamentalists; the way to trump oppressive societies is not to invade them but to undermine them from within and without through compassionate education and example.

Posted by Gregorio | August 20, 2007 6:23 PM

Penn leaves out one crucial demographic category: the "flesh eating bacteria" - those who work in Democratic politics while getting rich busting unions.

It's a small demographic, but it's vital to the Liebercrat Clinton for President campaign effort.

Posted by Petey | August 20, 2007 6:25 PM

First I agree with Al, then Petey. Next Karl Rove and I are gonna sit down and chat about Hillary's ankles. Strange bedfellows indeed...

Actually, I've agreed with you before, Petey, but never EVER about basketball.

Posted by Gregorio | August 20, 2007 6:36 PM

Gregorio -- Do you think polygamy is wrong period, or just the ways in which it tends to be practiced? I think that's a pretty important distinction to make.

Sexual inequality and oppression is what's wrong in most polygamous circumstances, and your arguments are fairly solid for why _most_ polygamy has been an extension of oppressiveness and the subjugation of women. But there's no reason why a polygamous arrangement with people who _aren't_ being subjugated or oppressed couldn't be perfectly fine. The litmus test for such a situation might be whether the society is equally comfortable with 1-woman-many-men polygamy as with 1-man-many-women polygamy or with many-men-many-women polygamy. Granted, such an arrangement wouldn't appeal to me, but I can't think of a moral ground from which to oppose it.

Posted by Galen | August 20, 2007 6:36 PM

"That cougar needs a dentist. It's teeth look like candy corn."

I agree, that cougar in the picture would doubtless find a dentist quite tasty.

Posted by mere mortal | August 20, 2007 6:37 PM

Pierre de Fermat posts an excellent link. However, I'm baffled by his reading of the data. Table 98 clearly shows that the projected life expectancy of a white female born in 2004 is 80.4 years, while that of a white male born the same year is 75.2 years. That is, the discrepancy in life expectancy clearly persists after WWII.

In terms of the "...widows being 'left out'of the institution of marriage," the argument is only partially true. Women live longer than men on average partly because old women die at a slightly lower frequency than old men. However, part of the difference is that young men tend to die more often than young women. (Much of that is due to the fact that more young men than women are, well, stupid, and do dangerous, stupid things, like driving drunk and speeding). So, there are more never been married women at a "marrying age" (say 20 to 40) than there are men because more men die in their youth than do women.

Still, "cougars"?!? WTF

Posted by ScienceGuy | August 20, 2007 6:44 PM

"Actually, I've agreed with you before, Petey, but never EVER about basketball."

Call me crazy, but I smell revolution in the air.

In the entire open primary era, the left has never had a viable general election candidate to coalesce around.

I think Mark Penn is going to discover this January that the bulk of the Democratic Party isn't partial to Liebercrats backed by Karl Rove and Rupert Murdoch. Mark Penn has his finger on the pulse of everything in America, with the minor exception of Democrats.

Posted by Petey | August 20, 2007 6:46 PM

I believe polygamy as it has been practiced has usually been another way for a wealthy man to accumulate and hoard wealth, another method of female disenfranchisement and oppression. That said, that is practice alone. I believe not in any "sanctity" of marriage. A two-person marriage has oftentimes been as much of a convenient property arrangement as multiple spouse marriages tend to be. Humankind has long incorporated all types of marriage, cohabitation, etcetera. Ostensibly monogamous, two-person marriage did not become fashionable until recently in human history. It is definitely a straight-up property arrangement worldwide. The love marriage that actually works for a significant period of time is an exception, not a rule. I think if some people want to engage in polygamy, that is fine. MWM, WMW, WMWMWMWM, just most often it tends to be fringe cults like the Moonies, the Mormons, or that guy from the east SF bay area who had all those malnourished kids and wives with cancer he refused to get treated. Of course, there are plenty of fucked up two person marriages.

In short: polygamy is fine by me, I just don't trust crazy fundies.

Posted by Gregorio | August 20, 2007 6:49 PM

"In short: polygamy is fine by me"

Well, duh.

Have you been watching Big Love? It's actually a show about gay life (very lightly) masked through the allegory of polygamy.

And dramatically, this season has built well on last year's foundation. With "The Sopranos" gone, it's the official one hour pay cable drama of the '08 Beijing Olympics.

Posted by Petey | August 20, 2007 6:57 PM

They're called Cougars because I dumped when they would no longer run off behind the shady trees and let me do what I please.

Oh yeah, life goes on.

Long after the thrill of livin' is gone.

Posted by John Mellencamp | August 20, 2007 6:58 PM

On a somewhat more serious note, isn't it interesting that older women seeking younger men get called "cougars" but older men seeking younger women are either perfectly normal or "dirty old men" depending on the age difference?

Actually we call them chicken hawks. They're reviled at least in most of the alternative lifestyles. "Cougars" on the other hand are another matter and tend to be actually welcomed.

Posted by Dreggas | August 20, 2007 7:12 PM

Oh Petey. Sometimes a cigar is just throbbing cock in your lips.

Posted by Gregorio | August 20, 2007 7:15 PM

They're called cougars because they are desirable enough to merit a name. Dirty old men are not desirable, unless they're rich, in which case they're called sugar daddies. The reverse (hunted, not hunter) also has a name (MILF). Or is sugar daddy more of an equivalent to MILF than cougar?

Posted by DMoore | August 20, 2007 7:28 PM

For those who comment on the picture, that's pretty clearly a stuffed cougar in a museum -- which is why the teeth look like they do. Taxidermists are lousy with teeth. So maybe a stuffed Natalie Portman wasn't what you were looking for either.

Living where I do when I saw the headline on the post I thought it referred to some demographic study isolating voters who have a paranoid sort of concern about four-footed cougars encroaching on suburbia. Which is actually an election issue in California and Oregon every ten years or so.

Then there are those who think the three wolves (again four-footed) in Oregon are a bigger issue than underfunded higher education.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | August 20, 2007 7:29 PM

Or is sugar daddy more of an equivalent to MILF than cougar?

Not.Even.Close

That would be suggesting that some wrinkly old dude was someone you wanted to sleep with, money has nothing to do with it. The sugar mamma is the opposite of the sugar daddy.

Posted by Dreggas | August 20, 2007 7:36 PM

I'm not sure it makes sense to think of widows as "left out" of the institution of marriage.

I'm not sure it makes sense to think of anyone in that way.

Posted by THS | August 20, 2007 7:38 PM

Actually, back in the day, the real point with very young women marrying much older men was that the real goal was to become a wealthy widow. A single woman remained under her father or brother's authority (unless she became a nun) and a wife was under her husband's, but a widow was a free agent.

The culture heroine was Mary Tudor, married at 18 to the 52-y.o. king of France, Louis XII, who thoughtfully cashed in his chips in less than 90 days, leaving her with plenty of bling and her legal majority. She used said freedom to choose her second husband instead of being used again as a pawn by her brother, Henry VIII. The husband was not a younger man, but their daughter Frances took up the torch. Her second husband was 15 years her junior.

Posted by Sisi | August 20, 2007 8:08 PM

>I'm not sure it makes sense to think of widows as "left out" of the institution of marriage.

I only half-heartedly follow demographics, but aren't a lot more women opting not to marry? (I am confident someone with superior googling skillz could also show men get married more times then women [more men will get married a 2nd, 3rd, etc. time].)

Posted by bartkid | August 20, 2007 8:10 PM

Have you been watching Big Love? It's actually a show about gay life (very lightly) masked through the allegory of polygamy.

Wow, that suddenly makes the show seem tolerable. If I see it again, I'll try to think about it that way.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | August 20, 2007 8:24 PM

"However, part of the difference is that young men tend to die more often than young women."

Young men die more than once? Who knew?

Posted by Joel | August 20, 2007 8:25 PM

Polygamy subjugates women.

Polygyny, sure. Polyandry? Haven't seen the evidence. Seems to be more cost-effective, though.

Posted by Avedon | August 20, 2007 8:33 PM

Young men die more than once? Who knew?

Read your Shakespeare. (I think current science says it's only women who can, though.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 20, 2007 8:33 PM

Bear Necessities

Polly Wolly Doodle All the Day.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 20, 2007 8:42 PM

Re: further, at age 25 there are significantly more single men than women

"Significantly"? How? I know there is a very slight differnce in births, with nmales having the edge, but that should translate into "very slightly" more men than women at 25. But then there's the whole gay thing too, and while no one agrees on the percent of the population that is gay (my estimate is 6-7%, counting serious bisexuals) everyone pretty much agrees there are considerably more gay men than Lesbians.

Re: in other words, polygamy (in the societies in which it occurs) is pro-female and very negative for most males (they don't get anyone).

No, what they get are prostitutes, who are in effect practicing polyandry.

Re: But there's no reason why a polygamous arrangement with people who _aren't_ being subjugated or oppressed couldn't be perfectly fine.

Sounds like "separate but equal". Sounds OK in theory, but in practice it leads to severe inequality. I suspect that's the case with polygamy too: it always leads to opression and injustice when put into parctice. Best to avoid it then, even if a very few enlightened souls could pull it off with the negatives.

Re: Actually we call them chicken hawks.

I've only ever heard that term in the gay world, where chicken hawks are pretty normal and accepted (as long as the chickens are not jail bait age). Part of the dirty linen of the gay male world is the appalling ageism most gay men practice, with the result that any 40+ gay man in a relationshop will tend to stick with it no matter how dysfunctional or abusive it may be since his chances or finding another man even in his age range, unless he is rich, are almost nill.

Posted by JonF | August 20, 2007 9:13 PM

I wonder what percentage of these women are currently residing in nursing or retirement homes. Seriously, if you go to one of these places the ratio seems like its 20 to 1 women to men.

Polygamy would create a host of legal problems. Weird nerdy issues around the distribution of pension and social security benefits, health care insurance eligibility, estate distribution, real estate ownership, child custody issues, etc.

Posted by klein's tiny left nut | August 20, 2007 9:19 PM

I vote for calling them "catamounts."

Posted by live | August 20, 2007 11:55 PM

You know, you guys, maybe some of these women don't even want to get married again or don't want to be the fourth wife of some guy? The ignorance of women around here is amazing. It's like Teenage Gender Stereotypes 101. (Liberal men would not be so free to stereotype minorities or gays as they do to women. I dare you to be so "un-PC" about minorities or gays.) For women it's not all about calculating who has the biggest wallet guys!

Also, to whoever said that polygamy benefits women: Are you serious? The only benefit it provides is strictly financial because in patriarchal societies women have to depend on men and have zero independence. How is that a good situation period, for all women or lower ranked men? And no, lower ranked men in that situation don't have it worse than women. Would you rather be able to provide for yourself and un/fortunately not be able to get married OR be forced to rely on the highly subjective magnanimity of people who don't consider you to be their equals in order to support yourself and your three children (no birth control, boys)? That's not even close. I think any intelligent person would rather be a man in that kind of situation. I could easily say this about most of the world today in fact. If I was born or lived outside the developed world, I would much rather be a man.

Also, I think I can say fairly confidently as a woman that most women would rather be independent, be able to fall in love with the man of their choice, and possibly marry him, rather than be forced out of necessity to be the child bride and/or fourth wife of some modern version of the old guy with the most goats. And no, not even George fucking Clooney.

And women live longer than men on average. It's backed up by commonly known statistics that someone mentioned mid-thread.

Posted by Jennifer | August 21, 2007 4:02 AM

They're called cougars because they're typically observed out on the prowl.

Posted by ChrisS | August 21, 2007 7:45 AM

The median age is three years older for women. A median-age woman dating a median-age man deserves a big yawn. The cougar up top has something right.

Posted by B | August 21, 2007 9:48 AM

Jennifer:

learn some reading comprehension and context. get over it. I was talking about polygamy as it has actually existed...in pre-industrial societies with massive income inequities. you're stuck on it as it would be in our society...which is absurd...of course it couldn't happen.

and yes, the majority of men in such a society were worse off than the women. the majority of men were looking at a sexless and childless existence (which is why polygamous societies are almost invariably warlike and expansionist)

Posted by Nathan | August 21, 2007 10:38 AM

"Also, I think I can say fairly confidently as a woman that most women would rather be independent, be able to fall in love with the man of their choice, and possibly marry him, rather than be forced out of necessity to be the child bride and/or fourth wife of some modern version of the old guy with the most goats."

duh! but that isn't possible in those societies. so they go for the guy with the most goats.

context is everything.

Posted by Nathan | August 21, 2007 10:41 AM

I did make one misstatement: at age 25 there are significantly more single men than single women (the reason for this should be obvious)....not men than women in the aggregate.

Posted by Nathan | August 21, 2007 10:46 AM

Those ratios cited make a good case for polygamy. Men should be allowed to have more than one wife, but clearly not as many as two.

Posted by Njorl | August 21, 2007 10:59 AM

ScienceGuy says:
... I'm baffled by his reading of the data. Table 98 clearly shows that the projected life expectancy of a white female born in 2004 is 80.4 years, while that of a white male born the same year is 75.2 years. That is, the discrepancy in life expectancy clearly persists after WWII.

I was probably unclear on this. While I believe on average men did outlive women through (much of) the 19th century, this should have changed in the 20th century, though the trends may not have been apparent until after WW2. My thought is the change actually took place before WW1, though I cannot be sure. Matt's original statement was that men outlived women, and that has not been true in his (or my) lifetime.

Posted by Pierre de Fermat | August 21, 2007 11:18 AM