Why do 90 year old women have sex drives?

Why do 90 year old women have sex drives? Based on evolutionary theories on sexual behavior, sexual drives are absolutely tied to reproduction. I understand that reproductive urges can exist without the intent or even the capacity to reproduce but these exceptions are individuals who are in groups that overwhelmingly have the ability to reproduce. For instance, it is possible that a 20 year old male or female has a condition that prevents them from reproducing.However, most 20 year old adults can reproduce.

So again why do 90 year old women have sex drives? No 90 year old woman has the ability to become pregnant. Thus, it would conform to Darwinian logic that these women would lack a mating strategy. In other words, according to evolutionary logic, 90 year old women would be asexual. I would think mating strategies would apply to those who only have the ability to reproduce.

not to be rough, but a 90 year old having sex is just, eww. I just envisioned it.

Is there a study to support this? Let me understand this logic - people should only have or want sex if they're in the reproductive years?? If a woman's not fertile, she stops having any desire? If a 90 yr is healthy and physically able, don't see why she can't have sex.

Not everything follows logic.

For one thing, a lot of these hormones have more than one purpose, so they exist for other reasons and may continue to have sex drive as a side effect, if you like.

Secondly, a person might desire sexual relations as a mental or physical state, in that sex has always been enjoyable for them and perhaps has always been a valued bonding experience for them, so they might continue to perform those behaviours for other reasons than bodily need.

And I guess thirdly, in some species sex is used as a bonding behaviour, not just a reproductive behaviour (this can also be seen in how some specially habitually perform acts between same sex individuals). Although one might consider a 90 year old individual extreme, from an evolutionary point of view, she might still need to perform those bonding behaviours with an "alpha male" for as long as she is able.

Technically a woman's ability to have children ends after menopause, which is usually in the late forties or early to mid-fifties. If she is still willing and enjoys it, then why not? Besides, what younger woman would want to have sex with a 90 year old man on Viagra, assuming it will work for him?

??? Lots of info on age/sex online if you look. Are you just soliciting opinions with your questions?

If she can engage in sex and enjoy it at age 90 I say go for it,

I agree with you, but according to Darwinian logic, women who are 90 years old should lack "reproductive urges". I do not believe sexual urges are biologically linked to reproduction. Thus, I believe EVERY capable 90 year old man and woman who does not have either an extreme or dangerous medical condition should have the right to have sex with any adult.

Perhaps but Darwinian theories on sex are posited as facts rather than conjecture. It seems to me that there are other explanations regarding sexual behavior that may be equally valid as the conventionally theories that are promoted from evolutionary psychology.

Based on my understanding Darwinian theory of sex, either all or the vast majority of human sexual urges are linked to reproduction. Based on my readings, this claim is considered a no brainer. I fundamentally disagree with this viewpoint. If you have studies that posit that there are other purposes for sex besides procreation, can you please provide these links.

I have not seen studies from conventional evolutionary psychologists that paint sex biologically as a bonding experience. Based on my understanding they consider any use of sexuality that deviates from reproduction is a cognitive adaptation. They still maintain that sexuality's biological and instinctive purpose is to attempt to procreate.

[QUOTE]And I guess thirdly, in some species sex is used as a bonding behaviour, not just a reproductive behaviour (this can also be seen in how some specially habitually perform acts between same sex individuals).[QUOTE/]
Could it be possible that humans are one of those species?

Maybe you're too worried about Darwin.......Darwinitis perhaps.

It is very hard to find research in many areas of sexual behavior, gender and sexual orientation. I am still trying to find studies that report the frequency of sex drives of violent males.

I am very concerned about the super emphasis on Darwinian theory regarding dating and sexual behavior. I hope I have overestimated the influence Darwinian theory has on our culture.

I think you have misunderstood me. I said that the hormones are used for other things, such as growth of bones or other usages in body development. I expect, and indeed I am obviously not as learned as yourself, that even in our old age although the levels of our hormones do change in our lifetimes, even that 90 year old woman must produce hormones. That said, although I agree that the main aim of sex is for procreation, of course it is, there are indeed other secondary purposes for sex such as emotional bonding as I originally said, which as well as the testimonies of other humans, I have observed documentaries seen on the behaviours of animal species. I am not going to provide the links to studies, given that as well as your own lack of evidence in your arguments, I don't consider this debate important enough for me to waste effort finding them.

I agree with Lynn that you appear to be very rigidly focused. Things can have more than one purpose. As we agreed, the main and overwhelming purpose of sex is reproduction, but human kind developed evolutionary techniques in order to aid it's survival. The human species follows the pattern of "have fewer babies, have more people around to protect" rather than the pattern of "have many babies so that at least a few of them survive". In terms of that evolution, a human female would require a male not just to impregnate her, but also to stick around to protect and provide for her and the child. This of course is an adaptation for our particular development of intercourse. I believe it is that certain hormones/chemicals are released through fulfilling intercourse akin to those released during childbirth (it may not be the same hormone but a similar one) which causes a feeling of bonding. It may be that the theoretical 90 year old woman still produces this hormone (Oxytocin?) during intercourse even past her reproductive years.

I believe species of monkeys perform homosexual behaviours amongst group members in order to more closely bond them as a community. To some degree, humans probably do have the same behaviours. At the very least, there are individuals to whom physical contact (usually hugging or perhaps kissing) is vitally important for a bond so actual further sexual acts might be an extension of that.

hmmm funny question...lol I have been unable to reproduce since I was 24. I am still active at 55 and it has nothing to do with wanting to reproduce. Maybe Darwin only had a theory. Just saying he was wrong. I hope to still be going at 90! haha

One would have to consider the psychosocial aspects of sex drive as well. It would vary among individuals, in some women sex drive is related to testosterone level and others respond better to different types of estrogen and progesterone levels. Diet and other environmental factors may be involved as well. One could consider the genetic influence as well. As I stated, I just point out the complexity of the human body and it's response to hormones. There is no simple yes or no answer.

Vacuum Behavior.

It's very similar to the way that ANYONE wants to have sex even if it's not to procreate. I have sex all the time, but never once with the intention of procreating. Sex feels good, because people who enjoy sex tend to have more children than those who don't. After enough generations, almost everyone who is left enjoys sex.

In short, wanting to have sex even after you can no longer have children doesn't have any DISADVANTAGE.

Darwinian evolution has been used to explain variations in species, but when it is applied to social interactions it is mostly conjecture and not a lot of empirical evidence. Sex works for procreation, but that it not the only reason. Frankly I just enjoy it, the pleasure of being united with my husband, the pleasure, closeness and security are all part of it. I have been told by 3 different physicians that I cannot get pregnant again, but that in no way has changed my sexual desire. In fact it may be stronger than ever. I would love to still be having sex at 90

I agree with you but a large segment of relationship self-help books posit Darwinian theories on sexuality especially perceived or actual differences between straight men and women. If this was treated as conjecture and as possible theories it would not disturb me at all. However, these conjectures are posited as science. Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker have posited Darwinian theories of sexuality especially in regarding to male and female differences as primarily genetic modules and treat social mechanisms which are geared to impose and encourage these "differences" as mere coincidences.

This is the mystery of the reproduction capability paradigm which is used to measure sex drive. How can many women who are unable to become pregnant maintain a strong sex drive if reproduction is the primary motive of sexuality in human species? How can many men who are claimed to have the ability to impregnate women every hour, can have absolutely zero interest in sex or hate casual sex and are monogamous? (Yes, I believe there are male asexuals even though I am the direct opposite)

I agree.

One of the goals of sex is reproduction but a plethora of other motives that you have stated may be motives as well. I don't think I am rigid in my view of sexuality because my example of the 90 year old woman who has a sex drive actually signifies that many evolutionary psychologists need to adapt a more pluralistic version of the purpose of sexuality. What critics would most likely to consider me is excessively pluralistic on my views of sexual capacity on a human level.

The conventional evolutionary view of male and female differences in sexual behavior is now generalized to the homosexual paradigm where reproduction within such a paradigm is impossible. Nevertheless, evolutionary psychologists attempt to assert that homosexual males and females have inherited mating strategies that only have the possibility to be functional in the heterosexual mating paradigm. It is meaningless to discuss reproductive abilities of gay males and lesbians even if they are "fertile" because they only desire to have sex in an innate homosexual fashion. They rarely seek the opposite sex for copulation in order to produce offspring. Thus, this behavior can never result into reproduction.

honestly reproduction is not the sole purpose for women...just like men we love sex. has nothing to do so much with reproducing.

Could it be that 90 year women are part of modernity, by and large? Could it be that people used to die much earlier than the modern age of menopause?

I don't know...perhaps because men and women enjoy love-making for good reasons other than reproduction? Because there is no earthly reason why a 90-year-old woman should not have a sex drive? You tell me.

I think a lot of people misunderstand evolution and natural selection. They don't select for the best things all the time. Some things that are pretty much neutral can just stay and stay as long as it doesn't harm the species in a huge way.

Evolution and natural selection just works to make sure things are just "OK" enough to survive, it doesn't perfect anything at all. There are tons of so called "flaws", but then again what was once a "flaw" in one environment may become an advantage in another.

As long as being sexual as a 90 year old doesn't affect things like fertility either way so I can't see how it can be even selected against. So it will just stay.

As long as something is not super harmful, usually this just sticks around.

Also I really think humans are way too complex for people to use evolutionary psychology to explain things.

Excellent statements, both.