Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 Simply pointing out that something being possible does not make it likely. A 39 year old woman is vastly more likely to conceive a child with issues than a younger woman. It's not a death sentence and some people have ways of partially attenuating the odds but it is what it is. You're hilarious. The odds are pretty slim, all things considered. You're more likely to be hit by a car or have a traffic accident, than have a child with issues. For that matter, that's what certain tests are for, when pregnant. It's not as if you have pro-life issues, so there's no real excuse with your prevalent attitude besides personal irrational bias and denial of male aging. Tell your ego to take a rest...
Sam Spade Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 You're hilarious. The odds are pretty slim, all things considered. You're more likely to be hit by a car or have a traffic accident, than have a child with issues. For that matter, that's what certain tests are for, when pregnant. It's not as if you have pro-life issues, so there's no real excuse with your prevalent attitude besides personal irrational bias and denial of male aging. Tell your ego to take a rest... I'm not interested in reignating the whole debate, but the odds are not that great. Getting pregnant at the age of 40 is estimated to be associated with about 1 in 100 chance of having a baby with Downs (from 1:400 at 35) and keep increasing thereafter). While mathematically these are certainly not at all scary odds, they're nothing to be too excited about either and to deny the emotional effect they have on people is silly as well.
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 I'm not interested in reignating the whole debate, but the odds are not that great. Getting pregnant at the age of 40 is estimated to be associated with about 1 in 100 chance of having a baby with Downs (from 1:400 at 35) and keep increasing thereafter). While mathematically these are certainly not at all scary odds, they're nothing to be too excited about either and to deny the emotional effect they have on people is silly as well. Do you stop yourself from driving anywhere since the odds are so high you're going to have an accident or be hit by a car? Do you stop yourself from getting married, since you're afraid that someone will hurt you? Oh...hang on...
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 You're hilarious. The odds are pretty slim, all things considered. You're more likely to be hit by a car or have a traffic accident, than have a child with issues. The odds of conceiving a child with Downs alone (excluding fertility and other issues completely) is about 1 in 100 for a woman at age 39, and I'd much rather have a minor traffic accident sometime in my life than have a Downs Syndrome child. The odds are actually ... 14 times worse compared to a woman in her early 20s. Hardly something to dismiss out of hand.
39388 Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 You're hilarious. The odds are pretty slim, all things considered. You're more likely to be hit by a car or have a traffic accident, than have a child with issues. For that matter, that's what certain tests are for, when pregnant. It's not as if you have pro-life issues, so there's no real excuse with your prevalent attitude besides personal irrational bias and denial of male aging. Tell your ego to take a rest... Older females (and males for that matter) generally are more mature and have more resources to raise a child. I think someone whether they are young at 20 or into their 40s can raise a child. It depends on the person.
Stockalone Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 With this in mind, why wouldn't older women pick younger men to reproduce with? I am sure that a younger partner (with more mobile sperm) would be better, especially if the woman herself is closing in on 40 (to counteract her own declined fertility). The same is true for a man as he ages. All other things equal, a younger partner gives you the best odds. But as always, there usually are other things to consider (LTR potential, financial and emotional compatibility, values, etc.). Most men (hopefully all) don't view their gf or wife as a breeding machine (even though it can be misunderstood that way sometimes). Nor do women think of men as sperm donors. That being said, I believe that late 30's to early 40's is a difficult age for women because their biological window of opportunity closes faster than that of men. Also, some men in that age bracket try to find a younger woman to increase their own odds.
Sam Spade Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 Do you stop yourself from driving anywhere since the odds are so high you're going to have an accident or be hit by a car? Do you stop yourself from getting married, since you're afraid that someone will hurt you? Oh...hang on... It is hard to estimate the lifetime probability of a car accident. On a yearly basis, it is about 3% (any car accident), 1.5% (car accident with some sort of injury), but only ~0.02% to have a fatal car accident. The emotioinal and financial cost of having a child with disability probably outweights a good share of the traumas you get in the comparable 1.5% (i.e. 1:100) scenario...
Sam Spade Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 I am sure that a younger partner (with more mobile sperm) would be better, especially if the woman herself is closing in on 40 (to counteract her own declined fertility). The same is true for a man as he ages. All other things equal, a younger partner gives you the best odds. But as always, there usually are other things to consider (LTR potential, financial and emotional compatibility, values, etc.). Most men (hopefully all) don't view their gf or wife as a breeding machine (even though it can be misunderstood that way sometimes). Nor do women think of men as sperm donors. That being said, I believe that late 30's to early 40's is a difficult age for women because their biological window of opportunity closes faster than that of men. Also, some men in that age bracket try to find a younger woman to increase their own odds. Yes, exactly. It is not like men derive some sort of satisfaction by merely articulating such considerations . I actually get upset upon realising that I should probably consider such factors. Wouldn't it be wonderful to pretend that we were all immortal and could play all we want without regard for social or biological constraints? Of course it would... I think it is not mean, but merely adult to be aware of the forces shaping your thinking. And not all of them look quite as great when spelled out, and of course nobody reduces their choice of partners to donor status . But to sugarcoat real or perceived constraints is not very helpful either.
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 With this in mind, why wouldn't older women pick younger men to reproduce with? Two reasons come immediately to mind, and a comment. Comment: Perhaps some do. As for reasons, younger men are much less likely to consent to marry an older woman than vice versa, and women seem to prefer to pair bond with somewhat older men. Most men (hopefully all) don't view their gf or wife as a breeding machine (even though it can be misunderstood that way sometimes). Nor do women think of men as sperm donors. That being said, I believe that late 30's to early 40's is a difficult age for women because their biological window of opportunity closes faster than that of men. Also, some men in that age bracket try to find a younger woman to increase their own odds. Exactly. It's not that it's all they are good for or whatever, but it is an important aspect and bears weighing. That's all.
Jersey Shortie Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 Speaking of personal expereince, I have mentioned the issues with my parents with my father being so many years older then my mother. She has always told me not to marry an older man. Out of all my girlfriends there is only one that actually married an older man. Now she is 27 he is 50 and they are divorced. She said the last two years were painful because started to really slow down, not work as hard, couldn't keep up with her. Now she will never marry or date an older guy because she realized the draw backs. She loved her husband and thought he was a great guy. Physically, he couldn't keep up the older he got. That is the only friend I have that married someone that much older. All my other girlfriends have married/dated men around their age group. I know that dating older men is fun. they spend money on you and do expensive things. I however will never marry someone closer to my age. I've turned down a few. I don't want to marry a man in his 40s. He just can't keep up with a family like a 30 year old man can. It's irrational to think one can. Also, the older you are, the faster you begin to age. If a younger person marries an older spouse, that older spouse will be aging at a much faster rate then they are. Again, that's just another reality of life. In this day and age women have too many options and I think some men find that scary.
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 It is hard to estimate the lifetime probability of a car accident. Last time I looked it was about 1.5 fatalities per 10,000,000 miles driven in the USA, and I do take steps to reduce my odds of being inside that statistic.
pollywag Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 I'm not interested in reignating the whole debate, but the odds are not that great. Getting pregnant at the age of 40 is estimated to be associated with about 1 in 100 chance of having a baby with Downs (from 1:400 at 35) and keep increasing thereafter). While mathematically these are certainly not at all scary odds, they're nothing to be too excited about either and to deny the emotional effect they have on people is silly as well. The odds of an older woman actually conceiving a Downs baby are low because it is detectable. The only person I know that has a Down's kid actually is the wife of a friend of the family's and she was 26 when she had her girl. It did not show up in the tests, her husband is 37. I know at least 5 women over 35 who had babies one of them 40 yrs old, all beautiful healthy babies and on the first go, first baby and bam! beautiful and healthy too. Look at all the celebrities having babies all healthy babies, how many celebrities in their late 30's and early 40's do you know that have Down's babies? The only reason the odds were that high in the past was because there was insufficient testing done so if you did have a Down's kid you had to have it, now a days for the most part it can be detected. No science is perfect, but it's a non issue for most normal well adjusted people. It's like saying that people still die of Tuberculosis, well yes very small % of the population maybe still does, from untreated TB but there are more Cancer and DUI deaths than any other disease, and TB is now detected and completely treatable. Get with the program guys, with some of you men it's like you are reading off the first published version of Gray's Anatomy. FYI, there have been a lot of advancements in medicine since 1850. Just so you know.... Now for a man who chose to waste his years sleeping around and then suddenly at 40 decides I'd better settle down and find me a 22 yr old to start a family, for him of course the ideas will be skewed he needs to support his cause and he will think and say what he has to, to justify his unbalanced needs. But like someone else said at least be honest in what you are and want, don't give us this nonsense about how the faults are within the older women who are incapable of having healthy children. Say you want your cake and eat it too and we will accept what you are, we already see you for what you are so no use skirting the issue. The other thing I find remarkable is how a 40 yr old man who has never had a serious relationship and never been married be so picky as to say I won't date a divorced woman, or a woman with kids. I find impossible to see the appeal of a man who is 40 and never been married or never had a relationship and I would guess that most women in their thirties will run like heck from a guy like that, which really leaves the options for a man in that situation having to resort to very young inexperienced women, actually they would have to also be dumb women not just young. The smart sexy young women will feel just as the older women in this respect, they would not want to settle down with some old douche bag who has been sleeping around for 40 yrs, he's never had any sort of commitments at all, and has been floating around life like some soulless drifter picking and choosing so much that life passed him by but now wants to make up for lost time by trying to settle down with someone half his age to remind him of what he lost. What a turn off to people of all ages, really! It's a pathetic sight. Older men who have no history of commitments are completely undesirable in the better part of the female world regardless of her age. Maybe amongst the Girls Gone Wild, flash my boobs bimbo type girls yes, because they have no standards but not amongst any smart woman with values. No way we want to settle for men like that!
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 I am sure that a younger partner (with more mobile sperm) would be better, especially if the woman herself is closing in on 40 (to counteract her own declined fertility). The same is true for a man as he ages. All other things equal, a younger partner gives you the best odds. But as always, there usually are other things to consider (LTR potential, financial and emotional compatibility, values, etc.). Most men (hopefully all) don't view their gf or wife as a breeding machine (even though it can be misunderstood that way sometimes). Nor do women think of men as sperm donors. That being said, I believe that late 30's to early 40's is a difficult age for women because their biological window of opportunity closes faster than that of men. Also, some men in that age bracket try to find a younger woman to increase their own odds. Well, exactly, which is why the entire justification about breeding being of great importance, is nothing but a cover for assorted other reasons which include superficiality, commitment phobia, fear of women, fear of being hurt, etc. It's like saying I won't date a man with a unibrow because he must be one of those stupid neanderthal men. What are the odds? It is hard to estimate the lifetime probability of a car accident. On a yearly basis, it is about 3% (any car accident), 1.5% (car accident with some sort of injury), but only ~0.02% to have a fatal car accident. The emotioinal and financial cost of having a child with disability probably outweights a good share of the traumas you get in the comparable 1.5% (i.e. 1:100) scenario... Using your statistics which I haven't verified, 1.5% for injuries. You can be crippled, disfigured, all kinds of injuries can equal lifetime impacts, just like having a child with downs. For that matter, there are tests to catch a lot of problems. I mean seriously Sam, how can you put all the onus on women being the sole source of infertility. Sperm start degenerating at age 30. This is fact. No matter how young your child bride might be, it won't change degenerated sperm that causes birth defects. Know and understand that men are 50% of the less than 1% odds of infertility. Admit it's an excuse and I'll let you off the hook.
Sam Spade Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 I mean seriously Sam, how can you put all the onus on women being the sole source of infertility. Sperm start degenerating at age 30. This is fact. No matter how young your child bride might be, it won't change degenerated sperm that causes birth defects. Know and understand that men are 50% of the less than 1% odds of infertility. Admit it's an excuse and I'll let you off the hook. You've got it all wrong, I'm not letting you off the hook . Let's put it another way: there is just no reason to argue the advantages of older girls, and I've never said that men become so much better with age< yeah, I wish . The sourse of my amusement is that most of us are average in most respects, and to combat that statistical fact with elaborate postponing of a lifelong commitment justified by the expectation of something "exceptional" is silly. My point is simply that both men and women - if they want greater odds of strong and healthy families - should think less about how unique and special their life trajectories are, and more about putting some effort into connecting with a decent person in a timely manner. The world is full of them . It may be the result of a stern upbringing, but I have very little sympathy for endless adolescence , which is essentially all that self-indulgent baby-boomer induced talk about experiencing the world and blah, blah, blah . So, I'd rather regret not having scuba-dived in the carribean than not being a (hopefully) energetic 40 year old (hopefully at the most) dad wrestling with his kid on the lawn . I'm not saying this is the better choice, just aware of the tradeoffs.
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 The odds of an older woman actually conceiving a Downs baby are low because it is detectable. I'd be really intrigued to know how detecting a Downs syndrome child decreases the odds of conception. Please subscribe me to your newsletter. Sperm start degenerating at age 30. Two points to consider. First, Sam can't go back in time and change his life course. Even if he wants to, he has to accept that he is where he is. So what factors are in his control? He can legitimately spend time productively in minimizing things he can control. Second, I thought it was age 20? The study I read compared men from age 20 to 50 and decided their was a pretty small but still detectable (probably) trend. Why is 30 the magic number today?
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 You've got it all wrong, I'm not letting you off the hook . Let's put it another way: there is just no reason to argue the advantages of older girls, and I've never said that men become so much better with age< yeah, I wish . The sourse of my amusement is that most of us are average in most respects, and to combat that statistical fact with elaborate postponing of a lifelong commitment justified by the expectation of something "exceptional" is silly. My point is simply that both men and women - if they want greater odds of strong and healthy families - should think less about how unique and special their life trajectories are, and more about putting some effort into connecting with a decent person in a timely manner. The world is full of them . It may be the result of a stern upbringing, but I have very little sympathy for endless adolescence , which is essentially all that self-indulgent baby-boomer induced talk about experiencing the world and blah, blah, blah . So, I'd rather regret not having scuba-dived in the carribean than not being a (hopefully) energetic 40 year old (hopefully at the most) dad wrestling with his kid on the lawn . I'm not saying this is the better choice, just aware of the tradeoffs. Well if you don't buy into the mentality of having life experiences first, why aren't you married and reproducing yet? I believe the peak of male fertility is at 17 years old! I personally believe in getting yourself into a comfortable enough fiscal position previous to taking on the responsibility of a family. If you're always scraping to make ends meet, your children won't have the advantages in life that waiting for another 10 years, might have given them. In essence, you're getting your needs met first, then entering into something more committed when you're mentally, emotionally, financially and physically capable of handling everything without breaking a sweat. Back in the old days, people didn't live so long or breed so late, since their life expectancies were much, much shorter.
Stockalone Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 Yes, exactly. It is not like men derive some sort of satisfaction by merely articulating such considerations . I actually get upset upon realising that I should probably consider such factors. Wouldn't it be wonderful to pretend that we were all immortal and could play all we want without regard for social or biological constraints? Of course it would... Exactly. It's not that it's all they are good for or whatever, but it is an important aspect and bears weighing. That's all. You guys realize that this is problematic, right? Those factors are very important. And even more so is to be able to understand our own motivation. A very smart person once asked me if I am looking to find a partner that I want to share my life with or if I am merely looking for the future mother of my children. To be honest, it took me some time to see a difference, because I always considered the two to go hand in hand. But yes, after thinking about it, I saw the difference. Still, the honest answer is that I hope to find someone I want to share my life with AND have children together. If you (or I for that matter) make it seem that breeding potential is the only thing we care about, it is no wonder that this will be misunderstood and taken the wrong way by women. Well, exactly, which is why the entire justification about breeding being of great importance, is nothing but a cover for assorted other reasons which include superficiality, commitment phobia, fear of women, fear of being hurt, etc. Not necessarily. There is declining fertility as we age, whether or not that alone is the sole reason for advocating to find a younger partner, who knows for sure? It could be the truth or it could be a very welcome opportunity to hide the true reasons. But that could be said for every single dealbreaker people have. It's like saying I won't date a man with a unibrow because he must be one of those stupid neanderthal men. What are the odds? I don't really understand what you mean. Do you think that declining fertility is neglectable?
pollywag Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 It may be the result of a stern upbringing, but I have very little sympathy for endless adolescence , which is essentially all that self-indulgent baby-boomer induced talk about experiencing the world and blah, blah, blah . So, I'd rather regret not having scuba-dived in the carribean than not being a (hopefully) energetic 40 year old (hopefully at the most) dad wrestling with his kid on the lawn . I'm not saying this is the better choice, just aware of the tradeoffs. Yes but having children and forming a family is a HARD WORK it is not something that you can just say "today I am calling in sick and won't be dealing with it" you are there for life and you there rain or shine. You must be a parent and think for others for the rest of your life, you no longer make life choices based on how you are feeling or what you are needing at the moment you are making choices based on two or three other people, namely your wife/husband and children. If at the age of 40 you have never experienced scuba diving, or diving off a cliff on the Adriatic, or stopped for Coque au Vin along the Champs Elysee, or smoking a hooka with some locals in Goa, you might realise at 40 and with children that there is no more chance to do that. You no longer have the freedom to experience life as you could since you cannot think solely for yourself and your needs anymore. Better to have done all those things in your 20s as most people do, and then to think with a more leveled head in your 30's that you are ready for a different pace in life and to settle down. I have far more respect for a person in their 20's or 30's who sets out to discover life than for someone middle aged who wakes up one day and says "where has my youth gone??" and sets out on a path of rediscovery two decades too late leaving a wife/husband and children behind.
pollywag Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 I'd be really intrigued to know how detecting a Downs syndrome child decreases the odds of conception. Please subscribe me to your newsletter. Ever hear of birth termination, ie. abortion?
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 If you (or I for that matter) make it seem that breeding potential is the only thing we care about, it is no wonder that this will be misunderstood and taken the wrong way by women. Apparently so. So for the problem at hand, I can either find a way to eliminate all the women who I'm incompatible with and THEN search within that subset for someone who gives a good shot at healthy kids, or I can eliminate those who are more likely to have reproductive issues and then search within that subset for someone compatible. The second course seems orders of magnitude easier and more efficient. Simply put, age is easy to determine quickly, so you apply it and the other 'fast' filters first. No use getting to know someone age 62 to determine if she's someone I want to spend the rest of my life with, and then eliminate her later because she's past menopause. Stupid approach, not to mention cruel.
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 Ever hear of birth termination, ie. abortion? Abortion does not prevent conception, and I'm morally opposed to it for me and mine.
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 Not necessarily. There is declining fertility as we age, whether or not that alone is the sole reason for advocating to find a younger partner, who knows for sure? It could be the truth or it could be a very welcome opportunity to hide the true reasons. But that could be said for every single dealbreaker people have.No one knows for certain but the way it's presented, it appears to be speaking for men in general, which is a big load of hoo-hoo. Besides LS, I've never heard this kind of thing from any thirty-something men, at least emphasized ad-nauseum, to the point of pathos. I don't really understand what you mean. Do you think that declining fertility is neglectable?My honest opinion is yes, declining fertility is neglectible solely based on age, when juxtaposed against finding someone you love and want to commit to, for the rest of your life. It's one thing to want a family and find that someone changes their mind about wanting children or is incapable of having children, and drawing suppositions that someone is incapable of having healthy children from age 30 and upwards. "I will never drive again because I might get bodily injury from the statistic of 1.5% that Sam Spade posted on LS." or "I will never bed someone again unless they've been a cloistered virgin all their lives because I don't ever want to contract an STD." or "I will never have another relationship again because 50% of people cheat."
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 So, I'd rather regret not having scuba-dived in the carribean than not being a (hopefully) energetic 40 year old (hopefully at the most) dad wrestling with his kid on the lawn . I'm not saying this is the better choice, just aware of the tradeoffs. I'm gonna be the dad that takes his kids SCUBA diving. Seems like a good compromise.
pollywag Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 Abortion does not prevent conception, and I'm morally opposed to it for me and mine. Well that's your problem. Chances are you could even end up with a woman who had an abortion and will never know about it. So you can have all the hangups in world when it comes to abortions but ultimately it's the woman's call and you can be left out in the cold with that. Besides young women could have deformed babies as well especially a woman with a much older man. You would proceed with the birth if your woman gave you a Down's child? It is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. Abortion does not prevent conception, abortion prevents unwanted births.
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 Scuba diving isn't good for the body. Once in awhile, fine, but as a hobby, very bad for your body. Not good father material...
Recommended Posts