MeaganRaye Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Same. In general, every forum I go to has the same cluster of bitching angry 30+ women on them. Not all, mind you, but a decent group of about a dozen extremists. And maybe it's the younger girl's preference to date older men, hmmm? Not all young girls are stupid bimbos getting "chased" by old pervy wannabe playboys. My preference has always been older. Always. I'm 20, my boyfriend is 30. I just prefer my men to be over 25. Anything younger than that I find to be too immature. I like older men as well. Too many times I find it true that guys mature slower than women, much slower. I find myself being able to hold on a decent conversation with older men, their conversations have more depth I'm in college, and guys in my age group tend to really irritate me. I hate the way they sit around, and judge a bunch of girls on a scale of 1-10, as they walk pass when they aren't that damn hot themselves. Or how they'll say, "I should go over there and talk to that girl but I don't know, her ass isn't big enough or her waist isn't small enough" like has it ever crossed their mind what these girls may think about how they look? Total arrogant *******s. I deal with them at work. Society makes it so that no matter how ugly a guy can be, he always deserves the most HOTTEST girl
clv0116 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Actually, yes there is solid risk assisment about more then just sperm issues about defects older males cause in children. Fabulous - can you supply some useful numbers? I've posted examples of useful risk statistics elsewhere but no one seems willing to take up that task.
Taramere Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Fabulous - can you supply some useful numbers? I've posted examples of useful risk statistics elsewhere but no one seems willing to take up that task. Studies indicate an increased risk of miscarriage The study of nearly 14000 women who were pregnant in the 1960s and 70s found that the risk of miscarriage to expectant mothers was 60 per cent higher when the father was aged 40 or over compared to when he was 25-29 years old. Age made a difference even for men in their 30s. The risk of losing the baby was also about three times greater when the man was aged between 35 and 39 years of age than if he were younger than 25. This finding was independent of the woman's age and is not explained by other factors such as diabetes, smoking, or previous spontaneous abortions. Other studies suggest that paternal age is linked to increased risk of autism and learning difficulties, whereas children with older mothers seemed to perform better academically (though that could be related to nurture rather than nature). It seems that there's an awful lot of evidence out there to suggest that certain risks increase proportionate to the age of (mother and/or father). In terms of nature, the child seems to undoubtedly benefit from having younger parents, but some of this might be offset by cultural and financial advantages older parents may be able to bring.
St. Nick Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 The only guys I have seen chastised for wanting a younger woman is for WHY they want a younger woman, and THOSE are the guys spewing all this "older women have defective children" crap. If a guy has a stupid reason for choosing one female over another than that's his business. His reason for dating a younger woman may be a dumb reason to you, but to him it's smart. You can say what you want about it but there you go, that's your answer. It's the fact that he needs a reason at all is the problem. If you ask a man in his 40s why he's dating a college girl and he shrugs and says, "no reason. I just want to." or "none of your business" then that's good enough. He shouldn't have any reason to make anybody feel satisfied. The law says it is legal for him to do so. That's good enough. All this social taboo against it is ridiculous.
Sam Spade Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 As I've saide before, I think that big part of the angst on both sides comes from the realisation that it is hard, if not impossible, to have it all. Education, career, money, dating around for fun, finding that perfect someone, white picket fence, oh, and two cute kids - all at the same time. It's impossible except without some luck and meticulous planning. Then we find ourselves in our 30s and the men get mad at the women for pursuing other priorities while putting a family at the backburner, and women get mad at the men for not wanting to marry them and start a family anyway. All the fertility arguments are just a proxy disguising the much larger issue that people are either unable or unwilling to enter stable committed relationships in a timely manner (if starting a family is a priority). All that fertility crap does not resolve anything - a margin of error of a decade does not really help anybody given that the underlying relationship dynamics is unsustainable. Nobody is right, and everybody dislikes realising that choices have consequences... At the risk of sounding like a grandpa, i think we are all way too spoiled. Endless adolescence. Avoiding responsibility till deathc. Etc. Well, I know I'm special, just like everybody else...
Author Jaytb Posted April 1, 2009 Author Posted April 1, 2009 I only date 6 year olds. It's just my preference. I also cook Poisson D'avril for them. (check today's date in case you're wondering.)
clv0116 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Studies indicate an increased risk of miscarriage OK, that's great and thanks for the link, I'll try to drill into that later. However the stats you quoted are headline material but not terribly useful in risk assessment. It seems that there's an awful lot of evidence out there to suggest that certain risks increase proportionate to the age of (mother and/or father). In terms of nature, the child seems to undoubtedly benefit from having younger parents, but some of this might be offset by cultural and financial advantages older parents may be able to bring. I agree on all counts, however to really evaluate the degree of risk we really need to know severity and likelihood, not comparative likelihood. So for instance the phrase "60% more" is virtually useless. A 60% increase on 1 in 1,000,000 is manageable if it means the new odds are 1.6 in 1,000,000, whereas a change from 10% to 70% odds would be terrible.
Taramere Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 OK, that's great and thanks for the link, I'll try to drill into that later. However the stats you quoted are headline material but not terribly useful in risk assessment. I agree on all counts, however to really evaluate the degree of risk we really need to know severity and likelihood, not comparative likelihood. So for instance the phrase "60% more" is virtually useless. A 60% increase on 1 in 1,000,000 is manageable if it means the new odds are 1.6 in 1,000,000, whereas a change from 10% to 70% odds would be terrible. I realise that. I don't know what the rates for miscarriages are. I guess if I were planning on trying to have a child then I'd be looking into that kind of thing a lot more thoroughly. I think it's incumbent on would-be parents of both genders to be aware of the risks but to keep a sense of proportion about them. Though it's not something I've researched, I'm sure there's a wealth of guidance out there for older prospective parents as to what they can do (health and lifestyle wise) to give any child they have a healthy start. I'd add that I know quite a few people of both genders who became parents in their late thirties. My brother's one of them. His children (now in primary school, and doing well academically) are very healthy physically, and psychologically I think they've benefited from having mature parents. As with most things, there are pros and cons.
clv0116 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I realise that. I don't know what the rates for miscarriages are. I guess if I were planning on trying to have a child then I'd be looking into that kind of thing a lot more thoroughly. I think it's incumbent on would-be parents of both genders to be aware of the risks but to keep a sense of proportion about them. I agree completely. In the overall context of the discussion, the factors you and others cite, while interesting, are beside the point for at least 2 reasons. First, in the general case of an older man starting a family, he is unable to change his age, that factor is outside the realm of his control. He needs to think about factors he can change and how much influence they will have. Second, in my specific case, I have the sperm of a man in his early 20s, so I'm not personally concerned about it.
mental_traveller Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 I'll tell you this much iPhone guys are SUPER annoying. It's like they need the extension to make up for lack of endowment. :laugh: iPhones are really gay. Homophobia, sexism, and techophobia all in one paragraph - that's quite impressive!
mental_traveller Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 I don't target specific fractions of the population and incite, I tend to post in retaliation of ideas I don't adhere to. I have no use in posting comments that are going to make an entire fraction of the population feel undermined and inferior, who does that? Degenerates do that. I simply don't think that way. Specific people might rub me the wrong way, as most human beings operate in this manner, I don't target people for being a specific gender, race, age or nationality. Actually you have done this at least once in the last week. I specifically remember you taking a dig at someone I knew, simply because of his age - there was no reasoned debate, simply a throwaway insult to someone who does not even read or post here and thus can't even defend themselves. You also made a comment here using "gay" as a derogatory term. So you target older people and gay people for starters.
Recommended Posts