El Pallasso Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 That is not true, Male fertility decreases with age. Also Children of older men at greater risk of mental illness, study suggests | Science | The Guardian My post wasn't about the child having autism. I'm saying women become infertile once they hit a certain age and most men don't.
crosswordfiend Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 I think the only things holding me back is that he will be 50 in ten years time, I have no idea what he will look like. It seems safer to me to stick to a guy my own age. But the attraction is strong!!! Don't forget that in 10 years time you will be 40 as well so what you will find attractive will be different.
Phoenician Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 I don't want to be mean , but r willing to have a partner or a Roaster to fertilize your eggs ?
Vercetti Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 How hard is it to find chemistry. Took me 35 years and my wife 45. It's rare. Lust perhaps not. Two people equally enthusiastic about the other where strangers point out a connection. Think lucky if get it once in a lifetime at a high dose. My first relationship did not, others did not, ex wife did not. If something is really there, I don't think the odds of finding the same BUT a few years younger are that high. I'm one little voice, my experience is IT'S RARE. I'm not a bad looking or desperate, more options is usually more things don't really want.
ltjg45 Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 I am not usually attracted to older guys than me, I actually like guys born between 1991-1985. So it comes as a surprise to me to have a crush on this guy. I think the reason is because he looks like he could have been 30 and he also does a lot of activities which are deemed 'young' like breakdancing and watching kids movies... He has mentioned he wants to settle down and have kids, and so do I. I think the only things holding me back is that he will be 50 in ten years time, I have no idea what he will look like. It seems safer to me to stick to a guy my own age. But the attraction is strong!!! My only suggestion is if you do decide to have a relationship with him, you may want to try and have kids sooner rather than later. Don't try and put it off for too long like 5 years or so. I would say no later than the next 2-3 years. You also need to get his confirmation from him that he is serious about you. Due to his age, he needs to be ready ASAP if he wants to have children with you. It is a much different story if it was with a woman that is 5 years younger than him but with you, it is almost a whole new ballgame. I wish you the best of luck regardless of the choice you make. I would have said the same to the 19-year old woman I am speaking to right now, even though our age difference is a little less than yours at 9 years.
Gaeta Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 I am not usually attracted to older guys than me, I actually like guys born between 1991-1985. So it comes as a surprise to me to have a crush on this guy. I think the reason is because he looks like he could have been 30 and he also does a lot of activities which are deemed 'young' like breakdancing and watching kids movies... He has mentioned he wants to settle down and have kids, and so do I. I think the only things holding me back is that he will be 50 in ten years time, I have no idea what he will look like. It seems safer to me to stick to a guy my own age. But the attraction is strong!!! If he keeps the same life style and stay active he will look exactly the same. 50 is the new 40 nowadays. Robert Downy Jr., Brad Pitt, Chris Rock, George Clooney, Johnny Depp, John Stamos, are all over 50 and hot. My aunt is 72 and her husband is 42. They've been together 20 years. Yes it's unusual but my aunt is one active lady! He adores her!
RedRobin Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 10 years is too much for me. Lots of guys drop off a cliff starting around 40. Look at pics of aging celebrities. They get the young wife when he still looks youngish... Then the difference in how they look just gets wider and wider. Men don't get plastic surgery, or take care of their skin. Some exercise, but that is about it. And then there is the issue of how good their semen is after 40. 1
123321 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 10 years is too much for me. Lots of guys drop off a cliff starting around 40. Look at pics of aging celebrities. They get the young wife when he still looks youngish... Then the difference in how they look just gets wider and wider. Men don't get plastic surgery, or take care of their skin. Some exercise, but that is about it. And then there is the issue of how good their semen is after 40. I've never had any complaints on the semen score, does it get too salty for you or something?
Eternal Sunshine Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Lots of men in that age group have lowered sex drive and softer erections. I wouldn't.
Gaeta Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 My god the things I hear on here!! Men in their 40s can have healthy beautiful babies as easily as any other men and still have crazy sex drive!!! Geezzz!!! 1
123321 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 My god the things I hear on here!! Men in their 40s can have healthy beautiful babies as easily as any other men and still have crazy sex drive!!! Geezzz!!! Depends on the men in question - obviously you are getting a different class of men than some others are. Draw your own conclusions as to root cause. No pun intended.
ascendotum Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Lots of men in that age group have lowered sex drive and softer erections. I wouldn't. Thank heavens for modern pharmaceuticals eh. That takes care of the erection and a younger sexy kinky gf/wife will help to inspire that libido and make him put in the extra effort to keep her satisfied. It might not be so grim if she picks well. 2
elaine567 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I've never had any complaints on the semen score, does it get too salty for you or something? No, it is about the ability to father children which as been found to take a nose dive. It is about the increase in miscarriages, the increased time to achieve pregnancy and about the quality of the sperm in older men. Previously that effect was thought to be due to female ageing in the partners of older men, but when they looked specifically at older male fertility, the actual decrease in the ability to produce children became more apparent. It is now considered best, due also to the other issues (older dads have kids with more genetic diseases than younger dads) men have children before 45.
stillafool Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 It is now considered best, due also to the other issues (older dads have kids with more genetic diseases than younger dads) men have children before 45. Yes, especially autism.
elaine567 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Yes, especially autism. Agreed, and schizophrenia. But the risks due to new genetic mutations increase as the father ages. 97% of all mutations passed on to children are from older fathers. The absolute frequency of autosomal dominant disease due to new mutations among the offspring of fathers who are 40 years of age or older is estimated to be at least 0.3 to 0.5%. This risk is many times greater than that for children of young fathers and is similar in magnitude to the risk of Down syndrome among the offspring of 35- to 40-year-old mothers. Thus, it is good public health policy to recommend that both men and women complete their family before age 40, if possible.
123321 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Previously that effect was thought to be due to female ageing in the partners of older men, but when they looked specifically at older male fertility, the actual decrease in the ability to produce children became more apparent. It is now considered best, due also to the other issues (older dads have kids with more genetic diseases than younger dads) men have children before 45. Ah yes. Well fertility and birth defect rate related to age *IS* mostly female but there is definitely a small male contribution to the effect, it's true. I don't see how that's a factor for this OP though; if they decide they want kids she's getting close to the point where her reproductive health is going to be a much larger factor than his, even with the 10 year head start he has, and they can always put some of his 39 year old soldiers in a can today, as far as that goes. TL,DR; Ax grinding detected.
123321 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Yes, especially autism. That's true, however (again) the 29 year old mom is probably still going to find her age in the next 15 years to be a bigger overall risk factor than any partner she couples with. For instance at 30 her odds of producing a child with chromosomal abnormalities is just a bit over 0.1%, whereas 15 years later it becomes a whopping 3%. Her prospective fella will have nothing like that level of risk at age 55.
elaine567 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 That's true, however (again) the 29 year old mom is probably still going to find her age in the next 15 years to be a bigger overall risk factor than any partner she couples with. For instance at 30 her odds of producing a child with chromosomal abnormalities is just a bit over 0.1%, whereas 15 years later it becomes a whopping 3%. Her prospective fella will have nothing like that level of risk at age 55. You do not know that, the risks of having older fathers is a relatively new concept in science, (Mothers were seen as the ones to blame, previously) so the true risks have not been fully evaluated. The sequencing of the human genome has opened up many more avenues for researching the topic. 1
123321 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 You do not know that, the risks of having older fathers is a relatively new concept in science, (Mothers were seen as the ones to blame, previously) so the true risks have not been fully evaluated. The sequencing of the human genome has opened up many more avenues for researching the topic. Mothers were seen as the ones to blame because their contribution to risk is much higher and therefore easier to measure. More sensitive studies are needed to detect smaller risk factors. In any case, he's 39, if they want kids (that question is probably the most germane, as another poster pointed out early on) I'm sure they can afford a freezer. "The strengths of the new report are size and rigor. .... In the population as a whole, children born to older fathers were at higher risk of some disorders, like autism and schizophrenia, but lower risk for others, like attention deficits. .... Experts say the numbers in the study look more alarming than they probably are." Is that ax sharp yet?
stillafool Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Correct Elaine and there are new findings every week related to older fathers. I think the best chance for kids to have optimum health is for both parents to be young. 1
Author lizzy12 Posted May 8, 2015 Author Posted May 8, 2015 Right now you guys are making me more and more worried about his fertility !!! But chances are if we do end up having kids in 2 years time and he is 41, they will be healthy right?
Mrlonelyone Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Right now you guys are making me more and more worried about his fertility !!! But chances are if we do end up having kids in 2 years time and he is 41, they will be healthy right? Don't take it to heart. There is more to having children than age. The best ages for physically having children is our 20's but those aren't the best ages for mentally raising those children. Our 40's are probably the best years mentally for raising children but it is harder to have them at that age. The optimal ages for having children are between say 25 and 45 for men and women. Under 25 and the pre frontal cortex of the brain is not fully grown and developed yet. The pre-frontal cortex is where better judgment lies. So while your body may be most prime to reproduce at that age, your brain is not ripe for making the best choices of who, when, or where to do that. The other posters have covered why over 45 is not so great for men and we all know about menopause for women. Then there is the simple fact that at 45 or older chasing around toddlers full of energy is much more taxing so the kids go to daycare.
123321 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Right now you guys are making me more and more worried about his fertility !!! But chances are if we do end up having kids in 2 years time and he is 41, they will be healthy right? The increase in risk in terms of proportion is huge, however the overall risk is still tiny due to the initial risk being microscopic. Zero times a huge number is still zero, a tiny number times 3 or 4 or 10 is still a tiny number. The reason such results are just recently being noticed isn't a conspiracy, it's because they are (overall, which is what matters) quite small, unlike some age based things that have been known for decades. Fertility is always a risk but neither of you are of an age where it's likely for age to be a significant factor for either of you, and fertility assistance is pretty advanced and well understood. I'd say an earlier poster hit it on the head when they asked if you had discussed your plans as a couple yet; that seems the biggest deal to me.
readynow Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 10years?! That's nothing. Remember that in 10yrs, you'll be 40 too Fertility-wise, you're more of a worry than he is. The older you get, the greater the birth defects and complications in pregnancy. I would say don't worry about the children's outcome yet, determine if both of you can work as a couple first then take it from there. As for age, my age difference with my man is 18.5 years and he is super fit with a fantastic libido. He doesn't get soft until he finishes and he doesn't finish until I do. No meds. This is only 10yrs so if you like him, get on with it. There are no guarantees in life. You could wait to meet a man 2yrs older, doesn't want kids for another 5yrs and when you get to it, he's got low sperm count or a genetic abnormality that he didn't know about. Do what feels good to you.
Recommended Posts