No_Go Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 *rolling my eyes* he just prefered younger women to boost his ego. My sister-in-law is a doctor and she had no problem with waiting till she is 38 years old to get pregnant of her first. They had no problem getting pregnant and her pregnancy is a breeze. Major risk of genetic disorders at 38? c'mon! At 48 maybe but not under 40. There are always examples for older women having babies. There are of course the counter examples of women at late 20s with exhausted ovarian reserve... Point being it is a matter of probability. Just the probability for infertility, miscarriage or birth defect jumps up at 35 and skyrockets at 40. So in that respect OPs best bet if he wants children is a woman no older than late 20s (so he doesn’t need to knock her up asap...). Sucks for us women but biology trumps societal norms any day any time ... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
JDJ Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 What you said is so inspiring! I wait keep it for ever to make me progress. I am a Phd student majoring in statistics. I would like to be an assistant professor after graduation although the industry can give more money but in my opinion, Phd is just for academics. I will strive no effort for my publication. I have been on the road for more publication. I will finish it strong! You will have to put some effort into publication if you want to succeed. No effort sounds pretty lazy. Link to post Share on other sites
Gaeta Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 There are always examples for older women having babies. There are of course the counter examples of women at late 20s with exhausted ovarian reserve... Point being it is a matter of probability. Just the probability for infertility, miscarriage or birth defect jumps up at 35 and skyrockets at 40. So in that respect OPs best bet if he wants children is a woman no older than late 20s (so he doesn’t need to knock her up asap...). Sucks for us women but biology trumps societal norms any day any time ... You need to update the litterature you've been reading. women aged 30-34 who have the highest fertility rate of any group you’re better off getting pregnant before the age of 35 but if it doesn’t happen, don’t sweat it. Your chances of getting pregnant in your 40s is now better than ever. According to the NHS, around one third of couples in which the woman is over 35 will experience fertility problems, and this rises to two-thirds when the woman is over 40. But that still means that lots of women in the 35+ age bracket are getting pregnant easily. Women Over 40 Now Have A Higher Fertility Rate Than Ever Before 2 Link to post Share on other sites
No_Go Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 I think what they are referring to is highest number of births 30-34 not highest chance to conceive. And still even in this article they’re saying 33% of women 35-40 and 66% of women over 40 experience problems:( I’m running tests on myself this summer - i’m so curious to see what’s left at my age... You need to update the litterature you've been reading. women aged 30-34 who have the highest fertility rate of any group you’re better off getting pregnant before the age of 35 but if it doesn’t happen, don’t sweat it. Your chances of getting pregnant in your 40s is now better than ever. According to the NHS, around one third of couples in which the woman is over 35 will experience fertility problems, and this rises to two-thirds when the woman is over 40. But that still means that lots of women in the 35+ age bracket are getting pregnant easily. Women Over 40 Now Have A Higher Fertility Rate Than Ever Before Link to post Share on other sites
Gaeta Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 I think what they are referring to is highest number of births 30-34 not highest chance to conceive. And still even in this article they’re saying 33% of women 35-40 and 66% of women over 40 experience problems:( I’m running tests on myself this summer - i’m so curious to see what’s left at my age... It's a case by case. At 46 I got a test done and was told I was as firtile as 25 year old and if I wanted a child she was giving me the go ahead. It's probably genetic as well. My cousin went through 5 years of fertility treatment before getting pregnant and she was only 28 at the time, and here I am breaking fertility rate at 46. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 You need to update the litterature you've been reading. women aged 30-34 who have the highest fertility rate of any group you’re better off getting pregnant before the age of 35 but if it doesn’t happen, don’t sweat it. Your chances of getting pregnant in your 40s is now better than ever. According to the NHS, around one third of couples in which the woman is over 35 will experience fertility problems, and this rises to two-thirds when the woman is over 40. But that still means that lots of women in the 35+ age bracket are getting pregnant easily. Women Over 40 Now Have A Higher Fertility Rate Than Ever Before That's all great... What they don't tell you is what type of parent do they think a mid 40's couple is going to be with an infant? Will they have the stamina to attend to a small child and all that entails? Will you be able to stay up all night when the kid is sick and manage to function the next day? When a typical 40 something comes home from work, they usually want to rest, not start entertaining little kids...Heaven forbid it if the kid has developmental problems, ADHD, etc...Well. I guess you could medicate the kids into zombies, so you can have your life, too...but you don't want to know my opinion on that... Some years ago we went on vacation with a few couples who were all in their 40's one in their 50's...Kids were around 8/9 years old..I was the only one out there with the kids, while the rest stayed put under the lounge chairs and umbrellas, afraid to venture out to the beach or pool because of body image issues, aches and pains, etc... So its more about practicality really....What type of parent do these people think they can be at that advanced age?? TFY Link to post Share on other sites
Gaeta Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 That's all great... What they don't tell you is what type of parent do they think a mid 40's couple is going to be with an infant? Will they have the stamina to attend to a small child and all that entails? Will you be able to stay up all night when the kid is sick and manage to function the next day? When a typical 40 something comes home from work, they usually want to rest, not start entertaining little kids...Heaven forbid it if the kid has developmental problems, ADHD, etc...Well. I guess you could medicate the kids into zombies, so you can have your life, too...but you don't want to know my opinion on that... Some years ago we went on vacation with a few couples who were all in their 40's one in their 50's...Kids were around 8/9 years old..I was the only one out there with the kids, while the rest stayed put under the lounge chairs and umbrellas, afraid to venture out to the beach or pool because of body image issues, aches and pains, etc... So its more about practicality really....What type of parent do these people think they can be at that advanced age?? TFY Depends in what society you are living in. Where I am we're not dead at 50. My BF of 51 climbs up posts 25 feet in the air several times a day for his work and to relax at night he jumps in the trampoline. My brother of 48 is father of a 7 years old and he is on his hands and knees and doing ALL what other dads are doing. You should see my mom! she is 70 years old and I cannot do everything she does in a day! She's still working in restauration for goodness sake! cause she doesn't know what to do with her extra energy. Anyway, OP is 36 years old. Why are we debating having children mid 40s? He can meet a woman his age or 30-35 and have plenty of time making babies before they both hit 40. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Depends in what society you are living in. Where I am we're not dead at 50. My BF of 51 climbs up posts 25 feet in the air several times a day for his work and to relax at night he jumps in the trampoline. My brother of 48 is father of a 7 years old and he is on his hands and knees and doing ALL what other dads are doing. You should see my mom! she is 70 years old and I cannot do everything she does in a day! She's still working in restauration for goodness sake! cause she doesn't know what to do with her extra energy. Anyway, OP is 36 years old. Why are we debating having children mid 40s? He can meet a woman his age or 30-35 and have plenty of time making babies before they both hit 40. Predictable answer....Aging process ceases to exist up there, eh? Anyway... OP's logic is sound...Pick a younger woman.. TFY 1 Link to post Share on other sites
TheFinalWord Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Even worse - depressed by your own past maybe ? How do you get that from what I posted? I've been a PhD student, and now at the next stage. I'm giving the OP advice that worked for me (and continues to)... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Yeah, in general people live longer these days and are often having children later in life. I really noticed the slow down in my teens, especially with dad. He was 61 when I graduated high school decades ago and was gone 8 years after that. Different era. Still, home movies and stills showed them to be very active parents when I was little and that was in the 50's-60's so decades ago. However, most of my peer's parents were 10-20 years younger. As an example, my best friend was a grandfather when he was the OP's age. At his age, decades ago, I didn't think about age as much as individuals, with one exception. A lady I otherwise would have married I chose not to because, in part, she was 'done' (her word) with children. She was 46 and a grandmother. I wanted bio children. Impasse. Sucks but that kind of stuff happens. Link to post Share on other sites
No_Go Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 How do you get that from what I posted? I've been a PhD student, and now at the next stage. I'm giving the OP advice that worked for me (and continues to)... Just reacting to the glorified undergraduate comment . But honestly it sounds like it for people in the US, still doesn't cease to surprise me because I didn't feel at all like a student when I did mine (for the record I finished at 28, I personally won't have been ok doing full time PhD work in my mid 30s... heck I have mortgage to pay off...) Link to post Share on other sites
kendahke Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Good luck chasing a rambunctious toddler when you are pushing 50, your knees are shot you have a bad shoulder, and you have half the energy you did at 25... That completely depends upon how good a shape that person is in, not how old they are. There are plenty of 20 somethings who may look cute but are in horrible shape and lots of 50+ year olds with great stamina and endurance who are in the best shape of their lives. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
kendahke Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 That's all great... What they don't tell you is what type of parent do they think a mid 40's couple is going to be with an infant? Will they have the stamina to attend to a small child and all that entails? TFY I'm curious as to why you think that there is some magic cut off age where stamina and endurance fail automatically when there are plenty of people in their 40's rearing small children and are not only emotionally and financially ready for the demands, but they are also physically ready for it. Yes, there are some that succumb to not taking care of their health, but that's in anything not only child-rearing. Even still, that "some" is not the total, nor are they are reflection on the total. It's not too hard to not get involved with someone who isn't taking care of their health, no matter what their age, because it's so obvious that they aren't. If they're already a lazy 24 yr old, chances are--eliminating some event that pushes them off this mindset--they're going to be a lazy 38 yr old. If they're already an active 24 yr old, chances are they're going to be an active 38 yr old. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 I'm curious as to why you think that there is some magic cut off age where stamina and endurance fail automatically when there are plenty of people in their 40's rearing small children and are not only emotionally and financially ready for the demands, but they are also physically ready for it. Yes, there are some that succumb to not taking care of their health, but that's in anything not only child-rearing. Even still, that "some" is not the total, nor are they are reflection on the total. It's not too hard to not get involved with someone who isn't taking care of their health, no matter what their age, because it's so obvious that they aren't. If they're already a lazy 24 yr old, chances are--eliminating some event that pushes them off this mindset--they're going to be a lazy 38 yr old. If they're already an active 24 yr old, chances are they're going to be an active 38 yr old. It's called life....You know....Father Time....He's unbeaten....In the history of mankind...Once you reach a certain chronological age, then you WILL slow down...May vary for some, but we all are gonna succumb to it..There is no debate here...If I was wrong, athletes would never retire..They'd still be competing well into their later years and continuing to make millions.. But hey, if you think you can set the world on fire, work full time and chase little kids around when you are 50+ then I take my hat off to you...I don't know how old you are or even if you have had any children...Ive been there and done it...And I am also a life long athlete that is more fit than most people my age..And if I can say it, what does that mean for the average person? Younger (or even not so young)childless women like to give this rationale, so they don't think the biological clock expires..I get it completely..they want some hope.....I just don't think they really know what all the downsides are to having kids late in life, even if the pregnancy goes well and doesn't have any complications.. .02 TFY 1 Link to post Share on other sites
guest569 Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 People in their 40s and 50s are old cripples now? That’s sad. The ones I know certainly are not! Health issues could strike any time. I agree that is more likely as we age but to say that 40s and 50s life ends. I don’t think this thread is about bashing older parents. Or are you saying that OP is already too old to have children? (Seems more like you’re attacking “childless” women as you say, when OP is already 36 so should probably give up before his hips, knees and back all give up ). It’s just another case of a guy who thinks that women are worthless once they hit their 30s even though he is older. Don’t ask for a reality check if you don’t want to hear it. As a younger woman I am fine with dating someone slightly older, but not when I know I’ll be discarded on my 32nd birthday if we haven’t conceived, probably in favour for a new 25 year old. .02 1 Link to post Share on other sites
No_Go Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 I don't get it why would people twist 'not as fit as in their youth' to 'old cripples'. Of course at 50 things are not the same as at 40, and at 40 as in 30. I'm 33 and hypervigilant about changes (I record various measurements on myself as a hobby in my spare time ) and although I'm in a pretty good shape for my age, things are NOT what they were 10 years ago: - I could easily pull all nighters, no caffeine needed - I could eat 2 pints of ice cream every day without any weight gain - Overall attitude is vastly different - every year makes you more and more cynical admit it or not - Gray hair everywhere - First fine lines are here I can go on an on and on... Imagine how the things will be at 43... You can't beat biology. Some may be lucky with better genes but aging just happens, no matter how much we think we can trick the nature... And I don't think it's wrong men to be looking for younger women if they want to reproduce... It sucks but that's the strongest natural urge so it will suck even more if one leaves his woman 10 years later to be with a young fertile woman. when the urge gets unbearable... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Gaeta Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) But hey, if you think you can set the world on fire, work full time and chase little kids around when you are 50+ then I thought this debate was about having kids mid 30s to 40. Little kids run around yes but once they've been through their terrible 2 and are potty trained the game is changing. There are several benefits of having older parents, we're emotionaly stable, we ahve psychological strength and we are more financial secure. The relationshis of people that met in their 30s has less chances of ending in a divorce. I was a parent at 21, I was young and knew *so little*, every little thing was a reason to panic, and it was easy for our daughter to manipulate us from a very early age as I didn't understand myself the importantce of consistancy. I would have been a much better parent in my 30s and early 40s. Edited June 16, 2018 by Gaeta Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 I thought this debate was about having kids mid 30s to 40. Little kids run around yes but once they've been through their terrible 2 and are potty trained the game is changing. . Really??.....So once they are potty trained, then we are all home free...:laugh: Maybe you should talk to my SIL whose still chasing around a rambunctious and developmentally challenged "oops" kid they had when they were in their mid 40's ...He's now 8 and still is a handful...You cant take him anywhere, he doesn't sleep through the night etc.In fact he just recently stopped wearing pull up diapers....She looks like she aged 20 years since this kid came around and while neither one would admit it, if they were honest, they would tell you they just don't have it in them anymore.. And they'll be collecting social security when the kid needs a couple hundred grand for college....Great.. See, I think most people never realize what life is like until they are thrown in it..And you wont ever hear anything negative from people who have done it, because they are never going to admit they may have made a mistake having a kid at this stage of life.. TFY Link to post Share on other sites
HiCrunchy Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 I think you should be more open minded and try alternatives. Be open to divorced women, women with children, single older women (30 - 35 is good range I think). Non of these things make women damaged goods. You aren't 22 anymore, so trying to date 22 year old is gonna probably not work out the way you want it to. Not just because ur old. You are in different places in life, and most likely she won't be able to just settle down and have your babies for you as you would like. She will act like a 22 yearold. She might party sometimes, wanna be out late with the girls, and might not want to trade that to nurse a toddler. Women 30 - 35 can still have children just fine. Mama had me at 35 and my sister at 38. Yep, I was her first! This was also 23 years ago, so technology surely has gotten better to give you those biolgoical babies if that is what you want. Just wondering, if you were so concerned about having children that were biological, why didn't you settle down a little earlier with a woman of a similar age range or slightly younger? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
HiCrunchy Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 TBH, your post reads "I'm old dude pushing 40. How can I get young 20'somethings to wanna bang me still". 5 Link to post Share on other sites
HiCrunchy Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 i'm 23 and I don't think I would ever wanna date a man that is in his mid 30s. I think 28 is the max I would go and he would have to be a real catch. You would be better off dating women your own age, give or take 7 years. Latest you can hope for is late 20s my friend. Yeah, you are right. Some late 20s women still thinks I am out of their dating range... Yeah that is what I meant by hope. If you are lucky some might think your in their dating range, but ur gonna be fishing for a long time. Again, my honest advice is aim for 30 - 35 year olds. They are your best bet. Not too old to have children and can still be hot enough for you. Link to post Share on other sites
guest569 Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 Yes, some in their 20s might be willing to lower their bar. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
alluc Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 Move to Asia. Link to post Share on other sites
Logo Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 Women, just as men in their 20s are far from mature. Of course it all depends on family, environment, socio-economic status, but I have found that even speaking to people in their 20s is mentally painful. It’s an entirely different generation with serious social problems these days. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Gaeta Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 Really??.....So once they are potty trained, then we are all home free...:laugh: You are putting words in my mouth. Something you've done a lot on this thread. Maybe you should talk to my SIL whose still chasing around a rambunctious and developmentally challenged "oops" kid Sorry for them but has nothing to do with having kids in your 30s. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts