Dating and the Biological Clock

iptba

karaokeman wrote: »

I've read that having children at a later age (50s abouts) increases the chances of them having Downs Syndrome. I'm no science nerd so I wouldn't be able to explain the factors that cause this to happen.

That said I have an uncle who didn't have kids until his early 50s, and his last was born when he was 56, and none of them have any sort of medical condition.

I'm no expert on this but just looked this up.

Epidemiology

The CDC estimates that about 1 of every 691 babies born in the United States each year is born with Down syndrome.[8] Each year about 6,000 babies in the United States are born with this condition. Approximately 95% of these are trisomy 21.

Maternal age influences the chances of conceiving a baby with Down syndrome. At maternal age 20 to 24, the probability is one in 1562; at age 35 to 39 the probability is one in 214, and above age 45 the probability is one in 19.[88] Although the probability increases with maternal age, 80% of children with Down syndrome are born to women under the age of 35,[89] reflecting the overall fertility of that age group. Recent data also suggest that paternal age, especially beyond 42,[90] also increases the risk of Down syndrome manifesting.[91]

91. Warner, Jennifer. "Dad's Age Raises Down Syndrome Risk, Too", "WebMD Medical News". Retrieved 2007-09-29.
http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20030701/dad-age-down-syndrome

http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20030701/dad-age-down-syndrome

Dad's Age Raises Down Syndrome Risk, Too
Combined Effect of Older Mothers and Fathers Increases Baby's Risk

Previous studies have shown that the risk of a woman having a baby with Down syndrome rises dramatically after she reaches 35. Although this effect of maternal age on Down syndrome risk is well known, researchers say the influence of the father's age on Down syndrome has not yet been defined. Some studies have found no relationship, while other, smaller studies have suggested that older fathers may raise the risk of Down syndrome.

[..]

"Paternal age has an effect on Down syndrome but only in mothers 35 years old and older," write researcher Harry Fisch, MD, of the department of urology at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City, and colleagues. "In younger women, in whom age was not a risk factor for Down syndrome, there was no paternal effect."

Pawwed Rig

There are benefits too in that children of older fathers tend to live longer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18392873

mrcheez

You could always adopt?

capefear

Im 41 and had always said I didn't want kids but that changed as I meet the one and we were together for 10 years the first six or seven years were great, we had are own business and had nice holidays, nice house, worked for our self and everything seemed to be ticking a long nicely. As the years went on we started thinking about a family and around 37 - 38 nothing was stirring so we went and had all the test etc and doctors said they couldn't see any reason why we couldn't have kids. So forward a few years and still nothing. Then we hit the bad times, partly due to not been able to have kids together we both took that hard, the business failed because it depended a lot on the construction industry, negativity equity, periods of unemployment, health problems etc etc etc.

So I have started to realize that there is a very very good chance that kids are not in my future and it hurts. I have tried to get back in the dating game but having let myself go over the years, (Im no Brad Pitt) and tried the online dating thing it seems ladies in their mid 30's don't seem to want a man in his 40's, as its all based on photos not personality, so your not giving much of a chance.

So my advice to you young bucks, is enjoy life, keep in shape, respect the lady your with, be honest with her and each other about what you want, talk to each other and if it starts getting serious have all the tests and most off all be aware that time flies. When I was 35, I said I had loads of time for kids and that seemed only yesterday.

Now Im off to adopt a dog ;-)

Galwayguy35

My father was 57 when I was born, he was a good man who worked hard to provide for us but looking back I had nothing in common with him and our views on everything were worlds apart, by the time I was 10 he was a pensioner and he was dead by the time i was 21.

That's why although I know no one can predict the future I would imagine that if by the time I reached my early 40s and haven't had any kids I will decide that it's just one of those things that wasn't meant to be.

The Corinthian

If you want to 'settle down' and start a family, there's a few things I would, from my experience, advise:

To begin with, the age of the prospective mother is by far the single largest determinant to having healthy children. Certainly you'll hear of women in their mid-forties getting pregnant naturally and 25-year olds giving birth to children with Down's syndrome, but this are by far the exception rather than the rule. Typically, when someone brings up such exceptions in discussions it seems to be a woman 9/10 times, I've noticed.

How many kids do you want? I ask because if you start when your other half is 38, then you'll probably only get one at best. Even at 33 you'll have to be on a fairly brutal schedule if you want more than two or three. And if you want a big family, then realistically you should be settling down before you're thirty, let alone the mother-to-be.

And that brings us to when you meet. When you hit your thirties, you'll suddenly notice friends who meet a girl, also in her thirties, and within two years they're married and have a child on the way - the 21st century equivalent of a shotgun wedding. This means in under 24 months, two strangers have met, decided to have a lifelong legal commitment to each other and started a family.

I'll leave you to reach your own conclusions on such 'love' matches.

Also do remember men have a biological clock too, like women, but it works differently; we can biologically have children when we're eighty, but with who? At the end of the day, you still have to attract a woman of child baring age and naturally this will become harder as you yourself grow older.

Nonetheless, fortunately we have far better chances to be with women younger than us, for various social and perhaps biological reasons. How much younger depends upon your personality, charm, health, attractiveness and (call a spade a spade) wealth; age gaps of anything between five and twenty years (with the man being the older party) are not unusual.

In conclusion:

• Don't panic and rush into anything. Better to take things slowly and carefully than rush to have kids that you'll be lucky to see once a week when you divorce.
• Beware 30-somethings. Even if you don't have an agenda, they often do.
• Men can wait longer than women; but don't depend on it and we too have an effective cut off date. Especially if you're an overweight, ugly loser in a dead end job.
• There's no shortage of 25-year olds with father complexes.

capefear

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6511/David-Jason-father.html

There's hope for us all :-)

Jogathon

Oh Corinthian, your posts always depress me. It's just such a negative view of women. We're not all out to trap.

The biological clock thing does worry me though. I'm 33, seeing a guy since Christmas, he's 30. I'm having fun but if this doesn't work out then have I just wasted more time? I'm not in the slightest bit broody now, but I imagine that I will be in the future.

riveratom

Jogathon wrote: »

Oh Corinthian, your posts always depress me. It's just such a negative view of women. We're not all out to trap.

The biological clock thing does worry me though. I'm 33, seeing a guy since Christmas, he's 30. I'm having fun but if this doesn't work out then have I just wasted more time? I'm not in the slightest bit broody now, but I imagine that I will be in the future.

I think this is a good illustration of why people say to bring up the whole 'so what do you want for the future' / thinly veiled 'do you want kids' talk that has been mentioned. Just helps clarify whether you are both on the same page I guess..

That said, I'd say by now you have a sense of whether he's just going with the flow, or whether you sense there might be something more serious there, etc...

Jogathon

riveratom wrote: »

I think this is a good illustration of why people say to bring up the whole 'so what do you want for the future' / thinly veiled 'do you want kids' talk that has been mentioned. Just helps clarify whether you are both on the same page I guess..

That said, I'd say by now you have a sense of whether he's just going with the flow, or whether you sense there might be something more serious there, etc...

I do sense (he says it straight out) that he is quite serious about me, and I am serious about him. So he's definitely worth the time investment.

From casual chats we want the same things in life. And I can't resist him so that's a bonus!

I guess that I am sceptical of my own judgement at the moment. Thought I was in a good relationship when I was 30, and it wasn't as it turned out!

The Corinthian

Jogathon wrote: »

Oh Corinthian, your posts always depress me. It's just such a negative view of women. We're not all out to trap.

I never said you were all out to trap. TBH, I suspect very few are actually actively seeking to trap anyone.

However, with the deadline of 40 looming, it does appear as if the actual person becomes a secondary consideration to settling down in the first place and I think this thinking is more true of women than men.

Men can be just as bad, but we lack the focus that the big four-oh engenders. We see articles about men like David Jason having kids at 60 and relax, never realizing that most of us are not famous, rich or even terribly attractive - by the time we do, it's too late.

The biological clock thing does worry me though. I'm 33, seeing a guy since Christmas, he's 30. I'm having fun but if this doesn't work out then have I just wasted more time? I'm not in the slightest bit broody now, but I imagine that I will be in the future.

You still have time; just don't rush in. Better never to have kids than to rush into a bad relationship, IMO.

riveratom wrote: »

Just helps clarify whether you are both on the same page I guess..

And you get to tick a box too...

Jogathon wrote: »

I do sense (he says it straight out) that he is quite serious about me, and I am serious about him. So he's definitely worth the time investment.

From casual chats we want the same things in life. And I can't resist him so that's a bonus!

What ever happened to not being able to resist someone being mandatory in love and matching life plans being being the bonus?

Maybe, I'm just a foolish romantic...

blacklilly

Corinthian a good place to start to find a women with whom you'd like to have children with is not to look at us as baby making machines.
Also your comment regarding plenty of 25 year olds with a father complex sounds predator like to be honest.
As a women nearing 27 who can't wait to have children it's comments like yours that make me very skeptical towards older men. Many women know by the time they are 25 or so if they want children yet most of the men of the same age are no where near to settling down thus pushing many women to choose older men. I'd love to meet a guy my age or a bit older who wants what I want. I don't really want to have children with a man nearing 40.
This is not to say that all men this age who have yet to have children would not make great partners, fathers etc, it's more to do with the way in which Corinthian describes in his post.

The Corinthian

blacklilly wrote: »

Corinthian a good place to start to find a women with whom you'd like to have children with is not to look at us as baby making machines.

Then you're not paying attention; the point I've made is not that I see women as baby making machines, but all too often women do - hence the desperate scramble to settle down with any mammal with a penis that ticks enough boxes, once in the home stretch to 40.

Also your comment regarding plenty of 25 year olds with a father complex sounds predator like to be honest.

Are you telling me that a woman specifically seeking to settle down and have a family and following an agenda to do so is acceptable predatory behaviour (because that too is what it is) or that you'd prefer if only women were allowed to be predatory?

Both genders are to a degree predatory. Both have agendas. My point is that this behaviour has increasingly overshadowed that brief period of history where people actually married for love and returned us to dispassionate matches based upon advantage and check-lists.

But if this is the World we live in, then we must play by its rules; hence my advice.

As a women nearing 27 who can't wait to have children it's comments like yours that make me very skeptical towards older men. Many women know by the time they are 25 or so if they want children yet most of the men of the same age are no where near to settling down thus pushing many women to choose older men. I'd love to meet a guy my age or a bit older who wants what I want. I don't really want to have children with a man nearing 40.

People are settling down later in life. There's a number of reasons for this: Greater social acceptance of cohabitation and sex outside of marriage. More pressure on both genders to establish careers during their twenties and now even our thirties. The breakdown of the traditional family unit in modern society. The potentially catastrophic consequences of a marriage failing for men disdaining us from doing so. There's plenty of reasons.

This has disadvantaged women because women have a biological deadline for reproduction that men do not have with the same certainty - certainly our capacity to attract a mate, young enough to have children, at 50 decreases and many men cannot, but also many men can. So many of us can afford to wait, or delude ourselves we can; but either way it means than we tend to do so - leaving the pool of men ready to settle down in their twenties much, much smaller than the corresponding pool of women in their twenties.

You might not like that; that men don't have the same need to settle down as women until later in life, or that we are able to in the first place, and this may force women to seek older men, but there you go - there's still plenty of women who settle down with guys their age or even younger, it's just that they tend to be a minority.

Ultimately, what I posted was practical advice for men - after all, this is the Gentlemen's Club. If you think it flawed, feel free to tell me where I'm incorrect, otherwise you may not like this advice but it's not for your benefit - if you want that, I believe there's another forum here that might better suit your needs in that regard.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

In conclusion:

• Don't panic and rush into anything. Better to take things slowly and carefully than rush to have kids that you'll be lucky to see once a week when you divorce.
• Beware 30-somethings. Even if you don't have an agenda, they often do.
• Men can wait longer than women; but don't depend on it and we too have an effective cut off date. Especially if you're an overweight, ugly loser in a dead end job.
• There's no shortage of 25-year olds with father complexes.

OP will be delighted to hear there are 30-year olds with an agenda, if it's to bear his children. That's exactly what he is looking for!

My only advice would be to consider commit properly and marry the girl you find before popping out the babies. Having children who are not legally related to you has broken many mens hearts.

riveratom

pwurple wrote: »

OP will be delighted to hear there are 30-year olds with an agenda, if it's to bear his children. That's exactly what he is looking for!

My only advice would be to consider commit properly and marry the girl you find before popping out the babies. Having children who are not legally related to you has broken many mens hearts.

Haha! Send me a PM blacklilly

Yes very true. I'd want to be married first for definite. Of course it doesn't always happen that way, but it's the ideal.

That's also partly why I brought up this whole topic. If you are going to meet someone, build a relationship, have the proposal, plan and arrange a wedding, get married, settle somewhere and then try, then you're talking at least 2-3 years of lead time. And that's only to try for your first! As a 32 year old bloke, that's why I'm more drawn to girls in their mid-late 20s at this stage.

Tombo2001

A comment on this.

I am 40 this year. We are having our third child. I feel a bit old for it.....the whole new born baby thing.....that is not to say I dont want it to happen, quite the opposite.......but I do wish I had the energy I had even five years ago. Now maybe I just feel more tired because we have two kids already, in other words its not because I am older but because I am on a complete threadmill.

But my point generally is, if like the OP you are 32 and 'thinking about having kids' in a vague sense.....to have a family of say three kids......its going to take probably 6 years.....maybe longer if you or your partner insist on being married before hand.

Do you want to be looking after a newborn when you are 40 or over.....Its not easy. Years ago I think men could be dads at 50 plus because they did feck all parenting.....they never changed a nappy.* The world has changed.

I'm not trying to put people off it. I can go on as much as the next person about how great kids are. And they are, they are absolutely fantastic. But just thought it is worth thinking about, in practical terms rather than abstract terms. Because from my point of view......its only two world cups ago that I was the person thinking 'not sure if I want to have kids'.....


* There was an interview in the paper the other day with a 95 year old British art dealer who said his dad was 70 when he was born, and died when he was five years old; and that he still missed his dad every day. I thought it was very poignant. Another time I read an interview with a 90 year old man whose father was killed in the first world war; he said he still cried about it, 80+ years later. Dads are very important to their kids.

riveratom

Tombo2001 wrote: »

A comment on this.

I am 40 this year. We are having our third child. I feel a bit old for it.....the whole new born baby thing.....that is not to say I dont want it to happen, quite the opposite.......but I do wish I had the energy I had even five years ago. Now maybe I just feel more tired because we have two kids already, in other words its not because I am older but because I am on a complete threadmill.

But my point generally is, if like the OP you are 32 and 'thinking about having kids' in a vague sense.....to have a family of say three kids......its going to take probably 6 years.....maybe longer if you or your partner insist on being married before hand.

Do you want to be looking after a newborn when you are 40 or over.....Its not easy. Years ago I think men could be dads at 50 plus because they did feck all parenting.....they never changed a nappy.* The world has changed.

I'm not trying to put people off it. I can go on as much as the next person about how great kids are. And they are, they are absolutely fantastic. But just thought it is worth thinking about, in practical terms rather than abstract terms. Because from my point of view......its only two world cups ago that I was the person thinking 'not sure if I want to have kids'.....


* There was an interview in the paper the other day with a 95 year old British art dealer who said his dad was 70 when he was born, and died when he was five years old; and that he still missed his dad every day. I thought it was very poignant. Another time I read an interview with a 90 year old man whose father was killed in the first world war; he said he still cried about it, 80+ years later. Dads are very important to their kids.

Nice post. Yep, that's exactly why I am thinking about it now. It is a priority for me, and I don't see why it should be treated any differently to any of the other important things in life. I could easily drift along and wake up at 38 wondering what happened, so I'm looking to make sure that's not the way it goes.

Ideally I would love to have 2 or 3 kids. 2 would be perfect and 3 would be just as perfect, if it happened. If I met the woman I'm meant to be with today, that would mean I'd be maybe 37 or so at least, having the second. So that's not much time at all, even though at first glance I am still very much only a young bloke now.

blacklilly

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ultimately, what I posted was practical advice for men - after all, this is the Gentlemen's Club. If you think it flawed, feel free to tell me where I'm incorrect, otherwise you may not like this advice but it's not for your benefit - if you want that, I believe there's another forum here that might better suit your needs in that regard.

I think it is the way in which you choose to phrase some points. It all sounded so mechanical and void of any emotion. I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't be willing to settle for any man in order to have a child. I understand what you say in regards to men not having to consider this as early as women do but prehaps men should start giving thought to this earlier as I think it's best for a child if both parents are relatively young.

Tombo2001

blacklilly wrote: »

I think it is the way in which you choose to phrase some points. .

The Corinthian spoke to men in mens language in a post in the Gentleman's Club. I personally have zero problem with what he said.

wallycharlo

blacklilly wrote: »

...I think it's best for a child if both parents are relatively young...

I would tend to agree.

In my own experience it would seem that the majotiry of people these days decide to have their first child in their early to mid 30s, which would most likely be a decade later than the previous generation. Arguments can be made for and against.

Then again, maybe it's just the people I know :pac:

Tombo2001

wallycharlo wrote: »

I would tend to agree.

In my own experience it would seem that the majotiry of people these days decide to have their first child in their early to mid 30s, which would most likely be a decade later than the previous generation. Arguments can be made for and against.

Then again, maybe it's just the people I know :pac:

The way it goes in this country.........at the start of their lives, people spend close to twenty years on this massive journey that is all building up to one thing......a career.

In your early to mid twenties you finally embark on this 'career'. You spend the next ten years trying to sort it out.

Is it any wonder then that people dont start thinking about having kids until their early thirties.

I do agree that having kids younger is better. But it is easy to say that retrospect.

witchgirl26

I think if you're in your 30's & not already in a committed relationship, you do have to maybe rethink the idea of marriage before a baby if you're looking at people in the same age range as yourself.

For example - one of my close friends is 32 now. She got together with her boyfriend when she was 30. They both realised that if they were to save up & get married before they had kids, she would probably be about 33/34 before they'd start trying so they decided that they'd have a child now as biology has a time limit whereas weddings don't. Happily they have a little 3 month old & are starting to save for the wedding now.

In regards older dads - my dad was 40 when his first child was born & 50 when I was born. Yes it was a bit strange to have a retired parent when I was in my teens but didn't really bother me. As others have said, the older you are when you become a parent does increase the chances that you won't be around for as long. My dad died when I was in my mid-20's. That said, I wouldn't want it different in regards his age & I know no-one else in my family would either.

I also definately agree that if you are nearing 30 or in your 30's (both genders), starting a relationship & want kids, then you should have the discussion about what you both want near the outset coz otherwise someone could up badly hurt/disappointed/resentful.

wallycharlo

I would think that two strong arguments for waiting longer these days would be:

1 - A strong career path can be defined beforehand (and returned too if so desired).

2 - One is usually much better off financially.

Both are strong arguments.

Counter balancing this though is the obvious dramatic drop in fertility and the woman ages.

It's certainly a difficult call.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

My only advice would be to consider commit properly and marry the girl you find before popping out the babies. Having children who are not legally related to you has broken many mens hearts.

I disagree. Marriage only give automatic guardianship which he can apply for the moment the child is born. Or does it offer anything else I'm missing?

(Not that it really matters given that the Irish government, in it's wisdom, has decided to effectively marry you in terms of financial obligations after two years anyway)

blacklilly wrote: »

I think it is the way in which you choose to phrase some points. It all sounded so mechanical and void of any emotion.

As Tombo pointed out, I gave advice to men, which tends to focus on a solution without getting distracted with all the touchy-feely empathy nonsense.

I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't be willing to settle for any man in order to have a child.

Not the point I made. Of course you won't settle for any man in order to have a child; that's why one finds check-lists are often transparently used (in fairness, men will use them too). The criticism was that the emphasis is on "in order to have a child" rather than "man" - men will end up doing much the same too, although as we can afford to wait longer you won't see it until we're much older.

If that is someone's emphasis, then genuinely they're better off not doing so as it'll likely end in tears sooner or later. From a male perspective, if a man is more interested in becoming a father than the actual woman he'll be a father with, then he's probably better off hiring a surrogate, buying an egg and doing it via IVF - way cheaper than a divorce and you get to keep custody of your children too.

I understand what you say in regards to men not having to consider this as early as women do but prehaps men should start giving thought to this earlier as I think it's best for a child if both parents are relatively young.

If culturally (and legally) men had an equal role in child care, that argument would hold more weight.

borrch

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

My father was 57 when I was born, he was a good man who worked hard to provide for us but looking back I had nothing in common with him and our views on everything were worlds apart, by the time I was 10 he was a pensioner and he was dead by the time i was 21.

That's why although I know no one can predict the future I would imagine that if by the time I reached my early 40s and haven't had any kids I will decide that it's just one of those things that wasn't meant to be.

I grew up in a similar situation, my father was 52 when i was born. I always felt i had no father (just a granddad) growing up, and all my friends thought he was my granddad , which was very hurtful, you know how kids can be..! He had no connection to any of his 4 children, did nothing for us but recount how hard he had it after the war 'ye kids now a days have it so easy, at least ye wear shoes going to school' blah blah blah...

My point is there was too big a generation gap, and he was too old to bond and couldn't adjust to family. Shockingly when he died a lot of his friends at the funeral never realised he had children as he never mentioned us. I'm still in my twenties.
I think 45 is the cut off point for having children

Galwayguy35

borrch wrote: »

I grew up in a similar situation, my father was 52 when i was born. I always felt i had no father (just a granddad) growing up, and all my friends thought he was my granddad , which was very hurtful, you know how kids can be..! He had no connection to any of his 4 children, did nothing for us but recount how hard he had it after the war 'ye kids now a days have it so easy, at least ye wear shoes going to school' blah blah blah...

My point is there was too big a generation gap, and he was too old to bond and couldn't adjust to family. Shockingly when he died a lot of his friends at the funeral never realised he had children as he never mentioned us. I'm still in my twenties.
I think 45 is the cut off point for having children

Yes I agree with you.

Galwayguy35

Slightly off topic but I've ofton wondered why is it that men evolved to be able to father children throughout their lives but for women there is a cut off point where this is no longer possible.

In prehistoric times women would be looking for a younger stronger mate so there was no reason for older men to remain fertile as they got older.

The Corinthian

borrch wrote: »

My point is there was too big a generation gap, and he was too old to bond and couldn't adjust to family.

Might have had nothing to do with his age though. Some people are not good with children and others still really should never have children in the first place - be they 50 or 20 at the time.

The Corinthian

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Slightly off topic but I've ofton wondered why is it that men evolved to be able to father children throughout their lives but for women there is a cut off point where this is no longer possible.

In prehistoric times women would be looking for a younger stronger mate so there was no reason for older men to remain fertile as they got older.

Here you go; one theory:

http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v2/n5/full/100149.html

iptba

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Slightly off topic but I've ofton wondered why is it that men evolved to be able to father children throughout their lives but for women there is a cut off point where this is no longer possible.

In prehistoric times women would be looking for a younger stronger mate so there was no reason for older men to remain fertile as they got older.

I've heard it argued that older women will often put time and energy into other children such as that of their children/daughter so there is an advantage in them not being fertile all the time.

If there is a shortage of men e.g. due to the dangerous activities they might get up to, or even fighting with other men, it could be useful that the men that remained were fertile.