Women in their 30s and 40s exhibit a mix of wishful thinking and woeful ignorance whe

kylith

Holsten wrote: »

They hope you'll change, or they change their minds when their biology kicks them in the face.

It's happened to me before, very early on I let them know I do not want children, they are fine with that. Then a year or so later, "I want children".

It would happen from both sides no doubt but I would say the majority of the time it's the woman pushing the issue.

Or you love him and he keeps saying 'next year, next year' but next year never comes.

seenitall

kylith wrote: »

If the guys I was with over the last decade had been honest with me from the start that they didn't want kids I probably wouldn't be in this situation. I feel that since the advent of freely available contraception (not that that's a bad thing) many Irish men have a prolonged adolescence - they don't have to get married and have children to get laid so they have no interest in getting married and having children. They can put off having kids as late as they want so why wouldn't they? When they finally get round to it in their 40s there'll be a fresh crop of desperate 30-something women for them to have their pick of.

So, so spot on.

Men have 10 or 15 more years than women to play around with as to the feasibility of parenthood, and some of the societal and other changes you mention over the last few decades have seen them being able to take full advantage of that fact, more than at any other time previously, to the detriment of the declining fertility of their girlfriends.

It makes all the difference.

Look at men like Warren Beatty, Bryan Adams, George Clooney, Hugh Grant. All confirmed, life-long, very much child-free bachelors or close enough to it (Clooney had a brief marriage when young), all attractive, "players", big kids basically, then suddenly, at 50 years old precisely, the biological clock strikes, they either get hitched or simply start fathering kids with different - and, obviously, much younger - women like there's no tomorrow (both Adams and Grant had 2 and 3 kids respectively within a two year time-frame).

Call me cynical, but I think there is another factor at play here. What I've noticed over the years is that really very attractive men settle down the latest, or settle down with the most effort in bringing them to that point being expanded, at least. I've rarely known an unattractive or nonconfident lad NOT being up for the whole wife-family thing from his twenties onward.

Either that, OR. It may be just the bias of my own experience being brought to bear. Cos when I'm active, I like to take up with tall, handsome feckers and somehow or other, but the whole family thing never seems to be on their agenda. Ever. Coincidence?

My boyfriend now is as above described; at 40 years of age, he knows he wants to have three (3) kids "someday"; needless to say, that "someday" is still light years away in his head, like "in 5 or 10 years", maybe, so quite obviously, I told him whoever he makes babies with in that future, it regrettably (and I do regret it, he's looooovely) won't be with me. I also told him that yes, I fully expect to see him start having babies at around the age 50. Why? Because that seems to be the age where even really desirable men suddenly realise the very last train is just about to pull out of the station, and that they don't want to be left on the platform after all.

Tough luck for their similar-aged ex-girlfriends!

Roquentin

the attractive guys know they are in demand. the unattractive guys know they are lucky to have the woman. they are not as in demand and hence have to yield to the demands of the woman to maintain the relationship

seenitall

Roquentin wrote: »

the attractive guys know they are in demand. the unattractive guys know they are lucky to have the woman. they are not as in demand and hence have to yield to the demands of the woman to maintain the relationship

No, IME there is more to it. They are actively more open, ready and willing to progress the relationship, to commit to the woman. It's not the matter of yielding to pressure as such.

kylith

What I don't understand about guys putting off having children for so long is - do they actually realise how old they'll be for all their kid's milestones? If they have a kid at 45 then they'll be 63 when their kid turns 18, and a pensioner when the kid is celebrating their 21st birthday. The chances of them living to walk their daughter down the aisle shrinks with every year they put it off, as do their chances of seeing their grandchildren. Their sons and daughters will spend the majority of their lives thinking "I wish mum/dad was still alive to see this". And grandparents are so, so important for children - they're a link to the past and to the rest of the extended family. As well as being enthusiastic and inexpensive babysitters. My nieces wear me out totally, I can't imagine what kind of hell it would be trying to keep up with a 5 year old when you're 50.

fits

This thread is beginning to sound a little bit like cúirt an mheán oíche. Which was written quite a while ago...

Culturally, we do have a propensity towards late marriage, its not a new thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Merriman

In the first part, a young woman calls on Aoibheal declares her case against the young men of Ireland for their refusal to marry. She complains that, despite increasingly desperate attempts to capture a husband via intensive flirtation at hurling matches, wakes, and pattern days, the young men insist on ignoring her in favour of late marriages to much older women. The young woman further bewails the contempt with which she is treated by the married women of the village.

She is answered by an old man who first denounces the wanton promiscuity of young women in general, suggesting that the young woman who spoke before was conceived by a Tinker under a cart. He vividly describes the infidelity of his own young wife. He declares his humiliation at finding her already pregnant on their wedding night and the gossip which has surrounded the "premature" birth of "his" son ever since. He disgustedly attacks the dissolute lifestyles of young women in general. Then, however, he declares that there is nothing wrong with his illegitimate children and denounces marriage as "out of date." He demands that the Queen outlaw it altogether and replace it with a system of free love.

The young woman, however, is infuriated by the old' man's words and is barely restrained from physically attacking him. She mocks his inability to fulfill his marital duties with his young wife, saying that she was a homeless beggar who married him to avoid starvation. She vividly argues that if his wife has taken a lover, she well deserves one. She then calls for the abolition of priestly celibacy, alleging that priests would otherwise make wonderful husbands and fathers. In the meantime, however, she will keep trying to attract an older man in hopes that her unmarried humiliation will finally end.

Finally, in the judgement section Queen Aoibheal rules that all laymen must marry before the age of 21, on pain of corporal punishment at the hands of Ireland's women. She advises them to equally target the romantically indifferent, homosexuals, and unmarried skirt chasers who boast of the number of notches on their belts. Aoibheal tells them to be careful, however, not to leave any man unable to father children. She also states that abolishing priestly celibacy is beyond her mandate and counsels patience.

To the poet's horror, the younger woman angrily points him out as a 30-year-old, bachelor and describes her many failed attempts to attract his interest in hopes of becoming his wife. She declares that he must be the first man to suffer the consequences of the new marriage law. As a crowd of infuriated women prepares to flog him into a quivering bowl of jelly, he awakens to find it was all a terrible nightmare.

Venus In Furs

kylith wrote: »

What I don't understand about guys putting off having children for so long is - do they actually realise how old they'll be for all their kid's milestones? If they have a kid at 45 then they'll be 63 when their kid turns 18, and a pensioner when the kid is celebrating their 21st birthday. The chances of them living to walk their daughter down the aisle shrinks with every year they put it off, as do their chances of seeing their grandchildren. Their sons and daughters will spend the majority of their lives thinking "I wish mum/dad was still alive to see this". And grandparents are so, so important for children - they're a link to the past and to the rest of the extended family. As well as being enthusiastic and inexpensive babysitters. My nieces wear me out totally, I can't imagine what kind of hell it would be trying to keep up with a 5 year old when you're 50.

My uncle became a father first at 49, then two more kids. To be fair, I am delighted for him, he is delighted - better that it happened than not at all IMO.
But he would be the first to acknowledge it will bring less than ideal scenarios as his boys grow up. The oldest isn't even 14 and his dad is 63 - telling the boys hasn't been easy.

Tarzana2

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Being straight from the start is all very well but they're just words. You can't hold someoneto their word when it comes to babies. People also change their minds. Or lie. Or don't know what they want and think it's so far down the line they say yes to get you off their back.

It ain't easy.

Yeah, even if you have a little chat at the start, it's not a binding contract!

I mean, I've never been broody. Ever. So, at nearly 31, you'd think it'd be pretty safe to say I don't want babies. But I'm feeling a different kind of pressure, like what if I suddenly feel broody when I'm 40 and it might be too late? People's feelings and views can change.

Roquentin

seenitall wrote: »

No, IME there is more to it. They are actively more open, ready and willing to progress the relationship, to commit to the woman. It's not the matter of yielding to pressure as such.

but its like a game of high stakes poker. the player who holds the aces calls the shots.

the guys who are in demand know they can hop from lady to lady with ease. they hold the aces. The guys who are not in demand know they either have to follow the wishes of the lady or else they face being single again and struggling to find a woman. the lady in that relationship holds the aces and she calls the shots.

now these threats are never revealed but they are unconsciously realized. both partners are aware of how in demand they each are. It is simple psychology of how highly in demand a guy is.

game theory kind of explains it:

http://psychgames.weebly.com/in-relationships.html

The guy is either in high demand or is not in high demand. The lady then has to make inferences based on whether he is in high demand or not.

if the guy is not in high demand, the lady can say "if you dont do this, i do this," knowing that because he is not in high demand he will do as told.

the guy knowing that he is not in high demand and will struggle to find another lady, abides.

LIFE IS PROBABILITY

kylith

Venus In Furs wrote: »

My uncle became a father first at 49, then two more kids. To be fair, I am delighted for him, he is delighted - better that it happened than not at all IMO.
But he would be the first to acknowledge it will bring less than ideal scenarios as his boys grow up. The oldest isn't even 14 and his dad is 63 - telling the boys hasn't been easy.

I'm delighted for him too, but also kinda sad for him and sad for his kids for the future. They'll all miss out on a lot, though I'm sure he's cramming as much in as he can.

bb1234567

kylith wrote: »

What I don't understand about guys putting off having children for so long is - do they actually realise how old they'll be for all their kid's milestones? If they have a kid at 45 then they'll be 63 when their kid turns 18, and a pensioner when the kid is celebrating their 21st birthday. The chances of them living to walk their daughter down the aisle shrinks with every year they put it off, as do their chances of seeing their grandchildren. Their sons and daughters will spend the majority of their lives thinking "I wish mum/dad was still alive to see this". And grandparents are so, so important for children - they're a link to the past and to the rest of the extended family. As well as being enthusiastic and inexpensive babysitters. My nieces wear me out totally, I can't imagine what kind of hell it would be trying to keep up with a 5 year old when you're 50.

Not really anymore, by the time children born now are 18-21 the life expectancy for men and women in ireland will probably be around 90-95

candy-gal1

This topic seems to come round in conversation more and more, particularly since Ive hit 28, the bf is 33 this year with pretty much the same views as me on this as in very on the fence, and still just enjoying life, ticking things off my life list, enjoying my 20s as imho they should be with no children just yet and therefore just being me with no responsability!

I have to ask here though, whats the average age of our parents on here when they had you? mine were 33 and 34 and tbh thats a good age, not too young and not "old" as people seem to think it is nowadays :rolleyes:

Yes theres risk with "older" pregnancies but there are things you can do to combat at least some of those risks, but on the other hand imho Id be more ready to deal with kids, have more of my life sorted and things I want to do done and actually might really want kids rather than just doing it moreso because of the "ticking clock"

Maybe its just me, and if so then thats fine, its just my opinion but as much as healthwise according to doctors etc your best having kids in teens or early 20s, who really wants that HUGE responsability so soon in their life, when theres so much to do, achieve, try and just be as in your 20s etc!

I mean imho, once you have kids your kind of done, you still have that freedom when theyve flown the nest etc and can do whatever you want but your older then so imho wouldnt feel the same, plus youll never just be you again once you have kids, youll always be a mother no matter what age the kids are, so why rush into it?!

I dont know yet if I want kids of not, im very much on the fence tbh, but If I ever did Id want to be secure in my finances, life, lovelife and my mind

Unless of course your main goal in life is to have babies/family then fair play of course

Roquentin

candy-gal1 wrote: »

This topic seems to come round in conversation more and more, particularly since Ive hit 28 and still just enjoying life, ticking things off my life list, enjoying my 20s as imho they should be with no children just yet and therefore just being me with no responsability!

I have to ask here though, whats the average age of our parents on here when they had you? mine were 33 and 34 and tbh thats a good age, not too young and not "old" as people seem to think it is nowadays :rolleyes:

Yes theres risk with "older" pregnancies but there are things you can do to combat at least some of those risks, but on the other hand imho Id be more ready to deal with kids, have more of my life sorted and things I want to do done and actually might really want kids rather than just doing it moreso because of the "ticking clock"

Maybe its just me, and if so then thats fine, its just my opinion but as much as healthwise according to doctors etc your best having kids in teens or early 20s, who really wants that HUGE responsability so soon in their life, when theres so much to do, achieve, try and just be as in your 20s etc!

I mean imho, once you have kids your kind of done, you still have that freedom when theyve flown the nest etc and can do whatever you want but your older then so imho wouldnt feel the same, plus youll never just be you again once you have kids, youll always be a mother no matter what age the kids are, so why rush into it?!

Unless of course your main goal in life is to have babies/family then fair play of course

my mother was 15 and my father was 58 or 59 i think

kylith

bb1234567 wrote: »

Not really anymore, by the time children born now are 18-21 the life expectancy for men and women in ireland will probably be around 90-95

That's almost worse - your children will be just starting their adult lives and you'll have galloping senility. Still, they can change your nappies and their children's nappies at the same time so I suppose there might be some benefits...

candy-gal1

Roquentin wrote: »

my mother was 15 and my father was 58 or 59 i think

Seriously?! well thats a different story, and probably moreso because of the times back then

candy-gal1

kylith wrote: »

That's almost worse - your children will be just starting their adult lives and you'll have galloping senility. Still, they can change your nappies and their children's nappies at the same time so I suppose there might be some benefits...

I would seriously love this to happen, not the nappy part obv, but being able to happilly and healthily live till your 90s at least for definite , even better if there was some major development so that women of any age could bear a child and have it healthy
I know I seem to be in the minority here on this, but tbh I would love that!

I much rather my mother and father looking like my mam and dad rather than my older sister or brother , which seems to be the craze/wanting with a lot of people these days!

Roquentin

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Seriously?! well thats a different story, and probably moreso because of the times back then

i was only joking. i come from a normal dysfunctional family:)

kylith

candy-gal1 wrote: »

I would seriously love this to happen, not the nappy part obv, but being able to happilly and healthily live till your 90s at least for definite , even better if there was some major development so that women of any age could bear a child and have it healthy
I know I seem to be in the minority here on this, but tbh I would love that!

I much rather my mother and father looking like my mam and dad rather than my older sister or brother , which seems to be the craze/wanting with a lot of people these days!

I definitely wouldn't want my mam and dad looking like my granny and granddad though.

Faith+1

Everyone knows when a girl says no she really means yes.......

candy-gal1

kylith wrote: »

I definitely wouldn't want my mam and dad looking like my granny and granddad though.

Would it really matter though?! Because Im assuming that a fair few people on here in their 20s/30s and more have parents who would be maybe in theyre 60s like I have, theyre not old looking but older than when they had you and when you were small anyway!
Once they were financely and mentaly and pretty much physically stable to look after you

Tarzana2

seenitall wrote: »

Look at men like Warren Beatty, Bryan Adams, George Clooney, Hugh Grant. All confirmed, life-long, very much child-free bachelors or close enough to it (Clooney had a brief marriage when young), all attractive, "players", big kids basically, then suddenly, at 50 years old precisely, the biological clock strikes, they either get hitched or simply start fathering kids with different - and, obviously, much younger - women like there's no tomorrow (both Adams and Grant had 2 and 3 kids respectively within a two year time-frame).

Interestingly though, George Clooney's new missus is soon to be 37. Now, they might not be planning childers, but if they are, even though she's a good bit younger than him, the pressure is still on for them! He probably could have gone younger again if he wanted to, but maybe figured now at over 50, tis time to stop chasing the 20 somethings. :pac:

Venus In Furs

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Yeah, even if you have a little chat at the start, it's not a binding contract!

I mean, I've never been broody. Ever. So, at nearly 31, you'd think it'd be pretty safe to say I don't want babies. But I'm feeling a different kind of pressure, like what if I suddenly feel broody when I'm 40 and it might be too late? People's feelings and views can change.

Yeh I had no interest in having children, but now I'm more into the idea. Possibly because I know so many people starting families now and it seems nice (while I can also see that it can be damn hard) although it's not making me desperate or distraught at the thought of it not happening either.

kylith wrote: »

I'm delighted for him too, but also kinda sad for him and sad for his kids for the future. They'll all miss out on a lot, though I'm sure he's cramming as much in as he can.

Yeh he is indeed. He also seems a lot younger than his age - takes good care of himself no doubt. But yeh, the years don't lie. His age is his age.

candy-gal1 wrote: »

I would seriously love this to happen, not the nappy part obv, but being able to happilly and healthily live till your 90s at least for definite , even better if there was some major development so that women of any age could bear a child and have it healthy

Very old age will cause deterioration of the body, and sometimes mind, though - no fighting that.

I much rather my mother and father looking like my mam and dad rather than my older sister or brother , which seems to be the craze/wanting with a lot of people these days!

I dunno. Isn't it the case these days that more people are having children older? I mean, 25/30 years ago, getting married in your early 20s and starting a family was the norm; it's much more unusual now.

Roquentin

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/13/marriage-and-the-art-of-game-theory.html

kylith

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Would it really matter though?! Because Im assuming that a fair few people on here in their 20s/30s and more have parents who would be maybe in theyre 60s like I have, theyre not old looking but older than when they had you and when you were small anyway!
Once they were financely and mentaly and pretty much physically stable to look after you

I think it would. Constantly having to say "That's my mum, not my nan" would be annoying. Not to mention the problems for older parents with energy levels when minding kids as well as the health implication for geriatric pregnancy for both woman and foetus and the much, much higher chance of the child being born with disabilities. 20s is much better than 40s to be having kids.

As my mam* said - "I couldn't afford my first child and I couldn't afford my last. If you put it off until you have the money you'll die childless."

*First child at 21, last at 33.

Frito

kylith wrote: »

I think it would. Constantly having to say "That's my mum, not my nan" would be annoying. Not to mention the problems for older parents with energy levels when minding kids as well as the health implication for geriatric pregnancy for both woman and foetus and the much, much higher chance of the child being born with disabilities. 20s is much better than 40s to be having kids.

Another issue if you defer having children is that you may not be able to bank on the input of your parents, who may need your care at the same time. It's difficult to have a young child or a dependent parent but both simultaneously must be exhausting!

candy-gal1

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Yeh I had no interest in having children, but now I'm more into the idea. Possibly because I know so many people starting families now and it seems nice (while I can also see that it can be damn hard) although it's not making me desperate or distraught at the thought of it not happening either.

Yeh he is indeed. He also seems a lot younger than his age - takes good care of himself no doubt. But yeh, the years don't lie. His age is his age.

Very old age will cause deterioration of the body, and sometimes mind, though - no fighting that.
Well yes,but it all depends how much so which hopefully with medical science and good living can deter a fair bit of that for a while in the future, fingers crossed!

I dunno. Isn't it the case these days that more people are having children older? I mean, 25/30 years ago, getting married in your early 20s and starting a family was the norm; it's much more unusual now.

It would seem so yes, but recently it seems more and more people are going back to those old ways of early 20s even to get married , marraige is a big deal obv and should be thought about with the right person etc but imho having a baby is even bigger!

candy-gal1

kylith wrote: »

I think it would. Constantly having to say "That's my mum, not my nan" would be annoying. Not to mention the problems for older parents with energy levels when minding kids as well as the health implication for geriatric pregnancy for both woman and foetus and the much, much higher chance of the child being born with disabilities. 20s is much better than 40s to be having kids.

As my mam* said - "I couldn't afford my first child and I couldn't afford my last. If you put it off until you have the money you'll die childless."

*First child at 21, last at 33.

Well tbh if someone is going to judge you on how old your parents look they dont seem that great then, as a friend or whatever!
It may be better medically to have your kids in your 20s but imho it wouldnt be better in many other ways, as one poster said on here, your in school till say 18, then if you go to college your there till bout 23 or so, then you need time to sort a job, home, finances, life goals and seeing if you find your life partner, or whether you want to go it alone with having your baby/ies so imho 30s is the best age for everything except maybe medicaly in some cases

Wibbs

kylith wrote: »

What I don't understand about guys putting off having children for so long is - do they actually realise how old they'll be for all their kid's milestones? If they have a kid at 45 then they'll be 63 when their kid turns 18, and a pensioner when the kid is celebrating their 21st birthday. The chances of them living to walk their daughter down the aisle shrinks with every year they put it off, as do their chances of seeing their grandchildren. Their sons and daughters will spend the majority of their lives thinking "I wish mum/dad was still alive to see this". And grandparents are so, so important for children - they're a link to the past and to the rest of the extended family. As well as being enthusiastic and inexpensive babysitters. My nieces wear me out totally, I can't imagine what kind of hell it would be trying to keep up with a 5 year old when you're 50.

I suppose it depends on the 50 year old too K. I came along when my dad was 50 odd and I as a kid didn't see the difference, even though the majority of my peer's dads were 30 years younger. Indeed on my school's sports days he won more medals than I did, beating other dads in the sprints(being a man for the ciggies, long distance was kinda out ). I'm not so sure kids spot these kinda things growing up. Now to be fair, the men in my family are unusual enough, in that they tend to outlive the women and wives in the family, so that makes a diff too. I personally didn't suffer any loss from having an older father and if anything it was a bonus with the depth of experience I had access to and the slightly different take to the "norm".

He passed away in my 30's(before his time compared to the rest of the clan) and yes it was one helluva loss, but in another way maybe it's better that way? IMHO the previous generation may be better shuffling off the mortal coil earlier rather than later, to give their kids room to breath and be their own people. Just my take mind you.

hatrickpatrick

Is it not a bit early in the week for the woman bashing thread?
Regardless, I look forward to the day when science manages (as it is currently attempting) to postpone or get rid of menopause altogether for those who want to. There's no point in the human lifespan getting longer and longer if people can't also postpone starting a family really.

Galwayguy35

Venus In Furs wrote: »

My uncle became a father first at 49, then two more kids. To be fair, I am delighted for him, he is delighted - better that it happened than not at all IMO.
But he would be the first to acknowledge it will bring less than ideal scenarios as his boys grow up. The oldest isn't even 14 and his dad is 63 - telling the boys hasn't been easy.

My father was 57 when I was born, I know how those boys feel and it's definately not ideal.