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

inocybe

Fantastic! *throws away contraceptives* :rolleyes:

bb1234567

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Which is very unfair on the child

Not really, by that time Id say most people will be living to be over 100 and will be very fit 100 year olds with better technology and health care

bb1234567

Eramen wrote: »

I certainly feel bad for women who are constantly bombarded with the same ridiculous arguments time and time again: to stave off pregnancy/starting a family until the very last minute - that they can conceive and raise a family at 40 and beyond with ease, when they are already quite old, that men like older women/find them attractive. It's all more or less untrue, and this is where the delusion starts.

Having children is a venture for a much younger woman and couple. There's no guarantees at this late stage of the game, well into the 30's or 40's, simply look at the statistics.

So now the 'expectation', through the media, university, and whatever spiel the 'minister for jobs' comes up with, is that women will spend their best years of their life working for the betterment of the corporate boyfriend and perceiving reality through the kaleidoscope of 'Sex and the City', with nothing to really show for it at the end (beyond mere material holdings). They are royally screwed over and we wonder why many professional ladies hold false values and are left bitter as things start to wind down.

Reality itself is being denied. Even if I was single and in my 40's I'd be aiming in the 20's for a lady. There is little interest in women over 30-34. It was the more 'traditional' i.e. common sense, approach to society that gave older women high value in prior times. Now since that approach to society is evaporating very quickly - culminating in free sex for all, combined with the shenanigans of feminism - non-fertile, non-youthful women have zero value unless they are married/have dedicated long haul partner. Take heed, and don't kid ourselves.

And you'll be bitterly disappointed when you find out that the hot 20 something year old isn't any more interested in a dating 40 something year old male you than you are in dating a 40 something year old woman.

Eramen

Eramen wrote: »

Even if I was single and in my 40's I'd be aiming in the 20's for a lady.

I'm in my 20's and wouldn't touch a middle aged man with a bargepole and neither would any of my friends, even if they did want kids that young themselves. You might want to have kids with a girl in her 20's, but she's not going to want to be changing your nappies or pushing your wheelchair when she hits her 50's.

Good luck with it though, give it your best shot.

RDM_83 again

Wibbs wrote: »

And why is the 21 year old woman automatically a "princess"? I've known princesses and nut jobs and sound women at all ages. Generally speaking past 25 all the extra years do is paper over the nuttiness if present.

You see I'm not saying that, I'm saying they are way more likely get away with the princess thing, and if they are a women thats willing to go out with a man 20 years her senior I think its likely too that they will be a bit like that. As people build up life experience they either grow up a bit or are sadly awakened to the shallowness of what they are like, obviously some people are just sound from the start too but its not everyone.
To be honest I agree after the age of 25 people tend to be pretty much the same and its just a "life" stages thing that changes their behavior rather than personality some of the most immature people I've met have been middle aged :mad:

bb1234567

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Yeah, whilst we're all aware of the menopause, I think there is a slight delusion among many career women that as soon as they want to get pregnant in their 30s, they will. Of course, many will, but many won't as it gets harder as you get older.

I don't want kids, I don't think. Just don't really get it and at my age I feel like if I really wanted them, I'd know by now. I'm 30, and honestly, I'm feeling some biological clock pressure, even though I'm not keen on the thoughts of having kids. Should I have them? Will I regret it if I don't? Is this something I should pursue before it's too late?

I can't imagine the quandaries women that want kids go through in their heads if this is what's running through mine!

I think your elderly years will be much more enjoyable if you have kids, you'll be surrounded by people who love and care for you .

eviltwin

Pwindedd wrote: »

I'm so glad I had my daughter young. I'm just turned 40, she's 19. I'm now at the stage where I can go out when I want, come home when I want. And because I'm "old" I don't go mental I just have fun. I'm settled in my career so I have the money to do what I want. Out of the 4 of a group of high school friends I'm the only one with a child. The other 3 went the university route - careers, houses etc. and I'm not really sure why they haven't had kids. I know it's not to everyone's taste and God knows if you don't want children then don't have them - recipe for disaster. I just hope they don't regret it or leave it too late.

We have been convinced by media, feminism etc that we can have it all and truth is you can't. There's always a sacrifice. The lucky few get to have everything but I'd say for the majority of women there's a compromise somewhere along the line.

I'm in a similar situation, I had my daughter at a young age. I found being a mother that young very easy from a physical point of view. I used to be up multiple times during the night and still had the energy to get up to go and do a full day in college, couldn't do that now! But from a social point of view its hard. You don't have nearly enough money at that age to support a child, you often don't have a partner or if you do its unlikely to go the distance. Mentally you might not have the maturity to cope.

Most of my friends thought I was mad having a baby in my late teens. They all were doing everything they could to avoid a pregnancy. Now we're all in our late 30's and some of them can't conceive just as they are at the right stage in their life to have a baby. Its tough and there are no easy answers.

Venus In Furs

Candie wrote: »

I'm in my 20's and wouldn't touch a middle aged man with a bargepole and neither would any of my friends, even if they did want kids that young themselves. You might want to have kids with a girl in her 20's, but she's not going to want to be changing your nappies or pushing your wheelchair when she hits her 50's.

You misandrist bitch! Don't you realise the above is not ok, but the reverse-gender scenario it's in response to is fine?! :mad:

Cool Mo D

The idea that fertility drops off rapidly for women in their 30s is completely wrong by the way. The original research that said that women's fertility plummets at 35 was done based on records of women giving birth in France between 1670(!) and 1830! We are obviously much healthier and better nourished nowadays.

There is actually only a 4% decline in fertility for women between the ages of 28 and 37. Sooner is better, obviously, but the average 40 year old woman will be only very slightly less fertile than a 30 year old.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/21/fertility_after_35_everything_you_thought_you_knew_was_wrong_says_new_atlantic.html

Venus In Furs

Venus In Furs wrote: »

You misandrist bitch! Don't you realise the above is not ok, but the reverse-gender scenario it's in response to is fine?! :mad:

I await the irony-free responses :P

You gotta love the ole 'value' stuff!

bb1234567

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The idea that fertility drops off rapidly for women in their 30s is completely wrong by the way. The original research that said that women's fertility plummets at 35 was done based on records of women giving birth in France between 1670(!) and 1830! We are obviously much healthier and better nourished nowadays.

There is actually only a 4% decline in fertility for women between the ages of 28 and 37. Sooner is better, obviously, but the average 40 year old woman will be only very slightly less fertile than a 30 year old.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/21/fertility_after_35_everything_you_thought_you_knew_was_wrong_says_new_atlantic.html

Hmm find that hard to believe haha, but then again 4 of my aunts did all have 2 healthy children each when they were all 38-42 years old!

DoYouEvenLift

Pwindedd wrote: »

I'm so glad I had my daughter young. I'm just turned 40, she's 19. I'm now at the stage where I can go out when I want, come home when I want. And because I'm "old" I don't go mental I just have fun. I'm settled in my career so I have the money to do what I want. Out of the 4 of a group of high school friends I'm the only one with a child. The other 3 went the university route - careers, houses etc. and I'm not really sure why they haven't had kids. I know it's not to everyone's taste and God knows if you don't want children then don't have them - recipe for disaster. I just hope they don't regret it or leave it too late.

We have been convinced by media, feminism etc that we can have it all and truth is you can't. There's always a sacrifice. The lucky few get to have everything but I'd say for the majority of women there's a compromise somewhere along the line.

Excellent post. It's a harsh truth but one that more women need to wake up to.

eviltwin

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Excellent post. It's a harsh truth but one that more women need to wake up to.

It takes two to make a baby though. Most of my male friends weren't even thinking about children until they were in their mid-late 30's. Not much their partners could do about that except wait.

RDM_83 again

eviltwin wrote: »

It takes two to make a baby though. Most of my male friends weren't even thinking about children until they were in their mid-late 30's. Not much their partners could do about that except wait.

I thought thats what pins or "forgetting" were for
note to mods this is an ironic response!

Venus In Furs

Very good point eviltwin - you'd swear men were all dying to become dads at 25. :pac:

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Excellent post. It's a harsh truth but one that more women need to wake up to.

No it isn't a harsh truth. At all. You and the rest of the Red Pillers just like to think women view it as a harsh truth.

Tarzana2

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The idea that fertility drops off rapidly for women in their 30s is completely wrong by the way. The original research that said that women's fertility plummets at 35 was done based on records of women giving birth in France between 1670(!) and 1830! We are obviously much healthier and better nourished nowadays.

There is actually only a 4% decline in fertility for women between the ages of 28 and 37. Sooner is better, obviously, but the average 40 year old woman will be only very slightly less fertile than a 30 year old.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/21/fertility_after_35_everything_you_thought_you_knew_was_wrong_says_new_atlantic.html

Yeah, read that before, really interesting stuff.

mohawk

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The idea that fertility drops off rapidly for women in their 30s is completely wrong by the way. The original research that said that women's fertility plummets at 35 was done based on records of women giving birth in France between 1670(!) and 1830! We are obviously much healthier and better nourished nowadays.

There is actually only a 4% decline in fertility for women between the ages of 28 and 37. Sooner is better, obviously, but the average 40 year old woman will be only very slightly less fertile than a 30 year old.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/21/fertility_after_35_everything_you_thought_you_knew_was_wrong_says_new_atlantic.html

Women should be thinking of more then their fertility as they get older. There is a higher chance of birth defects such as a chromosomal abnormalities as a woman gets older.

DoYouEvenLift

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Very good point eviltwin - you'd swear men were all dying to become dads at 25. :pac:

No it isn't a harsh truth. At all. You and the rest of the Red Pillers just like to think women view it as a harsh truth.

Wouldn't tarnish myself by being a red piller. I think it is a harsh truth because it's true that lots of women are made to believe they can have it all nowadays and although a lot of that would be down to ignorance and not thinking about long term plans it's kind of hard to still not feel sorry for women one knows who have unbelievable careers yet regret not making sacrifices to have kids and would trade it all for one when it's basically already too late.

eviltwin

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Wouldn't tarnish myself by being a red piller. I think it is a harsh truth because it's true that lots of women are made to believe they can have it all nowadays and although a lot of that would be down to ignorance and not thinking about long term plans it's kind of hard to still not feel sorry for women one knows who have unbelievable careers yet regret not making sacrifices to have kids and would trade it all for one when it's basically already too late.

Its not ideal but its a chance a lot of women have to take. You can't expect someone in their early 20's to be in a position to have a baby.

inocybe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/10838177/Why-fertility-is-far-from-finished-at-40.html

over 40s account for more abortions than under 18s

*fishes contraceptives back out of the bin*

Pwindedd

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Wouldn't tarnish myself by being a red piller. I think it is a harsh truth because it's true that lots of women are made to believe they can have it all nowadays and although a lot of that would be down to ignorance and not thinking about long term plans it's kind of hard to still not feel sorry for women one knows who have unbelievable careers yet regret not making sacrifices to have kids and would trade it all for one when it's basically already too late.

I think the happiest women are those that don't want it all to begin with. They know what's achievable and workable and plan from there. Maybe my 3 friends are happy being childless. I hope so. The alternative is a very sad situation.

RobYourBuilder

mohawk wrote: »

Women should be thinking of more then their fertility as they get older. There is a higher chance of birth defects such as a chromosomal abnormalities as a woman gets older.

Autism and Downs too.

It is common knowledge: As women get older,pregnancy becomes a riskier enterprise. Advanced maternal age is linked to a number of developmental disorders in children, such asDown's syndrome. Now, a study has confirmed that older mothers are more likely to give birth to a child with autism, too.

The authors of the epidemiological study, published February 8 in Autism Research, examined the parental age of more than 12,000 children with autism and nearly five million "control" children between 1990 and 1999, all living in California. The researchers found that mothers over 40 had a 51 percent higher risk of having a child with autism than mothers 25 to 29, and a 77 percent higher risk than mothers under 25.

Autism—a developmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction and communication—appears to be on the rise. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now estimates that as many as one in 110 children in the U.S. has an autistic spectrum disorder—a group of developmental disorders including autism, Asperger's syndrome and pervasive developmental disorder. The prevalence of autistic spectrum disorders in California in 2007 was 12 times that from 1987, representing an average annual growth of 13 percent, according to a report from the California Department of Developmental Services. Only a fraction of these extra cases can be explained by changes to diagnostic criteria and earlier diagnoses.

Maternal age is also increasing in the U.S. A California-based study reported a three-fold increase in the number of births to women aged 40 to 44 between 1982 and 2004. But this trend toward delayed childbearing accounted for less than 5 percent of the total increase in autism diagnoses in California over the decade, according to the study—a finding that surprised Janie Shelton, a doctoral student in University of California, Davis's Department of Public Health Sciences and the study's lead author. "I would have expected to see more of a contribution, because age is a risk factor and women are having kids later," she says.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-maternal-age/

Older parents are more likely to have a child who develops an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) than are younger parents. A recent study from researchers from the Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia and Karolinska Institute in Sweden provides more insight into how the risk associated with parental age varies between mothers’ and fathers’ ages, and found that the risk of having a child with both ASD and intellectual disability is larger for older parents.

In the study, published in the February 2014 issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology, researchers report that fathers’ and mothers advancing ages have different impacts on their child’s risk. The rise in ASD risk with parental age was greater for older mothers as compared to older fathers.

- See more at: http://www.drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/April/Autism-Risk-Older-Parents/#.dpuf

Venus In Furs

So what's with the sh1t-stirring thread/title RobYourBuilder?

Love the "I feel sorry for women who were led to believe they had it all" stuff too. They no more "feel sorry" for them.

Venus In Furs

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Wouldn't tarnish myself by being a red piller.

Your views can be very red pillish though... as you know... brah.

I think it is a harsh truth because it's true that lots of women are made to believe they can have it all nowadays and although a lot of that would be down to ignorance and not thinking about long term plans it's kind of hard to still not feel sorry for women one knows who have unbelievable careers yet regret not making sacrifices to have kids and would trade it all for one when it's basically already too late.

Belief in that view isn't as prevalent as you'd like it to be.
Anyone with slight sense knows they have to make sacrifices for a family/career.

Tarzana2

Tarzana2 wrote: »

In general, or just in the partner attraction stakes? If you're saying they/we have no value in general, that's a kinda worrying sentiment to hold...

The people who come out with this sort of stuff are usually the people who have no interaction with women they're not sexually interested in and tend to have a highly transactional take on relationships, which is all very well if you're not in denial about what you bring to the table...not so good if you don't actually realise that the appeal of a middle aged man is very limited to a young girl with a world of choices available.

You could call it a mix of wishful thinking and woeful ignorance, couldn't you?

RobYourBuilder

Venus In Furs wrote: »

So what's with the sh1t-stirring thread/title RobYourBuilder?

It's the title of the article. I didn't come up with it.

TheBeardedLady

eviltwin wrote: »

It takes two to make a baby though. Most of my male friends weren't even thinking about children until they were in their mid-late 30's. Not much their partners could do about that except wait.

In all my friends' cases, they were the ones to hurry things along and remind their partners that time is limited. I doubt most women want to have kids in their 40s if it was completely up to them. One of my close friends was told, "Sure, we'll see what happens" by her very laid-back, long-term (13 years) boyfriend. They were using condoms and the pill, so I'm not too sure what he expected to happen. Happy days if it was only down to the woman....but it's not. Putting this squarely on the shoulders the woman is completely unreasonable.

Venus In Furs

Venus In Furs wrote: »

So what's with the sh1t-stirring thread/title RobYourBuilder?

Love the "I feel sorry for women who were led to believe they had it all" stuff too. They no more "feel sorry" for them.

Ah, it's friday and it's been a while and it's good to be subtle (as if).

Wibbs

bb1234567 wrote: »

Not really, by that time Id say most people will be living to be over 100 and will be very fit 100 year olds with better technology and health care

Unlikely. Very. People are living longer these days, or at least those born in the early/mid 20th century are. The jury is still out on youngsters today. EG conditions like type two diabetes are on a massive increase and one way to shorten your life is a fcuked up insulin response*. Never mind that, longevity has gone up, but the majority of that is in the massively increased number of people surviving childhood and reaching adulthood compared to the past. In the 19th century even rich families with say foru kids could be near guaranteed to lose at least one before ten years of age. Yes there have been increases in the old age end, but they're a lot smaller, maybe in the order of ten extra years. We're quite the way away from 100 year olds with the body age and capacities of 80 year olds, never mind 60 year olds. The old "three score and ten" measure is still the "usable" age range for most individuals.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

You see I'm not saying that, I'm saying they are way more likely get away with the princess thing, and if they are a women thats willing to go out with a man 20 years her senior I think its likely too that they will be a bit like that.

Yes and no RD. Yes they might be able to get away with princess syndrome with guys their own age, but few guys of 40 are going to take that guff(though...) Then again you might be onto something there RD. Because an older bloke is less likely to support flaky behaviour, this can be attractive to some princess types(of any age).

To be honest I agree after the age of 25 people tend to be pretty much the same and its just a "life" stages thing that changes their behavior rather than personality some of the most immature people I've met have been middle aged :mad:

Pretty much, though as a general rule I've observed that it's women who are more likely to change, to grow and that can really kick off after menopause. As if they leave the fetility madness stuff behind or something. Men tend to hit a certain age(which varies) and at that point they consider themselves fully realised and just coast on that from there on in. Again in general terms I'd rather be stuck in a room with a bunch of 60 year old women than a bunch of 60 year old men.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

We are obviously much healthier and better nourished nowadays.

Aye CM, but I would argue that we may be less healthy overall and if anything over nourished(or giving the appearance of same). As I noted above, things like diabetes are on the rise. Allergies have massively increased. Id argue that mental illnesses have also increased and at a rate beyond the better diagnostic tools. Obesity is on the rise, fertility rates are dropping, in both men and women, but especially men. Sperm counts have been dropping for decades. From that article "One recent analysis found that in France, the sperm concentration of men decreased by nearly one-third between 1989 and 2005". One third for feck sake. Testosterone levels have been dropping too. Rates of testicular cancer have ballooned since the 70's. As one article in the Lancet IIRC proclaimed "You're half the man your grandfather was". In women the rates of PCOS have increased too(also linked to insulin and such. Chicken and egg time, though my money is on the egg).

There is actually only a 4% decline in fertility for women between the ages of 28 and 37. Sooner is better, obviously, but the average 40 year old woman will be only very slightly less fertile than a 30 year old.

The jury is still kinda out on that one. Peak fertility in women is from 20-25 all things being equal. As you say the drop from 28 to 37 is less precipitous as far as starting a pregnancy goes, but there is a higher risk of birth defects and difficult births with it. But yea I would agree that the risks are most definitely overblown. I've seen that in my own family and beyond with women having kids from 35 to 46(in the case of one of my grandmothers) with no great issue. Basically until you're through the menopause keep up the pills and rubber johnnies or you could both get a surprise.




*in a number of studies of centenarians looking for commonalities, there were surprisingly few. Some were drinkers some weren't, some were smokers, some weren't some were thin others were fatter etc etc. Two things were common however; family history of longevity and a very sturdy insulin system.

TheBeardedLady

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats a bit grim isn't it. I mean as a guy I can understand the appeal of a younger partner but at 35 while they might be less fertile they are hardly grannies I'l be out later with a work mate in her very late 30's who will probably be out clubbing till 4.30 both nights this weekend.

And its hardly No value, like if your in it for the long haul wouldn't you rather it was someone that you could actually live with rather than somebody who ticks the right demographic boxes.

Before this sounds too white knighty I do get where your coming from in a way because while a 21 year old will probably get away with the spoiled princess stuff a 37 year old won't but would you actually want to have kids and build a life with a spoiled princess anyway

It's not "white knighty" seeing it from the woman's POV now and then, RD.