Dating apps and ladies over 35

Sardonicat

silverharp wrote: »

increased risk of miscarriages, having *mod snip*, it is basically the last chance saloon

Having a what? Maybe reflect on the language you use. There are increased probabilities of complications, yes. But by no means are these a certainty and they simply dont apply across the board.

Housefree

Easy pickings for the snipped playaaa.

For everyone else it's operation relationship warp speed

easygoing39

silverharp wrote: »

increased risk of miscarriages, having *mod snip*, it is basically the last chance saloon

While I agree with youre post,the word handicapped would have sounded less cruel than the "r" word.

Idle Passerby

So rather than be open about their desires they should put up a profile that just says "scroll past, I'm a shrivelled old hag with nothing going for me"?

Saying "open to children" might mean just that, they realise it might not happen but if it were to, they'd be open to it. Presumably they want a man that would be similarly open to it. The baby issue doesn't have to be a black and white dichotomy "I need a child at all costs/ I despise children and never want one". I would say the vast majority hover somewhere in the middle of those extremes.

silverharp

Sardonicat wrote: »

Having a what? Maybe reflect on the language you use. There are increased probabilities of complications, yes. But by no means are these a certainty and they simply dont apply across the board.

which is exactly what increased risk means. If a woman in her 20's believes or is being told she can wait til her 40's or their friendly cubical company offer a freeze eggs program so they can get on the management fast track, they are absolutely being misinformed. In medical terms a geriatric mother is someone who has their first kid above 35

Government buildings

silverharp wrote: »

That's not true in general and would only apply to the more chaotic end of the scale. Any decent woman would know that kids need a father and if they didnt have that attitude if wouldnt be worth having kids with them

The most important thing to a woman is her child, not her husband. Kids don't really need a father. I know plenty of single women who have raised perfectly normal children without any father.

kowloon

Minime2.5 wrote: »

Sperm banks don't provide maintenance payments

Yeah, they're limited that way, single deposits and withdrawals, no loans, no foreign exchange either.

ancapailldorcha

eviltwin wrote: »

I would see I would see this kind of ad as a way of saying she’s open to dating a man with children. It’s not that she necessarily wants them herself.

I think it’s great when people are upfront about their preferences, saves a lot of time wasting. Only on Boards could this kind of directness be seen as a bad thing.

I don't get it either to be honest. Surely, anything that saves time as you're getting old is a good thing. I don't know if I want kids but if I was of one mind or the other then this would be a lifesaver.

silverharp

Government buildings wrote: »

The most important thing to a woman is her child, not her husband. Kids don't really need a father. I know plenty of single women who have raised perfectly normal children without any father.

the flip side is that children raised without good paternal input tend to have more behavioural issues and in working class area will lead to more obvious dysfunctional issues. Life is all about managing risks and its one of those areas where you want the odds in your favor. Im sure a self selected group of women that have everything on point can make it work, but I wouldnt promote it to young people as a completely normal alternative

SnuggyBear

Government buildings wrote: »

The most important thing to a woman is her child, not her husband.

Maybe they should put that in their tinder profile.

While we all have anecdotal evidence of women we know having babies later in life, sometimes surprisingly late as one fine lady I know had a baby in her early 50s, still the facts are that on a demographic level female fertility drops very steadily from the late 20s onwards and risk of miscarriage also increases steadily to 50% per pregnancy at 40.

Even when we were uncomplicated peasants we knew all this kind of stuff about mating - don't lead someone on, don't spin out their time, be an honest man, be an honest woman.

Common sense was good while it lasted, I suppose.

MSVforever

Government buildings wrote: »

The most important thing to a woman is her child, not her husband. Kids don't really need a father. I know plenty of single women who have raised perfectly normal children without any father.

Not always. I know a few single dads who are doing a brilliant job raising their kids.

The most important thing is that parents love their kids and raise them properly no matter if they are single, married, adoptive parents, same gender etc.

AndrewJRenko

silverharp wrote: »

increased risk of miscarriages, having *mod snip*, it is basically the last chance saloon

easygoing39 wrote: »

While I agree with youre post,the word handicapped would have sounded less cruel than the "r" word.

It would still have sounded about forty years out of date.

Have some decency FFS - disabled child or child with a disability. It's not hard to show a tiny bit of respect.

neonsofa

So if a single woman wants a baby/is open to kids in her future, and knows that time is running out, and proactively tries to meet a suitable partner online to make this happen, somehow this is the wrong thing to do cause she's deluded about her biological clock? But if she doesnt go online and just hopes to meet someone the old fashioned way, while the clock continues to tick away, then she is still wrong and deluded for not being proactive / racing against the clock?

But if she accepts that it is unlikely to happen, and doesn't state it on her profile that she would want kids, then she is trying to "trap" unsuspecting men into fatherhood, (and sponge off the state too apparently!), but she is also somehow wrong for explicitly putting it in her profile that she would like kids, because that also makes her deluded?

The woman is already aware of the "ticking clock" if kids are something she wants. And in many cases she is more than likely trying to be proactive about that. And upfront by having it on her profile.

Padre_Pio

isha wrote: »

While we all have anecdotal evidence of women we know having babies later in life, sometimes surprisingly late as one fine lady I know had a baby in her early 50s, still the facts are that on a demographic level female fertility drops very steadily from the late 20s onwards and risk of miscarriage also increases steadily to 50% per pregnancy at 40.

Even when we were uncomplicated peasants we knew all this kind of stuff about mating - don't lead someone on, don't spin out their time, be an honest man, be an honest woman.

Common sense was good while it lasted, I suppose.

This is as good as it gets.

Also the success rate for IUI is very low after you hit 40's.
I'm sorry to say, but if you're a woman that wants children, you have to start planning early enough.

It sucks since most people want to focus on careers, and men, in general, don't want to settle down until mid-30's.

SupaCat95

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Am I missing something, what's wrong with a 37 year old woman wanting kids?

Maths and sociology. Firstly female fertility declines after 26. Its all down hill from there. Kids take a lot of time and energy to raise, do you want to raising a teenager in your 60's?

Then to find a stable partner that hasnt a whole load of baggage with another family post 35 is fairly hard. You really want a guy who has another family or a string of failed relationships? Single at 35 plus, raises a lot of red flags for me like mental health or personality disorders.

Oh that single straight Engineer/Solicitor/Architect/Doctor/Accountant at 35 who is running marathons with the PhD, own house, can drive, with no mental health issues? That unicorn? He is looking at that fine Junior associate at 24.

Artificial insemination isnt the Mecca it is made out to be. The turkey baster for 1,500 is a waste of money and all the 7,500 treatment has the most success but not guaranteed. Also the fertility drug Clomid is linked to breast cancer after about 15 years later. Hence you have all these women in their 50s getting breast cancer in numbers we never saw before.

Moral of the story if you want a man, snag him in your 20's and be done with child birth before 30's.

SupaCat95

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would still have sounded about forty years out of date.

Have some decency FFS - disabled child or child with a disability. It's not hard to show a tiny bit of respect.

We arent talking about respect, we are talking about building a stable family unit that is able to sustain itself. The advice given 40 years ago built stable family units. This "I am a woman and I have choices" isnt working out and building stable families and future populations.

SupaCat95

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Maths and sociology. Firstly female fertility declines after 26. Its all down hill from there. Kids take a lot of time and energy to raise, do you want to raising a teenager in your 60's?

Then to find a stable partner that hasnt a whole load of baggage with another family post 35 is fairly hard. You really want a guy who has another family or a string of failed relationships? Single at 35 plus, raises a lot of red flags for me like mental health or personality disorders.

Oh that single straight Engineer/Solicitor/Architect/Doctor/Accountant at 35 who is running marathons with the PhD, own house, can drive, with no mental health issues? That unicorn? He is looking at that fine Junior associate at 24.

Artificial insemination isnt the Mecca it is made out to be. The turkey baster for 1,500 is a waste of money and all the 7,500 treatment has the most success but not guaranteed. Also the fertility drug Clomid is linked to breast cancer after about 15 years later. Hence you have all these women in their 50s getting breast cancer in numbers we never saw before.

Moral of the story if you want a man, snag him in your 20's and be done with child birth before 30's.

While I would not be comfortable to go out there all guns blazing with that kind of tough talk (because I am a bit of a coward) there is truth in it.

There are also a couple of things that it brings up related to this area.
The whole selling people a ''career'' is a big thing now, being a family person is very low status and has been for about 35 years or more. I think the career thing has been over sold. In fairness, it is really wonderful if one can get some great job that is mentally and emotionally satisfying and creative etc but filling in Excel sheets in a stuffy cubicle or being in service to the digital machines ain't it. Which is the kind of stuff most people who have ''careers'' end up doing in various guises. Seriously, prioritise family early enough instead of that kind of stuff if you are likely to want to have a family. Even if you are heading for being a big wig with a really stimulating career, have babies sooner rather than later. The Excel sheets will all still be there waiting for you when the kids go to school.

And the other thing is even more tricky to phrase. I am not saying settle for the first bucked-tooth sniffling goofball from the village who snogs ya, but there is a cost/benefit analysis to be done eventually on a great many years spent shagging around carelessly - there is an inevitable deflation of the value of romance and intimacy, to be blunt. There is a lot of baggage, I suppose is another way of saying it. Serial monogamy in a considered form at least would be less likely to blunt the palate .
Okay I am done with metaphors.
And running away!

AndrewJRenko

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Artificial insemination isnt the Mecca it is made out to be. The turkey baster for 1,500 is a waste of money and all the 7,500 treatment has the most success but not guaranteed. Also the fertility drug Clomid is linked to breast cancer after about 15 years later. Hence you have all these women in their 50s getting breast cancer in numbers we never saw before.

Presumably, you have some more recent research that this study to back up your claim about Clomid?
https://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20140403/fertility-drugs-may-not-raise-breast-cancer-risk-study

SupaCat95 wrote: »

We arent talking about respect, we are talking about building a stable family unit that is able to sustain itself. The advice given 40 years ago built stable family units. This "I am a woman and I have choices" isnt working out and building stable families and future populations.

I'm not talking about family structure. I'm talking about terminology - using 'retard' is highly offensive to many people with intellectual disability, and using 'handicapped' isn't a whole lot better.

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are also a couple of things that it brings up related to this area.
The whole selling people a ''career'' is a big thing now, being a family person is very low status and has been for about 35 years or more. I think the career thing has been over sold. In fairness, it is really wonderful if one can get some great job that is mentally and emotionally satisfying and creative etc but filling in Excel sheets in a stuffy cubicle or being in service to the digital machines ain't it. Which is the kind of stuff most people who have ''careers'' end up doing in various guises. Seriously, prioritise family early enough instead of that kind of stuff if you are likely to want to have a family. Even if you are heading for being a big wig with a really stimulating career, have babies sooner rather than later. The Excel sheets will all still be there waiting for you when the kids go to school.

I dont think anybody is prioritising a love for excel sheets over having kids, it's more a case of needing a decent income in order to raise said kids, even more so if it's on one income til the kids go to school.

neonsofa

neonsofa wrote: »

I dont think anybody is prioritising a love for excel sheets over having kids, it's more a case of needing a decent income in order to raise said kids, even more so if it's on one income til the kids go to school.

To be brief, I also think that is over sold.

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To be brief, I also think that is over sold.

Which, the need for money to raise kids?

BrianD3

Nature is cruel and beautiful and there is a certain beauty to markets too and watching how they evolve over time. I am in my mid 40s and the clichés about the tables turning on women, no time to recover from failed relationships, wasting time on sexy bad boys etc. are all mostly true.

A 35+ year old woman who is looking to start a relationship and have children is in a weak position. "He/she who cares most, loses". Doesn't really matter what she puts in her dating profile. if she says she doesn't want children or says nothing on the topic, it will be assumed that she is lying or lying by omission. If she says she wants children some day she'll get a thread like this and an assumption that some day = right fcuking now. if she says she wants to have children asap she'll get plenty of interest from lads who see her as an easy lay and will disappear afterwards.

It is tragic for women in one way but in another way some of these were the same women with ridiculous standards when they were in their twenties. Any man under 6 foot 4 was a shortarse and to be dismissed in the most "hilarious" way possible. 15 years later, any man with a pulse will do and then come the attempted rationalisations, she never wanted a tall man anyway because "tall men have problems with back pain" - said to me by a former rabid heightist.

In some ways it is like the workplace - senior people who treat juniors badly would do well to remember that those same juniors may end up overtaking them and being their boss one day.

Username here

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Maths and sociology. Firstly female fertility declines after 26. Its all down hill from there. Kids take a lot of time and energy to raise, do you want to raising a teenager in your 60's?

Then to find a stable partner that hasnt a whole load of baggage with another family post 35 is fairly hard. You really want a guy who has another family or a string of failed relationships? Single at 35 plus, raises a lot of red flags for me like mental health or personality disorders.

Oh that single straight Engineer/Solicitor/Architect/Doctor/Accountant at 35 who is running marathons with the PhD, own house, can drive, with no mental health issues? That unicorn? He is looking at that fine Junior associate at 24.

Artificial insemination isnt the Mecca it is made out to be. The turkey baster for 1,500 is a waste of money and all the 7,500 treatment has the most success but not guaranteed. Also the fertility drug Clomid is linked to breast cancer after about 15 years later. Hence you have all these women in their 50s getting breast cancer in numbers we never saw before.

Moral of the story if you want a man, snag him in your 20's and be done with child birth before 30's.

You make some good points, but seriously? I must get all my mental health and personality disorders that I didn't realise I had checked out. Thanks for the enlightenment :rolleyes:

Sardonicat

BrianD3 wrote: »

Nature is cruel and beautiful and there is a certain beauty to markets too and watching how they evolve over time. I am in my mid 40s and the clichés about the tables turning on women, no time to recover from failed relationships, wasting time on sexy bad boys etc. are all mostly true.

A 35+ year old woman who is looking to start a relationship and have children is in a weak position. "He/she who cares most, loses". Doesn't really matter what she puts in her dating profile. if she says she doesn't want children or says nothing on the topic, it will be assumed that she is lying or lying by omission. If she says she wants children some day she'll get a thread like this and an assumption that some day = right fcuking now. if she says she wants to have children asap she'll get plenty of interest from lads who see her as an easy lay and will disappear afterwards.

It is tragic for women in one way but in another way some of these were the same women with ridiculous standards when they were in their twenties. Any man under 6 foot 4 was a shortarse and to be dismissed in the most "hilarious" way possible. 15 years later, any man with a pulse will do and then come the attempted rationalisations, she never wanted a tall man anyway because "tall men have problems with back pain" - said to me by a former rabid heightist.

In some ways it is like the workplace - senior people who treat juniors badly would do well to remember that those same juniors may end up overtaking them and being their boss one day.

You don't actually know any women, do you?

I think there is a lot of truth in some of the more controversial opinions here. When we are in our twenties the world feels like our oyster, we can be anyone, do anything. Choice is everywhere and that includes on the dating scene. I am generalising because of course experiences differ. On the whole though that's how it can be.

The landscape does change for single people over 35 particularly women. I can understand how some men would now adapt a sneering bitter tinged "you aren't so picky now" mantra. They have no doubt being hurt and discarded. I can understand it but I don't accept it. After all we are ultimately responsible for our lives.

It can take a while for some of us to get our emotional selves together enough that we can recognise a good partner when we see them, that we don't sabotage ourselves. As for the mental health issues? Well. I'm 39 and if I were single now I would be taking a look at myself, at my dating patterns, at what I wanted and importantly what I can offer.

Again with the responsibility.

hatrickpatrick

Jesus the sheer amount of bitterness in this thread is staggering. I never felt like I was much of a "catch" as far as online dating goes but if this is the kind of sh!te I'm up against it's no wonder I'm doing fairly well on the match end of things.

Any of you ever tried just enjoying yourselves and letting other people be who they are?

EmmetSpiceland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think there is a lot of truth in some of the more controversial opinions here. When we are in our twenties the world feels like our oyster, we can be anyone, do anything. Choice is everywhere and that includes on the dating scene. I am generalising because of course experiences differ. On the whole though that's how it can be.

What I find baffling is the idea that someone has to want kids and “find someone”. It’s like people can’t be happy single.

The worst thing a person can do, be it in their 20s, 30s or 40s is to look around at their friends and think they should be doing the same thing.

I know people who bought property because others were doing it, got married because others were doing it and, now, have kids because others were doing it.

More often than not you can see these are the ones who are miserable with their, poor, choices. They are, usually, the ones “questioning” others about marriage and kids etc.

Making important life decisions because of what your peers are doing is never a good idea. Live your own life, your way.

PropBuyer101

SnuggyBear wrote: »

How much time does she think she has? To find a man who she likes enough to have a child with who also likes her enough to have a child with. She's well into the danger zone.
Let's be real here she's living in a dream world unless she wants to trap someone.

are you for real? apparently so you can read the mind and intentions of any woman on this app who is a certain age and hoping to achieve certain things.



u must be a joy to date lol

PropBuyer101

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Jesus the sheer amount of bitterness in this thread is staggering. I never felt like I was much of a "catch" as far as online dating goes but if this is the kind of sh!te I'm up against it's no wonder I'm doing fairly well on the match end of things.

Any of you ever tried just enjoying yourselves and letting other people be who they are?

astounding comments and a very interesting read indeed!