silverharp wrote: » increased risk of miscarriages, having *mod snip*, it is basically the last chance saloon
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.
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
Minime2.5 wrote: » Sperm banks don't provide maintenance payments
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.
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.
Government buildings wrote: » The most important thing to a woman is her child, not her husband.
easygoing39 wrote: » While I agree with youre post,the word handicapped would have sounded less cruel than the "r" word.
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.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Am I missing something, what's wrong with a 37 year old woman wanting kids?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It would still have sounded about forty years out of date.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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
[Deleted User] wrote: » To be brief, I also think that is over sold.
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.
[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.
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.
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?