nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Dating apps and ladies over 35

Hannibal_12

Just browsing some dating apps and there seems to be a legion of women with desire to have kids "someday" which is fine obviously except most of these women are 37/38+ give or take even well into their 40s.
Only on dating apps due to obvious reasons and I'm surprised by it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

HillCloudHop

The risk of miscarriage and birth defects drastically increases for women after 35.

SupaCat95

Mister Vain wrote: »

You obviously had a negative experience with it. My experiences have varied. Plenty of people make it work. Also you'd hardly be their last priority. Just not their first.

Its a great question to ask on a first date "how do you see me fitting in with your friends and family?". If you dont fit in and you had moved everything to be with someone else, wouldnt you feel like a right dope? Luckily I dodged that bullet.

SupaCat95

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's because it had turned into well-heeled Irish parents basically buying non-Irish children from other countries. Children shouldn't be an export trade.

Slightly bizarre allegation about 'perpetually single' Tusla staff - I presume the article that gave you that information has 'conveniently disappeared' too?

You're really contradicting yourself here. If it was such a great earner, they wouldn't be shipping kids off to the UK for fostering.

I suspect you're getting confused between UK fostering agencies operating here like this one and foster kids being sent to the UK.

Press articles don't 'conveniently disappear' unless they contain personal data.

I can barely understand that myself tbf.

No I knew a few Social workers a few years back that worked with them and described them as such and "bitter individuals".

You couldnt understand why you would not want to be at the bottom of some ones list of priorities? That would mean you would be a child minder, therapist and house help with little in return. What exactly is your dating back ground? A relationship takes a lot of work, its not fair when you are shoveling all the crap with no return and no respect from her ungrateful offspring that arent even yours.

SupaCat95

listermint wrote: »

Preserve the family wealth ?

Buddy... You've just said you don't want a family in the last page . So the family wealth will die with you so to speak. Enjoy the preservation the tax man will enjoy it more

That is not what I said at all. Actually I am happily married. But getting married is fraught with danger for men more so than women. If you have a family farm or company and suddenly you have to turn half of it over to someone who may have no respect for it and just see it as an asset then you have to start asking questions..... You have to pay some tax in life but you can minimise that.

Ultrflat

39 male, have no issues if a woman who's 37 or older wants kids.

What I've discovered from dating in your late 30s, people know what they want.

Making a judgments on what people want out of life is utterly pathetic, people have spent there lives travelling working on doing what they want out of life. What because they decide that they want kids. You feel that in some way your entitled to make a comment based you think you know.

Op sounds like he's never lived with a woman or for that matter had a serious relationship. Based on your outlook.

eviltwin

listermint wrote: »

Not sure if that's a thankful thing frankly. There's thousands of lost kids growing up in abusive Familes , chucked to the street at young ages or simply rotating through the foster system

I think it would be nice if there was a sensible approach to adoption to solve this major hole in child services here.

In cases like that children should be placed, where possible, with people in their family. Taking children to give to complete strangers is traumatic for all involved.

[Deleted User]

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I understand that, but the process for adopting non Irish children is pointlessly long and arduous.

That's because it had turned into well-heeled Irish parents basically buying non-Irish children from other countries. Children shouldn't be an export trade.

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Yeah we like to think we have but no we didn't. We replaced the Religious Orders with Tusla. Same "perpetually single women and men" that are with that agency are the same from years ago that were dumped into the religious orders.
That is right fostering is not adoption because there is no money steam from adoption. That is nice little money earner of €350 a week. It might not be a lot of money in Dublin 4 but down the country that is as good as a second salary. Money always changing hands. There was a report that 200 Irish children were being fostered in the UK last year. Conveniently it has disappeared off the net.

Slightly bizarre allegation about 'perpetually single' Tusla staff - I presume the article that gave you that information has 'conveniently disappeared' too?

You're really contradicting yourself here. If it was such a great earner, they wouldn't be shipping kids off to the UK for fostering.

I suspect you're getting confused between UK fostering agencies operating here like this one and foster kids being sent to the UK.

Press articles don't 'conveniently disappear' unless they contain personal data.

SupaCat95 wrote: »

She couldnt understand why I didnt see it working out.

I can barely understand that myself tbf.

Mister Vain

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Why would you make make someone the focus of your life who makes you their last priority? Plus there is always drama with single mothers. More often than not the children will come to hate the "replacement" for their father.

I did it once, came back to a house in chaos, found out the finer details from a buddy (the ex was a body builder who was now up for peddling "charlie"). The first warning was when I came into the house and one of the little runts made it clear in a cross voice "you are not my daddy!". I later asked on the date that night, "If I am going to up sticks and move to Dublin, how am I going to fit in with your friends and family?". I got the reply "you wouldnt, they are very different to you". She couldnt understand why I didnt see it working out.

You obviously had a negative experience with it. My experiences have varied. Plenty of people make it work. Also you'd hardly be their last priority. Just not their first.

listermint

eviltwin wrote: »

That’s because thankfully children are rarely put up for adoption in this country.

Not sure if that's a thankful thing frankly. There's thousands of lost kids growing up in abusive Familes , chucked to the street at young ages or simply rotating through the foster system

I think it would be nice if there was a sensible approach to adoption to solve this major hole in child services here.

listermint

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Ahh but you are picking out me. Once a man gets married he looses the rights to half his assets. If the relationship fails he has to leave the family home, regardless if it was his fault or not.

"Small man bitchiness"? A bit harsh, there is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve your family wealth.

Preserve the family wealth ?

Buddy... You've just said you don't want a family in the last page . So the family wealth will die with you so to speak. Enjoy the preservation the tax man will enjoy it more

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It seems like there is an overemphasis on giving career role models to young girls, whereas I think the old-fashioned housewife option is looked down upon. Maybe we could value both options equally for young women?

Tbh id steer well clear of anyone who didnt want to work/wants to be a housewife (anyone could get sick/unable to work etc though).....

Id feel mugged off paying for everything for someone who didnt want to have their own money.....(though on otherhand many are as well off not working with cost of childcare,which is a whole other can of worms)

Padre_Pio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's nearly impossible because very few Irish mothers give up their children. We've moved on from the days of the laundries, so we provide a basic level of support to parents instead.

It's nothing to do with having 'a decent adoption service'.

I understand that, but the process for adopting non Irish children is pointlessly long and arduous.

SupaCat95

Mister Vain wrote: »

Yeah I couldn't imagine doing that myself. Thinking about it now, I'd probably prefer to date a woman who already has kids.

Why would you make make someone the focus of your life who makes you their last priority? Plus there is always drama with single mothers. More often than not the children will come to hate the "replacement" for their father.

I did it once, came back to a house in chaos, found out the finer details from a buddy (the ex was a body builder who was now up for peddling "charlie"). The first warning was when I came into the house and one of the little runts made it clear in a cross voice "you are not my daddy!". I later asked on the date that night, "If I am going to up sticks and move to Dublin, how am I going to fit in with your friends and family?". I got the reply "you wouldnt, they are very different to you". She couldnt understand why I didnt see it working out.

SupaCat95

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's nearly impossible because very few Irish mothers give up their children. We've moved on from the days of the laundries, so we provide a basic level of support to parents instead.

It's nothing to do with having 'a decent adoption service'.

Fostering is not adoption.

And who exactly is making 'massive money' from fostering? The allowance to foster parents in Ireland is €325 - €350 per week to cover ALL costs, food, clothing, education, entertainment, furniture, bedding and more.

Are you mixing up UK fostering companies that operate in Ireland with 'children being fostered in the UK'?

Yeah we like to think we have but no we didn't. We replaced the Religious Orders with Tusla. Same "perpetually single women and men" that are with that agency are the same from years ago that were dumped into the religious orders.
That is right fostering is not adoption because there is no money steam from adoption. That is nice little money earner of €350 a week. It might not be a lot of money in Dublin 4 but down the country that is as good as a second salary. Money always changing hands. There was a report that 200 Irish children were being fostered in the UK last year. Conveniently it has disappeared off the net.

YellowLead

Mister Vain wrote: »

Yeah I couldn't imagine doing that myself. Thinking about it now, I'd probably prefer to date a woman who already has kids. It's a bit off-putting though when someone plasters their kids all over their dating profile. Like one photo is fine, but there's no need to put the whole album up. Also the amount of women that have half their face cropped out in photos in quite baffling.

I’ve seen plenty of guys profiles where every pic is with their kids too and I find it off putting. But each to their own - I wouldn’t criticise them for it. It might be somebody else’s cup of tea.

Mister Vain

eviltwin wrote: »

I don’t think it’s all that great for guys either. Yes men can reproduce much later but I can’t imagine many older men want to be fathering kids in their late 40’s and beyond. Raising children is a young persons game but how many 20 somethings are in long term stable relationships?

Yeah I couldn't imagine doing that myself. Thinking about it now, I'd probably prefer to date a woman who already has kids. It's a bit off-putting though when someone plasters their kids all over their dating profile. Like one photo is fine, but there's no need to put the whole album up. Also the amount of women that have half their face cropped out in photos in quite baffling.

[Deleted User]

Padre_Pio wrote: »

If only we had a decent adoption service in this country too.

From what I hear it seems nearly impossible to adopt a child in Ireland.

It's nearly impossible because very few Irish mothers give up their children. We've moved on from the days of the laundries, so we provide a basic level of support to parents instead.

It's nothing to do with having 'a decent adoption service'.

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Not entirely true, there is massive money being made in fostering children in this country. The religious orders have been replaced by Tusla, which are the same individuals in different uniforms. Much the same, none of their misadventures get reported in the media.

Now there is a massive industry in fostering kids. There are over 200 Irish children being fostered in the UK, paid for by the Irish Government. Time passes people stay the same and money changes hands.

Fostering is not adoption.

And who exactly is making 'massive money' from fostering? The allowance to foster parents in Ireland is €325 - €350 per week to cover ALL costs, food, clothing, education, entertainment, furniture, bedding and more.

Are you mixing up UK fostering companies that operate in Ireland with 'children being fostered in the UK'?

SupaCat95

eviltwin wrote: »

That’s because thankfully children are rarely put up for adoption in this country.

Not entirely true, there is massive money being made in fostering children in this country. The religious orders have been replaced by Tusla, which are the same individuals in different uniforms. Much the same, none of their misadventures get reported in the media.

Now there is a massive industry in fostering kids. There are over 200 Irish children being fostered in the UK, paid for by the Irish Government. Time passes people stay the same and money changes hands.

[Deleted User]

eviltwin wrote: »

Why it it a choice between having children and a career. Many women do both quite successfully. I managed to have a child in my teens and now have a good career and own my own home. I’m not unusual in that either. If someone wants to stay home more power to them but let’s support either parent in that if that’s what they want.

It's not a binary choice, but it's fairly standard that when women have kids their career trajectory/income tends to level out a bit. Men's careers tend to continue the same with or without kids. I'm not saying it's fair. But generally women who postpone having kids too much can run into difficulties in their 30's as the biological clock ticks down. It's very tricky to get the timing perfect.

Furze99

eviltwin wrote: »

If you’re having kids you want to be with someone you can see yourself with long term. It’s better for everyone if parents stay together but there is a level of maturity needed to have a family and run a home that a lot of younger people don’t possess.

True but mid/ late 20s is hardly young in terms of maturity. Late teens/ early 20s yes - though once would have been perfectly normal to start a family at that age. Most in their latter 20s will be as mature and capable as they'll be. There may be other impediments such as the difficulty of getting stable housing in that age group but that's not to do with sense & maturity per se.

eviltwin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It seems like there is an overemphasis on giving career role models to young girls, whereas I think the old-fashioned housewife option is looked down upon. Maybe we could value both options equally for young women?

Why it it a choice between having children and a career. Many women do both quite successfully. I managed to have a child in my teens and now have a good career and own my own home. I’m not unusual in that either. If someone wants to stay home more power to them but let’s support either parent in that if that’s what they want.

eviltwin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There must be a sweet spot in there somewhere. What's the ideal age for parents to start having kids? Is it the same for men and women? I would propose mid to late 20's would be the ideal? Old enough to have lived/worked but young enough to have the energy to keep up with a toddler.

If you’re having kids you want to be with someone you can see yourself with long term. It’s better for everyone if parents stay together but there is a level of maturity needed to have a family and run a home that a lot of younger people don’t possess.

[Deleted User]

eviltwin wrote: »

Why is it an either /or? Can’t they not do both?

On the flip side having children young is too often seen as a bad thing with younger parents judged all the time.

So you cant win

It seems like there is an overemphasis on giving career role models to young girls, whereas I think the old-fashioned housewife option is looked down upon. Maybe we could value both options equally for young women?

eviltwin

Padre_Pio wrote: »

If only we had a decent adoption service in this country too.

From what I hear it seems nearly impossible to adopt a child in Ireland.

That’s because thankfully children are rarely put up for adoption in this country.

[Deleted User]

eviltwin wrote: »

I don’t think it’s all that great for guys either. Yes men can reproduce much later but I can’t imagine many older men want to be fathering kids in their late 40’s and beyond. Raising children is a young persons game but how many 20 somethings are in long term stable relationships?

There must be a sweet spot in there somewhere. What's the ideal age for parents to start having kids? Is it the same for men and women? I would propose mid to late 20's would be the ideal? Old enough to have lived/worked but young enough to have the energy to keep up with a toddler.

eviltwin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Respect their choices, absolutely. But give them the right advice. Don't tell them not to worry about having kids until they are in their 30's. Educate them about the limits of biology. And respect the young women who might have no inclination to go out and follow careers but instead might be very happy just to have kids

Why is it an either /or? Can’t they not do both?

On the flip side having children young is too often seen as a bad thing with younger parents judged all the time.

So you cant win

Padre_Pio

If only we had a decent adoption service in this country too.

From what I hear it seems nearly impossible to adopt a child in Ireland.

[Deleted User]

Antares35 wrote: »

Why would anyone want 20 babies ffs

You can talk about careers and kids like they're mutually exclusive but yet millions of women across the globe manage just fine to have both. I was 36 having my first and will be 37 having my second. I'm glad I waited. I had time to actually enjoy my youth (or imitating boys as you put it) and get a good education and work my way up the career ladder. It would have been utterly irresponsible for me to procreate if I didn't have the means to provide a good quality of life for those children, my partner and myself. If I'd had them in my twenties I'd be on a third of the take home pay that I have now. No thanks.

And anyway, our sole function is not to reproduce and it's grossly insulting (and definitely not empowering) to reduce all women to this concept.

Congrats to you on the 2 arrivals and for treading the very fine line between work hard/play hard while still managing to have a family. I don't mean to sound like women's sole purpose is to re-produce. But it is a big part of all of our purpose of being on this planet. I just think that there are a lot of childless women in their 40's/50's that wish they had lived slightly differently when they were younger.

eviltwin

I don’t think it’s all that great for guys either. Yes men can reproduce much later but I can’t imagine many older men want to be fathering kids in their late 40’s and beyond. Raising children is a young persons game but how many 20 somethings are in long term stable relationships?

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nobody would judge that 40 year old. Most people would wish them well. But my point is more about the current generation of young women being "empowered" etc to be just like men (but somehow slightly better, as Douglas Murray would say).

Of course nowadays everyone has the "right" to live the life they choose. But there are certain biological limitations on women that men don't really face. An assymetry. Men could father hundreds of babies potentially, whereas the maximum a woman could have might be 20 at a push. This biological difference needs to be considered when women decide on prioritising their career/freedom over settling down to have a family.

Why would anyone want 20 babies ffs

You can talk about careers and kids like they're mutually exclusive but yet millions of women across the globe manage just fine to have both. I was 36 having my first and will be 37 having my second. I'm glad I waited. I had time to actually enjoy my youth (or imitating boys as you put it) and get a good education and work my way up the career ladder. It would have been utterly irresponsible for me to procreate if I didn't have the means to provide a good quality of life for those children, my partner and myself. If I'd had them in my twenties I'd be on a third of the take home pay that I have now. No thanks.

And anyway, our sole function is not to reproduce and it's grossly insulting (and definitely not empowering) to reduce all women to this concept.