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

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.

The_Captain

Eramen wrote: »

The world is not overpopulating, that was a doomsday population theory that was concocted in the 60's/70's. It's no longer applicable.

The vast majority of the world is already/is as we speak entering into a period of massive depopulation. The reality is that very few countries are sustaining their populations.

The cumulative effect of this drop-off will not be felt for a few decades, but most socialogists and economists don't think it will be too great for us (especially in the West as we are so advanced into the trend).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

Like I'm going to take advice from someone who tried to kill Batman

Potatoeman

beks101 wrote: »

As previously mentioned, people lie. Or change their mind. Or say what they need to say to maintain the relationship without really thinking about it.

A pattern I've noticed is that lots of guys will think "sure, I want kids. Some day". They just don't realize at say, 25, that 'some day' creeps up a lot quicker than they had expected, say three or four years down the line - as opposed to maybe ten - so when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, it all comes crumbling down.

Surveys in the US show men's interest in marriage peaks in their early twenties where women's peaks in the late twenties early thirties where it drops for men.

I know from my friends that past thirty guys expect a relationship for at least three to five years before marriage and or kids as jumping in has serious consequences.