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

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.

Why is there a whiff of 'I'm getting on and women aren't interested in me anymore/ever, but AT LEAST I'm not a woman because they're SO much worse off' off these threads?

Women are aware of their fertility and don't need anyone's pity, and men might be capable of reproducing at 80, but lets face it, how many of them are going to get the chance to?

DoYouEvenLift

Venus In Furs wrote: »

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

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.

My views, such as? I think you'd be hard stuck to find any of my genuine, personal views on an online forum I use for the craic so would be interesting to hear your reasoning here lol. And why do you feel I'd like that view to be prevalent?

RobYourBuilder

More defensive than a Mourinho team defending a one nil away lead. Jesus.

It's not defensive when the intent behind something is rumbled and it's pointed out.

RobYourBuilder

Candie wrote: »

It's not defensive when the intent behind something is rumbled and it's pointed out.

I couldn't give a f*ck about your little gender wars on here.

Rubberlegs

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.

I had my first child at 20, unplanned and so I don't know how long it took me to conceive, as I was not keeping track of it. At 26, I took 9 months to conceive, and had a baby with a serious disability. She is doing well now , but will always have problems. At 38, I became pregnant again, after 16 months of trying, and gave birth to a perfectly healthy child. So I guess I'm maybe an example of how age sometimes doesn't mean a thing. But dear Lord , I don't have the energy now that I had when I was 20 or 26. Having sleepless nights with a hyper toddler is not easy in your early 40s !

Venus In Furs

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

I couldn't give a f*ck about your little gender wars on here.

Why start one so?

What's the purpose of it? "Some women are so stooooopid the way they think they think they can get pregnant easily at 40 - an article about one such woman demonstrates this" and an invitation for people like Eramen and thanking him is all it seems to be.

Fr_Dougal

It would be nice to have one of these threads with reasonable debate and no bickering.

Even at that, I'm not too sure of the point of this thread, women are well aware of how their fertility changes with age. I don't see a thread about erectile disfunction rates amongst older men.

seenitall

Reasing Wibbs' posts, you always learn something new... that insulin thingy is interesting!

This biological clock stuff is very individual. Nowadays women in the western world have more choices about their reproduction, so there are also lots more child-free women around, more power to them.

Then there are women for whom everything happened just so, all their ducks in a row with a minimal amount of effort, planning or hardship. We all know women who met their partners at the right time, had kids, stayed the course. Lucky them.

Then there are some women who wait too long, and are too late in the end.

Then there are women who wait a long time, but luckily their genetics predispose them for having children at an advanced age with little complication.

I've always known I wanted kids, and am fortunate enough to have one. I say fortunate because I'm 40, and the aul hormones are definitely wobbly these days. Put it this way, I know what a hot flush feels like! Which I feel is a bit early but what can ya do? It's probably genetically ordained, mother hit full menopause at 46. So, also from that point of view, it is an individual thing.

Ireland is peculiar in that it has the highest birth rate in Europe, I think - but it is still only barely a scrap above 2.0. What's interesting about that is that looking at parents at my daughter's school gate, there are many families with 3 and 4 children. Many. So that would imply that, at the same time, somewhere else in Ireland, there are many, many women with 1 child or no children at all.

RobYourBuilder

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Why start one so?

What's the purpose of it? "Some women are so stooooopid the way they think they think they can get pregnant easily at 40 - an article about one such woman demonstrates this" and an invitation for people like Eramen and thanking him is all it seems to be.

I'll thank who I want and I thank people for multiple reasons. Doesn't mean I agree with their post. This is a discussion forum, youre bound to get views from all ends of the spectrum. That's the beauty of it.

My concern is the below replacement level birth rate in all EU countries and why this is the case. That's it. No interest in gender wars.

mohawk

73Cat wrote: »

I had my first child at 20, unplanned and so I don't know how long it took me to conceive, as I was not keeping track of it. At 26, I took 9 months to conceive, and had a baby with a serious disability. She is doing well now , but will always have problems. At 38, I became pregnant again, after 16 months of trying, and gave birth to a perfectly healthy child. So I guess I'm maybe an example of how age sometimes doesn't mean a thing. But dear Lord , I don't have the energy now that I had when I was 20 or 26. Having sleepless nights with a hyper toddler is not easy in your early 40s !

My point isn't that all older women have babies with birth defects and younger women have healthy children. My own lad is on autism spectrum and I was 24 when I had him. My point is older mothers are more likely to give birth to babies with birth defects. This does not mean younger women don't also have children with birth defects.

By the time a woman is 45 the chances of having a child with Down Syndrome is 1 in 26.

I think that as a woman it is something to consider when planning a family and I know a lot of women don't think about it.

Eramen

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Not a fan of women at all I see - to the point of referring to human beings in terms of what their "value" is. But then again you DID thank "Women in their 30s and 40s exhibit a mix of wishful thinking and woeful ignorance in general". Sometimes what people thank reveals all that's needed to know about them.

And the same can be said of Irish/Western men.

I hate to break it to you but women today are being conned on an unprecedented scale because of the politicised, polarised culture in which we now live.

Both men and women are now seen not in terms of their social, sexual and personal worth - based on their unique, inner character - but instead they are treated as purely economic personalities whose only function is concerned with the production of wealth and nothing else. They are then relegated to an economic class, bypassing their humanity completely and rendered them subservient to the powers that be. To the power of money and politically 'progressive' demagogues. Their real value is not recognised at this point in time. This is why our society is fractured upon so many lines - with our natural being sidelined.

This however is not something that I want or like. I would prefer men and women to tap into their pivotal functions, and to become who they were born to be and to cherish the bounty that life presents to them, and enjoy it. Part of this 'pivotal function' is that women simply must come to a realisation that they must have children while at their strongest and most virile (if having children is their/their partners desire). In their youth. And reject the nonsense being spouted at them.

Also, feminism, false progressivism and the so-called 'equality' movement does in fact not serve women (or men). These have only succeeded in making women equal to their vaginas..

It would be hard to find another point in history were respect for one's gender and sex, as well as the values of masculinity/femininity has been so poor. This, at a time of 'social progress'. It a con, a cruel joke.

eviltwin

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

I'll thank who I want and I thank people for multiple reasons. Doesn't mean I agree with their post. This is a discussion forum, youre bound to get views from all ends of the spectrum. That's the beauty of it.

My concern is the below replacement level birth rate in all EU countries and why this is the case. That's it. No interest in gender wars.

That's a valid concern but laying the responsibility at the door of the women is a bit unfair. You can't have a baby without a male. You can go it alone but who would want to with all the flack you get. So if you're going to raise concerns about why people wait so long to have a child then you have to look at both men and women. You would swear every bloke under 30 is just dying to have kids the way these threads are worded sometimes.

Venus In Furs

Eramen wrote: »

And the same can be said of Irish/Western men.

I hate to break it to you but women today are being conned on a unprecedented scale because of the politicised, polarised culture in which we now live.

Both men and women are now seen not in terms of their social, sexual and personal worth - based on their unique, inner character - but instead they are treated as purely economic personalities whose only function is concerned with the production of wealth and nothing else. They are then relegated to an economic class, bypassing their humanity completely and rendered them subservient to the powers that be. To the power of money and politically 'progressive' demagogues. They're real value is not recognised.

This however is not something that I want or like. I would prefer men and women to tap into their pivotal functions, and to become who they were born to be and to cherish the bounty that life presents to them, and enjoy it. Part of this 'pivotal function' is that women simply must come to a realisation that they must have children while at their strongest and most virile. In their youth. And reject the nonsense being spouted at them.

Also, feminism, false progressivism and the so-called 'equality' movement does in fact not serve women (or men). These have only succeeded in making women equal to their vaginas..

It would be hard to find another point in history were respect for one gender and sex, as well as that of others, has been so poor. This, at a time of 'social progress'. It a con, a cruel joke.

Real profound. Tried to read, but was then reminded of your very "deep" "Only chicks in their 20s are fukable by me, the exception to 'men in their 30s and 40s exhibit a mix of wishful thinking and woeful ignorance in general'" which... kinda... cancels out the above.

RDM_83 again

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

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

Is that a non misogynist point for me me then :P
My white knight point is that its in the general scheme of things a women thats say 22 probably has a lot more options* and attention than the equivalent woman at 37 so an utter denial that on the dating thing a younger woman has more value would be ignoring a reality ask a random group of men and women if they have a fling or so on with a man 10 years their senior and I would be utterly shocked if more men said yes (as a young guy it used to really annoy me actually )

* the options being restricted by her choices, preferences and social conventions also e.g the 22 year old man probably only hold a shallow appeal to a 37 year old woman though maybe thats a more realistic and honest outlook

Wibbs wrote: »

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).

There is the whole having money and being a provider thing too as well, saying this as a man with no money and no stability but it does seem to be the cliche.

Anyway my view is the modern world probably fcuks both men and women equal in terms of this, we nearly all have false expectations and lack of social and financial stability and a dream of eternal youth and success in every aspect

RobYourBuilder

eviltwin wrote: »

That's a valid concern but laying the responsibility at the door of the women is a bit unfair. You can't have a baby without a male. You can go it alone but who would want to with all the flack you get. So if you're going to raise concerns about why people wait so long to have a child then you have to look at both men and women. You would swear every bloke under 30 is just dying to have kids the way these threads are worded sometimes.

The problem facing Europe regarding birth rate is that both the women and the men lead very busy work lives, meaning neither can take care of more than 1 or 2 children without putting their careers on hold. While this is a good thing in terms of the current economy, it is a bad thing in terms of population and the future economy. Here's a map showing the total fertility rate of various western countries(1.57 in the EU);

http://www.mauldineconomics.com/images/uploads/newsletters/Image_1_20130910_OTB.gif

Here is a Demographic Transition Model;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Stage5.svg/2000px-Stage5.svg.png

Stage 1 represents a new country; there are no countries in the world currently in that stage.

Stage 2 is your typical African or Southeast Asian country, very high population growth.

Stage 3 are the more developed countries. The US and much of Latino America is at this stage. So are a couple of European countries(including ourselves 2.01). In this stage, population is still growing, but at a reduced pace.

Stage 4 marks very low, no, or negative population growth. This is where most of Europe and Japan are. Birth rates are about equal to death rates. However it is possible to be in early stage 4, like Western Europe, where your population is still creeping up slightly. But you could also be in late Stage 4, like Romania, where population slowly declines.

Now, there is a theoretical Stage 5(I call this dodo stage), in which population begins decreasing. No country is currently classified as a Stage 5 but most of Western Europe and Japan are about to enter it. I should also state that according to theory, a country can never revert back to a previous stage. This means that we're in some deep sh*t if we don't change something fast. 

I want to discuss the reasons behind the plummeting birthrate, not hit the mattresses and get involved in the gender wars. Hope that clears things up.

eviltwin

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

I want to discuss the reasons behind the plummeting birthrate, not hit the mattresses and get involved in the gender wars. Hope that clears things up.

You could have had that debate if you worded your op a bit better. Its hardly fair to blame women when its equally men who are putting off children. And you could have included those who have decided to opt out of parenthood altogether. Its a worry but its not really the responsibility of women alone to reproduce.

lufties

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.

Great Post, I too feel sorry for women in their 30's and 40s that are single, value certainly decreases. I recently met a lady who is 33, she asked me if i wanted kids, then said she does, but in say 2 years as at the moment she is having fun. This woman was not conventionally that attractive, which leads me to believe she is deluded about reality.

kowloon

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea good luck with that Ted. Unless you're a ride/well preserved/rich/extremely socially clued in/live in a culture where age gaps are more the norm/have dumb luck[you're gonna need at least three of those] and you meet a woman who's into a guy 20 years older, forget about it. Sure you might pull a one night stand, even a mini relationship with that age gap(more outa novelly and curiosity on both parts), but unless you're one of those tiny minority of 40 odd year old men, the 20's are pretty much out for you, or it would be a lot harder than you seem to think

Wibbs, destroyer of dreams.

catallus

kowloon wrote: »

Wibbs, destroyer of dreams.

Don't mind him he's just bitter!!!!

Eramen

lufties wrote: »

Great Post, I too feel sorry for women in their 30's and 40s that are single, value certainly decreases. I recently met a lady who is 33, she asked me if i wanted kids, then said she does, but in say 2 years as at the moment she is having fun. This woman was not conventionally that attractive, which leads me to believe she is deluded about reality.

She's having fun at the moment? Well isn't that just dandy. I really question the priorities of such women - because she wants children (presumably in a healthy, productive relationship) yet there is a real danger of the window shutting altogether, and there's no going back.

It's exactly that type of scenario that can leave someone with much regret. Opportunities have to be seized in a moment. I'd like to think that this is a rare phenomenon but I know it's not. The social structure of society has become toxic when people behave contrary to their own interests.

Venus In Furs

Women: to blame for everything ever, even when they're not to blame, or not solely to blame.

Tarzana2

Eramen wrote: »

Part of this 'pivotal function' is that women simply must come to a realisation that they must have children while at their strongest and most virile (if having children is their/their partners desire). In their youth.

And do this by having sex with 40 something men? Amiright, amiright? :pac::D

Venus In Furs

Eramen wrote: »

Nobody is even remotely suggesting that. You are not a victim so no need for the stage-play.

You and lufties are only complaining about WOMEN deciding not to have children until their mid 30s... despite these women having male partners their age.

eviltwin

Eramen wrote: »

She's having fun at the moment? Well isn't that just dandy. I really question the priorities of such women - because she wants children (presumably in a healthy, productive relationship) yet there is a real danger of the window shutting altogether, and there's no going back.

It's exactly that type of scenario that can leave someone with much regret. Opportunities have to be seized in a moment. I'd like to think that this is a rare phenomenon but I know it's not. The social structure of society has become toxic when people behave contrary to their own interests.

Its a risk some women have no choice but to take. What would your advice be then to a woman of 20 just starting out in life? No one has a crystal ball. We'd all love to know that when we reach 30 that we have a great job and house and a stable relationship but realistically how many do. So what do you do then?

Eramen

Venus In Furs wrote: »

You and lufties are only complaining about WOMEN deciding not to have children until their mid 30s... despite these women having male partners their age.

Me and lufties are involved in the secret, age-old conspiracy against all women.. muhhawhawhaw.



"Shhiishhh... shut up..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBz1fp6EiqQ

buried

The fact is this, a lot of people are having too much fun, freedom and enjoyment for themselves at the minute, nothing wrong with that either. There are so many avenues, probably more than any other time in history, for people to take part in things that they can enjoy doing as long as people have the time to do so. Having a kid reduces that time by a huge amount, and a lot of people, including myself, don't even entertain this bull$hitty, hyped timeframe mindset where "you have to have a child by a certain stage" because there is too much stuff that we can enjoy for ourselves that is going on in our lives.

TheBeardedLady

lufties wrote: »

Great Post, I too feel sorry for women in their 30's and 40s that are single, value certainly decreases. I recently met a lady who is 33, she asked me if i wanted kids, then said she does, but in say 2 years as at the moment she is having fun. This woman was not conventionally that attractive, which leads me to believe she is deluded about reality.

Are you in a position to pity her, do you think?

crockholm

Well Rob,me ol china,I'm doing my bit for population stabilization....Herself will be calving in 5 weeks.Yet again.

ceadaoin.

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Women: to blame for everything ever, even when they're not to blame, or not solely to blame.

How many times has it been posted on here that people (women) shouldn't have kids until theyre able to support them financially. It's said on every benefits thread. Now apparently, doing just that is wrong too. Can't win.

Venus In Furs

In all seriousness, smart-holeness by me aside: I only started (kinda) wanting to have children in recent months. Prior to now, I didn't want to. It was never a case of "I'll have fun until I feel like it, then I'll have children".
Now that the idea of having a family is becoming of interest to me, unfortunately it's not tallying with my age, therefore I accept it may not happen, and that'll just have to be the way it is.

My friend on the other hand is longing to have children, but is single eight years (bar one short-term messy relationship that didn't work out) and it breaks her heart that time is running out. Some of the sentiment on this thread is very nasty and doesn't take into account individual stories.
People should think before they start spouting off about the Sex & The City blablabla lifestyle. It's not always like that.

crockholm

Venus In Furs wrote: »

In all seriousness, smart-holeness by me aside: I only started (kinda) wanting to have children in recent months. Prior to now, I didn't want to. It was never a case of "I'll have fun until I feel like it, then I'll have children".
Now that the idea of having a family is becoming of interest to me, unfortunately it's not tallying with my age, therefore I accept it may not happen, and that'll just have to be the way it is.

My friend on the other hand is longing to have children, but is single eight years (bar one short-term messy relationship that didn't work out) and it breaks her heart that time is running out. Some of the sentiment on this thread is very nasty and doesn't take into account individual stories.
People should think before they start spouting off about the Sex & The City blablabla lifestyle. It's not always like that.

Go for it,it will bring out a part of you that you didn't Think existed,the love,the fear,the joy.Yer Kerry granny would be delighted too:D

RobYourBuilder

crockholm wrote: »

Well Rob,me ol china,I'm doing my bit for population stabilization....Herself will be calving in 5 weeks.Yet again.

Congratulations, man.

crockholm

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Congratulations, man.

Just glad i'm still hitting the target at this stage,mate;)

Eramen

buried wrote: »

The fact is this, a lot of people are having too much fun, freedom and enjoyment for themselves at the minute, nothing wrong with that either. There are so many avenues, probably more than any other time in history, for people to take part in things that they can enjoy doing as long as people have the time to do so. Having a kid reduces that time by a huge amount, and a lot of people, including myself, don't even entertain this bull$hitty, hyped timeframe mindset where "you have to have a child by a certain stage" because there is too much stuff that we can enjoy for ourselves that is going on in our lives.

Childhood never ends.. life never begins. I see what you mean.

Living for and through others (not for oneself) is the criterion which a person should measure themselves.

There's no gain in self-absorption (though I recognise to an extent what you're saying).

buried

Eramen wrote: »

Childhood never ends.. life never begins. I see what you mean.

Living for and through others (not for oneself) is the criterion which a person should measure themselves.

There's no gain in self-absorption (though I recognise to an extent what you're saying).

Yeah, depends on what sort of person you are though Eramen. I see mates of mine who got married early and had kids, and to me, they seem to live the most miserable, regimented existence imaginable, but that's how I see it from the outside while living a different life y'know? They, themselves, are no doubt, definitely happy out about how they live that life and love it but the likes of some others just can't get into that mindset.

TheBeardedLady

In the past you might've married your neighbour who you kind of liked but times are different now. My mother mightn't have married my dad (her neighbour) and had 4 kids in the space of 6 years and another one 5 years later and died at the age of 48 if she'd been born later. People (women AND men) have options now with regards to career, contraception, travel, fun etc. and that's brilliant in my book.

I had fun in my 20s and I would've liked to have met "the one" (whatever that means) back then but I didn't and that was grand as I was enjoying myself. That's how things worked out. The pressure to meet someone, get a mortgage, settle down wasn't there.

I met what I believe is the man I'd like to spend the rest of my life with 5 years ago. He's 44 and obviously things didn't work out for him on the love front either and he was busy doing other things as well and wasn't willing to settle and I suppose we're both paying the price children-wise as we don't have all the time in the world as a result. He was happy enough to go with the flow but being the total battle axe that I am, I had to gently remind him my time is limited on that front and more definite plans have to be made for BOTH our sake.

Yes, he could have kids later in life but he doesn't want to be an old (er) dad and he'd like to have them with the woman he loves i.e. me, so that time pressure is on both of us. I'm not calling the shots here and demanding we wait 'till I'm 40 and he's 50, we both have a say in this and that's the reality for the vast majority of couples - it's not solely down to the woman.

Tbh, if we broke up tomorrow, I wouldn't want children. I want children with him, the man I love and am not desperate to breed with any auld gob****e off the street (and vice versa) just so I can have a baby. Most women are the same. Meeting someone you want to be with for the rest of your life is a matter of luck and not something that can be controlled (although it can be helped along).

The responsibility is not solely on my shoulders. I don't plan on skipping my dose of the pill or blackmailing him or whatever. This is OUR decision and my time limit is his limit too.

Venus In Furs

crockholm wrote: »

Go for it,it will bring out a part of you that you didn't Think existed,the love,the fear,the joy.

The bolded is what puts me off, they can worry the shyte out of ya I'd say... :-/

Yer Kerry granny would be delighted too:D

>_>

<_<

Tarzana2

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Tbh, if we broke up tomorrow, I wouldn't want children. I want children with him, the man I love and am not desperate to breed with any auld gob****e off the street (and vice versa) just so I can have a baby. Most women are the same.

This is what I don't get about the broodiness of loads of women - it seems any man will do, which is so strange to me. Then again, I've never been broody so I just don't know what that feels like.

Not sure I'd agree that most women are the same as you. I do know of a fair few women who want a baby no matter what.

TheBeardedLady

Tarzana2 wrote: »

This is what I don't get about the broodiness of loads of women - it seems any man will do, which is so strange to me. Then again, I've never been broody so I just don't know what that feels like.

Not sure I'd agree that most women are the same as you. I do know of a fair few women who want a baby no matter what.

Not saying most women only feel broody when they meet "the one" but I'd argue that most women want a good dad for their kids, which is not something you can simply pick up on a night out.