40 is the new 20!

I’ve mentioned before that my wife often finds great blog fodder from Match.com when checking her juno email account.  Earlier this week I sent one such article to The Private Man, and he used it for his excellent post, Match.com Hates Happy Relationships.

She told me about another one last night, titled Why your forties are prime time for love.  Read this article by Debbie Magids, Ph.D. and you will learn that the laws of nature have been repealed:

Today, turning 40 signals that you’re at the prime of your life
Well, today is definitely nothing like your parents expected it to be. You’re living in a post-millennium world now. Society has evolved, along with the individual notion and perception of what constitutes “age.” Forty is — by anyone’s standards — considered to be young, smart and sexy; just look to Hollywood for myriad examples. Several “older” leading ladies have taken up with much younger men, sparking the cougar phenomenon.

It isn’t just appearances which have changed, but biology itself (emphasis mine):

A woman doesn’t need to rush into pregnancy for fear of becoming too old, rendering her infertile. It’s actually common now for couples to marry and have children in their thirties and forties

I knew many are able to marry and have children in their 30s, but I wasn’t aware it was common for women to do this in their 40s!  I also seem to recall a bit of discussion on this in the comments section of my post on why age of marriage matters, so I thought I would see what data I could find in the 2011 Statistical Abstract of The United States.  Table 80 (image, xls) had the data I was looking for.  She is right, things have changed quite a bit in the last few years!  Between 1996 and 2007 (the first and last years we have data for) the percentage of births by mothers who were 40 or over has increased by 35%!  That is right!  Just a fifteen years ago, only 1.9% of all live births were to mothers 40 or older.

Now, it is 2.6%

The average age of mothers at first birth has steadily grown over the last 30 years too.  In 1980 it was 22.7, but now it is 25.

Not all of the article is awful.  I agree in general that keeping a youthful attitude is a good thing.  But there is a difference between keeping a positive youthful attitude, and outright denial of reality.  As The Private Man noted in his post, this stuff is almost exclusively aimed at women.  How many young women today are reading this article and the hundreds just like it (not to mention the books) and setting themselves up for failure?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Aging Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

131 Responses to 40 is the new 20!

  1. I’m thinking that this kind of advice is the reality TV of the self-help and advice genre. It sort of looks like real life but after awhile, the fiction becomes quite obvious and the advice devolves into emotional pornography.

    Thanks for the kind words and the link.

  2. Woof says:

    “Young, smart, and sexy”

    When girl-powerists use the word “smart”, they don’t seem to mean “intelligent”.

  3. b-nasty says:

    Loads of wishful thinking (i.e. marketing lies) in that article:
    “Forty is — by anyone’s standards — considered to be young, smart and sexy”
    Really? 40 is not young by definition, and I’m pretty sure smart and sexy are not attributes that come from age.

    “just look to Hollywood for myriad examples. Several “older” leading ladies have taken up with much younger men, sparking the cougar phenomenon.”
    Oh, right. Let’s look to the Hollywood cougars (probably in the 99% percentile of success and beauty for their age) as proof. Myriad is defined (antiquated) as 10,000. I bet the author can’t even pull a subset of 1000 sexy Hollywood cougars.

    If someone is smarter and more confident in their 40s, why do they need to repeat the mantra that ’40 is the new 20’?

  4. NMH says:

    After 43 the rate of conception plummets; a woman is practically infertile by age 44. Science has done little to improve the age related decline of a woman’s fertility.

    http://www.doublex.com/section/health-science/rielle-hunter-beat-odds

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/life-style/sex-health/2009/07/02/boost-your-chances-of-making-a-baby-115875-21488738/

    So Private Man can take off the condom.

  5. Will S. says:

    Roissy just posted a comparison of Sinead O’Connor’s appearance, 20 years ago versus now; see here.

    ‘Nuff said.

  6. TFH says:

    This is solipism, plain and simple.

    For MEN, it can realistically be said that 40 is his prime. The best of all worlds, in one.

    But for a woman? Virtually anything that a man might want her for (appearance, reproduction) is gone by then.

    The pure solipism of the ‘gender is a social construct’ crowd is amazing.

  7. TFH says:

    I maintain again, that most reproductive clinics want :

    Sperm donors to be under 44

    Egg donors to be under 27

    This means that even women are demanding that their female donors be under 27. Women don’t want eggs from another woman who is 39.

    Sure, men after 44 and women after 27 had children all the time. But they are no longer considered ‘prime’. Some banks of questionable repute are OK with women being 38 and men being 55, but those are outliers, and cases of a relative donating to another relative, or something.

    The prime ages are clear, and women themselves enforce this when shopping for donor eggs.

  8. TFH says:

    If women getting suckered into believing apex fallacy about alpha males is bad….

    …..then the notion that the average woman can be a Demi Moore or Elizabeth Taylor is even crazier.

    I maintain that most women will believe anything that makes them feel good about themselves.

    In fact, just about the most effective thing to do mid-Game is to ask a woman “When do you feel the best about yourself?”, and watch her body language and listen to what words she leans on. Over the next hour or two, feed those same words back to her in many different ways. Sex is almost a certainty in that case. It works over 80% of the time….

  9. J says:

    For MEN, it can realistically be said that 40 is his prime. The best of all worlds, in one. But for a woman? Virtually anything that a man might want her for (appearance, reproduction) is gone by then.

    Yet plently of widows and divorcees over 40 remarry. perhaps not to billionaire handymen, but to perfectly good men their own age and older.

  10. TFH says:

    Yet plently of widows and divorcees over 40 remarry. perhaps not to billionaire handymen, but to perfectly good men their own age and older.

    But they usually marry down; way down. If you observed any woman getting remarried over 36, the majority are marrying way down from their first husband. The ‘good men’ often have children from their first marriage, and financial obligations to them.

    But don’t let that distract your hamster…..

  11. ruddyturnstone says:

    I love how the article directs us to Hollywood for examples. Yep, women who were extra beatiful to begin with, whose looks have been attended to by legions of personal trainers, makeup and hair artists, fashion consultants, and plastic surgeons, and who have made it their business to stay in shape, are surely representative of women in general! And it isn’t as if their wealth and fame has anything to do with them being able to land male lovers in their twenties, is it??!

    “Roissy just posted a comparison of Sinead O’Connor’s appearance, 20 years ago versus now”

    Ouch!

  12. TFH says:

    J,

    Your comment pretty much means the last 5 articles Dalrock wrote went in one ear and out the other for you.

    Seeing a small number of counter-examples and using that to keep your hamster charged up is wrong, and foolish.

    Assuming that the average woman can do what 2% or 5% can do is foolish.

    -‘Plenty’ of women over 40 get married to decent men of the same age.
    -‘Plenty’ of women over 40 have children
    -‘Plenty’ of women marry millionaires
    -‘Plenty’ of women have great careers and still have a lot of kids. Look at Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook!! She proves that all women can do it.

    I think the Internet is a technology that overwhelms the female brain with apex fallacy images. Before the Internet, women were not as vulnerable to apex fallacy.

  13. Kathy says:

    “I maintain again, that most reproductive clinics want :

    Sperm donors to be under 44

    Egg donors to be under 27″

    This is not at all true, and is misleading.

    In my googling I have found, that,
    SOME programs have strict guidlines. Most however have a cut off age of 35-38 for donor eggs.(And I provided two links to substantiate this, on another thread)

    The American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends that egg donors be less than 34 years old. (not less than 27) Big difference! ;)

  14. TFH says:

    Most however have a cut off age of 35-38 for donor eggs.(And I provided two links to substantiate this, on another thread)

    And the same programs allow sperm donors to be 55. So men still get a 15+ year bonus.

    That does not change the age that is considered ‘prime’ (which is a pretty universal number). Or the fact that when a woman herself is shopping for eggs, she wants the donor to be 27 or under. This chart is pretty universal :

    http://centerforfertilitypreservation.com/age-fertility/

    Lastly, note that feminists pressure some clinics to lie about the scientific reality of egg aging. They force a clinic to say that donors up to 34 are acceptable even though all demand for eggs is from women under 27.

    Period.

  15. J says:

    If you observed any woman getting remarried over 36, the majority are marrying way down from their first husband.

    Yeah, like the judge’s widow I know who married the retired doctor. Or the lawyer’s ex who, while raising three kids, married a different doctor. Poor women… Most people I know, male or female, have remarried people comparable to their former spouses. Hell, I know widows who married their husbands’ close friends.

    My hamster sends his love to yours.

  16. ruddyturnstone says:

    “Yet plently of widows and divorcees over 40 remarry”

    Yes, “plenty” of women over age forty do marry. But, as has been pointed out, they marry “down,” for the most part. Also, it depends what you mean by “plenty.” True, the 1986 study which claimed that women over forty had only a two percent chance of marrying was flawed. But recent studies put the number at forty per cent. That means that sixty per cent won’t marry.

    A woman in her twenties, or even her early thirties, can almost always find a marriage partner.

    It’s big drop from almost always being able to find a marriage partner to having a less than fifty per cent chance of finding one. And the trend is working against it, too. If there is a marriage strike, and I believe there is, it is to be found among men older than thrity five. Young men in their young and mid twenties are not looking to get married, by and large. But neither are young women. Men are “waiting” and women are “waiting,” at that age, neither is on strike though. For some time period, say from age twenty seven to thirty five, both genders are looking to get married, neither are waiting and neither are on strike. After a certain point in their thirties, though, statistical and anecdotal evidence tells us, women are no longer “waiting,” but rather can’t find a man who will marry them. And men aren’t waiting either, rather they’ve decided not to marry or remarry. They are on strike. And those few who are looking to get married are seeking women younger than themselves.

    And it only gets worse for women over forty. Their standards have to come down. Or they have to be rich or famous or exceptionaly well preserved or exceptional in some other way.

  17. ruddyturnstone says:

    “Yeah, like the judge’s widow I know who married the retired doctor. Or the lawyer’s ex who, while raising three kids, married a different doctor. Poor women… Most people I know, male or female, have remarried people comparable to their former spouses. Hell, I know widows who married their husbands’ close friends.”

    Anecdotes ‘R Us

  18. TFH says:

    J,

    You are proving Dalrock’s point beautifully. He has tons of data to prove you are wrong, and you have only anecdotes (some of which are from television, no doubt).

    Provide data, and only then you can begin to refute what has been soundly proved here.

  19. J says:

    I think the Internet is a technology that overwhelms the female brain with apex fallacy images. Before the Internet, women were not as vulnerable to apex fallacy.

    Not the internet, just my own life experiences. As someone over 50, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that 40=20 or that there is a billionaire handyman waiting for every divorcee. OTOH, if my marriage were to end, I would fully expect to eventually find a man comparable to my husband (who D categorizes as an “outstanding greater beta). And my expectation is based on what I see women around me doing, not on some Match.com bullsh*t.

    Something to consider against all the old egg data–a man in my age group is most often not interested in having more kids. He may fantasize about a 20 YO, but not be willing to bring her home to meet his 23 YO daughter. A pleasant, fun loving 50 YO woman who still looks good really can attract a lot of those men. It’s not as dire as you guys would like to think.

  20. Kathy says:

    “And the same programs allow sperm donors to be 55. So men still get a 15+ year bonus. ”

    So?
    You are off on a tangent. This is not a men versus women fertility contest..(rolls eyes)

    You have deliberately been misleading, here.

    “Lastly, note that feminists pressure some clinics to lie about the scientific reality of egg aging. They force a clinic to say that donors up to 34 are acceptable even though all demand for eggs is from women under 27.” (LINKS PLEASE- I CAN FIND NO SUCH INFORMATION)

    More obfuscation and nonsense on your part. Reputable clinics(particularly the one in Oz that I linked to) will take eggs up to age 38 because they are viable. This is all about viability not demand.

    So.. When you say
    “I maintain again, that most reproductive clinics want :

    Egg donors to be under 27 ” You are WRONG.

    These clinics are in the business of making money not appeasing feminists. You are pissing in the wind here, TFH. :D

  21. ruddyturnstone says:

    The whole notion of “Fabulous forties” is hamster driven.

    Men, by and large, find women to be most physically attractive when they are between the ages of, say, sixteen and twenty five. All statements to the contrary, in this regard, are simply bullshit.

    Of course, there is more to life than just physical attractiveness, and most mature men are not actually looking for an eighteen to twenty two year old to make into his “tropy wife.” And, even at that, many women preserve their looks well into their thirties. And a very select few into their forties.

    Most mature, succesful men, the kind of man that women in their forties would like to court and marry them, are probably attracted to women younger than women in their forties. A woman is not neccesarily wiser or a better companion or a better person at age forty than she is at age thirty to thirty five. But a thirty year old woman is almost always more attractive than a forty something woman. OK, yes, he doesn’t want to actually marry a teeny bopper who, however hot she is, he has nothing in common with and is at a totally different stage of her life. But there is no reason why he should sacfice “looks” entirely, especially when he doesn’t have to.

  22. TFH says:

    LINKS PLEASE- I CAN FIND NO SUCH INFORMATION

    Rather, you shut your eyes when your Googling saw it. Two links that came up in the very first search :

    Ideal age for egg donors is 21 to 29.

    And here : ‘We do not use donors over the age of 27′.

    And I see this clinical fertility chart makes you writhe in agony.

    Any clinic that allows women to be 34 also allows sperm donors to be 55. So leniency does not narrow the gap that irks you.

    My facts are solid, and yours are not. As usual :)

  23. J says:

    True, the 1986 study which claimed that women over forty had only a two percent chance of marrying was flawed.

    Ah, memories … I was single in 1986. A bunch of my single friends and I contemplated suicide over that study. Most of us are now in our third decade of marriage.

    If there is a marriage strike, and I believe there is, it is to be found among men older than thrity five.

    Dalrock doesn’t believe there is. I guess I’m not alone in disbelieving some of what I read here.
    IRL, I do know a lot of couples in that age range who cohabit even when they don’t marry.

  24. ruddyturnstone says:

    “Something to consider against all the old egg data–a man in my age group is most often not interested in having more kids. He may fantasize about a 20 YO, but not be willing to bring her home to meet his 23 YO daughter. A pleasant, fun loving 50 YO woman who still looks good really can attract a lot of those men. It’s not as dire as you guys would like to think.”

    Right, he doesn’t actually want to marry a twenty year old. But why would he want a fifty year old, when he could get a thirty or thirty five year old? Women over FIFTY do not “look good,” at least not to men. And pleasantness and fun loving ness can be found among women fifteen to twenty years younger.

    You want to play at anecdotes? I know a succesful man (six figure income, professional, owns a house in a hot shot area) who is just over fifty. He won’t even consider a woman for dating/GF purposes (never mind as wifely material) who is over forty. And why should he, when there are plenty of thirty somethings out there willing to date him?

  25. Kai says:

    One could argue as to what defines ‘prime’.
    Women at 40 are past their sexual power prime, and they are now on the losing side of the male/female power balance.
    But a 40-year old woman who has been married for a while, remains in love with the man, maybe with a couple of children, maybe with a satisfactory job… could consider it the prime of her life, and better than the hunt in her twenties.
    But I don’t think that’s what they meant.

  26. ruddyturnstone says:

    “Dalrock doesn’t believe there is.”

    I know he doesn’t. But I believe the hard data and the soft, sociological evidence show that he is wrong, Appeal to authority fallacy.

    ” I guess I’m not alone in disbelieving some of what I read here.”

    Fallacy ad populum.

    “IRL, I do know a lot of couples in that age range who cohabit even when they don’t marry.”

    Even assuming that’s true, it’s not quite the same thing, is it? In many, if not most, jurisdictions, cohabitation does not trigger the bundle of legal rights and responsibilities that marriage does. A guy with a live in gf can, in many places, dump her tomorrow and face no further ramifications, particularly financial ones. Not true with marriage. And the financial ramifications of marriage are among the leading reasons for its popularity among women.

  27. The Anti-Gnostic says:

    “Reputable clinics(particularly the one in Oz that I linked to) will take eggs up to age 38 because they are viable.”

    I think you mean “if they are viable.”

    38-yo eggs are a big risk. Clinics may take them, but I guarantee you the largely 35+ YO customers aren’t buying them.

  28. TFH says:

    I have provided 3 links, and the comment is in moderation due to high link presence.

    [D: Fixed.]

  29. Kathy says:

    You are missing the point here. The cut off period would not be 35-38 if the eggs were not viable (in most instances.) The eggs undergo extensive tests, to determine viability. Clinics would not waste vast amounts of money on eggs that are not potentially viable..

    No one will touch an egg after age 38, however and that’s a fact.

    My whole point has been that TFH has been deliberately misleading, in trying to deflate the donnor egg age by some seven years, and create the impression that donor eggs over age twenty seven are not generally taken by clinics. My research suggests otherwise. Then he tries to muddy the waters by saying that women only want eggs from a donor under twenty seven.

    This, is not the bone of contention here.

    This fallacious statement however is,

    TFH: “I maintain again, that most reproductive clinics want :

    Egg donors to be under 27″

    This is patently untrue.

  30. Kathy says:

    “Any clinic that allows women to be 34 also allows sperm donors to be 55. So leniency does not narrow the gap that irks you”

    So? .. Again off on a tangent. LOL..I don’t care if they take sperm from eighty year olds. It’s not the point.

    And , you have just proved my point with your second link
    “We do not use donors over the age of 27″

    Here is what they say”
    “Unlike many other programs, we do not utilize egg donors over the age of 27 years”

    UNLIKE MANY OTHER PROGRAMS.. Read it again. What this means is that many programs do indeed use donor eggs over the age of twenty seven.. You are providing a select few links that do not represent the majority.. I say again to this statement of yours

    TFH: “I maintain again, that most reproductive clinics want :

    Egg donors to be under 27″

    Misleading and untrue.

    Had you said some, well, that would have been acceptable, instead you try to create a false impression with your blanket statement above.

    Your last link quite correctly states:
    “Therefore, the best age to preserve eggs is between 30-40 and optimally between 32-38″
    Which of course contradicts your initial premise of clinics refusing eggs from women over age 27.

    BTW still waiting for a link from you to substantiate this bullshit below. ;)

    TFH: “Lastly, note that feminists pressure some clinics to lie about the scientific reality of egg aging. They force a clinic to say that donors up to 34 are acceptable”

  31. ruddyturnstone says:

    That may be your debater’s point, viz a viz TFH’s exact statement.

    The larger point is that the younger the eggs, the better. And that most donors and clinics want eggs from women in their twenties. A quick search on line shows that some clinics won’t take eggs from women over 29, others from women over 31, etc.

    Your own statement:

    No one will touch an egg after age 38, however and that’s a fact.

    proves the point.

    Each clinic has a different cut off age. But all clinics take eggs from women who are twenty one to some point in their upper twenties or younger thirties. No clinic seems to actually prefer eggs from women older than that, none limit their donations to women of that age, and some clinics don’t want them at all.

    So, yes, eggs from younger women are preferred. Even TFH’s statement was that that was what clinics “want.” Not that some of them don’t accept eggs from older women. But that the preference is for younger ones.

    That is incontestably true. All else is double talk and meaningless verbiage and batanage.

  32. Kathy says:

    “So, yes, eggs from younger women are preferred. Even TFH’s statement was that that was what clinics “want.” Not that some of them don’t accept eggs from older women. But that the preference is for younger ones.”

    No that is not what he said. Re- read what he said.
    You are puttng your own slant on it.

    “The larger point is that the younger the eggs, the better”
    And, that is not in dispute, here.. rolls eyes..

  33. ruddyturnstone says:

    “The larger point is that the younger the eggs, the better”
    And, that is not in dispute, here.. rolls eyes..

    Then what is in dispute? Whether the exact wording of TFH’s comment was correct? Why is that important? He said that the clinics and the recipients “wanted” eggs from women age twenty seven and younger. You said that many clinics “accept” eggs from women considerably older. OK, you’re both right. The clear preference is for younger eggs, even though some clinics do take moderately older ones. The “prime” age for eggs is twenty something. That was TFH’s original point, and it still stands.

    Roll your eyes over that!

  34. Dalrock says:

    @ruddyturnstone

    “Dalrock doesn’t believe there is.”

    I know he doesn’t. But I believe the hard data and the soft, sociological evidence show that he is wrong…

    I’m not sure we are actually in disagreement here. Part of this is no doubt about definitions. I make a distinction between men being willing to marry at all, and being willing to marry a divorced woman. I don’t see data (yet) for a marriage strike, but I’ve shown quite a bit of data proving that there is a remarriage strike. The challenge here is the studies I can find are all several decades old, and those tend to look back at remarriages for women who divorced another decade or two prior. On top of that, the trend very clear that remarriage rates for divorcées is declining over time. So the data I can find likely overstates the remarriage rate. Additionally, the studies show that the remarriage rate for women declines dramatically as they get older. Under 25’s have very little trouble remarrying. Over 45 and the rates drop a great deal. 26-44 fall somewhere in between. None of this should be too surprising given what we know of the SMP.

    I did find some recent data in the SIPP tables the Census publishes, but it is difficult to interpret. 34% of white women aged 40 to 49 in 2009 had ever divorced, and 17% the same demographic of women were listed as currently divorced. However, tracing it back through previous SIPP tables it is clear that many of those who remarried did so at younger ages. Since women are marrying later now, we would expect them to divorce later as well moving forward (with lower remarriage rates). One other thing which makes the stats hard to pin down is women who have ever divorced seem to have a higher mortality rate than those who haven’t. For example, 40.4% of white women aged 50-59 had ever divorced in 2001. When you look at nearly the same cohort (white women age 60-69) in 2009, only 36.4% had ever divorced. Given that roughly 15 per 1,000 women this age are still divorcing, this number should be growing as a percent of the population. The pattern is similar for men who have divorced. 42.8% of white men aged 50-59 in 2001 had ever divorced. Fast forward roughly ten years, and only 37.4% of white men aged 60-69 have ever divorced.

    Appeal to authority fallacy.

    Agreed. She should have pointed to the data shared instead of the presenter (or better data if she has found some).

  35. ruddyturnstone says:

    Dalrock:

    Thanks for the response and info.

    I guess my take is that what’s going on is a late marriage/remarriage strike. I think we both agree that women in their early to mid twenties are not looking to get married, they are “waiting.” I contend that men in that age group are waiting too. So neither gender is on strike, at that age. I further contend that majorities of both genders are probably looking to get married in their late twenties/early thirties. Neither is on strike, but neither is “waiting” any longer either. After that, mid thirties up, I believe that a very good portion of men are, in fact, on strike. And I make no distinction among men of this age group based on the prior marital status of themelves or of women. Some of these men have never been married, some have been married and divorced. They aren’t looking to get married (or remarried) and they aren’t waiting either. Nor does it matter to them whether a woman has been married before or not. They have simply decided not to marry. On the other hand, most single women, whether never married or married and divorced, are desperate to marry. They are not on strike, and are still “waiting.” Well, at some point, to say you are “waiting” for something which is not entirely in your control becomes a little ridiculous. I could say that I’m still “waiting” for the New York Yankees to hire me to play second base, but the reality of the situation is that they don’t want me and never will. Same for many of these women, they aren’t “waiting” to get married, men just don’t want them and never will.

    We’ve been through the stats. I think they show that the number and proportion of women who have never been married or are divorced is growing, and is growing for every age cohort. So it isn’t merely that women are “waiting.” They either will never marry, or, having married and divorced, won’t be remarrying. The soft data, with women IRL, in media and on line constantly bemoaning the failure of men to “commit,” backs this up. Time was, a healthy women, even a very plain one, would have no trouble getting married. Not so anymore.

  36. Dalrock says:

    Oh, and I forgot to mention the brutal findings of the AARP survey of divorce in “midlife and beyond” (89% of the divorces studied occured when the respondant was 40-55 years old).

    Almost 9 in 10 men (87%) dated after their divorce, compared to 8 in 10 women (79%)… Among those who dated after the divorce, more than half of men (54%) but fewer women remarried (39%). (Page 39)

    Many women, especially those who have not remarried (69%), do not touch or hug at all sexually. An even larger majority of women who have not remarried do not engage in sexual intercourse (77% saying not at all), in comparison with about half of men (49%) who have not remarried. (Page 6)

    And since J likes anecdotes so much, who can forget the true life stories of Eat Pray Love and How Stella Got Her Groove Back!

  37. Dalrock says:

    @ruddyturnstone

    After that, mid thirties up, I believe that a very good portion of men are, in fact, on strike. And I make no distinction among men of this age group based on the prior marital status of themelves or of women. Some of these men have never been married, some have been married and divorced. They aren’t looking to get married (or remarried) and they aren’t waiting either. Nor does it matter to them whether a woman has been married before or not. They have simply decided not to marry.

    This may be true from a relative perspective (compared to men their age in the past). I haven’t looked at any stats for this. The declining remarriage rates for women do tend to bolster your claim here. However, men are much more likely to remarry after divorce than women are, especially later in life. The data is very strong here (both the Census data and the AARP study).

    On the other hand, most single women, whether never married or married and divorced, are desperate to marry.

    This is tougher to prove, but I do believe you are right. Women often claim that they aren’t interested in marriage once their MMV declines. This may be true in one sense, they likely aren’t interested in the options which are available to them. I’m sure J knows 100 former nuns who divorced at age 60 and are done with men, but the fact that women are far less likely to divorce later in life backs your and my theory that they still somehow are interested in marriage.

  38. dragnet says:

    In light of so much countervailing evidence and statistical trends, anecdotes really are the last refuge for these overworked, exhausted hamsters.

    May they be soon put to rest.

  39. Kathy says:

    TFH: “I maintain again, that most reproductive clinics want :

    Egg donors to be under 27″

    For the “johnny come latelys” (apologies to JCL if he is reading) who have a reading and comprehension problem…. rolls eyes again… I will reiterate

    That is an untrue and misleading statement.. (as IVF Australia says, Donors are ideally aged between 21 and 38 years of age, who have usually completed their own family and want to facilitate pregnancy for another woman..many other American centres said much the same thing….)

    I have made this point all along and have not deviated from it, as TFH goes off on wild tangents and shows of one-upmanship boasting of men’s higher fertility in older age brackets.. So? Sheesh, not interested in a fertility pissing contest. Just accurate information.

    BTW still waiting for a link from you to substantiate this bullshit below.

    TFH: “Lastly, note that feminists pressure some clinics to lie about the scientific reality of egg aging. They force a clinic to say that donors up to 34 are acceptable”

    I do indeed call bullshit on that one! ;)

  40. The whole notion of “Fabulous forties” is hamster driven.

    That’s why we so appreciate articles like this one!

    Woohoo, 40 is the new 20! I didn’t read past that, it’s all I need to know. I’ll be sure to tell my husband that it’s why I no longer need to work out and can eat jack in the box every night – he’ll never know, he’s 40, too, so he can’t see much. I’ll tell him that Mr. Magoo is the new 40, he’ll be thrilled that he doesn’t have to wear his contacts any longer. Win/win! YAY!

    One thing about fertility, though – I started way late, no problems, thanks to God and good health, but hesitate to hype stats beyond the obvious difficulty in initial conception/retention, long term chemical b/c, etc… The fact of the matter remains the best indicator of healthy babies is a prior healthy baby – if someone starts late and has healthy children, I don’t want to discourage them from continuing the blessing on the basis of age. There are MANY natural factors that prevent what we consider imperfections from resulting in live births, and from a Christian perspective the children we have are blessing nonetheless. I am a huge advocate of early marriage, honeymoon pregnancies and bi-annual babies throughout fertility, but not all women find themselves in other circumstances for only the wrong reasons. Better late than never isn’t the best practice, but it’s not without merit.

  41. Stephenie Rowling says:

    “pregnancies”

    I still remember the days when the way to congratulate the newlyweds was “…and there might be a christening before the first anniversary” and I was actually born exactly nine months after my parents wedding. My God I’m so old! :(

  42. Stephenie Rowling says:

    Sorry I meant to quote “honeymoon pregnancies” obviously

  43. Kai says:

    I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that if you’re 40 you should absolutely not consider any further pregnancies, since the risks are higher.
    The focus is on the other end – of trying to get young women to understand that they can make choices at their age to avoid ending up 40 and trying to decide whether late is better than never.

    [D: Kai FTW]

  44. anonymouse-1 says:

    I read an relationship column in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of months ago, where the columnist(a lady) advised a young woman to have her kids on before the age of 27 because current research is showing that women lose 90% of their highest quality eggs by the age of 27. While perusing an Asian newspaper a couple of months after that, I came across an article copied from the Daily Telegraph London that said same thing. The UK Independent had an article about 2yrs ago where the OBGYN community was alarmed at the rise in geriatric pregnancies and the complications faced by doctors handling these pregnancies. Furthermore, they expressed concern about the increase in Downs Syndrome babies as a result of women having these pregnancies later in life.
    I am sure there is politics and profit motives involved in the IVF industry as well.
    P.S: Please do not ask me for links, for I don’t have patience for dealing with this bullshit!!

  45. “The focus is on the other end – of trying to get young women to understand that they can make choices at their age to avoid ending up 40 and trying to decide whether late is better than never.”

    Exactly right! And I didn’t mean to come on as if I thought waiting was a good idea. Early and often is what I would recommend, and what I would do myself if I had it to over again (assuming of course I could do it with the current husband – a whole other conversation).

    “since the risks are higher”

    The risks are higher for initial and secondary infertility, undoubtedly, but there are results in play that affect the fetal abnormality aspect of ongoing conception after 40 that aren’t typical of women who haven’t had multiple partners, used chemical b/c, had an or some abortions, or gone through chemical fertility treatments. There are lots of potential obstacles to actual results, and Dr’s and women (gasp!) often lie about their own stats. It’s an observation, not intended to be an argument.

  46. Dal, FTW? Dang, I didn’t know there were prizes.

  47. TFH says:

    My 5:29 PM comment has two links about what those banks consider an acceptable age for egg donors (27-29 being the top). An occasional bank that takes eggs from a 34 yo does not mean there is market demand for those past-prime eggs.

    Plus it also has another link with a nifty graph that shows the rapidly rising risks/difficulties with pregnancy after 30 (and especially after 35).

    Period. Those are indisputable facts. The hamster-squeaking and projection that these facts cause does not change their airtight validity.

  48. “Plus it also has another link with a nifty graph that shows the rapidly rising risks/difficulties with pregnancy after 30 (and especially after 35).”

    First, there is no acceptable age for an egg donor. Second, does it not stand to reason that a fertility clinic wouldn’t want to entice young women – not married women, mind you – only young(ish) women to what they have for sale? I don’t know, women with less money, fewer prospects, those most likely to participate??? This from a business which manages to avoid fraud charges all while maintaining a delightful success rate of a soft 30%. I don’t think using their stats adds to your argument, unless yours is a Habitrail of it’s own.

  49. Kathy says:

    “My 5:29 PM comment has two links about what those banks consider an acceptable age for egg donors (27-29 being the top). An occasional bank that takes eggs from a 34 yo does not mean there is market demand for those past-prime eggs.”

    Nonsense. It’s the other way around. Most egg banks accept eggs up to age 34-38.. Occasional banks stipulate 29 and under (still not what you originally said – most and 27 and under.. so you are still misleading)

    Most egg donation centres WILL take eggs up to the mid thirties.

    Demand is not the issue here. It’s your propensity to ” gild the lily” that is the problem, and so create the wrong impression. Jennifer was astonished to read that most reproductive clinics only want eggs from women under 27. Of course that wasn’t quite the truth was it? You cleverly (or not ;) ) tried to create the impression that eggs over 27 years were eschewed by most egg donor clinics.

    “In summary, we suggest younger donors provide higher chances for pregnancy in recipients but we do not recommend a firm upper-age limit. Rather, we believe a recipient couple should be informed of donor age as one characteristic among others, such as physical appearance, to consider in choosing an appropriate donor. Although a 35 year old donor is not as fecund as a 21 year old, her physical traits or ethnic background may nonetheless make her a more desirable choice for some. We do not consider the drop-off in pregnancy rates, ~25–30%, so overwhelmingly significant as to constitute an absolute contraindication to the use of oocytes from older donors. Prior fertility, on the other hand, is not a significant donor attribute.”

    http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/11/2755.full

    Finally, can you understand this,(once again)

    The American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends that egg donors be less than 34 years old. (not less than 27)

  50. Kai says:

    “the cottage child says:
    I didn’t mean to come on as if I thought waiting was a good idea. ”

    You didn’t. I was just clarifying that. A number of women over the age of 35 seem to take it as an offense when people suggest that it’s better to have kids earlier, as though we’re telling them they shouldn’t now – which is not everyone’s point. Once you are older, it’s up to the individual couple to weight the risks based on their own situation, and late may still work perfectly fine for many.
    The key is just reaching women who still have the ‘early’ option, and reminding them that it tends to work better than ‘late’.

    I don’t mean to suggest that the risks are too high – I just meant that general more difficulty with fertility and higher likelihood of some birth defects. It certainly can depend on the individuals involved, and also on what sort of risks the couple is willing to assume.

  51. ruddyturnstone says:

    “In summary, we suggest younger donors provide higher chances for pregnancy in recipients but we do not recommend a firm upper-age limit. Rather, we believe a recipient couple should be informed of donor age as one characteristic among others, such as physical appearance, to consider in choosing an appropriate donor. Although a 35 year old donor is not as fecund as a 21 year old, her physical traits or ethnic background may nonetheless make her a more desirable choice for some. We do not consider the drop-off in pregnancy rates, ~25–30%, so overwhelmingly significant as to constitute an absolute contraindication to the use of oocytes from older donors”

    In other words, all else being equal (eg ethic background, physical traits), the younger eggs are better (ie more likely to lead to pregnancy). And the last sentence backs this up, as it states that the older eggs are twenty five to thirty per cent less likely to lead to pregnancy, even though it characterizes this drop off, inexplicably, as not “overwhelmingly significant.”. Being at the older end of the acceptable range is not an “absolute contraindication” to the use of older eggs, but it hardly seems desirable.

    In other words, most donors and most clinics PREFER (or, one might say, “want”) the eggs of younger donors.

    “The American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends that egg donors be less than 34 years old. (not less than 27)”

    Most “official” sources (State and national organizations and governmental agencies) give this age range, but many clinics (the places that actually accept donated eggs and implant them) use a younger one. Again, suggesting that while older eggs can be acceptable, younger ones are preferred.

    All of which once again, shows that the original, substantive point (ie that twentysomething is the prime age of fertility) is correct.

    Feel free to repeat, ad nausium, “But TFH said, he saaaaaaaiddddd, that no center would take eggs over 27, and that is just wrong, wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!”

  52. Kai says:

    ^*I agree with you about the difficulty in getting accurate stats about how health, infections, disease and partner count play into fertility and healthy births given the inaccuracy of self-reporting.

  53. Jack Amok says:

    The American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends that egg donors be less than 34 years old. (not less than 27)

    I would expect that women under 27 are significanly less interested in donating eggs than women approaching their mid-30’s A 25 year old still expects to get married and raise a family the old-fashioned way. Maybe not tomorrow, but some day…

    A 34 year old who’s on a long string of busted relationships with no husband in sight is hearing the clock ticking and maybe figuring she better freeze some of those eggs before it’s too late.

    Think of the American Society for Rreproductive Medicine as a typical Beta Provider guy. It wants the best, freshest eggs it can get. But a 27 year old HB isn’t going to want the Beta anywhere near her eggs. A 34 year old has perhaps recalibrated her options.

  54. Retrenched says:

    “anecdotes really are the last refuge for these overworked, exhausted hamsters”

    Nonsense! I know lots of hamsters that are fit and show no signs of fatigue whatsoever. So there.

  55. ruddyturnstone says:

    “First, there is no acceptable age for an egg donor”

    Er, no. All of the clinics and organizations specify an age range with an older cutoff.

    “Second, does it not stand to reason that a fertility clinic wouldn’t want to entice young women – not married women, mind you – only young(ish) women to what they have for sale? I don’t know, women with less money, fewer prospects, those most likely to participate??? ”

    Huh? I tried parsing this three different ways and it still makes no sense. What is your contention here?

    “This from a business which manages to avoid fraud charges all while maintaining a delightful success rate of a soft 30%. I don’t think using their stats adds to your argument, unless yours is a Habitrail of it’s own.”

    Red herring. So, the industry is shitty, according to you. Even if that is true, does it mean that it is NOT the case that that younger eggs are more fertile and that twentysomething is the prime age for female fertility? No, it doesn’t. Anyway, maybe their success rate would improve if they didn’t use eggs that, according to their own metrics, are twenty five to thirty per cent less likely to lead to pregnancy.

  56. Ruddy, you’re Habitrailing –

    “the industry is shitty, according to you.”

    Uh, no, even according to its own results it’s a poor return on investment. I don’t take financial advice from losers, why would I take fertility advice from them? They’re the one’s saying they can make it all better when a post-prime woman wants a baby. Not true, at the very least 70% of the time. Do you take your car back to the same mechanic if he effs it up 70% of the time? I’m guessing you’ll say no, just to convince me you’re not slow. It’s not a red herring, it’s a rip off, regardless of the age of the eggs of anyone involved.

    “there is no acceptable age for an egg donor”

    It’s a moral position. Considering the damage done to a woman by chemical induction of ovulation, I’d say no, there’s no good age. She’s forfeited her future fertility, her own family, potentially.

  57. Rebel says:

    Why so much talk about eggs?

    I have mine with hash browns and bacon. (or sausage)

    But 39 year old eggs are not my cup of tea. And what would they be? Dinosaur eggs?
    Thanks, I will pass.

    Joking aside, do you know that the human body has been designed to last about fifty years?
    We live longer nowadays because, past 50, we are basically on artificial respirator and should think more about our own funerals than about a late wish to reproduce. When time is up, it’s up..
    Forty is the new twenty! My God!
    And then 50 is the new thirty: still time to reproduce. No?
    Slogans do not change nature. At 40, you’re much closer to death than to birth: it’s not a cradle you should be looking at: it’s your coffin!

    Having kits just ten years before you should normally kick the bucket is insane.

  58. greyghost says:

    Wow Dalrock the female commenters get near hysterical on this 40 thing. wait til they see this.http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/nothing-compares-2-the-wall/ Love those good husbands you have. Rationalizing feminist pop culture is unseemly.

  59. The Anti-Gnostic says:

    “Forty is the new twenty! My God!
    And then 50 is the new thirty: still time to reproduce. No?
    Slogans do not change nature. At 40, you’re much closer to death than to birth: it’s not a cradle you should be looking at: it’s your coffin!

    Having kits just ten years before you should normally kick the bucket is insane.”
    ___________________________

    Yes. Biology is a hanging judge, and there is no appeal. Everybody is going to hit that wall. For women, it is going to be a lot sooner and a lot harder because fertility, whether utilized or not, is their currency in the sexual marketplace. For men, it is ability to provide, which is why they get an extra decade for viable reproduction (NB: not lifespan) so they can make their bones at the front end. All of which is to say to young women: get married, get pregnant and stay married. Don’t listen to the lies of aging harpies.

  60. Kathy says:

    “All of which once again, shows that the original, substantive point (ie that twentysomething is the prime age of fertility) is correct.”
    Nobody is disputing this..* HEAD DESK*
    TFH never said that!. He said that most clinics want eggs from women aged under twenty seven.. Not true. Most clinics want eggs from women aged 21- 34.. some 38..
    Can you understand this now?

    TFH does not need a cheer squad Lol .. He can dig a deep enough hole for himself without your help.. You are missing the point
    Oh I know .. bit too subtle for you..
    It is not about the eggs, it is about integrity and credibility.. misrepresenting the facts to suit one’s agenda.. too deep for you to grasp I think.

    And Yes Dalrock, this is THE ruddyturnstone.. The one and only.. ThanK GOD ;)

  61. Sedulous says:

    Match.com is the new Cosmo.

    Who cares if the articles are hamster crap?

    As long as they generate those precious click-thru’s for the advertisers.

  62. Dan in Philly says:

    Anytime someone makes their point with “look at hollywood” I immediately know they are full of BS.

    Most people think about movies they have seen as their internal compass of right and wrong. This is usually disasterous, as Dal has point out in his “Eat Pray Love” and other such topics. People should instead consider ones they personally know for guidance os what to do and what not to do. Who do you know in the 60s and 70s you consider happy? You should probably do what they are doing. Who do you know really unhappy? Try not to do that! Really simple, but so many can’t seem to grasp that their own personal experience in reality is more real than every movie and TV show they have ever seen.

    So we have young women who have teethed on movies presenting all young girls acting like sluts and someone magically ending up with the man of their dreams. We see men acting like women and living happily every after. We see men acting like men getting the short end of the stick again and again. In short, we see the complete opposite of what our own experiences show us to be the truth.

  63. poester99 says:

    ruddyturnstone says:
    August 31, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    I love how the article directs us to Hollywood for examples. Yep, women who were extra beatiful to begin with, whose looks have been attended to by legions of personal trainers, makeup and hair artists, fashion consultants, and plastic surgeons, and who have made it their business to stay in shape, are surely representative of women in general! And it isn’t as if their wealth and fame has anything to do with them being able to land male lovers in their twenties, is it??!

    “Roissy just posted a comparison of Sinead O’Connor’s appearance, 20 years ago versus now”

    Ouch!

    Wow is right! She used to have to go through great efforts to make herself look ugly, and now it’s effortless.

  64. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dan in Philly
    Anytime someone makes their point with “look at hollywood” I immediately know they are full of BS.

    Let’s call it “Argumentum ad Hollywoodum”, or maybe the Hollywood Law (modeled on Godwin’s Law, only more useful in these threads).

    “Any argument about women’s aging vs. men’s aging will eventually wind up with a reference to some 40-ish actress.”

    Feel free to use without attribution, and at no charge or cost to you.

  65. Dalrock says:

    @Dan in Philly

    People should instead consider ones they personally know for guidance os what to do and what not to do.

    Except for J. In her world no matter what choices a woman makes there are no negative consequences.

    Ever.

  66. Anonymous Reader says:

    In fact, Sinead O’Connor is a very useful example for this thread. She is 44, and has been famous for years, by her own account she is starving for affection. The image at heartiste of her performance in Australia is unsettling, there are in fact some better images of her out there, but clearly she is 44. Now, were she still living with the same man who knew her at 24, she might or might not be starved for affection and sexual love. But she surely would not be engaged in a self-demeaning “Some man please come and do me” campaign. Please note that a man who is 44 could with not too much effort likely charm a woman of 30 off her feet, the reverse is not so no matter how many copies of “People” and “Us” one cares to wave around.

    But wait, there’s more. Even in her admitted state of desperation, she still has a multi-point list of non-negotiable requirements for any man who would enter her, uh, life. One need not go to Roissy’s site if that is too, too horrid. The same information can be found here:

    http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/sinead-oconnors-internet-sex-quest-20110831-1jky3.html

    Worth noting: she gushingly called off her campaign when some man responded, only to call it back on again when it turned out that “John” (heh) had a girlfriend…who was pregnant. Oops. So it would appear, J’s anecdotes notwithstanding, that a 44 year old divorced woman does not just waltz into another relationship overnight. FWIW O’Connor has now expanded her casting call to include lesbians as well.

    The cynic in me wonders how much O’Connor is worth…pop/rock stars are notorious for getting lots of money but keeping very little of it. Seems to me if she had a substantial bankroll it would be easier to find twue wuv, or at least a man willing to live in the style to which he wishes to become accustomed. Of course then, she might want to amend her will and check who benefits from her life insurance… and maybe I have read too much Agatha Christie lately, too.

  67. Chels says:

    Yet plently of widows and divorcees over 40 remarry. perhaps not to billionaire handymen, but to perfectly good men their own age and older.

    J, I’ve read your comments and I’m really bothered by them. You need to remember that those are the exceptions, and not the rule. I wish ideas such as yours wouldn’t be so popular in our society, because that would lead young women to make better decisions. Let’s just move the age of first marriage at around 40, and have kids at around 42-43 and let’s encourage older women to divorce their husbands because they’re always going to be able to find a better one *rolls eyes* Your ideas are just setting them up for disappointment.

    As well, older men don’t go for women their age, they go for younger women, and some are happy to pump and dump, but I doubt most are interested in remarrying.

  68. Dan in Philly says:

    I would like to point out one thing: Most women I personally know who are smoking hot in their 40s and 50s are married and have been for a long time, and most single women I know in their 40s are not.

    Take that for what you will…

  69. Chels says:

    My mother divorced my father 8 years ago, mainly because she didn’t love him anymore and because she thought that there are better men out there. Since then, all she had is a string of short term relationships that haven’t led to anything serious, and my father is happy to be alone, he never wanted another wife after her, even though he received plenty of offers. For your information, my mother has recently told me several times that she now regrets divorcing my father because he was the best man she ever met (after she got tired of the dating scene, of course).

    So J, please stop with the false advertising, it doesn’t work that way.

  70. Stephenie Rowling says:

    “For your information, my mother has recently told me several times that she now regrets divorcing my father because he was the best man she ever met (after she got tired of the dating scene, of course).”

    Can we convince your mother of a guest post? I really wish in the same vein there is that horrid website shouldidivorcehim.com, there was one: Iregretdivorcinghim.com Really no one ever say this out loud is necessary to educate the married women out there or at least to link them to it when Hollywood law is applied or something along those lines.

    [D: I found one last year which fits your description (http://frivolousdivorce.wordpress.com/). I referenced it in this post. Absolutely devastating.]

  71. Chels says:

    LOL do you want to hear a rationalization hamster that badly? If Dalrock had a book, she’d be used for all of his examples; she fits the descriptions he gave perfectly.

    In any case, I have all the answers to whatever you might be wondering, so you could just ask me.

  72. slwerner says:

    Anonymous Reader – ”In fact, Sinead O’Connor is a very useful example for this thread.”

    …and perhaps for most any discussion of rationalization hamsters and other sorts of seemingly irrational thinking that divorcing women engage in.

    Seems her third marriage was a happy one, according to her…so, naturally, she had to put an end to it???

    It’s third time unlucky for Sinead as she ends marriage

    Thursday Apr 14 2011
    CONTROVERSIAL Irish singer Sinead O’Connor has called time on her third marriage.
    The Irish Independent has learned that the 45-year-old split with husband Steve Cooney three weeks ago, just eight months after they wed while on tour last summer in Europe.

    “Steve is lovely so it’s not his fault but mine.
    “It was an extremely happy marriage.
    “I’m heartbroken about it breaking up,” she said.

  73. a.nonny.mous says:

    Listen up, old ladies:

    Your eggs are not that valuable. Whether contained in your withering, wrinkled flesh or stacked one on top of another in some cold clinic somewhere.

    Deal with it.

  74. zed says:

    Chels: “My mother divorced my father 8 years ago, mainly because she didn’t love him anymore and because she thought that there are better men out there. Since then, all she had is a string of short term relationships that haven’t led to anything serious, and my father is happy to be alone, he never wanted another wife after her, even though he received plenty of offers. For your information, my mother has recently told me several times that she now regrets divorcing my father because he was the best man she ever met (after she got tired of the dating scene, of course).

    So J, please stop with the false advertising, it doesn’t work that way.”

    Bravo Chels! I think that in addition to slut-shaming that women need to seriously consider engaging in a lot more BS-shaming – particularly when that BS tends to harm them more than it does men. Your comment nicely ties together dozens of themes that Dalrock has woven through this blog, and which have been beaten to death in the past few threads.

    Your mother doesn’t have any “slut” to blame for stealing her husband away – she threw him away by herself. And, apparently she isn’t “done with men” as someone has claimed that older women tend to be. And, freed from his incarceration with a likely 24x7x365 complaint-generator, your father is now free to live out his remaining years in a state of relative peace and quiet. It does sound from your brief description that he is one of those men who is on a re-marriage strike.

    One of the major themes I see Dalrock covering in this blog is how that significantly “better husband” than the one they have – that women are constantly being told is out there looking for them – are actually in much shorter supply than the legends imply. Your mother’s dating pool (assuming that she is 45 or so, plus) is limited mostly to other husbands that some other woman threw away so they could look for a better man, and life-long bachelors like myself. If she is picking through other women’s discards looking for a better man than she had, then she must have chosen really poorly to begin with. If she is confident in her newfound ability to attract men and get some perennial bachelor to give up his peace and quiet in exchange for having to listen to her perpetual complaining, she really is counting on age passing by not just herself, but having left the man with the same naive tendency to climb on the train to Stupidville that he had 20-40 years before.

    So, is 60 the new 30?

    One thing which puzzles me about the married women who comment on blogs like this – are they so secure in their own married situations, and bear so much animosity toward other women that they would happily give them bad advice and encourage them to ruin their own lives?

    No matter how many anecdotes I hear about dancing bears, I still don’t see that Ballrooms For Bears is an unbelievable economic opportunity sitting there waiting for someone to exploit it.

  75. Prof. Woland says:

    The hardest years on women, both physically and psychologically, are between about the ages of 38 – 46. Perimenopause and menopause begin to take hold and create hormonal changes on the inside are raging at the same rate as the physical ones on the outside. Also, the worst time to be dating if you are a parent is when your children are teenagers. They need to be and should be the focus of your attention.

    Looked at it from a guys stand point, if you want a LTR without trouble, make sure you get the timing right. If you are a guy in your 40s or 50s and have either had children or don’t want children and are ok with dating a woman your age then by all means. Many men simply want a partner they can share their lives with. Obviously, it is best if the woman you are sharing your life with is also the woman you built your finances and family with but not everyone can be so lucky.

    On the other hand, if you want to breed it is important to play your cards right. After a failed marriage that gave me a child in my late 30s, I rewired my chances of success by going overseas (Russia) to find a bride. In my mid-40s I found a beautiful educated woman who was several years my junior and we had a child together. By American standards what I did seemed almost scandalous but I pulled it off relatively easily and as a result I did not have to settle. There are definitely risks going this route but the benefit payout is also much higher.

    I would suggest to any man who is open to dating outside your circle to consider what I did. Spend your 20s and 30s building a career and then go for a woman 10 – 20 years younger. Having children in your 40s or 50s is much easier with a young high energy partner (her youth, your brains). If you are willing to marry a woman with a child and you don’t want one you can stretch the age difference out to obscene levels. You still need to have your alpha game but that part is universal.

  76. Kai says:

    Regarding Sinead O’Connor:
    I would hope not to take her as any more the standard than the unrealistic movie stars.
    The woman’s had an incredibly messed up life, starting with a lot of child abuse, then eating issues, and mental problems in adulthood. I wouldn’t be surprised if her body just isn’t able to process properly any more – Eating issues when you’re young can screw up your metabolism for life, and a lot of drugs for mental illnesses really do mess with appetite and nutrient use.
    It’s also not too surprising given her history that she can’t keep a relationship together – that’s been the case her whole life.
    It’s a sad story, but I’d view it as a warning rather than as fate.
    A good reason to partner up when you’re young, and do what you can to take care of yourself both for yourself and for your partner, rather than leaving it until it’s too late to happen.
    *I’m not saying it’s the fault of anyone else – just that some people are dealt a bad lot and don’t manage to work through it. She’s decent enough to admit that it’s her own fucked-up-ness that’s the problem and not the man.

  77. TFH says:

    I notice that there is no one of any credibility or logic disputing my points, or the simple links I provided.

    Now, let’s post the fertility chart again, shall we? Perhaps a young woman will avoid disaster by heeding the empirical data :

    It looks pretty grim after 30, and certainly after 35. No wonder egg banks strongly prefer donors under 27-29 (again, supported by many links).

    Heh heh heh heh

  78. Kai says:

    “zed says:
    One thing which puzzles me about the married women who comment on blogs like this – are they so secure in their own married situations, and bear so much animosity toward other women that they would happily give them bad advice and encourage them to ruin their own lives?”

    No, generally, they are just truly deluded.

    Or some of the married women around here would not give other women bad advice, but ‘around here’ is not exactly a representative cross-section of the population.

  79. TFH says:

    Sinead O’Connor is not the best anecdote to use.

    A better one is Keely Shaye Smith (wife of Pierce Brosnan).

    In her prime, she was a 9. At the time of their marriage, she was still hot, and Pierce Brosnan, at his peak as the man playing James Bond, was one of the most eligible men in the world.

    But after marriage, she became FAT. Very FAT. She fell from a 9 to a 3. This is what laws rigged in favor of women do, they make women unaccountable. Not only was she obese, but she still wore 2-piece swimsuits, oblivious to how far her looks had fallen.

    I never thought I would say this, but I am glad that I DON’T have to sleep next to what Pierce Brosnan has to sleep next to.

    Talk about a man with bad luck. Such a man should able to leave his fat wife on a ‘no fault’ basis, get custody of the kids, and receive alimony and child support from the woman. Fair is fair.

  80. TFH says:

    zed,

    One thing which puzzles me about the married women who comment on blogs like this – are they so secure in their own married situations, and bear so much animosity toward other women that they would happily give them bad advice and encourage them to ruin their own lives?

    The married women who come here because they genuinely oppose misandry (Hestia, crella, etc.) are genuine, and add value.

    The married women who come here even if they disagree with the articles on this blog visit because they are seeking gina tingles. Gina tingles that are absent from their real lives, but are available from men outwitting them/teasing them over the Internet. No doubt these same women would go apeshit if their husbands were engaging in sexchat online or in phone sex. Yet these women are doing the equivalent while their poor husband is supporting them. If anything, their husbands need to see this blog.

  81. eincrou says:

    @TFH:
    What do you make of this fat celebration website?
    Apparently Mr. Brosnan not only isn’t bothered by his wife’s size, but said, “I love my wife’s curves.” Think he’s telling the truth? Haha

  82. TFH says:

    Chels, how old are you? Are you under 30?

    By recognizing the hamster-driven delusions of the older women here, you are saving yourself a HUGE amount of anguish later in life. It is tantamount to avoiding a severe auto accident.

    Dalrock and others have played a hand in saving your life….

  83. Chels says:

    TFH, I’m just a few months short of 26.

  84. eincrou says:

    @TFH:
    Dang it, I addressed a comment to you but it got held for moderation. When Dalrock gets around to approving it, it probably will not appear at the bottom of the page, so please look for it when you check this thread again.

  85. Chels says:

    Zed, I don’t know the type of men my mother dated because I told her that unless she’s engaged to one of them, I don’t want to meet them. I’ve also refused to talk to her about relationships because she’s one of the biggest feminists I know. In her defense though, she’s a great mom.

    As well, my father really isn’t on a marriage strike, it took him a long time to recover after his divorce, and that’s not something he wants to go through again, so unless somebody gives him a wife, he doesn’t want to date, the whole process is exhausting.

  86. TFH says:

    Chels,

    TFH, I’m just a few months short of 26.

    Perfect. You are learning extremely important things here.

    Ask lots of questions, and resist the pressures of feminism – pressures that want you to make bad choices in life……

  87. TFH says:

    What do you make of this fat celebration website?

    Both Roissy and Ferdinand have written extremely humorous articles about the absurdity of ‘fat normalization’.

    Think he’s telling the truth?

    No. He is stuck in a legal arrangement that would be catastrophically expensive if he were to leave. He is still Pierce Brosnan, and can get young 9s and 10s regularly if he were single, so the opportunity cost of his current situation must be crushing….

  88. zed says:

    The married women who come here even if they disagree with the articles on this blog visit because they are seeking gina tingles. Gina tingles that are absent from their real lives, but are available from men outwitting them/teasing them over the Internet.

    Which is pretty much exactly the reason why we made the decision early-on to pretty much run women out of the spearhead – to let men go at each other’s faces in the way that men do without having the dynamic hampered by extraneous female input. I have to thank Dalrock for providing this venue where such women can have their outlet, so we don’t have to put up with them unless we choose to follow them to wherever they hang out.

    This particular thread is following one of the classic patterns here – much like several others where women would claim to be totally independent of men, and counter every example of how women in general are dependent on the collective works and outputs of men, with some sort of strained anecdote of women being sort-of, somewhat, independent within a limited context. Despite your clear evidence that late-life fertility is rare, you are providing lots of ‘gina tingles by being drawn into the perpetual back-and-forth. One of Dalrock’s original points in the OP was how women over 40 account for only 2.6% of the live births – and how many of those came about as a result of fertility treatments was conspicuous by it’s absence – yet the conversation rolls on and on about that 1/40th fraction of the total picture.

    What are you getting out of this argument, TFH? Surely you know that women – in general – argue not to find the truth but to win and come out on top? Many – perhaps most – will sell all other women down the river just to get the best of you. I’m not sure what payoff you get from playing a rigged game. but you seem to keep playing it.

    In a game of tug-of-war between two sides which are so totally evenly matched that neither one can ever gain any advantage, what do suppose will happen if one side decides to just let go of the rope?

  89. TFH says:

    Chels,

    In her defense though, she’s a great mom.

    Actually she is not. You just may not have other reference points.

    Any woman who splits up the parents of her children because ‘she does not love him anymore’ is a terrible mother. Period.

    If she is even slightly pressuring you with a bunch of feminist garbage, she is also a bad mother. The fact that you are visiting this blog means on some level you know this…

  90. TFH says:

    zed,

    What are you getting out of this argument, TFH? Surely you know that women – in general – argue not to find the truth but to win and come out on top?

    I know. That is why I keep direct responses to the likes of Kathy to a minimum. She has not earned the privilege of getting easy gina tingles from me (which she craves desperately).

    I write the comments mainly for the benefit of observers – new men who are learning, and young women like Chels who can make better choices and reject feminism.

    So yes, I agree with you on the value-destruction that any non-approved women create on these threads. But I also hope that other observers can see this and receive education about how women really think.

  91. Chels says:

    TFH, I didn’t say she’s a perfect mother, I just said that she’s a good one, she took care of me when I needed her, and she was always there for me. Any parent is going to have disagreements with their child.

    And like I said, my mother is a feminist, so she totally believes in what she’s saying, she doesn’t know she’s actually doing me harm by giving me this advice. She has meddled in my relationship with my boyfriend, she has told me that he’s bad for me, that he’s oppressing me, and blablabla, but at the end of the day, it’s up to me to decide whether or not I want to take her advice. I chose not to, and I also told her that my boyfriend is off limits, and she has understood that.

  92. TFH says:

    Chels,

    While it is good that you love your mother, you are giving her credit for the bare minimum of what any mother is supposed to do…

    Divorcing your father is unforgivable. No such woman can be a good mother.

    If you were to immerse yourself in a culture where the vast majority of children grow up with both parents, and have very few divorced people, you will see how you are giving you mother far too much credit for doing far less than the average mother.

    At the moment, she is harming you and your relationships. Your presence here means you sort of know this…

  93. Chels says:

    TFH, I know where you’re coming from and I get what you’re saying. My mother’s advice isn’t any different than what’s in mainstream media, what my friends tell me or what I read in magazines. Unfortunately, her advice is the norm, which is why I like Dalrock’s site so much.

  94. Dan in Philly says:

    Chels, when you are older, you might recognize the extreme harm that divorce inflicts upon the hapless children of it, even adult children. Right now you identify with you mother and quite understandibly want to protect her choices by saying she’s still a good mother. But the fact is that the most important thing a woman can do to be a good mother is not make her children have a separate home. If a woman tears her home apart for no reason other than a lack of the feeling of love, she is a bad mother, period.

    I am sure there are many things about her which are quite admirable, and I want you to take the good which is in her and realize she was deluded into thinking persuing her own happiness was the best thing she could do for you, her children. But that is not what mothering is, it is about sacrificing for the children you love and gave birth to, as being a father is the same but in a different way.

    When someone does something, judging whether it is good or evil is hard, especially if it is your own mother. But to be a good action, it must be the right thing for the right reason. She might have believed she was doing something for the right reason, and I cannot judge that. But she did the wrong thing. At the very best, she can be judged very foolish, and her foolishness hurt her entire family, including herself. At the worst, she knew her actions were harmful and did it anyway out of a selfish self-love. In that case, her actions were wrong in motive and were the wrong actions to take, and they were quite simply put evil. The fact that she is a good person does not change the fact that this action was not – good people can do evil things. But if she did what she did for selfish motives, there is really no better word for it.

  95. Kai says:

    The ‘fat acceptance’ or otherwise named movement has done real damage to the possibility of honest descriptions.
    Once upon a time, a ‘curvy’ woman meant wide in the bust and hips and small in the waist. It’s now euphemistically used for women that have one big curve out in the middle and back it at the toes, or women with curve after curve after curve after curve in the middle area…
    If you really want people to accept you, and you really believe that fat is not a bad thing, you could start with admitting when you’re fat. I don’t see many fat women with that realism.
    ‘Curvy’ has turned into meaning anything above a reasonable weight.

  96. zed says:

    I write the comments mainly for the benefit of observers – new men who are learning, and young women like Chels who can make better choices and reject feminism.

    Always play to the lurkers. What was the old Mark Twain quote about never arguing with a fool? “They’ll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.”

  97. TFH says:

    Kai,

    Fully agree. That is why Roissy and Ferdinand’s humorous and ruthless mocking of the whole thing is a valuable social service.

    In America, however, it seems that obesity is plateauing (albeit at a way-too-high level). People who are still not fat even now are unlikely to ever get fat i.e. they are self-aware enough to pre-emptively prevent that.

  98. Chels says:

    Dan, I agree with what you said, but she’s still my mother and I feel awful judging her like that, even though I know what she did wasn’t right. It is something that I struggled with, but I try to ignore it and look at the positives, because that’s the only way I can maintain a relationship with her as I do need her in my life.

  99. TFH says:

    Chels,

    Unfortunately, the future may involve your mother demanding that she stay with you in her old age, and that you take care of her (she will have a lot less money and security than a married woman of the same age would have).

    If you are married, she will then proceed to cause trouble for your husband, and by extension you, by meddling in every little thing every day.

    Then you will have to face a hard choice in life. Your mother will force you to choose between her and your husband. Maybe not directly, but indirectly for sure.

    Beware….

  100. Retrenched says:

    @ TFH

    “The married women who come here even if they disagree with the articles on this blog visit because they are seeking gina tingles. Gina tingles that are absent from their real lives, but are available from men outwitting them/teasing them over the Internet.”

    I think that describes about 90-95% of the female visitors over at Citizen Renegade too.

  101. TFH says:

    Retrenched,

    Yeah. The biggest learning for men from the whole thing is that most women don’t know how women think (even though Game clearly explains the female mind), and a man who knows this has overwhelming mastery over women….

  102. greyghost says:

    Just home from work. Looks like you guys are having fun. High Zed. Retrenched i have to agree with you Citizen Renegade is a gina tingle orgy.

  103. Anonymous Reader says:

    Well, given all the various problems O’Connor has in her life, apparently including mental issues (bipolar, perhaps) then she’s not as good an example as I had previously thought. Still, I cannot help but wonder how many 20-something women back in 1990 looked at her, Madonna, and some others and decided that carousel riding was fun & cost free.

  104. Kai says:

    Any woman who looks to a celebrity for an example of anything is going to be in trouble. Whether it’s expecting to have a new guy every week and keep them interested when she’s 40, or looking like 50-year-old celebrities do (with personal trainers and cooks and creams and basically being paid to make themselves look good), or hitting pre-baby weight in two weeks or basically any other facet of living with piles and piles of money, airbrushing, and attentive publicists, she’s going to end up pretty out of touch with reality.

  105. greyghost says:

    Don’t kid your selves about O’conner. She is really actually more realistic and available for all to see. Tke a look at your high school yearbook and find the girls you envied. See where they are at and what they look like. Beyond their physical apearance check out the choices they made. And the attitudes they have.

  106. TFH says:

    Kai,

    True, but the fact that this even has to be told to anyone older than age 14 is ridiculous.

    List out the pros and cons of lowering the voting age from age 18 to 14.

    Most of those same pros and cons apply to giving voting rights to most women.

    The correct way would be to have a voting test that people must pass. We require tests for both drivers licenses and citizenship tests, so why not for voting? This would weed out the dumbest and the laziest (i..e too lazy to study for the test), both male and female.

  107. corey ashcraft says:

    I want to point out that at one time….say 60 years ago Hollywood did provide role models for women. Donna Read is probably the best example of an actress who women aspired to be and men wanted to be with. Hell, mention her to men today and watch their eyes get a little misty with longing for a woman even a little like that. In fact, Grandmothers and Great Grandmothers were that type of women, Donna Reed may have been the IDEAL but the reality was all around you if you made the adjustments for non-Hollywood looks. In contrast, the Hollywood of today provides say…..Meg Ryan or Jennifer Anniston who are the complete opposite of the Donna Read ideal. I mean they seem to be perpetual teenagers without even the illusion of what was once considered basic feminine skills. Their movies show women who always catch the Alpha but refuse to grow up or evolve into more mature, adult women, which is unsurprisingly mirrored by their real life behavior. Both have tattoos, which is questionable on any woman at any age, but at their age…..no man would even think of anything but a pump and dump for them given the SMV and MMV signals they put out. But Donna Reed….in a man’s most honest moments that is a woman as portrayed by Hollywood that Men would want.

    Any girl who speaks of Present Day Hollywood. as an example of a woman that men want are mistaking lust and girls in the pump and dump pile for marriage pile.

    Corey Ashcraft

  108. Stephenie Rowling says:

    @Chels
    Heh no, I’m sure I already know your mother story by memory, we all heard it before, ad nauseum. I misunderstood you I though she was open about regreting her divorce and that we really need that to be made public. And anti EPL crowd would be very useful IMO.
    You clearly have a lot of common sense. I’m sure you will do go even in spite of what happened to your parents. I wish you luck in life and love. :)

    @Dalrock
    Bookmarking that site! I will try that everytime I hear some woman talking about divorce I will link them to it. Who knows the sun stopped for a day once or so they say ;)

  109. Stephenie Rowling says:

    good no go

  110. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kai
    Any woman who looks to a celebrity for an example of anything is going to be in trouble.

    Yes. Hence the Hollywood Law I have created. And? So?

  111. Kai says:

    “TFH says:
    The correct way would be to have a voting test that people must pass. We require tests for both drivers licenses and citizenship tests, so why not for voting? This would weed out the dumbest and the laziest (i..e too lazy to study for the test), both male and female.”

    I think that all people, upon reaching the age of majority, should be given a status similar to that of ‘landed immigrant’. You may participate in society, but you do not get the right to vote or whatever else we don’t normally give newcomers.
    I think it’s absurd that immigrants must pass a test to become citizens and get the privilege to make decisions about the country, but those who are born here just have to turn eighteen without dying. I think the number of voters who don’t understand basic concepts about the running of the country is a serious issue.
    So let everyone be a resident, but require a test to be a ‘citizen’. Decent people would aspire to be citizens, and those who can’t be bothered to grow up and learn a little won’t have input on the running of the nation.

  112. Kai says:

    “Anonymous Reader says:
    Kai: Any woman who looks to a celebrity for an example of anything is going to be in trouble.
    Yes. Hence the Hollywood Law I have created. And? So?”

    I’m simply agreeing, with amplification. I think your law makes sense.
    Anyone looking to hollywood on anything is deluded, and anyone who needs to be told that rather than seeing it for the obvious fact it is probably shouldn’t be responsible for adult decisions.

  113. TFH says:

    Kai,

    Agreed. Unfortunately, there is almost no country that feels that voting should have a similar standard as either citizenship or motor vehicle operation.

    No political candidate will touch the concept, even though at least 70% of the voters would agree with it.

  114. ruddtyturnstone says:

    “‘All of which once again, shows that the original, substantive point (ie that twentysomething is the prime age of fertility) is correct’.”
    “Nobody is disputing this..* HEAD DESK*
    “TFH never said that!.”

    Hmmm, is that so? Let’s check the way back machine, Mr. Peabody….here is TFH’s second post on this thread, and his first on this issue (Aug 31, 2011 at 4:23 PM)

    “I maintain again, that most reproductive clinics want :

    “Sperm donors to be under 44

    “Egg donors to be under 27

    “This means that even women are demanding that their female donors be under 27. Women don’t want eggs from another woman who is 39.

    “Sure, men after 44 and women after 27 had children all the time. But they are no longer considered ‘prime’. Some banks of questionable repute are OK with women being 38 and men being 55, but those are outliers, and cases of a relative donating to another relative, or something.

    “The prime ages are clear, and women themselves enforce this when shopping for donor eggs.”

    See that Kathy? He did say that twentyspomething was the prime age. And, to repeat, that is the substantive point. Not whether his off the cuff assessment that no donors over twenty seven are accepted anywhere is technicall true or not. OK already, they are, in some cases. But they are not prime. They are not preferred. They are not what is most wanted. That is the god damn point. Not your little trivial “gotcha.” No matter how much you roll your eyes or bang your head on the desk.

    “He said that most clinics want eggs from women aged under twenty seven.. Not true. Most clinics want eggs from women aged 21- 34.. some 38.. Can you understand this now?”

    I understood your picayune “point” from the get go. But the truth is that most clinics and patients do actually want the younger, twentysomething eggs. Yes, the licencing bodies and governmental agencies say that older eggs are acceptable. But all sources agree that the younger ones are significantly more fertile. And that, duh, is the point of the whole exercize. How many women who are not much older than thirty eight themselves do you think want eggs from women more or less their own eggs? Not many. Because, again, duh, if age was not the main issue, they themselves would probably be fertile. And, falling in line with this demand, most of the clinics that I have seen which provide this info on line DO say that they want eggs no older than twenty seven or twenty nine. So, even in the realm of trivia, you aren’t really correct. What is you want, exactly, a gold medal, because you managed to find in a post that was substantially and pertinently correct, a little bit of possible hyperbole?

    “TFH does not need a cheer squad Lol .. He can dig a deep enough hole for himself without your help.. ”

    This is a mesage board, not a private exchange between you and TFH. As long as our host doesn’t object, I have every right to participate in the conversation, with or without you say so. And you are the one who has dug herself a hole.

    “You are missing the point”

    Kettle, black and all that.

    “Oh I know .. bit too subtle for you..
    “It is not about the eggs, it is about integrity and credibility.. misrepresenting the facts to suit one’s agenda.. too deep for you to grasp I think. ”

    Come, come now, Kathy. There is nothing subtle, nor particularly noble, about nit picking. The facts are substantively as TFH said they were.

    “And Yes Dalrock, this is THE ruddyturnstone.. The one and only.. ThanK GOD ”

    Ad hominem attack. And classic appeal to white knighting too (as in a woman attempting to set two men at each other’s throats).

    All in all, a sad performance, Kath.

  115. Stephenie Rowling says:

    No political candidate will touch the concept, even though at least 70% of the voters would agree with it.

    Well dumb people are easy to manipulate with a shiny campaign, a thinking votership will see through the BS, we can’t have democrazy without that you know?

  116. Kai says:

    “Stephenie Rowling says:
    …a thinking votership will see through the BS”

    True. But where are you going to find one of those?

  117. Stephenie Rowling says:

    “True. But where are you going to find one of those?”

    Heh good one. :)

  118. Kai says:

    “TFH says:
    Kai,
    Agreed. Unfortunately, there is almost no country that feels that voting should have a similar standard as either citizenship or motor vehicle operation.
    No political candidate will touch the concept, even though at least 70% of the voters would agree with it.”

    Theoretically, it should be easy to do something like that – since everyone believes themselves above average, no-one considers the possibility that they might be the one excluded, so it’s an easy sell.
    But with the number of people these days who feel they need to speak up for the theoretical possibility of someone else’s exclusion (whether or not that other group has an issue), we’d hit the wall.
    As long as everyone gets to vote, politicians are required to be very conservative and avoid new ideas that might make people think too hard – better to stick to the emotional standbys that get the target audience to the polls.
    I think we’ve gone a little too far on the ‘equality’ thing in North America. A nation that was founded on the concept of equality of opportunity – that there would be no bars purposely placed to prevent people from moving up – has, over time, catered to demands for equality of outcome, and has led to a populace that believes ‘equality’ must be forced, and refuses to acknowledge that there are differences between people.
    The equality is supposed to come out of a balance of factors, and over a broad section of people. On an individual level, we’ll never be ‘equal’ – some people are more attractive; others are tall; some people have inherent athletic talents; people differ in IQ and processing mechanisms. We are simply not all equally suited to all things – including critical thinking, which should be a prerequisite to have input on a country’s future.
    But a lot of people don’t want to accept reality. (And while I’ll grant that women are over-represented in this category, I think it’s a societal malaise spread beyond just a gendered problem.)
    Heck, imagine what kind of politicians could be elected if they only had to campaign to those in possession of basic critical thinking skills? And what kind of politicians would never stand a chance!

  119. Jimmy says:

    Wow, reading this thread, Kathy is pretty desperate and pathetic.

    I mean, look at her unhinged lunatic obsession with TFH, when he is hardly even responding to her. I got to hand it to TFH, he really knows how to tie a woman in knots by just pushing a button or two.

    Interesting point about the gina-tingle thing. I always wondered how women could be so obtuse, spending hours on end just to be irrational in an anonymous forum, but now a lot of this makes sense.

    I feel bad for kathy’s husband – working hard while she is effectively arousing herself with strange men.

  120. Pingback: Youth, Beauty, and Marriage: Hans Baldung Versus Modern Culture | Pechorin

  121. Interested says:

    Yahoo Health weighs in with an article about age and fertility for women!

    http://health.yahoo.net/articles/womens-health/what-happens-womans-fertility-after-40

    And the egg comments the article:

    When you’re a fetus, you have 7 million eggs, Grifo explains. When you’re born, you have 1-2 million. At puberty, you have 400,000; by age 30, 87 percent of those are gone; at age 40, 97 percent of those are gone. That leaves 12,000 eggs — a lot — but most of them aren’t good, meaning the eggs are less viable and you’re more likely to miscarry.

    Also this:

    The Times article suggests that Hollywood stars who give birth after age 40 are misleading women to think that it’s easier than it really is. It’s true that celebrities — like the rest of us — rarely open up about fertility struggles. But Barbara Collura, Executive Director of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, says celebs are not to blame for women’s confusion about fertility.

    “It’s easy to single out celebrities, when in reality our reproductive health knowledge in this country, whether you are a man or a woman, is terrible. If women knew more about their biological clock and their fertility potential, they would not need to rely on movie actresses to give them reproductive health information.”

  122. Pingback: Cord Ivanyi is not a mangina! | Dalrock

  123. Pingback: Charts on delayed motherhood | Dalrock

  124. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Homage to Quiplinks Edition « Patriactionary

  125. Luke says:

    I ran across this thread tonight while looking for something else. I believe I can weigh in here with information few others on this thread would have first-hand. My wife and I have two healthy children that we conceived using egg donors, and were gestated by a paid surrogate. We didn’t even look at profiles of donors older than 25, or surrogates past age 29. Our egg donors were both 23, as was our surrogate, and we would have gone younger on the donors if we could have. The egg donor agencies we communicated with had practically NONE under the age of 21. We saw a listing for a 19-YO we would have considered (wanted one redhead female, and they’re fairly rare), but her price was 3x anyone else’s, the other side of 12 grand, vs. the 2500-4000 nearly all the rest were, just counting donor fee. Agency fees atop that ranged from 4-9 grand, I think. None of this includes anything we paid to our doc, anyone’s travel/lodging, or all the medical care our surrogate consumed, plus the birth and aftermath. (We housed/fed our surrogate for the last 7 weeks of the pregnancy, and her husband multiple weekends.)

    Some concepts on aging of genetic mothers:
    1) The age at which the risk of Down’s starts to go up, purely from advancing genetic mother age? NINETEEN.

    2) The age at which our fertility doc won’t even consider taking cases where the IP (intended parent) mother insists upon using her own ova, because the success odds would destroy his clinic’s success statistics? 43.

    3) My (the genetic father) age at conception? 49. (Our doc said this isn’t uncommon for dad IPs.)
    Lots of genetic testing; zip found that was bad.

    4) The thing by far the majority of people have in common that make it to really old ages with decent health? They had very young mothers (like under 22 if not younger).

    5) And, something horrific that’s not widely known that kicks in right around age 34 for genetic mothers. It is universal, can’t be tested for (except with a calendar), and can’t be avoided. It’s currently known that starting on average right around that age, there is a roughly even tradeoff in advancing age of the genetic mother (GM) and reduced life expectancy and vitality of any daughters she has. (This is probably true of sons as well, but the research has only been done to prove it on daughters to date AFAIK). That is, a mother of age 39 knocks about 5 years, or 7+%, off the age and health of all daughters she has. That doesn’t mean that the girls just kick off at 73 instead of 78, with everything the same all through life before then. Rather, ALL THROUGH LIFE, her daughters are 7% or so more likely to be sickly or DIE than they would have been, had their mother only care enough about them to conceive them before she became a genetically geriatric, as women are at age 34. Not a particularly nice thing for a mother to do to her little children, ones that she’d want to put in pretty little dresses and put bows in their hair.

    Women really should start having their families by age 22 (19-20 preferably). They should have enough children (3 is replacement level, so is an arguable minimum) early enough that they can be DONE with childbearing by late 20s, or age 30 latest.

  126. Luke says:

    Kai says:
    August 31, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    “I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that if you’re 40 you should absolutely not consider any further pregnancies, since the risks are higher.”

    I am.

    Further, there were almost NO egg donors even listed at the agencies we got prospective donor file access over the age of about 27-28. The doc said there just was no interest in them, when they weren’t close blood relatives. (More than a few egg donors are nieces/younger sisters of IP mothers, that sort of thing.)

    Sperm donors went out at least to age 35, some to 40. The Brits go to 45, I understand.
    Note that the process for donating sperm is WAY simpler than for ova, and that it’s considerably better established (has been around for fertility clinics decades longer).

  127. kip says:

    “I knew many are able to marry and have children in their 30s, but I wasn’t aware it was common for women to do this in their 40s! ”

    It used to be very common, that is having babies in 40s. And it still happens in other countries. I think there are a lot of reasons why American women are so infertile before they reach menopause, but its not natural.

  128. Elspeth says:

    I know many women who had babies in their 40’s. I had our youngest when I was 37. But in my case, and in the cases of the women I know personally, they had begun bearing children in their early 20’s.

    If I recall correctly, it matters when you start as well.

  129. Luke says:

    Elspeth says:
    June 14, 2014 at 11:29 am

    “I know many women who had babies in their 40′s. I had our youngest when I was 37. But in my case, and in the cases of the women I know personally, they had begun bearing children in their early 20′s.

    If I recall correctly, it matters when you start as well.”

    There are more than a few people out there who habitually drink heavily and then drive. Neither is a good idea.
    Agreed re the starting; women who never have had children and try to start having them at 40+ commonly have a harder time having children then, than do women who previously had children at non-geriatric ages (e.g., pre-35 YO), who then try to have a baby on the wrong side of 40.

    Also, there is a little more leeway for women to gestate (using donor ova, preferably as transferred already-fertilized 5-day-old embryos) than if they’re trying to use their own ova. Ballpark, that’s something like another 5 years (?), with a few cases of women pushing 50 or so purely as gestators when an unusually indulgent fertility doc is part of it. (World record is 62-YO, I think.)

  130. Luke says:

    From http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008584.html

    Pregnancy Success Rates For Older Women Not Rising

    Advances in reproductive technologies have not made a dent in pregnancy success rates for women over 42 years old. The 9% success rate is indicative that the whole reproductive tract has aged.

    The growing popularity of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) has given women the impression that female fertility may be manipulated at any stage in life, notes Patrizio, who says the problem is exacerbated due to images of celebrities who seem to effortlessly give birth at advanced ages.

    According to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies, the number of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles performed for women under age 35 increased by about 9% between 2003 and 2009. During this same time period, the number of IVF cycles performed for women aged 41 and older increased by 41%. But this procedure doesn’t always result in success.

    “Even though the number of women turning to ART has increased, the number of IVF cycles resulting in pregnancy in women above age 42 mostly remained static at 9% in 2009,” said Patrizio. “If pregnancy is achieved at an older age, women then face higher risk of pregnancy loss, birth defects, and other complications.”

    The problem is more than old eggs in ovaries. To substantially raise the pregnancy success rate for women in their 40s is going to require at least a partial rejuvenation of female reproductive organs. For example: Selectively kill of senescent cells that are impairing function of the uterus and other reproductive organs. Add in youthful stem cells that can replace lost cells in reproductive organs. The whole body might need rejuvenation in order to reduce the load of chemicals in the blood stream that suppress stem cell growth. Increased fertility for aging women looks like a really hard problem.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s