Should single women over 35 settle if they want children?

[Anonymous]

Settling is an interesting concept.

I am in my 40s and have a few friends who are my age who are childless not by choice and/or not partnered. These are not weird or loser women by any stretch. I think what happened with all of them is that they refused to settle, and their definition of settle meant NO compromise, NO bending on their lists, NO ability to get past the "what will my friends and family think about him making only 90K/being 5'7''/having a slight lisp/being chubby/coming from a very different background/etc..." so they just kept at it until one day they woke up and there weren't as many dates available or they were in peri-menopause or there was a pandemic lockdown and the market just shifted for them and doors closed on the fairytale path. Some have found partners that they absolutely did settle for later in life, and now they have perspective that we ALL settle and wish they'd done this sooner. Most men who are happy settle too.

Re: settling I am not talking about finding someone you can simply tolerate and aren't attracted to or don't like and gritting your teeth. I'm talking about maturing to a point where you want to engage in the give and take and ups and downs and maybe become OK with not being rich or telling someone they have bad breath sometimes or moving to another city or accepting that if he's perfect except for the fact that's he's only 5'9'' and not 6'4'' guess what HE IS PERFECT.

I think the desire for perfection goes hand in hand with a lot of high achieving women who are pretty, self-sufficient, keep up well, are smart, all of that...they just can't soften in their relationships.

So yes, I'd say settle because that's kind of how life works. Don't give up your values or yourself, but be humble enough to know that waiting for perfection or an effortless love or a fireworks isn't a real thing for 99.9% of people.

I'd also say don't tell people to go to a sperm bank. Most women in their 30s and 40s and 50s know pretty well what it looks like to raise a kid via watching others do it, and this is information enough to discourage them from taking this very hard road, which is very different than partnered parenting or co-parenting. It's not a substitute to consider equally.

[Anonymous]

Agree with 16:39. There is no perfect job, there is no perfect spouse, even for high achieving women. I can think of three women off hand who fit the image of highly educated, highly attractive, strong careers, the whole shebang, and yet they were able to start families. Their DHs, while reasonably attractive, are not male model look-alikes and/or have stratospheric careers.

A woman who is unwilling to compromise is likely alone by choice. There are probably a number of people they met who would have made solid partners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or is it better to be childless than partner up with someone you don't want?

By "settling" I don't mean "dating someone imperfect or bad on paper", I'm talking about getting with someone you're not that attracted to.

They should just have a kid on their own.

[Anonymous]

If you can have a kid alone, do that. I have friends who went this route and then found partners and it’s great to be in a romantic relationship with the co-parenting dynamic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here:

Freezing eggs is expensive and there's a chance I might need a few cycles. I'm considering it but not sure if I'll proceed with it.

Single motherhood is out of question. I don't want to raise a child alone.

In case you're wondering, I'm not looking for Henry Cavill. I just want someone I enjoy spending time with and have chemistry with even if that person isn't physically attractive by objective standards. I'm currently dating a guy that I like talking to but I'm not too keen on the idea of sleeping with him. I was in a long term relationship with someone I really liked around. This relationship ended 4 years ago because of incompatibilities around work.

Jesus why would you even date a man you don’t want to sleep with ? Imagine in marriage he would want sex daily and you will grow to hate him and will become frigid yourself. Why do you waste time ? Date around find somone you are enjoying in bed and who has a similar goal in life

Ughh…imagine being on the flip side where your spouse was just not attracted to you. Ever.

[Anonymous]

Many don't want to settle at first but by the time they are ready to settle, options are even worse.

[Anonymous]

Being unrealistic in mid 20's leads to settling in mid 30's and staying unrealistic in mid 30's leads to boasting that we didn't settle. Most humans want partners, physically, emotionally, financially, logistically and socially, most people don't do it due to being hard on standards, just due to being low on common sense, having bad luck or just bad timing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many don't want to settle at first but by the time they are ready to settle, options are even worse.

What'a the point of dating and marrying someone you're not attracted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, most people who end up finding someone to marry before their mid 30s see their potential pool of partners as the people who are interested in them and pick from this pool without feeling like doing so is settling. In contrast, many of the people who stay single for a long time focus on a different potential pool of partners that includes people who are objectively way out of their league, and see a relationship with someone on their own level as settling. I use gender neutral pronouns here because I've seen this dynamic play out with men and women.

This is absolutely true. I've never seen a person over the age of 35, who wanted to be partnered but was single, who didn't have wildly unrealistic expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35 is too old dangerous for the baby

It's not. Relative risk is higher, but absolute risk is low, you rearhat.

The best biological window for pregnancy is generally the 20s to early 30s. That is when fertility is highest, egg quality is better, miscarriage risk is lower, and pregnancy complications are generally lower. ACOG says fertility starts declining by around age 30, declines faster in the mid-30s, and by 45 has declined so much that natural pregnancy is unlikely for most women. ASRM also says fertility begins dropping in the late 20s or early 30s and falls more rapidly after 35.
That does not mean every woman over 35 cannot have a healthy baby. Of course many do. But it is dishonest to pretend 35 is medically the same as 25 or 30. It is not. ACOG specifically classifies pregnancy at 35+ as "advanced maternal age" because risks are higher for both the mother and baby, including miscarriage, chromosomal abnormalities, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirth.

And no, "absolute risk is low" does not erase the issue. Relative risk matters when you are talking about fertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and genetic abnormalities. A risk can still be statistically meaningful even if many pregnancies turn out fine.

After 35, women are often told to seek fertility evaluation after only 6 months of trying, not after a full year, because fertility declines with age. CDC says some providers evaluate and treat women 35+ after 6 months of unprotected sex, and NIH/NICHD gives the same general threshold.
Also, fertility treatments are not magic. Hormone stimulation, IVF, egg retrieval, genetic testing, donor eggs, and high-risk OB monitoring may become more relevant with age, but they do not fully undo age-related egg quality decline. ASRM says women delaying pregnancy after 35 should get information on testing and treatment while staying realistic about the chances of success.

So the accurate medical statement is this: the ideal biological age to have a baby is usually in the 20s to early 30s. After 35, fertility is lower and pregnancy risks are higher. Plenty of women still have healthy babies after 35, but pretending age does not matter is misinformation.

The challenge is that biologically, most women would be best off reproducing in their 20s and early 30s. And also, most women are most marketable in their mid-20s.

However, pretty much every woman I know who married the man she was dating in her 20s now thinks she didn't live independently enough, or was way too young to get married, or has checked out of the marriage. Mid-40s self-actualization, etc. It can be pretty messy at that point with pre-teens/young teens.

I do think 26, 27 is way too young for a lot of people to pick the person they'll be with for life. But, that's the advice we get from those who waited. Honestly all of life's a gamble.

It's almost as though whatever decision women make they'll later claim to regret (and, typically, feel they had no choice in).

[Anonymous]

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's too late at 35 to find, marry and have a baby.

I mean, we all have friends who know it's not. My friend got divorced at 36 (no kids), he met his second wife when they were 38 (she had also veen narried before and hadn't had kids) and had their son when they were 40. They knew they had to have a kid quickly but it worked out for them.

[Anonymous]

I mean I kind of did 20 yrs ago. Loud voice in my head saying No no no as he proposed. Had kids rights away (another mistake! But I was older) and I spent 1st 4-5 yrs wishing he would disappear. Now, 20 yrs in, we’re fine/good. It’s all about letting go. I am amazed at how much I just let go. That said, he’s kind and loves me very much. There’s no cheating or abuse or anything. He’s just not “my person.” But when I don’t think about it and am just living my life it’s totally fine and I’m generally happy. And god I love my kids and I love being a mom.

[Anonymous]

I'd explore egg freezing and sperm donation before doing that.

[Anonymous]

Really depends how attractive you are.

I’m 48 now so know of some old maids who never got married. They are not very attractive. They may not be ugly but probably average at best. Maybe if they dressed better, groomed better, they would be more attractive.

So if you are a 5 and say you are settling for another 5, that is different than if you are a 9 and settling for a 3.

I think my cousin settled. She was super smart and very tall. Because she was so tall, she could not go for an average man or they would not go for her. She ended up marrying an ugly classmate. My cousin was a 7-8. This guy was probably a 1 face and shorter than her. He was smart and successful. They had one kid and now divorced. She would have been better off forever single.