married by 30

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where do you live? And in which century?

If PP were from a previous century he’d know having kids in your 40s is incredibly common. How do you think all those women had 12 kids?

I wish people would stop throwing this out as if that wasn’t grandma’s 3rd-12th child not her first in her forties. There is a huge difference between already proven fertility in years post 35 within strict monogamy from never-been-pregnant-before post 35 and years of multiple sexual partners.

It’s not only incredibly cavalier to advise young women to wait so late on purpose, it’s also callous to those of us in the devastation of infertility. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone.

Oh stop. Stating the facts is not callous of anyone. My aunt suffered from infertility in her late 20s and ultimately had to adopt. Is it callous towards my aunt for us to say that the average 27 year old isn't suffering from infertility?

Goodness gracious. “To wait SO LATE ON PURPOSE”. All are you are being willfully obtuse and it is exasperating. You are 1000% a part of the problem, if not only for the fact that you will double down incorrigibly in the face of anyone who dare disagree with your premise.

I have no idea what any of this means. No one advises women to wait so late on purpose. We are saying they don't need to be married by 30 if they haven't met the one.

[Anonymous]

Y'all got trolled hard by low effort OP. 10pages in 1 day!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where do you live? And in which century?

If PP were from a previous century he’d know having kids in your 40s is incredibly common. How do you think all those women had 12 kids?

I wish people would stop throwing this out as if that wasn’t grandma’s 3rd-12th child not her first in her forties. There is a huge difference between already proven fertility in years post 35 within strict monogamy from never-been-pregnant-before post 35 and years of multiple sexual partners.

It’s not only incredibly cavalier to advise young women to wait so late on purpose, it’s also callous to those of us in the devastation of infertility. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone.

Oh stop. Stating the facts is not callous of anyone. My aunt suffered from infertility in her late 20s and ultimately had to adopt. Is it callous towards my aunt for us to say that the average 27 year old isn't suffering from infertility?

Goodness gracious. “To wait SO LATE ON PURPOSE”. All are you are being willfully obtuse and it is exasperating. You are 1000% a part of the problem, if not only for the fact that you will double down incorrigibly in the face of anyone who dare disagree with your premise.

I have no idea what any of this means. No one advises women to wait so late on purpose. We are saying they don't need to be married by 30 if they haven't met the one.

And I’m saying just bleating out “Just do IVF it’s easy peasy! Plenty of women beyond geriatric age get pregnant just like *that* when the time is right!” is not good advice in general (especially from women who did make it a priority to bear children before mid-30s—do as I say not as I do, naturally) and realities need to be taken into consideration. Women are free to do as they please, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where do you live? And in which century?

If PP were from a previous century he’d know having kids in your 40s is incredibly common. How do you think all those women had 12 kids?

I wish people would stop throwing this out as if that wasn’t grandma’s 3rd-12th child not her first in her forties. There is a huge difference between already proven fertility in years post 35 within strict monogamy from never-been-pregnant-before post 35 and years of multiple sexual partners.

It’s not only incredibly cavalier to advise young women to wait so late on purpose, it’s also callous to those of us in the devastation of infertility. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone.

Oh stop. Stating the facts is not callous of anyone. My aunt suffered from infertility in her late 20s and ultimately had to adopt. Is it callous towards my aunt for us to say that the average 27 year old isn't suffering from infertility?

Goodness gracious. “To wait SO LATE ON PURPOSE”. All are you are being willfully obtuse and it is exasperating. You are 1000% a part of the problem, if not only for the fact that you will double down incorrigibly in the face of anyone who dare disagree with your premise.

I have no idea what any of this means. No one advises women to wait so late on purpose. We are saying they don't need to be married by 30 if they haven't met the one.

And I’m saying just bleating out “Just do IVF it’s easy peasy! Plenty of women beyond geriatric age get pregnant just like *that* when the time is right!” is not good advice in general (especially from women who did make it a priority to bear children before mid-30s—do as I say not as I do, naturally) and realities need to be taken into consideration. Women are free to do as they please, of course.

No one is saying that. Literally no one in this thread has said that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fertility isn't magically cut off at 35. It is only slightly more difficult to get pregnant at 36 than it is at 34. Let's look at what the experts said in 1982, way, way, way before IVF was commonplace and way before our little incel troll was a gleam in his mother's eye.

Likelihood of Conceiving in 12 Months by Age:

30-34 years old - 63%
35-39 years old - 52%

Source here is the Guttmacher Institute. Would be interesting to see if the person claiming fertility is over the day of your 35th birthday has a better source.

No it doesn’t magically cut off but there are hundreds of credible studies showing that on average fertility begins rapidly decline around your mid thirties. For those who want biological children (and particularly those who are not willing/financially able to pursue IVF) to just assume they’ll be in the 50 % able to conceive with a year without assistance post 35 seems pretty foolhardy.

Right, but you do realize that it's not IVF or no baby at all, right? There are loads of things between IVF that hopeful parents can try, and in fact, doctors will recommend before IVF. It's not "Either you are in the lucky 52% or you have to do IVF."

You are being absurd. Just admit you are wrong.

Please share these loads of in between alternatives would-be parents of “advanced medical age” can/should try to have a biological child. After trying for over a year we visited 3 fertility specialists at ages 38 (DH) and 37 (DW), specifically looking for alternatives to IVF, and were told by each that in most cases for couples post 35 that we’re having trouble conceiving IVF was the only good/high chance option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fertility isn't magically cut off at 35. It is only slightly more difficult to get pregnant at 36 than it is at 34. Let's look at what the experts said in 1982, way, way, way before IVF was commonplace and way before our little incel troll was a gleam in his mother's eye.

Likelihood of Conceiving in 12 Months by Age:

30-34 years old - 63%
35-39 years old - 52%

Source here is the Guttmacher Institute. Would be interesting to see if the person claiming fertility is over the day of your 35th birthday has a better source.

No it doesn’t magically cut off but there are hundreds of credible studies showing that on average fertility begins rapidly decline around your mid thirties. For those who want biological children (and particularly those who are not willing/financially able to pursue IVF) to just assume they’ll be in the 50 % able to conceive with a year without assistance post 35 seems pretty foolhardy.

Right, but you do realize that it's not IVF or no baby at all, right? There are loads of things between IVF that hopeful parents can try, and in fact, doctors will recommend before IVF. It's not "Either you are in the lucky 52% or you have to do IVF."

You are being absurd. Just admit you are wrong.

Please share these loads of in between alternatives would-be parents of “advanced medical age” can/should try to have a biological child. After trying for over a year we visited 3 fertility specialists at ages 38 (DH) and 37 (DW), specifically looking for alternatives to IVF, and were told by each that in most cases for couples post 35 that we’re having trouble conceiving IVF was the only good/high chance option.

So that actually sounds like you had some fertility issues as opposed to just decreased fertility due to age. Unfortunately that happens sometimes and I'm sorry you experienced it. However, just because you were not a good candidate for something like fertility drugs or IUI does not mean that other women do not successfully undergo those treatments before immediately jumping to IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fertility isn't magically cut off at 35. It is only slightly more difficult to get pregnant at 36 than it is at 34. Let's look at what the experts said in 1982, way, way, way before IVF was commonplace and way before our little incel troll was a gleam in his mother's eye.

Likelihood of Conceiving in 12 Months by Age:

30-34 years old - 63%
35-39 years old - 52%

Source here is the Guttmacher Institute. Would be interesting to see if the person claiming fertility is over the day of your 35th birthday has a better source.

No it doesn’t magically cut off but there are hundreds of credible studies showing that on average fertility begins rapidly decline around your mid thirties. For those who want biological children (and particularly those who are not willing/financially able to pursue IVF) to just assume they’ll be in the 50 % able to conceive with a year without assistance post 35 seems pretty foolhardy.

Right, but you do realize that it's not IVF or no baby at all, right? There are loads of things between IVF that hopeful parents can try, and in fact, doctors will recommend before IVF. It's not "Either you are in the lucky 52% or you have to do IVF."

You are being absurd. Just admit you are wrong.

Please share these loads of in between alternatives would-be parents of “advanced medical age” can/should try to have a biological child. After trying for over a year we visited 3 fertility specialists at ages 38 (DH) and 37 (DW), specifically looking for alternatives to IVF, and were told by each that in most cases for couples post 35 that we’re having trouble conceiving IVF was the only good/high chance option.

Having worked in women's health, I don't believe this? Doctors wouldn't say things like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wanted to be done having kids by 30. My reasons were:
-Wanted to be a young mom
-Wanted my parents and in laws to be young grandparents
-Liked the thought of kids out of the house before Dh and I are 50 as we love travel and adventure and thought it would be fun to have those years to look forward to together

We married at 26, bought a house at 27, kids at 27 and 29. Currently 33 and all is well so far.

I would hate to have to wait until 50+ for travel and adventure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think culture, religion, fear of missing out and having trusted partner drove our marriage in mid 20's (both had professional degrees, no debt and jobs) but it was a good decision.

We had kids and house in early 30's and they were degreed and employed by the time we were in early 50's.

Its like having a second life to do whatever we want to do while we have energy and money.

Until you have to deal with your parents declining health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- the pool of potential spouses shrinks as you get older
- I wanted to start a family
- I wanted to be done having kids by 35.
- I met my spouse early enough

I think this is the key here. I have no qualms with anyone marrying at any age as long as they think the person is the right spouse for them.

What we don't need to do is pressure women to marry by 30 using fear mongering tactics like "You'll have to settle" or "Your fertility will magically disappear the night before your 35th birthday."

Those times are gone. Women can make their own decisions, no matter what others say. They don't have to settle but calling everyone who isn't a handsome dermatologist with a trust fund, mediocre man is neither realistic nor kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wanted to be done having kids by 30. My reasons were:
-Wanted to be a young mom
-Wanted my parents and in laws to be young grandparents
-Liked the thought of kids out of the house before Dh and I are 50 as we love travel and adventure and thought it would be fun to have those years to look forward to together

We married at 26, bought a house at 27, kids at 27 and 29. Currently 33 and all is well so far.

I would hate to have to wait until 50+ for travel and adventure.

Sheng nu (Chinese: 剩女; pinyin: shèngnǚ; common translation: leftover women or "leftover ladies") is a term popularized by the All-China Women's Federation that classifies women who remain unmarried in their late twenties and beyond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wanted to be done having kids by 30. My reasons were:
-Wanted to be a young mom
-Wanted my parents and in laws to be young grandparents
-Liked the thought of kids out of the house before Dh and I are 50 as we love travel and adventure and thought it would be fun to have those years to look forward to together

We married at 26, bought a house at 27, kids at 27 and 29. Currently 33 and all is well so far.

I would hate to have to wait until 50+ for travel and adventure.

And I would hate to have to wait until 50+ to have an empty nest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- the pool of potential spouses shrinks as you get older
- I wanted to start a family
- I wanted to be done having kids by 35.
- I met my spouse early enough

I think this is the key here. I have no qualms with anyone marrying at any age as long as they think the person is the right spouse for them.

What we don't need to do is pressure women to marry by 30 using fear mongering tactics like "You'll have to settle" or "Your fertility will magically disappear the night before your 35th birthday."

Those times are gone. Women can make their own decisions, no matter what others say. They don't have to settle but calling everyone who isn't a handsome dermatologist with a trust fund, mediocre man is neither realistic nor kind.

If they want to conceive the laws of nature still apply

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fertility isn't magically cut off at 35. It is only slightly more difficult to get pregnant at 36 than it is at 34. Let's look at what the experts said in 1982, way, way, way before IVF was commonplace and way before our little incel troll was a gleam in his mother's eye.

Likelihood of Conceiving in 12 Months by Age:

30-34 years old - 63%
35-39 years old - 52%

Source here is the Guttmacher Institute. Would be interesting to see if the person claiming fertility is over the day of your 35th birthday has a better source.

No it doesn’t magically cut off but there are hundreds of credible studies showing that on average fertility begins rapidly decline around your mid thirties. For those who want biological children (and particularly those who are not willing/financially able to pursue IVF) to just assume they’ll be in the 50 % able to conceive with a year without assistance post 35 seems pretty foolhardy.

Right, but you do realize that it's not IVF or no baby at all, right? There are loads of things between IVF that hopeful parents can try, and in fact, doctors will recommend before IVF. It's not "Either you are in the lucky 52% or you have to do IVF."

You are being absurd. Just admit you are wrong.

Please share these loads of in between alternatives would-be parents of “advanced medical age” can/should try to have a biological child. After trying for over a year we visited 3 fertility specialists at ages 38 (DH) and 37 (DW), specifically looking for alternatives to IVF, and were told by each that in most cases for couples post 35 that we’re having trouble conceiving IVF was the only good/high chance option.

Having worked in women's health, I don't believe this? Doctors wouldn't say things like this.

DP here. I was also told this around age 35 by a RE. For example, they mentioned IUI but said it’s not as likely to work, so if you want to maximize success in the quickest amount of time then IVF is recommended. I’m not saying that I believe all of that, but that’s what they said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got married at 28 and I was the second to last of my friend group to marry (the last one went at 40, a bit of an outlier). I found a person I could spend the rest of my life with and didn’t see a need to keep searching for a better deal.

We all went to top 20 schools and are lawyers, doctors, one CFO (not me!), and government workers (me!).

Now in our late 40s…

Okay so this was 20 years ago.

Did OP ask for recent marriages only?