Should single women over 35 settle if they want children?

[Anonymous]

Do not settle. I am a single mom by choice. I had my twins quite late (in 40s when I only had a 2% chance of conceiving with my eggs and donor sperm). I then "settled" with a guy whom I was not that attracted to physically. He was willing to raise my children. I thought it would be good to raise my kids with a man who wanted to be a father. I didn't see the red flags. Turned out to be an abusive relationship. Now I am back on my own with my kids and we have a great life. If you have family or a community of support, I suggest you try the single mom by choice. If you find someone later, then so be it. If not, you will have your child. If you have been on this board enough you know how most marriages end up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Heck no. The worst possible option there is especially for the child. Choose to be a single mother by choice if you want and don’t settle. You’ll regret it and will age quickly.

The child doesn't care so long as both parents dote on them, and their parents' marriage is low conflict. Everyone knows two uglies make attractive children. Maybe it's better your spouse is not that good looking.

[Anonymous]

Single women over 35 who want children are the ones others are settling on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Single women over 35 who want children are the ones others are settling on.

So single man at 35 is still a catch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single women over 35 who want children are the ones others are settling on.

So single man at 35 is still a catch?

He can be. Usually not. But it’s hilarious to think that only one is settling.

[Anonymous]

So many of these posts are bizarre. It is almost always better for a child to know who their biological father is and have a relationship with them than be conceived from a sperm bank, not know who their father is or anything about their paternal family/health history.

Attraction is great but I firmly believe attraction can grow over the years. Absolutely women should settle because so many times what ends up happening is they think they settled but the husband ended up being a fantastic spouse and father.

A friend lamented not finding someone she could watch jeopardy with and go with to bookstores and readings , etc. She told me when she had too much to drink she thought she was settling bevause she was so much smarter than her husband who owned a blue collar trade company and who didnt go to college and she had a graduate degree from an top university.

Fast forward 10 years and he is the one who coaches all their sports teams, does all the grunt work like filling up her car with gas, brings her coffee to her bedside every morning, lets her sleep in and/or read the paper in bed on Sundays while he takes the kids to his parents for breakfast.

She is now madly in love with him and finds him really attractive. Even if he only djd a couple of the things he does, it makes her life far easier than if the kids didnt have a dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many of these posts are bizarre. It is almost always better for a child to know who their biological father is and have a relationship with them than be conceived from a sperm bank, not know who their father is or anything about their paternal family/health history.

Attraction is great but I firmly believe attraction can grow over the years. Absolutely women should settle because so many times what ends up happening is they think they settled but the husband ended up being a fantastic spouse and father.

A friend lamented not finding someone she could watch jeopardy with and go with to bookstores and readings , etc. She told me when she had too much to drink she thought she was settling bevause she was so much smarter than her husband who owned a blue collar trade company and who didnt go to college and she had a graduate degree from an top university.

Fast forward 10 years and he is the one who coaches all their sports teams, does all the grunt work like filling up her car with gas, brings her coffee to her bedside every morning, lets her sleep in and/or read the paper in bed on Sundays while he takes the kids to his parents for breakfast.

She is now madly in love with him and finds him really attractive. Even if he only djd a couple of the things he does, it makes her life far easier than if the kids didnt have a dad.

The health histories at the reputable sperm banks are more detailed than many know about their spouses (e.g., genetic testing, detailed familial history, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Choosing someone because you are desperate is the worst thing you can do to that person.

This. Is so awful. You’re depriving them of the opportunity toto find someone who really loves them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many of these posts are bizarre. It is almost always better for a child to know who their biological father is and have a relationship with them than be conceived from a sperm bank, not know who their father is or anything about their paternal family/health history.

Attraction is great but I firmly believe attraction can grow over the years. Absolutely women should settle because so many times what ends up happening is they think they settled but the husband ended up being a fantastic spouse and father.

A friend lamented not finding someone she could watch jeopardy with and go with to bookstores and readings , etc. She told me when she had too much to drink she thought she was settling bevause she was so much smarter than her husband who owned a blue collar trade company and who didnt go to college and she had a graduate degree from an top university.

Fast forward 10 years and he is the one who coaches all their sports teams, does all the grunt work like filling up her car with gas, brings her coffee to her bedside every morning, lets her sleep in and/or read the paper in bed on Sundays while he takes the kids to his parents for breakfast.

She is now madly in love with him and finds him really attractive. Even if he only djd a couple of the things he does, it makes her life far easier than if the kids didnt have a dad.

Great that it worked for your friend. For most people lack of attraction would only create resentment or the feeling of being trapped.

[Anonymous]

Women need to know that no one perfect exists and they are not perfect either so stfu

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I know a couple women in this situation who went the sperm bank route. They have a lot of support from their parents and seem happy with the choice.

I think it really depends what you mean by “settling.” If you mean giving up fanciful romantic notions of perfection, yes, you should give those up. If you mean marrying someone you don’t really like or don’t want to have sex with, no, don’t do that.

Do recognize that in dating, no amount of love and excitement can overcome just not wanting the same life/life path. Don’t date men who don’t want a family/family life. Wanting the same life is really important to being happy long-term in a marriage. Some people call it “values” but I think you can have compatible values and still not necessarily want to be living the same life 10, 15, 20 years down the road. Find someone who wants the life you want, who you like as a person, who you like spending time with, and who you want to have sex with. If you don’t find that and have the family support - sperm bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's no right answer because "Settle" covers everything from "he's only 5'11"/is slightly balding/only makes $150,000 but is otherwise perfect and we're very happy together" to "He's not an evil person but I cringe every time I see him."

In those cases, the answer is obvious, but in real life it's never that clear cut. We are all flawed, but deciding when the flaws are deal breakers can be difficult.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women need to know that no one perfect exists and they are not perfect either so stfu

A woman saying "no" to you is not thereby saying "I'm perfect." She's also not saying "I'm better than you."

She is merely saying "I don't want you." That's all. Learn the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was responding tothe poster that said that pregnancy at 35 is too old and dangerous. There's a big difference between this statement and the fact that infertility and risk rates are statistically higher than at 35 than at 30. The majority of women are still fertile at 36, the majority of pregnancies won't end in miscarriage at that age. Stillbirth and ds rates are under 1%. Also, these risks increase over many years. It's not like you're perfectly able to have healthy children at 34 and then at 36 pregnancy turns dangerous, that's why understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk is essential

Stop soft-pedaling this. It is not compassionate to give women comforting half-truths that can cost them the chance to have children.

No one is saying every 35-year-old pregnancy is doomed. That is the dodge people use to avoid the real medical point: 35+ is not the same as 25 or 30. Fertility is lower, egg quality is lower, miscarriage risk is higher, chromosomal abnormality risk is higher, and pregnancy complications are higher. That is why doctors treat 35+ differently, recommend earlier fertility evaluation, and often add more screening and monitoring.

"The majority are still fertile" is a dangerously misleading argument. The majority of people may still be fine, but the women who are not fine do not get those years back. By the time a woman finds out she is in the unlucky group, she may be facing IVF, hormone stimulation, egg retrieval, genetic testing, donor eggs, high-risk pregnancy care, or no biological child at all.

And yes, absolute risk matters. But using "under 1%" to dismiss Down syndrome, stillbirth, miscarriage, or infertility is reckless. These are life-altering outcomes, not debate points.

The honest message women need is simple: the best biological window for having babies is generally the 20s to early 30s. After 35, fertility declines faster and risks rise. After 40, it gets much harder. Plenty of women still have healthy babies later, but telling women "relax, most are fine" is not empowerment. It is misinformation dressed up as reassurance.

You are technically correct but your advice doesn't seem very relevant here. OP can't go back and have a baby at 30 instead of 35.

Of course, if your advice is: if you want a baby, you should have one now, don't wait, then ok.

A PP is correct that OP should look into freezing eggs.