Forum Index
»
Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)
There is no universal fertility cliff at 35. There have been TONS of articles about this in the last several years. The AMA age is based on very old data and assumptions and even doctors have written about this. You need to read more. Seriously. |
A million women sprint to their keyboards to insult OP and then wipe the spittle off their screen. OP sounds like he’s got a good thing going on. Why spoil it? |
Start reading (and women have had babies well into their late 30s and early 40s for at least 100 years now…second kid accident at 37 in one time sex in years…age 35 like it fall off a cliff had been debunked). Stop espousing decades old info. Many articles on this: Grazia Daily UKhttps://graziadaily.co.uk › life › m...We've Been Sold A Lie About The Fertility Cliff The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com › aprIt is time to reassess our obsession with women's fertility and the number 35 BBChttps://www.bbc.com › article › 20...Women's fertility is more complicated than you might have heard Slatehttps://slate.com › 2023/11 › infert...Don't Call It “Infertility” Slatehttps://slate.com › 2020/08 › fertili...Age 35 Isn't a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is? Coveteurhttps://coveteur.com › fertility-cliffIs the Fertility Cliff a Myth? Women's Healthhttps://www.womenshealthmag.com › ...No, Women's Fertility Isn't Suddenly Doomed At Age 35 |
This. If OP is done with having kids, OP should get a vasectomy and put that he has had one in his OLD profile next to where he says "no" for more children. Then, OP can date whatever adult woman she wants with a clear conscience. |
Conscience? OP sounds like he is clear and upfront that he doesn’t want more children. He should consider getting a vasectomy because he doesn’t want more kids, not because some woman may not be clear on their goals. |
|
Not OP, but when I date women in their 30s, I tell them I don’t want more kids. (I don’t with them).
When I date women in their 20s, of course I tell them I do. (And I’m not lying) I love kids, and if I have more, they can attend private schools and have every luxury the whole way through. And they’ll have a mom who’s still alive long after I’m underground. |
those are not credible articles here are real medical articles and studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8364335/ https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/advanced-maternal-age https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/obstetric-care-consensus/articles/2022/08/pregnancy-at-age-35-years-or-older |
|
So funny how old divorced guys with kids want young, fertile women to date but don’t want more kids.
You’re attracted to them BECAUSE of their fertility. Date older women if you don’t want kids. |
WTF. You put in your profile 'has children and doesn't want more'. You don't put anything about your testicles. How tacky. -Snipped divorced guy in 40s |
| What we are trying to tell you OP is that thirty something year old women are usually not upfront with their intentions and kids even if you are upfront with them. It’s on you to make sure you don’t want kids. |
You don’t get it. Fertility can fall but it is not a cliff for every woman at all. You do not understand why I am saying at all. You don’t get it. Fertility can fall but it is not a cliff at 35 for every woman at all. You do not understand why I am saying at all. You clearly didn’t read the links. Read the state article at least understand (by a doctor). |
|
Man comes into DCUM and explains why he's happy.
This inspires countless women to respond that he's doing it wrong and they would never be the woman who's dating him and making him happy. Never change, DCUM. |
And since you don’t know how to read articles that do site medical studies. I’m copying pasting one for you since you’re too lazy to click on a link to actually read: “ A study extending women’s reproductive years offers a chance to look again at how the age of 35 has been treated as a fertility cliff Sat 10 Apr 2021 00.00 EDT You might want to adjust your biological clock Good news, ladies! We’ve officially been granted two more years of useful life. According to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the reproductive years for women in the United States have increased from 35 to 37.1. The study looked at 60-year trends in reproductive life spans and found that the average of menopause had gone up, while the average of the first period had gone down. While the study was referring to reproductive years, not age, it has prompted a discussion about the significance of the number 35 and fertility. For a long time, the age of 35 has been treated like it’s some kind of fertility cliff. Hit that magic number and you’re officially described as being of “advanced maternal age” or a “geriatric mother”. You’re given dire warnings about how hard it will be to get pregnant and all the problems you and your baby might face if you do. Your pregnancy is immediately labelled “high-risk” and subject to extra monitoring. Trying to get pregnant after 35 is a process that is often shrouded in stress and judgment. The quality of your eggs declines over time, that’s very clear, but the current obsession with the age 35 as a fertility threshold is outdated and unscientific. Take, for example, the oft-cited statistic that one in three women aged 35-39 will not be pregnant after a year of trying. Want to know where that statistic is from? Data from 1700s France. Researchers looked at a bunch of church birth records from people whose life expectancy at the time was around 30, and came up with these statistics. One imagines the researchers would have been ridiculed in any other scenario. However, since this statistic serves the very useful purpose of shaming and scaring women it was parroted endlessly. There is, by the way, more modern – and significantly more cheering – data to hand. One study published in 2004 that looked at 770 European women found that, with sex at least twice a week, 78% of women aged 35 to 40 conceived within a year, compared with 84% of women aged 20 to 34. The Atlantic notes that these encouraging figures were left out of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s (ASRM) 2008 committee opinion on female age and fertility, which instead relied on “the most-ominous historical data”. A few years later the ASRM also launched a controversial ad campaign reminding people that “women in their twenties and early thirties are most likely to conceive”. |
Man doesn’t want to live in reality and man upset when reality is discussed. Never change, DCUM. |
Uhh they have a ton of agency. It's called a vasectomy. |