Why are women in their 30s considered old and men are not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women 18-30 (maybe 35 for some) have the upper hand in dating. Men have the upper hand for roughly the same amount of time (mid 30s to early 50s). Obviously, individuals vary.

By about 55, we're all old farts.

Lol..wait I'm not that far away ...fuck!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know plenty of women who conceived without help in their late thirties and early 40s.

The thing that people forget is that all the data on infertility is compiled based on women who have infertility issues. The women who are having babies naturally at that age on the first or second try don't go to Shady Grove etc, they don't need to.

There are tons of women who conceive in their late 30's and early 40's who get help but did not tell anyone. Unless you are see their medical records you don't know.

I said the DATA not anecdotal stories from random people. If you go get help, you are part of the data whether you tell people you had ART or not. If you don't, you are just a mom at 39 who got pregnant on the second try without help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what a bunch of clowns on this thread. bozo central.

R u a leftover Christmas cake???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know who would say women in their 30s are old but I very much prefer women mid 30s on up. Most are secure, mature, already know what they want and most don't play head games like some of the younger ones.

I agree. As a man who is 33. I very much prefer 32-37 year old women. Problem is the shelf life is short and I prefer not to hurt women. I'm not an MRA douche-bag. So in looking for a wife, sadly I look amongst the 26-28 year old crowd. I want her to want to have sex when I'm still 50.

What do you mean by 'their shelf life is short?' Huh?

They are in a rush to transition into mommy stage. If you read DCum you see that turns into prioritizing mommy stuff over fun with husband and a good sex life. I don't really want to sign up for that.

Do you really believe that?

What do you mean, do I believe it. I turned 33 this year. If I could meet an Asian-American woman who is 26 years old and has a pretty good degree (maybe she's currently a med student). If she loves sex and has good character (comes from a good family, has good value system), I would drain my savings and buy her the biggest freaking ring I could find tomorrow. Why? Because when I'm hitting 50, she'll be 43 and with Asian genes she'd still look like Jamie Chung. And, she would still be wanting to have sex. By the time I'm 60 and my own desire level is slowing down, she might be hitting menopause and losing interest so it'd be okay. Now, imagine if I married a 35 year old tomorrow instead. I'd be hitting 50 and she'd be 52. Sex wouldn't be a priority and the kids would be.

I guess you do actually believe it. Wow. I hope that plan works out for you. If you took the time to check into the sex drive of a 25 year old woman vs the sex drive of a 35-45 year old woman, you'd be surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In our very sexist society, women are still selling looks and fertility on the marriage market. Men are selling their ability to be a provider and to succeed at a career. At 30-35, women are hitting the end of their fertility and their looks are (just a little) starting to slide. Men are just starting to hit their top earning years. Women rule the dating world from 15-30. Men rule the dating world from 35 to death. From 30 to 35, power is about even.

How is this sexist? Women contribute to this just as much as men. If women dropped the need to find a man who will "put a big rock" on her finger and have a big law job, etc. etc. and instead only evaluated men based on looks these dynamics would change. It's female hypergamy for $$$ and status that create this situation. And don't tell me it's because men hold women down from being capable of making a good living. If we looked at the Meg Whitman's of the world, they rarely marry down. Men win, because men are easier to please. A sunny disposition and a tight ass that looks good in yoga pants is enough for us. Women need to let go of their obsession with magna cum laude and white collar jobs.

That's not true at all. Men from upper class families usually marry their own. Men with high educational achievement usually marry similar women. Power couples, not Cinderella stories, are still the norm, because assortative mating.

Yes, and men from upper class families are, by definition, not the majority of men out there. I know DCUM world tends to think that 30-40% of men are 6'2 and landed gentry that came over on the Mayflower and pull down 6 figure incomes. But, only 10% of men, IF THAT, fall into that narrow category. I'm talking much more about what matters to the people in the middle of the bell curve. And yes, here men are more forgiving on status/income than are women. A woman who has a 4-year college degree (don't think Vanderbilt, think Valparaiso,) and makes 60k a year is not going to be willing to marry a guy who is an electrician (even if he makes 75-80k) and has a 2 year degree from Ivy Tech. She still wants a guy who went to a 4-year college and makes 100k (or something far more than her 60k). Conversely, a guy who makes 100k selling insurance who graduated from Indiana University will marry a hairdresser who has no college degree if she looks like Kim Kardashian and ins't a b*tch.

Yes, upper class men are not the majority of men out there, but neither are upper class women, so it all works out.

You will see that women now are much more forgiving of earning differential than education differential. This is why you see the posts here from women who are primary earners with a DH who has a lower salary at a nonprofit or something like that, but never a blue-collar DH. People with similar education levels have more in common despite differences in their earning power; for white-collar/blue-collar couples, there are differences in interests, hobbies, outlook, manners, expectations etc. that can be harder to bridge. It's a cultural difference. I'm sure there are exceptions but they are just that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In our very sexist society, women are still selling looks and fertility on the marriage market. Men are selling their ability to be a provider and to succeed at a career. At 30-35, women are hitting the end of their fertility and their looks are (just a little) starting to slide. Men are just starting to hit their top earning years. Women rule the dating world from 15-30. Men rule the dating world from 35 to death. From 30 to 35, power is about even.

How is this sexist? Women contribute to this just as much as men. If women dropped the need to find a man who will "put a big rock" on her finger and have a big law job, etc. etc. and instead only evaluated men based on looks these dynamics would change. It's female hypergamy for $$$ and status that create this situation. And don't tell me it's because men hold women down from being capable of making a good living. If we looked at the Meg Whitman's of the world, they rarely marry down. Men win, because men are easier to please. A sunny disposition and a tight ass that looks good in yoga pants is enough for us. Women need to let go of their obsession with magna cum laude and white collar jobs.

That's not true at all. Men from upper class families usually marry their own. Men with high educational achievement usually marry similar women. Power couples, not Cinderella stories, are still the norm, because assortative mating.

Yes, and men from upper class families are, by definition, not the majority of men out there. I know DCUM world tends to think that 30-40% of men are 6'2 and landed gentry that came over on the Mayflower and pull down 6 figure incomes. But, only 10% of men, IF THAT, fall into that narrow category. I'm talking much more about what matters to the people in the middle of the bell curve. And yes, here men are more forgiving on status/income than are women. A woman who has a 4-year college degree (don't think Vanderbilt, think Valparaiso,) and makes 60k a year is not going to be willing to marry a guy who is an electrician (even if he makes 75-80k) and has a 2 year degree from Ivy Tech. She still wants a guy who went to a 4-year college and makes 100k (or something far more than her 60k). Conversely, a guy who makes 100k selling insurance who graduated from Indiana University will marry a hairdresser who has no college degree if she looks like Kim Kardashian and ins't a b*tch.

I dunno, do you have stats on this? Everything I have read says that people all over the income spectrum tend to marry within their own range of income/educational achievement. I.e., the guy who went to Indiana will marry a girl he met at Indiana.

In fairness, I do not have stats to present. This is more impressionistic. And, I don't disagree with you that a guy wouldn't marry a girl at IU. But if he's doing so, I don't think it's because he's ashamed of marrying a girl without a 4-year degree. Or that he somehow values her pedigree. It's more convenience and likelihood of running in the same circles. A lot of what I'm saying is more about the market for dating more generally. Also for 2nd marriages. Men have relatively simple demands. They want to be attracted to her physically and they want her to have a sunny disposition and to like sex. If she never completed that Art History degree at Sarah Lawrence he isn't going to leave her over it. But women who have a law degree or practice medicine wouldn't be caught dead introducing a mechanic to their friends. Here's a thought experiment. Male doctors frequently marry female nurses. How often to female doctors marry male nurses? Male schoolteachers? See what I mean.

Not saying that your overall point doesn't hold some validity but I'm guessing the fact that there are a lot more female nurses than male nurses & female teachers than male teachers factors into this, as well.

Google bloomberg marriage by occupation. I'm on my phone so I can't link it but the status by occupation when it comes to marinate is a one way street. While there is a huge increase in assertive mating, men are still way more open minded thatn women when it comes to money & status at all levels of labor market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For a lot of men an attractive women is an attractive woman. Most men can't tell the difference between a 25 year old attractive woman or a 35 year old attractive woman.

This nonsense about 20something women vs 30 something women is only really supported by a few select MRA types.

If I asked my Bf how old a certain woman is, he wouldn't have a clue!




age 41



age 25

What physical difference, really?

If it is a white chick, I can tell in a couple of seconds if I hold their hand. That's all I need to tell the difference between a 35 year old white woman and a 25 year old one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because women peak in 20s/early 30s. Men don't.

This is it!!

Not exactly. It's because most women prioritize money and status. I'm 31. I objectively looked better at 24. I roll my eyes when women are running their fingers through my hair and go "god your grey is so hot, please don't use hair color"

No, what they like is the condo and Porsche that I drove their ass over here in from the bar.

If men didn't peak between 18-32, pro athletes would be 35-50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because women peak in 20s/early 30s. Men don't.

This is it!!

Not exactly. It's because most women prioritize money and status. I'm 31. I objectively looked better at 24. I roll my eyes when women are running their fingers through my hair and go "god your grey is so hot, please don't use hair color"

No, what they like is the condo and Porsche that I drove their ass over here in from the bar.

If men didn't peak between 18-32, pro athletes would be 35-50.

No, it's more that women think men are more mature and relationship oriented in their 30s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because women peak in 20s/early 30s. Men don't.

This is it!!

Not exactly. It's because most women prioritize money and status. I'm 31. I objectively looked better at 24. I roll my eyes when women are running their fingers through my hair and go "god your grey is so hot, please don't use hair color"

No, what they like is the condo and Porsche that I drove their ass over here in from the bar.

If men didn't peak between 18-32, pro athletes would be 35-50.

No, it's more that women think men are more mature and relationship oriented in their 30s.

Yes that's why pro athletes who have their youth + physique + money struggle to get hotties and don't have groupies trying to trap them with getting pregnant because they are "immature".

It has nothing to do with maturity.

For most men, being broke and having low status in teens and twenties overwhelmes their peak relat

[Anonymous]

^Relative physique. In 30 and 40, the money and status is enough to compensate the relative drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In our very sexist society, women are still selling looks and fertility on the marriage market. Men are selling their ability to be a provider and to succeed at a career. At 30-35, women are hitting the end of their fertility and their looks are (just a little) starting to slide. Men are just starting to hit their top earning years. Women rule the dating world from 15-30. Men rule the dating world from 35 to death. From 30 to 35, power is about even.

Wonen rule the dating world until 28. Then the worm turns and the nerds with bank have their turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because of fertility but I think that perception is changing rapidly due to the recent studies on health risks to babies when fathers are older. The view before was that men can have kids when they're in their 40s but now people are scared of autism, etc. so male and female fertility is evening out.

Nice try. A guy in his 40s is not sweating about autism and other special needs. Yes, it's a slightly higher risk with an older dad. In absolute terms, the risk is still small.

A woman in her 40s is highly unlikely to ever have her own biological baby.

Different stakes entirely and it's not an even playing field.

Well I'm a woman and I can tell you that I would not be ok with having a baby with a man in his mid 40s. Old sperm = a lot of potential health issues. Don't believe it then look it up.

Enjoy single hood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know who would say women in their 30s are old but I very much prefer women mid 30s on up. Most are secure, mature, already know what they want and most don't play head games like some of the younger ones.

I agree. As a man who is 33. I very much prefer 32-37 year old women. Problem is the shelf life is short and I prefer not to hurt women. I'm not an MRA douche-bag. So in looking for a wife, sadly I look amongst the 26-28 year old crowd. I want her to want to have sex when I'm still 50.

What do you mean by 'their shelf life is short?' Huh?

They are in a rush to transition into mommy stage. If you read DCum you see that turns into prioritizing mommy stuff over fun with husband and a good sex life. I don't really want to sign up for that.

Do you really believe that?

What do you mean, do I believe it. I turned 33 this year. If I could meet an Asian-American woman who is 26 years old and has a pretty good degree (maybe she's currently a med student). If she loves sex and has good character (comes from a good family, has good value system), I would drain my savings and buy her the biggest freaking ring I could find tomorrow. Why? Because when I'm hitting 50, she'll be 43 and with Asian genes she'd still look like Jamie Chung. And, she would still be wanting to have sex. By the time I'm 60 and my own desire level is slowing down, she might be hitting menopause and losing interest so it'd be okay. Now, imagine if I married a 35 year old tomorrow instead. I'd be hitting 50 and she'd be 52. Sex wouldn't be a priority and the kids would be.

I guess you do actually believe it. Wow. I hope that plan works out for you. If you took the time to check into the sex drive of a 25 year old woman vs the sex drive of a 35-45 year old woman, you'd be surprised.

Yep there is a marked increase in sex drive before the end of sex drive...menopause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because of fertility but I think that perception is changing rapidly due to the recent studies on health risks to babies when fathers are older. The view before was that men can have kids when they're in their 40s but now people are scared of autism, etc. so male and female fertility is evening out.

Nice try. A guy in his 40s is not sweating about autism and other special needs. Yes, it's a slightly higher risk with an older dad. In absolute terms, the risk is still small.

A woman in her 40s is highly unlikely to ever have her own biological baby.

Different stakes entirely and it's not an even playing field.

I'm early 30s and have been concerned about dating men 40+ for this reason as have a couple of gfs in their late 20s. I don't think the information is widespread, however.

Congratulations, you're dumb. Please wise up for your own sake. Men 40+ are finally not boys anymore. You are in the right age bracket to snag a good one. Chop-chop, before your eggs expire. Worrying about special needs, because the man is 40+ is beyond stupid. Educate yourself about it to ease your mind.

Or enjoy singlehood. Many cats need loving homes.