Anonymous
08/15/2025 17:12
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
You'd have to be loving under a rock to not know this fact. Women are beaten over the head with this message.
Right. clearly a man wrote the comment you responded to. As women, we know this because it’s been told to us literally constantly. But also, the original comment that man responded to was just saying they know tons of women that got pregnant after 35…which is also the case. Actually in this area I know more people who had babies after 35 than I do before 35. I had a baby before and after-both fine and both were conceived easily.
Worse are the responders who say “I did it with no problem or all I know is older women who got pregnant.” That doesn’t change the facts that fertility rates drop drastically around 35 years old and the eggs have a higher percent of defects the older they are. Every women should know this going into adulthood so she can make informed decisions.
This is not true. Please learn some updated facts.
Nothing has changed in the science. Women are born with a set amount of eggs. The numbers and quality of eggs decline with age.
How has that changed?
A significant amount has changed in the science. There’s no fertility “cliff” at 35, male-factor infertility is now understood to be at least 50% of all cases, it’s understood that infant mortality (not can you get pregnant but does the human child who is born survive…) is higher in younger parents…
Anonymous
08/15/2025 16:10
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
You'd have to be loving under a rock to not know this fact. Women are beaten over the head with this message.
Right. clearly a man wrote the comment you responded to. As women, we know this because it’s been told to us literally constantly. But also, the original comment that man responded to was just saying they know tons of women that got pregnant after 35…which is also the case. Actually in this area I know more people who had babies after 35 than I do before 35. I had a baby before and after-both fine and both were conceived easily.
Worse are the responders who say “I did it with no problem or all I know is older women who got pregnant.” That doesn’t change the facts that fertility rates drop drastically around 35 years old and the eggs have a higher percent of defects the older they are. Every women should know this going into adulthood so she can make informed decisions.
This is not true. Please learn some updated facts.
Nothing has changed in the science. Women are born with a set amount of eggs. The numbers and quality of eggs decline with age.
How has that changed?
Fertility does not decline "rapidly" after 35.
You stuck on the word rapidly?
Why are you stuck posting about women? This thread is about men's fertility.
Anonymous
08/15/2025 15:59
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
You'd have to be loving under a rock to not know this fact. Women are beaten over the head with this message.
Right. clearly a man wrote the comment you responded to. As women, we know this because it’s been told to us literally constantly. But also, the original comment that man responded to was just saying they know tons of women that got pregnant after 35…which is also the case. Actually in this area I know more people who had babies after 35 than I do before 35. I had a baby before and after-both fine and both were conceived easily.
Worse are the responders who say “I did it with no problem or all I know is older women who got pregnant.” That doesn’t change the facts that fertility rates drop drastically around 35 years old and the eggs have a higher percent of defects the older they are. Every women should know this going into adulthood so she can make informed decisions.
This is not true. Please learn some updated facts.
Nothing has changed in the science. Women are born with a set amount of eggs. The numbers and quality of eggs decline with age.
How has that changed?
Fertility does not decline "rapidly" after 35.
You stuck on the word rapidly?
Anonymous
08/15/2025 15:49
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
You'd have to be loving under a rock to not know this fact. Women are beaten over the head with this message.
Right. clearly a man wrote the comment you responded to. As women, we know this because it’s been told to us literally constantly. But also, the original comment that man responded to was just saying they know tons of women that got pregnant after 35…which is also the case. Actually in this area I know more people who had babies after 35 than I do before 35. I had a baby before and after-both fine and both were conceived easily.
Worse are the responders who say “I did it with no problem or all I know is older women who got pregnant.” That doesn’t change the facts that fertility rates drop drastically around 35 years old and the eggs have a higher percent of defects the older they are. Every women should know this going into adulthood so she can make informed decisions.
This is not true. Please learn some updated facts.
Nothing has changed in the science. Women are born with a set amount of eggs. The numbers and quality of eggs decline with age.
How has that changed?
Fertility does not decline "rapidly" after 35.
Anonymous
08/15/2025 14:59
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
You'd have to be loving under a rock to not know this fact. Women are beaten over the head with this message.
Right. clearly a man wrote the comment you responded to. As women, we know this because it’s been told to us literally constantly. But also, the original comment that man responded to was just saying they know tons of women that got pregnant after 35…which is also the case. Actually in this area I know more people who had babies after 35 than I do before 35. I had a baby before and after-both fine and both were conceived easily.
Worse are the responders who say “I did it with no problem or all I know is older women who got pregnant.” That doesn’t change the facts that fertility rates drop drastically around 35 years old and the eggs have a higher percent of defects the older they are. Every women should know this going into adulthood so she can make informed decisions.
This is not true. Please learn some updated facts.
Nothing has changed in the science. Women are born with a set amount of eggs. The numbers and quality of eggs decline with age.
How has that changed?
Anonymous
08/15/2025 09:35
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
Ironic that given the title of this thread is about male infertility but once again framing the decline in birth rate solely in women. Or believing that women are these ignorant bints who need to be educated about fertility decline. Believe me, most women know. It's not that esoteric. Understanding that men's sperm declines, that miscarriages can be caused by some issues is not discussed as much.
+1
Add to the fact that infant mortality— meaning actual babies dying— is higher among parents in their very fertile 20s and it just might appear that your problem is with women.
100% the man who keeps commenting about the “rapid decline” of women’s fertility at 35 and that women need to know the “facts” will likely never have to worry about it because no woman would want him.
Anonymous
08/15/2025 08:41
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
Ironic that given the title of this thread is about male infertility but once again framing the decline in birth rate solely in women. Or believing that women are these ignorant bints who need to be educated about fertility decline. Believe me, most women know. It's not that esoteric. Understanding that men's sperm declines, that miscarriages can be caused by some issues is not discussed as much.
+1
Add to the fact that infant mortality— meaning actual babies dying— is higher among parents in their very fertile 20s and it just might appear that your problem is with women.
Anonymous
08/15/2025 04:37
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
Ironic that given the title of this thread is about male infertility but once again framing the decline in birth rate solely in women. Or believing that women are these ignorant bints who need to be educated about fertility decline. Believe me, most women know. It's not that esoteric. Understanding that men's sperm declines, that miscarriages can be caused by some issues is not discussed as much.
Anonymous
08/15/2025 00:44
Subject: Re:"The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
I'm still confused what choices you think women are making wrong? I can think of at least 5 women I know who reaches 39 and became a smbc via ivf because they stillcouldn't find a partner..nearly every couple I know, myself included, who struggled with infertility after 35 is because they met late in life. Was not not looking for a partner in my 20s. I traveled in my early 30s because I had time and money and was bored but not because i preferred it to having kids, I just didn't meet my partner until 34. I know at least 7 women who froze eggs because single...this isn't a surprise to any of us, we just couldn't find partners. I know multiple 40+ year old women who are still single and wish they could've found a partner to have kids
Anonymous
08/14/2025 23:04
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is what I did - have kids young while poor. Poverty was not a detriment to my children's well-being, since we were grad students/post-docs and educated enough to prioritize our kids and be good parents.
I later become infertile in my mid-30s due to a serious disease, so for me specifically, having kids young was the ONLY option, even though I didn't know it at the time!
But we are not Americans. I think that DCUM is populated by the sort of people who cannot abide being poor for any length of time, even for some nebulous better future, or to avoid the risks of infertility later.
And indeed, lots of older women have paid for successful IVF!
So it's not a one size fits all, and we need compassion and tolerance all around to avoid judging other people's choices.
NP.. I grew up poor. I was not going to impose that hardship on my kids. I had kids in my mid/late 30s, no fertility issues. Same for DH who is six years older than I am.
I'm also an immigrant.
I would rather not have kids than have kids being poor. That life really sucked.
My oldest is now in college with a fully funded 529 for in state. They don't have to worry about being able to afford college like I did. They have friends who are struggling with paying for college, and DC said how hard their friends lives were and how fortunate they, my kids, are. Yes, because I wasn't going to make them live through that same hardship that I had to - working my way through college.
Why were you so poor in your 20s? Is the country you grew up in a developing country?
DP but this is such a clueless question in light of PP’s post above. PP says they grew up poor and had to work their way through college. Assuming they were in college in their early 20s and maybe mid-20s since it often takes longer to complete college if you’re also working throughout college, they would perhaps graduate mid 20s and then first post-college job would likely all be going toward paying off student loans. You don’t overcome poverty overnight and you don’t just magically stop being poor after finishing college or working your first post-grad job either. Many who grow up poor and then get out of poverty will also give $ to family members.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 22:11
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
If houses in good areas cost 250k instead of 800k-1M, if rent was $800-1k for a 2br instead of $2500, if a decent large vehicle was 20k instead of 40-50k, and if daycare was 750 a month instead of $3000…
We might have a higher birth rate.
Our government is 37 trillion in debt because we wasted it on useless wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and bailouts for large corporations during the financial crisis.
If we had invested just a few trillion of this into housing development we would have solved the housing affordability problem. We could have added trillions in subsidies for middle class parents. But we threw it all away on useless bullshit
We might have a higher birth rate.
Our government is 37 trillion in debt because we wasted it on useless wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and bailouts for large corporations during the financial crisis.
If we had invested just a few trillion of this into housing development we would have solved the housing affordability problem. We could have added trillions in subsidies for middle class parents. But we threw it all away on useless bullshit
Anonymous
08/14/2025 19:44
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
You'd have to be loving under a rock to not know this fact. Women are beaten over the head with this message.
Right. clearly a man wrote the comment you responded to. As women, we know this because it’s been told to us literally constantly. But also, the original comment that man responded to was just saying they know tons of women that got pregnant after 35…which is also the case. Actually in this area I know more people who had babies after 35 than I do before 35. I had a baby before and after-both fine and both were conceived easily.
Worse are the responders who say “I did it with no problem or all I know is older women who got pregnant.” That doesn’t change the facts that fertility rates drop drastically around 35 years old and the eggs have a higher percent of defects the older they are. Every women should know this going into adulthood so she can make informed decisions.
This is not true. Please learn some updated facts.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 19:11
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is what I did - have kids young while poor. Poverty was not a detriment to my children's well-being, since we were grad students/post-docs and educated enough to prioritize our kids and be good parents.
I later become infertile in my mid-30s due to a serious disease, so for me specifically, having kids young was the ONLY option, even though I didn't know it at the time!
But we are not Americans. I think that DCUM is populated by the sort of people who cannot abide being poor for any length of time, even for some nebulous better future, or to avoid the risks of infertility later.
And indeed, lots of older women have paid for successful IVF!
So it's not a one size fits all, and we need compassion and tolerance all around to avoid judging other people's choices.
NP.. I grew up poor. I was not going to impose that hardship on my kids. I had kids in my mid/late 30s, no fertility issues. Same for DH who is six years older than I am.
I'm also an immigrant.
I would rather not have kids than have kids being poor. That life really sucked.
My oldest is now in college with a fully funded 529 for in state. They don't have to worry about being able to afford college like I did. They have friends who are struggling with paying for college, and DC said how hard their friends lives were and how fortunate they, my kids, are. Yes, because I wasn't going to make them live through that same hardship that I had to - working my way through college.
Why were you so poor in your 20s? Is the country you grew up in a developing country?
Anonymous
08/14/2025 19:08
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
You'd have to be loving under a rock to not know this fact. Women are beaten over the head with this message.
Right. clearly a man wrote the comment you responded to. As women, we know this because it’s been told to us literally constantly. But also, the original comment that man responded to was just saying they know tons of women that got pregnant after 35…which is also the case. Actually in this area I know more people who had babies after 35 than I do before 35. I had a baby before and after-both fine and both were conceived easily.
Worse are the responders who say “I did it with no problem or all I know is older women who got pregnant.” That doesn’t change the facts that fertility rates drop drastically around 35 years old and the eggs have a higher percent of defects the older they are. Every women should know this going into adulthood so she can make informed decisions.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 18:02
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:This is what I did - have kids young while poor. Poverty was not a detriment to my children's well-being, since we were grad students/post-docs and educated enough to prioritize our kids and be good parents.
I later become infertile in my mid-30s due to a serious disease, so for me specifically, having kids young was the ONLY option, even though I didn't know it at the time!
But we are not Americans. I think that DCUM is populated by the sort of people who cannot abide being poor for any length of time, even for some nebulous better future, or to avoid the risks of infertility later.
And indeed, lots of older women have paid for successful IVF!
So it's not a one size fits all, and we need compassion and tolerance all around to avoid judging other people's choices.
NP.. I grew up poor. I was not going to impose that hardship on my kids. I had kids in my mid/late 30s, no fertility issues. Same for DH who is six years older than I am.
I'm also an immigrant.
I would rather not have kids than have kids being poor. That life really sucked.
My oldest is now in college with a fully funded 529 for in state. They don't have to worry about being able to afford college like I did. They have friends who are struggling with paying for college, and DC said how hard their friends lives were and how fortunate they, my kids, are. Yes, because I wasn't going to make them live through that same hardship that I had to - working my way through college.