Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A 33-year-old man your same age is dating 25-26 years olds. At that point, you are competing with women 8 to 10 years younger and there isn't a competition on looks.
That's why.
What 25 year old is dying to get married to a 34 year old??????
Anonymous wrote:A 33-year-old man your same age is dating 25-26 years olds. At that point, you are competing with women 8 to 10 years younger and there isn't a competition on looks.
That's why.
Anonymous wrote:A 33-year-old man your same age is dating 25-26 years olds. At that point, you are competing with women 8 to 10 years younger and there isn't a competition on looks.
That's why.
Anonymous wrote:What's the wisdom behind it?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a doctor and medical professional we need to stop the false hope about natural and ivf pregnancy over 35. It's a disservice to our young women
I wish you weren’t full of crap. When I had my 3rd kid over 35 I thought I’d score some special treatment in pregnancy. Nope. They told me they actually wouldn’t do any different interventions until over 40.
I wanted an elective induction before 40 weeks but they made me go to 41 weeks. Because there is nothing to worry about at all between 35 and 40 according to them.
Well they weren't following ACOG guidelines for AMA then. Probably being stingy with appts. I say this as someone who had two kids 35+ so I'm not an MRA. But facts and risks are real.
You got a cite for that? Because my understanding is that they were within guidelines.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a doctor and medical professional we need to stop the false hope about natural and ivf pregnancy over 35. It's a disservice to our young women
I wish you weren’t full of crap. When I had my 3rd kid over 35 I thought I’d score some special treatment in pregnancy. Nope. They told me they actually wouldn’t do any different interventions until over 40.
I wanted an elective induction before 40 weeks but they made me go to 41 weeks. Because there is nothing to worry about at all between 35 and 40 according to them.
Well they weren't following ACOG guidelines for AMA then. Probably being stingy with appts. I say this as someone who had two kids 35+ so I'm not an MRA. But facts and risks are real.
\Anonymous wrote: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 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.
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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a doctor and medical professional we need to stop the false hope about natural and ivf pregnancy over 35. It's a disservice to our young women
I wish you weren’t full of crap. When I had my 3rd kid over 35 I thought I’d score some special treatment in pregnancy. Nope. They told me they actually wouldn’t do any different interventions until over 40.
I wanted an elective induction before 40 weeks but they made me go to 41 weeks. Because there is nothing to worry about at all between 35 and 40 according to them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Women looks and womb go south and fall apart after 30
Let me tell you something that’s going to blow your mind: not all of us live everyday of our lives in pursuit of pleasing men.
You can't de-age your womb
You can do IVF.
And, you can’t fathom that not every woman wants babies.
I always hate how people just throw out "you can do IVF!" as if it doesn't take a financial, emotional, mental and physical toll on women and their relationships.
And as if it's guaranteed to work!
BTDT.
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.