Don't settle its better to stay childless than settle. Its selfish to settle and bring poor child into your unhappy mess.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't have to settle but it's better to rethink your criteria. Assuming there are multiple options at play or you're in a relationship you may not think is the one, you really need to prioritize the type of person who would be a good parent vs the hot guy who may not be that into you. I actually was in this situation in my mid 30s and broke it off with the hot noncommital guy and stuck with the nice guy who on our first date said "I know I'm not supposed to do this but I want you to know I really like you." We've been married 18 yrs and have 2 teenagers. The hot guy decided he loved me after I broke it off for the nice guy, but sorry, it was too late. I actually ran into him 2 yrs later at a grocery store with my infant son and he said "aww - I see you got what you really wanted" and gave me a hug. I never saw him again but know that he never married. He's a good person but was not on the path I wanted...and I know I made the right choice.

Why do people seem to assume that every woman in OP's place is trying to choose between the hot non-commital guy and the average nice guy that wants commitment? What about hot commital men, what about average non-commital guys? What about average commital guys that are attractive to the woman in question?

It took me a while to find a partner. I didn't care if the guy didn't look like young Brad Pitt, but there was no way in hell I would commit to someone I personally didn't find attractive just because he wanted me.

Your framing is wrong. What many are trying to point out to OP is that, once you are years down the road raising kids, it’s common to realize that some of the qualities you value most in your partner were not the ones you prioritized while dating.

Did you recently see yourself single or you've been single for a while with little to no previous romantic experience?

Anonymous wrote:35 is too old dangerous for the baby

It's not. Relative risk is higher, but absolute risk is low, you rearhat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your main goal is to have kids, it's not settling if you find someone to have kids with. But my goal was to have healthy, wealthy kids, so i found someone to have those kinds of kids with. Dogs I want some broke kids? No

But are you attracted to your partner?

Yes of course but that's want my main goal

35 is too old dangerous for the baby

OP if you ever do get married, it won't be you who is doing the settling .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Such a woman should accept that she missed her biological time to mate with someone she’s attracted to. Whether be it by her own decision making or through no fault of her own, peace and happiness will only come from embracing the lot in life she’s been given. As far as any decision she makes deviates from this, is how unhappy she will find herself. Wherever you go, there you are!

She can still meet someone she likes, and have children

Someone she likes but isn’t attracted to???

I'm using likes and attractive interchangeably

No settling. Never works

One of the most important attributes is how much you are romantically desired by the other person. Don’t settle for someone who doesn’t truly desire you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Such a woman should accept that she missed her biological time to mate with someone she’s attracted to. Whether be it by her own decision making or through no fault of her own, peace and happiness will only come from embracing the lot in life she’s been given. As far as any decision she makes deviates from this, is how unhappy she will find herself. Wherever you go, there you are!

She can still meet someone she likes, and have children

Someone she likes but isn’t attracted to???

Anonymous wrote:If your main goal is to have kids, it's not settling if you find someone to have kids with. But my goal was to have healthy, wealthy kids, so i found someone to have those kinds of kids with. Dogs I want some broke kids? No

But are you attracted to your partner?

Anonymous wrote:You don't have to settle but it's better to rethink your criteria. Assuming there are multiple options at play or you're in a relationship you may not think is the one, you really need to prioritize the type of person who would be a good parent vs the hot guy who may not be that into you. I actually was in this situation in my mid 30s and broke it off with the hot noncommital guy and stuck with the nice guy who on our first date said "I know I'm not supposed to do this but I want you to know I really like you." We've been married 18 yrs and have 2 teenagers. The hot guy decided he loved me after I broke it off for the nice guy, but sorry, it was too late. I actually ran into him 2 yrs later at a grocery store with my infant son and he said "aww - I see you got what you really wanted" and gave me a hug. I never saw him again but know that he never married. He's a good person but was not on the path I wanted...and I know I made the right choice.

Sniff, sniff. Such a cute story! I hope your current husband realizes how much you sacrificed to be with him! You could have had a hot guy!

Anonymous wrote:No. Such a woman should accept that she missed her biological time to mate with someone she’s attracted to. Whether be it by her own decision making or through no fault of her own, peace and happiness will only come from embracing the lot in life she’s been given. As far as any decision she makes deviates from this, is how unhappy she will find herself. Wherever you go, there you are!

She can still meet someone she likes, and have children