Anonymous wrote:For reasons I don't want to get into, having children looks more and more not in the cards for me. Is there possibly a physical silver lining to that?

I'm in great shape as it is, a size 2, and my body is as firm and tight well into my 30s as it was ten years ago... maybe even better, since I don't drink as much as I used to. Will my not having been pregnant/given birth delay the weight gain and bodily changes that come as women get into their late 30s and 40s?

I'm not seeking validation for choosing body over kids. Only looking for silver lining in an otherwise disappointing situation. The other upsides of course are more time to engage in competitive athletics and travel and hardcore outdoor activity, but I'm wondering if forgoing the physical stress of children will enable me to maintain a physical peak for longer. For what it's worth, the other childless women I know of various ages seem pretty trim.

I’m 50 and never had children. It wasn’t my plan and I have three babies in heaven who never drew breath on earth - I mourn them every day.

That said, my breasts are in much better shape than any of the women I know who breastfed babies and didn’t have a boob job to repair the damage to the breast tissue that naturally occurs following. I can only assume my pelvic floor is in much better shape too, BUT, I’m starting to experience some weakness in my bladder control which my doctor tells me is a natural occurrence in all women as they age, whether they’ve carried a baby full term and given birth or not.

There are some protective factors in pregnancy but they are largely balanced out by the negative. Later in life pregnancies (after 35) are actually linked to higher incidence of breast cancer and some other reproductive organ cancers.

There is little doubt that the years of sleep deprivation and parenting stress has an impact on the health of mothers, but if you’re childless not by choice, the grief of that can have a significant negative impact on your health too - so it’s important to manage that grief and cultivate positivity as much as possible in your life. You will undoubtedly have more money and more time to pursue your passions, and if you are married or in a committed relationship you will likely have less stress and conflict in that relationship absent the strains of parenting and financially supporting children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP: If you are disappointed about not having children, I don't think this is the proper validation. Many of us mothers are in superior physcial shape shortly after having children and still decades later. And I don't want to sow further concern for you but in fact, there are many reasons that having children actually benefits women from a health standpoint, mostly because of hormonal changes. The exposure to higher levels of estrogen for a period of time offer greater protection from ovarian cancer, breast cancer, and heart disease. My identical twin, who was never pregnant, died from a rare type of uterine cancer, which, according to her specialists, almost never afflicts women who have been pregnant. I know you're looking for ways to be happier about not having children, but I don't think you should look to physical advantage. If it's any consolation, I am the mother of two teenagers right now, and I love them with all my heart, but it's a nightmare. I do think the mental toll is pretty serious.

Seriously ridiculous. If having children is supposed to be protective, then why is that all the women I know who have cancer also mothers?

This is, unfortunately, true. I never had bio children, buthave an adopted daughter and had ovarian cancer when she was very young. So I got all the sleep deprivation aging and the physical toll of cancer. PP, I’m so sorry about your twin. OP, I don’t think the increased risk for cancer is substantial enough to be an argument for having kids. Birth control pills can help. I’m sorry about losing your twin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]I am childless and 45.[/b]

Moms always act like having kids ruins their bodies and I’m sure it does to some extent, but a ton of moms have great bodies. And I swear I think having kids might actually be good for muscle tone in your arms.

So no not really. Eventually, all of our bodies are going to age despite whether or not we have kids. I’m guessing those of us who don’t have kids might have better pelvic floors though and less trouble in that department?

I really don't think you can talk about what being pregnant and giving birth does to all women since you have never experienced it.

Why not give op your positive stories rather than insult your mom and other women?

Huh?? She wasn't insulting mothers, she actually was complimenting them (saying that a ton of moms have great bodies, stating that having kids might be good for developing muscle tone in your arms). This was a positive post. Not sure how you interpreted this as insulting.

Yes. Sleep deprivation, no mental energy for thinking about what I eat, no time to work out. Yes. You will look better without kids.

I was super cute and fit before I got pregnant and now I'm a fat mess. Yes there are fit mom's but I see a lot more like me than otherwise.

I agree it's not great to find your validation this way, though. If you want to be a parent, you can be (incl. through adoption) and if not, you will find joy in other things.

I spent a good 20 minutes tonight being a cheerleader to get my kid to poop. Not having kids will probably keep you mentally younger too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For reasons I don't want to get into, having children looks more and more not in the cards for me. Is there possibly a physical silver lining to that?

I'm in great shape as it is, a size 2, and my body is as firm and tight well into my 30s as it was ten years ago... maybe even better, since I don't drink as much as I used to. Will my not having been pregnant/given birth delay the weight gain and bodily changes that come as women get into their late 30s and 40s?

I'm not seeking validation for choosing body over kids. Only looking for silver lining in an otherwise disappointing situation. The other upsides of course are more time to engage in competitive athletics and travel and hardcore outdoor activity, but I'm wondering if forgoing the physical stress of children will enable me to maintain a physical peak for longer. For what it's worth, the other childless women I know of various ages seem pretty trim.

I'm sorry if kids were what you wanted. I applaud you for making lemonade out of lemons. The one downside to being kidless that I can see is an increased risk of ovarian, endometrial, and breast cancer. But that could be offset with use of the birth control pill for several years.

How do you explain cancer in women who’ve had children?

I have 4 children and the body of a teenager. If you lose the weight immediately after the baby you'll be fine. And don't gain too much to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One piece is birthing and (maybe) breastfeeding kids. The other is the wear and toll that childrearing can have. A decade of sleep deprivation, deferred self-care, diminished finances and all the stresses that children bring will have their effects.

Agree! All this stuff ages you and you won't have to experience that. Enjoy it, OP!

Agree. Your body definitely will be better looking for not having kids. Very few women emerge from pregnancy/childbirth looking better than before - unless they weren’t in the best shape to begin with. The vast majority of women have something left behind as a reminder: stretch marks, a scar, looser skin, saggier breasts, weaker pelvic floor...

Even if you are one of the few lucky ones with zero signs of ever birthing a child, the rigor or parenting ages you

I think so. I look at all my childless and single girlfriends and they have such low stress lives. They are all well educated, in a great place financially and they all take great care of themselves.

Hi OP, I'm not sure you'll be in better shape than us moms but you will definitely be richer!!!

When I think of the money we have spent raising two UMC in the DMV it blows my mind.

Look at it this way - since some (many) women do gain weight or sustain damage to their pelvic floor, you will definitely avoid this. And sleep deprivation and stress is aging too. Not to mention, expendable money and time to spend on pampering yourself while the rest of us chase toddlers.

Even Hilaria Baldwin looks way older than pre-kids.

Anonymous wrote:For reasons I don't want to get into, having children looks more and more not in the cards for me. Is there possibly a physical silver lining to that?

I'm in great shape as it is, a size 2, and my body is as firm and tight well into my 30s as it was ten years ago... maybe even better, since I don't drink as much as I used to. Will my not having been pregnant/given birth delay the weight gain and bodily changes that come as women get into their late 30s and 40s?

I'm not seeking validation for choosing body over kids. Only looking for silver lining in an otherwise disappointing situation. The other upsides of course are more time to engage in competitive athletics and travel and hardcore outdoor activity, but I'm wondering if forgoing the physical stress of children will enable me to maintain a physical peak for longer. For what it's worth, the other childless women I know of various ages seem pretty trim.

I'm sorry if kids were what you wanted. I applaud you for making lemonade out of lemons. The one downside to being kidless that I can see is an increased risk of ovarian, endometrial, and breast cancer. But that could be offset with use of the birth control pill for several years.

Anonymous wrote:OP: If you are disappointed about not having children, I don't think this is the proper validation. Many of us mothers are in superior physical shape shortly after having children and still decades later. And I don't want to sow further concern for you but in fact, there are many reasons that having children actually benefits women from a health standpoint, mostly because of hormonal changes. The exposure to higher levels of estrogen for a period of time offer greater protection from ovarian cancer, breast cancer, and heart disease. My identical twin, who was never pregnant, died from a rare type of uterine cancer, which, according to her specialists, almost never afflicts women who have been pregnant. I know you're looking for ways to be happier about not having children, but I don't think you should look to physical advantage. If it's any consolation, I am the mother of two teenagers right now, and I love them with all my heart, but it's a nightmare. I do think the mental toll is pretty serious.

Hey OP, some good advice is NEVER take advice from anyone that says anything like this. Ever. This is seriously one of the most annoying things I've ever read on this board.

Positives of not having kids...no stretch marks, no saggy belly skin, no potential C-section scar. Actually carrying a kid is not kind to your body, regardless of what kind of "superior physical shape" you think you are in. Its hard, hard work and its not guarantee that it ever goes back to what it was before.

You don't have kids, you get to do things like sleep. And you have time to focus on your physical health, whether that is time in the gym or outdoors or whatever floats your boat. I think just having more time that you can dedicate on you is the biggest thing that allows you to work on maintaining physical and mental health.

And despite this crap this non-medical-doctor is posting on here to justify her own life choices, the OVERHWLEMING majority of childfree women do not suffer from any of the afflictions she's mentioning. Cancers are, despite what we hear, still typically considered rare diseases. Most people will not get these in their lifetime, although obviously some certainly will. And some of those will be women that are married with children.

Now if we could only address the problem of married women being threatened by single women and needing to crap on them all the time...