It's very hard to convince women that they have a shelf life. They get use to dating up (way up!) at a young age because men are so much more willing to bang women they know are way below them (or guys that don't realize how attractive they are - which is a surprising # of guys on this forum). Forgetting all the mental and emotional problems they have by their 30s [that they will pass onto their kids], they are increasing the odds of the kid having biological problems - which is just well known at this point.

There's a lot of talk of guys never peaking and I have to disagree. Men have a shelf life too unless you think you'll reach Bill Gates or Leonardo DiCaprio levels of fame and power. For most people, it comes down to raw sexual attraction and social status within their communities. I think men have a hell of a lot more time compared to women... but I don't know how much for the average guy. I don't think your average 45 year old can go up against an average 35 yr old in the dating scene and win unless he's done incredibly well in life.

Probability. You're doing it100%wrong.

* * *

Oh, and ... "click your fingers"
.
.
.
"click your fingers"
.
.
.
"click..."

Sounds like a lot of girls I saw in the lab. just lol @ these post-glow postdocs

Nah I'm right


The chance is 1 in 100 for any of them, but if you're talking 3 children then you have 3 in 1/100 shots and so you add, not multiply

3/100 = 1/33

They're competing with men for jobs.. of course theres a fukking sortage of men in high positions they want to leech off of

Those poor women! That guy you left when you were 27 to go "find yourself"

m8 thats not how probability works

its 1-[The probability none have downs]
= 1- (99/100)^3
= 0.029701
~3%

No. But you're right that 1/100 chance of your kid being down syndrome is very high.

"I don't think I realised that there was a swathe of us eligible alpha females who were outnumbering our male counterparts."

Lol'd, this is midway through the article, anyone read this???

Brah, I don't care about these over the hill women. The fact is, they're single because they're holding out for something that's unrealistic (like a 6ft5, shredded, 10k a day CEO with a PhD and holiday home in Spain).
Exactly.

70 year old men should NOT be having babies...you think a 70 year old is in the shape and position to raise a child?

Personally, I think 70 is a little old. But can a man do that if he wants to? Yes.

Mick Jagger had a kid at 73, and he's got enough money to do whatever he wants.

Too bad he'll be dead before his kid graduates elementary school. Also men having kids at 73 is very rare, there can be complications. Men can last much longer than women yes obviously, but sperm quality goes down too.

Best post ITT. I hear what you all are saying about women and working. However, you need money to live and if you want kids that takes money too. Raising 2 kids 30 years ago wasn't that bad. Now you need at least 2 incomes to raise a kid. If you want your kids to go to a decent school, guess what you have to live in a decent area. You can't blame some women for feeling this way. With prices of homes, cars, goods, etc going up you have to make more money to be comfortable.

In my personal experience....none of that bullchit matters unless you think it does. I remember getting intimidated when I'd go to college parties and half the indian/persian girls my age had grad student BF's pushing 6 figures in their late 20s/early 30s.

But even all that family pressure to "settle down" with a guy like that - can't stand up to our loose dating culture. I've seen it over and over again.

You guys all sound mad

maybe because you're all FA *******s even with desparate women out there

These girls be making more bank than you

Don't forget the cats... they also have more cats than us.

Where are the cat brahs

What about human rights law? Finance is very vague though...

His dad got to 93, so he might live to see that day. But either way, Mick Jagger's an exception because he's got so much money, his baby is set for life no matter what. Some of his other kids are middle aged too so there's plenty of family that can take care of the baby.

As for sperm, I'd imagine the decline isn't as rapid as seen in females!

As stated these "suitable" men want a 25 year old not a woman so old she had to freeze her eggs.

It depends on the area, and it depends on the income. We have a full-time white collar and part-time blue collar income and we're fine, basically we spend $30k, pay $30k taxes, and put $60k on the mortgage. So we own one unit and are 3-4 years off paying off our second. Now if we earned less it'd be a different matter, like if we were both blue collar or something. And if we lived in a fancier area and/or wanted our kids to go to private school, we'd have to spend more. But we don't think it's necessary or desireable to do so. Most people just piss their money away and then complain how tough life is.

So obviously circumstances vary. But the people saying they desperately need to earn more typically are not minimum wage types, it's professional people earning an above-average income. There's some Keeping Up With The Joneses going on. Basic consumerism, including the display consumerism of "oh yes our Jenny does piano and maths and lacrosse, darling."My observation is that when women are anxious to get out of home with the kids and back into the workforce, it's not really money, it's their career, wanting personal development, doing something more mentally challenging than wiping bums, and so on. I'm a stay-at-home father, I get it. I have a garage gym and work with 20 or so people for 15 hours a week; if I wanted to take the next step to a place 4-6 times larger, a dedicated warehouse gym employing other people and helping hundreds or people, I couldn't be with my kids.

So I'm sacrificing my career for my children. I don't feel good about this choice every day, believe me. And I get that it's more difficult for women than for men. For me it was a free choice, but women have all this social baggage, "you should stay at home or you're a bad mother," being said by the same people who say, "you should go back to work to provide a good life for your children or you're a bad mother," and all that sht. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Still, what it comes down to is time. Man or woman, you can't have everything. I worked in a big gym in a wealthy area, and there were a lot of men earning $250+k and working 60+hr a week who never saw their families, who had shtty marriages and whose kids barely knew them. If you put all that time into a job, you'll have either no marriage or a shtty one. And if you put all that time into your marriage and family, those will be great, but you won't go as far in your career.

And again, I get that this choice is not as free for women as it is for men, because women are damned if they do and damned if they don't. But from browsing the mother's forums and listening in to the occasional conversation between women, it's more women damning women than men doing it. But that's the way it's always been, each gender does most of the policing of gender roles for itself.

But all that becomes irrelevant when you consider time. Each minute spent doing X is a minute you can't spend doing Y. You can't have everything.