Older women

Started by LADoc00
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

LADoc00

Gen X, the last great generation
Removed
20+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Developing some dating policy and considering what should be the upper reasonable limit for a woman if someone was considering having kids. Is 33 too old to start dating someone? Anyone have a link to actual data with % chance type stuff, I dont want to start breaking up with people and not have the hard data to back it up. :laugh:
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
tr said:
Here are the stats on the incidence of Down's. It looks like it gets over the 1/1000 live births mark at 30. According to the site, 'high-risk' is set at 1/250, which happens between ages 34 and 35.

http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm
Actually it all depends. My aunt had her daughter at 44 and the daughter is sharp as anything. Even though the occurance is supposed to be around 1/40 at that age. I would say don't dump someone just due to what the kids might have. Have a little faith. Now if you want to dump her, do it cuz you don't like her.
 
myfavred said:
Actually it all depends. My aunt had her daughter at 44 and the daughter is sharp as anything. Even though the occurance is supposed to be around 1/40 at that age.

Well, of course that means that 39 out of 40 kids born to 44-year-old women *won't* have Down's. Still, those are not happy odds for such a disruptive life event.

I would say don't dump someone just due to what the kids might have. Have a little faith. Now if you want to dump her, do it cuz you don't like her.

I suspect LADoc00 is looking for viable excuses to dump women so he doesn't have to marry them. Although it does sound sort of byzantine (when's the last time you needed an excuse to dump anyone besides 'it's not going to work'?), so maybe he's had a change of heart.
 
bananaface said:
I plugged " Is 33 too old to start dating someone" into Pubmed and got nothing. I'm starting to think maybe there is no hard data out there on this topic. :laugh:
Shh don't tell this to everyone. Conduct a research and then publish it. You are sharing future research ideas here. And seeing the record of Nobel prize it might get nominated some day 😱
 
Im not looking for an excuse to dump wimmen, I have a index case full of 3x5 cards with excuses sitting on my desk.

The point is if a guy wanted to have kids...assuming a reasonable amount of time to impregnate someone....how old is too old? 32? 33? (to start dating)
 
Hmm how about you assume you need 3 yrs to start dating, get engaged, get married, have a honeymoon before you have children.

If you want to have 2 kids before the woman is 40 (as a personal preference)...you'd need about 4 years for a close age gap. So adding up, you are at 7 yrs- so yep, 33 might be the latest. 😕

I've seen alot of women over 40 having children. If you want to adopt, there are even more options if the odds of complications scare you. Moms over 40 is a new trend it seems!
 
LADoc00 said:
A 40+ mom just sounds wrong...yet a 20 year old mom sounds hot...

Yep, I'm hot. 🙂


Did you see any of the recent stories about the 50+ yr old moms? People are just pushing the limit everyday on their fertility.
 
lovemydrhubby said:
Yep, I'm hot. 🙂


Did you see any of the recent stories about the 50+ yr old moms? People are just pushing the limit everyday on their fertility.

I have an uncontrollable nausea when I think 40+ year old moms, a 50+er is just downright nasty.
 
LADoc00 said:
The point is if a guy wanted to have kids...assuming a reasonable amount of time to impregnate someone....how old is too old? 32? 33? (to start dating)
Well, the time to get her knocked up is not significant if she's a skank. If she's not skanky, 33 becomes less practical.

Seriously, though, I think it depends on how many kids you want. If it's just a few then you are probably ok. If you want a ton, then you are starting a bit late and will just have to settle for fewer if you decide to be with her.
 
bananaface said:
Well, the time to get her knocked up is not significant if she's a skank. If she's not skanky, 33 becomes less practical.

Seriously, though, I think it depends on how many kids you want. If it's just a few then you are probably ok. If you want a ton, then you are starting a bit late and will just have to settle for fewer if you decide to be with her.

Skanks are people too, seriously some of the best girlfriends Ive ever had were skanks.

All the societal hate targetted towards the older guy-younger girl relationship is seriously impeding my pursuit of happiness.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
LADoc00 said:
Skanks are people too, seriously some of the best girlfriends Ive ever had were skanks.
I never said skanks aren't people. I just suggested that they are a quicker means to the end you seek. However, you don't want to go for something fast if it's just going to fall apart after a few years. It's better to put the time in, I think. Not that you can't have sex whenever you want - but it takes awhile to know if you really want to have kids with someone.
 
LADoc00 said:
The point is if a guy wanted to have kids...assuming a reasonable amount of time to impregnate someone....how old is too old? 32? 33? (to start dating)

The day after her last viable ovulation.

It all depends on what kind of relationship you want first and how quick you move in relationships.
 
LADoc00 said:
The point is if a guy wanted to have kids...assuming a reasonable amount of time to impregnate someone....how old is too old? 32? 33? (to start dating)

I should point out that there are two sides to this equation, of course. The situation for men is not dissimilar:

"Advanced paternal age is associated with an increased risk of new mutations in the offspring. This risk for genetic defects does not increase dramatically at age 40, but rather increases linearly with the age of the father. The risk of genetic defects due to new dominant mutations is 4 to 5 times greater for fathers aged 45 and above than for men in their early twenties."

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33298
 
tr said:
I should point out that there are two sides to this equation, of course. The situation for men is not dissimilar:

"Advanced paternal age is associated with an increased risk of new mutations in the offspring. This risk for genetic defects does not increase dramatically at age 40, but rather increases linearly with the age of the father. The risk of genetic defects due to new dominant mutations is 4 to 5 times greater for fathers aged 45 and above than for men in their early twenties."

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33298

50% of all infertility issues are related to women. I wonder where that other 50% comes from? 😕

If it weren't for the women of SDN, I don't what some of you guys would do! :laugh: