Being Dad at an Old Age..What's Real and What's Myth

I've been thinking about this topic and haven't found a clear response about that..

"facts/myths" about how sperm quality declines by the time pass..supposedly having more likely to undergo DNA mutations..

but I recently see more and more situations like this one in my real life:


Myself I was born when my dad had 44 years old..so I want to know the real data behind all this topic.
 

Waverer

Sparrow
From what I've read (the book Selfish Reasons for Having More Children) people consistently underestimate just how much joy they will get from their grandchildren one day. Obviously that joy will be diminished if you die before they're born. Just one factor to consider.
 

balybary

Pelican
Since your dad has become a father at 44 years old, you probably have first-hand experience on the subject.

About the potential health problems for the babies the age of the mother has to taken into consideration.

The age of the father has to be taken into consideration about bringing up childrens properly.

Above a certain age, it becomes a moral dilemma for a man to have kids. He has to choose where to draw the line.
 

balybary

Pelican
Mick Jagger's last son, who was sired when his father was 73.

He will probably grow up without his dad, but the boy is probably healthy, even with a dad that old.

On a side note, his mother looks strange in the picture. :dislike:


 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
I used to worry about this a lot, but Edward Dutton but my mind at ease. Not that I plan to wait until my 50's to start a family, but Dutton says that the risk of older men having children is very minimal. He believes the increase in autism is mostly due to a higher % of people having kids v. before modern medicine combined with women having children at an older age than previous generations.

The big concern is will you have enough energy to keep up with a toddler and how old you will be when your grandkids are born. But those worries can be minimized as well with a healthy diet and a healthy living routine. That and finding a younger wife, probably best to target 25 to 30, old enough to have some what grown up but not too old for child rearing.
 

Max Roscoe

Woodpecker
I've always found the suggestion that men 40+ forget about having a family to be odd and bizarre. While in a hypothetical world, it might have worked for me to marry at 22, since the culture was so much more conducive to happy, normal, thin women back then, I am in a far better place financially, emotionally, spiritually, and frame-wise today.

Having kids later in life is really how it was usually done. Most roman legions would marry in their mid 30s after retiring from life as a soldier. That may seem young, but considering their lifespan back then, it's the equivalent of marrying in your 60s today. I hope I am around tons of grandchildren one day. Great great great grandchildren would be awesome. But if none of that is possible and I keel over at age 75 days before my first grandchild is even born, I will still die a very happy man, having lived a rewarding life by hopefully loving and wonderful children and a devoted wife. Why would anyone suggest a man not go for this, because his level of reward is slightly less than what it potentially could have been, had he selected a different timeline?

You know what I hear a lot of? Almost EVERY SINGLE married guy friend complains about his marriage, tells me to never get married (even the "happy" ones will say it "jokingly?"), and laments about their lack of free time and money.

You know what I've never heard? An older guy who delayed marriage, telling me that he regrets making a family in his latter years.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
In the early modern period average ages for male marriages were not far from 30. So most men were birthing up until 45-55 and a good number would be birthing later.

I believe the low-life expectancy of medieval and prior times is a myth. If you only include people who reach adulthood life-expectancy was around 60 up until the 1700s. So the average age of peoples' father has changed little. In times past we did have more people with young fathers and that is probably beneficial.

It could be different for different people, but I see the best window for marriage for men as 30-35; and for women 18-25. I just wouldn't have been able to pick out the good husbands at 18, 21 or 25. The good ones are only obvious at about 30. You might be able to pick a steady one at 25, but they haven't proved themselves at this age. That could no doubt be pushed back if people grew up earlier. While I only see women declining with age, unless they give birth.

I and my sibling were born when our father was close to 40. There is no obvious mental or physical issues. My father stayed quite vigorous up until his early 70s. As a child I did not see him as old. My grandfather had a heart attack before I was born and died when I was young. So I only ever knew him as a slow, old man. I enjoyed what I remember of his gentle soul, but it would have been nice to have memories of him taking me places. He couldn't do anything on his own. His wife had a stroke when he died and most of my memory of her is being unable to understand her and her moving incredibly slowly. Only one of my grandparents stayed mobile into my adulthood and that's the only one I could be said to know. They'd probably still be alive today, approaching 100, if socialised medicine didn't death panel them.

So I think it's best to start having children early. Even if you start at 30 you can be a grandfather at about 50 and great-grandfather in your 70s. 2X is not unreasonable if you are on Alex Jones' supplements o_O

If I happened to be in my 40s I would be looking at cutting corners to pop some out. Even if that means going Asian or Latina.
 
I used to worry about this a lot, but Edward Dutton but my mind at ease. Not that I plan to wait until my 50's to start a family, but Dutton says that the risk of older men having children is very minimal. He believes the increase in autism is mostly due to a higher % of people having kids v. before modern medicine combined with women having children at an older age than previous generations.

The big concern is will you have enough energy to keep up with a toddler and how old you will be when your grandkids are born. But those worries can be minimized as well with a healthy diet and a healthy living routine. That and finding a younger wife, probably best to target 25 to 30, old enough to have some what grown up but not too old for child rearing.
can you send me please more info about that? thanks!
 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
can you send me please more info about that? thanks!
It was on the McSpencer Group podcast which has been deleted from Youtube.

He does have a video about paternal age having an impact on the attractiveness of your children, though I have not listened to all of it to know exactly what he has to say on this
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
I used to worry about this a lot, but Edward Dutton but my mind at ease. Not that I plan to wait until my 50's to start a family, but Dutton says that the risk of older men having children is very minimal. He believes the increase in autism is mostly due to a higher % of people having kids v. before modern medicine combined with women having children at an older age than previous generations.

The big concern is will you have enough energy to keep up with a toddler and how old you will be when your grandkids are born. But those worries can be minimized as well with a healthy diet and a healthy living routine. That and finding a younger wife, probably best to target 25 to 30, old enough to have some what grown up but not too old for child rearing.
Dutton is totally wrong about this, autism rates are not due to people having children later in life. We know this for sure, because historically there were always some parents having children later on, it's very easy to isolate the age factor in a study on autism. You might get a 10% or 20% or even 50% increase in autism rates from this, but nowhere near the 10,000% increase observed since the 1970s. The other canard is that nurses and parents back then somehow didn't understand what autism was, and weren't able to notice that their toddlers were completely mentally handicapped. Of course that's total bullshit fed to normies.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Mick Jagger's last son, who was sired when his father was 73.

He will probably grow up without his dad, but the boy is probably healthy, even with a dad that old.

On a side note, his mother looks strange in the picture. :dislike:


Mick and her are on the same spiritual wavelength, I suppose that makes for a good marriage.




This was not unique at that time, the dionysian cult pervaded pop music in the 60s, still does today:





Also, the mermaid in Starbucks does stand as a pagan deity Isis/Astarte/Lillith, through the myth of Melusine, an ancient French witch, that's the ultimate message in the shirt worn above by Mick's wife, they understand the symbology behind the logo.

 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
Dutton is totally wrong about this, autism rates are not due to people having children later in life. We know this for sure, because historically there were always some parents having children later on, it's very easy to isolate the age factor in a study on autism. You might get a 10% or 20% or even 50% increase in autism rates from this, but nowhere near the 10,000% increase observed since the 1970s. The other canard is that nurses and parents back then somehow didn't understand what autism was, and weren't able to notice that their toddlers were completely mentally handicapped. Of course that's total bullshit fed to normies.
You misread what I typed. Dutton said that men having children at older ages is not the cause of the autism boom. He believes it is a mix of many things, mostly bad genetics surviving due to modern medicine.

Dutton does not believe a father's age has a large impact on the child's health, at least not nearly as much as the mother's age.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Dutton is wrong on that count
You misread what I typed. Dutton said that men having children at older ages is not the cause of the autism boom. He believes it is a mix of many things, mostly bad genetics surviving due to modern medicine.
Dutton is wrong on that count as well, unless you believe that "bad genetics" somehow increased by 10,000% between 1985 and now, in the span of one generation... He's probably right on many other subjects but in this case he looks like an ideologue trying to smash a square peg into a round hole.

 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
Dutton is wrong on that count


Dutton is wrong on that count as well, unless you believe that "bad genetics" somehow increased by 10,000% between 1985 and now, in the span of one generation... He's probably right on many other subjects but in this case he looks like an ideologue trying to smash a square peg into a round hole.

He isn't saying the only reason for the rise in autism is bad genetics, he said it was just one of the reasons. He was making the point that a father's age is not nearly as important as a mother's age.

IIRC, it has been a while since I heard it, he listed bad genetics, very aggressive diagnosis that would have never been diagnosed in the past so the pharma companies can make more money, and then other possible shady medical field tactics.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Those are all reasons advanced by the medical establishment in order to justify the increase in autism rates from 1 in 5000 to 1 in 40 today, in an attempt to divert from the effects of vaccines. They stick with many people, who don't understand the shear magnitude of the autism phenomenon. We've covered this in the vaccine thread here:

 

bucky

Pelican
I've always found the suggestion that men 40+ forget about having a family to be odd and bizarre. While in a hypothetical world, it might have worked for me to marry at 22, since the culture was so much more conducive to happy, normal, thin women back then, I am in a far better place financially, emotionally, spiritually, and frame-wise today.

Having kids later in life is really how it was usually done. Most roman legions would marry in their mid 30s after retiring from life as a soldier. That may seem young, but considering their lifespan back then, it's the equivalent of marrying in your 60s today. I hope I am around tons of grandchildren one day. Great great great grandchildren would be awesome. But if none of that is possible and I keel over at age 75 days before my first grandchild is even born, I will still die a very happy man, having lived a rewarding life by hopefully loving and wonderful children and a devoted wife. Why would anyone suggest a man not go for this, because his level of reward is slightly less than what it potentially could have been, had he selected a different timeline?

You know what I hear a lot of? Almost EVERY SINGLE married guy friend complains about his marriage, tells me to never get married (even the "happy" ones will say it "jokingly?"), and laments about their lack of free time and money.

You know what I've never heard? An older guy who delayed marriage, telling me that he regrets making a family in his latter years.
My first kid was born when I was well into my forties and I don't regret it at all. I used to actually suggest to guys who would listen that you shouldn't think about marriage until after 40. I've softened on that a bit, but still, having kids later in life has been great so far.
 

Waverer

Sparrow
How old was your wife at the time? I think that's the main reason men have kids in their thirties - that unless you date much younger than yourself it's now or never.
 
I've always found the suggestion that men 40+ forget about having a family to be odd and bizarre. While in a hypothetical world, it might have worked for me to marry at 22, since the culture was so much more conducive to happy, normal, thin women back then, I am in a far better place financially, emotionally, spiritually, and frame-wise today.

Having kids later in life is really how it was usually done. Most roman legions would marry in their mid 30s after retiring from life as a soldier. That may seem young, but considering their lifespan back then, it's the equivalent of marrying in your 60s today. I hope I am around tons of grandchildren one day. Great great great grandchildren would be awesome. But if none of that is possible and I keel over at age 75 days before my first grandchild is even born, I will still die a very happy man, having lived a rewarding life by hopefully loving and wonderful children and a devoted wife. Why would anyone suggest a man not go for this, because his level of reward is slightly less than what it potentially could have been, had he selected a different timeline?

You know what I hear a lot of? Almost EVERY SINGLE married guy friend complains about his marriage, tells me to never get married (even the "happy" ones will say it "jokingly?"), and laments about their lack of free time and money.

You know what I've never heard? An older guy who delayed marriage, telling me that he regrets making a family in his latter years.
you mean that you saw older guys regretting about their decision for not having married?
 
Top