Female fertility and age

[Waverer]

At 36 and suddenly marriage- and family-oriented, I am wondering at what age of the woman it would be unrealistic to start a relationship in the hope that it would become serious and lead to a family.

Web articles on this topic seem to fit one of a small number of tropes:
(i) women can have it all until a grand age
(ii) women will die alone if they haven't conceived by a surprisingly young age; or
(iii) IVF will sort women in their late 30s and 40s out just fine (always from IVF providers)

What is the answer?

Here is a graph if you want to make a pessimistic case.


And here is one that is much more optimistic.


At first sight it seems someone is badly wrong or lying. But the first graph is the chance of conceiving in a month and the second is the chance of conceiving in a year.

So my reading is that if you are willing to try for a baby for only one month then you give up, the chances are much lower with a 35 year old wife. But in the more realistic scenario where you keep trying for a year, the chances are between 80% and just north of 90% right up until her 40s.

Should we therefore be more relaxed about marrying 35 year olds? I genuinely would appreciate corrections if I've misunderstood the figures here.

 

[Thomas More]

It takes time to meet a woman, fall in love, get married, and have a first child. If you meet a woman on her 30th birthday, she could be nearing 33 when the baby is born. You can speed this up, with a short engagement, having suitable home and finances all set to go, and getting her pregnant asap. Now she's probably still over 32 when the baby is born. The second child will be born after she's 34.

You wanted to have 3-4 children, but night feedings while also caring for an energetic 2 year old are tiring for people in their mid 30s. You could afford for her to stay home with the kids on your salary alone, but now the cars are getting older, and the house is feeling smaller and needs some updates and repairs. She'd like to get back out in the work world again and feel like an adult, especially with her post partum depression.

The two of you decide to stop with two kids.

Now imagine all of this if she's older than 30 when you meet. Imagine she's 35, and she's the 1 in 6 that already can't conceive at her age. Younger is better for having children.

 

[Pooch32]

At 36 and suddenly marriage- and family-oriented, I am wondering at what age of the woman it would be unrealistic to start a relationship in the hope that it would become serious and lead to a family.

Web articles on this topic seem to fit one of a small number of tropes:
(i) women can have it all until a grand age
(ii) women will die alone if they haven't conceived by a surprisingly young age; or
(iii) IVF will sort women in their late 30s and 40s out just fine (always from IVF providers)

What is the answer?

Here is a graph if you want to make a pessimistic case.
View attachment 24578

And here is one that is much more optimistic.
View attachment 24577

At first sight it seems someone is badly wrong or lying. But the first graph is the chance of conceiving in a month and the second is the chance of conceiving in a year.

So my reading is that if you are willing to try for a baby for only one month then you give up, the chances are much lower with a 35 year old wife. But in the more realistic scenario where you keep trying for a year, the chances are between 80% and just north of 90% right up until her 40s.

Should we therefore be more relaxed about marrying 35 year olds? I genuinely would appreciate corrections if I've misunderstood the figures here.

Certainly not in their 30s, but you should go after the youngest that your SMV allows. However, keep in mind most secular women are quite immature and will not be interested in having children until they near the wall (late 20s) so you'll have to factor that in too.

 

[EndlessGravity]

You should also consider the risk of Down syndrome or other issues. After 40, the chances climb and are about 1% at that age.

However, @Thomas More is correct: there's more to it. Having kids later means less energy... for you and your wife. It also means less time to have a bigger family.

If you're fine with that, and you mean a 36 year old, I wouldn't worry too much about having to get busy a few extra times a month to make that kid (or the second or third) happen. After all...think about what we're talking about here.

 

[Augustus_Principe]

I and others have discussed this topic on another thread:

How bad is is to marry an older woman?

It's silly, yes. But it's still an effective rule to live by. Presuming women cannot (reliably) procreate after 30 is akin to presuming that I cannot (reliably) do electrical work on my house without shutting the breakers off first. Not 100% accurate, but a good rule to live by nonetheless.

www.rooshvforum.com

As someone who has personality dealt with an infertile woman in her 30s (my last ex gf) during the twilight of my sinful days, i feel adamant about this topic.

Long story short, if you are ok with the possibility of only have 1 child, go for the 35 y.o.(which you would marry at around 36 at the earliest if the courtship last 3-6 months and the wedding at the 1 year mark. The child will be born when she's 37) If she took great care of herself, she may even have two, but I wouldn't count on it. You have to be completely content with the fact that you may only have 1 child.


As Thomas Moore said, go for the 30 y.o if you want the possibility of 2 kids (maybe 3 if she really has the energy/fertility) but put it in your head that you are ok with two.

It is sad, but this is the reality. It's a shame because women in their 30s are so determined about having a family and even submitting to a husband, contrast to the average 18-26 y.o who only cares about her rebellious desires. I also mentioned this in another thread, but I have talked to a woman over social media that is also a Trad-cath, but she just turned 35. She is completely willing to be a homemaker, homeschool her future kids, submit to the husband etc but the age is a deal-breaker for me, on top of my finances not being the best atm, so we decided to keep it platonic. Over the months, she has turned out to be a great e-friend and Catholic guide. It really is a shame about her age because she is great to talk to, lovely personality and beautiful, inside and out, but I cannot forget about the statistics I've read over the years, as well as my last personal experience of trying for years to have a kid with my ex-gf in her 30s.

I wont put myself in that situation ever again, especially now that I am chaste until marriage. The only way to guarantee fertility is the get with a woman under 30. I advise men here all the time not to go after mid-30s women either, as lovely as they may be.

Go for a woman in her 20s. Don't listen to anyone who tries to shame you into trying to date older women. Heck, if you spark up a convo with a trad 18-20 year old girl, go for it, its worth a try, especially if you want a large family.

Oh, and I almost forgot to add that the second chart is a complete joke.

So to reiterate, if you want only 1 child with a small possibility of 2, go for the 35 y.o woman.
If you want 2 children with the small possibility of having 3, go for the woman who is 30.
If you want more than 2 children, go for a woman in her prime fertility years.

I understand that finding a good woman in her prime years is difficult in the west...so some men may feel inclined to marry an older woman because she is traditional, her soul is good and they feel that they just cant find a decent woman who is younger. I wouldn't actively dissuade anyone from marrying an older woman whos is 35+ if they think they found the "perfect" catch that checks all the boxes. My advise would be for them to keep in mind the realities of fertility and to be content with what transpires from it all, and to be prepared even for 0 children.

This brings about many topics such as, how do we go on about finding a younger women in her 20s who is ready to have a family? With many men now returning to the faith, you would have to imagine that competition for these women will be fierce, and those who are not more financially well off(these trad women look for men who are financially stable who can provide a big house, and the opportunity for them to stay at home after all) will still be on the losing end. This then brings about another question which has been asked on this forum a few times already. Is it ok to "save" a girl in her 20s, whos had a "bit" of a sinful life if she is genuine about reorienting her life to God and repent her sinful ways? I think about these questions often now myself, as I am also in my 30s.

 

[Waverer]

So to reiterate, if you want only 1 child with a small possibility of 2, go for the 35 y.o woman.

I take your point about every additional year between dating and marriage being important - but equally there is a well above zero chance at 40+ too.

But my main thought is that the graph above suggests a woman between 35 and 40 has an 82% chance of conceiving a child within a year if she and her husband make the effort twice a week. How does that translate into a "small possibility" of two children in five years?

Similarly, if a woman at 30 has an 86% chance of conceiving for the first five years of the coming decade and an 82% chance the five years that follow, how do you figure the chance of 3 kids is only small?

Both scenarios sound overwhelmingly likely rather than small possibilities.

 

[Thomas More]

I take your point about every additional year between dating and marriage being important - but equally there is a well above zero chance at 40+ too.

But my main thought is that the graph above suggests a woman between 35 and 40 has an 82% chance of conceiving a child within a year if she and her husband make the effort twice a week. How does that translate into a "small possibility" of two children in five years?

Similarly, if a woman at 30 has an 86% chance of conceiving for the first five years of the coming decade and an 82% chance the five years that follow, how do you figure the chance of 3 kids is only small?

Both scenarios sound overwhelmingly likely rather than small possibilities.

You're not seeing these numbers in context. We have tried to present the realistic context to you. Considering the factors in the real world, it takes longer to have a child when the woman is older, and she is more likely to be tired after she has one, and will not want another. This is what makes three kids a very small possibility when starting with a woman already in her 30s.

If your playing black jack, don't draw on a 19. If you're looking for a wife to have kids with, marry a younger woman. Yeah, it's theoretically possible for a woman to have three kids starting in her 30s. It's just not the smart way to bet.

 

[Augustus_Principe]

I take your point about every additional year between dating and marriage being important - but equally there is a well above zero chance at 40+ too.

But my main thought is that the graph above suggests a woman between 35 and 40 has an 82% chance of conceiving a child within a year if she and her husband make the effort twice a week. How does that translate into a "small possibility" of two children in five years?

Similarly, if a woman at 30 has an 86% chance of conceiving for the first five years of the coming decade and an 82% chance the five years that follow, how do you figure the chance of 3 kids is only small?

Both scenarios sound overwhelmingly likely rather than small possibilities.

Like I said in my inital post, that second graph is a joke and an outright lie. The vast majority and studies pre-modern day feminism show that the chances of a woman in her 30s, especially in her mid 30s and close to 40, of conceiving a child are slim. I'm not going to bore you, drowning you in statistics that state the obvious, but you can do a simple duckduckgo search (images) and see the reality, that fertility for women takes a HUGE dip in her 30s, and astronomical by the time she hits 40:

female fertility rate graph at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

I would be wary of studies demonstrating women have high fertility into her 30s. It is obviously SJW-funded and thrown out there for career women to feel like they still have time.

My advice, forget about that second graph. Myself and countless other anecdotal stories, as well as real studies, show the reality of women losing their fertility in their 30s. And as Moore said again, even if they have the ability to child bear, an older woman simply will not have the stamina/energy to have more than 2 children. Women in their 30s with 0 children but 2 cats and a toy dog already complain all day about random aches and pains...and you think that she will suddenly be able to take on the task of having 3-4 kids back to back to back before she hits 40?

Like I said, if you are inclined to get with a mid 30s or even 40 y.o woman, go ahead. The heart wants what it wants and if she is of the faith, who am I(or anyone here for that matter) to say no to you? All I will say is, be realistic about the amount of children you may or may not have should you chose that path. I dont want anyone here crying about only having 1 child or 0 after they've been warned.

 

[Blade Runner]

This is sort of a different topic for a different post, but it tends to ring true here and is also why you can't have a conversation with people on many things: they personalize everything (to their life story) and aren't honest, disciplined, or critical thinkers. If you have a female relative who is 35+, you can't talk about it. If you have an uncle who has a washed up daughter, on average, you can't talk about it. Forget mothers entirely, lol. If you have friends who have thoughts about XYZ or are married and have teenage daughters, in general, they don't want to hear how you like 20 year olds. Believe me, I've tried. My mother was an ideal woman, and I tell her that I would want a woman like her, and she really understands how shitty the culture is now, but she barely wants to admit the realities between men and women, still. My father is the only one that actually knows and agrees with me, without reservation.

I have family, relatives, cousins, etc that all think that think in their own bubble - and almost always it is a cultural norm of women marrying late whether they are the woman or the man marrying an older woman. Are they going to agree with you? That would take an exceptional person; I haven't met him in the modern day, even in my own family. Few will grant that you are higher SMV, even if you truly are, and understand where you are coming from.

As I used to say (in a different life ): Get your passport ready.

Culture is the only solution to this foolishness. Apart from the fact that I think America is an awful place to raise kids in any event at this time in history, I almost think the only way to really pull any of this shit off is to do what every guy has said on here for years and either move, or have your family, full time in a different country and culture that isn't this western, spoiled gynocentric technocracy.

 

[Augustus_Principe]

As I used to say (in a different life ): Get your passport ready.

Culture is the only solution to this foolishness. Apart from the fact that I think America is an awful place to raise kids in any event at this time in history, I almost think the only way to really pull any of this shit off is to do what every guy has said on here for years and either move, or have your family, full time in a different country and culture that isn't this western, spoiled gynocentric technocracy.

I am not opposed to this idea. I know Roosh has spoken out against it based on his extensive travel experience, as well as other good points of not leaving one's own family behind. However, I think for those of us who don't have a large family to begin with, or are perhaps 2nd or 3rd generation Americans(Parents or Grandparents that uprooted their whole life themselves...) I dont think it's a bad idea if you're willing to go all-in and completely assimilate to the country you move to. There is 0 culture in this country, on top of it being a nation with a Protestant/Freemason ethos that has proved disastrous. Compare this to other countries in Central/Eastern Europe where at the very least, there is a fighting chance for them to continue practicing their customs and religion openly (whether Catholic or Orthodox).

Of course there is the flip side that you can stay here and fight to good fight to improve whatever is left of American Culture, or help create a new one...

 

[Dilated]

Are those results for American women? If so I’d bet the results would be better if you looked at only foreign women (ie. South America). There is nowhere near the use of contraceptives here in Ecuador and I’d be willing to bet the women here are more fertile for longer.

 

[Blade Runner]

Of course there is the flip side that you can stay here and fight to good fight to improve whatever is left of American Culture, or help create a new one...

Agree, the problem is that we have a limited window to actually have the family; lol, you could plan to move out and then have your kids repopulate once a reset begins, but why? I'd rather stick with the people who fought through all the BS in the other country, if you can.

Nevertheless, I'm pulled both ways by the family thing. I think it's natural, healthy, a part of life, wholesome, etc. But it is also potentially vanity and trying to live forever in this world. Yet it's a part of life and maybe the most wholesome part. That's why when you have your shit together but the women in your country are so average to bad, compounded by the age gap cockblocking hurting any chance at saving your dreams as you age, it's unreal how conflicted you get about this, both naturally and spiritually.

 

[Augustus_Principe]

Are those results for American women? If so I’d bet the results would be better if you looked at only foreign women (ie. South America). There is nowhere near the use of contraceptives here in Ecuador and I’d be willing to bet the women here are more fertile for longer.

It's most likely for American women. The American diet is by far the worse in the world. Even the poor in Latin America eat better, because they at least eat more organic food when the opportunity to eat arises (though I have heard that Soda and other junk has really caught up in some Latin American countries), whereas everything in America is synthetic. Couple the GMO garbage Food with 10 to 20 years of taking birth control and it's a recipe for disaster. You can factor in plastics we unintentionally digest, promiscuity, catching STDs that lower fertility, women delaying child birth till almost 40... the list goes on.

Fertility for men is not looking so bright either here in America, especially if that certain american male's family has been here for generations:

What Happens If We Hit Sperm Count Zero?

A strange thing has happened to men over the past few decades: We've become increasingly infertile, so much so that within a generation we may lose the ability to reproduce entirely.

www.gq.com

 

[robinman]

Raising the age of consent in the early 1900's is one of the biggest mistakes of all.



Women used to be married off young and had no time to "explore themselves" and get education and jobs. Nowadays even when a girl is 18 she is told she is too young for marriage and should sleep around until her late 20's, which decimates the birth rates and leads to a spike in birth defects.

 

[Dilated]

It's most likely for American women. The American diet is by far the worse in the world. Even the poor in Latin America eat better, because they at least eat more organic food when the opportunity to eat arises (though I have heard that Soda and other junk has really caught up in some Latin American countries), whereas everything in America is synthetic. Couple the GMO garbage Food with 10 to 20 years of taking birth control and it's a recipe for disaster. You can factor in plastics we unintentionally digest, promiscuity, catching STDs that lower fertility, women delaying child birth till almost 40... the list goes on.

Fertility for men is not looking so bright either here in America, especially if that certain american male's family has been here for generations:

What Happens If We Hit Sperm Count Zero?

A strange thing has happened to men over the past few decades: We've become increasingly infertile, so much so that within a generation we may lose the ability to reproduce entirely.

www.gq.com

Good post. I would throw in excessive medication usage in USA as well.

And can confirm that soda is on the uptick in LatAm but not to the levels in USA.

 

[Rob Banks]

I know a priest who has 7 brothers and sisters and claims his mother married at 29 and had her first child at 30.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t look to marry a younger woman. Just that it isn’t impossible for a woman to have many children past 30.

 

[ABeast]

Should we therefore be more relaxed about marrying 35 year olds? I genuinely would appreciate corrections if I've misunderstood the figures here.

If she has had a kid already she should be able to do it again. A 30+ woman with now kids yet is rolling the dice.

 

[Waverer]

A doctor I put this question to on WhatsApp said women in their 30s who had kids earlier in life are less fertile - but no one knows why.

 

[Augustus_Principe]

I know a priest who has 7 brothers and sisters and claims his mother married at 29 and had her first child at 30.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t look to marry a younger woman. Just that it isn’t impossible for a woman to have many children past 30.

I know of a few Boomers who waited till they were 30 to have their first children. An ex's parents comes to mind. I believe her mother was in her early 30s, along with the father.

However, I think it's very important to take into consideration the culture and lifestyle of women say 30-60 years ago compared to your average 30 something y.o in 2020. On top of the factors I already listed above, today's woman is a lot more stressed, physically, emotionally and spiritually(a spirit which belongs to world, aka yoga/buddah etc). The stress levels they face today are very high compared to women of decades ago. And how does today's woman deal with stress? Excessive caffeine, binge drinking, smoking(so many women smoke now), having at least half a bottle of wine a day, fornication, poor hygiene, sleeping around a bunch of cats and dogs (no offense to animal lovers) etc. Basically, the way a woman copes with stress is DETRIMENTAL to her fertility. So, not only is an older woman's age against her, but the stress she faces from working and other nonsense, on top of her coping mechanism, is the nail in the coffin. Like I've mentioned before on this forum, I've watched a good amount of female fertility videos on YouTube since I was in this situation myself, and one thing that they all had in common was pointing to stress as the culprit of infertility. Once women lowered their stress, they got pregnant...

I believe if you happen to find an early 30-something who is not stressed, lives a good,Christian, spiritual life, you may have better luck. The key is to know these things before settling down with her.

 

[Coja Petrus Uscan]

On the topic of finding younger women. I have been to all the continents bar the dark one, and met women there. In conclusion, you will find women from the age of 18 who are interested in marriage everywhere, except in Europe (with an exception) and I imagine the developed East Asian countries like Japan.

All European women I've known have not been receptive to marriage, unless they are in their 30s. These all speak English. Even educated women in Russia earning $300 pm are more concerned with worldly pursuits. The exception to this is village girls, who probably can't speak English.

While almost all girls everywhere else have been receptive to marriage, often from young ages. On top of that most of those girls would have been prepared to do whatever I wanted for marriage, including dropping out of university. The thought that a Western woman would do that is unthinkable. Unless shes blobular and you are Chad Shuttlecock.

There are two reasons for this - either their best option in life is to find a good husband or the quality of their men is so low that they just have to snap you up. It's ironic, but the countries where the men look most beta, like Malaysia, have the women in line the most. A good marriage, particularly to a man who is not abusive is highly sought after in such places. While the Western woman is so spoiled for choice that she can't choose until she's lost her best choices.

Many women are ready to marry from 18-21 in:

Most of LatAm, in particular The Dominican Republic
NorthAfrica, in particular the Maghreb countries which are much more open to marrying outside, in fact I spoke with a 18 yo Hijabi Moroccan girl who was looking for a Westbener (sic) husband with permission from her parents
All of South Asia, slightly less so in Vietnam; this includes India, Pakistan and Bangladesh - it's just difficult for cultural reasons, but the demand is higher than anywhere else in those countries
Africa

The desire to marry is less strong in LatAm, but in all the others, particularly Asia you can be paired off within weeks (speaking from experience). It will blow your mind, women gushing and giggling like schoolgirls, giddy with joy at the prospect of marriage.

One thing I've learned recently is the need to be forgiving for possible negative traits in these girls. They won't be perfect, but they want the same thing. I've realised that any women who is not treacherous is marriageable. The key component is whether they will submit to you, which very few Euro women will; and whether you can frame that submission.

My biggest issue with Euro women has always been the inability to submit, take my lead, follow me on my life path, which is much better than where they are heading. It's a deeply ingrained mind virus. On the other hand two women have offered to drop out of university to marry me. This is what you need. A woman who will put your trajectory far beyond her own, and bind herself to it.

If they are not treacherous and will follow you, then that is a good combination. Maybe they have a bad attitude sometimes or they did something stupid. In the past I've walked away due to these things. But I now realise it would be better to simply discipline them and use their poor behaviour to increase your seniority over them. Nothing a good spanking won't solve.

By treachery I mean doing something to ruin you, e.g. you walk away from them and they file a fake rape claim against you, they try and turn people against you or sabotage you - they do something other than use words and emotions against you to hurt you.

For example one girl blew her top at me in public and had a meltdown crying at a restaurant. That sealed in my mind that I was going to walk away, which I did at a safe time. After she sent me a nasty torrent of abuse by message. She had enough ammo to try and mess up my life in some way, but she didn't. No girl ever has. They've just behaved poorly.

The key with that girl is she was very submissive and would have done what I needed a woman at my side to do. She would have needed discipline, she was far from perfect, but she was exactly, to the day, 12 years younger than me and could have popped out 8 kids. There would have been tribulations, but with Western women the tribulations are just getting her to the stage in which she might marry you. In the fallen state these are the sacrifices we are going to have to make.