How bad is is to marry an older woman?

Laner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Guys talking about wanting to marry a 130+ IQ women have probably never dated one. Or at least spent any time sleeping in the same bed as them. For many, their brains never quiet down and spend half the night in complete anxiety. Anecdotally, many use sex as a way to get to sleep and become addicted to the hormones released during and after orgasms. It lulls them to sleep for at least a few hours, which is a welcome change from laying in a cold bed starting at the ceiling for the first few hours.

I would never condone marrying an older woman, but I would also never tell a guy to walk away from a great woman just because she is a bit older - unless she is much older and late 30's and where the man wants kids. It will be heartbreaking.

To put my own rep on the line, I am going to work with my own son to get married in his early 20s to a girl within 3 or 4 years of his age. Being the recovering city dwelling degenerate that I am, and with a huge country dwelling family of early marriages, I see all too well the happiness lies in younger marriages.
 

PixelFree

Kingfisher
No More Mr. Soy Boy said:
BlastbeatCasanova said:
At 30 most of a woman’s eggs are gone
People throw that sentence a lot here and it sounds scary when it is put like that but in fact most eggs are already gone when a female is born since as a fetus in early development they have about 6 million and at birth about a million, at puberty 400 000 - 300 000.

So how much does it actually say?
Yes, I agree with this. A women has lost 90% of her eggs by 30.

To tell the complete picture (from Google), "A female baby is born with all the eggs that she will ever have. This is estimated to be around two million, but by the time a girl reaches puberty, this number has decreased to about 400,000 eggs stored in her ovaries.".

So, you could also saw they've lost 80% by the time she's reached puberty (10-14).

I'm more than happy just telling this half truth publicly to get the message across. It needs to be shocking to wake people up and save women from themselves. I feel a sense of responsibility towards my female kin in this regard (and obviously it needs to be done in a sensitive, compassionate and constructive way, which is a challenge).

Going by the number of late 30's/early 40's women I know, who claim to want to have kids (but then get into a 6 month fling with a 25 year old Argentinian backpacker), most have zero idea what % left at any age.

So publicly, it's 90% by 30 and empty egg carton memes. On the forum we can discuss the complete picture however as mentioned younger is still preferred for this and many other reasons.

To the OP, without reading the whole thread, as long as the women is of healthy age for children logically I think I'd be fine with it, although in my personal life I met a woman who was 15 years younger but also taller than me (only by 2 inches). For some reason it felt weird, even though logically it shouldn't have mattered (in fact, a good thing, taller children).

None of these things alone should make or break, you need to look at the whole picture, and things like being older or taller might be 'minus 50 points' but if overall she is still amazing (good motherly qualities, kind, thoughtful, patient, not addicted to social media, loyal, honest, etc) then she still sounds great to me.
 
Laner wrote:
“Guys talking about wanting to marry a 130+ IQ women have probably never dated one. Or at least spent any time sleeping in the same bed as them. For many, their brains never quiet down and spend half the night in complete anxiety. Anecdotally, many use sex as a way to get to sleep and become addicted to the hormones released during and after orgasms.”

A wife who is “addicted” to sex? Sounds good to me. (What’s the alternative—a cold fish?)
 
Laner said:
Guys talking about wanting to marry a 130+ IQ women have probably never dated one. Or at least spent any time sleeping in the same bed as them. For many, their brains never quiet down and spend half the night in complete anxiety. Anecdotally, many use sex as a way to get to sleep and become addicted to the hormones released during and after orgasms. It lulls them to sleep for at least a few hours, which is a welcome change from laying in a cold bed starting at the ceiling for the first few hours.
This is very very very accurate and dudes wishing to find a "smart" girl should pay attention to things they can now be expecting.
 
JohnQThomas said:
Laner wrote:
“Guys talking about wanting to marry a 130+ IQ women have probably never dated one. Or at least spent any time sleeping in the same bed as them. For many, their brains never quiet down and spend half the night in complete anxiety. Anecdotally, many use sex as a way to get to sleep and become addicted to the hormones released during and after orgasms.”

A wife who is “addicted” to sex? Sounds good to me. (What’s the alternative—a cold fish?)
It's not bad, but it can affect your quality of sleep, and near 40+ years old it then affects everything else in your life.

Imagine a girl who wants to go to bed early, but also needs to get an orgasm and be cuddled to fall asleep, then if it doesn't take she is up super early (which will interrupt your REM).
 
1. It is very bad to marry an older woman.
2. Why would you wait for her education? The sooner she stops schooling the more likely she will not turn into a feminist sjw. If you can lock her down directly after high school that is by far the best.
3. IQ is almost irrelevant. It is not directly heritable. Two high IQ parents will more likely have moderately average children than highly intelligent ones. This is because IQ is not a single trait.
 

MajorStyles

Kingfisher
PixelFree said:
Yes, I agree with this. A women has lost 90% of her eggs by 30.

To tell the complete picture (from Google), "A female baby is born with all the eggs that she will ever have. This is estimated to be around two million, but by the time a girl reaches puberty, this number has decreased to about 400,000 eggs stored in her ovaries.".

So, you could also saw they've lost 80% by the time she's reached puberty (10-14).

I'm more than happy just telling this half truth publicly to get the message across. It needs to be shocking to wake people up and save women from themselves. I feel a sense of responsibility towards my female kin in this regard (and obviously it needs to be done in a sensitive, compassionate and constructive way, which is a challenge).

Going by the number of late 30's/early 40's women I know, who claim to want to have kids (but then get into a 6 month fling with a 25 year old Argentinian backpacker), most have zero idea what % left at any age.

So publicly, it's 90% by 30 and empty egg carton memes. On the forum we can discuss the complete picture however as mentioned younger is still preferred for this and many other reasons.
My takeaway is that 400,000 eggs is more than enough to have a child then....even two or three. After all, you only need one egg.

Moreover, if you tell women over 30 that they’re infertile, they will disagree. Their reasoning is simple and valid….they have countless female acquaintances and frenemies that procreated after 30. So their personal experiences will override the claim.

On some level, these women are right. If I hear that it’s statistically improbable to do something, and I personally know 30-40 people that accomplished that thing, I would be skeptical.
 

kel

Pelican
The eggs that remain are less robust, too, though. Harder to fertilize, more chance of autism and other conditions, more likelihood of miscarriage, and older women are hit harder by pregnancy than a young woman who bounces back.

I'm willing to bet there's a correlation between breast milk quality and quantity, as well.
 
Australia Sucks said:
Panda smile can you provide some links or evidence for point number 3?
I don't feel like digging around but just look at the sources off wikipedia under "Heritability_of_IQ"

Basically, IQ is not one gene, its hundreds of different ones. examples: cranial ridge sizes, brain density, brain size, brain hormone levels, brain cell function, blood flow, fluid levels... and so on. BUT they don't all work together the same way. Some compliment other factors yet detract from others. So two people might have A B C and D but one also has F the other doesn't and having F makes him dumb as rocks. Whereas someone else has no A but only B C D and also F and it makes them a genius.

Overall complex traits like intelligence follow a regression to the mean. So two parents with genius IQs are more likely to have a child closer to average IQ than on their level. This also works the same in the other direction. Two dummies are likely to have a more average child (short of being dumb for a specific genetic problem we are just talking normal dumb here).

So taking this all into account if you are a 130 IQ male, being with any girl of low intelligence up to top IQ level will make little difference in the likelihood of your children intelligence. It will make some obviously, but to narrow your pool of women over a possible average 2 IQ point increase in your children is a ridiculous trade off. Most likely no matter who you mate with you will have generally average intelligence kids. Also a large portion of idiots are also from environmental factors diminishing their potential IQ development, not genetic anyways. Genetics are A+ but being raised in certain ways stops IQ growth to its potential. So some dumb bimbo may actually have top of the line IQ genetics.

Also in the past, women have never been selected for intelligence. They have been selected for morality, sexuality, fertility. NEVER EVER has intelligence been a primary factor and I would argue its never even been a secondary factor. In fact I would say its been a detractor. Intelligent women are more difficult to deal with, in recorded history the women who is "simple" is vastly preferred for mating. And look at our average IQ levels today! Obviously it didn't stop intelligence in offspring.
 
Yeah, 130 is Mensa level and about 2% of the population and since there are fewer women at the extremes you're not looking at that many women. I've dated a few women that were doctors and engineers that were probably near the 130 IQ mark though and it was not a good experience, most of them are just obnoxious pricks.

Even though they might not base their self-worth and definition of themselves of being attractive to men and attention whore on Instagram, they seem to build it around their occupations. I noticed how doctors will mention in about every sentence they can that they're doctors. Went on a date with this PhD engineer and she would just argue with me about petty details because she took everything literally and would be so pretentious about how much she loved intellectual discussions.

If I mention that I loved Switzerland she would suddenly try to investigate everything just to make that soft statement false so she could think of herself as smart.
"Ok, so how many times have you been there?", "And which cities have you been to?", "But you can't say love if you've only been there four times?! Why didn't you tell me instead that your experience of it was great. Love is a strong word, you're strange". It was something like that, I had enough of her already after an hour so I can't imagine spending whole life with someone like that.
 

Laner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
JohnQThomas said:
Laner wrote:
“Guys talking about wanting to marry a 130+ IQ women have probably never dated one. Or at least spent any time sleeping in the same bed as them. For many, their brains never quiet down and spend half the night in complete anxiety. Anecdotally, many use sex as a way to get to sleep and become addicted to the hormones released during and after orgasms.”

A wife who is “addicted” to sex? Sounds good to me. (What’s the alternative—a cold fish?)
There was more in there to unpack. The sex part is fine. It was the high anxiety and other side effects of a high IQ woman. The over analyzing. The constant research into things that should just 'get done'.

These are also things that come with age. As we get older, we also get wiser. So women who have a high IQ to begin with, are only going to get smarter with age. So unless there are some kids in her life, she will be stuck battling things in her own mind when she is done working her - likely - challenging job.
 
No More Mr. Soy Boy said:
Even though they might not base their self-worth and definition of themselves of being attractive to men and attention whore on Instagram, they seem to build it around their occupations. I noticed how doctors will mention in about every sentence they can that they're doctors. Went on a date with this PhD engineer and she would just argue with me about petty details because she took everything literally and would be so pretentious about how much she loved intellectual discussions.
Yeah most smart girls are dumb as a box of rocks. Take the hint, I don't want to hear jack about your career.
 

PixelFree

Kingfisher
Yes, anyone talking about finding a partner with an 130 IQ needs to stop doing IQ tests on Facebook (men and women both).

A 'really smart' person, as in the top 10% of all people, is IQ 120, Given the distribution graph, this might be 6-7 guys and 3-4 women.

So, even to go for an 120 IQ you're talking 3-4 women out of 100 people max (generous).

I have fallen for this trap before. It's unrealistic. There is a good book - https://www.amazon.com/Curse-High-IQ-Aaron-Clarey/dp/1522813756 - for high IQ guys that help us understand the statistical anomaly we are. Especially if you come from a very humble, modest or perhaps below average self worth place (like many of us do) you really don't fully appreciate how it impacts us in daily life (particularly in friendship and partner selection).

Average or slightly above average IQ with a pleasant demeanor and good motherly qualities is far more healthy and realistic.
 

AntoniusofEfa

Woodpecker
No More Mr. Soy Boy said:
Yeah, 130 is Mensa level and about 2% of the population and since there are fewer women at the extremes you're not looking at that many women. I've dated a few women that were doctors and engineers that were probably near the 130 IQ mark though and it was not a good experience, most of them are just obnoxious pricks.

Even though they might not base their self-worth and definition of themselves of being attractive to men and attention whore on Instagram, they seem to build it around their occupations. I noticed how doctors will mention in about every sentence they can that they're doctors. Went on a date with this PhD engineer and she would just argue with me about petty details because she took everything literally and would be so pretentious about how much she loved intellectual discussions.

If I mention that I loved Switzerland she would suddenly try to investigate everything just to make that soft statement false so she could think of herself as smart.
"Ok, so how many times have you been there?", "And which cities have you been to?", "But you can't say love if you've only been there four times?! Why didn't you tell me instead that your experience of it was great. Love is a strong word, you're strange". It was something like that, I had enough of her already after an hour so I can't imagine spending whole life with someone like that.
A high IQ women who does not take herself seriously is a fun date. But these are like 1/1000.
 
MajorStyles said:
No More Mr. Soy Boy said:
BlastbeatCasanova said:
At 30 most of a woman’s eggs are gone
People throw that sentence a lot here and it sounds scary when it is put like that but in fact most eggs are already gone when a female is born since as a fetus in early development they have about 6 million and at birth about a million, at puberty 400 000 - 300 000.

So how much does it actually say?
I second your analysis here, NMMSB. My wife had two children, at 35 and 39 respectively (both born healthy, knock on wood); we had both those children on our first attempt at pregnancy. My brother’s wife also had two children in her mid to late 30s. Plus, I know countless married friends with wives that had children in their thirties. Moreover, I don’t know any of these children to be autistic. My personal experience, as well as the experience of countless people around me, tells me that the “women are infertile are 30” perspective is fallacious.

The bigger problem is usually the disgusting personality of a woman after 30. In the West, most women after 30 are already feminist foot soldiers with a hostile attitude towards nurturing a man; therefore, they have nothing to offer. Moreover, in most poor countries, a woman after 30 has already procreated multiple times. So she has her little tykes in tow.

So younger women are better in the sense that they are less likely to be brainswashed (percentage wise at least). Also, their bodies and faces are almost always more attractive than they will be in their 30s, 40s, etc. (However, if a man does not find a woman over 30 to be attractive, then he will never be happily married since his prospective wife will eventually reach that age).

I'm not sure how old you, or other doubters of this are, but one big factor that is affecting millennial(my gen) women's fertility is their degenerate lifestyle, which include being on the pill for over a decade, countless sexual partners, an STD or 3, an abortion or 2, numerous Plan Bs, on top of a crap diet that messes up her endocrine system etc etc. No offense to you or other doubters, but did your wive's/Gf's exhitbit any of these traits? Boomer women were much healthier than millennial's of today and Gen-x women for the most part still fared better off as well.

I've already read my fair share of articles + research and my own personal experience on this topic to know that women ON AVERAGE over 30(who have never had a kid) are far less likely to produce kids. I'm not going to post here the graphs of falling women's fertility, nor the YEARS it takes women over 30 to get pregnant as compared to their earlier years. You can google this in a minute and find out.

To everyone else: Please do not take the anecdotal evidence of Boomers/Gen-Xrs in regards to their women getting pregnant. They lived in a different age where 1: their women were not on decades of birth control 2) did not live in the degenerate, free sexual "paradise" of today. Today's woman over 30 unfortunately will more likely be infertile than women of old.

Also, men of today are much less fertile than their Fathers/grandparents, further illustrating how newer generations are more affected than older ones were.
 
PandaSmile said:
Australia Sucks said:
Panda smile can you provide some links or evidence for point number 3?
I don't feel like digging around but just look at the sources off wikipedia under "Heritability_of_IQ"

Basically, IQ is not one gene, its hundreds of different ones. examples: cranial ridge sizes, brain density, brain size, brain hormone levels, brain cell function, blood flow, fluid levels... and so on. BUT they don't all work together the same way. Some compliment other factors yet detract from others. So two people might have A B C and D but one also has F the other doesn't and having F makes him dumb as rocks. Whereas someone else has no A but only B C D and also F and it makes them a genius.

Overall complex traits like intelligence follow a regression to the mean. So two parents with genius IQs are more likely to have a child closer to average IQ than on their level. This also works the same in the other direction. Two dummies are likely to have a more average child (short of being dumb for a specific genetic problem we are just talking normal dumb here).

So taking this all into account if you are a 130 IQ male, being with any girl of low intelligence up to top IQ level will make little difference in the likelihood of your children intelligence. It will make some obviously, but to narrow your pool of women over a possible average 2 IQ point increase in your children is a ridiculous trade off. Most likely no matter who you mate with you will have generally average intelligence kids. Also a large portion of idiots are also from environmental factors diminishing their potential IQ development, not genetic anyways. Genetics are A+ but being raised in certain ways stops IQ growth to its potential. So some dumb bimbo may actually have top of the line IQ genetics.

Also in the past, women have never been selected for intelligence. They have been selected for morality, sexuality, fertility. NEVER EVER has intelligence been a primary factor and I would argue its never even been a secondary factor. In fact I would say its been a detractor. Intelligent women are more difficult to deal with, in recorded history the women who is "simple" is vastly preferred for mating. And look at our average IQ levels today! Obviously it didn't stop intelligence in offspring.
"Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%[7] and 86%"
-- from the same article

IQ is EXTREMELY Heritable
 

kel

Pelican
Augustus_Principe said:
I'm not sure how old you, or other doubters of this are, but one big factor that is affecting millennial(my gen) women's fertility is their degenerate lifestyle, which include being on the pill for over a decade, countless sexual partners, an STD or 3, an abortion or 2, numerous Plan Bs, on top of a crap diet that messes up her endocrine system etc etc.
How much research has there been on the effects of very long-term usage of the pill (often starting very early in life, too)? I really wonder about this. Are women even wondering about that?
 
kel said:
Augustus_Principe said:
I'm not sure how old you, or other doubters of this are, but one big factor that is affecting millennial(my gen) women's fertility is their degenerate lifestyle, which include being on the pill for over a decade, countless sexual partners, an STD or 3, an abortion or 2, numerous Plan Bs, on top of a crap diet that messes up her endocrine system etc etc.
How much research has there been on the effects of very long-term usage of the pill (often starting very early in life, too)? I really wonder about this. Are women even wondering about that?
practically 0. Most of the research is done in the favor of birth control. If you bring up the topic of BC and how it may affect a woman's fertility, a woman will just say "well, all the research says it's safe to take and that there are no long term health effects" However, one doesn't need a lab coat to tell them that a pill designed to make a woman temporarily infertile will inevitably cause some sort of permanent damage. Just common sense. Also, most BC makers know how it disrupts a woman's endocrine system, so year after year, they quietly keep changing the dosage of estrogen in the pill.

Google is useless in trying to find studies on long term affects of BC, but if anyone happens to stumble upon one, please post.
 
I married a woman a couple years older than me, shes a good woman and in good shape. We met when I was 26 and she 28
She is a kind hearted excellent mother and companion the only downside is her age 39 now which means no more children for us but I really would love to have some more.
I wouldn't swap my woman now OP but if you have every option and want lots of kids then don't go for older
 
Top