How bad is is to marry an older woman?

Lunostrelki

Woodpecker
Honestly it's not so much about age as it is about expectations.

The way it should work is that women who waited until their 30s to marry and have kids should generally only be able to find guys they'd consider "creepy," "boring," short, or some other variation of unattractive. These men, in turn, serve as examples of how not to be a man, since them getting together with these leftover women means that their chnaces of having a) children and b) a loyal wife are greatly diminished.

On the other hand, if you're a capable and halfway decent guy in your early or mid-20s, and you find a suitable woman 1-3 years older, I don't think it's necessarily a big problem. Most women before the age of 30 can conceive.
 

Dilated

Robin
kel said:
I think infertility in even the early 30s is probably also connected with their long-term birth control pill usage.

I’ve met dozens of women from S. America ranging from 23-35 and not a single one was on birth control. Either they are smarter than their North American counterparts or they are more committed to having children. Either way it’s an indictment of American women.
 
Or they are lazier, don't know any better, or don't care = all of the above.

I have no problem with that, except that there is this k and r thing we talk about all the time. Thing is, what you need ultimately is k selection, solid homogenous culture and respect, and thus you will have traditional roles. Then everyone is pulling in the same direction, very few people step out of line without being shamed, and both sexes get what they want in a producing and virtuous society.
 
My brother-30 years with a wife for more than a decade older. They've been together for 5 years, and are very happy in the relationship. A few days ago I received a wedding invitation from them.
Basically, they met when she was a volunteer parent while he was teaching her daughter. It started as a hook up, but quickly became much more.
The age thing doesn't really bother them at all. She looks young and he looks older - and that carries over into them behavior. They function like any other normal couple, which certainly helps things.
 
The problem is, from the point of view of most on this forum at least, they think (I'm putting this nicely) your brother is getting a bad deal and/or making a bad decision. I'll let you decide that, of course, you should first consider all points --- including the types around here that would dog your brother for doing such a thing. It is true that people can get along with a good number of people, but priorities and expectations regarding something such as marriage (given family and legal issues) ought to be very well thought out.
 
No. marry younger, at least ten years younger. Rule of thumb for me going forward. Let them be naive and shit test you, just keep leading and not caring, dominate her, and put a damn bun in the oven once you find out she is not mentally ill. I don't care about other hereditary diseases, they can be beat with mushrooms, herbs, fasting, exercise, and diet. Mental illnesses are the biggest road block preventing human happiness on this earth. Remove that from the equation (i.e. she doesn't want worldly things) then you have a good head start. I know a few like this, some are single, some a re younger than me, but not by 10 years, so I may flex on that rule eventually if the options and pickings get slimmer and slimmer (always a for sure bet).
 

bucky

Ostrich
AntoniusofEfa said:
MajorStyles said:
Laner, I would also add another stick onto this fire. Say you meet a woman at 35 and date her for two years. Then, you realize that she is too flawed to start a family with. So you tell her it's over, it's time to part ways, etc.

I thought the main concern with women over 35 as far as childbearing wasn't their ability to conceive, rather the risk of birth defects and complications during the pregnancy and childbirth. I wish women were unlikely to conceive after 35...I could not worry so much about getting my devout Catholic wife who just passed that age pregnant.
 

kel

Pelican
They def have trouble conceiving, as I hear it, and yeah probably birth defects as well. It's horrifying to think about, honestly. And as millennial women age and decide maybe r/childfree wasn't the way to go pharmaceutical companies will develop weirder and weirder chemicals to help them conceive beyond nature's intention and they'll give birth to deformed and retarded children that society will get to pay for.

Because god forbid a woman ever be made to experience the consequences of her decisions. If we let that happen women at large might modify their lifestyles. Can't have that.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
bucky said:
...
I thought the main concern with women over 35 as far as childbearing wasn't their ability to conceive, rather the risk of birth defects and complications during the pregnancy and childbirth...

I believe this is true.

My wife (who I am currently split up from as you know) once told me that, due to her pre-existing medical condition (kidney transplant when she was 17), she was told she couldn't have children past 35.

This didn't make any sense to me because early menopause is not a side effect of kidney failure or kidney transplant.

Then, her doctor once explained to us that "for kidney transplant recipients, ANY pregnancy is risky and can lead to complications." Of course, after 35, those risk factors increase exponentially.

So it would stand to reason that it would be dangerous and risky for even a healthy woman to have a kid past 35 (even though menopause doesn't happen until 45 or so).
 
Let's just put this to rest, at least regarding pregnancy: generally the issue is more of carrying children at these ages, rather than the genetic defects. There is overlap but mostly the nulliparous woman has an aged uterus that is not that hospitable to implantation (and furthermore hasn't been suppled by prior progesterone exposure etc from a prior pregnancy). Also, genetic issues exponentially combine to stop implantation, but even though risk goes up greatly, it is the relative risk that goes up when comparing 35+ women to 25 year olds, for example. Even around age 39 for a woman the risk of Trisomy 21 is 0.8%. Compared to a 25 year old, that is about a 8-fold relative risk. Sounds horrible, until you realize 99% of the births of the 39 year old lady will not end up in a Down syndrome kid, let's say. Understanding the practical implication of statistics matters, therefore. Back to my point: the issue is implantation (conception).

This is what is so maddening about the SMV and age gap issue of males and females. When you take into consideration that pairing, dating, and marriage take at least a couple of years time to accomplish, if you want any sort of big family (3 is big???) you mathematically can only really do this with a woman at age 30, at the oldest. Sure, there will be exceptions, but it's just not practical, or smart.

I know people that spend lots of 5 figure payments on trying to have 1 kid, lol, due to challenging these biological and/or mathematical realities.
 

Papaya

Crow
Gold Member
I personally have no definitive proof that women past 31 even have vaginas much less viable uteri so I can contribute nothing to the topic
 
kel said:
MusicForThePiano said:
mushrooms

Share your mushroom knowledge?

I will create a separate thread just on mushrooms and the many different types, but I must be careful, some of this is considered forbidden knowledge to us plebs so I expect a backlash from any ghosting globopawns who may be lurking here...

In other news, older chicks are still infertile and there are less and less pure wellsprings from which good quality life can grow.
 

bucky

Ostrich
Kid Twist said:
Let's just put this to rest, at least regarding pregnancy: generally the issue is more of carrying children at these ages, rather than the genetic defects. There is overlap but mostly the nulliparous woman has an aged uterus that is not that hospitable to implantation (and furthermore hasn't been suppled by prior progesterone exposure etc from a prior pregnancy). Also, genetic issues exponentially combine to stop implantation, but even though risk goes up greatly, it is the relative risk that goes up when comparing 35+ women to 25 year olds, for example. Even around age 39 for a woman the risk of Trisomy 21 is 0.8%. Compared to a 25 year old, that is about a 8-fold relative risk. Sounds horrible, until you realize 99% of the births of the 39 year old lady will not end up in a Down syndrome kid, let's say. Understanding the practical implication of statistics matters, therefore. Back to my point: the issue is implantation (conception).

This is what is so maddening about the SMV and age gap issue of males and females. When you take into consideration that pairing, dating, and marriage take at least a couple of years time to accomplish, if you want any sort of big family (3 is big???) you mathematically can only really do this with a woman at age 30, at the oldest. Sure, there will be exceptions, but it's just not practical, or smart.

I know people that spend lots of 5 figure payments on trying to have 1 kid, lol, due to challenging these biological and/or mathematical realities.

If I understood you correctly, you're saying that a woman in her late 30s who has already had a few kids is much more likely to get pregnant than one of the same age who has never been pregnant before. Is that right?
 

Laner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
bucky said:
Kid Twist said:
Let's just put this to rest, at least regarding pregnancy: generally the issue is more of carrying children at these ages, rather than the genetic defects. There is overlap but mostly the nulliparous woman has an aged uterus that is not that hospitable to implantation (and furthermore hasn't been suppled by prior progesterone exposure etc from a prior pregnancy). Also, genetic issues exponentially combine to stop implantation, but even though risk goes up greatly, it is the relative risk that goes up when comparing 35+ women to 25 year olds, for example. Even around age 39 for a woman the risk of Trisomy 21 is 0.8%. Compared to a 25 year old, that is about a 8-fold relative risk. Sounds horrible, until you realize 99% of the births of the 39 year old lady will not end up in a Down syndrome kid, let's say. Understanding the practical implication of statistics matters, therefore. Back to my point: the issue is implantation (conception).

This is what is so maddening about the SMV and age gap issue of males and females. When you take into consideration that pairing, dating, and marriage take at least a couple of years time to accomplish, if you want any sort of big family (3 is big???) you mathematically can only really do this with a woman at age 30, at the oldest. Sure, there will be exceptions, but it's just not practical, or smart.

I know people that spend lots of 5 figure payments on trying to have 1 kid, lol, due to challenging these biological and/or mathematical realities.

If I understood you correctly, you're saying that a woman in her late 30s who has already had a few kids is much more likely to get pregnant than one of the same age who has never been pregnant before. Is that right?

I would say so. Anecdotally, of course. But the only women I know of having kids in their 40s already have kids. The women I know of getting eggs sucked out of them to have them fertilized in a lab are in their mid 30s.

I know two women who are pregnant right now in their mid 40s. First woman, her 6th kid. Her oldest is 17, youngest is 4 in my son's Sunday school class. Shes due in May.

Other is my Viet buddy. His wife is 47, their oldest daughter is 23. Their youngest is 16. Four kids with number five due shortly.

From my own experience there is a massive amount of fertility that women hang on to after a birth. Especially for the first 2 months after giving birth, its hard to keep your hands off them. They ooze fertility.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
PapayaTapper said:
I personally have no definitive proof that women past 31 even have vaginas much less viable uteri so I can contribute nothing to the topic

Yeah, you downed a bottle of Dom and cut some endangered Rhino horn into your coke, then she told you she was 25.

You checking IDs, killer? :laugh:

 

MajorStyles

Pelican
Kid Twist said:
When you take into consideration that pairing, dating, and marriage take at least a couple of years time to accomplish, if you want any sort of big family (3 is big???) you mathematically can only really do this with a woman at age 30, at the oldest.

This is another important aside - the amount of time needed to establish the groundwork for an effective relationship. As you allude to, it will take at least two years. From my experience, the is very true.

A longer courtship allows the couple to build a personal history. One thing that works very well in this regard is traveling together. The man and woman get to share fun experiences in different locations, which helps to strengthen the bond that will form the base of the relationship.

All of this, of course, ties back to the age of the woman. An older woman is less likely to take part in a longer courtship: the reason is because she is worrying about her reproduction needs. So she will be in more of a hurry. "I don't have all the time in the world" is a thought that will be running through her head.

Sometimes I run into a woman that had a child later in life, but is now divorced and alone (or perhaps never married). So her age, as well as the age of the man, were not an asset to the situation. I am confident that some of the things I mentioned - the pressure that came from her growing reproduction needs - played a role in the demise of that relationship.
 
bucky said:
If I understood you correctly, you're saying that a woman in her late 30s who has already had a few kids is much more likely to get pregnant than one of the same age who has never been pregnant before. Is that right?

Yes, she is also at much less risk for many diseases (mainly cancer) as opposed to the woman who had no kids in her life, too.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
Proven Fertility has something to say for it.

I worked with a guy once who married a woman who previously had 2 kids. Then she had 9 of his.
I was dating a 30 year old woman, he told me I could get 9 out of her. Gotta respect his positivity.

I was on a Catholic website and got messaged by an absolutely beautiful Colombian woman, 39. I figured she must be a recent revert or just husband hunting last minute. When I read her profile, she really came across as zealous for God and serious about her faith. It is puzzling me, how does that happen? How could a beautiful woman not find a husband. Are guys finding religious women who don't seek marriage but still pursue independent lifestyle? If that's the case these women should become nuns.

The answer in my mind is that women are worshipping at the altar of waiting for their perfect match, perfect love.
 

MajorStyles

Pelican
NoMoreTO said:
Proven Fertility has something to say for it.

I worked with a guy once who married a woman who previously had 2 kids. Then she had 9 of his.
I was dating a 30 year old woman, he told me I could get 9 out of her. Gotta respect his positivity.

Exactly. Take the Duggar family of 19 Kids and Counting. Clearly they had a good portion of these children after the age of 30.



How could she have these children after 30 if it was "biologically impossible"? It's like looking at birds flying in the sky and then saying that flying birds do not exist.

I am amazed at how many men in the Manosphere think it's impossible for a woman to conceive after the age of 30.
 
Top