Is there a 'best before date' for women?
- Thread starter rusvik
- Start date
I'm actually sort of relieved that my girlfriend has enough partners to satisfy her curiosity. I know for a fact that she's not wondering what else is out there. I know she would never cheat on me. My friends who married their high school sweet hearts are now all divorced due to cheating.
Though, it would be nice to have a girl who is relatively inexperienced AND would never cheat. I'm sure they're out there. But at 29, I don't think they'd be easy to find.
Though, it would be nice to have a girl who is relatively inexperienced AND would never cheat. I'm sure they're out there. But at 29, I don't think they'd be easy to find.
I'm 30 and have been dating an older girl.
You know all that bullshit you guys have to deal with when dating women who still haven't figured guys out yet? Like how they don't know how good they have it with you?
Yeah, I don't have any of that nonsense.
Good luck bros!
You know all that bullshit you guys have to deal with when dating women who still haven't figured guys out yet? Like how they don't know how good they have it with you?
Yeah, I don't have any of that nonsense.
Good luck bros!
I more or less agree with this, except for calling them "desperate" and "pathetic." Seems kind of cruel and mean-spirited. It's just how things are. Women are most physically capable of having children in their early 20s and as others have stated, the possibility of complications increase as they age. This is just mother nature at work, nothing more, nothing less. It's the reason we're all here.
As far as multiple past sex partners inhibiting healthy relationships, I've heard about this theory, but it's difficult to find any significant research that proves that promiscuity actually causes decreased oxytocin release in women during sex (unless you count all the information on religious websites that reinforces this theory).
I think it's more likely that factors such as childhood trauma (physical or emotional) plant the seeds of rampant promiscuity early on. Promiscuity and difficulty maintaining relationships are probably just byproducts of that trauma rather than a cause and effect in and of themselves.
This thread is interesting, and highlights something I've noticed in the past. Americans (the women at least) seem to want to marry/spawn earlier than Brits.
Over here, most women with real careers (ie not working as a secretary or something) aren't really interested in kids before age 33-35, often later. The relationship pattern typically goes:
1. Date someone at school. Break up with them at university.
2. Fuck around for a while.
3. Date someone at university. Possibly marry them if you're naive enough.
4. Break up with them. Fuck around for a while.
Then it branches into either:
a. fall into pattern of destructive relationships, divorce, fighting, remarrying etc
b. swear off 'commitment' forever and live the life of an eternal batchelor. At least for a while. A friend of mine who's done that is marrying a 28 year old this month, and he's nearly 50.
imp:
c. getting married, reproducing and staying married, at least another big life event shakes stuff up (hitting 40/50, parents dying, kids leaving home etc)
d. deciding that you're gay/polysexual/a furry.
e. other.
Almost anybody under 30 is fucking clueless when it comes to relationships these days. Man or woman. Me included when I was younger. And you, especially if you make posts containing the words 'beta' or 'sell-by date'.
Over here, most women with real careers (ie not working as a secretary or something) aren't really interested in kids before age 33-35, often later. The relationship pattern typically goes:
1. Date someone at school. Break up with them at university.
2. Fuck around for a while.
3. Date someone at university. Possibly marry them if you're naive enough.
4. Break up with them. Fuck around for a while.
Then it branches into either:
a. fall into pattern of destructive relationships, divorce, fighting, remarrying etc
b. swear off 'commitment' forever and live the life of an eternal batchelor. At least for a while. A friend of mine who's done that is marrying a 28 year old this month, and he's nearly 50.
imp:c. getting married, reproducing and staying married, at least another big life event shakes stuff up (hitting 40/50, parents dying, kids leaving home etc)
d. deciding that you're gay/polysexual/a furry.
e. other.
Almost anybody under 30 is fucking clueless when it comes to relationships these days. Man or woman. Me included when I was younger. And you, especially if you make posts containing the words 'beta' or 'sell-by date'.
The difference in miscarriages and defects between early 20's and 30's is actually pretty minimal, and often over stated.
Miscarriages:
Birth defects:
It's not until about age 40 that it's significantly different. You're talking 3.x% chance of birth defects in 20's vs 4.2% for 35+, which is negligable. Miscarriage is a 5% difference from age 22 to age 40.
A recent study also showed that people who have kids older in life age slower, too (although I've lost the link, I saw it a few days ago).
The only argument I can think for having kids when you're young is that you'll be more youthful as they grow up, so potentially will have more in common / be able to relate with their problems and so forth better.
The thing is though, our generation at age 70 will be probably equivalent in mobility to people aged 55-60 or so now. So even if you have kids aged 40, you're highly unlikely to die before they're of adult age and independent.
You'll just have more energy to play with the kids. I notice that my energy level drops every 5 years or so.
My grandparents had my mum both aged 40 and she didn't have any problems with this mind you, and I did tons of active stuff with my grandparents (when they were 80 even) as I grew up as a kid too.
Whilst it's definitely a factor, and makes a considerable difference between say age 22 and 40 giving birth - I think it's much better for the kid to be born into a stable household with good income and a reasonable standard of living than to have a slightly more youthful parent.
(The difference between having kids age 20-23 and not can have a massive impact on earning potential, especially if the parents don't stay together and one parent takes the brunt of the responsibility of looking after the kids).
If you had to pick between the 2 then yes, stable household > energy but you should have both
That's awesome about your grandparents though, you're lucky
It's not just energy levels. A woman in her 20s is also just physically better suited to endure pregnancy than a woman in her 30s because her body is more resilient. It's also easier for them to stay up all night with a screaming baby and then get up in the morning, I'd imagine, than a woman in her 30s.
It makes sense that a woman without children approaching 30 or in her early 30s would be in hyper-babymaking mode because the window of opportunity to conceive and give birth to healthy babies is closing, so the body kicks the desire into high gear.
I have a friend who is dating a girl his own age (I think she's 30), and he told me that she said some mornings she wakes up with like a physical urge to just be holding a baby. Her own words. And she's a totally level-headed, educated, successful girl.
It makes sense that a woman without children approaching 30 or in her early 30s would be in hyper-babymaking mode because the window of opportunity to conceive and give birth to healthy babies is closing, so the body kicks the desire into high gear.
I have a friend who is dating a girl his own age (I think she's 30), and he told me that she said some mornings she wakes up with like a physical urge to just be holding a baby. Her own words. And she's a totally level-headed, educated, successful girl.
