The Biological Clock: A Rant On People Who Wait Too Long v1.0

[Anonymous]

An unfortunate reality for many people is that they wait too long to find a mate. Maybe this is because they're picky and want their 'perfect' relationship or maybe they're career driven or maybe they just enjoy being single... until they realize they don't.

The problem with all of this waiting is the cold hard truth: that people are largely driven by biology, more specifically evolution which has developed over millions of years.

"Why does this matter?" You may be asking, "Or how does this affect me?" Well, I'll be glad to tell you! It affects you in two ways: Firstly, your looks as males and females will reach a peak in a so-called 'sexual marketplace'. It will then begin to degrade, whether we want to admit it or not. This also happens much earlier than you may think! It's mostly downhill from around twenty-five on, probably earlier especially for females.

After this degradation point is reached all the attention you may have gotten in the past will gradually fade away. "But why?!" You're probably wondering. Well it's pretty simple actually! Essentially the reality is this: people are inherently concerned with themselves and their potential offspring so they are going to attempt to use everything in their arsenal to get the best possible qualifications in a mate they can (including looks, who knew?!).

So essentially the longer you wait the less you have to bargain with! Fertility, youth, health, and looks matters to people in a mate even if they won't actually tell you. Don't be fooled by anyone that tells you otherwise or you may wake up one day to find yourself alone.

"So then what should I do?!" You may be asking yourself. Well I for one think people should start looking for partners in life earlier than society recommends, not only for a better 'qualified' mate but for the sake of healthier potential offspring. The bottom line is people should keep their eyes open and not get cocky or it may backfire.

The Clock is Ticking...

[Anonymous]

Agreed. I also like how you included men as well. Although they can still produce sperm as they age the risk of producing autistic children also increases as well as a myriad of other issues. Their attractiveness fades as well. Men lose their skin collagen as well. Many men also get fat. And men lose their hair which is something that has a deep impact on their appearance and something that most women don't have to worry about. I don't know why society only makes it seems like its exclusively a women's issue. Everyone has a physical and reproductive peak. It varies depending on the individual but its like around 16-24 for women and 18-28 for men and even that's a stretch (mainly because of the majority's bad habits and health). Of course I know both men and women who still look good and are healthy in their 40's but they are exceptions to the rule. They are that way because they have good genes and they took good care of themselves but I'd be lying if I said they didn't look even better in their 20's. Nobody looks better at 30+ than they did in their 20's and if they do its only because they didn't take care of their of their appearance in their 20's.

[myTake Owner]

You're mostly right but as long as the male isn't 50+ the female body (while she's young) has a powerful ability to repair sperm damage within her body so it reduces the likelihood genetic abnormalities and fertility issues.

[myTake Owner]

Otherwise thank you :)

[Opinion Owner]

My findings are reporting men 40+ are 6 times more likely to produce children with autism (and the research indicates the age of the mother has nothing to do with. Research indicates that children of fathers over 40 are13 times more likely of having adhd. Anyway a healthy lifestyle can help all aspects of the body including the reproductive system but in general, having children after 40 for men and after 35 for women is risky territory. Fortunately most people do not wait until such an advanced aged... for now but I think that could be slowly changing. Society says its okay to wait for ages to do anything, "wait until you're ready" (and I'm referring to more than just having children and sex), and I'm not entirely sure if its a good thing. Its almost like we're extending adolescence until 30. I know plenty of people who are in their 30's who don't have their act together. You can't be young forever, especially not in the physical sense.

[myTake Owner]

This is somewhat true but it's more complex than that in some cases. Again I mostly agree with you though:

"Even with damaged DNA, sperm can fertilize eggs. The oocyte’s DNA repair machinery can fix most single-strand breaks in the paternal DNA."

www.asbmb.org/.../asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=47453

"Ova are able to repair sperm DNA damage to a certain extent [48]. However, when sperm DNA damage is extensive, ovum may not have repair capacities to allow normal development."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826626/

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/45/17725.full

[myTake Owner]

It depends on how damaged the dna which is partly due to age.

[Opinion Owner]

The 1st and 3rd links are broken.
That's neat that the female body can repair the sperm but I wonder how effective this mechanism is.
I don't think it is that effective to repair the damage of the sperm of men 40+ because of steep increase of autism, adhd, and other disorders and complications
I think if both men and women only reproduced in their 20's we would see a huge decrease in the genetic abnormalities.

[myTake Owner]

I could fix the links but I think you get my point. I will though if you want. I agree though. With respect to genetic abnormalities it's probably ideal for people to have children younger especially females. Although I would say in their early twenties or late teens tbh.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm thinking society doesn't allow for starting a family in the early teens because of high school and college as well as modern culture. I think there needs to be a better system for this. Do you have any solutions?

I personally think mid 20's for women and early 30's for men is fine if you only want 1 kid. If you want several you should start early.

[myTake Owner]

"I'm thinking society doesn't allow for starting a family in the early teens because of high school and college as well as modern culture. I think there needs to be a better system for this. Do you have any solutions?"

I think it would be incredibly difficult in society the way things are for that to take place. People are too engrained in their own conceptions, at least any time soon. The best that can be done right now is probably for a male in his early-mid twenties (once he is financially viable) to produce offspring with a female in her late teens.

"I personally think mid 20's for women and early 30's for men is fine if you only want 1 kid. If you want several you should start early."

That is more than acceptable. My only point was on what is biologically optimal. Also, I think you might have insight into this that I'm not aware of given the direction this has gone thus far so I'm actually pretty interested in what you think is a good approach to be honest.

[DarkHumorRUs]

Yeah, its not like I would choose to stay single if I had that choice. I really, really (times a million) really wish that it was normal to meet your future wife in high school, but no, society had to go fuck shit up and make it complicated.

[myTake Owner]

This is true! But we don't have to trust society and I'm hoping this will open people's eyes to that idea.

[Queen_naki5]

Finally someone who understands!!! Years ago, you could find a mate in HS, possibly go to college and marry later on or marry after HS and choose to further your education. Society not only fucked it up, it's almost impossible to find "the one" in general. Even in college...

[kep79]

Society no longer demands the existence of only "one" person forever in our lives, @Queen_naki5

[DarkHumorRUs]

@kep79 but you gotta admit it would be easier for everyone to find one partner. I doubt society ever "demanded" one person forever, but it was just better that way. I wonder if we could change it back...

[kep79]

Do you doubt it? Have you never heard "until death do us part"?

[Anonymous]

I think people, especially women do look for a mate very early. Or at least not later on than you seem to think. The issue though is that men nowadays seem not to be in a rush to settle down and have a family. Most women, by 20 are looking for a serious relationship. Not necessarily to get married, have children and such but they're looking for commitment.
Your take is somewhat right (although when it comes to women looks going downhill by 20 I think it's a bit extreme) Yes our society is such that people, especially those who take the time to get a degree, get a career on track, get some money etc... postpone having kids and take more time to find the right person. What else do you want them to do though? I think your take applies to those people who have decided to focus on just one part of life and who, as a result , might be declining a relationship even when they could make it work. Otherwise I guess everyone just goes with the flow and tries to do the best they can.
And again I find it somewhat extreme that you say women reach their peak in looks in their early twenties and it goes downhill from 25. Many women over 30 are attractive, not only by their looks but also because they're established in their life and have a better personality. This alone just makes your whole take rather superficial.

[myTake Owner]

I think I should have been more clear and said that the aging process, with respect to looks, starts kicking in around twenty-five not that people can't be attractive at that age.

[myTake Owner]

This take IS superficial because people are superficial. That's the whole point. That's how biology works. People are not forced to make their choices based on their instincts but you can safely bet that it influences their decision making.

[Bob5555]

He's right. I'd say women "peak" in attractiveness at around 22 or 23 even. Not saying that older women can't be very attractive. I'm saying that if you stood next to the 22 y/o version of yourself and random guys came in to pick which of you was more attractive the 22 y/o version of you would win out.

[Opinion Owner]

I am 25 and honestly I think the difference isn't that noticeable. Same goes for my female friends. I think they're actually hotter now because they have a better sense of style and dress better People do age differently but honestly people look fairly the same in between 22- 30.
The only difference is when people start growing out of their "teenage" face and get into a more adult looks.

[myTake Owner]

Many females share that conception but you aren't trying to attract females unless you are a lesbian I assume?

Listen, the bottom line is that I'm trying to help by giving the scientific perspective. You are more than within your rights to disagree. I'm just saying to be cautious... In case you're wrong.

[Opinion Owner]

I bet if I put a 22 years old woman and a 26 years old woman side by side, with the same clothes you wouldn't be able to tell who's younger.
My point was just that we should stop always putting people into some sort of age limitation." You're between 18 and 22 ? you're at your peak of attractiveness because biology said so!" do you just realize how dumb this sounds? Besides if that were the case a lot of women over 30 would just see their partner leaving for younger girls and as you can see, there are more and more men who date women older than them.

Also a lot of women in their early 20s actually look older than they are because of make up. so yeah...

[myTake Owner]

"I bet if I put a 22 years old woman and a 26 years old woman side by side, with the same clothes you wouldn't be able to tell who's younger."
Just because you could possibly find a single example of something like that it would not prove your point. Even if you found a few it would not prove your point. It would take a study to even find correlation like that and most studies they've done like that indicate that men like younger looking women. That's pretty well agreed upon in the scientific community but that's old news.

"My point was just that we should stop always putting people into some sort of age limitation." You're between 18 and 22 ? you're at your peak of attractiveness because biology said so!"

I'm not putting anyone into anything. I'm telling you biological tendencies. These are not necessarily my personal preferences. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

[myTake Owner]

"Besides if that were the case a lot of women over 30 would just see their partner leaving for younger girls and as you can see, there are more and more men who date women older than them. "

... are you serious? This does happen, a lot. Even to the point of it being a cultural cliche. That's another reason I'm bringing this up. Men are superficial. Where have you been?

[myTake Owner]

"there are more and more men who date women older than them."

This is blatantly false and conjecture. It's shown in the media because it's still fairly rare. I urge you to find me a single reliable study indicating that. I strongly doubt you can because it basically doesn't happen. It's what they call an anomaly in the scientific community.

[Opinion Owner]

Well what you are saying is that women look their best at 22 (which is the meaning of peak in attractiveness). With that statement based solely on a woman's looks. Your only proof for this is "biology said so and men do like younger women".
First the only biology ever said is that women reach a peak in fertility in their mid twenties. The exact age varies from one woman to another because it depends on a lot of factors. And the idea that men like younger women stems from the fact that yes men do prefer women who look more "fertile" (and women also do prefer men who look more "fertile" that is healthy etc..)
But you take those biological consideration to the extreme by saying that well women look their best 2 years in their whole life and from 23 years old, it's all downhill which annoys me because I find this statement sexist. I also find it annoying that simply because you're a man and are attracted to women , you believe you have a say in when a woman is or is not attractive.

[Opinion Owner]

Maybe you're the type of person who goes for very young girls and find anyone above 25 to be less attractive than average. But you have to realize that not anyone is like this. And that all that biological talk doesn't explain attraction which also happens at a mental level. You do realize we're not cavemen anymore right? People are looking for other people who share their interest , who are interesting, I am not saying physical attraction do not matter but as far as I know the capacity to create sexual/physical attraction isn't solely based on one's looks.

[Opinion Owner]

Look, I don't know what you're tying to prove. Your hole take is based on evolution and biology and the idea that people wait too long.
Yes we do not live in a society where people are expected to be married by 20 which was the case before. but people do not wait, they simply don't have the choice but to do so.
Many young people find themselves in long term relationship which then ends before they can even get married and start a family.
As I already said I think your take can be valid if you want to scare those very ambitious people who have decided to focus on thing except their career.
Otherwise I believe you're lacking the consideration of the current reality.

Anyway I guess for women it's still a lose lose in the end. If they don't find someone by 22, then it's harder and even if they do he might leave for a younger girl afterwards.. what a joke.

[myTake Owner]

Uh yeah see no. That's not what I'm trying to say that's why I said this:

"I think I should have been more clear and said that the aging process, with respect to looks, starts kicking in around twenty-five not that people can't be attractive at that age."

Personally, I think you could (and probably do) look gorgeous at your age, in my opinion. I'm just talking in biological generalities and trying to save people trouble. If you genuinely believe that I'm wrong go right ahead. I'm only trying to help.

[Opinion Owner]

I meant whole take

[Opinion Owner]

it's not a matter of being right or wrong. It's just that you do raise an issue that is relevant nowadays which is the fact that people do start family later on and that it is a problem in terms of fertility for a couple. But you do not provide any solution or any insight that might have been ignored by others. Yeah we all know we're just getting older and all but what are we supposed to do? Settle down out of fear?

[myTake Owner]

The problem is that it isn't just fertility. It's also the rate of live births and the rate of birth abnormalities. Both of which have a strong correlation to the age of the parents, especially the mother typically. I'm saying that people should keep their options open and not get too full of themselves. They should also give people a shot that they might not otherwise have done. It could work out best for everyone.

Also, that people should at least aim for a longer term relationship rather than tell themselves they have all the time in the world. I'd prefer that everyone be happy and I think what I'm saying is the best solution, thus far, in that direction.

[Creole_Flavor]

I agree because Society says the best time to get married is in your 30's but biologically a woman's fertility declines in her mid 30's. In mid 20's you are in your most eligible years and though a person may like playing the field and looking for the one or is career driven if you want kids one day and a life partner you need to find a balance with every aspect in your life before everything passes right in front of you. We have this notion that we have to do everything in a certain order to be completely happy just waiting for one thing to happen before the other and not making it happen. My biggest fear is to be an old maid and I'm not gonna let that happen though I'm not rushing, I am being careful and open-minded because I don't have my whole life to make babies and freezing my eggs is expensive though I have considered it just in case but hopefully I won't have to do that.

[myTake Owner]

Actually a women's fertility peaks BY her early twenties and this is still neglecting the rates of birth defects and live births which show that it might be best for a woman to conceive in her late teens.

Also womens' fertility sharply declines by and after her mid thirties, along with the rate of still borns and birth abnormalities also increasing.

Males have a similar experience but to a lesser degree as long as their partner is young and they are below around forty five, i believe. This is due to the female body's ability to repair damaged DNA within sperm.

[myTake Owner]

Actually womens' *

[Creole_Flavor]

I don't wanna be pooping out babies for the first time in my late 30' early 40's that's the age I would like for kids to be getting ready to go off on their own lol

[Queen_naki5]

@Creole_Flavor
I agree. My goal was to start at 27/28. Although I always hear women twice my age saying that it's too young nowadays. I beg to differ! I want my kids to be at LEAST school aged by my 40th birthday.

[Creole_Flavor]

@Queen_naki5 That's pretty much the way that I'm thinking too.

[emmabee11]

I think it depends on the person, personally i don't see myself having kids because 1. My hormones are turning the direction of my mothers and 2. She started menopause at 45 and chances are i will too... and there are too many women made single mothers these days... and i don't want to be a single mother because that would make life harder then and i haven't really had a good start in life as it is.. don't want to do anything that would complicate things, i jsut want things to get better.

[myTake Owner]

Even if you don't have kids don't you think it's important to have companionship? Do you not want kids or do you just think it would complicate things?

[emmabee11]

Id love to be with someone but the kids part... nah... much of my life has already gone to waste... i've been stuck inside and barely done much and my parents are super protective while they aren't of my brother because i'm the female... so i feel like having kids would put me right back where i started where i can't even leave the house again.

[myTake Owner]

Makes sense! I understand.

[emmabee11]

For women who have menopause at 45 though it's an even smaller gap to concieve... like... 26 years to concieve and that's it, from 18 - 44, it's a difficult thing finding someone these days to concieve in that amount of time.

[Anonymous]

Good Take, I agree. A lot of people think if they want kids they can have them at any age but that's not true, they tend to be unhealthier the older the women is and men's sperm gets dis-formed after a certain age.

[myTake Owner]

True, plus fortunately a woman's body (as long as she's young to my knowledge) has the ability to somewhat repair damaged sperm reducing the risk of abnormalities.

[Opinion Owner]

Never heard that.

[myTake Owner]

"Even with damaged DNA, sperm can fertilize eggs. The oocyte’s DNA repair machinery can fix most single-strand breaks in the paternal DNA."

www.asbmb.org/.../asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=47453

"Ova are able to repair sperm DNA damage to a certain extent [48]. However, when sperm DNA damage is extensive, ovum may not have repair capacities to allow normal development."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826626/

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/45/17725.full

[Bob5555]

This is under the assumption that everyone wants to have kids at some point.

[myTake Owner]

No and that was a big part of my point. I was hoping to help people understand that the way they feel is affected by biology, who they are attracted to and why. This affects anyone who wants to have a long term relationship or even short ones maybe.

[Bob5555]

Well I don't see people waiting for long periods of time to look for long term or short term relationships. Simply marriage and kids is all I see people waiting on.

[Bob5555]

you make a good point for people who want to have children though. Definitely no argument from me there.

[myTake Owner]

People do wait to enter marriages whether they intend to have kids or not. But given that I don't want to dig up the statistics right now we can call that conjecture. Believe as you will but I'm pretty sure I've seen stats in the past that indicated to me that people wait for marriage longer now than they used to, in general.

I appreciate the insight though!

[Anonymous]

I found my mate at 17. We are both (24). We were both high school seniors. We're both finished with college and engaged to be married this summer. Best decision/best guy ever. I was just lucky to find my mate early in life.

[myTake Owner]

That's great for you! Good luck.

[Opinion Owner]

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

I'm not waiting I just haven't met a guy who can look past my looks. So i am not in danger of losing my looks since I never had them. I am actively looking for guys and I don't have high standards but a lot of men (especially in their 20s) have high standards even if they aren’t that attractive either. I'm not saying women don't do that either because they do. However I am talking about my personal experience with dating men. I have online dating profiles (including Tinder) and I get friends who set me up. So far I haven't had much luck. They always say they aren't physically attracted to me. I usually ask why when a guy doesn't want me. If it's a personality flaw I can work on that. They always say they aren't attracted to me physically.

So until I can meet someone who can look past my looks, I will stay alone.

[myTake Owner]

It isn't just women with this issue. Males do the same thing. That's why I didn't just address this toward females. Also do you reject guys for being unattractive or do you reject males at all? Because it seems like females commonly reject males for things like looks fairly often because they have REALLY high standards.

[Opinion Owner]

I've never rejected anyone. I give any guy a chance. I gave an overweight guy who was extremely lazy a chance and he didn't want me. That isn't my ideal guy at all. I am extremely active person and I want someone just as active but I don't only go for guys like that. I have never said no, even to someone I'm not attracted to at all.

[Opinion Owner]

Basically I have an extremely masculine face. Everybody including my family says I look like a man with long hair and boobs.

[myTake Owner]

That's a very odd thing to tell a person's daughter. It sounds like you have self-esteem issues. Are you sure they weren't joking? I know girls that have their parents say things like that but are completely joking but they don't know it hurts their daughters. Can you give me more information? Whatever you're willing to tell me. I want to try to understand to help.

[Opinion Owner]

No they were serious. I know my own life.

[myTake Owner]

That's horrible. I'm sorry to hear that. I would strongly suggest you realize that isn't really true. And on top of it not being true... I think real beauty is on the inside :)

[Watermelonoma]

im very curious as to what you look like now. i find that most people who are unattractive phsically have done everything they can to look good... as keeping up appearances is usually a secondary or even tertiary thing to them

[Opinion Owner]

Yeah I basically do everything I can to make sure I look as good I can. I keep myself fit, I wear nice clothes, I style my hair, and I am well groomed. I don't really wear makeup though because it can ruin your skin. If I do wear it, I just wear mascara and eyeliner. It's really my facial features, they're masculine. If you compare my dads picture to mine at my age, we look almost exactly alike except I have long hair and I have my moms eyes.

[Tokana]

I look better now than when I was 25, thanks to these bad boys.

www.localfitness.com.au/.../...s-to-advanced_l.jpg

[BelleGirl21]

Love those boys!

[mutedaisy]

I guess this is true, but I guess it doesn't matter for me since I am not getting married and adopting a child. Good take, I hope it wakes some people up.

[myTake Owner]

If you don't get married what is your alternative?

[mutedaisy]

I kind of just assumed the opposite was remaining single.

[myTake Owner]

Let me rephrase, does that imply you aren't interested in companionship?

[mutedaisy]

I am not interested in companionship

[myTake Owner]

Interesting. If you don't mind me asking, why is that?

[mutedaisy]

I'm just not interested or wanting to spend my life with someone else other than a child. I have a boyfriend at the moment that I love, but that will end soon.

[myTake Owner]

I see. I know I'm probably getting too nosy but why do you think it will end soon? Is that just because you want it to?

[mutedaisy]

Because I don't want be with anyone. I'd really rather be single.

[myTake Owner]

That's fascinating! I wonder why. Thank you for your information.

[mutedaisy]

I'm sure you can find my answer on this take, but I feel this is the biggest reason why I don't want to be in a relationship. I cannot have kids, usually people get together for that one reason. We all have biological clocks. I just don't want want to deal with situations like this, while childless, because at the end of the day I'll always feel like damaged goods. I'll always feel like things like this are my fault. Nothing can be done about that.

I'm an only child, so I know how to be alone. It's just a bit less fun, but worth it, because I can stay true to myself, while accomplishing everything I want. I can even adopt and not be bother with a person that would be against adoption.

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a8551-why-cheating-is-ok

[myTake Owner]

I appreciate you sharing that with me. I personally do not believe you are 'damaged goods' for one very important reason: romantic relationships are not only useful for the sake of producing children. Their other major focus is companionship, in that you can provide happiness, stability, and a sense of safety for your partner.

You can also be a mother, in my opinion, just as validly as one with a biological child and possibly even more so. And I can basically guarantee there are many men who share that view with me. Also, I disagree with you, I think something can be done about that. I think there is probably someone very special waiting for you just as you are. I don't mean that as fluff I mean that because of sheer probability and the variance of the human psyche.

I hope I'm not offending you with this view and I'm only sharing it with you because I think it's true. But if you are a person of quality on the inside then you do have value [to males], much more than you know.

[mutedaisy]

Well, only time will tell. Thank you for the reassurance. This was a nice discussion.

[myTake Owner]

I'm also saying this in contrast to what you may (seemingly) have been told. If a guy said that to you and it hurt you then quite honestly you dodged a bullet with him. He probably isn't the loyal type to begin with.

The goal and focus of this post was not to motivate only people who can have children to get married early and do so. The purpose was to encourage EVERYONE, whether you can have children or not, to try and find a long term relationship earlier rather than later. This is simply because of people's tendency to seek out healthy looking (usually somewhat) younger mates.

So I say again, I personally believe you have value. I strongly doubt that I'm alone with that mindset. I also think a person's priority should be on a person's internal characteristics like loyalty and honesty.

[myTake Owner]

I agree. It was nice. You're welcome and thank you for sharing your story! I honestly believe that if you make yourself available/findable the right guy will find you. It's just how biology works. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns I hope you will let me know.

[meatballs21]

The alternative extreme viewpoint is to rush into a relationship as young as possible... that way you can be angry, damaged, and single again at the same age as the people who 'waited too long' you describe above!

[myTake Owner]

You are equating youth with the inability to have a healthy relationship. This is a false equivalency. It's more than possible for people to have fulfilling relationship at around eighteen. They did that (and even younger) for quite a while up until the last fifty years or so.

The reason people wait, presumably, is because they will be more mature, have more resources, and be able to have fun while they are younger and save kids for when they are older. Those things are debatable. The biological facts however, are not.

[meatballs21]

I agree with your bottom line. However: You can have a fulfilling relationship while very young, sure, but a lifelong one? Or even a long-lasting one? Waiting to settle is wise because you learn what you want out of life and from a partner by gaining life experience. I've seen too many of my friends who married or settled young and are now divorced or with new partners. I was in an LTR from 22 until 33, and it lasted several years longer than it should have.

If you're strictly viewing humans are breeders (or at least, displaying the qualities associated with being desirable for doing so) then yes, they should be going for it sooner rather than later. For a happy relationship and household, though, let it happen when it happens I think.

[myTake Owner]

We partly agree but you still believe that people CAN'T have fulfilling and long-lasting relationships if they marry young. People used to stayed married longer, while marrying younger, even than they do now when they marry older. You're looking for correlation or causation that just isn't there for whatever reason. Social norms do not necessarily equal truth. They never have.

The norm nowadays is for people to get married older and the people who get married younger are usually seemingly 'immature' or premaritally pregnant or something similar. There is stigma against getting married young but that is not really scientifically valid. It's just a social construct and that was my entire point.

[DarkHumorRUs]

My parents and literally all my aunts and uncles met their future spouse in high school and only like one of my uncles has been divorced.

[myTake Owner]

@DarkHumorRUs makes my point exactly. Our culture has warped our perspective.

[meatballs21]

CAN'T? Rather, I think it's less likely. It can go either way. There is no-catch all equation here. You're advocating for not waiting, I'm advocating for letting it happen when it happens. I agree that people who hold out too long are probably doing themselves a disservice, if you wait for the conditions (and I include the other person in that) to be perfect you'll be waiting forever.

[myTake Owner]

I'm mostly advocating that sooner, in general, is better than later... Not that people should force it. I'm confronting the societial notion that it's better to wait, in general, until you're in your late twenties because as far as I can tell it isn't true. And that's the bottom line.

[meatballs21]

Gotcha. It's interesting, I was the single person in their early twenties, now I'm the single person in their thirties. A lot is different but at the same time, a lot is the same.

[myTake Owner]

Yes and this idea doesn't apply to everyone, there are almost always exceptions to rules like this. It's just a general guideline. Quite honestly I think that good things take time and everyone has someone that's right for them, especially because of sheer probability with how many people there are in the world.

It's all about putting themselves out there and seeking someone that is a good match for them. A lot of people simple "settle" but that isn't really my point. My point is that people should expand their horizons and give people chances that they see themselves as being too good for. Because it's in that humility that I believe people can find their true happiness... not getting caught up in superficialities.

But that seems to contradict my whole point, right? Not really, I'm saying that by nature people are superficial... not that they have to be. People can choose things that affect their outcomes. That's the beauty of being human and not just an animal.

[myTake Owner]

simply settle*
and give people chances that they had previously seen themselves as being too good for*

[abundantlyrich]

Yeah for people who fret about losing out and having a short life span.

[myTake Owner]

I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean?

[abundantlyrich]

You're socially conditioned by society to think that.

[myTake Owner]

I'm socially condition to think what? Conditioned to think there is a biological clock?

[abundantlyrich]

Yeah... Hear white people keep saying... OH LIFE IS SHORT... better do this or better do that. Hell they even look way too old at 17. Okay this was in UK. ;P

[myTake Owner]

Maybe that's where you live but where I'm from, in American culture, people get married and have children much later than they used to. Rather than in their early twenties or late teens the average is now late twenties or early thirties. This is a problem biologically and that's the purpose of this MyTake.

[abundantlyrich]

I'm not from UK. I visited there. People are gloomy.

[abundantlyrich]

That's cos they never got grounding from parents, all loose and rebellious determine to think they know better than adults.

[myTake Owner]

That's very possible. I'm not entirely sure why people do things like this.

[abundantlyrich]

They 're just out of control or in ego state.

[SpearmintBerryCrunch]

Yes, but just because you have the best chance of reproducing when you're, say, 17 definitely does not mean you should. You may be healthier than someone who is a lot older, but I would rather a 45 year old have a kid than a 17 year old. Just saying. Having babies too young isn't good either. I think the 20-30 age range is a good time to have kids. Toward the upper end of that range I think.

[myTake Owner]

Very debatable and biologically unequivocally untrue. It isn't just about fertility chance, it's about the likelihood of abnormalities. The chance of abnormalities GREATLY increases the older the parents are, especially which respect to the mother. Also, females cannot produce children very reliably after thirty-five because of fertility issues and also the high risk for hereditary illnesses being passed on.

The ONLY reasons to wait would be more significant psychological development and higher levels of finances. However, there is (supposedly) new research being done that indicates that parents who wait too long may be too detached from their children, given the larger age gap, making it more difficult to relate with them. The financial issue could be (mostly) resolved by having a slightly older and educated father with access to more resources, an older father is typical anyway.

[myTake Owner]

@SpearmintBerryCrunch Not to mention that human beings are designed through evolution to raise children. This was well before they had access to the medicine, instruction and technology we have today.

[SpearmintBerryCrunch]

Yes, I agree that people should have kids at a fairly young age, when they are still healthy and capable. But I don't agree that the average teenager is ready to be a parent. I think 20-30, 20 being the earliest. I believe that 19 and younger (in most cases) is too early. That of course depends on the couple, but I feel that most people would not be ready to raise another human being at 19, because usually at 19 you are still getting your own life together.

[myTake Owner]

@SpearmintBerryCrunch You feel that way but there is no data to indicate that it's actually true. In fact the science actually points more toward the opposite direction. To be honest with you though it was mostly the girls throughout history that were marrying younger... not the males. Probably partly because girls, on average, mature faster than boys do.

[SpearmintBerryCrunch]

It is true that girls mature faster than boys do. However, my previous point still stands. I am not saying that no 17 year old would be ready to parent, I am only saying that there are major benefits to waiting until you have a steady job and have your life together. And for most 17-19 year olds, this isn't the case. I can see how being closer to your child's age could influence how you and your child bond, but I do not think your child should be treated like your friend either. I think the age gap helps prevent that child being friends with their parents relationship. A parent is there to ensure that their child can succeed in the world. A parent is not there to be the child's friend. The more a child sees the parent as a peer, the less effective that individual's parenting will be. Children need to see their parents, not as friends or peers, but as authority figures. If your parents give birth to you at 17, I feel it would be hard to see them as authority figures.

[SpearmintBerryCrunch]

Science does not say that teenagers make better parents AT ALL. There is data to support the idea that if a couple has a steady income and has their life together BEFORE having the child, the child is more likely to succeed. There have been numerous studies done on this issue, and this is what they have found. As a 17 year old who knows other 17 year olds, I couldn't even fathom myself or my friends or anyone around me becoming a parent. The thought is terrifying. None of them (including myself) are mature enough or capable of being a parent. Raising another human being is a huge responsibility, as such it is important that the person doing the raising is responsible.

[myTake Owner]

I already addressed the job issue you had, "The financial issue could be (mostly) resolved by having a slightly older and educated father with access to more resources, an older father is typical anyway." that has been the most common solution throughout the ages.

Also the financial solution would probably solve this is as well, "A parent is not there to be the child's friend." It has been typical throughout history for a younger wife to be with an older husband. That way you get the best of both worlds: You get the younger nurturing mother that can relate to her children... while still not being her child's friend.

I'm not sure why you think a sixteen-eighteen year old age gap would automatically equal friends. I don't have any friends that are sixteen years younger than me let alone eighteen. Not to mention that the age gap I mentioned has been around for thousands if not millions of years without the friend thing being a hugely earth-shattering issue if one at all.

[SpearmintBerryCrunch]

Well, sure if your parents are willing to support YOUR child. The way I see it, if you have a child YOU ought to be the one who is raising that child/is responsible for that child. Instead of using your father/mother as a crutch. Until YOU are ready to be the parent of said child, you shouldn't have the child. Not saying you should wait too long either, but there is no benefit (and there are drawbacks) to having a child at 17-19 vs 23-25.. People are (usually) more financially stable at 23-25 because they are out of college.

Also, your argument assumes that your parents are willing to support you. There are plenty of parents who wouldn't be willing to support the child. It is not their responsibility. It is not the father's responsibility. It is YOUR responsibility. And if a person isn't read to take responsibility for their child, they are not read to have a child, end of discussion.

[myTake Owner]

@SpearmintBerryCrunch "Science does not say that teenagers make better parents AT ALL," yes but what you're saying is cultural and sociological. It isn't biological.

"There have been numerous studies done on this issue, and this is what they have found." I also have no idea what you're talking about with regards to those studies but I'd urge you to link me to them.

And even if that information were true. They would probably involve both parents being teenage would honestly is probably not my point anyway at least in this day and age.

I'm saying that if one removed the culture influence and just took two younger people to be parents they could produce mentally and physically healthy offspring because they've done it since the dawn of man.

[myTake Owner]

@SpearmintBerryCrunch But my last point was delving a bit into the realm of conjecture and it would be incredibly difficult to prove. I can say this with strong confidence though: to say that a seventeen year old girl and a seventeen year old guy are unable to produce functioning members of society is most likely false.

[myTake Owner]

@SpearmintBerryCrunch "Well, sure if your parents are willing to support YOUR child." No no no. There appears to be some confusion here. I'm suggesting that the father of the child be slightly older and more educated not the parents of the parents of the child.

[SpearmintBerryCrunch]

The only part of being a parent that is biological is giving birth to the darn thing. 17 year olds are baby making MACHINES, and therefore I am confident that a 17 year old guy and girl could successfully birth a child. I'm talking about culture and society. Could they RAISE that child in a way that said child would be successful and happy in life. The child would be alive, but would they be content or unhappy with their life? It doesn't matter if they are mentally and physically healthy- if their life is miserable because of their parents' poor decisions, they would have been better off being born into a family that was READY to have a child.
A 17 year old girl could not be with an older guy, because that is considered having sex with someone who is underage, and it is illegal. If you are talking about a 17 year old girl, the guy would be 17 or younger. 17 year old guys aren't educated or fiscally ready to raise a child.

[SpearmintBerryCrunch]

And even if the father was older, if the mother wasn't older and therefore wasn't ready, that would make for a poor parenting situation. Both people have to be ready

[myTake Owner]

@SpearmintBerryCrunch "A 17 year old girl could not be with an older guy, because that is considered having sex with someone who is underage, and it is illegal." This is largely false. It depends on the legal jurisdiction they live in. Many, if not most, have an age of consent that is around sixteen. Being a "minor" with respect to legal age has more to do with business obligations like signing contracts and what not. It's a common misconception.

The first part I mostly agree with. Society does not accept it but it is certainly biologically preferable. The point I'm trying to make is that society, in large part, doesn't do things because it is rational it collectively does it because of how people feel. This, to me, seems massively inefficient and irrational.

[myTake Owner]

@SpearmintBerryCrunch "And even if the father was older, if the mother wasn't older and therefore wasn't ready, that would make for a poor parenting situation. Both people have to be ready" well of course. I'm not suggesting it be done involuntarily. I'm just saying what seems to make the most sense. Also to save people the trouble of realizing that society has no idea what it's talking about and it isn't looking out for your best interests necessarily.

[SpearmintBerryCrunch]

Yes, but I think encouraging teenagers to have babies is a bad idea. They don't need encouragement. I think women older than 35 should be discouraged as well, given the potential problems it poses. Only looking at biology, teenagers having babies therefore continuing the human race is a good thing. But, looking at culture, society, and that child's happiness, it is better to wait a bit

[SpearmintBerryCrunch]

If the parents are ready at a certain age I say go for it. But I truly feel that for the average person the age at which they are "ready" to have kids would be early 20's at the earliest. Ultimately it is up to the parents, but they ought to think about the well being of their child as well.

[myTake Owner]

@SpearmintBerryCrunch "Yes, but I think encouraging teenagers to have babies is a bad idea. They don't need encouragement." I agree with you in the current sociological climate. I'm just bringing forth a different way of thinking.

In all honesty the world's population is probably too high at the moment anyway and we should likely lower the overall production of children. I'm just saying that in the proper conditions it's best that people have children while they are younger (if they're going to at all), especially females.

[YourFutureEx]

"We are not waiting, we are just increasing the bet for gamble."

[myTake Owner]

I'm not sure that I understand your point.

[YourFutureEx]

We are finding the right partner (better than the one we'd get now).

[myTake Owner]

Mmm yeah that is almost certainly not true in many cases, unless you mean intelligence and resources would increase the likelihood. I guess for males that could be partly true up to a certain point.

[YourFutureEx]

Certainly, exceptions are expected. I agree.

[springocelot]

So women's insides age like milk? Mine are spoiled then.

[myTake Owner]

Not the same as aged milk. And it's mainly to do with having children. There are also women that remain (popularly) considered attractive well into higher age groups. My point is that it's easier while women are younger to find relationships for this reason. Not that they can't.

[Anonymous]

I am 40 and single. You are right - I am not as good looking as I was when I was 25, but neither are the women I am dating, so that evens out. Single women my age have less to offer, too. I do, however, make more money, so that's a plus.

And is fertility an issue for men in their 30s and 40s? Not really.

[myTake Owner]

Yes fertility is an issue for men that age. But only marginally so until about 10-20 years after that then it can become a big issue.

[myTake Owner]

Also you have to take into account the rate of stillborns and birth abnormalities.

[front2back]

I'm pretty sure if you're under 30 you don't have to worry about biological clock stuff for finding a mate.

[myTake Owner]

Wrong. And that's the point of this post. If you're above thirty it can start to become too late or at the very best it can reduce your chances. It's about sheer probability.

[front2back]

So what you're saying is, have kids at 16 or else you'll never be happy or healthy?

[myTake Owner]

No. I'm saying that humans are (supposedly) evolved from other similar mammals and have very similar instincts but are not entirely subject to them because we have higher cognitive processing ability.

With this in mind the fact that you are attracted to females sexually and otherwise is due to two things primarily: evolutionary biology and cultural conditioning. The former of which is probably more impactful although that's conjecture at this point.

What this means is that people are going to seek out healthy mates because that's what natural selection caused. Healthy and young looking people over the thousands (or millions) of years produced the most viable offspring that survived best throughout wars, disease, climate, etc.

People want healthy kids because of biology and by extension want a healthy/young mate, probably also for companionship.

Happiness is subjective and can be altered using operant conditioning. So it's sort of internal.

[BelleGirl21]

Downhill at 25? Holy crap I'm glad I didn't know I was supposed to look like crap by now!

[Tokana]

why you worried? you're married. You won already.

[BelleGirl21]

@Tokana, you never know lol. Besides I still want to be hot!

[myTake Owner]

"Crap" is a stretch, "Aged" is accurate. Many women still look incredible (by popular opinion) at that age. It's only a biological tendency.

[BelleGirl21]

Good to know. Thanks for the clarification ;)

[myTake Owner]

You're welcome ;)

[springocelot]

I would upvote Tokana's comment if I could. Nothing to worry BelleGirl21.

[RationalMale]

Lmao, doesn't really apply to men. If we take care of ourselves/work out/learn game, and have money, dating will be easier at 30 than it was at 20.

[myTake Owner]

Somewhat true. But more true between 25-30, give or take.

[Anonymous]

I enjoy being single. Despite the fact the I really really like a guy who likes me back, I would rather stay alone. I feel better this way.

[myTake Owner]

My entire point is that you should be sure you are correct that's how you would like to stay for the rest of your life. You're in the ideal age group biologically. If you are sure then good luck to you!

[Opinion Owner]

I don't know if I will be happy after the age of 50--old and all alone with no partner to love but at the same time, I don't want to spend my entire lifetime with someone just to avoid being a lonely 50 years old.

[myTake Owner]

You make it sound like companionship is inherently bad. What sorts of relationships are you familiar with? The point of it is supposed to be mutual benefit. Both parties striving to make the other person's life better, in my opinion. That and child bearing are supposed to be the entire purpose. You make it sound like just obligation.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes, because everyone has a different mindset. All these things seem like an obligation. I would rather love someone and care for him from a distance than to have his love reciprocated. A bit of a masochist lifestyle it is.

[myTake Owner]

If you're happy doing that then more power to you. I just think that you might be more gratified in some sort of relationship. Also, if you're a masochist that seemingly implies you might be submissive. Or is that not true for you? If it is you might want to find a dominant/sadist type of guy and it seems like your problem would be solved. You'd get the best of both worlds.

[Opinion Owner]

No. I am not submissive in anyway. Moreover, masochist in a sense that I ruin everything with my own hands--relationships, friendships, everything. Despite I am suffering, I would still not reach out and admit to the guy that I like him. Being sad is my comfort zone, and happiness is kind of unknown.

[myTake Owner]

That was very articulate... almost poetic. I'd question your submissive attributes given the information I have thus far but I won't push the notion.

I think you're in some sort of downward spiral. This is presumably because of past mistakes and/or traumatic events causing you to believe that the past is the definite decider of the future. While in reality you have the ability to influence how the future unfolds. That is the beauty of free will, we suffer the consequences (positive or negative) of our choices.

Honestly though, because of the nature of males you don't have to necessarily reach out to anyone. If you make yourself available/findable a guy will find you. That's just how biology works.

Also, in order to be masochistic you would have to enjoy the pain you are experiencing not just inflict it. If you do not enjoy it then you are not masochistic you are self-destructive. I'm not trying to call you out. I'm just trying to help you understand.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes. Maybe self destructive is a better word as I don't enjoy the pain but feel comfortable in it.
There are too many unresolved issues that need to be vanished first. I am thinkinh of trying to improve my life by learning to love myself. Maybe in that way, I won't have a hard time accepting someone else's love.

[myTake Owner]

I think you're right! That is probably the first step along your road of happiness. Good luck and if you have any questions let me know.

[TheSpartan]

Good thing I'm a guy and I don't have a biological clock!

Haha, take that! Thank you mother nature!

[myTake Owner]

You do have a biological clock. It's just perhaps a bit less impactful than they have.

[TheSpartan]

Your right--the clock stops when i'm dead. Guys can pretty much impregnate a women any time in his life after puberty.

[myTake Owner]

The ability to impregnate someone does not imply that it's wise. You are also neglecting that male fertility is affected by age and is reduced sizably. Lastly damage to sperm increase as males age and this increases the chance for rates of stillborns and birth abnormalities. So in short no just no.