Slashdot Mirror
Men Are Affected By the Biological Clock As Well, Researchers Find (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A new study reveals that a couple's chances of having a baby fall with the man's age, to the point that it can have a substantial impact on their ability to start a family. Laura Dodge, who led the research at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that couples should bear the findings in mind when planning a family. "When making this decision, they should also be considering the man's age," she said. Scientists have long known that a woman's chances of conceiving naturally drop sharply from the age of 35, but fertility research has focused so much on women that male factors are less well understood. To investigate the impact of a man's age on a couple's chances of having a baby, Dodge and her colleagues studied records of nearly 19,000 IVF treatment cycles in the Boston area between 2000 and 2014. The women were divided into four age bands: those under 30, 30-35 year-olds, 35-40 year-olds, and those aged 40-42. The men were divided into the same age brackets with an extra band for the over 42s. Some of the couples had received up to six cycles of IVF. Dodge then looked at how age affected couples' chances of having a live birth. As expected, women in the 40-42 age bracket had the lowest birth rates, and for these women the male partner's age had no impact. But for younger women the man's age mattered. Women aged under 30 with a male partner aged 30 to 35 had a 73% chance of a live birth after IVF. But that impressive success rate fell to 46% when the man was aged 40 to 42. Whether they can hear it or not, the biological clock ticks for men too.
Sooo, younger sperm donors are better, is the takeaway? I thought this was common knowledge.
Usually, a prospective mother will want to use her partner's sperm for IVF, and won't say "I'm gonna use someone else's sperm because you're old so the chances of success are lower, sorry honey." even if that means higher cost for more rounds of IVF. If a woman has a partner 10+ years older than her, chances are he's rich enough to afford those extra rounds.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
>> women in the 40-42 age bracket had the lowest birth rates, and for these women the male partner's age had no impact.
>> Women aged under 30 with a male partner aged 30 to 35 had a 73% chance of a live birth after IVF.
>> that impressive success rate fell to 46% when the man was aged 40 to 42.
For men after 40 it means they have to go against the time and select much younger woman.
One more research confirming common knowledge.
Someone will cash in on this soon.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Have we factored in lifestyle into this as well?
Something tells me that men that do not smoke, don't indulge in alcohol often or at all and keep fit will have better results...(seems obvious right?)
The men I know at those later ages seem to have given up on a healthy lifestyle at least in terms of fitness. Also family stress factors in.
More data needed. Time to crowdfund a study on the subject?
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Furthermore, given the assumption that most people have in that male age plays little role in fertility, why would their doctor then recommend IVF unless they already had some pre-existing fertility-related medical condition?
"father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism."
SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
"In the case of autism, the risk associated with parental age is DWARFED by the impact of inheritance."
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/opinion/sunday/how-to-think-about-the-risk-of-autism.html
Since we know men and women are equal and that means exactly the same, time to move forward with adjusting society until both men and women reach peak fertility at the same age. I vote for 40.
Yeah yeah yeah, women and men.
But what about trans-men furies MLP-lovers?
Has anyone studied us?
Such intolerant bi-gender society. Fuck you all.
If you identify as a tortoise, like myself, you can live for quite a while and reproduce during a good deal of that period. You of course have to be open minded and really being a tortoise trapped in a humans body.
Some days, I identify as an android and we live much longer then simple turtles... provided the spare parts are available.
Most days, I identify as a member of the borg. I really truly feel as myself when I'm part of the hive mind acting as one. Yeah, I said it, the dirty word hive mind! All you racist anti-collective-borg hating bastards can burn ... from the heat of my sweet arsenal.
I really jive as a borg when I'm assimilating whole planets and assimilating their unique biological features. It just kicks my day up to second gear after nuking some backwater planet that had a cool water purification system and species #1142131 were really good at hiking too.
Off to wipe out some culture of hippies!
I didn't know Jenny McCarthy hung out on Slashdot!
What have you been up to lately, Jenny?
#DeleteChrome
Do you really think the imperative to procreate goes away if you or your partner are infertile through illness etc. at any age?
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
Be careful what you wish for. I can tell you, infertility is no joke when the time comes when you do want to have children. It's a cause of a lot of pain and grief
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads,
[Citation needed] - it does interest me : I've never seen such information before.
Also, unlike ovocytes which are stored longterm from birth onward (and thus can over time accumulate damage - even if they have mecanism to try to avoid it. That's also why women experience menopause once they run out of ovocytes), spermatozoon are constantly produced over the lifetime, they are all relatively fresh cells and are thus a little bit less likely to suffer from environmental damage (environmental toxic substance could still cause damage to the gonia cell producing them, but at least they are not siting cold, exposed to risks).
Thus I would expect that, for physic-chemical reasons, dad's age is a tiny bit less impacting than mom.
and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
In addition to criticism behind the "main" part of this sentence as mentioned by other in this thread,
I would add criticism to the "risk factor".
The same mantra as usual goes : " correlation doesn't necessarily means causation ".
There might be a mechanism (like the defect accumulated over time in dad's cell - albeit at a lower rate than mom's - could by random chance be a mutation that influence autism).
But there might also be a confounding factor (an independent factor that cause both of the observed manifestation)
And here there's clearly a well known one : high intellect.
- high intellect sometime borders on autistic spectrum, the same kind of gene that can influence a high IQ (attention to detail) might also push over to the pathology. (See studies about higher rate of autism in some regions like silicon valley).
- also these parents tend to do long academic studies and/or carrier, and thus tend to reproduce later in their life.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Freeze some sperm and/or eggs and then get a vasectomy.. No need to worry about unplanned pregnancies, and when the time is right you can have your own biological children...
Or the better thing would be to adopt some young orphan. There are even babies you can adopt.. This way you prevent someone from having a crap-life at the same time as you get a child without having to worry about all the things that can go wrong during a pregnancy / birth. Sure it may not be your biological child, but does it really matter that you don't have the same DNA?..
have we stepped into a time machine or something? I thought it was common scientific knowledge that men also had biological clocks in that with age sperm numbers diminish and they slow down which directly affects the chances of a successful fertilization. this has been known for decades
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads, and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
It's a narrative being sold because men are checking out. The odds are so slightly higher than they are almost insignificant.
The "story" being sold is due wholly to reality not matching feminist ideology, and almost all of these stories about how men have a biological clock are hyped to get men to play the game again.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Grover Cleveland, the only POTUS to serve 2 non-consecutive terms, was 49, and already President, when he married 21 year old Frances Folsom and was 54 when their 1st child was born and 66 for their fifth.
Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was also already in office and 51 when he married 22 year old Margaret Sinclair and 52 when their 1st son, current prime minister Justin Trudeau was born on Xmas Day of the same year, was 56 for the birth of their 3rd and 72 years old when he fathered his only daughter with Deborah Coyne, then aged 36
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Something must be done.
I didn't want any kids even at 18 years, the biological alarm already had gotten off, so I got myself snipped.
His 2nd wife Julia Gardiner was 24 & he 54 when they married and he was 55 & 70 respectively for the birth of their 1st and 7th kids.
Tyler remains the champion stud among presidents as he had previously fathered EIGHT children with Letitia Christian
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
My grandfather was capable of giving children even in his 70s.
My Dad gives children in his 70s too. He gives children candy, toys. Sometimes even books.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Grover Cleveland, the only POTUS to serve 2 non-consecutive terms, was 49, and already President, when he married 21 year old Frances Folsom and was 54 when their 1st child was born and 66 for their fifth.
I'm in my late 30s and feel like I'm too old to have any more kids. There's no way I want to be having kids now and not getting them out of the house until I'm probably in my 60's.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Identifying the inequality is the first step in resolving any social injustice.
Since we know men and women are equal and that means exactly the same, time to move forward with adjusting society until both men and women reach peak fertility at the same age. I vote for 40.
You jest, but are not far off the mark. Many women a few years back decided that they were going to wait until their mid-40's to have children. I even watched a TeD talk with a woman claiming that women are not biologically ready to bear children until they are well into their 30's. A good rationale, but bad biology.
Very strange, when humans are physically capable of childbearing in their early teens, yet aren't supposed to be actually ready until an age when they originally started dying off.
Regardless, humans are capable in their early teens, and the social engineering of teens not being considered adults until the late teens, and waiting at least until then to procreate has been pretty successful, but men and women both have some "best by date". Women's dates tend to be more of a hard stop, and men kind of dribble off more slowly, but for best freshness, nature has shown us when, and social engineering, not so much.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Whiny MGTOW's are checking out for sure, but honestly, everyone else is glad about that.
I also like how you invent bits of feminist ideology to be angry at.
Out of interest, are you one of the men who has checked out?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Whiny MGTOW's are checking out for sure, but honestly, everyone else is glad about that.
I also like how you invent bits of feminist ideology to be angry at.
Out of interest, are you one of the men who has checked out?
The shaming language stopped working. If it still worked younger men wouldn't be checking out. You can continue using it, it makes no difference as the shaming language is being ignored.
You throw histrionics while they are ignoring you and playing video games. Continue clutching pearls, they'll continue playing MMOs.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads, and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
It's a narrative being sold because men are checking out. The odds are so slightly higher than they are almost insignificant.
The "story" being sold is due wholly to reality not matching feminist ideology, and almost all of these stories about how men have a biological clock are hyped to get men to play the game again.
You aren't wrong. Younger men are indeed checking out. While women's interest in marriage and children have increased, the number of young men who are interested in marriage is something like 29 percent. And many of the older men have already been through the divorce mill, and can't afford a new romance.
So think about that for a minute. most young men are not interested in marriage and children, and the selection process for the women tends to exclude deadbeats and psychos, so we are looking at a pretty dire situation for young women. that 29 percent is much smaller yet. Society and the legal system is not the friend of the male of the species. And many women just view men as a utility that they've been trained since birth to dislike. The results are that many males just retreat into less dangerous environs. Xboxes and motorcycles are fun, and people shaming them for "not manning up" is much less expensive than handing over half of their paycheck and the house to children they may see for a few hours every week.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads, and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
It's a narrative being sold because men are checking out. The odds are so slightly higher than they are almost insignificant.
The "story" being sold is due wholly to reality not matching feminist ideology, and almost all of these stories about how men have a biological clock are hyped to get men to play the game again.
You aren't wrong. Younger men are indeed checking out. While women's interest in marriage and children have increased, the number of young men who are interested in marriage is something like 29 percent. And many of the older men have already been through the divorce mill, and can't afford a new romance.
So think about that for a minute. most young men are not interested in marriage and children, and the selection process for the women tends to exclude deadbeats and psychos, so we are looking at a pretty dire situation for young women. that 29 percent is much smaller yet. Society and the legal system is not the friend of the male of the species. And many women just view men as a utility that they've been trained since birth to dislike. The results are that many males just retreat into less dangerous environs. Xboxes and motorcycles are fun, and people shaming them for "not manning up" is much less expensive than handing over half of their paycheck and the house to children they may see for a few hours every week.
Not just shaming them for refusing to play the game, but shaming anyone who doesn't join the mob who is shaming the men - see this for an example: this poster leads with insults (a compelling argument indeed) purely because I refuse to join in the shaming of men.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
"Originally" (meaning before the 19th century) girls didn't reach puberty until 16-17 on average because of poor nutrition. Arguing anything about the intent of biology or that it "shows" us anything is nonsense. What makes humans different from animals is that we are not slaves to our biology, things are a lot more mutable than that.
well-sighted, friend
Whiny MGTOW's are checking out for sure, but honestly, everyone else is glad about that.
Then be glad. This isn't about whining, and if you and whoever everyone else is is happy, then life is good.
I also like how you invent bits of feminist ideology to be angry at.
The courts, the laws, and society are not feminist ideology. They might have been shaped a bit by feminists, but society as a whole has merely made the rational decision for men to avoid relationships with women. The numbers aren't lies. But the ladies and their supporters should be happy about that.
That there are men who are butthurt by their experiences, and them choosing to complain is merely warning for men who have not ben caught in the utility web. Yeah. We hear about sitting with your legs too far apart on public transit is a male enabling rape culture, so if a guy is upset that his wife left him with the children and ende up with the house, the car, and he pays a thou or more a month until the kids are in their early 20's, and he gets to see them once a week and every other holiday - well I'm going to allow him to complain. That's a tangible complaint, not some weird complaint about how men sit that has now been made a crime.
And it's all a product of the "thou doth protest too much" effect. Males have been whined at about how awful they are since birth, and women taught how awful all men are. So at this point, the endless male shaming has little effect. It's just one more thing young males are bitched at about, so another data point supporting the rational decision to seek their enjoyment of life elsewhere than in the company of those who don't like them. And given that "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle http://www.phrases.org.uk/mean... a phrase adopted by Gloria Steinham but coined by Irina Dunn, it is pretty much a victory, because women simply do not need men at all.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
...among IVF patients. Great. So we're talking about men who likely already have some kind of problem.
Rewrite: for men-with-problems, those problems are more significant with age. Again, big surprise.
I'd bet that older men, who want children, and can't seem to have children, experience more stress than younger men. Possibly due to the very simple fact that they've spent more time trying and more time failing.
Not just shaming them for refusing to play the game, but shaming anyone who doesn't join the mob who is shaming the men.
The problem is, once the rational decision to check out of the game is made, any shaming is just a fine example of the continuous bitching than men endure. So it is counterproductive, reinforcing the very reasons why young men are avoiding relationships with women.
But the part that I do not understand is why is this not celebrated as a huge victory for women? The incessant complaints and the treatment of all men as rapists and pedophiles, now coming to fruition by men dropping out is a big plus, is it not?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Victim much?
No, those are the guys who play the game.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The problem with this study is it was biased from the start. By starting with couples seeking IVF to begin with, your sample is people having difficulty conceiving, rather than a cross section of the general population.
The conclusion to this study should be: Of people with problems conceiving, IVF is less effective at helping couples where the man is over 40... There are plenty of examples of rich old shriveled bastards getting their 22 year old trophy wives pregnant with normal, healthy babies. And that is the other side to this coin. For women, not only does the pregnancy rate go down, but the risk of fetal genetic defect goes up exponentially after 35.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
You throw histrionics while they are ignoring you and playing video games. Continue clutching pearls, they'll continue playing MMOs.
That's the problem. The histrionics don't stop. And it turns out that everything is an excuse for the bitching.
The only odd thing is that we would think this would make the ladies very happy. If a man is ignoring you, he isn't bothering you. He isn't harassing you by talking to you, or touching you, or interacting with you in a way you do not like. If he walks by averting his gaze, and trying his best not to be a problem for you, you've not only won the battle, you have achieved dominance. So why complain?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"Originally" (meaning before the 19th century) girls didn't reach puberty until 16-17 on average because of poor nutrition.
Allow me:
What we know about the onset of pubery in females"
From early historic times
Ancient Rome was 12 to 14 years of age
Middle ages in Europe was 12 to 14 years of age
Middle ages in the Middle East was 12 to13 years of age
In the 1800's
Manchester, England in the 1840s
lower class women was around 15 and a half years of age
upper class women was around 14 and a half years of age
London Hospital patients in 1855 was around 15 and a half years of age
Germany in 1869 was around 15 and a half years of age
Scotland 1870 was around 15 and a half years to 16 and a half years of age
London 1880 middle class females was around 15 years of age
U.S.A. late 19th century was around 12-14 and a half years of age
USA in 1905 was around 14-15 and a half years of age
Today it is around 12 years of age for menarche. much of this is attributed to weight of young ladies, perhaps some to estrogen and phytoestrogen exposure. from http://www.mum.org/menarage.ht...
Arguing anything about the intent of biology or that it "shows" us anything is nonsense.
So let me know when I ever argued about the "intent" of biology. Because biology does not have intent, and you are correct to imply such is indeed nonsense. But muchacho, don't be a jerk and attribute to me things that I never wrote.
Regardless of the specific age of menarche, the concept of a young lady who becomes fertile at 12 years of age, and one who waits until her mid 40's to have a child as being functionally equivalent certainly ranks as nonsense. If it were advantageous in the evolutionary sense for 45 year old women to have children, and for younger ones to not, simple selection would ensure that women did not become fertile until they were much older.
So your argument is a bit specious, with the reduction in age of menarche being over a fairly short number of years, and the signaling of fertility over a span of roughly 5 years, not decades as would be required for a superior outcome of a woman giving first birth in her thirties or forties.
Even if we give some credence to the idea that there is a superior outcome, then there must be some advantage to waiting 30 some years after fertility is achieved to make use of that fertility.
What makes humans different from animals is that we are not slaves to our biology, things are a lot more mutable than that.
So give me the biological background to the limits of your socially based mutablility. We gonna have gills and wings soon?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If it were advantageous in the evolutionary sense for 45 year old women to have children, and for younger ones to not, simple selection would ensure that women did not become fertile until they were much older.
The flaw in that argument is that since we, as a species, have achieved an expected lifespan long enough to consistently make it to 45 years of age, no significant biological evolution has occurred.
Claiming that Disagreement = histrionics really means that you = exceptionally butthurt.
while they are ignoring you and playing video games.
Some of my friends are avid gamers, and if they were ignoring me then they wouldn't be my friends. I like how you try to equate gamers with "checked out".
Out of interest, have you checked out?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
we're too broke to date let alone have kids and there's not much religious opposition to birth control left. Most still want to raise a family, but we're reasonable enough to know we can't afford to and even when we're not, well, there's that 'too broke to date' thing rearing it's head again.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Then be glad.
Already said I was.
This isn't about whining,
Clearly you've never spoken to the GP then.
The courts, the laws, and society are not feminist ideology.
Then why are you bringing them up?
but society as a whole has merely made the rational decision for men to avoid relationships with women.
You keep telling yourself that. People happily in relationships might look at you kinda funny if you keep insisting on the point.
Males have been whined at about how awful they are since birth
Sounds like your life sucked then.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Claiming that Disagreement = histrionics really means that you = exceptionally butthurt.
You didn't merely disagree, you lead with insults on every line. That's fairly melodramatic by any measure. Histrionics, indeed.
while they are ignoring you and playing video games.
Some of my friends are avid gamers, and if they were ignoring me then they wouldn't be my friends. I like how you try to equate gamers with "checked out".
I didn't. Your poor comprehension skills lead you to believe that "checking out by playing video games" means the same thing as "playing video games is checking out."
You should seek a refund from your educational providers.
Out of interest, have you checked out?
Ah - more histrionics. Tip: wait for your arguments to fail before turning to insults. If you have to resort to insults it displays that even you have very little faith in whatever argument you think you are making.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
The human race is still evolving; specifically in regards to the increasing size of the cranium. Being that childbirth was in the past, and in some parts of the world still is, the #1 killer for women; specifically pre-teen and teens. So while a young women is fertile, the rest of her body isn't yet fully developed to handle the birthing process.
Did you ever stop to think WHY young women are often protected from marrying so young in many cultures? The parents don't want to risk their daughter's life from birthing so young!
If it were advantageous in the evolutionary sense for 45 year old women to have children, and for younger ones to not, simple selection would ensure that women did not become fertile until they were much older.
The flaw in that argument is that since we, as a species, have achieved an expected lifespan long enough to consistently make it to 45 years of age, no significant biological evolution has occurred.
Right, but it isn't my argument. Spending fully half of our lives being fertile (or not) doesn't make much evolutionary sense for a species with a long juvenile existence. We are fully grown by our late teens/early 20's. We are at our physical peak around that time. We have the energy for child rearing. It would make sense to bear and raise children in that neighborhood. The extended childhood experiment that we tried out some time ago worked pretty well, it allowed for teenages to gather a little bit of wisdom before getting out on their own. But there are limits to extended childhood, and the extreme narrowing of fertility.
A couple that starts their family at 45 will be at around retirement age when their first child reaches 21 years of age. If their first child delays fertility until 45, they will be 90 years old when they become grandparents. Then maybe 115 when their first grandchild graduates college.
Let us not forget that life expectancy in the US has gone down. http://www.webmd.com/healthy-a...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Then be glad.
Already said I was.
Well congratulations! How often do I have to congratulate ya? You need a cake?
This isn't about whining,
Clearly you've never spoken to the GP then.
Did you think I was? I was talking about the situation.
The courts, the laws, and society are not feminist ideology.
Then why are you bringing them up?
It isn't like I gave the reasons in the next sentence. was it? But if you are having troubl following, the situation is such that if there were no feminists, however they might define themselves, men would still be getting longer prison sentences, are still sent to the modern day version of debto's prison, and still tend to get the short end of the stick in matters of divorce.
but society as a whole has merely made the rational decision for men to avoid relationships with women.
You keep telling yourself that. People happily in relationships might look at you kinda funny if you keep insisting on the point.
Males have been whined at about how awful they are since birth
Sounds like your life sucked then.
I've been married to the same woman for 40 years now, I'm pretty wealthy. Life's been pretty decent. We're both retired early, and on permanent vacation and travel to interesting places a lot. Just because I have an opinion on something doesn't mean it is my personal life. But as they say, jus' sayin'. Live long and prosper.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
but I get what the story means.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Ah - more histrionics.
I think Inigo Montoya would like a word with you.
I like how on the one hand you claim it's reasonable to have checked out, but on the other hand when I ask you if you have you consider it an insult. So which is it? Who cares, either way blame it on feminists!
So have you or have you checked out. And if not, why not?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It isn't like I gave the reasons in the next sentence
You sure did, but those reasons were utterly irrelevant to the point I was making, so why did you bring it up?
Just because I have an opinion on something doesn't mean it is my personal life.
Oh I see, you have opinions on what other people should do, but just not you. Got it. It's funny with all your claims about how not having relationships is rational, you're in one.
Well, I guess that makes you the irrational one, either for being in a relationship or for having such peculiar opinions about it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That's still only a small fraction of human existence. Homo Sapiens remains have been found that date back to 340,000 years ago. Humans didn't live long enough then for the woman to reach menopause, or men to reach the male climacteric.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
That's still only a small fraction of human existence. Homo Sapiens remains have been found that date back to 340,000 years ago. Humans didn't live long enough then for the woman to reach menopause, or men to reach the male climacteric.
Very true. Our state of existence at this time is artificial in the extreme.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The "men" checking out are too busy playing with their xbox. No woman want's a 40-year-old never-employed bro.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Men are treated as disposable when they are valuable human beings.
Value is relative. Ultimately we are all disposable - it's called death.
Men are at a disadvantage in relationships with women, particularly marriage, so it would be wise to avoid that.
Given that more women are graduating uni than men, and that men's traditional jobs are being automated like crazy. women are the ones who don't want marriage, since they are more likely to end up having to pay alimony. So, since you don't like marriage, be happy that women increasingly don't either.
Men are at a disadvantage in all aspects of the law, but particularly family court, so avoid that.
There's this thing called a vasectomy ... if it won't damage your fragile male ego too much ...
Typically, men spend most of their time chasing money and status instead of their own happiness so they can attract and keep women.
And who's fault is that? It seems that men also compete amongst themselves through money and status. Also, you're living way in the past. Marriage has nothing to do with the awarding of child support.
Women don't like whiny men. And men nag just as much.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It's been calculated that for most of our existence, the average lifespan was just under 20. This was due to high infant and child mortality, high mortality of mothers (hey, big heads come with their own problems), and things that we just shrug off today after a visit to the doctor could leave one uncompetitive, or dead.
As one example, I tore the cartilage in one of my knees when I was 19. The knee works fine, but without surgery I would have been crippled. That's a serious problem in a nomadic hunter-gatherer society.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"In the case of autism, the risk associated with parental age is DWARFED by the impact of inheritance."
What about the risk of Dwarfism?
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
We are fully grown by our late teens/early 20's. We are at our physical peak around that time. We have the energy for child rearing. It would make sense to bear and raise children in that neighborhood. The extended childhood experiment that we tried out some time ago worked pretty well, it allowed for teenages to gather a little bit of wisdom before getting out on their own. But there are limits to extended childhood, and the extreme narrowing of fertility.
Yes biologically speaking this makes sense, but our species also wants to be happy and breeding tends to make us unhappy and want to die soon. Children suck all the life out of you like little vampires and makes the mother less attractive (breasts like half deflated water balloons and mega-vagina) and sometimes less interested in sex. In some species the mother dies soon after giving birth. I think it is true in our species as well except that the death is a psychological one: the death of all enjoyment of life, of all happiness and it applies to both parents and not just the mother. So if you want to live a happy life it makes sense to have children only after most of the enjoyment of life has already passed. So I think waiting for the last few eggs to have children is a great idea. Yes it's more selfish, but we only get one life. Why not surf that wave right to the beach?
For men I think the ideal time to have kids is in your 50s or even 60s. For women early 40s is optimal if you are going for the one child ideal. 38 or 39 if you want 2 or 3 of those life-stealing, mole-rat looking creatures. I'm not yet 50 and have never had any desire to have children but it is too early now anyway. Child rearing is something you do when you are getting ready to die.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Only for dumb people. If you are intelligent and you breed with another intelligent person they probably won't be an idiot. So it depends. If you have an IQ of at least 140 then you should probably be breeding for the good of humanity. If you are smart your genetic code includes instructions for building a proper brain and that is what makes us human.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
By my mid-40's I gave up on the idea of becoming a daddy. Even if my swimmers could produce a viable baby, I'd be 70 when that child would be going off to college. It just wouldn't be fair to that child.
Are you kidding? It would be better for the child because when you die he gets your stuff. Also you may have more time to spend with him than when you were younger and might not be as bothered by the mind-numbing boredom of interacting with kids.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
While it is a generalization and doesn't apply to all women, it does apply to many women.
The inability to distinguish reality from fiction and the preferences of ridiculous romantic comedies (or romantic dramas, or anything "romantic" really) and the likes of Sex in the City etc... is ruining a lot of women. Where basically their expectations are set so high, and so one sided, that eventually even the most patient male is going to get pretty frustrated. It is the time old tale of the "princess" story but retold over and over again. From Cinderella, when they were a kid, from Pretty Woman years ago, to the latest 50 shades of grey etc... Always involve some poor woman getting swept off her feet by some prince or billionaire (millionaire is no good anymore apparently) for some arbitrary reason. Oh and now the billionaire is also somehow in his late twenties or early 30's and apparently also goes to the gym 5 times a week, but yet somehow finds the time (between earning billions, and working out so much) to spend every waking minute with the girl spoiling her with gifts and extravagant lifestyle. Anyway it is all so silly. I guess a normal, healthy relationship that is an equal partnership between two people that respect each other doesn't make for an entertaining story... but it would certainly give women something much more realistic (and better) to aspire to.
I know I've actually said "You know that is fiction right? That it isn't real?" to which the response is "But so much of it is so true...". Uh huh. And before someone tries to defend Sex in the City (which might be odd for Slashdot) in saying that some of the stories aren't like that, they also feature 4 women that just happen to be millionaires themselves apparently living in NYC, while doing seemingly no work, though one is a writer and another a lawyer... To which I would ask are you also a successful millionaire fashion writer in her 30's living in NYC, because if you're not, it doesn't really apply to you.
Then there is the whole body image thing, particularly in movies now. Every guy is ripped. "Why can't you look like that"? That is his job. He is getting paid millions of dollars to get a trainer and work out constantly for like a year for that brief 5 second spot on that movie. However if you go to the gym a lot, you're never spending any time with them because "you're always at the gym". Anyway, a general absence of reality in many cases, you literally can't win when a warped reality is against you.