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.
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.
"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.
I didn't know Jenny McCarthy hung out on Slashdot!
What have you been up to lately, Jenny?
#DeleteChrome
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 ]
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.
Something must be done.
What if, like me, the man looks nothing like his biological age? I have no gut, no wrinkles, full head of brown hair (widow's peak, though), no interest in the usual middle-aged stuff. I look at women my age and I'm shocked and revolted. Women 20 years younger get all smiley and touchy around me, which they never did when I was 25.
I bike 50km a day, I don't break a knee when I miss a stair, I can stay out, I can drink, eat whatever I want.
Why would I date a wrinkly, out-of-shape, pre-menopausal senior citizen shut-in with no modern interests, and that goes on and on about her grown-up children and how big her ex-boyfriend's cock was?
Yes, it's pretty much average. So? Does that mean I should date a grumpy middle-aged agoraphobe? Young women are nice to me, they talk to me, they smile at me now. 45 year old women subject me to never-ending interviews, ask me questions like I'm a potential serial killer, and if I surmount all those obstacles, I end up with a snoring, boring butterball with a gut? No thanks!
Yeah, I'll make the extra effort to talk to younger women, and I'll gladly live with the envious stares of 45 year old men stuck with their living nightmare, and the angry stares of the cold fish.
Man, one of my best memories of working downtown was going to eat lunch with a young female coworker (absolutely platonic), and enjoying the vicious, acidic stares from the next table; a pair of fat, wrinkly, rough-skinned middle-aged housewives staring at me and this 23 year old graduate.
Fuck them! Where were THEY when THEY were 23??? Rejecting men their own age because he was shy or awkward or inexperienced?
Somehow THAT'S OK, but when the man finally gets into his own, he's supposed to just "get over" the horrific abuse from women and date the same women that rejected him before?
Ha ha! NO
Nature makes women sexy when they're young. It also makes men look better as we age.
So the hell with women, they enjoyed their power in their youth. Now they can reap what they sowed.
women need constant reassurance that their poor decisions are men's fault, of course the more they nag the more men will get sterilized
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?
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.
"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.
My impression from my (brief) read through was that the two variables "Female fertility as a factor of age" and "Male fertility as a factor of age" are confounding variables with respect to each other. In other words, you can't just measure the female fertility by age without considering the male fertility by age, and vice versa. The male fertility is less sensitive to age than female fertility, but the effect is still present (no necessary similarity as to cause, just effect), and they interact in a not unexpected way. Whether the observed behavior of older males pairing with younger females is an innate expression of the biology is an interesting question; it can certainly be explained by other factors such as wealth/security paired with vitality and youthful good looks.
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.
"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.
but I get what the story means.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
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.