[Adventure21c]

What's That Ticking Sound? The Male Biological Clock -- WSJ.com

This does make a scientific sense--unfortunately. I'm sure this is an item feminists would rejoice at.

So, for the least risk, 30 or 35 is the 'soft' age limit for men to have kids?

[Kish]

LOL. Men don't have a biological clock. This is just Feminist propaganda. Men don't have any biological pressure to settle down and have kids.

These ladies want Alpha's to get scared and settle down with them. Sorry ladies it's not gonna happen. Especially when you have men like hefner pumping out HEALTHY kids into their 70s. Nice try tho.

[MiXX]

My grandfather got a 20 yo pregnant just before he died at the age of 81. Yeah, men do have a Biological clock, their death bed when they turn 80..

Mixx

[Tuthmosis]

(06-30-2011 10:56 AM)rakishness Wrote:  

LOL. Men don't have a biological clock. This is just Feminist propaganda. Men don't have any biological pressure to settle down and have kids.

These ladies want Alpha's to get scared and settle down with them. Sorry ladies it's not gonna happen. Especially when you have men like hefner pumping out HEALTHY kids into their 70s. Nice try tho.

Men have a social clock, one entirely invented by the ridiculous pressures placed on them from the feminist- and beta-drive narrative crammed down society's throat. If we resist the pressure--as many of us are doing--we can go on indefinitely. Women are the ones with the biological clock. Irrespective of Sex-in-the-City lies and Cougar-worship circle jerk, they dry up and run out of eggs around the same age.

They really want us to believe that their social pressures equal a biological thing. They don't.

[Rah]

Sounds like I should get around to freezing some samples sooner rather than later.

[kerouac]

Besides the Male Biological Clock mumbo jumbo, one thing guys who want to have kids might want to think about though is how old they want to be when their kids are growing up. For some guys it's important to be able to play catch with their kids or whatever, so for them it's probably going to be important for them to still be able to be active with their kids.

[oldnemesis]

(06-30-2011 10:25 AM)Adventure21c Wrote:  

So, for the least risk, 30 or 35 is the 'soft' age limit for men to have kids?

Father's Age May Play Role in Autism Risk

[Excelsior]

Some of the better comments on that article:

"Will Jones":

Quote:

This is a classic example of FEMALE PROJECTION. Women routinely PROJECT their issues onto men.

Why do they do this? Well! Men have a number of natural advantages over women. Certain women, namely the feminists, resent this FACT. This FACT speaks to women’s inferiority. So, these women drum up "research" and write articles like this one.

It's well known FACT that woman is "at war" with her body over most of her lifetime. Examples:
That smelly, messy, nasty little visitor that appears once a month.
PMS, i.e. cramps, migraines, psychotic mood swings, etc.
The ticking clock.
Pregnancy and child-bearing.
Postpartum depression.
The guilt-ridden strife of the motherhood-career continuum.
Menopause.
The necessary hormone treatments. (Lest she completely lose her mind.)
Aging. (The "fair sex", as it's referred, only worsens with age. Woman blossoms early and her zenith is short-lived. A fine wine, she is not.)

There are other, more serious issues as well, e.g. breast cancer. It's little wonder that entire hospitals are dedicated exclusively to women's health. It's little wonder the overwhelming majority of healthcare funding is directed to women.

I say we ban ibuprofen for one month and observe what happens to the workplace.

“Women are equal to men in every way!!!” This tired argument is blasted endlessly across the breadth of Anglosphere. The very mind of the English-speaking man is effectively numbed by its sheer volume and consistency.

Back on point. Men simply don't have these issues. This frees us to focus, pursue, achieve. Men are far better equipped than women to deal with the outside world. Feminists, of course, resent this FACT to the very core of their misandric little beings. (It's awful, really. The Medusa-like rage, I mean. Very ugly.) The man-haters can't change reality. But they CAN attack men and devalue masculinity. PROJECTING female issues onto the male is one way of doing this.

Speaking to my life, I have a dozen or so buddies in their late-30s/early-40s. None of these guys are fathers. We never talk about babies. Ever. Not even once, to my recollection. In my group, there are no "ticking clocks." To be sure, sex with women is an imperative. But not fatherhood per se.

ATTENTION MEN. (This excludes woman-worshipping d--chebags like James Carter, above.) Attention men. I advise you exercise a prima facie distrust of all feminist "research". Why? Because it's not research. It's merely assertion, grounded in DESIRED OUTCOMES. As such, it’s baseless. At best, it's cherry-picked poppycock. No feminist work has withstood scientific scrutiny. Moreover, these days, political correctness immunizes such work from such scrutiny. In effect, this garbage is beyond reproach, which is the only reason it hasn't been eliminated from public discourse. Feminist writing is LITERATURE, nothing more. Keep this mind when reading articles such as this one.

It's a cute article, but the author's objectives and methods are oh-so-typical and commonplace. Boring.

Finally, a note to the editors of the WSJ. Misandry SELLS, does it not? Don’t think we aren’t aware of what you’re doing. We very much are. Women will buy ANYTHING that enhances their self esteem. Yes, it’s a fool-proof formula. Enjoy the revenues while they last. Your credibility is crumbling. I’m curious, is a WSJ-Ms. Magazine merger on the horizon?

From user "Alex Temenid":

Quote:

Feminists have already done a good job of convincing society that younger men are too immature to be partners. Now they're moving on to claim that older men are too dangerous to use for reproduction. No doubt the "right" answer from the feminist perspective, and this the one that will be promulgated through the media, is to dispense with the direct involvement of men altogether and simply purchase from the nearest sperm bank a vial produced by a college student.

Quote:

The analysis as portrayed here, is an example of Political correctness trumping scientific reality. It is true that many risks increase with age of parents. For example: The risk of Downs Syndrome doubles every year from age 35. But will WSJ ever publish it in this way? They are much more likely to be balanced and say that the overall risk is not significant until perhaps the mother;s age is 45. Risk of rare diseases is increased as the age of the male parent is higher, but the increase is too small for any rational person to worry about. For example: Smoking cannabis, stressful households and even alcohol abuse are thought to increase the rate of schizophrenia by between 3 to 25 times.

Having children is a very personal decision, and people need to think about many things- Political Genetic correctness may not be very high on that list.

Men can father children at practically any age, and they turn out just fine. This is a fact that everyone knows.

Women have a shorter window of reproduction, men have a much longer window. Deal with it.

From "Keith Gentile":

Quote:

As if anybody need mention the double standard here: for 25 years the media covered up the biological reality that women become far less fertile in their 30s while pushing the politically expedient lie that women have plenty of time to start a family and SHOULD focus on their careers first. Like all social engineering, this was led by those who claimed moral superiority, when they really had little sympathy for those that the lie would ultimately effect.

I can't imagine a person's politics being so overwhelmingly important that they would be so willing to withhold that vital information when they knew it would ultimately result in so many unhappy, childless women or fatherless offspring sired through artificial means. These same self-serving people shrilly denounced anyone who mentioned the truth as sexists.

And now that there is the first hint that males may not be as fertile in later years, it hits the papers within days. This form of sexism is rampant in the media. I can't understand why the WSJ would continue to promote this injustice. It may just reflect the fact that in order not to be attacked by the MSM, they have to pay tribute occasionally to this false god.

"John Longbow":

Quote:

This sounds more like a gender biased pesudo-science than the real thing. "a man over 40 is almost six times as likely as a man under 30 to father an autistic child." what is the baseline? Say if a man under 30 has 0.001% chance to father an autistic child, then 0.006% is not such ear-shuttering as the author made it sound like. Ask her friend Ann, she probably would take the chance, for a good "old" man. All other research results, I have no doubt about their accuracy, bear the same half of the pictures.

Full disclosure - I had my first child when i was 40, and last one 48. They are kind, smart and healthy. I understand three do not make statistics.

"Max Privus":

Quote:

FWIW this line of argument isn't original to James. It's been bouncing around various feminist / women's sites for a couple of years now in the same form. What the proponents want to do, is to establish the belief that the decline in male and female fertility with age is equivalent and that the demonstrated risks associated w/ childbearing among older women are actually due to older men. In part, I think that this is an attempt by feminists to exonerate themselves from the consequences of their earlier program, promoting the false claim that women's fertility extended well into their 40's and even 50's. But it's also a rather transparent attempt to shame older men who want to have children.

As others have observed. multiples of relative risk for very rare disorders are still very rare. The probabilities aren't comparable to those experienced by women.

[Excelsior]

Bottomline here though is that the male "biological clock" is not equivalent to the female one.

What they're saying is that male risk for producing malformed children increases greatly with age, and it does. With Autism, for example, the rate increases by a factor of 3 or so.

The thing is that the overall rate was only 1% to begin with, so you triple it and we're still only at 3-4%.

Even when the "male clock" starts ticking, he has a 90%+ chance of having a healthy kid at an advanced age assuming he has healthy habits(not too much weed, alcohol, etc).

When the female clock begins to tick, she hits the wall far earlier and, unlike the man, will be entirely unable to reproduce.
The fact is that older men can keep going, albeit with marginally greater(though still pretty low) risks. Women face a much harder and earlier limit, forcing a stop. Naturally, the feminists don't like that idea.

Thus, in practice, men really don't have a "clock" in the female sense of the word. We have a "penalty"(sloghtly greater risks), but can keep going until death producing healthy kids 95% of the time.

[Chad Daring]

In many species the fathering male does not raise the young, the female raises the young. This is why women are designed to not reproduce after a certain age. They wont be around or able to raise the children, thus producing poor, unprepared offspring. We're seeing this now with the high volume of poor quality youth in the new generation. They're being raised by older single mothers who arent able to function as intended, as caregivers.

On the other hand, in the animal world men are actually quite disposable, thats why most males in a given species die earlier. Once they drop the load that makes the baby, their job is done, they dont stick around because they dont have too. This is why a 75 year old man could father a child, nature does not intend him to be around to raise the kid. He passed on his genes, his job is done.

Old societies knew this, its why women were married off and usually knocked up at a very young age. They would be there to raise, nurture, and support their child until the child was of age to take the role of a parent themselves.

The silliest part about this is that by this model, women are infinitely more valuable then men, but not for the same reasons. Men are stronger, faster, and more driven, but women are the sole reason that a species propagates and flourishes. Many ancient cultures looked at men as being the superior creatures, but women (or female gods/figures) were worshiped because of their ability to create and sustain life.

Feminists want women to be equal to men, but by doing so they're throwing out the very function that makes them SUPERIOR in a very different way. Men cant create life (atleast until cloning gets its shit together) Women can, but they need men, we're designed to accentuate and compliment one another, not compete, but a woman be damned if she isnt "equally" better.

[Dash Global]

For me personally,

I want to be able to play basketball, tennis, baseball ect with my son. I also would like to see my gran-kids graduate college and get married. So for me, I need to have a kid by the time im 30-35..... The pressure will start to build SOON as im 25 already.

[oldnemesis]

(06-30-2011 07:58 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Thus, in practice, men really don't have a "clock" in the female sense of the word. We have a "penalty"(sloghtly greater risks), but can keep going until death producing healthy kids 95% of the time.

The "clock" is actually more about being able to relate with your child. If you wait till, like, 45 it won't really matter when he/she is a baby, but it may be hard for a 12yo kid to talk to a 57yo dude as a "father". In a lot of cultures they have granddads around that age.

At the same time raising kids is a time-consuming activity which puts restrictions on your lifestyle, so I wouldn't recommend it until you're around at least 30.

[duedue]

(06-30-2011 12:40 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(06-30-2011 10:56 AM)rakishness Wrote:  

LOL. Men don't have a biological clock. This is just Feminist propaganda. Men don't have any biological pressure to settle down and have kids.

These ladies want Alpha's to get scared and settle down with them. Sorry ladies it's not gonna happen. Especially when you have men like hefner pumping out HEALTHY kids into their 70s. Nice try tho.

Men have a social clock, one entirely invented by the ridiculous pressures placed on them from the feminist- and beta-drive narrative crammed down society's throat. If we resist the pressure--as many of us are doing--we can go on indefinitely. Women are the ones with the biological clock. Irrespective of Sex-in-the-City lies and Cougar-worship circle jerk, they dry up and run out of eggs around the same age.

They really want us to believe that their social pressures equal a biological thing. They don't.

Don't forget the religious pressure. I had an epiphany when reading the section on religion in the Manipulated Man.

[Dan Woolf]

----------------------------------------

[Sonsowey]

You accumulate more mutations in your sperm as you age, older fathers have kids with more problems like ADHD, Autism, Schizophrenia, etc.

In almost every case, extra mutations are things going wrong, not a cool new mutation that will have some great functionality. Your genetic code is a very complex code made to make sure things go write, random changes to it are almost always deleterious.

The idea that we can have a kid at age 50 an it'll be just as likely to be fine as if we did it at age 25, as long as the woman is young, is just wishful thinking.

thread-47668...er%27s+age

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

No, no and NO. Sonsowney, you're spreading dangerous misinformation here.

When is this myth going to die once and for all?

There is no such thing as a male biological clock.

All those decades of male aging increase the chance of problems by some 20%, 30%, at worst 60%. This is in comparison to the same for women increasing the chance of these same problems by about 2 000% or even 30 000%. Yes, we're talking a difference between something occurring 1.5 times more and something occurring 300 times more.

Not sure how to compare that? Check out this chance for male-caused birth defects and illnesses interposed on the graph with the chance for female-caused ones:



It turns out that a significant increase of an incomprehensibly tiny risk is still incomprehensibly tiny.

[void]

I would say a happy and healthy 35 year old with a good lifestyle produces better sperm than an overweight/depressed 25 yo "looser" dwelling in his basement. Even if it's the same person 10 years apart.
The current gene expression in the 35 yo is better than it was @25 years, thus he might produce more quality sperm. Women get delivered with eggs, so for them its the state of their body during pregnancy that counts. And yeah, the eggs drie up.

If I ever father children, I want to be in good shape and health to give my children the best possible start. Even if the influence is minuscule.

[Comedy_of_Pan]

The article is a set-up from the start. The first paragraph tells the tale.

As for science: every biological aspect of a human (and any plant or animal) degrades over time. But the 30's are not the time for men. The 70's are the time for men.... without environmental aspects added to the foray (smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, doing drugs, etc.). So long as men have viable cocks, hard and willing, their balls follow suit and seek to impregnate viable young women. That is a fact no matter how many pregnancies are aborted due to birth control measures.

Look back to how humanity developed into what we are today 10,000 years ago: cry like a baby until 10, go to school, hunt and/or gather at 15, reproduce at 17, die at 25-30. It is the same if your heritage comes from the equatorial, temperate, or polar zones.

While that survival strategy may be ideal here and there today (as it still is in some third-world countries), that is not what the survival game is today. The survival game today is something a bit more introverted. And controlled more by words of policy than by biological facts of nature -- which influences the mind, which in turn affects the body (of humankind).

So what is a man to do in his particular climate? Fix it, fuck it, or frack it? I am positive that all men of their generations have been asking the same questions in their own time-zones and in their own ways forever.

The answer is Space: The Final Frontier...

As always.

(( Hey, John, can I get another rum and coke over here?! I got a hot american/russian woman lapping it up! She'd sound great at NASA ; - ))

[MrLemon]

Male biological clocks are created by the male himself; in other words, a man DECIDES at some point in his life "I'm ready to provide for a family". It's an act of willpower and decision, not biological.

Men may decide...
They want to leave a legacy via children and family and community.
They want to build a new software product.
They want to climb a mountain that has not been climbed before.

[Bad Hussar]

Oh boy. This "male biological clock" nonsense is so obviously a lie created by those pandering to a particular type of woman it's not even amusing. That kind of woman is one who does not like the fact that men and women have different biological imperatives and believes that everyone "should" be the same. But we are not the same, so her hope is...hopeless.

Men do produce fewer sperm as they age, and also many men experience decreased sex drive as well, but the "science" purporting to show strong links between a fathers age and various negative outcomes is created especially to try to arrive at a "both men and women are the same" conclusion. Basically, it is manipulated to make a particularly negative woman feel better about herself (Incidentally, most women are not of this type and understand how the world and biology work and have made their peace with this).

This kind of drivel does hit home for me since BOTH my Grandfathers were at least 20 years older than my respective Grandmothers. And they had children well into what would now be called "old age" (ha). There is no Autism or other listed diseases in my family. I've taken the Autism test myself, just for a lark, and got just one of the 30 something facial recognition questions wrong.

[Merenguero]

(06-30-2011 12:40 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(06-30-2011 10:56 AM)rakishness Wrote:  

LOL. Men don't have a biological clock. This is just Feminist propaganda. Men don't have any biological pressure to settle down and have kids.

These ladies want Alpha's to get scared and settle down with them. Sorry ladies it's not gonna happen. Especially when you have men like hefner pumping out HEALTHY kids into their 70s. Nice try tho.

Men have a social clock, one entirely invented by the ridiculous pressures placed on them from the feminist- and beta-drive narrative crammed down society's throat. If we resist the pressure--as many of us are doing--we can go on indefinitely. Women are the ones with the biological clock. Irrespective of Sex-in-the-City lies and Cougar-worship circle jerk, they dry up and run out of eggs around the same age.

They really want us to believe that their social pressures equal a biological thing. They don't.

I missed this post, but it is a really good one. I think much of the pressure actually comes from guys' idiot families and their Beta friends. My family leaves me alone and I don't really have any guy friends, so so much for that.

[Tytalus]

I've heard of guys getting desperate for having kids in their 40s if they have not in the past. I'm not saying ALL childless men in their 40s get this urge, just anecdotally, heard about guys who wanted to start settling down at that age. I watched it happen to my uncle and watched him settle for a very homely lawyer. It's too bad, because in his youth he dated nothing but hotties - apparently.

[Wadsworth]

Men don't care if they have a biological clock.

[StrikeBack]

I believe the male biological clock is the one that goes tick tock whenever it's bang o'clock, which is every time we see an attractive fertile woman.

[bacan]

The male biological clock is the desire to be able to physically keep up with your kids in terms of playing, practicing sports, and exploring the world as well as seeing important milestones in their lives (grandkids etc).