[SlickyBoy]

They're at it again, but with a twist - this time flat out suggesting that older hamsters shack up with a younger guy to ensure they have a healthy baby. Yes, I know there was a thread about this subject here, and it is an excellent one, but this is the first time I've seen the you-go-girlism work its way into a regular newspaper.

Quote:

Older women trying for baby should opt for toy boy
The Star | 4 July 2017, 2:03pm
Daily Mail
LONDON: It's not only women who need to worry about their biological clock ticking.
Men who wait until their 40s to try to become fathers could cut their chances by more than a third.

YOUNG DADS: Research has shown that men younger than 30 have a better chance of fathering a child.

A study in the US has found that men aged 40 to 42 with a female partner who is under 30 have an average birth rate of 46%.

This is more than a third below the 73% rate for men aged 30 to 35.

This on it's face seems illogical. No matter how old you are, so long as your girl is fertile and preferably young, just keep fucking and eventually she'll get pregnant. Odds are you'll score eventually.

Quote:

DNA becomes damaged with age, explaining the higher risk of older men having children with autism and schizophrenia, experts believe. And men aged 40 to 42 are a fifth less likely to have a baby than before their 30th birthday, the results suggest.

The findings, for couples having in-vitro fertilisation, suggest women are better off trying for children with a man their own age or younger.

Commenting on the research by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, British expert Professor Nick Macklon of Southampton University said: "I suppose from the social side the value of this is not only in counselling couples about when to move for ART (assisted reproductive technology), but it may help women encourage their male partners to get a move on."

Scientists analysed data on 7753 couples seen at a Boston fertility clinic between 2000 and 2014.

Their results suggest women who have put off trying for a baby are much better off finding a toy boy if they want to fall pregnant. Those aged 35 to 40 were almost 30% more likely to have a child with a partner aged below 30 than one aged 30 to 35.

Good reminder to wrap it up when banging MILFs, fellas.

Quote:

Dr Gillian Lockwood, of Midland Fertility Services, who was not involved in the study, said: "While a little girl is born with every egg she is ever going to have, men are making new sperm every morning all the way through their reproductive lives.

"But every time there is cell division to make the next generation of sperm, there is the possibility of error creeping in," she added.

"It’s the cumulative effect of these errors as cell division goes on and on that is probably causing the problem."

Lead researcher Dr Laura Dodge said older men trying to conceive naturally were less likely to get women pregnant, took longer to do so and increased risk of miscarriage.

This may be due to DNA damage and changes to genes.

The US study, presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Geneva, Switzerland, found women saw their chances of a live birth fall 46% from when they are under 30 to aged 40 to 42. But men cut odds of having a baby by 20% over the same time.

Dodge said there was little men could do to counteract the effect of age on their sperm, adding: "The best pre-conception advice we can offer is to maintain a healthy lifestyle." - Daily Mail

This hopeful tale doesn't do much to disprove what we already know - eggs get older with the woman, and they get stale. Whatever risk there is on the side of an older guy fathering a child with a younger woman pales by comparison.

Spin, hamster, spin....

[ascotpudding]

(07-04-2017 12:47 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

They're at it again, but with a twist - this time flat out suggesting that older hamsters shack up with a younger guy to ensure they have a healthy baby. Yes, I know there was a thread about this subject here, and it is an excellent one, but this is the first time I've seen the you-go-girlism work its way into a regular newspaper.

Once you understand (((their))) plan, it all makes sense.

1. Convince chicks to waste their fertile years on YOLO consumerism that enriches (((them))) while destroying the host country's culture and birth rate.

2. Try to convince guys to go against every biological imperative they have and knock up some old broad with the 10,000 cock stare. Best case, they spend $20,000, paid to (((them))), in a futile IVF effort to get pregnant. Worst case, they create 1 spawn that probably has an extra chromosome.

3. Note that any guy dumb enough to follow this advice won't be having kids with a young, nubile girl.

4. This means those fresh girls are not busy raising a nice white family with traditional values, but are instead riding the carousel.

5. Eventually the young girls from #4 become the old harridans from #1 and the host culture grows weaker and smaller every year.

6. Wash, rinse, repeat.

-Gotta give (((them))) credit, they have a good plan that has worked well for the last 50+ years.

[Cattle Rustler]

At least it's encouraging reproduction. I'm sure if the genders flipped everyone would be clapping.

Sometimes I dunno what to think anymore. One day I'm told reproduction is good, we must out reproduce the )))muzzies(((. The next, I'm told reproduction is bad.

[kinjutsu]

The article is full of bold faced lies.


Unless there is something wrong with the guy ALL of his sperm is capable of getting a girl pregnant. Even up into the 70's a guy can still knock a girl up.
All of this article tries to portray the reason why older couples have issues making a baby is squarely on the man.

Which is false.

The way i understand it, is the quality of the woman's eggs determine the chances of birth defects on the fetus.
Meaning that older women 35 plus have significantly high chances of their child being born with some type of developmental disability like down syndrome or autism. This increases with age. That is why pregnancies in women over the age of 40 are considered extremely risky and those women are almost always on bed rest for the entire 9 months till the give birth.


IVF doesn't negate those chances AT ALL.
IVF only increases the chances of having the child born.

[PapayaTapper]

(07-04-2017 02:51 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

At least it's encouraging reproduction. I'm sure if the genders flipped everyone would be clapping.

Sometimes I dunno what to think anymore. One day I'm told reproduction is good, we must out reproduce the )))muzzies(((. The next, I'm told reproduction is bad.

Me too..so imo keep practicing till I figure it out

[weambulance]

It's encouraging destructive reproduction and telling older women to prey on young men.

- Higher rates of birth defects because the women are old
- Much less likely relationships will work out, so more single mothers / dysfunctional families / fucked up children
- Younger men will get screwed by child support and not be able to have normal kids with a same age or younger wife
- - - Some younger men will end up in prison due to inability to pay or permanently financially stalled in life because of that
- Probably other bad things I'm not immediately thinking of

Obviously I oppose those things, because they just make society more broken, dysfunctional, and poor.

Flip the genders--and invent a nonexistent situation in the process--and what is there to say that's actually bad?

[Cattle Rustler]

(07-04-2017 05:20 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Quote:

It's encouraging destructive reproduction and telling older women to prey on young men.

- Higher rates of birth defects because the women are old
- Much less likely relationships will work out, so more single mothers / dysfunctional families / fucked up children
- Younger men will get screwed by child support and not be able to have normal kids with a same age or younger wife
- - - Some younger men will end up in prison due to inability to pay or permanently financially stalled in life because of that
- Probably other bad things I'm not immediately thinking of

Obviously I oppose those things, because they just make society more broken, dysfunctional, and poor.

Flip the genders--and invent a nonexistent situation in the process--and what is there to say that's actually bad?

Points taken, I agree with you. I wouldn't have a kid with an older woman....nor a younger woman. Actually, I don't think I even want a kid at all until I hit 38 and impregnate a bunch of different bitches and have a mini UN of kids. And then, I'd probably only want her as a babysitter.

Either way, lets flip the script Kipp:

Quote:

It's encouraging destructive reproduction and telling older men to prey on young women.

- Higher rates of birth defects because the women are young and will do something stupid like drugs, alcohol, or smoking.
- Much less likely relationships will work out, so more single mothers / dysfunctional families / fucked up children
- Older men will get screwed by child support and not be able to retire or life their last years in comfort. They will be slaves to the Child Support System, wages will be garnished.
- - - Some older men will end up in prison due to inability to pay or permanently financially stalled in life because of that, some will die in prison.
- Probably other bad things I'm not immediately thinking of

Obviously I oppose those things, because they just make society more broken, dysfunctional, and poor.

Only a certain percentage of men can make this "older man, younger female" thing work. Most cannot and will get taken to the cleaners and/or be cucked. He'll be old and she'll be fucking a dude her age on the DL, then you'll die and she'll fuck around in a "eat pray, love" manner with your money, no different than a divorce. It's wrong to preach this to the masses when only the top notch men can actually pull it off.

[weambulance]

Sure, much older men with younger women isn't a magic solution at all. IMO the men should always be older, but not that much older. 5-8 years, more can work for some men. Damn few are going to pull off 15+ year age gaps. The point is to have the man in a clear position of leadership/dominance stemming from experience, and for him to be financially established, while the wife brings maximum fertility and beauty to the table. That's what is best for both parties and their children.

I don't think same age relationships are that great, and they're mostly an artifact of the coed school system. How many men are established enough to have kids at ~22? If their wife is the same age and they're putting off having kids until the man has a solid career and savings, the woman is going to be 28+ most of the time. That's what boomers preach. "Don't have kids until you're 30 at least!" Well shit, even women at 30 have a lot more problems with fertility/pregnancy/childbirth than women who are 18-23. Especially if they want more than one kid. Being able to have even two normal kids isn't assured if the woman starts trying to have kids at 30.

And that's what I see amongst my cohort, FWIW. I'm almost 32, so the last few years my high school class has been marrying off like crazy. Only a handful of the people I knew in HS had kids before 30. The ones I'm thinking of were either very religious or career military. Plus some single moms, naturally.

Inverting the age gap so the women are older is insane, though. It's the worst possible arrangement, a total rejection of biological and sociosexual realities. The charitable interpretation is it's just one more way of women trying to escape the consequences of their choices.

[SlickyBoy]

Seventy-plus year old Charles fucking Manson got married to a much younger hottie, from prison, with not a penny to his name. You don't have to be a top 1% guy to pull this off, you just have to have a solid mental frame and never lose it.

Not the same thing at all as an old broad trying to make up the difference with a younger guy.

[Bill Brasky]

A man can sire children from his teens to old age. My early twenties girlfriend's dad is in his mid-seventies with about 7 kids in total, the oldest being in their 40's. The whole IVF industry is propped up with the delusion that a woman can have kids at any age. I always hear the anecdotal story of a woman in her 50s who had a healthy kid. This is very much the exception and not the rule.

[Remington]

I wouldn't ever consider putting a baby into a woman over 30. Each year after 30, the chances of having a child with autism increase exponentially.

It wouldn't be fair to the child knowing that you had the opportunity to nut in a 22 year old, and not a 35 year old.

This article pretty much encourages women to start cranking out autistic kids like a retard machine and not give our future any opportunity or hope.

[Tayo]

The average man would NOT do that! Men naturally go for women that are younger than them... it is built in the male's DNA.

[Kid Twist]

(07-04-2017 06:03 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

I don't think same age relationships are that great, and they're mostly an artifact of the coed school system. How many men are established enough to have kids at ~22? If their wife is the same age and they're putting off having kids until the man has a solid career and savings, the woman is going to be 28+ most of the time.

Accurate statements and reasoning. I wish more modern people would a) pay attention and b) use their brains to just speak honestly about the obvious, as you have.

(07-05-2017 12:47 PM)Remington Wrote:  

I wouldn't ever consider putting a baby into a woman over 30. Each year after 30, the chances of having a child with autism increase exponentially.

It wouldn't be fair to the child knowing that you had the opportunity to nut in a 22 year old, and not a 35 year old.

This article pretty much encourages women to start cranking out autistic kids like a retard machine and not give our future any opportunity or hope.

While funny but over the top in exaggeration, I just want to quote that the stats are still just large relative risks. Women age 30-40 increase in probability of having a Down kid or autistic, but the risk is still only 5% when it approaches a maximum. Meaning 95/100 nothing is an issue.

I'm one of the biggest proponents of traditional living and agree with the fact that age pairing should be with fair to large gaps for obvious historical, cultural and biological reasons --- but when we're here and we agree with one another there is no reason to overstate how bad it is.

[RatInTheWoods]

I love it when the media just does bald faced social engineering.

Not even pretending to be anything else.

It's highly comical

[AnonymousBosch]

(07-04-2017 02:51 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

At least it's encouraging reproduction

Reproduction here meaning 'Guaranteed Gamma Off-Spring'.

[Cattle Rustler]

(07-08-2017 11:53 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 02:51 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

At least it's encouraging reproduction

Reproduction here meaning 'Guaranteed Gamma Off-Spring'.

Even more people to contribute to the gamma/sigma thread!

[The Sign Painter]

A lady over 40 has as much SMV as a dude below 25? I'd be happy if some of my friends (way over 30) struggling to get any girl would have ended up with a MILF.