plunging birthrate

[njtosd]

[quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]

If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html

So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=njtosd][quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]

If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html

So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.[/quote]

That was a very interesting article, njtosd. Based on my past experience, I wouldn’t have thought that, at all. About 8 yrs ago, I signed up for “online dating” with a major “personals” site. I never really “joined” and my profile was “active” for just over 2 weeks before I took it down. My basic parameters were for a 50-60 yo male, within about 10 miles from me (Chula Vista). I rec’d at least 15 hits, the majority “seemingly” attractive and well-spoken. Besides fielding and eliminating obviously “attached” men on the prowl, I corresponded back and forth with about 6 men, all aged 50-55. As I recall, ONE claimed to be divorced (1 grown child), ONE claimed to be widowed (no children) and FOUR claimed to be single, that is, claimed to have NEVER been married. None of these 4 had children (or so they said). ALL of these men stated in their profiles that they would consider (having) children. Whether that meant consider being a stepfather or wanted their own children was for me to find out.

Delving deeper, it turned out that ALL SIX, when push came to shove, wanted their OWN children ASAP! One actually stated to me he would much prefer an Asian woman (I’m not and neither was he – and not sure why he responded to my profile). I ended up asking them all why they are responding to women’s profiles in their own age groups when what they REALLY WANT is to now finally “settle down” and have their own families. As much as I would have liked to meet a couple of them, I had to direct them ALL to the 30-40 yo age group as they were wasting time corresponding with me.

This left me with the typical “baby-boomer set”: the “sorta married, sorta separated, their spouse/families lived outside of SD County (frauds), divorced but still living with ex, had longtime female `platonic (lol) roommates,’ and other assorted `posers'” whom I wanted nothing to do with. Hence, I took my profile down and called it a day, lol.

I still believe that in SD County, there are MANY over-50 men who only just recently “decided” they wanted to “start a family.” You have to ask yourself (and them) what they have been doing the last 30 yrs :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=njtosd][quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]

If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html

So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.[/quote]

That was a very interesting article, njtosd. Based on my past experience, I wouldn’t have thought that, at all. About 8 yrs ago, I signed up for “online dating” with a major “personals” site. I never really “joined” and my profile was “active” for just over 2 weeks before I took it down. My basic parameters were for a 50-60 yo male, within about 10 miles from me (Chula Vista). I rec’d at least 15 hits, the majority “seemingly” attractive and well-spoken. Besides fielding and eliminating obviously “attached” men on the prowl, I corresponded back and forth with about 6 men, all aged 50-55. As I recall, ONE claimed to be divorced (1 grown child), ONE claimed to be widowed (no children) and FOUR claimed to be single, that is, claimed to have NEVER been married. None of these 4 had children (or so they said). ALL of these men stated in their profiles that they would consider (having) children. Whether that meant consider being a stepfather or wanted their own children was for me to find out.

Delving deeper, it turned out that ALL SIX, when push came to shove, wanted their OWN children ASAP! One actually stated to me he would much prefer an Asian woman (I’m not and neither was he – and not sure why he responded to my profile). I ended up asking them all why they are responding to women’s profiles in their own age groups when what they REALLY WANT is to now finally “settle down” and have their own families. As much as I would have liked to meet a couple of them, I had to direct them ALL to the 30-40 yo age group as they were wasting time corresponding with me.

This left me with the typical “baby-boomer set”: the “sorta married, sorta separated, their spouse/families lived outside of SD County (frauds), divorced but still living with ex, had longtime female `platonic (lol) roommates,’ and other assorted `posers'” whom I wanted nothing to do with. Hence, I took my profile down and called it a day, lol.

I still believe that in SD County, there are MANY over-50 men who only just recently “decided” they wanted to “start a family.” You have to ask yourself (and them) what they have been doing the last 30 yrs :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=njtosd][quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]

If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html

So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.[/quote]

That was a very interesting article, njtosd. Based on my past experience, I wouldn’t have thought that, at all. About 8 yrs ago, I signed up for “online dating” with a major “personals” site. I never really “joined” and my profile was “active” for just over 2 weeks before I took it down. My basic parameters were for a 50-60 yo male, within about 10 miles from me (Chula Vista). I rec’d at least 15 hits, the majority “seemingly” attractive and well-spoken. Besides fielding and eliminating obviously “attached” men on the prowl, I corresponded back and forth with about 6 men, all aged 50-55. As I recall, ONE claimed to be divorced (1 grown child), ONE claimed to be widowed (no children) and FOUR claimed to be single, that is, claimed to have NEVER been married. None of these 4 had children (or so they said). ALL of these men stated in their profiles that they would consider (having) children. Whether that meant consider being a stepfather or wanted their own children was for me to find out.

Delving deeper, it turned out that ALL SIX, when push came to shove, wanted their OWN children ASAP! One actually stated to me he would much prefer an Asian woman (I’m not and neither was he – and not sure why he responded to my profile). I ended up asking them all why they are responding to women’s profiles in their own age groups when what they REALLY WANT is to now finally “settle down” and have their own families. As much as I would have liked to meet a couple of them, I had to direct them ALL to the 30-40 yo age group as they were wasting time corresponding with me.

This left me with the typical “baby-boomer set”: the “sorta married, sorta separated, their spouse/families lived outside of SD County (frauds), divorced but still living with ex, had longtime female `platonic (lol) roommates,’ and other assorted `posers'” whom I wanted nothing to do with. Hence, I took my profile down and called it a day, lol.

I still believe that in SD County, there are MANY over-50 men who only just recently “decided” they wanted to “start a family.” You have to ask yourself (and them) what they have been doing the last 30 yrs :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=njtosd][quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]

If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html

So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.[/quote]

That was a very interesting article, njtosd. Based on my past experience, I wouldn’t have thought that, at all. About 8 yrs ago, I signed up for “online dating” with a major “personals” site. I never really “joined” and my profile was “active” for just over 2 weeks before I took it down. My basic parameters were for a 50-60 yo male, within about 10 miles from me (Chula Vista). I rec’d at least 15 hits, the majority “seemingly” attractive and well-spoken. Besides fielding and eliminating obviously “attached” men on the prowl, I corresponded back and forth with about 6 men, all aged 50-55. As I recall, ONE claimed to be divorced (1 grown child), ONE claimed to be widowed (no children) and FOUR claimed to be single, that is, claimed to have NEVER been married. None of these 4 had children (or so they said). ALL of these men stated in their profiles that they would consider (having) children. Whether that meant consider being a stepfather or wanted their own children was for me to find out.

Delving deeper, it turned out that ALL SIX, when push came to shove, wanted their OWN children ASAP! One actually stated to me he would much prefer an Asian woman (I’m not and neither was he – and not sure why he responded to my profile). I ended up asking them all why they are responding to women’s profiles in their own age groups when what they REALLY WANT is to now finally “settle down” and have their own families. As much as I would have liked to meet a couple of them, I had to direct them ALL to the 30-40 yo age group as they were wasting time corresponding with me.

This left me with the typical “baby-boomer set”: the “sorta married, sorta separated, their spouse/families lived outside of SD County (frauds), divorced but still living with ex, had longtime female `platonic (lol) roommates,’ and other assorted `posers'” whom I wanted nothing to do with. Hence, I took my profile down and called it a day, lol.

I still believe that in SD County, there are MANY over-50 men who only just recently “decided” they wanted to “start a family.” You have to ask yourself (and them) what they have been doing the last 30 yrs :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=njtosd][quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]

If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html

So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.[/quote]

That was a very interesting article, njtosd. Based on my past experience, I wouldn’t have thought that, at all. About 8 yrs ago, I signed up for “online dating” with a major “personals” site. I never really “joined” and my profile was “active” for just over 2 weeks before I took it down. My basic parameters were for a 50-60 yo male, within about 10 miles from me (Chula Vista). I rec’d at least 15 hits, the majority “seemingly” attractive and well-spoken. Besides fielding and eliminating obviously “attached” men on the prowl, I corresponded back and forth with about 6 men, all aged 50-55. As I recall, ONE claimed to be divorced (1 grown child), ONE claimed to be widowed (no children) and FOUR claimed to be single, that is, claimed to have NEVER been married. None of these 4 had children (or so they said). ALL of these men stated in their profiles that they would consider (having) children. Whether that meant consider being a stepfather or wanted their own children was for me to find out.

Delving deeper, it turned out that ALL SIX, when push came to shove, wanted their OWN children ASAP! One actually stated to me he would much prefer an Asian woman (I’m not and neither was he – and not sure why he responded to my profile). I ended up asking them all why they are responding to women’s profiles in their own age groups when what they REALLY WANT is to now finally “settle down” and have their own families. As much as I would have liked to meet a couple of them, I had to direct them ALL to the 30-40 yo age group as they were wasting time corresponding with me.

This left me with the typical “baby-boomer set”: the “sorta married, sorta separated, their spouse/families lived outside of SD County (frauds), divorced but still living with ex, had longtime female `platonic (lol) roommates,’ and other assorted `posers'” whom I wanted nothing to do with. Hence, I took my profile down and called it a day, lol.

I still believe that in SD County, there are MANY over-50 men who only just recently “decided” they wanted to “start a family.” You have to ask yourself (and them) what they have been doing the last 30 yrs :={

[UCGal]

[quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids? UCGal does your quick tally break down kids/family by nationality or age?

I’ve never felt any pressure to have kids, but most people seem to. I’m just curious what drives the number they envision having.
Josh[/quote]

Married younger correlates to more kids. There are a couple of us older moms that skew it to fewer kids (and hence some of the secondary infertility).

Nationality – the vast majority of the members of that board are US Citizens, Caucasian (although some are in mixed race marriages). The Canadians, Icelandic, and Israeli members have 3 or less kids.

Education also seems to be a factor. The younger moms who have lots of kids also have less education, on average. This is a pretty educated group considering it started as a Parents Place Expecting club board (and migrated to a private board years ago).

We have one member who has no kids… she’s friends with one of the other members.

Keep in mind – this is not a typical cross section. These women all have kids (with one exception) That’s our common bond… 8 year olds. (Wow – that community has been together for 9 years now… we formed when we were preggers.) It’s not a cross section because it’s made up of women of child bearing age who chose to have children who are computer literate and have access to the internet. That skews it towards middle class breeders.

Does that answer your question?

[UCGal]

[quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids? UCGal does your quick tally break down kids/family by nationality or age?

I’ve never felt any pressure to have kids, but most people seem to. I’m just curious what drives the number they envision having.
Josh[/quote]

Married younger correlates to more kids. There are a couple of us older moms that skew it to fewer kids (and hence some of the secondary infertility).

Nationality – the vast majority of the members of that board are US Citizens, Caucasian (although some are in mixed race marriages). The Canadians, Icelandic, and Israeli members have 3 or less kids.

Education also seems to be a factor. The younger moms who have lots of kids also have less education, on average. This is a pretty educated group considering it started as a Parents Place Expecting club board (and migrated to a private board years ago).

We have one member who has no kids… she’s friends with one of the other members.

Keep in mind – this is not a typical cross section. These women all have kids (with one exception) That’s our common bond… 8 year olds. (Wow – that community has been together for 9 years now… we formed when we were preggers.) It’s not a cross section because it’s made up of women of child bearing age who chose to have children who are computer literate and have access to the internet. That skews it towards middle class breeders.

Does that answer your question?

[UCGal]

[quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids? UCGal does your quick tally break down kids/family by nationality or age?

I’ve never felt any pressure to have kids, but most people seem to. I’m just curious what drives the number they envision having.
Josh[/quote]

Married younger correlates to more kids. There are a couple of us older moms that skew it to fewer kids (and hence some of the secondary infertility).

Nationality – the vast majority of the members of that board are US Citizens, Caucasian (although some are in mixed race marriages). The Canadians, Icelandic, and Israeli members have 3 or less kids.

Education also seems to be a factor. The younger moms who have lots of kids also have less education, on average. This is a pretty educated group considering it started as a Parents Place Expecting club board (and migrated to a private board years ago).

We have one member who has no kids… she’s friends with one of the other members.

Keep in mind – this is not a typical cross section. These women all have kids (with one exception) That’s our common bond… 8 year olds. (Wow – that community has been together for 9 years now… we formed when we were preggers.) It’s not a cross section because it’s made up of women of child bearing age who chose to have children who are computer literate and have access to the internet. That skews it towards middle class breeders.

Does that answer your question?

[UCGal]

[quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids? UCGal does your quick tally break down kids/family by nationality or age?

I’ve never felt any pressure to have kids, but most people seem to. I’m just curious what drives the number they envision having.
Josh[/quote]

Married younger correlates to more kids. There are a couple of us older moms that skew it to fewer kids (and hence some of the secondary infertility).

Nationality – the vast majority of the members of that board are US Citizens, Caucasian (although some are in mixed race marriages). The Canadians, Icelandic, and Israeli members have 3 or less kids.

Education also seems to be a factor. The younger moms who have lots of kids also have less education, on average. This is a pretty educated group considering it started as a Parents Place Expecting club board (and migrated to a private board years ago).

We have one member who has no kids… she’s friends with one of the other members.

Keep in mind – this is not a typical cross section. These women all have kids (with one exception) That’s our common bond… 8 year olds. (Wow – that community has been together for 9 years now… we formed when we were preggers.) It’s not a cross section because it’s made up of women of child bearing age who chose to have children who are computer literate and have access to the internet. That skews it towards middle class breeders.

Does that answer your question?

[UCGal]

[quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids? UCGal does your quick tally break down kids/family by nationality or age?

I’ve never felt any pressure to have kids, but most people seem to. I’m just curious what drives the number they envision having.
Josh[/quote]

Married younger correlates to more kids. There are a couple of us older moms that skew it to fewer kids (and hence some of the secondary infertility).

Nationality – the vast majority of the members of that board are US Citizens, Caucasian (although some are in mixed race marriages). The Canadians, Icelandic, and Israeli members have 3 or less kids.

Education also seems to be a factor. The younger moms who have lots of kids also have less education, on average. This is a pretty educated group considering it started as a Parents Place Expecting club board (and migrated to a private board years ago).

We have one member who has no kids… she’s friends with one of the other members.

Keep in mind – this is not a typical cross section. These women all have kids (with one exception) That’s our common bond… 8 year olds. (Wow – that community has been together for 9 years now… we formed when we were preggers.) It’s not a cross section because it’s made up of women of child bearing age who chose to have children who are computer literate and have access to the internet. That skews it towards middle class breeders.

Does that answer your question?

[UCGal]

[quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids?
Josh[/quote]

Taking a stab at this. One woman’s thinking…

We chose to have 2. In part because we prefered our kids have the experience of having to compromise with siblings… not being the sole focus of our attention, etc. My husband is from a large Italian family – one of six. I was from a typical WASP family – one of 3.

We might have gone for #3 to get the elusive “girl baby”… but I was too damn old for that. 2 was the max.

Hubster did not have kids (nor was married) – and is 10 years older than me. And I am/was old. I was 39 when I had my oldest, 41 for my younger son. We didn’t meet till I was 37… and that courtship, marriage, getting knocked up thing took a year. LOL.

I know I had set my limit at 2. period. But my husband almost convinced me to go for #3… I pointed out that boys run in his family (he has 4 brothers). So… no dice.

[UCGal]

[quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids?
Josh[/quote]

Taking a stab at this. One woman’s thinking…

We chose to have 2. In part because we prefered our kids have the experience of having to compromise with siblings… not being the sole focus of our attention, etc. My husband is from a large Italian family – one of six. I was from a typical WASP family – one of 3.

We might have gone for #3 to get the elusive “girl baby”… but I was too damn old for that. 2 was the max.

Hubster did not have kids (nor was married) – and is 10 years older than me. And I am/was old. I was 39 when I had my oldest, 41 for my younger son. We didn’t meet till I was 37… and that courtship, marriage, getting knocked up thing took a year. LOL.

I know I had set my limit at 2. period. But my husband almost convinced me to go for #3… I pointed out that boys run in his family (he has 4 brothers). So… no dice.

[UCGal]

[quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids?
Josh[/quote]

Taking a stab at this. One woman’s thinking…

We chose to have 2. In part because we prefered our kids have the experience of having to compromise with siblings… not being the sole focus of our attention, etc. My husband is from a large Italian family – one of six. I was from a typical WASP family – one of 3.

We might have gone for #3 to get the elusive “girl baby”… but I was too damn old for that. 2 was the max.

Hubster did not have kids (nor was married) – and is 10 years older than me. And I am/was old. I was 39 when I had my oldest, 41 for my younger son. We didn’t meet till I was 37… and that courtship, marriage, getting knocked up thing took a year. LOL.

I know I had set my limit at 2. period. But my husband almost convinced me to go for #3… I pointed out that boys run in his family (he has 4 brothers). So… no dice.

[UCGal]

[quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids?
Josh[/quote]

Taking a stab at this. One woman’s thinking…

We chose to have 2. In part because we prefered our kids have the experience of having to compromise with siblings… not being the sole focus of our attention, etc. My husband is from a large Italian family – one of six. I was from a typical WASP family – one of 3.

We might have gone for #3 to get the elusive “girl baby”… but I was too damn old for that. 2 was the max.

Hubster did not have kids (nor was married) – and is 10 years older than me. And I am/was old. I was 39 when I had my oldest, 41 for my younger son. We didn’t meet till I was 37… and that courtship, marriage, getting knocked up thing took a year. LOL.

I know I had set my limit at 2. period. But my husband almost convinced me to go for #3… I pointed out that boys run in his family (he has 4 brothers). So… no dice.

[Author]

Posts