If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(A Tick that is Tocking)   Men have a biological clock too; the bell tolls at 35   (timesonline.co.uk) divider line 103
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

14299 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2002 at 2:27 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-10-15 02:28:57 AM
Tell that to Larry King
 
2002-10-15 02:29:47 AM
26 years down, 9 to go.
 
2002-10-15 02:30:22 AM
Well crap.
 
udo
2002-10-15 02:30:29 AM
Ask not for whom the belle toils.
 
2002-10-15 02:30:38 AM
Yeah, I can wait to get married until 35, when I nice and chilled out and slowed down, that'll do nicely. Although 40 would be better.
 
2002-10-15 02:30:42 AM
Is it me, or is actually Farked already?
 
2002-10-15 02:32:19 AM
Looks like we farked it till it loved us.

That or the server just turned 35...

meh

:wq!
 
2002-10-15 02:32:54 AM
so, anyone who saw it before it wasn't farked, care to summarize. Or copy your cached version.
 
2002-10-15 02:33:18 AM
Time marches on
 
2002-10-15 02:34:25 AM
why dont i save it now by freezing it, then use it for later?
 
2002-10-15 02:34:52 AM
My dad was 40 when I was born, and my mother was 36. It explains a lot.
 
2002-10-15 02:35:36 AM
Hmm...that must be true. My husband was 34 when I became pregnant, had his 35th birthday during my pregnancy. I was 28.

Oh and we've been married 9 years. I'm 29 and he's 36 now. :)
 
2002-10-15 02:35:55 AM
heh.

Somehow the farked sites are my friends. Here's the text. And ya'll hopefully won't biatch at length.

Biological clock strikes for men too - at age 35
By Mark Henderson and Patrick Barkham







MEN who put their career before having a family should beware: the ticking of the biological clock is as important for fertility in men as it is in women.
American scientists have discovered that genetic damage to sperm routinely starts to cause infertility in men as young as 35. The strongest biological evidence yet for a significant drop in male fertility in the late thirties is a warning to the increasing number of grey-haired fathers who are leaving it later to have children.

The popular worry that career women risk losing the chance to have children has long been supported by infertility research focusing on how the quality of women's eggs deteriorates with age. Researchers from the University of Washington in Seattle have now provided the first firm molecular explanation for why childless career men should worry too. The chances of having a baby are reduced if the man is in his late thirties or forties.

The study, led by Narendra Singh and unveiled at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine conference in Seattle today, examined the sperm of 60 volunteers aged between 22 and 60. All the men had healthy sperm counts.

Dr Singh's team found that, whatever the sperm count, its genetic quality was closely related to age, with a cut-off point for serious damage of about 35.

Men in the older group had higher concentrations of sperm with broken strands of DNA, more acute levels of such genetic damage and their immune systems were much less efficient at weeding out faulty sperm by programmed cell suicide, or apoptosis. The sperm of the older men were also less vigorous swimmers.

Clare Brown, of the British infertility charity Child, said the findings cast new light on the often overlooked problem of male infertility.

"About a third of all infertility is male factor," she said. "Male-factor infertility is more prevalent than people think. It's not generally in the public's mind that male sperm quality does indeed go down with age, from, as we now see, the age of 35."

William Keye, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said that men concerned about their fertility should avoid activities such as smoking that may damage the DNA of their sperm. He added: "While there's nothing anyone can do about getting older, men who want to retain their own best capacity to father children should try to minimise contact with toxic agents and maintain a healthy lifestyle."

The proportion of British men aged over 40 becoming fathers increased by half in the 1990s. In 1999 one in ten children was born to a father aged over 40. The number of children born to fathers over 40 has risen by nearly a third to 42,000 a year in the past 20 years. Older fathers include David Jason, who had his first child at 61, Tony Blair, John Humphrys, David Bowie and Mick Jagger. James Doohan - Scotty from Star Trek - was an 80-year-old great-grandfather when his wife gave birth to his seventh child.

The findings do not suggest that most men who wait until after 35 to try for children will have problems, particularly if the man's partner is in her twenties or early thirties. But the study does alert fertility doctors to another potential problem when older couples have difficulty in conceiving.


You're welcome.
 
2002-10-15 02:37:55 AM
my father was 42 when I was born. And when he died (at 55) he had 3 children, and my mother had countless miscarriages.

But then again there were always those mail man rumors. And I'm brunette, and I have blonde and redheaded brothers. So who knows.
 
2002-10-15 02:38:17 AM
Man, I already had the article copied and pasted. I'm glad that I checked first.
 
2002-10-15 02:39:37 AM
Ok, this will be up for a few hours, but I replicated on my box just in case anyone's interested in the article

http://www.giles1101.com/fark/times.htm

Back to the subject... Bullshiat.

:wq!
 
2002-10-15 02:40:19 AM
Bio-clock argument

1.14mb for you dialers.
 
udo
2002-10-15 02:40:29 AM
James Doohan will be over 100 when his 7th kid graduates from college. Zoiks!
 
2002-10-15 02:42:56 AM
"I canna hold it together anymore, captin'! I think she's gonna blow!"

/James Doohan's bedroom

wee.

:wq!
 
2002-10-15 02:50:35 AM
If sperm starts to break down @ 35+, Thank God Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall II didn't reproduce! Can you imagine what 3-eyed, sloped-foreheaded freak would've come out that womb???
 
2002-10-15 02:55:41 AM
OMG,
Why did I even think of that?

It's late I guess...
 
2002-10-15 03:20:28 AM
Damn T-114 days and counting for me.
I had better get to Farking.


Looks around

Hmmm



Hey baby, you wanna have my baby before Mr. Winkler runs out of ammo.



SLAP



Damn still looking.
 
2002-10-15 03:21:41 AM
Oh shiat, less than 7 years left :(
 
2002-10-15 03:21:56 AM
Good. This means less and less children in the future. I just wish somehow infertility was infectious.
 
2002-10-15 03:23:57 AM
Didn't Strom Thurmond spawn when he was in his 70's?
 
2002-10-15 03:33:29 AM
The story is true (please don't argue with science), which kinda sucks because my boyfriend will likely be over 40 before we have kids. We both want lives first.

It does say that as long as the woman is late twenties or early thirties it's ok, so I'll cling to that statement.

Blossom - I've got a similar age gap to you. Nice, isn't it :)
 
wee [TotalFark]
2002-10-15 03:35:49 AM
I'm depressed now. Great.

I turned 35 in April.

That's just wonderful.

Super.

Well, time to get busy, I guess...
 
2002-10-15 03:43:28 AM
If I EVER caught myself saying "I want a baby" I would punch myself in the face as hard as I could or get one of my boys to do it...Id say "I want a lapdance" sure all the time, but baby? No chance.
Who the hell wants 18 plus years of responsibility and work--just for a kid? Sure theres the "Help me, Im old and feeble" factor, but thats quitter talk. Just hire a 19 y/old nurse to take care of you. No problem.
kids arent for everybody--thank goodness.
 
2002-10-15 03:51:51 AM
Hey!! Hear that dull snapping noise? That's my heart breaking at the thought that I've only five years to have a brood of whining, crying, snivling, ungrateful bratlings to put through college!

Only a mere five years to get sucked into a, quote, "unplanned pregnancy" that will lead to either a marriage which will suck out half my net worth when she decides she's either happier alone and/or morbidly obese, along with (or perhaps separately) child support payments for eighteen years. Oh Lord, please do stop my breaking heart.
 
2002-10-15 03:55:37 AM
My father was 45 - *just* short of 46 - when I was born. My mother was two months past turning 42. This was in the mid-60's.

I've also heard/read that children born of mothers over 40 have a greater chance of being left-handed, which I am.

No idea whether that factoid is really true or not, but I *have* met a few people who were born of similarly aged parents and they happened to be left handed as well.
 
2002-10-15 04:04:20 AM
More importantly... if you want good healthy young-uns... that have normal brain functions and physical abilities...

Don't gamble on a reproductive machine that is running on fumes.

We had ours in our 30s...
My 2 boys are awesome - and will be good for the human race.

When having kids - it's scary having "risk" factors to deal with.
 
2002-10-15 04:27:54 AM
... and thus will both selfish and lazy genes eventually depart the gene pool for good.

No loss to humanities future I'd say.
 
2002-10-15 04:46:25 AM
I think it would be socially irresponsible of me to pass on my genes. Sometimes you have to recognise that nature has taken a wrong turn and make sacrifices for the good of humanity.

Does this take tremendous will-power on my part? No, not really. Every woman I meet agrees that my DNA should be cut from the gene pool.
 
2002-10-15 05:05:12 AM
Purple_Jack your comment made me think of my favourite 'demovitators' poster - "The purpose of your life may be to serve as a warning to others".

You are way too smart to be lost from the gene pool. Here are some suggestions:

1. Donate to the sperm bank. I hear they have some really good ummm .. incentive videos.
2. Start volunteering at the blind society (lol).
3. Meet some smarter women :)
 
2002-10-15 05:14:43 AM
8 more days!!!
 
2002-10-15 05:19:41 AM
Purple_Jack:- I agree with the sentiments, but "socially irresponsible" is my life. I'm not going to allow the oppressive regime of evolution dictate my reproductive behaviour, when I can screw up the curve and populate the world with millions of ugly-ass Jay-vee descendants. Despite what everybody else says - I KNOW the world would be a better place if it was populated with billions of me.
 
2002-10-15 05:20:31 AM
Yeah, I'm so worried I won't be able to add to my financial burden so I can have some teenage cretin who hates me tell me what a goon I am. This is just tragic.
 
2002-10-15 05:22:26 AM
Thanks for the paste on the article. I was hoping for an article on the emotional or mental push towards the need to procreate in men--beyond the usual I wanna get laid drive that fuels most of our hobbies, our recreation, and our lives.

As I get older I realize that the women I am most attracted to now, have kids. In fact, if I find out a woman I've been attracted to has kids, she becomes even more so in my eyes. I guess that a proven thing is good, evolutionarily speaking.

Been looking into evolutionary psychology for a lark, and while some of the studies are absolute crap--or worse, were done by Eugenics folks--there have been a couple of papers and books that brought up some good points on why we are the way we are. The most accessable has been: "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright, from Vintage Books-Random House. While the tone is sometimes a bit too moralistic, it does bring up some good points to why monogomy developed, why women and men cheat, and why we don't drown our neighbors children the minute they get into our rose bushes.
 
2002-10-15 05:26:33 AM
Tadlette

I'm quite tempted by your sperm bank suggestion. The idea of being paid for my hobby appeals to me. I could also use the line 'Of course, I'm a professional wanker' as an ice-breaker at parties. How many people can say that?
 
2002-10-15 05:34:07 AM
Only 2465 more days. Tick tick tick.

Wait, I don't want kids.
 
2002-10-15 06:30:17 AM
Unlikely. I'm 37 and the last thing I want is a screaming shiat machine to suck up all my money for the next 18 years. I don't care if my boys can't swim like they used to, that just makes it less likely some lying biatch will get pregnant even though she was on birth control.
 
2002-10-15 06:36:14 AM
COOL, so if I can hold out for a few more years then I don't have to worry about pregnancy, screaming babies, smelly diapers, or child support?
 
2002-10-15 06:44:43 AM
Hmmmm, I too was expecting something a bit more on the emotional/need-to-reproduce side of things. I'm coming on for 28 myself, been married almost a year, and - even though I know full well that we are totally not ready for kids - hardly a day goes by without me thinking about how much I want to be a dad someday...
 
2002-10-15 06:54:10 AM
I dunno , maybe for americans,,, My dad had me at age 60.
 
2002-10-15 06:59:00 AM
60? Omg, your dad is fertile.
 
2002-10-15 07:00:17 AM
The story is true (please don't argue with science), which kinda sucks because my boyfriend will likely be over 40 before we have kids. We both want lives first.

It does say that as long as the woman is late twenties or early thirties it's ok, so I'll cling to that statement.

Blossom - I've got a similar age gap to you. Nice, isn't it :)


im 17 and i want that age gap between me and my wife, in fact ive already picked out the girl.

jk.... anyway, whats so great about having a husband ten years older than you?
 
2002-10-15 07:02:39 AM
Why can't i be infertile, instead of all those wierdos who actually want a screaming crapmachine?
 
2002-10-15 07:03:31 AM
I know I have trouble with seeing numbers, so someone else read this story and answer me this: If they had a group of 60 men and they ranged in age from 22-60 then they could not have had more than a few men in each age catagory. that could not be enough for a proper statistical population. I can almost match their survey with anecdotal evidence I know about. A few examples:

Strom Thurmond got married at 66 and had 3 kids (the woman was 22, gotta love politicians), Charlie Chaplan had kids when he was in his 80 if I remember correctly. I have a friend who recently had his first child at 40. When someone does a study with 6000 men in it then you can maybe start to worry.
 
2002-10-15 07:11:45 AM
I've heard the scientific reasons why women should be very health-conscious if trying to give birth after forty - but that was unheard of a decade or two ago.

This is the first I have heard regarding Men's age on the subject.

And if your partner is old enough to be your parent... (or grandparent) You have other problems that will undoubtedly be passed along to your offspring.
 
2002-10-15 07:12:14 AM
No worries here. Not only do I loathe kids enough that I don't want to even look at one, let alone have one, I'll only be 27 when the world ends. Woohoo.
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report