Official Kiwifarms Woman-Hate Thread - DO NOT post about OTHER USERS or OTHER THREADS from THIS WEBSITE.

Null said:
You'd need to do statistical analysis to see when the age gap and mother's age risks actually surpass one another in this situation.
Click to expand...
You would first need a bulk of studies to consolidate the claim that age gap is bad for the child's health. There's already enough studies that prove than having older parents is bad for a child's health. As far as I know there's not much studies about age gaps.
Null said:
If you're looking for me to comfort you on bad decisions, that's too bad, I'm not going to. I've noticed people in this thread tend to be older, at least two in their fifties. Nothing I say is going to make that situation better.
Click to expand...
I am younger than you. People tend to seek advice, comfort and validation from people that are succesful in the relevant field.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AnonymousKot and World Famous Quasi Payer
The idea that anyone who can and wants to have kids is going to go out of their way to trust the soyence about the exact optimal age/income bracket/whatever other inane bullshit factor you can think of to have them at is frankly retarded. For better or worse, no one in the real world micromanages their behavior to that autistic a degree and never will unless they're forced to at gunpoint.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: AwfulWillow, AnonymousKot, World Famous Quasi Payer and 1 other person
Clem Fandango said:
40s and 50s is too old to have a kid as a man. Forget the "biological clock" elements. Do you want to be getting up at 3am to put a baby back to sleep in your 40s? Shit's too tiring. Also, you don't want to be a super old dad. Teaching your son to drive when you're in your late 60s? Taking them out for a beer for the first time when you're in your 70s??

Nah, get that shit done in your 30s. I know it's fun to clown on "empty egg carton" femoids, but seriously guys shouldn't wait around just because they "can".
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a case of waiting because you can, and more that the dating market is currently FUBAR.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: AnonymousKot, World Famous Quasi Payer and Clem Fandango
Null said:
Great, you lot can comfort each other then, considering how well you've all done. I think that's what this little sewing circle is for.
Click to expand...
You can always come if bring your needles.
ScamL Likely said:
The idea that anyone who can and wants to have kids is going to go out of their way to trust the soyence about the exact optimal age/income bracket/whatever other inane bullshit factor you can think of to have them at is frankly retarded. For better or worse, no one in the real world micromanages their behavior to that autistic a degree and never will unless they're forced to at gunpoint.
Click to expand...
When you're like 37-42 you can wonder if having a/another child is a good idea.

Some take that risk and end up raped by their autistic troon son, some take it and it ends going well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Male Idiot, AnonymousKot, The Ugly One and 4 others
We’ll eventually find out if the child Al Pacino had when he was 83 will be autistic or not (the mother was 29 when they had their child). The children Clint Eastwood had when he was in his 50s and 60s didn’t end up autistic either. I’m not saying autism isn’t an increased risk due to age but as always, the man hate foids and their simps reach the most extreme and retarded conclusions possible in order to provide purestrain cope for the empty egg carton set. The chance autism can happen means it is guaranteed to happen to the moids over 30 years old who don’t want to have sex with them. Also the increased risk of autism and birth defects from children born to women over 35 is not true because lol smol peepee lol incel.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Male Idiot, Walrus and Carpenter 2.0, Mexican_Wizard_711 and 12 others
I could have sworn that an age "difference" had nothing to do with an early diagnosis of autism in children or infants. The highest correlation was I thought just the age of the man himself. A thirty year old man impregnating a twenty year old woman will have no real greater odds of autism than two twenty year olds having a baby. A fifty year old man and a forty-nine year old woman would have an elevated risk of autism due to the man's age (and possibly the womans), right?

I mean with any birth, either of the parents being unhealthy or too old can lead to problems. Morbidly obese women giving birth causes all sorts of issues.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Kalsarikännit, AnonymousKot, crowabunga and 1 other person
Null said:
2. Soyence supports my position. Sorry if you don't like this statistic and it makes you upset, but it's true.
Click to expand...
soyence also supports losing weight but there you are being thicc AF
Null said:
Great, you lot can comfort each other then, considering how well you've all done. I think that's what this little sewing circle is for.
Click to expand...
This circle is great.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Croaking Spider, Geddy Lee's Fee and See, AnonymousKot and 5 others
crab fucker said:
I could have sworn that an age "difference" had nothing to do with an early diagnosis of autism in children or infants. The highest correlation was I thought just the age of the man himself. A thirty year old man impregnating a twenty year old woman will have no real greater odds of autism than two twenty year olds having a baby. A fifty year old man and a forty-nine year old woman would have an elevated risk of autism due to the man's age (and possibly the womans), right?

I mean with any birth, either of the parents being unhealthy or too old can lead to problems. Morbidly obese women giving birth causes all sorts of issues.
Click to expand...
For the longest time it was accepted that autism and other such risks rates correlated more or less more with the mother's age, since women don't continually replenish eggs like men do sperm. But in the last five or so years there's been a major push to reframe it as those defects being the fault of men's aging.

I'm a bit dubious of it, because it doesn't really make sense to me. Plus I have a hard time trusting the soyence when it just so happens to verify the women's latest buggaboo(age gap relationships) in a way that, as you point out, doesn't really make sense.

@Otterly can you help clarify for us stupid moids?
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: 6thRanger, Mexican_Wizard_711, Geddy Lee's Fee and See and 8 others
That's the odd part.

You can just say old sperm = bad, but now its specifically old sperm, young egg.

Reminds me a lot of aznidentity types that say the bleaching of yellow women spawn Supreme Gentlemen, but not the ricing of white women, apparently.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Walrus and Carpenter 2.0
The science said it was primarily the mother’s age but yeah it hurt the feelings of the women over 35 so the soyence is now saying that the age of women doesn’t matter at all and now it’s all the man. Once again the hurt feelings of women mean it is a social crisis and we have to lie to ourselves so women don’t feel bad about putting off having children so they can have more sexual partners with random men.

It’s best to have children in your 20s and early 30s. This is the age range the vast majority have been had throughout civilization and there is a reason for that. The soyence will pretend women having children at 45 is perfectly okay but a man at age 31 is some crisis. At a gut level, you know this is absolutely retarded but sparing hurt feelings of women is what matters in current year plus nine.
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Male Idiot, Mexican_Wizard_711, Geddy Lee's Fee and See and 13 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back