"Why does society choose to ignore this?" is the question. What do you think is the answer?

That is interesting. I had seen something recently in which paternal age was suggested as an underlying cause of the near-epidemic levels of autism and asthma in the Australian population, but the argument about increased recognition and detection was counter-proposed.

The discussion arose resulting from the situation of some friends, whose child has just been diagnosed low level dd, with a 54 year old father and no family history on either side.

I'm thinking the reason 'society' apparently ignores it is that men may not be interested in this type of information *in a general way*. I don't mean that they would be uninterested if it affected them or their loved ones, but they might not see how it is relevant to them, personally.

Women's magazines are full of this sort of story about women, but men's magazines and newspaper articles directed to guys don't seem to be, mostly because it's not the sort of stuff *most* guys will want to read.

However, magazines like Men's Health are taking off a bit, so we'll see, I guess.

Traditionally, however the kid turned out was held to be the responsibility of the mother ~ the english king Henry VIII executed a couple of wives for having kids of the wrong sex, even though it's the sperm which determines the sex (he didn't know that of course, just 'assumed').

Maybe there's an element of that, too.

Cheers :-)

It seems to me that maybe this stems from the fact that women have a fairly definitive menopause, whereas men do not. Women stop producing eggs after a certain point, reflecting the increased potential for those eggs to be damaged. Men, on the other hand, can regularly produce sperm their entire lives.

Certainly this doesn't justify ignoring the evidence that sperm production can also be damaged with age, but I think the difference in how the sexes respond to this "ticking biological clock" might contribute to the lack of communication on the subject. Women are more "obvious," whereas men are not.

People just need to be educated on the subject, really. That's the only way to go about erasing the ignorance.

I admit I delayed having children myself but not because I was so obsessed with my career and put off having them. I did it because I simply was NOT ready to have them at that time. Just because I was young did not mean I was ready emotionally or financially to handle the responsibilities. Yes, I probably would have been better off having a child at the age of 25 instead of already being well into my 30s to get started but look at the trade-offs. I was more patient and mature. I didn't feel like I was being tied down in the least. I never tried to palm off my children onto other people so I could go out and party and have fun. I had already gotten those out of my system when I was younger and no longer had those desires by the time I started having children.

I guess because the medical scientific data bank is controlled by old men. I also wonder why male impotence which generally starts at the age of forty is completely ignored. My personal experience with older guys shows it at a 100% occurence. Men around 40 start to have problems with erections and it is the norm - not the oddity.

The biological clock? ....for men? ...is not about genetic defects but the ability to father a child. Women simply decrease the ability to mother a child at an earlier age than men.

Most genetic defects don't make it to birth, most end up as a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. The biological clock is not about increasing chances of birth defects but decreasing chances of concieving and giving birth.

Maybe men on GWS "avoid"ed this question because they feel as a woman you should know this. But once again, you need a man to show you the way..... it's this way dear.

I agree with Strength of a Woman with regards to the media.

I am quite concerned for the recipient of sperm donors, where in the USA you can donate up to the age of 40 and in the UK it's up to the age of 55! With this in mind surely the age group for a sperm donor should be lowered?

This is known since a long time. Younger women breed healthier children.

One word. Feminism.

Woman wait a lot longer to have children. They prefer careers to family. And with all the abusive laws against men, men are more reluctant to get married. The result, they have a child at age 30. 40. Resulting in a much bigger risk of defective children.

So in a way, feminism can result in the death of our species :)

I must ask you, how are we ignoring this?

I suppose more and more people are going to fertility drugs and drugs to treat impotence. This is true of both men and women.

Maybe impotence and infertility is the action of natural selection?

EDIT: After reading your additional details it sounds like you are upset about SOME people's personal opinions. Well the reality is people are entitled to their opinions even if we disagree. Don't get all bent out of shape about these people, are they really worth it?

Of course society ignores it, the media is run by males dear, they don't want to decrease their chances of getting laid went they get older so of course they are going to turn a blind eye. Without the media giving the research publicity, not many people are going to know about it.

Society ignores it because its the WOMANS job to choose her mate, carry a child to term, then nurture it.

If you choose some rancid old guy with bad sperm but a load of cash, whos fault is it?