Post: #1

This is just going to add to the hamster brain.

Someone from cosmo was on tv saying, "it would be a great graduation present for college kids." Because the ideal time to freeze them is when the chick is young and not at 40 and still spouseless. Wow.

"Honey, we know you wanted to go to Europe for your post college graduation present but Mom and I decided since you're going to be a career woman and get married late (IF EVER), you are better off having your eggs frozen."

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...mily-angst

A piece of the article.

Quote:There comes a point in every childless woman’s life, usually around 35, when the larger world becomes very interested in her womb. Friends and family inquire about its health, asking why it’s not being utilized, when it will be, and then: Will it even work? For those who do want children, the pressure can be crushing and counterproductive. “I found myself going on dates thinking, is this marriage material? Is this? Is he? It was exhausting,” says Dr. Suzanne LaJoie, an ob-gyn in Manhattan. “When I was in med school and residency, all my friends were having babies.”

She went through a breakup in her mid-30s and started to worry she wouldn’t be able to have a child of her own. So in 2007, at age 37, she paid $10,000 for a round of oocyte cryopreservation, more commonly known as egg freezing. “I just wanted to take the pressure off,” LaJoie says. “Men don’t have a biological clock, and I felt like it leveled the playing field a bit.”

Leveled the playing field a bit? Men and women are not the same.

Post: #2

I wonder if there are any side effects to the potential child? If you couldn't make children and family a priority when nature intended you to (also at an age where you'd have enough energy to deal with them), then live with the consequences of your decision.

Post: #3

On tv, they were also blabbing about how the health of the child depends more on the man's age...hope that isn't true.

Post: #4

It is just astonishing how unimportant the family to these women. They only do it because of peer pressure? They are better of with a cat. They should NEVER have a kid, they just fuck him/her up.

Post: #5

She can freeze all the eggs she wants. Good luck finding a man willing to fertilize them. Why would you want a kid at 40? Do you really wanna deal with teenage bullshit at 55?

Post: #6

(05-01-2014 07:58 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  On tv, they were also blabbing about how the health of the child depends more on the man's age...hope that isn't true.

There have been threads here on Roosh that show, conclusively, that the FEMALE'S age plays the part in whether there are issues with a child's health.

This "egg freezing" is mostly another attempt to use modern technology to try to outsmart nature.

If, IF these antiques can carry a fetus at, what, 50 years old, good luck raising it.

Post: #7

The average cost of doing such a procedure costs between 8,000 to $15,000 ! Let alone the extra added expense of the invetro procedure after that!

How many women can afford to freeze their eggs? Yeah I thought so. This I could see being an excellent "Obamacare" add-on. I would leave the country at that point.

Post: #8

If I were an investor, I would be investing in the surrogate mother industry.

Post: #9

(05-01-2014 08:52 AM)Icarus Wrote:  If I were an investor, I would be investing in the surrogate mother industry.

There are ads on Craigslist looking for surrogate mothers all the time.

Post: #10

(05-01-2014 08:53 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  There are ads on Craigslist looking for surrogate mothers all the time.

I don't know what the regulation on surrogate motherhood is at the moment, but this could be extremely interesting.

If the purpose of insurance and financial derivatives is to transfer risk from one party to another, then transferring the risk of miscarriage or death during childbirth also makes sense. This industry will flock to where life is cheap (e.g., India). And why would a woman married to a millionaire hedge fund manager have to suffer the pains of pregnancy? Outsource the pain, too.

If the U.S. forbids it, then Americans can come to Europe to outsource pregnancy and childbirth. If the E.U. forbids it, then there is always Russia. In the future, we may have not only tax havens, but also birth havens.

Post: #11

Firstly regarding the "it's the man's age that is most important to the babies health" part: That is just wishful thinking on the part of older women who wish it were so. In order to "level the playing field" as they say. But the playing field is not level. It slopes at all sorts of angles all over the place. Sometimes "favouring" men and sometimes "favouring" women. The very fact that a man can father children into his 80's/90's and a woman can't should give these people a clue.

On the surface the idea of a woman freezing her eggs when in her early 20's is not a bad idea. The fact is "educated" women in the west are not going to be having children when it is most healthy for both them and the child (i.e early 20's). We talk at lengths about the reasons why this is so on this board. The conditions that give rise to this are not likely to change enough for there to be a dramatic change in female behavior. At least not in the next few decades. So, for a woman who does "plan" on having children later freezing healthier eggs now, and then inseminating them at some later point may result in a healthier child. Of course there is still the issue of whether the woman is too old to properly carry the child to term. I don't know enough about this to comment. So on the surface this is a "logical" thing to do for most of the targeted women. i.e. Over educated/Career Focused/Cock Carousal riders and so on.

In practice, I don't think it will work out as these women, or their parents, figure it will. She imagines she gets to 38, is at the top of some sort of corporate ladder, has saved a lot of money and can now cruise in business and focus on a family. This is the fantasy of many career women, but in reality she will reach 38, firstly, without a suitable husband/male long term partner, and secondly without as much money saved as she imagines. Also, she won;t be in a position to just go on cruise control. She will almost inevitably be looking at something like "Single mothers by choice", where she uses donor sperm, or a "known donor" to inseminate her frozen eggs.

I know a little about the whole mess that is this cohort since I knew someone who was very seriously considering just this. i.e. She was a late 30's career woman without a man, but wanting a baby by means of a "known donor". But would raise the child herself as a "single mother by choice". We spoke a bit about it, and right off the bat I told her that any man who agreed to be her "known donor" would be a bad genetic choice because he would have to be very stupid indeed to put himself at risk, legally, for child support and so on. She countered that she had been to see lawyers and hey could draw up a contract protecting the donor, to which I added that you can draw up a contract saying anything you like but it doesn't mean a court will uphold it if/when the woman changes her mind. Especially if there is a "good of the child" issue.

About a year after she first got interested in the idea she decided not to go ahead, either with a known donor, or from a sperm bank. Basically every single woman in the support group she was involved with who had actually gone ahead and done it advised against being a "single mother by choice". They lived lives constantly on the edge of breakdown due to a general lack of support. The women interested in this are fairly well-off professional types. They're not like the typical single mother who has had a hard life and knows what she is facing. The women in this group got a rude awakening. Practical (rather than just "you go girl" words) support from friends they thought they could count on did not materialise. And the costs of child care when you are trying to hold down a job was more expensive than they thought. The result is that they were left with much heavier responsibilities and demands than they could handle by themselves.

So, technically not a bad idea or illogical. But in practice it won't turn ut well for the women considering this.

Post: #12

(05-01-2014 08:11 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  She can freeze all the eggs she wants. Good luck finding a man willing to fertilize them. Why would you want a kid at 40? Do you really wanna deal with teenage bullshit at 55?

I wish there were more people talking about this. Raising kids takes energy, dealing with teenage insanity in your older years as well as dealing with sleep deprivation from babies...fuck if I will have the will to do that when I am old.

Also being old means a downturn in your earning potential...in most cases, but with a late child would mean an increase in costs related to children.

Post: #13

(05-01-2014 09:15 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  Firstly regarding the "it's the man's age that is most important to the babies health" part: That is just wishful thinking on the part of older women who wish it were so. In order to "level the playing field" as they say. But the playing field is not level. It slopes at all sorts of angles all over the place. Sometimes "favouring" men and sometimes "favouring" women. The very fact that a man can father children into his 80's/90's and a woman can't should give these people a clue.

On the surface the idea of a woman freezing her eggs when in her early 20's is not a bad idea. The fact is "educated" women in the west are not going to be having children when it is most healthy for both them and the child (i.e early 20's). We talk at lengths about the reasons why this is so on this board. The conditions that give rise to this are not likely to change enough for there to be a dramatic change in female behavior. At least not in the next few decades. So, for a woman who does "plan" on having children later freezing healthier eggs now, and then inseminating them at some later point may result in a healthier child. Of course there is still the issue of whether the woman is too old to properly carry the child to term. I don't know enough about this to comment. So on the surface this is a "logical" thing to do for most of the targeted women. i.e. Over educated/Career Focused/Cock Carousal riders and so on.

In practice, I don't think it will work out as these women, or their parents, figure it will. She imagines she gets to 38, is at the top of some sort of corporate ladder, has saved a lot of money and can now cruise in business and focus on a family. This is the fantasy of many career women, but in reality she will reach 38, firstly, without a suitable husband/male long term partner, and secondly without as much money saved as she imagines. Also, she won;t be in a position to just go on cruise control. She will almost inevitably be looking at something like "Single mothers by choice", where she uses donor sperm, or a "known donor" to inseminate her frozen eggs.

I know a little about the whole mess that is this cohort since I knew someone who was very seriously considering just this. i.e. She was a late 30's career woman without a man, but wanting a baby by means of a "known donor". But would raise the child herself as a "single mother by choice". We spoke a bit about it, and right off the bat I told her that any man who agreed to be her "known donor" would be a bad genetic choice because he would have to be very stupid indeed to put himself at risk, legally, for child support and so on. She countered that she had been to see lawyers and hey could draw up a contract protecting the donor, to which I added that you can draw up a contract saying anything you like but it doesn't mean a court will uphold it if/when the woman changes her mind. Especially if there is a "good of the child" issue.

About a year after she first got interested in the idea she decided not to go ahead, either with a known donor, or from a sperm bank. Basically every single woman in the support group she was involved with who had actually gone ahead and done it advised against being a "single mother by choice". They lived lives constantly on the edge of breakdown due to a general lack of support. The women interested in this are fairly well-off professional types. They're not like the typical single mother who has had a hard life and knows what she is facing. The women in this group got a rude awakening. Practical (rather than just "you go girl" words) support from friends they thought they could count on did not materialise. And the costs of child care when you are trying to hold down a job was more expensive than they thought. The result is that they were left with much heavier responsibilities and demands than they could handle by themselves.

So, technically not a bad idea or illogical. But in practice it won't turn ut well for the women considering this.

Exactly - what support? From where? The turkey baster? If there are grandparents still around, they are most likely entering the elderly stage of life. WTF are they going to be able to do?

Yeah, "You go girl!"...go and buy a cat or five.

Post: #14

(05-01-2014 09:27 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 09:15 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  Firstly regarding the "it's the man's age that is most important to the babies health" part: That is just wishful thinking on the part of older women who wish it were so. In order to "level the playing field" as they say. But the playing field is not level. It slopes at all sorts of angles all over the place. Sometimes "favouring" men and sometimes "favouring" women. The very fact that a man can father children into his 80's/90's and a woman can't should give these people a clue.

On the surface the idea of a woman freezing her eggs when in her early 20's is not a bad idea. The fact is "educated" women in the west are not going to be having children when it is most healthy for both them and the child (i.e early 20's). We talk at lengths about the reasons why this is so on this board. The conditions that give rise to this are not likely to change enough for there to be a dramatic change in female behavior. At least not in the next few decades. So, for a woman who does "plan" on having children later freezing healthier eggs now, and then inseminating them at some later point may result in a healthier child. Of course there is still the issue of whether the woman is too old to properly carry the child to term. I don't know enough about this to comment. So on the surface this is a "logical" thing to do for most of the targeted women. i.e. Over educated/Career Focused/Cock Carousal riders and so on.

In practice, I don't think it will work out as these women, or their parents, figure it will. She imagines she gets to 38, is at the top of some sort of corporate ladder, has saved a lot of money and can now cruise in business and focus on a family. This is the fantasy of many career women, but in reality she will reach 38, firstly, without a suitable husband/male long term partner, and secondly without as much money saved as she imagines. Also, she won;t be in a position to just go on cruise control. She will almost inevitably be looking at something like "Single mothers by choice", where she uses donor sperm, or a "known donor" to inseminate her frozen eggs.

I know a little about the whole mess that is this cohort since I knew someone who was very seriously considering just this. i.e. She was a late 30's career woman without a man, but wanting a baby by means of a "known donor". But would raise the child herself as a "single mother by choice". We spoke a bit about it, and right off the bat I told her that any man who agreed to be her "known donor" would be a bad genetic choice because he would have to be very stupid indeed to put himself at risk, legally, for child support and so on. She countered that she had been to see lawyers and hey could draw up a contract protecting the donor, to which I added that you can draw up a contract saying anything you like but it doesn't mean a court will uphold it if/when the woman changes her mind. Especially if there is a "good of the child" issue.

About a year after she first got interested in the idea she decided not to go ahead, either with a known donor, or from a sperm bank. Basically every single woman in the support group she was involved with who had actually gone ahead and done it advised against being a "single mother by choice". They lived lives constantly on the edge of breakdown due to a general lack of support. The women interested in this are fairly well-off professional types. They're not like the typical single mother who has had a hard life and knows what she is facing. The women in this group got a rude awakening. Practical (rather than just "you go girl" words) support from friends they thought they could count on did not materialise. And the costs of child care when you are trying to hold down a job was more expensive than they thought. The result is that they were left with much heavier responsibilities and demands than they could handle by themselves.

So, technically not a bad idea or illogical. But in practice it won't turn ut well for the women considering this.

Exactly - what support? From where? The turkey baster? If there are grandparents still around, they are most likely entering the elderly stage of life. WTF are they going to be able to do?

Yeah, "You go girl!"...go and buy a cat or five.

I didn't know they were advising this to single women. I thought it was a have frozen egg babies with your late in life husband. Man, an old woman who has known a self centered, gratuitous life who had a kid later on in the game will be completely intolerant to the demands of the child. This is what I would expect the mother to turn out like...

Post: #15

(05-01-2014 07:58 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  On tv, they were also blabbing about how the health of the child depends more on the man's age...hope that isn't true.

Of course it's true. If the woman's too old, there won't be a child in the first place.

Post: #16

(05-01-2014 09:15 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  Firstly regarding the "it's the man's age that is most important to the babies health" part: That is just wishful thinking on the part of older women who wish it were so. In order to "level the playing field" as they say. But the playing field is not level. It slopes at all sorts of angles all over the place. Sometimes "favouring" men and sometimes "favouring" women. The very fact that a man can father children into his 80's/90's and a woman can't should give these people a clue.

On the surface the idea of a woman freezing her eggs when in her early 20's is not a bad idea. The fact is "educated" women in the west are not going to be having children when it is most healthy for both them and the child (i.e early 20's). We talk at lengths about the reasons why this is so on this board. The conditions that give rise to this are not likely to change enough for there to be a dramatic change in female behavior. At least not in the next few decades. So, for a woman who does "plan" on having children later freezing healthier eggs now, and then inseminating them at some later point may result in a healthier child. Of course there is still the issue of whether the woman is too old to properly carry the child to term. I don't know enough about this to comment. So on the surface this is a "logical" thing to do for most of the targeted women. i.e. Over educated/Career Focused/Cock Carousal riders and so on.

In practice, I don't think it will work out as these women, or their parents, figure it will. She imagines she gets to 38, is at the top of some sort of corporate ladder, has saved a lot of money and can now cruise in business and focus on a family. This is the fantasy of many career women, but in reality she will reach 38, firstly, without a suitable husband/male long term partner, and secondly without as much money saved as she imagines. Also, she won;t be in a position to just go on cruise control. She will almost inevitably be looking at something like "Single mothers by choice", where she uses donor sperm, or a "known donor" to inseminate her frozen eggs.

I know a little about the whole mess that is this cohort since I knew someone who was very seriously considering just this. i.e. She was a late 30's career woman without a man, but wanting a baby by means of a "known donor". But would raise the child herself as a "single mother by choice". We spoke a bit about it, and right off the bat I told her that any man who agreed to be her "known donor" would be a bad genetic choice because he would have to be very stupid indeed to put himself at risk, legally, for child support and so on. She countered that she had been to see lawyers and hey could draw up a contract protecting the donor, to which I added that you can draw up a contract saying anything you like but it doesn't mean a court will uphold it if/when the woman changes her mind. Especially if there is a "good of the child" issue.

About a year after she first got interested in the idea she decided not to go ahead, either with a known donor, or from a sperm bank. Basically every single woman in the support group she was involved with who had actually gone ahead and done it advised against being a "single mother by choice". They lived lives constantly on the edge of breakdown due to a general lack of support. The women interested in this are fairly well-off professional types. They're not like the typical single mother who has had a hard life and knows what she is facing. The women in this group got a rude awakening. Practical (rather than just "you go girl" words) support from friends they thought they could count on did not materialise. And the costs of child care when you are trying to hold down a job was more expensive than they thought. The result is that they were left with much heavier responsibilities and demands than they could handle by themselves.

So, technically not a bad idea or illogical. But in practice it won't turn ut well for the women considering this.

Exactly. Even if she freezes her eggs, who is going to want to marry an old lady to have kids with? Only the most beta of betas. So not only is going to have kids late in life, but with a sub-par partner most likely as well.

Is that really worth a career? Women are delusional. It speaks to the power of their hamster to prefer money over a loving family.

What's really sad is that older women will never admit to their mistakes. They feel no pain or shame. Thus there aren't any consequences for women.

Post: #17

(05-01-2014 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Even if she freezes her eggs, who is going to want to marry an old lady to have kids with? Only the most beta of betas....a sub-par partner...

I think you've hit the nail on the right there.

Post: #18

Pervert your biology, destroy your femininity, tamper with Nature...and it's all good!

Because you can now "free yourself" up to work a dead-end, emotionally lobotomizing job shuffling papers around a human resources office.

Yay!


Q

Post: #19

(05-01-2014 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 09:15 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  Firstly regarding the "it's the man's age that is most important to the babies health" part: That is just wishful thinking on the part of older women who wish it were so. In order to "level the playing field" as they say. But the playing field is not level. It slopes at all sorts of angles all over the place. Sometimes "favouring" men and sometimes "favouring" women. The very fact that a man can father children into his 80's/90's and a woman can't should give these people a clue.

On the surface the idea of a woman freezing her eggs when in her early 20's is not a bad idea. The fact is "educated" women in the west are not going to be having children when it is most healthy for both them and the child (i.e early 20's). We talk at lengths about the reasons why this is so on this board. The conditions that give rise to this are not likely to change enough for there to be a dramatic change in female behavior. At least not in the next few decades. So, for a woman who does "plan" on having children later freezing healthier eggs now, and then inseminating them at some later point may result in a healthier child. Of course there is

...

was more expensive than they thought. The result is that they were left with much heavier responsibilities and demands than they could handle by themselves.

So, technically not a bad idea or illogical. But in practice it won't turn ut well for the women considering this.

Exactly. Even if she freezes her eggs, who is going to want to marry an old lady to have kids with? Only the most beta of betas. So not only is going to have kids late in life, but with a sub-par partner most likely as well.

Is that really worth a career? Women are delusional. It speaks to the power of their hamster to prefer money over a loving family.

What's really sad is that older women will never admit to their mistakes. They feel no pain or shame. Thus there aren't any consequences for women.

I'm with you up to the end bit Samseau, the regret is just late. The first wave of 'yo go girl' divorcees and just starting to get old. As thirsty as dudes are there is a very limited market for wrinkled and grey. That is the age that I have seen regret at.

Post: #20

(05-01-2014 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  What's really sad is that older women will never admit to their mistakes. They feel no pain or shame. Thus there aren't any consequences for women.

I disagree. I have witnessed lots of pain and regret in former hotties who now find themselves childless spinsters in their 30s. Some were suicidal at some point. This was in Europe, but I don't think it's any different in the U.S., actually.

Chris Rock used to say "men cannot go backwards sexually, women cannot go backwards in lifestyle". However, women cannot go backwards sexually either. Once they have fucked a few alphas, they can't suddenly start enjoying fucking betas. And once they get to the point where they have a nice salary, they can no longer enjoy dating men who make as much as them or less. Alpha cock and a good salary completely fuck these women's lives. They priced themselves out of the market, and it's society's fault for suppressing the ugly truths, because the warnings exist for a reason, and if you suppress warnings, accidents happen. Lives are destroyed needlessly.

There are no consequences for women? Of course there are. Going through their post-30th birthday lives unloved, unmarried, childless and miserable is a brutal consequence of the poor decisions these women made in their 20s. The regrets I heard were along the lines of:

"When I was 23 I thought I had many chances to meet someone special (read: lesser alpha or greater beta willing to commit), but now at 31 I realize it only happens a couple of times in a woman's life. I wish I knew at 21 what I know now..."

And when asked why they didn't marry, they reply:

"There was a guy who was in love with me and wanted me to have his babies, but I didn't love him." (read: he was a beta or lesser beta, and his supplicating made me despise him)

It's not all women's fault. If young men started reading Heartiste and Roosh at age 12, society would be much happier. But Roosh was in the SPLC list, which shows how sick and demented modern Western societies are.

Post: #21

Perhaps you guys are right, and there is a huge number of women with regrets about not having children. However, I haven't seen these women nor do you hear about them in the media.

Perhaps there is a huge backlash brewing and someday there will be an outpouring of older females urging younger females to have kids. But let's just put it this way - most women, even if they do feel regret, are way too proud to admit it. That is why no amount of reasoning with them will make them confess to their errors.

For example, I have three aunts, and between three aunts (two of whom were beautiful) only ONE had a child, and just one little girl at that. The other two are spinsters.

I asked one of my aunts if she felt any regret, in the nicest way possible. Her response?

"I never met a good man! All the ones I met were jerks and losers."

"But auntie, don't you wish you had children?"

"Yes, I do regret not having children. But it was not meant to be. I never had the man to do it with. But it is okay, I have so many wonderful nieces and nephews you like guys!"

Post: #22

By the way - "regrets" are not consequences, at least not meaningful ones.

In the old days, not having children ensured you wouldn't survive past 60 because you most likely wouldn't have any family to help you survive a harsh winter or help bring home enough money for food. Those are consequences.

"Bad feelings" - get real. Feelings aren't consequences.

Post: #23

(05-01-2014 02:36 PM)Samseau Wrote:  By the way - "regrets" are not consequences, at least not meaningful ones.

In the old days, not having children ensured you wouldn't survive past 60 because you most likely wouldn't have any family to help you survive a harsh winter or help bring home enough money for food. Those are consequences.

"Bad feelings" - get real. Feelings aren't consequences.

I agree with that split, real consequences with rationalized feelings about it. These old ladies still whip each other into a 'we are strong independent women' frenzies while having no retirement savings, low income, failing health and crushing debt.

Post: #24

(05-01-2014 02:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Perhaps you guys are right, and there is a huge number of women with regrets about not having children. However, I haven't seen these women nor do you hear about them in the media.

Frankly, I think it's all sour grapes. Nobody wants to admit that they did not live the life they wanted to live. It's too painful a realization. After all, you only have one life.

Men do this in different ways...

Man sees rich financier, then he thinks to himself: "He probably works 100 hours per week. I am glad I have a 9-to-5 job that leaves me plenty of time to drink beer with my buddies."

Man meets highly intelligent and accomplished yet socially awkward man, then he thinks to himself: "He is probably a virgin."

Man sees a very handsome man accompanied by two beautiful girls, then he thinks to himself: "He is probably gay."

Post: #25

(05-01-2014 02:36 PM)Samseau Wrote:  "Bad feelings" - get real. Feelings aren't consequences.

Dictionary definition of the word "consequence":

Quote:Something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions.

Hence, if one accepts that feelings "happen", then bad feelings are, by definition, a consequence of one's actions. It's not a material or financial consequence, but from the definition, it still is a consequence.