From a comment.
I think it's time we dispel fertility myths about women. And also myths about what men, or the manosphere, claim about women's fertility.
No one in the manosphere or anywhere else claims that women suddenly become infertile when they turn 30. No one says that. No one. If they do say that, they're wrong. Any woman who claims that the manosphere is saying that is raising a massive strawman, and everyone knows it.
Here's the facts. FACTS:
"Fertility", or "fecundity" - how easy it is to conceive, to get pregnant.
And it isn't just conception. It's conceiving a healthy child free from birth defects. It's also the ability of the woman to carry the child to term. It's also the ability of the woman to give birth to a live child.
In general, the younger a woman is, the more fertile she is. Conversely, the older she is, it gets more difficult for her to get pregnant and carry to term and avoid congenital birth defects, especially Down syndrome and autism.
The healthier a woman is, the easier it will be for her to get pregnant. Conversely, the more health issues she has (i.e. chronic pain, degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, organ problems, diabetes, genetic anomalies, uses drugs, uses tobacco, is on any long term medications, etc. ) the harder it will be for her to get pregnant and carry to term and avoid major birth defects.
The less obese a woman is, the easier it is for her to get pregnant. Conversely, the more unhealthy weight a woman is carrying, the harder it is for her to get pregnant and carry to term and avoid congenital birth defects.
If she doesn't have a history of STDs (especially chlamydia or gonorrhea), it's easier for her to get pregnant. Conversely, if your girl picked up an STD somewhere along the way, she probably had a touch of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and maybe scarred up Fallopian tubes, which will make it harder for her to get pregnant - even if she got treated for it.
That's because most times, a woman doesn't know she has an STD until she starts showing clinical symptoms, like vaginal discharge, pelvic pain, pain on urination, pain with sex, etc. By then, the bug has had a chance to fulminate for at least a week and fuck everything up in there. (The incubation time for chlamydia is 1 to 3 weeks, and that's if symptoms appear. It can take up to a month or more for symptoms to appear. The incubation time for gonorrhea is 2 to 5 days but can be up to 30 days. In both cases, it's plenty of time to wreak havoc on a woman's delicate reproductive tract.) So by the time symptoms appear, the damage to her internal reproductive tract is already done. Sure, she can get cured and go on to have sex, even get pregnant and have kids. But it will probably be more difficult to get pregnant.
A woman who has genital herpes can still get pregnant. But she will probably have to deliver by C-section to avoid infecting the child during passage through the birth canal. Newborns born naturally to herpes infected mothers have been known to contract the virus. The virus can infect the child's eyes and can cause blindness. Or worse, neonatal herpes infection can result in mental retardation or death in the fetus.
A woman with genital herpes will have it for the rest of her life. Herpes is caused by the HSV-1 and HSV-2 viruses. It is incurable, but very, very treatable and can be medically managed almost to the point of becoming asymptomatic. The medications used to manage it are acyclovir, famciclovir, or Valtrex, the latter of which is very expensive. Whichever medication she takes, she will probably need to take it for the rest of her life.
A woman with herpes can marry, have a normal sex life, and have children. However, there is always a risk that she will give the virus to any sex partner she has. There is always a risk of giving the virus to other partners even during periods of time when she has no outbreaks.
A woman with "cold sores" has oral herpes. That's usually HSV-1. Never ever ever let a woman with a cold sore suck your cock. Ever. You can get genital herpes from a BJ from a woman with an active cold sore. Don't kiss her either - you'll pick up "cold sores" too.
Women's fertility peaks in the early- to mid-20s. (EDIT: Some in the comments are saying fertility peak is late teens to early 20s. That might be true. The point stands: The younger she is, the more fertile she is.)
Women's fertility starts declining in the early 30s.
Any pregnancy in a woman at or after age 35 is a "high risk" pregnancy. (EDIT: This is an obstetrical, medical classification, not a manosphere invention. "High risk pregnancy due to maternal age" is something physicians and obstetrical experts determined and concluded in evidence based medical practice. It is a medical and scientific term. It is NOT something a bunch of men on the internet devised.)
The risks of autism and Down syndrome rise exponentially after a woman reaches age 35 - especially if she has never borne a child before.
The risks of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy rise exponentially if she's ever had chlamydia or gonorrhea. Left untreated, these STD can cause PID in women which will scar up her fallopian tubes, increasing the risks of infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and miscarriage.
The older a woman is, the risks of miscarriage rise exponentially.
Artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization procedures will cost at least $30,000 PER PROCEDURE. For women under 35, the failure rate is 60% (but you still have to pay even when it doesn't work). For women over 42, the failure rate is 96%. That's a success rate of only 4%.
For a woman age 40 and up who has never carried a child to term, trying to get pregnant is a fool's errand. She has almost NO CHANCE AT ALL even of conceiving, much less carrying even a defective child to live birth. By the time a woman reaches age 43, her chances of getting pregnant are 1 to 2 percent. This includes women who have had previous successful pregnancies.
Many women use hormonal birth control (HBC). After discontinuation of hormonal IUDs, fertility is eventually restored after a few months. With discontinuation of oral contraceptives, "The Pill", the effects reverse but it will take up to a year to reach full fertility.
KEEP IN MIND: HBC affects and alters women's internal body chemistry and skews her attraction vectors. HBC can change who she is sexually attracted to and who she finds attractive. It's proven that women's attraction cues change depending on when and whether they're ovulating. HBC works by preventing ovulation, which is important for determining attraction cues.
EDIT: Thank you, u/honestyovercivility:
The way in which HBC impacts attraction cues is very important and to elaborate:
---Women on HBC are more likely to select low testosterone, less masculine men who are more agreeable and less dominant
---Women not on HBC are more likely to select high testosterone, more masculine men who are less agreeable and more dominant (ed: this tendency is most pronounced during ovulation)
As one can imagine, the shift in attraction from one to another can really create problems in the marriage (End edit)
So, it stands to reason: If a woman dates/marries you while on the Pill, then goes off the Pill, she can lose attraction to you simply because of the hormones' effect: She was attracted to you while on the pill, but now while off the Pill and trying to conceive, she is not. That's because she's returned to her natural cycles. She wasn't ovulating while dating you and when she married you. Now she is ovulating, and her attraction cues and vectors are now "normal". You're now seeing who she really is, without hormone enhancement. But you dated and married the abnormal, hormonally affected version of her. This is just one reason why so many women lose attraction for men they married - they went off HBC and then discovered the hormones had fucked up their attraction vectors, influencing them to marry lower T, "father types" they aren't all that sexually attracted to, men they otherwise wouldn't have married without the hormonal overlay.
The earlier a woman started having live births, the easier it will be for her to continue getting pregnant and having live births. Stated another way, the earlier she started having kids, the easier it will be for her to get pregnant again and have more children as she ages.
For example: If a woman had her first healthy live birth at 25, she'll probably be able to bear and have healthy children until her early 40s. That's probably 6 kids, if she wants them. A woman who had her first at 27 can probably have at least another 3 children until she's at least 40, if she wants to.
Hell: Even a woman who had her first at 30 can probably have at least another 2 kids until her late 30s. Assuming good prior health, few to no STDs, and didn't spend a decade on HBC.
But, conversely, if she had an abortion at 21, chlamydia at 24, was on the pill for 8 years after that, did some heavy drinking and partying, gained/lost some weight, and then started trying to get pregnant at 33, well, she's going to have problems.
If she had been on the pill for 12 years, gets married at 35, and then starts trying to get pregnant immediately at 35 with no prior pregnancy history and having spent the prior 20 years sexually active while using all manner of artificial birth control? Yeah, that's gonna be a toughie.
If she's 25 years old but weighs 300 pounds and has polycystic ovarian syndrome and insulin dependent diabetes, yeah, getting her knocked up will be tough. And even if she can get pregnant, she will have a hard pregnancy and increased risks of birth defects and miscarriage.
If she's 33 and otherwise in good health, but has been on the pill for 15 or more years and had to get treated for chlamydia and gonorrhea during her party girl days? Her carrying one healthy non-Down's child to term and live birth is a fucking miracle.
These are facts. Medically and clinically observable and proven facts.
I do not care how women feel about these facts. I do not care that these are "hatefacts" and "thoughtcrime" to women. Hell, I don't care even how YOU feel about these facts. They are facts and you ignore them at your peril.
This right here is why you as men have a right to know about your woman's sexual history. Because it affects YOU and your ability to have the children and families you want (if you want them).
Because she very well might not be able to get pregnant at all.
Because if she can get pregnant, the pregnancy might threaten her health.
Because even if she can get pregnant, she might not be able to give birth to healthy children.
Because YOU will be the one paying for the miscarriage treatments and the fertility treatments and the psychotherapy.
Because as much as she will suffer, YOU will suffer right along with her.
Any woman who demands that you sire her children, has an obligation to tell you her past medical and sexual history, BECAUSE OF THESE FACTS. And you have a right to know that medical and sexual history.
It's your money. It's your time. It's your commitment. It's your marriage. It's your family. YOU will be the one she looks to to pay the bills. Society will demand that YOU pay the bills, take the responsibility, and father those kids and pay for it all.
Since it's your money, your life, your time, and your potential family, YOU have an absolute RIGHT to know these things.
NisKrickles 4y ago
My first wife contracted diabetes during her second pregnancy. She was never thereafter able to carry a fetus to term. She must have had like 5 or 6 miscarriages after my youngest was born.
Stahlboden 4y ago
I dont argue, but the main reason I have the right to know is because the commitment is my choice, I can give it under any most superficial condition or never at all.
rombios 4y ago
Would give you gold had i any
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
Vinniikii 4y ago
This post reminded me how promiscuity is not inherently a symbol of a prosperous, well-managed society
moorekom Mod 4y ago
u/Aldabruzzo
I think this should be cross posted and pinned in the main sub for a couple of days. It's a very good piece and it is necessary information that men should be aware of.
Itsjustnickg 4y ago
If I had coins, I would give an award! That point on birth control changing attraction vectors is STELLAR! In fact I think there should be a post dedicated just to that.
RRFdev 4y ago
Stellar indeed. Heck, I would just say that using birth control pills is in itself a red flag, because...
This tells me that a woman doesn't care about protecting herself against STDs. Birth control pills allow her to be fucked raw.
Also this tells me that this woman is setting herself to one day pregnancy trap a man. This could be intentional in how she skips taking a pill without you knowing, or unintentional that she gets pregnant IN SPITE of taking pills.
Also as OP excellently posts, a woman on pills is not on her truest self, so if she feels attraction for you while on a pill-taking state, it's fake.
sm_ac_k 4y ago
On the topic of attraction, I learned about pubic hair acting as a vector for pheromones. Pubic hair captures pheromones when they are released from the body. If there is no pubic hair, as it is very common in modern society for ladies to remove their pubic hair, there is nothing to capture the pheromones and create the intended attraction effect.
TwentyOneBeers 4y ago
The herpes part is exagerated, unless she has active pussy herpes at the exact moment of birth it doesn't matter, 66% of the human population has latent herpes, but the baby is safe, the bug is just sleeping in an inactive form in your ganglia.
Herpes is a non-issue unless she has it active during birth or if it activates after the birth, but avoiding it in potential partners is impossible since ...66% of people have it.
But if you see fucking crusts on someone lips or genetelia do fucking avoid it(and anything it touches) like a plague
[deleted] 4y ago
66% of people have it .. and you say it's impossible? Technically it's probably much more likely in a girl that has had many partners, which many do. So talk to non promiscuous girls, and you're probably down to 50%. So yes, you'll have to ask a few non promiscuous girls if they have an STD. Hopefully they're honest. But having to ask 3-4 people a question til you get the right answer shouldn't be considered "impossible".
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 4y ago
You might be right about herpes and pregnancy issues being exaggerated. I'm pretty sure that transmission to a sex partner that doesnt have it is rare, if the infected partner avoids sex during active outbreaks.
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
[deleted] 4y ago
Yeah, um, moron, chlamydia is a serious disease that can sterilize you if left untreated. It especially fucks women up. Or, at least it can.
I call bullshit on most college students getting chlamydia - if that were true, it would be an epidemic of unparalleled proportions. My sexual history has nothing to do with this. This site isn't for you, sweetie. Run along now.
houseoftolstoy Mod 4y ago
Glad you added this as a separate post. It certainly did a better job discussing this subject than what I had provided in my post.
[deleted] 4y ago
Sure. I wanted it to focus on facts, not feelings. Too many people are getting severely disappointed and hurt when they find out how hard it is to get pregnant when the female halves of those couplings go off the pill in the mid to upper 30s, then expect to be able to have 3 or 4 kids. And they can't do it. They'll be lucky to get one.
It's a hell of a huge disappointment to a woman to find out how she was lied to. She's told she had plenty of time to get married and have children, so she waits until she's 35 to start getting serious about getting married. Then when she starts trying to get pregnant at 37 or so, finds out she can't, or it's really really difficult. Sucks.
RRFdev 4y ago
I do believe that taking pills do damage the ovaries thus ruin the chances of getting pregnancy. I wonder if this is true though.
rombios 4y ago
Most were told by their old school mothers but didnt listen.
kyledontcare 4y ago
A chick I work with just had a baby at 39, her second.
Herb-apple 4y ago
My mom had her first born at 21, and she had me (her 6th kid) at 41.
[deleted] 4y ago
Higher risk doesn't mean the kid will always be retarded ....
ulgulanoth 4y ago
Actually the fertility peak is 18-19 years old, from 20 onwards it's a downhill ride, but early 20s is not too noticeable a decline as the fall is in the 1% range per year. While not really socially acceptable, women are biologically designed to be having kids early.
totalyrespecatbleguy 4y ago
My endocrinology professor made all the girls in our class rage when he implied that. He was this old Spanish guy and he gave 0 fucks about anything not related to science. He literally said “that historically and according to your hormones you are already entering your midlife, especially if you’re a female” to a classroom of 22 year olds
TheLaughingMelon 4y ago
Yeah, women are actually most fertile in their late teens.
And for most of human history it was completely normal for women to get pregnant at 15 or 16 and become mothers before they even turned 18.
Then, during the Industrial Revolution, more and more girls moved to the cities to work (and I mean girls, most of them were in their teens) and they got married to the men there.
This left a bunch of older women without husbands, and they got very angry. They knew they couldn't compete with their younger, more beautiful rivals so instead they decided to shame men by mocking them for marrying girls much younger than them (even though it is completely natural) and by telling them they should marry women their own age (when biology itself shows that women lose fertility like anything after 30) and that they should stick to one woman their entire lives (polygamy is the natural way of life, both men's and women's bodies are made to accomodate this). The only one benefitting from such a marriage is a woman, remember that.
Yep, the original incels were feminists. They didn't really care about women's rights, they just wanted the government to give them husbands. Look up the Bachelor tax and other policies designed to get men married and keep them married.
And so the Social Puritan Movement (ironic they called themselves "pure") became the feminist movement and you know the rest.
You can also see how in barely a century it has torn apart families, created such animosity between the sexes and how much it has reduced your average woman to.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
bouncedeck 4y ago
A lot of people think Bonobo behavior in a food rich zoo environment means they act like that in the wild. They don't. They are really nasty.
TheLaughingMelon 4y ago
Agreed, the word I should have used is polygyny. Sorry for the confusion.
OP has already provided more than enough info on why having multiple partners is NOT THE SAME for men and for women and how it destroys women.
[deleted] 4y ago
Actually it’s just the male body that is equipped for polygamy. To much sex with different men makes a woman go crazy. She retains the DNA of all the men in her body forever. Ever heard of chimerism?
TheLaughingMelon 4y ago
I don't know about retaining DNA from previous partners. Let me look it up.
That is what I meant, sorry if I didn't come off clearly. The word I should have used is polygyny.
Men produce more sperm, they can have sex with multiple women at once and have children with every one of them. Women ovulate only once a month, and she can only have a child once every 9 months no matter how many times she has sex.
What I meant is the other subtle differences between men and women that point towards this. Such as the fact that oxytocin affects both men and women differently, for women, it drives them to bond and nurture, for men it drives them to defend and protect. Women are also more likely to form groups whereas men go solo. This is beneficial for women because they can also help one another in times of need, e.g. if one is pregnant etc.
Even if you look at most animals, you will notice that they live in a similar way.
Some women might read this and think that it's unfair to women. It's not. The reason polygyny is the natural way of life for most animals is because the males are the ones that went out and did everything, so they were also exposed to more and so died more often.
You can also see this in human males. In terms of strength, speed and endurance they far outclass women (because they have evolved to be better) but for things that were not used such as IQ the same pattern nearly always manifests itself.
For men the distribution is extremely broad, with more men at the top and bottom than women whereas for women it is very narrow and concentrated only in a small region.
The reason for this is because men are more mouldable so that they can better adapt to their surroundings. Even when growing, baby girls get their teeth faster, they hit puberty earlier and grow mature faster than boys do. The reason for this is not that they are superior (as some of them might think) rather it is the opposite; they mature faster because their role is far more limited. As the old saying goes, "A glass fills much faster than a bucket."
So men die much more, and if a man only mated with a single woman, the entire population would die out. So men have evolved to be able to mate with multiple women to produce as much offspring as they can.
This is what has kept the numbers up. But now men are still doing the most dangerous jobs. The very industries that keep civilisation running (construction, mining, agriculture) are done almost completely by men. Almost all work deaths are men. Almost all war casualties are men.
Yet because of monogamy women are slowly increasing in numbers. Women also have better healthcare and life expectancy than men in ANY country even those were women are "oppressed".
richterlevania3 4y ago
I'm GMOW, but also I'm a biologist. That's not true at all. Chimerism is a fact, but has nothing to do with sex.
[deleted] 4y ago
So women don’t retain the DNA from her past partners like I’ve been reading and hearing. I would like this to NOT be true because I find it horrifying and disgusting.
bouncedeck 4y ago
The studies people have been spreading around about this are about some types of insects. They just generalized the case where it does not apply.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
richterlevania3 4y ago
Yeah. We scientists like to see actual evidence. Since it looks like you believe the OP’s claim, I invite you to link me a study, peer reviewed, corroborating that claim.
rebelauthor 4y ago
I learned in grad school that the peak starts at 18 and ends at 24, but of course each woman's biology and genetics are different.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
houseoftolstoy Mod 4y ago
I am most certainly glad that my wife does not use HBC, as it creates more problems than it tries to solve. And I say this knowing full well that an unplanned pregnancy can be a problem that most people want to avoid. It actually is possible to track a woman's fertility signs in order to determine when it is sex will most likely not result in pregnancy, although it does take patience to learn (as well as patience in other aspects).
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
magicmikefx 4y ago
My wife definitely lost attraction to me when I got a vasectomy. But it's a dominance thing. I'd be open to discussion as to how it changes her perception of her man
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
magicmikefx 4y ago
I felt like once I got the procedure done. I could no longer dread game her as effectively.
violetbiscotti 4y ago
what's lost really? now she doesn't fear of you having of kids in an affair? I don't see how it helps dread game. All I can imagine is that her lizard brain is disappointed, or she knows she can't have a kid on the side and pass it off as yours.
magicmikefx 4y ago
Think of it as a form of submission.
violetbiscotti 4y ago
thanks, I understand now.
I was worried because I want to get a vasectomy someday, but she doesn't want that. So in my case I hope it's not seen as submission when I get it after having a few kids.
magicmikefx 4y ago
Ya after we had 2 kids she had the idea and I was hesitant so it was a point of contention that I eventually submitted on.
[deleted] 4y ago
You stated it better than I did. Will copy and insert into the post.
[deleted] 4y ago
And this is to say nothing of HPV - human papilloma virus, the virus that causes genital warts.
HPV is very common, with some sources estimating that as many as 50% of all adults have contracted it. Most public health officials believe almost all sexually active adults are having or have had sex with someone who has HPV. But, just because you had sex with someone who has HPV doesn't mean you got exposed to HPV. And just because you get HPV doesn't mean you get genital warts.
HPV exposure almost always consists of one wart outbreak. You get the warts taken care of, and you never have another outbreak again. You do, however, carry the virus in your body for the rest of your life.
HPV usually doesn't affect pregnancy or fetal health. Transmitting the virus from mother to child during birth is rare but can happen. The greatest danger HPV poses to women is increased risk of cervical cancer. That relates back to the woman's health.
The most common long lasting effect of HPV in heterosexual men is the increased risk of developing throat cancer. Straight men usually contract throat HPV from performing cunnilingus on a woman who has HPV. In recent years there has been an uptick in throat cancer in men, and at least one reputable source links this directly to HPV exposure:
Most cancer specialists also think there's a synergistic effect among diet and lifestyle related to increasing throat cancers. For example, if you use tobacco in any form, you're at higher risk. If you combine tobacco use with longtime heavy drinking, your risk is even higher. If your diet is heavy in fats and sugars causing obesity, your risk is higher still. This of course can be combined with HPV exposure.
Be careful out there.