Post: #1

Quote:I’d say the jury is out on the relationship between paternal age and child psychiatric problems. Yes, there is some possibility that it matters. But it’s probably not necessary to run off to the sperm freezer just yet.

And the feminists wept.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-...any-worse/

Post: #2

Are Older Men’s Sperm Really Any Worse? It all taste the same to me

Post: #3

But unlike freezing eggs it's a very cheap and easy option for men. So if a guy knows in his 20s he wants to wait til he is 50 before he has kids he is looking at a few trips/deposits to the sperm bank at a few hundred dollars each and an annual storage fee of another couple hundred dollars a year. It's maybe 1 /100 the cost and difficulty that women go through when freezing their eggs.

Post: #4

I've seen a few articles out now suggesting older men's sperm isn't any worse than that of a young man, but then I'd be more inclined to believe that it's not just age, but also physical condition that plays a part. There's more overweight and unfit 50 year olds than 20 year olds...it would be far more interesting to make comparisons with older men who are still in decent shape, eat right, healthy lifestyle etc.

Post: #5

This entire debate is pointless.

Lets take two individuals in their mid 60s. One male, one female.

Lets take two individuals in their early 20s. One female, one male.

Let the old man have the young female and the young male have the old female. The object of this is to attempt to create a child.

Which one of these combinations will produce a child?

No matter what anyone says, a woman post menapause cannot have children period.

Trying to argue whether or not the age of a father affects the child's likelihood of defects is pointless when the woman cannot even spit a child out. A woman post menapause is effectively obsolete in nature's eyes when it comes to birth. This alone is enough of a point to win this stupid debate.

Post: #6

Quote:Let’s consider fertility first. You might think that it would be easy to figure out how sperm quality declines by comparing pregnancy rates for the partners of older and younger men. And, in fact, some scientific papers do this. But they have a central problem: Older men tend to be matched with older women. And since we know female fertility declines with age, it’s hard to figure out whether male age has any additional effect. This study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology is a good example of a case where older men appear to have lower fertility, but the effect is impossible to detect when you also adjust for partner age.

It turns out this problem is surmountable with a simple trick: Observe cases where couples are using donor eggs. There’s no reason that the age of the egg donor would be related to the age of the father (indeed, in the data it typically is not) which means you can examine the impact of the father’s age independent of the mother’s.

Studies that do this — here is one nice review in the journal Fertility and Sterility — tend to find that while semen volume (and, hence, sperm count) does decline with age, there is little overall impact on reproductive success (the ability of the sperm to penetrate the egg, fertilize it, etc.).

Post: #7

I've noticed that if you try to tell feminists that the increase in autism in the West is because of women waiting longer to have children, they'll respond that it's actually because of men waiting longer. They claim that older sperm causes an increase in autism, not older ovaries. Has anyone seen a study that refutes this?

Post: #8

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253726/

Quote:Studies that have attempted to assess the impact of male age on fertility have been confounded by the age of the female partner. It is well documented that women have a natural and inevitable decline in fecundity with age. An interesting example is Tietze’s natural history study of the Hutterite population in North America.8 This sect strictly condemns contraception, and therefore serves as an ideal population to observe changes in fertility with age. The study showed that 11% of women were infertile by age 34, 33% by age 40, and 87% by age 45. Further studies have shown that, although there is a mild decrease in fertility in women in their late 20s, a more appreciable deterioration occurs after age 30, and fertility rapidly declines after age 35. In fact, per-cycle fecundity drops from a peak of 25% to 30% per month in the early to mid 20s, to < 5% at age 40.

From a physiologic perspective, the greater impact of age on female fertility is understandable. Compared with an average ejaculate that may contain > 40 million sperm, the female fetus has a peak of 6 to 7 million oocytes at approximately 20 weeks of gestation. This number falls through fetal development and at birth there are 1 to 2 million viable oocytes remaining. By the time she reaches puberty, there are only 300,000 to 500,000 oocytes remaining. During the 35 to 40 years of a woman’s reproductive life, she will ovulate 400 to 500 of these oocytes and the rest will be lost to atresia. The ovary has no capacity to regenerate oocytes. This is in stark contrast to the male, who can produce upwards of 100 million sperm a day.

I urge you to read the pubmed article, because there is more and some interesting points, and they do think on average increasing paternal age is problematic as compared to men 20-35. The issue with this is that it is obvious and common sense, so the question is "To what degree"?

My feeling is that the men of the 1970s and 1980s when supposed controls (and these are only referred to I haven't seen the Ford or other studies "controlling" for female age at pregnancy) were taken place also are indeed average men. What did they have going for them? Possible less environmental toxins (debatable) but what goes against them is general knowledge of nutrition, fitness, and tobacco use. These could be relatively huge. If you know anything about these, I'd be hard pressed to believe you wouldn't be better than the average male at that time.

The issue, ultimately, is that it likely has more to do with hormonal aging, libido, and partner function (female age and fecundity). I don't doubt that males over 35 are 25% (fertility rate after six cycles) compared to 52% under that age. I think the biology makes it tougher, but not significantly so, and my hunch is that the reason is selected out genetically. The sperm that eventually penetrate an egg to conceive a human by an older guy are precisely the ones that are not defective, relative to the others he produces, which is why the task requires either more time, greater fitness, or more sex to overcome the added problems of age. Notice that the intimation is that ALL sperm produced at advanced age are in some way damaged, which I don't believe to be the case. As we would expect on the board, this is far more of a lefty envy statement (social commentary) to try to loop biological realities of women as akin to men. Which is obviously a lie, and this is another example.

I hope this was interesting.

Post: #9

(05-05-2014 09:03 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  This entire debate is pointless.

Lets take two individuals in their mid 60s. One male, one female.

Lets take two individuals in their early 20s. One female, one male.

Let the old man have the young female

In the interest of science I'd like to volunteer



Its true that I'm not in my 60's but practice does make perfect

Post: #10

When I finally bought me some "mandated" health insurance, after having had none for 13 years, I was like "Screw this, I'm using every last bit of this insurance so I can help bankrupt the system and bring it down."

Included in that usage was a sperm count test, just because I'd never had one, it cost nothing, and I was curious. The experience wasn't too unpleasant, either, mind you.

Result: "OMFG I'm not 25 anymore, and it shows".

YMMV

Post: #11

I've noticed that if you try to tell feminists that the rise in autism in the West is due to women waiting longer to have children, they'll reply that it's actually because men are waiting longer and that old sperm is the culprit. Are there any scientific studies that anyone knows of that addresses this issue?

Post: #12

It's just hamster.

Post: #13

(03-10-2017 12:48 PM)C-Note Wrote:  I've noticed that if you try to tell feminists that the rise in autism in the West is due to women waiting longer to have children, they'll reply that it's actually because men are waiting longer and that old sperm is the culprit. Are there any scientific studies that anyone knows of that addresses this issue?

Tell them quit being so paranoid, just let the old guys bang out the young girls and we'll have our answer.

But that would be a double loss for them.

Post: #14

Old man cum has longer telomeres on the chromosomes, which is essentially DNA padding that wears off as you age, protecting the information-containing DNA on the inside. Presumably this is an adaptation to environments where old men with resources are the ones who get to breed, so their offspring are more likely to have a longer lifespan and themselves become old men with resources.

Post: #15

(03-10-2017 12:10 PM)C-Note Wrote:  I've noticed that if you try to tell feminists that the increase in autism in the West is because of women waiting longer to have children, they'll respond that it's actually because of men waiting longer. They claim that older sperm causes an increase in autism, not older ovaries. Has anyone seen a study that refutes this?

The best you can do is find a competing study about the origins of autism, which shouldn't be hard because there are about a million theories with at least one study to support them.

I'm sure I have seen studies that correlate maternal age with autism.

Since this issue comes up so often maybe I'll do a thread on the competing theories soon. I've been living in the "autism world" for about 14 years and throughout it seems like my family and friends have sent me every 'helpful' article about autism that they've read.

Post: #16

(05-05-2014 07:32 PM)Cr33pin Wrote:  Are Older Men’s Sperm Really Any Worse? It all taste the same to me

Came in here specifically to make that joke.

Beaten to the punch by three years.

Post: #17

(03-10-2017 12:48 PM)C-Note Wrote:  I've noticed that if you try to tell feminists that the rise in autism in the West is due to women waiting longer to have children, they'll reply that it's actually because men are waiting longer and that old sperm is the culprit. Are there any scientific studies that anyone knows of that addresses this issue?

Why are trying to argue with feminists?

Post: #18

(03-10-2017 04:58 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 07:32 PM)Cr33pin Wrote:  Are Older Men’s Sperm Really Any Worse? It all taste the same to me

Came in here specifically to make that joke.

Beaten to the punch by three years.

Joke?

Post: #19

Ouch.

Win.

Post: #20

(03-10-2017 04:58 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 07:32 PM)Cr33pin Wrote:  Are Older Men’s Sperm Really Any Worse? It all taste the same to me

Came in here specifically to make that joke.

Beaten to the punch by three years.

Post: #21

No point getting involved with the sperm of a 25 year old if that sperm is tainted by excess soy, BPA, pesticides & the like...

Post: #22

(03-10-2017 04:53 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  Old man cum has longer telomeres on the chromosomes, which is essentially DNA padding that wears off as you age, protecting the information-containing DNA on the inside. Presumably this is an adaptation to environments where old men with resources are the ones who get to breed, so their offspring are more likely to have a longer lifespan and themselves become old men with resources.

It's funny to think about, we're not sure about this yet, but certainly it is a possibility. A self reinforcing reality of biology would be another thing that "progressive" women would both love and hate us for (depending on how hot they are and if they get some of those resources)

(-;

Post: #23

(03-11-2017 11:10 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:53 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  Old man cum has longer telomeres on the chromosomes, which is essentially DNA padding that wears off as you age, protecting the information-containing DNA on the inside. Presumably this is an adaptation to environments where old men with resources are the ones who get to breed, so their offspring are more likely to have a longer lifespan and themselves become old men with resources.

It's funny to think about, we're not sure about this yet, but certainly it is a possibility. A self reinforcing reality of biology would be another thing that "progressive" women would both love and hate us for (depending on how hot they are and if they get some of those resources)

(-;

It fits with what's been observed in other species, mainly that fast breeding organisms have shorter lifespans. On a genetic level it makes logical sense: if you're a rat then odds are you'll get eaten by something within a couple years, so there's no selection pressure against genetic defects that would crop up. And pet rats tend to die of cancer.

Long lifespans in China are the result of natural selection as well. An agrarian culture that promotes gerontocracy will tend to select for a long lived phenotype (short and skinny so your heart doesn't explode when you turn 50).

Post: #24

One of the sad cruel facts that no amount of feminist hamstering can dismiss is that an 80 year old man can impregnate a 16 year old woman, but no fucking way will it happen the other way around.....

Post: #25

This guy must know what's going on...

96-year-old Indian 'is world's oldest father'

Quote:Ramajit Raghav of Kharkhoda village, near Sonepat, Haryana, close to India's capital New Delhi, became a father for the first time in 2010 when he was 94.

Last week became a father for the second time when his young wife bore him a son.

His record-breaking virility was reconfirmed on Tuesday as politicians in neighbouring Punjab claimed an increase in alcohol consumption and drug use was weakening sperm count in the state. Mr Raghav attributes his own virility to a teetotal lifestyle and a diet rich in fruit and dairy.

"We had planned for another baby after my first son was born in 2010. It's a blessing to have a baby at now and I am enjoying fatherhood at this age.

"I have led a very simple life. I didn't marry for long and followed a strict diet. I've taken milk, butter and fruits everyday since my childhood. We are absolutely delighted to have another member in the family. It's a great feeling for both of us," he said.

Neither he nor his wife are planning any more children, and they have decided she will be sterilised rather than he undergo a vasectomy, to make sure they do not have a third.

"My wife will undergo a tubectomy operation this year. We aren't planning more children, two are more than enough and I have limited financial resources, which can only sustain their needs. I want to send them to school and wish to see them lead a respectable life," he said.