No Baby for Old Men?

I turned 35 a few months ago, and since then the floodgates have opened on one sunny piece of unsolicited advice: "If you're going to have kids, you'd better hurry up," as if I didn't realize I was nearing my best-by date for both motherhood and youth.

You'd have to be living in a cave not to have heard the many hazards of being a 35-plus woman, especially if you're breedingly inclined: starting with increased trouble conceiving, (and if I manage that) of having a baby with Down's, autism, low birth weight and a plethora of other ills. There's also now almost certainty that someone will write the words "elder prima" (elderly mother) on my chart before they put it and me on the shelf.

The common wisdom about the pitfalls of 35-plus motherhood goes against what's happening in the tabloids, of course, unattainability being their bread and butter. Every time you open their URL or pages, another 40-something celeb is pregnant (often with twins) or is adopting a baby. Being an "elder" mother can carry status: not only can it suggest you have money to throw at (expensive) fertility treatments or even surrogacy, but also that you're likely someone who has put career first, another source of kudos in North America (more than, say, being a teen parent).

But it's different for those of us without personal baby entourages in the form of nurses and nannies. And until now, it's been different for men than women. In fact, it's at the crux of the double standard when it comes to sexiness, power and age. The few people who bother to ask how old my partner is (43) tend to wave their hands at the number. "That's young for a guy," most say. It means I'm eight years behind him in my career, if you want to look at it that way, but already older than him biologically. I'm an immature "elder" with risks.

It's not just that he and his pals are viewed as capable of getting breeding and other jobs done, they're often viewed as downright desirable due to the increased wealth and social status they accumulate as they grey. There are many famous older dads who often get props for still being sexy: David Bowie (at 53), Mick Jagger (at 57), Michael Douglas (at 58), Rod Stewart (at 60), Paul McCartney (at 61), Eric Clapton (at 59), Pierre Trudeau (72), Charlie Chaplin (at 73), Saul Bellow (at 84), Pablo Picasso (at 68), David Letterman (at 56), Larry King (at 65 and 66), Woody Allen (at 51), Warren Beatty (at 62), Dennis Quaid (50) and Jack Nicholson (at 53), to name a mere sample.

There are also famous stories about men who have fathered children into their 80s and 90s, such as Australian mine worker Les Colley, who was 92 years, 10 months when he fathered a son, Oswald, in 1992. "I never thought [my new wife] would get pregnant so easy, but she bloody well did," he told newspapers at the time."

The number of older dads generally is growing: in the U.K., the average age of fathering a child is 32, but figures from the U.K.'s Office for National Statistics show that in 2004 more than 75,000 babies were born to fathers aged 40 and over -- more than one in 10 of all children born. And according to US-based National Center for Health Statistics, in 2004 about 24 in every 1000 men aged 40 to 44 fathered a child. This is up almost 18 per cent from a decade ago.

So I'm heartened that scientists are now terminating at least one unwanted piece of gender nonsense. Until now, there's been extensive research into and coverage of the health problems associated with older motherhood, but scant attention paid to any potential difficulties faced by the children of older men. But the increasing drips of research trickling in about the consequences of older sperm were all collected in the New York Times mag this weekend. And it's pretty conclusive that aging sperm are no more agile or shiny than saggy eggs. Men and women have a pretty similar biological clock.

Researchers just analyzed tests done on 33,000 American children that showed that the older the man when a child is conceived, the lower a child's score is likely to be on tests of concentration, memory, reasoning and reading skills, at least through age seven. "It adds weight to a new consensus-in-the-making: there is no fountain of youth for sperm, no 'get out of aging free' card," as the NYT story said.

And men don't have to be all that old to be "too old." The article goes on to summarize several past studies. French researchers reported last year that the chance of a couple's conceiving begins to fall when the man is older than 35, and falls sharply if he is older than 40. British and Swedish researchers have calculated that the risk of schizophrenia begins to rise for those whose fathers were over 30 when their babies were born. And another Swedish study has found that the risk of bipolar disorder in children begins to increase when fathers are older than 29, and is highest if they are older than 55. British and American researchers found that babies born to men over the age of 40 have significantly greater risk of autism than do those born to men under 30. (The age of the mother, in most of these studies, showed little or no correlation.)

And the interesting part isn't just what clearing up these misconceptions means scientifically, but what it might mean socially.

Firstly, it's essentially "why we see women as 'old' and men as 'distinguished'... What if 30-year-old women started looking at 50-year-old men as damaged goods, what with their washed-up sperm, meaning those 50-year-olds might actually have to date (gasp!) women their own age?" writes Lisa Belkin in the NYT.

Secondly, my years as a teacher showed me that there's a well-established tendency to blame the mother for everything from birth defects to missing homework. The new info about dodgy sperm might mean people start to view dads as culpable genetically and therefore parentally.

Finally, women "are the ones who hold the time lines and calendars in our heads, who have to surrender space in our bodies and clear time in our lives," Belkin continues. "Too soon could derail a career. Too late could risk infertility. Becoming a mother means compromising with biology -- 'settling' for a mate or for single-parenthood or for an ill-timed career interruption -- in order to beat that clock."

Some daddy blogs have suggested we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater: that older dads have many advantages including being truly "ready," and also more patient. "Despite my advanced age, my kids are still among the smartest, most beautiful and well-behaved on the planet," blogs Great Dad.

I'm sure they are. The evidence doesn't suggest that every older dad (or mom) has wonky DNA. And sure, older men could still be considered as good mates due to their increased ability to provide for and therefore protect their children.

But the evidence suggests women might get some different consideration now, and actually be about to come a long way, baby.

This post originally appeared in The Tyee.

Comments

[Montreaux1991]

Autism and other mental disorders are on the rise PERIOD. I don't think the age of a parent at a child's conception has as much to do with it as researchers would like to believe.

I blame water and air pollution, GMO crops, overuse of pesticides, fertilizers, insecticides, antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals. We've turned into walking biohazard zones, people.

[jstowe100]

I have always wondered why women's sex drives tend to peak in their forties; certainly not to make babies.

If we would really follow the call of the wild, women would be marrying and having babies when they're 18-20, with older husbands. Then, when these older husbands pass on, low and behold these women are in their forties, able to help their young daughters with their families. In their spare time, these forty -something women can dally with the 18-20 year old guys. In this way, the older women would be teaching men how to please their future wives, who will be younger and know nothing.

[mydwyf]

Young men who have been groomed by cougars ? Yuk. Ditto with young women having babies with men old enough to be their fathers. Partners of about the same age, in their mid twenties to early thirties, are the most successful from a reproductive perspective and also from the viewpoint of having enough energy to be dynamic parents.

[naschkatze]

I've known couples where one partner is much older than the other. Unless you are planning coldly to divorce them when they get really old, the older partners have all kinds of health and emotional issues as they age. A woman still active in her forties may be caring for a chronically ill husband in his sixties. There's a problem with insurance when there is a big discrepancy in age. I've known women who have to work far beyond what they planned on just to keep insurance. When you are both closer it age, you can grow old together and it's not as trying.

[mydwyf]

Wow, the guys are sure defending their aging (oops, the politically correct term would be 'post mature') sperms here ! Why a young woman would want to breed with someone a generation older is beyond me.

[jstowe100]

I have to admit, my instincts followed this pattern as well. Now, in my forties, I wouldn't hesitate to be involved with a 60,70 even 80 yr old. However, in my twenties (with marriage, kids, and family my driving instincts) I was repulsed when an older man came onto me.

[gotborked]

I don't think it should surprise anyone that men as well as women would face fertility issues as they age; however, it would be interesting to see a sort of side-by-side comparison of male and female complications. Though an increased risk in autism is nothing to laugh at, I'm not sure if lower test scores through age seven (perhaps those years before daddy retires), and "the risk of schizophrenia begin[ning] to rise" are as severe as the consequences faced by older women (large leaps in cases of more severe birth defects, retardation, and a more definite loss of fertility).
Regardless, our society can only benefit from information that gives men or women pause to consider the ramifications of pushing back the decision to enter adulthood any further than we already do.

[Vickster]

Re: "Regardless, our society can only benefit from information that gives men or women pause to consider the ramifications of pushing back the decision to enter adulthood any further that we already do."

All I can say is Amen.

[thepianodiva]

Great article, Ms. Richmond.. It is only logical. There is a still a tremendous double standard in this world. Men's ability to reproduce into older ages represents one of the last bastions of male privilige and that may be while they continue to cling to it. But of course, everyone ages and everyone is going to die. A man who contemplates a child at 60 needs to ask himself if his teen offspring will want a parent of 75. The idea that this is nature is misleading. In nature the younger bucks ultimately chase off the old breeders at some point. When women contemplate marrying a much older man, they should consider if they want to take care of him when he falls ill or just gets old and crotchety. Then when he dies, they will face their own problems with finding another partner because the old guys are still trying to recapitulate their 20's with younger women. (not all of them, of course) And btw Vanessa-stay positive. I had my son at 41. He is a wonderful person-smart and talented. My pregnancy was perfectly healthy. I am not boasting-just want to give you support. I know many women who had great kids over the age of 35-so do not despair. (Of course, the father was 10 years younger than me-what's good for the goose is good for the gander)

[bosunj]

Oh those awful MEN and their testosterone!

[newshawk14]

I think your argument supports the old adage of spare the rod and spoil the child.

[Str8blkandrich]

Well I am 36 years old with the body of 26 year old....I dont plan on having children till I am in my late 40's.....yet my future wife must be at least in her 20's since a young age is the most important aspect of having a healthy child with a woman....If the womb is to old the baby may not survive.... A women who is her 30's and can't find or keep a man should ask herself why? Not make excuses that deflect from the real problem which is her. Women are nothing but machines for producing children said Napoleon Bonaparte, I would wholeheartdly agree.

[Citizenofreality]

Please give the 26 year old their body back and please stay out of the gene pool, you are too shallow to be swimming in it.

[Vickster]

You're attitude towards women is atrocious. I mean, come on buddy. Do you really think a woman is nothing more than a womb that you can buy because you're "Str8blkandrich"? And assuming you actually manage to con a young woman into marrying you when you're finally ready to breed and your child is a daughter, are you going to tell you're baby girl that she's nothing more than a machine for producing children?

[Str8blkandrich]

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: ithas provided her with super abundant beauty and charm for a FEW YEARS at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honourably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapond she needs for securing her existence, and at just the timeshe needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two chidbeds, and probally for the same reason.

Age is the primary consideration that guides our choice and inclination. On the whole, we accept it as the age from the years when menstruation begins to those when it ceases; but we give a decided preference to the period between the ages of eighteen and twenty-eight. Outside those years no woman can attract us; an old woman, that is to say a women who no longer menstruates, excites our aversion.

[jeanrenoir]

Picasso, Chaplin, and Anthony Quinn, to name a famous few, make a mockery of "equality research" in reality. Nature is gender-blind, and cares nothing about "equality." All it wants is as much copulation as possible, with as many men spreading their seed among fertile young things as possible, for as long as possible. Anyone who doubts this just needs to get out more.

[Vickster]

You're right. Nature is gender-blind. That's why males are more expendable than females where the survival of a species is concerned. And among wild animals most males never breed because they either die young or they aren't strong enough to control a territory by fending off other males.

[superstition]

"i think you've maybe gone a stretch too far here. No matter how old the man, the sperm are new. Men are not born with a lifetime supply of sperm that gets old, they produce fresh sperm every day."

The problem is progressive DNA degradation, also known as aging.

Most people don't know, for instance, that not only does living near a steel mill damage one's DNA permanently, that damage is passed on to future generations. I read that in a journal my boss gave me to peruse when I worked in an Environmental H & S office.

[TJCole]

"We must protect, our purity of essence..!"

[tommyc1016]

A funny thing to do is get a secret vasectomy, and then pretend to be all freaked out that you can't seem to conceive. Laugh riot.

[MerhabaAbi]

It's all fun and games until somebody says, "honey, we're going to have a baby!"

[GrahamInCanada]

i think you've maybe gone a stretch too far here. No matter how old the man, the sperm are new. Men are not born with a lifetime supply of sperm that gets old, they produce fresh sperm every day.

So, rather than old ova, if the studies are correct, they have noted that new sperm of old men might have something wrong that can show up in the child.

The reason I point this out is the next step is to figure out what is wrong with the new sperm of old men, and if it is universal or particular, what causes it, and if anything can be done. Does it indicate any other cell reproduction problems in the man? If cells are not reproducing properly into sperm, it would have a different cause, different approach and different prognosis than cells that are decades old not working, like ovum.

[Chrisanne]

This is common sense. The idea that every cell in the male body ages EXCEPT sperm is ridiculous. You may think sperm are "new," but the manufacturing process is not. The genetic material that goes into that manufacturing process is not. As a result, the sperm isn't as motile, meaning older fathers have a more difficult time impregnating their mates. And the diminished quality of the sperm results in higher incidences of miscarriage, autism, schizophrenia, as well as slightly lower IQ. And perhaps that Down Syndrome isn't all mom's fault, either.

There is nothing "wrong" with the "new sperm" of old men that can be corrected. You can't "correct" old age. Everyone likes to pretend that he or she isn't aging, and what better way to keep up the illusion than to continue to reproduce? But biology, ethics--and once again, common sense--dictate that older people are not meant to have babies. End of story.

[GrahamInCanada]

Hmm, exactly as I said, it would be tomfoolery to pretend that these studies came to the conclusions that Chrisanne came to.

The fact that all human sperm manufactured is via new cell reproduction is to indicate that there is a lot of noise in the manufacture of human sperm that is not present in the manufacture of human ovum, which is manufactured in total in a narrow space it time, called gestation, after which it ages.

That there has been discovered a pattern in the noise in human sperm reproduction in first world countries where it has been long established that there are environmental impacts on the production of sperm and ovum, and the survival of either, is not a surprise.

Sadly, it is also not a surprise that Chrisanne would thing that this is argument: "You may think sperm are 'new'" as if it was up for debate. Sadly, Chrisanne, neither sperm nor ovum are part of the sexist debate; either and both end up as men and women, you know.

[ILObamican]

As a 38 year-old man in his first marriage to a vivacious 23 year-old (yeah, I know... God gave me a coupon), I can empathize. It's not a pressing psychological urge, but it does gnaw at the back of my mind from time to time. "Am I too old to start a family?"

My wife and I arent' "trying", actively, but we've taken the "if it happens, it happens and it'll be wonderful" approach... it's been over a year of rolling the dice, and well... no Yahtzee.

I believe this is alright for now. Both of us are returning to college in the fall, and a sprout in the garden could make things more complicated... but like I said, if it happens, it happens.

And it'll be wonderful.

[SarcasticFringehead]

Nice try Vanessa, but your attempt to give guys the angst ridden problems you females have over getting older is just not going to work. I've never heard a fellow male complain or worry about the fact that he might be too old to biologically father a child.
Never.
Contrast this to the many women I've known whose "Baby Bells" were ringing in alarm and were frantic to have children when they turned thirty-something.
No, if anything I've heard guys say that their significant other was pressuring them into starting ANOTHER family in middle-age, men who had been divorced and had children previously.
It's true Vanessa, that there is a double standard when it comes to men and women, but it's nature who has imposed it, not culture.

[Sepulchre]

Just because they don't worry about it doesn't mean they shouldn't. The data she used in the article for increased rates of autism and learning disabilities is real. I mean if you don't care about increased health risks to your newborn then that is you, don't speak for all men.

[perk]

Nail on head.

[Sepulchre]

Just because they don't worry about it doesn't mean they shouldn't. The data she used in the article for increased rates of au tism and learning disabilities is real. I mean if you don't care about increased health risks to your newborn then that is you, don't speak for all men.

[SarcasticFringehead]

As I indicated above; it is women pressuring middle-aged men to give them babies not the other way around.