3 ms·
Going from kids at 35 to kids at 23 sounds like a bridge too far to me. Your points about having kids later are fair enough, but kids at 23 basically means givi
by danenania 3y ago
Going from kids at 35 to kids at 23 sounds like a bridge too far to me. Your points about having kids later are fair enough, but kids at 23 basically means giving up any opportunity to have a life of your own as an adult. You're going from being a kid yourself directly to being a parent.
To each their own, but I doubt this would be a good idea for most people (or their kids). 28-32 range seems like a more reasonable compromise. Then you at least get your 20s (or most of them) to have some fun, figure yourself out, get your career going, have a failed relationship or two, etc. before taking on 1000% more responsibility and limiting yourself in many different ways.
Also, just speaking for myself personally, I'm 38 (with a 4 year old) and actually feel healthier and more energetic now than I did during my 20s due to taking diet, exercise, sleep, and other health/lifestyle things much more seriously. I don't know if I'll continue to feel this way into my 40s, but I guess my point is that age definitely isn't the only factor--I'm not even sure it's the most important.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoFair enough, and you're likely right that 23 is a bit too early. I'm writing this from a perspective of being 35, with a 4 year old and an almost-2 year old. It's fine now, and I too feel OK in terms of energy levels - but I also fear that, by the time the kids grow up enough for my wife and I to regain some degree of autonomy, neither of us will be strong enough to make good use of it. But maybe it's just me panicking a little.