3 ms·

This line from the article is what stood out most to me "And it's a buzz kill on dates when you feel compelled to ask the guy sitting across from you, clutching

This line from the article is what stood out most to me "And it's a buzz kill on dates when you feel compelled to ask the guy sitting across from you, clutching his craft beer, "So do you think you might want kids someday?"" Is that really the case? I mean if your intention of dating is to meet someone that may eventually turn into a lifelong partner, knowing if their stance on children is congruent with your own definitely seems like something you'd want to hash out pretty darn early.

sillysaurus 13y ago
your intention of dating is to meet someone that may eventually turn into a lifelong partner That's not really typical.
- klipt 13y ago
  I think it's pretty common in certain crowds, for example geeky grad students. And if you're looking for something serious, wouldn't you want to filter out people who just want to use you for a fling?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    It also depends on age and gender. The "biological clock" is not a myth. Women entirely unconcerned about long-term prospects at 22 often do a 180 by 27. The first time I met my now-wife (24), she said in no uncertain terms she didn't want kids. After two years of dating, kids suddenly became super important to her and panic started to set in about possibly not being able to have them.
- ZirconCode 13y ago
  It should be though, shouldn't it?
- skylan_q 13y ago
  I agree that it's not typical. And given that it's not typical, people aren't really serious about starting families and having children. If someone was serious about this sort of thing and actually wanted this, they'd start asking very soon if not right away.
- ISL 13y ago
  Can you back up that assertion? On a per-capita basis (not per date, as casual dating may be more common), I'd guess that many (>60%, to put a number on it) of those in the dating market have at least some notion of a 5+ year future in potential dates. My friends and I have generally looked for partners, not flings. A great long term match can be really worthwhile.
  - sillysaurus 13y ago
    Can you back up that assertion? Those who look for flings date more. Most men who date are looking for flings. Thus, it becomes more likely that most who date are looking for flings. See Jaynes's book "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science"
    - ISL 13y ago
      Hence asking about per-capita, not per date, numbers. :).
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - sillysaurus 13y ago
        Well, most men are looking for flings (biologically). Some women are looking for flings. Whether or not most people are looking for flings depends on whether (A + B) / dating_population is > 0.5. I would suspect it is, but statistics to the contrary would be an interesting discovery.
    - illuminate 13y ago
      "Those who look for flings date more. Most men who date are looking for flings." Most dates don't turn into anything serious, but I doubt most men who bother to date are looking for a "fling", your definition of "date" may just be overbroad.
rayiner 13y ago
It should be noted that the author is in Manhattan, which has a totally ridiculous dating/marriage scene. A small overall disparity in gender ratio can be magnified into a large disparity in the dating population when you bear in mind that most people are paired up at any given moment. So take NYC's overall gender ratio (53% female, 47% male). If you assume 80% of people are in a relationship at any given instant, the actively single pool is actually 1.5 females per 1 male. Women basically have zero leverage in the Manhattan dating scene, which means that it really is difficult to bring up things like kids, because most men here seem to think of kids as something that they'll get around to in their 40's if ever. Hence an article on egg freezing.* *) Which I think is great--I think we need more "home grown" kids in the U.S. and if egg freezing gives people a way to do that, then great.
- klipt 13y ago
  She could move to Silicon Valley and take her pick...
- kevination 13y ago
  The reality of the NYC dating scene might be more complicated, as documented by Jonathan Soma (you can just read the findings if you don't like enabling Java): "The switchover from extra men to extra women starts at 35-39 for most big East Coast cities, but doesn't hit New York until 40-44" http://www.xoxosoma.com/singles/ http://www.xoxosoma.com/singles/
  - sudont 13y ago
    One thing I've never gotten is that there are more women than men (USA), but men have much higher rates of being unattached. Is this a case of men having multiple partners, or am I misunderstanding the math?
    - klipt 13y ago
      The main reason there are more women is that women live longer. This also means that most of the "extra" women are over 70. If you break the population down into age groups (e.g. 0-10, 10-20, etc.) most younger groups have more men than women. Combine this with the fact that younger women tend to pair up with older men, and you get more unattached men in the younger groups (but more unattached women in the older groups).
murtali 13y ago
Her point seems to be that by doing it, she isn't burdened by that question. The idea of freezing your eggs is still way too cost prohibitive for most women. This is unfortunate because it leaves only the "Sheryl Sandberg"s of world- wealthy and educated to take advantage of this opportunity.

sillysaurus 13y ago

your intention of dating is to meet someone that may eventually turn into a lifelong partner That's not really typical.

klipt 13y ago
I think it's pretty common in certain crowds, for example geeky grad students. And if you're looking for something serious, wouldn't you want to filter out people who just want to use you for a fling?
- rayiner 13y ago
  It also depends on age and gender. The "biological clock" is not a myth. Women entirely unconcerned about long-term prospects at 22 often do a 180 by 27. The first time I met my now-wife (24), she said in no uncertain terms she didn't want kids. After two years of dating, kids suddenly became super important to her and panic started to set in about possibly not being able to have them.
ZirconCode 13y ago
It should be though, shouldn't it?
skylan_q 13y ago
I agree that it's not typical. And given that it's not typical, people aren't really serious about starting families and having children. If someone was serious about this sort of thing and actually wanted this, they'd start asking very soon if not right away.
ISL 13y ago
Can you back up that assertion? On a per-capita basis (not per date, as casual dating may be more common), I'd guess that many (>60%, to put a number on it) of those in the dating market have at least some notion of a 5+ year future in potential dates. My friends and I have generally looked for partners, not flings. A great long term match can be really worthwhile.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  Can you back up that assertion? Those who look for flings date more. Most men who date are looking for flings. Thus, it becomes more likely that most who date are looking for flings. See Jaynes's book "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science"
  - ISL 13y ago
    Hence asking about per-capita, not per date, numbers. :).
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - sillysaurus 13y ago
      Well, most men are looking for flings (biologically). Some women are looking for flings. Whether or not most people are looking for flings depends on whether (A + B) / dating_population is > 0.5. I would suspect it is, but statistics to the contrary would be an interesting discovery.
  - illuminate 13y ago
    "Those who look for flings date more. Most men who date are looking for flings." Most dates don't turn into anything serious, but I doubt most men who bother to date are looking for a "fling", your definition of "date" may just be overbroad.

rayiner 13y ago

It should be noted that the author is in Manhattan, which has a totally ridiculous dating/marriage scene. A small overall disparity in gender ratio can be magnified into a large disparity in the dating population when you bear in mind that most people are paired up at any given moment. So take NYC's overall gender ratio (53% female, 47% male). If you assume 80% of people are in a relationship at any given instant, the actively single pool is actually 1.5 females per 1 male. Women basically have zero leverage in the Manhattan dating scene, which means that it really is difficult to bring up things like kids, because most men here seem to think of kids as something that they'll get around to in their 40's if ever. Hence an article on egg freezing.* *) Which I think is great--I think we need more "home grown" kids in the U.S. and if egg freezing gives people a way to do that, then great.

klipt 13y ago
She could move to Silicon Valley and take her pick...
kevination 13y ago
The reality of the NYC dating scene might be more complicated, as documented by Jonathan Soma (you can just read the findings if you don't like enabling Java): "The switchover from extra men to extra women starts at 35-39 for most big East Coast cities, but doesn't hit New York until 40-44" http://www.xoxosoma.com/singles/ http://www.xoxosoma.com/singles/
- sudont 13y ago
  One thing I've never gotten is that there are more women than men (USA), but men have much higher rates of being unattached. Is this a case of men having multiple partners, or am I misunderstanding the math?
  - klipt 13y ago
    The main reason there are more women is that women live longer. This also means that most of the "extra" women are over 70. If you break the population down into age groups (e.g. 0-10, 10-20, etc.) most younger groups have more men than women. Combine this with the fact that younger women tend to pair up with older men, and you get more unattached men in the younger groups (but more unattached women in the older groups).

murtali 13y ago

Her point seems to be that by doing it, she isn't burdened by that question. The idea of freezing your eggs is still way too cost prohibitive for most women. This is unfortunate because it leaves only the "Sheryl Sandberg"s of world- wealthy and educated to take advantage of this opportunity.