Replies

I think the author's point was this: You have two people age 35, a man and a woman. They both want to settle down. The man has his pick of all women age 18 to 99. The woman has her pick of men age 35 to 99.

Older people have more monetary assets. The fact that the 35 year-old man has more money than a 20 year-old man will make the 35 year-old more attractive to women, all things being equal. The fact that the 35 year-old woman has more money than the 20 year-old woman matters not at all to the men who may be interested in her. In fact, a woman would do well to shy away from a man who was interested in her money. So, while men may improve their chances of finding a mate by waiting until their 30's, women degrade their chances of finding a mate at that age.

The fact is that today's mating strategies hurt women tremendously. Even positing that the 35 year-old woman finds a husband, her fertility is quite precarious at that age. At age 35, a woman has a 1 in 400 chance of giving birth to a child with Down's syndrome. At 25 her risk is less than 1 in 2,000.

The age in which a woman first conceives and gives birth also affects fertility. Women who have children in their 20's have a longer fertile life-span than women who wait until they are in their 30's. If you don't use it, you will lose it. The reason why this has been all of the news is the explosion of women seeking fertility treatment. They are crying the blues because their grandmothers had children throughout their 40's, so they thought they could, too. However, their grandmothers also started having children in their early 20's.

Women and men are programmed to seek different things. Women seek stability and financial security from their mates. Men seek a pleasing and nuturing demeanor. All things considered, men get better (more wealthy) as they age. Women's fertility declines as she ages, which means she is the loser when trying to play the same game as a man when they are both in their 30's.