>>34560078
For a woman, it's getting up there. For a man. no.

>>34560078
you a male or a female?
because for a wife 27 is kinda very old
for a dude it 100% fine

>>34560078
For a dude, you have your entire life, but the optimal age is probably 35. For a woman... It's not too late, but it's getting there.

>>34560078
>Is being 27 too old if you want a serious relationship and eventually have kids?
I met my wife when I was 34. We've been together for 20+ years. Our daughter turned 18 this spring.

>>34560099
>>34560192
>>34560197
Holy pedo
27 is literally the average age of marriage. People birth healthy kids around 30 all the time.
Stop forcing people to get married at 21 and let people live their fucking lives first

>>34560228
ahhahaa somebody got mad for marrying a leftover

no bro
at 27 half of her eggs are long gone already
and if you wish to ever have more than 2 kids you are seriously increasing chances of genetic deformities.
>muh people do this nowadays
nonargument
people also invented transgenderism and other satanic rituals, and the moloch big pharma calls it healthy

aha and let’s not even get me started on 100% proven very strong and relevant negative correlation between bodycount and marriage happiness
and let’s be real a female marring at 27 is not a chaste virgin

>>34560228
i agree with this sentiment, but could you start posting this message in exclusively hindi? I'd rather you undermine their birth rates instead. Doing it in english is kind of like kicking a dead horse.

>>34560228
>Hagpost believes retarded children are healthy and men marry stale leftovers in a week

>>34560261
kek

>>34560228
>Holy pedo
Ohh no, you sick fuck, she is 27 years old, how could you? lol

>>34560078
late start bro you have to start looking when you are 10 at the oldest

I'm going to start trying this year. 26 years old btw. Only reason I haven't given up hope is that I look super young so my physical prime is later than most.

>>34560228
>t. Gill Bates.

>>34560228
If you're 27 as a woman and single but want a family that means you have roughly eight years left to find a man who is serious about commitment and providing, date that man for a few years to confirm that he is a suitable partner, and then get pregnant while you're still fertile. Assuming you're also working a full time job, it's really not that much time.

>>34560243
>at 27 half of her eggs are long gone
Oh nooo, whatever will I do with only 5,000,000-1,000,000,000 eggs...
DNA fragmentation affecting placenta & embryo viability and normal development is dependent on sperm quality, which degrades far faster and earlier than a woman's eggs and ability to carry a healthy baby to term.

>>34560228
>let people live their fucking lives first
just say what you mean, you want them to sleep around and get tossed around like hoes

27 is late stage. Better hurry up and calf out or you will die from suicide kek

File: 896499.jpg (44 KB, 540x687)

44 KB JPG

Got my second girlfriend at 29 and at the time she was 26F.
Granted, i got lucky and we came from more-or-less the same background.

My advice? find someone like-minded and similar to you. Forget about "opposites attract", that's bullshit.
If you don't have standards and a basic filter, you'll end up with the wrong people and it'll just take much longer than it's supposed to be.

Don't waste any time on worthless people.

>>34560078
For a woman, you might as well be 100. It's over for you.

No. There are some elderly couples. Some people have children in their 50s as well.

>>34561237
Stop being a retarded cunt, breeding isn't great for both genders past a certain age and while it comes down to the individuals qualities, it still doesn't erase the fact the majority of women shouldn't be having kids past age 30. Now you can cope how you like but there's a reason it's called geriatric pregnancy and not geriatric sex or breeding.

>>34560243
>and let’s be real a female marring at 27 is not a chaste virgin
i think that would be what the anon you were replying to was clearly stating was a pedophilic preference when attempting to marry a 21 or younger woman, yeah. oh, i just read the rest of your nonsense about satanic rituals, disregard any attempts at logic.

>>34560078
not at all. honestly you're likely to have a more stable relationship than the people who married earlier, many of whom will already be headed towards their first divorce or there shortly. however this completely depends on what your general life trajectory is for this. do you feel you need to date someone for multiple years before marriage, and do you feel you require several years of marriage before having a child? if you are female, that will obviously lop off a substantial number of years from your fertile ones. fertility doesn't decline significantly until the mid 30s and plenty of women have what are called "geriatric" pregnancies (bit silly to refer to it as that in your 30s or 40s, but technically appropriate if fertile since early teens). potential birth complications and your general energy levels when raising the child are what i'd be concerned about. my own parents didn't have me until their mid 30s, but that was abnormal for their social group. it is far more common now. another thing to consider is the general psychological damage of the people you will be interacting with, male or female. in your earlier 20s it was more that they were actively still damaging themselves and making destructive life choices. by now it will be more of dealing with that damage already. bitterness is a stereotype for a reason. still, there are plenty of people who turn their lives around at any age, and 27 is hardly "old" by any metric other than in comparison to the 18-24 crowd. you'll be fine, but if this is something you really want it's a good idea to start prioritizing it now. remember kids lock your path for at least 18 years.

>>34562111
>chastity
BAD
>degeneracy
GOOD

why are you like this?

>>34562104
the majority of women shouldn't be having kids period. the majority of people should not be having kids. ideally if they were screened for genetic and psychological abnormalities they would undergo anger management, conflict resolution, early childhood development, emergency training and field medicine, and other forms of basic survival and parental readiness training during the entire pregnancy loop which would be optimized for maximum nutrition and mother-fetal health from roughly the early-mid 20s to perhaps late 20s/early 30s. the world would also be focused on having a proper work-life balance, livable income, maximization of resources and sound financial investment, strong social safety net, and a proliferation of properly trained caregivers if/when the primary caregiver is preoccupied, for the betterment of the child.

we do not live in that world.

>but there's a reason it's called geriatric pregnancy and not geriatric sex or breeding.
nonsensical statement btw. advanced maternal age is associated with various adverse maternal and natal outcomes just as birthing too young is associated with higher maternal and fetal morality, true. "geriatric" is a term that is no longer used and is applicable only to 35+ pregnancies, and was relative to younger ones, not as a statement by itself in comparison with "geriatric" or "gerontology" referring to medicine centered around older adults. and advanced paternal age is in fact associated with adverse fetal outcomes as well, same as paternal alcholism and drug abuse. technically there is also quite a lot of "geriatric sex" as people are constantly fucking in nursing homes, which are abundant with stds and various forms of stress fractures for this very reason. the cock carousel inverts in old age when women live longer. oh, and 30+ pregnancies are not abnormal from any sort of historical angle. what IS abnormal is women having their FIRST pregnancy at an older age. breeding was until death or menopause.

>>34562127
i don't care about "chastity" or "degeneracy". do you have something constructive to reply with to op or i in this advice thread on the /adv/ board or are you more used to the pink shitposting ones? i will happily talk to you at length about the science of obstetrics and gynecology, but you seem more concerned with making this interaction some form of grand moral standoff. i don't care about your morals. why do you care about what you suppose are mine?

>>34561216
eight years really isn't a limited amount of time. think back 8 years ago to 2018. the world was quite a bit different then, just as it was different to that in 2010.
>date that man for a few years
that seems a bit lengthy. you can typically tell if he is suitable within about a year. you need to see someone through every season and major holiday so you can gauge their typical stress levels, temperament, and their interpersonal family and close friend dynamics. it helps as well to have at least one major life stressor so you can see how resilient they are when thrown out of their element. i would say a year and a half to two would be understandable, skewing towards the lower end of that. but then again, i know plenty of people that have married in far less time than that and have had successful marriages. whether that was them attempting to convince themselves or me, who knows. working a full time job would be more of a problem here with general time management or potential major life upheavals.

>>34560078
Fact: the average age for first marriage in the USA is 30.5

>>34560078
No, it's not.

File: crying wojak girld purple.png (292 KB, 700x700)

292 KB PNG

>>34562149
>i don't care about your morals. why do you care about what you suppose are mine?
I'm not the guy you're talking to, but aren't you the person derailing the thread?

>>34562111
>pedophilic preference when attempting to marry a 21 or younger woman
Like, are you retarded? You need serious treatment foid. A 21 year old is an adult.

>>34562149
>you seem more concerned with making this interaction some form of grand moral standoff
What about the statement above about preferring a 21 year old being pedophilic. Aren't you the one imposing your morals and trying to say you're better than others? Pathetic, lol.

>>34560228
Do you know what "pedo" means? Because it doesn't seem like you do. It doesn't mean any relationship you don't approve of, which seems to be how you're using it. If they can have kids it's not pedophilia by definition. It's not applicable in any way to the subject of this thread.

>>34560078
Old for women and not bad for men

>>34560078
i hope not cuz im 37

>>34563861
lel i'm surprised this thread is still up, you really are a slow moving board.
>I'm not the guy you're talking to, but aren't you the person derailing the thread?
no moron i entered >>34562111 and i didn't say i agreed with the person >>34560228 here, i said
>i think that would be what the anon you were replying to was clearly stating was a pedophilic preference when attempting to marry a 21 or younger woman, yeah.
that they seemed to be insinuating it, because it seemed bizarre and redundant that >>34560243 this moron started hallucinating some argument from the other one about 27 year olds being chaste virgins when what they explicitly said was
>Stop forcing people to get married at 21 and let people live their fucking lives first
which means they clearly know they're going to fuck. these people are talking past each other to have a nonexistent argument. i then insulted him for his comment about satanic rituals and moloch because it rendered his entire post schizophrenically stupid enough to belong on modern /x/, much like yours would fit in perfectly well on your progenitor /r9k/ or babydaddy /pol/.

i'm not responding to your last (me) because you can't read. learn how an imageboard works instead of imagining enemies everywhere. i'm not bothering to mask my typing. if you can't read words on a screen and determine who is who from sentence structure and stylistic choices alone, your retardation is not my problem. i don't care about your mini argument about me!me!me! over who you would and wouldn't personally stick it in, i care about responding to the op whom you are ignoring to discuss yourself. much like i am and would prefer not to.

nice wojak. never seen the female (male) variation with purple hair before.

>>34562309
it's interesting how much modern anons shill early marriage given how associated with high divorce rates it is and this fact. it's also still really weird to claim 8 years is barely any time to find a partner and have kids.

>>34560228
>let womens eggs rot and degenerate before they settle down, what, you dont want an autistic baby? Youre a pedo. Women should be WORKING, paying TAXES during the prime reproductive years of their lives, not raising families
Literally kys

>>34564663
Those last 8 years arent their prime retard, thats their LAST SHOT, what if they want more than one baby? What if they dont want one with downs syndrome (its funny how modern anons shill late marriage despite all the evidence of fucked up outcomes it has). Divorce rates can be eradicated simply by getting rid of no fault divorce. The 19th after that. Baby steps.

>>34563847
via Google:

United States: According to the US Census Bureau, the median age for first marriage is 28 for women and 30 for men.