At what age do you think its 'socially acceptable' to have kids?

[Sparklesandglitter]

Maybe not in the right forum but...
Nearly 30 has suddenly crept up on me and I have started thinking, at what age does "oh my god xxx is pregnant, I wonder what she will do?" turn in to "oh my god xxx is pregnant its so exciting!!!" is it an age thing, or if somebody has been in a relationship for 4years and is trying for a baby but is 18 is that ok given some people aged 30 have been together for 2years may start trying?
I don't know I'm just trying to work out, given most of my peers have multiple children, some at secondary school, some married, some divorced. At what age do you think it's "socially acceptable"?? (maybe I'm just feeling old and left behind!!lol)

I don't think there is a socially acceptable age as such, more of a socially responsible level of self-sufficiency most people expect you to have reached. Personally, I would discourage my DCs to have children until they are over 25, because frankly they are highly unlikely to be in a position financially to be able to afford a child before then, and quite possibly unlikely to have reached a level of commitment and maturity in their relationship either, and I think the child and the relationship will stand a better chance of success in the long term if parents are over that age. But it's only a generalisation - it really depends on the couple in question.

At 29 I was the youngest in my NCT group - of six of us, three were 40+ (all first babies). Round here I think 27+ is the norm.

I had 4 in a ten year period between 25 & 35, that felt fine to me - I wanted to complete my family by 35. We were married, had degrees, jobs, house etc when our first was born. Most of my friends have pretty similar setups - though we tend to attract people similar to ourselves so that doesn't really prove much. Most of my university friends had their first 5+ years later than me, but they get married later than me too & many are only just managing to buy houses.

I don't know what the right age is - my brother & SIL had their first when they were 20 & 21 & last 4 years later. They are having a fabulous time now - youngest child is 9 & they are still in their early/mid 30s ... I'm quite jealous! I didn't want to have a massive spread - e.g. my mum had me at 21 & my youngest sibling at 43 .... she'll be raising children her entire adult life & she's absolutely knackered (it has kept her young though).

On average about 28 I guess, very much depends on circumstances though!

I was 20 when I became pregnant with DS1 - and the reaction was pretty much "oh no!" from everyone. This was in the 80s - maybe being pregnant, young and unmarried was rarer back then? And I was at University so I suppose some of the "oh no!" could have been about how hard it would be to continue (although I managed it).

So true Stranded!

Also, what being 'financially stable' means differs from person to person. For example, I think it can mean being able to feed younger children and clothe them in acceptable clothes while working to increase your yearly income in time for them being older and needing more. Some people will think it just means being able to feed and clothe without saving for their future, and others would think it meant being able to buy them everything straight away and have all future savings (for uni etc) ready.

according to the Daily Mail :if you are a member of the royal family, you can have a child whilst married, whenever that is. if you are a normal person, at the stage of your life you can 100% secure that you will never be on benefits, die, split with your partner, then it might be acceptable to have a child. Otherwise not.

Most people recognise there is no good time to have kids. they aren't convenient.

That is true....

You haven't asked an "Am I Being Unreasonable?" question.

It depends entirely on your social circle - the question is "socially acceptable to who ?"

Also, "having kids" -do you mean having your first child or having a child?

I had my first at 16 and my last at 33 ( although he probably won't be my last) I've not had any negative comments in rl, it depends on the individual and their circumstances

I'm very obviously very PG, I look 18 at the most (before I was PG I still got asked for ID and I even occasionally had bus driver automatically charge me half fair). I get looks, rude comments both to my face and when people think I can't hear, I even had a group of teenage girls get quite nasty with me in a shop.

Me and DP are 26, we have been together almost 5 years. We have both worked since leaving full time education, we are in stable but by no means highly paid jobs. We own our own house. This (apart from the mortgage) is about average for where I live and my social circle. So we have not really shocked anyone that we know, other than our Grandmas who were rather we were married.

So I would say that it depends mainly your individual circumstances. If people are not aware of your circumstances they unfortunately tend to judge by what they see.

I think its more strange if you marry young as opposed to kid young. When you marry young on one hand you have lots of people think you are a model citizen, 'good', respectable and they do definitely treat you different. eg havig kids is ok for you as you are married

On the other hand you have people treat you as if you are actually mental, your life must be ended and you must become boring and life stops. eg why on earth would you marry? I cant believe you are doing x,y,z you dont act like your married. This for really boring things such as being out together clubbing and not being in and doing crosstich or something I think!

I also think the older generation are very welcoming to young marriage as they see you as respectable, and do judge unmarried young mums but then on the other hand younger people seem to make a bigger deal about a couple marrying than having kids. Here most people have kids from 16+ and no one bats an eyelid exept the elderly but getting married is seen as a bigger commitment which tbh I can never understand.

Age less important than what is going on in the life of the future parents - ideally the Dad should have a job, they should be married and mature enough to be parents. But life isn't ideal and lots of single mums bring up their kids brilliantly even when considered 'too young' to have them. Children are a blessing at any age.

I think from about 24 and on if you are .sorted financially etc, stable relationship. That would have been too young for me though and I didn't have my first till 33. I think it's better if folk start in their mid 20's till about 30 for their first as we are having them older and older. Below 22 just seems way too young to me.

There is an assumption running through this thread that having 2 parents is essential for a happy childhood, which I think is naive at best and discriminatory to lone parents at worst.

What on Earth is wrong with a good single parent?

It is socially acceptable when you can afford to have them without resorting to the state for support.

I was 19 with DS and still get those looks now I have DD as well.
I'm thinking of making them wear tops stating that they have the same dad and we've been together for 5 years!

Everyone claims child benefit though, dont they?

Who do you think is going to pay for your pension if only the rich procreate?

I think 25 to 35 is the norm. I was 26 when DD was born and everyone congratulated me and nobody said "omg.. what are you going to do?". Although my sister nearly died as she proclaimed "you're like all grown up now, with a career and a baby on the way."

I don't think anyone is saying that two parents are essential *aubergine, just that it is preferable, and the ideal. Apart from anything else, very few people are in a position to wholly fund their own family, without redress to benefits, if they are a single parent unit from the off. Of course there are always exceptions - but the majority of people who opt to start a family as a lone parent are not those exceptions, they are the rule. And given this thread is about 'social acceptability' then that is not the ideal scenario.

We had our first at 25 and we were considered dangerously young. DS was interesting novelty for over a year till our friends trumped us by having twins (although they were both 27 by then rather than 26). I am now 44 and friends are still sprogging (the men anyway- some of the women look as though they won't at all now).

I think from 16-40+ is acceptable if you are settled and happy about the pregnancy then anyone decent would be happy for you whatever the age.
Alot of people I know have kids early twenties, a couple of my friends at 18/19ish and one person at 40.
I had mine at 21, 22 and 24 (married at 18), don't really get a lot of negative comments about it although if i did i dont think i would really care too much as i'm not that bothered about what society thinks. I think being married, dh working and finished studying makes it more easier whereas I do know people who get pregnant older like 25, 26 but if they are still in university at that age then it will be more difficult cos they have to think how to manage their study, so to me that kind of circumstances makes it easier or harder but whatever the circumstances they can be managed so its still socially acceptable and fine. I think it would be wrong to consider any pregnancy as "unacceptable" tbh!

the benefits thing is a red herring- people are discriminatory against lone parents regardless of finances.

A large proportion of the 'smug marrieds' of today will be the lone parents of the next decade so people should be mindful of where they are slinging the mud because it might just come back and hot them on the face.

The idea that the 'ideal' unit to raise a family is a heterosexual couple in a LTR is a very recent social construction, which needs to change. Consider how differently we look at cohabitees now compared to 40 years ago. Hopefully in 40 years from now we will look back and cringe that we were so judgemenatal on the lone parents of today.

I had DD when I was 19 and it was certainly socially unacceptable then, I got a lot of negative comments . I was mature (always have been) but my relationship ended before I gave birth and I hadn't finished my education (was doing my degree). In the end things worked out quite well, I got an additional grant for my studies, I was given a council house which meant my rent was actually far cheaper than what my friends paid for their shared flats, and I got support with childcare so I was able to graduate and still have a social life which many people assumed I'd miss out on.

I suppose I have had quite a lot of support from the state in terms of housing, tax credits, benefits and health costs which many people would find socially unacceptable, but I try not to pay heed to people who judge others based on their life circumstances. I've done the right thing by DD; she is a happy, high-achieving child who hasn't missed out on things because of our family situation/finances.

Even now though, people are shocked when I tell them I have a teenage daughter (I'm 33 now and have returned to university to do an MA; most people assume I'm about 25). It's generally the more educated/middle-class people who react like that - when I go to meetings with parents from school (which is in a working-class area), many of them are around my age or younger.