My friend has basically said I won’t have a family

[SadSaltye]

I’m 36 and recently single. I said I had started online dating again as I really want to try again and find someone I can build a life with.

My friend literally said well you’ll need to forget the kids part now, ‘only an insane man would have kids with someone in less than a long term relationship and you’ll be past it by the time anything becomes long term.’

I haven’t spoken to her since but actually I am starting to think she’s right. I need to do it within a year or so really. Nobody sane would do that with me. I feel so low. It’s all over isn’t it, that life I wanted.

[quote CecilieRose]@fanx so why go looking?? Fertility is never guaranteed.

And how exactly would she 'adjust her future visions'? Unless OP is really desperate for a baby and would go it alone if necessary, it doesn't change anything. And if she is that desperate, it would make sense to start the process right now, as 36 is obviously better than 39 or 40 in terms of having success. I just don't see how finding out about her fertility would influence relationship choices. She wants to meet someone, she's trying to meet someone, she isn't putting it off.[/quote]
It is a good indicator of your current reproductive status.

Adjusting visions - if the chances of natural conception without medical intervention were very improbable, maybe she wouldn't have the need to 'settle down' so quickly /panic.

It would also influence how you go about conducting a relationship - no need to rush/set deadlines/have (unrealistic) expectations of the other person. In other worlds, you can take it more slowly.

I will admit that it probably took longer to conceive than if I had been 27 (although who knows for certain). Because DH and I were over 35, we 'should' have seen the doctor after six months of trying to conceive with no luck. We didn't because of COVID, and in our case we just needed a little extra patience.

That would be totally in line with the reducing chance per cycle from 20s to 40s.

And it just goes to show that if you had gone along gone along the 6 months ttc for over 35s you could have been subjected to ivf, thst was ultimately unnecessary because you conceived naturally within the year or two of ttc.

*if you had gone along to gp after the 6 months

Op did comment "I feel so low" ...why would you be feeling so low when apparently having babies isn't a deal breaker??

She may be desperate we don't know she hasn't articulated that clearly but she is clearly concerned - otherwise if it was just about having a partner, she wouldn't be I'd imagine

@RockinHorseShit

I'd booked a fertility clinic for a check up as at nearly 41 it seemed sensible. I was pregnant within 6 weeks of coming off the pill & well before my appointment came up... fairly plain sailing from there onwards

Good friend had the same experience at 44

You do appreciate that you were in the minority? The stats for IVF is woeful at best regardless of age. It is invasive, expensive and has low outcomes. It isn't the panacea to turning the clock back as many would believe

From the NHS website:

11% for women aged 40 to 42
5% for women aged 43 to 44
4% for women aged over 44

The stats if anyone would be interested...

@fanx

From the NHS website:

11% for women aged 40 to 42
5% for women aged 43 to 44
4% for women aged over 44

The stats if anyone would be interested...

Uhmmm she's 36. That's 4 years before her chances drop to 11%

Really wouldn't be encouraging anyone to spend ££££ and wait to wait on a treatment with such low bets...

Of course miracles happen - as on the conception board of MN.

*No, that quote refers to women aged 40 - not 45

Which is RADICALLY different.*

The % risk per cycle by age is not what i was pointing out.

The fa lct that you are incorrectly using % risk per cable and % of women who fall pregnant as the same thing - is what what was pointing out.

Those are two different things.

*The fact that you are incorrectly using % risk per cycle and % of women who fall pregnant as the same thing - is what i was pointing out

Say challenge accepted

Sign up for all the apps that aren’t Tinder or POF

Date like mad and keep an open mind

Send her a great engagement pic when the time comes

"Uh mm she's 36. That's 4 years before her chances drop to 11%"

In was responding to the previous poster RockinHorseShit

Well at 36 it's not that great...25% for women aged 35 to 37...and this guidance only...so basically over 75% failure rate
...

*No, that quote refers to women aged 40 - not 45

Which is RADICALLY different.*

And 3-4% does appear to apply to 45 ....

*11% for women aged 40 to 42
5% for women aged 43 to 44
4% for women aged over 44

The stats if anyone would be interested...*

@SleepingBunnies21

*The fact that you are incorrectly using % risk per cycle and % of women who fall pregnant as the same thing - is what i was pointing out

"In 2019, the percentage of IVF treatments that resulted in a live birth" it's stating live birth which is what really matters. Many women could conceive but not necessarily carry to full term

@fanx

From the NHS website:

11% for women aged 40 to 42
5% for women aged 43 to 44
4% for women aged over 44

The stats if anyone would be interested...

And that's for the women who needed assistance because they couldn't conceive naturally. Even out of those - including people like the poster here who had a blocked tube and probably would have needed IVF at any age - there's over a 1 in 10 chance per cycle at 40-42.

Falling pregnant/staying pregnant/carrying to full term are not the same. Depends how stats are presented.

@fanx

"Uh mm she's 36. That's 4 years before her chances drop to 11%"

In was responding to the previous poster RockinHorseShit

Well at 36 it's not that great...25% for women aged 35 to 37...and this guidance only...so basically over 75% failure rate
...

I thought it was about 25% for twenty somethings. Lees for 30 somethings

25% is as high as it gets - you do understand that?

75% would would the standard "failure rate" for even "young" couples.

"In 2019, the percentage of IVF treatments that resulted in a live birth" it's stating live birth which is what really matters. Many women could conceive but not necessarily carry to full term

You've weighed into my debate with another poster that you have totally misunderstood.

@fanx

"Uh mm she's 36. That's 4 years before her chances drop to 11%"

In was responding to the previous poster RockinHorseShit

Well at 36 it's not that great...25% for women aged 35 to 37...and this guidance only...so basically over 75% failure rate
...

And what you're not stating is that the success rate is only 32% for women under 35, so a 68% failure rate. Hardly a massive drop, is it? There is no age bracket in which the chances of IVF succeeding in a single cycle are higher than them failing. Not even early twenties.

Stop misrepresenting statistics.

She was conflating % chance per cycle ithin an age group, and % of women who fall pregnant within an age group.

A common misconception.

That's what I was pointing out; your post is on another subject.

"And that's for the women who needed assistance because they couldn't conceive naturally. Even out of those - including people like the poster here who had a blocked tube and probably would have needed IVF at any age - there's over a 1 in 10 chance per cycle at 40-42."

Blocked tube could have occurred later in life it's difficult to diagnose when it's caused. So maybe she could have conceived naturally in her 20s but got pelvic inflammatory disease in her 30s ...

11% or still extremely low chances not as dad as winning the lottery but still rather unpromising.

We aren't even mentioning the fact that most NHS trusts also have eligibility criteria and cut off points when they treat as it becomes less and less cost effective. You may be offered no rounds/one round or up to 3. Postcode lottery.

In 2019, the percentage of IVF treatments that resulted in a live birth" it's stating live birth which is what really matters. Many women could conceive but not necessarily carry to full term

Also you are referring to ivf stats i am not referring to ivf.

People have ivf because they have fertility issues, to state the obvious.

11% or still extremely low chances not as dad as winning the lottery but still rather unpromising.

Explain odds to us.

"And what you're not stating is that the success rate is only 32% for women under 35, so a 68% failure rate. Hardly a massive drop, is it? There is no age bracket in which the chances of IVF succeeding in a single cycle are higher than them failing. Not even early twenties."

Chances for a successful live birth are low all round for IVF regardless of age that's correct. The point is it certainly doesn't get better the longer you leave it.

Check on HEFA website for unbiased reports of clinics performances and trends. And then there are each person's individual changes which could be within the range or outside it either side.

@SleepingBunnies21

In 2019, the percentage of IVF treatments that resulted in a live birth" it's stating live birth which is what really matters. Many women could conceive but not necessarily carry to full term

Also you are referring to ivf stats i am not referring to ivf.

People have ivf because they have fertility issues, to state the obvious.

Op may well have fertility issues nobody knows not even her. The posters are assuming she doesn't she is assuming she doesn't. Aged 36 you don't know