MARGARET CHO (Q1: #1 of 12)

I don't give a shit at what age men want kids or at what age they think women will no longer be able to pop a few out for them. I do not personally like children. This is because I live in a state of perpetually arrested development that lends itself to a selfishness only acceptable in children and certain types of celebrity. And I don't have an opinion on people marrying younger, providing that marriage still exists. As I have mentioned earlier, to a rather odd reaction I must say, the future of marriage depends on the state of equality of marriage. If same-sex marriage exists, then there is a future to marriage. Then there is a chance the American family could survive, instead of resisting evolution and surely becoming extinct, as all the social and cultural conditions are not allowing it to flourish. There are far too many children in the world, and fewer and fewer parents, especially married ones. The nuclear family, what was once the status quo, is today a rare exception. The choice is to evolve or to die, like T. Rex. The dinosaur and the band.

SUSAN SHAPIRO BARASH (Q2: #2 of 12)

I am wondering where the stats are from that read that thirty-seven million young Americans are choosing to postpone marriage until their thirties or beyond. Based on my study, which is qualitative, anecdotal research, I predict that a trend is emerging in which women and men will marry younger and have children at a younger age. This is because these Generation Y-ers hope to avoid the pitfalls of their Generation X predecessors. That group of women put their careers ahead of marriage and children, then scurried to find a guy and have a baby, often ending up at a fertility clinic or adopting. This new younger breed of women want to have it easier, with less stress.

That means they do not wish to be like their Baby Boomer mothers either. Instead, they want love-based, romantic marriages that begin early and last a lifetime. These women want to be available to their husbands and children in a way that the wives/mothers of the past two to three decades have not been. These new young wives believe that they can have it all in a new way: husband, children, comfortable lifestyle and career when and if they choose, despite a fine education. These new young wives determine that their husbands will be excellent providers — think Charlotte in Sex and the City. It is interesting to note that this way of thinking for young women in America reaches all social strata and parts of the country. I predict that from their plan a new way of women approaching the workplace will evolve and there may be less divorces with all this energy poured into the marriages.

JONATHAN AMES (Q2: #3 of 12)

I don't know too many men who consciously want to have children.  I know that men want to fornicate with numerous females and that subconsciously this is a Darwinian impulse to make as many children with as many different genetic partners as possible, but that consciously they'd rather not have children. Some guys do, of course, and some guys think it might be 'cool' (usually for egotistical purposes of knowing that they're potent), and once you're a dad, it's not bad, but it's a hell of a lot of work and most men and most human beings are lazy by nature. 

But we all possess an unconscious Darwinian desire to have children and this unconscious desire helps to make a lot of babies.  Also, men like to please their women and if the woman wants a baby, the man will try his best to give it to her; it's not unlike turning your pubic bone into a piece of flint rubbing against the women's pubic bone to give the woman an orgasm — you want to please her and show her you're a man.  And as for men going for younger women, this horse has been beaten to death by Darwin and by Page Six — it's more unconscious Darwinian impulse: younger women are better at having babies . . . If men are forgoing women over 30/35 it's because of a greater attraction to younger, less-disintegrated bodies, a horrible but gross truth.  Charlotte Rampling is hot, but Charlotta Jansen is . . . younger.  There's also a lot less emotional baggage with younger women. In their twenties, women are just collecting their baggage.  They, like all people, have a ton of childhood baggage, but they don't have a full adult set. A man in his thirties has so much baggage that he doesn't have much room for a fellow thirtysomething's baggage, so he chooses someone who's still just dealing with childhood ghosts, not the ghosts of numerous other failed relationships. 

Anyway, it's all a great big mess. The world is a mess. Human relationships are a mess. We used to live in villages and there weren't a lot of choices for mates, so we settled down with the best we could find and we made ourselves happy or miserable. Now we have too many choices — the world of romance is like D'Agostinos supermarket. But even in D'Agostinos you can find some good organic foods and make a nice meal. So even in this mad world you can find somebody, love them, be kind to them, have children, love the children and do the best you can until you die. But I shouldn't glorify the past by making reference to the 'village.' The past was a mess, too.

DAVID MOATS (Q2: #4 of 12)

The calculation implicit in this question does not seem to square with the reality of romance and love. There may be people who shape their lives around these Darwinian choices, but romance, attraction, loneliness and the yearning for companionship are probably more influential for both men and women.

Men face growing pressure in their 20s because as the years tick by they find that more and more of their friends are married. There are fewer guys with whom to shoot hoops or go out drinking. The world is becoming married. Households of young men do not provide stable companionship because eventually one or more will move out to get married.

As the youth culture prolongs youth, this period of singleness may be prolonged into the late 20s or 30s, but eventually young men have to grow up. Finding someone to love is not easy, even if finding someone to sleep with is. Because men and women are more independent economically, the pressure to marry is less severe and marriage becomes more a matter of choice. So it is natural that men and women have become more choosey.

A 30-year-old man may be attracted to a 24-year-old woman because in relation to her he may come off as more experienced and more established in the world, and therefore he may be able to fulfill his need to assume the role of breadwinner. An independent-minded 34-year-old woman may be more intimidating to a marriage-minded man, may need him less. This consideration has more to do with the male ego than with Darwinian considerations of reproductive potential.

Some men always assume they will be fathers and look forward to it. That was my case, and in my 20s I knew I needed to find a suitable mate before too many years passed. But if love and attraction had not been the motivation in my marriage, and if I hadn't married with the idea that my wife would make a good mother, then the decision would have been as coldly calculated as an arranged marriage. It would have been a violation of my own integrity.

KEITH BLANCHARD (Q2: #5 of 12)

This sounds a little urban-mythy to me, this notion that men consider 30-something women unmarriageable because of the childbearing issue. There was a scene in Sleepless in Seattle where one of the female characters says an unmarried woman over a certain age is more likely to get struck by lightning than ever to get married. Another female character points out that that isn't true, and the first says 'it feels true.' I'm 38, my whole audience is men, and I have never met a guy who 'refuses to date women over 30 or 35' for any reason whatsoever.

Please pause to join me in a moment of shame for the editor of Maxim referencing a chick flick. I'd appreciate it if this didn't get out.

Anyway, back to business. Maybe there are statistics somewhere that bear out the 'women become undateable hags at 35' theory, but I refuse to believe it until I see them. In fact, I went on Oprah to discuss the fact that at Maxim we quite often feature 'overage' covergirls (Gina Gershon, Monica Bellucci), secure in our belief that even in their fantasies, guys want both younger women and older women. Maybe I'm delusional. But it seems to me that you have to travel pretty far off the road these days to find a man who isn't aware of science's ability to extend the childbearing years to the very brink of menopause.

Childbearing, as those of us in the know readily admit, is a huge threat to marriage. (Unverified-by-me but believable statistic: fifty percent of all divorces occur within the first year after the first child's born.) The metaphor my wife and I use is a cannonball dropped into the placid lake of our life together. You survive it (we have three kids now) but it's easy to justify putting off childbearing as long as medical science will allow. And that translates to putting off marriage, too: With shacking up increasingly sanctioned everywhere, why get married until you're ready to give that bun in the oven a name?

In my experience, men, even 40-something men, don't consciously shop for childbearers. They use the bad and failed marriages of their friends as object lessons, they make deals with themselves never to marry if it means being whipped or henpecked, and they try to hedge their bets and put the whole thing off as long as possible. But when they want to have kids they look for a mature woman who's willing to do half the work (read: do most of the work), not a doe-eyed blonde with childbearing hips.

DARCY COSPER (Q2: #6 of 12)

Men who select partners based on their ability to produce superior offspring? Sounds kind of, um, old-fashioned. In a Paleozoic (or eugenic) sort of way. I haven't heard anything about this, but it seems antiquated and offensive — and it sounds like 37 million young Americans agree with me.

MOLLY JONG-FAST (Q2: #7 of 12)

I have many things to say on this topic — some of them interesting, some of them shockingly stupid. I hesitate to go into the whole "what a horrible world for women we live in" miasma. Just from reading the question, you guys get the answer. It is not shocking that most men would like to marry the youngest women they can marry without getting arrested. Men want to have babies and display trophies, and younger women can help them fulfill both these desires. This whole conversation is so depressing. Working women can't win. Older women can't win. Even younger women can't win (because, among other reasons, eventually they will be older). And by the way, the rash of Demi Moore older women/younger men stories is just the media's way of making themselves feel better about the way they've continually treated older women. The world is a horrible place and we should all move to the North Pole. I know, I know, even penguins like younger penguins. And yes, I understand that as a 25-year-old married to a 40-year-old, I am part of the problem. 

MAGGIE GALLAGHER (Q2: #8 of 12)

I actually see more men refusing to date women who are close to 40 if they want kids (rather than 30 or 35). This just makes sense. IVF (Invitro Fertilization) is extremely chancy, horribly expensive and increases the risk of birth defects. Plus, it's not nearly as much fun as making a baby at home.

If men couldn't have children past 40 would women who wanted children be selfish or immature for focusing on what they wanted from marriage?

The problem is a culture that discourages women from taking our desire for marriage and babies seriously. That's "dependency," "backward" or "weak." This disempowers us ultimately in our relationships with ourselves and with men. Truth is always empowering.

If you want marriage and babies, start looking for a husband in your mid-twenties, not your mid-thirties. Your chance of getting what you want is much much higher if you have the courage to acknowledge your desires, and to give them the weight and dignity they deserve. Wanting a husband and family doesn't make you weak. These are great things to have.

When I talk to young women I tell them "Having a baby is like falling in love." Don't miss it. It's the greatest thing.

DR. HALTZMAN (Q2: #9 of 12)

Despite the evolution of mankind, we are still driven by our biology. Equality between the sexes is good in theory. But, in both primitive cultures and upper echelons of society, organic urges steer the decisions that men and women make.

Michele, a thirty-five year old twice-married woman made this contribution to my Web site: www.SecretsofMarriedMen.com:

Men think like women. To say otherwise is just an excuse, and an easy way out. God created all of us equally. Men have their private parts, and women have theirs. But God didn't decide to give men a different brain than women. It's how we function as human beings that make us who we are. So, no, there's no excuse why men act the way they do. I think it's all an act. Women, we need to wise up to the dumb games that men have been using for years.

Admittedly, women do need to "wise up" to how a man's brain works, but not in the way that Michele sees it. Scientific evidence proves the male and female brains are not the same: influenced by in utero exposure to testosterone, the male brain differs from the woman's in size, structure and efficiency. I do believe that men simply ought to bend their brain more toward a woman's way of thinking.

Of course, there are many cases in which moral boundaries ought to temper atavistic urges. A man ought not to seek the affections of minors. Once a man marries, he ought not to seek new mates. Once the band goes around his finger, his attention should remain on his mate, no matter what her age.

But at its core, the choice to marry interconnects very closely to the desire to procreate. Consciously or not, men seek women who will bear them children to carry their genes into the next generation. Sometimes this need is translated in a man's mind as simply the need for sex; in that regard, sex with a younger woman is more likely to meet his biological needs to produce offspring.

It used to be that the only legitimate exercise of sexual enjoyment for women was within marriage. Hence, men entered into marriage contracts earlier in life with women more their age. That worked well, practically and biologically. Today, younger adult women are enjoying new carnal freedom; consequently, it is no longer necessary for a man to marry her before she goes to bed with him. If women continue along this path they may have many sexual pleasures in their youth, but when they look for a man to put a ring on their finger, they will find him proposing to their younger sisters.

ETHAN WATTERS (Q2: #10 of 12)

This desire of older men to select younger women certainly appears to be a trend. This is of course great news for women in their twenties and early thirties. They will have both their peers and a slightly older cohort to chose from. This also means that there will not be enough of these younger women to go around and that may lead some younger men to court older women.

I do believe that biology is at play here. Evolutionary psychology (the study of our evolved desires) is scorned by many but it holds some basic truths. In selecting mates, men look for signs of fertility and one of those signs is youthfulness. Of course, this doesn't mean we are destined or in any way bound to choose mates on this criteria. (We also are evolved to like the taste of fat and sugar but can chose not to go to McDonalds every day.) I believe that we are learning that mate selection in the modern world is best handled by all parts of the brain from our most basic desires to our highest order of intellectual consciousness. It seems clear that those men who select an equal as a mate (in terms of maturity, learning and outlook) will be happier, even if they have fewer or no children.

At the bottom of this question lies a truth that we shouldn't overlook: The marriage delay is often more costly for women than it is for men — particularly if those women want to have children. This doesn't mean that women should not delay, only that they should see this cost in advance and not in retrospect so that they can angle towards their goals. Steering your life towards certain outcomes is easier said than done. Fortunately, we are innately hopeful creatures and I doubt that even those women who wanted children but missed the window will go through their 40s and 50s being bummed out. Our lives shape our hopes and plans far more than our hopes and plans shape our lives.

JIM DE SÈVE (Q2: #11 of 12)

Personally, I think going into marriage at a young age is foolhardy. Not to say it can't work, but I think individuals who have pursued their personal growth bring more stability to a relationship. My grandmothers both married in their thirties — and it is my understanding that the crazy young marriages of the 1950s are actually not historically "traditional" — that marriage around thirty was in fact the norm for centuries.  

Most of my straight friends in relationships have decided to marry, often because of children. Being gay, my natural selection is a fertile man with non-childbearing hips.

BLAISE K (Q2: #12 of 12)

See, this is why I might start lying about my age. I might be "31" for the next five years, at least. Unfortunately, I know several men who feel this way. I think it's an unfair generalization to consider women of a certain age "reproductive liabilities" and shy away from dating them for that reason. Not all women over 35 feel ready to have kids. Not all women actually want to have children to begin with. Those biologically ticking women are giving all of the other women a bad name. I don't really mean that. I actually am someone who wants kids but I'm pretty damn certain that I don't want them within the next five years. This "under 35 rule" is also sexist and arrogant. What makes you think I'd want to have a baby with you anyway?

Join the discussion! Tell us what you think about...