U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 01-03-2009, 06:45 PM
Location: Victoria TX
42,672 posts, read 66,917,330 times
Reputation: 35534


I have often pondered what it would be like for a teenager to have a father who is in his 60's, and I don't think that is fair to the teenager. Teens are very sensitive about who their parents are, and would prefer that they are "regular", and not attract enough attention that they need to explain them to their peers. Even more so, with respect to a boy child, to have a father who is too old to play ball with him.

People all too often have children, without thinking about whether their children will think it is a good idea. You should have children for the children, not for yourselves.

"I have done my children the favor of not having them" ---Nietzsche
Quick reply to this message

Old 01-04-2009, 10:16 AM
Location: N of citrus, S of decent corn
30,649 posts, read 38,244,510 times
Reputation: 49181
I think 60 is pretty much the oldest, provided that you make financial arrangements so the children are taken care of if you die before they are grown, and if their mother is comfortable with that.
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-04-2009, 11:59 PM
13 posts, read 241,118 times
Reputation: 23
Originally Posted by Woof Woof Woof! View Post
I would say 90 is too old.
I think so too
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-04-2009, 11:59 PM
Location: southern california
53,432 posts, read 68,432,778 times
Reputation: 45017
next year.
Quick reply to this message
Old 05-06-2009, 01:07 AM
Location: Edmond, OK
115 posts, read 256,704 times
Reputation: 42
I think this argument is the same either way. My dad's mom had him at 20 and he cared for her until her death recently at 86. It was very difficult for him to watch her decline and be so close to her age himself. He was thinking so much about his own mortality that it was extremely painful for him. He kept saying - that will be me in 20 years. 20 years doesn't sound like much, 40 years does. At 46, he would have the lives of his children and other things to look forward too. With me grown and his parents gone, and his grandchildren living far away, he knows that he will likely be living with us soon and then we will be taking care of him. It was really hard for him to watch alone.
Quick reply to this message
Old 05-06-2009, 06:36 AM
1,577 posts, read 3,135,401 times
Reputation: 523
There is no such age.

All I'd say is consider your age when this kid is a teenager. Are you going to be able to handle them physically and mentally? Stuff like that. Do you wanna still be raising a child during your golden years?
Quick reply to this message
Old 05-06-2009, 11:52 AM
3,107 posts, read 7,740,135 times
Reputation: 2241
DH & I are 6 yrs apart and had first became parents last year - me at 42 & he at 48. We are keeping up with our 14 month old twins just fine...parents who are younger than us by some 10-15 yrs with twins have the same complaints that come with having 2 at once and in many cases, they actually have more "problems" than we do. So, I don't really think you can base these decisions solely on age. You also have to look at where you're currently in life.

My parents were "older" parents in comparison to all my friends' parents - mine were in their late 30s when they had me. Their contemporaries were 10 yrs younger. Many of my elementary school classmates lost their young parents before they even reached HS so I don't buy into the "how long are you going to be around for your kids" argument. None of us knows what the future holds.

There are lots of 20-something old dads out there who play no role in their children's lives for whatever reasons (working too much, no desire to immerse themselves in their kids' lives/needs, totally out of the picture, etc...) whereas there are "older" dads who spend QT with their kids. So who has it better? The children with the uninvolved but young father or the children with the 40-50yr old dads who play with them, read to them, attend their school functions, guide them, etc...?
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top