There was a story a week or so ago about the comments by an obstetrician in Perth to the effect that women delaying childbirth until their late 302 or 40s were being "selfish" and creating a great deal of problems for obstetric wards.

This has been follwod by a couple fom pieces by women attempting to explain their reasons.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/calling-older-mothers-selfish-is-a-sign-of-misconception-20111011-1liyy.html

"Those who did not have a child said the main reason was not having a partner, or being unable to find a partner willing to commit to fatherhood. Very few women wanted to have a child while single."

"Women with partners also reported that a main barrier was their partner's reluctance to have a child, or another child. Some said that disagreement over childbearing threatened their relationships, and that they avoided talking about wanting children in case their partners left."

and

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/having-a-child-at-the-right-time-is-easier-said-than-done-20111012-1lkzh.html

"And where do men figure in this debate? While I know that the physical reality is not as acute for men, I have lost count of how many women have said to me that they cannot meet a man who wants to commit to children."

I think I can shed some light on the reason for men choosing to vote with their feet when it comes to children:

http://www.csa.gov.au/

http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/

You women have got what you wanted. Now, apparently it's mens' fault that it hasn't worked out the way you were told it would.

Yeah, riiight...

One driver behind men not wanting to commit is the fear of being screwed by the system should the relationship fail.

The chances are high these days and, any man knows that if he finds himself in this situation he then has little to no chance of restarting due to financial constraints placed on him by the very unfair system they call child support.
He also knows that even if his partner plays up on him, then leaves, he still gets screwed.

Many guys these days are in good paying jobs and prefer to go out and have fun, if they hook up for the night then that's great, if they don't, there is always the brothel on the way home.

Ther wouldn't be a guy alive that doesn't know a mate or two who have been screwed over by this system.

It's the old story, for every action there is a raction. And this is the reaction we are seeing now.

Well, anti, maybe they're different women. Those women who want extra conditions favouring women in CSA and Family court, and those looking for a hubby to have kids with.

I reckon it's way down on the list this fear (irrational or otherwise) of being screwed over by the CSA.

The fear of being 'old' or 'conservative' or 'tied down', are way above the fear that some distant time down the track the marriage will disolve and there will be kids and/or property involved. Young guys don't really think that far ahead. The more imediate fear is that they will be curtailed from passing out in the gutter with a kebab in their hand every other night, and the real and terrible fear of shopping for 'scatter cushions' at Ikea.

Scatter cushions can make most guys break out into a cold sweat. the CSA, pft.

Men have never really been the ones to race to the alter and it is getting less so I beleive because we celebrate youth in society. We also celebrate independence and the individual.

The 'brand' of marriage and kids is not seen as 'cool'. Name me one cool father. Except me of course. The idea of marrage as 'slavery' and being 'tied down' is not new, it;s what bucks nights are all about, but people live longer and we now have a more drawn out adolescense and period of world travel screwing around and doing drugs. Or maybe that's just me.

But eventually people look for something more. There's only so much of this decadent lifestyle one can enjoy until boredom actually sets in.

Having said that, once married, guys have much more to lose. As I always say, the woman will more likely be staying in the family home after divorce, with the kids, with a bit less money. The guy, well, the rent or the dingy 1 bed flat he can afford while he's paying the family mortgage and seeing his kids every second weekend, doesn't sound like much of a life.

The way of life has taken a turn for the worst. Young blokes these days would rather bye a new car than than put a deposit on a house. Women have made themselves freely available for sexual activity, so what do you expect. Commitment to me is for life. People shack up these days. Commitment does not come into discussion, why should it. Free sex for all, who wants to paddle around in the same water hole like a duck for life. Women have gone beyond the boundaries, and played into the hands of men, If you need a committed woman these days, bye one from overseas,they will love you for life.

This could easily become a male gripe fest (all those embittered men) but it could also be a useful discussion.

Another issue that a lot of men are all to well aware of is how often sexual intimacy becomes a rare event or a thing of the past once kids arrive and stays that way well past the immediate practical issues of lack of sleep with a newborn.

A variety of theories about why that's so but whatever the causes it's not good for relationships and hardly an inspiration for men.

R0bert

I'm struggling to understand what the issue is- why do you have a problem if women would rather have children later in life?
After all, most Australians that DON'T fall out of school prior Year 12 tend to spend what used to be their 'child-bearing years' studying or building up a stable career/income so they can achieve a more livable standard for themselves and any children they have.

If anything, these people are not only the smart ones, but actually the commendable ones.
Hardly anyone is mature enough to start having children until after this stage.

Unless you think the 'right' way is to be popping out children while you're still 17 without any foresight other than to buy a small set of clothes and a crib?

King Hazza,

The medical establishment is speaking here from the perspective of a woman's physical viability in gestation and birthing....obviously the human species has an optimum physical age for the propagation of offspring.

Speaking personally, I had one child at 22 and another at 41. My second child was smaller and I required the assistance of an emergency caesarian for his survival. On the other hand, I'm a bit wiser the second time around and much more relaxed and in control these days.

That;s how I always ee it Poirot. I would never have had the maturity to have a child in my 20s. But damn I wish I had the energy I had back then.

So, the equation is to me....

Have kids when you're physically ready and emotionally and financially unprepared.

Have kids when you're emotionally and financially prepared, but well past your physical peak and with lower energy levels.

Then again the energy levels in your 20s were helped by the no-responsibility and not having to care for children.

In the end, who cares really? Have kids, don't, have them early, or late, have them leave home when you're still in your 40s. But I'd rather have been hostelling and shagging around in my 20s rather than 50s. Ewww dirty old men in hostels.

People will always justify their life decisions because your life decisions are always the best ones for you. Irrelevant to other people. If a young guy wants to justify his decision not to settle down and have kids on the CSA and Family Court, well, that's a pretty sad and defeatist way to look at the world. To me.

And here I was worried about scatter cushions, and I have managed to assert my misogynist machismo and deny my wife her Human Rights! of having scatter cushions. Anti, you too could one day be so brave!

Houellie,

When is your book on life coming out? (Honestly, if your wrote one, I'd buy it)....I think your theory on scatter cushions is spot on : )

Houellebcq:"maybe they're different women. Those women who want extra conditions favouring women in CSA and Family court, and those looking for a hubby to have kids with."

Maybe they are, but we're talking about the men. The message from the women in both those stories is that men are unwilling to commit to fathering a child even well into their 30s and 40s.

I don't buy your line that all men of that age are immature party animals, sorry. they are happy to commit to relationships, according to the reports, but not children.

The fear of that 1 bedroom flat is a very important consideration, I'd say. Men know that if there are no kids it's 50:50 at worst and see you later. With kids it's the flat and the CSA. As was said earlier, everyone knows at least a couple of blokes who see their kids every second weekend and the only thing they can afford to do is go to the park or possibly Maccas and moan about what they used to have. It "frames the debate" very powerfully for those men, I'd suggest.

KH, the age of the women surveyed was not my point. The fact that the reason they were dissatisfied was that men were unwilling to become fathers was meant to be the topic. Even those men already in committed relationships, even including marriage.

Poirot, your experience sounds like it's the norm.

Sorry I missed this classic..

'If you need a committed woman these days, buy one'

OMG!

OK anti, so now we are onto older guys 35+, when I was talking about young guys. Note though that every older guy was once a young guy, who has 'wasted' already 18 years (35-17) of prime fertility, and you are talking about the last 5 years (assuming couples of similar ages).

How quick do men change their minds? Most men get to 35 and they still have the same hairstyle they had when they were 25. And wear the same clothes. Sometimes not just the style, literally the very same clothes. Men are change-averse. How many times have you heard the line, 'We're having fun aren't we, why mess with things and get married'.

Some are waiting around for Gemma Ward to come along, some are scared the sex will dry up as r0bert rightly pints out, and some just like meandering along. And why not, it's the poor chicks that have a deadline. I reckon few are really thinking about CSA, if they were, I'd argue the real fear, underneith, is the call for emotional honesty from their partner. ie The convenient, safe, quasi-relationsip is being unravelled for what it is.

Anyway, I would guestimate 70% of the children on this earth, men were convinced by their partners it was a good idea. Not dragging and screaming, but it's just not what they... Men aren't brought up with dolls and don't push prams around all day like my 3 year old. They love the kids when they come though. Also some men settle down because they WANT to be under the thumb, with someone they trust knows what's good for them. I've seen em do it man, looking for a new mommy.

As I said, people make choices and they make rationalisations. With the right chick most men are happy to 'take a chance on love'.

Sometimes when I read this site, I feel like the last of the romantics.

Poirot, Yabby has convinced me to be the next Bhagwan:-)

Houelle is right, there are 2 different sorts of women.

However, RObert is also right. Houelles 2 women are the same woman, at different stages of the same relationship.

When I was a young feller, [twenties], a mature lady horse breeder gave me some advice.

She said, "young hasbeen, look at those 2 horses, the mare & the stallion. She's all over him, won't leave him alone. She wants to get in foal, although perhaps she doesn't know it"

"He doesn't want to have anything to do with her, because a couple of days ago she tried to kick his head off, when he showed interest"

"If he gives in she'll worry him to death for a few days, but then, when her body knows she in in foal, he had better piss off quick". "She'll be back to trying to kick his head off, if he comes looking again".

"Just you remember young feller, all females are the same. Girls are no different to that mare. They want your sperm, when they want it, the baby is what we want & will love, you're just a nuisance after we get it, so you can piss off, just send money".

So many blokes complain about the once a month token sex. One neighbour recently reckoned he put S50,000 a year into the household, so he was paying S4166.66 a lay, & it wasn't even good sex anymore.

How could we have been so stupid as to give her a legal way of claiming all the booty, when they kick us out.

And then they complain that blokes won't commit, & don't want children, what the hell did they expect.

Houellebecq:"Note though that every older guy was once a young guy, who has 'wasted' already 18 years (35-17) of prime fertility, and you are talking about the last 5 years (assuming couples of similar ages). "

The fathers of those men were married by their 20s largely and they did so in the firm expectation, even for the purpose, of having children. It seems that men today are still getting hitched, but they have no intention of fathering children. That's a hell of a social change in just one generation, especially since it has occurred during a time of unmatched prosperity. I posit that it is precisely the discriminatory nature of both the Fanily Law and the Child Support Agency, both of which effectively act to redistribute the father's wealth to the mother in the event of a couple with children divorcing, that is the major causative factor.

Where once a slightly shaky relationship may have lead to some couples deciding to have kids to try to "save the marriage", now it is very much cause to make sure none come along. After all, once she's got the kid(s), she no longer needs the man.

Hasbeen, spot on.

Oh anti, one day you'll find a lovely lass who needs you;-)

We can compare women to horses 'till the cows come home, but in the end they have thoughts and feelings and a lot of love to give and receive. The women that is.

'It seems that men today are still getting hitched, but they have no intention of fathering children.'

Not in my circle of friends.

Another thing to take into account is real estate prices and the meme of providing a home for children with that picket fence, and 'kids' staying home until 30 years old and not becoming adults.

'they did so in the firm expectation, even for the purpose, of having children.'

Then you have the more religious conservative society and the less slutty (sorry liberated) women. It was harder to get casual sex, f&ck buddies and friends with benefits, and even no internet porn back then. If you wanted to get laid and impress your parents, you'd get married. Then it's easier to survive on 1 wage, and no childcare fees. The world was more set up for couples. Now it's set up for singles with expendable income.

Anyway it's all speculation until we do a study. Maybe you can write a survey.

Q: Why don't you want to get married and have kids by 25?
20yo A: I want to travel, I want to play the field, none of my friends are doing it.

Q: Why don't you want to get married and have kids by 35?
30yo A:Sure I like the girl, but I'm not sure I can only have sex with her for the rest of my life. It's comfrotable and safe, but I fancy I could do better. I want to get a deposit for a house first anyway.

Q: Why don't you want to get married and have kids by 40?
35yo A: I don't think I'm really that into kids you know, and I suspect the fact she wants to have kids before it's too late is clouding whether I can trust she really is that into me.

Even women dont want kids until their 30s.

Q: Why don't you want to get married and have kids by 25?
20yo A: I want to travel, I've been told I should aspire to more than just being a mom, none of my friends are doing it, and I don't want to lose my figure.

Q: Why don't you want to get married and have kids by 35?
30yo A:Sure I like the guy, but is he really father material. He's kind of imature, I don't want 2 kids to look after. It's comfrotable and safe, but I fancy I could do better. Maybe he wont have enough money for me to stay home with the kids if he doesn't start taking his career seriously.

Q: Why don't you want to get married and have kids by 40?
35yo A: I do! I'm running out of time! This guy is nice, not really what I would have imagined, but he'll have to do. I'm sure he'll step up if he has to, the extra responsibility will be good for him. Our relationship isn't going that well at the moment, but if I leave him I wont have time to find another guy, get the relationship established and then have kids.

Just for anti;

I'm sure once I have the kids, if it doesn't work out I can divorce him and take the house and make him pay child support and then I'll find another richer man (who I LIKE having sex with) and we can live in the house the ex lovingly renovated and have all the money and the kids and a romantic weekend every 2 weeks with no kids while he looks after them and spends the last of his cash for the month trying to buy their love back after I have poisoned them against him.

Houellebecq

Doff's me cap I do. Some of your best work to date.

ROFL - funny coz its true. Human beings; the world's most hilarious apes.

Ammonite,

Houellie's gonna write a book - he's the new Bhagwan! : )

Can't wait!

Houllie, the survey has been done. The original post was based on it.

I'm quite aware there are lots of reasons for all sorts of things. That doesn't mean specific issues should not be discussed or that all those factors are equivalent in either importance or prevalence. Dear me, I thought you were beyond "Critical Thinking 101".

The factors you mention have always been with us. The factors of the CSA and the Family Court have only been with us for 23 and 35 years respectively. Men who are now of the age referred to in that survey have spent all their lives in the shadow of those two institutions. That is a factor that has not applied to previous generations. Your efforts to pretend it's not important are not convincing.

Most marriages end in divorce. For non-marital cohabiting relationships the rate of breakdown is even higher. When there are no children, there is effectively no difference in the way the two partners are treated psot-separation. When children are involved there is an overwhelmingly disproportionate likelihood of a bad outcome for the father.

Most men are not stupid and if they are given the choice, will not take the chance when the risk is so great and the chance of reward so small. Of course, lots of men don't get any choice at all - "I can't understand it darling, I've been taking the Pill religiously"...

Maybe scatter cushions are your girlfriend's 'chairs' Houlley (think the movie Phenomenon' starring John Travolta).

The dialogue for this conversation so far reminds me of the Yorkshiremen in Monty Python's Flying Circus.

"FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: I was happier then and I had nothin'. We used to live in this tiny old house with great big holes in the roof.

SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling.

THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in t' corridor!

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh."

Does anyone find it odd that the modern youth are deemed to be more informed, more mature and more streetwise than previous generations but are perceived as too young to bear children compared with those who were far more naive and less streetwise in 'them olden' days'?

Fact is you live to your responsibilities for the most part. If you have children younger you make do and responsibility either makes you mature or makes you run (there was a bit of that too).

There is no reason to think having children when you are physically more primed to reproduce is any better or worse than when you are older. In some ways having children younger gets it out of the way, then you can travel and enjoy yourself while you still have 'youth' on your side. Fact is though egg and sperm do age and having children older is biologically more difficult as I can attest having had one child in late 20s (considered as an older mum even then) and the other at 32.

Pelican, you've missed the point of the discussion, which is that women who are not yet "too old", at 30-34, are finding that it is very difficult to get men to agree to inseminate them, even when they are married.

I have posited that this is because the presence of the CSA and the Family Court as a background threat. Their existence means that a relationship of peers is not possible once a child arrives, since both partners know that if she gets pissed off and leaves, he's screwed.

Pretending that this very large stick is not influencing people is simply ostrichism. Let's face it, handing out a "baby bonus" was enough to get some couples to breed, so why would anyone think that the threat of having 1/3 of one's gross income taken away would not have a significant impact on behaviour?

The age of the particular group of would-be mothers is only relevant to the extent that it indicates the seriousness of the issue for them, since they will miss out altogether if they cannot convince someone to do the deed within a very few years.

I don't like their chances.

I'm not sure what the Yorkshiremen have to do with it.

Antiseptic,

You state that you "don't like their chances."
(of women getting impregnated).

I'd say that while men prefer not to wear a
condom, and many don't,
women's chances are quite high.

BTW: Don't generalize all women.

Lexi, thanks for your contribution. Do you make your husband wear a condom as a normal part of sex? Poor chap.

Antiseptic,

The point being made was in reference to your previous erroneous statement (you didn't like women's chances of being impregnated)
and I tried to merely point out to you that as many men prefer not to wear a condom women will be impregnated as a result.
This thread isn't about my sex life. Which frankly is none of your business.

Lexi:"point out to you that as many men prefer not to wear a condom women will be impregnated as a result."

I have never worn a condom when I've been in a stable, long-term, monogamous relationship, which has been most of my adult life apart from the past few years.

I'm sure there must be some women who like the idea of their husband wearing one, but I've not met any.

I'll put you down as "all's fair in love and war". Your poor husband...

Antiseptic,

Why are you making this personal?
Are you just simply stirring?
I'm genuinely interested.

Lexi:"Why are you making this personal?"

Why are you unable to engage on any level other than the personal?

However despite the survey results Anti, marriage is still highly popular and those who choose not to get married are still making decisions to have children.

There are very few men who are out there thinking about the CSA in their mating activities, especially since shared parenting became the norm.

Pelican:"There are very few men who are out there thinking about the CSA in their mating activities"

And your evidence is?

I think this might aid your understanding

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/rp41/rp41.html#fertility

"The contemporary decline in the fertility rate overall stems from the fact that an increasing proportion of women either remain permanently childless or are having only one or two children. Between 1981 and 2006, the proportion of women aged 40-44 years who had two children increased from 29 to 38 per cent, while the proportion that had four or more children fell from 28 to 11 per cent. The proportion of women in this age range who had three children also declined (from 27 to 22 per cent), while the proportion having only one child fluctuated (between 8 and 13 per cent). There was also an increase in the proportion of women who remained childless (from 9 to 16 per cent)."

and

"Women who give birth over the age of 30 are increasingly likely to be first-time mothers - 41 per cent of all first births in 2003 were to women in this age range, compared with 28 per cent in 1993 [....] As a result, for many women the timeframe in which they can achieve their preferred number of children is progressively shortened."

and

"There is considerable evidence to suggest that families are the most significant support network for the elderly. The increasing rate of childlessness, coupled with family breakdowns and children pursuing jobs interstate or overseas, will mean that many elderly parents will be either "functionally" or "actually" childless".

The CSA took nearly $3 billion from the separated fathers of Australia last year and gave it to their former partners.

Antiseptic,

I now get it.
It's all my fault.
No surprises there.

Lexi, the original post said:"Women with partners also reported that a main barrier was their partner's reluctance to have a child, or another child. Some said that disagreement over childbearing threatened their relationships, and that they avoided talking about wanting children in case their partners left."

I have mentioned the issue of fertility in marriage more than once in the thread. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to assume that you were referring to married men in your condom comment, since you didn't qualify it. Of course, if you were just being facetious, that's another story.

So let's depersonalise it. Do you expect married men to routinely be responsible for contraception? Do you expect men to be generally responsible for it? Would your responses be any different if there were no possibility of either child support payments being transferred from one parent to the other or preferential treatment for women under the Family Law Act?

Antiseptic,

Firstly, my condom reference was in response to
your earlier sweepintg statement about your not liking
women's chances of being impregnated. This
I attempted to explain to you - and you got personal
with your "poor chap" references to my husband regarding
our sex life.

I'm pleased that you agree to depersonalize things.
Let's try to keep it that way.

Now back to the topic...

It's not what I expect or what you expect to be the
practice or the norm for other people. It is the
individual responsibility in a relationship to make
the decisions in their own lives and then take the
responibility based on those choices. Nobody goes
into a marriage or relationship expecting only the
one partner to bear the entire responsibility for
decisions or mistakes made. And as far as the
Family Law Court is concerned - I believe each case
is judged on the circumstances - and each case will
be different - but my understanding is that it is up
to the courts to protect the children when the adults
renege on their responsibilities.

Lexi, you really won't commit to an opinion, will you. How sad.

Antiseptic,

Nah. What I won't commit to is sweeping generalisations
regarding male/female relationships which is so subjective.
What is sad is that you don't seem to be able to
understand that. But then that's a problem I can't do anything
about.

Nobody is making generalisations, Lexi. We're talking about population trends. That means we're discussing things that happen to people you don't know, I do realise that, but those people exist nevertheless and the research from the people at Monash shows that they are having a difficult time finding willing prospective fathers to help them fulfil their biological urge to make babies.

Would you care to discuss the topic, or are you going to continue your display of injured egocentrism?

Either would be equally as amusing, although the former would be far more likely to provoke a conversation.

Antiseptic,

No offence - but I'm not interested in irrelevant
monologues.

Lexi:"I'm not interested in irrelevant monologues"

So why do you keep inflicting them on us?

If you don't feel up to discussing the topic like an adult, perhaps you'd be good enough to let we adults do so unmolested?

Lots of silliness to avoid thinking about a simple set of questions, don't you think? Year of practise avoiding borrowers' requests?

Antiseptic,

The best way to reply to you is with the
following tale:

A bossy man decided to change his behaviour
towards the Chef in his restaurant.
He called him in and said:

"From now on I'm going to treat you fairly."

"If I'm a little late with lunch you won't
verbally abuse me?" asked the Chef.

"No," said the restaurant owner.

"If the coffee is not to your liking you
won't throw it onto the table?"

"No," said the restaurant owner.

"If the steak is not to your liking, you
won't deduct its cost from my salary?"

"Definitely not," assured the restaurant owner.

"Okay," said the Chef.

"Then I'll stop spitting in your soup."

Looks like injured egocentrism won the day. Sad.

Antiseptic,

No, not at all. What is sad is that
perception lost the day.

I once had an "antiseptic" lecturer
who preached peace in the world while
creating dissension in the classroom.
Like a rattlesnake he always had fresh
venom. And made even the simplest
subject sound complex. He took special
pains to confront us with his bitter
reality as he saw it and he also
managed to paint such a bleak picture
of male/female realtionships.

Ah well. I shan't be responding to you
any further. I entered this thread in
good faith - it's a mistake I won't be
repeating

Anti
The Yorkeshiremen scenario was really about expecting this to be a 'see it is women's fault that men don't want to commit' and to see who can outdo who on victim status.

My comment in regard to commitment was more from observation. We have already agreed that statistics and reports can be manipulated to suit a position, so rather than that, take a look around at what is happening in the real world. People young and older are still committing to marriage or long term relationships in the main. Human nature does not change, men and women both seek companionship, security and happiness. This for most of us appears to be achieved through making a commitment to another person, and usually, but not always, involves children. There will always be exceptions.

Trying to work out some kind of summary. I doubt this is complete so please fee free to expand on the list.

The claim (my interpretation of it) - women wanting to have children are finding it harder to find a male willing to commit to the father role.

What's the same
- The biological drives towards parenthood.

What's changed
- The stability of marriage
- The availability of sex out side of marriage (it's always been there but is I suspect a lot more available than it was earlier)
- Easy access to fairly reliable contraception for women.
- CSA and what has been apart from the shared parenting provisions a family law system widely believed to be heavily biased against men. Those shared care provisions are under serious threat.
- The cost of living such one income is generally not considered sufficient for a family (eg a greater pressure to get established before starting a family)
- Social pressures to have children have decreased, plenty of couples choose not to have children and the social stigma about that has decreased significantly.

R0bert

Pelican:"expecting this to be "

See, there's the problem. By reacting to what you "expect" rather than what is said, the conversation is driven in the "expected" way rather than in a new one. That's at the root of my issue with Lexi: she's a smart woman but she seems unable to address topics objectively based on what is said. I guess that's human nature in action.

Pelican:"People young and older are still committing to marriage or long term relationships in the main."

Are they? What's the data say?

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/1D63A0059ECDFDCFCA2577ED00146123?opendocument

That shows a steep decline in the marriage rate since 1989 (when the series begins), from 7 per 1000 population per year to just 55. That's a 25% decline in just 20 years.

Cohabitation is doing better.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/diversity/10cohabitation.pdf

"Since 1986, the percentage of couples
that were cohabiting has increased by approximately
two percentage points every five years."

although

"between 1981 and 2001 the
proportion of those aged 15 or over that were married
fell by eight percentage points (from 60 per cent
to 52 per cent), while the proportion cohabiting
increased by about 4 percentage points (from 3 per
cent to 7 per cent)."

and

"Of partnered people aged 25-34 just a quarter are
cohabiting. Of partnered men and women aged 35-
44 just over 10 per cent cohabit and fewer than 10
per cent in older age groups cohabit."

and

"Relatively few cohabiting relationships endure as
cohabiting relationships in the long term – most
end in break up or in marriage."

so it doesn't look good for your hypothesis, Pelican.

What about kids, do cohabiting people have them?

From the AIFS link above:

"Although many cohabiting
adults have dependent children living with them,
they are considerably less likely to have children
than are married couples."

So I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this, Pelican. The data simply does not support your view.

R0bert, not a bad summary, but I think some form of weighting needs to be give to the factors you've mentioned. For example, I don't think the possibility of extramarital sex plays a big part in the decision to have children or not. If it was going to play a role at all, it may well lead to more children if the reason for men choosing not to have them is as shallowly-based as Houellebecq would have us believe.

I disagree completely about social pressures to have childen decreasing. We had the treasurer of the country telling us only a few short years ago that we need to have "one for the country" and the very influential churches cetainly don't hold back in urging their congregations to breed.

Contraception for women is certainly a factor, since she can decide to put childbearing off. That makes it all the more urgent for her to find a willing partner when she decides she wants to have a child. The thing is, why is she delaying?

Your next point makes that clear, which is the need for 2 incomes to support a middle-class consumerist family lifestyle in which debt is the principle funding source for day-to-day spending.

And I still say those pale into insignificance beside the elephant in the room, which is the CSA and the Family Law.

We spend enormous sums on compensating women for having children but we're seeing fewer people having them anyway. Isn't it about time somebody looked seriously at getting rid of the CSA/Family Law nexus and creating a fairer system? The present one just isn't working.

Remember, just $5 per week per taxpayer would replace every cent that the CSA handles and it would free up large numbers of men who are now either long-term unemployed or on DSP as a direct result of family breakdown making it unviable for them to work.

40% of all CSA-collect "payers" are on the dole...

Antiseptic, agreed that they all have differing weights.
I doubt that sneering Pete's calls to have one for him stirred much enthusiasm but the taxpayer funded handouts may have influenced some.

I do think that overall the social pressures on couples to have children are way less than they were on preceding generations.

I was old enough by the time that I'd been through a divorce that I had other reasons for not wanting to start any more kids but CSA and it's buddies were on my mind as well. I'm not convinced that they are well understood by most who have not had previous dealings with them. Everyone thinks it won't happen to them.

Definitely a contributor though. I'd like to see it gone based on the sheer damage it does by keeping couples tied together financially and perpetuating conflict.

R0bert

There are nominally no barriers to sperm bank donation *except* the spectre of potential future involvement of the Family Court and CSA.

Sperm Bank donations have almost literally "dried up".

I would suggest that concern for the involvement of these flawed organisations has very high penetration for the sub-population involved, and is indicative of the influence on planned fathering decisions in the wider community.

Rusty

"See, there's the problem. By reacting to what you "expect" rather than what is said, the conversation is driven in the "expected" way rather than in a new one."

Yes the response was Pavlovian I admit.

Actually I have noticed you have been more restrained of late Anti, so if there is truly a 'new way' I welcome it in these gender issues.

It it is so, perhaps the lack of commitment to have babies will have a positive effect on the global overpopulation problem.

Dear Pelican,

I've been reading the following website that
I found quite interesting. You may too:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/10/18/older-mothers-selfish

Lexi,

It's an interesting conundrum.
From my point of view, I fell pregnant at 41 (as I mentioned earlier) - but it was an incredible surprise. I couldn't imagine "planning" a child at around that age. Biologically that is when women are usually at the end of their fertile years.
My pregnancy went very smoothly, but my son was small (5 lb 1oz) He actually wore a 00000 baby suit : ). He's a strapping 10 year old now and quite tall for his age.

The other thing I noticed is that when he was attending kindergarten and preschool, most of the mum's were around their early thirties....which was good because I didn't feel "too" ancient. In fact, the whole early childhood thing was much more relaxing this time round ( and I got to watch The Wiggles : )

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for your response.

My girlfriend had her first child at the age of
38. They had been trying to have a baby for quite
a few years - but it wasn't happening. Then when
they decided it wasn't meant to be - she got
pregnant and today her son is a healthy, intelligent,
and very happy ten year old.

PS: My grandson (eighteen months) also loves the Wiggles,
as do I.