Men, on the other hand, can basically procreate at any age. This is probably one of the reasons Western women so often push vasectomy on their husbands.
Al Pacino's girlfriend is a month away from giving birth to the 83-year-old actor's fourth child.
A representative of Pacino confirmed this to TMZ on Tuesday after it was reported his girlfriend, Noor Alfallah, 29, was pregnant.
Pacino already has 22-year-old twins — Oliva and Anton James Pacino — with Hollywood actress Beverly D'Angelo, and a 33-year-old daughter — Julie Marie — with acting coach, Jan Tarrant.
The news comes weeks after his 79-year-old "The Godfather" co-star Robert De Niro announced the birth of his seventh child.
There is hope for me yet! :LOL:
ReplyDeleteYes, why not? I read some guy in India became father at 93. Of course, there was an Indian woman who became mother at 77 but this was with donor eggs.
ReplyDeleteThe thought of bringing a child into the world who is all but guaranteed to spend most of its life fatherless makes me uneasy. But maybe that's just me.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I have no problems with May-December romances. I was raised by my father and his wife, 22 years his junior. They had a very wonderful 35 year marriage before he died. My family is actually chock full of such marriages (all good and fruitful), but the men where middle aged, not men with one foot in the grave.
Oh, shoot. Sorry Sanne. That was me up there, LOL.
ReplyDeleteWell, there are certainly problems with this union, to begin with, they are unmarried. But sometimes I do think we Westerners try to control our circumstances too much. Isn't Catholic teaching that a child is just a natural consequence of having s8x? Just saying:)
ReplyDeleteAlso, my father's father (my paternal grandfather) died from a heart attack when my father was 6. He was in his mid- forties. Life isn't something we always can plan.
ReplyDeleteAlso, my father's father (my paternal grandfather) died from a heart attack when my father was 6. He was in his mid- forties. Life isn't something we always can plan.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is true. I agree, but one of the cardinal right wing/ red pill/reactionary sphere beliefs is that what happens "in general" actually matters a great deal. That discounting what is normative on the basis of a few exceptions is foolish. It's kind of how we got here in the first place.
Of course, in polygynous cultures (including the Bible narrative), very old men reproducing was a common thing. The culture of the west (what's left of it anyway) was built on monogamy and what generally makes for a prosperous society, and it's not very old men leaving behind new born babes and toddlers. Al Pacino and Robert DeNairo will be leaving behind lots of monetary support for these children, but they aren't really the standard because most men wouldn't be able to do that. And no amount of money can replace a present and engaged father.
Again, this is not a disapproval of older men younger women. I truly have no issue with it. I'm simply pointing out that, writ large, it isn't healthy for men who great-grandfather aged to produce babies.
I presume it's you, Elspeth?
DeleteI'd say that the "red pill" is a modern American phenomenon which isn't exactly the same as the traditional Western patriarchy.
Marriage in the past wasn't so much about getting children as about having legitimate s8x, which then could result in having kids. In other words, whichever age you were, if you wanted to have regular s8x with a "decent" woman you had to marry.
A responsible father wasn't necessarily a young one, but the one who didn't sire bastards but had all his children in wedlock. If he died, well, then God would provide. Also the Church was mostly against any form of contraception and taught that it was a great sin.
Nowadays we are taught that being responsible means "family planning" while legitimacy of the offspring isn't that important. Many red pill types aren't religious and openly teach that marriage is only for the kids and if you aren't planning on having any, that s8x out of wedlock is just fine, so I'd say it's somewhat different.
ReplyDeleteWe also totally nearly totally separated s8x from procreation. If Al Pacino is still able to have s8x at his age, then a kid is a natural consequence of it. The issue then is not so much his fatherhood, but should he have s8x outside wedlock with mistresses?
BTW, I checked this Indian guy. He was 94 AND 96 when he fathered his 2 sons with his wife who was in her late forties/begin fifties. He did stick around till 104 at which age he died.
Yes, that was me up there. Apologies for the anonymous comment.
ReplyDeleteAnd I see your point. You make sense.
It's OK, if you have difficulties with logging in, you can just sign up the anon comment:)
ReplyDeleteI suppose my comments were made within the context of: young man marries one young woman, they have kids, raise those kids, grow old together, someone dies, the end. In such a case (normative but by no means a guaranteed outcome), you'd not have an old man reproducing kids because his monogamous wife would be past the years of childbearing.
ReplyDeleteMy mother died young (31), and several years late, at 49, my father later married a 28 year old woman. Life happens, and it is what it is. People die, men most often remarry younger women. Children are the result.
But all things being equal, if a couple doesn't divorce, grows old together, and sex is constrained within the context of monogamous fidelity (Christian sexual morality), there shouldn't be a plethora of 65+ year old men fathering newborns. In the long run, this is actually the best scenario for the children as well. It doesn't always work that way, but in a society with traditional Christian norm and morality, it would.
That was my overall point.
Sorry about your mother! I knew someone who married young and had kids and then his wife died from cancer. He remarried his student of 26 and got another child with her. He was 56. Nowadays most people this age don't even bother to marry, they are "dating" because "they are too old to be having kids anyway." I disagree...
ReplyDeleteSperm count does diminish with time, mind you.
ReplyDelete