What age are girls objectively most fertile and capable of sex and birth of a healthy child? Ignoring laws...

What age are girls objectively most fertile and capable of sex and birth of a healthy child? Ignoring laws, and going purely based on biology.

Other urls found in this thread:

factsforlifeglobal.org/01/1.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661305003207
who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/maternal/adolescent_pregnancy/en/
ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/life-expectancy-myth-and-why-many-ancient-humans-lived-long-077889
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

tell us what you're planning OP.

Why exactly do you want to know?

Literally nothing I just like discussing edgy topics on boards where people post their actual opinions rather than what is socially acceptable.

16-26.

I don't know those numbers came to mind, they just did.

biggest troof ive gotten in years

When she's bleeding, she's ready for the breeding.

still tho faggot tell us what you're gonna do

wanna get in on that sauce boi

This gif together with your words. Perfect.

Also fuck you, you pedophile asshole.
>hurr whats pedo about my question
You know god damn well, now search treatment

Once thier pelvis is fully grown. Varies from individual to individual. 15 to 18, with outliers.

They can become impregnated ~1 month before their first period which can come as early as 9 but normally is around 11-13. This isn't to say that their bodies can support a child, just that one can be conceived. I think the youngest birth in history where the child survived was 9 y/o tho. Please don't use this info for any practical purposes. Psychologically people aren't ready for children until many years and a LOT of maturation after they can physically have one

PS. I don't like the look of that gif

I didn't ask what the youngest age they could concieve is, I'm asking from a medical standpoint when they would be most fertile and capable of giving birth to the most healthy child.

I'd say it varies from person to person based on genetics. I've met girls that already get breeding hips and tits in early (10, but she's a total exception, some genetic condition.) my ex was already sexually active at 14 and all her female family members were the same, 2 of her sisters pumping out babies at 15.

Guessing based on just observations (I'm totally a hebephile) I'd say 1-2 years after period kicks in, gives their body time to develop while still being young and full of energy. Similar rules to breeding dogs I guess.

The healthiest age is in the 20s if that's what you're asking

Keep dog years in mind tho

Nah

Wouldn't their body still be too small and underdeveloped at 15?

I guess they would probably recover very fast after the birth though so it would be good for the mother.

Old enuff to bleed
Young enuff to breed

The best age in purely physical terms is immediately post puberty. Once development finishes the gradual decline begins.

True, so maybe 3-5 years for a human.
I might be biased as an Australian, girls grow into women quickly here. But they're young, springy and still growing which means they'll intake more food/energy easier. From a biological standpoint it'd also help since they're less likely to suffer from a longlasting knee/leg injury if required to move while with child. (Such as escaping a raided camp or wild animal attack, obviously not important in current society.)

13 years of age is the optimal average. It varies from subject to subject. Their bodies change to accommodate the pregnancy.

They don't need to have hips before becoming pregnant in order to produce healthy offspring. That's the single dumbest shit I've heard about this topic. God damn robotically minded people, spoutin' off their government approved programs, and forgetting that they used to be the size of a pinhead. Life adapts. It grows into the shape it needs to be.

The flexible bone structure of a young, sexually mature adult of the ripe age of approximately thirteen is most malleable, and able to handle the morphing of pregnancy. As they grow older, they become more rigid, less able to morph, less fertile.

It ain't hard user. They're like fruit. Nature makes it REAL obvious when they're ripest, and they don't get any fresher after that.

>but muh "i'm not an object"
Apparently, evolution disagrees about that point. But +1 for equality among genders.

Obligatory Loli animooted pic related.

This is medically inaccurate. Most girls will not become pregnant until their 20s, their fertility peaks then because their pelvis / womb etc is fully developed, breasts are fully developed for breastfeeding etc.

Girls who have babies in their teens statistically have more birthing complications, higher rates of miscarriage and premature babies, and much less chance of successful breastfeeding.

Then they're fertility declines gradually after about 25, until about 35 - 37 (depends on the individual, some women are not ever very fertile, others are highly fertile ) , when it drops rapidly

Humans have a lot of variation, but if you want to avoid complications, you want younger than 28-32 or so when the eggs start to stank, but after full growth, which can be 10-19 or so.

For the vast majority of women, it's between the ages of 15-17 and 32-36 for cutoffs.

If you don't believe me google up some charts on birth defects and birthing complications.If they start to breed before the bones are finished growing, it can fuck up their development, sometimes to the point of further pregnancies damaging the goods.

Thier pelvis is fully developed by 15,16, 17. Nothing changes between then and early 20s except for calcification of the very ligaments that are stretched duting childbirth.

Take a class fag.

> I'm asking from a medical standpoint
On Sup Forums.
Keep telling that to yourself you twisted asshole

This is rubbish, sorry.13 year olds (or under 18) are not only less likely to get pregnant (because they're less fertile than a woman in her 20s), but will have significantly higher risks of smaller weight babies and babies with poorer health. This is easy to google and has been quite extensively studied

Nope. 20s is something that only became a norm and was started to me shown as optimal age in last century or so. Before that girl that was unmarried by 20 was started to panic and most cultures had considered unmarried girls at 25 to be too old to attract a suitor.

I say biological optimum is 16 to 20.

You're wrong, according to every scientific opinion on the planet

factsforlifeglobal.org/01/1.html

I don't know what kind of women you had sex with when you were a kid, but that was categorically NOT my experience.

And I've cum in a few wombs in my day.

13 is most fertile. It goes down from there. Their hips will fill out and breasts develop as needed. Because, y'know. Their hormones change when they become impregnated.

>Most girls will not become pregnant until their 20s, their fertility peaks then because their pelvis / womb etc is fully developed, breasts are fully developed for breastfeeding etc.

Fucking robot people... what did I just say?
>They don't need to have hips before becoming pregnant in order to produce healthy offspring. That's the single dumbest shit I've heard about this topic.

All that stuff is taken care of during pregnancy. Fucking hell, dude. Next are you going to claim that women need to be actively lactating in order to become pregnant? And they should have a dilated cervix too, because y'know that's "fully developed." Oh, and while we're at it, the most fertile women are in menopause, because y'know. "Fully developed."

Google it fags. Or, just keep getting your child brides pregnant and having retarded children:

>It is important to note that the pregnant adolescent is at increased risk of pregnancy complications such as eclampsia, premature labour, prolonged labour, obstructed labour, fistula, anaemia and death.
For her baby, there is a greater risk of premature birth, low birthweight, health problems and death.
For the pregnant adolescent under 15 years of age, these risks increase substantially.

Dude, how come every medical expert or scientific study on this topic disagrees with you?

Hippy dippy social engineering websites dont count.

Every?

M8 take a dèep breath and dont let your autism take over you.

How about every site, including the World Health Organisation?Or does your pedo anecdata trump everything?

what do you base your opinions on regarding this topic? sources?

Tell me what changes in a females anatomy between the end of development, say 16 to 18 and this magical early 20's goldilocks age?

>factsforlifeglobal.org/01/1.html
We're asking for biological facts.

Not stats, you dip. Can you maybe think of any other reason why a pregnant teen might not fare well in this country? Do you suppose that might affect the stats somehow? Because I sure as fuck don't see any coefficients factoring for societal pressure and lack of nutrition due to ostracization on there. Did you cross reference that with economic status? With the emotional read out of the pregnant woman? No? No, emotional read outs don't exist yet? Then shut the fuck up.

I'd expect a robot to have a little better understanding of causality.

I appreciate the conversation, but your reasoning is scary dumb. You're just literally parroting stats on a website, with no comprehension of the mechanisms or appreciation for the difference between controls and manipulated variables.

God damn dude, this is how physicians convinced themselves that cigarettes were healthy for you, because they helped you relax. Fucking pop-science and circle jerked P-hacking.

Because America isn't the entire world, and American physicians aren't especially renown for their efficacy.

>Or does your pedo anecdata trump everything?
I've only had ever sex and impregnanted older minors.

Yeah puzzle that one.
>Because you're a robot, and keep forgetting that real organisms grow and adapt to change.

it really depends on the individual.

it could be as young as 10. (very rare), to as old as 30.

generally anything after that and pregnancy becomes harder and more dangerous with time.

>it depends.

You can research this yourself, faggot. I shouldn't have to walk you through it.

One, the lifespan of humans doesn't make sense if women are optimally meant to bear children in their early teens. They are most physically attractive to the opposite sex, in an objective sense, between the ages of 20 to 25, (yes that's been studied as well), which coincides with their peak fertility. Their hips, breasts, ovulation and sexual desire is all fully developed at peak function during this age.

Obviously certain individuals vary , so let's say between 18 and 28 for 90% of women.

^^

You are talking shit now.

Fertility declines with age as ligaments harden. Peak is literally immediately post maturation.

>They are most physically attractive to the opposite sex, in an objective sense, between the ages of 20 to 25, (yes that's been studied as well)
source?

Lol. Pedo, you can go to google and find literally 20 different scientific and medical sites stating human females peak in fertility in their early 20s.

So you're saying every single one of these sites is lying, and you are somehow more knowledgeable than every medical expert published on this topic? Dude, stop trying to justify your kiddie porn

>the lifespan of humans

you stupid moral based motherfucker. put your social indoctrination aside.

we have literally manipulated the environment to adapt it to us and live longer because of it.

evolution primed the human body for reproduction exactly when puberty hits. it doesnt have to be pretty, or even easy, or good for you. thats just what "works" in the natural sense. even if some die in child birth.

holy fuck im foaming at the mouth just by reading your stupidity on here. its amazing what social indoctrination can do to a person. not very much different than what religion does to the masses.

Why wont you answer my question?

source you faggot

Nah. You're full of shit. You live in a controlled society, that imposes rules that affect your thinking. You're linking BREEDING studies. We're not talking about breeding, per se.

In the wilds, when do organisms get pregnant?
>As soon as they can.

We can assume that's the best biological situation from simple Darwinism--if organisms were meant to become impregnated at a later time, then that's when their bodies would finish developing the organs that allow them to become impregnated. If species which finished developing their genitals after all other sexual characteristics were developed were actually more fit, and better at producing viable offspring, then that's what we'd see.

And if that were *truly* the case, then that would mean that an organism is most capable of producing viable offspring is the one that's capable of becoming impregnated. That would mean that the sexual characteristics that are not necessary to become impregnated are "fully developed" by the time their genitals are, and that any development on the part of those sexual characteristics beyond the point when an organism is physically capable of becoming impregnated is non-consequential.

Fuck you P-hacked studies. Explain to me how your societal expectations can circumvent "survival of the fittest," and then I'll consider that what you're claiming has even the tiniest shred of possibility.

Because if what you're saying is true, if studies indicate that humans are no longer capable of producing offspring at a point when previously in history they were, that in itself is an indication of some serious damage to our genome, perhaps due to breeding constraints like "Oooh, that's wrong. Don't do that. Drink out of a lead cup. Smoke cigarettes, they help you relax."

Different user here, but that doesn't make any sense.

>the lifespan of humans doesn't make sense if women are optimally meant to bear children in their early teens.

Well I imagine that when humans were little better than tribal cavemen, their lifespans weren't all that amazing. It already takes years of development for a child to even walk, now you're saying our species is willing to wait two whole decades before it'd rather procreate? Bullshit! The human race would've died out.

What you're saying makes sense after the founding of civilization, as more of a social construct, but that's about it.

>They are most physically attractive to the opposite sex, in an objective sense, between the ages of 20 to 25,

That is immediately laid bare if ever you were a man going through puberty. You telling me all you ever fantasized about, when you were say 14, were 20 to 25 year olds? Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Sounds to me like either a small sample size or a bunch of survey takers thinking to themselves, "Shit, the truth might make me sound like a pedophile! Better pick ages well above 18 to be safe!"

>which coincides with their peak fertility.

Circular reasoning.

>In the absence of contraception, female fertility reaches its maximum in the mid-twenties (which is the estimated age of evolved attractive composites), declines by about 20% in the mid-thirties, and then falls precipitously by a further 60% during the forties

from here:

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661305003207

No, it's related to our lifespan as compared to other animal's lifespan, and their peak breeding ages. It's not a social construct but biological.

And the age of peak attractiveness being 20 - 25 is proven by numerous studies reported by men themselves, and also based on pupil dilation and other methods of determining arousal. Again, I shouldn't have to walk people through easily googled evidence

Alright. This guy's retarded. He just linked an article behind a paywall. I think we're done here.

Just follow your dick, OP. Nature knows.

What is P-hacking?

What is cultural programming?

>as more of a social construct,

he's probably 12 years old, american, and doesnt know what a fucking social construct is.

he only knows what other people who think EXACTLY like their immediate groups tell him.

>you can drive at 16.
>fuck at 18.
>and drink at 21.

what he doesnt understand and probably never will (like a muslim, who claims the christians have the false religion) is that if you spend enough time repeating the same mantras and ideas to people over and over again, your mantras and ideas dont actually have to be true for people to believe them.

all it takes is that MOST people believe them.


people like him are lost to what they been taught since children. and will probably never recover. best to just put them down.

>Again, I shouldn't have to walk people through easily googled evidence

when you were asked to show sources you ninja googled and linked to an article behind a paywall. you're a fraud.

>but much correlation studies!

>most fertile
who cares

>capable of sex
oral: 4
anal: 7
vag: 10

>birth of a healthy child
who cares

Actually, many animals who "can" get pregnant at younger ages, don't. One example is of a study on horses in the wild where the stallion was not interested in mating with fillies under 2 years old even when they came into heat, (when they can become pregnant, but were more at risk of miscarriage) and consistently preferred mares over that age.

There are many other similar studies.

You can't link a single scientific study to support your claim of young teenagers being at peak fertility. It's just your preference to be attracted to girls that age, it's not fact that they're more fertile then.

>No, it's related to our lifespan as compared to other animal's lifespan,

Here's the problem with that metric: It doesn't matter how long you could've potentially lived when you get trampled by an auroch, gored by a bison, or gutted by a rival tribe. There is no way humanity could've waited 20 years to procreate -- we would've gone the way of the neanderthal.

This means there is no way the selective pressure on humans would guide us toward such a long period of lesser fertility. And furthermore, it is peculiar that such a high rate of conception would even be possible in half the time you're proposing if evolution, hence biology, were steering us at a 2 decade wait time.

It doesn't make any sense.

>And the age of peak attractiveness being 20 - 25 is proven by numerous studies reported by men themselves, and also based on pupil dilation and other methods of determining arousal. Again, I shouldn't have to walk people through easily googled evidence

And you don't think social pressures have any role in this? You don't think laws that harshly punish sex below the age of consent might've had an influence at all on these kinds of surveys?
I'm surprised that you're taking the role of "going just by the science," and yet you have no skepticism whatsoever about this.

Hey user. Google it yourself. Put in these words: "human female peak fertility". Report back on your findings. Ohh.. they ALL say "early or mid 20s"?? Well fuck me

what are reasonable people supposed to do when the pedofags tell you its ok to fuck a 10yo?... and the fucking SJWs think women get attractive in their mid-20s?

Its literally being caught between two stupid and retarted extremes.

According to the classes I took, its before 30 and around 18-20 is best.

A lot of bla bla about why but its just the facts, too young aint right and a old skank doesnt put out healthy kids

Then you should be able to tell me what changes between 16 and 22. Given all the research that you have done.

I quoted the relevant information from the site, for you people who can't access actual scientific articles. It's not my issue

I'm not a scientist, idiot. I'm just of normal intelligence and know how to google objective studies and not rely on my own personal preferences to claim things are "fact", like you and your "13 year olds are at peak fertility" fantasies

The archeological record suggests that woman die at an average age of 25 years, men at 35.

The youngest birth on record is 6, a girl in Brazil gave birth to her uncle's child. Mohammed took a bride 6 years old. Girls have been starting breeding since there have been girls, by about 6 - 9 years, and continued into their early 20's before dying.

This is the archeological evidence.

>And you don't think social pressures have any role in this? You don't think laws that harshly punish sex below the age of consent might've had an influence at all on these kinds of surveys?
>I'm surprised that you're taking the role of "going just by the science," and yet you have no skepticism whatsoever about this.

this

There is no evidence that women's average life expectancy is 10 years less than men's. Women's life expectancy has always been a few years higher than men's. Please learn biology you idiots.

You are a retarded idiot and starting to let your autism make you angry / miss the point here.

Answer the question. What changes in a womans body between full maturity (15-18) and this early 20s period you think makes for better babies?

Seeing as there's NO science saying that 13 year olds or under 18s are at peak fertility, what's your reasoning for this argument, then?

Mares become fertile at like 18 months you dipshit. 2 years is 6 months after that.

22~25 years for a human is not 6 months after they become fertile.

Are you going to pull some asinine horse : human years conversion? Please do. I'd love to see your math.

I'm not angry. I just think your desperate need to prove that children are more fertile than women in their early 20s, despite all the available evidence to the contrary, is ridiculous

Because that's how species that don't have laws specifically dictating how members of that species can breed, function.

>for you people who can't access actual scientific articles. It's not my issue

can you download it and upload it to zippyshare then?

I said "under 2". That covers 18 months and any earlier age fillies are capable of becoming pregnant, but would have higher risks of bearing a healthy foal.

It was in answer to the ignorant statement that other animals breed and are at peak fertlity as soon as they are capable of it, which is untrue.

Im not desperate to prove anything. I know the answer. Im just curious to see where you are going to take this.

Now answer the question.

Remember we are talking pure biology here. Not statistics or random non-peer reviewed websites.

What changes in the body to improve fertility or successful childbirth between 16 and 22?

No they don't.

>Seeing as there's NO science saying that 13 year olds or under 18s are at peak fertility, what's your reasoning for this argument, then?

That's not what's being claimed. I don't know when "peak fertility" would be, but I have an exceptionally hard time thinking that evolution would guide humanity toward the 18 to 25 range considering how easy it is to die in the wild, and have reason to believe that there might be a confounding variable considering how eerily your timeframe lines up with age of consent laws.

this thread belongs on r9k

Read it yourself, or google a different source:

The rates of preterm birth, low birth weight and asphyxia are higher among the children of adolescents, all of which increase the chance of death and of future health problems for the baby.

the risk of maternal death is four times higher among adolescents younger than 16 years than among women in their twenties.

Stillbirths and death in the first week of life are 50% higher among babies born to mothers younger than 20 years than among babies born to mothers 20–29 years old.

who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/maternal/adolescent_pregnancy/en/

I mean, they do in that pretend study you didn't link about horses ""only"" becoming in mares once they were 2 years of age.

I'm sorry my referring to studies upsets you, seeing as you have nothing to support your views other than what's in your head

You are quoting statistics.

I asked a question about anatomy.


Btw, do your statistics include third world countries or just modern well fed parts of the world?

I'm not an anatomy expert and neither are you. We're on fucking Sup Forums. But if you think there's other reasons for those statistics of maternal and baby death and complications that aren't anatomical or related to physical development, what are they?

As soon as they bleed
In b4 peado
It's biology.

I mean, I had a pretty solid argument concerning basic tenets of evolution up top.

And your response was an imaginary study about horses, that you fucked up when inventing the math for, which actually collaborated my point even more.

And then I guess you're having reading comprehension problems or something, because you're now acting like I'm the one that made up your imaginary horse study that you never linked.

So... apology accepted? I'm having trouble keeping up with your version of crazy in this thread.

You're late to Sup Forums by five years or so, then. This website is moralfag central.

Nutrition. Stress. Disease and availability of antibiotics. Healthcare. War. All unmonitored variables in your statustics that just seem to measure infant and mother mortality regardless of circumstance.

What changes in a womans body between 16 and early 20s that improves fertility or successful childbirth?

Not one part of your argument has any evidence attached to it, whereas I've linked about 4 different sites including science journals and the World Health Organisation.

Do you think the WHO is making up it's statistics on the much higher risks for mother and baby in adolescent pregnancy and birth?

The evidence is the recovered human remains from archeological digs.

If women peaked at childbearing just before they died, most of their offspring would die.

Perhaps most did, and drove the average age at death down too.

About 25% of all people died of interpersonal violence, and given that women are about 25% smaller than men, this was probably a causative factor in the younger age at death, along with childbirth complications, and being burdened with a vulnerable infant during existential crises.

All of those variables affect women of all ages. What accounts for the higher deaths in adolescence, if not age?

The fact that half of the third world is pregnant by 16, while the first world tends to wait? Therefore the higher third world mortality will skew your statistics.

Answer the fucking question.

Dude, women didn't normally die at 25 even in ancient times, it's a myth.

Here: ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/life-expectancy-myth-and-why-many-ancient-humans-lived-long-077889

Again, wrong. Read the actual link. They take into account the country.

> In Latin America, the risk of maternal death is four times higher among adolescents younger than 16 years than among women in their twenties.

I said average age, not median. That study completely validates the hypothesis that breeding at younger ages had a mortality toll on women that men did not suffer.

Women died an average of 10 years earlier than men, and while outliers that lived into their 40's and even 60's did exist, the vast majority died much younger.

Far too young to raise a daughter to 15 before dying.

Nowhere does it say women died an average of 10 years younger than men. Childbirth is hazardous but men go to war and hunt.

The link I provided shows that the low lifespans of ancient humans that people often quote are a myth skewed by deaths in infancy

25-30

It is never at 10. No girl is physically or mentally ready to have a child at that age.