Sorry, prologos...I am not picking on you. And I don't want to de-rail this thread, but children do factor into relationships between older men and younger women.
I want to point out that the disadvantages for children born of an elderly father has more than just social disadvantages. You said "If I ruled the world I would propose a law, that men can not have children before turning 65". Your statement disregards the environmental factors that preclude conception.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/the-dangers-of-older-dads-2/
It took an Icelandic study on paternal age, the largest and most definitive to date, published in Nature last year, to capture public attention. A team of researchers lead by respected neurologist Kári Stefánsson found fathers determined the rate of new, or “de novo,” genetic mutations leading to autism, schizophrenia, dyslexia and other conditions involving brain function. De novo mutations are not harmful in themselves; but only one change in a key gene is required to cause some types of disease—the more mutations, the higher the risk. The study found “de novo” gene mutations double every 16.5 years: the baby of a 36-year-old father would, in theory, have twice as many new mutations than one whose father is 20, whose sperm carries about 25 mutations (though it doesn’t mean his child would automatically have twice as many problems; it depends where the mutuations occur). The study concluded the rate of increase in de novo mutations could be ascribed to the father’s age—97.1 per cent or “maybe entirely”—a totally unexpected result, Stefánsson told Maclean’s. “That is amazing, in itself.”
