Mrs. Don-o, thank you for that. The noise I keep hearing on this thread is that "a shelf-life" implies that women are ONLY valuable as child bearers. I agree with that statement, EXCEPT for the word "ONLY," which I never said, or implied. (Nor did Cyborg, btw.)
Women ARE valuable as child bearers, among many other ways. Trouble is, of all the wonderful ways a woman is valuable to a man, that one has a time limit, a running clock....a shelf life. Everything else that is wonderful about a woman improves, but that one important aspect runs for a while and then ends.
If a man reaches forty and hasn't married yet (maybe career or because he's been in the military), but he wants kids, he's almost got no choice but to marry a younger woman. If he wants a big family, or if he wants them spread out, he'll be looking for someone much younger (maybe even fifteen-twenty years, as bizarre as that might sound). It's just reality.
If a couple is marrying later and don't want children, it's still a reality, but it is also quite irrelevant.
Having a family is one of the most important things a young married couple does in the marriage, so one important priority will be the fertility of the two young spouses.
For the young woman who wants to have a big family, early is important, and timing is critical.
But there will always be people on an internet forum who want to pick and twist and sneer, and they're unavoidable--and unimportant, frankly. And kinda sad.
You knew what I meant though, and most of the reasonable people on this thread did too.