Quote: (04-11-2018 11:20 AM)Vill@in Wrote:  

Quote: (04-11-2018 10:57 AM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

I agree with this--can't see how this is really in dispute.

These guys are betraying their spouses and families. Now, of course, their wives aren't fucking them which means they are being dishonored and betrayed as well. But the solution to this isn't to run out and have an affair--it's to make yourself attractive to other women and give your wife a year or so to respond. If you still aren't getting fucked after you've put on 20 lbs of muscle (or lost weight) and learned some Game, then you get a divorce.

The fact that this is considered "white knighting" is evidence of how ridiculous the conversation can get around here at times.

It says this right there in her article:

Quote:Quote:

I was careful about the men I met. I wanted to make sure they had no interest in leaving their wives or otherwise threatening all they had built together. In a couple of cases, the men I met were married to women who had become disabled and could no longer be sexual, but the husbands remained devoted to them.

So, again, the man is the asshole? His wife is physically unable to have sex with them but they are interested in staying married. These are the type of men this whore author specifically chose to seek out. She says it herself.

These men may be of terrible character, but that's another topic. Why are we bringing it up? This article is about a woman seeking these men for sex only, and then she writes an article saying they are scum.

Why do men continue to let women get away with this behavior?

She had to write an article saying they were scumbags. Sour grapes.

Overtly she wrote that she didn't want relationships to happen, which is an easy thing to say when none, in fact, did. She secretly wanted a guy to say they weren't interested in leaving their wife but be so overcome by her they would pick her over their disabled (asexual) wife. She is aware that at (50?) she's no spring chicken any more, so she tried to make the decision for these men easy and picked marriages that were fundamentally sexually dysfunctional.

What do these disabled women have that she doesn't? The horror!

If she didn't have a problem with the outcome that she carefully set up, why did she bother writing a long whiny screed complaining about her success?

Once again, it's worth pointing out that only a few of the married men she fucked had disabled wives. Many of the men she was involved with had physically healthy wives who just weren't doing their duty in the sack. In such cases, I don't believe the men should be stepping out on their spouses---I think he should learn Game, get in physical condition and become attractive to other women. If the wife doesn't respond sexually then you eject.

This is the honorable thing to do in these cases. Having an affair is cowardly and self-falsifying.

Quote: (04-11-2018 12:07 PM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

Once again, it's worth pointing out that only a few of the married men she fucked had disabled wives. Many of the men she was involved with had physically healthy wives who just weren't doing their duty in the sack. In such cases, I don't believe the men should be stepping out on their spouses---I think he should learn Game, get in physical condition and become attractive to other women. If the wife doesn't respond sexually then you eject.

This is the honorable thing to do in these cases. Having an affair is cowardly and self-falsifying.

Wasn't he doing that if he was cheating on the side. Plus you aren't getting the husbands side of the story. Maybe he has an open relationship but she just doesn't want to know. Maybe they have an open relationship in general.

There is no doubt some of these married guys are scumbags just like any percentage of x amount of people. The problem is your white knighting for this chick with out hearing the other side of the story and when this chick is just as bad because she is purposely seeking married men out dangling the only thing she has of value in front of them with sex starved men. It's like a dope dealer hitting up a rehab.

^^^Agreed there's only one side to a story, keep in mind women LOVE to overexaggerate when writing articles online.

They do it for the drama, likes, shares, and ad revenues.

Here is what this "article" is really about:

Quote:Quote:

I know what it feels like to go off sex, and I know what it’s like to want more than my partner. It’s also a tall order to have sex with the same person for more years than our ancestors ever hoped to live. Then, at menopause, a woman’s hormones suddenly drop and her desire can wane.

At 49, I was just about there myself, and terrified of losing my desire for sex. Men don’t have this drastic change. So we have an imbalance, an elephant-size problem, so burdensome and shameful we can scarcely muster the strength to talk about it.

She is 49, going through menopause and knows that any day she won't want sex anymore... but it won't matter because she will no longer be sending out sexual signals so men won't want to fuck her anyway.

This is her last sexual hurrah and she knows it. The men are thirsty since they aren't getting sex at home, and she can feel superior to the women because she wants sex and can get it.She is competing with those women and is winning in her eyes. She is scared to death, and by elevating herself above other women she has a cheap way of facing her fear of sexual invisibility. The whole "article is just her way of crowdsourcing her ability to ignore the inevitable and how she feels about it.

Quote: (04-11-2018 12:07 PM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

Once again, it's worth pointing out that only a few of the married men she fucked had disabled wives. Many of the men she was involved with had physically healthy wives who just weren't doing their duty in the sack. In such cases, I don't believe the men should be stepping out on their spouses---I think he should learn Game, get in physical condition and become attractive to other women. If the wife doesn't respond sexually then you eject.

This is the honorable thing to do in these cases. Having an affair is cowardly and self-falsifying.

I disagree - time honored tradition for men to have young pussy on the side. Women in the past used to respect that to a degree and saner societies in Russia, France and even China still do. Men can fuck around and love their wives.

When women cheat it's almost always something else (there are only very few exceptions to this rule).

Of course fidelity is better, but the Red Pill reality teaches us:

Women will rather stay with an Alpha guy with Game who cheats on her more or less discretely than a Beta man who is super-faithful to her. The super-ideal version is an Alpha husband with Game who does not fuck other women despite many options. Though who could blame an in-shape 50yo man wanting to taste some young woman as his wife is 45?

Her article in essence teaches us another thing - she would have dropped anything and gotten together with many of those men if they ever asked her. Their cheating did not diminish their attractiveness to her. In contrast - what man would get together with a cheating wife?

Quote: (04-11-2018 07:48 AM)dosequis Wrote:  

The author is a slut but she's also single, divorced after 23 years of marriage and past her prime so who cares really. It's not like she would have the chance of catching a high value man anyway by being a prude.
You have to be honest and recognize that the problem here is ultimately the men who are cheating and not being honest with their wives. If you have decided to be in a monogamous relationship you should end it before you fuck other women or push it towards an open-relationship for you before you do anything.

I submitted a guest article to the NYT, "What Wasting 50k in a Weekend on Hookers and Blow in Cancún Taught Me About Wasting 50k in a Weekend on Hookers and Blow in Cancún", but they haven't responded to me yet.

I'm sure they're just busy and will be getting back to me soon.

Quote: (04-11-2018 11:50 AM)realologist Wrote:  

In this context, dosequis has no point. This chick sought out married men and continued to fuck them after finding out they were married.

Then the example of the guy with the disabled wife. I honor that guy's morals because he still was married to his wife and didn't abandon her like many disabled people are. He fucked some side chicks. What a MONSTER!!!

Yeah...

The men being cheating bastards doesn't exempt her. Sometimes there is no "good" side to root for.

It's pretty simple. I have my own code of ethics that I voluntarily choose to follow as a cost of my denomination. For everyone else, follow up on the damn promises you make. That means either figure out an agreement or don't do it.

I don't really buy into either camp. It's not a "men" or a "women" thing. Following oaths you swear to is kinda the baseline of decent human behavior.

Quote: (04-11-2018 02:28 PM)realologist Wrote:  

Wasn't he doing that if he was cheating on the side. Plus you aren't getting the husbands side of the story. Maybe he has an open relationship but she just doesn't want to know. Maybe they have an open relationship in general.

I'm sure some percentage of the men have open relationships. In fact, she alludes to this in the article. My post was not referring to them. I have made this clear.

Quote:Quote:

There is no doubt some of these married guys are scumbags just like any percentage of x amount of people. The problem is your white knighting for this chick with out hearing the other side of the story and when this chick is just as bad because she is purposely seeking married men out dangling the only thing she has of value in front of them with sex starved men. It's like a dope dealer hitting up a rehab.

Agree that this chick is not blameless. Yes she is seeking out married men and thus a horrible person. No doubt. But it's not white knighting to point out that many of these guys aren't exactly role models either and that the right thing to do is to get rid of a wife who you want to fuck but isn't fucking you--and isn't receptive to an open marriage--as opposed to living a lie. That this constitutes a hotly disputed line of reasoning here is completely ridiculous.

Also agree that we don't have the mens' side of the story and that women are generally unreliable narrators. The usual caveats of course apply.

When these self-serving apologias are written they always come across as though it's a guilty person desperately seeking forgiveness. You could drop this into a monologue in a courtroom drama it sounds so defensive.

If it was never so bad in the first place then you wouldn't feel the need to air your dirty laundry and try to reshape public opinion on questionable conduct. We know how much women care about their social status. Any attempt on their part to suggest they are free-spirits who give no fucks is bullshit. The more hostile/defiant/hamstery they get the more they reveal how much they care about how others view them.

See Monica Lewinsky for a good example of this plea to rewrite the narrative and make themselves the protagonist of their own narrative.

Note that this article is an opening-salvo to a full-on memoir so this woman obviously thinks she's pretty damn important.

Quote: (04-11-2018 02:57 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Quote: (04-11-2018 12:07 PM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

Once again, it's worth pointing out that only a few of the married men she fucked had disabled wives. Many of the men she was involved with had physically healthy wives who just weren't doing their duty in the sack. In such cases, I don't believe the men should be stepping out on their spouses---I think he should learn Game, get in physical condition and become attractive to other women. If the wife doesn't respond sexually then you eject.

This is the honorable thing to do in these cases. Having an affair is cowardly and self-falsifying.

I disagree - time honored tradition for men to have young pussy on the side. Women in the past used to respect that to a degree and saner societies in Russia, France and even China still do. Men can fuck around and love their wives.

When women cheat it's almost always something else (there are only very few exceptions to this rule).

Of course fidelity is better, but the Red Pill reality teaches us:

Women will rather stay with an Alpha guy with Game who cheats on her more or less discretely than a Beta man who is super-faithful to her. The super-ideal version is an Alpha husband with Game who does not fuck other women despite many options. Though who could blame an in-shape 50yo man wanting to taste some young woman as his wife is 45?

Her article in essence teaches us another thing - she would have dropped anything and gotten together with many of those men if they ever asked her. Their cheating did not diminish their attractiveness to her. In contrast - what man would get together with a cheating wife?

Right.

As I tell women who complain about the double standard, men get away with it because they can. Its called preselection, whereas men don't give a shit if other men like a woman. He's either attracted to her or not.

Quote: (04-11-2018 03:21 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

I submitted a guest article to the NYT, "What Wasting 50k in a Weekend on Hookers and Blow in Cancún Taught Me About Wasting 50k in a Weekend on Hookers and Blow in Cancún", but they haven't responded to me yet.

I'm sure they're just busy and will be getting back to me soon.

In any case, I and probably everybody here on RVF, would love reading this article of yours, man! Post it asap on the Cancun thread!


^Sam Roberts on holiday with fifty grand' and two, no four, smoking guns

I don't know if anyone on here watches The Andrew Klavan Show on The Daily Wire, but he mentioned this article yesterday. His introduction to the article was, "I'm so glad we've stopped slut-shaming so we can hear from sluts who should be ashamed!" I've pretty much stopped watching any TV, and I only watch news and commentary online (I financially support those that I ideologically support). I find the commentary online, even on the more "mainstreamish" sites, is still better and less PC than the mainstreamish stuff on TV. In any case, I second his thoughts on the matter. Why the hell do we even waste time bantering back and forth about a hamstering women who is probably so far past the wall, she's in Liaodong?

Quote: (04-11-2018 06:38 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

When these self-serving apologias are written they always come across as though it's a guilty person desperately seeking forgiveness. You could drop this into a monologue in a courtroom drama it sounds so defensive.

If it was never so bad in the first place then you wouldn't feel the need to air your dirty laundry and try to reshape public opinion on questionable conduct. We know how much women care about their social status. Any attempt on their part to suggest they are free-spirits who give no fucks is bullshit. The more hostile/defiant/hamstery they get the more they reveal how much they care about how others view them.

See Monica Lewinsky for a good example of this plea to rewrite the narrative and make themselves the protagonist of their own narrative.

Note that this article is an opening-salvo to a full-on memoir so this woman obviously thinks she's pretty damn important.

I can't remember which author it was who said that the only form of novel now left that interests anyone is the confessional.

That aside, it's fairly common for people to displace the guilt they feel by inviting shame instead, because shame disperses the moment some fool publishes this shit and/or someone says "I'd do the same in similar circumstances."

TLP:

Quote:Quote:

What did Epstein do wrong? Incest and infidelity. He did both, right? What's happened in the press? The incest's severity has completely erased the infidelity. At no time does Epstein have to confront the internal guilt of infidelity, because he's battling an incest charge. I don't mean publicly-- I mean privately, he never faces himself about infidelity, only incest.

Now incest-- terrible, we all agree, but should the law really be monitoring the sex lives of consenting adults? Of course not. "Incest is wrong," I might say, "but we have no business policing it." What just happened there is that "Epstein" has managed to get me to partially support him. I may hate him, but irrelevant- "he" interprets my partial support as part of a global judgment of him, and thus has mitigated his guilt by converting it to shame, and the shame is lessened because some people are partially supportive.

I realize that HE didn't do this on purpose or consciously (though his lawyer is), and HE does not care about my support. But it happened nonetheless. That's the whole point of the media's involvement, our generational solution to the problem of guilt. This is what we will all be doing, the internet as confessional and for the remission of sins. Whether we do it on purpose or not, once a private guilt that (should) gnaw at you gets exposed as a public shame, and the public/whatever newspaper you have at your disposal/your facebook friends/etc start taking sides, that internal guilt is obliterated. Epstein still has to deal with the shame and social and legal repercussions, but not guilt.

What's the result? The result for Epstein isn't my interest, it's his life and it's not my right to keep his guilt alive for him. But now, FOR SURE, incest is no longer a taboo, it is no longer a matter of guilt, but of shame. Everyone is free to decide whether they can take the shame; everyone has become a Nietzschean superman, deciding for themselves if there are any taboos. Which, of course they were always free to do-- but they had the good sense not to try. Now it is possible to ask "am I free to have consensual sex with my adult daughter?" -- which, of course, you are free to do, and which, of course, you are never free to do. It's that simple.

Do you think it's a coincidence that 2010 had three big adult incest stories, but 2009 had none? They were occurring in 2009, but the gates of that taboo have lost their sentry: guilt. So now incest is a matter of shame, not guilt. If you can take the shame and your daughter's hot, enjoy.

Many in the comments accused me of being an old codger, a "these kids today are immoral" uptight Rush Limbaughlite. If you think that, you're missing something truly important: these aren't kids. These are middle aged professionals who have kids. I expect-- want-- a little Nietzsche in the 20 somethings of the world, to fuel them to do something with their lives. But these are people who should know better. Instead, they've convinced themselves, after 4 decades of life, that they deserve to be happy, that their happiness is more important than anything.

I'm not free of guilt. But the difference is that whatever guilt I have I don't let infect other people. If I am incesting or cheating on my spouse, I would still have the human decency NOT to try and publicly mitigate that guilt by conversion to shame because I know that if I succeed then it becomes okay for someone else. I may have the "right" to do whatever I want, but do I have the right to make it okay for others? How I deal with guilt has an effect on how someone else will. What could I ever say to console my daughter if her husband cheats on her, when I'm in the NYT saying cheating is a matter of "finding a soul mate?"

...

There are a few people commenting who doubt the relevance of guilt, or the need for it; who openly decry it as a tool of the Christians or the establishment as a means of social control. I haven't tracked the IP addresses, but I'd wager big money that those are the same people who want to think Goldman Sachs is evil.

I'd also wager gigantic money that none of these people are carrying around any terrible secrets. None of you supporting Epstein are in the market for adult incest.

What infuriates you is the idea that anyone or anything has control over us. You don't like to be told they aren't allowed to do something. "As long as it doesn't hurt anybody, I should be allowed..." You want complete freedom-- which you will use to conform to very ordinary standards of living that you impose on yourself.

But this isn't a moral issue that I am describing, it is an architectural problem: the very thing that allows you to exist in a world of complete freedom is those internal controls and not the social controls-- laws and shames-- that you think bind you.

Shame will never be enough-- when your identity is "strong" enough nothing shames you, not a sex tape or a prison term, you'll take that scarlet letter and put it on a tight tank top and wear it ironically, not to mention hotly.

The laws will never be stronger than you. Wall Street may need more regulation but it won't reduce the corruption at all. If they want to find a way around the law, they will. Always. The more laws you have, the less relevant guilt becomes. The laws are exactly the same mechanism as Epstein's shaming: externalizing the rule affords you the opportunity to explore the grey areas. The only thing that will stop corruption is people not wanting to be corrupt.

The new factor is our access to the media, our connectivity. No matter how hard you try, it is impossible to completely block out the judgment of others-- and you won't want to if that judgment is to your benefit.

I am not trying to stop progress or technology, I'm telling you to be careful with your lives. Riddell and Epstein may have dodged huge psychological bullets, but those bullets hit the rest of us right in the face.

Blame lies with her and the men she slept with.

She KNEW those men were married. It didn't matter. That's a sign of the degeneracy of the age. Dosequis made the point we would have given some Chad a pass if the roles were reversed.

Maybe 5-10 years ago, but now many of us see how it undermines family stability which is what we all have been lamenting the lack of. If some Chad was sleeping with married women and destroying their marriages, we might point out the husbands beta behavior, but most of us would denounce Chads actions.

Adultery was a big deal for MANY cultures around the world because of what it does to the family foundations and the relationships between husbands and wives. Yet after the sexual revolution we give it a pass.

Marriage should be sacred and if we ever want to rebuild the good that was in the West, we have to start there and with the family.

This degeneracy is everywhere in our culture that does not respect marriage.

When my wife was going to a local community college, a guy in her class wouldn't stop hitting on her. I can respect boldness, but when you find out someone is married? (Obvious considering her ring)

The guy openly talked about his dick to her and how he was gonna fuck her. Turns out this guy loved the hunt of all of it. He had fucked some other married girl in one of his classes and after finally doing the deed, he dipped. Destroyed her marriage. It was a notch for him.

Imagine that same thing happened 500 years ago in somebody's village or city. This this man would have been lynched and probably killed by the community.

My works works as a waitress where this 50 year old drug dealer ask sir everyday when he's there about when she's coming home with him while flashing huge stacks of cash. I met the dude when I stopped by there for lunch and played it cool.

The first story he tells me is how he - some short Mexican dude dresses like he's some sort of Thug still - beat up his neighbor who was huge polish guy.

I keep thinking to myself that this guy is acting like he's 20 years old even though he's 50. The guy apparently did some sort of stint in jail, but hasn't learned anything in 50 years. To quote Trump, "Sad!"

I understand why men cheat. I understand why women will cheat. I especially understand how men who haven't slept with their wives in forever might cheat, and yeah their wives should see it coming.

However if we want to build for a solid foundation for the future, we can't excuse the behavior.

Dosequis mentioned that the men should divorce their wives and then sleep around. In this day and age, divorce can ruin a man. We should be encouraging men to take the lead to better themselves and take the lead in restoring the relationship.

It is not "redpill" to cheat around on your wife, no matter how rich/famous you are. Even if she's ok with it, it's still a dick thing to do (no pun intended).

You're either committed to her and raising your children together or you're not.

Quote: (04-11-2018 12:07 PM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

Once again, it's worth pointing out that only a few of the married men she fucked had disabled wives. Many of the men she was involved with had physically healthy wives who just weren't doing their duty in the sack. In such cases, I don't believe the men should be stepping out on their spouses---I think he should learn Game, get in physical condition and become attractive to other women. If the wife doesn't respond sexually then you eject.

This is the honorable thing to do in these cases. Having an affair is cowardly and self-falsifying.

A guy in this situation usually has children and financial considerations as well. If his wife is frigid, and he's only willing to be "honorable" as a response to her dishonoring him, then he has to give up his children, subject himself to the court system and the divorce industrial complex, and have his income and assets devastated?

I think getting a little on the side is a justifiable alternative to nuking your life. Frankly, in the long run, a guy like this will decide it's worth giving up access to his children, and to pay a couple of year's income to break her ownship contract over him, but a guy usually has to come around to such a momentous decision gradually.

There's a man's side to this situation, and the woman's side. You're viewing this entirely from the woman's side. She doesn't have to shape up and start being less frigid. She knows her husband is stuck with her, or he'll lose his shirt and access to the kids. Fuck him. He's screwed. That's what she thinks, and that's what people who support the feminine imperative think.

I take the man's point of view in situations like this. The women have more than enough of society and the legal system taking their point of view.

Quote: (04-12-2018 12:24 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

It is not "redpill" to cheat around on your wife, no matter how rich/famous you are. Even if she's ok with it, it's still a dick thing to do (no pun intended).

You're either committed to her and raising your children together or you're not.

Honorable Alpha.

Quote: (04-12-2018 12:24 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

It is not "redpill" to cheat around on your wife, no matter how rich/famous you are. Even if she's ok with it, it's still a dick thing to do (no pun intended).

You're either committed to her and raising your children together or you're not.

Sure, "man up".

Just don't forget the flipside of that coin, a woman who let's herself go or who isn't committed to you, your family, and your needs.

Both should be their absolutely best in commiting to eachother and their family.

Quote: (04-12-2018 02:03 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Quote: (04-12-2018 12:24 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

It is not "redpill" to cheat around on your wife, no matter how rich/famous you are. Even if she's ok with it, it's still a dick thing to do (no pun intended).

You're either committed to her and raising your children together or you're not.

Sure, "man up".

Just don't forget the flipside of that coin, a woman who let's herself go or who isn't committed to you, your family, and your needs.

And stopped giving up the VJJ, or any intimacy at all

Quote: (04-12-2018 02:03 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Quote: (04-12-2018 12:24 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

It is not "redpill" to cheat around on your wife, no matter how rich/famous you are. Even if she's ok with it, it's still a dick thing to do (no pun intended).

You're either committed to her and raising your children together or you're not.

Sure, "man up".

Just don't forget the flipside of that coin, a woman who let's herself go or who isn't committed to you, your family, and your needs.

Both should be their absolutely best in commiting to eachother and their family.

It should be a two-way street - a husband who forsakes other women for limited intimacy with one woman.

In return a woman has to take care of her husband sexually. Countless women are no longer interested in fucking their husbands, but they are not allowed to stray. Meanwhile when a woman cheats, then her husband obviously neglected her.

It's not Red Pill especially to cheat on your wife. It's just Red Pill to understand that women tolerate it to some degree. And they certainly like to be with a man who could cheat with many hotter younger women.

Quote: (04-12-2018 04:29 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

In return a woman has to take care of her husband sexually. Countless women are no longer interested in fucking their husbands, but they are not allowed to stray. Meanwhile when a woman cheats, then her husband obviously neglected her.

It's not Red Pill especially to cheat on your wife. It's just Red Pill to understand that women tolerate it to some degree. And they certainly like to be with a man who could cheat with many hotter younger women.

Another way to say this:

Sexual intimacy is an integral component to a authentic loving relationship.

If she doesn't want to fuck you, she doesn't love you.

Its not "her job" to drain your balls - its your job to find a woman that "wants to".

IE no need to cheat, but a need to ditch her and find another better one that wants to fuck you like you want to be fucked.

I am not going to compromise my values and vows to stay in a sexless relationship with a woman that doesn't love me.

Exactly Zel and Rat - that's what the "man up your marriage" crowd doesn't understand.

It HAS to be reciprocal - how many times have you guys heard a man's wife isn't giving it up and he's lucky to get blown on his bday or when she's had a few glasses of wine?

Marriage is somewhat a sad state of affairs in the west, with so much social and temptation it's hard not to stray and flirt with someone else.

The glaring difference is this:

Men cheat PHYSICALLY

Women cheat EMOTIONALLY


Men in the former can still love one woman when banging on the side.

If a woman is cheating, it's OVER, she's checked out emotionally, meaning your relationship is dead.

I just don't see how marriage is a winning prospect anymore even when you're at the top of your game, looks, finance.


-Insert meme with Superman sleeping and the woman awake asking "Can I do better?"-

Hypergamy never sleeps son.

I'm going to put one element that seems to be getting forgotten here. Let me insert the relevant meme here so those of you who feel so inclined can get the snark out of the way ahead of time:



Let's leave aside that The Simpsons, like all mainstream media, has been a pretty potent delivery system for the cultural destruction we've been dealing with and which we are fighting against right now.

A marriage that's gone bad which doesn't have any children in it is one thing. But when you add conscious human beings who did not ask to be born and who rely completely on you for support and a bulwark against the poisonous culture we are living in, it becomes something else entirely.

As at the current date, roughly 1 in 4 children are being raised without a father. Try and understand that number in real terms, take four kids off the street and one of them will have no father in his life.

Now combine that demographic fact with the simple truth that children of single parent households fare worse on school achievement, their social and emotional development, their health and their success in the labor market. They are at greater risk of parental abuse and neglect (especially from live-in boyfriends who are not their biological fathers), more likely to become teen parents and less likely to graduate from high school or college. Making it worse is that single parents also generally have very weak parenting skills to begin with (the article I've linked to points it out.)

Added to that, the statistic is so well-established that leftie outlets keep trying to break it down: children of divorces tend to wind up getting divorced themselves. The cycle is self-perpetuating.

"It's better that the kids grow up in a low conflict separated house than a high conflict married house." Kids judge you on your actions, not your words, as any teenager can tell you. If you stay together even when there's conflict you teach kids the same lesson that Jordan Peterson is currently trying to hammer into a generation of young, listless men's heads: that life isn't all about your own happiness above all, it involves suffering, it involves acceptance of responsibility, and it sometimes involves functioning as an example for people who have to be taught how to hold society together.

If you break up and both parties seem happier for it, you teach a kid precisely the opposite - and you also teach them the same listlessness that Peterson is trying to overcome, you teach them that they need not commit to anything, that nothing matters other than their own, momentary happiness.

You also teach them - at least for a while until they hit 18, because hey, you can always undo childhood programming later on, people do it all the time, right? - that you, their father, don't want them, that you, their father, placed your needs and your happiness above theirs. Which is great and Nietzschean and all, but if you still have this attitude after about a decade or so of being a parent, there is something wrong with you.

"But I still get them 3 times per week, I'm an involved Dad then." Shit employers convince themselves that people doing part-time jobs can be as productive, efficient, present, and available as fulltime employees can. Every divorced kid knows that Dads are for playgrounds and ice creams that their mothers won't get them.

"But my wife won't fuck me! She's not fulfilling her end of the bargain!" Your kids will not think to ask: so?

"She should be putting in as much as I am into the relationship." So relationships are transactional. Thanks, Dad, I'll quote you fondly on that when I hit my first million likes on Instagram. That aside: so your wife is an asshole. She's presenting a bad example, and when you're separated from her, that bad example will be present all the time. What's your countervailing force to that bad example going to be? Playgrounds and extra ice creams?

"But my wife won't find out that I'm cheating on her." Probably not, but you'll know you have, and that'll be half the problem, because from that point on you will be rationalising your behaviour rather than feeling expungable guilt over it. Cheating happens because you are either emotionally disconnected from your wife or because you have lost some of the connection you had with her. Which, I'm sure, is a common thing in all the marriages of the past, but look around you: all those disconnected people, that's what past practice has brought us to.

"Fuck you, I still think my happiness is going to be better for the kids as an example than staying in a sexless marriage." Okay, but you had better be prepared to do twice the work in cleaning up the mess you make, and be prepared for it to fail utterly against the law of large numbers ... not that the law of large numbers matters, because you're an individual, you can choose how your kids react to a life-destroying event like divorce, right?

Your actions have a blast radius, and it includes your kids. Maybe you think your crossed-legs wife deserves it, but you'd have to question the sanity of a man who thinks his kids deserve it too.

Point being: cheating or breaking up with your wife when there are kids involved is not a choice between your happiness and that of your wife, it's choosing between your kids and you. We've had roughly forty years of men and women who chose themselves when presented with those two options, and when you look around you the result of that mass of choices is plain to see.