Quote: (06-15-2014 09:04 AM)Cheetah Wrote:
Why wouldn't your wife be physically able to give you 10 to 12 children? She's like 23 and there are only 9 to 11 children to go. If you don't use contraceptives this should be achievable. In families where contraception isn't used this isn't unheard of, having like 12 children all born by the same mother.
If she thinks that it would be too much work to take care of all those kids, just hire one or two au pairs. ![[Image: banana.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/banana.gif)
Good question—the answer is, time.
I'm 46. Realistically, I have until 60 to have all the children I'll ever have. Assuming I have one at 60, s/he'll be graduating from college at 22—when I'm 82, assuming I'm still alive and have all my marbles. So having children after 60 would be irresponsible.
Second, my current wife, M., is adamant about four children being her limit. Having a kid every couple-three of years means we'll have the last one (at the earliest) when she's 29, possible 32, 34 or even 36 if every 3-4 years or 30. In her mid- to late-30's, she might decide to have another, maybe. So four kids, maybe five, by the time she's 38 and I'm 60, if I stick with just one wife.
Also (and I can only say this while safely hiding behind anonymity), what if it turns out the kids have a genetic problem because of M.?
I'm betting all my genetic chips on M., re. children. Wouldn't it be smarter to diversify my portfolio, as it were? I mean, I hedge my bets even with things as trivial as playing blackjack for $5. But my procreation—something far more important—should be unhedged? Doesn't strike me as rational.
However, having multiple wives each having three-four of my children maximizes my success, and keeps them within a range band whereby I can enjoy and provide for them.
Thus, having many children with only one woman is not an attractive option for me.
OneIdea