[911]

(05-25-2017 04:20 AM)Truth Tiger Wrote:  

Re: Jungle, I agree that it's possible but in the western world it seems any arrangement can invite the court, common law marriage exists in many states especially if you declare yourself married (having a ceremony is one way...). Surrogacy is a better option and then not having live-in girlfriends.

I disagree that having children is *the* most masculine thing you can do. For average men it certainly is. But being aware of all the risks in a potential deal is extremely masculine, vs just going with 'we are here to make babies.' Clearly, that's true for most people. I know for me that is now a second place to fulfilling my own purpose, as I alluded to above and have posted about.

You might want to read Kahlil Gibran's sage guidance On Children in 'The Prophet' and On Marriage as well.

We don't ever get to tell our children who to be, they are always their own being and we can be a good example and enjoy the process of their discovery of life's meaning and joys and sorrows and achievement.

http://www.katsandogz.com/onchildren.html

Quote:

"Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you."

Gibran was a freemason, this poem about children is anti-family, of the same vein as Hillary's "It Takes a Village" dogma that children don't belong to their parents but to "society".

[DarkTriad]

(05-25-2017 10:18 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 03:46 AM)Jungle Wrote:  

A father can absolutely raise a traditional gang of children without being married.

This is actually the endpoint of feminism, though. Look at Scandinavian countries where there is a complete and absolute disconnect between marriage and children.

Despite the fact that divorce is rampant in the West, I do not think kids get the best start in life when their definition of the relations between the sexes is baby mamas. It conveys a complete inability to fully pair-bond/commit which then sets the stage for the repetition of the cycle in the next generation.

Absolutely. But it's not OUR job to throw ourselves on the funeral pyre of modern marriage and destroy ourselves because they fucked it up. They've got to fix it. They aren't going to fix it until people stop participating in it when it's rigged against them.

[DarkTriad]

(05-25-2017 09:24 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 09:12 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 02:42 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

Even if she doesn't outright divorce rape you, the massive threat of the divorce industrial complex will chip away at any degree of Alpha you have in a relationship (which they need to be happy). Even a "successful" marriage under the current laws can be a living hell. Don't do it.

This. Oh my, my, my, this.

Let's be clear about something: unless you marry someone specially fucked in the head, there is roughly zero chance of you gaming a woman while married in the West. Doubly so when you have kids. Gaming in a marriage is playing with matches while drenched in gasoline: if you know what you're doing, you don't get burned, but even then all it takes is one missed match to immolate yourself. That's because your marriage will always have the Damoclean sword of a biased property and custody settlement hanging over it. Some men handle that sword better than others, but it is always there and you would be a fool to marry without realising that simple fact.

The worst part of this fact is that your wife won't even have to overtly threaten you with a divorce. You will have cottoned on long before.

It will occur to you somewhere around the time you first get into a stand-up argument with the woman. Somewhere in the middle of gritting your teeth as she screams at you for the cardinal, unforgiveable sin of forgetting to turn on the washing machine before you left for work that morning, a sane part of your brain will whisper to you: "Dude. She is actually serious about this. If you stand your ground much longer, she may actually get mad enough to walk. She is actually stupid enough to destroy an entire marriage over a load of washing."

You'll start to assess the consequences of that.

First, you'll be tossed from a home that you bought with your own money (or more realistically, a home that you signed over 30 years of your life to the local bank for and which you maybe own 10% of).

Second, you'll be out on the street with no support other than maybe family members (and not even then if she pissed them off or they dared to slight her in some way in the past). Your other married friends (i.e. the only friends you likely have left by this point) won't be giving you any shelter, because you're the husband; their wives all hate you, and your friends all are therefore required to hate you too.

Third, you will consign your kids to likely failed marriages themselves, since children of divorced parents generally wind up divorcing as well, let alone the fact you'll see them even less than you did while you were busting your gut paying for them and her. This is probably the hardest thing to bear - or fucking well should be - because you were stupid enough to bring your kids into this. They did not ask to be born into a fucked up marriage.

Fourth, you will consign your kids to her next boyfriend, who, by dating a "single" mother, will be somewhere on a personality spectrum that starts at "uncaring, thirsty beta" and ends at "paedophile".

Fifth, unless you consign yourself to poverty by giving her whatever the fuck she wants out of a divorce, you will subject yourself to years of stress and misery while the case winds its way through a court system that is stacked against you to the rafters.

Sixth, once you are clear of that marriage, the "residuals" (alimony/child support) will be enough to cripple your economic viability for decades to come.

All these thoughts will go through your head in a seconds-long, icy river of realisation. It's sort of like having a cold heart attack.

At that point, you will do what just about every provider husband/father with any sense has done since the era of no-fault divorce began. You will reach down, extract your balls from their scrotum, and hand them over to your wife while mumbling a promise to turn on the washing machine in future. At this point -- which happens early in every marriage -- you get your first taste of the red pill. Unfortunately, by the time you've gotten that taste, it's too fucking late. As Red once noted in Shawshank Redemption: "Terrible thing, to live in fear."

What a pile of shit. Just study some Athol Kay's "Married man's Sex Life". Read his blog. It is completely possible to charm a wife and stay relatively happy provided things in your life are managed well. Or read "Applied Female Psychology for the Practical Male".

Often it comes down to marrying the right person to begin with. The type of situation you're describing is a BP AFC who let his wife wear his balls. That kind of divorce rape happens to men who (1) have a stay at home wife and (2) got a shitty lawyer or tried to self represent.

Marriage is a bad deal and so you HAVE to pick carefully. After you're married, you then have to keep your head on straight and be a charming and playful husband who pays the bills and fixes shit around the house. Young boys need their dad. It means being in your kid's life in a meaningful way implying living in the same home as him.

That said, you can't then go (1)"never get married" and out of the other side of your mouth say (2) "white people aren't having babies anymore... oh noes the brown people are outbreeding us". You get to to pick (1) or (2), that's it.

That makes zero sense (even accepting your premise) people had babies long before they invented divorce-rape, and they'll be having babies long after it's gone. We once had a way of sanctifying and stabilizing families called "marriage". It was taken from us, and we're not going to get it back until we stop accepting the counterfeit.

"It means being in your kid's life in a meaningful way implying living in the same home as him."

Exactly. And the divorce industrial complex has become an insanely efficient method of ejecting husbands from their homes and their families. Under the current laws, your home and your children are more secure if you simply own your home and she has to leave it if she leaves you. You have better contact with your kids if you don't sign a contract agreeing to pay a lawyer to take them away from you. That gets real ugly real fast.

Many of the guys on this thread have read Athol Kay. He's not bad, but it's not a panacea to a broken system, and there are probably a few different guys on this forum with better relationship skills than him. If you're soley depending on his advice to save your marriage, you might want to start saving for a divorce attorney now just in case.

Quote:

The type of situation you're describing is a BP AFC who let his wife wear his balls.

Most of what Paracelsus is describing is the stark reality of family court law in the US. There is gamesmanship, but sometimes it feels more like the gamesmanship between JFK and Krushchev during the Cuban missile crisis. And the entire rest of the Cold War too. And you might not be the Americans, you might be the Soviets without a pot to piss in at the end of it. We're not saying you can't be alpha and come out on top for years on end, and win 99% of these little battles of brinksmanship. We're saying that the first time you fuck up, your whole world might go boom. What do you do the first time your "marriage game" doesn't work and she's willing to nuke the whole family over a petty issue? The first time you give in leads her to challenge you more. A lot of these beat down betas you see in marriages started off pretty alpha, doing most of the right things already by instinct. They were beaten down by a broken system nobody should ever have to subject themselves to. You have no idea how bad it can get.

"Marriage is taking a healthy, working relationship, handing the woman a loaded firearm and saying - I hope you're never mad enough to use this on me."

[questor70]

(05-26-2017 05:19 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

...it's not OUR job to throw ourselves on the funeral pyre of modern marriage and destroy ourselves because they fucked it up. They've got to fix it. They aren't going to fix it until people stop participating in it when it's rigged against them.

Not sure what you are or are not advocating here that is different from me. All I'm saying is if men don't want to participate in marriage as some sort of boycott then we should stop having kids as well. Women would probably prefer that we just knock them up and then stay the hell away and drop the check in the mail. They then get what they want out of us and then proceed to jump back on the cock carousel (or at least try, if they are post-wall). That is what I would consider a science-fiction dystopia and it's a growing reality. I consider guys who sign up for this to be quintessentially deadbeats who are shirking their parental responsibility by design.

Trust me, there's no risk of the planet running out of humans anytime soon. The only effect of this taking place on a massive scale is women having smoke coming out of their ears watching their biological clocks go off. As far as I'm concerned sperm banks should be illegal as well, but we're not in control of that one.

[Truth Tiger]

Re: 911 I don't know his affiliations but I think you're ascribing darker motives than are justified. I don't get a Hitlary vibe from his writings at all, I understand the truth of his insights. Parents who try to own and control their children beyond creating a safe environment will alienate those children.

Are you taking issue with The Prophet on its whole having no value due to being some kind of subversive propaganda?

For reference this is the entire passage On Children:

On Children
Kahlil Gibran

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

[911]

Gibran was a very talented poet and writer and a bright man, but he wasn't a paragon of fatherhood, having grown up without a father. He was taken advantage of at the age of 13 by pedophile homosexual photographer/mentor Holland Day. Day took advantage of young boys from the immigrant underclass. His mother sent him back to a Christian school in his native Lebanon, most probably to cut him off from the bad influence around him.

His youth gives you a different perspective on that poem, which talks about the emancipation of children from their parents. Gibran was way ahead of his time, he was a precursor to the 1960s counterculture, which was based on teen rebellion and pushed eastern religions against Christianity.

Spiritually, Gibran came from a Christian family but was a freemason close to the Bahai (and to their founder Baha). The theme of children breaking away from their families is a central social engineering theme.

[Truth Tiger]

Your interpretation of the poem's meaning is *your* interpretation, and by no means the only one. His words in that passage are worth consideration, as philosophical insight into what being a 'good' parent means with the realization that the best a parent can do is to instill generate values and empower their child's decision-making process. The 'bow that is stable' is the parent, and that is the last line of the poem. That indicates the parent's role in the child's life is essential. From a full reading of The Prophet, I find value in his words, as food for thought.

On the other hand, in my opinion your critique carries far less value than Gibran's words, since it appears you declare any abuse he may have suffered or having various associations not of a conventional Christian church origin render his insights valueless (or at least tainted) to a prospective or current parent. It is through processing our pain that we gain the deepest insights. A true Christian sees beauty and truth in all sources that shine with those values.

My born-Muslim father was a far better Christian than the vast majority I have met who call themselves by that name. He was also intelligent enough to see through much of the fraud perpetrated by the church after Christ's death (and all dogmatic religions in general) and stayed away from putting allegiance in any given system. He lived by the golden rule and it served him well.

If only those who call themselves Christians really would wake up and be free of dogma, appreciate the power of the Apocrypha and understand what real spiritual awakening is - freedom from all codified belief structures. Seeing the teachings of Christ as an awakened sage brings a depth of clarity that prevents abuse by priests and the ruling religious class who are invested in control, not awakening.

"You shall know them by their fruits."

But now I am getting far off topic...

[911]

A lot of our differences here stem from our different understanding of what the modern "ruling religious class" is.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Western civilisation doesn't have the time to "pull out of the institution of marriage until our strike action brings the powers that be to the bargaining table."

The powers that be would laugh at such a concept. If you don't get married, they don't care. So much the better. They'll just socialism-rape you instead of divorce-raping you and the next generation will be sired by thirsty betas and third world immigrants rather than first world alphas.

On the impossible premise that this strike action would work, how long would it take to implement as a cultural standard for alpha males? 10 years? 20? You think condemning an entire generation to being sired by simps is going to save us? And like I said, at the end of it all they'll just socialism-rape you to cover the costs and your options will be reduced to sucking it up or fleeing (perhaps illegally by that point) to some foreign crap-hole that the elites can't be bothered socially policing.

Guys that complain about marriage not being a sure thing are typically guys that can't get a decent wife in the first place or guys who have premised their lives around attaining and keeping their material assets.

There is no reasoning with those guys because they perceive no real value in perpetuating their bloodline through the practice of their genetic and cultural values. For them, money and safety are more important, clearly, because they quite happily ignore the large body of traditionalist men that get married to a (heavens no!) 6, have kids who have kids and then die of old age with their wives.

Instead they choose to live in Never Never Land and insult people who decide that if their ancestors survived through war, genocide, plague and famine that they might, just might, be able to carry their genetic line through the insurmountable barrier of no-fault-divorce.

Sorry for the harsh reality check but the elites would love nothing more than for alpha males to check out of the breeding stock and they laugh at the idea that high IQ western men are threatening to with-hold their financial participation. Meanwhile taxation nears and crosses the 50% marker in most Western nations, all fees considered, but real macho rebellion is about dodging marriage "until they make it fair".

Sorry, but if nothing else it's a poor strategy. We need to retake our civilisation. Not puss out under the banner of MGTOW and expect the world to come begging to us to accept their unconditional surrender.

It's not gonna happen.

p.s. In reply to the OP specifically, early 30's man marries early 20's woman. Location irrelevant. Income irrelevant. The only relevant factors are the commitment of the woman to the man and the man to the family. You want certainty? Move to the country and get a nice girl who goes to church. If your premise is that you want a hot, loyal, servile wife that will give you children and look the other way while you fuck side-pieces in your first world mega-city then your expectations are fucked, not your society.

[Truth Tiger]

Re: 911 No codified religion is designed to affirm or reawaken a human being to their true nature. Salvation in another life or dimension doesn't matter, only this existence. Heaven is here among us, yet who can see it? What our true nature actually is can't be given by anyone, only pointed to and ultimately discovered on one's own.

Only a philosophical system based on self-examination and mindful living can support the individual's development and discernment. The rest is up to Grace. While most religions have some paths aiming toward realization, there is the constant struggle between those who wish to maintain control and those who know they are fundamentally free.

Every religious class has dogma that invites abuse. Control structures have been established at every level; the rabbit hole goes beyond ideas of us and (((them))). Dr Karla Turner knew this too well. That's why individual spiritual fitness, not collective religious adherence, is required to see through every layer of the illusion. Once seeing happens, one can take informed actions.

[Jungle]

(05-26-2017 05:19 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

...it's not OUR job to throw ourselves on the funeral pyre of modern marriage and destroy ourselves because they fucked it up. They've got to fix it. They aren't going to fix it until people stop participating in it when it's rigged against them.

100% this ^^

(05-26-2017 06:57 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

All I'm saying is if men don't want to participate in marriage as some sort of boycott then we should stop having kids as well.

That's BS. Marriage and having kids are two completely different topics. Have many babies and try your absolute best to stay together with your baby mama, make her your life partner and queen. Create a family environment. Do it traditionally. But why the need to sign a marriage contract?

(05-26-2017 06:57 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

Trust me, there's no risk of the planet running out of humans anytime soon.

There's no risk of the planet running out of humans from the certain parts of the world, but there is a very real risk of the planet running out of humans from European nations. This has far-reaching implications such as the very culture that we all take for granted today will cease to exist in the future if Europeans don't procreate.

(05-27-2017 03:16 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Western civilisation doesn't have the time to "pull out of the institution of marriage until our strike action brings the powers that be to the bargaining table."

I think viewing it as a "strike" is the wrong analogy. It's not a strike because there'll always still be a majority of mainstream men who will prefer to follow society's narrative. So it can't possibly be a strike. It's simply a subset of men choosing their destiny using reason. What effect will this have? Well, from what I can see it will protect many men from having their lives destroyed, so there's that. Also, it will benefit a man's offspring greatly because he can be in control and lead the family financially, which traditionally has been a man's natural role in the family.

(05-27-2017 03:16 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Guys that complain about marriage not being a sure thing are typically guys that can't get a decent wife in the first place or guys who have premised their lives around attaining and keeping their material assets.

My experience is the complete opposite. From the men I talk with, who are very marriage-averse, they are high value men who could be described by eligible women as being "dream husband material". And just anecdotally from the men whom I see via announcements on social media as getting married, well they are mostly blue pill types who don't have a great deal of female options, yes a broad generalisation I know.

(05-27-2017 03:16 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

There is no reasoning with those guys because they perceive no real value in perpetuating their bloodline through the practice of their genetic and cultural values.

Instead they choose to live in Never Never Land and insult people who decide that if their ancestors survived through war, genocide, plague and famine that they might, just might, be able to carry their genetic line through the insurmountable barrier of no-fault-divorce.

Sorry for the harsh reality check but the elites would love nothing more than for alpha males to check out of the breeding stock and they laugh at the idea that high IQ western men are threatening to with-hold their financial participation.

I see what you're saying, and I agree we should not go the way of mgtow, but let's not put the terms of "kids and marriage" into the same basket. I fully support perpetuating one's bloodline, but having kids and getting married are two completely separate things.

[DarkTriad]

(05-27-2017 03:16 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Western civilisation doesn't have the time to "pull out of the institution of marriage until our strike action brings the powers that be to the bargaining table."

The powers that be would laugh at such a concept. If you don't get married, they don't care. So much the better. They'll just socialism-rape you instead of divorce-raping you and the next generation will be sired by thirsty betas and third world immigrants rather than first world alphas.

On the impossible premise that this strike action would work, how long would it take to implement as a cultural standard for alpha males? 10 years? 20? You think condemning an entire generation to being sired by simps is going to save us? And like I said, at the end of it all they'll just socialism-rape you to cover the costs and your options will be reduced to sucking it up or fleeing (perhaps illegally by that point) to some foreign crap-hole that the elites can't be bothered socially policing.

Guys that complain about marriage not being a sure thing are typically guys that can't get a decent wife in the first place or guys who have premised their lives around attaining and keeping their material assets.

There is no reasoning with those guys because they perceive no real value in perpetuating their bloodline through the practice of their genetic and cultural values. For them, money and safety are more important, clearly, because they quite happily ignore the large body of traditionalist men that get married to a (heavens no!) 6, have kids who have kids and then die of old age with their wives.

Instead they choose to live in Never Never Land and insult people who decide that if their ancestors survived through war, genocide, plague and famine that they might, just might, be able to carry their genetic line through the insurmountable barrier of no-fault-divorce.

Sorry for the harsh reality check but the elites would love nothing more than for alpha males to check out of the breeding stock and they laugh at the idea that high IQ western men are threatening to with-hold their financial participation. Meanwhile taxation nears and crosses the 50% marker in most Western nations, all fees considered, but real macho rebellion is about dodging marriage "until they make it fair".

Sorry, but if nothing else it's a poor strategy. We need to retake our civilisation. Not puss out under the banner of MGTOW and expect the world to come begging to us to accept their unconditional surrender.

It's not gonna happen.

p.s. In reply to the OP specifically, early 30's man marries early 20's woman. Location irrelevant. Income irrelevant. The only relevant factors are the commitment of the woman to the man and the man to the family. You want certainty? Move to the country and get a nice girl who goes to church. If your premise is that you want a hot, loyal, servile wife that will give you children and look the other way while you fuck side-pieces in your first world mega-city then your expectations are fucked, not your society.

Not sure how much of this was responding to me....my argument isn't about not having families, I'm advising not subjecting your families to the de-stabilizing force of the Divorce Industrial complex and "Fake Marriage".

Quote:

Guys that complain about marriage not being a sure thing are typically guys that can't get a decent wife in the first place or guys who have premised their lives around attaining and keeping their material assets.

It's about the material factors of divorce-rape helping break up families that would otherwise work it out. I'm not a greedy guy, I'm just opposed to bankrolling the lawyer she uses to take my kids away from me and certain other forms of Family Court nonsense that are so Anti-Family.

Staying away from Fake Marriage is a lot closer to traditional marriage in the modern world - there are consequences if she wants to break up the family, not a reward. You lose out on a glorified prom and piece of paper from the gov't, but you gain huge amounts of stability by avoiding some of the major pitfalls of gov't interference in your family affairs. Sucks to lose the ceremony and the M word, but it's better than risking your family to this awful system.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I agree that a government certified union is not necessary where legal conditions are hostile. Though for many nations it's much of a muchness. Once you're living with a woman with a reasonably shared economic status for several years then when you part she can still file for half of your stuff.

If this was my major concern I would off-shore most of my assets and make her quite aware that she would get nothing if she tried to law-fuck me. Women are creatures of temptation and when there's low hanging fruit they start to build a narrative about why they deserve something they didn't earn.

Frankly it's stuff like this that makes me happy enough to be lower-middle class. Mrs Neubache would have good laugh about the prospects of a payout and solid alimony income if she divorced me.

[Kid Twist]

I always wondered how much it would solve to be religiously or figuratively married but without the state participating at all. Once you have children, or co-habitate, will the law catch up? Maybe that means offshoring would be the only real solution.

[armenia4ever]

Yes, everything is stacked against you.

The question is, what kind of life do you want to live? Do you want to be in your 50s making good money and maybe getting some of the lays you want? Popping open a beer, doing whatever the hell you want in your free time? If so, go for it.

If you ever decide on marriage or even kids, you have to take a risk. It wont be the above, but it will have it's own rewards at the end, provided much of what other posters have talked about doesn't happen.

I may have struck gold with my wife -she's never turned me down for sex once, but most men won't find a wife like mine. My higher SMV does sometimes make my wife worry about losing me, but we still have some nasty fights regardless in which I would broken up with her if we weren't married. A few hour everythings great again. Ups and downs, as it will always be with women because of emotional hormones. Note im 28 and shes 21.

Risk wise, I'm all the way in.

We've had two sons and my wife just turned 21. In fact, I've had more sex in my marriage, then I ever had when I was on the prowl. Now I'm a rare case, but that's what I mean by risk. So don't let the odds sway you from finding a good woman to marry if you can.

When it comes to a legacy, we are going full steam ahead. Right now, it's hard as hell. Two sons that are 10 months and four days apart. Financially, time wise, worries, getting up in the late hours to feed my three month old, etc. Will it have been worth it when I'm 50 instead of just doing the life long bachelor path? I think it will be, but I can't promise it will be for every man.

Regardless, don't feel bad, shamed, etc either way no matter what you as men choose to do. We all find our ways to contribute and rebuild what's left, if not something entirely new. Just make sure you are building, not just destroying.

Remember why we are here.

Quote:

"To make men's lives better"

I recall The Lizard Of Oz making this point. Whatever we are doing, it has to be this. Often this forum falls prey to simply laughing and pointing out how stupid sjws and feminists are. We gloat in their despair and often appear addicted to shadenfruede.

Sure it may teach the lesson that you dont want to be like that, but it's not offering up solutions, foundations, and lessons like men such as Quintus Curtius and Aurini are doing.

One other point - if you intend on living life on your own terms and never settling down so to speak, I can't condemn you in any shape or form. However, do what you can to help those of us who are raising the next generation.

Godspeed gents.

[Kid Twist]

One of the things I'm getting at as well is the fact that I don't see the point of having kids without raising them with (my) a traditional, family oriented structuring. I in fact see it as one of the problems of the modern western secular ethos that has thrown away tradition: the biological component is there but people don't believe in anything anymore. That's why the law changes are even more devastating. To begin with, you have parents marrying who don't have a focus outside of themselves that is common (particular religion usually). Yet people wonder why these marriages so frequently go wrong, it's sorta amusing how stupid that is; it's blatantly obvious.

Unless there is a renaissance, basically what I'm saying is that I'm multiplying probabilities that are low when considering this country: attractive girl (generally low) x traditional beliefs x similar to or exactly the same as yours or agrees completely with them = (-:

Throw in the general forces against young woman older man (age gap) and you reduce attractive girl fairly significantly. Low prob, hey, I guess it will be a lottery ... or requisite foreign travel to increase those (which I'm sure increases other side effects).