[bbgun]

Isn't it easier just to conceal your true identity? They can't track you down for child support if they don't know who you are, where you work or where you live.

[Repo]

No, concealing your identity is not easy when using social circle game. Unless if your lays are coming from random approaches or tinder, concealing it can be a full time job. So much info is out there on the internet, and these hoes are pros at finding out this kind of stuff.

It can be done, but its alot of work and easy to slip up.

[scorpion]

(05-29-2017 10:51 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

scorpion, are you saying these dudes need to ***man up*** and marry that unicorn, or else? Is that what this shaming post is about?

That's absolutely not what I'm saying, and you know as much. I'm saying that the essence of masculinity does not lie in what essentially amounts to self-castration expressly for the purpose of increasing one's sexual pleasure and reducing one's responsibilities. Such a course of action might be expedient. It might be understandable, given the realities of today's sexual marketplace and legal/cultural landscape. It might even be reasonable for the individual from a purely practical standpoint. But none of those things make it right. None of us are standing here today because our fathers decided to sterilize themselves to facilitate their pursuit of strange. Western civilization was not the product of lecherous pussy hunters who decided that shooting blanks was preferable to raising strong and competent sons. By any moral standard, this behavior is loathsome - all major religious traditions would condemn it outright, and even secular moral frameworks (i.e. Kant's categorical imperative, Mill's utilitarianism) would declare it unworkable upon logical analysis.

Does a healthy society blossom if our most successful and able men are encouraged to cut off their balls and chase around sluts? The question is so absurd it doesn't even need to be asked.

(05-29-2017 10:51 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Apparently this is the one thing on which everyone agrees these days: that there is nothing worse and more terminally "meaningless" than the ability of a man of means to enjoy fucking some juicy young or not so young slut of his choosing with IMPUNITY. It's quite interesting that both the radical feminists and the self-styled tradcon scolds regard that simple and innocent pursuit as the epitome of all evil -- as the one thing that must be shamed out of existence and under duress if necessary. It should give you pause -- although it doesn't -- that the essence of this post can appear with only very slight alterations on the pages of Jezebel. Some of the emphases would change but its central shaming thrust directed at these men would remain exactly the same. And for what?

For nothing more -- in reality -- than daring to use such means as are at their disposal to enjoy their lives a little in a society that is dead set upon destroying them and denying them that enjoyment at every turn. You know full well that this is a society that is hungry to throw any of these men in prison on a false rape accusation, to take away all of their hard earned money (and these men work hard) in a despicable divorce court, to rob them of their children and their assets and their freedom of speech at every opportunity. But now they must also be shamed by their supposed brothers for having a little summer fun where they can find it? That is too much; this forum should not stand for this kind of shaming. It is wrong, and it is indeed, in my opinion, immoral -- if anything is.

Let me be clear on this point. The issue is not with successful men of means chasing pussy (one might as well condemn water that flows downhill for its laziness). The issue is not with 39 year-old, divorced fathers of three who decide they've had enough and get the snip before heading back out on the dating scene. The issue is with successful men of means who, still childless and relatively young, buy into the notion that children are a curse to be avoided at all costs, and therefore sterilize themselves as a prophylactic measure. This is a toxic idea. It is an idea that could only flourish in a dying culture. Are there risks to having children today? Of course! But there have always been risks. Assuming risk is what men do. It's what sets us apart from women and children. We take risks, and we accept the consequences or the rewards that result. We act, and we take responsibility for our actions. Society is built off this simple framework, and it falls apart if our best men suddenly decide that busting a carefree nut is the greatest pleasure in life and that children are for choads and losers. Maybe some of these men are truly dead set against having children and should never be fathers. But many aren't. Many men who are on the fence or who are otherwise easily influenced might see an article like this - or some other which is normalizing the practice of sterilization - and decide that it's the best course of action.

The correct course of action, if one is truly paralyzed with fear by the idea of impregnating a Hamptons gold-digger, is not to sterilize yourself, it is simply to not fuck Hamptons gold-diggers. Promiscuous sex with botoxed Hampton babes in search of a million-dollar cumload is not a requirement for living a happy and fulfilling life. I do not give these men a pass simply because they are men. I understand their desires, I understand their temptations and I understand their motivations. But the fact remains - I cannot sanction their choices.

(05-29-2017 10:51 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

It is wrong to use eloquence and rhetoric in a way that is so cheap and easy, and so divorced from facts and reality, so ideologically besotted and frictionless. It amounts to abuse and it misleads impressionable young men who are beset and buffeted in so many ways already. Let's look at the facts. Many of the men described in this article already have children; many more of them perform these vasectomies as reversible procedures (which they usually are, even though there are risks); still others freeze sperm as a precaution.

And for those who are not interested in having children, what of it? I wrote in another thread that most men should eventually marry and have kids, and this is true -- true because it is a basic natural need for MOST men; but MOST is not ALL. Some men -- a minority -- are born to be confirmed bachelors, and there is nothing wrong with that; let them enjoy it for what it's worth. The idea that that is some sort of moral failing is pure nonsense; and in the context of a society that makes the life of a normal man as difficult as possible at every turn, it is a particularly unfortunate and distorting kind of nonsense. It should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

In regards to the bolded section I can only reply, "Physician, heal thyself!" The rest of this I don't take any issue with.

(05-29-2017 10:51 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Lastly, what is this tic about always calling sex "meaningless"? As the G Manifesto might say these days, when you hear someone speak about "meaningless sex" you are no longer talking to a man, you're talking to soy. Fucking bitches is what men do if and when they feel like doing so, it is not "empty" or "meaningless", it's just a part of life like the air we breathe and the bread we eat. This whole harping on supposed "meaninglessness" is a form of metaphysical Tourette's, it is an ingrate's obsession with maligning a part of life because he wants things to conform to some thinly construed rigors and ideals rather than let them be as they are. It has neither truth nor profundity, it is just glum chatter and is itself empty of all real content. But it has the power to dazzle the impressionable young that are looking for direction and guidance and they deserve better than this glib ideological blather.

There are real lives of real men involved here. We should be more measured with our words and more modest as well -- less drunk on the cheap high of ideology and more honest, more practical, more responsive to reality as it is. That's what this forum is for.

Well, let's speak plainly here. What greater meaning would you ascribe to drug and alcohol-fueled sex with random sluts whom you are so afraid of impregnating that you voluntarily sterilize yourself? I have indulged my share in such activity (minus the sterilization part, which would obviously render the act even more meaningless) and I'm sure you have, as well as most men reading this. And while we can agree that these things might be fun and pleasurable and memorable and make for some fond and perhaps amusing memories, they don't really carry any deeper meaning. They certainly aren't so important or valuable that one should intentionally terminate thousands of generations of humanity with oneself in order to more ably pursue them.

Do men live for themselves, or do we have obligations that go beyond our own needs and pleasures? What do we owe the future and the past? Is self-sterilization for the express purpose of facilitating sexual promiscuity ever defensible except as a fringe cultural practice? How could it be? Can you truly make the case for such behavior without relying on flowery verbiage to cloak your meaning?

[Leonard D Neubache]

Jesus.

Nobody is talking about having their balls chopped off and tossed in a fire.

They're talking about a temporary procedure with a good chance of reversal backed up by cryo storage or direct harvesting of sperm.

How many so called champions of the West are shackled to a hairless titted ape pumping out hairless titted ape babies because of a drunken ONS, fulfilling the link in the long chain of bitter fathers trapped in a horrible circumstance at an unseemly young age and imprisoned by matriarchal laws because they weren't aware of the option of undergoing a temporary procedure with a good chance of reversal backed up by cryo storage or direct harvesting of sperm.

Only women are obligated to breed young.

[Sam Malone]

After reading the OP, I wish I could buy stock in Vasalgel.

[scorpion]

(05-30-2017 07:05 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Jesus.

Nobody is talking about having their balls chopped off and tossed in a fire.

They're talking about a temporary procedure with a good chance of reversal backed up by cryo storage or direct harvesting of sperm.

How many so called champions of the West are shackled to a hairless titted ape pumping out hairless titted ape babies because of a drunken ONS, fulfilling the link in the long chain of bitter fathers trapped in a horrible circumstance at an unseemly young age and imprisoned by matriarchal laws because they weren't aware of the option of undergoing a temporary procedure with a good chance of reversal backed up by cryo storage or direct harvesting of sperm.

Only women are obligated to breed young.

I think that birth control has overall been a disaster for the West and lies at the root of many of our social ills. Sex was not designed to be a sterile, consequence-free activity to be indulged in wantonly with a never-ending cascade of partners. The separation of sex from procreation was, more than anything else, the enabler of feminism and the destroyer of the traditional family. Birth control allowed women to indulge their sexual appetites without experiencing the intended biological consequences that necessarily acted as a brake and corrective mechanism for such behavior. And we see where this has led us: to the edge of disaster. The old truism applies: two wrongs do not make a right. The answer to a society ravaged by total female sexual liberation (via birth control) is not to respond with total male sexual liberation (via sterilization by any means). It is to reclaim our traditional sexual morality and norms and roll back the utter disaster that has been female sexual liberation. This is a difficult fight, perhaps even a hopeless one, but it must be undertaken. And it must be undertaken one man at a time. Every time a man finds it within himself to stand against the crushing tide of civilizational destruction that compels him to simply "enjoy the decline", we retake a small piece of ground. The battle in which we are engaged is moral and spiritual in nature and it will be won or lost in the hearts of men. Our cultural death spiral can only be reversed with a wholesale embrace of life (fertility), which necessarily entails the return of women to their natural roles as mothers. If the West is to survive it must be re-fertilized, not further sterilized.

We will do this, or it will be done in our place by Islam, and we will cease to exist as a people.

[Excelsior]

(05-30-2017 03:19 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I must agree with Lizard of Oz and differ with Scorpion.

I get it that the men don't create anything grand and have a family.

But note that the sexual market was destroyed by the globalist social engineers and then the very enthusiastic women first.

What would happen if you had a conservative resurgence and the divorce laws change? Also suddenly 18yo women instead of end 20s or 30-35yo carousel riders wanted to settle down with a Hamptons man? What if they started to adhere to the old old set of rules and regarded marriage as for life and wanted to have 2 children with that man before they were 25?

I can guarantee you what would happen - that man would ditch his oversupply of 25-35yo sluts and marry that 18yo girl.

We are living in a society where women are told to go wild at ages of 18-26 at the very least.

The sexual market was not destroyed, it was liberalized.

What you had before were a whole set of artificial constraints on the sexual market designed to create certain socially desirable outcomes by restricting the natural sexuality of both sexes (but ESPECIALLY that of women) and setting hard parameters for how the mating game was going to go. This was all within the context of socially imposed monogamy.

To be fair, this worked well and there is a not-entirely-unconvincing case to be made that it is the reason (or a main reason) as to why western civilizations (Western Europeans are the only ones who adopted such strict rules with regard to socially imposed monogamy and all of the restrictions on sexuality within it) became as dominant as they have been over the last millenia or so. Every man had his little fiefdom (home, woman, family) and that can do wonders for creating and incentivizing warriors.

That is all good and well, but it also isn't real. It was an artificial construct that was and always will be vulnerable to real world truths. Humans are not naturally monogamous, socially imposed monogamy asks for tremendous amounts of restraint from those who adhere to it (more than can reasonably be expected of them), and we live in a world where the vast majority of humanity does not and never has adhered to systems of socially imposed monogamy (indeed, most hail from societies in which polygamy was either a norm or acceptable).

What you see from 18-26 year old women is not merely the product of "evil globalists" tempting them to go wild. It is them doing as they were always naturally inclined to do. They're not wired to play dutiful housewife to some guy just for the sake of doing it. They are wired to seek the best mate they can find.
They don't want a Hamptons man, they want the best man, and he might not necessarily reside in the Hamptons - he could very well be in the Bronx, Harlem, or somewhere upstate.
If they can find that best man, perhaps they'll willingly settle with him (because he's just good enough to make it worthwhile). But a society in which a bunch of men (most of whom are, by definition, not among the best men) set a bunch of rules designed to ensure that their chances of getting a piece of the best men are limited is not one they're going to be keen on. It never was - such a society only ever persisted by artificial force, and the minute there was any disruption (ex: technology bringing the world closer together) it was going to go.

All that the evil "globalist social engineers" did was take the constraints off the natural order of things. Granted, they did go a little further in some respects and try to engineer some artificiality (which we see now with some of the propaganda re: male biological clocks and women being as fertile at 45 as they are at 25, etc), but by and large what we have now is much closer to nature than before.

Quote:

The age group that is looking forward to be "gold-spermed" is usually 25+ and mostly rather nearing 30 or over 30. Most of the female office oversupply from New York and city girls is post-collage in the full Sex and The City drive. It takes only some 2-4 years for them to realize that this lifestyle is tougher than it seems and far less fun.

Those men react to the world and the stimuli given. They react rationally to the changes in the sexual market that the women unwittingly created with their behavior:

1960s:


Where are the women? Pregnant and barefoot at home - almost all of them married at ages of 18-24.

These are pics from commuting men in the very same city.

Give the men incentives, raise fatherhood, destroy old marriage law, tell women to start looking for Mr. Right at age 18 and not 28, then I am sure those men would settle down faster. Also the number of easy access sluts will markedly decrease - which is fine, there were more prostitutes in the past in the US.

The women will not do that, because they know it isn't an arrangement they want.

As noted above, women want the best men. By definition, if what you propose here comes to pass, most will be unable to access the best men. They'll be stuck instead with a man who is, more likely than not, in the bottom 80%, not the top 20%.
That's great for the bottom 80% of men (who will all be guaranteed a woman), but it is not so great for the majority of women (who would prefer a piece of the best man to the whole of a lesser one).
That's the reality.

The men in that photo were, by and large, beneficiaries of a form of sexual welfare. The old rules artificially enhanced their opportunity by a) creating social stigmas to limit female sexuality, and b) creating structural and social barriers to female earning power (necessarily making them more dependent on men). All of this made it impractical to follow the 80/20 or 70-30 rules women would naturally gravitate to when given the freedom to do so, and it ensure that men who would otherwise have been left without a mate got one. He only got said mate because she was not free to do what she wanted to do, which was seek out and find the best men and give herself only to them.

The 20th century saw those restrictions knocked down, for a host of reasons, and now many of those men who occupy the bottom 70-80% are on their own. They do not have rigid social stigmas and structures to get them pussy anymore, and they cannot compel female affection via any of those artificial constructs. They also have a lot more competition in world that is much more well connected than it once was. Today, they effectively adapt or die: either they have the things females actually desire (wealth, status, game, charisma, humor, self-assuredness, etc) or they don't and they remain on their own.

You and I both know all of this to be true re: the true nature of men and women, and it is for these reasons that the clock is not going to rewind. The artificial limitations are gone and they simply are not going to come back. Women don't want them. Men don't really want them (even those many among the bottom 80%) and the world we live in is not equipped to have them.

(05-30-2017 06:42 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Our basic instincts have to take a backseat when it comes to civilization building. Monogamous marriage with every man having a stable family is the best option. A society can always have a few sluts and prostitutes around to take care for extra needs.

We men roll back some of our basic instincts and women take back some of theirs - for example their lot would be satisfied to pair only with the top 20% of men and leave the other 80% completely pussy-less. If they could get away with it and their children were taken care of, then women would do it.

But we know how those societies end up - they were all conquered by the stable one-man-one-woman-one-family society. And don't get me started here about "successful" polygamous societies that are warlike. Their system is very unstable and prevents higher rise of civilization.

At some point, I think people need to accept that the genie is not going back into the bottle.
Women aren't interested in going back to the 1950's style of living. They understand that in such a society, they are providing what essentially amounts of a form of sexual welfare/AA for the bottom 80% of men at the expense of their own sexual prerogatives. They don't want to do this.

Men aren't interested in bearing the burdens associated with that style of living. Men understand the limitations placed upon them in this society and aren't interested, generally, in abiding by them.

The demographics of societies where said style of living predominated have changed fundamentally, and you can't guarantee that these different people will be so keen on that style of living either.

I'm not saying one need accept extreme progressive hedonism as the end-all, be-all, only-available-option for the future, but I am suggesting that looking to recreate a version of an idealized past is not an option either. What you see in that picture isn't coming back. You can only run completely contrary to your own biological instincts for so long before it catches up with you. The west has been caught, and there's no going back now. Socially-imposed monogamy has its upsides, but there are downsides too and this is one of them - it was all destined to collapse in time.

If you want an answer for society going forward, it will probably need to be something new entirely.

[Leonard D Neubache]

@Scorpion

Right. All of that can be done while men of substance fuck sloots and promise rings and children to virgins. And they can fuck sloots well into their late thirties before stepping out and marrying a decent girl.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten where the resurgence in the masculine order came from. It didn't arise from the chickenshit eunuchs of the churches or any of the grovelling conservatives. It didn't come from beta bux bitches that wifed up the first worn out whore that wanted get off the carousel and cash out into kiddie land.

It came from places like this where small groups of men reforged a path through the jungles of social barbarity created by the wide scale abandonment of our cultural moorings. "Sowing your wild oats" is a time honoured tradition and a rite of passage for men, even if modern science takes out the illegitimate children from the act. You might argue that this allows modern women to act the sloot without consequences of their own but unless you've got a plan you'd like to share with the rest of us regarding storming the castle and tearing down the alimony/welfare oligarchy then you're putting the cart before the horse.

Our system of law is a reality, and no amount of wifing up cunts and pumping out kids is going to fix that. All you'd be doing is propping up the very system that enslaves us.

Enjoy the decline but build a life raft. Fuck'n'chuck whores and ready yourself to reward a good woman with a ring and some kids after you've had your fun. Tear away at the system and guide more men toward masculinity, working towards a day that we won't have to play at the edges of this rotten society.

No modern masculinity movement is going to get far by shaming men into early marriage and child-raising, nor should it. Men do not reclaim their society by becoming drones in a hive.

p.s. Islam is a joke. The very minute we cease to accept their nonsense and respond in kind with Western Civilisation "value added" they will be history. Frankly considering their last few attacks i'm beginning to think that their depredations are in fact exactly what this society needs to get its bloody head straight.

These islamic attacks are for us what the first touch of winter is for a wild goose or the warmth of spring and pang of hunger for a hibernating bear. They are a call to shake off the dust of comfort and once again strike out into the world.

[Dan Woolf]

(05-30-2017 08:38 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

If you want an answer for society going forward, it will probably need to be something new entirely.

You're welcome.

[Quintus Curtius]

(05-30-2017 09:06 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

@Scorpion

Right. All of that can be done while men of substance fuck sloots and promise rings and children to virgins. And they can fuck sloots well into their late thirties before stepping out and marrying a decent girl.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten where the resurgence in the masculine order came from. It didn't arise from the chickenshit eunuchs of the churches or any of the grovelling conservatives. It didn't come from beta bux bitches that wifed up the first worn out whore that wanted get off the carousel and cash out into kiddie land.

It came from places like this where small groups of men reforged a path through the jungles of social barbarity created by the wide scale abandonment of our cultural moorings. "Sowing your wild oats" is a time honoured tradition and a rite of passage for men, even if modern science takes out the illegitimate children from the act. You might argue that this allows modern women to act the sloot without consequences of their own but unless you've got a plan you'd like to share with the rest of us regarding storming the castle and tearing down the alimony/welfare oligarchy then you're putting the cart before the horse.

Our system of law is a reality, and no amount of wifing up cunts and pumping out kids is going to fix that. All you'd be doing is propping up the very system that enslaves us.

Enjoy the decline but build a life raft. Fuck'n'chuck whores and ready yourself to reward a good woman with a ring and some kids after you've had your fun. Tear away at the system and guide more men toward masculinity, working towards a day that we won't have to play at the edges of this rotten society.

No modern masculinity movement is going to get far by shaming men into early marriage and child-raising, nor should it. Men do not reclaim their society by becoming drones in a hive.

p.s. Islam is a joke. The very minute we cease to accept their nonsense and respond in kind with Western Civilisation "value added" they will be history. Frankly considering their last few attacks i'm beginning to think that their depredations are in fact exactly what this society needs to get its bloody head straight.

These islamic attacks are for us what the first touch of winter is for a wild goose or the warmth of spring and pang of hunger for a hibernating bear. They are a call to shake off the dust of comfort and once again strike out into the world.

[bbgun]

Isn't there more (male) satisfaction/pride getting your girl pregnant the old fashioned way as opposed to IVF? And wouldn't a lot of women consider that a turnoff?

[Liberty Sea]

Ideally vasectomy is reversible, but in practice its widening practice would lead to lower birth rate compared to the opposite. Even a small percentage of men who fail to reverse it will add to the birth rate decline. Vasectomy can cause the body to produce anti-sperm antibodies. About 60-70% of couples are successful in achieving a pregnancy following vasectomy reversal, which means about 30-40% do not, and this adds to the decline. Especially of white births, as "11.4% of men aged 30–45 years reported having a vasectomy, representing approximately 3.6 million American men. While 14.1% of white men had a vasectomy, only 3.7% of black and 4.5% of Hispanic men reported vasectomy." Not to mention more and more young women are opting for permanent sterilization - tubal ligation - which will nullify much of men's cryo storage and sperm harvesting in term of improving birth rate.

It's not my business though, so it wouldn't be prudent of me to decry the player lifestyle in a player's forum. Even though, IMHO, the player's lifestyle engages in a vicious cycle. Female sexual liberation - the slut lifestyle - leads to the MGTOW lifestyle, the practitioners of which don't produce, and the Player lifestyle, the practitioners of which will deflower many virgins in their way without commitment, and foster the slut lifestyle, which in turn will create many more MGTOW and players and beta loners and single mothers and women rendered infertile either unwillingly from overuse of contraceptives or willingly from tubal ligation. And repeats. The end result is lower and lower birth rate. It's however the path Westerners have chosen for themselves, so I will respect your wish to enjoy the decline.

In Confucian societies, though, having no son to continue the family line and keep the family altar/temple tended is the greatest sin against filial piety, a great moral failing. Which is why my parents have always pressured me to marry and have kids. This is considered utter nonsense by TLOZ and many westerners, but for us it is very real and our way of life, our time-honored tradition which I intend to keep. Personally I don't find this a problem for my society. It's workable here, as many women are still traditional and many marriages are still arranged by parents, and my very sister's is an example.

One may say it's merely a social construct yet even if it is, social constructs are not as inherently bad as feminists made them out to be. Civilization-building would be impossible without good, functional social constructs that enhance our finer instincts. I don't see them as incompatible with technological progress, so I prefer to honor this part of my ancestor's way of life.

(05-30-2017 09:16 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  



You're welcome.

Nice idea though artificial womb for humans will probably be banned in the West due to human right concerns and sanctity of life and whatnot. Meanwhile China doesn't give a fuck about human right and will reap the benefits of this.

In fact, while UK banned human cloning, China already cloned 30 human embryos.
China 'clone factory' scientist eyes human replication

[Buck Wild]

(05-30-2017 09:06 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

@Scorpion

Right. All of that can be done while men of substance fuck sloots and promise rings and children to virgins. And they can fuck sloots well into their late thirties before stepping out and marrying a decent girl.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten where the resurgence in the masculine order came from. It didn't arise from the chickenshit eunuchs of the churches or any of the grovelling conservatives. It didn't come from beta bux bitches that wifed up the first worn out whore that wanted get off the carousel and cash out into kiddie land.

It came from places like this where small groups of men reforged a path through the jungles of social barbarity created by the wide scale abandonment of our cultural moorings. "Sowing your wild oats" is a time honoured tradition and a rite of passage for men, even if modern science takes out the illegitimate children from the act. You might argue that this allows modern women to act the sloot without consequences of their own but unless you've got a plan you'd like to share with the rest of us regarding storming the castle and tearing down the alimony/welfare oligarchy then you're putting the cart before the horse.

Our system of law is a reality, and no amount of wifing up cunts and pumping out kids is going to fix that. All you'd be doing is propping up the very system that enslaves us.

Enjoy the decline but build a life raft. Fuck'n'chuck whores and ready yourself to reward a good woman with a ring and some kids after you've had your fun. Tear away at the system and guide more men toward masculinity, working towards a day that we won't have to play at the edges of this rotten society.

No modern masculinity movement is going to get far by shaming men into early marriage and child-raising, nor should it. Men do not reclaim their society by becoming drones in a hive.

p.s. Islam is a joke. The very minute we cease to accept their nonsense and respond in kind with Western Civilisation "value added" they will be history. Frankly considering their last few attacks i'm beginning to think that their depredations are in fact exactly what this society needs to get its bloody head straight.

These islamic attacks are for us what the first touch of winter is for a wild goose or the warmth of spring and pang of hunger for a hibernating bear. They are a call to shake off the dust of comfort and once again strike out into the world.

Quite right. I totally take scorpion's point...but jeremiads like his are almost always devoid of specifics regarding an actual pathway to take back society that doesn't involve becoming cannon fodder for a bullshit system. This isn't necessarily a slight---it's damn hard to come up with decent solutions. But given the enormity and difficultly of the problems we face as traditional men, I think it behooves the scorpions to be a bit less scathing in their tone...especially if their words remain descriptive rather than prescriptive.

[The Lizard of Oz]

scorpion, the problem with your posts in this thread is the constant exaggeration and the undertone of unreality and barely contained hysteria. It is not in any way warranted, and it is offensive to common sense.

As a practical matter, very young men who are childless should think twice before having a vasectomy, because there is a risk that it will not be successfully reversed. In fact I've advised young forum members to that effect here and here. However, and importantly, the men described in this article are unusual; they are men from a certain slice of high society. It is appropriate that they should resort to certain extraordinary measures to thwart the cunning designs of the beautiful and scheming women they deal with. Cunning to be met with greater cunning: it's good, it's a part of life which adds to the human comedy. That doesn't mean that anyone else should follow in their footsteps, or that they will.

Life is a thing of variety, it has many parts that are not all the same, nor should they be. Some men are ascetics, some are lechers and cads, still others proud patriarchs, or just normal men who take part in some or all of these facets of the human and male condition in turn. That is where the "deeper meaning" that you seek at all times, and yet miss everywhere, is actually found: in the rhythms of life as it is, the human comedy in its richness and interest and purpose. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.

When you say:

Quote:

And while we can agree that these things might be fun and pleasurable and memorable and make for some fond and perhaps amusing memories, they don't really carry any deeper meaning

Realize that this obsession with "deeper meaning" is a fetish, amounting to a sort of derangement. It's nonsense that travesties daily life as it actually is. It's as if you seek to dismiss the thousand thousand things of life itself -- the things that make it fun, or pleasurable, or memorable -- as so much garbage, something to be burned away leaving this magical "deeper meaning" to stand on its own. It's a pathology which is the result of what I have called nihilsm: the deep certainty that all life is, in fact, "meaningless", and the reaction to that certainty, this fixation on "meaning" supplied by a "God" defined as little more than the dully abstracted residuum of man's fear.

You speak about our civilization as being on the "edge of disaster" but the true disaster comes when men affect belief in things that are no longer sustained by common sense, and attempt to force these falsehoods on men with simple horse sense. Denial of change and reality leads to the disaster of nihilism, which is simply the pretense that if the old meanings, the old fictions, no longer survive, then there can be nothing in their place. This is an arrogant, stupid, and cowardly idea. And that is all that this new pretend-religion, the desperately feigned religion of absolutely convicted and devout nihilists, really amounts to.

As an aside, do not be deluded that Islam will ever accomplish the reversals and retrenchments that you fantasize about. All those hooded cunts are becoming insistently juicy, and they will break into the real life of worldly possibilities, or die trying. The special evil that has possessed their men is -- of course -- a result of their own sexual hysteria, their dread of the realization that they will not be able to control and contain their pussy for very much longer. As our President justly said, they are best understood as losers in every sense of that word.

Again: men lying and exaggerating to each other, using words that none truly believe, is a greater moral disaster than "birth control" could ever be -- indeed, lies of this kind are the ultimate disaster, because they make men deny the world as it is. And the world punishes them with despair.

scorpion, what I want to say to you is that there is no need for that despair, for that hysteria. You are a good and intelligent man with many gifts. I hope that some day you will free yourself from the distortions of nihilism, and let go of the fetishes that you feel are required to hold it at bay.

[Graft]

(05-30-2017 08:38 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 03:19 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I must agree with Lizard of Oz and differ with Scorpion.

I get it that the men don't create anything grand and have a family.

But note that the sexual market was destroyed by the globalist social engineers and then the very enthusiastic women first.

What would happen if you had a conservative resurgence and the divorce laws change? Also suddenly 18yo women instead of end 20s or 30-35yo carousel riders wanted to settle down with a Hamptons man? What if they started to adhere to the old old set of rules and regarded marriage as for life and wanted to have 2 children with that man before they were 25?

I can guarantee you what would happen - that man would ditch his oversupply of 25-35yo sluts and marry that 18yo girl.

We are living in a society where women are told to go wild at ages of 18-26 at the very least.

The sexual market was not destroyed, it was liberalized.

What you had before were a whole set of artificial constraints on the sexual market designed to create certain socially desirable outcomes by restricting the natural sexuality of both sexes (but ESPECIALLY that of women) and setting hard parameters for how the mating game was going to go. This was all within the context of socially imposed monogamy.

To be fair, this worked well and there is a not-entirely-unconvincing case to be made that it is the reason (or a main reason) as to why western civilizations (Western Europeans are the only ones who adopted such strict rules with regard to socially imposed monogamy and all of the restrictions on sexuality within it) became as dominant as they have been over the last millenia or so. Every man had his little fiefdom (home, woman, family) and that can do wonders for creating and incentivizing warriors.

That is all good and well, but it also isn't real. It was an artificial construct that was and always will be vulnerable to real world truths. Humans are not naturally monogamous, socially imposed monogamy asks for tremendous amounts of restraint from those who adhere to it (more than can reasonably be expected of them), and we live in a world where the vast majority of humanity does not and never has adhered to systems of socially imposed monogamy (indeed, most hail from societies in which polygamy was either a norm or acceptable).

What you see from 18-26 year old women is not merely the product of "evil globalists" tempting them to go wild. It is them doing as they were always naturally inclined to do. They're not wired to play dutiful housewife to some guy just for the sake of doing it. They are wired to seek the best mate they can find.
They don't want a Hamptons man, they want the best man, and he might not necessarily reside in the Hamptons - he could very well be in the Bronx, Harlem, or somewhere upstate.
If they can find that best man, perhaps they'll willingly settle with him (because he's just good enough to make it worthwhile). But a society in which a bunch of men (most of whom are, by definition, not among the best men) set a bunch of rules designed to ensure that their chances of getting a piece of the best men are limited is not one they're going to be keen on. It never was - such a society only ever persisted by artificial force, and the minute there was any disruption (ex: technology bringing the world closer together) it was going to go.

All that the evil "globalist social engineers" did was take the constraints off the natural order of things. Granted, they did go a little further in some respects and try to engineer some artificiality (which we see now with some of the propaganda re: male biological clocks and women being as fertile at 45 as they are at 25, etc), but by and large what we have now is much closer to nature than before.

Quote:

The age group that is looking forward to be "gold-spermed" is usually 25+ and mostly rather nearing 30 or over 30. Most of the female office oversupply from New York and city girls is post-collage in the full Sex and The City drive. It takes only some 2-4 years for them to realize that this lifestyle is tougher than it seems and far less fun.

Those men react to the world and the stimuli given. They react rationally to the changes in the sexual market that the women unwittingly created with their behavior:

1960s:


Where are the women? Pregnant and barefoot at home - almost all of them married at ages of 18-24.

These are pics from commuting men in the very same city.

Give the men incentives, raise fatherhood, destroy old marriage law, tell women to start looking for Mr. Right at age 18 and not 28, then I am sure those men would settle down faster. Also the number of easy access sluts will markedly decrease - which is fine, there were more prostitutes in the past in the US.

The women will not do that, because they know it isn't an arrangement they want.

As noted above, women want the best men. By definition, if what you propose here comes to pass, most will be unable to access the best men. They'll be stuck instead with a man who is, more likely than not, in the bottom 80%, not the top 20%.
That's great for the bottom 80% of men (who will all be guaranteed a woman), but it is not so great for the majority of women (who would prefer a piece of the best man to the whole of a lesser one).
That's the reality.

The men in that photo were, by and large, beneficiaries of a form of sexual welfare. The old rules artificially enhanced their opportunity by a) creating social stigmas to limit female sexuality, and b) creating structural and social barriers to female earning power (necessarily making them more dependent on men). All of this made it impractical to follow the 80/20 or 70-30 rules women would naturally gravitate to when given the freedom to do so, and it ensure that men who would otherwise have been left without a mate got one. He only got said mate because she was not free to do what she wanted to do, which was seek out and find the best men and give herself only to them.

The 20th century saw those restrictions knocked down, for a host of reasons, and now many of those men who occupy the bottom 70-80% are on their own. They do not have rigid social stigmas and structures to get them pussy anymore, and they cannot compel female affection via any of those artificial constructs. They also have a lot more competition in world that is much more well connected than it once was. Today, they effectively adapt or die: either they have the things females actually desire (wealth, status, game, charisma, humor, self-assuredness, etc) or they don't and they remain on their own.

You and I both know all of this to be true re: the true nature of men and women, and it is for these reasons that the clock is not going to rewind. The artificial limitations are gone and they simply are not going to come back. Women don't want them. Men don't really want them (even those many among the bottom 80%) and the world we live in is not equipped to have them.

(05-30-2017 06:42 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Our basic instincts have to take a backseat when it comes to civilization building. Monogamous marriage with every man having a stable family is the best option. A society can always have a few sluts and prostitutes around to take care for extra needs.

We men roll back some of our basic instincts and women take back some of theirs - for example their lot would be satisfied to pair only with the top 20% of men and leave the other 80% completely pussy-less. If they could get away with it and their children were taken care of, then women would do it.

But we know how those societies end up - they were all conquered by the stable one-man-one-woman-one-family society. And don't get me started here about "successful" polygamous societies that are warlike. Their system is very unstable and prevents higher rise of civilization.

At some point, I think people need to accept that the genie is not going back into the bottle.
Women aren't interested in going back to the 1950's style of living. They understand that in such a society, they are providing what essentially amounts of a form of sexual welfare/AA for the bottom 80% of men at the expense of their own sexual prerogatives. They don't want to do this.

Men aren't interested in bearing the burdens associated with that style of living. Men understand the limitations placed upon them in this society and aren't interested, generally, in abiding by them.

The demographics of societies where said style of living predominated have changed fundamentally, and you can't guarantee that these different people will be so keen on that style of living either.

I'm not saying one need accept extreme progressive hedonism as the end-all, be-all, only-available-option for the future, but I am suggesting that looking to recreate a version of an idealized past is not an option either. What you see in that picture isn't coming back. You can only run completely contrary to your own biological instincts for so long before it catches up with you. The west has been caught, and there's no going back now. Socially-imposed monogamy has its upsides, but there are downsides too and this is one of them - it was all destined to collapse in time.

If you want an answer for society going forward, it will probably need to be something new entirely.

Not much would have to change for the old patriarchy return. The entire burden rests collectively on our (men) shoulders.

Most women want to get married and have children, ever moreso than men. They've just pushed the age further and further, resulting in a shittier deal for men due to the longer time spent on the carousel. Men have fought back a little, but most women can still get married to a reasonable guy in their late 20's/early 30's. 30 seems to be the mental deadline for most American women to have found their marriageable partner. In China/India it is a culturally imposed age of 25.

Men have to collectively raise their standards towards younger women and lower partner count. Despite the skewed gender ratio in China, an over 25 "leftover woman" won't be touched. I still see white-collar, educated men wifing up carousel women aged 30+. This is unacceptable because women can see their ability to slut around during their best years still parachute with a husband once their "Eat, Pray Love" journey is over.

American men: demand young virgins or marriage is off the table.

[Quintus Curtius]

I can see both Scorpion's position and Leonard's. They both make compelling points and this is one of those issues that cuts right to the bone of modern life: what moral system should a man adopt? Should he embrace the traditional role, and swear off a hedonistic lifestyle? Or should he "go with the flow" and give himself over to epicurean delights, and not be afraid to neuter himself?

I lean more towards the traditionalist approach (even though I'm not married and have no children): even for psychological reasons, I would not want to neuter myself. I would feel like I'm somehow amputating a part of my identity. I don't see a life of chasing women around to be a very fulfilling one for the long term; but on the other hand, we have to take the world as it exists, too. The sad reality is that most Western women have themselves rejected traditionalism. It takes both parties to play that game, and when one opts out, it's not realistic to hold the other to the same standard.

It won't surprise you guys to know this ground has been covered before in history.

When men are voluntarily neutering themselves, it does not bode well for the long-term survival of the society. Scorpion is absolutely right that family limitation--followed by a drop in population--is the harbinger for the death of the culture. In ancient Rome, abortion and infanticide began among the wealthy and eventually trickled down to the lower classes. By A.D. 200, the governors of the Roman provinces had to offer incentives for people to have families (in Latin, "alimenta").

Sexual excess, infanticide, and birth control without doubt contributed to the decline. According to one historian, a Praetorian praefect named Plantianus had one hundred boys emasculated (castrated) and gave them to his daughter as a wedding gift. This is how little fertility was valued. Think about that.

To make up for population shortages, the emperors after Hadrian had to import vast amounts of barbarians (sound familiar?). Aurelius, Valentinian, Probus, and Constantine all allowed (encouraged) mass immigration. The evidence in the record is damning. By the time of the emperor Pertinax, so many farms in rural areas had been abandoned that they were offered for free to anyone who would be willing to maintain them. They had a phrase to describe this: it was called "penuria hominum" (dearth of men). A bishop in Alexandria, Egypt noted that by 250 A.D. the population during his lifetime had been reduced by about 40%.

Does all this sound uncomfortably familiar? Meanwhile, Christianity gained strength: it was chaste, it encouraged large families, and it frowned on sexual excess.

So it's hard not to conclude that Scorpion is on the right side of history. Yet Leonard argues eloquently and reasonably for a practical approach to the difficult situation that most men are in today. It's all well and good to note historical realities, but a man also has to have his needs met. So this is not an easy question.

Maybe the only sensible answer is to argue for a moderate, sensible enjoyment of pleasures, while taking care not to veer too close to the furnace of sexual excess. As men, we are inherent risk-takers. This is part of the game, and we all know it.
I hope that the external threats our society is facing today will cause some kind of re-imposition of discipline. We can't survive for long with plummeting birth rates. How well we adapt to these challenges will be the measure of our resiliency.

.

[lavidaloca]

Having kids is actually probably a bigger issue for average joes then for guys making 0.1% incomes. While the guy with the 0.1% income gives up a substantially greater amount of money he also can probably still maintain his lifestyle. A guy making 3 or 4k a month who has a kid is really gonna suffer.

Honestly, best to just practice caution. Don't nut inside of girls unless your willing to take that risk.

[TooFineAPoint]

Appreciate the discussion on both sides, and while I might lean more towards the other guys, I'm glad Scorpion is in here making earnest and passionate points.

You guys might find it interesting to check out Tolstoy's narration of his own life, re: banging sluts while young and then finding someone suitable to marry once you are older and have made it in a career.

I'm wracking my brain but I can't remember exactly what book it was. It may have been a short story, or it may have been via one of the characters in War & Peace or Anna Karenina.

I can't even recall if he was praising this way of living -- knowing him he was probably bitching about it.

But at the time it struck me a great way to live (and probably a very common one among the Russian nobles). Fuck around with whores and sluts while you make a career (military or otherwise), and once you're in your 40s, find a nice teen to knock up so that you and her and your future family have a comfortable life on your already advanced salary.

You'll know your way around the block sexually, and she'll not be able to throw you with emotions the way she could to a younger and less experienced man, and she will be much happier.

All other things being equal, blah blah.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-30-2017 08:38 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

All that the evil "globalist social engineers" did was take the constraints off the natural order of things. Granted, they did go a little further in some respects and try to engineer some artificiality (which we see now with some of the propaganda re: male biological clocks and women being as fertile at 45 as they are at 25, etc), but by and large what we have now is much closer to nature than before.

Our nature is living like savages in caves and huts, then rutting indiscriminately with whoever presents herself for it and then dying quick death.

And no - our system is not natural, because in nature all the 15-18 year old girls would get pregnant and have babies with their first sex partners. The entire sexual liberation front would come to a screeching halt right then and there.

Female promiscuity that most women enjoy is different from male promiscuity. Most women don't enjoy fucking a new man every day, while most men would be happy with it. Most women would prefer fucking her way up from Alpha to Super-Alpha in passing periods of months or sometimes years between Alphas.

Promiscuous sex was a big part of many cultures - usually those in deep decline. Even in the last 200 years you had certain regions in Europe - Paris 1890s, Berlin 1920s - where free love was promoted and practiced. This usually ended quickly due to the sudden rise in unwanted children, whose mothers were not supported by alimony or welfare.

I agree that the previous system was artificial, but the bare naked "natural" system is not one that you would want to replicate either. There is no going back to the wild for us and the genie can return to the bottle with social engineering. Feminism and this female empowerment has to constantly fight against the God of biomechanics as Heartiste puts it. They have to constantly artificially convince women that male kind of promiscuity is great and empowering and that they can postpone their child-bearing after they have "sowed their oats" like men did in the past.

There is an incredible amount of social engineering going on. What the traditional societies and religions did was also engineering. They too were partly error prone with some assumptions.

In my opinion it is possible to create a science-based male-female relationship system for society that takes into account both the instincts of women and the needs of a high civilization. It would likely entail Game and Red Pill being taught to all men and women. It would explain exactly and in detail to both genders what will make most of them happy and what the reasons for that are. All men will be trained and encouraged to become the most Alpha, strongest versions they can be, recognizing shit-tests easily and female nature being an open book to them. Also all women will be taught to stay slim, in shape and be the most feminine they can be, because that will attract the best man they can get and will make them the most happy over the long term (this can be even proven scientifically - no reason to believe in anything). In a way such a society would certainly be loathed by many women, because even in traditional Christian societies women despite the limitations could get away with plenty of bullshit.

Furthermore I would recommend the building of a social framework where women are encouraged to marry and have babies at the age of 17-20. They could study at home and later after the kids are in school, then they could embark on studies or some careers if they wanted to.

Voila - genie back in the bottle. Also - there is no denying that the globalists want to destroy the family. They have said it so themselves in many books, even feminists have often voiced this goal. And yes - destruction of restraints is still destruction, because the restraints exist to keep us from reverting to caveman times.

As for the men in the article - most of them can still have children later on and I would recommend them to do so. My guess is that many of them will do it. Contrary to women - those men can have kids at the age of 48 as well - and still be good dads if they are in shape.

[Dalaran1991]

While by my principle I wholeheartedly agree with Scorpiions, 3 years of living in Paris have changed my mindset. And I'm still lucky I'm nowhere rich enough to be trapped by goldiggers. It's simply delusional at worst and impractical at best for young successful guys to not take precautious measures.

The reality is that the decline is real and enormous, and it is overbearing. And like many have said it's not going to change, or when it does change it will be after some fucked up war or disaster, that banging sluts will be the very very least of our concern. More likely our bones will be dust on the wind by then.

It is unreasonable to inspire succesful guys to settle down "for the greater good" because fighting for that ideal will turn that very ideal against you. You do your best to raise and keep a family, but with a fuck huge chance of that very family being turned against you or taken from you. No amount of family incentivization policy can outweigh the potential risk of divorce courts and lifetime alimony. Considering that in France paternity test are illegal. Some sources (unconfirmed) saying in France 1 out of 4 children are not actually from the father. That's how fucked up it might be and I dont think the real number is much lower.

How the fuck do you fight for the "greater good / society" if the very essence of "goodness" is drained from you?

Dont give China / Asia any credit either. Though it's true that 30+ women are useless in China, it doesnt mean the men have higher standards. It just mean that the rest of the men are also as sexless and as miserable as these women. No wonder most of the sexbot innovation comes from them. In fact if you go to Asia and look at most couples, the guys are dating down. Very similar scene to the West. The girls might be thinner though.

That said I agree with Excelsior that even under pain of death I would not do a vacsetomy. There are better alternatives than letting some retard in a white mask snipped off the very essence of my manhood (just visualizing that gives me chills). I dont blame these men for doing that though.

[rudebwoy]

^Life is funny and I don't like to play around with nature.

I dated a slut who had an abortion before she met me, I was dumb enough to shoot in her once when we were dating, luckily I wasn't punished. Years later after we had broken up and she was close to 40, I got a email from her saying she wanted a kid. I didn't reply to the email and I don't know whether she was able to get pregnant.

Those Hampton guys are living for the short term. Some of them will OD on some drug and some of them will meet the end when their Porsche wraps around a tree.

Lets hope they don't shoot blanks when they meet Ms Wifey down the road.

[TravelerKai]

[quote] (05-30-2017 06:38 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

[quote='The Lizard of Oz' pid='1581249' dateline='1496116263']
Can you truly make the case for such behavior without relying on flowery verbiage to cloak your meaning?[/quote]

Gimlet and Scorpion wrecked this thread with their posts. Flew over the vast majority of heads.

I won't spend an hour writing a flowery post on this. Let's be blunt and keep it 100. I see the people liking these degeneracy laden posts, and some of them are the same guys that are into Trump, Viking worship/admiration, white, European, African, etc. ancestor worship, and other facets of and Western Culture and History.

Some of you guys want to save Western Society? Hate the decline? But cutting off your fertility so that the gold digging whores cannot get to you? What kind of logic is that?

The MGTOWs, the Manosphere, the Neo-Masculinity guys, the MRAs. All these guys more or less are the only self aware men in the Anglosphere. The only collection of men intelligent enough to reverse the damage to society. You men are like Scorpion said, high IQ, driven, and ambitious, yet your priorities are no better than feminist hamster.

You cannot lie with snakes and not get bitten.

You snip your balls? Those whores will accuse you of rape. People in your career will blackball you. It could cause you to lose business via a whore coming to your place of business or social media and ruining your reputation over drama.

Women like that are not just sneaky. They are evil. None of you are so intelligent that you are incapable of getting caught, or ruined by a hoe. It's a factor of when/time, not a matter of if.

You need good healthy relationships with good women for not only child-creation reasons, but for your own well being and life.

You guys have the wrong mentality. It's all fucked up. You think Trump would cut his? Money is money. It can be gotten, lost, and recovered. Your legacy cannot. Fuck money. If I lost everything tomorrow, I would not sweat it. I still have my mind, knowledge, and mindset and they cannot take that away from me. I will thrive and make more money regardless.

You guys have too much atheistic, nihilistic, garbage mindset stuff going on and it is like a virus in the sphere right now. Anything rotten from Ronaldo raising twin boys without a mother to Quintus Curtis talking about never get married. All this stuff is trash. Fuck manning up. Get a fucking grip before you end up miserable out of your minds alone, while surrounded by expensive cars and whores that aren't worth a quarter. Will Dan Bilerian's THOTs come give him a sip of water when he is in his 70s and 80s? No, but if he had children, they would.

Lizard, for a guy that wrote an epic piece on why most men should aspire to be fathers, what makes you double back on that? Is it sperm freezing and technology love? Fuck sperm freezing. There is a reason why the strongest sperm cell makes it to the egg. I'm not letting a doctor pick a weak one full of God knows what mutations, recessive genes, and other traits that may make for a lackluster child.

My daughter is so strong it's scary sometimes. Saw her trip and completely bust her ass very hard a few weeks ago. She got up attempted to whimper, rubbed her butt a little bit and limped for two steps and ran over to me at full speed. All I could think about was, "Damn, that's my baby alright. Strong as fuck, just like her old man. She isn't weak like those other little 2 year olds." I asked her if she was hurt, she said no. My smile got bigger than a hyena. I felt good the whole day and now I am even posting about it. The sperm that made her was the strongest and the fastest. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Where is your pride as a man, in this? If I get a hoe pregnant on accident, I will just deal with it. I'm not cutting my balls for nobody.

[Vill@in]

(05-31-2017 09:24 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

There are better alternatives than letting some retard in a white mask snipped off the very essence of my manhood (just visualizing that gives me chills).

I was scheduled to get snipped myself in January. I have two children already from previous relationships, so my goal was to get fixed and fuck whores until I'm 90. Or, God willing, 95.

But a week before the procedure I chickened out. I just could not imagine being sterile. Losing my "essence of manhood" like you put it scared me to the core. I don't want anymore kids, and I don't intend to have anymore. But just knowing that I can change my mind on that is comforting (albeit monetarily stupid).

Both sides make compelling arguments, and I'm not going to pretend I know the right answer. However I must say it is a delight to have a place where we can discuss this very issue in depth with only the best interests of our fellow man in mind.

[debeguiled]

This was the last thread title I would expect to get this deep this fast.

[BassPlayaYo]

There are many paths to follow...These guys make their own choices and those choices may not jive with your own but they're making that choice based on the life they are living not the one you are living or the one you think you would be living if you were them. The world has enough people already, these guys perhaps don't look at their legacy as being children but perhaps some other contribution that has way more impact. Kids don't always look out for their parents, it's a romantic notion but in reality it's probably 50/50 and that's being generous given the state of the society we live in. I have a brother who busted his ass to provide for 4 kids and they don't even call him on fathers day. I say if it works for them fine, that's one thing they don't have to worry about.