[dongiovanni]

The thought of having a child I couldn't raise myself makes me sick.

[BrewDog]

(10-27-2011 08:54 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

Call me an asshole, but if I had 0 chance of it coming back to haunt me, I'd impregnate girls all around the world if I could. It is what we're wired to do after all. I just don't want to suffer the consequences. The key is not getting caught.

So you would leave some girl to raise your child in a shithole country without any support?

Piece. Of. Shit.

Yep. You're the fucking man. You're our goddamned Alpha hero.

[Uruz]

Well certainly can be alfa, the hero part is optional based on your morals.

[Phoenix]

(03-02-2017 12:27 AM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 08:54 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

Call me an asshole, but if I had 0 chance of it coming back to haunt me, I'd impregnate girls all around the world if I could. It is what we're wired to do after all. I just don't want to suffer the consequences. The key is not getting caught.

So you would leave some girl to raise your child in a shithole country without any support?

Piece. Of. Shit.

Yep. You're the fucking man. You're our goddamned Alpha hero.

You hitting the brew again, dog? That post was 6 years ago, people's views can change a lot in 6 years.

[BrewDog]

(03-02-2017 09:22 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

You hitting the brew again, dog? That post was 6 years ago, people's views can change a lot in 6 years.

Yeah, you right.

[wemonger]

I want to point out some real truths here for guys with this mindset. First I want to share that I made a transition to this mindset a while ago. After I laid rest the ideas of male romance I made a mental shift to soft R selector type. That is, low investment in offspring as opposed to k-selector, high investment. I told my wife that I was no longer willing to restrain myself or even wear protection in pay for play. I went through a lot of mental models and even had ideas of moving girlfriends in etc.

Ultimately there's some soft beta truths in here. Once your woman is properly motivated, a lot of these ideas become pretty ridiculous. The moment she gets that nut, you think clearly for about 15 seconds and you realize how much work it would be to have two wives. The idea is preposterous. One properly trained wife is more than enough to keep a man happy at a base level. That does not count your primal urges to spread your seed or the variety of new young fertile women etc.

But I wake up with my cock in her mouth and send her to work with a load in her pussy in the morning and put her to sleep with one as well. Once you have orchestrated what they call "traumatic bonding" which is beta talk for getting a woman to treat you like a sex god by keeping her in constant emotional ecstasy through a full range of emotion, again, a lot of these fantasies give way and you become closer with the mother. It is important that you have a close relationship with a primary mother in my opinion, and the idea that you would have any other significant relationship with another mother is a bad idea.

For you guys who don't have kids you have no idea how much time is sunk into it. It's unreal. It totally dominates your life. And I don't mean that in a beta male, let's love our kids like mothers even though we're supposed to be men type of way. Even if you believe in the idea of the silverback patriarch, which is a myth, you will almost certainly spend lots of time with your kids. Again, even if you think you'll be flying around the world as CEO. 99% likely you'll be spending hours a day with them, even if 30 minutes of it are only spent 1:1.

You'll help with breakfast, pack them for school, be present at PTA meetings to know if your kids are fucking up etc. Indirectly by mowing the lawn, fixing the house, keeping your wife in line (since she's basically an overgrown child, even with a graduate degree etc). It is a fulltime job. That's why they call even Don Draper a PROVIDER.

So that ONLY leaves the idea of low investment "seed spreading" as the thread talks about. I do not know how this "old school brotha" could have done what he's done. I don't understand it. To me, it means not having a strong primary relationship with a mother. At least for me personally, it's not an interest. Having a strong household is important to me, and instead, he has what is more like a business. In my opinion, this should be a side business, not a primary business. But to each their own.

Ultimately, what I'm saying is I think the frame a lot of guys have here discounts how close you can get to a woman when you train her properly. There are no "good women", AWALT, but you can be masculine enough or even machiavellian enough to inspire her to meet your needs. Then you're left with the "side business."

On that front, I am researching the ways that this would go. Because obviously I have zero interest in directing child support to these countries. It would seem that small sums of money go a long way here, but you'd have to orchestrate it in a way that benefits the child and doesn't go to drugs etc. I suspect there could be a way to legitimize this. The wife has already accepted it and there was already one pregnancy scare and after the shock she decided to stay, so I don't suspect that'll be an issue, we've talked about it at length.

At this point she wants to be present for dates, shows up for pay to play etc. Having gone this far, I will advise other men, the idea of a marriage with children is absolutely not as fulfilling as you'd want to believe. I absolutely would not stay in this household without the ability to see other women. And you would be surprised how little you'd want to exercise that option when she is there to please you. The difference between the base level entitlement a woman is born into in America and what is possible is extraordinary. Had she never started showing me her mane, I would have believed she was a unicorn, she unplugged me and in return she got the man I was supposed to be. But that lesson is important IMO.

Be very careful and understand what makes you happy and what is just fantasy. For guys in here that are fantasizing about Leave it to Beaver or Don Draper, it's not what its cracked up to be. For guys who want to have even 2 wives, that idea is probably not what you think. But I can see the appeal here in spreading your seed, but also, be mindful of how little you'd get in return here. After cumming inside some local whore, I really warmed to the idea that she'd gotten knocked up. She posted some pictures a month or so later and had put on a lot of weight. Then it became real and it was like "well... cool... I guess?" But then you feel like you've got something. But also, you think about what it'd be like if you had to make any serious investment of time or money and then you realize how little you actually get from this.

One thing about kids is they can't take it away from you, spiritually, is the sense of ownership. Inexperienced men on here are obsessed with the idea of women "leaving with the kids" or other men raising them (lol, why would you care about a guy retroactively cucking himself) etc. They can never take away creating life. All I think men need is to really meet them and take them in. A couple years, then you can start to let go and let a woman be a woman. I don't expect to be with the mother of my kids long term. Not by my choosing, that's just how women are. You gotta let go. But getting off track here. The point is that what you get out of this arrangement is a sense of pride in creation, even if the barrier is pretty low.

It to me felt a lot like owning a motorcycle or something like that. It makes you smile, you think about it fondly. It's different than a real bond you have with a mother and children within a household. Which is deeper, richer, but also less shiny. With these random kids, the feeling is just that. That you own that motorcycle, and you like the color etc. You don't have the burdens that come with kids. When they start fucking up, or when they destroy something you love etc. That's the real relationship, this idea in this thread, isn't real. It's boat ownership without the maintenance. You only get to own the boat, not put it on the water.

For me personally, a man is best served by commanding a woman to absolute submission, and if that relationship fails to move on. You must assert your boundaries unilaterally and not adopt the frame of the us court system.

Tyrone doesn't worry about that. This is a white beta male concern, you must grow, you must become capable and fierce. She will love and appreciate you for this.

You must mirror a woman's method of mate selection. Be prepared for her to leave and to replace her with another close relationship, but never stop your conquests. But make sure they're away from your home. That's how women operate, so that's how you should, in my opinion.

So this is I think part of maximizing your potential as a man. And I'm offering insight into this mindset while offering caution. Be very careful to be introspective about what you want, so that when things go south you still have what you want.

Because I can tell you one thing. You don't want to be spending time and effort on kids you don't want with women you don't want to be around.

Straight up, freedom is number one. It's number one, no question. Don't even let a woman take your freedom, ever ever ever.

[Sender]

Hume, the philosopher, proposed a conceptual riddle which was later dubbed the 'Is/Ought problem'. It shares a lot of similarities with the well known Naturalistic fallacy. I consider it to be the most fundamental philosophical problem and no-one to my mind has really come up with a good answer to it -- outside of religions. I'd be curious to hear what RVF philosophically-minded folks have to say about it though.

Hume basically states that just because something IS a part of the natural order doesn't mean that it OUGHT to be. That there's always a disconnect between the way things are and the way they should be.

So, for example, a mother has a biological imperative to nurture her children (IS) but there is nothing -- really nothing at all -- which says that doing so is better (OUGHT) than not doing it.

In much the same way, a man 'spreading his seed' is a part of his inate biological strategy but that doesn't equate it to being the right thing to do.

How then can you know what you OUGHT to do? I don't know -- unless you follow some kind of religion which makes it simple. But to equate what is natural with what is right is always gonna be false.

Of course, that would also mean that spreading your seed without thought of the consequence isn't WRONG either because there's also nothing that tells us what we shouldn't (OUGHT NOT) do it.

It's all pretty depressing really. We can only hope that there's a God out there somewhere to resolve the problem. Though the chances of that seem slim

[wemonger]

(12-03-2018 11:17 AM)Sender Wrote:  

Hume, the philosopher, proposed a conceptual riddle which was later dubbed the 'Is/Ought problem'. It shares a lot of similarities with the well known Naturalistic fallacy. I consider it to be the most fundamental philosophical problem and no-one to my mind has really come up with a good answer to it -- outside of religions. I'd be curious to hear what RVF philosophically-minded folks have to say about it though.

Hume basically states that just because something IS a part of the natural order doesn't mean that it OUGHT to be. That there's always a disconnect between the way things are and the way they should be.

So, for example, a mother has a biological imperative to nurture her children (IS) but there is nothing -- really nothing at all -- which says that doing so is better (OUGHT) than not doing it.

In much the same way, a man 'spreading his seed' is a part of his inate biological strategy but that doesn't equate it to being the right thing to do.

How then can you know what you OUGHT to do? I don't know -- unless you follow some kind of religion which makes it simple. But to equate what is natural with what is right is always gonna be false.

Of course, that would also mean that spreading your seed without thought of the consequence isn't WRONG either because there's also nothing that tells us what we shouldn't (OUGHT NOT) do.

It's all pretty depressing really. We can only hope that there's a God out there somewhere to resolve the problem. Though the chances of that seem slim

This is the foundation of my reply above yours. Men need to very carefully decide what they "are" (is) going to do, not ought. I've decided I am going to spread my seed, but also that I enjoy close relationships with a primary mother to my children.

I have no ought in my mind, I've spent the time to figure out exactly what my {is} will be.

You can't change your "is" after you have a child. So spend the time to understand this part of your life intimately.

[Sender]

(12-03-2018 11:45 AM)wemonger Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 11:17 AM)Sender Wrote:  

Hume, the philosopher, proposed a conceptual riddle which was later dubbed the 'Is/Ought problem'. It shares a lot of similarities with the well known Naturalistic fallacy. I consider it to be the most fundamental philosophical problem and no-one to my mind has really come up with a good answer to it -- outside of religions. I'd be curious to hear what RVF philosophically-minded folks have to say about it though.

Hume basically states that just because something IS a part of the natural order doesn't mean that it OUGHT to be. That there's always a disconnect between the way things are and the way they should be.

So, for example, a mother has a biological imperative to nurture her children (IS) but there is nothing -- really nothing at all -- which says that doing so is better (OUGHT) than not doing it.

In much the same way, a man 'spreading his seed' is a part of his inate biological strategy but that doesn't equate it to being the right thing to do.

How then can you know what you OUGHT to do? I don't know -- unless you follow some kind of religion which makes it simple. But to equate what is natural with what is right is always gonna be false.

Of course, that would also mean that spreading your seed without thought of the consequence isn't WRONG either because there's also nothing that tells us what we shouldn't (OUGHT NOT) do.

It's all pretty depressing really. We can only hope that there's a God out there somewhere to resolve the problem. Though the chances of that seem slim

This is the foundation of my reply above yours. Men need to very carefully decide what they "are" (is) going to do, not ought. I've decided I am going to spread my seed, but also that I enjoy close relationships with a primary mother to my children.

I have no ought in my mind, I've spent the time to figure out exactly what my {is} will be.

You can't change your "is" after you have a child. So spend the time to understand this part of your life intimately.

I'm not making any judgement about you or anyone else on this thread. After all we're all men on a game forum, right.

What I am saying is if you want to 'understand intimately this part of your life' then you have to accept that the 'good feelings' that you experience from the 'ownership' of these random kids are brain chemicals produced because you are fulfilling a biological imperative. They're evolutionary motivational rewards.

But the question of whether you hurt or damage someone else's life in the process isn't correlated to any of that. Again, this isn't a judgement.

Here's the thing: I firmly believe the Is/Ought thing is unsolvable but, nonetheless, I still have moral lines I wouldn't cross. I'm sure you do too. Or perhaps I'm wrong and you are willing to do anything as long as it feeds your biological needs?

I don't think I'd kill an old lady with a hatchet and steal her money, for example. Even she was an obnoxious moneylender

So to 'understand yourself', as you say, then you have to know why we percieve there's a difference between an acceptable moral act and unacceptable one. Why it's fine to permanently damage a slutty woman and her/your offspring but not OK to rob disabled people, for example.

My position? I'm tempted by the whole premise of this spreading my seed thing too. There's such a powerful primal urge behind the fantasy. Not sure I'd do it deliberately -- and, if it did happen, I would probably look at some kind of financial commitment to the kid.

If you asked me why I would have such qualms, I can't answer it. Perhaps because I'm agnostic not atheist.

[wemonger]

(12-03-2018 01:32 PM)Sender Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 11:45 AM)wemonger Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 11:17 AM)Sender Wrote:  

Hume, the philosopher, proposed a conceptual riddle which was later dubbed the 'Is/Ought problem'. It shares a lot of similarities with the well known Naturalistic fallacy. I consider it to be the most fundamental philosophical problem and no-one to my mind has really come up with a good answer to it -- outside of religions. I'd be curious to hear what RVF philosophically-minded folks have to say about it though.

Hume basically states that just because something IS a part of the natural order doesn't mean that it OUGHT to be. That there's always a disconnect between the way things are and the way they should be.

So, for example, a mother has a biological imperative to nurture her children (IS) but there is nothing -- really nothing at all -- which says that doing so is better (OUGHT) than not doing it.

In much the same way, a man 'spreading his seed' is a part of his inate biological strategy but that doesn't equate it to being the right thing to do.

How then can you know what you OUGHT to do? I don't know -- unless you follow some kind of religion which makes it simple. But to equate what is natural with what is right is always gonna be false.

Of course, that would also mean that spreading your seed without thought of the consequence isn't WRONG either because there's also nothing that tells us what we shouldn't (OUGHT NOT) do.

It's all pretty depressing really. We can only hope that there's a God out there somewhere to resolve the problem. Though the chances of that seem slim

This is the foundation of my reply above yours. Men need to very carefully decide what they "are" (is) going to do, not ought. I've decided I am going to spread my seed, but also that I enjoy close relationships with a primary mother to my children.

I have no ought in my mind, I've spent the time to figure out exactly what my {is} will be.

You can't change your "is" after you have a child. So spend the time to understand this part of your life intimately.

I'm not making any judgement about you or anyone else on this thread. After all we're all men on a game forum, right.

What I am saying is if you want to 'understand intimately this part of your life' then you have to accept that the 'good feelings' that you experience from the 'ownership' of these random kids are brain chemicals produced because you are fulfilling a biological imperative. They're evolutionary motivational rewards.

But the question of whether you hurt or damage someone else's life in the process isn't correlated to any of that. Again, this isn't a judgement.

Here's the thing: I firmly believe the Is/Ought thing is unsolvable but, nonetheless, I still have moral lines I wouldn't cross. I'm sure you do too. Or perhaps I'm wrong and you are willing to do anything as long as it feeds your biological needs?

I don't think I'd kill an old lady with a hatchet and steal her money, for example. Even she was an obnoxious moneylender

So to 'understand yourself', as you say, then you have to know why we percieve there's a difference between an acceptable moral act and unacceptable one. Why it's fine to permanently damage a slutty woman and her/your offspring but not OK to rob disabled people, for example.

My position? I'm tempted by the whole premise of this spreading my seed thing too. There's such a powerful primal urge behind the fantasy. Not sure I'd do it deliberately -- and, if it did happen, I would probably look at some kind of financial commitment to the kid.

If you asked me why I would have such qualms, I can't answer it. Perhaps because I'm agnostic not atheist.

I'm addressing this dynamically. We're actually not arguing against each other, I was agreeing with you.

When I say I have no "oughts" its because we have different value systems. My viewpoint on women is they're all running their own game. Some of them are naive, but even if they are, they're fundamentally operating on a platform of exploiting men.

Few men ever learn the true nature of women, and to understand the nature of women is to become amoral. Then simply, women make choices. This is the foundation of the concept that "men are 100% not responsible for the decisions women make."

As in, it is not your problem that she decides to keep a child you do not want. She is entitled to keep the child and in most cases terminate the pregnancy, but she make the choice, even before you had sex. There are no accidental pregnancies outside of maybe the case of a woman who was stabbed after oral sex (traumatic impregnation). Maybe some medical accident etc.

The entire concept of morality in regards to women is made on the basis of women have empathy for the male condition. They have none, they can't. If they did, evolution would grind to a halt.

They're out for their children, whether its resources or genetic quality. And their bodies promote this, they are passengers to this. Just as we are passengers to the feeling of wanting to procreate indiscriminately.

So from these differences we get difference ought tois.

Your ought to is moral because you view women as more moral than they are, in my opinion, or yourself more moral than others.

I've learned over time, most morality is a prison that is self imposed. Trust me when I say very small numbers of people truly care about you and these are things you will only learn when you are at your lowest low.

Whether you believe god or nature made you, you learn sooner or later that everyone is trying to take from you. If you believe you are good natured and you are giving to the world, it is only because your brain has convinced you as so, and likely because it wants to shield you from the realization that other men are much, much stronger than you, and so you've used morality as a shield to tell yourself they aren't stronger, just worse of character.

Again, I agree with your assessment from a meta standpoint. But we are morally different, and it is my belief, and I say this with the kindest heart, that you are simply not yet knowledgeable enough about women to operate in this department in a way that is congruent to the world at large.

At the end of the day, no one and nothing rewards "good men" and at the end of the day even greatness is suspect as having ROI. It's all value exchange. She's trying to get something from you and you from her. If it's positive ROI on your side and 5 years later she's ruined, it is what it is.

Frankly put, you have a male view of reality and no woman will share that with you. That's how guys lose their minds. They keep thinking a woman will think like they do, they make male oriented offers to women and then wonder why in all their good moral character, or their high beta job why women don't really give a shit about them.

5 years ago I was having arguments about dishes with my wife. Now it's what are the acceptable parameters of me having children outside of our marriage.

Your mindset harbored ideas of "what is fair in a relationship?" But you grow, and then you realize, hey, my wife is getting what she wants out of this, and what was sitting on the table was entitlement.

She had all that on the table, yet she argued about dishes. With time women will show you how hard they'll work for men when they don't have a sucker.

I say that in the nicest way, don't be a sucker. Get yours. She'll get hers.

[Sender]

(12-03-2018 01:49 PM)wemonger Wrote:  

I've learned over time, most morality is a prison that is self imposed. Trust me when I say very small numbers of people truly care about you and these are things you will only learn when you are at your lowest low.

Whether you believe god or nature made you, you learn sooner or later that everyone is trying to take from you. If you believe you are good natured and you are giving to the world, it is only because your brain has convinced you as so, and likely because it wants to shield you from the realization that other men are much, much stronger than you, and so you've used morality as a shield to tell yourself they aren't stronger, just worse of character.



Again, I agree with your assessment from a meta standpoint. But we are morally different, and it is my belief, and I say this with the kindest heart, that you are simply not yet knowledgeable enough about women to operate in this department in a way that is congruent to the world at large.

At the end of the day, no one and nothing rewards "good men" and at the end of the day even greatness is suspect as having ROI. It's all value exchange. She's trying to get something from you and you from her. If it's positive ROI on your side and 5 years later she's ruined, it is what it is.

Frankly put, you have a male view of reality and no woman will share that with you. That's how guys lose their minds. They keep thinking a woman will think like they do, they make male oriented offers to women and then wonder why in all their good moral character, or their high beta job why women don't really give a shit about them.

5 years ago I was having arguments about dishes with my wife. Now it's what are the acceptable parameters of me having children outside of our marriage.

Your mindset harbored ideas of "what is fair in a relationship?" But you grow, and then you realize, hey, my wife is getting what she wants out of this, and what was sitting on the table was entitlement.

She had all that on the table, yet she argued about dishes. With time women will show you how hard they'll work for men when they don't have a sucker.

I say that in the nicest way, don't be a sucker. Get yours. She'll get hers.

Heh, good answer. Yes, I think we are agreed at the meta-level.

I don't think this conversation devolves down to just redpill awareness. There's clearly a gender war between men and women each with competing and opposing strategies for success. And, sure, for the most part woman don't play with any rules.

But you didn't answer my question whether anything is acceptable in the name of biological (and other kinds) of success.

In fact, come to think of it, it's more interesting if you don't answer it.

People will draw the line at all sorts of places. An SJW would consider pumping and dumping some ho as unnaceptable, others would say that spawning estranged children in third world countries is wrong, and someone else might say everything besides gang-raping teenagers is fine.

But if you do draw the line somewhere then you need to try and work out whereTF that moral position comes from and... why there? Why not further to the left or right of it?

Anyway, good chat. Made me think.

[wemonger]

(12-03-2018 03:09 PM)Sender Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 01:49 PM)wemonger Wrote:  

I've learned over time, most morality is a prison that is self imposed. Trust me when I say very small numbers of people truly care about you and these are things you will only learn when you are at your lowest low.

Whether you believe god or nature made you, you learn sooner or later that everyone is trying to take from you. If you believe you are good natured and you are giving to the world, it is only because your brain has convinced you as so, and likely because it wants to shield you from the realization that other men are much, much stronger than you, and so you've used morality as a shield to tell yourself they aren't stronger, just worse of character.



Again, I agree with your assessment from a meta standpoint. But we are morally different, and it is my belief, and I say this with the kindest heart, that you are simply not yet knowledgeable enough about women to operate in this department in a way that is congruent to the world at large.

At the end of the day, no one and nothing rewards "good men" and at the end of the day even greatness is suspect as having ROI. It's all value exchange. She's trying to get something from you and you from her. If it's positive ROI on your side and 5 years later she's ruined, it is what it is.

Frankly put, you have a male view of reality and no woman will share that with you. That's how guys lose their minds. They keep thinking a woman will think like they do, they make male oriented offers to women and then wonder why in all their good moral character, or their high beta job why women don't really give a shit about them.

5 years ago I was having arguments about dishes with my wife. Now it's what are the acceptable parameters of me having children outside of our marriage.

Your mindset harbored ideas of "what is fair in a relationship?" But you grow, and then you realize, hey, my wife is getting what she wants out of this, and what was sitting on the table was entitlement.

She had all that on the table, yet she argued about dishes. With time women will show you how hard they'll work for men when they don't have a sucker.

I say that in the nicest way, don't be a sucker. Get yours. She'll get hers.

Heh, good answer. Yes, I think we are agreed at the meta-level.

I don't think this conversation devolves down to just redpill awareness. There's clearly a gender war between men and women each with competing and opposing strategies for success. And, sure, for the most part woman don't play with any rules.

But you didn't answer my question whether anything is acceptable in the name of biological (and other kinds) of success.

In fact, come to think of it, it's more interesting if you don't answer it.

People will draw the line at all sorts of places. An SJW would consider pumping and dumping some ho as unnaceptable, others would say that spawning estranged children in third world countries is wrong, and someone else might say everything besides gang-raping teenagers is fine.

But if you do draw the line somewhere then you need to try and work out whereTF that moral position comess from and... why there? Why not further to the left or right of it?

Anyway, good chat. Made me think.

That answer entirely depends on any man's perception of the SMP. If you're asking what exactly my personal limits are, I don't even care to think about it really. What I'm giving is a better answer than the delineating elements of it.

It's personal, entirely. That's why I believe you probably have a way to go, in terms of your mindset. In that regard, I consider myself maxed out. In terms of understanding the SMP and its actors.

Most of the "morality" around this is constructed around this idea that men are just supposed to pay for a woman's choices. And so that's where I personally derive amorality from. I'm not part of the consideration of most governments frameworks, so why should I consider her in the matter?

I mean is she coming to me and asking how she'll fit into me and my wife's lives? Is she asking if housework and our relationship are enough that she lives with us? etc etc It'd be likely that she'd gain considerable leverage with that angle.

Or is she just asking for a payout because she wasn't on birth control? Is she assuming I will flop, demanding it? What are the chances that I'm the only person that is the possible father? (probably close to zero)

I would expect the later out of most women.

The first is a negotiation, that most men are readily willing to sacrifice on. Briefly looking into this topic here, I see lots of guys willing to fly to another country to help raise a kid with some random woman, and one guy who actually did it.

The second is entitlement.

Ultimately I'm saying that if men and women are negotiating on this, a woman can not lose. A position can not be wrong or hurtful to her without negligence on her part.

1. She chose to have sex for whatever reason.
2. Chose to take whatever risks.
3. Got pregnant.
4. Made a choice between our discussions

Blue pill mindsets and moralities are based on the idea that we start with a "right or wrong" first and then decide after that. Instead, we can only examine the choices of both parties and then make a determination of the best path forward.

I would support a child in another country with some agreement in place. It would probably for a lot of people read as something "fucked up." But if two parties are in agreement, who cares?

I'll give a lot of thought to empire building in the last half or so of my life. I would make agreements in good faith that I know I can honor and watch her fail at honoring hers. That's what I expect out of women and they do a good job of doing that.

That's how I got unplugged. I made simple agreements with women and watched them fail almost every time and upholding them. So here's your stipend, bring him to the doctor once a year, make sure he enrolls in school etc.

What would I expect, that doctor appointment to be missed year one. I'd cut off that supply of cash in a heartbeat and feel nothing. Money probably squandered on an ipad or a night out on the town.

[Jetset]

I think we all know that the correct answer here is to impregnate a married woman in a shithole country.

The family gets the benefit of your genes and you get free daycare. It's win-win.

[wemonger]

(12-03-2018 03:49 PM)Jetset Wrote:  

I think we all know that the correct answer here is to impregnate a married woman in a shithole country.

The family gets the benefit of your genes and you get free daycare. It's win-win.

Now we're talkin'.

[wemonger]

Some issues to be mindful of here.

Quote:

(a) The provisions of paragraphs ©, (d), (e), and (g) of section 1401 of this title, and of paragraph (2) of section 1408 of this title, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if—
(1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence,
(2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth,
(3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
(4) while the person is under the age of 18 years—
(A) the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,
(B) the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
© the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 405 of this Act, the provisions of section 1401(g) of this title shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation.
© Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 309, 66 Stat. 238; Pub. L. 97–116, § 18(l), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1620; Pub. L. 99–653, § 13, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 100–525, §§ 8(k), 9®, Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2617, 2621.)

I read this to understand that a non-us court could determine this as well. E.g. a court in Columbia determines you are the father, you skip town, and the mother tries to get the kid to be a US citizen.

I see a lot of stories in here about guys who said they would help support the kid. This most certainly would be used against you as per this.

So if you're going to do anything like that, it needs to be on the DL. Get her a laptop and show her how to use bitcoin or something. You start sending checks or money orders and they subpoena that, congrats on your LBFM baby boy.

This would 100% apply to a mother with dual citizenship. So it would seem in some of these cases if she talks about traveling to the US to be mindful of her ability to declare any children US Citizens if she is one even if the child is conceived and born in Bodega.

Quote:

A coworker(Puerto Rican) of mines is paying child support payments to some prepago he raw dogged and came inside off in Medellin 5 years ago. The 19% of his pay gets deducted from his weekly check. All she knew was his name, that he was from New York and his day of departure and the American Embassy guided her on how to get child support from him. When he told me the story, I told him he might as well have a relationship with the kid since he's already paying for him. He said fuck the kid and the moms. LOL.
http://bogota.usembassy.gov/child_support.html

This could very well not be the whole story. But I think one element a lot of people discount is you can squeeze a lot of info out of people with social engineering. Either through straight up manipulation or by getting people to sympathise with your situation ("his name is Juan Jortalem, here's his address, you didn't get it from me.").

Definitely getting more complicated even without the agreements between nations.

[Leads]

Pretty simple.

Bust one in their eyes and wait for several weeks to see if they're worth 2 shits

[MrLemon]

(10-20-2011 01:05 PM)gringoed Wrote:  

A couple months ago I had a pregnancy scare with a Thai Au-Pair that I was banging. Upon calling one of my lawyers, I realized there was nothing to worry about. Unless she became a US citizen, there was no way she could enforce child support.

Since then, I can't get out of my head the idea of traveling around the world having unprotected sex with as many fertile pretty girls as possible, so as to propagate my DNA to the next generations.

On a primal/biological level, it seems like the best way to fulfill my life's purpose.

The downside?
Realistically if I have xxx kids in xx countries, I'll be able to provide little if any support to my offspring.

I dont think the problem is logistics, it's ethics.

Has anyone had thoughts like these?

Just leaving DNA is kind of irrelevant. What chlldren need from you is your time, your joy, your protection, your manhood expressed. Otherwise you are just leaving behind more helpless babes for the predators to prey on, broken hearted children. And, you are cheating yourself of the incredible power and glory you feel, seeing your son for the first time emulate some part of you he admires.

When I see my son growing I feel as if an explosion is going off in my chest. I'd choose to be with him any time, anywhere.

[Windom Earle]

(12-08-2018 01:27 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

When I see my son growing I feel as if an explosion is going off in my chest. I'd choose to be with him any time, anywhere.

Careful now MrLemon, we don’t want you having another heart attack.

[seaman]

(12-08-2018 01:27 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Just leaving DNA is kind of irrelevant. What chlldren need from you is your time, your joy, your protection, your manhood expressed. Otherwise you are just leaving behind more helpless babes for the predators to prey on, broken hearted children. And, you are cheating yourself of the incredible power and glory you feel, seeing your son for the first time emulate some part of you he admires.

This sounds like leftist propaganda to me. Watch a Norwegian documentary Hjernevask. The episode The Parental Effect investigates how adopted children develop and it's quite clear that many traits of character that we associate with nurture are actually inherited.

I am not saying that you should impregnate a destitute woman in some shithole place, but I see where those who want to spread their genes come from.

[Windom Earle]

(12-08-2018 03:07 PM)seaman Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 01:27 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Just leaving DNA is kind of irrelevant. What chlldren need from you is your time, your joy, your protection, your manhood expressed. Otherwise you are just leaving behind more helpless babes for the predators to prey on, broken hearted children. And, you are cheating yourself of the incredible power and glory you feel, seeing your son for the first time emulate some part of you he admires.

This sounds like leftist propaganda to me. Watch a Norwegian documentary Hjernevask. The episode The Parental Effect investigates how adopted children develop and it's quite clear that many traits of character that we associate with nurture are actually inherited.

I am not saying that you should impregnate a destitute woman in some shithole place, but I see where those who want to spread their genes come from.

What’s your point? So because character traits are inherited we can be on our merry way and know that our children will be like us? Of course they will have their parents’ traits. It doesn’t justify not being an active parent and ensuring they have the love and support they need from their father.

What nihilistic nonsense.

[wemonger]

How many of you guys actually have kids? Once you spend a couple years raising your kids you won't be pedestalizing them so hard. It's real work and a lot of you are inadvertently clamoring to be mothers. Men run households and bring bread to the table. You think a hundred thousand years ago men were clamoring to the idea of "raisin' their boy?" This is new age stuff. I have what some consider "a lot" of kids.

The 2 kids a wife and picket fence thing is pretty much over. Good luck finding wives that this program works with. Send her on her way when she needs new dick, studies show the kids adapt to new fathers just fine.

Anyone talking about "should" needs to have kids for their word to be worth much. Don't hold men back based on an ill formed understanding of what fatherhood is. The constraint to fatherhood is always a woman, always. We never have problems raising our kids, we're suckers like that. Black communities are just a reaction to women openly advertising their hostility to good men and men responding.

[MaceTyrell]

(10-20-2011 01:05 PM)gringoed Wrote:  

A couple months ago I had a pregnancy scare with a Thai Au-Pair that I was banging. Upon calling one of my lawyers, I realized there was nothing to worry about. Unless she became a US citizen, there was no way she could enforce child support.

Since then, I can't get out of my head the idea of traveling around the world having unprotected sex with as many fertile pretty girls as possible, so as to propagate my DNA to the next generations.

On a primal/biological level, it seems like the best way to fulfill my life's purpose.

The downside?
Realistically if I have xxx kids in xx countries, I'll be able to provide little if any support to my offspring.

I dont think the problem is logistics, it's ethics.

Has anyone had thoughts like these?

I really needed to read this.

[MaceTyrell]

(12-11-2018 12:56 PM)wemonger Wrote:  

How many of you guys actually have kids? Once you spend a couple years raising your kids you won't be pedestalizing them so hard. It's real work and a lot of you are inadvertently clamoring to be mothers. Men run households and bring bread to the table. You think a hundred thousand years ago men were clamoring to the idea of "raisin' their boy?" This is new age stuff. I have what some consider "a lot" of kids.

The 2 kids a wife and picket fence thing is pretty much over. Good luck finding wives that this program works with. Send her on her way when she needs new dick, studies show the kids adapt to new fathers just fine.

Anyone talking about "should" needs to have kids for their word to be worth much. Don't hold men back based on an ill formed understanding of what fatherhood is. The constraint to fatherhood is always a woman, always. We never have problems raising our kids, we're suckers like that. Black communities are just a reaction to women openly advertising their hostility to good men and men responding.

Also needed to read this.

[joost]

The idea is interesting. It would be good to improve the genes of the population but then girls would be scared/weary of foreigners since they would know they all impregnate them and bail.

[LoveBug]

As men we are hardwired to want to do it, but in reality for me it leaves two equally uninspiring choices, raising them or being guilt ridden from neglecting them.