Would you ever raise another man's child?

[bigbangspiritbomb]

Well imo the whole "I wouldn't raise someone else's kid because that's beta" argument is pure dudebro immaturity. If you love someone and are comfortable helping to raise their child, good for you. It's terrible growing up without a parent.

Agreed which is why nature has held women to a higher standard.

Without daddy government, her and her children are weeded out of the gene pool.

Only a cuck will allow his resources to be extracted when said female spent her best days riding pole and getting fat.

That being said I personally would not want to, because I'd be a terrible role model and I'm not responsible enough to raise a kid.

I am not the best role model either. I am ambivalent on the idea of kids. Usually, its what a woman wants after her aesthetics have gone to shit, she becomes pair shaped, and playboy stops calling.

 

[STEVEN SEAGOLD]

It comes down to semantics. Is there a difference between "Dad" and "Father"? Is Father biological whereas Dad is sociological?

The first thing I see when I look at someone is their genetic influence. Hair color, skin pigmentation, facial structure, height, body morphology. Genetic influences that usually can be seen in biological progenitors (Real parents)

For instance I have many glaring genetic influences straight from my father, as well as recessive ones that exist from much earlier in the genetic lineage.

This is where my brain operates. I find beauty in science. I find beauty in genetics.

 

[bigbangspiritbomb]

Situations change. Im with my wife and would prefer it to be that way til we die together but if something was to happen to her ..... Im 35 years old. My chances of meeting a woman my age who doesnt have kids is probably rare and you play the hand you were dealt not the one you wish you were.



Considering that you dont even know what to do if someone gives you a present you dont like this subject is probably beyond you dude.

Jakes on you Kuz.

You don't date your age. I am late 20s. 18+ pepper your anus.

New girls are turning 18/19/20/21 everyday. To quote Mcgoat, "I want to apologize to ABSOLUTELY NOBODY!"

Double champ ftw!

 

[Mike]

Old School = By Blood. Kings and queens, pharaohs, etc.

We must dismantle the topic at hand.

As we know, one part nature, one part nurture.

The concept of "Fatherhood" has a biological, undeniable reality imperative. As well as a sociological man made construction.

A "Father" in the most primal definitions is simply the genetic progenitor from which one came from. Scientific. Undeniable. Truth.

The sociological concept of a "Father" is complex and subjectively meta-physical. What value does the objectivity of a "Father" have if it can change from one individual to another depending on how the offspring (male or female) feels.

Now that I've really thought about this, I don't really care whether my belief is "Alpha" or "Beta", as my OP might suggest. Perhaps I threw that out as a bit of bait to get the ball of discussion rolling. I am not phased by the judgement of my belief. My belief.

We all value this differently. The concept of parents and fathers. Some value the sociological aspect more. Some value the procreative, scientific side.

My belief is extreme. The only father is one that is biological. This does not mean you can't support and help. But in my belief, you are not the offspring's father. You can try and spin it with fine print, but at the end of the day only a man and a woman can create life. Singular. One individual. One father.

Although you've put some thought and a lot of words into your belief, it's still emotional rather than logical. "Science" isn't really a sound basis either. Raising children was something handled by the entire community for a lot longer than our current system has been in place.


Who you are tied to emotionally has a lot more to do with who you are as a person than arbitrary biology. Plenty of people have never met their biological parents, and were raised by someone else their entire life. It's a bit silly to say those aren't "real" parents. If we value healthy and well adjusted people, which we should as a society, then people willing to take on the responsibility of raising someone else's kids should be commended.


The entire purpose of civilization is to rise above our most basic instincts. Anyone can love someone they're "supposed" to love, that's built into us on a primal level. To love someone you don't have any obligation to, that shows true care and empathy on a far deeper level.

 

[bigbangspiritbomb]

I'm not a cuck so I wouldn't marry/raise the child of a single mom unless she was a widow who would also bear my children

I would raise a relative if their parents died or became unable

+ 1

The data and science is there pertaining to women because people care about women. Facts with respect to men not so important since, nobody including women gives a f.

Promiscuity nearly guarantees divorce. The stats are absurd as is the 81% + of women that initiate divorce.

Ask yourself, if a woman leaves a man running off with his resources + children, what makes you think your so special she wont do you the same?


Single mom = children out of wedlock/left father

Widow = father died

 

[Lovestorm]

Nah. I don't particularly like children to begin with, and i wouldn't want a walking talking reminder that someone else had cum inside my woman.

Some men are happy to settle for less. They're men without options. No man pictures his dream woman holding another man's child.

The vag would have to be extra tasty to form a relationship with a single mother, and even then it wouldn't be for keeps.

 

[Joe Wong]

Hell no. That child would get dominated

Same here Buns!

I wouldnt want to train that kid to be like this:

And then have them turn around and use that skill to support their biological dad.

 

[Qwerty1]

My brothers dad was never around and he was a piece of shit. My dad raised my brother for the most part. I dont see a problem with it. I personally know someone who has no kids of his own but is with his wife of 7 years who has 3 of her own and he is very happy. To each their own. If you decide to step in a relationship where there are other kids, you are now pretty much taking them on as your own. If you are not ready to do that then dont be with someone with kids.

Im not sure what scenario you are talking about but I dont see a problem with raising someone elses kid. IT is not the kids fault.

 

[Mike]

Agreed which is why nature has held women to a higher standard.

Without daddy government, her and her children are weeded out of the gene pool.

Only a cuck will allow his resources to be extracted when said female spent her best days riding pole and getting fat.



I am not the best role model either. I am ambivalent on the idea of kids. Usually, its what a woman wants after her aesthetics have gone to shit, she becomes pair shaped, and playboy stops calling.

This assumes every single parent was just some lazy skank, which is a gross oversimplification and not true. I was raised without a dad, and that wasn't my mothers story. Sometimes the man dies. Sometimes they just bail after marriage. Every single mother isn't a girl that was gangbanged by 30 frat guys in one night and can't locate the father now.


Also I don't put as much stock on how we would have handled situations when we lived in caves and huts and hunted with spears. The entirety of modern civilization comes from acting against our most basic instincts and desires. Sure at one point we would just leave the sick and weak to die, but we've sort of evolved past that.

 

[STEVEN SEAGOLD]

Although you've put some thought and a lot of words into your belief, it's still emotional rather than logical. "Science" isn't really a sound basis either. Raising children was something handled by the entire community for a lot longer than our current system has been in place.


Who you are tied to emotionally has a lot more to do with who you are as a person than arbitrary biology. Plenty of people have never met their biological parents, and were raised by someone else their entire life. It's a bit silly to say those aren't "real" parents. If we value healthy and well adjusted people, which we should as a society, then people willing to take on the responsibility of raising someone else's kids should be commended.


The entire purpose of civilization is to rise above our most basic instincts. Anyone can love someone they're "supposed" to love, that's built into us on a primal level. To love someone you don't have any obligation to, that shows true care and empathy on a far deeper level.

Valuing something is subjective, thanks for pointing out the obvious. But there's a difference. A difference between valuing something that is objectively factual in science, and one that isn't.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there are always two parts to things like this. What is, and what we think of it. Nature and nurture. Biological and sociological.

We are talking about two separate things, but think we are talking about the same because we have different values of what a father is.

You are more concerned with the ethics and social aspects, whereas I feel stronger towards the scientific side. Neither is right or wrong. And yes, this difference of valuing is a conscious choice, from both of us.

Something is scientific, factual. What I chose to believe/construct about that truth, is inherently emotional.

 

[Gutter Chris]

Jakes on you Kuz.

You don't date your age. I am late 20s. 18+ pepper your anus.

New girls are turning 18/19/20/21 everyday. To quote Mcgoat, "I want to apologize to ABSOLUTELY NOBODY!"

Double champ ftw!

It really isnt hard to fuck barely legals. You are a lot more established in life and they are easy to manipulate. Finding a partner to navigate through this crazy mess we call life seems to be a lot more challenging .

Do your thing Peter Pan.

 

[bigbangspiritbomb]

Although you've put some thought and a lot of words into your belief, it's still emotional rather than logical. "Science" isn't really a sound basis either. Raising children was something handled by the entire community for a lot longer than our current system has been in place.

True however, this was before ownership and property became a thing.

Science/data is important because of ownership, property laws as well as liability.

Single moms and sloots are liabilities.There is a reason you smash and dash not play house wife a whore. Society is conditioned to promo single moms and sloot gonna sloot. Worse, you got cucks thinking its the cool and noble thing to do.

Said male is spending decades fapping while said female is getting a BBC gang bang. Its absurd what masculinity has been reduced to in 2017.



This is the sad reality in contrast to the victimhood tangent women + society will provide.


The abomination that is the single mother victimhood welfare state &&& anti fatherhood message in society will be evident in the coming generations.

Who you are tied to emotionally has a lot more to do with who you are as a person than arbitrary biology. Plenty of people have never met their biological parents, and were raised by someone else their entire life. It's a bit silly to say those aren't "real" parents. If we value healthy and well adjusted people, which we should as a society, then people willing to take on the responsibility of raising someone else's kids should be commended.

This is backwards thinking as is, "man up and buy her a ring + tie your LTR to the state whereby if she leaves, she runs away with your children + resources + assets &&& more money."

The mentality of using resources for women is absurd as is pandering to female entitlement. It is the mating call of the loser.

The entire purpose of civilization is to rise above our most basic instincts. Anyone can love someone they're "supposed" to love, that's built into us on a primal level. To love someone you don't have any obligation to, that shows true care and empathy on a far deeper level.

Agreed.

There is a flowering of consciousness however, there is an abundance of low level consciousness and a lack of free thinking. You see it with BLM and feminism, with low testosterone, and cuckoldry acceptance. Dudes raising some man's baby after said female spent her best days as a jump off doing gang bangs and ONS.

You see the same women then on reddit posting in egg freezing threads and venting how evil men are when she spent her sexual market value and youth on being a booty call. Fuck not give once SMV is shot.

Society caters toward female entitlement. This anti slut shame is a poor attempt to prevent female market value from declining as is the case with single moms.


No dude with options is playing this game. I am not saying I wont hit it if still thin and hot. I am saying, better options exist.

 

[Nameless Ghoul]

I would. I mean my dad married my mom who had 2 kids and he never treated us as anything other than his children and ended up adopting us. Also yes he is my dad because I def wouldn't give that title to the one who beat the shit out of my mom on the reg when they were together and left us. I never even met the guy and never wanted to have someone like that in my life especially considering what I have in my life. That being said my sister went through a mid 20's crisis about "who am I?" which I was strongly opposed to and found incredibly disrespectful to our dad that actually loved and took care of us.

Through Facebook she found his family and I guess he died of an aneurysm a few months before. I was happy because it ended that potential chaos she would have tried to bring in everyone else's lives

 

[Twelve75]

@Kardashians for female opinion please.

In all honesty I would never raise another dude's kid. To me, it's all about blood. I would raise my brother's kids if he and spouse were to die, because there's genetic connection there. Outside of a scenario like that, I don't think I would. I'm a savage old school type. If it ain't my uce I ain't playing.

It makes a man look bad if he raises another man's kid.

Huge if true

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Not a chance.

 

[Mike]

Valuing something is subjective, thanks for pointing out the obvious. But there's a difference. A difference between valuing something that is objectively factual in science, and one that isn't.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there are always two parts to things like this. What is, and what we think of it. Nature and nurture. Biological and sociological.

We are talking about two separate things, but think we are talking about the same because we have different values of what a father is.

You are more concerned with the ethics and social aspects, whereas I feel stronger towards the scientific side. Neither is right or wrong. And yes, this difference of valuing is a conscious choice, from both of us.

Something is scientific, factual. What I chose to believe/construct about that truth, is inherently emotional.

You're saying only a biological father can be a valid father, and spinning it as if that's a scientific fact. It isn't and never has been. The root of human existence wasn't the nuclear family, so that argument doesn't even make sense on that level. The origin of human culture was tribal. Men and women banged whoever they wanted, and the kids were raised by the entire community. The concepts of monogamy and the family unit didn't come along until much later, and they're social constructs not natural.


You think you're arguing using biology, but you are not. Your argument IS sociological.

 

[ithinktheymad]

Yes and it should go without saying that her/his/their mom would have to be an exceptional candidate. I plan to adopt when I'm older as well.

 

[Was Exiled]

So you wouldn't take care of your best friends kis because it would "make you look bad" lol.

What a self-conscious pussy.

 

[bigbangspiritbomb]

It really isnt hard to fuck barely legals. You are a lot more established in life and they are easy to manipulate. Finding a partner to navigate through this crazy mess we call life seems to be a lot more challenging .

Do your thing Peter Pan.

Says the dude who got married at 35 which is the start of a dude's peak SMV.

Moreover, in some of the states where no-fault divorce was introduced, over 70 percent of the divorce filings were by women. Among college-educated couples, the percentage of divorces initiated by wives is a whopping 90 percent.

Source: http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/faq/emotional/who-initiates-divorce-men-or-women.html

Good luck brah! SRS
The 'barely' legal' point is again, shaming tactics. Raised by a single mom?

You could be gorging young, thin, hot attractive women. Instead, you brought the state into your LTR whereby, if she like many other women decides to divorce, your life is trashed and you are broke financially.

The same dude talking shit on 'barely legal' would be the same cuck calling these girls sluts when they get rejected and spent the night durrr'n around.

 

[Mike]

True however, this was before ownership and property became a thing.

Science/data is important because of ownership, property laws as well as liability.

Single moms and sloots are liabilities.There is a reason you smash and dash not play house wife a whore. Society is conditioned to promo single moms and sloot gonna sloot. Worse, you got cucks thinking its the cool and noble thing to do.

Said male is spending decades fapping while said female is getting a BBC gang bang. Its absurd what masculinity has been reduced to in 2017.



This is the sad reality in contrast to the victimhood tangent women + society will provide.


The abomination that is the single mother victimhood welfare state &&& anti fatherhood message in society will be evident in the coming generations.



This is backwards thinking as is, "man up and buy her a ring + tie your LTR to the state whereby if she leaves, she runs away with your children + resources + assets &&& more money."

The mentality of using resources for women is absurd as is pandering to female entitlement. It is the mating call of the loser.



Agreed.

There is a flowering of consciousness however, there is an abundance of low level consciousness and a lack of free thinking. You see it with BLM and feminism, with low testosterone, and cuckoldry acceptance. Dudes raising some man's baby after said female spent her best days as a jump off doing gang bangs and ONS.

You see the same women then on reddit posting in egg freezing threads and venting how evil men are when she spent her sexual market value and youth on being a booty call. Fuck not give once SMV is shot.

Society caters toward female entitlement. This anti slut shame is a poor attempt to prevent female market value from declining as is the case with single moms.


No dude with options is playing this game. I am not saying I wont hit it if still thin and hot. I am saying, better options exist.

ALL of this is still going of the assumption that every single mother is a skank. You operate on the belief that ALL women are sluts, which makes your conclusions flawed. You're also misrepresenting my argument. I'm not saying every man should rush out to find a single mother with a bunch of kids, and raise them and give her all his money.


Making a commitment to someone is completely optional. If someone wants to remain single and bang randoms their whole life, more power to them. I'm a big believer in personal freedom. However if you meet someone you're compatible with, and they happen to have a kid, it's a bit arbitrary to say that's always a horrible choice. You could always, I don't know, get to know that person before making a commitment. If they have 4 kids by 4 dads then sure, probably some serious issues there. It's not as if you can't find out this information before making a decision.


If everyone didn't rush into fucking someone 5 minutes after meeting them, there's quite a lot of red flags you might notice a lot sooner.

 

[bigbangspiritbomb]

You're saying only a biological father can be a valid father, and spinning it as if that's a scientific fact.

Links above include vid which holds more links + sources speaks for itself.

Father is banished from own home. Woman fucks up with his resources + kids.

A grandfather, uncle, anybody is good to be around. What usually happens is a series of dudes smashing single mom come about and the kids get diddled.

Children are at higher risk in single mom households. Science pertaining to infidelity + divorce among single moms and promiscuous women speak for itself.

It isn't and never has been. The root of human existence wasn't the nuclear family, so that argument doesn't even make sense on that level. The origin of human culture was tribal. Men and women banged whoever they wanted, and the kids were raised by the entire community. The concepts of monogamy and the family unit didn't come along until much later, and they're social constructs not natural.

Yes, it was tribal in many ways, we still are but, when you input single mom welfare state, divorce laws that pander to women, affirmative action that hand off jobs like fire fighting and cops to women that cannot hack it to begin with just go to show the big circle jerk.

Since feminism and the abomination of the nuclear family, the divorces as high as 90% initiated by college educated women speak for itself.

You think you're arguing using biology, but you are not. Your argument IS sociological.

The science speaks for itself. High promiscuity IE female discontentment + lack of stability INCREASES risk of divorce.

If a woman leaves a man stealing his children and resources, what sort of cuck will jump on that grenade?

No dude with fucking options would ever dare do such a thing.