Beta makes death threats when he is dumped for Obi Wan Kenobi

[Leonard D Neubache]

Yeah, well that's the whole issue, isn't it?

Everything becomes "abnormal" from that point, not just for the children who are now adults and expected to accommodate it, but for the grandchildren who have no mental framework to understand the difference between their nana and the woman their grand-dad is kissing on the cheek.

Though I don't recommend it, I have more respect for guys who quietly fuck side-pieces than guys who rearrange family structures for their own fleeting convenience.

 

[Coja Petrus Uscan]

It is also my History-based belief that children do not need to see a lot of their fathers. Do you know that under the French kings, the children of noblemen were sent to countryside nannies, for years, seeing their fathers (and well, even mothers) very rarely, until they reached their teens. Then the fathers took them home again, to teach them war, religious and culture stuff.

You may be right that a father might be able to get away with not being around much until later life, that certainly seems to be the most appropriate time for him to be around.

Research seems to suggest otherwise. According to a report in Fathers and Their Impact on Children's Well-Being: "Even from birth, children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections.

I saw another study that suggested that children having more input from a father leads to better results than less. This makes sense as most children don't have a huge input from their father due to culture and work. If you do it's an advantage other other kids.

My observation is that children who grow up without a father tend to be either socially dejected or given to crime in later life. The only out is if the mother gets her head down and builds a life around providing for the child. All the "gimps" in my school came from fatherless homes, all the bullies came from homes with domestic abuse and all the people who have done alright came from stable homes.

There are a whole host of studies showing that no father dramatically increases bad outcomes in life.

My parents remained married for all of their lives, but I have virtually no memories of my father throughout my entire childhood. At home I was raised by my mother and grandmother. In school my teachers were mainly a mix of dippy women and old frumps. The only male model I had was my father, which was one of utter passivity. My model was whenever something is initiated it's by a woman. So that's the model through which I have lived my life and it's very difficult to turn back these early programmings. At the root this forum is against combating this kind of behaviour, which seems to be increasingly the norm. The root of that is the denigration of men and them shirking their responsibilities.

McGregor has spent a lifetime virtue signalling, but it's a pretty easy thing to do when you don't have to worry about money. When it came to making a real sacrifice and sticking with an aging woman he'd somehow managed to spend 17 years with, he couldn't do it. Even though it appears he had been up to hits nuts in young gash all these years. Ewan can have a lot more than most men and he's chosen to have it all:

- fame
- riches
- pussy
- family
- virtue [signalling]
- achievement, awards

He's not prepared to sate his giant appetite for the sake of his own children, who it seems have now ditched him. He must have know this could happen, but he just couldn't stop himself from having more.

 

[questor70]

I've noticed a roughly 50/50 split between people here who feel that cheating is an acceptable response (for either gender) when you're not getting what you want out of the relationship vs. a dishonorable violation of trust. I don't like the double-standard of blasting women for always looking around to trade up (hypergamy) on the one hand and saying it's "perfectly normal" to maintain a sham of a marriage for the sake of the kids and spin plates on the side.

If people want a free pass to screw around then you talk it through and make it polyamorous. But cheating is called cheating for a reason. It's inherently dishonest and a violation of trust, and it makes no difference whether the man or woman does it or who is the cheater vs. the cheatee.

As far as kids go, kids will know when mommy and daddy have no warmth, let alone when they are harboring resentments and just dragging themselves forward. I wound up getting a divorce because I was being actively humiliated by my wife who thought I would never risk losing access to the kids by filing. And my cousin is currently in a toxic loveless marriage, effectively separated and yet cohabitating.

Being a parent makes you face the dilemma of whether humans are inherently monogamous or not head-on, but I think it's more important that kids are shown what a good marriage looks like, not just a marriage in name only. If it's a sham, then you're better off divorced.

 

[Super_Fire]

Yeah, well that's the whole issue, isn't it?

Everything becomes "abnormal" from that point, not just for the children who are now adults and expected to accommodate it, but for the grandchildren who have no mental framework to understand the difference between their nana and the woman their grand-dad is kissing on the cheek.

Though I don't recommend it, I have more respect for guys who quietly fuck side-pieces than guys who rearrange family structures for their own fleeting convenience.

This; someone here said a rich Asian guy would have nabbed a 21-year-old instead. Yeah, he would have, but he would keep her as one of his revolving side pieces, and wouldn't divorce his wife for her. How many times can you bang the same side piece anyway?

This is amateur-hour stuff.

 

[Atlanta Man]

...
One of his daughters:

...

I don't even want to makeapp that pic.

That's just about as close to a 10 face as nature is capable of providing.

That bitch is my type, and every red blooded American man's type...

 

[Leonard D Neubache]

I don't even want to makeapp that pic.

That's just about as close to a 10 face as nature is capable of providing.

That bitch is my type, and every red blooded American man's type...

Bitches like this are the apex of the global sexual market.

There's maybe three or four guys that would look at that and say "nah WNB, I'm not into white chicks."

 

[Paracelsus]

Many members here are saying that the kids will be traumatized (by the divorce), and never forgive their father.

Sadly, it is more complicated than that. And sadly, truth is, the kids of this Hollywwod (or Brit? he looks Brit) actor will become teens and young adults, and then they'll LOVE their (mostly absent) father.

Why?

Because he will give or leave them (in his will) tons of money.

We live in the 21st century, my friends. On them reaching 20 years or age, this rich actor will give a luxury car to each of his 4 kids, and they will love him more than middle-class kids love a caring father with no money.

21st centuries kids will love parents who give them tons of money, a car to get pussy or holiday in Cancun or an Iphone - meanwhile, the caring but poor parents will be despised and probably hated.

There's a difference between loving daddy and loving daddy's money.

I can only speculate about your own family issues, and I mean no offence by that. Why you would suggest that a child's love is bought with trinkets rather than earned with care and guidance is beyond me.

You didn't carefully read my post. I am referring to 21st century kids, this brand new generation.

I maintain that this new generation will be the most materialistic ever, it's obvious, and will love nothing more than money.

You are welcome though to keep a romantic idea of the beautiful 20th century family. But, have you not noticed that the new kids and teens are only interested in toys, smartphones, gifts, material things? Have you seen the new generation in churches, or reading intelligent books (or reading anything)?

The world we live in has a master, money. Intelligence and kindness are values that used to be preeminent, but have been displaced by the sheer power of money (and bullshit social media, that's another thing), in the minds of the young generation.

Are you raising a whole generation's kids, or are you raising your own children?

Newton's First Law applies to raising children: an object will continue in a direction it is pushed in by a force unless there is an opposing force to it. Where the parent does not provide an opposing force, such culture as there is will provide it instead. I'll concede it won't be easy to oppose the cultural forces against you, but if you're going to be a parent and you're serious about raising a kid into the sort of adult you believe to be right-thinking, you're going to have to provide that opposing force. Not because doing so is in support of your identity as a good parent, but because you believe in your soul that it's the right example to set for a child.

You point out the next generation of kids is likely to be materialistic. First question: since materialism is not inborn to a child any more than capitalism, communism, or asceticism is, who do you think taught them to be that way? I'll give you a hint, culture might have pushed them, but the kids could only have moved because there was no opposing force involved in their lives to keep them from so being pushed.

There was no parent really there; there was only another overgrown child (or two, where the kid was fortunate enough to have two parents). There was no person there prepared to give over their own all-consuming need to create and maintain an identity for their children's sake. There was instead an epidemic of parents who wanted to brand their kids as college students but not actually teach them how to want, how to be adults. That generation of adults is now reaping what it sowed, just as their own parents reaped what they sowed and are now at war with Generation X to hold onto all the shit they acquired in the wake of World War Two.

None of these generational changes have much to do with how an individual child grows up: that is, always and everywhere, the responsibility and the fault of the parents and the parents alone. It was the Jesuits who said "Give me a child until the age of 7 and I will show you the man." Most children are with their parents until the age of 7, and you can see the men those parents generated.

And giving it more thought... it is actually normal to love a father who give you lots of money in his will, or give you a brand new car at 18 to chase top-pussy.

Because if the father has this kind of money to give you, it means, the father has been careful and wise, has saved money for his children, has not spent all the money with whores or in casinos.

So matter of fact, there is nothing wrong in respecting a father that has been wise, industrious and modest enough to save money for the future of his family; it is a proof of love from the hardworking, clever father.

If resources is all that a father gives you, he deserves no respect. That's literally trying to buy your children's love. A kid doesn't remember the toys he's given, he remembers the time and the love and the insight and the parenting.

It is also my History-based belief that children do not need to see a lot of their fathers. Do you know that under the French kings, the children of noblemen were sent to countryside nannies, for years, seeing their fathers (and well, even mothers) very rarely, until they reached their teens. Then the fathers took them home again, to teach them war, religious and culture stuff.

And how did that work out for the French monarchy? Hint: there isn't one anymore.

Or let's look at a more recent example in the English experience, Prince Charles, if we're talking about distant fathers and whatnot. He had the whole stiff upper lip upbringing: fuck me, the kid was sent to Australia for two terms of his schooling, and even he called his school in bloody Scotland as "Colditz in kilts". He describes Elizabeth as a distant mother and his father a bully who forced him into marrying Diana. He, his brothers, and his sister all fucking sucked at forming lasting marriages, topped by the near-destruction of the monarchy that resulted from Prince Andrew marrying Fergie, let alone their poor selection of Sloane Ranger Diana Spencer.

 

[Syberpunk]