Old men, dead babies

Harsh title? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

Both parental ages factor into miscarriage risk, equally.

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/17/6/1649/2919231
Miscarriages occur in teens too so I dunno who is dumb enough to rely on this one variable alone.

37 is the age when maternal age starts to matter for women (depending on family history) if you look at the shift in gradient on the charts (barely any change before) but 40 is the huge risk age in both men and women, as in this study.
“However, the increase in risk was much greater for couples composed of a woman aged ≥35 years and of a man aged ≥40 years.”
Is Human Reproduction not a prestigious enough journal?

The 37/40 thing:
Age and the Risk of Miscarriage
It isn’t sufficiently studied in men but data on paternal age as a factor keeps coming out.
Looks like you can’t just blame the woman again. Takes two to make a baby.
“a dramatic rise starting after age 37, with the steepest increase occurring after age 40.”
“The man’s age matters too. Having a partner over the age of 40 significantly raises the chances of a miscarriage.” Nature doesn’t like old, mutant sperm either.
“Over half of miscarriages are caused by genetic abnormalities.” It isn’t a bad thing, really.
“On average, a woman in her early 20s will have chromosomal abnormalities in about 17% of her eggs” So that’s a really terrible metric considering humans are human. There is always risk.
It’s worse in men than women, so I’m hardly favouring women by opposing this reductionism.
“And as men age, chromosomal defects and point mutations–changes to a single nucleotide in their DNA–become increasingly common.”
Where minors are raped and studied, they tend not to do well either.

Memorize that chart.

A teenager is as bad (at-risk) as a woman with an additional two decades.
You’re still debating less than one percentage point of difference though. Are you autistic?

It’s an interesting variable but hardly everything.

An IVF study


Note: Again, 37 is the magic number.
“While IVF helps many couples overcome their fertility problems, it largely cannot overcome the age-related increase in genetic abnormalities. Without genetically normal sperm and eggs, a viable pregnancy is impossible.”
“Despite this problem, several studies involving couples discordant for age now paint a clear and consistent picture: older prospective fathers raise the risk of miscarriage by about 25-50%. One study found an a 60% increase in the odds of a miscarriage if the father was over 40. Another found a roughly 25% increase in the risk of miscarriage for fathers over the age of 35.”

I guess the Have it All guys can’t read.


As you can clearly see, getting a teenager up the duff would actually be worse.
All things considered.
There are plenty of studies on this but what’s the point?
They basically show the same thing.
No doubt they’ll try to cherry-pick something else to draw focus back onto Boo Women.

A little more then I’ll give up and hope men who value their health listen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809297/
“Trends towards increasing paternal age are being observed in the UK as well as USA, due to delay in marriages for attaining better socio-economic stability.”
Fucking feminists. /sarc

Advancing paternal age has been shown to result in subfertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage, late foetal death, preterm delivery, low birth weight), birth defects (cleft lip and palate, congenital heart defects), achondroplasia, osteogenesis imperfect , Apert’s syndrome, schizophrenia, childhood cancer (brain cancer, retinoblastoma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) and adult cancer (breast, prostate and nervous system).3 Possible mechanisms for these problems include single gene mutations, autosomal dominant diseases, structural abnormalities in sperm chromosomes (e.g., reciprocal translocations) and multiple genetic / chromosomal defects. DNA damage in sperm of men aged 36 – 57 years was found to be 3 times that of men less than 35 years”

Good luck blaming females for that.

“The present study has demonstrated that the paternal age more than 35 years was an independent risk factor associated with spontaneous first trimester miscarriages. In order to eliminate the effect of maternal age, which is itself a known risk factor, we selected women between the age of 20 – 35 years, as this is considered to be ideal age for child bearing.”

Yes. 20-35 is the ideal range.


The reproductive system needs time to become stable, women take longer to physically mature (completed by the late twenties).

Paternal age is a factor in disease and infertility, independently.

“They recommend counselling of men more than 40 years of age when seeking pregnancy.
I’m not gloating, my heart goes out to men who waited too long and have to raise, at best, a sickly child. They need to be warned of the risks of waiting just like women do.

“Kleinhaus K et al have studied various age groups and have found father’s age more than 40 years to be significantly associated with spontaneous miscarriage.13 Slama R has also studied age ranges and have found that risk of spontaneous miscarriage showed linear increase in the hazard of spontaneous miscarriage in male age between 20 and 45 years. They also observed that hazard ratio was highest with male age > 45 years compared with 18 – 24 years (HR = 1.87, 95% CI, 1.01 – 3.44).1 Others have used paternal age between 30 to more than 50 years.”

The male system matures before the female, (18, mid-20s). If we’re being nubile about social policy, the wife should be older slightly.

So the ideal female age for motherhood is 20-35, but as we see here, ideal male age for fatherhood is 18-24, up to 30 if we’re pushing it. You’d expect the male age to be earlier since they have more DNA damage over time and shorter lifespans combined with earlier physical maturation.

Biology? Sorry?

Freezing sperm doesn’t last by the way. They go off.

“Studies on paternal age and fertility suggest that male biological clock does exist. Similar to women, advancing paternal age results in negative effects on reproductive outcomes.”
“Klonoff-Cohen also found decreasing pregnancy rate with male age. Pregnancy rate was 53% for men less than or equal to 35 years, 35% for 36 – 40 years and 13% for men > 40 years.”
Again, 35 seems to be the turning point for male infertility. Almost equal to the female 37 downturn but the male peak is earlier because the (greater) damage is cumulative (see next quote) and gamete production is ongoing.

Why do you oldies wanna marry young unless you’re admitting there’s a deleterious effect to counteract?
In future, more studies will look at differences in the under-35 men, between, say, 18-24, 25-29 and 30-35.

We postulate from these studies that damage to sperm accumulates over a man’s lifetime. Sperm making cells continue to divide throughout the man’s life, increasing the chances of mutations. Impaired DNA replication and repair mechanisms and increased DNA fragmentation.
DNA damage could also result from reactive oxygen species formed by alcohol, nicotine and drug abuse.”
The wages of sin.
“According to Aitken RJ’s study, male genital tract infection can result in DNA damage in male germ cells and therefore, increase the rates of miscarriage.”
Oh look, male chastity was logical.

“CONCLUSION
Paternal age more than 35 years was found to be an independent risk factor in spontaneous first trimester miscarriages.”

They haven’t really studied younger in sufficient detail to claim that’s fine though, findings like those mentioned above show <30 is ideal in both sexes, to start.

https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/16/1/65/705193
There a section called “Paternal age and infections”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125283/
“In this Opinion piece we argue that the tendency of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to cause infertility is likely to reflect an evolutionary adaptation of the pathogens. We use an evolutionary perspective to understand how STI pathogens may benefit from reducing fertility in the host and what clues the mechanisms of pathogenesis can offer to the evolution of this ability. While we concentrate on human infections, we will also briefly discuss the broader context of STI-induced infertility in other species.

STIs are a common cause of human infertility worldwide…”
No, men can’t sow any wild oats.

No such thing.

“Reduced fertility and an increased risk of complications during and following pregnancy both contribute to reduced reproductive success in the host—and may benefit the sexually transmitted pathogen by destabilizing partnerships and increasing promiscuity.”
The microbes in your urethra are thinking for you.

Not even your dick.

This does explain gay culture. Wow, gay germ theory gets everywhere. This also explains their fetish for fluids and pozzing parties. At least they’re somewhat aware of it.

“Not only are highly promiscuous individuals exposed to a higher risk of acquiring STIs, but STIs may also actively generate hubs of transmission in a vicious circle of promiscuity and infertility: in traditional societies,”
It’s anti-natal and terrible for society.
You can’t leave behind a life of sin.

Also liberal fertility rates make a lot more sense right about now. It is a bug, and it is a feature!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pass-it-on-children-can-inherit-herpes/
STDs can be passed on at conception, which explains the first trimester paternal age miscarriage finding, the older you get, the more diseases infect the body.
A direct study hasn’t been conducted yet – sexual infection history and miscarriage.
Could it find funding?

Doubtful. Even if it looked at both parents.

Onward, to computer modelling!

Sim City; Sin City Edition.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/12/stis-may-have-driven-ancient-humans-to-monogamy-study-says
“Writing in the journal Nature Communications, Bauch and his colleague Richard McElreath from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, describe how they built a computer model to explore how bacterial sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis that can cause infertility, affected populations of different sizes. The authors considered both small hunter gatherer-like populations of around 30 individuals and large agricultural-like populations of up to 300 individuals, running 2,000 simulations for each that covered a period of 30,000 years.

In small polygynous communities, the researchers found that outbreaks of such STIs were short-lived, allowing the polygynous population to bounce back. With their offspring outnumbering those from monogamous individuals, polygyny remained the primary modus operandi.

[coughs in r-selection]

But when the team looked at the impact of STIs on larger polygynous societies, they found a very different effect. Instead of clearing quickly, diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea became endemic. As a result, the population plummeted and monogamists, who did not have multiple partners, became top dog.

[hums in Malthusian tones]

The team also found that while monogamists who didn’t ‘punish’ polygyny could gain a temporary foothold, it was monogamists that ‘punished’ polygyny – often at their own expense of resources – that were the most successful.

[religion is evolutionally fit]

[K-types FTW and for discrimination based on self-protection]

While the form of such punishments were not specified in the model, Bauch suggests fines or social ostracisation among the possible penalties.

[stop paying for their babies and STD treatments? FIRSTLY?]
[kinda like how prison was meant to keep you from breeding – a genetic death penalty – until you dummies invented welfare for their women and conjugal rights, making the whole thing useless]

The results, they say, reveal that STIs could have played a role in the development of socially imposed monogamy that coincided with the rise of large communities that revolved around agriculture.”

Socially imposed?

Well, he had to get published I suppose.

The social/cultural clearly comes after the rest. Like, the die-offs?

Civilization has and always will be K-selected. 

How screwing around ruins men for marriage

I’ve pointed out before that women aren’t breeding because men aren’t proposing.

The proposals come first. Sub-replacement fertility extends from sub-replacement marriage rates.

http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/theyve-learned-nothing.html#c1952481587955180873

As much as women have to learn (and be taught) how to be wives and mothers again, men have to decide to be husbands and fathers again….”

No binge-drinking, drug-taking, clubbing and promiscuity.
No wonder they’ve yet to act their mumbled Principles.

You’re not a Christian by what you do, you are a Christian by what you don’t do.

“You Nailed It.

My sons grew up with the following:
1. I would pay huge $$$ to prevent a grandchild being aborted.
2. Be careful with whom you “dally.” Making a baby with a bat-shit crazy bitch will cement her crazy in your life forever.
3. Every Damn Thing You Do Becomes A Part Of You! Every girl you bed will leave that memory and you’ll never escape it downstream. What might this look like?
A. Crazy bitches want to put their faces on every orgasm you have for the rest of your life, so sex with them will in all likelihood be the craziest Monkey Sex you can imagine. Then you’ll forever compare sex with subsequent girls (INCLUDING YOUR WIFE) with her technique, and GUESS WHAT? (quoting a previous coworker) “My wife is not the woman about whom I was most passionate.” (Denouement? He’s divorced. Small wonder, huh?)

Alpha widows?

A marriage isn’t made on eros, and eros is temporary, the honeymoon chemicals in your brain. It never lasts. It’s impossible. If your dealbreaker for marriage is ‘passion‘, you might be spouting Boomer BS. All together now, “But I’m not haaaa-ppy!”

It’s like they don’t know the meaning of the word ‘commitment’.
What did they think they were saying “for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, til death do us part”?
What, like that’s such a casual line?

Crazies use the male weakness for novelty to snare them. Yes, weakness.
If you want a wife who fucks like a porn star, marry a porn star or never marry. Those women are damaged, so unless you wanted a damaged wife and mother to your children, you don’t really want what you think you want.

……..And why can’t you train your wife up? If you’re All That?

The sexual entitlement of modern men is the worst part, the traits they tend to want in a woman are mutually exclusive – so they never ‘settle’. Thank God they’re not breeding. I think a feminist must’ve started MGTOW – fish/bicycle is easier to sell when the r-men are leaving the r-women anyway.

They’ve ruined their value to a wife, even if they manage to avoid STDs, there’s psychological distress and other emotional damage, since men do pair sex with emotions moreso than women – in a marriage.

You can’t expect something you also didn’t do. It’s assortative mating.
R-types do NOT deserve K-wives.
That’s your bed, lie in it.

B. It doesn’t matter what you do, if you have lots of “experience” with other women your memory will screw with you and you’ll be stuck with “Angel was best at A, Betty was best at B, Camille was best at C,…and my wife isn’t the best at anything.” That’s hardly a prescription for lifelong marital bliss.

It’s almost like the virtue of chastity applies to men as well?
The Bible says to stone non-virgins, the example might’ve been female, but it didn’t permit the male promiscuity, which must also occur in heterosexual relations. Considering it forbids adultery, prostitution and fornication, it’s astute to recognize men aren’t off the hook because they lack an explicit mention.
Giving virgins a bad name is explicitly fined and you cannot divorce a woman because she sexually displeases you compared to other women. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-21

I don’t know what the answer is. I fretted like crazy while my sons navigated the fetid swamp that is the Dating Pool. By all appearances each seems to have found a needle in the haystack of harpies, whores and psychotics. All three girls come from intact families (but two of the three families are hardly what I’d rate as up to our standards, and the third is still short. Not a single family cooked meals at home, so my sons had to teach all their wives to cook.)

Tend your own garden. I did my part, and from early indications my sons are doing theirs. They can’t fix other people’s “broken.” The other people have to fix themselves, hopefully soon and in high enough proportions that the entire civilization doesn’t rot to stinking gangrene right down around my extending family’s ears.”

You can tell his true issue is encouraging his sons to gain the 20th century joke called “experience” which does two things 1. ruins another man’s daughters* (in Patriarchy, you care about other families too) and 2. ruins their pair bonding, their sexual satisfaction and increases divorce risk, although nobody has had the balls to study the last one in men, it’s neurobiological. There’s no reason it wouldn’t apply to men.

However, there is no way to prove a woman’s virginity, as with a man. A gynecologist can’t tell, they must ask. Even pregnancy could’ve been a case of contamination. Ancient men hated discussing menses, they were hardly up on the finer points of female anatomy we began studying two centuries ago and have yet to finish with MRI. Medical science moves on. Being promiscuous without being married (to the subject) is the sin.
For example, the hymen rarely bleeds and isn’t supposed to. It thins with age and slackens (not a pool-cover), considering the child brides of the time, either the bleeding was from a child raped, the hymen was too thick by birth or she was too young, and most of the ‘virginal bleeding’ is the vagina, panicking at poor technique e.g. insufficient lubrication, too much, too fast. It’s a sign that a man is bad in bed. The vagina is acutely sensitive, and well-supplied in the vascular system. The hymen? Hardly. If it’s fully intact, the woman cannot bleed and it must be cut surgically. It isn’t medically desirable either.

The only reason they don’t stone the defamatory husband is because the deflowered woman would have issues with remarriage and might be pregnant. However, adulterous men are stoned to death, so arguably it’s just plain extramarital adultery or premarital fornication that are the death sentence offences.

*This is a death sentence offense alone and the reason seduction is a crime.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Men insulting their own wives are committing offences, they must cherish according to their vow.
The woman’s ability to be a good wife may be in doubt, but the man’s ability to be a good husband has been proven questionable in his actions.
Also, how weak to point the finger at the person you swore to protect. How childish, how arrogant.

Overprotective parents cause Peter Pan Syndrome

They wouldn’t dare put a real pathology in the DSM V.

The parents might not be able to blame their children. They might stop paying their shrink bills. Quelle horreur. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070501112023.htm

Peter Pans – almost always male.

When sexually mature, promiscuous and critically, definitively incapable of commitment (seeing it as tantamount to prison, do not expect logic, but preposterous metaphors from them). As you can expect, problems with pair bonding, even purely social connections with other men. Therefore, they tend to befriend one another. Mature and successful men avoid them but they rationalize this as a virtue and brag about it.

They regress frequently to various stages of childhood, notably when stressed in an argument (especially one they started, quite the bully to relieve their random anxiety). They tend to violence and physical aggression, but not when a parental-like figure e.g. police, boss, or other authority e.g. club bouncer is present. They laugh at the law until before a judge for their ignorance/recklessness/cruelty, when they play victim. Remember, sorry is the magic word and you can break any law as long as you pretend you’re sorry after…

The male (at least 9/10, he is male, it is a male condition based on physical aspects of denial, as they cannot menstruate, that brings women to speedier emotional maturity as it’s hard to deny*) is easy to spot because they act like a teenager into their twenties, hold similar expectations for themselves and their life into their thirties and, humiliatingly for their relations, beyond. As other men begin to accrue success in their 20s/30s, they’re still stuck doing the same nonsense as their school years. They blame society for this, they are always blameless because they are always duty-free, the Real Victim Here (TM). There is no midlife crisis because in their mind they are still fifteen. They are simply immature. The world is forever their oyster. In myth we find nothing like this, the young gods have to die to get anywhere. Or else otherwise grow up and renew into adulthood. The ancients would’ve cut them off and forced them into real employment. Nowadays they whine on blogs about the many ways The Man has wronged them and start up pretentious forums blaming literally anyone else for their personal life. Conspiracies are popular. It alleviates some of their deep-seated guilt. They sometimes try to pull rank where it is least appropriate, with the green rudeness of a child e.g. correcting a Christian on the Bible as an atheist, lecturing women on babymaking and so on. They attempt to appear as if they have moral authority and we find many con artists and fraudsters in their ranks. It would be fine if they kept to their own but so ensured of their own superiority and legal invincibility, they see the world as both inferior and a mark, with goods they earned but didn’t deserve as much as him, because he has real feelings, unlike everyone else. Real feelings and excessive volumes of them, as well as poor control of himself in general, make him worthy of pity. Everyone is out to get them, as they are out to get everyone. Paranoia (vague, unfalsifiable) is aggression projection.

They see any societal obligation as a trick, a prison. However, to everyone else, they are a Fool, with none of the luck, thinking society will hold them to special, zero standards (yes, narcissism) and to think they are being put upon, asked something in excess of average. Is it any surprise their father abandoned such a case? Emotionally or physically? At a certain point they do become completely insufferable and cannot be helped by anyone but a professional. Do they seek a professional? Never. That would be a responsible thing to do. Instead they’d rather waste their life and suffer, and cause others to suffer around them as well. They’re the first to tell you how nice and great they are, like a child at a reunion begging for attention.

They project their own flaws onto women. Much like serial killers, they have a dependent relationship with their mother. All other women are whores, or something to be used. You see, the world is their playground. We are all toys (Machiavellianism with none of the wit).

They see ‘feminine’ virtues as weakness e.g. compromise, popularity, empathy, fortitude, all these for ‘suckers’. By making it female-exclusive, they can never be accused of them, in their twisted mind. If you remind them of Jung’s balance, they get offended.

The hard thing is never necessary, and they would argue, seldom the right thing either. This is awfully convenient for them. 

It isn’t women that terrify them but the burden of fatherhood. If they happen to cause a pregnancy, they’ll blame the woman. You see, in their minds, they do not believe they are fertile, because what child can have children? They are deluded, at times possibly psychotic e.g. accusing a woman they consented to have sex with of rape, because she fell pregnant. They often make excuses to abandon the woman and that’s how deadbeats are made. The more psychopathic ones will torment their new family out of resentment for curtailing ‘his’ freedom (belonging to and only due to him, as the only Real Human) and slowly push them away, often with male-seeming outlets e.g. strip clubs, porn addiction, affairs, also cutting off financial support (this being the one objective form of abandonment that cannot be concealed, either they pay or not). Still, they are a veritable cornucopia of excuses when pulled up on this objective fact, like a child who ‘forgot’ his homework. Physical or other abuses of the mother are also common, since her body shackles him to his spawn, intellectually, and he probably identifies with a male child too much to hurt it (narcissism). They are the type to murder their children to ‘get back at’ the mother and then kill themselves in faux grief to avoid Patriarchal legal punishment or to simply beat/punish the female children for reminding him of their mother. Usually, child abusers start on the little girls, for various reasons (access, sociability, gaslighting, guilt-tripping, lower odds of revenge or being believed, acting out/up accusations, ‘straight’ sex, and so forth) if they can.

A good Patriarchal society whipped this scum out of town at the first sign and let him starve. They knew better than to think it could be fixed by kindness, such people are a cancer. Their enemy is the Patriarch, the Father they came to hate, although they are liars. They often call for a Patriarchal system, believing it will increase their power as a male, extending it to all males, rather than installing it to families, including mothers. The childless receive no benefit from a family-oriented system but he is quite stupid. The urge to control others is as strong as their urge to be ‘free’, with their perverse definitions of all taking and no giving, no duties, no responsibilities, to travel and use people like disposable objects, only to be revered in old age as if hedonism or owning genitalia is an accomplishment. They seem to believe too, that speaking out cheaply for the cause of Patriarchs now will prevent them from being treated as they justly deserve if that system came about e.g. they wouldn’t be kicked out of society away from the nubile daughters and rich drinking buddies.

Nowadays they keep secret social media accounts or avoid them altogether, terrified of the parental figures of society, like employers, from knowing what they are and denying them opportunities.  You see, they can abandon you, but you cannot abandon them. You must give them everything because they deserve it. They probably have a list.

Do not pity them, they want you to nurture them like a mother figure so they might use you, as a parasite.

Good news?

They die alone, having no true friends. They are forever lonely because they cannot connect with themselves and refuse to grow (modern parlance: sell out). They are stuck but aging. If they have children, they are loathed for their ultimate failing, in secret or openly. Strangely, they balk at open accusations of how they behave, wishing to rebel Them Vs The World, while openly admitting their actions/beliefs when it is socially desirable (compulsive deception, stemming from no true identity, possible borderline feature). For example, they will claim to be monogamous but also claim monogamy is impossible or over-rated (cognitive dissonance doesn’t affect children as they are incapable of logic, these men are retarded in many ways) to make themselves seem more appealing in other men’s estimations and gain their favours (this is also wrong, and hardly ever works, but they are too dense to see it). They cannot connect with women, because they are not truly men. They do not deserve the title, instead accurately, they are adult male. Women are an alien creature to the man-child. They do not like (read: temper tantrums/mantrums) being reminded of their age or its consequences, they project their ignorance (or innocence) onto the object, and call women crazy/stupid/wrong etc. Here we find a glib misogynist (you cannot hate something you do not understand) that dismisses anything he doesn’t understand or that goes against his preconceived beliefs as <relates to women speciously, therefore I may ignore it>, this neurosis enables his lifestyle. Escapism and emotion (that they inaccurately dub masculine for egocentrism) are their sole purpose in life, these combined they call experience. A postmodern monster. The fuckboy is also a Peter Pan with a focus on the psychopathic sexual aggressions (people merely as soil to stake a flag in, porn as real). Modern society enables these people e.g. the parasite single of the Japanese male. The Western equivalent either mocks them, projecting by geography, or idolizes them (Japanophiles and some very creepy sexual attractions you must take seriously).

Quite the pearl-clutchers, they are easily offended. It’s always your fault.

I don’t blame the parents, when the child is an adult.

*I’ve seen a handful of female variants, but they were very masculine, presenting like the male case, hating themselves, and they were always on the Pill, usually from their teens. They deny fertility as a responsibility or any other aspect of physical and sexual health. Never want children, love abortion. Refuse to get sterilized, because that’s a limit and infertility is associated with age.

Modern parents spend more time with children now than in 50s

Yeah, don’t take your history lessons from adverts.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/modern-parents-spend-more-time-actively-engaged-with-children-than-50-years-ago/news-story/f7f9dc36605a5da378ef56754c9ba8f5

A spread between parental units is also better for the child’s development. Too much mother is as much a problem as too little.

The mother in the tender years (0-5ish) and the father for about 10 years after that to teach them the basics and keep them grounded, but overall children do need approximately as much quality time with each parent, and it’s terrible when men ‘want’ children just to say they have them but want to skip out on spending time with them. They aren’t a lamp. You can’t just pay for them and leave them there and expect them to be fine. Abandonment is more than financial, it’s giving up leisure time to extra-house priorities, which should come far lower. Family comes before friends, and nights out drinking don’t even really become a college student, let alone a Patriarch. I’ve seen men happy to spend time with a mongrel for hours at a park than five minutes with their spawn.

It doesn’t matter how much money he pulls in if his heart is made of ice. Women shouldn’t procreate with such monsters.
However, such parents will be abandoned once the resentment has festered by rights. They won’t get that replacement kidney or the good nursing home and won’t they be shocked? Their children built a whole life without them too!

dean winchester supernatural evil smirk lol laughing amused

Neither should the children always come first (for some things yes but balance it), that right actually belongs to the spouse, oft-ignored in pop culture like they’re boring to encourage affairs (by clubbing, drinking, bad influence friends). Without a secure spousal relationship, the children will suffer and doing it this way avoids spoiling them or making them arrogant. Happy wife, happy life. Better children too.

It’s common to see posts about maternal abandonment as if a man is a walking wallet. Aside from being a sexist reduction of the Patriarchal role, paternal abandonment has a much more far-reaching effect on the life of the child.

Patriarchs don’t just get to sit around at home while wifey makes them a cocktail and that’s a bizarro-world American Dream anyway. Nobody has that life, even billionaires. They are both workers in the home. He does DIY, she cooks, she cleans, he changes diapers. The 50s advert postcard image is just that – a mirage. Rich people hire help. That’s the trick. Outsourcing. Time is $$$.

Nature: Old fathers, sick babies

The people pushing a “Father at Any Age, Just Find a Young Woman” model are just as evil as the female counterparts. You can’t trick nature. Who would deliberately stall and put their descendants in such an injured, sickly position? Monsters. ‘Have It All’ is impossible. Family or party, pick ONE.

http://www.nature.com/news/fathers-bequeath-more-mutations-as-they-age-1.11247

Fathers passed on nearly four times as many new mutations as mothers: on average, 55 versus 14.

The father’s age also accounted for nearly all of the variation in the number of new mutations in a child’s genome,

with the number of new mutations being passed on rising exponentially with paternal age.

A 36-year-old will pass on twice as many mutations to his child as a man of 20, and a 70-year-old eight times as many, Stefánsson’s team estimates.

Go ahead, deny the damage of mutation load, I dare you. Let’s see if you’re redpill and accept the genetic data or a narcissist just like the ‘career women’ coldly leaving it as late as possible.

Nature is very clear that, given the option, youthful parents (18-25) are the better parents (genetically) in both sexes.  How could any sane person, educated in genetics, see it any other way?

By starting families in their thirties, forties and beyond,

The manosphere is doomed to comparative genetic inferiority.

men could be increasing the chances that their children will develop autism, schizophrenia and other diseases often linked to new mutations.

The super-classy myth of blaming older (supposedly feminist?) mothers for child autism is also wrong, if you look up the data, which points to a paternal and grand-paternal age link. Nor does it make basic logical sense that a Male Brained neurological problem would be passed on from anyone other than the father (that Y chromosome?). As more data is taken, this connection will only get stronger, so a word to the unwise: quit putting it off, idiots.

Naturally, the other options are genetic suicide (probably a good idea for this selfish type, imagine what awful parents they’d be) and/or mudsharking/outbreeding, since they can’t get a higher status (usually) white woman, which also, as covered in the mixed post, causes psychiatric issues. Those two races did not co-evolve, the material conflict fundamentally, it’s like mixing oil and water. Especially half Asian/half Europeans, like …Elliot Rodger.

wow omg omfg how can you be so dumb really stupid fyi

Yeah, that’s an angle I never covered. 100% true.

inb4 an embittered shriveled egg joke, that will not be a problem
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120229-women-health-ovaries-eggs-reproduction-science/

Shocker as fathers’ bad habits hurt their future babies

Father’s bad habits directly impact child’s genetic quality
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204135513.htm

“We did not expect to see such important changes in epigenetic information due to environmental pressure,” says Barrès. “Discovering that lifestyle and environmental factors, such as a person’s nutritional state, can shape the information in our gametes and thereby modify the eating behaviour of the next generation is, to my mind, an important find,” he adds.’

Bad lifestyle too
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130701135550.htm

These results suggest that the parents living conditions before conception may directly impact the health of their children.

“We’ve known for a very long time that preventive care among expectant mothers is critical to the health and well-being of their children,” said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. “Now, we’re learning that fathers don’t get a free pass. How they take care of themselves — even before conception — affects the genetic makeup of their children, for better or worse.”

cracking up dawn french
Sperm carries environmental information about the father’s weight
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151203135836.htm
All this information is technically under male fertility btw. Since it’s germline.
Male interest in babies hormone-mediated
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151207113900.htm

“These results suggest that even before young men make actual decisions about marriage and children, one can distinguish between individuals who are more fatherhood-oriented and those who are less fatherhood-oriented.”

Do I sense a test for r/K? Dare I dream?

I would like to see sexual history included as a poor lifestyle factor. Cue the howls against biological responsibility from the manwhores. Hey, what are you afraid of? Your germline can’t escape your biology, the way you treat your body. Can’t blame that one on women.

toasting raising glass cheers leonardo da vinci congrats well done demons

Why am I mocking them? There are still males who blame the females for any issue with a baby (including miscarriage) as if it’s all on us. It’s a Henry VIII Complex. They refuse to believe it could be them.