Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36
  1. #21

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    Quote Originally Posted by qaldyari View Post
    More and more there are times where I wish we could just band together and start our own country where we can set favorable rules once again to treat people like they deserve.
    Look up the Free State Wyoming and the Free State New Hampshire projects.
    An escort is a woman you occasionally financially support only when she has sex with you.

    A date is a woman you occasionally financially support in the hope she will have sex with you.

    A wife is a woman you constantly financially support even when she is not having sex with you.

    An ex-wife is a woman you constantly financially support with alimony so she can have sex......with someone else.

  2. #22

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    Thanks guys.

    I am liking all the feedback and it basically boils down to a) Having a surrogate or b) Moving out of the US entirely and going to some Eastern European country.
    Last edited by RenaiZance; November 14, 2021 at 4:16 PM.

  3. #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    16
    Reputation
    40
    Type
    Old and married...but very supportive.

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    Quote Originally Posted by RenaiZance View Post
    So then where in Europe should I emigrate to if I want to leave the US? Eastern Europe? Someone else said I could just use a surrogate if I wanted kids badly enough. Is that a good option in your view?
    Personally, I'm not certain I would trust a surrogate mother. I did a quick search and this popped up: "Unfortunately for intended parents, there are many instances of surrogate mothers choosing to keep the baby. However, there are many ways that you can protect yourself from this traumatic experience, and we discuss how this can be done below."

    If you go the surrogate route make sure she lives in a state that will honor the agreement.

    And I really don't know which country would be best if you emigrate. However, there are large American/British expatriate communities in several European countries. From what I read a few years ago, most of those who left seem to like living abroad.

    I retired from a large airline, a couple of friends of mine retired to Costa Rica, thousands of Americans live there.

  4. #24

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    I looked up the term "surrogate parenthood" and the first thing that popped up said "something used by women who cannot conceive or carry a child to term". So in the blue pill world it seems assumed it's just an extension of the female power system. It's used by a woman, or maybe a "couple" but that's it. The woman using a surrogate is still going to claim all the privileges and payments for being a mother, even though she actually didn't do the basic work.

    So you might have an opportunity to be a social pioneer. Surrogate parenthood as something used by MGTOWers who want to reproduce while saying FU to the feminazi system. It brings the real economics of the deal out of the closet. You pay a woman for the 9 month job, and that's it. No more life long enslavement contract just to get the benefit of a woman's reproductive capacity.

    Maybe the real safety concern will be the howls of protest that could happen if the feminists figure out what you're up to..

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bumfuck, Egypt
    Posts
    2,492
    Reputation
    9453
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    If we did want a kid, how could most of us ever afford it? There's tons a couples with two incomes, and they have trouble paying for it all. Maybe if you didn't have to buy childcare, that seems to be the big one. But how you going to escape that?

    If one a my projects goes overbudget, and they all do, either it gets dumped or it takes longer. With children, that's not an option.
    Every day I make the world a little bit worse.

  6. #26
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    4,203
    Reputation
    12407
    Type
    Ghosted by law and order.

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    Quote Originally Posted by frog View Post
    If we did want a kid, how could most of us ever afford it? There's tons a couples with two incomes, and they have trouble paying for it all. Maybe if you didn't have to buy childcare, that seems to be the big one. But how you going to escape that?

    If one a my projects goes overbudget, and they all do, either it gets dumped or it takes longer. With children, that's not an option.
    Once you swallow the black pill of anti-commitment, red pills start to look a little pinkish.

    Commitment is best reserved for things like SKIING!



    Tower's Book of Survival:

    Rule #401. First you eat the dogs, then you eat the dogfood.

  7. #27

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    Pay a surrogate or adopt. Foster care and get paid to have them.

  8. #28
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    4,203
    Reputation
    12407
    Type
    Ghosted by law and order.

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    Quote Originally Posted by DangZagnut View Post
    Pay a surrogate or adopt. Foster care and get paid to have them.
    Foster care fucked-up kid exchange?

    Great way to get stuck with a would-be/will-be maniac cereal killer!

    Anything that goes through government comes out the other end as SHIT!
    Tower's Book of Survival:

    Rule #401. First you eat the dogs, then you eat the dogfood.

  9. #29
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Posts
    22
    Reputation
    60
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    Quote Originally Posted by qaldyari View Post
    More and more there are times where I wish we could just band together and start our own country where we can set favorable rules once again to treat people like they deserve.
    Ah yes, a new America lol

  10. #30

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    It's not a well publicized statistic here in the US, but I did once get a family law attorney to admit that more than 50% of prenups that get challenged in court get thrown out. And after 7 years of marriage, essentially all of them get ignored in the event of divorce. It IS a well publicized statistic that in the event of a divorce, a woman will get custody of the kids more than 90% of the time. There are women who are convicted felons who did not lose custody of their children as a result of that unwritten rule. The unwritten rule that gives women victory in custody battles is almost bullet proof.

    If you ever meet a woman who has children, but does NOT have custody of them FOR ANY REASON, do not stand around asking questions, or making assumptions. Just RUN for the nearest exit, and do not look back. That advice was published in an article in men's magazine decades ago. I have met women like this only rarely. But for everyone of them, there is an extreme reason why they lost custody, and it is the same reason why any man should avoid them. Keep in mind that felony criminal records are often insufficient to cause a woman to lose custody...

    The last unwritten rule of family court that you should be aware of is that courts do not throw children out of their homes. This one may actually have some merit. A court looks at 2 people who are in the midst of a divorce and a hostile custody fight as the combatants, and the children as the innocent bystanders. The reasoning is that regardless of whose fault the divorce is, it is reasonable to assume that it is not the fault of the children. They should not be displaced from their home, or otherwise have their lives disrupted because their parents couldn't get along. They should also be supported financially because they cannot do it for themselves. Therefore, the family court system must determine a source of financial support for the children. The available options are the available government budgets, or the parents. Having gotten the ownership control of the children, and the responsibility that goes with it, the mother will argue that it is an undue burden for her to have to attend to the daily needs of the children, and simultaneously work to earn their financial support. So, that financial responsibility is not going to fall on her. The family court judge is now down to 2 options: the first is that that financial burden gets assigned to the state government (the source of the judge's paycheck), or it gets assigned to the father. You should be able to predict where that financial burden is going to be assigned...

    So the children stay in the house, and the wife gets custody of the children. The children essentially become hostages that either the father or the state must pay the ransom for, but it's the state that gets to choose which of those two options pays. You should assume that there is no prenup that the state is going to enforce that goes against the state's own interests.

    Last, in the calculation of child support: If the father does not have the ability to pay, everyone knows that the mother is going to go to the federal government for financial assistance to pay for the needs of her children. (We can easily predict this because going to the federal government for resources is much easier for her than getting them from another man). However it is the state government family law courts that are tasked with determining and collecting child support. In order to incentivize the states to get those resources from the father instead of having that burden fall to the federal government, the federal government incentivizes the states financially to do this. The federal government gives the states matching funds for the amount of child support they collect from whichever parent pays it. The more the state collects in child support on behalf of the custodial parent, the more money in matching funds the state government gets from the feds...

    The amount of child support the state can collect from either parent is based on % of that parent's income. The state can assign custody to whichever parent it chooses, but by assigning custody to the parent with the least earnings, and assigning child support to the parent with the most earnings, it maximizes the amount of child support collected, and maximizes those federal matching funds. Theoretically, the state could assign that financial burden to the mother, and assign custody to the father. But it would be counter to the state governments financial interests to do so unless the mother made more money than the father.

    However, that option has already been ruled out by women, who generally do not choose to reproduce with men who make less than they do (Because what the hell is the point of a hostage who you can't collect a ransom for?).

    So, if you wish to reproduce, understand that the children created by you and the woman you choose will be her property by default. And the financial burden for them will be yours by default. If you marry the mother, you will earn and pay that financial burden. And if you succeed in keeping her happy with every possible thing on whatever list she creates for that, then you will be allowed to live in the same house as those children and at least see them on a daily basis. If you do not marry her, or if you do not keep her happy, you will be ejected from that home, and your income confiscated from you (by force if necessary) in order to continue paying for it.

    Basically, if you want to reproduce, you have no choice but to go to a woman. Approach this is though women have an essential monopoly on your ability to reproduce, because they do. There is no other option. Women will set the price, and the state will enforce that price. But that price can change anytime a woman chooses. And no matter how much you pay, voluntarily or otherwise, that child will never be yours. The hostage will not be returned to you no matter how much ransom you pay.

    These are the terms under which a man in western society may reproduce. And while this viewpoint may seem overly cynical, it is not a viewpoint I willingly chose. It's just the viewpoint I've arrived at after having had a ring side seat to a great many divorces and custody fights among my friends and family. If there is any part of the above that is wrong, exaggerated, or otherwise inaccurate, please point it out and enlighten us all.

    No one would be happier than me to have the view point above proven wrong.

  11. #31

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrainPilot View Post
    It's not a well publicized statistic here in the US, but I did once get a family law attorney to admit that more than 50% of prenups that get challenged in court get thrown out. And after 7 years of marriage, essentially all of them get ignored in the event of divorce. It IS a well publicized statistic that in the event of a divorce, a woman will get custody of the kids more than 90% of the time. There are women who are convicted felons who did not lose custody of their children as a result of that unwritten rule. The unwritten rule that gives women victory in custody battles is almost bullet proof. If you ever meet a woman who has children, but does NOT have custody of them FOR ANY REASON, do not stand around asking questions, or making assumptions. Just RUN for the nearest exit, and do not look back. That advice was published in an article in men's magazine decades ago. I have met women like this only rarely. But for everyone of them, there is an extreme reason why they lost custody, and it is the same reason why any man should avoid them. Keep in mind that felony criminal records are often insufficient to cause a woman to lose custody... The last unwritten rule of family court that you should be aware of is that courts do not throw children out of their homes. This one may actually have some merit. A court looks at 2 people who are in the midst of a divorce and a hostile custody fight as the combatants, and the children as the innocent bystanders. The reasoning is that regardless of whose fault the divorce is, it is reasonable to assume that it is not the fault of the children. They should not be displaced from their home, or otherwise have their lives disrupted because their parents couldn't get along. They should also be supported financially because they cannot do it for themselves. Therefore, the family court system must determine a source of financial support for the children. The available options are the available government budgets, or the parents. Having gotten the ownership control of the children, and the responsibility that goes with it, the mother will argue that it is an undue burden for her to have to attend to the daily needs of the children, and simultaneously work to earn their financial support. So, that financial responsibility is not going to fall on her. The family court judge is now down to 2 options: the first is that that financial burden gets assigned to the state government (the source of the judge's paycheck), or it gets assigned to the father. You should be able to predict where that financial burden is going to be assigned... So the children stay in the house, and the wife gets custody of the children. The children essentially become hostages that either the father or the state must pay the ransom for, but it's the state that gets to choose which of those two options pays. You should assume that there is no prenup that the state is going to enforce that goes against the state's own interests. Last, in the calculation of child support: If the father does not have the ability to pay, everyone knows that the mother is going to go to the federal government for financial assistance to pay for the needs of her children. (We can easily predict this because going to the federal government for resources is much easier for her than getting them from another man). However it is the state government family law courts that are tasked with determining and collecting child support. In order to incentivize the states to get those resources from the father instead of having that burden fall to the federal government, the federal government incentivizes the states financially to do this. The federal government gives the states matching funds for the amount of child support they collect from whichever parent pays it. The more the state collects in child support on behalf of the custodial parent, the more money in matching funds the state government gets from the feds... The amount of child support the state can collect from either parent is based on % of that parent's income. The state can assign custody to whichever parent it chooses, but by assigning custody to the parent with the least earnings, and assigning child support to the parent with the most earnings, it maximizes the amount of child support collected, and maximizes those federal matching funds. Theoretically, the state could assign that financial burden to the mother, and assign custody to the father. But it would be counter to the state governments financial interests to do so unless the mother made more money than the father. However, that option has already been ruled out by women, who generally do not choose to reproduce with men who make less than they do (Because what the hell is the point of a hostage who you can't collect a ransom for?). So, if you wish to reproduce, understand that the children created by you and the woman you choose will be her property by default. And the financial burden for them will be yours by default. If you marry the mother, you will earn and pay that financial burden. And if you succeed in keeping her happy with every possible thing on whatever list she creates for that, then you will be allowed to live in the same house as those children and at least see them on a daily basis. If you do not marry her, or if you do not keep her happy, you will be ejected from that home, and your income confiscated from you (by force if necessary) in order to continue paying for it. Basically, if you want to reproduce, you have no choice but to go to a woman. Approach this is though women have an essential monopoly on your ability to reproduce, because they do. There is no other option. Women will set the price, and the state will enforce that price. But that price can change anytime a woman chooses. And no matter how much you pay, voluntarily or otherwise, that child will never be yours. The hostage will not be returned to you no matter how much ransom you pay. These are the terms under which a man in western society may reproduce. And while this viewpoint may seem overly cynical, it is not a viewpoint I willingly chose. It's just the viewpoint I've arrived at after having had a ring side seat to a great many divorces and custody fights among my friends and family. If there is any part of the above that is wrong, exaggerated, or otherwise inaccurate, please point it out and enlighten us all. No one would be happier than me to have the view point above proven wrong.
    1. Are all states equal in their laws regarding this? 2. What about Eastern Europe? 3. What about if the child is had via surrogate like mentioned before? I just want to get the full down low before I make a decision that could possibly ruin my life. I've been given ample warning about getting married in the west so I don't want someone to say "told you so". fwiw, when I refer to "The West" I'm talking about the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe (besides Eastern Europe). Eastern Europe is anything in light blue here. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W..._countries.png So far my options are: 1. Don't have kids at all and don't marry. Casually date but do not cohabitate Or if I desperately want kids or a family: 2. Have a surrogate if I want kids/family to avoid the BS anti-male laws 3. Move someplace else and marry (if the laws are good), or have a surrogate. Option 1 is the most likely at the moment but if I am able to eventually move I would consider 2 or 3.
    Last edited by RenaiZance; November 14, 2021 at 11:58 PM.

  12. #32

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    Quote Originally Posted by DangZagnut View Post
    Pay a surrogate or adopt. Foster care and get paid to have them.
    If I paid a surrogate would I still get screwed in a divorce or by anti-male laws? I'm in a Western country.

  13. #33

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    All states in the US are not equal. But even the best ones are still pretty bad for men. California is almost certainly the worst.

    I can't speak in great detail about Europe/Eastern Europe. But if you are intent on reproducing, it is reasonable to assume that your kid's best chance at life will start with a childhood where both parents are present. Obviously, much will ride on who the other parent is and what they bring to the table. But all else being equal, it would be better for a kid to have 2 parents if for no other reason than that one of them could hit by a bus or have some other random accident that would leave them orphaned if there was no second parent. Parents are important enough that it's worth having a spare. But the culture and laws of the west are too screwed up here. I wouldn't even bother to look around for a mother here.

    If you are going to seek out that other person, and you are globally mobile, I would advise to look in countries where survival is a little tougher. In third world countries in Asia, for example, there isn't much of a social safety net. So families stick together better because doing so has a realistic impact on the odds of survival for all the members. The culture re-enforces this. (Multiple generations of one family often live in the same house). If you do this, head for the smaller communities in more rural areas. Those places are even tougher to survive without a family surrounding you, and they are further from the influence of western media/feminist ideas that have started to permeate some of the bigger cities there.

    If you speak English as a first language, those Asian languages can be tough to learn. But the Philippines are primarily English speaking. The conditions make it still a tough place to survive without a family, and so your kids mother is less likely to turn into a westernized bitch who thinks she "don't need no man..." to raise a kid. The culture there is still a bit more oriented to the family system, and men still have some status there.

    If I were 25 years younger, determined to have a kid, and knowing what I know now, I would check into mechanisms for traveling / working / living there, and then get on a Philippine dating app and start looking at my options...

  14. #34

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrainPilot View Post
    All states in the US are not equal. But even the best ones are still pretty bad for men. California is almost certainly the worst. I can't speak in great detail about Europe/Eastern Europe. But if you are intent on reproducing, it is reasonable to assume that your kid's best chance at life will start with a childhood where both parents are present. Obviously, much will ride on who the other parent is and what they bring to the table. But all else being equal, it would be better for a kid to have 2 parents if for no other reason than that one of them could hit by a bus or have some other random accident that would leave them orphaned if there was no second parent. Parents are important enough that it's worth having a spare. But the culture and laws of the west are too screwed up here. I wouldn't even bother to look around for a mother here. If you are going to seek out that other person, and you are globally mobile, I would advise to look in countries where survival is a little tougher. In third world countries in Asia, for example, there isn't much of a social safety net. So families stick together better because doing so has a realistic impact on the odds of survival for all the members. The culture re-enforces this. (Multiple generations of one family often live in the same house). If you do this, head for the smaller communities in more rural areas. Those places are even tougher to survive without a family surrounding you, and they are further from the influence of western media/feminist ideas that have started to permeate some of the bigger cities there. If you speak English as a first language, those Asian languages can be tough to learn. But the Philippines are primarily English speaking. The conditions make it still a tough place to survive without a family, and so your kids mother is less likely to turn into a westernized bitch who thinks she "don't need no man..." to raise a kid. The culture there is still a bit more oriented to the family system, and men still have some status there. If I were 25 years younger, determined to have a kid, and knowing what I know now, I would check into mechanisms for traveling / working / living there, and then get on a Philippine dating app and start looking at my options...
    If you are in the West and have a kid via a surrogate will you still end up getting screwed? Some people here are mentioning surrogates.

  15. #35

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrainPilot View Post
    All states in the US are not equal. But even the best ones are still pretty bad for men. California is almost certainly the worst. I can't speak in great detail about Europe/Eastern Europe. But if you are intent on reproducing, it is reasonable to assume that your kid's best chance at life will start with a childhood where both parents are present. Obviously, much will ride on who the other parent is and what they bring to the table. But all else being equal, it would be better for a kid to have 2 parents if for no other reason than that one of them could hit by a bus or have some other random accident that would leave them orphaned if there was no second parent. Parents are important enough that it's worth having a spare. But the culture and laws of the west are too screwed up here. I wouldn't even bother to look around for a mother here. If you are going to seek out that other person, and you are globally mobile, I would advise to look in countries where survival is a little tougher. In third world countries in Asia, for example, there isn't much of a social safety net. So families stick together better because doing so has a realistic impact on the odds of survival for all the members. The culture re-enforces this. (Multiple generations of one family often live in the same house). If you do this, head for the smaller communities in more rural areas. Those places are even tougher to survive without a family surrounding you, and they are further from the influence of western media/feminist ideas that have started to permeate some of the bigger cities there. If you speak English as a first language, those Asian languages can be tough to learn. But the Philippines are primarily English speaking. The conditions make it still a tough place to survive without a family, and so your kids mother is less likely to turn into a westernized bitch who thinks she "don't need no man..." to raise a kid. The culture there is still a bit more oriented to the family system, and men still have some status there. If I were 25 years younger, determined to have a kid, and knowing what I know now, I would check into mechanisms for traveling / working / living there, and then get on a Philippine dating app and start looking at my options...
    Not a fan of Asia. I would almost certainly be looking at Eastern Europe if the laws there are good and/or surrogacy laws are good.

  16. #36

    Re: Is there any SAFE way to have kids in North America?

    bump


Similar Threads

  1. Women's worst nightmare comes to North America!
    By phoenixgod1995 in forum Lounge
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: September 11, 2018, 2:46 PM
  2. This is me, from up north
    By Iamtheprize in forum New Member Intros
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 22, 2016, 5:54 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 22, 2015, 7:03 PM
  4. Rallies in Europe/North America
    By VLazarusC in forum Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 6, 2014, 7:38 PM
  5. Replies: 23
    Last Post: May 16, 2014, 11:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •