Once you have kids they’re addicted to mommy and you form a connection with your wife. That’s why you see so many normal looking men with fat wives. My wife plays a huge role (in fact the ONLY role that in a lot of respects). Plus she works out and stays attractive.

Why the FUCK would I want to start over or “split time” wrt my family?

Now if the hypo was I have to stash away $3k a month to somehow fuck this chick 5 times a month without my wife knowing? Of course.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47134902)

But if I’m really leaving the wife for this chick I have more questions, even guaranteeing her loyalty (which I’m reading to mean that she would be both faithful and committed to the relationship so eg wouldn’t accept a dead bedroom or a long period of distance and just stew in her resentment). Eg who are her parents/siblings and will they be against me and does she work and what will her friends think about her being with a guy who is 20+ years older, and would she be giving up or at least causing problems for various parts of a life she enjoys.

Also is she trying to have kids with me, and will she be ok aborting or giving up for adoption if our large parental age gap results in defects or severely autistic offspring? Even then I probably still wouldn’t want to raise more kids unless she comes from a shitload of family money so that we could hire a ton of permanent staff to deal with all the hassles of infants and toddlers. Would also need to know about her genetic stock ie IQ, height and IQs, heights and weights of all her family along with any notable athletic achievements.

In the end it’s a question of whether I am willing to hurt my kids and my wife for the chance to be happier and possibly just start over. I know there are guys who do this, but I would not be successful. If my kids were struggling or mad at me it would make me feel like shit and if they weren’t that would also hurt to some degree, like I wasn’t a necessary part of their lives. If the hypo is my wife dies or leaves me and then I get to move on with the perfect looking girl in her 20s I’m all about it. But I couldn’t harm my children intentionally to that degree.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47135127)

i am back home now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47135131)

read any history before clown world set in: women die during child birth and a guy cycles through several hot 20 y/o brides before finally passing on in his 80s.

if you were meant to be with a 43 year old shrew, you wouldn't have to pretend to find them attractive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47135206)

But of course doing exactly this was what built western civilization, as poaster above points out.

Smart men, rich men, poor men, pioneer men, troublesome men.. they all bred as much as they could and would immediately move on from one wife to another, sometimes overlapping.

They didnt give a fuck for the emotional well-being or even economic well-being of their offspring. Those 15 kids just had to spread over the world, become priests or soldiers or farmhands or re-invent themselves out west or in some far flung colony.

Tiny little Britain was producing enough men to staff its navy, sending ships across the globe, depositing englishmen in every fucking corner, while still staffing merchant ships, slaver ships, evangelical missions of the church, factories, farms, and creating mega-cities like London full of urchins and thieves and barmen and artists and apprentices etc.

We've completely maternalized "fatherhood" and are now committed to the idea that dads should be "present" for kids, and worry deeply about whether the kid is happy, has expensive toys, etc. Father worry about whether their wives truly experience orgasm or get to travel enough, and are fulfilled enough not to leave them.

The new model may be better, I dont even know, but its certainly not going to produce the circumstances for white men to conquer the world anymore.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47135247)

maybe lord fuckmyass stayed faithful to lady hairybush in their mayfair house, but his wealth depended on sending eight boats a year staffed with 50 men on trips for new england timber or african slaves or whatever, and indirectly depended on thousands and thousands of navy men to keep the seas safe, and other thousands of englishmen to live in new hampshire to chop down the trees, or live in bombay to corner the spice market, and priests and soldiers and pimps and all the rest to staff those outposts.

And all of those guys would not pause long to replace their wives. Sailors almost all left wives in an england they may not see for years or ever again. They wouldn't miss a beat in having a new wife in the colonies, or just a woman they shacked up with for three months and impregnated.

My point was that they had very little, if any, psychological guilt for not being at home with their kids to have dinner each night, or limiting their kids to those they could know intimately and ask "how was your day today, junior".

They just sprayed seed, and all the males this produced were the necessary material for whatever Great Man to spread western culture around the entire globe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47135794)

They found the genes for this and hypothesized that this is a classic example of a certain type of natural selection where a trait becomes more advantageous the rarer it is. If you are a cad and you live in a village of dads, you win the evolutionary war because you have 20-30 kids when all the other men are having 2-3 at most. But if you are the only dad in a village full of cads, then you win, because your kids are much more likely to survive to adulthood than the other kids being raised by single moms. As a result, over time, there is strong selection for a 50/50 split between these two phenotypes. If this hypothesis is correct, approximately 50% of men will say "yes" to this hypo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47138450)

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5144854&mc=170&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#49051490)

that being said, it is probably different if your kids are 27 and 25 vs 7 and 5: in the former case, it's really not going to directly impact their day to day lives, so yolo i guess

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47135421)

E.g., the dime is clearly already my mistress; is leaving my wife necessary to keep her as my mistress? If not, there are no benefits at all to doing so (mistress >>> wife; it even keeps the sex hotter, to say nothing of the obvious financial/social/family consequences). I have to be “faithful” to the new wife? Lol? I’d rather have a 7.5 I can cheat on than a 10 I can’t. Is the hypo that, if I turn down this offer I can never have another mistress while married to my current wife?

You have to assume in a bunch of conditions to this hypo to even make it tempting, let alone a close call.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47135716)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47135758)

Lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47138631)

It’s awful splitting your time between women. Everyone hates you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47138734)

Like I said hardly anyone has enough money to maintain a high standard of living for multiple families. Wealthy men have been doing this for generations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47138853)

Will the 20 yr CGWBT still want to be with me when I'm struggling to afford a 2bdr aptment because I owe so much in alimony & child support?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5455541&forum_id=2...id.#47138221)