~ archived since 2018 ~

Maybe men really are meant to spread their seed? Ever considered it?

November 4, 2022
7 upvotes

But not in the way that you think.

A man who makes a lot of kids ensures his bloodline, but when he does it with multiple women, one of two things must happen - one, he must share his available resources not only with multiple kids, but also their mothers. Or two, he abandons one or more mothers and those kids, and they end poorly.

Children without fathers are a higher risk of crime and poverty. Multiple studies including this one have discovered this correlation. Societies in the past have been crippled by men "spreading their seed" in this way.

No, the proper way for a man to spread his seed is to have children by one woman, and be a highly participative co-parent. He must be a man of good moral character and choose a woman of good moral character to reduce his chances of an abusive household. There are never any guarantees, but in general a family with multiple children and a woman who is as financially sound as the man will be more likely to raise well-adjusted children who will go on to have families of their own in a safe, prosperous and stable environment. Who will in turn have more generations of offspring, increasing the odds that the first man in the equation will successfully spread his seed.

Sorry, Redpillers, but your idea of a man spreading his seed only causes disaster. Monogamy, not polygamy or patriarchy, is what built human civilization to a space-age world.

Come at me bros!

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.

/r/AllPillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Maybe men really are meant to spread their seed? Ever considered it?
Author RatDontPanic
Upvotes 7
Comments 41
Date November 4, 2022 11:35 PM UTC (3 weeks ago)
Subreddit /r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/maybe-men-really-are-meant-to-spread-their-seed.1139484
https://theredarchive.com/post/1139484
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/ymdzs7/maybe_men_really_are_meant_to_spread_their_seed/
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]Fit-Faithlessness149 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I agree monogamy is superior. However to desire to spread one's seed has been ingrained into us through evolution over tens of thousands of years when we were hunter-gatherers and living in small communities. The communities made sure to take care of one another and the price of living was much cheaper than it is today. So the psychological need to spread our seed evolve long before modern day sensibilities have been ingrained into our psyche.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

However to desire to spread one's seed has been ingrained into us through evolution over tens of thousands of years when we were hunter-gatherers and living in small communities.

Ingrained things aren't necessarily the best things for the species.

[–]Fit-Faithlessness149 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're right. Women seem to be showing a lot of ingrained things that aren't the best things for our species

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And men, too. We're all victims of fisherian runaway.

[–]I_Am_Health 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you have a source for "tens of thousands of years?" None of us were there to confirm.

[–]Fit-Faithlessness149 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can you just got to believe the study of history or paleontology? We can only verify things if we were actually present?

[–]SilentFroggy 0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think men care as long as his bloodline continues.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

The best way to continue his bloodline is through kids that he personally invests his all into, not ones that he leaves fatherless.

[–]peteypete78 2 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

No it's not.

A man having 1 or 2 kids with 1 woman has less chance of continuing his bloodline than having 100 kids with 100 different women.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

Those 100 kids die early or start killing each other or others. The 1 or 2 well cared-for kids will grow up well and have a better chance of grandkids, and thus a LOT of offspring. Your 100 kids with 100 women scenario fails terribly in real life.

[–]peteypete78 -1 points0 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

No it doesn't.

In the modern world those 100 kids are far more likely to have kids of their own while the 1 or 2 have a chance to be childless (like lots today stay childfree)

[–]mcove97NeutralPill -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why the hell does it even matter?

All this "muh bloodline"

Like who GAF? Why GAF?

You're not gonna care about your bloodline when you're dead anyway smh

[–]Hekinsieden 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Why not 2 wives in a single home if you make enough money?

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

More resources to spread around. A woman ain't cheap. Better to spend them on one wife and kids.

[–]Hekinsieden 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

but IF you make enough money and have a big enough house, why not 2 wives?

[–]Hyena_Utopia1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Because you look bald and might have trouble attracting even one woman.

But other than that, yeah, why not.

[–]Hekinsieden 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

What?

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Because one, two women are way more resources than one, and two, you get too many men doing this and you get what caused Boko Haram.

[–]mcove97NeutralPill 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And zero women is zero resources spent

Seems like a resource hack if you ask me

[–]Best_Illustrator_137 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men just have more testosterone making us really horny and we don’t view sex the same as women so we just want to get our nut off..most of these people who were spreading their seed or had hundreds of wives and kids were rich enough to do so..same reason only the dudes with money or status really get to enjoy it successfully, average men usually just bunny hop or hookup cause it’s hard maintaining multiple relationships at the same time.

[–]Hyena_UtopiaBlackPill -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

True but for this to work women need to start having kids starting soon after they first get their periods pretty much. That way a couple can have a satisfactory number of kids. That way a man can feel like he has spread his seed.

For men, having a measly two kids with a woman in her thirties isn't exactly the fantasy. If he is a high value man and knows it his sexuality will not let him settle and be content with that.

[–]Waschbar-krahe 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I personally believe that with our current levels of technology, and the issues we've seen with overpopulation (not to exclude the absolutely trash economy), it'd be best to have a low number of children and also, women aren't really ready to have children until they're done maturing physically and mentally around 24-25~. Although I'd like to hear your side of things about sexuality and being content with a large family. It's not something I hear about often.

[–]Hyena_UtopiaBlackPill 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You are living in lala land if you think that any societal rationale will effect on sexuality. For example, if it did, short men would be in demand, as short people need less food and thus has a lower footprint in society with the same efficiency modern society.

Yes it would be best for the convenience of the parents If they had less children, but our bodies are just a shell to pass on genes. It doesn't care how comfortable you are, it only wants the own body to survive and have its genes replicated. All of our pleasure & reward circuitry are wired for these two things. And those two things only.

Having kids isn’t something you have to be that mentally matured for, this is a common fallacy. Having kids is joyous, its easy. Especially nowadays a young couple will get help from their family and state. Its such a strange idea that you have to be super grown up and mature before having kids. Often times this is used as a cope for older women who deep down regret not having more kids, and not having them earlier. A lot of women wish on their deathbed that they had more kids, its a very common regret sadly.

[–]Waschbar-krahe 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

As someone born to a young mother, I wish she had grown up more before having children. There's no joy in it if your children are miserable and neglected due to your own childish vices. Also, we're very complex creatures, a lot of people genuinely just don't care to have sex in any way, and many women are repulsed by pregnancy entirely. Some people also can't get help. If I were to get pregnant right now, I'd have no family to fall back on and I don't want anything to do with government help. The human body also cares more about the mother than the fetus, which is why 1st trimester miscarriages (known also as spontaneous abortion) is common. I think a lot of people would be happier if they were to take in foster children. You would get the joy of raising them and you also help your community in many ways.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True but for this to work women need to start having kids starting soon after they first get their periods pretty much.

Wut? Why?

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True but for this to work women need to start having kids starting soon after they first get their periods pretty much.

Lol.This made me realise women biology is so weak and useless.

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah after all women are just baby making machine.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Dude, this involves people who want to have kids in the context of having kids. That's like talking about what kind of man makes the best soldier and then ranting about somehow men are just cannon fodder.

This discussion has nothing to do with childfree women or women who want one kid only, nor does it denigrate them. FFS dude

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah,I agree. My comment isn't sarcastic.Woman's true value is giving kids anyway

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

No it's not.

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then what do you think?

[–]Antisocial_NihilistRedPill 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

There was a discussion by a sociologist and Chris Williamson on YouTube that was talking about this.

Although society overall flourishes way better under a monogamous dating market, around 87% of societies before antiquity were preferentially polygamous.

This is because in a polygamous society, the majority are happy. Women as a whole are generally more happy they can share a superior man and don't need to settle for someone they want nothing to do with. The top 30% of men are happy they can be with many women. So polygamy is clearly the utilitarian option.

But monogamy started being deliberately implemented because this large underclass of men started acting out and becoming violent.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Although society overall flourishes way better under a monogamous dating market, around 87% of societies before antiquity were preferentially polygamous.

People keep harping on this way too much. How many of those polygamous societies put a man in space? As monogamy languished in America, look how far we've fallen.

[–]I_Am_Health -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We've been lied to about what space is.

[–]FightMeCthullu 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I dunno…..I get that in ye olden says the best way to continue the ‘bloodline’ was fucking lots of random women but these days, can’t you just donate sperm and cancel out the need for cheating/having lots of sex?

And before anyone says ‘well to donate sperm you gotta be a SUPER HIGH SPECIMEN for them to consider you’ - sure. But by RP’s own argument, men have to be a super valuable specimen to have a lot of sex.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

can’t you just donate sperm and cancel out the need for cheating/having lots of sex?

That is a possible route.

[–]FightMeCthullu 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean it reaches the same end without the risk of STI’s/tanking a relationship/hurting people.

So if the point of having lots of sex is to further the bloodline, but the consequence of that is losing yojr social standing, your relationship (if you have one), the respect of friends/families/peers, donating sperm is the BEST option.

And if the point is ‘furthering the bloodline’ and that alone, you’d have to have sex with women who actively want to get pregnant, and then possibly be on the hook for child support.

So, logically, sperm donation really is the best option IF the primary purpose of having a lot of sex is furthering the bloodline. Takes out all the negatives.

But it’s not just about that, or even mainly about that, in my opinion at least.

[–]TheRedPillRipperRedPill 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are never any guarantees

Which is why insurance exists. For example my grandfather owned a lot of land. Our heritage is one where arranged marriages, and multiple wives whilst not specifically the norm, are still socially accepted. So he fathered into the double digits. Over two wives. The result? He had an eldest son who’s a law professor. A couple of doctors. A colonel. An accountant. Grandchildren who are even more doctors, lawyers, officers, and diplomats. Who all network, as a family. This obviously is an exception. The pivotal factor however, is value. Specifically resources, and foresight. To maximise it’s use.

Whilst I agree monogamy is beneficial. What it really is the concentration of resources. Now morally it’s not right. It’s Nepotism. Your point simply differs in scale.

Godspeed and good luck!

[–]revente 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

well-adjusted children who will go on to have families of their own in a safe, prosperous and stable environment. Who will in turn have more generations of offspring

Bs, it’s the well-adjusted people who have the least offspring.

Sorry, Redpillers, but your idea of a man spreading his seed

I haven’t heard about a single redpiller that advises to spread your seed. Just to fuck around.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Bs, it’s the well-adjusted people who have the least offspring.

That's correlation not causation. A large family can be well-adjusted as well.

[–]mcove97NeutralPill 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Frankly couldn't care personally. Don't like kids. Don't like the idea of some guy I'm dating, dating me only or mainly or even somewhat just to spread his seed with me. To me as a childfree woman that's a repellent. I'm looking for a dude who don't care for any of this "spreading your seed" nonsense. I'm personally financially, physically,. mentally and emotionally better off without kids as they cost more than the average hobby does, to health, sanity and financial security.

In pill debates everyone who's red pilled always talk about how important it's to spread your seed.

Different take here: it doesn't, and shouldn't necessarily fucking matter. Everyone doesn't date to spread their seed as if they're primitive reptiles that's slaves to some biological urge.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter