Why are there so many single moms? Who are these guys who are impregnating numerous women and running away?

Why are there so many single moms? Who are these guys who are impregnating numerous women and running away? I've never met one in my life (to my knowledge at least).

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are there so many single moms
    single moms exist for the most part because of premarital sex. It is the mother's responsible to wait until marriage.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Okay but Chad should still be forced to settle down with the first girl he takes so he can't burn through the supply of women without baggage.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >but
        there is no but. Chad only success because women allow it and loser men enable them by marrying single mothers. Single mothers should be invisible to you, nonvirgins should be invisible to you. You must not fall for the demoralization that the supply of virgins is insufficient because you have access to the global human population. Go to Nigeria and import a nice proper wife to love. Ignore the failures that are single mothers, some people's only purpose in life is to be a warning of what not to be.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You're just kicking the can down the road, anon. There is only about as many women as men, and so long as this behavior is permitted someone somewhere is going to get screwed over.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You're just kicking the can down the road, anon
            explain how. Single mothers and their spawn if you look the statistics have the lowest genetic resilience and economic success. Their ability to procreate is a by product of good times but is self corrected during economic down turns i.e. they will not survive the coming climate disasters that only high IQ, responsible family lineages will be able to navigate and survive. Take for example this specific bad premise, you highlight that chad can burn through the supply of women without baggage but the only reason this matters is because the alternatives is not ready, i.e. artifical wombs so that high talent individuals can have as many children without having to ever settle with these damaged individuals. You also fail to consider that the conditions that enabled chad today to succeed will remain when in reality, the coming age of high automation and artifical intelligence will make it extremely difficult to engage in any kind of leisure activity except for the higher performing individuals. There is no UBI, the social safety notes that single mothers rely on today will not be there tomorrow. You seem to lack long term thinking, perhaps you are part of the problem as well.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you by any chance trying to justify yourself anon?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you
            how about you tackle the focus on the thread instead of nitpicking your imaginary projections. Explain how the can is kicked down the road and does not get self corrected as I explained

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Climate change isn't going to kill a significant number of people, let alone favor one sex or the other. Artificial wombs are not relationships.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Climate change isn't going to kill a significant number of people
            it seems you have bigger fundamental thinking errors that are outside the scope of this thread
            >let alone favor one sex or the other
            I did not state that it would favor either sex, it would favor only the meritocratic, i.e. well adjusted individuals in healthy stable family i.e. not single mothers nor the fathers who run away.
            >Artificial wombs are
            the solution to displacing simps that currently enable single mothers to succeed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What are these fundamental thinking errors? How does being well-adjusted or in a stable family reduce the lethality of disasters? Running away as a man is very obviously an optimal strategy, which is why it should be disincentivised. "Meritocracy" is a buzzword here.
            What enables single mothers to succeed is them being made the only option if you want a girlfriend. I don't see how artificial wombs solve that, it's just more kids.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What are these fundamental thinking errors? How does being well-adjusted or in a stable family reduce the lethality of disasters?
            I will not address these points since it is outside the scope
            >Running away as a man is very obviously an optimal strategy
            optimal strategy in terms of? maximizing offspring? what about the success criteria of those offsprings? it is the Amish and the Mormons today who are having the most children and the most successful children. The children of single mothers often have myriad of health issues and lack of long term opportunity.
            >which is why it should be disincentivised.
            it is disincentivized, your time horizon is narrow and you do not see the great suffering they brought over themselves.
            >the only option if you want a girlfriend.
            they are not the only option if you want a girlfriend, as I stated before, you can import a nice wife from Nigeria for example. You are a simp if you choose to settle with these women, a single mother should not even be considered an option, it is a net negative then being alone and raising your own family with artifical wombs. Simps desire families and this is how artifical wombs can displace the simps that enable single mothers to marginally success because they bring hopes that such a women will bare them children of their own. If they had a guaranteed alternative, these single mothers would not succeed. If so called simps are having families, they will drain the wells of social safety nets that single mothers today take for granted as exclusive to them. Your quail about a girlfriend is outside the scope of the thread, the majority of men today are destined to die unhappy and alone because life is not fair and they are unfit given the current environment to succeed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >maximizing offspring?
            Yes
            >what about the success criteria of those offsprings?
            Very high. Everyone alive today is descended from 1/17th of the men alive 10000 years ago.
            >The children of single mothers often have myriad of health issues and lack of long term opportunity.
            Doesn't matter, almost everywhere on Earth has net dysgenic fertility in terms of the relationship between education/opportunities and number of offspring. There is no way to reverse this trend short of mass sterilisation of the poor.
            >You are a simp if you choose to settle with these women
            I won't, that's why I think Chad should not be allowed to create them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >1/17th of the men alive 10000 years ago
            *compared to almost every women

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Very high
            false
            >Single Mother Parenting and Adolescent Psychopathology
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5226056/
            >The lifelong socioeconomic disadvantage of single-mother background
            https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3485-z
            example of relevant literature, you can find more but it would be interesting if you can find literature that shows that such offspring are more successful than those raised in two parent homes.
            >Doesn't matter
            your time horizon is narrow
            >that's why I think Chad should not be allowed to create them.
            Chad nor their descendants won't exist in the near future

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're conflating long-term/intergenerational reproductive success, evolutionary fitness and individual societal success when none of these things are even slightly the same. Understand: you, along with everyone else, are the descendant of Chad. You might have some mutations that stochastically might make you better at business, or scoring high on tests, but the continuation of genes doesn't care about money, it cares about maximizing reproduction. It doesn't matter if you're mentally ill or stupid, the more copies there are of your genes the better your chances of them continuing for the rest of human history. If a man has 10 kids and another has 2, the guy who had 10 is going to have a greater lineage in the end - it doesn't matter if said kids are marginally more likely to die before having kids of their own, unless they are at least 400% more likely.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Understand: you, along with everyone else, are the descendant of Chad
            reductive, you only want to continue this circular logic as a means of time wasting. I will no longer participate with your discussion. It does not advance the discussion in any meaningful way explaining why there are single mothers today nor the solution to mitigate this state of affairs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Facts about reality are not "circular logic". Single mothers exist because a small percentage of men are permitted to impregnate numerous women. The hit to their evolutionary fitness is negligible, if it exists at all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >permitted
            present your solution

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Idk. It'd be good if we could make "no sex before marriage" the norm again and abolish no-fault divorce but it might be practically impossible. I'm not monstrous enough to support mass sterilisation, so things will probably just get more dysgenic forever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Idk
            you present no solution, your argument is vacuous.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your solution is literally "everything will just work itself out :)" and you're getting mad at me for saying that it won't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Your solution is
            ignore single mothers
            encourage single fatherhood via egg donation+surrogacy, artifical wombs when available
            work towards creating artifical wombs (biobags)
            discourage simps from marrying single mothers
            discourage sexual envy over muh "chad" and focus on importing a wife from Nigeria and raising a health large family. My solution is more robust and practical then your word salad

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Single fatherhood is miserable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Single fatherhood is miserable.
            outside the scope of the problem (single mothers) and solution (creating competition against single mothers by increasing the number of single fathers competing for the same social safety nets)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Amarnite detected

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Climate change isn't going to kill a significant number of people, let alone favor one sex or the other. Artificial wombs are not relationships.

            >You're just kicking the can down the road, anon
            explain how. Single mothers and their spawn if you look the statistics have the lowest genetic resilience and economic success. Their ability to procreate is a by product of good times but is self corrected during economic down turns i.e. they will not survive the coming climate disasters that only high IQ, responsible family lineages will be able to navigate and survive. Take for example this specific bad premise, you highlight that chad can burn through the supply of women without baggage but the only reason this matters is because the alternatives is not ready, i.e. artifical wombs so that high talent individuals can have as many children without having to ever settle with these damaged individuals. You also fail to consider that the conditions that enabled chad today to succeed will remain when in reality, the coming age of high automation and artifical intelligence will make it extremely difficult to engage in any kind of leisure activity except for the higher performing individuals. There is no UBI, the social safety notes that single mothers rely on today will not be there tomorrow. You seem to lack long term thinking, perhaps you are part of the problem as well.

            Why would you kill off a segment of your consumers? where do you think tax money comes from? if you shrink the population so too you will shrink productivity. If the objective of the economy is to make money then what purpose does it serve to produce food and other stuff for 7 billion starving people? If only the productive segments of society will endure then the question remains what segment will that be when machines replace all of us? The answer is none, humanity will ascend into machine hybrids, in the future organics will die out because they are a waste of resources

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >consumers
            >tax money
            fiat currency is not banked by gold, or anything material. Money is not real and as so, you can generate tax ingress however you so desire for arbitrary reasons. You do not need a segment of consumers after the fourth industrial revolution i.e. AI and automation because workers are no longer part of the key equation. What is necessary now is energy and data production, not who can sell the most plastic to low lifes who are actively draining resources towards energy and data production. See the water usage for data centers as reference.
            >if you shrink the population so too you will shrink productivity.
            if A does not implie B
            >. If the objective of the economy is to make money then what purpose does it serve to produce food and other stuff for 7 billion starving people?
            the purpose has never been to provide food and other stuff for 7B people. the purpose is to increase energy and data production.
            >what segment will that be when machines replace all of us?
            machines suffer the same limitations of the highest of high humans, the limitation of language but this is outside of scope
            >humanity will ascend into machine hybrids
            humans are currently machine hbrids, I am communicating with you via an extension of machine
            >in the future organics will die out because they are a waste of resources
            no, organics are more efficient

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You probably are above their tax bracket
    A high-medium class girl left pregnant by her partner has the resources to abort

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >early 20s girl appears on tinder
    >has not 1 but several kids
    these are some low class people

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Incubi. The ancients forbade sex before marriage to ward them off.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *