Where Are The Kids?

Popular memes suggest that the primary purpose of almost all human sexual activity is reproduction or, in some manner, linked to it . Many people believe that the reasons behind the mate-selection strategy of women concern the selection of good genes, investment in eggs etc.

But a few facts spoil this otherwise pleasant picture.

Why do so many PUAs and ‘game’ practitioners (men) choose to NOT have kids? Surely the same evolutionary processes that drive human mate selection (evo-pysch) would also make being around kids very pleasant and make them want to have their own. However, even men who enjoy the company of their nieces and nephews seem to be not enamored by the idea of having their own kids.

An even more troubling question is:

Why do so many healthy women in their late teens and 20s not want to have kids, even though they love being around kids? Why is the urge to have kids not strong enough to make them have a few of their own.

Think about it.. Nobody is stopping them. Indeed, the system is so heavily rigged in their favor that they could entrap any guy they wanted, have kids and make the sucker plus the government support them. Yet they would rather hop on a few new cocks each year, drink excessively each weekend, get high , go on vacations and generally behave like someone who is not interested in having kids.

If evo-psych can make women choose men based on their good genes, why would the urge to have and take care of kids not override their use of contraception. However such behavior is usually limited to poorer women in their late teens-early 20s or older woman (mid to late 30s). In both cases, social pressures and expectations to have kids play a far bigger role in their decisions than any biological urge to have kids. Why so?

Pretty much every major ethnic, religious and socio-cultural groups in the western, many eastern and now even some poorer countries have less than replacement, or barely over replacement, fertility. From places like Japan, Italy, Greece and Germany with their sub-1.5 kids/ women rates to places like Iran, Turkey and South India.. women just want to avoid having many kids, and in some cases- any..

In many developed countries 20-40% of women are likely to never have ANY kids of their own.

Why not?


  1. Gorbachev
    July 20, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    We had kids before because we had no choice.

    Nonsense, you could always kill your kids after they were born.

    It’s not a great choice for many people. Kids generally lower individual quality of life. They’re stressful and difficult and living a 9-5 life with a career doesn’t mix with having kids. That explains women. Men, because it means you’re tied down and have fewer sexual options, among other things.

    Most relationships are not improved by having children.

    These things are true anyway. But add in feminism and the lack of judgment against people who don’t have kids and you have it.

    What’s great are grandkids.

  2. July 20, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    Problem is the way capitalism works, having kids is disincentivized all to hell. Money is, in some ideal world, supposed to have some correlation to societal benefit. Not in our society, though: many of the greatest benefits a person can make to society– such as having and raising a child– are blatantly penalized.

    Isn’t the marketplace and ‘invisible hand’ the secular equivalent of god?

    • 691
      July 21, 2010 at 4:10 pm

      The invisible hand is God because it’s the best, by far, engineering solution out there to produce the society-wide results you want, not because it’s perfect. It certainly has some correlation to societal benefit, just not perfect correlation, and there isn’t any other mechanism with a better correlation.

      Why don’t you read the rest of adam smiths writings, or even the rest of that book?

      The fact that the best computer available can’t make toast is pretty irrelevant, especially when you consider that toasters don’t have internet access.

    • 691
      July 21, 2010 at 7:02 pm

      AD, I don’t understand what you mean.

      Adam smith wrote about much more than the “invisible hand”. He was a supporter of progressive taxation and did not trust businessmen, oligarchies and monopolies. Whenever people talk about his works, they seem to forget that a lot of what he believed in is far more to the political left than the right.

      • 691
        July 21, 2010 at 7:44 pm

        To a certain extent, what other things he believed in are irrelevant. Lots of people have a few good ideas and many bad ones. We can recognize what someone got right and not accept what he got wrong. We don’t have to take his work all or nothing.

        Also, we often revere the men who have innovative ideas that are largely right, even though their original work might be somewhat at odds with our current theoretical framework. Many economists who came after Smith improved on his ideas, adding some things and throwing out others.

        I know that people use a lot of bullshit to argue for free market capitalism. That doesn’t mean its a bad idea.

  3. rsnlvr
    July 20, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    Kids were an economic asset in pre-urban society, but have become an economic liability within an urbanized setting. Also, global popular culture idealizes the single life, which has made an increasing number of people feel comfortable with breaking free of their pre-urban family traditions.

    I don’t think that the reproductive instinct necessarily manifests itself as a conscious desire for offspring. Instead, I think that we evolved to experience sex as enjoyable — and even to desire it as an end in itself — because it makes us more likely to reproduce, whether we explicitly want that or not.

    So why don’t humans have mating seasons like almost all other mammals?

    I’m not even certain that non-human animals are even aware of the fact that humping will produce offspring.

    maybe most animals, but what about apes that live in multi-generational groups (chimps, bonobos) or certain dolphins? They certainly recognize kinship in a manner that extends beyond parent-child relationships.

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they also did it simply because they liked it. Our DNA is using our enjoyment of sex as a vehicle to replicate itself, and we have to resort to very elaborate measures and technologies to enjoy it strictly for purposes other than that. Having sex for pure enjoyment involves simultaneously fighting and obeying our genes.

    If evolution was strictly guided by the need for reproducing itself, why did complex multicellular life evolve. Bacteria and fungi are superior to all other lifeforms if you used that criteria.

    • Nestorius
      July 21, 2010 at 10:31 am

      Evolution is a product of chance.

      That is what I am trying to point out. Evolution is about what can exist, not what is the most optimal. But too many people have replaced the determinism of god with the determinism of ‘evolution’.

      When you have specific conditions, you get specific results. So, we have pleasure with sex because certain specific conditions lead to it. That’s why we are lucky (or unlucky) to have pleasure with sex.

      • Nestorius
        July 21, 2010 at 11:38 am

        And they can justify eliminating you or depriving you by saying “you don’t deserve it” or “you are not fit” or “you were born a loser”.

        Bingo! An ape-mind cannot think beyond zero sum solutions.

      • Nestorius
        July 21, 2010 at 2:12 pm

        Another facet of the ape-mind is that they judge you by what others do to you. So, if someone screwed you injustly, they conculde that you’re a loser and they also screw you. They justify screwing you because others screwed you. It’s as if you were born to be screwed.

        They condemn you by the slightest of things. So, if one day you came late, they label you as a late-comer and you’re doomed for ever.

  4. Nestorius
    July 21, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Urban life does not necessarily fragment the family. In fact, you can still have the whole tribe living together in one of the quarters of any town.

    The reason is the fiat butthex matrix. In the matrix, the family is fragmented. It all starts when your parents tell you “be independent and move out of my house”. This mentality is the first step towards the fragmentation of the family. When parents treat their children as strangers, their children will treat them like that. Action and reaction. Take note that parents here are acting short-sightedly and selfishly because the matrix tells them to pursue their caprices at the expense of their children.

    The fiat butthex matrix wants to control reproduction in order to channel the money to the fiat masters from the men (the productive class) through the women.

    Where I come from, the fiat butthex matrix has implemented itself strongly in a large sector of the population. In the other sector of the population, the traditional family is still held strong even in an urban setting.

    To sum it up. Because the butthex matrix has succeeded in destorying the family, those who are born outside the context of a family cannot uphold the need to have kids. They cannot understand the reasons behind having kids.

  5. the dude
    July 21, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Nanny state and more options

  6. Y
    July 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Why? Because kids are annoying and burdensome. Nowadays there are more interesting things to do than pop out babies. That being said I wouldn’t mind 1 or 2 of my own once I get into my mid-late twenties.

  7. September 22, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    It’s different in the black community. “Sistaz” have babies by sexually irresponsible losers who have nothing to offer but some leg-shaking orgasms and some women have embraced “the pregnancy hustle” (aka child support, the welfare state, governmental assistance, etc.). All the kids are over there, yet some of these chicks still have time to go out clubbing and not act like mothers. Chris Rock has mentioned this in one of his standup acts.

    Few guys really find any sexual attraction to these women, simply because they have kids and don’t know how to handle them worth a damn.

    I notice that fertility rates are decreasing everywhere else except the black community. This can be a good thing (for the race-CONscious types who want to overthrow white “supremacy” or bad thing (giving capitalists and law enforcers a bevy of youngsters to make examples out of).

  8. May 22, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Yet they would rather hop on a few new cocks each year, drink excessively each weekend, get high , go on vacations and generally behave like someone who is not interested in having kids.

    I would wholeheartedly agree, except that kind of behavior of childless women falls into the White and Asian types, whether they are in college or fresh out of a pompous university. However, in more impoverished communities, a young woman in her 20s-30s can choose that type of lifestyle, even if she has several kids. She can always drop them off somewhere to have someone watch them… all while they’re getting their rocks off.

    That said, fertility rates are immensely high in Black and Latin communities, yet single “baby mamas” still behave like it ain’t nobody’s business.

    I see this topic as a part 2 of “So Why Aren’t the Rich and Well-off Having Lots of Children?”

  1. July 24, 2010 at 8:02 pm
  2. July 25, 2010 at 2:41 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: