TRP is focused on the intersexual dynamics aspect, but I haven't ever seen a solid approach on how to have kids which has been the goal since the dawn of time until recent history. Most in TRP are understandably against marriage, or having a kid with a woman, because after all men don't have the same infrastructures and rights to keep their women in check and family together. But if you really want to have kids then whats the approach?
The only thing close to an answer I've read, is the idea of surrogacy overseas where its cheaper, but its still very expensive per child, legally convoluted, and most likely robbing the child of a mother. Moving overseas to find a wife to impregnate isn't it either, I don't want my kids to be growing up as third worlders.
adam-l Moderator 1d ago Stickied
Some problems don't have solutions.
It's as you describe: having a kid with a woman is extremely risky. Having it "alone" deprives it from a mother, and is more probable to seriously mess with its psychology than not to.
Women, of course, don't have the capacity to understand that depriving a child from its father, or from an intact family, messes it up. They are slaves to their reproductive strategy, and their whole existence is run by it, to the detriment of their offspring.
Being conscious of the risks is something that generally only men can do.
The fact is that there's no other model for raising healthy children than the traditional family (husband, wife and mistress - the latter because the traditional family is boring as fuck), and that a traditional family is not feasible in a society that shits so much on it.
Vermillion-Rx Admin 17h ago
Stickied
HighBodyCountVirgin 3h ago
I guess I'll have to look into the married red pill archive, but in TRP in general there doesnt seem to be a cohesive blueprint on how to run a family, most of the content and guides seem to be from guys that have already been burned and how to get out of those sticky situations.
Musicgoon78 3 1d ago Stickied
Having kids is a huge risk in Western society. Also, you already exist. You don't need to prove your existence to anyone by having kids.
So the first question to answer is, why do you want kids? Is it for you or are you just following societal pressure?
Second is that you have to have game and abundance in order to have a successful family. If you can't manage a soft harem, you can't lead a family in my opinion.
We can sit by and play "what if" for several years on this subject. If you want children or a legacy, you absolutely need to be the head of the household and you need a wife that you can personally manage well. This requires a lot of experience dealing with female nature. Take it from guy that got baby trapped and massively fucked over. I learned the hard way.
HighBodyCountVirgin 3h ago
I've always wanted lots of kids and a big family, not a societal expectation that was put on me. But I guess thats a good point that you need lots of experience with female nature in order to know how to run a family.
cundardunfinished 1d ago
No it doesn't, that's because there isn't an answer in the world we live in. You can search and find a lot of discussion of this topic, personally I don't think the creative solutions make as much as or as practical as just rolling the dice on a traditional family. Your biggest risk is divorce rape but that can be offset somewhat by timing (not marrying during your prime earning years) or your wife having good income.
The problem with overseas is like you allude to you will have motivation to move your family to the U.S., which adds a ton of risk to you as to what your wife's motivations are. Let alone the Americanization that can take place after she arrives. I would rather deal with a typical American woman (yack), devil you know and all that.
Sometimes I'm a little jealous of friends that let one slip through when they were younger . . those kids re out of the house now. Meanwhile I have to decide which 18 year chunk of my life I'm gonna sacrifice
First-light 2 18h ago
The only solution is to take a well calculated risk. Reduce your risks but accept them. Men were born to take risk. Previous generations had war and famine, dangerous animals and bandits. We have the a cucked up state. Our risk today is actually less life threatening, its just really unfair. The unfairness is what bothers us most. you just have to accept it and minimise the risks.
All these pussies who write about how its just too dangerous are no better than the liberal women aborting their children in case they have their precious lives "ruined". Get out there and play the game boy.
Other ideas that might help in the present climate; Knock up more successful women who have more of their own assets, maker her buy half the house for example. What I never did but would recommend to a man in the right circumstances is actually lean into the cuck shit and do plenty of child care. If you are an equal or better still a main carer, she may not be able to throw you out of your house.
Do you want to be a genetic loser? Do you want other men's seed to inherit the earth? Ok, so play the game boy. Don't be scared, you will pass through the fire.
Musicgoon78 3 11h ago
Wait, what? Are you saying that if a mother is passive or submissive, the children will follow?
If so, I respectfully don't agree. I don't think it's a mother's job to teach strength, independence and resilience. That's a father's job. A mother should teach compassion and nurturing. I truly believe there has to be a balance.
I made the mistake of inadvertantly having a kid with a tyrant.
First-light 2 10h ago
I am not exactly saying that but the risk that I am alluding to could certainly show as that.
As you say "I don't think it's a mother's job to teach strength, independence and resilience. That's a father's job. A mother should teach compassion and nurturing. I truly believe there has to be a balance." This is the usual situation. Cases (usually specific) will arise where roles are temporarily reversed (father is injured, absent or ill, mother has a specific skill that father is very poor at and so on) but that is the default pattern for sure. It is also healthy if mothers do encourage resilience in their children and fathers encourage compassion but the weight of the burden naturally follows sex.
Thing is weak people also submit because they are weak. Its simply easier for them to be nice. Arguing for compassion is quite natural when its your best way of ever getting anything. A man can quite easily think that he has found a good submissive wife when actually he has simply found a weak woman who wants her life organising for her. (There are no worries or hard decisions in sub space once you find a dom you can trust). Such a woman is quite possibly genetically weak and will pass this on (perhaps over sensitive or very fearful). Do not think that timidity is good in a woman.
I am absolutely not saying "seek a boss babe who pushes men around"
I recommend looking at how a woman gets on with her peers. Is she in any way unstable? Does she hang out with a specific set that she feels OK with and not threatened by or can she deal with all women? Did she hate school? Does she feel pushed around at work? Does she complain that past men have been domineering or abusive? If so, I would suggest that you have found a weak woman not one that submits to you as you are so masculine.
A "wife's " submission to her husband is a voluntary act. It has very little to do with sexual practise. She has to simply willingly accept your judgement as being to be deferred to in some areas. If that submission comes from weakness, it may well be passed to your children. Many weak manipulative women use it as a tool to get their way by the back door.
Note; many boss babes are also working out of weakness or poor education -trying to make it in life in a way that goes contrary to their best skill set. This is less than ideal for them but our current society has rewarded them for it and supports them for it.
What I am working against is that many men on here list their girl's submissive traits at the start of the relationship. Its often doing sexual stuff the girl doesn't like but hopes will please. This is neither a statement of the man's value nor the woman's it just shows she wants to please. What I want to say to these guys is: "Do you want a people pleaser son? Do you think that you entirely override the genetic and social influence a woman has on her children by alpha behaviour? Raise a few kids and think again. Mothers have a huge influence on the early years and contribute 50% of genetics. Choose quality"
adam-l Moderator 13h ago
Interesting.
I'm usually about 98% aligned with what you say, but I'm about 98% against the spirit of this one. You write as if the risk is about the guy. It isn't. Or it isn't so much. It's about the kids. Men are more right than wrong to be wary about taking risks in the name of their (prospective) kids. "You cannot save the kids from their mother", as a quite disturbed female friend, daughter of an even more disturbed mother, once told me.
First-light 2 12h ago
Men are very right to be wary but what's the other option? Failure?
The risk is about the law. The potential harm is to all parties. The harm to men is generally more severe in the short term and less lasting than it is to women and children. Men can often mostly recover from financial harm. The mental damage to women is rarely repairable and children grow up deprived and sometimes damaged by having a worried, weak and therefore controlling mother with no counter balancing father.
Women very rarely can do as well as single mothers as they would working with the father. This does put the children at risk of a poor preparation for life and less opportunity. But the reality is that the law is still there. A man can't control much beyond minimising the property loss and choosing a capable woman who is by reason of being capable and having agency in the world less likely to mess up. Its their weakness that tends to lead them to the bad behaviours that actually run counter to their children's interests. Maternal instinct is usually strong in a good female specimen, its just that she can get into weak thoughts and behaviours.
In the end you have to pick your spot, jump and accept the landing. What is the other choice today? Just fade into oblivion genetically?
I am not at all saying saying its OK that these bad things happen, I am saying as a man, you have to get out there and make things happen. As a teacher of mine whom I will never forget once taught me "A job worth doing is worth doing badly" (As opposed to not at all).
Western society has made us all afraid of our shadows, afraid we might hurt someone. Men especially are to be held responsible for all their errors and made to pay. Life is a zero sum game and people do get hurt sometimes, sometimes even people dear to us.
All is fair in love and war, its the law of nature, its what drives hypergamy and human progress. Sometimes there are friendly fire incidents in war but we still have to engage or perish is what I am trying to say, so its a case of best foot forward, give it your best shot and don't forget to forgive yourself if you mess up. What's the alternative?
adam-l Moderator 10h ago
As I see it, you have answered to the existential dread about death with the procreation option. That touches such a deep root that all your other arguments follow axiomatically.
That is, if the answer to the existential issue were something else, the rest of the arguments would be revealed to be shaky.
Besides procreation, people have historically answered existential dread with two other ways: leaving a social/cultural legacy (especially artists, politicians and scientists) or "taking revenge" against death by living a full and fulfilling life, "as if" death didn't exist.
I especially believe the following to be quite the blind spot:
So what? Choose a Strong and Independent one? There is no such thing. These harpies are worse than those who acknowledge weakness in women. Women need men by nature's design, and women that are so much in denial about this fact to have pursued a male-typical developmental line in life end up vampires, sucking out the life of those around them to survive emotionally. Foremost, their children's.
Durek_The_Bald 17h ago
Gender dynamics, and the rules of attraction, desire, and need, follow the same basic principles, regardless of the context. They are also largely what makes a family structure functional or dysfunctional.
The concept of "divorce rape" (losing a majority of your assets, and being relegated to 2nd class parent) seems to mostly be an issue in the Anglosphere (USA, Canada, UK, Australia). And even there, there are critical questions that need to be asked about the general framing of divorce typically peddled in the redpillosphere - like, for instance, how there's no protection in a prenup, because they "get thrown out of court on a regular basis".
As for "keeping your woman in check, and your family together", you can't control other people. You can only vet, have game, and make sure your ride is a good one to willingly be onboard by someone who's also a joy to have onboard. Even if there was a law that forbade your woman from leaving you, it doesn't mean you would have a good marriage, and a functional family unit. Appeal to force isn't what's going to fix your life, and make you safe (and it's the polar opposite of game).
Whenever marriage and family (and btw, you don't have to be married to have a family) is discussed in the redpillosphere, I'm always reminded of the basic nice-guy script described by Robert Glover:
"If I do everything correctly, I can have a problem free life".
It seems like the minute marriage and family is the topic of discussion, guys in the redpillosphere immediately default to their lingering nice guy scripts - only with a nihilistic spin to it: "Don't do it! It's not problem free! It's not risk free!"
Well, there's nothing in life that's risk free, and problem free. Especially when it comes to the most precious things in your life - like your kids. Your kids can get sick and die. Your kids can grow up to live unhappy lives. You might get a divorce - there's about a 50% chance of it. Life is about being prepared for risk, and dealing with problems in a healthy way when they arise. Life is not about bubble wrapping it.
You need to be secure in the knowledge that you can emotionally and legally handle the outcome of a breakup of the family unit. Or else you won't have game.
Emotionally: This is where all things red pill come into play.
Legally: Highly dependent of where you live. Consult with a lawyer before even starting a family, so you know what's going to happen to you if it doesn't work out, and what steps to take to minimise the impact.
Incel slog. Ignore it.
Correct. And besides, importing a wife doesn't absolve you of having to deal with female nature.
Jackmoter 11h ago
I don't understand why everyone is so hung up on needing to get married to have kids. If she is going to cheat, then she will do it regardless of your legal document. Furthermore, if she won't have children with you without marriage then... move onto the next one. In the UK, there is quite literally 0 benefits to being married these days.
I have come to realise not all women are likely to divorce you and steal your money and children. Certainly the women I have dated would probably have done that. But, they were a bit crazy and I have had moments of great weakness and stupidity.
There are actually a large majority of healthy women out there who don't even require you to be at the top of your game 24/7 and don't require you to be ripped etc, and will happily settle down with you, assuming you are meeting the majority of her emotional and sexual needs.
If you have the abundance mentality, then you can just cycle through women, subconsciously become aware of the toxic sluts and identify the traits you like and those that would make a good mother.
The problem is that this requires a heck of a lot of self-work and self-awareness from both parties
cundardunfinished 32m ago
In the U.S. your health insurance is tied to your employment (or family status vis a vis someone else's insurance). Being married you might also qualify for social security benefits, employer sponsored life insurance, and more. So if you're with a person you think is going to be a good enough mother/wife then it makes some sense to get married, balancing your exposure to what happens in the event of divorce.
I don't really consider the seriousness of the commitment in that equation, it's not about preventing her from cheating.
mattyanon Admin 2h ago
TRP is a Guide To Women, and as part of that, it is a Guide To Society. It tells you how the world is, how women are, and to a certain extent what you can do about it and what you can't do about it.
The reality is that having a child, as a man, in 2025 is just fucked.
This is not the fault of TRP. This is not something we've missed out. It's not something we haven't thought about.
TRP solves what it can: it tells you how to be more attractive, it tells you the nature of women, it tells you what works and what doesn't.
TRP tells us that marriage is a stupid idea because you are motivating the woman to leave you. The solution is clear: don't get married and then she can't claim alimony for leaving you. She is motivated to stay because then she keeps you. She is not motivated to leave and take your money because leaving means she doesn't get your money.
So far so good.
So.... kids.
TRP is silent on the matter because there is no solution in today's society. There is no magic formula. There are no hacks to the matrix to make it work. Your options are clear, but it cannot give you the control over your household that your grandfather enjoyed.
So....... what to do. Assuming you can't/won't do the surrogacy route, here's my suggestion:
This will not be 100% ironclad - the state may still make you pay child support. But it will only be child support, you are more likely to get custody, and you won't be paying alimony nor giving her your house and future earnings.
If she is genuine then she will agree to all this.
If she thinks this is "unromantic", then she wants to exploit you under guise of "romance" and you "being a gentleman" and shit like that.