Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

your theory has flaws..

If a man can't create his own kids , he is already a genetic failure, raising someone else's kids makes zero difference in passing his genetics along.

But i think your argument is more that if a man already has kids and gains someone else's he is decreasing his chances of genetic success. I am not sure that theory holds much water. If so does having more than one child increase or decrease your chances of genetic success ?

Lets say i have 1 child and marry a woman with 2 children. Does my child now only get 1/3 the resources because i have to share time/money with 3 children instead of 1 ? Wouldn't the same hold true if i had 3 children of my own ?

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

That statement pretty much proves you're a total idiot.

Originally Posted by newB

You want to start over and better clarify whatever statement you are trying to make?

By your latest definition, Brad Pitt, Ashton Kutcher, and Kurt Russell are just a few examples of those "genetic failures" who have failed at life, while rapists, dead beat dads and countless sperm donors are the Alpha male "winners".