Why so many men seem to remarry and rudh to have more kids

[Ladnj]

My friends and I are all in our mid40s and a few are or have separated from their partners. None of my friends are interested in having more kids even if they are in a new relationship but quite a few of the blokes now have brand new families. Why? What motivates men in their mid40s, 50s go back to having babies.

My own marriage isn't going so well which made me think how weird it would be if Dh and I do split up and my kids end up with brand new brothers and sisters. How common is it?

It’s not unusual for women to want another family with a partner in your 40’s. I know a few friends who’ve done this. Your comment sounds sexist.

Exactly that! The divorced men I know who have 50/50 childcare don’t tend to go for another baby in the new relationship.

First post nails it

We're social animals because it's safer to hang around in groups. We pair bond because it provides a better foundation for child rearing. Pair bonding is not a modern invention.

Men have to sow their seed is an excuse given for the sexuality incontinent.

Generating and storing sperm consumes energy. The fact that men remain fertile for much longer than women can only be due to evolutionary pressures. It follows, therefore, that men retained this facility for a reason and are driven to use it.

Surely it's because pregnancy can be very dangerous for women's bodies and it would be perilous to give birth in old age.

You wouldn’t have thought a geriatric father would be much use either. The fact that nature has selected for them anyway means that it’s the optimum reproductive strategy. And there would be no point maintaining a male reproductive system into old age without the drive to use it.

Men's libidos often drop off a cliff after a certain age and the older a man gets the less he can provide and keep his children safe.

The drive to pair bond is very strong because it provides the best environment for children and living in groups (families), is safer.

Women's sex drives exist when they're too old for children because it's part of pair bonding.

The question is, are human males naturally monogamous, or is monogamy a social construct? The behaviour of our closest ancestors would suggest the latter. The shape of the human penis has even evolved to displace a competitor’s semen from the vagina during intercourse. This adaptation would be unnecessary, and counter-productive if we evolved to exclusively pair-bond.

From what we know of our ancestors, humans pair bond and have always pair bonded. This is because it's safer to live in groups and two parents are better for a child's wellbeing.

We have a very strong desire to mate in order to keep the human race going. Women however, bare the burden of pregnancy, breast feeding and looking after the infant. Pregnancy takes a toll on women's bodies and she can't keep churning out children.

Men and women desire sex outside and inside relationships and even when they've finished rearing children. Sex releases hormones that increase the pair bond.

I’m referring to the primates we descended from. Males have one imperative: to propagate their genes, at any cost. They maximise their chances of doing so by mating with multiple females.

It's not just men. I'm casting my mind around every person in my entire extended family who has split up and then got together with a new partner. Every one, male or female, bar one has had more children with their new relationship.
I don't know exactly why, but I'm guessing it's a way of 'validating' the new relationship.

Humans have been around for a long time and their primary drive is to continue the race. They have developed to do everything to continue the race.

For example, humans live in groups because it's far safer than living alone. Humans are attracted to each other and bond because that keeps the family safe. A mother by herself is very vulnerable. Families also contribute to the care of children. These groups keep us safe.

What you seem to be describing are very primitive mammals who ran around on all fours, mated and ran off to mate again.

Humans evolved to continue the species and individuals running around mating and running off wouldn't be particularly conducive to effective child rearing.

We're cognitively a lot more developed than apes, we have complex emotions and are capable of long term relationships.

However, some are less developed than others and I'm sure rutting is as much as they'll achieve. Others meanwhile have written poetry and gone to space.

Thinking about this the men I know who have split from their first wife/partner and not gone on to father any more children have all been involved, decent fathers. I think there is a lot of truth in the post saying fathers who see their children a lot don’t have the time/money/inclination to have mire children. The same as good mothers who invest a lot of care/money/time in their children don’t.
The men who sleep around and have children with multiple women are not good fathers. They don’t really parent the children from their first relationship and that is how they have the time to keep having more children.

I know a man who who is 62. He has recently had a child with his 30 year old new wife. It is his 6th child and she is mother number 4.
She is foreign and met him in her native country. I can see exactly what is in it for her as she now lives in the uk. None of this man’s other 5 children speak to him.
I have no idea if she is aware exactly how many children he has, she must know he has other children and she certainly knows he has been married before. I suppose her desire to live in the uk overrides her desire to meet a decent man.
He doesn’t contribute anything at all to his 5 other children so again this is why he can keep facing them. He obviously doesn’t care enough to think that one day this poor child will be left fatherless as he will die when the child is relatively young.

Yup, men are led by their third leg..

As someone who doesn’t want more, this is nice to read 🙂

I get a lot of people asking me if I’m going to get married again, and have more kids, then usually they’re shocked when I say no. It’s clear that some people consider the eventual goal for single parents to have a very blended family.

I’m in my 40s and most of the divorced guys in my social circle have married second wives who are between 28 and 35. The women in question are on their ‘first’ family and most of the guys now have infant to 3 year olds plus a couple of 11-15 year olds.

And then when they end up on Dating sites for the third time, they can’t understand why women laugh at them. Openly.

If men didn’t want to have children they could have the snip, not fool proof but could help. However they want the very young woman who want children.

The men always want a woman to look after them and the younger woman the money. I know of two men, in their 70s, one had a wife dying of cancer, soon as she died he was walking about with this younger woman, the other man’s wife was in a clinic suffering from dementia, with his younger girlfriend they were living in the marital home. The wife did everything for him, even used to stir his tea for him.

Why do 'first' families have children?

How do you know?

25 years plus at that point. And I guess you've not been introduced to the delights of 'farming simulator.' I don't understand it at all.

Why so desperate to tear my family down and prove me wrong with asumptions? Do I do that to you?

Yep. Within a year of my ex and I splitting he got the next girlfriend pregnant. So my kids have another sibling. They didn’t even stay together that long. She was pretty much 10 years younger than me though. He doesn’t appear to have had any more relationships since they split and from some bizzare conversation with my kids one time saying they had to be careful at daddy’s because he’d had a little operation, I suspect he’s now had the snip!! lol.

Maybe because men can have children forever and women cannot, even though most make the mistake of putting it off and off the finding out when it's to late.

You said most of them are in their 40s well for a women she's pretty much baron at that point, I have had my children and can honestly say I would not have another child especially to keep a woman but each to their own.