If you were a gigachad would you donor your sperm?

[germanlooks]

Imagine being someone like Maher with the Übermensch genetics. He probably could become a billionaire just by selling his sperm to many rich people internationally.

So would you do it?

There is a obv the issue if it’s morally right to set tons of children on the earth who will never meet you, their real father.
But then you could argue that they get in compensation your godly DNA which is a privilege in itself.
For that you could also make the rule to only sell your sperm to good looking women so that you can make sure that your genetics will show it’s full effect.

 

[Deleted member 14693]

He probably could become a billionaire just by selling his sperm to many rich people internationally.

Yeah.

Because every billionare would want to be a cuck that raises another mens child.

Sure...

 

[germanlooks]

Yeah.

Because every billionare would want to be a cuck that raises another mens child.

Sure...

Couples where the men is interfile, single women who are rich, couples where the man is a cuck etc.

Especially in Asian countries you would find women who would do everything for having the aryan gigachad genetics in their child

 

[FrenchChad]

Yes i would without an hesitation so that i would be the father of several PSL gods

 

[Deleted member 23017]

To noodlewhores? Absolutely.

 

[Deleted member 17872]

No. It's morally wrong. Children without a father are more likely to poorer, mentally ill, more prone to crime and many more things.

A mating with a good looking women doesn't necessarily mean your children will be good looking.

 

[Deleted member 25667]

No. It's morally wrong. Children without a father figure would are more likely to poorer, mentally ill, more prone to crime and many more things.

A mating with a good looking women doesn't necessarily mean your children will be good looking.

in most sperm donor cases a father figure will still be present in the child's life, just not the biological one

 

[germanlooks]

No. It's morally wrong. Children without a father figure would are more likely to poorer, mentally ill, more prone to crime and many more things.

A mating with a good looking women doesn't necessarily mean your children will be good looking.

They still could have a father figure. It just wouldn’t be the biological father but in terms of development for the child that would make zero difference.

I know there is genetic recombination but if someone like Maher would impregnate Doutzen Kroes, Margot Robbie or some other Stacy the chances that the child turns out bad looking are minimal.

 

[BearBoy]

No because if you are that übermensch nigga and need that much money badly you could just do modeling or some other shit instead of selling your sperm to subhumans.

Nature is more important than man made ideas

 

[Deleted member 17872]

in most sperm donor cases a father figure will still be present in the child's life, just not the biological one

Jfl if you thing a random man could ever care for a child like a biological father would.

 

[Suimaxxer]

This world already has enough good looking people

 

[Deleted member 17872]

in most sperm donor cases a father figure will still be present in the child's life, just not the biological one

They still could have a father figure. It just wouldn’t be the biological father but in terms of development for the child that would make zero difference.

I know there is genetic recombination but if someone like Maher would impregnate Doutzen Kroes, Margot Robbie or some other Stacy the chances that the child turns out bad looking are minimal.

I was wrong about the father figure part. Even if they have a father figure but not their biological father they still are more likely to suffer a lot

https://dadsrc.org/facts-regarding-children-growing-up-in-households-without-a-biological-father/

As for the looks part, look at Pitt's and Angelina's children. They are above average but not really great looking and that too with a lot of money and resources to looksmax.

 

[Hero of the Imperium]

For the betterment of mankind

 

[Lonenely sigma]

No. It's morally wrong. Children without a father are more likely to poorer, mentally ill, more prone to crime and many more things.

A mating with a good looking women doesn't necessarily mean your children will be good looking.

I don't think its morally wrong. Sure, father figure is the most important one, but most of the women who get pregnant this way aren't alone as far as I know, but have infertile husbands. If sperm donation exists anyway why wouldn't you want those children to atleast have the best genetics possible?


Generally speaking I think that the whole concept of selective breeding is morally right. It isn't natural, but it is morally right. The world unfortunately is shallow, it was and it always will be. You can't change the fact that the one with good genetics will always be in a better position that the one with bad ones. If you can't change the rules of the game, why atleast not make as many people as possible good at playing it by its evil rules?