Are there Polish women who date black guys?

there are alway a minority of slutty women but on the whole polish women wouldnt do this

Would i be a fool if i asked you what the hell does that mean ?... That's just stupid.

franek, dont try to justify your prejudiced views with statistics that dont even reveal whole truths, statistics and scientific facts are two different things.
now its a scientific fact that std's originated in europe columbus brought syphilis to america, and hiv/aids developed in the white gay community. it wasnt until years later that hiv spread to the rest of the world.

hiv is present in every country but, has been somewhat contained because of initiatives developed countries took to educate its people, and help them to take preventative measures.

in america theres PLENTY of women and men of all races that are running around with std's, dont try to pretend that a majority of blacks have std's.

now dont forget that those statistics are REPORTED CASES. it could very well be true that some whites are not getting prompt treatment for their std's, causing an imbalance in the statistical reporting.

I am an black Colege student who is currently dating a polish girl over the internet for the time being. Its almost been a year since we meet and we just started as friends really who like to talk to each other alot and after a few months we realized we both felt more. It is strange to date a girl online and hard also but we feel our love growing all the time and connect in our christian beliefs also. I plan to see her spring 09 I hope. But our relationship really wasnt about race, but personality and intrest.

It all comes down to personal preference...a person might fall in love with a Black guy or a Black girl might fall in love with a Polish guy or anyone else for that matter. Doesn't make the person a slut or tramp or whatever...it's what you want to do and who you love. I think the key is what a good friend told me..."it does not matter who you love...it's that you love..."

morals2 just crack me up...LOL...What the hell is wrong with you, people?:) What is the deal with interracial couple? As Maverickboy said above....it's all about personality and interest....LOL

Ogurki you look pretty mean on the picture - killed any of the other tribe or coast that day? As said before its all about personal preferences so why not figure it out yourself but starting those topics? Just to provoke racistic comments out of us? FLICK you!

I think he was making that cool gangstah face hopeing some polish girl might like it rotfl

Who are you Espana? we know your a racist F1 fanatic who hates Lewis Hammilton and that you claim to be Spanish but who the fcuk are you? Whats your connection to PF? Whay are you here? There lots of nutters around, are you just another nutter?

Cheers for that basic PM, mucho respect. Just checked your thread list and Profile, all I see are dogs, dogs & dogs. As for your thread list its Poland this Poland that, you Polish dawg?

Yes, it is . I have never ever had such loving and patience man.

yes there are some. Polish women who date black men.. and why not. Espana is a Spanish cow and he has as much right to be here as any of us... or is there an entry form to prove your credible links to Poland. Ive decided to answer all useless threads today.

Haha, i find this quite amusing. Anyway i have just joined this website and decided to give an answer to the question from my point of view.

i do think Polish woman do like black men, but like any othere decent woman, they will chose a decent man. it does not matter if he is black white or any other colour, for anyone to chose on such a basis is clearly not decent.

I am currently dating a Polish woman, for a year now, and she is amazing in every way and i make her happy and she makes me happy.

It has nothing to do with color.

One love one heart - Bob Marley hehe

It should have everything to do with color. Your race is who you are. It defines you, and for a white woman to give herself to a negro animal is disgusting. Might as well be mating in a barn with a farm animal. They're the same thing.

Uh, what about a White Polish guy giving himself to a Black guy? LOLOL

can you keep this quality up after your first post?

im guessing not!!!

who cares about gays? :)

Kisses

Another romance blossoming on PF I see! get a room!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, good one!!!! :-)

Any negroe that preys on the whiteman's women is a trouble making hypocrite. The negroe claims to be proud of their race then let them have their own women. btw several years ago a HIV ridden negroe immigrant infected a number of finnish sluts. as an attack on the whiteman, so Finland is a bad example. NEGROES LEAVE OUR WOMEN ALONE!

A women is not owned by anyone.


If a white woman wants to date a black man there is nothing you or I can do about that. It's her choice, not ours.

Choices can be influenced. Choices can be punished. Choices can be rewarded. Humans are not islands of free will. So you are wrong.


This is a misunderstanding of his statement. This is not slavery. If you are concerned about ownership, then become active in stopping the sex trade industry.

What he means is that the males of a people have a right to demand the continuation of bonds with females with the same genetic uniqueness. As a collective. And a right to prevent the creation of bonds with other males outside of this uniqueness. Failures in this area are judged harshly by history. I want to let you in on a secret: it is not wrong to influence others to not date outside of their race, ethnicity, or nationality.

You're ex Polish girlfriend had to be a wh**e, cause i for one wouldn't care how pretty the girl was wouldn't date a black girl, and i did have many offers

Very true. But of course that's a double edged sword there. If you choose to "punish" someone, society will choose to punish you in turn. I don't know about you but threatening women doesn't seem like the right way of handling things. It's ungentlemanly at best.

Modern history seems to disprove your point. Incest would be considered "bonding with women of the same genetic uniqueness" and most civilized societies frown on it, with good reason. Inbreeding leads to genetic weakness, susceptibility to disease and diminished mental capacity. Science seems to favor a wider gene pool.

Other attempts to forcibly preserve uniqueness has been pretty much stomped out by most governments and society. There are certainly individuals who still feel like it is necessary to protect their skin color (whatever the skin color) but to say "Failures in this area are judged harshly by history" sounds like standard white power mumbo jumbo. It's not very realistic or persuasive in today's day and age.

Not if society agrees with the punishment.


Punishment and threats are not exactly the same thing. Punishment can be moral and correct. Threats have an almost exclusive immoral connotation.

Yes, you could lump incest with the statement I made but if you read it again the "of a people" should be suggestive enough that I am not talking about familial interbreeding.

But I will bite. Even according to you, some societies don't frown on it. Your judgment is that they are "uncivilized". Is inbreeding all that bad? Jews would not be who they are as a people if they frowned on interbreeding to your degree. In fact, if we go back far enough in evolution, you have almost exclusive interbreeding. Also, interbreeding isn't as medically horrible as you claim. In addition, with medical advances we may be able to mitigate any negative side effects of interbreeding. Would you allow it then?


This says nothing about whether it is right or wrong. Freedoms have been stomped out by most governments and societies in the course of human history. Does it make it right?


Explain why "protecting" skin color is wrong.


Make the connection from "Failures in this area are judged harshly by history" to white power mumbo jumbo. What is it about that statement that makes you think "white power mumbo jumbo"?

I'm saying society does not condone the sort of "punishment" alluded to in your post. Your post seems to justify the use of violence against women (physical or not) and although you may believe that it is the correct thing to do based on your "moral" standards I believe that "civilized society" is on my side. One of the arguments for fighting the Taliban is to free women from the Taliban's "moral" view that women should not go to school, be submissive. Last year, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' "polygamist ranch" that controlled their women and children and was viewed with outrage.

And really, quibbling about threat vs. punish is silly. I am fully willing to replace my use of the word "threat" with punish...and I would still stand by my point that most civilized society is against it. You may think it's a point of view that should be changed but I am saying modern history and culture is generally against your view...hardly likely to be "judged harshly by history."

Ok, here goes: I don't know about you but punishing women doesn't seem like the right way of handling things. It's ungentlemanly at best.


So you really want to argue that inbreeding's a good thing? Come on man. Pick your fights...this one's a loser for you. Let's look at a quicker breeding, more closed genetic set. Golden Retrievers used to be known as an intelligent breed of dog. Now, with the popularity of the breed and inbreeding, a lot of people consider them downright dumb and susceptible to more physical maladies than generations ago.

And your "sci-fi" argument that medicine can cure the negative side effects of interbreeding...Well, wouldn't medicine be able to make everyone White? Black? Would that be ok with you? =)


I object to the use of violence (physical or not), what you would call punishment, against women over something as inconsequential as skin color. Does skin color determine the quality of the individual? How smart you are? Whether you're good "breeding stock"?

And if you want to protect a culture rather than a mere skin tone realize that a lot of white Europeans look at Polish folks as somewhat alien. Preserving white skin will not preserve Polish culture. Hell, keeping Polish blood lines pure wont preserve the culture. It's the popularization and the ability to "export" your culture to other people and younger generations...to convince people that it's a history worth preserving because of the artifacts of that culture...that will sustain a cultural heritage. I know I'm going on a bit of a tangent right now but just wanted to address the "need to protect our culture" argument that invariably comes up.


Although that phrase, recently, is used in connection with the last US Presidency more than anywhere else, it also sounds like a line used by people who want to protect the white race. It's a grandiose rally cry for a small group of people who would probably be more successful as secessionists or survivalists but would still like to puff themselves up. Thinking about the use of that language...and looking at modern society...it seems like a rather hollow threat.

You’re really stretching what I say. You’re often arguing against your assumptions of what I mean, rather then what I actually say.


Case in point here. I have not said anything about what type of punishment it would be. You could punish someone by withholding something of value from them. You could withhold love from someone. Is this non-physical violence? And if punishment is violence (both physical or non) then aren't you leaving me with no recourse whatsoever to correct the behavior of others?


The meaning of words is one of the central problems that give rise to disagreement where there may be none. It is very important.


Mostly I’m arguing that it is not as problematic as you make it out to be. Even according to you, there are people who would not consider Golden Retrievers downright dumb and susceptible to more physical maladies then generations ago. A quick google on Golden Retrievers and inbreeding resulted in this claim: “Golden Retrievers are no more prone in general to health problems than any other breed.”


This comparison doesn’t work. One is repairing medical problems. The other is changing races.


Making claims about individuals based on skin color is a probability assessment, not an unconditional judgment. But skin color does indeed have correlation to intelligence. The biggest problem you have is that you mistake skin color for what’s called race. Race is not skin color. There are Asians who are naturally more pale then Caucasians.


Culture is just a by-product of the genetic footprint of a people and it can morph. Most of the time this "need to protect our culture" argument is made by individuals who don’t want to appear like they are trying to protect the genetics of a people. Culture is good but it’s nothing without the genetics that create it.


Is there something wrong with protecting the white race? And if there is, would you say the same thing about protection for other races?


This is probably your only decent point.

Sorry for the late reply, been a really busy weekend. Probably wont have time to cover all the points but the conversation is becoming a bit cumbersome as is...and certainly nothing new is being discussed on either side. This topic has been beaten to death on PF several times over.


Part of the problem is you're arguments are rather broad and use a lot of vague threats (what you call punishment). Any "examples" or references to reality seem to be mine. And yes, I recognize you want to fight against the current direction society seems to be heading in but I think it's not only a futile effort but one that is really not that worthy.


But you ignored that I would accept your wording and would still stand by what I said. Thus this point is unimportant since it's not something I'm arguing.


It's not changing races...but rather the appearance. If someone looks white...are they white? If you met someone who looked darker but was Polish would you react differently based on what you perceive? Medicine is not just "repairing medical problems"...there's plenty of research dollars that go into cosmetic surgery.


Ah, then are you trying to preserve Polish culture or white culture...because from my outsider's view there's no real white culture. It's been said numerous times that a white individual from the UK would have a lot more in common culturally with a black person from the UK than a white person from Poland. Also, in your posts the references are to preserving skin color. I believe I am the one who brought up the idea of preserving culture.


Problem with that: A lot of the things you read on google are dated and come from people with agendas...like trying to sell golden retriever puppies. People I know who are dog breeders tell me otherwise, that the breed does have more issues now. Now why do ads for Golden Retriever pups seem to stress that they do not come from inbred lines? Hmmm!


If it's a question of protecting some genetic line...well, wouldn't your argument about the potential of medicine fix that? We're not that far away from genes being manipulated to be the way you'd like them to be (if you have the means of course)...so why stop people from being happy? If you aren't arguing culture like I am but purely genetics then those lines can be preserved. Your argument seems to morph a lot...and it is a complex ethical argument that is probably not suited for a Polish discussion forum.

I'm more into "live and let live"...I'll live my life the way I want but if I see someone butting into someone else's life I'll step in and be a pain in the ass. Really, I'm all about not being a cock-blocker.

So yes, I would say, and have said, the same thing about protecting other races...including my own.


Thanks!

Theater, art, music, architecture, fine cuisine? some of the best example of the aformentioned have been created by white people..


When you say a black person, so you mean someone who has been here for several generations who works and lives in a nice area then maybe but if you mean someone who has arrived in the UK in recent years, then I would say no.


Most breeds of dogs have gone to pot simply because they have been bred from an asthetic point of view and not really cared to think about the genetic point of view since breeders are not scientists.


If we start to mix with other races then we lose this in families, I like the fact the I look like my fathers grand mother and my niece looks like me - but this is my own personal view.

I agree it's becoming cumbersome, but I still enjoy it. Helps me to analyze my position better. Won't hold it against you if you stop responding or only choose certain points to respond to. I won't have the time I have now to write forever so my responses will eventually trail off and my presence on this forum will fall to a trickle.


If something looks like a pencil is it a pencil? You're asking me the law of identity here. Unless the observer is mistaken, yes they are white. All "whites" have white skin, but not all humans with white skin are "white". Again, this is because race is not simply skin pigmentation. Although, the correlation is high, especially between the extremes: Negro and Caucasian. This is why skin color is so effective at being a synonym for race.

There are Negro Albinos that lack pigmentation and have pale "white" skin. But they aren't "white". But this isn't much of a problem since it is still (even with the change in skin pigmentation) very easy to tell the difference between a Caucasian and a Negro Albino.

More technically, race can be stated as the mathematical correlation of all genes to one another and how they will be expressed. The demarcation point will be mathematical. But does that mean we need a computer to tell individuals apart? Well, we do have a computer: our brain. And the brain is very good at differentiating between races. It's what we do, as humans.


First, whatever visual information I get, I will act on. I'm not going to second guess my "perception". Second, what do you mean by "darker"? Are you using "Polish" as a nationality or as an identity that includes race? But the simple answer is that my brain (for the most part subconsciously) will do the calculating for me. Sure there are mixed individuals which make me think for a moment consciously as to their genetic background, but these are exceptions. It's easiest for individuals to tell who isn't part of their race (or ethnicity) rather then who exactly belongs to which category. So the thought would go "whatever race/ethnicity that individual belongs to, I can be sure they don't belong to the race/ethnicity I belong to".


Changing races is not cosmetic surgery. Race includes your DNA. You would have to change the whole individual. That would include changing everything from brain construction to bone to muscle density ratios. You really need to get into evolutionary theory and the rise of the homo sapiens sapiens to understand race.


The culture is a by-product of the genetic make up the population. Caucasians have differences in abilities within their race also. Anything that will be called "white culture" is a culmination of manifestation of the cultures of the Caucasoids. But there also has to be a comparison point. There has to be an "other".


You do have a point that I my wording "genetic uniqueness" was on the vague side. I agreed you could lump interbreeding with it. But I do not intend to lump nuclear family interbreeding in there. I'm ok with first cousins breeding, but not on a large scale in a population. Cousin breeding is very common throughout history. And the difference in medical problems is about 2% vs non-cousin breeding. It's an acceptable risk.

Anyway, the answer is that it does not matter to me what technology will be like. These decisions are affecting the here and now. And today, we can't do those things. If we ever get to a point where the genetics you are born with won't matter, them my motivations will probably be null and void. But even then there may be individuals who are pro "natural genetics". The movie Gattaca tackles this along with the book "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. I really recommend the book.


What does this mean exactly? You're simply saying that you don't want to get in the way of other male's attempts to get females. On an individual level that might be fine and dandy but on a macro scale (as a population) if all of a sudden the males step aside or are lenient in allow access to females from competing males, they won't last very long as a population. I see it as a pacifist stance. But there is still something worthy to be said for the primal nature of survival and propagation of one's group.


Right, the culture is essentially the "output" by whatever genetic grouping you're talking about. The categorization is fairly simple. You could even have "mixed culture". Meaning the output by individuals who are 50/50 racial splits.


And just don't let there be a crisis. In crisis, this is where true loyalties are exposed. I don't think it's stretching it to say that racial bonds and loyalties are much stronger then nationality or culture. They are more primal.


Right, and this is where sameness comes in. Some people prefer it. There is a sense of calmness and continuity in that. I don't have a problem that there are multicultural/multiracial societies in the world, it's that it is becoming this all encompassing juggernaut that is harming unicultural/uniracial societies. So ideally, humans would get to voluntarily decide what type they wish to live in and there would be some of each. And neither would be presenting a danger to the other. But that isn't what the multiculturalism proponents want. They want the whole world to be multicultural.