Poland's birthrate on the decline

Yeah, you still like to meddle and micromanage, typical female trait, and you can add some obsessive compulsive freaks.

@Ironside
Do tou have any actual arguments in response to my post or are you going back to your usual behaviour - insulting others in order to sound tough and distract the attention from the fact you don't address the points presented?

Goodness me, how rude!

• 
  C2S1PyTWQAAAhlU.webp
  

What point did you make? Just point it out, and out of courtesy, I will address it. I'm not responding for two reasons: you haven't challenged anything, and if it's true, you grasp my point of view and disagree with it, there is no need to debate further.
Ah, there is another reason it gets somewhat boring.

Well, Atch, there is an adage - truth hurts. :D
---

No, you're simply not making sense and you're contradicting yourself in your own comments.


There's nothing "self-righteous," "misandrist," or "haggish" about stating facts - that rapes in marriages do happen and that it is very wrong to rape your spouse and to support or condone rape in marriage. For normal people stating that is normal, it's nothing unusual or "self-righteous."


The likes of you, Ironside and Novichok are projecting heavily on this one. There's nothing to "win" here. Every normal person knows that Ironside is wrong.

Btw, what about you, Ptak? Do you agree with Ironside's view on rape in marriage?


Are you retarded? Can't you read? Our posts are full of points and arguments. You're not a child, so as a fully grown adult man you shouldn't have any problems with finding them. Your problem, however, is that you are unable to refute them (or even to address them apparently) and so you prefer to pretend that they don't exist lol🙈🙉🙊

I see you can't point it out. You only repeat like a parrot, rape, rape men bad. Get a grip.

No, you're the one who wants Lenka to repeat the points she already made. It's your time to address them.


No, men like you bad.


Grow a backbone and some balls (and a brain lol).

No, I don't know about that. My sex life was one of endless pleasure, so please don't ask me about marital rape. I know nothing about it.

Talking about rape in relation to birthrate is like discussing politics in relation to Hitler or Stalin. I guess in all Western countries, not only in Poland, the birthrate is on decline. That's why, their initial solution was to let migrants in.

@ Ron2
Suicidal act without the benefits of 72 virgins.

You think like a moron. Your knowledge of Islam or other distant religions comes from jokes or gossip. I admit, I don't know much about them, either, but I don't humiliate myself. @Przelotnyptak1

Yes, it's good to know that migrants will pay my pension. 😇

A comforting fairytale....

Meanwhile, in reality world, migrants from Africa and the Middle East are long term economic liabilities....

archive.ph/epLxt

I know you are stupid; no need to flaunt it here.
I don't think she made any points. That is why I'm asking her to point them out, so I can address them out of courtesy.
What is difficult to understand?
-----

lol, proving again that you are nothing but a vase.
---

Look, know your place. All you do is cackle like a hen all day long. There is not much sense in what you say. All you do is rant and vent and vicariously live your emotions on PF. What good does it do anybody but yourslef/? You feel good about yourself, and you are under the delusion that you actually did something. When in fact you are only creating chaos and hysteria. Take your feminine energy and turn it into something good. If you had like seven or 12 children, you would have no time to talk nonsense.

Sexual violence in marriage is most difficult to address, assess, and as I said, trying to penalize issues that happen between married couples is pointless and a way to disaster.
Also, it trivializes rape; if everything is rape, then the actual rape is not that serious.
In my legislation, marital rape wouldn't exist, but a different kind of rape ( real rape) would be much more severely punished.

Rape is rape whether within marriage or not. I get the feeling that your opinion of 'real rape' is the textbook stranger jumping out of the bushes to attack a woman on her way home from work. If a woman is forced to have sex against her will and without consent, that is rape. Real rape.

Oh, so it is women who decide what is and what isn't rape, not an objective evaluation?
That's why I say that women use emotion, not their brains, and talk nonsense that is not practical and doesn't help anybody.

I think you'll find that my definition of rape is in line with the legal definition. That is not based on emotion, but legislation.

A professor said that women don't understand the concept of marriage.
I slowly conclude she must be right.
Women see marriage as a buffet, to pick and choose what they like and what they don't like; they ignore.
While men see marriage as teamwork, I'm responsible for this and that, and you cover this and that. Not as the women see it when it comes to their part. Like children.
What I'm saying is that sex with one's wife is the man's right, yeah, they can be tolerant and forgiving, and if the relationship is good, that issue does not even arise, but the bottom line is that if there are no health restrictions, there is no legitimate reason for a wife to refuse sex. Simple.
--

That is not a clever argument. Laws in the Nazie Germany against Jews were all part of the legislation, and as such, they were legitimate.

That's not the impression you're giving me when you follow it up with:


It sounds more like you view the wife as property, as once was the case in the UK. Thankfully, times have changed.


As that law currently stands, it is.

Look again at the topic of this thread, and then reflect on the general state of things in your neck of the woods. You might like to rethink your stance.
---

See, you are proving me right. It is all right for men to work their socks off to give up all their hobbies (or most of them), but when they ask for their rights in marriage, they are relics of bygone age, tyrants, slave owners, and whatever else flexible female minds not bound by reason come up with.

Lots of men aren't so clear on the idea either. As an institution, marriage serves several societal aims.

First and foremost it's about protecting assets for children (restrictions on both men and women are traditionally about preserving family assets and the security of children).


Yes and no. Another prime purpose of marriage is to channel mens sexuality into the least destructive paths possible.

Outside the family, sex for resources and/or security is the oldest male/female interaction.

Does that mean a woman has to put out every single time her husband wants some? No, and forced intercourse is rape, no matter the marital status.

Does the longterm consistent refusal of sex relieve men of their material obligations? Depends on the circumstances, often yes it should. If a wife unilaterally decides that sex is off the table long term then I won't judge the man harshly for finding it elsewhere.

Of course one major problem is that many/most men are pig ignorant of women's anatomy* or how they experience sex in general or sexual pleasure.... and they have no idea how important emotional stimulation is to women's sexuality

*a few years ago I saw a video of street interviews asking adult men (looked to be in their 20s and 30s) how women can urinate during the period and many/most had either never thought about that or had no idea... the mind boggles at that level of ignorance. That's why I'm generally in favor of sex education, because parents and/or the church do a terrible job of explaining these things to young men (and women).

Isn't it enough that she just doesn't want to... just like sometimes a guy doesn't want to either? It's a strange discussion.

Yes, it appears this thread went off-topic pages ago but I haven't read all of it.


The UK? Birth rate has decreased here too if that's what you mean.


We are talking about men who don't ask but force their wives to have sex. Besides which, in both Poland and the UK, there is no automatic right to sex in marriage.

Women are no longer chattels.


Women also work and are expected to bring up children too. It's not a competition.

there kind of is.... not every single time that a man might want it, but no sex = no marriage...no consumation makes it much easier to get a catholic divorces (anullment)

Then you're stupid.


What? xD 🤦


I've made many logical and sensible arguments while you make no sense, you contradict yourself in your own comments and you're in denial of reality. If you were interested in a normal discussion you would simply address my points/arguments and you'd answer my questions in a straightforward way instead of ranting like a maniac and insulting me.


You see, you just keep writing complete nonsense. Noone wrote that "everything is rape." WTF are you even talking about, you dishonest demagogue?? 🤦 It seems to me that you're trying to drown this discussion in a pit of bullsh1t.

Sure, but I'm talking from the point of view of the people involved, i.e., a married couple.
--

Nobody says that, but it doesn't mean that a married woman can use it as a weapon. That happens often enough, and then what?
The law doesn't care; men are supposed to put up with this.
I'm simply turning the onus on women. They have too many privileges in Western societies as it is. It doesn't do good to them, nor to men, nor to society.
That is my point.
I picked something supposedly simple, like alleged rape in marriage, that is something that the state and the law can do without, I mean, should say out of it. Wherever there is something wrong with the marriage, there is still divorce on the table; there is no need to meddle, as it doesn't solve anything, as divorce rates are showing, and what birth rates are showing. It is yet another tool to be used for people to wage war against each other while the state loses time, effort, and money that can be used somewhere else to a better effect.
I found that you Americans have a lot in common with lefties, even if you are not. You are a goodie two-shoes. Just have to make a difference, if that includes meddling, just let the sleeping dogs lie.
---

Never underestimate people's ignorance, but the purpose of the law is to stop people from harming each other, not to educate them. At least it should be; we are not a big Orweillin pig farm as yet. I hope.
--
Also, as an afterthought, there is a lot of ignorance in a supposedly educated society; there are plenty of educated morons who struggle over simple issues. Seems to me that the way of educating is wrong as well, and one needs to remember that 20% of society are hopeless retards, and the rest are being raised in a childless hedonic society that doesn't encourage self-improvement, sacrifice, and effort - meaning there is no will to learn unless one absolutely has to.

I know, Paulina, that you can't help it, and you love me with passion. I appreciate the whole post dedicated to me.
However, if you use one-third of that energy and try to make a point, you might even be successful. As it stands, thank you for your dedication and love you show me on this forum.
------

I'm talking about how it should be, not how it is.
---

When were women chattel? I see you are into some Fiction stories written by crazy feminists, be it women, be it men.
Those fantasy stories have nothing to do with reality and even less with the subject of our conversation. It is mind-boggling that a seemingly reasonable woman like you brings it up.
It is a testament to the sad fact that our societies and awareness levels sank so low. It is safe to say we are living in a post-Christian society in some hedonic hell on Earth.
No wonder elites are all pedophiles and disgusting degenerates with no moral bottom line.

Meanwhile, American Paul Skallas has an interesting idea about falling fertility rates... everywhere. He doesn't frame in terms of blame and fault but I imagine many people will

tldr: (global version with me adding a touch or two)
For more and more women the threshhold for marriage is about long term romantic love.
The problem is that romantic love is, by nature, a temporary thing.
In the past people got married for different reasons and romantic love was often not really part of the deal. Pair bonds and sympathy love often/usually developed out of marriage. Even when romantic love became a motivator for getting married it didn't last long and was replaced with routine and hopefully long term sympathy bonds.
Now, when marriage is delayed, too oftne, romantic love fizzles (as it is wont to do) and people just go their separate ways because without marriage... what's the point of hanging around when the tingle is gone?

At the same time, women have more possibilities for life tracks.
There used to be a few life tracks.
(nb these are broad groupings with lots of sub-groupings).
The wife track.
The vvhore track.
The spinster track.
The spinster track (formerly low status and often made up of those who couldn't make it in one of the other tracks) is now much more prestigious and compares favorably with the others.

summary: If you want to increase fertility make marriage more appealing for women, and bluster about mens' right to intercourse on a regular schedule isn't part of that.

x.com/PaulSkallas/status/2033572002812854474

Simple. Take away all the safety nets, especially for single mothers, and pay men more if they have a family to support.
Asking women is pointless; they are less inclined to self-reflect or make sacrifices than men. Asking them to give up something based on reason is pointless.

I remember when I was a teen, I was talking about women and voting rights, and I asked my mother, a person I respected most in my life, just after my grandmother," You don't care about voting rights, do you. And my mother says I do. I said to her, " You always vote like (my) father, and I could see she was confused and didn't know what to say.
As a woman, she never thought about it this way.
So, asking women is pointless; we won't hear anything constructive.
----
Even here, the subject of debate is one single issue, one law, and they started talking about women being chattel. Geez!

Simple. Put the toothpaste back into the tube.


And pay a man who has three kids more than one with one? That will make men with lots of kids less employable.

Skallas also said (you can quibble about the numbers but overall I think he has the right idea): 20% of women want to have kids, no matter what; 20% don't want to have kids ever; 60% will have kids in the right circumstances and the current socio-economic order means the circumstances that could convince the 60% are harder to achieve (and de facto forcing women into marriages won't help that).


Yeah... where on Earth would they get that idea?