PDA

View Full Version : How Many Children Do You Have/Do You Think You Will Have?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Thorburn
Monday, April 14th, 2003, 10:21 PM
How many children do you have/or do you think you will have?

If you do not have children yet, or still think you will have more, please try to give a realistic estimation of how many children you think you are most likely to have in your life, based on your personal circumstances and finances.

This is not a "if-I-would-be-a-billionaire-and-would-find-a-broodmare-then-I-would-have-15-kids"-poll. What interests me is how many children you realistically will have. If you are, for example, married already or have a partner for life, and your partner does not want any more children, then you should take that into account. The same applies if you would like to have five children, but don't think you will be able to afford them, or if you are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices, or if there are medical reasons that speak against the scenario.

The question is "How many children will you most likely have in your life?" and not "How many children would you like to have?" or "How many children would you have, if you were a Divine Emperor with 2,000 slaves?"

Hellstar
Monday, April 14th, 2003, 10:29 PM
Interesting thread.

I have this natural feeling that I have a girl first and then a boy.

This is based on me wanting to be a good parent to my children im afraid I cant give my self 100% if I had more, but i guess its just hard to imagine many sons of me. I wouldnt mind having a few girls but proberly only one son. but im open to destiny and if I had the wealth well then i would have alot of children. Many Many. the thought of just impregnating alot of woman has stroke my mind:) but then again im a faithful type.

Im waiting a few years with getting children and I want to make sure im with the right woman in my life.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Monday, April 14th, 2003, 10:39 PM
I voted that I would have three, because that's my minimum :) I dont want to have just a two child family, and one, well...that's barely an effort! hahaha It really comes down to if I have a good, strong man that is good with children and who respects that he has to help around the house too. If I marry a man like that, then I would like at least four. But if I marry a man who turns out to be more lazy than I'd like I would only want two or three, because a man like that requires as much effort as a child x_p Basically, it all depends on my situation and what kind of man I'm with.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, April 15th, 2003, 01:03 AM
I don't have such natural feelings. But I would like to have at least 3 children. But it all depends on the female. I knew a very nice girl who told me that she doesn't like kids. I cannot take that. There's no future then. Even though you're both young.

I think that I will wait at least 5-6 years before I have any children.

It can be harder to raise girls than boys. In this context, where the most common style of marriage elopement, an atmosphere of distrust between young girls and their parents is created. As a result, many parents feel compelled to refuse their daughter's request to participate in extracurricular activities. They then do not trust daughters because they fear the girls will sneak around with boys, or elope. But every child is an individual and reacts differently to situations. The upbringing is very important and gender roles are many times artificial and made up by the society in question.

My advice is to find a girl you love and stay with her and to have a strong family with many healthy children. A mate selection by a man who don't want any children is a deterioration of the race.

We have children because we want something of our own flesh; we want to have a family.

The goal of your genes is to survive. Have children and sustain those genes.

So this way, the meaning of life is to procreate, raise those children and then to die.

The point is, there is no purpose, just fill your life with hapiness
(what you find fulfilling) and that is just about it.









Originally posted by NORTHSTAR
Interesting thread.

I have this natural feeling that I have a girl first and then a boy.

This is based on me wanting to be a good parent to my children im afraid I cant give my self 100% if I had more, but i guess its just hard to imagine many sons of me. I wouldnt mind having a few girls but proberly only one son. but im open to destiny and if I had the wealth well then i would have alot of children. Many Many. the thought of just impregnating alot of woman has stroke my mind:) but then again im a faithful type.

Im waiting a few years with getting children and I want to make sure im with the right woman in my life.

Thorburn
Tuesday, April 15th, 2003, 02:16 AM
It shall not go unnoticed that in times in which the birth rate is lower than the replacement level, as it is now the case in all white nations, people with better or rare genes - the more intelligent, the more racially conscious, the more healthy, people with a better character or precious phenotypes, &c. - have an excellent chance to increase their genetic share in the genepool by having three or more children and to improve that way the genetic quality of the nation or the populace as a whole.

As far as I am concerned, I think that Europe is already hopelessly over-crowded, and it is not tragic or would even be beneficial if our population would shrink in numbers. For most of Europe's history less than 100 million people - and not 700+ million as we have now - populated the planet. There would be far less strain on nature and the resources, far more space and far less urbanization (with its negative consequences) if Europe's population would shrink back over the next generations to a healthy 50-100 million.

With applied eugenics one could easily even improve the genetic quality of the population during that process. Requirement for this would be, of course, that Europe's borders stay closed for immigrants of non-European heritage. In times where our population shrinks, our ability to assimilate members of alien races without that it would seriously affect our system characteristics is (close to) zero. It's this fact that makes today's mass immigration of alien races from the Third World the more criminal.

It shall not be overlooked, however, that the world population will rise until 2050 to about 9 billion people according to a U.N. study. While in 1900 about 2 non-whites could be counted for each white person, it was about 10 : 1 in 2000, and will be about 20 : 1 in 2050 (and about 50 non-Nords for every Nord) if one takes the ever increasing rates of miscegenation into consideration. In addition, most of our people will be over 40, while the majority of non-whites will be younger than 20.

This explosion of the world's population causes a serious problem, not only because the last resorts of nature will be destroyed and the last remaining resources will be plundered (China alone for example will need in 2020 as much oil as the OPEC currently produces), but also due to the immigration pressure onto the formerly exclusively white homelands in Europe and America. Only dedicated action can preserve the existence of the white race.

If our nations would be guided by a racially conscious policy again, it would even militarily not matter if our numbers in Europe are 100 million or 700 million strong. Nuclear arms and modern weapon technology can turn even a small nation with a few million inhabitants into a fortress nobody can afford to attack. If we are to perish then it is not due to our small numbers, but due to lack of will to survive.

Naturally, what happens on the rest of the earth affects us, too. There is only one global climate, and the destruction of the rainforests in Africa and South America, the ongoing global soil erosions, the plundering of resources, and the pollution of the planet by billions of non-whites will affect our environment and lives.

It will not be easy to reduce the world's population to a bearable figure again, but it will on the long run be necessary for our survival. In a nutshell, it is about the reduction of the quantity, and the increase of the quality of mankind.

The future will bring biologic weapons that only affect human beings with certain genetic markers. Allegedly, according to a British newspaper report, Israel possesses already a virus that only kills Arabs but not Jews (with 97% of accuracy, what is remarkable if one considers the close genetic relationship between Middle Eastern Arabs and Jews).

The planet might simply belong to the race that releases its virus first. Problems of rapid mutation rates still have to be overcome, but as it looks now, with the Western leadership being infested by pipe-dreams of racial egalitarianism, it might rather be some Asians or Jews than we.

The solution? Have many children, let them study genetics and convert your garage to a gene-laboratory. ;)

Evolved
Tuesday, April 15th, 2003, 04:31 AM
Yes, Europeans should stop having children altogether to make more room for the Indians and Chinese.. :rolleyes:

We should become gay or sterilize ourselves because the Earth is being polluted by us, Europeans are destroyers of everything decent in the world. The Chinese, Indians and especially Africans are gentle people who are more spiritual and closer to nature. We could learn a lot from them, so we should become a minority. I'm going to buy some fertility drugs and send them to Africa right away.. :rolleyes:

Thorburn
Tuesday, April 15th, 2003, 06:32 AM
You missed the point completely, ladygoeth.

It is neither about "stopping to have children", nor about "making room for the Indians and Chinese". It is about shrinking to a size that increases the life quality of everyone and makes an end to the destruction of nature, while keeping the borders closed, i. e. exactly not giving non-Europeans any room (of which we have already far too little). And while we shrink (what's already happening), the better part of our genepool should have the children; or at least more children than the others, what will improve its quality.

There is no reason why Europe should be populated by 700+ million people. There is nothing what can be done with 700 million people, but not with 50-100 million, apart from the production of insane levels of urban decadence, pollution, and environmental destruction.

Urbanization rates of 90+% and average population densities of 150-300 persons/sqm as in Holland and Germany are insane. Our race developped in free areas with lots of free space around it. People are supposed to live in a country-side environment with nature and animals around them, where one can breathe clean air instead of inhaling pollution, drink clean water, eat grains and vegetables right from the own soil, and where children can roam freely.

They are not supposed to live in small apartment batteries and to be stuck in a traffic jam two hours/day. Urbanization alienates people; people that have lost contact to nature and soil develop the spiritual diseases we can observe today in our metropolises. Lack of space and this destructive environment is also one of the primary reasons why many city people don't desire more than one or any children anymore.

There is no need for towns that are larger than a few 100,000 inhabitants; even capitals should be rather smaller and will still be able to carry all the cultural and industrial operations of our people. Most of our people should live in spacious provinces composed of towns with a population from a few 100 to 5,000 people max, as it used to be the case during the renaissance. The country-side is the backbone of the Nordish man, the city is his grave.

And as to the 5.5 billion (soon 8.5 billion) non-Europeans beyond our borders: They should shrink, too. The entire world population needs to shrink: global air pollution, soil errosion, deforestation, waste of resources, climate change, destruction of wildlife, pollution of the oceans, &c. is our and everyone's affair. On the long run though, I would not mind either, if we expanded our territories of settlement to export our population surplus. At the moment, that's unfortunately not an option.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, April 15th, 2003, 08:55 AM
"If-I-would-be-a-billionaire-and-would-find-a-broodmare-then-I-would-have-15-kids", aw man, you ruined my dream... that's all I had goin' for me. :)

Seriously... I would say I'm financially and emotionally capable of having multiple kids, I probably would stop at 4 kids. Too many kids I think divides the attention to them from the parents. However, because of many reasons, there is a probability that I will have none. I'm the kind of guy that either does it right, or not at all. So far, I haven't had a relationship to go right. But men have a longer time to reproduce than women, so there's a chance of course.

Anyway, since these non-whites love to come to our nations so much, we should rather just colonize them and develop their nations. So they can enjoy our lifestyle while staying in their own nations. :)

Scáthach
Tuesday, April 15th, 2003, 05:46 PM
2 to 3 i think.and not for a long time yet!
preferably 2 boys and a girl but i dont mind either way.... :)

Sigrun Christianson
Saturday, May 3rd, 2003, 05:00 PM
Four to six would have been my ideal, but I doubt I'll have that many. I may not have any at all.

-Sigrun

Katinkatze
Sunday, May 4th, 2003, 07:09 PM
Why am i not surprised to be the only one who chose 1... If i'd even have that one... Its not like i dont want our race to grow and stuff and its not the case that i dont want children either, actually i wouldnt mind having many kids... no problem that WILL happen... the day they invent male-pregnancies... till then im not thinking much bout it and i guess i wont in quuuiittee awhile.

Scáthach
Sunday, May 4th, 2003, 09:47 PM
yeah i dont care how much they say giving birth is great and wondrous i still think of PAIN!!! :eek:

Sigrun Christianson
Monday, May 5th, 2003, 06:07 AM
Giving birth is wonderful and miraculous, and it hurts like Hell! Thank goodness that it's impossible to recreate that type of pain in one's mind. If it were not, no woman would ever have more than one. :)

I would certainly have more than one, given the opportunity, because I can remember the wave of relief that swept through my body after the epidural. I wanted to give that doctor a big, fat kiss.

Ederico
Monday, May 5th, 2003, 12:26 PM
I think I voted for three, but I am not sure exactly as I voted a while back. I would like to have children but first I need a wife or at least a mother (for my kids not for me in case someone misundertands). To tell you the truth I would like at least four but being realistic I think it would be a bit of a financial problem unless you have a good job. If I had a well paying job I would consider more.

And Katinka, none of the pregnancies involved will be male pregnancies that is unnatural. Is that some anti-natural technological crap you read somewhere? :)

Katinkatze
Monday, May 5th, 2003, 11:00 PM
LOL... no my dear edric.... Its not anti-naturalist bullshite that i have read... its just me becoming sexually fair in my way of thinking... i mean lets put it this way... why should us women be the one to have the burden of having a little rascal living IN us and feeding in us of us for 9 months? why should we be always the ones having our vaginas littererly torn for the "little" (i enfasize the ") baby to come out? so i was just thinking of a new alternative... why is it that the guys ALWAYS get the fun part???? thats unfair wouldnt you say so?

Ederico
Tuesday, May 6th, 2003, 02:48 PM
Nature is cruel, you have to accept that. I am pretty open to technological advances but these sort of ideas sound like some sort of Femminist dream to further remove the natural position of women as mothers and child bearers.

Nationalism protects traditions and strengthens them until rationality and better alternatives come along which will subside such traditions. I am a Conservative and a Traditionalist, I respect traditions apart from those being infiltrated into Europe and our Nation from non-European Folks, and the modern degenerate ideals promulgated by Liberalism, Materialism, and Feminism, which have literally destroyed European Folks and the foundation of these Folks, that is, Families.

And please for goodness' sake, men cannot even do splits apart from a few exceptions (ouch!) how the hell will they give birth and through which organ?

Hahaha, and with the attitudes of men they (me included) will never accept having babies directly from their bodies, so perhaps you could go propose this insane science fiction idea (I still cannot picture myself having a baby in such a manner sorry, push push push, breathe), in some Liberal place. I hope Male Pregnancies do not enter the Agenda of the Gender Equality Feminists, those women (I would like to describe them in another manner, but I try being polite) practically get whatever they want, since Equality is a buzz word synonymous with the reversal of a sane and natural order and worldview.

No to Male Pregnancies!

Take this post as a sort of a serious joke (is that an oxymoron?), I was a bit amused writing it. Bye baby.

NatRev
Wednesday, May 7th, 2003, 11:25 PM
I'm from a family of three siblings plus one step sister, so 3 or 4 is Ok, mostly 3 but if she got preggers after the third, I would love to have another one but to be honest with you, at this moment in time, i think the small feline creatures that share our house with us are enough for the both of us... meow meow...:)

Jack
Thursday, November 13th, 2003, 10:41 AM
I'd have three - I'm not sure whether two boys and a girl, or two girls and a boy - it doesn't bother me, really. But I think I'd like to have one boy and two girls so I can invest a bunch of time in the one boy and make him as smart as I am, perhaps moreso :D

Louky
Thursday, November 13th, 2003, 12:46 PM
We went through a miscarriage first, and then we had a baby. Nine months later my wife had to have a hysterectomy, so no more babies for us, although we wanted more.

Prodigal Son
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 12:09 AM
We went through a miscarriage first, and then we had a baby. Nine months later my wife had to have a hysterectomy, so no more babies for us, although we wanted more.

Sorry to hear that :(

Saoirse
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 12:17 AM
I want six.

Triglav
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 12:19 AM
We went through a miscarriage first, and then we had a baby. Nine months later my wife had to have a hysterectomy, so no more babies for us, although we wanted more.

I hope I don't appear too offensive by rubbing salt into your wounds, but let me offer you my sincere sympathy. I know how I would feel :(.

Pomor
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 02:08 AM
I want to have two daughters and one son.

Stríbog
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 02:15 AM
I want to have two daughters and one son.

I want 2 sons and 3 daughters. :)

Ewergrin
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 02:19 AM
I currently have two sons, ages three and five. There is nothing that I dont do for them. I do not wish to have any more children, however. Two is enough, for my particular wishes.

Triglav
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 02:22 AM
After years of thorough consideration, I think four children would be realistic and desirable. It is paramount that they have the chance to become honest, knowledgeable and self-confident individuals, and they need enough attention and care for that. I would like to have the opportunity to become a good father.


I currently have two sons, ages three and five. There is nothing that I dont do for them. I do not wish to have any more children, however. Two is enough, for my particular wishes.

I am happy to hear that ;). My felicitations, mr. Light! :thumbsup

Sigrun Christianson
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 02:36 AM
I hope you all have many lovely children and send me pics of them. :)

Triglav
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 02:51 AM
I hope you all have many lovely children and send me pics of them. :)

We'll exchange pics :).

sud
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 02:56 AM
I voted for two because they can play and have fun together.

Triglav
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 03:07 AM
I voted for two because they can play and have fun together.

That's a noble thought, sud! ;) :thumbup

Yeah, just like me and my sis when we were little and we were cheerfully plaing together. :hammer
I would like to have two couples of those then.

Scáthach
Friday, November 14th, 2003, 09:01 AM
I'm still thinking 3 or 4.....however, I think I'd like 2 sons and a daughter. Then, I think how lonely it may be to be that one girl and how helpful I've always found it having 3 sisters..

Anyway, 3 children, giant house, lots of dogs and lovely husband please ;) :D

Vespertine
Wednesday, November 19th, 2003, 06:51 AM
I've got one. I'd like more in the future, but for now, one's enough.

Ideally, I'd like to have 6, but if I could just squeeze out the other five at once...

I have baskets and plenty of chew toys, so a litter wouldn't be a big problem.

Ewergrin
Wednesday, November 19th, 2003, 07:38 PM
Anyway, 3 children, giant house, lots of dogs and lovely husband please ;) :D


Coming right up......;)

norda
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 06:35 PM
I know a women whose grandmother have had 26 children. Of course it was "bei Kaiser".

Mac Seafraidh
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 10:22 PM
Well, I am a man and it depends on if I find the right woman and how many children I would have.

Scáthach
Tuesday, December 16th, 2003, 09:32 PM
I think I want 3 or 4...3 boys and a girl perhaps, though of course it doesn't really matter, a girl should really have atleast one sister (i have 3)
I'd sort of like 4 girls like in my own family and 2 boys maybe...I'm not sure if that's feasible though!
Either way I want them to be with a Pure Blooded Irishman, I'm not excited about possibly ruining an immaculate bloodline!!

Sigrun Christianson
Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 01:54 PM
My ideal number is five, but I'll settle for four. I'm already thinking about grandchildren. I want dozens. :-)

Hellenic Eagle
Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 06:26 PM
So, it seems European women want at least 2 children today. If every woman who wanted 2 or more children in Europe (and i m sure all healthy, and healthy-THINKING women of Europe do want at least 2 children) had the chance to give birth to those children, than there would not be a problem with child birth rates in Europe today.

This is one of the terrible crimes of capitalism. It has destroyed the consciousness of national states. If a state is truly national, then the state should FIRST OF ALL take care of the nation's children..

All women should be able to gie birth to their children with economic, moral and practical support by the state. The state should then provide for the children, so that they dont become f*cking bums in a multicultural/multiracial/multifaggot/multidiot/paranoid/American like jungle, like it happens with todays European youths....

Do you understand the terrible crime of capitalism? Yes, it has brought everything we need in materialistic terms, and 1000 more material things that we dont need. But in return it HAS TAKEN OUR SOUL!!!

It has forced true national states to become human wastelands, boundless shitholes, were the slave inhabitants are forced to give their work to some kind of service to the world capitalist system, in order to gain enouph money to survive. Some may call it liberalism. But in reality it has eliminated the unique cultures of Europe, turning the European peoples into materialistc fat pigs, like the Americans.

A woman should have all freedom from the state to breed freely and then if she wants to, to do any other kind of job she wants in society. I belieev women always want to make children, it is their destiny. But in todays society they are focused on their career, IN ORDER to make money and THEN create children. The state should help the women, so that they breed in a small age, when they are physically strong, and with young men, not above 30 years of age, so that their sperm will be strong and create the best possible offspring. Then, after they have done their duty to the nation, and the nation has shown its gratitude to the women by helping them take care of their children, they can do whatever they want in society.

Do you understand?

NormanBlood
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 07:54 AM
I guess 4 would be fine. Though 5 seems to be the regular number in my family..and earlier back 5 or more. Anyways, my only worry is I have a big interest in history and want to make a living of it by being a professor at a University. It will be difficult to do both...but I will pull it off somehow lol.

Laedifox
Monday, December 22nd, 2003, 04:57 AM
I chose 4, though, of course, it depends on whether I can find a good man to help me out in that regard ;-)

Jack
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2003, 08:22 AM
So, it seems European women want at least 2 children today. If every woman who wanted 2 or more children in Europe (and i m sure all healthy, and healthy-THINKING women of Europe do want at least 2 children) had the chance to give birth to those children, than there would not be a problem with child birth rates in Europe today.

This is one of the terrible crimes of capitalism. It has destroyed the consciousness of national states. If a state is truly national, then the state should FIRST OF ALL take care of the nation's children..

All women should be able to gie birth to their children with economic, moral and practical support by the state. The state should then provide for the children, so that they dont become f*cking bums in a multicultural/multiracial/multifaggot/multidiot/paranoid/American like jungle, like it happens with todays European youths....

Do you understand the terrible crime of capitalism? Yes, it has brought everything we need in materialistic terms, and 1000 more material things that we dont need. But in return it HAS TAKEN OUR SOUL!!!

It has forced true national states to become human wastelands, boundless shitholes, were the slave inhabitants are forced to give their work to some kind of service to the world capitalist system, in order to gain enouph money to survive. Some may call it liberalism. But in reality it has eliminated the unique cultures of Europe, turning the European peoples into materialistc fat pigs, like the Americans.

A woman should have all freedom from the state to breed freely and then if she wants to, to do any other kind of job she wants in society. I belieev women always want to make children, it is their destiny. But in todays society they are focused on their career, IN ORDER to make money and THEN create children. The state should help the women, so that they breed in a small age, when they are physically strong, and with young men, not above 30 years of age, so that their sperm will be strong and create the best possible offspring. Then, after they have done their duty to the nation, and the nation has shown its gratitude to the women by helping them take care of their children, they can do whatever they want in society.

Do you understand?
Ever thought that maybe, just maybe, with less taxes (i.e. away from the welfare state and closer to capitalism), women wouldn't have to work and they could stay at home and look after kids, which would raise the wages for men and then families could afford to have more kids?

By the way, I'd like to have four.

Sigrun Christianson
Thursday, December 25th, 2003, 01:56 PM
Taxes are't the problem in the US, Jack. Consumerism is the problem here. Most seem to believe that they cannot live comfortable or safely without two incomes. That isn't true, of course. My grandparents raised seven children on just my grandfather's income. My other grandparents raised also raised seven on one income. One of my uncle has six on one income. An aunt, four. My parents have only one income and they live very well. Our women were available to raise children full-time. My family alone could repopulate Europe. :P

Now, though, one feels poverty-stricken if he can't have a cell phone, XBox, 500 cable channels, a plasma TV, a pc and a notebook, and a new SUV. One does need two incomes to afford to live the new American lifestyle unless the husband earns $100,000 or more per year. I pay a small fortune for my cable, phones, internet service, second car, and assorted extras that I don't really need. If I gave those up and lived a more frugal lifestyle, I could easily support a family of four or more. It's all about priorities.

On a side note, my house has more than doubled in value over the last six years so I'm selling. Cha-ching! :D

Haldís
Tuesday, December 30th, 2003, 07:45 AM
four but only in some years....

-Reginleif

Abby Normal
Monday, February 2nd, 2004, 09:51 PM
"More that 5 children/5 children and adopt more children if cant do any more."

Gladstone
Monday, February 2nd, 2004, 11:30 PM
Three to four would be great.

Esther_Helena
Tuesday, February 17th, 2004, 10:57 AM
I found this too late to vote, but I'd have 2 or 3, a boy and a girl and another one. I grew up as an only child with 3 half sibs that I have never met. (it sucks). Also, my uncle and 2 aunts on my dad's side each had a daughter and a son. My mother's sister has a son and a daughter. The "one son, one daughter" thing runs on both sides of my family. I had an older sibling, but it had to be aborted, so I got stuck being an only child :~( . As for twins, they run, sparingly through my mother's side. I know of 2 sets, both female. *goes a smidgen off topic* The ones I'm familiar with , both initals SLB (maiden) have a dau and a son. oldest, SBH and youngest SBF (first maiden married)...
SBH had a dau, while later, SBF had a dau (born on their bday), then SBH had a son, while later, SBF... a son... lol
My grandmother had 2 sisters, we visit them often. We get many stares when we all, my grandmother(1st), grandfather, her sister(2nd) and her husband, their twin daughters with THEIR husbands and children (4, 2 each) ALL go out to eat... most people are just couples of 2, or 3-4 parents with 2 kids. Lol, the parking lot is fun, we're always digging in the trunks of our cars, swapping items, giving "market and consignment store finds" to each other. One family member made a (joking) comment about how we were worse than gypsies :P .

edited to add: I couldn't have voted anyways, I'm not European, though I am of the descent.

sciath
Tuesday, February 17th, 2004, 11:15 AM
I already have 2 girls (10 and 2) and a wife ->such a noisy house !! :D :D
I guess that if I have other children, they'll be girls too :D :D
Maybe one solution for me: to make them with another wife ! :D :D (LOL)
Indeed I love girls :D :D

Sigrun Christianson
Tuesday, February 17th, 2004, 06:25 PM
When I was in my late teens and early 20s, I couldn't even imagine being married or having children. I abhorred the idea and swore I would not. I was totally into working & school. Every one of my weekends was spent at a wedding shower or baby shower. I hated them.

I'll be thirty in a few months and I want to get married and get pregnant right NOW!

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 11:59 PM
I guess 4 would be fine. Though 5 seems to be the regular number in my family..and earlier back 5 or more. Anyways, my only worry is I have a big interest in history and want to make a living of it by being a professor at a University. It will be difficult to do both...but I will pull it off somehow lol.
Nice numbers! :D I once wanted your job(many classes all about western history and genealogy; no social life because that's all I did read-and nobody else was into it) but now I prefer a different lifestyle with my scholastic interest on the side.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 12:37 AM
Men can answer too if they wish (not about how many children they want to give birth to, but about how many they want in their family obviously).
What about Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Line18
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 05:30 AM
2.. max 3! or 4 :D

VilhelMina
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 11:47 AM
When I was a teen I wanted none. When I turned twenty I wanted eight!!

Then, I had a child :-O and after that.. figured I would hold off on eight.

Now, in my late twenties, I would like to have 3 more. Twins also run on both sides of my family so hopefully it will pan out when I meet "him". :D

Phlegethon
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 02:02 PM
The question is not necessarily how many you want but how many you can afford. And that seems to become more and more important, especially in countries with a shrinking job market and record taxation.

rusalka
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 07:38 PM
If I were to have children, I would have two, preferably with 2 or 3 years in between. I hated being an only child. That said, having children is the most serious decision of your life, one which you cannot go back on and better be sure one has the means to support the child not just economically but also emotionally.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 10:35 PM
All that is significantly easier in the U.S., as society is adapted to relatively early pregnancy and early marriage. Around here it is quite different. The average age of getting married is 32 for females and 34 for the guys - and university graduates are 28 years old on average and start into their professional lives in their early thirties. That is if they actually find a job. Many don't.

Northern Paladin
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 11:20 PM
It's good that you girls understand the importance of maintaining the next generation of our beautiful and progressive Race. 3 seems to be a good number. Any more and it may not be practical any less and healthy growth wouldn't be plausible. However the more the merrier for those who are capable and willing "to bear" ;)

It's :~( to see many people are putting Career and Education ahead of building a solid future for the White race by making sure we have a healthy and Thriving population.

Girls should have children at younger ages...20s...and earlier 30s any later and it would be a danger to both mother and risk the health of the child. Careers should be built around family not family around Careers...what's the use of all that money and property if you have no One to Pass it on to?




Now, though, one feels poverty-stricken if he can't have a cell phone, XBox, 500 cable channels, a plasma TV, a pc and a notebook, and a new SUV. One does need two incomes to afford to live the new American lifestyle unless the husband earns $100,000 or more per year. I pay a small fortune for my cable, phones, internet service, second car, and assorted extras that I don't really need. If I gave those up and lived a more frugal lifestyle, I could easily support a family of four or more. It's all about priorities.

Having a Family is about Sacrifice...at least that's what my Mom told me. ;)


I'll be thirty in a few months and I want to get married and get pregnant right NOW!

You seem like your contradicting yourself.

Also having kids is one thing, instilling in them racial pride and solidarity is another task that is just as important.

Phlegethon
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 11:32 PM
Those careers you are talking about are simply no longer available.

Northern Paladin
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 11:38 PM
That is a societal problem that can to be changed as it wasn't always this way. Whites will be heading for minority status in their Own countries. Action needs to be taken...maybe more time needs to pass before Whites realize the Gravity of the situtation they are in.

Phlegethon
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 12:06 AM
The point is that you have to give up the idea of outbreeding the others. That cannot and will not work and even if the birthrate exploded within years (totally unrealistic) there is still a big demographic gap that will make things much harder economically. So far we ain't seen nothing yet. Be prepared to witness crumbling infrastructures, schools and hospitals being closed. rising prices, rising taxes and soaring mass unemployment.

We do not need more whites, we need higher quality whites. So far only the white trash is breeding, and that will get us in even bigger troubles than just a society dying out. Smaller numbers will give us the required time and space to regroup.

Northern Paladin
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 03:58 PM
All that is significantly easier in the U.S., as society is adapted to relatively early pregnancy and early marriage. Around here it is quite different.

I think it's quite the same here. It use to be that way with the average age of marriage at 20 yrs in 1940. I am not sure about what the average age is now but I'd guess towards the late 20s. Modern Careersim and the overall hectic life style are what I consider the culprits.

Phlegethon
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 04:41 PM
How come that if careerism is the reason hardly anyone of those afflicted has a career? I think it's nonsense. I know people who work 80 hrs per week and still can't make ends meet. They don't even dream about a career. All they want is to keep a roof over their heads.

Northern Paladin
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 10:23 AM
How Many Children Do You Have or Plan to Have?
I am asking this question because many Nordic countries are plagued by low birth rates. It's sad to see so many intelligent and attractive Nords not contributing to future generations. Just wanted to see what the situation would like among people who are aware of the need for Nordish preservation.

Personally I plan/want to have at least 5 children. Though higher figures aren't out of the question. All depends on what my future wife will be willing to give me. If she's not willing to give me my share of offspring than I'll have a good reason to leave her and find someone more willing and perhaps even more qualitified.

Though having a lot of children is important to me I wouldn't sacrifice quantity for quality. I'd rather have a few really bright attractive kids than a bunch of degenerates.

Evolved
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 03:13 PM
It is easier for a man to say he will have 7+ children.

Eric34
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:20 PM
It is easier for a man to say he will have 7+ children.

Same hard, if they don't wants to cheat their women. :tongue:

We talked how many child we want. :love: :peck: :sperm :love:

:hveðrungur:
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:24 PM
I want two, three at the most.

cosmocreator
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 06:45 PM
Personally I plan/want to have at least 5 children. Though higher figures aren't out of the question. All depends on what my future wife will be willing to give me. If she's not willing to give me my share of offspring than I'll have a good reason to leave her and find someone more willing and perhaps even more qualitified.


Or you could move to SE British Columbia and join the Mormons there. :D

You probably don't get that. Polygamist live there. There was something in the paper yesterday about the leader there. Says you won't get into heaven unless you have 7 wives or something like that.

You could have 35 kids, maybe more. :)

Rachel
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 08:05 PM
My own little army of stormtroopers :icon_evil

Freja
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 08:43 PM
I have two, and we´re planning on two more. We´re doing our best! :tongue:

Nordhammer
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 08:59 PM
It is easier for a man to say he will have 7+ children.

Having kids and being a father who supports them are two different things.

Northern Paladin
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 10:36 PM
Or you could move to SE British Columbia and join the Mormons there. :D

You probably don't get that. Polygamist live there. There was something in the paper yesterday about the leader there. Says you won't get into heaven unless you have 7 wives or something like that.

You could have 35 kids, maybe more. :)

Good Idea. I bet the 7 wife requirment is one of the main reasons for conversion. :D
I've heard similiar news about Mormons in Utah. There's a small Utah town where the average household consists of 12+ Children.

Hell if we were all Mormons we probably wouldn't even need to be concerned about Racial Preservation. :tongue:

Northern Paladin
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 10:45 PM
It is easier for a man to say he will have 7+ children.

Hey that's a lot of work for a man to do. :D
Child bearing is much easier and safer today than it was 100 years ago. There's no exuse beside selfishness that women don't want children or are only willing to have 1.

Eric34
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 10:46 PM
I did hear about an Italian woman, who used contraceptive pills, and after she gave birth for a 6x twins! :icon_bigg

Eric34
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 10:47 PM
3 somebody did vote for "none"? :icon1: Enough sad. :(

Northern Paladin
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 10:51 PM
3 somebody did vote for "none"? :icon1: Enough sad. :(

Not good at all. I wish these people would have a change of heart and perhaps convert to Mormonism. :D

Eric34
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 11:25 PM
Yes, exactly. Hopefully they change their thinking. "The white race is dieing". Sure, if peoples don"t wants children. :(

Vigrid
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 12:27 AM
I want two, Varg & Valkyria :)

NSFreja
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 05:57 PM
I have 4 kids...
2 daughters (16 and 10 years old) and 2 sons (8 and 7)...

/M

Nordhammer
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 06:35 PM
I voted for none, because I haven't met the right girl and maybe I never will. I've had a few chances to settle down and have children, but for various reasons I couldn't see myself with those women for a lifetime. I won't be miserable and live a lie. I will do it right or not at all.

:hveðrungur:
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 06:58 PM
I voted for none, because I haven't met the right girl and maybe I never will. I've had a few chances to settle down and have children, but for various reasons I couldn't see myself with those women for a lifetime. I won't be miserable and live a lie. I will do it right or not at all.

Still want maries sister bro? :rotfl:

Nordhammer
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 07:30 PM
Still want maries sister bro? :rotfl:

I was joking. :)

bocian
Tuesday, August 17th, 2004, 12:12 AM
I voted for none, because I haven't met the right girl and maybe I never will. I've had a few chances to settle down and have children, but for various reasons I couldn't see myself with those women for a lifetime. I won't be miserable and live a lie. I will do it right or not at all.

These are wise words, Nordhammer. A child needs to grow up with two loving parents, who love each other and are capable to support the child/children.

My wife and I are settled down and have thought for a few years now to have kids, but there are still a few things to do before we take that step. We won't go there until we are 100% positive that it is the right time.

I would think two maybe three kids would be great. :)

:hveðrungur:
Tuesday, August 17th, 2004, 12:20 AM
I was joking. :)
So was I :laugh:

LiveToWin
Tuesday, August 17th, 2004, 09:11 PM
Planned on having about 5 kids.

But oh well life's a bitch sometimes :icon_sad:

Have 3 kids, 2 reds, 1 blonde :icon_bigg

Laurelin
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 12:48 AM
2 would be ideal. More than that, and parental resources tend to be spread rather thinly in taking care of them properly (not that it's impossible to do).

norcalnative1971
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 02:45 AM
The answer "None" is totally unacceptable for any National Socialist or Aryan Racialist.

To those who voted "None": Do vee need to zend you to zee Ostfront?

:icon_evil

norcalnative1971
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 02:46 AM
It is easier for a man to say he will have 7+ children.

But it's easier if it's with seven pure Aryan women. :sperm

norcalnative1971
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 02:48 AM
I voted for none, because I haven't met the right girl and maybe I never will. I've had a few chances to settle down and have children, but for various reasons I couldn't see myself with those women for a lifetime. I won't be miserable and live a lie. I will do it right or not at all.

Words spoken by approximately 100,000,000 White people since World War II?

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 03:52 AM
The answer "None" is totally unacceptable for any National Socialist or Aryan Racialist.

To those who voted "None": Do vee need to zend you to zee Ostfront?

:icon_evil

Yes it's quite a shame. Especially when it's usually the most intelligent and productive members who tend not to have children or only have a few. While those of lesser quality tend to breed like rabbits.

To those who voted "None" "Lassen Sie Kindhilfe das arische Rennen verstärken".

Freja
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 07:00 AM
2 would be ideal. More than that, and parental resources tend to be spread rather thinly in taking care of them properly.

And this you know from experience? :icon1:

I beg to differ with you - if this is based solely on observation, you might take into consideration the mental capasity and social standard of the families you are observing.

Laurelin
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 04:46 PM
I beg to differ with you - if this is based solely on observation, you might take into consideration the mental capasity and social standard of the families you are observing.

That's my observation based on the experiences of various relatives, most of whom are reasonably well-to-do. Each child requires a substantial investment of their parents' time (and money) to raise them well, but this required investment of time in particular seems to grow geometrically rather than arithmetically as the number of children increases. I have noticed that where there were 3-4 children, no particular child tended to get the all of the attention from their parents that they wanted/needed.

On the other hand, this could also be a function of both parents working at full-time jobs. If the mother stayed at home, then it would be easier to have a larger family. Many families, though, can't easily afford this option financially.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 05:06 PM
I agree with Laurelin. Typically people don't have the personal energy, devotion, and finances to have more than 2 children. It can be done, but often the children are neglected to some degree. A very dedicated mother and father who have enough time to give to their children can have a large family, but that's rarely the case these days. These large Mormon families often rely on welfare to support all of their children.

LiveToWin
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 09:27 PM
I know a family with 9 kids, nr. 10 on the way. Father is a labourer, mom at home. These are well raised kids, very polite, and they all look healthy and happy. I dont think the kids lack attention from their parents. They are a very nationalist family.
They dont have much money, they dont go on holidays etc. and the parents are never on their own, but it is a choice they have made and as far as i know they are happy with that.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 09:55 PM
It's still a fact that the each child further divides the resources.

I don't think every person should necessarily have children. Some people aren't fit to be parents, and eugenics is also a consideration.

Ewergrin
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 02:22 AM
I am already a proud father of two brilliant, attractive, and loving sons. Possibly in the future my wife and I may decide to have another.

GreenHeart
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 09:09 AM
My husband and I have a 2 month old son, and we plan to have as many more as we are given by the gods! If that's only two or three then so be it but I know I would like quite a few (up to 14).

Even though giving birth is a lot of work, it's all worth it. The rest is not that hard, so far anyway.... all you have to do is change them, feed them and spend time with them.

I never really thought that a baby could be so much fun, and not really much work at all.

Here I dressed him up like a member of the kkk :D

GreenHeart
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 09:31 AM
@ Laureline

That's not true that you can't give enough attention to more than 2 children. SOME people can't or won't, however, other people can, and these are the ones who should have a lot of kids, since they tend to be all around superior.

My grandma is one of 10 brothers and sisters, they all turned out great and my grandma is very smart and opinionated. She had three children (it would have been 9 if it weren't for the miscarriages), my dad and his sisters are very good people, very successful my aunt will be a millionaire soon if she keeps it up. Unfortunately, she chooses not to have any children :(

My mom is one of 5 and they all turned out great good people. None of them have any regrets for not getting enough attention except for my mom, and thats because when she was still young (she was the last child) her mother ran a day care in her home, taking care of 10 or more kids every day of the schoolweek...

My moms brother has 4 kids with his first wife and a 6 month old with his new wife. They are all very smart and beautiful aryan kids. Without even knowing it my uncle has done great things for his race.

None of the kids in these examples have EVER been neglected or suffered from bad parenting. It just depends on the parents I suppose....

Freja
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 10:08 AM
I think the keyword here is planning. Anyone can manage one or two kids, but having more requires so much more from the parents. People who just pop out kids in an "Oooops, I did it again"-way are often not equipped with the devotion it takes to raise that many kids. It´s all important that the kids always feel loved and wanted!

My husand has nine siblings, and only one of them has gone "bad". (Mostly because he is so trusting and naïve and lets himself be dragged into all kinds of trouble by dubious friends.)
I am one of three, of which I am the one without a university degree. (I was the one who went bad... :rolleyes: )

GreenHeart
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 11:08 AM
I think the keyword here is planning. Anyone can manage one or two kids, but having more requires so much more from the parents. People who just pop out kids in an "Oooops, I did it again"-way are often not equipped with the devotion it takes to raise that many kids. It´s all important that the kids always feel loved and wanted!

You can't really "plan" to have kids, I wanted one for 2 years and didn't get one until now... some people go on birth control in order not to have kids, and have kids anyway. Some people try for years and never have any. Therefore, I will not actively prevent myself from having children, since I want to have a large family, the number doesn't really matter to me except the more the merrier. :love:

I think the best thing a person can do for their race is to have children, although there are people who shouldn't have children (people with genetic problems that are passed on to the children), and some people should have only a few.


(I was the one who went bad... :rolleyes: )

Who says you went bad? I don't think so. :)

Freja
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 11:28 AM
You can't really "plan" to have kids, I wanted one for 2 years and didn't get one until now... some people go on birth control in order not to have kids, and have kids anyway. Some people try for years and never have any.

Correction; planning as far as it is possible. I was thinking more in terms of planning your economy, as having many children will require one of the parents to stay at home as much as possible.
I admit, being as extremely fertile as I am, I can´t really imagine what it´s like to want kids and not being able to have any. Now that I´m thirty, I have started to think a little about the (unlikely) fact that I might not be able to have any more. Just to prepare myself for eventual problems with conceiving. (But as it is, I usually conceive the day we decide it´s time to start trying. :rofl: )

One more thing about having many children; I have noticed that the older kids often volunteer in taking care of the younger ones. A six year old (for instance) can easily keep the six month old entertained while mummy makes supper. It seems that helping each other out creates a very healthy "we´re all in this together"-mentality.

Nordhammer
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 12:21 PM
I admit, being as extremely fertile as I am

I love when beautiful women talk about how fertile they are, really invigorates the senses. :)

Freja
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 01:13 PM
:d ;)

Laurelin
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 05:30 PM
@ Laureline

That's not true that you can't give enough attention to more than 2 children.

I think I said it is difficult, not that it is impossible. My mother is from a family of seven children, and they were all raised properly. However, I stand by the view that this seems to have become more difficult to do in the contemporary era.


It just depends on the parents I suppose....

That is definitely an important consideration. In several of the cases I can think of where the children of larger families tended to feel neglected, the parents were both workaholics who put their own careers ahead of everything else. But, there is a lot of that nowadays.

Zyklop
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 05:53 PM
I think I said it is difficult, not that it is impossible. My mother is from a family of seven children, and they were all raised properly. However, I stand by the view that this seems to have become more difficult to do in the contemporary era.


My grandmother successfully raised 6 children during and shortly after WW2 in the ruins of Germany. How can the contemporary conditions be any worse?

Laurelin
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 06:03 PM
My grandmother successfully raised 6 children during and shortly after WW2 in the ruins of Germany. How can the contemporary conditions be any worse?

That's a good question. I think a large part of the issue is that it is difficult to raise a large family without one parent staying at home full-time in order to supervise them. People today tend to have financial aspirations which are incompatible with having a stay-at-home mom, unless the other parent is very affluent. If the other parent is not so affluent, then having a stay-at-home parent entails significant financial sacrifices, which become more significant as the number of children increase.

A related factor with regard to financial issues, incidentally, is the deterioration of public schools. Many (depending what country you live in) are in such appalling shape that no parent would dream of sending their child to such a school, if they could possibly afford to send them to a private school. Private schools, however, are very expensive. Both parents might have to work, if they want to be able to afford a decent quality education for their children (all the more so as the number of children they have increases). But, if it is not a boarding school, this gets back to the point that it is difficult to supervise a large number of children adequately when both parents work full-time.

Notwithstanding the educational financing issue, though, one could probably say that a large part of the problem is not so much with contemporary conditions per se, as with peoples' attitudes and expectations about their financial and material status, and the priority they place on this over everything else.

GreenHeart
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 06:33 AM
That's a good question. I think a large part of the issue is that it is difficult to raise a large family without one parent staying at home full-time in order to supervise them. People today tend to have financial aspirations which are incompatible with having a stay-at-home mom, unless the other parent is very affluent. If the other parent is not so affluent, then having a stay-at-home parent entails significant financial sacrifices, which become more significant as the number of children increase.

A related factor with regard to financial issues, incidentally, is the deterioration of public schools. Many (depending what country you live in) are in such appalling shape that no parent would dream of sending their child to such a school, if they could possibly afford to send them to a private school. Private schools, however, are very expensive. Both parents might have to work, if they want to be able to afford a decent quality education for their children (all the more so as the number of children they have increases). But, if it is not a boarding school, this gets back to the point that it is difficult to supervise a large number of children adequately when both parents work full-time.

As long as one parent is staying home, why not homeschool?


Notwithstanding the educational financing issue, though, one could probably say that a large part of the problem is not so much with contemporary conditions per se, as with peoples' attitudes and expectations about their financial and material status, and the priority they place on this over everything else.

That's materialism for you. Are you one of these people?

Evolved
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 11:53 AM
Given the average onset of menopause at age 51 (for American women), I have 29 years of available time in which to give birth. Accounting for the 1-3 year recommended gap betweeen pregnancies (which I calculated at a mean 1.5 years), it is possible that I could give birth to 19 children. Not that I would want to, as animals (and gypsies) give birth to herds and I'm not interested in emulating lower species.


..women who have a very short gap (6 months or less) between pregnancies face an increased risk of complications. Premature birth, neonatal death and low birth-weight are all risks according to research... New research suggests that women who wait at least six years after giving birth to have another baby may be at higher risk of having a stillborn child. Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, found that mothers who separated their children by an interval of at least six years were 50 percent more likely to have a stillborn child, relative to women who waited between one and three years between children.

Yale New Haven Health (http://yalenewhavenhealth.org/HealthNews/reuters/NewsStory063020034.htm)

GreenHeart
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 03:54 PM
Given the average onset of menopause at age 51 (for American women), I have 29 years of available time in which to give birth. Accounting for the 1-3 year recommended gap betweeen pregnancies (which I calculated at a mean 1.5 years), it is possible that I could give birth to 19 children. Not that I would want to, as animals (and gypsies) give birth to herds and I'm not interested in emulating lower species.

You must be older than me, I could still give birth to 20.6 more children if I were to give birth every 1.5 years. :D

Laurelin
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 04:37 PM
As long as one parent is staying home, why not homeschool?

Homeschooling can work very effectively in the lower grades. As children progress into high school, though, I'd be worried about its efficacy, depending on the subjects the children wanted to pursue. It would be difficult to homeschool effectively in subjects like calculus, chemistry, and physics, both due to the expert knowledge required to teach these subjects, and due to the absence of adequate laboratory facilities in the case of the sciences.

Personally, I would seriously consider homeschooling for grades one to eight, but not for grades nine to twelve. Children need good, professional teachers for the higher grades, if they are to be competitively positioned for university entrance exams. And I would certainly expect my children to be aiming at university.


That's materialism for you. Are you one of these people?

No, but I know a lot of them. Most people are like that, unfortunately.

Nordhammer
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 07:07 PM
Homeschooling can work very effectively in the lower grades. As children progress into high school, though, I'd be worried about its efficacy, depending on the subjects the children wanted to pursue. It would be difficult to homeschool effectively in subjects like calculus, chemistry, and physics, both due to the expert knowledge required to teach these subjects, and due to the absence of adequate laboratory facilities in the case of the sciences.

Personally, I would seriously consider homeschooling for grades one to eight, but not for grades nine to twelve. Children need good, professional teachers for the higher grades, if they are to be competitively positioned for university entrance exams. And I would certainly expect my children to be aiming at university.



No, but I know a lot of them. Most people are like that, unfortunately.

The quality of education in my area here could easily be equalled or surpassed by homeschooling, as the teachers basically just follow the book and do not put much effort into teaching. It's little more than babysitting really. The only thing is that schools have a lot of funding, so they can get good books and science supplies, which parents may not be able to get.

Some people argue about the lack of developing social skills if one doesn't go to school, but I don't think this is an issue as long as you take your child outside of the house, do family activities with him/her and participate in activities with other families, allowing your child to make friendships.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 07:44 PM
Given the average onset of menopause at age 51 (for American women), I have 29 years of available time in which to give birth. Accounting for the 1-3 year recommended gap betweeen pregnancies (which I calculated at a mean 1.5 years), it is possible that I could give birth to 19 children. Not that I would want to, as animals (and gypsies) give birth to herds and I'm not interested in emulating lower species.

Just because Menopause sets in at age 51. Doesn't mean a woman is fertile up to that time. Older women are at higher risk for complications and their offspring face an increased risk of birth defects.

The Prime time for women to have children is the late teens to late twenties. By the mid 30s women experience a steady decline in fertility until menopause.

Why does having many offspring equate to being a lower life form?
Low Birth rates are a modern phenomenon and the result of humans tapering with nature.

The Eastern Front
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 08:33 PM
I simply hate kids. I can't even stand it when I go to a resturant by myself and there is some kid in the distance staring at me watching me eat or take a sip of coffee....Little bastards.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 08:49 PM
I simply hate kids. I can't even stand it when I go to a resturant by myself and there is some kid in the distance staring at me watching me eat or take a sip of coffee....Little bastards.


Why such hate?

Laurelin
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 08:57 PM
the teachers basically just follow the book and do not put much effort into teaching. It's little more than babysitting really.

That's unfortunate, but probably all too common.


Some people argue about the lack of developing social skills if one doesn't go to school, but I don't think this is an issue as long as you take your child outside of the house, do family activities with him/her and participate in activities with other families, allowing your child to make friendships.

I agree. Actually, the typical public school is a source of many corrosive social influences. The several kids I know who've gotten "into trouble" all did so under the influence of a bad crowd at school. In other environments (sports clubs, community groups, whatever), a bit more parental supervision in who the child is socializing with might be possible.

GreenHeart
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Homeschooling can work very effectively in the lower grades. As children progress into high school, though, I'd be worried about its efficacy, depending on the subjects the children wanted to pursue. It would be difficult to homeschool effectively in subjects like calculus, chemistry, and physics, both due to the expert knowledge required to teach these subjects, and due to the absence of adequate laboratory facilities in the case of the sciences.

My high school didn't even offer calculus as there weren't enough kids qualified to take the class. We didn't have any gifted program either (hey they had to cut back somewhere!) But a large program for retards... remedial classes for everything, special ed, small busses, speech therapy classes etc... :bier:


Personally, I would seriously consider homeschooling for grades one to eight, but not for grades nine to twelve. Children need good, professional teachers for the higher grades, if they are to be competitively positioned for university entrance exams. And I would certainly expect my children to be aiming at university.

You won't get that from many schools nowadays anyway, who knows how bad it will be by the time your own children are that age.


No, but I know a lot of them. Most people are like that, unfortunately.

Yeah, unfortunately :speechles

cosmocreator
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 08:56 PM
My high school didn't even offer calculus as there weren't enough kids qualified to take the class. We didn't have any gifted program either (hey they had to cut back somewhere!) But a large program for retards... remedial classes for everything, special ed, small busses, speech therapy classes etc...


I taught myself Calculus, as well as Physics, Chemistry, Relations and Functions, and grade 13 English. I did well enough on the tests for these subjects that I got accepted into one of the best Universities in Canada.

:hveðrungur:
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 08:57 PM
I simply hate kids. I can't even stand it when I go to a resturant by myself and there is some kid in the distance staring at me watching me eat or take a sip of coffee....Little bastards.
You my friend, are an idiot.

GreenHeart
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 09:02 PM
I taught myself Calculus, as well as Physics, Chemistry, Relations and Functions, and grade 13 English. I did well enough on the tests for these subjects that I got accepted into one of the best Universities in Canada.

Very amazing. I taught myself German and what I know of genetics, and I thank only my mother for my spelling ability.

I didn't really learn all that much in school, my schools were very inferior. The best stuff I learned there was the math, and I could already read before I even started school, unfortunately, those who didn't have good parents who taught them- even in high school could barely read from the textbooks, and struggled with pronouncing long words, I have to say it did not make them look smart. There were actually very few who could read out of a book without the teacher helping them pronounce a large number of words. Very sad...

GreenHeart
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 09:15 PM
You my friend, are an idiot.

Yes, I'm glad he got banned! :viking1:

Yggdrasil
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 09:46 PM
I believe this should have been an open poll to see who voted none so they can be banned!

:hveðrungur:
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 10:10 PM
I believe this should have been an open poll to see who voted none so they can be banned!
Why would people be banned becuase they vote none? Some people just dont have it in them to have children, either they cant or they dont think they would be fit parents, I know id rather have someone not have children if they didnt think they could properly raise a child than for them to have one and for it to grow up neglected and without the attention it deserves.

Yggdrasil
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 10:20 PM
Why would people be banned becuase they vote none? Some people just dont have it in them to have children, either they cant or they dont think they would be fit parents, I know id rather have someone not have children if they didnt think they could properly raise a child than for them to have one and for it to grow up neglected and without the attention it deserves.

IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THIS RACE ALIVE WE NEED TO HAVE NORDIC KIDS, AND NOT STUPID MORONS THAT DONT WANT TO HAVE KIDS OUT OF SELFISH REASONS!!!!

RATHER 1000 NORDIC KIDS THAT CANT BE RAISED GOOD THAN NONE AT ALL

FUCK FOR YOUR RACE :sperm :sperm :sperm :sperm :sperm

:hveðrungur:
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 10:29 PM
IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THIS RACE ALIVE WE NEED TO HAVE NORDIC KIDS, AND NOT STUPID MORONS THAT DONT WANT TO HAVE KIDS OUT OF SELFISH REASONS!!!!

RATHER 1000 NORDIC KIDS THAT CANT BE RAISED GOOD THAN NONE AT ALL

FUCK FOR YOUR RACE :sperm :sperm :sperm :sperm :sperm
You are saying people should have kids if they cant support or raise them right and give them what they need to flourish into good people? That is fucking STUPID and you are a idiot.

Yggdrasil
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 10:57 PM
You are saying people should have kids if they cant support or raise them right and give them what they need to flourish into good people? That is fucking STUPID and you are a idiot.

Times get harder and with that its going to be harder to raise kids, if you are either too stupid or too lazy to get a fucking job to support a kid im sorry for you. But having kids is nessesary for our race at all costs! Im glad if you wont have any kids, they meight turn out like you :gay:

Besides you can not deny that we need a lot of nordic babys..

Who is stupid? Me? for saying having kids is a must?

:hveðrungur:
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 11:56 PM
Times get harder and with that its going to be harder to raise kids, if you are either too stupid or too lazy to get a fucking job to support a kid im sorry for you. But having kids is nessesary for our race at all costs! Im glad if you wont have any kids, they meight turn out like you :gay:

Besides you can not deny that we need a lot of nordic babys..

Who is stupid? Me? for saying having kids is a must?

First of all, someone could make good money at a good job but that would not make them a fit parent. Some people just arnt meant to be parents for different reasons, they either dont want to (selfesh) or dont think they would make good parents and wouldnt be able to raise a child. Yes having kids IS nessesary for our race BUT do you think unfit people having children benefits our race or hurts it? Do you really want a bunch of 16 year old teens out there mad at the world becuase their parents neglected them and did not pay enough attention to them growing up, or becuase they did not teach them anything as far as life values go? They would just be more puppets for zog to controll and manipulate or we would have more Colombine incidents on our hands.

You are glad if I dont have kids huh? Sorry to break it to you but I plan on having at least 2 children and I will raise them right, spend as much of my time with them as I can and teach them to be proud and strong aryan people while letting them know I love them and they will be my reason for living and fighting. And my two children will be worth more than 20 neglected headcases you would have brought into this world with your "fucking for your race" ideology.

As for calling me gay, haha, you are a pathetic little twat. We need nordic babies, but not nordic babies who will just grow up to be problems. You are not stupid for saying we need more babies in this world but you are stupid for not even fucking comprehending what I was saying, if you cant properly read or speak english and understand what I am saying, dont reply to my posts, you only make yourself look like an idiot.

Scáthach
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 07:42 PM
I've settled on 6. :)

Verslingen
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 07:27 PM
My wife and I prefer to leave the amount of children we have to nature and god. Our love has already produced five lovely children and We have confirmed she is preg. again. I think my wife truly deserves a medal for being a great wife, mother and lover :)

verslingen


:viking and :fmom:
:fviking:Harald :cold Raymond :ehm Erik :prettykit Evelyn :baby Catherine

Verslingen
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 07:48 PM
http://www.latex-kontor.de/images/g91110.jpg



[/QUOTE]This is disgusting and peeerverse...
Definately not what I wanted to see on a Sunday Afternoon

GreenHeart
Saturday, October 16th, 2004, 10:28 AM
Homeschooling can work very effectively in the lower grades. As children progress into high school, though, I'd be worried about its efficacy, depending on the subjects the children wanted to pursue. It would be difficult to homeschool effectively in subjects like calculus, chemistry, and physics, both due to the expert knowledge required to teach these subjects, and due to the absence of adequate laboratory facilities in the case of the sciences.

Personally, I would seriously consider homeschooling for grades one to eight, but not for grades nine to twelve. Children need good, professional teachers for the higher grades, if they are to be competitively positioned for university entrance exams. And I would certainly expect my children to be aiming at university.

They now have a wide range of high school subjects on DVD taught by professors. A lot of movie star kids use this method I guess. My brother is in high school now and my mother is looking into this program for him. I can't remember the site this was on though.

Laurelin
Sunday, October 17th, 2004, 12:58 AM
They now have a wide range of high school subjects on DVD taught by professors. A lot of movie star kids use this method I guess. My brother is in high school now and my mother is looking into this program for him. I can't remember the site this was on though.
I hadn't considered that possibility. It might be very worthwhile, as long as there is some sort of support system behind the DVD, so that questions about the material that the parent can't answer can be dealt with by a professional in the field.

Scandinavian-girl
Sunday, January 9th, 2005, 11:40 PM
I'm asking this question because low birth rates are becoming a serious problem for many Nordic nations.

I think having offspring is one of the most important things a person can do for their race.

Personally I plan on having at least 3 kids. If every Nordic woman did her duty we would be a lot better off than we are now.

Loki
Sunday, January 9th, 2005, 11:49 PM
Nothing at the moment, but I also plan at least 3 or 4. :icon_smil

Scandinavian-girl, your exceptional purity necessitates a "litter" of at least 10! :rotfl:

Scandinavian-girl
Monday, January 10th, 2005, 12:01 AM
Nothing at the moment, but I also plan at least 3 or 4. :icon_smil

Scandinavian-girl, your exceptional purity necessitates a "litter" of at least 10! :rotfl:

Loki an exceptional Nord man such as yourself should consider 10 as well. ;)

Constantinus
Monday, January 10th, 2005, 01:05 PM
I have none, but plan to reproduce one day.

jcs
Monday, January 10th, 2005, 08:04 PM
None at the moment, but I'd like to have at least two and no more than 5.
Quality over quantity.

norcalnative1971
Monday, January 10th, 2005, 08:04 PM
Three blue-eyed blonds! One boy, two girls.

Just have to stand guard against the untermenschen eying my girls, with my shotgun. :viking1:

GenericDani
Monday, January 10th, 2005, 09:02 PM
I'm asking this question because low birth rates are becoming a serious problem for many Nordic nations.

I think having offspring is one of the most important things a person can do for their race.

Personally I plan on having at least 3 kids. If every Nordic woman did her duty we would be a lot better off than we are now.


I agree with you that having children is very important; that's why I support my dad's decision to become a Mormon... in the sense of family, that "cult" has got it right! They (even TODAY, not just in the past) typically have around 9-13 children -- I've met a lot of the families in his church, and this is the case with almost all of them, even the young families!

Myself, I plan to have at least five -- if I can sufficiently support more, I want moooooooooooooooooooooooore, more more more!! But five is the minimum. It's really a tragedy when a healthy white couple has one child (even worse: NONE), because they would rather spend the money on toys, like Harley's and Sea-Doo's... *frowns* But that's what whites think they are supposed to do -- collect money and toys. And kids get in the way, because they cost so much money. I believe THIS is the reason that many whites are having lower and lower birth rates, while minorities are out having TONS of kids -- they aren't expected, in today's society, to have all the toys, the nice house, etc... It's "okay" for them, in their "culture," to be on welfare and having NOTHING -- so they do! ('Cept, they have tons of kids.)

Freja
Tuesday, January 11th, 2005, 08:46 AM
I have two boys, planning on two more.
I`ll probably be in my mid-thirties when I`m done, and a woman in her late thirties risk bearing children with more serious birth defects, Down`s etc.
I`m not taking that risk.

NSFreja
Tuesday, January 11th, 2005, 09:14 AM
I have 4 kids....

2 girls (16 and 10) and 2 boys (8 and 7)...

/M

celticlove
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 01:34 AM
I don't have any children at the moment (I'll be 18 in six days) but I'm planning on four+. Three boys, one girl, hopefully in that order, and after that, we'll see from there.

Constantinus
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 11:12 AM
I want at least 2 kids (replacementlevel), definately at least 1 girl among them (calmer in the house, and knowing myself already ath this age: I'd spoil her rotten probably).

The Faroe
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 11:57 AM
I want at least 2 kids (replacementlevel), definately at least 1 girl among them (calmer in the house, and knowing myself already ath this age: I'd spoil her rotten probably).Replacement level is 2.1 - 2.4. You'd need three kids.

New here. From Faeroe Island / Denmark. Howdy.

Man. Mid thirties. Got two of the expensive ones (girls, 5, 7). Hoping and planning on two or three more children, boys or girls – makes no difference.

GenericDani
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 05:46 PM
I have 4 kids....

2 girls (16 and 10) and 2 boys (8 and 7)...

/M


Yay!!!!! THAT'S what I like to see!

FadeTheButcher
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 06:16 PM
None so far. I am in my mid-20s. But I want a large family when the time comes.

Guest
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 06:31 PM
New here. From Faeroe Island / Denmark. Howdy.

Velkommen til TNP! :beer-smil

Hope you'll like it here! :)


BTW, I don't have any kids yet either, but would ideally also like a large family - I'm just in my mid twenties too...

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Replacement level is 2.1 - 2.4. You'd need three kids.

New here. From Faeroe Island / Denmark. Howdy.

Man. Mid thirties. Got two of the expensive ones (girls, 5, 7). Hoping and planning on two or three more children, boys or girls – makes no difference.

Good point. And welcome to TNP!

As for me I plan on having at least 3 children.

Rachel
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 10:48 PM
Given my age I have none now. Ideally I'd like to have my first child in my early/mid twenties. Two girls and two boys would be nice :)

The Faroe
Thursday, January 13th, 2005, 08:07 AM
Thanks all. But after I wrote the last post I got to thinking. 2.1 – 2.4 child/woman is the conventional number for replacement, both as a people and of ones personal DNA in a Darwinian sense. However we in the movement are operating with slightly different goal, as we’d normally consider people who mate with immigrants as lost to the race and culture. And neither should one expect ones own children to be absolutely immune to the multi-cultural sickness. So if we assume say 20% (I have no idea of the actual number) of all of European descend marry people of alien race, then replacement level should be considered that much higher, i.e. 2.52 – 2.88 child/woman.

NSFreja
Thursday, January 13th, 2005, 08:34 AM
Yay!!!!! THAT'S what I like to see!It's our duty as women to have many kids and at least try to save our race.

But, to give birth to many kids isn't a problem, belive me ;)
It's after giving birth the real problems show up, when it's time to raise them.

You can have as many kids as you like BUT it's you that decides what they're going to be as adults.
It's your method to raise them that are important and that will be our destiny when it comes to saving our race.

The children are the future, yes, but without a good leading hand, the race will have no future at all.

Hope you all understand how i mean with saying this.

/M

DreamWalker
Thursday, January 13th, 2005, 08:43 AM
Thanks all. But after I wrote the last post I got to thinking. 2.1 – 2.4 child/woman is the conventional number for replacement, both as a people and of ones personal DNA in a Darwinian sense. However we in the movement are operating with slightly different goal, as we’d normally consider people who mate with immigrants as lost to the race and culture. And neither should one expect ones own children to be absolutely immune to the multi-cultural sickness. So if we assume say 20% (I have no idea of the actual number) of all of European descend marry people of alien race, then replacement level should be considered that much higher, i.e. 2.52 – 2.88 child/woman.

I don't know how valid the numbers are now, but a couple of decades ago I read a textbook from the 50's that claimed the replacement number was almost 4, 3.8 if I remember right. This number supposedly took into account child death rates, percentage of people who never reproduced, etc. As you say, with the additional losses resulting from mixing with enemy aliens, plus with all the "career women" who were rare 50 years ago foregoing children, the number now must be even higher,

But again, the book was from the 50's and I believe only applied to the USA.

Naggaroth
Thursday, January 13th, 2005, 12:49 PM
I'm asking this question because low birth rates are becoming a serious problem for many Nordic nations.

I think having offspring is one of the most important things a person can do for their race.

Personally I plan on having at least 3 kids. If every Nordic woman did her duty we would be a lot better off than we are now.
First I have to find a partner that wants to share her life with me, then I will give her the gift of 4-8 children. And I do hope that there will be at least 2 of each sex. And I'm sorry to read that the birth rate is low. It makes me sad. That's why I want as many children as possible.

Vanir
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 02:00 AM
A topic that is rather fundamental (understatement of the century) to our survival and and eventual renewal, so just interested in the thoughts of others on this....

How many children would you ideally like to have (in a perfect world)?

How many children do you realistically see yourself having? (feel free to enlarge on why)

When do you think you might start a family? (feel free to enlarge on why)

SouthernBoy
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 02:03 AM
I would like to have five children, but I will probably only have three.

When I am twenty-five I should be ready to start a family. :)

Heirs To Perdition
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 06:44 AM
A topic that is rather fundamental (understatement of the century) to our survival and and eventual renewal, so just interested in the thoughts of others on this....

How many children would you ideally like to have (in a perfect world)?

How many children do you realistically see yourself having (feel free to enlarge on why)?

When do you think you might start a family (feel free to enlarge on why)?


1. 2 is a good number for me.

2. Maybe 1, possibly 2 it also depends on my partner, in america the women are affected by the "enslavement" to family stereotype so nowadays I feel it is hard to have a family unless you have the right kind of person who is committed to bring a child into the world. Which is what I intend on finding.

3. After I go through college, get a career going and work my way into a house with a gf and such. It will be a few years I believe finding what I want to do seems like a puzzle hard to solve nowadays.

Blutwölfin
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 08:28 AM
1. How many children would you ideally like to have (in a perfect world)?

2. How many children do you realistically see yourself having (feel free to enlarge on why)?

3. When do you think you might start a family (feel free to enlarge on why)?


ad 1.) Ideally? Two or three, hopefully all boys. :rolleyes:

ad 2.) Probably one. As said in another post before: It has become very expensive to raise kids and I'm not rich. Unfortunately.

ad 3.) I'm 27 now. Probably time to start. But there is one major problems at the moment: I live in a city and I don't want to raise children in a huge and dirty town, where they would have to play on sidewalks or small parks, which are pretending to be some kind of "natural landscape". I have to move to the countryside (hopefully somewhere up in the North ;)) first, which is planned to happen within the next five years. So probably at the age of 30 to 32 I'll start having a "real" family.

Vanir
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 10:51 AM
Good points, indeed one must find the right person for them, looking forward to the future gives one the benefit of anticipation though, knowing what you want allows you to start actively watching in the here and now :)

In an ideal world I would like 5 or 6 kids :) 3 boys and 2 girls would be good.

I hope to have 2 or 3 though, that seems realistic to me. 3 seems the magical number in my extended family too

I wanted somewhere stable & quiet to raise children, which we have found thankfully, and want to travel a little more before focusing myself on raising children, so after a few more trips and the house is mostly paid is the right time for me. (Not too long though)

In an extended family, it is easier to have children earlier, as one's siblings, parents and grandparents can also help with the effort (I help with the children of my brother & sister) which is how it is meant to be I feel. Most people seem shut off from their families though these days..

Death and the Sun
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 02:11 PM
1. How many children would you ideally like to have (in a perfect world)?

2. How many children do you realistically see yourself having? (feel free to enlarge on why)

3. When do you think you might start a family? (feel free to enlarge on why)

1. No more than five, and no less than three.

2. At the moment I really cannot say. It's possible that I won't ever have any kids at all.

3. If I have children someday, it won't happen in the immediate future. I'd say a couple of years from now at the very earliest.

newenstad
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 05:17 PM
1. Three (two boys and a girl)
2. Three (maybe two boys and a girl)
3. In 5 or ten years...

Blood_Axis
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 08:57 PM
ad 1.) Ideally? Two or three, hopefully all boys. :rolleyes:

ad 2.) Probably one. As said in another post before: It has become very expensive to raise kids and I'm not rich. Unfortunately.

ad 3.) I'm 27 now. Probably time to start. But there is one major problems at the moment: I live in a city and I don't want to raise children in a huge and dirty town, where they would have to play on sidewalks or small parks, which are pretending to be some kind of "natural landscape". I have to move to the countryside (hopefully somewhere up in the North ;)) first, which is planned to happen within the next five years. So probably at the age of 30 to 32 I'll start having a "real" family.
Amazing!

You and me are so alike, it seems, we could be sisters ;)

It's funny I had written an almost identical post some moths ago in another forum..

I too was complaining about how raising children has become a luxury nowadays, and how very few people can afford to have more than one, at least where I live..

I was also expressing the view that the urban environment is totally unsuitable for the upbringing of children and that I would like to settle down in the countryside before I have any.

I am also -almost- 27 and I haven't had any yet, and I seriously feel like my clock is ticking..I am not getting any younger :frown:

But it is modern life that imposes all that financial insecurity that makes the average woman become a mother in her thirties..

I would also like to have 2-3 children (given my age I could not have more even if I wanted to), also preferably boys but I wouldn't mind a girl as well, as long as I have also a boy. :P

Death and the Sun
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 09:03 PM
Do we have any members here who already do have children?

Loki
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 09:06 PM
Do we have any members here who already do have children?

Not any I know of. ;)

Constantinus
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 09:10 PM
I would like 2 or 3 kids, no more than one boy. Girls tend to make less of a mess in the house.

Blood_Axis
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 09:15 PM
Not any I know of. ;)
Does Guest not count? :P

Death and the Sun
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 09:16 PM
Not any I know of. ;)

Actually, I know there are at least two. But it would be interesting to know if there are more.

Loki
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 09:40 PM
Actually, I know there are at least two. But it would be interesting to know if there are more.

I meant, I didn't have any children I knew of... ;)

Yup, Guest is a champion of a mother... a great example and true Nordic woman to be respected.

SouthernBoy
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 10:38 PM
I have an excuse, but y'all should be getting busy. :P

Randvithr
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 10:39 PM
In an ideal world 5 children, 3 boys and 2 girls.

But in real life I´d guess 3 children.

When? Probably when I´m finished with my universitystudies, which is in about 4 years :doh00000:

And I also have to find the nordic woman of my dreams :frenchkj:

Loki
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 10:46 PM
And I also have to find the nordic woman of my dreams :frenchkj:

You're in Sweden, so it shouldn't be too difficult. :)

Krissi
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 11:46 PM
1) I want two little beautiful nordic girls and one little berserk :P

2) I'll probably have 2-3 children

3) Maybe when I'm 25-30 years old

Randvithr
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 01:28 AM
You're in Sweden, so it shouldn't be too difficult. :)

True indeed :)

But still, hard enough.. A lot of nordic women, but very few with the right personality to go with the race. Find a girl in my age (22) whos favorite music isn´t 50 Cent and Eminem, and think yourself lucky :suomut:

Mistress Klaus
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 09:09 AM
I'll be completely honest...I have no desire to have any children....though if I did....2 girls.;)

Ulex
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 02:08 PM
Being a respected elder on this board (don't laugh), I would like to point out to you little lovebirds that it really isn't important how many children you will have, as with whom you are having them. Choose your future beloved one with care while you consider if you really want to see his or her genes being reflected in your children. We don't just need more white kids - we need better white kids.

I know the search for the right one is a very difficult search, and when you even expect your partner to have abilties not less than those of your own, it is even harder. But take your time, knowing that you are about to make the most important decision in your life. The right choice will not only be a benefit to you, but to your race. The wrong choice... Well, I think you already got the point, so there is not really any reasons to point this out any further.

DreamWalker
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 08:29 PM
I am also -almost- 27 and I haven't had any yet, and I seriously feel like my clock is ticking..I am not getting any younger :frown:

I would also like to have 2-3 children (given my age I could not have more even if I wanted to),

Huh??:scratch:

You are 26, so assuming a child every year and a half until you are, say 42, that's 16 years, that is approximately 10.07 children.:P

Come now BA, we are Nordish, lets see more confidence, we need to populate the planet with our kind:viking1:

SouthernBoy
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 08:33 PM
You are 26, so assuming a child every year and a half until you are, say 42, that's 16 years, that is approximately 10.07 children.:P

LOL, minus the time it takes me to get to Athens in a row boat. :rofl:

DreamWalker
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 08:47 PM
I was also expressing the view that the urban environment is totally unsuitable for the upbringing of children and that I would like to settle down in the countryside before I have any.



I have to move to the countryside (hopefully somewhere up in the North ;)) first, which is planned to happen within the next five years.


2 girls.;)

Ladies, I happen to ahem......clears throat....ahh........live in a semi-rural area:viking3:

As long as you don't mind sharing me:)

Arcturus
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 08:50 PM
Ladies, I happen to ahem......clears throat....ahh........live in a semi-rural area:viking3:

As long as you don't mind sharing me:)

DreamWalker, behave!:cool:

SouthernBoy
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 08:57 PM
As long as you don't mind sharing me:)
It's only sharing if the other ones know. :laugh:

lei.talk
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 10:02 PM
It's only sharing if the other ones know. :laugh:in my experience,
intelligent and self-confident girls
have no such objections
as long as you have a surplus
with which to supply their desires
and the needs of their children.

some of them become very good friends.

not all females are irrational.
i recommend starting a mensa (http://www.mensa.org/index0.php?page=10) special interest group (http://www.us.mensa.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Groups/SpecialInterestGroups1/SIGs.htm)
(in your area),
so you can meet them more easily.
now that i think about it,
almost all of my girl-friends came from there.
not that i planned it that way.

Agrippa
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 10:05 PM
Huh??:scratch:

You are 26, so assuming a child every year and a half until you are, say 42, that's 16 years, that is approximately 10.07 children.:P

Come now BA, we are Nordish, lets see more confidence, we need to populate the planet with our kind:viking1:

Exactly. I know a woman which had given 8 children birth from the age of 25 on...thats no problem, especially if considering the modern methods. :)

DreamWalker
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 11:21 PM
DreamWalker, behave!:cool:
Hahahahaha, but you forgot the smily:annoysigr So it seems Louhi's job is safe for now.

And actually, I am behaving like a good Nordisher, I would refer you to the concept of "Sister-Wives":grouphug: , as promoted by David Lane in his short novel "KD Rebel", available online here;

http://www.whiterevolution.com/racfic/

DreamWalker
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 11:31 PM
It's only sharing if the other ones know. :laugh:
No no, that would be dishonest to hide them from each other:annoysigr

I am reminded of an article on news-magazine type show on TV, they asked a Mormon man how he decided which of his 8 wives to sleep with on a given night, and he replied, "They decide". Then went on to explain that whichever one was ovulating was the one who stayed with him that night.

The method seemed to work;) , he had a couple dozen attractive little blond/blue Nordishers on the grounds, and most of the wives seemed pregnant:viking1:

newenstad
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 11:33 PM
Like in South Park: Mormons would have been the right answer...;)

SouthernBoy
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 11:34 PM
No no, that would be dishonest to hide them from each other:annoysigr

I am reminded of an article on news-magazine type show on TV, they asked a Mormon man how he decided which of his 8 wives to sleep with on a given night, and he replied, "They decide". Then went on to explain that whichever one was ovulating was the one who stayed with him that night.

The method seemed to work;) , he had a couple dozen attractive little blond/blue Nordishers on the grounds, and most of the wives seemed pregnant:viking1:
I don't have a problem with polygomy; you should be able to have as many children and wives as you can support. ;)

Randvithr
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 11:44 PM
I don't have a problem with polygomy; you should be able to have as many children and wives as you can support. ;)

And would it be OK for you that your wife/wifes have several husbands? :D

SouthernBoy
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 11:46 PM
And would it be OK for you that your wife/wifes have several husbands? :D
No, I'm a chauvinist. :D

Ulex
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 01:07 AM
All my senses and instincts objects to the idea of having several wifes. It is a perverted and greedy idea, which can only be justified in wartime, when the male population is naturally decreased.

I like the idea of "the one and only". This regarding your race and your family.

Agrippa
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 01:15 AM
In an expanding society with more than ~2,2 children we have the usual pattern of older men have more younger women to take so there is a natural surplus.
In the situation of both falling fertility rates and immigration of mainly male individuals the contrary is true, too many males, not enough women. Thats one of the reasons why so many in the West try to get foreign ones.

If we have mininum+ fertility rate there are, as I said, under natural conditions more women than men. All depends on the quality of the genes, so it should be allowed for good males to have more than one women. If you look at the whole series of expansions, they were mostly lead by males and males spread the genes, its just natural to spread the best genes as wide and strong as possible. Everybody should decide it by himself, but there are for sure males around which should have as much children as possible...

I dont care, polygamy is nothing bad - its just bad if the wrong males, no matter if they can afford it or not, spread their genes under too much females and in the population, on the other hand if good individuals have more children with more women I just say great. But its right, it should be mainly supported after catastrophies and wars, than its not just tolerable but necessary. F.e. after a long time of strong contraselection, f.e. in a great war, the losses must be filled by the left positive males as soon as possible and to have healthy women without males in such a situation would be just a waste.

ChrisDownUnder
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 08:30 AM
When I was a young lad, I used to tell my mother that I wanted to have 11 children when I was older, 'to match the number on dad's ship'. :laugh: He was engineering officer on this destroyer:


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/Christopher1488/Web%20Photos/hmasvampire2.jpg



If the technology was available, I would like to have a son who was an exact replicated copy of myself (aka. Jango Fett getting the Kaminoans to create Boba in the Star Wars universe). Then I could teach him in the ways of righteousness, in order for him to continue my work when I have departed. :thumb001:

Seriously though, I share the sentiments of others such as SURT and Blutwölfin. I would much rather raise children in a smaller town or rural area, as opposed to a city of teeming millions. My reasons for this would include environmental issues, the desire to live in a region with a much more common sense of community, and the yearning to live in a more ethnically homogenous area.

Regarding number of children, I would like between 2 to 5, an even number of boys/girls would be nice.

I cannot see this happening in the foreseeable future, but then men are biologically capable of having children to a much later age, so time is not so much of an issue. Plus finding a racially acceptable woman who shares these sentiments is the vital 50% missing from my equation. :rolleyes:

lei.talk
Sunday, July 24th, 2005, 01:56 AM
When I am twenty-five I should be ready to start a family. :)how long after marriage will you have children?
how much money do you expect to have saved by then?

when my girl-friend in high-school
announced that she was ready for our baby,
i replied (helpfully), "i will call the hospital
and find out how much they charge for one.
then we can start saving that money".

she, mistakenly, thought i was making a joke.

SouthernBoy
Sunday, July 24th, 2005, 03:05 AM
how long after marriage will you have children?
how much money do you expect to have saved by then?

when my girl-friend in high-school
announced that she was ready for our baby,
i replied (helpfully), "i will call the hospital
and find out how much they charge for one.
then we can start saving that money".

she, mistakenly, thought i was making a joke.
I'm hoping it won't be very long, because I don't intend to marry a woman that I won't have children with. I still have a few years to contemplate it. :)

Thobjorn
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 11:38 PM
i want to have three children...three boys.

it all really depends on who i marry, but hopefull she will agree with me... or want more ;)

i'll start a family whenever i get the chance, but i probably wont find a mate until after college, and the national guard, so around twenty five, or so. we'll see.

Skildur
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 11:53 PM
I want to have 3 children too - 2 younger girls and one older boy. That'll make perfect family. :hug:

ChrisDownUnder
Friday, July 29th, 2005, 01:37 PM
Whilst we here deliberate on having, on average, between 2 and 5 Nordish children, consider the tale of Ayattu Nure, a 56 year old Ethiopian man:

Polygamy no fun, admits Ethiopian (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4720457.stm) :rolleyes:

I would not personally be interested in a polygamous relationship with a number of different women. I agree with Agrippa though, when he states that polygamy may be necessary and tolerable “after catastrophes and wars”. Europe is currently facing such an adverse situation – a demographic catastrophe.

Arcturus
Friday, July 29th, 2005, 01:45 PM
We'll have to do better, Diablonegro wants to have seven mudbabies.;)

GreenHeart
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 02:44 PM
I would like to have as many children as possible. But unfortunately I have RH negative blood and my husband has RH positive, so I may not be able to have many children if I develop immunities to his blood. And sadly it takes us quite a long time to concieve. I tried for 2 years to get my son, who then came unexpectedly. So I'm thinking there will be a good two years between all of our children, however many that may be.

Weg
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 04:32 PM
The women we've here are not representative of the European women population. How many childen do European women wish to have today? I'd say, for most, around 1, at best 2. Not to mention the ones who don't want to have any child because "this world we're living in is awfull and there's no hope for them blahblah" or just because they're at the "peak" of the selfishness (the "ME" imports more than anything else). It would be interested to know whom the common European woman wants to have children with. With "exotic" men, Europids or whatever man. That said, fortunately a few are aware and it's good to know.

GreenHeart
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 06:35 PM
Yeah true. I would say that most women dont want any children at all. They would rather get a small dog and dress it in human clothes and carry it with them everywhere... :doh

Georgia
Wednesday, February 8th, 2006, 11:38 PM
I would have loved to have more than the three children that I have. But it just didn't happen....
Being a mother is wonderful. The best thing right after being the wife of a wonderful man, my husband. Georgia

Esther_Helena
Thursday, February 9th, 2006, 11:46 PM
Yeah true. I would say that most women dont want any children at all. They would rather get a small dog and dress it in human clothes and carry it with them everywhere... :doh

*snicker* In some cases I'd say that's the better option. Paris Hilton anyone?
In my case, I can see me with eight kids before I can see me walking my collie-black lab mix in a pink frilly tutu. :P

Pixi
Friday, February 10th, 2006, 01:16 AM
*snicker* In some cases I'd say that's the better option. Paris Hilton anyone?
In my case, I can see me with eight kids before I can see me walking my collie-black lab mix in a pink frilly tutu. :P
Anyone who dresses their dogs in ridiculous outfits is probably mentally unhinged, irregardless of whether they have children.

Weg
Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 01:42 AM
Hmm, between 3 and 5. Though, if I were really wealthy, I wish I had plenty of kids. I'd even adopt some to maximize the success of my education methods.

I less and less understand people who've no children at all when they could raise half a dozen or more with all their nasty money.

Phlegethon
Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 12:55 AM
German birth rate falls to lowest in Europe

Luke Harding in Berlin
Wednesday March 15, 2006
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

The number of children born in Germany last year was the lowest since the end of the second world war, the Federal Statistical Office reported yesterday. According to provisional figures, 680,000 babies were born in 2005, down from 1.36 million in 1964.Germany now has the lowest birth rate in Europe with 8.5 births per 1,000 inhabitants, while in Britain it is 12, France 12.7, the Netherlands 11.9 and Ireland 15.2. The figures also show falling birth rates across former communist eastern Europe and the Baltic states, including Poland (9.3), Bulgaria (9) and Latvia (8.8).


Leading economists said unless Germans started breeding again Europe's biggest nation faced the prospect of reduced growth, economic decline and an elderly shrinking population."We are reaching a critical point," Michael Hüther, the head of Cologne's economics institute, told Die Welt newspaper. "The number of births now determines what happens in the next decade-and-a-half to two decades. You can't revise it afterwards. The availability of human capital will get worse, and act as a brake on growth."
He told the Guardian: "The tradition in the 1950s, 60s and even the 80s in Germany was that a mother was only a mother and looked after the children."
Last year Germany's family minister, Ursula von der Leyen, tabled proposals to encourage reluctant couples to have children. They included tax breaks of €3,000 a year for working couples, more nursery places, and a new state-funded welfare scheme that requires men to take two months off for families to get full funding. So far the changes appear to have had little impact and they have been criticised by some as a perk for the well-off.
Experts have pointed to many reasons why Germans are failing to reproduce - a conservative family culture, with women expected to stay at home; schools that finish at lunchtime; and a tax system that discriminates against working women. "I'd like to have children. But to do so now would kill off my career," Steffi Warnke, a 31-year-old PhD student at Berlin's Free University told the Guardian.
"The problem is we study in Germany for a long time. When you reach the stage you are applying for academic jobs you are 30-35. And if you do have kids you don't get much support. Germany is becoming a society of pensioners. You only have to turn on the TV to see that all the programmes are for the over-50s."
The latest federal figures show wide regional discrepancies. The highest birth rate is in former West Germany, with Wiesbaden (10.5), Frankfurt (10.2) and Bonn (10.1) topping the list. In former communist East Germany, by contrast, the birth rate is alarmingly low, with the city of Chemnitz (6.9) registering the lowest birth rate in the world. According to Eurostat, the EU's statistics agency, by 2050 Europe's population will have fallen by around 1.5%, or 7 million people.

Godiva
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 03:13 AM
I would like to have six to eight children. I've always wanted a big family and I'm really good at paying attention to a lot of things at once. I also think that having so many will give the older siblings a wonderful chance to learn more about responsibility. I don't want my older children to essentially become the parents of my younger children however, but I do want all of my children to learn responsibility and independence at a young age. I have only one sibling, and she was adopted. She's five years older than me, the pregnancy my parents first expected to just be another miscarriage (like the many they had before me), and when we were younger we never really got along. Another benefit of a big family is that if you're not getting along with one person there are many other choices you have of people to get along with. I guess my next reason may seem corny to some people, but Leofric is so wonderful that I really want there to be more people like him in the world, and since I'm the only one who can try to make that happen I will. Oh, one more thing, I want to have both sons and daughters, ideally we'll get a son first, but God ultimately knows best. :)

P.S. Not too worried about labor, when I choose to I can handle pain. ;)

SouthernBoy
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 03:18 AM
Four to Five. :)

Bridie
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 03:39 AM
P.S. Not too worried about labor, when I choose to I can handle pain. ;)
Hehehe, famous last words. :D Don't get me wrong, natural childbirth is do-able.... but let's put it this way..... previous to having my first baby I thought like you too, because before having ever experienced labour, I could never have imagined such a level of pain could exist. And the pain is not unaccompanied by all sorts of other sensations that are pretty unbearble too at times (to put it mildly). If I ever have another baby, (after having experienced natural childbirth 3 times,) I am TERRIFIED of ever going through it again. And the more babies you have, the worse the after-birth pains are (just like earlier phase of 1st stage labour from 3rd baby onwards.) My 3rd was my most painful, but I wonder if that has anything to do with the 3 stretch and sweeps I had during pre-labour!!! :-O LMAO

Anyway, I'm not trying to be a downer or anything. Just prepare yourself that's all. If natural childbirth is what you really want, you'll need to find people that are fully supportive of your decision who will act as an advocate for you during labour - as you will be rendered more vulnerable at this time than you could possibly imagine now. :)

All in all, I would go through a million natural labours again, for the sake of bringing my babies into the world. :thumbup Childbirth is a rite of passage into true womanhood imo. :)


I voted for 4 or 5.... but realistically at this stage of my life, I think I've had enough. (But then, my youngest is only 5 mths old, so I could change my mind.)

Godiva
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 03:54 AM
Hehehe, famous last words. :D Don't get me wrong, natural childbirth is do-able.... but let's put it this way..... previous to having my first baby I thought like you too, because before having ever experienced labour, I could never have imagined such a level of pain could exist. And the pain is not unaccompanied by all sorts of other sensations that are pretty unbearble too at times (to put it mildly). If I ever have another baby, (after having experienced natural childbirth 3 times,) I am TERRIFIED of ever going through it again. And the more babies you have, the worse the after-birth pains are (just like earlier phase of 1st stage labour from 3rd baby onwards.) My 3rd was my most painful, but I wonder if that has anything to do with the 3 stretch and sweeps I had during pre-labour!!! :-O LMAO

Anyway, I'm not trying to be a downer or anything. Just prepare yourself that's all. If natural childbirth is what you really want, you'll need to find people that are fully supportive of your decision who will act as an advocate for you during labour - as you will be rendered more vulnerable at this time than you could possibly imagine now. :)

All in all, I would go through a million natural labours again, for the sake of bringing my babies into the world. :thumbup Childbirth is a rite of passage into true womanhood imo. :)

I have also heard that labor gets easier the more children you have from women who have had 6+ children. Now I can see that that is not what you've experienced, but since I've never had a child I'm not quite ready to put that possibility out of my head. As far as natural childbirth goes, that's not what I was implying in my post. Earlier in this thread there seemed to be a few women who said that either they didn't want more or didn't want any at all because of labor. I'm sure that sort of pain is beyond anything I could imagine at this point. I just wanted those women to know that the thought of labor will not keep me from having children. As to whether or not I'd have a natural birth, I don't rightfully know what I'll do. I'm not expecting now and not expecting to be expecting for at least another two years, if not five. I'll have to do more research about what the outcomes are with each option, though I am more inclined to go for the natural birth option. The thought of not being able to feel anything from my hips down really scares me, I'll admit that at times I can be a control freak and will not allow myself to be out of control of myself in certain situations, that one included. I have a lot of fears about pregnancy, but I never want those to hinder my, and Leofric's, want to have children. Thank you for your words of caution, I appreciate your bluntness, and now I know who else I can come to on this forum when I am expecting because I know that you will answer my questions in full honesty, thank you again. :)

Bridie
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 04:11 AM
Fair enough then. :)


The thought of not being able to feel anything from my hips down really scares me, I'll admit that at times I can be a control freak and will not allow myself to be out of control of myself in certain situations, that one included. Me too! That's why drugs were never an option for me! :-O



I appreciate your bluntness, and now I know who else I can come to on this forum when I am expecting because I know that you will answer my questions in full honesty, thank you again. :)Do you really think I was being blunt? That was me actually trying really hard to be subtle! :-O Seriously! LMAO I'm starting to get the feeling after having been on this forum with so many non-Australians for a while that I am really altogether too blunt. Actually maybe its an Australian thing?? Oh well.

Sorry if I offended you. It wasn't my intention! :)


I have also heard that labor gets easier the more children you have from women who have had 6+ children. Now I can see that that is not what you've experienced, but since I've never had a child I'm not quite ready to put that possibility out of my head.Oh and I forgot to say.... Labour does generally get quicker and easier the more babies you have - mostly because your uterine muscles are stronger from having worked before - but another effect of this can be to make labour more painful. My last labour was only 45mins long. :D

Making babies is great! :) And the love you feel for them is addictive. ;) :)

I urge all young, white women married to white men to go out and have at least a dozen kids each! :D :thumbup LOL (Failing that, at least 3 or 4)

Godiva
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 04:14 AM
Sorry if I offended you. It wasn't my intention! :)

Not at all, I don't think you could offend me, if you knew my family then you would understand why that would really be difficult to do. I can be hurt by what people say but I'm never really ever offended, and only certain ideas hurt me, ones that I think you quite incapable of writing and meaning in all sincerity. But, thank you for your concern. I guess straightforward would be a better term for your post, rather then blunt. But in the future if you are responding to a post of mine feel free to be blunt, I would prefer it. ;)

QuietWind
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 04:20 AM
I have three now, and I checked the 4-5 option. I do agree with things Bridie said. I wanted to also add to allow yourself to be flexible in case you should need a c-section or something. My 2nd and 3rd children were both born by c-section. The first c-section was horrible and I never wanted to go through it again. My 2nd c-section was a walk in the park! I didn't get sick during the operation, I didn't have the post-op chills, I didn't have any trouble getting up and walking that same day.... it was a totally different experience than my first c-section.

I will also say that I always thought I could do it all natural, because my mother had done her two natural (no meds) and she is a bigger wuss about pain than I am..... but when I had my first child, I chickened out and got an epidural. With my first c-section I also had an epidural. With my second c-section they gave me a spinal block.

Atlas
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 05:03 AM
At this moment of my life, I have none and right now I don't want kids... but I can change my mind later in life.

Thusnelda
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 09:23 PM
I want to have two children later: One boy and one girl! :) Since my early childdays, I´ve dreamed of a family with two children.

Three children would be too much stress for me (its my opinion), and only one child is to less. Furthermore, I think a child needs a brother or a sister. I know some families with only one child, and this children are very lonely sometimes.

Heksulv
Saturday, March 25th, 2006, 06:18 PM
Two or three, depending on my circumstances.

nicholas
Saturday, March 25th, 2006, 06:27 PM
I don't see any women being interested in me enough to want to have my children.

Enibas
Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 11:54 AM
We´ve got 10 children, 7 girls and 3 boys. The oldest is 16 the youngest is 5. My husband and I are Germans and married since 1988. He´s my first husband and I´m his frist wife. All our children have the same mother and father and we alle live together in Germany.
Maybe we get one child more or two.

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 12:08 PM
I'd like to have quite a few, but since I am 27 already and haven't had any yet, I'd consider myself to be extremely lucky if I manage to have two.

I am actually aiming for two, preferably a boy and a girl (and preferably in that order) :fmom:

I wouldn't mind triplets or quadraplets at all, but that is as close to impossible; there is not even a single pair of twins in my bloodline.

Idun
Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 12:16 PM
I have a son,and I would like to have at least 5 more children, 4 boys and one girl would be great!:D

Alkman
Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 12:21 PM
Unfortunatelly a woman must be involved if a man wants to have children and honestly i don't see any around me that are ready-or even capable- to become wives and mothers.

I'd like to have four children but two seems like a more realistic prospect.

Lissu
Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 12:31 PM
I'd like to have quite a few, but since I am 27 already and haven't had any yet, I'd consider myself to be extremely lucky if I manage to have two.

I am actually aiming for two, preferably a boy and a girl (and preferably in that order) :fmom:

I wouldn't mind triplets or quadraplets at all, but that is as close to impossible; there is not even a single pair of twins in my bloodline.I wouldn't mind having twins, but I'm also aware that having twins can be a lot harder than having only one at the time.

I have twin cousins from both of my parent's side, one identical and one non-identical, and one of my aunts was indeed 40 years old when she gave birth to her non-identical twins. And the older brother was only 2 years old and extremely jealous so I really wonder how she and her husband survived... Practically when my aunt held one of the children, 2 others were screaming for attention, so their life was screaming 24/7. Not an ideal situation for 40+ parents :-O

As for myself, I would like to have 3 children but voted for 2, as it's more likely - IF I ever meet the father of my future children that is... And I would still like to be relatively young then, even though it seems that I'm from a family which remains fertile until quite old age.

Landerun
Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 12:56 PM
I have a child, a girl :), and would like definitely another One. Unfortunately, I lack the suitable man in addition :~( . Now I become 26 and my girl now is 6 years old. At the latest if I am 29 years old the second child should be there, because, otherwise, the age difference is simply too big to the first child.:(

Gaian Meroveus
Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 01:07 PM
comrades,



We´ve got 10 children, 7 girls and 3 boys. The oldest is 16 the youngest is 5. My husband and I are Germans and married since 1988. He´s my first husband and I´m his frist wife. All our children have the same mother and father and we alle live together in Germany.
Maybe we get one child more or two.


wow! The Enibasii tribe!



Best wishes,
The procreatively worthless..._Gaian Meroveus.

Gaian Meroveus
Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 01:21 PM
Comrades,

On a very serious note, i am seriously contemplating becoming a parent soon. I am a 35 year old single male and i am not currently in a relationship, but i have a strong desire to have children in my life. I'm a devoted and loving uncle but that's not quite filling the emotional void.
I love children dearly, and have a great rapport with my nieces and nephews and also with my friends kids.
I am not the most patient and understanding person in the world generally, but with kids i have an inexhaustible supply of this commodity.

It has become much easier for single men to adopt, and i have excellent references...well..as long as no one finds out about my scandalous affiliation with this subversive forum...lol

I am financially secure and own my own humble abode.

I am contemplating two options
1. Adoption
2. Or engaging the services of a surrogate .


Which do you think would be the better option?

Personally i think it might be the more responsible choice to adopt, so as not to pass on my aesthetically challenged phenotypal adversity to any potential biological progeny.



Best wishes,
__GM.

Corvin
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 03:33 PM
Hello to everyone
I am having 1 child and hoping for more! My daughter is 1 years old and I must admit that changed completelly my life!
Our children are bless for us and a curse for the enemies of mankind, so is very important to fill the world with them. And remember, within the children it can always be a butterfly that will bring a storm...

Corvin von Amber

Landerun
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 03:39 PM
I don't see any women being interested in me enough to want to have my children.

You have not seen me yet :D Hahaha

Prince Eugen
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 07:49 PM
When i 'll be married i plan to have 4 kids!One of the European people problems is the low rate of birth!

Stolem
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 09:31 PM
I have two children (boys 3 and 5 years old) and want one more but
my wife is differently minded.Hope it will be better in a few years.

Northern Paladin
Friday, May 5th, 2006, 02:31 AM
As many children as possible with a variety of different women. Really there is not limit. Ideally I would like to father several children a day.

But realistically I would settle for 5-10 children. I better marry mormon.:D

Tabitha
Wednesday, June 21st, 2006, 12:57 PM
None. I've never had any desire to have children. I love other people's kids but it really never crosses my mind to have any of my own.

Prometheusfunke
Wednesday, June 21st, 2006, 05:00 PM
i do have a son of 5 years......and i definetly want a second child (if i find the right man for this project :D ), provided that my financial situation stays stable.
so i voted for 2 children......i would likely have at least one more (so it would be 3), but the circumstances in this country are terrible for having children. somebody said earlier in this thread, that the lack of children is a problem. it is! but if you don't lay the foundations for people having children, you don't have to wonder why they don't give birth to any.

Drömmarnas Stig
Wednesday, June 21st, 2006, 05:05 PM
27, no children. Will I ever have any? No idea. If so, then it will need very careful consideration.

nicholas
Wednesday, June 21st, 2006, 05:48 PM
You have not seen me yet :D Hahaha

Well then post a pic, I've posted mine....

Stroem
Sunday, June 25th, 2006, 03:00 PM
I have no children but I will have many children.
We need children, especially here in Switzerland, where there are so many old people and few children. The Swiss will die out.
Only the immigrants/foreigners that come in our country have many children.
The problem in Europe is, that every women wants to do a career(that is really okay and it is their right to do that!) and so only few women want to have children.
To stop this effect we should stop education, which on the other hand is also not a good idea.

Bridie
Monday, June 26th, 2006, 07:14 AM
The problem in Europe is, that every women wants to do a career(that is really okay and it is their right to do that!) and so only few women want to have children.
To stop this effect we should stop education, which on the other hand is also not a good idea.

The problem isn't education.... let's face it, we don't want dim-witted, uneducated morons mothering our future generations!! :-O LOL The problem is that being a career woman, travelling, partying, spending copious amounts of disposable income has been glamourised for the last 3 or so decades. Young girls are brought up to think that only losers become mums at a relatively young age (say under 30 these days!), then go on become "stay-at-home mums" and have more than 2 kids. Mums, and especially mums with large families and no work outside the home, are generally not thought of very highly in developed nations today.

So rather than pulling the plug on education for young women, we need to start glamourising motherhood and large families (and I'm not talking "bling" glamour either!! :D ), but you know, get the propaganda machine cranking! Making motherhood seem like an attractive prospect for girl's futures. Most importantly, society needs to revere motherhood and hold respect for mums..... and in particular, mums with big families.

Enibas
Monday, June 26th, 2006, 11:24 AM
I am a mother with a big family (look at page 6) and I know that it´s not easy to live in this german society. Many people in Germany think that we are anti-social because of the many kids. I can´t understand this because we don´t get any social securety. We earn our income, it is not much but enough to survive.
In my opinion it is important for a woman to have a good education even if you don´t have a job because you raise your children. It is a demanding task to raise children (you have to help with homework and you have to explain the world ;) ).
After school I study at university finisch with diploma and work in my job. A half year before my 30th birthday I´ve got my first baby, yes I´m an old mother, but this is no reason to stop having more children. Now I have 10 kids and if they ar grown up, I hope I´m able to work in my job again.

Fjoelnir
Monday, June 26th, 2006, 11:35 AM
Hi...

Well, I have two kids, but maybe in five or six years i want to become my third kid. In september i started again to make my qualifying for university entrance, and so they is no time for another kid. But the wish of that child is in me!

Greetings St...

Theudiskaz
Monday, June 26th, 2006, 11:59 AM
I would like to have four or more children. For some reason three seems like an akward number and two just isn't enough, imo. We need to be making big families again! Every one of us must have at least two children. It is our duty as Germanic preservationists!

Bridie
Monday, June 26th, 2006, 03:00 PM
I shouldn't be reading this thread right now... LOL... I am getting so clucky again, it just isn't funny.

My youngest is now 9 months old and I'm so wanting to get pregnant again already!! I must be mad!!! I see pregnant ladies now at the shops and I'm as jealous as anything....

Most of the time I feel that I'd have 12 kids if I could.... but then some days, when my little ratbags are running rings around me, I think 3 is enough.

Hats off to Enibas!! What an amazing woman!!!!

Todesritter
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 05:10 PM
I would like to have 3-4 children with one woman who'd be a good mother to them and mate for me, and raise them in the countryside with lots of books, care, and love of nature and hopefully still be with their mum when our children are having grandchildren - just need to find a lady I like and get along with who is not a flake, and would prefer to spend our money that way rather than on fancy cars and horses and other forms of generally insane consumerism. ...unfortunately that is proving more challenging that I'd thought it would. <sigh>

Oh well, as a Canadian friend of mine says, 'Time's fun when we're having flies'.;)

Tabitha
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 06:35 PM
"I shouldn't be reading this thread right now... LOL... I am getting so clucky again, it just isn't funny."


Me too Mrs FlutterbySouth,all this talk about babies and hearing about yours is turning my head - I'll be leering at men in the street soon.
;)

Georgia
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 07:31 PM
My husband and I have three children. We would have loved to have more, but it wasn't meant to be.
But.........we have 5 grandchildren, and we are hoping for many more.
Georgia:)

Taras Bulba
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 01:02 AM
Im hoping three or more, but first I have to find a woman insane enough to want to have kids with me. :P ;)

vascongado
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 10:50 PM
I vote for three children.

Really, my girlfriend and I, we want to have two boys, one girl, three dogs and one cat :D

Germannic
Monday, July 17th, 2006, 07:23 AM
I have four children, two boys and two girls. Because "5" is my lucky number I hope we will become a healthy Number 5:thumbup

Thalia
Friday, July 28th, 2006, 07:47 PM
I have two children. A boy (3 1/2 years) and a girl (6 months). My partner left me during my 2nd pregnanceship (hope that it's the right word). But I'm lucky with my kids. I love them more than my life and I think that I'm a good mother :)

Todesritter
Saturday, July 29th, 2006, 10:24 PM
I have two children. A boy (3 1/2 years) and a girl (6 months). My partner left me during my 2nd pregnanceship (hope that it's the right word). But I'm lucky with my kids. I love them more than my life and I think that I'm a good mother :)
I am sorry this has happened. You sound like a good person, and I do not know the circumstances, but a man who leaves his woman while she carries his child is no man and has my contempt. Duty to family is the most sacred.

I hope perhaps if you want in the future that you find a better man, and have more family with him.

You are brave to face being a parent alone at your age, and still to strive to be good and putting your family first without despair.

Ich salutiere du

J.B. Basset
Saturday, July 29th, 2006, 10:41 PM
:) I have one boy 8. His name is Mark.

Oswiu
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 03:27 AM
Reading the posts by those who have such large numbers of children [I think Enibas is winning with ten? :) ], a question comes to mind.

How on Earth do you remember all their names?!?

My Mum only has three, and yet persistently confuses us. I am very often addressed by a hybrid name, concocted from the first syllable of my Dad's name, followed by the first of my own, once she has realised who she's talking to! My brother usually gets the same treatment, but with my name as a middle element. Being a girl, my sister mostly gets away with it. Occasionally, the dog's name is included in the mix...

Cedarman
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 05:17 AM
Well this is an interesting topic, good thinking Tryggvi:thumbup

Hmmmm, Im thinking i would like to have 5 children...

But I have a VERY big family, my grandma (dads mom) had 11 children and those children already had an average of 5 each!!!!

My other grandma had 10 children and they as well had alot of children.

You can only imagine how many cousins i have, lol im never bored:D

In our lebanese culture, its a shame to have less than 3 kids, so Thorburn wasnt kiddin around even though i dont consider myself non white but im not nordic.

yes so i think i want 5 children, i would say 4 boys and 1 girl.

Frederica
Wednesday, September 20th, 2006, 08:28 PM
I'd like at least 3 i reckon. Being an only child and coming from a small family it'd be nice to experience something different.

Peter
Friday, November 17th, 2006, 09:25 PM
Another good thread, well, I want to have several, but the female part is fundamental, and I don´t know if she would want. I don´t know.

ladybright
Sunday, November 19th, 2006, 08:13 PM
I have one daughter and would like to have two more children.We are planning on one more for sure.

GreenHeart
Sunday, December 17th, 2006, 05:52 PM
My husband and I have two absolutely beautiful children together. Our son is 2 and a half years old and our daughter is 6 months.

My husband is already saying he wants another now but I myself would like to wait a while. It would be too much (for me) to have so many kids so close together. Ultimately we'll have to let the gods determine how many kids we will have. I would be happy with just these two, or happy with some more. It's already very stressful sometimes when they are both crying or both want something from me at the same time, but thankfully the fun moments by far outnumber the stressful moments, and my son loves to help take care of the baby and they already like each other very well and play together. I'm not sure how many kids I want to have and I really don't feel like limiting it to any certain number.