apolonius:

The truth is the psychology of the average man will always seek to convert friendship into what accommodates lust at one point or the other.100 percent of the men that I know will hate their women befriending men not out of distrust but for the truism that friendship will always be a vehicle for the man or men the woman relates with to desire her in an unplatonic sense even if unconfessed or not expressed.

We are men,and we know what our average friends and brothers are like. There sure are exceptions as there are to all things in life,yet that will be a very very tiny minority that are lost in the millions of us.

Women will always defend the innocence of such friendships as expected. Some will say "he has never shown me that he desires me" and all that thrash. Well,that he hasn't for years doesn't mean he is not interested. He may have lost his voice to uncertainty of your response or the circumstances have disallowed him. Try all your male friends and verify the truth of this truism.

By the way,some men will come here to react to this contribution as a generalization. Yet,if you know them personally,try to test the 'innocent friendship with a male' idea with their own girlfriends and you will see how they truly her.

A funny illustration of the desires of our 'innocent male' friends is this: babes,have you not noticed that your 'innocent male' friends always get uncomfortable when you are beginning a relationship with another man?lol

Outside my sisters and brothers' babes,I do not relate with people's girlfriends and wives. Because I know the consequences for their men.

Yes,no man likes his woman to have 'innocent male' friends!

You are so right!...being 'just friends' with the male gender has never worked for me..right from the get-go..

They always want more than that at the end of the day...

ihedinobi2:

What exactly is the hypocrisy here?

Again, let me get you right. Are you saying that most men consider having sex before marriage necessary to establish sexüal compatibility with their potential mates? And that they think that this is a proper conscientious practice?

I guess my reply to your other comment speaks to this. To live in denial of the fact that most men will insist on sex before marriage is the hypocrisy.

For a start,if you are married can you,I ask trusting your sincerity as a christian, say you married as a virgin?If you are not married,are you a virgin? If the answer to either is no,then how do you reconcile that with your purist views here?

Ngokafor:



You are so right!...being 'just friends' with the male gender has never worked for me..right from the get-go..

They always want more than that at the end of the day...

Thanks for illustrating my point with your experience. Thanks too for appreciating my points.

We can theorize and take purist views on these issues,but the practical voice of reason will insist that the male attitude to the female is coloured with attraction than the 'innocent friendship' we are won't to impose on it.

apolonius:

I have read your other comments directed at my post too. It is not a persuasion march nor a duel. We can theorize and champion chastity,yet it does not negate a truism that can't be falsified: the young men of today are mostly believers in test driving. And it is this crowd of young men that our girls and sisters are facing and will face.

The best we can do is to prepare them with the knowledge that experience and our evaluation of reality dictate:practical knowledge,and pray for grace.

That you don't believe in it does not mean many others do not believe in it too. Will you marry your girls or sisters? Have you a control over who they meet in school,church,and what have you?

My points are on the psychology of the average male of today,not an indictment of puritan championing.

apolonius:
I guess my reply to your other comment speaks to this. To live in denial of the fact that most men will insist on sex before marriage is the hypocrisy.
For a start,if you are married can you,I ask trusting your sincerity as a christian, say you married a virgin?If you are not married,are you a virgin? If the answer to either is no,then how do you reconcile that with your purist views here?

Here is the problem in your participation in this discussion. It is that your comments suggest that my arguments lack merit by dint of the fact that they do not accommodate reality. That is an indictment that I must respond to.

You have replied as though I were arguing that most people do not believe in test-driving or that sexüal immorality is not popular in this generation. So everyone with a bias to test-driving who reads your comment and the undecided ones as well will perceive your arguments as sensible and thus confounding mine. This is an underhanded tactic because when I reply as I have done you reply both that you agree with me that chastity is a good thing and that you disagree with me that it is practical to expect it of the majority subtly entrenching the idea that both were my argument and making any further discussion with you difficult because it is all murky.

I say again, I never argued about majority or popular opinion regarding chastity and test-driving. The argument was never about which was more popular but whether test-driving is right. Now if you think that it is, put forth your own reasons for thinking so and let us engage. My own reasons were expressed in the exchanges with Coogar.

As for my virginity, you should read my posts before you quote them. That old one you responded to already answered you. Asking this question suggests that you did not examine the discussion adequately before answering them and that reflects poorly on your position on the issue and may explain why you are misconstruing the argument.

apolonius:

Thanks for illustrating my point with your experience. Thanks too for appreciating my points.

We can theorize and take purist views on these issues,but the practical voice of reason will insist that the male attitude to the female is coloured with attraction than the 'innocent friendship' we are won't to impose on it.

Is your problem the "purism" or "puritanism" of views here or the questions that such views attempt to answer?

ihedinobi2:

Here is the problem in your participation in this discussion. It is that your comments suggest that my arguments lack merit by dint of the fact that they do not accommodate reality. That is an indictment that I must respond to.

You have replied as though I were arguing that most people do not believe in test-driving or that sexüal immorality is not popular in this generation. So everyone with a bias to test-driving who reads your comment and the undecided ones as well will perceive your arguments as sensible and thus confounding mine. This is an underhanded tactic because when I reply as I have done you reply both that you agree with me that chastity is a good thing and that you disagree with me that it is practical to expect it of the majority subtly entrenching the idea that both were my argument and making any further discussion with you difficult because it is all murky.

I say again, I never argued about majority or popular opinion regarding chastity and test-driving. The argument was never about which was more popular but whether test-driving is right. Now if you think that it is, put forth your own reasons for thinking so and let us engage. My own reasons were expressed in the exchanges with Coogar.

As for my virginity, you should read my posts before you quote them. That old one you responded to already answered you. Asking this question suggests that you did not examine the discussion adequately before answering them and that reflects poorly on your position on the issue and may explain why you are misconstruing the argument.

What an unimpressive attempt to be right than acknowledge the flaws of your arguments.

If it is so right for you to push me to repeat points I have made so clearly,why is it wrong for you to repeat the status of your virginity?

My position has been clear in all my points that I do believe in test driving wholly and without apologies.

I have also been clear in saying that those who are inclemently saying they don't believe in test driving before marriage but who have acknowledged that they have test driven are hypocrites. Why champion a position that your life evidently discredits?

More than anything else,I have littered my points with an advice to those who say they don't believe in it that they always will run into serious challenges as the crowd of men who will be interested in them romantically and seriously happy to marry them will insist on test driving. And this insistence does not mean that they don't love them or are not serious about them. Are these elementary points so unclear to a mind so determined to champion a position than understand alternative views?

ihedinobi2:

Is your problem the "purism" or "puritanism" of views here or the questions that such views attempt to answer?

My problem is with people who champion positions that their life experience and original choices already make mockery of!

apolonius:

What an unimpressive attempt to be right than acknowledge the flaws of your arguments.

Finally. So you can say clearly now that you think that there are flaws in my argument. Good. Now the onus is on you to point them out.

If it is so right for you to push me to repeat points I have made so clearly,why is it wrong for you to repeat the status of your virginity?

What point have you made that pertains to the discussion you joined?

My position has been clear in all my points that I do believe in test driving wholly and without apologies.

I believe that was already obvious.

I have also been clear in saying that those who are inclemently saying they don't believe in test driving before marriage but who have acknowledged that they have test driven are hypocrites. Why champion a position that your life evidently discredits?

First off, this does nothing to prove that test-driving is right. It's only a whine about the life choices your opponent made.

Second, there is no one here in this discussion who has claimed that test-driving is wrong who himself has test-driven. That puts your remark even further out of place in the discussion.

Third, even if people have test-driven in the past and now stand against it, it is not an indictable offence. Moral persuasions change as life experience increases. Perspectives are altered by the results of various choices we make in life. Thus it is totally understandable and acceptable that people should change positions they previously held to espouse their opposite.

More than anything else,I have littered my points with an advice to those who say they don't believe in it that they always will run into serious challenges as the crowd of men who will be interested in them romantically and seriously happy to marry them will insist on test driving. And this insistence does not mean that they don't love them or are not serious about them. Are these elementary points so unclear to a mind so determined to champion a position than understand alternative views?

What relevance are these "positions" to the discussion you joined? The question that Coogar and I were engaged over was whether test-driving as a practice is right. How have you shown that it is or isn't?

apolonius:

My problem is with people who champion positions that their life experience and original choices already make mockery of!

Then you joined the wrong discussion. Neither coogar nor I nor anyone else who discussed test-driving here was trying to answer a question about such people.

ihedinobi2:
Finally. So you can say clearly now that you think that there are flaws in my argument. Good. Now the onus is on you to point them out.


What point have you made that pertains to the discussion you joined?


I believe that was already obvious.


First off, this does nothing to prove that test-driving is right. It's only a whine about the life choices your opponent made.

Second, there is no one here in this discussion who has claimed that test-driving is wrong who himself has test-driven. That puts your remark even further out of place in the discussion.

Third, even if people have test-driven in the past and now stand against it, it is not an indictable offence. Moral persuasions change as life experience increases. Perspectives are altered by the results of various choices we make in life. Thus it is totally understandable and acceptable that people should change positions they previously held to espouse their opposite.



What relevance are these "positions" to the discussion you joined? The question that Coogar and I were engaged over was whether test-driving as a practice is right. How have you shown that it is or isn't?

You have assumed in this reply that only Coogar and you have brought up issues and taken positions on this thread. This highlights a shortsightedness that 'bake' most of your points.

Also,you are clearly picking and choosing what to respond to;you sieve out rubrics of essential points to subject to your limited lenses. Very many have contributed to this thread with anecdotes and life stories which some of my responses have been directed at,not your heavily jaundiced and hypocritical rants and chants.

I suspect your determination to ridicule with a vesture of rationality will dictate a degeneration of this thread. I won't stoop to replying you anymore.

I believe the thread is about shared thoughts and reasoned opinions from reflected hindsight, I am sure those who will find made points useful surely will. We can only wish those who know so much and are determined to be right than learn the very best.

apolonius:

You have assumed in this reply that only Coogar and you have brought up issues and taken positions on this thread. This highlights a shortsightedness that 'bake' most of your points.

Where did I make such an assumption? I have spoken exactly as though it were Coogar and I primarily that discussed test-driving here. Most other comments here responding to the issue were mainly to agree with one or other of us and reinforce some point or points one or the other made.

Also,you are clearly picking and choosing what to respond to;you sieve out rubrics of essential points to subject to your limited lenses. Very many have contributed to this thread with anecdotes and life stories which some of my responses have been directed at,not your heavily jaundiced and hypocritical rants and chants.

What law of discussion demands that you must respond to everything? Notwithstanding, feel free to point out what essential points I 'ignored'.

I suspect your determination to ridicule with a vesture of rationality will dictate a degeneration of this thread. I won't stoop to replying you anymore.

I think it is beyond question which of us came here on a mission to ridicule. I respecr your choice to disengage, it is yours to make.

I believe the thread is about shared thoughts and reasoned opinions from reflected hindsight, I am sure those who will find made points useful surely will. We can only wish those who know so much and are determined to be right than learn the very best.

I agree.

apolonius:

You have assumed in this reply that only Coogar and you have brought up issues and taken positions on this thread. This highlights a shortsightedness that 'bake' most of your points.

Also,you are clearly picking and choosing what to respond to;you sieve out rubrics of essential points to subject to your limited lenses. Very many have contributed to this thread with anecdotes and life stories which some of my responses have been directed at,not your heavily jaundiced and hypocritical rants and chants.

I suspect your determination to ridicule with a vesture of rationality will dictate a degeneration of this thread. I won't stoop to replying you anymore.

I believe the thread is about shared thoughts and reasoned opinions from reflected hindsight, I am sure those who will find made points useful surely will. We can only wish those who know so much and are determined to be right than learn the very best.

But I believe that you are the one who aim to ridicule. I read cooger's argument for test driving and it wasn't filled with so much energy, but yours

apolonius:

You have assumed in this reply that only Coogar and you have brought up issues and taken positions on this thread. This highlights a shortsightedness that 'bake' most of your points.

Also,you are clearly picking and choosing what to respond to;you sieve out rubrics of essential points to subject to your limited lenses. Very many have contributed to this thread with anecdotes and life stories which some of my responses have been directed at,not your heavily jaundiced and hypocritical rants and chants.

I suspect your determination to ridicule with a vesture of rationality will dictate a degeneration of this thread. I won't stoop to replying you anymore.

I believe the thread is about shared thoughts and reasoned opinions from reflected hindsight, I am sure those who will find made points useful surely will. We can only wish those who know so much and are determined to be right than learn the very best.

But I believe that you are the one who aim to ridicule. I read cooger's argument for test driving and it wasn't filled with so much energy, but yours.... You have your point though and I love it.

christabeli: But I believe that you are the one who aim to ridicule. I read cooger's argument for test driving and it wasn't filled with so much energy, but yours But I believe that you are the one who aim to ridicule. I read cooger's argument for test driving and it wasn't filled with so much energy, but yours.... You have your point though and I love it.

I made my points for me,not Coogar.

Thanks though.

.

apolonius:

Did you marry a virgin? Coogar is just being practical in ways that most ladies need to listen to him and learn even if they don't share in his philosophy of pleasure.

Women love lies a lot and,unfortunately,most men will not express their candid beliefs on here. But I tell you that Coogar represents the majority,not the minority he appears to be in thy eyes.

Of what relevance is your first question? Just dey your lane.

Very educative thread thought I knew it all before......

dorosola: I just stumble on this thread yesterday and I couldn't help ma self but to read through every oda page......I love what baby mama 1 et al are doing God bless u.

please I have an urgent question about getting a marriage certificate without the groom around. am actually having a proxy wedding before the end of this year. I Don't know if the court will allow my parents and his to stand in for us.

coz for some reasons he won't be around I will have to go join him abroad after the whole court and traditional stuffs.

Sadly most of the thread was wiped out by the nairaland tsunami

Sister and Brother , On Igbo modern development. Your insights, opinions and contributions needed urgently and would like you to join our group. Be a part, Contact me by text for further details 09033130321 cool[b][/b]

Relationship writes very welcome

Bluemetal: Sister and Brother , On Igbo modern development. Your insights, opinions and contributions needed urgently and would like you to join our group. Be a part, Contact me by text for further details 09033130321 cool[b][/b]

Stumbled on this thread one year ago and I've been following it eversince. Thanks to the originator i.e. Baby mama and others that made meaningful contributions. Seasons greetings to you all.

apolonius:


What an unimpressive attempt to be right than acknowledge the flaws of your arguments.

If it is so right for you to push me to repeat points I have made so clearly,why is it wrong for you to repeat the status of your virginity?

My position has been clear in all my points that I do believe in test driving wholly and without apologies.

I have also been clear in saying that those who are inclemently saying they don't believe in test driving before marriage but who have acknowledged that they have test driven are hypocrites. Why champion a position that your life evidently discredits?

More than anything else,I have littered my points with an advice to those who say they don't believe in it that they always will run into serious challenges as the crowd of men who will be interested in them romantically and seriously happy to marry them will insist on test driving. And this insistence does not mean that they don't love them or are not serious about them. Are these elementary points so unclear to a mind so determined to champion a position than understand alternative views?

if I used to steal and then stopped. Does preaching against stealing make a hypocrite? Sometimes, it is our experiences and their consequences that define our values, NT what we haven't done. If I go by your argument, hypocrisy is the synonym for humanity

apolonius:


The truth is the psychology of the average man will always seek to convert friendship into what accommodates lust at one point or the other.100 percent of the men that I know will hate their women befriending men not out of distrust but for the truism that friendship will always be a vehicle for the man or men the woman relates with to desire her in an unplatonic sense even if unconfessed or not expressed.

We are men,and we know what our average friends and brothers are like. There sure are exceptions as there are to all things in life,yet that will be a very very tiny minority that are lost in the millions of us.

Women will always defend the innocence of such friendships as expected. Some will say "he has never shown me that he desires me" and all that thrash. Well,that he hasn't for years doesn't mean he is not interested. He may have lost his voice to uncertainty of your response or the circumstances have disallowed him. Try all your male friends and verify the truth of this truism.

By the way,some men will come here to react to this contribution as a generalization. Yet,if you know them personally,try to test the 'innocent friendship with a male' idea with their own girlfriends and you will see how they truly her.

A funny illustration of the desires of our 'innocent male' friends is this: babes,have you not noticed that your 'innocent male' friends always get uncomfortable when you are beginning a relationship with another man?lol

Outside my sisters and brothers' babes,I do not relate with people's girlfriends and wives. Because I know the consequences for their men.

Yes,no man likes his woman to have 'innocent male' friends!

Tis not really like that in all situations.... But sometimes the ladies send mixed feelings... You don't really even know where you stand.

And with that comes attachment and with attachment comes different problems.

me personally don't have a problem with my girlfriend having male friends... I trust her, tis the guy I don't trust.

bukatyne:


Lol! @ bolded

@ your last line, same applies to me too

@BabyMama,

What a wonderful thread.

It is filled with wisdom and we learn daily.

By my experience and God's wisdom, I had known a lot of these esp. third party part. I can say I have never complained/reported him to anybody before in our 7years together. we have also never carried a quarrel overnight or for more than a few minutes before.

I really learnt about the rationalizing part from this thread. When I do/say something I feel it's not offensive and he takes it otherwise, I always try to justify/rationalize and I apologize when I see he is not seeing. I guess I sometimes can be too logical I have learnt not to even rationalize sef; sfterall, he is the only one I have

I also learnt something vital yesterday when we had an issue that communication is extremely important because we both can not see things the same way.

God bless you

Almost two years...

Have I repented from rationalizing....

Trying to oh!

Not seeing things the same way sometimes.... getting better at that

Just had to comment again