EnlightenedSoul:


Your repeat error: You keep trying to tie together two things that've been "divorced" (as another user so aptly put it) from the onset. When your end goal is eliminating the need for women in the process of biological reproduction and that aim is achieved, what your sex-life is like, how straight-as-a-needle you are, and how many women you have on speed-dial is largely IRRELEVANT. The scenario has already successfully separated the sex-life from the reproductive life, so you need to allow it, and stop forcing irrelevant funk into the equation.

And I maintain that it has nothing to do with being gay, or straight. That's just the light you're choosing to shine on the matter.

What you deem irrelevant is not what the world or everyone else should deem irrelevant.
If I say something is relevant to me, then damn right it is.

But pray tell, how do you successfully separate sex-life from reproductive life?
Isn't the latter a derivative of the former in heterosexuals?

I think you and I are not gonna merge on this, best to quit trying.

Objection! Genetic impossibility. The comparison was obviously made from a chosen reproductive lifestyle standpoint as opposed to a scientific one. Women, having XX chromosomes, cannot cultivate the Y needed to produce sperm cells! The necessary combination of XY chromosomes are exactly what make this scientific development a possibility for the male population. Genetics 101 - don't you make me Herp Derp again

Your comparison was not obviously made, you're backtracking - and even in your attempt at salvaging it, you're still giving me openings.

From your reproductive lifestyle comparison standpoint, how is one woman inseminating herself with anonymous sperm (from a man whom she needs) the polar opposite of one man harvesting female eggs from his skin cells (without any need for a woman)?

Or maybe you don't understand what polar opposites mean...

And please, you can herp-derp all you want...you seem to have discovered the expression recently and are excited to use it - just don't get offended and crywolf when I start throwing witty-laced fancy, insulting words at ya...that's what you ladies usually do.

Again, chosen lifestyle. Where there's a demand, there's a market. Vice versa.

The new development would cancel out the need for this option. Instead of reproductively associating with spouses, BabyMommas, surrogates and the like, and/or entering financial or custodial battles/contracts/agreements with them, the only dotted lines that need signing are the ones required to begin the process itself. All that 2nd/3rd/4th party legal/financial runaround is completely done away with. No loose ends to worry about! This spells instant and total freedom & control for the individual.

Cancelled out. Now you don't need to, unless you expressly wish to. More options, and no 2nd/3rd/4th party payouts necessary.

Replying to these would mean repeating myself.

The summary is that if the process of surrogacy, babymama-ism, normal biological reproduction, etc... isn't problematic for heterosexuals, then there's no need for this development.

A sentimental opinion piece. Not a logical argument.

Of course, anything that involves keeping the bond/relationship between mother & child intact needs to be sentimental.
What is the logic in doing otherwise when neither mother nor child is complaining?

This is why it can only be good news for the gay community, and I'm betting that even they would be divided in acceptance.

They're definitely perks for those who seek out these services, and now there's talk of making it a possibility w/o all the hoops.

And which male on this thread applauds and will effectively seek out this service?
It's only you females I see applauding it here based on some totally illogical and unreasonable premise.

If majority of straight men don't seek it out, it's obvious that the perks you see are only a construct of your mind and are not real.

Debatable.

Allow the typos. Tired.

It's not debatable.

The process hasn't been carried out, and like you said, it is more sci-fiesque than it is reality...which is what I agreed with in my reply.

Or you just feel like disagreeing with everything I type - talk about sentiments...you're indeed a nutter.

crackhaus:

What you deem irrelevant is not what the world or everyone else should deem irrelevant.
If I say something is relevant to me, then damn right it is.

You're personalizing. This is not about what I deem relevant, nor is it about what you deem relevant. It's about what the scenario at hand entails.

But pray tell, how do you successfully separate sex-life from reproductive life?
Isn't the latter a derivative of the former in heterosexuals?

That the latter is a derivative of the former doesn't make the two impossible to 'separate' if/when desired. I'm sure you know this (or should by now), but ok. There are a number of ways to separate your sex-life from your reproductive life. It can range anywhere in the common neighborhood of using a condom, or popping a pill, or it can be as unconventional as artificial insemination, and surrogacy etc. Isn't it obvious, that anytime you eradicate the possibility of reproduction through the employment of contraceptive methods, you're - in essence - separating reproduction from sex? Sure, you need to have sex to reproduce (generally speaking), but you don't need to reproduce to have sex (this is also thanks to 'modern science and technology' btw). Similarly, the man who chooses to reproduce in this manner can engage in his sex-life to his usual liking. The speed-dial button on his phone isn't going to break, and as far as Im aware, his balls aren't falling off either.

I think you and I are not gonna merge on this, best to quit trying.

Fair enough.

Your comparison was not obviously made, you're backtracking - and even in your attempt at salvaging it, you're still giving me openings.

Yh...that you apparently didn't understand the [obvious] point made, when it was made, doesn't mean that I made an attempt at 'backtracking', or 'salvaging' on it.

From your reproductive lifestyle comparison standpoint, how is one woman inseminating herself with anonymous sperm (from a man whom she needs) the polar opposite of one man harvesting female eggs from his skin cells (without any need for a woman)?

The preferred lifestyle of the woman who wants to raise a child alone & separately, outside the typical two-parent model, would mirror that of the man who embraces this technology for that same reproductive choice/reason. Again, and I keep reiterating this, it's not about the science of it, but the pursuance of that particular reproductive lifestyle. Until, or unless, technology or mad science decides otherwise, a woman will always need sperm to have children. This was briefly touched upon in Genetics 101 in my previous post, so I'm not exactly sure why you're on it again.

And please, you can herp-derp all you want...you seem to have discovered the expression recently and are excited to use it - just don't get offended and crywolf when I start throwing witty-laced fancy, insulting words at ya...that's what you ladies usually do.

Lol, oh gosh, I'm shaking in my...*dammit, where are my boots?*

Zip. Zip. Sssshaaaaakkkkkee? Pfft.

Replying to these would mean repeating myself. The summary is that if the process of surrogacy, babymama-ism, normal biological reproduction, etc... isn't problematic for heterosexuals, then there's no need for this development.

Naturally, after I've finished explaining exactly how/why it is more problematic. It's aight. I really don't wish to repeat myself.

Of course, anything that involves keeping the bond/relationship between mother & child intact needs to be sentimental.
What is the logic in doing otherwise when neither mother nor child is complaining?

Dude, there quite literally is no mother & child duo to do any complaining. That's kinda the point, you know? Lolll. Or did I miss the part where the technology threatened to evilly rip sleeping children from the arms of their unsuspecting mothers, oh Mr. Sentiment?

This is why it can only be good news for the gay community, and I'm betting that even they would be divided in acceptance.

Apparently, there's no merging here for us either. But yh, I don't doubt that. Much like everything else, acceptance would be divided in all communities.

And which male on this thread applauds and will effectively seek out this service?
It's only you females I see applauding it here based on some totally illogical and unreasonable premise

What premise? I only see it as just another service made available for anyone who would seek it.

If majority of straight men don't seek it out, it's obvious that the perks you see are only a construct of your mind and are not real.

Lolll, the service isn't yet available, so on what basis do you make those claims? You're telling on yourself again - its all obviously construct of your mind, and not real, right ?

Who's to say straight men wouldn't welcome it? It wouldn't meddle with their sex-lives in the least, and it would afford them complete financial, legal and reproductive control Who doesn't love a little more control, esp nowadays when things are craze?

It's not debatable.

Lmfao.

The process hasn't been carried out, and like you said, it is more sci-fiesque than it is reality...which is what I agreed with in my reply

Sci-fiesque now, yes, but then so was space travel and all manner of technological advancements we enjoy today.

Or you just feel like disagreeing with everything I type - talk about sentiments...you're indeed a nutter.

Odd, I was starting to think you must feel like disagreeing with everything I type. Between the two of us, there's no mistaking who keeps drinking from the fountain of sentiment, so if I'm a nutter (whatever the heck that is) based on my absent so-called sentiment, then you are def one of the more unapologetically sentimental nutters on here. Environmental services should severally reprimand you for single-handedly causing a friggin' drought to that fountain.

Too long, dang it. Good day!

^^ Tell him he's "rafting in idíot waters..."

Made my day...

EnlightenedSoul:

Too long, dang it. Good day!

Exactly, that was too damn long - you were obviously trying too hard to pass a point you already made two comments earlier...

But I understand...it's okay, you tried as best you can - all snide/rude comments appropriately and conveniently ignored.

Good day to you too!

BuddhaPalm:
^^ Tell him he's "rafting in idíot waters..."

Made my day...

Ahhh... who do we have here, a career pvssy-licker in full cheer-leading gear? No shiit..
Where do they make boys like you, seriously though…

You see, there are three solutions to your obvious problem:

1) If you like her that much, send her a PM and keep the azz-kissing private huh!
Or,
2) If you don't like me, quote me directly and state your case like someone with cojones!
Or my personal favourite,
3) Just shut the fvck up and mind your darn business!

Cheers...

crackhaus:

Ahhh... who do we have here, a career pvssy-licker in full cheer-leading gear? No shiit..
Where do they make boys like you, seriously though…

You see, there are three solutions to your obvious problem:

1) If you like her that much, send her a PM and keep the azz-kissing private huh!
Or,
2) If you don't like me, quote me directly and state your case like someone with cojones!
Or my personal favourite,
3) Just shut the fvck up and mind your darn business!

Cheers...

Lol. Crackhaus my main man. Such vitriol...

I concede, I've been known to have a special fondness for pússy and cheerleaders. Especially when they are attached to cheerleaders.


I no even read una posts. So don't even have enough facts to take sides.

You, yourself, should know too well you're the farthest thing from an ídiot. I think so too.

Except you think otherwise.

She said the exact same stuff to Sagamite on some thread I participated in, and I found it extremely hilarious!

It was as witty as it was funny.

Didn't mean to call you an idíot my good friend.

I remember that thread
So you laughed too.
I was just laughing

Where is sagamite these days?

BuddhaPalm:


Lol. Crackhaus my main man. Such vitriol...

I concede, I've been known to have a special fondness for pússy and cheerleaders. Especially when they are attached to cheerleaders.


I no even read una posts. So don't even have enough facts to take sides.

You, yourself, should know too well you're the farthest thing from an ídiot. I think so too.

Except you think otherwise.

She said the exact same stuff to Sagamite on some thread I participated in, and I found it extremely hilarious!

It was as witty as it was funny.

Didn't mean to call you an idíot my good friend.

cococandy:
I remember that thread
So you laughed too.
I was just laughing

Where is sagamite these days?

He hasn't been on NL for weeks. Many interesting people disappear from NL.

carefreewannabe:


He hasn't been on NL for weeks. Many interesting people disappear from NL.

Yea. he would have made that Hamm divorce thread very interesting

cococandy:


Yea. he would have made that Hamm divorce thread very interesting

No doubt.

BuddhaPalm:


Lol. Crackhaus my main man. Such vitriol...

I concede, I've been known to have a special fondness for pússy and cheerleaders. Especially when they are attached to cheerleaders.


I no even read una posts. So don't even have enough facts to take sides.

You, yourself, should know too well you're the farthest thing from an ídiot. I think so too.

Except you think otherwise.

She said the exact same stuff to Sagamite on some thread I participated in, and I found it extremely hilarious!

It was as witty as it was funny.

Didn't mean to call you an idíot my good friend.

Hmmmm...

We cool!

cococandy:
I remember that thread
So you laughed too.
I was just laughing

Where is sagamite these days?

Hey Coco. Happy new year!

How's my name sake doing?

BuddhaPalm:


Hey Coco. Happy new year!

How's my name sake doing?

happy new year

Doing fine alright

crackhaus:

Exactly, that was too damn long - you were obviously trying too hard to pass a point you already made two comments earlier...

Dude, I agree. The points, though clear as day, were reiterated on nearly half to death. It's alright, I'll take full blame for that.

But I understand...it's okay, you tried as best you can - all snide/rude comments appropriately and conveniently ignored.

Good day to you too!

Ah, come on! I don't fancy myself the least bit rude, but no harm. Forgive me if I don't reply to your other comment. I'm at 'nearly half to death' on the reiteration meter after-all

All the best!

BuddhaPalm:
^^ Tell him he's "rafting in idíot waters..."

Made my day...

Oddly enough, it actually doesn't take an idi.ot to raft idi.ot waters. This one isn't an idi.ot per se - he's sentimental, & suffers from SEVERE indigestion.

Sagamite is a king amongst men One does not simply argue with that one.

good..............
men are too smart ...let's get rid of these ungrateful humanoids called women....even their own contraceptions were made by menlmfao

EnlightenedSoul:


Oddly enough, it actually doesn't take an idi.ot to raft idi.ot waters. This one isn't an idi.ot per se - he's sentimental, & suffers from mild to moderate indigestion.

Sagamite is a king amongst men One does not simply argue with that one.

Lol. You get mouth eeh .

And who the hell liked your post.

CAMNEWTON4PRES:
good..............
men are too smart ...let's get rid of these ungrateful humanoids called women....even their own contraceptions were made by menlmfao

See? . And some people thought straight guys won't buy the idea.

Wait misogynist abi wetin he dey call himself and din@chi will soon come to register their support.
This is the best alternative for these group of guys

cococandy:


See? . And some people thought straight guys won't buy the idea.

Wait misogynist abi wetin he dey call himself and din@chi will soon come to register their support.
This is the best alternative for these group of guys

do you want to be free from men's bondage anymore? there won't b anything like forcefull sex in marriage anymore? nothing like pregnancies and the missed opportunities caused by them, nothing the very degrading misogynist taking care of your children? you will now be able to go to the moon, invent something, create something, become doctors, engineers, physicians ,chemists you know all these positions/professions men are not allowing you to access. In few words, you will b free, no more pressure about when are you going to get married or give birth...so you should b happy

EnlightenedSoul:


Oddly enough, it actually doesn't take an idi.ot to raft idi.ot waters. This one isn't an idi.ot per se - he's sentimental, & suffers from mild to moderate indigestion.

Sagamite is a king amongst men One does not simply argue with that one.

When you don't even realize that you keep referring to people as 'this one' and 'that one', it only confirms my suspicion that you have a 'complex' problem - probably one of 'delusional superiority'. Daddy's little girl, no?

What you suffer from is severe dissociative disorder, that's the only reason why you would keep trying to force my acceptance of this development as something worthy/necessary.

Or did you forget you're not male, and as such the acceptance/refusal of this conceptual process of reproduction has absolutely nothing to do with you or your opinion?
Now I wonder who suffers from indigestion - you sure do project a lot.

You girl are not as 'Enlightened' as you think, another clue to your superiority complex - it's worse that you don't even know it.

EnlightenedSoul:


Dude, I agree. The points, though clear as day, were reiterated on nearly half to death. It's alright, I'll take full blame for that.

All your points were made to do one thing and one thing only, to get me to admit that this process of reproduction is something to be lauded - my points were already clear from the get-go, I don't see this as a necessity for straight men... fvck it, the article even hinted in the direction of this scientific development being suited more for homosexual couples, but you missed it in your failed attempt at stating otherwise.

That the argument dragged out was just me entertaining myself, as it's my first time engaging you - there was nothing wrong with my assertions, you just didn't like it hence the need to quote me and try to force your thought.

Ah, come on! I don't fancy myself the least bit rude, but no harm. Forgive me if I don't reply to your other comment. I'm at 'nearly half to death' on the reiteration meter after-all

All the best!

Yea you don't fancy yourself rude, it's another one of the delusions (the other being enlightened) that you would rather have yourself believe.


Finally,
I doubt you even read the article thoroughly, else you would have seen the part where the description of how the technology works aptly fits into a man-man relationship (it's in bold), but trust miss Enlightened to miss it.

The line about indigestion is actually on you, as was the 'herp-derp' on that next thread

Bondage?
Aww so your relationships have been bondage all this while?
Well here's a possible solution for you. Pray they figure it out on time before your skin cells are too old to work with

Unlike you,I don't need for the opposite sex(men in my case) to be removed from the picture.

It would be totally worthless without them.

CAMNEWTON4PRES:
do you want to be free from men's bondage anymore? there won't b anything like forcefull sex in marriage anymore? nothing like pregnancies and the missed opportunities caused by them, nothing the very degrading misogynist taking care of your children? you will now be able to go to the moon, invent something, create something, become doctors, engineers, physicians ,chemists you know all these positions/professions men are not allowing you to access. In few words, you will b free, no more pressure about when are you going to get married or give birth...so you should b happy

MEN WILL SOMEDAY HAVE KIDS WITHOUT WOMEN
BY SAMANTHA ALLEN


In a 2012 New York Times op-ed, biologist Greg Hampikian declared that “women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither.” The provocative title: “Men, Who Needs Them?” But in light of a new discovery from Cambridge researchers that sperm and eggs could potentially be created from skin cells, there’s no telling what human reproduction will look like by the end of the century or how gender will matter, if at all. Forget everything you know about making babies. In the far future, gay male couples could be having biological offspring without a surrogate and women could be having children in old age.


Some people enjoy speaking too much English..

njokusboy:
MEN WILL SOMEDAY HAVE KIDS WITHOUT WOMEN
BY SAMANTHA ALLEN


In a 2012 New York Times op-ed, biologist Greg Hampikian declared that “women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither.” The provocative title: “Men, Who Needs Them?” But in light of a new discovery from Cambridge researchers that sperm and eggs could potentially be created from skin cells, there’s no telling what human reproduction will look like by the end of the century or how gender will matter, if at all. Forget everything you know about making babies. In the far future, gay male couples could be having biological offspring without a surrogate and women could be having children in old age.


Some people enjoy speaking too much English..

Lmao...

Well sometimes it's entertaining to engage in some arguments just to see the extent the person you're arguing with can make use of logic and deduction, as well as also exercise one's mental muscle.

This here is stated in bold right there in the OP:

If it turns out that viable sperm and eggs can be produced from male skin tissue, the existence of artificial wombs could hypothetically allow two men to create both kinds of sex cells from their skin, fertilize the egg with the sperm in vitro, and grow the the resulting embryo outside of a human womb. No women would have to be involved at any point. For the first time in human history, reproduction could become a boy’s club.

And I subsequently asserted that it's a development better suited for the gay community, as there's no need for it among most if not all straight men.

But these chics on citing any of my comments, subconsciously descend into argue-against-him mode to prove to themselves what I neither know nor care to know

crackhaus:

Lmao...

Well sometimes it's entertaining to engage in some arguments just to see the extent the person you're arguing with can make use of logic and deduction, as well as also exercise one's mental muscle.

This here is stated in bold right there in the OP:


And I subsequently asserted that it's a development better suited for the gay community, as there's no need for it among most if not all straight men.

But these chics on citing any of my comments, subconsciously descend into argue-against-him mode to prove to themselves what I neither know nor care to know

The tin tire me walai.....

But camnewton is not gay
Neither is din@chi
Or misogynist.
(Pls you guys don't kill me I know I'm looking for trouble)


They are just normal straight guys who detest women. You just don't want to believe there are straight guys who dislike women but can't do without them because of biology.

I'm not disagreeing with you that gays guys would like this but then it won't be all of them. Same way some straight guys will like it.

crackhaus:

Lmao...

Well sometimes it's entertaining to engage in some arguments just to see the extent the person you're arguing with can make use of logic and deduction, as well as also exercise one's mental muscle.

This here is stated in bold right there in the OP:


And I subsequently asserted that it's a development better suited for the gay community, as there's no need for it among most if not all straight men.

But these chics on citing any of my comments, subconsciously descend into argue-against-him mode to prove to themselves what I neither know nor care to know

cococandy:
Bondage?
Aww so your relationships have been bondage all this while?
Well here's a possible solution for you. Pray they figure it out on time before your skin cells are too old to work with

Unlike you,I don't need for the opposite sex(men in my case) to be removed from the picture.

It would be totally worthless without them.

we are once again freeing you from men's domination,, eh eh you no want to be free anymore? you want to spread your legs anymore nah? no more comments about you getting old and yet to give birth, in fact no more wahala....
you don't need what? talk something else please is it no longer a man world?

CAMNEWTON4PRES:



we are once again freeing you from men's domination,, eh eh you no want to be free anymore? you want to spread your legs anymore nah? no more comments about you getting old and yet to give birth, in fact no more wahala....
you don't need what? talk something else please is it no longer a man world?

I'm trying to reply but I can't make meaning of your post.

Last I checked I am not against the idea of guys like you reproducing from their skin cells instead of killing an innocent female somewhere with frustrations of trying to make the marriage work.

So how does your post apply to me?

cococandy:
I'm trying to reply but I can't make meaning of your post.

Last I checked I am not against the idea of guys like you reproducing from their skin cells instead of killing an innocent female somewhere with frustrations of trying to make the marriage work.

So how does your post apply to me?

you won't have to spread your legs anymore..that what i meant...


humm so you are no longer among the female folks pushing the : i don't need no men and i am a strong woman agenda? ...btw you are the one who first quoted me ooo so im just telling you to rejoice with me...women or innocent women as you rightly said won't get killed anymore because of our frustrations ...isn't that something to b happy of?

oya wetin you dey drink ..?

I don't need a man yet I'm married?

Dude get off the weed.

CAMNEWTON4PRES:



you won't have to spread your legs anymore..that what i meant...


humm so you are no longer among the female folks pushing the : i don't need no men and i am a strong woman agenda? ...btw you are the one who first quoted me ooo so im just telling you to rejoice with me...women or innocent women as you rightly said won't get killed anymore because of our frustrations ...isn't that something to b happy of?

oya wetin you dey drink ..?

cococandy:
I don't need a man yet I'm married?

Dude get off the weed.

i don't smoke , nice try tho ..but you should direct that comment to your feminazi friends and minions

cococandy:
But camnewton is not gay
Neither is din@chi
Or misogynist.
(Pls you guys don't kill me I know I'm looking for trouble)


They are just normal straight guys who detest women. You just don't want to believe there are straight guys who dislike women but can't do without them because of biology.

I'm not disagreeing with you that gays guys would like this but then it won't be all of them. Same way some straight guys will like it.

What you are now attempting is damage control - you cococandy also missed that subtle tone in the article which directs the scientific concept towards a man-man relationship.

These are the presumptions you made in this post of yours:

1) Of those guys you mention, none told you he detests women but if the comments they type on NL critiquing Nigerian women is what gives you that impression, then this is where your major problem lies - what they (we) do is type the truth (sometimes with exaggerations for effect) as it is, what you and other females on NL do is hate reading this truth...hence the labels chauvinist & cave man gets thrown around.
I can assure you that guys who have been given this tag still date women, in fact some may even be getting head from one while typing what you people refer to as woman-hating comments.

2) What I believe or what I don't believe is something you can't know through internet bandwidth.
I only asserted that this scientific concept of reproduction is better suited for the gay community, as straight men don't really need it - I also hinted in one reply to E-soul that even in the gay community, it would be divided in acceptance.
As for your opinion that there are straight men who will welcome it, please conduct your own experiment with men around you.
If there are indeed straight men who will readily favour harvesting female eggs from skin cells over having glorious sex with a woman to reproduce, I can assure you that they are so few, it becomes negligible.

3) Camnewton is the only guy here who typed something in the affirmative regarding acceptance, so don't get too excited over it - if you slowed down, you would realize he may have just been playing to the gallery.

No need to do damage control