kandiikane:

oh, so it hurt you that I referred to you as a frustrated man who is only looking for a woman to dispense his fluids in? For that to have hurt your feelings, it must be true, yes? Abeg, go face your life and try to make yourself a better man and a good and faithful husband to your future wife.

Hurt? no one on the Internet can hurt me. Just Showed YOUR IQ level, home training, and decorum.

You should be able to make your points without insults. Since you're not making any sense or valid points, insults are your best shot at attempting to sound normal.

Sophyrocks:


You asked me what an irresponsible person is and i asked you that question using your daughter for you to determine what it is for yourself. If 2face isnt irresponsible to you, he remains irresponsible to me. We must not agree on this. I said it before. Since we will never agree, drop the discussion and dnt make mentions of me as regards the issue.

You dnt sound like one who values monogamy. The manner in which you are going about the issue in the thread proves otherwise perhaps polygamy is part of your plans in the future afterall lots of fake 'monogamous' men running 'modern day polygamy' abound.

Come let me make you my wife.

TV01:

Your pursue a point about the prevention of pregnancy, which correct in a sense, as it is what the State is concerned about. But the true issue is about the age/readiness for sex (and by impliction in some cultures the readiness for marriage).

The whole of Western culture predisposes children to sexual promiscuity and as I said the State winks/tacitly endoreses that. I don't see that as any better than a culture that practices teen marriage. In fact, I see it as worse. It's how you end up with issues like young children in Rotherham being used as sex slaves.

TV

I pursued the point of pregnancy because it was the point raised in regards to the link you posted. My initial post which you quoted was about the readiness and age for sex...

I disagree that the state endorses sex to teens, the uk endorses more freedom and gives more rights to children than other countries hence why it cannot force children to not have sex. That is not their job, their job is to stop adults from having sex with kids.
Majority of countries that mostly practice teen marriages are those which have been forced, only a few practice teen and teen.

I'm confused about how exactly does giving sexually active kid's contraception and protection relate to becoming sex slaves. That makes no sense at all. A case of teenage sex slaves is much more likely in places where the system is not strong enough to deter sexual abuse which tends to happen more in developing countries than developed countries. You are more likely to come across an adult who was abused as a child in a developing country more frequently than you would in a developed country

That is not even the point. My point is grown ass men knowing who they should be sleeping with and who they shouldn't be. Even if there aren't laws to state an age of consent, I wholehearted believe one would be able to decipher that it feels somehow wrong/different to sleep with a small child because their mental capacity has grown to know the difference between a grown woman to a child.

The only exception I would give abit of leeway to are unexposed cultures, those where a teenage boy or girl marry each other. At least, they still have not reached that full mental maturity where they know that they are not ready. But, where many are now being educated, there is no excuse at all.
Just because the government gives out condoms to kids does not mean it is ok to have sex with a kid. I would prefer a government that gives condoms to teens to prevent disease and pregnancy but makes an effort to stop adults from having sex with kids than a government that fails to protect the sexually active and barely lifts a finger to stop adults from having sex with kids.

There is a difference between a law being passed and a law being enforced.

obowunmi:


Come let me make you my wife.

Dnt allow my boo trace you down and catch you!

Sophyrocks:


Dnt allow my boo trace you down and catch you!

Why na?

I'll give you everything you need, want, and more.

All men with the means and tolerance should be married to more than one wife...

TV01:

Not just short, but she also possesses a ballistic anger and a tongue like a drunken sailor.

We are praying hard for her to find a man to take her under authority .


TV

Poor impulse control to boot.

Keep up the good work. It shall surely speak

Shirley07:

And there are men willing to share the wives.. The keyword is consent.

In which country?

crackhaus:
All men with the means and tolerance should be married to more than one wife...

Hehehe.

obowunmi:


Hurt? no one on the Internet can hurt me. Just Showed YOUR IQ level, home training, and decorum.

You should be able to make your points without insults. Since you're not making any sense or valid points, insults are your best shot at attempting to sound normal.

Listen, if you can open a thread with such rubbish, I do know for sure I have a higher IQ than you.
If you can open a thread to say it is ok to have babies littered all over the place by different people, it shows I had a better home training than you.
There is no such thing as decorum in response to people like you opening a thread to write such rubbish.

I was not insulting anyone, only stating facts. Only frustrated young men looking for someone to have sex with will be endorsing the nonsense on this thread. I know for a fact that you are not married, neither do you have a girlfriend-you can deny it.

I expect my post to not make sense to a frustrated man and what exactly is normal? You endorsing bastard children? Fatherless kids? Not being content with one woman?

Timbuktou:
Nna, you dey see sometin so?

I dey see am o, just did some crash-course reading from where I stopped.

obowunmi:


Why na?

I'll give you everything you need, want, and more.

Ive got what i want, need and more from him. So many ladies out there to choose from. By the way, even if i was single, my answer would remain No. Our values do not match and your username is a turn off.

Sophyrocks:




Ive got what i want, need and more from him. So many ladies out there to choose from. By the way, even if i was single, my answer would remain No. Our values do not match and your username is a turn off.

congrats nne. You didn't invite this sister. Not fair

kandiikane:

Listen, if you can open a thread with such rubbish, I do know for sure I have a higher IQ than you.
If you can open a thread to say it is ok to have babies littered all over the place by different people, it shows I had a better home training than you.
There is no such thing as decorum in response to people like you opening a thread to write such rubbish.

I was not insulting anyone, only stating facts. Only frustrated young men looking for someone to have sex with will be endorsing the nonsense on this thread. I know for a fact that you are not married, neither do you have a girlfriend-you can deny it.

I expect my post to not make sense to a frustrated man and what exactly is normal? You endorsing bastard children? Fatherless kids? Not being content with one woman?

You are adamant about showcasing your foolishness.

Who are you to judge Tuface when the women involved willingly agreed to carry his numerous babies.

You are not God, so take your judgemental foolishness off my thread.

Start your own if you must. Rubbish~

cococandy:
congrats nne. You didn't invite this sister. Not fair

Hehehe. In a relationship o. not married.

Sophyrocks:




Ive got what i want, need and more from him. So many ladies out there to choose from. By the way, even if i was single, my answer would remain No. Our values do not match and your username is a turn off.

Hell bent, I don't know what my username has got to do with this.

Kandi, you sound like a punta.

obowunmi:


Hell bent, I don't know what my username has got to do with this.

I suggest you change it. Gives a wrong impression or maybe thats what you really are.

obowunmi:


You are adamant about showcasing your foolishness.

Who are you to judge Tuface when the women involved willingly agreed to carry his numerous babies.

You are not God, so take your judgemental foolishness off my thread.

Start your own if you must. Rubbish~

See, when you open a thread on this forum, anyone or anything can comment whatever they like. If you want certain people to not comment, please, put that frustrated energy of yours to good use and open one.

You are immature and easily fooled hence why you have been easily persuaded to think it is "cool" to be sleeping about and making babies anyhow without any repercussion.

kandiikane:

See, when you open a thread on this forum, anyone or anything can comment whatever they like. If you want certain people to not comment, please, put that frustrated energy of yours to good use and open one.

You are immature and easily fooled hence why you have been easily persuaded to think it is "cool" to be sleeping about and making babies anyhow without any repercussion.

You sound pained. Very pained. Thus thread is about Tuface, yet you keep stalking me around the forum.

Keep on. Keep on.

Sophyrocks:


Hehehe. In a relationship o. not married.

ok ok. Let me order my gele and wait.

Timbuktou:
Hehehe.

What can I say bro - I love women (minus the bullshiit), at least two will do...enough of me to go around

obowunmi:


You sound pained. Very pained. Thus thread is about Tuface, yet you keep stalking me around the forum.

Keep on. Keep on.

lol...if it makes you feel better.

Have a good day.

kandiikane:

lol...if it makes you feel better.

Have a good day.

Make your contributions without hurling insults. You've shown on this thread that you have no contributions to the topic at hand. You've only made Off topic comments and extreme analysis.

TV01:

Not just short, but she also possesses a ballistic anger and a tongue like a drunken sailor.

We are praying hard for her to find a man to take her under authority .


TV

I'm surprised she quoted me today absent the usual and pretty obvious animosity, one that is particular with girls that harbor loads of misdirected anger

obowunmi:
Kandi, you sound like a punta.

Did you not quote me because you feared my reaction? Don't worry, catch me on a day when I am truly ready to go down that route, for now, heed to your own advice.

cococandy:
ok ok. Let me order my gele and wait.

TV01:

Show me one where it isn;t to a large degree attributable to the breakdown in the traditional family unit

Let me show you one messy society full of anomalies that does not flourish despite the high importance of the traditional family unit: Nigeria.

Germany got to where it is - in recent history - on the back of de facto relationships?

Despite.

As ever you miss historical causality, broader and longer-term implications and focus on the the immediate gratification. Germany flourished on the back of a strong "volk culture" which was underpinned by traditional marriage. You incorrectly overlook the benefits of this and then wrongly imply that weakening that or replacing it with a facsimile relationship will have no impact.


TV

No, it's rather you who makes oversimplified conclusions.

kandiikane:

I pursued the point of pregnancy because it was the point raised in regards to the link you posted. My initial post which you quoted was about the readiness and age for sex...

And the point of my post was that sex before what you would consider "readiness" in Western countries - e.g. the UK - is forced by the culture and tacitly endorsed by the government - if they can have sex, why can't they marry? Not that I endorse either.

kandiikane:
I disagree that the state endorses sex to teens, the uk endorses more freedom and gives more rights to children than other countries hence why it cannot force children to not have sex. That is not their job, their job is to stop adults from having sex with kids.

I find this statement all kinds of garbled;

What freedom and rights does the UK afford children - or do children need - that other nations do not? What are these rights that should not be determined by their parents under whose authority they are?

And those rights include not being able to "force children not to have sex" - when sex under 16 is statutory rape? If theie job is to stop adults having sex with kids, why does a sexually active and precocious teenager qualify as a kid?

kandiikane:
Majority of countries that mostly practice teen marriages are those which have been forced, only a few practice teen and teen.

Is it solely practice, or what is permissable - the countries you slag off are not in any appreciable way different from most others
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_United_States_of_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

kandiikane:
I'm confused about how exactly does giving sexually active kid's contraception and protection relate to becoming sex slaves. That makes no sense at all.

A culture that sexualises children (or at the least as you note is complicit in their sexual activity) is what gave rise to the conditions where that could take place - in full glare of the parents and authorities. These young girls - officially 1'400, but independent sources say as many as x10 more - were abused, raped and trafficked.

In fact the only issue here is that many were under 16, if the perpetrators had been a bit smarter they could have gotten clean away. The parents were helpless due to the so called "freedoms" they afford their children, and being more concerned with the consequences of sex, rathe r than the morality of it.

The authorities were idealogically hamstrung by nonsense such as "consent", as initiation was often carried out by younger teenage males. And the kids were easy prey, not being mature enough to see beyond the wiles, feigned affection and cheap gifts used to seduce them. Alcohol and drugs were also employed - another right afforded youngsters How would you make sense of what happened?

kandiikane:
A case of teenage sex slaves is much more likely in places where the system is not strong enough to deter sexual abuse which tends to happen more in developing countries than developed countries. You are more likely to come across an adult who was abused as a child in a developing country more frequently than you would in a developed country

Slander - when it is so rampant in the UK it's essentially a nation of Fiddlers & gays. It reaches to the highest levels and is merely covered up. it so endemic, it's literally culturally embedded.

Were is the 3rd worlds Jimmy Savile? Or The priest abuse scandal, or evidence of paedophile rings amongst the highest echelons of government. Timbuktou is right - stop slandering our people. We have our issues, but morally the West is not better.

kandiikane:
That is not even the point. My point is grown ass men knowing who they should be sleeping with and who they shouldn't be. Even if there aren't laws to state an age of consent, I wholehearted believe one would be able to decipher that it feels somehow wrong/different to sleep with a small child because their mental capacity has grown to know the difference between a grown woman to a child.

I don't in anyway dispute this - however, you contradict yourself when you speak of rights and freedoms for children which include being sexually active. And by the way, most Western sex education is moving towards teaching youngsters that it's normal for them to be sexually active and encouraging them to explore their sexuality.

kandiikane:
The only exception I would give abit of leeway to are unexposed cultures, those where a teenage boy or girl marry each other. At least, they still have not reached that full mental maturity where they know that they are not ready. But, where many are now being educated, there is no excuse at all.

Answered - there are very few jurisdictions where teenagers are not allowed to marry.

kandiikane:
Just because the government gives out condoms to kids does not mean it is ok to have sex with a kid. I would prefer a government that gives condoms to teens to prevent disease and pregnancy but makes an effort to stop adults from having sex with kids than a government that fails to protect the sexually active and barely lifts a finger to stop adults from having sex with kids.

Answered - repeatedly. Andit not merely "condom distribution"- they arrange contraception and abortions for children as young - or younger - than 12. Without parental consent or knowledge. Western governments tacitly endorse and are starting to teach children to be sexually active. Despite their own statutes. When a teenager becomes sexually active and precocious, whose to say they are still kids in that regard?

I also note the total lack of any moral judgement on teenagers having sex - just that it should be policed to stop them being exploited? So why are you taking Obowunmi to task - after all, he has been harping on consent between adults

kandiikane:
There is a difference between a law being passed and a law being enforced.

Regardless of the law, it's immoral for youngsters to be having sex - more so out of wedlock.


TV

carefreewannabe:
Let me show you one messy society full of anomalies that does not flourish despite the high importance of the traditional family unit: Nigeria.

Whatever Nigerias issues - and they are manifold - the moving away from the traditional family unit will only worsen things. And that move is being exacerbated by aping Western ideologies/practices.

carefreewannabe:
Despite.

As I've explained previously, having a few exceptions on the margins will not overly affect a nations flourishing if traditional marriage remains the prevailing norm. However, let things such as de-facto relationships start to gain a real foothold and the problems will soon start to manifest. Hope you are proud of the fact that you are helping to seed Germany' ruin. Don't worry Pegida will soon turn their sights on you .

carefreewannabe:
No, it's rather you who makes oversimplified conclusions.

We know you too well Carefree - "we have a "relationship" - you lime to deploy your "oversimplification" assertion without offering any of your own, let alone a more detailed analysis. It's a ruse you use to weasel out of positions. You shoul dstick to gif and emoticons - at least there was some humour content with those.


TV

Sophyrocks:
Dnt allow my boo trace you down and catch you!

Sophy, Sophy, Sophy . Please spill and let us jolly jolly and merry make . A whole "boo". It sounds serious? Oya, whats the scoop?

Sophyrocks:
Hehehe. In a relationship o. not married.

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=put+a+ring+on+it

TV

^{**changes dp**}

TV01:

Whatever Nigerias issues - and they are manifold - the moving away from the traditional family unit will only worsen things. And that move is being exacerbated by aping Western ideologies/practices.

What are Western ideologies / practices?

As I've explained previously, having a few exceptions on the margins will not overly affect a nations flourishing if traditional marriage remains the prevailing norm. However, let things such as de-facto relationships start to gain a real foothold and the problems will soon start to manifest. Hope you are proud of the fact that you are helping to seed Germany' ruin. Don't worry Pegida will soon turn their sights on you .

What does Pegida have to do with the discussion?

We know you too well Carefree - "we have a "relationship" - you lime to deploy your "oversimplification" assertion without offering any of your own, let alone a more detailed analysis. It's a ruse you use to weasel out of positions. You shoul dstick to gif and emoticons - at least there was some humour content with those.

You are the one who oversimplifies everything. You come online and talk about how societies will be ruined and point to the West when your own country is the biggest mess of them all and those pluralistic societies where people have the freedom to live their life as it suits them are still MUCH better off and will be in the next 50 years, at least.