cococandy:
you can't speak for women much less all women.

Ok

crackhaus:



conceited /kənˈsiːtɪd/

adjective

excessively proud of oneself; vain.



Unless I was talking about my sperm and unless anywhere you saw 'man', you subconsciously interpreted it to be 'crackhaus'... then I don't think you're using the word right.

I don catch you today, so na pocket dictionary you dey use.

crackhaus:

I don't think you two even know what conceited means, or if you do, don't know when to use the word in its proper context.

See my previous answer to you.

I also don't know what birthing boys on demand has to do with what I typed.
I called women passive participants in the process of procreation (fertilization phase... and not the birthing phase OBVIOUSLY).
This effectively places the burden of birthing males/boys on the man... so what are you going on about? Trying to be sensational is what you just did there.

Please read between lines.

And you learn to read and grasp meanings. Here's what I wrote:

It is this kind of thinking that influences the thought behind blaming women for not birthing boys on demand.

Did I write that you said it?

Like I said before, this is you trying to trivialize the process of fertilization by using just your common sense to explain a complex biological process... it's much more complicated than that bro.

Gosh you guys can be so arbitrary it's unbelievable. Pray tell what is sperm count? Do you know the meaning of interplay? Again reread that my post carefully before you respond.

This is what I typed:
The one whose natural status is to select, choose,
and impregnate concurrently or simultaneously is
the one that's polygamous by nature.

So unless women can now impregnate other women or men as the case may be, I don't even know why you responded to this.

Being sensational again.

Again see my previous post.

No you're still not getting it.

Nature makes man polygamous simply means that a man can have multiple women carrying his seed, getting pregnant, and birthing children for him at the same time.
It has absolutely nothing to do with just choosing.

Do I need to type that in pidgin for you to get it?

You are the one not getting it. Biological function DOES NOT PROVE behaviour. That you have the ability to do something DOESN'T NOT CONFER ON YOU THE RIGHT to do it. Do you need that in pidgin?

Lol @creative license...

Okay man...except that, passing on genes isn't a form of immortality... figuratively or literally.

I am not the first to express the idea, maybe you should read a bit more widely.

(...) Polygyny is much more common than polyandry because evolutionarily, the benefits of polygyny for men are much higher than the benefits of polyandry for women. This is true for reasons outlined in my previous post; in short, men benefit reproductively much more than women do from having multiple partners, and so they are relatively psychologically adapted to seek novel mates. By the same token, the evolutionary costs of polyandry for men are much higher than the costs of polygyny for women. If you're a man whose co-husband has impregnated your shared wife, then you have to wait a long time (at least nine months of gestation, and probably years of lactation as well) before you get another shot at reproduction. But if you're a woman whose co-wife has been impregnated by your shared husband, you can still get pregnant right away. You'll have to share your husband's parental investment with your co-wife, but at least you'll be able to reproduce. And being the co-wife of a wealthy, high status, highly desirable man may well be a better option for you than being the only wife of a less impressive husband. (...)

Another contrast between polygyny and polyandry is pointed out by Miriam Zeitzen in her book Polygamy: whereas men compete intensely to attract multiple wives, and male status is positively correlated with number of wives, women don't compete to acquire multiple husbands, and female status is not related to number of husbands. Polyandrous marriages in fact tend to be initiated by the co-husbands, who are nearly always brothers, for economic and reproductive reasons (e.g. to avoid partitioning scarce arable land, or because the brothers can't find wives individually). Zeitzen also notes that these marriages involve a relatively large workload for the wife, in terms of the services--both domestic and sexual--that she is expected to provide for her husbands. (Many Western men, who might imagine that providing sexual services for multiple spouses would be a nice responsibility, will be surprised to learn that polyandrously-married women tend to find it onerous).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201108/are-people-naturally-polygamous-0


To the women in the house:
Which one of you would like to be married to more than one man?

BuddhaPalm:

I don catch you today, so na pocket dictionary you dey use.

I know you use an encyclopedia, what's the definition in it?

LordReed:

Gosh you guys can be so arbitrary it's unbelievable. Pray tell what is sperm count? Do you know the meaning of interplay? Again reread that my post carefully before you respond.

I didn't reread it, and my previous response still stands: The process of fertilization is much more complex than your I-must-try-to-explain simplistic submission.

You are the one not getting it. Biological function DOES NOT PROVE behaviour. That you have the ability to do something DOESN'T NOT CONFER ON YOU THE RIGHT to do it. Do you need that in pidgin?

Ahhh finally, he gets it.

Now that you can admit that men have the natural ability to be polygamous while women do not (based on the whole biological sperm-egg and pregnancy theory of course), I guess it's only the morality of it we have to argue on because this whole women-can-accommodate-as-many-sperm-from-multiple-men thesis does not prove that women are polygamous by nature.

They can be polygamous by choice, but definitely not by nature.

I am not the first to express the idea, maybe you should read a bit more widely.

A few comments ago, you didn't even know you were not the first to express the idea when you called it your 'creative license'... and now you want to act like you read a bit more widely to know about it.

Well, I am here to tell you and whoever expressed the idea first that there's no such thing as biological immortality when it comes to passing on genes.

For starters, no single person passes his/her genes to their offspring EXCLUSIVELY without combining it with the genes from the other person he/she mated with.
In other words, for someone to maintain or have genetic/biological immortality...he/she must not die or if going to die, must be able to transfer all 46 chromosomes (23 pairs, holding an estimated total of 20,000 to 25,000 genes) to an offspring without mixing it up with any other chromosomes from a mate before he/she can be considered as having accomplished genetic/biological integrity, purity, and IMMORTALITY.

Thank you very much!

crackhaus:

A few comments ago, you didn't even know you were not the first to express the idea when you called it your 'creative license'... and now you want to act like you read a bit more widely to know about it.

Well, I am here to tell you and whoever expressed the idea first that there's no such thing as biological immortality when it comes to passing on genes.

For starters, no single person passes his/her genes to their offspring EXCLUSIVELY without combining it with the genes from the other person he/she mated with.
In other words, for someone to maintain or have genetic/biological immortality...he/she must not die or if going to die, must be able to transfer all 46 chromosomes (23 pairs, holding an estimated total of 20,000 to 25,000 genes) to an offspring without mixing it up with any other chromosomes from a mate before he/she can be considered as having accomplished genetic/biological integrity, purity, and IMMORTALITY.

Thank you very much!

You really need to read more it will help you overcome some of that conceit.

Genetic Immortality
The view that you can achieve a form of immortality through your genes being passed on to your children and through them, others.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Immortality

LordReed:


You really need to read more it will help you overcome some of that conceit.

Genetic Immortality
The view that you can achieve a form of immortality through your genes being passed on to your children and through them, others.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Immortality

Basically having kids n having your kids procreate.. Duh


Wow....o widely read one...

Nonso23:


Implication of that single word is simple. It is a view like an opinion and opinions without backings are not tenable in this argument.
Ignoring the illogicality of the VIEW itself, that is.

[

Learn the difference between an idea and a fact.

pickabeau1:


Basically having kids n having your kids procreate.. Duh


Wow....o widely read one...

As I stated before it is not a new idea or view, sorry that galls you.

BoboYekini:
I fail to see the point of this thread. That humans are polyamorous has never been in doubt. Male and female both. Sperm Wars only just begins to explain the science of it.
Polygamy/Monogamy are societal constructs, doesn't make them any less binding. You live by the laws of the land. Out in the west, it's a woman's world. Here, it's a man's. Shape up or ship out.

p.s. Say all you want here, but if you're a woman, you best not be caught cheating, else OYO is your name.

Hmm.

Nonso23:


If we were to go by your posts so far, this advice suits you better.

Which idea did I misconstrue as fact?

zeb04:
uh!scary. those caught cheating have cheating have been hanged on the cross abi

If you cheat you will be caught. Mark my word

LordReed:


As I stated before it is not a new idea or view, sorry that galls you.

It does not gall me....

LordReed:


Very good. Now do us a favour and elaborate on them if you will.

I won't. Not least because this ain't my fight ! But I'm happy to direct you to my corpus here on NL where I have repeatedly made the case agianst polygamy and promiscuity.


TV

Nonso23:


Start from your very first post on this thread.

Look up the meaning of satire.

TV01:

I won't. Not least because this ain't my fight ! But I'm happy to direct you to my corpus here on NL where I have repeatedly made the case agianst polygamy and promiscuity.


TV

Open a thread then, that'll even be better.

LordReed:


Only to the naive will it appear so.

wat a piti.
so yuh dont kno francistony iz
juss a 17yr old teenager wu haznt even
entered uni
he haz d gutz 2
cum here nd be discussin wit
grown peeple. nd yuh engage wit him. lolz

juss visit d education section nd
see him cryin about jamb.

wisdomiskey:



wat a piti.
so yuh dont kno francistony iz
juss a 17yr old teenager wu haznt even
entered uni
he haz d gutz 2
cum here nd be discussin wit
grown peeple. nd yuh engage wit him. lolz

juss visit d education section nd
see him cryin about jamb.

It is good for the young to interact with the elders that way they can learn wisdom.

LordReed:


It is good for the young to interact with the elders that way they can learn wisdom.

yerr buh hiz block head
cannot comprehend wizdom.
he tlkz as if he knoz it all
whereaz all na jargonz

everytin he sayz iz to impress
cococandi
hez so desperate to appeal
to d female folk

crackhaus:

I didn't reread it, and my previous response still stands: The process of fertilization is much more complex than your I-must-try-to-explain simplistic submission.

You are woefully ignorant of the process of fertilization if you think 300million sperm entering the cervix is considered trivialisation.

Ahhh finally, he gets it.

Now that you can admit that men have the natural ability to be polygamous while women do not (based on the whole biological sperm-egg and pregnancy theory of course), I guess it's only the morality of it we have to argue on because this whole women-can-accommodate-as-many-sperm-from-multiple-men thesis does not prove that women are polygamous by nature.

They can be polygamous by choice, but definitely not by nature.

A man is not naturally polygamous because he can impregnate more than one woman any more than a vegetarian is a natural vegetable eater because he/she can subsist on vegetables alone.

Nonso23:


Satires are not based on untruths

sat·ire
ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature

car·i·ca·ture
ˈkerikəCHər,ˈkerikəˌCHo͝or/
noun
1.
a picture, description, or imitation of a person or thing in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.

njokusboy:


Don't be a dimwit...
Does the fact that there are no laws in favour of homosexuality in nigeria make the topic irrelevant to Nigerians?
Why is the united states bothered about anti gay laws in Africa, is Africa their country?
The only thing we ask of the Americans is to approach issues with the same openness...

broz he cant help it!
DIMWIT iz an understatement
2 describe dat teenage
fa.g.got called FrancisTony

Nonso23:


How is untruth = caricature/exaggerations??
We talking blatant lies here and you are introducing wit laced truths

Stop beating around the bush and point it out.

Nonso23:


I wrote nearly 1000 words to that effect already

You didn't point out any lie then and you still aren't pointing out one now.