netotse:


Hey Tollu hope you're good?

Very good papi. Thanks

Mindfulness:


It is supposed to refute the poor line of argumentation on this thread by people who claim that bad girls don't get married and that men are not seriously interested in them. I know that the reality is different. Being "good" is no guarantee that you will get a good spouse and being "bad" is no guarantee that you will not.

Based on what you said your examples are appropriate for your purpose but then, within the context of this thread your examples are not valid, this thread is wayyyyyy beyond that.

Mindfulness:
TV01, since you don't believe that my anecdotes are true, let us focus on people we all know, in this context women who have been married multiple times.

Elizabeth Taylor

eight marriages (two to one person)

3 kids and one adopted.

Apart from marriages, she had countless affairs while married.


Joan Collins

five marriages

In 2002 she married a man 32 years younger

She has three kids, two from her second husband and one from her third husband.

Jennifer Lopez

three marriages and two kids


Geena Davis

married for the fourth time with three kids



Gloria Swanson

six marriages




I could go on and on and on.

Lol...
Attempt to be smart nah...
Those are celebrities... nd you know celebrity marriages are like TV shows...
Ain't no man gonna marry you 8 times like elizabeth taylor... abi ur name na jennifer lopez

Mindfulness:


It is supposed to refute the poor line of argumentation on this thread by people who claim that bad girls don't get married and that men are not seriously interested in them. I know that the reality is different. Being "good" is no guarantee that you will get a good spouse and being "bad" is no guarantee that you will not.

Lol

njokusboy:


Lol...
Attempt to be smart nah...
Those are celebrities... nd you know celebrity marriages are like a TV shows...
Ain't no man gonna marry you 8 times like elizabeth taylor... abi ur name na jennifer lopez

I have just provided these examples since I can't drag the women I know in real life who have married and re-married and have kids by different men to this thread.

netotse:


Based on what you said your examples are appropriate for your purpose but then, within the context of this thread your examples are not valid, this thread is wayyyyyy beyond that.

This thread is obviously not beyond that else we wouldn't have to discuss it.

Mindfulness:
Tell me TV01, what is your problem with me saying that someone who thinks that promiscuity leads to moral decadence, which he is so concerned with, should abstain from premarital s.ex, which would be part of the solution instead of making others responsible for something that he does not want to take responsibility for?

You see no hypocrisy here? No surprise!

And what has your saying anything to anybody to do with me? I have nowhere and at no time being prescriptive here. If you see hypocrisy, by all means, call it out, don't call me to call it out. I am nobody' proxy!

TV

TV01:

And what has your saying anything to anybody to do with me? I have nowhere and at no time being prescriptive here. If you see hypocrisy, by all means, call it out, don't call me to call it out. I am nobody' proxy!

TV

I wasn't talking to you when you decided to jump at my post attacking it but at the same time decided to ignore the hypocrisy that I was pointing to.

@bold

You are not being prescriptive with men but you are quick to judge and shame women. I am not the only one who has made this observation.

...your confusion is apparent; I have repeatedly said I have no problem with women having unrestrained freedom and sexual liberty. I even gave you leave to go and preach that very gospel.

My position has always been to warn men of the possible outcomes when that liberty is indulged in in an unwise manner, and to give consideration to such when choosing a spouse.

My view is that men of understanding who have an eye on the long-term stability and flourishing of their homes, and the well-being and prosperity of their generations, will be wise to give consideration to a potential spouses past - in every which way. I am not being prescriptive, if they feel that such is not an issue, then fine.

Feel free to template the lifestyles of those you've mentioned and purvey them to whoever will listen, my advice stands, and is for those who want it.


TV

Mindfulness:
TV01, since you don't believe that my anecdotes are true, let us focus on people we all know, in this context women who have been married multiple times.

Elizabeth Taylor

eight marriages (two to one person)

3 kids and one adopted.

Apart from marriages, she had countless affairs while married.


Joan Collins

five marriages

In 2002 she married a man 32 years younger

She has three kids, two from her second husband and one from her third husband.

Jennifer Lopez

three marriages and two kids


Geena Davis

married for the fourth time with three kids



Gloria Swanson

six marriages




I could go on and on and on.

Mindfulness:
I wasn't talking to you when you decided to jump at my post attacking it but at the same time decided to ignore the hypocrisy that I was pointing to.

Au contrairé - the hypocrisy I've seen is from you. Firstly, you flip-flop on almost every thread you post on - which I have repeatedly evidenced, secondly, your position here is most hypocritical, as you feel adults should be allowed to do what they please with their bodies, and refuse to be specific about when adulthood or individual agency kicks-in.

There is nothing I can see here that contradicts your own position. Indeed the role-models you have presented attest to this. Now quit trolling the mens space. Get your attention elswewhere

@bold

Mindfulness:
You are not being prescriptive with men but you are quick to judge and shame women. I am not the only one who has made this observation.

Where have I judged or shamed women? Where have I postulated a lower standard of morality or behaviour for men? No, you are not the first to allege, but you join a queue of those who have been unable to substantiate.

Now, go back to drinking your stolen waters - and leave the men alone. Kilode !


TV

TV01:
...your confusion is apparent; I have repeatedly said I have no problem with women having unrestrained freedom and sexual liberty. I even gave you leave to go and preach that very gospel.

My position has always been to warn men of the possible outcomes when that liberty is indulged in in an unwise manner, and to give consideration to such when choosing a spouse.

My view is that men of understanding who have an eye on the long-term stability and flourishing of their homes, and the well-being and prosperity of their generations, will be wise to give consideration to a potential spouses past - in every which way. I am not being prescriptive, if they feel that such is not an issue, then fine.

Feel free to template the lifestyles of those you've mentioned and purvey them to whoever will listen, my advice stands, and is for those who want it.


TV

And I was a problem to your achieving of this goal? Why did you decide to jump at my post? Was I talking to you when you decided to jump into this discussion? How does the statement "Stop being promiscuous if it leads to moral decadence that you so despise." hinder you from achieving this goal?

I will tell you how. You love to confront and judge women harshly but you are soft with men and I love to call you out on it.

TV01:



I love shaming - slut-shaming, fat-shaming, divorce-shaming, bitter and frustrated single-shaming, single mother-shaming, pretend single-mother shaming, skirt-surfer shaming

If only they would add shunning join


TV

I wonder why you haven't mentioned single-fathers and "pretend single-fathers" in the post above.
I have no beef with your intention but I will gladly point out the one-sidedness, unfairness and hypocrisy of your methods.

crackhaus:

You obviously can't detect sarcasm if it hits you in the face...

Of course there's more to a woman than her sexual history, this isn't some privileged information you needed to throw at me, hence the gif...

The bone of contention here has been that her sexual history is absolutely one of the things to consider NOT that it's the only thing to consider.
Lord, where do these people come from... Lol..

Ol boy siddon there and be asking jamb questions.
Were you asleep when someone came here to tell us a woman is who she sleeps with?

The bone of contention is a woman's sexual history is not what defines her and I reserve the right to not put it into consideration because people change, they grow and are not defined by a few minutes of heated passion. What makes up a happy marriage is not defined by a woman's body count, especially in a hypocritical society like ours. I don't know how many times I need to explain this to you pipo

TV01:

Au contrairé - the hypocrisy I've seen is from you. Firstly, you flip-flop on almost every thread you post on - which I have repeatedly evidenced, secondly, your position here is most hypocritical, as you feel adults should be allowed to do what they please with their bodies, and refuse to be specific about when adulthood or individual agency kicks-in.

There is nothing I can see here that contradicts your own position. Indeed the role-models you have presented attest to this. Now quit trolling the mens space. Get your attention elswewhere

@bold


Where have I judged or shamed women? Where have I postulated a lower standard of morality or behaviour for men? No, you are not the first to allege, but you join a queue of those who have been unable to substantiate.

Now, go back to drinking your stolen waters - and leave the men alone. Kilode !


TV

HERE

TV01:

I like that the co-cheat is joined to the suit. Even if any actual monetary compensation is only a token, at least they are shamed - and rightly so.
I love shaming - slut-shaming, fat-shaming, divorce-shaming, bitter and frustrated single-shaming, single mother-shaming, pretend single-mother shaming, skirt-surfer shaming

If only they would add shunning join


TV

Again, where are the single fathers in all of this?


I will leave whenever I want to and that is when I am finished showing which double standards are being promoted here and that is when you stop being hypocritical AND I will enjoy doing it with every fibre of my body and soul And no diversion tactic of yours (referring to unrelated threads and discussions from the past) will reduce the joy I derive from this interaction.

Mindfulness:


It is supposed to refute the poor line of argumentation on this thread by people who claim that bad girls don't get married and that men are not seriously interested in them. I know that the reality is different. Being "good" is no guarantee that you will get a good spouse and being "bad" is no guarantee that you will not.

I was right when I said:

1. You were arguing with yourself. Maybe it's because you....
2. .....you have severe comprehension issues.
3. You're incapable of critical thought.


I dare you to present any posts in this thread that support your comments in bold.

Mindfulness:
And I was a problem to your achieving of this goal? Why did you decide to jump at my post? Was I talking to you when you decided to jump into this discussion?

A discussion I kicked off, on the mens thread is one I "jumped into"

Mindfulness:
How does the statement "Stop being promiscuous if it leads to moral decadence that you so despise." hinder you from achieving this goal?

I never said it did, and that is not the bone of contention here. You are claiming unfettered and unthinking sexual liberty has no bearing on a womans marital happiness.

Mindfulness:
I will tell you how. You love to confront and judge women harshly but you are soft with men and I love to call you out on it.

Show me an instance of my judging women harshly - just one!

Mindfulness:
I wonder why you haven't mentioned single-fathers and "pretend single-fathers" in the post above.

First, because no man has ever claimed that being a single father enhances his marital prospects, or that it makes them "hotcakes" - in fact, it rarely harms men. Second, because it's plain that that post was just being sarcastic to get a rise out of some people .

Mindfulness:
I have no beef with your intention but I will gladly point out the one-sidedness, unfairness and hypocrisy of your methods.

I talk to men about marriage - if you would like to do the same with women, or to men, and from a womans perspective, you are free to do so. I do not intrude the womens thread when they are dishing out advice.

There is nothing unfair, or hypocrital. It's all truth and from a man to men perspective. Feel free to provide another one. If you want to advise women to follow their feelings and men to marry them without due consideration, no one will stop you.


TV

njokusboy:


Lol...
Attempt to be smart nah...
Those are celebrities... nd you know celebrity marriages are like TV shows...
Ain't no man gonna marry you 8 times like elizabeth taylor... abi ur name na jennifer lopez

Me:


Someone else:

A40:

Ol boy siddon there and be asking jamb questions.
Were you asleep when someone came here to tell us a woman is who she sleeps with?

The bone of contention is a woman's sexual history is not what defines her and I reserve the right to not put it into consideration because people change, they grow and are not defined by a few minutes of heated passion. What makes up a happy marriage is not defined by a woman's body count, especially in a hypocritical society like ours. I don't know how many times I need to explain this to you pipo

If after reading my comment you still typed the text in bold, then issokay.

Mindfulness:



HERE



Again, where are the single fathers in all of this?


I will leave whenever I want to and that is when I am finished showing which double standards are being promoted here and that is when you stop being hypocritical AND I will enjoy doing it with every fibre of my body and soul And no diversion tactic of yours (referring to unrelated threads and discussions from the past) will reduce the joy I derive from this interaction.

Again, show one instance of my judging or shaming any woman - that post was patently tongue in cheek. Shaming is what women do, and what you've repeatedly tried on this thread. In fact it was what I called you out for in the first instance .

One instance please


TV

Mindfulness:


You are overgeneralizing. It depends on the woman's age and it also depends on the number of kids.

Besides, women can exercises their vagina.s and they should after birth, not only to please their husbands but also to prevent incontinence in the later stages of life.

So now you agree that it does happen and that it's completely natural.

When you were posting links to defend the alternative, you seemed like you were trying to prove to us scientifically that elasticity is not dependent on birth or extended sexual activity.

crackhaus:


Me:


Someone else:

. hahahaha

Mindfulness:


@bold

Another reason why some people here better stop being hypocritical and stop acting like promiscuity has no consequences for men o[b]r like they are not responsible for fatherless kids and along with it the problems in society.
[/b]
Thanks.

What a sweeping statement...

Fatherless kids whose mothers killed their fathers right?

Or fatherless kids whose mothers denied their fathers access to them with the help of the court to get back at the men for not marrying them?

Or fatherless kids whose source of income of the mothers is alimony?

Stop throwing around the word hypocrisy at every opportunity, it is losing its meaning.

Point out hypocrisy in my comments.

This is too much.
Why do you engage drab women to such distraction? How do you all keep going on with someone bereft of the simplest logic?
Glaringly,
The very fact that the celebrity examples given is proof in itself of the inability of high N women to stay bonded with one man, hence their repeated marriages.
Marriages to foolish men if I might add.

SIDEBAR
Personally, I think the only women who should be allowed into a men's space are strippers and playgirl bunnies.

Am happy we still have able and right minded men atleast on nairaland.

Morning Y'all...

TV01:
I must say I am puzzled at your insistence of totally separating a woman's notch count from her character or behaviour, and also seemingly able to view sexual actions as devoid of moral implications and therefore not a consideration when choosing a spouse?

A40:
What is puzzling about that? It is separable because it is not an exact science. You cannot judge a woman by the sheer number of dudes she's knacked with no consideration for the context with which it happened, her mental state at the time and numerous factors I do not have time to list. So a girl shows her loyalty to you and you continually insist on holding her body count against her. Mba! Too many things I place above a woman's body count

A40, it's clear from your response to my question, that we have diametrically oposed views on this - singular aspect at least - and no bones, to each his own. But may I ask, what aspects would you believe worthy of consideration when choosing a spouse and why?


TV

BoboYekini:
The very fact that the celebrity examples given is proof in itself of the inability of high N women to stay bonded with one man, hence their repeated marriages.
Marriages to foolish men if I might add.

Point, point, point.

BoboYekini:
SIDEBAR
Personally, I think the only women who should be allowed into a men's space are strippers and playgirl bunnies.

At which point they would claim that they all qualify - regardelss of looks, age or shape .

But I actually take your point, much of their input is little more than nuisance value. We should take a vote on a couple of potential measures? perhaps;

- a free for all
- totally ignoring female input
- totally ignoring except by express invitation on specific topics

Thoughts y'all?

TV

TV01:
Point, point, point.


At which point they would claim that they all qualify - regardelss of looks, age or shape .

But I actually take your point, much of their input is little more than nuisance value. We should take a vote on a couple of potential measures? perhaps;

- a free for all
- totally ignoring female input
- totally ignoring except by express invitation on specific topics

Thoughts y'all?

TV

Much respect, sire .
I would go with totally ignoring female input. I

TV01:
Point, point, point.


At which point they would claim that they all qualify - regardelss of looks, age or shape .

But I actually take your point, much of their input is little more than nuisance value. We should take a vote on a couple of potential measures? perhaps;

- a free for all
- totally ignoring female input
- totally ignoring except by express invitation on specific topics

Thoughts y'all?

TV

Option 3 would be best. An invitation/request system will curb meaningless, meandering arguments.

BoboYekini:
Much respect, sire .
I would go with totally ignoring female input. I

Timbuktou:

Option 3 would be best. An invitation/request system will curb meaningless, meandering arguments.

Okay. Lets give others chance to express views, or outline strategies for a few days. We can then put some up to the vote and have a show of hands. At the very least we should come away with some ground rules. I realise we lose some interest and input, and significant traction due to this incessant spamming by femactivists

I know how I would like it to go, and I can see how it may go. If anyone has any last rejoinders to the wimmin', better make them sharpish . Which reminds me...


TV

Option 3

So y'all are now realising the futility of directly engaging women in a space that was primarily meant for men eh?

Option 3....

ApexTitan:
So y'all are now realising the futility of directly engaging women in a space that was primarily meant for men eh?