cococandy:
Women with multiple partners= promiscuity.
Men with multiple partners= good and natural.

Is it hypocrisy? No it is not.
Why? Because some men said so?
Why should we take that instead of a valid reason? Nothing just take their words for it because they said so with all the 'biological proof'

I've summarized it for you Lordreed.

Makes me sick at the reasoning of some folks.

LordReed:


Do you even read what you post? Is society a different creature from the people that are part of it? If society is accepting of polyandry why would women find it hard to get multiple partners? Or is your sense of reasoning underdeveloped?

are you for real, is accepting something synonymous to a willlingness to participate in it? does the societal decision capture the opinion of every group in it.... does the fact that i accept gay rights mean that i want to be one? dude, society can say women should marry any number of men they want and men would still not want to get involved, it is becoming increasingly difficult to catch one husband let alone two...
society has never come to a complete consensus on any issue. it really is quite unfortunate that there are more women willing to marry an already married man than there are men willing to becoem second husbands (that is , if they even exist)

btw, there is no telling what society would accept or not, the society only needs a little persuasion... the gays did it...

LordReed:


Makes me sick at the reasoning of some folks.

It's bad to hear old illiterate men say things like men are polygamous in nature. It is horrible to hear young and educated men say the same thing just because they want to keep enjoying the privilege of being promiscuous. I once told you I was your greatest fan. That hasn't changed.

cococandy:
Women with multiple partners= promiscuity.
Men with multiple partners= good and natural.

Is it hypocrisy? No it is not.
Why? Because some men said so?
Why should we take that instead of a valid reason? Nothing just take their words for it because they said so with all the 'biological proof'

I've summarized it for you Lordreed.

End of discussion; it's a man's world.

njokusboy:


are you for real, is accepting something synonymous to a willlingness to participate in it? does the societal decision capture the opinion of every group in it.... does the fact that i accept gay rights mean that i want to be one? dude, society can say women should marry any number of men they want and men would still not want to get involved, it is becoming increasingly difficult to catch one husband let alone two...
society has never come to a complete consensus on any issue. it really is quite unfortunate that there are more women willing to marry an already married man than there are men willing to becoem second husbands (that is , if they even exist)

btw, there is no telling what society would accept or not, the society only needs a little persuasion... the gays did it...

Are homosexuals finding it difficult to find partners in societies that have "fully accepted" them? Are they not the ones clamoring for marriage rights? How about legalised sex trade, are the pliers of the trade finding it hard to find customers?

babygirlfl:


It's bad to hear old illiterate men say things like men are polygamous in nature. It is horrible to hear young and educated men say the same thing just because they want to keep enjoying the privilege of being promiscuous. I once told you I was your greatest fan. That hasn't changed.

Horrible is just the right word.

Thanks

FrancisTony:

End of discussion; it's a man's world.

lol.

LordReed:


As BuddhaPalm quite rightly pointed out how can you not see how conceited your response is? It is this type of conceited thinking I was aiming for with this thread.
It is this kind of thinking that influences the thought behind blaming women for not birthing boys on demand.

Tell me does the man choose which particular sperm wins out? So how he not also a "passive" player in the game? If a woman has sex with more than one man can any of the men beat his chest and say for sure that it would be his sperm that wins out?

If you choose to call the process of one sperm winning out a rat race that's you trying to put words in my mouth. As I pointed out in a post the process is an interplay between strength, motility and position of the sperm. The number of sperm in there should increase the chance that a "superior" specimen will merge with the ovum or why do you think sperm count matters in fertility?

"Natural status is to select, choose, and impregnate" really? So the woman cannot choose abi? E don turn point and kill for man ba? LOL!

The "nature makes man polygamous" falls flat on its face simply because it exposes this conceit that it the exclusive right of men to choose multiple partners.

I am claiming creative license in my use of the term. It was meant to convey the idea that passing on genes is a form of immortality.

oga i hope dis helps lol

LordReed:


Are homosexuals finding it difficult to find partners in societies that have "fully accepted" them? Are they not the ones clamoring for marriage rights? How about legalised sex trade, are the pliers of the trade finding it hard to find customers?

Wonderful then, this your analogy does not follow but it does help my point, by all means let them legalise the damn thing, atleast there are men that are willing to enter into such unions, according to you... your argument is an argument in favour of polygamy not against it.... goodluck to all the women that want to marry 3 men because there is enough room in their container to harbour 10 million sperm cells, I think that argument matches that of men being capable of impregnating 5 women in one month

njokusboy:


Wonderful then, this your analogy does not follow but it does help my point, by all means let them legalise the damn thing, atleast there are men that are willing to enter into such unions, according to you... your argument is an argument in favour of polygamy not against it.... goodluck to all the women that want to marry 3 men because there is enough room in their container to harbour 10 million sperm cells, I think that argument matches that of men being capable of impregnating 5 women in one month

Masterful the way you subtly call women who want more than one partner cumbuckets while appearing to agree, masterful indeed.

bejeria101:


oga i hope dis helps lol

Yes bro, I already stole it.

LordReed:
If you have read my posts on this thread you'll know that I am not advocating for the legalisation of any form of polygamy. I am simply exposing the silliness of the idea that your biological functions confer on you more rights.

Get this now and the tongue in cheek approach. but I think Njokusboy has stolen a march on you with well reasoned arguments - especially in light of the prevailing "progressive approach to rights/equality".

If women are just as biologically capable of certain behaviours as men, that is not necessarily an argument for men not engaging - consensually - in that behaviour, rather one for allowing women the same.

And in this level - "equalised" - playing field, we'll soon see if women are able to build and maintain "harems" of men ! I think we'll soon see that laws won't change biological imperatives - at best there will be a marginal effect

In fact, I'd argue they can do this better - and are currently doing so - by transferring wealth from men to women, via the welfare state, child support and divorce laws.

The differing "biological functions", do not confer different rights, they mean a different dynamic and outcome. And I don't support polygyny or any non-monogamous forms of marirage.

I do appreciate that women can influence conception by mating strategically and favour a particular donor, but I don't buy the notion that they can sleep with a number of men, and and in any way ensure, or be certain that the best sperm will win out.

I not sure "nature" would even leave that choice to a woman !


TV

TV01:

Get this now and the tongue in cheek approach. but I think Njokusboy has stolen a march on you with well reasoned arguments - especially in light of the prevailing "progressive approach to rights/equality".

If women are just as biologically capable of certain behaviours as men, that is not necessarily an argument for men not engaging - consensually - in that behaviour, rather one for allowing women the same.

And in this level - "equalised" - playing field, we'll soon see if women are able to build and maintain "harems" of men ! I think we'll soon see that laws won't change biological imperatives - at best there will be a marginal effect

In fact, I'd argue they can do this better - and are currently doing so - by transferring wealth from men to women, via the welfare state, child support and divorce laws.

The differing "biological functions", do not confer different rights, they mean a different dynamic and outcome. And I don't support polygyny or any non-monogamous forms of marirage.

I do appreciate that women can influence conception by mating strategically and favour a particular donor, but I don't buy the notion that they can sleep with a number of men, and and in any way ensure, or be certain that the best sperm will win out.

I not sure "nature" would even leave that choice to a woman !


TV

Njokusboy is just circlejerking and really has nothing except to subtly show his contempt for the idea of polyandry. I am not arguing for or against polygamy of any form, I am arguing against the vilification of women with multiple partners in the light of people saying it is acceptable for men. Also I find it silly for someone to say biological function makes man polygamous by nature. Anything outside of this is ancillary.

LordReed:


Yes bro, I already stole it.

Hey bro how are u sir,my mum tried to call u,its still dat network message your call is been forwarded,she just want to cöngratulate you on the wedding and baby.

^^^congrats lordreed.

LordReed:


Masterful the way you subtly call women who want more than one partner cumbuckets while appearing to agree, masterful indeed.

theres nothing masterful about it, you called them cum buckets not me..... didnt you say it was possible for them to accomodate 10 million sperm cells from different men at the same time?

bejeria101:


Hey bro how are u sir,my mum tried to call u,its still dat network message your call is been forwarded,she just want to cöngratulate you on the wedding and baby.

Oh thanks bro. You may have to send me her number lemme call her back.

cococandy:
^^^congrats lordreed.

Thanks

njokusboy:


theres nothing masterful about it, you called them cum buckets not me..... didnt you say it was possible for them to accomodate 10 million sperm cells from different men at the same time?

Reporting a possibility and insulting a group of people are 2 different things, do try to keep up.

Congrats Lordreed.

LordReed:


Njokusboy is just circlejerking and really has nothing except to subtly show his contempt for the idea of polyandry. I am not arguing for or against polygamy of any form, I am arguing against the vilification of women with multiple partners in the light of people saying it is acceptable for men. Also I find it silly for someone to say biological function makes man polygamous by nature. Anything outside of this is ancillary.

look at this clown, you really think i give a fvck about whether a woman wants to fvck 100 men at once or whether some group of aliens are willing to live with one woman as husbands.. i only maintained that getting such men would be a bit of a herculean task, i know some women who wont mind becoming second wives, what i have never seen is a man that wants to be a second husband, first husbands are scarce as it is...
nd ur argument is really foolish, i have never heard someone claim to be polygamous because he has a hundred million sperm cells, the idea of male polygamy stems from the ability of a man to impregnate more than one woman at once plus the raging libido of some men and all..... you are arguing with yourself

njokusboy:


look at this clown, you really think i give a fvck about whether a woman wants to fvck 100 men at once or whether some group of aliens are willing to live with one woman as husbands.. i only maintained that getting such men would be a bit of a herculean task, i know some women who wont mind becoming second wives, what i have never seen is a man that wants to be a second husband, first husbands are scarce as it is...
nd ur argument is really foolish, i have never heard someone claim to be polygamous because he has a hundred million sperm cells, the idea of male polygamy stems from the ability of a man to impregnate more than one woman at once plus the raging libido of some men and all..... you are arguing with yourself

Keep on circlejerking like a dog chasing his own tail.

babygirlfl:
Congrats Lordreed.

Thanks

LordReed:


Reporting a possibility and insulting a group of people are 2 different things, do try to keep up.

possibility of accomodating 10 million sperm cells so they can wrestle in the fallopian tube abi? wheres d insult, i was only making your point clear

LordReed:


Keep on circlejerking like a dog chasing his own tail.

exactly what you've been doing with the senseless thread......

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.

At least you're calling a spade a spade.
Not trying to use biology to say it is right for one gender to polyamorous and wrong for the other unlike some people.

We know social laws are man made not God-sanctioned like some even try to use religion to justify it.

But you're wrong on what you think happens in the west and at home. A woman will still face consequences for cheating her (just like the man) because not everyone will forgive you cheating on them. Whereas at home many men aren't the father of their kids but are non the wiser as they believe they've got the women in the place they want them.
All Na polyamory. How you do it makes no difference.

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.

Senseless thread?

So this kind of topic can be senseless? Hehehehe

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.

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

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.

So it is ok for a man to be caught cheating?

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

At most is divorce which is what a man or a woman in the west may still do when he or she catches the partner cheating. I don't know how that is a bigger punishment.

the difference is what people will say.

That's why they try to use slut-shaming as punishment because it is the only way to try make the person feel worse.
All the promiscuous, cum-bucket and similar words that get thrown about when it is ladies under discussion is just an example.

LordReed:


So it is ok for a man to be caught cheating?

apparently.