cooooooks:
I don't take generalizations as common knowledge; whether about men or women or race or etc. I, a social observer, is not confirming these " truths ". So there.

You: "To them, a hoe is a woman that have sex, loves it , whether in moderation or not."

I'm also curious as to where you're finding these 100% of men who think women are not supposed to like sex. That's not even consistent with calling a woman a hoe.

If hoe means promiscuous, then argue along those lines. These straw men (whether by you or these magical 100% of men) add nothing to the conversation. I think.

Also, I don't even think I said (as my opinion) that a hoe can't make a wife, even though I have heard of research along those lines. Why? Because even women or men that are not hoes can make terrible spouses; people may just not be compatible; people may have married for the 'wrong reasons', etc. There are so many nodes where things could go wrong, and I don't think the research has (or can) account for all these nodes.

Magnoliaa:

Burbye then. It's you that know. Too bad you share gender with them o, so you berra get used to me referring to men, males or do eyes right if I do... If not, it's on you.

Magnoliaa:

Hohoho. It's not consistent? You're brushing up, good. Welcome to the introductory class on Alfa Pillars Logic 103 (as in classic male thinking and demands and statements riddled with contradictions upon contradictions).

Magnoliaa:

I am not talking about 100% of men. I don't. I don't ever. I think this should be pretty obvious?

Magnoliaa:

Telling you how the word "hoe" can be viewed from different angles, and you seem to be one fixed on a literary/dictionary definition of it or sum'n...

cooooooks:

To be fair, what I called inconsistent is what you asserted not necessarily what a men's rights activist said. Regardless, the nebulous issue exists here too. Different MRAs or TRPillers ascribe different approaches. There is a huge variety from MGTOW to PUA to Egalitarianism, etc.

You specifically said: "...what I am saying about men (you can read this as being 100% as well)...". Now you are saying: "I am not talking about 100% of men". Nne, which is it?

dacblogger:


There is more to sexual intercourse that the physical eyes can see
Some people carry alot of spirits and when you engage in sexual intercourse and Fluids are been exchanged,that is exactly how spirits can be exchanged.
You might sleep with a girl who is possessed or Bewitched and you start experiencing bad luck and all sorts of bad things
Some people carry bad luck dey walk up and down normally .

This is just a brief explanation, can't go into details right now

dacblogger:
How will you feel when a guy tells you he slept with over a 100 girls nd he is just 37

dacblogger:


There is more to sexual intercourse that the physical eyes can see

Petyprincess:
I will break up with him, I can't marry community preek.
Men should learn to be with one woman, having countless body counts as a man should not be encouraged.

dacblogger:

[s]Carrying alot of demons all in the name of living life...[/s]

Petyprincess:
I will break up with him, I can't marry community preek.
Men should learn to be with one woman, having countless body counts as a man should not be encouraged.

OnlyDeCapPlease:


Does this include oloshos?

Kondomatic:
They all believed that having sex in a car "knocks" the engine but none of them could explain why it doesn't happen to the engine of white people's car.

dacblogger:

Ya

dacblogger:


There is more to sexual intercourse that the physical eyes can see
Some people carry alot of spirits and when you engage in sexual intercourse and Fluids are been exchanged,that is exactly how spirits can be exchanged.
You might sleep with a girl who is possessed or Bewitched and you start experiencing bad luck and all sorts of bad things
Some people carry bad luck dey walk up and down normally .

This is just a brief explanation, can't go into details right now

Magnoliaa:
Okurrr. Lemme attempt this. Interesting questions.

[s]Sexual promiscuity ≠ sexual knowledge and experience? So, I can marry any kind of guy on the sexual scale, BUT if being sexually active makes him prone to cheating and such, then no, I won't like that kind of person for a husband, no matter how much he knows sexually. And yes, same applies to a woman too. Women are sexual beings as much as men are and should not be judged for it, but if a guy feels a particular woman is prone to being sexually unfaithful, he's free to not mingle with her.

Your number 2. Bear in mind that that phrase is borne out of a sexist mindframe and judgement as usual. Such that even if a woman has slept with only one or two guys, she's tagged a hoe. It's not that the woman is promiscuous like that, no. It's simply used to judge and shame women into 'virtuousness' even in cases where it's not true (that they're 'sleeping around'). I believe when men call a woman a h*e, she's simply just being sexual as they are, so I don't believe she can't be wifed. She can like sex and still make a great partner/mother, they are not mutually exclusive.

So I'm guessing your second point ties to the first, and what you're implying is if I believe a woman can be a good wife despite her body counts, then a man can be a good husband in spite of his body counts. They can both be great partners despite their body counts. Yes. Men ordinarily do not face any obstacle concerning that. They can marry even with 200 body counts. So a woman should be able to do so too. And yes, a h*e (an average woman that likes sex) can make a great partner as much as a man who's sexually active and healthy. In these cases, it's not promiscuity.

But in actual cases where both a man and a woman are "community properties", with countless body counts and a reckless sexual life, they both cannot make "faithful and good" husbands and wives.

If a woman that sleeps around cannot be wifed, then a man that does so too cannot be 'husbanded.' (This is what Princess' point is I think).

But average, everyday women who are simply enjoying sex can get married - the same way men have been doing without hitches. You don't have to have countless partners to learn, do you? A woman with experience can teach and guide her husband as well, letting him know what she likes and doesn't.

And for number 3, realistically, some of those women will get married. The same way some fuc-kboys and co. will too. Some people will end up with them. We cannot control that. So I guess they'll be whatever kind of partner they'll be to their SOs. Whether the good or bad or abusive or less than ideal.

Being in a patriarchal society, I will not be an hypocrite if I advocate for men's faithfulness and against community preeks and I don't do same for women. Why? To speak against a woman having sex and for her closing her legs is the norm. The preaching is already being done to women, it's the norm for them. Women have already been preached to and groomed and shamed. To ignore a woman breaking out of those conditions and to face a man who's naturally been permitted and shaming him into celibacy and keeping his zips locked will not be a biased thing to do. (In that context).[/s]