₦airaland Forum

Is this when she was ur wife??... or before she became your wife??

Get a life...

elpaso:
sage

If you seriously think that young people cannot be mature enough to think or feel what they want, then i can assure u your wrong. 1st. women who remarry someone - thats a tottaly different story.(in most cases which the couple find that they don't agree i tell you this poverb "You made your bed, now lie in it". you mean you don't mind if your wife slept with someone or even a one night stand at the past? you wouldnt feel disgusted thinking what shes sharing with you, what shes doing in bed, shes probably learnt from past lovers? tell me how on earth are you going to move that feeling?
plus. if uve got a daughter how would u feel if someone is done and satisfied over your 16 year old daughter?

about what ??

My only friend in the whole wide world...  

ocho:
i'd love to meet u CimonJorr

It's nice....

@ Kenya..

The psyche of the African Man is quite complex.. I'm not even sure if I'm qualified to comment on it.. But I may be able to shed some light on some of his attributes.. Allow me some time to gather my thots on this matter..

For all the African Men out there, I need some help please..

@ Seun..

What are her statistics ??

@ Z4M4eva...

You are correct about ur observations on the use of profanity by some members of the forum..

I can only believe that the administrator/moderator is doing his best to monitor the use of such language by people.. but due to the sheer volume of traffic that passes through this website, it would be a herculean task for even the most astute of people.. Let us take it that eventually the awareness would go round the forum.. Not everyone who participates takes the time to read through the rules and regulations before participating.. And if u observe anything which u feel is offensive, u do have a right to report it to the moderator/admin..

Hopefully, with time, we can become a more matured followership of this forum.. Being able to have discussions or arguments without personalizing or becoming abusive in our posts..

@ Allonym...

.. I'm really doing my best not to laff out loud, so I'll just content myself with a very BIG smile.. 

Let's take it one by one.. (forgive me if I have passed over some points raised.. I'm trying to pick the outstanding ones.. )

Yes, my original question was ""Why would homosexuals want to raise children?? ""
(although that has since been overtaken by events.. )

My question here still reflects on the biological processes involved.. Hoping that answers would provide insights into the mindset of couples of this nature.. I have deliberately tried to streamline the focus, in an attempt to keep the issues straightforward..

In your attempt at enlightenment, you've obviously confused issues here..

"...a heterosexual couple knows that both the male and female are sterile, therefore, they cannot produce children. Same situation as a homosexual couple, both sets know AHEAD OF TIME, that children from their own loins is NOT in their future.
..."

I'm sure here u were refering to an exceptional case, and not the natural order of things.. (I'm also sure in your haste, u made a few typos, but that's ok.. just learn to cool down and read through what u type..  )..

The natural case, as we both know, does not involve both the male and female being sterile.. Hence the above does not hold true..

"...Now, you try to make the argument that if abortion didn't exist, homosexuals could not have children. . . well, if abortion did not exist, some heterosexual couples could not have children either...."

I'm sorry, but where did I mention the word abortion?? .. By the very nature of the word abortion, doesnt that imply a "termination".. if that was the case then how could any couple have babies through abortion?? .. I don't get your point here.. please, a bit more clarrification is required..


"... So if your point is. . if structures in society did not exist for couples without the means to produce their own children to gain children, then they would not have it, and thus homosexual couples cannot expect to have children in such a society, then YES, you are right. . .and some heterosexual couples would also not be able to expect to have children.

However, we don't live in that society, therefore homosexual couples can expect to have the same opportunity as heterosexual couple to attain progeny even in the absence of having the ability to produce them.

So, it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect to adopt kids. ..."

This has been the only point raised so far with supports  your argument.. It is a reasonable argument, however it still defeats the logic that is these extraneous facilities did not exist, that homosexual couples would be able to reproduce and have progeny (ofspring).. So, it brings me back to my original premise that the expectation of progeny by homosexual couples isnt a reasonable one.. Not from a societal or moral stand-point, but from the biological perspective.. which should have some bearing on their mindset as well (though since I'm not an expert, I don't know, hence my curiosity)..


".... According to you, you are not making any statements that homosexuals are inhuman or something, so what makes it so hard for you to believe that they would want similar things as heterosexual couples. Some people seem to think that if you're homosexual, you are wildly different from everyone else. . . ....."

In your own words, " what makes it so hard for you to believe that they would want similar things as heterosexual couples. ..  I guess the statement is kind of self-explanatory.. there are fundamental differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples.. And I guess there should also be some fundamental differences between the expectations of these different couples.. Everyone in life had different expectations.. Every couples expectations should be different as well..

And to end it all, homosexuals are different from everyone else.. to pretend otherwise would be fallacy..


ps.. you're defense of this issue is rather vigorous.. I appologise if I've touched a sore nerve here..

It never ceases to amaze me how a lot of things can be taken out of context, and twisted used to prove points which aren't being made....

allonym:
if that is the case, then why do male-female couples feel a need to reproduce.

It is you who is not making sense.

Unless you are saying that a male and female DONT feel the need to reproduce until they become a couple.

Please where on this our dear earth have male-male partners and female-female partners been able to naturally (by this I mean carrying a pregnancy a full term) able to produce children (and not through 'unnatural' means like artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, or the likes)

You are trying to allege that the partnerships are natural, and since they are made of people who have these feelings that it should be expected that they should be able to exercise these feelings.. I'm sorry, but this doesnt follow..

When people choose a path, they should be willing to walk it.. And to me, part of the "path" of homosexual liasons and partnership is that a decision has automatically been made to accept the basic fact that reproduction isn't possible, and so should not be an issue...
To use your own words above: a male and female... are meant to reproduce, by every standard u can think of.. When this can not occur and solutions are found, it doesnt mean that these solutions should be exploited for purposes which they were not originally designed for..

Seun:
Female-female couples can have their own children. They just need sperm donors.

Male-male couples can have children too - they just need surrogate mothers.

Sperm donors and surrogate mothers are already being used by male-female couples with reproductive problems. So this is not an issue at all.

The issues of surrogacy and sperm donorship have always been undermined by problems.. Although people have often utilized these methods as solutions to very difficult situations, these methods in themselves were not meant to be exploited...
If there were no sperm donors or surrogate mothers, would homosexual partnership have the ability to reproduce otherwise..   that is my premise..

nferyn:
What is natural isn't automatically good or admirable. Agriculture is a very unnatural thing, so is modern medicine.

As to your comment that "What is natural isn't automatically good or admirable"... I agree with you.. However, agriculture and medicine are very natural things... (Modern medicine may be an exception to the rule by virtue of its intricacies to solve every-changing conditions in an ever-changing world(I know someone is very soon going to use these very words against me, but I must move on..  ))

Agriculture, as is still practiced in many parts of the world, still involves planting, waiting for these crops to reach desired maturity, and then harvesting.. Some aspects of this may have been rendered "unnatural" by a desire to augment or speed up some aspects of the process, but the entire process remains a very "natural" one... Unless there are parts of the world where crops are just obtained without planting ??

allonym:
I'm just trying to show him that the premise of his argument, that people feel a need to reproduce, expains why homosexuals would feel that need. Unless he's saying homosexuals aren't people, which I don't think he's saying. . .

Now, back to what I said above..

Human beings have an inherent capacity to reproduce (and again, to forestall unnecessary splitting of hairs, I'm refering here to people who do not have inherent problems)... Whether they choose to or not is entirely at their own discretion... In order for reproduction to occur in humans, it involves both male and female participation.. And naturally, this participation occurs through sexual intercourse, and the female carrying the pregnancy full term.. Hence, the expectation of reproduction...

When people homosexuals choose to form parterships (or marriage, to sound more 'correct'), I'm very sure the above does not apply... It does not subtract from them their inherent ability to reproduce, but it doesn highlight the fact that they as a couple have come to terms with the fact that naturally, they can not have children (get pregnant from their partners, and carry full term).. This is the decision they've made, and it is the path they've chosen to follow..

Yes, modern society has created many avenues for people who can not exercise the natural process of reproduction to seek other avenues for maintaining a family structure... and a lot of people who do exercise this ability (reproduction) do so pre-maturely, without having the capacity to look after their ofspring.. Hence we have Adoption.. and also we have Surrogacy.. but if these did not exist, would it be reasonable for homosexual partners to expect to re-produce...

This is the question I've asked..

I have not said that these people are not human beings.. I have not said that they do not have feelings.. Please do not ascribe to me things I have not said..

Methinks a lot of people in this post have refused to make the disinction between pre-marital sex and prostitution...

there is a difference you know....

Sorry... but your logic doesn't hold..

Male-female couples can reproduce..
Male-Male/Female-Female couples can not.. As they were quite aware of this inability to perform this function, why yearn for something which doesnt come naturally?

If Adoption did not exist, they would not be able to avail themselves of it..

Hence, why do they, or should they for that matter, feel the need to reproduce..

They can have sex, no one is saying that they shouldn't.. and they have each other for companionship.. So it's not a matter of loneliness.. So ?

Having children is as a result of the need to reproduce..

Homosexuals can not reproduce, so why should the need even be there..

So.. @ Allonym... I have not answered my own question.. your insights would be interesting though.. 

allonym:
You just answered your own question. According to you:
Couples (and here I'm referring to hetero-sexual couples, to prevent any arguments) which are unable to have children often sought remedies to their problem, and as a last resort, opted for adoption.. But usually after they had tried to produce children on their own without success... I'm sure that after homosexual couples realized they could not have children, as a last resort, they opted for adoption.

ps... I wonder when they (homosexual "couples" realised that this would not be possible..

@ Fab..

WWJD??

fabian:
Turn which other cheek? Slap him back and zap!

I guess this is one of the results of the 'natural' progression which society has made in the course of gender equality and womens' rights..

By this I mean, when a woman is "freed" from being dependent on any man for her needs or wants, the natural trend is to see men as nothing more than a convenience.. to use a very popular phrase these days, to see men nothing more as "Sperm Donors"... Hence the perception that they can do without men in their lives.. They do not wish (rightly or wrongly) to be subjugated to any man's authority.. Or submissive to his person.. They believe that allowing any man a say over their lives would be tantamount to loosing all they've struggled for all this while..

I guess this would be why they would be willing to stand alone, and make do without the comfort and security provided by being in a relationship with any man..

Kenya:
One thing that I noticed in the last 5yrs is how many men are not afraid to say they are lonely, Even the play boys.
The one's I've come in contact with don't see it as a negative thing but a natural thing when the most important aspect of human relations is not being fulfilled.
It doesn't seem to be the same way for women now a days.
It seems that women see being lonely as a self esteem issue where they are not happy with them selves. I wonder about the truth of that.
It seems that the world is or had raised women to be independent of men till the point of her feeling that she can do without him or that her needing him is a sign of weakness.

I thought men and women were made for each other?

God doesn't have a woman or a wife.

I'm puzzled

Any thoughts?

There is this question which I guess no one has raised yet.. curious as it is...

"Why would homosexuals want to raise children?? "

It's not like they can naturally pro-create to produce them anyway...

Couples (and here I'm referring to hetero-sexual couples, to prevent any arguments) which are unable to have children often sought remedies to their problem, and as a last resort, opted for adoption.. But usually after they had tried to produce children on their own without success...

Obviously, for homosexual "couples", this can not be the case.. so why the push for children in the first instance??.. If it's a case of companionship, I guess that has been solved already..

One can not 'eat your cake' and have it..

You're damn right about one thing though..

For any relationship to work, there must be an amount of trust...

Most opponents of long distance relationships, if they reflect deep inside themselves, will admit that this is the main factor which they believe prevents such relationships from being successful..

I'm sure they'll admit that the fear that they have no direct means of "knowing" what the other person's up to (I won't go as far as calling it 'monitoring').. whether the person's cheating on them or not.. whether the person has the integrity to "hold body" or not.. these issues eat one up inside, playing to people's basic insecurities and jealousy..

Ok.. now to the reason why I asked those questions..

there have been several topics raised, and many a post on the issue of pre-marital sex... especially as it regards the "appropriateness" of it... Or as it regards both partners getting to know one another on a very deep and personal level.. more or less getting to understand the nature of their partners and their needs and requirements..

I now went through the posts on this very thread with these thots in mind.. Would it have possibly helped that partners get to know themselves on such an intimate level before tying the nuptial knot?..
Or would such intimate knowledge prove to be the undoing of such a potential relationship??..

In addition...

For marriages where sex was a very minor (albeit "unimportant") issue, would you hold the husband to blame if he wasn't as interested in sex as the wife, since that was not one of the main attractions which he considered when choosing his wife to be.. All things considered, most of the sentiment from many posts and discussions on this topic point to the direction that most people consider pre-marital sex wrong (for a variety of reasons)...

Most responses and sentiment favour the situation where the man is "patient" regarding sex before marriage, and also expect that after marriage, the man automatically transforms to the insatiable sexual beast willing to wantonly transfer all his agression to his newly wedded wife.. (I'm sure here the "wrestling" metaphor comes in quite handy..  )..

This I believe is an illusion perpetuated by those that want to make their point about pre-marital sex being proper.. Hence playing to the concept of man "hunting" down his prey (woman), while she teasingly, tauntingly and temptingly avoids being caught until she eventually becomes ensnared by his charms and agrees to marry him.. the "anticipation" of the final capture providing the mystique and setting the mood for the nuptial night..

Now in the case when a man and woman get married, and the man doesnt consider sex, and all its trappings (the cuddling, the kissing, etc etc..), an important ingredient of a successful marriage, would the man be at fault??.. Especially since it wasn't that "important" an issue prior to marriage..

Please note here I'm not refering to instances where the man is impotent, or a closet homosexual, or not a loving and providing husband.. Just one in which he doesn't necessarily consider sex that important..

Your views would be appreciated.. 

Quote from: CimonJorr on Today at 02:37:21 PM
I'm curious...
Did wrestling form part of the pre-marital courtship

Not necessary for a happy marriage, if you want it, its up to you..................

Quote from: CimonJorr on Today at 02:37:21 PM
was it an issue before wedlock..

Not if you are both agreed that it will not be an issue!

Does that answer the questions?

I'm curious...

For the married women in this forum (post).. especially the newly weds...

Did wrestling form part of the pre-marital courtship??.. and if not, was it an issue before wedlock..

I'll be much obliged if u can share this with us bachelor menfolk..  ..

Please, if u may, could you share with us some of the comments which have offended your soul??

alheri:
Let us pray: our father,who art in heaven,hallowed be thy name,thy kingdom come,thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us,and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil,for thy is the kingdom,the power and the glory for ever and ever, AMEN. I want God to forgive me because i think I have sinned by reading some of your comments.

Na wa oh.

When I read this post, two schools of thot immediately jumped into mind....

#1:

mckaycee:
YOU would have asked her if she was fooled into marrying her husband.

The corrolary to this would be if she fooled her husband into marrying her..??


#2:

star:
I don't think it has to do with money. She is okay and she is a very contented persn. She said, her husband does,t kiss her and she prefers kissing to-----. She also said, she was trying to lure him to like kissing but in vain.. like she said the guy doesn't kiss, smooch and just goes straight to the point....... (God forgive me for exposing my friend.

Well.. If I was to make an "intelligent" (well, maybe not so intelligent...  ) guess, I'd say that both parties did not have pre-marital sex, otherwise they'd have both explored this area, and known what they were both getting into... 

On a more serious note, I guess your friend should sit down and really ask herself what exactly she saw in her husband that lead her to want to marry him.. I believe that it's not like the guy has changed.. rather, since her immediate want (or need) has been satisfied[companionship], she now looks higher on the "heirachy" of marital needs to find other factors which will give her marital satisfaction and fulfillment..

I can only say here that this underlines the importance of getting to know your future partner (spouse) very well.. the good sides and the bad sides.. I often that in some marriages, that parties tend to have second thots or misgivings on their wedding day, or some times, soon after the wedding day.. she shouldn't construe this as a sign that her marriage is destined for failure.. but rather that there are areas which she is now aware of, which need to be worked on.. I believe communication is the key..

Marriage is not a contract, that can be entered into and broken (even if at some cost..)..

Marriage is a conventant.. (well.. my belief anyways.. ).. For Life.... 

And what happens if after the end of your self-imposed "break-up" you guys don't get back together..

It's very presumptious to assume that you're totally in control of such things, and the other persons' feelings don't count in the matter...

For all of those castigating the party who forgot, what if the shoe were on the other foot.. would you still subscribe to these feelings and sentiments..

Birthdays come and go.. It's what u do with the rest of the time that matters... Events missed can always be made up for...

So better get back to living.. and loving..

.. Oh my soul.. it is well with me...

Why I asked the question is because I find that view point quite intriguing..  

Please take a walk with me..

Everyone says that sex before marriage is not important.. that it's not desirable.. that it should be avoided.. etc, etc..

Now.. After marriage, everyone suddenly expects to have wild, romping sex with their spouses.. and have a great sex life from then onwards..

People tend to forget that some habits and tendencies are not inborn, but acquired.. We expect that a natural tendency should exist to have this sexual desire torewards one's spouse.. But quite a lot of marriages have shown that they tend to gravitate towards sexual stasis after quite a relatively short period.. with partners having to make the extra effort to make their sex lives interesting and keep them alive.. Since sex was part of the equation before marriage, why should it be of utmost importance after marriage??..
Many a female member of Nairaland has said in different fora that if their intending partner can not have a relationship with them without sex being part of the equation, then he had better step (to the curb..) and bounce.. I wonder if they would feel in similar manner after marriage if their spouses (male) tell them that they did not get married to them for sex..

If sex, was not an important issue prior to marriage, why should it be one after marriage.. ??

Z4M4eva:
Nah, it's not important for SOME people, n it might not be for you,I don't know what ya feels towards da issue, but what i do know is, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR "ME", COS I WANNA BE VALUE, N CHERISHED, IN DA EYE OF DA ONE FOR ME

I hope that has ANSWERED ya question, CIMONJORR

Sorry to digress a bit here, but is sex after marriage important??