₦airaland Forum

Vieira:
another point:

why are so many women answering this question on behalf of men?

No ladies should pretend to know what a man feels or is capable of.

Are you trying to saying that we should accept whatever a man tells us (about what he feels or is capable of) no matter how preposterous it is? If that is the case, then both sexes should be able to run around doing all kinds of crazy stuff and when pulled up on it, respond as follows: "Oh you don't know what it means/feels like to be a man/woman." I betcha some people will have a field day if and when such excuses begin to wash.

The question is, "Can a man  love a woman and still cheat on her" I believe the women are answering because they are part of the equation (and are giving their opinions as to what they would believe if faced with such a scenario). Take women out of the equation and the question will cease to be.

Vieira:
JustMoi, the point were your argument falls down is the fact than Mankind's past has followed the example of the hens moreso than your examples.

Look at the history of humans and you'll see that polygamous behaviour among the men in the past is well established as oppossed to polygamous behaviour among the women.

Here is the link for the quotes in my previous post. I meant to include it originally.

http://magdalenefoundation.com/nature-female-promiscuity.html

New technologies, such as DNA testing, have given us insight into female sexual behavior in the wild that was once only guessed about, and guessed about quite incorrectly ,  And we see that being the alpha male may not be what it's cracked up to be,

", four of the males in the chimp community were dominant during the study period, but two of them fathered no offspring (within the group) while dominant. So much for the notion that dominance is necessarily coupled with high reproductive output, " 3

Chimps have a similar social structure to hens/cocks, basically an alpha male and a couple of females, yet we see what the DNA tests revealed. Testing hens offspring  might reveal a shocker too. But that is just as aside. We will work with the assumption that the cock fathers most if not all of the hens offspring.

That a lot of human communities were polygamous in nature or follow this or that example in the animal kingdom does not in anyway help the argument that a man can love his wife and still cheat on her.

I will refer you once again to this:

And we see that sexual loyalty to a mate is no more natural in females than in males:

"In fact, fidelity is a phenomenon that seems to occur only when males can impose it on females, either directly through their greater social power or brute force, or indirectly through controlling the resources that females and their offspring require. In sexually egalitarian societies like those of bonobos and marquis, females have both less fear from males and more equal access to resources than do most other female primates.[color=#006600][/color] The fact that the most liberal attitudes toward human sexuality are found in societies where women have similarly independent social status and economic means is entirely consistent with the broader patterns across primates" 2

Human society was far from egalitarian and women just began to acquire certain rights (e.g the right to vote) in the last century. Women were even sometimes considered as chattel. Much like in the excerpt above, early man imposed certain things (polygamy/other double standards) on females through exertion of his social power, brute force or indirectly by controlling the resources that she and her offspring require. This had nothing to do with love and everything to do with selfishness.   We all know that some people will do things if they feel that society permits them. These people will cheat without compunction because they feel that the woman is not going anywhere, that she will have no worth as a divorcee, will not be able to remarry or be self sustaining, and has no other options.

Love is not selfish and a person who is truly in love will definitely rate that love higher than some random shag. Now the minute a person begins to think of taking a chance, it shows you how low thier so called "love" rates. Maybe a man can like his wife or be fond of her and still cheat on her, but love? Nah!

For all those talking about hens, cocks, lions and  making animal analogies, here is something to ponder.

Female chimpanzees are promiscuous and sleep with numerous partners while in heat. In adaptation, male chimpanzees grew huge testicles and release copious amounts of sperm all in an attempt to increase their chances of being the father.

Examples of females not being monagamous abound in the animal kingdom. E.g the bonobo's, macaque's (sp), countless bird species etc etc

New technologies, such as DNA testing, have given us insight into female sexual behavior in the wild that was once only guessed about, and guessed about quite incorrectly.

", recent genetic paternity tests conducted on a wide variety of bird species have confirmed that extra-pair fertilizations are far from rare." 2

"The fathers not only lived outside the study sample, but included males that the observers had never ever seen the female traveling with, much less mating with." 4


"Even in Chimpanzees it seems that females have more choice than observers (and presumably their own males) suspect. DNA tests of chimps born in Christophe Boesch's troop in the Tai Forest of the Ivory Coast showed that 7 of 13 troop offspring were sired by males outside the community. This means that females were successively sneaking away unseen to find partners elsewhere,  it suggests that all the herding, corralling, fighting, and seducing by chimp community males still may not succeed in limiting females' choices."

  And we see that sexual loyalty to a mate is no more natural in females than in males:[color=#770077][/color]"In fact, fidelity is a phenomenon that seems to occur only when males can impose it on females, either directly through their greater social power or brute force, or indirectly through controlling the resources that females and their offspring require. In sexually egalitarian societies like those of bonobos and marquis, females have both less fear from males and more equal access to resources than do most other female primates. The fact that the most liberal attitudes toward human sexuality are found in societies where women have similarly independent social status and economic means is entirely consistent with the broader patterns across primates" 2

I DO NOT CONDONE CHEATING BY HUMAN MALES OR FEMALES. This is just in response to those who seek to make animal analogies and imply that it is just a physical thing for men. If one were to follow the same FAULTY REASONING, then it is just a physical thing too for women.

The male of the species need to recharge/replenish after each  after one sexual encounter. Females don't and can keep going , including with multiple partners. Are we to now say that women were built to cheat? NO!

Humans have very large brains and in my opinion are very different from the lesser animals , A man who loves his wife will not cheat on her and vice versa. All this talk about men being able to cheat, while loving their spouses is just an attempt to justify selfish behavior. Trying to use an animal analogy to make a case for that, is pointless because there are numerous other examples to counteract the point that you are trying to make.

It is not possible for a man to love his wife and cheat on her.

divadarlin:
, Only cheaters say that and only insecure women accept that. AIDS IS REAL

I totally agree.

Btw, good job @ Nia and Faa.

Will Smith & Jada Pinkett Smith

Kanye West and Michelle Williams (wishing them all the best)

May his soul Rest in Peace.

hot-angel:
You have the movie Was it good? tell me!!!

It was okay. They should have hired me to write in a few scriptural changes.
On a serious note, I think you'll enjoy it especially now that you know, someone you kind of know, is in the movie.

Naijalife:
that's my friend
i am on issue 6

let me tell you a story
once upon a time
there are triplets who happened to be friends
liz on cover with guy, stacy the only trinidad and me (senora) issue 6
we are all models. consistently do shows together in NYC
well that's the story
do we look alike?

Yes you do. Especially the two girls at the end. I'm guessing you are on the right hand side but the girl on the left hand side looks a lot like you too. By the way, I have the movie, This America. Hmmm! I might just watch it again.

hot-angel:
And you are not on any of the magazine page.

I believe she is on the last magazine cover with the guy in the red shirt.

If Dr. Iweala were a Hollywood figure and depending on her looks, then I guess it would become relevant, but she's a Public servant and we should only be concerned with the work she is doing.

She is a credit to Nigeria

dablessed:
Dr Iweala is beautiful even without a make-over.

She is also doing a fantastic job in her office! More grease to her elbows.

I second that. She is beautiful inside and out, with her internal beauty (honesty, strength of character ...) being more important because it will stand the test of time.

Keep up the good work Dr. Iweala.

Of all the guys that are out there, why your cousin

Don't even think about it.  Tell the guy to take a hike. He wasn't being genuine when he related his "relationship problems" to you. He was just trying to feel you out.

@ Makgod, you totally get me.

@ Seun, by bringing me joy in my old age, all I mean is that I want them to grow up to be well adjusted, happy adults as opposed to menaces to society. Their happiness is what is going to bring me joy. I realize that kids grow up, develop a mind of their own and that any attempt to live their lifes for them will only lead to heartache. It wouldn't matter to me whom they marry, what they do for a living(as long as its legal). As long as they are happy and fulfilled then I'm happy.

For me, three children. Anymore would be too much work

All girls, all boys or any mixture would be fine. All that matters is that they be healthy and bring me joy in my old age

If the younger sister is actually in favor of this, then she and her sister, in all probability, have a dysfunctional relationship. Why would a guy want to put himself in the midst of this?

Eventhough more of the blame is going to be put at the sister's door (afterall blood is supposed to be thicker than water), the guy is not going to come out of it smelling like roses, either. There are so many women out there, so why an ex's younger sister

@ Cimonjorr, here is the problem; you narrated a "personal experience" and asked for people's opinions on it. I gave my opinion based on the limited information that you presented. All I suggested was that to avoid situations like the one you described, it maybe better to approach couples with whom you are already friends or to approach single women.

You got all touchy and claimed that I recommended you 'chance' the man for his girlfriend.  Where did you get that from? You also alluded that you would not be predisposed to approaching an unaccompanied, single woman at a club because she more often than not would be a lady of easy virtue. This is not the prevalent view/culture in the western world. Mind you, there may be exceptions to this. That is why I asked you, where the event happened and what the culture at that location is. I am still waiting for a response to that. 

Maybe, female patients of mental institutions carry on conversations with themselves and go around "brushing" and saying "don't touch me" to guys who have done nothing, whatsoever to them. But the average girl on the street does not do that. That is why the veracity of your story was questioned. You did say in one of your posts that, "Girls are prone to this kind of behavior" My question to you is, what are you trying to say, or maybe it should be, where do you hang out?

Not until you replied to Seun did you state that, if the girl had been nearby to overhear the conversation, then maybe she may have been justified in taking offense, but that she wasn't. The fact is that this is new and important information that was not supplied in your original post. If it were in your original post, then there is a possibility it might have affected my response, but the fact is that it wasn't. There was nothing offensive about my post. It had nothing to do with the battle of the sexes, but was an honest response based on the information I had received (as of then). So, why did you have to get all huffy and puffy, misinterprete me etc etc? Unless and until we get over this hump, then no, you and I can never get to the "main thrust of your post"

Now if you are the kind of guy that want's people to tell you what you want to hear as opposed to the truth, then maybe you should have narrated the story as a hypothetical situation. Then all this sensitivity would not have arisen and you wouldn't unjustifiably feel that you were being attacked.

Your blanket claim that I am in support of violence by women is just hogwash. Any intelligent person - which you are not - would realise that I support it only in certain cases. For example, when a woman is in danger of being raped or to fend off a groper(which would constitute self defense). I don't give a hoot about your opinion, so feel free to keep same.

In your response to my advise that approaching an attached couple that are strangers to you, might pose certain problems, you responded: "...If the guy had said hell no!! or something along those lines, then I would have let them be ...And as it went, the guy was not adverse to my approach..[hell, it would have been better than walking up to the girl and asking her, trying to disrespect his presence ..or don't you think so?"

My answer to you is that, no I don't think so. The girl is entitled to respect just the same as the guy and in a situation where it is not possible to accomplish both, then move on to plan B. The question you asked and the statement you made are to be expected only from an uncivilized male chauvinist pig with neanderthal tendencies. The 'missing link', perhaps? I know that some of the above may not apply to you, but then again,(to borrow your words of wisdom??) "I do not know you very well."

kazey:
i had to check the dictionary too many times. A forum post should be understandable. A grade 12 kid should be able to read it , and understand it perfectly. Not cross-checking the dictionary to dicipher what a word means.

No Kazey, I am not flawless and I am not judging you. Your above statement implies that my post are not understandable, or at least, not easily so

Just responding to that. No offense intended

@ Kazey, It's unfortunate you couldn't understand it. "Understandable" means different things to different people. The language in that post would not constitute any hardship to the 12th graders I know.

Anyway, if you had difficulty understanding the language, how good a judge could you have been? Not very good

kazey:
You guys still never give up. Na wa o. I just don tire they cross-check dico o.

kazey:
6/10 - 0. Response Response. Other Judges, What is his score?

@ Kazey, I thought you were tired of the whole thing. Now, you're keeping score?

Ready whenever

CimonJorr:
Nice to have you back on line.. ..

[whoa... it's hot in here.. must be all the hot-air.. ]

Nice to have you too

Yep, you got that right. Tis the hot air

CimonJorr:
I know you're command of english is as good as mine.. why then did you deliberately ingore the "IF" parts of my sentence you highlighted..
the "IF" written there deliberately points to the fact that the hypothetical contact that you constantly allude to DID NOT HAPPEN...

There is no comparison ...your command of the language is abysmal. What other reason would there be for your failure to face issues head on, instead of going round and round in circles.
You mention that I deliberately ignored the "IF" part of your sentence. I believe this would be the quote in issue:

CimonJorr:
But, unless you want me to fabricate some more information, there's nothing more I can add.. this is the situation as clearly as it happened.. I haven't left anything out, neither have I added to the story...

If she was there when I asked her boyfriend or if she had been nearby to "overhear" the conversation, then maybe she may be justified in taking ooffense. or whatever her reaction to the situation would have been.. but she wasn't.. and as I have stated earlier, there was no interaction between me and her.. Just a conversation between me and her boyfriend..

My response to you was that the highlighted portion was indeed an addition, since it was not in your original post. Pray tell, how does the "IF" play into this. Is it that you have nothing valid to say in response and just want to run off at the mouth to make yourself feel good. Tis hot air you are blowing, nothing but hot air.

And mention of rape was made only in response to your claim that a woman is not supposed to act up regardless of the situation or circumstance. Here is your quote:

CimonJorr:
"Is it acceptable or correct for a girl to brush up on a guy she's never met before, and then act up... regardless or the situation or circumstances.. "...Have we so become so base that civility has now been thrown out of the window..??

and here is my response:

Justmoi: I find the highlighted portion to be laughable. "...regardless of the situation or circumstance?"
What if a woman is accosted and is in danger of being raped or maybe if a guy grabs her chest or her behind? Is she to be a simpering bimbo, shrinking violet or maybe act all helpless whilst waiting for some non existent man to ride in on a horse and save the day?[b]Not to say that any of these were your scenario[/b], but to point out the power of words, the necessity of thinking before throwing out generalizations and that  using phrases of this nature can create a bad impression. Ignore this, at the risk of coming across like a cromagnon

My advise to you was not to make generalizations (the portion in red). I would also like to point you to the part highlighted in green seeing as you seem to have conveniently misplaced your glasses. So tell me, why do you feel this need to defend yourself against "allegations of rape?" As for the 'civilized society' bit, you are part of the problem. Infact, you are not just part of the problem, YOUR ARE THE PROBLEM. 

London/Manchester, same difference. 'Man up' and deal with the facts instead of quibbling.

All the people that have posted since my first post have given you positive advice, which you choose not to accept. Instead you prefer to bluster 'trying to look good in front of the boys.' But, alas, you have failed, because you look very, very bad. The mark of an intelligent person, is the ability to accept their mistakes. Now tell me, can you do this, or should an inference be made?

CimonJorr:
... But, unless you want me to fabricate some more information, there's nothing more I can add.. this is the situation as clearly as it happened.. I haven't left anything out, neither have I added to the story...

If she was there when I asked her boyfriend or if she had been nearby to [b]"overhear" the conversation, then maybe she may be justified in taking ooffense. or whatever her reaction to the situation would have been.. but she wasn't.. [/b] and as I have stated earlier, there was no interaction between me and her.. Just a conversation between me and her boyfriend..

This was definitely not part of your original post and constitutes new information/addition to the story. In your first two posts, you stated that you had no interaction with her, no communication, no asking and being rebuffed. The aformentioned things do not constitute her, being out of earshot. So, it would appear that you story has changed, everly so slightly.

If you want your 'point' to be gotten, it behooves you to state the facts clearly and concisely. I am not a mind reader. Your original story, can at best, be described as sketchy. Now, if you mistakenly omit pertinent information, it is for you to simply plug the gaps in your story and wait for a reassessment as opposed to expecting anyone to be psychic.

CimonJorr:
1. I don't know the establishments you may be used to hanging out in.. or [b]if you are an individual who indulges in an active night life [[/b]and goes to nightclubs or discotheques].. but most night clubs I've been to hardly have single girls coming by themselves.. more often than not, they are usually part of a group of friends.. [most of the time you come across a single lady, she's more often than not of questionable virtue.. ]..

No, I do not have an active night life. However, I live in U.S. and over here, female friends sometimes organize 'girls night out' and go out on the town without male chaperones. This does not make them ladies of the night and nobody looks upon them as such. In your profile, you stated that  you live in London, I would think the situation would be the same over there. Any Londonites care to weigh in on this?

Now if this did not happen in London, but in a different locale where the customs are different, then my other suggestion - that
you approach a couple with whom you are already friends - would have come into play.

On the face of it, it is wrong for any person -male or female - to slap or assault another person. Having said that, I would like to point you to this:

CimonJorr:
"Is it acceptable or correct for a girl to brush up on a guy she's never met before, and then act up... regardless or the situation or circumstances.. "...Have we so become so base that civility has now been thrown out of the window..??

I find the highlighted portion to be laughable. "...regardless of the situation or circumstance?"
What if a woman is accosted and is in danger of being raped or maybe if a guy grabs her chest or her behind? Is she to be a simpering bimbo, shrinking violet or maybe act all helpless whilst waiting for some non existent man to ride in on a horse and save the day?Not to say that any of these were your scenario, but to point out the power of words, the necessity of thinking before throwing out generalizations and that  using phrases of this nature can create a bad impression. Ignore this, at the risk of coming across like a cromagnon

More excerpts from some of your quotes:

CimonJorr:
Why do girls behave like this?

CimonJorr:
Girls are very prone to this kind of behaviour...

CimonJorr:
To cap this all.. My only request is: "Ladies.. Be Civil... It doesn't subtract from your personality.. "

You do use the word 'civility' liberally in your statements.
All I can say is, sometimes it is imperative that a person take their own advise.
Also, generally in life, what a person puts out is what they get in return.

Nothing personal. Just airing my views. Wouldn't have had to explain at length, if the missing information had been promptly supplied and then you had simply waited for a re-evaluation on the basis of the new information.

Seun:
CimonJorr, I have a feeling you're not being honest with us; possibly there's something you're not telling us about this story.

Perhaps the girl did not like the way you approached her boyfriend to ask her to dance as if she's a slave or something. Perhaps she overheard and/or misunderstood something you told her boyfriend. Perhaps her friends have told her tales about you and she wasn't ready to dance with you.

Exactly. Spoken like a true gentleman