₦airaland Forum

"Someone" Tweeted:
The man who gives her orgasms has more control over her than the man who gives her money.

"Whoever" Replied:
Not if she's a financial woman. Financial women give into impulses that gear towards money-romance...fixing their minds on a man's money like their lives depend on it...& once a woman's mind is fixed on a man's money, it becomes easy for the man to dominate her thoughts completely. Hence, their romance, though monetized to some degree, is likely to afford her earth-shattering orgasms...unless, of course, the man isn't incapable of attaining such sexual feats. Even at that, his money would still have the woman firmly in his grip, affording him utmost control over her.

All she'd most likely do in such situation would be to become a sneaky cheat, finding her way to the beds of men who are capable of attaining that feat...whether rich or not. But belonging solely to that category of men can be fatal in every sense of the word. There's this account of a married chatelaine who, after sleeping with a young orgasm-giving vassal one night, had him seized by the palace guards the next morning & summarily executed in a dungeon on trumped-up charges, not only to eliminate all evidence of their adulterous night together & prevent her young lover from becoming a nuisance now that he thought he was entitled to her favors, but to stem the temptation to seek him out on the following evening for more orgasms.

It becomes obvious from those scenarios that both the the man who gives a woman money & the man who gives her orgasms are vastly equipped to have maximum control over her, even on equal levels. But if complicated events arise that require one of them to be tossed down the bin, the orgasm-giving man is likely to be that man, as evidenced in the account involving the rich married chatelaine & the young orgasm-giving vassal. It is said that she had him seized & summarily executed on trumped-up charges, not only to eliminate all evidence of their adulterous night together & prevent him from becoming a nuisance now that he thought he was entitled to her favors, but to stem the temptation to seek him out again & again for more orgasms.

So, basically, after indulging guilty pleasures with the young vassal & gratifying her orgasmic cravings, fearful thoughts of what would likely become of her reputation if her little get-together with the young vassal were to make it to public knowledge—dawned on her. To take no chances, she had him executed, since, in her elite view, "how we view ourselves is of little consequence...but how others perceive us is important." The young vassal, though having afforded her temporal orgasmic delight, became a potential avenue through which she could become permanently ill-perceived & brought to disrepute. So she soiled her hands to keep her reputation from possibly getting soiled.

Guess whose expense all of that was at? The young, promising, orgasm-giving vassal, not her money-giving husband, as such is hardly the case with money-giving men. In the context of the quoted tweet, while an uncovering of events that solely revolve around orgasmic delight without any solid purpose attached to it can be demeaning & even scandalous (depending on the personalities involved), an uncovering of events that revolve around money will always accrue striking repute to those involved, thus posing question marks to the narrative that a man who gives a woman orgasms is more likely to have more control over her than a man who gives her money.

If anything, both men will have her perambulating in both directions until the need arises to kick the orgasm-giving man out of the equation the moment it appears he's getting in the way of her paycheck from the money-giving man. However, if the woman is rich, she could ditch the money-giving man & pitch her tent with the orgasm-giving man. But that wouldn't be in the context of the tweet being replied to, would it? Be that as it may, whatever is worth doing is worth doing well. And very importantly, money is a defense.

Now, over to you. Do you subscribe to the stance that a man who gives a woman orgasm has more control over her than a man who gives her money?

Obsession .

Zxcvbnmghtr:
Obsession .

Healthy or unhealthy?

jezuzboi:
"Someone" Tweeted:
The man who gives her orgasms has more control over her than the man who gives her money.

"Whoever" Replied:
Not if she's a financial woman. Financial women give into impulses that gear towards money-romance...fixing their minds on a man's money like their lives depend on it...& once a woman's mind is fixed on a man's money, it becomes easy for the man to dominate her thoughts completely. Hence, their romance, though monetized to some degree, is likely to afford her earth-shattering orgasms...unless, of course, the man isn't incapable of attaining such sexual feats. Even at that, his money would still have the woman firmly in his grip, affording him utmost control over her.

All she'd most likely do in such situation would be to become a sneaky cheat, finding her way to the beds of men who are capable of attaining that feat...whether rich or not. But belonging solely to that category of men can be fatal in every sense of the word. There's this account of a married chatelaine who, after sleeping with a young orgasm-giving vassal one night, had him seized by the palace guards the next morning & summarily executed in a dungeon on trumped-up charges, not only to eliminate all evidence of their adulterous night together & prevent her young lover from becoming a nuisance now that he thought he was entitled to her favors, but to stem the temptation to seek him out on the following evening for more orgasms.

It becomes obvious from those scenarios that both the the man who gives a woman money & the man who gives her orgasms are vastly equipped to have maximum control over her, even on equal levels. But if complicated events arise that require one of them to be tossed down the bin, the orgasm-giving man is likely to be that man, as evidenced in the account involving the rich married chatelaine & the young orgasm-giving vassal. It is said that she had him seized & summarily executed on trumped-up charges, not only to eliminate all evidence of their adulterous night together & prevent him from becoming a nuisance now that he thought he was entitled to her favors, but to stem the temptation to seek him out again & again for more orgasms.

So, basically, after indulging guilty pleasures with the young vassal & gratifying her orgasmic cravings, fearful thoughts of what would likely become of her reputation if her little get-together with the young vassal were to make it to public knowledge—dawned on her. To take no chances, she had him executed, since, in her elite view, "how we view ourselves is of little consequence...but how others perceive us is important." The young vassal, though having afforded her temporal orgasmic delight, became a potential avenue through which she could become permanently ill-perceived & brought to disrepute. So she soiled her hands to keep her reputation from possibly getting soiled.

Guess whose expense all of that was at? The young, promising, orgasm-giving vassal, not her money-giving husband, as such is hardly the case with money-giving men. In the context of the quoted tweet, while an uncovering of events that solely revolve around orgasmic delight without any solid purpose attached to it can be demeaning & even scandalous (depending on the personalities involved), an uncovering of events that revolve around money will always accrue striking repute to those involved, thus posing question marks to the narrative that a man who gives a woman orgasms is more likely to have more control over her than a man who gives her money.

If anything, both men will have her perambulating in both directions until the need arises to kick the orgasm-giving man out of the equation the moment it appears he's getting in the way of her paycheck from the money-giving man. However, if the woman is rich, she could ditch the money-giving man & pitch her tent with the orgasm-giving man. But that wouldn't be in the context of the tweet being replied to, would it? Be that as it may, whatever is worth doing is worth doing well. And very importantly, money is a defense.

Now, over to you. Do you subscribe to the stance that a man who gives a woman orgasm has more control over her than a man who gives her money?

women are like stomach.
We will have both one way or another. But I will choose the money giving guy over the orgasm one anyday, anytime.

A woman can give herself orgasm na. Plus there are more men willing to give orgasm than there are men willing to give money. Even if a woman has her own money, there’s nothing like too much money. I reckon women will go for the one who offers scarce resources.

DrFunmisticGlow:
women are like stomach.
We will have both one way or another. But I will choose the money giving guy over the orgasm one anyday, anytime.

Sincerity at it's peak.

jezuzboi:
"Someone" Tweeted:
The man who gives her orgasms has more control over her than the man who gives her money.

"Whoever" Replied:
Not if she's a financial woman. Financial women give into impulses that gear towards money-romance...fixing their minds on a man's money like their lives depend on it...& once a woman's mind is fixed on a man's money, it becomes easy for the man to dominate her thoughts completely. Hence, their romance, though monetized to some degree, is likely to afford her earth-shattering orgasms...unless, of course, the man isn't incapable of attaining such sexual feats. Even at that, his money would still have the woman firmly in his grip, affording him utmost control over her.

All she'd most likely do in such situation would be to become a sneaky cheat, finding her way to the beds of men who are capable of attaining that feat...whether rich or not. But belonging solely to that category of men can be fatal in every sense of the word. There's this account of a married chatelaine who, after sleeping with a young orgasm-giving vassal one night, had him seized by the palace guards the next morning & summarily executed in a dungeon on trumped-up charges, not only to eliminate all evidence of their adulterous night together & prevent her young lover from becoming a nuisance now that he thought he was entitled to her favors, but to stem the temptation to seek him out on the following evening for more orgasms.

It becomes obvious from those scenarios that both the the man who gives a woman money & the man who gives her orgasms are vastly equipped to have maximum control over her, even on equal levels. But if complicated events arise that require one of them to be tossed down the bin, the orgasm-giving man is likely to be that man, as evidenced in the account involving the rich married chatelaine & the young orgasm-giving vassal. It is said that she had him seized & summarily executed on trumped-up charges, not only to eliminate all evidence of their adulterous night together & prevent him from becoming a nuisance now that he thought he was entitled to her favors, but to stem the temptation to seek him out again & again for more orgasms.

So, basically, after indulging guilty pleasures with the young vassal & gratifying her orgasmic cravings, fearful thoughts of what would likely become of her reputation if her little get-together with the young vassal were to make it to public knowledge—dawned on her. To take no chances, she had him executed, since, in her elite view, "how we view ourselves is of little consequence...but how others perceive us is important." The young vassal, though having afforded her temporal orgasmic delight, became a potential avenue through which she could become permanently ill-perceived & brought to disrepute. So she soiled her hands to keep her reputation from possibly getting soiled.

Guess whose expense all of that was at? The young, promising, orgasm-giving vassal, not her money-giving husband, as such is hardly the case with money-giving men. In the context of the quoted tweet, while an uncovering of events that solely revolve around orgasmic delight without any solid purpose attached to it can be demeaning & even scandalous (depending on the personalities involved), an uncovering of events that revolve around money will always accrue striking repute to those involved, thus posing question marks to the narrative that a man who gives a woman orgasms is more likely to have more control over her than a man who gives her money.

If anything, both men will have her perambulating in both directions until the need arises to kick the orgasm-giving man out of the equation the moment it appears he's getting in the way of her paycheck from the money-giving man. However, if the woman is rich, she could ditch the money-giving man & pitch her tent with the orgasm-giving man. But that wouldn't be in the context of the tweet being replied to, would it? Be that as it may, whatever is worth doing is worth doing well. And very importantly, money is a defense.

Now, over to you. Do you subscribe to the stance that a man who gives a woman orgasm has more control over her than a man who gives her money?

The truth is women choose both and it leads to paternity fraud.
The problem I'd most rich men don't care about been good in bed.
Women on their part are ridiculous.
Women mary for financial security and not who they love and this leads to paternity fraud. Women have serious faults they need to work on

eazzzy1:
A woman can give herself orgasm na. Plus there are more men willing to give orgasm than there are men willing to give money. Even if a woman has her own money, there’s nothing like too much money. I reckon women will go for the one who offers scarce resources.

WOMEN WILL GO FOR WHO OFFERS SCARCE RESOURCES

To a broke girl, money is a scarce resource, & in many cases orgasm too...which accounts for why many financial women still cheat on their low libido moneybags with high libido paupers. But to a rich girl, money may not necessarily be a scarce resource...except there's a man richer than her in the equation. Otherwise, orgasm may turn out being the scarce resource. But even with a richer man in the equation, she'll still crave orgasmic delights, & like you said, there are more men willing to give orgasm than there are men willing to give money. As for women who give themselves orgasm, well, that's out of context. The problem is in settling for just one of both.

Philosopher1979:
The truth is women choose both and it leads to paternity fraud.
The problem I'd most rich men don't care about been good in bed.
Women on their part are ridiculous.
Women mary for financial security and not who they love and this leads to paternity fraud. Women have serious faults they need to work on

Paternity Fraud then becomes the consequence of wanting to eat their cakes & have it back by settling with rich men for financial security while patronising "DickSons" for orgasmic delights...all pointing to the difficulty in choosing & settling with just one of both men & only making efforts to see how to get them to improve in the area they lag behind.