RisenPhoenix:


Marriage could and did once inherently permit a man to focus on as many women as he wants as long as he did this legally with the blessing of society, but modern day marital vows have been engineered specially to restrict this.

[quote author=RisenPhoenix post=87091678]

Then, modern day marital vows should be respected since it forbids men from focusing on more than one woman. Why are we pouring new wine into old wineskin?




[quote author=RisenPhoenix post=87091678]

I did not say that a baby mama is more profitable. It is not. Nor do I think that you can present any logical reason as to why a man should stay committed to one woman if he is able to financially support more.


[quote author=RisenPhoenix post=87091678]


I may not have any logical reason to present, but I have seen what not being committed to one woman does to marriages and families. Being able to provide financially for more than one woman have ruined good homes and broken both men and women, turning them to bitter souls.



[quote author=RisenPhoenix post=87091678]

Of course not. Masculinity by its nature has no need to be proven. Furthermore, my reference to a man having a natural propensity to commit to more than one woman does not necessarily mean cheating. It would also include legally sanctioned polygamy


[quote author=RisenPhoenix post=87091678]

Natural propensity to commit to more than one woman functions well in a polygamous setting. For a monogamous marriage, the natural propensity is considered cheating.




[quote author=RisenPhoenix post=87091678]

There you go again with your false equivalence. This is not logic; it is vengefulness and a woman's idea of emotional blackmail. As I painstakingly explained earlier, it is not the same when a man cheats and when a woman cheats. Women do this often but they are completely wrong in comparing the logical outcome of their cheating as being the same as the logical outcome of a man cheating. A woman cheating has more serious repercussion on societal stability.



You are beginning to sound like a broken record stuck in one place. The problem is that women always think emotionally rather than with their brains. Men and women are not equal. Never were. Until you properly understand this, you will keep confusing yourself unnecessarily.

Sixfeetbelle:

I don't understand why a man cheating is not the same as a woman cheating.

Sixfeetbelle:

They are both ruining the foundations of their marriage.

Sixfeetbelle:

Don't come at me with 'it doesn't have the same societal repercussions'. Your argument is just giving men the wings to cheat.

Sixfeetbelle:

See, the reason I don't like arguing this cheating whatever here is that Ive seen that people generally have a preconceived notion of what they feel they can do and not do in marriages. Men will always feel like their cheating should be condoned because they are 'helping' broke girls, and that the cheating wife should be stoned to death, and that's okay. Whatever one decides he/she should do.

Sixfeetbelle:

The only thing I know and believe, is that we are gradually ruining the institution of marriage by ourselves and soon, the idea of marriage will be faced out.

RisenPhoenix:


It doesn't concern her because she loses nothing by his having extra marital sex, there is nothing like karma and marital vows are only emotional ploys to keep men subservient and keep their concentration unnaturally focused on a specific woman. Let's try to stay logical here.

He would not be infected by taking care of another man's progeny, but he would be cheated of his hard earned wealth; thinking that he is working to support his family when he is actually supporting; financially and time-wise; another man's.

He can also be infected by stds, which I have already admitted, can also happen to the woman; which is why I support your idea of monthly std tests for both if the man has extra marital affairs. However, a woman should never cheat because of the possibility of the progeny not being the real provider's.

PrimadonnaO:


The nonsense you've written up there...

Sixfeetbelle:



I've noticed this trend here. Once you people have nothing meaning to say, you result to insults. Defend what you wrote, Sir.

Yesterday, I argued with @crackkhauss here about women proposing to men and he defended the post to the very end without a modicum of insult attached.

If you read through well, you'd see my subsequent comments had nothing to do with DNA testing but with the cheating you previously mentioned. Defend that statement. Is it okay for a married men to cheat? Are you supporting that ideology?

And I countered it that any man who supports that idealogy should not expect complete loyalty from the woman. It doesn't matter how long we'll argue this but my stance won't change.

Have a good day since you can't debate without acting ghetto

RisenPhoenix:


Care to expantiate on the specific point(s) you think are illogical?

RisenPhoenix:


Care to expantiate on the specific point(s) you think are illogical?

RisenPhoenix:
b]It doesn't concern her because she loses nothing by his having extra marital sex, there is nothing like karma and marital vows are only emotional ploys to keep men subservient and keep their concentration unnaturally focused on a specific woman. Let's try to stay logical here.

crackkhaus:

Trust issues and suspicions of infidelity aside, every woman should also insist on having DNA tests on their children for their own sake as well..

Switching babies is also common, so I heard.

PrimadonnaO:


The whole first paragraph... where you say a cheating husband doesn't affect the wife in anyway...


It would seem also that you're making a case for cheating married men... excusing their actions.

chatinent:
"At that moment, a child that is already grow and you don't know that..you mean if I later know that.. I mean, if I notices that I am not the one that born.. I mean if I notice that my wife born but born later notices that you are not my father.. I mean that I am not my father?

It'll be hard for me to handle the situation."

Yeecar:

Please please please dont ever try to manipulate me, i am beyond all that... wether a man cheat or not is non of my business, however the consequences of their actions should be dished out irrespective of gender, that aside DNA has come to stay and any 20th century man that is ignorant of that, is simply digging his own grave.
You are the one behaving like a ghetto kid, and i still pity the SIMP that will end up with you!

RisenPhoenix:


I have explained it a number of times to you. Because it leads to defrauding the husband of his invested wealth and time.

I do not know what you mean by that. The "foundations of marriage" &c. & c. are only meaningless mouthed platitudes. Marriage is primarily for the establishment and nurture of progeny along structured family lines.

The most efficient method for this has been found to be a man providing the seed and necessary provision to ensure the survival of the progeny and their fertile emotional nurturer;

plus any number of said fertile emotional nurturers he can support and provide for along with his progeny from them.

That is what our forefathers found to be the most efficient and effective marriage structure, and we have not been able to amend that without creating confusion.

Arguments are analyzed based on the truth contained therein; not whether they have adverse effects on those who abuse them.

Those who wish to cheat will find the wings to do so wherever they can.



Every institution has its rules and regulations. One man multiple women has always been the effective norm in all societies. And I do not believe that men think of their cheating as a means of helping broke girls. Most times, it is their only outlet for their innate desire to mate as widely as possible and the fact that wives tragically lose their sexual attraction and libido as they grow older.

A woman doesn't have the INNATE desire to mate, too? Not because of culture and religion and social restrictions placed on her. If not for discipline, is it not in almost everyone to sleep with as many people as they can?

The effective norm in ALL societies? Funny. So polyandrous tribes are non-existent?

There are sugar babies for the old years if the man decides to be unfaithful. As long as her emotional needs, like you've been hammering on, are met.

The institution of marriage has been on the way to ruin for a long time; by feminist ideology and the legal empowerment of the 'modern woman' to manipulate it towards the gratification of her material greed and her desire to achieve hypergamous objectives.

What we are actually ruining now is the non-working modern morphing of marriage by the feminists to women-serving, men debasing fraud-enabling institutions. There was no way it could have been permitted to continue unchecked. Women have had their limelight, and misused the opportunity for selfish ends. The backlash will be brutal and will only put them further back from where they started.

Initially, marriage was a simple agreement; I feed and protect you, you have my kids, I continue to feed and protect you while you care for them; until those kids grow up and feed and protect us both. If I can feed and protect 10, 12 or 15 women and my kids from them, then I do so formally and everybody in society is happy. Now that women have broken out of that agreement, they will still be pulled into service to provide progeny, but men will feel less and less responsible for the feeding and protection aspect. Also, since men are more easily able to access the milk without feeding the cow, why bother to feed it? Let it stray and eat grass wherever it can. So you see, women are the ones ruining marriage for themselves.

So everybody should cheat and we'll all be happy then! Why can a woman not give birth to fifteen kids for fifteen men, and all fifteen give her benefits? What are you arguing against? Shebi a woman can now do all for herself? She can stray. You drink Free milk, I eat free grass (especially from BLUE-PILLED men). so what's the issue?

RisenPhoenix:


What particular point and why? If you think that a husband who sleeps with someone else affects his wife, how?

Because their actions are theirs to make. They are not going to affect the wife so obviously her permission is not required.

RisenPhoenix:


I have explained it a number of times to you. Because it leads to defrauding the husband of his invested wealth and time.

I do not know what you mean by that. The "foundations of marriage" &c. & c. are only meaningless mouthed platitudes. Marriage is primarily for the establishment and nurture of progeny along structured family lines. The most efficient method for this has been found to be a man providing the seed and necessary provision to ensure the survival of the progeny and their fertile emotional nurturer; plus any number of said fertile emotional nurturers he can support and provide for along with his progeny from them. That is what our forefathers found to be the most efficient and effective marriage structure, and we have not been able to amend that without creating confusion.


Arguments are analyzed based on the truth contained therein; not whether they have adverse effects on those who abuse them. Those who wish to cheat will find the wings to do so wherever they can.


Every institution has its rules and regulations. One man multiple women has always been the effective norm in all societies. And I do not believe that men think of their cheating as a means of helping broke girls. Most times, it is their only outlet for their innate desire to mate as widely as possible and the fact that wives tragically lose their sexual attraction and libido as they grow older.


The institution of marriage has been on the way to ruin for a long time; by feminist ideology and the legal empowerment of the 'modern woman' to manipulate it towards the gratification of her material greed and her desire to achieve hypergamous objectives. What we are actually ruining now is the non-working modern morphing of marriage by the feminists to women-serving, men debasing fraud-enabling institutions. There was no way it could have been permitted to continue unchecked. Women have had their limelight, and misused the opportunity for selfish ends. The backlash will be brutal and will only put them further back from where they started.

Initially, marriage was a simple agreement; I feed and protect you, you have my kids, I continue to feed and protect you while you care for them; until those kids grow up and feed and protect us both. If I can feed and protect 10, 12 or 15 women and my kids from them, then I do so formally and everybody in society is happy. Now that women have broken out of that agreement, they will still be pulled into service to provide progeny, but men will feel less and less responsible for the feeding and protection aspect. Also, since men are more easily able to access the milk without feeding the cow, why bother to feed it? Let it stray and eat grass wherever it can. So you see, women are the ones ruining marriage for themselves.

proclinician:

Huge lie

Sixfeetbelle:



Like I said earlier, people already have a preconceived notion of what marriage should be. And I noticed through all posts that you keep making reference to a man nurturing more than one woman, and how our forefathers created the system for progeny sake and all that. It makes we wonder, are you polygamous? Are you a Muslim?

I argue based on Christian marriage doctrines which binds one man to nurture only one woman and propogate his seeds through her only, even if he has the capacity to nurture 20. What would you now advice a man in that setting do? Mind you, any nurturing outside the union is considered cheating.

Which brings us back to what I said. A man who choses to do as he wants should not bind a woman to him. Applicable to the women as well. You keep saying a man cheating should not concern the wife, yet, he swore his loyalty to only her under a defined set of rules. If he cannot abide by the laws governing it, he should not marry under those laws. At this point, a baby mama situation is profitable to both parties and satisfies the 'nurture as many as he can' quote.



You have your ideology of what marriage should be and I have mine. There is no use debating it since its obvious we would never reach a common ground.

Magnoliaa:



But we have women murdering their husbands and fighting side chics. Yet a cheating man actions are not affecting his wife.

You think those women haven't been overlooking and taking it in as the society tells them to do?

RisenPhoenix:


No. I am not a muslim and not a Christian either. My idea on marriage is not driven by any religious doctrine, but by my own logical deduction, and I will admit that I'm wrong only if you can prove it logically. And I do not see any logical benefit of monogamy. It has created more harm than good.

A man promises to take care of her, not to be loyal to her (whatever that means) because a man's loyalty should only be to himself. And I absolutely endorse that promise. A man must take care of a woman financially to ensure her contentment (within reason and ability). But if he has the ability to also do that for many women, then why not? Why the selfish desire to hog all his wealth to herself?

As I said, monogamy is unreasonable.

Magnoliaa:
You'll start speaking out of both sides of your mouth now. Soon.

Magnoliaa:

So, a woman is investing what? Nothing? If the cheating of a wife leads to the defrauding of a man his time and wealth--- is it not equally same for a man? What does the man cheating leads to? Women are jobless and idle in the marriage institution now?

Magnoliaa:

Going by this definition, then anyone is free to cheat then. Since, establishment and nurture are Paramount. As long as the existence of the next generation is certain. That's all. Now you say "foundations are meaningless," but champion a "structure" definition. What's that structure? Is it on a woman to uphold it? How do you keep that family line stable?

Magnoliaa:

Great. A woman is an emotional nurturer. Why can she not have numerous seed providers ensuring her survival and upkeep? The more connection she has with men, the better and more and stronger offspring she gives! Soo, wouldn't cheating, on a woman's part, be to the advantage of humanity? Sex with a musician, sex with a writer, sex with a nerdy genius, etc etc.

Magnoliaa:

It is NOT an efficient method because so many things disprove it. So many things can work out of marriage. You can have successful children out of that definition of marriage you gave. There are great single daddies. You're pushing the 'man bring seed' idea now, with zero emotional contribution and yet still maintain that 'men are kept out of the system.'

Magnoliaa:

And a woman cannot take care of her own progeny? Where's it written that it must be a man? Newsflash: women are making their money and resources and provisions now. How does this justify a man cheating?! We are not in the 14th century oh. Wasn't it because a woman was at a disadvantaged position, not allowed to own economic means that she came to depend on a man? Does that still apply now? If one isn't economically and financially free (as some women still are), then they can only depend on the one with the means. But I'm talking in the frame of modern world. What exactly are you still
the providing? Health-care? Transportation? Food? (In addition, if women ask you to bring money now, all of una still go dey shout. You'll still shame gold-diggers.)

Magnoliaa:

Doesn't justify a man cheating and a woman not. Conservativism is the problem.

Magnoliaa:

SMH. Dismissing as it suits you. Now consequences and effects don't matter. But you were open to discussing the consequences cheating have on a woman's status in the Society.

Magnoliaa:

A woman doesn't have the INNATE desire to mate, too? Not because of culture and religion and social restrictions placed on her. If not for discipline, is it not in almost everyone to sleep with as many people as they can?

Magnoliaa:

The effective norm in ALL societies? Funny. So polyandrous tribes are non-existent?

Magnoliaa:

There are sugar babies for the old years if the man decides to be unfaithful. As long as her emotional needs, like you've been hammering on, are met.

Magnoliaa:

Let me ask you: this hypergamy you talk of, is it natural? Or is it socially learned due to feminists' activism?

Magnoliaa:

One time, you say the world is 'spoiling,' another time you say we're going back to the 'normal past.' lol I thought people are now #BelievingWomen, is it the same people who believe women the backlash is coming from?

Magnoliaa:

So everybody should cheat and we'll all be happy then! Why can a woman not give birth to fifteen kids for fifteen men, and all fifteen give her benefits? What are you arguing against? Shebi a woman can now do all for herself? She can stray. You drink Free milk, I eat free grass (especially from BLUE-PILLED men). so what's the issue?

bdchange:

I enjoyed your debate or argument with @sixfeet, but you did not grab her last point on the institution called marriage. She said you can't claim to be a christian and took oath to abide by one woman which is monogamy but later do otherwise because you felt you have the financial capacity to marry multiple women..haba... You have broken the rules, it is as simple as that. If you decide to marry multiple women under your logical reasoning, no problem go ahead. But don't condemn those who choose otherwise.

RisenPhoenix:


No. I am not a muslim and not a Christian either. My idea on marriage is not driven by any religious doctrine, but by my own logical deduction, and I will admit that I'm wrong only if you can prove it logically. And I do not see any logical benefit of monogamy. It has created more harm than good.

A man promises to take care of her, not to be loyal to her (whatever that means) because a man's loyalty should only be to himself. And I absolutely endorse that promise. A man must take care of a woman financially to ensure her contentment (within reason and ability). But if he has the ability to also do that for many women, then why not? Why the selfish desire to hog all his wealth to herself?

As I said, monogamy is unreasonable.

Sixfeetbelle:


Finally, we agree on something. Monogamy is unreasonable in this modern age where things are not as they should be. But until Monogamy is scrapped, anything outside the union is wrong.

Mind you, she's not hogging all his wealth to herself cause it's not possible. A man is always in charge of his wealth at all times. Also, if he wants to nurture another woman, let the wife be in concord, so it doesn't cause problems later.

I suppose this is why contract marriages are in vogue now.

Anyway, we will sha figure out how to handle our individual marriages the way we and our spouses best agree on.

It was nice arguing with you.

Sixfeetbelle:


Finally, we agree on something. Monogamy is unreasonable in this modern age where things are not as they should be. But until Monogamy is scrapped, anything outside the union is wrong.

Mind you, she's not hogging all his wealth to herself cause it's not possible. A man is always in charge of his wealth at all times. Also, if he wants to nurture another woman, let the wife be in concord, so it doesn't cause problems later.

I suppose this is why contract marriages are in vogue now.

Anyway, we will sha figure out how to handle our individual marriages the way we and our spouses best agree on.

It was nice arguing with you.

RisenPhoenix:


Illegal isn't always wrong.

And it wasn't an argument. It was just an exchange of ideas.

Of course my own idea was always the right one. You never stood a chance. ;-p

Sixfeetbelle:


You are funny.

Your own idea supported men having more than one woman at a time indirectly and since I will never agree on this, your idea was wrong.

crackkhaus:
8years is too long to be this foolish.

Every man is supposed to do DNA tests within the first two years, and if he don't match...then he ought to tell his whorë of a wife to take the child to the father or better still, move in with the man responsible.

There's no sensible reason for any woman to remain married to a man whom she gave the product of her infidelity to raise as his own, none at all.

It's an abomination.

extremelygolden:

There have been instances babies were switched at the hospital by the careless or greedy nurses.

I always advise men to be careful, make a thorough investigation first before accusing their wives of infidelity. Especially those wives who you truly know cannot break your marriage vow.

crackkhaus:

So a DNA test should be done for both maternity and paternity right?