₦airaland Forum

crackhaus:
Lol, but that's the point I've been making nah.
In those developed countries and with their high levels of PMS, there's also less number of virgins.

The guy that was interviewed on CNN was talking about his virginity, TV01.

Ok. My point was, PMS or not, if there is not a strong culture/religion pointing to marriage, it will suffer and birthrates will fall. The same root cause, with some variation, may take differening pathways, but leads to the same outcome.

The Japanese are highly heterogenous - or xenophobic if you prefer to think badly of them - only 1 in 60 or so is non-Japanese, and they look down on even the Koreans (ethnically the same). I wonder how they will retrieve the situation?


TV

freecocoa:
Why did you quote me to type what you wanted to? Couldn't you have spoken to your brethren Without involving me?

I didn't involve you, you involved yourself. I even made it clear I was speaking to Christians generally, and not anyone in particular. Your post just gave me opportunity. In no way personal. But anyway, ma'binu, no vex .


TV

freecocoa:
You know I'm no christian but you quote my post ans respond like this, smh.

Did you read the last sentence? It wasn't even for you, just Christians who may get thrown that question - no need to be jumpy around me .


TV

OLAADEGBU:
Is there any biblical reason for Christian couples to file for divorce when there is the possibility of 'becoming brutalised or ending up dead'?

Why don't you show us from the bible?

TV

proddey:
1. You're really not meeting people is the main reason.

Mobilise people and resources. Be at places where you will likely meet people. Be bold - ready to approach in all and any circumstances.

proddey:
2. Your job takes about 80% of your time.

If you are serious,youy will make time, or use what little you have smartly and purposefully. It willbe an issue even after you marry. Wise up.

proddey:
3. You must want someone that wants you etc

I would have though that was de rigueur for any serious and mature person?

You have presented no real problem, obstacle or reason to be desperate.


TV

OLAADEGBU:
It is not funny to those at the extreme end of an abusive relationship.

I laugh some more .

Your opener simply stated "abuse". You later classified several types. Presumably they all have degrees, or are they all prima-facie reason for instant divorce? "Laughs some more"

OLAADEGBU:
I am not looking for grounds for divorce on the first recourse. I am looking at when it comes to the point of death or psychological damage.

As above you didn't state that in opening, you "artfully disguised it. And then again when you listed several other types of "abuse".

You are trying it again here when you state "psychological damage" - ones wifes cooking gives him headache - is that an out

OLAADEGBU:
Are you only addressing Christian marriages? Even if they are Christians why should a spouse remain in an abusive marriage to the point of death?

I appreciate that not everyone subscribes to Christian doctrine or commandments - even if they leverage the label - so I think it good practice to disclaim.

You are still flailing about trying to make sense of this. Firstly, a Christian marriage built on the right foundations will not have such serious issues. Non-Christian marriages sef. Secondly, no one wakes up one day at the point of death. There is always a trajectory and a timeline as things deteriorate. Action should be taken early, before harm, serious harm, or death are in view.

And the first recourse at any point is not divorce. It's always, forgiveness, healing and reconciliation - for Christians. And whatever you do, it does not presuppose re-marriage, if your spouse is still alive. So call it abeyance, hiatus, separation, time apart, divorcement, whatever.

OLAADEGBU:
Is your counsel only reasonable to Christian couples?

I reckon any mature person will get it, even if they don't hold to Christian doctrine.

How old, and what religion are you


TV

crackhaus:
Lol, the article is about virginity...the survey was built around it, and any subsequent discourse has to come from that angle.

That was the headline, but the real concern is the falling birthrate. And why are they virgins? Because they are not forming relationships, which begs the question....

crackhaus:
Why are there so many virgins? Large numbers of young people are not married.

As above

crackhaus:
Why are they not married? You have explained why by your own understanding.

Because they are not forming relationships. There does no thave to be PMS for there to be marriage - see below.

crackhaus:
What I need to ask then to better understand your perspective is this; Does being unmarried stop people from having sex in japan? If so, why?

It's almost a moot point, or at best, one that is answered in passing. The issue is what is preventing relationships, ultimately marriages, which is the surest way to raise the birthrate.

No society is strict - as in against PMS - whilst at the same time not esteeming marriage. And where PMS is frowned upon, marriage will happen more, as it's the surest way to actually get sex

crackhaus:
...and furthermore, why has these same reasons not stopped unmarried people from having sex in places like US or Germany that don't record the same high percentage of virgins?

It's not having sex, or even not having sex. It's about relationships that lead to marriage and hence births. In the places you mentioned, even with high levels of PMS, marriage and birthrates are falling for indigene.

In neither case is it about PMS or lack of PMS. Or solely/mainly about the economy - which will always influence some people either way.


TV

OLAADEGBU:
There is emotional abuse, physical abuse, financial abuse, spiritual abuse and so on. If the abusive spouse refuses that the abused be separated what should they do, remain?

Let me laugh first .

Unless one or both spouses are perfect, technically at least one is suffering abuse to some degree. A wife that is poor with money is essentially abusive by your reckoning. Does her husband seek a separation, or help her towards perfection as part of the "sanctification" of wives calling the bible places on husbands. Or a husband with an incipient alcohol problem. Is seperation the first recourse for a godly wife ?

Your presumptions, and whole thrust are from a worldly mindset, and don't even bare the light of milky Christianity . Like I said, any level, degree, or type of abuse to establish cause, then extreme to the point of death abuse as examples.

Perhaps my presumption of discussing with a Christian is wrong?


TV

oyomii:
The OP made it seem like it's a problem

eleojo23:
How is that something to worry about?

Joavid:
am still trying to find out myself.

It's not the levels of virginity, or pre-marital sex. The concern is about the birthrate, and an a priori low level or relationships that will potentially lead to marriage and children - read the first line. The headline is slightly mis-leading.

TV

OLAADEGBU:
Take Muafrika2's case scenario as an example. What would you have counselled the husband to do in that situation (before he ended up dead).

I don't know of the case which you refer too, or if they are/were a Christian couple. However if he felt he was in danger, he could, as I said in my initial post, have separated, with a view to forgiveness, healing and reconciliation.

I always smile when people shout divorce as a response to abuse - divorce that can take ages to process . And it's always a case of extreme physical abuse to the point of death when they give an example, but plain abuse of any description, almost abstract, when looking for cause .

What I've written is the Christian way, take it or leave it, it's not by force. You can even keep the label .


TV

OLAADEGBU:
Why is physical abuse not grounds for divorce?

Because;
1. Physical abuse could be mild
2. it could be a one-off, situationally driven event
3. It could be dealt with effectively - healing and reconciliation should always be the first recourse
4. It's not given as grounds for divorce
5. There are no grounds for divorce in a consummated marriage

Further, even if you separate (you cannot remarry) unless your spouse dies - I am not counselling murder 0! - even if you call that separation "divorce". That's Christianity - I didn't write the rules


TV

crackhaus:
This is where traditional/religious cultural influence comes to play and reveals everything.
A young unmarried 30yr old American or Canadian is almost 50times more likely to have premarital sex than a young unmarried 30yr old Japanese or Chinese.

Why is this?
It isn't because of development, living in urban areas, or equality—which countries on both ends actually share, it has to be because of their completely different cultural perspectives.
Of course the Japanese have been influenced by Western way of life even more so than the Chinese, but traditional Japanese/Chinese culture still frown against casual sex between unmarried people even though it isn't a crime in the Constitution nor something that is physically criminalized.

Even if an average Japanese man engages in premarital sex, he won't be so brazen and publicly non-chalant about it the way an American would - they are both living in developed countries, but mindset is still very much different.

Hopefully I made more sense to you this time...lol . My hand dey pain me

Taking everything that was written prior to the quote as read, I'm still unclear.

Even if PMS is frowned upon (as in Christianity) it doesn't mean relationships, specifically marriage are? Like I said, it's not about virginity, or PMS. It's about "why are they not marrying"? Indeed, PMS is typically frowned upon to ensure purity within marriage. Does the culture/religion frown upon PMS and Marriage

PMS is frowned upon in most traditional/historical contexts. It's a very recent thing for the most part, hence the schizophrenia/hypocrisy in a lot of places, where they have not made the full transition. And, government have no interest in who is or isn't having sex, or who is a virgin, be that immediate, once, or twice removed . What they are concerned with is population demographics, specifically birthrates here.

And Japan and China are at opposite ends of the replacement spectrum. It's not culture driving this, this is actually anti-culture.


TV

OLAADEGBU:
Does an abused wife have to stay with her husband?

A Christian can by all means separate if they feels they are in real danger, but it is not grounds for divorce. Not to mention that "abuse" covers an almost interminable spectrum these days.


TV

proddey:
I am a 37 year old bachelor and I must confess that never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that someday I would be desperate to get married.

If you are still 37, the desperation to get married is mostly of your own making. The situation itself is not desperate, far from it. Not to say you can't be keen or even eager, but this is by no means a situation that warrants the term desperate, and certainly no that you act so.

I know each one relays how he feels/perceives, but believe you me, you are actually in a good place. Especially so, if you are of good character and with no glaring defects.

I'm happy to answer any questions, but read here for pointers; https://www.nairaland.com/1582623/boys-night-out-discussions/176#49446614

All the best


TV

freecocoa:
How does someone steal a grown ass man?

"Stealing is just a commonly used term - it's actually far worse than that.

Firstly, it's as a result of covetousness, which is a sin apart from "thou shall not steal" in the 10 commandments. Covetousness is actually a worse sin in a sense, as it can lead to murder, lies theft, and an "any means necessary" mindset to acquire the object one covets.

And further sin/s, once it's actually acquired. Covetousness is used as a metaphor for the whole law in Romans 7:7. Knowingly making off with a covenanted spouse involves inter-alia, covenant breaking - with God and man, which is lies & betrayal - idolatry and adultery.

More practically, how does one form a meaningful covenant with a covenant breaker? Especially where you encouraged/seduced, to break that covenant. So, two covenant-breakers come together to form a new covenant of the same nature they colluded to break .

Hence more second "marriages" end in divorce than first. It's habit forming - he who sins with you will sin against you.

Just pivoting off this post for any Christians that may be reading. Only interested in response to the points raised.


TV

crackhaus:
You will first have to determine what you view to be Chinese/Japanese culture in respect to their most practised religions, then we can figure out if these religions frown on pre-marital sex.

About Jap men having weird sexual obsessions, this is not the majority—unless you're implying po.rn actors represent the majority.
The docu-series I saw yesterday on the subject had a face-to-face interview with a working class Japanese man who is a virgin at well above 30.

It appears to me that virginity per se is not the issue here. The levels of virginity are merely indicative of the fact that Japanese people of "an age", are not forming relationships. And relationships not forming means marriages not happening and child-rearing not taking place - at the requisite levels.

PMS whether permitted or frowned upon is a side issue. It's the outcome - below replacement birthrates that are the concern. The rest of the West have all types of PMS and are also suffering the same below replacement birthrate situation.

Was he above 30 and a virgin because of socio-religious restrictions? A lack of partners? Or simply personal issues. No, lots of Japanese men have given up on the "stress" of chasing women in favour of more readily accessible and less hassle forms of "sex" & "pastimes.

Without the demands of a wife and kids, there is little or no burden, or motivation to over-produce - which is a family man's lot - leading to a vicious circle of more opted out and unmarriageable men - they don't even have the interest sef.

There is obviously not a strong enough religion, or historical culture to stop, or reverse this trend. Equality would suggest the women chase the men, and take on the burden of expectation .


TV

crackhaus:
At first look, it's normal to assume that development has something to do with sexual relations and you won't be wrong..but if you look at it closely, you'll realize this isn't the main reason—if it were, countries like the US, Canada, UK, and Scandinavian countries would also have high percentage of virgins.

The very first reason, before development, is rooted in culture.

Unlike Africans, Asian countries like Japan and China do not joke with their culture—unmarried men and women will most likely not have sex until they are married.

Why dont they get married early? This is where your opinion of development now comes in.
Over 60% of the entire Chinese population (almost the same figure with the Japs) live in well-developed urban areas—meaning, more people which are basically youths, work and have less time for 'unnecessary sex'.

You can imagine how the traditional cultures of these countries which span over a thousand years, still have managed to survive despite their technological and scientific advancements—and the admirable thing about it is that these cultures have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity/Islam which vehemently prohibits pre-marital sex.

I stand to be corrected, but I don't think either Japanese or Chinese cultures prohibit PMS - very few advanced high-tech countries do, if any? The issue in Japan seems to boiled down to an "apathy" - mostly by men - to actually engage women.

Given what has has gone before, this situation, this malaise, is viewed with concern. With no strong cultural or religious imperatives families are not forming. With the isolation that technology can bring, relationships are not happening - not at the levels required for sustainability anyway.

Under certain conditions, men will take the easy option. Spending their time & indulging their sexual fantasies online. Slobbing out, not making an effort. It is not working conditions or the economic climate causing this.

Japanese men are known for the fascination with sexually explicit - and in instances degenerate - material, including schoolgirl obsessions and the like.

Other Western nations whilst having the sex/relationships, are also failing to form the the families and breed at the required levels. Similar outcomes, if somewhat differing pathways. It's not about sex being prohibited, it's about sex being divorced from procreation and family, and taking on weird forms.

Japan and China are at opposite ends of the spectrum here. And it's worth noting that communities with strong Christian faiths typically produce large and stable families.


TV

konkacid:
I got married last year at 26, used to work for an oil servicing firm, about 5'11" and dress well on the average.

On many occasions, while with my wife, I see signals from small girls and big girls too, and I mean it's real. Most times, I tell my wife when these happen and she tells me they are lies.

Should I walk up to one in her presence to prove my point or just let sleeping dog lie?

First, let all the dogs lie, small and big. Then, stop acting like a puppy wanting to show off. Your wife knows full well what women are like and what obtains socially. You need some more of that knowledge to grasp where she's coming from and to stop you messing up at some point.

No charge for this one .


TV

Joavid:
This is not unique to Japan — in various parts of the developed world, economic uncertainty is reshaping the way millennials and other young people conceive of their sex lives and marital choices . But it' s particularly pronounced in the Asian nation, where experts and government officials have spent the better part of a decade fretting over the country's population decline and , as WorldViews once put it, " sexual apathy.

It's not the economy - not in a major sense anyway. People have kids whatever their financial circumstances. We have families of six living under bridges don't we?

The root cause here is the immorality - and the breakdown of the family - that godlessness ultimately brings, along with concupiscent humanism/materialism. Additionally amplified by the isolation that technological progress facilitates. Yes, technology is great, but withut a return to God, it will not restore fallen man, only help him fall further. It's why I laugh at this thread; https://www.nairaland.com/3360368/letter-daughter-mark-zuckerberg.

Pretty much none of the countries that can be described as Western are experiencing real growth (immigration apart). They can't even help re-seed each other. Hence the recourse to people trafficking , hoovering up migrants by the likes of Germany.

Ironically, the cultures they are trying to absorb will turn on them like an organ transplant gone wrong - to horrendous effect. It's hard to see this as anything less than judgement of sorts.

Acidosis:
nice one
Japan is one of the most (I think the MOST) industrialized nation in the world. They are no. 1 in the world of computer chips, electronics (LG, Samsung, etc.). 2nd largest producer of automobile. Interest rates in Japan is less than 2%, while unemployment rate is less than 4%.
Therefore, it is safe to say that high risk sex and sexual relationships are correlated to stagflation, inflation, gross underdevelopment and crass unemployment as seen in Nigeria.
Donald Trump is right after all:
Donald Trump Says Africans Are Lazy Fools, Only Good in Sex

I believe Samsung is a South Korean company.

I'm not sure how you captured "high risk" sex, unless you mean risk in terms of conception? Which is actually the point of sex, so that's probably best termed as "high reward" or "success".

None of those economic indicators you listed are the root cause here. Historically these nations had large, stable families, which were the engine for their early economic growth. And most Western economies including Japan are struggling somewhat at the minute.

How many children does Donald Trump have? He a wigga . Probably blasts gangsta rap and has Melania twerk when the cameras are off .


TV

SirVintageCock:
Brad is a closet gay obviously waiting for his pal, what's that his name......to fess up

George abi? Funny in a sense, but in these times, not an altogether ludicrous pissobolity. I've always seen him as a bit of beta/cuck/whipped. Maybe I over-estimated him .

As a marriage advocate, I always feel a tinge at the break-up of any marriage. But I have no real pity for serial divorcees and home-wreckers. This should be the recompense for all unrepentant ones. My pity is for the children involved here.

Those of you with stolen "bend down and pick" huss-ban, take note. You can't predicate true happiness by ruining someone elses. I wonder how Jennifer Aniston is feeling about this?


TV

Timbuktou:
Thanks TV, for your eager readiness to distill wisdom and hope. I guess one can get jaded upon too much contact with negative forces.

To be honest, the search for a partner whose ideals are antifeminist are is a such a tool. And when one does find such ideological compatibility, other equally important forms of compatibility still have to be established. No be small work o.

The relationship in the article is such a sad one, with all the calculation and warrior-like protection if interests. It's not one in which I could cope. I guess the search goes on.

I went through to be married, but I married well, and I'm very happy, smugly happy in fact. I wouldn't want anyone to go through as I did, let alone go through and then not be happy - for what, what for

Knowing what you want in a home, and ergo in a wife is a great start, along with being "that husband". Forget the "noise", you will undoubtedly hear around you. That is a result of their choices. Make yours. Don't lose hope, don't settle, don't get jaded.

Even when it's at the forefront of your consciousness, it can come unexpectedly and in a way you didn't envision or plan. So don't obsess, and don't be overly rigid.


The supposed "pay gap" issue came up when wifey and I were watching some program together. I just loosed a few arrows . It was very brief, and left here looking at me with corner-corner eye .

Two points from that vignette: I've had the same discussion with a handful of men from the birthing group we attended for our daughter - we sometimes meet as couples or sex-segregated. Some of the men bought into it, others admitted they couldn't argue it at home !

Second, if she has the faintest of feminist notions in her head, as long as she is a wife from the heart as I expect, do I really care? That is the real crux of Vanessa' problem.

In her head, ideologically she wanted to be an equal, in her heart, practically, she desired to be treated as a woman/wife. Classic disconnect. She let her head overrule her heart to her detriment, as many do/will.

Find one, even if not perfect , that is savvy enough to know the difference and act accordingly, whatever she spouts. Often it's just rhetoric to make them feel somehow


TV

Timbuktou:
TV, marriage is a mess right now. Everybody wants to go in safe. Women have been wailing about how bad theyve had it and have sought to improve their situation. Men are catching up with the game now and are also taking steps to protect themselves. It's always going to be lose-lose unless each party goes in with the other person's in in mind.

Why go into marriage when there is a super high chance that it could leave me much worse off than before I got in?

These scenarios will increase until there is common sense applied to the institution, I'm afraid.

I would rather say the "perception of marriage", along with how people view and embrace it. Marriage in it's original form still does exactly what it says on the tin. And even though I speak as one who subscribes to the Christian form, many traditional variations were not to far off that.

One can't allow wrong perception & practices at a societal level to overly impact their individual union. The rebuilding job will have to come from wise and understanding individuals revisiting, understanding and successfully applying the blueprint.

I would say feminist notions are perhaps the biggest anti-marriage factor at present. And it's not just affecting marriage - it's society wide. Conceptually, feminism demands that men and women be seen as and treated as equals in every respect and, even ensure outcomes are the same. To achieve that, there has to be serious re-engineering of on many levels. Legally, culturally and even biologically.

That's why we are discussing children not needing mothers, or reducing relationships to monetary transactions. It's simply not possible or even desirable. The essence of male/female differentiation is the sum is greater than the whole. This is embedded in our complimentarity. If we are the same, then we don't really need each other. One cannot even discuss difference without being labelled.

Individually, men and women should de-risk their unions by setting a solid foundation. All of which requisite elements we have discussed on here.

I remain an advocate for marriage in it's essence- not the kind of relationship that Franco and Vanessa had, which is way different, even if badged the same.


TV

Timbuktou:
Thanks everybody for your responses.

One more thing, though, I noticed user Peter Null state a couple of times that the 50-50 financial arrangement protects the guy's assets post-divorce. I think the rationale is, if he doesn't put up more than 50℅ of the finances for an item or expenditure, upon divorce the courts rule that that is the "life she's accustomed to" and as such he parts with nothing. Meaning if he had decided to spend more than the greed 50%, he would be required to part with assets upon divorce and even still pay alimony.


Our obodo oyibo peoples, TV01, Grams Tearoses, Raundeuter et al. Am I right in my interpretation or is there something I'm missing?

Crackhaus, another part that got me is when she became jealous of him playing with his chest hairs. . I'm eager to see our sistren's take on this.

I suppose it's a ploy worth considering if the prospect of divorce is real or something one fears? But if anything it would only serve to undermine the marriage and precipitate the very thing you fear Why not simply refrain from marriage?

Many women will agree to co-habbing, and more so feminists, who always have a point to prove . Although in many western nations, laws are being put on place around -"de-facto" relationships, which effectively give legal rights to co-habbees. Make her get her own place !

No escape really, even with the best of ploys, once you are legally married (or in a de-facto relationship where recognised) the system/judge has a wide scope, and an array of tools to deal harshly with the man/husband. Amplified if there are children involved.

Don't marry a feminist - pseudo-internet-feminists are usually manageable - or like Franco, marry a dumb one . Though many of us would consider the term "dumb feminist" a tautology , making this sentence a non-sequitur .


TV

What feminism wants, is not equality. Maybe at one point, in it's innocence, it was after "equal opportunity", but even that was misleading. What Feminism wants is power and privilege. Without the responsibility. Without the toil, the sweat, or the sacrifice.

Like I've maintained for a while, I'll give them some credence, when they are happy to marry lower status men with no problem whatsoever. I would wager that even if the case presented had "proportionate financing", she would still have wanted equal power.

Where are the screaming hordes? - actually, best stay off


TV

TooNoisy:
You must be the fallen Archangel.

The same bible says a man who is unable to provide for his family is worse than an infidel. The same bible that says a man should love his wife just like Christ had loved the Church, even to the point of sacrificing his life for his bride? The problem with people like you is that you choose to read one verse of the bible misunderstand it and spread your ignorance.

God expects high standards from both men and women. He is not partial and neither does he absolve anyone. Men have to live right, so do women. Several verses in the bible apply to men, and how they should conduct themselves.

The bible says the fallen archangel is here to deceive people. I now understand.

Because I couldn't just like this post, I also had to acknowledge it. Most excellent (It's at times like this I feel ashamed of not being a dab hand with gifs ).


TV

Drdreyy:
Well it does work(the punishment) for a large percentage of highly religious men. (those born with high libido)

I would first question your definition of "highly religious". For one who is of deep faith, has understanding, a modicum of discernment and most of all is continent, sex, or withholding it cannot be used as a form of punishment.

Not because he has a low or a high libido, but because he has a grasp of his physical appetites, and at least a degree of mastery. No recourse to self-servicing or looking outside. Honestly, even non-spiritual men can to some degree rise above being led by their members .


TV

skillzahblog:
Aside from that scenario, however, is there any reason that a 30-year-old woman can find love with a 37-year old and not a 44-year-old? How about a 50-year-old? Knowing that there are men of that age who are in great shape, physically attractive, interesting and successful is there a reason to categorically exclude these men?

A man of high status will typically be able to attract whatever kind of woman he chooses - younger ones inclusive - even beyond middle age. If he is of high status and physically fit with it, that's just gravy .

skillzahblog:
Men often pursue younger women, even if they aren’t interested in a family. The typical reason being, “that’s who I’m more attracted to.” But again, the “sex appeal boundary” gets pushed out further and further as women in their 50’s and 60’s find themselves as public sex symbols. Kim Catrell of Sex in the City fame is 55. Jane Seymour is 60. Jaclyn Smith is 62. And while most people aren’t as attractive as these, it is certainly possible to meet someone significantly older who is sexy and attractive.

The women you mentioned may have been "sex symbols" in their youth, but were not at the ages mentioned. Not to say they won't retain some significance too older men who found them attractive in their youth.

They were at best forced projections of the fact that many women like to think they can carry their attractiveness to men far past their menopause. The fact is they typically lose it years before, and become all but invisible to non-related, non-associated men at that point.

Age will always matter to discerning people, and the fact is that biologically men have a bit more more bandwidth.


TV

Drdreyy:
I hate chatting or dragging words with women due to their comprehension capacity and data/information interpretation.

Ah! The fatwa wey dem go put for your head eh! . Gird yourself 0, thunder cometh !

JoyChinwe22:
A man can rape his wife and that is a fact.

Very few men have the heart or desire to force themselves on women. And I would imagine even fewer who have been properly vetted and found worthy to be husbands. And, we roundly and unreservedly condemn any man, and more so a husband who forces himself on his wife.

However, marriage is at it's heart a conjugal union, and ATBE, a man has every right to enjoy physical intimacy with his wife. While one may "subjectively" consider coerced or forced sex (which cuts both ways by the way, and add manipulative sex often employed by wives) more heinous than women refusing sex, one cannot deny that objectively, the latter happens far more frequently and causes lots of men deep frustration.

Ergo, your OP is lopsided and biased. Any discussion of forced or coerced sex within marriage, must go hand in hand with the equally wrong act of withholding physical intimacy, manipulative sex and a lack of loving effort to ensure husbands are getting sex, by their wives.

I'll be happy to give it attention when there are social media drives, NGO's set-up, human rights activists mobilised and government intervention mandated equally on this deeply painful issue which is blighting the lives of many men .

Thank you for listening - fatwa already in effect to no effect, so don't waste your time .

Wey dem?

TV

cococandy:
Noted

...ah! See cheating, baba'nla ojoro . I made a comment - maybe a little tongue in cheek for emphasis - and get labelled a sexist. I back it up with reason and you tacitly demur, but leave the label . Nicely played

I'm happy to be challenged, have no problem being called out, and I'm not beyond reproach, but play fair na? Then when it gets heated, I get blamed for that too .

Anyway, back to the convo. We obviously come from different positions, but with no reason or relative facts, what's the point? So, let me ask you specifically, and anyone in general, this question;

If there had never been any historical, and there was no current oppression, of either sex, and if there were no social norms or imperatives advantaging, or restraining either sex, based on make-up only, would great inventors be pretty much split evenly between male and female?


TV

My response to Coco mostly answers this.

The handbag maker was one of a list of entrepreneurs, not creators or inventors, of which there was only 1.

I was not being demeaning, you chose to read it that way. Like I said, Branson and Dangote sef no enter. Am I gainsaying their achievements as entrepreneurs? No, just categorising them accordingly.

And make it personal by asking how many I can employ . Like I said, it's by category, and I also said, most men are excluded as well, be that as high-end creators (in view here) or entrepreneurs. Can you make a fact based case?

Your opinions on my posts mean nothing. In as much as I care, the ones you call good could actually be bad? You see what you want to see. Your surprise is mostly as a result of your own blind-spots.

Surprise me with facts, repudiating anything I've said.


TV

MizMyColi:
You would have made more sense if you yourself did not try to make this thread a sexist one by singling out the Handbag maker.

You would have made sense if you did not sound demeaning in addressing her as a handbag maker.

She mentioned other women who have stood out and performed above par in their chosen field of endeavor.

How you ignored those and chose to focus on a "Hand Bag Maker" beats my imagination.
So what if she's a handbag maker?

Can you employ the number of Labour that Handbag maker has employed?

Since when did it become norm to shame people's handiwork?

You won't stop with the surprises anytime soon, will you?

One minute, I read a TV post and I'm like, "This guy is good!"

The next minute I read another post of his and I'm like; "But why is this guy being this petty naaaa"

cococandy:
So it's only the bag maker you saw on that list? And yes she can represent the female folk because not only does she make bags as you put it, she influences lives with her female empowerment programs, philanthropy and foundations. Trust you to try belittle something beautiful just because a woman is the one doing it.

Nope, I saw one - the first - who could be considered a creator, then a bunch of mostly entrepreneurs. Males such as Richard Branson and Dangote would not make the equivalent list for men because they make, not create. And a great education is less a factor in being a successful entrepreneur.

cococandy:
What's your definition of real transformation? Do you know how many people's lives she has transformed? Pls don't be guided by blind sexism.

As I defined it. Inventing ab initio. Talent shows transform lives, so do lottery wins . We are talking a different type of transformation here. Not re-creating or even improving. And not buying & selling .

Sexism? Me . I speak plain truth. Look, how many women are nerds? How many would spend hours in a dark room trying to perfect something arcane? Obsessed with something they may not even be able to fathom the practicalities of at the time?

How many women are bird spotters,or spend inordinate amounts of time tinkering with old machines or waxing lyrical over the engineering of suspension bridges?

How many women dream of conquering the hood, the next country, the seas, or the distant planets, as opposed to the local shopping mall .

It's simply the way men are. The nerdiness, the obsessiveness, the curiosity, the drive, the ambition. Those are what lead to breakthroughs, even when they may not be being sought. A lot of transformational stuff is happenstance. Take gaming for example - and I personally don't get it - it's mostly men, mostly nerds, but the advances have been rapid It's wiring.

Sure women have it, women can do it, but not to the same degree. And I am all for them having the equal opportunity to avail themselves of it, if they so desire. It's not sexist, it's realist.

It seems you are set on seeing it through an ideological lens which says there is no difference between men and women, and the difference in achievement or representation is due to oppression (historic or current). But with "oppression" eliminated or factored, there would still be a gap.

Women want the bag, men want to be able to buy the bag for them. Balance, you know that's what you want . But seriously, more men may be at the cutting edge than women, but most men won't be anywhere near it either.


TV

crackhaus:
Maybe she's got a controlling personality afterall, like I noted in an earlier comment.

Possibly? I've seen some extreme examples of the "controlling spirit", to the "rule & reign" level . But even here, they still seek to control a man of means/status, not someone "beneath them so to speak. Again, you may be right, but I 'm still thinking there's a "but" in her bio.


TV