₦airaland Forum

Mindfulness:
And how do my views meet any of the criteria outlined above? Not at all.

Maradona fun are re - Mindfullness you can dribble . So you do not reagrd your positions as true? or even believe them??

4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed:
to take his report for gospel.

Mindfulness:
Deviation tactics. Explain to me how you know which concept of marriage God considers to be the right one.

The Bible generally and the express word of Jesus specifically.The bibles position on Christian marriage is not even worth disputing. It opens and closes with marriage. It normalises - especially in the NT - the male/female, exclusive and permanent nature of marriage.

Mindfulness:
What greater good and which higher values?

Keep asking questions and accusing me of deviation ! Is there nothing that distinguishes us from animals? That aside, is not your position essentially about "your feelings" being the greater good and making them higher value.

Mindfulness:
Do you need to mention other monikers for support?

At all, but let them come and see your silky skills !

Mindfulness:
My happiness is not only more important than any religious doctrine, it is also more important than anyone else's. This is how selfish I am. No apologies.

No gainsaying

Mindfulness:
Every living being desires to feel good. Find one that doesn't.

Again, you don't have an objective measure for good, neither are you able to determine what is good for every individual, or prioritise different expressions of good from the same individual. I simply find your doctrine nebullous and shallow.

Mindfulness:
Who told you that there is a cost attached to feeling good? And who told you that feeling good makes others miserable? If everyone finally learned how to take care of their own well-being, we would have nobody to worry about. It is so simple but instead we have plenty of people who depend on others for something they can't do for themselves but expect others to be capable of doing for them. And then we have divorce cases like this with people who think that others owe them anything.

You contradict yourself thread to thread, post to post and literally sentence ot sentence ! And then try and hide it behind questions; why if there is never a cost attached do you term it selfish? Why if there is no cost - to someone, somewhere - do you counsel that a woman has a "right to act on her feelings regardless"?

You try and make it sound glossy, harmless and appealing at the outset, then deny there is naything systematic about it, but apply it to situations - which often leave you feeling uncomfortable.? It simply doesn't bear any kind of real scrutiny.


TV

Sagamite:

Where have you seen me "campaign against divorce"?
And you are saying I am the one confused?
The second question, again, does not meet the intellectual threshold.

And who told you I am not doing Hugh Hefner or I have not signed up to his tutorial classes? Who told you I am planning to or forcing people to marry or not to marry? And I am the one confused?

Ok to be precise - you rail against divorce laws and their application, considering them unfair, You also didain marriage as a failed institution.

For divorce, I say work on the relationship at the point of entry, not exit. Without marriage, there could be no divorce. Even where provision is made, it is no tthe preferred or optimal outcome. Work to change the laws if you care to, but in a feminine led worls, good luck with that.

As for marriage, I utterly reject the notion that it is either failed or antiquated. For those that get it and apprehend it, it is a delight. Ask me .

Sagamite:
Accomplishment? What fcking evidence? What fcking accomplishment?

What school did Jesus or Mohammed go to?

University of Capentry in Jerusalem and Mecca Institute of Peace and International Diplomacy?

Sagamu was the centre of development as far back as 625BC. It was where scholars travelled far and wide to acquire knowledge from the famous Sagamu Institute of Technology that was founded in 701BC as a Babalawo Training School. It got its university charter in 673BC.

So, you take back the "illiterates" comment then !

Sagamite:
Before I even go into this, tell me your metrics of measuring success of marriage.

At an individual level, the dynamic and expectation may vary somewhat. Some men men think "as long as I have a son", some women, might be, "as long as he provides materially". It can be more, less,or none of those things. But the individual metric of success rests within the definition of what a marriage is.

Generically, by definition, I see marriage as the lifelong exclusive union of a male and female. If it meets this then success. If it has a few hiccups along the way but still prevails, then success. And if, the unon is blessed with children, all the better.

Sagamite:
You need to learn to dissociate my arguments about unfair, sexist divorce laws from my argument about the failed institution of marriage and then you will find it simpler and less confusing.

Hopefully, I have done that above.

Sagamite:
I have actually composed a write-up about the different kinds of adult relationship models we could have and that are available. But since NL went to the dogs, I have vowed never to waste my intellectual content on it, hence why I refuse to open the thread.

You think I would waste such on the cretins that now travail this forum?

When I find a platform to put it on, I will inform and invite you.

Copout;
1. Whilst different types are all good and fine, we specifically want one that is intrinsically superior to marriage
2. You rail here, show your solution here

Sagamite:
You have no church?
You no dey go shush?

No and nyet !


TV

Mindfulness:
Gospels are for religious people, I am not one of them.

gospel [gos-puh l] noun
4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed:
to take his report for gospel.
5. a doctrine regarded as of prime importance:
political gospel.
6. glad tidings, especially concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ.

Some readings/usages of the word gospel above. Timbuktou was right to point out you poor comprehension skills. As for being religious. You are the most evangelical about your beliefs here. If you like miscomprehend that .

Mindfulness:
And you know it how exactly? Let me guess, it is written in the Bible.

And you know it wasn't how exactly?

Mindfulness:
It is a logical outcome of marriage since the Christian concept of marriage is a social and religious construct that violates nature.

Finally, you are getting there - please explain why a lack of self-control, restraint, and aspiration to a greater good, and the higher - often spiritual - values that humans are capable of is now "unnatural" - just change your moniker to "Tingles", that's the whole basis of your ish .

Mindfulness:
And your ridicule of feelings won't change the fact that every human being is an emotional being and if you feel that you have to sacrifice feeling good for an institution, you are free to do so. I will pass. My happiness is more important than any religious doctrine.

Tim was wrong, it's not just comprehension . Who ridicules feelings? Men shoul dnot simply be led by them. Who said that humans ar enot emotional or that being happy is diametrically opposed to feeling good. Of course your happiness is more important than any religious doctrine - that is your religious dosctrine. And it's regardless of who gets hurt or the fallout. It's religion alright - just pagan.

Mindfulness:
I use the fact that every human being desires to feel good. You use the Bible and call its content a fact, which is more disputable than my standing that it is natural for any being to want to feel good.

Firstly, you have no way of knowing what every human being desires -and not in the order of priority. Or what each one defnes as good, or, it seems, an objective view of what good actually is.

Like I said, run with your gospel of "feel good" at all cost and regardless of the outcome for others. Be evangfelical about your doctrine of promiscuity and indiscriminate childbirth being rewarded with marriage to a wealthy eligible man. I for one have no desire to gainsay you.


TV

Sagamite:
You mean the kind of marriage where you are a man that is together enough to bury your head in the sand, stick your finger in the air and bare the compromise-filled union while claiming you are happy?

Abeg, I will pass.

I doubt you can call that a marriage success rate. At best call it a compromise success rate.

People sticking together because they feel their religion, proposed by medieval illiterates, forbids then to leave each other is not a sign of marriage success.

Those are not the kinds of marriages for Saga Saga. I would rather have multiple happy marriages than one miserable compromising marriage.

You still present as confused - in a number of ways;

1. If marriage can literally never be enjoyed, your campaign should be against marriage, not divorce - why undego the stress of an unhappy union, only to suffer further stress upon divorce - which is surely more likely if the union is unhappy?

2. If marriage is indeed typically unhappy, why do you think your chances of having a string of happy marriages is high?

3. What is stopping you doing it Hugh Hefner - or any other style - and championing that. No one is forced to marry or structure their relationships in a way they find unpalatable.

4. You've come again with the medieval illiterates ish. Firstly, books are no twritten by illiterates are they? And evidence abounds of thier accomplishments. Please remind us of when you first had storey building in Sagamu

Sagamite:
Marriage is a failure institution and a failed institution throughout history (if assessed by Christian/Western/Hollywood/Modern metrics).

It would even be more so in the modern world we live. It does not fit with it and we need to find a new better model just like Christianity, Islam, etc do not fit with our modern age.

They might have been expedient in the past, but we as a human race have moved past that past. (Fck me, see Saga rhyming like a rapper. I am too good, men! Who the fck is Jay Z?)

The world is more connected, people are more beautiful, portrayal of sexual images and sexual activities are more proliferated, the family structure is changing, breadwinners are more mixed.

Sticking to your concept of marriage is like the would sticking to coal as the main source of world fuel and want to die to maintain it.

Mate, we have gone to hydrocarbon and about to move to hydro and other green fuels.

Marriage is, was, and always will be fine. It's people who fail at it, due to a lack of undertanding or desire to shape it after their lusts and not it's design. There is always change, and "progress" continues. It does not mean that it is all good or works better.

If it has indeed failed, present something better. You have the scope and the intellect no? All you've managed so far is to rail at divorce laws - which I agree to a degree can be clumsy at best - but find, present and more importantly, practice a better way.

Blaze a trail, let the whole world look and wonder. Let marriage be condenmed by the sheer brilliance and utilty of "Sagamony" ! Afterall, Apple does not spend a plugged nickel dissing Nokia, it simply presents it's products.

Sagamite:
Well, the world if full of deluded and moronic people. This is no an argument.

It wasn't an argument - it was a statement of fact and evidence of what obtains.

Sagamite:
Which God?

Sango?

The God of The Bible

Sagamite:
I think you don't even grasp the basics of what I noted as a social announcement. This does not meet the intellectual threshold to even bless it with a response.

Continue dreaming!

If a relationship is in the "announcement - announce the optimum one you have put together. Live it and let us marvel. No true intellect spends ages raging against a percieved problem without offering a plausible alternative.

You've dissed marriage to the heavens. Fine. We have heard, now what? All we've seen is wailing about the divorce laws. Give us something to pause and consider mate!

Sagamite:
You are free to send your church girls my way though as one of those always trying to get me to marry. I will help you sample them IN THE NAME OF THA LORD!

I have no church, and I'd be the first to say "church girls" must be stressed with due dilligence like any other. And ahead of trying to get you to marry, I need you to understand what marriage is, then find someone that gets agrees or is willing to follow your lead.

We are still waiting for your boast of SagaKids. Apply your domestic ideals, have these kids and raise them optimally within it, as a demonstration of your superior intellect and relationship model.

Till then, it's all wind. Please mention me when you come up with something


TV

Mindfulness:
One of the differences is that you don't use fear to make men believe in the rightness of your standards and notions.

Facts, not fear. How one responds to the facts is down to them. Spread your gospel, if it's superior, people will hear it .

Mindfulness:
Besides I agree with most of his views on the topic in question. Marriage existed long before Christianity came into existence. Divorce has always been a part of it and should not be a reason why people should part with what they have worked for and an opportunity for others to gain what they haven't worked for.

Before Christinity, and also before government, but not before God. And provisions for marriage, where narrow, tightly defined and rarely in view.

Your view of divorce, is as a logical outcome of marriage - based essentially on "feelings". You don't use facts, you use deceit.


TV

Sagamite:
Am sorry, mate.

Never call a thing that has a 50% certified failure rate and a 80% uncertified failure rate a good thing.

In the sane world, any company or investment that has that rate of failure would not be seen as a venture to "focus on making it better", it would be treated as a venture to abandon and never engage in.

There are marriages and there are marriages - for my type success rate is near enuogh 100% .

Sagamite:
Thank the fcking Lord I am sensible enough not to have been in such a mistake venture.

Sensible enough to see that you may not be able to make it work. We are looking for men that are together enough and bold enough to make it happen .

Sagamite:
You are wrong.
I don't even see it as a contract. I see it as a mere social announcement.

My legalistic perspective is just that it should not be a hustlers market where the state moronically backs one trade party.

Your view of what a relationship should/could be, should not be confused with what marriage is/should be. And even if we allow plurality of views, yours is not the prevailing or preferred one . Even if we have a codification of marriage in law, some will always view and practice it as way more than a cold, legalistic institution at the behest of government.

I take your point about how it is seriously abused and used as a hustle, but that is not an indictment of marriage, any more than Paul Walkers tragic accident was an indictment of Porsche.

And yes, in a world that is becoming increasingly feminine-centred, people with warped ideologies will seek to pervert marriage and make gaspingly shocking divorce awards - none of this changes marriage in it's essence for those that get it and apprehend it correctly.

Sagamite:
Spiritual ko, alcoholic ni.

It is a mere social announcement right from time. THROUGHOUT the history of mankind.

An unsubstantiated and completely wrong view of historical marriage.

Sagamite:
Nonsense!

Before christianity there has been marriages.

If some want to define theirs by religion, by all means, fine.

That does not mean others have to. In general, it is a mere social announcement where sometimes spirits and other alcoholic beverages are served.

You are calling nonsense to what took place before are very eyes - viewed on widescreens and listened to on radios worldwide . That is historical/traditional/Christian marriage, and those that get that want it, or are free to reject it.

Before Christianity perhaps, but not before God - there was no "before God ". Marriage was before government, as was religion. And most marriages vows are still religiously taken.

If you go clubbing, buy a girl a few drinks, then leave with her, casually letting your friends know as you depart, is that a wedding or marriage . Afterall beverages, tick, glad rags, tick, social announcement, tick.

Saga, bless our hearts with a big celebratory wedding jor - London is becoming increasingly dry and gloomy!


TV

TV01:
...I'll probably be totally wrong, but here goes; another sob story from Arsenal, so close, but just failing to make it. Chelsea just about make it. A.

Hope it's B or C. though - when Arsenal score, I score


TV

...I was wrong again . But Arsenal scored ! Thank God there were no pitch kid invasions . But sha, all these late night games are wreaking havoc with my system, see as I just dey yawn for work- mid week games hard 0 .


TV

Sagamite, please drop this topic now. You parsing of it is incomplete and irretrievably biased. And why the fixation on divorce? At best, divorce is a bad end to a good thing – why not focus on making the good thing better?

Moreso when you are not actually married? Why ponder on the out before you actually get in. It’s like a na.ked man planning how to un.dress, or a homeless one planning colour schemes ?

Your reductionist approach to marriage – making it a mere contract/transactional arrangement totally misses the point. As does your totally legalistic perspective. The fact that marriage is these days, legally codified, does not make it a legal construct in the first instance, nor place ownership within the gift of State.

Many traditional/religious marriages are more akin to covenant relationships. A joining at the spiritual, physical and material levels – especially with the single most important imprimatur of marriage in mind – children.

Even in modern times; here is an excerpt from the wedding of HRH William and Kate Middleton;

Prince William takes the ring and places it upon the fourth finger of Catherine's left hand Prince William says after the Archbishop: With this ring I thee wed; with my body I thee honour; and all my worldly goods with thee I share: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Such vows and the unions they enjoin are far removed from the anaemic, legalistic, transactional based arrangement that pre-occupies you. In truth, you simply don’t get it. And that is the whole point - entry should be with the utmost sobriety, with the thought of anything other than a natural conclusion to the union being anathema.

And remember, marriage is not forced; you can opt for living apart with no legal codification (boyfie/girlfie), co-habbing, a civil union, or civil marriage in a jurisdiction that allows pre-nups.

Your railing against marriage – or pain at divorce - is utterly pointless. Re-frame and focus on the point of entry, and who you enter with, as opposed to the particulars of a tragic exit. Or simply refrain.

Yes, it does appear in this case that a crusty old feminist judge went to town on him, but that is not about marriage. I wonder what he was actually marrying her for

Now, sorry to bother you, but how far? The rice crop is in, and I’m hungry and ready to party. No one throws down like the Ijebu. Please stop denying some young lady the chance to realise her dreams – hopefully of marriage, not of divorce .


TV

^{mindfulness, see, I distubute refrain equally - in fact, moreso to men}

pickabeau1:
So which team will join United in Yuropa League

A. Chelsea
B. Arsenal
C. both
D. none

Make your choice

...I'll probably be totally wrong, but here goes; another sob story from Arsenal, so close, but just failing to make it. Chelsea just about make it. A.

Hope it's B or C. though - when Arsenal score, I score


TV

Mindfulness:
Why would I be looking for support of my statements on a thread where more than 90% of the posters disagree with me? Does it make sense to you?
I was perfectly aware of the fact that most of you won't like my contributions when I joined the discussion so tell me how you made sense when you told me to look for support on a thread where almost everyone disagrees with me?

Tim asked you to find evidence supporting what you claimed to be challenging from anything we'd posted. No one has said anything justifying then frenzy you are getting yourself into.

We don't particularly welcome your contributions because they are off-point, wrongly aimed and unsubstantiated. The Major bones of contention you've raised were at no point made here. Still waiting for evidence of your allegations against me .

And more pointedly, no one is the least bit interested in preventing you spread your own gospel. Free us to discuss, decide or disagree on how we'd like the relationship dynamic to work. Yourself and Freecocoa are doing what many women do, campaigning as a means of justifying your ways, but we simply don't care - trying to force it is kind of attention-whorish, something to be ashamed of perhaps !


TV

A40:
Compatibility: Physical, mental

Body is not firewood and to an extent I believe any man would have minimum sexual and physical aspirations from a lifetime partner
Mental compatibility, this one is even more important and essential for longevity in any marriage. Marriage is not my priority atm but the day I find a woman I share this with is the day I know I have found a keeper. This is what will hold you together when the initial Telemundo love has faded

Diplomacy, Courtesy, Tact

You see some dapper looking men with a 4 or a 5 and you think its jazz, s€x or money not knowing the woman just has an awesome personality. I despise aggressive, unnecessarily confrontational women, the ones that never admit when they are wrong and never take to correction

Nurturer, Builder, Supporter

Some women you meet all your hopes, dreams, ambitions die with them. So long as its in contrast with their desires they make sure it is D.O.A. How does your woman act when you tell her your dreams and goals, does she add or bring anything to the table? How is she around your friends and family? Does all your previous interests, life die and go down the drain the moment she becomes your Mrs

There's more just a sneak peek of what I would consider above a Body count

Good stuff. I wish you all the very best when marriage is in view.


TV

BoboYekini:
Much respect, sire .
I would go with totally ignoring female input. I

Timbuktou:
Option 3 would be best. An invitation/request system will curb meaningless, meandering arguments.

Okay. Lets give others chance to express views, or outline strategies for a few days. We can then put some up to the vote and have a show of hands. At the very least we should come away with some ground rules. I realise we lose some interest and input, and significant traction due to this incessant spamming by femactivists

I know how I would like it to go, and I can see how it may go. If anyone has any last rejoinders to the wimmin', better make them sharpish . Which reminds me...


TV

BoboYekini:
The very fact that the celebrity examples given is proof in itself of the inability of high N women to stay bonded with one man, hence their repeated marriages.
Marriages to foolish men if I might add.

Point, point, point.

BoboYekini:
SIDEBAR
Personally, I think the only women who should be allowed into a men's space are strippers and playgirl bunnies.

At which point they would claim that they all qualify - regardelss of looks, age or shape .

But I actually take your point, much of their input is little more than nuisance value. We should take a vote on a couple of potential measures? perhaps;

- a free for all
- totally ignoring female input
- totally ignoring except by express invitation on specific topics

Thoughts y'all?

TV

Morning Y'all...

TV01:
I must say I am puzzled at your insistence of totally separating a woman's notch count from her character or behaviour, and also seemingly able to view sexual actions as devoid of moral implications and therefore not a consideration when choosing a spouse?

A40:
What is puzzling about that? It is separable because it is not an exact science. You cannot judge a woman by the sheer number of dudes she's knacked with no consideration for the context with which it happened, her mental state at the time and numerous factors I do not have time to list. So a girl shows her loyalty to you and you continually insist on holding her body count against her. Mba! Too many things I place above a woman's body count

A40, it's clear from your response to my question, that we have diametrically oposed views on this - singular aspect at least - and no bones, to each his own. But may I ask, what aspects would you believe worthy of consideration when choosing a spouse and why?


TV

Mindfulness:
HERE



Again, where are the single fathers in all of this?


I will leave whenever I want to and that is when I am finished showing which double standards are being promoted here and that is when you stop being hypocritical AND I will enjoy doing it with every fibre of my body and soul And no diversion tactic of yours (referring to unrelated threads and discussions from the past) will reduce the joy I derive from this interaction.

Again, show one instance of my judging or shaming any woman - that post was patently tongue in cheek. Shaming is what women do, and what you've repeatedly tried on this thread. In fact it was what I called you out for in the first instance .

One instance please


TV

Mindfulness:
And I was a problem to your achieving of this goal? Why did you decide to jump at my post? Was I talking to you when you decided to jump into this discussion?

A discussion I kicked off, on the mens thread is one I "jumped into"

Mindfulness:
How does the statement "Stop being promiscuous if it leads to moral decadence that you so despise." hinder you from achieving this goal?

I never said it did, and that is not the bone of contention here. You are claiming unfettered and unthinking sexual liberty has no bearing on a womans marital happiness.

Mindfulness:
I will tell you how. You love to confront and judge women harshly but you are soft with men and I love to call you out on it.

Show me an instance of my judging women harshly - just one!

Mindfulness:
I wonder why you haven't mentioned single-fathers and "pretend single-fathers" in the post above.

First, because no man has ever claimed that being a single father enhances his marital prospects, or that it makes them "hotcakes" - in fact, it rarely harms men. Second, because it's plain that that post was just being sarcastic to get a rise out of some people .

Mindfulness:
I have no beef with your intention but I will gladly point out the one-sidedness, unfairness and hypocrisy of your methods.

I talk to men about marriage - if you would like to do the same with women, or to men, and from a womans perspective, you are free to do so. I do not intrude the womens thread when they are dishing out advice.

There is nothing unfair, or hypocrital. It's all truth and from a man to men perspective. Feel free to provide another one. If you want to advise women to follow their feelings and men to marry them without due consideration, no one will stop you.


TV

Mindfulness:
I wasn't talking to you when you decided to jump at my post attacking it but at the same time decided to ignore the hypocrisy that I was pointing to.

Au contrairé - the hypocrisy I've seen is from you. Firstly, you flip-flop on almost every thread you post on - which I have repeatedly evidenced, secondly, your position here is most hypocritical, as you feel adults should be allowed to do what they please with their bodies, and refuse to be specific about when adulthood or individual agency kicks-in.

There is nothing I can see here that contradicts your own position. Indeed the role-models you have presented attest to this. Now quit trolling the mens space. Get your attention elswewhere

@bold

Mindfulness:
You are not being prescriptive with men but you are quick to judge and shame women. I am not the only one who has made this observation.

Where have I judged or shamed women? Where have I postulated a lower standard of morality or behaviour for men? No, you are not the first to allege, but you join a queue of those who have been unable to substantiate.

Now, go back to drinking your stolen waters - and leave the men alone. Kilode !


TV

...your confusion is apparent; I have repeatedly said I have no problem with women having unrestrained freedom and sexual liberty. I even gave you leave to go and preach that very gospel.

My position has always been to warn men of the possible outcomes when that liberty is indulged in in an unwise manner, and to give consideration to such when choosing a spouse.

My view is that men of understanding who have an eye on the long-term stability and flourishing of their homes, and the well-being and prosperity of their generations, will be wise to give consideration to a potential spouses past - in every which way. I am not being prescriptive, if they feel that such is not an issue, then fine.

Feel free to template the lifestyles of those you've mentioned and purvey them to whoever will listen, my advice stands, and is for those who want it.


TV

Mindfulness:
TV01, since you don't believe that my anecdotes are true, let us focus on people we all know, in this context women who have been married multiple times.

Elizabeth Taylor

eight marriages (two to one person)

3 kids and one adopted.

Apart from marriages, she had countless affairs while married.


Joan Collins

five marriages

In 2002 she married a man 32 years younger

She has three kids, two from her second husband and one from her third husband.

Jennifer Lopez

three marriages and two kids


Geena Davis

married for the fourth time with three kids



Gloria Swanson

six marriages




I could go on and on and on.

Mindfulness:
Tell me TV01, what is your problem with me saying that someone who thinks that promiscuity leads to moral decadence, which he is so concerned with, should abstain from premarital s.ex, which would be part of the solution instead of making others responsible for something that he does not want to take responsibility for?

You see no hypocrisy here? No surprise!

And what has your saying anything to anybody to do with me? I have nowhere and at no time being prescriptive here. If you see hypocrisy, by all means, call it out, don't call me to call it out. I am nobody' proxy!

TV

Mindfulness:
Nobody has encouraged women to go about their se.xuality as if it is an Olympic discipline and nobody has encouraged women to have kids out of wedlock so there is no need to twist my words.

What you have done is;
1. Suggest sex is something to be indulged in freely, and without consequence. If so, why not do it to the utmost?
2. Your anecdotes plainly suggested that out of wedlock children in no way impaired a womans marriage options
3. Not to mention that you totally overlooked the pathologies of fragmented families
4. Your "evidence" actually implied, that not only would their chances not be impaired, but they would even secure the most eligible of men
5. Your clear implication was that promiscuity and out of wedlock are good things, or at least not things to be concerned about

Mindfulness:
My message is very clear but I will repeat it again:

It is highly hypocritical to tell people to behave "morally" when you are not able and not willing to behave morally yourself. Therefore, if you are concerned with moral decadence as a result of promiscuity then abstain from promiscuity. It is so simple.

First, that is not your message; your message, is one of promiscuity, out of wedlock births, and feelings based actions. Second my position is simple - and has been repeatedly made, especially to you - NSBM

Mindfulness:
It goes beyond laughing that you will tell women to abstain from something you want to have the freedom to enjoy.

NSBM

Mindfulness:
It goes beyond laughing that you try to control women by telling them that they won't be able to get a good husband if they don't remain virgins till marriage

Me control? Nope, I have repeatedly said, if you want unfettered freedom and sexual liberty, then have it. I reserve the right to point out the pathologies, risks and outcomes this may lead to and advise men to give due consideration to this.

Mindfulness:
when in fact plenty of virgins have suffered in the hands of cruel husbands and plenty of bad girls have married good men.

This is a woefully thin strawman. I am for robust and fulfilling marriages. I do not advise men to marry in order to be cruel. This statement has no bearing whatsoever on what is being discussed here .

Mindfulness:
This, TV01, is the reality. I have provided some anecdotal evidence and I can provide more. We can also take celebrities as examples if you don't believe what I have observed.

The anecdotal evidence you provided is at meaningless - being at best a few outlying examples of which there will always be some. Meaningless and misleading, as you tried to present it as pretty normal - hence my exaggerated response. Your personal observations are not fact, or even unbiased opinion. Present something better - as opposed to near fair tales

Mindfulness:
If you want morality, live morality. Hypocrisy won't get you there and your attempts to control women with fear won't get you there either.

Show me where I have advocated immorality on one hand and morality on the other. The hypocrisy - and endless flip-flopping between threads has been all yours. And I have not tried to control women with fear - I have only ever advised men to be considered in choosing a wife - based in part on how she has availed herself of that liberty.

Mindfulness:
It comes as no surprise that you will not address the hypocrisy your fellow men so proudly present here but that you will quickly jump at any female poster's submission to get your message across.

Which hypocrisy has been presented? And if such hypocrisy is not a direct challenge to my post, why is it incumbent upon me to rebut it? This is a mens thread, and I am but one voice amongst many. I state my piece and men are free to challenge, rebut, or agree or simply have different perspectives. Do I trawl the women' threads pointing out hypocrisy or making challenges?

Mindfulness:
You see nothing wrong with a man saying that it is not his job to promote morality but ok for him to complain about some sort of perceived moral decadence.

This is all in your head. My positions are clear, Undeviating on every thread and over time. If someone does this, feel free to call them out - I am not your, or anyone elses proxy or guardian of the interwebz !


Back so soon? Shouldn't you only just be embarking on a luxurious sojourn in some high priced foreign establishment? Abi you misread the rota !


TV

funlord:


Is that so? Abeg help me ask 'cocoabutter' how come "cossy 'the boobs' orjiakor" is still single then!

It's because she chooses to be - and as soon as she decides it's time to marry, there will be a queue of unbelievably eligible men longer than the great wall of China waiting to propose. But she may well choose to have a few children first, which will see her marriagability skyrocket !


TV

thorpido:
Are some ladies making a boast that they can sleep around how they want in their prime and when it's time to settle,they can hook the best men?

It's not a boast - Mindfulness has provided unimpeachable evidence, and Freecocoa has categorically stated that it's the baddest girls that get the dream men.

TV

freecocoa:
I see, it's me na, okay o, ride on, you've not said what your issue is with me.

An issue with you? Even if I did, I feel you have far greater things to worry about. You appear to me as one marked for destruction - possibly explaining your overweening pride.

I am a marriage advocate - I want to see marriage cherished and elevated as society basal and most important institution. So I want a good marriage for all who desire or are capable of it - including you.

freecocoa:
My idea on your imagined God(no offense to anyone really) has nothing to do with this and I'm gonna get married, if that's what will happen, so don't pretend to worry about that.

Right here; you see, even if I take offence at your blasphemy, it's ultimately God himself you shall answer too. And mayhaps His seeing further than I ever can, and being more infinitely gracious than I can ever be, will have mercy on you. Mayhaps.

As to your boasting about "getting married", anyone can do that. It's the quality of the spouse and the union itself that is the proof of the marriage pudding.

I saw your confused babbling about your problem on the womans thread, I even took time out to give you a good shaking about it earlier on this one.

You have/had a man that appears in all ways unsuitable and you were actually thinking of press-ganging him down the aisle . And the hilarious thing was that all the advice was positive, someone even called him a "keeper" . Na mate, he was just a striker !

Even YPP who tried to sound a note of caution backed off when the cheerleading got too loud. It was only when ChairCover issued a note of caution that YPP felt encouraged enough to come out and re-inforce the concern.

So yes, you can absolutely get married. I even hear you boasting about how you will structure your marriage exactly how you want it . First thing Cocoa, if you can't get the man you really want, you can't have the marriage you truly desire. That is a pause and think point for you . And if you can get the man you really want, you won't be prating about structuring marriage according to your dictates. P&P2

freecocoa:
I never said equal is the same, but bottom line remains as far as being human is concerned, we are the same, therefore it doesn't make sense to treat one gender with more regard than the other.

We don't treat them with different regard as to their persons/humanity, but we appreciate the outcome for certain actions are different, hence differently regarded. Still blinking huh?

freecocoa:
Be wise indeed, I can see you men also know what women want better than the women themselves, oga please mind yourself, I like me the way I am and that's what's important.

"The fool has said in his heart - there is no God". Please don't let your daftness and pride be to your destruction.

freecocoa:
I am not going anywhere, not anytime soon, bite me.

I thought you had a marriage to arrange !


TV

Feel free to carry your gospel to the women' thread, the romance section and beyond. Tell women it's absolutely fine - if not mandatory - to elevate promiscuity to the level of Olympic sport.

Tell them it's a great thing to wilfully have children out of wedlock whenever they so much as come on heat - with whoever cares to take the plunge at the time. After all, nurturing multiple fractured families is a good thing, if it feels good, and if it doesn't, you have every right to exercise your options, to ensure you feel great .

Assure them, that at a time of their choosing, there will be a whole host of wealthy and eligible single men, literally queuing around the block and begging for have their hands in marriage, and swooning at the opportunity to raise another mans (or even a number of men) spawn. Indeed, they will be remorselessly climbing over chaste, well-bred & highly accomplished young women to get to them.

After all, what sane man wouldn't prefer an ageing, shop worn woman, with the kind of baggage that requires a separate flight?

I'm sure you'll have plenty converts. In fact, you'll probably meet others already proselytising, and many willing to join you with additional texts, extolling feelings over all. It's beyond shame, it's mindlessness, and you Mindfulness are a fitting high priestess.


TV

Mindfulness:
@freecocoa

I don't know how old you are but what I know is that the kind of talk here would have intimidated me in my 20s, definitely not now that I have enough experience to know that what men say when being with other men is very different from what they do when their friends are not around.

Nobody can make me believe the fairytales they are selling here that a man won't marry a "loose lady". I have seen enough. Let me share two stories with you.

I know a white lady who has got three kids with three different men, each of them is a black man from a different country. The third man, her husband, is a Nigerian. He has accepted the two kids from two different fathers as his own and they have a child together. You may think now that the man needed his papers but it isn't so. He already had papers when he met her. You may think that he is ugly but he is handsome. You may think that he is poor but he has bought a house for them, a very big beautiful house and they are posting pictures on Facebook of their summer holidays in fancy hotels around the world.

I know another lady who has been known as the baddest girl around town. I have never seen such a crazy girl before and after. She was the favorite subject of gossip when she was younger. She never missed any party and was known for having a new boyfriend regularly and uncountable affairs and one-night-stands. She is married now with two kids and a husband who could afford a big house even though she is a housewife.

And then, haven't we ladies heard from several friends, decent and indecent, how men beg ladies to allow them to do it raw? Online they use STDs as an excuse to exercise control but in real life, they are the ones who would risk STDs by having unprotected s.ex with even the so called loose ladies.

You guys can go to Romance section and deceive the teenagers there.


And if moral decadence is your problem then start with yourselves and be a better example. The more of you take responsibility, the fewer infections and kids born out of wedlock there will be.

Have a nice Saturday everybody. I am going on a trip with my darling now.

freecocoa:
We are basically saying the same thing, I do know of these unwritten rules, I am only saying it doesn't make sense.

Maybe not to you, and indeed they may appear somewhat unfair, but you wont get very far swimming against the tide, or trying to buck market sentiment

freecocoa:
You are asking me whose fault it is? Take a look at this thread, therein lies your answer.

It's an agreed alliance between men and women, mostly enforced by women. Thinking it's male led is your first mistake. And thinking changing it based on equalist principles will better serve women is your second.

freecocoa:
even all for chastity, it just should go both ways.

It should, and it may well do for all one day, but even then, the outcomes of non-chastity are not the same or viewed in the same way.

Are you blinking furiously as you start to get it? Hopefully.

I'm done for the day - unless Mrs TV fancies a good pestering .

Now for the last time vamoose - go spread the good news.


TV

freecocoa:
Your own is just to start insulting someone, couldn't you have said what you wanted to without calling me daft?

Of course I could have, but it's you na, and I just couldn't resist .

freecocoa:
Who made you judge of what is bad btw? What you think, is your opinion, not a fact and which physical pathologies are you referring to?

Me, judge? You are right,it is just my opinion, but based on lived experience, real data, and the insight of millenia of received societal wisdom.
Read my earlier post - 1 or 2 before my initial response to you.

freecocoa:
You don't know zilch about my ways and. I'm sure I get sense pass you.

I may not know, but I really do care. I'm actually rooting for you Cocoa and it would warm my heart to see you score a home run - get back to God and get that marriage you insist on structuring exactly how you like . But to do that you will need sense, hence my sharing.

Be wise, listen and learn, test and see, ditch the equalist thinking - equal does not mean the same. Don't forget, right or wrong, men know what men want way better than you do.

All the best girl.

Now get off our thread .

TV