₦airaland Forum

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

freecocoa:
If people were sensible enough to know that, what is considered "bad" should be for both genders, then we wouldn't have women lying about such things.

Cocoa stop being daft. It is bad for both sexes, but;

1. The effects of promiscuity on the sexes differ - men are simply not as vulnerable to the physical pathologies.
2. Men and women look for different things in a mate. Some I've outlined above for men.
3. Indeed, women will rarely have issues with an experienced man - other qualities are higher priority
4. In fact, if a man is "endorsed" by similar or higher value women, the more likely the woman is to actually desire him.

Now, please get sense - and reform your ways . Or you will really hear it.


TV

crackhaus:
I believe the problem being with a woman with a high body-count (darn, I hate this word) has more to do with the possibility that you might know or run into three or more men who have had sex with her in the past...and trust me, YOU do not want to be in that situation where you overhear three strangers whispering about how your beloved wife used to bounce and scream on their erect c0cks.

It's way more than that Cracky; it really does have a number of potential implications.

- A high count affects a womans ability to bond (the ability is impaired through repeat bonding and un-bonding)
- It means she is more likely to be dissatisfied with her union (having romanticised the past or having truly had better past experiences)
- A real biggie is her likelihood to cheat - unless you are sure she sees the error of promiscuity (one of men' biggest fears is being cuckolded)
- You are also more likely to take possession of a child that's not yours (probably an even bigger fear)
- It also has potential to impact, attitude, character and behaviour

- Abortions increase the incidence of cancers, later still births and overall fertility
- STD's can also affect health and fertility down the road
- Some pathologies, cervical cancer etc. are directly correlated to high levels of promiscuity

One can luck out and find someone with a high notch count who has a totally reformed outlook and no lingering health issues. But to act like it doesn't pose a potential risk and give it no consideration, is in my opinion, quite irresponsible.


TV

A40:
No. You are completely missing the point! I'm simply telling you to look at the bigger picture, you are clearly fixated on the idea that a woman being a virgin makes her an ideal or superior partner. That is megedefegede

I told you there was nothing to quibble about, and you are reaching with your assertions; I am not fixated - but I see it as a consideration (amongst others), and not something to be overlooked. Neither have I said virginity makes a woman ideal or necessarily superior. What I have said is ATBE, a virgin to low count will be preferable to a high count. I have also said increased count brings increased risk - and those risks are behavioural as well as physical.

A40:
Body count? Puna get meter? No be wetin dem tell you you go know? Abeggi! We know una type even if she tells you its only 2 you would be like 2!! That's too much

Not a meter per se, but promiscuity can engender all kinds of issue, which can potentially rear and prove problematic in a later union.

A40:
Do you think Barack cared about Michelle's body count? Angela Merkel Madame Bettencourt? Its not a consideration for me and never will. So I'd turn down a woman who could potentially complete me because of something as flimsy as that? No can't do

I said I am not being prescriptive, whether one is concerned or not, checks or not, that is their prerogative. I happen to believe it is something to be be given due consideration - and advise accordingly.

A40:
It increases zilch if she is not sleeping around while you are with her. There are numerous health issues that can plague a couple that go above and beyond her s€x history

The deep bonds that form between a couple can be impaired if a woman has repeatedly bonded and unbonded in the past. Do you know women may even carry epigenetic/phenotypical detail from previous lovers (forgive my weak science)?

And as already stated, the higher the number of priors, the more likely a woman is to be dissatisfied in a union. And there are numerous health issues that can arise as a result of her sexual history.

A40:
For you perhaps. I on the other hand do not believe success or failure is transmitted s€xually

And you are free to both believe and act on that. I believe it can have an impact, so should be considered.


TV

^{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?}

Mindfulness:
The evidence is your post history. Very one-sided and the result of painful experience with the female folk, obviously.

It's been a while I posted pictures of my "too cute by far family", I'm coming


TV

A40:
How is that a strawman? I'm essentially telling you there is more to a woman than her virginity. I have never said not being one
makes you a better person than an actual virgin. I'm saying to me it counts for zilch.

It's a strawman because you are saying a virgin may well make a bad wife - true - but as if a non-virgin cannot be a bad wife for exactly the same reasons a virgin can. And being a non-virgin can present issues as a result of that exact reason.

I do not judge a woman according to her virginity, for all but two in the world, I don't even care . But, when it comes to taking a wife, body count is a factor and should therefore be a consideration. I'm not being prescriptive mind, just my view.

A40:
There are various medical ways to check and confirm your intended partner is A-Ok so find another story. Abi non sexual diseases no dey? Abeg make we leave story for Puff daddy.

A high body count increases risk - of both physical and non-physical issues. Fact!

A40:
What of guys who knack both good and bad girls? Abi a girl that knacks is bad by default?

You're essentially defining a girl by who she slept with. Smh

Nope, I'm saying it's a consideration when choosing a wife.


TV

Mindfulness:
The people you are so eagerly judging happen to be female ALL THE TIME.
At the same time you ignore any "immoral" contributions from your friends and even justify them.
Never mind, only women are responsible for the moral decadence you perceive and complain about. Men are just innocent victims. They can't help it.

Another baseless assertion. You made this one earlier;

Mindfulness:
Where is your integrity when you don't call out on those who tell others to abstain from premarital s.ex and in the same breath say that they themselves don't have to?

I asked you to provide evidence., you simply skipped away .

I do not ignore contributions, I respond to challenges to my own assertions. Now, provide evidence of me judging females, or shaming women or justifying immoral contributions from others. Go on, shame me publicly !


TV

Mindfulness:
I have no religion. Religion is for those who are not sure that God exists.

Keep ducking and weaving - no one asked you about religion, but your belief system, which is proving painfully incoherent.

Mindfulness:
[size=14pt]So your Bible does not contain this passage Mr Slut / Single Mother / Divorcee Shamer? [/size]

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Firstly, please don't quote the bible; you simply don't know, understand or esteem it.
Second, don't quote it to prove a point to me, you don't have the wherewithal
Thirdly, you are a blasphemer, leave it.

John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
1 Corinthians 6:5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?

Again, firstly, I am a mature Christian male - ergo an elder. Not only am I able to judge, I am expected to; actions, issues, situations. That does not mean I condemn. I always give leave to repentance and redemption. Even when speaking generally, I speak of a change of heart or mindset.

Secondly, it's about being hypocritical - judging something as wrong, or an error and practising the same.

Thirdly, I am willing to be judged according to the measure I apply !

Now are you or anyone else here willing to say that promiscuity, wilful single motherhood or divorce are good things? That's all I have ever said - noting that there is typically a multi-level cost to society. Anyone that can claim there is no moral wrong or social cost, can please make themselves known to the board

Mindfulness:
And you have the audacity to speak of coherence and integrity?

Funny how all the people you are shaming are always female.

You base cunning is evident, always running or rescinding, or resorting to invective. You say an adult can do as they please, then decry age gaps. Contradictory much? You claim it's the owner of the body to do with as they please, then claim statutory rape, then that there is no set age. YOu are as muddled as your beliefs .

I've told you, I don't shame individuals. We have women do that !


TV

Strawman:
Well thank you.

Apparently someone is using double of myself, I hope there is no problem here?

You are most welcome.

No problem - unless your name is Mindfulness !


TV

Mindfulness:
Where is your coherence Mr Slut / Single Mother / Divorcee Shamer? Does your religion not dictate that you should not judge others?

You don't know what "my religion" says. But Quelle surprise, you don't appear to know what your own religion says either !

Mindfulness:
Where is your integrity when you don't call out on those who tell others to abstain from premarital s.ex and in the same breath say that they themselves don't have to?
Hypocrisy at its peak.

As ever you struggle, flounder, fall flat, and then resort to pained ad hominem...please show me where I ever excused men from NSBM or excuse them when they fell short.

Better take advantage of your ban sharpish .


TV

Strawman:
Yes, how may I help you?

Welcome - grab a seat, have a beverage !


TV

Mindfulness:
So someone saying that an adult has the right to sleep with as many people as they choose to is the same as encouraging people to sleep with minors or babies? Really? Is that your "logic"?

...are you trying to write and do kegels at the same time I said integrity, and I said coherence!!!


TV