₦airaland Forum

freecocoa:
TV01 I first have to ask, do you have anything against me? Cos you sure sound like you do.

That would require a narrative response !

freecocoa:
Firstly, you do have to understand that whatever I write about me on here is strictly my business and well within my rights, so I shouldn't care whatever sight it makes to you or anyone for that matter.

Exactly right. Your business, your rights, yours to care or not. But when you put things into the public domain, it becomes subject to public scrutiny and comment.

freecocoa:
No where in that post of mine did you read that I make a better case for gay rights than he, or even If I did, I never said that was the proof of me being more intelligent, I said I wanted him to agree with me when we argue on that, if otherwise, please feel to show me, btw don't I have the right to think myself more intelligent than anyone?

So you didn't actually make a better case - based on your vaunted intelligence - but still expect him to agree? . It's even worse than I thought - sounds borderline pathological.

And you can think what you like - as you are finding when you discuss gay rights - nobody has to agree with you

freecocoa:
You fail to realise that, the topic wasn't about religion, as basic as it might be, I am at liberty to seek opinions on it as it is an area where experience is key, plus I didn't even say I am more intelligent than christians, seriously am trying so hard to understand why you would make such statement? Na wa o.

No it wasn't about religion, but you took views from those whom religion informs their positions.
Not explicitly perhaps, but it's writ large in your comments and the inane threads you start. And others pointed it out to you.

freecocoa:
You haven't made any points with the friend statements at all, it is very glaring that the issue with the ex is about me given the way it was presented in the OP, so I don't see how that is supposed to change anything but if you are implying that other issue where I asked about a friend, is also about me, then over mistaken is your middle name.

Did you even read what I wrote? I plainly stated that your problem is manifestly worse than hers and your lamentation sounded decidedly fake! As you quickly moved on to your real passion - you! Emotional intelligence is patently your biggest failing .

freecocoa:
See me see trouble o, it is very obvious that your problem is with me thinking myself intelligent, I think myself intelligent in the absolute sense ni o my dear, now what others think about that is relative, as can clearly be seen here, you think I'm the dumbest one on here as you so tacitly have shown but someone else will think otherwise.

No, not that you think yourself intelligent, but that you present as extremely hubristic and hypocritical.

freecocoa:
I have nothing to prove to you as you are not a judge of intelligence, anyone can claim to be intelligent, till you beat me at a standard test for measure of intelligence, will I take you as more intelligent than I am.

I have zero desire for you to prove anything to anyone, you are the only one prating about her intelligence, and standardized IQ tests are not necessarily the perfect or only measure of intelligence.

freecocoa:
All you've done so far, is tell your opinion of me and because I am intelligent, I understand that it's something you are entitled to but doesn't define me.

I have no desire to define you, but neither does your vain claim to intelligence - especially when you are seriously considering marriage with a man you consider lacking intelligence, too short, not witty (enough), sartorially inept, rough around the edges (to be polite), suffering from anger issues and diametrically opposed in terms of faith.

See how you trashed the brother . Indeed, it says as much about your own sense of self-worth as his qualities and how seething with issues you must be, to talk as if you can pick him up or dump him at will and seriously be considering marriage. With all your carping about how equal and independent you are, you can't figure this small issue or get with someone "equally intelligent or matching in terms of qualities" .

I was actually interested to hear the case you would make for gays - now it's not even there . Shift jor. And not only would it take a modicum of smarts to see that is he not right for you, you are far from being ready for marriage - to anybody.


TV

edwife:
I wouldn't have said a word if i were you,i am someone who always mind my business and try not to get on someone's way.Beside,that Lagos scares me to death,in fact anywhere in Nigeria except Abuja.

@TV that was brutal.....

...wait for it !


TV

freecocoa:
Lol, you can still try. You know, you can only guess, you can never be sure my dear.

Guess? Try?? Theres no need of a gift of discernemnt or prophetic insight here. I've had the benefit - and I use the term loosely - of a lot of your posts on this forum. You've all but laid yourself bare - and it's not a pretty sight

Your romantic befuddlement apart - which I may yet touch on, I wonder why you consider the fact that you can make a better case for "gay rights" than your ex any indication that you are intelligent, or that you are right on that score? If you are sure of your position, intelligence and your ability to present it, please outline the case here.

Still on your intelligence; You consider yourself intelligent, and with a smug assurance that you are more intelligent than Christians? Yet here you are asking women who mostly identify as Christians, God-fearing or at least theistic/deistic, about a situation that is so basic, that you can’t even see or admit the obvious?

Intelligent, when you first trotted out a friends issue, and feigned lamentation about despairing for her – when you own issue is manifestly worse. Intelligent, when you went to great lengths to disguise your issue. First by layering it with your friends, then by identifying it as “someone else”.

You think yourself intelligent? Really? In an absolute or relative sense? I have seen absolutely no evidence of either in all the years I’ve known of you on this forum. It’s not demonstrated in your writing - no searing insight, no acute analysis, nothing – or even the topics you weigh in on, or the threads that you open – yes I double-checked.

I'll actually be surprised if you respond to my challenge and not just high tail it back to the girls thread where you'll be cosseted and comforted in your neurosis. But lets see if you can at least prove yourself more intelligent than lil' ole Joe Average here !


TV

freecocoa:
TV01, you mentioned me but it's like you changed your mind, why is that?

I did mention you, but only in reference to Salseras post. What I changed my mind about was responding to "your plight" myself. I would have told you about yourself in 3-D and served those who had earlier advised you sour wine . But as Salsera hit it in short measure and was extremely tactful, I thought I'd leave it .

TV

7. Makes babies
8. Bonds spouses


TV

bodashee:
Two options were open to me. I could have kept quiet and watched the guy jump the queue like everyone else, or spoke up like I did. I'm which you think would have been best? basically.

I think you were absolutely right - and courageous - to speak up.

Obviously you took stock of any potential danger in your speaking beforehand - you know the terrian better than I do. I would have suggested you made the point by saying how he had made a mockery of the law/societal protocol, and all those who adhered to it, as opposed to making it about "your place" in the queue or "your right" to enter before him.

And I wouldn't necessarily have made a fuss about entering before him - not least because there was no danger of your not getting a seat. That way you don't come across as aggressive/attitudinal and merely pained on your own behalf. You are also more likely to have others support you - not that their support was your aim. The naysayers may have seen it as you just wanting to prove a point, as opposed to decrying lawlessness.


TV

^{[size=2pt]...Salsera. What's up? I'm expecting feedback. Great last post. Stopped me having to weigh in unrestrained and unleash some whup ass on Freecocoa[/size]}

Sa, Sa, Sa, Sagamite, omo Sagamu fun ara re! How far now? Not to derail, but its been a while. Good to see you hale and hearty and regulating without a care.

Pliss sa, now that your role model George Clooney has tied the knot, will you be reviewing your position vis-a-viz marriage?


TV

ApexTitan:
While you may find it hard to believe so there are many men who are totally sold on the idea of the Disney-styled approach to relationships and marriage. In just going with their hearts they fall under the impression, or delusion even, that they have found/will find their own special snowflake.

I'm not married but I used to think like that at one point myself. Thank the heavens that I have come to a better understanding. On my occasional excursions on social media when I come across photos of old flames from my university days I'm filled with feelings of gratitude walahi, e for rough for my side.

The way men are "socialised" these days, it's an awakening they'll pretty much all go through. Unfortunately for some, it wil be a "rude awakening".

Men are increasingly taught that their worth comes from pleasing - and even being like - women. The singular aim of pleasing women is like stoking a fire until it's out of control. What they should do is establish their worth - with reference to and amongst men - and get the women they please.


TV

An0nimus:
For some reason I don't know why I can totally relate with the bolded. No questions for now but Insightful post as always
Fantasy League anyone? it's my first time and I could do with some tips.

Cheers. I always want to - there's one sitting in my inbox now. But I barely keep tabs on my stocks. Don't think I'll be able to keep weekly track of my team picks.

coogar:
bloody hell.....
TV01 is on fire this month.......wifey looking like one's mother is the scariest thought ever for any man.
however, there are some very old women with good genes......at 30, they look fitter and healthier than many women in their late teens. i still think it depends on the individual.

Absolutely, it's a template. I expect individuals to factor accordingly. I didn't apply it to the letter myself. I made some well-considered exceptions for my wife. And some thngs I wouldn't budge on - big items like divorce and smaller ones like tattoos. It's choice.

The Ukranians have a saying; "before you marry a woman check out her mother". I just find it hard to believe any man would rather "just go with their heart", than properly armed with knowledge, understanding, well set expectations and a long-term view.

I thank God, nothing I've encounterd in marriage has fazed me and if I haven't anticipated and had a plan for everything, the right course typically comes easy. I did my groundwork, prep and due dilligence. Set my standards way high prior, and my expectations way low after . I'm very happy.


TV

5minsmadness:
What do you think should be done to resolve this issue?

I think he needs to employ a number of strategies - both short and long-term.

He needs to go about making it his kingdom. His rule. Remember how when David became king - he replaced many governors and "heads of" with his own people. Many of the replacements were his close relatives or in-laws. A new president makes his own appointments.

I hope he has good leverage with his superiors? He should of course always reach out to the four - which I believe he has - and be unrelenting in his efforts. If they have specific, legitimate grievances - other than "it should have been me" - they should be addressed. These expereinced hands may prove a good resource.

If such efforts continue to prove abortive, he can think about getting rid of one of the seniors - using any "legal" recourse open to him. He is replaced by someone loyal to him. Either someone external who knows who the boss is, or someone internal who's fealty is unquesioned. If at all possible target the leader of the "fumbling four".

If possible, he can cause dissension amongst them by forming a new layer of management and making one of the four manager/senior to the other 3. He can move to reduce their visibility and powers, or promote others - his supporters - to their level to weaken their power base. Only legally of course.

He can sanction them through reviews and appraisals. Ensure conduct and co-operation are integral to the expectations set for them. If they don't meet them, they get hurt in the pocket and by stalling careers/opportunities.

He needs to continue to map, publish and execute his strategy for his department. Continue to increase his number of loyalists with strategic hires and promotions.

He should build a broad network - especially at the peer level and ensure his own profile and esteem in the organisation is high.


TV

jerrydelight:
The characters women display in marriage are the product of their husband's attitude towards their issues.

...i.e. it's mens fault.
Please change the sex tag on your username.


TV

warrikid:
So my younger cousin(male) has decided to pop the question to his fiancee at her(his fiance's) own elder sister's wedding reception. U get the relationship?
He doesnt want anyone to get an idea of his plans,not even the fiancee's sister in whose marriage reception this would "supposedly" happen.


Personally i feel it is a good idea,but at what point of the ceremony and how he would get it done without seemingly "stealing the show" is where i would need your ever creative ideas/inputs.
Donate yours generously.

I wouldn't. I think it's a terrible idea - let the fiancé sister have her day uninterrupted. Don't encroach or rob her of her big moment - just like we wouldn't want anyone to rob her sister.

I wouldn't even advise it if the fiancé' sister agreed to it. Make your own moments - at best do it when the bride and groom have left the event. In fact, just don't.


TV

An0nimus:
@TV01 is the "Go young" series through? I loved it and have learnt a thing or two.

Holá, thanks for the nod. Pretty much unles there are any questions; to recap younger can help in in 2 main ways and a further I didn't actually touch on.

1. Sex - it is rearely mentioned and I actually believe many don't even realise - and it's compounded by myths about women reachin gthewir sexual peak late? - but women' libido as well as starting off from a lower point than mens, tapers more, and is more strategically deployed and tied with child-rearing. Not to mention - something else that goes unsaid - pregnancy can add 10 years to a woman. And kids change their priorities.

2. Status - as important, especially for securing the best partned and maintaining the relationship. Your maturity, proactive nature and forward-thinking are assumed, as is your close attention to your physical health and fitness. The more she respects you, the more comitted to you and to pleasing you she will be. You'll also be better placed to bear the demands of marriage and your wife

3. Siring - earlier childbirth - this is more absolute age as opposed to relative age for 1 & 2 - has a number of benefits. From your wifes fertility, ability and time to recover, to the childs wellbeing. You have a longer time to benifit older generations.

And please note; an exercise culture and consideration to health is something you should be on the lookout for. Just marrying younger is not the only thing. I was aware of this and usually brought it up in discussion. But note, women will respond strategically; either by claiming they have, or absolutely intend too. And often will force it - form/pretend - to seal the deal.

When I found this out I changed tack. No demands or blatant queries- I'd wait for it to naturally come up in conversation, then probe non-specifically. My WTB said she often started at 7am. "Why" I asked? "to use the gym", she replied. This meant she got it. All I need to do is offer encouragement and support - as needed. Forcing it doesn't work, I'm not sure it's actually right?

Marriage can be a huge burden for men - you wake up one day and you've got a couple of screaming kids and a woman who overnight appears to have turned into your mother. And you are slaving away to keep them. You need to be mentally prepared and have properly set expectations. You owe it to yourself to give it the best chance possible to be long-lasting and fulfilling union.

I've always wanted to discuss more the practicalities and not just the theory - which will in any event vary widely based on individual circumstances and desires, and must be tailored accordingly.

The virtues would be a good place to start. Specifically these that benefit pre-marriage & marriage. Courage, patience, empathy, humility, temperance dilligence. The flip side of that coin is of course the vices - anger, lust, pride, sloth etc.

Also discussing the dynamic would be great. How do you effect your headhsip? Is it even a thing in your household? Is it benign, light-touch or very obviously wielded. How would you consider the dynamic between you and your wife. Is it where you'd like it to be? Did it just happen? What can be done to change it.

And perhaps a subset of the above - how to cope with some of changes the transition from bachelor to husband brings, and some of the bigger life events &/or relationship changes once married.

Oya, as the testosterone leads !


TV


Think long-term guys, you owe it to yourself! or put another way, "help, I married my mom" "

LordReed:
Very good. Now do us a favour and elaborate on them if you will.

I won't. Not least because this ain't my fight ! But I'm happy to direct you to my corpus here on NL where I have repeatedly made the case agianst polygamy and promiscuity.


TV

LordReed:
And the better argument would be?

For better arguments against both polygamy/promiscuity and hypocrisy you could take a;
Spiritual view - Gods will, shared fallen nature
Social view - inimical to human flourishing, societal cost, paternity issues, child rearing problems, promiscuity as a disease vector,
Individual view - virtue, fidelity, agency, childs

Or any combo - enjoy!


TV

LordReed:
I am not arguing for or against polygamy of any form

Which is probably where I think you're slightly off-track. It's not quite clear that you are not arguing for polyandry/promiscuity, and in any event, I think your best tack would have been to argue against polygamy/promiscuity as a whole - for either sex.

LordReed:
I am arguing against the vilification of women with multiple partners in the light of people saying it is acceptable for men.

Thats's not what it sounds like - to me anyway. It appears you are arguing that women are functionally equally capable of polygamy/promiscuity. And this is further evidenced by your "arguing against the villification", not against the act they're being villified for.

If exposing "hypocrisy" was your aim, I think you'd have been best served adopting a different tack. Not least because, like I said, Njokusboy has presented what I feel is a tighter argument defending the thing you hate - even if not the hypocrisy of it - from your own position.

At least you've got the women all excited !


TV

LordReed:
If you have read my posts on this thread you'll know that I am not advocating for the legalisation of any form of polygamy. I am simply exposing the silliness of the idea that your biological functions confer on you more rights.

Get this now and the tongue in cheek approach. but I think Njokusboy has stolen a march on you with well reasoned arguments - especially in light of the prevailing "progressive approach to rights/equality".

If women are just as biologically capable of certain behaviours as men, that is not necessarily an argument for men not engaging - consensually - in that behaviour, rather one for allowing women the same.

And in this level - "equalised" - playing field, we'll soon see if women are able to build and maintain "harems" of men ! I think we'll soon see that laws won't change biological imperatives - at best there will be a marginal effect

In fact, I'd argue they can do this better - and are currently doing so - by transferring wealth from men to women, via the welfare state, child support and divorce laws.

The differing "biological functions", do not confer different rights, they mean a different dynamic and outcome. And I don't support polygyny or any non-monogamous forms of marirage.

I do appreciate that women can influence conception by mating strategically and favour a particular donor, but I don't buy the notion that they can sleep with a number of men, and and in any way ensure, or be certain that the best sperm will win out.

I not sure "nature" would even leave that choice to a woman !


TV

netotse:
@Pickabeau1, TV01, 5minsmadness, Timbuktou, kevinberry, apextitan
I might be slightly off but I think the general purpose of this thread was for us to have a spot to discuss issues that affect us as men(husbands, husbands to be, husbands never to be etc... ), we're starting to get sidetracked o...let's keep the philosophical discussions to other threads biko.

On this here thread political correctness takes a backseat. This is the boys thread.

Hi Netose, well said and timely.

This is the interwebz, and we have no authority to moderate who participates. Indeed, I have no problem with female input per se, I have only cautioned - from way back & more recently with the odd word - that they please try not to "feminise" things.

When women invade mens spaces or masculine institutions, they do not typically up the ante. So in a sense, it's good input is unmoderated, so we can see exactly that.

Like you noted, this thread is for a specific reason. Men hear and understand better when things are clearly outlined and expalined. We are good with maps, tactical formations, empirical data, example, reasoning, etc.

The sum total of the female advice here has been "just go with your heart". Woe betide a man who charts his course in life on the choppy waters of feelings.

On a personal note, it just highlights all the more why as a mature adult man should not be under the authority of a woman in personal matters or regards relationships - and why I for one, will no tbe subject to female authority in the home or church.

The insight you gleaned - thanks for the nod - did that come from "feeling" based advice? or learned experience and practical example, which I presume you have since put to the test, and seen to be true to some degree? Pray tell, would "just treat her nice and go with your heart" type advice have worked the same - if that isn't what you were doing previously?

I repeat, I'm more than happy to have the ladies join us, but it would be nice if you would do us the courtesy of respecting our sensibilities, and being really considered in your input.

I am yet to hear a worthy challenge, well-considerd insight or alternative views - just lots of strawmen and gainsaying. It's still left for men to read, distil and apply to their situations accordingly. The first rule for men - take responsibility.


Or in short, as Tim has said in his usual "to the point manner"

Timbuktou:
You know how women are, they gotta have a say in everything. Since, they've come to our turf to critique our beliefs in full glare of the public, we have to defend our opinions and show their credibility. Otherwise, we stand the risk of losing our men to fine-sounding but substance-lacking "progressive" arguments. Hope you're with me on that?

I agree, though, it can be regulated somewhat.

TV

Okay All, I'm still not clear here. Maybe it's in part to my creation vs evolution position. I don't believe humans evolved. Or that we descended from some proto-ape type common ancestor with chimps.

I believe we were created as are, with consciences, morals - even if these may have varied over time - and great intellects. The only difference between then and now is the incremental advances we have successively built on. I don't believe human behaviours are evolved traits over time on the basis of "survival of the fittest".

The theory as posed simply does not hang together for me or pass close scrutiny - and there are so many assumptions I would query, and loads of questions I have.

So for example; men do not have an impulse that mirrors a mothers maternal instinct. They want to have sex, not necessarily procreate. They only commit to providing where they have a clear genetic investment/stake. If they know women are sleeping around, they'll be fine with that, just not commit to providing, instead, working to get as much sex as they desire.

We see this now - men are happy to have the milk, without buying the cow. Marriage/commitment rates are falling. The only reason women can get away with it in some instances is because government - or her family - steps in, to force the man to provide, or act as an alternate source of provision.

As for mate-guarding, that only happens where there is the expectation of exclusive access. If women are free to, or known to, engage multiple partners, there is nothing to guard.

I can see how she may sleep around and work with ovulatory cycles to cuckold a committed lower ranked provider, but this will be multiple in a limited sense. How many other men - especially identified as equal or superior quality to her regular - can she engage? And I don't see this argument as superior - indeed it's more akin - to identifying and mating with the best man.



TV

tearoses:
BTW whats an alpha widow please?

Simply put, it's a woman who has, or is used to dating big boys, but who ultimately can't get one to commit to her long-term (marriage). She has to settle for someone of lower status, but as is to be expected she typically feels disgruntled with her lot.

This can mean a hard time for the man in the marriage, suffering everything from a lack of real respect, "dragging", nagging, her not willing to fully please him sexually etc. At worst, it can mean he gets cuckolded or she "wexits". Happens a lot in the West now, as she will keep his provisioning, but be able to ditch him. Usual watery excuses or contrived claims to rationalise it.

Men typically have looser criteria for a casual relationship. So women may date "higher", but be forced to marry lower. Women like this have a tendency to leave if someone of higher status comes along - often citing things like the current one "lacks ambition" as an excuse.


TV

tearoses:
You people make marriage sound as if one is going to war
Too theoretical
When does one enjoy the marriage when one is so serious about the whole thing
Do this do that, dont do this and dont do that
We are all human
Human nature and theory dont always go hand in hand

But this is not solely about marriage as in "being in it", but the run up to it. It's like competing in sports. In boxing we have a saying, "train hard, box easy". You will have amuch better experience with optimal preparedness. Talking of war, the bible counsels "first counting the cost".

Most of the female advice has been "just go with your heart". Or along the lines of "whoever their brother chooses". First truth is that if said brother comes home with a single-mum divorcee, who is older than him and living on benefits, I'm sure he will hear it .

Secondly people don't just fall in love. At a conscious or subconscious level we have preferences and are desires are not random, being at least partially informed. Women in particualr can be quite strategic about who they fall in love with.

tearoses:
Leave TV01 with his grammer, We are used to him. I read his posts in segments. I read One segment, grab dico, digest, then rest for 5 minutes, then read another segment. - I would love to be a fly on the wall when he is telling his kids off and see the blank expression on their faces

You'd be amazed. Little man is barely 3, yet tells me off daily. I'm always hearing "that's not correct daddy", or don't be silly daddy ! I'm doing lots of "Ah! Ah's" in my head - although loving his sharpness when he points things out .


TV

cococandy:
Kini in-vitro?
In-vivo too sure.

The winning sperm provider need not know he's the actual sperm provider.
It makes all of them hands-on-deck fathers to the new born. each one providing according to his capabilities. None tied to the same woman hence everybody can practice their 'natural polygamy' and we would all live in the primitive state that polygamy ensures.

I don't see how you'd get men to provide where paternity is not sure. Even now we see deadbeat dads. Without sanction of the law or formal ties, they don't take responsibility. Even betas will not buy this.

This could possibly work in societies where offspring are given little care by either parent. But that society simply could not flourish. Non-starter from where I'm sitting. Happy to be shown how though.


TV

LordReed:
The DNA of the resulting baby of course!

Are you of the opinion that the lowest provider should not mate?

How was testing carried out back then.
Historically, many men did not get to mate. Just like many male .herd animals. It's why monogamy marriage is good and makes for saner societies.


TV

BuddhaPalm:
One could be cripple, mentally deficient or sickly...and still have high status or be an fantastic provisioner - for some random reason. Birth chance, etc.

In a primitive society, your whole capability to provide would depend on physical fitness/health. Although I don't, as mentioned, subscribe to evolution, I don't get how this makes sense within that framework?

TV

BuddhaPalm:
My oga, you are indeed very wrong.

It is now known that we evolved for competition at the, quoting you, "spermatozoic level".

There are even tons of books on the subject: Sperm Wars - by Robin Baker, and Sex At Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality are examples.

You mentioned 'high status' and 'provider', but remember, they don't need to come from the same person.

The provider blissfully provides, while she goes behind to get inseminated by caveman Chad, who has optimum seed.

I'm still not clear on this. I've never - to be honest - heard of this before. Perhaps I need it spelt out clearly. As I said, I don't subscribe to evolutionary theory.

I can see "intra-sperm" wars, but not "inter-sperm" wars. Any war from multiple donors would likely be won by the first to donate. Hence the reason women select the fittest available man, whose sperm then battle it out.

If the provider does not have the assurance he is also the progenitor, why would he provide? I'd like to hear more. Simple outlined for a simpleton like me.


TV

Stillfire:
The thread is so ewwwwww. This looks like a fun thread.

TV01

I don't think the premise is totally flawed. Why?

Se.x is for procreation, and our mating choices is evolutionary dependent on who is more likely to bear offspring.

The endpoint of the female mating selection is to determine the male who is more viable to reproduce.

Primitively, the metrics to determine this endpoint is through the outward appearance of the male, his physical strength, etc. Likewise in the male psyche, a generous amount of hips translates in his mind that the female is fertile and able to reproduce.

However, today we know that is not automatically the case. Big hips do not necessarily translate to fertility, neither does physical strength. Today we do not rely on mere physical attributes to determine who is fertile and who isn't. Science and technology have made it possible for us to go to the cellular level to determine who is more fertile. So since we are inherently programmed to procreate, the battle has now been reduced to the spermatozoan level. May the best man win.

Holá Stilly,
I do not subscribe to evolutionary theory - in the sense that one creature can become a totally different type. I thin the games we play are down to our fallen nature.

I can see what you are saying - I think - but it appears to agree with me, not the OP? Unless I misread the OP, or both you and the OP?


TV

LordReed:
So I take it you don't accept the position that the millions of sperm a man produces confers on him a polygamous nature?

No.
Sperm is cheap to produce - eggs are expensive. That's why we have Fabergé eggs, not faberge sperm .
Many are produce as the "battle" takes place at that level - may the best sperm win.

TV

Ewuro4:
My argument is mainly against the overhyped Hypergamy.

@bold , Why do you think so? What are the factor(s) that makes an average 27yr old man not ready/ interested for marriage?

(If already discussed pls redirect me to the page )

The first difference is that you equate hypergamy solely with gold-digging. It's encompases that, but is way more than that.

These days, very few men are financially and psychologically ready for marriage. Women mature faster and are - rightly - compelled biologically and socially to seek marriage earlier.

More pertinently, mens marriage value continues to climb into their 30, whilst womens - which whether one acknowledges it or not - is maximised when they are at the peak of their beauty. This will typically be mid 20's.

They may be more assured, sophisticated and polished into their 30's, bu tthey will not be more beautiful or fertile. Those are the main measures of marriage value to men.

Financial considerations may skew that somewhat nowadays. But note men that do not have these considerations, they typically end up with what you would term "trophy wives".

More generally, the key is to introduce the "marriage culture" from earlier - in both males and females. Get rid of the extended adolescence that most men seem to undergo these days, and the unrealistic picture that seem to drive womens approach to marriage.

Understanding inculcated and expectations properly set, marriage should generally happen earlier and fare better. We may then be able to revise down slightly the age gap between couples !

I am a fan of "early" - please, nobody interprete this to mean 16, or 12 or some such - marriage. Even if only from the Christian position of no sex before marriage. It will be hard to hold oneself till 40 !


TV

LordReed:
The simple (biological) answer is yes.

I disagree. The patently obvious answer is no.

LordReed:
If only the most viable sperm is to fertilise the ovum then it is ideal for the female to collect as many as possible to see which of the potential fathers sperm will win out. If for example 5 men all have deposited their sperm in the cervix the one who's sperm wins out must be the man of men, a true winner as he gets to have biological immortality. So maybe we should take all this male bragging of who is better to the sperm battle ground and allow the biological process to show who is who. Of course in the process the female has to consort with more than one male so please males keep your jealousy and anger in check, it's only natural.

The whole basis of your premise is flawed.

1. They don't seek the most "viable sperm", they seek the man who appears more genetically endowed. And then they mate with him. Note the difference

2. The battle is not at the spermatozoic level, it's at the level of the owners of the spermatozoa. The sperm don't compete - the donors do. Hence the status & provision dynamic !

3. Further compounded by the fact that where paternity is not assured, or cannot even be assumed, the man will have no incentive to provide and protect.

"The men fight for the right". May the best man win. Ladies who attempt the above are in danger of being slut shamed .


TV

BCISLTD:
U most do this for a living

Thank you. Funnily enough I do. Actually acquiring my certification now.

That was encouraging. Much appreciated. God bless you.

Coach TV

pickabeau1:
Hahaba

Kids named after the fling
You the backup

Evulz...

Go on

Nor mind them. After they have flexed finished and it dawns on them the wall is fast approaching, the broda who wasn't "their class", that "small boy" of yore, or the fellow jambite who "no carry", suddenly seems a great catch.

No cry of marry your age mate back then 0! And I've seen them make such marriages happen by sheer force of will. It should be documented as a natural phenomena !

She meets you today, tomorrow it will be "what are we doing". Day 3 it will be "you don't know what you want". Day 4 is usually "other guys are asking 0". Day 5 "my cousin chrissy says...if you don't...then...". Day 6 "when are you coming to meet my people". . Wetin I no see? Men be sharp - such women shouldn't make it very far beyond day 2.

I couldn't believe it when I saw the "my wifes libido is dead" thread this morning. I actually wrote parts 2 & 3 last night, but I'm sure some will suspect that my alternate opened that thread - even I did. Dayuum...I too am amongst the prophets 0 !


TV