₦airaland Forum

cococandy:
Of course parts of the bible is sexist and parts of it encourage violence.
Parts of it encourage inhuman treatment to others because rescripthey don't believe in the God of the Israelites
But is that christ's teaching?
No.

Any Christian who thinks the whole bible is a guide for a true Christian life will do things that can't let him/her sleep at night.

Precisely right and well stated.

However, some parts that are prescriptive jar with some feminist notions. Headship in the home and church for one. Things like abortion for a second.

Equal opportunities and access for all - parking the above/obvious exceptions - is certainly agreed upon, but to call that feminism is a stretch, as that is not about women, but about all.

And in most countries there is little, if any, structural discrimination against women.


TV

pickabeau1:
50 Shades (Zoology edition)....ermmmmm

shudders

Pukes...


TV

Shollypopzz:
I have heard lowering the age of consent more from heterosexuals. And I can post linkS to articles that many heterosexuals have written on the issue. Btw, your point is redundant because this doesn't prove anything.

Fagtivists can be homo or normal. It's as much a mindset. But NAMBLA would be a good place to start. The homo lobby are very good at timing owe they present their perversions. Expect to hear more on this in the future.

Shollypopzz:
This is why I find you extremely weird and boring. Why are u saying the same thing over and over again after you've been corrected?? The numbers are online. Please get your facts from a credible source.

Shollypopzz:
You should ask yourself why there is a high rate of domestic violence in the gay community.

For lezzas - it's becuase women are the more violent sex and a feature of their sexual pathology is psychological unbalance.
For Packers - it's because the moderating - yes moderating -female influence is missing and the risky behaviour of men heightend.
Women remain safest in marriage - I love saying that !

Shollypopzz:
They do not have an INBORN conscience, conscience is developed over time.

I stand corrected in a sense - but it still develops with an instinctive - if broad - sense of right and wrong

Shollypopzz:
Just mouth, no sense. Boring! You are the one that has to prove objective morality, not me.

How do we agree on any laws if we can't ascertain an oblective morality (right vs. wrong)?


TV

njokusboy:
Lolzz, is bestiality wrong because it is animal abuse??
What is even animal abuse?
If slaughtering a cow for breakfast or throwing a live lobster into a pot of boiling water I wonder what other assault on the animals "sovereignty" is bigger to be termed so.....
Animals have no rights

...omo, you will not only live long, but also full and joyously. In my rush I totally omitted to make that point. It's actually been shown that some animals actually enjoy or at least have no real trauma from bestiality (incidentally, also one of the same arguments that homos make about sex with children). Would a bull really prefer butchery to buggery ?

Please - the lengths fagtivists go. Like I said, every point fails even basic scrutiny


TV

Shollypopzz:
2.) It's silly to lump things you don't like into one category just because you don't like/approve of them. Bestiality is often considered a type of animal abuse. Pedophilia is non consenting in one party and is torture to the younger party.

"Considered"? I group them all together as dysfunction in human sexuality. Parphilias and/or fetishes. Be it an animal, child, same sex - they are all disordered .

Shollypopzz:
A child can absolutely give consent! How can a child that is not of age give consent? Yes, it is a statutory point and it shouldn't be dismissed.

Homos know that - hence their continuing push for lowering the age of consent

Shollypopzz:
3.) I didn't disagree that lesbians suffer from domestic violence more than any other group. I only corrected your claim that male homosexuals come next. So??

Lezzas, then Lifters. And when we specify "marriage" as opposed to just "domestic", we have the safest type of domesticity for women and children. That warms the heart of NL's chieftest marriage advocate and purveyor of marital bliss ! Even without specifying marriage, it's still Lezzas then Lifters!

Shollypopzz:
4.) The issue with morality is that there are different moral standards. Moral is influenced by culture, religion, society and family values, thereby making it subjective. There is nothing like an inborn conscience.

Humans beings do not have conscience?
So, right or wrong is what we (majority) decide it is - at any given point?

Shollypopzz:
BTW, if you want to argue morality from a Christian standpoint, let me know so I can ignore your ass. If you agree with me that there is no objective morality, then EOD.

From a Christian point my position is fixed. If you want to do it in the abstract, shoot - you'll prolly miss there as well .

TV

BlackLeopard:
Exceptions exist to every rule, that doesn't really prove the average of something is invalid.

Implying that "consent" is almost always equal to morality is not a rule.

BlackLeopard:
The only people who fetishize children are sexual predators.

Meaning nothing more than most homosexuals are also sexual predators. Something else the homosexual lobby has fought hard to hide and shut down debate on

BlackLeopard:
Which may or may not be homosexuals, but on average? Most are heterosexual men (look up the average statistics, the figures speak rather clearly on this globally.) Not closeted homosexuals. Not even pedophiles (as in oriented toward children.)

Nope. Clearly evidenced and presented in the link I provided. Homosexuals are 6-20 times more likely to molest children than normal men and when it's male children alone, that figure is over 85%. Pederasty has always been a key theme of homosexuality. There is a youth fetish amongst homos.

BlackLeopard:
Besides, you're using wellbeing of children as a straw man here. I doubt you care for well being of children, you're using children as objects in your hypothetical debates when you need to shut someone else up.

No, I absolutely care about children being the father of 2 lovely ones. No one is shutting anyone up. State the case for legitimising homosexuality, normalising it, and embedding it into the culture. There is simply no case. I will rebutt any case you try to make point for point- with no fuss. Keep calling me a closet gay or secret pedo all you want .

Elton John - a 67 year old man - artificially concieves a child and then willfully removes him from his mothers care so he can play vanity families with his rent boy - he cares about children abi Child abuse!!!! Child services here would never let a 67 year old man (as part of a normal couple) adopt a child.


TV

pickabeau1:
The lifter lifted it to prove a point about men's weakness

No one could have known you were making a satirical piece... no need for the jab on intelligence

Arguing can be fun at times though

---

TV01

Christian feminist - can I hear oxymoron

...sometimes without "oxy" sef !

I went to the blog and read that piece - granted it may have been a little tongue-in-cheek, but it seemed to be making a serious point.

Whatever the case, the bible is clear;

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.


TV

BlackLeopard:
Actually yeah, the only difference between a lot of moral vs. immoral IS consent. (If I take someone's thing? It's theft. If they agree with me grabbing it? It's totally not.) So not only moral vs. not, but whole the legal basis from that point in most states as well.

A lot - not all?

BlackLeopard:
Children cannot consent. It's not a question about wordz even. It's a question of biology. They brains aren't developed to grasp mature matters on adult level, therefore they cannot consent, period.

Adult brains aren't fully developed till around 24 on average.

Homosexuals are notorious for campaigning for a reduction of the statutory age of consent
Homosexuals continue to push for increasing sexualisation of our children - I posted liinks earlier - legally consent is merely a statutory concept, not a biological one . Who are you tryong to dribble

BlackLeopard:
But continue equating choices between two adults to all the abominations like child rape.

Consent, choices, word sophistry does not make the deviant right, or the immoral good.

BlackLeopard:
(By the way, there was some studies out there the only people so obsessed with thoughts about what's pedophilia and not, are pedophiles themselves. The rest of the society don't give a flying Bleep. So, present gentlemen being all about kiddies? This speaks volumes about you.)

Show us the studies. Is it the same one that says people who are disgusted by homosex are closeted gays . I guess in lieu of a moral compass, sound science, or intellectual honesty, tropes must suffice .

Go and find yourself an anus to rummage around in - your choice


TV

njokusboy:
True feminists consider any teaching that stands at variance with theirs to be sexist...
Most religious teachings stand in contrast with what they preach and am still talking about Christianity, They prolly consider ALLAH to be not only sexist but a misogynist as well...
Religion and feminism are like water and oil, they cannot mix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]

Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage...

Main reason why a supposed "Christian feminist" is neither fish nor fowl...they stand in contradistinction to one another...especially regards marriage...all the creative massaging of scripture cannot change that...


TV

Shollypopzz:
It's not sexism but one gender is on top

[img]http://.net/i/166.gif[/img]

...of the hierarchy. And more telling responsibility...otherwise Eve' transgression would have been solely on her own head - but Adam was held accountable for his wifes actions.

We can perform on-line deliverance for you if you like .


TV

Shollypopzz:
I am so mad I came to this thread late, I feel like the mumu trying to keep a dead thread alive.

Dull of mind and body - stop drinking from that toxic ideological stream and feeding on spiritual detritus

Shollypopzz:
Equating homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality makes no damn sense.

It makes exact sense. They are exactly alike, (deviant) paraphilias - afterall, y'all claim homosexual feelings are natural inclinations don't you?

Shollypopzz:
What he meant by love between the two is "consent". A child cannot give consent, neither can an animal.

1. A child can absolutely give consent - and the issue of consent regards children is a mere "statutory point"
2. And gay-homosexuals know this, hence the reason hy they are the main drivers in the campaign to keep lowering it.
3. And consent does not make a thing moral

Shollypopzz:
Olodo Pastor, lesbians are gay too. You meant male homosexuals right?? Wrong! ...... females in heterosexual relationships come second in regards to victims of domestic violence.

Gay is typically used in reference to men - and lesbian to distinguish female homos.
Nope it's lezzas, then fairies. Can you imagine? It must be all the rectal violence ! Who comes first from your sources? Bristling bull-dykes no?

Shollypopzz:
You were making sense until you mentioned morality. Unless, there is an objective and inborn morality, this point should remain in the trash.

Yes, fagtivists hate to talk about morality or the essence of what homos do physically. But we allhave consciences - no to mention the functional teleology of male/female is obviously beyond gainsaying.

There is a moral law and a Lawgiver. We shall all answer.

TV

FrancisTony:
Argument closed. No more replying and nobody should give me a mention again.

My thumbs aches!

Couldn't resist one final one. Na only thumb ache? How's your back? !


TV

Shollypopzz:
@crackhaus: Thank you jare! I always side-eye these christian feminists that blatantly deny the obvious sexism in the bible. BTW, do Christians really believe the Adam and Eve story to be true?

Welcome

There are no such things as "Christian-Feminists" (aka Femistians ); they are the most deluded bunch around. Like Pickabeau1 says "oil & water"

It's not sexism it role division and hierarchy. Men on top ! Note 1 Peter 7 below; equally heirs, but different in role/responsibility.

How did human beings come to be?


Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


1 Peter 3 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands... 7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.


TV

crackhaus:
That article is a very poor attempt at sounding intellectual, very poor - the best way to misinterpret the scriptures is to try applying logic in its interpretation, and that is what the writer did.

Bro, there are too many things wrong with that article... I would have loved to tear it apart bit by bit, but my fingers ache right now.

Word C. Very well written!

It seems like this FrancisTony doesn't even have the capacity for critical reflection, let alone original thought.


TV

^{...no need to tear this one apart bit by bit...the single swipe mauling you gi' am don reesh !}

FrancisTony:
Too bad, I don't quote rètards.
I'm not here to impress anyone and I stand with my ideology no matter the useless tag I receive.

You are a deviant apologist

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n2/Vol.%2014,%20No.%202,%203%20Baldwin.pdf

They want to sexualise and indoctrinate young and impresssionable school chidren - in order to exploit and violate them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11517177/Promote-gay-relationships-as-positive-in-school-teachers-say.html
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/apr/05/schools-should-teach-positive-portrayal-of-same-sex-relationships-says-nut


TV

^{...I won't apologise for derailing. This issue is too important for bogus protocols and genteel civilities}

njokusboy:
Francistony, did you say you whooped this dudes a's's.... I wonder how...
Can I get a link... so I can decide?

FrancisTony:
First thread that we came across https://www.nairaland.com/2232890/please-homosexualism-natural-chosen-lifestyle/3#32301984
2nd thread https://www.nairaland.com/2247718/jide-macaulay-nigerian-gay-pastor/6#32567268
His last post on that thread and it was filled with vitriol. https://www.nairaland.com/2247718/jide-macaulay-nigerian-gay-pastor/7#32573095

I actually read the first of those threads; not only did you not "whoop" anybody' ass, you made a number of decietful & fallacious statements.

At emboldened, Yes!, Homosexuality is controlled by gene - research to show yourself approved

Lie, twin studies would prove this beyond all doubt - all the studies so far have shown that identical twin brothers (who are genetically identical) are no more likely to be gay than fraternal twin brothers; at around 11%.

Gays love theirselves unlike bestiality(who only satisfy themselves by having sex), same as paedephiles.

Another lie; "Animal lovers" and lovers of children, both claim a real love and that the "sexual contact" is both beneficial and welcomed by the object of their affections

It might interest you to know that homosexual men have peaceful marriage and co-existence more than heterosexual married man and woman.

Yet more lies; fact lesbian relationships are the most violent, closely followed by gay ones.

You also affirmed missclassy' blatant lie that homosexuals are born that way. Not true. Babies are not born sexualised, they are born functionally equipped to mate with members of the opposite sex. The prompts to activate this kick-in later. If that does not happen, it's due to malfunction. End of. And even if it was natural, it does not make it moral. Nature does not determine morality or force behaviour.

You are the one who needs to do some research ! Although I rather suspect that in order to appear enlightenend, liberal and progressive you have wedded yourelf to certain ideological positions and don't actually care for the truth a smuch as you do your sense of ideological smugness.

Not only are you bemedalled save-a-hoer, you are also fast becoming NL' Main "Fagtivist". Carry go, but you do know you've lost this one - given the array of mature and critically thinking people ranged against you - not to mention Gods truth !


TV


...and one other thing, homosexuality is closely aligned with pederasty (paedophilia).

^{cc lezz craziebone}

LordReed:
The number one characteristic of an arranged marriage is that the initial choice is not one the intending couple make but is made for them by family.

I don't agree - if one uses a dating service or the internet or friends introduce a couple, does that make it an arranged marriage?

The choice to marry is always the couples. And in many case the decision to even meet. Although the whole point of having others filter prosepctive spouses is to ensure a high degree of suitability.

LordReed:
A forced marriage goes on to negate any choice either of the intending couple may indicate. This makes forced marriage a SUBSET of arranged marriage.

Per my response immediately above, it does not.

If a couple meet - say randomly and then ask for their parents permission - in lieu of which they will not marry - does that indicate an arranged marriage?

LordReed:
BTW I don't even know why this is an issue as I am not even discussing the merits or lack of.

Neither do I. I'll try harder to read threads through in future


TV

5minsmadness:
I've stated my opinion. tv01 has put it very nicely there again. if you keep on insisting that NOTHING GOOD AT ALL can come out of arranged marriage then there is nothing more to say. let's agree to disagree.

I'm sure the sense in the premise will assert itself .

I was actually about to post further;

Funnily enough, a "prospective spouse", that is well grounded in their marriage culture and has a good understanding of what is required will effectively "self-police" in lieu of any "arranging framework.

And in truth, one properly ready for marriage should be able to do so. I certainly did. I searched for, located and vetted my wife all by myself. I then introduced her to my family and presented her at family settings (and vice versa).

In some ways, it was "reverse arranged". More so, as we met when I was invited along to an occassion by a friend - specifically because there would be eligible women present.

Further, after having initially met her, my friend was able to provide some basic background info which helped expedite things.

Many of the elements of "arranged" were present, just not in the customary manner.


TV

LordReed:
A forced marriage is arranged is it not?

Yes - and how does that make arranged and forced marriages categorically the same or similar?

All marriages are arranged in the sense you speak of. Without "arangement", no marriage happens.


TV

LordReed:
You do realise that forced marriage is a subset of arranged marriage don't you?

Pray tell, how do you come to that conclusion? I must onfess to not reading the whole thread - did I miss something posted earlier?

In an arranged marriage, consent from the two prospective spouses is required - in fact, the decision to actually meet is down to them. How does that equate to forced?

All arranged marriages do is facilitate and provide oversight.


TV

5minsmadness hi,

Love your premise. Meant to post a while back after reading the OP, then the thread and I kept on missing each other. I am absolutely a fan of arranged marriages and would consider then objectively better than those termed love marriages.

I don’t personally consider an arranged marriage one where, sight unseen, two families agree to marry off their children – without recourse to them and possibly before they are even born – sometimes for some other underlying reason such as an oath or debt. I consider those forced marriages.

For me, arranged marriages in the good/proper sense, is where the parents/elders take an active role in helping set selection criteria and vetting potential spouses. The final decision still rests with the two individuals.

It should of course be preceded by grounding their children in what marriage actually is and what it entails in a real pragmatic and practical sense. And have particular emphasis on what character attributes are essential for a fulfilling marriage.

It can be fairly loose or more formal and can even take on a more communal feel. A great example of this is the debutante season that was a highlight of the social calendar here in times past.

All it really entailed, was families of a certain social standing arranging for their young men and women to make social contact in an enabling environment – and hopefully things would natural happen. I know this may be a little harder in our more global times, but it is absolutely doable.

I think Ewuro4 mentioned plans for something like that at a family level. I actually know of someone who entered a much more formal arranged marriage – “only because I want to please my parents” – after 3 years she was totally in love. Why? She had a husband who acted accordingly – and ultimately that’s what sustains marriages.


I followed BabyOsisi' marital advice to new and intending thread and the one thing that struck me strongly was that most of the women would have been much better served and most of the issues raised obviated by involving their elders in their relationships. And at it's heart, that's what arranged marriages are really about.

Good one


TV

jennybright:
I saw three condom in my husband's car I didn't confront him yet because he travelled the following day and will be back by next week. My question now is how do I present the matter in such a way he will feel my pain or should I let it go. I don't want to have heart attack or high BP for my kids sake that is why I'm trying hard not to think about it. All the same I still thank God at least he uses condom to avoid bringing disease to the whole family. God bless you all.

Sorry to hear this, there is really no pleasant aspect to your discovery. The fact that you have to sit on this until he returns, aren't sure how he will react, can't be sure of what this truly means, or be certain about the eventual outcome must all be very worrying.

You are doing the right thing with your intention to confront him and you have been duly advised to adopt the right tone and timing. One good thing about having some time before this discussion, is that you can think long and hard about what you will say, what you will demand and how you will deal with the possible outcomes.

It would be glib of me to proffer advice without knowing more about you & your situation, your husband, or the dynamics of your union, but I note you mentioned children - you sound like you will have their well-being at the forefront of your mind in dealing with this matter.

I have been hypothetical today and will continue in that vein. I'll suppose you are in a marriage properly entered into, too which you are both committed. First if you have faith, pray.

Then think about what outcome you want and what exactly you are prepared both to do and to accept. Then when you have this sit down, ask for him hear you out. Tell him exactly what you found, how shocked you were, how it made you feel and your concern for the impact on your union. Then ask for an explanation.

Depending on his explanation - and I'm not assuming he is guilty, that he will admit it if he is, he may even go on the offensive - you need to make him aware that it is unacceptable if he did, and what you found implicates him in something wrong, even if he didn't

I'm here if you'd like to share more detail and discuss more - otherwise all the very best and whatever the case, may you find long-term happiness in your marriage and joy in your family. Be resolute, be strong.


TV

Moana:
the very first sentence states that she is directing her comment to black men...like i said this is pointless. You cannot pick out anything

DARK SKIN is the essence of true blackness and if these fakers were really and truly conscious they would MARRY DARK SKINNED WOMEN!!!

TV01:
Nope the title is fine. The comments were directed at Ken due to his choice of a light skinned black woman. She is clealry implying that light skin is in some way not as authentic or representative of black. If anything Ken should hold his peace and right thinking sisters - of all hues - should administer a good paddling to rash Rashida.

njokusboy:
You lack deductive reasoning....

TV

Moana:
just one sentence please or this is completely pointless

FAKE CONSCIOUS COON ASS RAPPER KENDRICK LAMAR PART 2.
I see calling out and exposing self hating fake black men who speak about consciousness but date and marry NON DARK SKIN WOMEN brought you haters to my page. WELL SHARE THIS MUTHERFUKING POST!!! These type of fake coons are the worst of the worst. DARK SKIN is the essence of true blackness and if these fakers were really and truly conscious they would MARRY DARK SKINNED WOMEN!!! You pissed ?? GOOD!!!

TV

Moana:
like i said show me one sentence she directed to light skinned women?

...and if the issue is not light skinned women - "lightness" - why was anything directed at anyone in the first place?


TV

...I'll pretend you're my little sister for a moment;


Me - he said what?
Lil' Sis - recounts story!

Me - thank him for his honesty and tell him it's over. Next time as soon as you feel a relationship may be getting serious or a guy is looking likely, appropriately express your heartfelt desires and commence due dilligence. Don't wait 3 bloody years.

Me - and another thing, it's always best - and could save you a lot of potential heartache - if you conduct any relationships with Daddy' oversight - or in lieu, an appropriate family elder.

Me - and finally if you do choose to go ahead and marry this guy, it's almost certain that you'll not have fully grasped all it entails and you may find the burden heavy - and there is very little we your family can do once you are actually in it. Over to you sis...


TV

Moana:
Last time i checked it has always been dark skinned men who discriminate against dark skinned women by making them feel like they are inferior to women of other races that are lighter

Check again.

Moana:
all i saw was a comment directed to Kendrick, please show me where she directed the comment to light skinned females? Kindly read it again and correct your title.

Nope the title is fine. The comments were directed at Ken due to his choice of a light skinned black woman. She is clealry implying that light skin is in some way not as authentic or representative of black. If anything Ken should hold his peace and right thinking sisters - of all hues - should administer a good paddling to rash Rashida.


TV

cococandy:
Oh well I don't think she's submissive but that's not for me to say since I'm not in the relationship with them.

It's actually something I heard way back - even before her 72 day "marriage". It was about how she really "took care" of her men, and that really struck me. I think it's something a lot of women could learn from as I think many don't really get it - or do it very well.

We all know that women love to be pampered and they typically put it out there and expect it. I feel they get it more as it hinges onto the "provider" expectation of men. I don't think men demand it in quite the same way, but they love it just as much.

And you did well to spot that, as while it's not "submissiveness" in a strict sense, I see it as very much an adjunct quality. It would be difficult to do one without the other.

cococandy:
At least even if she is, it is not the brand we hear around here. So understand my surprise that an NL dude much less you considers her a submissive woman.

Maybe we are guilty of not clearly defining our terms of reference. I always kind of figured many women feel submission = slavery/unquestioning obedience, but I never heard any man state that here on NL in a discussion I've participated in.

cococandy:
Meaning I must have misunderstood you all along or you must have miscommunicated your definition of submissiveness at some point.

For me it's never been more than a wife recognising her husband as head and being willing to defer to his authority if instances they can't mutually agree a way forward.

If anything it demands more of the men as it burdens him with resposibility and forces him to demonstrate leadership. And the actual "wielding of authority" will rarely be in view and cannot characterise every aspect of their relationship or colour all their interactions. It's mostly to regulate DIL/MIL interactions !

cococandy:
Did you say no one equates submissiveness to unquestioning obedience? Maybe you don't but many do.

Yes I said that. Please name these brothers and I'll have a quiet word !

cococandy:
It is well.

Sounds like it just got better.


TV

Stillfire:
The thread has run its cause. Everything that needs to be said have been said.

Maybe, maybe not...but I'm happy to close...njokusboy, on to the next one please !

...uno momento

cococandy:
I agree with feminity but submissiveness?
I've heard it all
I thought I heard it all when Beyoncé and Amber rose were handed to us as examples to follow.
Now I'm sure I've heard it all.
KK an example in female submissiveness?
I take it you've never watched an episode of the kardashians.
I'm sorry I'm must have been reading you guys wrong all my stay on nairaland.

My original post;

TV01:
I must say words fail me for Kanye - or any man that would wife a woman of that sort. Having said that Hollywood values are somewhat different. And one thing I've noted before, femininity and submissiveness; I understand KK has that in spades. Take a leaf women. But no mojo clips.

As clearly stated, I would never consider KK a role model or indeed wife material, but I have heard that she really caters to her man, properly indulges them - that's akin to submissiveness, which in any event no one has ever likened to unquestioning obedience. As for femininity, apart from being well endowed, she presents to appeal to men.

I only gave her credit for two things I heard she gets right, it wasn't an endorsement. I haven't watched the show and doubt that her relationship dynamics with Kanye are honestly portrayed there. I don't endorse Beyonce or Amber either - not that they are scouring NL eagerly waiting for me to give them my stamp of approval !

Close

TV

Stillfire:
Which seething hate? You guys can hype yourself sha. You just want to cause katakata between women. It won't work on me. I am pro-female first before anything. I love my white sisters!

I am also pro-female and love my white sisters and white sister-in law

Stillfire:
Thanks for mentioning India. India is very apt here. They come a close second to black men in elevating lighter skin.

But white men have a deep seated and enduring thing for Indian women. Lightness preference is not primarily interracial, it's intraracial.


TV

Stillfire:
You all should just admit to your color issue is all I ask. I am not anti interracial dating abeg. Stop making Strober think you are 'conscious', then she will start crying on the net when you break her heart, giving black men ammo to insult black women in general.

...if black women had a better product and hence choice they wouldn't give a rats arse about what black men said or did. Fact. It's not black men that have an issue with interracial dating or get all fixated on pixelation is it?


TV

Stillfire:
Really TV? You want us to believe that this does not cut across class. Or the intellectual black man don't have this same preference? What do you say of these African Presidents? On which continent do you see a leader with a different race of women as his leading lady? Africa of course!

Ivory Coast
https://292fc373eb1b8428f75b-7f75e5eb51943043279413a54aaa858a.r38.cf3.rackcdn.com/world_09_temp-1306046723-4dd8b103-620x348.jpg

Gabon
[img]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5-ayUXO3nRwq0OKjMkSgYDn9rDga7Xkqh522atRHtDQGQj2zv[/img]

...and Sonia Ghandi - who was the rulers spouse and then the ruler in India - was not Italian?

Black men have higher desirability and wider choice. Simples. It means that even lower class black men have more options - so yes, it does cut across class

My bro' was dating a Brazilian and I went round to his with 3 Naija sisters for a party. Brazil babe later complained about the seething hate she felt. Main sister who was my friend admitted that the girls were pissed that even as they struggle to find quality brothers, foreign chicks were encroaching - "it's so unfair" - it's not just Rashida !


TV