₦airaland Forum

pickabeau1:
Simple

The Bible said women should submit

Feminism is counter to that

Next

Pick, in as much as FrancisTony is often beset by "GaayBrain", he is correct on this one. A thorough reading of the whole bible will clearly show that monogamous opposite sex unions are what Christianity views as normative and godly marriage.

Polygamy in the scriptural narrative is always beset with problems - from incest, to violence, to bloodshed to physical and spiritual unfaithfulness. It may not have been specifically named as sin and yes, it was at one point winked at, but it is not Christian.

In the early church Elders were to be an example - hence Pauls insistence on them being monogamous. Further, the criteria for Christian men and godly living does not vary, or accord to clerical vs lay classes of worshippers - which is not actually a christian principle regardless of the MOG syndrome that's so prevelent. And ultimately, all Christian men should grow to that level.

FrancisTony:
Simple
Jesus said one man to a woman for them to become one.
Polygamy is a counter to that.
Next!

FrancisTiny, you aren't doing a bad job here today. You've earned yourself some goodwill. I had a few e-slaps in storage for you
Think long and hard, pray even, about becoming a disciple of Christ - you'd make a good one.

TV

Sadly there are many relationship pathologies that Black America has to deal with. And, unfortunatlely, these have been getting steadily worse since the point in time – mid last century – when Black American family indicators were as good as any other races.

It’s worth noting as a phenomenon in itself, and as an indicator of where the populace (and not just the American populace, but worldwide and certainly in the West) as a whole may be heading, as a lot of the reasons for the pathologies are now taking root more broadly.

At the top end, women are outpacing men academically and as a consequence financially. This is unavoidably leading to a change in the relationship dynamic in terms of power/authority. Many women are now demanding “equality”, if not outright control in relationships where they contribute significantly, equally or more.

On this face of it, this may seem fine in a “control” sense, but doesn’t really work in a needs and desires sense. Women typically want men who are higher status than they are (although this status is more than just wealth/income). And long-term, tend to be dissatisfied with being partner to a lower status male.

Men on the other hand typically want greater authority and women who are more feminine – not women who feel they have to, or can compete with them in all ramifications.

Whilst it’s easy to say let every man/woman or couple find their level, on a wider scale it has consequences for the overall family dynamic and health.

The “over-achieving” women at the top end who are not willing to adjust effectively price themselves out of the market. Earnings are not typically high on the list of desirables a man looks for in a woman.

Of course, men could also adjust; but this means becoming more “feminine” in outlook/nature (chopping ewedu leaves as “T” would say) – but women do not really desire such men long-term, and will be more likely to cheat or wreck the relationship.

^{As an aside, I’d like to touch on chores; yes, there are gains for men and families if men get involved to a degree. But sharing chores or being allocated them by your wife will not do anything for the relationship. She will not value => fancy => or sex you more. Further, the more you are delivering on your side, the less you have to. Conversely, if you are not delivering on your end, doing more chores will not increase your stock. Simply put; women screaming for equality in chores are liars or married to betas.}

It means the few men that do meet up – or find other ways to boost their Alpha – have way too much choice and little incentive to settle down. Another phenomenon worth noting is the “informal polygamy” that goes on in that strata in black America. Men having a number of lovers who openly compete for the his favour. The instinct to “marry up” is so strong many women would rather share than marry down.

Further down, the women that are not as accomplished still shriek the same mantras of equality. Cries of “independent/strong black woman”. And did I mention they also feel they deserve the “best men”? They are also effectively pricing themselves out – especially as there are options for the men here.

This essentially translates into single mother – most likely welfare dependent to some degree. Even the "over-achievers" often end up as single mothers. up to 70% of black children are born out of wedlock and in many places - if not yet overall - more pregnancies are aborted than delivered. Akatas are tapping out.

Whatever men and women want, demand or desire, enough of them have to come together to form strong and healthy families. Otherwise society suffers. It’s all well and good playing us vs them or patronisingly sneering at black American society, but like the good book says “You who think you stand take heed”. Take care or we’ll be there in no time. Or do you think we aren’t on the way?


TV^MIC

Timbuktou:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOjvPOBvd9A



Discuss.

Cc:
Freecocoa
Bukatyne
Pickabeau1
TV01
Crackhaus
Nonso23

I can't view this on the lappy Im using - Jnr somehow activated the BT parental control and I'm too thick to de-activate it . Co-incidentally I believe I've seen this - kinda of confirmed by the "prostitute" comments. I remember the fat black female women essentially tarring it as a "paid service"

It can't be good when black men seek an alternative to black women. For the black family and especially for black women who are lower on the desirability hierarchy. Sorry eh . But all men will seek alternatives to women who seemingly offer low relationship value.

White American males are also looking further abroad to south American and the more unspoilt parts of Europe. And they've had a thing for the Indian/oriental girl forever. In all, it's essentially a desire for more feminine women - who let them be men.

I'm not sure it will affect the demographics of Akata romance to much sha - not that it's in great shape anyweay. For now it seems to be older (and slightly shop worn to be honest) men. And I don't see evidence of a real exodus; especially where these men are establishing families - there was no evidence of that.

So whilst it may not have been purely transactional, it didn't appear permanent - merely a good time thing. Generally black men and latino babes - ATBE - are a good fit. Right now I don't see this as being more than niche - like black US servicemen and German women.


TV

Sophyrocks:
Thats because he is one of the modern day pharisees and scribes.

Sophie, Sophie, Sophie, how far? How’s your relationship going?

- Have you ensured he has twice daily change of designer brand boxers?
- What of a minimum once daily thorough scrub of his member and scrotal sac all the way to his anus?
- And ensuring alum is used during the above and medicated dusting powder afterwards?
- Have you checked for hallitosis and ensured he use a lekky toothbrush and baking soda paste

Have you advised him that the following may result in your cheating;

- falling away from having a perfect body – ideally that of a gay porn star,
- any deviation from 100% attention, daily wooing and incessant giving of gifts
- anything you consider “prejaculation” (abi you are taking your NL aunties advice and checking that one beforehand?)

Is he aware of your descent from savages and barbarians? What of your congenital pathological hatred for his mum? Is he “Alpha” – silly question, if he were he wouldn’t be checking you . Has he popped the question yet? Don’t answer that – purely rhetorical

Shelf still comfortable ?


TV

OP,

1. Never pursue wildly or be supplicant to a woman
2. Never be overly caught up in your feelings for a woman - especially one that's not your wife

I will not castigate or shame you for your decidedly unmanly whimpering in this instance - as long as you commit to never doing it again !

Are you giving her money? If so stop.

Acquaint yourself with some local hotties.

End of


TV

kandiikane:
if that link you posted answered the question, we won't still be on here.

And if it didn't, why did you not say you were not satisfied with that response - and state the reasons why

kandiikane:
I don't even know why I responded to your post. It becomes irritating when someone beats about the bush without answering a simple question asked. Stop arguing when you have no relevant contributions to make on the topic raised.

Actually you are the one who not only failed to add value, you actually regressed & toxified the discussion; and here's why;

You claimed marriage benefitted men and listed those benefits as ones that always came at the expense of women, thus;
1. Denying women true agency
2. Making marriage oppressive of women
3. Failing to note any benefits of marriage to women

At which point I responded and stated that marriage benefits both paties and the whole. As opposed to your tirade that it benefitted men at the expense of women.

I also posited that it beneffited women somewhat more all told as it evened out the burden of child-rearing. All the ranting & roundabouting you've subsequently posted just shows how unbalanced your thinking is on this issue - which is evident from your first post and why I said you have much in common with the OP.

kandiikane:
Have I not mentioned how couples are raising children without being married? So why are you arguing an irrelevant point to the topic at hand when raising a child can be done without being married?

Show how little you really grasp; apart from woefully mis-ascribing the bible, you appear not to understand that children flourish best in marriage, without the possibility of children there would be little use for the institution, and it's the safest form of domestic arrangement for women.

No one has claimed that procreation or child rearing cannot be done outside marriage - just why it's best within it

kandiikane:
Gosh man, I feel my brain cells dying anytime I quote you. Please remind me not to ever respond to you again because it seems I am arguing with a brick

Anyone who can sense individual brain cells dying obviously doesn't have an abundance of them - as you've clearly evidenced . Try and stick to topics you are familiar with. And you'll find that in anything other than the lowest company coarse ad-hominem does not register.

You've been duly charged, respond if you are able, or do us both a favour !


TV^MIC

teebarbie:
I knew you would be here. U seems to like any thread that has 'single mums' in it. Lolz

...is that how to greet me !

Yes 0, I am here, why will I look while people try and force us to celebrate a societal ill.

No beef against single mothers - I have a large extended family and we have instances - but it is simply not the best for the children and rarely for the mothers. The drain on wider family and cost to society is clearly evident.

Single moms trying to sell themselves as martyr does not wash. It's best avoided fact, and children are best raised in the committed unions of both their parents.

Why not give understanding before the fact rather than pretend it's all good after - when it is not! Funnily enough it's women that diss them the most.


TV^MIC

coogar:
every man & his dog knows homosëxuals are extremely violent. the top ten serial killers in the world are faggöts! their relationships are also rife with violence.

Abeg, don't mind the inverterate derailer called Shollypopz aka Bananabender. She must have found her ideology on her "women and gender studies" course. Or whilst nosing around in a feeding trough - same difference

TV

Shollypopzz:
Jesus! I have been feeding a troll! There is no argument here because what you're saying is untrue and utter trash. I refuse to make myself your entertainment/break from poop and crying.

How old do you think I am and what misspent youth are you yapping about? Don't answer. Just GO!

Make your assertion as loud as thunder - it does not change the truth in the least. Gay culture is narcissistic. And among other things deeply misogynistic (they objectify women as breeders), casually sexist, ageist and racist.

It's also evident in their galloping promiscuity, relationship violence, perverse sexual practice and rampant drug use - think chemo-sex. Their inability to form and keep relationships and rabid activism to legitimise their illness

Let me go and rightly raise my offspring, lest they walk under the same cloud of delusion that rained on you !

Faaag-haaag


TV

kandiikane:
TV01
All this is irrelevant when you are yet to show me how marriage is more beneficial to women.

Asked and answered already - https://www.nairaland.com/2199777/thread-nairalanders-hate-marriage/2#31715506

kandiikane:
You do not need marriage to have children, many couples have children without being married so I do not get the point you are trying to make. The discussion of children is irrelevant to why you quoted me.

It is relevant to marriage. Firstly, it's pivotal to why we have marriage and secondly and consequent to the first point, it's the certified best way to raise children. No one said procreation requires wedlock, what we are saying is wedlock optimises procreative outcomes - ATBE.

kandiikane:
How can I get the bible wrong when I actually made no quotations from it? Even if I did provide prove on how my reference to the bible is wrong. I honestly do not understand your point.

You mis-ascribed what the Bible prescribed regards marriage.

kandiikane:
You know what, fine! If you want to make it a man vs women issue, then so be it. It just shows the insecurities of men failing to accept the truth. Yes, marriage did oppress women and still does in some ways, these are also true. Before I spoke of making peace, securing assets etc, but since you want it to be men vs women, marriage was made for the benefit of men to control women like cattle, it gave an average man authority over another human being just because of gender differences. It gave a man the right to sleep with as many women as he liked without any judgments.

A marriage advocate cannot rightly have a male vs. female mindset. Marriage per se did not afford men the "benefit" you describe; even if certain men/cultures ascribed that "benefit" to themselves.

kandiikane:
Even on this forum, you can see the ways men look forward to getting married just so they can oppress another human being and to be put on a pedestal they do not deserve just because of what? For being born a man. They look forward to the life where they can demand undeserved respect which they never got from their peers. And you TV01 are going to sit here and deny this? Anyways, all this is irrelevant because you are yet to break down the statement you made, which is similar to the one op made.

Indeed, I will vehemently deny it . Please show me where any man has stated his aim of getting married to "oppress his wife"
Breakdown? Which statement??

kandiikane:
All I asked you was to answer this question, how is marriage more beneficial to women? What you have been doing is beating about the bush without making a point relating to the questions asked---this is want you to quote, not anything else.

As stated; asked and answered already.

kandiikane:
This was why I responded to you just in case you have forgotten! It's funny how people go around saying marriage is more beneficial to women yet cannot provide any evidence to support it.

Yawn. The investment in children via birth and nurture invariably places a heavier toll on women. Think of the gestation period alone. A mans effort is minimal and limited to the point of conception.

A man committed to a woman and any offspring they may have "equalises" things somewhat and additionally, provides the best setting for those children.

kandiikane:
If you aren't going to provide a tangible response to my question, I am done. Goodnight!

Goodnight if you are going to keep "roundabouting" .


TV

Shollypopzz:
Jesus! You are even more of a weirdo than I thought. So, because someone made a thread criticizing the attitude of gays in a particular forum, therefore gays are violent, racist, misogynistic and b1tchy?!!

How is that link a proof of an existing stereotype?? Seriously, go back to daddy duties and stop talking with your a*ss.

Be quiet fagh-hagh...read the thread it's a commentary on gay culture. And in one word it's described as "vile" - by a bona fide bender. All your ideological posturing and cant cannot change that.

Go find a man who will overlook your misspent youth and dark past and maybe take you under his authority. Perhaps 3rd wife or concubine is something you might reasonably shoot for - have a makeover first sha!

Daddy daycare


TV

^{**and please try and rise above your antecedents and not blaspheme - it's not clever or funny**}

Shollypopzz:
The same ol' balderdash year after year. Even kids won't make you any smarter or mature.

I am going to ignore the blatant generalization but where in the world are gays known for being racist, violent or misogynistic? Do you walk around with blind folds on or do you surround yourself with fellow foolish people who create jargon about people with different sexual orientation?
The rubbish you're saying is not even a stereotype, so I can't call you ignorant. You are just a liar! Please keep your malformed opinions to yourself.


YES!............LMAO @ "sent packing". A christian who specializes in lying, no surprise there.

Get out of here with your bogus SJW'ish and delusional ideological leaning ....first gay site I pulled up
http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=11185048#page:showThread,11185048

And why ignore the "blatant generalisation na"

Faag-haag


TV

Shollypopzz:
This is why I hate women who stay with an abusive man for the sake of their children. They do more harm to those kids by staying.

Bollox - or at best subjective.

First, the threshold of what is considered abuse is very low right now. And unless it's an extreme case - whichever of the spouses is being abusive - the children will still do better if their parents remain together.

Children' main concern is to have both their parents presence and nurture. And it has been proven that they thrive best in this arrangement - even where there is low level conflict (which it so happens characterises quite a few relationships).

Please quit making sensationalist statements !


Thanks

TV

...as ever solipsistic women without the ability for self-introspection make it all about themselves. We are more concerned about the kids wilfully deprived of a fathers presence.

And yes, society rightfully frowns upon single-motherhood, as it comes with a cost - typically bourne by society. Or how many of you celebrating it are at ease with your taxes being squandered?

Hypocrites .

TV

kandiikane:
oh so now, it's beneficial to both sexes, so why exactly did you state otherwise before? Why didn't you just say so in the beginning?

I have never stated otherwise - not in this thread or any other. How could I? I am a marriage advocate

kandiikane:
My initial post wasn't about what the bible says about marriage but what marriage was about in history.

Albeit you still managed to get what the bible prescribes absolutely wrong and mistook some of the things marriage may have been used to do with what marriage was for. I gave you the "papers" example already

kandiikane:
My post was never intended to be a case of men vs women, you made it to be that way. From my post, a reasonable man won't see it in such light as all the things I wrote were mostly beneficial for him. He could marry off his child to secure assets for example, this is a positive for him, not a negative so I don't understand how you deduced that it was just a male vs woman issue I raised. It's just facts and nothing to do with the feud that is going on between the men and women on this forum.

Again, you did exactly what you claim not to have done - all the benefits you listed for men denied or somehow compromised the agency of marriage. Hence making marriage oppressive of women. And they are hardly the core benefits or aims of marriage per se.

kandiikane:
Yes, children benefit from marriages, this still hasn't answered my question on how marriage is more beneficial to women. This is not about the children.

Read again. And yes, children are central to the coming into being of marriage. Otherwise it's just men and women flenturing, for which we need no such institution and which could be ordered exactly as each couple wanted.

kandiikane:
Now that most men don't use their children to secure assets, the benefits are based more on individuality rather than the sexes but it still doesn't change the fact that it was made for the benefit of men.

You are still groping on the darkness here. I've repeatedly pointed out that what marriage may or may not have been used to accomplish does not change it's essence. And you persist in setting men against women by claiming marriage was made for mens benefit.


TV^MIC

Shollypopzz:
This is also coming from the person that has never met a happily married feminist. I just can't stand when someone says complete rubbish with so much confidence. Don't you have a baby to take care of? Go change diapers and wash baby bottles!

...do you have facts to the contrary. Gays are notorious for their all round bitchery - and well known for being violent, racist, misogynistic and ageist. They are probsbly the worst homophobes to boot

Are you a feminist? Are you happily married? End of story

And yes, I do have a baby to take care of - just fed and winded her - unlike some here who don't understand why they possess wombs, others who specialise in making imprecatory prayers in the hope that it wouldn't happen, and yet others, whose psychosis drives them to spam the whole place with pictures of children who obviously aren't theirs. Which one are you, and what's your point exactly?

Are you adding Fagg-hagism atop your crytpo feminism. Come, are you BananaBender - the one I sent packing


TV

5minsmadness:
Same with the females in this forum. A lot of angst and unnecessary poison against the male gender.


There should be some sort of forgiveness/healing session or something.

TV01 can moderate it

...humbly at your service - in pursuit of better marriage and flourishing societies.

First up; They (men,women) are not the enemy - "seek first to understand then to be understood"


TV^MIC

kandiikane:
@TV01
If you actually read my post instead of quoting to argue against, you will see where I specifically wrote modern marriages, op is to referring love and hurt. And I specifically referred to the history of marriage. I am sure you went to school and can differentiate when someone speaks of history and when someone speaks of modern.

I did read you post actually - and again just now before responding to this one - just to be sure !
And no, I didn't quote you merely to argue against you, but because, I disagreed with your publicly aired statement. Although I whole-heartedly affirm I always find you worth "debating" !

kandiikane:
The modern day idea of marriage, the idea many people have even by non-Christians has its origins from the bible, involving love, etc. The idea has been bastardized for so long that it has turned into a fairytale, people should be happy and grateful that they can actually now freely marry for love and not just for some contractual reasons enacted by men to further their interests. You should read up on the history of marriages, maybe even try your own culture. Ask a Nigerian about marriage and see whether he won't quote bible.

Firstly, we'd have to agree on what the biblical presrciption for marriage really is - sas opposed to what people may believe it is. Then we'd have to see if it had been correctly adhered to, in correctly implemented or bastardised.

And believe you me - I am the "marriage man". I understand it in it's raison d'etre, it's dynamic and it's benefits, anthroplogically, religiously and culturally. None of that changes the true essence of marriage and it's purpose. I champion it "aspirationally"

kandiikane:
Can you please explain to me how it benefits women more?

Primarily as it means she and her children are invested in by a man commited to their well-being. In a sense, women have more to lose given what they contribute to child-bearing and the fact that even after birth the burden of child-raising typically falls unevenly on them.

kandiikane:
what because she won't be called names anymore?

Like I said aspirationally. I am not distracted by ill-founded cultural norms. Nor do I lose focus on marriages true essence due to abuse of it.

kandiikane:
Because she can have a child since women are the only humans who want children?

A proper understanding of marriage will enbale one to see the centrality of children to it's existence and childrens benefit from it.

Like I said, I focus and champion marriage on it's true essence - you appear to be railing against abuses. Hence my earlier comments. You also seem to be pursuing a male vs female line - although that may be in reaction to OP.

kandiikane:
What benefits will marriage provide for her after achieving everything she needs for herself?

Marriage is not primarily about the self-actualisation of the two individuals within it - more the synergistic outcome of the two and any offspring.

kandiikane:
The op and I are quite different as I do not hate marriage, I just don't see how women benefit more from it or why it is being painted as a "heaven" where women should aspire to be, especially in these times when single women are achieving more than they ever will if they were married. You make it seem like men are doing women favours by getting married to them.

My take is that you both yourself and OP fail to understand it, it's benefits to both sexes, or appreciate it for it's beauty and simplicity.

I'd love to see you well married !


TV^MIC

Fhemmmy:
If she was going by my philosophy, she would have sued at that time for child support, and that will be against future fortune of such man.

Broda, you are trying, but seriously sounding like a man with no assets or no woman . It makes little or no sense. At least there should be some sort of cap and statute of limitations. What if he becomes a billionaire in 10 years time? Does she get to revisit. Will there be a refund if he turns broke-ass?

The child ceases to be a minor at 18 - he's now 30 somehting. Even if she wanted back-payment for rasing his child, "the 2nd of her 4 by 3 different men", I doubt she spent anywhere close to £2million.


TV

Timbuktou:
The damage has been done already. The world is upside down and we can't even see that, that's what's most sickening and scary. Have you heard of Dubai porta potties? You go weep for humanity.

Yes na. But in some ways it's not new. Like I said earlier, all we have to show for Ferminism is ultra-sluttiness. And is it any worse than women copulating with animals for money?

Timbuktou:
Where's the family unit today? Its now about pseudo-respect and false rights. Like the bible says not all permissible things should be indulged in, I believe this is where feminism has missed. Going for it all.

From a biblical perspective, feminism is pure anti-Christ. No gainsaying. Bad is now called good - by law. Isaiah 10:1, Daniel etc.

Timbuktou:
Speaking of unsustainable, at this rate, the western civilisation cannot continue to support this decadence and level of perversion and hope to survive a determined and formidable opponent. I don't know the strength of the likes of ISIS but if Russia and China are up for it, there could be a shift in the balance of power as we know it.

When ISIS land on these shores there will be few men to defend them - and those that can may well prefer ISIS. In a sense, they already have, the Rotherham sex scandal and al the radicalised/extremist nutters roaming the UK are signs.

Watch and pray


TV

kandiikane:
Op, you should do research on the history of marriage before saying that it is for women etc. Marriage was for men, for expanding family, building up alliances, having people to work for you etc. You cannot just have bastards roaming around everywhere, when you can have a family under your home that you can oversee.

Marriage is for both men and women - and by design wider society. It benefits both and the whole. However, I believe it's fair to say that it benefits women more - all told.

kandiikane:
Don't come here stating marriage is a woman thing when women have been forced to enter in them for eons just to make daddy happy or expand daddy's Kingdom/empire. It was a way for families to create peace between themselves, a way to enter into a higher class society.

The fact that marriage was "used" for something, does not mean that is what it is for or why it came into being. For eample, some people marry in order to obtain papers - does not follow that that's why marriage came into being ! And it's women who typically marry up !

kandiikane:
Who invented modern day marriage? Bible
who invented bible? Men
Who reformed it-roman catholics-men
Who dislike and disrespect women who aren't interested in marriage? Men
Who's always insulting Rita Dominic for not being married? Men
Who insults an unmarried woman in her 30s saying her eggs are turning to dust? Men

This is both factually incorrect and somewhat "rantish" - Marriage has been shown to be universally extant, and not just in those societies that practice Christianity, and even before Christianity was established. And women are the chief culprits whern it comes to shaming other women about marriage. Likewise when it comes to reminding them that "they are not getting any younger"

kandiikane:
it's cool if you don't want to get married but don't sit there and say it is an ideal for women. There many who are suffering in marriages they never wanted, there are many who are being pressured to marry when they are not ready just because they are women. There are many who feel indifferent to it. Lay off women for once and concentrate on yourself.

Have some respect for yourself and for women and you won't be hurt. From your post it seems you have no respect for yourself, no self worth, unable to find love so you want to go through life just sleeping around without an ounce of respect for yourself and body.

It is ok if someone does not want to get married but don't disrespect women for it. Just because you cannot find" the one" doesn't mean that women should hear you rant about them. You should look in the mirror and start working on yourself and have a better attitude towards the world, for there you shall find peace.

Kind of agree here. OP should focus on ordering his marriage - if he chooses to have one - in a beneficial way. He should seek to understand women and get to grips with the dynamic, rather than hating on them - whatever he chooses - as it changes nothing.

You and OP don't sound to far apart - hint, hint !


TV^MIC

Timbuktou:
Men have always earned whatever 'rights' and privileges they enjoyed. Women get it handed over to them by men. Fact

Undeniable fact

Timbuktou:
Are you aware that at a time in history, not all males had the right to vote? Only those that owned land actually could vote, and at another time males had to earn a certain amount of money to be accorded the privilege of voting? Or that men were once forced to join the army and fight wars, and so on.

...in some parts it was the fact that the state had the right to conscript men into the army that meant they got the vote. Women were not conscriptable - that is were never called upon to lay down their lives in defence of their countries (as ever it was men doing just that in protection of women and children ). The vote wasn't a male privilege, it was the quid pro quo for male responsibility.

As you noted, there was one vote per household/family - the man as head typically cast it. men without famlies/homes did not get to vote either.

When the vote was made universal, there was very little, if any time, between all men and all women getting it. Don't fall for deceitful feminist revisionism.


TV

Timbuktou:
I wonder why this is so hard for 'feminists' to see. All they have is privilege without responsibility. Power without checks and balances is a beast no society should breed.

Ultimately I'm not sure it matters if they see it. I'm sure some probably do, but don't see beyond it - which is key. The pre-occupation with their feelings and well-being mean they will rather remain in denial, even if clearly outlined to them.

Ultimately there wil lbe a backlash - not necessarily physical - driven someway by men opting out of a zero value proposition. As ever, women and children will bear the brunt, so many women will finally "get it" and probably fight hard to reverse the feminsit madness.

Order will be restored. The tried and tested, all round beneficial Patriarchy will be restored. As ever, because women want it as much if not mores so than men !

When this will happen or how much damage will be done before this takes place, I cannot say. For now, men of understanding need to take a firm stand and continue to run their families along sound patriarchal principles.

Timbuktou:
And for all their 'strength and independence', they have earned very little of the power they seem to wield and abuse so blatantly.

And it's the abuse that will rot society so badly that there will have to be a re-think - somehow, some way. It will simply become unsustainable, and the damage to male/female relationships and wider society will be undeniable. Right now they are still managing to sell - an untrue - story of female emancipation and empowerment (of which the sum effect appears to be sluttiness and butt implants ).


Commander TV

cococandy:
Lol

But gay guys don't hate women sha o.

That reminds me, I need me a gay best friend.

...on the contrary, gays are the worst misogynists. Any pallying up with women is purely "strategic". They are also extremely racist and ageist, as would be expected given how narcisitic the lifestyle is.

How are you? I trust well.


TV

tobechi74:
Thread for those who hate marriage and prefere not to get married .

Sign in here ,lets discuss

tobechi74:
Before you get married,visit the brides family.
look at the mother to see what the GF will end up being. That’s true enough, but look at the father as well. If he appears worn down and henpecked then take a good look at your own future.

This is odd? If you hate marriage, why are you advising on "visiting the brides family"? Why even consider it, let alone enter into it? Confusion


TV

Timbuktou:
That's exactly the way wom$en should be treated, and is, in fact, how the law wants women to be treated when one considers the millions of femcentric policies littering the western world.

Women are never held to account for anything.

That's end-game dude. Women are ascribed rights with no attendant responsibilities - Just like kids. We are close to it in the West and no doubt some of the "useful idiots" who love to ape things wholesale will soon start clamouring for it in Africa.

Accordingly, men have tot fund women (and "their children" ). This will be enforced by state fiat if need be, so that men will pay directly or indirectly.

Through child support orders, where no proof is demanded that the money is actually spent on children, and even if the child is not actually his. Or indirectly by taxes.

It's telling that even as men are compelled to provide for any child they father - even if against their will - women are allowed to murder them in the womb or abandon them after birth, with absolutely no legal consequences. That is, women can decide against any or all responsibility - from conception to birth - if they so choose, whereas men have no choice and no voice.

I watch with interest.


TV

jnrbayano:
"Will you be my best man?" is a question that I have to deal with every now and then.

In this month alone, I have two of such question to answer and in the month of April, there's another to decide on and not to mention the previous times I have performed such function.

It pains me Striktlymi, my friend is yet to ask me this question.

How many times does one need to perform "a best man" duty for various grooms before subtly rejecting anymore appeal for such an onerous task?

To the married men here what were your reasons for selecting a particular friend as your best man?

I really need to know so that I will start behaving in opposite and ward off future "Will you be my best man?" question.

What's your opinion?

Jnr! Jnr!! Jnr!!!

To be asked to act as best man at a wedding is a great honour. Not only that, but it says much about your considered suitability (or availability ) and the esteem with which you are held in by the person asking.

A man should always - where it is not unduly inconvenient - be ready to act in such stead for those he considers friends or family. Taking it with the honour it accords and carrying out the task with the due consideration it deserves. But please, never feel compelled to do so, it should be a joy and a lacklustre performance is a dis-service to all involved.

I have been a BM twice, once for a cousin, and once for a friend I've known since we were 10 (started secondary school together). The friend also acted as my best man. You've done a afew, so you shouldn;t have any problems there.

Jnr, you're an elder now - it comes with the territory . Striktlymi 'zup with your nuptials? if Jnr flakes on you, I'm available - will deliver the sermon and MC join if you like !

I love a wedding


TV^MIC

FrancisTony:
Pamper me? - that's only if I'm gay.

Homosexuality is as much a state of mind - you present as gay, deal with it! (fagh-brain as opposed to brain fagh )

FrancisTony:
And heck!, gay men don't wear pampers, sef.

...au contraire...and nappies and sanitary towels and butt plugs and...


TV

FrancisTony:
^^^
Lmao! I'm done here. I speak with real-life facts and you read online homophboic contents.

Bye!

The use of the non-word homophobe to close down discussion. Better run, as no one will "pamper" you here


TV

FrancisTony:
I'd a chance to interact with a gay guy about the pampers claim.

You met someone, he was gay and your convo revolved around the use of butt-plugs

FrancisTony:
He said it's an UTTER CRAP that he hasn't met a gay guy putting on pampers.

Pun intended abi?

It's not crap, it's shit . Fecal incontinence/leakage caused by anal penetration with large (sometimes living ) objects. It's totally true! - http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/AnalEroticism read to the end if you get liver!

FrancisTony:
Meanwhile, don't forget that many females get bruised after engaging in heterosexual sex.

Yes they do, and tears too. But the vajayjay is designed for penile pounding and typically rights itself with no long-term effects. The anus is not designed thus, penetrating it is defacto bodily abuse, leading to a host of long-term problems.

FrancisTony:
It seems you are concentrating on gay men, while not explore on lesbians and tell me any consequence.

These are more psychological in nature. Two woman find it hard to bond long-term - they split up even more readily than gay men - and their relationships are the most abusive.

FrancisTony:
Give me a link how HIV was discovered from gay men. What I know is that many of them contact HIV owing to the fact that men are promiscuous in a nature and have high libido. They tend to engage in sex with anybody and often times.

You are decidely naive and confused; significant numbers of AIDS cases in the West was first identified in homosexual men in the US - fact

It's not simply because they are promiscuous - promiscous straight men have little chance of getting aids unless the come into direct or indirect contact with MSM.

It's due to the nature of "sex" they engage in and their concurrent drug abuse, thus weakening their immune systems and making them more susceptible to opportunistic viral diseases.

And yes, they are typically sluts . Come, are you a gay-homosexual?


TV

finofaya:
I think where we differ is that you don't think homosexuality can arise naturally since it apparently has no purpose. Sometimes natural things are purposeless.

On the contrary, I see no point in circling the semantic point of whether it is natural or not. The question is essentially one of normality/morality.

Infanticide happens "naturally" amongst many animal species - would that make it ok for humans?

Homosexuality is with us, the question is how do we regard it? Do we embed it with or society and cultural institutions - which is the current push - "homosexualising" things to accomodate it. Do we consider it an aberration, and tolerate but marginalise it, or do we persecute it's practice?

Whilst I believe that people who identify as homosexuals or practice homosexuality, should have every opportunity and access, I don't believe the practices or lifestyle should be embedded or celebrated as normal - and specially not in the way we are now seeing, where those who don't subscribe to the notion are persecuted.

Homosexuality is not just purposeless, it's harmful.


TV

Logicalmind:
Having gay or heterosexual sex is a choice but the feelings of attraction is inborn.

"Feelings of attraction" is inborn? Pray tell, how do you come to that conclusion?

Babies are born without notions of "sex, sexuality, orientation or desire". There is a normal developmental pathway which should lead to opposite sex desire. Anyting other than that is abnormal.

As 5minutesmadness has noted, if feelings of attraction are inborn, why criminalise any kind of attraction - paedophile, beastial, or any paraphilia that is out there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

Do you have anything to back up your assertion?

TV