₦airaland Forum

naijababe: No it's not just you. You try sef, I only know Kim, i can't tell you what her mum or sisters look like

Maybe...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2085230/Khloe-Kardashian-TWO-fathers-ex-wives-claim-expressed-doubts-paternity.html

http://www.buzzfeed.com/whitneyjefferson/50-photos-of-khloe-kardashian-looking-nothing-like


TV

kulyie: Since your mind is made up there is no need to make you see reasons why. Stick to your ball o

Everytime I see these three Kardashian girls, I just wonder; "did this woman - their mum - land their dad with "one extra". Is it me?

Hmmm...


TV

damiso: Eeeew Hubby is the one who does it as well.I no even know where the suction thing i bought from Boots is sef cos the man go just suck am.My mum would say so what if he travels? So you will watch your child struggle to breath.My answer is that is what suction and Eucalyptus oil plus wipes is for.*shudders* eew again.

That is why we are a team where I am weak, He is strong

TV I thought you would be to "posh" for this. ;DMy husband na ibadan boy so its understandable dem sabi all those 'locy' things

I humble myself where my families well-being is concerned 0. And it works for the "team" thingy; wifey does not do dirty or heavy lifting. And yes, at first I was subject to local/bushy-bushy type remarks.

Although funnily enough, she too jumped on this bandwagon small-small. Not willing to cede her position as primary carer - by me doing something for him that she doesn't - she followed suit. But it's a half-hearted almost noiseless effort. And she's always quick to call me or say to him "let daddy suck your nose" if I'm around !


TV

pickabeau1: Nice from the pastor ...You have a point though....

You should see TD Jakes preaching and how the women nod their heads...

2 Timothy 3:6 NKJV
For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts...


TV

^{**not all and not everything, but pretty much**}

feedthenation: What about the powerful messages for married women?

...just the one; "summit' to ya oga"


TV

^{***no figthin' now***}

...and people drink this


TV

Hygenic? who cares?

As soon as I spot anything "bubbling" around his nostrils, I vacuum it up like "dyson". Hot or cold, watery, soft or hard.
My boy is used to it. As soon as he sees me lean forward with pursed lips he knows it aint "kissy kissy" time.

He immediately closes his eyes, clenches his fists and instinctively opens his mouth. I don't stop till he starts gasping for breath.
It typically happens when I bathe him in the morning or evening, so straight down the plughole - but I'll "act on sight".

I once did it during his weekly swimming lesson. Come see whooping and cheering (if de bogey enter water, these oyinbos go abandon class 0!). My man is used to it now, oft times he'll just tug my shirt and say "daddy suck nose" !

Salt content varies, but can be a great health indicator.

While mummy is looking for "wipe", daddy is doing like "Action Jackson"

Awesome for bonding.

Dem suppose hashtag am sef!

#MyDaddySucks-BigTime


TV

Nonso23: carefreewannabe,
You are arguing ideally ideologically, naively and absent real life experiencically .
While i'm completely indifferent to the dynamics of other people's relationships, I'm still bothered that you are using rare exceptions as a basis for comparison with the obvious 'norm'.

From the onset of development , men and women have been differentiated. Our genes bear similar foundations but also differences that can not be ignored.
Raising the two genders from childhood demand different approaches in order for each of them to enaure they maximize their potentials. Why? Gender as a whole is an outer reflection of the many hidden differences between both genders. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. We have our strength and weaknesses.

We are like two programs written for different purposes. If you input the same data we handle it differently and most often than not, output different results.

Raising a child requires different approaches. A man cannot understand why a child will keep crying even when it appears they are 'comfortable'. Why, after all , logically the child is on a warm bed and propped comfortably? He doesn't read subtle emotional signs. Women on the other hand are intuitive and will keep guessing till they discover the cause for the wailing.
The above is just an instance amongst many others I could keep reeling out.

A woman is a source of emotional attachment to a child.
A man is a source of psychological strength to a child.
Roles are not interchangeable.

Stop using ideal situations to buttress your logic. It's dead on arrival.

Excellent post. With the tiniest of amendments


TV

carefreewannabe: I will not go in circles with you when you refuse to answer my questions, so again:
What exactly is a father UNABLE to give to his children at which stage apart from b.r. east-feeding that a mother is?

Your question has been adequately answered in my last post as quoted below.

It is not a question of what either parents is "unable" to do, it's about the different biological/natural giftings and preparation and the consequently different ways mothers and fathers parent; Bringing a unique and complimentary flavour to child rearing which makes for a balanced well-raised child.

I change nappies just like my wife does, but you'd be surprised that even in this "chore", we have different approaches - based on the natural feminine/masculine balance.

The presence of a mother is best for a new born. All the physiological and psychological changes a woman undergoes prepares her for exactly that. Men do not undergo the same changes. So yes, a man woul dbe able to look after a new born child. Just like zoos bottle feed or hand rear baby animals without mothers. Does that mean it's best and should therefore be adopted as equal/normal. Wild animals have been known to raise human babies. Your concern is not children, their nurture or healthy families. It's equality.

TV01: Your ideology forces you to reduce child raising to chores. It's far more than that. Mothers and fathers contribute in different ways to a childs development. The way the articulate, empathise, play, discipline and comfort children all differ. Input from the two is key to a childs optimal development. Nurture =/= Chores.
Making it sound like there is no difference between the input/contribution of mothers and fathers is ideologically led, not evidence based. These differences are biologically re-inforced. Our wiring means men and women have natural capabilities and inclinations which make them better suited for particular roles and bring different input to parenting. So far example, boys raised without a mothers input often lack empathy.
Ideologically you are on the exact same page as the homosexualists. Have the strength of your convictions. Are two fathers or two mothers exactly the same as a mother and a father. Do children only really need mothers at the point of entry?

As for claiming I am not answering your questions, you are the one not answering questions, denying what your staements imply or conveniently forgetting things .

Questions;
1. Is child rearing reducible to chores?
2. If as stated there is nothing a mother or father does that the other cannot equally or adequatrely replicate, why are two fathers or two mothers not equivalent to a father and a mother? And as you have pressed for, I am willing to take gestation and breast-feeding out of the equation.
3. Are the vast majority of females naturally inclined to taking a lower status mate which is necessary for a full role reversal or swap which is also implied by your stance. The flip side; are the vast majority of men wired in such a way as to play home maker while the wife provides? Or; does the natural dynamic between males and females make the roles interchangeable for the majority whilst ensuring happy unions?


TV

carefreewannabe: What research do you need to see that progressive countries are progressive?

Research that shows - as you are claiming - that it is the move away from traditional households that is responsible for this "progress". Or research that shows that it is Nigerias family structure that is hindering it's progress/development.

carefreewannabe: Be more specific. What exactly are fathers UNABLE to provide except for b.r.e a. s. t- feeding?

Your ideology forces you to reduce child raising to chores. It's far more than that. Mothers and fathers contribute in different ways to a childs development. The way the articulate, empathise, play, discipline and comfort children all differ. Input from the two is key to a childs optimal development. Nurture =/= Chores.

Making it sound like there is no difference between the input/contribution of mothers and fathers is ideologically led, not evidence based. These differences are biologically re-inforced. Our wiring means men and women have natural capabilities and inclinations which make them better suited for particular roles and bring different input to parenting. So far example, boys raised without a mothers input often lack empathy.

Ideologically you are on the exact same page as the homosexualists. Have the strength of your convictions. Are two fathers or two mothers exactly the same as a mother and a father. Do children only really need mothers at the point of entry?

carefreewannabe: You STILL have not answered my question. What exactly are fathers NOT ABLE to give to their children that mothers are except for b.r.e.a.st - feeding?

As above

carefreewannabe: I don't remember, I read this article some years ago at a doctor's office.

Again, as above. How will you remember !

carefreewannabe: This is not what I said.

And again, as above. That is what is clearly implied by your position. Fathers and mothers are interchangeable and therefore replaceable by each other. Or simply expendable. And again, have the strength of your convictions.

carefreewannabe: I am quite sure you are a good man.

Pix or you wont believe it !

carefreewannabe: A society's progress has ALWAYS very much to do with its core unit called family. No sociologist would dispute that.

And nobody here is.
Is the "progress" of Western nations due to role-swapping or reversal in traditional families? Is it due to homosexualisation of those nations?
Please show us one "developed" or "progressive" nation where the "traditional family" is not the overwhelming family type.

carefreewannabe: I would rather have higher divorce rates than fathers who, when bored with the first wife, get a second or third or ....

In your "developed/progressive" nations up to 70% of divorces are instituted by women. Many on the basis of vague notions of "not being happy", and a sense that they'll be happier without the husbands, but with the lions share of the assets he accumulated. What's your point?

carefreewannabe: I would rather have single-parent homes than miserable marriages, in which women are threatened to be send packing out of the HUSBAND'S house.

Marriage is not miserable by design, neither do children appear without action. Neither of the two are necessary, dependant on each other or an indicator of "progress". What point are you making?

carefreewannabe: I would rather have teen pregnancies, which are RATHER typical of the lower classes, than girls who have abortions in dubious places and men who LEGALLY marry marry kids.

Your point is? Are not teen pregnancies correlated to abortions? Can you have abortions without having pregnancies. Are there no lower class girls in "developed" nations. Are "kids" in developed nations not supplied with contraceptives - without their parents knowledge - and encouraged to explore sex when barely out of kindergarten?

What is the difference between kids having sex and kids of the same age marrying?

carefreewannabe: Suicide, drug abuse, se.xual violence and porn addicitons are also to be encountered in Nigeria.

They are not as rampant or culturally embedded. They are not socially acceptable and still scorned as opposed to considered cool. That makes Nigeria more progressive no?

carefreewannabe: I PREFER TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY THAT IS NOT PERFECT THAN IN A SOCIETY THAT IS A COMPLETE MESS WITH EXTREME HIGH POVERTY AND AIDS RATES AND CORPSES ON THE STREET.

Nobody is denying you your preferences, you just can't have your own facts !

carefreewannabe: I agree, I was in Turkey some years ago.

Me too. Lots of Germans. They love beach volley, although they were very competitive and way too serious - even on holiday.


TV

carefreewannabe: Years of anthropological experience show that the most traditional countries are the most backward. This is what years of traditional experience show.

What has this to do with with the point in question? Plus it's a non-sequitur. Are "forward" countries wothout "traditions"? Out of interest, please point us towards this illuminating research !

carefreewannabe: Talking about input, explain to me what a father cannot give a child at a certain stage except for breast-feeding.

Fathers are not wired to provide the same degree/level of pre and post natal input to a childs life. It's not just care, it's development as well.

carefreewannabe: When it comes to raising children both parents are equally qualified to do so unless they are retarded and therefore a danger to the child.

You are off-point, nobody made this claim. The point is that they are at some points differently equipped and therefore not interchangeable. And that fact should be considered when making decisions with the best long-term interest of the family in mind. Again, it's not just care, it's also oprimal development. Otherwise househelps/servants would obviate this conversation.

carefreewannabe: Apart from breat-feeding, there is no other argument why men cannot raise children. And as for breast-feeding, there are solutions too. If you don't like them, let the mother stay with the child till she finishes breast-feeding and then take over. Note that some women are not able to breast-feed at all.

So lets take breast-feeding out of the equation. As soon as a child is born a father can take care of a child as well as it's mother? Please note my above responses.

carefreewannabe: By the way, medical research chows that men also undergo physiological changes when their partners are pregnant, provided they live together and are close.

Excellent point. And does this research show that the changes are exactly the same? Or that the changes are not unique to either sex and therefore meaning both sexes are not actually required?

By your argument, two men can have a child by surrogate, take delivery of the child at birth and that is exactly the same and just as good as a male/female family. Yes?

carefreewannabe: Being different gives NOBODY the right to tell me what I am SUPPOSSED to do with my life. Being different does not mean that I cannot be a doctor, teacher, CEO, scientist, lawyer or whatever. Being different does not mean that I am less qualified and more st. upid to make money. Being different does not mean that I have to enjoy house chores and that you are UNABLE to do them.

Nobody has claimed any of the above. And very little of it actually speaks to this discussion.
And for the little that does, I do house chores !

carefreewannabe: As long as Nigerians will not accept that educated working women do the country a lot of good, there will be very little progress.

Nigerias progress - or lack of - has very little to do with it's family structure. Or it's educational provision to the sexes. Except for the north which I don't know about, in the rest of the country there is hardly any difference.

carefreewannabe: Working women → more money → more shopping → demand for more goods and services → more jobs
→ more prosperity

And even if this is true, does it mean better families or child nurture. Presumably the higher rates of divorce, single-parent homes, teen pregnancy, suicide, drug use, sexual violence, porn addictions etc. are all indicators of progress to you?

carefreewannabe: Just because something is difficult to achieve, does not mean it should not be tried to.

carefreewannabe: I would unhappily enter an arrangement, in which my role is restricted to staying at home and in which my partner thinks that the house chores are the primary role of a woman.

Don't be overly personal, nobody is being prescriptive or or even advisory. We are just presenting our points of view. Your choices remain personal.

carefreewannabe: Am not German.

I appreciate that Frau CW. But Turkey is still a great holiday destination !


TV

Ngokafor: ...I think the saying 'to each their own' should be the focal point in this discussion.The peculiar family dynamics we find ourselves in determines whether or not some ambitious women like most of us on this thread can pull off pursing our chosen careers at full-throttle,especially when the marriage and kids are still very young..

...for instance,if one's hubby has an equally time- consuming and demanding work-schedule.. who then should 'step-down' for the other in this case huh?.Realistically i believe the woman should be the one to give in,ambition or no ambition untill the kids are older..dont get me wrong,i am not advocating for a house-wife role here(not that it is such a crime) but the kind of job that can give her time to attend to her home because most men cannot handle it like a woman would..sad but true.

..The truth is that the more successful we are in our chosen careers or even businesses the more demanding in terms of our time it becomes..marathon meetiings,trips within the country and beyond on short notices to meet up with one client or another,import and export issues..the list is endless..therefore leaving it for later for women is more advisable in my humble opinion.

...Dora Akunyili(RIP) and other powerful women we as women look up to did not become Ministers and all with their children as babies or toddlers...They all have grown-up children so it is a lot easier...but like a said earlier,to each their own.

Well presented. With obvious real-life experience and emotional intelligence.

Especially the bolded. Very few couples will be able to happily live with this dynamic. The tuth is, despite all the talk of equality, every relationship has a de facto lead. Men find it hard being led and women find it hard being with men of lower status.


TV

cococandy: Maybe that post wasn't self explanatory as I thought.
Life is about choices in my opinion. If I have a family and my career is getting in the way, I'll have to be very willing to give up my career for my kids and not otherwise. In that case,it is MY CHOICE and a happy one too. It won't be bondage because it is my first choice.and no you're not in bondage because you WILLINGLY CHOSE to make those choices

But if I so want my career and can't have it because I lack the support I need from my partner,then it is bondage.
It is indeed bondage for someone to live without what they want not because they chose to sacrifice it but because they were made to give it up.
That's where I'm coming from.



That said I think everyone here agrees on going for those who have the same ideology as them

All that about role reversal and having it all isn't for me right?
Because I didn't insinuate any such thing.
For someone to take on a career and her home and make the best she can out of both she has to work harder/smarter than she normally would.same for a man. So yes something gives and that's not having it all.we agree on that.

Sorry I can't go to that thread now.

Agreed that a mother is more needed at the infant stage of a child's life but that's not where child raising stops. After that stage,it's both hands on deck. And all this has nothing IMO to do with bathing/ feeding chores. More like being a steady presence in the child's life.

.

It's still not quite clear, especially the bolded - to me anyway. No worries. I've made my point - marriage is not first and foremeost about either spouses career or their "individual" choices/desires.


TV

carefreewannabe: You say so because you were brought up this way and because this is what you are used to.

Nope, years of anthropological experience clearly shows this. At the different stages of a childs development, the importance of the input from the parents differ. More crucially the difference between male & female input is key to a psychologically well balanced child.

Certainly we have children who do well despite this. But those are exceptions not the rule. Are you trying to sell us "interchangeability of the sexes?"

carefreewannabe: A father and a mother are EQUALLY IMPORTANT. No parent is more or less important. Children need both.

I don't believe anyone here has disputed this? I certainly didn't.

carefreewannabe: The role of a mother and a father do NOT have to be the same but they can be the same. They can also be different.

So you are selling "interchangeability". Can men give birth or breastfeed? Do men undergo the same physiological and psycholigical changes that women do before, during and after chldbirth? Are the responses and instincts of Mothers, Fathers and children in relation too one another merely learned responses?

The evident truth is simply that they are different, that's why we have men and women. And they are patently not the same - by design. Being treated equally, does not demand equal outcomes or forced equivalence. Not unless you make an ideology of it . It's just a segue into homosex and other ill-considered re-engineering initiatives.

carefreewannabe: There is nothing wrong with the traditonal roles of women staying at home with little children and a man working BUT there is also NOTHING wrong with a role switch, where a woman works and the father stays at home.

There may be instances where it makes the best of a situation or even makes sense tactically, but for the vast majority our wiring (not how they were brought up) would make the dynamic of such an arrangement very difficult.

carefreewannabe: I know many couples in Germany who switch their traditional roles and nobody disrespects them for it because they do what ist BEST for them and their family at a given moment.

As above.
Would you happily enter into that arrangement?

carefreewannabe: It is not my win but I am very happy. I am about to leave the country for holidays but thinking it would be better to stay here now as the whole country is partying

Enjoy your holiday wherever you go. The Germans love Turkey


TV

carefreewannabe: I do NOT believe that women are pivotal. I believe that both parents are EQUALLY IMPORTANT.

The truth is that women tend to be more pivotal on the home front.

As for the "EQUALLY IMPORTANT" point, please expalian, are they equally important in the same way? Are the roles exactly the same - or effectively inter-changeable?


TV

^{**congratulations on your win. I was rooting for the Argentines, but the Germans deservedly took the spoils**}

cococandy: Any body who's a parent should know their family comes first. Be he husband or wife.
A man who makes all the money in the world without being available for his kids is still considered a failure as a father.
Kids who grew up with absentee fathers know this too. That no amount of money can make up for the parents deep and intimate involvement in their lives.

This mindset is what makes mothers more celebrated then fathers because despite all the money the kids are more bonded with who was available for them.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being ambituous be you man or woman. But a balance is necessary for both parties. And curtaling your ambitions as a woman isn't the answer. That's bondage.
Knowing how to make the best of your time is the answer.

Who's talking about African women in particular here?
Do African women raise better kids than other races? Look at Nigeria as a case study and look at other societies and tell me how relegating yourselves to the background or curtailing your ambitions as african women has helped your country.

I still maintain it is better for the kids if both parents make time for them. Excusing fathers' absence in the name of bread winning is almost the same thing as a single mom raising her kids alone with the father paying child support.

I was really liking this until I hit the bolded. It's plainly contradictory. As a husband and father, I reduced my "personal activity time" to be with and contribute to my family more.

I also cut the hours I was putting in at work - in many corporations working smart is fine, but you have to be seen working hard as well, moreso if you are a "minority" - I curtaied some of my personal ambitions - am I in bondage?

The myth of "have it all" or the fallacy of role "reversal" can only ever hold true for a few, and that due too uncommon circumstances. They simply won't work for the vast majority.

Biblically and in most cultures, the primary rsponsibility of a couple is the well-being of their family. Moreso if there are children involved. Ab initio, getting married means there will probalby come a point at which sacrifice is involved - i.e. putting others, especially children before yourself. There are natural roles and roles that tend to come naturally. Do men give birth? Do children not instinctively turn to their mothers when in distress. Are both parents equally needed during a childs earliest years?

Biblically even men are to ensure their homes are in order before they take on duties in the church. For both men and women, the well-being of the family unit comes first and if personal ambitions - in any endeavour - have to be curtailed/sacrificed/truncated to ensure this then so be it. You are implicitly agreeing to this when you get married, so be sure to understand that fact.

As for role reversal, especially in the sense of being a bread-winner. I won't repeat myself having written on that here;
https://www.nairaland.com/1804695/whats-happening-men/8#24591430


If anyone wants to work with a model that is not scriptural, cultural or traditional, fine, but be sure both parties are clearly aware and accepting of this before marriage. Otherwise it's touching stories of "after marriage they changed....". If your career or personal ambitions are more important than your marriage, please let them know long before the "I do..." stage, or alternatively, say "I don't...".


Brought to you from "Better Foundation Relationships" (BeFoRe ^TM)


TV

SSA is a disorder. Clearly dysfunctional as evidenced by the outworkings - or lack - of the unions of the SSA. The obvious and only really binary amongst human beings is male/female. It’s the outcome of their unions – procreation leading to offspring – that forms the whole raison d’etre of marriage.

SSU cannot procreate in principle or in practice. They are not infertile, they are sterile - always. If you claim “nature” made them that way, why contrary to natures dictates, do they want children? Why did nature give SSA persons the exact same reproductive capacity of normally functioning human beings?

SS couples “ape” what obtains in a normal human pair-bond, why is that? They can only copulate via an unnatural use of bodily parts or using prosthesis. Lesbians typically follow the butch/femme binary. One adopting pseudo-male behaviour. Likewise gay men, with their “tops & bottoms” binary.

It takes real enlightenment and a super-duper intelligence to persuade oneself that what is clearly physically and morally wrong is a human right. And that one man rectally penetrating another is the basis for a marriage.

Incest is also morally wrong, but by degrees and for good reason. If the human genome was devoid of flaws (as many believe it once was), what reason would there be too disallow incestuous relationships within limits?

Why would it be morally wrong, especially given the basis used to argue SSM - consensual, no one being harmed, privacy and human “rights”, etc? Moreso if these incestuous couples were happy not to breed or do so using 3rd party gemetic material as SSC do. Even today, cousin marriage – although not a great long-term idea – still obtains in many societies. SSC is both morally and structurally disordered.

To argue for SSA/SSM being good and moral, is to be a hypocrite if you don’t argue for Polygamy Polyamoury or other paraphilia being likewise moral & good.

A deceitfully sordid use of words such as “gay”, which we know means happy and “orientation” which was always about direction doesn’t fool anyone The bogus heterosexual/homosexual binary is plain idiotic. Normally functioning human beings couple heterosexually – if you insist on using that word. Everything else is deviant, as in the sense of being faulty. Heterosexuality is not one state in a "spectrum of normal", it is the only normal.

The UK is currently riven with angst over claims of serial and organised paedophilial acts amongst the elites. But in truth they only really have half a problem. Normalising homosex solved the first half. Now they only have to reduce the age of consent and voilà problem solved.

It takes real enlightenment, a super-duper intelligence and a sick, twisted and evil mind. Utterly disgusting.



TV

naijababe: Between close friends and family I know about 5 interracial marriages, only one is a black male/ white female union. The remaining 4 are black female/white male unions. Trust me man, black women are beginning to step out.

I'll take your rejoinder regards your friends and family without quibble, but generally in the UK we both know what obtains - all things being equal.

I'm not denying that black women are stepping out, or increasingly so. Just that Black men are ahead of them and continue to outpace them in doing so. And they are totally comfortable with it.

I've only ever come across black females who express angst about marrying-out, or always consider it a last resort. Whereas for the men, it's always a personal preference and about the individuals not the race.

naijababe: On the contrary, black men and women are at the bottom of the pile

Please don't drag us down with you ! Black men are highly prized as partners (even if not for marriage per se) by woman globally. There was a period when Indian girls in Wembley had mad "jungle fever". Not sure how many translated into marriage, bu the desire is there. I personally know Indian girls who are in serious dilemma due to their preference for black men.

naijababe: you are right though that we still largely prefer to marry black men. Speaking specifically for myself, in the late 90s a few of my friends that went to red brick Unis would complain about the dearth of decent young black men within our social strata, note that there were lots of interest from non-black men. We just couldn't see ourselves with men of other races;

And that dearth was partly due to "black male flight" to women of other races, as well as the higher upward mobility of black women.

It's Uni na, Anne Widdicombe would get plenty of interest if she enrolled ! The simple truth is that the rate of preference for black men by women of other races far outstrips the rate of preference for black women by men of other races - regardless of the social strata. In fact, despite it, many non-black women date or marry down when they get with black men.

naijababe: I will take Lenny Kravitz everyday and all day long over Jonny Depp and Brad Pitt, the poster boys of my day. But black women are beginning to marry out and tend to marry up (at least equal or higher economic /social status)

Women in general always look to marry up. It never used to be as pronounced in Western/developed nations, but it's starting to make a comeback.

After all, having to marry down in terms of "desirability" and also marry down in terms of social status would be too much to bear. Double sufferhead for the sistas .

naijababe: while black men often marry down. And as we all know the percentage of educated black women is much higher than of black men.

Apart from it being in some part the reverse of my point above, the truth is they tend to marry at mostly "their level". Black women tend to be more hypergamous and so are torn between marrying laterally, marrying out or not marrying - all unpalatable choices.

As for educated percentages, across blacks as a whole I'd agree, I wouldn't think it's that pronounced amongst Nigerians.

naijababe: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2511049/Online-dating-app-reveals-race-matters-romance.html

I read this. Some points, but the only consistently repeated theme is black women as least desirable. Other studies contradict the same of black men.

naijababe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

Read this as well. This table captures the relatively higher incidence (and by corallary desire) of black men marrying out. And this is in the US, with historically entrenched racism. In the UK 50% of black men are with non-black partners. Again, I don't think that will be as pronounced amongst Nigerians, but it will still be notable, and it has to present a dilemma for black women. We see this in the hatred black women have for non-black women who "steal their men" and the black men who date/marry them.

Married couples in the United States in 2010 (easier to make sense of the table/numbers from the link)

White Wife Black Wife Asian Wife Other Wife

White Husband 50,410,000 168,000 529,000 487,000
Black Husband 390,000 4,072,000 39,000 66,000
Asian Husband 219,000 9,000 2,855,000 28,000
Other Husband 488,000 18,000 37,000 568,000


TV

carefreewannabe: You are 24 / 7 online and when confronted hide behind your wife's back? Why does it NOT surprise me?

It neither surprises me that you take data out of context. It tells me a lot about your level of education.

Why are you pained !
I'm not here as much as you, but even if I am, why are you concerned, let alone peppered?
As far my education, think what you please, I have made no claims as too my intelligence or academic prowess.

Needless to say, I possess enough of both to traduce feminist wannabees and understand that a female leader does not a matriarchy make !

The fact remains; where there are significant population mixes, especially with multi-ethnic minorities, black women are typically "perceived" as lower in attractiveness on aggregate.Whilst black men are typically ranked "relatively higher.

And for you last dose of hurt this evening; even among majority black communities, light skin is typically perceived as more attractive. Believe me, I don't sit here making this stuff up to depress NL pseudo-feminists. It's unfortunately all true.

Let me go and check if madam is receptive. Wanna see pix ?

Toodles.


TV

Who are you waiting for ! It's my bedtime 0! Don;t forget I'm married !

Did you not read it Please read the bolded very carefully.


And I did not that it would be hard to get conclusive data as it's a sensitive topic. But it's too obvious, moreso, we live it. I know of no black guy in the UK who hasn't dated a foreigner/white woman (except maybe those that arrived already wifed up ).

Many I know are married to them. I spoke a while back about the party I went to where all black couples were a minority. Most of them were mixed and it was all black men with white women (and their mixed race pikin - I have them in my own family).

The same does not hold for black women. Note that Naijababe did not even question that point. And nobody here seriously would.

carefreewannabe: TV

Summarise the content of the excerpt from YOUR source in your own words. Let us go through this. I will not let you or coogar or anyone else get away with your propganda.

HERE WE GO:


The data isn’t really conclusive in many cases:

Some studies report (source: 1,2,3,4,5) that black women are considered less attractive by some other ethnicities. The well-known Kanazawa study, which claimed that the nationally representative ADD Health survey found African women were less attractive, has been much criticized, most notably by Kaufman and Wicherts, who also found little to suggest differences between men of races.

Michael Lewis has done a series of three studies in the U.K., where the same trend in interracial marriages exists as in the U.S. All three show higher ratings of attractiveness for black men compared to white, and in the third, both over asian men. In all three as well, white women are rated more attractive than black women, and, in the last study, in which asian women are included, they are rated the most attractive. [i][/i]In one study mixed race male faces were rated intermediate to black and white male faces, but in another, were rated more highly (sources: 1,2,3). The studies, however, involve fairly small numbers of students, between 10 and 20 women rating men, and a similar number for men rating women.

A survey of over 2,500 whites asked which race they found most physically attractive, and found that overall 62.7% of women and 48.2% of men were most physically attracted to other whites, much of the rest claimed no preference, 12% of men and 3% of women found asians most attractive, and 1.5% of men and 1.9% of women found blacks most attractive. Political view had a very noticeable effect.

In another study, asian males were rated as least attractive, including by asian women, although asian men also rated asian women as less attractive than whites and hispanics. Black women were rated as the least attractive. White and asian women gave lower ratings of attractiveness to black men.

The data is not conclusive, but given the high sex-disparity in interracial marriages, it is plausible that there might be some difference.

If you fail to deal with the data appropriately, you will stop using any research to back up your oppressive world view.

I am waiting.

TV01: And I for one have no problem with anyone marrying out. But as you've rightly pointed out, there is a hierarchy of desirability. And black women are on the bottom rung. Black men on the other hand are near the top and are able to further compensate for any perceived drawbacks.

naijababe: Really?! Where are the facts to prove this assertion?

I''ll start anecdotally first.

Ever seen a Chinese man with a black woman? How about an Indian man? I didn't think so. Not saying it doesn't happen. Kinda like hens teeth ! I have seen black men married to Chinese women and know Indian women who have relinquished their heritage to marry black men

How about closer to home. Can you or anyone else here advise if in their immediate and extended family their has been marriage "out"? Isn't it typically the men - all things being equal.

Obviously marrying out racially is only of real statistical significance where countries societies have significant racial mixes. Like many European/Western countries.

Here are a few links;
http://unsafeharbour./2012/02/09/who-is-attracted-to-who/
- low "perceived" attractiveness of black women

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/a-black-and-white-issue-the-future-of-society-is-mixed-425828.html
- Up to 50% of black men in the UK in mixed relationships (which given the relative weights of the races says it all. And it's almost certainly with white women. Meaning lots of black women are sharing, going with out or dating out. And there is nothing to demonstrate they are marrying out.)

The internet is full of it. Papers, surveys, discussion panels. Obviously it's a bit sensitive, so hard to get exact figures, gender splits or attractiveness rating. And I'd suspect that dating is one thing and marriage another, But I'm sure the figures correlate.

We see too much to think anything else. How about the vitriol black women have for white women that steal "their men". Or the fury at black men who marry out. Especially the high profile ones. Check out Omari Hardwick the love interest from "Being Mary Jane". Black women on the net went into meltdown when they found out he had a white - and average looking - wife.

Nor only are black men ranked relatively "more attractive", the foreign women that marry them are typically less demanding/more forgiving. Even if you argue it's typically lower class white women/foreigners. And whilst they are considered generally more physically "fit". They further compensate with fame and celebrity. As before, see how many celebrity black american men are with white women. Or how about black athletes or celebrities in the UK. Some term it self-hatred/loathing, but its pretty undeniable. Unless of course you can show figures to the contrary.


TV

soulglo: TV1 I am not pained at all. I just honestly do not have even the slightest interest in dragging a dead subject for 35 pages with someone like you. For me that's where the pain lies. It'll be very stupid on my part. When someone makes some of the comments you make especially one like the one I quoted then it's time to accept the discussion is dead. Your little snide comments on no one to 'debate intelligently' with you is laughable. Someone who blames a lack of fathers in Black American homes on feminism is simply not equipped to make a contribution in anyway on that particular subject. Stick with female bashing. It's a better fit for you and you'll definitely get 70 pages more. I'm going back to making my feminist money to put in my feminist bank account.

First, not that I particularly care if you are pained, but that's neither here nor there.
Second, I made a comment, not in response to anything you posted or directed at you personally. You are?
Third, so you have every right to think it's total nonsense, but personally attacking me without pointing out why is lame and cowardly.
Fourth, if you don't feel there's anything worth debating, simply move on. Ignore me. The ridiculously snide comments were/and are all yours.
Fifth, in a number of posts addressed to me, you've not actually made any relevent points. Just bitched. I am happy to be left alone. No, really.

TV

coogar: buhahahahahaha.....
don't drive tatiana away o. she provides logical argument. see how she tacitly admitted the system is biased towards the women but since men have enjoyed over the centuries, it's only fair women get some perks too.

I think tatiana made some valid points.

But the truth is, no one has given a response that I see as long-term desirable. If indeed men have oppressed women, is the best solution to turn the tables?

The heart of the feministic tendencies of most who post is either (a) they like the idea of a system that privileges women over men and the fact that men can be "locked" for responsibility and denied rights or (b) they love the idea of unrestrained intimacy or (c) both

Neither of thes things will be in the best long-term interest of women, children or men. And as men become savvier, they'll still benefit the most from a bad situation. One of the worst aspect of feminsim is that it makes irresposibility a good value proposition for men.

coogar: compare that to the blind bats who cannot even see the bias & they still continue to argue the system is not any more biased against men at all. misandry is the major issue in the world now, not racism. racism is so old school these days.

As above.


TV

cococandy: Polygamy is silly
Whether polyandry or polygyny.

Agreed.
The real issue is that were there is a lack of "sexual restraint", it hurts society as whole, but men are best placed to take advantage of it. One
of the reasons some of us despise feminism is that it pushes for equal licence. The key is to ensure restraint is appropriate

cococandy: This is just getting such reactions because we aren't used to it. In places where they used to practice it in the past,I'm sure it was normal for them.

Human nature and biological imperatives will always mean polygyny is rarely practiced. A unique confluence of factors have to be in place for it to be even considered.

So allowing polygamy, would essentially always mean more polyandry. The answer is not in forcing sameness. It's in understanding how we differ, what's best, and acting accordingly. Whatever ones thoughts or feelings, sexual restrain will at best "be equal". No sex outside monogamous marriage for anyone. In all reality it's likely to be at least slightly more burdensome on women.

cococandy: All in all it is silly. Men and women may not be held by the same rules,but when it comes to marriage,na one man one woman o.
That's marriage. Anything outside that is plain 'living arrangement'

Again, I'd agree. But we have inferior and perverted forms of it these days.


TV

tatiana009: Well a lot have realized and started dating men of other races. People usually say black women are the least desirable to men of other races but I've come to realize that it isn't about the color but the figure. The big booty thing, wide hips thing isn't attractive to most men of other races so all black women will have to do is be slim like the white chicks. You'll notice most white men who are married to black women are married to the slim ones. Let the black men get married to women of other races too and let the world evolve once more.

And I for one have no problem with anyone marrying out. But as you've rightly pointed out, there is a hierarchy of desirability. And black women are on the bottom rung. Black men on the other hand are near the top and are able to further compensate for any percieved drawbacks.

And it's not just about physical desirability. Otherwise men of other races would be happy to date them for intimacy, but not marry them. They don't do that any more than they marry them.

Cross-culturally, black women carry way to much baggage. Funnily enough, most of them prefer to marry in. The biggest barrier to black women marrying out is black women.

A black womans best bet and first choice is still a black man. Y'all are stuck. And w'all know it .



TV

pickabeau1:

She must be dosed up highly with self esteem

I think a compendium can be written on her strategies to get young men and keep them

Our sistas in Nollywood can learn one or two things from her

https://www.nairaland.com/1807605/oldest-spinsters-nollywood-photos

I looked over the "oldest spinsters" thread. I feel bad for those of them that really want marriage. Hope it happens right and in good time. I can't be a hypocrite though. If I were single no chance for any of them. Too old, not fine enough, no compensating attributes.

As for this 57 year old. Are we forgetting she's a Jazz Practitioner?


TV

tatiana009: I actually consider that to be really smart of the women , you use the system to get what you want men have been doing it for centuries so let the women have fun.

coogar: very smart until they started complaining the pool of men they can choose from to marry is dwindling. with 1/3 of young black men under some form of penal supervision in the US and up to 50% growing up with their fathers, the bubble is about to bust!

Exactly, smart maybe, but very short-term. Long-term, it will not only reduce womens choices and hurt men, it also harms the children. Ultimately it will devastate societies, as we have seen.

I agree that many black women are not conceptually brought in to feminism. In some case, that's even worse, as they don't see or understand the dangers of a short-term acceptance of the perks.

Like many on here. They either see only the supposed perks of feminism, or have a shallow ideological grasp and don't apply it in their "real lives".


TV

blackbeau1: We really don't have men anymore. Just boys pretending to be men

It's a lie.

We have good men and good women. It's a little harder to sort the wheat from the chaff these days. But those who are appreciative of their own worth, place high value on marriage, know what is required to be good spouse, set their expectations correctly and refuse to compromise, are loving the fulfillment marriage brings.

Try and be among !


TV

IFF the story is true, it's still hard to picture.

She's 57 years old and has 13 kids.
Do all the men pay bride price or does she pay groom price? Who provides the roof under which "thay all live peacefully?"

Is their a hierarchy? Senior husband, 2 of 4, junior, smallie etc. etc.
If it is about the rutting, how does she avoid favouritsm?

Mens libidos are typically higher than womens. How will she manage this. Or satisfy them all regardless (perhaps her juju prowess will help here?).

In a fair market, she may be able to interest a few wretched, down and out steet roaming half-mad destitutes. But not much more.

Wait 0! I researched the story a little. Apparently she said only tall dark-skinned hotties between the ages of 25 - 35 need apply. They should be previously unmarried, no kids, degree educated and financially solvent. Good grooming and GSOH will lead their applications to be favourably considered !

I quite like her nerve. Me sef am turning matriarchal. And to think some of our NL sistas can't get a single wan. Berra go sit with this badt gyal and learn what's up .


TV

crackhaus: Okay clearly you're thinking from another perspective...that's fine.

Although I admit to not giving it that much thought, what could the relaity of a 50 something year-old women with 13 kids in a 3rd world country really be?

crackhaus: But please pray tell, what do you think she means by this emboldened part.

The woman who is in a polyandrous marriage
with two men claims that she wants to marry
twice more as long as her husbands live
peacefully under one roof and respect what she
calls their 'duties'.

crackhaus: Emphasis on duties, care to share what these duties are?

My guess is as good as yours. Duties could entail a number of things. Perhaps she has extensive farm holdings and need labourers. But I greatly doubt she has a ""round the clock rota for sex in mind". At her age, even if she isn't menopausal, she almost certainly has greatly reduced drives if any interest in sex at all.

A husbands main "duty" is to provide for her family. I'm guessing it's more about provision, which to a great degree has always been the male side of the bargain. She may also be hoping for a "medic" to help with her hot flushes - but that's still provision in a sense !

crackhaus: Also, is it the duty by law for a man to raise and provide financial support for children that aren't his in Zimbabwe or any other part of the world?

When you marry a woman it's implicit you take on paternal responsibility for her kids - even if they are not yours - especially if the childrens real father is deceased.


TV

soulglo: This post is an EPIC FAIL. You could not be any more off than you are. Feminism being responsible for babies without fathers in the black American community is a show you should take on the road. Clearly a comedy.

A very precise and factual rebuttal. Really insightful .

Are there no women on this board that can intelligently refute or even debate things they don't agree with? I honestly have no problem with ad-hominem being directed against me, but at least hinge it on something to show you are more than just pained.

You won't refute a point, convince anyone or advance the Feminist position armed with capslock and smileys (although I do appreciate that it may be therapeutic ).



TV

crackhaus: I don't even want to imagine what her Kitty would look like right now, not to mention when she marries two more men to add to the bombardment

I got nothing but pity for her.

Dude, this is almost certainly not about inter.course or procreation. A woman with 13 kids?
She needs more hands on deck to provide for them. Women always look to men to subsidise their sexual licence (where they have it).

If she was independentaly wealthy or if there was a decent welfare system in place she'd get rid of the ones she has sef.

Don't pity her, pity the manginas that fall for this nonsense.


TV