₦airaland Forum

[quote author=carefreewannabe][/quote]You've lost credibility by your descent into ad-hominem and assault by emoticon.

The other thing I've noticed, is that like Adichie, your ideology has fostered a loathing of your own country within you.

Shame. I hope you get over it.


TV

coogar: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/02/article-0-2034F5BA00000578-964_634x572.jpg



at least before now, single women spent their own money to get what they desire....that's fine by me. however, to think my taxes will help raise tonnes of fatherless families in britain is quite disturbing & depressing.

when will these people realise they are fostering a damaged society?

Whether the individual pays or the taxpayer funds, the outcome is the same. Legally backed broken homes. Hopefull there won't be too many and hopefully the individual outcomes won't be too bad, but it can't be good for society. I still think the pressure will come for an "equal right" for homosexual men.

I actually see it as the Indigenous Brits giving their birthright away. The rub is, that they will try and force the other "people-groups" on these shores too follow suit.

These lands will be taken over by non-indigenes. It's already starting. Most children born in London last year were born to non British born mothers. Taking into account that those of us who are non-indigenous but British born, would not have been added into that number, London is fast "browning up" and the rest of the UK will follow suit.

Exacerbated by the fact that the indigenes simply don't breed at replacement rates. Facilitating homosexual birthing will not have a significant impact on the indigenous birthrate. Truth is, it's mostly political, there are simply not that many of them (3%?) and not that many really interested in having children.

Do they understand or care? Their new family lifestyle model is TOWIE. If they don't treasure their traditions, culture and heritage, they will lose them. And others will take their place. Tragic but true.


TV

coogar: TV01, what's your take on NHS's proposal of their own spërm bank to help lesbians who want children.

I thought we were already past this point? I don't hink this is a new service per se, just one dedicated to lesbos. A single woman can already legally concieve via IVF. Having it on the NHS just means a more "egalitarian" service.

Presumaly they'll up the ante to providing surrogates for desirous homosexual couples. All in the name of the "towards a more equal society" project. It won't end well.

As too my thoughts on it. I believe it's absolutely wrong. But they no longer put up the pretence of the democratic vote or public consultations. They just foist things on us. The poulace has been lulled into acquiescence with reality TV.

Remain small.


TV

carefreewannabe: She is saying that I should get a job

Full-time husband and father
Own enterprise
Salaried job
Chief marriage & wholesome family values advocate on NL
Part-time scatterer of feminsit nansesne (it doesn't take that much effort )!

A full portfolio...not one I'd expect a feminsit to carry


TV

^{**any cogent well-thought out responses yet, or are you determines to divert into ad-hominem to save face?**}

carefreewannabe: Go and make money REAL man or did a woman / feminist take your job like Coogar's?

...daddy, what is this one saying ?



TV

carefreewannabe: What you should do now is be at work

i.e. please stop, I have no answers !


TV

pickabeau1: TV01.. the sad thing is that they care more about endangered lions, tigers or some animals as against any concern for foetuses calling it clump of cells

Nice write up.. succinctly put

Thanks.

Nah! They don't really care about endangered species or the environment of any of those other things. Those are just sops to re-assure themselfves that they are "loving, caring, human-beings" - who are incidentally happy to celebrate the murder of their own offspring usng the deceitful language of choice/rights/equality.


TV

^{**clump of cells? Did you know a babys heartbeat is clearly discernable after a couple of weeks? before most women even realise they are pregnant. And relatively speaking, we are all just clumps of cells**}

carefreewannabe: ^^ You really struggle with reading comprehension TV01.

Morning Carefreewannabee, first you couldn't even mitigate this pointless post with a "greeting". When last did we see ? Secondly, as ever you resort to stock responses, fabrication, emoticon or ad-hominem. Please refute the facts. Essentially feminism is fighting for the right for women to be "sluts & murderers". Real "real-men" on this thread are labouring tirelessly to save you and society from your error.

No don't thank us, that's what men do .


TV

The fallacies of “inequality” between the sexes has been repeatedly pointed out and proven. No evidence to the contrary has been provided, except to exaggerate some vestigial cultural morés; women are raised to depend on men, find fulfilment in marriage, or boys are celebrated for being bad, etc.

It’s instructive that the crux of the “feminist position on this thread boils down to the;

1. Right to have unfettered s3x or s3xually express themselves however they choose (presumably with the tired rider of “adult consent”). Under the guise of “being as free as men”).

2. The right to murder their unborn children at any point during pregnancy and for any reason

Let’s scrutinise these 2 points further;

Abortion
The supposed right to privacy and autonomy over one’s own body is the reasoning here. This is odd and ill-thought out at best and frankly downright wicked and evil if given due consideration.

One would think that a woman could be going on her own merry way and a foetus (human being) would leap out of the bushes and implant itself into her womb. Can I beg, borrow or steal a laugh?

But it’s hardly a laughing matter that some people feel that a woman should be allowed to murder an unborn child simply for convenience.

What of the childs right to “autonomy” or “privacy”. It didn’t asked to be conceived, it didn’t ambush you, it was the logical consequence of your actions. Now you decide you can terminate that life “just because?”

It’s this kind of thinking that led one of our notable "feminsits" to state that she is "pro-choice", but hates it when people are flippant when talking about abortion. Feminsim – the warper of minds and perverter of morals.

Unfettered sexual licence.
The claim that men use norms of sexual restraint to “control” women is one of the many mantras here. It does not hold under close scrutiny.

Patriarchy places sexual restraints and attendant sanctions on both sexes. The outcomes of sexual licence weigh more heavily on women, so the restrictions may seem more onerous on them, but for good reason.

Imagine a pair of teenage twins. One male and one female. Imagine the possible consequences of sex for both. Whose life could be most disrupted, whose health would be most at risk? Who would pay a possible life-long price for any unintended consequence?

Feminsits cry for the restraints to be loosed. Obviously buoyed by the thought of “consequence-free” sex – after all there is contraception and abortion on demand to prevent or take care of the inconvenience of the natural outcome of s3x. Let’s look a little further;

Contraception: How unsmart do you have to be to fail to see that flooding your system with huge amounts of – often synthetic – hormones in order to stop it functioning naturally, cannot be a good thing? Do you even begin to grasp the long-term effects on your health and well-being? Are you re-assured by government and big pharma telling you contraception is safe, even healthy?

Abortion: Abortion heightens the risk of infertility and long-term serious pathologies in women. Just one could increase the risk of some forms of cancer by 50%, multiple instances can mean a tripling of the risk.

Here are examples of the psychological risks;
• A 2012 study of post-abortive women in China titled The Impact of Prior Abortion on Anxiety and Depression Symptoms During a Subsequent Pregnancy: Data From a Population-Based Cohort Study in China found a high correlation between induced abortion and depression among pregnant women.
• A 2008 study by the University of Oslo in Norway titled Abortion and depression: A population-based longitudinal study of young women found that young adult women who have had abortions are more likely to become depressed.
• A 2003 study published in the Medical Science Monitor titled Depression associated with abortion and childbirth: a long-term analysis of the NLSY cohort found that women with a history of abortion are at a significantly higher risk of experiencing clinical depression compared to women who give birth.

So essentially feminists are fighting to kill babies, harm women and damage society. A mindless, murderous cause.


TV

Should women be afforded the same rights, opportunities and choices as men? Certainly, I don't believe anyone seriously contests that. Or believes anything to the contrary is discriminatory, unfair and plain wrong.

Does that make me a feminist? Or make me appreciate a need for feminism? No. Absolutely not. I'm a Christian, and two thousand years ago when wives where still considered their husbands chattel in most societies, the gospel brought emancipation and equality for women.

"All equal in Christ" it proclaims - equal in value, equal in worth. "Husbands love your wives" it exhorted. Radical, revolutionary and even today beyond the comprehension and grasp of of many.

But the Bible is didactic regards the innate differences, unique gifts, biological imperatives and complimentarity which, if ordered properly leads to human flourishing. Feminism in it's insistence that men and women should be treated the same misses most of this, and can only lead to fractured societies if given it's head. This is already evidenced in nations where feminism has taken root.

It's instructive that the even the chieftest of our feminists on NL made sure they married/partnered with men of higher status and are happy to submit to them. That is a biological imperative that is undeniable - women are loathe to mate with males of equal or lesser status. On that basis alone, it's utterly absurd to think that women really want "equality as in sameness".

The feigned quest for parity in promiscuity and the right to kill the unborn as a matter of convenience is just straining, as well as nonsensical at best and pure wickedness if truth be told.

Feminism today is not about equal rights and it wasn't feminism that kicked off the struggle for, or delivered those rights in the first place. Christianity did .

I've touched on what I refer to as "the deal" before. Men and women come together to create families. This is best done with the understanding of the biological imperatives and uniqueness that makes us a complimentary whole, and leads to strong families and flourishing societies.

So, whilst I'm all for equal choice, rights and opportunity (not that I necessarily believe that "equality" in and of itself means the best for society - but I wouldn't want to force my perception), if anyone can show how these and the push for free sexual expression and unilateral reproductive rights for women,along with "sameness", enhance "the deal",, I'll convert to feminism - the radical kind sef !


TV

^{**Please, could someone explain the notion of "gender" to me? The only binary I am aware of is the male/female sexing of human beings. I see gender atly with sex and essentially a redundant term or one used to pervert natural order**}

coogar: feminism is a fraud!
it doesn't matter the number of types of feminism anyone can put forward.....if the concept itself is fraudulent, any structure put on it would be null & void to me.

the movement was socially engineered by the government to drive women out en masse and turn them to capitalist slaves. did rockefeller not admit to aaron russo that the feminist movement was socially engineered to push women into the workforce to increase tax revenues and corporate profits?

now, bcause of women entering the workplace en masse in the 1960s, the price of homes and vehicles skyrocketed. the big corporations could now charge more for homes and vehicles because working women created the dual income household. as the income increased so did the tax rates....

...someone knows what's up.


TV

MrAnony1: I said that demonizing men is the difference.

I see your point here; extreme feminists demonise men while "regular" feminists either don't or indeed demand "equality" for men as well?

This presents problems as you are attempting to define feminists outside of feminism. Specifically it's tenets.

No fault divorce and the criteria for child custody and asset division is unfair to men. None of the feminist types "as described" are fighting against this.

Full reporductive rights for women, not only excludes men, but in it's fullness allows women to garnish responsibilities from men without affording them the attendant rights. Again, I do not see any feminsits as you've defined railing against this.

Your point is overly reductionist and simplistic. I feel feminism should be judged by it's outworkings on society as a whole - it's tenets and their implications - not just on whether some loathe men and some do not.

Just as we have men that hate women, we take action only against those who hate women and would deny or violate their rights. If some feminsits hate men, but are not acting in a way or promoting ideologies that actively harm them, what is the problem?


TV

joomiegirl: I live by the bible (so help me God), and that bible is at complete loggerheads with the ideals and values of feminists. I did not cook up those ideals, its what researched and seen.

I laud your firm Christian stance and appreciation that Christianity & feminism are like oil and water. Anything good about feminism is already demanded by Christianity. Christianity needs nothing added, taken away or revised/updated.

Very well said.


TV

MrAnony1: Beautiful response. If I had seen this earlier, perhaps I wouldn't have asked the same questions

Thanks. Not that I believe CarefreeWannabe has answers. Her feminism is merely a question of women being treated as if they were men.

Now to this;

MrAnony1: This is simply not true. You cannot give someone a universal right you can only stop violating it. This is like saying that the white man gave you your right to freedom. It was not his right to give, he merely stopped violating it. Universal rights such as the right to be treated equally are not the property of an oppressor to give. No one has the right to withhold from you that which is rightfully yours.

Firstly, the notion of rights is a recent one and oft times subject to perceptions and desires. Having said that, I totally get your point, so allow me too clarify mine;

Take the vote for example. There was a time when women were not allowed the vote. On the face of it, that seems discriminatory. Now delve deeper. Only heads of households were allowed to cast the vote as it was considered the household voted as a block. The Husband was typically the head, so he cast the vote. And perhaps the most pertinent point here is that other adult males who did not head households/own homes, were also denied an individual vote.

So to potray it as denying women their universal human rights is purposefully skewed. Things have changed, progress has been made and now the vote is universal. It was not truly a question of violation or of withholding in the first instance.

MrAnony1: This is what feminists fought for - they fought against the violation of their right to be seen as equal human beings with their male counterparts - and they must be commended for it.

Again, a feministic reading of history. Feminists as in women did not single-handedly fight and win anything. And certainly not the recent 3 waves. To follow your ealier analogy, it would be like black people claiming they single-handedly abolished slavery.

MrAnony1: In what way exactly is feminism toxic?

It's outworkings destroy the fabric of society. One example;

The insistence on unrestricted sexual licence up to and including the convenience murder of unborn children.
As you have clearly heard Carefreewanabe and others argue, under the guise of equality and "reproductive health" they want women to be as promiscuous as they please and be sole determinants of the life and death the natural outcome of human coitus - and the whole reason we are complimentary not competitive - babies.

Further, they push for the resposibility that goes with this right to be bourne by men. Men are to be responsible for the children women decide to unilaterally have - and usually without custody or care rights for the men.

As we have seen recently, they also want to be able to have this "reproductive freedom" and men to pay for their contraceptive or abortion costs. Rights without repsonsibility.

Then there is no-fault divorce. A woman can commit adultery and decide to leave a man who has married, housed and provided for her and their kids unselfishly for years. He is then forced to leave the home but to continue to provide for his ex-wife and children.

The toxicity; . But further we can see the now fractured relationships between the sexes. Marriage breakdowns and hyper-delinquency due to the prevalence of broken homes.

Men are wising up and simply refusing to engage. Commiting to women is a risky and low value proposition for men. The indigenous peoples of most Western nations are in decline. Birthrates are falling.

MrAnony1: In what way exactly is Scandinavia a mess.

Well the OP made the situation in Finland clear.


TV

^{**and I'm aware that in a narrow sense Finland is not technically Scandinavia. However, in a wider sense, Finalnd and other surrounding nations are grouped alongside. And more importantly, the social situation in view here is somewhat similar**}

carefreewannabe: Yet, no European will try to cross the ocean an risk his or her life to live in Africa. Not even a SINGLE European will risk his or her life to live in Nigeria.

Economic migration does not attest to a superior social fabric. And feminism does not make superior economies. The OP talks about the singular lack of economic impact by women in Finland despite rampant feminism forcing the issue. And what have they "gained"? Fractured male/female relationships.


TV

carefreewannabe: I have told you this a million times, it is ridiculous to talk about the Western societies as damaged when one is from Nigeria.

Are they perfect in the West? Are the current aims and goals of feminism that drive a lot of Western policy beneficial?
- a culture of death through abortion and euthanasia
- falling birthrates; most Western nations are suffering indigenous population decline
- high and rocketing rates of divorce
- likewise for children born out of wedlock and the ensuing delinquency
- fractured and adversarial relationships between men and women


For every ill you can point out in Nigeria, I can point out an equivalent in the West. Material things are not the sole indicator of a society' well-being


TV

carefreewannabe: Social issues such as the name calling of women who are not married and past 30.

Women have the right and opportunity to marry or not. That some believe - as I do - that marriage is central for both men and women and should be entered into mindful of biological imperatives, does not call for a "movement" to still dissenting beliefs

carefreewannabe: Social issues such as the celebraion of "bad boys" but discrimination of women who are not ashamed of having a libido.

Why is the celebration of bad boys a social issue? Are they bad by themselves? And if they are bad, is the answer to enjoin women to be equally bad?

carefreewannabe: Social and economic issues such as the conviction that a woman's primary role is motherhood.

Women are designed for motherhood. why is it wrong for men and or women to consider this a primary role? Why is it an issue if some believe this? Why must feminism eradicate different convictions?

carefreewannabe: Economic issues such as the ownership of properties.

Where are women legally refused the right to inherit or own property?

carefreewannabe: I could go on and on.

Needlessly so. Feminism is causeless and the gains often attributed to it happened despite it, not because of it. Progress would always have been made in terms of equality. Fact. Feminism has just co-opted and claimed those gains, Now given it's head, it is clearly evident how destructive it is.


TV

carefreewannabe: The West lives in the post-feminist era. Women and girls in this part of the world enjoy what their grandmothers fought for.

If the West is "post-feminist", why does the West still have rampant feminism? And what is it's purpose? In an effort to be relevant it takes and makes issues of non-causes and perpetuates myths like the "pay gap" and about "domestic violence". Feminism creates conflict between the sexes and damages society

carefreewannabe: The st.upid girls you poted the pics of take every right they enjoy for granted but their grandmothers had to fight hard for them.

Progress made by women was handed to them by men - and in many cases, rightly so - just don't make it sound like women fought and single-handedly achieved the gains.

carefreewannabe: Women in Africa fight for something Western women were fighting for 50 years ago. Nobody in the West is talking about feminism anymore as much as Nigerians are. Like always, Africans are AT LEAST half a century behind. WAKE UP.

Why are you making it sound like feminism is no longer extant in the West? Especially when it's toxicity is deeply evidenced in society.

carefreewannabe: What the West will be concerned about in the next years will be the rights of fathers if Western men decide to stand up for their rights. This will only turn into a mass movement if they will feel the need to do so.

More partisan error. Men are concerned about civilization, about society, about our families. We don't go around shrieking about rights. We take responsibility, we bear burdens. And feminism will never let mens rights take centre stage as it will roll back all the deleterious and selfish gains they've made.

carefreewannabe: Do not compare the West to Africa. Nigerians are AT BEST 50 years behind.

And with hope and time to avoid the mess in places like Scandinavia.


TV

Kay17: The truth remains, gender is a function of culture, don't mistake it with sexes which biological.

Gender is a needless construct, which is just an excuse for licence and indulgence - another misappropriated word in the pursuit of sexual incontinence.

Kay17: The battleground for feminism is focussed on rights. Political, social and economic rights not on courtship issues.

As an ideology, feminism leaves no facet of societyor human relations untouched. The feminist belief is that men are oppressors and matrimony as a vehicle engenders - pun intended - that oppression.

Further in the pursuit of equality - for which read sameness - a man can never ever have "authority over a woman, and we daren't mention the submission word.

Kay17: Feminism is much more deeper than gender roles. Hence most of the arguments against it are often red herrings and shallow.

Nope. Nothing deep or edifying about it. it's a scam - the pursuit of female privilege without responsibility - pure and simple.

Kay17: Should men have more rights to free speech than women OR more privacy rights than women? And issues of abortion and family planning revolve around privacy rights and health rights. But you hardly find people engage feminists on these vital pivotal issues.

Abortion is a privacy issue? Can I beg, borrow or steal a laugh. The right to murder an unborn child is a matter of privacy? Health rights?. Absolutely farcical. Is Pregnancy a disease.

Kay17: Feminism became prominent especially with the political right to a vote.

Was it only women that were denied the vote? And in as much as they did not have individual votes, did they not have representation? Keep trotting out fallacies.


TV

[quote author=cococandy][/quote]No you haven't insinuated the Bible is anti-punishment, just that the bible does not prscribe "a literal rod" as a form of punishment. Further, you have implied that "flogging" = violence and also that it is a corrective measure for criminals, and the Bible does not prescribe that. It further implies that any that flog thier chldren are treating them like criminals.

Let's not be emotive. Wild unrrestrained beating is not being championed here. An appropriate use of a literal rod as a sanction for childish misbehaviour. Said use being measured and fully understood by the child, and only used as one as a possible range of measures. Possibly as a last resort or not at all if other measures prove effective.

Abuse of the child is not being mooted. All you have done is insist that any type of physical punishment is violent & abusive (and fit only for use on criminals) in order to shut down the conversation.

As ever, I don't dispute your ideology or your right to practice it as you see fit. My point being about what the bible does or does not say. Feel free to take your pick - from Proverbs alone;


Proverbs 13:24 - He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly.

Proverbs 22:15 - Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13 - Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.

Proverbs 26:3 - A whip for the horse, A bridle for the donkey, And a rod for the fool's back.

Proverbs 29:15 - The rod and rebuke give wisdom, But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.


May our children never bring us shame, but unadulterated joy.


TV

In the West these days, one has to be “onside” of the prevailing ideology of the day. Otherwise the establishment rejects you. The establishment being that power working through the elites in politics, media, business, entertainment and the like, who, unseen too many, are working towards a common goal. I won’t speculate here on just what that goal might be.

Being offside or resisting enforcement of the prevailing tenetss or ideologies (read some elements of feminism and it’s twin homosexual equality) will get you brow beaten. If you do not toe the line, you will be “mob bullied” – by the attack dogs of the same establishment – shamed into silence, and effectively shut-out or ostracised.


It’s similar to – and somewhat exposed by - her later utterances on homosexuality, which were in lock-step with the US’ threats to Nigeria over – at the time – proposed legislation. New style imperialism – with the same ends.

Adichies utterances are just another method by which the establishment operates.. This was propaganda. She’s been bought and what we see is her selling out. I thought the OP was a bit off in how it was presented regardless of any valid points made. I actually think the rejoinder was poor overall.

But the speech itself was merely a string of anecdotes, aimed at painting the situation in Nigeria in the worst light possible. Where were the stats, the numbers or the evidence? Only an implied negative comparision to the West and Feminism as the solution.

Apart from the West “harvesting” her when she was all but ripe, did she not come up through the Nigerian system? Is she not a product of Nigerian parents, education and culture?

For every evil identified by “feminism” in Nigeria, I could identify one caused by feminism or other aspects of the prevailing culture in the West. And at an anecdotal level, Damiso has countered a lot of what Adichie claimed.

Do we have structural problems? Yes. Is feminism the answer? No. Are there things we could glean or even incorporate from the West culturally? Sure. Do we need to toss out what we have wholesale as useless, redundant and without value? Absolutely not.

Yes, we have some entrenched mindsets, attitudes and mores which we will be best rid of. We are in fact already shot of many of these, what we are seeing in some instances is vestigial remains. With time we will see further improvement, even if we do nothing else

Nigeria is progressing in some regards. Let’s remember, that the effect of any changes take time to trickle through. And some of the ones being pushed by Adichie and her Western sponsors are simply not beneficial and not wanted here. The fact that she needs to denigrate her culture to sell them speaks volumes.


TV

Did anyone actually listen to the speech before commenting? I also think that Adichie is barking up the wrong tree on feminism, but people should at least give her the benefit of the doubt before commenting on comments about what she purportedly said based on anothers interpretation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc

Was it the speech above? I listened to it - again, as I had actually heard it before - but it's over a year old Happy to comment on that, but is there a later speech?


TV

CC (ah, we now have two CC', Imma stick with Lottie ),

You said this;

cococandy: The rod of the bible doesn't literally mean a physical rod

And I asked that you substantiate this from the bible, using the "whole of scripture" - or as much as you know. Are you saying/teaching that the bible does not prescribe corporal punishment?

You have not answered directly. But posted the following, which I shall answer noting the fact you simply avoided the question.

cococandy: I think beating/hitting/whipping isn't an ideal form of punishment.
For one they are pain and violence based.

It's not mindless violence, its tempered corporal punishment, palms, buttocks etc. Not whipping an animal. Lottie, the use of emotive language does not a decent convo make. And the pain is warranted, to make a point and for the long-term good of the child.

Further, it's one of a range of possible sanctions, not necessarily used in every instance and yes, some kids may not need it ever. Is there an "ideal" form of punishment? If there was, surely it would mean that the child never offended again

cococandy: We are expected to correct our children in/with love.
Inflicting pain can't be a good way to show love.

This is certainly not biblical, in fact it's contra-biblical.

Hebrews 12: 5 - 6 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says, “My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”

Your notion of non-judgemental, non-pain-inflicting love is not biblical. We all love our children and no one wants or plans to have to punish them. But we do it for their long-term good - even if they don't fully appreciate that.

I knew from way back that the "rod" would be an option in my home. My wife was strongly against it - Oga prevailed . Our son is high-energy and much more than a handfull.

I use the rod sparingly, and most times only as a deterrent. His mum prefers, the go to your room, naughty step, time out strategies. But now even she has recourse to the rod - even if only as a deterrent .

cococandy: I didn't live in biblical times. But it is obvious that since flogging was a punishment for condemned criminals amd slaves,it can't be the same 'rod' that god was talking about when he said 'spared not the rod'

I hold you in too high regard to believe you are'nt fully aware of what you are doing here .


TV

cococandy: The rod of the bible doesn't literally mean a physical rod.

Holá

Please expantiate here. What is your understanding of what the Bible says regards corporal punishment?


TV

springtime2: it is not even a real handcuff, he can unlock himself if he wants lol. my story is not fabricated. it is hard to believe in nigerian community but very true story

There are a number of reasons that I'm doubtful, but to afford you the benefit of that doubt;

He just gives up easily. I am very adventurous and he is very timid, he said he will do but never do. But one thing I will give him is he has a lot of stamina and can go 60-90 minutes at a time.

He has stamina

that is why I am so frustrated. He told me about this past sex.ual escapade.

He has obviously done some sort of "adventurous" in the past

So there is really no problem.

Married men and women typically have mismatched libidos, as part of a mutually loving relationship with a sacrificial mindset, they meet somewhere in the middle or have times when they "give out" , with the "others satisfaction" taking priority over their own.

He can deliver the goods he just needs the time and encouragement. Please don't think solely of your own pleasure. Re the kitchen incident, maybe he appreciates other ways of being appreciated - why should your appreciation of his efforts/good work, be in a manner you choose?

And be careful of what you stoke up, life changes (i.e. birth) may mean your libido reduces - what if he insists on getting his "wife induced freak-on" then?

Physical intimacy, even great physical intimacy, is only one part of a healthy, fulfilling relationship. If it last long enough at some point it will be just holding hands anyway . And many of even the best relationships have periods when circumstances means it's not possible.

Learn to qualify the word "self" with "control" and "sacrifice".


All the best


TV

greatgod2012: I'm forced to log in because of this thread.....

Me too, but not primarily because of OP
you haff kill me with this and your subsequent posts ! I haven''t laughed so hard for a long time. Disturbing my colleagues wiff laff.

greatgod2012: Kitchen
Bathroom
Mouth action
Handcuff
Indecency films......etc....within one month of proposing to you.......it's certain that guy can't withstand your several se*ual adventures......and if i were him, i will take to my heels, because if this complains can be too much at this stage, i wonder how it will be when married...........i pity the guy sha............but mehn, young lady, you need to take it easy o........ther is more to marriage and life than all these.......may God help you to make the right decision o......
I'm out!

OP,
many black men hate handcuffs. Multiple arrests by oppressive law-enforcement personnel means we hate the sight and feel of the damn things .

Am I the only one who thinks this is fabricated or exaggerated at best ?


TV

^{**I suspect multi-monickering; old tag new handle**}

Chrisbenogor: This is not about being sentimental, it does not make single mothers bad people. It just affects their chances of getting hitched Cinderella style, it is not a put down it is just reality!

...and there are very few women on NL who like to face reality, deal with it, or remain calm and rational when it's pointed out to them.

We continue to bear with our women. But we won't indulge them in their irrationality .


TV

shaybebaby: Because in as much as they are raising children on their own, then yes they will be termed as such regardless of how their status came to be( widowed, divorced or runaway baby daddy), they are all single mums.

Firstly, this thread specifically speaks to an out of wedlock birth. This is clear even in my response that you quoted. Secondly, even if you wish to broaden the discussion, it does not change the reality of the hardship and long-term poorer outcomes suffered by SM and their children.

shaybebaby: However fact can and does change when they find love again or someone to share their lives with. Then they are still mums, actually they will always be mums, that fact is unchanging however the single nature of their existence is subject to change when they find a partner.

And one of my major points being that the chances of a SM "finding a partner", and one that is of the quality to restore what is missing, are reduced. As for "someone to share their lives with", that is wishy-washy and no guarantee that there will be a husband and father in situ, or that this person will necessarily have a positive effect on any children. Abuse is x6 more likely when one of the "partners" is a non-biological parent (choose your soap wisely )

shaybebaby: You are a part of the society that sees something wrong with this, based in your perception and should a single parent come into contact with you will be shaped by your negative perception of their situation and such for that moment, that becomes their reality, an unforgiving and unaccepting society- a judgemental one. They can choose to allow that influence their beliefs and actions and validate your perceptions as the norm, as unchanging and once they do that, they are tacitly accepting that to be their reality.

More sentiment and PC niceties. It's the SM that lives the harsh reality of of being a single parent. They are the ones who other women shield their husbands from, or don't get social invites, or have a 40% chance of living in poverty (<6% for a married couple) and being welfare-dependent, or fall down the "marital-choice" pecking order and are not welcomed by prospective MIL'S and have a harder time raising children, said children generally having poorer outcomes.

Because I can see and clearly identify a social ill, and clearly understand that we need to deal with it at the root, it does not follow that I am judgemental or non-supportive of individuals. And more to the point, nobody elses perception sets their reality, it's their own actions. Will OP's care and support of "his friend" change her reality?

shaybebaby: Or they can change it, reject your perceptions and seek acceptance elsewhere. Can they find it? Yes they can.
Because I know there are people who share my perceptions and we belong in this same society as yours. My perception of their situation shapes my reality when I come into contact with them. I believe they are to be respected for making right choices( if they do like everybody else) regardless of how they came to be in that situation. F they share my perceptions, together we shape our reality based on that.

This is just odd and what on earth are you qualifying as "right choice"?

shaybebaby: My aunt was a single mum, note the operative word being " was". She no longer is as she married again and went on to have more children, and is still happily married today. Yes she is the sole biological parent alive of the child from the previous marriage but not the sole parent of all her children. Her husband raised her son as his as well as his biological one with her. And that is in Nigeria.

Do the vast majority of mothers who have children out of wedlock experience this? Let alone all those who are single mothers for whatever reason (and I noticed your list of reasons did not contain, "willfully irresponsible women". In the days of "full reproductive rights for women", it's still not their fault if they have children out of wedlock )

I'm pleased for your aunt and cousin, but is their experience typical? Or to be the catch-all template and basis of policy or societal consideration of SM. Personal anecdotes are fine as far as they go, but they only go so far.

shaybebaby: So regardless of what you think and how you want to play on semantics, you cannot answer for people's perceptions and all you have control over really is your own. So the generalisations" most and many" which you are throwing about is nothing but your perception.
The fact that you are having this conversation shows that the reality of what you perceive is limited to you otherwise we would be in complete agreement.

It's you that are attempting to genaralise based on an atypical instance. And further employing semantics to glamourise what is an ill which has a LT cost to society to mask the harsh reality many SM face.

Out of wedlock births are not advantageous to the mother, children or society, fact. If you have any "facts" to the contrary, please provide them. Deceptively reaching for the moral high-ground by feigning being generous and supportive doesn't work or prove anything - no matter how well-meaning your post is.


TV

Sophyrocks: You talk like a Crude Sadist!!! No pun intended! Just read what i made bold up there.

All this suggest is that you do not know what either a "pun" or a "sadist" are. Having said that your posting history is testimony to your "level", so no surprises there.

Sophyrocks: You are not happy that there are Single mothers who are turning out great after all the challenges they face or that there are success stories or that there will continue to be success stories.

As ever you quote my post not in order to respond, but as a platform for one of your gibberish rants. All I have repeatedly said is that the LT outcomes for SM' and their offspring tend to be poorer than for married women and that marriage opportunities and quality of spouse are typically impaired by being a single mum. Truth hurts, but it's stone cold fact. Feel free to disprove it. Character assassination doesn't prove anything.

Willfully having a child out of wedlock is rightly considered a societal ill. The fact that the LT outcomes for some are not always poor is no reason to try and sell it as a good thing.

Sophyrocks: You seriously want single mums to suffer just to prove a point, that they are majorly responsible for their predicament or simply because the society stigmatizes them. Seriously?? You enjoy the stigma and in your judgemental mind, they have no right to happiness.

More of your usual wishy-washy rhetoric. Whatever my wishes, the harsh reality for most having a child out of wedlock is what it is. My aim to make people understand the hardship it can cause and thus avoid being SM' compares favourably to your permissive "single mums are hotcakes" nonsense. To rightly assess something as wrong and/or deleterious is to hate? I responded to Pick on this already.

Sophyrocks: They have no right to be happy simply because they are single mums? Are you kidding me? It pricks you when you hear success stories. It pricks you when you see that there are still men around, inspite of the stigma, who marry these women. What is your grudge with these women? Why can't you wish people well? why must you always wanna prove a point with stigma even when there is light at the end of the tunnel ?

More ideological confusion. You are clearly the one "pained" and without a consistently structured worldview. I am the marriage champion and chief marital advocate of NL , indeed, I want to see them and everyone happily married. I merely stress that having children out of wedlock does not improve ones chances. As for the societal stigma, it's for good reason and mostly promulgated by women.

Sophyrocks: You will really need to stop!! Your hatred for these women is sickening!! Gosh! and you call yourself a christian? Damn!

Stop what? You want to be prescriptive on a public forum? Good luck with that. Hatred? Judge between us. I counsel against children out of wedlock to ensure the best outcomes for women and children, you mindlessly declare single mums are hotcakes, willfully encouraging a practice society considers an ill and rightly stigmatises. You cheerlead them to poor long-term outcomes and stigma. Looking for those to join you in your misery or perhaps slyly trying to eliminate the competition .


Yes, I am proudly and resolutely Christian. Happily married and blessed with children. I do not practice, endorse or celebrate out of wedlock procreation. And you are?

Try and comprehend better, avoid sentiment and cant, leave your pain at home, thoroughly parse your own worldview and then join the debate. Not being prescriptive, just a well-meaning piece of advice !


TV

pickabeau1: Dude/woman be objective

Where did u see hate here.. is telling you to have a sense of realism rather than misplaced and misguided optimism hate?

A lot of the people talking are single themselves and thus cannot relate

Some of the married woman (i dare say most) will not even allow their husbands relate with single moms

Be real, dude or woman

It's the "new morality". Objection or disagreement to anything that anyone chooses to do is now termed "hate". People must always be affirmed in their choices - regardless of the outcomes - or you are a hater.

Where choices are glaringly immoral or wrong, statute and shaming will be used to persecute and condemn dissenting voices or contrary opinion

"The world", ensuring "conformity" since the fall. But now it's doing so pro-actively.


TV

shaybebaby: Perceptions shape our realities. Change the perception, change the reality. Reality is not static, it morphs and changes subject to how our perceptions of it changes.

Nope, truth shapes reality. A woman with a child out of wedlock is just that. Percieve it how you will. Even if it is legally codified as a good thing and encouraged by the state, most men will still prefer to marry women without children from a previous relationship. Those that fail to percieve that fact do so to their own disadvantage.

Put a dog-collar and leash on your cat and re-name it bingo - it remains a cat. Give two men a licence, conduct a ceremony and call it marriage, it remains an abomination. And they and everyone else know it, regardless of the statutes. One can refuse to percieve truth, but it does not alter reality.

shaybebaby: In essence, the reality you perceive for single mothers can change, is changing and will change.

Altering perception does not change reality. Why are you still referring to them as single mums? Why, because the fact remains.


TV

Date ke? I see that as for those without a rich culture, high tradition, blue-chip pedigree or sense of class.

I met her, then made her a high-value proposition;

"I am a prince of my people and favoured of The Most High, would you like to be woo'ed & courted I asked"
"Yes she replied, slightly breathless"

"Good I said. Advise your other suitors that their pathetic, limp-wristed efforts have come to nothing and henceforth should be focused elsewhere"

Woo'ing happened
Courtship took place
7 months later we were married

Now we be datin' like a time-stamp!


TV