₦airaland Forum

Essay time !

The way men and women are wired means a woman will naturally seek a mate of higher status. Especially where procreation is a factor. Men are better suited for the purpose of providing and protecting, and woman for nurture – both parties have always tacitly accepted and worked with this paradigm.

On paper it’s easy to talk about “equality”, but it’s more about wiring and roles. Whilst slight tweaking/changes may be fine, reversing the roles in the guise of equality interferes with the dynamic. In practice no woman wants to be with a lower status male and would not knowingly choose one unless circumstances dictated it.

A woman will find it hard to respect - and more importantly be physically attracted to – a man if he fails to demonstrate the appropriate “manly” traits. It’s not about earning per se. Earnings only become an issue if they mean the right dynamic cannot be maintained.

If for example the house hold requirements are say 100K and he earns 80k and she earns 120k, why should there be issues? If he’s working, active, providing & protecting as he should be, the dynamic is maintained - why will there be a problem?

If, on the other hand he earns 25K and she earns 45K if he can’t make-up the difference and more crucially doesn’t make the effort to, it could certainly lead to issues. Likewise if she is providing all they have or need single-handedly.

There could even be issues if he brings in 45K, she brings in 25K and there is a shortfall of 10K. He will be considered responsible for making up the difference, not her. He will be judged as not providing adequately, not her. The expectation to provide adequately is his, not hers.

After all, there are women who will leave a man that solely and adequately provides for another who solely and adequately provides more. And others who will leave a man once he ceases to adequately provide. It's the flip side of men leaving women for more youthfull ones - or acquiring more - when they realise thier resources enable them.

Look at Andy Murray and his “Partner” Kim Sears. What does she do? What does she bring? Financially? Nothing really. And she doesn’t really have to. The right dynamic is maintained if she brings the requisite female qualities – of which provision is all but inconsequential . Would it work in the reverse? Can anyone point to examples of the reverse?

And for any women here who are saying they would respect their man if you earned more, would you knowingly seek out a “lower status spouse”, especially if it meant you struggled financially or the financial burden was mainly on you? Even if it only meant you couldn't enjoy the lifestyle you desired? That's mostly a rhetorical question, because we all know the answer to that. But feel free to surprise us.

And for the men that like to agree and form feminist to score brownie points with women. They respond to the manly traits just like all the others. They are more likely to get with the one who demonstrates manly traits and in the unlikely event they do get with you, they won’t be happy. Feminist that marry well are only conceptual ones not practical. Abeg, Loretta, come and testify .


TV

carefreewannabe: Ma BUT please stop teaching people nonsense. No offence but the things you claim here are WRONG.

Instead of making unbacked assertions and swearing and screraming, why don't you simply show it? Surely if it's wrong and is being (dangerously) disseminated, it's in the best interest of many for you to do so?

All our "we are going to change the world and have a tranformational impact on society" types here can't rebut an ignorant conservative?

Or maybe there's deep wisdom in the "smiley necklaces" y'all regale us with that ignorant conservatives can't fathom !


TV

carefreewannabe: With all due respect, the statement that the problems in Afro-African communities are a result of matriarchy does not deserve to be discussed with full intellectual attention. It is a ridiculous statement and you should know it TV.

The AA community is just an example - that we are all familiar with - of what giving leave to feminist/matriarchal tendencies will lead to (it's almost like they've been used as an experiment?). It's evident in many other communities and societies, although perhaps not as advanced or immediately apparent.

The notion of full reproductive rights (i.e I can be as promiscuous as I like and kill my babies if it's convenient), is a core tenet of feminsism. Further, this unilateral right still typically means handing off responsibility to men.

It's why we have the question "if men should be responsible for children they don't want" (because those children can come to based on rights unilaterally accorded to women, with no thought given to the children and the mens rights tramlpled).

Ridiculous would be; Germany is historically, traditionally and culturally a matriarchy as it has a female Chancellor. Of course, if the Chancellor is male it revets back to a patriarchy right?

Intellectual attention? You know I'm always open to challenge, but please, stick to smileys if you've nothing cogent to add !


TV

pickabeau1: Lol...
Sad state of western black communities
Highlights the impact of the strong black woman

Strong = "I don't depend on no man, I'mma tell you more about strong when I get back from cashing my welfare check"

ihedinobi2: I just had to make sure that I identified with this. Very good one, Uncle TeeVee.

Ihe hi, how far?

My audience is usually men, so I appreciate you reading/your feedback. That's not to say Women are excluded, but my drive is to ensure men get understanding and then get it right. Being a man is being responsible. Being responsible often entails bearing burdens. But guys, be sure to bear burdens that are worth it.

And note the responses. No one has actually clearly and factually rebutted anything I've posted. It's been lots of snide remarks, imprecatory prayers for me not to have children, the usual ignorant & braying laughter and of course the favoured recourse of those who totally lack insight or a decent rejoinder - assault by emoticon/smileys.

I would pay good money for a decent riposte from our resident Princess-Teachers . I learnt pretty early on that a posture of high hope and low expectation was needed here.

May post a piece about "female entitlement" if I am chanced, but lets see where this discussion leads. Who knows, I may yet be surprised .


TV

coogar: a woman just got arrested as she deliberately left her baby in a train station. she will go to jail because she thought like you that birthing the child is better than having an abortion. she's one of millions of women who sell their babies at birth or throw them in a river

Where is/was the father? The presence of two biological parents significantly reduces the risk of abuse.


TV

pickabeau1: To some.. I guess it does

See my longsuffering 0!
People claiming to mock comments they can't grasp and don't understand . I'm also an optimist, so let let me bear with them, lest they descend even further into the error of some of their aunties on here.

pickabeau1: If Clinton wins , USA becomes one too.. Hurrah

The USA provides some good insight. Looking at matriarchy on a communal level, it's quite evident in a large swathes of the black community. Where many women lead homes. They tend to have children by multiple fathers and be welfare dependent.

Reproductive freedom without the attendent responsibility. Leading to unstable broken homes and delinquent children. Lots of deadbeat and/or estranged fathers.

Enabled mostly by state funding. Withholding that funding would be like taking away the fraudulent tithe from churches. And although funded to a degree, they remain for the most part poor and more crucially absent of strong, involved fathers.

They become sink pits for all types of societal ills - gangbangin', drug abuse, robbery and violence. And the cycle is perpetuated and worsened as families become even more dysfunctional and fractured. Back to the church analogy, it's like a generational curse.

That is a direct result of feminisms influence whilst enabled by "compliant men". As societies become more matriarchal the problems will become even worse.

That is why a responsible patriarchy is better (and a godly one best). It places restraints on both males and females. Ties fathers to mothers in the best interests of their children - and thus society as a whole - and ensures rights go with responsibilities.

"Modern women" like to see this as "oppressive" or "men controlling women", but it's not. Both have their restraints for the common good. The restraints differ because outcomes and burdens differ.

Men are held responsible in proper patriarchy. Now men are chaffing and eschewing matrimony as matriarchy takes hold, as they are "locked" by women/the state for responsibility, but denied rights.

Women don't and can't build civilisations. Sure they can run/operate them when up and running, but if allowed to give leave to their natural inclinations they'll run them down. It's a fallacy that women civilise men. Emotion civilising logic? What women do is domesticate men. Civilisation building is - and always will be a man thing

There are different roles for the two and in well ordered complimentarity a flourishing whole becomes evident.

Brodas, don't swim in dirry waters. Dem go lock you 0!


TV

^{**still can't truly believe that some of our seemingl enlightened women on this section - many self styled "tishas" - equate a female leader with matriarchy and vice versa? I shouldn't be surprised sha, they've being carrying conceptual feminism for ages without comprehending it's practical outworkings. We continue to bear with you as you regale us **}

Let me get this right, having a female leader makes a country matriarchal?

I must keep reminding myself that it's not about me.

It's actually quite troubling


Chei!


TV

Anacksunamun: What you wrote is the painful truth and it's not fair on the side of the ladies. I support such a dad be tied to a stake and burnt if he later comes back to reap where he didn't sow.It's unfair for a woman to singly labour to raise a rejected son, only for the dad of the child to return years later to claim the child or the child, to reconnect with dad and allow him enjoy the mom's effort.

Life's not fair, so I'll advice both genders to know the kind of people they sleep with, whether for recreation or procreation.

For the men, have sèx (if it's for recreation) with only the women that's wants séx for recreation only. It's hard to decipher a lady with ulterior motives, but just look wisely. The key when it comes to séx, lies with ladies, and there's nothing we can do about it.

For the women, know the priority of the men you sleep with, whether the séx is for procreation or recreation. Don't out of fraudulent means bring forth the child that the dad will reject. Consider the child growing up without a fatherly influence before engineering such an evil scheme.

Life ain't fair.

Appreciated.

I talk truth, with that which accords with happy families and healthy societies in mind. I'm happy for the back-biting and carping to continue unabated. I don't write for the gainsayers, but for those who may be reading and appreciate that reality bites.

Actions have consequences and should be balanced for the best all round outcomes. When they have the nous to mount a capable challenge to anything I post, I'll be here to acknowledge and even applaud them. Until then they can keep straining for attention.

A child also has rights and things that are in accord with their best interest. Once two adults create a child, they have a duty of care to prioritise the childs rights and interests. "Womens rights" as pursued, when taken to their logical conclusion deny rights to children and men, whilst deftly handing off their own responsibilities.

Men must be resposible for managing their actions or handling the outcomes. And not merely on the basis of their own desires or rights. If you don't want kids simply don't have them. If there are points at which you cease to have control over that desire, then don't pass that point. Especially if it means relinqushing control to someone who may be careless or deceitful.

If a parent is delinquent and the child is willing to forgive and reconcile - unconditionally sef - who has the right to deny them a relationship with their own parents and a connection with their heritage and culture? A child is willing to effect healing and 3rd parties are calling for death by hanging.

Even if a deadbeat dad realises the error of his ways and wants to do the right thing from that point, it's the childs call. If the mother cries blue murder and laments her years of scrifice and toil to raise the child, that is mere sentiment and not just cause to deny the child. After all, whether it was her carelessness or her deceit, was it the childs fault? So then why should the childs rights and choices be abrogated due to her feelings?

@bolded, he did sow - his gummy seed

Smirking with my pearly whites!


TV

coogar: i reiterate, the man shouldn't be forcefully dragged into it if he stated clearly before the act that he's not interested in making babies. it's as simple as that. if accident happens & she conceives, there are still measures she can engage to prevent the baby from being carried to term. the man's control has already ceased at this point.

However it happens, it happens, be that "innocently" or by decieit. But at that point, it is no longer a bilateral contract. There's a 3rd party involved and the interest and rights of the 3rd party have to be duly considered. An adult decision be that unilateral or bilateral to end the childs life doesn't sound to me like the childs interest were paramount.

At that point control is not the real issue. It never was. It's about actions and outcomes, rights and responsibilities. Think of this analogy, not perfect but please hear me out;

There's a growing euthanasia movement in Europe. Aimed primarily at old people. Essentially once deemed unproductive, burdensome or too ill/sufferign, they can be euthanised. By choice or the call of those acting as proxy. Scarily, they are now extending it too children. Ultimately these calls will be made on how faffed those responsible can be to continue caring. Or perhaps how keen they are to chop inheritance. It's the same selfishly warped thinking. Feel free to differ.

coogar: he gets no choice, no room to manoeuvre. what's he to do? it's not his fault his condom broke or he was lied to. he wants no part of it & his wishes should be respected. if the woman then decides to go it alone then it's her prerogative. she should not then saddle the responsibility on the man that was never ready to shoulder such burden. it's as simple as that!

He had the choice to manouvre at the outset. The primary purpose of coitus is procreation. Within a committed relationship you get recreation at no extra cost. The "responsibility" is as an outcome of his actions. He's not being saddled, merely harnessed . It's only simple if there are only two parties involved There are not.

Totally get you point, our worldviews jar.


TV

Stillfire: Without adding ethics/morals to the topic, I absolutely agree. If a man doesn't want the child and she does, she should solely take care of the child. There certainly are outliers and all cases may not carry equal weight like a married couple or teenagers, but a grown woman must be held accountable for her actions. I believe stricter measures should be employed in issues like this, so that women would be more selective in their choice of bed mates.

Firstly, why would you discuss such a topic devoid of ethics or morals? If there is no morality about it, then why is it an issue in the first place?
Secondly, in a true sense, with the best will and all the resources in the world, one parent cannot best raise a child
Thirdly, this is premised on the desires of the two adults and them alone. It takes no heed of the childs best interest or rights.
Fourthly, yes a grown women should be held responsible, but without men being held equally responsible in tandem, it won't work. Not least because they are subject to more biological and reproductive pressure. Not to mention the social pressure - mostly from other women !


TV

coogar: well, if the child seeks the father & forgives him then there's nothing anyone can do about that. that's the choice of the child. all i am concerned about is people shouldn't be forcefully dragged into a venture they never wanted from the outset - it's very selfish.

Whosoever does the seeking or makes the first move is besides the point. If forgiveness, reconcilliation and healing occurs it's in the childs best interest and will strengthen the lineage.

And the "choice" - for which read rights - of the child is my main point. Everyone has rights and responsibilities and no ideology should trample or give preference to that of men, women or children over the other.

Was the child not "dragged" into it by the actions of the parents? Who holds brief for them? The man was not forced to lie with the woman was he? Neither was the woman forced to be intimate with the man. And there are outcomes, which are different for both and for the child.

Saying a man should not be "forcefully dragged" is slightly misleading and takes up the story part way through. Is unwillinglness or inability of the man to "father" the child worth killing the child for? I stand by my "sex and procreation within marriage (with a worthy spouse) position".


TV

coogar: any father that comes back after the woman worked hands & knees to raise that child into a successful individual should be tied to a stake & burnt alive - he's an infidel that wants to reap where he didn't sow.

That may well sound equitable, but it's not for the mother or father to dictate.

A child has the right to know his cutural and genetic heritage. If the father was deadbeat and the child is willing to overlook that and restore the relationship and return to the fathers bosom and reaquaint themselves with their paternal family, why not? If the child is willing to bring an end to an unfortunate chain of events why not? Moreso, if the father has seen the error of his ways.

Whatever mistakes were made, were not made unilaterally by the father. The worst a father can do is not be there to raise the child. Once the gift of life is given, it's the mother that is in a position to deny the child life and willfully deny the father his parental rights. Even if he's a deadbeat/runaway/sperm donor of a dad seeks rapprochement with an abandoned child late in life - even if it's that's due to a wretched life and the child is £100K a week athlete, he has that right. It's down to the child to reject or accept his overtures.

Why should there be a law to stop that, when there is no law to stop the mother aborting the child in the womb?

#Bring back our Patriarchy


TV

coogar: report to the police after the deed had been done? so what will police do? bring the baby back to life?

coogar you have both time and patience - and more interestingly hope?

Where abortion is legal and there is not even a marriage covenant between the two, there is simply no recourse for the man if he wants the baby and the woman doesn't. This is regardless of his ability or willinglness to provide for the offspring.

If the woman wants the baby and the man doesn't, he has no recourse if she insists in keeping it. She also has the right to insist he takes responsibility regardless of his willingness or ability. In many instances, she is able to keep him from the child - essentially enforcing his responsiblity and denying his rights

It's rights for women and responsibilities for men. That is matriarchy. Women having the choice of being sexually unrestrained, with men bearing the cost of the womans choices. Reproduction comes at a cost and men typically fund it. The main difference between patriarchy and matriarchy is that with the former men get rights with their responsibilities, but with the latter they are without incentive, therefore responsibility is forced.

Like I said, I don't swim in such waters. I still believe men should take responsibility, but not devoid of rights. In countries where matriarchy truly holds sway, a woman can have a child without a fathers input as it will be fully funded by the state. But the state gets it's money from men, as they typically produce the excess required. Men have always funded children. Directly or indirectly. With or without rights.

And I must make a mention to feminism to enliven my votaries ! Feminism knows and has pushed this. Ironically, where it has reached it's fullness, the only men who benefit are those who are prepared to be deadbeat dads. They get to keep a harem of "state" funded baby mamas, essentially paid for by productive men.

But you can't beat natural and bilogical imperatives. Children suffer that lack of a true fatherly presence. And as the men get savvier, there aren't enough of the type of men women really want willing to commit to them.

The best men (who are in short supply) get the highest value women. The long throats and the unattractive get left out, stuck with betas (in relationships that don't last or aren't really happy). Or become second, third etc. wives or baby mamas.

They fill this place out, the bitter divorcees, pained older singles and single parent household champions. Matriarchy basically cheapens sex with devastating results. Patriarchy (where properly instituted) put constraints on the sexual behaviour of both sexes and means flourishing well-ordered societies. Men build civilisations not women.

Don't swim in them dirty waters. Believe in Him and drink from the Living one.


TV

freshdude2: Funny. Perhaps, you really haven't grasped the workings of the human mind and emotion, it naturally yearns for reconciliation and catharsis. Where you see a betrayal, a child could see a life of torture meted by its mother by intentionally bringing it into a world where there'd be inadequate love and the constant thought of rejection. Perhaps, the child should avenge its mothers selfishness? Life isn't really about what favours women or what women assume favours them. Like Baby12 said, why bring a child into the world when the "father" would have no part in it's existence?

I had to like this.

To imagine that a child reads an absent father as betrayal by that father is symptomatic of the solipsistic thinking of many women. Even if the mother villifies the father throughout the childs formative years. Many - and certainly most males - will yearn to know their heritage and background.

As you delightfully stated. It's basic human nature. Amidst all the talk of womans rights, they cannot grasp that full knowledge of their cutural and genetic heritage is a childs right.

I once dated a girl whose parents were divorced. She had a brother and sister. All 3 kids stayed with their mother. Mother was relentless in ensuring their was no contact between the man and his kids. She made sure non of his letters or gifts ever reached the children.

Then she found out that the boy had been secretly visiting his father for years. She almost had a coronary. When the girl was relating the story to me, she was puzzled as to why her brother woul ddo such? I quietly laughed as I planned her exit.

And these where countryfied English people. Betrayal? In our Naija? where kinship ties are still of the highest importance. I laugh out loud in arapahoe. I have female cousins who were estranged from their fathers. When it came to marrying pedigree men who insisted on marrying properly, no one told them before sought rapprochement with their fathers. No matter how long the mothers facers were. Betrayal ko, treachery ni.


TV

freshdude2: Lovely post. Even though we aren't satisfied with the performance, we should be with Keshi's effort considering what he had to work with. I feel we could have been in the quarters with a little more luck not many teams that made it there did much better than us.

We need a real captain and at least three other leaders in our team. Also, the seeming uncertainty of Keshi's job and the blatant disrespect from NFF towards him made it almost impossible to eke out a better performance. In the end, the team seemed not quite a unit. My 2 shekels, according to you.

'Sup bro'.

A valid point re Keshi. He did a decent job all told. But to be relaly frank, I think a team with lofty ambitions needs a coach with the right pedigree. That has to be experience at the highest club levels or clear international (not just continental unless it's Europe or S/A) success.

To be even more frank, I think Naija players would respond better to Scolari or Mourinho type. And yes, I reliase what that is implying, but I just think it's the truth.

If we can secure a long-term coach - akin to the Westerhoff era - who could mould the team and map out a long-term strategy, we can start to set ourselves last 8 - and beyond - expectations. It doesn't take that much and we've seen teams like Naija, IC, Cameroon and Ghana have the basics in terms of players/ability.

The diffence between Ghana and Germany was application and organisation. To a lesser degree desire, but that desire is mixed in with pedigree and expectation, which is, and will always be high for teams like Germany. That's the difference between Ghana going home after the group stages and Germany contesting a place in the final.

Apart from the Portugal game - and that was skewed - all Germanys matches have been tightly contested, yet they've managed to prevail. Efficiently dull in some ways, but really that's classy in a way.

And to your excellent point about leadership. You are spot on. That could have made up for some of the other things we lacked. But the only one who tried to demonstrate that was Osaze - and I get the distinct feeling that he wasn't supported or encouraged in that regard? The internal wrangling/politics perhaps?

Mikel and Moses are too "beta" in a footballing sense at the moment. They don't lead or star for their clubs and it shows. Moses could well have done better for Naija if he's been a focal player at Wigan, rather than an underused squad player at Liverpool. Too many of the others just play with a "solo" mentality.

Funny I had a thought when watching them. As some players stars rise during WC', others wane. Mikel & Moses may never agin reach the club heights they have in the past. Both are at crossroads and their showings here won;t have helped. I think Moses needs to find a mid-level team and take a more starring role. They may both be able to do that if they are as young as I think. I just don't see them starring in top tier EPL teams.

10 shekels worth at least.

TV

SangoCrusader: I never actually understood women until I started wearing my ring on my wedding finger, then I realized that girls were more receptive to my advances when they thought I was married! Surely I am not the only one with this experience... for example, girls stare at me more when I am with my gf than by myself.

It's not all women by any means and you also have to understand that there are still certain constraints on behaviour (although these are fast loosening). But once you understand the basics of female hypergamous behaviour, particularly the triggers for attraction and biological responses, you'll understand that women are as easy to read as ABC. It's actually easier for men to read women than it is other women, as although women for the most part act and present emotionally, their responses to the main drivers are quite logical.

So for example, your wearing a wedding ring or being with your girlfriend, or indeed having a toddler in tow. Your typical woman reads that as another female seeing value in you. That automatically increases your status/worth/value as a catch. Especially if the toddler or GF are visually fine or appealing.

Whereas men seeing a friend/brother with a fine woman will for the most part desire "their own". hypergamy in women means she is just as likely to want take someone elses mate as he is already established as having status. Go out with an unappealing girl and see the exact opposite reaction .

SangoCrusader: Long story short... girls do not want what's 'good for them', they never did. Most girls (not all) would rather queue up for a baller than follow Mr right, while some use this preggers tactic to hook him.

You are right to say "not all".
The reason they go for the baller is all down to women responding to triggers. If you want that reaction you just have to know the triggers. Most girls wise up when they realise their value/status is not what it was when they were young and fresh - i.e. they can't get the ones they want and feel they deserve to even look at them. That's the point they typically turn into feminists and start screeching "equality" and marriage is not the be all and end all of a womans life ! Where is Sophydoesn'trock sef?

Like I said earlier, I personally do not swim in those waters. I reserved my high status for a "not all" kinda girl

"Thirsty hoes" in this day and age? In fact, in any day or age? Brother please, it's always been a mans world, you just need to understand and be wise.


TV

BananaBender: Dude, you are weird!


Do you just like arguing even when you're not making any sense??


I just helped you out negro, I just defined feminism. If you cannot reconcile that with whatever your issues are, that's none of my business.


Courage??!! What does that have to do with anything?? What are you ever talking about??

Apologies, I guess I fell into your favorite sin, "presumption". I've learned my lesson.


TV

SangoCrusader: Interesting question @TV01. It will be a sombre conversation but yes, I will have to. After all, if women can tell men that they have used the pill, the injection, or the implant to prevent unwanted pregnancies, surely a man can say he has had a vasectomy to prevent the same.

So sombre it could lead to doubts if not scupper the whole thing...

It's another conversation and I wouldn't want to derail, but part of the nonsense that women are sold is that contracepting gives them "freedom. Why would anyone believe that chemically interfering with their reproductive system is a good thing? The long-term health consequences can be horrendous - but kept well hidden. I suppose the lure of seeming consequence-free sex is too powerful?

In advising men, I feel that a mate as close to chemical, abortion and sexual promiscuity free as possible is best - I guess that means ideally a virgin !

But seriously, I certainly wouldn't advise a young lady of high worth to be with a man that willfully mutilated himself to avoid "thirsty hoes". There are men who do a good job of keeping themselves, "why not find such a one I'd advise".

And regardless of the above, if ultimately a child is involved - and it's yours - abandoning it would make you worse than the mother.


TV

SangoCrusader: "...d females aint even asking em to help in carrying d pregnancy for just a single day, JUST cater for d child wen he or she is born..."

Are we talking about a child, or a pokemon here? Since when has catering for child for the next 18 years of your life been 'just'.

Girls with such opinions are why I decided to have a vasectomy...

Just curious, lets say you meet a woman of high-value (there are loads of them out there you know), who you feel is worth marrying, will you tell here about the vasectomy and why you had it done?


TV

bellong: TV01, My expectation was met by the boys.....

I agree.
I am still left with a sense of "not as bad as feared, but not as good as could have been.

That French team was eminently beatable abd they didn't actually create any goals against Naija themselves. And they lost to the Germans, who themselves narrowly avoided defeat by Ghana.

Only Algeria outperformed from Africa. The rest could all have done better. Much better in the case of Ivory Coast & Ghana. Hopefully we'll all see that with a littel organisation and national fervour, even the smallest nations can do well. Costa Roca, Greece, Iran and yes Algeria all showed that.

And in Footballing terms Naija, Ghana and IC are not small nations. It would be so much sweeter if there was still an African team to cheer.

Are we really gong to say well done, are we going to claim that we are satisfied?


TV

SangoCrusader: A vasectomy is £800. I'm in Abuja atm but will sort it out soon as I am back in London 1st of September. Apparently, it can be easily reversed if done within 5 years or... you can store your sperm in a sperm bank so when you do decide to have kids, you can get ur tubes tied again and use the stored sperm t increase the chances of conception. I would recommend this to all NL guys... a lot of thirsty hoes out there looking to 'hook' guys.

There are cheaper, less risky, more convenient and not as messy sounding ways to keep yourself safe from "thirsty hoes". Not being prescriptive, just saying.

All the best

TV

BananaBender: Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.


We are not advocating children or men's right when we are talking about feminism.

If MRAs feel that our rights are obstructing or infringing their freedom/rights, then they should speak up and debate it.

...just when I thought I sensed some courage.

What "Feminism" is in theory and how it translates in practice is quite plain to see.

Your dilemma is deeper than I first thought. From the off, an ideology that ultimately pits one against the other - no matter how nobly intentioned - will result in conflict.

MRA's are no the answer to Feminism, just like feminism is not the real answer to any perceived inequality between the needs rights and best interest of men, women and children.

I hope your dilemma doesn't become a predicament. Or maybe I do? If that what it takes to for you to get it.


TV

coogar: sex is split into two. recreation & procreation.

Sorry mate. It doesn't work like that in the real world. Not for men anyway. Full reproductive rights for women mean only they truly have this split between sex as recreation and procreation.

It's called matriarchy dude, get used to it .


TV

BananaBender: *lazily responding*

Most feminists are pro-choice, we are not against abortion biko.

The op's question raises some sort of dilemma for me because.......

If men aren't held accountable for their irresponsibility in creating an unwanted baby because they opted for abortion, then the sole responsibility of protection lies with the woman. (The teenage girls are my concern actually) This seems unfair as it reminds me of the typical Nollywood mother that spends time sex educating or "sex shouting" their daughters because "she is the one that gets pregnant", "she is the one that will have to give up her education" but choosing not to do the same for her boys forgetting that it takes two. A teenage boy is encouraged to have gfs and most times, hailed for such but the female child?? Mbanu!


Feminists believe that a woman should be able to make decisions that affects her body. So, if she wants an abortion and the man wants the child, she has every right to terminate the baby. Do we agree? If she wants total control of her body, then she should have total responsibility and I shouldn't feel pity for the teenage girl.

I know I'm not explaining myself well but I hope u can see where I'm going, .................

We can absolutely see where you are going. And I quite like your honesty - just hope you will follow it too it's logical conclusion. But the truth can be a little unsettling, which is why you scarpered last time !

If, as feminists demand, women should have full reproductive control (euphemistically "rights" over their own bodies), it means there can never be true equality, as men have no rights, but can be held "responsible" at the unilateral behest of women (or those that enforce their "rights". This is worsened by making the man have responsibility for the child, but no "rights" over the child.

The "rights" of both children and men are being trampled to ensure those of women. Not real equality, which feminism is at pains to claim it is all about. That's why so many see feminsm as acquiring priviliges for women at the expense of men?

Your dilemna will disappear once you grasp and admit either;
1. Feminism is not really about equality - at least not in it's contemporary form or
2. It's aboout female privilige and you are happy with that !

Hope that helped your dilemna .


TV

^{disclaimer: I don't swim in the waters where such notions hold sway - I'm just keenly aware of them. For the record, as a Christian I believe intimate congress and procreation between a man and woman should be restricted to a marital setting.}

swtchicgurl: It's not like the only thing you're here for is to discuss or propagate sexuality related topics, except I'm wrong.

Yes actually, you are wrong. Despite the ingenious ways homosexualist use to portray the gay lifestyle. It's only about hedonistic sex. The" cool gay" image is a damnable lie. It's a desperate, degrading and dehumanising lifestyle. But don't take my word for it;

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Lee-The-Truth-About-The-Homosexual-Rights-Movement.php

Hezron Lorraine: I remember bro,our work here is done,time for greater thingz jare.
Enjoy homophobia while its still legal@AllHaterz.

And we will continue to tell the truth about your disgusting and vile lifestyle whatever you term it or legally label it.


TV

Nashville: What I was hoping to get from these discussions was contributions from mature people that would help some reader going through these scenarios. We can go the way of - all these guys are going to hell or just look at things they could have done better; so someone else would learn from it. Nothing wrong in analyzing these stories and looking at where things went wrong and lessons to be learnt.

My point exactly.

Just dropping it without evaluating in any way or being prescriptive could be misleading. Perhaps something like; "this is what I believe they could have done differently...", or "IMHO this was shaky as major aspirations were not discussed at the outset.....", or even "what are peoples takes on these situations...". Would have kicked the right convos off.


TV

Nashville: TV,

Great post and wish you could be here more. Examples I have given are real life examples of people that have real challenges. All I say here are two things. It takes the grace of God and God's grace only for any man to stand. Second lesson is that he that thinks he stand take heed, lest he falls.

On this page, I have given examples of three guys. One whose wife was never around, one who couldnt conceive and one with a troublesome wife. The third is not cheating on the wife as he is a committed Christian. I am sure that there are several guys who may be going through similar problems reading this. We should try to look for ways to help them and not judge them.

I will be glad if you could address those three scenarios and suggest things the guys could have done better. Over to you or anyone else!

When you give examples and then flinch away from taking a moral stance or making a value judgment - especially with the rider of "who am I to judge?" - whether you realise it or not, you are being morally relative and appear to be tacitly winking at it. Especially where there is no balancing example or any corrective counsel

The false piety of "who am I to judge" or "it takes the grace of God" doesn't help very much either. Because God certainly will and His grace is not arbitrary. No one wants to condemn friends or family, but we shouldn't for that reason hesitate to give a clear evaluation. Like I suggested, perhaps depersonalise it somewhat.

Having moved away from the absolute to the relative, the pragmatic will almost certainly follow. Ultimately you go the way of the "whatever works for you" crowd. It's becomes about individual desires and satisfaction. We have those that preach that here, I don't count you as one of them. You may be grounded enough to discern this, others may not. It's them I'm concerned about. Otherwise we're just shooting the breeze.


TV

Nashville: Please mention names, I want to know.

But on a serious note, I will ammend my post and say - I will never cheat on my wife; so help me God. The reality is that cheating is a choice but some guys that cheat made that choice even though they never planned to. It was not their first or second choice, but somehow they did what they may not have wanted to. I always pray that we will not be lead into temptation but will be delivered from evil.

I will give you an example of a friend of mine whose wife was just never around. They got married in Nigeria and a few months after the wedding, she was posted abroad by her job for two years. Things were tough but he managed. After the two years, they spent a year together in Nigeria and she then decided she wanted to go for a Masters in the UK for a year. After the Masters, then she got a job in the UK and was telling my guy to relocate and join her. Of course he refused and it became a big family problem. When they could not resolve the issue my guy just started dating one girl in Lagos jare. He was cheating and that was his choice, but I tell you, I will not judge him. The wife eventually came back to Nigeria and they somehow resolved the issue but seriously I cannot judge the guy o!

I give you another example of my uncle who did not know any kids with his wife. They tried everything, I mean everything, hospital, church and even jazz sef but nothing worked. After 15 years, the family pressure was getting too much, he tried outside and the woman conceived for him. Was he forced to cheat - a big no, but I never pray that anyone will be in his situation.

All I can say is that, I will not cheat - so help me God.

Whilst there is nothing wrong per se in sharing experiences - personal or otherwise - let us be mindful that no individual case is the benchmark. Neither should any instance of a "situation" be allowed to overly colour our views.

I have long pleaded for "aspirational" counsel on this forum. That I believe would be best for all. What could be, what should be, as opposed to what obtains and what people settle for.

For every exampe cited of why people cheat, I could give a similar one where more perseverance, greater moral probity, deep faith or even selflessness - love - was shown. I could quite easily punch a hole through every illustration based on the reasons given.

Even if we are to "personalise" it somewhat - and I agree relatability makes much better reading, can we at least keep it balanced. There are heaps of moving examples out there.

I was out shopping with my wife and I ran into a Sis' I used to fellowship with. She and her husband had been together for years. No issue. Through thick and thin, they stuck together. Always believing it would one day be their turn to experience a "parting of the waters". They never ceased to participate and show love to all around them, even as they waited. When we ran into her it still hadn't happened. My wife was all but ready to drop. I didn't know where to look and words failed me - yes me TV - I had cotton mouth. They are still waiting and were in their mid-forties when I first met them almost 15 years ago. And they are still as committed to each other as they have ever been.

Please let me know if this is a fast food joint so I can make my way.


TV

A husband & father taking an active role in looking after his children is news? Someone please remind me what year and planet this is?

Ronnie65: Really interesting. Please how does a babe attract a guy who doesn't seem to show much interest in her? without appearing desperate or been turned into beer palor topic?

These days loads of guys can't read body language and eye contacts. help a sister out.

BTW, we both are in contact but he comes on to me srrongly once a while and just shuts off after a while. he probably needs to be plugged to a stabilizer. Lol

I don't want to put all my cards on the table for him for obvious reasons but can't watch him slip off either.

Today is not girls day jor...can't your sisters help you ?

Okay I like your humility in stepping forward.

You've already given him "access". He can come and go as he pleases. In reality, you are the one left "destabilised". Will he, won't he? Does he, doesn't he?

If I were to advice you ab initio, I would always say be guarded in allowing men access. Keep things polite & platonic. Moreso if you like him. If he's good and mature he will make the effort and force the issue. If he's not, he isn't really worth your while.

Women can also try boldness, but slightly differently. On a "flirty" occassion, simply ask him. You know him better than we do, so think your approach through. I can suggest an outline, but I can't be prescriptive;


TV

Nosyke: Now to the second point, in a case whereby most of the people (females) around you are either your mate or older then you (either due to the fact that you graduated from school on time or you started working on time), how can one make very healthy platonic Guy-Chic relationship (maybe with a view to making it something serious )?. More often than not these ladies want something serious which one might not just be willing to give at the moment[/i]

Men must take responsibility for their relationships. And act as having a "duty of care" when engaging women.

To keep it platonic simply do not send out wrong signals, give hints or be caught up in situations that suggest otherwise. If the girl is getting the wrong impression or "trying to make it happen", you need to disengage, limit contact or simply speak plainly - but kindly.

Note;
1. Some women read any nice gesture as a sign of intent. Be careful.

2. Some women will see what they want and try and make it happen by sheer force of will. It may not be because of anything you do or don't do. Beware.

Platonically, treat them like sisters, don't be flirtatious. Be polite and helpful without overdoing the bobo nice or falling mugu. If you wish to step it up, you suggest something. Start cooly, drink meal etc. Light-hearted chat and probe without being nosey. If they are always around., scope them as much as possible without being intrusive. It's worth finding out a person before stepping-up if possible. Saves time and effort. Before suggesting anything, if they are in the same office, linger a little at their desks, chat a bit more. To them, not about them.

Don't think "serious" until you have a decent bio. Otherwise it's simply speculative, or at best "getting to know".

I speak as a serious man to serious men. I was celibate for over a decade. Met loads of women, but never called any girlfriend. Met my wife, got to know her, woo'ed her, courted her, married her.


TV

fresh_dude: @TV, I agree with your points especially where you say circumstances do not make a man cheat. I'll disagree with you saying cheats are non-men though, a human is way too complex to be defined by his ability/inability to control some habits, I believe.

I agree with you. I didn't say not men...not men in the sense of character/conduct in that respect.

TV