babygirlfl:
Shinatu and SirShymex, I have enjoyed the dialogue between the two of you. Shinatu you asked the questions that I would have asked. Sirshymex, some of your post was really nice.

Thank you babygirlfl, it has not been easy to hold that dialogue amidst all the hostility on this thread and it seems 'that' question will not be answered afterall.

Shinatu:


Thank you babygirlfl, it has not been easy to hold that dialogue amidst all the hostility on this thread and it seems 'that' question will not be answered afterall.

Er, I've placed them on the permanent ignore button now.

And I think I've answered you question - go check my reply.

I think I said: since a man who isn't the provider (who might probably be out of work) would have more time on his hand, there's absolutely nothing wrong in compromising, and help your partner out with domestic chores. Just to get the pressure off her a bit. However, it has to be to a certain level, with certain things - to avoid giving room for disrespectful behaviour. And also that won't negate the space the man is as the head of the family.

Yields:
I call him a dunce, he copies me. What is your malfunction that you do not understand a simple thing? You just changed your statements yet again. It's people like you who commit fraud. I'm just heading home and don't have your time right now. It's not my job to teach you what you should've learned years ago. Dude is so damn irritating.

You're certifiable! An asylum should suffice.

Such putrid petri-dished brain...and you still can't tell me how your so-called research techniques work.
Next time when you want discredit a claim, you provide yours to back up your angle genius.
What is your own statistics on women who are capable of raising an adopted child like it was theirs with all the benefits that come with it? Do you have a number?
Of course you don't, such things are rocket science to you.

I'm irritating? You haven't seen the worst of it.
After this, you will think twice before crossing paths with me on these boards ever again.
It's not your job to teach, but when you placed your leprous hands to type on whatever device you own to refute my stats, you didn't stop to wonder if it was your job then huh?

Answer the damn question before fronting about your time and not caring, like I give a rat's ar.se about your existence.
If you can't follow-through on your arguments without acting uppity when it gets tough, desist from quoting to make corrections.

On to the next bytch, Shymexx you're up.

And oh BTW, about me committing fraud...best believe I can and hold no reservations about committing some psychological fraud on you. I will mess up your brain and confuse you so bad you'll doubt the spelling of your own name.
Next time you want to engage me, think deep and hard before I run you mad.

Acidosis:
Only those in love-less marriages fight the rule of submission.



Minister:
"Thou have this Man to thy wedded husband, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love him, comfort him, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?"

Wife:
I will

Do you know the origin of that 'ordinance'?

'God' is a White Male somewhere between 70 and 80 with a white mane and white beard. He is clothed in a flowing white robe and wears sandals. He owns a fine piece of strictly VIP real-estate called "Heaven" and has His handsome, trimly bearded, immaculately conceived Son (who is him but also not Him) sitting on a throne to His right (there is a white dove floating to His left). The third character, the Holy Ghost, is nowhere to be found/seen (I suppose this has something to do with his ghostly nature) - but there are trumpets! Trumpets are huge deal in heaven. It is said the angels use them to play heavenly jingles, and whatnot.

That aside, throughout the centuries, Gods own have been through quite the mis-adventures. They've witnessed plagues, talking snakes, parting seas, life in the belly of a whale, near slaughter of an only child by the command of said 'God', a worldwide flood and a resultant shared voyage with pairs of millions of animals and pesky insects of all kinds, and etc etc. - but they've learned a lot a long the way. Submission was one of those things.

Most people claim it was Paul (who btw looks alot like 'God') in his white-bearded wisdom who first ordered wives to submit to husbands right after he ordered husbands and wives to submit to each other...but alas that is not the real origin of this whole submission thingamajig. The real command came from the Son himself in a story I will now illustrate to you:

'And Jesus set out toward the Mount of Olives, being lost, Mary Magdalene turned to him saying

'Rabbi, why don't you stop at one of these wells and ask for directions'

Jesus, being annoyed, said unto her

'Woman, can not you see that I wear the man robes? Why then doest thou question my navigational prowess? Nay, but let all women keep silent and do whatever the man sayeth.'

And thus he took the scenic route; across the sea of reed.'

So you see, this whole submission Ish started long before Paul had a chance to set feather and ink to parchment. And that, my friend, is the story of the true origin of your above mentioned ordinance. A-men!

Disclaimer: May contain some creative license, but no offense meant. My exposure to Christianity is limited to years at a private (catholic) school, staring at "Biblical Art", and speed reading the King James Bible many a time

SirShymex:
[/s]

[s]

Stark illiterate, cry me a river after getting your ar.se whooped. I won't be surprised if your whole PC is already drenched with saliva oozing from your putrid mouth, you down syndrome having donkey induced by artificial insemination. A by-product of an eunuch father who just did what he had to do to have a bastard for a son. The test tube that made you should have been blown into smithereens in the process, freaking accursed village chimp.

I can't be ar.sed to engage you again - you're so beneath me. A floor mat to step on. The person I was engaging, TV01, who's actually way out of your league - got the message and moved on.

Sod off - engaging you has reduced my IQ by ten-folds, low IQ having ape.

You're yet to make clear the exact difference between both words going by your ever so helpful dictionary companion.

Bytch like you've admitted, don't engage me again...you are incapable of having a stimulating argument that would run more than a page.
I have made it clear to you that exchanging insults, which you so pride yourself on - is so darn easy. You should try something more mentally-tasking like carrying on an argument devoid of expletives and jibes for more than a page...but surprise, you're sorely incapable of that.

The insults here don't even make sense - a eunuch capable of birthing a son? A village chimp with the resources to have had an in-vitro conception?
You're starting to confuse yourself son...

Keep mentioning TV getting the message and moving on...is this what he told you or is that what your usual clinical-depressive-delusions would rather have you believe?

Mr submissiveness is medieval but I'm all for submission...please check yourself into an asylum along with your Yield buddy, y'all will have ample time licking each other's butt holes.

- You don't understand statistics.

- You don't understand the difference between "an act" and "a characteristic." Submission vs. Submissiveness.

- You think (+)+(-) = (-).

Won't be surprised if you think emotion and emotive, creation and creative etc. are basically the same thing. Freaking stark illiterate. You're everyone's punching bag on here, crack-an-ar.se the booty bandit.

SirShymex:

- TV01 quoted me and asserted that I was contradicting myself.

- Then I replied with my position that you can have "submission" in a relationship, without your partner necessarily being "submissive." He got it, and moved on

You don't know for sure what message "I got".

Guys, by all means challenge - and even needle - one another, but mindless invective for it's own sake is unbecoming and not typically a feature of this board.


TV

Ilovenigeria:

I am not being tribalistic here

You are.
And it's almost unheard of on the family board.

Please take this as an appeal.


TV

Opposite of submissive: difficult, awkward, stubborn, intractable, unyielding, obstinate, headstrong, uncooperative, disobedient.

TV01:

You are.
And it's almost unheard of on the family board.

Please take this as an appeal.


TV

Because I was the one that wrote that?
I typed from experience and remember I said most and not all.

Anyway, apologies.

So many insecure guys. They want to be both head and bottom.

RoyalRoy:
SirShymex and Crackhaus, please move on and stop throwing words around at each other.

Be warned!!!

Seen.

Alright, RoyalRoy the mod.

I already crip-walked out of the crackhouse with bummy and smelly village crack fiends, who suck d1cks for a drop. Just shot up the whole place with an uzi.

I'm way above their league, and I already gave the both of them an ar.se whopping - two for the price of one - buy one get one free.

Salute! - on to the next one.







[img]http://3.bp..com/-0Df_iPK9tog/UqS4E8Nc6fI/AAAAAAAAEZ8/4qA2fz1DuK0/s400/mjonescwalk.gif[/img]

Fake-azz wannabe still on with his delusive rants I see.

Did you have the balls for dealing drugs in that ghetto cesspit of yours, or were you always riding shotgun and playing messenger for the real niggas?

Shotgun!

www.nairaland.com/attachments/1804738_obamalaughinghisasssoff_gifc7cedb480230b0749cd286a7c72aac4a

Shinatu:


Thank you babygirlfl, it has not been easy to hold that dialogue amidst all the hostility on this thread and it seems 'that' question will not be answered afterall.

Yes. It's really hard holding a dialogue under that condition. I think Sirshymex have answered your question now.

And people say that women are more emotional

ELLYsian:
And people say that women are more emotional

Buhahahaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!
A gender that is more easily given to violent streaks surely must be devoid of emotions, I guess.