5minsmadness:


But the arguments on both threads are not at part at all. You just strung a lot of illogical statements together backed up by little or no facts and presented it as a counter-offensive. A very bad one at that. Like someone said and like I thought previously one would think you were advocating for female promiscuity polyandry the way you went about it.

Better luck next time.

In your mind they are not simply because it helps you keep your double standard.

cococandy:

Very soon they will start calling you a woman and picking on you. Brace yourself.

What bitterness can cause.
They'll soon be linking him to a female moniker.

FrancisTony:

In Africa and they claim to be morally better than America.

Only to the naive will it appear so.

TV01:

Which is probably where I think you're slightly off-track. It's not quite clear that you are not arguing for polyandry/promiscuity, and in any event, I think your best tack would have been to argue against polygamy/promiscuity as a whole - for either sex.


Thats's not what it sounds like - to me anyway. It appears you are arguing that women are functionally equally capable of polygamy/promiscuity. And this is further evidenced by your "arguing against the villification", not against the act they're being villified for.

If exposing "hypocrisy" was your aim, I think you'd have been best served adopting a different tack. Not least because, like I said, Njokusboy has presented what I feel is a tighter argument defending the thing you hate - even if not the hypocrisy of it - from your own position.

At least you've got the women all excited !


TV

And the better argument would be?

5minsmadness:

@bolded. Answer it yourself. Be honest.

Was man designed to impregnate several women at once?

Was a woman designed to be Impregnated by several men at once?

Give an honest answer if u can pls.

My honest answer is no.

People claim to use lime for abortion does not mean God created it for such a purpose.

can a man pregnant several women at once? Yes

Was he designed by God to get several women pregnant at once? No

5minsmadness:


But the arguments on both threads are not at par at all. You just strung a lot of illogical statements together backed up by little or no facts and presented it as a counter-offensive. A very bad one at that. Like someone said and like I thought previously one would think you were advocating for female promiscuity polyandry the way you went about it.

Better luck next time.

dont mind that drunk chap if you want to argue against polygamy, come up with something good, if you want to argue for polyandry, do it well, not some hare brained narrative about how one woman can accommodate 10 million sperm cells in her ovary and decide whose sperm is going to get her pregnant......

LordReed:


And the better argument would be?

For better arguments against both polygamy/promiscuity and hypocrisy you could take a;
Spiritual view - Gods will, shared fallen nature
Social view - inimical to human flourishing, societal cost, paternity issues, child rearing problems, promiscuity as a disease vector,
Individual view - virtue, fidelity, agency, childs

Or any combo - enjoy!


TV

njokusboy:


dont mind that drunk chap if you want to argue against polygamy, come up with something good, if you want to argue for polyandry, do it well, not some hare brained narrative about how[b] one woman can accommodate 10 million sperm cells in her ovary and decide whose sperm is going to get her pregnant[/b]......

"Cumbucket" comes to mind
Actually the ladies should be offended by this thread
But thier sentiment won't let them see it

TV01:

For better arguments against both polygamy/promiscuity and hypocrisy you could take a;
Spiritual view - Gods will, shared fallen nature
Social view - inimical to human flourishing, societal cost, paternity issues, child rearing problems, promiscuity as a disease vector,
Individual view - virtue, fidelity, agency, childs

Or any combo - enjoy!


TV

Very good. Now do us a favour and elaborate on them if you will.

5minsmadness:


Chases her away with broom

A very rare occurrence anyway. Definitely an aberration of nature.

Now git! You'll spoil the fun

Sharrap. That's how I was born.
That's how fraternal twins come about.
Aberration indeed. Don't be yarning rubbish here now

innervoice:


And that is exactly why polygyny is more common than polyandry. It is that simple. That does not mean that some women would not like to have different men, it just explains why polygyny is more practicable as compared to polyandry.

I think you just made my point for me though... or is that what you intended doing in the first place?

BuddhaPalm:


Hello Crackhaus, I must say that your response to LordReed is very conceited and most ignorant.

Really, women are passive participants?

Hello BuddhaPalm, argue against my response with points of yours instead of attacking the motive.

My response was elaborate enough and for someone who isn't as ignorant as I am, you should find it easy picking it apart bit by bit with your counter arguments.

cococandy:

Sharrap. That's how I was born.
That's how fraternal twins come about.
Aberration indeed. Don't be yarning rubbish here now

Do you realise you just admitted to your mother having sex with TWO different men within the same period and you being an offspring of one of them?

@cococandy
Kindly read up "heteropaternal superfecundation" which is what edwife was talking about and consider modifying your post

Heteropaternal superfecundation happens in twins only.
Try again later.

5minsmadness:


Do you realise you just admitted to your mother having sex with TWO different men within the same period and you being an offspring of one of them?

How silly.
Are we talking about a woman releasing two eggs at one time in a cycle which can be fertilized by two sperm cells whether from two men or the same man? Does a man release only one sperm cell per ejaculation?

Trust you to be foolish.

What she said is that it is possible for that to happen and I agree but it doesn't mean that her releasing two eggs in a cycle is an aberration. It is fairly common.

What's the abberation? That she released two eggs or that she had sex with two men at the same period?

LordReed:


As BuddhaPalm quite rightly pointed out how can you not see how conceited your response is? It is this type of conceited thinking I was aiming for with this thread.
It is this kind of thinking that influences the thought behind blaming women for not birthing boys on demand.

Tell me does the man choose which particular sperm wins out? So how he not also a "passive" player in the game? If a woman has sex with more than one man can any of the men beat his chest and say for sure that it would be his sperm that wins out?

I don't think you two even know what conceited means, or if you do, don't know when to use the word in its proper context.

I also don't know what birthing boys on demand has to do with what I typed.
I called women passive participants in the process of procreation (fertilization phase... and not the birthing phase OBVIOUSLY).
This effectively places the burden of birthing males/boys on the man... so what are you going on about? Trying to be sensational is what you just did there.

Please read between lines.

If you choose to call the process of one sperm winning out a rat race that's you trying to put words in my mouth. As I pointed out in a post the process is an interplay between strength, motility and position of the sperm. The number of sperm in there should increase the chance that a "superior" specimen will merge with the ovum or why do you think sperm count matters in fertility?

Like I said before, this is you trying to trivialize the process of fertilization by using just your common sense to explain a complex biological process... it's much more complicated than that bro.

"Natural status is to select, choose, and impregnate" really? So the woman cannot choose abi? E don turn point and kill for man ba? LOL!

This is what I typed:
The one whose natural status is to select, choose,
and impregnate concurrently or simultaneously is
the one that's polygamous by nature.

So unless women can now impregnate other women or men as the case may be, I don't even know why you responded to this.

Being sensational again.

The "nature makes man polygamous" falls flat on its face simply because it exposes this conceit that it the exclusive right of men to choose multiple partners.

No you're still not getting it.

Nature makes man polygamous simply means that a man can have multiple women carrying his seed, getting pregnant, and birthing children for him at the same time.
It has absolutely nothing to do with just choosing.

Do I need to type that in pidgin for you to get it?

I am claiming creative license in my use of the term. It was meant to convey the idea that passing on genes is a form of immortality.

Lol @creative license...

Okay man...except that, passing on genes isn't a form of immortality... figuratively or literally.

cococandy:

How silly.
Are we talking about a woman releasing two eggs at one time in a cycle which can be fertilized by two sperm cells whether from two men or the same man? Does a man release only one sperm cell per ejaculation?

Trust you to be foolish.

What she said is that it is possible for that to happen and I agree but it doesn't mean that her releasing two eggs in a cycle is an aberration. It is fairly common.

What's the abberation? That she released two eggs or that she had sex with two men at the same period?

We are talking about hetero paternal superfecundation which only happen when two eggs are fertilised by two DIFFERENT sperm from two DIFFERENT MEN.

The one you are talking about is a woman produces two eggs during a single cycle, both eggs can be fertilized by two different sperm from the SAME man producing un-identical twins which i think you are one.

Heteropaternal is very different.You are getting it mixed up.

Ok

edwife:


We are talking about hetero paternal superfecundation which only happen when two eggs are fertilised by two DIFFERENT sperm from two DIFFERENT MEN.

The one you are talking about is a woman produces two eggs during a single cycle, both eggs can be fertilized by two different sperm from the SAME man producing un-identical twins which i think you are one.

Heteropaternal is very different.You are getting it mixed up.

LordReed:


You can say that again.

conceited /kənˈsiːtɪd/

adjective

excessively proud of oneself; vain.



Unless I was talking about my sperm and unless anywhere you saw 'man', you subconsciously interpreted it to be 'crackhaus'... then I don't think you're using the word right.

I am surprised that everyone failed to mention heteropaternal super fecundation which occurs when a woman has sexual intercourse with two men during the same menstrual cycle, having released two eggs. One egg is then fertilized by each man.

Just passing by.....

Followed by

Chases her away with broom

A very rare occurrence anyway. Definitely an aberration of nature.

Now git! You'll spoil the fun

Then.....

Sharrap. That's how I was born.
That's how fraternal twins come about.
Aberration indeed. Don't be yarning rubbish here now

Am I making sense
Cococandy

Yea you are.

At least that one will make your day today.

Are you dancing now? Make a video of it and post it too.

njokusboy:


Followed by



Then.....



Am I making sense
Cococandy

cococandy:
Yea you are.

At least that one will make your day today.

Are you dancing now? Make a video of it and post it too.

A video of what
Would have preferred me to laugh at the implication of what you said?
Shey na bad thing to point out ur error? Calm down woman, am not a malicious person... stop assuming things

This wiggle-wiggle debate is very senseless because I haven't seen anybody who can provide any experiment to validate their claims here. Bleh!

njokusboy:


A video of what
Would have preferred me to laugh at the implication of what you said?
Shey na bad thing to point out ur error? Calm down woman, am not a malicious person... stop assuming things

I mistook her post to mean just releasing two eggs which of course can be fertilized by one or two men depending on how many she met at the time while she was talking specifically about when it was fertilized by two men and the implication that makes you happy is that it means my mother must have slept with two men to birth me and my sis?

o boy I saw the glee that gave you. Malicious or not, that one made you happy. You were smileys all over. And 5min too.

Well even if she did, (for continuity's sake) how does that weaken the argument that women can also be polygamous?

all4naija:
This wiggle-wiggle debate is very senseless because I have seen anybody who can provide any experiment to validate their claims here. Bleh!

that's the point.

cococandy:

I mistook her post to mean just releasing two eggs which of course can be fertilized by one or two men depending on how many she met at the time while she was talking specifically about when it was fertilized by two men and the implication that makes you happy is that it means my mother must have slept with two men to birth me and my sis?

Agreed...

o boy I saw the glee that gave you. Malicious or not, that one made you happy. You were smileys all over. And 5min too.

Lol, I did find it amusing and wanted to point it out but I thought you'd misread it... it's actually funny, but saying I was happy you implied you were birthed by 2 men is quite unfair, I can't be dat evil.... stop ssuming things

Well even if she did, (for continuity's sake) how does that weaken the argument that women can also be polygamous?

The op did not prove that women can be polygamous, he only attempted to do so, reproduction is not dat simplistic.... nd I don't even have a problem with women polygamy... problem is, there are no/few men willing to partake, another problem is, women don't even want it...

njokusboy:


Agreed...



Lol, I did find it amusing and wanted to point it out but I thought you'd misread it... it's actually funny, but saying I was happy you implied you were birthed by 2 men is quite unfair, I can't be dat evil.... stop ssuming things



The op did not prove that women can be polygamous, he only attempted to do so, reproduction is not dat simplistic.... nd I don't even have a problem with women polygamy... problem is, there are no/few men willing to partake, another problem is, women don't even want it...

That's the point. Why are some people always attempting to prove things without disprovable facts. The OP is only exposing the baselessness of such kinds of conclusions.

Na you sabi. Who told you women don't want it? Are you the one to tell us what we want or don't want?

cococandy:

How silly.
Are we talking about a woman releasing two eggs at one time in a cycle which can be fertilized by two sperm cells whether from two men or the same man? Does a man release only one sperm cell per ejaculation?

Trust you to be foolish.

What she said is that it is possible for that to happen and I agree but it doesn't mean that her releasing two eggs in a cycle is an aberration. It is fairly common.

What's the abberation? That she released two eggs or that she had sex with two men at the same period?

Nice try at trying to cover you blunder.
We all learn everyday

Superfecundation describes a situation where the eggs are fertilized by sperm from separate incidences of sexual intercourse. In a case where a woman has sex with different partners, the twins could have different fathers. The appropriate term to describe this situation is heteropaternal superfecundation
http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/a/Heteropaternal.htm

This is what edwife was talking about. It's an even rarer subset of fraternal twins which on its own has a prevalence of 3 per 1000live births which can thus be classified as an aberration in statistics.

You called me foolish. If I call u a congenital dumbass you'll take offence

cococandy:

That's the point. Why are some people always attempting to prove things without disprovable facts. The OP is only exposing the baselessness of such kinds of conclusions.

Na you sabi. Who told you women don't want it? Are you the one to tell us what we want or don't want?

What point again, what's so disprovable about the fact that a man can impregnate more than one woman simultaneously or that more than one woman can carry his child at the same time?
Women don't want it, I know... ya'll are comfortable with monogamy nd some won't even mind polygamy

crackhaus:



conceited /kənˈsiːtɪd/

adjective

excessively proud of oneself; vain.



Unless I was talking about my sperm and unless anywhere you saw 'man', you subconsciously interpreted it to be 'crackhaus'... then I don't think you're using the word right.

It may be but here is why I feel it is conceited:

The one whose natural status is to select, choose, and impregnate concurrently or simultaneously is the one that's polygamous by nature

As a man defending this position I can't imagine you are not including yourself in this picture or am I wrong?

njokusboy:


What point again, what's so disprovable about the fact that a man can impregnate more than one woman simultaneously or that more than one woman can carry his child at the same time?
Women don't want it, I know... ya'll are comfortable with monogamy nd some won't even mind polygamy

you can't speak for women much less all women.