ibkayee:

Like I also said, it involves compromise but it is not contingent on it.

So every time I don’t do what you want it means I don’t love you? Lol how manipulative.

When it comes to ‘compromising’, it’s the woman that needs to when it comes to the topic of submission, the guy can’t also ‘compromise’ not having her submit for some reason lol

Another faulty inference.

Same way you wouldn't walk into a fire just because you love someone, is the same way you don't have to do what your lover wants every time.

As for compromise, this is not even a function of love but altruism.
People make compromises for you every day without feeling that 'love' for you - your bosses, the sellers you're buying from, etc.

If your conditioning is to equate submission/being submissive to having no voice of your own, then I fear we are just going to keep going in circles.

AntiBrutus:


E tire me o. Me almost wan sleep off sef.
Why can't he love me enough to submit to me? I guess they are smarter than that.

Abeg, make I face my man.

Do you think a man should take responsibility for leadership in the home?


NB: The home means husband, wife and children, and their relations with outsiders, extended families, etc.

ibkayee:

Like I also said, it involves compromise but it is not contingent on it.

So every time I don’t do what you want it means I don’t love you? Lol how manipulative.

When it comes to ‘compromising’, it’s the woman that needs to when it comes to the topic of submission, the guy can’t also ‘compromise’ not having her submit for some reason lol

Do you think a man should take responsibility for leadership in the home?


NB: The home means husband, wife and children, and their relations with outsiders, extended families, etc.

Acidosis:


Do you think a man should take responsibility for leadership in the home?


NB: The home means husband, wife and children, and their relations to outsiders, extended families, etc.

Have you answered the question I asked you, previously?

Go back and answer it first.

Thank you.

AntiBrutus:

Have you answered the question I asked you, previously?
Go back and answer it first.
Thank you.

You mean I should tell you what you want to hear?

Acidosis:


You mean I should tell you what you want to hear?

I mean, you should stop wasting your time on me. We are two parallel lines that would never meet.

AntiBrutus:


I mean, you should stop wasting your time on me. We are two parallel lines that would never meet.

Can you put emotions aside and answer the above question?

Acidosis:
Can you put emotions aside and answer the above question?

Mansplaining

I do not argue with men for long, they are always right. So, at this point, you are right! Can we call it a day, Sir? Thank you.

AntiBrutus:
[b][/b]

Mansplaining

I do not argue with men for long, they are always right. So, at this point, you are right! Can we call it a day, Sir? Thank you.

Funny,

Well let's hope the other lady would provide an answer.

Acidosis:


Funny,

Well let's hope the other lady would provide an answer.

Oga your money nah 3,5
consultation fee not included

Hope you've sha learnt something today

crackhaus:

Another faulty inference.

Lol nothing faulty about my inference

I don’t submit to my husband = I don’t love him

I don’t do what you want = I don’t love you

In this case, the ‘what you want’ is the act of being submissive

Same way you wouldn't walk into a fire just because you love someone, is the same way you don't have to do what your lover wants every time.

Same way I shouldn’t be submissive just because I’m supposed to love someone?

But this is exactly what Acid is arguing for. He said not submitting to your husband and genuinely loving him are mutually exclusive. I don’t submit to my husband = I don’t love him‘

As for compromise, this is not even a function of love but altruism.
People make compromises for you every day without feeling that 'love' for you - your bosses, the sellers you're buying from, etc.

There’s a difference between compromising on how much to sell smoked fish to a customer at a cheaper price and the important decision of submitting to the authority of your husband for the rest of your life

If your conditioning is to equate submission/being submissive to having no voice of your own, then I fear we are just going to keep going in circles.

I’m not debating its meaning. I’m saying whatever its definition, just because you don’t agree to it does not necessarily mean you don’t love your partner

Acidosis:


Do you think a man should take responsibility for leadership in the home?


NB: The home means husband, wife and children, and their relations with outsiders, extended families, etc.

If that’s what the both of them want, I don’t see an issue.

I think that individuals should come to a mutual agreement on how to run their home, not be forced into things by default and their love be questioned if they don’t agree to it.

ibkayee:

If that’s what the both of them want, I don’t see an issue.

I think that individuals should come to a mutual agreement on how to run their home, not be forced into things by default and their love be questioned if they don’t agree to it.

What do you want, and what would you teach your sons and daughters?

Acidosis:


What do you want, and what would you teach your sons and daughters?

Lol don’t think that’s relevant

Thegamingorca:




Oga your money nah 3,5 consultation fee not included
Hope you've sha learnt something today

Lol

Yes, I've learnt to ignore marriage until I meet the "right" one.

ibkayee:

Lol don’t think that’s relevant

More like, you can't tell us what you practise in your home?

You see why I don't take most of your comments seriously? Not just you btw


Let's know how it works in your marriage or relationships

Acidosis:


More like, you can't tell us what you practise in your home?

You see why I don't take most of your comments seriously? Not just you btw


Let's know how it works in your marriage or relationships

Even if I let my husband/boyfriend put a literal leash on my neck and walk me around the compound what difference will it make to my point that people can do what they want in their household as long as it’s a mutual agreement?

ibkayee:

Even if I let my husband/boyfriend put a literal leash on my neck and walk me around the compound what difference will it make to my point that people can do what they want in their household as long as it’s a mutual agreement?

Don't you think the "mutual agreement" is the problem here and the essence of the endless contests on this forum? If "mutual agreements" are so easy to achieve, all families would run smoothly. People do not keep to terms of agreements, so don't dwell on that.

You have to preach what you believe, you can't claim to stand for nothing in the guise of "mutual agreement". And what you stand for, you practise.

Acidosis:


Don't you think the "mutual agreement" is the problem here and the essence of the endless contests on this forum? If "mutual agreements" are so easy to achieve, all families would run smoothly. People do not keep to terms of agreements, so don't dwell on that.

You have to preach what you believe, you can't claim to stand for nothing in the guise of "mutual agreement". And what you stand for, you practise.

Lol I practice what I’m preaching

ibkayee:
Lol I practice what I’m preaching

Good

ibkayee:

Lol nothing faulty about my inference

I don’t submit to my husband = I don’t love him

I don’t do what you want = I don’t love you

In this case, the ‘what you want’ is the act of being submissive


Same way I shouldn’t be submissive just because I’m supposed to love someone?

But this is exactly what Acid is arguing for. He said not submitting to your husband and genuinely loving him are mutually exclusive. I don’t submit to my husband = I don’t love him‘


There’s a difference between compromising on how much to sell smoked fish to a customer at a cheaper price and the important decision of submitting to the authority of your husband for the rest of your life


I’m not debating its meaning. I’m saying whatever its definition, just because you don’t agree to it does not necessarily mean you don’t love your partner

This is exactly how we got here in the first place.
We are back to the beginning of our conversation.. Didn't I just type something about how we will keep going in circles?

Like I noted earlier, when you truly love someone, your consciousness doesn't even get to make a distinction between agreeing to submit or disagreeing. Don't you get it yet?
It happens automatically and at that point, you would just see yourself doing things to and for your man which an outsider will see and tag you a submissive wife.


I will post a response to your friend in my next comment. Wait for it.

crackhaus:

This is exactly how we got here in the first place.
We are back to the beginning of our conversation.. Didn't I just type something about how we will keep going in circles?

Like I noted earlier, ‘when you truly love someone, your consciousness doesn't even get to make a distinction between agreeing to submit or disagreeing. Don't you get it yet?
It happens automatically and at that point, you would just see yourself doing things to and for your man which an outsider will see and tag you a submissive wife.


I will post a response to your friend in my next comment. Wait for it.

Lmao first it was ‘Same way you wouldn't walk into a fire just because you love someone, is the same way you don't have to do what your lover wants every time.’

Now it’s ‘when you truly love someone, you don’t make a distinction between agreeing to submit and disagreeing, it happens automatically because (insert some jargon about consciousness)’. You’re contradicting yourself and you’re the only one who doesn’t ‘get it’

Have a good evening, my Lord

AntiBrutus:


E tire me o. Me almost wan sleep off sef.
Why can't he love me enough to submit to me? I guess they are smarter than that.

Abeg, make I face my man.

Because a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
Nothing to do with smartness.

Just for being a woman, you are already programmed by nature to seek a man to lead you, a man you will inadvertently be submissive to. It's your biological imperative. Fighting it means fighting your very nature.

Being a man is the polar opposite. Nature has programmed men to seek a woman to mate with, to be protective of, to provide for, and build a family with and to lead that family. That's a man's biological imperative. Fighting this also means fighting our very nature.

No one can become too educated, too enlightened, or too exposed, to become an inventor or re-inventor of nature.
Nature creates, no one creates it, manipulates, or moulds it to suit their preferences.

Movements will be formed, groups will be inaugurated, all in a bid to try reinventing the biological gender imperatives. It will seem like it is working, but nature is sitting back watching and waiting, knowing that at the end of it all, everything must balance out and return to a state of equilibrium.

ibkayee:

Lmao first it was ‘Same way you wouldn't walk into a fire just because you love someone, is the same way you don't have to do what your lover wants every time.’

Now it’s ‘when you truly love someone, you don’t make a distinction between agreeing to submit and disagreeing, it happens automatically because (insert some jargon about consciousness)’. You’re contradicting yourself and you’re the only one who doesn’t ‘get it’

Have a good evening, my Lord

Lol.

Self-preservation is what will stop you from doing anything that will hurt you despite your submission and love for your man.
Every other thing that your consciousness does not interpret as a danger will be done for and to him naturally without questioning your senses. It will flow naturally.
Are you understanding me now?

I'll note this again for posterity sake:
If your conditioning is to equate submission/being submissive to having no voice of your own, then I fear we are just going to keep going in circles.

A lovely evening to you too milady.

crackhaus:

Because a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
Nothing to do with smartness.

Just for being a woman, you are already programmed by nature to seek a man to lead you a man you will inadvertently be submissive to. It's your biological imperative. Fighting it means fighting your very nature.

Being a man is the polar opposite. Nature has programmed men to seek a woman to mate with, to be protective of, to provide for, and build a family with and to lead that family. That's a man's biological imperative. Fighting this also means fighting our very nature.

No one can become too educated, too enlightened, or too exposed, to become an inventor or re-inventor of nature.
Nature creates, no one creates it, manipulates, or moulds it to suit their preferences.

Movements will be formed, groups will be inaugurated, all in a bid to try reinventing the biological gender imperatives. It will seem like it is working, but nature is sitting back watching and waiting, knowing that at the end of it all, everything must balance out and return to a state of equilibrium.

@bold, apart from God and nature(the usual answers) you guys give who made this programing? I need logical answers And how do you know it is in all women. Do you know all women?

AmazonTopaz:

@bold, apart from God and nature(the usual answers) you guys give who made this programing? I need logical answers

An Alien race inhabiting the far away star LV-223 which resides in a galaxy called Origae-6.
They call themselves 'The Engineers' or in some scientific circles 'The creators'. They originated the programming to preserve the species.


Since you don't believe in God and you don't believe in Darwinism or the Big-bang theory, then surely, you must believe that a sophisticated alien race inhabiting a far away planet light years away, created you.
How's that for logic?

crackhaus:

An Alien race inhabiting the far away star LV-223 which resides in a galaxy called Origae-6.
They call themselves 'The Engineers' or in some scientific circles 'The creators'. They originated the programming to preserve the species.


Since you don't believe in God and you don't believe in Darwinism or the Big-bang theory, then surely, you must believe that a sophisticated alien race inhabiting a far away planet light years away, created you.
How's that for logic?

I never said I do not believe in God you do not have to be religious to believe in God. Oga stop shifting the goalpost and answer the question logically.

AmazonTopaz:

I never said I do not believe in God you do not have to be religious to believe in God. Oga stop shifting the goalpost and answer the question logically.

Shifting goal post ke, I answered you perfectly baby.

You don't want me to give the credit to God or to nature, what am I left with?

I say 'The Engineers' did it jor.

You want to use logic to explain why women are women and men are men?
Then trust me, being created by a sophisticated alien race who made us so, is so very logical.

Problems will only arise when you start trying to figure out who created 'The creators' themselves.

crackhaus:

Shifting goal post ke, I answered you perfectly baby.

You don't want me to give the credit to God or to nature, what am I left with?

I say 'The Engineers' did it jor.

You want to use logic to explain why women are women and men are men?
Then trust me, being created by a sophisticated alien race who made us so, is so very logical.

Problems will only arise when you start trying to figure out who created 'The creators' themselves.

You did not answer anything yet you are so quick to use that line on women like as if you have had personal experiences with all women and know them well. You could have said you had no idea
Seriously some of the things you guys say should not be taken serious. You just like making your own alternate reality everybody's reality.

AmazonTopaz:
You did not answer anything yet you are so quick to use that line on women like as if you have had personal experiences with all women and know them well. You could have said you had no idea
Seriously some of the things you guys say should not be taken serious. You just like making your own alternate reality everybody's reality.

But did you not read this part in that original post you quoted:

"Movements will be formed, groups will be inaugurated, all in a bid to try reinventing the biological gender imperatives. It will seem like it is working, but nature is sitting back watching and waiting, knowing that at the end of it all, everything must balance out and return to a state of equilibrium."

I already created space for those of you that consider yourselves different from the majority.
I don't know why you're upset.

crackhaus:

Shifting goal post ke, I answered you perfectly baby.

You don't want me to give the credit to God or to nature, what am I left with?

I say 'The Engineers' did it jor.

You want to use logic to explain why women are women and men are men?
Then trust me, being created by a sophisticated alien race who made us so, is so very logical.

Problems will only arise when you start trying to figure out who created 'The creators' themselves.

There is a limit to what logic can do. I've begged them to allow love lead o.

ibkayee:

Even if I let my husband/boyfriend put a literal leash on my neck and walk me around the compound what difference will it make to my point that people can do what they want in their household as long as it’s a mutual agreement?

Submit, stubborn wench!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugUaxot1UgE