• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Men Only Think Of One Thing.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cassandra

Guest
#21
peace0478 said:
We should make this like a debate, you know like we used to do in primary and secondary school. Bluestocking can represent women and Lafem can represent guys. So let's see who will be able to convince us and not confuse us that women love to be ogled at.
ROFLMAO!! Good morning morderator, panel of judges, time keeper, my opponents and my fellow students. I am here to vehently oppose the motion which says that....... :roll :excite :glasses
 

Beyonce

MOther b4 mother
#22
yeah i second that, MENNNNNNNNNN why did God even made y'all.HOLLA
vince said:
SEX!!!
Are we the only one?
What about the female gender?What do y'all think first when u lay ya eyes on some sexy dude?I WANNA HAVE HIS BABY!!As if that is not sex!!Hehehe!!
Seriously though,what is wrong with men seeing women as sexual objects?They do dress themselves up as such,don't they.
Y'all put us guys under serious pressure sometimes with all them sensuous bodily protrusions ala:
a)Boobs sticking out like a "one way" signboard.
b)Booties sticking out and wiggling at the back.
c)Maddeningly sensuously curvatious hips.
Y'all push these sinful anatomical landscape in our face and u expect us to think of something else but SEX.
TUFFIAKWA!!
Y'all like us thinking of u as sexual objects,don't y'all?ADMIT IT!! :imp :p
 

surf419

Well-Known Member
#24
Sorry? what was that pure thoughts? Lafem please give us a break. you were going strong till you got to that point. I feel like you people are incapable of not lusting. I am not a big fan of excessivley short skirts and i only wear shorts around the house or at the gym. I love to dress up and yes the attention feels nice, however, i find it unnecessary for you boys to oogle at us as though we were naked already. If that was what we wanted, we would be(naked that is).
 

Tajmahal

Well-Known Member
#26
Lafem, thumbs up!!! This homily goes into the books as one of the best posts I have ever read on NR. I am at a loss as to how I was able to read through the whole lot, even in the middle of a major deadline at work!!!

The post was incisive, thought-provoking and very, very dispassionate.

Thoughts well positioned, well presented!!! I surely took a lot from it.....
 

vince

Well-Known Member
#27
Lafem said:
Some of you women can be so hypocritical sometimes eh, it's unbelievable. On the one hand, you accuse men of double-standards, when in truth, you also just want an opportunity to impose your own double-standards on the male gender. But in the meantime, you all try to play the 'moral minority' role, though [as is with all humans], you oftentimes expose your true motives. To really tackle this issue, we must approach it from both the moral and biological angles, coz if you try only to treat it from a moral vantage point, while neglecting some biological realities, and vice versa, we'll not get to the crux of the matter. Biologically, men and women were created differently to serve different purposes. I don't want to waste much time or space in going through these biological/psychological/physical differences. This aspect of their being has nothing to do with morality, o.k? The topic at hand has more to do with men's natural/biologically programmed responses to the sight of a [naked] female body, and not necessarily about the morality of such responses. Just because women don't react the same way as men do when it comes to sex doesn't make them morally superior.


[/b]

Well, you can keep believing that while neglecting the realities out there. Most, if not all, men can recognize a modestly dressed woman as opposed to one who's scantily clad, and that affects their reactions and responses to both groups of females. Come, I have a question for you females. Why is it that some of you seem to get your dress senses from stippers, females in music videos, and prostitutes? Coz, I remember that it used to be prostitutes that dressed scantily, back in the days, to get the attention of male potential customers. But nawadays, it's hard to tell which is which anymore, based on the way some women dress, yet they claim they don't want undue attention, even though they're well aware of the kinds of attention such clothing generate. What sort of arrogance is that? Why do you all wanna look like them, even though you know why they dress that way? Could it be that you guys also want guys' attention, even if not on the same scale as these women of easy virtue? I'm confused.




And who told you women never got raped in the days of our forefathers and foremothers, or that they weren't ogled at? Were you there? My friend, our forefathers are really no different than we their descendants o, wake up and smell the coffee. Infact sef, a lot of us have even appreciated than they were back then, character wise, in many areas. Or are you trying to suggest that rape is a recent phenomenon or that it came with the whiteman introduction of dressing?? Listen, humans are humans everywhere, irrespective of geographical location -- and human nature, since the beginning of time, has remained CONSTANT, without changing [it only adapts itself to new conditions or environments, but it's still inherently the same, irrespective of time, age, year]. Humans are all created by the same Maker, who wired them with certain inherent impulses, for specially designed purposes. One of those impulses includes that of a man's [not woman] natural inclination towards a naked female body/frame. It's a known fact that men and women respond DIFFERENTLY to sexual stimulus. For a man, he can get aroused within seconds, while a woman may take much longer to reach full stage of arousal. THAT IS BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN MY FRIEND! Also, women don't generally respond to seeing bare-chested men the same way men respond to seeing bare-chested women. Listen, that's not becos men can't control themselves. CAPITAL NO!! And that doesn't mean that women who don't become sexually aroused at the mere sight of a bare-chested man can exercise more self-control than their male counterparts. The man's chest isn't a sex organ as the woman's is! It's all in the biology of both sexes.




I'm not saying women is such societies should be raped, but I'm sure some of them do get raped, or willingly give themselves over to their male suitors -- coz at the end of the day, their men are still men, like other men. Something has to give my friend -- you can't keep flaunting all that body, and naturally expect them not to 'want some', their men aren't more 'moral' or have more 'self-control' than we that cover-up. On the contrary, it's in such societies that one would find a preponderance of the practise of polygamy. I've read about quite a few african societies where the natives still run around naked, and believe me, they're usually VERY VERY promiscious, both the males and the females.


[/b]

Wake up and smell the coffee. That 'sister' too is just as guilty as the man staring at her, coz whether she realizes it or not, she's tempting him to lust after her.
GBERE LAFEM!
O KU LAAKAYE!
MO 'N GBADUN E BI SUYA KANO! :)
 
#28
Lafem said:
Some of you women can be so hypocritical sometimes eh, it's unbelievable. On the one hand, you accuse men of double-standards, when in truth, you also just want an opportunity to impose your own double-standards on the male gender. But in the meantime, you all try to play the 'moral minority' role, though [as is with all humans], you oftentimes expose your true motives. To really tackle this issue, we must approach it from both the moral and biological angles, coz if you try only to treat it from a moral vantage point, while neglecting some biological realities, and vice versa, we'll not get to the crux of the matter. Biologically, men and women were created differently to serve different purposes. I don't want to waste much time or space in going through these biological/psychological/physical differences. This aspect of their being has nothing to do with morality, o.k? The topic at hand has more to do with men's natural/biologically programmed responses to the sight of a [naked] female body, and not necessarily about the morality of such responses. Just because women don't react the same way as men do when it comes to sex doesn't make them morally superior.


[/b]

Well, you can keep believing that while neglecting the realities out there. Most, if not all, men can recognize a modestly dressed woman as opposed to one who's scantily clad, and that affects their reactions and responses to both groups of females. Come, I have a question for you females. Why is it that some of you seem to get your dress senses from stippers, females in music videos, and prostitutes? Coz, I remember that it used to be prostitutes that dressed scantily, back in the days, to get the attention of male potential customers. But nawadays, it's hard to tell which is which anymore, based on the way some women dress, yet they claim they don't want undue attention, even though they're well aware of the kinds of attention such clothing generate. What sort of arrogance is that? Why do you all wanna look like them, even though you know why they dress that way? Could it be that you guys also want guys' attention, even if not on the same scale as these women of easy virtue? I'm confused.




And who told you women never got raped in the days of our forefathers and foremothers, or that they weren't ogled at? Were you there? My friend, our forefathers are really no different than we their descendants o, wake up and smell the coffee. Infact sef, a lot of us have even appreciated than they were back then, character wise, in many areas. Or are you trying to suggest that rape is a recent phenomenon or that it came with the whiteman introduction of dressing?? Listen, humans are humans everywhere, irrespective of geographical location -- and human nature, since the beginning of time, has remained CONSTANT, without changing [it only adapts itself to new conditions or environments, but it's still inherently the same, irrespective of time, age, year]. Humans are all created by the same Maker, who wired them with certain inherent impulses, for specially designed purposes. One of those impulses includes that of a man's [not woman] natural inclination towards a naked female body/frame. It's a known fact that men and women respond DIFFERENTLY to sexual stimulus. For a man, he can get aroused within seconds, while a woman may take much longer to reach full stage of arousal. THAT IS BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN MY FRIEND! Also, women don't generally respond to seeing bare-chested men the same way men respond to seeing bare-chested women. Listen, that's not becos men can't control themselves. CAPITAL NO!! And that doesn't mean that women who don't become sexually aroused at the mere sight of a bare-chested man can exercise more self-control than their male counterparts. The man's chest isn't a sex organ as the woman's is! It's all in the biology of both sexes.




I'm not saying women is such societies should be raped, but I'm sure some of them do get raped, or willingly give themselves over to their male suitors -- coz at the end of the day, their men are still men, like other men. Something has to give my friend -- you can't keep flaunting all that body, and naturally expect them not to 'want some', their men aren't more 'moral' or have more 'self-control' than we that cover-up. On the contrary, it's in such societies that one would find a preponderance of the practise of polygamy. I've read about quite a few african societies where the natives still run around naked, and believe me, they're usually VERY VERY promiscious, both the males and the females.


[/b]

Wake up and smell the coffee. That 'sister' too is just as guilty as the man staring at her, coz whether she realizes it or not, she's tempting him to lust after her.
it's a free world .for god sake i and i think some women just dress like that to look good for them selves. i meen what is tempting about that.almost ever guy watches porno films.why don't they get tempted by that. i don't understand ya'll .
 
#30
Shekua said:
We have been created to always dress to kill (forgive me if you are a lady and don't believe in this) so seeing us in our dress to kill doesn't not mean we (i) need SEX, Not at all. A man's duty is to admire God's creation, that is all.
LoL!!!!! A man's duty is to admire God's creation, and BLESS IT in the purest manner :sweat Lmaooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
 
#31
bluestocking said:
the thing that makes a man higher than animal is his ability to curb/control his wild instincts,if a man can't do that, then what diffferentiates him from an animal.
modesty in dressing is a relative thing.don't forget that wearing clothes is not an african thing,it was brought by the whiteman.our foremothers,never used to wear clothes and nobody ever raped them and i'm sure they were not ogled at too. there are still african socities where women go about scantily clad,are you trying to say that these women ought to be raped for going about half naked?
brother,it's all in your mind.if you see a sister 'scantily clad',look the other way!!!
On a serious note, you need a change of stocking, Are u one of them people going around saying Africans wear bamboo leaves to cover their nudity before the whiteman came? dont say our foremothers, say ur own very foremothers never used to wear clothes. Dig into ur history well, especially ones written by portuguese explorers .
 
#32
Lafem said:
Some of you women can be so hypocritical sometimes eh, it's unbelievable. On the one hand, you accuse men of double-standards, when in truth, you also just want an opportunity to impose your own double-standards on the male gender. But in the meantime, you all try to play the 'moral minority' role, though [as is with all humans], you oftentimes expose your true motives. To really tackle this issue, we must approach it from both the moral and biological angles, coz if you try only to treat it from a moral vantage point, while neglecting some biological realities, and vice versa, we'll not get to the crux of the matter. Biologically, men and women were created differently to serve different purposes. I don't want to waste much time or space in going through these biological/psychological/physical differences. This aspect of their being has nothing to do with morality, o.k? The topic at hand has more to do with men's natural/biologically programmed responses to the sight of a [naked] female body, and not necessarily about the morality of such responses. Just because women don't react the same way as men do when it comes to sex doesn't make them morally superior.


[/b]

Well, you can keep believing that while neglecting the realities out there. Most, if not all, men can recognize a modestly dressed woman as opposed to one who's scantily clad, and that affects their reactions and responses to both groups of females. Come, I have a question for you females. Why is it that some of you seem to get your dress senses from stippers, females in music videos, and prostitutes? Coz, I remember that it used to be prostitutes that dressed scantily, back in the days, to get the attention of male potential customers. But nawadays, it's hard to tell which is which anymore, based on the way some women dress, yet they claim they don't want undue attention, even though they're well aware of the kinds of attention such clothing generate. What sort of arrogance is that? Why do you all wanna look like them, even though you know why they dress that way? Could it be that you guys also want guys' attention, even if not on the same scale as these women of easy virtue? I'm confused.




And who told you women never got raped in the days of our forefathers and foremothers, or that they weren't ogled at? Were you there? My friend, our forefathers are really no different than we their descendants o, wake up and smell the coffee. Infact sef, a lot of us have even appreciated than they were back then, character wise, in many areas. Or are you trying to suggest that rape is a recent phenomenon or that it came with the whiteman introduction of dressing?? Listen, humans are humans everywhere, irrespective of geographical location -- and human nature, since the beginning of time, has remained CONSTANT, without changing [it only adapts itself to new conditions or environments, but it's still inherently the same, irrespective of time, age, year]. Humans are all created by the same Maker, who wired them with certain inherent impulses, for specially designed purposes. One of those impulses includes that of a man's [not woman] natural inclination towards a naked female body/frame. It's a known fact that men and women respond DIFFERENTLY to sexual stimulus. For a man, he can get aroused within seconds, while a woman may take much longer to reach full stage of arousal. THAT IS BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN MY FRIEND! Also, women don't generally respond to seeing bare-chested men the same way men respond to seeing bare-chested women. Listen, that's not becos men can't control themselves. CAPITAL NO!! And that doesn't mean that women who don't become sexually aroused at the mere sight of a bare-chested man can exercise more self-control than their male counterparts. The man's chest isn't a sex organ as the woman's is! It's all in the biology of both sexes.




I'm not saying women is such societies should be raped, but I'm sure some of them do get raped, or willingly give themselves over to their male suitors -- coz at the end of the day, their men are still men, like other men. Something has to give my friend -- you can't keep flaunting all that body, and naturally expect them not to 'want some', their men aren't more 'moral' or have more 'self-control' than we that cover-up. On the contrary, it's in such societies that one would find a preponderance of the practise of polygamy. I've read about quite a few african societies where the natives still run around naked, and believe me, they're usually VERY VERY promiscious, both the males and the females.


[/b]

Wake up and smell the coffee. That 'sister' too is just as guilty as the man staring at her, coz whether she realizes it or not, she's tempting him to lust after her.

Kai Lafem, You be messenger of God true true, There is nothing like dress to kill, all they do these days is Dress_to_harrass MEN. I can't even go to church anymore without Sinning against da lord, the usher girl goes around collecting money, when she gets to the women seat, she does it in a rush rush, when she gets to the fella seats, she leans forward and right infront of my naked eyes, some pair of boobs revealing through her transparent black top, I've heard many hungry men pop in more than $50 donation(mistakenly) inside her sack cos of that and the pastor won't preach against it cos she is making him and his wife a hell of money. Dress to kill, A chick came to my house(her first visit) she was to preach to me on how I should be coming to the church every sunday, well i opened the door and i helped her with her coat and ehmm!! although she was wearing a micro mini skirt and tight top plus church hat(Real church fashion)It was like she was wearing nothing and ehmm we ehmm!! God bless his children.Anyway I get to go to church very often, as ehmm!! the brotherly and sisterly LOVE is always in the AIR.Once again God bless his children, Amen.
 

robeta_021

Well-Known Member
#33
vince said:
SEX!!!
Are we the only one?
What about the female gender?What do y'all think first when u lay ya eyes on some sexy dude?I WANNA HAVE HIS BABY!!As if that is not sex!!Hehehe!!
Seriously though,what is wrong with men seeing women as sexual objects?They do dress themselves up as such,don't they.
Y'all put us guys under serious pressure sometimes with all them sensuous bodily protrusions ala:
a)Boobs sticking out like a "one way" signboard.
b)Booties sticking out and wiggling at the back.
c)Maddeningly sensuously curvatious hips.
Y'all push these sinful anatomical landscape in our face and u expect us to think of something else but SEX.
TUFFIAKWA!!
Y'all like us thinking of u as sexual objects,don't y'all?ADMIT IT!! :imp :p
where did you get your 411 from?
 

Sifu

Well-Known Member
#34
Lafem, you contracdict yourself. In the first part of your "book", you admit that men react differently from women when they see a scantily dressed person of the opposite sex (Just because women don't react the same way as men do when it comes to sex doesn't make them morally superior) but towards the end you say something different (And that doesn't mean that women who don't become sexually aroused at the mere sight of a bare-chested man can exercise more self-control than their male counterparts. The man's chest isn't a sex organ as the woman's is! It's all in the biology of both sexes.).
I could not disagree more with the last part. Men will get turned on at virtually any part of the female body that is exposed because that is just the psychology of a man. Women do have more self control than men. It is a fact. Whether it is a sex organ or not has nothing to do with anything. A man walking down the street might see a lady jogging in a tank top that might show just a hint of belly button and react to that. Men have 20 times as much testosterone pumping through their bodies at any given time that any woman... so they tend to be more agressive and dominant in the way they handle issues relating to sex.
 

vince

Well-Known Member
#35
blackbeauty said:
it's a free world .for god sake i and i think some women just dress like that to look good for them selves. i meen what is tempting about that.almost ever guy watches porno films.why don't they get tempted by that. i don't understand ya'll .
1)So you know and accept that it is a free world,eh,but it is not free for us to look,abi?See your hypocrisy showing glaringly. :eyes :cool:
2)They can't enter the TV,but they can always ogle! :p :imp
 

hafseedee

Well-Known Member
#40
vince said:
Eem,did i say they were the same?I be think sey you sabi naija way of talking.
so vince is true that all u guys think of sex ONLY...hmmm nothing better to think of only sex??? for real.. thats kinda umm... whats the word for it.. SEXY but INSANE. okey the word is SEXY INSANE
 
Status
Not open for further replies.