babygirlfl:
I always discuss ( not take his consent or permission) with my hubby when I want to embark on such a huge project. I think it's the right thing to do in MY case.

So, you want to embark on a "huge project", and you discuss with your husband, if it's not for consent or permission, what is it for exactly?

Is it for buy-in, or agreement, or advice? And if he disagrees, what happens, since you have already decided to embark? You see I find this somewhat odd - as I suppose would anyone that gives more than a cursory glance to this statement.

A "huge project" - presumbaly one that will have impact on the wider family? Really? So for example a wife decides to pursue an MBA, meaning changes to income and say childcare arrangement. She discusses - which the way you've worded it, means nothing more than tells/advises - but embarks regardless?

I'm sure there would be interest in understanding this kind of assertive declaration the more. Please indulge/educate us and expalin further. I won't address the rest of your post here,as I've done that elsewhere.

Please try and avoid Mindfulnesses decietful employment of the term relative in order to wriggle out


TV

Mindfulness:


I don't need anyone's consent to how I decide to spend my money.

I was about to RUSH you before it occured to me that you aren't a member of the gang that believes the man's money is "our" money..

Mindfulness:
If he decides to leave, I will let him go and love him unconditionally nonetheless as the father of our kids. He is not responsible for me and I do not depend on him for happiness or anything else. Each day in our marriage is a decision made out of love and appreciation rather than a duty and responsibility. I do not need anyone to force himself to stay with me due to any prescriptions. We would love for our marriage to remain as joyous as it is till death do us part but we will not imprison ourselves in eternal unhappiness when it is not longer possible.

Mindfulness, why can't you be honest with us? You've clearly stated that you do not believe in taking vows, as you cannot tell what the future holds, and would not like to force someone to stay with you, or likewise be forced.

So, it's either you are being hypocritical, a liar, or both. Are you married in the conventional/traditional sense? Or do you simply refer to your relationship as a marriage, and your partner as a husband?

I see your insistence on defining marriage as whatever one feels works for them, and this just speaks to that very point. But it's decietful to talk as if you are married when you are not, or claim vows are wrong/unnatural or something you are against, if you have indeed taken them.

Your sneaky use of "relativity" to wriggle out of this conversation is noted and ignored .


TV

TV01:

Mindfulness, why can't you be honest with us? You've clearly stated that you do not believe in taking vows, as you cannot tell what the future holds, and would not like to force someone to stay with you, or likewise be forced.

I do not believe in the vows Christian couples take. Maybe it is a new concept to you but couples are free to take any vows they choose for their marriage and we have enjoyed this freedom and we did things in our own way.

So, it's either you are being hypocritical, a liar, or both. Are you married in the conventional/traditional sense? Or do you simply refer to your relationship as a marriage, and your partner as a husband?

Traditional like in church? Hell no! Conventional as in lawfully. Heaven, yes!

I see your insistence on defining marriage as whatever one feels works for them, and this just speaks to that very point. But it's decietful to talk as if you are married when you are not, or claim vows are wrong/unnatural or something you are against, if you have indeed taken them.

The point is that you have no clue.

Your sneaky use of "relativity" to wriggle out of this conversation is noted and ignored .

TV

You have mentioned it twice on this thread now so I don't see how you have ignored it.

njokusboy:


I was about to RUSH you before it occured to me that you aren't a member of the gang that believes the man's money is "our" money..

How do you know?

Mindfulness:
I do not believe in the vows Christian couples take. Maybe it is a new concept to you but couples are free to take any vows they choose for their marriage and we have enjoyed this freedom and we did things in our own way.

I have never claimed that the Christian way is the only way. Neither have I ever been prescriptive about how a couple structure their "union". What I do hold to however, is that marriage is by definition, a vow to a lifelong union. But not every union is a marriage.

So when I ask if you married in a traditional/conventional way, that in no way means strictly Christian marriage. You have to be married to have a wife or husband, but not "Christian married". So stop skirting; did you commit to a lifelong union?

Mindfulness:
Traditional like in church? Hell no! Conventional as in lawfully. Heaven, yes!

So when you say lawfully, was it a marriage or some other form of union such as a civil union, domestic partnership or the French PAC type arrangement? Are there legal forms of marriage - not unions - that allow an omission of the "lifelong commitment"? If so, that is news to me.

Mindfulness:
The point is that you have no clue.

The point is you are not being truthful. Too much suggestion, implication and grounds for plausible deniability, instead of just telling it like it is.

Mindfulness:
You have mentioned it twice on this thread now so I don't see how you have ignored it.

Ignored as in not directly responded too - it's not worth dignifying, as you sneakily avoid the underlying principle.


TV

TV01:

I have never claimed that the Christian way is the only way. Neither have I ever been prescriptive about how a couple structure their "union". What I do hold to however, is that marriage is by definition, a vow to a lifelong union. But not every union is a marriage.

So when I ask if you married in a traditional/conventional way, that in no way means strictly Christian marriage. You have to be married to have a wife or husband, but not "Christian married". So stop skirting; did you commit to a lifelong union?


So when you say lawfully, was it a marriage or some other form of union such as a civil union, domestic partnership or the French PAC type arrangement? Are there legal forms of marriage - not unions - that allow an omission of the "lifelong commitment"? If so, that is news to me.


The point is you are not being truthful. Too much suggestion, implication and grounds for plausible deniability, instead of just telling it like it is.

Ignored as in not directly responded too - it's not worth dignifying, as you sneakily avoid the underlying principle.


TV

We are married and we will do our best to be the happy family that we are till death do us part but not because anyone tells us to.

Acidosis:


Do you know the meaning of marriage at all?

Marriage is the coming together of two people, two ideas, two opinions, two ideologies, two philosophy, and two sex organs.

Her father has no business conniving and purchasing a land without the husband's consent - same husband that has fulfilled all statutory & in-law regulations and dowry.


It is absolutely wrong to say the least. Any woman that practices such does not deserve to be married to anyone. And for those who have began same ill practice, they deserve to be 'divorced.'


If you know you don't trust your husband enough, don't marry. If you believe his gluttonous family will take over his properties when he dies, then go for one with a reasonable family, better still, you can discuss the issue of property with your man without necessarily hiding it.

If the bolded is to be taken as your standing argument, you've neither successfully pointed out the error in the act, nor have you justified the rather pedestrian accusation of connivery so carelessly flung against father and family. Kindly explain how her purchase of property is wrong and must denote connivery, disrespect, distrust, etc?

The following rhetoric is astronomically illogical up to and including the last paragraph.

EnlightenedSoul:


If the bolded is to be taken as your standing argument, you've neither successfully pointed out the error in the act, nor have you justified the rather pedestrian accusation of connivery so carelessly flung against father and family. Kindly explain how her purchase of property is wrong and must denote connivery, disrespect, distrust, etc?

The following rhetoric is astronomically illogical up to and including the last paragraph.

Conniving with one's father, pastor, mother or anyone to acquire a land while the husband whom she sleeps with, eats with and talks to daily is unaware or left in the dark is absolutely wrong.

My opinion is based on the virtual response someone gave on the first page. Besides, op categorically mentioned that the husband got to know while reading through a conversation btw his wife and his brother-in-law.

Acidosis:


Conniving with one's father, pastor, mother or anyone to acquire a land while the husband whom she sleeps with, eats with and talks to daily is unaware or left in the dark is absolutely wrong.

My opinion is based on the virtual response someone gave on the first page. Besides, op categorically mentioned that the husband got to know while reading through a conversation btw his wife and his brother-in-law.

Una don move past father in law, now its brother in law?

You folks are so jobless, its a wonder.

tpiar:

Una don move past father in law, now its brother in law?

OP said:

How do you handle a wife who connived with her father to buy a land without the consent or knowledge of the hubby.

That the hubby got to know through her whatsapp chat with her brother.

You folks are so jobless, its a wonder.

Mindfulness:
We are married and we will do our best to be the happy family that we are till death do us part but not because anyone tells us to.

Awon "co-habber" gbo gbo, aka "married because we say we are"


Teefee

Acidosis:
Conniving with one's father, pastor, mother or anyone to acquire a land while the husband whom she sleeps with, eats with and talks to daily is unaware or left in the dark is absolutely wrong.

Dude, you did well to answer. That a spouse should undertake any kind of meaningful action or embark on a huge project without so much as "advising" their spouse, let alone "discussing" it or even better, "raising" it as an idea/concept before they even consider acting.

And, as you rightfully pointed out, to do that with a 3rd party - whomsoever that may be - traduces the spouse. In fact, in magnitude, it's little different to cheating.

I've always been a little naive and trusting. In as much as I often take contrary views to the female folk on this section, I've always wanted to believe they speak with the best of intentions.

But for a while now, and especially since the revelations of the coogar saga, I haven't been able to resist the compelling evidence, that except for a rare few, they are an assortment of burger married, rebound wives, bitter divorceees, pained spinisters, single and pretend single mums, glorified girlfriends, home-wreckers and shameless cheats.

The main point in continuing to post is so that other women may not be seduced, nor men deceived by their wicked and heartless ways.


TV

^{...some of them enter multiple categories sef}

Acidosis:


Conniving with one's father, pastor, mother or anyone to acquire a land while the husband whom she sleeps with, eats with and talks to daily is unaware or left in the dark is absolutely wrong.

My opinion is based on the virtual response someone gave on the first page. Besides, op categorically mentioned that the husband got to know while reading through a conversation btw his wife and his brother-in-law.

What's the correlation between eating/sleeping/living with her husband and helping her family buy land? Furthermore, why assume they're eating/sleeping together at all? Obviously, something's amiss as is possibly indicated by her silence, and more clearly indicated by his snooping into her private messages.

Unless they agreed to structure their finances jointly and the wife dipped into their joint resources, thereby effectively conning the man out of his money and/or hurting their financial standing or family finances, I don't see how she's been "conniving" with her family. I don't see how buying land with her family using her private income requires his consent. We still don't know her reasons for not telling him, but the act in itself denotes neither of the hitherto carelessly flung about allegations. I'm soon to be married, so I'd really like to understand your stance, but up to now it's been a flawed emotional argument that is neither compelling, nor reasonable in nature.

Miami11:


Iam wondering too, if the man is working and the woman is working what's the big deal,

Consent my foot, women need to shine there eyes especially for the sake of children

I too think it irrational, but let us try to understand them.

EnlightenedSoul:


What's the correlation between eating/sleeping/living with her husband and helping her family buy land? Furthermore, why assume they're eating/sleeping together at all? Obviously, something's amiss as is possibly indicated by her silence, and more clearly indicated by his snooping into her private messages.

Unless they agreed to structure their finances jointly and the wife dipped into their joint resources, thereby effectively conning the man out of his money and/or hurting their financial standing or family finances, I don't see how she's been "conniving" with her family. I don't see how buying land with her family using her private income requires his consent. We still don't know her reasons for not telling him, but the act in itself denotes neither of the hitherto carelessly flung about allegations. I'm soon to be married, so I'd really like to understand your stance, but up to now it's been a flawed emotional argument that is neither compelling, nor reasonable in nature.

Okay, my motivation is actually based on my personal/family experiences. I guess the post may not apply to all families.

TV01:

Dude, you did well to answer. That a spouse should undertake any kind of meaningful action or embark on a huge project without so much as "advising" their spouse, let alone "discussing" it or even better, "raising" it as an idea/concept before they even consider acting.

And, as you rightfully pointed out, to do that with a 3rd party - whomsoever that may be - traduces the spouse. In fact, in magnitude, it's little different to cheating.

I've always been a little naive and trusting. In as much as I often take contrary views to the female folk on this section, I've always wanted to believe they speak with the best of intentions.

But for a while now, and especially since the revelations of the coogar saga, I haven't been able to resist the compelling evidence, that except for a rare few, they are an assortment of burger married, rebound wives, bitter divorceees, pained spinisters, single and pretend single mums, glorified girlfriends, home-wreckers and shameless cheats.

The main point in continuing to post is so that other women may not be seduced, nor men deceived by their wicked and heartless ways.


TV

^{...some of them enter multiple categories sef}

Very funny

Acidosis:


Okay, my motivation is actually based on my personal/family experiences. I guess the post may not apply to all families.

Hmm. Indeed...

On my part, I can't imagine my own long-held self-funded financial plans, aspirations and investments being subject to someone else's consent simply due to having married the individual. If I'm negatively impacting the family's financial well-being in the process, well, that's understandable. Otherwise, stand back ye enemy of progress. And all this while, I thought I was a bit of a control freak...

EnlightenedSoul:


Hmm. Indeed...

On my part, I can't imagine my own long-held self-funded financial plans, aspirations and investments being subject to someone else's consent simply due to having married the individual. If I'm negatively impacting the family's financial well-being in the process, well, that's understandable. Otherwise, stand back ye enemy of progress. And all this while, I thought I was a bit of a control freak...

Would you also spend a night or weekend at your parent's home or a friend's home without discussing or seeking the consent of the individual you married?

Acidosis:


Would you also spend a night or weekend at your parent's home or a friend's home without discussing or seeking the consent of the individual you married?

Well, in that case, he'd be expecting me per usual and the impromptu night/weekend out would be impeding on our time together, which would mean informing and coordinating with him so that we, at the very least, know we're both OK. And to say goodnight.

EnlightenedSoul:


Well, in that case, he'd be expecting me per usual and the impromptu night/weekend out would be impeding on our time together, which would mean informing and coordinating with him so that we, at the very least, know we're both OK. And to say goodnight.

Lol, I thought you own your TIME as well

Acidosis:


Lol, I thought you own your TIME as well

Well, I need my time, and he his. And then there's our time together, of course. But in order to get the most out of it all, we'd still have to coordinate. And considering how whacky our schedules have been in the past and still are from time to time, we're no strangers to the process. Anyhoo, it's something of an unspoken universal obligation to check in with unexpected circumstances if only to quell your partner's worries.

Reading tru d few comments on ds issue, a story i read a long time ago came into my mind.. Wld love to share it..

There was a couple.who had bn married for many years bt hadnt bn able to hv their own kids. The wife happens to be making more money than d husband, so she decided to purchase some properties, nd tld the husband and he was like, since dey are yet to hv their own kids,they shld buy that building in the imaginary name of their first child,nd she gladly welcom d idea.. Many years went by,she got like 2 other buildings in which was bought in another 2imaginary names of their future kids..bt she hasnt concieved yet, prayerfuly hoping dt smeday,they both wil hv their own kids and dey l be named according to the names on d properties..neither did she knw dt her husband had another hiding agenda of his.. To cut the story short, the husband had a terrible accident which led to his death nd was buried. Few days after, a woman came wit 3kids bearing the names of each properties she purchased wit her sweat to claim those properties, saying that the husband had gotten them in the names of her children...nd al the husband's family supported the new woman..

In this case, what wld yu had advice the lady(wife) to do..
Leave the properties or fight for them??

Wisdom is realy nedded in dealing wit matters like ds..., telling yur spouse or not al depends on you..

Phunmyke:
Reading tru d few comments on ds issue, a story i read a long time ago came into my mind.. Wld love to share it..

There was a couple.who had bn married for many years bt hadnt bn able to hv their own kids. The wife happens to be making more money than d husband, so she decided to purchase some properties, nd tld the husband and he was like, since dey are yet to hv their own kids,they shld buy that building in the imaginary name of their first child,nd she gladly welcom d idea.. Many years went by,she got like 2 other buildings in which was bought in another 2imaginary names of their future kids..bt she hasnt concieved yet, prayerfuly hoping dt smeday,they both wil hv their own kids and dey l be named according to the names on d properties..neither did she knw dt her husband had another hiding agenda of his.. To cut the story short, the husband had a terrible accident which led to his death nd was buried. Few days after, a woman came wit 3kids bearing the names of each properties she purchased wit her sweat to claim those properties, saying that the husband had gotten them in the names of her children...nd al the husband's family supported the new woman..

In this case, what wld yu had advice the lady(wife) to do..
Leave the properties or fight for them??

Wisdom is realy nedded in dealing wit matters like ds..., telling yur spouse or not al depends on you..

Women have to kinda get up, this is life things happen, now why would a sane woman put her properties in imaginary names,

My mum bought her own properties back in the day, when my dad married another woman and refused to send some of my brothers to college, my mum sold her property to educate them, when my father threw out one of my brothers my mum moved him and his wife to a land she owned.

My goal in life is to have three properties all in my names, I have three kids, two girls and one boy, each will inherit one. Hubby has properties too he said it will all go to kids, I hope so.

People have to live and prepare for the unforeseen future. To much sad tales.

Hm, lord have mercy.

They've kept quiet again.

I think I support women buying land secret, some men are heartless and may call for divorce for irrelevant reasons just to show he owe the woman. So any form of investment is acceptable because no one knows tomorrow.

Sir Acidosis,pls I have a question for you,not on this topic though but they are related somehow.

What is the fate of a wife whose husband buys properties in his name only but uses the wife as his next of kin? Thanks.

prissyluv:
Sir Acidosis,pls I have a question for you,not on this topic though but they are related somehow.

What is the fate of a wife whose husband buys properties in his name only but uses the wife as his next of kin? Thanks.

A wife whose husband buys properties in his name only needs to brace up and discuss with her husband. Even if he owns the money, he still needs to extend his love by acquiring a property in the name of the woman.

On the other hand, the wife can gather some money to acquire one in her name. The key issue here is openness, since the man is responsible enough to use his wife as his next of kin, it would be improper for the woman to connive with her father or any other third party.

This issue of property also has to do with INTEREST, some women aren't interested in properties/investment. For such, I won't encourage the acquisition of properties just for the sake of acquiring one. Investment has to do with interest.

I personally won't buy a land to "secure some future in the event of death of an imaginary husband" I invest to make money. MONEY is the key motivation. I buy to sell off!

So interest is KEY, if you buy without keen interest, omo-onile might re-acquire illegally.

For instance, I don't think it would be wise for a REAL ESTATE MAN to buy a property to secure her wife's future. These guys are business men. He can either buy in his name or his company's.

Lastly, there are different ways to secure the future, properties being just one of such numerous ways. I don't think it'd be wise to buy a duplex you sure won't live in. What if one's husband refuses to DIE young? What if the marriage remains intact? Will the duplex just rot away?

Any investment/future conscious person (man or woman) should work and invest based on INTEREST. You can decide to buy shares, regular treasury bills, 'pension funds', etc.
If one has the money, one can even decide to send Linda Ikeji packing, in the event that one partner dies, or cheated upon.

If this case has to do with your personal experience, pleaseeeeeeeeeee ma'am, do not discuss this with your partner from the viewpoint of 'securing your future', make him understand the value from the viewpoint of business. SINCE you have a roof on your head now, your intentions won't be clear as to why you want another property. Just think about something sustainable ma'am. There are so many options, I can't list all.

epistle, na wa o.

ki Oloun pese ise gidi fun enyin enyan yi.

tpiar:
epistle, na wa o.
ki Oloun pese ise gidi fun enyin enyan yi.

I'll love to have a face-2-face chat with you. Are you schizophrenic for real?

Acidosis:


A wife whose husband buys properties in his name only needs to brace up and discuss with her husband. Even if he owns the money, he still needs to extend his love by acquiring a property in the name of the woman.

On the other hand, the wife can gather some money to acquire one in her name. The key issue here is openness, since the man is responsible enough to use his wife as his next of kin, it would be improper for the woman to connive with her father or any other third party.

This issue of property also has to do with INTEREST, some women aren't interested in properties/investment. For such, I won't encourage the acquisition of properties just for the sake of acquiring one. Investment has to do with interest.

I personally won't buy a land to "secure some future in the event of death of an imaginary husband" I invest to make money. MONEY is the key motivation. I buy to sell off!

So interest is KEY, if you buy without keen interest, omo-onile might re-acquire illegally.

For instance, I don't think it would be wise for a REAL ESTATE MAN to buy a property to secure her wife's future. These guys are business men. He can either buy in his name or his company's.

Lastly, there are different ways to secure the future, properties being just one of such numerous ways. I don't think it'd be wise to buy a duplex you sure won't live in. What if one's husband refuses to DIE young? What if the marriage remains intact? Will the duplex just rot away?

Any investment/future conscious person (man or woman) should work and invest based on INTEREST. You can decide to buy shares, regular treasury bills, 'pension funds', etc.
If one has the money, one can even decide to send Linda Ikeji packing, in the event that one partner dies, or cheated upon.

If this case has to do with your personal experience, pleaseeeeeeeeeee ma'am, do not discuss this with your partner from the viewpoint of 'securing your future', make him understand the value from the viewpoint of business. SINCE you have a roof on your head now, your intentions won't be clear as to why you want another property. Just think about something sustainable ma'am. There are so many options, I can't list all.

Quite elaborate and insightful.Thanks so much sir. I appreciate.

prissyluv:


Quite elaborate and insightful. Thanks so much sir. I appreciate.

You're welcome (without the "sir"