I always say to couples who come to me with many issues. "Who is the husband " and "who is the wife" . Most times am greeted with looks of shock and likely response like "he is the man na" ofcourse "she is the woman and thus the wife". I ask this question because the concept of husband and wife is a behaviourial connotation that could be binding on either a man or a woman.

A husband is the head of the family, he speaks and others follow, he provides for the family and his word is gold. A wife is the keeper of the family, she is the neck of the home and thus should turn the head in the right direction, she leads the homefront and is incharge. Yet we know that no two situations can be the same. Some situations are dynamic as life itself and since we are dealing with humans of diverse nature. Its not uncommon to observe a family where the man performs all the attributes I listed for the wife and the woman does all I listed for the husband. Infact some homes startedd out with a man as the head, and financial or other reasons brought a role reversal.

This implies that by function, a man could be the wife to his woman in opposition to the norm of a woman being a wife to the man. This is based on the nature and temperment of the people involved. There are men who gladly cook and clean the home, and there are others who feel insulted at the mention to them to raise their legs up so one can sweep.

What works for family A is different from family B. And thus I always ask. Who has taken up the role of husband by ommision or commision. Who has done same for wife. When there is no understanding of individuals roles , there will always be conflict, no two captains can pilot a ship. A man takes up the role of a wife during courtship and when he marries his wife , he immediately starts taking up the role of husband, and after two years he wonders why he is unhappy and his wife doesn't respect him.

From the onset of any realtionship, a woman must assert her role and the man must do so. This role must remain so till death do you part. Failure to determine your individual roles early have always caused rifts between new married couples . And all you will hear is " jide has changed , he is now so controlling ". And " mide can reply and argue for africa. She always wants to assert he decisions on me". They always will chorus " mide and jide were not like this before oh ". Aaand the trouble has started.

Some hard women, are submissive to john but are domineering to mark. The simple explanation is dat john is an alpha male and automatically takes the husband role, while mark is a beta male who takes no role and thus allows the woman asuume whichever roles she feels will suit a circumstance.

Define the roles in your relationship, marriage and stick to it. Situations could change it at any time and thus make a woman a breadwinner or a man a housewife. When such happens you should understand and carter for ur spouse knowing that such circumstantial role reversal could cause depression in people

Eddygourdo, are you a marriage counselor as your opening sentence conotes?

Do you have any success case(s)?
I doubt though, going by your concept of marriage!

The ONLY guiding principles for a successful marriage is contained in a clear instruction to the man and the woman. "Husband love your wife", " wife, submit to your Husband ".

When a man loves his wife, he will take up domestic shores and not feel he is performing the role of a wider and when a wife submits to her OWN husband, she will meet family needs with money she earns without feeling she is bread winner.

All these defining of roles based on the concept you listed will only lead to wahala in the long run.

if this works for you then good luck but these is hogwash and doesn't work for me.

Every family should choose whatever works best for them. For us roles are based on who's better at that thing. Whoever is better with finances will handle the household finances, whoever is better at cooking cook's the most with the other party cooking whatever meals he/she cook's better e.t.c then the rest we Base on what we like doing. The sam way there no hard and fast rule to life is the way there is no hard and fast rule in marriage. That is why you'll see someone like Charles boy celebrating decades of marriage while some who consider him a deviant will not. Just marry someone that has the dam principles as you and don't let the world dictate how you run your home. If Omotola's husband going to the market has worked for them and resulted in decades of happy marital life it's stupid for people many of whom have not even been married for as long or even a day to criticise them

Evina:
Eddygourdo, are you a marriage counselor as your opening sentence conotes?

Do you have any success case(s)?
I doubt though, going by your concept of marriage!

The ONLY guiding principles for a successful marriage is contained in a clear instruction to the man and the woman. "Husband love your wife", " wife, submit to your Husband ".

When a man loves his wife, he will take up domestic shores and not feel he is performing the role of a wider and when a wife submits to her OWN husband, she will meet family needs with money she earns without feeling she is bread winner.

All these defining of roles based on the concept you listed will only lead to wahala in the long run.

if I had no success cases I won't say what I don't know dear. Ur simple definition is too small and narrow to capture every part of people which become deciding factors in relationship. Its as mute as do not tell lies. Yet we have situations where a lie to s child is part of proper upbringing.

You can't define that taking up domestic chores is a charateristic of a loving man. Love is a sphere who shape differes deppending on where you are standing to define it. Many have their own definitions on love and family values. My experience has taught me never to use lump arguements in analysing any marital scenario.

If that's what you do, then I doubt you can have any long lasting solution to couples because u simply give them a lumped arguement without considering peculairities.


Read what I wrote very well and understaand the angle am coming from. Its part of a model that has worked over and over again

Mamatee07:
Every family should choose whatever works best for them. For us roles are based on who's better at that thing. Whoever is better with finances will handle the household finances, whoever is better at cooking cook's the most with the other party cooking whatever meals he/she cook's better e.t.c then the rest we Base on what we like doing

when an arguement comes up, a very big one where both you and ur husband feel agrieved by each other. By societal dictates every body including your mother will appeal to you to let the matter die because they say, you are a woman, man is the head etc. In many cases as observe with women who have male spirits, the mention of that angle worsens the case and thus people could end up going to the man , to say " forgive ur wife , she is but a woman" . The tendency to do this is dependent on who assumes a very dominant role irespective of societal definitions of these roles.

When I look at ur marriage , with a few lines I can define the dominant fellow there. It could be you , it could be ur husband. By identifying such a trait creates room for conflict resolution. We know whom to ask to subjugate even though he or she wasn't wrong. It could be the man. Or the woman. The ability to understaand that this role reversal I'd possible dependent on the scenario faced is very important.

By the cast version of man is husband and his word is gold. And woman is subject. How do you resolve a conflict betwen two equally right people if the nature of the woman is dominant. How do u sell her the idea of subjugation because the law says be subject to her husband. Even when in truth she is blameless

Eddygourdo:
I always say to couples who come to me with many issues. "Who is the husband " and "who is the wife" . Most times am greeted with looks of shock and likely response like "he is the man na" ofcourse "she is the woman and thus the wife". I ask this question because the concept of husband and wife is a behaviourial connotation that could be binding on either a man or a woman.

A husband is the head of the family, he speaks and others follow, he provides for the family and his word is gold. A wife is the keeper of the family, she is the neck of the home and thus should turn the head in the right direction, she leads the homefront and is incharge. Yet we know that no two situations can be the same. Some situations are dynamic as life itself and since we are dealing with humans of diverse nature. Its not uncommon to observe a family where the man performs all the attributes I listed for the wife and the woman does all I listed for the husband. Infact some homes startedd out with a man as the head, and financial or other reasons brought a role reversal.

This implies that by function, a man could be the wife to his woman in opposition to the norm of a woman being a wife to the man. This is based on the nature and temperment of the people involved. There are men who gladly cook and clean the home, and there are others who feel insulted at the mention to them to raise their legs up so one can sweep.

What works for family A is different from family B. And thus I always ask. Who has taken up the role of husband by ommision or commision. Who has done same for wife. When there is no understanding of individuals roles , there will always be conflict, no two captains can pilot a ship. A man takes up the role of a wife during courtship and when he marries his wife , he immediately starts taking up the role of husband, and after two years he wonders why he is unhappy and his wife doesn't respect him.

From the onset of any realtionship, a woman must assert her role and the man must do so. This role must remain so till death do you part Failure to determine your individual roles early have always caused rifts between new married couples . And all you will hear is " jide has changed , he is now so controlling ". And " mide can reply and argue for africa. She always wants to assert he decisions on me". They always will chorus " mide and jide were not like this before oh ". Aaand the trouble has started.

Some hard women, are submissive to john but are domineering to mark. The simple explanation is dat john is an alpha male and automatically takes the husband role, while mark is a beta male who takes no role and thus allows the woman asuume whichever roles she feels will suit a circumstance.

Define the roles in your relationship, marriage and stick to it. Situations could change it at any time and thus make a woman a breadwinner or a man a housewife. When such happens you should understand and carter for ur spouse knowing that such circumstantial role reversal could cause depression in people

It must not be 'till death do us part' else the marriage is dead on arrival. Circumstances change and people change. Their respective roles may need to be revised temporarily or permanently depending on prevailing conditions and with the agreement of both parties.
There must be room for flexibility.


[size=3pt]But wait o! all these yeye gender threads to dey tire una to open ni? [/size]

zeb04:
if this works for you then good luck but these is hogwash and doesn't work for me.

with less than a page about the model that works for you and ur husband. I will outline the personalities you both posess that makes it work and link it to my theory above. The theory could be working already in ur marriage without u knowing.

Look deeply and you would observe a role reversal a lot, and once there is not conflict when such role reversal occurs , then it implies your main roles have been defined at one time earlier in ur relationship. It could have happened unkowingly.

It could be possoible that ur the husband in ur home unknowingly. My theory never said its a bad thing, but knowing ur main roles helps the family structure to rebalance itself if any future scenario causes a role reversal

Eddygourdo:
when an arguement comes up, a very big one where both you and ur husband feel agrieved by each other. By societal dictates every body including your mother will appeal to you to let the matter die because they say, you are a woman, man is the head etc. In many cases as observe with women who have male spirits, the mention of that angle worsens the case and thus people could end up going to the man , to say " forgive ur wife , she is but a woman" . The tendency to do this is dependent on who assumes a very dominant role irespective of societal definitions of these roles.

When I look at ur marriage , with a few lines I can define the dominant fellow there. It could be you , it could be ur husband. By identifying such a trait creates room for conflict resolution. We know whom to ask to subjugate even though he or she wasn't wrong. It could be the man. Or the woman. The ability to understaand that this role reversal I'd possible dependent on the scenario faced is very important.

By the cast version of man is husband and his word is gold. And woman is subject. How do you resolve a conflict betwen two equally right people if the nature of the woman is dominant. How do u sell her the idea of subjugation because the law says be subject to her husband. Even when in truth she is blameless

I don't come from the kind of family that brings in gender and neither does he. Arguments are settled based on reasoning. Whose idea is better? Who was in the wrong? Typically we don't even go to parents or family rather we'll speak to experts in the field that's in contention. So if it's a disagreement about investments we speak to experts and pick the best idea based on that. Gender has zero bearing in settling disputes in my world. Typical both of us will apologise to each other and acknowledge our faults and then make the best decision for us based on facts and move on.

I don't know of any law that says I must be subject to my husband and I don't believe anyone's words are gold based on the sex organs. No one's word is gold except God

Mamatee07:
Every family should choose whatever works best for them. For us roles are based on who's better at that thing. Whoever is better with finances will handle the household finances, whoever is better at cooking cook's the most with the other party cooking whatever meals he/she cook's better e.t.c then the rest we Base on what we like doing. The sam way there no hard and fast rule to life is the way there is no hard and fast rule in marriage. That is why you'll see someone like Charles boy celebrating decades of marriage while some who consider him a deviant will not. Just marry someone that has the dam principles as you and don't let the world dictate how you run your home. If Omotola's husband going to the market has worked for them and resulted in decades of happy marital life it's stupid for people many of whom have not even been married for as long or even a day to criticise them

that is the role definition I mentioned. The omotola case as with most popular successful women. The husbands were comfortable with a role change. While teebliz was not. He envied his wife. If right from the onset he was the man in that home, tiwa would still honour him no matter wat. But he was a beta male. the glory of his wife made him feel threatened and losing the manager position made him lose control. Other men in his shoes adapted with that role reversal but he couldn't. Am sure despite omotolas success she still cooks for her husband, and even if she was the bread winner of the home , she might still cook for him because right from the onset he was a man. And took on that role.

What am saying is that we all have main roles that defines our positions, some men may not be dominant and could take on the submissiove role and yet it work for them. It should not be seen as a bad thing

Eddygourdo:
if I had no success cases I won't say what I don't know dear. Ur simple definition is too small and narrow to capture every part of people which become deciding factors in relationship. Its as mute as do not tell lies. Yet we have situations where a lie to s child is part of proper upbringing.

You can't define that taking up domestic chores is a charateristic of a loving man. Love is a sphere who shape differes deppending on where you are standing to define it. Many have their own definitions on love and family values. My experience has taught me never to use lump arguements in analysing any marital scenario.

If that's what you do, then I doubt you can have any long lasting solution to couples because u simply give them a lumped arguement without considering peculairities.


Read what I wrote very well and understaand the angle am coming from. Its part of a model that has worked over and over again

You seem not to understand your own post hence you misrepresentation of my response.

You clearly identified domestic shores as a woman's role and indicated that a man taking on such role is unideal. That's why I used that as a reference.

But then, if you claim to have success stories with such principles, then...

Eddygourdo:
that is the role definition I mentioned. The omotola case as with most popular successful women. The husbands were comfortable with a role change. While teebliz was not. He envied his wife. If right from the onset he was the man in that home, tiwa would still honour him no matter wat. But he was a beta male. the glory of his wife made him feel threatened and losing the manager position made him lose control. Other men in his shoes adapted with that role reversal but he couldn't. Am sure despite omotolas success she still cooks for her husband, and even if she was the bread winner of the home , she might still cook for him because right from the onset he was a man. And took on that role.

What am saying is that we all have main roles that defines our positions, some men may not be dominant and could take on the submissiove role and yet it work for them. It should not be seen as a bad thing

What I am telling you is not all families operate like that. One spouse may be dominate in some issues and submissive in other areas he/ she knows the spouse is better at. Teebillz problem is that the girl was not handing him her paycheck. If she gave him her paycheck and didn't cook he wouldn't give a flip. All that one is story .I doubt Tiwa ever cooked much even when they were dating yet he didn't complain then, Tiwa dated those guys before he married her yet he didn't complain then. Complaints only came in after the cash cow decided she was no longer going to be a cash cow. Their issue is really not about roles but greed and people's intentions for going into a marriage

Kimoni:


It must not be 'till death do us part' else the marriage is dead on arrival. Circumstances change and people change. Their respective roles may need to be revised temporarily or permanently depending on prevailing conditions and with the agreement of both parties.
There must be room for flexibility.


[size=3pt]But wait o! all these yeye gender threads to dey tire una to open ni? [/size]

. You see if one understands what a marriage is all about , then you will understand why its till death do us part. The till death do us part, is supposed to be a key factor in choice of a partner at the very begining. Most times its never considered. Other less mundane things such as love are considered and thus one would find him or herself in a situtaion where divorce would appear the only solution. Peeps need to know wat marriage is first and then less will marry in the first place talkless of divorce.

There must be room for flexiblity, but fact is that everyone of us has a main role in every relationship we are in. Role reversals could occur as scenarios deem fit. But we will always maintain our main roles. Eg a woman who is a beta could be the type who apologises easily to her friends when there is conflict. The first person to say am sorry is always she. While we could have a lady who wants people to apologise to her. When these two ladies get married. Which one will find it easier to conform to the traditional norm of women apologising to their husbands even if in truth they weren't in the wrong

Eddygourdo:
. You see if one understands what a marriage is all about , then you will understand why its till death do us part. The till death do us part, is supposed to be a key factor in choice of a partner at the very begining. Most times its never considered. Other less mundane things such as love are considered and thus one would find him or herself in a situtaion where divorce would appear the only solution. Peeps need to know wat marriage is first and then less will marry in the first place talkless of divorce.

There must be room for flexiblity, but fact is that everyone of us has a main role in every relationship we are in. Role reversals could occur as scenarios deem fit. But we will always maintain our main roles. Eg a woman who is a beta could be the type who apologises easily to her friends when there is conflict. The first person to say am sorry is always she. While we could have a lady who wants people to apologise to her. When these two ladies get married. Which one will find it easier to conform to the traditional norm of women apologising to their husbands even if in truth they weren't in the wrong

I think you are looking at human beings in very simple terms. Most human beings are not completely dominant or completely submissive
E.g you can see a husband who laid back in everything and gives his wife free reign but when it comes to say food he is dominant. Human beings are complex and that's why adaptability is one of the essential factors in a marriage. One party can't insist on always having their way while the other party always has to always subject or else the person will revolt one day

Mamatee07:


What I am telling you is not all families operate like that. One spouse may be dominate in some issues and submissive in other areas he/ she knows the spouse is better at. Teebillz problem is that the girl was not handing him her paycheck. If she gave him her paycheck and didn't cook he wouldn't give a flip. All that one is story .I doubt Tiwa ever cooked much even when they were dating yet he didn't complain then, Tiwa dated those guys before he married her yet he didn't complain then. Complaints only came in after the cash cow decided she was no longer going to be a cash cow. Their issue is really not about roles but greed and people's intentions for going into a marriage

I disagree with you on his issue being all about greed. How much was he making as a manager by the way. It had little to do with money per say , but with control. He flipped out for fear of loss of control as a man. Why will he complain of cheating he had no evidence to back up. He was just frustrated that she had taken over the primary role in the home and at large. As her manager he had some influence in her life , in whom she meets , in shows she attends and her wherabouts. He lost all these including money when she sacked him. Even affter that tiwa said she spent a lot on his image and of course money came his way. Yet je flipped out.

It was a clear case of role reversal and in his case, he was a beta male with no role earlier and thus he felt threatened

Mamatee07:


I think you are looking at human beings in very simple terms. Most human beings are not completely dominant or completely submissive
E.g you can see a husband who laid back in everything and gives his wife free reign but when it comes to say food he is dominant. Human beings are complex and that's why adaptability is one of the essential factors in a marriage. One party can't insist on always having their way while the other party always has to always subject or else the person will revolt one day

fact is sure that we are complex beings. Thus my position that there is a primary role stands. The man who is submissive in everything but not food, is generally submissive. That's all I am saying. Even in a hurt about food he will revolt. But if matters are about to escalate he would be able to be submissive and let peace reign, because he is comfortable in that role. We are still saying the same thing with respect to adaptability. This is what handles the abilty of a spouse to handle role reversal which could occur once in awhile. But when role reversal occurs the only thing that will keep the peace is aadherence to ur spouses main role. Eg men complain that when their wives became bread winners , respect flew out the window. But there are homes where despite the woman was bread winner, she still treated her man in his main role. AS a MAN. Thus there was no complaints. That's all am saying. That there must be a main role , and that role must be defined and respected even though it could change due to circumstance

Evina:
Eddygourdo, are you a marriage counselor as your opening sentence conotes?

Do you have any success case(s)?
I doubt though, going by your concept of marriage!

The ONLY guiding principles for a successful marriage is contained in a clear instruction to the man and the woman. "Husband love your wife", " wife, submit to your Husband ".

When a man loves his wife, he will take up domestic shores and not feel he is performing the role of a wider and when a wife submits to her OWN husband, she will meet family needs with money she earns without feeling she is bread winner.

All these defining of roles based on the concept you listed will only lead to wahala in the long run.

This same character is the one insulting my friend and bringing my friends daughter who is barely 2yrs into what she knws nothing about,dis guy is just a kid.

bejeria101:


This same character is the one insulting my friend and bringing my friends daughter who is barely 2yrs into what she knws nothing about,dis guy is just a kid.

because you are anonymous and its online. You will get away with jerking off on me. I see u have a gay fixation on my monicker. Now little boy go do something meaniful with urslef cos I have nothing to offer you or ur friend. Have given you the attention you need am sure you orgasmed. Now beat it kiddo

So a woman who earns money is the man / husband now.

Kimoni:


It must not be 'till death do us part' else the marriage is dead on arrival. Circumstances change and people change. Their respective roles may need to be revised temporarily or permanently depending on prevailing conditions and with the agreement of both parties.
There must be room for flexibility.

Very well said!

Allow me to add that this is what keeps relationships fresh. Life changes, we develop and so do our relationships. This is what makes life and relationships interesting.

Nothing is constant but change.

Eddygourdo:
because you are anonymous and its online. You will get away with jerking off on me. I see u have a gay fixation on my monicker. Now little boy go do something meaniful with urslef cos I have nothing to offer you or ur friend. Have given you the attention you need am sure you orgasmed. Now beat it kiddo

Itumo? What was the last thing i told you? Oh yeah airhead,u just displayed it.

Evina:
Eddygourdo, are you a marriage counselor as your opening sentence conotes?

Do you have any success case(s)?
I doubt though, going by your concept of marriage!

The ONLY guiding principles for a successful marriage is contained in a clear instruction to the man and the woman. "Husband love your wife", " wife, submit to your Husband ".

When a man loves his wife, he will take up domestic shores and not feel he is performing the role of a wider and when a wife submits to her OWN husband, she will meet family needs with money she earns without feeling she is bread winner.

All these defining of roles based on the concept you listed will only lead to wahala in the long run.

can i marry u..lol

misreal:
can i marry u..lol

No you can't.

Evina:

No you can't.

if i give you d keys to my bank,will you marry me?

misreal:
if i give you d keys to my bank,will you marry me?

My husband and the father of my 2 month old son owns an oil bloc.

Evina:


My husband and the father of my 2 month old son owns an oil bloc.

but i sold the bloc to him at a give away price.if you marry me,i shall give you my refinery.