Jayboy124: E matter oh. Mustn't be too short. But both parties must know each other very well before getting married. And I always suggest both parties try and live together from time to time so they study each other's living habits. Does he play video game till morning? Does he wake up and start eating around 1am. Does he do vampire things at night, looool. Or is he even Batman? Courtship is just getting to know who you are about to spend the rest of your life with. So if you can know him/her very well in 3 months, you've done your own courtship.

But in all, they should concentrate more on the length of the actual marriage.

Tgirl4real:

Actually, I will be stupid to do dat.

By Faith up there, do u mean fate?



Actually, I can. I do crazy things.

chamotex: Long courtship doesn't determine the success of the marriage.

Sagamite:

No, I meant faith. Having belief that you should just jump in, that the other person (based on your insufficient and unreliable assessment and on how good you are to them) would be fine. Basically wishful thinking.

Yeah right! Believe me, you will do safe things with £5m, not crazy things. This is not £500 we are talking about.

coogar:

it has to be in and around that figure. y'all have to be compatible
spiritually, sexually, intellectually, etc. i actually advise most couples
to go for a compatibility test before tying the knot. it's critical!

chamotex: Long courtship doesn't determine the success of the marriage.

TV01: Saga,

I see you snuck in here after I left to preach your life by logic and not by intuition, your living by intelligence and not discernment religion .

If you spend 100 years with someone, you still won't know everything about them. Are you their maker? Can you know every detail of their make-up, or every aspect of their persona? Can you legislate for every influence or for enviromental factors?

Change is is also inevitable and in a lot of instances unpredictable. He said to me, he said "there are some things I wish I had known before marriage, but you know, there are some things you cannot know until you are married". You cannot replicate the crucible of marriage and all that a lifetime together may bring. Not by mere observation, no matter how long. Not even by co-habiting

You poo poo adding faith to the mix, but what is your guarantee? You reduce it to risk elimination, you can't even use logic to legislate for known risk sef, let alone unknown risk. Your obsession with pre-nups and contractual risk mitigation is simply odd. And why monetise it all the time? If someone can be trusted with a fiver, they can be trusted with £5m. Maybe you should look inward?

Reducing it to an algorithim may well work, but I can see that approach calculating out all the joy, expectation and hope. Plus it seems it requires an inordinate amount of time to apply? With all the brainboxes and systems in the world in the industry, stock market pro's will still disclaim any product with "past returns are no indicator of future performance". Why? because there is sentiment and emotion involved and no one has full knowledge.

People are testifying what worked for them and you sneer? At least prove your own pudding. Put your thesis into practice and come and tell. I'll diarise to visit this thread 10 years hence !

I am not alone in testifying that for mature, honest (and God-fearing) individuals a suitable courtship leading to a happy marriage can be undertaken in a few months. You don't have to agree and I am in no way being dogmatic. To each his own, but why challenge what others are living, especially with nothing of your own to show.

What if you want male children, but only have females, what if - God forbid - a terrible illness stikes? Is it intelligence that removes the risk or deals with it?

Sir get real. And erm...get married. Please. NL awaits.

Kindest
TV

Busy_body: With intuition by the bucketload plus plenty of sincerity and integrity, It shouldn't matter, and could be a matter of weeks.

Tgirl4real:

Ok. The Faith I listed among d 3 things is salvation. We must share the same beliefs.

Also, 500 or 5M, it's all the same to me as long as I can trust the person.

Tgirl4real: Eeehhh! Sagamite no go kill person with his qualitative, quatitative and risk analysis grammer. Na wa o, dat girl don enter am.

I can only hope TV01 will not respond. If not, we are in for long epistles.

Tgirl4real: Eeehhh! Sagamite no go kill person with his qualitative, quatitative and risk analysis grammer. Na wa o, dat girl don enter am.

Tgirl4real: I can only hope TV01 will not respond. If not, we are in for long epistles.

Sagamite:

The guy wanted to use financial marketism to shakara me into submission ni na. I had to show-off and give my own come-back noni.

Sagamite:
No 1, there is no place I said you can know anyone 100%.

Sagamite:
No 2, you should realise the longer you know someone, the better you would know them. So you should know even though long term relationships do not eliminate risks, it reduces it better than short term ones.

Sagamite:
No 3, how does your short relationship even generatte sufficient known risks, talkless of legislating for it and unknown risks? This is like a Nigerian average joe laughing at a Nigerian Olympic athlete for not being able to beat Usain Bolt, when he himself cannot run 100m in 40s. Short courtship is inferior to long ones when it comes to identifying and dealing with risks.

Sagamite:
No 4, "If someone can be trusted with a fiver, they can be trusted with £5m". Don't be silly! Ridiculous statement.

Sagamite:
No 5, "past returns are no indicator of future performance"? Who used past returns? I am using current returns, current assets and relative competitive position with strong application of quantitative risk analysis, sensitivity analysis, scenario planning and asset depreciation assessment to evaluate likely future asset valuation. Your faith based short relationship approach can not even do all that because you have very limited knowledge of the asset, with majority of that knowledge being what the seller (who would gain) has told you is the bulk of your due diligence. That is why they have a Chinese Wall in investment banks and firms used independent assessors/valuators vigorously.

Sagamite:
No 6, if someone saying "we courted for 2 month and have been married for 1 year without a problem, so that is evidence it does not matter" is the type of testimony you want me to take seriously at my intellectual level, you must be havin a laff! Let them come and tell me about their marriage in 15 years time.

Sagamite:
No 7, "I am not alone in testifying that for mature, honest (and God-fearing) individuals a suitable courtship leading to a happy marriage". RUBBISH! What you should be reading between the line here is that it is a function of a woman's age that leads to short courtship, not maturity or honesty, as I have told you before. ATM women are not about maturity, they are about resignation to fate, compromise and self-interest.

Sagamite:
No 8, I would rather use my intellect anyday than rely on some medieval fairytales called religion.

TV01:

What would you consider a threshold percentage (and as a corallary to that, why can this percentage not be reached in 3 months? what is the minimum time for the minimum percentage?)

Your correlation of increased time = increased knowledge = decreased risk is flawed. Yes there should be a minimum time, but anything after this leads to diminishing returns. To whit, if you can know someone to say 70% in one year, what added benefit would the additional 9 years bring in that regard? Plus other factors at play could possibly destabilise the relationship. You could find yourself in a perpetual "non-completion" loop here?

You miss out sincerity, purpose and mutual commonality at the start, and risk, staleness, divergence and "losing your kill" to events/someone else to end - as opposed to complete.

TV01:
Short vs. long is relative. it's depth that is the key. And the key to reaching that depth is understanding and approach.

TV01:
Not really. Agreed there is more pressure, but character should out. Like saying ones WTB will not cheat with Mukaila the smelly impoverished butcher, but will with George Clooney the movie star UN special envoy. She is either a cheat or not.

TV01:
Hmmmm. However "foresnsic" you make the romance and regardless of the "investigative "nature of the dating. Whatever quantitative and qualitative risk models you apply and empirical market research based on extensive data sampling you employ. You cannot eliminate risk. Plus, plus, market for don move now? Bro' you gats to trade at some point na? All this Fantasy stock selection na spreadsheet money *)!! Whither cap growth and div income? The only way to escape the possible ups and downs is to not invest. that's not IB, that BS (building society).

TV01:
On that same basis there are those who have testified on this thread to long blissful marriages. Nuff' said. Please refer us to testimonies of those who courted for 10+ years. And correlate the increased successful and sweetness.

What you are likely to find is an insufficient population to carry out a proper study, 'cos it is rare unless you start dating pre-adulthood. And the sample you do obtain is unlikely to isolate length as an advantage per se.

TV01:
Again, your arguement is somewhat lop-sided. Is age not a factor for men? Are all women devoid of maturity. Is honesty the sole preserve of males? Don't hate on all women because of the hearts of some, even if that is most. I have my 95 percenters rule, which I've previously mentioned. I didn't let that deter me as I only wanted the one. Just honed my skills and improved my game accordingly. Man down. Man up!

amaba: D period doesn't matter. U have 2 define what you are looking 4 in a rship/marriage. I dated my wife 4 only 4 months and i am enjoying my marriage beautifully.

armyofone: i don't like long courtship and i think it does not really matter. for me, i get bored easily.
after 2 years with a guy and he hasn't proposed, something isn't right.

coogar:

armyofone:
haha, weird one

armyofone: what is the essence of long term/time courtship? what's the need?

Sagamite:
I have no threshold percentage as humans are complex and different, so one should focus on the percentage that meets their risk appetite. There are those that meet for 6 weeks and go and marry in Vegas. Na dem wahala. But the less the percentage the bigger the risk of failure.

That said, I am CONFIDENT that 3 months will never be sufficient as I have never met anyone in my life I felt I know sufficient well after 3 months. And that includes even those I spent everyday with in boarding school who were free with me talkless of someone I probably meet (at best) 3 times a week for 3 months and who has a goal to achieve and will act to achieve that goal at all cost.

Sagamite:
Understanding people's "sincerity, purpose and mutual commonality" will take more than 3 months to ascertain genuinely even when they are free-spirited, talkless of when (a) they are goal-orientated, (b) the goal is critical and (c) they will be willing to pretend to achieve that goal. You WILL NOT know someone to 30% in months even if you were jobless and spent the whole day with them, talkless of 70%. In my view, If you want to know someone 70%, you might be looking 2 years.

Sagamite:
An increased period of time can make the acting unsustainable, set ideal goals and the prolonged contact is better for assessing compatibility. The minimum should be nowhere near 3 months, that is shot-gun and fire fighting. As Reference said earlier, women would be smarter if they start earlier rather than be delusional, rude people with their head up their arse.

Sagamite:
If there is any diminishing returns, I would not expect it to be any period less than 6 years except of-course the person is goal-orientated (ATM) who just wants to marry and ignore the risk hoping on faith. Such women (ATM - Anxious to Marry) have made a calculation that a potential imperfect marriage with opportunity for kids and high self/social valuation is far better than a life of spinsterhood with a sense of being a social reject. I am a guy, that calculation is not to my favour, I would do what is in my self-interest and would not be mugu-ed to go against/diminish my self-interest for the "fantastic" benefit of being called a "real man". Secondly, ATM women normally missed in their calculation that an imperfect marriage includes a Hellish marriage.

Sagamite:
The disruptive relative that makes short wrong is the goal-orientated approach that potentially may lead to misleading acts. A high length of time ensures both parties goal is reasoned and not blinded by a misplaced goal.

Sagamite:
I would rather marry someone that (a) adores me and want to be with me (this is just figurative, as if no sane women would not feel like that ) than (b) marry someone that wants to marry. You are likely to get the former after a long acquaintance, and the latter after a short acquaintance. The older the woman is, the more likely it is the latter too. Adding short acquaintance plus older maiden just almost irrevocably compounds the possibilities in the latter umbrella (someone marrying you because they want to marry). It is not rocket science.

Sagamite:
Are you having a laugh? And you would know 100% if WTB would cheat with Clooney after only 3 months of knowing her? Based on what? What she told you? The values she vocalised?.

Sagamite:
I never said you can eliminate risk. But you can understand, manage and prepare for it just like banks and investment firms do. You will be a lunatic to give your money to a bank/investment firm that says it would not do its upmost best to manage risk over one that actively does.

Sagamite:
No 1, you must be Baba Sala reincarnated if you believe you have seen anyone here testify to long blissful marriages. If you regard, 3 years of marriage as long blissful marriage, count me the fck out. Read up on 7 year itch. Google even has predictive text as you type it. After that look at how many marriages fail after 20 years.

Sagamite:
No 2, feel free to believe someone coming here and raving about successful, lovely, happy and blissful marriage but I am Sagamite from Soyindo in Sagamu. The omni-intelligent one specially created with a special brain by Baba God (Olugbala, Olorun Oba), I don't fall for such. Critical analysis and thinking is my forte. I have already given you example of people that say such: https://www.nairaland.com/958447/many-married-men-unhappy/7#11087793

Sagamite:
That is like asking me if reproduction limitations is not a factor for men like it is for women?

Or are men not also into shoes and matching bags?

Or are men also not into fairytale wedding days?

Those are ridiculous arguments not worth my commenting on.

TV01:

"Goal Oriented"...good point. Firstly are men not goal-oriented when it comes to marriage? I think you miss a trick here,as you seem to assume that marriage must not be the aim ab initio. But when everything checks out and the feeling is intense, marriage can be broached? Marriage being on the agenda right from the off is not a bad thing. It helps focus and helps prevent long "going-nowhere", "never getting there" affairs. After all to many, affairs are not an end in and of themselves. Marriage is the whole point.

TV01:
Even if we agree that (a) is the case, both (b) and (are) are at best assumptions. I wanted to marry, but was happy to remain unmarried - forever - if I didn't meet the right girl.

I wonder what you mean by "know"? I refer to their aspirations, desires, worldview, background, values, morals. I don't think it will take 2 years to prove. Anyway, 2 years for 70%. Definitely an improvement on the 10 years, and certainly doable. If of course 70% is sufficient for you to proceed?

TV01:
I was not being prescriptive about 3 months. Simply stating it worked for me.
Compatibility is based on mutual attraction along with shared aspirations and values. It's no long thing. You can have different tastes and ways yet still be compatible.
Certainly, increased time potentially reveals more, but (a) you are pre-supposing "acting" and (b)don't think it's not sustainable if present

And agree with you about "women starting earlier". But still you seem to assume that age is not a factor for men? There are still practical implications for both. And starting earlier without the emotional maturity or understanding can actually be a bad thing.

Lot's of women make poor choices based on being unlearned and unprepared when they commence relationships. The experiences then keep repeating on them and you hear phrases such as "I always go for cheats/drunkards/bad boys etc. Or all men are bastards (i.e. I can't tell the difference and always choose wrong due to my ignorance and wrongly set primers!)It's learned behaviour, just bad learning,that is never corrected. Age does not improve things, just introduces bitterness and desperation, due to the wrong notions, bad experiences and the "tick tocking".

TV01:
You miss the praticalities. If you meet a "right and ready" 25 year old, and linger for between 6 and 10 years she'll be wondering "what's the delay". She'll move on way before then, or someone else will snap her up. If she's not "R&R", there's no point getting with her as she is immature and anything you "know" is not really known as she is still developing.

TV01:
Goal oriented is no bad thing. I actually think it's the way to go. It brings focus and clarity and helps quickly conclude. You are right to use the term "may" for short,but wrong to use "ensures" for long. It simply a function of honesty and commitment of those involved, not the length of time. In fact that could lead to false confidence and not going deep. Gisting and hanging out instead of proper courting.

TV01:
Why are (a) and (b) above mutually exclusive? A mature person would insist on both. I would not commit to love someone who adores me without a marital conclusion in mind. That's not logic, its jejune romance.

TV01:
Is that any more laughable than believing your wife cannot take off with George because you courted her for 10 years, whatever she may have said, or not said?

TV01:
I also understood, managed and prepared for risk. First by preparing myself and then by seeking out someone of like mind. With faith as foundation and basis for understanding/approach.

TV01:
No risk methodology survives 7 - 20 years unchanged. Eliminating risk and fortifying the union is ongoing. Not solely a pre-marriage exercise. You talk as if all the work is done prior and relates to the entry and possible exit (prenup)? A great deal is done prior, but most is done during and is ongoing to sustain and fortify and obviate and exit strategy.

Critical analysis is not the sole determinant of success in "messy real life". Don't let "analysis paralysis" stop you living it.

TV01:
Nonetheless, men are subject to their own set of limiting factors, constraints and variables. In what was and still essential is a mans world, why would we structure or enforce something that mostly benefitted women? You do insist that marriage is man-made no?