₦airaland Forum

Kobicove:
This is true, a man can have multiple women with mutual consent

I love that you used these particular words.


They are, afterall, what I consider the bedrock of liberalism.

realG101:
You cannot demand monogamy from a man who already had his life together before you came along.

I am not "demanding" shit.


That's not in my place.

Any man who has his life together and desires a monogamy, will seek me out for reasons best known to him.


If it is your rule to be a polygamous man who has his shit together, good for you. I already said there are women who do not mind sharing. They do not demand exclusive faithfulness from men, so focus on them and leave the ones who want to do one-man-one-woman alone. That's the beauty of life; one way nor enter market.

Acidosis:
...and who told you your beauty can keep a man or prevent him from cheating?? Nothing in this world can prevent a man who wants to cheat from cheating. However, there are certain identifiers and pointers, but will women ever listen??

In fact, it is "criminal" for a show biz man to not cheat. Why would you demand faithfulness from Davido? If you meet the number of women he meets daily, including those in his music videos, you no go cheat?

Men cheat a lot, but show biz people are a rare breed. If they don't cheat on you, who will?

When men want faithfulness or a faithful woman for marriage, they don't tag video vixens, Nollywood actresses or Big Brother Naija women (call it stereotype, but that's the reality). You'll always find men on Nairaland, demanding virginity and all.

You all (women) should raise the moral standard too. It is not everyday steeze or money. If we have more women demanding virginity from men, things would be better. I mean, see how men are generally sitting up and calling for paternity test lately. What are you (women) doing in return? Telling a cheating man to stop cheating is already too late. An effort in futility.

When there are no known incentives for the male gender's morality, expect nothing but absolute unfaithfulness.

You dey vex o.

I know this is a serious humanitarian issue, but can somebody check on the Agbadoites and make sure they are not in any critical state? 😂

y3mi:
I agree that men should let it be known from the onset to a potential partner rather than placing a burden on them after the effect unannounced prior to.

We're good then 🤝.

Anything that leads us closer to a Femcel and Incel Paradise is a win in my books.

y3mi:
Polygamy is not a tendency.
It's also a commitment too.

So who asked for this lecture? What's my concern?


Whether polygamy or promiscuity, if you sha like plenty women, stay loud about it, and be putting it on the table early.

...because to each their own.


People are only defined by such status symbols to some extent, and some like it like that. Others don't care for what you own or possess, but for who you are as a person.

daneni1:
Maybe you should read what I wrote again, this time, slowly.

Oh, I did. And perfectly got what you mean.

That you can support each other in your 'naturally given roles' tells me that you're actually capable of doing the other person's roles. If that were impossible nature should have handicapped us in every way from doing the other person's role.

Afolue:
True nah. What’s wrong in her ideology?. Isn’t that the main reason why reasonable men like us are still single. It’s only desperate ladies who accept the contrary of what she has just said. As a Man I concur. Breeds more responsible men in the society

Ah, this is the comment.

Something must be wrong somewhere then, because the last I check, women like me who think contrary to what the lady said, are in the minority.


Women who wants to be taken care of and be provided for are in the MAJORITY, so why haven't you found one to marry? The math ain't mathing.

How can I be desperate when my equality stance is a turn off to an average man at the same time?

Wouldn't a desperate person conform to what most men want and desire so they can be married off quickly? I fail to understand why some of you guys should marry late when most other people conform to very traditional ideas of what men and women should do o.

Lol... if you people's "rules" and setting up situations to initiate sex isn't constricting to you, good luck.

helinues:
Meaning our ladies are becoming so low be that. Second wife for what? Side chick fun kini?

So as reasonable number of them have forgotten about their future dreams all in the name of marriage

Not our ladies lol.


Some ladies. But whatever rocks their boat. Not everybody has such lofty dreams and especially about themselves and it's okay, really.

helinues:
Which lady would be comfortable about her guy cheating?

Not "cheating."

I know ladies who actively work to be 'second wives.'


There are even some side chicks that now call themselves 'sister wives' and call the man 'our man.'


If he has something they are looking for in a man that they probably cannot from anyone else, they might not mind sharing him.


My own is just that everybody should be upfront about what they want so they can find themselves easily and with less wahala.

helinues:
Keeping a lady self na headache on its own not to talk of adding multiple junks.

In order to be able to cheat successfully, you must be a chronic liar, irrespective of gender

Not if he's honest about his polygamous tendencies.


There are women who will not mind his being for the streets, so he should tell them upfront and not weigh himself with the 'burden' of commitment.

Emmabyte:
Let here from the community people , at least they now have good drinking water

And that's all that matters.


If they like, they should wail and tear their clothes from now till next year, the people who are benefitting most from the act are already enjoying it.

pocohantas:
I am hoping you are the one to explain how these "healthy" people do it in Nigeria.

Simple. Not unfairly pushing the bulk of responsibilities to the other person, especially because they "ought to" do it and were made or created for it. Joint ownership of properties. Present parenting. "Sharing" in the experience of pregnancy. I mean, the husband being there during ante- and post-natal hospital visits and care. Say, electricity units got finished, and one of them was home, they reload a new unit and not wait until the other got home (unless they have an agreement otherwise) because "it's their duty." I could link articles to how healthy marriages are to avoid being long-winded.

Oh, and see, even the most what you described that I cut out, they are exactly how I understand a healthy marriage to be so I do not disagree with how you've put it (now).

Gender roles as in "this is what this person (usually) does in the marriage," is dandy. And they sometimes overlap.


Of course, it's not prostitution to want to have sex because someone has shown you love and you want to show how happy they make you feel, too.

The OP just made it all seem like some "you-must-stick-to-the-rule-or-this-must-happen" thing. It may be my opinion, but I don't think ultimatums like that are *healthy* for any marriage. It was so selfishly worded and insinuated that she has sex with him because he feeds her, so all the conclusions on the thread that's been drawn from it aren't so far-fetched. It read like a husband who has been doing something, but the moment it seems like he cannot comfortably shoulder her/the financial burdens in the home, then sex is out of the picture.

pocohantas:
I don't believe a man should be a sole provider, but I believe he should be the major provider, given that we all know 80% of the time, the women handles childearing, nurturing and running the home alone!

You agreed to "men being men, and women being women," or else, people will learn, but men being (major) providers and women bearing the bulk of non-financial labour, evidently, isn't beneficial (especially to women). It's the reality, but it's not a healthy arrangement. And there are plenty people who do not conform to that unhealthy set-up, hence my point. They are not being "men", and they are not being "women." Their marriages are working fine without "man bring money; woman bring body" and the whole shebang.

Goodluck on finding a man that would sometimes be a woman and allow you be the man.

What does this mean, I'm honestly trying to understand? You mean a man who would carry a child to term and raise them with me being a 'provider' to him?

pocohantas:


They will learn...

There have been successful marriages (or at least by the couples' definition) and there will continue to be successful marriages that do not run on this "a man is a man and a woman is a woman" stuff that y'all are prescribing sha. It doesn't even translate to real life where the lines of characters/personalities are blurred.

The fact that you that don't even believe a man should be an 100% provider is telling that you concede to compromises on the gender roles. They are not "fixed rules".

Newusername:
Why will a man get married if he is not ready to provide? From what I know, provision is the primary duty of a man while nurturing is the primary duty of a woman.

Why, as a man and father, will nurturing your own kids not be a primary duty to you? Will heaven fall if you're both responsible for providing and nurturing?

daneni1:
Let us all know that roles can be flexed but can't be changed.

Roles can be flexed but can't be changed...so a man can become feminine when he loses his job, and a woman can become masculine when she steps in to take care of the family, in other words? Okay.

I would have thought it's never possible for these "masculine/feminine roles" to be switched before lol.

Proserpina:
No A woman shouldn't hold her food money when she's getting married.

That's totally unheard of.

So you want to get married, and you will not be financially buoyant? Is that what you're saying? If you cannot comfortably take care of your own daily needs and feeding and all, you will get married? In today's world? Nah, if you think that's realistic in any way, godspeed to you then.

There's nothing uncommon about what I'm saying or that's outrageous- everybody should be a responsible adult. There's nothing y'all are suggesting that our mothers haven't tried and gone through. Yet we see how their marriages mostly are.

and we shouldn't project notions like this because in the long run we would end up selling ourselves short. A man is to provide while a woman is to nurture when you say everybody should hold food money then that's not marriage.

No, you saying a man should provide while a woman nurtures is you selling yourself short rather, because I noticed you're not even saying the man should also support you in nurturing? You want to share in his own 'role', while your own is solely yours? Why work at all, since it's not a woman's place to contribute? Because at what point will your job and deference to your boss outside clash with your wifely duties at home to your husband? Unless you're recommending being a supermom who can balance all these together.

Years ago I use to share your perspective but after careful analysis of the women with such mentality end I retracted. [b]You see women heavily pregnant still joggling between works to meet up with her quota of the family's finances.[/b]See men are straight being whatever you project is what they will hold on to and they will demand of you till the last straw.

My baby, this outcome is the result of "supporting him while you do yours." Don't you see the correlation? You either chip in or don't chip in at all. And if you want to chip in, make it significant so you can know that you did something. It is not the 'separation of gender roles' that'll make a man not demand provision of you 'till the last straw, it is because he is an inconsiderate person and can equally demand the last of your emotional labour until the last straw. I'm not coming from a career/independent/providing vs. homemaker/stay-at-home/non-providing place. Dropping money down can never match school runs; diaper runs; schoolkids' runs; house runs; domestic and extended family runs, and sex runs. Is it presenting yourself as a nurturer, too, that they won't exploit? If all those runs are solely for you to do, then why do you still want to chip in and support him? It's like you want to be seen as being both independent and traditional, when you can just stick to one thing you want to be. Be both homely and providing, or outsource to a nanny and enjoy your lives as a couple, or one's duties doesn't cross into the other's at all.

Men are natural provider it is in them to provide if you take that away from them, they will look for another outlet to experience that fulfillment. It's why you see them leaving their percentage sharing wives at home to "take care" of 22 years ladies.

This is another point. The 22-year-olds are not doting nurturers to these men. They leave their virtuous, 'non-equal' homemaker wives too to run after businesswomen. So, again, it is not doing or doing gender roles that'll stop men from doing or demanding whatever they want. Thinking it's only 'independent' women they leave alone at home is just a coping thought lol.

It's good to support but don't ever project yourself as a co -provider.

Again, semantics. Supporting him in providing is not co-providing?

The society you are won't even acknowledge it so why bother?

But they also ask a 'nurturing woman' what she has contributed to a man's life, if he wants to divorce her later on after years of marriage. And they also blame a nurturing woman for turning the minds of the children away from an emotionally absent father.

It IS having things in your name, having a paper trail of major financial contributions to the home that ensures that one is not kicked out and left with no properties in the end should a man decide he wants divorce, at least.

On the sex part. See the woman has the right to claim that just as the man has the right to calm money. Sex is different in marriage, it becomes more of a responsibility so if she sees it as a big deal, let her be. There's no need for anyone to sound politically correct about it.

Let's bring it to the street...

You dey fvck person, you no take care of the body you dey fvck, who does that? Even the usual sex worker gets down under a roof with fan/AC and good bed after eating and drinking. Shey na married woman supposed dey knack on empty stomach? Abegii !
If the lady takes sex off the table because her husband does not provide she's within her right same way a man can quit providing if the wife is not performing her duties. It's what they both offer.[/quote]No wahala. As to this one, I believe the men have come and will come up with perfect arrangements for that.


Someone up there said the man should only provide when he needs sex. I mean, sex lasts for a few minutes, an hour at most. So maybe they'll come up with a measurement rooster for how much provision will get a period of sex.

And saying this is what a particular couple choose to do is quite different from saying this is what all couples ought to do as "man and woman", else their marriage is a waiting disaster.

That's my own grouse. It is not a one-size-fits-all thing.

MrBrownJay1:
whether a man provides for the family or not, he is entitled to mounting his wife.


so technically, well all is good she has sex with husband, and if business is not great, no sex for him. what kind of narrow minded yeye nonsense is this?!

You using entitlement to mounting is the only ish I have with.


But I genuinely cannot wrap my head around sex being something a woman give to a man.

So if I was married to someone, and things started going rough for them, I'll not have sex with them even if I want it?

Proserpina:
No be me ooooo

I just find it absurd that guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Why marry when you are not ready to provide? .

Lol... So make we dey hold food money now when we are going to husband's house .

Nothing wey person no go read for NL

Lol. Everybody should hold food money when entering marriage. Mature adults should marry with a sense of responsibility and the knowledge that they'll take care of each other and mutually provide and "equally" (or at least to the extent that one party doesn't always do something in a one-sided way) help and support or cushion each other in places where the other is unable to fill in.

The only sensible "repayment" for being taken care of is to take care of the other person in turn, not sex. So yeah, the wording and the mentality of the submission is so wrong, when the marriage is not a brothel where the man has to be "buying" sex continually from the wife by providing. If you (not you personally) won't have sex with him because he doesn't provide, he could also choose not to provide because you've decided not to have sex too (so who should do which first?)

Everybody was providing for themselves before marriage. Everybody has had sex before marriage. Why are conditions now being placed on it inside marriage? Placing a price tag on these things makes it seem as if the two of them will be getting something exclusively that they have never gotten before the marriage- providing for a person that has never been provided for/having sex with a person that has never had sex.


This is why I dislike the whole "traditional" set up along 'bring this, I bring this,' because one person is going to be benefitting more than another.

To have sex, and to provide, and to do every other thing else isn't exclusively the domain of a gender. If the man picks up the bill because he's good with numbers, as a person, fine. If the wife cooks because she loves it, alright. And whenever, if, the wife is pregnant, the husband providing, feeding or taking care of the wife shouldn't entitle him to labour or sex from her - doing those should be an expression of love from him, the way the wife has been doing same for him. But if it's all commodified and made transactional, what exactly will the wife give in turn when she's healing from childbirth and cannot cook, clean, have sex or "support" whenever she can? She'll employ a nanny to fulfil her 'wifely duties' lol?

I get why they'll make a mountain out of a molehill of this - the OP's mentality is closely tied to why men feel unfulfilled when they cannot financially provide. So if a man is unable to bring the bacon home for whatever reason, a woman should withdraw sex and intimacy and respect and all? But then we tell them not to tie that value to their pockets, and to other things like their personality and brain. Mind you, I am not defending a completely, deadbeat useless man without value and is a leech. I am not saying a wife should continue being a virtuous, sufferhead to a man who brings nothing to the table. We all look for values in people. I am only saying "money" is just one of the many usefulness of a person (or man) and if they do not have that, they do not become useless.

Proserpina:
If I come for you now, you will start screaming deal or agreement.

Na your comment?


Modified: Ohh, okay. I thought you made the original post. Sorry, I mixed up the comments on the thread.