₦airaland Forum

safarigirl:
wherever did I profess to be a feminist? You must have me confused with someone else.

Oh...thought you said so once

No problem then

Dont you howeveer think it should be proscribed

EnlightenedSoul:
If I ever hurt or offend him in either word or action to the point that he can't forgive me, what can I do other than accept the consequence of my action(s)?

Interesting my reference was not about cheating
Your OL article infers once a thief always a thief
Henct my point

No redemption where u are concerned

EnlightenedSoul:
Mynd44, I like your reasoning.

Here's an opinion piece I found OL that might help shed light on the phrase "once a cheat, always a cheat". You'll notice that the meaning behind the phrase itself goes beyond the relationship, and touches a bit on social perception.

In that case there is no need for redemption or confession since you also do not believe in the psychopap
NO second chances in ANYTHING for you

Kudos

Debuchy and Arteta out for 3 months.

Na today?

Fair enough

However in some cases even the strictest of people have had to chill

I know a friend who accepted his wife who cheated on him

Im sure he will have said similar things to your POV a while earlier

Mynd44:
I accept that things happen and people do things but to call it a mistake is just an excuse.

In my opinion (my diary) I cant accept a cheat.

Mynd44:
No mind these people. They say you can cheat by mistake

I feel your righteous anger and vengeance on this issue

But as a literary maestro you surely know that not all that happens is black or white

The act of fornication is rarely unpremeditated however there are more nuances than just a simple a cheat is always a cheat or a sinner a sinner forever

Surely you know that....

Mynd44.. old school warrior
Once bitten always shy

I think you need to reread your theory and see if it passés a reasonableness test

Yes your lost SIM means you will have not been alerted when the theft occurred however it will not tell you how the theft occurred i.e. what channel

Was it via Internet or ATM or a forged withdrawal instrument

Every data you give us insights into how warped your childhood was, leading to the garguatuan lunacy we see on NL

Hope you are enjoying your 50s.

MizMyColi:
This one is gidi gan

Crackhaus
Pickabeau1

Sexual harassment

I hope she can get evidence and embarrass the guy

ferdimako:
U dey mind them...confusionists.

Na so..lol

Interesting read

I liked these parts most of all

I also liked the customisation of the tests as befitting the nigerian female (typical - being politically correct)

crackhaus:
The concept of hypergamy will always be disputed by women because of the way it paints them, this does not make it non-existent however, it only proves that no matter how well a woman sees herself as independent, she will always look to the love of a man and the idea of having a lasting union with him to reinforce the belief in herself of being a complete natural woman...bar the lesbians and man-haters of course.

Loyalty:
The loyalty of a woman will last only as long as she is completely and totally happy with you - after this point, her loyalty is dependent on her own type of person.
Does this mean a man is to make it is his life duty to make a woman happy with him all the time? Absolutely not! - just be attentive to when she needs it, remember the attention thing?

im sure you know that area includes Delta State, an area where u are from.

KanwuliaJara:
You are talking about the AKATAS of Nigeria?
Anything goes dia o.

safarigirl:
bride price is nevessary. It's a tradition older than most countries in the world.

It has not killed anyone, it's very significant....if you can't afford it, no be by force to marry. Scrapping it is totally out of the question, it's a core part of tradition, not some flimsy angle

as a professed feminist, i will have expected you to be aghast at a tradition that values females and makes them a booty or prize to be haggled over by men

goofyone:
Apparently, you have no idea what cohabitation is about, if that's your definiton. Looks to me like you have pre-formed ideas already. About everything and especially regarding effects cohabitation has on kids. Would it even matter if I told you there is no evidence it adversely affects the kids in this union?

Anyways, this is where I get off this neighbourhood bus. Nice talking to you guys

c'mon dude ... a cop out?

At least give us something meaty

provude the evidence that kids in a cohabitation union are more or less same with normal marriages

Cohabitation

A living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage.

Couples cohabit, rather than marry, for a variety of reasons. They may want to test their compatibility before they commit to a legal union. They may want to maintain their single status for financial reasons. In some cases, such as those involving gay or lesbian couples, or individuals already married to another person, the law does not allow them to marry. In other cases, the partners may feel that marriage is unnecessary. Whatever the reasons, between 1970 and 1990, the number of couples living together outside of marriage quadrupled, from 523,000 to nearly 3 million. These couples face some of the same legal issues as married couples, as well as some issues that their married friends need never consider.

Note the key word... resembles

goofyone

My previous post to you

pickabeau1:
Now this is something we can work with

Your initial post seemed to be off the cuff just to provoke


No one here will deny the growing trend of cohabitation

Heck,... i dont mind me cohabiting too - no responsibility of any kind, meals done, sex on the go,

all the perks of marriage without any of the responsibility

Your bolded, i like how you said research shows it is good for the couples

Do you have any benefit a fluidised, non-custodial setup, lack of a parent, unequal parenting responsibilities has on the kids of this union?


It is interesting that liberals believe cohabitation will make responsibilties in man-woman relations equal

Good debate

---

Put simply..

5minsmadness:
Polygamy, polyandry, they are all forms of marriage bro. The important thing is that there is a family unit.

When there is no family unit comprising man-woman-child, the society will crumble.

goofyone:
The society is a living organism. It takes care of itself. It evolves and weans out things detrimental to its survivial. Things could be ideas, practices, etc. First, I don't think I have to give you examples of societies that thrive on cohabitation. If I had to do this, then I might as well not engage in this argument with you. This argument would make no sense if you don't know already.

First bell
You call it an argument.. i saw it all the while as a debate
If you want to go back into your siege mentality mode no problem

There is no need to threaten to withdraw from the discourse if i do not know any thriving society based on cohabitation

Elucidate us in the room

Im sure you are aware that most of the cohabiting coples eventually marry late
There is data to back this up if you want

Give us examples of thriving civilisations built upon cohabitation as a model between man and woman relations

If you insist you dont want to.. no problem
Your call

That's a business for the "couple" to take care of. Eventually, society will find the right way to do this. I believe it already does even, especially for "couples" that know how to conduct their business well.
Again, a question for the couple to deal with. I know a cohabiting couple that donated all their effects to charity. Personally, I don't see any especial about inheritance here.

Ok.. did this couple have kids?
When you say effects, do you mean as in personal effects(knick knacks, couch etc) or assets as in shares, wealth...

Again, having to repeat myself. I'm not disparaging your typical, much-loved traditional marriages. That's okay. I'm only telling you the world has come to a point where these traditions probably serve no useful purposes anymore. Traditional marriages complete with kids and a wife were very essential in middle-age civilizations where a man owned lands and a stable and needed to pass these off to those who survive his death. Different societies handled this differently, with some prefering endogamy or sororate marriages where these properties remained in the family. Of course, Today people still own properties. But more and more people are living on rent and credit, credit reacquired through sale of their assets upon their death. Many others no longer want kids, but still want a relationship with a woman. Priorities are changing, society is changing. Change has come upon us, especially in the same western environments where monogamy has thrived for years. This change is sweeping through these nations and with it cohabitation as a form of human association.

Ur points are well articulated and that is where you miss it bro
No one here is dismissing cohabitation.. if u read my previous post, i well understand its rationale.i said as much..the perks without the responsibility

What i asked you if how beneficial it is tothe society and next generation

For those interested in an orientation session by WES on the EE

register on this link https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GH92G7T

Feb 3rd save the date

TV01

very entertaining discourse on equality, ageism and natural birth windows

I remember that thread on egg freezing where birth outside natural windows was hailed as the best thing since sliced bread

revisionism can be so fun

Now this is something we can work with

Your initial post seemed to be off the cuff just to provoke


No one here will deny the growing trend of cohabitation

Heck,... i dont mind me cohabiting too - no responsibility of any kind, meals done, sex on the go,

all the perks of marriage without any of the responsibility

Your bolded, i like how you said research shows it is good for the couples

Do you have any benefit [i]a fluidised, non-custodial setup, lack of a parent, unequal parenting responsibilities [/i]has on the kids of this union?


It is interesting that liberals believe cohabitation will make responsibilties in man-woman relations equal



Good debate

goofyone:
Don't get me wrong. I never stated anywhere that cohabitation is superior to marraige. I wouldn't make such a sweeping statement. I did mention though that with the racing developments we are experiencing in the corporate world where man and woman now work as almost equals in public offices, there is very little time left for the typical familial arrangements. Cohabitation, however, suits this time and is a change an evolved society should be willing to embrace. Both for the benefit of society and of human associations. Of course, opponents don't want to see this form take root. To them, it endangers the very fabric of society, but research has shown otherwise. I could point you to some references or you could search yourselves. Researchers have shown cohabiting couples may in fact experience higher levels of happiness and self-esteem than married couples.

Really, I think the philosophy of the point helps make it clear. Globalization and this speedy developments we are experiencing in today's world, where time and space are becoming less and less available for the individual, will soon render traditional marriages unnecessary. Once the stigma of being unmarried becomes history (from people being more tolerant of others), understanding, partnerships and cohabitation will replace other traditional forms.

See the guy talking of sentiments then takes a potshot of a close knit buddy buddy group

No one here does that.. All are welcome

The only clear constraint is that we dont want this place to degenerate into the same putrid mess other threads have been wont to be


Deal with the issue at hand

And i asked you give me a civilisation that thrived on cohabitation
How did they handle the issues of ownership of spouse or children

How was inheritance handled

Dont give me polygamy as an alternative marriage - it is a marriage type

You talk of modern socieities thriving well with cohabitation yet forget the foundations

Why are gays hustling for recognition of gay marriage

goofyone:
Please let's get to issues and forget sentiments. Naturally I wouldn't comment on this thread as it has pretty much become a close knit community of guys who know one another every well already and are probably opposed to outside ideas. But still...

His generalizations were pretty obvious, even from his subsequent posts. But then even if I do agree with you that he meant a family unit irrespective of structure (man-woman-child), how about societies that approve of cohabitation? Aren't these modern societies functioning just alright without the marriage ties and bonds? Or is cohabitation again one of such family units? I bet that was meant too!

Change determines societal relationships between man and woman, and traditional forms often fall out of the way for the need to embrace and support these changes. These traditional forms are what I'm challenging.

goofyone:
Polygamy (man-women-children), Polyandry (woman-men-children) and group marriages (men-women-children) characterized many societies from the orient to the Americas before western civilization raided and overtook these areas. These were active societies that fashioned marriages in such a way as to enable their societies survive. You might want to google it and you'll find a number of societies still practicing these marriage types even today.

Ok..it seems you have come here with an agenda which is unclear at the moment

When you put your initial statement of thriving socieities i expected a solid response only for you to say that polygamy is an alternative form of marriage

Dudeeeee!!

Are u aware a polygamous arrangement has the same basic components you gleefully disparaged(man - woman - children)

Are u aware group arrangements have the same basic components you gleefully disparaged(man - woman - children)

The plurality is irrelevant i.e. one man or two men or three women or 25 children

The point is that humans have always found arrangements which suited them to ensure values and beliefs are preserved and passed to thenext generation which is what marriage is.
you dont want to call it marriage or do you think marriage is only the nuclear one man one wife four children?

goofyone:
It's hard to prove that "marriage is extremely important in safeguarding our society and civilization'. And seriously considering it, it could in fact be an error. "Society and civilization"?? That's quite a long shot. Societies are birthed from beliefs, and there are certain belief systems that don't support your suggested type of traditional marriage (father-mother-children), even from time past. Yet, these societies have not imploded and might as well be flourishing better than ever.

Can you give examples of such civilisations

goofyone:
Unfortunate generalizations going on here...

rather than making unsubstantiated comments, why dont you highlight the specific post so it can be discussed

Good one guys


Also the bent of the discourse may or may not be religious as not all are of that persuasion but we all see the impact the abdication of male responsibility has on the society

I will like to reiterate the givens on this topic


Headship of the family is not based on roles even if examples abound of families where fathers have messed up as many of our more vocal female posters scream about these boards.

Growing up in a family where a woman controlled all and sundry is dysfunctional


Let's not turn this board to a gender topic
Ignore trollish posters

Anyone who has not gotten this basic truth will not get it

Ignore

Nice one Timbuktou

The clan is key n that's why men tolerate so many excesses from their wives just to ensure the legacy is perpetuated


Also I agree this 'love' has made some men too accommodating
The old men knew if a woman messed up with the expected unsubmissive attitudes, either she was sent home or got a new mate.

Now civilisation and economic realities has made these almost impossible.

No need to have too much debate on your points as aluta speaks from two sides of its gender.

You r both saying the same thing.

Controlled Hypergamy I agree as available successful men will always be a catch and women needed to settle quickly to avoid obsolescence.
Nowadays liberalisation means that they can live without being married or as concubines.


For the man who still wants that structure to ensure his legacy is well protected and well raised

-Be patient
-Still make your cheddar
-Set up structures like educational assurance plans, trusts,
-Marry a wife who is financially intelligent not necessarily a worker.....if tomorrow you r no more the little seed/payoff must be managed for the legacy.they are the next generation.

Please let's not have too much debate here


Other threads exist for those who want to
This is for tête a tête, camaraderie and cognac

Proceed

So why is that a family tragedy

Polygamy is not the issue..i used it as an example

Let me make it clear since it seems u are not getting it


Modern women like i believe you are cannot come to forums and still be ranting that society has made them powerless to take their destiny

The case of women owning property was to let you know the same society that said it was strange for women to own property donkey years ago finds it normal

Beamborla:
Like I said earlier, I answered a question based on what I see in the society.
Polygamy because outdated cos of it's numerous disadvantages.
The society still influence our way of life to a large extent. When a man cheats, the wife is expected to forgive and look for ways to bring him back home but when the wife cheats, it would be all over the net 'a married woman caught in the act with her lover' and comments like 'she's such a disgrace to womanhood' would follow. The society does not frown at a promiscuous man like it does to a promiscuous woman. Even most of our home videos preach endurance to a fault

Societal trends are changing only in written words but in actions, it remains the same

The fact that a woman owns cars and properties does not mean she automatically is not a victim of domestic violence. She could be

Beamborla:
Then you should be able to explain Why some women would prefer to die an unhappy marriage rather than speak out and liberate themselves.

Why are you getting me all wrong?. In this part of the women are seen as mere possession is quite different from women see themselves as mere possession or are mere possessions.

But you and I are the society

You are not a possession
I dont see my partner as a possession or puppet

What then is the issue

If you said this 20 years ago, you may have had more of a point
If you spoke about those who live in Northern Nigeria, I will agree


Why refer to society when a lot of people are not living according to the dictates of the same society or societal trends are changing

A few years ago, polygamy was acceptable, now its old fashioned
Women own property
They have careers

Why still refer to a generic "They are possessions, or puppets or fish brains" excuse

Beamborla:
Excuse you! I only answered a question.
And your questions seem to be out of place.
If you do not agree with me, kindly counter it. I wrote what I see in the society concerning the question asked

Do you actually expect any drivel posted online and liked to be accepted by all and sundry

If you see yourself as a chattel, i am sure there are countless nigerian ladies who dont

I see them everyday on the boards of this forum, challenging notions from guys, questioning motives and telling ladies not to accept spousal abuse

if you do not see yourself as one and they dont ... who then is the possession