goofyone:


.....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 places sir?

pickabeau1:


Can you give examples of such civilisations

Lol. I swear I didn't see you had asked the same question.

pickabeau1:


Can you give examples of such civilisations

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.

5minsmadness:


Can you give examples of such places sir?

Societies that practice cohabitation today have not imploded.

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.

It's hard to prove that "marriage is extremely important in safeguarding our society and civilization'.

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.

Morning all,

had to be away yesterday evening, but I am heartened to see the discussion has progressed and progressed well.

On the man
Great stuff written thus far, little to add here. The mature man - even if he is not, even if he does not have too - will inherently possess the capability - not necessarily the experience - to be a husband, father, priest and warrior. To lead. And lead proactively.

If I were to encapsulate leadership in one word it would be responsibility - and men by default shoulder that better. No woman really wants to take responsibility for providing for her spouse, it can only breed resentment and seriously undermine the relationship dynamic.
Whereas a mans heart swells with pride when he can establish and provide for his family - and it has an attendant affect on his relationship with his wife.

On the natural woman:
We view the hypergamic response dispassionately. We need to understand it, not justify or condemn it in the first instance. A womans love is always considered and rightly so - she is simply more vulnerable - a woman cannot love in the pure and untrammelled way that a man can. The hypergamic motivators are basically comfort/wellbeing/status and sex/procreation (CWS & SP).

Her primary driving is her own utility and comfort, not her childrens - although that is deeply felt - and certainly not her mates. As noted, desire and feeling driven, with a mechanism to justify those desires. It's why trying to deal logically and rationally with a women is for the most part doomed to failure.

Societies have long understood this and acted to restrain the response, along with the attendent excesses in men. Socialisation, be that via religious injunctions or cultural morés has served to keep these excesses in check - and until recently, quite well.

In some ways, too well. Socialisation has given us many false tropes to romanticise these restraints, typically taking the form of "women are...loads of good things" and "men are...many not so great things".

Of late, huge pressure - in part ideological and driven in part by technological advances - have come to bear. The injunction are being discarded and the morés all but disdained. One of the effects of this is the loosening or removal of restraint, especially around sexual conduct and mating, which society has rightly regualted for it's own well-being.

In this kind of climate, the true nature of hypergamy is once again being revealed. And unrestrained, manifests excessively - and in a way that threatens to unbalance societyt in the long-term, and the male-female relationship in the short.

As societies become more fem-centric, the eyes of men will open to hypergamy' true nature and the falsehood of some social tropes. Short term, men will adopt strategies to avoid the worst effects, long-term society will rebalance, the question is, how long and how much damage will be done before it does?


tbc

TV

Meanwhile, taking notes from the apt responses of timboktou, tv01, crackhaus, pickabeau and all the other men men here
I salute Una.

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:
Societies that practice cohabitation today have not imploded.

Just like Adam and Eve did not die immediately upon consumption of the fruit - a society that permits societal ills will not show the consequences immediately. In fact, in the very near term, there may be seeming benefits of the new morés.

As for Marriage vs. co-habiting we already have the numbers and are starting to feel the effects. Primarily on the nurture of our children.

I note in hailing co-habbing as superior to marriage, you didn't state why or even from what perspective, noting we are specifically discussing society here.

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.

True, other forms have existed and are extent, but if anything they are the exceptions that prove the rule;

1. Even where they have occured or occur, they never characterise the society (if a reasonable size)
2. They do not lead to the optimal societal flourishing
3. They are in fact long-term deleterious and such societies typically decline - even if they don't fully die out - and don't really flourish


TV

pickabeau1:


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?

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.

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.

TV01:

Just like Adam and Eve did not die immediately upon consumption of the fruit - a society that permits societal ills will not show the consequences immediately. In fact, in the very near term, there may be seeming benefits of the new morés.

As for Marriage vs. co-habiting we already have the numbers and are starting to feel the effects. Primarily on the nurture of our children.

I note in hailing co-habbing as superior to marriage, you didn't state why or even from what perspective, noting we are specifically discussing society here.


True, other forms have existed and are extent, but if anything they are the exceptions that prove the rule;

1. Even where they have occured or occur, they never characterise the society (if a reasonable size)
2. They do not lead to the optimal societal flourishing
3. They are in fact long-term deleterious and such societies typically decline - even if they don't fully die out - and don't really flourish


TV

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.

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.

- The natural woman – triggers and responses,
hypergamy, are they loyal?
Obviously, majority of things that will be said on this area will not be accepted by some female readers - I forge ahead nonetheless.

The Natural Woman:
- Biologically, the natural woman is simply one with the ability to procreate - she has a vag_ina, a uterus, ovaries, and the required hormones to go with these.

- Religiously, the natural woman (in addition to the biological definition), is one who is virtuous, obedient, loving, and submissive to her husband - as well as a fulfilling mother. She is also a Christian.

- Legally, the natural woman (in addition to the biological definition), is one who is of marriageable age.

- The worldly definition of a natural woman is dependent totally on how she sees herself and/or on how society sees her - she believes she is a woman because she has started having sex, dating men/boys, is married, or a university graduate.

I recently watched a Black American comedic movie starring Paula Patton - she says her mother (in the film of course) lectured her thus:
A girl is not a lady until she is married, and is not a woman until after birthing two kids.
Should I take this as truth? I'm asking the female readers...

Triggers and Responses:
Women are a special breed, special in the sense that they are the more complex of the two human sub-species. A lot of it has to do with them being misunderstood, not because we don't try to but because even they themselves aren't totally aware why they do what they do.
As Chris Rock puts it: Men have a need to make sense of situations, women don't like this - which is probably because the majority of opinions they hold during an argument/misunderstanding don't particularly go down well...when a man tries to rationalize this opinion(s), it only means she will be made to look unreasonable at the end of it.

As far as triggers are concerned, one can never be certain - a woman can respond favourably to something today and be pissed off by the same thing tomorrow or be less favourable to it.
The natural woman loves attention, it is a life-blood on which she feeds - both married and single, all-inclusive. Her most genuine response to it maybe hindered by her status (religion, celibacy, marriage, dating, etc), but this doesn't mean she doesn't secretly appreciate or desire more of it especially from a man she rates 'suitable.

Speaking on 'suitability', Hypergamy comes into focus.
It is the natural predisposition of a woman to seek a mate she perceives as above her own social status, sometimes even her sexual status - well the two are not mutually exclusive, as it is known that the more financial capacity a young man possesses, the more sexually attractive he is to a woman...all other physical attributes kept constant.

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?


These are a few test of loyalty, quite funny if you ask me:

- Give her money to go pay for a few drinks and see if she gives you the change.
What it reveals: If she comes back from the bar
with no cash and you gave her a 50, she’s very interested in your capital. If she gives you every penny back, you know it’s you and not your money that she loves.
Warning: Don’t be cheap. Asking her how much it cost and how much she tipped are kind of out of line.
My Nigerian Advice: Watch out for some Nigerian chics o, they will pass this test and still be the type to be interested in your pocket - use sense dey watch am...

- Have a really cute friend hit on her and see how she reacts.
What it reveals: If she’s flirty with him and gives him her phone number, she clearly loves male attention a little too much. If she tells him all about you, you know she’s only got eyes for one guy.
Warning: Don’t get caught doing this; she’ll get hella pissed and might even cheat on you as payback.
My Nigerian Advice: Don't do this if you're one of those guys who get mad when their girl smiles at another man, this one is for the emotionally tough like me (yes, I have performed this test once ) - the average Nigerian woman will definitely give him her phone number and be smiling with 32 teeth all through it...don't try it if you don't want to doubt your existence.

If you find these tests Interesting, more at:
datedaily.mate1.com/dating-tips-2/top-ten/16-ways-test-woman-loyalty

pickabeau1:

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

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.

How did they handle the issues of ownership of spouse or children

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.

How was inheritance handled

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.

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

Why are gays hustling for recognition of gay marriage

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.

Regarding gay marriages: many are already cohabiting and probably find it a better alternative. The clamour for marriage isn't really about the marriage itself, but about equal rights and treatment, I would believe.

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.

You are championing co-habbing as beneficial to corporate dictates, not society as a whole.

cohabitation, for example, have proven much more suitable for this period of revolutions in the corporate world

strawman.
How does "very little time left for typical family arrangements" typically procreation and child rearing benefit society?

goofyone:
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.

Of course society has scope for some anomalies at the margins. However if these anomalies become the prevailing norm, there will be a deleterious effect

Happiness and self-esteem, particular femcentric values that don't build societies. In a purely happiness and self-esteem way, why wouldn't co-habbers grade higher? But tell us, do they procreate at the required rate or nurture their offspring as well? You are not talking society, you are talking individuals. If co-habbing and it's happiness/self-esteem criteria were the opttimum we'd be equating gay-unions to marriage

goofyone:
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.

If indeed traditional marriage is rendered unnecessary, the service it rendered society will still be reuqired. What you've described will not adequately replace it - as the numbers are already proving. Long-term deleterious effect on society.

TV

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

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.

.....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

This certainly ain't true!
I live among people that don't believe in marriage.
The average man wants to have like 5 baby mamas (as in they actually plan to have 5 different mothers for their kids). Marriage, if it happens at all, happens in the 4th or 5th decade of life. And yes, the society keeps imploding everyday The chaos is everywhere on the street

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 [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

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

To Goofyone:

1. Generalisations are not wrong, take note. Problems for generalisations arise from anomalies and exceptions, take note. The purpose of a generalisation is to present prevalent/widespread behaviour. Take note.

2. Difficulty doesn't equal impossibility. Take note

3. You seem to not have studied society and made comparisons with the past. Why are children less disciplined and more disrespectful? Why is divorce so rampant? Why are school shootings rife? Why are men opting out of marriage more and more. Who the heck came up with the idea of a prenup and why they did they ever need one? What is the purpose of a prenup and how does it function? Why do children raised by single mothers generally effeminate and spineless?

4. Has it occurred to you to question why, across the continents of the world, the man-woman marriage is a given and why the Nigerian legislature criminalised homosex publicity and told the US to go to hell despite threats from them to ensure reversal of that law.

5. Has it occurred to you to find out why married men are more productive, contributing more to the economy, than bacherlors ?

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

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?

Very lazy to contribute at the moment

Following..

crackhaus:
[My Nigerian Advice: Watch out for some Nigerian chics o, they will pass this test and still be the type to be interested in your pocket - use sense dey watch am...

Quite enlightening...

I would say a good marriage is foundational – foundation, foundation, foundation.

Having said that, things can get off to a rocky start and be turned around. Hence the “first year of marriage is tough, a time of adjustment etc.” mantra commonly uttered. For many though, it can just go from strength to strength.

It’s always good – essential even - to first become a person of great value as a spouse yourself ( I think others have touched on some of the pre-requisites), and then set your expectations high, way high – don’t fall for the old “you are too choosey”, you have to be, we are talking a lifetime. And do not, I repeat do not, succumb to desperation or pressure. Hold the line at all times– act in haste repent at leisure

If you are still growing/developing in a major sense, especially in faith or worldview terms, subsequent changes can mean a divergence in your views. Changes in taste/status can mean you no longer see your spouse as worthy. Both of these things can lead to long-term fundamental issues. It’s best one is solid in their thinking and rock sure about what they want first.

Have a picture of your spouse, in terms of qualities and of course physical preferences are important, although mine got blown out of the water in some ways when I met my wife. Just as important is to have a vision for your home. Sharing this at the appropriate time – and especially during courtship – is well advised. As well as being a deal clincher, it can also show quite clearly if a re-think is in order.


tbc


TV

A man must be bold –often times that is the only difference between who gets the girl. As they say; “faint heart never won fair lady”. Take charge “C”, act “A”, and take responsibility “R”. Drive the situation, don’t let it drive you. If you see someone who looks right; approach. Directly or indirectly. Act within context, tactically or situationally as required.

For example, if you both serve on the ushering team at church, then theres no rush, keep it personable and polite, but don’t rush in. You have time. If it’s at the airport and you are taking different flights, you need to get your charm – not jazz 0! – on, and work at sprint pace. The aim is to get to know her and make that initial assessment. CAR is particularly important for men. Not least because women respond to decisiviness in men. And it’s something you’ll need to carry with you into marriage.

You may come across the type of women that will try and make things happen by “sheer force of will”. You’ll tick all or most of their boxes – regardless of what they have to offer – they’ll decide they want you, and then expect things to proceed apace. If things don’t, they try and force it, usually by applying subtle or not so subtle pressure. Comments such as “you don’t know what you want”, “my friend/cousin/sister is saying”, or my personal favourite “other guys are asking me out” . Other times they show palpable frustration and may act up. In all, my view is that these are warning signs. Please take heed.

As a Christian, the one firm stance I had was NSBM. It worked wonders. Many women use sex to control a relationship. Once devoid of this tool, many are simply left exposed as lacking any depth or real quality. I seen others where the woman will give sex, then withdraw it to speed things up or otherwise manipulate the man. Beware.

The same with food – I have seen women use food shopping/cooking/provision seal a deal in lieu of other major qualities. One I witnessed, shopped at the weekend, hauled everything back to his, cooked for the week and stored as appropriate. Learn to be self-sufficient. No household task should be beyond you – even if once married you don’t have primary responsibility for it. Don’t be swayed by what is a at best a good quality - which can in any event be learned - over essential characteristics.

So back to CAR. If you have marriage in mind, and feel at any point that she is not the Ankara, lace, damask that you are looking for promptly replace as found. Don’t prolong it, try and force it or turn a blind eye to it. Move on, the quest goes on. It’s best for you and particularly her if she is feeling you. Don’t lead a woman on or let her build up false hopes/expectations. If she’s cunning, giving her time will enable her to get her hooks into you. Potentially belle if you are not practising NSBM.

tbc

TV

Women typically respond if their attraction buttons are pushed. These are the obvious ones such as status, wealth, looks, strength, dominance etc. Backed up by others like smarts, humour and so on.

However, once the deal is sealed, they typically look for comfort and re-assurance. Gifts, acts of kindness, proclamations etc. This is where things like the popular love language concepts come in.

But be clear, these things don’t open or close the deal, just add value when it’s a done deal. Hence why women are often perceived as lying or being deceitful when asked what a man should do to “please them”, and it doesn’t appear to work.

They typically already have the picture of the guy they want in mind, or think of the deal as done, and then proceed to enumerate the comfort and re-assurance things that please them, not the attraction things. Hence guys that try and use comfort/re-assurance moves to open/close deals get frustrated, lose out, or labelled mugu/Mr. Nice. You can’t buy love or coerce attraction.

Another key once the deal is done, is to not lose sight of the fact that the attraction/arousal triggers need to be maintained. Not just maintained, but balanced with the comfort re-assurance moves. Unbalance can cause problems.

So she’s falling out of love, and you double up on comfort, it won’t work. She needs re-assurance and you are forming dominant bad-boy, she won’t be happy. It’s what this guy is going through;

https://www.nairaland.com/2096633/wife-user-advice-please#29843689

He's lost status in his wife's eyes (if he ever had it) and she's starting to consider him not worthy. Doubling up on comfort; giving her stuff, pleading etc. will just exacerbate the situation and make her rspect him less. He needs to demonstrate more status.

Clear?

TV

TV01:


So she’s falling out of love, and you double up on comfort, it won’t work. She needs re-assurance and you are forming dominant bad-boy, she won’t be happy. It’s what this guy is going through;

https://www.nairaland.com/2096633/wife-user-advice-please#29843689

He's lost status in his wife's eyes (if he ever had it) and she's starting to consider him not worthy. Doubling up on comfort; giving her stuff, pleading etc. will just exacerbate the situation and make her rspect him less. He needs to demonstrate more status.

Clear?

TV

I agree 100 percent at the bolded. She does not respect him and i will not be surprised she is preparing for or has a lover

In the old days... you could send them home for retraining

In these days of trying to comply with till death do us part and trying not to rock the boat for peace, one may need to accept some pain.

Now the question is this: what can one do to this woman practically

One is tempted to withdraw all her priviledges and maybe send her home for a while


MrNiceGuy79

Nonso23:

No nagging: Women will nag once in a while but if hers is chronic or just at a level you are sure you cannot tolerate, no need for long story, walk away.

She should understand respect: This one cannot be over emphasized. How does she treat people around her? It is easier for you to wave off any form of disrespect of hers on your person because you are in 'love' hence i will rather recommend that you watch out for the way she treats the people around her. Don't make excuses for any form of disrespect nor create a room for it to thrive. Nip in the bud if you can and if not, leave.

Very important bit right there, especially around people that may appear lower than her in status/class.

Well said...