₦airaland Forum

@ TV01 - did I really pen down that contradiction in my post? I didn't write that part o, twas my twin sister...I told her to write "respect and adores" but she had other ideas

Thanks for the elaboration. You've brought out the two "sins" of the OP and I really can't explain why she waited that long...whether she was strategizing, hedging or taking position or hoping against hope that the love will grow she can explain better. For developing feelings for somebody else, that was bound to happen cuz she felt nothing for the current guy, that vacuum in the heart cannot be empty for too long. But the good thing is, she didn't let the feelings loose so it remained at the incubation stage...fair enough!

@100% conviction before marriage - I'll say that's relative. For people who believe in love before marriage, I'll also agree fully but we mustn't forget that people marry for different reasons, even without deception. Not everyone believe marriages must be built on love. If an 18 year old girl gets married to a 65 year old billionaire, I am sure they would both know in their heart of hearts why they married each other. There are several marriages of convenience out there. When people say marriage and love is overrated, ain't they saying the same thing?

@ topic - From the OP's post, she sounds more like the type that believes in love, so I guess it's safe to advise her to let off the guy and take the risk of going in search of true love. Hopefully, he would also turn out to be a gold-plated husband Whether she would look back in a few years time and regret this decision is something I wish I could predict but I can't. OP, wishing you the best!

Frisby from what you said it seems the lady in question is just dating the guy out of pity. If she is smart, the guy is who she is suppose to marry if all what she said about him is true.

Since she's now saying she doesn't feel anything for him, then I want to believe she's the type who don't really value men who treat and respect a lady the way a lady is suppose to be treated and respected.

I don't mean to sound too serious but if your friends know what is good for her, if she doesn't want to join the bandwagon of women who complain about their husbands cheating ways, then, she should just go ahead and marry the guy, because, I believe any guy who didn't cheat on a girl when they were dating, won't cheat on her when they're married.

Your friend should stick to reason and not allow her heart lead her into something she will regret one day. Its time you tell her to put her heart in the relationship.

Numbers 36:6. Let her marry whom she thinks is best. If d good man is nt d best for her, then she shdnt marry him. If she thinks d oda guy is best then she shd marry him. You cnt tolerate your partner in marriage on major issues like love, sex, companionship etc bt on issues like snoring, characters, drinking, smoking etc. So she know both men to a limit and she wud live with her choice for d rest of her life. Does she hv peace of mind with d good guy or d other guy? She shd marry d man she has peace of mind with.

People marry for various reasons which includes love, a good partner, wealth, status, citizenship companionship, to please society and so many other reasons. In deciding whom to marry, you have to decide what is the most important for you as not everybody is lucky enough to have all the above in one partner. If love is the most important to you then you have to marry someone you are really in love with.

Op, your friend seems to believe so much in love and based on that, I would advice that she frees the guy and move on. If she has not fallen in love with him after three years, I doubt it will ever happen (not saying it's not possible).

TV01:
I agree - 100% commitment.


TV

We need to figure out now what makes people commit 100%. What are the factors people should look for to make the decision to commit to another person 100%?

Kimoni:
@100% conviction before marriage - I'll say that's relative. For people who believe in love before marriage, I'll also agree fully but we mustn't forget that people marry for different reasons, even

I never said 100% conviction, I didn't specify 100% love, or 100% compatibility. I said 100% commitment. Per my response to Mindfullness below, whatever you base on your getting there on, once you get to the point of making the decision to marry, it demands 100% commitment.
Why would one marry with anything less? And if one is less than 100% committed - at any % - what does that mean in terms of conditions for exiting the marriage?

Mindfulness:
We need to figure out now what makes people commit 100%. What are the factors people should look for to make the decision to commit to another person 100%?

That is a decision - what feeds into that decision is for individuals to decide for themselves. It shouldn't be taken lightly, but once it is, it should be stuck too.


TV

TV01:
That is a decision - what feeds into that decision is for individuals to decide for themselves. It shouldn't be taken lightly, but once it is, it should be stuck too.


TV

Let us talk about it. If an individual decides to commit to another because the other is, for example, good-looking and rich and gentle, what happens when these attributes change? The reasons to commit are absent and with them the motivation and the basis for commitment. Is that not so?

Mindfulness:
Let us talk about it. If an individual decides to commit to another because the other is, for example, good-looking and rich and gentle, what happens when these attributes change? The reasons to commit are absent and with them the motivation and the basis for commitment. Is that not so?

That's why commitment in marriage should be based on intangibles and your vows.

If as per your example, the guy is no longer rich, good-looking and gentle? Can the wife explore the reasons why the guy became so?

Mindfulness:
Let us talk about it. If an individual decides to commit to another because the other is, for example, good-looking and rich and gentle, what happens when these attributes change? The reasons to commit are absent and with them the motivation and the basis for commitment. Is that not so?

That is why it is about commitment and not love - unless love is synonymous with commitment. Pretty much anything can change - and many will - during the course of a union. Others, such as some character attributes may hopefully remain fixed, but even here change can - for better or worse - come. Then there're the totally unexpected left of centre things that can happen.

And it's a forward looking commitment. Her looks will fade, she'll get stretch marks and maybe an accompanying c-section scar - amongst other things. Outside of extremeties, your commitment remains even if the basis changes. Otherwise it was never a worthy marital commitment.

The tendency today is to idealise "love" and make it the basis of marriage. Hence when love goes, there is no basis to maintain the marital state. it should be the reverse; marriage is the proper setting for love, not the main basis for it.


TV

I really appreciate the discussions we have even though I know that we will not always agree but this is what makes it interesting.

TV01:
That is why it is about commitment and not love - unless love is synonymous with commitment. Pretty much anything can change - and many will - during the course of a union. Others, such as some character attributes may hopefully remain fixed, but even here change can - for better or worse - come. Then there're the totally unexpected left of centre things that can happen.

I am not equating love with commitment. My thought process is that people decide to commit to one person and not another based on some conditions. If these conditions change, then the reasons why people decided to commit disappear, which means that commitment is conditional, isn't it?

And it's a forward looking commitment. Her looks will fade, she'll get stretch marks and maybe an accompanying c-section scar - amongst other things. Outside of extremeties, your commitment remains even if the basis changes. Otherwise it was never a worthy marital commitment.

Well, if you say that commitment is the basis, then anyone can actually marry anyone because what matters is commitment and not the conditions and motivation for why you decided to commit to this person and not another, right?

The tendency today is to idealise "love" and make it the basis of marriage. Hence when love goes, there is no basis to maintain the marital state. it should be the reverse; marriage is the proper setting for love, not the main basis for it.


TV

I partly disagree. What people rather idealize is infatuation and not love. Love can't be idealized, it is ideal in itself.
I have to give your last sentence some thinking. This is profound.

Mindfulness:
I really appreciate the discussions we have even though I know that we will not always agree but this is what makes it interesting.

What!!! I thought all our discussions ended with you whole-heartedly agreeing with me !

Mindfulness:
I am not equating love with commitment. My thought process is that people decide to commit to one person and not another based on some conditions. If these conditions change, then the reasons why people decided to commit disappear, which means that commitment is conditional, isn't it?

Not to be reductionist, but in it's simplest form, that's exactly what love should be; love = commitment.

The marital commitment is different; hence considered a covenant or sacrement by many; For better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness in health. It's why I termed it "forward-looking"

Mindfulness:
Well, if you say that commitment is the basis, then anyone can actually marry anyone because what matters is commitment and not the conditions and motivation for why you decided to commit to this person and not another, right?

Commitment is the basis for marriage, what you predicate the decision to commit upon, is subject to what one understands marriage to be and believes is desirous in a worthy spouse.

Mindfulness:
I partly disagree. What people rather idealize is infatuation and not love. Love can't be idealized, it is ideal in itself.

I take your point to a degree, but without clearly defining terms we could be talking at cross-purposes. Who is to say that love materially differs from infatuation and in what way?

Mindfulness:
I have to give your last sentence some thinking. This is profound.

Everything I say is profound - ask Bukatyne !


TV

TV01:
What!!! I thought all our discussions ended with you whole-heartedly agreeing with me !

Optimism at its best.

Not to be reductionist, but in it's simplest form, that's exactly what love should be; love = commitment.

Should be is not the same as is. Love is a strong feeling, commitment is not. You can love someone without commitment and you can commit to someone without loving them.

I don't think the Bible asks Christians to commit to their enemies when it tells them to love them.

The marital commitment is different; hence considered a covenant or sacrement by many; For better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness in health. It's why I termed it "forward-looking"

Yes, according to Christian norms but the commitment does not stop at this. It also entails the promise to love, honor and cherish each other, doesn't it? If the involved parties do not stick to these marriage vows of loving, cherishing and honoring each other, is it still a marriage according to Christian norms or is it something else?

Commitment is the basis for marriage, what you predicate the decision to commit upon, is subject to what one understands marriage to be and believes is desirous in a worthy spouse.

It does not change the fact that the decision to commit depends on conditions, even in the Christian context. There is this promise to love and honor each other and based on this promise you take someone as your wife or husband.

I take your point to a degree, but without clearly defining terms we could be talking at cross-purposes. Who is to say that love materially differs from infatuation and in what way?


Everything I say is profound - ask Bukatyne !

TV

Well, it differs for me because I feel love for my grandma but no infatuation

Mindfulness:
Should be is not the same as is. Love is a strong feeling, commitment is not. You can love someone without commitment and you can commit to someone without loving them.

Articulating love as a feeling is the root of a lot of the issues we have in relationships today. More on that in my next post.

Mindfulness:
I don't think the Bible asks Christians to commit to their enemies when it tells them to love them.

It calls for a commitment to treat them - act - in a certain manner, not have a fuzzy inchoate feeling towards them

Mindfulness:
Yes, according to Christian norms but the commitment does not stop at this. It also entails the promise to love, honor and cherish each other, doesn't it? If the involved parties do not stick to these marriage vows of loving, cherishing and honoring each other, is it still a marriage according to Christian norms or is it something else?

Love is not how you feel about each other, it's how you treat one another. It's why you can "love your enemies". If love is a feeling, who is to determine what degree of that feeling is appropriate?

Mindfulness:
It does not change the fact that the decision to commit depends on conditions, even in the Christian context. There is this promise to love and honor each other and based on this promise you take someone as your wife or husband.

You confuse the promise made during the commitment with the basis for the commitment. When you get married, you commit to loving - as an act - regardless of how you feel.

Mindfulness:
Well, it differs for me because I feel love for my grandma but no infatuation

I could agree entirely, but as it's an abstract, I could totally disagree. Again, more in my next post.


TV

Emotional love as the basis for marriage is a very recent phenomena. Marriage – whether you believe it was God given or man-made – has sprung up near universally in all cultures.

EL, which unsurprisingly no one has actually taken time to define – is nothing more than an abstract, value laden concept, which at best ebbs and flows, can come and go, and is not some stand alone, inviolate, or even pure feeling.

What people grow or learn to love is as much conditioned by outside influence – funny how no one shouts “society” about this – as anything else. People can exercise feelings of love over a 6-pack, or a picture. Some people even equate love with money!

And another quite serious failing of that type of love, is that it tends to be predicated on an individual’s idealised (or romantic) notions of one’s desires, or expectations of another person.

With no universal definition of love – other than romantic feelings often leading to sexual congress – is it any wonder that there is so much confusion and it and marriages predicated on it don’t seem to be doing very well?

Love the romantic feeling is in a sense “euphoric”, and no one can maintain, or exist in that heightened state indefinitely. Any such feeling is at best meant to help cement and establish the pair-bond, not singularly sustain it.

Proper, “bonded-love”, is perhaps less excitable, but deeper and should come as the pair truly commit and grow in the union. So in a sense, you can’t predicate a marriage on that, as it properly takes time to grow. With that type of bond & depth, you will actually love her more – regardless of stretch marks, scars, hormonal storms, greying hair or an expanding waistline.

It’s why arranged marriages tend to work better. When a woman is with a man of sound character with the right attributes, she will tend to bond with and love him. Especially when she is not confused by Hollywood type notions of what love is or how marriage should be.

Marriage is intended as a long-term endeavour. If during the course of a marital journey based on “emotional love”, you encounter challenges, find yourself in certain situations, or simply rub against the behaviours or beliefs of your spouse, your perception can change, along with how you feel.

This is almost always the case. That is why notions of endurance, patience and tolerance are relevant, if not equally applicable in every union, dependent on how solidly it was formed.

With the reversal of love and marriage as noted, people tend to constantly seek that euphoric feeling, and use that as justification for entering & exiting marriage. Another deleterious effect is that it becomes primarily about the feeling of the adults – not the children – such feelings not being the concern of, or warranting privilege by society.

The whole reverse notion of love as the basis for marriage also means it has gained an almost moral value as a justifier of actions, especially exiting and entering marriage – or breaking other marriages up, or abandoning responsibilities - as noted, but also as validating sexual congress on the basis of “being in love”.

Properly, romantic love should at best be a consideration - amongst other more pragmatic reasons – for getting married. It is marriage that honours the expression of this love, and also provides the setting for it to develop into a deeper, more bonded and active love.

I find your articulation of love faulty, your positioning of it wrong, and the moral value you place on it misguided, and in practice, potentially quite dangerous.

Please signify you total agreement with me

TV

@ TV01 and mindfulness
... I think it might just be the burning-hot sun and insane traffic jam, because it's taking all of the intelligence I can muster to still manage to clutch on to this discussion, something must really be messing with my comprehension


Well so far, these are what I've learned :

1. There is no manual for love and marriage

2. The "right" person so to marry ultimately should be dependent on what matters the most to a person in a marriage, as people marry for various reasons.

3. There's a chance my friend will never grow to love "good man" but this doesn't stop them from having a good marriage, as marriage entails more than just feelings of affection....?

4. My friend is naive and misguided, and needs to redefine her priorities.

5. I'm not nearly as bright as I have always thought married people are on a totally different league.


Thanks everyone for your inputs.
They're very much appreciated.

TV01:
Articulating love as a feeling is the root of a lot of the issues we have in relationships today. More on that in my next post.

People have always articulated love as a feeling. We can talk about alternative definitions but I wouldn't say that love as a feeling is the issue in relationships today, rather the absence of it.

It calls for a commitment to treat them - act - in a certain manner, not have a fuzzy inchoate feeling towards them
Love is not how you feel about each other, it's how you treat one another. It's why you can "love your enemies". If love is a feeling, who is to determine what degree of that feeling is appropriate?

Very interesting. I like it.

If love calls for a commitment to treat them in a certain manner then it means that love and commitment are two different things with love being the driving force behind the commitment to treat others, even your enemies, right.

You confuse the promise made during the commitment with the basis for the commitment. When you get married, you commit to loving - as an act - regardless of how you feel.

Love can manifest itself in acts but love is not an act in itself, it has never been understood as such. You are free to define it as an act but you can't ignore that the way we feel is an important and integral part of the human experience that will always, no matter how disciplined we are, influence the way we act and behave.

I am looking forward to your next post.

frisby:
@ TV01 and mindfulness
... I think it might just be the burning-hot sun and insane traffic jam, because it's taking all of the intelligence I can muster to still manage to clutch on to this discussion, something must really be messing with my comprehension

You cracked me up.

Well so far, these are what I've learned :

1. There is no manual for love and marriage

I guess not but I guess TV01 will disagree with me.

2. The "right" person so to marry ultimately should be dependent on what matters the most to a person in a marriage, as people marry for various reasons.

YES! Know what you want and go for it and NEVER settle for less.

3. There's a chance my friend will never grow to love "good man" but this doesn't stop them from having a good marriage, as marriage entails more than just feelings of affection....?

It also depends on the individual what (s)he thinks marriage is all about and how (s)he defines good marriage.

4. My friend is naive and misguided, and needs to redefine her priorities.

No, she doesn't. She possibly wants a man that is good and that she loves. The problem is not the desire to have it but the belief that she can't have it.

5. I'm not nearly as bright as I have always thought married people are on a totally different league.

I dare to disagree.

Thanks everyone for your inputs.
They're very much appreciated.

You are welcome.

frisby:
@ TV01 and mindfulness
... I think it might just be the burning-hot sun and insane traffic jam, because it's taking all of the intelligence I can muster to still manage to clutch on to this discussion, something must really be messing with my comprehension

this got me laughing out loud!!! But guess what frisby love, you are not alone. It's difficult keeping up with TV on any debate. Asides choosing your words carefully, you might also need a dictionary to cope. Apparently, he has found a soulmate in Mind. Perfect combination I tell ya

Well so far, these are what I've learned :

1. There is no manual for love and marriage

2. The "right" person so to marry ultimately should be dependent on what matters the most to a person in a marriage, as people marry for various reasons.

3. There's a chance my friend will never grow to love "good man" but this doesn't stop them from having a good marriage, as marriage entails more than just feelings of affection....?

4. My friend is naive and misguided, and needs to redefine her priorities.

5. I'm not nearly as bright as I have always thought married people are on a totally different league.

Thanks everyone for your inputs.
They're very much appreciated.

@ no 5 - You are funny!

TV01:
I never said 100% conviction, I didn't specify 100% love, or 100% compatibility. I said 100% commitment. Per my response to Mindfullness below, whatever you base on your getting there on, once you get to the point of making the decision to marry, it demands 100% commitment.
Why would one marry with anything less? And if one is less than 100% committed - at any % - what does that mean in terms of conditions for exiting the marriage? TV

Mindfulness:
I am really looking forward to what TV01 will say about it.

As far as I am concerned I do not think that anyone should marry if (s)he is not 100% convinced that (s)he wants to marry a particular person.
If you can't find the person you are 100% sure you want to marry, you better do not marry at all. My two cents.

100% convinced = 100% conviction

100 convinced = 100% commitment

TV, which sounds more like what she wrote naa >:

Kimoni:
100% convinced = 100% conviction

100 convinced = 100% commitment

TV, which sounds more like what she wrote naa >:

"More like"?

I can only speak for what I posted. I don't believe that a person must be 100% in love (however they define it), 100% compatible (whatever their criteria), 100% convinced (however convinced they feel they should be), or that they tick all your boxes (no matter how many boxes one has).

What I stated, is that once one decides to commit, one should do so 100%. And again, why would one commit less than this? Or if it's not 100%, what is the uncommited % for? What could it be for other than an exit route, or an excuse to not fully engage?


TV

This is going to be fun and I so enjoy it.

TV01:
Emotional love as the basis for marriage is a very recent phenomena. Marriage – whether you believe it was God given or man-made – has sprung up near universally in all cultures.

Very true but the desire to marry the one you love and the one who loves you back can be traced back to ancient times.

EL, which unsurprisingly no one has actually taken time to define – is nothing more than an abstract, value laden concept, which at best ebbs and flows, can come and go, and is not some stand alone, inviolate, or even pure feeling.

I don't agree. I have, what you call emotional love, for my family and a few very close friends and it is not a concept but a very strong emotion, which does not ebb and flow, come and go and which I consider to be the purest feeling of all, superb, beautiful, exhilarating, joyous, motivating, calming, peaceful, wonderful.

Let us try to define what love is now:

How about this definition?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

Read more: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/bible-verses-about-love-25-awesome-scripture-quotes/#ixzz3psbyop8t

What people grow or learn to love is as much conditioned by outside influence – funny how no one shouts “society” about this – as anything else. People can exercise feelings of love over a 6-pack, or a picture. Some people even equate love with money!

Is it a problem?

And another quite serious failing of that type of love, is that it tends to be predicated on an individual’s idealised (or romantic) notions of one’s desires, or expectations of another person.

Is the problem love or rather of what people think love is?

With no universal definition of love – other than romantic feelings often leading to sexual congress – is it any wonder that there is so much confusion and it and marriages predicated on it don’t seem to be doing very well?

I agree.

Love the romantic feeling is in a sense “euphoric”, and no one can maintain, or exist in that heightened state indefinitely. Any such feeling is at best meant to help cement and establish the pair-bond, not singularly sustain it.

I disagree. I am full of love for so many people and things and nature and I feel euphoric almost every day. It is wonderful.

Proper, “bonded-love”, is perhaps less excitable, but deeper and should come as the pair truly commit and grow in the union. So in a sense, you can’t predicate a marriage on that, as it properly takes time to grow. With that type of bond & depth, you will actually love her more – regardless of stretch marks, scars, hormonal storms, greying hair or an expanding waistline.

Well, there is no proper or improper love. Love is perfect.

It’s why arranged marriages tend to work better. When a woman is with a man of sound character with the right attributes, she will tend to bond with and love him. Especially when she is not confused by Hollywood type notions of what love is or how marriage should be.

I wish it was that easy but we both know it is not. I have an aunt who married a man she didn't love but she grew to love him in the course of their marriage but I have also seen good men having witches for a wife who never learned to love and appreciate them.

Marriage is intended as a long-term endeavour. If during the course of a marital journey based on “emotional love”, you encounter challenges, find yourself in certain situations, or simply rub against the behaviours or beliefs of your spouse, your perception can change, along with how you feel.

This is almost always the case. That is why notions of endurance, patience and tolerance are relevant, if not equally applicable in every union, dependent on how solidly it was formed.

Marriage can be a long-term endeavor but it does not have to end with death. It you go by Christian doctrines, then yes but not everyone is a Christian and non-religious people marry too.

And I disagree with you that marriage / relationships always require a level of endurance. Some marriages are PURE JOY.

With the reversal of love and marriage as noted, people tend to constantly seek that euphoric feeling, and use that as justification for entering & exiting marriage. Another deleterious effect is that it becomes primarily about the feeling of the adults – not the children – such feelings not being the concern of, or warranting privilege by society.

This is where the problem truly is. People seek the wonderful feelings of love and joy in the wrong places. If they were able to find them within themselves, which is possible, relationships would be much better and their kids happier.

The whole reverse notion of love as the basis for marriage also means it has gained an almost moral value as a justifier of actions, especially exiting and entering marriage – or breaking other marriages up, or abandoning responsibilities - as noted, but also as validating sexual congress on the basis of “being in love”.

Again, the problem is not love but the absence of love.

Properly, romantic love should at best be a consideration - amongst other more pragmatic reasons – for getting married. It is marriage that honours the expression of this love, and also provides the setting for it to develop into a deeper, more bonded and active love.

Yes! People should enter marriage for a whole range of reasons.

I find your articulation of love faulty, your positioning of it wrong, and the moral value you place on it misguided, and in practice, potentially quite dangerous.

Please signify you total agreement with me

TV

Mindfulness:
I am really looking forward to what TV01 will say about it.

As far as I am concerned I do not think that anyone should marry if (s)he is not 100% convinced that (s)he wants to marry a particular person.
If you can't find the person you are 100% sure you want to marry, you better do not marry at all. My two cents.

Is it possible to find that 100% person?

If you were given a pencil as a 22yr old to write who you wanted to marry I mean the physical and other characteristics, and now compare to who you are married to

Do they tally 100%?

There are several factors that come into play when choosing a partner some are more important than others. In most cases you wont find a 100% match and you would have to choose whats more important.

You might have desired a more spiritual guy, 6ft 4, well built 6pack, millionaire in USD, romantic like in the movies, loves adveture, watches fashion show instead of football etc

Mindfulness:
This is going to be fun and I so enjoy it.

Not fun - a labour of love !

Mindfulness:
Very true but the desire to marry the one you love and the one who loves you back can be traced back to ancient times.

But this "love" was not the sole or main predicator of marriage. And it was not imbued with some moral value meaning that one was justified acting on this feeling regardless. Which is what you are indirectly arguing on the other thread - and which Kimoni should call you out for !

Mindfulness:
I don't agree. I have, what you call emotional love, for my family and a few very close friends and it is not a concept but a very strong emotion, which does not ebb and flow, come and go and which I consider to be the purest feeling of all, superb, beautiful, exhilarating, joyous, motivating, calming, peaceful, wonderful.

Please stop. Filiail love is of a different order to what we are discussing

Mindfulness:
Let us try to define what love is now: How about this definition?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

Read more: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/bible-verses-about-love-25-awesome-scripture-quotes/#ixzz3psbyop8t

And does that definition - some versions read "does no harm" - allow for one break up a marriage as her responsibility is to herself and not the husband she is trying to snatch, or his lawfully wedded spouse? "it does not insist on it's own way".

Mindfulness:
Is it a problem? Is the problem love or rather of what people think love is?

Nope. It's how people mis-understand mis-apply and miscontrue what love is, what it is for and the validity of actions based on it.

Mindfulness:
I disagree. I am full of love for so many people and things and nature and I feel euphoric almost every day. It is wonderful.

Different kinds of love - stop making catergory errors

Mindfulness:
Well, there is no proper or improper love. Love is perfect.

Spoken like one who has never had a stalker - one of mine has even shown face on this thread

How can love be perfect is the one expressing it isn't?

Mindfulness:
I wish it was that easy but we both know it is not. I have an aunt who married a man she didn't love but she grew to love him in the course of their marriage but I have also seen good men having witches for a wife who never learned to love and appreciate them.

Not based on the script I outlined

Mindfulness:
Marriage can be a long-term endeavor but it does not have to end with death. It you go by Christian doctrines, then yes but not everyone is a Christian and non-religious people marry too.

Marriage as defined is the lifelong union of a man and women - anything else is not marriage. Till death do part. You are free to have any type of relationship you choose, but if you choose marriage, it is not yours to define as you like.

Mindfulness:
And I disagree with you that marriage / relationships always require a level of endurance. Some marriages are PURE JOY.

A marriage being joy does not mean you wil not have to endure things - it could be tight finances, a sick partner or child, no children (if you desire them), your theories are mostly conceptual aren't they? .

Mindfulness:
This is where the problem truly is. People seek the wonderful feelings of love and joy in the wrong places. If they were able to find them within themselves, which is possible, relationships would be much better and their kids happier.

Like I said, conceptual - what does this even mean. Especially based on the definition you posted above !

Mindfulness:
Again, the problem is not love but the absence of love.

No, it's your misunderstanding of what it is and what it entails. For you, love is about self - the feeling you get, as abosed to the acts you do - it's why you can't get your head around marriage.

Mindfulness:
Yes! People should enter marriage for a whole range of reasons.

And marriage is so beneficial, it's best not to over regualte it. We don't overly scrutinise why, but once you meet the criteria and decide to enter the institution, you should do so soberly and endeavour to meet it's demands.


TV

TV01:
"More like"?

I can only speak for what I posted. I don't believe that a person must be 100% in love (however they define it), 100% compatible (whatever their criteria), 100% convinced (however convinced they feel they should be), or that they tick all your boxes (no matter how many boxes one has).

What I stated, is that once one decides to commit, one should do so 100%. And again, why would one commit less than this? Or if it's not 100%, what is the uncommited % for? What could it be for other than an exit route, or an excuse to not fully engage?
TV

Ok, my response was based on what you quoted, not what you wrote. Got ya!

TV01:
Not fun - a labour of love !


But this "love" was not the sole or main predicator of marriage. And it was not imbued with some moral value meaning that one was justified acting on this feeling regardless. Which is what you are indirectly arguing on the other thread - and which Kimoni should call you out for !


Please stop. Filiail love is of a different order to what we are discussing


And does that definition - some versions read "does no harm" - allow for one break up a marriage as her responsibility is to herself and not the husband she is trying to snatch, or his lawfully wedded spouse? "it does not insist on it's own way".


Nope. It's how people mis-understand mis-apply and miscontrue what love is, what it is for and the validity of actions based on it.


Different kinds of love - stop making catergory errors


Spoken like one who has never had a stalker - one of mine has even shown face on this thread

How can love be perfect is the one expressing it isn't?

Not based on the script I outlined


Marriage as defined is the lifelong union of a man and women - anything else is not marriage. Till death do part. You are free to have any type of relationship you choose, but if you choose marriage, it is not yours to define as you like.


A marriage being joy does not mean you wil not have to endure things - it could be tight finances, a sick partner or child, no children (if you desire them), your theories are mostly conceptual aren't they? .


Like I said, conceptual - what does this even mean. Especially based on the definition you posted above !


No, it's your misunderstanding of what it is and what it entails. For you, love is about self - the feeling you get, as abosed to the acts you do - it's why you can't get your head around marriage.


And marriage is so beneficial, it's best not to over regualte it. We don't overly scrutinise why, but once you meet the criteria and decide to enter the institution, you should do so soberly and endeavour to meet it's demands.


TV

@ bold
Even though in some cultures marriage was a means to an end, like in the case of royal families, who picked spouses for their kids to expand their kingdoms and power, kings would still have concubines for the pleasure (=feeling) of it and at times even get rid of their wives.

Marriage is not necessarily a lifelong union. It is if you go by the Christian doctrine but not everyone is a Christian and you can LAWFULLY divorce in many countries because people have different concepts of the institution called marriage and always have had them, across different cultures and ages.

raumdeuter:
Is it possible to find that 100% person?

If you were given a pencil as a 22yr old to write who you wanted to marry I mean the physical and other characteristics, and now compare to who you are married to

Do they tally 100%?

There are several factors that come into play when choosing a partner some are more important than others. In most cases you wont find a 100% match and you would have to choose whats more important.

You might have desired a more spiritual guy, 6ft 4, well built 6pack, millionaire in USD, romantic like in the movies, loves adveture, watches fashion show instead of football etc

I didn't say you have to find a person that meets your standards 100%. I would rather say that you have to be 100% sure that you want to marry someone even though he or she is not absolutely flawless.

frisby:
@ TV01 and mindfulness
... I think it might just be the burning-hot sun and insane traffic jam, because it's taking all of the intelligence I can muster to still manage to clutch on to this discussion, something must really be messing with my comprehension
Well so far, these are what I've learned :
5. I'm not nearly as bright as I have always thought married people are on a totally different league.

Hehehehehe. Welcome to my world.

I very much prefer simple posts clearly adressing issues to all these ambiguous "shades of grey".

TV01, this is also interesting. Actually you should educate me on the history of marriage because you are the one who is so passionate about it.

It is not true that love did not play any role in ancient marriages.

Marriage in ancient Egypt was a totally private affair in which the state took no interest and of which the state kept no record. There is no evidence for any legal or religious ceremony establishing the marriage, although there was probably a party. The preserved portion of the first Late Period story of Setne Khaemwast tells how Ahure and Na-nefer-ka-Ptah fell in love and wanted to marry. Their parents agreed, so Ahure was taken to Na-nefer-ka-Ptah's house, people (especially the father of the bride) gave presents, there was a big party, the two slept together, and then they lived together and had a child. But basically marriage was an agreement by two people, and their families, that they would live together (hms irm), establish a household (grg pr), and have a family. The same vocabulary was used for both women and men. Although most marriages may have been arranged at the desire of the husband and parents of the bride, there is also a repeated literary image of a girl persuading her father to let her marry the man whom she wishes, rather than the father's choice.

http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190170/


As for divorce, it was pretty easy in Ancient Rome:

Under classical Roman law marriage without manus was based on consent. With the permission of any relevant guardians a man and woman could declare themselves married as long as both were past the age of puberty, so it seemed not unreasonable that if one of the parties withdrew consent then the marriage was over. Following this principle any man or woman who wished to do so could become divorced simply by sending the partner a letter or even by declaring in front of witnesses that the marriage was over. There was no such thing as joint marital property and any children of the marriage belonged to the father, so there was little to argue about.

http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/divorceinancientrome.htm

Phema:
Hehehehehe. Welcome to my world.

I very much prefer simple posts clearly addressing issues to all these ambiguous "shades of grey".

No kidding!

The saddest part is that I'm even the OP!
But to be frank, I stopped feeling like the OP about 2 pages ago.

frisby:
No kidding!

The saddest part is that I'm even the OP!
But to be frank, I stopped feeling like the OP about 2 pages ago.

You better beg me not to call coogar and sagamite on top
Your thread will be 50 pages long of Oxford grammar in 24 hours
As for me I have a dico open before I read posts from some people
and some paracetamol and water on standby

The history of marriage – and from different perspectives/cultures – makes great reading/discussing if one is interested. However, when one understands what marriage is for and why it came into being – as opposed to what it is often used for – then it won’t lead to sharp disagreements.

It is pointless us discussing in depth because of your basic positions on marriage & love, where the two intersect and the morality surrounding them. You ascribe a morality or righteousness of sorts to proclamations/feelings of emotional love. And on the basis of this, a justification for any actions predicated on it.

Hence, you see nothing wrong with someone being prepared to wreck a marriage, or abandon their responsibilities in pursuit of the object of their love.

You are even happy to employ a biblical definition of love – which is diametrically opposed to what you believe - with no sense of irony? The bible talks about a selfless, sacrificial love, yours is a selfish, inconsiderate and often harmful desire. You have to be trolling me?

Mindfulness:
Let us try to define what love is now:
How about this definition?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

My post here – especially the final 3/4 paragraphs - was specifically for those who may not spot the error. https://www.nairaland.com/2694078/hes-good-man-should-she/1#39449692. You see marriage as being justified by feelings or desires, when indeed, it’s the other way round. In doing so, you empty marriage of its purpose and meaning – and are prone to beliefs such as the following;

Mindfulness:
Marriage is not necessarily a lifelong union. It is if you go by the Christian doctrine but not everyone is a Christian and you can LAWFULLY divorce in many countries because people have different concepts of the institution called marriage and always have had them, across different cultures and ages.

Just as you believe that marriage does not have to /was not meant to be permanent. As noted, nobody stops anyone from having the relationship they desire, and living it the way they choose. But not all relationships qualify as marriage.

You are not interested in marriage


TV

She should free that man, she's already cheating on him emotionally by developing love feelings for another man, sooner or later she will cheat physically!

One man's food is another man's poison indeed... many women are looking for such principled men that won't cheat/abuse/disrespect. ... them.


However, how is it possible for you not to have developed love for this guy despite all his good qualities? What is it that triggers love in you exactly?

Cc Frisby