₦airaland Forum

jennykadry: She did not call you a liar. I hardly ever agree with Blue diva on this forum but I have to say she raised some very important points there. I am married to a man that loves dancing and trust me, I gave him one hell of a hard time during courtship cos I just assumed he must love clubbing and drinking as well cos yea that is one thing I thought he did whenever he went to the club . It took a lot from him to convince me that it was just a hobby and nothing more and that he could care less if clubs exist. I agree if you saw these signs then I think you both should partake in the blame and not him alone. Don't get me wrong cos I am in no way supporting him BUT the signs were there and you chose to ignore it or better still you chose to MAKE EXCUSES FOR HIM(many women do this). It is an entirely different scenario if the guy hid his bad sides from you but if he didn't and showed you a little of that horrible side of him and you still went ahead to marry him then both of you should chop the blame small.

Post!

I often shake my head - not so vigourously as to do my self any harm of course - in bewilderment, when people come up in here and absolutely demonise their spouses or ex-spouses. Not willing to accept any fault on their part while they paint "the other party" blacker than filth.

Whatever you believe - and I'm convinced that there's a divine grace that goes with marriage whatever you do believe - if you follow pretty much any accepted pre-marriage protocol,engage your support systems and do even a minimal due dilligence, potential problems will be very apparent. What you choose to do with these flags is down to you and the consequences your fault.

Short of being marched down the aisle at gunpoint, the very least anyone should confess to is an error of judgement. In fact a really humble person would simply put their hands up, confess to poor judgement or too being a bit hasty or reckless.

The decision who and when to marry is everyone's individual responsibility. To be mature enough to marry, means to be mature enough to accept responsibility. Hold yourself accountable. It'll speed healing and hopefully help avoid a repeat showing.

Show me someone who claims their marriage breakdown was all the other persons fault and I'll show you a liar.


TV

^{now let me read the thread from the beginning}

Nneson: Thankz to all of u. Feel better and working out how to save my cousine. Pls just pray 4 mi so every thing dont get screwed

It is well Nneson. Your motivation is pure and your intent should be to save your cousin and your wider family from the pain and anguish that will almost certainly ensue if this person continues to have access to your family or eventually becomes a member of it.

And note, there are two issues here, the "attempted molestation" is first a family issue and there is nothng wrong with you encouraging your younger cousin to tell the parents/elders about the incident. This would be the best option. You will have cleared your conscience, without having to relay the situation second hand. Even if you have to tell, do your utmost for your younger cousin to be there when you do

You may decide it would be easier to get the younger sister to tell the older one first? I feel that should be a last resort and is potentially much trickier. It should ultimately get to the hearing of the parents/elders, and fast. Will your elder cousin act rationally here and tell them with her "no hand in my matta " stance?

I still wonder how the mother will react? I hope there are other strong,wise and upright elders in the picture.

You must expose this "work of darkness". Even if wrong decisions are taken after you this is revealed, you have done your duty. I hope it all works out well and you cousin and wider family make the right choices.

Again I wish you Godspeed. And may you never have potential danger hidden from you or those around you hesitate to do you good

All the best
TV

moremi2008: @ OP, I don't know what to say.

In that case, simply say nothing.

moremi2008: This is a touchy situation and I wouldn't recommend that you intervene. At 35, the lady might just need to roll the dice, shoot out some babies and deal with her husband's character flaws later. This is the one time I would recommend the good-old Naija "solution": ignore it and put the lady in your prayers for God to open her eyes to her husband's true nature before it's too late!

Instead, you went on to give poorly thought out, contradictory and patronising advice.

@OP, if you willfully permit a "rubbish" person into your family, there's a very real chance that a series of actions and events will be triggered which will be to the long-term detriment of your family, leading to anguish and pained regret.

Whilst it's ultimately your cousins call as to whether she persists with the relationship, you should prayerfully approach her and tell all.

Also advise her that you would like the elders in your family involved - I don't think you should necessarily carry this burden alone - and give her the option of doing that first. They should have been told as soon as this molestation incident occured. I post on the assumption that the allegation is true?

I fear the mothers stance here sha! Doesn't sound like she has been the most supportive or on-point with her input thus far.

Outside of the molestation incident, if your description is accurate, the guy sounded like a bit of a "dead-loss". She'd be well rid of him anyway. Near or long-term, I can't see how it would have ended well. She sounds like a wonderful person and there is all to play for. I hope God smiles upon her

And please don't hang about, time is of the essence here.

Godspeed
TV


^{I often post of the need to counsel "aspirationally". If I am chanced I'll post my thinking why on this or the "should I pay for my marriage" thread.}

chaircover: @TV so if you were in this mans shoes, what would you have done?

It hard for me to put myself in his shoes, he is not me. It's difficult for me to put myself in his situation, I am not him.

I simply cannot imagine how the lady in question and I would have gotten that far. I was ruthless. Any hint of mago mago traits or palla palla behaviour and they got frog-marched. If they didn't get it, I got rid of them.

At my most benign, I may have said; "OK she's right,but not ready. I will persevere with her a little and hope she grows in understanding". Even then, I would have kept my eyes peeled and she would have been in danger of losing me. I send 0, but you will show forth first.

For the "aspirational" marriage I desired, the woman I married had to be both right and ready, within a very small margin of error. It took me a long time to understand and to recognise that, and even longer to find her. I waited. God is merciful and kind.

For the record. When I met my wife, I was living in a room you couldn't swing the proverbial cat in. To sleep I had to clear load off the bed. And to get out of the room I had to move things around and gently ease out. It was above a takeaway on a busy road. It was in no way reflective of my means, but I am able to live my beliefs. In the year I lived there, I didn't use the toilet. I went to the gym - how I no go buff . My best friend visited for 5 mins, said "this is only temporary right"? And left. My cousin came and said he wasn't coming back, cos he couldn't let his kids risk the steps or use the loo. Non of my family came to visit me.

I took my WTB there. I saw the startled look in her eyes. She didn't say a word. Later, I challenged her, "won't you comment on where I live?" I asked. "No" she said, "I was surprised, but I know you can do better". If she had wanted to get married on Mars, I would have begged, borrowed or stolen to make it happen. Be the women we long for and we will be the men your hearts desire.

Best
TV

chaircover: Many of the women on this thread understand this issue deeply but the men are just looking at the tip of the matter.

Ah,ah! "Genderise" it and be sure to calumnise the opposite gender? Men lack understanding and are shallow? Not true and certainly not fair.

chaircover: Many people dont seem to understand the deeper meaning of marriage/wedding. We are not talking about a birthday party or house warming party; we are talking about a one off wedding here. This is the foundation of their married lives.

Three things here;
1. Don't seem to understand; huh? That would be men again. Maybe you'd care to enlighten us; What is the deeper meaning of marriage?
2. Yes it is a "one-off",that's why couples should of a necessity be circumspect about the financial aspects, which by the way, are not the essence. Which leads me nicely on to;
3. "Wedding = foundation" of married life?? Could you be more wrong? A wedding is merely the witnessing of the "agreement & commitment" that is. Which is why you can pop along to the registry with two witness and it won't cost more than the admin fee. And neither the essence or foundation are compromised.

Now, we men do understand and appreciate that most women harbour a lifelong dream of a picturesque white wedding. And most men whilst more than happy to go the registry route, will always seek to indulge his bride to some degree,and almost certainly to the best of his ability.

The fact that most women have warped this indulgence into an undeniable right of theirs and an unalienable responsibility of men is not the fault of thick and shallow men. If we are at fault, it's for falling for it!

chaircover: Personally I would rather put all my money into the accommodation issue rather than put 80% down for the wedding. I dont think that many of you understand the real meaning of a wedding and the deeper matters involved and what it really means when you say that you want to marry a woman. There is one wedding but many many more accommodation renewals.

Having identified the "wedding" as no more than an optional/incidental cost to being married,you can see why to "spiritualise" or imbue it with some "mystical" essence is no more than women being sentimental at best and a scam at worst. A cost is a cost, be it for a wedding, housing, school fees or whatever.

And yes we male thickos know that a "significant wedding" can be a signature statement of deep and abiding love and commitment; to the bride and to the world. We realise that it can be seen as a powerful declaration to all; of our intent and will make WTB feel like a princess,if only for a day. But it is only for a day,and not the essence or the foundation. All that is in the asking and the doing, regardless of the scale or scope.

No man should feel any less of a man for not being in a position to have a large scale celebratory wedding. And if a women feels she must have one there is nothing wrong with her and hers funding it to the nth degree. If he can't or won't, she can make her choice. Men, please be men!

chaircover: And as for the 50/50 western world split that many are talking about, how many of you in theory are marrying these women? and why not? why do so many of you still prefer to marry Nigerian women over these women? How many of you talking especially the naija based peeps will accept their wives kicking them out of the house and barring them from seeing the children simply because she has fallen out of love with you or she caught you with another woman? You all want your cakes and eat it.

Debo has already tasked you on this. And quite ably. Whether you realise it or not you are tacitly saying that a man funding a wedding and sundry cultural ceremonials gives him rights. It changes a partnership into an owner/worker deal. It warps a joint stakeholder arrangement into a Oga and worker situation. Is he buying her? Would you take us back to the time when women/wives were mere chattels?

Using erroneous notions to justify tragic and destructive actions ?

Wrong on the foundations, wrong on the essence and wrong on the significance of a man funding a celebratory wedding.

WannaWeds please take note

Regards
TV


^{And for the record, we had the celebratory wedding. But we spent wisely, within our means and with an eye on the future. And I would even concur with those who might suggest that in relative terms we overspent. But it's only money. I love the way my wife looked and glowed on the day. Both days sef - traditional in Lagos and church/reception in London. And yes, she remembers it as her dream day and recalls it starry-eyed even now. I loved "coming for my wife", I loved declaring my intent - to both our families and the world. I loved staking my claim with a statement. But I don't own her or feel I have proprietorial rights. And I would have been perfectly satisfied with a trip to the registry if I did not have the wherewithal. And it hasn't and wouldn't have changed the essence of our marriage one bit. We really do need to get back to the foundations of the marriage covenant, grasp its essence and clear out all these warped notions.}

Every marriage is unique. In cultural context, maturity, financial capability, expectations and aspirations. So even the notion of a “good marriage” is in a sense relative. Having said that, there are absolutes and principles that can underpin and guide. Especially if based on a well-defined worldview. In as much as we reference our own experience – within marriage – about life in general, we should do so with some points in mind;

1. The individual uniqueness mentioned,
2. That our own marriages/situations – however good - are not the benchmarks, and;
3. (IMHO) we should counsel aspirationally, i.e. with regard to “the ideal” (whatever “worldview”) informs that ideal.


My Worldview;
Marriage is meant to be mutually satisfying, sacrificial union. There is a ”wholesome unclothedness”, which one can read as trust and transparency. And a union where everything is pooled and no debilitating notion of “his or hers”. A shared, freely agreed and jointly pursued vision. And yes, there are roles and responsibilities and feel free to see the man as the “main provider” and Head.

My Experience;
When I decided I wanted to wife this woman, I opened up. I shared my hopes for the future and in particular, how I thought we should utilise the little funds I had. Wifey was wary at first, but soon got it and then got on board. Today nothing’s changed a lá banking arrangements, but we both know exactly what we have and where it is. How much comes in and how we are going to utilise it. And regularly review and discuss our financial affairs. Yes it’s probably easier in this regard – especially for the woman to get on board - if the man has and earns more, but situations change. Don’t lose sight of the absolutes and the aspiration.

My View on this case;
I can’t help but wonder, if there was a test prior to marriage, how would you fare?
You willingly cede the financial burden onto your HTB, regardless of his or your means?
You actually have money and you did not offer to pool, make a contribution or even ask that HTB lets you know if you can contribute in any way?
You both consider it your money? But HTB is blind to how much you have or how you utilise it? And you believe you have the right to do that unilaterally?
You have no qualms about your HTB taking out a loan to fund “your wedding”, as opposed to paying for one he can afford, no matter the scale?
With a lifetime together in view, you cannot see beyond the wedding cost?
You had not discussed, given thought or personally made any provision towards your accommodation after the wedding?

Please note, my questions are merely rhetorical, no replies necessary.

Even if I take the point about the tone and approach of your HTB, it in no way ameliorates your ill-advised approach, poor attitude, colossal sense of entitlement and altogether warped thinking.

My Verdict;
Two people who both cannot recognise the other is neither ready, nor right.
Don’t marry – unless you aspire to a facsimile union of deceit, scheming and gamesmanship, with all the potential consequences of that.

Thank you for raising this before you tied the knot, because I am not God and my worldview rarely prescribes divorce.


WannaWeds, please pay heed.

Best
TV

maclatunji: Although the popular wisdom is that third parties should not interfere in a marriage, I think this couple need help. It is obvious that they are not capable of resolving their differences by themselves. OP, find someone you both respect and tell him/her that you and your husband are having a hard time with effective communication between the two of you. Try not to give all of these details to that person. If the person is wise enough, he/she will identify the issues by himself/herself and help you find resolution. I think you also need to be a little bit more patient and should give-in-less to your anger when it arises.

A third party can help, but don't take that step unilaterally. It's risky because;

1. He will probably feel undermined
2. and wonder whether you trust and respect him

TV

chaircover: My sister please pray very hard that you haven't made the wrong choice . . .16 months pere!! 16 months!!!!!!

I'm sure this was well intentioned, but it's after the fact. Prayer would have been profitable prior. If her prayer returns "wrong choice" what then?


TV

Hmmmm. It had to happen - my first shitty post on NL .

Align your dump times with your shower times. Works for me. I also go the gym a lot and love rocking their hot jet showers post working out and offloading. For some reason wifey prefers for me to do my thing there too

Scatalogically yours
TV

I’m not surprised, but pained and appalled by some of the hurt that gets posted here. I love marriage. Everything about it. It has no downside if correctly understood and properly entered into.

Marriage is not an estate to be entered into or taken lightly. For all those yet to, but hoping for, please make every preparation and every effort to get it right.

At the very least, this section should serve as a warning. And if the only counsel you take away is caution, please heed that. I also see invaluable insights for those already married and some succour for those going through within it.

For those seeking to keep onside of the Bible, my reading is, it permits – not necessarily prescribes – divorce for adultery, but only allows re-marriage in the event of death. And if you do believe God, seeking him wholeheartedly before, will profit you more than coming to NL after.


@OP, your situation is a difficult one. I wish you well.


TV

Tirade over. I'm just pained.

I believe the traditional way to include a "married" friend in your bridal train is the "maid of honour" role. But like mission08 has said, I don't see why you can't be a little creative here. The "wedding police" are technically your ushers, who the bride and groom hold sway over anyway !

Have a wonderful and memorable day.

TV

Sagamite:
I will challenge you on this.

Hello, bruv. I am sorry to say: Marriage has never been, by and large, some wonderful institution from time immemorial. It has always been generally faulty. I really don't know what essence of marriage you refer to. The benefits of marriage has historically been detrimental to one party: the woman. From the stone ages to recent history, they had the short end of the stick. Marriage has never been good. Women stuck around because they usually depended on the man financially and for social respect. The marriage of our ancestors and even the generations closer to us is filled with men having extra-marital affairs and offsprings outside marriage, especially those living in big habitats (e.g. cities) and are decently wealthy enough, and the wives accepted it. The unwealthy ones used whores and beat their wives. Majority of the long-term, so-called successful marriages of some recent generation gone-by we tend to point to are not immune from this fact as well. If the woman is of high-society or aristocracy back in the day then there are numerous cases of infidelity as well because they tend to be the beautiful ones and/or less dependent on her husband's finances since they live in circles of men with means that can replace him. Go and read about Roman women for example. Societies tried to use religion to control these but mostly only applied it to the women.

I've touched on the fact that marriage has for many been an historically "abusive arrangement" and mostly by patriarchal/fundamentalist societies. It just means that the "essence" has been ignored/misunderstood for a long time by many.

Sagamite:
Essence of marriage? A lot of women have been miserable in marriage but hang on. Now that women are no more dependent on the man financially or for social respect, we have a relationship culture flux, hence the rise in divorces.

Per my above. The rise of female economical independance, "no-fault" divorce, readily available contraception and laws effectively penalising men in the event of a divorce means that essence is now subject to different pressures.

As is pretty obvious, my worldview is a Christian/Biblical one. 2'000 years ago it was written; "Husbands love your wives and wives respect your husbands". Your portrayal above does not even do what obtained justice. At the time women were little more than "chattel". The Christian concept of marriage was nothing short of transformational. The fact that even many "Christians" don't get it - then or now - does not make it's charge any less revolutionary. There is nothing wrong with the institution of marriage. The problem has always been with men and women.

Sagamite:
So when you refer to the "Essence of Marriage that is forgotten", all I can think of is an obedient, subservient wife sticking to it for better, for worse while the husband ruled at home and shagged his life out outside when he felt like. I have no interest in making anyone miserable for my own happiness.

Your comment here resonates so much with me. I witnessed this all around me growing up. I was very young when I decided that if marriage is essentially a licence for me to inflict myriad abuse on a women, I wanted no part of it. That wouldn't make even make me happy. It took me years to rediscover the essence and embrace it in its fullness.

Whatever men have perpetuated, regardless of what women inflict, understand the essence, find one who understands and grasps your articulation of it and marry. Write your own script.

Sagamite:
The essence of marriage you refer to are fantansies written in Mills and Boons or practiced my a very small minority of pious individuals with fear of Hell. It was never the norm. The muslims just said "Fck it. Man take 4 wives and stop your greediness".

I live it. Enuff said.
I have referenced the source of my worldview.

Sagamite:
This is the real world, not Fantasia.

I don't think you really like reality. You really refuse to realise you have no control over the mentality and decision of others.

What if your partner does not want to discuss and recourse the structures?

What if your partner are not interested in counselling and other remedial measures because they are simply not interested anymore?

Let me guess. You would say you know that would not happen, you have selected carefully after 3 months?

You tend to ignore biology and facts and stick with some populist idealism.

I don't want control. Neither do I want the "false comfort/control" of a prenup.
Train hard, fight easy! The essence had been shared, discussed and embraced beforehand. 2-3 months is an age  !
If we ever have recourse to a 3rd party in our home, I would consider that a disaster and a shame.
We have started as we mean to go on and are both mindful of and dilligent to ensure it gets stronger and sweeter.

I'm living this sir (not in Fantasia either, in south-east London !) and in my joy - and given what I suffered to lay hold of it - I want every able and willing man to experience the same.

Given the pressures we are both very much aware of, it's easy to be cynical, to simply opt out or to think some sort risk mitigation is required.
The way to mitigate risk is at the front-end. Have the right understanding, make yourself the right person, find another right person and do the right thing. Do this and you won't need a pre-nup. Taste marriage in it's essence, and not only will you feel silly for insisting on it, you'll do your damnedest to ensure you never have recourse to it.

Sagamite, I have no doubt you want to get married. I'm "here" if you would like more about specifics or just to share. I wish you all the very best.

God bless
TV

debosky:
Sagamite a pre-nup is different from car insurance or making alternative plans to get to a destination.

You dare question Saga' logic ? Ah!

debosky:
The two latter examples is protecting yourself from external, unknown factors largely out of your control, while a pre-nup involves one party keeping separate what both are vowing to join together - it goes against the basic vows of marriage of 'what is mine is yours'.

The essence of marriage has been lost to many. Without understanding and embracing that - even intuitively - a lot of the value can be lost. It means the benefits are not fully grasped and people are more likely to not commit to it or give up if there are problems.

debosky:
If, however, both parties willingly want a pre-nup, then it is a mutually understood basis for the relationship might be a good thing in my view.

I find the notion counter-intuitive. "I will spend the rest of my life with you and give all that I have. For better, for worse etc". "But oh yeah if it doesn't go right, I won't re-double my efforts and search myself, I'll take my stuff and go"! It's almost like second guessing yourelf before you even guess?

debosky:
Why? Because it removes the fear, suspicion and attempts to hide things from one's partner when problems occur in a relationship. If you know the other person can't cheat you, then you're free to devote yourself fully and be open because they can't take it away from you.

Hmmm, isn't it encouraging the possibility of divorce by bringing it to the fore? By making it a more readily available and clear-cut option when problems come? Divorce should be be a very last resort if at all. Why not discuss and agree recourse to structures, counselling or other remedial measures. Divorce is not a corrective measure, it's a destuctive one. If one feels one is best served by being able to exit a marriage with their worldly goods, quite frankly, they really don't get it and should probably not have been in it in the first place.

Best
TV

Kutey:
Ehrm ,  TV01 remember the phrase: "Never argue with an 1diot , they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

No, no, no. "The Sagman" is altogether a great guy, otherwise I wouldn't bother. He just needs a lil' nudge to fully appreciate that the human dynamic  - life even - and particular the marriage relationship is not a business transaction and not optimised  by "control", risk mitigation, algorithmic logic,etc. etc.

The pool of  5% on the male side is to shallow to allow an inherently good one like Sag to not get snapped up . His concerns though are valid, I'm just trying to help address them.

Very shortly Saga is going to stare that fear in the face and get his. Can't wait.

Best
TV

Dude, the 5%ers are the good ones 0!

Sagamite:
You want to play everything in life has an element of faith? Please no try and play that lame stuff with me. Emi lo fe ma fi gba philosophy football? (Na me you wan dey use play philosophy football?) O o mor nkan ti awa ka ni ile iwe agba? (You no know wetin we read for Higher Education?)

If two people decide to go to Manchester from London and have to be there within 6 hours. Note: It takes on average 3 and the half hours for the journey.

One decides that to get there he would jump in his car and drive down. The second decides he would not use his car. Mba! Lai Lai! Petrol cost too much. His plan is to hitch ride from his front door to the destination. Obviously both have an element of faith. The first is hoping not to have an accident, the second is hoping not to have an accident but also hoping he would meet enough good Samaritans within the 6 hour period. You know what? He might actually make it. Are they comparable, which on is a wishful thinker and which one is in control?

Story! which one has an absolute guarantee of getting there at all, let alone within 6 hours? Plus the second chap should have gotten a pre-booked, off-peak train ticket .

However they go - the risks are still present. Getting there late, not getting there at all, or not going anywhere ever again are still risks they both face.

Traffic holdups, accidents, inclement weather, illness en-route, other rogue drivers, corrupt cops, terrorists, ad infinitum.

I am not against mitigating risk and "exerting control", but the best laid plans. Nuff' said.

Sagamite:
This is what I was saying about you not being a logic man earlier. I pointed to your linking of prenup with a woman not being capable of having "sufficient" kids as indicator then.

What has led to, or where has anyone said, signing prenup can make someone care for or commit to you?

I would rather be "irrational" and obtain some control than ignorantly bury my head in the sand and say the law does not apply to my marriage and I know what my wife I knew for only 3 months will do despite biology teaching us of their hormonal vortex that make them change over years and the list of stories of people with similar philosophies being burned.

So what then? Change will surely come - and for both of you. Some control? Institutional and individual interference in your home can be limited. Whilst I believe the law can be limited in its effect now, who knows what they'll be like in even the near future?

I still hold that getting oneself right and finding the right person and then building a solid foundation is the way to go. Immediately you introduce the prenup, you are screaming "I don't trust you". Seeding a suspicious air that will never go away. You are saying "regardless of our vows" I have to look out for myself. Or will you present it as in her best interest? It's no guarantee and it at best weakens the foundation.

No matter how you couch it, your insistence on prenups and the inevitable change by women (for the worse), has an air of cynicism and inevitability about it In which case surely logic should dictate that it's not really viable?

Sagamite:
Secondly, I don't know how signing prenup presupposes that one would constantly be on the edge about divorce in marriage and one is not planning for success of the marriage. That is the kind of junk women come up with to suppress your wish of prenup. [Imitates yeye women] "You must be planning for divorce if you want a prenup". But you will here the same foool say she can't be a FT housewife because she does not want to be left high and dry. When she thinks like that (her best interest), she is not planning for divorce. You sure are a well trained real man. You are not a logical man.

And all that is not practicable in conjunction with prenup. You came to the lame conclusion only when you do not sign prenup can you choose the right one, keep a relationship fresh, cherish your partner and behave right? Those that sign prenup can not do all that as well?

So let me get this right, you prepare for a successful marriage by first preparing for a successful divorce?

Being a full-time mother is as worthy a choice as any. If the numbers work out and the circumstances are condusive, I'd love us to have that choice. Couples should discuss the merits and demerits and contingency around this option - if available - even before marriage.

Don't marry a fool or someone you consider to be one.

Sagamite:
Wow! Na wah for this logic o.

Lets go back to the philosophy 101 fictional tale I gave above so you can get some clarity and strong analogy.

The first takes his car as guarantee and needs to drive safely and avoid an accident, the second is hoping he would talk to the person (or people) that give(s) him a free ride to [all] drive safely and avoid an accident but is also hoping he finds such person/people that would listen.

Who has a better strategy of the 2?

Neither has an absolute guarantee. Both are still subject to chance and extemporaneous factors outside their control.

Sagamite:
You are not a logical man. I am rarely wrong when I make an assertion.
Your Jamb analogy is useless.

If you have been to the same poor educational institutions as the 95%, have access to the same incompetent resources as the 95% and doing exactly the same studying pattern as the 95% are doing, then you are likely to end up like the 95%.

You will have to do something different from the train wreck of the 95% (e.g. go to a top private school where they train you on Jamb) or just be lucky the topics you focused on and studied came out in 75% of questions.

Nothing you have said you have done has proven you are doing something different. As a matter of fact, you are at the worst end of the spectrum based on saying you knew a woman after just ONE date (i.e. like someone in the spectrum going to Jakande Primary school, Jakande Secondary school, Jakande University). I can guarantee you even some women here that love your "real manliness" and enjoy your "chivalry in defending their rights to milk" shuddered and were peeping through the fingers in horror at that statement.

It doesn't necessarily have to be different, just better and more thorough. Apple have competition in every respect, but they go about it that much better.

For the most part, I don't care what the women here think. For what it's worth, I consider most of them 95%ers (I will get away with that because, either 1. They will all consider themselves 5%ers or 2. They will form "even if I'm a 1%er sef, I no send TV !)

True manliness is knowing that both genders and society are ultimately best served by harmonious non-abusive relationships and actively seeking to model, promote and effect them. Regardless of the forces that are arrayed against you.

Jakande tried now !

Sagamite:
My GOD!



This man, you logical reasoning na gba oooooooooooooooo!

My God! Baba mi! Oba lo ke! Olugbala! Baba Jesu! Oga Mohammed! Oba awon oba Ifa!

What the bleep has car insurance got to do with surviving an accident? What has health insurance got to do with surviving disease? 

Fck me lawd! Fck me triple times!

Insurance is suppose to compensate you financially, not prevent you from harm.

Driving around and saying you need no insurance still leaves you susceptible to the same harm but only that that comes with severe financial loss.

You and logic are like oil and water. 

Then don't say Winners do not concern themselves with losing.

They do!

And still plan and prepare for winning.

Lets apply it to the topic here: Sign a prenup and still plan and prepare for a successful marriage. You get the point?

Refer back to philosophy 101 above.

No absolute guarantees. No risk free propositions. No total control. Accept that and work it like it's all or nothing.


If you find someone before the end of the year, summer nuptials in 2013 would certainly be viable.

Best
TV

^{Come, was that you I just saw on Rye lane haggling with one Indian shopkeeper like that over the price of puna yam?}

pro01:
Lol. Classic. When you refuse to have 'confidence in no guarantees', they accuse you of pessimism and negativity. What a laugh.

Like I asked Sagamite, please tell us which human endeavours is backed by guarantee? Reward often necessitates a degree of risk.

If there is an absolute guarantee for a worthy endeavour, you don't need to be optimistic or positive. If there isn't, is there greater benefit in being pessimistic or negative?

Hope is not the sole perogative of people of faith.

Best
TV

Sagamite:
She should find me.

Do you know how fine I am? Do you know what I am worth in the coupling market?

Ah! Progress !
Your high phy-nincial net worth + your high financial net worth just increases your chance of securing a 5%er .

Sagamite:
All what you said does not disprove the fact that you are living on faith/hope/wishful thinking that your wife is right for you and she would not milk you in divorce.

Please tell us what single endeavour does not have an element of faith/hope. We are mere men, with only a modicum of control.

I did what I knew to and had to do. It may have seemed fast, but it was on the back of a large number of other "viewings".  

We recently bought a place. After viewing around 60 properties across a wide area, you get to know what's out there, what prices the market holds and refine your personal requirements. 58 of the places we didn't even discuss. One was beautifully presented, but not quite right. The 60th one was per-fick. Offer on the spot mate! We are not to far from Peckham, once we settle in, we'll host you !

Sagamite:
The only guarantees you have and you know is what you can/would do. You have no guarantee or know what she can/would do. That is more evident by the length of your courtship. I can safely say, you hardly know the person you married. You have no control if she decides to eff you up. Your future is basically in her hands if you live in the West. And there is no guarantee she would be nice if in future she decides she might want something else. That is not to say she might not be the nicest woman on Earth but I would still have a prenup with the nicest woman on Earth.

She doesn't have any more of a gaurantee than l do. My wedding was the culmination of 17 years of preparation and searching.

A prenup cannot make someone care for or commit to you. Can you legislate for human behaviour? Listen there are a ton of things that could go wrong. What guarantee offspring, health, ongoing prosperity or even sufficiency? What about accidents or other mishaps?

Your inordinate obsession with the possible financial implications of a possible divorce is bordering on the irrational. Plan and work towards the good and prosperity of the union. How will you even enjoy it, if you are constantly on edge about a possible divorce?

Sagamite:
I would have more reasonable control by signing a prenup. I strongly believe in risk management especially when I am the one that has something to lose and the other key decision maker has evrything to gain and nothing to lose.

"Control" - over one solitary - and unlikely if you prepare and plan well - aspect? Manage the risk prior - of not being ready or not choosing the right one - or during - of it becoming stale or taking each other for granted of of being unfaithful.

Sagamite:
Majority are miserable or so-so. As I said, men and women have not evolved yet to adapt to the new relationship rebalancing of women being financially independent and sex being blasted at us left, right and centre by the decadent liberals. Relationship culture has not caught up and stabilised with the rapid change and it is currently in a turbulent flux. Divorce and break ups are the order of the day. I don't live in Fantasia, I live in Peckham.

Hence the the "JAMB" analogy. You are responsible for one. Yours!

And you call my post "populist"? This is pure soapbox. With all this, there are still solid and prosperous marriages. In as much as relationships are driven by the prevailing culture, we still have the choice to inculcate and retain right values in ourselves and those we can influence.

Drugs are glamorised, am I a druggie? Prostitution is considered cool, am I a whoremonger. Drink is the "societal smoother", never touched a drop. Take responsibility for your choices and actions. Why follow the orderof the day if you are "a man who dictates"?

1. Not all women - or men sef - are financially independent. Majority simply have greater leverage as couples.
2. Finance, should not really effect the marriage dynamic, find someone who understands that. l did.
3. Society has always being sexually decadent. It's just more pulished and accepted. Some choose not to embrace that. Agqin find someone who does not

Sagamite:
You are living it based on hope, just like most other people. There is no methodology and no guarantees. All you have said you did to get it, including the due diligence, is in no way inspiring, reassuring or protective. Hope might or might not fail you. It is just hope.

I've answered this a number of times. Does car insurance guarantee one will survive a crash? Or health insurance mean one won't catch a terminal disease or illness.

The life of man is a vapour. Everything has a risk of sorts. Mitigate all you like, all you can, but don't let it paralyse you. Will you not eat for fear of food poisoning, or not travel for fear of an accident?

Sagamite:
This is another populist fanciful air that has no logic.

Winners do concern themselves with losing. Stop barging the kind of junk evangelistic pastors throw about, that will not work a fraction of millimetre on me.

Yes, but they still plan and prepare to win. Competitors still do their all and have a true desire to do the best and be the best they can. I am the original anti-"Mog" , please check my posting history Sir

Sagamite:
More of your ecclesiastical platitudes.

Blind = Hope

Religion = Hope

Hope = No guarantees

Confidence in no guarantees = Wishful Thinking.

You are proving me completely right.

Life is hope. Please evidence how you live any aspect of yours on guarantees? Yes we are not ignorant of risk or the wisdom of mitigating it, but do we cease to live for fear of it?
Give us wedding rice jor. And please obtain a guarantee from your caterer. !

Best
TV

Sagamite:
And there was absolutely no time I said one cannot find one woman that is right or marriage is not viable.

So what are you hanging around for? Find her and get viable ?

Sagamite:
Wow!

You did your due diligence in 3-10 months and came to the conclusion you know what your wife would do in 10, 15, 20, 25 years time?

You must be fcking kidding me. And you say you are not living on faith?  You are not surviving on wishful thinking and hope? .

1. More like 2 to be honest . The rest was planning the wedding
2. Who knows tomorrow? Do you know if you'll be here tomorrow, let alone, 5, 10 , 15, 20 or 25 years time.
3. In as much as I could I ensured the commitment and compatibility were there to begin and we'll both continue to strive for it.
4. Whatever you believe, whatever your worldview, it's by faith you believe there'll be a tomorrow. Or what guarantee do you have from day to day?

Sagamite:
And you think because your wife accepted and met your aspirations and you did not force them or con her that guarantees your marriage would be happy and successful?

I am assuming by default you are smart enough to say "No".

Prayed for it, planned for it and will continue to pave the way for it. I don't take it for granted. It will take some work. Not to keep it going, but to keep it sweet.

So maybe I'm just thick, but happily married. Why are you so skeptical? There are happy and succesful marriages everywhere.

Sagamite:
I am sure you are not, subconsciously. But a lot of your arguments have no comprehensive logic and are of the populist genre normally batted around and upheld by those that do not critically evaluate the platitudes the populists through about.

Nope. I am reading from my own script. Critically evaluating and practically applying are two different things. I'm living it. I don't just believe, I have experienced.

Sagamite:
If you live in the West, you are married or want to get married, you have no prenup and you say you are not worried about the effects of divorce despite the realities and stories widely and publicly available, then you are one of the following:

1) Just an individual burying his head in the sand and would not listen to any logic and would rather live in lululand.

2) An individual that approves of the divorce laws and is willing to abide by it.

3) Just purely ignorant.

4) You don't expect to be worth much, so what da fck, she aint gonna have anything to milk.

I am fully aware of the potential consequences of divorce. I also know how to build a strong marriage. Do winners overly concern themselves with losing? For all competitors, it's about preparing and executing, then finishing.

A solid and well constructed marriage is blind to location and mostly oblivious to laws. A prenup goes against the very essence of marriage as I understand it.

In turn;
1. Marriage in my experience is heaven, not lululand !
2. I abide by all laws regardless. Very few of them will ever hinder me living the life I choose.
3. I spent 17 years learning about and preparing for marriage prior, and continue top do so. "Guru Marri-agE"  ?
4. Worth is relative. When we met I was financially further along than my wife - obviously that all changed after I paid for the wedding ! But seriously, I have repeated time and again, money is not the main driver of or the primary consideration when valuing a marriage.

I'll be happy to deliver the sermon on the day !

Best
TV

Sagamite:
No!

Even when done properly, a woman would still benefit more.

Unions are of more value to a woman that it is to a man.

Both parties would benefit but woman would benefit more. Lets call a spade a spade even if it offends some women that like not to hear the truth.

Furthermore, lack of marriage does not necessarily imply singlehood and celibacy. Companionship and sex can be obtained outside marriage. Not like if I know anything about that, I just heard it through the grapevine.

Done properly, both parties are better off married. Not only them, but their offspring and society at large.

"Singlehood" does not preclude "companionship", it simply means "not married". Celibacy is another kettle of fish and demanded by the worldviews of some. Unlike "innocentee" here, I have had it all ways and reccommend marriage !

Best
TV

TV, I have to say: You do struggle with logical thought.

lol! true dude, but not at this level.

You are the one postulating the debilitating effect of the law and the numbers of "not fit for purpose" women. I am merely saying no matter how damaging the law, if you can find just the one woman who you can align with, then marriage is still viable and remains the best option.

How can you postulate 100% of women are bad? What kind of logic is that?

If I believed that, I wouldn't be married. I was merely extrapolating your thinking.

For how many months or years did you court before you married your wife?

The actual decision was taken within 3 months after we met - I personally never spent longer than that "viewing". The wedding was 10 months later. I knew she could be the one when I first clapped eyes on her. Just needed to check, consider, consult and confirm.

Yes, you can!

I am from the clan of men that state their ground rules and if you don't accept it you have the liberty to leave. How is that faulty thinking? You have been taught "real men" don't say things women don't want to hear?

I am not a real man. I am ALL man!

I had my aspirations for marriage. My wife both accepted and met them. Neither of us was forced, neither of us was conned. The tone of honesty and transaparent communication was set from day one.

Unilaterally dictating your rules does not mean the marriage will be happy or successful even if you find someonme to accept.

In lieu of you dedicating your life to some worthy humanitarian purpose - and even that does not necessarily preclude marriage - you will prove your manliness by successfully marrying and raising a family !

An agreement that is not legally binding is faith. Faith is wishful thinking as you have no control.

It's trust and I have control over my side.

Your due diligence was done after ONE date.          

Awww! How lovely. What a lovely thing to say. All the women reading this have their hearts melting and a lump in their throats. What a real man! You be "real man" gba.  

My audience is not primarily the women. I'm  not here to build a constituency nor a fanbase. Not for favour or applause. Accolades or awards.

"No divorce. We took vows. I simply can't see it.". Fck me LAWD! Triple fck me LAWD! So those that divorce did not take vows. That is the protection that guarantees you? Mate, you are not a logical person. WISHFUL THINKING! That is what your whole philosophy is based on. You no fit 'show me the practicals'.

You have absolutely no clue what your wife would do 10/15 years from now. You are living on faith. Many like you have lived on such and majority have regretted it in divorce.

Your fear is not divorce, it's the consequences of divorce. I don't share that fear. And I appreciate the fulfilment and blessing within a happy marriage.

My position remains. Marriage is the best option and the  norm. And the way to go if you can find someone who shares your values.  Whatever part the law plays can be kept to a minimum. neither will you ever be able to legally construct a perfect marriage or remove the downside.

You yet have all to play for sir.

Best
TV

Neither gender can prosper withought proper marriage.

pro01:
Says who tori Olorun?

To clarify, both parties within the marriage will benefit most when it's done properly.

I absolutely accept that marriage is not necessarily for all and one can live a fulfilled life before or without marriage.

Having said that, I do believe marriage is and should remain the norm. Very few should opt for singlehood or celibacy. For mature individuals, there should be just cause for not marrying.

ayodele123:
@TV
   You seem to misunderstand. The carnal mind cannot discern the things of the spirit. Wisdom is the principal thing. Marriage is a mystery.

I suppose I was a little optimistic hoping you'd present your case with clear reasoning and unadulterated reference to scripture. Do people still employ this type of pathetic and pharasaical religious tactic. Shame.

ayodele123:
Love and submission flow together. A husband should love his wife and the wife should submit to her husband. Husband and wife are one flesh, not two. 1 plus 1 equals to 1 is the Bible standard in Marriage.

Who disputes this? Please adress the issue in question correctly. Does a man submit to his wife?

ayodele123:
In many marriages, the husband expects his wife to submit first before he loves her. This is absolutely wrong. What love is there if the woman must first submit before she is loved?where then is the sacrifice? Is it then not a master-servant relationship? And marriage is not a master-servant relationship. A man submitting to his wife does not imply that the man will become her slave who washes her clothes or bows at her feet in worship. Husband and wife are to submit to each other and love one another as members of one body. For instance,Some husbands will have a wrong opinion of an issue. the wife has a better idea but the man refuses to see her better point because he is the head(Ego),and will go headlong in his error and may regret it. there are husbands who will never ever listen to a wife's opinion even if hers is better and more reasonable to execute and will rather implement their own wrong opinion and come out with regrets. It has happened in many homes. Headship of the home does not imply that the husband must have his ways every time in every situation in the home. Submission to each other in the fear of the lord is a statement in Ephesians 5:21 and it applies to every body, every relationship including husbands and wives.

Why the unecessary distraction? What point are you making?
90% of the time I give leave to my wifes preference. We discuss everything. In the rare instances we cannot agree and it's a serious matter that I don't believe I should, or cannot simply please her on, as husband I assume authority as head of the home. Simple. I love and serve my wife, I don't submit to her.

Oya, butcher scriture. Ephesians 5:21 "applies to everybody and every relationship"? No it does not. Please read it again in context.

At random. Man is the head of woman, Christ is the head of man. Oya, tell me your thesis applies here. Should Christ submit to man? What about Employer/Employee? Not spiritual, not sensible.

ayodele123:
CASE CLOSED!

Not just closed, also locked. Please take down that your website.

TV

Sagamite:
You are wrong.

Marriage can be an option with firm clarity of where you stand and based on the response you get from the person that wants you to marry them.

Anecdotally, maybe over 95% of women are illogical and unpredictable and yet about only 50% of marriages in the West fail and maybe another 30% are unhappily still married.

Despite women being largely unpredictable, there can be adaptations and/or containment men can engage in that can make marriage work. As I said, you take them the way they are and do the best you can.

Hence, you are emphatically wrong in your conclusion. The human psyche is way too complex for you to be so dismissive by coming up with such simplistic conclusion that because of A and B, then marriage is no option.

I don't see how I can be wrong, as you are essentially echoing my "Find the one that shares your aspirations" theme here?
If the facts say that 95% of JAMB applicants fail, will you decide not to go to uni or determine to be amongst the 5% that do?

Having said that if the law is 100% anti and women are 100% bad, than I insist that marriage becomes unworkable and therefore not viable. I don't agree that there's no work around. On a personal note, I resolved not to marry if I couldn't find the one.

Sagamite:
Then secondly, you got your tail in a twist when you said: I for one would never have married if I felt that to be the case for both these aspects (law/women).

You have confirmed you feel that way from your last post and, if I recall correctly, you are married.

Stop using populist, illogical arguments please.

Yes, I am "blissfully" married and would not have gotten married if I hadn't found the right one. The law was not a consideration. Not illogical, not populist. Personal. Surely my position is now clear?

Sagamite:
There is "another way" you know.

Non-real men like me, can come, dictate what they want with logical clarity and ensure they get it and have a happy marriage.

Maybe your second point caters for that without you knowing, maybe it does not. That is what I call: shares (or jointly develop) your aspirations and vision for the union.

So, again, you are emphatically wrong.

You can't unilaterlly "dictate" and expect a bilaterally "happy" marriage. Faulty thinking, and predisposes the union to issues. Careful.

I've more than clarified my points. If the law is 100% bad and women 95% unmarriageable, find one of the 5%. If it's 100% bad both ways, forget it. I would've.

And no, I am not wrong sir, I am living it  .

Sagamite:
This, I have to be frank here, is ABSOLUTELY delusional.

You are going to "inure" (oyinbo, baba nla grammar) your marriage from it. How? By wishful thinking?

What guarantee do you have when it comes to it, she cannot decide to seek divorce and enforce the letter of the law. Because you "wish" she would not or because you think you know everything about her purely based on the "lets impress each other" courtship you hard?

So if there was a divorce, and she says she wants you to fund her lifestyle, what are you going to do? You will tell the Judge:

"My Lord, these laws don't apply to us because we are innocuous, inured, inoculated and innerpatticent of innopioucity of innerpurity from the law?"

Let me correct you: Faith is not air-tight and logical!

Don't use faith as an argument.

Inure in Yoruba means light. This your inure must be from NEPA!

Wake up! Marriage is already something else in the West due to the laws.

Dreaming it is not, will not stop it from being something else.

1. Inure by agreement. Not wishful thinking.
2. What gaurantees do you have about anything? Life is a risk. But I have been as dilligent as I feel I can be. And I am happy to proceed and give it my all on that basis.
3. No "Impress each other courtship" 0! Could see it when we first met, was pretty sure after 1 "date". Shared my heart, dreams and vision over a few months - also conducting due dilligence and presenting it to our families. Easy peasy. otherwise I would have walked.
4. No divorce. We took vows. I simply can't see it. Expectations were sky high, but if anything they have been exceeded. But to answer your question. I will always seek the best for our children. I won't contest a thing. All I have is already hers. If she thinks she can do better elsewhere. I will take responsibility for choosing one of the 95% and keep moving.
5. Although faith was a part of my journey, I have not called on that here, do not make it dogma for marriage and it doesn't obviate the practical aspects. Righten up yourself, find the right person, marry in the right way. Faith for me lends it a fullness, but the practicals you called for remain unchanged.

Sagamite:
See cretins coming here to argue CONFIDENTLY someone deserves $21m they never worked for and you are thinking society is still the same.

Society is already at loss.

Honestly, I am not being rude, this is utter delusional tosh except you can find a way where your "proper marriage" will not be subject to the laws of the land that guides marriage. A real, practical way, not wishful thinking or faith. Something airtight!

Secondly, you are yet to come up with what actions, apart from wishful thinking, you will take to influence and change the philosophical ecosystem that shapes people's behaviours and beliefs (understand, approach and expectations). Behaviours and beliefs that is now rampart amongst majority of delusional modern women that think being married entitles them to half and who are yet to adapt to the relationship rebalance which their financial freedom gives them.

TV, this is fanciful air.

As one of my friends was told in Lagos when he was giving consulting gimmicks for a proposal: "Oga, show me the practicals".

1. You misunderstand the essence of genuine marriage. All I have is hers, regardless of what she has or contributes.
2. Money does not underpin or singularly drive the dynamic of marriage. It's sacrificial and it's sharing.
3. Societies loss is the warping of marriage and the "jaundicing" of gender interactions as demonstrated by your position.
4. The law did not determine Whom I married or our vision for our marriage. Sod the law.
5. I am not marrying the whole of society and have no wish to alter the philosophical ecosystem. My business is with my mindset and my wifes mindset. Ensuring they are aligned.
6. I have said money does not singularly underpin or act as the main driver in proper marriage

Sir, please ditch the cynicism, the fear and the adversarial mindset. Understand that marriage is not just about you and your dictates. Be bold. A protector and providor. Find a woman who will cherish that and you, then throw down like only the Ijebu can.

I am so rooting for you (And I dey London 0! 

Best
TV

ileobatojo:
I personally "viewed" - apologies for making it sound transactional  - over 250 women before I found the one.

It was over a very long period and I didn't buy, rent, sleep over or use the facilities. ! Abeg, free me  !

Sagamite:
First of all, lets have some clarity on this before I even read the rest.

Are you saying, in your view, that these are not the case?

Please read in full.

1. is the law unbalanced - for the most part I agree. But the law is not for those that get it right, as it won't be in play.
2. are women illogical - for the most part I agree. But find one that is not and marry her.

I personally "viewed" - apologies for making it sound transactional  - over 250 women before I found the one. And all but a handful were illogical, unpredictable, immature, unprepared, lacked understanding etc. etc (ok, 1 or 2 simply didn't fancy me. They were classified as "loco"  ). Call it what you will.

However, I speak as a man. There are men out there, that are brutal, uncaring, insensitive, immature, unprepared and lack understanding etc. etc.

Neither gender can prosper withought proper marriage.

Best
TV

Sagamite,

If the laws are moronic and women illogical (i.e. unpredictable and therefore untrustworthy – you’ve said that much at least), IMO marriage simply becomes a non-option.

I for one would never have married if I felt that to be the case for both these aspects (law/women).

I recall from another thread saying - for those men that want to marry - something along the lines of the following;

1. Prepare yourself
2. Find a woman who is equally prepared and shares (or jointly develop) your aspirations and vision for the union
3. Get married.

If you can’t trust someone (and how can you if you consider their behavior illogical and unpredictable) you can’t satisfy those three rules. Marriage ceases to be an option.

If you can, then you have the issue of the law (being an ass, or at least unbalanced - and to an extent I agree here). However, the law ceases to be in effect, when you inure your marriage from it and do not require recourse to it.

Marriage as a transaction can never work or it simply becomes something else entirely.

A man can always refuse to marry a woman who is not wealthier than him. And wealthier to the extent that a breakup means that he will not lose out in the “transaction”. It still misses the point though.

To do away with or re-engineer marriage because of the potential downside if it breaks up is ultimately a loss for society as a whole.

The key is a return to “proper marriage”. The courts did not institute marriage, neither can they fix it. The problem is in the first instance, peoples understanding, approach and expectations. Fix that and the issues, pertinently the divorce one will be exceptions.

I understand the historical unbalance that has left many women at the mercy of hostile men, but I don’t see the solution being for the imbalance to be swung the other way. Apart from the fact that the prevailing air of PC’ness and other lobbies will militate against it, I don’t even believe a legal fix is possible.

The legal thingy is not even my main point. Gender wars – by whatever means – will not benefit either side or society as a whole. My thrust is for men and women to be properly raised to understand and embrace the marriage union.

Taking one aspect – divorce – of marriages that fail and focusing on the unfairness of the legislation around that will not give us a solution.

All it will do it entrench a mindset of us against them, breed increasing hostility and take us further away from regaining the true essence of marriage

Believe me, I have seen the tragedy of acrimonious and messy divorces up close and the triggering issues are never the law. Even if divorce laws were perfect, is divorce end-game?


Best
TV

Sagamite:
Believe me, root the prenup on human rights and willingness to marry and she would be in a Nursing home before the courts can resolve it. You will take it as far as the human rights courts.

It is a transaction in the West. They have made it so legislatively.

Not protecting yourself by signing a prenup would not stop it from being a transaction. It would just mean you have put your life in the hands of another (from a sex known not to be logical) and leave yourself liable to be fcked up in the TRANSACTION!

And your potential problem list is frankly ridiculous.

What has prenup got to do with number of children had?

How does lack of prenup stop a child ending up with step-parents?

Don't say "if you can not find someone who would commit to a proper marriage". You will find.

But by now you should know most women themselves don't know what they will do tomorrow. They might tell you never but then ever do it. A wise friend once told me: Never believe what a woman says, believes what she does. I act more on body language and actions of a woman than her words. And don't call that misogynist. If you are observant enough you will see that is how women themselves deal with each other. They know!

You are going to marry some 25 year old and then think you know or she knows what she would do when she is 38 years old? Someone you dated for lets say 2 years.

Please, nigga. It seems you know nothing about women. You are a "real man". I am not.

My proper marriage aspiration is: she would marry me for me, we share when we are married and we stop sharing if it does not work out and live with what we contributed.

I am not marrying cretinous goats like Kutey who would say she is used to a lifestyle and I must fund it while her lazy arse contributes nothing.

Just a point. As much as we are discussing a point around the law being the problem and/or solutoin, you do realise that your arguement submits that women are the real - and irredeemable - problem here? In which case that kind of contradicts your "aspiration" in red. And with that attitude why bother? I certainly wouldn't advise it.

ayodele123:
[color=#990000]Quote from: ayodele123 on Yesterday at 05:21:57 PM

@TV01
   You want to know why the man must also submit to his wife?
   The man is the head while the woman is the neck. right?
The head cannot turn on its own without the neck turning just as the neck cannot turn without turning the head too

Not sure what your point is here? So let me give you opportunity to explain before I disagree.
Being the head denotes "authority", being the neck doesn't. One submits to authority. Authority resides with the husband. If they submit to one another, who yeilds in the case of an impasse? Who has authority?

The head/neck union also denotes the two being one. And the mutually complimentary nature of the relationship. It is not speaking to authority as such.

ayodele123:
The man who wants real peace in his life,home and marriage must not see himself as a God ordained dictator who must compel submission from his wife. If a man wants to enjoy his wife's submission, coming voluntarily from her, he must first of all know how to attend to his wife's details. Attending to his wife's details is to place her interests above his and that is what love is all about. What is love? Love is a self-sacrificing loyal concern for the welfare of the other. This means that the welfare of the other, the wife comes first.
The husband who sees himself as a dictator is the one who strives to enforce Ephesians 5:22 ahead of Ephesians 5:25.
Sounds strange? Get more from the signature below www.maritalsuccessresource.com
This is the reason why many women are not submitting and many marriages and husbands are groaning.
Every husband is his wife's first son because he sucked her bosoms first ahead of the children born n the marriage.

All you have detailed here is what the bible commands of husbands - Love and sacrifice. It doesn't ask him to submit to his wife. Your position is simply wrong. You are conflating two seperate notions.

Nobody has said the husband should be or is asked to be a dictator. Submission to authority is given, not forced. Submission and authority are intertwined. There can't be two authorities.

Lots of scripture, but non showing where a husband should submit to his wife.

Best
TV

Sagamite:
If you want to overcome all these challenges, come and meet me. I would develop a prenup contract that would beat them piece-easy and will be arguable in any court. It really is not rocket science.

Anything you can dream up can be overuled by the courts and somethings simply cannot be legislated for or resolved via legal means. This approach will simply exacerbate the gender conflict - already so apparent here - and cannot be the best environment to raise children. Society will suffer.

Plus making marriage a legal contract means it is no longer marriage, but a transaction. It does not and cannot restore the true essence of marriage. Can one even begin to enumerate the potential problems and sorry mess this will result in.

- What's to stop a seperate contract to have kids with other men?
- What if she can't deliver on the required number of children
- Presumably if she's not a wife in the traditional sense, she can be with whomsoever she chooses? Children potentially exposed to "all sorts"
- Did you know most child abuse typically occurs where one of the parents is not the birth parent?
- I could go on and on with the "what if?". And the answer isn't more legal clauses, it's a return to proper marriage

Sagamite:
What you want is completely irrelevant in the West. Marriage IS a transactional engagement. They have made it that way and you will have to be intellectually blind not to see it. They have destroyed marriage. IT IS BUSINESS and one should treat it like serious business. Don't live in Lululand. As I have said repeatedly: Fck her concept of romance.

What the individual or couple want in marriage is everything. If one cannot find someone who will commit to their "proper marriage" aspirations, don't marry. If they can and they both commit to it, the courts and legal rulings count for nothing. At this point - and who knows for sure how things will change? - the obtuse laws and destructive institutions around marriage only apply if you let them.

I'm not blind to it, merely refuse to buy into it.

I've already stated what I feel will be the problems with treating it as or replacing it with a transactional type arrangement. The true essence of marriage is still available if that's what we choose. I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "misogynist" comment, but the aggressive mindset it inculcates is clear and is not the basis for proper marriage.

My mantra continjues to be; get the right understanding, get the right person, then get married.

Best
TV

Marriage as a proposition has changed significantly in recent times. One of the downsides for the “wealthier party” – typically men – can be serious financial loss, possibly leading to severe hardship for all but the quite well off.

With the introduction of “no-fault” divorce and laws designed to “ensure the best interest of any children” – which invariably benefits the “primary carer”, a role for the most part presumptuously awarded to the mother – men are also in danger of losing out on a significant role in raising their children.

Many on this thread are looking at “Nups” as the solution, be that pre or post. And doubtless, with a little creativity, I’m sure we could well see nups evolve into a fully-fledged (and tradable?) financial instrument. The primary driver behind this approach being to limit the financial downside of divorce.

I beg to differ. And for a whole host of reasons;

1. Even if nups were perfectly legal and enforceable, they’d still have to be agreed by the parties. What woman in this day and age would not insist on minimum and potentially scaled (if Daddy hits pay dirt at any point) financial payments for “her kids”. Is anyone left in doubt as to the position the “law” will take on this?
2. It doesn’t speak to a potentially more costly issue – emotionally and financially – of access to the children
3. It doesn’t address or challenge the true motivation behind some of the weird political and legal maneuvering. In fact, it plays right into it’s hands per 1. above
4. An even greater reason – and without touching on 4. above - it doesn’t address root issues, such as the nature, benefits and understanding of marriage. Rebalancing and reclaiming it for the key, most basic and ultimately most important societal building block it is. The family.
5. Marriage is not a business transaction

Let me start form point 5. First. Many of the discussions here typically focus on rich (celeb) type situations, which to be honest are far from the typical “garden variety” divorce.

As has been rightly pointed out, how many – if any – of the discussants here are any better than comfortably well off? And even if you are, a messy and acrimonious divorce can make road-kill of even the most comfortable lifestyle. Not to mention the physical and emotional costs. Anyone reading will have heard of the “broken men” and the “estranged and wayward children”. Very real possibilities for your ordinary Joe in the event of divorce.

To treat marriage or any part of it “transactionally” is to divorce - excuse the pun - it from its true worth and meaning and strip it of much of it’s value.

In fact, it would be more honest to treat it as a “transaction” end-to-end, which to be honest is what a lot of people do anyway. Merely adding some spiritual and social content at the front-end, then using the courts to reap the profit at close.

Honest end-game here would be a situation (and if I recall there has been one, involving a rich celeb no less) where having kids and providing for their upkeep were based on a pre-agreed legal contract. Is that really what we want?


More later if time permits, but I welcome comment on the little I’ve posted.

Best
TV

Sagamite:
Can you refuse to divorce if the other person wants to?

Don't think so. Since the advent of "no-fault" divorce, you don't have to have a reason and there is no concept of a "faultee" so to speak. So whatever the cause, whoever the initiator, the rulings are pretty much the same. You all know how the story goes.

ayodele123:
The man too must submit to his wife

Sounds like a recipe for confusion to. But please enlighten us how this would work in practice. I'm sure some would be interested to know and it would advance the discussion.