₦airaland Forum

...prepare for yourself for nuclear "ist" missiles & best get a handkerchief for the saliva .


TV

DarkRebel101:
(N.B: I'm a Christian -- a fervent Roman Catholic Christian at that).

DarkRebel101:
I haven't had sex with my girlfriend for four weeks now. It's not that our libidos have taken a minor detour or that the flames of intimacy have begun to wane; it's just that we are preoccupied with work and our relationship transcends sex.

No, you are not a Catholic...

DarkRebel101:
There are no heads or tails in relationships, there are only equals. My belief anyway.
Bible-thumping enthusiasts are perennially on the qui vive to adduce a grab bag of scriptural verses to shore up their assertions that men are the head and women should submit unconditionally, but it never trips their analytic red flags that the Bible never fell like manna from Heaven, and was matter-of-factly written by flawed men, men like you and I , and in an era where male chauvinism was the norm in practice.
Let us not even talk about the individual cognitive biases that must have manifested in the writing of the Holy Book.

John 10:35 - (Jesus speaking) If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

You cannot be a Christian and call the Bible flawed. If you reject anything, from the 6 day creation, man created fully formed, the flood, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection, from beginning to end, the gospel fails, and your faith becomes pointless.

That makes you the slave, as you claim to follow a faith whose scriptures you call flawed, and whose saviour you reject. Not only are you the worst kind of slave, your internal logic is akin to that of a hamster on a wheel.

TV

^{…and the bolded shows you have almost certainly never been in a relationship come talk true…you are not even a boyfriend are you}

Pidgin2:
Those Jewish sons of a Priest decided to use the name of Jesus to deliver people as Paul was doing because it was working for him. Jesus honors his name by performing signs and wonders through those who are genuinely called.

I can't help if you refuse to accept the clear reading of scripture. One can perform signs and wonders and still not make heaven. Signs and wonders do not indicate right standing in and of themselves.

One can perform signs whilst being lawless. And one can be righteous and perform none; John 10:41 Then many came to Him and said, “John performed no sign, but all the things that John spoke about this Man were true.

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Pidgin2:
If you read the book of Acts, you will discover that you cannot use His name for miracles, signs, and wonders if you are not genuinely called.

Again, this is clearly repudiated by the scripture above. But to give it more depth;
2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
2 Thessalonians 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

1. Even if you are called and you live a lawless life (sin disobedience), you can still perform miracles
2. The Lord can answer and use someone who is none of His
3. The enemy and his agents can also present as angels of light and perform wonders
4. Believe the truth and not a lie, or delusion may await...

Pidgin2:
In the scriptures you quoted, those false preachers were deceiving people and claiming they were performing deliverance through him but He countered it, it was a lie and he called them evil doers. No one can genuinely perform miracles in His name without his consent and approval. You need to study the scriptures before trying to argue, learn first.

I believe I've answered this, you can accept, reject, or show otherwise

Pidgin2:
How can you say I don't know that there were any miracles when I have researched on this issue extensively? Even medical science recognized that they were authentic. God will not honor His name through someone who is not doing His will. If it was so, we would have all been performing signs, wonders and miracles too.

God can honour his name and choose to do His works through any vessel He chooses. He is after all God no

Isaiah 45:1 [ Cyrus, God’s Instrument ] “Thus says the Lord to His anointed, To Cyrus, whose right hand I have held— To subdue nations before him And loose the armor of kings, To open before him the double doors, So that the gates will not be shut:

Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”


TV

Pidgin2:
Yes, but it was due to the culture of the Jewish people. But despite this you had women like Deborah who was a prophetess a judge. The Samaritan woman who evangelize.

The Jewish culture certainly pre-figured and to a large degree fed into Christianity, but one does not need the Torah to full articulate Christian mores.

As I noted earlier in this convo, where men fail to take up the mantle, women will. Men and women have a great degree of overlap and similarity in what they are capable of doing, that does not change what scripturally they are called to do.

Scripturally, it's more about roles, offices and calling, than ability, gifts or talents. Evangelising or preaching is not the same as teaching or taking authority over adult mature men in the church or the home. Note the difference.

Pidgin2:
The daughters of Philips who prophesied In the new testament and warned Paul not make the journey he had intended, many women financed Jesus ministry and accompanied him as missionaries. Pricillia was a preacher, she preached with her husband Aquila (Romans 16) She even corrected the eloquent Apollos when she and her husband noticed that he made some errors while preaching. Good luck

Prophesying does not make you a prophet. How many times? Missionary work is evangelising, outreach to the unsaved. Please note distinctions. The Aquila/Priscilla and Apollos situation is only read as you've stated it by those trying to force the right. And to do so places scripture in contradiction with itself.

The point for this discussion - from a Christian perspective - was "are adult mature Christian women permitted to take authority over adult mature Christian men?

Any Christian that believes so should explain how. And if so, how does the instruction making men/husbands heads of homes remain valid. And of course I'm always up for real life examples of Christian homes were the wife is the head


TV

InformedLola:
Hey... was referring to the logic of the bible verse you quoted (which didn't specify the ban against female authority was only in the church and home), and not your own watery and lopsided translation of it.

And that's the only part of your tirade I will bother to dignify with a response.

The logic of the bible verse I quoted was for Christians in home and church. That was clear from my first post, and emphasised in my second. And, I made the point of it not applying to anyone outside those realms. I did not introduce religion into this conversation.

Neither your failure to read me or the bible correctly was actually that important. However, I will not let the false insinuation that Christianity and the Bible are responsible for the oppression of women to go unanswered - it's the exact opposite of the truth.

Other than that, I could perhaps have gone the extra mile. But we are all equals and all up for the game abi .


TV

Masikay:
It's late abeg, no time for arguments. Nothing I say would make you agree that women are equal to men and are not sinners if they find themselves in a superior position to men whether in the church or elsewhere. And nothing you say would make me think otherwise. So goodnight.

Who is arguing with you? You are being schooled . Who has said women are not equal to men . Scripturally, roles and offices are clearly defined. Choose to accept and follow or not, that's your choice. I merely state it like it is.


TV

DarkRebel101:
A woman has sinned if she preaches the gospel of Christ to men in a church setting?

LOL...stick to your day job, old man. You're only forcing yourself to sound smart, you make no sense.

Why don't you stick to filling out your concave chest and being alpha to your inflatable girlfriend . Who is your mate? Is the attention you get from the lonely women here going to your head?

I clearly stated "teach" and "adult mature men in a christian setting". Re-present yourself when your balls fully descend . Look all those likes from incontinent women - no doubt you'll be pleasuring yourself for days on the back of that .


TV

InformedLola:
And by this logic, female teachers and lecturers are sinners too abi. In fact add female entrepreneurs, managers, any female with male subordinates...

Firstly, I made it very clear that women in a Christian setting were not to have authority over men in the church or home. Emphasis on those of that faith in those 2 settings. For emphasis, I clarified here; https://www.nairaland.com/3476964/superior/3#51273132

So there is a question mark against your intelligence, even if it is only in your ability to follow a discussion, correctly comprehend and respond accordingly. And by my logic no, but by your illogicality, it seems anything may be possible.

InformedLola:
Men have been trying to suppress women since bible times.

Secondly, you stated the above. I could simply laugh you outta town, but I'll, as I always do, resort to objective verifiable facts and not the shouty, emotional and quite frankly inferior manner that many women tend to debate.

Attached is something I wrote a while back, note the 2nd paragraph. It's a good read from my broad and deep corpus on NL.

But I'll paraphrase here; 2'000 years ago it was Christianity that emancipated women. Not feminism, not gender ideology,not liberal progressive ideology or values.

At a time when women were little more than chattel in some cultures, the Apostle Paul commanded husbands to take just one wife and - it must simply have been unimaginable - love them.

Any country that has long-standing equal rights and parity for women is almost certainly one with a Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, feminism could only take off where there was already emancipation due to the gospel, but the nations where moving away from God.

So there you have it; you have proven yourself informed not, intelligent not, certainly ignorant,and in this instance at least, decidedly inferior.

You are not at parity here and have demonstrated nothing of noteworthy. Although you have served to show there are other - mostly women and trans-women at your level by their tingly validation of your post .

Please don't bother responding, because it won't be anything but more than pained and shouty emotion and/or unintelligible gibberish.


TV

Masikay:
Females can prophecy but they can't be prophets? Be clear. I'm actually a lot confused.

Doctrine apart, and even from an academic POV, should you even be discussing the scriptures

Does prophesying make someone a prophet? Do you know what the office of prophet entails? And even if it includes prophesy, does that make everyone that prophesies a prophet? Prophesy is a gift, Prophet is an office. Best start there, but please, you sound like you don't even have a grasp of the rudiments


TV

Pidgin2:
Acts 19:11-16, please read it. You cannot progress for long especially when delivering people from bandage without being disgraced by the devil if you are fake

So you reject the clear reading of scripture, the very words of the Lord about why prophesying, performing miracles and the like do not mean you are right with him, and point to idiocy by some "jewish boys" to overturn that point ?

If I try and dribble like Messi, does that make me a footballer, or a player with Barcelona

13 Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” 14 Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?” 16 Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.

Were they even believers in Jesus Christ. Exorcisms would have been done even before The Lord came.

Pidgin2:
God performed countless miracles through both women's ministries without such incidents as the above ever occurring. The same God that does not discriminate in iving His spirit to both genders, does not discriminate in manifesting the gifts of His spirit through them.

Firstly you don't know that there were any miracles. Secondly, you don't know that any miracles were of God, thirdly, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, that does not mean right standing. Exactly what point are you making? And contrary to what scripture clearly shows??


TV

Pidgin2:
But the founder of first square gospel church is a woman, was she a sinner? Also Katherine Kulhman led a ministry where men were under her, God used her to perform numerous miracles, why did He?

Starting churches or performing miracles are not noted as signs of Gods approval or evidence of a righteous Christian life. I'm not judging anyone, and not that we sometimes act in ignorance. I am merely stating what the bible clearly teaches.

Matthew 7: 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


TV

Masikay:
Someone who prophesies is referred to as a prophet. Or pastor or whatever. And you are saying female leaders are sinners. So what is a female, who was called by God to preach his gospel supposed to do?

Prophesying is not an office. Offices - in as much as they still exist, and that's a whole different discussion - are occupied by men. The office of pastor is reserved for men. Preaching the gospel is not the same as taking authority or teaching mature Christian men.

Failures on the part of men may mean a woman has to act, but that is not Gods perfect will, or else he would give his approval to single-motherhood .


TV

Masikay:
So what would a lady who has the gift of prophesy do? Prophecy to only females?

...is prophesy leading or taking authority over men?


TV

Masikay:
Oh.... Is your argument for male superiority restricted only to marriage and in the church? And you didn't answer the first question.

Authority, not superiority. Perhaps "seniority" would be better.

If a woman is senior to a man in their place of work or professionally, or has authority over him in those realms, no problem.


TV

Masikay:
So your bible quote is confusing me. Clarify something for me please, if a woman holds a higher position than a man, has this woman somehow commited a sin? Or lets say, a female leader in the church, has this woman commited a sin by preaching to men?

Yes she has.

The bible is clear, women are not to take authority over, or teach mature adult men in a church setting. And shouldn't at home either.


TV

pcguru1:
I am 100% far from married, am not even in a relationship. I just like reading on married people's news ,articles and experiences . curiosity i guess

Gird yourself


TV

pcguru1:
True all marriages becomes sexless at it's natural point and there's the extreme sexless marriage where one loses interest in it and doesn't care about the other party. i read alot of deadbedroom posts and i find it intriguing.

It absolutely happens and can be a very hard fix. But it's certainly fixable. I think the key is to get it right going in. Then it won't be as likely to happen, not be as bad if it does, and be more readily fixable.

Dude, may I ask, are you married?


TV

...hmmm. Where was I. Well I've grown up in those 3 years .

Rich and poor countries are not at absolute ends of the spectrum. I would imagine that most celebs in Nigeria earn and live a more comfortable life than I do. Although I think I barely make middle class. Lower middle class sef

Food is a good measure, but only one. In most countries I'd say housing was the koko. The following though;

well-off countries have a productive economy, a government that is responsive to the citizens, a capable bureaucracy, and the rule of law.

Without this, nothing else can really happen. No (not enough) security, no (critical mass), infrastructure, no (well functioning) institutions, no (readily & steadily available) utilities, no (quality) educational or healthcare delivery. No (thing).

I don't believe that mass importation of unskilled workers to developed nations will work. At least not in numbers that would make a meaningful difference.

First the indigenous poor/low skilled would hate it. It would disenfranchise them economically to a great degree. Not to mention possible social tumult. It's one of the reasons for the Trumprising.

It may actually work better to import lots of semi to highly skilled workers to developing nations. They would hopefully bring change and innovation. Not least because they would be used to, and demand good order and due process.

But would the entrenched corruption allow itself to be broken and give way? Maybe I'm too much of a pessimist regards the state of men .

Liked his 4 point thesis, but not his solutions. If those 4 could be tackled and al the no's become yesses. But to be honest, whatever level of development, if the people are righteous, they will prosper.

I see much of the prosperity of the West as due to legacy righteousness. I see decay and a falling away. I think many here feel it, but can't figure out why, hence things like Brexit and Trump. But these things will not save them either. It's just the flip side of the same coin.


TV

pcguru1:
Out of curiosity what of a sexless marriage.

pcguru1:
I get your point but that means either they hae some form of open relationship or they stay together with resentment then again some couples are asexual so it's no biggie. Was just curious to know people's breaking point in that regards.

..and simply fixing the sexlessness - unless it is by mutual consent - at the root is not an option? At some point - if they live long enough - all marriages become sexless no?


TV

oieda:
What I mean by that is, I do not want you to quote what your religion says. Because a lot of people just follow. What are you convinced about. If the views of the religion you adopt and your personal views are same, fine, but you never stated it - the view.

Can one who claims to follow a religion without being convinced of it's tenets be anything ore than a mere dilettante? To me, a faith this is not fully embraced in part or in whole should be discarded in whole. If you say you are and you don't believe, then you are not.

Marriage is for life, till death do part - and there is no divorce for a consummated marriage - or re-marriage while a first spouse is still alive.


TV

Bukatyne you won't greet me before you rain queries on my head

bukatyne:
It seems the OP is saying both:

Men are of more 'value/worth' and they have more responsibilities

I do not believe OP is and I certainly do not. However, best clarify with OP. Who by the way has agreed with my original rejoinder.

bukatyne:
Well, definition of 'oppression' is subjective... A man bringing in a 2nd wife 30yrs ago was being 'a man'; today, he will get all sort of names.... ditto a man beating his wife.

Cultures - not necessarily religion - supported polygyny for many reasons. High mortality, family labour, yes, even prestige, and even the libido differential between men and women. Even then, numbers alone (approx. 106 men to 100 women) meant that not all men could have many wives, and it was men at the lower end who would be the biggest losers, having no-one. Typically lower status, they would be doomed to live short-brutish, servile lives.

Beatings happened, but I don't know of a culture that upheld it as normal & desirable. I would imagine in most, it was actionable by the women.

bukatyne:
I agree that we can't evolve drastically without looking at the laid foundations.

And that is what Feminism and progressive liberal ideology seeks to do. The biggest two are the removal of biological reality and the casting off of moral restraint.

bukatyne:
Mantle of marriage or superiority aka higher responsibilities?

I only mentioned "higher responsibilities", which covers all nature of forms of male/female relationships. Do girlfriends customarily support their boyfriends financially .

bukatyne:
What is your definition of higher status?

In terms of achievements, accomplishment, being established, education, social level, and of course finances. Where money is not such a driver, other more cosmetic things may come into play.

bukatyne:
It depends on your definition of 'equality' and I am also wondering the usage of 'superior' here. If it doesn't mean 'more/better in worth', are you saying generally, women don't like men who have less responsibilities in marriage than them?

Yes. Yes I am. It's evidenced even here on NL. More than an unfaithful man, perhaps even more than an abusive man, women reserve the most opprobrium and anger for "irresponsible men" - not taking ownership & responsibility for the welfare of their families. Are you seriously saying you cannot see that?

bukatyne:
If yes, how does this tie in with the fact that wives are often told they build their homes and the responsibility of how the marriage is lies solely on them?

Building a home in that sense is more about giving your husband the support he needs to carry out his role. Not being un-submissive or antagonistic, or dragging headship. It's not about turning sole provider, or even major provider. I appreciate economic dynamics and some individual situation may change things, but a man should always be responsible in this regard. Whilst it should never be more than optional/situational for women.

bukatyne:
Examples of the 'masculine' traits you reference here? Examples?

Women typically go for dominant, leadership type traits. Evidence of ambition, drive and success. It's even noted physically in the typical desire for "taller men" like. Note conversely that for most men the main - and sometimes the only - driver - is physical attractiveness. Followed by femininity, nurture.

Many guys don't get why the girls are attracted to the loud, flashily dressed guys in their circles, when they know them to be lousy. But women are viscerally drawn by sight as well, just not so much to physical appearance, but appearance of status.

It's why women are always confused as to why their accomplishments don't impress men. Or deem them scared of successful women. Men typically are not checking for that. It's more of a selling point when things are hard or the man is impecunious to a degree. But all things being equal, highly accomplished but unattractive women, will always be behind beautiful and/or young women.

bukatyne:
When you define what you mean by status, we can further from there....

Probably discernible from what I've already posted in response

bukatyne:
And no two people can bear a burden equally and in the same way. Even a mother will not bear the burden of training 2 female children equally and in the same way.

This is about men and women. Their differentials, specialties, the overlap, but how they work best together on the whole, even if there are variations for individual couples.


TV

...by all means muse away. In a sense, that's what we all do up in here. BoboYekini chose red

The emphasis I believe is not on the genus of wood, but on the dryness. Men desire succulent fruit, not timber. And it wasn't a reprimand, or disapproval as such, but a cold, hard, naked (unemotional), piece of advice, based on male female, dynamics and the specifics the OP mentioned.

Muse, digress, ramble and modify all you like. It sure beats the mostly "canned" stuff that seems to prevail here.


TV

...a frontal assault that made my eyes water and a rear end that simply demanded serious time and exploration. Still dabbing my eyes and delighting in my exploration...discovered some things about character and disposition along the way ...I'm a man na wetin .


TV

With a few slight modifications – which are mostly semantic –I can’t say I see very much wrong with the OP.

I stand to be corrected, but I don’t see that OP is saying men are of more worth, or value than women, or even children. What is being said is that in bearing burdens and taking ownership, the greater responsibility and hence authority rests on men.

This history of mankind has not simply been one long uninterrupted timeline of “men oppressing women”, it has been an accord between them– even if imperfect – based with their complimentary differences in mind.

And if it evolves over time, it cannot do so beneficially, if we attempt to do so by ignoring, or trying to override as “constructs”, the hard wired and different, but complimentary natures.

This is clearly borne out by the dynamics of the interaction between the sexes. And first and foremost, and without gainsaying, women are the ones who most stridently push for, and would suffer most, if men despised this mantle.

Most especially in the interpersonal relationships (most notably marriage) between them. Women want men of higher status, men they can look up to and feel secure with.

The push for equality serves to masculinise women and feminise men. Women don’t want men who they don’t perceive as “superior” in status, either in a relative or absolute sense.

Women find it hard to respect – and hence maintain attraction for – men that they see as “equal” or slightly lower in status. Fact. Women don’t want the men that equality produces. Duh!

Likewise. Women taking on overly masculine traits is typically a turn-off for most men. Equality in the terms it is being presented is a lose, lose. Indeed, it’s a lose-lose-lose, as our children will also suffer, not just us.

Under the guise of "equality", most are seeking to wrest away the authority, without sharing the burden. Not that it would work for the best even if they did.

Any woman here that is with a man of equal or slightly inferior status to her should let us know. Along with those who bear the burden equally and in the same way with their men.


TV

ColinAdua:
Singleness is very sweet. I tell you. The feeling of freedom through unattachment alone is banging.

But you have to be open-minded enough to understand and accept that some people may feel exactly the same way about marriage and being attached. Man is after all, a creature made for pair-bonding.

ColinAdua:
I didn't start by denigrating married men. I was pushed into it by married men trying to besmirch singlehood to prove me wrong.

That excuse is shallow and hypocritical, as your whole point has been about people doing what they freely choose - regardless of societal dictates. And here you are, claiming you besmirched marriage and married men because you were made to do so? . You were not pushed into anything. Your very nature made you respond in that fashion.

ColinAdua:
So the Biblical reasons I have been giving you is not yet right enough for you.? Ha!

Denigrating marriage and married men is not biblical

ColinAdua:
Well then, but please don't get annoyed when someone wasn't impressed with your values.

Like I said; they didn't emanate from you, neither are they to impress, or oppress you.

ColinAdua:
Cheers!

Have a great day ahead. Regards


TV

jokepearl:
Taekwondo is barefoot also. (except maybe there is a special kind of sock).The only problem i see in the picture is concrete floor.

...the concrete floor was what I found problematic, not the barefeet


TV

oieda:
Please, what is your view on divorce?
This is irrespective of what you are taught in your religion.
What is your personal belief on divorce?
Put it down here or better still, take an online survey to record your view. . .
https:///forms/xP6HOyliwNUlXwUe2

How can one separate "personal belief" from sincerely held "religious belief"? For me they are one, so I'll pass.


TV

5minsmadness:
Because we copy everything oyibo people do without thinking. It makes us feel good that we are being counted 'among'the civilized.

Oh dear, guess I'm guilty as charged . Unless of course charcoal complexioned me counts as an oyinbo?

The boy get to much energy and can barely sit still. The weekly class is helping him focus and learn to be disciplined. I won't let him spar with these ogbologbo looking Naija Karetekas sha - see as dem dey train barefoot for concrete floor . Anyway he actually does Taekwondo.


TV

^{...@OP, "age appropriate", not "underage".}

ColinAdua:
Because I have a theme in life, HAPPINESS. I like to promote Happiness. Not make people sad. Moreover, I realized I was trampling upon the values you hold very dear. Even though were trampling mine. Okay! Let me add gold medal.


Actually that's what I believe because I keep asking myself; Why would someone be so weak to stay or go into an arrangement he is not enjoying just to please the society.? For the fear of being different, attacked, mocked, cajoled lots of men are going into marriage and calling it necessary evil. Is it not height of weakness? If something is evil be bold enough to stay clear. Whatever will happen let it happen.


For now its making me so happy. When the regrets comes we will know. If not for my aged parents, I would have been so free. Imagine the experience that am only responsible for myself only.

My message is always HE WHO WILL ACCEPT IT LET HIM ACCEPT IT .

There is no way I can glorify the sweetness of singleness without criticizing marriage. Even trauma can drive one to the best decision. The best decision I have ever made in life is to start business. It was necessitated by about 10years of fruitless job search.

Have you forgotten you sometime ago labeled them irresponsible men. What do you mean by being questionable?


Yeah! it does. To distinguish both sexes.

Well, thanks.

Colin, good morning to you sir.

Let everyone make their own scriptural permissible choices with understanding and acceptance of the consequences. If one knowingly chooses and accepts marriage fine, if singleness, then equally fine.

You do well to champion people choosing what's best for them and charting their own course in life once mature and of age, however,
there is no need to denigrate others for their choices.

I am yet to be convinced that you chose singleness for the right reasons. Having said that. It's your choice to make and we all bear the consequences of our choices.

You can't trample on my values, they did not emanate from you. Have a good day. Go in peace.

TV

ColinAdua:
Wow! Great! Sorry TV! My bad. Your children are wonderful and so sweet. Say Hello to them for me.

Glory to God. Wow! Such spirit filled kids, they the joy no wonder your life and happyness revolves around them. Are they releasing a debut soon? I will like to listen

Yeah! She is a beauty. Beauty in the eye of the beholder kind of thing. Did I say she is ugly ? I don't think so. Oh! sorry my bad, she is your damsel and a super model. Thumbs up for landing that trophy.

Why the about turn ? Don't develop a split personality on me. But no gainsaying, my family are fine - even if I say so myself . And don't think I missed that "trophy" comment

ColinAdua:
Okay o! thanks.
But is it wise for me to live this my one time life, in other people's values, virtue and stereotypes, sacrificing my own personal inner peace to please people?? Please answer me.

You are right about that. What is puzzling, and being challenged, is why you declare the choice of others as inferior. Or feel that people that knowingly embrace what you rejected are wrong? Or others as inferior for making their own choices that differ to yours?

If you reject it as not for you, fine. If you knowingly accept it as for you, fine. If you unknowingly accept it or reject it, and then regret, therein lies a problem.

ColinAdua:
No! Really how did I try to break your union? You uploaded a picture to entice me and I told you the first thing that came to my mind. Is it breaking your union? What will I gain if I break your union? Or am I the person that complained that your wife is dulling your reproductive rights? Will it buy me the Jaguar F-Pace if I break your union? Or will it help me grow my business or meet the targets of my foundation?

It has never occurred in my mind to break your union to prove that singleness is better than marriage. Please let's not take it too personal. This is just a thread meant to exchange opinions, believes and facts.

Read with comprehension. No one accused you of trying to break a union. I likened you to the divorcees who champion divorce up and down by advising others do likewise, so they, divorcees, increase in number, and it becomes normal.

You are denigrating marriage and married men. It would be better if you extolled the virtues of singleness and left marriage alone. Your denigrating marriage, married men, women, children and all the particulars, makes it sound like it's trauma that drove you to singleness and not the qualities of singleness in and of itself. Comprendé?

ColinAdua:
All wrong! No problem. But it makes me very happy and its not a SIN.

And I stand and testify the same for marriage. Which is the whole point and difference. I don;t denigrate single and/or celibates. Even if I feel their reasons for opting for singleness are questionable.

ColinAdua:
I am, cos ain't got a pxxxy down there.

Good day.

For a eunuch, does it actually matter

Have a good week ahead.


TV

Dking99:
...Hey I am in a fix right now. The summary of the very long story is this girl who lives with me an carrying my son now was somehow in my life by parental influence.We are living together but not wedded. I assisted her to gain admission and was a family friend but along the line, she surreptitiously endeared herself to my parents. It was obvoius to both of us that there was no love between us but our parets, I mean my Dad and her Mum really wanted us together. I broke up with a lovely friend just to please my dad and relief the subtle pressure from this girl. I went and paid her bride price before we ever had sex. During marriage course, it was clear that marriage built on pity and parental influence was bound to fail. We stopped meanwhile she was already pregnant for me... I made a mistake by trying to please people at the detriment of my happiness. Please how do I wriggle myself out of this situation?

"You are in a fix?" Why won't you be, when you are wussiness personified. A man playing victim? How tragic. You even manage to make "living with me and carrying my son", sound like something that happened whilst you were under general anaesthetic .

You used the word "surreptitious - one I like - but how does one surreptitiously make others endeared to them? What you are doing is shifting responsibility, and using euphemism to label her scheming and manipulative. She did this in conjunction with your parents right?

I wonder about the "lovely friend" you broke up with. She probably dodged a bullet. Hope she realises that. You were never truly committed to her. You brought her up to reinforce your own victim-hood, as opposed to express true remorse for breaking up with her. You weakling.

A man doesn't just "go with the flow", he takes charge and "changes the course", even if it's only of his own life. For crying out loud. And personal happiness that's all about you and your feelings is overrated, if not potentially destructive.. A man takes his place, does his duty, sacrificially if need be. That's what should be the source of his joy.

"Wriggle out". Such juvenile wording and immature thinking. You don't wiggle kan, kan. You face your responsibility - whatever you decide to do - to the unborn child and mother. Start by taking charge and putting others first.

I champion men, not mannequins. Masculinity not it's masquerades .


TV

anitank, hello. In all you have been well advised on this thread. I think it may help to expound a little.

The best piece of advise you received is to "cast your net further". I actually think it's one of a few core pieces your situation requires. You seemed to struggle to comprehend how to do so, with your comment about "juggling more than 2".

Simple, you cut them both loose. Yes, that's right, neither of them at this point meet your specifications for marriage. As such if you proceed with either, you are potentially storing up heartache for yourself.

It is likely to end in a union that is fragile and likely to break, or one in which you'll struggle to be happy, or have to live with the sense that you could have done better, but settled.

You shouldn't need to juggle. Queue potential suitors. What you should do, is set your high mark and spend initial interaction understanding if any potential suitor meets them. If they do not, "CTL" immediately.

Otherwise - and as you are doing now - you are bouncing between unsuitables, are getting used to a "lower quality" (by your own reckoning) man, may potentially marry wrong, and even if you don't commit, you are wasting time while a suitable may pass you by.

Now the second thing I'll touch on - being in a sense more important and a precursor - is you. Yes you. In a way, and putting this as politely as I can, you are not ready to marry. Desirous yes, ready, no.

You need to develop a real understanding of what marriage entails, the core qualities desirable in a spouse, those things that are "nice to haves", things to be overlooked, or considered irrelevant.

It's quite clear you are not there yet. Consider the young man. Do you know that the realisation of the burdens and expectations or marriage can even make a man who is mature and capable panic when they face them starkly?

In fact, cutting him loose, will more likely make him consider his commitment and if he wants to make that step up. If he doesn't, it's better you find out now, then push things to marriage and find out after the fact. This is also why you need to step up, so that you can clearly articulate those expectations to him now, not when it's a done deal.

A man who behaves immaturely and acts like a juvenile (extensive video gaming and social media, when it's not for a living) may well step up when it hits him, but the opposite is much more likely. Beware.

If I were forced to choose (and note my opening), I'd go for the older guy. But you are at present somewhat unappreciative of the qualities he brings. That could lead to discontent and a feeling you could have done better.

Again it's telling that you claim to be attracted to someone who is immature, yet you simultaneously call him nice? Mature attraction is based on quality of character, not "niceness" of person. And one cannot be immature and nice in any meaningful way in a marriage relationship. Unless you are basing that niceness on the "nice to haves" I mentioned.

So to sum;

1. First and forenost, work on yourself - grow up, learn to seek out, appreciate and love the qualities required for the long haul. Not easy, but so beneficial. An almost entire change of mindset may be required. Evolve what you are after, but set a very high mark. Don't doubt yourself or consider settling for anyone not "ball park"

2. Cast your net wider - meet as many as possible, cut to the chase in discerning if they are right for you without coming across as desperate. You can juggle a number if you are merely meeting and acquainting. Ergo, don't throw yourself into relationships head first. That confuses and serves only to tie you down. Tread softly and CTL as soon as you realise there is a deal-braker, or he does not meet your lower (but high ) threshold.

All the very best.


TV