₦airaland Forum

ColinAdua:
My brother please don't console yourself with your own failures by pushing it to me. You posted your kids PICTURES not their school results cos you wants to feed your over blown EGO that your ordinary looking kids will entice me to go and carry bondage.

Oga you only posted their pictures to entice me. And it didn't work. This wailing will get you nowhere. Moreover, that they are plain doesn't mean they are not wonderfully and fearfully made. They are but its only if you are bringing them up in the fear of the Lord.

Awww! Sorry! All this venom because I told you the bitter truth about your kids. You have passed that level now bros. Thank you so much for saying am better than the godless. That little is even so great for me. God will complete the rest by His mercy in Christ Jesus.

Please don't be bitter we are just having some small intellectual challenge. Don't take it too personal na.

You are the person that first mentioned Iphone. I never said anything about IPhone on this thread before you do talk less of assigning holiness and sanctification to them.

Choice can still be superiority. Blessing can be materiality, selfishness still brings happiness ask Nigerian politicians. Opinion can still be fact. It all depends an individual preference. My preference is SINGLENESS no matter what you like called it. Thank you.

Aaaaah! Noooo! This your bride with this large mouth, she might swallow me. I don't want to end up like Jonah.

YOUR HOUSE IS 51 TIMES BETTER THAN YOUR WIFE.

Cheers

My daughter is in Nursery. My son started school in September. Having said that, he is one of only 2, if not the only one, that can properly read and write in his class. And he is sent to the year above for literacy class as a result of how advanced he is. Mapped against his development, my daughter is slightly ahead at this point. Not bragging, just the facts.

And by the way, they both love of gospel music like wetin happen. Come and see; the ones indeed in whom the Spirit of God is. Genesis 41:38 . I am obviously proud, but all glory...

You see beauty in HD - plus she is so humble - and you are foaming . If my wife is ugly and my kids plain, does that prevent you marrying a stunner and having beautiful kids of your own? We can even find you one oyinbo, so that you can have the"mulatto" kids that "move" you

A man tells you he is blessed in his marriage and happy with his family, and you are busy parsing his situation through your jaundiced perspective and lens of bitterness - all to convince yourself, your selfish, cowardly decision is the right one.

I said, you are like some of our resident divorcees - they try and get as many as possible to break their own, or the unions of others, to make it seem good and normal.

And singleness is good and beneficial for the minority that opt for it for the right reasons - yours are all wrong, and your efforts to justify it by misapplying scripture, or by rubbishing marriage and married men is lame.

In my best Chinese accent - "be a man" .

Pix loading


TV

LordReed:
OMG! You guys look smashing, nice one bruv.

As much as it pains me to accept but the truth is we've been casting pearls before pigs. All of this is wasted on this ungracious fellow. I will continue to have my fun though and not take him seriously at all.

Graciás - God is good.

Leave Colin. As in; self aarrogated singleness to pursue material things is better than marriage. How shallow, how misguided. Paraphrasing Apostle Paul "Colin has zeal, but not according to knowledge". Somebody needs to deliver this brother from himself. At least the ladies are safe for now .


TV

^{...shaybebaby, why are you creeping around. And creeping me out . Show yourself. How is little man? Trauma don pass?}

ColinAdua:
One picture would have been enough. But spamming the thread with the pictures of your ordinary looking children made me a bit ashamed.

If she is UGLY I will laugh at you.

I told you its childishness posting my face here. A real man has value and ethics. Somethings are better kept secret. Am too old to succumb to cheap emotional black mail.

Why are you decieving yourself na
You judge my children based on your subjective appraisal of their looks - yet you are happy to proclaim that values and ethics are the real measure of a person, and wanting us to judge you based on those - even if self-proclaimed. like I said, Joker ni e

ColinAdua:
You writes dictionary? Its just an indirect way of politely telling you that your kids are just ordinary and that there are poor kids here that are by far hotter and more beautiful than them(the begging Arab kids). So they ain't got no hold on me. I seeked deliverance yesterday night. .

Again, your arbitrary and subjective - and almost certainly bitterness tainted - appraisal of my children based on "looks". I know they are fearfully and wonderfully made. destined for great things. And beautiful all around .

ColinAdua:
Its a choice. I just don't want to, cos it will not give me inner happiness. SIMPLE.

You come across as little better than the godless I contend with on this forum. Happiness is something one gives, not that one demands. I take back what I said about you being a father - and husband self. Your category is "selfishly-single with a side of bitterness" .

ColinAdua:
Yes! I don't have Iphone cos I don't love it. There are more better, more beautiful and more technical Android devices like XIAOMI MI MIX.

And these are holy and sanctified no ?

ColinAdua:
God is great, awesome and marvelous but that still did change the fact that your children are just plain.

As you confuse choice with superiority, and blessings with materillity, selfishness with happiness, so you misunderstand the difference between opinion and fact. Sorry eh .


TV
^{...my bride, my pride...it's not too late for you Colin...you are just 38'ish}

ColinAdua:
Well, if your kids are not being exposed, why remove their pictures? Why not fill this thread with their pictures then for all I care?

Personally, I need their pictures to actually believe they exist and to see if they are fine. That's all.

Do you ever cease to contradict yourself - you claim to need evidence that they exist, then when I post it you claim I am exposing them. Joker . Wifey pix loading

ColinAdua:
Oh! You think their pictures is peppering me? I have tried to be polite and indirect but let me tell you the honest truth about what I feel point blank since you pushed it.

YOUR CHILDREN ARE NOT FINE. ESPECIALLY THE GIRL.

You also are someones "genetic expression" - lets see how fine you are
One of the things you may never truly experience is the wonder of beauty unfolding in a child. Both my children were born and are being raised in a godly home by parents who love one another. They can't but be beautiful. After being Spirit filled, gifted and blessed.

ColinAdua:
I felt uncomfortable with them like someone spreading his dirty undies in the street, because they are not fine. I have seen children here that dusts them 10 times, even mulattos and they didn't move me.

Not that I personally care, but no one uses the term "mulatto" any more. Do you have an obsession or complex about mixed ethnicity children - to go with the one you have about women . Sounds like a syndrome to me. Seek deliverence .

ColinAdua:
Oga! I love kids. I love their innocence and personal happiness, but they don't move me cos they can't make me act irrational and I don't loose self-control when I see them and I have decided I won't have them.

Very few people truly love kids - most love their own kids. You may never truly appreciate this. And as you have self-control, you'll make a good father

ColinAdua:
See, most of the parents that complain don't even know much about me. They are mostly people I just meet. The ones that knows me that complains does it to make me realise that marriage and children is burdensome so I can prepare well before I enter, not knowing I can't even enter.

And you don't have the strength, love or fortitude to bear burdens do you? We don hear

ColinAdua:
There is no godly and sanctified blessing in spouse and children. THEY ARE FOR WEAK MEN!

Meanwhile, wife and children are still WORLDY MATERIAL THINGS.

Proverbs 18:22 He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives ...
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified ...
Malachi 2:15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit ...
1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctificat...

ColinAdua:
I don't even like IPhone cos you can't get the best from it until you jail break. I have never told you I like IPhone.

Note: Its the highest height of childishness and immaturity for me to even post my face here on this thread talk less of posting my possessions. I don't blow my horn I have passed that little boys level.

Sweet dreams.

Can't post what we don't have can we? Especially is it's what one loves

TV

^{...before and after pictures of my son, my daughter is 2ce as fine. It's what God sees and does Colin, not your korokoro eyes}

youngice:
I love it when people make use of their brains for subjective analysis

A 16 years aged bottle of regal chivas scotch for you

Graciás sir. However I am teetotal. A freshly sueezed juice will suffice. On the rocks of course


TV

LightandDarkness:
The notion that marriage is generally a union between a male and female is inaccurate from the legal and social perspective. Socially, the meaning of marriage varies across cultures however "it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged".

I laugh,you write as if the formalising of same-sex relationships - by redefining marriage - is not a recent novation. Through time and across cultures, marriage has always been the union of a male and female. And it's bare-faced deceit to claim that marriage is merely to acknowledge interpersonal sexual relationships. 1.Please explain why society needs to formally recognise and accord "sexual relationships benefits/protections?

LightandDarkness:
Historically, unions between people of the same sex have always existed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions. Legally, the definition of what constitutes a marriage differs depending on where you are. In UK and Canada a union between people of the same sex is infact a legally recognized marriage, that is not the case in Nigeria.

Stop using nebulous and/or misleading statements. No one claimed same-sex relationships have not been extant for ages. Just that they have never been recognised as marriage - even where they have existed alongside marriage. There have been the odd anomalies or attempts, but it has never been instituted by societal demand or sustained over time. Only re-inforcing the real definition, nature and purpose of marriage - a male and female union.

LightandDarkness:
Again inaccurate, actual sexual activity between animals of the same gender have been documented so its not "normal bachelor behaviours" being misinterpreted (btw are you saying its normal for bachelors of the same gender to have sex with each other lol). In some species even when given the chance to mate with a female the animal chooses a male so it has nothing to do with extreme conditions. Just do some reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals. And also the "laws of nature" don't always apply in every scenario, if science has shown us anything its that the natural world isn't always predictable.

Animals have many behaviours inter-alia killing partners after mating, infanticide, cannibalism. Are these all pointers for humans ? If a dysfuntion occurs across species, does that make it any less a dysfuntion? Or something to be normalised since it is commonly present?

Did you actually read the link you posted?

Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.

The term homosexual was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behavior in humans. Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans. Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. When describing animals, the term homosexual is preferred over gay, lesbian, and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to human homosexuality.

Categorising people - or animals - as "homosexual" is at best an error and typically a contrived narrative to legitimise what is nothing more than dysfuntional behaviour. Trying to apply it to animals is even more deceitful, as your link shows, the motivations and impluses are barely unsderstood. Again, point me to the gay buffalo sweathouse, or the same-sex hyena practice of hoofing. No one and nothing is "homosexual".

LightandDarkness:
On average children do better living with two biological married parents however thats an argument against single parenting, even then i still insist that parenting style has a much greater effect on how a child turns out than simply having 2 parents. There is no clear trend suggesting that children raised by homosexual couples do worse than children raised by heterosexual couples.

Yes, it is an argument against single-parenting, but it is even more of an argument for opposite sex parenting - which you try to disguise by referring to "2 parents". So tell us, would 3 parents not be better? And what of 4...ad-infinitum?

Males and females bring unique input by way of strengths, skills, stimuli, response, instincts and a host of other things to raising children. And not least their asymmetric complimentartty

LightandDarkness:
"It's dysfunctional and disease inducing at best, and should not be normalised as equivalent to opposite sex unions, or of public benefit, or worthy of being formalised." Dysfunctional in what way? to children? (if so see above), disease-inducing in what way?

You really need me to spell out the anatomical and psychological pathologies of "homosexual" activity? From the gay bowel syndrome, to heightened domestic violence, to the inability to commit long-term, to increased use of drugs and alcohol, to suicidal ideation etc. etc.

LightandDarkness:
"Sex is not simply sex. And only opposite sex couples can have conjugal, that is, sex of a generative nature. What "gays" do is at best masturbatory." So unless you're having sex to produce children the sex is at best "masturbatory" and at worst? Note that even with opposite sex couples sex isnt always "generative" or aimed at producing children.

You can term whatever activity you wish as "sex". Conjugal sex, coital sex, generative sex is the preserve of opposite sex couples. "Homosexual" masturbation - which is all it can ever be - does not lead to the same outcomes, and demands no warrant for formalisation.

LightandDarkness:
"Marriage simply put is the union of a man and a woman. It's reason is that children would be born with both biological parents in situ, which gives them the best chance of developing into well-adjusted adults at least cost to society and risk to themselves. Bad examples and outliers apart.""As noted, marriage is not to force child-bearing, it's because children are a very possible outcome of a male/female union. Not always, but possible and likely. For same sex couples, it is always an impossibility."

This might be your cultural/religious definition of marriage but as i've pointed out this is not always the case.
Again that is not the primary reason for marriage (see above), many married couples choose not to have kids, many people raise kids with a partner without marrying them and so on. This idea that the social construct of marriage (which is what it is) was created to raise children is very false, there are several reasons for marriage and it isnt a prerequisite for reproduction.

I never said the primary reason for marriage is procreation. The primary reason for marriage - as I noted - is for the optimal circumstances to be in situ should a child appear. Hence, marriage is the union of a male and female - by definition.

Child-bearing is neither forced, nor mandated. Neither does childlessness - by choice or circumstance - change anything. The definition does not include that requirement, but that's what the purpose is. And that is what has served so well for millenia.

"There is no such "right". And it does impose it on all. People are being forced to acknowledge, participate and celebrate such unions regardless of beliefs or conscience. It is being forced into policy, legislation and even into school curricula."

LightandDarkness:
"Sexual orientation and gender identity rights relate to the expression of sexual orientation and gender identity based on the right to respect for private life and the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of "other status" as defined in various human rights conventions, such as article 17 and 26 in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 8 and article 14 in the European Convention on Human Rights."

There is no such thing as a "sexual orientation". It is a practice. Even if it is a preference, it does not demand that other people see it as morsl, healthy, or participate in it's expression. Neither does it have rights to demand we re-engineer society to accommodate it.

Sexuality is a function and some people express theirs dysfunctionally. Wrap whatever narrative you like around that, and formulate as many scientific sounding labels and expressions as you can muster. it doesn't change a thing. 2.Why did you not explain or define the terms orientation or gender? Rather taking them as read?

LightandDarkness:
You dont have to participate or celebrate or even approve, infact you can publicly express your dislike for homosexuals (those are your rights) BUT you have to respect their rights and freedoms as well. Human rights are human rights because they apply to all humans, not one rule for some and a different rule for others.

3. What rights have we ever had for humans that have not applied to those who identify as "homosexuals"?
4. What is it that distinguishes those that identify as "homosexuals" from other humans?

LightandDarkness:
"If love is just love, why is any other type of love wrong. Why can some children not desire sex with adults/ Why are perverts pushing for lower ages of consent and claiming benefits of "inter-generational sex". Yes, it's a slippery slope."

It's clearly not a slippery slope, you are regurgitating an argument i've already addressed.

It's a slippery slope and a discriminatory narrarive. If same sex love is the same and to be treated as opposite sex love, why are other kinds of love not afforded their own set of rights. Why not bestiality, why not paedophilia, why not polyamoury

LightandDarkness:
Use your free time to read more

LightandDarkness

Use yours to understand instead of merely stockpiling ideological narratives - mostly darkness thus far

Respond as you choose, if you choose too, but precisely answering the 4 questions in bold may help cut to the chase.


TV

LightandDarkness:
The purpose of marriage is NOT to produce children, that is the purpose of reproduction. Last I checked you do not need to be married to reproduce and not every married couple desires to have children. Furthermore people dont get married to "complement their biological, physiological and psychological differences" you marry someone because you love them. And this idea that love only exists between same sex is also inaccurate evidenced by the fact that same-sex couples do infact love each other....

False narrative. Marriage was not instituted to formalise "love", whatever the sex of the couple involved. No one has claimed that two people of the same sex cannot love one another (without objectively defining love, or being overly spiritual), but that love, or, a relationship predicated on that love can never be marriage. Marriage is the formal union between a man and a woman.

LightandDarkness:
The definition of natural means it occurs in nature. There are 1500 animal species that exhibit homosexual behaviour, therefore how can you say homosexuality is infact unnatural. Even if you said unnatural means rarely occurs in nature, a lot of traits and behaviours are also rare, it doesnt mean they are inherently wrong. Furthermore nature rarely follows "laws", nature is radom and unpredictable.

"Homosexual behaviour - as you almost rightly term it - does not exist in brute beasts. Nature is not random, or unpredictable. Animals are driven by instinct. And, these cases evidenced as examples of "homosexual behaviour" in animals do not stand scrutiny. They are usually wrongly interpreted normal bachelor behaviours, or due to extreme circumstances or conditions - almost like men turning "gay" in jail. Please show us this buffalo gay bar you spotted on the veldt

LightandDarkness:
There are many single parents who do a great job of raising their children and there are many who do a bad job. The same can be said of children with two parents in their lives. The absence of a father/mother or the presence of two male/female parental figures does not affect how a child turns out as much as the parenting style(s) of the parents in question.

The data - over thousands of years is in and without gainsaying. A child does best with both biological parents in situ. Men and women bring different and unique value to child-rearing. Individual good luck stories, against the odds examples, or outliers do nothing to change this fact.

LightandDarkness:
"Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality." Why would it weaken public morality and basic moral values. So far you havent reeally given a concrete reason why homosexuality is immoral.

It's dysfunctional and disease inducing at best. It affords society no intrinsic benefits, rather it is deletrious, and should not be normalised as equivalent to opposite sex unions, or of public benefit, or worthy of being formalised.

LightandDarkness:
Again no good reason why its morally wrong. "Nature" has no "requirements" for marriage. I've already pointed out how some species exhibit homosexuality behaviour and I will also mention that not all animals mate with with one partner (opposite or same sex partner. What is this biological impossibility? Sex isnt just to procreate; it's also for pleasure and a way to show your partner you care for them. Homosexual couples might not have sex the way heterosexual couples do but sex is sex?. It is a civil right for two consenting adults to be able to have a legally recognised union.

Sex is not simply sex. And only opposite sex couples can have conjugal, that is, sex of a generative nature. What "gays" do is at best masturbatory.

LightandDarkness:
Again the purpose of marriage is not the purpose of reproduction and not every marriage is aimed at having children and not every couple is capable too. The last 2 produce what is a "sterile union" but why is it wrong?, should such couples have their marriage invalidated?.Even if same-sex couples us medical technology to have children why is that wrong? as i've said many same-sex couples do the same. If same-sex couples adopt wouldnt that be a good thing? there are many children produce who have been abandoned and have no homes, if a same-sex union provides them with a good life nothing wrong there.

Marriage simply put is the union of a man and a woman. It's reason is that children would be born with both biological parents in situ, which gives them the best chance of developing into well-adjusted adults at least cost to society and risk to themselves. Bad examples and outliers apart.

LightandDarkness:
"Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage." it's like you keep repeating the same points over and over again. I'm sure everyone gets married primarily for their own happiness. If the main purpose of states recognising marriages was to provide an atmosphere for the upbringing of children then every married couple would be mandated to have children and single parenting would be illegal; I am unaware of anywhere in the world where this is the case.

As noted, marriage is not to force child-bearing, it's because children are a very possible outcome of a male/female union. Not always, but possible and likely. For same sex couples, it is always an impossibility. These relationships do not meet the definition of, or criteria for marriage.

LightandDarkness:
No is forcing you to approve, you are being asked to recognise the human rights of same-sex couples.

There is no such "right". And it does impose it on all. People are being forced to acknowledge, participate and celebrate such unions regardless of beliefs or conscience. It is being forced into policy, legislation and even into school curricula.

LightandDarkness:
This argument about homosexuality leading to acceptance of incest, pedophilia and bestiality is old. One could argue that incest is wrong because it can produce offspring with harmful mutations, even if no children comes from incestuous relationships it could also be argued that it perverts the bond that exists between siblings and parents. Pedophilia is wrong because the sexual activity occurs between an adult who takes advantage of a child who isnt mentally/emotianally/physically mature, and pedophiles who purchase materials depicting pedophilia fund individuals who exploit children for money, essentially sexual slavery of children. As for bestiality, are you comparing the quality of relationships between two humans to the relationship between a human and an animal? :/ this one is generally just weak.

If love is just love, why is any other type of love wrong. Why can some children not desire sex with adults? Why are perverts pushing for lower ages of consent and claiming benefits of "inter-generational sex". Yes, it's a slippery slope.

Use your free time wisely

TV

ColinAdua:
Sorry! Am not concerned. I just imagined that if they are mine kids, I will feel a little uncomfortable with the over exposure. Kinda like unpacking my box on national TV.

Any concern is sorely misplaced as noted. My kids are not being "exposed" to anything, I am merely showing you" their pictures" as you requested. E dey pepper you eh ?

ColinAdua:
Wood? No! I live in a termite infested area. Termites here are out for vengeance seems like they bear chisels, saws on their teeth. You keep fumigating, no way.

I'm sure there are treatments, other than that there are "faux" woods and laminates that present the same look. Anyway, we have wood - downstairs - 'cos it's the best for messy kids. Carpet upstairs.

ColinAdua:
Dont bother! I love kids but they don't move me. Cos I have seen and advised lots of parents here who seem tired of too much disturbance from their kids.

Don't struggle to contradict yourself. What you love does not move you? Please explain your passion for material things then. Is that different to love. And I needn't remind you of the Lords words about little ones - He loved them and was moved by them .

ColinAdua:
I always tell them: if they don't disturb you, is it me they should disturb? When you were conceiving them and licking lips, didn't you know they will disturb you? My friend get up and face what you ordered!

Typically when parents "complain", it's "faux" complaining and storytelling. It's more about not being able to talk about anything else. And probably in your case not to make you feel bad about not having your own family. They were being compassionate - even if wrongly so .

ColinAdua:
I don't want to understand. I want to understand JEHOVAH GOD, MONEY, HOUSES, CARS, DESIGNERS CLOTHS, SMART DEVICES AND SINGLEHOOD!

All that and a wife and children to

ColinAdua:
I pity you people.

Absolutely no reason to. On the contrary, one would wonder why anyone would forego the godly and sanctified blessing of a spouse and children - especially so they could pursue material things like iPhone

Wife pix loading


TV

^{...fell free to post pictures of your motorcars, landed properties, mobile devices, goods and possessions etc.}

ColinAdua:
Sincerely speaking, NO MATTER, what we wants to prove, I believe its WISDOM to protect Innocent children and our private lives by shielding them from unnecessary public exposure and scrutiny.

I think a word is enough for the wise.

I like that your floor. Is it wood or tile? Can I get it here in Nigeria?

Good day.

Their lives are in His hands - but thanks for your concern
I'm not sure what's obtainable, but I'm sure if one has the means, it can be shipped in. Having said that na ordinary wood.

ColinAdua:
Haha! I don dey start. You want more kids, madam says no! Does that make you comfortable and happy? No!
But that's marriage for you. Let me hold it there for now.
In as much as I enjoy those pics, they didn't move me a bit. Cos I see them as a bunch of trouble.
Moreover, I have seen more beautiful kids even Mulattos. In fact, one of my cousins is a mulatto.
Meanwhile, exposing minors on social media wantonly doesn't seem like a wise decision to me.
Sweet dreams!

I would love more kids. In fact, the kind of numbers I have in mind would demand polygamy . But I am grateful and content with what God has blessed me with.

I can show you mixed race kids among my own family if you like. And as for beauty or any other characteristics, these ones are mine and that trumps all. But you wouldn't understand really would you .


TV

LordReed:
Men! I can't wait for my boys to show. Such cuties TV, madam and yourself are doing an awesome job. Gonna update with some pix later.

Thank you. May God grant the righteous desire of your heart. I was made up when TVjnr came along. I told wifey I would like 4 more just like him. Then my official "side chic" arrived, and now I can't imagine not having a daughter - my daughter.

Wifey says we are done - see how she just dey dull my fertility ? Full reproductive rights for men - and indeed we are blessed. There was a time I wasn't sure a wife and kids were in the future for me. Thank God.

Colinadua, you can leave now .


TV

ColinAdua:
I prefer the so called wife in form of HOUSES.

When I saw the picture of your kids, truthfully, what came to my mind immediately was;

"Na a, not me and you, these ones will turn the bedroom and sitting room upside down and inside out within seconds.

And these ones can wake up around 2:00am to ask for tea and bread or noodles".

That's too bad cos I love a very organized quiet place and the easiest way to make me hate you is to disturb my sleep.

Am a chronic introvert, a technician, I read a lot and write often. A light sleeper and sleep late.

So I naturally love a cool calm quiet serene environment.

That's why I live in a rural area even with all the mockeries, ridicule and scorn, but I refused to re-locate to a noisy city.

I love quiet solitary serene environment so much that I have decided to sacrifice having children(I love children) to treasure my cool calm alone time.

Even now that am typing this, that's where am relaxing, enjoying cool evening breeze under the moonlight.

Having a wife does not preclude having a house - and vice-versa. Indeed, having one means you'll most likely get or need the other . As for kids, yes, it is hard work, but it's a joy. Sure it's costly, but it's a blessing beyond measure.

Reedy, I think this has been thoroughly parsed. Na to spam with pictures remain .


TV

...all quiet on the western front .

The US elections – why Alpha matters.

There were of course many factors that influenced the outcome of the recent elections. Not least because of the varied demographics and special interest groups at play. Like everyone, I have my own opinions as to what led to he outcome


Here, I’d like to look at what I think was a factor that worked well for DT. A factor that was a hallmark of his campaign, rippled through the demographics, worked for him in his constituencies, and against his opponents in theirs.

Alpha! We often talk of alpha on this board and this thread, even if only indirectly. However, we’ve never really defined it or attempted to measure or qualify it.

Often, it’s probably considered as a “you are or you aren’t proposition. To me that works sometimes, but I find it more helpful to think of it in terms of behaviours. One can be Alpha in some ways or situations and perhaps not as much so in others. And one can work on traits to be more so where required, and most of all deploy correctly and appropriately.

We’ll see where this leads – and hopefully it will be about men and alpha generally, DT and the US election no more than a backdrop – but I’ll kick off with 1 aspect, “alpha in speech and presentation”.

If anything, DT demonstrated this right from the off. In the republican party primaries, he outmanoeuvred his opponents by being unstintingly outspoken. Eschewing political correctness, which just made the others look like betas. Speak your mind and express yourself confidently and clearly. Pandering in pc speech codes is not becoming or attractive in men.

DT was not scared to take their best shots and fire back, often taking the offensive. Being more direct and using more forceful language . Be proactive and go for the jugular in war. Strike first and take no prisoners.

Eliminate the competition quickly and effectively. Seriously or mortally wounding them (DT did this in part by caricaturing) is also effective. Here again, the other candidates were hampered by trying to work with speech codes and appear PC – feminised men.

He remained largely unapologetic (key for me), even where he was in error. Rather, and if he did 'fess up, he would put his hands up and talk about he had improved, changed or could have done better. Speak on your own terms, accept wrong, but don’t kow-tow to others, especially opponents. If you do so, they’ll see it as a sign of weakness. Mea culpa doesn’t have to hurt you, and can be presented in a positive manner.

And it’s worth noting that I don’t think DT can be considered oratorically gifted or a wordsmith by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I feel he is often limited vocabulary-wise, or struggles for the right words.

But alpha helped him here. It was plain, unapologetic, big ticket speaking – “I’m strong, and I’ll make America great again”, with the sub-text “forget my puny and crooked opponents”. TBH I’m not even sure if he can, wants too, or cares about delivering.

I’d like us to touch on some other issues I felt pertinent, but too kick off, “being alpha in speech and presenting”, what does it mean, how can you use it effectively in different aspects?


TV

^{Note I endorsed neither candidate, neither am I bi-partisan or even political in a sense.}

ColinAdua:
Thank God for being with you. I have my blanket and bedsheet for warmth.

Fortunately, "more focused pursuit of God" is not the only Biblical accepted excuses to remain single.

God still made provision for people like us who are single because they don't want unnecessary trouble.

Oh! you think marriage, wife and kids are not material things? Because when you die they put them in the grave with you? Or you take them with you to heaven?

Yes! it may prefigure somethings divine but it is not available for the saints to inherit in eternity neither do God provide them in HIS Kingdom but your so called material things(houses and cars) are provided in eternity for the triumphant saints to enjoy. Meaning they are important to God too.

I enjoy my things best, ALONE! After all, when I was suffering and hustling, how which wife helped me? mtchewwwww!!!

I REJECT THAT YOUR TRANSITION BY FIRE BY FORCE IN JESUS NAME! AMEN.

Am not fine, but am crazy about myself the way I AM.

THIS IS THE BABY I DREAM ABOUT!!!!

Morning Colin,

No marriage in heaven is agreed. However, by Gods grace I expect my family to be in heaven with me - all of us as Children of God with our own heavenly cribs.

As for cars, I'm thinking our spiritual/heavenly bodies will make cars unnecessary. Our physical abilities will be akin to those of angels no? I understand there are zero emissions in heaven

Jaguar F-Pace. Not bad. Someone owns one near our house. British Racing Green which is the colour if you ask me. Cute car. Look good with me and Jnr cruising. Or with the whole family on outings .

We can limit the genetic expression of your "non-fineness" by marrying you a burriful wife


TV

^{...pix are back}

thotianna:
We don't have joint finances because I don't even know how much he has. He refused to tell me

When there is transparency (n4kedness) their is a "joining", even if you have separate a/c's. Start there.


TV

TV01:
I suspect you always had doubts didn’t you? Could this be why you were not forthcoming? Why, oh why, do people proceed with doubts and false hopes that things will change for the better?

thotianna:
I always knew he was a selfish person but I thought it was something I can handle because I am not even a demanding person to start with. I didn't know the selfishness will extend to my money.

Did you by any chance introduce him to your family as "this selfish man I am considering spending the rest of my life with"?

You still don’t get it really do you? You enter marriage with a shared vision. He should have one that he shares with you. One you should be happy with, buy into, and you both agree to revise if seemly. This is of course based on him having the character attributes you desire in a spouse. And I would suggest all positive ones.

Now as head of the home he has final say on how you dispose of your joint means. Not that you shouldn’t discuss and agree, not that he will not agree with your proposals if superior, but he has final call. It’s his responsibility.

So saying you intended to buy land, is not a family decision, even if it’s the best possible course. That is your call, without his input or agreement. Still wrong.

Because you have built and layered as previously noted, I can understand why you should be wary, but you can’t build this atop that and expect the optimal outcome.

You are saying; “we spend your money as you are bound too, and mine as I choose”. No, that effectively makes you the head. Whatever course you decide, you must both agree.

He is unlikely to agree to that. Not least because it gives you leverage over him, more so because you both have not established trust. I am pretty certain that if he knew that you would unhesitatingly step in to help if needed, and were investing what you had with full transparency, he wouldn’t have much of an issue. Especially if you are prudent.

Many men let their wives run finances (although I think they should at least retain oversight). Your big mutual issues is mistrust, suspicion and doubt. They can plague a union. How you work through the mistrust and his bad character - if true - is the issue.

Like I said in my previous post, therein lies the solution. Commit to full transparency, but be wary, and rebuild from the ground up.

All the best.


TV

thotianna:
@TV01, yvesboss, victor1983, fluxbush, sisioge, eyinjuege,

With God as my witness I went into the marriage with every intention of opening up my finances to him but I realized that he never had the same intention. I have even asked him how much he has saved in total but he didn't disclose it instead he told me not to worry about his savings and he has enough for us.

I am so shocked at his change of tune now he found out I have money. He still hasn't revealed what he has to me but now he claims he baby has enough and I have to start spending on him.

If I believe these claims – as I will for the sake of discussion, you are not exonerated by them. All that this means is that your husband is also implicated. Your problems are now multiplied; A shaky foundation atop which you have layered mistrust as a base. Not good.

I have no issues with your family querying him, but before he revealed anything to them, he should have opened up to you and shared a L/T family vision – including finances before you agreed to take that final step. Your family querying your husband about his financial capability does not – as you have discovered – ensure his character worthiness.

I suspect you always had doubts didn’t you? Could this be why you were not forthcoming? Why, oh why, do people proceed with doubts and false hopes that things will change for the better?

To say you intended to after marriage, is an issue, as to my mind, one should do so before the fact, and in any event, one is duty-bound to do so once the step is taken.

Your problem is perhaps worse than his, as not only is he seemingly willing to renege on what was discussed (although with some possible reason & maybe as a test?), but it seems he may be willing to foist his responsibility on to you if he can get away with it? Not good.

You have to rebuild, the problem now is what you have to work with. If you are ascribing him a selfish, irresponsible and sneaky character, what can you build on that?

You need to go back to basics. Agree an accord, based of course on full transparency. He should then resume his promise, and you should commit to investing the major part of what you have towards medium and long-term strategic family plans, with perhaps a token towards immediate needs if he is truly struggling.

How either of you will ever be sure or trusting/trustworthy, I am not sure. Time will tell, but trust will take time to restore even if you mean and commit to it.

Don’t relinquish control to him and make sure you can see and taste whatever you agree to spend your money on and you are clearly designated as co-owner.

I can’t sleep with my wife with one eye open. Haba! Wannaweds please take note.

All the best.


TV

Gerrard59:
@TV01, nice points you posited. However, humans are greedy by nature.

Thank you. However, you have not shown that you are reconsidering your thesis, in whole or in part. So let me ask this;

If human nature is "greedy" (and any other ill), should not any solution, be it genetic engineering or some other, focus on removing the greed, or the outcomes of the greed, not punishing those who suffer from it?`

A lot of people in Nigeria are suffering from the effects of other peoples greed - manifested as corruption - shouldn't the greedy be dealt with, not those who suffer as a consequence?

I and others have asked you about wider questions of disability, and other criteria including race etc. Why should these not also be "engineered"? Who calls the shots here?

And finally, have you researched the on-going outworking of some of this social engineering in Singapore. Google the phrase, many are lamenting some of the negative outcomes.

With the best intentions (and they are often not), the foresight is simply lacking to factor in all the variable. Singaporeans typically aim for high status, high paying jobs, the standard, D, Accountant Engineer etc. And the engineered and indoctrinated accordingly.

Now they have a more generous border policy, so employers are happy to hire the labour cheaper from abroad. Human greed . And that's just one consequence, apart from a hyper class syndrome and native Singaporeans unwilling to take lower level jobs.

You simply can't - and will not - achieve any kind of utopia until His Kingdome comes.

Amen.


TV

@OP, do you consider your husbands earnings/assets for the family and yours for you to do with as you choose?

I can understand why a family would want a potential husband to be able to cater for a wife and children, however, I don't see why they would see any earnings or assets the wife has as hers to dispose with as she chooses.

That would be problematic if one considers marriage a one flesh union. At the very least, the husband should have knowledge of any income and/or assets and knowledge of what is being done with them - even if they are not used to cater for the families basic needs.

I also find it somehow dishonest to want to know a potential spouses capabilities and not to reveal ones own? Don't you see it as information kept secret from your husband?

What are you doing with this stash? Indeed, anyone in his shoes would want to know, and I don't think it unreasonable to expect at least some of it to go towards benefiting the whole family.

The fact that he "found out" will hint at betrayal, and he could in fact just be testing you to see how invested/committed/loyal to him and your union you are. Your reluctance to "buy yours and his", is saying something.

Please tell us, what are your plans for the money and why can't they be shared with him?


TV

akudinaobi:
Should I wipe her memory and contact from me because she requested that I should keep intouch as family friend even the husband suported ! But seeing her gives me bad sensation of my great loss

Please no abuse
I respect you All so respect me kind too

Thanks Nigeria

Be mature, but be wise. If you cease all contact, you have done nothing wrong and it may be best for you in the short-term. If there are indeed no bitter feelings between you and they are genuinely good people, by all means consider staying in touch - but minimally!

Very occasional contact for now. Rare text or visit, and nothing clandestine between you and the hubby or wife and no involvement in their affairs.

Then, when you meet your bone-of-bone, you can perhaps step up the friendship some more if your own wife is agreeable. If they are good people, they will be good friends. The same caveats apply as for before you meet your wife, only now the contact should mostly be in tandem with your wife.

One last thing. Please ensure your bride is someone who wipes away all pain and thought of your ex. If not you have probably chosen the wrong one and may never be truly happy. And being around your ex will not be good for you and may lead to something else.

All the best


TV

Gerrard59:
With genetics, all can be eradicated. The society needs more intelligence (the article I posted says it all), morality is subjective. Morality doesn't proeries, engineering wonders, internet, infrastructure and many things the world is enjoying today. I'm all for intelligence, IQ.

I have 2 - rather long - points to make in response.

The first is about morality, which you claim to be “subjective”. In that case, then wholesale looting of state funds is not necessarily wrong is it?

You see, you pour your ire and condescension on the poor (less privileged) and the supposed low IQ (less gifted), seeking to re-engineer and eliminate those and them, totally ignoring character attributes, like altruism, compassion, meekness, humility, forebearanace, self-sacrifice and honesty.

Regardless of how intelligent or rich we are, if we had those qualities in abundance, along with a structured morality, there would be no societal problems.

Those qualities – not intelligence or wealth – are what make humans higher beings. And it’s those qualities that will give succour to the “less”, edifying and lifting them up, rather than denigrating and dehumanising them. Funnily enough even wild beasts manage to exhibit them to some degree.

There is more than enough to go round and for all to live at least decent lives. The problems are greed, selfishness, wickedness, pride and condescension etc. Why not focus any genetic engineering (or other solution) on these?

Until you rid mankind of these, all solutions are doomed to failure, as they will inevitably creep in and ruin whatever solution and/or model is implemented.

Every form of governance, and all forms of intervention to actualise an utopian society is futile. The fallen nature of man will never allow it. Until He comes to establish His kingdom

The second, is about genetic engineering. You can’t replicate or improve on Gods work. Even if every single gene could be isolated, you still have to figure out the interplay between them all. You still have to understand how to make changes you deem positive without unintentionally making others you deem negative.

And like I said before, you won’t even be able to get consensus on what and how much. Should other factors besides wealth and IQ be engineered for. Do we do away with those “less able”, or “less gifted” in other ways?

Further, you are not only working with an imperfect genome (I guess it hasn’t been perfect since Adam, who was highly intelligent and so rich it literally had no meaning ), you are working with one that continues to deteriorate.

It’s been estimated that given the rate of gene mutation and deletions, working backwards, we’d have had a perfect genome about 6 thousand years or so ago . The deletions will continue, abilities, form and gifts will continue to wane or suffer from genomic disease.

Anyway, as my Jamo friends say, “e caaan done”. The scientific and technological strides mankind have made means there is pretty much nothing beyond us. If we had and, deployed the right character attributes, giving succour to the less gifted, able or privileged would be a joy and a privilege.

Instead, the conceited and prideful come up with grandiose schemes to herd human beings, Gods creatures, like cattle and eliminate them – an increasingly familiar theme in an increasingly godless time. For which morality indeed has to be subjective.

I rest assured and take my peace from the fact that a time is coming when indeed, there will be none poor – all will live in mansions. And there will be none, less able or less privileged. More so, in that there will be none godless, wicked and amoral.

Maranatha Lord Jesus.


TV
^{“Those who don’t believe God, will believe they are God – and for such, there is no remedy” TV01 2016}

LordReed:
Oooo! Such cuties! Lemme join the bandwagon.

Thank you o jare, and likewise, lovely girl. Isn't it almost overwhelming how becoming a parent gives deep insight and understanding into God as our heavenly father! Revelational.

Colin, Colin, Colin...where are you? Space dey for wagon 0...abeg no tarry, come and join us


TV

Incrizz:
Wow, the very first and only comment of yours I really really like

Why thank you.

But that's probably more you than me, as that post could be a metaphor for all my submissions here. As you grow and mature, you'll realise you agreed wholeheartedly with me all along. Congratulations, it has started.


TV

Gerrard59:
Yes, I'm pro-eugenic. There will be a formulated system some what like JAMB, if you don't get up to 200, no procreation. I'm all for it. The world needs more intelligence not necessarily beauty. I have seen beautiful girls who are not intelligent and totally unknowledgeable and seen not so beautiful girls who are intelligent not just that, they are also diligent. I prefer the latter to procreate not the former. There's a high number of fvctards in the society, reducing them is a task that must be done.

Your criteria are arbitrary. Others may prefer beauty to intelligence, your individual preferences cannot hold sway here. And note, physical characteristics - IQ being near the top of that list - do not speak to moral attributes, which too my mind are more important. And you said nothing about the disabled/deformed - No dribbling please .

Further, what about things such as single-parenthood, which are good indicators of poverty and delinquency, what would you insist on here?

Gerrard59:
China did same when she was poor, and reversed it when she became rich. Nigeria should do same.

Happy you brought this up. Firstly, China initiative was not about characteristics, but numbers. In a sense, IMO at least, it's the same moral wrong. The state has no right to be prescriptive regards procreation. The initiative has now presented China with a serious demographic problem, which they will not likely be able to fix.

They've now made it 2 children per couple - which is still wrong - but even this will not rectify the situation - not in enough time anyway. Men playing God - failure assured. Wise people know that . Intelligence is nothing without wisdom, understanding and the fear of God.

Gerrard59:
As long as the individual is wealthy (gotten legitimately) enough to purchase the products, no problem. Why should the poor imitate the rich in eating and refuse to do same in procreation? You cannot get exposure by watching NTA, reading poorly written novels, watching unproductive cartoons. One gets exposure by watching top news channels, reading top newspapers, getting access to the computer at a young age, eating properly for the brain to assimilate information, traveling to top places not only an interior village, mating with fellow exposed individuals.

How would you force rich people with low IQ's to not procreate? There are millionaires from modelling, sport, lotteries etc. which require things other than a high IQ.

Gerrard59:
Just recently, the man who sold the land where we built our second house gave birth to his second child. This is a man that cannot eat three times daily (even if he does, it is of poor quality). When I asked my mum, she said the cretin told her he "wanted a male child" after his fellow cretin gave birth to a girl as the first child. Why must it be a male she asked? "I want somebody to carry the name of the family". What name? Name that has no Google results? Now, tell me, shouldn't he be sterilised? Shouldn't the wife undergo hysterectomy?

Thank you. However, they should not give birth when their economic standing is poor. Give birth ONLY when it improves and secure investments. The rate of procreation should be directly proportional to their economic success. As for unintelligent people, their case is simply sterilisation.

And in this utopia of rich intelligent people, who will be the working class - i.e. drivers, maids, mei-guards etc.?


TV

Gerrard59:
For the records, I'm not against people giving birth rather I'm against POOR people procreating ditto un-intelligent humans. If you're poor, please for the good of the society and yourself, don't give birth. If you're not brilliant, intelligent, smart and knowledgeable, do yourself good by not giving birth. Finally, earnestly pray I don't enter government.

...and if I deem that your IQ and/or wealth are below a threshold I determine, will you agree not to procreate. You don't have the right.

Even if you eliminated all the low IQ and poor people with a click of your fingers, leaving only middle class to very wealthy, over time a new poor and low IQ set of citizens will emerge. The poor will always be with us, as will the not averagely intelligent, as will the puffed up and conceited .

Gerrard59:
With science, every thing is possible. There's what is called gene editing. Basically, with genetics, one can give birth to desired kids.
http://www.economist.com/node/10640593
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21661651-new-technique-manipulating-genes-holds-great-promisebut-rules-are-needed-govern-its
At the bolded, I'm offering people common sense and free education and you say I'm wrong?

Very wrong.

Why limit it to wealth and intelligence. Surely we can introduce other factors. What about physical beauty? We could eliminate short, fat, ugly, disabled or deformed people as well. Lets aim for an utopia of intelligent, rich and beautiful people.

See where this goes? It's called eugenics. Some people, believe black people in their entirety are a drag on the human race. Perhaps they should go too? It's called eugenics, but it's really a form of "playing God" - not within your gift!

My indicators are returning a no for you


TV

Gerrard59:
Prognostically, myself and future wife will procreate only TWO children

You do realise that it is not even within your power to determine what you have written here ?

Romans 9:16 - So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Ecclesiastes 9:11 - I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Neither is it within your gift, to subjectively decide what procreative limits should be placed on people due to arbitrary IQ or wealth indicators. Some considered points, but this is more miss than hit IMO.


TV

IQ is many faceted and in some ways contextual. Not too mention that the tests can be highly subjective and fail to capture everything.
It may well be a factor in success, but I wouldn't even go as far as to deem it determinative.

And if an average national IQ is 100 and the highest is 107, I would posit that the difference in success, is more to do with an enabling environment, access and opportunity. Which ironically would probably help raise average IQ anyway.

Take a cohort from any nation, and give them the same opportunity, and over time, they will in all likelihood return on average the same IQ scores. There will always be outliers at different levels.

IQ is overrated, like feelings


TV

Acidosis:
Making enough mistakes is not an achievement o..

You don't enjoy a mistake, you regret it...

Abi? Some mistakes are ruinous. Others can be the start of a downward spiral you never recover from. Really liked your initial post too.

OP, lots of good stuff already...I have 5 pennies worth;

1. Exercise - start this early enough - like now while you are still packed with youthful vigour - and it will help ensure length of days and better quality health and fitness for those days

2. Don't exercise - obsessively or fanatically

3. Eat - eat well and healthily. It will keep you fitter, more alert and more able

4. Don't eat - excessively or junk food

5. Marry - at the right time, with the right understanding and to the right person

6. Don't marry - without due diligence, due regard to your support groups (primarily family) , or a long-term shared vision for your home. Avoid fornication prior to marriage and adultery after.

7. Be hard working and of solid character and reputation. Have a career/business/employment plan, but be flexible. If marriage and family are in view for you, there will be a non-negotiable burden that you must subject your aspirations to. Therefore make sure that whatever your aspirations are, you will be able to bear this burden.

Start to collect value for money, good quality assets as soon as possible. And hold on to them. Almost all money ends up in assets, and money is typically tied to asset prices, not the other way round. As you work for money, make your money work for you. Assets!

All the very best. Be sure to come back and share here. The younger generations will find your lived experience invaluable .

Rumble young man, rumble.


TV

ColinAdua:
BRING PICTURES! AT LEAST LET ME KNOW WHETHER YOUR WIFE AND KIDS ARE UGLY. LOL!!!

I'll start with my kids. Then as your resolve begins to waver, I'll bring pics of my bride .

I call them my orange babies. One has orange shaped head, the other orange complexion . If you know how ugly I am, you'll appreciate they can only be this fine if their mother is a stunner .

ColinAdua:
Married men are on their own. If they are homeless they need to collect 100strokes of cane for being STUPID!!!

That's the point dude, with cute-as-button kids and stunning wives, we are not alone! Indeed, God is with us. And together we chase 10'000, we have warmth, and good reward for our labour.

Colin, if you had predicated your push for singleness on a more focused pursuit of God, His presence and His glory, I would have very much understood.

Instead, it's been about material things like houses, cars and the like. Do you know that marriage and the family unit prefigure things divine? Even if these material things have any value, they are best shared, and best shared with family.

If you need help making the transition, Reedy and I will be here to support you .


TV

^{(...ugly boys fine wives club...join us, I know you ain't fine )}

pcguru1:
All these bold points represents 3rd wave feminism and I hate them with a passion. infact isn't Feminism pointless and egalitarianism better ?

The "3rd wave" qualifier is as pointless as qualifying the word desert with "sandy". It's just feminism.
And the harder core aims always distil and percolate into other noxious notions.In fact, so do the seemingly harmless ones .

As we advance and mature societ/ies and cultures will always tend toward a better deal for it's members. Men and women are generally in accord, we, and our children have a shared destiny. The male/female dynamic has evolved over eons.

It was never based solely on oppression, and forms of oppression are being eroded. This was before and without feminism, which is extremist, and only serves to destroy as opposed to improve.


TV

...@daddytime...what a name ...I feel like it should be my tag.

We live in a time of individual liberties and freedoms, and the pursuit of them. People are encouraged to actualise their desires in any way they choose - usually only with the caveat "as long as you do no harm to others". Many will say go for it, if that's what you want.

I'm happy some have taken out time to paint scenarios for you. But you know, the possible permutations of what you seek to do are nigh on incalculable. And, some of those outcomes, are ones that could make you regret the idea ever crossed your mind.

But whatever the outcome, be assured that this will affect not just you individually but generations. In as much as you pursue your individual freedom, in making this happen, you will be impacting on at least one other life, in a way that life will not have the liberty or freedom to make his or her own choices.

Daddy time is always now. If you are not raising a child in situ, you are not actually raising that child. And ATBE, it's best done with both parents being in situ.


All the best
TV

pcguru1:
Actually this is nothing attributed to feminism. Femisnim is about equality in terms of wage pay, education and opportunities. This is something else but definitely not feminism and I think feminism is a good thing if not women wont be educated or given freedom. An example of the disadvantage of not embracing feminism that of Saudi Arabi;a the concept of guardianship. If a woman was bleeding to death and needed to be taken to the hospital and her guardian was no where to be found. She's going to die , I actually read something similar but the guardian came eventually but she bled alot . Read up more on feminism and I know third wave feminist can be a pain in the ass and I hate 3 wave feminist too but the earlier waves fought a good battle. The recent ones are insecure white bored women looking to play victim hood

Firstly, your opening 2 sentences contradict your last 2. Secondly, the equality you refer too was something that was being pursued by various ways and means prior to feminism. I am, as are most, all for equal opportunities. Feminism did not introduce that notion.

Like a lot of political or ideological movements, it's typically a handful of people at the top/in control, influencing and driving the agenda. And it is these 3rd wavers who are that handful of people for feminism today.

Feminism considers marriage an oppressive patriarchal construct, that oppresses and subjugates women - if not something that was developed to do just that. They want it destroyed. The more moderate amongst them are pushing for a kind of sameness in role, hence the obsession with men doing chores .

Feminism considers a womans body hers to do with as she wishes. That is what gives us the drive for abortion at any time and for any reason. That's what drives notions of marital rape, and a husband only being able to sleep with his wife - ATBE - if she consents.

That is what gives the OP' wife the perceived right to suggest/pursue the course of action outlined. The core and heart of marriage is conjugality. If that is discarded, where it exists, it's not actually marriage.


TV

ColinAdua:
Continuing:

Yes! you are correct when you say the whole point of Jesus ministry was denying Himself and not grasping that which was His right. I agree with you here cos He had the right to be born in a rich home with very rich parents but He chose poor parents and a manger. See:
Philippians 2:8 KJV "And being found in fashion as a man, he HUMBLED himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross".

2 Corinthians 11:3 KJV "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the SIMPLICITY that is in Christ Jesus".

He did that to teach us selflessness, sacrifice, humility, and simplicity of life.

Marriage inclusive, as marriage brings lots of complexity in life.

I agree with you that marriage is harder. But is the easier approach not always better than the harder approach?

At bold . So your are recanting your "marriage is for weak men" position .
And to your question, not in this instance - The Lord desires Godly children, society needs to regenerate or die.

ColinAdua:
Bible didn't give 'gift ' as the only excuse for singleness. It gave these reasons:
1) Divorce(instead of divorce better be single).
2) Singleness, when received as a gift.
3) Singleness, when made by men.
4) Singleness, when made for the kingdom of God sake.
5) When concerned about the present distress(1 Corinthians 7:26 NKJV).
6) when concerned about unnecessary trouble(1 Corinthians 7:28 NKJV).

So, gift is just 1 out 6 situations where singleness is deemed better, hence its not the only acceptable excuse to remain single.

Listing reasons for singleness is no the same as declaring singleness better. Stop playing politics na

ColinAdua:
Whether "abound" or "abase", I need houses for now that am here on earth, after all Apostle Paul didn't marry but he rented a house exclusively for his own convenience(Acts 28:30 NKJV).

As above, a rented place is not an "asset"

ColinAdua:
Finally, I won't pray for you or any married man. I don't pity you people. You know what you are going into before you went into it.

No one asked for your pity. And rather the married would pity those who do not know the company of a delightful spouse or the blessing and journey of raising children. Careful yourself or I will go and bring pictures. You may repent of singleness and your thread will change to something else .

ColinAdua:
Whatever challenges you encounter, you take, you are on your own. Its what you people bargained for.

At all, we have our spouses with us and God before us. We are well. Your prayer was to redound in blessing for you, not just us.

ColinAdua:
I rather pray for HOMELESS MEN.
SHIOO!

...or even better, homeless married men

TV