₦airaland Forum

...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

ColinAdua:
@TV01. Good day.

The Lord had a lot of places to lay His head.
See:
Matthew 21:17 KJV "And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there".

John 1:38-39 KJV "Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour".

And many more like this in The Holy Bible.

Broda, you have come , your point wasn't about simply "laying one' head", it was about "ownership". Read the first of your 50+ points

ColinAdua:
1) Your house is an asset, it appreciates in value, while a wife is a liability that depreciates in value.

ColinAdua:
Telling that man he had no place to lay His head is figurative. If you interpret it that in the real sense "He had no place to lay His head" it contradicts these verses above. Since he had places where He had been laying His head.

If your interpretation of a verse in the Bible contradicts another verse then your interpretation is wrong.

He means simply "don't expect comfortability with me" when He told that man "son of man has no place to lay his head".

Like I told you He owns all the houses on earth, then no need to have a particular house exclusively to Himself since He moved about often.
See:
Psalm 24:1 "The earth [is] the LORD'S, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein".
Phillippians 2:11 "... Jesus Christ [is] Lord, ..."

Check out too the authority which He used in commanding the owner of the house where He wished to enjoy the Last Supper,(Matthew 26:17-18, Mark 14:12-14, Luke 22:7-12).

He didn't beg. He spoke as the Master who owns the House ie the real owner of the house and the good man of the house(Bible didn't even call him the owner of the house) released the house without arguing because he knew that the Master the real owner of the house had come.

As above; I wasn't contradicting the bible, I was juxtaposing "ownership" against lodging/renting (like Paul)
I like this verse myself - Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

TV

...a good man will expect all that and give more. May we be good and our expectations met.


TV

Couldn't be bothered, and saw no reason, too post the whole crock. But in sum;

1. Monogamous marriage is the best and most natural form of pair bonding for which humans are naturally attuned.
2. Incontinence on the part of men or women does not excuse infidelity or polygamy.
3. Neither does hypocrisy on the part of those who claim religion.
4. Likewise the authors desire to justify his using his member like a water hose.

Ring finger

TV

Joy1706:
If feminism can destroy the whole African family unit then not much other than the oppresion of women held it together then.

OP falls flat at the very first sentence. Firstly it assumes "feminism" is simply no more than the fight against oppression of women. Further, it assumes that the stated aim is what it singularly pursues, and all outcomes further only that stated aim.

Secondly it assumes that men cannot be/are not oppressed, thirdly it does not define in any substantive way what oppression actually is As not all may, or will agree on any given definition, taking it as read is at best deceitful.

Joy1706:
(I would not love to add anything to the above. Read that late last night and it kept me awake. It is one of the most powerful things I'll read this year)
If speaking out against oppresion makes you uncomfortable, defensive and afraid, then I am not sorry to say this; you just proved yourself as the oppressor.

As above, a non sequitur.

Joy1706:
"The enemy is fighting marriage and the home by teaching our women feminism". This was said to me by a married man, an elder in a church, who sees nothing wrong in sleeping around and mistreating his wife and then telling me he is entitled to his actions because he is "the" head yet, he is blaming feminism because his wife now knows better than to accept such disrespect.

A canard. Silence challenges to your viewpoint by smearing those who question it. I do not, and have never slept around. I do not mistreat my wife - on the contrary, it's rather the opposite, and neither do I justify wrong-doing or inappropriate behaviour on my part with my "headship". Yet for sure, feminism in it's current guise and what it pushes for is deleterious to the family unit - be that in Africa or anywhere else

Joy1706:
Feminism is not destroying your homes or the 'illusion' you call marriages. Forgive me or not but I am feeling stung and I can't water this down.

Stung, sting, stang, whatever, feminism is a crock

Joy1706:
You refuse to partake in your home and then turn around to blame feminism because you are called upon to truly be a partner?
You breed children and then dump their entire training and grooming on your wife and then turn around to blame feminism when she asks for your participation?
You made vows to dedicate your life to this one woman yet you chase everything on skirt, endangering her physically and healthwise and then turn around to blame feminism because she won't take such from you? Just pick a struggle. You want to rely on the bible to be the head but still pitch tent with saying "you're polygamous in nature" because culture says so when your bible clearly forbids adultery. You'll hang onto anything from anywhere that gives you excuse to oppress another human.

A crock of canards. Feminism is not good because there are bad men, it fails simply on it's own merits, or lack thereof. Just like HRC does not become a good candidate because DT is a bad one .

Joy1706:
You use a religious manual to trample upon another human like you and hide behind the altar of 'headship and submission' and then blame feminism when she knows better?
No sir. Satan has nothing to do with this one. This is all you. Stop pretending to be mad at Feminism. You know who the problem is. Or do you?
You are praying against the spirit of Feminism in me? LOL.
Feminism is not your problem. Your inhumane and inconsiderate actions (wrapped up as culture and religion) is the problem. Fix that.

We have now advanced to "crockery" - find your way to the right room . For Christians, biblical headship and submission are valid scriptural imperatives for marriage. Anything done beyond or outside of what scripture enjoins is not the fault of scripture or Christianity. Don't fault "The Way" because some practice it badly, or deceitfully ascribe it tenets to propagate evil.

Joy1706:
BY ENWONGO CLEOPAS
*just had to share this. So apt*

And thanks for doing so, but like I said, to all intents and purposes, it's worth little more than hyena dung - for the reasons outlined.

Many things, or behaviours may be harming marriage in Africa, however new-era feminism is certainly not helping.

Cheers big ears


TV

Colin, good morning to you.

In heaven there will be no marriage, that is where the promised mansions are. Here on earth, The Lord had nowhere to lay His head, don't doubt or second guess the scriptures .

Even if you claim that Jesus had "the right to marry", the whole point of His ministry was denying himself, and not "grasping" that which was His by right - I know I don't have to point you to the relevant portion of scripture do I .

Marriage is harder, a greater burden, and takes more fortitude than singleness. That is why the disciples said "it is better not to marry". The only recourse - without sin - is then singleness. Which only a few can receive, but is the easier option. But with the gifting of God, both options will be easier for those who are called.

In all, nothing in this world can satisfy, not houses, not wives, not any material thing. A mature Christian knows how to abase and abound . Take this and go in peace .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQAwpMFS_9o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5a-hW9AJQI - with lyrics

As you have the time , please pray for me, and others who are married, that our shoulders would remain broad enough to bear the burden of being husbands and fathers with a grace and an excellence that honours God.


TV

ColinAdua:
You always hide your NO, with contradictory explanations.

So you can't do without a HOUSE, what is the essence of your arguments then? Because I know you can do very well without a wife?

If it's an IRRELEVANT question, then it means all your posts here are IRRELEVANT. Because that is the TOPIC of the thread.

Who told you the Lord has neither a house? "In my Father's house are many mansions means what?

He didn't have a house on earth because all the houses on earth are His, that's why He is God. If He wants to make use of any, no one could've stopped Him.

The life of Paul may have necessitated him not to marry but Apostle Paul never gave that as the reason why he wasn't married neither did he encourage singleness SOLELY on evangelical purposes.

He also gave room for people to remain unmarried if they feel distressed by the present immediate circumstances it can bring. So am not WRONG.

Well, like I said if the question, which is the theme of this Thread is NONSENSICAL to you. It well means all your posts here are NONSENSICAL!

BECAUSE A NAKED MAN CHASING A NAKED MAD MAN IS ALSO MAD.

Do the Bible teach that Jesus Christ did not marry because HE IS GOD AND GOD CANNOT MARRY? Have you not read in the Bible that He is the last Adam? Adam was made exactly in the image of God that don't marry but he married. So if Jesus had wished to marry He would have. He had all the right.

And while on earth He was not entirely GOD. He was God in human flesh, that was why He always called Himself Son of God. That was possible so he can experience all the temptations we are passing through hence He can fully understand our predicament. So He can intercede very well for us.


(""""""It is better not to marry" they said, because of the burden of marriage, due to the expectations therein.
"it is better not to marry" they exclaimed, if you cannot cope, bear with the requirements of marriage.""""""
)

You always use this ,your statements ABOVE to contradict yourself. HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY SINGLENESS IS BETTER AND STILL CONTINUE TO PROVE TO ME THAT SINGLENESS IS NOT BETTER?

HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THAT "ITS BETTER NOT TO MARRY" BECAUSE OF THE BURDEN OF MARRIAGE ETC AND STILL CRITICIZE ME THAT I MADE THE DECISION NOT TO MARRY OUT OF FRUSTRATION, OF NOT WANTING TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF MARRIAGE?

HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THAT THERE'S BURDEN IN MARRIAGE AND STILL MOCK THAT I DECIDED NOT TO CARRY THIS BURDEN. HENCE AM BEING NEGATIVE. YOU TALKING OF THE BURDEN OF MARRIAGE SO YOU KNOW THAT MARRIAGE IS A BURDEN?

Please lets just be truthful sometimes and stop unnecessarily criticizing attacking someone who is brave enough to:

"... foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself" Proverbs 22:3 KJV.


YES! Am trying by God's grace! Thank You Jesus. Cos Bible says:

"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that practices righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous" 1 John 3:7 NKJV.


Even though LittleReed here sometimes makes me act harsh.

Thanks Mysticgal for the well researched input and 5minsmadness for your points.

I don't believe rape should be alleged, let alone chargeable/prosecuted between spouses. Marriage pre-dates the law, and as such the law should at best seek to support and buttress the institution, not meddle - and in a lopsided fashion - especially with regard to Christian marriages from my pov.

Neither a husband or wife should be charged with forced or coercive intercourse. Not unless there is real (and in some cases non-consensual) physical harm should the state even be involved. Then charges of battery may be considered and Christianity would agree with that.

From a Christian pov, spouses own each others bodies and should not deny the others calling. If forced or coerced intercourse is rape, then withholding intimacy - unless by consent or due to some valid reason - should also be chargeable. It is not currently on any statutes as far as I am aware.

I couldn't bear to look at my wife - always jumping my bones when I want to snooze, watch the boxing come to NL etc. - and think of her as a rapist


TV

ColinAdua:
You have not answered my question. I need YES or NO.

Read again, I answered in my first sentence. For the avoidance of doubt it was a "no". But that is a simplistic answer to an irrelevant question.
The Lord had neither house nor wife;

Luke 9:58 - And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

ColinAdua:
But like I said earlier I love your politeness though. God bless you for that.

Amen...and you for your zeal.

ColinAdua:
My brother, no one can do without a house but millions of people can do and are doing comfortably without wives. Hence a HOUSE IS VERY BETTER THAN A WIFE!

They serve different purposes and are not mutually exclusive, hence the question is somewhat nonsensical in my opinion.

ColinAdua:
Now saying remaining single (I love to call it singlehood) is for puny, weak, irresponsible men is calling Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul puny, weak, and irresponsible. Which is too bad.

Not really; The lives of The Lord and the the Apostle Paul were instructive, in that they could not accommodate wives given their missions.

You know the life of ministry of Paul. His missionary expeditions, his perilous and uncertain lifestyle, his lack of ongoing work, "his end". He simply could not have married or raised children.

Even moreso The Lord. Would God marry? And whom exactly would He marry? He is complete in and of Himself. And "the cup" from which He was to drink when He came in appearance as a man would have precluded marriage. Ergo;

"It is better not to marry" they said, because of the burden of marriage, due to the expectations therein.
"it is better not to marry" they exclaimed, if you cannot cope, bear with the requirements of marriage.

=> "it is better to remain single" if you cannot cope with the expectations, bear the burdens, or your calling or mission precludes it

ColinAdua:
Me and you know that after over 2000years of their existence, these two men are the most popular affirmative responsible men ever in the history of humanity.

Noted, but as I already asked, are you living their lives to the letter?

ColinAdua:
Till you answer Yes or No.

I have answered twice already

ColinAdua:
Meanwhile, see this:
1Corinthians 7:26 "I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress(discomfort, hardship, frustrations, unfaithfulnesses, disappointments, difficulties etc), [I say], that [it is] good for a man so to be".

So Bible gave option for you to remain single if you are frustrated.

...i.e. unable to cope *


TV

^{*or you have a different calling, mission, or gifting}

ColinAdua:
I still ask: CAN YOU DO WITHOUT A HOUSE?

BECAUSE I CAN DO WITHOUT A WIFE.

Ok. No, one cannot do without somewhere to live, one can live without a wife.

Your challenge does not prove anything - one will need a house whether married or single. And one does not have to forego either. Perhaps it is the wrong question?


"It is better not to marry" they said, because of the burden of marriage, due to the expectations therein.
"it is better not to marry" they exclaimed, if you cannot cope, bear with the requirements of marriage.

Remaining single therefore, is for puny, weak, irresponsible men - see logic


TV

^{...it takes a gift to be married and deal with the burden of marriage. It is a gift to remain single and live accordingly}

ColinAdua:
I put you to a CHALLENGE. If you believe am wrong, CUT OFF EVERY LINK WITH YOUR HOUSE AND ANY HOUSE PACK AND RE-LOCATE TO A FIELD OR BUSH. LETS SEE HOW LONG YOUR MARRIAGE WILL LAST. LETS SEE HOW LONG YOU WILL LIVE.

Infact I give your marriage 3 weeks and you 3 months.

Millions in this world can't do without a house for a day while millions are doing happily every day without a wife and you are here arguing blindly.

ANSWER ME CATEGORICALLY, STOP DECEIVING YOURSELF. CAN YOU DO WITHOUT A HOUSE ANY HOUSE IN THIS LIFE EVEN IN ETERNITY??

Answer me.

Lets stop this running in circles and hide and seek, and go to the point.

CAN YOU DO WITHOUT A HOUSE?

I CAN DO WITHOUT A WIFE!!!! A HOUSE IS 51,000,000 TIMES BETTER THAN ANY ..........!

I don't even have a wife so what am I to put here?

ah! ah! Why can't men tell themselves the truth sometimes? Most you always think with your P and emotions.?

ANSWER ME

LET ME PUT YOU TO CHALLENGE! NONSENSE!!!!!

I find this challenge puzzling - perhaps why I thought your OP was joking at first and didn't reply.

Of course I need somewhere to live (a place to stay, preferably my own house). However, one needs that married or single. A wife and a house are not mutually exclusive, or incompatible - one can have both, either or neither.

And though not ideal, people live and raise families under bridges don't they? And no, my wife will not leave me, but that is besides the point, one of the burdens of marriage is to provide for your family.

Colin, you don't have to deride marriage or women, to justify, or celebrate singleness.

Their is no challenge, because the two are not at loggerheads - why are you forcing them to be. Maybe it wasn't the women, maybe it was you . Are you obsessively houseproud?


TV

Hi Colin, may I call you Colin ? Firstly, may I say how much I've enjoyed discussing this with you. Not least because of the obvious zeal you have for your position and the passionate, but polite way you have joined issues. Not that I totally agree, but you certainly made me think. Thanks for that.

And I appreciate your feelings to how women can be, it's hard for a real god-fearing man to find a suitable Christian mate. Many appear to follow some syncretic mix of Christianity and feminism (feminianity ).

Others think marriage is for the pursuit of their individual dreams, forgetting they are created for men and to be helpmeets to them. Not to mention that divorce appears to be at the tip of many tongues and for the flimsiest of reasons. Real haba! .

It's also good to have someone devout in this section. Please cast your net a bit wider. Now, back to business

ColinAdua:
My giddiness is about saying the same thing over and over again and someone in his right thinking sense, who claims he is not confused will still ask me the same question.

Haba!

How many times will I refer you to 1 Corinthians 7, where Apostle Paul said it that it is better to stay single?

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

25Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

I agree that the Apostle Paul adjudges singleness better when it comes to serving the Lord for both men and women. But he also makes it clear that it is by gift, be that due to lack of desire or the ability to suppress it without discomfort

Matthew 19 also makes it clear that celibacy is by gift or circumstance

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Those to whom it has been given are born that way, are unable to due to circumstances (injury, imprisonment etc.), or are able to do so for the KOH sake (gifted).

ColinAdua:
How many times will I state my stand here and someone in his right thinking sense will read it and still tell me I don't have clear cut view.?

I never told you singlesness is for everyone. Didn't you see all the places I talked about FREEDOM OF CHOICES and RESPECT TO RIGHT TO FREE WILL.

It is not simply a matter of choice, it is by grace, gift or circumstances

ColinAdua:
How many times will I tell you that my stand is. "HE THAT WILL ACCEPT IT, LET HIM ACCEPT IT" In as much as I know and believe that this is a general call, are you blind to all the places I have said that carnal minded men cannot accept this.? eeeeeeh?

It cannot be both an individual gifting and a general call. And marriage is also a gifted state, which is where I disagree with you.

ColinAdua:
I never told you I made this decision out of frustrations with your so call female because it is a very big lie if I say so.

It sounds like it was either driven by frustrations - your stories of woes, disappointments, bad feelings, fears, burdens etc. - or as a result of choosing singleness, you hold women in disdain, seeing them as a potential problem? That is how it sounds.

ColinAdua:
I made this decision in the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, in the quest of what makes me happy.

Which is an unassailable choice. However, I don't see that as necessarily a calling or gift, more a negative driver - fleeing unhappiness - than a positive one, i.e. desire to serve the Lord.

ColinAdua:
Christ and Apostle Paul choose singleness as a character, as an example for us. Which the Roman Catholic priesthood understands well. Even though I don't support them making it compulsory for every priest.

The missions/callings of The Lord and Apostle Paul meant that wives were not a very practical consideration. Other Apostles were married. Paul even mentioned it as a right both he and Barnabas had - it was simply expedient not to be married given their mission/calling.

ColinAdua:
Which bias? That your house is better than your wife is a bias. Who in this world with his right thinking sense didn't know this?

In my singleness, I had little desire for material things, choosing to focus on service/worship. I only got a house when I married - for the wife and kids, not for me.

ColinAdua:
I never told you sexual functions are obsolete. If you can humble yourself, just read and try to remember what I have been saying, you will recall that I said sexual functions are left for carnally minded weak thinking with their P instead of their brain men.

No marriage is a gift, indeed, the burdens it comes with sound like something you shrink away from - "each has his gift from God, one after this manner, another after that". I know that I am uniquely able (gifted) to handle them, really enjoy it,and find pleasure doing so.

ColinAdua:
This is why am giddy. Cos I keep saying the same things over and over again and you people keep asking me the same questions.

Is it that you people lack simple comprehension or reasoning. If you are blinded by your opinion, I think its good if you can just use your brain and recall what another person is saying.

Kai.

You refuse to see to different states, both gifts. And one was actually a creational construct and the whole reason men and women were physically differentiated.

The Lord wants Godly offspring, I'm not sure how you figure that is the perrogative of weak and carnal men? And why God would sanctify a "carnal" union - in the flesh is no good thing, flesh cannot glory in Gods sight.

I will allow that in the fullness of consummation there will be no marriage. In sum, for this current dispensation, singleness is good, but it is a gift, not simply a choice anyone should, and can make. Marriage is also a gift, and to "go forth and multiply", it needs to be the default for most.

A physical take; Population replacement rate is 2.2+ per couple, to multiply, it needs to be even higher. A spiritual take; The first man had to choose marriage (creation), and in the Kingdom of heaven there will be no marriage (consummation). We are somewhere in between .

Best

TV

^{cc Lordreed PoorUgly}

ColinAdua:
I have talked so much about these things that am getting giddy running round circles.

Your giddiness, in all likelihood, has more to do with confusion, because you do not have a well thought-out viewpoint - you are arguing to convince yourself of your own decision and justify your frustration with females

ColinAdua:
Bible has said in so many places that it is better or good to stay single.

The bible does not say it is better to be single for everyone, nor that singleness is better than marriage. Singleness is good for some in some circumstances.

ColinAdua:
Apostle Paul said "imitate me even as I imitate Christ"

What are the attributes they have in common that we should imitate?

This was a reference to godliness and character traits - not physical attributes or valid lifestyle choices. They were both male, they were both itinerant, they both died violent deaths. are you imitating to the letter? Again, you are being prejudicially selectively in order to justify your bias.

ColinAdua:
God is more interested in folks getting saved than reproducing more people here like chickens.

CHRISTIANITY SIMPLY MEANS BEING CHRIST LIKE IN ALL THINGS.

Use your tongue to count your teeth.

I will, and appreciate that for which God gave teeth . Meanwhile, the reproductive capacity and sexual function which were given by the same God are obsolete for everyone due to the fact that you are mothballing yours ?


TV