₦airaland Forum

ColinAdua:
For your information, the only condition given for marriage is for weak carnally minded men lacking simple self-control. 1 Corinthians 7:5,9.(RSV).

That is incorrect. Marriage was a creational construct - as clearly noted at the start of Matthew 19 and the parallel Mark 10. And it prefigures a divine mystery (Christ and His Church/bride ) as Apostle Paul himself says.

ColinAdua:
Evey married man is very WEAK!! People who cannot stand on their own and push the trend.

This - and your earlier statement - sound very much like you attempting to justify your choice and defend it from scripture - neither necessary nor correct. And you choice sounds like it was one made out of frustration. Nowhere does the bible state married men are weak, or marriage is an inferior state.

Not to mention you have made no reference to women - mans purposely created helpmeet - in all of this. Men and women are a differentiated but complimentary pairing. Are single women also superior to married women? Is not childlessness akin to a curse in some respects?

ColinAdua:
Thank God my JESUS CHRIST and Apostle Paul did not marry. These are men that am crazy about and I respect so much.

And we have respect and awe for The Lord and the Apostle Paul also. And for single Christians - be that by calling or resolve, by gifting or grace, but we know the bible does not call such superior or plan for that state to be the default.

ColinAdua:
Apostle Paul summarized it perfectly by saying: "For I would that ALL men were even as I myself". And then went ahead to respect the gift of free will.

That was his wish, not Gods plan in creation or consummation. I also wish that all men were happily married building strong homes and raising healthy families, but I respect the gift of freewill - to not be a Christian, or to not be married.


TV

PoorUgly:
The place is about the UNACCEPTABILITY of DIVORCE, the CONSTANCY OF MARRIAGE which a lot of MARRIAGE CRAZE folks doesn't respect to day with the rampancy of DIVORCE here and there.

I agree with this. My personal position is that there is no divorce for a consummated union. Which is why the disciples felt it "better not to marry" - because there is no out, not because celibacy is superior.

And the point is "divorce" was granted under the law for the hard of heart, not that marriage was instituted at creation to help the incontinent. Mankind were differentiated male and female specifically with the one flesh union in mind.

PoorUgly:
But fortunately, it diverted to EUNUCHISM which is singleness.

So saying its not about singleness is quite wrong cos it about marriage, divorce and finally the supremacy of Singleness.

And I also agree with the first part here.

But it nowhere denotes singleness as supreme, preferred or profitable for the majority. It denotes it as an exception to those to whom it is given

PoorUgly:
You are wrong again by saying that marriage is not meant for the carnal, who were unable to control themselves.
Actually lack of control is the only condition Apostle Paul gave for people to get married.

Look at this Scripture: 1 Corinthians 7:9 "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn".

New King James reads: "But if they cannot exercise self-control let them marry.........'

Read me, and the scriptures correctly; that it is better for those who cannot exercise restraint to marry, does not mean that marriage is designed solely as an outlet for those who lack self-control.

Is mankinds reproductive capacity and the institution of marriage which are both "from the beginning" abolished, or of no import? If Christian males had ceased marrying 2'000 years ago where would we be?

People would be born or become Christians only to remain single? How many would remain? What of the maternal urge for women? It would demand polygamy on any community with large Christian populations. Women would leave and the remaining men would be monks. Wait 0

Majority Christian singleness makes about as much sense as "gay marriage".

Celibacy can be both a grace and/or gift. Grace for those yet to marry and a gift for those who are able to go without. Marriage was part of the plan even before the fall. Mankind were differentiated male and female, with reproductive capacity - godly children being part of Gods plan.

The bible starts with a wedding and Gods eternal plan of salvation is consummated with one. Marriage is "a mystery", prefiguring something divine - thus stated Paul himself.

To reduce marriage to a safety valve for carnal men, and singleness as superior/preferred is to totally misunderstand Gods creation and His redemptive plan

PoorUgly:
And finally, the disciples asking "its not good to marry" is entirely carnal. Cos only the carnally minded who is after his/her fleshy worldly pleasure and comforts, seeks for Divorce.

As above.

And note again, the gift of singleness is something "given". Those so gifted are "exceptions". It is not given to the vast majority, hence marriage is the default and the expectation for most. Nice to hear your viewpoint, but I don't agree, or even see it as sustainable.


TV

5minsmadness:
Aw c'mon, this isnt true. Dont know how i missed it. Of course both spouses knew who they were going to marry and woukd have caught a glimpse of each other at the stream or farm or village square.

And yes, women/daughters had a say. They also had a chance of being refused but this did not happen often. Same with the men. Marriages weren't arranged on childish sentiment but on grounds of best productivity.

Difference between "arranged" and "forced" marriages.

The "arranged" has degrees; from introduction to those considered suitable, to actually shortlisting candidates. But it is always with agreement of the two involved.

England had its "deb" society, which still exists in soft and hard form today. Jewish culture still utilises Shadchans and Shadchanits to ensure good unions. Some cultures and people are simply particular and discerning about who they marry - rightly so too in my opinion.


TV

Kimoni:
You left out your famous quote, "some ladies people who be better off having their fathers parent choose for them".

Until recently pretty much all cultures had some sort of parental involvement in the choice of spouse. I don't think there is any gainsaying that parents - or their proxies - with the best interest of their children at heart will bring experience and a long-term view to their children' considerations.

And, I think this works for all. In fact, I think that input should start way before marriage is even in view - in how children are raised. If they are raised right, they should be consciously or subconsciously able to consider the things their parents would have touched on.

Unless one' parents are actually "bad" (for any number of reasons, and in any number of ways), I can't see how their input would be negative. When it got serious, I presented my wife to family elders, siblings - younger and older - and closest friends. I still made my own decision, but heard any concerns.

Avoid stories that touch, speak to daddy


TV

PoorUgly:
Go to the CONCLUSION!

Which verse concludes JESUS CHRIST's discuss on marriage in this chapter? What did it say?

If you are ignorant kindly and humbly ask so you can be taught.

Actually, maybe you should refer to the beginning. The discussion was not about marriage vs. singlehood, it was about marriage & "divorce"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=NKJV

The disciples saying "it is better not to marry", was in response to the seriousness of the bond - with no recourse for divorce - not because marriage was meant for the carnal, who were unable to control themselves.

Please expantiate on a different reading if you have one.

ColinAdua:
@the guy above me.

You omitted Verse 10.

10: "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, IT IS NOT GOOD TO MARRY."

What did Jesus tell them?

Did He tell them "No! You're wrong "?.
Did He tell them "What God has called clean, don't call it unclean".
Did He tell them 'No! God originated marriage'.

He told them, verse 11 "But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given."

Because some weak ass, carnally minded, pleasure and cheap sex seeking, thinking with your P instead of your brain men, cannot accept this saying.

Which saying?
Answer: That "IT IS GOOD NOT TO MARRY"!

TV

Kimoni:
@ subject - who is the wrong person?

Holá Kim,

Assuming one makes or agrees to the choice, there is no wrong person, only a wrong understanding and approach. Once certain needs and expectations are met, RL will set in, and even flourish.

Maybe risky to say for sure at this point - but certainly current - I mentioned "arranged marriages" in my initial post here, but is it noteworthy that even some of the Chibok girls are seemingly content to remain in forced unions ?

Timbuktou, well said jare...should have checked for you first. Crackhaus how far? "Where you been" as TVjnr often says. Come, some of your harem have been acting up like they seriously need your attention. Don't know how you do it dude, but glad you are back .


TV

The notion of “romantic love” as a basis for marriage is a very recent one, a very pervasive one - given its relative newness - and most of all, a very damaging one.

Let’s first distinguish between romantic love, the arbitrary, nigh on undefineable feeling, from the commitment to care for, honour and remain faithful to one’s spouse, which is in a sense a better description of what love truly is.

Nowhere is RL codified in law, religion, or science, or is actually demanded as a requirement for marriage. Indeed, while it may be present in a form at the start, true and deep RL grows out of living the commitment as described.

Many in arranged marriages will testify as to how RL grow over time in marriages where CL was clearly evident and demonstrated.

Indeed, RL as a predicate is actually anti-marriage, evidenced in the first instance by the number of marital failures, and also by the fact that marriage as understood in its essence cannot be articulated or fully realised on the basis of RL, and it’s attempting to do so that leads to futility and failure.

Anti-marriage I said, because marriage is by definition lifelong and demands commitment independent of feelings. And quite often the challenges that marriage can throw up, seriously war against the idyllic setting that RL best thrives in.

Anti-marriage, because one of its main purposes it the nurture of children and RL is centred primarily on the “feelings" of the adults involved, with a primary commitment to that feeling and not their spouse or families.

Anti-marriage, because if RL is a virtue, if it is the predicate for marriage, when the RL vanishes or dissipates, or is surpassed by a stronger RL, divorce then becomes a virtue as well.

I don’t think it gets any more anti-marriage than divorce. Like darkness is the absence of light, divorce is not merely the end of a marriage, it is the evisceration of what marriage is.

Anti-marriage, because it explains how we get from “here to there”, when in fact it seemed unthinkable. If marriage is about the RL – no matter how intense – between two people, then why should 2 people of any sex not be married?

That’s how to those of a recent milieu and mindset, getting there was a no brainer. It’s why the shallow and ignorant slogans like “equallove”, make sense to those that lack understanding but love to give credence to their feelings

RL – or the emphasis on it - is what is overrated, not marriage. RL is what does not live up to expectations. RL which at best is an euphemism for carnal desire – which is why it only takes a perkier body or trying circumstances to scatter it– should not be confused with CL or ever used as the basis for marriage, not in whole, it can be argued, in part.


TV

^{note – I RL’ed my wife when I married her}

ColinAdua:
I couldn't actually get your point or main target though.

Marriage - biblically and socially - is the default. And you are wrong to sell it as simply an "either/or" proposition for all (men). Some as you've noted may be called to singleness for a specific reason. But even that may only be for a time, so you are additionally wrong to make it sound as a decision taken at a point, and then permanently fixed.

I would go further and say Christians should assume marriage, unless they are sure they are called not to (for which they should be sure), or for some reason can't. But I would consider there would be few in this category.

On a personal level you may well have the calling to singleness. Be that because you were born with "no/little" desire, because you have the control to remain single, or, and not very likely, you were made or forced to be that way by men or circumstance Matthew 19-12. That does not mean you present "a calling as a choice" to the wider Christian body.

Your having a "terrible dislike", speaks to something of an issue with you personally. There is no need for antipathy between being married or single, or men and women.

I was also single for a season. Content and willing to keep myself if the right woman did not come along. I can categorically state that marriage is better. But that is still to a degree my subjective opinion, and not something I can present as determinative for the whole body.

And I was joking a little about the house and epping. There are marriageable sisters out there. You just need to be discerning and led, and maybe revisit some notions you hold.

You sound like a good chap, would you like some introductions ?


TV


^{(...joking 0, not saying you haven't made the right choice for you)}

ColinAdua:
AM SO HAPPY MAKING THIS DECISION. ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT BUT BEST DECISION I HAVE MADE!

Marriage maybe good but definitely SINGLEHOOD is better. Haha!

I wouldn't want to gainsay you belief about the decision you made to remain single. Although I have to point out that it is at best subjective. After a long spell single, I made the decision to be married, and I would likewise claim, with absolute sincerity, it was one of my best decisions ever.

I would also say that having tried both states, marriage is infinitely preferable. And, your being single is a state, thus, your claim is only good in the immediacy of that claim. You could well change both your mind and your tune tomorrow?

As for a house being better, I have both, and whilst the house has it's uses, there are somethings Mama does that I'd happily live in a field for .

On a more serious note, I absolutely get that in some ways a studied spirituality and focus on God is much more readily available when single. However, one can have a wife and still pursue that same devotion to a degree, but not vice-versa.

Further, "marriage" is the default for Christians, and most of society still. One need not hear to marry (as opposed to whom to marry), but one should certainly be sure of the calling not to (even to delay it sef!).

Be very sure, and very clear before you preach it as either/or for everyone (man). It is not. Epp these girls na


TV

missjo:
Whatever Mr Man.

The summary of your position is that this man should and MUST NOT have negative feelings regarding his wife's behaviour. He ought to overlook everything she does as written in the article and continue like nothing is wrong. Splendid!

They are both terrible, but I'm not sure which is actually worse, your reading comprehension or your reading of people - both are so poor I'm starting to suspect you're trolling me .

Marriage has a framework. It is not primarily determined by the "feelings" or even "behaviours" of those within it. Spouses have a claim to marital assets regardless. And as I repeatedly stated, her behaviour and his feelings about that behaviour, do not change that.

But lets just overlook the points I repeatedly stressed about addressing said behaviour (as a separate issue) - prior or post marriage - as it suits the caricature you have of me in your head .

Enough. This is getting boring. Please tell me what exactly it is I'm insecure about. I'm struggling . I'm no oil-painting, not rich by even generous measures and have a "standard education" from a non-name institutions.

But, I'm happily married to a stunning woman (all round 0 ). I have cute as button kids, a strong extended family network, a diverse, but select set of good friends. I'm in good health, as fit as a fiddle, have a place to call my own. And not least, have a strong faith to the core of me.

Please troll me some more elucidate your diagnosis of insecure for me - then I'll share my own diagnosis, and prognosis if you like, of you

Set your weave like it's box-fresh and you mean business

Have a lovely weekend


TV

missjo:
It's exactly 1month 18days since I quoted you without getting a response,and your excuse now is that you didnt respond because I don't get marriage, lol.

See like I told that other guy on that thread,you're terribly insecure. Here's how I know:

Missjo, please take it easy, I may be yanking your chain small, but the whole psyche bit is funny, as well as a fail.

I didn't respond the first time as I felt my first answer was clear and I didn't know you to back and forth with. Since you forcefully introduced yourself , I do now.

At first, I thought who is this? But quite respected your speaking up on the Moji thread, even though I yanked a little then. MizMyColi got it way better than you did.

Lighten up, you are taking things way to personally. I have nothing to be insecure about, and neither should you, from me at least.

Oya, re-do your make-up.

Have a great rest of day.


TV
[b]

Lol,you're terrible. A woman wanting her name on the deeds was never the issue,this wouldn't be a problem with couples who are satisfied, content, and wholly committed to each other.

The issue with her insisting on having her name on the deed became a problem to her husband ONLY after he factored in her previous behavior. THEY ARE RELATED because she hasn't given him any reason to trust him.

...and you still don't get it. Whatever her behavior pre or post-marriage, having communal property (or property in common) is a feature of marriage, it's how its meant to work. It does not vary from couple to couple, based on feelings or concerns about behavior.

Even if she is a gold-digger, as his wife, she has every right to declare a marital interest. In fact, it is assumed even without documentation in some jurisdictions. Concerns about her financial mismanagement should have been addressed prior, and can be even now, but that does not obviate her rights...read slowly and less personally Oh, look! https://www.nairaland.com/3322866/wife-doesnt-work-wants-name#48984645
[/b]

Ishilove:
Many times I refrain from dishing out marital advice because hey, I'm not qualified, but it just makes me mad when I see some youngsters commenting on marital issues.

I am also bug-eyed at this . It must be disheartening, especially for one yet married. But don't despair, instead, let it motivate you. You can make your marriage exactly what you choose. The key is preparing yourself and knowing exactly what the kind of husband you desire looks like - when you meet him .

I've been on NL over 10 yers, I refrained from posting in this section until I had my own family and kids, even though I had my opinion on most things. And with hindsight, I'd have given answers before that I would have given after. Being yet to marry or have children, does not mean you lack nous and insight.

As for the revelations. Ah! I try take every persons presentation of themselves and their lives at face value. I'd actually find knowing such things about others burdensome. Although I do wonder about how what some present jars with what they preach?

I aim to let it be more about positions and policy than people. I know that can be hard, especially if you know certain things. but let that engender a degree of wariness, not cynicism.

It is very well.


TV

^{...5minsmadness, spot on!}

kunleajaye:
I want to believe it’s the stress of work, school, and the many thoughts going through our minds that is causing all this, but I don’t want to wake up one day and realize I don’t love my wife anymore. I don't want a situation where all this will split our family apart and suffer the little ones.

To a degree you are right about some of the underlying issues. What you haven't clearly articulated is what you want. Many are advising it's par for the course, to focus on your wife' attributes, appreciate your blessings etc. All that is fine for as far as it goes, but it's only a solution if it matches what you want.

Could be it's called a "sex life" for a reason? It really does have a life of it's own, almost separate, but within the greater union. Like a muscle it can be exercised and grow, or it can be left to atrophy, literally waste away due to lack of use.

Even if you resolve some of those underlying issues, it doesn't mean your sex life will be fully invigorated. Listen, if a puny, concave-chested, scrawny man won the lottery, he wouldn't become a lean, beautifully muscled - a me that is - man as soon as he cashed the cheque.

I won't say anymore for now. After all, you may have found what you seek here already. But if it's something more - I note the "beautiful girl" you remember from early on, and I would imagine lots of passion - go to the boys night out thread, do some reading and mention me there.
https://www.nairaland.com/1582623/boys-night-out-discussions/174#48656780

I am not claiming to have the lottery winning formula

All the best whatever you choose to do.


TV

missjo:
Did you read the article Sir?
Her careless spending habits and not contributing to the mortgage and tax especially as it is now community property AKA their home,and then her subsequent insistence on having her name on documents, is what infuriates the man as it should.

I barely remember this thread and I certainly don't remember you! Anyway, now that we are better aquainted, I'll unignore you . I just felt you didn't get marriage. I'll explain by way of example;

If the couple had kids together, they'd be joint parents, father and mother. If the man didn't lift a finger to help (despite being able to do so, and his wife needing him to), it wouldn't mean that she should be designated sole parent. The issue is not parenthood, it's his parenting skills/invovement. Clear? No

Ok. lets say they rented and didn't own, would there be a problem still? Yes, she's financially scatty. She has a problem and they have an issue (or vice-versa if you prefer). Her financial impropriety needs to be be addressed.

So, her wanting to be named on the deeds is standard marriage protocol, nothing to do with her poor financial management/contribution. That is a separate issue entirely, although they may appear related to one who doesn't get it .

You are still doing girlfriend/boyfriendage abi? Get back to me when you grow up

Have a lovely evening


TV

tearoses:
Maybe this is the wrong place and the wrong topic but just want to encourage someone

Atall!

Side hustle (with potential to morph into Billion $ bidness ) is one of our recurring themes here.
When my wife took up baking, I was like "this is not what we discussed". And finding those fiddly little decorative things in the aisles at Sainsburys was a right pain . And we always seemed to be blessing people with cakes at social functions. But she enjoyed it, so I held my peace.

Lo and behold, orders have started rolling in. Not sure where she'd like to go with it, but I shall show her your post and tell her to put India on our bucket list .

Working on my own testimony


TV

naijababe:
Abeg o, I need some guidance here. Like I said my original preference was the planner route and frankly it seems like once I can get myself to pass the level 4 exams I will be ok using the CISI pathway. If I can get the CFA, so be it, if not I don't think I will be too upset. I think they scrapped the IMC and replaced it with something else since their merger with CISI. My only concern is that the CFA website below is still active

https://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/comparison/Pages/index.aspx

How far? I think we need a few distinctions. It depends on the area you are currently in, the one you would like to move to, and at what level.

Wealth Management is a sub-set of Asset Management, but targeted at High Net Worth (HNW) individuals. I get a sense that the difference in the qualifications is between advising HNW clients on financial products, and actually having expertise about the products.

At the top end I don't think the CISI will be considered equivalent to the CFA. Lower down where you are advising ordinary Joes like yours truly, it's more about being an IFA (independent Financial Advisor), which is about the basics really like Mortgages, Investments (as simple as ISAs), Pensions and the like.

I don't think you can segue from the CISI to the CFA either.

Is that clearer, helping?


TV

UPMIKE:
Please I want the matured minds in this forum to educate and advice me on what to do.
THANKS IN ADVANCE

*Checks the NL Family section playbook*

Types of lie - Serious, Minor, Inconsequential
Discovery mode - Voluntary confession, 3rd party revelation, due diligence/screening
Gravity - Heavy, Medium, Light
Potential Impact - Family, Friends, Wider Society, income, children, future plans
Possibility to remediate - Many, few, none

OP plot this problem and it should fall into one of four quadrants:
1. Deal breaker
2. Suspend relationship
3. Proceed with caution
4. Carry go, nothing do you.

Example. You plan to marry someone 10 years younger. Potential spouse knocks 7 years of her age . You discover by investigation.

It's a serious lie, which was not voluntary confessed, it's of heavy gravity, as she would have carried it for life, no real impact on friends or family "if they don't know", but some if they do. May affect sex/procreation. It cannot be remediated => Deal breaker.

Hope this helps


TV

naijababe:
What pathway did you follow? There are different routes from what I have garnered so far, I am keen on financial planning but I just may swing the way of Wealth management. The exams look intimidating already . Did you obtain your chartership from CISI too?

http://www.cisi.org/cisiweb2/cisi-website/study-with-us/wealth-retail

CFA charter status is now the preferred post-degree qualification for the Asset Management Industry. It's pretty much expected that Fund Managers, Investment Strategist, Client Directors/Relationship managers, and even the senior operational bods, will acquire it.

It's not an easy pass. It typically takes 3 years at best. Some schools have their students start or complete it as part of their courses nowadays. It must be easier. Lots of people take it juggling F/T jobs and families, which can stretch it out a bit and really task you.

Sometimes, if your face doesn't fit even with the CFA, notin' go drop. I stopped at the basic IMC which was need to be a manager. I never had the appetite for the CFA. It's why I explored Coaching and other avenues, which would also give me options outwith the industry.

All the best. Hope you hit the jackpot with the one you are taking.


TV

tearoses:
I serve & follow one God, not nairaland gods, so I will continue to speak my mind on the things that dont sit comfortably with me, whether I am in the minority or preaching a sermon or not.

...can one do anything else. I appreciate it can be hard to go against the grain. Kudos.

tearoses:
Im answer to your other q. Ive been called so many names like Mummy P etc
But I noticed one thing. The more I protest the more they say it
So ive left them be jare
To my family members & my adopted sons and daughters and brothers and sisters I am Big sis
I like that one better
Omo Timbuktou jaku jaku yen lo man pe mi ni grandma

Tim get liver pass for this forum

Timbuktou:
TV01, how does Mother-in-Zion sound for Grandma Tearoses?. I think it would fit perfectly.

Actually, now you mention it, I'm sure she once bagged the honorarium "Iya l'ode".

But I think I'll follow her lead and go with Sis


TV

I used to think I loved children. And when I say "think", I don't mean solely in my head, or a warm fuzzy feeling. I used to live it. One of the things I used to give myself to before marriage and children - which for a time I thought may not happen for me - was being around children, spending time with them and taking them out.

How many park trips, cinema outings and theatre shows did did I attend. I had the whole of Lion King down pat, and spent so much time at the stage door so the children could meet the actors as they left. A real highlight. Especially for black kids, as the cast are mostly black. I even used my affection in sermons, and the audience laughed with me, or so I thought at the time?

Then I had my own children. Rethink! I'm sure they'll be exceptions, but people typically love their own kids with a different degree and much fiercer love. I still remember the great times with a lot of those kids, and even stay in touch with some of them,

All my siblings have children and a love them all, but not like my kids. I couldn't imagine sucking their snot, even if I'd be happy to change the odd diaper. They get hugs and kisses and loads of affection, but I don't want to constantly nuzzle them like I do my daughter, or just randomly pick them up and tell them how much I love them. Or inconveniently interrupt them just to give or receive some tenderness.

I think the old trope of you must love any step-children like your own flesh and blood is misplaced, even unrealistic. Does it even make sense? The expectation should be to treat them as much as possible in the same way as you would do your own and even that has limits.

The intact biological family - father, mother, children - is still far and away the best. No gainsaying. It moots so many of the issues presented by any other type.

There are reason why society has developed a reflex response to single - mostly mother - parenthood. There are reasons why discerning men are wary. It probably works better for the wealthy, as one of the big potential issues - finances - will be less significant.

The social dynamics and differing preferences/requirements of the sexes mean single fathers still have greater leeway - It's why they can still desire virgins Uju .

But seriously, there is nothing stopping a single mother demanding a never-married, childless man for a spouse is there? The choice and/or expectations are largely forced by the realistic probabilities. Truth. Some may have great, non-typical outcomes, but not a majority, not even many.

And someone said single-motherhood isn't bad? ATBE is it good? What advantages does it bring? Who grows up planning to be or marry a single parent?


TV

14sixty:
thank you for taking your time, will be expecting the completion of your reply sir.

Situation - Condolences for the loss of your mother and sister. Somethings have a lasting impact, even if we nominally get over them. You have been through too much, too early. You sound very well educated and/or of good background. Well spoken for someone who left school at 16?

I'm not sure how it was "impossible" to live with your father and step-mum? I can't quite work out when step mum arrived (was she a 2nd wife, or a later wife?), when you suffered the terrible loss of your mother and sister, and when you decided to strike out on your own?

Either way, you must have been treated horrendously, and/or been very rebellious? Have you really no contact with your father and extended family on both the paternal and maternal sides? Does no one care or look for you? Is there no interest in their daughter & grandchild?

It's also hard to believe a family allowed their 22 year old son move a 16 year old girl into their home? What were the long-term plans for both of you individually and as a couple? What on earth did his family think this would led to long-term? It's hard making sense of all of this.

Anyway, the very first thing I think you should consider is re-establishing contact with your family, especially your father, but as widely as possible. They are really the only people with, in a sense, ties, rights and obligations to fight on your behalf.

Ultimately you want them to appreciate your plight and be ready to stand for you. The authorities are a consideration, however, I don't know that the framework is in place, and properly functioning in Naija? for you to seek help from them. Perhaps others may know better

I think you both need to "look up" and consider the future, most importantly for your child. The seeming bleakness of your situation may be one of the things that's making you building up resentment against him. You seem to be "thinking ahead, his doing so may change his disposition.

Funnily enough, same may be happening on his side and it could eventually lead to a bitter split anyway. Then where would you be? Hence refer to my first point and do all you can to be reconciled with your family.

If you have truly made up your mind already, or ultimately decide to leave, in lieu of vows, there is nothing stopping you. But you have to think it through very carefully, from where you will go, to how you will support yourself, how you will resist efforts to force you back, whilst at the same time not denying the baby's father access. What could happen if the authorities became involved - especially if you are still vulnerable?

You mentioned other things like porn, possibly drugs, concomitant abuse, both physical and sexual in nature. You really need to be in a healthier place for your long-term well-being. Despite your best efforts, I can't see how this is healthy for baby either.

Please keep praying and looking to God for comfort in all of this. Your situation almost sounds Chibok-like, but He is faithful. Continue to keep your child at the forefront of your mind, it will motivate and inspire you. Try not to aggravate the situation in any way.


TV

14sixty:
Pls y'all should help me state your views and if anyone has been in similar situation as mine kindly tell me what you did.

Hello 14sixty. First, apologies for not responding earlier. I will try and respond in 3 parts, salvation, situation and sucour. Please bear with me, I may be in and out, and not able to finish at a go.

Salvation: many Christians (believers) take a while to fully understand the beauty and simplicity of Gods salvation in Jesus Christ. We often try and mix grace with works, and faith with law. We get that it's by faith, but can't help thinking that we have to work to complete and or finish it.

No, no, no. And Hallelujah to that. It's completely by grace. We don't meet the Lord at point A, then he points yonder to point B, saying "We are here by faith, salvation is over there, make your way towards it with good works". No.

You are saved, when you truly believe. End of. You may stumble, you may fall, you may find yourself situationally compromised, but you are saved. Your spirit is renewed, renew your mind with the scriptures and prayer. Celestial body to arrive later

Unless you willfully and determinedly reject Gods grace and the Salvation of The Lord Jesus Christ, you are saved. No need to pray and fast for salvation - I'm not actually convinced it's something you can do.

And there is no judgement for believers, let alone punishment. Eternal judgement is for unbelievers and even then punishment is not eternal. believers have an altogether different end where you meet with the Lord and are rewarded. Let your heart be assured and be at peace.

I struggled with this early on. The day after my salvation I swore at my sibling. I thought I'd never be able to do wrong again? How can? Salvation is separate to perfection, that comes with time. And although you are a new creation, the "old man" (in the flesh) will still stir, even though he is as one dead.

Don't feel guilt if you have truly repented and acknowledged your past sins and need of salvation. "It is finished". The enemy will remind you, your flesh will agitate you, be please rest in his finish work. There is nothing for you to do.

Hope this helps. Have family runs - will be back later.


God bless
TV

missjo:
My rant/beef ends here too. This thread has out lived its usefulness.

...not so fast, I'm not done ...besides, it's never about the thread really is it . Like said, it's about our learning...

MizMyColi:
TV01 touched up on some of the points that made me say I'm weak earlier.

I won’t lie. Sometimes I think you speak a whole load of mumbo-jumbo. And like I do a lot of the posters here, I was just going to leave you be, so far as you did’nt appear to champion immorality or blaspheme. And so it was until you felt the need to take me to task a while back .

But you know, you do appear genuine, very “from the heart”. And in some ways I think you at least try and be straight and aim for consistency. And that’s quite rare here. Credit where it is due. One step forward.

There’s a theory that women rarely speak truth to power, not unless it’s in their best interest. Indeed, the theory goes, truth or lies are not really a consideration, it’s more about staying onside of power and influence. Keeping relationships and favour going, no matter the compromise.

Why did you need me to say something, before you spoke? And even then, you spoke more to appease, than to address. Two steps back.
It’s why, despite what I hear here, I’ll always believe that men should lead in most areas and in most situations.

missjo:
As much as I don't agree with TV on a lot of things, your tone on this issue confirms a lot of what he laid out.

As distasteful as I found that tone, I did not mention it. I posted to address the repugnant dehumanising things that were being said about OP and her situation. That I found disgusting.

Afterall now, it seems that in context, anyone that is not - by whatever measure - equal to or above another person, may not actually be considered worthy to be treated like one.

Anyway, I understand that you both had to coat-tail me. Bowing to male leadership – it’s instinctive .

Anyways, have a great weekend

Doveda, originally, I was going to ignore, be scathing, or dismissive of your mention. But I realise none of those refute. So I replied, not really knowing you, and still had to edit a number of times, to ensure I didn’t lose the message in my scorn.

But now, having read some of your posts, painting you as someone who claims to be an avid feminist, I really should have gone with my instinct. You actually doubled down on something that was horrible to think, let alone say, whatever you believe, let alone for a self-proclaimed feminist?

Ranchhoddas, because of my response to her, you called me womens wrapper. It will sit nicely in my collection, which contains others, including; Pharisee, sexist, misogynist, hater of women, bully of women, talker downer on women, and my personal favourite “chauvinist”. I’ve also been called the M, C and F words, but I’m not actually old or bold enough to repeat those in full. I can’t believe I haven’t be labelled a feminist, upon all my effort .

It’s bathtime - not mine - but I may be back for the backbiters and, gainsayers - if I find the time and inclination.


TV

tearoses:
We cant argue
We can discuss

You haven't really given specific examples on her being pampered

CC, how far na? Hope all is well and things are just so in the homestead. You are first up, which ever way I look at it, even, if not especially, based on the Yoruba "age deference" tradition. And if it's age before beauty, then you'll be first and second - did I just dodge a bullet?

I didn't get the "pampering" bit at first either? But then I revisited this contextually. Think about it, in a country where brutalisation - the govt brutalizes the people, leaders brutalise their followers, spouses brutalise each other, parents brutalise children, madams brutalise helps, people routinely brutalise each other (just because). and the economy brutalises nigh on everyone - is the norm, it's perhaps understandable to see that some people may confuse treating others with basic human dignity and a modicum of respect, regardless of their wrong-doings or situation, as pampering - even among the well-to-do foreign educated burghers, in the high-brow rarefied environs of the Island.

My initial promise was to come back and acknowledge your first post, so I should probably have started with this. When I first read the kind of dehumanising things being written, I wanted to jump straight in. But I thought our resident feminists will soon be in to right this wrong.

After all, I thought, for those that hate feminism, for those that espouse it, for those on the mild end of the spectrum and those on the extreme, one thing they can all agree on is that woman should be free to make their own choices. Not a whisper as OP was discussed like she was a farmyard animal. I waited a few days not a sound. Then just as I was fumbling to post, stopping and starting - with lil' mama on my lap - you said something. Thank you for that glimmer of hope.

I find it helps not to have overly high expectations of anyone on here, and even to a degree in real life, but I always have hope. But where is the hope when too many of the women here seem to find it so hard to reason factually, cling tightly to a - IMO - shoddy ideology they can't follow through on, and offer nothing more than a therapeutic nod to objective morality.

And finally - age, beauty and character - as the mother of an adult, how do you think any mother would take it if random strangers turned up at the door, flip their "NL CharitySquad" ID, and presume to take control of your daughters life. The daughter you had long-suffered with for 26 years, the daughter who you were still housing and feeding and whose child, plus one on the way, you were caring for?

Or even the paternal grandmother in situ? The squad turn up and say "good job tending to the expectant mother", but this sprog is going up for adoption as soon as it's sprung? The mind boggles - let me stop.

Don't feel the need to answer me o jare, just musing while la famiglia are out jollying without me .

Actually, I do have one question. Given the new age-thingy, would you like to be addressed as mummy, mummy agba, or the more churchy "mother in Israel". For myself, I'm thinking 35+ refer to me as "big unku", while anything below that as "awon daddy wa" .


TV

...who's on duty here? And why is there a struggle with 101 stuff .

Boohema, this is relatively straight forward.

Are you right and ready for marriage? I see you nodding vigorously .
If you are, sImply tell your boo. After a year, you have the right to ascertain specifics.

Ask him if he will commit to marrying you. If he says no, walk.
If yes, then ask him when.

If it's too long walk, or tell him it's not acceptable.
You then tell him what is. If he agrees, fine, If not walk.

Ensure you are happy with the timeframe you specify or negotiate.

No regrets. All the best.


TV

As you are one of 2 who actually mentione me by name, I will take the time to post a few replies. The others knew to keep thier coo'ings coded, lest I swipe - what's it to be a cat among pigeons

I also have exprience of the West . And I'll tell you something else that occurs. Pet ownership in some countries is quite high. And some people really love their "pets". But it's still ownership - and they are in a sense "gods" to these animals. And, it shows, in the way they speak about, and treat them.

Feral animals will often be "neutered", and you'll hear "owners" talking of "castrating" or "spaying" their pets. But that's to be expected really, they are after all only animals right? But wouldn't you find that kind of language degrading if applied to humans?

Does anyone think that because they may drop something, or even take a genuine long-term interest in this girl, they have the right to make these type of pronouncements;

Onegai:
I don't know about you, but I think we should only support her if she puts up the child for adoption and gets an implant for contraceptive.

Onegai:
I'll give her money after she has the baby and puts it up for adoption and gets fitted with a 5-year Contraceptive.

Along with a number saying she had to terminate the pregnancy?

doveda:
@TV01, in the western world, they will often take kids from these type of women.

Only if they prove totally incapable of looking after them. Further, the West is not determinative for Nigeria - there are local customs and morés. This woman is an adult living in the bosom of her family. You get to decide whether you give or not, they get to decide how they wish to proceed. Rendering assistance doesn't give you "ownership", or even rights as such. Is that overly difficult to comprehend?

doveda:
If they don't, people like her live on child benefits and to keep it coming they give birth to more kids. In Nigeria, ladies like her keep kids coming for one man with N100 after another with N50000. The society will be the one to suffer the consequences of her poor choices.

Nobody beats the drum for the behaviours that leads to flourishing societies on this section more than I do. So please leave that. Where there are negative outcomes from destructive behaviours, we should by all means offer support, and work to breach the gap, but there are limits - and they don't extend to the kind of pronouncement above.

doveda:
Given her antecedent, she cannot make any life changing decisions.

It's not your place to say that. And her antecedents are not necessarily instructive to her future. And even if she cannot, her family - who by the way have been there until now - are next in the hierarchy - not those of us here.

doveda:
She feels like she is one smart babe. I don't know if you noticed , she has changed the title of her thread from help me to have mercy on me I don't want to die. That is the type of person you think should make decisions. Well, I believe she has already given the society the right to decide for her.

And if she has passed responsibility to “society”, that means any random individual, or FamilyLanders - if “society” does not have codified and workable laws?

Believe what you will, she asked for assistance, she didn’t agree to sign away her freewill, or sign up for a new god , and it says more about those who will think, write and justify that, than it does about her.

It's also good that you notice the kind of person "she is", because as I stated in my OP, I personally don’t see this as a charitable case. Her mother and wider family clearly have the means, her core problem is her rebelliousness.

If she would simply humble and apply herself she’d have a decent chance to make a good go of things. The crusading effort here is mostly "gist and preening" and will serve mostly to enable her on her current path.


TV

ojuolu:
Even if you use a more derogatory words than "inanity", I believe it will be unwise to join issue with you on social media on something sensitive as this. I am a christian husband and father. I am also a friend and colleague to few people going through one abusive relationship or the other. One thing i am not is a bigot. When we needed to be practical in protecting lives at the brinks of destructions, we should seek for divine wisdom and sense, not the bible say or a pastor says. Let the Spirit interpret the words. God gave us eyes so that we can see dangers, brain to know dangerous situation, legs and other useful body parts so that we can avert dangers where possible and when necessary. A man or woman who died in an abusive relationship will still face judgment and don't let us start to imagine the "questions and answers session" that may take place that very day.
In as much as i do not support divorce, i will not encourage anyone, even you reading this to continue to stay in an abusive relationship (especially Physical and Emotional) in the name of one ideology or belief. We really dont have the resource or time to deal with abusive partners in this clime for now as to encourage anyone to keep holding on.
Thank you.

Your post still stands as poorly reasoned. I'll tell you why;

1. I never said anyone should stay in a dangerously abusive situation - my first post on this thread made that clear.
2. The bible is clear about the "till death do part" nature of marriage.
3. Claiming that The Holy Spirit may lead differently in individual instances, at best makes the bible meaningless, and at worst...
4. Individual responses simply means every man does what is right in his own sight - which is not actually Christian at all is it?
5. In as much as you do not support divorce, you do support it if... right? That's exactly what you are saying.
6. The Christian way is to set the right marital foundation, which will obviate any abuse, and seek remedies if it should occur.

Happy to take back the use of inanity. Likewise you can replace your use of the word bigot!


TV

I also recall OPs other post about her misadventure in SA. And, I don’t actually consider this to be a charitable case. She has a place to stay, and a wider family who she is with, and who posses some means.

But that’s me, I’m in no way seeking to inform what other people decide to do, or not do in this case. The reason I’m here is because of the, without mincing words, nauseating way some of you think you can take dictate to this woman just because you may render some assistance.

What gives you the right to control her fertility, mandate she gives her child up for adoption, or forcefully has an abortion. Who died and didn’t rise again and made any of you God? Can you even hear yourselves?

She should marry a “mature man” and relocate to Ibadan? Is this farce? And then when she acts out the destructive behaviours and the marriage is strained or potentially fails, you’ll prescribe the “7 day, 4 step program to winning back your wife”?

I mean a liability is one thing, but a loose canon, is something else entirely. Have you thought of lining up the “mature men” amongst your own kinfolk?

I guess the US coercing African countries to adopt “progressive gay-rights policies" via aid and diplomatic pressure, is a good thing then?
Who made you arbiters?

If a man or group of men sat down to make decisions around womens reproduction based on criteria they considered suitable, you’d all be up in arms, yet here you are, crowing over a woman in a mess, even if it's self-inflicted?

What objective criteria make you think you can mandate the measures you're forcefully presenting? Yet when we present no sex before marriage and intact biological homes, you rail against it and scream people are trying to impose their beliefs.

And you have all but judged her to nothingness. Yes she has, speaking delicately, been wayward and done things beyond the pale for most people, but that accords you no rights over her, or makes your anger righteous.

Neither does rendering assistance if you freely choose to do so. Be that financial or life mentoring. And Onegai, reading one or two of your post would actually suggest you may have an ulterior motive.


TV

DollyParton1:
You realise the word abuse means it is not a one off thing.

Maybe it would help if you provided a clear-cut definition of abuse. I have so far heard nothing I can consider objective and meaningful here.
If a spouse slaps there other half once, it is not abuse? Ok, what if it happens twice? What is the qualitative difference? When is it abuse?

ojuolu:
This is far from reality. Do a check. Walk in that shoe and come back and talk here.

A short, seemingly simple sentence - but packed with so much inanity, I don't even know where to start . Do we determine imperatives based on individual experiences?


TV

Bollinger:
The fact that one is being battered is enough grounds for divorce.

Remove your self from danger by all means - and I wouldn't wait for a divorce to come through before doing that. But scripturally, marriage is until death do part. You can remain separated for as long as it is wise to do so, all the while seeking healing and reconciliation.

If you cannot reconcile or choose not too, you are not free remarry as long as your spouse remains alive. That is the position whether you term it separation, living apart or legal divorce.

And for the record, the bible is clear on the conduct expected from husbands and wives - it does not allow, prescribe or condone abuse. If you are not a Christian, do as you please. Do so even if you call yourself one, but the scriptures are clear.


TV

Bollinger:
Suurrreee. Ok. I wanna see how long you can withstand being brutalized on a daily basis. Lets see how you would view the scripture as regard this. It is amazing how most barbaric acts are often justified using the bible. Smh.

...and how did I justify abuse - or any barbaric act - using the bible?


TV