₦airaland Forum

Mindfulness:
I am passionate about Europe but I am not hurting. It's just that unqualified statements are irritating and you have just exposed your utter ignorance and since the British were obstructinist to reforms within the EU, life will be easier without them. And any country that is not a team player can leave too. I am all for a smaller Europe with countries that truly want to work on this project and shape Europe passionately instead of countries that act like the EU is an enemy and who ride on people ignorance that EU officials are not democratically elected.

Your passion for Europe engenders no inalienable rights . And it remains the inalienable right of Britain to opt in or out; for whatsoever reason we so choose. Swallow with plenty water .

Mindfulness:
Nonsense. You claimed that refugees = people with refugee status can cross borders and it was utter ignorance. Now you are swimming in your sea of ignorance referring to those who will be granted full citizenship even though most of them won't because refugees are suppossed to leave the country as soon as the war is over. You don't even know the difference between migrants and refugees. PULEASE!

Please show me where I claimed anything remotely like that One of the UK' problems is glaring. Insufferable pressure on infrastructure due to the influx of people. Asylumites, Fugees, Immigrants - legal and illegal - has lead to undue pressure. Not to mention the Islamicist threat with the influx from the middle east.

Mindfulness:
Only ignorant people will feel that a million Poles since 2004 are a threat to social services when in fact unregulated financial markets, which the British government was in favour of, are responsible for the crisis that hit Europe. Please, stop exposing yourself more. Have you explained why the union is undemocratic yet?

Hush you propagandist mouth. We who live here feel the pinch from the influx. School places, hospital beds, housing. We need to be smarter with how we manage this and who we let in.

The British governemtn was in favourt - but they enacted it alone in the EU abi . You so blinded. Surely that makes the point for you. Is not the EU better of without us then? We are not doing. Na by force? .

Mindfulness:
And why is it entirely about immigration now? Have you not the most welcoming culture as you claimed?

It's not - only in your head and the head of those who can't believe we prefer to be out of the EU. You have to paint us as bigoted and deceived to console yourselves . Sovereignty is a bigger bone of contention.

And the UK - especially London - is the most diverse and cosmopolitan of European countries. We have Asain, Black, Muslim etc. Mayors of major urban centers. How many Africans ultimately find their way to the UK via other EU countries.

Mindfulness:
Nationalism and tribalism has led to bloody wars but I don't expect someone like you to have a broader horizon.
Explain to us how laws are made in the EU before you use words like dictatorial. Have you not googled it yet?
And tell us when last you voted for the European parliament.

Nationalism builds strong Nations, by forging a common heritage and shared values. Be shouting EU citizen there like the nomad you are. Like what you found in Germany appeared out of nowhere based on the free movement of people. You are booming

Mindfulness:
Nations can also cooperate just like individuals.

Blinkered outlook and shoddy thinking. They do not have to subsume themselves in a forced, unequally yoked, political union to do so. We will still drive those finely crafted vehicles from the Bavarian Motor Works (I'm on Golf sha - all na Deutshe )


TV

DjAndroid:
HONESTLY I SEARCHED NAIRALAND FOR THIS ISSUE AND IN THE PROCESS I SAW YOUR COMMENT AND EVEN SHOWED MY SISTER TO READ BEFORE I OPENED THIS THREAD. THANKS FOR THE ELABORATE EXPLANATION.

You re welcome. Hope your sister charts the best course for her - with her family' love and support.

Best
TV

DevGuru, hi. First, I am personally comforted by your unwavering faith. I love hearing from, and about those with a real religious fervour - in a faith kinda way. I'm also extremely happy to see the tide has turned in this saga.

However, I feel there are some steps you should take to safeguard your home the more;

1. Prayer - please keep this up. And think about having family devotional time, even if it's a more strategic goal. I feel your wife is of weak faith, if any.

2. You cannot keep his between you and your father alone. When he had ascended power, David filled all the key positions with his own trusted men. Mostly his immediate family. You should have at least one other brother of your generation who is wise, knows and gives solid counsel. It behoves all men to have a cadre, if not at least one, strong man he can call on at any time. Preferably a blood relation.

3. By all means continue to love your wife, but let her be clear that there is a new "steely" you she has to contend with. Cut the loving with some authoritarian moves. Don't be swayed by her every - if any - display of emotion or tears.

4. Your in-laws - of your sisters generation - are to be kept at arms length - t'oko, t'aya. None have demonstrated the kind of integrity that means you can afford to trust them. The sisters husbands have really disappointed.

5. Whatever their ages or status, you are a man running your own home, you don't defer to them, or anyone in that regard. Do not feel the need to be over solicitous, or curry their favour,. And as things stand, they must be distanced to a degree by both you and your wife. Enforce it, and even show them you don't necessarily give a rats arse about them.

6. Your mother must be clear that you are not guilty as charged, you did your wife no harm, and she did not fail in raising you right. Also her father/parents, must know what their daughter/s have done, even if they are not expected to take action. Indeed, let them know it's merely FYI, no need for them to act.

7. If possible, and if the sister in laws are proximate to where you are, think about moving.

8. Good to see you've already armed and fired as I initially suggested, but have a long time plan for your wife and childcare, work, or business. Needless to say her family must not be involved.

9. I believe they are, but satisfy yourself the children are both yours.

10. Keep your eyes peeled. The genesis of this matter may simply be a combination of immaturity, and petty spitefulness that got out of hand, or it may simply be wicked dispositions on the part of the sister in laws. It may also be for a specific reason that may yet come to light. In all, keep trusting God, don't force anything. I always say "it's not how much you know, but how faithful you are". He watches over you.

All the best and may your home wax stronger & stronger as a result of this. God is good.


TV

DjAndroid:
My younger sister who is 24, is a junior pastor in her church in Ikeja and has a suitor whom she loves and wants to get married to.

My family accepted the man but when my sister told her senior pastor, he said no outrightly without even seeing the guy. His reason was that the guy is not a member of their church. In fact he told my sister to forget about marriage now, that she will start thinking of marriage after two years from now.

The senior pastor is about 33 or 34 years old and not married yet. But about to get married soon. My sister said she is afraid that if she marries the man, she might be suspended as a pastor in the church.

I don't wanT to take sides, please advice

First, understand this; you and your family are potentially failing your sister.
Then read this - https://www.nairaland.com/25562/pastor-parents-whose-decision-final#652377

All the best. Let me know if you have any further questions'


TV

Ey yah! I can see your passions are aroused and you are hurting...and coming dangerously close to blowing the civilised discourse you always prate about . I'll respond to a few of your points to demonstrate how much of a mindless ideological automaton you are;

Mindfulness:
Another statement that is based on ignorance (no offense). Refugees are not even allowed to leave their state within a country, much less cross borders between countries.

Hivemind - so refugee status is indeterminate? . Even if in stages, will they not eventually be granted full citizenship rights? Will they, even as refugees, not be allowed to settle certain family members? Will they at some point not be allowed to work unencumbered - if only to get them off welfare. An amazingly daft statement

Mindfulness:
This is the biggest lie ever. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out and they create more jobs, directly and indirectly and an aging society like the British one will increasingly depend on immigration.

Come is this your ideology genetically embedded, or is it administered via daily injections/intravenous drip . Immediate contributions, even if I concede your point for arguments sake, are very much different from a long-term investment.

Ten Foreigners coming to the UK, even earning £100K and paying higher rate tax of 40%, have not invested long term in building and maintaining infrastructure. Their immediate contributions will not fund school places for their children, or hospital places for their sick relatives. Not to mention the real sacrifices of blood, sweat and tears it takes to build a nation through time and history.

And, I don't concede the point about them contributing more. There are simply too many factors and assumptions - most are not highly skilled and high earning. Age, length of stay, skill profile, fertility, entitlement to welfare, infrastructure use etc., are all considerations.

Most models are extremely simplified, none look at things historically, and the net difference, even for favourably biased reports, is always a few % points. So its, not a lie, let alone the biggest one ever, quit the histrionics, And quit the expectation of my comforting you in your ideological fog

Mindfulness:
Not immigrants are responsible for the low standards in your country but your past governments who failed to make medium-term and long-term investments.

I actually agree here. Mass or unchecked immigration, although presenting problems of it's own, is more a symptom of deeper underlying issues. The lack of infrastructural and educational investment is a huge failure, however, Europe' big blunder is it's falling fertility. Hence the need for immigrants. I laughed my self silly over the 7 odd players of African descent in the French team

Mindfulness:
Live free? You are no longer free on this continent. Going back to nationalistic concepts is a regression into 19th century thinking. It's as ridiculous as tribalistic thinking on the African soil.

I'd wager that 95% of people in healthy, well-ordered EU countries have no desire to roam. Visit, maybe, roam, nah! Turkey is somewhere I visit. I'm not moving there. Lot's of French nationals rock up to the UK due to the accommodating environment for business and talent. The UK will not lose more than it gains by leaving.

Nationalism/tribalism has it's place, strong nations can engage, share, co-operate and trade - as they have always done. Unevenly yoking nations together does not mean progress, it means problems. Nations and peoples without their right to sovereignty and self-determination always experience unrest. The UK exit regardless, the EU project is a failure, and only being held together by increasingly dictatorial policy.

Mindfulness:
You better continue else you will be eaten up by rising nations with which you won't be able to compete - God forbid - if you indeed become little England.

If the UK is superceded naturally so be it. Nations strive and compete just like individuals. It's up to them to compete effectively.


TV

Mindfulness:
You as a black non-EU citizen will surely be welcomed everywhere to stay there permanently even though xenophobia - as you said - pervades Europe as a whole.



We have seen how cosmopolitan and welcoming the UK culture is recently.


And we will see if Great Britain will remain great or if it will become Little England eventually.

I actually voted to leave. For me, pivotal was the question of sovereignty. Increasingly, laws are enacted by un-elected EU bureaucrats. Our MEPS do not enact laws. That is not democracy as we know it.

It is becoming more of a political union than an economic one. With an Eu army up next? And border control is key to a nations integrity. If Angela Merkel invites a million refugees to Germany, she's inviting them to the UK. Likewise for the other 27 countries. Not all who by the wat, are geared up for, or welcoming of the idea.

Tribally, more immigrants will just push lower situated blacks further down the pecking order, and engender xenophobia, which as I mentioned is Europe-wide.

What will happen? Yes, there is some uncertainty, but rather live free than become a province of the EU super-state. The times of empire are long gone, I will be the first to admit that, and perhaps good-riddance to a lot of what it stood for.

But we still got the commonwealth - if only symbolically . And our near kin in the Antipodes, along with our special relationship with the Yanks. We are also furiously licking Chinese - and even Indian - ass !


TV

Mindfulness:
I have 27 countries I can freely travel to and stay for as long as I want. I never wanted to live in Britain so nothing has been lost. I would have a long time ago if I wanted. Sorry for the xenophobia you are surrounded by.

I saw a Black British on TV last night who was recalling how people were shouting at him to return where he came from even though he was born in the UK.

And visiting those same 27 countries will not be impaired for Brits. People don't just up and move "because they can", and it is not necessarily a universally good thing. Xenophobia pervades Europe as a whole, you will simply have increasing Islamisication to deal with in addition.

A good freind of mine - who has moved permanently to the UK - told me how he was set upon by German police dogs, whilst simply walking the steets in broad daylight. Regardless, the UK has the most cosmopolitan and welcoming culture.


TV

Mindfulness:
Believe whatever you choose to, we all do.



I am - unlike you - a EU citizen.

British mate, we Brexiting. EU citizens are now foreigners . And we will not accept you. Even if you swallow common law whole.

You can visit sha'. But do not overstay


TV

crackhaus:
Of course it's definitely not a convenient solution, it is the height of absolute confusion - daddy bearing a different surname, mummy bearing her own hyphenated version of the surname, and then children bearing either of the two.

It's how common sense is often subjugated to ideology that is really tragic.

Parents have a hyphenated mix of both names. Children subsequently have double barrelled names, and their intendeds likewise...ad-infinitum, through successive generations? Confusion.

Truth is usually simple and sensible. Matrilineality is markedly different from Matriarchy - as we have schooled Sister Mindfulness previously.

francis18:
IS THAT A CHEST?

TV

Mindfulness:
The following female celebrities from Greece have dropped their maiden names ENTIRELY and taken on their husband's name:

1. Alkistis Protopsalti (singer)
2. Nana Karagouni (wife of a football player)
3. Efi Katsourani (wife of a football player)
4. Aleka Papariga (politician)

Is any of these names hyphenated?

And this is an extract from an article from 1983, which summarizes what the law is about:

"Other provisions, he said, would allow a wife to keep her own name for legal questions and to choose whichever family name she wished."

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/30/world/greece-gives-wives-equal-voice-in-the-home.html


I have lived in Greece, I have Greek friends and I know what I am talking about.
If you don't believe me, go and visit the Greek community in London and tell them that their women are not allowed to take on their husband's name and tell us their reactions to your assertion.

Living in Greece, does not make one a Greek constitutional expert . But all the time on NL (+ your long and expensive education ), should make it easy to grasp, no one has actually said Greek women cannot take on their husbands surnames. Socially, they are allowed to have their husbands names only. Legally - in Greece - they are not allowed to drop their maiden names.

Did you pass through Greece as a migrant


TV

Mindfulness:
I have come to disprove the statement that women are not free to drop their maiden names to take on their husband's name in Greece and I have several times. Have a nice day.

Perhaps in an alternate reality. Your own post clearly show that they can have both, but not his only.

http://time.com/3940094/maiden-married-names-countries/

In many countries, a woman taking her husband's surname is a breach of local custom, or even illegal

While women in the U.S. are increasingly keeping their maiden names, that’s nothing new just across the border. In Quebec, all women have been keeping their maiden names since 1981, whether they want to or not.

Provincial law in Quebec forbids a woman from taking her husband’s surname after marriage. The rule was instated soon after the creation of the Quebec Charter of Rights, which went into effect in 1976, and is intended to extend the charter’s statement on gender equality to names.

And Quebec isn’t the only place. In Greece, a similar law requiring all women keep their maiden name was enacted in 1983 during a wave of feminist legislation.

TV

Mindfulness:
I jumped into the discussion when I saw Crackhaus referring to Greece, a country I had the pleasure to spend two years of my life in. And I was sure that he was wrong since most women I met there had their husband's name. And there STILL is no law - like in Quebec - which stops a woman from taking her husband's name in Greece. The evidence are famous celebrities, which I have mentioned on this thread. Feel free to google up on them.

The point of the OP and, Crackhaus thrust, was feminism coming to bear on naming conventions. The Greek legislation restricts choice as it stops women dropping their maiden names if they so desire. End of. Your entry point and take did nothing to disprove that fact.

Being free to append your husbands surname is not synonymous with being free to drop your maiden name and adopt his surname. Legislation in this regard restricts choice, it does not not expand it.Clear?


TV

Processor01:
TV01 - Your attention is needed here sir

Holá Bro'. How far? Hope all is well. I didn't like the OP as it seemed to suggest little that one could do to "risk-proof" ones home.

From a purely Christian perspective, I believe and have experienced the following;
Ecclesiastes 7:26 And I find more bitter than death The woman whose heart is snares and nets, Whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God shall escape from her, But the sinner shall be trapped by her.

It is fitting for a mature Christian man to boldly search for a wife, if he commits his ways to God, he will not go wrong.

I actually like to believe that as marriage was instituted by God, he may even intervene on behalf of unbelievers. I never heard of a union that went wrong that didn't flag up potentially damaging issues beforehand. But without discernment or maturity, they can be ignored, or overridden by feelings.

I met a few women who at first glance I thought "wifey for sure". But I simply could not ignore the warnings, regardless of what I felt or wanted.

Yet still, people from strong families, with a proud heritage and robust marriage culture, will possess the wherewithal to raise and guide their children aright when it comes to marriage. Truly, it is not Brain science, or rocket surgery .

Read this post. It's the Emir of Kano defending - or explaining - his marriage to a 4th wife of 18 years. Not that I agree with polygamy, or even the age gap in this case, my point here is the clear elucidation he gives regards marriage tradition and expectation amongst his people.
https://www.nairaland.com/2632649/emir-sanusis-response-marriage-saadatu#38507290

Marriage is a serious business, not a pot-luck meal. Treat it as such.


TV

darkenedrebel:
Let me use old Oyo empire as an example: before the advent of the Whites, before colonization, before the missionaries landed on African soil, the woman NEVER took up her husband's name. NEVER!!! That people don't know this beggars description and really questions the validity of the educational system in Nigeria. If the woman's name was Titilayo Owolabi and her husband's name was Adekunle Adewale, she would be adressed in public as: Titilayo, Omo Owolabi, Aya Adewale. Translation: Titi, child of Owolabi, wife of Adewale. She was NEVER adressed as Tilayo Adewale, it is only her children that would now take up the father's name. If anybody doesn't know this and refuses to believe it then let him/her go and buy the history of the Yorubas written by Samuel Johnson or any book at all on Yoruba culture and tradition, or better still conjure the spirit of their dead great great-grand-parents to ask them in person.

So a long wordy post, strategic use of smileys, snide invective, overweening self-congratulatory smugness, and - so far - 6 affirmatory smileys. Your candidature for the NL hall of fame seems assured, even if only in the family section. But not so fast sir;

Historically in the West, a woman would have a label - "Mrs" - that signified her marital status, and a name - "her husbands surname" - that identified her with a particular man.

Historically amongst the Yoruba, a woman would have a title "Aya" - that signified her marital status - and a name "her husbands first name" - that identified her with a particular male.

Pray tell, what was you point again? Particularly in light of the OP? The OP is clear, it is feminist ideology that is driving moves away from this norm. Especially via legislative intervention - thanks Crackhaus, I honestly was not aware.
http://time.com/3940094/maiden-married-names-countries/

Mindfulness:
Obviously, there is no law that makes it illegal for women to take on their husband's name.
Whatever the law says, is definitely not that it is illegal to drop your maiden name and take on your husband's name solely.

You are free to dig up the law. Let's see if the law is about women having a choice or women having no choice other than keeping their maiden name.

Mindfulness, more thought, and consideration before posting please. First, kindly refer to the link above. Especially referencing Quebec and Greece. Second, if women were free to adopt any naming convention they choose post marriage, why would a law be needed? It's not as if it would expand choice? Ergo, the law - again refer to the link - can only be about restricting choice. Which is one of the lies of feminism, in that it belabours the point about choice for women, but in actuality, it restricts choice by ideological diktat.

If we are talking anecdotally, it's interesting to note that many in this same West, and, who have no truck with, religious or cultural norms, marry and take their husbands surname - especially when children appear. They typically cite the unity and fullness this engenders. Some are now denied that choice by feminist driven legislation. How ironic.

As a man, the woman that will be my wife will take my name. End of. If she wants to bear her fathers name, he may as well marry her. The name change signifies her moving from his authority and responsibility to mine. Not that it's crucial in and of itself, but fitting. It also signifies some of the marital obligation and responsibilities that fall on the husband.

Likewise for offspring, my children will carry my name. End of. Even if FIL has no male sons, it is solely within my gift, if I choose to name my family or children to honour him. And I won't - at best one of my children will bear his name as first name. Men are and should remain jealous and territorial. She and they are mine .

And at days end, where has the convention ever been that a man drops his surname upon marriage - an anecdotal question .


TV

byvan03:
True, very disturbing issue. His parents won't forgive this, I doubt any parent will. A lot will change after this, his parents might hate her passionately and that will spell doom for their marriage if they decide to make up. It might be less scathing to just end the marriage, I just fear for how his parents will react to the news. The more I read the story , the angrier I get, I got your point fully TV.

Given OP' report of his mothers love, I'm sure she will readily forgive and hope for restoration as much as anyone. The Daddies and Mummies tend to see long-term, and think as much of their grandkids. As for "marital goodwill", old couples probably get that more than most. In their time they will have been through and probably seen a lot.

I believe the danger here is mostly from his wife' immaturity and the malevolence of her sisters. Once those are managed and contained, hopefully it should be full steam ahead.

Timbuktou:
Egbon TV01, hailings o. Life called and I had to answer. I also missed your wise counsel and merciless ribbing of these liberated women on here.
This comment of yours,
"...one wonders if the GDT that patrol these parts will come and advise divorce due to her violence, afterall, once it starts, it escalates till death, no?..."
I can only shake my head at the response.
Don't mind Byvan, she seems to be lacking nutrients. But I'm glad others have been more temperate with her than I could. But I hear good cop-bad cop is an effective strategy.
How's the family?

Forget them, they simply can't show face. Hopefully they are all getting, or have had the same stern warnings from their husbands - the ones that have of course

Family are fine thanks for asking - I'm busy sacrificing for them !


TV

Tearoses, thank you for you input on the potential damage to OP. Yetseyi cc'ed.

Byvan03, this has to be aired to a certain degree in public. This man has been trashed to both parents, siblings and almost certainly further abroad. Work colleagues, friends, neighbours, church, the scatter effect could be endless.

The man is could actually be unsafe, and things could seriously escalate. Who knows what the end-goal was or potential complications? Airing it will affords him some degree of immediate immunity.

I once had a female friend who I shared my pre-marital woes with, she asked for permission to share my travails with her besties, for a good laugh . I once asked her to hook me up with one of said besties, the e-mail response was scathing. She didn't just let me know the girl wasn't interested, she forwarded me the e-mail . People who like to hurt, like to gossip, her sisters will be publishing this story with glee.

I apologise to Timbuktou on your behalf . Tim holá, how far, missed a brother up in here.


TV

DevGuru:
NOTICE: Please, my story is still very long despite that I tried very hard to remove some unnecessary portions. But if you can be patient to read it to the end, then you are ready to give a mature opinion.

DG Bro' how far? I can only begin to imagine the kind of turmoil you are in. It's betrayal by any name - and by the one you trusted in most implicitly. It is well. First compose yourself, and be mindful of how you engage your wife until you take action. My thoughts; As a Christian, I do not believe divorce is ever warranted, so I will share with you out of that worldview. Taking your report as read...

There is something I personally term "marital goodwill". It builds up after a couple have journeyed together. Have found inspiration, encouragement, and intimacy in one another. When they have been there for one another, and through together. After such, divorce is never the simple clean-cut option it may appear to be, even without it, it's not

This woman was there with you through trying times and you have both endured and prospered together. Seek restoration. Truth is, women are all "much of a muchness".

First, obtain a secure copy of the recordings. Then discuss with your dad (and possibly your mum if you feel it appropriate). You then call a meeting with you, your dad (and mum), and your wife' dad (and mum).

I would normally eschew involvement of any 3rd parties, but she has already tarnished you as a wife-beater, even if it's only in the eyes of your parents, for their comfort, and so they don't get played again, you should exonerate yourself.

You then have a follow-up meeting that involves the both of you as a couple and both sets of parents. You can rationalise the number of meetings if you feel you can manage it in fewer, or have them close together. But you must strike, and strike early.

First, you want your wife' full acceptance and apology for her actions, and a recommitment to your home, and you as head. Then you want your In-laws full acknowledgement of the actions of their offspring. Freely and openly forgive her, then warn her briefly and tersely; this type of thing will irreparably damage the relationship if it continues.

Then ask your in-laws to speak to their daughters/sons whatever, and however they choose (do not do this yourself. Alternatively, you can have the husbands of the sisters involved present). Long/short, they warn them never to interfere in your marital affairs, and to stay away for now.

Have a DNA check on your daughter (I actually feel she's yours, given you've mentioned the resemblance), and check you are still potent. Then fire her again, she needs to be busier!

Don't accept any entreaties, overtures or mago-mago from her siblings. Treat them Offishly until they get the message, then only cordially at best. If their husbands are solid fellows, factor that in.

Not to sound blasé, but it's not as bad as it seems, but it could be a lot worse. Learn and grow from this. Keep a close eye on the state of your marriage and do everything to fortify it.

Love and treat your wife well, without pandering to her, or letting her see you as weak/malleable - not an easy juggle , I know. She should be maturing, and outgrowing some of these behaviours that can prove so damaging to marriage. See that she is. Watch the company she keeps.

All the very best. Bear your burden like a stout man.


Cheers
TV

^{...one wonders if the GDT that patrol these parts will come and advise divorce due to her violence, afterall, once it starts, it escalates till death, no?...}

thorpido:
Well,i guess these things must be in fulfilment of scriptures but one thing is sure,darkness can't prevail over light.

Ultimately, I absolutely agree. But there will be many persecuted, many casualties, and some may take compromise to far, or even capitulate.

I was listening to the radio here once (LBC 97.3 FM to be precise), and a caller suggested "that those who do not give their children a favourable view of homosexuality should be exposed to the law".

The implications if that came to pass, and I can totally see it given the way things are going, are manifest. Ultimately they could take your children away from you, and they could actually end up given to a same-sex couple.

When they take your children away from you here, it's ordered by judges and the records sealed. You never see your children again.

Yes, light will prevail, but this will not end well - it simply can't.


TV

Mindfulness:
Well, I don't share OP's views but I also wonder where you got your views from.

I'm sure postman will be back to reply you (double portion ), but I also find your views rather questionable.

Mindfulness:
I diasgree. For a marriage to be successful each partner has to selfishly care about him- and herself IN THE FIRST PLACE. Selfish, in this context, does not mean that you disregard or disrespect your partner but that you make sure that you are so abundant, in emotional and pragmatic sense, that giving is a pleasure and not sacrifice.

See evidence of your confusion - I mean, what does the bold even mean - especially in the context of marriage and family

Mindfulness:
A happy marriage does not feel like hard work and sacrifice, it feels easy and it flows (most of the time) and it is enriching and not sacrificial.

More confusion, are enriching and sacrificial mutually exclusive or diametrically opposed?

Mindfulness:
He doesn't want to make a woman his and this is what the thread is actually about. If you want to convince him of the privileges and advantages of marriage, then advertise for it instead of confirming to him the negative reasons why he doesn't want to get married.

No he doesn't want to "make a woman his", or himself hers. He wants to use her for his selfish ends. The OP is about satisfying his lusts and desires without thought to others involved or the longer term consequences.

And postmann' point was about "marriage and parenthood", which you artfully dribbled past

Mindfulness:
It doesn't take any responibility and sacrifice to become a father. It takes a few minutes of pleasure. Being a father is a whole different thing. And no, I wouldn't tell my kids that I had to sacrifice anything to be a parent. I would tell them that it took love and that having them made my life more beautiful and not harder.

Please note the difference 'twixt a father and a sperm donor. This love you keep prating on about that you have so far failed to define - as Carefree and as Mindfulness .

I have been sacrificing my sleep this past month, as for various reasons both my kids have not been sleeping well. Raising kids means I have less disposable income, less time to myself, to do the things I like to indulge in. It's a sacrifice, but one I consider well worth it. Indeed, a shorthand way of putting it is sacrifice = love. Refer to the bible verse John 3:16

Mindfulness:
Again, too many people make marriage and parenthood look like it is some sort of experience that you need to have strength for, when all it takes for it to be successful is love, passion and joy.

Yes, it may vary, but certain degrees of sacrifice, perseverance, patience and strength may all come to play in being married and raising children. It varies, but it is required. After all, if that was not the case OP wouldn't be trying his damnedest to absolve himself of the burden/responsibility would he?

Mindfulness:
I don't wake up in the morning, saying 'God, give me strength to sacrifice my sleep to make breakfast for my family.' I wake up and I look forward to having my family at one table. I enjoy it.

Ask the women here; https://www.nairaland.com/3187447/men-sex-life-after-vaginal if looking like an extra out of Spartacus after a cross-section, or having their down bellows stitched from one orifice to the other is not a sacrifice? Ask them how many enjoyed pregnancy, labour, delivery or the initial aftermath. Ask the men if not having the closeness, the intimacy or even your wife for a while is thoroughly enjoyable. Mindfulness talk true, you never born

Mindfulness:
This is not what he said. He wants kids and not a relationship / marriage and with the way you people talk about marriage, I can understand him.

What he wants is the fulfilment of his lusts and desires without consequence. The particulars of being male, without the burdens of manhood. And of course, it's women who will bear the brunt. Ask the women I cited above if after all they went through to deliver, it would be great for the father to be elsewhere knocking boots - ye I'm old - with a more nubile chick, instead of supporting her and caring for their child.

Mindfulness:
What about children raised in high-conflict marriages? Are they better off? Anyway, that's a different topic.

Standard false narrative, always compare a fatally flawed and simply bad idea with the worst possible outcome, and an outlier, of a good one.

Do try and have expansive convos, and not simply weave self-justification into your every utterance. Some real life experience would go a long way too .


TV

Ishilove:
That's not going to happen. There's a lot of things wrong with Africa but accepting homosexuality is not one of them.

Really? What about South Africa? What about threats from The West - most notably the US and the UK - that are threatening aid and trade sanctions if "gay" rights are not expedited? What about the UN championing and weaving "sexuality" and "orientation" into it's principles and policies. What about the charities, aid agencies and NGO's that are promulgating this by stealth?

Ishilove:
I am not going to raise my children in a society where men straffing men and vice versa is the norm, and if may God forbid they are born into such evil, I will drum into their consciousness to loathe all things gay.

Those in countries where it happens - roughly 20 or so of 186 - are having it forced on them. It's been woven into school curricula from as young as 6, with no excuse permitted for concerned parents. Small businesses such as bakers and photographers are being persecuted & bankrupted. People are losing their jobs and livelihoods, for simply disagreeing with, or failing to celebrate gayness.

Ishilove:
What nonsense!! Must they shove their perversion in our faces? Do you know that in a certain state in America, court documents have removed 'Mother/ Father' slots, and replaced it with 'Parent 1 and Parent 2'?

What arrant rubbish!

That already happened in Spain and some of the earlier country which already adopted this. It's a natural progression. Mother/father, husband/wife, are eradicated. After all, they are discriminatory in a homosexualised world aren't they? Or better understood as, for a lie to prevail, truth in language, and what words mean have to be butchered, parenthood becomes a legal construct. It's why we have NL championing "gay" parenting, aka child abuse.

Resist the narrative, there is no such thing as a "hetero" or "homo", person. It's not a fixed identity, or orientation. It's not intrinsic, immutable or inherent. It's not genetic. It's dysfunctional and disordered behaviour. It is not the basis for marriage or an equivalent setting for child nurture. Gird yourself, acquire understanding, resist at every opportunity - watch and pray!

thorpido:
If they appealed the judgement,I guess those up there might still award the case against them.
A lot of people say it's not anyone's business what two consenting adults do but we're seeing where it's gonna be other people's business when they force it down their throats.

Appeal or no appeal. It's already an utter failure that it's gotten to court. No sane society embeds homosexuality, and persecutes those who do not subscribe and celebrate it.


TV

Ishilove:
Uwa meeebiiiiii! What nonsense! What arrant rubbish!

There have always been "gay" dating sites and physical hook-up spaces. No one ever cried discrimination. But now it's been normalised and mainstreamed, everything must be homosexualised.

It's heading your way. But now you have been forewarned, gird yourself. Resist it, or even the whiff of it at every opportunity.They will demand you bow at this altar and sacrifice your children on it.

Sin abounds and it cannot abode the light. It will seek to banish all dissent and demand unwavering allegiance. We even have storm-troopers - both the ignorant and the plain evil - with us here on NL.

God pass dem.


TV

trekkie:
Profound. And yet you must admit that the modern marriage model will scare the average unmarried.

Yes and yes. But the fear can easily be expelled with a clear understanding of marriage, the way to go about it, and the right expectations to have. These should be grasped before marriage is entered into.

Most marriages that suffer do so because they are not right, ready or possess the required mindset. Clear that up and you are good to go. The failure rate should be in the low single digits at worst.


TV

Mindfulness:
Where is TV01 when needed?

Please Mindfulness, you really need me to answer this sophomoric tripe?

Take point 1 for example - Peace of mind: I googled one of the role models mentioned - Davido - he recently had big palaver with his baby mama and her family. Ugly, embarrassing, and to be frank, low class, mud slinging. Access restrictions and concerns about how the child' welfare were cited.

How can a man of integrity and repute have peace of mind if he is not daily, actively and 100% involved in raising his offspring? Willful baby-daddyism is the height of irresponsibility, and at it's heart denies what it means to be a man and father.

A charter for producing bitter women and malformed children. A pox on all proselytisers of such.


TV

theEYe21:
The Greek word for submission is hupotasso, “to subordinate…put under…” God exhorts women to voluntarily follow their husband’s leadership (Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1). A woman is actively doing this choosing to put herself under leadership, choosing to be subordinate in a circumstance or relationship. This is not forced upon her by the recipient.

Not sure whether you are a sir or ma'am, but whatever and whoever you are, I'd like ot thank you for this beautiful expository piece.

Most excellent. Clearly tied to scripture and didactic. Much appreciated. Christians and those following a Christian pattern of marriage will appreciate this.

Saluté


TV

Healthy and robust marriages are, and continue to be the basal, normative, and pivotal unit of any flourishing society. Its monogamous male/female form ensures that a great number of men have a stake in society’s future.

It orders men to harnessing their efforts towards providing for their families, increasing productivity – yes, marriage is a wealth creator, an agent of progress.

It’s the best and safest domestic setting for women, and without gainsaying, the optimal environment for raising well-adjusted children and future citizens.

Whilst on the margins, there is room for other relationship forms, once a society foregoes marriage as normative, and consequently fails to sustain a high proportion of marriage relationships, it is already far gone.

Indeed, study any community where “marriagelessness” has already made headway – the pathologies are glaring. All societal ills, from crime, violence, sexual degeneracy, and even disease, will be able to trace some of their cause back to a preponderance & adoption of non-marital relationship types.

Nobody has been able to lay any charge against marriage. And all attempts to do so, evidence the following;

1. A desire to justify their non-marital relationship choices
2. Fear or failure to grasp what marriage is or for, and best of all,
3. A screaming big blank when it comes to proffering alternatives – that do the job

Have whatever type of relationship you choose. Or non, if you so please. Style it as you will. Champion it abroad. Laud its virtues, sing it from the rooftops if you so desire.

Outrightly and strenuously reject marriage as right for you. But please, don’t let the truth of marriage overly discomfort you, or feel the need to disdain marriage because you can’t live up to its demands. Or even worse, try and co-opt the perks, while attempting to jettison the obligations and responsibilities.

Those of us who get marriage, embrace it, and find it fulfilling in a way no other relationship can be, will always be here, smug testament to its superiority - and quite frankly divine institution.

I’m coming, it’s been a while I spammed this place with pix


TV

Mindfulness:
Let me sum it up. You need specific conditions to be happy and I don't. Simple.

Odd, and unsurprisingly, still unclear. Yes, one can be in a state of happiness, even despite undesirable circumstances. But one cannot experience marital happiness without being married (and happily so), or the joy of birthing and raising children without having them.

I was happy before I got married but sought - and thank God - found the distinct happiness only marriage and children can provide. But I do get your issues with risk .

crackhaus:
Mindfulness and TV01
Not bad at all.
I read every single line from you both for a change this time around.

Cheers bro'. I did too, hopefully you grasped what Mindfulness was trying to say better than I did. And I hope I was clear.


TV

Mindfulness:
Someone can be happy if their marriage is or isn't.

...and if the marriage is, or becomes happy, someones overall happiness increases no?

Mindfulness:
This is an intersting analogy. A team needs its players to collaborate but the individual players do need each other to be the fittest they can be. These two dimensions are also present in relationships. You have a relationship with your spouse but the more important relationship you have is the one you have with yourself and God. And this is the crux of the matter. People tend to neglect the latter even though it is the most important one.

Your first line in this response makes absolutely no sense. And yes,the relationship with God is more important, but in truth, that is not tied to or dependent on feelings like the mostly physical relationship with ones spouse is. Studies show that up to 80% of an individuals happiness is tied to the state of their marriage.

Mindfulness:
I would prefer to say that you desire to share your life, pleasure and responisbilities and that's a beautiful thing.

Semantics

Mindfulness:
It is one big emotional experience, the whole life is. The practical reality is a means, happiness is the end. You may not desire to bath your children but you can motivate yourself. Something tells me you are good at it.

I am, although it doesn't actually matter. I also enjoy doing it, that does not matter so much either. It needs to be done, as a small part of our care for our children and long-term plan for raising them as best we can.

Mindfulness:
I thought I would never use this word on this forum and much less with you but I have to say it:

Blasphemy!

Your relationship with yourself AND God can never be seperate from anything, whether people acknowledge it or not.
It is the alpha and omega, in Christian slang.

On a more serious note: Wherever you go, you take yourself with you. Everything begins and ends with the way you connect with yourself and God. EVERYTHING!

Blasphemy? Perhaps, but not of Christianity. The bible is clear that a marital relationship is separate, and may even impact or compete with your divine one. 1 Corinthians 7:33/4. But having a perfect divine relationship, does not fulfill for marriage. The desire to marry is actually a gift, and it's proper fulfillment leads to a distinct joy in and of itself.

Mindfulness:
No, it's realisitc. Our spouses may part from their physical bodies any time, and then what? Life in misery till the day you die?

Death ends a marriage. Get a new spouse post haste.

Mindfulness:
If it does not please me, there are millions of other sources of pleasure and happiness. I mean it in a decent way now.

And even if they are all valid,they do not substitute for the happiness of marriage, as they are not the happiness of marriage, they are the happiness of those million other things.

I delight in my children, I delight in my friends, I delight in my wife. And although I can have all 3 alone, in combination, or together, none can replace or replicate the other.

I am still not clear. Enough sha, lest we loop the loop .


TV

Mindfulness:
We are finally getting somewhere. And yes, they are VERY much more likely to raise them that way if happiness is an integral part of their home.

But said happiness is to a large degree, a result of actions of the spouses within the union is it not?

Mindfulness:
Why do you people need others to need you in order to feel validated?

At all. My wife does not validate me. Validation is not something I actually seek. Especially as a Christian. But the marital estate demands mutuality, co-dependency, as a result of striving together. It's like saying the soldiers in a platoon, or the players in a team are not co-dependent. Needing, co-operating, and relying on each other, does not in this context mean being needy.

Mindfulness:
I don't want to need and I don't want to be needed, I want to desire and I want to be desired. I want my spouse to enjoy our marriage and not depend on it and I want to do the same. There is no need to be needy. We have God, all of us. That's powerful enough and you should know it. I believe you actually do. A spouse can be taken from you by millions of different tragic circumstances but you will always be connected to God, more or less and depending on how much you want to. And even if your spouse is taken or decides to leave, you are free to seek and find happiness no matter what. Depending on others for happiness is too risky.
Depending on yourself and your faith is empowering.

You make it sound like going to see a movie, or out for a meal. My wife and I need each other to be involved, to take active roles, to handle, to manage, and run different aspects of our shared lives.

You are making it sound like marriage is one big emotional experience, devoid of all practical reality. I may not desire to bathe the children, but it needs doing. Especially if wifey is cooking. I could of course sit back, watch Euro 2016, and wait for her to get round to doing it all. Then of course you'd bring your "old before her time argument".

A relationship with God is and can be entirely separate to ones marital relationship. being happy spiritually does not mean everything is fine maritally, or make it so.

I note the bold, to me, it screams of someone who is scared to be disappointed, or does not fully trust. And so is scared to fully commit?

Mindfulness:
It's great if it works this way but it is not the end of my life and happiness if it doesn't.

I'm not saying it is. But it impacts for better or worse ones level of happiness.

Mindfulness:
I don't encourage myself to accept anything that does not please me. I don't look the other way if something hurts me. And I don't allow people to walk all over me. All I am saying is that it takes only me and God to be happy. Anything else is a smaller or bigger extra, not a necessity.

But whether you encourage it or not, accept it or not, it does not change reality. And if it does not please you, it affects your level of happiness
does it not?

Again, a relationship with God is distinct, to ones relationship with ones spouse. They both channel into your overall happiness, but happiness in one does not negate unhappiness - if it occurs - in the other.


TV

trekkie:
Always respected your views. I don't agree with all but I respected them. But SERIOULY? You don't see the reason? Have not read through sha but,..seriously?!

Hi trekkie, appreciate your appreciation. Would like it the more if you challenged - with reasons - when you disagree. I like to hear and learn. I can see people rejecting marriage as not for them, but I see no reason to trash it.

Especially when they do so in order to justify their own relationship choices, which are often poor facsimiles of the real thing. Or, simply try and co-opt the parts they like, rejecting the whole (grasping for the benefits and honor, without the responsibilities and commitment). And most especially when they rail against it, but cannot present something as good - let alone better - in it's place.


TV

...skip a few to focus;

Mindfulness:
This is where I will have to disagree. Happiness is a feeling that can be triggered by different conditions. The intensity of happiness can vary but the feeling is still the same. I can't believe you ask me, why marry if not for happiness? I thought, you were the one who said that emotions are secondary or even quite irrelevant. Didn't you argue that a marriage's first and primary purpose is to raise healthy individuals as to establish and maintain flourishing societies?

And being happy within marriage is inimical to raising healthy individuals how? Indeed, would a happy union not mean they are more likely to be raised that way The choice/criteria of who to marry should not be based solely on emotions.

Mindfulness:
I wouldn't. I refuse to give anyone the power to determine how I feel. It's called empowerment.
It doesn't mean that I wouldn't feel sad for some time but certainly I wouldn't let it affect me in the long run.

As stated, if a spouse can separate their happiness from the state of their union or the other spouses action within it, the are either not truly engaged in the union, perhaps "mentally exiting", or always prepared to do so. Or possibly some weird way of compartmentalising feelings,or simply ignoring reality?

Mindfulness:
Are you saying that happiness is the purpose of marriage? I remember you saying something else in the past when you were discussing divorce.

Not the purpose, but it will be present in a good marriage, the outcome of a solid union.

I don't see how a spouse in a marital union can determine that through something you term "empowerment", their individual happiness, will be independent of the other spouses actions. Fulfilling basic obligations, meeting reasonable expectations, and beyond that, making a determined effort to create a loving and caring environment. All toward the end I previously outlined;

Being with a spouse, loving, caring and sharing with each other, creating and building a future together, raising children, all these things contribute to marital happiness. If one spouse, fails, reneges, or betrays in such a way to impair those things, why would the other not be unhappy or less happy?

It almost sounds like a spouse who is being cheated on refusing to let the infidelity bother them. I know that's not you? Like I said, perhaps I simply don't get it, but I am not yet clear on what you are presenting , or your workings sef. Wurur, wuru to the answer !


TV

1bkaye:
My intent was to seek out those who either don't plan on getting married or aren't fussed about whether they get married or not and their reasoning. Especially coming from a culture that assigns great importance to and is almost obsessed with it. No ulterior motive here though, opinions are out of my control lol it's an open forum now

As I thought. Just not sure why people see it as open season to trash marriage

Marriage-Advocate-In-Chief


TV

crackhaus:
Am I the only one who found this funny?

At all, more uninformed than funny though.

Can I raise you one please? A man is not allowed to lay a finger on his wife, even if he finds her in bed with another man on top, but a woman can kill her sister, just because she slept with her - at the time - casual boyfriend?

prettynerd:
tnks everyone for taking ur time to reply, actually heard her side of the story, she said it was consensual, her current boyfrnd had to force her to confess to me after she confessed all her sexcapades to him which is the condition for him to marry her, she didn't even want me to know at all, she even called my fiance ( if i can still call him dat) and was quarelling with him for telling me, she said there was no emotions involved, she was just having weird fun and seduced him cos she thought we won't last too, i've never done anything to hurt her before o, only that i get angry with her a lot for living a careless life, the worst part is that she did same thing to two of my aunts husband. I feel she needs help mentally, but she still behave very normal only for this unveiled secret, STILL SHOCKED!

In some ways, this actually makes things worse. First though, has your sisters "current boyfriend" agreed to marry her now that she has confessed all? Does your sisters bf know about the matter with your aunts husbands?

I actually think your sister may need help and/or deliverance more than marriage right now. Sibling rivalry can be an unhealthy thing, but this is something else! Yes the men lacked self-control, but there is an element/pattern of seduction here.

Once maybe, but 3 times? sounds premeditated. The only good I can take from this is that she has - has she? - confessed all. Perhaps her healing is at hand. Maybe not your immediate priority, but please have her long-term good in mind.

Back to the OP, I am if anything more sympathetic to your erstwhile fiancé after hearing this. Unfortunately, it changes your position only slightly. It still happened, same worries, same concerns, same fears.

In as much as you are "taking a break", you have to decide either way, and soon. Keeping yourself - and even him, if he waits - in limbo, is pointless. You can't forge ahead unless you close that chapter.

All he best


TV



^{I repeat, generally, a womans sexual history is more important to a man, than a mans is to a woman. Even OP expressed concern, at her sisters "wayward behaviour".}