₦airaland Forum

Mindfulness:
If I respond to this mention, I will possibly be trapped in an endless loop of back and forth argument but since you seem to be in a good mood today, I will answer your questions.

No looping, I can see from your responses to MBJ that you are gunning for marriage advocate status . And I'm always in a good mood !

Mindfulness:
I agree. Most people depend on their spouse in one way or another and that's often the reason why they face so many challenges.

Are you seeing this as a good, bad, neutral, or dependent? In any event, is it not inevitable? For example, mortgages are based on combined salaries for married couples. Even if the couple are totally blind to each others incomes, the bank will need to know to determine their loan possibilities. Unless they are planning on buying separate residencies? . So many examples.

Emotionally, and, validation apart, loving, caring, sharing, will ferment a mutual feeling, that will impact a persons overall well-being and happiness for better or worse - excuse the pun .

Mindfulness:
It's not a bad thing. I never said it was. All I am saying is that people should be free to have the relationship they desire instead of trying to live up to someone else's expectations.

And people are free. The dynamic in every relationship is unique, regardless of what wrapper they chooses - marriage, co-hab, FWB etc. I don't see why some - MrBrownJ for example in this thread - have to rubbish marriage to justify their choices, when nothing is forced. Why does the truth of marriage, and their falling short of it, cause them discomfort?

Mindfulness:
If two happy people choose to be together, their happiness will be enhanced and not reduced. Reason enough?

Is does not necessarily follow. And, although not necessarily as likely, the reverse could also be true. It touches, and depends, on a number of things.

Mindfulness:
I agree completely. It's an additional source of happiness but it is not a marriage based on the premise that someone else has to save you from your misery.

Even if that is not the premise, and the couple are individually happy to start with, the union could still make them unhappy. There are certain expectations in marriage and from spouses, all potential points of discord and unhappiness. Having expectations does not necessarily mean neediness or even a desire for validation

Mindfulness:
Why would you expect another human being to make you happy if you can't do it for yourself? why would anyone have to make two people happy if you can't make one person happy, yourself?

Here is perhaps the crux. If ones happiness within, and from marriage, is not tied to, and as a result of whom one is married to, why marry? The things one can do, and the happiness one can derive, are different in marital and single states.

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?

Again, please correct me if I am mis-hearing you, but what you present sounds very individualistic, and far removed from marriage, or even any reason to actually get married.

Mindfulness:
I have seen many relationships in my life. I have seen their beginnings and I have seen their endings. I have seen happy and unhappy unions and I have come to understand that happy and healthy individuals have the happiest and healthiest relationships. I have seen miserable people feeling uplifted by a new relationship to only fall back into their misery few months later and their partners resenting because they placed the burden on them to be their cure and therapy, which they can succeed in for a limited period of time but not forever. It creates an unhealthy imbalance if you expect anyone to take the responisibility for your happiness and it is an inside job.

Have you ever been around negative people for a longer period of time? They can suck the life out of you if you are not stable enough to remain cheerful and nobody can all day every day. I don't wish anyone to be married to such a person.

This is at best aphoristic, not axiomatic. I could relay how I have known people grow and mature in marriage. People I would not necessarily have thought ready for marriage, having known them as singles. Marriage can have a quite edifying effect.


TV

bukatyne:
I disagree here...

We all need constant validation/affirmation from loved ones.... that's how we were created; Even God needs constant 'validation'/praise from humans that is why He said He will raise stones to praise Him if humans don't.

Nibo? God has no needs. God needs praise for what exactly?

Human praise does not make Him more God, and neither does a lack of, or unwillingness of humans to praise Him, make Him less God.

The validation, benefits, or emotional well-being and happiness that humans gain from marriage is not akin to, or to be likened to God deserving all praise.


TV

bukatyne:
The problem of marriage is that two people decide that un-known faces must run their marriage for them via 'rules' and 'culture'

What stops you two from doing whatever you like as you like it provided both of you are happy?

Really? Even a cursory reading of this begs the question. How sensible is it to embrace a societal institution – marriage - and then reject the conventions and protocols society places on that institution? Society places no demands on the dynamic within any individual union. Society' demands, and rightly so, are more "structural" in nature - "what marriage is", not "how you live it".

I consider MRBrownJ' position equally faulty, arguing to reject the institution, but insisting on commandeering the conventions. A wife is a woman who has been formally married to a man – her husband. Not a woman who is shacked up with her lover, or one who co-habits.

It comes with a host of inter-connected words, plus societal and legal norms/benefits. MBJ wants the kudos and benefits without the responsibility or commitment. Ole !

Funny how this thread is turned in some ways – possibly most – about people traducing the institution of marriage. I’m not sure that was OP’ intent? 1bkaye n’gbo? Anyway, I see a number of possible “reasons”, amongst which are;

1. Whilst appreciating what it is, and does, rejecting marriage – simply preferring an alternative, or no arrangement
2. Rejecting marriage, because one thinks it is bondage, is scared, has seen others not work out, etc. Essentially fear.
3. The popular, but ultimately odd “ create marriage in your own image” notion.

If 1, that’s fine, eschew marriage. If 2, the problem is really with you, not marriage. If 3, as stated, society does not interferes in the dynamic of any individual union. It only serves to encourage protect and celebrate it. in what can be considered a more structural sense.

So I wonder at the vitriol against the most venerable of institutions that is marriage? And as ever, I would love for someone to come up with a superior arrangement, or even one that comes close to delivering the benefits that marriage does to all concerned, and to society as a whole.

For a second I thought my job was done here, Mindfulness defending marriage


TV

Mindfulness! Mindfulness!! Mindfulness!!! How are you . Do you really believe, and more pertinently, practise what you preach? This doesn't even sound right on paper, let alone on grass where the match will actually be played .

Mindfulness:
The problem is that you have bought into other people's / society's concept of marriage instead of designing your own. You don't have to be financially responsible for your spouse and even less emotionally. In fact, the best relationships are those where everyone takes full responsibility for themselves. You don't have to give up your privacy and freedom either.

Even in unions that are not religiously based, the comprehensiveness of marriage means there will be a great deal of meshing and overlap. Finances and emotions are two of the biggest areas here. And, even if the couple don't "take responsibility" per se, they will still be affected by each others individual financial or emotional circumstances.

And while you may not have to forego all "privacy & freedom", there must be a change/reduction, it can no longer be unfettered. Why is that even a bad thing?

Mindfulness:
I don't know how many but certainly the miserable ones.
He can get himself a happy girl though. They exist.

I perfectly understand it too but he can choose someone who takes full responsibility for her happiness. If he does the same, two happy beings will come together to create a happy relationship. It's the only way.

As for happiness, if 2 individuals, who are totally happy and fulfilled in their own right come together in marriage, it doesn't mean that the 1. the marriage will be happy, or 2. if it is, it's due to the individual happiness of the couple, and more importantly, 3, that the happiness in the marriage is nothing more than their individual states, as that actually begs the question "why marry"?, if true.

There is a happiness that comes from the convergence, a different or additional happiness, that is not totally dependent or aligned with the individual happiness states of the couple before marriage. And it affects their individual states after.

If by happiness you mean "healthy", perhaps, otherwise, I find all this really odd, or I'm totally misreading you?

Please help a broda out


TV

hopeforcharles:
Hehehe he is grooming his side chick
Don't mind me I was joking about his grooming which by the way shouldn't be completely dismmised,
He is not doing well by taking sides, but madam don't u think u are a bit harsh on the girl? If you are device another means of scolding her not necessarily shouting and beating. Have a heart to heart talk with your husband about the issh

Ah! Don't dull 0! The end-game may be more than "side-chick" - OP, you are supposed to mentor your successor, not beat her !

More seriously, a 13 year-old maid . That strikes me as all kinds of wrong in it's own right. But please tell me that her situation with you - which includes schooling right? - is better than her natal circumstances?

And please stop "beating her up" as a means of scolding. It's inhumane, and will instil wrong notions about violence in your own children. Or do you do that via multiple other ways .

And finally, the good cop, bad cop, strategy works quite well in some instances. Don't you watch CSI Iganmu ? By all means discipline her, but treat her as one of your own.

And I know I'm not a "mummy", but I spoke as I also prepare children for school in the morning - and know how e be !


TV

OP I can scarce believe this. What must you be feeling right now? Betrayal by two people that should have been the closest to you for pretty much the rest of your days. You must be disconsolate. Pele, please be comforted.

This must be very hard for you. There's a "sharedness" in this relationship, even in a way that some marriages may not have attained. Growing a business from scratch and going through the ups and downs of start-up, means you are heavily invested. How do you even begin to separate the personal from the business? You have to think long and hard about this.

Your sister:
She may well have your best interest at heart, what she did may have been a youthful indiscretion, at a time when she was insecure, wanted to be like you, or was a little envious of you. Or foolishly drawn to, or overwrought by the guy.

Hear her side of the story. Is this driven by jealousy, the desire to harm you, or genuine concern for her blood sister? It will be painful whatever the case, what she has done is the one fixed thing here, but long-term please find it in your heart to forgive her.

Your fiancé:
As he stated, was his initial approach to the relationship merely casual? What was yours? You've heard him out, do you believe him? Was he a different person, and was the relationship a different thing back then? Why was he not forthcoming earlier? I can however, see how it may have never seemed like the right time to come clean, with events and the changing nature of the relationship overtaking things.

You:
Can you live with this? Especially if you are not totally sure of the truth, and if indeed it was no more than a tragic one-off. Think back, what seemingly innocent things made you wonder about the two of them?

Can/will you ever be able to get your trust back with this guy? Are you sure there will be no lingering doubt whatever the case? Please don't put your business investment before your long-term psychological well-being. He may be all you think he is and all you desire, but you could do a lot worse than a clean break right now.

Looking at your sister and knowing what she did will hurt for a long time, and may always be hard. Looking at them both, and having uninvited thoughts run across your mind, doubly so. Cutting him loose will may hurt in the immediacy, but help in the long-term.

I pray this drives you to faith, so you can take your cues direct from above.

Take heart, be comforted. All the very best.


TV

^{NSBM. Ladies, consummate your unions after marriage, not before. Men and women are totally different in their perceptions and judgements about the opposite sex, and how things impact their decisions. How many men would marry a woman that had dated - let alone slept with - his brother? You know!}

Kimoni:
TV01 - I don't think joint account is for every family. In my opinion, families must be on the same page when it comes to financial goals and responsibilities before they can make a success of joint account. If not, one parties suffers and frustration sets in on the long run.
In OP's case, I do not think his family is ready for it, there is no harmony yet in that aspect of their life. From the look of things, he will be on the receiving side of things if they go for joint account. #mythots

Hi Kim,

I agree - we don't have a joint account, as it would make little or no difference to how we manage the finances.

But to be clear, a joint account does not mean 1 account between them. This is one for their long-term planning(the land, the house, her business, emergencies etc.), something they both "own". Wifey needs a change of mindset and to see their finances as a combined whole - this will help towards that. He will still manage all his incomeand have more insight - transparency - into hers.

fem29:
Thanks oga TV01 for the mention. Though we do not always agree, you are usually logical.

Please don't advise poster to ask his wife to bring money ooo . She is asking for a stipend and it will be unwise for him to say not only are you not getting one, you need to bring money towards family finances .

That will be the beginning of world war 5 in his house. Wisdom is profitable to direct.

Holá Fem29, I think your pointer is key.

The OP wants transparency no? If his wife is spending half her salary as she wishes, saving half of which he has no sight, and demanding a stipend, where us the transparency?

And I hear you about pushing this through "all of a sudden". I was - I hope - clear about "not rushing" and taking "baby steps". Fundamentally madams mindset is not as expansive as it should be, but oga's approach also needs a re-think.

He needs to have a vision of how their finances should be and work with - and as I mentioned "encourage" - her towards that. I don't subscribe resorting to "cunny" ways, or pandering to get her to be where she needs to be; that never ends.

A man has to be able to share his thoughts about strategy and vision. If wifey has competing or better ideas, share on, if not, implement. If fear of a backlash means he hesitates or try's to "game" her, I would question his standing. Give it time, yes, be reasoned, yes,be gentle, yes, but something has to happen.

Sometimes in marriage, hard choices and tough calls have to be made. If it's a well-reasoned and important battle, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Bro needs to set the tone. If they fail to get the land, build the house, or start the business, or just do so way later than planned, the buck stops with him.

Ekú weekend.

TV

banjolek:
Hello guys,

I need your honest opinion on this, how much is really ideal to give one's wife as monthly pocket money?

bro' Leke is that you

Those - particularly Fem29 - who have pointed you to the future have done well here. As have those who have touched on, in so many words, your wifes need to "mature into, and feel more confident" in the union.

So I won't repeat any of that. I would suggest something more radical - and not necessarily something to be rushed. I'm at a loss to see why your wife has sole control of half of her 150K salary?

What is that money intended for? What is the "family" accountability around that? Annually - and if you include any "stipend" you give her - she could be stashing away over a million naira

And this on top of your newly increased expenditure per moving, your on-going spend to maintain the family, assist relatives, and your commitment to saving for a business for her!

Oga, take firm control. I believe it's in your best long-term interest - and will facilitate meeting your goals - for you to overhaul your joint finances.

Firstly, when you say she uses 75k for upkeep, what exactly does that mean? Is it solely for her personal upkeep, or does that include the wider family?

Anyway, some suggestions;

1. Out of her salary, she gets a reasonable upkeep amount - whatever upkeep entails
2. In addition to this, some extra on top - loving 'jara
3. Any surplus goes into a joint savings account account - all short, medium and LT expenditure from here is discussed and agreed by you both
4. Likewise, and as she already knows your income (kudos by the way), you parse your own earnings and contribute to the joint account
5. You discuss how you financially bless your relatives (both your), agreeing based on conduct, availability and need.

Again, suggestions, I am not being prescriptive. Right now you are fuelling a huge entitlement mentality in your wife. I would totally eschew the notion of a "stipend". All you have is hers anyway, and it sounds like you already live it that way.

What if the situation changes - only slightly sef - and you can't keep up? Does that mean you are failing? Or that she has a charge against you?
Bro', don't set yourself up for a fall.

Encourage her and help her understand that there is no difference, even if it's with baby steps. I sense you don't like where she is, and I agree, only I think you are pandering, instead of planning.

And, a regular, joint review of your finances, without fail.

All the best

TV

“Gay murders? The whole notion of people being “gay” as an immutable part of ones character is, if one wants to be polite, a category error. If one wants to be blunt, it’s an outright lie, a hideous deception.

However you look at it, gay, straight, bi, homo, hetero or trans etcetera, are not immutable, intrinsic or genetically determined personas or identities, they are at best labels for peoples behavioural choices.

The West is under attack from a culture that is inimically different and opposed to all it stands for. The attacks are first of all on its people, and also on its ideals, on the liberties and freedoms that it affords it's to citizens.

Attacks have been many and varied, with many lives being lost. How then in this instance does the atrocity get defined as a “gay” tragedy, and not a human one?

Whatever meaning one imbues into the term gay, were those who lost loved ones, were involved in the rescue operation, tended to the sick or even all of the casualties “gay”?

Trying to make this about identity, desensitises us from the horror that occurred here. Instead of placing our shared humanity in view, it makes it about a special interest group, who, by definition, not all are interested in, or even for.

Yes, there is an on-going discussion about why how one decides to express oneself sexually, should lead to categorisation and rights, but this was not about that. And if you choose to make it so, you are playing onto the hands of your enemy.

On another note, OP, if there is a prize for ill-thought out, incoherent, editorially woeful and grammatical painful posts, take a bow . And excusing the error of others so as to avoid charge for your own wrong-doing does not work. Just saying .


TV

tearoses:
TV01, nashville and Bellong pls can you offer some advise
As guys you know how the mans brain thinks better than I do.
Ifemelu Hope you dont mind me CC'ng them. They are wise and family men.

Ah! Not all men are cut from the same £250 per yard material of awon Baba Bellong and Big Daddy Nashville 0 ! But seriously, immaturity and ill-formed character can manifest in so many ways, who's to say?

Paternal responsibility is obviously a big issue here, but it seems the OP to some degree hopes for restoration, or at least closure, and one can hardly fault her. I'll post - wrongly I know - on the assumption that her account is true, and she is blameless.

How do you account for a 3 year friendship, 3 year engagement, family introductions and wedding preparations well underway, with what we've heard narrated by the OP? After all, it doesn't sound like your typical western "engagement today, marriage in 3/4 years while we save" scenario does it?

Long/short, my best guess would be "he met someone else" - if there hadn't been someone he'd been invested in before, or since he met you all along. Whatever the case, fact remains, for some reason, he no longer wants what you'd seemingly both voluntarily and jointly agreed? Perhaps you'll eventually get wind if you still mix in the same social/professional circles?

Cold feet? Possibly, but you could have been in exactly the same position a short while later - after marriage. Cold feet, would suggest an unserious and/or unstable man, and after 6 years you must have seen signs of that. Or even heard something - again, being in the same circles

I wonder why the rush to have a baby? Are you quite mature? Is he?, Is he younger? Is there any unresolved issue from his upbringing or trauma from the loss of his parents? Why the insistence on seeing the baby before proceeding? If there are no doubts around paternity, what is he hoping to find, or thinking that might trigger? So many questions.

Whatever the case, emotionally, it must be extremely hard for OP. How does one move on, or learn to trust again with such huge questions lingering? I'll come to that later.

There was no joining, so technically, what is in view here is the well-being of the child. I would exhort you to not let your feelings becloud how you approach this - easier to ask than to do, I fully realize.

Let him know that he has a responsibility to be a part of the child's life - both physically and materially. Let him know you are willing for you both to reach accommodation without recourse to the courts. Although if he is as described, it may be best to have support settled via the family courts. Your call, but it could impact how cordial your relationship is and his seeing the child.

Be the best mother you can be in the circumstances, and encourage & support his being the best father. For you both it means putting the child first.

Seems like you've set the ball rolling in some ways, but be sure to spell out clear expectations around time-frames, and what will happen if he does not wholeheartedly discuss, agree, and commit.

If you are harboring hopes of restoration, please don't try and force or guilt him into it. Let him see you as being that best mother to his child. Be cordial, be pleasant. Don't simper, be difficult or make exaggerated/unrealistic demands. Perhaps he will see the error of his ways/grow/wise up.

Even then, I'd say don't shut down other options, we don't know why he bolted, or if he'll come to his senses.

All the best. Congratulations on your son. Hope he grows up to do you proud.


TV


^{For the wanna wed ladies. Consummate your union after the wedding, not before. If he talks commitment, let him demonstrate it fully. And makes sure the vision - long-term - is his, or both of yours, not one you foisted on him. I speak as to believers in Christ.}

EagleEyez505:
y
You nailed it bro! I do not care about a person's background, tribe etc. I am more concerned about who the individual is (i.e. the content).

Thank you once again! I am grateful.

You are most welcome sir. Here's wishing you a fantastically blissful union .

njokusboy:
Counsellor TV, welldone oh....
I don't dey consider marriage, how we go do am nah

Ah, ah, Njokusboy, you must be one of the most switched on guys around here. What's up? You probably have too many options . All I've said previously still holds. Will of course post if you ask me to. I may at best bring a little more objectivity.

All the very best.


TV

EagleEyez505:
Many thanks bro! That was really comprehensive and apt. I do some job to pay my bills. I am also looking to do multiple jobs if I decide to get married in the next one year or there about. She's from a wealthy family and has a good job here in Canada but I am the kind of person who don't count on others to support me. I rely on what I have. I have always considered having two kids.

I am considering all the variables carefully before drawing a "final" conclusion.

You are most welcome. Marriage is a great thing. And it blesses my heart to see young men taking it seriously. It really is a matter of choice, preferences and ones ability and determination to optimise it - always enhanced by understanding and insight.

I am very fit and health conscious. So I wanted someone of like mind I found trying to force it did not work - women were happy to lie, or make half-hearted efforts to please me. But I realised they wouldn't hold to it long-term.

So I found a woman who came with an exercise culture independent of my prompting. Years down the line and after two kids, is she the same? Absolutely not, but she's only slightly bigger, makes a real effort and I love her for so many other reasons and in so many other ways.

However, any 1 thing may not be that important to you, or you may be willing to live with it because of other qualities and/or how much she means to you. Achievements, background etc., are good, but above all it's about character traits.

Just be sure in your mind what is really important, that you are willing to commit, and endure the not so great times if they come. And her qualities will help and make it worthwhile if they do.

Once again, all the very best.


TV

EagleEyez505:
Hello wonderful NLander,

I have a friend who is my age mate. She's two weeks younger than me. We are in our early thirties and both of us are "single" at the moment. Recently, I have been contemplating whether or not to move to the next level or we just remain as friends. She has an MSc and is currently working. I am currently a PhD student.

Thank you all!

Firstly, well done for asking serious questions about marriage and what it entails. First understanding, and then duly considering, goes a long way to establishing solid unions.

Second, advise apart, you are a man, you take responsibility for whatever action you choose to take. Having said both of those things, here is my take.

Primarily, it's this; age should always be a consideration. Especially with the long-term demands and management of marriage and family.

Consider your situation; would she expect to have children straight away - she is after all early 30's - or be willing to wait a few more years until your studies are complete, you have started work and/or established a career?

Maybe it's not a big factor? Are either of you are from wealthy backgrounds, or have independent means? If you are not, or don't, how will you cope?

If she is willing to wait, how long? Fertility can be an issue when age starts to creep up - say ^35 - but there are other considerations such as family size etc.

If you do proceed - and it will take say a year to get down the altar - and you plan for 2 kids fairly quickly, you probably won't have a shedload of physical action in the first few years and have the stress of providing for a young family quite soon.

The fact is the effort, stress and time taken, means that in 5-6 years when you get to that point of marriage-kids-somewhat settled, she will have passed through and probably not be as physically attractive.

You will have worked hard, taken on a big burden, seen a total change in lifestyle, with potentially lots of sacrifice. Are you prepared for that? Or the various other scenarios that could unfold? It's more of a critical time for her than it is for you. In all;

1. Please consider your level of care and willingness to commit to this lady long-term, whatever the scenario
2. If you are unsure, free her to find her way. To take her time and then disappoint her is simply wrong.

Don't just see things as they are, but how they will likely turn out. Whomsoever you eventually marry, there will be challenges. Yours is to prepare yourself, think strategically, and for marriage, commit wholly. Be considered, be bold, be a man

All the very best
TV

To the point in question, it takes very little to spark a young mans imagination. And, at a time when hormones are flowing like champagne on a rappers night out, the mere presence of females – even teachers sef, even dressed in sacks – can be a distraction. Studies clearly show that boys do better in all male schools, mostly because this distraction is absent.

To pursue this based on the desires or feelings of an individual, without regard to the well-being of the whole is a nonsense. And she was not being body-shamed, she was being asked to dress appropriately for the situation.

Firstly, women are “sex objects”. Secondly, women would be distraught if they were not considered as sex objects. Thirdly, most go all out – although the degree varies – to present and to be considered as sex objects. Fourthly, women need in some sense, and to some degree, to be sex objects for the whole sexually dimorphous nature of human beings to make any practical sense.

That is not to say that 1, the reverse is not also true to a degree, that 2, SO is all that – or the main thing - women are, 3, that SOification of women is to be unfettered or not subject to societal norms and conventions, and 4, those societal norms and conventions do not sometimes demand different things from the sexes.

Men are biologically wired – whatever your theological or ideological position – to respond to visual stimuli when it comes to sexual attraction. Or to put it another way; men sexually respond to women’ visual appearance – yes, basally, men, are certified sexual objectifiers .

What we had were societal norms that restricted men from acting from an untoward manner, and also expected women to show some decorum in their dressing.

In this day and age – especially in the West – what passes for everyday apparel” may appear normal to us, but in other parts of the world, and until recent times even in the West, the form fitting, body-hugging, “sexual-feature” emphasising clothing we take for granted would have been scandalous.

So, whatever a woman’ intent, whatever the era, or societal context, if she dresses in a way to accent her physical features, sexual objectification is decidedly in view. You cannot educate that out of men, only demand that they do not act in an untoward manner as a result.


TV

fav444:
Someone even told me dt if God wants to punish a man he gives him a bad wife.

crackhaus:
The person that told you this is very wise.. I don't know if it's God's way of punishing men, but I'm certain that marrying a bad and troublesome woman can be the shortest route to an early grave.

It's not so much that God punishes bad men by giving them bad wives, it's more that He intervenes to save good men from taking bad wives. I stand to testify .

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.

Be righteouss to avoid a wife-induced early grave


TV

Ewuro4:
TV01... 'Orange looking thing' It's amazing they're always orange or pink. Your last paragraph is powerful. Glad to see I'm not the only parent with that thought. How you dey?

Holá Jide, we are fine thanks...I trust likewise. How was your hiatus? Back sharper than ever I see . Who would swap their babies - of whatever sex?


TV

Knightngale:
this was interesting to read

Cheers. Life is in the experience and the memories. We thank God.

troy20:
just when i was about to pretend not give to a fvck whatever sex comes out eventually, i saw your fourth line.that's so unfair....been having those fantasies of me and me little boy going for such moments really... and am yet to even get married. there are still very much alot of people who wish more that that birth is male child.this is more so for the many more different reasons male children have been preferred.

People can pretend away ...who doesn't have a vision for their marriage, or dreams of, and for their family?

Men and women have hopes and desires around this- even if different, and even if for different reasons. If a woman desires a daughter, is it wrong for her husband to desire a son or vice-versa, or positions reversed??

I wanted sons and as many children as possible. My wife wanted no more than 2 children, and gave little thought to whether they were male/female or a mix. I would have been more upset with 2 daughters than she would have been with 2 sons. But with 2 sons, I would never have known the delight of having a daughter.

She may well be more satisfied, we are both overjoyed, and perhaps equally content. In all, we love what we have, with all we have. Funny isn't it, there was a time I thought marriage and kids may not happen.

We are human and we are in some ways insatiable. Always desirous of more, or of what others have, or thinking we have more than others - very evident in marriage and family life .


TV

joseph1832:
LOL. Remember all work and noo play make Lezz a doll boy. I still believe in couples being silent as regard throwing enormous marriage ceremonies, but then again, its left for the couples to decide.

My point being, it's not the fanfare, or lack of it that make it a marriage. Those are the secondary things left to the couple to decide. Marriage is indifferent to that.

joseph1832:
You think? If those regulations/oversight involve allowing and applauding situations where the husbands cheats, and the wife is expected to keep mute, I'll say such beauty is a sham waiting to blow up.

Don't conflate what individuals do "within marriage", with "what marriage is". The people, with the institution. What you have described here is clearly a breach of what marriage is supposed to be.

joseph1832:
Society can prove to be a class act deviant most times, this we've seen over and over again, as regard what society hold normal, in term of marriage.

As above

joseph1832:
I believe me you by 'you' you mean the man, cos as far as I know in today's Nigeria, society has made it its business to police the woman.

Lets' not talk at cross purposes. I refer to the institution, not what anyone decides to do once in it.

joseph1832:
Well I believe this applies to you and you alone. Because I believe my marriage should be a personal thing, many couples enter marriage looking for different things, for me, when I walk that path, happiness is my forte, and I'll damn well make sure its devoid of any nonsensical societal belief, norm or value system.

It's personal in how you live it out and your dynamic with your spouse. But in terms of our being married, we are fungible in the eyes of society.

A married couple is a married couple - distinct from a non-marital relationship. How we live it may differ. If every marriage is defined by those involved alone, the term becomes meaningless.

I get it about personalised individual marriage relationships, but not about marriage per se.


TV

joseph1832:
No doubt. But we all know society has it own very unique way of being full of sh1t.

We are all free to make efforts to clear the excrement . I am personally a big fan of "received societal wisdom". However, attempts to vary it are fine, but we should do so with due consideration.

joseph1832:
This is why I said its a personal thing, must one announce his marriage plans, and call multitude of people who will not even contribute half a penny to the couples welfare.

That is besides the point. Society recognises it. All and sundry know what it means and entails. It carries prestige and legal/state recognition, regardless of the fuss made, or those party to the actual ceremony.

joseph1832:
Even if marriage is a societal artifact, I still believe the persons intending to get married, don't need society's approval, but the approval of the person one intend to get married to, and their parents. (if need be)

That's part of the beauty of marriage - it's very light touch in terms of regulations/oversight. The institutions provides manifold benefits, with little or no downside.

So we encourage and support, rather than deter or burden. Restrictions are minimal, and once you fulfil the criteria, off you go. Society does not police you.

joseph1832:
I believe you know fully well that, we now live in the post modernist era, where everything is subjected to various degree of personal interpretation and definition, thus forming, uninformed opinion?

And there is sufficient room within it's definition and criteria to personalise it - without a deleterious effect on it's purpose - hence my reference to the dynamic of individual unions.

However, if marriage simply becomes whatever a couple want it to be, then it effectively becomes meaningless, and difficult, if not nigh on impossible for society to recognise or codify, celebrate or support.

The crux however, will be whether it delivers the same benefits at the same cost, if everyone interpretes marriage as they personally desire.


TV

You need to mobilise and attend to the following matters in turn;

Your mother - given her already poor health, you need to act quickly to ensure it does not deteriorate further. Is it best she be removed from the situation? Cared for by someone else or relocates to Lagos to be with one of her daughters?

Your inheritance - your brothers profligate ways seem like they may squander any inheritance from your father. You need to claim the shares of the 3 of you for your posterity. Is there any? Do you know the position under customary law, or your legal rights? Which code prevails?

Your brother - his choice of wife is his, and his alone. If you do not approve, or she has glaringly bad character traits - birds of a feather - your choice is to distance yourself from her/him/them.

Before marriage you can only be clear as to your concerns and why, after, you can only live with it or leave it. Are you prepared for the possible long-term consequences of standing by what you feel to be right?

But first, discuss with your sisters and ensure your husbands are on board. Then if there are any, engage the elders in your family and your village on the matter (although I see this has not worked so far?). Find some authority he will answer too. Do what you must and let your conscience be clear.


TV

joseph1832:
The very reason why marriage is suppose to be a personal thing, and as such, its suppose to be defined by the two people involve, not society or religion.

Marriage - whether you believe it is religious or culturally derived - is first and foremost a societal artefact. It is in fact, society' way of affirming the prime relationship that underpins the very notion of society itself.

It why the announcement and ceremony are very publicly carried out. The couple declare their intent to join the institution, society in turn acknowledges, and celebrates with them.

The definition of marriage remains with society - what it is, what it is for - the "dynamics" of any individual union is however, down to the couple. A seemingly minor but important distinction.


TV

...if she po', how she gon' pay


TV

tearoses:
I took my tea and coffee to Spain with me in April

So what are you waiting for na ? Please spam the thread with your holiday pix !

OP sorry eh!

TV

Truth is the best pre-marriage counselling can do is to show an intending couple they are not right, or ready for each other, or that the timing for them is wrong.

A couple that is mature enough and committed will not fail for want of PMC and a couple that aren't, will not succeed because of it.

It may make a marginal difference in preparedness or dealing with issues, but nothing more. Truss me


TV

^{...but it won't hurt sha. And you may have to do it to fulfil all righteousness}

Knightngale:
For those who disagree, what is the special advantage of having a male child?

For those from patriarchal or "son-preference" societies, the cultural imperative to have a son is undeniably strong and compelling - and can literally break homes and ruin marriages. The desperation for sons is strong - for both men and women. Thanks Lezz.

Indeed, for many - even in cultures, or for people, where there is no such imperative - the simple desire can also be quite deep. Dreams of taking your son to the match, or him growing into a striker for Arsenal, always seem that much more probable - if no less likely - when you have one. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that men and women both have dreams of, and for their sons and daughter?

I always wanted a son and was beside myself when I asked the nurse to "scan and tell jor", and it was a boy. I couldn't contain myself, ran out and told everyone. Wifey was livid !

He is so handsome I told wife to deliver "4 more like that". When the second one was on the way - and yes I wanted another son - wifey banned scanning , but I was sure it was a boy. When this orange looking thing came out crying her eyes out, I almost choked, but managed to hide my disappointment from my wife.

Now? Sure I wouldn't mind more sons, but I wouldn't swap my daughter for any number of them. Dealt with again! Thank you Lord .

I'm personally happy that the cultural imperative is changing, but we won't ever be able to trammel human desire. Agreeing or disagreeing with your post will not change that.

Siena, you had two girls and then a boy - and I've heard you say "as long as it's a healthy child" and all - but be honest with us - if you don't mind sharing;

1. Weren't you made up when you had a son?
2. With hindsight would you have been just as happy if you'd had another girl?


TV

crackhaus:
This here in bold is the reason y'all were coming at me in the first instance, and I figured that out as soon as TV started introducing children and productive citizens into the discourse.
What does criminalizing adultery have to do with raising productive citizens?

Nope, if there was any conflation between (1) sanctions for infidelity and, (2) marriage as the best vehicle for nurturing our young into well adjusted and productive citizens, that was cleared up.

You have clearly stated that (1) there should be no sanctions and, (2) that marriage is not the best way to raise children. Both of these are being discussed separately, if simultaneously

crackhaus:
The argument is this:
People should/should not be sanctioned with jail terms or fines on account of infidelity.. simple!

The rub here was whether there should actually be sanctions or not. You insisted there should be no sanctions as "the agreement was voluntary and breaking it should also be voluntary". After all, you did not agree that there should be sanctions, just not jail or fines did you?

Stillfire' take on jail times or fines merely added nuance. Here I felt that while they should not be the go-to response, they should not necessarily be ruled out. They could actually be counter-productive, as healing and restoration should be the best outcome.

Where there is no healing, the fine would almost certainly come in the nature of the settlement, although this would be rendered somewhat useless if there was "no-fault" divorce.

crackhaus:
Every other argument is as a result of TV trying to prove that infidelity should be sanctioned because a broken marriage is worse than a happy one (where people are coerced into staying married) with respect to raising productive citizens.

Again nope, the discussions are separate and distinct (1) should there be sanctions or not? with nuance around the form sanctions take and, (2) is marriage the optimal way to raise children?

Both yourself and Mindless are not just against sanctions in any form (on the basis of freewill, not wanting to coerce anyone into staying if they don't want to etc.), you also demur that marriage (as defined) is the best family setting for raising children.

crackhaus:
I didn't opine anything, all I did was refute the claim that productive citizens can only come from a marriage/family unit, which is just not true when it comes down to reality - anyone who isn't blinded by a certain bias would definitely see this...lol

Nobody - and certainly not I - ever made the claim that other family types or relationship arrangements could not produce productive citizens. I actually stated that repeatedly - the point was marriage is superior in everyway that matters.

crackhaus:
What you should be arguing is the sanctions on infidelity, not TV's linear tangent on how to raise productive citizens - the one you jumped on.

And your "no-sanctions" for infidelity did not achieve take-off, as it was based on a faulty understanding of contract law, and misapplying the concept of freewill violations.


TV

tearoses:
Oga you better kneel down and thank your God
God is really on your side
3 men!!! After intro?
I know it hurts but you will look back on this in a few years time and thank God again for your lucky escape.

Abi? Can you imagine - next level divine intervention will be to send an angel to konk his head and give him new glasses .

How far na? Got my Pali


TV

^{Meanwhile, were is Kuylie/Sambarry?}

crackhaus:
Took a while, but I suspected it was only a matter of time till you bring it down to 'not understanding marriage'.

You also fall short on your understanding of contract law

crackhaus:
I have answered all your questions -

Not this one;

How would you structure marriage, so that it would deliver the same benefits, not have any "coercive" penalties for breaches, and at the same time retain it's honour and prestige, and be materially different from any other relationship type?

crackhaus:
I told you other ways by which productive citizens can become, chief of which is education.

This entry was so poor, I'm surprised you actually made it. First, we are talking about family settings and relationship types. Secondly, citing arbitrary things like education, exposure and enlightenment, as if you could explain what is qualitatively different between them , or even show how they influence the family structure to enhance children' outcomes, is a moot point.

A rising tide lifts all ships. If education is improving, it will affect all family types. Improving education is not directly proportional, nor necessarily co-relates with improved child-rearing. Did you really think about this? Attribute, virtues, qualities, characteristics, etc., are brought to the family setting, they are not in and of themselves the setting.

And if you mean the children being educated as opposed to the parents, you are still way off. Education may make you better qualified, but it doesn't necessarily cure any ills or pathologies caused by being raised in a less than optimal family setting. I have a load of well educated, but unbalanced people right here as I type.

crackhaus:
I have also told you that you can't have an optimal way in producing these citizens as there have been very influential people who were not brought up in the usual family setting...one example would be the first black president in one country somewhere.

Are you really trying to make a case by exception? If you were, you'd be best served by using someone like Ben Carson. Barack Obama was effectively raised by his maternal grandparents, a very close alignment with the real thing.

Anyway, here's something the man himself had to say; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/23/barack-obama/statistics-dont-lie-in-this-case/

crackhaus:
What other question do you need answered when you already know and typed this:

So because I acknowledge that children can turnout good even in less than optimal circumstances, then we should consider these settings equally good, as overall beneficial, or codify them in law?

One can travel to Italy from Nigeria by taking a direct flight from MMA. One could also ply the migrant route, across deserts, using people smugglers, and at great expense & risk of death. Both are ways of "getting to Italy", and I'm sure some make it via the latter way. Does that make both ways equally good, equally feasible, or equally valid as policy? Dude, you have a busted flush, no flush sef

crackhaus:
Doesn't this already answer the first question of me naming other means by which productive people can be?
Does it not also answer the second question proving that there's no optimal way on that account of raising well-adjusted and productive
citizens?

No it does not, and, no it does not again. As explained. You may as well claim the "fizzy drink" theorem as expounded by Mindfulness. Which declares that parents/families aren't even required, you just need to teach them how to tie their shoelaces

And your pleadings here - specious as they are - are in direct conflict with your position here; https://www.nairaland.com/3070621/gay-couple-wins-custody-battle

crackhaus:
What else na?

From you? Nothing. And if you have anything other than diversionary ploys and deflectionary strategems, please show us.


TV

crackhaus:
Now he wants me to do the research for him...

You're the one telling us marriage remains the optimal way to raise well-adjusted productive citizens and you say it has been proven.

The onus is on you to back that up, not me.
Where's the research and/or evidence?

Inter-Alia;

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage/teach-your-children-about-marriage/30-years-of-research
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9139483/Marriage-is-best-for-raising-children-Government-says.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1528267/Is-marriage-really-the-only-way-to-raise-children.html
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/children/children.cfm
http://www.foryourmarriage.org/married-parents-are-important-for-children/
https://childandfamilyblog.com/children-marriage-do-better-why/

...ad infinitum

TBH, the evidence is simply overwhelming, even if there are some disputes around some aspects co-relation, causality etc. And if the research is not enough lived experience is. The differences are clear. In short, for those who can't be bothered with links I'll summarise

- marriage typically means a better standard of living - single parent homes are disproportionately poor
- abuse is anywhere from 6-10 times more likely with 1 non-biological parent
- scholastic outcomes are better for children
- delinquency and destructive behaviour is reduced for both boys and girls
- increases the chances of the children going on to have successful marriages of their own

As I've noted, children can do well in other family settings or relationship types. But all things being equal, chances are increased and outcomes better with children raised by their married biological parents.

That is my simple premise on this point. Marriage is simply the best, and makes most sense as a societal vehicle. Certainly, some may fall short, others bring character flaws and destructive behaviours to the union, but it doesn't change a thing.

No other domestic arrangement or relationship form comes close. And individual exception don't change the principle. Marriage is the best vehicle for raising children and ultimately well-adjusted and productive citizens.


TV

andymola:
Your advice will really save a brother. I'm in a relationship that's causing me pains right now. My woman accepted to marry me. We had done our introduction and have been working towards our marriage later this year. Last month, her attitude changed. She started getting aggressive. I pleaded she tell me what's wrong but she refused. I later found out she was communicating deeply with a certain man who wants to marry her. They communicate morning, afternoon and night. If she visits me, she always puts her phone in silent or sometimes puts it off. In all, she never told him she was in a relationship. This caused us so many troubles. I decided I back off since she's considering another man. She then promised to stop all forms of communication with him.
Always, she complains of been confused cos too many people are asking for her hand in marriage. Since Sunday, she's been very aggressive, she gets so angry anytime I complain abt how men call her. Anything I say now she gets angry. We were speaking on phone this night and she mentioned abt been confused again. That she doesn't want to make a mistake abt life partner. That three men are seriously disturbing her for marriage. I asked her why put other men on the line when she has accepted to marry me and I had done her introduction, she got angry and said she's a woman and she's allowed to entertain other men and asked me to cut the phone.
I'm really confused right now and need your advice. I'm typing with a phone.

Firstly, fall on your knees and give thanks - what has been revealed to you is by the grace of God and for your long-term well-being.

Now, confusion is not your problem, it's weakness and/or a lack of discernment. You are a man, you should at all times act boldly and firmly, especially after having time to think things over.

You drop her hard and fast; like an ebola ridden, shit covered, exceedingly hot brick. Don't look back, or entertain pleas from her, or on her behalf. End it now. As soon as you've read this piece - even if only figuratively at first .

And please stop referring to her as your woman - one that doesn't tell other suitors someone else has come knocking for her. In her head she is still everyones woman. Indeed, hasn't she said that much to you herself?

The next best thing that could have happened is she dumped you when the marriage proper was being planned. Every other scenario would probably have been after marriage and too woeful to even think about.

Do like I said, and yourself a favour. It may even help her reset her nonsensical thinking. She is allowed to entertain other men after betrothal - there should have been no further discussion after that - she doesn't care for, or respect you.

With husband scarcity on the rise? .


TV

Discussions would make much better progress if only people would answer questions .

crackhaus:
Lawd have mercy, on whose authority is it to structure marriage based on commitment level?
Religion or Government?

I'm not quite sure why you ask this? But I'll answer. Marriage has always been based on lifelong fidelity and commitment. Some - like I do - believe, it was God-given, others believe it evolved through culture. Either way, it's a societal artefact for the good of the whole. And government should support it, but not seek to vary it - they didn't devise it, and they don't own it.

crackhaus:
You agree that marriage is entered voluntarily, why then should anyone be sanctioned for voluntarily choosing to cheat on someone he/she voluntarily married?

You keep repeating this point, but fail to see that it's a non sequitur. Can you take out gym-membership, or a lease on a rental apartment and then simply walk away from it when you choose - a contract that you voluntarily entered into? Does the fact that you voluntarily entered into it mean you can voluntarily walk away from it - without cost or sanction?

Taking vows changes the whole nature of what you can voluntarily do. Marriage comes with rights, responsibilities and obligations. You voluntarily agreed and committed to them. And they are binding on both parties. To keep repeating that one can voluntarily take vows and voluntarily not keep them - without at least showing how that is the case in any other context is odd.

crackhaus:
You have the right to marry voluntarily but you have no right to cheat voluntarily - according to whom?

As above. You can only say this if you don't understand what marriage is, or label something that is not marriage as marriage.

Now, the question please .


TV

crackhaus:
Education is an attribute/virtue?
Peaceful coexistence in a community, is an attribute?
Exposure and enlightenment are virtues?

Lol, now you're grasping.

When you asked me to name in-lieu of marriage, you didn't draw a line between virtue/attribute and form...not like any of the above are even virtues.

I'm not sure what inference you are drawing here? Marriage is a family structure, a relationship type. And my position is that it's the best for raising well-adjusted and productive citizens.

Qualities like education, or enlightenment or exposure, are in some ways arbitrary and, in any event, independent of the relationship form. For example, ATBE, the children of an educated men in marriage, will have better outcomes than the same educated man in a different structure. So your points are moot, in fact, not actually relevant.

If anything, qualities would have been a better descriptor than virtues. And you would have been better served by linking "real" virtues to outcomes, separate to "forms or types".

crackhaus:
Marriage remains the optimal way according to who TV01? - Did I hear someone say God? Yes I did...

Feel free to research and return evidence to the contrary. And no, education, exposure and enlightenment do not in and off themselves raise children .

crackhaus:
In that case, isn't God the one who sanctions any and all acts of infidelity?
The wages of sin is death seems not to be a good enough sanction any more according to TV01, NL's foremost marriage advocate.

I was happy to restrict it to civil marriage, but if you wish to discuss both, or conflate them, no problem.

As I said, spiritually, restoration and reconciliation is always preferred - even by God (I speak as a Christian). However, if the sin (breach, transgression) goes un-repented off, there will be a price to pay as you've noted. Not sure what you are inferring here?


TV