₦airaland Forum

shaybebaby:
I am sending you this in solidarity, dispense as you wish on those needing it, heaven knows many abound. Would save you the hassle of trying to reason with them when we both know something else needs fixing fundamentally.

...another child abuser rears her head. All good, moral and healthy - in fact, virtuous - it if makes you happy though. GDT.


TV

freecocoa:
Oh! Please, I don't play games.

At best, your only value on this section is as sport - and cat playing with little bird type sport at that - everyone comes on here and toys with your absurdity dressed as progressive intellectualism. Other than that, you are typically nuisance value.

freecocoa:
I don't see why how wouldn't understand that our differences is part of what makes us humans, if you teach her right, in the first place, having two dads doesn't make her less than a person with a mum and dad.

"Teach someone right", by forcing what is wrong/dysfunctional on her Is it about "making her less", or denying her more - by legal stricture? And solely in order to affirm the perverted lusts of adults, and forcing everyone to believe that what they do is normal, by making it seem to appear so?

freecocoa:
Unless you can tell us exactly what having a mother feels like, provide proof that everyone with a mother feels that way, and also prove that the girl will never experience that feeling, then you have no point.

So all those who have lost, or are missing their mothers, are grieving over nothing? When even adults - who in a sense no longer need their mothers - grieve the loss. Really Free? And you talk of humanity? whilst insisting that having a mother is neither here nor there !

Or put it another way, gauging out the eyes of a new-born baby is no problem or cause for concern, after all, she won't miss what she never had will she? The logical trajectory of your claims will lead to some scary outcomes.

But let's see how low you are ready to sink. Speaking of humanness in one breath and condoning animalistic behaviour in another. Pure degeneracy. And who are the aspiring dumb twattocrats liking your posts? Kindly reveal yourselves, let us honour you


TV

Really? How do you and your ilk do this to yourselves? Stridently insist on your degeneracy with nothing more than appeals to emotion
Bug-eyed in your beliefs, with no facts, sans any basis in reality, and willing to say anything to convince - although mostly yourselves.

Here we have a feminist, who would insist that women are equally capable as men and deserved to be equally represented in government, boardrooms and the social/public square in general.

But in this instance, is happy to insist, that in the one mutual endeavour that partners men and women, and truly marries their unique attributes - the procreation and nurture of children - that women are not rally required. That they add nothing unique or distinct. Nothing of any value that, would cause harm or be missed if it was eliminated. A misogynist feminist .

Reducing women to at best brood mares. Dispensable breeders for the realisation of male desires. Take a bow Free, you are henceforth elevated from amongst the rank and file - promoted to the twattocracy. Please advise your title of choice, happy to help with suggestions if you are struggling

That's you done for. I could stop there, but it's expedient for those that may be reading, and specifically those that may be deceived.

freecocoa:
Unless you can see into the future or have actual proof that being raised by two gay men will affect the girl's long term health and well being, please shut up.

So, because you wish to sanctify the relationship of two men as analogous to a "normal biological family", you are willing too;
1. Ignore the numerous of studies that show the pathologies of missing a parent of either sex
2. Summarily dismiss the fact that maltreatment/abuse is at least 6 times more likely where one parent is not biological
3. Deny that women lend anything of value in raising children
4. Risk a childs future to prove that your emotionalism masquerading as humaneness is well founded .

freecocoa:
Since when is cultural heritage what defines a person? How is this crucial, if people get to pick and drop cultures as they like? How do you know the supposed heritage you carry about is truly yours? I'd like to know what not having this information will restrict you from achieving, that you would if you did.

, see twaddle? Cultural heritage is key in forming a well-rounded identity - evidenced here by you and your co-horts jettisoning (or never been in receipt of theirs). How else do we understand your colo-mentality . Being able to change aspects of it, does not mean having it in place to begin with is unimportant.

freecocoa:
I take it you had a DNA test carried out on your ancestors and everyone in your lineage to be actually sure your biological heritage is what you carry with you today, otherwise, you may just be yet another wanderer with no roots on this earth, no?

Come, do you have anything except a big gob? Growing up secure in an extended kinship network and, extended family ties that span generations. Being raised with people that look like you, share personality traits, are evidently your flesh and blood is to be sneered at and counted as nothing? Or only valid if DNA verified? I don't know about wanderers, but there is certainly a sense unrooted aimlessnessl in your thinking.

freecocoa:
The families of her dads and the ones she'll go on to later form, are all the extended family she needs.

Indeed, you've already made it clear that women add little by way of value. And any random man is as good as a biological mother. Nice.

freecocoa:
Of what use is this so called correctly modelled masculine and feminine conducts/behaviours if a girl raised with those, can end up behaving in a way that is said to be manly and a boy with same, behaving in a way considered girly?

So, because some turn out disordered, we should embed it by design?

And back to one of my original questions, but updated ; If 2 men are in all ways good, healthy,normal and moral when it comes to raising children, how can 3 be in any way worse? Surely they would make an even better "family unit"

freecocoa:
Yes you do, as for your godless irrelevant talk, myself and other people are all the god I need, so keep your god, he's of no use to me.

Now your close minded and judemental self can go occupy a seat with the host of your imaginary heaven, where your penchant to pass judement will be put to good use, instead of wasting it on people who give don't give half a feck what you think of them.

Amen...in due course and by the grace of God.


TV _{...be swattin'}

...bummer!


TV

It will read better as "marriage changes all men". Either way, women should choose a man whom marriage will change for the better.


TV

^{...note, not necessarily character or conduct, but other attributes!}

freecocoa:
My humanity is reason for having no issues with hömosexuality.

So, "your humanity" embraces and celebrates two dysfunctional men in their perverted behaviour, but does not extend to the long-term health and well-being of a baby girl?

Your "humanity", would deny her the knowledge of her full, biological and cultural heritage, or extended family. Your "humanity" would deny her being raised with correctly modelled masculine and feminine conduct and behaviours?

Look over there, it's the moral high-ground, go, occupy. I think I may owe an apology to godless dumb twatts - they would never accept you amongst their number.


TV

raumdeuter:
Na only JJC guys go believe that. Over 85% of women analyze men critically before they marry thats why over 90% of women marry up. If it was random we would have like a 50-50 spread of marrying up and marrying down at inception of the marriage.

It's only men who stupidlyy fall in love . Women as someone once said here are constantly negotiation upwards. They start dating the village wrestler, dump him for the man who has a shop in town, next dump him for the richer guy who has a bigger shop in Lagos and finally dumps him for the rich guy who just flew in from Europe

If Tiwa just met Teebillz today when she is a millionaire and he is broke, they would never marry max dem go sleep together

Exactimundo - except that they tend to think short-term and want it right now. Reapers, not sowers.


TV

NashvilleTN:
They are both players and this is all a game. Tbillz is a slowpoke for sure and he will be looking for another foolish rich girl to marry.

He probably fumbled his best chance of making good. No one of her status will look at him again. Whatever he does now in the same vein will be with a much less viable prospect. He'll only make it good on his own hustle - and hardly anyone with the connections to help will touch him. Even then is obvious character flaws will probably ruin it.

NashvilleTN:
Tiwa will soon start dating someone with more cash and swag and the game will continue.

Bolade005:
Bro, e no go even see her pant. I can bet it with you, now that TBillz is out of the way, she's going to marry way up. She's probably going to end up with someone in the league of Don Jazzy or son of a billionaire.

This is but scene 1. It's not over by a long shot. For her, I see a "Jenny" type situation. Her "brand" can't afford for her to be rollin' with a small boy - no matter how much swag. And the men of the requisite status to marry her, will be few and not want the risk or the baggage. Date perhaps, not marry. Before marriage she was also close to last chance, I don't see her prospects are now improved.

And as ever, the children go un-remarked upon. Divorce is always lose all round. Whatever the divorce advocates say. It would have been better all round for them to work it out, and even better for her to have not made such a calculating, but short-term decision to marry him.


TV

Bolade005:
When I say more than 80% of 9ja female population are dumb and that they love for the wrong reason, they take it personal and start hurling invectives.

I have often said on here - and with a straight face - that 90% of women would be well served by having their fathers/elders pick their spouses for them, or at least have the veto on who they bring home. I'm am truly humbled by received societal wisdom and well-worn traditional paths. Go to the communities that retain theirs, their marriage cultures remain strong.


TV

raumdeuter:
1. The wife uprooting from London to Angola or Venezuela most likely would lose her career and would resent the husband for making her not achieve to her potential

That is, sacrifices have to be made to maintain the union and she doesn't want to be the one to make them? So she is disgruntled.

raumdeuter:
2. Same with the husband, As we have found out many women respect men they can look up to financially, If this guy was in Angola, he would be making bank and at least maintain his respect but if he comes to london and can retrain but for a job significantly lower than he would have been making e.g Making 170-200k a yr in Venzuela as per expatriate parole but in London can only get a 40K job as a school teacher. The wife would be okay with it for the short term until later the joint income cant maintain her previous lifestyle and she would remember its the husband dragging her back and how would her a top exec be married to a mere school teacher

That is, sacrifices have to be made to maintain the union, he has made them, she doesn't like the outcome, so she is disgruntled.

At the end of the day, having to make sacrifices for the union is not that big a deal - IFF they are both committed to it. If one partner has a transactional attitude, on any metric, any kind of trauma means you are skating on thin ice. That's a "fair-weather" union - hope it don't rain dude

There is literally no solution here, as she is a "transactioneer", but as a man his best option would have been to force the route that means he makes bank, which over the long-term slightly mitigates his risk.

But all such talk will be moot if a man chooses right. I hope we don't meet the kind, and if we do, we don't see the situation. Like I said earlier, many spouses are "contingent good spouses".

raumdeuter:
I have a real life experience with a friend, he went to Florida for a contract job and his wife was working in Texas too a stable career. The wife was always complaining how the distance is affecting the family, after the contract they offered him an extension in FLorida, he declined because of his family, he got back to Texas after 6 months he hasnt gotten anything and the wife is now starting to wahala him that he isnt making money.

He is like Guy, for say I know I for don take that Florida offer and all these yawa for no dey happen. Unfortunately the offer is no more on the table and in this economy its not like job grows on the tree

Well if he didn't know his spouse before, he does now. He should act accordingly in future to keep his marriage.

I believe in the sanctity of marriage - once in, you do your utmost to make it work, maintain and improve it. It may sound cheesy,but one of the roles of a spouse is to love away any hard outer shell, their insecurities, hurt, bitterness and past trauma. Choose wisely, KYS (know your spouse ), but always be ready to bear the burden if it comes - after all, trauma could happen after the marriage. It is what it is.


TV

raumdeuter:
Nashville, TV01, tearoses

Check this example, A wife has a thriving career in the financial industry based in London where the family stays, The husband say he is a Petroleum Engineer and there are no oil industry in London or anywhere close by, the closest place he can go is say Venezuela, Angola etc to get a job. and come home one week in 4months. Effectively seeing his family 4weeks a year.

Does he quit become a stay at home husband and be with his family or just stay in Angola send money and both live their separate lives (Definitely in most of these cases their would be infidelity)

What would you advise for this.
I know a couple with similar scenario, wife in Wall street, husband in South America for a 5yr project and would probably be the head of the whole South America side of their business after that

[size=5pt]I personally believe living together is the biggest thing in a marriage not even the ceremony and the certificate[/size]

1. In my world-view, the first and probably preferable option, is he finds a fitting job - wherever that may be - and his family join him.

2. Also quite feasible and maybe more practical, is his retraining and resuming work in another industry - even if it's lower than what he would reasonably expect as a PE, or below his wife's grade. This has the advantage of avoiding disruption to the childrens education, or them having to uproot and lose their support networks, ties etc.

The house-dad option could work, but may not be sustainable long-term if they both cannot maintain the right attitude. I know a woman who is a partner in one of the big 4 accounting firms. She met a guy out clubbing who was a hunk, but a carpenter, he re-trained to the more respectable teaching profession and they are dong just fine.

Both status and incomes were a consideration, but not overwhelmingly so. That's the key difference between a oneness approach and a transactional approach where finances, income and livelihood are in view.

How can you not expect husbands not to be wary of, and possibly agitate against their wife' success, if such success threatens and not enhances them and their union?

Some arrangements are typically preferable to others, but many different ones can work if the couples are committed to the union and each other.

If with every change in "status indicator" the viability of a union changed, then many marriages would crash. If the core loving husband, submissive wife dynamic is maintained, changes in other areas should have very little impact.

And I certainly agree that a distance marriage, is contrary to marriages essence, and should never be a long-term thing.


TV

Kimoni:
TV!!!!!!!! You are always talking of perfect scenarios which is hardly obtainable in real life. Perfect husband, perfect wife - which market do you buy this biko? Pls show me

Determine what you want to buy before heading to market. If it's not readily obtainable employ patience and dilligence. Don't simply rock up to market and make impulse buys

Kimoni:
LMAO@contingent wonderful wife. Everybody is a contingent somebody else. Is that not why we pray not to be tempted above that which we can bear?

The less "oneness", the more contingent. Don't be rushed into impulse purchases. Negotiate on price, not on product


TV

.

Kimoni:
"Everything" here is relative. Pls define everything?

"Provision" housing, food, clothing, fees, more or less.

Kimoni:
TV, if you had grown up kids who are starting to earn "mites", would you also mandate them to compulsorily spend it on family projects you the family head will outline for them, because they are still under your roof? Or you will give them the freewill to spend it believing that the training you have given them over the years is enough to guide them on the right priorities of expending the money?
If no, what has changed? If yes but they say no, would you consider them not your children because they refused? Or you would consider yourself a failure maybe?

This is a moot question. In an (my?) Xtian world-view, parents provide for children, not the other way round. I invest in my children so they can invest in their futures (i.e. their kids), not my present. But yes, I would expect godly and responsible stewardship - after all, l wouldn't want them to squander whatever we pass on to them would l . My failure would be to not inculcate stewardship and responsibility in them, not commandeer their earning

Kimoni:
I'm not sure I totally get this 'no boundaries' you just explained here but how is it different from those who preach "anybody can do anything" in the home? i.e no role demarcations?

You are equating headship with finances. It is not a direct co-relation. A man is to provide, yes, but that does not mean a woman does not invest what she has in the home/family, or that anything she has remains under her sole purview. To me, that view already starts to lose the essence of "oneship".

A husband is head solely by virtue of his being a husband, not by virtue of being richer.


TV

oyb:
so what happens with our fairytale jumoke the bread seller?

there is no way her husband can keep up with her stratospheric rise.

We shall see won't we .

In any event it is not in itself cause for a fundamental change - in his or her attitude, or their union.

TV

temi4fash:
What of cases where the man cannot help it?

With everything he does she still earns more than him what does he do?

"Earning more" is not in and of itself a problem, after all it may be marginal. The crux is the attitude they both have. To me - and slightly ironically - while a man is to provide, not being able to solely provide does not change roles or his headship.

It's a fact of life that in many places - especially the West - two incomes are usually required for a decent standard o fliving. In fact many men will not countenance a non-earning woman as a wife. That's the reality we live in. But as stated above, I don't believe everything hinges on finances.

temi4fash:
Mr TV01,

I have been following writing for more than a year now and I want to say I have really been blessed by it.

Thank you. Really appreciated. Given what I returned to find, I was seriously considering taking off again. This is encouraging.

temi4fash:
1. What should be the core values a marriage in these our time be uphelod with?

If for each man to determine himself. But whatever he determines, lays emphasis on and pursues, he takes responsibility for. Taking responsibility is a key virtue.

It's why I stress having a well-articulated world-view - even if only in regards marriage (mine is Christian), finding someone that shares it, and having a vision for your union and ensuring she buys into it - or that you jointly map one out.

temi4fash:
2. How would a man with out enough experience in the womantology field be able to decipher a woman with a high body count and a woman woth no good.

1. Study her - listen to how she discusses sex and - what you consider - sexual impropriety. How suggestive and how forward she is, how she dresses, what makes her blush. Listen to how she comments on issues - even like the one on question now.
2. Ask, but not before you are seriously thinking about committing - otherwise it's not strictly your business

temi4fash:
3. From your experience, what are the basic things a man is supposed to look out for in a woman before he walks down the aisle with her

I would hope I've already started to answer that above. But there are a number of things inter-alia;
1. A shared word-view, purpose and vision regards marriage - even if some of the detail differs, or is left undiscussed
2. A deep mutual affection and fondness for one another - you should be day-dreaming about your old age with this person
3. An expectation that the union persists come hell or high water
4. Trust

temi4fash:
4, lastly, I have these stuffs about God revealing your spouse to you and thr likes in church when you wait upon him. Is it balid and if it is, Does it mean the woman automatically have those characteristics?

"Let it be unto you according to your faith". I believe both pathways - or a combination - are fine;
1. You are god-fearing and go in search of a wife with understanding and discernment, committing your way to God
2. You wait on God (whilst presumably doing other stuff ) for a wife.

Either way, God is in it, and will meet you at the point of your need. But understand it may not be what you want, but what you need for God to complete his purpose in you .

temi4fash:
Thank you in advance

You are most welcome. Apologies for the brief response. let me know if anything is unclear or requires more detail.

May your feet tread in pleasant places. May you find your bone and your flesh.


TV

NashvilleTN:
Bro, you are talking about the ideal situation and I agree with you nothing has changed. But in the real world, a lot changes. Even if she were the wonderful wife; her surroundings will influence her. Her friends and family will start asking questions and putting ideas in her head. On the man's side, he may begin to read meanings to simple things - even his family may join him in that.

God made the man the head for a reason. When the equilibrium is completely inverted for an extended period; it brings alot of troubles. Each case may be different but the end results are similar.

Nothing has changed - agreed. So any changes are a result of mindset, attitude and beliefs. You cannot call her a "wonderful wife" if the situation changes her attitude. She is at best a "contingent wonderful wife" - and all women are .

Now, to be sure, I am not talking about a lousy or immature husband. That should have been a non-starter in the first place. But if a man is conducting himself aright and the financial situation changes - say her earning go stratospheric due to winning a talent show - he is still the same good man and dutiful husband as before. However her earnings are now transformational to their situation, and if she is indeed a "wonderful wife" (unqualified), nothing much changes in their union.

That is what I preach, that is what I practice. Aspirational marriage true to it's essence, not some contrived, self-serving transactional arrangement. It may fall a little short, but it is worth shooting for. If you eat cheap greasy burger, be prepared for tummy ache, flatulence and spots

@temi4fash - I dey come.


TV

A40:
True. Just amusing that in this day and age people are not adjusting to the reality of the times we are in


To some anything monetary is solely the man's responsibility. Spending is and should be their only contribution


For me I believe there should be no boundaries, Ideally if you are buoyant enough as the man you should settle all the bills. However in the event that you are not I don't think there is a need to beg your life partner to play a role in a venture in which she is also a stakeholder. I don't like it when people have a close mind when it comes to these things. Do not feel like you are doing your husband a favor especially if its on a temporary basis



It always is but a woman is supposed to be the Helpmate for a reason. Might as well get a surrogate mother than a woman who thinks contributing to her children's education is a taboo

...for me it's fundamental to the nature of the union. I cannot consider a woman with that mindset - mine is ours and hers is hers - as fully invested in me and our union. In essence I wouldn't consider her a wife, or that a marriage. The key is to discerning that before and not after.

It would be great if a man could comfortably fund everything. But even if he can and the woman is earning a "mite", that mite should be pooled and go towards the betterment of the whole family. So I agree, "no boundaries"

If a man can do all of the above and more, and the situation changes, with the woman being the one who can, what has changed in a one-flesh union? Nothing really. Certain structural changes may be required but nothing fundamental has changed.

If a woman willingly enters a union with a man with whom she does or may potentially earn more, that does not change the dynamic in the least. She's a wife and he's a husband.

It's why I differentiate between the burger marriage and the chateaubriand union. If you know what goes into burgers, you won't chop


TV

A40:
Thank you Sensei. I think character is important and also someone that shares your ideas or is at least tolerant to them. Two cannot walk unless they agree that quote I hold am very tight. You would be suprised to see the people that don't agree eventually and this is what really scares me.

No probs. To be honest, I find it extremely difficult to imagine anything we could disagree over to a great degree, let alone split over. It's all in the foundation. It's why a shared and deeply held world-view really helps.

In fact, demonstrate high moral integrity, show tactical nous and strategic thinking, she will absorb it and start to think like you. Sometimes when my wife speaks it like I'm talking to myself. I'll be thinking "why is this woman parroting me" - but that's the fruit of my patience and labour . And it's not work to hold it together, it's to move us forward.

A40:
The person might be everything you thought you would ever need physically and even emotionally but certain issues come up and they just fall your hand

But yes, I suppose sometimes thorny issues can crop up, and despite your alertness, blindside you out of left field. At such times, remembering the commitment and the vision will help. A lot of goodwill builds up over time and that's also a great help.

Funnily enough trauma may not even be due to behaviour. None of our challenges - and we've had them - have been down to conduct (at least for me sha ). But what they have done is tighten those bonds.

A40:
I had a very interesting debate with two ladies on Twitter about the roles of a man and woman in marriage as regards their financial responsibility. Which is amusing because neither one of us is married but their stance kind of hinged on how it went in the days of their fathers. Cute busty and supposedly exposed girls I might add

Important for general understanding, but in a sense, a moot point. The only one who counts is "her".

A40:
As a married ninja do you think the financial roles should overlap? Should there be a strict rule on who spends where? To my dismay I saw a woman say she would never pay or contribute school fees or rent in the marriage. This was the origin of the debate btw. I was called T-BILLZ hehehe even though I have never collected a babe's penny

Financial roles are subject to discussion - your headship is not . Whatever their income, I suggest couples pool and jointly plan (I'm leaving out nuance here).

Funny, that's what we do , but it's situationally driven, not due to tradition. My wife knows everything I have, all that comes in and where it goes. I always put her and the kids first. Consequently she can't and doesn't pressure me. And in the sense that we utilise both incomes to our maximum benefit, the roles overlap.

A40:
I was genuinely alarmed though that a woman would be proud in this modern day and age to say they did not contribute a penny to their children's education

The burden to perform, the expectation to deliver is always the mans - don't ever think otherwise.


TV

omaigala:
Once upon a time, I asked her to bare everything concerning her past relationship life to me as I was prepared to accept her then.

I feel you bro'. Honesty, integrity and the ensuing trust is everything - even the basis for the unfolding and deepening love that couples should attain to. Any straight up guy would hate to be in your shoes. Deceit wounds deep, and sometimes you never recover.

But recover you must, and you must try your damnedest to do it. The marriage is still early and rapprochement is key. The discussion you had before - as quoted above - you need to have it again.

Tell her you are committed to loving and cherishing her. Tell her the basis of your asking was not to test or reject her - you had already made up your mind - but to give her the confidence that you had her back "whatever". establish your future on openness and transparency.

Tell her you need to re-establish full trust between you, or the marriage will be hardly bearable, and filled with the conflict caused by mistrust - if it even survives. Tell her lovingly and re-affirm you commitment to your union.

Don't press for an immediate response - indeed, I'd suggest you just ask her to listen and give her some time to really consider what you've said and what she wants before replying.

I'm hoping she will come back fully contrite, and may even come clean of her own volition. But having had the talk don't press the issue of the past, just keep demonstrating your love and commitment - it may well come later. Trying to force it may just engender more lies.

You've characterised her somewhat as a canny and hard girl, but the right kind of masculine - not mumu - husbandly love can reach even those. The issue may not have been you wanting to trust her, but her not being sure she could trust you.

And whatever their pasts, one of our jobs as husbands is to love them better.

I truly pray you find healing and restoration in your marriage. If you believe, please be earnest in seeking the face of God.

All the best sir


TV

Kimoni:
Dayo, I just saw the T square pix. This is the primary reason I believe they'll get back together. They have this deep and genuie love for each other. It's just some character flaws here and there and yes, the guy needs to get a job.

There has been a lot of water under the bridge. Harsh and wounding words have been said - and in public. some of those allegations eh?How mature and composed are the couple to see this?

Are the people who surround and advise them more concerned about the brand or the union? As bad as it is, could it escalate still? And most of all, "when a womans mind is made up"...

Hmmm...


TV

freecocoa:
You know the funny thing is that, all these is in your head(s).

No Free, it's right here on the interwebz .

You made a number of assertions, amongst which was - "paraphrasing" - the relationship between two men had to be recognised by law as a marriage (if they so desired).

I simply asked what is the material difference between say, two 30 year old men wanting marriage, and three 30 year old men, that the law should recognise one and not the other? To which you could only bluster on about fairness, safety, coercion and the like - as if the law ever concerns itself with the individual dynamics of peoples relationships - after you yourself asserting the basis was adult, consensual?

I also asked a few other questions, inter-alia, why is the number 2 essential to defining a relationship as marriage, why has it universally and historically been the union of a male and female. None of which you could summon up much more than emotional based bluster in response.

When engaging someone who gives you "gimmes", which you can deal with effortlessly your kung-fu is on full display . When asked a few, not to hard questions, you resort to claiming the high ground, with trite calls to keep it classy and the like .

freecocoa:
Now it's godlessness, na this one go just annoy me now, like you are any better than those homos, what makes you better please?

There was a time I questioned if your godlessness predicated your "dumb twattery" or vice-versa? But it's clear, that you and your co-horts campaigning for homosexualism, feminism, divorce, abortion etc. are almost certainly suffering the delusion that precedes judgement. Clearly evidenced by your stridently arguing for something you can't even explain, and campaigning with an ideology you don't understand.

Wings have grown in my absence, I return with clipers in addition to my hose.

I remain NL' foremost marriage advocate, femnivore and swatter of dumb twats.

Be annoyed....be very annoyed


TV

<sup>Romans 1:28 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.</sup>

freecocoa:
You know it's beyond me and you are still disturbing me on the matter, TV biko I'm tired of this topic.
Onto the next one.

JoeBlocks:
And this is the second time you're running with your tail between your legs. First me, then TV. One would think you're remotely related to the runaway bride.

We always give them the benefit of the doubt, yet they never cease to disappoint. Be that sooner or later .

@OP what happened here is the simply indicative of the degeneracy that results from godlessness - as are those who would defend it.


TV

freecocoa:
You kuku know I no send @ the emboldened.

If you read with a modicum of understanding, you will realise that relatively speaking, there isn't actually anything to send

freecocoa:
2.Marriage should be restricted to two people because it is a lot better and safer when two people are intimately involved. Human beings are naturally selfish, feelings of jealousy which we all know to be a bad emotion will arise a lot in such relationships, need I tell you what this can cause? it is already proven to be enough hassle being with one person, why compound it by adding a 3rd person to the mix? I tire for you people o.

And this assertion you wrote here is for the law to decide? What is the laws business in managing peoples emotions, or how they configure their domestic arrangements? Especially if they meet your stated criteria of adult and consensual? Listen; the laws around marriage and the number 2 had nothing to do with safety or managing emotions. Try again, and try harder.

freecocoa:
3. For the same reason the law involves itself in our lives, go figure.

Nothing to figure - it's evident. So I repeat, why does the law codify and privilege the formal union of a man and a woman? And recognise it as a marriage?

freecocoa:
4.The difference is that 3 people cannot rationally be in a marriage, consenting or not, the law shouldn't have to deal with what is likely to come out of such unions, if there's a way to prevent t the impending danger.

What is a marriage Free? I've answered you - 2 paras above - on this. What is the likely outcome of 2 men that materially differs from 3, that means 2 is a marriage and 3 is not? And what is the outcome that leads society to recognise and privilege the union of a male and female?

freecocoa:
As for your no 1, I didn't debunk nada, I posited that the law shouldn't be based on religion and culture/religion because we all have it different. You can't include marriage on that as it predates recorded history and it is a universal culture, albeit practised differently

At it's most basic, all the law does is codify existing cultural norms. And you keep rebutting your own assertion. It's universally and historically male/female - for a reason. The law does not have to involve itself in peoples domestic arrangements, why does it for the committed union of a male and female?

Please expound this your ideology end-to-end. Loads of assertions about what the law is and should do, about rights and consenting adults. And to simply explain what marriage is, and why 2 should be afforded privileges that 3 are not is beyond you


TV

A40:
This is true I guess I simply should have said knowing enough. Its a lot to process because people do change. I guess the search continues, not found that one I fancy like mad and can't live with that yet

Listen, one doesn't know enough to become married, one is mature enough to. One does not need to overly worry about people changing, if one marries based on character.

What I said first time holds; be a person of character, understand marriage and have a vision for your home. Find someone who is mature and understanding. She should hopefully be of like mind, or at least grasp your vision and embrace it. It's that, and a studied commitment to the union - from you both - that will mean you skip over any hurdles.

Lot's of people have a myriad of fears making them hesitate, and there are so many myths and notions that put doubt in peoples mind. I know, because I had to be freed from a number of them . While there may not be a template, there's a well worn roadmap and some essentials that will stand you in good stead.

Not only do you not really need luck, like a fight, you can do all the hard work before the get into the ring, and it can be plain sailing. People talk as if getting married is the start of a demanding and extremely hard task, it's not, it can be deeply fulfilling and blissfully happy - I know because I live it. See it and get yours.

All the best dude.


TV

^{...almost all the woes and issues you hear about in marriage will stem from character, understanding or vision. Get those right and half-arsed reasons and sorry-ass excuses will be far from you...}

CC holá, how far? Hope all is well.

tearoses:
I kind of understand it when TV01 says that women need to marry up
Men need it to massage their ego that someone is looking up to them or needs them

There may be an element of that for some, but to my mind, it's mostly the dynamic. After all, if the positions had been reversed, would there have been a problem? For eons, men have provided for their families - be that most, or all. Generally, men, women or wider society have not had an issue with that

A daily crust was not the issue here was it? Between them, they had enough - even if his income was derived from managing her. If anything "ego" is a female issue - hers needed to be fed by having a higher status spouse

It's a well worn template. They meet, he has higher status and can advance her, she advances, then advances past him, "levels" become an issue. It's no different in essence from the guys who sponsor women through school and then get dumped.

tearoses:
Women like the feeling of being looked after

Again, true to a degree, but the dynamics of a L/T relationship and family and the differing functions (read child-bearing), mean women have to have this expectation of men to some extent - will she birth and provide?

That's why I am puzzled by all these notions of equality and role reversal. Given our biology, relationship dynamic and complimentary make-up, it can never be anything but a wholesale disaster. We can see the outworking now.

tearoses:
This is the problem that Tiwa and hubby have.

Behaviours aside - which can be dealt with, or which should have been a deal-breaker in the first instance - there is no problem here - unless role reversal is a problem?

Loads of female artistes in the West make their husbands their managers. Some because the hubbys role was below that of manager and it's actually upgrading him - they simply present as a team. And they have no problem whatsoever.


TV

freecocoa:
TV, I think you should go through my posts on this thread, replying this post will be me repeating what I've already said more than once, I honestly don't see any new question here.

...c'mon Free. Whatever I thought of you,I always considered you better than this. You started so assertively on this thread too ?
All the bluster around "the law must do this...fundamental human rights...exclude culture & religion...consenting adults etc. etc". And now this

JoeBlocks:
And this is the second time you're running with your tail between your legs. First me, then TV. One would think you're remotely related to the runaway bride.
I still like you though... now throw some freecocoa ma way... Oh yeah...

No be me talk am 0! Although that runaway bride aside is loaded with meaning

I read all your posts. It was on the basis of that that I posed you 4 questions, or 3, as 2 & 4 are essentially the same question from different angles.

1. Pray tell Free, where did the law conjure up marriage from? Was it created ex-nihilo? Or did it merely codify an existing cultural or religious custom?

2. And again, why the arbitrary number "2"? Or, to put it this way, if you believe that 2 consenting men together does no harm, what is the harm if it is 3 or more consenting men. What difference does that make? Why is marriage restricted to 2 people?

3. Why does the law (or society by way of the law) involve itself in marriage anyway?

4. What is the difference between 2 consenting, adult men and 3, that the law cannot handle? And as they fulfil your criteria - adult,
consenting - how can they be denied the same recognition?

You answered #1 - in which you basically debunked your own odd assertion that the law must totally exclude culture and religion, and now you've demurred.

My hope changed, but my expectations didn't.


TV

An0nimus:
@TV

she married for love, she is also divorcing for love.

Abi Love being a synonym for fee-lings,,,if it tingles do it girl...

pickabeau1:
What changed was he had no money and she has it

Simple

...simple and burriful. What changed was "status" - or levels as we might say idiomatically. Plus she was rolling with guys that had way more Alpha going on for them...

'Sup Pick? How far?


TV

shaybebaby:
Anyways, I am going through a divorce right now and would advocate it when all else fails. The most important thing is determining when the horse is well and truly dead. At that point, it's time to move on.

So there! One divorce advocate present.!!!

As a marriage advocate, I would typically be saddened to hear this. I'd even take the "divorce advocate" remark as evidence of you hurting, and let it pass.

Then you said this;

Marriage is no different to a relationship

And this;

My marriage didn't fail because of the usual reasons i.e abuse, infidelity or even absence of love. Relationships are more complex than that.

Also this;

Morality has no place in this discourse, rather reason.

Along with the rest of your self-serving posts to justify your vain pursuit of "happiness" (strictly for yourself), your willingness to blame the union's breakdown on your husband, damning him in his failures - as asserted by you - whilst generously clearing yourself of yours, although you instituted the divorce?

You even claiming you loved and still him, while crowing about your "new love" - and before the papers are even finalised - and yet questioning the permanence of the new (which is really indicative of your wholesale character deficiency).

And not a mention that the potential long-term, even generational impairment to your childs well-being went singularly unremarked on. It was all about your self-absorbed navel-gazing.

And you were adamant in rejecting any notion of God or religion. But I guess one who worships self would have too. You obviously lack a sense of irony too.

A real losers mantra and failure' charter - "kini big deal" indeed.

Please un-follow me. I know it's not because you like me or my posts, but the thought of there being any connection between us is positively stultifying.


TV

Kimoni:
A girl doesn't plan on this TV, it's just love. Like Tiwa said, she simply followed her heart and married for love but

I like to speak generically and for the most part typically, without making it about individuals. But even without inside knowledge of the mentioned relationship, all the classic signs are there.

Typically, women don't follow their hearts, they follow their feelings. If she married for love, what is she divorcing for? After all, he did not file, she did no? Love is great within marriage, it is not the sole or main predicate for it.

Shaybebaby narrated something that resonates on 5mins thread. Let me post there before I turn in.


TV

Kimoni:
My position remains the same too TV. Ama start preaching against baby daddies aggressively henceforth I learn from the best. #saynotobabydaddies

As much as my main focus is men - hence it may appear I post with a bias against women - I would never advise a woman to marry a baby-daddy. Especially a woman of real worth and accomplishment. For a start, which girl grows up with a picture of her knight being a divorcé or single-dad? C'mon, demand and expect better - but also give it sha 0!


TV

edwife:
tv welcome back.

Thank you. I really missed everyone. Managed to catch some of your good work.

Kimoni:
In short ehnn, women are strongly advised to marry upwards henceforth. No sideways talkless of downwards. And again, no baby daddies. TV01, what sayeth thou? No baby daddy for women anymore

My position remains unchanged. Healthy wholesome, well founded and strongly established marriages ! And yes, the dynamics between male/female are not to be sneered at or taken for granted.

TV