₦airaland Forum

JoeBlocks:
Dude, who are you? I need to buy you a bottle of beer ASAP!.

I think I should be asking you that .

I am NL chief marriage advocate and foremost femnivore. You'll find a number of feminists parading with torn flesh and parts missing. I probably did that

And thanks for the offer, but I don't drink. I'm also a modern day Nazarite - or Pharisee to my enemies .

Saluté

TV

freecocoa:
It's your right to think whatever you want, I certainly won't try to take that away from you, so be glad you are king in your head and like I implied, I couldn't care less.

freecocoa:
No I don't agree.

Your agreement - or otherwise - is a mute point, I have demonstrated it. As have you in your response.

freecocoa:
I'm supposed to tell you why the law involves itself in marriage? Pray tell, why does the law involve itself in anything?

I spoke about promoting, permitting and proscribing in my first post. My prescience aside , you are lacking sharpness this evening. Or is it that you love to post long when you are engaging someone giving sub-standard answers .

The law promotes marriage - between a man and woman - because of it's benefits to society, consequently affording it certain rights and privileges.

freecocoa:
The difference is that two is not the same as three.

The basis you stated was adulthood and consent (you may have mentioned love?). What is materially different between two men wanting to form a relationship on that basis and 3 men likewise? And why should the 2 be recognised as marriage and not the 3? What is materially different? Especially as they meet your given criteria.

freecocoa:
I am not the law, therefore I cannot conclusively say why it's difficult for the law to handle matters on marriage, involving more than two persons but I have a theory. Let's just say, things can never be fair in an intimate relationship, comprising of more than two people.

You are not the law? Yet you stated categorcally what the law must be based on and how it must recognise same-sex relationships. You've now gone from declaratively asserting to theorising .

You said it was about adulthood, consent and perhaps love. If those are present does that not make it fair? Who are you - or the law - to decide what is fair about the consenting choices of adults.

Where is Mindfulness? I'm still hungry . And given Free' atrociously poor responses, I still will be if all our resident liberals show up.


TV

cococandy:
Thank you.
And without further ado, I believe you've gone through the thread.I don't know where you get the impression that I'm interested in long unnecessary posts.

You are welcome.

And whilst you are also more than welcome to refute the claims in the post, it's not "for you". It's so that readers can see the sly deceit in what you wrote.

Seventh, in championing this ideology, would you be happy to have a son who identified as gay and indulged in a homosexual lifestyle? And be equally happy to do omugwo for a child who was half his male partners, and half some random woman' who was cut out of the childs life. Go on, I dare you, be bold to lay hold of the assertions you make.


TV

cococandy:
If my daughter should end up in foster care and up for adoption, I'd choose a good gay couple over evil heterosexual ones any day.

You have the baby - a girl. Congrats 0! Very well done. But without further ado .

First, why make the false and misleading dichotomy? Would you differentiate between two "good couples"? And if you would, that makes you a phobe.

Secondly, a "gay couple" is by definition a bad parenting couple. The different attribute that opposite sex couples bring to raising a child cannot be matched by a same sex couple. Males and females bring unique but beautifully complimentary, styles, manner, attributes and input to child-rearing.

Thirdly, it has been estimated that up to 60% of a childs well-being is derived from the knowledge of and security in their family background and history. To willfully - by design - deny a child that is abuse. Heinous abuse.

Fourthly, to consider the so called rights - which are in in fact selfish feelings and desires - of two men over the rights, health and well-being of a child, to the extent that the child is essentially a commodity (isn't that de facto slavery?), cannot be the product of a sound ideology or right thinking.

Fifth, you have a daughter, and I can imagine how much you cherish and love her, desiring only the very best. Are you really going to say that you believe your husband raising her with another, non-related man, would be as good for her as raising her with you her birth mother? Or that other baby girls do not deserve what your daughter has?

Sixth, you repudiate the age-long traditions of your people, which is fine, if done with deep thought and much soul-searching, but to do so and replace it with this absurd liberal thinking?

Freecocoa came first, but I gave you more time . Now where is Mindfulness? I've acquired a new, bigger hose, just for her .


TV

freecocoa:
I want to say please wipe that smug look off your face ,but for reasons I owe no one an explanation to, I won't. Hi, I didn't miss you, certainly didn't notice your absence but it's nice to see a familiar 'face', this place be drier than the Sahara.

Smug is me . And you certainly help make me that way ! And like I said, I missed y'all.

freecocoa:
Well, marriage predates recorded history, but yea, the law codified an existing cultural practice there.

So you agree your whole premise is flawed !

freecocoa:
The difference it makes, is that the law can handle situations in marriage better, when it involves two people.

Next two questions;

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?

Come on Free, don't chase me away again with evasionary tactics and watery responses !


TV

Kimoni:
And I perfectly agree with you. Only deeply cultural or deeply religious would cut but should it be so?

I know of someone in this position who I am quite close to. She has tamed herself not to ever argue with the hubby. Even when he is clearly wrong and she is right, once he insist, she agrees with him until the result from the action shows who is right or wrong.

I don't know how she worked herself to that state but like she said, she does that for peace to reign. If that's the formula that is keeping her home, so be it but the summary of it all is that, men also need to check their thought process when they find themselves in situations like this. As much as the woman is advised to be in her most humble state with the man during this period, the man also needs to put himself together and stop attaching unecessary drama to every word and action from his woman. And yes, a man should provide for his family, at least the most basic needs. No reversal of roles for moi as long as the marriage is still intact.

The women is adopting exaggerated coping behaviour. I don't agree with that. But more so, I don't agree with her husbands demeanour.

To me the issue is not marriage, it's them. Let me explain. She should by all means work through this with hubby, and offer her full support, but not compromise herself to make him feel better. Or, let him wallow in the situation

I would say his character was always wrong for marriage, but the situation is just exacerbating things. If he was indeed mature and a good husband prior to the change in circumstances, he wouldn't change, even though the situation has. And he wouldn't take his frustrations out on her. He would maintain character and seek to restore his status - with her support.

They are both feeding a bad situation. She may be socialised right, bless her, but she's managing it wrong.

About role reversal; roles can overlap, but responsibility and requirements will always be in sight. I do tons around the house (but strengths are different). And while doing housework endears me to my wife, it's a bonus, not a core requirement. It's why I laugh at all the braying "if I contribute money, he must do housework" sayers.

I am yet to hear a woman list housework amongst the attributes of her ideal man. Did I see a thread about rejecting a man who can't cook? Laughable. Which woman will truly say that all other attributes being in place, that will be a deal-breaker? But I'll tell you this, a man that can cook and clean to olympic level without "breaking-even" in res&req is on shakey ground.


TV

Hi Free, I'm back. Miss me? You are first up. Honoured? Don't mention it, the pleasure is all mine.

freecocoa:
The Nigerian constitution says that, the government of the federation or of a state, shall not adopt any religion as state religion.
By virtue of the above, the constitution should not be based on religion nor should it on culture, since we all have different cultures and culture evolves, but it's not news that our government falls into religious traps.

Both culture and religion pre-date constitutional laws, which in any event, only arose after statehood, or in a more primitive sense, communities. And laws only captured and provided a framework for already accepted cultural or religious notions.

To buttress the point, you said this;

freecocoa:
What makes it okay for a man to marry a man, is that two people are involved in the marriage, the law recognises a marriage between two people

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?

The law exists to regulate our conduct and govern transactions between us. Not to say it can't be perverted or abused. It typically Prohibits, permits or promotes things for logical reason. But more on that later - if you care to answer the questions I've posted so far?

TheDarknight:
Greetings to TV01 , sir. You've been on a hiatus for months

Cheers sir, good to be back, I've missed y'all.


TV

Kimoni:
TV01, who is a socialized woman?

[size=3pt]How's madam and the kids? Were you making babies? the last card maybe?
[/size]

In a sense, every one is socialised in some way. Here, I essentially meant it to mean one that has inculcated deeply held cultural or religious ideals about traditional marriage. Hence, likely to work through or endure disgruntlement.

It's fast fading, hence terms like; "who wan suffer", which is just an easy out.

"Last card" . My MIL uses that term. I always wonder where she got it from. No, thank you for asking. Wifey says we are done . Just pursuing some other things and taking my annual "sabbatical".


TV

A40:
People don't really understand that for better for worse thing. Me self never understand am finish na why I never marry

This got me chuckling - and as NL chief marriage advocate I had to say summin'.

He said to me, he said, "there are some things I wish I knew before I got married, but you know, there are some things one cannot know until one gets married".

I sensed it in you earlier. You come across as genuine. Formulate a deep understanding of marriage - a world view, or theology if you prefer. Find someone who shares it, gets it or buys into it.

Determine it really is till death due part - and of course make sure you fancy her like mad . Then you are good to go. For the mature, the things you find out after will serve for growth, not breakage. All the best sir.


@Topic - money is just a metaphor for "status". The whole dynamic between men and women rests on it, and can only be overcome - if only to a degree - by deep cultural or religious socialisation.

Kimoni:
Raumdeuter, this part too got me in stitches too Are you saying you cannot be a househorseband?? You are old school meeehnnn. In this days of gender equality and "anybody can play any role"

The notion of "gender equality and interchangeable roles is a fallacy or at best mis-applied. Equal but different, not equal and the same. This misunderstanding is hurting relationships and wrecking homes.

A woman desires to "look up" to her man. It can sum up in many different ways, looks, money, academic achievement, corporate status etc., but on whole it must be higher. Only socialised women - as noted - can maintain if the mans status is in some ways impaired.

Indeed, the mans status may not be impaired at all - it may even remain higher than hers - someone of higher status than him may just come knocking - and she will become disgruntled.

The "attitude" post success is a manifestation of disgruntlement. It's why sex often stops - women don't like physical intimacy lower status men - in their minds, he is not worthy. A harsh truth that men learn - especially in marriage - everyday.

It's possibly what is playing out on NL FP. How can your women be around a certified boss like DJ all day and you are barely breaking even? Even if she doesn't do anything, she'll likely be disgruntled. You need to be your woman's Alpha.


Hi all, I hope everyone is well.


TV

Nice topic and nice to be back. Ten years on NL. Where's my award ?

TV

...it's not the office of prophet, it's the gift of teaching. But what you actually need is deliverance.


TV

...poor or immature character then?


TV

Mindfulness:
TV, I don't think that you are in the place to understand

Why not?

Mindfulness:
but I will t give it a try.

How kind.

Mindfulness:
If I decide that I want to leave my job soon, that I have loved doing for a while, to do something else because I want a new challenge, then it does not mean that I am unhappy, it just means that I want something else.

There you go again, trying to make a comparision with something that is not morally equivalent. Do I really have to spell this out? Like you don't really know

Marriage is a lifetime exclusive and committed relationship. For better, for worse, in sickness and in health for richer, for poorer. After vowing to eschew anything else, you now want something else ?

TVjr recently declared undying love for rice-crispies, yesterday it was same for cheerios. Choice of breakfast - as employment - is at best morally neutral. But I would have a word if Jr swore to eat rice-krispies forever, and then changed his mind. Take vows soberly, be a man of your word.

Mindfulness:
By the way, kids grow.

Indeed. Did you know adults with children of their own are affected - sometimes deply traumatised - by their parents divorcing. Sound marriages are the predicate for healthy and flourishing generations.

A sole focus on yourself and your feelings means you will never fully grasp or acept what marriage is, or does. All you've done, is purloin marriage to justify acting on your feelings, and veil yourself with societal approval. God judges the hearts and the minds.

Mindfulness:
Humans did.

A pointless distinction. Whether God did and handed it to humans , or humans did themselves, it changes not the essence and reason for it.

Mindfulness:
And if you go by your belief, is God also responsible for the evolution of marriage since marriage has been constantly changing and since there are very different marriage types all over the world, which have always been changing? Has God also been changing the purpose of marriage, which has been different at different types in world history and across different cultures?

God designed sex - does that make Him responsible for all the ways it is expressed ? And more specifically how it is abused and perverted. Is God responsible for same-sex marriage? Not my belief, and not my God. Your fuzzy, feelings-based logic - which yo uincidentally worship !

In this post Mindfulness, has dissembled, swerved, mis-ascribed, mis-represented, made a u-turn, tried to sell a dummy, and finally, crashed as usual .


TV

Lezzlie:
And I thought I was the only one who noticed. She's the princess of escapism and clever evasion of questions, using verbose, uncorrelated argument in making the original question more difficult in itself.

I tagged her as Maradona ages ago - both the Argentine and Naija one combined

Timbuktou:
Mehn, as you can see, I surrendered. That babe can turn one into Mr. Bean. I just wasn't ready.

How can one ever be ready for this ? Sometimes I think "she's trolling me surely?" Other times, I actually question the perverse delight I get from counting the different ways she "artfully confabulates" - confusion, deceit, revisionism, hypocrisy, outright lies, fantasy, delusion all join.

Lezzlie:
lols! TV01 often catches her with her own trap.

Let she what she has for me today


TV

Mindfulness:
Simple! Because I am an evolving being and I may change my preference and desire in the course of time. And if I do, nobody can stop me.

So your preference and desire for "stability" for the kids may change over time?

And that does not change your assertion that you didn't marry for happiness, as that is down to you. Nor the contradiction, that you can leave the union if you are unhappy - which has nothing to do with the marriage

Mindfulness:
Prove it.

Disprove it . Or alternatively show who else did.


TV

Timbuktou:
Oh, happy New year, bruv. Trust you and yours are well.

Thanks for the explanation, I understand much better now. To be honest, I've got nothing to add.

We are well o jare, thank God and thank you for asking. I trust likewise.

I actually feel for the guy. If he fumbles this, it could seriously curtail his future, and like you said, leave him open to being "dealt with".


TV

Mindfulness:
You are going round in circles. I have stated my reasons for getting married. Happiness was not on the list.

You are the one piling up conradictions...if happiness was not a reason for you to marry, why are you able - and specifically worded your vows to this end - to leave if you are unhappy?

Mindfulness:
Whatever the reason is why it came into being does not matter to me as I was interested in the privileges it offered and I gladly use them to my advantage.

And in a sense, that is fine - if one qualifies, one can - for whatever reaon, even if it defeats the purpose, or is against the essence.

Mindfulness:
But kindly enlighten me on the reason why it came into being. Be careful here, I have done the research on the history of marriage so be careful, it is a trap.

God instituted it . And any attempt by man to alter or vary it, leaves it diminished.


TV

Timbuktou:
Just curious TV, how has he defrauded and harmed this woman.

Also, he states he always planned to marry this person, not just yet. ì

Holá Tim, how far? HNY,

OP mentioned God. And like I noted, if he meant the God of the bible, he has not acted according to the bible, and in fact blasphemes. Like I also noted, if not, he should ignore my post. Biblically, he should not have touched her until fulfilment of the commitment was in view.

If one views the matter outside of Christianity, he has still missed the mark as a man. Not being considered in his actions, not being able to take responsibility for his actions, being coerced to act by others, and being unable to respond when situations change. He lacked mastery.

His proclamations of love and good intentions bear little or no weight without the ability, or means to largely control them. Not judging him, that's just a factual reading of the situation.

I exhort men to not waste time with women who do not present great value. Good women who will respect and honour them as fathers and husbands. The flip side is my expectation, that men, in every sense, warrant this respect and honour.


TV

Kizmilz:
Maybe God knows I won't be able to cater for the child now, that's y it turned out this way, never can tell.

...I really didn't want to, but just in case you are referring to the God of Our Lord Jesus Christ, otherwise, please ignore this post.

God, is The God of the living. He does not tempt, nor does he condone sin. Sex before marriage is sin. He wouldn't kill an innocent baby to cover your unclothedness. He's just like that. Rather he would have provided a way for the baby - and likely family - to be cared for, if they trusted in Him. And possibly, even if they didn't.

Please don't implicate God in your behaviour, actions or the consequences. And if you choose to involve Him, best do so with a penitent heart.

Kizmilz:
I love her so much

You've stated this repeatedly. "Love does no harm" - you have defrauded and harmed this woman.

It was your self-serving actions that led to this, not true love. If you truly love her - despite your mistakes so far - you will comfort her in her grief and commit to her long-term. Or let her go. Not simply focus on your position. Be a man. All the best.

A little harsh? Perhaps, but I'm not feeling hypocrisy this morning. The stench of it.


TV

Mindfulness:
Well, I thought that you Christians define marriage as a union, in which you promise to honor each other among other things. Is horning your spouse not a value?

Mindfulness, Mindful, Mind, ah, ah. You never cease to use deflectionary tactics sha ! As I clearly stated, marriage itself does not imbue honour (or stability or anything else), it's what the couple put into, and make of it. Otherwise, they'd be no stories of married people being dishonoured by their spouses. Why willfully mis-read, and wrongly respond to clear statements and questions?

Mindfulness:
This is not entirely true as marriages are more stable than cohabitations so getting married does enhance stability.

Not necessarily at the individual level. It still majorly depends on what the couple "put in".

Mindfulness:
You forgot that I have also repeatedly mentioned that it is each and everyone's responsibility to make themselves happy and not your spouse's. Food for thought.

Mi o je . A very odd assertion. As if the behaviours of ones spouse, ones supposedly commited life-long partner, will not affect your state of being, for good or bad?

And if happiness is solely down to self, why marry in the first place?

Mindfulness:
As above. Chances are higher you will stay together when you get married.

Or it's likely that people who are more commited to staying together largely opt for marriage?

Mindfulness:
In fact, no relationship denies couples that chance. You can even practice unconditional love with your colleagues and your neighbors but marriage is the best opportunity to do so since it is based on the intention to stay together permanently and closely and since the exit option is not easily reachable.

You stated quite clearly that your "marriage" was not till death do part, and that you were free to leave if you were unhappy.

Twice odd, as you don't look to your spouse for happiness. So, your happiness is dependant on you only, you fail to make yourself happy, you can therefore divorce your spouse !

Mindfulness:
Very true but I also told you that my happiness does not depend on my spouse.

Reverb

Mindfulness:
My family set up priests to convince me, they prayed and fasted and they sprinkled holy water on me. All to know avail. I guess, their faith is smaller than that of a mustard seed. It doesn't surprise me. It probably is the quality that most church goers share. I don't do sacrifices.

Say what you like about your family, their priests and their religion. It has nothing to do with Christianity, the Bible, or The God of the Bible.

Mindfulness:
Well, there are countries where you need to be married to enjoy all these privileges and more.

Marriage did not come into being to garnish privileges. Neither is it about privileges. So marrying for that reason, or for papers, or for tabloid fodder etc., is not the reason or essence.

Stop gorging yourself on processed religion, or GM faith . Eat the Bread of Life and enjoy life eternal .


TV

cococandy:
you're too old for this.
Sigh.

Quit the ageism, it belies your advanced liberal progressive beliefs .

cococandy:
TV is the know it all.
He has a better idea what marriage is all about than anyone you can ever meet in this life.
Online or offline.
Why not stick to him to advice you.
What do you want from mere mortals with limited knowledge like us
Agbaya oshi.
Person go old finish but refuse to let childhood alone.
Tomorrow you will be a single person, next tomorrow a married man, today a married woman.
Leave foolishness alone.

Appreciate the acknowledgement, however, this thread is not about marriage, it's about divorce, hence my subpeona for NL' foremost divorce-mongers

I'm happy to admit I can't hold a candle to you in that regard - the audience awaits the words of the divorce gurus.

bukatyne:
Old man,
This is a new year.

You are so bland, can't you even come up with something original? I'm maturing , but you evidently aren't getting any wittier, or intellectually sharper. Hopefully it's "baby-brain" .

Anyway sha, your product doesn't require great smarts, just the ability to learn and repeat.


TeeVee

^{...two fakers, always quick to respond to sledgingg, but when asked to substantiate their scurrilous accusations, they remain deafeningly silent...}

freshvine:
Observation!

The two lovable ladies you mention, can they proffer a headway?

There's this cynical mischief in your recommendation and I'd wonder if you're not been sarcastic with me.

Most certainly - they have the "final solution", and it's worse than the holocaust !


TV

freshvine:
My fear is that some of his negative friends might have prep him with misogynistic tendencies.

Misogynist - a man who does not do exactly what a woman wants, when she wants, and how she wants . Whether he has changed or not, if it doesn't please you it's simply wrong on his part. You are in a shitty & abusive marriage. See Cococandy and Bukatyne for next steps.

freshvine:
Please where are the Family Section veterans?

I have summoned them for you. You are welcome .


TV

^{Dude, why'd you change sex}

...how a couple decide to celebrate their wedding is totally down to them. They are free to take whatever they like into consideration when making their decision.


TV

Mindfulness:
Good afternoon TV.

Holá

Mindfulness:
For me marriage is the conscious intention to make a relationship more stable as many of us desire some stability in our lives, for ourselves and for our children.

Edwife said this - https://www.nairaland.com/2872316/unhappy-marriage-pls-advice/2#42121997

edwife:
Marriage is like a box,Unless both people start putting things into the box like Love, kindness, appreciation,selfness.......
There is no Love in marriage. Love is in people and people either put the love in marriage or keep it out.
There is no romance in marriage; people have to add romance and passion to their relationship or else the relationship will turn tepid and stagnant.

Marriage does not possess inhenrent values (no matter how abstract) that you avail yourself of once married. You bring those into the marriage as a couple.

1. You yourself know you don't need marriage to commit, love, bring stability. or any other thing
2. Funny you mention stability, as you claim the right to leave once you are unhappy - stability does not mean happiness, and the right to leave does not underpin stability.
3. And although you rightly mention kids, stability for them is you staying together, which; a. does not require marriage, and b. is compromised by 2. above, which actually makes it about the adults and not the kids?

Mindfulness:
It is a chance to practice unconditional love

As above, I find this is inconsistent;
1. Does any other relationship form deny couples that chance?
2. How is it unconditional, if you can take off if you are unhappy? That is totally conditional, on your "happiness"

And as a side note; this unconditional love is not, as you often say, biblical. The biblical love is best termed "sacrificial". You are thinking of converting now abi? !

Mindfulness:
and it has some pragmatic value such as a better tax category, custody rights and rights to decide what is going to happen if one of the spouses ends up in hospital not being able to decide for him-/herself, for example.

True, but all these were wrapped up in marriage before the law got it's grubby hands on it. And I believe are available with other legal forms of relationship.


TV

mostyg:
https://www.nairaland.com/2832052/why-marry

I read your thread - well some of it anyway . I see Polygamy as at best possibly serving for a time in a contingent situation, but not in any way as good as monogamy.

You said this;

mostyg:
3. I married to fulfil a religiuos duty, raise family for a good society and offcourse to satisty my sexual urge.

I do not see marriage as necessrily a religious obligation, but agree with the rest and would add companionship. Why ask the question if you know? Or at least have a well formed sense of what it means to you - and note, none of what you wrote requires polygamy and polygamy could actually detract from doing it optimally.


TV

GetRekt:
Lol as if race is just colour. What foolishness. The existence of trans people does not enforce the gender binary, it dismantles it. Do you even know what transgender, gender, sex, karyotype, chromosomes, genetic variation, race, social construct, hormones, v agina, testicles, uterus and ovaries mean?

No the existence of "trans people totally reinforces the male/female binary. Afterall, trans people are either transitioning to one or the other are'nt they?

GetRekt:
You still haven't addressed intersex people and the trans person you just made up to make yourself feel better isn't even close to an actual trans person's experience.

It's telling, how all but 1 (who was LGBTQIA himself) anti-feminist I've ever met has been hateful towards LGBTQIA people, simply because they remind them that HUMAN BEINGS DON'T WORK THAT WAY. They are complex, always have been, always will be. You can make your assumptions, but they will almost always turn out wrong .

Nothing to address; human beings that don't "work that way", are not working properly. That says nothing about how we treat or manage that working, but it is too accept it for what it is.

And why are you ranting on an oldish thread?


TV

ApexTitan:
Where the homies at?

Everybody busy with their 2016 hustle?

present sah, what you got? !...Hola AT and HNY.


TV

If this is the discussion around corporal punishment for children, my take is that it should not be ruled out, but specific and appropriate.

They will criminalise you if you raise your children, but not, murder, deform, or abandon them. Sick and perverse world.


TV

Mindfulness:
I am not because for me marriage is one of the best opportunities to practice unconditional love

Morning Mindfulness, although this is somewhat true, that is not the reason for marriage. I don't know if you can see it, but so many inconsistencies in how you discuss matrimony. To me, that's because of what I consider to be a "faulty basis".

But not to be too hasty, please give us an insight into what you feel that marriage is and the reason for it.

Thanks


TV

edwife:
Great post.

Too kind. Thank you.

edwife:
@OP i wish you all the best but i will leave you with something my mum used to say;

Marriage is like a box,Unless both people start putting things into the box like Love, kindness, appreciation,selfness.......
There is no Love in marriage. Love is in people and people either put the love in marriage or keep it out.
There is no romance in marriage; people have to add romance and passion to their relationship or else the relationship will turn tepid and stagnant.

Apply wisdom.

Love this. Those that go around shouting toxic or shitty marriage would do well to understand this. As if one can order a toxic marriage or shitty union online? The institution is for the long-term benefit and wellbeing of you and your progeny. It is what you make it.

TV

EnlightenedSoul:
You know what, sometimes the grass is greener on the other side. In fact, these folks, like plenty other folks out there have no "grass" to speak of. Know what else they don't have, unlike plenty other folks out there? Strings.

Indeed, sometimes it may actually be greener. Does that mean that everytime it appears so, people should change pastures? Or that attention to ones own pasture can't make it greener?

EnlightenedSoul:
I see a maltreated woman with no self-respect dragging herself on the ground hanging onto the coattails of man who doesn't see her. Blinded by love perhaps, or the trauma of a series of miscarriages he hasn't noticed, or the ever useless hope for change?

You have well seen - I can't gainsay this...

EnlightenedSoul:
How's about you go ahead and give the guy the "good smack" and I'll take the woman? But no, you'd rather force-"meld" them together like the situation isn't toxic, like they aren't sentient beings, humans with thoughts and emotions.

...but here, as in your opener, I can and will;

Sentient meaning what exactly? Where they not sentient prior to marriage? And is the man willing to maltreat and abandon his wife, still not sentient? Or the woman that accepts it? And how about the other woman willing to take on a man who has evidentially maltreated his wife as a "sloppy seconds" husband?

I didn't meld them, they melded themselves. And the melding had a specific reason and essence, which is not forced on anyone. I would that they conduct themselves in a way that honours each other and that melding. As in all liklihood, any other melding will likely meet same or worse fate, leaving a trail of traumatised" pre-, post and ex-melders .

And marriage is not toxic, people are. And according to you, he should face no consequences for his toxic behaviour. First adultery, then divorce and abandonment.

Societal restraints and sanctions on family - and particularly marriage - issues were for the good of the whole. And beneftited women and children the most.

Let those who champion no restraint, no consequence, and fenceless pastures in pursuit of "feelings" and "happiness" fully appreciate that its'women that will suffer the most.


TV