₦airaland Forum

sweetcocoa:
I know what you are doing, just continue you hear. Agadi na gwo ofe.

We all know that attention is your lifeblood - thank me for contributing to your well-being

No excuses 0! We expect good results given the effort put into schooling you up in here.


TV

^{...shaybebaby, did you pass? No more posting until you do}

Mindfulness:
Jungle justice is much more dangerous than cheating. In a society where jungle justice is the order of the day, innocent people can be killed without a fair trial. I can shout "thief" and a mob will come after you. A man can claim that his wife was cheating and get scot-free even though in fact he just wanted to get rid of her. People can be killed without proper evidence. It is a scary place to be.

1. So,you accept that cheating is dangerous? Therefore, the relative degree of danger is subjective

2. Nobody is arguing for jungle justice. And the premise was not in response to allegations of cheating, but a womans "right to cheat" and not be subject to violence, or expect it as a possible consequence - given human nature - as we both agree - it's always a possibility, even if not a good or rightful outcome. Please do not blur the boundaries

Mindfulness:
Moreover, and I know we won't agree here, even if you are married to someone, the person can decide to do with their body whatever they choose to. A marriage is not slavery. And if the person chooses to break the marriage vows, you are free to leave them. Killing this person is not a solution.

1. Not if one has already vowed marital fidelity. Again, a faulty notion of "rights" pervades the thinking here.

2. One is free not to enter marriage, and as much as I don't subscribe to divorce for pretty much any reason, one could also leave the marriage.

Killing is certainly not a solution. What is cheating a solution too? And it is not a right if you take marriage vows!

Mindfulness:
It is an opinion, indeed. However, it is also a subjective opinion that cheating is such a big deal.

But it's not a subjective opinion that killing is a big deal

sweetcocoa:
You don't know anything, biko leave me alone and quote people who'd like you to, I don't, na by force? Nama.

Did you nail the exam, or are you actually here when you ought to be studying?


TV

Mindfulness:
First of all, I am not here to eliminate any problems. I am just speaking my mind and sharing my thoughts for the fun of it.

Don't be pious, we are all sharing thoughts - whatever our perspectives or approaches.

Mindfulness:
Secondly, cheating is a personal issue. Jungle justice is a public issue.

Personal to whom? Is the fallout from cheating any less than that from a violent response? What is it that makes 1 personaland the other public?

Mindfulness:
I don't agree but let's agree to disagree.

Even if we disagree to agree kpa kpa

Mindfulness:
It's easy for you and it is easy for me but it OBVIOUSLY is not so easy for MANY people of this generation, previous generations and future generations.

Who told you it's easy (or necessarily hard) for anyone? This is your subjective opinion. The impropriety of the offence is not dependant on the ability, or the willingness to refrain from committing it.

Mindfulness:
Your calling.

And yours is

sweetcocoa:
Agbaya, face your front.

...did you ace it? Or did you present your usual watery submissions.

Olodo

TV

Mindfulness:
Very good point. In fact, the urge to take revenge and do 'justice' is very human in my opinion.

So, cheating - according to you - is human, as is violence. Why focus on eliminating one, when they are both destructive aspects of human nature. And more so in this instance, focus on eliminating the consequence, and not the cause?

Mindfulness:
I am not saying that cheating is right BUT I think that jungle justice is even more dangerous.

Even if I agree with this, it remains an opinion shared, no more

Mindfulness:
What is the solution to cheating?

Not to cheat. Easy peasy

Mindfulness:
TV, you are addressing the wrong person. Have I ever said anything like this?

I'm not necessarily placing this at your feet, but it's writ large in this thread - even in the premise. And elsewhere in our on-going discussion on the Family board.

Mindfulness:
ALL IS WELL.

Make I regulate finish first

sweetcocoa:
What is even being argued here, that a woman who cheats should expect to be killed or what?

Who let you out? Don't you have exams? Please tell us, what should a woman who cheats expect?


TV

Mindfulness:
Regardless of how we preach that cheating is wrong, it will always be part of human nature to desire more than one partner and give in to this temptation.

What on earth is being argued here?

That the temptation to cheat and giving in to that temptation is part of human nature, but violence and the instinctual response to acts of threat, fraud, or deceit with violence is not?

The whole premise of this thread is flawed and in no way solves the problems of cheating, violence or divorce. Indeed, it states cheating by wives as a right (when it's patently wrong), and divorce (another wrong) as a solution? Wetin una chop

I give no truck to violence, but I do not consider cheating as a lesser sin. In fact, the bible talks of divorce as an act of violence. Why does it appear that most women are incapable of arguing for anything other than their own happiness (and based on wilful or even destructive desires)?

When a man hits a woman it's violence/abuse, but when a man hits a woman who hit him first, it's "two fighting". Men must never react violently to cheating (or anything else), but women have a right to cheat?

Tragic.


TV

bukatyne:
A wife has the right to cheat; the husband has the right to divorce her.

Really? "A wife has the right to cheat"? A wife who takes vows of lifelong marital fidelity, or some other type of wife? And from whence does this right cometh?

Do you actually know what constitutes a right? And are rights simply accessed as one desires?

Oh, wait, it's bukatyne, my bad...


TV

edwife:
God first yes but it's like most of you christians don't even know the God you serve.

Why do we pay tithes? Where do the tithes
to? How many of you have seen God himself using the tithes? Paying the tithes won't guaranty that it will go for the work of God,most of the tithes are used to care for these men of God,their feeding,kids education,family trips and luxuries so I will let my brother roast at home just because I have to please my pastor? If it's God you want to please,you will pay for your brother school fees first because charity begins at home.

If you don't know, this is not a burning offering,these tithes are meant to help with the work of God such as helping the poor,building churches and so on.

Now how many of your so cold pastors use those tithes for what they are meant for? Isn't it your brother part of the people in need that suppose to benefit from it?

The God I serve is a merciful understanding and generous God.I am not using it to club or buy alcohol but save the future of one of his kids.

Jeez I can't believe how gullible christians are

Blue, how far? The whole thing just saddens me. You know, this tithing issue is what brought me to NL over 10 long years ago. Doctrinally the case was clear - no mandatory tithe for Christians.

In Christ Jesus, God blesses you anyway, and will reward you for your good deeds. There is no categorisation of giving, or an attendant "tariff" garnering heavenly blessings. Christian giving is so beautifully simple - Matthew 25 v35 - end, 2 Corinthians 8.

Why rebuild those things Christ died to destroy, why spurn grace for the law, the law you cannot possibly keep, why become slaves of men when Christ has set you free?

I always tried to move the discussion from theology to the practical outworking. All good doctrine will accord with truth, and a clearly understood practical outworking - dem no gree. Round and round we went.

The resistance was so ferocious, it appeared spiritual. Some posters were so prolific, I was sure it was a co-operative using the one moniker? In the end I migrated to the family section - only to find a different set of demons there

Stillfire:
Didn't know you were already on this thread!

single-tasking lends itself to focus, expertise and speed


TV

Stillfire:
Please pay your brother's school fees. The kingdom of God is not built on your tithes and offerings. Tithes was established in the old testament so that the Levites who do not work and do not have an inheritance would be taken care of. It was also to be given to the poor and widows at certain times and there were also certain times the tither uses the tithe on himself. Your brother needs help, help him. Don't let illiterate Nigerian pastors scare you silly. Nigerian pastors are not descendants of the Levitical priesthood. They have inheritance. Paul explains that the only priest we look up to is Jesus Christ. If you want to give to Jesus, give to those in need, for He said I came to you when I was poor and you didn't give to me. Nigerian pastors have adopted all the money parts of the law, forgetting that whoever wants to be judged by the law, has to keep everything in the law.
If you want to give 10% to the church, do it by your own freewill because the church will pay bills, simple. Don't let them use Malachi 3 to scare you. God understands your predicament.

TV01 what do you think?

Think? Think?? I'm too busy applauding to think...I'm a bro'dude na...nothing like multi-tasking

God bless you real good Stilly.



TV

Otth:
Okay, this is a challenge I need a solution to. My parents are saying no money no money when it is obvious that they have. My little brother is home because he has outstanding fees so I was wondering if I should give him my tithe to pay part while I pay the tithe next month when I get my next salary, I don't know what to do.

Mods please move it to fp, I need urgent solution to this.

Tithing is not mandatory for Christians. You are free to pay a tithe as mandated by your religious institution, but be clear; a tithe is not demanded by God.

What is demanded however, is that your parents take proper care of their children and lay good grounds for their futures. If your parents won't listen to you, please involve someone respected they will listen too.

Don't set a precedent of spending your money when they should be spending theirs, unless they genuinely don't have.

Appreciate your desire to please God, and your care and concern for your sibling.


TV

francis18:
BUT NOT LONG AGO ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO THIS USED TO BE YOUR MODUS OPERANDI,YOU USED TO SLEEP ON THREADS FOR DAYS TO ARGUE AND FIGHT.JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAPPEARED FOR 6 MONTHS AND CAMEBACK ALL OF A SUDDEN AS MINDFULLNESS,MATURE GROWN UP WOMAN, WITH A HUSBAND AND KID WHO IS SPEAKING IN LESS THAN A YEAR BY THE WAY.AND BY THE WAY NO MATTER HOW YOU CLAIM TO HAVE CHANGED,YOU ARE STILL CAREFREEWANNABE. I SAW YOU YESTERDAY LIKING ALL YOUR FRIEND POSTS SO YOU SEE YOU ARE NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE HERE IF NOT JUST CALCULATIVE.

Prophets just full ground for here 0! More than happy to take a back seat as the wind blows .

@bold, good thing I'm not the only one that noticed. We know she purloined anothers husband, but there was some uncertainty about the child/ren. Was she previously a single mother, or did she "TOGOF" - teef one, get one free . Maybe more than one sef, as I'm sure she has mentioned "children". Abi na blend or pre-teef tings

Funny how she came late to this one acting all pious - was it the touchy sub-topics, that made her hold her peace until it calmed down . She normally does a full-blown knight in shining armour act - which looks good - but always fails.

Her whole purpose here is to justify and spread as normal her wicked actions. I must say though, it's possibly more fun watching her and her cohort get taken down as actually doing it myself. Me sef, should try this "holding peace" thing

postmann:
And here you are, entombed in the same fallacy that has burried many. Since when did advancement in science and technology become proportionate to morality?

Danke! Exposing one of her favourite diversionary tactics. "They are more technologically advanced, ergo, anything they do is alright" - sometimes transalted as "since thay are more technologically advanced, they cannot be morally judged by the less technologically advanced". The mind boggles. Thanks again.

TeeVee ^{Marriage Advocate, Femnivore, GDT Swatter and all round peaceful somborry}

postmann:
Observing your love for vulgarism and lasviciousness, I can't help wonder if your muff has been icecold and abandoned or the winter-struck, flaccid dick that services you need the African weather to do his job.

Ye 0! My head. Please sah, haff mercy

https://www.nairaland.com/2346403/sexless-relationship-due-man

Are you amongst the prophets?

TV

shaybebaby:
Reading your fairy tales has equipped you..with skills to make up fantasies in your head. , who needs reality eh? All you have to do is believe innit?
Firstly, the assumption that my son will cry for his daddy implies that he doesn't see his father. Judging by your own standards and what you are/would be like as a father? Tut!Tut!!! Revealing yourself now, shame.
2) you live in a cramped flat ( for you to be unable to picture anything else, your frame of reference is your reality)
3) you have no faith in your wife as a person because you imagine that is what she would do if she left your lame ass, parade a variety of men in front of your kids.( not that I would blame her, she would probably need the extra traffic to remove the horror of having had to fvck you from her mind).
4) Your child would have to compete with the new person bexcuse they are insecure as a consequence of your ability to reassure them and make them feel secure in your love.

You really are repugnant as a person. If you want to know how it works with me out of genuine curiosity, I may oblige you but this reverse psychology of trying to do amebo stylishly ain't going to work.

Why on earth would I be interested in the travails of a pathetic single mum. And your son seeing his dad for a few hours every couple of weeks is not optimal.

All of a sudden I actually feel cut for the boy, and would hate to even imagine having that kind of relationship with my son. Not being with him night and day. Being there when he wakes up troubled at night, comforting him through childhood illnesses, and grudgingly letting him into our bed in the mornings

You can't ever replicate the kind of comfort and security he would have from an intact home with both his biological parents.

For his sake I sheath my sword, I pray he has really positive outcomes despite it all.


TV

shaybebaby:
Childrens Act 1989, amended 2004 vs your fairy tale book. I repeat, I dare you.
THICKO.

When your son is crying because he misses his daddy, or openly hostile at the alien men parading through your cramped council flat, do you hand him the "Childrens Act 1989" and say "here, son, read this, and please stop cramping my style, I'm in hot pursuit of happiness".

...you...dare me...


TV

shaybebaby:
Call social services nah, . You and I are not in Nigeria where there isn't suitable child protection laws. Whilst we are it, we can examine you too Mr two-parent-household. We will see if this is a prerequisite for raising well adjusted children.
Again, you are being challenged..I dare you.(weak ass pvssy)

...you...examine me

So a two-parent household is not a pre-requisite, but a divorce situation is?

...you...challenge me


TV

crackhaus:
Nothing wrong in two men raising a kid and certainly nothing wrong in two women raising a kid. There's nothing special about having a male dad or a female mother as nature designed.
All we need is love and love conquers all.

Dunno Cracky? Is it me? Have I been remiss, could all the worlds problems be solved GDT reductionism? Maybe my "lived experience" is deceiving me ?

Raising a child is just breast-feeding and changing nappies? Why wasn't I told this. Why is my 4 year old, who is no longer does, nor needs either of those still under my roof? Raising a child is just a list of chores. Feed them, dress them, pay their nursery fees.

There is nothing on the developmental side that the uniqueness of the sexes helps to formulate and develop along the correct pathways? After all, boys lacking affirmation by their fathers, hasn't been implicated in some instances of SSA by men.

The different ways that mothers and fathers engage - even when it on the exact same thing - the children, and each other doesn't help form a balanced understanding and correct psychological/psychosexual development in the children.

Or perhaps the studies showing that young women are less likely to engage in early sexual conduct or be promiscuous if there is a father present through her pubescent years are all wrong.

When it's been shown that even babies can identify the differences between the sexes as early as 8 weeks old? How ironic is it that some reach the age of majority and more and still can't see it .

Either I have missed it somewhat, or this is exactly the kind of cretinous over-simplification one would expect from a GDT' who can't hold a marriage together over 2 semesters, and will joyfully subject her offspring to abuse in pursuit of happiness.



TV

So here we have it;

1. Two adult and consenting men professing love for each other, must be allowed to formalise their union as a marriage - if they so desire. Why 3 adult, consenting men in love, wanting to formalise their relationship does not qualify is not explained

2. Those 2 men have a right to start a family and procure children using any means available. It’s their right, and being humane (and non-discriminatory) demands it. The attendant rights of the vulnerable “non-consenting” children to be raised by their biological parents is a mute point and humanness does not extend to them .

3. “Relatedness” in the form of family bonds (immediate & generational), extended kinship ties and bloodlines are not important – and certainly not in regards to 1 & 2 above – and their wilful truncation has no immediate or lasting impact on the childs long-term well-being.

4. Females, indeed, neither sex, bring anything unique, or of distinct value to nurturing children, and genetic investment by a parent counts for little or nothing.

5. The only thing that counts is the "uniqueness of the individual". However, being male or female, which is fundamental to every person, doesn’t influence or factor into that persons unique individuality? It must really take a special degree of delusion to have come up with that.

So, to make the relationship of two same sex partners the same as an opposite sex couple, and qualify as a family, analogous to what the natural family of an opposite sex couple would be, all the particulars of actually being a family must be deemed as inconsequential. Indeed, apart from actual childbirth, all the particulars of being either male or female must be considered immaterial.

The child once treasured as the procreative outcome of the natural family, is now the realisation of a couples vanity. Instead of arriving by the generative coupling of committed parents, it is procured by a series of legal and technological interventions.

Una do well 0. I sense the doctrine of demons - strong delusion. And if the delusion is of God, who will deliver you? You shall surely eat the fruit of it. And those that applaud it will be judged as those that do it.


TV

shaybebaby:
I sight with my very eyes someone desperately seeking validation despite being told that no one gives a rats @rse.

Presumably you are seeking your local gaylord and his lover to hand your kid over too? After all, Free says you bring zilch to raising kids. Plus it would probably afford you more time to "pursue happiness"


TV

freecocoa:
You truly are delusional to think you can bully me, the difference between you and I is that I know when to let go, as only a f00l will keep speaking to a deaf person.

If I consider you all those and realise you are set in your ways, why in satan's name will I waste my time trying to change that? Be whatever you want and I be what I choose is the point here.

You are too interested in my matters, I don't want that, just mind your business is all.

...go on Free please, na beg I dey beg you, wan qweshun..."do women bring anything unique and of value to raising children"?


TV

freecocoa:
The beauty in all this is that I am able to decide whether to answer your questions or not and so far, I have chosen not to,

No Free, you have no answers. Nothing, nada. If you had, you'd waste no time in putting a bullying, holier-than-thou, judgemental, censorious, over-sabi, ignorant moraliser & Christian fanatic in his place . You couldn't even deny the relationship allegation

It's getting pointless now, as toying with the "lifeless body" of your emotional and misplaced humanity, without any meaningful response to consider is boring. But the point has been made - aptly .

Ask nicely and I may provide some steer on your wretched relationship choices .


TV

freecocoa:
I still maintain that you can't do anything about this situation so why do you want to burst an artery over it? I am totally useless yet you want to kill yourself on top my matter, you seem to waste so much time on this nuisance of a person,it's becoming suspicious especially since it doesn't make any sense that you keep quoting me and writing endless epistles, when it's already been established how much of a nuisance I am.

I am less concerned about you. After all, your pathetic existence is writ large on NL. Are you still trying to forcibly make a devout Christian marry you? GDT. I don't even give a toss about what you believe. But if you can come up onto the webz and campaign for something, be prepared to be challenged.

freecocoa:
You are not the one to decide what is right or wrong in the world(surely you must know this) , so Oga Mr TV tell us, what is really the issue here?

And you are? And if right or wrong are to be decided, by whom would that be .

freecocoa:
Your inability to understand simple things makes me question your cognitive abilities, how does saying that this girl girl can get to feel like people who have a mother, mean everyone who's never had nor lost their mum is grieving for nothing? Do you know you are incredibly stupid, it's almost shocking?

Be quiet, you haven't been able to answer one question without an appeal to emotion, and you are questioning my cognition?

freecocoa:
TV, honestly I never really paid attention to your posts till the day you quoted me and this is our second encounter, had I known you were this slow, I would never have replied you ever, you disappoint me.

Silence woman. You are a confirmed votary of mine, and I delight to disappoint the godless .

What would be materially different between 2 or 3 men being married and/or raising a little girl? Answer one question na. Please just one. At least 4 posters have asked a variety and all you have is "your humanity". GOOH.


TV

freecocoa:
IThe only notion I care to correct, is the one on implying that woman are worthless, I leave it to you to twist, twist and keep twisting till you can't, all to prove your stupid point.

You quite clearly argue that women are not required to raise well-balanced children. If not, what worth do they have, other than as breeders. And if they are not required for this biological function for which they are uniquely equipped, why are they needed for anything? What could be
more basal to being female?

freecocoa:
If what you understand from my saying a child raised by two men can be loved and turn out right like her counterparts with a mum/dad, is that women are worthless, then I don't even see any reason why we should be talking, it would also mean that men are worthless because I agree that two women can be able to raise a well adjusted child too, at least you have shown us how I think women are the worthless ones, you should be proud of yourself.

Yes, you dismiss the unique value each sex brings to child raising, simply to justify two men being analogous to a natural family. If neither is essential, and biological relatedness is irrelevant, why not raise children in homes. Or do you need to see the tragic outcomes of children raised that way?

freecocoa:
I don't even know why you keep bothering, homosexuality has been here since time immemorial and isn't going anywhere obviously,

You see your life? reasoning and aptitude of close to zero. Who is arguing about when or where "homosexuality" has been around, how prevalent it is, or how long it will persist?

freecocoa:
children will be orphaned, people will adopt them (gays included), some children will lose either parent, people will use the services of a surrogate or sperm donor, the world will keep moving on, so what exactly is your point? If you have any, cos it's not like this post of yours will change all that.

So because some children will tragically lose a parent/parents, we should make that happen by design And we should wilfully throw children into any kind of domestic arrangement, just so long as it satisfies adult desires?

freecocoa:
And as for abuse, it doesn't happen because one isn't a biological parent of a child, it happens because people choose to be abusive, there is no proof anywhere that there's a gene that pushes people to abuse folks they aren't related to, so instead of trying to rope homosexuality into leading to abuse, you can use the energy you put into this epistle to preach kindness,

I linked non-relatedness to abuse, not homosexuality. Are you so irredeemably dim? Abuse is on average x6 more likely where one parent is not biologically related. Shaybebaby, please bear that in mind as you seek your personal happiness . Are you insistent that a non-biological parent is likely to be as invested in a child as a biological one? Gene for abuse? Are you bonkers

freecocoa:
if we all had it in us, no one will abuse anyone, that is what humanity is all about but I don't expect someone like you who is happy about others burning in hell for simply disagreeing with your stance, to have any humanity in him, people should stay away from folks like you.

Where have I ever implied that people will burn in hell, or even stated that I believe in such a notion Your conscience dey pepper you abi

freecocoa:
My friend please leave me alone with my depravity, I am yet to understand how it affects you, na by force? This kind thing tire me o.

Stop preaching - and based on deceit - evil as good.


TV

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