₦airaland Forum

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

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