₦airaland Forum

...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

...how timely.

The grass always appears greener. Your cousin was never ready for the mantle of husband. He did a very poor job, was selfish and short-sighted, and an adulterer to boot.

If he persists, he will repeat what he has already inflicted on one undeserving lady - and possibly worse. His best bet is to fix up within the union he is already in. But it soesn't sound like he will hear it.

It's not advice he needs, it's a good smack & then sanctions


TV
^{...Enlightenedsoul...how's about?}

EnlightenedSoul:
Perjury is lying under certain conditions, under oath, in a court of law, wrongful signature of a legal document, etc. Thats hardly the same as uttering the common everyday falsehood, i.e, lying. Cheating is an act of deception/dishonesty, and an extension of that. It's as ridiculous a notion to lock someone up for cheating as it is to throw someone in fetters for breaking a promise or telling a common lie.

I take your point about the particular use of "perjury" and it's specific conditions. However, it does not change the fact that "lying" is actionable. Fraud, or misrepresentation, or wrongs under "sale of goods" acts are all pursuable in the courts - they are all just legalistic terms for lying.

Likewise, anywhere "lying" has led to demonstrable harm, a case can be made for sanctions. It's morally wrong. Who does not correct their child when they lie, or punish them if they persist in what is obviously immoral/bad behaviour?

Which brings us to the point in question. Adultery is breaking a covenant, or contract - if one wishes to be legalistic. As such it should be actionable. The question is whether in a civil or criminal sense.

EnlightenedSoul:
It was widely criminalized based on religious law and doctrine, and still is in some parts of the world. As it stands, it is largely irrational and pointless, often a menace to society and strongly biased against female-folk in particular when and if "enforced", and nearly impossible to effectively and fairly enforce in the first place through proof of so-called "innocence" or "guilt" unless "witnesses" are involved. It's nothing short of a dangerous idea.

Even if it were criminalised based on religious doctrine in some areas, that is not the only reason. Marriage predates religion or law. Sanctions for adultery were due to the negative consequences.

To call it irrational and pointless is emotional. There can be damage to individuals and wider society when adultery is committed. And as marriage is entered to under oath, why should it not be punished?

EnlightenedSoul:
No fault divorce makes sense from a logical, judicial standpoint.

Firstly, marriage was not initially a legal construct, and should never be legalistically driven. Secondly, it contravenes what marriage does and is for. No one is forced to marry. One can have any form of relationship they desire. Why choose marriage trash it and cry about societal pressure?

And no-fault divorce whilst not appotioning blame, stilll apportions burdens, mostly on men. This matches your cry of adultery unfaurly punishing women.

All in all, I fel adultery should be sanctioned, not least because - not that I agree - there are provisions for ending marriages if one spouse is not satisfied.


TV

bjcole:
Thanks Bros, your moniker rings a bell, you are an old contributor here I guess, what else can we contribute here than to help people build good homes and let people know that these things are possible if you can condition your mind towards it. This month made me 9yrs in marriage, we have had cases where some couples would not want to withstand.
My wife and I had been through a lot but we resolve that all things work together for good for those that love God. There was a period of ignorance in my life that I felt like I was tired of my wife, thank God that it was not too late for me, after working on my self, I discovered that my wife does not even have any problem, now we live happily and we are working towards a perfect home. Why will you cheat on your spouse if you have not lost your mind, the person you claimed you loved before, all of a sudden you don't love her or him again, then you didn't love in the first place.

Thank you for this. A wonderful testimony, and hopefully inspiration for some who would otherwise be swayed by the siren call of godless and selfish immorality.


TV

edwife:
Hmm dear you have said it all.But then again,i have one pertinent question.tv01 please if you can answer it.How can a 31 years old virgin woman who only had carnal knowledge with one man is yet to experience orgasm or even know how it feels or what it is? It 's like eating your mum native soup,you will think it is the best soup ever as no one has ever made it for you,no? It is only when you eat the same soup from someone else that you will compare;no?

I think OP has responded. I would be wary though, media generally gives a very narrow view of what good intimacy looks like. It's easy to get a skewered view.

As I kind of stated, my basis is the desire to please, be patient and bear with one another. Someone mentioned how penetration doesn't do it for all women - in fact I hear it may be most, especially amongst sisters - how does she know what works for her?

You will have geat sex with a great person. At worst, it will be satisfying. The root issue here is first a lack of emotional intimacy and care, seemingly driven by selfish and unconsidered mindsets, and maybe wrong impressions of what marriage should be and wrong priorities.

Resolve that first and the sex will almost certainly improve as a by-product. Then if desired, they can move on to super-sizing their intimacy . Afterall, if all of a sudden the sex became great, would you consider the situation fixed?

Marriage is way more than sex and when it's full as can be, intimacy finds it's rightful place. For emphasis, there is no mention of a genral loving environment here. For many women (and men) that is just as important. The cuddles, the in-jokes, the shared moments, the overall sense of mission within the marriage.

On "toys". I personally see it as cheating, unless it's by mutual consent (not undue coercion). The "take ownership of ones sexual satisfaction", should within marriage, be constrained by doing that with your partners engagement, not unilaterally.

Where does one draw the line? If ownership for one is intimacy gadgets, why can't it be prozzies or side-chicks for another?

Again, all the best OP. Be prayerful and considered. God bless your union.


TV

Morning, apologies for not replying earlier, I really wanted too as I am genuinely at a loss here

EnlightenedSoul:
It's a basic biological human right, which can be and often is determined and ascertained by other outstanding factors, some of which you've already taken the liberty of mentioning. Your local laws, your abilities (physical, financial, etc), your capabilities (fertility, etc), and spousal willingness, etc.

What are these biologial rights we have, or that exist? And if it's a "basic" right, why can it be altered by laws?

To contrast, "liberty" is a right. No one has the right to enslave anyone else. What factors or laws should determine, ascertain, or otherwise impinge on that right?

EnlightenedSoul:
If you're asking what should happen when disagreement strikes, I have no way deciding that for anyone.

No, I wasn't asking. We all have our views and I'm sure the couple in question do too.

EnlightenedSoul:
However, I will say that I wouldn't blame or blacken the image of those who leave infertile (or unwilling) partners with the hopes of having children they could otherwise never have, nor those who refuse to bear children they don't want in the case of women or refuse contribution to their bearing in the case of men. They are justified in what they chose to do with their own genetic material, and they've their own reproductive rights alongside that of their partners.

And here is the rub, and why I specifically asked about the situation in a marriage context. Marriage is by definition, with very little variation. Yes, couples can agree beforehand, but that is at best an articulated desire, and no necessarily what will happen.

In marriage, it's not about individual "rights" or desires. It's about the whole, with reasonable consideration for each other. So case in question, the man is not being unreasonable as narrated by OP.

As for "genetic material" that's a falsehood, even if unintended. If a man impregantes a woman and decides he does not want a baby, he can't force an abortion - hence no, or limited choice in what happens to his "genetic material"


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
It's his right to have as many children as he wants, but it's also her right to have as many children as she wants.

I'm struggling here And for a number of reasons;

1. Firstly, where does this right originate?
2. And within the context of marriage how does this "right" play out? Especially if i. there is no agreement, or ii. capability or ability prevents it, even if there is agreement.


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
Ridiculous. Why not criminalize the act of lying while you're at it

It already is - it's called perjury

EnlightenedSoul:
You really want the government in your bedrooms, literally? You want a theocracy?

In as much as the goverment has codified marriage into law, they are in a sense, already in. And how does that suggest a theocracy?


@OP, adultery was once widely criminalised. I feel there should at least be some sanctions, and it should be taken int account in dispues/dissolving marriages. In all, I don't see no-fault divorce as progres or an improvement.


TV

tearoses:
All the best.

cc TV01

You've said a lot - and enough for significant change. Babajeje 123 provided a lived experience, although I wouldn't involve a 3rd party unless all other efforts proved abortive.

As for withholding oral until she gets it? Firstly, it will be hard to change precedent, secondly, it will most likely antagonise and escalate the situation. Please, let's stop giving advice out of a feigned sense of outrage and SJW instinct !

The love which means you do it, is the same love that understands if your spouse does not want too. Bear with him, let him know your desire, and use that same love to patiently bring him round.

And lets resist the temptation to coruscate the husband . Firstly, we have not heard his side of the story, and secondly, and in this case quite pertinently, OP has stated plainly her intent to build her home. Such invective does not help.

OP, you however, are here ; Please take a long, hard look at yourself and what you can do to make you marriage happy. If you truly believe, take it to God, not man

If you do nothing, rest assured, this situation will at some point become unbearable for you, taking what you’ve written at face value.
Or will you continue the charade of testimonies and entertaining and simply learn to endure?

Quit focusing on the externalities and appearance. Marriage demands adaptation, progress means agreeing, love makes compromise easy.

All the very best.


TV

BjCole, I stand to applaud your efforts here. I've also found McSquishi' post very good, even if not as many. And also a worthy mention for Lezz, late-on, but very insightful entries.

It behoves to challenge moral bankruptcy, no matter how "logically sweetened" or otherwise dressed up. Like BJ said "the fool has said in his heart there is no God"...and without God, what objective morality can there actually be? Hence attempts to reduce men and their motivation to those of brute beasts.

Very well done. Please keep it up.


TV

johnson232:
How else can a country of over 170 million people living within considerably less than one million square kilometers of land— 923,768 sq km to be exact —be explained?

And why is this a problem? Nigeria ia not a densely populated country by any stretch of the imagination: approximately #73 in the world rankings - https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

johnson232:
Nigeria’s population has successfully surpassed that of Russia, the country that occupies the largest amount of land on earth. Put in scale, our entire population of over 170 million resides in significantly less than the area occupied by two states in the U.S: California and Texas. our entire populace is compressed into (more than 2,000 sq km less) area occupied by about 60 million Americans.

As above, so what? I'm sure we could find any two US states with more densely populated than Nigeria. There are areas of how and low density everywhere, even in Nigeria. Suffice to say, we have the land and resourced to comfortably cater for a population much larger than what we currently have.

johnson232:
Even an article published just recently in The Guardian points out that Nigeria’s fertility rate is too high and nothing is being done to curb it...

Too high for what exactly? And what of our mortality rate? People die, sudden and unexpected deaths by a myriad of ghastly ways in Nigeria; ethnic tension, sectarian violence, road travel, air travel, sea travel, poor medical delivery - even pregnancy is disproportionately risky in Nigeria, abortion, political thuggery, ritual murders, disease, depression, brain-faag, wild animals, end-time boyfriends/girlfriends, beastly husbands, devious wives, crazed children sef join, arm robber, rogue so-called men-of-god, witch-hunting self declared women-of-god, village enemies, fake drug, real hard drugs, adulterated foods, wicked bosses, green-eyed neighbours, jealous friends, envious family, cultism, occultism, extra judicial killings, ancestral curses, real and imagined enemies, alcohol, cigarettes, air pollution, environmental depredation, etc. We of all nations need a high fertility/birthrate na.

And as a policy, it is simply wrong. If a country has a falling birthrate, should women and/or families be forced to have a minimum number of children?

Your championing of such policies is wrong, your basis for championing them are wrong, and the support - or rather lack of - you've provided, are also wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, thrice wrong. Please repent .


TV

johnson232:
My brother God bless u....
The govt should also come up with such policies, we are too many in this country...
Though I know our leaders are corrupt, but our population is also a contributing factor to the problems we are facing today...
How can only one man get married to 10 women, producing nothing less than 30 children....
We breed anyhow in this country, birth Control will go a long way in solving this nation's problems...

On what basis do you claim "we are too many"? And what problems does our population size lead to?

This is at best histrionic. Nigeria has the land mass, natural resourses and human capital to sustain a population - to a high standard of living - much larger than the one we have.

The problems faced are solely down to mis-management of resources. And such problems, unless dealt with at root, will persist whatever the population size. And it's odd that the leaders who you claim to be corrupt, are the same leaders you espct to come up with policies .

johnson232:
I think we have past that level rather....

Perhaps some data or facts to make your case? Emotional, assertions have little value here


TV