₦airaland Forum

Mindfulness:
I do not believe in the vows Christian couples take. Maybe it is a new concept to you but couples are free to take any vows they choose for their marriage and we have enjoyed this freedom and we did things in our own way.

I have never claimed that the Christian way is the only way. Neither have I ever been prescriptive about how a couple structure their "union". What I do hold to however, is that marriage is by definition, a vow to a lifelong union. But not every union is a marriage.

So when I ask if you married in a traditional/conventional way, that in no way means strictly Christian marriage. You have to be married to have a wife or husband, but not "Christian married". So stop skirting; did you commit to a lifelong union?

Mindfulness:
Traditional like in church? Hell no! Conventional as in lawfully. Heaven, yes!

So when you say lawfully, was it a marriage or some other form of union such as a civil union, domestic partnership or the French PAC type arrangement? Are there legal forms of marriage - not unions - that allow an omission of the "lifelong commitment"? If so, that is news to me.

Mindfulness:
The point is that you have no clue.

The point is you are not being truthful. Too much suggestion, implication and grounds for plausible deniability, instead of just telling it like it is.

Mindfulness:
You have mentioned it twice on this thread now so I don't see how you have ignored it.

Ignored as in not directly responded too - it's not worth dignifying, as you sneakily avoid the underlying principle.


TV

...he gon' http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34670192 - who will manage them in the relegation battle

TV

Mindfulness:
If he decides to leave, I will let him go and love him unconditionally nonetheless as the father of our kids. He is not responsible for me and I do not depend on him for happiness or anything else. Each day in our marriage is a decision made out of love and appreciation rather than a duty and responsibility. I do not need anyone to force himself to stay with me due to any prescriptions. We would love for our marriage to remain as joyous as it is till death do us part but we will not imprison ourselves in eternal unhappiness when it is not longer possible.

Mindfulness, why can't you be honest with us? You've clearly stated that you do not believe in taking vows, as you cannot tell what the future holds, and would not like to force someone to stay with you, or likewise be forced.

So, it's either you are being hypocritical, a liar, or both. Are you married in the conventional/traditional sense? Or do you simply refer to your relationship as a marriage, and your partner as a husband?

I see your insistence on defining marriage as whatever one feels works for them, and this just speaks to that very point. But it's decietful to talk as if you are married when you are not, or claim vows are wrong/unnatural or something you are against, if you have indeed taken them.

Your sneaky use of "relativity" to wriggle out of this conversation is noted and ignored .


TV

babygirlfl:
I always discuss ( not take his consent or permission) with my hubby when I want to embark on such a huge project. I think it's the right thing to do in MY case.

So, you want to embark on a "huge project", and you discuss with your husband, if it's not for consent or permission, what is it for exactly?

Is it for buy-in, or agreement, or advice? And if he disagrees, what happens, since you have already decided to embark? You see I find this somewhat odd - as I suppose would anyone that gives more than a cursory glance to this statement.

A "huge project" - presumbaly one that will have impact on the wider family? Really? So for example a wife decides to pursue an MBA, meaning changes to income and say childcare arrangement. She discusses - which the way you've worded it, means nothing more than tells/advises - but embarks regardless?

I'm sure there would be interest in understanding this kind of assertive declaration the more. Please indulge/educate us and expalin further. I won't address the rest of your post here,as I've done that elsewhere.

Please try and avoid Mindfulnesses decietful employment of the term relative in order to wriggle out


TV

fem29:
I don't see what is contradictory there.

I actually agreed whole-heartedly with your second point. Indeed, I live it. I lead my home, but discuss pretty much everything with my wife.

I understand that sometimes the husband as the head has to have the final say, but you must always carry your wife along and make sure that all decisions you make are for the good of the family

There have been instances where something has been needed, but I haven't acted until my wife is comfortable with the course of action I propose. Am I taking permission? Of course not, but I love my wife and would be loath to act without her buy-in/agreement/acceptance - whatever you call it - even though I would if I had to.

This however is odd;

Yes it would be nice, in an ideal world of your wife to discuss with you openly and if she doesn't, you need to ask yourself and her why she doesn't feel comfortable discussing it with you

Whereas a husband should always endeavour to carry his wife along, if a wife doesn't, it's possibly a failure of leadership (the husband)?

I carry my "wife along", even when she is being - IMHO - slow, unthinking, unengaged. Misgivings do not excuse what is bad practice, the misgivings should be resolved beforehand, not used as an excuse for wrong action or to blame hubby for what he may not have control over. Kapeesh !


TV

tallfish145:
I am about getting married in the next two months. All preparations have been made,but who to take care of the wedding cake is left undecided,because i learn't it is one of the most sensitive items the couples need. Now my ex-girl friend,who i left few years ago(though on mutual agreement) is into cake making and wants to handle our wedding cake by herself. Should i allow her to take up the contract?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah !

Ask you wife to take care of the wedding cake arrangement.

If she knows your ex, codedly ask her who she is using, if it sounds like your ex, steer her away from that idea by whatewver means necessary.

Not a risk even worth entertaining. Better your ex vexes for you eternally than to consider it. What are you thinking?


TV

yuzedo:
I believe I am ready, by God’s grace, simply because I like to think that (true) love is sacrifice, and I’m already very much in love with my unborn kids…….

Funny, but so true. A very fair view of a mans life, is of sacrifice - of his vigour, labour and, even his well-being in caring for his wife and children. And for most men – especially the “ordinary Joe”, that is the reality.

It’s why I can’t stand ignorant, entitled women painting men as brutes, and spouting off about discrimination and supposed ill-treatment. Few women, if any, would want too, or be capable of swapping places with ole’ Joe. God bless him.

Good piece. And all the very best in your labour of love - may it not go unrewarded or unappreciated


TV

...why waste a good word? Let's retain it as a term of abuse ?


TV

A40:
Aside my weakness for big boobies

...that ain't no weakness bro'...not unless you act recklessly as a result

TV

Mindfulness:
What a major financial expenditure is, is relative.

As are disclosure, truth and of course feelings abi

Mindfulness:
I know that you love taking comments out of their context to pretend that they don'T make sense. Tell me where you read that a spouse should celebrate something they don't know about.

Out of context ke? If a couple are happy for one to forge ahead and act unilaterally, does that preclude mentioning what they are doing to each other? The OP clearly stated the secretive nature and hidden intent in question. Fail .

Mindfulness:
As in I don't care to respond to comments without sense.

As I've already told you, you have a co-habbing arangement which is both quantitively and qualititively different from mariage. It's not the same, equal, or as good, hence your "my money" approach. Your advice tends to fall short on marriage related threads - mainly because you are unable to make sense of marriage.


TV

Acidosis:
I'm beginning to think marriage is a scam

At all, there are simply too many scammers using marriage as a cloak

fem29:
Yes it would be nice, in an ideal world of your wife to discuss with you openly and if she doesn't, you need to ask yourself and her why she doesn't feel comfortable discussing it with you

fem29:
I understand that sometimes the husband as the head has to have the final say, but you must always carry your wife along and make sure that all decisions you make are for the good of the family

Blatantly contradictory.

Mindfulness:
1. It is an investment in the future.
2. How is it my business?
3. It was my idea.

What do you want to do now?

You would plan "your" future, without recourse to the one you wedded your future too?
Because as wedded, major financial expenditure should be discussed and agreed, and always advised.
It would be a bad idea by any spouse - worse to do it with a 3rd party.
People with understanding do their "doing" ahead of marriage, not during or after it !

Mindfulness:
I agree with you that it is much better to share such information in a marriage. However, our advice is not always needed. At times it is enough to rejoice in our spouses's eagerness regarding something that s(he) is sure is the right decision to do.

Please explain how one celebrates something with their spouse which they do not know about. Or ss this one of the signs and wonders of your faith !

Mindfulness:
What is the difference between 'spousal separation' and divorce?

Mindfulness:
Whether you divorce your wife or separate from her, without going through the process of divorce, the end result is the same, is it not?

As in, doesn't get marriage, not married !


TV

Kimoni:
I cant outrightly call every case where the wife demands 50% greedy, the peculiarities of each case would differ and each would be judged differently.

Why not? That is the nature of a comprehensive union - such as the one of Will and Kate, whose vows I noted in my initial post on this thread.

My only beef is with the concept of no-fault divorce. If the woman wants to stay, but the man insists on leaving her, where she has done no wrong, certainly. If however, she just wants to leave, and he has done nothing wrong, certainly not, and vice-versa (depending on who is the main source of the wealth, which by marriage becomes communal).

Kimoni:
On Tiger's case - can I ever judge that case objectively considering Tiger's escapades? I don't think so.

She should get 50%, then a further percentage as punishment, then a lien placed on any future earnings and further garnishing of his pension .

Although I think that was a bad match, once you are in, you are in. Enter with sobriety .

Kimoni:
With Serena - if you as a man has sacrificed all to keep the home front going while she concentrated on amassing trophies and earning money, why not?

Same again.


TV

^{...Sagamite, superior model e da ?}

temi4fash:
To me, it depends on the dynamics of the marriage. No two marriages are the same but any marriage in which one or both parties are not looking for ways to better each other lifes is not marriage in the first place. It is staying together.

If these ever happens in what I believe to be called marriage, I believe they're not married, they are just room mates.

Looking at situation critically, you should begin to ask questions, if he is still interested in the marriage he should probably sit her down and ask questions cos if he does not the marriage would never remain the same..

Let me tag men from the men's thread

TV01
Pickbeau1
Netotse
NashvileTN
Bellong

The host of others...

Lots of fast food advice from people with burger marriages or no marriages at all. Some people don't grasp the fullness of marriage, and as a result cannot give advice aspirationally. It's the kind of thread that leaves me wondering. For the sake of the wanna-weds and those that will hear sha.

I have spoken about how I believe marriage at it's best is a comprehensive spiritually, and physical union. For example here; https://www.nairaland.com/2789558/uk-divorce-court-awards-woman/2#40866411

Some may well have a more "transactional" approach to marriage - as long as they fulfill the criteria for marriage, I won't quibble - once qualified, people are free to determine the dynamic of their individual unions. I said that here; https://www.nairaland.com/2789558/uk-divorce-court-awards-woman/3#40874114

Such people may see nothing wrong with what this woman has done, possibly even laud it as "smart". But for those that subscribe to "fullness", this can only be considered a colossal fail.

Taken without regard to anything else, this is at best utterly disrespectful of her husband and seriously undermines him - making him easily challenged, if not held in contempt by his inlaws. It weakens the marriage bond.

If he indeed has assets in his name only, the first push should be for him to include his wife as co-owner based on the "spousal interest" principle, not a tit for tat move in order to prove a point.

And at least she knows about such assets. At best, this secretive action will only widen the gap between them and doubling down on any mistrust.

It could even lead to inheritance issues; if she passes away, how is she sure her undisclosed assets will pass to her children? I wonder where Nigerian law stands onthis kind of question?

Whether you term it permission, consent, agreement, discussion, understanding etc., I'm not sure how doing it without letting him know can be predicated on anything other than ill-motivated reasons.

To me, fullness suggests the very idea of investing in anything is raised and discussed, before we ever get to the point of acting - at which point we are already in agreement and jointly own both idea and action.

These transactional, separate (and undisclosed) asset type approaches reek of cynicism and a falling out of love, or failing to understand the marriage ideal. Very sad, as in some ways, while retaining the marriage form, a lot of benefits from marriage will ultimately be lost due to the increasing break-downs this kind of approach will engender.

Haute cuisine anyone?

TV

chichi234:
My advice to guys who like sex is NEVER to marry a virgin but marry a girl with correct sexual history. Sex is very important in marriage. A slut wife will satisfy all your sexual needs. Virgins most of the times reject alot of sexual fantasies as unnatural. Virgins will say no Bloujobs Anall sex or even dooggystyles.

Care to share what would be considered a "correct sexual history"?

And slut =/= sexual expert, slut = morally incontinent.

Virgin
- More likely to cleave tightly to her husband
- More likely to be satisfied with her marriage
- Less likely to cheat
- Health and fertility unimpaired by abortions
- Health and fertility unimpaired by STD’s
- Health & fertility unimpaired by a cocktail of toxic contraceptive drugs
- Little or no psychological damage from previous affairs
- No kiss/shag/gang-rape and tell stories lurking in the background
- Little or no chance of her having engaged in sugary or runs
- Little or no chance of paternity fraud, or undisclosed offspring ^new
- Teachable and more amenable to what pleases her husband - in all ways
- Worth 10 oloshos with change that will build a house

Timbuktou:
Stop consoling yourself. Virgins can learn and become good just like you did. Everybody learns, no human comes ready as an expert. After all, sluts didn't land here without hymens, did they?
Meanwhile, nobody really wants to marry the neighbourhood bicycle. Carry your gospel somewhere else. We're not buying.

Correct, school them scorn them - beyond shaming

OP, are you by any chance the same religion as Mindfulness !


TV

Sagamite:
The Gods will stamp it when I carry 16 wives to go and marry in the Shrine.

Start with one first

Use it to demonstrate this relationship model that is superior to marriage - as defined - and a construct of your advanced learning, structured education, colossal intellect, and eerrr... "literacy". We can't wait !


TV

Mindfulness:
Are you saying that Christians are the only people who have the right understanding of what a marriage should be like?

I am saying that;

1. people are free to structure their relationships anyhow they choose
2. but not all relationships qualify as marriage
3. I consider the Christian ideal of marriage to be the best and am happy to compare, contrast and champion it against any other form.

Sagamite is saying marriage is outdated and unfit for purpose. He is also saying he has a better relationship model, but as the patent is still pending, he is unable to share it at this point in time

Mindfulness, as usual is not saying anything other than her gospel is about her feelings above all else !

Mindfulness:
I have never tried to measure or determine what is good for every individual. How you find my views in none of my business. By now you should know that the more of you disagree with me, the better I feel. Call your friends.

You are clearly unable to state what is objectively moral or good, so how on earth can you determine what is individually good? And as you have no objective measure, everything becomes good based on your selfish unconsidered feeling.

Ergo, a woman can abandon her kids to pursue a feeling she deems good, and convince herself it's a good thing, regardless of the fallout or damage to others.

You are right, you really don't have a gospel worthy of the name, just a shallow mish-mash of feel-good tropes to help you justify your misdeeds - we've had your likes before. Hope you "feel better"

Mindfulness:
I have the right to be happy. I am the only person responsible for my happiness. How is it anyone's problem? How is any cost attached to it? How is my selfishness a problem to anyone?

Anyone with a a smidgin of discernment can see what this implies - without even seeing any of your posts.

Keep trying to fill that hole with feelings.


TV

As I noted in my very first post on this thread, many view marriage as a comprehensive spiritual, physical and material union. As evidenced by the prince's vows, he commited to honouring his wife with all his wordly goods as part of that union.

If they part and she gets Buck house, I am not the least bit worried by that. For many, it is not a transactional union, quantified by earnings and income, or the before and after, or at the point of entering or exiting.

I agree that divorce laws could be varied, but divorce in that context is a tragedy in, and of itself. And for those wanting to structure their relationships differently, simply opt for something other than marriage, nothing stops them.

With the advanced leaning, superior intelluct and structured education of today, it shouldn't be overly difficult to frame something vastly superior to the outdated and no longer fit for purpose institution called marriage se (Sagamite, that's your cue )

Why do people covet the respect and dignity marriage confers and not want to be subject to it's particulars. Especially as there is more freedom now than ever? Freedom to structure your relationship as you see fit.

If all could do as they want, and call it marriage, the term itself would be meaningless. Hence, we let people do as they choose, but not necesarilly call it what they like (or recognise every relationship as marriage).

I rest. In the absence of an alternative, proper marriage wins .


TV

Sagamite:
Yep. Literacy is the ability to read and write.

But a second definition in the dictionary is "the possession of education". It has also become the lingua franca for stating the level of education. Those are the context in which I used them.

They might be literate for their time, but the level of their time is complete illiteracy.

We are too structured and formally educated for any future generation to call us illiterate, so that argument does not carry water. Those that went to Oxbridge even in 1650 are still regarded as literate and educated today because they faced a structured education.

I do not agree. What of classical Greek education and philosophy - on which the whole of Western education rests. You do them a huge disservice. Whatever we are, we are not structured or educated enough to disdain them. At best we've built on what they left us.

Sagamite:
Someone being taught capentry 100 of years ago is illiterate.

By the way, Mohammed was a stark illiterate who could not read and write. I know that 100% because I read it. I am not too sure about Jesus, I bet he too was illiterate in reading and writing as I cannot recall anything he wrote.

Even if we view Jesus as a mere man, it is documented that He could read, that He taught, and was held in esteem by learned men of His day. You are mistaken in judging Him by His profession, which was almost certainly to accomodate His ministry.

He had well learned disciples, such as the well known Paul, who was a Lawyer and a Pharisee, thereby being secular and theologically educated. Don't disdain that time or the people that lived then. I would wager that few NL'ers could even drag basics with them .

Sagamite:
The people then were stuuupid and dumb. They brutalised and killed each other at will out of their ignorance and lack of knowledge. Some of them wrote the inconsistent and illogical junk we know today as the Bible and Quran.

I'm comforted by the knowledge that we do not brutalise or kill each other in this day and age? We have merely gotten more sophisticated - and even liberal - about how we go about it. It's not sophistication, or even intelligence, it's hman natue. And it's fallen.

Sagamite:
What you missed in your metric was people being happy in the set up.

To you, success in marriage was staying together for life exclusively.

While we might have different metrics, in my books, lack of happiness is a failure in life. You have only one life, don't believe the moronic rubbish the Hindus teach you, passed to them by their own medieval illiterates. Enjoy your ONE life, you are not coming back as a cattle of rat.

If you don't enjoy it, you have failed. If you are not happy in a marriage, it is a failed marriage.

First, you fall afoul of your own demand - let every couple define happiness as they choose; this I did in my definition at an individual level, At a generic level, it does not matter. We consider the utility of marriage as a society and accord it benefits.

Having qualified for and entered marriage, we do not intrude into peoples privacy and demand they live their unions in a certain way, to ensure a degree of happiness as determined by someone else. If a couple marry, live together and raise children, that in the eyes of society is a success. Nothing does it better !

Sagamite:
Well, keep you biblical marriage to yourself and your batch. It is not the ONE!

Neo is the ONE!

It is for those who subscribe to it - it's choice for everyone, that much we have agreed. That it is antiquated and not fit for purpose, as you have claimed, has not been demonstrated. Neither have you presented anything superior.

Sagamite:
Then I am going to heaven with you too then.

Good news.

I am danicing Kukere now.

There is yet time, but the day of salvation is always today.

Godspeed


TV

Sagamite:
Respect!

{Salutes}

I like it when someone does not try to play "I no go carry last".

Happy to carry last if I'm hearing new and good stuff

Sagamite:
Would you give you child the education they have then?

Would you even see it as sufficient to live as an educated person.

Mate, lets be frank. They wer uneducated just like our ancestors were uneducated before the Whiteman came.

People teaching you or training you in something is not necessarily an education. Fck it, many Nigerian kids today are not even getting an education even though they go to classes for 6 years.

Nigga, let me even give you a live example. When the Chibok girls were kidnapped, it was during the SSCE exam period. Some escaped. When the BBC was interviewing these girls, NONE I can recall, could do an interview in English. They were using translators.

And these were kids about to do exams that would have been administered in English.

So please, let us know what education is based on the standards that is right.

The writers of the Bible and Quran are illiterates. Medieval ones! No different from those you will find in the villages of Ijebuland bar Sagamu.

Literacy is the ability to read and write - agreed. Education is acquiring the lifeskills to function normally in the society, and at the time in which one lives. Knowledge is altogether different. There are vast differentials between people in a society at any point in time.

They were literate and educated for their time, as we are for ours, And our successors of 10, 20 or how ever many generations time turning around and calling us ignorant would be as wrong as what you are doing now. Not least because these things are successive.

The people then had the brains to do exactly what we do now and would if they had the same benefit of hindsight that we have. There is a pernicious myth, that present day men are somehow more intelligent, than our ancestors. Nope!

Sagamite:
Well, then you metric is wrong.

Because people stay together till they die does not mean a marriage was successful. Even those women that face domestic violence stay exclusively with their tormentor till they die or he kills them. That is not a successful marriage as your metric would suggest.

Firstly I gave allowance for hiccups. Secondly, of all domestic relationships, domestic violence is least prevalent in marriage. Thirdly, it is not always extreme or dangerous; in fact many "relationship types" experience a degree of low level of conflict. Fourthly, if a "spouse" dies at the hads of their spouse, that would not be considered successful by my metric.

Sagamite:
You see, you are sounding confused again.

Why must a marriage be between 2 individuals?

Who the hell are you to tell these 2 individuals to be exclusive if they both want to be swingers? .

That is marriage - biblical marriage - as I understand and champion it. It's not for anyone else, and certainly not for those who subscribe to different relationship types. It's close to the one under discussion, and even those forms of marriage that differ from mine are always enacted between two people no?

Sagamite:


You don't even go to church regularly?

Fck me! I never imagined that.

TV01, you are going to HELL FIRE o.

I'm happy to be labelled a Christian as I'm a bible believer and a disciple of Christ. Assume nothing else !

There is no fear of hell-fire for believers. The gift of god is eternal life. It's that, or one perishes - completely ceases to exist - after paying for their sinful deeds, which may be quite heated .

Now please, this relationship model that is better than marriage - we are waiting

TV

Sagamite:
TV01, this is another education for you.

You can have your own choice but don't force it on others as the ONE!

Au contraire - I know I am free to do as I choose, and fully acknowledge others are free todo exactly that a s well. And again, I've said that repeatedly on this thread.

This is a discussion of ideas. You disdain the Christian ideal of marriage, you've failed to demonstrate a superior one. Mindfullness just appears to be in general denial, but in search of tingles

Defend your stated position, don't mis-ascribe views to me as an out .

Oya


TV

Sagamite:
Now you sound less confused.

I may have been guilty of assuming, but then we all can be.

Sagamite:
No, I don't.
I asked questions about how educated they were. Illiteracy is a general synonym for being educated.

Evidence of the state of their culture then is both documented and extant. As is it's flourishing sionce then. The term "education" is at best subjective. And if you mean "advanced", I've touched on that.

Sagamite:
So, to summarise, your definition of marriage success metric is:

"When 2 people stay together exclusively till death do them part"?

Please try as best to modify if I am wrong when you reply.

No need to summarise - take it as written in the first instance

Sagamite:
You specifically want ONE?

This is where you are getting confused and not coming from an intellectual angle.

There are many people in the world with different desires, different aspirations, different beliefs, different values and different in so many other ways.

You can't satisfy this differences by saying you want to stick with ONE solution and think you have been optimal.

For each batch of people, they would have a superior and preferred model.

This is what I have repeatedly tried to educate your likes on. If you want to have a Christian-arranged marriage with your wife where you both agree that whatever you make in the union is seen as joint earning and you would not separate even if one of you is miserable because Jesu would throw a tantrum in heaven, by all means, do have it.

But that is not what Saga's batch would want. Saga needs to be happy. Saga needs to have the best option at all times. He does not do religion and does not give a hoot about Jesu or Mo or Kristna or whoever. He gives a shyt about making sense and making sensible decisions.

This is where you need to learn: The world does not need ONE and ONE should not be forced on everyone. What should be forced on everyone is ability to make choices.

It is your confusion that is glaring and dude, you are not educating anyone, far from it;

1. It is marriage you so pointedly disdain. Show a model that gives society, communities, families, the 2 individuals, and any offspring, the same or superior benefits to marriage - we are waiting

2. In as much as there are different desires, needs and requirements, no one has said that you cannot structure your relationships as you see fit. I've said that repeatedly here. Marriage is what it is. You are the one that disdains it, but is unable to improve on it.

3. Free-form structuring of relationships is fine! But it does not mean every relationship qualifies as a marriage. Ditto, it does no tmena everyone gets to structure their relationship as they like and demand it be called marriage. It's that simple

Your befuddlement in 3 easy steps .

Sagamite:
To be clear, you are saying you do not have your own shushi, but you do go to shushi?

I don't think I could have been clearer; I don't have/run/own a church. I don't belong to/regularly attend/identify with a denomination.


TV

Mindfulness:
And how do my views meet any of the criteria outlined above? Not at all.

Maradona fun are re - Mindfullness you can dribble . So you do not reagrd your positions as true? or even believe them??

4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed:
to take his report for gospel.

Mindfulness:
Deviation tactics. Explain to me how you know which concept of marriage God considers to be the right one.

The Bible generally and the express word of Jesus specifically.The bibles position on Christian marriage is not even worth disputing. It opens and closes with marriage. It normalises - especially in the NT - the male/female, exclusive and permanent nature of marriage.

Mindfulness:
What greater good and which higher values?

Keep asking questions and accusing me of deviation ! Is there nothing that distinguishes us from animals? That aside, is not your position essentially about "your feelings" being the greater good and making them higher value.

Mindfulness:
Do you need to mention other monikers for support?

At all, but let them come and see your silky skills !

Mindfulness:
My happiness is not only more important than any religious doctrine, it is also more important than anyone else's. This is how selfish I am. No apologies.

No gainsaying

Mindfulness:
Every living being desires to feel good. Find one that doesn't.

Again, you don't have an objective measure for good, neither are you able to determine what is good for every individual, or prioritise different expressions of good from the same individual. I simply find your doctrine nebullous and shallow.

Mindfulness:
Who told you that there is a cost attached to feeling good? And who told you that feeling good makes others miserable? If everyone finally learned how to take care of their own well-being, we would have nobody to worry about. It is so simple but instead we have plenty of people who depend on others for something they can't do for themselves but expect others to be capable of doing for them. And then we have divorce cases like this with people who think that others owe them anything.

You contradict yourself thread to thread, post to post and literally sentence ot sentence ! And then try and hide it behind questions; why if there is never a cost attached do you term it selfish? Why if there is no cost - to someone, somewhere - do you counsel that a woman has a "right to act on her feelings regardless"?

You try and make it sound glossy, harmless and appealing at the outset, then deny there is naything systematic about it, but apply it to situations - which often leave you feeling uncomfortable.? It simply doesn't bear any kind of real scrutiny.


TV

Sagamite:

Where have you seen me "campaign against divorce"?
And you are saying I am the one confused?
The second question, again, does not meet the intellectual threshold.

And who told you I am not doing Hugh Hefner or I have not signed up to his tutorial classes? Who told you I am planning to or forcing people to marry or not to marry? And I am the one confused?

Ok to be precise - you rail against divorce laws and their application, considering them unfair, You also didain marriage as a failed institution.

For divorce, I say work on the relationship at the point of entry, not exit. Without marriage, there could be no divorce. Even where provision is made, it is no tthe preferred or optimal outcome. Work to change the laws if you care to, but in a feminine led worls, good luck with that.

As for marriage, I utterly reject the notion that it is either failed or antiquated. For those that get it and apprehend it, it is a delight. Ask me .

Sagamite:
Accomplishment? What fcking evidence? What fcking accomplishment?

What school did Jesus or Mohammed go to?

University of Capentry in Jerusalem and Mecca Institute of Peace and International Diplomacy?

Sagamu was the centre of development as far back as 625BC. It was where scholars travelled far and wide to acquire knowledge from the famous Sagamu Institute of Technology that was founded in 701BC as a Babalawo Training School. It got its university charter in 673BC.

So, you take back the "illiterates" comment then !

Sagamite:
Before I even go into this, tell me your metrics of measuring success of marriage.

At an individual level, the dynamic and expectation may vary somewhat. Some men men think "as long as I have a son", some women, might be, "as long as he provides materially". It can be more, less,or none of those things. But the individual metric of success rests within the definition of what a marriage is.

Generically, by definition, I see marriage as the lifelong exclusive union of a male and female. If it meets this then success. If it has a few hiccups along the way but still prevails, then success. And if, the unon is blessed with children, all the better.

Sagamite:
You need to learn to dissociate my arguments about unfair, sexist divorce laws from my argument about the failed institution of marriage and then you will find it simpler and less confusing.

Hopefully, I have done that above.

Sagamite:
I have actually composed a write-up about the different kinds of adult relationship models we could have and that are available. But since NL went to the dogs, I have vowed never to waste my intellectual content on it, hence why I refuse to open the thread.

You think I would waste such on the cretins that now travail this forum?

When I find a platform to put it on, I will inform and invite you.

Copout;
1. Whilst different types are all good and fine, we specifically want one that is intrinsically superior to marriage
2. You rail here, show your solution here

Sagamite:
You have no church?
You no dey go shush?

No and nyet !


TV

Mindfulness:
Gospels are for religious people, I am not one of them.

gospel [gos-puh l] noun
4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed:
to take his report for gospel.
5. a doctrine regarded as of prime importance:
political gospel.
6. glad tidings, especially concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ.

Some readings/usages of the word gospel above. Timbuktou was right to point out you poor comprehension skills. As for being religious. You are the most evangelical about your beliefs here. If you like miscomprehend that .

Mindfulness:
And you know it how exactly? Let me guess, it is written in the Bible.

And you know it wasn't how exactly?

Mindfulness:
It is a logical outcome of marriage since the Christian concept of marriage is a social and religious construct that violates nature.

Finally, you are getting there - please explain why a lack of self-control, restraint, and aspiration to a greater good, and the higher - often spiritual - values that humans are capable of is now "unnatural" - just change your moniker to "Tingles", that's the whole basis of your ish .

Mindfulness:
And your ridicule of feelings won't change the fact that every human being is an emotional being and if you feel that you have to sacrifice feeling good for an institution, you are free to do so. I will pass. My happiness is more important than any religious doctrine.

Tim was wrong, it's not just comprehension . Who ridicules feelings? Men shoul dnot simply be led by them. Who said that humans ar enot emotional or that being happy is diametrically opposed to feeling good. Of course your happiness is more important than any religious doctrine - that is your religious dosctrine. And it's regardless of who gets hurt or the fallout. It's religion alright - just pagan.

Mindfulness:
I use the fact that every human being desires to feel good. You use the Bible and call its content a fact, which is more disputable than my standing that it is natural for any being to want to feel good.

Firstly, you have no way of knowing what every human being desires -and not in the order of priority. Or what each one defnes as good, or, it seems, an objective view of what good actually is.

Like I said, run with your gospel of "feel good" at all cost and regardless of the outcome for others. Be evangfelical about your doctrine of promiscuity and indiscriminate childbirth being rewarded with marriage to a wealthy eligible man. I for one have no desire to gainsay you.


TV

Sagamite:
You mean the kind of marriage where you are a man that is together enough to bury your head in the sand, stick your finger in the air and bare the compromise-filled union while claiming you are happy?

Abeg, I will pass.

I doubt you can call that a marriage success rate. At best call it a compromise success rate.

People sticking together because they feel their religion, proposed by medieval illiterates, forbids then to leave each other is not a sign of marriage success.

Those are not the kinds of marriages for Saga Saga. I would rather have multiple happy marriages than one miserable compromising marriage.

You still present as confused - in a number of ways;

1. If marriage can literally never be enjoyed, your campaign should be against marriage, not divorce - why undego the stress of an unhappy union, only to suffer further stress upon divorce - which is surely more likely if the union is unhappy?

2. If marriage is indeed typically unhappy, why do you think your chances of having a string of happy marriages is high?

3. What is stopping you doing it Hugh Hefner - or any other style - and championing that. No one is forced to marry or structure their relationships in a way they find unpalatable.

4. You've come again with the medieval illiterates ish. Firstly, books are no twritten by illiterates are they? And evidence abounds of thier accomplishments. Please remind us of when you first had storey building in Sagamu

Sagamite:
Marriage is a failure institution and a failed institution throughout history (if assessed by Christian/Western/Hollywood/Modern metrics).

It would even be more so in the modern world we live. It does not fit with it and we need to find a new better model just like Christianity, Islam, etc do not fit with our modern age.

They might have been expedient in the past, but we as a human race have moved past that past. (Fck me, see Saga rhyming like a rapper. I am too good, men! Who the fck is Jay Z?)

The world is more connected, people are more beautiful, portrayal of sexual images and sexual activities are more proliferated, the family structure is changing, breadwinners are more mixed.

Sticking to your concept of marriage is like the would sticking to coal as the main source of world fuel and want to die to maintain it.

Mate, we have gone to hydrocarbon and about to move to hydro and other green fuels.

Marriage is, was, and always will be fine. It's people who fail at it, due to a lack of undertanding or desire to shape it after their lusts and not it's design. There is always change, and "progress" continues. It does not mean that it is all good or works better.

If it has indeed failed, present something better. You have the scope and the intellect no? All you've managed so far is to rail at divorce laws - which I agree to a degree can be clumsy at best - but find, present and more importantly, practice a better way.

Blaze a trail, let the whole world look and wonder. Let marriage be condenmed by the sheer brilliance and utilty of "Sagamony" ! Afterall, Apple does not spend a plugged nickel dissing Nokia, it simply presents it's products.

Sagamite:
Well, the world if full of deluded and moronic people. This is no an argument.

It wasn't an argument - it was a statement of fact and evidence of what obtains.

Sagamite:
Which God?

Sango?

The God of The Bible

Sagamite:
I think you don't even grasp the basics of what I noted as a social announcement. This does not meet the intellectual threshold to even bless it with a response.

Continue dreaming!

If a relationship is in the "announcement - announce the optimum one you have put together. Live it and let us marvel. No true intellect spends ages raging against a percieved problem without offering a plausible alternative.

You've dissed marriage to the heavens. Fine. We have heard, now what? All we've seen is wailing about the divorce laws. Give us something to pause and consider mate!

Sagamite:
You are free to send your church girls my way though as one of those always trying to get me to marry. I will help you sample them IN THE NAME OF THA LORD!

I have no church, and I'd be the first to say "church girls" must be stressed with due dilligence like any other. And ahead of trying to get you to marry, I need you to understand what marriage is, then find someone that gets agrees or is willing to follow your lead.

We are still waiting for your boast of SagaKids. Apply your domestic ideals, have these kids and raise them optimally within it, as a demonstration of your superior intellect and relationship model.

Till then, it's all wind. Please mention me when you come up with something


TV

Mindfulness:
One of the differences is that you don't use fear to make men believe in the rightness of your standards and notions.

Facts, not fear. How one responds to the facts is down to them. Spread your gospel, if it's superior, people will hear it .

Mindfulness:
Besides I agree with most of his views on the topic in question. Marriage existed long before Christianity came into existence. Divorce has always been a part of it and should not be a reason why people should part with what they have worked for and an opportunity for others to gain what they haven't worked for.

Before Christinity, and also before government, but not before God. And provisions for marriage, where narrow, tightly defined and rarely in view.

Your view of divorce, is as a logical outcome of marriage - based essentially on "feelings". You don't use facts, you use deceit.


TV

Sagamite:
Am sorry, mate.

Never call a thing that has a 50% certified failure rate and a 80% uncertified failure rate a good thing.

In the sane world, any company or investment that has that rate of failure would not be seen as a venture to "focus on making it better", it would be treated as a venture to abandon and never engage in.

There are marriages and there are marriages - for my type success rate is near enuogh 100% .

Sagamite:
Thank the fcking Lord I am sensible enough not to have been in such a mistake venture.

Sensible enough to see that you may not be able to make it work. We are looking for men that are together enough and bold enough to make it happen .

Sagamite:
You are wrong.
I don't even see it as a contract. I see it as a mere social announcement.

My legalistic perspective is just that it should not be a hustlers market where the state moronically backs one trade party.

Your view of what a relationship should/could be, should not be confused with what marriage is/should be. And even if we allow plurality of views, yours is not the prevailing or preferred one . Even if we have a codification of marriage in law, some will always view and practice it as way more than a cold, legalistic institution at the behest of government.

I take your point about how it is seriously abused and used as a hustle, but that is not an indictment of marriage, any more than Paul Walkers tragic accident was an indictment of Porsche.

And yes, in a world that is becoming increasingly feminine-centred, people with warped ideologies will seek to pervert marriage and make gaspingly shocking divorce awards - none of this changes marriage in it's essence for those that get it and apprehend it correctly.

Sagamite:
Spiritual ko, alcoholic ni.

It is a mere social announcement right from time. THROUGHOUT the history of mankind.

An unsubstantiated and completely wrong view of historical marriage.

Sagamite:
Nonsense!

Before christianity there has been marriages.

If some want to define theirs by religion, by all means, fine.

That does not mean others have to. In general, it is a mere social announcement where sometimes spirits and other alcoholic beverages are served.

You are calling nonsense to what took place before are very eyes - viewed on widescreens and listened to on radios worldwide . That is historical/traditional/Christian marriage, and those that get that want it, or are free to reject it.

Before Christianity perhaps, but not before God - there was no "before God ". Marriage was before government, as was religion. And most marriages vows are still religiously taken.

If you go clubbing, buy a girl a few drinks, then leave with her, casually letting your friends know as you depart, is that a wedding or marriage . Afterall beverages, tick, glad rags, tick, social announcement, tick.

Saga, bless our hearts with a big celebratory wedding jor - London is becoming increasingly dry and gloomy!


TV

TV01:
...I'll probably be totally wrong, but here goes; another sob story from Arsenal, so close, but just failing to make it. Chelsea just about make it. A.

Hope it's B or C. though - when Arsenal score, I score


TV

...I was wrong again . But Arsenal scored ! Thank God there were no pitch kid invasions . But sha, all these late night games are wreaking havoc with my system, see as I just dey yawn for work- mid week games hard 0 .


TV

Sagamite, please drop this topic now. You parsing of it is incomplete and irretrievably biased. And why the fixation on divorce? At best, divorce is a bad end to a good thing – why not focus on making the good thing better?

Moreso when you are not actually married? Why ponder on the out before you actually get in. It’s like a na.ked man planning how to un.dress, or a homeless one planning colour schemes ?

Your reductionist approach to marriage – making it a mere contract/transactional arrangement totally misses the point. As does your totally legalistic perspective. The fact that marriage is these days, legally codified, does not make it a legal construct in the first instance, nor place ownership within the gift of State.

Many traditional/religious marriages are more akin to covenant relationships. A joining at the spiritual, physical and material levels – especially with the single most important imprimatur of marriage in mind – children.

Even in modern times; here is an excerpt from the wedding of HRH William and Kate Middleton;

Prince William takes the ring and places it upon the fourth finger of Catherine's left hand Prince William says after the Archbishop: With this ring I thee wed; with my body I thee honour; and all my worldly goods with thee I share: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Such vows and the unions they enjoin are far removed from the anaemic, legalistic, transactional based arrangement that pre-occupies you. In truth, you simply don’t get it. And that is the whole point - entry should be with the utmost sobriety, with the thought of anything other than a natural conclusion to the union being anathema.

And remember, marriage is not forced; you can opt for living apart with no legal codification (boyfie/girlfie), co-habbing, a civil union, or civil marriage in a jurisdiction that allows pre-nups.

Your railing against marriage – or pain at divorce - is utterly pointless. Re-frame and focus on the point of entry, and who you enter with, as opposed to the particulars of a tragic exit. Or simply refrain.

Yes, it does appear in this case that a crusty old feminist judge went to town on him, but that is not about marriage. I wonder what he was actually marrying her for

Now, sorry to bother you, but how far? The rice crop is in, and I’m hungry and ready to party. No one throws down like the Ijebu. Please stop denying some young lady the chance to realise her dreams – hopefully of marriage, not of divorce .


TV

^{mindfulness, see, I distubute refrain equally - in fact, moreso to men}

pickabeau1:
So which team will join United in Yuropa League

A. Chelsea
B. Arsenal
C. both
D. none

Make your choice

...I'll probably be totally wrong, but here goes; another sob story from Arsenal, so close, but just failing to make it. Chelsea just about make it. A.

Hope it's B or C. though - when Arsenal score, I score


TV

Mindfulness:
Why would I be looking for support of my statements on a thread where more than 90% of the posters disagree with me? Does it make sense to you?
I was perfectly aware of the fact that most of you won't like my contributions when I joined the discussion so tell me how you made sense when you told me to look for support on a thread where almost everyone disagrees with me?

Tim asked you to find evidence supporting what you claimed to be challenging from anything we'd posted. No one has said anything justifying then frenzy you are getting yourself into.

We don't particularly welcome your contributions because they are off-point, wrongly aimed and unsubstantiated. The Major bones of contention you've raised were at no point made here. Still waiting for evidence of your allegations against me .

And more pointedly, no one is the least bit interested in preventing you spread your own gospel. Free us to discuss, decide or disagree on how we'd like the relationship dynamic to work. Yourself and Freecocoa are doing what many women do, campaigning as a means of justifying your ways, but we simply don't care - trying to force it is kind of attention-whorish, something to be ashamed of perhaps !


TV

A40:
Compatibility: Physical, mental

Body is not firewood and to an extent I believe any man would have minimum sexual and physical aspirations from a lifetime partner
Mental compatibility, this one is even more important and essential for longevity in any marriage. Marriage is not my priority atm but the day I find a woman I share this with is the day I know I have found a keeper. This is what will hold you together when the initial Telemundo love has faded

Diplomacy, Courtesy, Tact

You see some dapper looking men with a 4 or a 5 and you think its jazz, s€x or money not knowing the woman just has an awesome personality. I despise aggressive, unnecessarily confrontational women, the ones that never admit when they are wrong and never take to correction

Nurturer, Builder, Supporter

Some women you meet all your hopes, dreams, ambitions die with them. So long as its in contrast with their desires they make sure it is D.O.A. How does your woman act when you tell her your dreams and goals, does she add or bring anything to the table? How is she around your friends and family? Does all your previous interests, life die and go down the drain the moment she becomes your Mrs

There's more just a sneak peek of what I would consider above a Body count

Good stuff. I wish you all the very best when marriage is in view.


TV