₦airaland Forum

Way too many assertions for me here ;

BoboYekini:
First, monogamy is only advised for females. Sounds sexist( isn't this a boys' thread anyway?) but the cost to society of a woman's indiscretions are graver than the man's. Think Sperm Wars, cuckoldry e.t.c.

Not sexist, true! One to many relationships will always suit and work better for males. That's biology as much as anything else.

It also means Alphas will build up harems and betas lose out. A whole heap of men won't have the problem of meeting womens sexual expectations in marriage as they will not be any women fo rthem to marry !

BoboYekini:
As far back as civilization goes, the rites of passage of any young male into manhood include losing his virginity and being encouraged to continue having as much sex as possible.

Nope, it was slaying a wild beast - typically barehanded ! Or being "blooded" in war or hunting. Pure acts of manliness.

BoboYekini:
Not so for women. Fact. And it worked out well for everyone.

Nope. Societies quickly become aware that sexuality - and yes, I agree, particularly female - had to be controlled for the common good. And while females typically bear most of the burden and stigma for this, the restraint must be on both sexes.

One rule for men and another for women does not work on a large scale. A few outliers notching up huge counts, should not unduly destabilise things, but most people making out with most everyone else will.

BoboYekini:
Till today, the expectation is that the man should be more experienced in the ways of the world than his woman. All women especially hold this view. Which is the reason I raised the issue of honing one's skills prior to marriage.

Nope. Whilst promiscuity is not stigmatised in men as it is in women - per above - it is not demanded or expected - especially in marriage. Sexual proficiency may well be considered a plus by some women, but upfront, it is not a main criteria for female mate selection.

Inexperience just means you are a learner, not a failure - I should trademark that

BoboYekini:
And that leads to your question- if I married a virgin/inexperienced(prudish/frigid is out of the question as we would have examined the issue early in the relationship) woman, I would be happy to teach her. The learning curve for women is much less steep than as for men.

And likewise, she should be happy for you to learn, grow and develop. In as much as men are typically the more active partners, and even if I pass on disuting the relative "learning curves", most of that can be learnt within a year - and quite a lot during a decent length honeymoon .

I also note your "examined" point. You see as I always tell champions of testing; any examination or test can only provide a snapshot. There's even the possibility that the snapshot will be photoshopped - some women will do what they have to, in order to "seal the deal" .

Ho wmany of my clients complain that "she was like a rabbit when we were dating, but as soon as we married, it literally dried up". Some of these even before children 0!

There is no way of being certain how things will pan out - not just long-term, with all the influencing factors and possible situations - but even from immediately after marriage.


TV

BoboYekini:
Haha but that's the issue, Women expect(want) you to come ready. How you get the experience be damned.

...holá BY, packed day yesterday so I couldn't get back to you.
T has answered you here; https://www.nairaland.com/1582623/boys-night-out-discussions/127#37827667.

BoboYekini:
Much obliged boss. But I regret that I cannot agree with you.
True, the world would be a better place if we all married as virgins. But I am not one and chances of getting married to one are next to nil. Still the dynamics of sexual intercourse are such that the man has to put in all the work, and will be judged by often times a relatively more experienced female.
Not to drag out the issue, I think every single adult male should know his way to a respectable gentleman's club when he is between relationships or if his girl will not do(in which case he might want to chuck her to the curb - topic for another day)

...and again here https://www.nairaland.com/1582623/boys-night-out-discussions/129#37857688 (although that's not to say I'm reccomending "Gentlemens Clubs"

BoboYekini:
Haha well you got me there. I owe these call girls a lot of my skill set, hence my recommendation.
You sound like you would be happy with one partner for life. Is this your natural inclination or borne out of religious/moral sentiments?

The "natural inclination" - not in terms of creation or nature/evolution, whichever you believe - of humans is wilfullness and selfishness by dint of ourr inherent nature - especially those who are led by their feeelings, desires and emotions. With that in mind, most humans, if free from any religious or cultural restraints, would "play the field" to some degree.

Monogamy as a choice is clearly of greatest long-term good for society. And if it means some sublimating or control of inordinate or willfuly expressed libido, then so be it.

But back to your earlier assertions - most of which I consider somewhat suspect; what would you do, if with your skillset "well honed", you married a girl who was a virgin or relatively inexperienced/prudish?


TV

pickabeau1:
Also true

The Bible says an angry man is like a city without walls

Abi?

A man who can't reign in his emotions and basic impulses...and is not seriously attending to it...and to actually marry such a one?...I no fit


TV

BoboYekini:
Are you suggesting that men wait until marriage before engaging in sex and honing their skills?

If Christian, yes. ANd skills can be honed during marriage. One doesn't have to come to marriage sexually perfected. Indeed, you can't, as you wil still have to adjust to your wife' preferences.

And I know this may well prove challenging - especially where marriage happens late.

So, where would you like to start !


TV

damiso:
Coach TV01 been severely anaemic (even with me taking iron tablets and eating loads of greens ) my Gp has called for some more blood work yesterday. He however is insistig that I start eating red meat again (completely cut of my diet and eat chicken/turkey/fish)

What are the lean cuts?

Hmmm...listen to your GP 0. But don't let up on bothering him if you don;t feel you are getting the right treatment. Was this a sudden thing or a steady detoriation - are you over-doing the exercise? Are you just stressed (too many chores ) or overdoing things?

I don't eat much red meat - occassional lamb and goat - wife doesn't like beef and wont touch pork. I can def recommend lamb and goat meat. Ask your butcher or read up about alternate options.


TV

BoboYekini:
Abeg where's the pages on having a great sex life? All these washing plates/clothes stuff is somehow..

Well asked. More than willing to join this one, but only in "married" terms.

NashvilleTN:
Thanks TV and bellong,its been a while
Hey house, great to be back!

Nash Baba, welcome back.


TV

bellong:
Can someone please summarize what's happening here for me?

About four pages to read, each with long epistles.

In another news, who is the favourite for the US open?

Women are domesticaly overburdened and being worked to the bone - they are being asked to contribute financially and expected to shoulder all household chores.

Men meanwhile are oblivious to this impending disaster - not even at least appreciating their wives efforts. Typically jollying; watching the sport on telly, usually tennis!

This one is all about you Bellong, you "chore-dodger" . You are a prime example of this rising epidemic .


TV

^{Women - someone surnamed Williams
Men - Djoko, Stanimal or Fed.}

Kimoni:
TV01 et al. - There is something that confuses me about this "marrying right" of a thing. And fortunately, it has come up severally in past discussions esp this last one.

If there is one thing we've touched on repeatedly on NL it's preparing for marriage; as in readying oneself and being able to determine one who is right. The "right & ready" principle I call it. I will see if I can dig some out - or whole threads sef - but I don't think I can improve on what's already been written

Kimoni:
My confusion is this - as an aspiring single wanting to get married, couples are told there is no perfect person but they should only look for someone who they share a lot in common or/and someone who has weaknesses they can live with. Like we say, a guy or lady who is looking for a partner that completely ticks his/her box will most likely never get married. right?

Right. And maybe not right; one may have very few and easily ticked boxes - a surname and a ring ! Character is key. And set your own expectations, I always suggest setting them way high, but they need to be based on a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it entails and what it's challenges may be.

Some things - in fact many - are not about ticking boxes beforehand, it's about situational challenges after. He said to me, he said, "there are some things I wish I knew before marriage, but you know, there are some things you can't know until you are married"

Kimoni:
But more often than not, it is those weaknesses that we thought were minor and we could live with that manifest itself to be the major problem in the marriage.

Maybe the classification of strengths and weaknesses was skewed to begin with. "You thought", maybe you thought wrong?

Kimoni:
Example - A guy is very loving, caring, focused, intelligent...but he has a temper. That seems to be his major weakness. During courtship, the lady saw a bit of this guy's temper but he always comes round without much effort. And even though she has her reservations about it, she has been advised and doesn't think it should be a deal breaker considering his other qualities. I would say I agree with her here.

But on getting married, this little monkey continues to grow bigger and it grows to a stage where the temper now results in constant physical abuse. And therein lies my confusion. Can it be said that the girl didn't marry right? Is it her fault in any way for knowing that the guy had a temper but forged ahead to marry him thinking the problem would go away? Should intending couples see the 'minor' faults of their partners from a pessimistic point of view? Would we all get married if we think like this? Saga ( ) comes to my mind now.
I sincerely need some understand here.

How can she have married right if she saw the problem in an embryonic stage and overlooked it. You need to be able to see the "here and now", and the "there and then" - it's why we have family elders and support groups involved, and faith if you possess it. In lieu of those, you have to know it yourself, or the risk is there.

My own support network was almost non-existent. Those that could were not proximate, the ones that were proximate could not. So it was Me and my faith. It's not a despairing matter. It's a question of being well prepped.

One thing I wil say though - and maybe discuss more fully sometime - is the whole idea of "marriage culture". It should literally be from the cradle. It's mot very well modelled these days and people reach marriagable age unscholled, unlearned and unaware.

Even if they realise it's early enough, they don't exactly know how, and often they realise too late, and not only do they not know how, they are also a little desperate.


TV

^{https://www.nairaland.com/1374631/important-things-discuss-before-marriage/2#17101406
https://www.nairaland.com/1057288/nairaland-christian-singles-thread-no/13#12442042}

Kimoni:
No Jaybee, it's not and shouldn't ever be about competition. Competition is more like we are trying to outdo each other or trying to prove who is better. Not at all.

Competition can certainly be unhealthy. But it's not only competition - an equalist mindset can do harm as well. They have the first child, the mother takes a year off, perhaps her career suffers because of it.

They have the second, she insists he takes paternity so she can go straight back to work. Afterall, her career is equally important - and she took the hit last time?

Kimoni:
Again, all this stems from my observation (past and present) - a guy wants someone he can share the bills with (cool) but he doesn't think he should take up more house chores (not cool), and he doesn't want the headship compromised in any way (will that work?).

So, some men have raised expectations about a womans financial contribution? But expects to not do anything - or more than if say she was a housewife - domestically?

I don't think there are men with that mindset here or preaching that. In as much as they exist, women should be mindful of marrying them. The flip side of that coin is women who think marriage is about wealth redistribution or a vehicle for them to actualise their selfish dreams. So men need to be wary as well.

Plus, biblical headship is not re-negotiated based on a wife financial contribution - otherwise she could well be head of the home if her income is greater. Again, be wary and marry accordingly.

Kimoni:
As per what the woman uses her money for - honestly, I don't think a man should be concerned about that. He should just provide the basics and if she needs to add value to anything, let her do so as she deems fit. A simple example is the school fees/miscellaneous money I gave above.

As commander I am concerned about everything . If the two main priorities are satisfied and there is additional income generated by the wife, less a reasonable amount for pin money, it should also be spent on the family' behalf. Be that charity, extended family, luxury items, or long-term investments.

Kimoni:
There was this thread about a lady who wanted to further her studies and also take some prof. exams but she was maintaining a joint account with her husband and he wasn't favorably disposed to it. He would rather used the joint account funds for some white elephant projects and when she insisted, the issues started causing friction in the home and was soon spreading to other areas in the home (she was earning much more than her hubby in this particular case and felt should should be given some freedom to utilize her income). He also started accusing her of not submitting to him. So I think a man should strive to provide the basics and hopefully, his good wife will know how to cover up her man's unclothedness

These are issues of immaturity, lack of understanding or selfishness of the individuals within marriage. Foundation, foundation, foundation. Marry right and marry well and this kind of thing will rarely crop up. A woman would marry a man without him having articualted his vision for his marriage and home?

And there was a comment about marrying in "hope/faith". Not sure baout hope, but I married in faith. Faith demanded I conduct myself in a certain way, apply clear biblical principles, submit myself to my family and be humble before God. Faith is not blind.


TV

debosky:
Heh. . .sometimes the asking is enough to 'relieve' the burden in my experience. The 'burden' often is from a sense of not being appreciated and not even the task itself. 'I'm doing all this and this man doesn't even show appreciation/care'.

Like we dont always ask? - "everything ok loff/darlin, sweerie" . Compliment them on the minutest stylistic detail, and testify how scrumptious their burnt offerings are . I learnt not to pander a long time ago. Pander enough and there's a chance you'll get taken for granted.

debosky:
I do agree men are not mind readers but I'm sure you've experienced instances where you were expected to 'know' something but didn't. The only solution I've come up with is ask if in doubt, and when not in doubt sef, else one risks being branded insensitive/unaware

I sold myself on the basis of my caveman allure


TV - the strong, silent type.

bukatyne:
Bros,

I only accused you of editing one post as regards 'equal rights/equal agency' on one polygamy thread. If it is a pasttime of yours, lucky you

Don't make false accusations or unproven allegations against me. Show proof or provide evidence. Saying I materially edited my post and accusing me of lying is just low.

The Bible says "Abraham commanded his household after him". Take your beefs about scripture to God or alternatively keep butchering them like you do now

If you have a point, make it, a position, then defend it. Resorting to smears is contemptible. Work on your comprehension, stop projecting, request clarification if things are not clear - you'll do much better.

Now, kindly excuse me, there's a submission thread I need to go post on !


TV

Kimoni:
TV, I strongly suspect Carrin's husband is going to write something like this if he is asked about the chores he does at home. The bolded makes me think so. Remember Carrin prides herself at being able to do so much at once and doesn't complain, but in reality, she is overworked and admits it to herself a few times. I dare say many women are like that by nature..

The husbands perspective may be completely different - and honest. Carrins "pride" and attendant activity may be entirely of her own making. They can and should discuss this,but again it depends what each of them and both together see as priority.

debosky:
I don't think 'balance' is much different from 'equalist' in the end.

I suppose that depends on usage and context doesn't it.

debosky:
Don't wait till you 'sense' your wife is overdoing it - check in regularly. Most men would have experienced occasions where you're expected to have realised something but haven't.

And you "check-in" and she insists everything is fine? Take cues, have a sense and check in. But does the wife not have agency? If she's running low or needs you to step in, she can't say? Like women will simply work themselves to the bone unless forcibly stopped ! And I'm not a mind reader, if theres something that needs to be discussed - best raise it.

debosky:
I agree natural preference and ability should govern most tasks, but not to the extent it overburdens one party over the other. The goal is the same - upkeep of the home and both should give all that is required to achieve that goal. Keep talking about it and don't be too dogmatic on one way or the other (if you can help it).

Agreed - noting that there are sometimes situations where one party is of a necessity over-burdened. I'm not sure that every or any instance means someone has to be disillusioned or unhappy. There may be times where it's a slog with little respite - deal with it.


TV

Kimoni:
TV, pls allow me and my questions. I have not eaten this morning.

We Spartans don't do brekkie !

Kimoni:
Are you advocating that a woman who thinks she is taking up too much should relieve herself of some others duties/jobs/pleasures to give her more time for the home? If this is it, don't you think she will be a very unfulfilled and dissatisfied wife/mother? If she is not happy, can she give what doesn't have?

I don't want to overly scrutinise Carrins situation, merely use it as something to pivot off. If we agree that the marital bond and children are priority, then if either spouse has a number of interests that are unbalancing the cart or leading to the 2 main priorities not being given the right focus, then yes, something has to give.

Glad I spoke about happiness in an earlier unrelated post. Necessary sacrifice for the well-being of your family should bring you satisfaction and fullfilment. Marriage and family are not first and foremeost about ensuring "happiness" for one individual or a vehicle for pursing selfish desires.

Like I mentioned in that "happy" post. I don't strive primarily to make or keep my wife happy. The expectation/understanding is that building our home and lives together is where that happiness comes from

Kimoni:
In Carrin's case, the husband as was said to be cherry picking the "leisure" jobs around the house even when Carrin is contributing a substantial part of the finances.

If that is the case, there may be some imbalance, but it could be Carrin simply wanting it all? But as noted we can't properly parse Carrins situation, best to illustrate our own models. I think I've outlined my thoughts.

Kimoni:
Agree but also, the ratio of women taking up bigger chunks of the financial expenses in the home is increasing by the day...

There are lots of reasons for this - a whole new thread - and many may well be happy about it. Whatever the case, my primary motivation is to ensure the integrity of marriage and families.

Kimoni:
Agree with this. Biblically, headship shouldn't be tied to provision, but in reality and as humans, we know it becomes increasing difficult for a woman to submit to a man who neither provides(or provides little) in the home and still think he shouldn't be do chores

Agreed, hence I how I stated it. But the truth is, women do not really build respect or necessarily maintain attraction for men on the basis of them doing chores in the absence of the more masculine characteristics.

I maintain - something I again stated earlier - that where possible men should strive to be able to provide 100%. Failing that, still be the main breadwinner. Not necessarily for outliers - if you are both earning loads, it may be a relatively minor issue. But even 100% provision does not mean failing to engage domestically.


TV

Regards chores, I don't take that approach of tasks to be divvied up. And I’d also wonder at an equalist approach. I have a more expansive view - effort, preferences, strengths, contribution, convenience and balance.

There is nothing in the home - bar one or two things - that I cannot do. It's a matter of responsibility & often necessity. Commanding means being competent as well. Which soldier is there that will really respect a general with no battle experience?

My wife isn't feeling heavy lifting, or jobs too dirty for anything more than a pair of kitchen gloves . I do all the heavy stuff. But the heavy stuff is not as frequent as the day to day lighter stuff. So typically I'm pitching in - in a nutshell we will both tend to be doing one of the numerous things that need attending to. Balance & effort

My wife likes loading - the expensive machine she made me buy - and folding. I find hanging very calming ! As able, we tend to do this jointly. Preferences, strengths.

I appreciate the "busy life" aspect of Carrin' story - as that can be the case with just one job each and a few children.

If I sense my wife is tired or overdoing it, I simply tell her to carry it over, or take it over myself. Overall I'm stronger, so in a relative sense probably do more. Contribution & balance.

It’s not “chores”, it’s managing my household and ensuring everyone is well and everything is in order.


TV

bukatyne:
I opened a thread on love and submission last year and yet I don't believe in headship? Liar liar pants on fire

You do not believe in biblical headship which denotes the husband as leader with overall authority in the affairs of his household. Your belief is that the headship means "source" - therefore a woman must not pursue a man !

bukatyne:
The husband is the head of the Home; Head here means source. That's why I do not support a woman to ask a guy out; That's why traditionally we bear our husband's surname (depends on agreement). I have never related headship to mean total authority... You cannot even total authority over your child past a certain stage.

https://www.nairaland.com/2351801/feminism-joke-nigeriafor-now/6#34384171

The above, apart from deying clear biblical writ, is also odd and contradictory to your overall position. Why can't women be the source of the home. Your feminism and "equalist" position must demand that what a man can do/be, a woman is equally capable of doing/being in this sense?

bukatyne:
The fact that nobody has never accused you doesn't mean you have not done it. It might mean they do not have your time. Desperate for what brother?

Nobody has accused me of lying or editing my posts because I simply don't do it. As ever you show how increasingly desperate and muddled you are.

You go through my old posts in order to find a contradiction or hypocrisy in my overall postion. You go to an old post and find it does not say what you thought it said, and your conclusion - I edited it .

Can you see how pauce your thinking is? Was I aware you'd be reviewing my old posts? Or did I know what points future discussion would raise, so as to know what and how to edit past submissions ?

No, what happened was you willfully or maliciously mis-read a previous post of mine, or ascribed something to me which is totally not true - like commmanding meaning "monstering" my wife and family - and then when you went digging to use it against me, couldn't find it, so the single-digit neurons firing in your head concluded I must have edited my post !

Bukatyne, you are not a deep thinker, you do not posses an ordered structured approach to discussions and you are struggling to do the impossible - reconcile Christianity and feminism. Truth is, I could monster any number of your submissions on the shoddy thinking alone - I just choose to spare you .

Please be more considered in future. And complete your homework - studying my past submissions !


TV

Kimoni:
Bet seriously guys, I would only be worried if that article was written by Carrin herself but it isn't.

Ok, we'll give her the benefit of the doubt. The fact remains that she is juggling a number of "jobs" along with motherhood. Without doing what the writer of the article might have done - project onto her situation - lets look at things;

Both husband and wife work as well as raise kids - "if we agree" that raising the kids and keeping the maritla bond strong is a priority, then it stands to reason that she may have to think about sacrificing some of her "multiple career aspirations" to make this happen.

Her husband is also a lawyer. How much is their combined income (all pursuits?), how much do they actually need to live comfortably as opossed to straining to attain level or not thinking of sacrificing personal desires for the long-term interest of the whole. ApexTitan is right if "we agree"

So the first point I'd make is that the priorities of the couple drive a lot of the dynamic

And this brings us to todays reality for most - the need for a dual income. I'll say this to start, yes, womens earnings - or economic empowerment - are on the rise, and they are making increasing contribution to household finances. However, the fact remains, that in the vast majority of cases men are still the major contributors or sole breadwinners where there is just the one.

I don't believe the relative financial contributions should have any bearing on the dynamic in terms of headship - just like any other factor, age, looks, education etc. But in practice it may be hard for some to maintain that line, dependant on a number of factors. And obviously not all actually subsribe to the notion of headship in a biblical sense.


TV

netotse:
@TV
One question:
when you say commanding, what do you mean? the general idea of a "commanding" person is someone who is overbearing and insists on having his way everytime, I'm not certain that's what you're driving at, is it?

I think Tim got it exactly right here;

Timbuktou:
Per commanding, it's more assertiveness than tyranny. This doesn't preclude openness to superior opinion or aversion to common sense.

It's about being assertive, proactively taking charge. Assuming responsibility and knowing the buck stops with you. I like the word commanding as derived from the bible.

Women actually expect and want it in men. You will lose status in their eyes if you are not. This is even as they step in where men fail to deliver, and many will actually try and drag it with them until they see the men are immovable - then they may calm down.

pickabeau1:
Nice points TV01
I think this is so important against the backdrop of Metrosexualisation of men

Cheers.

ApexTitan:
With the current state of affairs how many men will be able to grasp it when you say that it is women who lose themselves in the love of a man? With the growing ascendancy of the feminine imperative how many men will understand what you mean?

I can only share with those I can reach. Ultimately people have to see it for themselves. If I'm right and the consequences are really dire, ultimately there wil have to be a correction. Or, perhaps we learn to live in this altered state in which very few are really happy.

It starting to manifest now - emancipated, entiltled and empowered Western women have never been unhappier. The family has never been more fractured - with the attendant pathologies, and men are increasingly on the outside looking in.

ApexTitan:
I'm sure you know that men are the true romantics. We are the ones that drive romance for the woman, the man is the one that invests emotionally in the idea that a woman will love him for himself - and yet strives (sometimes all of his life) to earn this love that is supposedly unconditional. How is such a man to come to terms with the fact that his pursuit of the woman's love is not the best course he should take?

True, truer, truest. Women for the most part "love" strategically - and that's the good ones. In some ways that's actually a good thing. Men just need to understand. and not fight it, but act accordingly.

5minsmadness:
I however do not subscribe to ignoring a woman's happiness though.

I didn't suggest ignoring it - just not prioritising it or making it a mans prime driver or using it as the ultimate metric of how well his family is doing.

The truth is most of a womans joy comes from getting the right calibre of man to commit to and invest in her. It validates her, gives her status amongst other women, respect in society, as well as care protection and provision for her and their children - most else is just icing. Even sex sef is mostly for the man not her !


TV

For a long time now – certainly as far back as I can remember – men have been increasingly socialised to make pleasing women a driving achievement..

It’s quite obvious if one cares to look, not even too deeply sef. Most especially in the music and the movies. I’ll give a few examples below, but think about it. Magazines, TV, it’s everywhere.

Everything from Percy Sledge’ song “when a man loves a woman”, to the film “Pretty Woman”, indoctrinating men to make securing the love of women paramount – and even women of dubious nature – is relentlessly sold.

In male/female interaction – most especially of the romantic kind – it is women that can lose themselves in the love of a man, not vice-versa. A man has to see beyond his feelings for a woman – and more importantly her emotions and desires – remain focused and act strategically without being unduly influenced by either.

Failure to do so can have dire consequences. Ironically enough, a woman who feels you are subject to her whims will invariably lose respect for you and/or leave you, or cheat on you.

You job as a man is to present as one, enunciate clearly and even be somewhat chauvinist in your manhood. Revel in it, be proud of it and don’t let it be unduly compromised or coloured by any female influence. Proper manhood comes unwrapped and un-whipped.

One of the things that will engender trust, security and submissiveness in your woman is the fact that she knows you are clear-headed and focused, not subject to her whims or even your own impulses.

That you love, hour and cherish her is fine, just as long as she knows that you will not on account of that be weak, compromise or undermine your own integrity.

As a husband, don’t focus on pleasing your wife, focus on being a good husband. I say “nyet” to the saying “Happy wife, happy home”. “It’s commanding husband, strong family”.

I never ever think of pleasing my wife as the key – or even paramount – to running a successful home. I do all the things demanded of a man and husband, and she is happy or not, as the case may be.

If she feels some things need changing, or could be improved or done differently or has an idea, fine, we are always talking. I may even agree. However, her being happy is not the primary driver or of utmost importance.



TV

Stillfire:
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Please go and learn how to love your wives the christian way
Save yourself from hell fire.
Because many women are willing to look away and condone your excesses does not mean you have the right to act like a self-serving brute.

Stilly, Stilly, Stilly, you are quite vehement on this thread. So incensed you've thrown around terms like demonic and hellfire . And quoting scripture like a fire and brimstone preacher as well !

Was it not you that refused to accept the biblical writ of wives submitting to their husbands? This sounds like confusion You are adamant that husbands should practice biblical love - which no one has actually disputed - but utterly reject wives submitting as biblically prescribed.

I'm not actually sure that you even believe or practice. What gives?

cococandy:
I must say the more I go through nairaland, the more I appreciate what I have.

This is pleasant enough sounding, but somewhat opaque. Please share more on this thing "you have" it may school or enlighten some of the men here .

You haven't enunciated any particulars or tied it to any specific ideology or faith profession? All I recall is your marrying someone you could look up to and respect? Is he the head of your household? Does your husband lead his family?


TV

bukatyne:
What should pain me... I am still not getting it ( I am been honest here)

When a man presents properly enunciates his wishes clearly.... again, I laugh.... why presenting properly?

I thought you said your wife is not your inferior and you both have equal agency? (I saw you edited your post in that polygamy thread) what agency means here is for another day. Soon, it will be equal department or equal institution

It is not my fault you keep shooting yourself in the foot when you are caught in on one side.

I told you no leaders? hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha!

Brother TV, don't resort to lies... our posts are still on that thread (that is if you don't quickly edit them again)

You that have 'sole authority' in your 'unequal' household don't use it... (Yet your wife is not your inferior)

How does it feel that you have something and cannot/will not use it?

Like I said before, when you start commanding, we will know.. till then, sit back, relax and go and make madam happy.

Why does it pain you ?

- Head of my household - tick
- Final arbiter possessing veto power in family decisions - tick

- My wife is not inferior
- She has freewill/agency
- She is a loving & submissive wife

I wield authority in my home as and when I see fit - and my wife graciously submits. If I ask my wife to serve me end-to-end at every meal, I don't need to repeat that instruction every time I sit down to eat - geddit now!!

A submissive wife does not need to be hounded - she learns her husbands desires and preferences and consciously or unconsciously makes the requisite adjustments.

That there is no head in your home and you have "equal rights", fine - carry go - nobody is forcing you to live the "Christian model" .

As for your sly insinuation that I "edited" my posts and lied, in over 10 years on NL nobody has ever charged me with those or any of the other similar type offences. You are desperate. I never edit for more than quotation, grammar or punctuation.

Why are you pained that my wife allows me to be a man in my own home? Or someone so enlightened and privileged eschews feminism . And in truth, you can't know if I command or not - but we all know your husband doesn't don't we? - you proudly told us !

Keep on opening masturbatory threads so you can discuss biblical submission with non-believers, atheists and blasphemers - Evangelist Fevangelist Bukatyne



TV

blessedtwins:
its what you said that is about giving an inch and bla bla bla that is selfish and brutish. And that is the chauvinism you should rid yourself of

A sensible man does not give an inch to what is unbecoming.
As for being chauvinist - to be chauvinist is to be confident in, and proud of your manhood - women love chauvinists .

All the best for your union.


TV

Joy1706:
Wow *claps* Bible scholar. Please help me out with the scripture that enjoins Husbands to LOVE their wives.

Thank you - I absolutely agree that the bible enjoins husbands to love, cherish and honour their wives. No one here has disputed that. Many are disputing that a woman must submit to her husband

Joy1706:
And that scripture that tells Husbands and Wives to submit themselves to EACH OTHER.

There is no such scripture .

MrsChima:
Don't quote scriptures that benefits you but also quote scriptures that counteracts as well.

No scripture counteracts what I posted

MrsChima:
Read the verses after the wives submit to your husband verse. The chapter also focuses on CHRISTIAN families and those who are believers.

So, does that nullify the commandment to wives

MrsChima:
It does not apply to non-Christians, non-believers, unmarried couples, and husbands who do not honor Christ and give his life for the church.

I am not writing for the benefit of non-Christinas, non-believers or unmarried couples.
As for husbands "who do not honor" Christ - the commandment to wives is not predicated on what the husband does - short of sin.

MrsChima:
deep huh?

At all


TV

bukatyne:
Stop talking with both sides of your mouth

You command or you don't?

Or you define command with 'Mama I think...'

See wifey is intune with my preferences as if you are not also intune with hers Oya na try your fantasy with her Abi your one-flesh no reach that side?

When you start 'commanding', let us know

Till then, take the back seat when commanders are talking

kikikikikikikikikikikikikikikikikikiki

You are still here prating .

I command absolutely . When a man presents properly and enunciates his wishes clearly, he doesn't have to command repeatedly. Authority doesn't always have to be on show, leadership is in some regards about empowering.

A truly submissive wife does not have to be bossed, but you wouldn't know this as there are no leaders, no commanders and no authority is wielded in your "equalist" household .

Christian wives know how they do - feminists don't be pained

Ephesians 5:22 - Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Ephesians 5:24 - Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Colossians 3:18 - Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
1 Peter 3:1 - Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands,
1 Peter 3:6 - as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good


"Lord Commander" TV

adesbreath:
What if she has a new born to attend to ..I don't see anything wrong in the man dishing out his own food, it's the same man that will tell her the food is cold if she dishes it..do you know if she has a help? They should both try and compromise

Nobody has said there is anything wrong in the man dishing out his own food...neither is there anything wrong in the wife dishing out her husbands food.


TV

blessedtwins:
You sound like my soon to be ex husband.brutish and selfish

"Soon to be ex"? Sounds like there is yet hope.

I am first and foremost an advocate of marriage on NL - wishing a great union on everyone who truly desires it. Your situation is tragic, but hopefully still retrievable.

A wife who is humble and loving will not consider serving her husband as evidence of his being brutish and selfish. Hope you can both make the necessary adjustments and heal and restore your marriage.


TV

bukatyne:
The command you don't do?

Or the non existent one

Kikikikikikikikikikikikikikiki

What should pain me bros? I couldn't identify it

Not "don't do", "don't have to do very much" Wifey is so attuned to my preferences she factors them in and adjusts accordingly, so I don't have to exercise myself with very much commanding. One-flesh innit . I remain head, leader and commander !


TV

bukatyne:
Thank you for the concern, it is not necessary

The concern is not for you - it's for those you would lead astray .

bukatyne:
At least I am not the person who says one thing to paint a picture and does something else.

We command and we serve, I love & cherish my submssive wife. I cannot help if that pains you, or is at odds with Bukatynianity


TV

bukatyne:
In the Bible... Men are to serve their wives etc. we have an example in Jesus when He washed the feet of His disciples

If indeed a husband serves his wife - and children, and community - is he therefore not the head of them?
In washing His disciples feet, was The Lord "mutually submitting to them in love" - as you have described it in the past??
Was The Lord not Head of the Church - as a husband is to be head of the home

bukatyne:
My answer as a Christian doesn't/ will not contradict my answer as a feminist. They all form a part of the whole bukatyne.

Of a necessity, your answer as "christian" must contradict your response as "a feminist" in this case, as they are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled without re-interpreting one or both ideologies.

"The whole Bukatyne" - what is that exactly , a new syncretic reigion, merging christinity and feminism, but being neither fish nor fowl? You must be the only adherent - on NL at least. No other adherent of feminism has claimed it aligns with christianity - especially regards marriage dynamics - on this forum. They all choose one or t'other .

Isn't it a lonely struggle? It must give you palpitations having to make so many assertions that simply don't make sense or accord with either doctrine in order to forcibly align the two - somethings gotta give

https://www.nairaland.com/2351801/feminism-joke-nigeriafor-now/6#34377924


TV

Ewuro4:
#1 ,2,3,4,5 &7 ALL CHECK!

As for #5, Nah. Afro Canadians will never provide an Octogenarian a soapy hand washing water. You walk up to the sink and DIY.

Good early momo morning from my Crib.

Holá J, hope all's well. How are the girls dem? And Oga. Best to all.

I expect posh restaurant service at home. Chateaubriand, not burger shack !


TV

.

Squig:
Did you have doubts about your spouse before your wedding?

No !

Anything else?

TV

bukatyne:
I hope she is kneeling while serving you with her face tilted downwards...

She's a wife, not a slave. Plus kneeling with face down, willl hinder, not help her serving her husband

bukatyne:
We won't except her to be rude enough to look you directly in the eyes... not so

Oga' preference to the fore once again on this. Don't take anything for granted. And it differs from culture to culture. Not everyone lives in Idumota you know

bukatyne:
And she will also rub your back so after food so you will bulch

I take it you mean "belch" - again, Oga' preference.



TV