₦airaland Forum

Timbuktou:
Don't known man, it's just crazy. Is it parliament that enacts these laws or do they just delegate femcentric laws to some feminist NGO to take the piss.

It'as not crazy if you are a nutter - especially a feminist one !

There are now mutterings of ending jail time for women - the rational being that only men are inherently violent . I guess they conveniently forgot the DV stats for gay dyke lesbians .

It will either get to a tipping point, at which stage there will be a backlash, or it will lead to the ruination of the West as we know it. Perhaps some combination of the two? Whatever happens, it will do a lot of damage and be a long, hard road to recovery...if!

IS will be happy to fill the gap - it may be so bad, some may even find them preferable. I know who my money would be on in a face-off between them and the radical progressve liberals of which feminism & faggotism are mainstays.


^{cococandy, timbuktou, ewuro4, armyofone - let me get this right, your take is that the problem here is poor mate selection and high standards}


TV

Mindfulness:
Since when does a third party, a lover or a mistress, decide about divorce?

Such a one is a co-conspirator - and should be charged as such in the event of an unjustified marital break-up. I was pleased to see in the other thread this still obtains in Nigeria .

Mindfulness:
In the Christian worldview but not all of us are Christians. And since not all of us are Christians, your Christianity based definition of what a marriage is or isn't is not universal and not mandatory and not necessarily better or superior or the only right one.

True, it is neither mandatory, nor universal - unfortunately for you warped outlook, it is certified the best form

Mindfulness:
You said polygamy didn't benefit society, didn't you?

No, I didn't

Mindfulness:
Another question TV, do you think monogamy is natural?

Don't derail - or otherwise try and justify your wicked ways - I'm finding it totally natural, optimal and rewarding. Happy to slut shame you if you like.

Mindfulness:
You asked for a definition of love in our discussion and I chose this one because I knew that you are a Christian. It does not mean that I agree with the definition, even though it is a nice one, must say. Like you said TV01, I am responsible for what I write, not what you read into it.

No - l requested your definition of love. Obviously, it has no basis in reason or morailty, so you disingenuously presented the biblical one as your own.

Think of the error of your ways. The damage you've done and the harm you've caused. Even non-Christians are blessed with a conscience


TV

Timbuktou:
I recently heard about this and, frankly, I don't understand the rationle behind it. Does abuse suddenly make one a model/worthy citizen or is there some inherent latent value in a person that slaps and punches awaken that these government are awake of?

Rational It's feminist driven policy - not sure the two words belong in the same sentence. Apologies, I am simply not progressive enough to make sense of this. Best call on one of our resident Feminist ideologues.


TV

Mindfulness:
Has anyone said that divorce is the intent or logical outcome of a marriage? Did anyone say that it is a desired outcome? I have not come across such a post, yet.

So what is your point prating on about it? In as much as there are narrow accomodations, they are not for frivolous or selfish reasons like "I loff and want him", even though he's been married for years and has children

Mindfulness:
Why is polygamy an aberration and not benefitting society?

In the Christian wolrdview it is an abberation. Who said it did not benefit society?

Mindfulness:
The sorrows of other people are none of my business.

Of course, that's why you keep quoting "love does no harm" and "love does not seek it's own", or "thinks no evil" or "is kind", from the Bible.


TV

pickabeau1:
1. If one is not happy with a marriage mate and you can divorce with no fault, what is wrong with serial divorces?

What is wrong with not getting married?

pickabeau1:
Afterall some men do it

Doesn't make it right. And unless you have an unthinking "equalist" approach, why should women do it just because men do? Having said that, do women not do this?

pickabeau1:
2. More than the serial divorcing issue is the fact that she may have lied to paint the men bad.. why is this so
A slapped her
B was a chid r@pist
C was this
D was that
Why all this?

Abuse allegations are a clincher, home run - they shut down any argument and cast you as the victim. You garner all the sympathy, no one scrutinises the real detail of the case, and if they do, they are heartless unthinking abuse justifiers

In both the US and UK if a woman is waiting for papers and splits with her husband/partner befoere she is eligible, if she claims abuse, her stay is fast-tracked regardless. Abuse is a serious issue, but it's rararely discussed or dealt with as it should be.


TV

Mindfulness:
I am neither a self-proclaimed advocate nor expert so I am asking the advocate and expert to educate me on the history of marriage and how divorce was never part of it. You are such a perfect role model for Christianity, you won't deny a request, will you?

You are free to take up marriage advocacy. And no, you are not an expert in marriage, just in wrecking them ! Request? From a blasphemer .

Mindfulness:
Let me help you, divorce has ALWAYS been an option in the history of marriage and exclusivity is tied to the Christian doctrine but not universal to all cultures.

Indeed, divorce is an option even in a Christian marriage - does that make divorce the intent, or a logical outcome? Or mean that divorce is a good or desired outcome?

And exclusivity/mongamy being the Christian way does not mean it is only the Christians that practice it. Secondly as you continue to demonstrate your self-seeking and unthinking approach, monagamy exists in pretty much all cultures.

Polygamy being permitted, does not mean it's mandated. And even where it is extant it is always taken up less than monogamy or no-marriage.

Polygamy may appear to make sense in certain s/t situations, but I consider it an abberation, and not benefitting society as monogamy does. Anyway, you are not concerned with monogamy or polygamy, or marriage as such, just justifying exercising your willful unthinking desires.

Mindfulness:
Bukatyne, go a few pages back and have a look at all the research cited there that disproves all the sentimental statements made on this thread, especially with regard to females and math.

I wanted to take the topic further and show how some initiatives narrowed the gender gap in several fields and subjects but someone ran away.

Initiative can indeed change the "gender gap" - they don't change the wirting of men and women. We call that social engineering. I'm always here if you have anything to say - especially where you mirepresent na=marriage or blasphem the bible.

You can't build true happiness on anothers sorrow.


Learner !


TV

So, you feel male superiority is a "popular belief" on this section and instead of addressing it as it raises it's head, you think the best way to tackle it is to insinuate it into a thread where it is not evident, and accuse someone who doesn't espouse it?

And as a marriage advocate, I am "duty-bound" to apportion blame in potential or real divorce situations !

Your own brand of genius and campaigning is beyond me. Carry go


TV

bukatyne:
Christianity was an analogy; it could be islam; Yoruba; hausa etc.



I address issues as they arise if I am interested in doing so; however I must confess there is usually a temptation to call posters out when they are red on thread one and blue on thread two.



Keep living in your little shell; you don't espouse... fine however, you can't speak for others.




It is no fault of mine you do not understand an analogy re the fat and thin stuff; My 'equalist' approach to issues.... what should be my approach? Unequalist? Considering the fact I have been called an anti-feminist and penis worshipper when I call out women who are wrong, I am not fazed. Add that to my on-line titles . A new one is divorce advocate

If you find my posts bland and boring, skip them. It is not difficult. Of course, when it calls out the women, it becomes a rich and refreshing one.




When I do not understand a post, I ask. When I want to call out people, I also do specifically. I called you out because you brand yourself as a marriage advocate and is always missing in action when the husband is at fault.

Read meaning into posts, I have got no time for that.

Thanks for the friendly heads-up... however, absolutely not necessary

What's feminian? and what's your problem with the fact am I feminist?

Mindfulness:
contrary to all research on the topic.

Mindfulness:
Come on now TV, as a self-proclaimed expert on marriage it should be easy for you to educate me on the history and purpose of marriage and how divorce was never a part of it.

"Self-proclaimed" advocate. But now you mention it, I suppose I am quite expert . Again, if you want to engage and set the ball rolling, please do so. If you post anything I deem worth responding to, I may.

Mindfulness:
I am an eternal being, I don't know what death is.

...yet.


TV

Mindfulness:
You have already made your choice to avoid the topic as best as you can because you knew that you could only lose it.

Avoid the topic? Marriage is all I talk about. If you have anything to posit or interesting to share, by all means do. As for "lose it" - that's always a probability - just not against you

Mindfulness:
This is what I love about life.

...then best consider your ways as you approach the first and second deaths


TV

bukatyne:
That post was addressed to you.

I often wonder, is it comprehension, deduction, a memory disorder, an "inferior" IQ , or outright psychosis? Along with your ever present "complexes", it's kind of hard to tell really, as you at times present conditions & symptoms singularly or severally.

So, you call me to a thread I have no interest in - I arrived on page 6. I subsequently made clear my position;

TV01:
This thread is not about marriage, it's about divorce. So no, it's not what my vision is about.

which you had already acknowledged;

bukatyne:
I know you brand yourself as someone passionate about marriage; I was wondering if the picture painted on this thread is what your vision is about.

So please kindly explain how you made the unfathomable leap from there to here;

bukatyne:
@TV01:To have 'passion' for less divorces is not enough; men and women need to be trained on how to make their marriages work.

Then this;

bukatyne:
The emphasis on men because women have been trained for so long unfortunately, a tree cannot make a forest.

Who are my main audience on this forum? Do I not regularly - despite the fact that it could be considered somewhat off - drop comments specifically exhorting men? Have I not written a series of pieces advising men?

And this;

bukatyne:
Men believing it is OK to cheat or throw bullshyte because they paid bride price or did 3 wedding ceremonies or are superior to women is unfortunately NOT an attitude that will help build strong marriages.

Where have I ever said, insinuated or supported anything even remotely like what you typed

And this;

bukatyne:
Teaching people epecially women to stay in shitty marriages so stem the divorce/seperation rate is futile.

Where, when or to whom have I ever advised to stay in a "shitty marriage" - and only in order to "stem the divorce rate"
I can only recall one instance of properly responding to a divorce type situation;
https://www.nairaland.com/1284024/broken-dejected-found-out-wife/2#15635959

And all addressed specifically at me You have been willfully mis-ascribing things to me for as long as I've known you on this forum. I am always happy to be called out and open to challenge, but this kind of thing is simply quite pathetic.

I've advised you previously - stop having soliloquies in your own head and mistaking them for real life. Stop looking for imagined enemies to wage your campaigns against. If the issues are really there address them as they arise and direct your rejoinders to whomsoever raises them.

C'mon Bukatyne, I'm sure you are better than mere nuisance value.


TV

bukatyne:
This your post is all over the place.

TV01...always to the point and on point .

bukatyne:
And sorry, I do not deal with posters per thread/post, I deal with them per their claimed belief system.

No problem with that - especially since my belief system is plain "Christianity" . No hybrids or syncretism - such as "christian feminsit", which may confuse poster and responder

bukatyne:
If moniker analog claims to be a Christian, I relate with him as such. If I see a post he references God, I assume it is God till he tells me he was referring to Allah.

Makes sense so far...albeit repetitively

bukatyne:
The fact nobody has mentioned superiority/inferiority of the sexes on this thread (if it was done, pardon me; I didn't read all posts) doesn't mean it is not a popular belief in this section.

But as ever you trip at the first hurdle - why not address an issue where it arises, instead of reading it into a random thread. That says more about you and your agenda than the actual alleged "theme" .

And no, I don't see it as a popular belief and certainly not one I personally espouse - more evidence of your paranoid equalist agenda. Bukatyne, it's hurting you !

bukatyne:
@combination victim mentality/inferiority complex: Funny funny funny

It's standard diagnosis for sour feminists. Hence (1) Your whining about a "superiority theme" where non exists, and totally off-point rant about women having to be fat then thin? and (2) your "equalist approach to every issue. It's boring and bland - almost every thread there's a comment from you along the lines of "...it would be different if it were a man" or "apply that to the husband". Boring, bland and predictable.

bukatyne:
This is a forum to discuss so we are bound to address them

Address them as they appear and be specific as to who you callout. As well as making more sense, you'd probably get better results. Weak attempts to read meaning into an innocent post so as to further your campaign merely mark you as befuddled. Friendly heads-up !

bukatyne:
In my world, no victim mentality neither is there inferiority complex

It's writ large Bukatyne. Our thoughts and prayers - Christian not Feminian - are with you !


TV

Mindfulness:
I wasn't talking about this post. You avoided talking about the history of marriage and we both know why. Are you ready now?

I have seen ample evidence that you are only intent on pressing for your own desires - the old "do as thy will" commandment. You willfully misrepresent both marriage and love to that end.

If you have anything to say about marriage, say on, if I see anything worth responding to, I may choose to do so - or not .

Mindfulness:
EXACTLY and EXTREMELY HAPPY. No regrets.

You will reap what you sow.


TV

bukatyne:
1. @Women not allowed to do STEM etc: I started this thread remember So I questioned the forced representation first which posters have brought nice points in favour of.

Pele 0! Thread starter. At least this one was a bubbly child

bukatyne:
2. Re soft and hard STEM: I thought they were classified into biological and physical? Your soft and hard was to subtly ridicule the efforts put into the biological sciences (afterall, women populate the biological aka soft sciences So it must be soft)

As someone here says, I am responsible for what I write, not what you read, or read into it. In context we are discussing STEM, particularly the TEM aspect as that is proving the sticking point in term of female participation.

I actualy went back and checked - I referenced Bellongs post which touched on the higher mathematical type demands and specifically noted "TEM". Harder in this sense clearly meant the mathematical requirements.

I even went on to say that women could certainly excel in TEM, just unlikely to do so at the same rate as men, because of mens comparative advantage, and also womens choices. Nothing in that post - or any other - said men were superior to women, or vice-versa, just that they have different relative strengths.

Funny how you love to accuse people of picking snippets from a post, when you have done exactly that here ! If you have nothing else, then the bolded question remains unanswered.

bukatyne:
3.@bold: That was a joke right? I do not know a more popular theme here.

Again, your "equalist" led perspective colours your perception. Many have been discussing relative differences in wiring, strengths and choices - you read - or twist - that to mean claims are being made for superiority - again, I can't help your combination victim mentality/inferiority complex.

bukatyne:
4.@ women's looks: it was an analogy and I was not laying the blame on men; more on 'society' (whosoever makes up the ever present ghostly society).

This is still bogus - are men not judged on more? Their looks, height, pocket, status etc?

bukatyne:
It ties well into the superiority stuff....
When a big woman was seen as the deal, slimmer women were seen as suffering etc.
Now, a slim woman is the deal and bigger women are doing all to be slimmer.

Oily fish

bukatyne:
Doublex also used the analogy of English as a language. Non-English speakers are seen as non-intelligent.

More oily fish - no one said women are not intelligent - just that men and women have different relative strengths and preferences.

Do you have anything else - other than insinuation?


TV

Kimoni:
No point TV01, no point taking her on as our values on marriage are pararell lines that would never meet. Again, why engage someone who is quick to go off on your family during a sane debate? To what end?

Biko, let me try and keep this short fuse of mine under tight lock and key.

I disagree. Tedious as it may be, marriage is a societal artefact - it belongs to us all. So we are in a sense duty bound to treasure it for the benefits it accords.

One way of doing this is to defend it from attack. Her values are hers, marriage is ours. If her values are inimical to marriage, she is free to reject it, not infect or pervert it for everyone.

There is also a duty of care for those who may be listening, some may will swallow her not so subtle lies wholesale without much thought. It's poison.

Saying proclamations of love gives one the right to act as they please to satisfy that feeling is plain wrong in the context of marriage, and blasphemous when she tries to tie it to the biblical prescription for love.

She is almost certainly championing this path because it's one she has trodden - trying to normalise - even moralise - it is a lame attempt at self-justification. Pretty typical for transgressors of her type.


TV

daretodiffer:
I won't use the word ‘many' however I do agree that some divorced are frivolous

We could argue that forever, and back and forth between most and many - first having agreed on what constituted frivolous, but here you go;

AyeeIdris:
But there is a lot of nonsense cases.

TV

Kimoni:
Good news if this is really happening in Nigeria.

I think this was Edwife and byvan03 stance in that "other woman's" thread. Like byvan argued, I also agree they (man and mistress) should be jointly culpable.

Yes 0! I hear so much of no-fault divorce, I actually didn't realise, that not every nation had signed up to it. Only the "progressive", feminist led ones .

I was waiting for you all to deal with mindfulness - who claimed the woman "had a right". I'd honestly like her to tell us what that right is, and explain the underlying principle.

I'd also like her to explain how that "right" overrides a legal, cultural (societal), traditional (historical), moral and for many spiritual recognition of the agreement, contract, vows and covenant(sacrament) the couple made.

The positions such people take are often not even worthy of ridicule. High expectations....


TV

Mindfulness:
You know so much that you avoided a matter-of-fact discussion as usual.

At all. Your post was so plainly dumb - and there is simply no other word that does it justice - that I didn't feel the need to discuss - but out of the kindness of my heart, I'll explain .

Mindfulness:
If the husband is ok with it, I see no problem.
They should have discussed such issues before they married.
I do not believe in prohibition. Nothing good can come out of forced freedom restrictions. Whatever you do in your marriage should be agreed upon and not by force.

Marriage has a number of particulars, one of these is consent, another is exclusivity. If one doesn't agree or desire that fine, marriage they say "is not by force" - but marriage is what it is. The freedom restrictions as termed, are not "forced", they are understood and voluntarily entered into when one agrees to marry.

If agreement means contravening the essence of marriage,, then it is in a sense void - not actually a marriage. And your insinuation is that marriage is simply what the couple choose it to be. No, it's by definition, and it's what they choose it to be within that definition.

Again, you know nothing of marriage, give lousy relationship advice and are an inveterate troll.

Mindfulness:
The one with your wife? You better ask her.

How easily exposed they are. What happened to the kumbaya singing champion of harmony and pursuer of peace ! Now you've been rumbled you've come out fangs bared. You are a transgressor.


TV

bukatyne:
@TV01: To have 'passion' for less divorces is not enough; men and women need to be trained on how to make their marriages work.

Although you prefaced this with my moniker, I take it you are not addressing me specifically? If you are, I couldn't be more puzzled. I don't think anyone on this section is clearer,or enunciates more fully, their mission statement, or whom their main target audience is

bukatyne:
The emphasis on men because women have been trained for so long unfortunately, a tree cannot make a forest.

As above - if it's is me you are addressing directly, I can only guess there is something amiss.

bukatyne:
Men believing it is OK to cheat or throw bullshyte because they paid bride price or did 3 wedding ceremonies or are superior to women is unfortunately NOT an attitude that will help build strong marriages.

You would teach your grandmother to suck eggs - like seriously?

bukatyne:
As a norm, people do not marry to divorce in future. They marry to build a life together irrespective of whether old age/pregnancy/young age/loneliness/companionship/money/whatever reason.

Are you, like, having a conversation in your head with me, that I know nothing about? Not that I would know,mind or care, but repeating that in public is plain odd

bukatyne:
Teaching people epecially women to stay in shitty marriages so stem the divorce/seperation rate is futile.

Ok, who's logged in as Bukatyne and posting sket - and in a way that suggests there are some pathologies that need addressing

This one was incorrectly addressed - please return to sender !


TV

AyeeIdris:
The law allows you to join the party that your spouse is cheating with, to the suit. Nice right. The courts very rarely grants compensation against them though. It is very difficult to prove. This one was easy Cos they had done traditional marriage. we asked for 10 million sef. Court only granted one. My boss was a strong believer in Go big or go home.

I like that the co-cheat is joined to the suit. Even if any actual monetary compensation is only a token, at least they are shamed - and rightly so.

I love shaming - slut-shaming, fat-shaming, divorce-shaming, bitter and frustrated single-shaming, single mother-shaming, pretend single-mother shaming, skirt-surfer shaming

If only they would add shunning join


TV

coogar:
only the state of north carolina upholds such laws where a wife can sue the other woman for criminal conversation & she would pay damages if found guilty.

as per your question, i don't think it can happen when no-fault divorce is the law.

Daa.y.uum...Nigerian law is so advanced . Who was it whingeing about the Nigerian constitution discriminating earlier? If the applied this in the West, the divorce rate would shoot right down.

Almost 80% - depending on who you listen to - of divorces are initiated by women, many of them frivolously. If they knew they wouldn't be rewarded and possibly lose their kids, they'd be incentivised to work on their marriages instead of de-frauding their hard-working husbands.


TV

coogar:
nike was a co-defendant in court.
when a male spouse is accused of adultery, the law mandates the plaintiff to join the adulteress as a respondent........and damaged can be claimed if the adulteress is worth something tangible.

i can't remember if nike paid anything though. she asked N5m from nike but i doubt she got anything. i don comot for area to really follow up the case back then.

I quite like that. Surely that can't happen where "no-fault" divorce is the law?


TV

LordReed:
Unless "my permission" means something other than my approval then I believe I am correct.

...I take your point if you are aggregating all the posts. I read liberty as freedom - "regards & on social media". The permission referred to above was the "specific relationship" with this guy. There is nothing wrong with him being aware of, and okaying it if he is comfortable. That's consonant with my original post. However, he is no longer comfortable, and has every right as a spouse to voice his concerns and request...


TV

AyeeIdris:
Don't mind them. I was one of the counsel for Mrs Soleye then. She asked for 75 million, got 25million and properties in London. She got one million from Nike. So you men can keep deceiving yourselves. Go to courts today. Women are fighting for huge payday.another one we were handling, the guy was paying her lawyer fees of about 2 million even as she was suing for half hus properties.

If you don't pay, its not hard. Unless you don't want to live/return to naija again, the courts have ways of enforcing judgements

Please forgive my ignorance of this case. I hate divorce - as all lovers of marirage do !

But please, are you saying Nike (was she not the mistress?) also had to make a court-mandated payout? In these days of "no-fault divorce" - not sure if that obtains in Nigeria - I quite like that, but am not sure how it could happen? Nail the covenant breakers and the accomplice .


TV

LordReed:
The giving of liberty was referring to the use of social media not to the friendship. And even if it was referring to the friendship unless you married an immature person I believe an adult should have the ability to determine and set appropriate boundaries and so should not require tacit approval for friendships of this sort. If as a spouse you see that something inappropriate is going on then you should speak up but requiring approval either means one is immature and/or the other is overbearing.

...he said "liberty", not "approval". And I take your point about social media. But as you said "even if" - if a spouse considers a relationship to be innapropriate, they have a right to question it and possibly request their other half end it. Although I suggested the possibility of immaturity in my response, immaturity is not the only reason a relationship of this type may be deemed innapropriate or get out of hand.


TV

Mindfulness:
They should have discussed such issues before they married.
I do not believe in prohibition. Nothing good can come out of forced freedom restrictions. Whatever you do in your marriage should be agreed upon and not by force.

Haven't I said you know nothing about marriage and aren't interested in it? I have to add to that, that you proffer the absolutely atrocious relationship advice

Please tell us about the relationship you had/are having with someone already partnered. Don't come here to lie 0! It was always evident !


TV

bukatyne:
Maybe there is a quest for parity because women have been told over the years that men are superior because they are different.

No, just that men and women are indeed different, and have different relative strengths, even though there is a very high degree of overlap. Which is demonstrable and makes absolute sense, whether you believe in creation or evolution.

And it's more like a quest for sameness, not parity. Equal opportunity and open access is all but universal.

bukatyne:
Even the tone of this thread at one point was that there was 'soft' STEM because women were more in those areas and there was 'strong' STEM.

IFF you were referring to my earlier post, it was "soft" and "hard". Hard being to involve more pure math, modelling and the like. Hard in a TEM sense - all of which play to mens strengths. Soft - for example medicine, bio-medicinal sciences - look for other things. No one asks about your bedside manner or empathy when it comes to coding. Check out the requirements for becoming a medical Dr.

bukatyne:
The earlier we appreciate everyone's differences without some set thinking they are superior, the better for everyone of us.

Which is totally ironic, as the move to equalise representation ignores that very fact of difference - what exactly is your point? Nobody has stated men are superior, just that men and women have different relative strengths, and when it comes to STEM, especially the more mathematical based ones, men have an edge. Please, show us where anyone has plainly said or even implied that men are superior to women

No one has said that women can't or shouldn't be allowed to do STEM, or all men are better than all women when it comes to STEM, or that women are inferior. We appreciate the difference and question forced and unthought through re-engineering in the name of equal representation.

bukatyne:
AT one point, sumptuous women were seen as the deal and women were fed to be fat.

Bogus - was it men that formulated or enforced that ideal? What on earth does this even have to do with questions of equality, superiority or not

bukatyne:
Today, women are told slim is superior and we have the statistics to show the number of women suffering from anorexia and other eating disorders

Likewise, is it men that peddle, or enforce, or shame women because of this - at least any more so than women? Everyone knows the typical man prefers curvy. Curvy 0! not obese. And no one is typically checking for anorexic chicks .

Case dismissed


TV

bukatyne:
Thanks for the response.

You are welcome

bukatyne:
I was also asking for your opinion of the thread; not OP alone.

What exactly? The content, the positions, the camps ! I would think opinions would be about the issue, no?

bukatyne:
I know you brand yourself as someone passionate about marriage; I was wondering if the picture painted on this thread is what your vision is about.

This thread is not about marriage, it's about divorce. So no, it's not what my vision is about.

bukatyne:
And @ second bolded, who are they? I guess you are referring to coco's thread

Guess away!

bukatyne:
A pity that's all you picked out of a fine thread.

It may well be fine by your definition, but it wasn't fine by mine. And, at least I said why on the thread. You could have responded to that there. Be careful, passion can bite !


TV

5minsmadness:
How does he "be a man and stop it"? what if she now starts communicating with him in secret?

cc tearoses, TV01, toks2008, mindfulness
Having a similar case with a couple. Your input will be highly appreciated.

Apologies 5mins, I was late to this one.

Dammytosh, Toks2008 & RoyalRoy have spoken - and pretty much captured everything, although there may be exceptions. So for example, I'd have no problem with a 130 year old related man talking to my wife a lot - but I'd still keep a beady eye on things, especially if he were richer than me

Listen - and this works both ways. After God - for those that believe - your prime and inviolate relationship is with your spouse. And no matter how innocent or platonic a relationship with an unrelated memeber of the opposite sex may be, if they are uncomfortable with it, their concerns should be taken seriously.

Even if their discomfort is due to insecurity, a lack of self-esteem or whatever. Part of your job is to help your spouse grow out of such feelings, by giving them the assurance that they indeed come first, and the confidence that you take their concerns seriously. If it is due to insecurity et al, to do otherwise would just feed that insecurity. You work with what you married!

Now specifically to the "be a man" question; First one has to adopt the right posture as a man and a husband - check yourself, are you in any way neglecting or failing your wife? Not that that's an excuse, but women by nature are prone to latch onto percieved validation and demonstrations of affection.

It may well be innocent to begin with, but if a "breach" develops in your relationship, it will be easy for this man to step in - if that is his intent -and very easy for the wife to succumb in her vulnerable state. Please search for the Whyme222 thread.

That is why it's almost always best to set tight boundaries for relationships of this nature and ensure they are not crossed. Preventative is always better and less costly than curative.

One wonders how he went from zero to hero in his wifes esteem? Anyhow, he is now uncomfortable with it, there is no official reason for them to communicate, so he simply asks her to end it. Her reaction wil be quite revealing in itself.

If need be, he can have the heart2heart chat, explaining why he feels that's the right decision for their union. Again, if she respects her husband, her response will be telling.

If she's loose and/or self-seeking, or even just immature, he's already in it, and some dialogue may be pointless, and his control limited. Foundation! foundation!! foundation!!!

@Bukatyne & LordReed - as for "giving liberty", I feel that's exactly right, such relationships should be avoided at all cost and where they exist innocently, the other spouse should be aware and comfortable with it.


TV

bukatyne:
Interesting thread.

OP, do What you feel is best for you.

Bellong, TV01, etc. your opinion is needed on this thread.

I have my reasons.

...the title of the thread is "Divorce Lawyers In D House, Pls I need Some Advice" - pray tell what advice would a "divorce lawyer" give?

queenfav:
God She is right to feel angry,disapointed and all,but divorce is a big deal and shouldn't be the first solution to problems in marriage.

kudos and well said. This sentence could be a banner in this section Only spoilt somewhat by the the post that preceded it - otherwise great !

queenfav:
Except its a case of domestic violence,I don't see any situation that can't be fixed in an amicable way.

Those who would tarnish marriage, make DV something "men do to women" and sell a dialectic of divorce or death are obviously making headway


TV

Stillfire:
Lmao! TV01, why are you such a party pooper?
Don't worry. I will be the person to pour water on you when you faint as a result of hearing about the many inventions by Nigerian girls.

Invent, as in invention? Do you actually grasp the implication of that word. To create, originate or facilitate through ones own faculties and effort. And not just any old thing, something that will be useful & progressive at that

Stilly, please, lets be honest with each other, that is not even within the purview of pretty much any Nigerian male. Where is the enabling environment, the legacy, the tradition? Of building and maintaining sef, let alone creating.

Maybe in the murky past, but at this point in time, Nigeria does not have ambience required. Even those who attain off the back of what has gone before, do not do so in a climate of desperation and impoverishment. People look to sate their base needs first.

Sad innit? But that's the truth and Nigeria could well be a metaphor for black. Right now, there is litttle hope beyond Nigerians making refinements or progressing in fields already developed - and even this is typically in the enabling Wext.

The world today is not "black led" in any area of real significance. The best The best we can hope for is to excel in what obtains. Then press on to create that right environment.

Afterall, even the "Asian races" that Mindfulness lauded have created very little of note - but they have learnt to progress and excel even beyond the creators in some cases.


TV

AlPeter:
Sir, I prostrate finish!
I have been reading your comments on different issues and they are always spot on. May God give you more wisdom.

You are too kind...thank you. And amen to your gracious prayer, may it rebound to you many fold.


TV

The history of marriage – and from different perspectives/cultures – makes great reading/discussing if one is interested. However, when one understands what marriage is for and why it came into being – as opposed to what it is often used for – then it won’t lead to sharp disagreements.

It is pointless us discussing in depth because of your basic positions on marriage & love, where the two intersect and the morality surrounding them. You ascribe a morality or righteousness of sorts to proclamations/feelings of emotional love. And on the basis of this, a justification for any actions predicated on it.

Hence, you see nothing wrong with someone being prepared to wreck a marriage, or abandon their responsibilities in pursuit of the object of their love.

You are even happy to employ a biblical definition of love – which is diametrically opposed to what you believe - with no sense of irony? The bible talks about a selfless, sacrificial love, yours is a selfish, inconsiderate and often harmful desire. You have to be trolling me?

Mindfulness:
Let us try to define what love is now:
How about this definition?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

My post here – especially the final 3/4 paragraphs - was specifically for those who may not spot the error. https://www.nairaland.com/2694078/hes-good-man-should-she/1#39449692. You see marriage as being justified by feelings or desires, when indeed, it’s the other way round. In doing so, you empty marriage of its purpose and meaning – and are prone to beliefs such as the following;

Mindfulness:
Marriage is not necessarily a lifelong union. It is if you go by the Christian doctrine but not everyone is a Christian and you can LAWFULLY divorce in many countries because people have different concepts of the institution called marriage and always have had them, across different cultures and ages.

Just as you believe that marriage does not have to /was not meant to be permanent. As noted, nobody stops anyone from having the relationship they desire, and living it the way they choose. But not all relationships qualify as marriage.

You are not interested in marriage


TV