₦airaland Forum

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

Joy1706:
Please I will want to know the opinion of people.
My husband insists I dish his food. For instance, if I set the food on the table with plates and cutlery, he prefers I dish onto his plate, that it shows complete service.i think otherwise because I might be busy attending to other chores. This morning he almost left for work without taking breakfast and when i asked why he was leaving, he said the service was not complete. So I had to leave what I was doing to dish food for him.

What are your views on this?

My views?

The wife is in serious dereliction of her duty. The expectation is;

1. She prepares all meals fresh in direct accord with his taste and preferences
2. She sets-up and serves him accordingly
3. She waits on him while he eats - being proactive in ensuring he has all he needs
4. She clears up at his prompting - although she should learn to take non-verbal cues here.
5. She presents warm soapy water for washing hands, followed by a scented towel for drying - he may prefer you to dry, verify this.
6. She should thank him for allowing her to be of service
7. She should make enquiry as to how she could have improved the service

I also think he's a bit slack for permitting this slovenly approach - give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. As for "having other chores to attend to", what could take priority over serving your husband .

Arrant nonsense. A woman that loves and is committed to you will love to serve you. All these side-chicks masquerading as wives. Next she'll be asking for you to consider her needs during intimacy .


TV

Timbuktou:
As usual, the paranoid ediots have to make it a he versus she argument.

It's the "Equalisers" .
Anything a man does, a woman must be able to do. And in the same way, with the same outcomes. No thought given to the moral value, and totally ignoring any biological or physical drivers. And if the women can't do it, men must stop doing it or change it so that they can. Although they pass where it is risky, dangerous or otherwise unglamorous.

Everything must be equalised. If it means changing the language, so be it, denying reality, so be it, re-writing the bible, so be it, getting mad at God - He must be challenged about His sexism and heteronormative bigotry - so be it.

They are fun to watch na, and there's no end of laughs yanking their "angry" chains. Allow o jare !


TV

Kimoni:


I just had this feeling I don't hear half of it and nobody would tell, so I had to install a CCTV in the house so I can see every damn thing that goes on in the house. And the app is right there on my phone so I get to see it all from anywhere on this planet

It's just that I rarely have the chance to playback everything I miss Of course, my husband thinks I am paranoid but I remind him of my 9 month journey

Ah, ah. CCTV ke!...na penitentiary? .

What do you expect? Men and their children - especially boys - na rough play and proper "manhandling" !


TV

5minsmadness:
The only thing is thier mom got upset when she found out i was giving her kids beer to help them sleep at night...She refused to leave them with me after that

...abi 0, 5 mins.

You too have the type that thinks nobody can look after the child like she can? Always raising an eyebrow at my unique "manparenting" methodology

She went on a 5 day residential course once. Always calling, constant face-timing. We'd be playing our special "gbosa" wrestling game, F/T, just sitting down to eat F/T, we'd be in the middle of having water games in the bath, F/T. And I rarely keep my phone to hand. Kilode gan sef

Even small things like calling the baby carrier a holster? Slightly late nappy changes or not feeding to the second. Proper helicopter mum. I can't even tell her half the escapades we have when she's not around - she'd like faint .


TV

vivienobidike:
The lies society keeps telling us..no wonder we have some women that the only thing they have to themselves is bearing another mans name
..remove it and they are nothing.

I believe this post. is very straight forward. A woman can be anything she wants to be without the societal requirement of having a man by her or she amounts to nothing.

So is she expected to halt her dreams, feel less of a human because she has no man?

For those saying.. the dream of every lady is to get married.. I beg to disagree

Marriage is seriously overrated.
Everyone won't get married...
Some will get old and die single ...not because they couldn't get a man but because they decide not to.

Like I said...if marriage comes in the process. of self actualization, embrace it. Don't live your every minute feeling less of yourself because the society tells u so..

Total hogwash

Live your life
Affect those around you
You weren't created ONLY to get married and bear another mans name
There is a bigger purpose
Marriage should be an addition
A topping on the cake
Not the entirety of your existence on earth.

Mutter, please, you are needed here 0 !


TV

ApexTitan has answered you accordingly.

Note;

The study was only done over 6 years - and almost certainly amongst younger couples. We all know about the "flush" that comes with a new relationship. Especially one that has very few cares - other than simply being together.

And more so when one does not have to give thought to long-term considerations, knowing that you can simply walk, if it doesn't meet your expectations. There is no happiness like that which is care, cost and commitment free.

With marriage comes more than selfish expectation, and for many - especially men, lots of pressure, and a not so easy burden. But you see, individual gratification and selfish measures of "happiness" are not what marriage is primarily about.

The measure of a marital relationship is not simply how "happy", or how much of their desires they satisfy, or if they get the gratification they crave. Marriage is about bringing joy, making others happy and sometimes stifling your own desires to do so.

A good marriage can ask that of you. It doesn't make men responsible per se, but it may well demands heightened levels of responsibility and sacrifice from them.

Marriage is about way more than the individuals in it, or even their happiness as a couple. It gives greater guarantee of good outcomes for children - which the studies you posted conspicuously failed to mention - and these outcomes are greater for life-long marriage, not a derisory 6 year span. I wonder how they studies would have panned out over even 10 years?

Marriage is about bloodlines, kinship ties and strong communities. It's about inheritance, generational prosperity and strong nations. You see the studies you referenced although seemingly researching marriage, had very little to do with it.

It was merely considering “relationship happiness “, which is but one aspect of marriage – not the sum - and not something you have to be married or even co-habbing to experience.

Feel free to predicate your position on individual autonomy and desires, no one denies you that. But your attempts to equalise all relationships, or all individual choices, to justify your stance is simply lame and unthinking. Please try harder.


TV

ronald4lif:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/living-together-may-be-even-better-for-your-health-than-marriage-1424145641

http://www.today.com/health/couples-who-cohabitate-are-happier-marrieds-1C9382221

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1248423

The above are just three among other links of research that suggest cohabitation is better or same as marriage. For the record, I don't submit to these research even as I don't agree anyone is better and it's subjected to individual's perspective. I'm aware there are also many studies that posits marriage is better as either is derived from the pundits and the community/individuals whose opinions were collated.

I'm not backing cohabition but saying that whichever of the two anyone finds suitable they should grab it and care less about objections and what the greater populace thinks. No one should rub in their opinion on others. Just accept which you think is right for you and let others theirs.

ronald4lif:
I'm sure consensus wouldn't agree that marriage is more likely to produce a more effective outcome than other forms of relationships if the survey is focused on married couples.

. Have you read up on the subject? All empirical studies clearly show that marriage is far superior to co-habing and non-cohabbing domestic realtionships. Especially where children are involved. up to x6 better than the former and x10 better than the latter.

ronald4lif:
People could be married and have kids but still doesn't mean they're contented and might just be stuck in the union to avoid being stereotyped.

Yes this is true, but how does it make co-habbing better? And better for kids? You haven't even scratched the surface. You are just throwing out unthinking postulations to justify your opinion.

ronald4lif:
Marriages collapses on an almost equal scale as cohabs couple nowadays so I don't see the sentiment and certitude than one is better than the other.

Again, you are making false/blind assertons without having studied the research - just to feel secure in your erroneous position.

ronald4lif:
Just like marriage cohabitation doesn't also secure happiness, however, whatever any feels would guarantee them contentment they should go for it.

But true marriage properly entered into gives a better shot than co-habbing and is empiracally better for women and children. No one has said don't go for what you like. Just don't claim what you like, or go for, is as good as marriage when it is not.

ronald4lif:
I still maintain that a marriage cert is the only distinguishing between a married couple and cohabs ones and your discountenance couldn't dispel it.

And you maintain that because; 1. You do not know what true marriage is and 2. You have not given adequate thought to the matter. After all, the only difference between a WAEC holder and a B.Sc holder is a piece of paper, no?


TV

mutter:
Most women in Nigeria are even ready to marry half a man. When they don't find one they talk marriage down.

Half-men maybe, but no half-truths. Very well said !

TV
^{But aunty, please, sofry, sofry, with our NL singles 0. We continue to encourage them .}

ronald4lif:
The difference between a married couple and a cohabitating couple is the marriage cert, a piece of paper which doesn't determine the success or failure of the union.

As NL' M-A-C , I simply couldn't pass without addressing this;

1. If you think marriage is merely a "piece of paper", you - to put it as politely as one can - simply have no idea what marriage is
2. That same faulty thinking is what leads you to tie marital success to a marital certificate, and believe that the difference between both arrangements is "a piece of paper" - really?

You would then need to define "success &/or failure; If it's the staying - happily - together and raising well-adjusted children, marriage is anything from x4 times more likely to produce positive outcomes than co-habiting.

"Co-habees", are more likely to split up, and split up earlier - most especially where children are involved.

ronald4lif:
One can build a family and live happily too without nuptials. That you can't cohabitate doesn't make your decision the better one to those who does.

Absolutely "one" can - indeed, any individual co-hab arrangement may be better than any number of individual marriages - but in most cases they are'nt. Marriage is in fact a better decision and a superior domestic arrangement - especially for women and children.

ronald4lif:
The keyword is happiness. Not what society and organized doctrines believes to be right or wrong.

This bit is not even worthy of a response.


TV

Kimoni:
TV, it's the same thing jor, don't use big grammar to confuse me

Not in this context na? Abi we are no talking good girl vs. bad boy


TV

Kimoni:
And I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded. Sorry I missed it earlier.
As for the last part, I already admitted that Shymexx examples were very extreme. I am on the quiet side but my hubby is very outgoing, I like to be analytical, he is quite spontaneous. We are opposites in several ways but not necessarily bad. I have never been attracted to a quiet man, yet I am quiet . We choose people who complement us. That's what I meant and same logic applies to Shymmmex examples.

That is complemetarity in behaviour/traits/attributes, as opposed to opposite in character. Afterall, there is another aphorism that states "we attract what we are" no? Elevation frees us from all the lower level situational/contextual laws/boundaries.

Kimoni:
Again I have to agree with the bolded **banging my head against the wall**

Note - I corrected the first sentence

Thanks, but it didn't require correcting - I used "men" in the genric human sense - Its implied in the second paragraph and I used people in my earlier response - I could have been clearer I suppose . I'll try harder next time. lest I fall foul of the law of unintended consequences !


TV