₦airaland Forum

jerrydelight:
The characters women display in marriage are the product of their husband's attitude towards their issues.

...i.e. it's mens fault.
Please change the sex tag on your username.


TV

warrikid:
So my younger cousin(male) has decided to pop the question to his fiancee at her(his fiance's) own elder sister's wedding reception. U get the relationship?
He doesnt want anyone to get an idea of his plans,not even the fiancee's sister in whose marriage reception this would "supposedly" happen.


Personally i feel it is a good idea,but at what point of the ceremony and how he would get it done without seemingly "stealing the show" is where i would need your ever creative ideas/inputs.
Donate yours generously.

I wouldn't. I think it's a terrible idea - let the fiancé sister have her day uninterrupted. Don't encroach or rob her of her big moment - just like we wouldn't want anyone to rob her sister.

I wouldn't even advise it if the fiancé' sister agreed to it. Make your own moments - at best do it when the bride and groom have left the event. In fact, just don't.


TV

An0nimus:
@TV01 is the "Go young" series through? I loved it and have learnt a thing or two.

Holá, thanks for the nod. Pretty much unles there are any questions; to recap younger can help in in 2 main ways and a further I didn't actually touch on.

1. Sex - it is rearely mentioned and I actually believe many don't even realise - and it's compounded by myths about women reachin gthewir sexual peak late? - but women' libido as well as starting off from a lower point than mens, tapers more, and is more strategically deployed and tied with child-rearing. Not to mention - something else that goes unsaid - pregnancy can add 10 years to a woman. And kids change their priorities.

2. Status - as important, especially for securing the best partned and maintaining the relationship. Your maturity, proactive nature and forward-thinking are assumed, as is your close attention to your physical health and fitness. The more she respects you, the more comitted to you and to pleasing you she will be. You'll also be better placed to bear the demands of marriage and your wife

3. Siring - earlier childbirth - this is more absolute age as opposed to relative age for 1 & 2 - has a number of benefits. From your wifes fertility, ability and time to recover, to the childs wellbeing. You have a longer time to benifit older generations.

And please note; an exercise culture and consideration to health is something you should be on the lookout for. Just marrying younger is not the only thing. I was aware of this and usually brought it up in discussion. But note, women will respond strategically; either by claiming they have, or absolutely intend too. And often will force it - form/pretend - to seal the deal.

When I found this out I changed tack. No demands or blatant queries- I'd wait for it to naturally come up in conversation, then probe non-specifically. My WTB said she often started at 7am. "Why" I asked? "to use the gym", she replied. This meant she got it. All I need to do is offer encouragement and support - as needed. Forcing it doesn't work, I'm not sure it's actually right?

Marriage can be a huge burden for men - you wake up one day and you've got a couple of screaming kids and a woman who overnight appears to have turned into your mother. And you are slaving away to keep them. You need to be mentally prepared and have properly set expectations. You owe it to yourself to give it the best chance possible to be long-lasting and fulfilling union.

I've always wanted to discuss more the practicalities and not just the theory - which will in any event vary widely based on individual circumstances and desires, and must be tailored accordingly.

The virtues would be a good place to start. Specifically these that benefit pre-marriage & marriage. Courage, patience, empathy, humility, temperance dilligence. The flip side of that coin is of course the vices - anger, lust, pride, sloth etc.

Also discussing the dynamic would be great. How do you effect your headhsip? Is it even a thing in your household? Is it benign, light-touch or very obviously wielded. How would you consider the dynamic between you and your wife. Is it where you'd like it to be? Did it just happen? What can be done to change it.

And perhaps a subset of the above - how to cope with some of changes the transition from bachelor to husband brings, and some of the bigger life events &/or relationship changes once married.

Oya, as the testosterone leads !


TV


Think long-term guys, you owe it to yourself! or put another way, "help, I married my mom" "

LordReed:
Very good. Now do us a favour and elaborate on them if you will.

I won't. Not least because this ain't my fight ! But I'm happy to direct you to my corpus here on NL where I have repeatedly made the case agianst polygamy and promiscuity.


TV

LordReed:
And the better argument would be?

For better arguments against both polygamy/promiscuity and hypocrisy you could take a;
Spiritual view - Gods will, shared fallen nature
Social view - inimical to human flourishing, societal cost, paternity issues, child rearing problems, promiscuity as a disease vector,
Individual view - virtue, fidelity, agency, childs

Or any combo - enjoy!


TV

LordReed:
I am not arguing for or against polygamy of any form

Which is probably where I think you're slightly off-track. It's not quite clear that you are not arguing for polyandry/promiscuity, and in any event, I think your best tack would have been to argue against polygamy/promiscuity as a whole - for either sex.

LordReed:
I am arguing against the vilification of women with multiple partners in the light of people saying it is acceptable for men.

Thats's not what it sounds like - to me anyway. It appears you are arguing that women are functionally equally capable of polygamy/promiscuity. And this is further evidenced by your "arguing against the villification", not against the act they're being villified for.

If exposing "hypocrisy" was your aim, I think you'd have been best served adopting a different tack. Not least because, like I said, Njokusboy has presented what I feel is a tighter argument defending the thing you hate - even if not the hypocrisy of it - from your own position.

At least you've got the women all excited !


TV

LordReed:
If you have read my posts on this thread you'll know that I am not advocating for the legalisation of any form of polygamy. I am simply exposing the silliness of the idea that your biological functions confer on you more rights.

Get this now and the tongue in cheek approach. but I think Njokusboy has stolen a march on you with well reasoned arguments - especially in light of the prevailing "progressive approach to rights/equality".

If women are just as biologically capable of certain behaviours as men, that is not necessarily an argument for men not engaging - consensually - in that behaviour, rather one for allowing women the same.

And in this level - "equalised" - playing field, we'll soon see if women are able to build and maintain "harems" of men ! I think we'll soon see that laws won't change biological imperatives - at best there will be a marginal effect

In fact, I'd argue they can do this better - and are currently doing so - by transferring wealth from men to women, via the welfare state, child support and divorce laws.

The differing "biological functions", do not confer different rights, they mean a different dynamic and outcome. And I don't support polygyny or any non-monogamous forms of marirage.

I do appreciate that women can influence conception by mating strategically and favour a particular donor, but I don't buy the notion that they can sleep with a number of men, and and in any way ensure, or be certain that the best sperm will win out.

I not sure "nature" would even leave that choice to a woman !


TV

netotse:
@Pickabeau1, TV01, 5minsmadness, Timbuktou, kevinberry, apextitan
I might be slightly off but I think the general purpose of this thread was for us to have a spot to discuss issues that affect us as men(husbands, husbands to be, husbands never to be etc... ), we're starting to get sidetracked o...let's keep the philosophical discussions to other threads biko.

On this here thread political correctness takes a backseat. This is the boys thread.

Hi Netose, well said and timely.

This is the interwebz, and we have no authority to moderate who participates. Indeed, I have no problem with female input per se, I have only cautioned - from way back & more recently with the odd word - that they please try not to "feminise" things.

When women invade mens spaces or masculine institutions, they do not typically up the ante. So in a sense, it's good input is unmoderated, so we can see exactly that.

Like you noted, this thread is for a specific reason. Men hear and understand better when things are clearly outlined and expalined. We are good with maps, tactical formations, empirical data, example, reasoning, etc.

The sum total of the female advice here has been "just go with your heart". Woe betide a man who charts his course in life on the choppy waters of feelings.

On a personal note, it just highlights all the more why as a mature adult man should not be under the authority of a woman in personal matters or regards relationships - and why I for one, will no tbe subject to female authority in the home or church.

The insight you gleaned - thanks for the nod - did that come from "feeling" based advice? or learned experience and practical example, which I presume you have since put to the test, and seen to be true to some degree? Pray tell, would "just treat her nice and go with your heart" type advice have worked the same - if that isn't what you were doing previously?

I repeat, I'm more than happy to have the ladies join us, but it would be nice if you would do us the courtesy of respecting our sensibilities, and being really considered in your input.

I am yet to hear a worthy challenge, well-considerd insight or alternative views - just lots of strawmen and gainsaying. It's still left for men to read, distil and apply to their situations accordingly. The first rule for men - take responsibility.


Or in short, as Tim has said in his usual "to the point manner"

Timbuktou:
You know how women are, they gotta have a say in everything. Since, they've come to our turf to critique our beliefs in full glare of the public, we have to defend our opinions and show their credibility. Otherwise, we stand the risk of losing our men to fine-sounding but substance-lacking "progressive" arguments. Hope you're with me on that?

I agree, though, it can be regulated somewhat.

TV

Okay All, I'm still not clear here. Maybe it's in part to my creation vs evolution position. I don't believe humans evolved. Or that we descended from some proto-ape type common ancestor with chimps.

I believe we were created as are, with consciences, morals - even if these may have varied over time - and great intellects. The only difference between then and now is the incremental advances we have successively built on. I don't believe human behaviours are evolved traits over time on the basis of "survival of the fittest".

The theory as posed simply does not hang together for me or pass close scrutiny - and there are so many assumptions I would query, and loads of questions I have.

So for example; men do not have an impulse that mirrors a mothers maternal instinct. They want to have sex, not necessarily procreate. They only commit to providing where they have a clear genetic investment/stake. If they know women are sleeping around, they'll be fine with that, just not commit to providing, instead, working to get as much sex as they desire.

We see this now - men are happy to have the milk, without buying the cow. Marriage/commitment rates are falling. The only reason women can get away with it in some instances is because government - or her family - steps in, to force the man to provide, or act as an alternate source of provision.

As for mate-guarding, that only happens where there is the expectation of exclusive access. If women are free to, or known to, engage multiple partners, there is nothing to guard.

I can see how she may sleep around and work with ovulatory cycles to cuckold a committed lower ranked provider, but this will be multiple in a limited sense. How many other men - especially identified as equal or superior quality to her regular - can she engage? And I don't see this argument as superior - indeed it's more akin - to identifying and mating with the best man.



TV

tearoses:
BTW whats an alpha widow please?

Simply put, it's a woman who has, or is used to dating big boys, but who ultimately can't get one to commit to her long-term (marriage). She has to settle for someone of lower status, but as is to be expected she typically feels disgruntled with her lot.

This can mean a hard time for the man in the marriage, suffering everything from a lack of real respect, "dragging", nagging, her not willing to fully please him sexually etc. At worst, it can mean he gets cuckolded or she "wexits". Happens a lot in the West now, as she will keep his provisioning, but be able to ditch him. Usual watery excuses or contrived claims to rationalise it.

Men typically have looser criteria for a casual relationship. So women may date "higher", but be forced to marry lower. Women like this have a tendency to leave if someone of higher status comes along - often citing things like the current one "lacks ambition" as an excuse.


TV

tearoses:
You people make marriage sound as if one is going to war
Too theoretical
When does one enjoy the marriage when one is so serious about the whole thing
Do this do that, dont do this and dont do that
We are all human
Human nature and theory dont always go hand in hand

But this is not solely about marriage as in "being in it", but the run up to it. It's like competing in sports. In boxing we have a saying, "train hard, box easy". You will have amuch better experience with optimal preparedness. Talking of war, the bible counsels "first counting the cost".

Most of the female advice has been "just go with your heart". Or along the lines of "whoever their brother chooses". First truth is that if said brother comes home with a single-mum divorcee, who is older than him and living on benefits, I'm sure he will hear it .

Secondly people don't just fall in love. At a conscious or subconscious level we have preferences and are desires are not random, being at least partially informed. Women in particualr can be quite strategic about who they fall in love with.

tearoses:
Leave TV01 with his grammer, We are used to him. I read his posts in segments. I read One segment, grab dico, digest, then rest for 5 minutes, then read another segment. - I would love to be a fly on the wall when he is telling his kids off and see the blank expression on their faces

You'd be amazed. Little man is barely 3, yet tells me off daily. I'm always hearing "that's not correct daddy", or don't be silly daddy ! I'm doing lots of "Ah! Ah's" in my head - although loving his sharpness when he points things out .


TV

cococandy:
Kini in-vitro?
In-vivo too sure.

The winning sperm provider need not know he's the actual sperm provider.
It makes all of them hands-on-deck fathers to the new born. each one providing according to his capabilities. None tied to the same woman hence everybody can practice their 'natural polygamy' and we would all live in the primitive state that polygamy ensures.

I don't see how you'd get men to provide where paternity is not sure. Even now we see deadbeat dads. Without sanction of the law or formal ties, they don't take responsibility. Even betas will not buy this.

This could possibly work in societies where offspring are given little care by either parent. But that society simply could not flourish. Non-starter from where I'm sitting. Happy to be shown how though.


TV

LordReed:
The DNA of the resulting baby of course!

Are you of the opinion that the lowest provider should not mate?

How was testing carried out back then.
Historically, many men did not get to mate. Just like many male .herd animals. It's why monogamy marriage is good and makes for saner societies.


TV

BuddhaPalm:
One could be cripple, mentally deficient or sickly...and still have high status or be an fantastic provisioner - for some random reason. Birth chance, etc.

In a primitive society, your whole capability to provide would depend on physical fitness/health. Although I don't, as mentioned, subscribe to evolution, I don't get how this makes sense within that framework?

TV

BuddhaPalm:
My oga, you are indeed very wrong.

It is now known that we evolved for competition at the, quoting you, "spermatozoic level".

There are even tons of books on the subject: Sperm Wars - by Robin Baker, and Sex At Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality are examples.

You mentioned 'high status' and 'provider', but remember, they don't need to come from the same person.

The provider blissfully provides, while she goes behind to get inseminated by caveman Chad, who has optimum seed.

I'm still not clear on this. I've never - to be honest - heard of this before. Perhaps I need it spelt out clearly. As I said, I don't subscribe to evolutionary theory.

I can see "intra-sperm" wars, but not "inter-sperm" wars. Any war from multiple donors would likely be won by the first to donate. Hence the reason women select the fittest available man, whose sperm then battle it out.

If the provider does not have the assurance he is also the progenitor, why would he provide? I'd like to hear more. Simple outlined for a simpleton like me.


TV

Stillfire:
The thread is so ewwwwww. This looks like a fun thread.

TV01

I don't think the premise is totally flawed. Why?

Se.x is for procreation, and our mating choices is evolutionary dependent on who is more likely to bear offspring.

The endpoint of the female mating selection is to determine the male who is more viable to reproduce.

Primitively, the metrics to determine this endpoint is through the outward appearance of the male, his physical strength, etc. Likewise in the male psyche, a generous amount of hips translates in his mind that the female is fertile and able to reproduce.

However, today we know that is not automatically the case. Big hips do not necessarily translate to fertility, neither does physical strength. Today we do not rely on mere physical attributes to determine who is fertile and who isn't. Science and technology have made it possible for us to go to the cellular level to determine who is more fertile. So since we are inherently programmed to procreate, the battle has now been reduced to the spermatozoan level. May the best man win.

Holá Stilly,
I do not subscribe to evolutionary theory - in the sense that one creature can become a totally different type. I thin the games we play are down to our fallen nature.

I can see what you are saying - I think - but it appears to agree with me, not the OP? Unless I misread the OP, or both you and the OP?


TV

LordReed:
So I take it you don't accept the position that the millions of sperm a man produces confers on him a polygamous nature?

No.
Sperm is cheap to produce - eggs are expensive. That's why we have Fabergé eggs, not faberge sperm .
Many are produce as the "battle" takes place at that level - may the best sperm win.

TV

Ewuro4:
My argument is mainly against the overhyped Hypergamy.

@bold , Why do you think so? What are the factor(s) that makes an average 27yr old man not ready/ interested for marriage?

(If already discussed pls redirect me to the page )

The first difference is that you equate hypergamy solely with gold-digging. It's encompases that, but is way more than that.

These days, very few men are financially and psychologically ready for marriage. Women mature faster and are - rightly - compelled biologically and socially to seek marriage earlier.

More pertinently, mens marriage value continues to climb into their 30, whilst womens - which whether one acknowledges it or not - is maximised when they are at the peak of their beauty. This will typically be mid 20's.

They may be more assured, sophisticated and polished into their 30's, bu tthey will not be more beautiful or fertile. Those are the main measures of marriage value to men.

Financial considerations may skew that somewhat nowadays. But note men that do not have these considerations, they typically end up with what you would term "trophy wives".

More generally, the key is to introduce the "marriage culture" from earlier - in both males and females. Get rid of the extended adolescence that most men seem to undergo these days, and the unrealistic picture that seem to drive womens approach to marriage.

Understanding inculcated and expectations properly set, marriage should generally happen earlier and fare better. We may then be able to revise down slightly the age gap between couples !

I am a fan of "early" - please, nobody interprete this to mean 16, or 12 or some such - marriage. Even if only from the Christian position of no sex before marriage. It will be hard to hold oneself till 40 !


TV

LordReed:
The simple (biological) answer is yes.

I disagree. The patently obvious answer is no.

LordReed:
If only the most viable sperm is to fertilise the ovum then it is ideal for the female to collect as many as possible to see which of the potential fathers sperm will win out. If for example 5 men all have deposited their sperm in the cervix the one who's sperm wins out must be the man of men, a true winner as he gets to have biological immortality. So maybe we should take all this male bragging of who is better to the sperm battle ground and allow the biological process to show who is who. Of course in the process the female has to consort with more than one male so please males keep your jealousy and anger in check, it's only natural.

The whole basis of your premise is flawed.

1. They don't seek the most "viable sperm", they seek the man who appears more genetically endowed. And then they mate with him. Note the difference

2. The battle is not at the spermatozoic level, it's at the level of the owners of the spermatozoa. The sperm don't compete - the donors do. Hence the status & provision dynamic !

3. Further compounded by the fact that where paternity is not assured, or cannot even be assumed, the man will have no incentive to provide and protect.

"The men fight for the right". May the best man win. Ladies who attempt the above are in danger of being slut shamed .


TV

BCISLTD:
U most do this for a living

Thank you. Funnily enough I do. Actually acquiring my certification now.

That was encouraging. Much appreciated. God bless you.

Coach TV

pickabeau1:
Hahaba

Kids named after the fling
You the backup

Evulz...

Go on

Nor mind them. After they have flexed finished and it dawns on them the wall is fast approaching, the broda who wasn't "their class", that "small boy" of yore, or the fellow jambite who "no carry", suddenly seems a great catch.

No cry of marry your age mate back then 0! And I've seen them make such marriages happen by sheer force of will. It should be documented as a natural phenomena !

She meets you today, tomorrow it will be "what are we doing". Day 3 it will be "you don't know what you want". Day 4 is usually "other guys are asking 0". Day 5 "my cousin chrissy says...if you don't...then...". Day 6 "when are you coming to meet my people". . Wetin I no see? Men be sharp - such women shouldn't make it very far beyond day 2.

I couldn't believe it when I saw the "my wifes libido is dead" thread this morning. I actually wrote parts 2 & 3 last night, but I'm sure some will suspect that my alternate opened that thread - even I did. Dayuum...I too am amongst the prophets 0 !


TV

Go young, young man, go young - Part III

It's relatively hard these days - not least because of the financial climate and the fact that maturity seemingly comes later? - for men to be “stable” enough to be ready for marriage much before 30. And more men are being pushed to the 35 – and even beyond - age range.

Most tend to be “bulge bracket”. Not fantastically rich celebs, or well-connected scions of well to-do families that can fast-track them, or ensure they are well situated, or simply guarantee a comfortable life whatever happens.

Those “above” the bulge bracket, and those who by sheer hard work or good fortune are able to move out of it, or at least rise to being the cream of it, will – with all due regard – have a wider, and for the most part, best choice of partners.

This is just normal, not least because women naturally gravitate towards them. Status pure and simple. For lots of women, anything below the cream is second best, and many strive to partner at that level for as long as possible.

When it dawns on her that, marriage – and children - are still a must, but wedlock to a cream+ is no longer a maybe – they all married younger, prettier, higher value women – they turn to plan B. You .

You. Who has finally gotten it together enough to get married. The hustle is paying off and you’ve scaled the ladder a bit – with the definite possibility of growing your status some more. You need someone who will appreciate your efforts, work with you, and support you being the man in your home.

Are you really going to marry someone of the same age who will be fixated on having children? Having had her focus on living it up, marring up, or moving up corporately? Are you are satisfied that she's an outlier; remains fantastically fit, has little or no baggage and isn't marrying you even a little bit out of desperation?

That even if she has totally routine births and has only 2, she will not balloon and transfer most of her affection to her kids (named after the cream that got away )- while her libido decamps? Perhaps relocates permanently, when she convinces herself she could have done better and deserves more?

If you going to be shamed into marrying your age-mate - unless that is your absolute informed choice - due to the fear of being called agbaya or grilled by parents? Then you are obviously not the man I'm writing to.

When I met and woo'ed my wife, I met all her family and presented myself accordingly. Of course I had to engage and get to know them, suffer the minor indignity of traipsing around sundry relatives homes and making an appearance at family occasions. All the while glad-handling and making small talk.

But I wouldn't be brought low, or take - directly or indirectly - ridicule. Why should I? The next in line - who had been in front of my WTB, but mis-judged - was keen to come back. And even though I love my wife to bits and am wonderfully blessed, I have no doubt I could have made a great marriage with her also - and she was even younger. Who can shame a confident man with the right bearing and approach?

It’s would seem to me, better to wife someone who appreciates you as a catch, and not a consolation. It would be better with someone coming into her prime and not someone past it. Better with someone you can strategically set your sights with and not someone who tactically settles for you.

By all means, regard her parents, but they didn’t make you and they can’t marry her. And even if you don't marry her, you will marry se?

As ever, feel free to ignore me, I’m just musing .



TV

Ewuro4:
TV01... I'm not gonna drag it with you when your our princess introduce her age mate to you as her fiancé, hold your hand back you hear?

Generally speaking and without factoring for outliers - at 25, her age mates won't be ready. At 35, they won't be interested.


TV

^{...as an aside, although I speak mainly to men, I believe my position is also best for women. My daughter will be raised to understand that her best opportunity to make the best marriage will generally be somewhere between 22 & 28. She'll be shown why and understand how to best go about it. What she ultimately does will be her choice. I will discharge my duty.}

LordReed:
Well said. How can a C be an O? A broken circle is no longer a circle.

Thanks. Those that grasp marriage - and what it means to be a husband or wife - in it's essence are not swayed by this this nonsense.

troy20:
but frankly why even get married.since the evil patriachy is more evident in marriage why dont you feminists advocate for the distruction of marriage and save us all the gory tales.hit the problem at its roots.am at lost really.

The destruction of marriage and the family is one of the objectives of feminism. And feminists want the "patriarchy" (by which they mean men, but it's really the male led ageement between men and women) to stop telling women what to do, so that they can.


TV

jarkbauer:
About 6 months ago my wife started refusing sex. In the last 6months we have had sex only 4 times. I asked her why and she told me her libido is dead. She doesn't feel like having sex. I am at loss. Any woman with this kind of problem. To help her, I asked if she has any fantasy we could fulfill just to spice our sex life and she told me she doesn't have any sexual fantasy.she hardly think about sex. That's why ask in another thread if women usually have sexual fantasy. We are married for 2 years and have 2 kids.

May I ask you a few questions? Totally understand if you would rather not. If you answer no to the first one, then leave it anyway.

1. Are you intent on restoring things?
2. How old are you and your wife
3. How old are the kids - particualrly the last one
4. How would you describe things before the "refusal"? Particulalry sex-wise; frequent, occasional, steady rate or reducing?
5. Has there been any trauma? Especially of a type that damages the spousal relatioship.
6. If yes, was it properly resolved?
7. Is your family pressured for any reason? Finances, childcare, accomodation etc.
8. What kind of physical shape are you in?
9. Likewise for you wife.


TV

prinwa:
Initially when we got married he told me he will prepare my papers, which he did but it didn't work, because i already had my daughter, so the embassy said that he doesn't. Have enough income to take care of me and his daughter. We kept on trying over and over again but nothing. Seems to work. Now i have another baby who is 11months old. My daughter gave him alot of space. My concern now is that he told me February this year that when he gets back to Europe that he will apply for his citizenship, so that it will be easy for him to take us. Up till this moment he has not applied for it. He is taking good care of financial, i won't deny that. But i need companionship, i need a man in my life. I feel empty with out him. I don't want my children to grow without their father.

And you have every right to expect and demand that in marriage.

There may well be a case of shakey foundations - were things fully disclosed, discussed understood and agreed? Having said that, situations change, and your expectations are reasonable and legitimate. I really feel for you.

You need to engage your husband directly on this - preferably face to face. If his next visit is imminent, plan towards it. State exactly what you have above. Tell him about your needs, your desires - all rightful - and the frustration, temptations, and of course welfare of your children.

As much as I hate involving 3rd parties, it may be an idea to discuss first with your parents and then possibly have a fuller meeting with his, and sit down with hubby whne he's back. I hope they don't have any entrenched attitudes in favour of this kind of arrangement or bias due to support they recieve from him.

If it is not imminent, I think he should be impressed upon to bring his next trip forward as soon as possible. There are a number of worries here;

It could genuinely be difficulties regularising his papers. You need to know the steps required, the action being taken and timelines. It could be it's easier for him to live there and fund your staying at home.

The initial effort to establish or stabilise a family can be huge. But this begs questions about how he is satisfying his intimacy needs? And emphasis should always be on the kids, kids, kids. The earlier they are over there, the better they adapt.

He may well think bringing you to Europe may change the dynamic of your relationship. The truth is, men are at the mercy of their wives here and he may have seen some scary things.

And be willing ot think creatively and ahead. Is there a case for him returning home?

Whatever the case, it's best that you are exactly clear on the situation, then you can plan accordingly and hopefully look forward to the time you'll be together.

I commend you for the sacrifices you have made for the union and wish you and your family all the very best.


TV

Men,

I hope you've read and digested. Please be clear, I am not being prescriptive, not demanding you adhere to my theory or forcing my viewpoint on you. I am merely sharing or at most suggesting possibilities.

My first demand of men has always been that "you take responsibility". Whatever you do, be that you swallow it wholesale, tailor and apply accordingly, or dismiss it out of hand, that’s your right, responsibility though, lies squarely with you.

Having posted part 1, I think I erred in trying to respond to all rejoinders, especially as many were plain strawmen and others driven by vested interests or not really related, or deserving of a response. Following up part 2, I will do two things; 1. Respond to specific worthwhile questions and challenges from men, 2. Coalesce points that are worth expounding on from the wider audience.

But first let me say this; I could shorten this for you and simply say thus; be a God-fearing spirit led man and be sure to marry someone of similar bent. Or this; be a GFSLM and marry a woman who is stongly socialised culturally, or religiously, to honour marriage, and/or is clear that she is willing for, and expects you to lead.

That will work - and work well for some, however, you still have to understand and manage the dynamic to maximise your enjoyment of the marriage. So first up; I'll say a bit more on hypergamy

Ewuro4:
Hmm Hypergamy.. Only a big deal with Nigerians.

damiso:
Hypergamy or marrying for status as TV on the part of the woman is more prevalent in the younger generation.

Believe the above at your peril. Hypergamy is and has been universal. What kept it in check was societal conventions and morés. driven largely by culture and religion.

Hypergamy is not new, has not gone away, is not restricted to peculiar generations of women, or present only in isolated or random countries. What has changed is the morés and conventions keeping it in check.

And not only is it not yet a big deal in Nigeria - although it increasing - the West is the best place to look to see it in all its glory. Feminism has done such a good work that it is now clearly institutionalised - and at play whenever men and women engage.

In a simple sense, hypergamy is just women availing themselves of sex (ideally with the best available men) - leading to children and provision for themselves and said offspring. Historically they got this, but were constrained - as above - from not fulfilling their part of the deal.

They did get provision - and children, and the men got children and sex in a monogamous relationship. Divorce and single motherhood, were frowned upon and stigmatised, and came with at a cost to the woman and her family.

Now a woman can marry you, have children for you and with "no fault divorce" decide she's wants out. And she will be allowed out, and allowed to keep the home you at least in part – if not wholly - paid for, and your children - you will get to keep providing. Deal?

Hypergamy is entrenched in the law - and you are subject to it. Choose wisely. Funny isn't it, divorce and single motherhood are no longer an issue. And why should they be? With hypergamy legally codified, women still get their end of the bargain. You lose.

Not only can she have you forcibly removed from your home, she can prevent you seeing your children - even if the courts order it - and if she decides to be particularly spiteful, have you queried on domestic violence and child abuse allegations.

Historically - and prior to testing being available - we had what was termed "presumed paternity". Any child born to a married couple was presumed to be fathered by the husband. And in the event of divorce, the father as the main provider got custody. Not any more.

Did you know that there are moves afoot to stop presumed fathers DNA testing for confirmation of paternity? Unless they have the mothers permission. Did you know that even if you test and the child is not yours judges can, and have, ordered such men to pay support - in one case even when the childs real father was living with the mother?

On a larger scale, the benefits that single mothers receive, where do you think they come from? Yes, the government - by way of men in the form of taxes. The welfare state is largely a transfer of wealth from men to women and children.

Please choose wisely. Once you are in, she holds all the aces and you've little chance of prevailing if things turn ugly. The women claiming hypergamy ain't a thing are probably well intentioned and great wives I'm sure, but I'm not certain they are best placed to advise men.


TV

Go young, young man, go young II

I’ll continue the discussion about age differentials & sex as warranted but I wanted to touch on another reason – possibly even more important - why an appropriate age differential is a good thing.

Status:
Whatever women say to the contrary they typically want to partner with men of higher status. Now, by status, we can mean a number of things, or a multi-faceted thing.

Power, wealth, academic achievement, societal respect or recognition in the main, but not excluding others such as physical attributes, peculiar talents/skills, occupation, etc. Emphasis can be different from place to place, and cultures may stress or favour one or other.

It can mean personality in the short term, but in a marriage type situation, over time, wifey go "see you finish", so a great personality, won't hide character flaws or behavioural problems. Funny, many women fall for personality.

At an individual level, it may also vary dependant on circumstances; so for example, an independently rich woman, may not place as much emphasis on earnings or potential.

Now, status is particularly important to women - and relevant to men - because it informs female attraction.

As a rule, women lose attraction for men who they consider lower status – compounding by the fact that they will typically blame you if they feel they deserve more than you are offering, or they could have done better without you, or with someone different. Regardless of if this is in fact true or not.

When a women starts to think as above, a number of things can potentially happen

1. She will constantly test him and drag headship and otherwise nag and make your life a misery
2. She will be more prone to stray and be receptive to the “higher status” men she comes into contact with
3. You are more likely to be cuckolded
4. In countries where the law favours women, she will be more likely to “Wexit” – wife exit – the marriage using divorce laws – potentially leaving you struggling.

The main exceptions to this rule are women who are well socialised culturally or religiously to always defer to male headship, or for some other reason cannot stray or leave.

But even here, unless they are super so, their disgruntled state will manifest in the union, and it won’t be as happy as it could be. Fact “many unions exist in a state of low level conflict”, your higher status and the respect it engenders can help obviate that.

When a woman truly respects you, you will be able to tell by how she treats you – she’ll look to please you and be sexually responsive (ATBE i.e. health, pregnancy etc.).

As a man, it’s imperative that you are able to provide for your home as much as possible. Not to say your wife cannot make a contribution, but it’s primarily your responsibility.

The easiest way to lose status is to not be able to provide. Women may claim about sexual failings, but they hate nothing more than a “useless” man – one who cannot provide.

Being older, will help you be more established, mature and able to deal with the dynamics of marriage better. You’ll earn more respect and status as your demonstrate long-term visionary and strategic thinking. And hopefully, employ any assets you have to ground the union.

Additionally, there will be a natural respect for an older, more mature, more established man – but you must live up to this as above, and dealing with her wisely.

If anything, I’d say if at all possible, marry a woman who earns less. If economics means you need a high-earning wife, try to increase your income, increase to match, or get a well socialised one. And demonstrate status in other areas.

For example, Tony Blairs wife earned more, but he was PM. If you marry a high earning investment banker and you are highly regarded in academic circles – move from Lecturer to Dr or Prof.

Decipher what women say and what they want. When they say “equality in the marriage”, they don’t want to equally share or stress about provision or financial stability.

They want to claim equal contribution, but be secure that if they wanted to go open a boutique or take 2 year off to raise the kids, they wouldn’t suffer an impaired lifestyle. They want to claim equal decision making, but the buck stops with you if major endeavours go k-legged.

Do chores all you want, but they don’t enhance your status in lieu of the big ticket items. If you lose yourself in her emotions, she will punish you for her feelings. Don’t focus primarily on making her happy, strive to be a good husband and father. And of course God first – and make sure she knows it – Pastor is also status !


TV

jaybee3:
Surely that must have been one of the drivers with the current rise of feminism.

Equal pay for equal work = Fairness of economic rights

The gender pay gap was debunked almost 30 years ago - there may be some residual bad attitudes, but no structural impediments to equal pay. Plus therer are lots of policies that mitigate against it and penalise it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4

I wasn't one of the drivers, but a trope feminism ceaselessly pushes


TV

Kimoni:
The new woman is younger but not hotter...for real

My sister, younger is necessarily hotter !


TV

^{...small trolling}

Kimoni:
Sure I got you.

I know quite a few too oo and you wouldn't even know. Don't mind TV jare. If all men were like TV, so many women will not be married in this world. His list is endless - single mothers, matured singles, matured married...widows and divorces should not even bother...awon aye

it's a market. I help men properly package, price and market their goods. All things being equal, why would you advise your brother to marry a single mum or a divorccee or an older woman Part 2 is coming.


TV

damiso:



you people wont kee me

That yetunde bustline sef no try the guy even had pot belly yuk yuk eewwwww

Excuse me If it wasn't what the guy was after - papers acording to Jaybee- she could not have snared him in the first place. Belly is not a disqualifier for men . Isn't the new woman younger and hotter. The bro' has some sort of status. You lot won't gree me !


TV