₦airaland Forum

Ewuro4:
One undergone an extreme surgical procedure while other didnt.

I read the links. How can a child be diagnosed with "gender identity disorder" before he can even tie his shoe laces - so much so that by the age of 6...yes 6, he is appearing on talk shows as an expert. I have never seen/heard of a bigger parenting fail - total abdication.

Prepping him with hormones in advance of full-blown "re-assignment" surgery before puberty kicks-in, at which point it's much more difficult. When even 75% of adolescents who identify as gay, totally identify as straight by age 24. Ho much less a confused child of 2 or 3 - who can;t even have a real grasp od what sex and gender are.

dinachi:
Being male or female surpasses any sex reassignment surgery.

Absolutely right. It's a question of DNA - or is biological sex tro be considered a "construct" too?

Apart from a minute few - for whom we should have every sympathy - with incorrectly differentiated or developed sexual characteristics, this is basically a psychiatric issue (which until very recently gayism was also classified as). You don't help someone in that state by feeding and re-affirming the confusion.

pickabeau1:
There are gayish tendencies behind it
Transwomen mostly date men (basically a former man dating a current man)
If she still has a thing for women (its now a woman dating a current woman) - lezzie ish

It's all part of the same devilish confusion.


TV

Joromi1:
A 19-year-old is not yet mentally capable to handle a family of his own. If your cousin does it and succeeds, then he's just one out of a thousand. The probability for success is almost impossible. It's a silly, uncalculated risk that tends to flop

Au contraire - this is dependent largely on the family/culture in which one is raised. Even now in many - what may well be considered more primitive - societies, manhood rites are performed between the ages of 12 & 15. And marriage traditionally happened much earlier than currently obtains.

The extended adolescence practised in many societies these days - which in my opinion has no real benefit - is what makes one consider a 19 year old incapable. Not that I'm pushing for that - just saying that with the right cultural ethos or nurture, it ain't a thing.

Hence terms like kidults etc. With no real demand for any kind of grown up responsibility, or a sense of obligation - to others or the wider community. It's all about autonomy, feelings and selfish desire. And it doesn't prepare them for marriage, or more pertinently successful marriages - it's why there is such dissaray around the institution right now.

Opiosko:
I think it has to do with when one is matured enough to have a sense of responsibilty and having met the the right person. I married last yr 3weeks to my 25th birthday and a month after my NYSC and I'm really supper happy today. My mates who are not married are not doing better (some are even confused and frustrated about life).... Modesty will not allow me te reel out what i have so let me just say that I'm doing well and loving the man I'v grown into.

Thank you for your testimony sir, may it abound - even unto your generations.

And religion/faith has been touched on. I wonder if it would not be way more practical in terms of avoiding "defiling" the marriage bed if marriage was expected early. How easy will it be to keep oneself into their 30's - or are we talking "cultural Christinity" here?


TV

2good:
The traditional system you are looking for does not exist anymore. As long as you choose to live with a woman in the west (whether you import or met her there), be ready for the worst. The close to ideal world you are looking for can only be found if you live in a non western country. Option 2 and 4 might appear to be the only solution but also remember that you can be accused of rape in option 4 in which case you are also bleeped.

pickabeau1:
Now u have answered my q

That's why I said his option was not realistic

option 1 is what is causing issues for guys who come here to marry naija ladies who then become harridans due to the laws means

option 4 is also not the best really... nothing like a companion to bond with (not physically)

Its really tough nd its not the best for the kids

Cristiano Ronaldo got his kid via surrogate, dated and dumped his long term girlfriend, is dating another one now

No mother for the kid

If this method becomes more low cost and affordable for the middle class, normal people, then we are in trouble

Not the best for the kids

Feminism will have to be expunged, with a reversion to at least some elements of what used to be - even if modified somewhat. This will of course mean some changes to the law in hose countries that are "infected".

Feminsim does not care about children or men and in truth, long-term will not even benefit women. It may even be women that lead the charge for change. It may have to be, men are pretty powerless or in thrall to the "agenda". http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/lauren-southern-why-i-am-not-a-feminist/

They are still using useful fools to infect our women sha - http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/06/opinions/nigeria-america-gay-marriage/


TV

pickabeau1:
lol

date and dump before 2nd anniversary of relationship?

This is not life


What of those who want to have kids?

Cohabitation laws and what is considered "common-law" or a "de-facto" relationship are fast changing. That they should be granted any form of legal status - apart from what the couple themselves both agree - is already a farce. Previously, they had to at least marry you and have a kid.

I envisage they continue to be tightened, to the degree that once a woman can prove a substantive relationship with a man, she will be able to make a "claim" against him in the event of a break-up. A few restaurant receipts, film ticket stubs, knowledge of your crib, your phone number sef .

In the near term, sharp men will continue to navigate this minefield, and perhaps even prosper if their aspirations are merely around "scoring" - a players market. Even then you'd have to be devoid of strong religious or cultural morés re relationships.

Long-term, it is unsustainable for either sex and deleterious for society as a whole. There are some options, but they are not fail-safe, have limited scope or are not suitable for all.

1. Marry women from countries or communities with a deeply engrained marriage culture. But we know how bringing women to the West can contaminate them with the feminsit ideology.

2. Live and marry in a country that hasn't legally codified this madness. Which rules out living in what we term "developed" nations

3. Go your own way - totally eschew relationships with women. Patently unworkable for most !

4. Make your interactions with women purley transactional; i.e. pay for sex and try and keep female friendships - if you need those - purely platonic. Sorrogates and paid carers for kids. Afterall, many relationships are pretty transactional in nature anyway.

Both 3 & 4 would be all but impossible for those with strong religious inclinations or with strong marriage cultures. If you want kids - and to be an active ever present part of their lives, and in conjunction with their biological mother, which is best for them, then you are at the mercy of these laws.

Marriage or children or evidence of a substantive relationship are all it will take - they've got men by the short and curlies in the West.You therefore have to, weigh up the risks and choose very wisely. The truth of the matter is, until the laws are changed, men there are playing against a stacked deck.

Me I went to God 0!


TV

tearoses:
My aim . .
Lose some weight and live healthy. I notice that is harder to burn now than years ago. I guess my body has learnt my antics and is resisting now.

For a better specified goal and outcome, you should have an idea of "how much" and "by when" for the weight. You also need to articulate what the term "healthy" means to you? It typically means more than just weight - but granted it may not mean more than that for your endeavour.

Metabolism sadly reduces with age - the only good news here is that it affects everyone !

tearoses:
What I want to know is an example diet that is varied, it works, is filling and its healthy . . .but will also result in weight loss

Mine works for me, but my goals are different to yours - I want exactly the same things, but weight loss is not my primary reason. So you have to devise a plan for you.

tearoses:
Funny enough I only really eat okele when I am in Nigeria
I havent eaten pounded yam or its siblings for months.
My undoing is Jollof or fried rice, white rice and ayamase, meatpies and magnum ice cream Bad, bad, bad!!!

Not necessarily bad at all - it's how large a part and how frequently they appear in your diet. They don't have to be totally eliminated, just moderated. I personally don't consider the first 3 bad sef. And I have magnums in my fridge. And I devour meat pies when I'm in Nigeria, The meat has an authentic taste I really like.

Having said that, you must exercise discipline. And once you get into a groove, the benefits and results usually enhance motivation and even diminsh desire for allowable treats. I brught those magnums a while ago and just never got round to eating them - I'm sure wifey has been there ! Dark chocolate - 70%+ cocao - is also good for you (but an aquired taste).

tearoses:
My collegues are also very bad influences and with people coming back from holidays and dunkin donut birthdays almost every day its a constant battle.

Work tactically - simply abstain, make excuses, lament the timing, indulge very occassionally, take a few bites and discard, claim fullness and take a 1/2 or 1/4 portion, offer to share with someone like-minded - I am not acepting this as any kind of excuse - Bad Cop Coach

tearoses:
Anyway back to biz
Breakfast is low fat yoghurt, prunes, granola and grapes and coffee. . . . Is this good or bad? I used to put a drizzle of honey on it, but ive stopped.

Generically, it's not a question of good or bad, like I said earlier.
Particularly, it looks fine. The coffeee I would question, does not cause weight gain - i.e. does not affect your goal - as far as I am aware?
Honey is biblical ! And quality honey really good for you. Honey is the only food that does not go off.

tearoses:
Like I said, rice is my undoing and I love rice to bits and Lunch/dinner depending on how hungry I am, is usually jollof rice/fried rice/plain rice and beef/fish/turkey/chicken/aya mase and sometimes with salad/coleslaw (homemade) . . .bad . .I know LOL

As before

tearoses:
What kind of coaching are you working on? fitness trainer/dietician/stylist/mental ?

Pure "Coaching" as an intervention (like counselling, consulting etc.), which is about helping people articulate and achieve goals. In practice, I'll probably add in a bit of consulting. I aim to specialise in relationships - na NL inspire me - and now of course health, diet and fitness

tearoses:
Whats better? diet fizzy drinks e.g sprite Zero or orange juice?

Prolly water . Juices - fsh pressed, not reconstituted - are good. I'd avoid fizzy drinks. Funnily enough I like sprite and there are two bottles in the fridge eying me up - and I'd have it proper, no zero nonsense.

tearoses:
Which of our foods are low in carbs apart from beans?

I don't think it's about "low carbs", more a separation of carbs from proteins and then high and low GI carbs. Veg could be considered generally low carb, but I take it you are thinking of the "main foods"?

tearoses:
Should we continue here or should we open a thread. I dont want to be kicked out of the boys room

Whatever suits - this is not oout of scope for this thread.

tearoses:
Thank you

P.s do you have a dansiki to match your abeti aja
one wedding like that, oga sewed dansiki with his aso ebi
It was hilarious

No problemo. If I were posting from home I'd post a pic.


TV

manie:
Unfortunately all things are not equal for most people in Nigeria and there is a lot of uncertainty.

Which is why I said "ATBE".

I agree that financial stability is ideal, but circumstances can change and challenges come whatever the age of the couple or length of the union. Then it's the maturity & commitment of the couple that comes to the fore.

Considering things objectively - and ATBE - I consider younger marriage to have more advantages and confer the couple with more leeway. I haven't yet heard anything to make me think differently.


TV

Ewuro4:
Aww same here , the allergy is going round the globe now , was telling my collegues how dusty my home country is yet we don't have sick kids like we do here.may God help our little ones esp.

Thanks for the reply, your points are clearly aligned with OP's reasons (early Birthing & women Fertility clock) which are though reasonable but not compulsory because everything is now achieveable with convenience & cash in hand. It all boils down to individual preference. My neighbour (east Indian) married in her
early twenties after college and started her Nursing Practice but surprisingly they mutually chose not to expand their family till date. They both seem very happy.

Honestly, I'll pick your last two points over the first 6 100times Raising family and struggling to make ends meet is no child's play especially when you have specific taste of lifestyle.

Have a great weekend . It's a beautiful warm & breezy day here.

It was lovely here. Real relaxing with lots of zeds and some hard gym sessions - my favourite type . Hope yours was good. Please go easy on Jesús and his mates this morning, I know you mad at 'em

I see your point -and it's actually closer to my own experience - but considering it objectively. I still believe tieing the knot earlier just gives a couple more scope.

I think many societies are losing the strong "marriage cultures" that helped them flourish. We call it "early" as people tend to mature and take responsibility later these days, it wasn't like that in the past. People are also more self-seeking and the sacrifice of marriage and children isn't embraced like it was.


TV

tearoses:
Do you know I was rubbing my laptop screen to get rid of the dot. I thought it was a speck
I said to myself not in 1000 years can TV write Yoruba.
I still think its a speck of dust on my screen. I need to get my screen wipes

Finally Finally Finally someone who understands what Im talking about
If you see the look oga gave me this morning when I said omelette and Porridge dont go

I lost 6 pounds in 5 days on Egg and bacon & tomato breakfasts, chicken/beef/prawn/fish/salad lunch and barbeque chicken and salad/veg dinners - No rice and no bread

Thanks for the owambe tip . . .Ive been wondering about that

5 days of water/sparkling water only. . . No coffee, no tea, no juice, no fizzy drinks . . . . The No coffee was the hardest, especially being a costa and douwe egberts fan

If you do have some spare time, do you mind writing me a few days menu . . .for a consultancy fee?

Do you also mind if I ask you more questions on this topic.

Thanks TV

A mi baale - if you see me in my abeti aja get-up

Thinking about it, I'm quite restricted in my liquid intake - lots a water, that's a given then mostly juice, with a bit of herbal tea. No alcohol - never and ever - but I indulge with purdeys, malt and sometimes lemonade. I fear coffee, hear it gives you a great boost - it's a stimulant - but I don't want to be addicted.

No fee required. I'm actually taking coaching qualifications with the aim of setting up my own practice, although the actual practice will be more than just coaching, so this will help me too.

For a dietary menu, I don't think it will be as straight forward as just being prescriptive - coaches never do that . I don't know what the desired end result is, or what you are currently doing, or how far you are prepared to go.

So far example, I've just started taking brekkie more seriously after years of skipping it. I'll have one boiled plantain with pepper stew, or Ill have a portion of black eye beans, or a few slices of toast. And very rarely now, I may have cereal and milk.

But I typically have a smallish breakfast as I also have a smoothie. Would that kind of regime work for you? What do you do now? How big a change would that be, would it be an improvement?

I believe I've mentioned my "weeklysalad container" previously, and I've touched on supper; it's typically salad with one of the following; salmon - wet or smoked - tuna (steak, not canned), trout, haddock, red bream, mackerel or chicken. Wifey loves her rice and does mean roast potatoes, so sometimes I'll have a few tatties or a small side of rice. But not very often

I know you are trying to obviate the boring and incorporate full-on okelé ! Perhaps think about having a rule, 70:30, 80:20 etc. which will allow you to indulge, without robbing you off benefits.

I think you'll find that if you stick with it, you'll become accustomed to it and your tastes will change. Some of the cravings disappear and when you indulge others, you'll wonder why

As for questions, fire away.


TV

tearoses:
Im good ooooo
How are you and the family
Happy British Weather

I just wanted some advise
Im on a low carb diet/no mixing diet but getting fed up of it now
Im a certified Naija bush woman - How can I eat jollof rice without chicken and how can I eat chicken without jollof rice
Can you give me some tips on some combinations please
In fairness its working, but somehow I dont see it as sustainable long term
Ive been having evening garden barbeques with salad . . .but I am getting bored.
Ive also drank only water for 5 days stretch . . .i need a pat on the back for that o!
Im not sure ive ever acheived that in my life
Thanks TV

. . .and coogar alias oko mary you can chip in too pls

bellong you too o! but dont give me that your soup diet. I no sick

This sweltering sun + the attendant hayfever - never thought I would complain about sunshine
Funny we never experience hayfever in Europe - even with sweltering sun. Somebody please explain this

The "no mixing" sounds like the old "Food Combining" to me? Which is oddly named as you actually separate carbs and proteins. First came across it ages ago, tried it and lost 7 pounds. I wasn't even planning to lose weight, I was told it helped with gas and pimples !

But seriously the weight came right off. I still practice it to this day. It's why you always hear of my salad + chicken/fish suppers. Some people find it boring/limited as it typically means veg and/or salad with either a protein or carb dish.

I've heard claims that the weight loss - even if only in part - is due to the restrictive nature? Not sure that many will care about that if it works !

Seems you are finding it boring/limited, and there is no real remedy for that. You could do it "in part". So my breakfast is always simple and my supper combined as before, but for lunch I'll have whatever takes my fancy.

What I do at Owambes is to have two separate meals. So I'll have say rice + moin moin, then a while later have some chicken and/or fish. But I'm happy to forego food that doesn't meet my standards or just have the one, but possibly a larger portion.

I don't find it boring and could eat decent fish, chicken - and occasionally meat - for days. It's my go to meal so obviously great for BBQ's.

Some people question how some items - i.e. - beans combines. But to me beans and dodo qualifies - but no meat 0! I count diary - including milk & eggs as protein. But I still have the occasional cheese or egg sarnie.

The low carb diet - aka Atkins - is actually satisfied by the protein combining. I liking that more these days as I find I have more energy and recover from workouts better - especially since I don't do protein drinks or supplements.

It was a hangover from my boxing days where it was all about making weight, leading me to avoid meat somewhat - now I'm not so sure protein causes weight gain more than carbs?

Well done on the 5 days of water. Was that a water fast or 5 days where you eschewed any liquid - i.e. your normal stout and gulder - than water? Either way good effort

Porridge with coconut milk, raisins and banana for brekkie, egg or cheese sandwich (I love artisan bread and get a fresh loaf on Saturday mornings) + smoothie for lunch and then salad and fish for supper.

Ekú weekend!

TV

PreciousBro:
Ooh Sorry mehn, but I'm only responsible for what I say not how you interpret it

No worries 'Bro But going by what you wrote below, I think I read you exactly right.

PreciousBro:
That power struggle was just me painting a bad scenario in a situation where things get sour to the detriment of the marriage or what not. Because we can't deny the fact that these things do happen, it wasn't me indicating that the man should instigate such happenings just for a test of his woman's ability to submit. Nah

I believe a man should remain calm and mature in all situations - never give leave to emotion. Although I can see that in real life things could get tense.

PreciousBro:
My post also didn't indicate that the pre-requisite to a successful marriage is intelligence based,nor any vain criteria, however, I do note that intelligence in it self is a number in the content of maturity.

No real qualms here either.

Is it pure intelligence as in ones IQ or how smarty/savvy one is. Is it expertise or knowledge in a particular area? To me intelligence is way over-rated. Especially the way women seem to prioritise it. Its more the kind of thing a woman will feel she must say she desires or is important - no matter how intelligent she herself is. Usually when they engage men they want to be entertained and feted, not discuss particle dynamics


TV

Ewuro4:
Hi TV long time, how's family and work?

@bold , Care to develop that into examples (in simple terms too, I'm working so can't really browse synonyms )

Holá J, we dey 0, thanks for asking. Just hayfever dey worry us one kind, but it's easing somewhat. How far with the loved ones?

To start, I said all things being equal. So assuming there are no questions of readiness or maturity - which are not necessarily age-dependent anyway.

1. It gives you more leeway in terms of when you start a family - older couples are under more pressure to have children soon. Giving you less time to simply enjoy each other without parenting cares.

2. It actually gives you more scope in the actual size of your family. The younger you marry, the more you are able to have - if you so desire. One of my cousins has six - only because he married at 24 to someone a bit younger. It's unlikely if you marry later.

3. If also forestalls/reduces the risk of fertility issues, and gives more time to deal with them if they do arise.

4. A big one for me is it matures men quick-time. Makes them more focused and responsible - studies show that married men tend to earn more. A marriage dividend so to speak.

5. More energy and time with and for your kids. Before and after they are grown. Which gives you your time together back when you are still a relatively young couple.

6. More likely to have the generation before you around to help, support and advise - and for longer.

I do see some potential benefits in marrying older, but in sum, I don't see them outweighing the advantages of doing it younger.

1. Probably more settled and possibly wealthier
2. Possibly more appreciative and ready to devote time to family and embrace "family man" things

What are your thoughts?


TV

...I'm back...hard rowing session tonight. I absolutely hate the thought of it and dread it's approach - do it once a week. But I'm always tremendously pleased when I complete it, and can scarce walk for a few minutes afterwards. I do 10'000 metres. Long ting. Red bream and salad to replenish. Now back to our discussion;

Stillfire:
This is not our language, you know. The English language is clear on what submission means. I did not define it.

That is simply an unhelpful and reductionist approach. We have the whole of the scriptural narrative regards the husband and wife dynamic. At the very least we can see that the flip side of the submission coin is love.

At a time women/wives were basically considered chattel, that was an unheard of novation - not to mention affording women equality by insisting on monogamy. Something some other religions and cultures still don't do today.

Stillfire:
Therefore, if there are times the woman gets her way, in the English context she is not practicing a submissive behavior (a behavior that does not speak up or challenge a point) but rather an assertive behavior where sometimes you lose and sometimes you win. Agree or not?

Totally disagree, for the following reasons;

1. Your language betrays an adversarial approach to family decision making - or indeed, any domestic relationship. "Gets her way", I can't speak for those who approach things thus - burger marriage, processed meat relationship

2. I really don't get an approach that is both reductionist and extreme. So if a woman does not "slavishly" obey her husband, she is not submissive? Is there anything in the bible to indicate that a wife should not have input, discuss, advice or counsel on decisions that affect the family as a whole? Or does the demand of a husband to love, honour, cherish and nurture his wife like his own flesh even remotely suggest treating her like a slave or expecting her to adopt the posture of one?

This is no more than the projection of persistent - and bad - cultural norms or personal sour experiences onto scripture. No one can honestly read the bible, specifically the instructions to husbands and wives and the narrative around spousal relationships from OT to new, and come to the conclusion you've reached - I vehemently disagree sef.

Stillfire:
Christianity might try to twist the word but it is sufficient to say on that premise of the English context and definition, Christian women are not submissive because today they have the rights to speak up

Christianity does not twist, it balances and it contextualises. Marriage does not hinge solely on submission, any more than it hinges solely on love. And Christian wives have always had the right to speak up - that does not mean they are not or cannot be submissive.

Not just, woefully reductionist and unnecessarily extreme, but poor exegesis to form and reject a theology of marriage on the literal/secular interpretation of one word. That's agenda/ideologically driven..fe...fe...fem... !

Stillfire:
And if we were to debate this in the law court, the correct term would not be submission to define the christian woman.

You can debate the literal meaning of submission till the cows come home.That will not give you an accurate rendering of the biblical injunctions or scriptural narrative around marriage.

Stillfire:
You did not answer my question on why the church has taken a 360 degree in not following Paul's ideology in silencing women in church. That is an exemplary criteria of being submissive as a christian woman.

An oversight apologies. I see it as submissive to male leadership in the church - they are not to speak as in to take the lead or assume authority over adult/mature males. 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35, 1 Timothy 2:12.

To me it makes sense and aligns with submission in the home. It's why I don't agree with female elders/pastors - which could give rise to a weird inversion of the authority principle. A church is really just an aggregation of families.


TV

babygirlfl:
One of the ways Christ showed his love to the church is by dying and atoning for the sins of the church. The bible asked men to love their wife the way Christ loved the church so much so that he died for the church. Men are supposed to love their wife so much as to die for her and even for her sins. Women were asked to submit and Jesus did not die for those worth dying for. He died for sinners.

I still see no clear point - about either love or submission

A man loves his wife and is willing to sacrifice himself for her - or her "sins" - does that sacrifice have any redemptive or salvific value akin to that of The Lord? Will a man dying for his wifes sins save her or him? More practically, is a husband a "get out of jail free" card

If a wife commits murder and her husband willing accepts - and is allowed - to take the punishment in her stead, what does that say? Moreso about the wife than the husband? Can a husband demonstrate love in any way other than "atoning" for a wifes sins? Or dying for her.

How does a man love a law-abiding wife !

You see why I questioned the implication of what you stated earlier. It simply makes no theological or practical sense - that I can figure - you really need to explicate.

babygirlfl:
I don't know how many Nigerian men will do it but none have done it so far.

This is something you cannot know, and hence a claim you cannot make. Not least because it's based on something that makes no real theological or practical sense - unless of course you are able to simply explain it.

babygirlfl:
I have not said whether or not the bible said a mans love qualifes submission. It's my opinion that only such men deserve submission.

And that's fine to a degree, but if your position is not biblically derived, why do you conclude the necessity of a husbands willingness to sacrifice himself for a wifes sins like the Lord - from the bible

You appear to be making a non-biblical case using the bible .

babygirlfl:
My points was never about submission. My points was about men loving their wife so you are the one that got this all wrong. Remember our discussion started by me quoting when you said nobody have talked about men being asked to love their wife. You are the one bringing submission into it.

I said nobody disputed the bibles command for men to honour, love, respect, cherish and nurture their wives like their own flesh;

1. Bible based
2. In relation to submission - and more particularly the acceptance/rejection of a command for wives to submit

That is what this thread is about, so I am not sure where you are going with this


TV

bukatyne:
https://www.nairaland.com/2421673/ladies-what-understand-term-submission/1#35411532

Apologies, it was mine 7th post or thereabout....

Get well soon

Tim asked if you agreed with the Bibles stance on submission - without stating what that stance was. So in your agreeing 100%, I don't know what exactly you are agreeing too.

My question was simply stated, a simple answer to that and we are good to go.


TV

bukatyne:
I have given my opinion in my first post on this thread

I asked you a question...

How are you and family?

This is your first post on this thread - https://www.nairaland.com/2421673/ladies-what-understand-term-submission#35402011
Please answer as asked so I am clear, or provide a link for me to follow.

Everyone is well thanks, albeit we are wrestling with hayfever.


TV

bukatyne:
What is your definition of 'Submission'?

Since the dictionary definition doesnot apply

Does the bible state that women are to be submissive to the leadership of their husbands and to accord him final authority in their home?


TV

^{...Bukatyne, you are greeting me with qweshun...how Yoruba is that. How is Oga !}

babygirlfl:
actually only one answered

Feel free to pose any relevent or subsidiary questions.

babygirlfl:
Most men wouldn't die for their wife.

You state that as a fact, at best it's your opinion. But one could also ask; would most women die for their husbands? Or are most wives worth dying for?

babygirlfl:
Christ loved the church so much that he died on behalf of the church to atone for their sin. Men where asked to love their wife as God loved the church.

So are men to love their wives by atoning for their sins? Really? You need to provide further insight here, as I cannot fathom what you mean by this. Or should I say, to the extent I can, I cannot believe what you appear to be implying.

babygirlfl:
Please lets not mix Nigerian and English men up. These two group of men are so so so different. I believe the English man loves more genuinely.

Is this like an attempt to detonate the discussion ! You are now introducing race and culture into the mix - when we are talking faith/religion

And again, you really need to be explicit here. I've looked at this statement repeatedly and at best it sounds like a wholesale slur on black men. Not only claiming they are pathologically incapable of genuine love, but as a corollary implying they can't even be christians ! Just say it - "the black man, child of a lesser God !

babygirlfl:
I know English men who married women who are terminally ill of cancer. How many Nigerian men will do that. These men love genuinely. I read the story. It was touching. I shed a tear and marvelled. Only these kind of men deserve to expect submission.

Huh? This is just sentimental. It's marriage, but not for the reasons it was instituted. At best it has therapeutic value for the woman

And again, you don't know how many Nigerian men would or wouldn't do this And again, the bible does not predicate a womans submission on a mans love - or on a womans qualifiying him or his actions as worthy of her submission - which is an error you repeatedly make.

babygirlfl:
Funny enough, these kind of men don't even care about submission. It's the Nigerian cheating man that would force submission.

More emotionalism - you are yet to agree that submission is demanded, or that it is demanded unequivocally, before you move on to whether loving men care about it or not. Or its actual dynamic.

And why does a discussion of what the bible says on submission demand you to characterise Nigerian men as "cheating". Not that cheating obviates the command. One can simply avoid Nigerian "insert spiteful characterisation here" men !

You really have presented nothing to show that submission is not demanded and spent a lot of time slurring black/Nigerian men to prove it's not justified


TV

Stillfire (couldn't quote you due to the error in your quoting me),

Marriage outside christianity tenets have worked for some people.

I acknowledged that – that is not the point in dispute. It is primarily Christianity and the bibles position on submission. Not even the practicalities or particulars of submission, but if it is actually required. But how can we get to the practicalities or the particulars, when it is wholesale rejected as a command?

There are already two christian views on this subject...

Nope, there is just the one correct reading. Feel free to point out an alternative and I’ll respond. In any event, why is rejecting scripture the answer to misreadings of it?

The argument from Precious bro was that submission come first before love. I had to remind him that despite both genders are independently called to do their own bit, nothing comes before love in the Christian faith. Do you or do you not agree?

I believe I actually made that point - in fact I have done so repeatedly

What you forgot to mention is that Dominant behaviors are not the exclusive of men. In some marriages today, some women are better off leading the institution.

But for a harmonious balance we need masculine and feminine traits. For a woman to “dominate” means the man must reciprocate in a supplicatory manner. And that’s fine from one point of view, but note the following;
1. It will likely kill the love/respect the woman has for the man - hypergamy has been mentioned
2. It’s essentially an argument for “genderlessness”
3. And it’s not egalitarian is it?

Only kids wants to have the final say all the time. In adult relationships you win some you lose some, life goes on.

That is your prejudice speaking. No one has said leadership means the husband always has the final say. Niether does is mean there are win-lose situations. Good leadership typically forestalls win-lose situations - it's why it's needed .


TV

PreciousBro:
Nicely said TV01, that is why my argument with coogar was centred on "Intelligence not being the whole and all" reason ascribed or the determinant for submisiveness because two people, being intellectually different or with the intelligence compatibility margin width of the pacific ocean can still relate, communicate, love each other and marry.

Thanks.
I've been clear on my thoughts around intelligence, or any other supposed criteria. But if it's key for a women, she should be happy with her intendeds IQ - as she is to submit regardless.

PreciousBro:
Damn! Why do you women cringe with disgusts ,fear and annoyance by the mention of submissiveness ?

It's a deadly retro-virus. Man made like HIV and deadlier than ebola. Those infected should be quarantined. It's called feminism !

PreciousBro:
Men are not bad na lol, we love our women and we don't make it a slavery affair when our wives are to submit to us like TV01 opined, its complimentary and it is something that binds nd completes us as a couple with love and peace.

Leave them - by demanding equality in men who are truly men, or getting it from men who have been taught to supplicate to women, women get less than they should and not what they want .

PreciousBro:
Bottom line is , when it comes to disagreement, pride,ego and power struggle, the woman ought to place hers down for her man. His ego should come first. That is where the need to submit comes into play....

I don't agree here. A mature man - which is the pre-requisite for being a husband, not intelligence - will not let his family affairs be a matter of pride or ego. Funnily enough, when a woman is dragging authority with him, there are more likely to be times of conflict and power play.


TV

babygirlfl:
I asked a question one time and not many men answered.

Not many? So some did? If the question was worthy of exploring, why not pursue it?

babygirlfl:
Most men that also claim to love their wife don't love her as Christ loved the church.

How did you ascertain this? And even if they don't, the biblical injunction on women to submit to their husbands is not dependent on their husbands first loving them, or on their determining if their husbands have "earned" their submission or his leadership

babygirlfl:
How many men can die for their wife's sin. How many men here will die in place of their wife if she was sentenced to death for committing murder.

Really? Perhaps think about how you phrased those questions. I spoke of the make-up of males and females - not that one requires great insight, deep biblical understanding or even spiritual discernment to know this; in times of danger men typically put women first - at the expense of their own lives if need be.

What happened on the Titanic? Abi you haven't watched that movie a zilion times ! Women and children first - it's universal, not just Christian. Women do not put themselves in danger for their husbands or members of the opposite sex in any way near the same rate as men.

You are in the UK, so this is near to home for you - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3140847/Just-tell-children-daddy-loves-Fiancee-tells-hero-father-used-body-shield-bullets-shot-four-times-stomach-terror-gunmen-Tunisian-massacre.html

babygirlfl:
Also you don't hear people talk about men loving their wife because you hardly see women opening a thread like this asking what it means to love.

That's besides the point - no one is disputing it are they? At worst, there'd be a discussion around the particulars, not the actual command


TV

It's funny how no one - male or female - has ever disputed the biblical injunction of men to love their wives. To cherish them, honour them and treat them like their own flesh.

Why then is there so much clamour and rebellion against the call for women to submit to their husbands? The bible is clear, wives are to submit unreservedly to their husbands. Not due to the fact they are older, richer, taller, from better backgrounds or more intelligent - just by virtue of the fact that he is your husband.

Even if he is not loving you as the bible commands - or as you wish . Although it is obviously easier to do so if he is. But doing it becuase he is, is not obedience, it's eye-service, and again is not a pre-requisite for your submission, that is by virtue of the fact that he is your husband.

What haven't we heard in order to wish away the clear instruction to submit? Everything from attacks on Paul, to re-interpretation of scripture, to butchering of the same; from "submission is mutual", to "submission actually means love".

What is it about a woman being led by her husband that cuts aginst the make-up of males and females? When indeed, it is actually perfectly aligned with our individual make-up and complimetary design. Why is the clamour for "equality" - which as I've pointed is rarely possible, even with the best intentions - and not for women to lead?

Afterall, thats what most are submitting and others affirming - even if only implicitly. I particularly like those who claim their husbands "earn" leadership . Pray tell, who decides when he's earned it? Where and in what type of relationship does the leader get graded by those lesser in authority?

Do direct reports determine the pay of their managers or is it the other way round? Those who truly determine the "earnings" of their husbands, are in fact leading those marriages - be it by stealth or manipulation.

As ever, people are free to live their relatiosnhips as they see fit - and they can deem them successful by their own criteria. But the bible is clear, and for good reason. I take no exception to peoples individual dynamic and arragngements, only to peoples butchering of the scripture.

I read one thread where someone told Pickabeau1 that when they couldn't agree, they called on a 3rd party - can you make this stuff up .


TV

Stillfire:
Don't bring me into this o. I don already post my behavioural pattern on the opening page.
Relationships can exist without the submission principle. I mean if we look at the statistics atheists marriages survive better than christian marriages. What does that tell you? You do not need to apply the submission principle to have a successful marriage. My relationship understands that both parties have equal, legitimate rights. It has served me so far in my relationship.
Submission requires that the wife be silent and yield to authority. Simple English. Every other thing is no more submission.

Stilly, how far? Pondering your submissions here - not your usual high standard .

1. First your claim of atheist marriages doing better than christian ones is at best reaching - not least because lots of people tag themsewlves christian in a merely cultural sense.

2. Even if we could objectively distinguish between atheist and christian unions, there is no way of knowing which do or do not incorporate submission into the dynamic of their union, or which fail due to incorporating it - or not, as the case may be.

3. Your equating submission to unquestioning servility/slavery is at best disingenious - no one has ever claimed that. It's even worse when you take a wordly definition and then try and apply it in a christian context.

4. Worse because of your own acknowledgment that love is paramount in christianity. The flip side of the submission coin - within marriage - is of course love. One can never treat as a slave or servant one that he or she loves.

Stillfire:
Mr Man, I hope you don't think I'm in support of you sha. Nothing comes before love as a christian. The foundation of Christianity is LOVE!

Outside of what christinaity outlines for marriage, no one has said that a marriage cannot work without submission. It depends on the worldview and personas of those involved.

Having said that, it is worth noting a number of things;

1. Females are drawn to men of higher status - more tellingly they respond to dominant behaviour (not force or aggrssion, more like assertiveness, boldness and other alpha traits). Even more importantly it feeds a mans attractiveness to a woman. A marriage with a supplicating man at home and a dominant male boss/colleagues at work, or church (outside the home in short) is in possible danger. Hence why some women stray or are tempted to - or use the old "Pastor says" argument to deal with their husbands.

2. There are typically no egalitarian relationships. Even with same sex couples, one typically assumes a senior/leadership/dominant role. So women claiming equlity/equal rights in marriage are probably not talking out of a lived experience, or lying, or of course forming baddest e-fem that ever liveth !

Let me mop up here


TV

All things being equal, I would say it is. No gainsaying. It gives you that much more time and leeway to do pretty much everything.


TV

tearoses:
TV01 your help is needed pls.
Its to do with nutrition advise

..sup Sis?


TV

RoyalRoy:
A man may not want you just for procreation alone but for companionship and other things.

True, he may or he may not - but surely that's a question that can and should be be asked - regardless of fertility - at this stage?

RoyalRoy:
Telling him is just like giving him a heart ache.

And not telling him may do just the same. Only it will be when he has been misled - and who knows for how long. Telling him now allows him to make an informed decision, and prepare himself for what may lie ahead should he decide to proceed..


TV

^{...bellong...dey regulate go jor !}

...Falcons are fumbling . Let me vent on FT !

FrancisTony:
Okay, are you saying that whenever you obey your wife, then it automatically mean submission?

It would if I did, but I don't obey my wife - and she wouldn't be as insolent as to order me - she calls me Lord !
- Ask your aunties here on NL which of them has husbands that obey them

FrancisTony:
This submission ish is overhyped, aswear.

It's not overhyped at all - some seek to wish it away, others feel it's important to resist them.

FrancisTony:
Head means the "pillar" who gives an assertion for something to be done.
As the head, husband brings out an/a opinion/matter and seeks the wife advice, before proceeding not rushing to do it because she's an inconsequential subordinate.

You see why you are totally out of your depth;
- husband is a pillar that gives an assertion So a wife cannot be the originator of concepts? Mine can, yet she still submits
- and wherever it originates, who says it cannot be discussed - and why does this mean hubby is not, leader with authority?
- who has called women inconsequential? A helpmeet a partner, an accomplice . Vital, crucial, irreplaceable. To the left boy !

FrancisTony:
- To me, a woman becomes a slave or dormant dumbkopf when she swallows whatever her husband says hook-line and sinker because he's a man even though they are all senile.

Who has said authority and leadership by one, with obedience by the other implies a doormat or "dumbkopf"

FrancisTony:
Have you forgotten the dual nature of Christ?
He was both God and Man on earth.
His flesh ate, praye
d, slept etc

Divinity of Christ
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said to Him. "My Lord and my God!".

His flesh wasn't equal to God because God never die(s).

What has this to do with the fact that he submitted himself - you are grasping at straws and all over the place - I almost feel sorry for you !

FrancisTony:
I refuse to insult you Tv01

How pious - after slurring my mother and father, you are now attempting to claim the high ground - in lieu of a decent argument on submission. For your information, you are unable to insult me !

FrancisTony:
Like they say, charity begins at home.
Husband and Wife should respect each other equally as bible commanded.

How does mutual respect between husband and wife mean a husband cannot lead and have authority over his household - including his wife. Or that a wife cannot obey her husband.

Did Abraham' "commanding of his household - Genesis 18:19 mean he did not respect his wife? 1 Peter 3:6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. Did that mean there was no mutual respect?

You don't actually have an argument on biblical submission do you - just a blind ideology of "sket saving"

FrancisTony:
By the way, do you care to explain what submission means in your own context apart from respect?

I don't have to - the question is, biblically is submission and obedience demanded of wives, and is leadership and authority vested in husbands?

You and your like keep insisting that submission is mutual for spouses, submission = love, head =source or = pillar, but deny the repeated testimony of scripture that the answer to that question is an obvious yes.

Ploys to introduce terms like inconsequential subordinate, dumbkopf and slave, or doormat are of your own prejudice. Nowhere does the bible instruct or show in it's narrative that that's what submission and obedience are or demand.

Your performance is even poorer than the Falcons display tonight - red card !


TV

Stillfire:
I just remembered my mills and boon, harlequin, historical romance, etc days...tehehehe

You too?...I used to relentlessly devour M&B...all my early game was learned there...


TV

Mbkite:
Cynthia has almost all that Emeka wants in a woman. She(cynthia) scored 9 on a scale of 10 based on the qualities he(Emeka) has outlined for a future wife. She is educated, caring, decent, religious, hardworking, supportive and respectful. The only challenge Emeka is having is Cynthia's age, she is 33 while he is 29. He is just afraid of the unknown and the possible consequences of this age factor. Emeka really wants to settle down with Cynthia. Matured advice please.

The real issue here is Emekas faulty grading system. Age should feature - and prominently - as a "quality "in his criteria. Recalibrate and avoid making the same mistake in future - on my scale a "4 year" older women scores a big fat zero !

Young and nubile is the way to go


TV

FrancisTony:
You are wrong!
There's nowhere bible opined that children should submit to their parents.

Exodus 20:12
Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

You are confused FT; Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right - does one not submit as an act of obedience

FrancisTony:
Bibe simply wrote that Children should honour their mother and father.
Keyword - honour , that's some kind of adulation not how Wife was commanded to submit to her husband.
The only thing I adhere is that, Man is the head of family .
Submission should be reciprocated afterall, even bible said;

I've shown your first assertion to be wrong
Your second is illogical - how can a wife submit to her husband if they are both at once submitting to each other
Your third begs the question "what does it mean to be head" - |I've heard some funny ones for that interpretation

FrancisTony:
Ephesians 15:31
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
How can their be unequality between a flesh? huh? That's akin to saying God the father, God the son and God the holyspirit aren't equal just because they are different.

You are totally lost here - the fact that men and women are equal has nothing to do with this - divine order demands men lead homes and women & children submit. Simples.

Even The Lord humbled himself to submit to the Father - although they are equal
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

FrancisTony:
Yes they do!
In the sense that a good/righteous ruler contacts his subjects before taking a decision.

And if he does not? Do they cease to be the ruler? You are straining - that's why I suggested an exercise regime for you

FrancisTony:
What of, "submitting to one another" in that verse.
Pray tell, what "one another" means.

Does submitting to one another mean everyone submits to everyone else in every instance in all relationships. Can't you see how absurd you sound and how obtuse you are being?


TV

I asked you this;

TV01:
If submission is in al instances reciprocal, why is it actually needed? And why would there be any need for a qualifier of "wives submittring to husbands" immediately afterwards?

You responded thus;

FrancisTony:
I don't know; My bible opined so.

Ephesians 5:20
20. giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.

The bible nowhere - and certainly not the verse you quoted - states that submission is in all instances reciprocal. Indeed, it can't. It is where "submission is demanded", such as for husband and wife.

If it did, elders would submit to deacons, or parents to children, or christian masters to servants. Do you see how absurd your reading is now?

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Do the rulers/governemnt now submit to the citizens? No, as the verse following clearly shows;
Romans 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

The thrust behind Ephesians 5:21 is more about the attitude of submission - in the fear of God - demanded by those you are to obey/submit to. So in as much as a wife submits to her husband, there is a way to do it, not grudgingly or with an attitude.

FrancisTony:
I have an incomparable avalanche of bible knowledge - it's not a man thing but human.

So no, the bible opined nada, and it seems like the "avalanche is on top of you and not within - someone dig this person out

So I repeat,

TV01:
FrancisTony, please don't willfully misunderstand the bible. Or reinterprete it to garner likes !

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


TV

...Morrin ES, had to like this for it's sheer depth. We need a whole suite of like buttons .

EnlightenedSoul:
We're not talking of so-called limiting factors - although you like to boast of this wider window men supposedly have that they actually don't have by much if you take into account 'trivial' things like, oh IDK, the child's health and mental cognition (here we assume we're working with 'quality' sperm to begin with, regardless of age). We're talking of 'want' here.

True, sperm quality decreases with age - but that can be mostly overcome by taking a suitably nubile spouse !

EnlightenedSoul:
Men generally not only want children more, they want more of them. Studies show that they even anticipate more happiness at the thought of having them! Women, on the other hand, generally report relatively lower anticipatory levels, and self-report lower levels of happiness and quality of life in literally every area of life after having had said children - even if they don't necessarily express regret in their choices.

I won't gainsay your assertion. But desiring treasures or precious things that come at relatively little cost is to be expected, no? I would love 10 kids, truly - but the limiting factor - physically - is my wife (ignoring our circumstances).

Indeed, your statement only shows that the cost to women is so much greater, hence the actual joy is somewhat reduced relative to men. Or are you saying that men love children more than women? There is no equivalent to "feeling broody" for men.

EnlightenedSoul:
Due to patriarchal conditioning, which waxes even stronger in the African setting, many men whole-heartedly believe they are worth a not and have failed immeasurably if they cannot successfully produce human trophies to live on after them when they're dead, to serve the function of passing on their genes/family name, etc. Women are brought up to please them in providing these 'heirs', the societal pressure of which to do so remains incredibly immense as well. Reason fertile men are more prone to swiftly divorcing infertile woman, some still having no qualms laying the blame squarely at the woman's feet when he - the man - is the culprit (for fear the spread of the delicate news will spell certain shame, and dawn the beginning of his own 'emasculation' as he sees it).

Man are at once status driven and more far-sighted than women. The maternal instinct is just that - a desire to birth. Whereas, men like to build an empire, strengthen a lineage, ensure bloodlines and kinship ties are maintained. We are back to the "men build empires" assertion .

The truth is, most men work tirelessly to provide for the wives and children. Seeing that their efforts feed into and perpetuate something greater than them makes it all worthwhile. In the "monkey dey work,baboon dey chop" adage, it's the men that are doing the work.

Children have always been the raison d'etre of marriage, and the main benefit to males from embracing it. Not that I personally condone dissolution due to childlessness. And I also note both parties do so, and if it's the man "at fault", some women are not beneath "presenting" him with offspring regardless .

EnlightenedSoul:
Perhaps oddly understandable in a weird way since men and women do not contribute an even fifty-fifty to the existence of a child. They only contribute fifty-fifty to the chromosomes (and that’s assuming no trisomies, etc).

The woman contributes:

1. 23 chromosomes
2. Mitochondrial DNA
3. The child’s entire first cell - the sperm does not survive fertilization
4. Forty weeks’ gestation
5. And for those who breastfeed, the child’s first nourishment for the next several months to a year/two after birth.

The man contributes:

1. 23 chromosomes

Child-rearing too is generally left largely to the woman, motherhood being the "crown of her glory". Fatherhood? Not so much. Traditionally, it's been rather coldly attributed to (in order of importance):

1) His ability to sire - the more the better as a sure sign of virility (= prowess = manliness). Reason it would be of no surprise if the aforementioned irresponsible man with 20 kids on federal assistance were to BOAST of having fathered his entire ghetto without the intention of having anything to do with them in any way/shape/form.

2) His ability to fund - explicable.

3) The hard disciplinarian - starring as stern step-in for the 'primary' caregiver.

And then, lastly, pulling from my own experiences, how unrealistically early men tend to express their desire for children, leaving me to...

...wondering how the heck that premature bomb crept it's way into a casual conversation? This included, but was not limited to the occasional wistful interjection/speech on what they expected/wanted of their imaginary future children.

All this does is buttress my point about the cost and risk being much greater for women - whilst the outcome in terms of their percieved quality of life is actually poorer - meaning it's simply easier for men to have higher levels undampened desire.

EnlightenedSoul:
Men want children more, because society has made it their highest-most function within the patriarchal dynamic. Simply put, a man is what he can put forth, i.e, produce. It's almost as if their very claim to manhood hangs in the balance!

Really? Pray tell, what is a womans highest function - in any societal dynamic. !


TV

Stillfire:
Buhahahaha. I hope the bats in the cave kick you out of their natural habitat.

Love it Stilly .

But you realise that when "feminism" finally screws everything up, you'll join us in the cave - and resume your natural role as we rebuild. Although I was talking tongue-in-cheek, as I don't think it wil get that far before womens natural instinct to police other women and protect patriarchy will re-assert itself .


TV