₦airaland Forum

PromiseAndre:
NOTE: My point isn't eradication of marriage, but rethinking marriage's importance and assumptions. Keep marriage, if you so want, but it shouldn't hamper or restrict others from benefits or equal treatment, especially when there appears so little reason for having it.

I'll start with your conclusion - why does marriage require re-thinking, be that in terms of it's assumptions or importance? What is inherently wrong with the institution, that leads you to even question it - making no valid assertions and providing no concrete evidence? And you voiced the word eradication, denying it as your intent, only to claim "there appears little reason for having it"? Please prove or demonstrate your assertions!

PromiseAndre:
Marriage, as most know it is regarded as the end goal of a relationship between (usually) a man and woman, and it normally has some sort of religious component. Marriage is regarded as "sacred". Weddings are planned that few really want to attend; pointless dresses are worn never to be seen again; awkward family photos are taken.

- Not every r/ship between a man and a woman demands marriage. Indeed, marriage is not demanded or forced, it should be mutually sought.
- Be it religious or civil, marriage is as defined - it's purpose is unchanged.
- And why are you speaking of marriage in a perjorative sense ?

PromiseAndre:
Being married supposedly conveys respectability. We regard it as "settling down", indicative of stability. For some reason we even congratulate people who are already in a relationship for, basically, signing papers (or just changing Facebook statuses) and calling it an engagement. Indeed, well-known people have already done so: Oprah Winfrey unashamedly remains unmarried to her life partner of 20 years; powerful Hollywood couple Brad Pitt and Angelina have children, adopted and biological, but remain unmarried. (Don't tell me shebi dem be westerners).

- Yes it does, and it should - the respectability that comes from making a lifelong commitment to your spouse and any children you may have
- If you think marriage is as simple as changing your facebook status or merely a matter of "siging papers", you are totally adrift
- "Unmarried to her life partner". How illogical. Brad and Angelina are married

PromiseAndre:
MARRIAGE MYTH 1: It's tradition
One response usually involves tradition, religion, family and/or culture. None of these is sufficient, however, for marriage – or any activity. To act solely according to what families want would be not only archaic but immoral:

Good religious or cultural norms are indeed sufficient. The emphasis should be on individuals understanding why and choosing to follow them. Especially where such norms are beneficial to individual and societal flourishing. Not archaic, tried and tested, proven. Not immoral, both moral and beneficial

PromiseAndre:
Love shouldn't be completely unconditional, but it also shouldn't be a gun to the throat. It is our lives, and compromises can usually – but not always – be reached.

If it's conditional, it's not love (you will know women !). But love has never been demanded before marriage. Love is evidence of your commitment to your marriage. Get it right.

PromiseAndre:
Getting married for the sake of your religion also seems problematic: aside from those who are not religious, actions aren't right just because a religion demands them.

Answered previously - but are they wrong because a religion demands them? And which religion demands or forces marriage?

PromiseAndre:
MARRIAGE MYTH 2: It's a public declaration of love
The second argument you often hear is that marriage is a declaration of love. It's about "showing" we're settled, our partners are "off the market", and we're in a position to build a family. Most of this, however, is a display for others. Plenty of monogamous couples maintain stable, healthy relationships without rings or certificates to "prove" loyalty.

Hush! It's not a "mere display". It's a public declaration of your marriage and it's intent, reciprocated by the community who acknowledge your commitment to each other and your part in ensuring the continuation and flourishing of that same community. You'd be well served to get some culture in you and understand the reason for cherished traditions.

PromiseAndre:
Indeed, who are we trying to prove our love to? Our proof should be our treatment of each other: anything else is addition, not basis. There is more to be worried about if we need to "secure" someone, like a raging animal, with a ring or certificate or other public stamp.

Answered

PromiseAndre:
Furthermore, as high divorce rates show, being tied to one person doesn't work out for many, especially for the rest of our lives. Compromises can be made. Couples now SWING/CHEAT, maintain open marriages, and so on. But this should only make us question why we're still devoted to the "one true love" ideal in the first place.

You "question" without exploring or fully understanding - and the fact remains, you can have any relationship you choose, why trouble yourself about marriage?

PromiseAndre:
MARRIAGE MYTH 3: Married couples make better parents
Of course, there's evidence to support the idea that married couples make better parents and families than, say, single parents. Some of this is because there hasn't been much research into alternative family structures, although that will likely change since trends are changing.

What are these alternate family structures - and what about them - in lieu of any research - suggests they may be even as good as traditional marriage? Are you suggesting we experiment with childrens lives and wellbeing to demonstrate the suitability of these alternate family structures?

PromiseAndre:
All that said, it's not marriage alone that gives couples magical parent powers: it's the stability of a home, a good relationship, a great support basis. Certificates and rings don't do that: mature, honest, good people do – for themselves and each other. And, further, the assumption that every adult or couple wants children is false.

You are utterly confused. You both assert and rebut yourself in succeeding sentences and then go off at a total tangent

PromiseAndre:
MARRIAGE MYTH 4: You get better legal and financial benefits
There's no denying this as perhaps the best of the terrible reasons for marriage. Married couples get certain legal and economic benefits we otherwise can't get.
Any marriage solely for tax benefits needs help. It doesn't tell us anything about the relationship itself, save that the couple want benefits from the state. It's not that much different from the infamous "green card" scenarios, where citizenship is obtained or a visa extended due to marrying a local. But this, too, undermines what many think marriage is – or should be.
You could argue that the state needs some way to recognise stability. If marriage is the only way, then perhaps the state and I can nod and wink as we pass each other our papers for our mutual benefit. Similarly, this assumes the state should be involved in marriage at all, which itself requires serious consideration. If as adults we can decide how to spend the rest our lives, we can, on a case-by-case basis, say, draw up legal documents.

Silence already. Apart forn the fact that some countries do not grant married couples any benefits - and some are even starting to penalise them - this is not the "best of the terrible" reasons" for marriage. The state should rightly support what the community endorses - marriage - in it's own long term best interest. And any state that doesn't do this is remiss

PromiseAndre:
Disclaimer: To my cute ladies, am not sorely responsible 4 watsoevr u may think on this write-up.... HaPPY VAL in advance..

Learner and confusionist


TV

ihedinobi2:


I was surprised really. What'd she attack him for?

She couldn't deal with him acting like a man in a male environment - and hence attempted by physical force to restrain him.

In as much as it's not real life as such, the thrill of the win, kill, etc. causes men to exhult, what's her problem? Why the need to forcibly domesticate him? Why was hse even there - unless as a "supporter" - everyone knows that women can't game like men.

Mad funny the way he dealt with her.


TV

Morning guys,

I'm not sure if this has popped up on NL already - in fact, I don't understand why it hasn't gone viral .

It's primordially funny and worth watching at less than 2 minutres, just for that. But there are also has some good insights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&x-yt-cl=84503534&v=1Sfs9h3bIDg&feature=player_embedded


A gaming competetion, typically a male pursuit, even if somewhat beta/juvenile from some perspectives.

Brother wins a match and celebrates in typical "male style" - which the mixed audience seemingly understand and appreciate.

And then; a lone female decides to "feminise" things!

Note the brothers reaction !

He does not address her directly, but calls out her "handler", showing his authority as a man - Alpha with capital "pha"

Next time one of NL' resident harridans gets in the way, you know what to ask !


TV

favoured234:
In your own perspective, that's ok I don't think we will have to argue this out, but then, don't be fast to judge anyone that has gone through the process of divorce. I am not advocating for divorce but that could have been their best bet.

When, or under what circumstances is divorce a good thing?
I haven't judged anyone - merely stated that divorce is always a bad thing.

TV

Apart from the bit below, I fully endorse this piece. Divorce is always a bad thing .

favoured234:
Of course, divorce isn’t always a bad thing. It’s the best course of action in some cases...

TV

alutacontinua:
e be like say he come ugly on top

They call us Beauty & the Beast !


TV

cococandy:


@tv, I don't think that was the case with him.
He was probably too picky . You know he won't say the truth now on nairaland

But I'm sure then he wanted a Beyoncé body with mother Mary Christian devotion and mother Theresa's heart blessed with Martha Stewart skills.

The lil' sister I always longed for - who knows me so well !

carefreewannabe:
I am not a fan of marriage either.

So pray tell, why are you so interested in it?


TV

ihedinobi2:
@TV, na wa o. Na so d tin fit bad reach. Fear nearly catch me o.

I haven't told the half of it; I literally started from scratch; ground zero - in fact worse than that. I had a very negative impression of marriage. I had only seen it modelled poorly, did not understand it in it's essence, hadn't a clue how to go about it and had all but decide against it.

Then I found my Saviour. Even from there it was still a long journey - although it was the furthest thing from my mind at first, I had eyes only for Him. But gradually and then finally. It's why I'm such a passionate advocate of marriage and especially based on Christian principles.

I've read your subsequent posts and too be honest, I'm not even really sympathetic. I have no doubt you have all it takes and are being led. Stay faithful, remain humble, and you will surely testify.

All you are going through is too strengthen and prepare you. I don't disparage the depth of what you felt for those now past, but when it happens, you will scarce remember them.


TV

Timbuktou:
I get you bruh. I guess I had it delivered on a platter.

I disagree.You saw an opportunity and you took it. You won your bride - even if it was after a seemingly short battle.

Timbuktou:
I literally went through quantity before I came to my senses and sealed it with the missus.

And here's why ^^; you fought may wars before and were battle hardened.

I love your story. I met and got engaged to my wife in 3 months. People are always saying "that was too quick". I always reply, "over 15 years looking for a wife does not suggest haste.


TV

moca:
Yeso!
Thanks for sharing. Unless u don't want to, I believe everybody has a spouse waiting somewhere.
Sometimes, it looks like a fairy tale but that's d plain truth

May ur union continue to blossom!

Amen.
My actually finding someone was a miracle - I was convinced it was a single life - maybe as a missionary for me. I sold every asset I had and just had one big pile of cash. Just waiting to be directed to my duty station .

carefreewannabe:
ROFL

TV, you cracked me up.

Just to be sure, did you complain that the girls eat salad or did they complain?

Me complain? Who dash monkey banana? I just used to turn up for dates - or call, I did lots of cold calling - with a hopeful look on my face (or tone of voice). I only provided a snapshot of reasons.

Even the good ones were turned into excuses. "Why always gymming? at least you are not fat na"? "You mean you have no children or have never been married? What's wrong with you. I'd be more comfortable if you had some tangible history - what are you hiding?"

Most of them didn't pass first date. And I suspect that many of the ones that persevered through the first date were mostly out of pity. Second dates sef, I used to fear. That's when they would bring up their immigration issues and explain how they needed to marry within the next 3 months or return home !. Or their impending homelessness, or dire financial situation.


TV

moca:
Abeg TV01, come and finish what u started
I'm interested

Moca, notin' to report o jare!

After being introduced to almost all the eligible women in the Pentecostal - and Nigerian community circles - London and SE UK (reesh Ireland sef) with nothing forthcoming - I was beginning to wonder? Different, different types of excuse; too short, too dark, scrawny, not in IT, drives small car, no property doesn't dress well, eats salad etc. etc.

As if finishing me wasn't enough, there were also questions about my family and lineage. "Is he not so and so's grandson", "wait 0, isn't he related to so and so"? Then one didn't actually make any complaint, just burst out laughing - I was in absolute despair - was marriage really meant for me or I for marriage?

All my mates were long since married and I was in that situation were even most of my younger ones were married. I know what it's like when they call you "uncle" with the silent "useless" before it. I was always the first call when someone was doing intro or naming. Afterall, "what is he doing"?

We thank God for technological advances

TV

Internet !

TV

Ihedinobi,

as ever bringing depth and spirituality. Salute!

I would cavil around the use of the word weakness. It does nothing for the man to show weakness or be seen as weak. And I mean weak in the sense of failure to rise to the situation, to drive - a lá CAR - especially in the sight of people whose opinion she values or other men.

There are exceptions of course - who will be forthright about what's wrong and support their man in regaining his strength. Be these are rare, truly ascended women, ones who truly believe and and are invest in their man. Distinguish between these and those who are just playing the percentages - realising they don't really have more tenable options.

Now, vulnerability,compassion, tenderness, that's another matter.


TV

pickabeau1:
This just skirts the issue


There is a battle on the horizon

He either faces it now or wait till she's so strong and leaves him

Women are extremely status conscious and constantly re-evaluating, especially those in the throes of hypergamy - who are more likely to act on changes or indeed, have a plan in their minds from the outset.

If she got with him from the beginning solely as a platform for her ambitions (or as a failsafe), he may have been on countdown from day 1. It's just a matter of her biding her time and choosing her moment. She'll stay as long as long as it serves her purpose to do so.

https://www.nairaland.com/1935277/making-choice#26908237

Here's a woman who was essentially planning such - her own long-term comfort, well-being and security first and foremost.


TV

pickabeau1:
Good debate guys


For me I still believe he is the one putting himself down

TV
Why do you think he should not demand accountability from the businesses
And saying he should have a comparable platform to show his wife
Is it a competition

Netotse..I see you too

...read again with emphasis on the bold.

I didn't say he shouldn't, I said he shouldn't start with that - she will just see it as an ego driven "land grab", and likely respond with fire.
If other things are being correctly ordered first, she will likely be more receptive.

I also gave him a way to legitimately request an account of her business efforts. Hopefully he's being appreciative, commending and supportive here and not resentful?

TV

I won’t go back to pre-marriage or marriage, or even the seed money he provided - what is done is done and I’ll advise with the understanding that the idea is first to stabilise things.

He needs to start driving - CAR. But in no way should he try and do this by taking control or even trying to engage in the 3 businesses.

He should look for other avenues first. The big and obvious one is to garnish some status for himself, be that in business or even a job. A job sounds like a long shot, so maybe leveraging his family – not necessarily asking for funds – but partnering, doing business with/alongside them.

That should give him so comfort, as it’s clear that he’s probably not up to going it alone. Much in the same way that a job may be a stretch. It sounds like a clear case of 2nd/3rd generation profligacy. I’d happily get me some of that !

He should also be more proactive on the home front – taking an interest in everything from day to day domestics and most especially long-term projects. I think he already has a foot in here.

The long-term projects and family vision is also a way for him to demand her attention/input and ask for accountability about the businesses and her income.

One of these projects, or part of this vision will be his enterprise. First he is seeking support, not permission. Men should never seek validation from their wives, it works the other way round. One cannot be equalist here.

After all, she has not taken responsibility for coming up with something for him, whilst she has established her own – which she has not invited him to be part of. Question what she though of him all along if she was happy to take his seed money, build a business, not repay, not involve and not account?

(And although he cites her lack of support thus far as an inhibitor, I still feel it’s his own lack of oomph that has stopped things taking off – and the authority he has thereby ceded to her, and respect lost is fuelling her discontent )

He needs to think long-term - if he has the luxury - but implement gradual changes - mostly to himself. I speak about the vision and how it's never too late. Hopefully it isn't in this case and she will buy into it. But if she's made her plans and is just biding her time, it will be difficult to dissuade her - "When a womans fed up"

This type may require prayer and fasting as well!


TV

pickabeau1:
I dont totally agree with all your findings

No qualms - that's just my reading of the situation. But let us know what other insights you have.

pickabeau1:
From his own words, he is self disparaging - Maybe a fucntion of the evil words the woman is saying

No. He's a man CAR - she didn't get there overnight. She stated with hope and expectation (even if he wasn't aware of this). He hasn't delivered. A womans frustrations will manifest one way or another. They are not cut out to happily to the lead in a relationship

pickabeau1:
However i feel it is a temperament - he seems to be a phlegmatic while she seems to have a choleric bent with a dash of nastiness and disrespect

Men control their emotiond's - or are not led by them - and don't fall back on disposition as an excuse. In any event giving leave to feelings or temperament will not resolve this situation will it?

pickabeau1:
He seems not to be an aggressive fellow but is a good provider and has a measure of financial intelligence not just in the way she wants

He's not a good providor if you consider his starting point. He's a trrust fund baby and many of lesser or equivalrent beginnings will be doing more. As I stated earlier. Women are constantly revaluing your status. One of theose with lesser beginnings who is doing more is his wife!

pickabeau1:
oing back to my earlier question

What are the practical unworldly way to stabilise things

Immediately following - 2 mins.


TV

pickabeau1:
I agree 100 percent at the bolded. She does not respect him and i will not be surprised she is preparing for or has a lover

In the old days... you could send them home for retraining

In these days of trying to comply with till death do us part and trying not to rock the boat for peace, one may need to accept some pain.

Now the question is this: what can one do to this woman practically

One is tempted to withdraw all her priviledges and maybe send her home for a while


MrNiceGuy79

It's first and foremost about him and what his lack of pro-activity is engendering in her (although I note she has some not very wifely/selfish behaviour according to him).

The actions and more so the consequences depend heavily on how socialised they both are. As Explained earlier, how much religious, ideological or cultural imperatives shape their responses. That overlays the hypegamy she is clearly demonstrating.

If for example divorce is out of the question for her due to socialisation, she will continue to “run him down”. The flip side is that he has more time to rectify things and she has more motivation to let him.

If it’s not, she may well be making her move as we speak. It’s pertinent that she has 3 thriving businesses for which she does not render account – what is happening to the proceeds?

If he becomes redundant as a provisioner it could trigger her move. With CWS no longer provided by him and SP no longer a big deal – in any event for SP to be in best effect, attraction needs to be working, and his loss of status, and more pertinently her consequent disrespect, means she won’t be feeling him. He doesn’t mention it, but I somehow doubt they are swinging from the chandelier with any kind of regularity.

I won’t go back to pre-marriage or marriage, or even the seed money he provided - what is done is done and I’d advise with the understanding that the idea is first to stabilise things.


TV

Just like you can press attraction buttons, you can press repulse buttons.

Indecisiveness, inarticulacy, too much hesitancy, seeking re-assurance or validation from a woman are all no-no’s. As are anything other than very limited instances of humorous self-depracation. Don’t boast, but don’t talk yourself down.

Don’t allow her to belittle or denigrate you – be emphatic in correcting this. Don’t cede power to her by default or too frequent fumbles. You can show a soft side, but do not mistake it for weakness – they love the on and hate the other. Please don’t confuse the two.

Re-affirm you status without bragging. If you accomplish or achieve something new, don’t be afraid to say or show. Don’t engender a long-term loss in status by promising/proclaiming and then not delivering – especially on your personal progress. This can seriously undermine her respect for you

A guy and girl are talking, it doesn’t flow. He; it wasn’t a great convo, She; he’s dry. End convos if you have nothing to say, don’t let feelings make you linger for no good reason.

So, take a woman out and tell here where you are going. Simple. It may seem “equalist to take her to the strip or ask her to choose a restaurant or negotiate where you will go. But she’s likely thinking indecisive, he’s making me think too much instead of relax and enjoy etc. Not to say you can’t ask at times or give options (limit them to 2 sha!). Whatever thier ideological leanings - they typically respond to the same cues.

Don’t forget, women are constantly revaluing, comparing and re-positioning. If your status should change, it will have an impact, if hers does likewise. It’s easy for men to get comfortable once they have sealed the deal. Women on the other hand are always perusing the terms and conditions.

If she isn’t heavily socialised to value commitment, fidelity etc. negative changes can have serious consequences. Even if she is largely socialised or restrained – she will most likely not be content.

You have heard the “you can change your mind even at the altar – just go with your heart” maxim proclaimed on this forum. Some women can do that at any point – married or not!


TV

Women typically respond if their attraction buttons are pushed. These are the obvious ones such as status, wealth, looks, strength, dominance etc. Backed up by others like smarts, humour and so on.

However, once the deal is sealed, they typically look for comfort and re-assurance. Gifts, acts of kindness, proclamations etc. This is where things like the popular love language concepts come in.

But be clear, these things don’t open or close the deal, just add value when it’s a done deal. Hence why women are often perceived as lying or being deceitful when asked what a man should do to “please them”, and it doesn’t appear to work.

They typically already have the picture of the guy they want in mind, or think of the deal as done, and then proceed to enumerate the comfort and re-assurance things that please them, not the attraction things. Hence guys that try and use comfort/re-assurance moves to open/close deals get frustrated, lose out, or labelled mugu/Mr. Nice. You can’t buy love or coerce attraction.

Another key once the deal is done, is to not lose sight of the fact that the attraction/arousal triggers need to be maintained. Not just maintained, but balanced with the comfort re-assurance moves. Unbalance can cause problems.

So she’s falling out of love, and you double up on comfort, it won’t work. She needs re-assurance and you are forming dominant bad-boy, she won’t be happy. It’s what this guy is going through;

https://www.nairaland.com/2096633/wife-user-advice-please#29843689

He's lost status in his wife's eyes (if he ever had it) and she's starting to consider him not worthy. Doubling up on comfort; giving her stuff, pleading etc. will just exacerbate the situation and make her rspect him less. He needs to demonstrate more status.

Clear?

TV

A man must be bold –often times that is the only difference between who gets the girl. As they say; “faint heart never won fair lady”. Take charge “C”, act “A”, and take responsibility “R”. Drive the situation, don’t let it drive you. If you see someone who looks right; approach. Directly or indirectly. Act within context, tactically or situationally as required.

For example, if you both serve on the ushering team at church, then theres no rush, keep it personable and polite, but don’t rush in. You have time. If it’s at the airport and you are taking different flights, you need to get your charm – not jazz 0! – on, and work at sprint pace. The aim is to get to know her and make that initial assessment. CAR is particularly important for men. Not least because women respond to decisiviness in men. And it’s something you’ll need to carry with you into marriage.

You may come across the type of women that will try and make things happen by “sheer force of will”. You’ll tick all or most of their boxes – regardless of what they have to offer – they’ll decide they want you, and then expect things to proceed apace. If things don’t, they try and force it, usually by applying subtle or not so subtle pressure. Comments such as “you don’t know what you want”, “my friend/cousin/sister is saying”, or my personal favourite “other guys are asking me out” . Other times they show palpable frustration and may act up. In all, my view is that these are warning signs. Please take heed.

As a Christian, the one firm stance I had was NSBM. It worked wonders. Many women use sex to control a relationship. Once devoid of this tool, many are simply left exposed as lacking any depth or real quality. I seen others where the woman will give sex, then withdraw it to speed things up or otherwise manipulate the man. Beware.

The same with food – I have seen women use food shopping/cooking/provision seal a deal in lieu of other major qualities. One I witnessed, shopped at the weekend, hauled everything back to his, cooked for the week and stored as appropriate. Learn to be self-sufficient. No household task should be beyond you – even if once married you don’t have primary responsibility for it. Don’t be swayed by what is a at best a good quality - which can in any event be learned - over essential characteristics.

So back to CAR. If you have marriage in mind, and feel at any point that she is not the Ankara, lace, damask that you are looking for promptly replace as found. Don’t prolong it, try and force it or turn a blind eye to it. Move on, the quest goes on. It’s best for you and particularly her if she is feeling you. Don’t lead a woman on or let her build up false hopes/expectations. If she’s cunning, giving her time will enable her to get her hooks into you. Potentially belle if you are not practising NSBM.

tbc

TV

I would say a good marriage is foundational – foundation, foundation, foundation.

Having said that, things can get off to a rocky start and be turned around. Hence the “first year of marriage is tough, a time of adjustment etc.” mantra commonly uttered. For many though, it can just go from strength to strength.

It’s always good – essential even - to first become a person of great value as a spouse yourself ( I think others have touched on some of the pre-requisites), and then set your expectations high, way high – don’t fall for the old “you are too choosey”, you have to be, we are talking a lifetime. And do not, I repeat do not, succumb to desperation or pressure. Hold the line at all times– act in haste repent at leisure

If you are still growing/developing in a major sense, especially in faith or worldview terms, subsequent changes can mean a divergence in your views. Changes in taste/status can mean you no longer see your spouse as worthy. Both of these things can lead to long-term fundamental issues. It’s best one is solid in their thinking and rock sure about what they want first.

Have a picture of your spouse, in terms of qualities and of course physical preferences are important, although mine got blown out of the water in some ways when I met my wife. Just as important is to have a vision for your home. Sharing this at the appropriate time – and especially during courtship – is well advised. As well as being a deal clincher, it can also show quite clearly if a re-think is in order.


tbc


TV

bellong:
He didn't suspect his wife. He was telling his wife who he suspected.

My bad, I put the comma in the wrong place !

Then I need this explained before I comment further;

aisha2:
She says she needed help with lawyer fees. Lawyer says he did most of it pro bono as they were long term friends and the only money he received from her was from the guys brother who living abroad who sent money to help out with legal fees.

aisha2:
She insists she is innocent.

She has cast doubt on that by not explaining why she took money from the main culprit and why he would help someone he set-up?

aisha2:
I knew the guy before I knew her, we are all friends but I know him not to ever bend if he believes in something.

What do you think about his call in this case - and you must have had impressions of his wife, what are your thoughts?

TV

^{...please, what happened to General Buhari}

aisha2:
Okay, here goes the story, I am caught in between two friends.

Husband used to work for a bank, he got set up for some fraud which he didn't commit. He tells his wife he is innocent and he will fight it legally. He told his wife who he suspects set him up.

Why does he suspect his wife? Does he have proof? Was it before, or is it as a result of the money transfers between his wife and the main culprit?

TV

carefreewannabe:
No, I don't like the way how you do it and that you neglect the age of men as a risk factor.

A few posts before this you reminded me of the unrestrictive freedom of the WWW. You had every chance to rebut my opinions and present compelling ones of your own.

carefreewannabe:
Moreover, a woman having a child in her 40s is at risk but there is a difference between a woman in her 30s or 40s and a woman in her 60s. The latter has much higher risks and more of them.
There are always risks - and not al of them are age related.

Why am I not allowed to highlight the risks for those between 25-40, and you are allowed to point out those for 50-60 year olds? If the technology - which you lauded - is available and the desire and physical capability are there?

carefreewannabe:
Regarding the topic with the freezing of eggs, my opinion regarding this topic, is more nuanced than it seemed but since the thread developed the way it did, I didn't feel like discussing it in a sensible way. It's a different topic though and not part of this thread. Besides, the discussion there ended very bad and I wouldn't like to go back there with YOU now, it's a new year.

This is something of a cop-out. Regardless of the tone, well evidenced and presented arguments are always appreciated and win the day.

carefreewannabe:
It's not just raising the child till 16 / 18. Everyone wants to have their parents for as long as possible. Losing one's parents at the age of 16 or 18 is very bitter. It is always bitter but I believe that 16 and 18-year-olds still need their parents. I lost my mum in my early 20s and it was terrible. I still feel that I need my mother. I am just fortunate to have a grandmother who is very close to me.

Condolences. I lost my dad relatively late by comparision. But you know what? I lacked some things I could have been given way before he died - and may not have even if he'd remained alive. It's not only how long, it's how much and how well.

carefreewannabe:
What do you mean by congress?

The beast with two backs

carefreewannabe:
Maybe it is. Maybe it's not. I am not speaking against this child. I just raised concerns, as Sophy nicely put it. I believe that it is not recommendable to have children SO late but I am not totally against it.

I doubt the person in question would reccomend it, neither would I. But Neither would I deny her the opportunity to cradle her own flesh and blood if at all possible. I am of the mind it's central to a womans purpose - even if individuals disagree or chose otherwise. Exceptions such as this should serve to focus us on what is best. And if God says yes?

I have never argued against women having children or having choice. I have only ever pointed out the imperatives and impacts. I truly rejoice for this lady.

In a sense and with hindsight, I married late. How would I feel if someone chose to deny me marriage on account of my age?

carefreewannabe:
I would not try to conceive my entire life. I would rather adopt.

Choice innit?

carefreewannabe:
If I conceived accidentally because I wouldn't use contraceptives due to the belief that I cannot get pregnant, I would base my decision on the circumstances I find myself in. Is there anyone who will take care of my kids when I fall ill or die? Do I have enough money to take care of the child? And will I be able to leave some money for the child after I die? How healthy am I to carry a pregnancy and deliver? I would ask myself such questions.

I do not assume the lady in question has not done any of this and more. Plus she has faith .


TV

cococandy:
totally off topic. Unrelated and you can choose not answer.

...my pleasure m'lady.

cococandy:
I've always wondered. Since sin is the cause of mortality, what if man hadn't sinned? What if he upheld the simple rule God gave in the garden of Eden And lived with the immortality we are made to believe was his right from creation.

Then I'd probably be physically teleporting between galaxies in a body even a gym-rat like me can only fantasise about. And probalby not driving some que-que German car !

A good one - as all hard ones are !

I can't say i've thought about it too much.Without researching further, I'm happy to say this much under advice; I believe the scripture suggests, that although Adam was created immortal, he was not yet "like God" or "God-like". I believe this was his ultimate destiny before sin. How that would have played out on reproduction, I can't say.

cococandy:
where in all that did God take population expansion into consideration seeing as he gave us the mandate to go into the world and multiply. Was the earth supposed to expand to meet the teeming population?

In terms of Adam doing what he did and us now being what we are - mere humans awaiting the full adoption and transformation of our bodies - the earth works, does it not? (did the mandate to go forth and multiply come before or after sin - or because of it?).

cococandy:
Or is it possible that the death which is our punishment for sin not the physical kind of death?
There are both physical and spiritual implications of death - in relation to sin, I believe it applies both ways.

[quote author=cococandy post=29813667]I think death is absolutely necessary and if human beings didn't die to make space for new ones,the human race would have imploded on itself,so I find it confusing that the bible says it is punishment for sin. A punishment he pronounced on Adam and eve when they sinned.

Death entered through sin, it was a consequence, but yes, a punishment if you like. So in our sinful state death works in a limited and also fallen physical world (sin effected the whole of creation as we know it/it pertains to us).

cococandy:
So if they didn't sin we would have just continued to grow in population over the millions of years with no death?

That is premised on the earth being our abode - sin or not. I don't know that was the case/plan. After the consumation - which effectively restores all things, we won't inhabit earth, we'll be in Gods presence, which for all I know could be the vastness of the universe itself. Whatever the case I don't think "face-me, head-butt you" issues will be of paramount concern.

I almost missed the "...over millions of years". I don't believe the bible scripture suggests God created man anywhere near millions of years ago.

cococandy:
So I'm wondering again if the earth was supposed to grow with us.

I've never had reason to think so. We are with God who fills all in all - who has "prepared a place for us...where there are "many mansions..."

cococandy:
_{#just thinking out aloud}

As one should - always.

cococandy:
What do you think?

I can't say with 100% certainty, but I have no concerns as such.


TV

goofyone:
Don't get me wrong. I never stated anywhere that cohabitation is superior to marraige. I wouldn't make such a sweeping statement. I did mention though that with the racing developments we are experiencing in the corporate world where man and woman now work as almost equals in public offices, there is very little time left for the typical familial arrangements.

You are championing co-habbing as beneficial to corporate dictates, not society as a whole.

cohabitation, for example, have proven much more suitable for this period of revolutions in the corporate world

strawman.
How does "very little time left for typical family arrangements" typically procreation and child rearing benefit society?

goofyone:
Cohabitation, however, suits this time and is a change an evolved society should be willing to embrace. Both for the benefit of society and of human associations. Of course, opponents don't want to see this form take root. To them, it endangers the very fabric of society, but research has shown otherwise. I could point you to some references or you could search yourselves. Researchers have shown cohabiting couples may in fact experience higher levels of happiness and self-esteem than married couples.

Of course society has scope for some anomalies at the margins. However if these anomalies become the prevailing norm, there will be a deleterious effect

Happiness and self-esteem, particular femcentric values that don't build societies. In a purely happiness and self-esteem way, why wouldn't co-habbers grade higher? But tell us, do they procreate at the required rate or nurture their offspring as well? You are not talking society, you are talking individuals. If co-habbing and it's happiness/self-esteem criteria were the opttimum we'd be equating gay-unions to marriage

goofyone:
Really, I think the philosophy of the point helps make it clear. Globalization and this speedy developments we are experiencing in today's world, where time and space are becoming less and less available for the individual, will soon render traditional marriages unnecessary. Once the stigma of being unmarried becomes history (from people being more tolerant of others), understanding, partnerships and cohabitation will replace other traditional forms.

If indeed traditional marriage is rendered unnecessary, the service it rendered society will still be reuqired. What you've described will not adequately replace it - as the numbers are already proving. Long-term deleterious effect on society.

TV

goofyone:
Societies that practice cohabitation today have not imploded.

Just like Adam and Eve did not die immediately upon consumption of the fruit - a society that permits societal ills will not show the consequences immediately. In fact, in the very near term, there may be seeming benefits of the new morés.

As for Marriage vs. co-habiting we already have the numbers and are starting to feel the effects. Primarily on the nurture of our children.

I note in hailing co-habbing as superior to marriage, you didn't state why or even from what perspective, noting we are specifically discussing society here.

goofyone:
Polygamy (man-women-children), Polyandry (woman-men-children) and group marriages (men-women-children) characterized many societies from the orient to the Americas before western civilization raided and overtook these areas. These were active societies that fashioned marriages in such a way as to enable their societies survive. You might want to google it and you'll find a number of societies still practicing these marriage types even today.

True, other forms have existed and are extent, but if anything they are the exceptions that prove the rule;

1. Even where they have occured or occur, they never characterise the society (if a reasonable size)
2. They do not lead to the optimal societal flourishing
3. They are in fact long-term deleterious and such societies typically decline - even if they don't fully die out - and don't really flourish


TV

Morning all,

had to be away yesterday evening, but I am heartened to see the discussion has progressed and progressed well.

On the man
Great stuff written thus far, little to add here. The mature man - even if he is not, even if he does not have too - will inherently possess the capability - not necessarily the experience - to be a husband, father, priest and warrior. To lead. And lead proactively.

If I were to encapsulate leadership in one word it would be responsibility - and men by default shoulder that better. No woman really wants to take responsibility for providing for her spouse, it can only breed resentment and seriously undermine the relationship dynamic.
Whereas a mans heart swells with pride when he can establish and provide for his family - and it has an attendant affect on his relationship with his wife.

On the natural woman:
We view the hypergamic response dispassionately. We need to understand it, not justify or condemn it in the first instance. A womans love is always considered and rightly so - she is simply more vulnerable - a woman cannot love in the pure and untrammelled way that a man can. The hypergamic motivators are basically comfort/wellbeing/status and sex/procreation (CWS & SP).

Her primary driving is her own utility and comfort, not her childrens - although that is deeply felt - and certainly not her mates. As noted, desire and feeling driven, with a mechanism to justify those desires. It's why trying to deal logically and rationally with a women is for the most part doomed to failure.

Societies have long understood this and acted to restrain the response, along with the attendent excesses in men. Socialisation, be that via religious injunctions or cultural morés has served to keep these excesses in check - and until recently, quite well.

In some ways, too well. Socialisation has given us many false tropes to romanticise these restraints, typically taking the form of "women are...loads of good things" and "men are...many not so great things".

Of late, huge pressure - in part ideological and driven in part by technological advances - have come to bear. The injunction are being discarded and the morés all but disdained. One of the effects of this is the loosening or removal of restraint, especially around sexual conduct and mating, which society has rightly regualted for it's own well-being.

In this kind of climate, the true nature of hypergamy is once again being revealed. And unrestrained, manifests excessively - and in a way that threatens to unbalance societyt in the long-term, and the male-female relationship in the short.

As societies become more fem-centric, the eyes of men will open to hypergamy' true nature and the falsehood of some social tropes. Short term, men will adopt strategies to avoid the worst effects, long-term society will rebalance, the question is, how long and how much damage will be done before it does?


tbc

TV

For a while now – and particularly since my return from my last sabbatical - I’ve been keen for us to discuss in greater detail about men in relationships. Specifically how best to relate too, and manage the dynamics.

There are myriad approaches one could take to this and it could get quite expansive. But rather than over-analyse it, I think we should just kick it off.

In some ways, I feel we’ve touched on a lot of it already, but perhaps in a piecemeal form – I hoping we can do it here in a way that allows people to join the dots.

I’m particularly speaking to men here, which is why I brought it here. I think we’d be best served by taking an unalloyed male viewpoint.

My charge here, as always has been strong families and a flourishing society. I speak as a Christian, this is not about picking up hot chicks or “dealing with women”. I believe the sexes are complimentary and work best together for the greater good.

I do however, appreciate there will be those with different beliefs with interesting perspectives and insightful stuff to share.

As we are all constrained by time, I’d like everyone to pitch in, share the lead and contribute areas for discussion – and particular for those who have questions or real life experience to share if willing.

I’ll suggest some areas – as follows - with no order in mind, and I’m nore than happy to subsume them to more pressing or interesting items;

- The mature man – his character, his stance, his approach
- The burden and expectation of marriage
- Men and marriage – pre-marriage, within-marriage
- The natural woman – triggers and responses, hypergamy, are they loyal? Mars & Venus
- What to look for in a wife – and why you need one

I’ll pause here to allow a bit of brainstorming – but if anyone is itching to kick it off (we can keep a rolling list of topics), no problem.


Cheers
TV

carefreewannabe:
They are equal under the law despite the age difference but there is an age difference, a biological one.

So let me get this right; you don' t like the fact that I preach the typical natural limits for childbirth should be prescriptive for women - i.e. stick the the best natural window - but when someone manages to circumvents that you question it? So why champion egg-freezing as a good thing

carefreewannabe:
I never said they should be held responsible for having a child. I just raised concerns because at this age there are risks involved, health issues and they are closer to death, naturally and these are the reasons why there should be question marks.

There are always risks with childbirth/rearing - and being fully aware of this particular one, she is better able to make provision.

carefreewannabe:
I don't want to suggest any sanctions, there already are sanctions against these groups of people in some countries. Kids are taken away from homeless people and drug addicts. And I would not even compare them to an elderly couple.

And if she (they) prove incapable of raising the child, normal sanctions can apply.

carefreewannabe:
Viability and morality in the first place, which leads to the question whether it is responsible to have a child at this age.

The viability of concieving and delivering has been proven. So it's just the raising to 16/18. But what are your moral concerns? You are ok for them to have congress, but not children - which is the whole point of congress?

carefreewannabe:
I would really like to know if the couple has made any provision and plan for any eventualities.

I'm sure family, friends and the overrjoyed brethren who shares her testimony and have had their faith strengthened will step in. And wil God who did it not complete it? How do you know the child is not one "of promise", like Isaac was? Bible study - "the promise & the covenants"

carefreewannabe:
Personally, I wouldn't want to have kids at this age even if I could make sure that someone takes care of them when my health becomes critical or when I die and even if I were very rich. I would like to minimize the risk of leaving my own kids back with someone else, whoever that is.

And that is your personal preference - and you are wholly free to it.

Would you feel the same way if you'd tried for a child - unsuccesfully all your life and then finally beyond hope a child was concieved? Even if they were nottrying, but she took in, would abortion be a better option?


TV