₦airaland Forum

kandiikane:
I pursued the point of pregnancy because it was the point raised in regards to the link you posted. My initial post which you quoted was about the readiness and age for sex...

And the point of my post was that sex before what you would consider "readiness" in Western countries - e.g. the UK - is forced by the culture and tacitly endorsed by the government - if they can have sex, why can't they marry? Not that I endorse either.

kandiikane:
I disagree that the state endorses sex to teens, the uk endorses more freedom and gives more rights to children than other countries hence why it cannot force children to not have sex. That is not their job, their job is to stop adults from having sex with kids.

I find this statement all kinds of garbled;

What freedom and rights does the UK afford children - or do children need - that other nations do not? What are these rights that should not be determined by their parents under whose authority they are?

And those rights include not being able to "force children not to have sex" - when sex under 16 is statutory rape? If theie job is to stop adults having sex with kids, why does a sexually active and precocious teenager qualify as a kid?

kandiikane:
Majority of countries that mostly practice teen marriages are those which have been forced, only a few practice teen and teen.

Is it solely practice, or what is permissable - the countries you slag off are not in any appreciable way different from most others
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_United_States_of_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

kandiikane:
I'm confused about how exactly does giving sexually active kid's contraception and protection relate to becoming sex slaves. That makes no sense at all.

A culture that sexualises children (or at the least as you note is complicit in their sexual activity) is what gave rise to the conditions where that could take place - in full glare of the parents and authorities. These young girls - officially 1'400, but independent sources say as many as x10 more - were abused, raped and trafficked.

In fact the only issue here is that many were under 16, if the perpetrators had been a bit smarter they could have gotten clean away. The parents were helpless due to the so called "freedoms" they afford their children, and being more concerned with the consequences of sex, rathe r than the morality of it.

The authorities were idealogically hamstrung by nonsense such as "consent", as initiation was often carried out by younger teenage males. And the kids were easy prey, not being mature enough to see beyond the wiles, feigned affection and cheap gifts used to seduce them. Alcohol and drugs were also employed - another right afforded youngsters How would you make sense of what happened?

kandiikane:
A case of teenage sex slaves is much more likely in places where the system is not strong enough to deter sexual abuse which tends to happen more in developing countries than developed countries. You are more likely to come across an adult who was abused as a child in a developing country more frequently than you would in a developed country

Slander - when it is so rampant in the UK it's essentially a nation of Fiddlers & gays. It reaches to the highest levels and is merely covered up. it so endemic, it's literally culturally embedded.

Were is the 3rd worlds Jimmy Savile? Or The priest abuse scandal, or evidence of paedophile rings amongst the highest echelons of government. Timbuktou is right - stop slandering our people. We have our issues, but morally the West is not better.

kandiikane:
That is not even the point. My point is grown ass men knowing who they should be sleeping with and who they shouldn't be. Even if there aren't laws to state an age of consent, I wholehearted believe one would be able to decipher that it feels somehow wrong/different to sleep with a small child because their mental capacity has grown to know the difference between a grown woman to a child.

I don't in anyway dispute this - however, you contradict yourself when you speak of rights and freedoms for children which include being sexually active. And by the way, most Western sex education is moving towards teaching youngsters that it's normal for them to be sexually active and encouraging them to explore their sexuality.

kandiikane:
The only exception I would give abit of leeway to are unexposed cultures, those where a teenage boy or girl marry each other. At least, they still have not reached that full mental maturity where they know that they are not ready. But, where many are now being educated, there is no excuse at all.

Answered - there are very few jurisdictions where teenagers are not allowed to marry.

kandiikane:
Just because the government gives out condoms to kids does not mean it is ok to have sex with a kid. I would prefer a government that gives condoms to teens to prevent disease and pregnancy but makes an effort to stop adults from having sex with kids than a government that fails to protect the sexually active and barely lifts a finger to stop adults from having sex with kids.

Answered - repeatedly. Andit not merely "condom distribution"- they arrange contraception and abortions for children as young - or younger - than 12. Without parental consent or knowledge. Western governments tacitly endorse and are starting to teach children to be sexually active. Despite their own statutes. When a teenager becomes sexually active and precocious, whose to say they are still kids in that regard?

I also note the total lack of any moral judgement on teenagers having sex - just that it should be policed to stop them being exploited? So why are you taking Obowunmi to task - after all, he has been harping on consent between adults

kandiikane:
There is a difference between a law being passed and a law being enforced.

Regardless of the law, it's immoral for youngsters to be having sex - more so out of wedlock.


TV

Shirley07:
Your kids?
They will look for their mum in the end. To a child, a mother is worth more than a father. There's no equality afterall.

I get it, whilst away, you were growing your sense of delusion !

I hope the final solution for your case is not 7th wife !


TV

Timbuktou:
Shirley, you sound like a short person. That's by the way, anyway. How's work/school? What have you been up to?

Not just short, but she also possesses a ballistic anger and a tongue like a drunken sailor.

We are praying hard for her to find a man to take her under authority .


TV

kandiikane:
Can you specify exactly what is not true in my post?

This is not the case of endorsing intercourse but protecting those who have actually started doing it. Obviously, in general sense it will look like they are pushing young kids to have sex but for one, young kids do not think they shouldn't have sex because they can get pregnant, there are loads of different factors and non-factors were either their brain is just not ready for them to start thinking about how it would feel for a man to be in them or if they have 'boyfriends' they are either scared or even just not ready.
Pregnancy has always been the least of a 12 year old's concern, if it was, they won't have the highest rate of teen pregnancies hence why the government is pushing contraception to those that have started at 12.

A case of prevention is better than cure. The government can only do so much, the rest lies in the hands of us ordinary people who must ensure that there shouldn't be any reason to be sleeping with a 12 year old or a 12year old having sex to even need the implants.

Your pursue a point about the prevention of pregnancy, which correct in a sense, as it is what the State is concerned about. But the true issue is about the age/readiness for sex (and by impliction in some cultures the readiness for marriage).

The whole of Western culture predisposes children to sexual promiscuity and as I said the State winks/tacitly endoreses that. I don't see that as any better than a culture that practices teen marriage. In fact, I see it as worse. It's how you end up with issues like young children in Rotherham being used as sex slaves.

TV

carefreewannabe:
Show me a society without "anomies".

Show me one where it isn;t to a large degree attributable to the breakdown in the traditional family unit

carefreewannabe:
Why not?

Millions of people live in de-facto / informal marriages in Germany and the society is thriving and many more will in future.

Germany got to where it is - in recent history - on the back of de facto relationships?

As ever you miss historical causality, broader and longer-term implications and focus on the the immediate gratification. Germany flourished on the back of a strong "volk culture" which was underpinned by traditional marriage. You incorrectly overlook the benefits of this and then wrongly imply that weakening that or replacing it with a facsimile relationship will have no impact.


TV

carefreewannabe:
Not a wrong one but one that is inconvenient for you as it destroys one of your main arguments that marriages, in which women are inferior, help societies to flourish.

I have never claimed women are inferior in marriage. As a married man, I certainly don't consider my wife inferior.

And marriage does underpin a flourishing society. Show me a society that has rejected marriage and I will show you one where the seeds of anomie have already set in.

Or is it your nebulous "I'm in a relationship" concept that builds societies .


TV

^{**Sophyrocks, you are here - spill 0! Quickly changes dp again **}

kandiikane:
The only country I know of where the age of consent is 12 is angola and for the fact that I am educated about the female body, it is wrong and irresponsible regardless of what the age of consent says. What tjrn stops that 40year old sleeping with a 9 year old who looks like the 12 year old?
In your mind now, if you travel to angola you are ok to toast a 12/13 year old who probably hasn't started menstruating yet with one boob still yet to grow?
Anyhow, I am not surprised when in our part of the world, you can easily have sex with a 5 year old and nothing fit happen to you. But I can assure you no normal thinking educated father would want someone sleeping with his 12 year old regardless of what the age of consent is.

I agree with your premise , but it's not true. There are Western liberal nations that wink - if not outright legally endorse - at intercourse with children. Even if it's with one another. But morally, how can you argue for a mature adult to not have intercourse with a juvenile, if another juvenile can?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2736517/Children-young-12-given-contraceptive-implants-making-vulnerable-abuse-sexual-exploitation.html


TV

carefreewannabe:
Nigeria then is an exception, isn't it?

No, you bolded the wrong part of my post

TV01:
You can see it in lots of the posts here. Granted, there are things badly practiced and abuses, but the core models and morés are what works best - for most individuals and more pertinently for society as a whole.
I feel for them, but more for those who are in situations that don't afford them the same leeway but choose to tread the same path. I also had to seek answers. I hope they find them before it's too late. Hitting the wall or working with unrealistic expectations can be very painful.

TV

Timbuktou:
Heheehe. All I had to do was reframe my persona and there was a corresponding adjustment on the other side. Have to say I was/am favoured to have the kinda wife I have. Which is why I don't hate the players or the game, I simply got with the program.

I'd rather the hard way to learning. Hehehehe

Finding the right type of woman is key. And mature men know what that is - even if they haven't got their frame fully worked out.

I long for a time when men marry the right type of women for the right reasons. And all those women who think their looks, education, wealth, family pedigree, ability to catwalk, grasp of liberal ideology etc. means they can overthrow norms, simply get left on the shelf.

Open hypergamy is so bad in the West now that it's practiced openly and men are becoming socialised accordingly.

We'll see how it al lpans out. But women will bear the brunt - and may well reverse and demand the change.


TV

obowunmi:
Does research support this hypothesis?

Research, plain fact, natural conditions and human nature.

Sure a man with the means and charisma may be happily married to 2 or more wives.

But;

1. Would the women be as happy as if they had him all to themselves? Or put another way, would they prefer to share as opposed to choose too - if the circumstances were different? It denies women full agency

2. At a natural ratio of about 106 men to 100 women (to smooth the riskier lives and earlier deaths men tend to experience), it would cause an imbalance in wider society. Polygamy never prevails, even where it is permitted.

At best polygamy is an abberant form of marriage which may prove useful in times of real societal distress.


TV

Timbuktou:
Painful, indeed. I also had to find out the haarrrrd way. Already married, in fact. So, imagine my dilemma and subsequent awakening. I speak of things I have practised and lived not regurgitating some strange distant theory.

Already married? You tried 0! It simply took me that much longer to actually get married. Alls well that ends well sha!

I often say (in boxing), there are two ways to learn, the hard way and the painful way - take your pick. But getting this wrong can be hard and painful.

Timbuktou:
I'm not too particular about women, though. My concern is channelled towards men as we are the default leaders of society. Throwing away our mantle of authority on the alter of pseudo-equality does noone any favours.

Likewise.


TV

Timbuktou:
It apparently hasn't functioned to the point of noticing that women generally/mostly/would rather/tend to marry up given the choice, of course. You don't have to follow this submission blindly, do the research yourself. Research, after all, is an activity carried out by people with functional brains.

Who would deny this? And all the attendant implications?

What I'd really like to see is someone who lives in this alternate universe come and tell us all about it .


TV

Timbuktou:
Egbon, don't mind this gyal. She apparently hasn't read 2Cor 13:8. I think, deep down, she's looking for answers, or at least, trying to confirm or sway her outlook. I'm only tryna help a sister.

You can see it in lots of the posts here. Granted, there are things badly practiced and abuses, but the core models and morés are what works best - for most individuals and more pertinently for society as a whole.

I feel for them, but more for those who are in situations that don't afford them the same leeway but choose to tread the same path. I also had to seek answers. I hope they find them before it's too late. Hitting the wall or working with unrealistic expectations can be very painful.


TV

Timbuktou:

You probably long since realised that Carefreewannabe assumes that as she is well educated, highly paid and able to live an independent life in a liberal progresssive country, the age-old biological and cultural imperatives, and nuances of the male/female dynamic no longer apply to her - or at least can be re-ordered to her wishes.


TV

esere826:
A) On my own part, I think there are at least two sets of people when it comes to study.
-The first set accepts anything that comes to them and build their knowledge base within this.
-The 2nd set challenge assumptions, and look out for gaps. The goal is not to destroy the mineral being mined, but to chip at the rough edges and dirt until the diamond within glitters really good.

And perhaps a third, who find a stoneel that is seemingly perfect, then spot some apparent imperfections. They then focus on these imperfections to the exclusion of all else, eventually discarding it as flawed.

Or to put it another way, if your top of the range performance car is scratched, or painted a gaudy colour or unduly customised, it remains a top of the range performance car.

esere826:
As the 2nd set of studiers improve a body of knowledge, they pass it on to the 1st set who finally accept it as the defacto guide book.
Every season, every age, scholars are busy working on the bible which they present in the form of versions such as NIV, KJV etc

We are thus 2 different sets of people. The first which are in majority don't bother themselves with suspicions
The 2nd which are a small minority are curious and suspicious of many things and seek to find answers. Some end up becoming atheists, others become a different breed of Christians from the mainstream.

Maybe the third as I've described are the atheists as you've put it. But they are not seeking to polish the diamond, merely discard it as worthless.


TV

frosbel:

Frosbel hi,

So you are growing in understanding, recieving revelation perhaps. But it would help if you fully digested and articualted before you rushed to proclaim.

What is your point here? Do women keep quiet in church - anywhere? Or are you questioning the role paradigm practiced in some churches? If indeed you are challenging notions of authority, and of the difference in roles between men and women - in home, church and society - simply say so.

And don't just beg the question, show by a clear articulation of scripture what should actually be the case. Lots of assertions about things being added, omitted or mis-transcribed, merely questions the integrity of the bible itself, not just individual doctrines or positions.

It's this kind of re-interpretation, redaction and innovative textual interpretaion that allows some to claim even homosexuality is a blessing as opposed to a disorder. And it's worth noting that to get to the point of "christianising homosexuality", what the bible said about male/female roles had to be recast first - we'll see where you end up with this.

I'd really like to hear your outline what is right - especially in this instance - as opposed to merely shouting we've got it wrong. So for example, are men and women supposed to have the same/equal/interchangeable roles in the home or church?


TV

giffty:
What do you do when you wife earns much more
than you do ?
Join the discussion here, i would love to hear your
views.

Thank God, sit back and chill a lil'. Maintain your frame as head of the family.

Money ain't a thang...as you young people say !


TV

carefreewannabe:
Nobody asks you to climb a mountain. It's not your life but mine.

True

TV

^{**Sophyrocks - for the third time, I'm asking you to come and update us about this chap saying hi, hi** changes dp again !}

carefreewannabe:
I am in a relationship.

If it's not marriage, it ain't marriage.

I not climbing any mountain for a mere relationship ,


TV

^{**Sophyrocks, please present your suitor to us - full story 0** changes dp again !}

Sophyrocks:
I'm taken.

Sophy, Sophy, Sophy, hold it right there!

How can you drop such momentous news - and so blithely
You mean we should be jubilating and jollying ?
Such good news so early in the new year?

I can't believe nobody jumped on this? I haven't been paying attention, so maybe you've announced it already?

The one we have been ontop mountain for - answered prayer you no talk

Come, who is the lucky somebody? Does he know the ting wey he carry

Oya full gist please! Before I return to the mountain top

Carefreewannabe and Shirley07 - it remain you both 0!

Sorry to derail, but I just have too...

TV

^{**quickly changes dp in celebration **}

...I guess it's bad when they ask "WBDI...", but infinitely worse when nobody answers !


TV

^{**whose bish dis is?**}

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