₦airaland Forum

...so let me get this right;

Men build the internet, women try to break it using their arses?
Men land a probe on a distant planet - breaking new frontiers - feminsits take offence because he's wearing a politically incorrect shirt??

I'm still looking for evidence to dispel the notion that men build civilisations and drive progress...women are good for domestication and creating drama...as evidenced .


TV

^{...he not only apologised, he cried...hero to zero at warp speed !}

pickabeau1:
If you dont think there is a difference from old rich women having gigolos and career women of marriageable age who should be in marriages having boyfriend experiences.. Then no issue

Pickabeau...see you at the NL 2014 awards ceremony...you are a cert for the "Longsuffering & Patient" gong !


TV

...holá Coco,

Let's not talk at cross-purposes here. We both agree that prostitution - in any form - is immoral. We also know that most forms have been extant for a very long time. Our contention isn't even about blame, degree or frequency - I'm not commenting to aportion blame to men or women - it's more about cause and effect of this particualr strain.

My point is the dynamic and the consequent affect on male/female relationships and families. I've made it repeatedly clear that my charge here is to champion Strong healthy families and a flourishing society.

And as a side note, that is why I find feminism anathema - it is harmful to that cause. I wouldn't even quibble with their desire to upend the more traditional approach to marriage, sex and relationships, it's just that they have not presented a better model, and we seen the havoc it's wreaking on homes and society, as it corrupts our current one.

Double anathema as it pervades pretty much every strata of society and even the church - hence the pletora of confused Feminians (adherents of Femninianity and worshippers of a SJW-type Christ )

cococandy:
number one:
why should it be so? Except you're hanging onto the archaic and erroneous belief that men need sex more and women are only providing a service by having sex with men.

It's not about need. I'm aware and agree that women desire and need it just as much. But two points here;

1. The biological imperative means that men pursue women for sex - ergo there is a premiunm for men to have sex with women, not the other way round

2. Women do not typically sell sex to satisfy their desires - transactional sex for women is a love of money, not horniness !

cococandy:
If you recognize the truth which is that both gender desire sexuall relations in as much the same way as the other, you will understand why some women who like their male counterparts will pay for sex when they can't easily get it. You think these women would pay for it if they could get it easily? Who likes to waste money and time? No one:

As noted above, I recognise alright. And you have recognised that "it's what they can't get" that they are "leasing", not even buying, hence making them losers.

As part of that same biological imperative, women are more selective than men. They have to be, they are more vulnerable and subject to greater risk. As such women will always find willing men - hence it's men that should be paying a premium, not women.

cococandy:
If women selling their bodies for money didn't cheapen sex with women, this won't either. Typically the person who gets paid is the cheapened person in each scenario

Big foul here...again, biology and society rarely shames or condemn men who have numerous partners. As "unequal" as it may be, slut-shaming is something only women really suffer from. Further, men always prefer women with fewer or no former lovers. And whilst women may prefer it, it is rarely a factor when choosing a mate. So again, feminism' pushing for an equalisation in sexual behaviour/norms ultimately harms women, relationships and the family.

cococandy:
False. Female prostitution objectifies women more.it essentially says women are commodities that can be bought by the man who has money. This is just the tables turning and I'm surprised you found a way to make it about the women.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but to expand my pov - objectifying sex itself hurts women more than men, whoever is buying, regardless of who is selling

cococandy:
The guys are being bought for their services in these instances. They are the ones being objectified. It is the same thing as buying a vibr@tor or dildoo because the buyer doesn't want to engage in personal mess.
Rent a stud. An object. Simple.

As above

cococandy:
It will not affect relationships or marriages.
People who want emotional connections will always find each other and settle down together.
This is for people who do not want that and fortunately they are not the whole population

And this is where my concerns lie. Even a birds-eye view will suggest objectifying women and commoditising sex will harm the relationships between the sexes and have a long-term deleterious impact on family formation.

We are already seeing this as men turn away from marriage. Legally it's a very low value proposition for men and the sex they are wired to pursue can be had for no premium. Especially if you are what we'd describe as an elite male.

Look it up, you are in the US, the dearth of "elite" black men means that many of them have several quality women. Who are ready to woo him with love, care and gifts, for just a piece of his time. What incentive does he have to get married?

A lot of the not so great women are traped as baby-mamas to different men they'd rather not have around or who don't want to commit to them. Harmful. The marriage culture is gradually eroded, which uleashes a whole host of social ills. Zero tolerance !

This whole premise fails, becaue although women as agreed, want and need sex, they want it gift wrapped in an elite male and tied with the ribbon of comittment - not as a transactional affair - that's where the likes of me come in !.

cococandy:
by maintaining market equilibrium you mean pretending she doesn't have sexual needs and hanging onto hopes and dreams that one day a man will find her desirable and want to fvck(pardon me) her?let those who can buy it buy it and spare us the stories that touch.
(Not in support of either form of prostitution)

I think I've answered this.
Additionally, the market is not simply needs and desires driven - although that is a part of it. Biological imperatives are overlaid with societal expectations (which acknowledge the BI), and they to a large part inform individual desires.

cococandy:
What demographic of women are we talking about? They cut across all shapes and sizes. Not every woman is desirable. If she can't easily attract a sex partner what option but to rent one?

Women can always attact a partner - just not neccesarily the one they desire or think they deserve - and it's not helped by cheapening or commoditising sex.

cococandy:
Many men today would not be having sex if they didn't have money simple because there is nothing desirable about them. this is just the same thing. Pls don't rain on the shine of these boys providing the services those women need badly.

You contradict yourself with the first point, if women are driven - even in part - by desire, men do not have to have money. Real players know this. Desire in women is not triggered by money alone - it's why the rugged looking jailbird had women creaming all over the internet !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2818317/Jeremy-Meeks-competition-Handsome-man-arrested-Halloween-attack-draws-instant-parallels-famous-mugshot-modeling-contract.html
Women mis-selling their desires and needs only blindsides men without understanding - for the rest, it's a source of mirth !

cococandy:
Depends on what you define quality as. Not every woman measures her quality by being able to attract or command the attention of the opposite sex. Some don't even want that attention because it comes with strings attached which is probably what they are running away from.
agreed. No one will pay for what they can get freely.

Source of mirth !

cococandy:
But what you call a free market was actually the skewed one. Where a lady makes you pay for something she equally enjoyed and acts like she did you a favor too. What is more skewed than that?
Now this is the free market

While women will exchange sex for money - for a whole host of reasons - they do not typically transact to slake their desires. They will give sex feely to the men who know what's up. But feel free to believe that women are habitual chop and cleaners. Women slut-shame other women way more than men!


Teefee

crackhaus:
We mention feminism and some people come rushing in to express themselves, later them go say na we dey pursue them around NL with feminism.

It's alright

Express themselves? Everytime I read some peoples posts I can hear them grunting as they furrow their brows, dribble saliva and their brain cogs turn at reverse warp speed !

TV

cococandy:
Feminism does not mandate anyone to behave in a certain way. Simply calls for equal respect and considerations to both gender.

Possibly in the distant past. These days it's more about female privilege and it's flip side - forcing restraints on men

cococandy:
You're shocked because some women now can boldly take on a lover and dispose him later one just like them dudes used to do with call girls.

No. They could always do that. The interesting point is that they are paying for something that the sexual market place in it's natural form would suggest they should be paid for.

Men don't typically consider call-girls lovers. they pay for sex because they can't get it, or they can't get it at the higher level of the courtesan they patronise. And in some instance, it may be convenience or deviancy.

cococandy:
If feminism is to blame here,who's to blame for men patronizing prostitutes? Afterall aren't those call girls servicing the men doing away with these supposed virtues that only women are supposed to have?

Men paying for sex - although morally wrong - is how the sexual market place should work when the right value is placed on men and women. One of feminisms pushes is for unrestrained and unashamed sexual license for women. This has changed the market dynamic cheapening sex with women.

It also means women are objectified now more than ever - by both men and women. Think of 10 random high profile women - now think about what they are selling.

cococandy:
Neither was female prostitution normalized or seen as a good thing.
No matter how common male and female prostitution becomes,neither will ever be normalized or seen as a good thing.

It's not so much about the moral aspect - as important as that may be - it's about the dynamics, and how that will change interactions between men and women, their ability to form long-term relationships (read marriage), and most of all the procreative outcomes.

cococandy:
We are talking about male prostitution here. Let's not turn it around and make it all the fault of the buyers only. The sellers have a share of the blame. Do you blame feminism for these young men who have decided to sell their bodies for money?

It's not about male prostitution, it's about women paying for sex. It's not about blame, it's about the attendant impact on male-female relationships, and outcomes for the family and children.

Apart from gay rent boys and a minor element of sugar-mummyism, there should be no market for men selling sex if women maintained market equilibrium. Feminism and it's notions of sameness definitely did much of the heavy lifting here.

As above regards the moral aspect. My whole point being that the normal dynamics between male and female suggest women as buyers is a skewed market

Feminism has enabled the environment for this particualr form of prostitution to flourish. Think of the dempgraphic of woman we are talking about here.

cococandy:
What kind of women would need to pay for sex?
Let's see:

*Very busy and unable to sustain a relationship kind of women.
*Serially heartbroken and not interested in trying again kind of women.
*adventurous women.bored with one partner easily
*neglected and sexually starved wives

I could go on.

Please do...none of those situations would demand payment by women in a properly priced market. Think about it, what women of real quality would feel she cannot command the attention of the lover or spouse she desired without payment.

I try not to personalise things - unless I'm dissing - but let me muse. If I were paying for sex, would I stump up for what I could get without paying? Certainly not. It's been spun as empowerment, but these women are essentialluy losers. Just reasonably well-paid. They are paying for what they can't get in a free market, but they can afford in a skewed one !


TV

crackhaus:
Which is why I said in my very first comment, this option is totally unnecessary for straight men.

No normal straight-as-a-needle dude is going to be bio-manufacturing female eggs from his skin when he's got at least two chics on speed-dial...but then again, who knows what would be considered normal in the future.

Agree with your train of thought. With marriage, sex and children all essentially "divorced", why would this appeal to normal men? Especially those that understand raising children is not beanz, the skills women bring to it, and want the best outcome for their kids.

All it does is further muddle the perception of human sexuality and procreation, and serve to legitimise what many consider to be illegitimate/immoral expressions of it.

TV

cococandy:
not an actual win.
Ideally kids should have parents of different sexes yea. I agree.

Not just opposite sex, but also their exact biological progenitors. And I appreciate some instances deviate from the ideal, but I feel that in our use of technology and in our policy forming we should act aspirationally => towards the ideal

cococandy:
The lesser of two evils of for them to have parents who don't hate each other at least even if same sex or single parent.

I see that as something of a false dichotomy, as if the choices are two hating parents or any other combination. The outcomes for same-sex or single parenting are simply not as good and are a denial of a childs rights. And one thing many do not realise, is that the outcomes are better for the child even if the parents relationship could be characterised as low-conflict.

cococandy:
I understand your concern because it turns the wild upside down as we know it not to mention how unethical it is.

The Gospel was reported to have turned the world upside down - as long as it's real quantifiable progress, I have no problem. I see it as a descent into madness.


TV

cococandy:
Women have been paying men for sex.

In the same way that female prostitution is considered the oldest industry? On the same scale, in the same manner. Tenuous.

cococandy:
Where have you been living?

Ok I've lived an admittedly sheltered life and maintain a spartan lifestyle, but I'm not totally unaware .

cococandy:
It is the norm (as in norm) as much as female prostitution in many nigerian cities.

The point is what is driving this phenomena, or this strain of it? We know it's extant, but in a different form and with a different dynamic. It's not sugary or cougarism as described. Merely saying it's the equivalent of men paying sex for women, or worse reading it as men selling themselves sexually totally misses the point.

cococandy:
Although it is rare to see them standing by the roadside like some of their female counterparts, but there are clubs established specifically for that business and their clients even include married women.

TV

cococandy:
I wonder how this is news or what it has to do with feminism.

I don't make the news, just comment on it.
Feminism demands that different things - males and female - be treated exactly the same way, hence women adopting male behavour - whilst regrettably losing female virtue. Part of the liberal ideology that pervades culture and most thinking in the west these days.

cococandy:
Even before my mother was born it has been in existence. Kini big deal?

Perhaps, but was it mainstreamed, normalised, seen as a good thing? What is driving this form of that particular habit ?What kind of woman do you see as needing to pay for sex? "Kini big deal" is a rather simplistic response

cococandy:
Just like there are women who don't wanna do real work to make money,there are also men who don't want to do that either.
Totally inverted thinking here - is this driven by men wanting to be prostitutes or women behaving like men?

[quote author=cococandy post=29515922]Easy money. Chop and clean mouth. No strings attached.

Not the thrust of the article

cococandy:
Nothing new. At all. at all

...

TV

Plus. this is already in effect in a sense - normalising homosexuality and legalising their "having" children, mean that women are used as carriers/surrogates - disposable wombs, with no rights to or responsibility for the child. Effectively making women mere breeders and more worringly, children mere commodities.

Who in their right minds would think that's a good thing?

Hmmm...


TV

cococandy:
Don't call me weird but I think this is wonderful in its own way.

If it ever comes to fruition

How? why??

cococandy:
it is simple really. Let the men who feel they do not need women have kids their way. Kids that are totally theirs without any contribution of gametes from a woman.
At least we will be spared the touching stories that come out of loveless marriages.
And they don't have to deal with 'unpleasantness' that comes with associating daily with a woman.
They are happy, we are happy, everyone is happy. Win win win
#in my dreams in know.

...how is this a win for the kids? Dream well 0!

TV

Tallesty1:
There are times we need to ask ourselves questions and answer them truthfully.

Not just truth, but also understanding.

Once you understand that your typical womans primary driver is her own utility and comfort - not her kids welfare and certainly not her husbands happiness - you'll understand.

Work with it.


TV

pickabeau1:
Yes

The difference is that it is now accepted and mainstream

Male escort service
Reality TV shows

So many insights and pointers as to why "sexual equality" will be disastrous for women.

Historically, men have placed a high value on intimacy with women and even gone to war over it. Now women are paying men? Laughable, but quite tragic. A singular lesson in how to take something of great worth and render it all but valueless.

I see lots of women thinking that financial independance somehow levels the playing field. Nope, because men do not typically seek out women for financial reasons. And the money they acquire does not necessarily secure them the men they desire or the happiness they want.

I maintain, that when women fully realise how feminism compromises the feminine imperative, they will of themselves war against it. Sharp and high status men will continue to enjoy the ride - and pick of the best quality women.

An unfolding story, but some of us can prety much forsee the end.


TV

carefreewannabe:
Where in Germany were you?

I spent New Year's Eve in London.

Frankfurt

carefreewannabe:
Congratulations!

Danke schon

carefreewannabe:
So now kids / teenagers should have a choice like adults?
I doubt I have ever said something like that.

carefreewannabe:
It would be better, she wouldn't but nowadays you have plenty of possibilities to prevent a pregnancy or should people only have s*ex when they want to procreate? I don't think so.

Your two quotes above sound somewhat contradictory.
It's procreation at 16 that you don't agree with, not copulation, although teenagers shouldn't actually have that choice?


TV

striktlymi:
Recalling my conversation with him still leaves me rather confused, hence my question: Is it improper to help put away the dirty dishes in the home of a married friend?

What is proper is for you to humbly respect the boundaries your friend sets for you in his home. If you can't, don't visit, or un-friend him . You are gracious to offer, but should take no offence - and graciously accept - if he declines. End of.

It could be either he or his wife are uncomfortable with it - for reasons best known to them. Perhaps the see doing the dishes as a special bonding activity for just the two of them. Please learn to be more diplomatic, unperturbed by relatively insignigficant stuff and stop over-analysing. All you've done here is expose yourself and your friend to unthinking criticism. Honestly.


TV

^{I've come back to some wierd utterances by men on the Family board. May have to put a series together .}

carefreewannabe:
Guten Morgen TV,

what a surprise. I was wondering what happened. Happy New Year to you and your family.

She is 16 years old and too young to have kids, in my opinion. And she should be going to school because I believe that education is very important.

...nothing happened, I was caught up! I actually spent a brief period in Germany - was hoping to miraculously run into you . I was a little bit dissapointed. All the black people I saw looked severely under pressure - mostly Somali looking. I saw two half-decent looking ones, of which one was in our offices over there.

Family are well thanks. By Gods grace we are enlarging our tents very soon .

I thought it was all about choice and empowering? Like I said, I don't know the back story, but if she was not forced or coerced by anyone, should you not respect her choices and champion her right to choose?

If you feel she's too young for children, does it follow that she's too young for intercourse?


TV

carefreewannabe:
She should be going to school instead of having kids.

Guten morgen Frau CFW,

And HNY how far? Hope you are well.

Without knowing the back story here, may I ask why she should be in school? Her sexual and reporductive choices should be solely within her power according to your mantra.


TV

deylookme:
TV01, thanks for your input. Honestly, our relationship was 3 years old when we found out we were pregnant and we were in it to get married. He had been pushing for marriage since my 3rd year in school but I refused and insisted I must graduate and possibly go for service. Things got bad along the line and when we were ready there was no money, he lost the 2 people he was closest to in his family and that were willing to help without conditions that was a turning point for him. Nothing mattered anymore. Last year was bad but things have improved now. I've wanted to marry him all through the 5 years.

Your comment needs to be studied and internalised, I'll do just that.

Morning deyooklme, hope you are well. I must say the equanimity and grace with which you are discussing the situation is quite refreshing and to be commended. You come across really well. And if it's any indication of your wider character, I believe and truly hope you'll come through this.

The extra insights are helping me understand things in a more personal sense and are quite revealing. I've also read you other posts about the situation.

You have a lot vested in this relationship, and, with a child to consider, it's understandable that you are keen to make it work - absolutely nothing wrong with that - although your giving consideration to other "suitors" suggests you are aware it may not?

Hence, your dilemma remains, do you stick it out, or do you move on. I'll say this first, if you do decide to move on, understand what a good husband is made of and don't settle for less. Your interest in your ex from a decade ago smacks of immaturity/desperation.

I personally think you should have it out with him. But first, you must gather yourself and consider if you can deal with the possible outcomes?
I'd sit him down, remind him of where you have both come from, the journey thus far. The promises made, the vision and the anticipation, and your enduring commitment to it.

Explain to him that you understand the pressure and what he seeks to do, but for the best long-term interest of you and your child he needs to formalise the commitment.

You need to be clear about what time frame is acceptable to you and what you expect in terms of milestones/events up until the day. Then you need to make it readily apparent that you will move on with your life if he cannot commit wholeheartedly and fully accept the responsibilities that come with the challenge of being a husband and father.

If he's looking for a way out, it'll soon be clear, if he's seeking to keep the status-quo which effectively absolves him of real ownership, it'll be apparent, and if he realises that it's time to take the reigns and honour you and your child as he first planned you'll know.

Perhaps give him time to go away and consider his response or prep him beforehand so he knows exactly what you have in mind. Either way, with an understanding of his position, you can determine the way ahead.

A real idea of what he stands to lose might galvanise him. But in any event, be clear, be firm and be resolute. And please, please, please, don't take in at this point.

All the best

TV

To my bros'
Always set your standards high in terms of expectations from your wife. It goes without saying that you present as a mature man with a vision for your home. Articulate who you are, what you stand for and your expectations. Get to know her, but don;t pander to her or allow your feelings to lead your actions. If at any point you feel she's not the one, free her and move on. If it's a relatively minor thing - amongst a whole lot of good - let her know and work with her. If she is not clear in due course, at best park her and keep looking. Please don't mess them about or blight their futures for a few fleeting moments of intimacy.

...if she's truly the nutter you say she is, FIL probably did a double-take the day you showed up to ask for her hand in marriage. He almost certainly couldn't believe it, but played along knowing he daren't not risk losing someone who freely offered to take her off his hands. He almost certainly knew the chances of it happening twice were zero to wafer thin...

...She's your problem now not his. He had his fill - probably 20+years worth - of the solipsistic, delusional, entitlement princess...

Sorry eh!

TV

deylookme:
Hello,

I'm in my mid twenties and a single mom. I want matured advice from experienced Nairalanders and those who have been in my shoes before. Please I'll be brief as possible, you can ask questions.

My baby's dad is a nice guy in his mid thirties, 11 years age difference (not an issue to me). He's everything I want in a husband. We love each other very much and have been together for almost 5 years . He's a good guy but he doesn't have enough money. I work so I basically take care of my child though I have plans to get my masters next year. Anytime he has money , he doesn't hold it back. His family wants us to get married ASAP but he doesn't want that, instead he wants to be comfortable and I understand that. If I ask when we'll get married, he'll say he doesn't know but we'll do that immediately he's capable. He's too independent of his family and doesn't listen to most of his siblings except a few.

I have guys that are interested in marrying me, some are married now. My ex has been in the picture. Since we broke up, he has been trying to get back together for almost a decade. He's in his late twenties, loves me a lot and wants to get married. We didn't date long, about 3 months and we broke up. I don't like the fact that he drinks. He's promising to stop but I don't believe him. He's a mama's boy. If not he's cool. I feel if I leave my boyfriend, I'll be gambling with this guy. He promised to love my child. Do men love kids that are not their's? His family has accepted us and are supporting him to
go ahead.

I think it's time I start a family and give my baby a father figure. My parents have been supportive through out the pregnancy but they are getting tired and fed up and I understand them totally. Recently, they keep praying for me to get married and their attitude towards me has changed even though I contribute financially to the family. I don't blame them neit
her do I have anything against them.

Am I desperate?  What do you think I should do? Should I leave my boyfriend for my ex I don't really know?

Cc
Aisha2
Hispinkolo
Mizmycoli
Kanwulia/ kanwulia jara
Cococandy

Please your contribution would be appreciated even though I didn't mention you. You can help me tag people who are blunt, straight forward and wise.

Deylookme hello and festive greetings, I know I wasn't tagged directly, but I think I can "palm" two of blunt, straightforward and wise ! Plus, I like to use such opportunities to talk to men about marriage.

In a nutshell, you want to be married, have more children possibly and secure some stability for your child. Quite laudable really. Your problem is youa re bereft of decent choices. The truth is, you are caught between a rock and a hard place. I'll go as far as to say, if you didn't have a child, neither of these two men would be on your radar, especially if what your baby fathers family has to say about you - in your words below - is true. In fact, you won't go to far wrong if you take the advice inherent in that statement.

He told me that they said I'll leave him soon because according to them I'm beautiful, young, ambitious and intelligent so they are advising him to impregnate me again.

You claim to "love" BF, yet you are considering and in discussion with an ex from over 10 years ago whom you dated for barely 3 months and is quite clearly immature?

Further, you have other suitors. Perhaps our definition of suitors differs, but to me qualification as a suitor demands a certain level of interest has been shown and considered, and certain things have happened? Unless you are working with the old adage of "until she marries, every man is a suitor"?

You are being prompted by a females basic instinct - and that's not as bad thing - in fact, you are probably guilty of not taking things to their natural conclusion.

Your BF at this point in time is simply not the kind of fabric you want to be sewing a husband from. But deep down, you know that don't you? His inability to commit to both you and your child or make any kind of definitive statement about your settling down is glaring. Like I noted previously if there was not a child involved, he wouldn't be on your radar.

It's why your father detests him, and if I were speaking as male relative, I would have little time for him. He is simply not up to it at this point. Be it because he is not confident in his ability to provide, unequal to the responsibility of taking full ownership, or simply more comfortable with you being a baby-mama, than challenged by taking on the burden of being a committed husband and father.

His family' involvement is even more telling, they are pushing and looking to support him in to doing what he should be driving himself, and making it conditional as they don't actually see him as that able. You are the catch here not him - he simply lucked out getting to you early.

OP you can skip the quote below, it's more for men;

I touched on the female instinct earlier, the dread "H" word, hypergamy. I make no value judgement about it, it just needs to be correctly understood and applied.

Women typically marry up or at worst on a level, and if the man is "high status" in an absolute sense, marrying at a level is not a problem, say two doctors for example. Few women love in an unconsidered or unqualified manner - its actually men that do that more - but that is understandable as women are typically more vulnerable as OP is discovering now.

The reasons are quite obvious, a man will expected to lead, provide and protect his family. Typically woman do not want to bear that burden or the major part of it, as they usually have other gender-specific burdens they have to deal with, and are better equipped to.

And there's another oft overlooked part of the dynamic between husband and wife. A womans attraction for her husband (or any man) is stimulated by his ability to deliver as noted. If he doesn't, over time only strong religious injunctions or social mores will prevent her straying or leaving him - in any event, she will not be happy.

There has been much talk about charitable giving - or the gift of liberality if we set this in a Christian context - but two things here, you mentioned nothing about faith and faith would suggest he makes amends for the "out of wedlock" situation.

Further, one who fails to provide for his household is worse than an infidel. Any gift of liberality or charitable bent must be coasidered in light of means and responsibilities. Please don't spiritualise your situation, for one thing, when you are in the crucible of marriage it won't render an ounce of succour.

So consider what possibly awaits you should you marry him and have further children. He either delivers, or he fails too, despite his familial support (which in any event will have limits) and the provider burden falls majorly on you. Are you prepared to live out the worst case scenario or will there be another failed marriage with the attendant costs - especially to the child?

As for the child you have, the outcome for him/her will be best in a stable household, be this with his biological father or someone who commits to you both. The difference will be in provision and modelling.

Whether you act on instinct or make clear considered choices (and they may well be the same), I wish you all the best. I hope the young and unwed are taking notes here.

TV

Timbuktou:
Merry christmas, egbon. Fresh_Dude, here. You were gone for quite a while. How have you been and how's the family?

Freshly hi, Yuletide greetings to you and yours. Why the change of monicker? I liked the old one. Anyway, I trust you'll maintain your normal quality flow.

Best
TV

cococandy:
How about if the culprit is unrepentant?

Separate

cococandy:
And in case of seperation, I wonder how except joining a monastery or nunnery a divorced or separated person intends to remain celibate all their life.

I was celibate from the day I became a Christian until I met my wife - and it was a long time . I'm sure I've testified as such previously on NL. But more to the point, when I was searching for a wife, and even more pertinently when it seemed at times I may not find one, I always knew a lifetime of celibacy may be on the cards and I was totally at peace with that. And I knew I wasn't settling for any ole' wife.

Before I actually became a Christian, I was all but one. I just couldn't wrap my head around the no GF thing. Once I became one, it was quite clear to me what my faith demanded. I said "no problem", if that's what you desire Lord, pray help me - I didn't even pray as such, just affirmed it within myself - and He did. The Lord is no respecter of persons. His grace is freely available.

cococandy:
I know I'm seeing the world through my personal lenses right now but it is still damn hard to believe.

The scriptures are clear - and plainly so. What people choose to believe, how they choose to express their faith and the amount of trust they have in God, is indeed a personal thing

Christian marriage is until death do part, divorce is possible in the event of adultery, remarriage only in the event of death of one of the spouses.

TV

Ewuro4:
You dey mind them?


And point of correction : Marriage WONT bring you HAPPINESS if you aren't happy to start with. People get this wrong everytime and with high expectations too.

Hi Jide, long time. Hope all is well with you. Great to have you back. Such festive cheer.


TV

cococandy:
Really?

Say she insults your parents horribly, abuses you emotionally and even physically when she can, slept with your boss and had a child for him and you guys got separated for that reason at about 35yrs of age.

You will forever remain single and CELIBATE for the rest of the 50-60yrs you have left on earth because marrying another wife will be adultery?

Really LOUIS?

Festive greetings Coco, how far?

Lews has laid it out straight. Even the transgression of adultery is forgivable. And if you choose not to forgive, the permission to divorce does not pre-suppose remarriage. True Christian marriage is until death do part.


TV

crackhaus:
Can't stop, won't stop...

Long time no see read, Sir TV...trust all is good and well.
Compliments of the season, and a happy bubbly new year in advance!

...very well thank you for asking. Great Christmas. I trust likewise.

Best
TV

11. I'll call you back in about an hour dearest, MOTD is about to start. **deactivates speaker and ends call **

TV

crackhaus:
Please I ask that you do me that great 'injustice' by not replying this with more confused retorts.
It will indeed be a great injustice to my intelligence if I have to read another comment from you desperately trying hard at another comeback (the last one took you almost a week even).

Cheers!

Cracky - stuffing turkeys whatever the season !

TV

Mondisweets:
So saying that about a father to his daughter doesn't cause problems? She can have her father disrespected in her face and have a party over it abi?

Let me put mondi's alter-ego thats always stirring up trouble on NL aside....

There are things we need to learn before we enter into marriage. I know no matter what i can never take the position of my mother in-law in her son's life. So long they had a healthy relationship, she will remain the number one in his heart. Her food will most probably remain the best food he has ever tasted. She will probably be the only woman who could tear that asssss up but he would still go back to her the next day, hug her and call her the best mother ever. As a wife try it and the last thing i will see is a bright light.

Same thing goes with a father and his daughter. In fact my father would slap me today and tomorrow i would be drawing a pic of him written " greatest father in the world, i love you". If my husband tries it, best believe me he will not be getting an i love you the next day. A matured man will know that even if he is his wife's husband, that did not replace the role of her father in her life in anyway. Her father will probably the only man who can beat her up and 2hrs later she will be going down on her knees and serving him his favorite meal.

If my mother in law gives my husband food items or crockery. I will not ask my husband why she didn't inform me, i will simply call her to thank her. And if i can't cook the food items she sent me i will even ask her how she used to prepare it for him, so i can surprise him. If she sends him with a car, i will even go to their house and thank both her and her husband for the gift, whether i was informed about it before or not. At the end of the day, the gift was given to him, he was the one who had to choose whether he wanted it or not.

I understand that when get married i would have gained 2more parents not 2 more enemies trying to interfere with my marriage.
There is so much more about parenting i can learn from them apart from what my own parents have taught me. Im an African and i understand that marriage is not only about 2 people becoming one but 2 families coming together. Clearly some African men have thrown that cultural value away, why must you feel your in-law is belittling you by doing something for his daughter?

The guy in question felt disrespected by this FIL (for whatever delusional reason i have failed to understand until now) and the best way to deal with it was insult him in his daughter's face, because thats what mature men do? They make the issue worse?
If a petty issue like how a car is delivered can frustrate his life, what more when a bigger issue arises? Will he not murder his in-laws?
A man who acts his age would just go thank his in-laws for the gift. At the end of the day the receiver of the gift wasn't complaining so why should he take panado for a headache thats not his?
If it deeply wounded his little ego, there was always another alternative, go to another elderly family member from his wife's side, ask him/her to tell his FIL in the nicest way possible that he didn't feel that the gift was given in an appropriate manner and he must take caution in the future. You think insulting her father will make her love and respect him more?
When she starts disrespecting his mother the way he disrespected her father by claiming, " she is interfering with her marriage" you will come back an create another thread about how women of this generation have no respect for their husbands and in-laws

Singleton right?

TV

Mutaino7:
source. www.google.com
Tags:
sirshymexx, crackhaus, royver, tv01, jomile, bunmioguns, preciousjoz, kimco, wackyj1, tosyn007, feraz, crackhaus, 50calibre.

Holá,

TV01 believes God, is fully persuaded by the gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ, and does not doubt the integrity of the scriptures.

TunjiMsp:
The bible also said the earth is flat, now we know better

Where?

TV

ihedinobi2:
WOAH!!! I DID NOT READ THAT OP!!! NASTY!!!

Ok, I know the "husband-lost-ability-to-provide-so-wife-provides" story very well. I know it very very well.

To put it simply, I consider the husband and wife a single unit. One spouse's issues are the other's as well. It's one team. Contrary understandings have not proved to work to my observation.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm getting married because I want help to accomplish the purpose of my life. I'll judge everything by that. I hope for a prudent manager for a wife. I'd commit everything I own to her if I could. And encourage her to become a wise investor with them while I go out to get more.

If her activities earn us more than mine I gain. If mine earn us more I gain. I don't see a loss either way.

Needless to say, I wouldn't stand in my wife's way if she decides to quit her job and play asset management guru with our "pot". I might actually push the idea I do like having someone I trust home with the kids.

Ihe, hi, hope all's well. Saw you shout-out, thanks very much. Just beeen chillin' and chasing down other things. Wishing you a merry x-mas and a most fruitful new year.

@Bolded, a worthy sentiment, but very few are capable of living up to that. Be it a social construct or due to our wiring, men are designated providers, priests and protectors. Any imbalance there is liable to cause issues in their relationship.

Take the priestly role for instance, in instances where men fail here or are simply weak/uninterested, many wives look to pastors or other spiritual icons - and lots of marital convo's are typically initiated with "pastor says".

Even yet to marry girls sef - after a few knocks, I studiously ignored those ones - I suggest single brothers do the same or at least make it very clear who is pastor in their home, and if the MOG oversteps the marital mark he may be met with a head-butt !

It's a mans pride to be able to provide wholesale for his family, and typically both parties feel absolutely comfortable with it. And society rarely questions that - a woman thrust into that position will feel resentful - and more so if it's a struggle to make ends meet.

On the whole women want men who can lead them, and that can be difficult without a solid financial footing, as provision is somehow implied. Even women that want to be able to control their men, don't necessarily want to have to feed them to do that.

Women typically marry up, and that is not something that I have a problem with as there are clear biological and social drivers for that. Ask any of the female high-earners here if they would seriously consider marrying a man who earned 50% or so less than them? Not unless a desperate situation warrants it.

The number of homes where men provide the bulk of the income still far outnumber the relatively few instances where women provide more, let alone all. The economic landscape nowadays typically means both parties are required to make a monetary contribution.

@second bolded, again that is actually best IMHO,but it demands you shoulder that burden to provide for your household, not something that would easily swing in the reverse .

@Post, why are financial troubles in marriage now reduced to "men not being able to provide/secure an income"? It's worth touching on, but that can only ever be a relatively small number of homes. Even if the wife contributes more, it's relatively rare for a man to bring in absolutely nothing on a long-term basis, or even less over the course of the whole union.

There can still be monetary issues/dilemmas regardless of the split or source of income, especially where resources are limited - as is the case in most homes. Perhaps the discussion could touch on communication and creativity around agreement and utilisation of resources. Deadbeat husbands have taken a beating already on this thread .

Absolutely agree with Bukatyne re headship - or at least I think I do? Headship is the mans by default and not predicated on his financial capabilities, however, a facet of his husbandly role is provision.


Off to season my turkey.

Merry crimbo everyone


TV

The money didn’t change him...he was always like that...his former lack of money just meant he could'nt show the darker(self-serving) side of his character without cost...now he can literally afford too.

Please learn a very valuable lesson here. I have also experienced this. There are people who will draw close too you based on what they can gain from you.

Once they have obtained all they think you are worth or surpassed you, you will be cut off, marginalised, or treated in a distinctly inferior manner. And possibly quite shabbily – treating you like their boy-boy or like you don’t know what’s up.

There are many such from poorer or impoverished backgrounds. Their desire to “advance themselves” is often their main motivator. Treating you badly is a manifestation of the inferiority complex that drives them.

Apart from wounded feelings - and yes, it hurts when someone you championed and sought the best for at all times, literally stabs you in the back - it doesn’t look like you lost too much.

A valuable lesson at not too great a cost. Please don’t let it affect what I sense is a generous spirit, however, do be circumspect in your dealing with people and how much you commit yourself to them.

Watch what happens if he stumbles or falls, or otherwise needs to call on you for assistance.


TV

edwife:
Lol TV ,i did not procure any caro for him,but sarah.....

Do you really believe he will stay with such a wife under the same roof for 24h?

Oh my bad....apologies...I knew there was some "arrangee" going on and it was you, wrong Sister. SisterCaro abeg, no vex .


TV