₦airaland Forum

yeyenatu: Define yourself as the one who is in charge of the house, including her.

Really? The one who had any semblance of authority in the home or equity in the relationship grasped from her - cruelly and against her will -should now form "Lady at the Top"? And the new wife - who everything suggests will at least for now be more favoured - will just accede to that?

yeyenatu: Take that stand and be firm. Be more than a wife now, be THE wife.

You can only be "the wife", if you are the only wife. Neither they or anyone following - which is still a possibility se? - have any stand. The battle is for favour, not authority.

Talking up situations and chest thumping does not change reality. Don't glorify what is wrong, aspire to what right.


TV

ayinba1: Well I hope she is reading this

I won't allow it. I don't want her to get ideas. As much of a man that I am, I niether want nor need another wife !


TV

^{...if there is anything virtuous, anything beneficial, anything praiseworthy, anything endearing about polygamy, please share...}

pickabeau1: I can imagine how d lesser men of those days coped when the women will naturally gravitate to the richer ones to be the nth wife rather than be their first wife - hypergamy again

...ah! the "H" word!!! Please don't give someone HBP 0 !

pickabeau1: For me.. polygamy was a bit unfair to men of lower means but suitable for men in the upper strata - pick and choose
More kids - more labour - more harvest -- more wealth

It hasn't changed and will still be the model - if not legal form - of some even where polygamy is pro-scribed. Mistesses and concubines are very evident in the West.

However, without being overly delicate, woman will still need intimacy and where the man with the means is unable or otherwise occupied, men of lower rank can garner a little something.

pickabeau1: However the issues it tried to solve still exist (prevalence of marriageable women - widows, 30+, 40+ with no or little hope of being married)With female empowerment as it is, women dont need to look to a man for financial needs however the companionhip need still stays

First, on the whole, polygamy creates way more issues than it resolves. I repeat, the only thing polygamy really serves are mens lustful desires. Even if polygamy helps reduce the number of widows; it will disproportionately increase the number of singles. As has been noted, polygamists are not for the most part marrying aged singles or widows. Like Western men trading their forty year old for a newer model, polygamists just start a collection !

And the dynamics are much worse for women and children. The wives can't even be indignant or righteously outraged.


TV

ayinba1: Are you married? am just trying to see what angle each contributor is writing from.

Yes, I am. The proud husband of 1 wife !


TV

pickabeau1: I understand your concept of bilateral equity in faithfulness perfectly
As i said it only works in a monogamous union

In a polygamous union its more of a spider diagram with the man at the centre
However it does not translate to polygamy as cheating as being insinuated

The mindset is more likely yes..but they are not the same

Re the bolded, my point is that if it's "faithfullness" to whom is the man faithful? Not to the women, but to his own desires. So even if you argue that it is "not cheating" - as it's accepted abi? It cannot be termed faithfulness, as it's simply not a requirement for him, nor can it be demanded of him.

pickabeau1: Its not the evolution part ala Charles Darwin

women traditionally were spoils of war are raids and loots

They were shared as booty

Only the powerful men had access to these women leaving the less able men with scraps

Hence the evolution

Read up on the Saxons, Vikings

If it's not entirely myth, it's not long-term tenable. If that was the case, ordered socities would never have sprung up. Human socialisation has changed in some ways, but pair -bonding has been since forever.

Men are naturally protective and defensive of their own women. Be that family, tribe or ethnic. I want my female relatives to make good marriages. I have no intellectual issues with a black woman marrying a white man, but still feel a visceral response. Especially if the bobo is wor-wor ? I shudder when I see sisters smoke, but feel nothing if its white women.

Women were only spoils and "booty" (yeah, I see what you did there ) if they were from enemy tribes. And more likely inter-marriages ("giving away" their daughters) would have been common and used to form alliances.

And then - even as now - not everyone would have been able to marry - poor men, suffering short and brutish lives, with no sex, since forever ! Societal evolution didn't create marriage, it just made it more accessible.


Always good to chew with you Pick. Come, are we derailing !

TV

pickabeau1: TV01
Interesting read

Female empowerment also contributed to the downfall of polygamy
On this we are agreed
Evolution of Monogamy
http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/29/the-ancient-sexual-revolution-that-may-have-spurred-human-monogamy/print/

Read it, but with my "Christian fundamentals", I simply do not believe that men "evolved". Nor have I seen any evidence for it. If evolution were true, we shouldn't even have sexual reproduction, it doesn't make much biological sense.


TV

pickabeau1: Yes of course.. the man starts with one except in cases where he marries more than one at the same time
I dont need to go too far
Knowledge of Saxons, Vikings as far back as the 11th century were most polygamous
ROmans were monogamous and as the conquering race everyone will conform

http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm

No need to drag this

Agreed.

pickabeau1: I agree with your points on no one wanting to share her man
I never said fidelity is not synomymous with conjugal faithfulness. you are assuming on my behalf
I am saying that your assertion that conjugal faithfulness is exclusive to a union of a man and a woman is not all inclusive

This view is only shared by christians and strictly for those who want to be a bishop

I find it hard to see how faithfulness can be unilateral? Even between 2 people

Or how it is faithfullness between more than 2 when they are not all faithful to each other, just the women to the man and he does not have to be faithful to them?

Apologies, it simply does not compute. And although I'd appreciate aclear explanation, I won't drag.


TV

pickabeau1: The issue here is what constitutes the marriage

...and faithfulness...and morality

pickabeau1: this post is an option left to strong women and i support it
However it means the man is suffering little or no consequence

Not if there are laws like what obrtain in the West. It means even weak women can take advantage of a strong man.

ATBE, for the best outcome for all concerned, properly instituted monogamous marriage can't be beat.

I think I'm done here unless anyone introduces a new angle or responds to one of my hitherto unanswered questions.


TV

^{...monogamy...because no man really needs two wives...and no woman can readily handle two husbands}

pickabeau1: The major thing is that you look at this issue from the lens of christianity

I can't really argue that point can I? Even if I claim it's morality based, it's evident my morality is Christianity based.

pickabeau1: Monogamy as a way of life is less than 2000 y old

But I can argue this one; please evidence that assertion.

Whatever ones beliefs about how human beings - or marriage - came into existence, polygamy could never have pre-dated monogamy. even a polygamist has to marry one to start with !

With a natural birthrate of around 105/6 boys to 100 girls, even where polygamy is permitted, monogamy remains the most practiced model.

Polygamy would be dead on arrival (or at best marginal) in a society where there is full harmony and empowerment of the sexes. ATBE, all it really is is a carnal (legally winked at) outlet for concupiscence in men.

ATBE, what right-thinking or empowered woman really wants to share her husband? And what loving and faithful man can really claim that he requires further wives?

pickabeau1: Fidelity is staying with the wife(s) in the union whether mono or poly

All you are saying here - and quite wrongly I might add - is that fidelity is not synonymous with conjugal faithfullness. By definition, you cannot make that claim for monogamy.


TV

pickabeau1: TV01

infidelity as an act occurs outside the marriage whether monogamous or otherwise

Polygamy is not infidelity as long as the sexual affairs are kept within the union

That a polygamous mindset is more likely to lead to infidelity as it's taken for granted is not in doubt

In the old days there were still taboos to ensure women did not sleep around
Whether mono or poly, few men want to raise another man's child

So to say polygamy is infidelity is still reaching
However I agree the mindset is more likely

Firstly, I don't agree that the fact that something is legally codified necessarily makes it moral. Gay marriage?

Secondly, please explain how a man who takes a second wife is being faithful to the first? And why one of his multiple wives taking another husband is not permitted and/or considered "faithful"?

Each marriage is a seperate contract - in order to fulfil one, he has to breach the other/s.
Otherwise we are talking polyamory - where all parties must agree.

I appreciate that it is cuturally, religiously and legally permissable to some, but scrutinising the logic of it clearly shows it's flaws. The actual dynamic of polygamous homes is even more telling. Even a glowing reference of his personal experience by tbaba merely reveals that as the exception rather than the norm.

We can blather on about this till cock crow at dawn. But the truth is evident. Monogamy is superior ATBE, with polygamy perhaps being a useful short-term measure in times of great stress - at best.


TV

^{...lol, I didn't say rooster 0!}

texanomaly: First of all, in a polygamous relationship, the parties are married.
Infidelity is defined as...

1. marital disloyalty; adultery.

2. unfaithfulness; disloyalty.

Whereas polygamy is defined as...

the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, especially wife, at one time.

Where is this infidelity you speak of?

Not because of, but despite the experiences recounted here, polygamy is by definition flawed.

If a man has one one and marries another, how is he remaining faithful to the first wife?
If a man has 2 or more wives, are any of the wives permitted to marry another man and still be considered faithful?

Not only flawed but impossible to truly follow where it leads. It's infidelity by fiat - but still infidelity. There it is - in plain sight - by definition.

texanomaly: At least you know who your husband is sleeping with. Does a woman with a cheating husband know who, or how many woman her husband is sleeping with? Does she know if the other women are healthy or disease ridden?

I laugh. So because a man has two or more wives, they must of a necessity know who he is sleeping with? Or he is somehow magically prevented from lying with anyone not "a wife".

A polygamous mindset is more likely to lead to infidelity as it's taken for granted. It's expected. Polygamy is in many cultures pretty much twinned with concubinage.

texanomaly: Now let's ask the question again.

A wife in a polygamous marriage knows exactly who her husband is sleeping with, and who the other wife is sleeping with. Is a monogamous marriage to a philandering "holy man" a "better deal"?

First, as explained earlier, you opened with a misstatement - an assertion that is still more likely of a monogamous relationship than a polygamous one.

Second, the obtuse reference to religion apart - which I did not touch on as monogamy is not solely a religious notion - at least in monogamy there is the expectation of fidelity, and recourse to repentance or remedy if there is a breach. A woman in a polygamous marriage is efectively saying she welcomes and endorses legally endorsed infidelity.


TV

sandijey: She said after all, what's d difference between a cheating husband and a polygamyst. .

The expectation with monogamy is fidelity, with polygamy it's infidelity. In the former you don't expect it, with the latter you embrace it. Is it me, or does a cheating husband actually sound like a better deal?

bellong: I do not have a single good story to share about polygamous home.

Not one?


TV

...CFW, always runs out of cogent arguement before she runs out of steam

carefreewannabe: I don't have any ideology. You have enough for the two of us.

Look in that cupboard that needs cleaning - your crusty incoherent feminist ideology is probably there doing strengthening exercises. Or are you denying it now? !

carefreewannabe: This is exactly what I am doing.

Good on you. Please feel free to share this super new & improved marriage methodology with the rest of the world - Especially us fanatics !


"the only thing ot fear is fear itself"


TV

alutacontinua: Marriage is what you both make it to be.
I disagree with the 'not totally sweet' part
Challenges don't mean bitterness-it means CHALLENGES
When you're both of the same mindset, you'll still find sweetness in your challenges.
So yeah, I believe marriage can be totally sweet.


And the responsibilities lie with both of them, not the man only.
The use of words like 'all' is not my style, but yeah, I believe in marriage, people get more comfortable with each other.


Tell your friend to man-up and do the needful, I wish him the best

Who is this? And what have you done with Aluta ?
Mods, Supermods, CIA, Interpol, please launch an investigation. Someone has compromised Alutas account.

No way our Aluta would pen something so deep (and so brief )...This is most certainly not Aluta...I mean, could it be..is it? Aluta? Liked and endorsed. Plagiarised sef !


TV

100Cents: I have dated a lady in the distant past who bars her phone from other users with a code. I won't go into details, the experience was totally bad because whenever I had opportunity to peep into that phone, the sight was disaster.

What will normally prompt a lady to bar her phone with a code

I am asking pertinently because the lady currently falling head over heels for me right now barcodes her phone. Its marriage on my mind. I don't want what happened in 1960 to repeat again..

Must say I'm more interested in how you had mobile connectivity in 1960 and how big the handset was !

Do you really want to share your life with someone who is unable to share her most intimate secrets with you? It may seem bearable at the outset - when loff is blowing like a cool breeze ! - but not too far down the line it's quite likely that this and other things will leave you with shattered trust and as warring parties. Bro' be wise.


TV

^{**Discalimer: my wife has a passcode on her phone; but she had it when we met and she told me what it was unprompted. I don't have one and my little boy is making a lot of nuisance phone calls** !}

carefreewannabe: TV,

whatever you think of marriage and divorce is your business.
My only problem with you is that you think that you have the right to stigmatize people.

This is it.

Your problem is due to your flawed ideology and inability to string together a coherent discussion about marriage in any sense. Which is why you are fearful and allow that fear to inform your approach.

Your "subjective" mantra says that what each individual thinks and makes of marriage is down to them. Ergo, what I think and make of marriage (or divorce) is none of your business. The notion of divorce – and particularly as an acceptable/ morally good choice - should be rightly stigmatised in my view.

This thread is replete with evidence of your being totally bereft of even a basic understanding about marriage. Here’s an example;

carefreewannabe: And my idea of marriage is my idea of marriage and it concerns me and my partner. We have to agree on it, not you and not society.

Marriage is a couples public declaration and society’ acknowledgement of their commitment to each other - and the formalisation their union.

In your confused haze, you claim you “want marriage”, but without societal involvement? Like the gay-homosexuals who scream what they do is non of our business, yet want society to accept, endorse and celebrate the non-sequitur called “gay-marriage”.

And then rage that it’s the 21st century, in which case one must question why you want any part of a centuries old institution? Surely it can’t be so hard for a 21st century liberated and high achieving woman to create your own institution – and oner far superior to marriage?

So, I have no problem with your wallowing. Please, knock yourself out. But I do think it would be best all around if you stopped commenting on marriage or marital affairs, as you have neither the ideology to do so nor the understanding from which to speak. You are clearly out of your depth

Hope the weekend was good – I did a lot of fulfilling marriage stuff .


TV

carefreewannabe: TV01

Come and see one of the reasons why you should not judge divorced people.

Not sure why I was called out here? And after reading your conversation with Nash, I'm still not sure?

I also don't recall saying we should "judge divorced people" - rather stigmatise the notion of divorce as a logical outcome for marriage - as you would have it. As it's deleterious for all involved and society as a whole.


I couldn't help but read through some of the comments. And I have this to say.

If one marries and enters into the full communion of marriage and together has children with their spouse. If ones spouse cheats, is abusive and violent, then passes away, there is mourning. Mourning for the unfulfilled promise of the marital union, mourning for what was given that was never properly requited and mourning for the children left without a parent.

I don't really sense that from many of the posters here. And once again thank God, that I didn't marry some hard-hearted, stiff-necked person without empathy or a real grasp of marriage. I'm so thankful I'm not someones ticked box.


TV

carefreewannabe: This got me thinking. Is there a purpose of marriage? I am not so sure.

This alone proves what I've been saying about your grasp of marriage. And really pulls the rug out from under your position.

So you don't know what the purpose of marriage is, but you want to apprehend it - as you subjectively see fit - in order to make yourself happy? Marriage has no agency in and of itself, you can "conditionally commit" to your partner without marriage and presumably be happy? So why marriage CFW?

This lack of understanding has to be one of the things that make you so scared. And likewise, it's why you want the divorce option - and that option to be totally subjective - with it and and sans stigma.

Even your strawmen were apparent. Making it subjective and implying that it did not mean people could simply walk away, when subjectivity means exactly that. Subjectivity does not apply or force limits, otherwise it's prescriptive and judgemental, the very things you decry. Likewise, saying that what I deem best overall, is only what I think is best. If it's subjective, what I think is best can be no worse than what you think is best - no?

When you can show us the anthropological purpose and historical function of marriage, then it's game on. Even if you decide it should be updated for the 21st century, as long as you can show that your updates enhance it, I will accede and have no issue.

Otherwise you really should stop traducing marriage. Or even commenting on marital affairs. After all, if there's cheating, abuse or violence, it may well be what the two individuals want and have agreed to. Afterall, it it's subjective. You have no right to judge situations. Or as you like to call it - throw stones.

Have apleasant weekend.


TV

carefreewannabe:

CFW, think about all you’ve said so far. Your whole purpose for marriage was your own happiness. Accordingly, your reason for dissolution was “not being happy”

That is what leads you down the road of divorce being good – if you are not happy! It makes perfect logical sense if the purpose of marriage is too “make you happy”.

Marriage didn’t come into being to make people/you happy, although it does that. So trying to justify that point by talking of a spouse “beating you up” is still too miss the point. As is saying your partner can leave if you fail to give him what you promised.

You’ve already clearly stated that you can leave if “you are not happy”. That is subjective. So saying your partner can leave if you fail to give him what you promised is contradictory, as it’s for him to make that judgement not you. So you can be giving him all that you promised and a bag of chips, and he can still leave if he chooses.

So if happiness is the yardstick, it’s intellectually dishonest to claim that you didn’t say that a man or woman should “simply leave”, especially as you later said people leave “for many reasons”.


If you don’t grasp the purpose of marriage and reject the historically accepted definition, what you have is not really marriage, it’s something of your own construction.

So please, I am not in any way judging or prescribing for you. Who am I? I am merely parsing your position. Just as you claim that “your idea of marriage “ is as you and your partner decide it is, should everyone not be accorded that exact same right?

And if everyone can decide what marriage is too them – in purpose and definition – then there is in truth, no such thing as marriage is there?

And as for throwing around words like “consent” or “judgemental”, you do exactly that. Who are you to say that a man or woman cannot simply leave if that’s what they want? If that’s how they purpose and define their own marriage?

The truth of your position is that men and women should be allowed to leave for any reason. I’ve already had this discussion here on NL. And that was even the starting point.

And you still haven’t accurately defined or stated the purpose of marriage, although what you are saying is that it’s “whatever”. Neither have you outlined how it's best instituted, although you've made clear what you believe is best for you.


TV

alutacontinua: There should be a fine for epistle writers on NL
it just makes me hit the 'back' button

..and without the epistle writers, how would the mat spreaders be occupied?

Hush chil'


TV

carefreewannabe: I don't know if I fully understand it.

I agree. I wouldn't even say you have a good understanding

carefreewannabe: I don't think so but you can continue throwing stones if it makes you feel better.

I'm not throwing stones. The notion of divorce should be stigmatised. It's for the overall best. I maintian my position that if you understood marriage you'd appreciate that.

carefreewannabe: Exactly, I want the do without the die. You got it.

Then what you want is not marriage, it's something else - and no one is denying you that something else. And neither are we denying you marriage - only you want marriage to be structured after your own desires. Sorry, no can do.

carefreewannabe: Ok. Then we have a different understanding of love.

And as love is in some sense abstract, we can have differences as to what it is. There is not necessarily right or wrong, good or bad in ones definition of love.

carefreewannabe: It is marriage as long as two people stay married.

No, by definition, it's a marriage as long as vows are taken and the two remaion alive. Although I appreciate the legalistic approach that can be taken to it. And I also appreciate that the legalistic approach has not only not improved it, it has seriously impaired it's utility.

carefreewannabe: I am sure that many marriages would be much happier if people didn't take it for granted that their spouses will stay no matter what.

Your funny thinking...so you really think a man or woman in a marriage would feel secure and at peace knowing their spouse could simply up and leave at will? Or that succumbing to temptation would be less likely knowing that you could just leave if the attraction was intense or strong enough?

carefreewannabe: I understand.

Actually you don't..and if the discussion progresses, I'll show you why.

carefreewannabe: This is why I believe that marriage is not a good idea. I don't want anyone to be with me because he thinks that he has to due to the vow he took.

Actually, here's a convenient place to start;

Firstly, marriage is not solely or even primarily about you. And you first error is to parse it solely in terms of your desires and the outcomes for you alone.

Secondly, are you not revealing more confusion, by saying you respect it and at once claiming it's a bad idea? Would you respect an idea like a "mesh parachute" or a "windscreenless car"- would you use one?

Thirdly, love - as a feeling - is not and has never been the basis of marriage. You vow to love someone when getting married. Love in itself does not warrant marriage. Love is an action, a commitment to honouring that vow.

carefreewannabe: Nobody can promise anyone to love them forever and marriage understood as obligation to be with someone forever is not what I consider a good plan for the rest of my life.

If you cannot promise to actively love someone for ever - as opposed to feel it - why take the marriage vow that demands that very thing? Free marriage, leave it for those that get it, don't traduce it. Reject it, don't calumnise it.

No one is under any obligation to marry. You can be freelance FWB or FB for as long as you wish. You are not obliged to choose a lifelong relationship of mutual commitment and fidelity. How can one be obliged by something one voluntarily entered into?

carefreewannabe: It is for those who feel it is ok to stay with someone even if it doesn't make you happy, which can happen and which happens very often.

Like I said, you don't really get it. Your happiness is paramount. And your subjective assessment of happiness is the measure. That's not a mindset for marriage. Please don't take it personally.


TV

carefreewannabe: Believe it or nor but I respect it.

But you don't fully understand or reverence it.

carefreewannabe: I just have a problem when you say that people should be stigmatized. I don't think anyone has ever dreamt of divorce so if people divorce, they have their reasons and it is not for us to judge them.

Divorce should be stigmatised. And if breaking a marriage is to have no moral value, why should solemnising one?

carefreewannabe: Why not? The decision to be committed does not mean that it is a do or die affair.

So you want the "do" without the "die"? The decision to commit does not mean you have to marry.

carefreewannabe: I think you confuse love with infatuation. Infatuation will definitely fade. Love is a different thing.

No, I do not.

carefreewannabe: I am not scared of marriage as I have the possibility to leave it when I decide to.

If there is an open door, then it's not marriage. If there isn't then you are fearful or don;t actually want marriage. Not for the right reasons anyway.

carefreewannabe: You said love was a feeling.

No, I said if it's a feeling, then it will fade or wax and wane. And is no basis for commitment. The commitment is love.

carefreewannabe: I commit to who I love, not the other way round.

Then when the feeling goes, the commitment follows.

carefreewannabe: And I commit to a person that deserves it and as long as this person deserves it. The person stops to deserve it the day I discover that the relationship/marriage is in some way destructive.

So it's really based on how you feel? Not on the commitment? In which case, why make it? Why marriage? You can have any number of alternative arrangements and your variable commitment. Why seek a vow of permanancy, when even as you make it, in your heart, it is not necessarily so.

carefreewannabe: Commitment does not mean that you accept and tolerate anything. You can be committed for some time and then decide that it is better not to be.

If what you accept,tolerate or feel are all subjective, why take vows. You can co-habit, live apart and visit, be partners, lovers or anyhting you both decide to construct. Why seek marriage when it doesn't fit the model of your relationship?


TV

Songitto: Do your finding and post it here with the source the let's compare to each other

I'll pass thanks. Comparing numbers does not change the nature of the beast - or my position on divorce.


TV

carefreewannabe: You could have made your point without snappish remarks.

Apologies. I am passionately jealous for marriage.

carefreewannabe: My commitment depends on several factors. One of them would be my partner's behavior.

Then why make it? In truth, it sounds more like it depends more on your feelings.

carefreewannabe: Love does not necessarily have to fade. It can change and become even deeper and stronger.

In all likelihood it will wax and wane

carefreewannabe: Did you say, I was confused?

...and scared. It's probably your main driver regards marriage !

carefreewannabe: If love is a feeling, how can I commit to loving? It is either I feel it or I don't.

If...

carefreewannabe: True and depending on the individual situation a person can have more reasons to leave than to remain and vice versa.

Commit then love. If you love then commit, your commitment will fade with the love. Regardless of your spouses behaviour.

carefreewannabe: Like I said, my commitment is not unconditional.

Like I said, it is therefore not a commitment. More of a wish...and the union a fairytale !


TV

carefreewannabe: The website quoted is one of the most unreliable sources I have come across. And you have just proven why.

The last time someone quoted an article from this website, Germany was a very dangerous place.

Unfortunately, people think that everything on the Internet is right and true.

You actually clicked on it?
As soon as I read #10, I knew it was wrong. And it was all the way to #1.

Everyone knows the country with the highest divorce rate !


TV

carefreewannabe: You cannot predict the future when you get married. Circumstances can change, people can change, love can fade away. There are plenty of reason why a marriage can turn very sour in the course of time.

Your confusion and lack of understanding are glaring;
- Circumstances can change, but commitment does not have too.
- Indeed, not only can love fade, it will fade - as a feeling - your commitment to loving however, remains.
- As many reasons as there are for a marriage to turn sour, there are more for it to remain, deepen and become sweeter over time.

I'd counsel you to apply advice #1 until you get it.


TV

Songitto: Are you a native of UK?? I guess

Resident of the UK. All the figures are dodgy. Right from Canada at no 10.

Songitto: 10. Canada:
Canada is a developed nation, but with various
social problems. The people here remain too
busy in coping up with the challenges of
tomorrow and don’t spend time with their
families. This is one of the reasons of
increased divorce rate in Canada, in addition to
various other family issues. It is considered
that the rate of divorce in Canada during this
year has increased 50 % from 2013.

We can't have figures for 2014 yet as it's still 2014 and no way it increases 50% y-o-y, even in a secular-liberal place like Canada.


TV

carefreewannabe: TV on his mission again.

Yeah, let people spend their lives in misery because some people think it's a stigma to be divorced.

No one is prescribong misery. Either 1. Do not marry or 2. Marry with understanding. See, only joy and fulfillment. No misery, and no divorce with it's attendant societal cost.


Happy?


TV

carefreewannabe: It's true that women are at a higher risk because they can get infected more easily but that does not mean that the risk for men is low and it also does not mean that they are immune.

No one has asserted anything you are refuting here and the point you affirm has already been stated.

So simply put; if it's a pregnancy, females are typically left holding the baby, if it's disease, women are more at risk. Hence the inordinate emphasis placed on educating and protecting daughters. We should of course equally educate our sons.

Happy?

TV

...either the stats or the dates in this article are wrong - obviously. Divorce in the UK has not doubled (or increased by 53%) since 2013.

Divorce should still be avoided, hated and stigmatised though.


TV

carefreewannabe: Low sperm count is not the only issue.

STDs can kill or leave a person with lasting and serious health issues.

Here too; women are more readily infected than men and the consequences typically more far reaching. Nature hasn't cottoned on to notions of equality just yet.


TV

cococandy: I think it is wrong to call someone's wife a slutt.
He may not even fancy it.

And I absolutely agree.

It’s a principle of mine – one I’ve mentioned repeatedly and still hold strongly too - to never denigrate the spouse of one who comes here for succour. It doesn’t help and can actually inflame the situation.

I actually wrestled with it a bit, but as I write at least as much for the “want to’s” and the “would like to’s”, I felt I had to make myself very clear and be starkly descriptive about what obtains.

It wasn’t meant for the OP as such and I apologised for any perceived slight.


Just as no one is a homosexual, no one is a slut. Sluttery is a behaviour. Even if we feel we are naturally inclined in some way, it’s still a choice.

Standards have slipped somewhat, but indulgence in physical intimacy outside marriage means you are playing the ho – sluttery. Very few of us are not guilty as charged, but we can repent of such behaviour and resist such feelings, and we don’t have to adopt it as an identity.

Did it touch?
How would you describe an adulterous spouse and one that is disdainfully flagrant about it?



TV