₦airaland Forum

vivalableue: Hi @ihedinobi2, I really enjoyed your write up! Very interesting POV on this particular subject, it was well thought out, intelligent and very logical. In fact, logic, is the characteristic of a man that I enjoy the most. Now, I may be superstitious, and probably very weak minded to believe in astrology, but I do to an extent. You see, I am a Libran, and by the definition of our astrological sign, we are more balanced in nature. Now, as for astrological predictions and whatnot, I am not a fan at all. I do see, however, a probable logic when it comes to astrological signs and the supposed personalities each sign is said to possess. Now, that can be discussed on another thread; so I won't ponder or show examples on what, at the root of it, is my personal opinion.

However, with that in mind, I will retort with a balanced approach in mind. You see, I believe that when communicating a certain message, one must be mindful on who one is communicating with. Your thread, in my opinion, was meant to be directed to women. Your syntax is where I find that you failed. I believe that you could have communicated the exact same message, but in a different manner as to effectively evoke the attention of those you are trying to preach to. As I said earlier, your message is correct, but presented in a logical manner. Being a man, at a minimal level, I'd expect nothing less; however, you cross me as an intelligent man. Thus, the onus is on you, using the intelligence you most ubiquitously possess, to change the manner in which you convey your message.

The heart of my argument is that men are logical, but women are emotional. Now, that is not to say that men cannot be emotional, and conversely women cannot be logical. That would be illogical (no pun intended ) The fact does remain, as it has been exhaustively studied in both physiological and psychological capacities, us women tend to feel our way out of things, and not think our way.

With this fact in mind, how could you have presented the argument to the intended audience? With emotions, and not logical equations. If I have understood you correctly, for a woman to have her basic and instinctual need of stability and provision met, she should not look to already made men, but rather the stuff that makes a made man, made. There are certain qualities, that if she can just tap into, and reciprocate, she will truly find compatibility with the said fellow.

That leads us to now translate this statement from "man-speak" to "women-speak". Although, I cannot go through all the points that you made, due to time constraints, I will say the following:

Women should find that person whose happiness and self-fulfillment brings them totally honest and unassuming joy and that the same should exist in her partner,

Now that, tugs at the heartstrings of a woman. To find a man, who finds true satisfaction in working hard to be a better man, whether in a material, emotional, spiritual, social or emotional capacity, and that satisfaction brings you true joy. I mean, what more can a woman wish for?

Above all, our heart yearns to be free, at peace, and safe. Someone who enjoys and, dare I say, lives for the moment when your heart obtains that position is a keeper. Someone, who sees the goal you have set in mind, and truly desires to help you obtain them, not for their own good, but to see you smile, is a keeper. That's what a woman should look in a man, because 9/10, a GOOD woman, will reciprocate that feeling a hundred fold, as there is no limit to the depths of a woman's love.

If you are searching for material gain or security only; you are searching to be comforted in a skin deep fashion. If you seek someone whose aspirations and work ethic, give you a sense of pride, belonging and determination; you will always find joy. Why? Because, iron sharpens iron. It's a verse, we often interpret solely on the basis of Christian unions. However, once you understand the beauty that is being the iron to someone else's iron, you will begin to comprehend how couples can be together for decades.

As you said OP, at the base of every man is the need to work. Without working, one simply cannot survive. If you have ever sharpened knives, you see that it takes, strength, energy and durability; in other words, it takes work. We can now translate that to finding a good man, and what it takes to keep that good man. It takes work, on both ends.

A man can only toil towards the benefit of his family for so long unless, he feels that his efforts are not in vain, and appreciated. When a man is validated for his labor by the woman he loves, in words, deeds, loyalty and faithfulness, he is a force to be reckoned with. He will do his best to succeed at all costs. Conversely, when a woman find a man who will make her heart feel safe, and her dreams, goals and aspirations feel valid and possible, she will be cornerstone of her family; steadfast and strong.

This is why, and where we get lost in translation. A woman, has to appeal to part of a man that makes him a man, and a man has to appeal to the part of a woman that her a woman. That is the formula, it really is quite simple. The hard part comes in recognizing the importance in choosing the right quality of iron to sharpen your own. To do that, one must be honest of who they really are. Embrace the iron within you, and then you can search the right type of iron to sharpen you.

Excellent rejoinder.

TV

miredia: Are you inferring a desire to have beautiful kids?

Why do women mostly desire tall, strong, physically endowed men?

Good genetics does not only mean good looks - although it encompasses that as well.

Just as men prefer youth & beauty - which is a metaphor for fertility - womens preference is as stated above.

We'd all instinctively want the best and what's best for our children. Before and after birth.

TV

miredia: how do you mean "to give her the best genetic material for her children"

Women ideally want the best mates as well as the best providers - why do you thing short, ugly dark brodas are not smiling? !


TV

Elantracey:

Very well done. Whilst I can't say I necessarily agree with you on all points theologically, I really enjoyed your defence of a studied approach to marriage. So much so that I was happy to simply watch and applaud as you went about it in a mature way that belied your years. Excellent effort - and please don't succumb to those who are patronising you due to your relatively young age. Timothy got that ish too !

If people understood marriage, grasped it conceptually and understood it as an imperative. If they recognised it's benefits to the couple, their communities and any offspring. If they appreciated human natures and physical limitations, they would totally get what Elantracey is saying.

Yes time and chance happen to all, yes their will always be exceptions, but a proper understanding and considered approach to marriage would mean that it would be in view much earlier, be properly considered, have sturdier foundations and be committed to in a more timely fashion. And it would not hinder anyones choice to forego it if they so desired, or undertake other endeavours.

So yes, in general terms it's perfectly normal to question why a 42 year old woman who desires a husband and children is not yet married. Asking the question does not make one judgemental, censorious or immature. And I speak as one who also got it wrong - but thank God.


TV

ihedinobi2: I knew you'd get it. I have to confess though, I don't deliberately try to make it hard for people to read stuff I write when I want to have a serious discussion. It's just that the very nature of serious discussions turn unserious people away. Not my fault really, is it?

Not at all dude .

ihedinobi2: I'm very honored that you found it inspiring. The way I think about things is first what the Bible says and then what our history says and then how times have changed. It's why I'm uncompromising about the kind of woman I will entrust my life to. My whole life is one project and I have no wish to hand it over to an untrustworthy, immature person.

I'm also a fervent bible traditionalist. I love my cultural heritage, but am happy to lean across cultures and from history. But in all, my faith takes precedence

ihedinobi2: Actually, I said that even the fact that the world has become very remarkably complex has not altered human nature at all. Thus there is no real change required. The principles are still the same even if their expressions have to be adapted to obtaining realities.

Point. And that is why understanding motives and reasoning is important for one who would marry well. So far example "equal rights" doesn't mean that women will now actively seek to "marry down" like men have done forever. It doesn't mean that they no longer prefer assertive or dominant men - whatever they say to the contrary

ihedinobi2: About this, I thought hard about it. You know how terribly grasping women get in a divorce, particularly in the West, insisting that they contributed and thus must have a share of the estate and stuff like that. In my home, an older bro had a bad outing in marriage and he lived in the West and married a Westerner. He lost his houses in the divorce to the lady. That was maybe early 90s or late 80s, I'm not sure. I'm hearing it still right here on NL and on the news.

Those arguments are for the most part a money grab. In fact they are pretty much redundant now. Divorce laws are now such that a woman - with offspring - pretty much cleans up in the event of divorce in the West; regardless of her input.

ihedinobi2: Here in Nigeria, you still hear women claiming that they did this or that, introduced the man to one person or another or spent whole nights in prayer and fasted for one endeavor of his or another and thus they helped to create his success and have a claim in it. Honestly, I have more of that in my experience than the opposite. Women claim co-ownership of the outcome (or seeming outcome or products) of their romantic partnerships and marriages. They like to.

In some ways it the same special pleading. But whilst it's legally redundant in the West, it's needless for a proper understanding of marriage anywhere. A woman who tends the home and children does not need to validate the importance of her role or strain to demonstrate financial input. Her role, even if it was limited to the hearth & home is just as important.

ihedinobi2: I agree with you. I remember Ruth's story. Orpah was yet young and she was not looking to suffer for the rest of her life so after paying the necessary lip service to escorting Naomi back to Israel, she took the first chance her mother-in-law gave her to head back home to find a better deal.

Even the Bible says the younger widows should marry. Who really wants to be alone? We are not meant to be. And marriage is by far the best pair-bonding arrangement for humans and any children.

ihedinobi2: Cultural systems were put in place to manage the female lust for ease and comfort. In very many cultures, betrothal was a huge deal. You just didn't default on that. You did not. Simple. Terrible consequences awaited default. Many, in fact, secured their daughter's future with a betrothal from birth. It was just not conceived that she would head in some other direction.

But those systems are being dismantled and subverted. In some countries - Sweden for example - a woman can have a child and be totally supported by the state. Men are not directly needed. In others, a man can slave for his family and his wife can, on a whim decide she wants out. He is then liable to support her and any kids in the house he purchased.

Marriage is now a poor value proposition for men. Most especially as they can get all the intimacy they want without it. As Christians the imperative is marriage, and intimacy within its confines. Hence the need for us to choose wisely - someone from the Sarah end of the spectrum

ihedinobi2: It's mostly in modern times when youth have so much free rein that you find them hopping around. I think that has a lot to do with some basic existential education systems that have been lost. We tend to not know what life is about and what to do with ourselves so we multiply foolishness and are forever concocting frighteningly vacuous arguments to excuse it.

We are almost a totally dumbed downed society. Driven by lusts, feelings and sensations. No fear of God or real understanding.

ihedinobi2: Yes indeed, they do. And you're right. My approach to that now is not to appeal to morality directly but to appeal to inert human tendencies. Unless of course it is with religious-minded people I'm speaking.

Be wise and be a man. Place high worth on yourself and don't settle for anything less than high value in her. With a biblically renewed mind and HS leading, you'll know when you meet the right one/s

ihedinobi2: About Proverbs 31, my tender from there is how the virtuous woman is shown to be a master homemaker, a strong administrator and an enterprising business person...all at once. It took a while for me to get with that, honestly.

It's a great yardstick. And at a time when women were mostly considered chattel. Truly Christianity emancipated and empowered women. It's why I laugh when our homegrown crypto-feminists cry the bible is patriarchal. It's still less so that our indigenous cultures are till this day.

Not only is the bible way superior to any feminist notions - as it captures human nature perfectly - without the emancipation it granted, feminism wouldn't have been able to get off the ground. Show us feminism in countries without a Judeo-Christian heritage.


TV

zboyd: What is it about Nigerian society that deems women less than because they're unmarried?

What drives Naija men to refer to single women over-30 as old hags and expired goods, especially if women challenge (disagree) with them?

What makes some Nigerians assume over-30 women are lesbians?

What makes over-30 women lie about their age?

Why...

...is there such a double standard regarding over-30 women, compared to over-30 men?

...do some married women look down their noses at unmarried women over-30?

...do some women throw up single women's unmarried state in their faces, as in "At least I'm married!", especially in the midst of arguments?

...do so many unmarried women think they're 'incomplete' without a 'Mrs.' in front of their names?

...are so many women living lives of quiet desperation, lonely and depressed because they're not married?

...do some women deplore their unmarried state so much that they're willing to marry men other women wouldn't even consider?

This is the type of social conditioning that drives single women into the arms of predatory pastors and their minions and pushes them to do all kinds of outrageous things. And some single women will do just about anything, to end their unmarried state and proudly claim their 'Mrs.' title. And they will hold on to it for dear life, even if the marriage turns out to be unfulfilling and/or disastrous. For them, divorce is not an option.

The only thing worse is being married and remaining childless.

But that's another issue entirely.

Just a big unnecessary and incoherent rant.

If a man - of whatever age - decides a woman - of whatever age - is too old for him or too be considered an old hag, he has every right to think that and make his choice of a wife - or no wife - based on that. It may well be crude and uncivil to voice it out, but no one has any right to shame him because of his choices.

You'd be best advised to take your crusade to young women - best write-off the "old hags" - and educate them about the biological and social imperatives that will come to bear in their lives and the expedient of maturing and marrying in a timely fashion.

This will avoid long lines of egg-shrivelled old hags with calcified uteri trooping into religious institutions of questionable nature and parting with large sums to robe-clad men of questionable character and possibly being "coerced" into questionable or immoral activities.

All the best


TV

ihedinobi2: I'm fine, bro. How are you, sir?
Of course you did. That's why I bothered to write at all. I understand NL, but when I'm looking for a certain level of engagement, well, I haven't figured out how to accommodate NL tradition then.
You make a very strong point, as far as I can see. But I wonder about some basic realities. Although it is in antiquity now, in my culture, this is how it went: a boy grew up learning his father's work or maybe apprenticed to someone who taught him a skill. By early teenage, he went through a rite of passage that made him a man. Then his father typically married him a wife and gave him something to start off life with. This actually is pretty much the story of all cultures.
When the world was much simpler, you gave a boy a skill, married him a wife and gave him stuff to start with. She spent her life helping him build that seed into something substantial. In my specific heritage, women farmed certain crops and traded them in addition to what the man also farmed and traded. It was always a joint effort. And the crops she farmed were typically less strenuous but highly valuable so she could still tend the house and kids. Besides a good man helped her out too in the house unless he went and married more women so that it became impracticable to do so. You'll find this story rather generic across Igboland.
Today's world may be more complex but basic human nature has not changed. Women may marry up or however the sociologists think it should be described but women still have this need to claim ownership of the outcome of a marriage. They still want to be able to say that they made a contribution that resulted in the wealth of the home. And ordinarily they do make that contribution.
Tending the nest is a tasking activity, I'll be the first to say. But I have not ceased being amazed at the energy and ability that women display. I keep wondering how they can manage to do so much at once but they do. It appears that all a woman needs is a base to jump off and she can do any...no, just about everything. I've seen it up close and it both puzzles and fascinates me. And then, there's Proverbs 31.

Actually you have a point about the length. Smart thinking, it may serve to keep the low-brow and the unintelligible away .

A really inspiring picture of “what used to be” you’ve painted up there. And I really mean inspiring. Long term, I hope to engage in an endeavour that will enable me to bring my wife alongside. In many cultures, and up till relatively recently, what you’ve described was the norm.

And indeed, the world is ever more complex and cultures are fast changing. But we can’t get away from the complementarity nature and need that males and females have for one another.

I’m not against changing the deal per se, just questioning whether any changes will accord in the best interest of both and the whole (including children and wider society).

As to your “ownership of the outcome” claim for women, I simply cannot attest to that as a rule or norm. I’m sure some feel this way and many more voice it, but I don’t think it’s the default in these times.

Hypergamy was never left unrestrained. Be it religious or societal norms, or simply womens general lack of agency, there was always a tempering force.

Now with the notions of individual autonomy and satisfaction of personal desires – as opposed to the communal good and societal norms – and the march of the “rights machine”, hypergamy in women will tend towards being even more hyper.

The biological imperative - and to a lesser degree the social or different types of social - remains, but with fewer or no restraints the true nature of many women will be given reign

You mentioned Proverbs 31, so let’s talk bible. Women range in goodness from Sarah to Eve, from Eve to Jezebel. Think of it as the LovePeddler /Madonna complex if you aren’t Christian.

The more women tend towards Jezzy in nature, the more the current cultural trend towards licentiousness will see them demonstrate the worse traits of hypergamy and the feminine imperative. Not to derail, but the “right” to murder their unborn children at any time and for any reason is one manifestation of this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2375411/J-J-Redicks-abortion-contract-girlfriend-revealed-promised-dating-year-ended-pregnancy-hed-pay-25k.html


TV

^{**and I'm not claiming men don't have their evils or part to play. If a thread is opened I'll talk about my take on that there**}

zboyd: A woman who knows her own mind and follows her own counsel, because I'm me and know my own needs, and detest being spoon-fed beliefs I don't believe in and expected to follow, without question.

So why can't all women do this? Especially the gullible unmarried ones? There are lots of men desirous of marriage and lots of older me. They don't blame the church for their predicament or give themselves over to wierd techings by robe-clad ones and then whine about it.

zboyd: It's said that religion is the opiate of the masses but I refuse to become addicted.

There is good and bad religion. Let everyone choose wisely.

zboyd: And I don't appreciate you insinuating that I'm an atheist or ignorant.

You speak as if both apply. There are bad eggs, bads religious institutions. Attack them personally and individually if you will. Do not denigrate the whole. Your experience and the experience ot the gullible robe-clad venerators is neither prescribed, nor universal.

zboyd: Disagree with me, if you will, but do not insult my intelligence.

I couldn't care less about your intelligence, I'm interested in your position.

zboyd: I don't know why some men try to insult women who challenge their opinions, as a way of shutting them up, aka 'keeping them in their places'.

Make the arguement, don't feigh offense and indignation. Shut you up? Who engages in a discussion to shut the other up? I merely want to hear a full explanation and defence of your position

zboyd: That approach has never worked with me and never will.

Getting over yourself would also help somewhat

zboyd: And...if you deny it...you're outright lying.

Shut up jor


TV

Ihe hi, how far?

I read it. You will try NL' patience with the length of your write-up !

I'll say this much.

Hypergamy & the female imperative have to be properly understood and placed in context.

It would be madness for a women to take a husband without a sense of his long-term economic ability to provide for her and her offspring. Think of it in reductionist terms. She's tending the nest and the children, he's making provision. Can she, should she be expected to do both?

My point is about when this desire becomes hyper in women and it is considered above and to the exclusion of other important criteria. And further when they are decietful and manipulative about it.

Hypergamy in it's basic sense is not bad or wrong (marrying up), especially given historical context. It simply makes good sense for a woman to find a man who can give her 1.the best genetic material for her offspring and 2. provide for her & them.

I may touch more on the Female Imperative later.


TV

zboyd: I have no beef with Christianity.

I have a beef with predatory pastors and their minions who exploit single women who truly believe that God will send them a worthy man to marry...something taught to them in their specific churches...just like I was taught...but chose to ignore.

It's either you have beef or are talking out of ignorance.

The bible is pretty clear
- marriage is pretty much the default
- it's the duty of family to prepare their sons and daughters for marriage
- there is conduct - submission, love etc. - expected from spouses once wed.

Spouselessness is not a church issue. If you so choose, marry, if you like, don't marry. It is not an impediment too, or a criteria for Gods love or salvation in Christ.

There is a fraudulent and parallel system of religion out there. If you mindlessly follow it without seeking God for yourself, there will be consequences.

So which are you?


TV

^{CC I hear you about pastor loffas 0! "MyPas" girls l call them. Everything is " my pastor says" . I had to deal with so many of them on my journey to marriage. Sheesh!}

cococandy: I hope the woman got back her money.
That's my concern

I wouldn't be surprised to learn she'd happily part with twice the amount to avoid the pain and humiliation this man has brought her.

Elantracey: I pity the woman
but what was she doing till 42

I agree, the question should be asked. At least in a general sense. There may well be valid individual reasons, but that will only be in a few instances.

A woman who aspires to a home and children is best advised to be on it way before 42.


TV

pickabeau1: Exactly.. thats the game.. dont hate the player...I dont
Money for women... Beauty for men

Chikena!!

And in a reductionist sense, that was always pretty much the deal. Provision by men & Fertility (usually represented by beauty & youth) by women.

And as I've always said, let everyone dictate their own preferences - and be willing to live by them. What I don't agree with is duplicity and treacherously dealing woth other people.

If they don't have what you want, don't go there, free them. Don't introduce, engage or marry with every intention of bailing as soon as something "better" comes along under the "going with my heart" rubric. Hence the "Serial Wife" thread posted by Aisha2 recently.

Likewise, men don't marry them with the intention of splitting them for 2 twenties when they hit 40 - after 5 kids and 50 kg weight gain .

So although we have the basics of Provision & Fertility, we need a higher sensibility about marriage for the greater long-term good of society. Undertaking marriage with an individual and selfish mindset of what's personally best for me right now will not make for strong families and flourishing societies.


For men, I've repeatedly stated what I think is the best generic pattern for marriage. Not being prescriptive, simply make it bespoke too fit or apply your own template.


TV


^{disclaimer: I was not at all interested in what my wife earned when I met her. I noted her impecabble make-up and hair, watched her stride about in impossibly high chunky heels and a tight-fitting mermaid dress. Snap her fingers and run things - all the while nodding my head. Then she knelt down to pick something up, my jaw hit the ground and I said "da.y.um, I do believe I've met my bride". Potential ke? Everything had potented already !}

pickabeau1: The key question is DID U MARRY HIM

Hell-to-da-no!!!!


TV

^{**but I did introduction as a form of hedging **}

Zboyd,

Your undertone of beefing Christianity is still quite evident .

Why are so many women, who go to church year after year, praying to God to bring them a man worthy of marriage, still without husbands?

There are also men in this position, but – and listen clearly now;
1. it’s not the remit of the body of Christ to find spouses for anyone
2. the women typically take their issue “husbandlessness” to the church, the church did'nt cause it

many single women attend church, because they have been brainwashed into believing that, if they're faithful enough and profess love of God with all their being, He will send them a worthy man to marry.

1. Brainwashing apart, why is church attendance a bad thing?
2. And why does being faithful and loving God require slavish church attendance or veneration of “robe-clad” ones?
3. I was faithful and loving towards God and God sent me a wife . So yes faith in and love towards God is rewarded.

Having said that, I also wonder about some of the practices that go on in some religious circles. I also believe that people who are truly faithful and love God will be safeguarded by Him.

So please don’t conflate God with perverse religious practices. If women lack an understanding of the marriage imperative, miss it, and then become so consumed by their desires, that they seek succour from religious charlatans, it’s not Gods fault 0! Sorry eh!


TV

I initially did not address the question of “potential”. Why? Because it’s a ruse. Like Ihedinobi2 pointed out, everyone has potential. It’s the combination of drive, opportunity, support and to a degree chance (I won’t spiritualise this by talking about grace blessings etc.) that helps translate that potential into tangible success that we are really on about here.

And when it comes to female relationships with men, there are but a statistically insignificant number of women who give a toss about your potential. Like someone else mentioned, potential is no guarantee.

Possibility! Yes. I’ve heard testimonies of women who stuck by their poor, broke-butt, but brilliant & British born medical student boyfriends . Anyone can see the possibility there – and the minimal long-term risk.

Purchase! Yes. Already having wealth &/or power and the wherewithal to translate that into further “purchase”.

Potential! No. Because pretty much no women is going to say to herself “let me take this man and work with and on him too seek out his potential”, nurture his talent and polish his gifts. Let me encourage and support him to be the best man he can be. I’ll take on the risk and any reward, I’ll commit my future and the future of my unborn children to this work”

It may sound harsh, but the female imperative typically takes a short-term view. After all, she could be dropping a sprog in 9 months .

And whilst hypergamy typically has pejorative connotations, it’s only right that a woman seriously considers the “viability” of her long-term partner. It’s doing so in a greedy, gold-diggerish or black-widowish way, or being manipulative and deceitful about it that I consider wrong.

Why commit to an introduction if you are not committed. But I lay responsibility at the guys feet. He should know what he is about and clearly articulate this to her prior to any commitment.

Doubtless the situation traumatised him somewhat, but it’s better than having your wife taken off you by a “bigger boy”.

In the long-term relationship game, a man’ possibilities and/or your purchase are more determinants of his outcomes than his potential. Simply because, where they have the choice, most women will opt for the former two over the latter.


TV

^{And there are lots of men – as Naija glaringly reveals – that had little gifts or talents – that have lots of possibilities and purchase}

...sup' Nash,

I'm a big believer in men taking responsibility.

Nashville: The last time I saw him was at his introduction/engagement ceremony and he seemed very happy with his soon to be wife.

How did it get to "introduction" without him being sure she was committed?

Female hypergamy in full view. The old "just go with your heart", even if it means dumping him at the altar. Men should know themselves and who they want to wife. She was never really committed as such, just keeping her options open.

In fact, he was probably down the pecking order and someone higher up started to come through for her - if she didn't actually use him to ginger a/the senior boyfriend along .

The best revenge?. Get successful, get a better woman. He should be less bothered about losing her. If he doesn't step up, his chances of making a great match will increasingly diminish.

Sorry eh! Life is tough. No change, no time. Quit yourself like a man.


TV

varunv123456: PS: I am still single

PPS: she is not!


TV

Damiso, thanks for sharing. Your experience is touching, but pretty typical. It's why I asked married women to chip in. Being FWB =\= MWK. Even without kids, long term vagaries can have an impact.

I really felt the need to post on this as I suspect it's a main strand of the fear many men have about marriage (along with the divorce laws). To both I'd say this; marry with understanding, set your expectations right, commit to someone who you fancy like mad, who gets you, who shares you marital aspiration and with whom you share a mutual love and appreciation.

Yes there'll probably be storms, but you should sail right through them. I enjoy my wife. Enjoying sex is just icing. Having a picture of idyllic on-tap sense will probably make you marry wrong and be disappointed when you do.

When life hits some people they will know whats up. Most married people (and yes, that includes women ) are not in a position to have ideological or even ideal sex all the time.


TV

Ishilove: It is therefore wrong for you and TV01 to conclude that most women don't like or enjoy sex.

Ishi, there's a difference between TV saying something and someone asserting that something TV said implies that thing. Not guilty.

When the female imperative kicks in, there are differing motivations for sex. Pleasure - whether they enjoy it or not - is not the main motivator. When the full marriage dynamic sets in, there are many things that impact libido. And quite frankly, more that impact women.

I personally would not have sex with a woman who did not 1. Enjoy it or 2. Enjoy having it with me. I may be a selfish prick, but I'm no rapist !

TV

cococandy: Yep.
Just as men go gaga over beautiful ladies of very questionable character.
That's isn't a special trait found in women alone.in fact men are more prone to date or marry for looks than women are.
Just saying.

I actually agree with you here.
Suffice to say, the male equivalent of "provisioning" is "physicality" = good looks/youth/beauty => fertility
Men go for looks way more than women do. Looks are actually mostly secondary for women.

Even in the case mentioned, it was more about his criminality than his looks. Women find that dangerous, edgy etc. which translates to dominant, assertive type traits which also triggers a response in women.

As I noted, in the absence of provisioning considerations, the edginess and looks are a killer for women. Even in real life they fall for the edginess. With basic looks self! That's why so many have come a cropper chasing "thug lovin'".

TV

carefreewannabe: A lengthy speech that still has not answered my question.

Not only was your question answered, it was actually quite pointless. Dry yourself off and read the thread from the beginning .


TV

freshdude2: True true true, especially the bolded. Women keep telling themselves money isn't really a factor when choosing a mate but the facts tell a different story. It is in fact, the most important element in the check list.

For "most women" the provisioning ability is paramount. That mostly translates into cash money. It's why many have no compunction about going with yahoo-yahoo boys.

Where money is not a consideration (or they are just fantasizing - as many do ) other "manly" traits become paramount. That is why women will go ga-ga over a good looking criminal;
http://blackamericaweb.com/2014/06/20/model-prisoners-good-looking-mug-shots-go-viral-in-california-photos/

Woman don't dream of degree-educated, well-mannered corporate accountants with well paying jobs. Unfortunately they have to marry them

Once you know a womans triggers - even femisistas - , they are as easy as abc to figure out.


TV

carefreewannabe: This statement implicates that MOST women do not have s. e. x for fun's sake but to achieve something.

Presumaly at some point you'll get to your ideological point of women having sex when they like and with whom the please. Don't worry, I'm not about to slut-shame you . As ever I absolutely accept that you have every right to your beliefs.

The discussion here was about intimate in/compatibility within marriage. It morphed to discuss the things to look for and motivations before marriage and touched heavily on why libido may vary within marriage. My aggregate posts on this thread imply no such thing, the fact you chose to read that into it is a consequence of your muddled ideology and attempt to prove your bona fides .

I have said nothing to suggest I don't think women (1) do not enjoy sex or (2) do not/cannot have sex purely for pleasure. What we have been touching on is the motivation and libido for women about to marry or that are married.

When a couple are merely slutting together, I'd imagine it's all about pleasure. When a womans mind turns to marriage and children (our context here), other motivations creep in and colour the reasons for sex. Your wor-wor ideology may well tell you that women have sex for the exact same reasons as men and should approach it just like men do - please, feel free to knock yourself out!

Just as you previously demonstrated your inability to grasp the concept of matriarchy and made a specatacle of yourself , you have charged in once more to demonstrate your porous thinking; so because we mention that a women may have certain motivations for intimacy it implies we mean she doesn't or can't enjoy it?

carefreewannabe: And you were trying to prove the point by saying that s. e. x decreases after a woman has attained "the end" because she didn't have s.ex for the fun of it, which LOGICALLY implicates that a woman does not enjoy se. x so much.

Nope, I clearly stated that libido varies during a marriage for both couples and for different reasons. Noting that there are obvious and well documented reasons for women to experience this - and typically more reasons than men. I nowhere claimed it's not fun or pleasurable for women just cliamed that there are other motivators before and various other considerations after.

I was very clear that intimacy can still reach dizzying heights but the dynamics of marriage and life itself meant that it proabably wouldn''t be as frequent and take more work. I also asked for married women - especially those with chiuldren - to come and testify.

And a note for men here re the bolded: if a woman marries you out of desperation, merely for what you have, or as a last resort, you will typically not be the picture of the man she feels she deserves. This can seriously affect her real degree of attraction towards you (even if she's like a rabbit pre-marriage), and hence her desire to be intimate when the knot is tied. At the extremes, it can be a trigger for her infidelity. Please choose wisely. 'Nuff said.


Keep bringing it Carefreewannabe - I'm always willing to deliver a good rinsing !


TV

5minsmadness: As usual you don't read a post completely before giving a reply. What was my 12th point for the women?

Leave CFW, as ever, she jumps into a thread and posts absent context and driven by the blind leading of her bogus ideology.

5minsmadness: And yes we do pay for it cos its more of an end for us while you take the money cos its a means to an end for you.

No one stated or insinuated that sex is not pleasurable for both men and women or that men and women do not have libidos or that it cannot be enjoyed for it's own sake. That can be taken as read. The point is that there is an overarching biological imperative and also that women often have ulterior motives; as evidenced below;

cococandy: It only helps me get several benefits from something I equally enjoyed and still get off to acting like I did you a favor

TV

freshdude2: Right on the money mahn. Fell into a funk with the missus. And a getaway was all it took to restore equilibrium. Needless to say, any man who wants to enjoy his marriage and family and run them optimally should have a shitload of money.

Absolutely.
Money (i.e. provision) is an "Alpha" trait that women look for and appreciate in men.

Forget all this talk of equality, where money is a consideration for women (and it is for most), they will have trouble truly feeling a man that can't come up with the goods and make it work for them - even where his financial contribution is greater than hers. And more so where her contribution is greater than his.

Wise use of money can alleviate many issues and keep the woman in the "he's a man" thinking zone. Important in keeping her attraction high.


TV

Givemejoy: Do you think people are born naturally evil or naturally good? Do share your thoughts.

People are born with a natural inclination to evil. That's why we have to be socialised to demonstrate restraint and understand what is, and what is not acceptable behaviour. Most people can abide by "the rules" for the most part, but that's really only because we discriminate between types and level of evil. At the edges we have psychopath and sociopaths, but they are just extreme cases of what most people are.

Most Christians see this a the "sin nature". It is present in all and evident in most. People may demonstrate impulse control or no tbe particularly inclined towards certain ill-behaviours, but the capacity is there. Only grace can enable you to understand it, resist it and ultimately overcome it.


TV

carefreewannabe: Most women don't enjoy it. They only do it to get married and have kids. This is what TV taught me / us.

carefreewannabe: us, are you one of those women who don't enjoy s. e. x? Coogar and TV say that MOST women don't enjoy it at all.

Before I return to show you how ideologically confused you are. Could you please show me where I said or insinuated that "most women don't enjoy sex" - or indeed, that women don't sometimes have sex purely for pleasure.


TV

5minsmadness: From my experience and those of my friends, women have sex to:
1. Keep thier partner
2. Keep the relationship going
3. Get money(generally)
4. Get favours
5. Get connections
6. Get favoured in interviews(you'd be surprised how many women make the first move)
7. Get money(for school fees, handouts, exam passes)
8. Find out if they are fertile
9. In love
10.Get pregnant
11.Satisfy the man even though they don't want to have the sex.
12. Enjoy it.
13. Take revenge on thier boyfriend.

From my experience and those of my friends and associates, men have sex:
1. Because they enjoy it.
2. Because they enjoy it.
3.To find out if they are fertile. Again and again and again.
4. Because they want money from their sugar mummies- and they enjoy it.
5. ummmmm
6. Because they enjoy it!

Loads of reasons of why women do and do not have sex. And you have captured some of the do's. However, do remember the "Pre-marriage" context of our conversation. Having said that, men do have "revenge sex". And would probably have more if they had the opportunity .


TV

femixyz: Who changes after marriage, is it the Husband or the Wife? justify.

Both!
The key is in managing change. Anticipating it and dealing with it's consequences.


TV

carefreewannabe: Thank you for your advice.

You are welcome. No need to thank me I love flourishing families and right expectations go a long way to help that .

carefreewannabe: I don't know most women but unlike you I am a woman.

Again, this means nothing, as you can only speak for yourself - at best - or what you know/believe about woman. Your being a woman does not in itself affirm your take, or make it any more valid.

carefreewannabe: Whatever, se.x is NOT first and foremost a means to an end for most women.

Typically the end for most women is a family. Children and a husband who provides.

A brief answer. Please counter it with one of your own. Aspersions alone won't do. Please try and avoid equivocation

carefreewannabe: I will, even though you should FIRST back up the MOST in your statement. Anyway, before I do so, tell me what the end is for most women that s. e. x gets them to.

As above. Feel free to counter

carefreewannabe: I know you don't but I will not ignore people who act like female experts on a public forum but AT THE SAME TIME make terribly wrong statements. You can impress some certain people with your choice of words but not me.

I never claimed to be an expert. If you have a different take or superior position, please state it. I'm not out to impress. You know my official role and title on NL ! Healthy & Happy Families. NL' foremost Marriage advocate. Your feminist leaning are writ large. Any others?

carefreewannabe: So TV, what is the end that women try to achieve by having s. e. x?

Already. Women rarely have sex as an end in itself. Apart from the obvious biological imperatives, womens reasons for intimate encounters with men are usually manifold - however they are presented.


TV

Stillfire: Haaa, TV?.?.?.?

Men typically marry younger wives. For one reason; they are essentially marrying fertility (even if it's wrapped up in youth and beauty). A man always feels good with a relatively young, fit and good lokking woman on his arm. Childbirth alone can add 10 years to a woman.

The old rubric of "half your age plus 7 years" is a pretty good one. And the older a man gets the wider the gap. Only men who marry really young are likely to marry close to their age range. And I always think that men should be a little mature/established first. Starting from 30'ish is good.

But like I said, I am not being prescriptive and don't overlook exceptions. It worked for me. And many of the men around me have similar or even wider gaps (especially for oyinbo wives ).


TV