₦airaland Forum

Did anyone actually listen to the speech before commenting? I also think that Adichie is barking up the wrong tree on feminism, but people should at least give her the benefit of the doubt before commenting on comments about what she purportedly said based on anothers interpretation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc

Was it the speech above? I listened to it - again, as I had actually heard it before - but it's over a year old Happy to comment on that, but is there a later speech?


TV

CC (ah, we now have two CC', Imma stick with Lottie ),

You said this;

cococandy: The rod of the bible doesn't literally mean a physical rod

And I asked that you substantiate this from the bible, using the "whole of scripture" - or as much as you know. Are you saying/teaching that the bible does not prescribe corporal punishment?

You have not answered directly. But posted the following, which I shall answer noting the fact you simply avoided the question.

cococandy: I think beating/hitting/whipping isn't an ideal form of punishment.
For one they are pain and violence based.

It's not mindless violence, its tempered corporal punishment, palms, buttocks etc. Not whipping an animal. Lottie, the use of emotive language does not a decent convo make. And the pain is warranted, to make a point and for the long-term good of the child.

Further, it's one of a range of possible sanctions, not necessarily used in every instance and yes, some kids may not need it ever. Is there an "ideal" form of punishment? If there was, surely it would mean that the child never offended again

cococandy: We are expected to correct our children in/with love.
Inflicting pain can't be a good way to show love.

This is certainly not biblical, in fact it's contra-biblical.

Hebrews 12: 5 - 6 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says, “My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”

Your notion of non-judgemental, non-pain-inflicting love is not biblical. We all love our children and no one wants or plans to have to punish them. But we do it for their long-term good - even if they don't fully appreciate that.

I knew from way back that the "rod" would be an option in my home. My wife was strongly against it - Oga prevailed . Our son is high-energy and much more than a handfull.

I use the rod sparingly, and most times only as a deterrent. His mum prefers, the go to your room, naughty step, time out strategies. But now even she has recourse to the rod - even if only as a deterrent .

cococandy: I didn't live in biblical times. But it is obvious that since flogging was a punishment for condemned criminals amd slaves,it can't be the same 'rod' that god was talking about when he said 'spared not the rod'

I hold you in too high regard to believe you are'nt fully aware of what you are doing here .


TV

cococandy: The rod of the bible doesn't literally mean a physical rod.

Holá

Please expantiate here. What is your understanding of what the Bible says regards corporal punishment?


TV

springtime2: it is not even a real handcuff, he can unlock himself if he wants lol. my story is not fabricated. it is hard to believe in nigerian community but very true story

There are a number of reasons that I'm doubtful, but to afford you the benefit of that doubt;

He just gives up easily. I am very adventurous and he is very timid, he said he will do but never do. But one thing I will give him is he has a lot of stamina and can go 60-90 minutes at a time.

He has stamina

that is why I am so frustrated. He told me about this past sex.ual escapade.

He has obviously done some sort of "adventurous" in the past

So there is really no problem.

Married men and women typically have mismatched libidos, as part of a mutually loving relationship with a sacrificial mindset, they meet somewhere in the middle or have times when they "give out" , with the "others satisfaction" taking priority over their own.

He can deliver the goods he just needs the time and encouragement. Please don't think solely of your own pleasure. Re the kitchen incident, maybe he appreciates other ways of being appreciated - why should your appreciation of his efforts/good work, be in a manner you choose?

And be careful of what you stoke up, life changes (i.e. birth) may mean your libido reduces - what if he insists on getting his "wife induced freak-on" then?

Physical intimacy, even great physical intimacy, is only one part of a healthy, fulfilling relationship. If it last long enough at some point it will be just holding hands anyway . And many of even the best relationships have periods when circumstances means it's not possible.

Learn to qualify the word "self" with "control" and "sacrifice".


All the best


TV

greatgod2012: I'm forced to log in because of this thread.....

Me too, but not primarily because of OP
you haff kill me with this and your subsequent posts ! I haven''t laughed so hard for a long time. Disturbing my colleagues wiff laff.

greatgod2012: Kitchen
Bathroom
Mouth action
Handcuff
Indecency films......etc....within one month of proposing to you.......it's certain that guy can't withstand your several se*ual adventures......and if i were him, i will take to my heels, because if this complains can be too much at this stage, i wonder how it will be when married...........i pity the guy sha............but mehn, young lady, you need to take it easy o........ther is more to marriage and life than all these.......may God help you to make the right decision o......
I'm out!

OP,
many black men hate handcuffs. Multiple arrests by oppressive law-enforcement personnel means we hate the sight and feel of the damn things .

Am I the only one who thinks this is fabricated or exaggerated at best ?


TV

^{**I suspect multi-monickering; old tag new handle**}

Chrisbenogor: This is not about being sentimental, it does not make single mothers bad people. It just affects their chances of getting hitched Cinderella style, it is not a put down it is just reality!

...and there are very few women on NL who like to face reality, deal with it, or remain calm and rational when it's pointed out to them.

We continue to bear with our women. But we won't indulge them in their irrationality .


TV

shaybebaby: Because in as much as they are raising children on their own, then yes they will be termed as such regardless of how their status came to be( widowed, divorced or runaway baby daddy), they are all single mums.

Firstly, this thread specifically speaks to an out of wedlock birth. This is clear even in my response that you quoted. Secondly, even if you wish to broaden the discussion, it does not change the reality of the hardship and long-term poorer outcomes suffered by SM and their children.

shaybebaby: However fact can and does change when they find love again or someone to share their lives with. Then they are still mums, actually they will always be mums, that fact is unchanging however the single nature of their existence is subject to change when they find a partner.

And one of my major points being that the chances of a SM "finding a partner", and one that is of the quality to restore what is missing, are reduced. As for "someone to share their lives with", that is wishy-washy and no guarantee that there will be a husband and father in situ, or that this person will necessarily have a positive effect on any children. Abuse is x6 more likely when one of the "partners" is a non-biological parent (choose your soap wisely )

shaybebaby: You are a part of the society that sees something wrong with this, based in your perception and should a single parent come into contact with you will be shaped by your negative perception of their situation and such for that moment, that becomes their reality, an unforgiving and unaccepting society- a judgemental one. They can choose to allow that influence their beliefs and actions and validate your perceptions as the norm, as unchanging and once they do that, they are tacitly accepting that to be their reality.

More sentiment and PC niceties. It's the SM that lives the harsh reality of of being a single parent. They are the ones who other women shield their husbands from, or don't get social invites, or have a 40% chance of living in poverty (<6% for a married couple) and being welfare-dependent, or fall down the "marital-choice" pecking order and are not welcomed by prospective MIL'S and have a harder time raising children, said children generally having poorer outcomes.

Because I can see and clearly identify a social ill, and clearly understand that we need to deal with it at the root, it does not follow that I am judgemental or non-supportive of individuals. And more to the point, nobody elses perception sets their reality, it's their own actions. Will OP's care and support of "his friend" change her reality?

shaybebaby: Or they can change it, reject your perceptions and seek acceptance elsewhere. Can they find it? Yes they can.
Because I know there are people who share my perceptions and we belong in this same society as yours. My perception of their situation shapes my reality when I come into contact with them. I believe they are to be respected for making right choices( if they do like everybody else) regardless of how they came to be in that situation. F they share my perceptions, together we shape our reality based on that.

This is just odd and what on earth are you qualifying as "right choice"?

shaybebaby: My aunt was a single mum, note the operative word being " was". She no longer is as she married again and went on to have more children, and is still happily married today. Yes she is the sole biological parent alive of the child from the previous marriage but not the sole parent of all her children. Her husband raised her son as his as well as his biological one with her. And that is in Nigeria.

Do the vast majority of mothers who have children out of wedlock experience this? Let alone all those who are single mothers for whatever reason (and I noticed your list of reasons did not contain, "willfully irresponsible women". In the days of "full reproductive rights for women", it's still not their fault if they have children out of wedlock )

I'm pleased for your aunt and cousin, but is their experience typical? Or to be the catch-all template and basis of policy or societal consideration of SM. Personal anecdotes are fine as far as they go, but they only go so far.

shaybebaby: So regardless of what you think and how you want to play on semantics, you cannot answer for people's perceptions and all you have control over really is your own. So the generalisations" most and many" which you are throwing about is nothing but your perception.
The fact that you are having this conversation shows that the reality of what you perceive is limited to you otherwise we would be in complete agreement.

It's you that are attempting to genaralise based on an atypical instance. And further employing semantics to glamourise what is an ill which has a LT cost to society to mask the harsh reality many SM face.

Out of wedlock births are not advantageous to the mother, children or society, fact. If you have any "facts" to the contrary, please provide them. Deceptively reaching for the moral high-ground by feigning being generous and supportive doesn't work or prove anything - no matter how well-meaning your post is.


TV

Sophyrocks: You talk like a Crude Sadist!!! No pun intended! Just read what i made bold up there.

All this suggest is that you do not know what either a "pun" or a "sadist" are. Having said that your posting history is testimony to your "level", so no surprises there.

Sophyrocks: You are not happy that there are Single mothers who are turning out great after all the challenges they face or that there are success stories or that there will continue to be success stories.

As ever you quote my post not in order to respond, but as a platform for one of your gibberish rants. All I have repeatedly said is that the LT outcomes for SM' and their offspring tend to be poorer than for married women and that marriage opportunities and quality of spouse are typically impaired by being a single mum. Truth hurts, but it's stone cold fact. Feel free to disprove it. Character assassination doesn't prove anything.

Willfully having a child out of wedlock is rightly considered a societal ill. The fact that the LT outcomes for some are not always poor is no reason to try and sell it as a good thing.

Sophyrocks: You seriously want single mums to suffer just to prove a point, that they are majorly responsible for their predicament or simply because the society stigmatizes them. Seriously?? You enjoy the stigma and in your judgemental mind, they have no right to happiness.

More of your usual wishy-washy rhetoric. Whatever my wishes, the harsh reality for most having a child out of wedlock is what it is. My aim to make people understand the hardship it can cause and thus avoid being SM' compares favourably to your permissive "single mums are hotcakes" nonsense. To rightly assess something as wrong and/or deleterious is to hate? I responded to Pick on this already.

Sophyrocks: They have no right to be happy simply because they are single mums? Are you kidding me? It pricks you when you hear success stories. It pricks you when you see that there are still men around, inspite of the stigma, who marry these women. What is your grudge with these women? Why can't you wish people well? why must you always wanna prove a point with stigma even when there is light at the end of the tunnel ?

More ideological confusion. You are clearly the one "pained" and without a consistently structured worldview. I am the marriage champion and chief marital advocate of NL , indeed, I want to see them and everyone happily married. I merely stress that having children out of wedlock does not improve ones chances. As for the societal stigma, it's for good reason and mostly promulgated by women.

Sophyrocks: You will really need to stop!! Your hatred for these women is sickening!! Gosh! and you call yourself a christian? Damn!

Stop what? You want to be prescriptive on a public forum? Good luck with that. Hatred? Judge between us. I counsel against children out of wedlock to ensure the best outcomes for women and children, you mindlessly declare single mums are hotcakes, willfully encouraging a practice society considers an ill and rightly stigmatises. You cheerlead them to poor long-term outcomes and stigma. Looking for those to join you in your misery or perhaps slyly trying to eliminate the competition .


Yes, I am proudly and resolutely Christian. Happily married and blessed with children. I do not practice, endorse or celebrate out of wedlock procreation. And you are?

Try and comprehend better, avoid sentiment and cant, leave your pain at home, thoroughly parse your own worldview and then join the debate. Not being prescriptive, just a well-meaning piece of advice !


TV

pickabeau1: Dude/woman be objective

Where did u see hate here.. is telling you to have a sense of realism rather than misplaced and misguided optimism hate?

A lot of the people talking are single themselves and thus cannot relate

Some of the married woman (i dare say most) will not even allow their husbands relate with single moms

Be real, dude or woman

It's the "new morality". Objection or disagreement to anything that anyone chooses to do is now termed "hate". People must always be affirmed in their choices - regardless of the outcomes - or you are a hater.

Where choices are glaringly immoral or wrong, statute and shaming will be used to persecute and condemn dissenting voices or contrary opinion

"The world", ensuring "conformity" since the fall. But now it's doing so pro-actively.


TV

shaybebaby: Perceptions shape our realities. Change the perception, change the reality. Reality is not static, it morphs and changes subject to how our perceptions of it changes.

Nope, truth shapes reality. A woman with a child out of wedlock is just that. Percieve it how you will. Even if it is legally codified as a good thing and encouraged by the state, most men will still prefer to marry women without children from a previous relationship. Those that fail to percieve that fact do so to their own disadvantage.

Put a dog-collar and leash on your cat and re-name it bingo - it remains a cat. Give two men a licence, conduct a ceremony and call it marriage, it remains an abomination. And they and everyone else know it, regardless of the statutes. One can refuse to percieve truth, but it does not alter reality.

shaybebaby: In essence, the reality you perceive for single mothers can change, is changing and will change.

Altering perception does not change reality. Why are you still referring to them as single mums? Why, because the fact remains.


TV

Date ke? I see that as for those without a rich culture, high tradition, blue-chip pedigree or sense of class.

I met her, then made her a high-value proposition;

"I am a prince of my people and favoured of The Most High, would you like to be woo'ed & courted I asked"
"Yes she replied, slightly breathless"

"Good I said. Advise your other suitors that their pathetic, limp-wristed efforts have come to nothing and henceforth should be focused elsewhere"

Woo'ing happened
Courtship took place
7 months later we were married

Now we be datin' like a time-stamp!


TV

Sophyrocks: Of course they will face challenges because of the perception of the society aboout having kids outside wedlock

Nope, not due to the "perception" of society, but due to the "reality" of their situations. They have and are primarily responsible for another mans child/children. It's actually counter-intuitive to why humans "pair-bond" in the first place.

Funnily enough, other women will persist on the societal moré the most. How many women want their sons or brothers, friends or family members or marry single-mothers? How many would advise them to do so?

How many men or women grow up dreaming of marrying a single-parent. Who pictures that for their own future? Having children outside wedlock is rightly frowned upon, as it typically presents an "extra" cost/burden to society.

baron2000: For me i think they are like every other woman. I think the hate expressed here from guys is just sad.

Indeed, they are just like "every other woman", but the reality is as I have already stated above. No one is hating on them, just clearly outlining the truth of the situation and cautioning against it.

The haters are those trying to paint a picture of "carry go, notin' do you" and encouraging it as normal and moral practice. It's the women and children that typically suffer. Don't be misled by instances of the women still making good marriages or the children turning out well.

TGIF, lets leave sentiment or personal experience or desire out of broad discussions.


TV

baron2000: does this mean that she should forget ever getting married to another man? Has she lost ALL hope of having a real marriage

TV01: As an individual, there is no reason why this lady can't marry and marry well. But if she had a twin without a child out of wedlock, I rate her twins chances in both regards as that much better.

TV01: Sure a lot of "single-mums" eventually marry, but there is "marriage" and there is "marriage".

TV01: The good news is that if she - as an individual - has the character and deportment of a wife, she still has all to play for, especially given her age.

TV

Nashville: Best comment on this thread. Very soon, she would want her children to also bear her maiden name. Or better still, in the spirit of equality, if they have four children, two will bear her maiden name and the other two will bear her husband's name. Isn't that what equality is about?

Then the next fight will be which of the children will bear whose name? But there must be something to fight about because it seems the idea of marriage is to fight endlessly and prove a point.

Nash dude, how far?

You are late, this is already happening; apart from double barrelled names - which are old hat really - we now have "meshed" (amalgams) names or alternate (father then mother) surnames for the offspring.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9664227/Couples-fuse-surnames-in-new-trend-I-now-pronounce-you-Mr-and-Mrs-Puffin.html
http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/advice-support-40/families-relationships-50/881485-gave-your-children-different-surnames-please-help-me-i-have-less-than-24-hours-all.html - (hint marry him you dimwit)

Weak men, over to you.

TV

pickabeau1: How many single mums do you know and how of them are married

Leave them 0!

How many singles are there out there sef? Forget single mums. Getting more desperate by the minute. Searching high and low and lamenting all over the place. Flocking to and filling out churches.

Instead of them to wise up and tell each other the truth about the outcomes of their "poor choices" and consequences of their bad actions, and make real structural changes to their thinking and actions, they are here cheerleading each other to misery. Their own worst enemies indeed.


TV

pickabeau1: Traditionally women have always been known by the men who had authority over them by their fathers and later their husbands

So Stillfire the daughter of MoreOxygen will be known as Stillfire the wife of PourWater when she was married

Oyibos introduced Mr and Mrs... thats all

It is even the effects of modernism that women can now compound names or keep their maiden names

Leave them.

Be it begged, borrowed, lent or stolen, it's now a part of the local culture. It's become "tradition". An initiative to change or remove said tradition is fine, but to wilfully subvert, or act contrary to it, for selfish reasons is nonsense.

See someone claiming that a man insisting that his wife take his surname because "she is his wife" as a not good enough reason. We took so many yam tubers, I'm sure her people are still finding creative ways to cook it.

Not only will she bear my surname - exclusively - I reserve the right to re-state her given first name or assign any dimunitive I see fit. For the duration of the world cup she was called "babynho" as she served me beverages and sweatmeats !


All traces of her fathers name and authority have been rightfully erased .


TV

Sophyrocks: It does not enhance chances. I never said it does.

Do chances remain exactly the same? Or do chances decrease?

Sophyrocks: I only said it doesnt stop them from getting suitors for marriage.

And no one said chances reduced to "zero" did they?

Sophyrocks: As for higher status partners, i dnt know what you mean by that. Is it financial/social status? Explain.

Sophy, I'm the most romantic bloke in the world, but the truth is, a certain amount of pragmatism is required for marriage. In some ways it's a market and one needs to have bargaining power, a great sense of what's on offer and a decent pricing mechanism.

Consciously or sub-consciously, we all have desires and expectations in our choice of spouse. An understanding of what we are worth, what is available and what we should expect. Even those who think their approach is purely romantic, base who they "fall in love with" to some degree
on that aggregate notion of "value".

Why do degree holders baulk at marrying those without tertiary education? So yes, in some ways it's financial, in some social, but it's all the things that make up the "calibre" of a person, including but not limited to character, education, looks, age, pedigree etc.

As an individual, there is no reason why this lady can't marry and marry well. But if she had a twin without a child out of wedlock, I'd rate her twins chances in both regards as that much better.

I think the "aunties" on this section should be counselling the young ladies to maximise their chances of marrying as best possible. Cheerleading them in their folly is wrong on so many levels. Not to mention that you make it sound as if having "suitors" or simply "getting married" is success, as opposed to the quality/status of suitors or husbands.


TV

...then do so. With immediate effect and instant alacrity !

You live in a culture were they are certain expectations and norms associated with marriage. Taking your husbands surname is one of such. If for any reason you preferred to do it differently, you should have mentioned it before saying "I do".

Presumably he carried out in full the expectations of a man seeking a wife? I thought so.

Husband; you are either "poor husband" for having to deal with this nonsense or "poor & weak" for acceding to it. The choice is yours. To be honest, you should have exercised "choice" with more discretion before asking for her hand. Abi you no ask?


TV

Sophyrocks: I am not in denial here. You say they are usually not desired if there are single ladies since their chances of been desirable are reduced. Desired or Not, does it stop them from marrying? As long as the rate of irresponsibility amongst men will continue to soar, we will continue to have single mothers!! At the end of the day after all said and done, THEY STILL MARRY. So Mr television, No need for debate.

And yes, women who never marry exist more in western countries.

I haff heard.
You still miss the point.

Please answer this question; Does having children out of wedlock enhance a womans chances of marrying or help her atttract higher status partners?

You were right "no need for debate"


TV

Sophyrocks: Mr Television, welcome o! Whether you wanna deny it or not, it doesnt stop these women from marrying o. You have never seen or you hardly see but i have seen lots of them in this same planet earth. Or dnt you see some women marrying twice when some single ladies have not seen one to call their husbands? Are those women from other planets? Abeg o. Feign all the ignorance you want. No time to argue with you. Its not debatable. Argueing over it won't stop them from marrying. Hardly will you see a woman remaining single till death except in western countries.

Unfortunately Sophy, you are the one in denial here. You also fail to demonstrate a grasp of detail.

Sure a lot of "single-mums" eventually marry, but there is "marriage" and there is "marriage".

For the higher status male, SM' will always be down the pecking order of preference. A SM diminishes her chances of making the best match, as well as her chances of making any match.

Women typically marry-up. SM' are usually forced to marry down - if at all!


TV

^{**and in Western contries there are women who remain single and childless till death, usually by choice. There are also many who remain single mums - by force - or are reduced to being baby-mamas to multiple men. Being a SM does not enhance ones marriage prospects, stop decieving the impressionable.**}

sage2: Hi, NLanders.

I want you to have a sneak preview into some aspects of my lifestyle and tell me if, in your opinion, it is normal. Because some of my friends think that I have a situation at hand.

I have never smoke anything nor taste alcohol in my life. I don't do no whores but yet I get laid like crazy and I mostly hit once, rarely twice and on a few occasions thrice and I am done with the babe. She could be as beautiful and pristine as they come, it won't change anything.

I love watching CNN, Discovery and NatGeo wild whenever i decide to watch TV.

I am yet to watch the movies or series, Titanic(I bought the one everybody in my house watched), Harry Potter, Water World, Gladiators, Game of Thrones, Troy, Anything from Nollywoods, Anything from Mexico, Cleopatra, okay, okay, I thinks it would be easier to just list the few ones I have actually Watched.

Here they are(The ones I have watched).

The Godfather, Scent of a woman, Devil's advocate, Finding Forester, Entrapment, Poetic Justice, Save the last dance, and well... that it.

I don't do no clubbing. I stay on my lane and stick to my house. I don't seek fun, I just have it when i happened to be where it is happening.

My TV is off 99% of the time but my Computers are on 90% of the time and I am connected to the internet all year round. I would rather pay for internet connection than waste my hard earned money on DSTV subscription.

I left the UNI so many years ago but everyday, I study like I have a test to write the next day.

I use to be obsessed with learning every new tech that comes but of recent, I have focused most of my resources on data science with emphasis on Hadoop.

I will tell you more when I have the luxury of time and space.

Feel free to comment but have it at the back of your mind that whatever you write here is entirely your opinion and therefore, belongs to you and only you and I am not under any obligation whatsoever to accept it.

Thanks and I wish you luck.

Physically you appear fully functional. Mentally you are somewhat stunted, with seemingly arrested development. You are an oddball, with an unbalanced existence.

My counsel; please don't consider marriage and/or children until you "grow-up"

My hope; that you don't share any more of your wierdo "lifestyle" with us, but focus on getting a "life"

My fear; you'll probably be a governor or minister some day

My prayer; your heartfelt salvation (or at the very least your retreat to the romance section).

My opinion; you don't have to accept or act on it.

You are free to go.


TV

baron2000: My question is- am i right to tell her that her chances of getting married to another man are not damaged?

No, you are not right to tell her that, as for many men, the presence of a child/children is a no-no and disqualifies one as a potential spouse. And all things being equal, most men would prefer to marry women without children. FACT.

The good news is that if she - as an individual - has the character and deportment of a wife, she still has all to play for, especially given her age.

baron2000: Guys can you marry a single mother? will you even consider dating one?

Nope, I couldn't and I didn't. Same goes for most men and even for those that don't mind, it's rarely a preference ATBE.

And when I advise men, I caution that, single mothers are best avoided.

Sophyrocks: The single mothers i know are all hot cakes to Men

Sophy, Sophy, Sophy, what planet do you live on . Hot cakes ko, stale bread ni. Hot "to wife" them? Please stop. At best it begs questions about the single moms you know - perhaps they are millionaires to boot - or the men that find them hot.

Having had a child from a previous relationship does not make women more attractive or desirable to men. For the vast majority of men it's a turn-off. Yes, there are some who may overlook it, a tiny few who can see beyond it and a statistically insignificant number who may be actually seeking it, but it's mostly a big turn-off for "wifing". COLD HARD FACT!


TV

^{**however, it presents no such problem for men . Life is so unfair**}

kulyie: lol she's fine o growing real fast.

Being with her grandma so I could deal with some little issues na why I scarce

thanks

by the way this place is getting hot.o girl you get mat

Where is Jydo? Has she not returned since the "attack".

One thing I appreciated about Ewuro1 was that she absolutely got that in a public forum like NL, one could not be prescriptive. I particularly liked the fact that she got that as a woman.

Kuylie,

Once again you present a picture that is at odds with the story you are telling. Either that child is not yours, or you are not being honest about the background story you are presenting to readers here.

Either way it's a bit creepy.


TV

jessybarbie: Before now, I have already made up my mind not to have anything to do with any man that lays his hand on me and he knows this.I have being dating him for two years now and just in the middle of a big quarrel two days ago he slapped me. I reacted immediately and hit him as much as I could but he did not retaliate but felt really bad and started begging me immediately to forgive him.

I have sworn to him that it is over between us He is begging, pleading, crying, asking our friends to intercede and loads of other stuffs that I can not put down here just to have me at least forgive him and be his friend again but I have declined because I believe that this can happen again.

I want to know if there is a way that it can work again between us? We have gotten to a stage that we are more than just bf and gf. We had great plans for the future if things turns out well but this singular act have altered everything and we are both hurting.

Is there any way to remedy this relationship or is it truly over forever?

I’m no there to proffer advice, to be honest, I’m here to stir, so best ignore me.

So, you took an oath – never to have anything to do with a man that “lays his hands on you” Then, “he laid hands on you” – and he knew about your oath. You then swore that “it was over between you”

You are now here asking for advice about what to do. Well it’s good that I’m not here to give advice, as none is necessary.

He runs the relationship, you’ll do whatever he wants.


TV

zeb04: The feminist fight will only be over if each person regardless of race,gender,ability,is exactly who he or she wants to be.

Which is not about equality at all is it? it's about "autonomy". And autonomy is really about the casting off of all restraint, and the overturning all traditionally held social morés and conventions.

That means the natural family as the cornerstone of society has got to go, sexual restraint removed and a culture of death (abortion & euthanasia) endorsed.

Feminism = Death & Destruction, your words !


TV

lulu69: the west has been able to harmonise this conflict. Men have come to respect and understand the equality that women crave - at least on the home front.

- With a 50% - and increasing - divorce rate?
- With an increasing number of children being born out of wedlock?
- With an entrenched culture of death - right to abortion at any time and for any reason?
- With a total lack of moral restraint and the wholesale pornographication and sexualisation of their society?

Harmonise wetin?
Equal opportunities for men and women is a given and supported by all well meaning men. But "Feminisms" insistence on denying of biological imperatives, sexual morés and "gender" harmony, is destructive.

And please elucidate what exactly this "homefront" equality is, and how they have attained to it in the West.


TV

sailormoon: Simply packing up and leaving and or/reporting seems, on the surface, like the obvious choice, but consider the fact that often, victims are threatened by their abusers when attempting to do so, so it really isn't that easy and 'all you have to do'.

How can tackling abuse head-on in it's incipient stages be anything but obvious? Especially if it's early on in a relationship or before any kind of commitment, and moreso in a country like Sweden where "victims" are well supported.

Even in a committed relationship, unless there is evidence for the "he turned into an axe-wileding psychopath overnight without any warning or reason" thesis, there would have been a pattern of - likely escalatory - behaviour that should have been addressed. Perhaps "counselling"
would have dealt with any issues way before it became abusive if handled properly.

Subsribing to the "no-blame" mantra will at times make it seem that women are simply incapable of managing their lives/relationships and their bad choices/failures to act are simply not somehting to be addressed or considered.


Can't say I'm an abuse expert sha, so maybe there is nuance here that I'm not seeing.


TV

Your husband has spoken well.

And your concerns about your child are also valid - especially given the turmoil the child wil feel if seperated from you now.

If your husbands business cannot be relocated. You need to think about moving to be with him, which of course may necessitate a strategic career change.


All the best.


TV

...the wife.

Then;
1. Get a house help for the kid
2. The two brothers can go fishing

This is getting too easy...


TV

^{**he could of course present them both as part of a suitably qualified set of candidates**}

smurfy: "A true wife must be a good cook in the kitchen, a house-help in the parlour and a prostitute in the bedroom."

Ergo a husband must enjoy well prepared food, not be to bothered about cleaning up after himself and always take his wallet to bed.

You are hereby demoted back to the "Romance" sction. No parole for at least 5 years.

"Smurfy" huh?


TV

cococandy: Of course I understand tha's what she meant too.
Just that it is easy to quote her out of context.

Erm we are fine thanks.
My old handle had some issues after the hurricane.

I agree. The title was a bit misleading, but her utterances are very clear - and sensible IMHO. But she has blashpemed against the prevailing orthodoxy. She will be excommunicated if she doesn't repent with sackcloth and ashes. The fact that it somehow suggests that women are mindless creatures who need protection from themselves is besides the point.


TV

cococandy: Well what's wrong with what she said?

Clanger alert !

Lottie how far? Just figured out it's you. I liked your old handle jor.

The prevailing notion is "the victim is never to be blamed - in whole or in part - ever". It's PC orthodoxy. It's good as far as it goes, but it does present a dilemma of sorts - in some instances.

To claim it as stated means that women are not responsible for even their own choices. Which is probably what prompted the lady' remarks. There was a thread here a while back about "abuse". It was over a 100 pages.

One poster wrote about her serially dating "abusive men", but was very clear that no one should "blame" her. And of course, no one is blaming her for the "abuse", but one must question her "choices", emotional intelligence and maturity. But even that is off-limits according to the above mantra.

The truth is that if many women were more discerning, savvy and with higher expectations, many instances of abuse situations would never happen and many others would be stopped earlier. But it's simply not PC to say so.

This is what I reckon the lady in the OP probably meant, especially given the high level of support available to those in abusive situations in Sweden.

How's Oga?


TV