₦airaland Forum

Tgirl4real: U see . . . that is a relative one there.

I think we all should have our priorities set in order of preference. Like a list of important things and another list of less important things. When you find someone that meets your top priority list and you meet hers too, and you both are attracted to each other, and you both are sincere with each other and have genuine interest for each other,I believe you are good to go.

Tgirl4real: I would say you are lucky. The length of courtship doesn't guarantee success in marriage.

Aren't these two statement contradictory?

If the couple can do all you set out in the first quote in 4 months, why is that lucky?

Mine was 3 and it's been bliss. Although I was well versed and had seen and experienced enough to write a book. As soon as I met my WTB, I thought hmmmm. After 1 date, it was hmmm, hmmm. proposing 3 months later was merely a formality. In fact I think we just started discussing dates.

Best
TV

kay9: Well we're back to Square One again... HOW LONG does this ''getting to know each other'' take??
Hey u know what? Lets make it a bit more real: How long would YOU would need to know someone enough to consider marriage?

I would say if you are mature and know what is essential and what you want, 3 months should be enough time to tell. Or let me put it this way, when I was "looking", my plan was after 3 months to ask myself if "I could or couldn't marry this woman".

The truth is, out of all the women I met, only a very few actually made it to 3 months. The vast majority had lines through their names way before that. Most didn't make it past 1 date.

I was uncompromising and any doubts meant "fashi". Any hint of wor-worishness, palla palla behaviour or regbe regbe attitude and out came my red pen. I think I still have the spreadsheet somewhere sef. lol !

Don't forget, it's easy for feelings to become involved very quickly, especially for women. As a man and one being responsible and conscious of "the potentials" feelings, any longer and she may well consider you affirming the relationship. No matter one's protestations, when a woman likes you, if you keep seeing her despite not feeling the same way, there's a good chance she may read what she wants into the situation, regardless of what you say. Shorter is kinder, especially if its doubtful or a no.


Best
TV

Wifey has heard about the spreadsheet and thinks it's cheesy. I can't see why

Sagamite: Why would you want to, and why does it make sense to, put the needs and happiness of someone else ahead of yours?

Saga, Saga, Saga, did you really ask that question? You may consider yourself "open" to marriage and children, but do you really think yourself ready?

As a place for developing character, family life will teach you patience, understanding and a whole host of other qualities - if you didn't possess them prior.

Marriage aside, that question has much further reaching implications - to national and global level sef. Unless your question is merely rhetorical, I am quite taken aback.

Abi is this not the Sagamite that epitomises the height of intellect and manly virtue?

Yepa.
TV

afam4eva: Being a good husband does not just rest with you but also on the woman you marry.

I personally don't agree with this. Or maybe I just don't get it? Specific nuancies and detail apart. The nature of a good husband is pretty generic and I'd say fungible (that's for CC !).

afam4eva: There are no stipulated rules on how to be a good husband. It depends greatly on the kind of wife you have.

To whit; one's conduct and responsibilities as a husband (or wife) are essentially blind to whom one marries. Take for example faithfulness; a good husband will maintain marital fidelity. A good husband will protect his wife. And so on and so forth for all the main aspects of being a good husband.

afam4eva: Just make sure you marry someone that complements and thinks similarly to the way you do and be yourself.

Complementariness is good, but then again not essential in every way, if the parties are mature enough to accomodate any differences (and although I would counsel that these be minor at best, some couples succeed despite major difference).

afam4eva: Don't try to act in order to be a good husband.

Absolutely agree here. Maintaining a facade is decietful, not really sustainable long term and will probably breed resentment.


@OP,

1. Marry. Marry with understanding. Marry well.
2. You can't be the best husband. I currently occupy that role and have no intention of relinquishing it. Ever !
3. All the very best for this most central and divine of human relationships/endeavours. You'll soon be a contender.

Best
TV

ronkebp: It is a lie!!!!!! so...you people are still here??

@ TV01 abeg bone this arguement, you will be surprised when Sagamite gets married before the end of the year....all this his arguement is because he has not found Mrs. Right.

Sagamites MO means if he meets someone today, nothing can happen before 2022 ! Anything this year will have been brewing since the 90's.

Our brothers usual intro is " I like you, freeze your eggs"

Please lets rally round before we start hearing phrases like "odikwa tragic" on NL.

TV

chaircover: Actually after thinking a little more deeply into this; maybe it is a good thing that some people refuse to get married. Not all men (or women) will make good husbands or wives and some are better just being single.

It's a good thing in the sense that those not ready, should not marry. But it is a tragedy for grown adults to not marry merely because they are too selfish, irresponsible or unlearned. There are very few valid reasons for us not to marry. Indeed, marriage is the default, and is pretty much for all, except for a few outliers and extreme cases.

Is there anyone here with kids, who is at peace or willingly accepting that any of their own offspring may not get married?

Above all we feel it is our duty to provide for our children, for me, preparation for marriage probably tops them all. That is what is not happening these days. With the tutorial side non-existent and the "modelling" aspect ruined by what typically obtains, we have many running scared. Enter Sagamite, HaraKiri et al and their female equivs...

TV

Hmmmm.....

I've been away celebrating and being celebrated on Fathers day.

Apart from the spam texts, being highly loved and appreciated is no bad thing .

I have a few more things to say on this matter.

I'll be back shortly...

TV

Sagamite: So your link had no evidence? So you have no evidence for the statement you made then?

I guessed as much that is why I asked for evidence. [size=4pt][s]I am dbanj or skibanj like my jamaicans friends call me[/s][/size] I am Sagamite or Sagalulu like my Sister-in-laws call me, I don't let anyone BS me.

I don't shovel BS. Traditional married families are more robust than any other "family" arrangement. Ergo they are better for raising children.

Sagamite: Kids will do okay as long as they live with both biological parents that care about them and each other, married or not. Please next time infer or Ifa that, don't try and BS me with "facts" made from thin air.

- That can prpbably be argued if the everything is the same including the duration of the relationship.
- But bearing in mind a number of things, our cultural background, your getting married, your getting married to a betta girl,ponder this; Where will
you find this girl that will agree to co-habit with you till "death-do-part"? Why are you proclaiming a facsimile of marriage, whilst railing
against marriage itself? Fear cash you abi?

Sagamite: The longer you know someone the better. DEFINITELY 3 months is by no way sufficient. You are less likely to tell the dos and don'ts of the other person especially if they decide to pretend. You need sufficient time to see them react under difference circumstances (especially pressure) and how they cope and adapt to change.

- What is sufficient? What do you have to know that you can't find out in 3 months?
- People of "character" don't pretend. Pretenders will expose themselves one way or another. Character flaws will always manifest.
- Pressure is a good point. And indeed, reactions can vary based on type and intensity of pressure. But that cuts both ways, so seek "character"
- Like the type and intensity of pressure,you cannot legislate for the nature and depth of change. Again, seek character and maturity.
- Character and maturity will bring committment,compassion,humility, loving care, support and if required sacrifice. Don't confuse it with personality.

Sagamite: The less time you get to know them, the higher the risk you don't know them and the higher the risk of your marriage. Let sharp guys have them, I am the ultimate prize, the girls lose.

- How long does it take to get to know someone?
- How long does it take to communicate to someone what you are about, what you are after and explore to see if there is common ground.
- Real sharp,mature guys,can spot and recognise value very quickly. They can weigh up and act accordingly.
- Omo, let me be frank with you; God forbid you get hit by a bus tomorrow; I am pretty sure there is not a single girl who will declare no Saga, no
marriage.
- The type of woman you picture yourself with will not change. But you will. If you dwawdle, one day you'll realise that you've changed to a degree
that means that type will not give you face. Please don't let that happen. You can't be at your peak forever.

Sagamite: But you should also know women know how to pretend to be something else to get what THEY want, their is a risk they might revert when they get what they want. Most definitely behave different when they are the ones with power, they frequently abuse it without any contrition. Evident in the divorce robberies we have seen. Feel free to read women's response here and how ALL are non-chalant or excuse their bad behaviour:

Sagamite: https://www.nairaland.com/962850/ladies-which-these-dating-evils

I'll have a read, just for a laugh. But I think you miss the point; you should be mature and savvy enough to see pretenders far off. They shouldn't even get the time of day. I was that and prayerful to God for guidance, protection and discernment.

A man should be able to spend a working days length of time with a woman and by the end of it have a good idea of 1. The type of person she is and 2. if she is marriage material.

3 months?? 3 whole months I should be considered hesitant and overcautious sef. Let me share this, most of the numerous girls I considered, didn't get past a few weeks before they got moved on. Loads where ditched after a phone call (pre-date chat, ultimatelymeant no date), many after a single date. All that built into a finely honed sense of what to look for and how to go about it and continously updated the profile of what I was after in a wife. I still had faith.

Sagamite: That is why I think your likes are playing Russian roulette when you have shot-gun wedding and have no bazooka pre-nup while living in the West. You didn't answer my question: She was North of 28 when you met her?

It was so not a gamble. And you shoot yourself in the foot, seeking to mitigate the financial fallout of possible failure instead of building a foundation for success. The commitment of marriage is not by contract - at any point.

In fact, does a pre-nup actually speak to risk? No. Life is a risk. You can't guarantee anything about tomorrow.

Yes, she was north of 28, but the one she usuroed - obviously she didn't know it - was 27. Girls may in some ways "mature" faster than boys, but they don't necessarily develop character any faster.

Sagamite: Good for you, bruv. That is great.

Though I note you are just getting to know her. You did jump on it on faith, not due diligence. Lets say you are a lucky man with your Russian Roulette.

Don't I know it,but it was not by luck or mere chance.
You may call it faith if you choose, but it wasn't blind. Faith drives my beliefs, worldview, thinking, actions etc. It doesn't mean I rush into situations blindly or without due consideration. On the contrary. I absolutely conducted what I understood to be the requisite level of due dilligence.

Sagamite: I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't take drugs and I don't gamble (definitely not with my life and future).

That's me to a "t". I married, my life is the richer and my future brighter.

Sagamite: This is all verbose.

Please tell us the due diligence you said you did.

Hve you not figured this from all I've written?

Sagamite: More verbose.

Kids are affected when one parent is missing. Don't bring lame comparisons. Don't BS me.

Please give your evidence that kids fair better in traditional marriage than in committed co-habiting.

Please give your evidence that kids fair better when their parents can make Akara over kids of another set of parents that can not.

Please tell me how shot-gun marriages and not getting to know yourselves rigorously are properly built unions.

Please enlighten me on the tapwater Clooney dey send around the world that is irresponsible.

Saga, take it from me, it's so easy and so sweet when you get it right.

Best
TV

harakiri: What about "Harakiri"?

Many here on NL have your long-term best interest at heart.

Appreciate (and take copious notes).

TV

Sagamite: - I read it, I did not see any part where it said kids raised by co-habiting couples are less balanced than kids raised by married couples. If you see any part that does from your link, please post it as a quote here.

The inference is not necessarily direct. But I'm sure it's a small thing for you to grasp that the greater robustness of proper marriage vs. co-hab, means it's altogether better for raising kids. QED.

Sagamite: - A 3 month due diligence on a woman is irresponsible. Even my friends that I have known for over 10 years and hang out with and blab to cannot know me enough to know all I am capable off. Neither do I know all they are capable of to put my life in their hands.

Please don't confuse a proper courtship with "hanging out". Happy to hear your thoughts on what constitutes a reasonable amount of time to get to know someone prior to marriage. Studies to show a direct correlation between this time and the success of the union would also help.

Focus on being and finding a mature person of well developed character. Then you'll have a good idea of what they are capable of. This your idea to know someone perfectly and for an extremely long time sounds suspiciously like self-obstruction. Wetin you dey fear? WHile you are still looking, sharp dudes will sneak in! Nothing wrong with quick-sharp when you know what's up.

Sagamite: Talkless of someone of the opposite sex that is known for irrationality and not knowing what they want. I will not know much about them in 3 months, especially if they are at an age of being eager to marry, which I can reasonably guess was the case here. I take it she was over 28 when you met her? Because ages north of that number is when woman are usually keen to marry under short notice?

My approach, sincerity and the value proposition I put to my WTB, was simply compelling. Most women know when it's time to discard or at least leash that irrationalty nonsense. When they see and appreciate better thing they normally shape up. But seriously, like I said earlier, "focus on being and finding..."

Sagamite: - Even if you had one date everyday for 3 months, you will not know enough about her to show it is responsible to place the risk of damaging you all in her hands. And I am sure in 3 months, you could not have met her for more than 30 days. in total I don't think it is responsible to say you would put that much faith in someone you have only known for 30 days and procreate with them when kids suffer if they are from a broken home.

Couch it how you please, I essentially did just that and it's working great. We have been married for over a year, with a son. No regrets or doubts. My wifes character is exactly how I found it. I continue to find out new and delightful things about my wife, even as she continues to grow and develop. As do we both, and mostly together. Especially from our interaction as a couple. That's part of the journey. When a woman meets a mature man, she either steps up or the man steps away. She can go back to being someones GF.

Sagamite: - You need to specify what groundwork you did that we are not aware of to understand how due diligence can be conducted.

- Not every one develops or develop in the right areas. Some deteriorate. To put your faith under someone developing is hope.

The issue tends to be people "seeing" marriage as opposed to "understanding" it combined with looking to satisfy their needs through marriage instead of developing their characters for it. Nail that part you are ready. Just find someone of like maturity and vision. For deeper discussion ,please open the thread. I'm sure there are many here that can lend credence, be it with hind or foresight.

Being married,if anything increases your chances of developing right. Someone to focus, explore and journey with. The very fact that you have someone for whom you are responsible and to encourage & if required chastise you, must be better than the isolation of singleness, which lends itself more to developing odd behaviours (eccentricity/set in your ways?).

Sagamite: - No it is not a strawman, you gave me reports that state kids are damaged if raised in broken relationship. You are the same man that labelled a man irresponsible for wanting to be single at 50. So is it not irresponsible if you put your child or bring a child into something with a 50% fail ratio? You brought them into it on the basis of hope. Who is more irresponsible, Clooney or you?

- You conflate and confuse. The premise is that all things being equal, kids fare better in a traditional marriage setting. I can't speak for every unique case in every setting. A super rich single mom of 1 may well do better than an impoverished couple trying to raise 11 kids in a ghetto. Does that mean we now champion single motherhood? And to the point, are you championing co-habitation as a better alternative than marriage? Why exactly are you pursuing this? I thought you were going with Tappimony.

- Again, look at it uniquely. The universal figure of 50% is not typical of properly built unions.
- And even if it was, it's still better than any alternatives you can offer up.
- Clooney is not irresponsible for not marrying, or not having kids (does he?) it's his tappimony, the effects and the messages it sends


Start practising your dance moves. If you see the way I threw down eh! Lai kuli !!!!

Best
TV

Sagamite: What attendant benefits of marriage?

Please explain to me how co-habitation will damage a child. Not how break up of parents damage a child.

As I have told you before, the due diligence required to know what someone you grew up with will do in the future is already hard enough, talkless of someone you hardly know and just met. I am very confiddent very few people here will think it is responsible and sufficient to say your due diligence was done based on one date and marrying the person 3 months later. There is NO WAY you can state you know the person well and claim you are sure your marriage will be successful so you don't need to worry about any risk. That is not entering marriage properly. Faith is not due diligence or responsible.

Would you put your child in a plane if 50% of planes crash? Would you still put your child on the plane of an airline that have the best record of crashes? Or you would say "NO, I am a responsible parent who loves my child and values their life"?

Did you read the studies I posted?
- I'm not saying co-hab damages per-se, just that it's not as beneficial as marriage
- I met and did dilligence in 3 months. We married 8 months later
- We did not have just the one date, but I knew she was a strong candidate after the 1st one.
- Truth be told, there was groundwork before I actually pursued that first date. And it was ongoing afterwards, till I had peace.
- It's a mix of knowing the person and understanding what they want. Both will continue to develop. The key is to grow together and remain comitted.
- You can know someone for ever and never really know them and people continue to develop. If you want to know them perfectly prior, just forget it. People here will echo that.
- That criteria is a red herring and reeks of fear/insecurity.
- Please leave of on the 50% anology. Its another straw man.

NL awaits

TV

Sagamite: Amsorry?

So you can't show that children raised by married parents are better balanced than children raised by co-habiting couples?

Can you make a simple deduction then that marriage and procreation is an irresponsible act then since:

- Half of marriages fail.
- Children raised in broken relationships suffer and are not balanced.
- So marrying to procreate is actually irresponsible then since we are responsible for the best upbringing for kids.
- It is even more irresponsible if you do not make the right due diligence to protect this and depended of faith.

Surely you would not put your child on a plane with 50% chance on crashing, why create them when you have 50% of damaging them.

Co-habition is more fragile and does not manifest all the attendant benefits of marriage. Also
- They are more likely to break up - and earlier
- Recieve less support from the co-habitees families

So to your posers
- per above, more co-habs fail than marriages, ergo children are more likely to suffer from breakups in this arrangement
- nope, single and co-hab fams fare worse. Marriage - in lieu of a copncise rebuttal - is still the best arrangement.
- when you understand what needs to be done, due dilligence, whilst not a formality, need not be a long thing. And I still had great faith.
- We have thrashed this point ad-nauseum. Marriage is not a 50:50 proposition if entered into properly

Sagamite, stop fighting the inevitable.

Ondo girl huh? No gainsaying, they make great wives. And via e-introduction. That may well be a first. So long as we get the job done sha!

Best
TV

Sagamite: This does not show me children raised by married parents are better balanced than children raised by co-habiting couples.

Please show me that. Or show me that part in the links you put that does.

Don't show me children raised in broken relationships are more likely to be less balanced.

Show me children raised by married parents are better balanced than children raised by co-habiting couples.

I wait.

A simple deduction given that co-habitation is more fragile and does not have all/the full benefits of marriage.

But please read this and note the study cited.

http://upallnight5210..co.uk/2012/04/reader-response-truth-about.html

Sagamite: Before I address the rest, please show me the empirical evidence.

Ok, I'm coming. For now I'll leave you with the following;

1. All things being equal kids thrive better in a traditional two (birth) parent family, with the parents properly modelling their roles.
2. Co-habiting couples are less likely to stay together than married couples
3. Where there is abuse, one of the parents is usually not a birth parent.


Right, I'm back, start here - the benefits kick-in literally from birth;
http://narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html

Others;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9139483/Marriage-is-best-for-raising-children-Government-says.html#
http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-health-48997/

chaircover: TV you see now!!!!

With all your grammer, it just took one sentence of mine to totally change saggy's mindset

You are invited to the wedding

As long as we get there I am happy. Marriage has made me a team player. I'ma tell wifey to block out the day/weekend/whole month of celebration.

Now, about HaraKiri....

Sagamite: Who said he preaches or sells marriage?

He preaches achievements.

I have outlined my thoughts on hypocrisy and fraud. Lets leave it at that. We don't truly know the gist of this bobo and only referred to him in passing. he's not the thrust of this thread, so lets leave him.

Sagamite: Apart from the ridiculous impracticality of all men blah blah blah, what makes you think it is under only a "marriage" arrangement kids can be raised balancely. So kids raised by co-habiting parents are not balanced?.

So we agree on the impracticality and the inbalance "tapping-ass" as an alternative to marriage would cause.

Yes, co-habiting can lead to well-balanced kids, but empirical evidenc shows that it does not do so as successfully as marriage.

Sagamite: And your point is?

This like telling me some apples are red and some are green. Like telling me Beijing is the capital of China.

What I need to know is how is not willing to get married irresponsible? How not taking an option to marry denote someone is irresponsible.?.

I've outlined this already. To be unmarried is not in itself irresponsible. Marriage ushers in a covenanted level of commitment and self-sacrifice, thus a deeper level of responsibility.

To be unmarried (or married) and an ass-tapper is grossly irresponsible.

Sagamite: So who is an unmarried man irresponsible to? Who does he owe a duty to that he is not undertaking for your like to label him irresponsible?

Per above, society, the "tappees" and believe it or not, himself. If he subscribes to the tapping approach.

Sagamite: No 1, who made marriage or how was marriage made?

You are well aware that many subscribe to the faith-based notion of marriage. The legal codifying of marriage is not actually necessary, as it adds nothing to it. And biblically, it is presented as first and formost a civil not a religious rite.

Sagamite: No 2, do you want me to dig up the historical posts where you said people should enter based on faith, where you said your due diligence was based on one date and where you said based on your due diligence you know actions she would never take in the future? Do you? Do you want to waste my time digging it up or prefer to fess up?

Be my guest. I have remained true to my word. I met my wife. Fancied her like mad. Angled a date, knowing she appeared a great fit. I was circumspect and dilligent for 3 months. Proposed, planned and performed the wedding rites. Progress continues to be made in a mutually loving, satisfying and fruitful union. It's cake when you understand.

Sagamite: No 3, if you are changing your tune, please entertain me by telling me what you think successgul marriage and the due diligence to achieve this success should be based on. What due diligence did you do before marrying your wife after a few short months??

A common worldview is always a good start. Shared background helps, but is not essential. Fully understand any differences and see if they could be dealbreakers. There are loads of things both little and large to consider and I'd be happy to discuss point by point if you open thread.

Essentially you have to be prepared as a person, in the right type of mindset and understand what attributes and qualities are desirable in a good wife. As opposed to your personal wish list, where accomodations can be made.

Sagamite: Most likely "Hell fcking yeah". It just wouldn't be me.

If her terms (which I would also listen to) does not favour me or is not in my self-interest based on my rationality judgements, she can "bye, bye, odaabo". I am not a Real Man, I am the Ultimate Man. A real man might agree to whatever she says, an ultimate man is not scared of saying fck off when required.

Some of your blind spots are in plain sight.

No matter how worthy, if you are both not working from a position of mutual self-interest - it can be that way you know? - you'll never strike the bargain or the right bargain. You are unilaterally looking out for you. Marriage is first and foremost looking out - being responsible - for the other. A "my way or the highway" approach means you will be walking a lonely path. You simply don't get it do you? Do you really consider yourself open to marriage?

- See why some of us faith loonies like to work with a divinely given stricture which is altogether flawless and true. Unbiased toward either party?

Sagamite: I am worthy of a good time and a happy life. Whatever framework provides that, based on the adjustment to dynamics I cannot control, I would choose.?

You are yet to show me a framework better than marriage.
In fact all you have come up with is revolving door ass-tapping which doesn't sound like the kind of thing that should emanate from a gargantuan intellect such as yours?

Your fear raises it's head agian. Can you guarantee anything in this life? And contracts are not guarnatees.

Sagamite: One thing, for sure, I do not intend to do is to herd-mentally compromise my future happiness so I adhere to some societal and historical norms to please others.

A lemming like appraoch is the last thing I would suggest. As would doing it to please others. Understand it and embrace it - if you choose and for yourself. I have repeatedly asked you to outline your own construct and one that would serve society as a whole better than marriage. You've presented "Tappimony". Please employ your colossal intellect to the betterment of mankind.

Sagamite: Why? Because others and even those that have died are not intellectually at me level. They are not worthy of being at a level to judge me, I am the one that should be judging them.

Judge you ke? A successful union speaks for itself. Construct one based on your intellectual prowess and let us see. If it beats the marriage ideal, you will be well hailed!

Sagamite: How can I be worried about a judgement of a foool that says you don't become a big boy until you marry. I am way too fcking smart to be worried about such a person's judgement of my actions.

I see where JohnDoe was coming from, although I am not in total agreement, truth is he has a point.

Sagamite: Baba God is the one that gave me the fine brain noni.

before baba God gave the world Sagamite, He gave us marriage.

Open the thread if you please. Otherwise I'd like to hear what inroads you have made. I don't want to be using dentures at your reception.

Best
TV

Sorry for being a bit long-winded guys, but one of my stated goals on NL is to see Sagamite married well and in fine fashion !

Sagamite;

1. If one preaches marriage and cheats, such a one is a hypocrite. If one "sells" marriage and is an inverterate cheat, such a one is a fraud. If one preaches or sells marriages and makes a mistake. It happens, seek restoration and keep moving. Geddit?

2. How would it benefit society at large, if every man just decided to opt for a life of "tapping ass"? For a start, what would become of the family order for raising well balanced children? Do you appreciate how fractious gender relationships would become?

3. When you get "married" you covenant/commit to sacrificially caring for your spouse. Otherwise it becomes a personal choice if/when/how you do this. The latter is optional, the former is a commitment - respopnsibility!

4. The surgeon and president are responsible professionally, but irresponsible to their families. The West African leader is irresponsible professionally and to society, even though he may be a good husband and father. Irresponsibility is not all or nothing, or necessarily based on one aspect.

5. Marriage is not a "man-made" instritution. Men have sought to re-engineer and/or pervert it. But the ideal remains unsullied. I never said enter into it purely on faith. I knew she was wife material after 1 date. I still did my due dilligence. And no, I don't know what the future holds, but I do know what we both committed to. And to Whom we commit ourselves.

6. If you meet that "dream girl" harken to this; it won't be solely on "your terms", if you won't marry her someone else will!

7. You regaled us with your sterling list of qualities and attributes. Are you saying you are not worthy of a committed long-term relationship where even more delightful offspring are raised? Or you think having a carousel of casual of relationships, where children may or may not be involved, and where you may or not be fully involved in their raising is altogether more worthy of what you have to offer?

Quit posturing dude, time is of the essence.

Best
TV

sashaa: fling?

Perhaps?

But one would have thought a proper introduction would be in order first? I mean, it's only polite.

This defies all protocol. Even animals have a good sniff first as a way of getting to know each other?

What is the world coming to?

Sagamite: If someone makes decent money and cannot manage his finances, he is irresponsible!

He is "fiscally" irresponsible is all we can conclude

Sagamite: HOW IS NOT BEING MARRIED IRRESPONSIBLE??

Ok, I’ll explain;
1. Being unmarried is not in and of itself irresponsible, but like I explained, being married ushers in a new and deeper level of responsibility.
2. It’s irresponsible – at a societal and individual level – for a man to enter into multiple/serial casual relationships with women (and yes married men can and do this to, they are even more irresponsible). More so, when this is compounded by offspring.

Sagamite: Are you irresponsible for not being in Afghanistan sacrificing yourself for someone else? You were the one that set that rubbish criteria for measuring responsibility? So YOU ARE irresponsible?

I am not personally responsible for the Afghan situation, nor in any way liable for it’s resolution.

Sagamite: Which irresponsible person have you seen the UN call to talk to the security council about immense, complex issues that leads to great loss of life?

Is such a person that is seen as a LEADING champion of the oppressed seen as irresponsible by the world as you claimed?

What rubbish are you chatting?

Explain to me how the world is seeing Clooney as irresponsible.

Firstly, I'm not speaking for the world, merely expounding my worldview/viewpoint.

Because one has a grasp of, insight into or expertise in an issue, does not indicate responsibility.

A highly skilled surgeon, responsible for carrying out intricate cranial operations and who has successfully done so numerous times over many years is found en-flagrante in a car park. Is he responsible?

A president, who is a highly regarded statesman and skilled diplomat, is found in a compromising position with a staffer. Is he responsible?

A West African head of state who regularly chairs and addresses ECOWAS/OAU and speaks at the UN, whilst bleeding his national treasury dry. Is he responsible?

Now to the main, the main.

1.
To plan a life devoid of commitment and responsibility in the sense of serenading a succession of nubile young women till departure. Is grossly irresponsible – and on so many levels. It’s also the height of selfishness and immaturity. Obviously taking covenant orders or the like varies this.
This is solely driven by your desire to sample without charge and your being able to do exactly as you please. Your unwillingness to fully and properly commit to the welfare of other/s. And willingly putting their welfare before yours.

2.
To base your understanding of marriage on what obtains around you and to decide to marry, not marry, slander marriage or seek to vary it on this basis is at best immature and in all likelihood fear driven. One is to understand and embrace marriage. Or of course simply opt out.
Basing your views on other peoples flawed character, faulty understanding and failed execution is just tragic.

Sagamite, you so obviously want to marry. You have frequently detailed what you are looking for (not that I necessarily get or agree with your criteria, but that’s fine).

Like I have often said, if marriage is crap, leave it or simply construct something of your own making, something that reflects your desire and find someone to co-opt into that arrangement?

Having said that, I personally see absolutely nothing wrong with marriage as originally instituted. One may have to delve foundationally to see that, but that is simply taking responsibility. We’d do that prior to entering into much lesser agreements. Having done, that it’s a question of finding someone of like desire, understanding and commitment.

Now, please present us with your bride. Good news is never too much!

Sagamite: Since Mckinsey and the Catholic Church do not market their failures, by your logic, they are frauds?

The Pope, according to your logic, is a massive fraud when he stands on that balcony and behaves like if the church only offers 'decent' love instead of highlighting their failures?.

Failure does not make one a fraud. Nor does success mean you are honest.

It's fraudulent if one pretends to be or practice one thing to make a sale/pitch, but in actual fact does not practice or believe in that thing. Or simply put to sell yourself or a product as doing/being, that which it doesn't/isn't.



Best
TV

Erm...he's not her boyfriend

(Although I must confess I'm having difficulty classifying this one. It's not, FWB, it's not jump-off, it's not one-night stand. Oya young people, please help an old-timer out!)

N&I

Saga, in your rush to batter home your point, you miss context.

I work with lots of people who deliver. On projects, processes, objectives. They are responsible. But for some of those same people, their personal lives are a mess. Can't manage their finances or relationships. For some it's their health or diets.

Responsibility is in different contexts. We are discussing within the relationship/marriage/family context.

Having said that, an appearance at the UN, being an ambassador for UNICEF or adopting poor kids from 3rd world countries does not necessarily indicate responsibility. Likewise being an ace fundraiser. And certainly has no bearing in the context of this discussion.

It takes a level of maturity to take on the wellbeing and care of someone else. Sacrificially if need be. It's a responsibility. Again, same for raising kids.

No one is saying not marrying or raising kids makes one irresponsible - in context anyway - it just means they ahven't entered into that level of responsibility. And yes you can put others first if you are not married, but you are not covenanted to do so, and sacrificially if required at that.

And yes, for those that disdain marriage, selfishness as well as fear is often a key driver. For both genders.

Per your Bobo, notice I said "If".
Now generally on that same subject, failure to achieve is not the same as hypocrisy, as I rightly pointed out.


If McKinsey analyse 10 companies and the suggested strategy does not work for a few of them, that doesn not make them fraudsters.

Enron was successful for a time even with fraudulent practice, so why are you trumpeting here?

Distinguish between practice and strategy and blatant hypocrisy as opposed to instances of failure.

As for the church. lets not go there, but the way to God in the true/Biblical/Christian worldview is via Christ, not any man-made institution, Pope, G.O. or religious ritual. Religiosity often appears as faith and mimics some of it's manifestations, but is not the same thing.

Stop flogging this dead horse and otherwise seeking to deflect matta.

Go and bring your wife. Now, now!

I will come and support at your trad.

Best
TV

harakiri: You brought up Madonna creating an impression of her being faded and done with meanwhile how many women her age still look fit, active or even good looking as she is? NONE! You attempted to paint her as a frustrated woman with on one to marry her but the reality is, she keeps getting more and more suitors and she uses and dumps them like trash when she is done because SHE CAN! The last guy i remember she got married to was in his twenties if i am not mistaken...that should tell you just how hot she is in the market. You would be lucky if you wife was one tenth as attractive as Madonna when she is in her fifties.

Beauty is as ever subjective. And your sweeping statement is laughable. There are women way older who are in much better nick than Madonna. Get a look at her cable like veins up front and you will run. Or perhaps the boob she exposed recently did it for you?

More and more suitors. AKA a succession of bendy backing singers. You call those suitors? Even she knows she'd never marry any of them. They are at best lust driven and casual liaisons.

So multiple baby fathers and failed marriages are ok because she is deemed "hot" by some.

Happy to do pix again. Post the one of your best ever babe and I will post my wife. You will pity your icon Madonna first and then yourself. I have seen the pix of the best Madonna at my wifes age and younger. Simply no contest. I kid you not.

harakiri: Actually, you must get her attention before starting the battle to win her hand.

But as she is so hot, marrying and divorcing at will is fine?

harakiri: "Hot" implies that the individual is of immense value in the dating field. I would have expected you to have understood that rather than make a desperate attempt in making a mountain out of thin air.

Dating field. We are talking suitability for marriage, but even in a dating sense, you honestly consider Madonna of "immense value"? Pray tell, in a "date without long-term comittment sense" what is it about her that is of value? Or what makes her hot. Even saga knows it's about the young and nubile. Mutton dressed as lamb.

harakiri: Marriage is a choice my friend. I am in my thirties and single but believe me, i am far more disciplined and organized than a lot of married folks i know. To be frank, i know married folks that sleep with more ladies than single folks (some of them where much disciplined when they were single). Marry if you must but imposing your perspectives on others is bull$hit.

Yes, marriage is a choice, but like I have said one doesn't have to qualify in any way. If some of the married people you know do not adhere or aspire to the ideal of marriage as I understand it, should I change my perspective to suit their actions? I'm not imposing mine on anyone, but sticking to it myself.

Live a facsimile of the George Clooney lifestyle or any other variation if you please. I have every right and will continue to champion traditional notions of marriage.

harakiri: Yes, i will look older at some point and that's why i am making the most of my youth to acquire as much as i can against old age. When my height,looks and "swag" isn't working anymore, i will turn to good old benjamins that NEVER FAIL to deliver. Word!!!.

Please expantiate here as this is not word to me - sounds like one must be hot or rich to be successful in relationships?

harakiri: Your insecurities are speaking out loud with a megaphone. Being married isn't a guarantee for company at old age. Hell,there are young couples married for less than 10yrs and they feel tied to strangers. When you are old and sickly, you kids will be wishing you just pass away and get on with it. If your wife is still attractive, she'll be praying the choking cough kills you overnite so that she can join the single scene on time again and date fellow widowers like herself (while making use of all your hard earned assets to polish herself up). Word!!!.

And being single - even if rich - is?
They married the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Well raised, mature and appreciative kids? Unlike you I'll pass on the opportunity for a cheap shot.
A well loved and cared for wife.

You sound cynical and totally miss the essence of a mutual loving relationship. With your current mindset, I wouldn't recommend marriage to you.

harakiri: You got married because you want to fit into society. You want to be seen as a "matured man". You have no spine of your own. Your life is dictated by the expectations of the people around you. If those same people urge you to divorce your wife, you will do it to save face. And yet, my comments are "juvenile fantasy". Get real my friend! You are not living YOUR LIFE...You are living your life for others.!!!.

Did you not say marriage was a choice? I made it consciously. Fully understanding and preparing myself first.

Divorce based on the urging of others? Living my life for others? Yet you rebut and decry marriage based on what you see around you? It is you who are living in fear based on the actions/experience of others.

I saw marriage, understood it, entered into it and am loving it. A person who has only been on one side is arguing with a person who has been on both as to which is best.

harakiri: So getting married not equates to being a "man". Funny thing is, most people who i've heard say this are WOMEN and that tells me a lot about your kind of person. You're a sissy.

No, having the write gentic make-up/chromosomes/hormonal balance equates to being a man. Marriage ushers in a new level of maturity and responsibility - for both men and women - if properly understood and entered into. But with the right person, it is extremely fulfilling.

Not having tasted it, you simply cannot comprehend it, so instead of postulating half baked ideas and non-empirical theories, based on your limited experience and media piffle, you should simply refrain or ask of those that have.

Best
TV

Sagamite: Since when did it make sense to say being married denotes and is a sign of responsibility?

Do you know the meaning of responsibility?

Not just being married per se. After all there is no teat or validation required to wed.
The responsibility of putting someone else first, caring for that person sacrificially if required. Of potentially raising children - in incidentally the best setting for them - to become upright and productive members of society in their own right. That is being responsible and more.

Sagamite: Since when did irresponsible people start getting invited to the UN to talk about extremely serious issues

Does someone respected by the UN look irresponsible?

Or are you his landlord and he has been unprincipled and irregular in his rent payments whilst still making millions from his work?

So George Clooney is invited to the UN because he's responsible? Spare me sir. Is he even an expert? He just has a profile and influence. But this is not about being responsible in isolation.

Fiscal responsibility/maturity should be a prerequisite to marriage.

Sagamite: So if a business man or a business advertises his/their numerous successes but not his/thier failures, does that make him a fraudster or the business a fraud?

Is Mckinsey a fraud? Is the Catholic church a fraud? Is Pfizer a fraud? Is British Airways a fraud?

Lets address those before moving to the others you wrote there.

If one is primarily selling marriage counselling or a family oriented product and falsely professes to an idyllic marriage as a means of pitching the endeavour, they are a fraud. Especially if that playing away is ongoing. Yes, there could have been a misstep or any number of issues. But if these were resolved and the ideal restored fine, not if he's an inverterate cheat and pretends otherwise.

Selling yourself or a product based on an ideal you do not truly subscribe to is in a sense fraud. Especially if you are practising the opposite.

Premier league footballers that are whoremongers are selling their soccer skills. They are merely cheats not business/professional fraudsters.

Where British Airways are (or in the past have been)involved in fraudulent/monopolistic practices, regardless of the success of their enterprise, they are still fraudsters, just as yet unexposed.

What's your point exactly? that hiding falsehood does not matter? Fraud and apparent success often go hand in hand. Are'nt we Nigerians again?

Best
TV

Saga, ah!, ah!

How long will you be misled by a few unrepresentative outliers?

Does being a celebrity speaker on Sudan (or any subject), Unicef ambassador or fundraiser make one responsible in a societal/familial sense? Those things are little more than photo ops. Please.

In relationship terms he is unwilling or unable to hold it down. A failed marriage and a string of relationships. Serial dating? At 50? Stop already.

Not following rules? Ignoring societal norms. Fine, no problem. I'm interested to know what improvement that route offers to the rules, or how the replacement for these norms offer the same benefit to society and individuals?

You've yet to spell out a viable alternative, rather you keep peddling this schoolboy fantasy of a revolving door of nubile young beauties until the end. I won't fall for that. Specially not from one with your well publicised brainiac type intellect. Haba!

That's why I say such people can barely see beyond their own desires and gratification. Oya trumpet Madonnas rainbow adoptions na? It doesn't make her/them responsible, it's just an attention grab.

We are talking real life you are referencing hollywood.

Per the Bobo, I repeat if he is playing away and falsely using his supposed idyllic marraige to pitch hemself or his business, I consider him a fraudster. If he is selling his endeavours on other points, no problem, he becomes just another cheat. If.


You didn't answer my question about the girl? Quit frontin' abi na NL sissy?

Best
TV

harakiri: @TV01



First of all, at 32yrs of age i am far from being juvenile and if views that differ from yours now get relegated to the "juvenile" department, then you need to get your wires reset.

@Harakiri, I referred to the notion as juvenile, not you. Prior to your submission, I had no idea as to your age, just some insight into your thoughts on marriage. Having said that age is not in itself an indicator of maturity is it?

harakiri: Second, Madonna in her fifties looks hotter than most women her age and still has much younger men falling over each other to win her attention.

Would you marry a 50 year old - almost certainly menopausal or close to - mother of two, no matter how hot. Would you even enter into a serious relationship with her?

Win her attention, not her hand.

harakiri: Third, George Clooney at 50yrs is one of the hottest middle aged men alive! You would be lucky to look half as hot or as good as him at that age (that's if you don't already look worn out and finished already).

That's twice you've referenced the term "hot"? In as much as what constitutes "hot" is debatable, is that the sole or main criteria for a spouse?

50 years old and middle aged is right. And who doesn't appear to possess the wherewithal to establish a long-term monogamous relationship - to my mind marriage - with anyone, despite being spoilt for choice? That's not hot, that's chilly.

Now to the personal bits. Facially I'll concede the point, but that's still debateable. Physically, I leave the sad old codger iced. Documentary evidence can be provided on request. But be warned, your 32 year old self will also look relatively puny. Oya, beach pix face-off, you first. !

On a serious note, with twenty years of high intensity training behind me and a dietary regime that would scare pre-historic man, I know I no longer possess that vigour of youth. And in men, it starts to wane by the mid thirties at best. And I am not yet 50. No dullin' man, time is yet with you.

Picture this, post that mid thirty point, it's all down hill physically. Ahead lie more frequent and slower to heal injuries (if you are athletic), and various other ailments that will surely visit you as you age (athletic or not). By the time you get to 70, no matter your means and fame, you'll be happy if the nubile young chick - whose name you keep forgetting - just keeps you company and rubs your feet at night. You'll have memories and stories but nothing to show.

Like I said, a juvenile fantasy built on a few well publicised outliers.

Man up. Marry!

Best
TV

Sagamite: Hell No!

It is none of my business. He has the right to privacy and do whatever he wants to do in private.

If he was indeed playing away and if he a selling point of himself and his business is an idyllic marriage that makes him a fraudster. I don't know his wife position, what she's doing or what agreement they have, but the fact remains, he's perpetrating a fraud on the public and has lost any right to privacy in that regard.

Sagamite: You are so wrong it if shocking.

George Clooney is looking like a comic-book hero by the day. Like a fcking ultimate role model.

And the young girls are not marrying young guys for money these days?

No, he is looking more and more like a man who can't manage responsibility beyond the satisfaction of his immediate desires. Notice how his relationships are becoming shorter and shorter? Watch that space long-term, it will be a great case-study. Anyone using him as a template will in all liklihood end up bitter and lonely - if not alone. Especially without his means and fame.

A role model for whom? for what? A generation of feckless men who never mature into adulthood. He is little better than your typical callow baby-father. Just richer more famous and a little more careful. No woman who holds her long-term relationship health and has a pure - not just immediate gratification and the chance to tailcoat in mind - vision for her future will get with or stay with him.


Part of the responsibility of being a man is to locate and find a girl who matches up and wants to commit to marriage for the right reasons and because you are the right person. That has nothing to do with money. Or fame.

Any news? Has any comely lass made it past your intellect lately?

Best
TV

Firstly
I can't believe y'all are having this convo without me! Me! NL' #1 marriage champion, defender of the marital union and upholder of uxoral bliss.

Secondly
Miss Ife, you are doing an excellent job of championing that most cherished of institutions. Salute, very well done and take honorary title.

Thirdly
Hopefully, one day those that don't know will desist from characterising that which they don't understand and ask those that do know for understanding.

Fourthly
Sagamite, your playing away bobo on the plane - if he was indeed playing away - has utterly foregone any right to anonymity. If he was playing away whilst using the image of an idyllic marriage to publicly sell himself and his business. Not that I want to know or feel he should be exposed, just that the basis you gave is not the right one.

Fifthly
Juvenile notions of being 70 with a nubile 30 year old on your arm don't hold water. Whatever your gender. See how sorry Madonna looks. Her boyfriends are pretty much her daughters class-mates. Tragic for them both. George Clooney is looking sadder by the day and he's barely 50. Face it when you're that age, the probability is that anyone so young and fit getting with you, is not for you but for your fame and/or money.And it's highly unlikely any of you will ever have the means to live that lifestyle anyway.

Lastly
Don't be down on marriage because of what typically obtains. Look at the ideal and find someone that understands, shares and is willing to commit to the same. Do of course fancy them like mad.

Quit being afraid, dive in. Men Marry!

Happy to give a rousing sermon on the day in western or traditional attire.

Best
TV

No.

Thanks for the link. I filled out the online form and commented as follows;

I belive marriage as a civil or religious ceremony should retain its religious and historical context as being between a man and a woman and not be varied in any way to accomodate "same-sex" couples.

If an arrangement is made for same-sex couples, it should be distinct from "traditional marriage" and only exist legally, with no overlap - be that discretionary/voluntary or mandatory - with religious/faith based ceremonies between a man and a woman.

I would also prefer that any such accomodation for same-sex couples was not "termed" marriage" either in part or whole. Just to be clear.


Reading the form and some of the back-up documentation only helped re-affirm myposition. The "authorities" are intent with pressing on with this and the consultation is only with regard some of the detail.

Any variation of the traditional/historical concept of marriage to accomodate same-sex couples I would consider a perversion. Likewise any variation of the religious - Christian in my case - template, i.e. more/different reasons for divorce and the de facto assumption that divorce even if permitted - in the case of adultery - pressuposes remarriage if chosen, I would consider likewise.

Thanks
TV

sosoluv: if a woman doesnt not satisfy a man sexually (does not have sex with him at all) then she in not caring enough, but when she needs him to show how much he cares financially it becomes a problem. the day you start showing you care without expecting sex from a woman is the day more woman will stop expecting a guy to show he cares financially too

davidylan: why is a woman's idea of a man caring about her have to do with finances all the time?

Through the ages sex - and for the most part with women on the receiving end - has been commoditised. Indeed, even in a regularised union between couples finances are a consideration.

The tragedy being that in this day what, what was fringe, is now mainstream and what was a consideration is for many now the whole basis and driving reason.

I have little doubt that the interweaving of caring, finances and sex is not only not questioned these days, but considered right. So there you have it, monetised and purely transactional, you get what you pays for is the norm for many.

Best
TV

I often wonder what thought has precedes voicing the now all but clichéd ...”there is no perfect marriage”? Especially as it never seems to be voiced except in a pejorative sense.

Is anything on God’ green earth perfect? Even the green earth sef? Outside of a Divine Almighty Creator – for those that believe – I ask again, is anything perfect?

To be able to recognise an imperfect marriage, surely there must be a template, an ideal, against which to deem others imperfect?

Something is perfect - IMO – when it does what it is meant to do, exactly what it was designed for. To fully understand marriage is to grasp that it is perfect for us, is meant to help perfect us. And perfection is end game, not necessarily the starting point.

Interested to hear why peoples marriages are not perfect, what they are doing to perfect them. And why with the belief that it can’t/won’t be, they got married in the first place?

Best
TV


_{So Shymmex, what does your worldview tell you about marriage?}

shymmex: My worldview??

I would call myself a Yoruba guy at heart, but a Londoner on the outside...

Which means, I'm a westernized Afrocentric (Yorubacentric) guy - the best of both worlds, but more ingrained into the Yoruba culture and Yoruba way of life.

Most peoples worldviews are driven by faith, culture (and experience?). Most faiths/cutures have a template for adulthood (maturity)and for marriage. I am not saying that I believe they are all equal or equally good - I personally subscribe to a Christian worldview - but it should be as simple as saying, understand and embrace the ideal within that faith/culture, find a woman who does likewise to a very great degree and then get married.

But it's not that simple is it? Everything from personal preference, to bad practise to foreign influence has caused ideals to be muddied and loosened as anchors. It can be very confusing.

Best
TV

_{(Alternatively, if one is bold enough, construct their own reality in this regard, either from scratch or an amalgam of whats out there, but you still have to find the girl - or build it in tandem with her - that buys into it, then get married. I am yet to see this, but park that thought for now).}

shymmex: What makes marriage thick?

For every union, that is unique. What you bring to it is what makes it tick, the desire, commitment, expectation, maturity, wisdom and understanding.

shymmex: And why must everyone get married - if many people are looking for ways to get out of it?

For various reasons, not everyone will get married, but it is in a sense the "default and for one not to marry there will be cogent reason.

"Many looking to get out", is in short because "many didn't look (i.e, understand and embrace it properly) before they went in.


It would help to know your worldview before we progress.

Best TV