MRBrownJ:


so "network" had you posting this msg on 2 different threads that AINT the thread where i wrote that above post?! ok....

again, if what your mother is doing isnt her choice but her DUTY, meaning that even if she decides one day that she doesnt want to do any of it, she still MUST, then yes, a slave she is... no matter how much she is comfortable doing her duty. same as any housegirl's duty.

ps dont confuse enforced duties with responsibility

MRBrownJ:


so "network" had you posting this msg on 2 different threads that AINT the thread where i wrote that above post?! ok....

again, if what your mother is doing isnt her choice but her DUTY, meaning that even if she decides one day that she doesnt want to do any of it, she still MUST, then yes, a slave she is... no matter how much she is comfortable doing her duty. same as any housegirl's duty.

ps dont confuse enforced duties with responsibility

nasha1:


lol so cleaning ur house,caring 4 ur kids nd a man u love while ur husband do the same with job nd all the financial responsabilities is a duty?i must say it must have been very hard 4 ur mum,poor her.Was she forced 2 care 4 u and ur siblings? i mean a woman taking care 4 her OWN kids is a duty? a woman cleaning where she lives is a duty? because the man goes out everyday,morning till night,who spend more time at home?smh
that means all the single mums are slaves,wonderful!

MRBrownJ:


again, back in the days of our forefathers, mothers had NO choice and their JOB was to cook and clean and care for the household. today women are gainfully employed, and therefore they have a CHOICE... but if a woman today decides to live the TRADITIONAL way, then yes she will remain the "choiceless" slaves that our mothers were.... thus cooking and cleaning will be her enforced duties.

nasha1:


smh a woman who decides to live the traditional way
decision: a choice that you make about something after thinking about several possibilities

is a slave because she will remain choiceless because she CHOSE it ? i am done with u. Please take care of ur mum,she needs it

MRBrownJ:


bwaaaaah, here is another one who has English comprehension issues..... again, if a woman decides to live the traditional way then YES that person has no choice but to cook and clean as a slave (whether she likes it or not), because thats what the traditional way is about

fancyupage:
A SLAVE has no choice. As long as you can choose from different options then it is called FREEDOM. A woman that chose to be a "traditional" wife is not a SLAVE. If a woman is forced to do it without her consent then that is SLAVERY.

MRBrownJ:


- does this woman, married the traditional way, has the choice to decide when she will cook and clean?!
- can this woman, married the traditional way, decide that she wont cook a certain week?
- can this woman go against the authority of her husband?

whether she decides to enter such marriage on her own freewill or not is irrelevant to the fact that her status in that union is to be under that man's authority, and cook/clean as her daily duty, whether she consent to it or not. just because today many desperate women gladly accept the "slavery" due to social/religious/peer/family pressures of being married at all cost(and seemingly be happy), is irrelevant here... as soon as she enters such union, she becomes a SLAVE (willingly or unwillingly). i know many of you dont like the word but thats what a wife in a traditional wedding is. she is ruled by her husband, and whatever he says, goes.

nasha1:


This is the silliest comment i have read on nl. If this is what happened 2 ur mum,then ur father needs 2 be shot.
A housewife has a choice 2 cook anytime she pleases nd any food she pleases.she can sleep the whole day nd cook when her husband return from work,she can clean at her own convenience,she can travel whenever she wants nd go to parties with her husband.she can go shopping with her husband money nd enjoy a massage when hubby is working.she can watch tv the whole day because the remaining food she cooked yesterday will still serve the family for 2 days.she can decide 2 do laundry on weekends only. I am with a housewife right now doing her nails and left her 1 years old with her hubby at home because they have a reception this afternoon.
jesus where are u from? wow
what is the definition of slave?why did u choose 2 sound this dumb all of a sudden?

nasha1:


This is the silliest comment i have read on nl. If this is what happened 2 ur mum,then ur father needs 2 be shot.
A housewife has a choice 2 cook anytime she pleases nd any food she pleases.she can sleep the whole day nd cook when her husband return from work,she can clean at her own convenience,she can travel whenever she wants nd go to parties with her husband.she can go shopping with her husband money nd enjoy a massage when hubby is working.she can watch tv the whole day because the remaining food she cooked yesterday will still serve the family for 2 days.she can decide 2 do laundry on weekends only. I am with a housewife right now doing her nails and left her 1 years old with her hubby at home because they have a reception this afternoon.
jesus where are u from? wow
what is the definition of slave? Wait, what am i reading? why did u choose 2 sound this dumb all of a sudden?

fancyupage:

@MrBrownJ, you seems to think all employees are slaves because they have to follow the company's guidelines if they want to remain an employee.

fancyupage:


@Nasha1 and MrBrownJ please let us remain civil with putting our positions across.

I agree with most of your points nasha1.

@MrBrownJ, you seems to think all employees are slaves because they have to follow the company's guidelines if they want to remain an employee.

MRBrownJ:


again, these are the questions, a YES or NO will do
- does this woman, married the traditional way, has the choice to decide when she will cook and clean?! (meaning cook/clean somedays and not thers)
- can this woman, married the traditional way, decide that she wont cook a certain week?
- can this woman go against the authority of her husband?

crackhaus:

Idealistic, but unrealistic.

This is going to infringe on a citizen's right to/freedom of association.

Stillfire:



I do not agree it will infringe on the citizen's right to associate if we define marriage in terms of a contract. There are penalties when you go against a contract.

nasha1:


I am sorry but i cant help it when a grown up man (educated) reasons like this,then i cant help it.
postmann ur attention is needed.

MRBrownJ:


so you mean you WOULDNT cheat if you had a mad man as a partner?

makes sense, but sadly:
1) such law would simply facilitate cheating for rich men, who would gladly pay the fines
2) such law would remove the responsibility of acting RIGHT in marriage, from spouse to government.... no bueno!
3) such law focusses solely on compensating the cheated and doesnt really help the institution of marriage
4) such law "punishes" men who want out of marriage,as if marriage was a life sentence
5) such law favors the desperate women who pretend to be who they are NOT until they get married, and reveal their true self after marriage, thus wanting to stay married AT ALL COST (even if/when they are in a miserable union)
6) such law favors the women who were sexy and attractive before marriage, and who turned into baby whales after a few babies, and forces their husbands to stay with them, even if they dont want to any longer.
7) the cheating partner, AND the person he cheated with, would need to be punished for this law to make some sense. any woman/man sleeping with a married person must pay half the fine imposed... so that people must think twice before being with anyone

TV01:

Exactly - "fault divorce". Indeed, "no-fault" divorce is an oxymoron. Although forgiveness and restoration should be sought first, and at least be an option.

Yes, sanctions up to and including imprisonment are not unreasonable.

Exactimundo - the institution will be entered to more soberly - as it was, and should be done.


A1* . Given the purpose and benefits of marriage, it should be shored up all round and supported by force of law. Divorce is actually the anti-thesis of marriage, so shoring up divorce can only serve to weaken marriage.


In faith terms I disagree with a "right to leave". You had a right to "not enter in the first place". But this is much better than what we have - and in fact, was what we used to have.


Again, I disagree with the former, but agree with the latter. An "open marriage" is not a marriage. Another oxy-slowpoke. Marriage is by definition about life-long fidelity. Simply refrain from marriage as stated - people are free to order their domestic arrangements as they see fit. If they are eligible for, and choose marriage, they abide by it's strictures.


TV

crackhaus:

Marriage is already a contract by civil law, but it ain't the kind of contract that can attract the penalty of a fine/jail time should one or more of the parties involved be found wanting.

The reason for this is because, as much as it's a contract pledging commitment between two people, you really can't force anyone to remain committed to another person on an emotional and sexual level against his/her own freewill - that will be tantamount to abuse on one's civil liberties.

Which is why there is an option for divorce (terminating said contract) should one or both parties require an out.

Stillfire:
No I would not cheat. I have the option of separation and divorce.

These sanctions are just a rough schematic. I believe our abled lawyers and legislative arms will do more justice to these suggestions I have made if they are ever enforced.

1) I knew you were going to come with the rich men angle. Fines however will be dependent on percentages like taxes. E.g 90% of the cheater's salary would be taken by the government for 6 months. It's not going to be a definite amount but as a proportion to ones income

2) I don't believe so.

3) Compensation is not bad. It's better than staying in a typical adulterous Nigerian marriage with no compensation.

4 & 5) There is also the option of not getting married. You guys always talk about not wanting to get married. I think you should be grateful instead you have a reason not to get married. It will limit the mockery the institution has been reduced to. Marriage would then more likely be for serious people.

Marriage should be seen as a contract. In fact the state needs to draw up a contract, laying out generic rules and regulations. Now each couple can now tweak those rules as they please depending on what they would like from the marriage, including clauses for sanctions and penalties. If any party goes against whatever they agreed to, they should be penalized.

6) lol, include it to your marriage contract that she has no right to get fat.

7) absolutely. I have no issue in punishing the mistress/mister. For example North Carolina has a law where the spouse that was cheated on can sue the mister/mistress for alienation of affection.

In summary, the marriage institution needs some regulation in Nigeria. As of now we are power is being given to divorce rather than the institution itself.

Stillfire:


The aim is not to force people but to regulate during the marriage and not only at termination. Of course the freedom of terminating a marriage would be there. Termination of a marriage also comes with a price. So losing time and money is not new. It's not much of a contract if one can leave by their own 'free will' throwing the other spouse into emotional turmoil. Modern marriage should be seen as a business contract with each party detailing what they expect from each other with penalties if one goes against it. I believe this is fair.

MRBrownJ:


i am just gonna copy and paste my reply since your are asking the same question all over my posts...

any women who lived the traditional way were slaves to their husbands, yes!!! doing ALL the chores wasnt even a debate, it was their JOBS, whether they liked it or not. husband's only job was to go to work and make money. if thats what your mother does tday then yes she is a slave indeed.

Mindfulness:
I respect your beliefs - at least as much as I can - but I don't share them.

Mindfulness:
Is the contract signed under the provision that cheating must be punished?

Mindfulness:
The fact that it was previously so doesn't mean that it must be so now. There are good reasons why no fault divorced has been introduced.

Mindfulness:
In the USA couples can decide to enter a distinct form of marriage, which is called covenant marriage (I don't know about other countries), in which the marrying spouses agree to accept more limited grounds for divorce.

Mindfulness:

This is NOT true.

A marriage is a legally recognized relationship.
If the marriage breaks down, custody and alimony laws apply, which regulate the separation.
In many countries, both parents are granted shared custody if a child is born.
The child has the father's name in majority of the cases, provided the parents are married.
It is not as easy to leave a marriage as it is other relationships.
Married people have certain rights if anything happens to their spouse.
And people who marry officially announce their intention to commit to their partner for the rest of their lives, which makes marriages more stable than other relationships.

Mindfulness:
I have never said that the only way to resolve the issue is to cheat. In fact, I think, that it backfires more often than not but I also think that your position that every problems in marriage can be solved is quite idealistic or even naive. I do not mean to be disrespectful.

Stillfire:
Lol, I agree that the idea of an open marriage is an oxymoron. I just threw that in there for the non- religious amongst us. Now for the religious ones, and since Nigeria boasts to be a religious country, I really don't see how sanctions and penalties for adultery should be a problem, lol.

TV01:

You neither respect, nor share my beliefs. And that is neither here nor there, as I don't really care. Plus the feeling is mutual .

If reneging on a contract goes without sanction, what is the point of the contract?

They are?

When you understand the reasons for, purpose of, and benefits from marriage, you'll realise that there is in truth only one form of marriage.

However I fully understand that men are able to make variations on true marriage, yet still retain the label. The question is, does doing so deliver the same benefits?

Are you now championing marriage ?

But how, if cheating should be allowed and non-punishable, or partners allowed to depart whenever they choose, make it more stable or harder to leave

Here you make a somewhat classic case for marriage, whilst at the same time refusing to live by it's dictates in your own marriage?. I come to realise that most people don't argue from principle, just from a desire to justify what they practice.

And nobody - at least I didn't - claim that you said "the only way" to resolve the issue is to cheat. What you have clearly implied, is that "cheating is a valid way".

Like I said, you neither share not respect my beliefs . But to be sure, every problem in marriage can at the very least be attempted to be resolved, and often workable compromises can be reached. That does not mean that every issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of both, or even one of the parties. It just demonstrates that the commitment to the union is present.

Indeed, the more you write, the more you demonstrate that your commitment is only ever to yourself (your own happiness. It's weird as well that on one hand, you emphasise that you are not bound by societal norms or conventions, yet you insist on dressing your choices in the garb of normalcy? Insisting they are as right, even spiritual

I actually think I despise yours more than you hate mine. And you only hate mine because they don't validate yours. .

crackhaus:
Marriage is already a contract by civil law, but it ain't the kind of contract that can attract the penalty of a fine/jail time should one or more of the parties involved be found wanting.

crackhaus:
The reason for this is because, as much as it's a contract pledging commitment between two people, you really can't force anyone to remain committed to another person on an emotional and sexual level against his/her own freewill - that will be tantamount to abuse on one's civil liberties.

crackhaus:
Which is why there is an option for divorce (terminating said contract) should one or both parties require an out.

crackhaus:
Another thing to note is that most contracts are not given lifetime validity, so are you then saying the marriage contract should hold on a minimum of 5years after which either party can choose to renew it for up to 10years or choose to end it?

crackhaus:
If this is the case, them your idealism might begin to make more sense...but on the account that you want to keep people in a lifetime union by imposing jail time or fines, then that's just not gonna cut it.

Mindfulness:
I have already explained it. There are some legal benefits that result from this contract.

Mindfulness:
I think it is sick to marry for the reason that it gives you control over your spouse.

Mindfulness:
I expect my spouse to be loyal and respectful because he wants to and not because he has to. If he doesn't want to respect our relationship, then good riddance to ...

Mindfulness:
Yes and I am sure you know it.
I would much rather try to maintain a friendly relationship with the father of my kids if he decided to behave in
a way that is not pleasing to me then have him punished. It wouldn't help me at all.

Mindfulness:
Never has been and never will be.

Mindfulness:
Which benefits? Do you really think that everyone wants the same benefits as you do? Certainly not.

Mindfulness:
Certainly not your understanding of marriage but this should come as no surprise.

Mindfulness:
Divorce is expensive. This in itself makes it harder for people to leave.

Mindfulness:
No, I don't.
I am enjoying all the legal benefits that come with marriage without acting like it is some sort of bondage.
We entered the union voluntarily and we are free to exit it voluntarily.
I certainly won't force anyone to stay with me who doesn't want to.

Mindfulness:
I have not said it was valid, I have simply presented a life experience where it has been helpful.

Mindfulness:
I am sure most people try to resolve their conflicts before they think of separation.

Mindfulness:
I am very committed to myself and my happiness, which is not exclusive to being committed to other people in my life. How is it your problem?

Mindfulness:
Well, I don't hate you or your views. I ignore them most of the time. It wasn't me who quoted you on this thread. Maybe you were too slow to notice that I choose to quote you when I like your comment instead feeling bitter about comments that go against my beliefs. I love the freedom to choose what I like instead of focusing on the things I don't like.
It is your choice to contaminate your system with negative vibes of scorn.

TV01:

Legal benefits granted by the state - if said benefits were not already inherent in marriage - are not the reason for marriage. You get the state benefits because you are married, marriage is not so that you can garner state benefits.

Again, a diminished understanding of marriage and it's commitment.

It's "good riddance" now is it ? Not, "whatever makes one happy"

No fault divorce has nothing to do with kids, or actually does anything to maintain friendly relationships.

ndeed, when there was "fault", divorcing couples use dot focus their energy on the fault. Now their is "no-fault", they typically focus on the terms of the separation, often the kids.

Lots of relationship forms, but only 1 type of marriage as defined.

The benefits are multi-level. Not just for the individuals, and not much to do with legally sanctioned goodies .

Championing marriage is primarily by living it, not commandeering it as it suits in order to validate ones choices.

I'm no expert on divorce, but that would only be if the couple make it so.

It's not by force, or controlling. It's by choice and commitment. Like I said, a diminished grasp of the marriage institution. One that at best, only sees it as a vehicle for your happiness.

Either you are saying it is valid because it is helpful, or that doing something wrong is valid if it is helpful. Which just suggests you don't subscribe to moral absolutes, rather consider outcomes. Happiness again

Or cheating

Don't get into a funk - you have repeatedly stated that you are only responsible for your own happiness. And more tellingly, emphasised that you are not responsible for the unhappiness you leave in your wake whilst in search of your own happiness.

Like coyly claiming to respect my opinions, then labelling them naïve and idealistic in the same breathe .

Mindfulness:
Whatever you call it, it doesn't change the fact that you and many other people use marriage to gloss over their feelings of insecurity.

Mindfulness:
I don't need to understand marriage as some sort of bondage so that I feel secure. And I don't need to punish people to feel better.

Mindfulness:
Fault divorce makes divorce messier than it needs to be and greatly diminishes chances for parents to maintain a friendly parental relationship for the sake of their kids.

Mindfulness:
When there was fault divorcing, people used to stay together by force maintaining an unhealthy environment for everyone involved.

Mindfulness:
And one of the benefits is to make another person stay with you by force?

Mindfulness:
I don't need to champion anything. I live my life and marriage as it suits me, whether you like it or not.

Mindfulness:
No! Divorce is costly in many countries whether the couples want it or not.

Mindfulness:

It definitely is a catalyst to my happiness.
Happiness is the purpose of my life by CHOICE.

That too.

I have not said that I am ONLY responsible for my happiness, I have said that I am PRIMARILY and EXCLUSIVELY responsible for my happiness.

Mindfulness:
You are too sensitive now.

TV01:

Please explain this - how do I use marriage to "gloss over my insecurity" ?

How can choice and consensuality be deemed bondage?

In what way does "fault" divorce make separation messier? And how does it make parents less friendly?

Firstly, separated parents is always unhealthy for kids.

Secondly, fault divorce means that marriage is less likely to be treated as a disposable relationship that can be canned on a whim.

And thirdly it meant that there was some sort of recompense for the wronged party.

Utterly bogus. No one gets married by force.

Don't be touchy. Be proud. Truth has no problem being shouted from the roof-tops

Divorce is not costly. Individuals make it costly - https://www.gov.uk/divorce/overview

Repeated - and varied to suit - ad nauseum

Only to your finely honed dribbling skills. !


TV

Mindfulness:
If you need laws to control and punish your partner in case she steps out of the line, then you don't trust her and you need legal support to soothe your fear in case she won't.

Mindfulness:
It is bondage once you demand punishment for someone who re-considers his choice for whatever reason. People should commit because they want and not because they are forced to. It beats my imagination how anyone would want to be with someone who stays with them by force.

Mindfulness:
People do not always agree on whose fault it was that led to the marriage break-down so they will try to prove that it wasn't their fault but the other person's, which in result will lead to a very messy divorce, the washing of dirty linen and ultimately to means that do not justify the purpose.

Mindfulness:
I would much rather go for a peaceful arrangement than a war even if it was me who was wronged. I would much rather maintain a friendly relationship with the father of my child than have a compensation that would destroy any friendly relation, which would make matters even worse for my child in the long run.

Mindfulness:
So are unhealthy relationships and at times even more unhealthy.

Mindfulness:
I am yet to see people who divorce based on a whim.

Mindfulness:
What compensation do you want the wronged party to receive?

Mindfulness:
And therefore nobody should be forced to remain in a marriage.

Mindfulness:
I don't have to shout it from the roof-tops to feel validated.

Mindfulness:
Divorce is ALWAYS costly. And even if it wasn't, the wronged party can make it so if it helps them to feel better.

Mindfulness:

You are free to ignore nauseating comments.
You seem to have masochistic tendencies.

Mindfulness:
I didn't know I have that much power over you.