50 SHADES OF LUST

 
My Dear, seems your boyfriend is into kinky sex; he's you know 50 Shades of Grey. The demands he's making on you seems to point in that direction. He has a fetishism for hair and smell, that's why he's making those demands. He gets offended if you shave any part of you, you say and when you're together he likes to smell "you".

He's actually getting high on pheromones. When he's high he gets sexually aggressive.  It's why on those three occasions he couldn't stop himself from trying to violate your agreement on no premarital sex. Though he says he knows what he's doing I'm not really sure he's in a position to make that judgment. Your relationship is hardly months old yet it's so sexually charged I doubt if you'll be able to keep that vow. Being real.

You say he wants you to send him constant pictures of yourself. The incessancy of the demand is what's troubling. Young men in love sometimes demand for real time picture feeds but I’m not sure this is so much about love. The picture demands might get more explicit and soon there may be progression to trophies. He may soon start to demand the mailing of certain items of clothing too indecorous for my mention. You're lucky though that you're in different parts of town. But aren't you running a huge risk each time you meet? Going by the contents of your letter this guy may rape you some day. He's constantly high on pheromones. In the world he inhabits your objections and protestations may actually be read as relish. Paul recommends marriage if you can't handle sexual pressure in a relationship. He called sexual pressure "burning", as in burning with lust. If you can't control yourself marry he says.

Told you God is interested in boyfriend/girlfriend relationships, didn't I! We're the religious ones. God is not religious. He's not too "holy" to discuss intimate details of our existence! Unfortunately you're still in school. Your parents won't consent to marriage at this stage of your life. Even if, you hardly know this guy (obviously). Your relationship is inchoate, incipient. You can't and shouldn't marry someone you hardly know. Your relationship is just a couple of months old. You can't even be talking of marriage. Clearly you're not of kinky sexual persuasion. It's why you're having internal conflicts. You're not exposed in that direction and you're having trouble reconciling yourself to his increasingly weird demands.

He's also mandated you to stay slim, not to put on any weight. In future how's he going to deal with pregnancy? The only reason you're hanging on to this guy is because he's the only one who's paid you any attention in a long time. That's why you're yielding to demands you're not comfortable with. You're afraid of losing him. I understand. It's a typical dilemma and it's faced by many girls. The fear of losing a relationship sometimes makes us accommodating and amenable to unusual demands. Your boyfriend knows you weren't getting that much attention before he came along and he's exploiting it. Despite his promises to you he's going to keep chipping away at your resistance until you succumb.

Don't believe what a man says with his mouth if his actions say otherwise. Funnily enough your lack of exposure to his world is a turn on for him. He likes the fact he's breaking you in. The bigger issue though is the issue of sexual compatibility in a relationship. I don't know how you're ever going to be able to satisfy this man carnally in marriage. He's at one extreme- extreme left. You're right of right. Many times people don't pay attention to the issue of sexual compatibility in a relationship. That creates tension later. If you don't have the same taste in sex and don't share proclivity how's it going to work? He's going to be frustrated. He's going to make demands you're going to say no to, or acquiesce to with reluctance. That won't satisfy him psychologically. It sometimes amazes me that dating couples don't take time to discuss sexual compatibility yet they discuss children! Marriages have been known to break down from the frustration of sexual incompatibility. And how does a man with a liberal disposition towards sex want to marry an ultra conservative woman? The cracks will show up in time and widen with time. Sexual frustration in marriage is a big issue!

If you want to marry someone you want to discuss all subjects- money, babies, careers, beauty, fashion, extended family... If he has religious reservation on a mode of dressing that's not just about clothes. It's a life philosophy issue. It's going to spread beyond ear rings and clothes...to kids' education, your career, social circles, TV programs... Find out what he wants. Some people want joint account for example, some don't want it. Don't be too shy to discuss salient issues like sex. Aren't you going to be naked with him after marriage? You may not agree on everything but at least put issues on the table. That's how you craft a compromise.

 If you don't want surprises and unhappiness in marriage you better start broaching certain subjects now. What are his views about family coming to live with you after marriage for example? What is his philosophy of finance? What are his views on the financial role of a wife, about women earnings? What about his views on conflict resolution when there's a disagreement? Is the resolution mechanism the extended family? You've got to have his views on his beloved mama! Does he believe she has an executive role in your marriage? His sisters? You've got to have an idea of his ideas about sex. You're going to have sexual congress in marriage. Young men have fantasies.

A young man who wants to date you and tells you he believes in one night stands is telling you something bigger than obvious. A young man who wants to date you as a divorcee but let it slip he can't take a divorcee home to mama is saying something. As well as a young man who doesn't believe in going to church is saying something to you. You better listen. Better to accept people for what they are than to seek to change them. What if they don't change after marriage? Don't fall for the myth of you as saviour and converter of souls. The title is already taken.

I say discuss everything... And I mean everything...if you're going to spend the rest of your life with someone. Certain discussions are too late after the marriage ceremony. Some things should be said before saying "I do"

MOTHER IN LAW

To be honest with you, there are 3 types of mothers-in-law. You have the good, the insouciant and the... what has now come to be known as the erm... monster-in-law. May you be so fortunate to have a loving and kind mother-in-law.

It's unfortunate that the term mother-in-law has almost become synonymous with tyranny and colonial authority. Yet some mothers-in-law are so wonderful they are a factor in the love the woman has for their son. Same holds for the men. The truth is some men married their wives for the love of their mother-in-law. But some mothers-in-law are so oppressive their son's marriage is only holding because of the special grace of God!

There's the case of the mother-in-law who landed a vulgar slap on the face of her daughter-in-law, right in front of her son! She left an indelible memory of unprovoked aggression on the face of her daughter-in-law turning it into plasticine. The truth is, only the son can protect his wife from his mother. If he won't, you're in a difficult position. Unfortunately, not many sons can confront bad behaviour in their mum. There's that inexplicable mother-son inhibition. May have something to do with feeling guilty for all the milk taken in infancy. The milk for some mothers was given on credit. In reality, there are very few people with the emotional energy to confront a mother-in-law who's a monster-in-law.

As a daughter-in-law you'll come off in very bad light being confrontational with your mum-in-law. If you're African, there are cultural refrainments and considerations. And culture can be powerful. I suggest you and your husband have a constitutional conference, if you're in this predicament. Why are some mothers-in-law this way? Why are they local government terrors? Has nothing to do with you really. Unless of course you did something untoward like being disrespectful.

A mother-in-law wants respect be she African, Asian, Arabian, American or European. The manner of expression of respect demanded may differ but the principle holds. If you're meeting your African mother-in-law for the first time, it can't be wise to be culturally disdainful. You'll come off as a product of poor upbringing, lacking in manners and tutorial resistant. An ákògbà.  If the bad blood from your mother-in-law proceeds from your magnificent display of lack of wisdom, you brought it on yourself. It's not a sign of "exposure" to culturally disrespect your future mother-in-law. The least you can do is respect her age. You're not yet in, mind you! And she can give you a lot of trouble. A whole lot of trouble! She can truncate the wedding; or make it emotionally expensive. She's that powerful. You don't need such trouble.

But some mothers-in-law don't proceed from provocation. They have an intrinsic capacity for distemperate comportment. Often times they're battling their own demons - their pasts, their pains and disappointments. If they've been neglected or badly treated growing up or in marriage, they simply reference their reaction, channeling anger. And sometimes it's envy. They're envious of their daughter-in-law. Envious she got a good man in their son.

Sometimes it's possessiveness. They want to hold on to their son. Won't let go. Both of you are now two girls tugging at a doll. Sometimes it's angst. They graphically portray their treatment in the hands of their father or mother, or guardian. Or husband. And sometimes it's just bad influencers in the form of extended family members and "friends" - envious lot!  Some people are very impressionable. They just follow the directives of others; influenced to afflict the home of their son.

And then there's the bad aspect of certain culture that sees wives as disposables and interchangeables. A wife can leave a man at any time but a mother can never leave, the justification says. Yet the scriptures say a father and mother can forsake their child; that a mother can forget her suckling. What's the basis of comparison between a mother-in-law and a daughter-in-law? "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife" seems so straightforward! The scripture is not, "For this cause shall a man marry and cling on to his mother."

Now, there are power variants of the bad mother-in-law. Some are colonialists. Some are extension workers. Some are continuing education mother-in-law, and some are avatar mother-in-law. The colonialist mother-in-law wants to commandeer her son's home and marriage. She'll take over the kitchen, dictate what goes on in the house, even lay down laws. The extension worker mother-in-law wants to extend her home into her son's home. She sees both as a continuum. She feels she can move in and out of her son's home like it's an architectural addendum to her abode. The continuing education mother-in-law wants to keep dictating instructions to her son, telling her full grown son what to do. The avatar mother-in-law wants to replicate the life she wished she had through her son. She lives through him. The end result is an oppressed young wife who's a tenant in her own home, with a resident permit in her matrimony.

I blame the sons for this kind of situation. He needs to define boundaries for his intrusive mother, though respectfully. He needs to make it known to his mum it's not her home. Such mums won't stop! Not without nouthetic confrontation.

A matrimonial home has specific constitution. It does not include the mother-in-law. As a wife you must be wise and firm with such mother-in-law if you want to be happy in your home. Respectfully lay claim to your home. Don't be rude. You can't be. She's your mother-in-law. Trust me, such a mother-in-law won't take what she's dishing out to you; or allow her daughter to be so treated.

A good mother-in-law treats her daughter-in-law like her own daughter; cares for her, prays for her. A good mother-in-law does not intrude into her son's matrimonial home and affair. A good mother-in-law does not compete for the affection of her son with her daughter-in-law. There's no basis for it! A good mother-in-law does not seek to tarnish the image of her daughter-in-law, or turn her into a social fodder.

A good mother-in-law is a blessing, not a burden. She must not become a goddess who must be appeased. A good mother-in-law will not visit physical violence on her daughter-in-law, or facilitate one. A good mother-in-law does not selfishly seek to destroy her son's home. She respects her son's marriage. A good mother-in-law is graceful, accommodating, benevolent. She's understanding and generous in disposition. A good mother-in-law mentors her daughter-in-law.

May you be so lucky, like Ruth. And may God give your husband knowledge and courage.

TEMPER

let's talk a little about uncomfortable truths this morning - about this temper thing.
men are very uncomfortable with temperamental women, and you'll see why. The man will friend-zone you if you're temperamental. Which is an irony - a reverse equation. That means he'll like hanging out with you, but won't dare commit because he's afraid of being in a relationship with that temper. In a man's thinking he can hang out with you because it's not his problem. It's your future husband's problem. And some men will just take off! Can't handle it. For the alpha male it means you're incontrollable. Temper is scary to men!

Now, here's the thing about temper: no one will tell you the truth about you and your temperament, and its implications. Everyone will be scared of telling you the truth. Your temper will thus seem relationship compatible. No one is complaining! And so you won't understand why none of those guys want to date you. They'll stop just short of crossing the line. Why won't people tell you? Because it's too much agro (aggravation). Requires too much emotional expenditure. No one wants to put himself through talking to someone who can't listen and who won't listen! The world view of a temperamental person shuts out correction. That temper makes relationship difficult!

Another reason people won't tell is because they're scared of becoming enemies. Your temper may tag them enemies. So you have this self protective hypocrisy going on, people walking gingerly around you, avoiding certain inflections. Your cauldron of magma can boil over at any moment and they don't want you rude to them. Will destroy the relationship. You're a great friend to have nonetheless, though difficult. You have your value and you have your use. They'll call you for movies if they need to take out a friend. But they're stopped from taking things further. And so they'll make friends with you but go on to marry someone else. You may become a perpetual wedding planner. Your male friends are not volunteering to take permanent custody of that temper. The men will thus rather relate on a free agency basis than go into marital residency with you.

The reason men are scared of temperamental women is because men are innately wired to desire peace. Moodiness... temperament... controlling tendencies... nastiness... These emotional spectra are anti well being for men. As for controlling tendency, it's usually borne out of insecurity - the need to take control to avoid hurt.

For some women however, it's a result of the environment they grew up in. It's all they know. It's therefore normative. And those who grow up in the shadow of a domineering father, or pushful mother tend to become them trying to resist them. They know if they don't push back, emotional imbecility will be thrust upon them. Fear.
men don't like being controlled or being dictated to. Something about it insults a man's sense of worth, his valuation. he'll resist silently and determinedly. And that's the most dangerous type of male resistance. You won't see it. And so it's not really that men are "scared" of you because you're an independent woman, they're just being wise about that temper and that domineering and controlling tendency.

I've told you before, men project. That's the way men think. And it's not irrational. In fact it's very rational. A man says to himself, "If she can be this temperamental over this little issue, will I be able to handle her?" Doubt. Or he says to himself, "If she can shout this much over a misdemeanour by her staff, can I handle it!?" Fear. The anger or temperament need not be directed at the man. Just you shouting at your staff can make a man take off. Again, projection. You know those movies in which someone flies off the handle then turns around coolly to say, "What were we saying?" That's how it comes across. And there's something about shouting at domestic staff that's disturbing to men. There's something about it that removes peace from men. They don't want to get involved. They resent it. Anything that vitiates environmental peace a man can't handle emotionally. men's peace is not determined by absence of fights. Nagging, moodiness and temperament are peace annihilators. men can't deal with MTN - Moodiness, Temperament, Nastiness . They either retreat into a safe haven, or run.

If you don't control your temper you're going to have a situation in which a woman is strenuously trying to date you but can't! Of course this sends confusing signals to you. The coast is clear and he's not taking the step! Why?! It's the temper thing. It's a barrier. He can't overcome it. He'll want a relationship but can't handle the temper. Actually, in the fellowship of men you'll probably hear people talk about how wonderful you are! The syllogism is always how kind or caring, or xyz you are, BUT... And that's a big but. "But" is spelt t-e-m-p-e-r! And that's how you end up being single past your prime. There are many who want you but... that temper thing!

The thing though is that a temperamental woman feels she has the RIGHT to express herself anyway she likes. Same goes for a temperamental man. He feels he has sovereign right to erupt. It's power. No considerations. That's actually affirmed by the Book of Proverbs. A temperamental person utters all his anger, it says. Solomon calls such foolishness however. A wise man holds back anger, stills it, he said. You need control, discipline. Look, I'm trying to be nice. Solomon actually used harsh words for habitual anger. He says a quick-tempered person stockpiles stupidity. Those are his exact words. Here's another Solomonic: "Fools have short fuses and explode all too quickly."

If you want to have a relationship, the first thing to get rid of is that sovereign right to fly off the handle. It's not subject to societal convention or intimate control. Creates grief in a relationship. And that thing temperamental people do: unleashing the fury of their frustration on others? That non discriminatory fury that gives no hoot about history, facts, circumstance or the future, stop it! It destroyed your last relationship. You constantly unleashed the fury of your frustration on the one person who loved you. How wise was that? You lost him! It takes stubborn love or resignation to be in a relationship with a temperamental person.

Solomon is in effect saying that temperament is a lack of discipline - an acute lack of emotional control.

Better put your anger under. It's a matrimonial hindrance.

ARE WE THERE YET?

My Dear, sometimes I marvel at our capacity to complicate simple things with religion. It’s exasperating.

This boyfriend-girlfriend thing: it seems so simple and straightforward! Boy meets girl. He wants to be with her, for whatever reason - her physical or non-physical attributes or both. He begins to fantasize about being married to her, imagining scenarios in his head. Boys do that. Guys think in fast forward mode. It’s why a guy wants a kiss on the very first date. He’s way past himself!

Boy tells girl I like you, I’d like for us to go out. Girl likes boy but acts coy. She can’t just say yes! It’s all a game and boy understands. Boy knows girl likes him. Girl knows boy knows she likes him. She steals gazes at him anytime they’re visually proximate and he steals gazes at her too. Virtual IVs.

Boy approaches girl once more. He’s pretty confident of a Yes. Well, almost. He’s got 2 tickets to this concert, he says. Would she like to come? (Heart is pounding). Girl says yes! (Hallelujah!) And the texts begin to fly. Sleeplessness begins! They go for concert. And the texting regime continues: Thank you for last night, he says. Had a nice time, she replies. “You looked pretty.” “Thank you, but I didn’t even have time to make up properly.” “Really?” “Was rushing… O my!” And the toast goes on ad infinitum. Of course he wasn’t texting to thank her for last night. He’s seeking future dates.

And so they go on a second date, and a third... They’re really liking each other. With each successive date they’re becoming an item. She’s falling for him, he’s falling for her. At some point the male proprietary hormone decides to put a stop to peripheral maneuvers. “Will you be my girlfriend,” he asks, directly. “Yes I’ll like that,” she responds. And they become an item, formally. That fact wards off other boys.

She’s Jack’s girlfriend now. Of course she assumes exclusivity! And so they go out together, spend time together, quarrel together - as young lovers are wont to do. Everyone assumes the relationship is serious enough though not serious enough it can’t break. It’s how it is.

Now, however you choose to religiously appellate what I’ve just laid out, it’s a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. He’s a boy, she’s a girl; they’re in a special friendship as emotional correspondents. Boy, girl, friends: boyfriend-girlfriend! There’s nothing unspiritual about the term “boyfriend-girlfriend”. It’s just a sociological term. The problem comes when a religious order tries to upturn societal convention calling such basic relationship “engagement.” Instead of boyfriend-girlfriend do we then say engagee-engagor for spiritual differentiation?!

 Engagement is a very serious term. In human convention it’s an agreement to marry. It’s a marital commitment. The fiancé can actually sue if there’s breach of promise of marriage. Many don’t know but there’s case law on it. The guy being convinced the girl he’s been dating is right for him by convention goes on his knee to propose. The genuflection is accompanied by a ring with a stone. The ring is inserted on fourth finger of left hand. If you like it put a ring on it! (Oh, Oh, Oh!). This is societal convention and it’s commonsensical.

How can you be engaged to someone you hardly know?! That you attend the same church or move in the same social circles doesn’t mean you know him! His personage as just a friend may be completely different from his personage as husband in waiting. He may begin to exhibit traits incompatible with your peace of mind. As acting husband he may be very possessive, restrictive and even oppressive. But if you spend time on dates with him you’ll have the opportunity to know him in the context of a relationship. To listen to his ideas on women, marriage, family, work, fatherhood… You will see things in luculent summation.

Religious differentiation cannot be antithetic to obvious sense. You’re not all spirit, you’re human! You have a body and you have a soul - your mind, your will, your emotions, your imagination. Let me tell you the danger of referring to boyfriend-girlfriend relationship as engagement. If you treat boyfriend-girlfriend relationship as engagement you bring unbearable pressure on yourself. You’ve essentially committed to marriage to a man you hardly know. And if while in that relationship you discover things you find anomalous, religiosity expects you to manage. Remember you’re working towards a foregone conclusion. And so your concerns are suppressed. And in that state you enter marriage.

The euphoria may last a month but the realities you ignored will show up. You’ll be stuck, unhappy, sad and depressed. You’ll feel imprisoned. All because you failed to do due diligence. In my business consulting experience I’ve never seen a merger or acquisition without homework or due diligence. Marriage is a merger. How can you go into a covenanted merger with a poor knowledge of facts?

This premature engagement thing - it’s not new. It’s old! Actually dates back 40 years to fellowships on campus. Since the “world” used the term boyfriend-girlfriend, they used “engagement” for differentiation. It was a delineation of value systems. They sought to eliminate flakiness by artificial means. It was well motivated and sincere, but it was based on a sincerely faulty reasoning. And it created problems. How do 16, 17, 18, 19year olds get engaged, no one bothered to ask! They had pubescent emotions, hardly knew themselves, or what life is all about. And they were in a protected environment. And soon the troubles began. Breakages simulated divorce. They were very traumatic.

Of course post-university most of the “engagements” didn’t end in marriage. The real world made sure. Some came out of school and realized they made a serious decision from grave ignorance. They made a choice from inchoate knowledge, they fished from a limited pool. And the incompatibles who swept things under the carpet ended up in divorce court, or worse circumstances.

Some did succeed however, as the laws of probability dictate. Some are happily married. I’m amazed the mistakes of 40 years ago are being repeated in the name of spiritual differentiation. When we seek to artificially upturn societal order we must be ready for the sociological consequences. Is spirituality a repudiation of humanity and commonsensical societal convention? Think.

YOU IMPREGNATED HER

My Dear, I'm sorry I can’t tell you what to do. This is in line with my belief that a man should make his own marital decisions. I can give you guidelines, help you analyse issues, but you must take your own decision. You can shop around for clarity but you can’t shop around for a decision.

You and this lady are coming from two very different perspectives. She’s coming from a cultural perspective. She believes she should marry the man who impregnated her. You’re struggling with unbelief.

Not much has happened between you since the birth of the child, you said. And now she’s come after a space of about three years to ask what’s happening to both of you. In other words, now that you've finished school and got a job, what about marriage? And what about her? According to you however, the only relationship you've had is the child.

She got pregnant at 18, you were 22. And you didn't want the child. Guess you didn't want to be a father at 22. Unfortunately you can’t erase a child. She’s an irreversible living breathing reality. The question you ask is: Must you marry her because you impregnated her? And should you marry her because you impregnated her? The sex was no doubt hormonal opportunism.

I can imagine how this woman feels - you devirginized her! Loss of virginity is epochal for many women. They remember whom, where and when. You saw a fresh faced kid, and you exploited her innocence with your libido. Only you slept with a very fertile young woman at the wrong time of the month. Perhaps at that time you thought you were in love. Young men often confuse sex with love. But now the biological outcome of your arduous libidinous exertion seems to have cleared your eyes.

Some will insist punitively you marry her since you impregnated her. But I worry about punitive marriages. Punition is a very wrong premise for a marital union. To be honest with you I feel punitive myself, but for different reasons. Given your background and where you’re coming from I'm amazed you would put a strain on your future.

Your background was difficult. Somehow, by the grace of God you've been able to acquire a university education. It wasn't easy. Your mum sacrificed a lot for it. I would have thought such a person as you would see the course of discipline through… That you’d get a job, stabilize, work hard, succeed, and change the trajectory of your destiny. That you’ll follow this course to make a difference in the circumstances of your family… But you had to mess up didn't you? You had to constrain yourself like one without a sense of history. And now you can’t even afford to be a father - in every sense of the word.

As you’ll soon discover fatherhood is unlike sex. Sex has discontinuance, fatherhood is perpetual. Young men never think of this but the next thirty years of your life are going to be devoted to that child. Her education will consume at least twenty-one of those years. And O yes, there’s something called school fees. You have to pay for 42 terms, at least. You haven’t even started! Next time you want to have sex think of school fees.

The truth is, you've already made one mistake. Will the marriage be a second mistake? Only you can answer. If you don’t love this woman and you marry her because of the kid you’ll end up punishing her. And some people punish the mother of their child through the kid, which is absurd. They deny the kid parenthood, abdicate responsibility for support, just to punish the mother. Well, the sex you thought was free isn't free after all. Baby formula costs money! But if both of you love each other then perhaps you should consider marriage. It’s your decision.

Somehow we think marriage will “regularize” the “mistake” of pregnancy out of wedlock. But marriage is not some correcting fluid. It’s not a retroactive time machine. Can’t backdate the child’s birthday. It’s your decision what you want to do but if you don’t marry her, and things don’t work out for her, you’ll bear a moral burden.

You disrupted her schooling!  Though I'm glad she’s back in school. Not many are that fortunate. It takes extra-ordinary effort to overcome the challenges of premature motherhood. Without parental support it’s a difficult endeavour. Not all parents are benevolent.

And if people accuse you of finding her good for sex but suddenly unsuitable for marriage you brought it upon yourself. I’ll advice you take your marital decision like any other marital decision: Will we make a good couple? Will I be happy? Will she be happy? How about long term? The least you can do is be a good dad to your daughter. She didn't ask to come into this world, you brought her! Whatever decision you take, you will need to work extra hard to take care of your child. You must be there for her. Your father wasn't there for you and you know how that felt like.

Now let me advice you about your present state: You better not impregnate another woman! Or your life will get very interesting! If I were you I’ll zip up! You have enough on your plate. One “accidental” impregnation is a mistake, two is character. If you have another “accidental child” from another woman you’ll become a parable.

You've got a decision to make. Are you going to marry the mother of your child or not? I hope this clarifies your premises for you.