AITA for asking my fiance to pay a bride price?

[godelian]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/ ... ride_price

My fiance (32M) is a white, European man. I (31F) am a black African woman. We've been dating for 7 years. He asked me to marry him last year and I accepted. The issue came when I mentioned a bride price (BP) needing to be paid, something he scoffed at. We both work in law/human rights type of fields so he assumed i would be against a BP. He refused, saying it was backwards and extortionate and it would be like he bought me. I assured him that wasn't the case. I have said idk if I'm willing to go ahead with marrying him if he isn't willing to make the trip to my country and talk to my parents about the lobola process. He says I'm forcing/manipulating him. I am not. He knew from day 1 who I was and where I came from.

The bride price is a proof-of-work-style antispam measure. If you want the woman, then you must put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, it is just too easy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_work

Proof of work (PoW) is a form of cryptographic proof in which one party (the prover) proves to others (the verifiers) that a certain amount of a specific computational effort has been expended.[1] Verifiers can subsequently confirm this expenditure with minimal effort on their part. The concept was first implemented in Hashcash by Moni Naor and Cynthia Dwork in 1993 as a way to deter denial-of-service attacks and other service abuses such as spam on a network by requiring some work from a service requester, usually meaning processing time by a computer. The term "proof of work" was first coined and formalized in a 1999 paper by Markus Jakobsson and Ari Juels.[2][3] The concept was adapted to digital tokens by Hal Finney in 2004 through the idea of "reusable proof of work" using the 160-bit secure hash algorithm 1 (SHA-1).[4][5]

Proof of work was later popularized by bitcoin as a foundation for consensus in a permissionless decentralized network, in which miners compete to append blocks and mine new currency, each miner experiencing a success probability proportional to the computational effort expended.

The original biological countermeasure for sexual spam abuse, is the mating season. Males must fight other males over mating rights and deliver proof-of-work effort in that manner. The male must show that he really means it by defeating other males. The bride price is just a more civilized way to achieve the same goal.

In Islamic style, you pay the bride price to the woman herself. In traditional African/Asian style, you pay it to her family.

Abolishing the bride price without introducing an alternative and equally effective anti-spam measure, is in my opinion one bridge too far. The bride price is already the civilized way of dealing with spam. That is why I have absolutely no problem paying a bride price. Unlike most commenters on the reddit post, I do not consider this woman to be the asshole (YNTA) for asking for a bride price. But then again, she should have asked it upfront instead of waiting seven years to do so.

I make just one consideration, i.e. one caveat, concerning the bride price.

If she has had sex in the past with one or more men from whom she did not require that they pay a bride price, then I do not see any reason why I would pay one either. This is simply a counter-veiling measure of mine against the widespread practice of women making rules for most men while breaking them for highly attractive ones. In that case, instead of asking a bride price from me, she should go back to the men that she finds more attractive, and ask one of them to pay it.

[FlashDangerpants]

The PN forums are kind of white, western and middle class, I'm not sure we are equipped for this discussion of weird ancient 3rd world rituals, even if you do spice it up with weird sci-fi currency confusions.

[godelian]

The PN forums are kind of white, western and middle class, I'm not sure we are equipped for this discussion of weird ancient 3rd world rituals, even if you do spice it up with weird sci-fi currency confusions.

These "weird ancient 3rd world rituals" are globally pretty much the standard. Wherever you live in the West, you are undoubtedly surrounded by people who were born in the 3rd world. You can try to ignore it, just like the man in the subreddit post who thinks his African fiance is weird, or you can try to understand what's going on.

White western middle class may not fully understand that White western middle class is rapidly becoming a minority in the West.

[FlashDangerpants]

White western middle class may not fully understand that White western middle class is rapidly becoming a minority in the West.

You're white middle class too aren't you?

[promethean75]

"White western middle class is rapidly becoming a minority in the West."

Actually, their numbers aren't dropping because there are more immigrant workers entering the U.S., so they're not being replaced by anyone.

Here's a short and easy tutorial to explain what's happening here.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxC9hRs2yweM ... wKJxR7Juc3

If by chance the white working class is shrinking, that would be because white reproduction is decreasing, and that wouldn't necessarily be because there are more mexicans, arabs and indians in the U.S. It may be for other reasons... or rather, it may be for many more reasons.

[Immanuel Can]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/ ... ride_price

My fiance (32M) is a white, European man. I (31F) am a black African woman. We've been dating for 7 years. He asked me to marry him last year and I accepted. The issue came when I mentioned a bride price (BP) needing to be paid, something he scoffed at. We both work in law/human rights type of fields so he assumed i would be against a BP. He refused, saying it was backwards and extortionate and it would be like he bought me. I assured him that wasn't the case. I have said idk if I'm willing to go ahead with marrying him if he isn't willing to make the trip to my country and talk to my parents about the lobola process. He says I'm forcing/manipulating him. I am not. He knew from day 1 who I was and where I came from.

Which country are you living in?

There's your answer.

[godelian]

Which country are you living in?
There's your answer.

I admit that the woman is inconsistent. She cohabitated for seven years with her boyfriend, which is a no-no in traditional customs, and now she wants to make a U-turn.

Regardless of the country you live in, there are always communities of people who reject this behavior, and for good reasons.

If you live in the USA and you want to marry an Amish bride, they will decisively shoehorn you into Amish marriage customs, because it is the bride's family that authorizes their daughter's marriage. If you refuse to comply, there simply won't be a marriage. In a traditional setting, this decision has teeth because in that case, you won't get any sex out of her.

Hence, the decision of the bride's family takes precedence on the country. If the bride withholds sex until marriage, the balance of power is tilted in favor of her family.

In the case of this woman, she lost all leverage by cohabitating with her man before marriage. He is not interested in asking permission from her family for what he is doing already. On these grounds, I would probably also deny her request. She is simply no longer in a position to make that kind of demands.

By the way, the government has very little authority to regulate sex:

ChatGPT: In the United States, do you need permission from the government to have sex with a woman?

In the United States, you do not need government permission to engage in consensual sexual activity with another adult.

Hence, the country cannot possibly matter. It is not the government that is an obstacle to getting sex out of a traditional women. It is her family that it.

Hence, in this woman's case, the answer to the question, "Go and ask my family if you want to have sex with me", is "Sorry, but I am already having sex with you".

[Immanuel Can]

Which country are you living in?
There's your answer.

...the decision of the bride's family takes precedence...

Prove it should. I don't see any good reason for that.

If the woman is a modern European Feminist, then she ought to live like one. If she's a traditional Nigerian, she has a right to expect her intended to respect her customs. But she can't "have your cake and eat it too." So it depends on where and how she's been living.

To demand that people bow to customs not their own, particularly when she has been living like a Western woman, would be both absurd and hypocritical. But to make a request for it would be fine, if he is willing. If not, she has no legitimacy in demanding or even expecting it. That would make her the "A."

[godelian]

...the decision of the bride's family takes precedence...

Prove it should. I don't see any good reason for that.

It is the girl who decides that. If she insists that she will not have sex with you before you deal with her family, then what are you going to do? Try to have sex with her anyway?

If the woman is a modern European Feminist, then she ought to live like one. If she's a traditional Nigerian, she has a right to expect her intended to respect her customs. But she can't "have your cake and eat it too." So it depends on where and how she's been living.

Yes, she was clearly trying to have her cake and eat it too.

To demand that people bow to customs not their own

Well, it is women who are the gatekeepers to sex. In theory, a woman can demand pretty much anything for granting sexual access to her body. Then, it is up to the man to decide if he goes along with that, or not. In her case, I wouldn't.

However, if a woman has a credible story, I may buy it. Women do have to restrict access to sex. For reasons of biology, a woman simply needs to institute anti-spam measures. The alternative may otherwise be that she becomes the village bicycle and just gets passed around.

[Immanuel Can]

...the decision of the bride's family takes precedence...

Prove it should. I don't see any good reason for that.

It is the girl who decides that.

Why? There is no good reason for privileging the girl, that I know of...especially in a society devoted to securing privileges for her in practically every area of life, as Western society now does.

If she insists that she will not have sex with you before you deal with her family, then what are you going to do?

Not the point. This is not about "getting sex," which one can do very easily any day, but rather securing terms of an enduring relationship, i.e. marriage. Those are very different projects.

To demand that people bow to customs not their own

Well, it is women who are the gatekeepers to sex.

Yes, of course. But these days, they "gatekeep" very little. Few women understand how unstrategic it really is to give to men the thing that is the natural driver of their interest, and then just hope they'll make it official later. It's not at all surprising that this turns men into cads who will "hit and quit" many women...for modern women are presenting themselves as just that kind of an encounter, whether they intend to or not.

However, the point is still not "sex," but marriage; and it is our ethos that has separated those two, and make them not depend on each other at all. In Nigeria, they are still intimately linked. Has this woman kept them linked? Or has she decoupled them herself?

Now, in this case, this is an educated, professional, Westernized woman, is it not? Notwithstanding the ancient practice of selling brides, for which she has an absurd fondness, apparently, it has no connection to being an educated, professional, Westernized woman.

So if she wants to ASK her intended if he will "play traditional" as a game for her sake, he may condescend to do so, if he wishes. And it might be nice of him to play the game if he wants to. He does not have to, and it should not be any condition of their relationship. Presumably, she offered sex without marriage, and that's the deal she cut. She's lost any moral high ground now, and playing the blushing virgin is just absurd for her.

Moreover, if she makes the bride-price a demand, or some kind of condition of the marriage, then she's forgotten the path she's chosen, and has become a hypocrite about this. Either be a Feminist or don't. Just don't be a phony about it.

And if she dumps him over this, then yes, she's the "A."

[godelian]

This is not about "getting sex," which one can do very easily any day, but rather securing terms of an enduring relationship, i.e. marriage. Those are very different projects.

While it is women who gate keep sex, it is men who gate keep relationships. Marriage is something that a woman tries to extract out of a man. It is not something a man tries to get out of a woman. As a man, I do not try to "secure terms of an enduring relationship". That is what a woman tries to do.

Yes, of course. But these days, they "gatekeep" very little.

Yes, indeed. If women do not gate keep sex, men generally do not want to give them a relationship. Well, I do not elevate any woman to the status of wife if she has no credibility in gate keeping sex. Modern women cannot extract marriage out of a man, exactly because they do not credibly gate keep sex.

Few women understand how unstrategic it really is to give to men the thing that is the natural driver of their interest, and then just hope they'll make it official later. It's not at all surprising that this turns men into cads who will "hit and quit" many women...for modern women are presenting themselves as just that kind of an encounter, whether they intend to or not.

Yes, indeed. Chad is even right not to give them a relationship. They do not properly gate keep sex. That is why they do not deserve the relationship.

However, the point is still not "sex," but marriage; and it is our ethos that has separated those two, and make them not depend on each other at all. In Nigeria, they are still intimately linked. Has this woman kept them linked? Or has she decoupled them herself?

She decoupled them herself. That is why her man should not offer marriage to her. She has zero credibility in gate keeping sex. That is why she does not deserve that he gives her marriage or elevates her status. Only women with credible sexual self-discipline deserve recognition for their ability to gate keep sex.

Notwithstanding the ancient practice of selling brides, for which she has an absurd fondness, apparently, it has no connection to being an educated, professional, Westernized woman.

The original term for husband in Hebrew is בַּעַל [bah-AHL], which means “owner” . So, even today a Jewish woman calls her husband her "owner". So, yes, women seem to be absurdly fond of this practice. I personally do not care about that. If a woman wants to call me her "owner", that is her choice. Whatever floats her boat.

Presumably, she offered sex without marriage, and that's the deal she cut. She's lost any moral high ground now, and playing the blushing virgin is just absurd for her.

Yes, exactly. Nobody forced her to cut that particular deal, in which she gives him sexual access while he gives her nothing much in return. Now she wants to change the terms of the deal. That wouldn't work with me either. If she got that lousy deal in the first place, it means that she did not deserve a better one.

And if she dumps him over this, then yes, she's the "A."

Well, she still has the right to terminate the existing agreement. It is just that she does not have the credibility for an agreement that is more favorable to her. That is why I would just part ways. Modern women are twelve in a dozen. If I were him, I would just recruit another one. But then again, I do not recruit modern women. So, I would never have this problem.

[Immanuel Can]

Marriage is something that a woman tries to extract out of a man. It is not something a man tries to get out of a woman.

It depends on the man. Some are just in it for sex, some want a relationship.

They do not properly gate keep sex. That is why they do not deserve the relationship.

Neither do the men who take advantage of that.

However, the point is still not "sex," but marriage; and it is our ethos that has separated those two, and make them not depend on each other at all. In Nigeria, they are still intimately linked. Has this woman kept them linked? Or has she decoupled them herself?

She decoupled them herself. That is why her man should not offer marriage to her.

Well, apparently he has. But she's already established that she is not a traditional Nigerian woman. So she's lost any legitimate claim to making him follow the traditions designed for traditional Nigerian courtship and marriage.

As I say, if he wants to indulge her fantasy about that, that's up to him. She can ask him to do that. But what she can't legitimately do is try to demand it. If she does, she's a hypocrite: she's wanting the privileges of being a virtuous woman, without being one. She's not entited to that kind of special treatment.

Presumably, she offered sex without marriage, and that's the deal she cut. She's lost any moral high ground now, and playing the blushing virgin is just absurd for her.

Yes, exactly. Nobody forced her to cut that particular deal, in which she gives him sexual access while he gives her nothing much in return. Now she wants to change the terms of the deal. That wouldn't work with me either. If she got that lousy deal in the first place, it means that she did not deserve a better one.

He's no saint, either. She offered him that deal, and he took that deal. It's not a good deal for either of them. Any kind of uncommitted sexual relationships are very emotionally, physically, socially and morally dangerous. Somebody always gets hurt.

But if they want to convert it into a marriage, that's up to them. But doing so is not without its risks, especially if fidelity has not been a priority for either of them so far. They can have no certain expectation of future fidelity either, based on their past choices.

[godelian]

They do not properly gate keep sex. That is why they do not deserve the relationship.

Neither do the men who take advantage of that.

They don't want one ... with her. They prefer one with someone more credible.

He's no saint, either.

Well, it's rather that he's got less to lose. Unlike her, he does not lose credibility with a future spouse because of what he did in the past.

She offered him that deal, and he took that deal. It's not a good deal for either of them. Any kind of uncommitted sexual relationships are very emotionally, physically, socially and morally dangerous. Somebody always gets hurt.

Well, most men can visit a prostitute without ever getting attached to her. Men generally have less to lose. That is probably why lots of men will have sex with any attractive woman when given the opportunity.

They can have no certain expectation of future fidelity either, based on their past choices.

That is where the man has more at stake. Her pregnancies always result in her children but not necessarily in his. If he has options, he should clearly not choose this one. The commitment to recognize all future pregnancies of a woman as your responsibility, is quite far-reaching, as well as costly, as well as deception-prone. The woman has to meet very high standards. Otherwise, it is absolutely not in the interest of the man to make that kind of commitment. He would be taking a very serious risk based on his possibly faulty perception of her sexual self-discipline. In modern times, making this kind of commitment is rapidly going the way of the dinosaur. There is usually too much risk involved.

[accelafine]

Do you ever think about anything but money, creepy little man?

Money people are the worst. I was just watching a documentary about Trump. Yuk. Those NY money people are like a collection of nightmarish circus freaks. His first 'achievement' was to demolish a glorious New York art deco building of huge artistic and historic importance to erect his vulgar tower. Some ghastly old hag who had obviously had about 19 facelifts was laughing uproariosuly about how he had deliberately destroyed precious art deco sculptures that the art museum had requested be saved and displayed. She thought that was hilarious. The ignorant old money-grubbing bat called them 'gargoyles' FFS.
Just as well I'm not a religious person. Trump's father Fred would give me nightmares due to him looking like a human personification of Satan himself
The rich are deeply uninteresting people. Money is invariably the ONLY thing the rich talk about, unless they are royalty, in which case they never talk about money EVER because it's 'so vulgar' to. With royalty it's all about what mammals they slaughtered that day and how many grouse they nabbed--plus of course dogs and horses. Tally ho and toodle pip.

[Immanuel Can]

They do not properly gate keep sex. That is why they do not deserve the relationship.

Neither do the men who take advantage of that.

They don't want one ... with her. They prefer one with someone more credible.

He's not entitled to that, either. Commitment is a moral duty that devolved on both sides, of course. So if he has behaved promisciously (and we aren't told in this example that he has, of course) there's no reason to regard the woman as more culpable than the comparable man.

He's no saint, either.

Well, it's rather that he's got less to lose. Unlike her, he does not lose credibility with a future spouse because of what he did in the past.

He would be living a lie. He would be pretending to be a better, more committed person, while really not being. And he would still have all the bad psychological and moral effects of promiscuity, including the damage it does to the ability to emotionally pair-bond.

The rumour is that men get away with promiscuity. The truth is that they don't.

That is where the man has more at stake. Her pregnancies always result in her children but not necessarily in his.

That's one area, but only one. And yes, it's a serious problem for him. Not only that, but he may be saddled with a financial and legal obligation he did not intend to incur. The reverse never happens: a woman is not obligated by law to assume responsibility for the child the man gives her. She can murder the child at will, and the man will be powerless to stop his child from being murdered. The law gives him absolutely no say.

But men do not escape the emotional damage of promiscuous relationships. You will have noticed that men with multiple partners become contemptuous of women, unable to form proper relationships, often wounded by the broken relationships they've had, or addicted to meaningless sexual release or to pornography and prostitutes. They have more difficulty experiencing satisfaction as time goes by, and still struggle with personal shame and diminishment of self, dehumanization, growing contempt for their various partners, and various perversions pursued to reenergize a debauched libido...among other things.

But none of this really relates to the case you've posed. In the case with which you started, we don't know if the man or the woman was promiscuous. They may have been mutually emotionally committed, but unmarried. And the question is really on what terms they should complete the marriage contract they've both agreed to.

She thinks she'd like a traditional Nigerian courtship. But she's behaved unlike a traditional Nigerian girl. And he's not a Nigerian, and she says he finds the whole bride-price thing contemptible. He has a right to feel that way, at least equal to her right to wish for it. But she has no legitimacy in expecting or demanding him to play Nigerian suitor to her. She gave that up when she stopped behaving like a traditional Nigerian, and should accept those consequences of her decision.

It's time for her to take responsibility for what she's done, in that regard. And if she doesn't, then yes, she's the one who has the problem here. The man is just being what he always was...a Western European man, who never believed in selling brides and traditional families. She's being a hypocrite, and trying to play both sides of that equation. She can't ask him to join her in such hypocrisy.