AITA for asking my fiance to pay a bride price?

[godelian]

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

There are typically two kinds of men who can get a lot of women for casual sex.

Very handsome men do not need to approach women. It is women who send choosing signals to very handsome men or who even outright approach them. All he has to do, to get sex out of the woman, is basically to stop saying "no" to her. Normally, it is the beautiful woman who is in that situation, but in this case, it is the very handsome man.

It is not that he is necessarily contemptuous of women, but he has no reason to value something that does not cost him any effort whatsoever.

Concerning relationships, the woman may initially exempt the handsome man from making any effort, but after some time, she will try to get him to somewhat take care of her, which he won't, because it makes more sense for him to repeat the scenario with another woman, which will again start out with the woman giving him effortless access to sex. So, as soon as one of these women wants more, he replaces her by another woman who is undoubtedly queuing already. Therefore, it is not that the handsome man is unable to form proper relationships. It is rather that he does not want to put any effort into such relationships, because unlike other men, he can effortlessly get sex without doing so.

A handsome man is not born being an arsehole to women. It is by showering him with effortless access to sex that women turn him into one. These women literally teach him to be an arsehole to them. That is why I do not feel sorry for these women.

A wealthy man can also get sex out of lots of women, but if he is not careful, they will be of the "gold digger" type. But then again, unlike the very handsome man, the wealthy man is more likely to form longer relationships with women, because he obviously has the money to take care of them. It also costs effort to put wealth on display and to use that to attract women while weeding out the most egregious gold diggers. That is why, once he ends up with a woman, it may be "cheaper to keep her".

But she has no legitimacy in expecting or demanding him to play Nigerian suitor to her.

This kind of scenario actually often works when the woman withholds sex before marriage while the man really, badly wants her.

For example, I've seen men converting to Islam because they wanted to get into the pants of a woman. It actually happens quite often. There is even a wikihow on the subject: https://www.wikihow.com/Convert-to-Islam-for-Marriage.

Converting to Islam for marriage isn’t unusual—10% of all conversions in the United States happen for this reason.

I think that it may even be easier to get a man to suffer through ceremonial Nigerian marriage customs than to push him to convert to another religion. The only thing the bride typically needs to do, is to restrict sexual access until marriage.

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.

Agreed. He is already getting what he wants. Her own hypocrisy has even made her lose all leverage.

[Immanuel Can]

There are typically two kinds of men who can get a lot of women for casual sex.

An irrelevant comment, for this question about the Nigerian woman. This is about a man, a Nigerian woman, and what makes sense for them in terms of marriage customs. That's all.

For example, I've seen men converting to Islam because they wanted to get into the pants of a woman. It actually happens quite often.

If true, that is pathetic. And of Islam would permit it, and even encourage it, then that tells you all you need to know about Islam...

[godelian]

For example, I've seen men converting to Islam because they wanted to get into the pants of a woman. It actually happens quite often.

If true, that is pathetic. And of Islam would permit it, and even encourage it, then that tells you all you need to know about Islam...

The general rule is that the balance of power is tilted in favor of the family of the bride, if she obstinately withholds sex until marriage.

The family is in the position that they can demand whatever they want.

If they tell you to dress like a clown, jump into the sea, and catch a fish with your bare hands, then that is what you will have to do, if you want to have sex with the bride.

If you cannot reconcile yourself with their demands, then move on. It is as simple as that.

The simplest countervailing measure is to make sure that you are mostly indifferent to the various potential brides and that consider them to be pretty much perfect substitutes for each other:

I have received cheaper and more convenient conditions from other families for their daughter. That is why I will not choose you. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Immanuel Can]

If you cannot reconcile yourself with their demands, then move on. It is as simple as that.

That's your advice to him, of course. But he didn't write the question. She did. Her question was whether she was being reasonable when she demanded he treat her like a Nigerian virgin, even though she's been acting and living like a European. And if we restate the question with that simplicity, maybe the answer's obvious.

Regardless of what he wants to do about it all, she hasn't got any residual legitimacy in demanding the Nigerian treatment, and if she does, she will be unreasonable. She may ask, and for her sake, maybe he'll choose to play along in a light way, perhaps...but she shouldn't expect that he ought to or has to. She made that decision herself, long ago.

Funny how promiscuous women never speak about that earlier "choice" when they claim they're "pro-choice" about something, and always talk instead about how to escape the effects of the choices they've already made. It's rather irresponsible, actually.

[godelian]

Regardless of what he wants to do about it all, she hasn't got any residual legitimacy in demanding the Nigerian treatment, and if she does, she will be unreasonable.

Agreed. Premarital sex throws a spanner in the works. Premarital sex earlier with other men throws even more spanners in the works. The family asking for a (possibly even hefty) bride price is in those circumstances not particularly realistic. She wants the man to do his part while she has clearly not done her part. In general, this is the bane of modern inter-gender dynamics. Let's combine the advantages of tradition with the advantages of modernity and carry out a spectacular land grab!

[Immanuel Can]

Regardless of what he wants to do about it all, she hasn't got any residual legitimacy in demanding the Nigerian treatment, and if she does, she will be unreasonable.

Agreed. Premarital sex throws a spanner in the works. Premarital sex earlier with other men throws even more spanners in the works. The family asking for a (possibly even hefty) bride price is in those circumstances not particularly realistic. She wants the man to do his part while she has clearly not done her part. In general, this is the bane of modern inter-gender dynamics. Let's combine the advantages of tradition with the advantages of modernity and carry out a spectacular land grab!

Well, where you and I still differ is that it seems so far that you feel happy to set one standard of personal conduct for women, and completely obviate men from having any such responsibility. And this sort of double-standard is exactly why women have justified female promiscuity; their rationalization is that they are only doing what men have done and gotten away with. But it was the same two participants, and the same action.

As they say, "it takes two to tango." If personal continence or virginity is a responsibility of women, then it's also a responsibility of men. That we men find it easier to cheat on that does not make it less cheating. And it does not alter its moral status. And I sincerely doubt that the Almighty gives men a pass on this. Different roles in the "dance," they do have: different moral standards to live up to, they do not.

[godelian]

As they say, "it takes two to tango." If personal continence or virginity is a responsibility of women, then it's also a responsibility of men.

If you want to make it completely symmetric, then the parents of the bride would also have to pay a "groom price" to the family of the groom. That is, however, not what is on offer in traditional Nigerian customs. The traditional Nigerians in the example case would laugh at you, if you were to propose this.

Secondly, I still need to run into the first girl who actually values a man higher because he is a virgin. Girls tend to reach a different conclusion in those circumstances: He cannot get any other girl but me. The problem is that girls will also easily jump to the following follow-on conclusion: If no other girl wants him, I don't want him either.

Thirdly, not being a virgin does not tarnish his reputation. In a traditional setting of Nigerian tribal marriage, it certainly tarnishes her reputation.

The situation is absolutely not symmetrical. In no way, shape, or fashion. Furthermore, any attempt at making it symmetrical will fail. What you are advocating, is also contrary to what people traditionally believe, both men nor women. Therefore, it is just an ideological viewpoint that won't help anybody who tries to adopt it. Reality trumps wishful thinking.

That we men find it easier to cheat on that does not make it less cheating.

It is less devastating for the marriage. The wife cheating leads to the husband questioning the paternity of existing (and possibly future) children. There is no such consequence when the husband cheats.

And it does not alter its moral status.

Shoplifting is a lesser crime than murder.

Different roles in the "dance," they do have: different moral standards to live up to, they do not.

Merely cheating on your wife, is not even particularly mentioned in any scripture. In fact, they would not even do that in Greek or Roman antiquity. They would just buy another slave girl, and that wasn't considered cheating at all. The warnings in the scriptures are rather about sleeping with someone else's wife or sleeping with someone else's virgin daughter without his permission. It has always been about infringing on another man's legitimate rights.

Ask any of the traditional Nigerian men or women in the example case about this, and he or she will say the same things. If anybody mentioned in the scriptures were alive today, they would also say the same things. Even Christ implied this. He clearly said that a man can divorce his wife for adultery. He did not say that a woman had the right to divorce for that reason.

Furthermore, it is not possible to overrule natural morality and natural law by inventing doctrines that would artificially make things symmetrical, because they obviously won't. Our biological firmware was pre-programmed in a certain way, whether you like it or not. You will just have to learn to live in reality. You perfectly know how these things really work. Everything else is sheer ideological nonsense.

[godelian]

Well, where you and I still differ is that it seems so far that you feel happy to set one standard of personal conduct for women, and completely obviate men from having any such responsibility.

Look at what ChatGPT says on the matter:

ChatGPT: Is female adultery traditionally considered a more serious offense than male adultery?

Yes, in many traditional cultures, female adultery has historically been considered a more serious offense than male adultery. This double standard is rooted in a combination of social, legal, and religious factors that have evolved over centuries.

1. Patriarchal Societies and Lineage

Inheritance and Lineage: In patriarchal societies, lineage and inheritance often passed through the male line. Female adultery was seen as a threat to paternity, potentially resulting in illegitimate heirs who could inherit property, wealth, or titles.
Control of Women's Sexuality: Women’s chastity and fidelity were closely monitored to ensure the legitimacy of offspring. Men's sexual behavior, in contrast, was often more socially tolerated because it did not threaten lineage in the same way.

2. Legal Codes

Ancient Laws: Many ancient legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi (Babylonian) or Roman law, imposed harsher penalties on women for adultery. Women could be executed, exiled, or divorced with no financial support, whereas men often faced fewer consequences.
Religious Laws: In some interpretations of Islamic law (Sharia), Christian canon law, and Jewish law (Halakha), female adultery has historically been punished more severely than male adultery. For instance, the Bible describes harsh penalties for women caught in adultery (e.g., stoning in the Old Testament).

3. Social Consequences

Honor and Reputation: In many traditional cultures, a woman’s honor is linked to her sexual behavior. Female adultery could bring shame not only on the woman but also on her family, particularly male relatives, leading to honor-based violence in extreme cases.
Male Adultery: While male infidelity might have been frowned upon, it was often excused or tolerated, particularly if the man was wealthy or powerful. Men could maintain concubines or mistresses without facing the same social stigma.

4. Cultural Examples

Victorian England: In 19th-century England, a woman could lose custody of her children and face social ostracism for adultery, whereas men were often able to continue their public and social lives with little consequence.
India: In traditional Indian culture, female adultery was viewed as a serious moral offense, while male infidelity might have been dismissed as a common vice.
Middle Eastern Cultures: In many Middle Eastern cultures, even today, women accused of adultery can face extreme punishments, including honor killings, while men may face minimal social or legal repercussions.

5. Modern Perspectives

In contemporary legal systems, particularly in Western countries, adultery is increasingly seen as a personal matter rather than a criminal offense, and the double standard has been challenged. However, cultural and social biases against female infidelity persist in many parts of the world.

Conclusion

The historical perception of female adultery as a more serious offense than male adultery reflects deep-seated gender inequalities. Although attitudes are changing in some regions, these double standards continue to influence cultural, social, and legal norms in many societies.

In a traditional setting, male adultery is of a gravity level akin to shoplifting while the gravity of female adultery is comparable to murder. Male adultery only has serious repercussions if the female affair partner has a husband or father who considers his legitimate rights to be infringed by the affair.

[Immanuel Can]

As they say, "it takes two to tango." If personal continence or virginity is a responsibility of women, then it's also a responsibility of men.

If you want to make it completely symmetric,...

Of course not. Men and women have substantial differences -- a point missed by the IOC, but what do they know anyway? And I've already pointed out that promiscuity hurts men and women differently, in some ways, anyway. But it's not good for either one: and if we challenge women for an irresponsible attitude to their sexual responsibilities, with whom are they being sexually irresponsible? So in regards to guilt, it's completely symmetrical: in other ways, no.

Secondly, I still need to run into the first girl who actually values a man higher because he is a virgin.

That's another difference. But it doesn't make it right, or wise. A girl who has a brain in her head will soon realize that a) she's not likely to always be the best experience an experienced man has always had, b) he's plausibly afflicted with the consequences of his misbehaviour, possibly medically and certainly emotionally, and c) a sexually-incontinent man has no strong reason to bond with her, anymore than with previous partners. So she'll prefer a man dedicated to her...if she's smart.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

The situation is absolutely not symmetrical. In no way, shape, or fashion.

You forgot guilt. Ask God if He thinks more of a wicked man than of a wicked woman.

Merely cheating on your wife, is not even particularly mentioned in any scripture.

So you're excluding the Torah and the New Testament when you say "Scripture"? It's more than "mentioned particularly" in both. See for example, https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... ornication.

Even Christ implied this. He clearly said that a man can divorce his wife for adultery. He did not say that a woman had the right to divorce for that reason.

There are good reasons for that. In ancient Israel, a woman didn't even have the OPTION to divorce a man for adultery. To command her to do so would have left her without any protection and provision...which would have forced her into prostitution, automatically. Starvation will do that very fast. Now, if it was her fault, that's one thing: she bears that. But if it was his promiscuity, why should she be cast into prostitution for him? Rather, his duty to continue to provide for her and protect her depended on HER behaviour, but not on HIS. He could not get out of his moral and social duty by cheating on her, in other words. This put the control squarely back in the hands of the innocent woman, who had not cheated. She could control her own destiny...he could not control her through his misbehaviour.

But instead of selecting what you want to prove your point, read the rest of Matthew 19, and you'll see that divorce was something Moses permitted only in the extreme cases, because men were hard-hearted, and could not bring themselves to forgive; but that from the beginning, God Himself intended that one man would become one flesh with one woman. And that a man who joins with more than one woman is thus violating the righteous ideal.

[godelian]

And I've already pointed out that promiscuity hurts men and women differently, in some ways, anyway. But it's not good for either one:

Men are naturally polygamous. Approximately every man in the Bible certainly was. Women seem to be naturally fine with that. They would rather share a high-value man than to have a low-value one all to themselves.

Look at what they do, and don't listen to what they say. Do they prefer to be the third wife of a billionaire or to have a homeless beggar all to themselves?

Promiscuity only hurts men when it leads to serious conflict with other men. This is mostly the case when it is about someone else's wife or someone's daughter or sister who insist that you must ask permission to them prior to having sex with her.

and if we challenge women for an irresponsible attitude to their sexual responsibilities, with whom are they being sexually irresponsible?

Every misbehavior is ultimately its own punishment. It will make you suffer later in this life or in a later life. If it doesn't, then it is not a misbehavior to begin with.

I don't challenge women "for an irresponsible attitude to their sexual responsibilities'. I am not the one who is going to suffer. So, it is not my problem.

Similarly, I don't spend any effort preventing someone else from jumping from the 12th floor out of the window. I am not the one who is going to land on the concrete pavement in front of the building.

In the end, the core question will always pop up again: What's in it for me?

So, as far as I am concerned, everybody does what they want because so do I.

Secondly, I still need to run into the first girl who actually values a man higher because he is a virgin.

That's another difference. But it doesn't make it right, or wise.

I study and accept female nature the way it is. I have exactly zero ambition to try to change it. Furthermore, both male and female nature were shaped by an endless number of generations trying to survive in often difficult circumstances. Therefore, female nature, as is, is perfectly suited for the purpose of survival and reproduction. I do not doubt whatsoever the profound wisdom of our built-in survival instincts.

Any ideology that seeks to question our true nature, is just bullshit.

So she'll prefer a man dedicated to her...if she's smart.

That is clearly not what they do. Their hypergamous instincts tell them to pick the highest-value man possible. She will almost surely have to share him with other women.

In terms of survival strategy, it is certainly not smart for a woman to latch on to a man that no other woman wants. There is obviously a good reason why other women don't want him and she will undoubtedly soon find out why.

Ideology makes you blind to the truth.

Monogamy is and has always been an unrealistic concept. Neither men nor women are built like that. It is a bad idea, just like communism. It ends up threatening survival itself.

So you're excluding the Torah and the New Testament when you say "Scripture"? It's more than "mentioned particularly" in both.

As I have mentioned before, unless it leads to trouble with the woman's husband or father, the level of gravity of the offense is akin to shoplifting, for a man. The gravity of the offense is akin to murder for a woman. That is how the notion of adultery emerges out of the Torah.

In ancient Israel, a woman didn't even have the OPTION to divorce a man for adultery. To command her to do so would have left her without any protection and provision...

If she doesn't have the option because it would lead to lots of trouble for her, then she's simply supposed to do what's best for her. In the end, it's her life, isn't it?

He could not get out of his moral and social duty by cheating on her

That ultimately depends on how he sees it. In the end, it's their problem and not mine.

men were hard-hearted, and could not bring themselves to forgive

There are very good biological reasons why a man does not forgive his wife's adultery, if only, because she will obviously do it again. It actually reveals a glaring lack of self-respect on behalf of a man to keep simping for an adulterous woman.

It basically means that the man believes that he cannot get another one. If that is true, then the marriage was simply doomed from the get-go. On her side of things, if she believes that she can get better, then she should not be with him in the first place.

As a man, you should never forgive adultery, if only, because it doesn't work.

If she believes that you are not good enough for her, then the solution is to replace her with a younger and much prettier alternative, because that is living proof that she is wrong.

On her side, she will almost never succeed in showing up with a man who is wealthier than you. Furthermore, the affair partner rarely wants responsibility. He usually just wanted cheap and easy sex. So, he will almost surely dump her if she tries to extract more out of him. Except for casual sex, it is almost impossible for a woman to do better than her previous husband. She got him while she was younger and prettier. For the next guy, she will invariably have to go fishing at a lower level. So, let her just crash and burn.

[Immanuel Can]

And I've already pointed out that promiscuity hurts men and women differently, in some ways, anyway. But it's not good for either one:

Men are naturally polygamous.

No, they're not. Biblically, that's an aberration. And from Genesis forward, it's condemned.

Some patriarchs did it, it's true: but something doesn't become right merely because a patriarch did it. Their sins were still sins. So when Samson consorted with prostitutes, or when David slept with Bathsheba and murdered her husband, these things were wicked, even though, in other ways, David was a good man. The Bible records not just the good things the patriarchs did, but also their sins.

Only one Man was ever perfect.

Do they prefer to be the third wife of a billionaire or to have a homeless beggar all to themselves?

All things being equal, the billionaire, of course. But that's wise and strategic. One of the feminine imperatives is to establish a secure situation for children, and that means locating a male spouse with resources that can secure and provide. So women are naturally -- and properly -- attracted to men who demonstrate high levels of competence, provision and success. They'd be foolish to do otherwise.

You have to stop looking at women as if they have the same perspective as men do, or that they should have a male-style perspective. They don't value exactly what men do, because they aren't men.

Promiscuity only hurts men when it leads to serious conflict with other men.

That isn't the case, of course. But if you don't know that, then either you're not promiscuous, or you're promiscuous and not even aware of what you've lost.

In the end, the core question will always pop up again: What's in it for me?

So, as far as I am concerned, everybody does what they want because so do I.

That sounds very self-centered...and lonely. I feel sorry for anybody who actually holds that attitude, so I hope you're just playing around. Their prospects of bonding in a meaningful relationship would be close to zero, unless they give up that attitude.

In terms of survival strategy, it is certainly not smart for a woman to latch on to a man that no other woman wants. There is obviously a good reason why other women don't want him and she will undoubtedly soon find out why.

"Wanting" isn't the problem: having been used by them and defiled by them is. A man who has bad bonding skills is lower value than a man who has such abilities. And promiscuous men have diminished bonding capacities, and make bad husbands and fathers.

Your view of men makes of them nothing but indiscriminate sperm donors. That's not the stuff of husbands and fathers...and any sensible woman knows that full well. But not all women are sensible, of course. And some render themselves mere objects of indiscriminate male sexual use, which makes them terrible wives and mothers. But you're surely not recommending either course, I hope.

The gravity of the offense is akin to murder for a woman. That is how the notion of adultery emerges out of the Torah.

You don't know Torah. In cases of adultery, both were under judgment, not just one. A man could be condemned for it as easily as a woman. And it always happens in pairs, you know.

[godelian]

And from Genesis forward, it's condemned.

No, it's not. Polygamy is perfectly fine and natural. Has always been. Will always be.

Some patriarchs did it, it's true: but something doesn't become right merely because a patriarch did it. Their sins were still sins.

They were not sinning. Their behavior was perfectly halal.

Their prospects of bonding in a meaningful relationship would be close to zero, unless they give up that attitude.

The prospect of getting manipulated would be close to zero. That is not a bug. That is a feature.

A man who has bad bonding skills is lower value than a man who has such abilities. And promiscuous men have diminished bonding capacities, and make bad husbands and fathers.

I have never heard a woman say a thing like that. A woman does not select a man because she expects to be his only wife. That would be in violation of their hypergamous nature. The only reason why she can be sure that she will be his only wife, is because no other woman wants him.

You don't know Torah. In cases of adultery, both were under judgment, not just one. A man could be condemned for it as easily as a woman. And it always happens in pairs, you know.

As I have argued previously, when a man shows up as the defendant in a case of adultery or fornication, the plaintiff is always ... another man.

[Immanuel Can]

And from Genesis forward, it's condemned.

No, it's not. Polygamy is perfectly fine and natural. Has always been. Will always be.

Then why is the commandment to marry one woman in Genesis? In fact, it's in the third chapter. You can't get any commandment earlier than that one. See Genesis 2:24. This is also affirmed by Christ Himself (Mark 10:8), and by Paul (1 Cor. 6:16). So both Christianity and Judaism disagree with you about that.

Sorry...you're just completely wrong about that.

A man who has bad bonding skills is lower value than a man who has such abilities. And promiscuous men have diminished bonding capacities, and make bad husbands and fathers.

I have never heard a woman say a thing like that.

Then I can't speak for the quality of the women you know. A woman who has any wisdom would absolutely know it. A woman who doesn't is planning her own disaster.

I have to say, if I can say it without offence, I'm finding your responses about women suggest nervous antipathy. I have met this before, particularly in Islamic men. They seem to both despise women, and yet be lustful for them. They seem to hate women, but also hate that they desire them so strongly...and so their attraction to women makes them both angry and immoderate. And they seem to think that women themselves are the problem. They speak as if women are whores, and as if men are helpless victims of their own libido. (And I confess that I find this unmanly; for what kind of man blames women for what HE is?)

You seem to have a little more insight than that, though. You seem to have some sense that men and women are not just different, but are strategically (so to speak) differently placed, and so have to value somewhat different things, and have to approach relationships with somewhat different strategies. And if you can magnify that insight, and eliminate the resentment, I think you'll really be onto something, and maybe have a clearer understanding of the dynamics between the two. But the resentment, the feeling that women have slighted you and deserve to be bullied...that has to go, if you're going to get that kind of clarity. Try to look at men and women with equanimity: their situations are different, their needs are somewhat different, and so their difference in marital negotiation are often quite warranted. The last thing we should expect -- or want -- is for one sex to dominate the other, such that the other's interests are totally destroyed. If that happens, it's not a relationship, not a case of love, but a situation of slavery and abuse.

So if you don't mind me saying, I think that Islamic countries, in particular, and even Islamic men in the West, are getting considerably less out of their women (in terms of the women's inherent personal resources, such as their creativity, intelligence and ingenuity) than they could be getting. Treating them as uneducable slaves or sex objects is wasting a powerful resource for any society. It's also a kind of unmanly nervousness, when the men feel that if they can't control and dominate women, they will lose power. I cannot respect that, when I see it. And I know that there are more manly men who can deal with the challenges of working out an ongoing relationship with a woman, and stay with just one woman, and build a family, and provide for them, and be self-continent; and I admire their steadiness and confidence in doing that.

Promiscuity is overrated. Seen clearly, it's not any kind of achievement; in fact, it's a kind of admission of failure, where a man can't manage a relationship, so he has to resort to a series of meaningless ones that demand less of him.

You don't know Torah. In cases of adultery, both were under judgment, not just one. A man could be condemned for it as easily as a woman. And it always happens in pairs, you know.

As I have argued previously, when a man shows up as the defendant in a case of adultery or fornication, the plaintiff is always ... another man.

I guess that's how Islam has arranged it. It's not that way in Christianity or Judaism, of course. But that's the problem with human courts, whether secular or religious: they are all, to one degree or another, unjust. They fall short. They fail to exercise perfect authority. And in some cases, they even get things dead wrong, and permit things that are hideous, like sexual deviance and baby murder. So we can't really look to human courts to assure ourselves of what is right. They don't always do that.

[godelian]

See Genesis 2:24.

It says nothing specific on the matter.

But then again, I'm not interested in other people's private lives, and I am certainly not going to ask them how many women they have assigned a role in it.

[Immanuel Can]

See Genesis 2:24.

It says nothing specific on the matter.

Hmmm...look again. It says that the two become one flesh, and what God has put together, we are not to separate. Christ affirms it, and Paul affirms it, and it's affirmed several other times in the Scriptures -- which you insisted had nothing about that in them.

But then again, I'm not interested in other people's private lives, and I am certainly not going to ask them how many women they have assigned a role in it.

And yet, you raised this topic, which has nothing to do with you, but has to do with a Nigerian woman's private life...and you wanted to talk about sex-role relationships more generally, rather than just sticking to your original post's topic...and now you say you're not interested in any of that?