This is a fun thread and I want to throw this open for people to comment.

There is a common phrase many ladies are fond of using to express their support for a guy at a point in time in his life and whilst many use the phrase "I was there for him", I think the right phrase should be "I was there with him"

I know some struggling guys who share the little food and money they have with a lady whilst the lady gladly receives without any material or monetary input and I also know some guys that their ladies share her money and food with them without becoming any liability to these guys.

Let's have your opinion based on these two cases...when can we say a lady was there for her man or with her man?, are these two phrases the Same?

Be not deceived, women only want the ready made men or a man that they feel his financial breakthrough is around the corner. No woman will stay with you if they don’t see the potential in you that you will be financially okay in the nearest future. They are hypergamous in nature and only wait for men who will win or have won, “the winners”.

I know where this thread is heading to


Only ungrateful people who doesn't understand the value of loyalty that tend to discard their girlfriend or wife who stayed with them from the beginning when they were struggling with life and trying to breakthrough.


I don't know what some of you people want, the same people that go about screaming on top their voices that girls should try to build with their boyfriend and not go for the already made ones will still be the same people to open this kind of thread.

virgoquin:
I know where this thread is heading to


Only ungrateful people who doesn't understand the value of loyalty that tend to discard their girlfriend or wife who stayed with them from the beginning when they were struggling with life and trying to breakthrough.


I don't know what some of you people want, the same people that go about screaming on top their voices that girls should try to build with their boyfriend and not go for the already made ones will still be the same people to open this kind of thread.

Dem don turn am to fight...

Which kain wahala be this?

I was there for him can as well be correct depending on what they mean

If they met the guy's needs when he needed them or he needed something, they were having his back in times of trouble or need and were there to console or comfort him at times of difficulty, then if they say "I was there for him", they are correct.

And besides, she could have been there "with" him and would not have been "for" him. She could just have been there with him (in his life) playing no significant role or meeting any of his needs. She could have even been there "with" him and she was rather causing problems for him. But she was still "with" him.

The bottom line is, if a lady was there "for" a guy, then she supported and positively impacted his life regardless of whatever degree. But if she was there "with" him, then the case should be further investigated to discern if she was there "with" him and contributing positively to his life or was contributing negatively or was just neutral.

I hope this comment isn't full of flaws though. I stand to be corrected

How about: after all I've done for you...

This line is rife

I can only take the second option you listed there the first one is a no-no for me

RoyalBlu:
How about: after all I've done for you...

This line is rife

Sounds more like "I was there for you"

OladimejiRufai:
I was there for him can as well be correct depending on what they mean

If they met the guy's needs when he needed them or he needed something, they were having his back in times of trouble or need and were there to console or comfort him at times of difficulty, then if they say "I was there for him", they are correct.

And besides, she could have been there "with" him and would not have been "for" him. She could just have been there with him (in his life) playing no significant role or meeting any of his needs. She could have even been there "with" him and she was rather causing problems for him. But she was still "with" him.

The bottom line is, if a lady was there "for" a guy, then she supported and positively impacted his life regardless of whatever degree. But if she was there "with" him, then the case should be further investigated to discern if she was there "with" him and contributing positively to his life or was contributing negatively or was just neutral.

I hope this comment isn't full of flaws though. I stand to be corrected

you made sense plenty

Women should stop looking for men to be there for.

They should channel their "Audio inspirations" to their fathers and brothers to help them blow.

You can't claim that you helped a man succeed when you and your family members are still poor.

Some ladies truly have the right to use that phrase I was there for/with him but not nowadays, maybe in the last millennium.

In this millennium, get dumped by cash is closely followed by get dumped by woman.

virgoquin:
I [s]know where this thread is heading to


Only ungrateful people who doesn't understand the value of loyalty that tend to discard their girlfriend or wife who stayed with them from the beginning when they were struggling with life and trying to breakthrough.


I don't know what some of you people want, the same people that go about screaming on top their voices that girls should try to build with their boyfriend and not go for the already made ones will still be the same people to open this kind of thread[/s].

Shut up. Just shut up woman!

Listen fellas, there is a clear difference when a woman says:

"I WAS THERE WHEN HE WAS SUFFERING"

vs

"I SUFFERED WITH HIM"


That she was 'there' at your lowest doesn't mean she was actually loyal and sacrificial towards your growth - ask yourself if she truly struggled with you

Too many entitled chicks out here

genq:



Shut up. Just shut up woman!

Listen fellas, there is a clear difference when a woman says:

"I WAS THERE WHEN HE WAS SUFFERING"

vs

"I SUFFERED WITH HIM"


That she was 'there' at your lowest doesn't mean she was actually loyal and sacrificial towards your growth - ask yourself if she truly struggled with you

Too many entitled chicks out here

The two sounds alike.

maak400:
Be not deceived, women only want the ready made men or a man that they feel his financial breakthrough is around the corner. No woman will stay with you if they don’t see the potential in you that you will be financially okay in the nearest future. They are hypergamous in nature and only wait for men who will win or have won, “the winners”.

God bless you bro...

We have to be realistic, so we can conquer reality....who wan suffer...as in reason am nobody wan suffer...I don't blame this girls...fine I don't support pettiness but then...thats the reason why I keep telling myself...u must make it to some reasonable standard before u can think of marriage......

I was there with you simply means I gave you alone free access to mine pussy but I was there for you means support beyond only pussy loyalty. unfortunately most Nigerian ladies fall into the category of the formal.

It depends on what tickles one's fancy. Personally, altruism of a woman is worth more than anything else; so an altruistic woman has every right to say "I was there for/with you."

Lalasticlala what do you think about this fun thread?

maak400:
Be not deceived, women only want the ready made men or a man that they feel his financial breakthrough is around the corner. No woman will stay with you if they don’t see the potential in you that you will be financially okay in the nearest future. They are hypergamous in nature and only wait for men who will win or have won, “the winners”.

Na why I go dey use them dump be this

Any other interests besides women?

nlPoster:
Any other interests besides women?

Help me ask them