carefreewannabe:


There is nothing like A husband! People are different and have different desires.

there is something that is common with all men.

Lateralmaths:
why?

I would break up with someone who does not know how to handle finances before we would get married.

Lateralmaths:
Ok I get you now. Wisdom is the greatest because wisdom is the right application of other weapons. Without it other weapons could be misused.

Yea, that's exactly my thought too.

carefreewannabe:


I would break up with someone who does not know how to handle finances before we would get married.

isokay

Lateralmaths:
there is something that is common with all men.

And that is? Apart from the obvious.

ArewaSweetheart:


Yea, that's exactly my thought too.

you too know book.

crackhaus:

You are actually typing a lot and saying nothing, while confusing yourself in the process.

Let's do a recap:
- First, you equated submission to intelligence and I corrected that by explaining what submission entails...you even said your understanding of it was about yielding and letting one partner lead.

- On your next response, you went back on the intelligence talk by stating that if you were a woman, you would not be submissive to a man less intelligent than you are - I subsequently asked you why a woman (who has a thing for intelligence) would marry a man less intelligent than she is in the first place.

- On this particular retort, you're now going on about your understanding being different...which is entirely off point as we're still talking on intelligence.

The point is this:
If intelligence is a prerequisite for submission (as this is your own understanding of marriage), then it's up to the woman to either marry a man she is more intelligent than to avoid submitting to him or marry a man who is more intelligent than she is and submit totally to him - can you see the direct result of your logic?


For more clarity on what submission entails, refer to my earlier explanation - it is not about who is more intelligent, neither is it about being a slave.

I don't believe that a man is the 'administrator' of the home like you put it, rather I believe that a home is jointly owned and managed by a man and his wife equally, that is why I said that we differ in our understanding of marriage.
To imagine that you can't find a connection between intelligence and who calls the shots or makes wise decisions in a marriage renders your arguments very useless.

carefreewannabe:


And that is? Apart from the obvious.

everyman wants his woman to treat him like a king.

Lateralmaths:
you too know book.

Lol. We learn from one another.

@Lateralmaths

Came to think of the name of this thread and it struck me that "weapon" has actually a negative connotation. Why would someone want to use a weapon against his / her spouse?

I am wondering if the title of this thread reflects on your own, subconscious notion of marriages.
Why do you think of weapons when you think of marriages?

Sophyrocks:


So asking questions is aggressive? I can see how far your intelligence has taken you. I am not addressing you but the Op. He was patient enough to answer my questions. So mind your business and answer the Op's question or you zip it! if you have nothing intelligent to contribute. Your attacking me isnt an intelligent move either. Hypocrite! The Op was more intelligent than you are.

Again, being noisy isnt what makes you intelligent! Find some other way to fake it. Stop trying to make out an issue where there is none. Stop asking stupid and unending questions too. I understand you're trying to fake it, till you make it, but that's not the way to go about it. Nag,
you're putting off some of us who came to read something entertaining on this thread. Thanks

Lateralmaths:
everyman wants his woman to treat him like a king.

How does a wife treat her husband like a king?

carefreewannabe:
@Lateralmaths

Came to think of the name of this thread and it struck me that "weapon" has actually a negative connotation. Why would someone want to use a weapon against his / her spouse?

I am wondering if the title of this thread reflects on your own, subconscious notion of marriages.
Why do you think of weapons when you think of marriages?

weapons can be used for or against.

Lateralmaths:
weapons can be used for or against.

True but it always causes some sort of damage to something or someone.

carefreewannabe:


How does a wife treat her husband like a king?

you women know na

Lateralmaths:
you women know na

Very true.

donpeey22:
I don't believe that a man is the 'administrator' of the home like you put it, rather I believe that a home is jointly owned and managed by a man and his wife equally, that is why I said that we differ in our understanding of marriage.
To imagine that you can't find a connection between intelligence and who calls the shots or makes wise decisions in a marriage renders your arguments very useless.

And again, submission isn't just about who calls the shots or makes wise decisions - if you're paying attention, you should be seeing where your problem with this topic is stemming from

Is it possible that two people jointly own and manage one institution equally without one of them having an organogram-type edge over the other?

Driven:



Again, being noisy isnt what makes you intelligent! Find some other way to fake it. Stop trying to make out an issue where there is none. Stop asking stupid and unending questions too. I understand you're trying to fake it, till you make it, but that's not the way to go about it. Nag,
you're putting off some of us who came to read something entertaining on this thread. Thanks

You clearly have nothing intelligent to contribute but just wanted to nag here too. You must be really dumb!! Why dnt you zip it? who's nagging now? buhahahahaha. pfft. hypocrite.

Lateralmaths:
I think the reason most wives have issues in their marriages is because they don't put to use their greatest weapon.

A wife's greatest weapon is stooping to conquer. It sounds foolish but that's the truth. Men have ego and the solution to that is stooping to conquer. A man responds to a submissive woman.

Find the secrets of wives whose husbands listen to them.You will find out that such wives understand this mystery.

What do you think is a wife's greatest weapon?

Very true.

But today's women mistook 'stoop' for being 'stoopid'.

In marriage the two parties can't always be wise,sometimes one or both parties have to be foolish for the good of the marriage.

Sophyrocks:


You clearly have nothing intelligent to contribute but just wanted to nag here too. You must be really dumb!! Why dnt you zip it? who's nagging now? buhahahahaha. pfft. hypocrite.

Yes, I neither had anything intelligent nor anything stupid to contribute to the topic. Still dont. Stated earlier that I came to read. I musnt contribute to every thread I enter. But then, I came across a barrage of stipid questions from someone here, so I had to post to stop her on her track. Guess who that someone is?

Driven:



Yes, I neither had anything intelligent nor anything stupid to contribute to the topic. Still dont. Stated earlier that I came to read. I musnt contribute to every thread I enter. But then, I came across a barrage of stipid questions from someone here, so I had to post to stop her on her track. Guess who that someone is?

You see? and guess who the nag is now? buhahahahaaha. what a troll!

crackhaus:

And again, submission isn't about who calls the shots or makes wise decisions - if you're paying attention, you should be seeing where your problem with this topic is stemming from

Is it possible that two people jointly own and manage one institution equally without one of them having an organogram-type edge over the other?

I remember you agreed with me that being submissive in the context of marriage means one partner yielding to and being led by the other, if that's the case, to what should the submissive partner yield? Since you are now saying that submission isn't about who calls the shots or who makes the decisions in the marriage. Please what really is submission to you?

Sophyrocks:


You see? and guess who the nag is now? buhahahahaaha. what a troll!

Yessss, I'm a nag...I've nagged you out of your plans of sapping the sanity out of everyone on this thread with your insipid questions. #Now I can go back to read-only mode!

Driven:



Yessss, I'm a nag...I've nagged you out of your plans of sapping the sanity out of everyone on this thread with your insipid questions. #Now I can go back to read-only mode!

Hahahahahahaaha. Oh dear! Troll.

Op,
As a counsellor that you said you are, I would avice you to tell your counsellees to love and respect their spouses.

Stop harping on submission; that over-emphasis has been known to destroy homes.

Telling a woman that because she has said I do to a man, she should throw away her intelligence and bow to every whim of that man is just like advocating that her brain be purged so she is less aware of herself and more pliable to her husband.

P.S
submission is not love; don't confuse it. And, after all is said and done, what we all need, you too OP, is love.

donpeey22:
I remember you agreed with me that being submissive in the context of marriage means one partner yielding to and being led by the other, if that's the case, to what should the submissive partner yield? Since you are now saying that submission isn't about who calls the shots or who makes the decisions in the marriage. Please what really is submission to you?

crackhaus:

Nothing to do with who is more intelligent, or who makes more money.
Recognizing that the husband is the head, leader, and administrator of the home is the concept of submission.

How the woman chooses to go about her interpretation of submission is where wisdom comes in, which is basically what stooping to conquer entails as mentioned in the OP.

Now you may answer this question:

Is it possible that two people jointly own and manage one institution equally without one of them having an organogram-type edge over the other?

Ezeanna:
Op,
As a counsellor that you said you are, I would avice you to tell your counsellees to love and respect their spouses.

Stop harping on submission; that over-emphasis has been known to destroy homes.

Telling a woman that because she has said I do to a man, she should throw away her intelligence and bow to every whim of that man is just like advocating that her brain be purged so she is less aware of herself and more pliable to her husband.

P.S
submission is not love; don't confuse it. And, after all is said and done, what we all need, you too OP, is love.

this thread was created to address wives. Another thread also addresses husbands to love unconditionally.

Lateralmaths:
I counsel people and I hear a lot abt marital problems. On this thread I am talking to just wives. I created another thread addressing just husbands.

haha, hope u r not a marriage activist

Smartestelvis:
haha, hope u r not a marriage activist

if you say so.

Driven:



Yessss, I'm a nag...I've nagged you out of your plans of sapping the sanity out of everyone on this thread with your insipid questions. #Now I can go back to read-only mode!

Wetin dey worry this one

crackhaus:




Now you may answer this question:

Is it possible that two people jointly own and manage one institution equally without one of them having an organogram-type edge over the other?

In case you don't know, when someone is the head, leader or 'administrator' of a home that person calls the shots and makes decisions in the home. Mere 'recognizing' that someone is the head of a home can't equate to submission.
To answer your question, yes it is possible for two people to jointly own and manage an institution equally provided there's a set rule governing such partnership by which both partners must abide, and which will determine who makes what contributions in the partnership.