Ginky baby  no be you start the thread ni? Why you dey back out? Na you go pack the sh!+ wey you start. LOL

FMK, blessed are your eyes if only they will start seeing. Did God tell you anything about 2012 or did you discover it in the world that he placed you in (like the Mayans did), or rather are you only making such raucous noise because you read some articles and saw a movie? Get a life, will you?   You're just peddling terrible rumours and saying about those who don't believe the superstition that neither will their eyes see the day? What kinda drugs are you on?

Since you are bent on using the Bible to support your ideas, eat this:
Eph 3:21  Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

You know nothing about times and seasons. THE WORLD IS NOT ENDING. AND DEFINITELY NOT IN 2012. Ask KunleOshob to explain to you.

I know I will be alive till later this century, and I and my Father in Heaven will see 2013 and laugh at the folly of men like you.
Psa 2:4  He Who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord has them in derision [and in supreme contempt He mocks them].

@KunleOshob, please tell them. Some people are dull of hearing or too inane to understand details.

Sigh. Now I feel better. For the first time I have positively raked at someone on Nairaland. Kinda feels good.  

SEFAGO, last time I checked pastors had romantic inclinations too and anyone was free to post anywhere on Nairaland . No wonder your post was deleted by the Mod

I will return to this post in 2013 and laugh. I will also watch the 2012 movie in 2013, and laugh out loud, too.

I don't do one-night stands   . It's like vandalizing petroleum pipelines, rather than purchasing from the accredited vendors: it's a high-risk, low-commitment grossly-irresponsible act, IMO.   

@Topic: No stories from me now or later. By the way, why isn't this in the sexuality section, since we will soon start seeing explicit boastful reports? 

Man tortures his nephew with a pressing iron for N200.

Personally, I don't see where the guy's religion counts for anything here. Maybe I would speak differently if he had claimed that it was for an atonement of a sin or sins, or he said that he was divinely instructed, or some other mumbo-jumbo. Otherwise, this is just another story about the grossness of human wickedness. And nothing more. I don't give a flying rat's a$$ whether the uncle was an Amadioha priest, a Jew, Muslim, Christian or a Cthulhu worshipper.

And then the compulsive idiot blamed the devil after he had tortured the poor boy. Pschew.

@H2O2: Like Samson and Delilah?

GL:

we all say we'll do this/that but it's easier said than done. it's kinda like emotionally planning for the unfortunate event that you could get married to such a guy while hoping/praying that you won't. it's harder for women to make these decisions once they are in the marriage even though they know they should. when you get married you sort of see the guy as a child and you keep making excuses for him and taking nonsense from him. so i think it's not a bad thing to plan ahead, as long as the plans aren't written in stone.

GL, I get your point. But maybe cos I am a guy, it doesn't quite fit.

I strongly believe in the power of preconditioned thoughts in defining human experience by subtly imposing ideals into the subconscious, poised to infect realities as they emerge. And it seems to me, that many ladies follow such preconditioned thoughts without prior rationalizing, it's like eating junk food.

e.g. A girl EXPECTS her mother-in-law to be a crone, a haggard most-evil witch, and she gets married with that notion. Even if the mother-in-law would have been nice, she also expects the wife to be nasty to her so when she senses the "defensive counter-attack" that the new bride cannot really hide, she switches into attack as well. Then the chain goes on and on. At least that's my opinion, it seems preconceived notions like this harm ladies more than guys. Why is it that we won't generally see guys carrying such preconceived notions (and maybe opening threads about them, say except the sarcastic one started by harakiri)? Or is it just me? Most times, I think guys even tend to dispel such notions, saying "In my own home, it will be different. I will do things my way." And maybe that is why the evil father-in-law figure never appears either. My 2 cents.

@oaroloye: If you fast for extensive periods, prepare to start battling mouth-odour (halitosis). If you don't believe me, ask Mahatma Gandhi. No disrespect on the great man, but due to his extensive fasts, his mouth was always reading 100% on the Mama-gee sniff-scale.  And that was why he was known as the super-calloused, fragile mystic, hexed by halitosis 

Gotta love this little skit of a poem

Super calloused fragile mystic
hexed by halitosis.
Even though the sound of it
is something quite atrocious.
If you say it loud enough,
you're sure to sound precocious.
Super calloused fragile mystic
hexed by halitosis!

GL, I dunno about the ladies but as for me, I will only agree with that guy on two conditions:
1. It is established that his wife is ACTUALLY like that.
2. He has discussed it with her and she is not ready to change.

Those two conditions illustrate that she is immature and needs to be handled like a child. The man should open a secret account and keep the "excess" there, for their own financial good.

But in this case, we see unmarried ladies saying that WHEN they get married, they WILL NOT do so and so. Is that indeed wise, unless they know for sure that the husband will be demeaning and non-appreciative of their efforts, and will never see things from the right perspective of gratefulness?

GL:


when a woman cannot cook/wash/clean, she employs and supervises the maids. she takes total responsibility for the maid's work, she still plans the meals. the man doesn't have to take up the housekeeping role.

when a man cannot provide, the wife takes over his role and provides. she STILL continues to play her role in housekeeping whether it was doing the job herself or supervising the maids.

i really shouldn't call it inequality anyway, because it's just an unfortunate situation. and the average nigerian guy would do all he can to provide financially. my point was just that the costs of a man's inability to provide are different from the costs of a woman's inability to do housework. and that at the end of the day the woman bears the brunt of anyone's deficiency.

GL, the above assertions are totally unfounded, I must say.

What happened to the guy who "hustled", the one who probably did some illegal runs (and got caught or not by the law) or bent some rules at work in his favour, or the guy who borrowed and was immersed in bad debt, for the sake of his family? What happened to the guy who asked his elder brother to loan or give him money to save his neck in financial crises, just like the woman who asked her young niece to live with them and reduce her workload? And yet you speak as if the wife is the one who always saves the day, while still upholding her end of the deal.

I do not like how you seem to be bending the resolution of all marital crises in the direction of the wife. The conjectures you proffer are entirely spurious!

GL:

i think women only have problems doing these things for guys because they don't want to be taken advantage of. if men were perfect (but no one is) i guess majority of women would even hand-wash for guys. we tend to be wired that way, see how women go to extreme lengths for their kids. i'm sure many women want to be able to do the same for their man, problem is that once you start doing it he takes you for granted.

He takes you for granted? You say it like you've met the whole bunch of men! What will you say if a guy says that he is not going to bring home his entire paycheck of 450,000 but will only come home with 280,000 cos he knows that the wife probably won't appreciate the sum anyway? Or cos he knows that she probably won't put it to excellent use eitherway? Would you agree with such reasoning?

GL:

btw, i'm not for a woman abandoning housekeeping totally. i just dont think she has to do it herself if she doesnt want to, she can get hired help.

And there, I agree with you. It is her responsibility to see to it that it is done, IMO. Whether she does it herself or not is another matter entirely.

@GL: I beg to disagree with you. You explained in detail how the woman can cover up for her roles when she is deficient by getting maids, nannies, etc (and not calling her husband to do those things?) but in the deficient guy's case, you glossed over it and said that when the guy can't provide for the family the wife will handle it. How's THAT (the imbalanced view you presented) for equality? 

GL:

it's not doing housework that makes women feel like slaves, it's the way people around react to a woman doing housework that does. a woman lovingly does her husband's laundry and he goes into a rage over a missing sock when there are so many others. a woman goes out of her way to make an elaborate dinner for a man and he complains that there isnt enough salt/ soup is too thick. a man's relatives complain about the wife's inability to cook their local food, ignoring how well she cooks other foods. that's what makes women feel like slaves.

i don't know why the guys complaining here can't just calm down and read through the ladies' posts. most ladies here aren't saying they can NOT wash their husbands clothes. they are saying they CAN but they are NOT obliged to do so. and even more importantly, many of us have posted that we would gladly do a guys laundry IF he is appreciative of our efforts.

seriously, is it too much to ask that you appreciate what a woman does for you. i think the problem is many men don't want to feel grateful, they want to feel like the woman has to do it since they do something else. i know some guys actually appreciate these things. but i've seen too many men who never ever appreciated anything their wives did. a man who got angry because the wife served the same soup twice in a week, yet this woman was the one working to sustain the family.

i tend to appreciate things people do for me out of their own will than things people do out of obligation. that someone sacrifices herself for love and not out of duty, it gives the sacrifice so much more value. so i find it shocking that guys aren't happy to see that their wives don't see housework as an obligation. the truth is cleaning comes naturally to most women, we don't necessarily notice it until someone takes advantage of it.

@GL: And now, THAT is another topic entirely, I hope you know? Human beings are fundamentally selfish and ungrateful unless they are forced to be otherwise, or unless love has taken over their hearts. We can't say that women should generally kick against those "compulsory" roles[i] just because[/i] some men are ungrateful and condescending! That will be like saying that guys should always have a mistress - that worships them - as an emotional reserve, a backup, somewhere because some women nag their husbands to the point of utmost vexation; or that men should not always provide for the home because some wives take the money that the hardworking husband provides and waste it on trivialities. Your point about slave-driving is an entirely different case, even though related to the topic, IMO.

@harakiri: Sincerely, I think we need to consider the fact that although advancements in the modern society seem to be remoulding traditional roles in content, the roles have never really shifted in context. So, whether you have a traditional viewpoint or a modernistic viewpoint, it will be wise to consider the context and not the content. Examining the content of the roles can be confusing if you try to look from those two viewpoints at once.

IMO, considering the contexts of the roles: basically the man is the inward-to-outward person of the family, he controls what comes in and goes out of the home, and how it comes in and goes out; while the woman is the inner-person who controls/manages/improves resources within the home and ensures that the man's efforts are not wasted.

If you critically examine these contexts from a traditional viewpoint, one may say that the man is the sole provider and the woman should sit at home to take care of it. But from a modernistic viewpoint we know this can't always be so.

And that is where responsibilities come in. In summary, I will say, it is the responsibility of the man to ensure that the contexts he ought to fulfill are properly catered for, and it is the responsibility of the woman to see that the contexts she ought to fulfill are not neglected. Whatever means they will agree upon to process their contextual roles is left in their hands e.g. a medical surgeon wife who is always very busy STILL has the contextual role of ensuring her family looks presentable. If she will get a clothier to examine their wardrobes from time to time, or she will do it herself on some free weekends, is another matter. An husband who just lost his job has the responsibility of looking for how to get his family's needs fulfilled till he gets a new job, even if his wife is an oil tycoon. The plan may or may not involve speaking to her about it (or for a sensible wife, she volunteering to help), but his responsibility is to ensure that the family does not lack.

And let me add, for the other thread, it is compulsory for the wife to KNOW that her husband's clothes need to be clean, that is her contextual role. If people see a married man at work, with a rumpled or dirty shirt, or a married man who is famished and growing lean, the first questions are "I thought he is no longer a bachelor? Is his wife ill? Does he have marital problems?" and similarly, an unkempt wife or a wife who cannot afford to attend to female necessities will be asked such questions, and kids who are kicked out of school for fees will never be asked about their mum, it must be the dad, unless they have a single parent.

There. A long post. I hope my points about contextual roles and responsibilities are clear. There is no hard and fast rule, I believe.

This same OP said on October 2nd 2009

kriscross:

I'm eighteen in 100 Level of a Nigerian University.  Found this guy who is just an awesome and great friend.  My parents and siblings say he is only a cheat as is with all guys and i am still a small girl.  So i dumped him. I dont believe he would affect my studies or make me do the wrong things i wouldnt want to do.  Wat do i do?

*Crickets chirping, and can you also hear the heavy rainfall in the background?*

Inexculpation

i.e. I will not forgive her for not forgiving me because I refused to forgive her when she didn't forgive me.

LOL Just kidding. I dunno, but I guess I will always forgive her as long as she is ready to make necessary adjustments and a 360^o change for the better.

P.S. Forgiving her no-matter-what will be the insurance against the future in case I mess up really bad too. Don't say I told you, but I did

@Everyone: Please when you get the number, post it here 'cos I think I want some right now

Viaro! Chai! You no go kill me with lafta this guy!

@harakiri: Bros why the angry face na? But sha, LOL the expanded version of your rhetoric is more interesting, IMO, especially the last sentence.

Is it compulsory for a man to provide for his family? Why should he perform this role? Can't a man just hang out with his friends drinking beer all day while the woman works for the daily bread?

@FL Gators: You're welcome, niftypeach.

off-topic:
@Fl Gators: Here is the first sci-fi novella, I forgot I posted one on NL. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371703.0.html

@Fl-Gators: Please stop the dustup against Harakiri. I think he is just trying to prove a point, howbeit subtly but exaggerated to clarify/magnify his point. Personally, I see it like SATIRE, and in satire, insults and scorn will definitely be wittily passed along to drive home the point. You have gotten his message, but others may not so readily see his point if the thread does not exist. I think you are over-reacting. Really. But that's my 2 cents sha.

@Topic: Hmm. I ask, "Why is he called a MAN?"

JeSoul, it's in your inbox now. Thine inquisitiveness has made thee whole Please reply if you have the heart  Sorry it's 40 minutes late, it's thanks to unexpected circumstances!

Beneli: the umbrella term you refer to is "Theist", I think. And you are spot on about faith, which allows for revelation, and then reason follows up on the revelation.

Heb 5:13  For everyone who continues to feed on milk is obviously inexperienced and unskilled in the doctrine of righteousness (of conformity to the divine will in purpose, thought, and action), for he is a mere infant [not able to talk yet]!
Heb 5:14  But solid food is for full-grown men, for those whose senses and mental faculties are trained by practice to discriminate and distinguish between what is morally good and noble and what is evil and contrary either to divine or human law.

Heb 5:13 says he is a mere infant (Greek: nepios), unable to talk (reason properly) who drinks in revelation continuously but does not scrutinize it with reasoning, as in Heb 5:14 with strong meat (solid food)

According to John, too, there are three levels of growth in the knowledge of God: little children, young men, and fathers. I will like to draw parallels with experential knowledge of God by faith, by faith and revelation, and by faith, revelation and reasoning.

1Jn 2:12  I am writing to you, little children, because for His name's sake your sins are forgiven [pardoned through His name and on account of confessing His name].
1Jn 2:13  I am writing to you, fathers, because you have come to know (recognize, be aware of, and understand) Him Who [has existed] from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have been victorious over the wicked [one]. I write to you, boys (lads), because you have come to know (recognize and be aware) of the Father.
1Jn 2:14  I write to you, fathers, because you have come to know (recognize, be conscious of, and understand) Him Who [has existed] from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong and vigorous, and the Word of God is [always] abiding in you (in your hearts), and you have been victorious over the wicked one.

Jesoul lovey, check your inbox in 5 minutes for the answer to that puzzle. You are about to be shocked

Abekeade, omo mama e! You have spoken very well. May your days be long.

JeSoul, how u dey today? Happy New Year, dear

Beneli, I think Deists are examples of theists (who are exclusive to atheists), just like Christians are examples of theists. But then, you can be a Christian and a Deist at once, cos Deists believe in God on the basis of reason (not revelation) and Christians believe in God on the basis of revelation. I guess maybe you do the two?

@lovemoi2: Haba I don dey see your posts from thread to thread. Easy on the guys, girl. Generalization is a terrible form of assumption, which in turn is the least form of knowledge. I respect you o, no dey fall my hand like this.

Men and brethren   these una lengthy non-evidence-based conjectures sha!  

Gabry is no longer vying for sugarmama. She is now vying for Sugarson-heartbreaker