₦airaland Forum

Chilipepper:
➜I bought him his first duvet" – Woman shares her family's success story after dating her man from a humble beginning.

Storyland! 🙄🙄🙄

Contrast that with the stories of 10s of thousands of other Nigerian women out there who played the same card only to end up regretting it, some even losing their lives at the hands of the same men they supposedly had humble beginnings with, and you begin to realize the meaninglessness of these stories people like to tell. 🥱🥱🥱

TheRedpillguy:
Let's go with that Logic for the Man too, why keep a wife when you can have freedom and side chicks

For many men, the wife is the woman they settled for— to mine free labor and other benefits of having a wife at home from— whereas the sidechick is the woman that is more their type but either cannot afford or cannot fully measure up.

JuanDeDios:
➜Bolded is NOT true.

You are telling me that there are sidechicks out there who would accept being treated worse than the wife? Please explain!

Amarachieze:
➜Not actually trying to impress you but to answer your questions?
➜ Any reaction to harm or perceived harm that aims to safeguard oneself from further harm cannot in any sense or logic be refered to as retaliation but a precaution

1. Logic has little to do with impressing, but sticking to that which is acceptable beyond the ruminations in one's mind.

2. You keep trying to redefine it, but the fact is retaliation comes in different forms, as you stated, and even divorce can be used to that end.

komek:
This Fidelia is heartless. You dont want the man and you put out his face to the internet so that others wouldn't go for him abi? E go shock you

The man already has her best friend, what more does he need?

Amarachieze:
➜I earlier admitted a harm was done but I have insisted that relatively it is no harm because the person who was injured believe that what had happened saves her from greater harm hence calling off the marriage.
➜Definition of retaliation is not subject to individual perceptions or interpretations. It a payback in kind and not all forms of reactions to harm. Going by your definition of retaliation it means that by calling off the wedding she has retaliated. But her reaction is not a payback or retaliation against the fiance but a safety measure to secure her personal happiness.

1. Your conclusion makes no logical sense, though!

2.

Amarachieze:
➜ Retaliation is more than just any negative response to harm done but rather a payback in kind or exact form. Avoiding someone that hurts you or severing relationships with unfriendly friends cannot be refered to as retaliation. Even divorcing a cheating is no retaliation but cheating on her as a payback is retaliation

Amarachieze:
➜ Your response is very interesting but the answer to to the issue at hand is neither here or there. Why? Because every coin has 2 faces A harm that prevents a greater harm is relatively no harm. In fact is a good omen
➜ Retaliation is more than just any negative response to harm done but rather a payback in kind or exact form. Avoiding someone that hurts you or severing relationships with unfriendly friends cannot be refered to as retaliation.
➜Even divorcing a cheating is no retaliation but cheating on her as a payback is retaliation

1. But this statement of yours is the reason why I keep pointing out the fact that this incident isn't just a red flag, but rather a harm that is also a red flag. Additionally, we can't state for a fact that this harm prevented a greater harm (for all we know, this man and woman may have died right on the way back from their wedding, something completely beyond both their individual control), and it is for this reason that we refer to it as a red flag, rather than as well.

2. Any negative action that is a response to an equally negative action is considered a form of retaliation— a payback in kind for form. Cutting off someone who hurts you in a way that renders them unable to receive the same benefits they previously enjoyed from you, in response to a betrayal, is a form of retaliation. Cutting off business connections to someone with whom you were formerly in business in response to a betrayal is a form of retaliation.

3. Divorce is not a form of retaliation? Let me guess, you think all those Nigerian men crying all over the internet because their wives out of nowhere— as if —filed for divorce against them, don't think it as a form of retaliation against them and their mostly dumb egos? You should probably talk to people who have been hurt by divorce about this before commenting any further. 🥱🥱🥱

louken:
➜So her purpose of resigning from wifehood is not particularly because she detests philandering but because she wants to take from the juicier end.
➜ She would rather be a side chick than be the wife of a man that has a side chick. Interesting.

1. That is a silly conclusion to reach from my comment there, don't you think? 🙄🙄

The question it was in response to is why some divorced women end up side chicks, making clear that this only applies to women after they have been divorced, not before. So, it could not then be reasonably suggested that said women left their marriages solely with the intention of becoming sidechicks. They each had valid reasons for needing to resign from their marriages, reasons that may not have anything to do with their later decisions to become sidechicks afterwards. 🥱🥱🥱

2. A woman whose ex-husband was a douchebag with sidechicks whom he treated better than she ever was—leaving her possibly financially, physically, and emotionally abused in the end with nothing to show for all of her years of diligence as a wife —, can, in fact, consider being a sidechick than a wife in her other relationship. 🥱🥱

Amarachieze:
➜If she calls what happened to her a red ⛳, the implication by your definition of red flag is that no harm has been inflicted.
➜ Notwistanding the pain of betrayal by the fiance and the bestie, she called off the wedding and by extension the marriage for her own good. So, absolutely some harm has been inficted but comparatively no harm has been done
➜ Now why I advised against retaliation and vendetta; Retaliation means she would be same with those who hurt her.
➜ Vendetta smacks of irresponsibility and regret for her well thought decision.

1. Wrong! What happened to her can be construed a red flag since it also speaks to the potential future of the relationship. However, it is also more than a red flag since she has, in the present, been burned by what happened. So, it is a red flag and more.

2. Wrong! Your statement confirms that there was betrayal, meaning that harm to her person did in fact take place; betrayal is a form of harm against others, and let's not even go into the abusive aspects of the betrayal that took place.

3. Wrong! Retaliation is payback, in any form, maybe similar, for harm caused. She was betrayed by these individuals. She could choose to retaliate by cutting off any business/familial connections she may have with these individuals. That is what most would logically do in a case like this.

4. That actually is dependent on your personal interpretation of these things and really has little or nothing to do with how others see it. To each his own demons, really!

mbos:
but wont, rather prefer stupidity

He should, though!

brain54:
➜I wasn't looking for who to blame... It's not a must to blame anyone. We mustn't always look for who is at fault. I simply commented based on the comprehension from the post that the guy got burnt. Because whatever his expectations was in the end didn't go his way and he ended up getting burned because he ended up crying about something!

Look carefully at the post you responded to.

Kobojunkie:
.1. He cheated on his wife with another woman and then left his wife for the other woman ?
I don't even know who the man is, but why bring his story here and then forget to bring the video too ?
2. He got burnt by a woman, or he burned one woman and got burnt by another ? Why does it seem you are attempting to blame the women for the choices the man made ?

brain54:
➜Kobo if you are referring to the first comment I made...Which I quoted you. Then you may have concluded wrongly on my position because I made that comment based on your own comment.
➜ I personally don't know the person, I have never seen or heard of him before. I didn't watch the video of him crying. I am almost certain you are also commenting based on the information on this thread which I am also doing. You need to have followed or at least have a full grasp of the people involved to get a full understanding. I would not have commented here in the first place on the thread because I never heard of the parties involved before. The reason I made a comment was because of your own comment on the thread which seemed to me you were struggling to comprehend what the op wrote. And based on what was written by the op on this particular thread is what I reacted to your comment.
➜ Now to the last part of your comment whatever his expectations were and whatever he got or did not get from the relationship with baddie does not change the fact that he got burnt in the end. Whether he was crying he lost his wife in the process, or whatever his reasons for crying the bottom line is that he got burnt in the end!

1. Based on my comment? That is impossible since my comment instead contained questions directed at the OP for clarification purposes. 🥱🥱🥱

2. Go back to see that my initial comment was laced with questions, not declarations. So, I am not certain how you could claim yours was based on my initial comment.

Also, saying you reacted to my post based on claims made by OP amounts to affirmation of claims made by OP. 🥱🥱🥱

3. So, basically, you had no new information to offer after all?

Amarachieze:
➜The question should rather be WHY NOT? if you consider your decision to be the best for your future and happiness hence you called it a red line or flag then you should be thankful that you escaped "death"
➜ Vindictiveness in this matter means you regretted your own decision to call off the marriage. Remember it is not your fiance or bestie that call of the wedding. You did for your safety

1. A red flag is an issue identified before any harm or hurt is inflicted. What happened to this lady is not merely a red flag since she has already been hurt by all that took place. I guess I should ask you why you feel to minimize the impact of what happened to her?

2. You cautioned her against retaliating for the hurt caused her by her now ex-fiancé and friend. You act like the ultimate goal here for her had been just the wedding, which was cancelled, and not even the marriage that comes after. I am simply trying to ascertain why you feel she needs to proceed as though nothing ever happened between them all in this?

Amarachieze:
It is your personal decision that must be respected. I advise you take full responsibility of your decision and avoid retaliation or vendetta.

Interesting view! Avoid retaliation and vendetta, why?

brain54:
➜Well, whether he imagined or not... Whether she gave her commitment to a relationship with him or not...he did get burnt because he ended up in a TV show crying about the situation. Even though we don't know who to blame or at fault...the wife, himself or baddie we do know he got burnt because he ended up crying on TV!

You admit to not knowing who to blame, but earlier you were almost certain the baddie burnt him? 🙄🙄🙄🙄

No woman is the property of any man or owes any man her body and life. He was probably just crying that, after abandoning his wife, the baddie did not see fit to commit to him. That doesn't mean the baddie burned him. So, let's pull the brakes on trying to make her out as some bad person in all of this. That he cried does not prove she is to blame for his misery, abeg! 🙄🙄🙄🙄

brain54:
➜He burnt one woman for another baddie... Who burnt him in return!

How did you confirm that he was burnt by her, though?

According to OP, he was with a baddie... did she tell you that she was in a monogamous relationship with him? He may have imagined that, after all, you made it clear that she is a baddie. Baddies typically prefer situationships — open relationships — than committed relationships. So, why should we accuse her of burning him? 🥱🥱🥱

correctyourself:
What if she married another man along the line the man is financially down or health issues, she wouldn't stay with the man, because she has no endurance.
Unfortunately she's not aware she doesn't have one of the qualities it takes to be parents. She thinks she's wise.

Why should women be expected to have endurance when men have near no endurance to offer them in return? Why expect to get what you can't give? What is with this nonsensical entitlement mentality that you are attempting to throw around so? 🥱🥱🥱

Also, if one man is financially down, she is free to find herself another who is, or better yet, level herself up to provide herself 100% without a man. She owes no man her life or loyalty. 🥱🥱🥱

Stop looking for ways to chain women down in what is pure bullsheet! 🥱🥱🥱

correctyourself:
➜What if she married another man along the line the man is financially down, she wouldn't stay with the man, because she has no endurance. Unfortunately she's not aware she doesn't have one of the qualities it takes to be parents. She thinks she's wise.

Why should women have endurance if men have no endurance? If one man is financially down, she is free to find herself another who is, or better yet, level herself up to provide herself 100% without a man. 🥱🥱🥱

Stop looking for ways to chain women down in what is pure bullsheet! 🥱🥱🥱

FarahAideed:
➜I don't know why I always feel you are a divorcee ,

And I don't mind you feeling that way, so keep on keeping on! 🥱🥱

muhmeen:
➜Remember Derrick Jackson, the relationship coach who always pandered to women? Who ended up cheating on his loyal wife (left picture) & left her for a baddie (right picture) Well the baddie got pregnant by another man & Derrick went LIVE on his social media handle in tears after finding out.
➜ For every man, this has been a successful hate watch, this guy used to blame men for everything. Turns out he's a hypocrite and he got burnt by a woman, whom he used to defend

.1. He cheated on his wife with another woman and then left his wife for the other woman?

I don't even know who the man is, but why bring his story here and then forget to bring the video too?

2. He got burnt by a woman, or he burned one woman and got burnt by another? Why does it seem you are attempting to blame the women for the choices the man made?

TotoSuckker:
➜The sweetness of some to/ tow can turn your head upside down, you no go know wetin you dey do

A lot of humans — men included— tend to be more emotional than rational in the way they reason even their desires, hence the reason why even our ancestors thought it OK to totally abandon their wives and children in pursuit of the other women they desire. It is all just human behavior and not juju, as many Nigerians would still love to believe.

PantShifter:
✓Once you divorce your husband and come outside you will realise that no single guy wants to marry you, we go just dey chop you dey go.
✓ Eventually they realise this and run back to married men because they know they stand a better chance of becoming a second wife than getting married to a single guy

This has never been true. Even as far back as the 80s, it was reported that many formerly divorced men and woman alike went on to successfully remarry and so on. In the South where abandonment was the norm, this was not properly tracked, however in Northern Nigeria where in some places the official divorce rate was recorded to have been as high as 81%, remarriage was never out of the place. 🤔🤔

2. Again, this is false! The few who choose to become sidechicks do so for reasons best known to them same as those others who choose remarriage as well as those who choose never to marry again. 🤔🤔

Try to make it a happen to investigate reality of things outside of your head before posting comments so you don't come off as severely deluded humans in the year 2025. 🥱🥱🥱

King2305:
✓ To be very honest, all the trash you there ended up for[i][/i] poster and even gave a more glaring view to his post. So u now admit say na woman do woman?
Based on ur gibberish "A sidechick has a high opportunity for growth more than the wife" You are technically saying and affirming that "wife" should get a divorce so as to be a sidechick. In other word, to have a better chance for growth?
That also validates OP claim that a wife gets divorced and ends up being a sidechick. That is his argument.
Whether they have better opportunity or not is not OPs argument. But you have now open our innermost eyes to a better career opportunity as an advantage of being a divorced sidechick. Which I will end up saying is the most useless argument of 21st century.
Also, just like what one guy said, no sane man would leave his wife for a sidechick not to mention "divorced, 8th hand, borehole sidechick"

The way una dey take process information presented you ehn ..I never see before. Whoever did this to you never meant you any good! Tufiakwa !!!🥱🥱🥱

Predictor3:
but you were the first to make it a case about quality and gender.

Yes, and?

TrainPark:
➜The other groups you mentioned usually support the growth of family through business and mentorship not through incessant handouts and entitled demands. And there is a huge difference.
I will give you a real life example to buttress my point.
A childhood friend came to me asking if I can come up with capital to start a business that he has competence in as a joint venture. So I will provide money and he will setup and operate the business in our behaves. I gave him about 4m over 7years ago and today the same business is thriving worth over 10m and I have also recieved more than the 4m I invested. He has bought and built a property in a major city in Nigeria. He is now married and runs his family from the same business.
Now my own blood brother on whom I have wasted money paying for a university program from which he has not still graduated almost 10years now. He was manipulating me through my mum whom he knows I take good care of an will never disobey. He would collect money from me and still ask my mother to talk me into giving him more. or he just collects the money that I give her and making her broke. Which still requires me to give her more.
I gave him the only car that i was driving so that he can use it for Uber but the idiot was asking me to buy brand new tyres for the car. I was pissed off. But it helped me see that I was wasting money on an entitled ingrate in the name of family.
I drew a hefty line in the sand and told him that the car is the last thing that I will ever give him and he can do with his life as he wishes. I also told my mother not to ask me for money on his behalf directly or indirectly. I have stood my grounds now for over 2yrs.
➜ My point is that one should only help those who are willing to help themselves not to patronise entitled ingrates in the name of family. That is some manipulating bullshit.
Note: I literally fought myself through life with God's favor, my mother's prayers and sheer grit. My blessed popsy passed on when I was still young. May God bless his soul and send light to his grave. He was a great man and father.

Finally, someone who more clearly articulates the difference between what is generally obtainable among Africans who claim black tax is part of their culture vs what is seen in other cultures, i.e., Asian cultures. 🤔🤔

2. It is indeed nothing but pure manipulation and gaslighting involved in all of that which many here tag African culture.

Mosco100:
Sin is condemned without partiality.

So, let me get this straight, in your earlier comment...

Mosco100:
According to 1 Corinthians 7, it's sin for one of the couples to deny the other due benevolence. Let her know this. Also, pray that she repents of this sin. Amen.

... you desired to have one sinner accuse another sinner of sin? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFrSnLts0GQ?si=rUyOziJtRnNMogZ3

COOL10:
➜Masculinity is slowly becoming a thing of the past. What we have now are a bunch of WhiteKnights who are under the beck and call of their female masters. As long as your manliness doesn't benefit a woman, the world will call you 'toxic'. It's a crazy world we live in.

If your manliness or your masculinity encroaches on the rights of another man or woman, then it is toxic. It is as simple as that. The same way the lewd acts of the Nigerian policemen against Nigerians are considered toxic and even criminal in most cases, is the same way your manliness would be regarded as toxic.

kelechi50:
➜There is juju involved, if not how will a sane man leave his wife and children for a side chick

This is simply human behavior!

✓ The lie told by OP, which is that 80% of women who get divorced eventually become sidechicks, is merely of human behavior. 😏
✓ The second behavior by some(not all) women who go to become sidechicks is of a human need to level up in any way possible. Nothing new here. 🥱

Walai:
➜I don't think I deviated from the topic. He is blaming our communal way of life for causing poverty and I countered his point with my own arguments. This same family conscious culture is the secret behind the pulling of millions of Indians out of poverty.
➜ Do I talk about the Chinese? Individualism is un-African and will not work. It's not who we are as Africans.

The statement in bold is a lie! The approaches are not the same at all.

2. Individualism, though a new concept on the most part, has survived in Africa and so is just as African as anything else. The African society, with its cast systems, typically had groups that were considered outcasts, individuals who were forced to strive and thrive on their own, and these individuals did just that in that same Africa.

brain54:
➜No kobo I didn't say traditional qualities are what men need in modern marriages... I only used that as an example to say that the complexity of marriage has changed over time.
➜ All what you stated in both approaches in your number 2 are different but not too dissimilar.
➜ There are numerous complaints but I'd go into that maybe later. Right now I'm very fatigued!

1. Then try to be more specific.

2. How can women choosing to decenter men be considered similar to men wanting to tie themselves loosely to women?

3. There aren't numerous complaints from women, as the issues they have can be boiled down to the fact that they wish for a more level playing field... a partnership that benefits them as much as it benefits the men. If men have numerous complaints, then why not point out some specifics that you think are valid? You don't have to do it now, but it would definitely make sense to continue only when you are capable of that.

brain54:
➜You used the word quality first... Definitely the qualities desired from their ancestors are different from that required by modern "couples" for example their ancestors may just have required women to bear (I done forget the spelling of bear/bare ) children and help with house chores. Modern marriage is much more complicated than that.
➜ Definitely both genders are approaching the issue of marriage differently but not too dissimilarly. And yes it's happening the world over!

1. If traditional qualities are what the men seek, then there is no shortage of women out there in villages and rural areas who fit the needs of these men, provided they prove themselves good/capable providers. I am really looking to discuss these complaints you say that men have?

2. I disagree! Women are more and more choosing to decenter men— 4B movement, childfree and single for life women, and, let's not forget, divorce-as-option-to-marriage mentality—, whereas, men still feel there is a place for women in their life, only they pursue to go it without formal commitments(even though their lives still revolve around having women in their lives). How is all of that similar?