₦airaland Forum

I won't vote Tinubu but PLEASE everyone let's stop insulting the old man.

Although I understand that in life people address you based on how you address others.

Tinubu was (and still is) the master of arrogance and insults. The man get curse for mouth. He insulted OBJ, Buhari, GEJ, PEJ etc. So it's natural that in sickness people are insulting and mocking him. It's simply Karma.

BUT PLEASE it is enough to point out that he is sick and cannot handle the rigour of the office. I mean the insults doesn't improve anyone's joy in life, the man is already sick, let him be.

Realists:
Instead of Obi/Datti to choose a Yoruba man as campaign DG, to give them a nationalistic outlook, Nope he choose his Okoro brother.
" Na with Clapping dance dey take start" we don't want another form of Nepotism & margilization, is there no Yoruba man that can handle that position, or since Tinubu is a Yoruba man, LP is not in need of their supports but only votes.

But Dr Adedoyin Okupe is the DIRECTOR GENERAL of the Peter/Datti campaign, and that is a higher position than spokesperson.

Oga does this settle your mind.

Our mind as human beings are predisposed to what we really want to see. But don't be in a rush to discredit a person, what we all want is a Nigeria that is better than Netherlands at the end of the day. If me an you jam for Toronto we are brothers o, irrespective of what part of Nigeria we came from

1. 'Obedient' doesn't mean blind followership. It is a slogan coined as an identifier for those who believe in the presidential candidacy of Peter OBI of Labour Party. It depicts positivity because obedience is an appreciated human quality. Most importantly, it represents the idea of being obedient to the national clarion call to change the current decadence in the Nigerian polity through mass voting. However, it doesn't imply blind followership (as imagined by Femi Kuti).

2. Ascribing online insults to obedients is nothing but a mind game to make you hate and vote against Peter Obi. Social media is a faceless society. People hide under their keypads and insult people. So it is 100% possible that an opposition party can create online accounts and use them to insult themselves and come out to accuse their opposition. This makes perfect sense.

3. We cannot put a face to anyone who insults online, but we have faces offline on the record who insult their opposition. The APC in Osun State said their opposition will "LABOUR IN VANE" (referring to the Labour Party) and Sam Omatseye (a known APC sympathiser) titled his controversial article OBI-ATUARY. Now can you remember anyone on the Obi camp who has indulged in such hate speech offline? The answer is known. So can we all agree that the APC and PDP (through Reno Omokri) are the regular perpetrators of hate speech and not obedients.

4. Is there a difference between card carrying Labour Party members and the average Nigerian who is fed up of the current political system? The answer is YES. A lot of Nigerians support Peter Obi and may label themselves Obedient in this regard. However they are Nigerians first. They are Nigerian who are heavily pained by how the current political class have made a mess of their lives, and this understandably could reflect sometimes in how they address politicians. But to ascribe all Nigerians who speak against a cohort of politicians as automatic members of Labour Party or obedients is not only wicked but a psychological ploy to draw sympathy from undecided voters.

5. Question for you the undecided voter: Will you punish Peter Obi who in himself has little or no fault which you can point at just because of what another Nigerian wrote online? How has that got anything to do with Peter Obi? So if anyone ask you not to vote for Peter Obi because of someone else's bad behaviour or lack of home training, is that person not indirectly calling you a fool? Yes they are trying to call you a fool because they assume you cannot answer the above question for yourself.

My people be wise.

God Bless you
God Bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

What you have might be Histrionic personality disorder (HPD). Find a qualified psychologist (preferably a behaviour therapist) in your community. May be some bits of psychotherapy will help, but definitely some form of DBT will help with emotion regulation.

Icouldhave:
I just can't help myself, right since I was a little kid. I get jealous easily.

I want everything to be just me alone, I want to be the one to have money then give it out to people.

I hate it when people gives me money, it anolds me, makes me feel less.


Please how do I contain this attitude of mine.


Ps

I don't do bad.

Neither do I do evil.

I just want to be the one running everything in my family or any place I find myself.

I want to be the number one guy


I want to be the giver always

First I guess you are a woman. Second, if you are actually a man then you must be an unmarried man and writing due to the pain a sister or lady friend of yours bared to you. Plus you already came in with a biased answer to your question.

But here's the thing. Forget all the "it's a man's world" or "women liberation stuff", let's look at something you obviously didn't consider. Biologically, testosterone makes men want sex everyday. And women in their own right biologically are not designed to be ready for sex every day. So the reasonable way to solve this problem is as follows...
1. Allow the man to marry more than one wife so that if one is not in the mood, the husband will allow her rest or heal (like after child birth, etc) and when she is ready again she can then enter her husband's 'chamber'. Note I don't mean having baby mamas here and there, I mean having wives who accept and are ready to manage with your financial status and luck in life. And you being ready to work your bum out to provide for your family.

2. Reach an agreement with your husband how many times a week he can have it and that you will open up whether you are tired or not and in return he can have only you as wife. A man who has a trusted timetable will have something to look forward to and can adjust.

But it will be unreasonable to tell a man that his wife cannot be available whenever his gbola needs it and at the same time ask the man not to have another woman to meet his biological needs. You can't have it both ways. It's not ego, it's a biological survival need.

Note, the woman don't always have to be in the mood to give sex. Just open the leg and let oga enter, 2 mins he don finish. And then on the day you are in the mood he can give you any how you want it until you climax. Marriage is a give and take. But if you feel he is unreasonable to ask you when you are not in the mood, then you don't know what marriage means

tobechi20:
Bring kids into the picture, and often, one’s sex drive takes a nose dive. Especially for mothers.

Low libido is a very common issue for new mothers as they are healing from childbirth, grappling with fluctuating hormones and extreme sleep deprivation.

While we know adjusting to a new baby can profoundly impact a couple’s life (including sexual intimacy), we, as a society, act like it shouldn’t. We act like there’s something wrong with a new mother needing a timeout from sex.

New mothers who admit to having less sex drive are often met with people urging, “Just do it anyway,” and “You’ll get in the mood.”

But what if you don’t get in the mood, even when you take this advice? What then?

Why aren’t the feelings of the woman valid? Shouldn’t she be listening to her body? Her mind?

I’m not sure where we got this idea that a husband owns his wife’s vagina. Or that he is entitled to intercourse, MouthAction, handling, or groping. I’m pretty sure I didn’t see that covenant in the paperwork. But I have an inkling that this entitlement is very much based in misogyny and male privilege.

Men are led to believe, often since they are young boys, that women should have sex with them when they want it. Even when their wives are not “in the mood.” Because sex is the way he feels intimate. Sex is the way he connects. Because putting your husband’s sexual desires first is supposedly the best way to avoid divorce.

These antiquated and sexist designs for marriage are damaging to women.

When a married mom doesn’t put out, she’s called “cold” and “selfish” and the dreaded “bitch.” She’s told she must have “something else going on” mentally. Outsiders to the marriage, and maybe even therapists, will question if the wife was ever sexually assaulted. Does she have a history of trauma? They’ll try to make connections that aren’t there. Because how could a wife possibly not want to have sex with her husband?

It is sickening and horrific to think of a woman having sex against her will, married or not. It’s disgusting that we automatically assume something must be “wrong” with a woman who is having a gap in her groove. Beyond all that, it’s dangerous.

Suggesting that married women and mothers should just “do it anyway” is sexual bullying and coercion. If a husband acts on the “just do it anyway” cliché and forces it — that’s called rape.

When we attack married mothers for not putting out, we’re reaffirming once again what’s important in this society.

A man’s needs, not a woman’s. A man’s voice, not a woman’s voice.