₦airaland Forum

Plead:



Cowards like you who've always propagated the submission of the female folks in relationships and marriage ideology are the reason the cringy ball head wants his girlfriend to kneel when serving him food

I'm not the cause of your ignorance in particular and lunacy in general. Submissiveness (submission) isn't the same thing as stepford/subservience/subjection/subjugation.

Submissiveness, in the context I know and use it always, is a variant of love and both are variants/products of goodness - it's a compound word and encompassing, just like love. They differ in nomenclature and application, with altruism as their soul - neither of them is a sign of weakness. A root entity (e.g. goodness, gender, etc,) always changes form for mutuality to take place for action - goodness (love and submissiveness), gender (male and female) - you are too myopic to understand a thing like this.

Well, until you literally point to me where and when I propagated subjugation of the female gender in particular and any caliber of human being in general, I say to hell with you and your lunatic parents. More so direct your further mentions to small-minded people like you.

I'm unapologetically an egalitarian and a humanitarian.

Bumpkin.

Small-minded people and penchant for subjugation are inseparable. I don't see a humane/sane man (or woman) expecting his maid to kneel down to serve him food, not to speak of a girlfriend - of course a humane one - who deserves the best treatment. It's an abomination, whether she does so voluntarily or otherwise.

@OP

In case you're in the US and reside in one of the states of New England, send me a PM.

@OP

Send me a PM if you're studying law.

Fountainofyouth:
weird of you typing pidgin,

So you aren't religious? Hmmm, can't renounce religion and I don't worship men of God,

So what are you then? When you answer this I'll decide whether to marry you or not

I am SBNR (spiritual but not religious) - but I no be neither an atheistic nor anti-religious person. Well, na when I hear say you don renounce religion I go know say I don defeat my village people, lol. Until den, my village I respect una.

Fountainofyouth:

Lol. E be like say na dis my Yoruba lady I go come marry las las. Let me know if you dey ready to renounce religion - I no mean say you go become anti-religion or atheist - because I no go like hear say "my religious leader says dis or dat."

Our choices and understanding really differ. Personally, inestimable value (invaluableness) of a woman lies in good ethics. So, provided that she's ethically sound - balancing altruism and conscientiousness - and beautiful to my eyes, every other thing is irrelevant or secondary.

A humane and/or sane woman will definitely marry her ethically ideal man who earns 30k, provided that he's a roof over his head - irrespective of her own financial standing (of course, better if she's of good financial standing) - just as sane men have always done (towards women) right from time immemorial. A woman of this caliber knows that two people in marriage/going into marriage are different from two people in a business partnership or competition, or two enemies living together/intending to live together forever. There're things a sane person shouldn't expect a typical small-minded (insane and/or inhumane and expedient) person to understand, irrespective of how brilliant he/she is.

As recent as two years ago, a man who temporarily handled a particular project for me, prior to meeting me, didn't have a steady job that could bring in an equivalent of the present day 30k for him monthly and he didn't have any savings or tangible assets anywhere - he was an American deportee - yet, a humane woman (she's a Nairalander), a silent multimillionaire and successful woman by all standard agreed and married him. Today, he's a "flag holder" and vied for house of representatives seat in the last election, albeit unsuccessfully, and over the last two years in review, he has legally acquired properties all the pseudo/wannabee successful (and too clever by half) noise-making women and men on this particular thread and their generations have not acquired or can only dream of. Of course, he adores the wife like every sane man would do towards a gold of a woman.

Money is good, but never allow it to define you and don't allow anyone to define you based on it. As hard as it is/seems to acquire, it remains one of the easiest material things to acquire - all things being equal.

There's no shame in being humane - only humane/sane people will understand that goodness (love and submissiveness) isn't a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength, and that toxicity in any guise isn't an option. The most irritating thing being that these small-minded elements who wouldn't either respect or consider those below them in economic status/social status, would want those above them in same status to respect and consider them - talk about chauvinism, hypocrisy, disingenuousness and greed - social climbers. Materialism is as bad as parasitism.

A virtuous/strong-minded/independent (financial emancipation doesn't automatically make anyone independent) woman is a gold (not gold digger). I doff my hat for anyone of this caliber.

lilmax:
We can all be mike

But a woman must be worth our mike aura


Treat women the way they are


If she's a dumbass treat her like one
If she's a HOE treat her like one


If she's a Queen, treat her like one

I concur. It amounts to mental parochialism in particular and insanity in general for an expedient person to long for goodness deserving of a principled person - only a greedy person will long for such.

OP, you're right too.

truthsayer009:
LordKo where are you? We have a Wife for you.

Congrats in Advance.

Las las na one of your sisters I go come marry.

Your husband is tactlessly ungrateful. Simple! His actions and inactions have nothing to do with him being a man or inherent unconformity.

@OP

Discard her and look elsewhere for a sane woman - actually, you've been a slave to your longings all this while, strive and conquer yourself. She's both egoistic and egotistic, her kind of woman is a perfect definition of toxicity, irrespective of her financial standing, and she'll remain a toxic woman even if you're to assume her and all her lineage financial responsibilities.

And don't allow anyone to gloat and guilt trip you into thinking that there're no financially emancipated women who're independent and submissive - that's, if you're bent on marrying only a woman who's financially emancipated. Submissiveness is a product of good attribute (sane moral and psychological health), something small-minded women can't possess or give - the same way small-minded men can't possess or give love. It doesn't depend on richness or poverty - it's a product of class that money can't buy, the ethical class.

In fact, the more successful a sane woman (or man) is, the more ethically sound she'll become - it's only a small-minded woman who will become contentious in particular and more toxic in general after achieving little success. The real success isn't loud and toxic, it's humble and invigorating.

Fountainofyouth:
Every man has been manipulated once or more in their life, except you want to deceive yourself.

"Every man has been manipulated once or more in their life, except you want to deceive yourself." This particular statement caught my attention. Well, it's a very wrong postulation.

Personally, no woman has ever succeeded to manipulate me in life - at least, relationship-wise. Perhaps, I'm the only man who's never been used by a woman or has never suffered heartbreak in the hands of a woman before, even though whatever cause I believe in I always give my very best - manipulators have senior brothers/sisters, lol. Manipulators lose credibility, diplomats gain it - diplomats give everything without losing anything and without hurting anyone/being the direct cause of someone feeling hurt.

Meanwhile, the OP is like ubunj.a, their whole submissions can only be adored by mentally parochial/small-minded or outright insane people - neither she nor he is a master in the sphere they ventured. This doesn't take away the fact that they're brilliant individually, and it's common sense that their submissions contain/will contain some truths - irrespective of how tactless and parochial they're - since they're human beings. That a submission is tactless doesn't automatically make it a truth - conceit is god's gift to small-minded people. The mechanism of neutralizing whatever they teach, irrespective of the volume, is the same (for both genders) and simple for every discerning person.

On the other hand, the biggest dummy ever sold to women is that they're smarter than men - whereas what's true is that most women are quick to take to hypocritical disingenuousness, the major hallmark and cheapest working tool of small-minded men and women. Don't mistake hypocritical disingenuousness for smartness. My point in this regard is that, smartness (or cleverness) isn't gender exclusive - I doff my hat for all women, irrespective of their intellectual capacity/intelligence quotient and ethical leanings.

When I look around, I see wannabe/pseudo strong/independent (smart, wise and strong-minded) men and women - toxic elements.

Let love rule. Love is real. Love is the greatest thing in this world. Goodness (love and submissiveness) isn't a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength - it takes a real strong human being to love/to be submissive.

Let me know if you've specialty in human resources or if you're formally seasoned in human resources.

A united Nigeria is different from a one Nigeria. So, I agree that if we can focus on pursuing a united Nigeria rather than a one Nigeria - which we have been pursuing all this while - things will get better for all and sundry. You don't run a country like a nation (and vice versa) and expect the same result, no and never. We're a country, not a nation.

We have to go back to the drawing board, our problems so far are fundamental . . . a very easy one to address though. A united Nigeria can become greater than Europe, all things being equal, but a one Nigeria cannot achieve such feat.

- A united Nigeria is one that will operate on the principle of unity, one that will accord special recognition to our diversity, with sound fundamental leanings.

- A one Nigeria is this type that has been built on the principle of oneness, which is impossible to sustain due to our diversity and weak fundamental leanings.

I believe in an indissoluble united Nigeria.

Your parents should know that individuals - irrespective of family background, tribe, race, gender, etc - differ based on ethical leanings.

Well, I know that it's a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest - Mbaise is my maternal home - yet without bias, I tell you majority of Mbaise people are good, forget about whatever stereotypes you've heard about them. Truth is that, they do protect their own (person, interest, possession, etc) with all their might, this makes many outsiders think and take them for bad people.

When dealing with them (or a typical one), always make sure you live on the axiom "he whom comes into equity must come with clean hands" both in words and actions, and don't forget your diplomatic garb (sew one if you don't have one already). Don't forget diplomacy, I say, because with it and aforementioned axiom you can also get your parents consent.

In summary, if you've achieved self-realization, which means you can/should be able to know your suitor's ethical leanings, then make your choice (either for or against) and live it to the fullest, whether or not your choice aligned to that of your parents choice.

Man know thyself.

I concur.

MissGhosted:
EVERYMAN IS A SLAVE.

A statement (mentality) like this is one of the reasons every sane man thinks twice before considering an egoistic (greedy or self-centered or selfish) and an egotistical (arrogant or conceited or proud) woman for a serious relationship or marriage - truly, only a submissive (selfless and meek) woman deserves a sane man's crown. Because you and your ilk do mistake any act of goodness (done for you by any man) as a product of your slyness/potency of your shenanigans, instead of a product of his goodness (love), thereby abusing him either directly or indirectly through derision and cynicism. SMH.

When a sane man either praises or pets, or makes a compromise (e.g. "I am sorry" ) to a submissive woman, she'll understand that he did so out of love/strength. But when he extends same courtesy to your kind of woman, you'll think that you've succeeded in subjugating him/that he's a weak man - if he then gives you a dose of your own medicine, you'll throw a statement like "men and their stupid ego" everywhere.

Well, maybe you're joking.

@OP

Don't mind wannabe/pseudo strong/independent (smart, wise and strong-minded) men and women - toxic elements. The funny thing is that none of the proponents and practitioners and followers of these nonsense have what it takes to compete effectively in actuality, and they can't accept in good faith the nonsense they mete out to others without crying murder. More so, they lack common sense to the extent that they do mete out their toxic attitude to the wrong people, thereby losing opportunities. All of them have penchant for subjugation, the same thing they abhor - chauvinistic, tactless and hypocritically disingenuous elements.

Bunch of egoistic (greedy, self-centered and selfish) and egotistical (presumptive, conceited and arrogant) elements who think that goodness is a sign of weakness, while toxicity (bad) is a sign of strength and emancipation.

Anyone who needs to identify with any group before he/she can relate effectively with any other human being (irrespective of the gender) lack common sense, just as anyone who derives pleasure from subjugation isn't just mentally parochial but also insane.

@OP

This type of thought process isn't good for your health. Being rich/successful doesn't automatically make a woman (or a man) arrogant - don't mistake self-esteem (or self-confidence) for arrogance or conceitedness or pridefulness. Also, you shouldn't apportion blame to a woman who has/drives a car whom a man who doesn't have/drive a car feels intimidated to approach - meekness doesn't invalidate self-esteem, just as selflessness doesn't invalidate conscientiousness. Yet, tactlessness is toxic and it's the major hallmark of arrogant, conceited and prideful people.

It's better to imitate a successful wo/man and become successful like her than to envy/crucify her - imitating isn't a crime anywhere in the world, duplicating is, so don't be afraid to imitate good. Money is good, but don't allow it to define you and don't allow anyone the privilege to objectify you based on it in particular and other material things in general. Also, don't allow anyone the privilege to abuse you, irrespective of your financial standing at any point in time, provided that you haven't given the person any reason to abuse/undervalue you. As hard as it is/seems to acquire (money), it's still one of the easiest material things to acquire under normal circumstances.

I hope you don't have phobia for caution. Don't mistake my caution for instruction/control like conceited people always do - caution is different from instruction/control and nobody is above receiving or giving it (where and when necessary). In fact, I'm sorry for anyone who doesn't receive caution from people around him/her or doesn't give it to those around him/her - the very moment liberty invalidates conscientiousness, it automatically becomes a poison.

Truth is that many a time intention from the inception is always genuine and even remained so after breaking the heart. So, the problem isn't always from the one who breaks the heart - it takes two to tango/make a relationship healthy and feasible. When things are not what they seemed to be from the inception, it becomes inevitable to break someone's heart.

No sane man loves breaking women's heart.

[quote author=saggitarius01[/quote]Let me know your old moniker. Send me a PM, if you're true to yourself I'll connect you to a man of timber and caliber.

@OP

It's obvious that you married another man's wife/the wrong woman. A true wife's invaluableness (to her husband, a sane husband of course) lies in the attributes of selflessness, meekness and sweetness - unfortunately she possesses only sweetness which isn't enough to guarantee you peace of mind. And a virtuous woman knows the difference between dressing classy and dressing slutty. So, I support your decision.

Ignore anyone who'll tell you that insecurity is worrying you.

Willy7:
No Sir, you are wrong. I know them quite well, they love each other very well. If I can say for her, I can say for him.

It's obvious that our understanding of love differs, because I don't see how either a thoughtful man or selfless woman in this scenario will not cheerfully assume responsibility of the need without the needless dispute and invitation of a third party like you in the scheme of things.

Mutual altruism is absent in their union - altruism (thoughtfulness/selflessness) is the soul of oneness, and oneness is the soul of marriage.

Rhythm of the scenario is that of two people in a loveless marriage - mutual altruism is absent in their union. It's more like that of two business competitors, not even mutually respecting business partners, who were asked by an authority (like a government) to form a consortium to pursue a common business deal instead of both losing out from the deal due to their individual vested interest and persistent loggerheads.

The man should start wearing his love garb (thoughtfulness and tactfulness) while the woman should start wearing her submissive garb (selflessness and meekness) to enable unity, peace and happiness between them.

Only gifted diviners or metaphysicians who're in tune with their subconscious can relate with/understand the OP's story - the spiritual aspect.

Yet, I don't hold brief for him.

He's right. However, there's need to acknowledge our differences and renegotiate the bond of our togetherness. Our failure to address this simple but very important issue for a very long time has been the bane of our stagnation.

We've been pursuing oneness for every long time without making headway, which is understandable citing the fact that we're a country not a nation. So, it's about time we forget about oneness and focus on pursuing unity only. This simply means to jettison federation and embrace confederation in fullness - defence ministry won't be negotiable though. And right of secession without oppression unnegotiable too.

Ours is a fundamental problem, so it requires an indirect solution like this since direct solution isn't an option.

The reason isn't far-fetched; living life at the periphery of conventionalism - in this regard, placing objectivity over subjectivity and principle over expediency - entails imbibing altruism and conscientiousness. Things people who haven't emancipated morally (failure to self-conquest greed, selfishness and self-centeredness) and psychologically (conceitedness in particular) don't posses.

In summary, fair-mindedness (fairness) is a luxury small-minded people can't afford.

BigJoe19:
LordKO speaking pidgin, wow this is weird!!!

lol, I de always speak pidgin. Na when time no dey too much or when one wan recharge ihm de speak something wey no be pidgin.

The best approach na to make sure say you (the husband) no cheat on her and make sure say you make her know beforehand say you no go ever tolerate cheating or any oda nonsense/toxic act from her - some specific immoral acts do manifest (you should know dem nah) before cheating will take place. Perfection na when you expect her to turn water into wine, not when you expect her to live above moral decadence - so make nobody tell me say nobody dey perfect.

One can easily tolerate some psychological and intellectual deficiencies (not bankruptcies though), including financial deficiency or bankruptcy, but moral deficiency or bankruptcy na no no no.

Magnoliaa:
oh so I'm small-minded for opposing your view? Ok.

Good bye, too.

Oya, I'm sorry. Actually, differing - common sense either in separate or group form - doesn't invalidate uniformity. So, the fact that we differ person to person doesn't mean that we (some people) can't be in uniform conceptually, ethically and biologically. I expected you to know this beforehand, thus my last reaction.