₦airaland Forum

ubunja:
Nice one, especially the bolded.

Though your first sentence on respect I will differ with. Respect is inferior to love I don't even know why women chase respect.

Love (the big love) is a compound word and it has no meaning in itself literally. Therefore, respect, loyalty and other products attribute breeds (attributes like selflessness, thoughtfulness etc) are what constitute it. In a nutshell, respect is a constituent of love.

Fountainofyouth:
So you're Igbo, no wonder you love submissiveness lol.

Believe you me, I know you reach your house. Meanwhile, the submissiveness I know isn't the same most people know and practice - I know the difference between submissiveness and servility - and I use it in the context of a compound word rather than a single word. Stop seeing it from its formal meaning.

[quote author=doitforyou post=80032833]It's obvious you didn't understand my submission literally. Like I said before, submissiveness is a variant of love and both of them breed goodness. Love can never be a woman's forte.

pocohantas:
Hello,

I sight you too. Sunday is going well.
Hope say this rain reach you side. Weather to think of the homeless

I no see rain where I de now but I fit see am in the next few hours because I go move out from here before the next 10 hours. You fit make am rain right away for me, at least that's part of de things I know say you have the ability to do on a very good day. lol.

Anụrụ m na ị dị mma na-esi nri ofe achara. M ga-abia iri nke m n'oge na-adịghị anya. You've made me to remember someone that way. lol.

@Pocohantas

I sight you. I hope the Sunday is going on well.

Fountainofyouth:
Why are you always quick to preach submissiveNess? What do you mean by "love is not a woman's forte"? We arent able to love or what exactly? Though most of your comment has some truth, you didn't have to be boastful of a personal experience some men prefer when a lady ask them for things instead of not asking at all, it demeans them.

Sharap there, lol. So stating the obvious - recognizing virtuousness of the women I have known - is now a boastful act ni! Well, I always preach submissiveness for women and love for men - difference remains in nomenclature and application - because nature made both genders differently.

As a man, I know that I can go all the way to get my woman the best of anything out there without minding whether it will cost me my life or means of livelihood, but I can't expect same from my woman not because she's bad but because she's not naturally made in same manner.

Neither love nor submissiveness is a sign of weakness and none is superior to each other.

Happy Sunday before I send you e-slap.

PrincessNZ:
thanks greatly for this. but can a man who loves me cheat on me with another woman?

A man who loves you will never cheat on you - all things being equal - respect is a product of thoughtfulness. Thoughtfulness (altruism) is the soul of love, just as selflessness (altruism) is the sole of submissiveness.

Citing the fact that you generalized your submission, I wonder how you're different from "men here." Irrespective of your gender, you aren't in any way different from the small-minded men here - I neither hold brief for the small-minded men nor you. Generalization is unpalatable.

Well, only small-minded men see all women as evil and reason for that isn't farfetched, people always see reflection of their negative dispositions through others justifiably or unjustifiably - behind any cynic is person who's selfish, self-centered or/and greedy. All women (human beings) aren't the same or of the same ethical leanings.

The above analogy is applicable to any woman, or class of women, who sees alpha men (dominant men, not domineering men) - I don't hold brief for wannabe alpha men (domineering men) who're unrefined subclass of the beta men class - as undesirable, because behind such a woman is a headstrong woman - wannabe strong-minded/independent woman.

Wannabe strong-minded women and wannabe alpha men share subjugation (or have penchant for subjugation) in common. No space for servile people here.

I doff my hat for all strong-minded/independent/virtuous women.

A man who loves you will constantly respect and admire you with or without gaining anything from you, of course so long as you always strive to do the right thing at the right time - one who comes into equity must come with clean hands. If relationship is involved (when it becomes intimate, not necessarily about having sexual intercourse), he'll be generous towards you too. And in your unavoidable moment of tolerable weakness - because perfection is of the most high - he'll correct/counter you in the most civil way he can. In summary, you'll always feel his thoughtful (altruistic) disposition.

Meanwhile, he'll neither worship you nor fear you nor condone evil from you though - so be wary of he who worships you or indulges your excesses. Evil disposition shouldn't be mistaken for unavoidable moment of weakness. He'll never be afraid of losing you, so long as he loses honourably - so you've to make yourself right to avoid giving him reason not to be afraid of losing you.

This same things are applicable to a woman who's submissive to her man - but not necessarily in equal and proportional measures and application.

I don't agree - even though love isn't a woman's forte, submissiveness is, with this in mind at all times expectation is put in proper check. It all depends of the character/ethical leanings of the woman in your life and your own character/ethical leanings too because goodness begets goodness.

Personally, I've always been lucky in having good women around me. Women who're always volitionally ready to go to any length to get things of either little or great magnitude done for me when need arises or at any given time.

Any woman who will revere you based on the good material things you can provide for her at a given time shouldn't be in your life in the first place - such a woman is, at best, a frenemy. You don't allow frenemies around you.

Any woman (and vice versa) in your life whose interest towards you isn't selfless (altruistic) is either your frenemy or outright enemy who can destroy you at any given time.

generationz:
The question was what I think "sustains" a relationship

Tell me how you think a marriage can thrive without all I wrote up there

They might seem simple because I stated them in one word but they are not

Trust alone takes years to build and can be destroyed in a few seconds.

I got two mentions from guys. I'm sure you men were expecting me to yap on about submissiveness.

Im sure the pastor has nicely tucked that into Sunday's service.

I'll rather stick to mutual respect.

SMH. So this whole brashness is because I banteringly quoted you today. Come on, look for your ilk elsewhere; "Trust, Commitment, Mutual respect And understanding" are not attributes - they cannot breed something literally. They hold no values on their own and cannot be the base words/mechanisms that sustain a relationship or anything instead they can act as bond, either individually or collectively.

Bye.

ImaIma1:
LordKO speaking pidgin

lol, she yabbed me somewhere so I say make I use this opportunity tell am say I sabi pidgin.

generationz:
I once read online how a married woman started having peace at home only when she started smoking weed with her husband

Every relationship has its own terms

However for a healthy relationship between two or more people to blossom, one needs the right does of

Trust
Commitment
Mutual respect
And understanding .

Whether, it be husband and wife , parent and child , pastor and church member or between two friends.

You for know say things like "Trust, Commitment, Mutual respect And understanding" na end product them be, they no be raw materials (values/attributes) - na raw materials the breed product nah. lol.

MariaLavina:
Ahhhhhh ! well done! keep teasing.


On specific note nko? are you fine... Thank you and same here.

You know say na from clap we dey take enter dance nah, so if dance dey good na im be say clap been dey equally good. So, as I say I dey fine on a general note, na im be say I de fine on specific notes too, lol.

@OP

Your mother is a fully developed egoist with below average emotional quotient, who's unlucky financial-wise/career-wise - and your father doesn't have unlimited wealth, I didn't say he's not doing well or not giving his best financially and otherwise. Not that she could've been better if she's success in either or both the areas anyway, but it could have covered somethings.

Truth is that, it takes either voluntary slavery or outright servility to put up with any human being who's of your mother's ethical leanings, irrespective of her financial and career standing at any point in time - unless she's put in order from the inception, your father failed wittingly or unwittingly in doing this at the inception of their relationship. This should be a lesson to fake libertarians - libertarian doesn't mean absence of conscientiousness - and servile people.

And the reason she's not separated/divorced your father all this while is because your father has always been in a better financial standing than her, more so she knows that your father has always had genuine interest for her. It takes men of two distinct personalities to put up with her type for long without either killing each other, your father's type is one, but not the type to get the best out of her, and the altruistic and conscientious man (a real libertarian). The latter class would've made her a better woman character-wise by now and everyone in your family would've been living in mutual happiness all this while.

I can imagine the kind of emotional and mental havoc she's caused your father in particular and all of you in general, even though your father has adopted carefreeness towards her, as the connotation of your submission suggested, which is one method of handling people like her.

But for the sake of preserving togetherness of your family - unity and oneness aren't options - I would've tell you what your father should do if truly he wants to have his sanity back. . . . Somethings aren't meant to be said openly or in a situation like this.

For humanity sake, you all should take to carefreeness towards her but never mete out alienation on her or stop loving her. Your father in particular should continue to love her unconditionally, but he should forget any thought about staying in love with her, with this reality in place he'll gradually regain some of his lost sanity.

MariaLavina:
Wetin make I talk nah? I no fit bore you with boring epistles nah. Make I no go make blunders where grammarian dey.

How have you been BTW?

Lol, that your previous reply no bad nah, or you no like as I borrowed your word ni. As for grammar, after you na still you, na catch-up I de do, and blunder no mean ignorance but act leading to perfection. Na only the creator dey perfect, you know evri everi nah.

On a general note, I'm fine. I wish you the best.

MariaLavina:
Lol I'm fine, you?....

Na to dey fine as you dey I de plan now. Las las fine is the answer.

Mutual goodness, because it breeds understanding and oneness. This mutual goodness here is about; love from the man (special emphasis on the attributes/values, thoughtfulness, tactfulness and conscientiousness) and submissiveness from the woman (special emphasis on the attributes/values, selflessness, meekness and conscientiousness).

Money will always remain a means to an end but never an end itself. All things being equal, it's easy to make it, just as it's easy to lose it too.
So, sane people who're of the school of thought above will definitely have money or will be able to make money under normal circumstances, while and where inadequate/lack of it because of any unforseen circumstances, can't cause them separation/be the cause they'll separate.

My submission is specifically about a healthy relationship or marriage - where understanding and oneness are assured - peace of mind is priceless. Meanwhile, any other kind of relationship or marriage can equally be sustained based on what tickle the fancy of the parties involved.

bukatyne:
Let me understand you well.

A man and woman have unprotected sex and lady gets pregnant. She decides to keep the baby even when the father is not in support. She should get child support once the man is confirmed the father. Ok! The child support is a punitive measure (i.e. he loses the control of his funds) in that the father should have been responsible to use protection if he did not want a child.

Let's flip the narrative:

The man wants the baby while the woman insists on aborting it. What should be the punitive measure? We can also argue that she should have used protection if she did not want the child.


A woman would be at the receiving end if the man doesn't want the baby and absconds. Here, she wants the child.
A man would be at the receiving end if the woman doesn't want the baby and abort it. Here, he wants the child.

My point?

If he want to force men to pay child support whether they want the children or not, we must force the women to carry the babies to term whether they want the children or not.

Very sound and palatable submission logically. Meanwhile, a scenario like this - citing the OP's POV and your submission, both of which can individually be assumed conscientious-like depending on/from the angle where one is viewing them - will always validate the importance of one making altruism as the mutual core value one and another must either possess as attribute or promise to give as attitude in all conditions before having anything amorous to do with each other. It's when the chips are down, like in this case, that its importance is most appreciated.

Citing the OP's account, the man's action is quite conscientious-like. But an altruistic person in his stead will still volitionally care for the child without being enforced to do so by any person or organization/law, despite the woman's refusal to abort the baby as he had wanted and instructed.

Altruism will always remain (human beings) most effective compelling mechanism in all matters of interpersonal relationship - especially an amorous one. It saves a lot at point in time, like this, when both logic and conscientiousness can't be good enough to enable/bring stimulation and harmony.

Is it palatable? No. Is it inevitable? Yes. Citing these answers, whether it's justifiable or not shouldn't be your concern at this material time, because reaction is always a product of something - no form of abuse is good or justifiable. You should be looking towards avoidance. Maybe you can tell us in detail what happened.

Personally, it's inevitable if I have a close relationship with a contriver - opinionated people, just like parasitic people, and contrive are inseparable, because they gain their energy and resources from being expedient. Only a parasitic person can rival an unconquered opinionated person (self-conquest is important) in draining energy from any sane person around him/her, either in the short or long run - unreliability will always remain their hallmark.

MariaLavina:
Gathering of wizards!








How did I get here?

How's the elegant lady?

Fountainofyouth:

I'm coming to your house now to tell you in your face that you're my property.

No. Actually, one's psychological leaning in particular and ethical leanings to a greater length will always determine his answer to this question. It's nothing to do with one's tribe or race.

- A man who's a libertarian knows that it's an insult to assume ownership of another human being, both in words and actions, irrespective of the second person's age, gender and class - how much more a woman who's not just a wife, but also of oneness.

- However, for a man who's a subjugator, a wife is automatically the husband's property.

It's a case of entitlement vs expectation. The latter is healthy while the former isn't.

Ironically, both male and female genders have subjugators. Any person of the manipulative ethical leanings is a subjugator. So, all egoists, narcissists and egotists are subjugators, because it takes either voluntary enslavement or outright servility to associate with you guys. Most of you (both males and females) who've already commented are subjugators. Small-mindedness knows no gender.

Meanwhile, fake libertarians are still worse than subjugators - hypocritically disingenuous people everywhere.

Yes.

Adakintroy2:
My friend keep quiet. Na science I blame weh give you "oracle" to always consult for knowledge in form google.

Indebted knowledge kor..

To hell with your lunatic parents and direct your further mentions to them too. Bumpkin.

Adakintroy2:
Stop being sentimental. That man never rape that girl. He may have slept with her.That's a good looking stud right there. Women naturally pull towards them. How can you rape a woman twice. Fool me once,...fool me twice..


Someone raped you once assume you were traumatized. You still went to him. Close enough to be in a close isolated place with him for a second place.

Multiple rape can occur when a young woman live in the same house with a man. A father or caregiver. One who you are so depended on that you can't possibly think of an alternative.

Like bringing a naive girl from the village to com sneaking multiple times into her room. Fear of the head of the house may paralyze towards reporting. Non of this aforementioned was present in her case.

The guy is not even a provider or relative of the family. Yet he took advantage of you in your house and out of it without you making a sound to.No scratch or injuries on you to suggest violence.

Pray this case don't make it to trail. If an ignoramus like me can pick a hole in her story, you don't want to know what a meciless/ruthless lawyer will do with her.

She won't survive intense crOSS examinatio if she still sitting on this rape claim

I don't remember saying that he raped her, and my submission is based on my in-depth knowledge and understanding of how predaceous people and their victims relate.

Hey! I may not accord you a polite reply like this next time you pick on me unjustly.

livinbygrace:
Forget all this grammar wey you dey blow.Almost everybody have been molested one way or the other either male or female .So If na by that almost everybody go go jail including you .So stop the holier than thou attitude .

Shut up and stop using yourself as standard. I and many others haven't been unfortunate like you and your ilk who've been molested or that molested others. It's obvious you're a typical sheeple. . . And there's nothing holier than thou attitude about my submission.

Don't worry, I won't dignify you with any more reply.

crazygod:
All this ur grammar yet u didn't communicate.

Lol. Why not jump and pass naw!

DameB:
That psychological manipulation by people preying on the vulnerable is the point people overlook. Those saying they have an affair, is it right for a married pastor to have an affair? Or isn't that adultery albeit consented?

Most people won't understand the gravity of damage he inflicted on her. It takes a lot for one under the emotional, psychological and moral entanglement of a predator to disentangle himself/herself. It's a feat many can never achieve until they die.

However, the only reason I'm exempting her of any wrong doing is because she's reported to be an underage when they started.

He meted out predaceous acts against her for many years, not rape - it's literally worse than rape though. His actions and inactions damaged her emotionally, psychologically and morally. Meaningful physical evidence isn't obtainable in a case like this.

Almost all religious leaders are predaceous, just as their followers have penchant for commensalism but always end up becoming victims of the predators - opportunism binds them together.

ikennamadu1:
Myndd44
Lalasticlala
Rule 2.. Do the needful... Send this man to the abyss

Lol. A typical small-minded person. It didn't occur to you that the person you disrespected could possibly be your parents age-mate or superior.