₦airaland Forum

lilwetdick:
pack your load and go there and stop ranting...at the end na still your papa go dey send you money for feeding from naija

Don't mind them. They don't know that fact is different from fiction. . . Always take everything on formal/paper format, hook, line, and sinker.

pipeliner:
Income per capita not GDP.

They've both high PCI and GDP, I know. My foremost submission remains correct.

Southernminorit:
see this one. Ogun state has more gdp than Seychelles.

What the op is saying is that they have better standard of living compare to Nigeria. What's the use of gdp when your people are poor, uneducated and backward?

Shut up! My submission is lucid enough for any sane person to understand my point. I wager you only hear of Seychelles, but you haven't been there before least of having a stake in the economy.

Kindly look for your ilk elsewhere because I don't put up with bumpkins.

Lol. Don't allow the high GDP to deceive you, because it hasn't been reflecting well on majority of the inhabitants there. Realistically, less than 25 percent of the citizens control things/hold the bar, with the minority French (people) topping the list.

Fountainofyouth:
Lord, picture this, what if one of us decides to take a step back to really see if it is meant to be, like think deep and in the process decides to try out other people, but he/she tells the other partner about it all, without necessarily going very intimate with any of them, is it advicable to do that or it is the beginning of the end? And if it is the end, is there any hope of getting back together in the nearest future?

A relationship of convenience is different from a serious one that is altar bound bar any unavoidable circumstances, I hope you know this. So no matter the type it's, unassumingness is very important in sustaining it, therefore stepping back shouldn't be an option - but meeting other people on a platonic level is very much advisable, especially if it's a relationship of convenience. With your wokeness you will only err where and when you want to. lol.

Meanwhile, self-realization should be the main target from both sides, because when achieved, one can easily tell on another's disposition in particular and ethical leanings in general, either afar or near and within few time/days of meeting and interactions. In this regard, staying or moving on permanently will be solely based on self-conviction and aim.

He has to understand that he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. There's nothing wrong in a man wishing for oneness with his wife since it's the soul of marriage, so long as he's ready to live up to the mentioned axiom both in word and action - a true leader is one who knows the way, goes the way and shows the way.

Unfortunately what he proposed isn't oneness but subjugation - he expects servility from you instead of submissiveness. It takes a man's love to earn his woman's submissiveness - goodness begets goodness, unless where one of the parties is insane, because insane people are fond of mistaking goodness for weakness and by extension taking pleasure in returning it with evil. This is a case of a wannabe alpha man dealing with an emancipated-checked woman.

Anyway, you can still make an effort to save the marriage, that's if he's a teachable and ready to make the marriage work. Assume the role of the bigger and wiser person - this will entail you either losing honorably or gaining honorably in the end. Call him to order calmly, make him to understand that he has to embrace a change of ethical leanings, that only goodness from him henceforth will make you to remain good to him in particular and to stay put in the marriage in general. That his negative actions and inactions in the past is the reason you have lied to him about closure of your bank account. If he gives you his word (in the positive) take him for it and make the bank statement available to him, which ever way it goes, you'll have honor in the end. A healthy union is possible between you two, an embrace of good ethical leanings will automatically do the magic.

True. However, the she who can fight with him is neither the contentious, greedy nor servile one - man be wary when anyone in this category urges you on.

She who knows how to fight in oneness with her man is only the strong-minded woman.

maak400:
Bros you just dey blow grammar everywhere... effective communication is not achieved by using big vocabulary that most people won’t understand. So quit trying to impress and make your point in simple English biko.

"quit trying to impress" I wonder how I'm trying to impress your lunatic parents or a bumpkin like you when I'm almost certain that our paths may never cross out there till eternity. lol.

Direct your further mentions to your lunatic parents.

Goodnewsbearer:
very true

She typifies the unsubmissive woman - an emancipated (and unchecked) egoist. Her unemancipated type of person knows how to give fake submissiveness - talk about a frenemy of the highest order. In fact, an emancipated one like this is better than the unemancipated type - while her checked and balanced type can be a bliss to have by a . . . man.

She's still redeemable, but not by her servile kind of husband. Yet, she's better off with her servile husband than having either a fellow emancipated egoist or an egotistic man as husband.

bukatyne:
If she didn't want marriage, why did she marry?

According to the OP, she knew marriage wasn't for her before meeting le boo.

The irony is that she doesn't know what she has until she loses it.

She is actually having the best of both worlds.

I concur.

She has spoken the mind of emancipated egoists - the unchecked ones. It doesn't matter whether or not she identified with feminism and/or psychological liberalism.

sisisioge:
Lol at "ethical learning". I guess I'm just not articulate enough to pass the message across. My point apparently came across as harsh, as it did when the topic first emerged in the past. As it is, I really do not have the energy to keep going back and forth on this. However, me, you and the rest of the world will continue to seek that which suits us regardless of our vantage points...it's on our biology. Let me let you enjoy the rest of your day. Cheers.

No, I didn't say "ethical leaRning" but "ethical leanings."

Cheers too.

sisisioge:
Wowzerful...now I'm lost! Are we still on the same page? We aren't talking about perfection or attribute per sa...we are actually still on the "why" I'm with you. What's in it for me regardless of your perfection or otherwise. Why would Regina marry Ned? Or Why would two classmates that have been together forever marry each other? Why am I dating my simple bf? Why are you with that babe? Why why why? Anyways, I'm sure we will all be alright last last.

Lol. We're still on the same subject, the extrapolation was done wittingly and in good faith. Meanwhile, Regina and Ned shouldn't be standard, you should know this - I didn't say they're either right or wrong anyway, because to each his own.

Actually, it'll be difficult, if not impossible, for you and I to be in one accord on this particular subject since obviously we don't share same ethical leanings. Maybe you'll return when you start living life at the periphery of conventionalism and doing so... We disagree to agree.

sisisioge:
Hmmm...so we are agreed on symbiotic gains. Awesome!

That brings us to the gains meeting approval so long as they remain immaterial... Now that's funny. My deduction of immaterial things mean those things we can't touch but feel right. Dang! You've never seen yourself liking a chick cos she's beautiful, amongst other viable attributes, and would help produce beautiful children? Since we can see kids, shall we call them materials ? Let me leave you be on this beautiful Sunday. No matter how much we pad our objects by allowing cultural noise form out thoughts, we won't stopping looking until we find what we want, thus fulling the "what's in it for me" quest. Cheers sir.

Attribute can never stand alone, and don't forget, perfection is only of the most high - this explains my previous assertion "altruism doesn't mean absence of conscientiousness." So in recognition of this celestial posit (perfection is only of the most high), we always ascribe anything seventy (% in this regard) and above as excellent. Also, don't forget that attribute is akin to a process, not an end - just as money is a means (to an end), but not an end. With attribute/immaterial thing (good or bad) comes material yield and its ilk - this is about the beautiful chic and children, the children can only be best fit when they're a product of good attribute.

sisisioge:
I said...now I need dictionary to break some words therein. When I said trouble, I meant big words are coming for me shortly

Meanwhile, without getting further deep into this, let's just focus on the elements of a contract: offer, consideration and acceptance. Again, at bolded shows that there is still that element of "what's in it for me" in the so called "contractual" marriage. Every man/ woman won't get into anything in life without hoping to get something out of it. Wonder why you are with that babe? Yeah, she offers more of your needs...it's that simple. Of course, the other party too won't come in with void expectations.

I understand you well. Truth is that, altruism doesn't mean absence of conscientiousness - so once the interest is immaterial (attribute based), it's automatically healthy. A healthy marriage (or romantic relationship) will always be symbiotic - but reciprocation can never be in equal and proportional measure.

Elder0001:
You’re beginning to make sense these days

If I give you e-slap! lol. Actually, the correct statement should be that "you've began retracing your step from being an expedient person to a quasi-principled one." - while I've remained constant with my philosophy because it isn't a religion but a way of life for me.

Anyway, I can still bet that you'll soon return to your usual self - a leopard can't change its spots. Psychological liberalism you're trying so hard to adopt isn't healthy for you, worse still when you're trying so hard to mix it up (unknowingly) with conservatism. Take to libertarianism for your own good.

sisisioge:
Daddy, I know I'm looking for trouble by quoting you o but I just felt I should point out that you're looking at it from financials alone. Just a few weeks/days back, we had a "what's in it for me" thread where most kept looking at monetary alone forgetting that things such as company, appearance, reproduction, sexx, love...could be reasons for venturing into that affairs in the first place. Once set goals are met, then one could say the venture is profitable and continuity prevails. Same reason divorce ends an unprofitable marriage.

Surely, healthy relationships are symbiotic...something must be in it for the other person too. Otherwise, why bother.

Consociate me! You know this isn't true "I know I'm looking for trouble by quoting you" - I ain't a domineering person to the best of my knowledge.

Meanwhile, I ain't viewing the subject under discussion from a financial standpoint alone, no, rather I am viewing it from what I know and understand a healthy marriage should be. My submission is based on my personal philosophy, so it can only make meaning to you if you believe in living life at the periphery of conventionalism and in doing so.... Marital/romantic relationship is contractual not transactional - so beneficialness shouldn't be mistaken for profitableness.

There's everything wrong with such a wish and mindset. A marital/romantic/interpersonal relationship (a healthy one) is/should always be symbiotic. So, you should neither see your relationship with your husband as a commensalistic nor venture for profit earning one. Only think of profit when you think of trade.

pocohantas:
Touche!!!
99% for ego.
1% for altruism.

Queen, you have taken bribe. Obviously you didn't award us this poor mark in good conscience.

Tedpgrass:
In simple words, recognise a Shag-along fest that carries no emotional responsibilities and sacrifices to avoid stories that touch!!!

That philosophy can't be applied in this story as the man was having a relationship with wifey at same time and courting SC's family weeks before the wedding....
Truth be told.. He was cheating.... not being emotionally aloof or principled as your theory would like to suggest.

Chances are he's doing the same thing to current wifey...





Reminds of BoJo..

Appears he doesn't keep his zips up and jumps from woman whilst he's yet to end the relationship..
Apparently forgets contraception, if the number of unintended pregnancies are to be counted.

.


.

Your second paragraph shows that you didn't understand my submission. Run along.

essenceplus:
Shut the fvck up. Wtrying to form cleverness,this is foolish. Judge. You stay with them to judge this far since you're seeing more than every other sane person here sees oode.



Your fvckedup pseudo intellect did not see its even her fault he.
This one na big eediot

Bumpkin. Direct your further mentions to your lunatic parents. Don't worry, I know your other monikers. Lol.

"Because we can't get along..." This is a typical scenario where a too clever by half woman (a man can equally be in her stead) was hit below the belt by a sly man. A case of two disingenuous people who crossed each others path - I couldn't afford to ascribe aristocracy to the man for the obvious reason, even though his intention from the inception could had been genuine as he claimed.

Always be wary of a wo/man who comes into your life and gives you an impression that you've no need to improve on any aspect of your disposition - this isn't an encouragement of subjugation by a partner to another - because that by extension unpronounced, means s/he doesn't owe you faithfulness. Fake libertarians are worse than domineering people - the man was either the former or latter in this case.

When someone's utmost interest in you is just to taste a portion of whatever little good you can offer, he'll give you an impression that something like liberty, which is a right anyway, doesn't need conscientiousness for checks and balances. So, if you feel happy in a relationship or have peace of mind - all as a result of unchecked liberty - don't always assume and conclude that it's mutual. It may not be after all and you may be dealing with a sly partner, so consciously avoid being a victim of a pernicious act of a sly person, like in this case, by taking to altruism and conscientiousness. You can never go wrong with this in a matter of this nature. First-hand unpleasant experience like this is always avoidable.

In the end, and under normal circumstances, it's a man who chooses a woman to marry - a woman only has right of refusal.

Good judgement, even though it's a mere compensation. He's a thoughtless man, so he deserves severe punishment also.

It's quite unfortunate that you have mistaken subservient actions and inactions of a disingenuous woman for respect, love and whatnot goodness. Sorry.

Undiscerning people like you have been making disingenuous women (people) to appear smart/clever automatically, since time immemorial. When you allow, intentionally or unintentionally, a disingenuous woman to perpetrate her sly act against you, you automatically give her reason to believe that her sly skill is potent, and by extension, consciously or unconsciously, validate her arrogation of supreme smart ass.

Fountainofyouth:
In other words, you are saying I shouldn't use my feelings to judge whether it's real but attributes alone? What if attributes, attitude, attraction and feelings is all sumed up into one? Can it be called real love?

Lol believe me you don't know who I am except you can guess the first letter of my old moniker.

If you can conquer your feeling (very necessary) and base it with attribute you'll definitely get the "real deal." Of course, he who comes into equity must come with clean hands - take to the defensive side of life if you need a quick and effective result.

Once more, don't panic, I ain't telling anyone your old moniker.

Fountainofyouth:
Please is this the real deal? Is this love? How do I go about being in control of my emotions without affecting my health? Feel free to ask questions and I'll answer as discreetly as possible, thank you.

Feelings are mere response to the surface/auxiliary (not inherent) bearing of one or all of physical, emotional and psychological - except moral - compound(s). It isn't the real deal because precursor(s) of its yield isn't inherent, instead it's temporary and material - this doesn't nullify its efficacy in anyway.

That which breeds faithfulness, with understanding as constant, something that doesn't rely on recollected and/or foreseeable personal beneficial good to respond to is the real deal - good attributes. Don't mistake attribute for attitude.

By the way, I know your old moniker, but don't worry I won't tell anyone. Lol.

Guest007:
What other monikers did you use?

Lol. You can assign me one.

His altruistic (thoughtful) and conscientious disposition will remain evergreen in my heart forever - so Iv'e countless fond memories of him.

Fountainofyouth:
Must you call it submission though? Makes it sound like one is a "yes sir" to whatever the husband says, that is my point, all you mention can also happen when there is equality called "equality".

Don't be dreaded or disgusted by that word because it means no harm and it never breeds: "yes sir." It's servility that breads "yes sir." Equality can never negate differences - when talking about woman and man relationship.

Start to view it from its technical and informal meaning.

Fountainofyouth:
Not everyone agrees with the kind of submission you guys want.

If you don't want this kind of submission that is a product of goodness and variant of love - but only differs in nomenclature and application - which leads to understanding (for dating) and oneness (for marriage), which one do you want?

Fountainofyouth:
Smh!!!

Na wetin happen?