₦airaland Forum

AmazonTopaz:
I never talked about inequality but mutuality.
All these things you mentioned goodness, love submission and what have you are human attributes or characteristics meaning such can be found in both genders.So why stereotyping saying only women got to do that and only men got to do this?

You can't talk about mutuality without having in mind - pronounced or otherwise - something more than one. An entity never forms mutuality. Also, you can't solve a need without identifying it - difference. So when you talk about man and woman "difference" should/will always come in mind, and not acknowledging its presence will always amount to self-denial which directly or indirectly breeds thought about equality or inequality or marginalization

The presence of difference automatically breeds thought about systematic means of application for solution in any sphere of life.

AmazonTopaz:
Who said they had to meet each other. There is no manual for relationships.love and submission is not the only thing that matters in a relationship or marriage and there are other factors and to me understanding is of high importance it summarises both(love and submission and whatever you might add) and understanding matters to both parties.
I believe in mutuality so if it has to be submissiveness(I am not a submissive person by nature and I don't plan on being one now) and love and whatever factors I expect it to be mutual not just from me but both of us with that we can reach understanding.

Love and submissiveness are compound products of goodness - unfortunately goodness (or an entity) changes its form when talking about mutuality.

Variance doesn't automatically mean negative - at least not in this case - so submissiveness will always remain a variant of love. This is just like a woman is a different form of another human being, man - difference doesn't mean inequality.

AmazonTopaz:
The bold is not for me sir.

lol. How can you achieve understanding if love doesn't agree/meet submissiveness (not servility)?

AmazonTopaz:
Love alone would not do it for me in a marriage or relationship.
I need the one that would understand me.I don't even know how to love so it is better the guy has the upperhand in that area(love or understanding)
To me understanding summarises love
Just understand me

Understanding is it. It should always be the bond, if it's dating - with something bigger "oneness" as the target if it's marriage because it's the zenith of understanding. Feeling may be mutual, but love will always remain a man's forte while submissiveness a woman's forte.

A rational you like this will always be a better you.

nahzyla:
You and the other person seem not to understand my topic

Nobody said you should not be one with your spouse.

My topic said put your children's welfare first before each other.

'Welfare' here is the keyword.

Did you people even read the Opening post?

Believe you me, I read and understand it well. So, you're the person who don't and won't understand our viewpoint because of the obvious reason.

When you and your husband understand what oneness is and achieve it, you'll automatically see your husband speaking through you both in his presence and absence and vice versa. Where there's oneness there's understanding and everything that represents good.

nahzyla:
OK

So

Assuming there is just one plate of food left in a house with husband, wife and their one child.

So wifey should give the food to her husband and let her child starve because she puts her spouse first?

Where oneness is the bond that hold a couple both their individual and collective action(s) automatically become a collective decision.

It's so unfortunate that most of you believe in marriage but don't believe in its soul which is oneness.

Her inculcators didn't tell her that equality and liberty don't mean absence of altruism and conscientiousness respectively. Poor kid.

Fountainofyouth:
Hello, in marriage two becomes one automatically, the bone of contention here is kids, KIDS, deny it or not, when you start having kids, your wife's attention automatically becomes divided, she will lean more on her kids because they need care and what not, how do you expect her to balance the two, or choose to care or prioritise you above the kids?

Like I said to the other person, oneness with altruism as its soul means conscientiousness. Also, it means absence of detachment, neglect, disregard and everything bad.

Like the example you stated above, that's normal and that's what oneness is all about.

nahzyla:
Unrealistic idealism

There's nothing unrealistic here and I ain't an idealist. Perhaps you don't understand what oneness means. Oneness with altruism as its soul means conscientiousness. Also, it means absence of detachment, neglect, disregard and every bad thing.

Oneness with spouse before anything else - so spouse before offspring/kids. Anything outside this is balderdash to me, and it'll mean that such a woman doesn't deserve my crown, faithfulness, thoughtfulness and goodness in general.

I don't see need for marriage in the absence of oneness of the couple. Oneness is the soul of marriage, while altruism is the soul of oneness.

Women have never been subordinate to men. Gender differences don't mean inequality, just as equality (in this case) doesn't mean absence of difference.

Inequity exist/has been in existence in some places or a times though, and it's usually perpetrated by the domineering (not dominant) and/or greedy entity(ies) of both genders, so let equity be the bond that will always hold the difference(s).

#FAIRNESS4ALL

Oneness with an opposite sex of attraction who's a non-blood-relative is the answer, the sweetest thing in the world - something less than 5% of people who had been/have been/or will be in marriage didn't/can't achieve and experience. So, if you do not yearn oneness, or can't make the necessary continual and tasky sacrifices to achieve and sustain same with a woman, then forget about marriage. And if you're a proponent of oneness, then discard with alacrity any woman who doesn't believe in oneness because you can never have a lasting happy and harmonious union with such a woman least of achieving and experiencing it. Many people who believe in marriage don't believe in oneness which is the soul of marriage, and this is reason for spate of divorcement, unhappy and unhealthy marriages around the enlightened world.

In fact, an emancipated woman (or one that will emancipate in the cause of the marriage) that believes in marriage, but not oneness, will not only ruin your life in the cause of the marriage but will equally pitch the offspring against you and divorce you with the flimsiest of an excuse or kill you before your divine appointed time - that's if you aren't discerning and mighty. The attribute(s) of a wo/man who doesn't believe in oneness is always glaring for a discerning mind to see from afar - although some possessors of the attributes are malleable and can be helped from deviation and outright destruction, if the discerning one has genuine interest in them. While someone with an evil intention can easily destroy them from within, if s/he never had genuine interest in them from the inception but only wanted a piece/taste of whatever momentary good they can offer - they're the easiest sets of human beings to outwit despite their too clever by half attitude.

Actually, there's a difference (both in words and action) between the statement "two people in partnership" and the word "partners." The former can't yield mutual healthiness and happiness for any couple, while the latter will - so, people who cherish healthy and happy marriage should discard the former both in thoughts and actions. Only a man and woman who see themselves as a husband and wife (partners, I dislike this word in this regard though) are in real marriage. Marriage (or romantic relationship) remains contractual, not transactional, affair.

Attributes and actions required to sustain the two are equally different. Unlike two people in a commercial partnership, or a couple who see themselves in such light in marriage, true marriage requires more than loyalty and conviction- the two necessary qualities that sustain any business JV/commercial partnership. Altruism (selflessness from the woman and thoughtfulness from the man) is the attribute that sustains marriage - of course, altruism doesn't mean absence of conscientiousness.

Altruism remains the soul of any healthy and happy marriage, it breeds not just faithfulness but oneness. Oneness is a very difficult but rewarding thing one can accomplish together with another in this life . It's the zenith of marriage, I say, and only people who share same good ethical leanings, or those who strive hard to form a good one mutually, can experience it.

pansophist:
People wey get sense for this forum plenty na, them no de find them. you also forgot to mention lordKO, capslocked, franchasng, to name a few.

I have a deep founded respect for the aforementioned. I come across their post momentarily and admire their write up.

The respect is mutual, bro. In fact, this is the reason I have told elegant Marialavina to take proper care of you.

Esprit de corps.

Goodnewsbearer:
Lordko

Can you marry?

I think the appropriate question should be; what's the date of the statutory wedding? lol.

Calm4good:
Lordko

1. Can you cook and serve your wife food?
2 .Can you marry a feminist?
3. What attitude will a woman you love bring out that will make you change your love to hate for her?

Lol. Truth remains that whatever good I can't do for a wife, I can't do it for any other human being.

- Yes. It's not a question of "can," because I'll take pleasure in doing so.

- Yes. Feminism is like any other movement that people form, not the other way round, so I can marry a strong-minded lady who identifies with feminism.

- Foremost, I'm a proponent of the axiom "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands." Cynicism is my breakpoint. If she distrusts me when I haven't given her any justifiable reason to do so, I will automatically fall out of love with her - but I can never hate her, my love for her will remain constant.

MissR69:
hahaha antibrutus pocohantas will understand better because i read about this somewhere.

You're just being vexatious. She understands me.

I haven't seen a man who's a libertarian (or a sane man) who hates outspoken women. Personally, outspokenness is one attribute I consider great in a lady. However, there's a thin line between outspokenness and opinionatedness. While the former is good and healthy, the latter isn't and can mar things because behind any opinionated person is a... @OP, I know where this is coming from. lol.

@OP

Your major concern and focus now should be to learn from this experience to avoid a repeat of it next time. You are the cause of your problem citing the evidence in your submission - this does not mean absolving the disingenuous lady.

There was absence of altruism and conscientiousness on your path (you use both for checks and balances). According to you; "She even moved to my place, which I didn't buy the idea." This means you weren't conscientious, and "I was responsible for everything she needed as a lady." This means your provisions to her wasn't altruistic (selfless), else you wouldn't have been feeling wrecked now.

What you had with her - unpronounced - was a mere relationship/friendship with benefits, so if you were to be in the know, you shouldn't have expected faithfulness from her. Whatever respect/servility/loyalty she accorded you while the relationship lasted was because of what she was benefiting/what both of you were benefiting from each other. None of you were selfless towards each other while it lasted.

Meanwhile, had it been you entered the relationship with her in an altruistic and conscientious manner, you would had noticed her true color earlier enough without losing anything to her and in that instance you staying with her would had been based on whether you wanted to be using her for pleasure with intention to discard her at the appropriate time or not.

The best way to stay safe is by coming into equity with clean hands, and never expect faithfulness (both in its formal and informalness) from a self-centered, selfish and/or greedy person.

Strive to conquer yourself before entering into another relationship to avoid a repeat of your current experience - it's always possible to give everything without losing anything or having a feeling of losing anything in the end. Man know thyself and those around you.

..... Meanwhile, @ Donlexybaze, you can find answer to your question on the other thread in this post.

pandv:
you never disappoint. but how can you know when a woman is submissive to you?

The answer isn't available for public consumption. lol.

.

.

Balderdash. So if your poor and uneducated wife of today becomes more wealthy and formally educated than you tomorrow, you'll divorce or kill her.

Marry a virtuous/strong-minded woman, with her you won't have a frenemy in any condition, so long as you remain good to her.

Meanwhile, the character of the woman in this story, in relation to the food scenario in her husband's friend's presence, is that of an unsubmissive woman. Only virtuous women know how to be submissive to their husbands.

Yes. In fact, the most successful women I know are those who are submissive to their husbands - sane husbands. Submissiveness is neither a success inhibition nor a disease. Behind any family you see where the couple has peace of mind mutually, there's a man who loves his wife and a wife who's submissive to her husband.

And every sane man knows that the last person to take for granted is a submissive woman, because when pushed to the wall she can mar the mightiest of men. Someone like Jeff Bezos is lucky he came out less-scattered after taken his ex-submissive wife for granted.

Meanwhile, the biggest misconception out there is an average Black woman's thought that sane White women aren't submissive to their husbands - they're.

Submissiveness doesn't mean a man having his way over his wife, even when he's wrong in his thought or action - selflessness, which is the soul of submissiveness doesn't mean absence of conscientiousness. A sane man knows the importance of being thoughtful and tactful towards his wife.

AmazonTopaz:
Thank you.
The guy just dey blow big grammar

Come on! Stop being conceited. My submissions are clear and direct for any competent person to understand them, so there's no need for needless tantrum. I'm not here for your useless gender war.

theButterfly:
Meekness, selflessness and conscientious are not gendered attributes, meaning a man should likewise possess and uphold them. While I understand that meekness and selflessness can be related to submissiveness, conscientiousness and submissiveness aren't necessarily interwoven. It's like saying a submissive female Judge is a conscientious one. One can be conscientious without being submissive.

In that case men should have no problem being submissive to women then.

I say, love is a variant of submissiveness, they only differ in nomenclature and application - if you can understand this simple statement in its informalness, then there won't be need for argument.

- Gender differences do not mean inequality, yet there's gender differences, and we are all human beings.

- Liberty is a right, not a privilege, yet liberty doesn't mean absence of conscientiousness.

Every sane human being is usually conscientious towards others - not just towards a spouse - while a sane couple is usually both altruistic (thoughtful/selfless) and conscientious towards each other. The use of conscientiousness with selflessness and meekness is for checks and balances - creating a healthy and happy union - not because the former is interwoven with the latter mentions (selflessness and meekness)
which are the core attributes of submissiveness.

Love and submissiveness in the context I used them are compound words - so I don't talk submissiveness in its formalness. So, stop behaving like a bumpkin. Altruism remains the soul of any healthy and happy union.

AntiBrutus:
I am not sane. He loves me like that.

Servility isn't your portion, submissiveness is, I wish you the best.

AntiBrutus:
Is that why you want to force submission on us even when we don't want?

Lol. Believe you me, there's nothing good about an opinionated wo/man. In fact, if not for one thing, I would have named the real opinionated wo/men on this forum - a defensive player shouldn't be mistaken for an offensive one. Mixing outspokenness with opinionatedness is like mistaken tactlessness for truthfulness.

Meanwhile, we aren't forcing submission on anyone. Every sane woman owes it to her man.

AntiBrutus:
I guess most Nigerian men are not sane.

I wonder which online persona you all are always on about. I am same vocal person offline. He knows it, heck...he is a Nlder and knows my username.

Outspoken, yes. Opinionated, no. .. except when you intentionally wish to be mischievous.

AntiBrutus:
I do not feel irritated hearing it, I just do not understand it when coming from most Nigerian men. My man has never mentioned it. I respect him as the first among EQUALS and we are very good. That is all that matters.

Every mallam with im own kettle.

Truth is that most women with your kind of online persona and that of ... are the most submissive women out there in the real world. Lol. Actually, no sane man will literally and physically tell his woman to be submissive to him - he'll expect it and observe it once he offers love. Just as no sane woman will tell her man to love her. These are things that take place unpronounced when two people who share same ethical leanings, or are interested in forming a mutual one, come together. They breed understanding, and understanding is the bond that always hold any healthy and harmonious relationship together.

AntiBrutus:
Men are confused.
They don't even know what they want.

Look around you, so many jobless women that are submissive. Pick one and marry.

Love (romantic/marital/the big love) isn't a woman's forte - submissiveness is. Truth is that most of you who usually feel irritated on hearing the word "submission" - I still prefer its euphemism submissiveness for some reasons - don't seem to understand what it entails, knowing about it formally isn't enough. Maybe one has to blame this misconception and misinterpretion on its ambiguity in particular and how small-minded men have mistaken it for servility in general.

The core attributes of submissiveness are meekness, selflessness and conscientiousness. Therefore, most of you are/can actually be submissive without knowing it. However, a conceited or self-centered woman can't offer it to her man, just as a conceited or self-centered man can't offer genuine love to his woman.

Meanwhile, love - the big love that is variant of submissiveness but only differs in nomenclature and application - as I said above, isn't a woman's forte. It's a man's forte. The core attributes of love are thoughtfulness, kindliness, conscientiousness and tactfulness.

So, behind any true non-submissive woman is a conceited and/or self-centered woman.

Neither love nor submissiveness is a sign of weakness. They breed understanding, and understanding is the bond that always hold any healthy and harmonious relationship together.

You can know a woman's (person) true character from either her psychological leanings or (and) ethical leanings - no act of pretence can cover these methods. Self-realization is the first step though.

@OP

If not that you don't seem ready to hear the truth or make the marriage work, I'd have given you a feasible solution. Both of you are wrong.