₦airaland Forum

generationz:
Please explain what you mean by carefreeness?


I'm completely Averse to liars and manipulators

I can't even figure out lies told to maintain harmony in a group and this always gets me in trouble.
How can I then live with a psychopath?

Informally, carefreeness - being in a carefree state - means denying anyone dominion over you without losing your sense of humanity (benevolence), or giving your best in any cause you believe in without losing anything/having a feeling of losing anything in the end. It's a simple act of balancing altruism with conscientiousness.

AntiBrutus:

Milady, the queen, I hope you have free champagne at your palace.

generationz:
I always wonder what motivates people to tell such lies against someone who helped them

fame?
psychopathy?
Narcissism?
Demonic possession or what ?

cc LordKO

Psychopathy: She's a typical psychopath. They gain maximum pleasure from draining and demonizing their benefactors - their dispositional gratitude notwithstanding. They can do anything for fame. It's advanced egoism - narcissism is part and parcel of it.

Unfortunately, they hardly conquer themselves, no matter how many times they're punished for their misdeeds.

When you've one as a relative - since blood is thicker than water - you must master the act of emotional squashing (carefreeness), but not alienation, in dealing/relating with him/her in order to preserve your dominion, dignity and sanity.

Psychopaths are akin to the devil.

It seems most people don't hold the marriage institution sacrosanct again, I mean, the least of goodness a couple ought to owe each other are loyalty and faithfulness.

S/he who hasn't conquered self (morally, emotionally and psychologically) ought not to marry at all.

No, it doesn't mean that she can give you her father's money - rebuke the spirit of opportunism in you. By her statement, she simply means that she can do anything on principle for you, yet, the principle here isn't on it formalness but based on her personal belief and conviction.

She comes with good intention, so always expect goodness (good attitude) from her - what you shouldn't expect is servility from her and, of course, she isn't going to drain you. If you value healthy relationship, you've gotten a lady on the same page with you. But I have my doubt, citing your obvious opportunistic disposition, that you believe in the principle of coming into equity with clean hands.

The most visible negative attitude to notice when dealing with a user (subjugator/abuser) is coercion. Meanwhile, some users have more dangerous means of coercing than others: How an egoist executes his/her own is different from how a narcissist or an egotist does.

- Egoists execute theirs by being humble/nice, caring/obsessive, possessive, pretentious and grateful yet perfidious. And they do achieve their aim through emotional entanglement and emotional blackmail - they're the most dangerous and pernicious of all users. Their greediness (for your material possession) and penchant for extortion will always unmask them, no matter how hard they try to perfect their action, especially if you're discerning.

- Narcissists execute theirs by being sanctimonious/hypocritical, chastising and selfish. And they achieve theirs through emotional blackmail and moral shaming.

- Egotist execute theirs by being self-centered and cockily hypocritically disingenuous. And they achieve theirs through guilt tripping and blame shifting.

For a user, it's either your dominion (which includes either your material or immaterial possession), dignity or sanity.

You can only be safe when dealing with either an altruist or an altruistic and conscientious person. When dealing with the latter mention though, make sure you come into equity with clean hands, else you'll wish you have met anyone of the three above from the manipulative ethical leanings in the end instead, if s/he decides to teach you a hard lesson for trying to take his/her goodness for granted.

Liberty doesn't negate decorum - and liberalism without conscientiousness is akin to sheep without a shepherd.

I don't agree with you. controversialism vs maverickness: There's a thin line between them, just as there's a thin line between good and bad, so it's easy for an undiscerning person to mistake one for another. What I know for a certain is that - when the two are the feasible options available to choose from - a man with aristocratic manner will choose a maverick woman over a controversial woman. A maverick (unorthodox woman) woman is different from a controversial (own-interest orthodox woman) woman.

In the absence of a strong-minded woman, a maverick woman is the next most viable alternative, because she can easily transmute to a strong-minded woman if she volitionally chooses to and put in the necessary work towards same. But a controversial woman, just like any orthodox woman (person), can't do the same no matter how hard she may wish or try.

Your item 5 submission isn't accurate. I don't see how a 6.5 billion naira vehicle will buy 3 of a gulfstream G200 business jet that worths $19 million apiece, citing dollar vs naira exchange rate. By the way, his is a G650 and it costs more than $60 million.

There's no gender inequality in Nigeria in the first place - gender differences don't mean gender inequality. What's glaring is that aside gender differences, there are extremely small number of altruistic and conscientious people in Nigeria, which makes it possible for expediency to always reign supreme over principle, and both genders are still guilty of this.

In any settings where expediency reigns supreme over principle the most dominant of an entity will always appear as the oppressor whether notionally or realistically.

The country simply needs strong-minded/independent - altruistic and conscientious - men and women to enable equity for all and for its advancement for the good of all irrespective of an individual's gender, class, world view and tribe.

RIP man. However, one marrying another for material benefit is purely evil and the resultant effect is always catastrophic like this. One who comes into equity should always strive to come with clean hands.

@OP

I wish you speedy and total recovery. You're just unlucky to have married a woman with bad character, one who isn't selfless towards you. There are still plenty of women around who're faithful in particular and good in general, so don't allow her small-mindedness to skew your perspective towards the female gender.

If she's ready for marriage and if she has found a suitable suitor elsewhere, while you aren't ready to marry her anytime soon for whatever reason and no matter how good your intention toward her is, allow her to exercise her full liberty. She simply owes you the courtesy of telling you her intention to walk out of the relationship of convenience she currently has with you, nothing more. A conscientious decision and action shouldn't be mistaken for an act of neither self-centeredness, selfishness nor greediness.

Meanwhile, you don't have to mistake your privilege of expectation towards her for an entitlement of owning her. She owes you loyalty not servitude, so if you want her loyalty at this juncture you've to give her a feasible and honest assurance - loyalty is like a two-way traffic sign.

Faithfulness, which is superior to loyalty, especially in a scenario like this, is an exclusive right of people who're officially married to each other, not for people in a mere relationship of convenience like you.

MiddleSpot:
Stop trying too hard. You've derailed. This is total B. S

Domineeringness will always remain the hallmark of a small-minded person like you, lol. I neither know you nor need your validation for anything, so STFU.

I intentionally ignored your crass stupidity since you made me to notice you through this thread, but it's now obvious that you've mistaken my politeness and tolerance for timidity. Vamoose now and look for your small-minded ilk elsewhere or better still direct your further mentions to. . . don't provoke me further.

The near-free access to the Webspace for all and sundry shouldn't be reason for low-lives and bumpkins like you to be picking on others unprovoked.

....

Nothing can be more appalling than seeing a bumpkin like you throwing around words you barely know and don't understand their meanings and how to use them appropriately, and when you try to quantify someone or something beyond your little brain capacity.

Dialog isn't the same thing as e-fighting. You can now direct your further mentions to your lunatic parents.

Citing his submission, he didn't make any marriage promise to her, even when she tried to cajole him into doing so in the middle of an action and, remember, they're in a relationship - a convenience relationship from the inception citing the indications available. Her action at such juncture amounted to cajolement which the OP pretentiously dodged - which is bad, diplomacy could have been a better option - through his act of silence. His action, however bad, was justifiable because the lady didn't come into equity with clean hands - what transpired at that juncture was a case of two "too clever by half" (sly) entities in a battle of wits.

Once more, I know that telling someone that you love him/her doesn't automatically mean promising marriage to such a person - and loving someone will always remain different from falling in love with the same person or having reason to remain in love with the same person forever. In fact, someone that made a promise of marriage to another can cancel same at the 11th hour - I'm not saying/justifying that one should trick or intentionally treat another in such manner - if s/he doesn't feel convinced (on principle) to continue with the arrangement. To be late is better than to be late.

My perspective is from my position as a conscientious libertarian, an altruist and a spiritual but not religious person; As such, I can't see things from the religious viewpoint - this doesn't invalidate your opinion in any way. I can never be caught using servility to sustain anything, and by extension, I don't support and expect others to do so. . . It was absolute disingenuousness on her part as she tried to cajole the OP into a cause under duress. Everyone deserves liberty - of course, liberty doesn't negate decorum.

Meanwhile, my submissions on the scenario under discussion don't nullify the obvious fact that the OP is of the manipulative ethical leanings as both pronounced and unpronounced connotation of his submission suggested. I don't hold brief for him.

generationz:
You are right in what you wrote

But what if the girl had an Agenda.
she might not want to marry op na Just to destroy his life.


The fact still remains a Liar

There are some women who will agree if you plainly tell them " I have a girlfriend ,wife etc I can't marry you"

Op doesn't have to lie with marriage.

When some women enjoy hanging around you or if he is good In the other room he may not spend money sef

You are talking as man .

I'm talking as one who has been in deliverance ministry for many years now and has read widely on the subject.

Op is guilty. He has made promises and they are binding.

Many men get away with these fake promises.

Op should just pray that the babe isn't diabolical.

Witches have no regard for an innocent person let alone someone who has used his hands to buy trouble all for pleasure sake.

MiddleSpot:
Permit me to put it short but aptly, one answer please would you like your sister in the same exact position? No lengthy answers sire..!

Yes, so long as my understanding of what transpired between the OP and his girlfriend, as he (OP) narrated, remain the same.

MiddleSpot:
For the first time. Since I know this moniker I disagree with you. While we see from different perspectives and you reserve the right to your comment, I choose to disagree. Anyway, it's human to disagree doesn't make superior over the other. I just don't agree with your position on this issue atall

We'll always disagree to agree. Are you for or against the OP's actions and inactions? I'll like to know your perspective in detail.

MiddleSpot:
For the first time. Since I know this moniker I disagree with you. While we see from different perspectives and you reserve the right to your comment, I choose to disagree. Anyway, it's human to disagree doesn't make superior over the other. I just don't agree with your position on this issue atall

We'll always disagree to agree. Are you for or against the OP's actions and inactions? I'll like to know your perspective in detail.

generationz:
my dear, this isn't an issue of not allowing her or allowing her.

Op has bitten more than he can chew.

For a girl to bring out ring, you think its ordinary ring

I pity men who go around feeling like champs for the number of women they can successfully deceive.

It doesn't make you a man nor add to your account. Neither does it make you a better person. If anything it wastes time and money you would have saved or invested for your kids future

Maybe the girl is witch and knows the op is a liar. She only keeps asking "do you love me" to justify how she was going to deal with him.

In the realm of the spirit ( both with God and Satan ) you need legal ground to pass judgment on a person or deal with a person.


Some ladies deliberately go around looking for womanizers like this to cage.


Op happy married life.

It could even be mixed with years of frustration and suffering.

Believe you me, I don't see how the OP is at fault and, as such, I don't see how she will succeed in harming him in whatever evil she may nurse against him. Every relationship must not automatically lead to marriage. And loving someone doesn't automatically mean falling in love with the same person or having a justifiable reason to remain in love with the same person forever. The only thing about love I know is constant, and should be constant for any sane person, is loving others selflessly - of course, selflessness doesn't mean absence of conscientiousness.

It's unfortunate that most people don't like to volitionally assume responsibility of their personal lives, actions and inactions. A person (man/woman) whose intention of entering into a relationship with another is solely marriage (there's nothing wrong with such intention), should communicate same to the other party beforehand and set a limited time frame to stay in the relationship, so that if it doesn't work within the set time frame, s/he takes a walk without demonizing the other person in any form - there's nothing wrong in losing honorably. Those who fail to lose honorably will always lose dishonorably or disgracefully - small-minded people (greedy, self-centered and selfish people in this regard) never like to lose honorably. Entitlement should neither be mistaken for expectation nor equated to good.

So a woman (or man) should be discerning enough to know when she is a girlfriend of convenience or not, although the best thing always is for both parties to periodically tell each other what status they hold in each other's life - expectation.

Unassumingness is gold.

Don't allow her or anyone else to conscript and guilt trip you into a journey you aren't ready to embark on. Altruism doesn't mean absence of conscientiousness.

You don't automatically owe her marriage just because you professed love for her. . . of course, don't lead her on henceforth if you don't have an intention to wife her.

It's always like this when a cockily hypocritically disingenuous woman (person) meets with a calmly hypocritically disingenuous man (person), neither she nor he came into equity with clean hands.

Guest007:
You've lost me Mr ko

Deflection (tactic) doesn't work on me. . . Gatecrashing loading.

@Guest007

Is it true that you're contemplating about celebrating it in either Mackinac Island, Michigan or Crystal of Castaway, Halong Bay, Vietnam? Let's know the venue on time.

Biglittlelois:
Saw this on TVC and Channels yesterday, where are the zombies who knows more than Apc stakeholders, especially that ngenedopemu

I was told you'll be standing as a candidate in the election, so let me know if you need a campaign treasurer. I'm good in keeping campaign funds.

AntiBrutus:

Who? Hope it is for good?

It's surely for good. As for "who," let me know how soon my subconscious will provide me with an answer. Meanwhile, always avoid water body.

AntiBrutus:
Same here. I can't deal abeg .

Milady the professor. The aggregate of your virtual demeanor always reminds me of someone.

Guest007:
Boss, I am already a leader, so I need a partner

Boss and leader, here I see a matchmaking made in heaven. Lol.

The statement is as true as truth itself. You may not understand until you find yourself in a relationship with a lady that possesses almost all the good attributes you need in a woman, one who within you on ordinary eye is one of the most beautiful women in the world and so duly attested by outsiders too. But in your love eye she isn't, she can't command your pupils dilation attraction no matter how hard both of you've tried to make things right.

While on the other hand, you've met with a not-so-good-looking lady in outsiders viewpoint, who in your love eye is the true most beautiful woman in the world. One who her downside and reason you'll jettison her is because she's of no good character.

Biglittlelois:
I just have to probe further because you and her have unrestricted access to each other going by the bank cards and all, I know this type of relationship all too well, how do you think she feels/will feel when you are in a serious relationship? Do not say she is/will be good with it cos she says and shows that, she may be crying in her closet knowing you are able to fall in love with someone else other than her.......

She's both altruistic and conscientious - a true independent/strong-minded woman - so I know what she can do and what she can't do at any given time either in my presence or absence.

AntiBrutus:
Like they know...

Milady, believe you me, some of us do. But going against one's subconscious isn't palatable. Oh, I forgot, you're neither religious nor spiritual. Lol. For more information on how to be attuned with your subconscious, dial. . .

UyaiIncomparabl:
Now tell me, why couldn't you just love her?

Some of us, despite being irreligious, have gift of divination and clairvoyance which usually make it possible for us to see what the future holds for us and those around and dear to us. So, going against the rule even after personally receiving several warnings always end up in a catastrophic manner no matter how sweet the present is. One who's attuned with his or her subconscious shouldn't be caught making some needles costly mistakes.

kense88:
clap back of the year

Lol. That can only be so for a mentally parochial entity like you. Bumpkin.