₦airaland Forum

Guest007:
I'm shocked at the double standards . I 'waisted' a guy's time for nearly a decade, and you get called evil but I'm not because he is a man and he has a decade to 'waist'

Lol. Don't mind some of these people. The concerned lady understands better, yet some bumpkins are here yapping trash. Even up to this very moment, she still has an unrestricted access to one of my bank cards, and we see and communicate almost every day. She knows that in me she has someone who can stand for her in all conditions, except having her as a wife.

Perhaps, because I said among her other good attributes she was benevolent to me, they thought it was about money. lol. Yes, she has money in abundance, but I neither for one day exploit her nor set out to eat from her. So, if truly I was evil and opportunistic she wouldn't have wished to have me remain permanently in her life.

Besides, I neither wasted her time nor did she. We started in a position of mutual convenience and it was spontaneous.

Fadedvoices2:
Anybody who doesn’t share your mundane ideologies and thought pattern is small minded ,right ? (You always label people who don’t agree with your mundane,archaic and tricky thought pattern as small minded.)

Such a slowpoke . I blame you not , I blame Xisnin for quoting you .

Lol. This psychotic is here. You're a typical example of an opportunist the OP mentioned, hypocritically disingenuous entity. You can only fool those who don't know you.

Direct your further mentions to small-minded people like you. Bumpkin.

MariaLavina:
I'm not trying to play the judge just want to understand things better. I get there may be some misunderstanding here due to the fact that we are of opposite gender discussing a sensitive topic but I will try to my best.

Now heres the deal : Do guys ask ladies out base on attraction or true feelings? When do guys get connected with their partners in a relationship, is it before the relationship kicks off, or after it does?
I really want to know because with what I read , hear and see these days. I'm beginning to contemplate a ' Don't give it your all' movement . Yes, like 'Hey ladies, hold back,
pause that lovey-dovey thing till you are certain he is EMOTIONALLY CONNECTED.



The emboldened, that's not completely true, people start relationships (the girl-boy thing) for different reasons.Some do that for material things, some for sexual intimacy, some as a source of vengeance, some for fame, some for recognition, some for games and yes for love. Maybe yours wasn't any of the stated but like I typed earlier, I'm not here to play the jury. But if you look closely you will see that all reasons are evil/opportunistic except the one based on genuine feelings.


Alright, I get that.

Personally, attraction (fancy/lust/the small love) - quite different from the main true feeling/emotional connection - is just less than 20 percent of the compound quotient that can make me say I do forever. It alone can't sustain a healthy union forever for me.

True feeling/emotional connection is something one develops in the cause of the relationship, irrelevant of the duration. Some selected good attributes plus fancy plus maybe one external factor are the main sources of emotional connection for me - a singular bad attribute, whenever it manifests, can equally squash the built-up emotional connection. So, the earlier one shows her true color the better.

Meanwhile, the idea of "don't give it your all" is rather a bad one. One should always give his/her all to any cause he believes in - the most important thing is to make sure you do so altruistically and conscientiously.

The intention of asking a lady out will always depend on one's level in life at a particular time. Like in this scenario in my OP, it's for convenience - yes, it's mutually so at the inception - and it's spontaneous.

Once more, unconditionality of love doesn't invalidate conditionality of falling in love and staying in love - once the conditions are immaterial/attribute base then it's genuine love.

MariaLavina:



Touching Stories








LordKO's is scary though, .Why are guys that way? Read a story here some days ago related to this. Why be with someone you aren't emotionally connected to for so long? I don't get it. How do guys do it?

Elegant lady. She understands me better. Both of us thought that I'd develop emotional connection with her after taking it to the next level, but I tried it without success. And till eternity is too long, especially when you won't like to wittingly be a source of agony to such a beautiful soul. So, it's better to be late than to be late. Unconditionality of love doesn't invalidate conditionality of falling in love and staying in love. . . One can only be assumed evil/opportunistic if the conditionalities are material based.

Emotional connection is very important, unfortunately, personally it's not something I can wittingly develop for everyone. It must be present before I say I do, because only it can make me to leave wherever I'm to come home at any point in time.

By the way, I didn't state duration of the courtship, so it could have been a short or long one - dating period doesn't count in a scenario like this.

candlewax:
Maybe you are just an evil being, why propose when there is no love. Do you know the embarrassment you caused her in the midst of her friends or how many suitors you chased away from her life, she could have missed the opportunity of getting close to someone that adores her just because of your useless proposal. It's just about you, isn't it?

Bumpkin. I don't need your validation to substantiate my actions and inactions, not when the woman involved in the relationship understands better. We've remained in each others good book. A sane woman like her will always choose an unassuming me than a pretentious you any day and anywhere, that's the difference. Loving someone is different from falling in love with the same person, so also staying in love forever is different from the aforementioned.

Vamoose now and look for your small-minded ilk elsewhere or better still direct your further mentions to your lunatic parents.

Xisnin:
Why are you getting worked up because your baseless ideas are being challenged?
You should take time to reflect before posting next time because not all
readers would tolerate bullshit.

Of course, your likes may fool you into believing the merit of your post
but that isn't really a feat when most of your audience is adolescent and young men.

Again, you can't change a word's meaning to pass a point, you will only fool the dumb.

Nothing can be more appalling than seeing a bumpkin like you trying so hard to arrogate monopoly of knowledge to yourself. A human being, just like a country, doesn't become independent simply because she's achieved financial emancipation/is able to solely cater for her financial needs, instead she does because she's able to make decisions and live on her own terms and conditions devoid unwarranted outside influence.

If I'm to follow your lame logic, it means that an unmarried working-class woman who earns big and lives on her own opinion and dictates, but still living in her parents house, has no right to claim independence.

Independence isn't subjective, so, as far as I'm concerned, an impressionable and venal woman or man has no right to lay claim of independence, whether she has money or not.

Xisnin:
A long convoluted definition isn't needed for "independent" when used in the context of a male-female relationship dynamics.
Redefinition of the term renders it meaningless in such instance.

Look for your small-minded ilk elsewhere. A woman's ability to personally cater for her financial needs doesn't automatically make her an independent woman. She's simply a financially emancipated woman. Once more, there's nothing independent about an impressionable and venal woman or man.

Xisnin:
By your definition, no one(Men or Women) is really independent.
When people use the term "independent women", it has a specific meaning devoid of philosophical debate.
It simply means financially independent women.
Whether such woman is proud, meek or humble is irrelevant.

Lagos in Lagos state doesn't make the former a state in Nigeria. What's that your argument again? Only few people (both male and female) are independent.

"Independent woman" one of the most abused words out there. A financially emancipated woman isn't automatically an independent woman. So, there's nothing opportunistic about a man who loves independent women. Only a man who makes claim of loving financially emancipated women and live off them is an opportunist.

An independent woman is a woman that lives life on principle rather than expediency - a strong-minded woman. A woman who's emotionally, morally and mentally (intellectually and psychologically) emancipated - if she's financially emancipated that's just an added advantage for her, while lack of it takes nothing away from her.

Meanwhile, whether feeble-minded women and headstrong women are financially emancipated or not, they've no right to lay claim of independence, since they're unemancipated morally, psychologically and emotionally.

In summary, there's nothing independent about an impressionable and venal woman (person).

Guest007:
That was my 2 cents... I think love is a miserable misery.


I wasn't doing a #grammarNazi one...

Aside it been a mystery, truly it can equally be a "miserable misery" for one at the receiving end of a breakup - whether or not the breakup happens amicably and harmoniously.

Guest007:

Lol. Mystery. Mystery is different from misery.

Imoh555:
Did you propose /plan to get married

Lol. Even after I started my previous submission with "Yes" you still put forth this query.

Yes. And she's one of the most beautiful, intelligent and benevolent (at least towards me) women in the world - she was submissive with a genuine intention to make it work out between us. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to fall in love with her - even though I love her - despite trying my utmost. She wasn't perfect, just as no human being is, and her personal imperfection wasn't the main reason I was unable to fall in love with her.

Walking out of her life, despite all her pleas and considering the fact that we didn't quarrel even for a day, is one of the hardest decisions I've ever taken in life, but I couldn't afford wasting her time and continually raising her hope that I may succeed in falling in love with her.

Love is a mystery.

A typical behavior of a man (woman) who's lost his emotional connection towards his wife - of course, the cause of the lost emotional connection may or may not be the fault of the one at the receiving end.

A small-minded person will always take/mistake disingenuousness for cleverness, shame on him.

If you mean submission in its formalness, the one that allows a man to have power over a woman, whether she likes it or not, while outside his presence/giving opportunity she subjugates or drains him, my answer is NO. It can't keep a sane man - but it can keep small-minded men, they love it. Women who give it know that it's a mere mechanism to perfect their manipulation, unfortunately small-minded men - wannabe alpha men (egotistic men with or without money, and narcissistic and egoistic men with money while you're poor) - love it without knowing that they're under manipulation. This kind of submission isn't a sign of virtuousness. If the man stays - a sane man won't even put up with this type of woman in the first place - it won't make him to treat her like a virtuous woman because she doesn't possess aristocratic manners and values. Egoistic, narcissistic and egotistic women can offer this kind of submission in abundance - the second and third latter mentions always take to it if/when they don't have money, to drain/subjugate a man that has money or a man they want in their lives who doesn't know their antics.

Meanwhile, if you are talking about the submission I know - I prefer its euphemism submissiveness - which is a compound word just like the big love (the love that is a variant of goodness), but only differs in nomenclature and application, then my answer is YES. Submissiveness will surely keep a man (especially a sane man), a man that truly needs you, and it'll make him to treat you like a queen/virtuous woman you're. Submissiveness is simply a variant of goodness - altruism and conscientiousness - it isn't a sign of weakness, just like the big love isn't a sign of weakness too.

She's an egoist, her inherent possessiveness says it all. Don't allow her back into your life if you value your sanity in particular and well-being in general. Her type is both obsessive and caring - the latter is good but the former isn't - and they're the most perfidious of all human beings, so they'll always consciously or unconsciously mete out pernicious act against others around them no matter how dear they hold you/you are to them. Don't allow her calmness and self-effacement to deceive you, yes majority of them usually possess calm personality and exhibit self-effacing attitude, only few of them do possess boisterous personality and exhibit domineering attitude, especially when they consider you mightier than them materially. Greed and pretentiousness are their other major hallmark.

The first step towards finding solution to your need is by consciously telling yourself truth, because he/she who comes into equity must come with clean hands. Are you sure you didn't accuse her wrong? Are you sure you've not been authoritative and tactless towards her? Is she truly stubborn, or have you mistaken a principled woman for a stubborn one? When exactly did you discover her supposed wayward ways and what are they exactly?

Are you sure her mother's silence wasn't borne out of diplomacy/wisdom rather than pretentiousness? Even though I don't hold brief for the mother, but citing connotation of your submission, it seems you intentionally wished to goad her but she beats you to your own game.

Are you sure your wife's resolve to beg you and mend fences with you wasn't borne out of her resolution to work for the unity of the union no matter what happens/who's wrong rather than whatever difficulties she may be facing now and remorse of her assumed waywardness?

Meanwhile, her siblings didn't act wisely.

Abhorrence of lack of money doesn't mean love of money. So, OP is right.

Where altruism and conscientiousness are the bond that holds a couple together, I don't see how and why they should be "sharing responsibility" rather than each volitionally and joyfully giving and putting his or her best at any given time, regardless of whether or not the other half has any material thing to contribute.

Husband and wife are neither business partners, competitors, frenemies, enemies nor boss/servant. I don't see marriage where there's no oneness and, of course, there can't be oneness where there's no altruism and conscientiousness.

One who believes in marriage but doesn't believe in oneness of husband and wife, in both word and deed, is an enemy of the sacred institution.

She's an opportunist - a typical small-minded person - and, as such, she doesn't deserve more thoughtfulness in particular and marriage in general from the man.

OP and his ilk - both male and female ilk - deserve no peace and progress. Balderdash at its peak.

Success never makes one with an aristocratic manner bad, instead it helps make the person more refined.

generationz:
Jesus!!

Lord KO
you are lord of KnockOuts


Technical knockouts

Lol. Don't mind me, I want to use ElderSonsAndDaughtersEnterprise to horn my KO skill for the upcoming world KO competition.

The OP and his ilk are bumpkins. They don't seem to understand the literal meaning of one being materialistic. complacency is bad but materialism is worse. Success consciousness - thriftiness - is gold.

Elder0001:
Go fvck yourself .

I have no dealings with traditional misogynists.

Look at this hypocritically disingenuous entity - wannabe libertarian and egalitarian. Now vamoose and look for your ilk elsewhere. Bumpkin.

Elder0001:
This supposed hatred all came for the fact that I support feminism and I’ve rebuked you in the past for your semi- traditionalist and archai views on male and female relationships.

The hate was becoming too much that’s why I stopped commenting in romance section since last year but it’s obvious you’re still in deep pains for the call outs .


An egoistic bastard who think he knows it all , foisting his archai ,primitive and misogynistic thoughts not only on romance section but on the family section .

Lol. You always amuse me. Don't worry, I don't hate you.

spades:
@LordKO:I have been a member here since 2006.Mostly a silent onlooker,the quality of submissions has declined over the years,abysmally.The truth inherent in your post though(woke AF) approaches the divine,speaking volumes of your moral depth.Permit me to applaud your intellectual sagacity and flawless insight regarding what is simply a question of character.What maketh a man?The kind of degenerate reprobate that would repay back a woman's faith,love and belief with such contempt because of a few coins is a man to be kept at arms length,thats some next level 12 pieces of silver sh**.,Kendrick Lamar said it best "See, you's a, you's a,you's a—Bitch, your hormones prolly switch inside your DNA,Problem is,all that sucker shit inside your DNA Daddy prolly snitched, heritage inside your DNA". Such betrayal as the type described here is,as you rightly said,evil personafied.Thanks for pointing this out.Celestial realms and "real men" from Gidi to the North Pole agree with you,heck even Charlie Sheen agrees and dude is higher than space cadets half the time .Seriously though.Thank you for speaking for "us".(Ghost mode reactivated)

Esprit de corps.

Elder0001:
You’re the wisest female on this thread .

Replies devoid of sentiment and emotion, kudos .

A mentally parochial entity like you isn't in the best position to quantify others... I neither invalidate nor validate the IQ of the lady you quoted though, but she'll be doing herself a great disservice if she takes you serious.

Amhappy:
LordKO i think I need to mention that your vocabulary collection is amazing

Thank you.

ANGELMARVE:
Absolute Nonsense.

A lady stuck by you when you were broke, now that you are Rich, you left the lady because in your words, "She has now become a liability"
So tell me why Goodluck Jonathan is still with patience Jonathan?

Are you more richer and educated than Goodluck Jonathan?

Yes!!! i know a woman must develop her own self, mentally, educationally or resourcefully but that do not mean that if she fails to meet the requirement guaranteed for your financial level, that you should dump her.

A real man will use his wealth to uplift his woman financially, educationally and transform her to your standard.

You're wise.

@OP

Obviously, your submission is from a small-minded person's point of view. Small-minded people - people of the manipulative ethical leanings - and disloyalty, hypocrisy, disingenuousness and unfaithfulness are inseparable.

A long-time girlfriend, not just a girlfriend of convenience, is obviously someone you must have found worthy morally, physically, emotionally and intellectually, so discarding her after you emancipate financially simply means that you're evil personification. Money in particular and material things in general never/should never be the hallmark of a sane person or defined a person.

You (whether boy or girl), it's about time you ask yourself/discern if you're a boyfriend or girlfriend of convenience to your partner or his/her dear choice and, do the needful, to avoid finding yourself in the web of OP's submission in the end. Anyone in your life - and vice versa - who isn't altruistic towards you is your frenemy and should be treated as one, because a frenemy is literally worse than an enemy.

@OP

Your husband is neither altruistic nor conscientious towards you in particular and the household in general - he's a quasi-devil, worse than a small-minded person, because he's both egotistic and narcissistic mainly because of item 3, 4 and 5. Both of you aren't of the same ethical leanings. Item 1 and 2 aren't the main issues because the help/employment of one or more domestic staff can help solve them.

Sincerely, without him making conscious decision to turn a new leaf the problems in item 3, 4 and 5 will persist. If truly he's ready to change for good, he has to become conscientious and altruistic, or just conscientious on the minimum.

However, if he refuses to embrace a positive change, you can apply any one of the following philosophies depending on whether you care to sustain the union no matter what happens or if you won't mind separating from him at worst case scenario:

- If you have resolution to remain in the union with him no matter what happens then remain altruistic and conscientious towards him but stop treating him as an altruistic and conscientious person - a sane man in this situation that values the sanctity of marriage/healthy close relationship will automatically change for good towards you, even if he doesn't find you sweet again.

- If you won't mind separating from him, in case he refuses to change for good, be just conscientious towards him without giving/allowing him benefits of altruism - as an insane man, he'll get worse with his actions and inactions here and this will automatically lead to either temporary or permanent separation of both of you.