₦airaland Forum

bdchange:
hahah you nearly broke my skull with your articulated grammar. But I guess it is easier to speak from the male perspective than the female. The society we live in give the man room to jump from one woman to another striving to get a better woman, but same can't be done by the woman because she has alot to lose if she does that. If a woman comes to nairaland today and say I have left 5 guys in space of 3 years because they are cheat. Believe me, most people here will criticize, chastise and throw all sort of dirty languages on her. abi no be nairaland wey I know again

Lol. Believe you me, an aristocratic lady (person) knows the importance of living life at the periphery of conventionalism and the joy of doing so conscientiously. . . and that nullifies a thought like this "If a woman comes to nairaland today and say I have left 5 guys in space of 3 years because they are cheat. Believe me, most people here will criticize, chastise and throw all sort of dirty languages on her. abi no be nairaland wey I know again".

@OP

I don't agree with you. Actually, one who neither knows how to lose honorably nor hasn't conquered self (irrespective of gender), is the one that has a lot to lose in a relationship - s/he who fails to lose honorably will always lose dishonorably in the end. Let's use your submission as a case study: Before I go on, I don't hold brief for the guy in the story - he's a typical small-minded man. However, the girl has herself to blame - she's a typical small-minded person too - because she'd have lose honorably had it been she left the very moment the guy betrayed her confidence on him. . . . Trust remains a justified confidence, this is why an aristocrat will neither give trust to someone (or expect faithfulness from someone) that didn't justify confidence reposed on him/her nor reward mediocrity. She didn't leave when she ought to, not because she was literally forgiven, rather because "she'd invested a lot in the relationship" - according to you - and this means she wasn't altruistic in whatever investment she made. Her inability to act conscientiously when needed is what gave her out as a typical small-minded person. One in her stead, who has conquered self, wouldn't have waited and allowed the guy to eat his cake and have it... one who doesn't believe in something will always fall for anything.

One thing with people who operate on principle rather expediency (aristocrats) - those who believe that s/he who comes into equity must come with clean hands - is that as much as they're never detrimental to others, yet, they never use servility to sustain a relationship with a small-minded person. And when they take to volitional slavery to sustain a relationship where and when needed - because it's an ultimate price of love - they do so altruistically, to avoid bitter cry in the end. Because the last things to expect from any beneficiary of another person(s) volitional slavery - one that accepts such with full happiness - are faithfulness and genuine gratitude.

Derea:
You have great wisdom.

I'll give an example of my sister who got married at age 26. After giving birth to her first child, she travelled alone to the U.S. She came back to Nigeria before the expiration of her visa. Then she travelled again, but this time, and unknown to her husband, she had other plans- to live in the U.S as an illegal immigrant.

When she left, she was pregnant.

In my opinion, she had it all planned out. My question always has been: what kind of wife and mother gives up husband and child for a better life in a developed country. Her son was traumatized for the first few years she left, he was barely 2 at the time, but thankfully, 6 years later, he's grown out of it, plus she keeps in touch and ensures he doesn't lack a thing.

However, she and her husband have since broken up and she couldn't possibly care less.

Though I staunchly condemn my sister's methods, I should not blame her entirely unless I want to be sentimental. The same society that condemns her for what she did is the same that would shame her if she wasn't married as I'm typing this.

What if that was her only chance at marriage and having children? In my opinion, my sister played smart and life favors only smart people while the rest of us are shamed for being innocent and naive.

These past but recent experiences have taught me that it's better to have been married than not to be married at all. A friend recently called, we hadn't spoken in a looong while. When he realized I wasn't married, he exclaimed, "a pretty girl like you! Are you sure you're not the problem?". Imagine!

In spite of my sister's shortcomings and failed marriage, my mum still rates her far better than I because of her achievements like children and some money. While, I, on the other hand, a "failure".

Mum will often tell me how I'm no longer beautiful. She would tactically tell me how other people think so too.

For example, on this particular day, I went to her office briefly. On getting home that night, she told me about how her colleagues marvelled at my looks. But that one of them, who also happens to be my mum's close friend told the others that, "ah it's because you didn't know her before now. If you did, you wouldn't say she is beautiful".

Mum sometimes tells me how she's never happy seeing me around. She's ashamed, I guess, having an older, unmarried woman in her house.

Wouldn't blame her though, most nigerian mothers are seriously traditional. Even worse, I'm not working, though I try not to eat her food. I feed from my little savings, while my dad funds my professional exams.

This is just to make a simple but relevant point that contrary to what Op thinks, any woman who is desperate to get married will get married.

There's nothing smart about your sister's evil act - disingenuousness shouldn't be mistaken for smartness. She's a typical egotist - self-centered and heartless idiot. I hope she and her supporters will not cry murder when the estranged husband gives her a dose of her own medicine in any best way he may deem fit.

Meanwhile, your mother is a typical small-minded person (no apologies) who's in the habit of mistaken wickedness for wisdom, while mistaken wisdom for foolishness. She's a true mother of your sister. . . For her type, expediency over principle any day and anytime.

Smart people never achieve success to the detriment of others - at least not to the detriment of those they share/have shared closeness with or the helpless. A smart person, in business for instance understands the principle of earning to share with associate(s) and never to eat from associate(s).

pocohantas:
After "bad relationships" they start dropping nuggets. They become philosophers...

The OP is preparing e-slap for you.

MariaLavina:
Lol. Truth is , I hate it when men sulk. An experience with one or two persons doesn't mean you have to put all other persons in a basket. Plus what put is he trying to make? Women should not be available anymore? How can a man just wake up and come to such conclusion without putting into consideration the dynamic nature of the world he lives in. What works for A might not work for B. You don't reason for all!.

You may be right, I don't know Op, neither do I know his real nature. All I know is this thread sucks


You see, grammar too much for you. When I saw your submission on the other thread, I thought you were trying to justify the narcissist by differentiating between an egoistic person and a narcissist. You placed so much emphasis (negative descriptions) on an egoistic person than a narcissist.You got me confused, but then I didn't want to disturb your zodiac debate with MzJoy.

No, I didn't justify narcissism, instead I tried to point out that there are other similar traits worse than it; Like egoism and egotism. Actually, only the near-lowest of the human order are narcissists. A sane and sound person cannot be caught possessing such a toxic trait or wishing to possess it. Under normal circumstances, narcissists never command association, trust and respect of established, privileged and enlightened people. As subjugation personify, only the social and economic impaired can put up with them - thus, the reason a narcissistic grown-up man can only wish for a naive girl for relationship and marriage.

However, as toxic and nauseating as they're, I still prefer them to egoists and egotists - this is the exact point I was trying to make on that thread - because they hardly hide their selfishness and hypocrisy.

UyaiIncomparabl:
NO. You always claim to know too much.

Narcissists have an inferiority complex with all people. In particular, narcissists are jealous of anyone and everyone, any time they see someone having something desirable. Because of their high sense of entitlement, they think that, regardless of what the thing is, it should be them that has the thing, not you.

This jealousy must be unconscious, because to consciously be jealous would be to acknowledge inferiority. Consciously a narcissist will not acknowledge inferiority. Part of their complex is a feeling of superiority, which is necessary for them to feel special.

Exactly. Only the near-lowest of the human order are narcissists or take to narcissism - meting out of selfishness and unfaithfulness while expecting and accepting only altruism and faithfulness - and, that's why a typical narcissist can never command followership of an established, enlightened and privileged opposite sex.

A sane and sound person can never be a narcissist or caught being proud to possess the trait.

MariaLavina:
Confused lots!

When a lady decides to be caring, attentive, and supportive, she becomes too available , desperate and cheap.

But when she decides to put herself first, seek only want you can offer, she becomes a slut, gold digger and a materialistic one. The problem with you overgrown babies is that you do not get to understand what you want before you stopped growing.


Fools!

Who provoked elegant lady. Don't mind the OP, it's obvious he's just trolling, because from all indications he's a responsible man.

Meanwhile, personality of the man he (the OP) impersonated/presented is a typical hallmark of a narcissist - meting out of selfishness and unfaithfulness while expecting altruism and faithfulness.

MissJoy29:
Unfortunately, I don't know about metaphysics.

So we can comfortably agree that yes, personality has a relationship with zodiac signs.

I figured you did. Just as you did again.
Good morning.

Malleable nature of personality makes it so. However, innateness and uniqueness of character makes it an abomination to link it to zodiac and astrological signs. Absence of personality cannot invalidate a belief systems, however there's no belief systems where there's no character.

Happy Sunday.

MariaLavina:
Nawa oooo, all this grammar on top a troll?


LordKO come and see your second o.

Lol. Confession time: I've been learning and copying from you covertly - don't bother to sue me because I'm only imitating not duplicating, so I haven't done any wrong according to international law. Las las I may reach halfway your height even though I've empty head.

MissJoy29:
Ok....I get you. I'm also tired.

But let me get these straight:
1) are you saying that character and personality are different?
2) if the answer to 1 above is "yes" ,are you saying that personality can be affected by zodiac/astrological signs but not character?

You skipped the question on the last quote.

1) Yes. There's a big difference between character and personality.

2) Yes, personality has ALMOST everything to do with zodiac and astrological signs - however, it can be altered. You'll understand this better if you've an in-depth knowledge about metaphysics.

Meanwhile, I intentionally skipped the last question on the last quote. . . Your aura is quite great.

MissJoy29:
Now, even with you using "automatically" I still maintain that those things affect character and personality although they can be affected by a variety of factors including upbringing, peer influence, values & beliefs. Now why do I maintain my first three lines above? I could say "automatically" here means the person's default, inborn, carry-come character & personality traits even before he/she is being affected by the factors listed above.
In other words, zodiac signs & temperaments DO have something to do with character and temperament AUTOMATICALLY!
You grab?

Who do I remind you of?

Lol. I'm so tired now to the extent that to string a complete sentence together is a herculean task, but let me try.

Innateness of character and personality - they can be acquired inform of attitude but not attribute - have nothing to do with zodiac and astrological signs automatically, but they've everything to do with individual's uniqueness. . . Especially character. Separate the two and you'll understand better. Talk about personality alone and I'll agree with you that it has almost everything to do with zodiac and astrological signs.

MissJoy29:
Of course. A lot of ideologies aren't set in stone and temperaments and zodiac signs are no exception. But it doesn't mean they don't have anything to do with character and personality.

I wouldn't use the word "altered" though. I'd rather use "affected".

I remember saying that "they've nothing to do with character and personality automatically." Emphasis on the word "automatically." The easiest way to fall into the hand of a toxic person is to erroneously assume that because both of you share same birth date automatically, that both of you equally share same ethical leanings. Parents hardly share same ethical leanings with their offspring, then how much more people that share mere zodiac signs.

Meanwhile, the word "altered" rather than "affect" sits well in the context I used it because of my concept of nature/creator of the universe and destiny.

Zodiac/astrological signs don't dictate one's ethical leanings/belief systems.

Meanwhile, you remind me of someone.

MissJoy29:
Really? If it doesn't, how come their descriptions are always accurate to a fault?

Yes. Actually, they are akin to destiny and prophecy that can be altered wittingly or unwittingly.

Biglittlelois:
Are you Scorpio? This is soo me, thanks

Zodiac/astrological sign has nothing to do with character and personality automatically.

Biglittlelois:
I'd like to know the ones on Romance, as for Family, say no more, one in particular starts with Elder

Lol. U wan provoke elder, e bi like say u don ready for wahala. my hand no dey.

bukatyne:
But us no buts

Name, name, name

Lol. Me no de ready for wahala.

johnkey:
You're so right about this.

The Scorpio in me tends to control the narcissist in me though.

I don't want your help simply because I don't want to be indebted to you or have you controlling me

And if I will help you it has to be for something, which mostly is the kitten for me cause I don't need help in the first place

And we can also both walk away in opposite direction and forget we ever met.

@funmisticqueen, this person understands my submission.

funmisticqueen:
which one of the terms you used has empathy? Differentiate your terms with examples

My submissions are precise refer to them, because I've limited time. Egotist has empathy - with self-centerednes as its major hallmark. Self-centeredness doesn't mean automatic absence of empathy, it only means "self/self interest enable empathy." If an egotist considers you as his/her interest/part of self, you'll enjoy his goodness to the maximum.

None of these traits means EVIL automatically - only one who possesses all the traits can be termed evil.

funmisticqueen:
you are getting it wrong. All you said are just signs of narcissistic personality disorder. Google It. Narcissism is a broad spectrum which covers all three of your terms

You amuse me. Most of the contributors on google, quora, etc, are people like you.

funmisticqueen:
I did and I am yet to see the distinction between the two in your post. Please just make I clear so i can understand your point. Because all u mentioned are narcissistic traits.

The difference between egotists (egotistical people) and narcissists (narcissistic people) is that:

The former (egotists/egotistical people) "take and take until the giver is half of themselves (I borrowed your words as quoted)". . . finished - Self-centeredness and contentiousness are their major hallmark, they care less. While the latter (narcissists), everything is transaction-business-like to them and they don't pretend about it - they're not altruistic givers and faithful lovers, but they expect altruism and faithfulness. Selfishness and sanctimony - to them they're good moral personification, instead of personification of hypocrisy they're - are their major hallmark, they care but without emotion so it's an instant give and take for them (like a typical business person that owes you honesty but no loyalty).

funmisticqueen:
you did not explain the difference between narcissistic, and egoistical men

My submission is genderless and, of course, I wrote about egoism: your "egoistical men."

Read/reread my submission again.

The major advantage of marrying a smart woman is that you won't be expected, by her or anyone else, to accept an explanation like "I was deceived by so and so person(s)" - sound intellectual judgment will be expected from her permanently, she'll always accept and assume responsibility of her actions and inactions. Come on, a smart person can only be betrayed, not deceived. So, personally I don't see any disadvantage in marrying a smart woman - smartness/high intellect shouldn't be mistaken for disingenuousness/conceitedness, respectively. And, of course, a smart woman isn't automatically a virtuous woman. Smartness is all about intellect.

Your submission is almost perfectly in order. However, you lump narcissistic, egoistic, conceited and egotistic traits together. There are thin lines/differences among them. One thing possessors of the traits have in common is penchant for subjugation (they're of the manipulative ethical leaning). They personify subjugation. Someone of the manipulative ethical leaning can possess either a calm or boisterous personality - the calm ones are more dangerous.

For example:

- Contrary to this erroneous assertion about narcissists "They take and take until the giver is half of themselves." Everything is transaction-business-like to narcissists and they don't pretend about it - they're not alstruistic givers and faithful lovers, but they expect altruism and faithfulness. Selfishness and sanctimony - to them they're good moral personification, instead of personification of hypocrisy they're - are their major hallmark.

Only egotists "take and take until the giver is half of themselves.". . . finished. Self-centeredness and contentiousness are their major hallmark.

In this same setting, egoists are the Greek gift givers, they give in the guise of kindness but with an intention to perpetually possess/own the beneficiary, unlike narcissists that don't pretend about their intention of giving, they do pretend about their own intention - sycophancy is their major hallmark. And conceited people, unlike narcissists that believe they are good moral personification, are after domineering/owning others intellectually - to a conceited person, s/he has monopoly of knowledge.

A developed/extreme egoist is an automatic psychopath. While a developed/extreme egotist is an automatic sociopath.

Altruistic and conscientious people are gold - people of the diplomatic ethical leaning.

But for one thing, I'd point to you two popular Nairalanders on the romance and family sections that are narcissists.

Your submission is almost perfectly in order. However, you lump narcissistic, egoistic, conceited and egotistic traits together. There are thin lines/differences among them. One thing possessors of the traits have in common is penchant for subjugation (they're of the manipulative ethical leaning). They personify subjugation. Someone of the manipulative ethical leaning can possess either a calm or boisterous personality - the calm ones are more dangerous.

For example:

- Contrary to this erroneous assertion about narcissists "They take and take until the giver is half of themselves." Everything is transaction-business-like to narcissists and they don't pretend about it - they're not altruistic givers and faithful lovers, but they expect altruism and faithfulness. Selfishness and sanctimony - to them they're good moral personification, instead of personification of hypocrisy they're - are their major hallmark.

Only egotists "take and take until the giver is half of themselves.". . . finished. Self-centeredness and contentiousness are their major hallmark.

In this same setting, egoists are the Greek gift givers, they give in the guise of kindness but with an intention to perpetually possess/own the beneficiary, unlike narcissists that don't pretend about their intention of giving, they do pretend about their own intention - sycophancy is their major hallmark. And conceited people, unlike narcissists that believe they are good moral personification, are after domineering/owning others intellectually - to a conceited person, s/he has monopoly of knowledge.

A developed/extreme egoist is an automatic psychopath. While a developed/extreme egotist is an automatic sociopath.

Altruistic and conscientious people are gold - people of the diplomatic ethical leaning.

But for one thing, I'd point to you two popular Nairalanders on the romance and family sections that are narcissists.

Rochas should shut up, he's hypocritically disingenuous. Even though I am for politics of principle and conviction, yet, I know that all tribes in Nigeria have been playing politics on sentiment, inclusive of him as an individual as evident in his actions and inactions.

Your cousin is married to his own frenemy - a headstrong woman. She's an egotist - a developed or developing sociopath. Egotists (be they women or men) believe in marriage, but they do not believe in oneness in marriage - as a woman self-centeredness and contentiousness will remain her major hallmark. Her type personifies subjugation - even if she's meek. He ought to have known that submissiveness is the least thing to expect from her since she's economically emancipated - of course, when he becomes more financially stable than her, or if she loses her economic power, she'll take to hypocritical disingenuousness, like a feeble-minded woman (economic-impaired egoist or narcissist), to remain in his good book.

In fact, he should prepare for the worst, so long as she remains economically strong, because his goodness (as much as she will enjoy and long to retain it without reciprocating same) can never be enough for her. He has the choice to either become perpetually subjugable to her or he should go for separation (she will like and initiate this option if peradventure he loses his economic power completely, she'll take a walk with the offspring), if he values his inner peace. Equality can never be enough for her, she wants to reign supreme over him - as she has started - and establish a separate kingdom while still being covered by his crown. Abomination.

Being a working class woman, or financially independent woman, isn't enough. Strong-minded women will always remain gold.

lonelydora:
That is what a good woman should do.

Women should be submissive to their husbands.

Ephesians 5:22 - 33

Lol. Most of you don't seem to understand what submissiveness entails: There's nothing submissive about a woman that apologizes to her husband, when the husband does wrong - only a feeble-minded woman does such - such is an act of servility, not that of goodness which submissiveness is a product of. And it takes a man that's a subjugator to expect and accept same (subservience) from a woman or any other person.

As bad as a headstrong woman is - a woman who is neither submissive nor subservient - a feeble-minded (subservience personified) one is even worse regardless of her penchant for servile actions, like this one on the subject of this thread.

Only strong-minded women know how to be submissive, and that's why they're gold. They're neither inconsiderate/self-centered nor subservient. They're simply principled and know how to live in harmony with principled men. They understand and value oneness in marriage, unlike headstrong women that like marriage but hate oneness especially if they are/when they become economically emancipated.

bukatyne:
Very much agree with you.

It's obvious you're a strong-minded - not a headstrong - woman.

Kudos.

To your question, yes it's possible and normal for one who hasn't found/isn't with his/her missing rib, or one who didn't marry his missing rib. For a man, this is so because the inestimable value of a woman towards his man lies in the woman's sweetness (beauty remains in the eye of the beholder), selflessness and meekness. Obviously, he didn't marry his missing rib - the three attributes above can never be found missing in a man's missing rib. So, absence of sweetness from his woman is the reason he's resorted to cheating on her with you mentally. He may never come physically for you, if he's thoughtful - thoughtfulness will make him not to disrespect his wife to such extent - of course, you have to help him make this to happen. Both of you should end the unnecessary friendship with each other and become friendly towards each other instead.

To save himself from cheating on her with you physically or to start resenting her - if you resist his physical advances, assuming he stoop low to such, he'll unintentionally transfer his aggression towards his woman - both of you should maintain distance from each other. Your friendship with him has brought negative energy to his union, but with the help of distance between you two (or any other woman of your ilk), he'll not destroy his union in the end. In his hand lies majority of the work.

The good thing is that he loves his woman, as you said he proclaimed, which means the sum value of his woman's selflessness and meekness can suppress the value of sweetness of any other woman outside - you inclusive - for him. This together with his own personal values of thoughtfulness and unassumingness should be able to prevent him from drifting apart from his woman completely. He should be content with the choice he's made already, his unfulfillment notwithstanding.

Actually, unconditionality of loving someone/others (as a normal human being) doesn't invalidate conditionality of falling in love and staying in love. This is the reason every relationship is a work-in-process.

However, you may even be his missing rib. lol.

The article is on point. However, since attitude can be faked, it shouldn't be an acceptable standard of what gives the "final definition of one's image" - attribute should. Attitude is never an automatic manifestation of attribute. While the former can be acquired, the latter is innate. Sustainability of credibility (or otherwise) is the hallmark of attribute - any attribute one possesses.

Since the article is about the attributes of egotism and egoism albeit unpronounced, two attributes that their possessors are incurable but manageable - there's a thin line between an egotist and sociopath, and egoist and psychopath - therefore, a possessor of one or both attributes can only live on borrowed "self esteem." Expediency rather than principle will always be the hallmark of such a person. The postulation that change is the only constant thing in life takes an exception here.

In summary, non-possessors of the attributes should master the act and art of putting up with the possessors without being ruined, while the possessors should continually strive to improve themselves so as to preserve the little dignity they possess.

Biglittlelois:
Thank you for this, I'm particular about the different ethical leanings you mentioned, if the individuals involved is of different leanings, the relationship can't work out right?

If the man involved behaves in the leanings you stated, only in his relationships, but is totally different with other ladies, isn't that a mental problem? Or is it psychological?

How far! I was banned when I tried to provide you an answer to your question here the other day. In fact, it seems the anti spam program has been providing you with special security. . . Tell am say me no be intruder. lol.

It's important for one to be financially independent before marriage because it is a sign of economic emancipation and responsibleness. However, it is even better to be resourceful, or to master the act of being resourceful, than to be financially independent, because money remains a visitor.

Also, pursuit of financial independence shouldn't be for the purpose to subjugate one's better half, or as a leverage to establish contention in the union. Money will always remain a means to an end but never an end itself. It never defines a sane person.