₦airaland Forum

pocohantas:
Hope no be strategy to knack sha.

Very true, but he seems to be more unrepentant than the OP. She has more chances of changing.

Lol. As my personal person you're, I've no restriction to what I can learn from you and. . . . Meanwhile, I'm so tired at the moment to the extent that to string a complete sentence together is a herculean task.

pocohantas:
Have you tried keeping quiet when he talks. Allow him talk o, then you smile and say "okay".

Strategist extraordinaire. I'll soon come and borrow a strategy for something special from you.

Actually, lasting harmony is the last thing to expect from two domineering people, who're in a relationship.

canalily:
why do you call her your girlfriend when you cant deprive yourself some wants to satisfy her needs if you truely love her? on the other hand did you know that most girls can sacrifice to meet the needs of their boyfriends where true love exists?

I don't think you understand my submission. And, of course, you don't seem to understand the difference between need and want.

Biglittlelois:
@bolded is true, men like that think of themselves and what pleases them alone in a relationship which is sad really.

It depends on the man's ethical leanings: For a man of diplomatic ethical leanings, he simply means that he'll be altruistic and conscientious towards his woman (without being servile to her) - the woman will feel bad or good depending on her own ethical leanings, if she's of same diplomatic ethical leanings, she'll stay and enjoy the relationship till the end. However, if she's of the manipulative ethical leanings, she'll not enjoy the relationship, because she can only enjoy relationship with a man who's subjugable.

Meanwhile, if the man is of the manipulative ethical leanings, he'll relate with her on expediency rather than principle. In this case, irrespective of the woman's ethical leanings, she'll not enjoy the relationship or will cry murder in the end - unless, of course, if she's discerning enough and prepared to give him a dose of his own medicine.

canalily:
kindly educate us more on what you mean by servility.

Example of a servile attitude is when you negate your need and satisfy your girlfriend's wants (and vice versa) - only a weak man/woman can do such. However, there's nothing wrong when you satisfy your girlfriend's needs and negate your want (and vice versa) - in this case, it means you are thoughtful. It takes a strong-minded man or woman to be thoughtful and selfless, respectively.

Meanwhile, in the examples above, a bad person will be more concerned about self, depending on his/her ends aim.

The reason her action is cheerful is because she did it volitionally - as evident in the photo - it's a simple act of support, which is part of what makes up a healthy relationship. And, of course, her man must have proven himself deserving of it. However, it'll become wrong/act of servility any day the man starts acting as if it's her obligation to lace his shoes and authoritatively command her to do so, or fails to maintain the good act(s) that brought about this singular cheerful act. Reciprocation is the key.

There's a thin line between loyalty and servitude, selflessness/thoughtfulness and foolishness.

AmazonTopaz:
Such an ignorant post.
There is no such thing as a weak man.We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
The belief that only women should be vulnerable and emotional is balderdash.Men are humans and have emotions and they should not be called weak for that.That type of mentality is why some men would rather keep secret,not ask for help when need be and end up committing suicide because they did not open themselves to others even when they are having issues so as not to appear vulnerable.

Teacher, don't teach me nonsense. lol. There's something like a weak man - just as there's something like a weak woman too. A weak man (person) uses servility to establish or/and sustain a relationship. . . Informally, when a man says he doesn't have emotion, he simply means that he doesn't use servility to sustain a relationship.

Meanwhile, I agree with you that both men and women are/can be emotional and vulnerable.

cococandy:
I believe a man and woman can have friends who aren’t their spouses. True friendship too.

Yours was just an opinion as is mine.

I didn't say they can't. There's a wise saying "no matter how sweet one's association with a neighbor is, s/he should't pull down the wall that demarcated them." The wall is the soul of such sweetness. Anyone you cannot share oneness with is short of being a friend. And discernment shouldn't be mistaken for either cynicism, jealousy or paranoia, so don't give an associate or acquaintance something meant for a friend. Also, don't mistake a frenemy for a friend.

cococandy:
So a man can’t have a friend except his wife?

I just want to hear you say it.

Lol. Yes, for his sanity in particular and harmony and growth of his family in general. You may not understand this, if you don't live life at the periphery of conventionalism, or if you do, but don't do so conscientiously.

bukatyne:
Hmmmmmmmmm

You just explained what I have been grappling with.

Thanks.

You are welcome

cococandy:
Can a man have more than one friend at once?

Person is a human being regarded as an individual, and an individual can be of any gender. Obviously, you didn't see where I mentioned "person."

The kind of president the country needs at present is truly a strong-minded leader, who can go to the periphery of democratic tenets. Unfortunately, PMB is a headstrong leader, not a strong-minded one, so he's not qualified to go to the periphery of democratic tenets. Expediency doesn't reign supreme over principle, where a strong-minded leader dwells.

Yes. Friendliness vs friendship: There's nothing wrong with a woman (person) who is friendly to/with many people, because it is not a form of relationship, and it doesn't require mutual ethical leanings to maintain. However, friendship is a different thing entirely; it is a kind of relationship akin to love (parental and romantic love) with the only difference being that, unlike love, it has no observable biological necessity.

A friend has many steps ahead of an associate in order of importance, just as an associate does over an acquaintance. So, don't mistake a friend for either one of the latter, also reverence him/her.

Personally, I know and understand that a woman (person) that has more than one person - one's spouse or lover - as a friend at any point in time, either doesn't know what friendship is or can't be a source of positive energy to those she considers as friends, and vice versa.

A friend is not just someone whom one is friendly with or restrictedly closely relates with, but someone whom one shares same ethical leanings and unrestricted closeness with. Aristocrats understand this well. Because it's a herculean task to find such a person that shares same ethical leanings with one, so it better be of opposite sex when one is lucky to find him/her, so as to automatically become not only friends but lovers too.

Petty people always strive to build friendship with many people - unfortunately, they usually end up having frenemies - while aristocrats always strive to have many people as associates and always end up having loyalists. It takes more than loyalty to bond as friends - altruism and faithfulness are the core attributes of friendship.

Over familiarity will always breeds contempt where ethical leanings differs. Once more, a friend(s) is someone whom one shares ethical leanings with - contrary to this, what one has is a frenemy.

MariaLavina:
This is why most Nigerian Men don't live long, they marry ukwus and boobs. They can only handle that much

Elegant lady.

The postulation can only hold true if it says men who marry smart/intelligent women who're "strong-minded" live longer with benefits. Because an intelligent/smart woman who's "headstrong (a termagant)" is akin to any terminal illness, you can imagine. A termagant is toxicity personify, although better than a hypocritically disingenuous woman.

One can never go wrong with a smart/intelligent woman, who's strong-minded.

No, it's not mandatory that you marry him, so long as you're certain that both of you're not of the same belief systems/ethical leanings - yet, one can acquire new belief systems/ethical leanings attributes, it's all about determination. Meanwhile, as much as you don't owe him servility - for the fact that he sponsored your education doesn't qualify him to owns you - yet, you owe him eternal loyalty in particular and gratitude in general. This you can maintain whether or not both of you marry each other.

Actually, one may be tempted to blame you for not wanting to marry him at this juncture, but that shouldn't automatically be the case unless both of you had mutually volitional agreement to marry each other prior to him sending you to school; Even at that, either you alone or both of you have to share the blame, if the following was the case:

- You'll be blamed if you wittingly, volitionally and conscientiously accepted to marry him - here whether his spending on you were done altruistically or selfishly is irrelevant - when you knew that you have no intention to marry him. It means you're wicked. In this regard, try to pacify him - maybe by reimbursing him the money he spent on your education and still remain eternally loyal and grateful to him, with or without marrying him. Else whatever he may decides to do you will be justifiable.

- However, he's to be blamed, if you were naive at the time and didn't enter into the agreement volitionally and wittingly, and if he had achieved self-realization as at then and acted volitionally and wittingly. In this regard, it means he took advantage of your naiveness to entice you to enter into marriage agreement with him, and by extension it means that he doesn't have genuine love for you. Altruism remains the soul of genuine love.

- Both of you should share the blame, if none of you acted wittingly because of naiveness.

Most people will not agree with him on the importance/need of living a minimalistic and selfless lifestyle, or imagine the fulfilment and inner peace one can garner when living life at the periphery of conventionalism - especially when one has almost seen it all or has the means, directly or indirectly, to get almost the best of anything out there. With this choice of lifestyle, strife and depression won't be his thing, irrespective of where the wind of life may toss him again in the future; Change remains the only constant thing in life, and the best way to prepare for it is by conquering oneself and being unassumingly real.

If you had lived this kind of lifestyle while having riches under your feet but suddenly almost lose it all, then, you'll begin to appreciate it (the lifestyle) more. Because in such a scenario, you'll almost unassumingly feel unperturbed as if nothing happened because your inner peace didn't go with the unfavourable change. So also the public will not know of your moment of challenges unless consciously pronounced by oneself.

Personally, I lost an approximately ten million U.S. dollars self-built business empire/investment at a relatively young age at a point in time, so I understand perfectly well the importance and benefit of this kind of lifestyle since it's an integral part of my anima.

In summary, fulfilment and inner peace are certain, irrespective of the direction of any change, once one lives life at the periphery of conventionalism, especially when doing so conscientiously.

Aside the unsavoury connotation of the word "master" in this context - an euphemistic word like leader would've been better - his submission is almost perfectly in order. And it would've been perfectly in order had he used the word leader and say that, a leader is one who knows the way, goes the way and shows the way - because one who doesn't believe that "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands" isn't qualified to answer a leader.

A husband and wife aren't partners; They're simply husband and wife - with the man as first between the two. The head. Egalitarianism doesn't mean absence of hierarchy and conscientiousness.

Love begets submissiveness; And the difference between the two remains in their names and applications - neither is a sign of weakness. Men love your wives, women be submissive to your husbands.

pocohantas:
Lol, I saw LordKO as the last to comment and I opened the thread just to read his comment.

Lol. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

ubunja:
first go read the whole thing then make a conclusion. Don't judge it by the two paragraphs you read when the issues you raise are dealt with in other paragraphs.
Be reasonable.

Don't be too hard on yourself. I have taken time to read it all, yet that same second paragraph summed it up. Take your third paragraph for example, you asserted that "the female sexuality is so flexible and malleable, so deep and incomprehensible, so broad and accommodating". . .. very true. However, believe me that human beings - regardless of gender/not female sexuality - are all that you mentioned. Just as all can equally be conscientious.

So next time when you (a man) see a woman, instead of assuming and concluding that she has fish-brain (not your word) or that she doesn't deserve emancipation and self-ownership - your penchant to possess virgin/young/clueless ladies point to this - because her "sexuality is so flexible and malleable" but not capable of being conscientious (your article says so, albeit unpronounced), make a reverse for the good of you two in the long run. Nothing can be more deadlier than a subjugated woman/virgin (person) that achieved emancipation after self-realization.

A prudish man (person) is different from a conceited one. So, we aren't saying the same thing. And, of course, a hypocritically disingenuous woman (person) will always have the last laugh when dealing with a conceited one - here the harm is always severe.

once more, don't be too hard on yourself. There's no doubt you're a brilliant guy. A simple change of ethical leaning will make you a better person, believe you me - we all can do better.

Conceit remains different from prudishness - at best, they're opponents.

ubunja:
How is the bolded above different from the bolded below ?:

Refer to your second paragraph.

I couldn't read pass the second paragraph because your assertions there nullified, directly and indirectly, the literal (not notional) meaning of character and submissiveness. When a lady gives a man what he wants rather than what she's made of, it means that she's being superficial, while the man who accepted same is being conceited - by extension the man will have a notional feel of being in control, but literally he isn't. The end result in this setting is the cry of "all women are evil" by most men, after such a woman finishes her assignment. A hypocritically disingenuous woman (person) will always have the last laugh when dealing with a conceited man (person).

For any man who doesn't want to join the "all women are evil" group (be a wannabee alpha male), eschew the thought/reject the idea of wanting a woman that will give you what you want her to be, instead allow her to show what she's made of and then decide if what she has to offer is in consonant with what you need. Don't long for control, instead strive to conquer yourself without trying to conquer her, and love her without hating yourself. Be in charge but don't long for control. Relate with her base on rule not by order.

Anima and attributes are innate, while persona and attitudes are acquired. Those in the former can't be feigned unlike the those in the latter.

You can walk the walk without experiencing heartbreak and without being toxic.

Self-ownership (dominion) and self-conquest.

- Self-ownership: The feeling of doing things and knowing that you do them conscientiously, is unquantifiable.

- Self-conquest: Just like the above, the inner peace/feeling one enjoy while striving to conquer self without conquering the world, and loving the world without hating self, is unquantifiable too.

Lol. Dating is for fun, while courtship is for serious business. Her action is perfectly in order, regardless of how unsavoury the word "ultimatum" sound.

If you're a lady of marriageable age and long for same, don't accept dating from a man, instead insist on courtship and let the courting period not exceed six months. Meanwhile, if you consider the person you're already dating as a potential husband - like in this case - ultimatum is allowed. Because inability to know when to end a dating cycle and transition into courtship is the cause of all these unpalatable dumping and heartbreaking news everywhere.

And, of course, the need to achieve self-realization before entertaining thought about courtship and its end product (marriage) can never be overemphasized. . . Because contrary to it is the spate of divorces that are order of the day.

Dangote's wealth is rather dwindling - his money gulping refinery project notwithstanding - because as of 2014 he was the 23rd richest man in the world with an estimated USD24 billion net worth. He needs to up his game. All in all, he remains a shrewd businessman.

@OP

Put yourself together, forgive him and move on with your life. You'll find love again. Actually, the fact that he jilted you neither automatically mean that you are not good nor that he's evil. One's real life journey start(s) at the point of achieving self-realization. . . His stated reason of jettisoning you notwithstanding. Maybe he has achieved self-realization and realized that both of you cannot flourish together as husband and wife.

Ethical disparities aren't to be joke with, since they can mar relationship of people who're biologically and genetically related and connected, then you better imagine than experience firsthand what they can do a couple (husband and wife) - this he might have observed, while you didn't. It's better to be late than to be late.

Meanwhile, people should see the need to start courting (not dating) after achieving self-realization, and limit the courtship period to a maximum of six months. Six months is too big a time for one to decide on whether to marry someone or not.

Notionally, an enemy is worse than a frenemy, but literally, an enemy is better than a frenemy. Personally, if Ieave with an order to choose one between the two to put up with, I shall choose an enemy over a frenemy - a tactlessly disingenuous person over a hypocritically disingenuous one any day anytime. Praise to him and his action if truly he's of diplomatic ethical leaning.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

If you can differentiate brilliance from intelligence then you will easily find the real answer.

MissR69:
So good girls like us get hope.

Lol. 70 percent wife material loaded.

Happy Sunday.

First to marry vs marry well. . . Go figure out. It's not the early morning bird that catches the day. Besides, there's nothing good about a girl with entitlement mentality in any guise, because greed (for anything) breeds entitlement mentality.

Good girls have got no reason to regret being good - whether they marry early or late. They should remain steadfast and strive to marry well. Being good (or goodness) isn't synonymous to myopia or foolishness as the article connoted.

Being a good girl remains the only condition to genuinely get a good man who has achieved self-realization.