₦airaland Forum

Proudgorgeousga:
self-effacing is modesty, you used effacement in your initial post that was what prompted my reply. I guess the misunderstanding is in the grammar used.

Lady, eschew conceit. LOL. Self-effacing is a standard adjective of the noun word effacement, especially in the context I used it. I understand that today is your first day of knowing the word, so you owe me for that.

@OP

She has a domineering attribute (not even attitude), so if you're not ready to be subservient to her till the end of time, kindly quit the relationship for good. To a domineering person it's either s/he subjugate you or peace will never reign - nothing gives such a person pleasure than when she remember that she has you as a conquest. However, if she's ready to humble herself and acknowledge her vice and work on it, you can consider to continue with her - but bear it in mind that no matter how hard she tries to manage it, she'll always mete it out to you once in a while.

Proudgorgeousga:
My assertion has to do with the word you used which is effacement. You should have used a better word. A modest person do not have to posses effacement as an attribute neither is he/she arrogant.

having a healthy dose of self-esteem is not narcissism neither is it arrogance.

so I repeat I will not become invisible or walk on eggshells to just please another person.

meanwhile you just picked out one line of the article to attack using it as the basis of the whole article even after I explained that my view of the article (as I'm not the author )is that it is for those who passionately believe it is the duty of only one party to submit.

Self-effacing is the ultimate self-esteem, just as simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Actually, one isn't expected "to be invisible or walk on eggshells" per se, rather, sanely one's expected to know where and when to apply diplomacy. Diplomacy embedded with faithfulness is the key to understanding and understanding breeds love.

Meanwhile, no, literally I hold nothing against your person, my notional usage of OP towards you notwithstanding.

Bye.

Proudgorgeousga:
the article is for those that believe compromise is women's job in relationships. Majority of people who passionately preach submission or let me use your own "submissiveness don't believe it required from men too and LOTS of people believe that. So I'm all for mutual give and take in relationships. Therefore one sided "submissiveness"no matter how you define it is trash.

From my experience most men that are passionate or obsessed with the word are usually arrogant /self absorbed and have no plans of reciprocating.

personally I do not think being effacement is a good attribute to pocess. I'd rather it is replaced with modesty. I would rather not be in a relationship where I would have to become invisible to please another person.

overall I now understand your perspective better even though I don't agree.

LOL @ "I would rather not be in a relationship where I would have to become invisible to please another person" this statement can only be made by either a domineering man/woman or a wannabe feminist - conceited or narcissistic woman. In Igbo parlance we do say "an alpha dog that falls on the ground for its equal isn't because of fear" - this is an example of what effacement is all about. Its not a servile attribute. Embrace diplomacy.

Actually, one thing with all domineering, conceited and narcissistic people is that in spite of their boisterous and arrogance persona they're always timorous. The most confident and intelligent people I know always choose to appear self-effacing.

Meanwhile, the crux of your article is "If you are dating any man who has a passion for the idea of a submissive wife, if you have any love for preserving yourself, leave that man." and this is contrary to your claim herein. You see, no one person has monopoly of wisdom, so we all should always endeavor to learn where and when necessary. Maybe you will have to rewrite your article.

Proudgorgeousga:
this is the meaning of submission

submission

noun

the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.





so with respect to this, don't you think the emboldened part of your comment is kinda contradictory? Mutual conscientious libertarians would function well in a relationship where two people compromise in different ways for each other by considering the point of view of each other and coming together to create the best option.
Rather than in a relationship where one person is expected to compromise all the time and yield to be controlled.

unless you don't understand the meaning of the words you used.

Foremost, submission is akin to slavery (especially in the context you used it herein), thus, the main reason why I termed your OP as trash - your choice of the word wasn't proper. Submissiveness is the euphemism of submission on this subject.. . What sane and sound men expect from their wives is submissiveness. You need to understand that as nouns there's a tiny but important difference between submission and submissiveness. While the former is the act of submitting ( meaning that you have no choice whether your opinion/action is correct or not) the latter is the state or quality of being submissive (meaning that you have a choice but agree only because you're understandable).

This tiny but important difference between the two words necessitate the importance of the attribute self-effacing (a woman that doesn't posses effacement as attribute should try and acquire it as an attitude, except one that stupidly nurses the idea of wearing the headship crown in her marriage) - and, of course, men are expected to be effacing too where and when necessary. Before I go on, personally, I am an egalitarian, therefore, I know that being first between equals doesn't mean a master and his servant, I stated this clearly in my OP. Also, like I said in my OP (scantly though):

- Being submissive doesn't equate to being subjugable.

- Being submissive doesn't mean that your man (I have to assume that you have a sane and sound man) wouldn't consider your opinion which is superior to his to stand as a decision.

- Being submissive won't deprive you equality before your man.

- Being submissive doesn't mean that your man will expect you to compromise all the time and yield to be controlled, no - not when you have superior opinion or your action is conscientious.

- Meanwhile, when and where your sane and sound man allows your opinion, which is superior to his to stand as decision, that automatically means that he's submissive to you too. So, you can see that submissiveness is like a two way traffic light.

Now, I hope you will see the feasibility of my "mutual conscientious libertarianism" propagation. 90% of troubled marriages/relationships have their root in ethical disparities, so just a change of ethical philosophy will save a whole lot of them. . . When you hear people say that they're divorcing because of "irreconcilable differences" what they mean is that they've ethical disparities without understanding it, and this can easily be solved.

Trash! There's nothing wrong with a man that wants a submissive wife, or a wife that's submissive to her husband. Submissiveness isn't a vice rather its a good attribute. . . It takes effacement to be submissive. Neither being submissive equate to being subjugable nor being a first between equals equate to being a master. Mutual conscientious libertarians won't encounter any problem in a union of this structure.

However, there's everything wrong with a man that wants a slave as wife, or a wife that allows herself to be enslaved. Only a domineering man longs to subjugate his wife, and only an omega class woman can endure his small-mindedness.

OP, next time don't mix up submissiveness with slavery. It's an abomination to advice women to run away from men that expect them to be submissive. Only wannabe feminist - conceited, narcissistic and contentious women - or outright feeble-minded women that supports popular opinions without practicing them will agree with the OP.

SmartyPants:
.

LOL! So you don't know that when you end a post with a question mark it automatically means that you're prepared for dialogue. There's always room for improvement, so eschew conceit and learn where and when necessary. No one person has monopoly of wisdom. I didn't counter your OP to spite you, no, my contribution was purely educational.

No hard feelings OK.

SmartyPants:
Ones socio-economic background has a powerful influence on one's attitude and behavior. This is not even just my opinion, it is an established principle of psychology. Psychologists only disagree as to what extend the influence counts.

People are not born with traits such as greed or covetousness, these are traits that are developed due to influence, and one of the most powerful influencers are environmental influencers such as socio-economic background.

Also the need for economic advancement is materialism, when the means of such advancement is through a sexual/romantic partner.

Finally when you say there is a clear difference between opportunity and opportunism, in first place the two cannot even be compared because they mean vastly different things. I dont even understand what point you are trying to make here. Opportunity is a thing, opportunism is a parasitic attitude towards opportunities; based on this, what exactly is your point? Perhaps you mean to say there is a difference between pursuing an opportunity and being opportunistic... but how does that relate to my point?

No apologies, I can't dialogue with someone that doesn't know the difference between attitude and attribute as your overall counter submission in particular and OP in general suggested. More so, your first paragraph in particular in this counter post says a lot about your myopia on the subject under discussion - I careless about the fact that you created the thread.

Peace out!

Being materialistic has nothing to do with one's economic background or class instead it has everything to do with one's innate possession of either one or all of these negative attributes (not necessarily attitude); greediness, covetousness and self-centeredness. And one's need for economic advancement has nothing to do with materialism too, so long as its pursuit is on principle rather than expediency - if you understand that there's a difference between opportunity and opportunism then you will understand and agree to my submission.

Meanwhile, there's a clear difference between attribute and attitude. While the former is innate and unmalleable the latter is acquired and malleable and can be faked.

Many a times the most articulate is never the most competent in any venture. Enough of articulate incompetents, let the most competent win the election proper even if he's the most inarticulate.

Enemies within are always the worst form of enemies. Maintain a confidential close relationship with a self-centered, greedy or covetous person at your own peril - attributes of opportunism personifies. Opportunism is evil. It's quite unfortunate that small-minded people do fail to understand that there's a difference between opportunity and opportunism, see them on this thread chorusing "Opportunity knocks only once." SMH.

In the game of politics/life the losers will always have their say while the winners have their way.

Toks2008:
And you just wasted your time writing this without making any sense..how pathetic..Please communicate.

I assume you are a guy yet you just trolled and that is the problem with many people who just make comments without making sense. No one knows it at but if you dont know what to write just read and leave ok.

LOL. You're a typical example of an articulate incompetent.

Bye.

Toks2008, it's unfortunate that you didn't learn anything meaningful from your said failed marriage. Believe you me, you didn't achieve self-realization before contracting the said marriage, and up to now you're yet to achieve it too - citing your opinions. You're just conceited (no insult intended towards you).

Actually, neither old age nor experience confers wisdom, only insight does. A clear example is PMB, he came to power as a former president and the last time I checked; with his experience and old age he's yet to show any sign of wisdom in him in the area of governance. . . I don't wish you the same in your next marriage.

Meanwhile, kindly eschew the myopic thought that you're the only advanced person on nairaland romance section. There are a whole lot of advanced and successful people - from different life endeavors - of both genders that are equally members and contributors.

No one person has monopoly of wisdom.

Your ability to differentiate and maintain balance between gullibility and compassion will automatically solve your problem.

Consistent or permanent lack of self-earned money is a sign of irresponsibleness, therefore, anyone (especially a man) that fall's within this class should neither think of entering into relationship nor expect having a healthy one.

1 sure pass so long as she's humble. However, she must neither be greedy, self-centered, narcissistic nor disingenuous, else to hell with her.

To articulate incompetents, there's nothing gold digging about anyone that finds a partner/love where there's prosperity, especially when such a person is equally prosperous and doesn't practice opportunism. . . Small-mind people are in the habit of throwing around word's they hear but neither know nor understand its meaning and function.

Money and career accomplishments aside (they don't delight me much), there's nothing much sexier than an ingenious, humble, conscientious, altruistic and ingenuous woman. Sex is overrated

@OP

It's unfortunate that you lump ladies of substance and materialistic ladies in the same article. . . An irony I must say. There are some ladies of substance that aren't materialistic, even though they may have all the good material things they need - such material things will sure cause someone like you to erroneously conclude that they're materialistic. My point is that not all flashy ladies are materialistic.

The difference between an altruistic and contented lady of substance and a materialistic lady is that while the former lives life on principle the latter lives life on expediency. I don't hold brief for materialistic people.

The most insightful will always be wiser when paired irrespective of gender.

Toks2008:
My guy quit all this Grammer and face reality.

I'm a man who have seen much In this life and all this your Grammer can not bring sanity into the crazy world of romance.
Yes we have very rare cases of unconditional love. .maybe 1 in 100 or even 1000.

What I wrote is very factual and until you have been married for at least 5 years you will continue to blow Grammer and not see the facts.

The truth is that 99% of marriages are hinged on subliminal selfish interests which totally corroborated my write up.

LOL. So you don't know that there's something called "insight" which is superior to experience. . . I don't need to allow a moving train to kill me first, before I'll have an understanding that it's foolish to stand before it. This nullifies your talk about the need for me to have experience in marriage first.

More so, I'm not an advocate of unconditional love, because as much as it's notionally possible yet it's literally impossible to achieve - it's meaningless. When I hear people like you mention unconditional love, I know that literally you're referring to superficial love/love based solely on physical or material attraction without due considerations to character which is the main thing that sustains any healthy relationship. Unconditional love never end well for the practitioner.

Talk about selfless love then I'll take you serious, because here you'll have love that is based upon immaterial things (good attributes), which is a definition of real love. Open your eyes - achieve self-realization and embrace diplomatic ethical leanings and look for a lady of the same ethical leanings - you'll find it.

I know and understand what I'm saying because I've never suffered heartbreak from any woman before even though I've been in the game of relationship for too long. I only stay in a healthy relationship.

Qsscruz:
Your writeup clearly shows you lack a deep insight of what marriage is all about. From your arguement, marriages majorly crash when the physical attraction dwindles or riches goes into the thin air but that is exceedingly erroneous. There are marriages that lasted barely six months after the couples, who are affluent, had dated for close to a decade.. Neither the longetivity of friendship nor the powerfullness of the bond keeps any marriage but the determination to continue going against all odds.. And that has nothing to do with real or true love.. The cliche love is a relative term..

Look for your small-minded mates elsewhere. I will neither dialogue nor join issue with someone that doesn't understand what "ethical philosophies" mean, because assuming that you understand it, you wouldn't have made an unintelligent statement like "There are marriages that lasted barely six months after the couples, who are affluent, had dated for close to a decade.. Neither the longetivity of friendship nor the powerfullness of the bond keeps any marriage." LOL.

Also, I wonder where you got this from "From your arguement, marriages majorly crash when the physical attraction dwindles or riches goes into the thin air but that is exceedingly erroneous." certainly not from me, since my submission is pro marriage majorly built on immaterial attributes plus fancy.

Benita27:
You can never be fulfilled...relationship wise, if you find yourself in such a relationship. Going by what you've stated here, the parties involved would be emotionally unavailable 'cause your relationship is transactional which makes it pure business for those involved. It's human nature to want to love and be loved. Imagine yourself in a relationship the lady/guy in question doesn't have an atom of feelings for you, it's best to have a one night stand than getting entangled in such affairs. On this note, I totally disagree with this write-up 'cause it didn't make sense to me.

You're absolutely correct. The problem is that someone like the OP hear but neither know nor understand what the term "partners in marriage" mean. He mistook and misrepresented the fact totally. He's propagating opportunism in marriage - a direct assent for golddiggers to come together to form a union in the name of marriage. What he failed to understand is that even in the commercial business world, two opportunists never form a lasting and rancor-free partnership, because an opportunist is a self-centered and greedy personified person. So, I wonder how anyone with sound sense of judgment will advocate such for marriage - a sacred union.

More so, he obviously lacks proper understanding about what real/sustainable love is, therefore, the reason he erroneously concluded that marriages built on love are the reasons why divorcement is the order of the day.

Real love/sustainable love is the foundation upon which any healthy marriage is built on. And it's only achievable through the sequences; acquaintances (this happens when strangers incidentally or otherwise meet) - friends (this happens when acquaintances observed through interactions that they have almost same good personal ethical philosophies in common) - partners (this happens when both parties physically fancies each other plus an already established friendship) - lovers/real love (mutual fancy added to friendship). A marriage built upon this pattern never/can never fail. . . The potency of the axiom “Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are” should never be undermined.

However, when the above pattern of sustainable love is not followed, there you will have a superficial or an outright fake love, which is either built on fancy/physical attraction alone without consideration to mutual good ethical philosophies (shared common good attributes) or one purely built based on material things by one of the parties or both parties (which is an indirect meaning of the junk he postulated and posted). Then when the physical attraction fades or material goodies vanishes/become less appetizing, problems sets in which automatically results to either frenemies living together or separation or divorcement.

@OP

People do not exhibit/practice sense of entitlement just because one closer to them easily extended a helping hand to them in time of their need, no, instead they do because either they have no altruistic interest in one (they have no genuine intentions) despite being close/in a relationship with the person, or they're innately opportunistic - people who're innately opportunistic possesses one or all of the following attributes; greed, self-centeredness or covetousness.

So far from your submission, it's obvious that you haven't achieved self-realization yourself, therefore, believe you me when I say that you don't know the attributes of your said fiancee as you had erroneously boldly asserted that she's a wife material. . . Assuming that you've achieved self-realization you wouldn't have created this post. Try to work on yourself, achieve self-realization before choosing a life partner.

In summary, if she possesses both altruistic and contented attributes, you can take it to the bank that she will never at any point in life exhibit sense of entitlement towards you in particular and any other person in general. However, either for good or bad, you can still help her altruistically since you already have a close relationship with her and know that her claim of neediness is genuine - if you are not going to give altruistically please don't do, to avoid coming here in the future to create a thread about how your ex-fiancee dumped you after all you did for her. LOL.

The game of two opportunists; a predaceous opportunist and a leechlike opportunist. It's unfortunate that a leechlike opportunist (in this case the girl) never have the last laugh when dealing with a predaceous opportunist (the man in this case).

And please stop abusing the word "good," because there's nothing really morally good about anyone that lives life on expediency rather than on principle, irrespective of circumstances. Your cousin is of no good morally.

Since neither of them have genuine (altruistic) intentions towards each other, kindly tell your cousin to assume that the man never crossed her path before. She shouldn't allow her greed to consume her.

jezuzboi:
I know you only meant to embrace the occasion to put your fairly impressive eloquence on display. Guess what? You succeeded. Thumbs up.

And to your seeming argument, this write-up is not mine. A SUCCESSFUL WOMAN WHO ENJOYED 82 YEARS OF MARRIAGE WROTE THIS DOWN, SAYING IT WAS HER SECRET TO DOMINATING HER HOME (WHICH IS WHAT NEARLY ALL WOMEN WANT).

She chose to use SUBMISSION to get what she wanted. Other women use REBELLION. But the fact is that they all want the same thing. This was this woman's way of getting it.

Always try to get the point before opening a debate; MR. GRAMMAR

You amuse me. Submissiveness is different from subservience. The characters of the two people involved in the article are that of a beta man and an omega woman - omega people and ass-licking are like bread and butter, while beta people and domineeringness are also like bread and butter, so when these two classes of people meet, harmony is certain. But such harmony is not achievable when a beta person meets with a fellow beta or its superior an alpha person.

Meanwhile, my opposition to the article and usage of the term OP is not directly towards your person literally, even though you concur to the article.

No vex too much you hear.

Aside the fact that you said he professed love to you while your dating with him lasted, I don't see what else he did wrong to you - by the way, the statements; "I'm in love with you" and "I love you" shouldn't be mistaken for one another. For one, real love/love based on good attributes takes time to manifest. His stated shortcomings notwithstanding, credit to him for opening up to you - irrespective of how long it took him to do so - and for not meting out opportunism against you.

Meanwhile, disregard those telling you here or elsewhere that you made a mistake in expressing your feelings to him, because you did no evil. Only small-minded people pretend. No man of noble class will take you for granted just because you initiated actions for relationship with him. However, it's against natural justice for one to be a judge in her own case - he may hold a contrary opinion to your self-ascribed unblemish, you erred. Perfection is only of the creator of the world. Aside if he's not ready for any relationship at the immediate moment which is possible, he couldn't have pulled out if he had no reservations against some of your attributes - everyone has some attributes which may be undesiring by others but they may not necessarily be equated to vices.

Actually, some of you ladies should desist from the erroneous opinion that once you first make a move towards a guy, that he ought not to have right to be the first to pull out from the relationship on or before it started, such thought process only amount to act of subjugation on the lady's part. Free will remains the best gift nature gave to mankind, therefore, no one should dare deprive another the right to exercise it. I see no evil in anyone that exercises his/her liberty conscientiously.

You seem like a great lady, so embrace the act of losing honorably and as a sportsman.

Nonsense! Nothing pleases beta and omega classes of people than when they're successful in domineering and subjugating others around them (of course they do only have their way when dealing with those of these same lower classes too), which is as a result of the innate timorous attitude that runs in their blood veins - small-mindedness is a disease. @OP, you ought have boldly postulate, without meandering, that a woman must be your slave in order to fit into your small-minded class.

As far as I am concerned, any relationship that doesn't encourage/accept as norm mutual conscientious libertarianism and reciprocity of goodness is far from being healthy, therefore, should be equated to slavery.

Small-minded people have been misunderstanding and misrepresenting the true meaning of "packaging in business" since time immemorial.

lovelygurl:
As in, just look at the way he's speaking of her

He's of no good at all.

@OP

You're a typical subjugator. Your perfidious and opportunistic (a predaceous one at that) attitudes speak volumes in your submission herein. There's nothing good about your actions, inactions and intentions towards her. The mission of your kind is always simply to have your prey as your conquest. However, in the event that you lose out like in this case, you resort to either marring, backbiting, frustrating, hating or killing your prey.

mecussey:
You really think the guy loved her unconditionally? Nah, I dont think so. When the wife u loved so much, who claims she has not been paid for the past 6 months and suddenly brings 10m to you, you will be dumb founded in excitement first b4 thinking how come she kept it as secret yet she explained she wanted to suprise you and the first thing u will say is get out of my house? I know what real love is and if u are talking about love here na lie.

As you can see from all my submissions herein, I never give credence to "unconditional romantic love," instead it's your import. To me unconditional romantic love is akin to foolishness, so I didn't sing praise for the OP. And of course I don't support material based conditional love - superficial love. I'm a pro immaterial-goodness based conditional love - real love.

mecussey:
Community-ness is only achievable with rules and regulations...terms and conditions. However, marriage is supposed to be bonded and held by love which is unconditional therefore, when love is missing, healthy relationship will not work without ...terms and conditions, rules and agreement. I can give you examples but i believe you understand. The case of op, there was no love in the first place, but assuming there is, which i will call infatuation then, at the point of my money belongs to me should have told him to bring in terms and agreement on how to make the home work. Therefor, if the partner is not willing to make it work, best to go seperate...and he could have stiched in time to save 9.

Rules and regulations automatically nullifies the meaning of community-ness in a marriage union - mutual altruism, ingenuousness, selflessness and compassion are the four main values that sustain it. They (rules and regulations) can only exist in a marriage union where individuality exist, you encouraged this in your previous submission that I quoted. Healthy relationship is the least thing to expect from a marriage union where individuality exist.

Also, literally and sincerely, sustainable romantic love (real romantic love) can never be unconditional - It can only be selfless (immaterialness of selflessness is what makes it real love). Unconditionality and healthy are parallel, they can never cross each other's path. Real love breeds a healthy relationship because reciprocity of goodness by the two people involved in it is what powers it. But same cannot be said of an assumed unconditional love (diligence is different from suffering and smiling), which realistically is notionally possible but literally impossible.

As for the OP's crashed union, on the contrary to your assertion that there was no love in it from the inception, there was, however it was one-sided (unconditional) from the man. Now you can see why I said that unconditional love and healthy relationship are parallel. It was when he lost his authority catalyst - financial power - that his disingenuous wife showed her true colour. She had conditional love for him, unfortunately her conditions were material rather than immaterial, which means she had superficial love for him.

Both real and superficial love's are conditional, the only difference is that while the former is powered by immaterial things the latter is powered by material things.