₦airaland Forum

Mariangeles:
Let them keep on deceiving themselves on Nairaland. Something they wouldn't dare do in reality to avoid embarrassment.

As much as it's not a cultural thing for a grown-up and responsible visitor to gift their host something, it's, however, one of those little things that matter in an interpersonal relationship, especially in a scenario like this. He didn't behave like a man with some sense of self-value. He was thoughtless, except he isn't well-to-do, or he forgot. And, of course, the OP and her mother were wrong too; while her mother's action typifies that of a typical self-absorbing person; the OP's action typifies that of both a crass and self-absorbing person. The reciprocity of goodness is the soul of a healthy relationship.

Meanwhile, Pocohantas, before you start to cry betrayal and hatred, remember my advice as always - avoid deriding and debasing Igbo people and culture unjustly in your opportunistic and clout chasing schemes. You can have your way without bringing our people down. Smart people don't bring their people down to rise in any cause. However, should you decide to continue deriding and debasing anything Igbo, all in a bid to appear sophisticated and pure, you'll provoke someone like me into bringing your intimate details here. So, if you don't want to be derided and debased, avoid deriding and debasing our people. The said greedy attitude your uncle and his children exhibited doesn't represent the attitude of a majority of people from the SE as self-absorbingly and crassly asserted. By the way, you don't have any rich uncle anywhere; stop misinforming and misleading people who don't know you better.

Non Igbo people can easily be ignored and forgiven of any wrong impression they've about the Igbo people and its culture, which many a times stem from bigotry and hatred but having an Igbo indigene disingenuously giving wrong information about the people and its culture is unacceptable.

Any person who goes around spewing trash and misinformation about the Igbo people and its culture, like in this case, is either a naive, deranged, bigoted, or disingenuous non Igbo indigene or a deranged or ostracized Igbo indigene.

"Independent woman," whatever that means aside, doesn't automatically make a self-absorbing or opportunistic woman, or person regardless of gender, a conscientious woman. So, a self-absorbing or opportunistic woman, regardless of her financial standing, who doesn't have an altruistic interest in you will always drain you financially directly or indirectly; if not immediate; it'll be in the long run. It's the same way a megalomaniac woman, due to her inordinate desire for power/control, will drain you psychologically wittingly or unwittingly, if not nip in the bud.

As a man, you'll always achieve more in all forms with a conscientious woman who has an altruistic interest in you, regardless of her financial standing, compare to a self-absorbing or opportunistic woman.

Summarily, the financial standing of a woman isn't the standard to judge whether or not she'll drain you financially, emotionally, and psychologically; rather, her ethical leaning is the standard. In all you gain as a man, gain grit, discernment, and resourcefulness, because that's the surest way to be the master of your fate and territory and all around it.

Balderdash. A woman who has grit deserves a responsible man, whether she has money or not, provided that she has an altruistic interest in him.

Loving them is the most important thing he can do for them. Real love is encompassing - it personifies goodness - thus, the reason why it's the greatest refreshment in life.

Adam wasn't wrong in allowing Eve God's given freedom (liberty) because it was her inalienable right. One can only blame him for not being discerning and gritty enough to know that she wasn't conscientious and would betray him unprovoked, thus discarding her before she betrayed him.

Freedom is an inalienable right of every human being, so it amounts to inhumaneness for one to deny another their's unjustly. Freedom, however, doesn't negate decorum; knowing this means that if you're a conscientious person, you won't condone anyone who fails to exercise their freedom (liberty) within the confines of decorum. One's most cherished assets should always be their sanity/peace of mind; knowing this means you must protect it with all you've got.

No, education isn't overrated. It can't be overrated because it encompasses formal and informal ways of learning - the legends of the different spheres of life you mentioned are educated, albeit some of them informally or didn't school up to or finish schooling at tertiary institutions. There's, however, something wrong with the formal ways of imparting knowledge of some courses to learners at tertiary institutions around the world. But even at that, the system never denies anyone their liberty of resourcefulness.

Education remains the key to success in particular and the advancement of the world, in general. It has never failed anyone, but most people have failed because they lack grit, and they've refused or do not have the ability to gain a proper education.

Don't regret going to university; instead, if you've failed, regret the fact that you lack grit and resourcefulness. Owing up the responsibility of your failure is the surest way to rise above board.

[quote author=CalliDora1 post=97486488][/quote]Eschew being sententious, conceited, paranoid, and hypocritically disingenuous, if you could, for your good. I know this advice might be a bitter pill for you to swallow, but I couldn't resist the urge to proffer it; of course, you're entitled to how you might wish to react to it, but I definitely won't pick any offense to it.

Almost all male and female receptionists everywhere are in this appalling act, each with their tactics. In this case, the guy was direct and crass in his approach. I have had countless experiences with female receptionists in different places.

RisenPhoenix1:
Rubbish. People who insist that they are altruistic are often the worst. I wonder why you're so pained by my comment. Are you the one who the op said offered help in public then went behind to do otherwise? Or were you planning to?

@op. Don't trust anyone, no matter how vehemently they claim innocence.

You don't only have a low IQ; you're equally deranged. I mean, only a deranged person will assert that all men who give money or help to women do so because they intend to obtain sex from them. Of course, I couldn't have been one of the people whom the OP referred to in her post.

Now scram and look for your small-minded ilk elsewhere. Bumpkin.

RisenPhoenix1:
There is no altruism. Whether a man actually goes on to have sex with them or not, the thought is always there. Some men think that the best strategy to get to have sex with women is by being a do-gooder, and they're often the worst because it's all pretence.

And I'm not using myself as a standard. I'm the exact opposite of altruistic. I never give money to individuals directly, if I feel charitable, I always donate through charities. That way, there's no underlying motive.

Once more, stop using yourself as standard; All of us aren't of the same ethical leanings. There's altruism - everyone is born just, however. Wherever I give altruistically to a woman (or man), I do so because I certify her worthy but not because I wish to obtain sex from her. By the way, sex remains one of the cheapest commodities anywhere in the world. Perhaps, you want to tell me that a sane man who gives money, to let's say a 100 years old woman, does so because he intends to obtain sex from her too. Quite an appalling mentality you've; let's all strive to avoid normalizing abnormal things all in the name of forming woke.

Bye-bye.

RisenPhoenix1:
No man will give a woman money without desiring something (usually sexual favours) in return; whether covertly or overtly. In the same way that women always expect material things in return for sex, so do men also expect sex in return for material things. When I advised you to stop these dramatical appeals for help and go home to your village for your own safety, you were focusing instead on your academic aspirations; even though schools are nowhere near reopening. Go home and restrategise. There are many ways to fulfill your academic dreams. Safety comes first. If you continue along this path, you will only see more of what you don't like.

An assertion like this "No man will give a woman money without desiring something (usually sexual favours) in return; whether covertly or overtly. " and the way some of you use yourselves as standard are appalling, to say the least. At the risk of sounding sententious, not all men give money or any other form of help to women with an intention to obtain sex from them; I don't because I'm a practitioner of altruism - I don't act on impulse, however. Going by your appalling assertion, it means some men will be having sex with all shades of women almost every passing moment.

As much as I don't hold brief for you; yet, don't allow anyone, here or elsewhere, to automatically guilt trip you to accept that you've been a bad wife to him and that a man cannot just wake up one morning and decide to abscond with the offspring of the union without his wife meting out grievous harms against him like in this your case; it does happen.

A thing like this or something similar is likely to happen when a self-absorbing or opportunistic spouse who didn't marry primarily because of mental attraction gains and acquires every other thing important to him/her in a union, this is regardless of whether the other spouse is outright evil or not.

If you've been a conscientious wife and mother, go to the British High Commission in Nigeria and lay a formal complaint.

You neither need to be "harsh" nor "too gentle". Just aim to be "gentle." You need grit to be a gentleman. You don't need to be a harsh (inhumane) person to rule your world and the world around you because behind a harsh person you see is a mentally damaged and insecure person, and you can always have him/her under your control if you wish as a gentle person. The harshness of a self-absorbing and or opportunistic person shouldn't be mistaken for the resoluteness of a gentle person. A gentle person can't be caught meting out inhumane treatment against others without provocation like a harsh person has always done. A gentleman abhors oppression in all forms, and only a mentally damaged person will abhor a gentleman or lady.

However, since you said you're "too gentle," that by extension means that you are servile, or "nice" in informal parlance; unfortunately, there's everything wrong with being too gentle because it means that you're feeble-minded and behind any feeble-minded person is a pretentious and disingenuous person.

- To be harsh, you need to fully embrace self-absorption and opportunism, which are vices.

- Your current too gentle disposition means that you've always been a feeble-minded man in the open, but a rootless self-absorbing or opportunistic person in secret - it is a vice.

- To become a gentleman, without being neither of the two above, you have to give up greed, selfishness, and self-centeredness and embrace conscientiousness. Greed makes the possessor susceptible to venality and expediency; selfishness makes the possessor inconsiderate, and self-centeredness makes the possessor insensitive.

Grit breeds resoluteness, while resoluteness, humility, and selflessness breed conscientiousness.

kowalsky:
First of all. Marriage, abroad, is a contract - with hefty severence clauses. Nothing like 'enter a contract marriage with her' there's no distinction to that effect in the US. Marriage is marriage.

Secondly. Love is a weakness. It's the Achilles heel by which many have fallen. So OPs concerns and/or reservations are well justified.

Thirdly and to the OP. Please don't get married and above all please don't sponsor that woman to the US. You will regret it.

For you to come out here to seek Nairaland's validation means you've subconsciously conjured up an argument in your head that opposes the move. Harken to that voice. It's the voice that has analyzed everything with a perspective we don't have, one that you are yet to perceive.

Keep quiet. A prenuptial agreement (postnuptial agreement in Canada) is called contract marriage, and not all marriage involves a prenuptial agreement, even though marriage is a contract. I don't have spare time for meaningless argument, at least not with someone who obviously doesn't have a passport to start.

From your far-reached resolution and connotation of your submission, you don't believe in altruism/love, then don't sponsor her immigration via a spousal visa. You'll be better off having a contract marriage with her or any other woman, for your peace of mind in particular and sanity of the both of you in general. I expect you to man up and tell her boldly that you don't believe in love, instead of taking to disingenuousness in relating with her, and allow her to decide whether or not to continue with whatever that exists between the two of you.

However, assuming that you're a proponent and practitioner of altruism/love, I don't see anything wrong in one sponsoring his fiancee or wife's immigration via a spousal visa; all the news about betrayal happening and flying around notwithstanding. The reason is simple, whatever cause I believe in, I give my best, and I don't condone anyone who doesn't meet my set ethical standard.

So, anyone I vetted and chose as a lover/wife, I've always accorded her the privilege of being part and parcel of me as a proponent of oneness, while staying a discerning step ahead of her, of course. You need to master the art of giving everything without losing anything and walking out like a boss when things turn sour.

Meanwhile, opportunism and its peripheral vice aren't female gender exclusive, because personally, in an issue like this, I have suffered more betrayal from fellow men; well, that's because they've been my major beneficiaries. My motto in this regard is simple, betray me, shame on you; outsmart me, shame on me.

Love remains a sign of strength, not weakness.

Both female and male miseducations are majorly teaching and encouraging y'all to start forming wannabe badass and players; unfortunately, doing any of them is the easiest way to miss an opportunity of dating and marrying aristocratic/good but no-nonsense people and getting ruined.

To be a badass entails being self-absorbing, while to be a player entails being opportunistic. So, when any of you bring your toxicity and shenanigans, respectively, to an aristocratic person, he/she'll simply wittingly or unwittingly use selflessness and humility to prepare you to relax in your foolery and then wittingly use resistance at the later stage of choice to him/her to knock you off balance and automatically cause you heartbreak without literally losing anything - while enjoying the fulfillment and pleasure of giving everything and walking out without losing anything as a boss.

The easiest and most thrilling person to break his/her heart remains crass/conceited and opportunistic elements that mental disorder, weak ethical leanings, or miseducation breeds because despite taking pleasure in abusing others, ordinary resistance do wreck them emotionally and psychologically more than any other thing in the world.

Summarily, the toxicity and shenanigans of proponents and practitioners of crassness/conceit and opportunism can only work on feeble-minded/vulnerable people like all of you that mete them out.

Conscientiousness is standard.

This incident is more than five years old.

Yes. You didn't come to equity with clean hands. She wittingly or unwittingly reciprocated your action and inaction. If you don't want a repeat of the nasty action from her next time, make sure that you live up to your words. Your failure to repay her or make her understand the reason why you weren't going to be able to reimburse her at that moment as promised showed that you aren't a fair person.

A leader is one who knows the way and goes the way and shows the way. You've been hypocritical at this juncture, a typical hallmark of oppressors.

Come on! Humanity comes before any needless gender segregation and discrimination. Learn to relate with people based on their ethical leanings rather than nomenclature, sentiment, or stereotype.

You're wrong, provided that in the cause of your interactions and closeness with them over the years, none of them has given you a reason to believe that men from strong ethical leanings, or men in general, are foolish.

As a principle, the kinds of women and men who don't deserve voluntary favor/altruism from me are the self-absorbing or opportunistic ones - they can only benefit from my generic generosity where and when necessary.

Congratulations. Truly, love is the greatest refreshment in life. However, true love is one built on the bond of mutual mental connection (trait) rather than physicality and materiality (physical and material attractions). The euphoria of the two might be the same when everything is rosy, but the foundation isn't, unfortunately.

May a catastrophe not visit your union to test the solidity of its foundation, and may the future effect of self-realization from either of you not cause havoc to the union individually and collectively.

Good one. A spouse who isn't bliss to their other half in particular, and family in general, doesn't deserve to be respected as a husband or wife. The only condition a spouse should condone and endure misery from their other half is if the misery is a natural occurrence or something beyond the misery bearer's control. Conscientiousness is the standard.

UjuJoan2:
Even the so-called principled men would still act the way the man did.

I bet even you, in all your 'conscientiousness' would still do the same!

Lol, Ujujoan, I've got standard. Only unprincipled people keep friendship based on a meaningless bond. So, she wouldn't have had the privilege to pass a night in my house, unless she was stranded; while under the circumstance of what transpired between them, If I were in the guy's position, the very moment she said "hope you will not touch me at night" I would've told her that it would be impossible for her to pass the night with me without such and more happening. That's if I fancied her up to that level and weren't committed to anyone. So, we would've reached an understanding - I can't be caught violating an understanding unjustly. Conscientiousness doesn't equate to perfection, by the way.

If truly your account is true, he isn't a principled person. His unprincipled disposition, however, doesn't cover your unprincipled disposition too. You weren't stranded in the first instance, so there was no need passing a night at his house under the circumstance as you submitted. Such happenstance is inevitable; once a friendship is based on a meaningless bond.

Food I can't live without doesn't exist.

Political posturing statement at its best; this, however, doesn't nullify the truth of the statement because it's an open fact to sane people that Sanusi is a typical hypocritical crass and opportunistic element.

One of the things money can't buy is the euphoria gain from sharing closeness in particular and oneness in general with the one(s) who personifies love for you. Love remains the greatest refreshment in life.

So, unless you're economically poor like him, or he's both economically poor and unresourceful, I don't see the reason why both of you cannot marry and overcome economic poverty if both of you truly mutually love each other - as in both of you're in synchronization and mutually have an altruistic interest for each other - and live happily together forever.

From experience over the years, I have come to realize that majority of the poor are poor not just because of lack of capital but because they're unresourceful and lack definiteness of purpose. A resourceful person with definiteness of purpose doesn't need to own millions in cash to establish a multimillion business empire.

Money is very easy to make, all things being equal, but finding that one person who personifies love for you is very hard to find even when other things are equal.

Meanwhile, in the absence of love, you can still find fickle happiness with the rich guy even if you don't love him/he doesn't personify love for you, provided that you've greed for money and a greedy woman doesn't repulse him and you truly personify love to him.

pocohantas:
Majority of the people saying it is fine are not Igbos. The only people I know that will live, marry and be buried in Lagos without knowing their hometowns are Yorubas, no offense, but Igbos do not do that.

As woke as I am, one thing I will never do is my trad in the city or even marry without knowing the village of my partner.

All these woke Igbo people running away from the village saying “village people”, yes they could be a handful and I hate that- but a day will come when you’ll need those village people. I have an aunty that did Lagos marriage when I was a teenager, today she regrets it.


Even if you wake me from deep sleep, I will show you the way to my parents house IN THE VILLAGE. I can also show you their own parents houses as jara, that is my ROOT.

Come, keep quiet there! I wonder who told you that you're "woke" when I haven't said so. Don't make me vex this morning.

Shame on the well-to-do indigenes of the community. To even think that one of their sons has been one of the major players in the capital market in the country says a lot about his person. He and others like him in that community should borrow a new leaf from his associates who've done wonders to their various communities.

Amotekun777:
The problem of Nigeria depicted in this post of yours. What's the purpose of all these ur stupid complex grammar? Just to proof or appear smart to people. How does it send the msg across? Chai... Fvcked up mentality... Typical 9ja.

Say hello to the bumpkins who brought you into this world. Unfortunately, your frustration here is a true reflection of their failure, thus the reason why simple and everyday words appeared too big for you to comprehend and accept. Meanwhile, direct your further mention to your small-minded ilk here. Imp.