Rapmoney: We live in a part of the world where it seems to be a taboo for a lady to buy something for her man. Many Nigerian girls are raised right from birth with that mentality that giving is a one-sided thing. The popular notion is that men are givers, while women are receivers. What a warped way of thinking!
The first time I showed a friend a pair of Moccasin shoes my girl bought for me, he was shocked literally. He confessed to me that I was lucky. That since he started dating, no woman has ever bought him even 100 Naira MTN recharge card. I laughed because I know this is same thing so many young men are facing out there. Men in this part of the world are seen as 'sole providers'. They are to provide financial support, security, guidance, protection, etc. They should not expect to receive anything in return, and they must never complain.
Each time this issue is raised, some folks would tell you that it depends on the type of women you are relating with. My brother, let me tell you the basic truth. This mentality cuts across ladies from all backgrounds. Not only junction girls aka kparo-kparo. Even those who are in the banks, legal profession, and other corporate entities think likewise. Their 10 million Naira is exclusively theirs, but your lean 50k is for both of you.
The percentage of ladies who can comfortably give their partners tangible stuffs is very small. They exist but the percentage is like a bucket of water from a mighty ocean. As a young man, just pray that you find such women because the majority you see are nothing but hungry vultures.
If you are dating a girl and you are gifting her things, but she has never given you anything after 6 months, leave her. Na kparo-kparo package be that.
As a man, what has a lady bought for you before?
You're very lucky if I give you twotwo and that's more than enough.
Gotocourt: If you are dating a girl and you are gifting her things, but she has never given you anything after 6 months, leave her. Na kparo-kparo package be that.
Ojuju1: Please moderator, I will be happy if you can move this to front page to enable me get solution that I have been desiring for the past years.
I have been experiencing moving objects from my head to my feet for over 15yrs now. For the past 15 years I have visited hospitals, done tests, scan, prayed, fasted and taken herbals but all to no avail.
The last test i went for, I was told that I had stomach ulcers. Which I have taken the medication prescribed for me but no improvement.
The symptoms include feeling as if a living being is moving inside my stomach, terrible stomach pains, worm-like movement on my head, feet even in my scrotum, I find it hard to stand for a very long time because I will be feeling pains on my legs.
Please, if anyone has experienced such or has someone that has gone through such should kindly recommend the best solution that will help me be free from this torment that has made life unbearable to me.
I will not continue this exchange indefinitely. Let me address your final points clearly, then close the door.
ON YOUR FIRST OBJECTION: "Not all human endeavor is driven by reproduction. Messi. Weddings. Funerals. Custody battles."
You cite Messi. A man watches a footballer win. He feels joy. He spends money. He does not get a woman from it. You say this proves my thesis wrong.
Let me ask: why does he care about Messi?
He cares because Messi represents victory. And victory, in the male mind, is the currency of worthiness. A man who supports a winner feels like a winner. He feels more attractive. He feels closer to the top. This is not about the woman in the room. It is about the feeling of being a man who could attract one. The proxy is distant… but the engine is the same.
Weddings. Funerals. Custody battles. These are about family. And family is the container of reproduction. A man spends on a wedding to signal his ability to provide for a family. He fights for custody to protect his genetic legacy. He mourns at a funeral to honor the chain of lineage. These are not separate from reproduction. They are expressions of it.
You say the examples are endless. I say they all point in one direction. You are looking at the branches. I am looking at the root.
ON YOUR SECOND OBJECTION: "Polygamy and hypergamy are both laws. They are constrained by circumstances."
We agree. Fully. I have never denied this. Both are conditional. Both are constrained.
The only point of difference is hierarchy… which I have explained. Hypergamy determines which men get to exercise polygamy. Polygamy does not determine which women get to exercise hypergamy. That is the gate. That is the filter. That is the order.
If you disagree with the hierarchy, that is your right. But I have stated my reasoning clearly.
ON YOUR THIRD OBJECTION: "In sex, men are products. In marriage, women are products. Societal pressure is stronger than biology."
You are correct about the contextual shift. In casual sex, men perform. They display. They are the products on the shelf. In marriage, women are assessed. They are evaluated. They are the products on the shelf.
But understand: both contexts are governed by the same underlying dynamic. The shift is not a contradiction. It is a strategy. Men display for short-term access. Women display for long-term commitment. Different tactics. Same battlefield.
Now… "societal pressure is stronger than biology."
This is your most common argument. And it is the one most people make when they wish to escape the cold logic of the market.
Society is not separate from biology. Society is biology organized. The pressure you feel from your family, your culture, your religion… these are not external forces. They are collective biological strategies. They exist to regulate mating, reproduction, and survival. Society does not override biology. Society serves biology.
A young woman who does not want marriage but faces societal pressure… she is feeling the weight of her group's reproductive strategy. A young man who wants to stay single but cannot… he is feeling the weight of his group's reproductive strategy. These are not contradictions. They are expressions.
I have said all I will say on this subject. The thesis stands. The market operates. The engine runs. And no amount of Messi, weddings, or societal pressure changes the fundamental calculus.
Men compete to be chosen. Women choose to secure the best. Everything else is decoration.
This is the end of our exchange. I thank you for your time.
But the thread must return to its purpose. I will not reply further.
You are simply wrong. You wrote a good piece but then took it too far. You could have simply said MUCH instead of ALL. MUCH of human activity is driven by that NOT all. Children are also very ambitious and competitive without any thought of reproduction. In Western societies father of the bride finances the wedding. Sometimes the couple borrows money to finance their wedding and sometimes this leads to breakup of the marriage, there are also extremely ambitious gay people, etc. Like Trump, you could've been great, but you spoilt it by being too broad.
Walk into any office. Any construction site. Any trading floor. Look at the men.
They are not born ambitious. Ambition is installed. Like software. Like a virus. The installer is female expectation.
A boy does not wake up at seven years old dreaming of quarterly reports. He dreams of running. Of playing. Of nothing. Then he watches his mother. He watches his sisters. He watches the girls in his class. They do not look at the boys who play. They look at the boys who win. And the lesson enters his bones: win, or be invisible.
This is the factory. The raw material is a male child. The machine is female approval. The output is a man who will sacrifice his health, his time, his peace, and finally his life… all for the chance to be looked at.
Consider the male body. Men are stronger. They are taller. They have more muscle mass. Why? Not for fighting bears. For working. For building. For carrying. Evolution designed the male frame to produce and provide. And evolution designed the female eye to scan that frame for capacity to produce. She does not admire his biceps. She admires what those biceps can build for her.
Now watch the factory in action.
A young man finishes school. He has no direction. He has no fire. Then he meets a woman. She is pleasant. She smiles. She mentions her friend's boyfriend… the one with the new car. Suddenly, the young man has a goal. He does not want the car. He wants the smile that comes with the car. He enters a career. He works overtime. He skips sleep. He becomes productive. Society calls this "finding his purpose." Society is wrong. He found a demand. He became the supply.
This is not masculinity. This is response. Male aggression, male competition, male risk-taking… all of it is shaped by a single question: What will she choose? If she chose poets, men would write poems until their hands bled. If she chose farmers, men would plow fields until their backs broke. She chooses wealth. So men chase wealth. She chooses status. So men climb ladders. She chooses power. So men fight wars.
The factory never stops producing because the demand never stops rising.
Today a man must earn more than his father. Tomorrow he must earn more than his neighbor. Next year he must earn more than the man on television. The bar keeps lifting. And the man keeps lifting with it… until his back gives out. Then the factory discards him. A younger model takes his place.
You will hear feminists say: "Men control the world." Look closer. Who controls the men? Who decides which men rise and which men fall? The answer is silent. The answer is always the same.
Men are not the masters of the system. They are the fuel of the system. And fuel burns until it is gone.
Erudite but myopic and one-dimensional. Children are driven more by wanting to impress their parents and family than by any wanting to impress female. That's why females are equally as competitive and ambitious. Then there is societal pressure and expectations. A young man is free staying single but society won't allow him. Many young women don't need marriage but societal pressure won't allow them. Conclusion: societal pressure is actually stronger than biology!
Icedplane: Nice write up. If only the male human is made to understand this from early age, there would be early success in teenagers compared to fantasy driven love chasers
We girls/women are also "fantasy-drven love chasers". Infact we like Love more than men. Men are more about shifting panties. We like love without any shifting of panties - infact we prefer it that way!
Famous009: "You assume the only motivating factor for men is getting women, and for women, getting men. What about Diezani, Patience, Tinubu, Obi, Atiku?"
You cite powerful figures, men and women, driven by money and political ambition. You say their motivation cannot be reduced to mating.
Let me ask you: why does power attract?
Diezani stole money. Why? For comfort? For status? Yes. But status, in a woman, is not an end. It is a tool. A woman with status attracts a man with more status. A woman with money attracts a man with more money. She does not steal to impress other women. She steals to elevate her position… and elevation, in hypergamous terms, means access to higher-value men.
Now consider Tinubu, Obi, Atiku. They want to be President. Why? Power. Legacy. Influence. But ask yourself: who grants legacy? A man's legacy is measured by his descendants. By the women who bore them. By the family he built. Political power is not an end for a man. It is a means to attract the highest-value woman, build the highest-status family, and secure his genetic future.
You say this is reductionist. I say it is fundamental. All human ambition, male or female, sits on top of the reproductive engine. Money, power, status… these are proxies for reproductive success. Strip away the proxies, and the engine remains. This is not opinion. This is biology.
"Women's hypergamy is also dependent on the kind of man they can attract. An unattractive woman dies alone. Just like polygamy."
Agreed. Completely.
An unattractive woman cannot exercise hypergamy. The top men do not choose her. She is a customer with insufficient currency… as I stated in my previous response. Her desire for a top man means nothing if she cannot afford him.
So hypergamy and polygamy are both conditional on individual value. The top man gets many women. The top woman gets many offers. The bottom man gets nothing. The bottom woman gets nothing.
But here is the difference… the hierarchy I mentioned.
A bottom man can build value. He can earn money. He can gain status. He can become attractive over time. A bottom woman? Her value is tied to youth and beauty. These decline. She cannot build them back. She can earn money… but money does not attract a top man the way youth does. So her window is shorter. Her pressure is higher. Her desperation is deeper.
The two laws are conditional on individual value. But the currency of value is different. And the timeline is different. That is why hypergamy sits above polygamy in the hierarchy… it governs the terms of exchange.
"Women are products on the shelf just as much as men. They both choose and are chosen. Infact women are more products because they wait to be chosen."
This is your strongest point. And you are almost right.
Yes, women wait to be chosen. In traditional societies, parents choose for them. They cannot overtly pursue. They sit on the shelf and wait for a buyer. This is true.
But here is the inversion: waiting is not passivity. It is positioning.
A luxury product does not chase the customer. It sits in a glass case. It waits. The customer comes to it. The product's value is increased by its unavailability. A woman who waits is not powerless. She is signaling her scarcity. She is saying: "I am valuable. Come and prove you deserve me."
The man, meanwhile, is the traveling salesman. He must approach. He must perform. He must convince. He cannot wait… because waiting, for a man, signals low value. A man who waits is a man who has no offers. A woman who waits is a woman who expects offers.
So yes… both are products. But one product sits on the shelf and appreciates. The other product must walk the floor and depreciate. Different roles. Different strategies. Same market.
You say the world bleeds into itself. You are right. But the bleeding does not erase the structure. It only makes the structure harder to see.
I am not arguing for moral clarity. I am arguing for analytic clarity. And analytic clarity says:
· Women compete to choose better. · Men compete to be chosen. · Both are conditional on individual value. · But the timeline, currency, and strategy differ fundamentally.
This is not a battle of the sexes. This is a market. And markets do not care about fairness. They only care about exchange.
Thanks for your cerebral response. Why did you stop numbering? I wasn't criticizing it, only noting it. I actually like the way Kobojunkie, though not too smart, numbers points. You misunderstand my bleeding comment. I mean points sometimes bleed into each other and really can't be properly numbered. I wasn't talking of literal bleeding at all!
1) I beg to differ. Not all human endeavor is driven by reproduction at all. Example, you could want Messi to win the world cup badly and would do just about anything to see him win - even though only you know you're supporting Messi! Another example, people would spend money they don't have on a wedding or funeral - they're not doing it to get girlfriend or boyfriend. Another, a man doesn't want to japa without his family though he'd have more females without. Another, divorcing husband and wife fighting for custody of their children. The examples are endless.
2) So we agree completely on this point. Polygamy is as much a law as hypergamy. The only things that constrain them are personal circumstances and societal constraints.
3)"Women are products on the shelf just as much as men. They both choose and are chosen. Infact women are more products because they wait to be chosen." The statement is 100% correct. You also 100% agree with it from your write-up. Women are not powerless in waiting, neither are men. The only difference is in wether one is discussing sex or marriage. In sex, men are more the products on the shelf, while about marriage, women are more the products on the shelf!
DMCA: Him d investigate ur "Onisha ncha" only say u no yellow like him go want or u get creole yellow standard complexion to procreate extend him secret bloodline? I no think so
Him say him like dark skin like me. Him know say dark skin dey superior. Him dey jealous
Famous009: 1: "Why do women compete fiercely? Why do women come first in class, win in business, and show ambition?"
You misunderstand the direction of female ambition.
Women compete… yes. They study hard. They build careers. They win awards. But ask yourself: for whom? A woman climbs the ladder to improve her bargaining position. She does not climb to provide for a man. She climbs to attract a man who provides more. Her degree is not a tool for production. It is a signal of quality. Her salary is not for feeding a family. It is for upgrading her options.
A woman who earns #100,000 does not marry a man who earns #50,000. She marries a man who earns #200,000. Her ambition raises her own value… so she can demand even higher value from him. His ambition, meanwhile, serves her. He works to give. She works to choose better.
This is not equality. This is escalation. She runs faster so she can select a faster runner. He runs faster so she does not leave him behind. Same action. Different purpose. Different beneficiary.
2: "Men are polygamous. Hypergamy is not the only law. Men have one biological instruction… screw as many women as possible."
Correct. Men are polygamous by nature. This is also a law. But understand the hierarchy of these laws.
Hypergamy is primary. Polygamy is secondary. Why? Because a man can only screw as many women as allow him. And women only allow men who meet their hypergamous threshold. The man with resources gets a hundred Women. The man without gets none. King Solomon had wives because he had wealth. Give a poor man the same desire… he dies alone.
Hypergamy regulates polygamy. It is the gate. It is the filter. It determines which men get to express their polygamous instinct. And it determines which women compete for those men. The two laws work together… but hypergamy sits at the top. It always decides.
3: "If men are the commodity, how come unattractive women get left on the shelf?"
Excellent question. Let me refine the metaphor.
Men are the products on the shelf. Women are the customers. Customers choose the best products. But here is the twist: customers are also rated by the products. A luxury product does not sell to a customer who cannot afford it. The top man… the one every woman wants… does not choose the bottom woman. He chooses the top woman. The most beautiful. The most accomplished. The most valuable in her own market.
So unattractive women are left on the shelf not because they are not customers… but because they cannot afford the top products. And they refuse to buy the bottom products. So they wait. They blame. They age. They remain.
The unattractive woman is not a product. She is a customer with insufficient currency. Her currency is her youth, her beauty, her fertility. When those decline, her purchasing power declines. The top men no longer accept her bid. The bottom men she refuses to accept. She is stuck. She is left.
So yes… men are commodities. But commodities have standards too. The best commodities go to the highest bidders. The lowest bidders go home empty-handed. That is not cruelty. That is market logic.
Your questions are good. They show you are thinking. But they do not break the thesis. They deepen it.
Women compete… to select better men. Men are polygamous… but only the top men get to act on it. Unattractive women are left… because their bargaining power is low.
All of this is one system. One engine. One cold, efficient machine.
And it runs on the same fuel it always has: female demand.
Thanks for your erudite response. You number your response like Kobojunkie. That indicates a legal mind that thinks in terms of discrete points - which, sometimes is NOT how the real world works as things tend to bleed into each other!
1) Your submission is very logical but in real life logical does not always mean correct. The big flaw in your position is that you assume that the only motivating factor for men is getting women, and for women, getting men. I'm sure Diezani-Madueke was not stealing all that money because she wanted to attract a better man, neither was Patience Jonathan. And you can be sure Tinubu was not stealing Lagos State money because he wanted to attract women, neither are Obi and Atiku doing everything to be President in other to attract women!
2) A law is a law. Women's hypergamy is also dependent on the kind of man they can attract. Give an unattractive woman the same desire... she dies alone. Just like exercising polygamy, exercising hypergamy is equally dependent on how attractive the person is.
3) Just like point number 2, they are even. Women are products on the shelf just as much as men. They both choose and are chosen. Infact women are more products on the shelf than men because in most societies women have to wait to be chosen (just like real products on a shelf). They can't overtly and actively go after a man they want. And in traditional societies they can't even accept or reject - their parents are the ones that accept or reject!
So why do we women also compete very fiercely? Why do women come first in class? Why do we win in business and other areas of life. Why are we also ambitious? Just sincerely asking. Do you have an answer?
Also, men are polygamous. Hypergamy is NOT the only law. Polygamy is law too. Men also have one biological instruction - screw as many women as possible! The only reason a man doesn't have 1000 wives like King Solomon is because, due to society or resources, he can't!
Also, if men are the commodity on the shelf and not women, how come unattractive women get left on the shelf??
reverendfather: Those tears are not ordinary, she'll definitely leave this his guy, she has also identified he's grown. I pity this man
Don't pity the man. He's enjoying being in LOVE - something that some of us will never enjoy. His fiancé is also in love with her ex but they both know it won't work - just because you love someone doesn't mean they're good for you!
LouisdeFrance: When I was a child I thought as a child but now I've long since put childish things away.
How are your ancestors this fine morning my boy? Wow! They actually have a name for your issue. It is called "Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome". See it described in the video below. The most prominent symptom is saying you have some Indian or Spanish, or French, etc. Watch the video. Amazing! Remember, your ancestors were raised by.the enslaved or formerly enslaved mothers because the father's were either with their legitimate families or simply ashamed to be associated with them, and also the law forbade it.
LouisdeFrance: You desire to be Hebrew but you're Igbo. Your forefathers were pagan idolaters and conjurers of false deities. If you wasn't seeking so hard to be someone else then we would be cool. Not lovely dovely just cool. As I said we are not related unless you go back to Noah.
And your ancestors and your great uncle John Henri de France whom you were named after And your great grandfather King Louis IX And your other great grandfather King Louis XVI😂 And you were a member of Nation of Islam!!! And then your ancestors who defeated everyone. Poor kid. My poor, poor kid. My heart goes out to you
LouisdeFrance: Ham means hot bloodied. The land that waa given to Ham was hot. Yapeth means enlargement and the land given him was large. Shem means reputation because Shem was heir to our father Noah and Shem rebuilt civilization after the Great Flood.
I am not Ham on either side of my family. J2 and M1a1a haplagroups big man we are not related. Doesn't mean were aren't brothers as sons of Noah.
Please, we're NOT brothers at all despite your ample West African blood. Funny guy, who wants to be related to someone denying his own heritage? And all these lies, to what end exactly? I can only imagine how low a person's self-esteem must be for him to be trying to obtain some by denying part of himself! See below for the most BLESSED continent!
LouisdeFrance: Creole is not a sub group of African Americans. That's what the One-Drop Rule’s aim was to erode the Creole men into a sub caste of the black African caste. Black African is a caste and Igbo, Yoruba, Fulani and Creole are ethnicities. White and Black are a binary originally created by my ancestors to classify Christian and Non Christian, non Christian just means pagan. White means pure, right, just and light. Black means dirty, evil, wicked and dark. The people we call today White began using that term to refer to themselves because of their pale skin but my ancestors who first used it for religious reasons were tan skinned. When the fall of my ancestors the French Empire and Spanish Empire the pale skinned people up North the Anglo-Saxons, Scotts and Irish began their British Empire and used the binary to refer to biological races. There are no black and white races. Race is simply a caste and actually exchangable terms.
Genetically you and I aren't even related. My father haplagroup is J2 and yours is probably E1b1ba. My maternal haplogroup group is M1a1a and yours is probably L1, L2 or L3. Majority of African Americans I am not even related to and that's why I act so different from them. There's never been anyone to post like me on Nairaland and even when I was a member of the Nation of Islam they said I acted different. That's because I am Genetically not related to most of you and I have zero Trans Atlantic Slave Trade genetic markers. My existence proves that race is just a caste and we must all ban together and destroy it.
I have been humble and patient with you even enduring your insults but I am very serious. My forefathers wiped out entire cities of people and my mindset isn't different at all. I may seem nice but I am not a sweetie pie. The blood of kings and Templars runs through my veins. I will endure to the end God willing and nothing will break me. My great uncle John Henri de France whom I am named after fought with General Washington to the bitter end to establish the United States. Remember the Igbo Civil War and your forefathers gave up? Mines did not. We have never given up if you study the battles of the Knights Templar you'd see its true for our bloodline.
So lets talk about ending the caste and not about each other. I don't want praises, money or titles. Or panties either.
My great uncle John Henri de France whom I am named after
What an honest genius! You wrote this as a LOUISIANA CREOLE OF COLOUR. See the screenshots below
Romance › Re: As A Man, What Has A Woman Bought For You Before? by QuinQQ(f): 3:54pm On Sep 10
