₦airaland Forum

manuel0523:
Reading through some of the comments on this thread, especially the comments from supposed 'males', I can see how gross foolishness is displayed. A man is a head of the home, no doubt from the story, the money is a joint saving with the wife but have you counted the cost of building a house compared to getting a car "for a start"? Have you asked if they had a car before hand? Well, if they did have a car and the man still bought a new car, was the old car still in a functional state?
Some questions need be asked before jumping into a one-sided conclusion. Yes the lady has divorced the man but this reason the op gave is not reason enough for a reasonable and matured woman to divorce her husband. To me, the woman's action is even more foolish than the action of the man.
Well, one thing in life I've learnt not to do is to really jump into people's family business cause at the end, your comments may be used by the duo when they finally make way around their issues...

!!!Be Wise

Wisdom isn't for anyone void of knowledge. Unfortunately, it's very easy for anyone void of knowledge to equate foolishness to wisdom. 

Head of the house: The hallmark of a sane head of the house lies in his ability to always make sound judgment, judgment devoid of self-absorption and self-aggrandizement, and having the ability to have his wife volitionally and cheerfully defer to him where and when necessary; anything to the contrary means that he is an oppressor in particular and small-minded in general.

ZUBY77:
People are just very stupid. If the kind of job he does require getting a cat,, he doesn't have to wait forever to build a house first. I had like 3 cars while living in a rented house.

Stop asserting that "People are just very stupid." unjustly. There is a difference between your claim and the subject under discussion:

There's everything wrong in reneging your agreement with someone or tricking them into doing your bidding - which is what the subject under discussion portrays;

However,

There's nothing wrong with owning as many personal automobiles as you wish while still living in a rental accommodation, especially if that suits your life circumstances and blueprint - your claim as a case study - provided that you do so with your money and in a good judgement.

Anyone who has been opportune to work and live within a place like Atherton, California will understand why it's very common to see more than 80% of the residents owning some good number of high-end personal automobiles while still living in rental accommodations.

The axiom which says "he who comes into equity must come with a clean hand" remains sacrosanct. So, if he used the money they raised collectively and agreed to use to build a house to buy a car instead, without her cheerful and volitional consent, however small her contribution might be, he deserved whatever reaction he got from her.

If you don't want to feel the cruel side of anyone, don't wittingly trample on their inalienable right under any guise, and where and when they choose to indulge you, don't go about appropriating cleverness and supremeness in general to yourself.

You ought not to waste time and energy praying never to have a particular kind of woman; instead, you ought to be pitying the woman who will not be the kind that is deserving of your good side that will be unfortunate to come close to you.

- When the good one with good intentions comes, you treat her queenly.

- When the bad but disingenuous one comes, you treat her cruelly overtly.

- When the bad haughty one comes, you disingenuously treat her cruelly covertly.

Summarily, the end goal, as a man, must always be that if someone must lose or get hurt, it shouldn't be you literally.

Imagine yourself not having feelings for her; she not being physically beautiful and without having the Canadian sojourn prospect, if you do not see yourself considering her as of one the best things that have happened to you and that is deserving of being standing strongly for in any just circumstance or will not mind calling off her bluff if she wittingly violates any of your set-standards in the presence of the mentioned benefits, know that you do not mean well for her and leave her alone before you wound yourself and/or wound her.

Quite an abominable act and unacceptable from him, provided that she has always been a dutiful wife and good woman in general - if truly he is the instigator, thus guilty, he deserves castration.

She has never been a beautiful woman at any point in time, citing the before and present photos. That said, a transformation like this is one of the major reasons why a man has to look beyond a woman's physical and material possession when choosing a woman for a long-term/life-term commitment. Provided that she has a beautiful soul, her husband owes her an obligation to remain faithful and committed in general to her.

IgiveLadiesBj:
Please how do you know she's 40?

Through her numerous monikers, especially the deactivated ones. Anyway, she never hides her age, and taking a direct and indirect swipe at men justly and unjustly with a sententious exhibition is one of her hobbies.

A novice reading through your rants here would think that the assumed new surge of ritual killings is the reason why at 40 you are unmarried or that only men are involved in the ignoble and heinous act.

Meanwhile, it's irritatingly ironic seeing some assuming that being broke automatically makes a man scrupulous while being rich automatically makes a man unscrupulous, nonsense.

Well, eschewing greed, conceit, and ignorance is the way out.

efficiencie:
Servility this, servility that...so you should trample on her? What you sow is what you reap. There are men who are docile to their wives yet their wives honor them and respect them. If you choose a woman based on the diameter of her boobs and arse you will likely marry a problem but if you marry a woman based on her character and ensure that her character suits yours you will highly likely marry a solution.

If you are a Christian the rules are clear, you are expected to love your wife and your wife is expected to submit to you. This law will only hold if you as a man you are a husband indeed and you married a wife indeed. If as a man you are terrorist and/or you marry a wayward woman your marriage will easily be a disaster.

My post isn't for people with a single-digit IQ like you. Now, scram and direct your further mention to small-minded elements like you.

Bumpkin.

The reason isn't far-fetched; women are the weaker vessel, and a vice like pretentiousness is chiefly part and parcel of what it entails to be the weaker vessel. Of course, men have their own vices too.

As a man, to prevent being meted out with a pretentious act like the one in your story, you must always relate with a woman on a defined philosophy, nay you must have a standard you operate on, and must spell it out to her from the inception of your relationship with her.

Servility is as bad as cruelty, say no to both of them. Most men's undiscerning ability, inordinate need for validation and poor concept of respect, which makes them to wittingly or unwittingly use servility rather than justness as the standard to sustain their relationship with women, especially small-minded women, pre-marriage, enable pretentious acts from women and allow them to fester even in marriage in most cases.

As a man, you must consciously make a decision never to put a woman on a pedestal, and don't expect her to put you either, even though that is their understanding of being adored and the surest way to have them walk and work with you seamlessly. Putting them on a pedestal means using servility to sustain your relationship with them, which is always catastrophic in the long-term. Of course, the need not to put a woman on a pedestal doesn't negate being courteous to her and loving her genuinely if she's deserving of love.

Unfortunately, any man that lives for women's validation cannot live on the above philosophy.

He has a poor concept of loyalty just like many other people do, which is one of the major causes of poor leadership politically and more.

Loyalty ought not to mean that you follow the man that leads you, that you have surrendered to his leadership, no, not when such man that leads doesn't respect the ideology/bond of the creed/standard.

Of course, walking against the man that leads because you did not get what you want makes you a disloyal/self-absorbing person if you do so because the man that leads refused to compromise on the standard, and a principled person if the man that leads compromised on the standard/ideology/bond of the creed.

Summarily, loyalty must always be pegged on something - ideology/bond - and must always respond like a traffic light; reciprocity. Anything on the contrary means that it's a master-slave/dog-eat-dog arrangement where expediency will always reign supreme over principle.

Klass99:
Ahn ahn Richy, did you not receive the memo that men are not emotional just logical? Some forum men will have us believe only we are emotional, but of course we know better .

There is nothing new in the original post that most of us (sensible women) didn't know already, the real surprise for me, is how majority of you (men) like to carry on as if you are not made of flesh and blood, and you are incapable of tears or showing real emotion.

Always acting macho, claiming logical, forming redpill and voltron up and down the place, when in reality what most of you want is to love and be loved, to be touched, held and cuddled.

Make una dey fool una selves there, when e choke you either communicate your needs or quench. Either way, we move. No time for grown men who don't know how to ask for what they need.

Stop saying trash and taking direct or indirect swipes at men always. As much as I do not hold brief for any wannabe woke man and person, the fact remains that to be disposed to emotional expression is different from living on emotion. On the latter - living on emotion - women are accustomed to it, while men are accustomed to living on logic. Of course, there is always an exception.

On the former - to be disposed to emotional expression - however, which is what the thread is all about, any man (or woman), no matter how seemingly hard of soft he appears, who does not exhibit it where and when necessary and expected is simply a pretender who masks his real self with a disingenuous demeanor and will always have a penchant for living in regret, constant crying in secret, and meting out treacherous and pernicious acts in general, especially when least expected.

By the way, on this "most of us (sensible women)," I wonder who gave you the impression that you are sensible, lol.

Your problem isn't softheartedness because there's nothing wrong in being one; your problem lies in your inability to hate nonsense and your indiscriminate love for validation.

Summarily, eschew posturing and embrace justness.

Mariangeles:
What would you do if you were in his position?

You're not corrupt enough to know the unpalatable pernicious acts; such detail is best reserved for someone that is a bit advanced in corruption like me to avoid leading you astray unnecessarily.

I don't want to believe that you will allow your sister to consent to his divorce request just like that, unless you don't have the wherewithal and your sister is not sincerely blameless; else, you ought to make him taste the bitter pill of treachery by any means possible before granting him the divorce he sought for.

Opportunism is evil. The idea of allowing someone who consciously comes into your life and entered a for better for worse agreement with you but still thinks that hir has the right to violate the same agreement at will and unprovoked after disorganizing you in the name of being entitled to hir rights to liberty ought not to be allowed to happen without first meting out some pernicious acts on the traitor, regardless of any material benefit expected from the separation.

Religious leaders like this and their shenanigans can be quite nauseating. Because his prediction about Ondo State election during the Mimiko's time came to pass, he now wants to appropriate genuineness to himself forgetting that he prophesied that Obasanjo would die before being sworn in as President in 1999, yet he ruled for 8 years and is still alive up to this day.

If you believe that all the exposed and educated ladies you have met are a bit too difficult and proud - some of them are - you have a problem and are living in self-denial. Your unpronounced problem is that you have a strong desire for servility and expect the same from any lady coming into your life, but have always mistaken that desire for respect. So, you have a poor concept of respect, like many other people.

The fact is that you hate toxic women as much as you love servile women - you have been looking for a servile woman among the educated and exposed ladies all this while, which is nonsense, even though you can still get one or something similar sooner than later depending on your social strata and packaging.

If you are a true sucker for a mutually healthy relationship, strive to adjust your longings reasonably, redefine your concept of respect and know how to identify the good but no nonsense ones and make your pick from them. They abound everywhere among both the educated and uneducated; exposed and unexposed; old and young, which the lady under your radar and discussion might be one.

Modern marriage (marriage in general) can never be a scam. Lack of self-conquest and self-realization in general before going into marriage, which, among other pitfalls, breeds a poor choice of choosing the right partner for your personality, like yours seems, citing your own side of the story, are the scams and problems. And I won't be surprised if it happens to be that she is even the one that chose you, directly or indirectly.

InTheCloudySky:
No big words today? J/k

I am still a learner where you are when it comes to using big words. By the way, I have been surprised that you have stayed long with this new moniker without deactivating like you are frequently used to; this calls for a celebration.

Sureboyy:
If you aren't loved by your wife or being chosen by your wife, i see it difficult for her to triumph temptations that may come in the course of the marriage..
Times have changed
This so called women these days find it difficult to be submissive unless they love you...This ain't rocket science
It's what is happening now and I don't see a big deal if a man makes sure his wife loves him than him being the one to love the woman.
I prefer it though and I would most definitely use this as my criteria when looking for a woman to get married to.

Besides the loss of masculine energy - it'll take someone with in-depth knowledge of metaphysics to understand - a man, in most cases, stands to become a means to an end rather than an end when being chosen by a woman for a relationship/marriage because women, inherently, are more receptive to receiving than giving. A case of when desirable is not available, available becomes desirable. For an example, being chosen by a promiscuous woman who, of course, will gloss her real self, interest, and intention with the exhibition of passionate emotion, which is fleeting, and sanctimony on you, makes it easier for her to engage in adultery - the only difference here will be that you, as the man, won't even believe she does even when caught red-handed because of the effect of stockholm syndrome erroneously termed love from you.

Both of you are safer for each other when she falls in love with you - which breeds acts of submissiveness - than when you expect/have her doing the loving. The former is sustainable because it's necessitated by action, while the latter is fleeting because it's necessitated by passion and/or disingenuousness. So, her ethical leanings, better if she's from strong ethical leanings and you chose her on that basis, will always be the ultimate decider whether she will take delight in adultery and other vices or not, not her choosing you and exhibiting passionate emotion, which is fleeting, around you.

Summarily, as a man, you are safer having a standard you live on than expectations from a woman or anybody at all; you are safer having a woman who respects herself and whatever intangible/immaterial thing that serves as a bond holding the two of you than expecting her to love you. Expectation, worse when it advances to a sense of entitlement, which is usually inevitable, breeds disunity, disappointment, and destruction. By the way, no proponent of hypergamy has love, at least not genuine/practical love to give you as a man.

Although your acts and intentions are good, your resolve is poor and might become a pitfall for you. Make a conscious decision accepting that she's entitled to how to react and feel about your decision or any occurrence in her life, so shouldn't be caught giving a damn about her change of mood for good or bad after doing what you know is right. If you fail to do the needful, you might soon fall for her witting or unwitting emotional blackmail and start sleeping with her; that's, if she doesn't start seeing you as an enemy and decide to cash out from you by setting you up, supposing that she has always had hidden delight in cruelty.

You all should stop propagating hate unjustly. There is nothing wrong in loving a woman that is deserving of it; what is wrong, as a man, is falling in love, especially falling in love with the one that is not good for your personality. The good thing is that those who love genuinely/altruistically never or hardly fall in love, at least not with the wrong people.

People mostly get used/hurt when they stay put loving the wrong people continually or fall in love with the wrong people or for the wrong reasons, and many times, this happens because their acts, however good, do not come from reasonable and altruistic places.

LadyRosa:
Explain further please.The discussion is going offline too where I'm as I type,so I'm a bit overwhelmed.

Maybe you can understand that submission with the following different sentences:

A fair-minded woman (or person) knows that the right to equality/liberty DOES NOT NEGATE/INVALIDATE decorum, therefore understands that adultery is a vice and wrong.

While

A typical opportunistic woman (or person) believes that the right to equality/liberty NEGATES/INVALIDATES decorum with a mindset like "what I choose to do with my body is my right," which gives rise to a vice like adultery.

LadyRosa:
Lol.
Having equal rights ain't a platform that should negate docorum.Especially when it involves a right to play fair.A woman who works and earns like a man can still play a good wife and mother regardless.

Citing your submission here, it's obvious that you didn't understand my first post.

LadyRosa:
Does liberty/equality a platform to commit adultery? Sincerely,I can hardly find any correlation.Like,ok I am equal to man let me commit adultery like my husband doesn't Maje sense to me.I think it's or should character thing, as there are women who just get divorce and decides not to marry again to keep their sanity and focus on themselves and career.

At the bolded.I share same though with you on that

How you can't find the correlation between someone that believes that right to equality/liberty negates decorum and that leading to a vice like adultery is questionable.

It has always been happening long before this new era. It has only gotten worse in this new era, however, due to the following mentioned and unmentioned factors:

- Easier access to information, contact, and connection.

- Nonsense philosophies being propagated by small-minded elements in the name of wokeness, for example, most men now want to be chosen by women for a relationship/marriage; wanting to be loved by the women in their lives rather than being the ones to love their women and having them reciprocate through submission as that's where their forte lies.

- Most women now mistake equality/liberty for rights to unscrupulousness, while having some men supporting the same in the name of wokeness.

Without any bad intention to take a swipe at my Yoruba brothers, they are to be blamed majorly in instances like this because of their act of disingenuousness - or ignorance in a few cases - which they usually mask as diplomacy/wokeness/civility/tolerance from the inception when going into a relationship with women, especially women like the one under discussion and her likes like Tonto, etc,.

They go about validating bad character and giving women of this kind the impression from near and afar that there is nothing wrong with their attitude and have no cause to strive to be better, only to turn around when in a serious relationship or marriage with them, after getting what they want in most cases, to start showing disapproval of the same attitude and wanting out or starting meting out or showing their own bad side openly.

This same act of disingenuousness is the core of what it takes to assume the position of a "Yoruba demon." Of course, the act of disingenuousness isn't inclusive to Yoruba men and the tribe alone, but it's surely more prevalent among them.