₦airaland Forum

Anyone who says no to the questions is either dishonest or ignorant because every living man, just like women, has an emotion.

That said, not majority of men have a low emotional quotient, unlike women that majority have it, and it is those men who have that are indrawn and susceptible to intrusive crying. Every man can cry, but not all men are susceptible to intrusive crying.

Meanwhile, when you hear that a man is not supposed to be emotional, the emotional it refers to is sentimental. Unfortunately, many men who always claim not to be emotional actually are in this regard.

Rationality is the hallmark of a man, and reticence is not the absence of emotion; rather, it is one's ability to have their emotion under their control. And expressiveness/emotiveness should not be mistaken for emotionality.

There is nothing wrong in loving a married woman and showing love to her, or anyone at all. There is, however, everything wrong in falling in love with a married woman and/or developing feelings for her. You are simply a slave to lust/greed. Stop it. Squash the emotions, and strive to conquer yourself to avoid a repeat of having yourself in the same position again.

Feminism is not a bad movement since its ideology is centered on equality and fairness for all. Truth, however, is that women who practice it/possess its attributes on a forum like this hardly or do not even identify with it, but through their words and actions, any discerning person can identify them. The wannabe ones, however, as evident on this thread in particular and forum in general, are always loud and quick to identify themselves as ones, LOL.

The major difference between the wannabe feminists and the true feminists:

- The wannabe feminists can only be caught being against injustice wherever they are not the ones/only the ones meting out the injustice against others, especially to men and their fellow women who do not subscribe to their hypocritically crass and opportunistic attitudes. They are not different from their male counterparts who delight in oppressing women, even scrupulous women, unjustly

- The true feminists, on the other hand, hate injustice and never looking forward to meting it out to anyone, not to men and not to their fellow women. Unlike the wannabe ones, they do not delight whenever their fellow woman tells a story about oppressing a man, whether true or false, especially unjustly.

More on the wannabe feminists; they embody sanctimony, hypocrisy, greed, and crassness, and despite their haughtiness online, which they use to gloss their feeble-mindedness and low self-esteem, they are the easiest class of women to subjugate.

I doff my hat to all conscientious women whether or not they identify with feminism.

From all indications, you are largely the cause of whatever negative experiences you have had in the hands of women, however genuine your intentions towards them were. From the connotations of your submissions on almost all of your threads in this regard, you were among the class of men who, apart from believing that a woman could never be the one wrong when having a problem with a male adult, also equate:

- Condoning of nonsense/pandering to the whims of caprices of women and children and people in general regardless of gender to libertarianism and kindness.

- Expressiveness and/or emotiveness for emotionality.

- Assertion for attack and toxicity.

- Reticence for stoicism.

- Disingenuousness for diplomacy/wisdom/civility.

Well, now is the time to clean up yourself, assume the full responsibilities of your actions and inactions in the past and start a new phase of life where you will abhor nonsense from anyone, man or woman, and without expecting others to indulge nonsense from you. A new phase of life where you don't need to hold your past negative experiences against women as a people, but not fail to mete out cruelty to anyone, woman or man, who wittingly and delightfully fails to adhere to decorum around you if you wish. It's unfortunate that you aren't inherently discerning and gritty, because if you were to be, no woman could have wrecked you like this. Say no to both cruelty and servility, and yes to scrupulousness and grit.

Embrace relating/treating people based on who they are attributively rather than how they want you to treat them based on any sentimental or conventional norm. You can always walk the walk without being hurt and without delightfully being the reason someone might get hurt.

Feminism as an ideological movement, which its ideology is centered on equality/fairness for all, is never a problem, be it in marriage or outside of it. That a woman identifies with feminism in a marriage or outside of it doesn't automatically mean that she will be a bad wife or won't be submissive - provided that a man doesn't mistake subservience for submissiveness as I have observed it to be the case in some instances. A bad woman is a bad woman whether she identifies with feminism or not - there are many women who do not identify with feminism, yet they are worse than a few among the majority who do.

Feminism, just like its contemporary rival movements, isn't the problem, but women from weak ethical leanings who identify with it, as evident in the demeanor of most of them on this forum, are.

Any man who doesn't believe that people of all genders and ages are equal - difference doesn't automatically mean inequality - isn't better than any woman who fails to accept the reality that equality doesn't negate a sane male leadership/first between equals in marriage.

Opposite of what has prevented the man in your story from having an extramarital affair, even though he might have ignorantly asserted that his wife has been loyal to him. He came into equity with clean hands, and luckily, as he assumed, he's in the union with a wife who equally came into equity with clean hands.

No sane or scrupulous man will delight in cheating or oppressing a conscientious wife, especially one who has an altruistic interest in him.

If you decide to discard your current girlfriend because of her obvious self-absorbing interest in you, assuming that such is a relationship deal-breaker for you, do not ignorantly believe that the abroad based one will automatically be an oppressor who will make you servile if you marry her and relocate to her base, especially if you come into equity with clean hands. Just simply make sure that you know what you want; that you know her better; and that whatever interest you have in her does not stem from her physical and material possessions.

The fact, however, that you indulge a girlfriend who threatens to leave you whenever you have a financial downturn shows that you have no self-respect; you lack grit. You do not love her as you think; instead; you are just a slave to your emotion/lust.

More on my first paragraph, the misinformation that the diaspora born and based Nigerian women or White women will subjugate you if you marry them is a fallacy taking too far. The fact is that, just like Nigerian home based women, or women in general regardless of race and social stratum, you will always have some who are attributively servile; some who are attributively fair-minded; and some who are attributively oppressive. And as a man, if you have conquered yourself and coming from a conscientious position, you will be able to make an oppressive woman your slave instead, while a fair-minded one, you will take honor is treating her queenly, while a servile one, you can pity her and groom her to be like a fair-minded one and treat her queenly, too.

The fact that you did not see anything wrong in concluding that all girls are naturally stupid shows your shallowness. That said, the said attitude of the girl shows that she is simply a slave to her needs necessitated by feeble-mindedness and or greed. So, she is not in love with you, and vice versa. Her condition is akin to that of all these men who open threads mainly on this romance section and the family section of the forum crying daily about being used by ladies or how they are being abused in relationships but still will not leave their partners or give them overdoses of their medicines.

[quote author=ademidedavid post=104580940][/quote]No matter how you might try hard to gloss over the fact that you're not happy with your position in the union, and by extension, do not have the kind of liberty and peace of mind you desire, the fact remains glaring to me. Unfortunately, your condition will get worse if you embrace the idea of infantilizing her petty attitudes and trivializing her cruel words and acts like most have suggested to you - treat her as a grown-up woman and always expect her to act as one. The more you enable these vices, the more they fester, thereby draining and ruining you. Take your mental, psychological, and emotional health seriously for your good; stop jeopardizing them. So far, you have been using servility to sustain your relationship with her. I do not envy you. Servility is as bad as cruelty; neither condone them nor expect and accept them from others.

Love your wife, but don't pander to her whims and caprices. Pandering to her whims and caprices is not love/maturity/civility. Enact an ethical philosophy that will be binding to everyone; let it be both a standard and a bond that will hold the two of you. So far, you have neither been in the driving seat of your home nor your dominion. You've been subjugated. To take your rightful position in the union, squash your subsisting emotional connection with her which was based on the lust you have for her from the inception of your contact with her, and which is the reason why she has been meting out abuses, not just having authority over you. You've been a slave to your lust all this while. Let any new emotional connection you will have with her stem from the quality of her soul (submission/fairness) rather than her physical beauty/material possessions. That is the difference between loving your wife and falling in love with your wife. This will entail you giving up lust/greed and saying good-bye to feeble-mindedness. You can get this done fast if you have some knowledge about mental/psychological transmutation.

So, you must be scrupulous and gumptious; else, you cannot make an effective change or lead fairly. When you succeed, it will be a win-win situation for you, her, the children, and the family at large, with everyone in a healthy state of mental, emotional, and psychological health. If she truly hates you, however, or has never had an altruistic interest in you or has always had ruinous intent towards you, she'll resist every attempt you will make to institutionalize fairness for all as the order of the day and would rather wish to opt out of the union. So, if you will be afraid to lose her in principle, then remain subjugable to her. If she rejects love/fairness, and if you don't want her to wittingly or unwittingly opt-out of the union, give her an overdose of her medicine so that she will become a slave to you instead.

One of the highest and most fulfilling points of living is reaching the height of not minding losing anyone/anything in principle and staying conscientious.

Literally, the guy's action can only justifiably be said to be bad if it is not necessitated by a fundamental problem in the union or breach of trust on the part of the woman in the cause of the union. It's always easy to cast aspersions on someone in his position in a case like this when judging from afar, naively or sentimentally.

Let's assume that he came into equity with clean hands in the union and was doing the right things as expected of a sane husband; then, the following scenarios could have necessitated his action, however unpalatable it's:

- The woman who gave him an impression from the inception that her interest in him was because of the quality of his soul rather than his material possessions started acting otherwise in the union, and for instance, started doing "my husband's money is our money," while "my money is my money."

- The woman who gave him an impression that she was a scrupulous woman before contracting the marriage became a termagant in the cause of the union because she felt that there wasn't going to be a need for a campaign after an election, and for instance, started exercising her rights to liberty outside the limits of decorum.

- He possibly discovered that he might not even be the one that impregnated her.

In summary, bearing the wife tag, and vice versa, doesn't automatically qualify one to receive treatments deserving of a wife from her husband. One who comes into equity must always come with clean hands because no one person has a monopoly of pettiness or cruelty. It's insane for an instigator to think that s/he has the right to dictate for their victim how they should retaliate.

Happiness VS Peace - before I go on, you can only achieve the feat if you won't mind losing her in principle because the highest and most fulfilling point of living is reaching the height of not minding losing anyone/anything in principle.

As a husband, and vice versa, you do not owe your wife happiness but peace. And you make peace possible by doing in principle whatever you know is just at any given time; rewarding her adherence to the bond of the union with altruistic kindness, care, and attention; while doing otherwise whenever she fails to adhere to the bond of the union and resisting pandering to her whims and caprices at any given time in general. Someone trying to make another happy is one of those impossible tasks that always drains and ruins one in the cause of trying them.

The choice to be happy is solely hers and should be non-negotiable once you've provided the enabling peaceful environment for it. Peace can only be said to be priceless when obtained under mutual goodness, which means she owes you peace too. Once more, make peace non-negotiable and sound it out to her, while failure to abide by it will mean war.

Before doing anything, however, try to know the root cause of her unhappiness; if you're the cause through your failure to make peace possible in the union, make amends and make the above a standard, while if her unhappiness stems from lack of contentment, give her war so that she will either allow peace reign or you pieces her and take her out of your way, but if it stems from illness, you should know better what to do.

The only way you can achieve all of the above is if you haven't fallen in love with her but have always been loving her - a man who values his sanity and authority and wants the best for himself, his wife, and family in general, is only supposed to love his wife not falling in love with her.

Had it been that she didn't deny taking the money where you kept it - assuming that your thoughtlessness wasn't the reason why she lied - I'd said she simply took what belongs to her. Now let me assume that you come into equity with cleans hands in the union; the following will always happen if she too comes into equity with clean hands in the union:

- She won't hide when taking it

- She won't deny taking it

- She won't be frivolous

- And you won't feel bad when she takes it

Citing that you have shouted "my money" in your submission, however, I don't need a soothsayer to tell me that either you or the both of you don't have an altruistic interest for each other and see money beyond what it's - a means to an end, but not an end itself.

Yes. Although, legally, it's usually termed domestic violence and sexual abuse. Outside the legal context and in a commonplace like on this forum, however:

- For women who have the penchants to subjugate and destroy men or take delight in it and their male apologists, it'll be termed or made to be seen as a cruise and will want everyone to wave it off and see it as nothing serious, but will call for the man's head if the reserve were to be the case. Of course, men who have the penchants to subjugate women or take delight in it would do the same if the reverse were to be the case.

- For conscientious men and women, they will see it as what it's, an act of sexual abuse on the man.

Almost all of the time whenever someone complains that hir well-to-do family member does not help hir or others, it always turns out to be that the complainer is one conceited, foolish, self-absorbing, insatiable, and ungrateful element.

It's appalling that what we've now is a generation of people that has access to many information but with little knowledge, understanding, discernment, and principle.

The attributes of narcissism remain selfishness and piousness/sanctimoniousness, and with manifesting attitudes of hypocrisy, insatiableness, and nagging.

Funnily, up to 90 percent of the contributors on this thread have shown that they possess these hallmarks of narcissism and are narcissists, while the negligible naive few might be on their ways to destroy their relationships with their partners due to acquired misinformation.

In addition to the things that have already been said up there by some people, one of the best means of disciplining a child is by first being a disciplined person yourself, and then encouraging hir to always imitate your behavior - of course, they will certainly do it with or without you pronouncing it - and showing them active and action love.

No sane child will wittingly wish to bring shame to hir scrupulous and loving parents.

Since being broke is neither synonymous nor means self-absorption and/greediness then, almost all of that you have stated there is misinformation.

A gumptious and gritty woman who is broke, especially one who has an altruistic interest in a man, is better than a self-absorbing and/greedy woman who doesn't have an altruistic interest in a man, even if she holds the key of the universal treasury.

The conditions a gumptious and gritty woman who is broke will be like a burden in man's life is if the man is perpetually broke or inherently stingy or she isn't beautiful in the man's eyes.

In summary, it shouldn't always be about money; for the main worth of a woman, and vice versa, lies in the quality of her soul. A broke gumptious and gritty woman today can legitly easily become a millionaire within a twinkle of an eye with just a little push. Of course, there are established ones in this regard, too - kudos to them.

Fiscus105:
You force me to go back and read entire post when you attacked the post (not disagree o) if you are married and you re role model to ur kids and wife, you will agree in totality with Op

Op doesn't imply to keep mute of not talking, but one shouldn't to emotional and it's not everything you see you talk if you want ur marriage to last.


Let me give you one public example

El rufai has more of kidnappings than normal in Kaduna today because of the way he talks recklessly and boasts on issue that he is supposed to silent or speak less.

Get back to me when you acquire the ability to differentiate:

- outspokenness from crassness
- Expressiveness from emotionality
- Assertion from attack
- Reticence from stoicism
- Disingenuousness from diplomacy/wisdom/civility
- And when you understand that all women, vice versa, aren't of the same ethical leanings, thus how you relate with WA to get the best out of her might not be the same way you relate to WB to get the best out of her.

As for you and El-Rufai, I don't hold a brief for anyone of you - El-Rufai is a well-known hypocritically crass and opportunistic man.

Now scram!

Your item two may sound sweet on the hearing of many and the naive, but living and following it blindly has been one of the banes of decorousness and stability in most environments and the Nigerian State in general:

Speaking less where you ought to speak more in the guise of forming mature/classy, nice, and wise is simply an act of disingenuousness, and it's one of the easiest ways of normalizing abnormalities. Speak loud and out when need be because some situations and people need them before they'll start doing what is right.

Outspokenness isn't the same thing as emotionality and/crassness; disingenuousness isn't the same thing as wisdom/diplomacy; reticence isn't the same thing as stoicism.

Peace can only be said to be priceless when obtained under mutual goodness.

The mistake you and your type have been making in all these hasty generalizations is that you tend to mistake every woman, and vise versa, for your mother and women around you. But that shouldn't be because all women, or men, aren't of the same ethical leanings.

Stop being hypocritically crass and opportunistic.

@OP

You're correct. The disgusting statement/mentality is a major hallmark of hypocritically prejudicial and self-absorbing people - the wannabe woke and wannabe civil people. People who're too small-minded to understand that free will doesn't negate thoughtfulness; and that there is a difference between expectation and a sense of entitlement. There's a thin line between liberty and indecorousness; unfortunately, these hypocritically prejudicial elements promote the latter knowingly or unknowingly.

Servility is what no sane person owes another - in other words, every sane person owes another/others goodness/decorousness and should be prepared to pay the price of evil/war whenever they fail to do the needful.

Eschew conceit/empty your cup. Everyone else, or thing, but you, is the problem citing the connotation of your submission. Once you eschew conceit, almost every other thing will fall in place for you.

Ride on FFK. Abba Kyari remains innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. The truth is that, apart from an average Nigerian being hypocritically bigoted, they have low self-esteem that they usually mask with haughtiness, which usually becomes very visible when in an advantageous position, no matter how little the advantage is. This explains the reason why they always blindly believe in the infallibility of the US establishments and the superiority of the White in general.

I might not hold a brief for Abba Kyari, but I unapologetically hold for the Nigerian State, regardless of anything.

It's appalling how most people do always conclusively assume that the word of a teenager/the powerless is automatically the truth whenever in confrontation with an adult/the powerful. A thorough investigation needs to be carried out so that truth will take its prime place.

I wager you were one of the wannabe kind and wannabe libertarian people who, prior to now, do see any man, and vice versa, who abhors nonsense and does not pander to the whims and caprices of small-minded women as a violent/angry man - of course, I don't hold brief for hypocritically crass and opportunistic men. Servility is as bad as cruelty, say no to both of them.

The condoning of nonsense under any guise doesn't make one mature and isn't a sign of emotional intelligence. The bigger amount of nonsense one condones, the shorter their lifespan. Always come into equity with clean hands and expect and accept nothing less ethically.

Love wasn't one of the causes of your problem; instead, your erroneous understanding of it and application of it was the problem. So also her background as a product of single parentage wasn't automatically the cause of her flaws as you alleged, but her poor ethical leanings which she's the sole architect of, was, and probably made worse through your indulgence at the inception of your relationship with her.

MrSamsung:
Nigerian men that act and think this way(like you) are unsmart and foolish.

I bet you, you are like one of those in thier 30's that is dating a girl in her teens or 20's and undergraduate.

Probably even being the one sponsoring her schooling, while she is yet not matured, fvcking and enjoying her fellow young men for free, old men for money, thereafter she will retired not just to herself but to you--- her old mumu . Worst case scenario: she might not even marry you at the end of the day. Money, investment and time wasted.
Even if such a girl will still be with you at this time, her career path is not yet defined. Non independent financially. Do you know what that entails?


OR let say you as a man meet your age mate who is matured, graduate or not, but one who's career or business or handwork is defined, has overcome her youthful exuberance, experience, etc. but you refuse to marry her, rather going after a girl below or far below your age who doesn't possess any of the aforementioned qualities.
After you will come to Nairaland fp asking what women have to offer or bring to the table
My question to you is what do you really want

As a man, can you marry a mature woman?

VS

As a man, can marry a woman who is older than you?

The OP's thread refers to the latter, while your vituperation of a contribution talked about the former.

@OP, yes, if I were to have such need - provided that the age difference is within the limit of reasonableness. The most important thing should always be to marry a woman who meets your set ethical standard.

No. Vulnerability is one of the true tests of compatibility and, by extension, a sign of a mutually healthy relationship. If you have a woman in your life, and vice versa, who, giving a chance, will take advantage of you/cannot stand firmly for you/treat you respectfully after seeing you in your vulnerable state, then she does not worth your closeness and trust - love and its benefits in general. Provided that you are coming from a conscientious position with a set standard in place, you can never get it wrong.

The available balance in an account is money you can access, all things being equal, while the ledger balance is the opening balance in the bank account from the start of a day in the morning - most times referred to as the current balance - and remains the same all day regardless of whether a transaction is carried out on the account the whole day.