₦airaland Forum

It's good to see once in a while like this, a committed religious person that is independent-minded - this assertion is with the hope that you'd have the grit to maintain the same independent-minded stance in an instance where your supposed fiancee isn't the one involved - and kudos for your resolve to stay loyal and committed in general to her (your fiancee) for her shown altruistic interest towards you.

Thortp:
Please don't mind these people dishing out advice on this.
The truth is you can only go with her to US for studies, you can't work and will depend on her all through. Then you will both come back with almost nothing after the study.
She said she will have to marry another person(US CITIZEN) when she gets to US is absolutely true. That's how it works for her to stay after studies. However, the marriage will only be on paper for 5 years even if not more than that. She can leave wherever she likes though without even seeing her married partner.
That's the bitter truth. Its the main reason people choose UK over US, the US migration route is hard compare to UK.
Please let me know if you need more clarification on this

Keep quiet if you lack comprehension, and knowledge, in general. Based on his submission, in lieu of embarking on the journey with her as her dependent, which is possible and can be fruitful without them breaking the law, he's ready to stay back home if they can formalize things at the registry. People like you that take pleasure in justifying every nonsense are quite irritating.

Let go, but don't mind all these small-minded elements that have chosen to deride you for feeling betrayed by a woman that, according to you, had volitionally agreed to marry you, only for her to rescind her decision just because she now seems to be in an advantageous position than you.

The mistake you made was that you were not discerning to know and/or failed to accept the bitter truth that grit wasn't her forte; thus, ought to have known from the inception of your relationship with her that in an event like this, she'll discard you. It's ignorant of you to have expected her to give you what she doesn't have - she had neither grit nor an altruistic interest in you. So far, she's the callous person, not you, don't allow anyone to make you think otherwise unless you never sincerely meant well for her and had an altruistic interest in her, too.

Going forward, to always be on the safe side most of the time and without hurting the fair-minded people around you either:

- Learn to always come into equity with clean hands and never accept anything less from anyone, whether woman or man.

- Always put on your discerning cap to know anyone around you beyond who they presented themselves to be or how they wish to be treated and treat people based on who you truly know them to be.

The things men have always gained in marriage are innumerable, so don't expect me to start enumerating them. This should be very obvious to anyone who is from a family of strong ethical leanings/nurturing a family of strong ethical leanings. 

Anyway, one can only feel sorry for the impressionable bumpkins all of you small-minded elements - yes, you small-minded elements cut across both genders - have always deceived and misled with your myopic and toxic postulations and personas through wack ideologies and praxeologies that have always been necessitated by how/where life tossed you at a given moment. 

The perpetual failure of you all to acknowledge the fact that the world doesn't revolve around you and your ugly experiences; thus, ought not to be projecting your moments of disappoints and failures on the populace or an institution, like marriage, has always been your unmakings and the hallmark of your small-mindedness.

pocohantas:
If the world, or should I say YOUR WORLD, doesn't revolve around me, you would enter this thread and make an intelligent submission that is independent of me. But something so simple was hard for you to do.

Get over yourself old man. You type so much English but fail to communicate or make sense 99.99987% of the time.

Lol, you've started now; I wonder why you feel triggered, given that I did not read through your comment, or any other person's comment for that matter, before dropping my opinion. Anyway, don't worry, I don't have any intention to make you, or any other person, uncomfortable. Of course, I know you've missed me - don't mention.

Her submission will appear unintelligent to greedy, conceited, and/or self-absorbing people - small-minded people in general. But she's actually right to a large extent, given that love does not automatically equate to desirability.

Yes, some men - and vice versa, some women - can love a woman unconditionally but might not find her desirable enough for a keep or something serious intimately. In the same vein, not all mothers, but some mothers, can love their kids unconditionally. It'll amount to foolery to expect a small-minded woman who's a mother to love her kids unconditionally, given that she doesn't believe that a man can love a woman - or a woman can love a man - unconditionally.

Small-minded people should stop projecting themselves on others. Of course, I know that they can't, given that their inherent delusions of grandeur always make them believe that the world revolves around them and their myopic opinions and whatnot.

Loving someone means that you're the master of your emotion and action. This, by extension, means that whatever action, or otherwise, you extend towards the other party is majorly done logically and consciously. Realistically, selflessness always reigns supreme here, even though it does appear otherwise notionally.

However, being in love/falling in love with someone means that you're a slave to your emotion, and this, by extension, entails that majority of the time, whatever action, or otherwise, you extend towards the other party is unconsciously done on impulse of the emotion which many a time are stupid actions/actions that are detrimental to you. Realistically, self-absorption/selfishness always reigns supreme here, even though it does appear otherwise notionally.

maasoap:
No matter how you try to spin this, this is not the practice that is only observable in South West alone but in Nigeria and Africa as a whole. Having said that, you still can't compare this with your tradition that gives everything to the first male child at the expense of other siblings and even his own mother. He can throw his own mother out of the house the moment his father pass away, that's your culture.

You and your ilks should stop crying and disgracing the good people of the South West with all these ethnocentric dispositions, which myopia and sententiousness breed. I couldn't have believed prior to now that low IQ has become so prevalent among my good people of the South West. In fact, since this is the case, it calls for urgent and proper global attention because it's obviously endemic, and we can't afford to allow it to metamorphose into a pandemic since it's obviously viral.

That said, it's obvious that no one has told you that my attention is expensive and that I choose whom to give, positively or negatively, and now that I have given you and your ilks a bit of it, I know that you have got something meaningful to brag about as an achievement for the first time in your life - and obviously, you are the first to have something meaningful like this to brag about in the whole of your lineage. Enjoy the privilege of having a reply from an aristocrat and, while at it, scram and direct your further mentions to the bumpkins like you.

koribobo:
the wind has blown and the chicken back style has been revealed.shut up you don cast.

Lol, I will not be surprised if it happens to be that it's you, Ade, my butler, that is behind this moniker, citing your raving persona. If that is the case, you should know better that I am not giving in to tribalism. That said, direct your further mentions to small-minded elements like you.

Bumpkin.

spiralwedge:
All i read in your comment is YOUR OWN MYOPIA.

First, by adding tribal colouration to an isolated divorce case

Second, by generalising that what happened to this case is a tribal culture.

See, you can’t see this life beyond tribal definitions. You are ruined and need help asap. You seem to be traumatised by something and your reasoning is myopic.

I am sure you judge your food, work, neighbours, sleeping, talking, education, walking, sports etc on tribal affiliations on a daily basis.
Get help please

Your low IQ sucks; unfortunately, I am not responsible for it, so do not visit your frustration on me. Only a bumpkin like you would equate a posit about the evil of ethnocentrism to tribalism. Now scram and direct your further mention to small-minded elements like you before I change my mind and descend on you.

For the record, more than 50% of my staff, especially domestic staff, in Nigeria are of the South West extraction, so you cannot succeed in accusing me of tribalism.

Bumpkin.

Kingwome11:
notwithstanding - is that the people involved are of the South West extraction;. Who do us this thing self tribalism? Wetin concern region for this matter?

A posit about the evil of ethnocentrism ought not to be mistaken for tribalism. Don't give me a further reason to conclude that you're a bumpkin.

The funny thing about this news - the myopic stance of the husband notwithstanding - is that the people involved are of the South West extraction; yet, within a twinkle of an eye, you'll see the hypocritically disingenuous lot of the same extraction striving to make the world believe that it's the people of the South East extraction that do have misgivings where a woman gives birth to female children only thereby ascribing myopia to them while appropriating scrupulousness, sophistication and/or liberalism to themselves.

In this man's case, it is better to imagine than witness what he would have done, assuming that the wife did not give birth to even a single male.

ediko5:
Your first paragraph is correct but your last paragraph is not really right. You said "even women without enough sense knows your spending on her emanates from your acts of benevolence" - what a typical Nigerian woman thinks about a man that easily gives her money is;

1 - mumu, maga, mumu-button, low self-esteem or timid man

2 the man is dying for her. The man head dey break for her etc

This attitude is also a general attitude in our Nigeria society but mostly exhibited by the females. People sees you as a fool if you easily give, you're easily accessible, easily used and so on

Focus on studying and passing your SSCE English language exam first before trying to extrapolate, analyze, understand, and quantify a submission that is beyond you. Now run along or, better still, find bumpkins like you to engage and spew your thrash.

She's right. Her assertion doesn't mean that you shouldn't spend (be cheerful, thoughtful, and kind) where and when necessary; however, stop paying to attract, maintain, and sustain a relationship because that's what men who have low self-esteem do.

Every sensible woman - even the ones without enough sense - knows when you're paying for the sustenance of your relationship with her and when your spending on her emanates from your acts of benevolence and her worthiness.

Covetousness will ruin you if you fail to conquer yourself quickly, and I hope that your supposed boss will be discerning enough to see you for whom you're and discard you with alacrity before you ruin him.

To your type of person, your intent towards other people, especially your benefactors, is always either to have their possession/dominion or their dignity/sanity.

Your sense of entitlement sucks - small-minded element.

It's both amusing and irritating seeing you - that's an obvious bumpkin - that's unable to string a few sentences together, adjudged yourself literate and qualified to describe anyone else who might have a preference for polygamy over monogamy as an illiterate. Quite an irony! Your incoherence sucks!!

That said, I'm indifferent on the subject matter.

You've reaped the negative effect of allowing her to base your value on money. Neither a healthy relationship nor real peace of mind is for anyone whose primary commands of the respect, loyalty, admiration, etc, of others stem from money.

Of course, the importance of money cannot be overemphasized, but the crux of the matter is that while it is good to master the science of making it, especially in large quantity, and sustaining it, you should not allow it to define you. Also, you should not allow anyone who bases your value on the large quantity, or otherwise, you have it to be close to you to the extent of having them as a spouse or friend - even if they are your blood relatives.

Samantha124:
I once played a submissive wife material prank on my fiance just to see his reaction.

The first thing I did is that I went to his house and I knew the time he was knocking off from his place of work... So as soon as I got there, I started preparing dinner.

When he arrived, I quickly rushed to him and greeted him by bowing down.. .. he gave me this one strange look, but didn't say anything.. I took his bag from him and poured him a glass of wine.

I then told him to sit back as I go and prepare him a nice warm bubble bath and I said to him that dinner will be ready by the time he's done bathing.. Even though I knew that he's on a strict balanced diet, I decided to prepare him some traditional food that day..

After he was done bathing, I told him to go and sit on the couch instead of the dining room... I then prepared some warm water for him to wash his hands and as I gave him the water, I knelt down and bowed my head... He asked me what was wrong and I told him nothing was wrong with a smile.. .. As I gave him his food, I also knelt down, this time he held my arm and asked me why I was doing what I was doing, I just told him that I felt that it was the right thing to do..

I'd agree with everything that he said without challenging his opinion or giving him my own point of view... That's unlike me..

While he was eating, I decided to sit on the floor and started massaging his feet while asking him about his day and telling him about my day too..😂😂😂.. He told me to stop, but I told him that I insist... He asked if I wanted something from him or his help with something, but I said no..

I'd bring him breakfast in bed.

I repeated the same thing the following day because I just enjoyed seeing his reaction, I even decided to wash his clothes with my hands even though there's a washing machine in the house... I was planning to play the prank on him for a week before I tell him the truth.. But on the fourth day this man woke me up at around 3am and told me to tell him what was wrong, else he wasn't going to let me go back to sleep until the sunrise... He knew how much I love my sleep.

He even pulled the duvet off my body.. .. we had an argument and he complained that he didn't like the new me, that he wanted the old fun, bubbly, and feisty me, someone who can challenge him every now and then..

I started feeling bad and I finally told him everything, that it was just a prank.. .. You should have seen how relieved he was..🤣🤣🤣

Stop equating servility to submissiveness. The majority of what you did, as narrated, are servile acts, and any sane/discerning man would definitely be annoyed with them and will easily see through your shenanigans/intending pernicious results.

A place like this, Nairaland, is one of the best places any man that is discerning can find the ambiguous "wife material." As I mentioned, one must be discerning to get it right to avoid setting oneself up for miserableness; to be able to dissect all types of women regardless of how hard they try to gloss over their true selves.

For instance, if, as a man, your definition of a wife material is the type of woman from strong ethical leanings, you must be discerning to be able to dissect and pick her out among the types of women with the demeanors of wolves in the sheep's clothes (the disingenuous lots that are mostly religiously inclined) and the crass women (the damaged lots that form woke) with the demeanors of non-pretentious women the ignorant lots among observers do mistake for independent-minded women.

He might have it right with this one. Of course, the fact that he - or any other man or woman - has had two or more failed marriages doesn't automatically mean that he is the one that has a fault. For instance, if someone is from strong ethical leanings and abhors putting up with another from weak ethical leanings, the possibility is high, if not inevitable, that he will marry and divorce multiple spouses if unlucky in meeting almost people from weak ethical leanings - in such an instance, it could either be that he isn't discerning enough to dissect each of the spouses before tying the knots with them or the parted spouses were too good in glossing their vices prior to them tying the knots, which then makes divorce inevitable in the cause of the union.

No, if responding based on the content and connotation of your message, given that a date, whether harmless one or not, literally bears an impression that you won't mind being involved romantically, now or in the future, with him subject to his package and/or what he can offer.

Yes, if your question, submission here, and true intention are to network with him on principle - hangout.

In summary, there is nothing wrong if you wish to hangout with him, but there is almost everything wrong if you wish to go on a date with him, especially if it's against your marriage principle/vow not to be involved romantically with another man while in marriage.

I wager you have an erroneous concept of love and understanding of what women of different ethical leanings can offer you under different circumstances/subject to your standing at a given time.

Your lack of grit is the cause of your problem, not richness/money, even though money itself, in whatever quantity, doesn't automatically give sustainable ecstatic happiness and confidence. So, you don't need religious deliverance; instead, you need self-conquest to overcome the challenges.

I will put 90% of the blame on your desk. This is so, given that women are easily malleable. So, your lack of grit (and ignorance in general) are the major causes of the nonsense that is going on in the union. A weak and/or ignorant leader breeds a dysfunctional union/society.

It is the lack of grit that makes you not have a set relational standard in the union in particular and personal philosophy in general. If you were to be a gritty man, you would expect and accept nothing less than conscientious acts from her at every given time - of course, without expecting her to accept anything below that from you. In the absence of altruism - or even in the presence of altruism - that is the benchmark, knowingly or unknowingly, of any true mutually healthy relationship, whether in marriage or any other form of meaningful relationship:

- In conscientiousness lies volitional/mandatory commitment to strive to do what is right at every given time. For instance, I'm yet to see the essence of having a wife that works and earns good pay that can't cheerfully and selflessly take charge of some running cost of the home even if the man doesn't want her to. So, ban her from working and earning money or discard her.

- In conscientiousness, there's an absence of indulgence, even though it recognizes and encourages tolerance and patience. Stop enabling her pettiness/toxicity. She's a choice of being a dutiful wife or an oppressed wife, or a divorced woman - the latter will become necessary in case you don't take delight in being cruel to a toxic/petty person around you.

Meanwhile, it's your ignorance that makes you fail to see that she didn't have an altruistic interest in you; therefore, you should have known not to have expected her to be caring, thoughtful, compassionate, and kind towards you without assertively pronouncing conscientiousness the bond of the union while the negation of it automatically means a declaration of war.

You need some grit to fight the war and discernment to win, or at worse, you need them to dissolve the union on principle. Living without minding giving/losing anything/anyone on principle is the highest and most fulfilling point of living.

In summary, strive to conquer yourself without striving to conquer her, and love yourself without hating her.

Quite sad. Unless she's been a bad wife and her condition self-inflicted/he's always known from the inception that she doesn't have an altruistic interest in him and if the reverse were to be the case that she would have divorced him, he didn't do well. Her suggestion in the last paragraph would've been the best decision to take under the circumstance.

Discarding a spouse/someone who's always had an altruistic interest in you because of a condition beyond their control is callousness.

If your guts tell you to marry - meaning that you're sincerely convinced that you're mentally, physically, and emotionally ready to settle down - and you find a woman that's equally sincerely ready to walk the walk with you in your present financial standing, go ahead to marry, especially if you've been involved in a profession/pursuit that tilts towards profit-making or gumption. Under this circumstance, you will stand a better chance of overcoming financial poverty easily and prospering and will be surprised that you will become better off in all good indices than all of these pseudo-informed and wannabe-rich folks advising you otherwise in the long run.

Self-conviction, gumption, and definiteness of purpose have always been the main ingredients of success in every form of undertaking since time immemorial, not the availability of physical cash, humongous or otherwise.

Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, with gumption and definiteness of purpose, it can achieve.

You again, this sententious, frustrated, and chauvinistic haggard lady. Anyway, it is only bumpkins that would not be able to see through you and your shenanigans.

Gerrard59:
I am very wary of approaching a lady in the abroad. Before you know wetin, she don call police say you dey embarrass her or accuse you of stare rape.

Keep quiet and stop disgracing yourself. It is always nauseating seeing bumpkins and wretched people striving to appear woke, all-knowing, and successful everywhere.

Meanwhile, enough of this "in the abroad" nonsense - it is "in abroad," not "in the abroad."

It's funny that some people have been using adjectives such as poor, unknown, inexperienced, etc., to qualify the young man, whereas; in reality, and by all good indices, he is more educated and wealthy than every one of his opponents and their sponsors in that race.

Notwithstanding that your mother seemingly disapproved of your marriage to your wife from the inception without physical evidence, the lack of courteousness and diplomacy in general from your wife caused the war in place. Your wife entered the boxing ring the day she crassly made the statement: "she said she can’t go to her church for any reason." to your mother in her presence, a sensitive and not easily forgiven woman obviously, who had seen and established herself like some sort of constitutional authority not necessarily in your life but in the larger family, and rightly so under the circumstances she found herself from the day your father died.

Yes, your wife has the right to liberty; thus, can't be forced to attend your mother's church, but crassly making that statement, under any guise/influence, to your mother on what she held dear/sacred isn't just disrespectful, but abominable. Some of you don't seem to understand the power of words - words/statements have been making and marring relationships or people of all kinds since time immemorial. The rights to liberty don't negate decorum/courteousness/diplomacy.

Meanwhile, your compromised stance, which unpronounced is a manifestation of your preposterous thoughts, has contributed a bit to the whole mess. As it stands now, allow the status quo to remain, even as it doesn't seem palatable. Just strive to take to always do whatever you know is right towards everyone involved at every given time because I wager your mother will only change her current relational stance towards you all on her volition. On her part, unforgiveness is one of her weaknesses.

The guy deserves bullets on his head if that is truly what transpired between them. Callousness against a just person shouldn't be encouraged.

Obi, or any other potential winner, doesn't need to win more than 34% of the total number of popular votes in the North, in every other region, or the entire country, besides securing 25% of the votes cast in at least 25 different states, with or without winning in the FCT, to be declared a winner, provided that none of the other candidates equal or secured higher percentage and spread of the votes and areas.