TheGoodFellow:
Trust me, I didn't read a single paragraph

Really?

"Someone" Tweeted:
A man with strong habits, ambition, & a grounded woman can’t be stopped.

"Whoever" Replied:
Attempting to stop men with strong habits, ambition, & grounded women is nothing but negative drama enacted by bad actors who're usually in the bad habit of acting as if all are equal, & acting as if everyone is equal ruins discipline while promoting the creation of factions. But triumph in human affairs, especially romantic ones like what's obtainable with a grounded woman, forges stronger bonds than superficial friendliness, & such triumph stems from strict discipline, training, & ruthlessly high standards that the shenanigans of bad actors cannot bring them close to abiding by. On the basis of their inability to comply to those standards, they become readily obvious for what they usually are: role players who assume diverse personalities to accomplish one goal or the other.

The greatest of all actors can be said to be the devil himself, who, having assumed the personality of a serpent, so excellently deployed the subtlety that chiefly characterizes the serpent to cajole Eve into deeming herself to be equals with her creator. That was indeed bad acting by the serpent, notwithstanding the fact that it achieved its desired aim, & that's definitely because Adam, though having been God's first creation, cannot be said to have inculcated strong habits into his being as at when the devil acquainted himself with him. Eve, on the other hand, obviously wasn't grounded because, had she been, she'd have known better than to warm up to a stranger her husband hadn't mentioned to her...not to mention envisioning herself as fit to be equals with God.

As for ambition, well, there wasn't that much of any endeavor for them to have been ambitous over. So the additional quality of ambition to strong habits & solid grounding really comes in handy in the present generation where there are ADAMs & EVEs who'd make sure to give the devil a bad run for daring to infiltrate their personal spaces with apostate philosopies & non-poetic justice. Worst case scenario, the womanly virtues of gentleness & compassion could see twenty-first century devils exploiting their store of human compassion to rope them into schemes that aren't in conformity to acceptable modus operandis. But it all gets busted when such schemes are extended to ambitious men with strong habits who wouldn't entertain womanly dramas of mundane women with poor grounding.

There's an account of arty ambitious bachelors with strong habits who, alongside equally arty & ambitious but grounded bachelorettes, extended the performance aspect of their art beyond religious stages to encyclopedic stages where they could give free rein to their ambition. Their strong habits, ambition, & solid grounding, which had been alien to all & sudry despite their many displays on religious stages, quickly became evident the moment they mounted encyclopedic stages to canvas for roles that would have them assume diverse personalities to accomplish one goal or the other in what would be positive dramas enacted by good actors who're usually in the habit of disolving factions, promoting strict discipline & training, while seeing to the establishment of high standards.

What they foremost became notable for, was that, they, though acknowledging Adam & Eve as their first parents, wouldn't in the least bit take after Adam & Eve as regards entertaining devils in their Eden. Firstly, only mounting an encyclopedic stage to canvas for roles, they, as though in an actual performance, assumed personalities that saw them dropping good science on audiences which got audiences thinking. As yet, the account that audiences held of what ensued in Eden—was the conventional story of how Satan played a fast one on Eve & got Eve to extend the game to Adam, which Adam fell flat for. But the bachelors & bachelorettes made an exposé of what ensued in Eden to have been a line of event that—in modern times—is grandly branded witchcraft. They'd thus dialogued:

-----
BACHELORS
The man & his wife were both naked but weren't ashamed. If there are couples who are ashamed of each other, or one party ashamed of the other party, then both or either of them has been bewitched & seen his or her unclothedness. Not wanting what he or she has seen & is ashamed of his or her partner also seeing, they hide or try to rope their partners into it as well. Has it ever occurred to you that the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good & evil could have been bewitchment? The Lord commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil you shall not eat...for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. They’ve been telling us to die. So, when they tell us to die for our own supposed good, they're simply telling us to eat from that tree, get bewitched, & die...since the bible says that thou shalt not suffer a witch [or wizard] to live? Yet the same people wouldn't let us eat from that tree & die, since, though there's bewitchment & death as consequence, a sort of pleasure preceeds eating it? So they selfishly savor fruits of that tree daily...no wonder they're all dead!

BACHELORETTES
So, when Satan asked Eve if God really said they shouldn't eat of every tree in the garden, he was actually asking her if God actually enjoined her & Adam to take heed lest they get bewitched? & Eve affirmed that God indeed enjoned her & Adam to take heed lest they get bewitched? Who, then, is urging us to get bewitched? The serpent? In this century, wouldn’t that verdict be understood to mean that God ordered the couple to have no ties with bewitched folks or anything that reeks of bewitchment? Which, in relationship context, would mean to have no romantic ties with the bewitched?

BACHELORS
So it’s women who’ve been bewitched by serpents that are trying to also get us bewitched? How about now that we turn out to not be Adam? Now we understand the manner of persuasion Eve deployed to lure Adam into eating that fruit because we’re experiencing it right about now! Again, between Jacob enriching himself with Laban's wealth & becoming wealthier than Laban & Rachel stealing Laban's household gods to elope with Jacob to possibly punish her father for having shortchanged her loving husband, which likely caused Laban more pain? Because those would be the primary consequences of his shortchanging Jacob & turning his darling Rachel into a second wife. We seem to think that losing his household gods caused him more pain because his wealth continued. What do you girls think?

BACHELORETTES
Rachel couldn't differentiate between a religious call & a business call. That was why, upon her darling Jacob receiving a business call via the agency of an angel & following suit, she got religious with her father’s household idols which would certainly have gotten Jacob's entire lineage bewitched if Jacob's proximity with God hadn't seen him keenly ensuring an excommunication of all ungodly utensils. Persons should learn to differentiate between religious & business calls so that, knowing the difference, one doesn't take the wrong calls at the expense of the right calls.
-----

The bachelors, dissecting religious & business calls, had identified business calls with passion & religious calls with impulses, which, so surprisingly, turned out to be bewitchment. Their words had been: "religious calls have to do with impulses while business calls have to do with passion. Passion is too known for what it is. But no be impulse be the werey wey dey disguise since? No be impulse be feelings? & they, whose endeavors revolve around impulses, dare put it to us that they hate feelings? & then ask for us to come get those feelings from them in exchange for our composure? & that's supposed to be because they love us? No wonder smug soon-to-be-married women like them aren't to be trusted. In consciously tilting towards impulses & getting bewitched, they make themselves not worth chasing after & then worry that suitors will consider them not worth chasing after. As for business calls, the worth of money is not in its possession but in its use."

The bachelorettes, true to their firm grounding & propensity toward being perfect matches for ambitious bachelors with strong habits, expressed their disapproval of unambitious men with weak habits & uncomely women with no solid grounding. As if airing a grievance, they bemoaned: "we bet you wouldn’t say the same about us lovers. We warm up to our sweethearts with deep understanding. But what do we get in return? Though the bible says that wisdom is the principal thing, it further stresses that it is understanding that keeps. Therefore, in all thy getting, get understanding. Why does it seem like certain lots don't want men being kept...by not wanting them relishing our understanding? Who are the ones antagonistic to men relishing our understanding? Are two no longer better than one? Or, is this us being what they refer to—as clingy? Doesn’t that suppose that we are two opposing magnets? Incapable of being in the same room without drawing together? Competency with portable shelters is the way to do it. No wonder security outposts come in handy for the homeless. Nevertheless, who’s trying to associate us to such outposts when we can brag of homes? To such people it's about reliving the past from birth to the present moment which should end in an affair, specifically with women who’ve helped men to relive that past by shielding them against interferences that would have hampered a successful reliving of that past. It's supposed to be love stories. But that of these bachelors have been hate & near death stories. Who're the ladies at the end of those stories? Because it definitely isn’t us, as can be attested of. If baseness attracts everybody & they're putting it to us that we’re base, how come we are nowhere near anybody?"

The ambitiousness of those bachelors with strong habits which saw them migrating from religious stages to encyclopedic stages to canvas for acting roles, further saw them advancing from merely being good actors to becoming famed & enriched playwrights whose plays could be read in more than one way. They ended up bosses, & like it's said, "if you are the boss, they'll mimic your ideas." Having gotten together with grounded women who contributed immensely to their growth & advancement, they couldn't be stopped...especially with the women always treating them to monitions like:

"no good can ever come from divided leadership. If ever offered positions in which you’ll have to share command, turn it down, for the enterprise will fail & you'll be held responsible. Better to take lower positions & let others have the job. It’s always wise, however, to take advantage of opponents' faulty command structure. Never be intimidated by an alliance of forces against you. If they share leadership & are ruled by committees, your advantage is more than enough. In fact, do like Napoleon: seek enemies with that kind of command structure. That way, you can't fail to win."

Those women turned out being like the famed Ireland-born dancer, Lola Montez, who, as far back as 1840-1845, is known to have attracted men with her wiles. Nonetheless, it is attested of her that her power over men went beyond the sexual. Woe betide women who hold the conviction that a woman's power over men can't go beyond the sexual! Wasn't it through the force of Lola's character that she kept her lovers enthralled? Isn’t it the same of smashing grounded women who, by the side of ambitious men with strong habits, render those men unstoppable? May everyone find this instructive so that—if bad actors—with their bad habits, attempt enacting negative drama aimed at ambitious men with strong habits & grounded women, they'd ensure to keep a safe distance from all such drama.

"Someone" Tweeted:
They apologize when you find out. But they ain't sorry when you don't know.

"Whoever" Replied:
Brings to mind a song wherein this question is posed: "is it too late now to say sorry?" Of course it might be too late to say sorry because some betrayals are impossible to forgive. When one uses promises like "later," time," & "patience" to say goodbye rather than outrightly calling it quits, thus putting the life of another on hold with false hopes & futile waiting, how does one recover from that by merely being told "sorry?" That sort of endeavor makes persons lose their capacity to trust. Not only does it make folks lose their capacity to trust, it sometimes makes certain folks take to lines of actions that render them untrustworthy themselves. So it happens that folks don't trust others to have their backs, while giving others no reason to trust them with theirs either.

Using promises like "later," time," & "patience" to say goodbye rather than outrightly calling it quits, thus putting the life of another on hold with false hopes & futile waiting is a foolish behavior that is only ascribable to players who suffer from the greatest poverty of sense, usually delusionally thinking that their foolish behaviors please wise lovers. So they zoom in & out of a lover's life at will, always expecting that the lover, being tender at heart, will always naively warm up to their antics. In worst case scenario, they'd simply apologize & get the ball rolling all over again. On what ground would players confidently expect one they've played to warm up to them simply because they utter the word "sorry?" Some players, envisioning themselves in that shoe, stated that "if one thinks for a second that they'd not quit their jobs to spend the rest of their lives rubbing their ex’s feet & packing their lunches if those exes promised to take them back, one would be dead wrong to think so, as there’s so many times one can shut a player out before a player stops trying to get in. Seems like a good line of defense for awkward behavior, doesn't it?

But the players had been thus queried: "is it worth it? Letting a player in when one knows one just makes it that much easier for the player to rip one apart? Seriously, what could be that good about a player to make that kind of risk worth it? Wouldn’t it be a smart move to end it when one has the chance? Especially after many failed efforts on the player's part at keeping things going with deception? Lovers are too smart to not know how rare & special they are. It is sometimes better to control oneself & refuse to give into impulses that the games of players plunge one into, because everyone knows it all games. So lovers don't play. When they play, they don't play to players' rules like they want. They play by their rules & like-minds tilt toward them. They pay little attention to the ripe words of players, who, like dogs & swine, are usually lost as regards what to do with sacred loving bonds that lovers bring to the table. So, when lovers cast their romantic pearls on them, their dog & swine attributes come to the fore, as they do nothing but trample lovers' sacred loving bond & romantic pearls under their feet, then turn to tear the lovers in pieces.

Hoping that a few ripe words here & there will gear a lover toward another phase of romantic spree after such experience because a lover will always have need of a significant other, sees players habitually exhibiting stupid behaviors & counting on lovers to equally act stupidly just to gain the favor of suitors. But they get the shocker of their lives when they stumble upon lovers who are content with having no suitors until very eligible ones come along with the exact knowhow as regards what to do with the sacred loving bond & romantic pearls that lovers always bring to the table.

It could be true that no one can fall in love if he or she is even partially satisfied with what he or she has or who he or she is, as the experience of falling in love is said to originate in an extreme depression & an inability to find something that has value in everyday life. More so, the symptom of the predisposition to fall in love is said to not be the conscious desire to do so nor the intense desire to enrich one's life. Rather, it is the profound sense of being worthless, of having nothing that is valuable, & of the shame of not having it. For this reason, falling in love occurs more frequently among young people, since youngsters are profoundly uncertain, unsure of their worth, & often ashamed of themselves. Thus, falling in love comes in handy for the young ones.

But then, should that be an occasion for the silly seducing games of players that end in tears? Indeed, once a woman's attention is fixed on a man, it is very easy for him to dominate her thoughts completely. But why only see an opportunity therein to play her? It would seem like the narrative is tailored to favor female lovers while bedeviling male players. But it's no different when it is vice versa. A male lover, fairly decrying female players, had thus recounted: "once she starts sending you voice notes with her little siblings in the background, just know it’s gotten shady. You may admire those little siblings of theirs because they know exactly what their older ones want & will do what it takes for them to get it. Plus, a couple of them read too many small-town romance novels & are convinced that the answers to their problems is having their own transformative experiences like their exes who give up thriving careers & move to the wilderness to go find happiness, leaving them with big baby bumps. Being true to what qualifies them as players, a couple of them do not care. So they just forge ahead & keep having fun with the baby bumps until the baby comes."

Such experience with players cause lovers much pain, & it is true that people who experience such pain or losses usually take to the habit of fleeing if one comes along & tries to inflict more of those on them because they’ve got enough in their own lives already & aren't open to taking more of it. It thus becomes instructive to players to surround those types with pleasure, as that puts them under the spell of players who surround them with pleasure...as a means of remedying the pain & losses they'd caused them, especially when they wouldn't warm up to "SORRYs" & "FORGIVE MEs," considering it too late for that. However, only those who lack purpose distract themselves with pleasure. But logically reasoning, on a scale of one to ten, what measure of true lovers are likely lack purpose in life? Aren't true lovers one of the least disappointing people one ever gets to meet? But players, with their silly games, make lovers they direly need, lovers they love, to leave.

Perhaps players, initially deeming lovers double-dealers like themselves, take to silly games as a means of playing safe & looking out for themselves. This, the lovers deem true love, thus opening up to the players, getting used so hard by the players, & so loving it because it doesn't in the least bit cross them that they're being used...until their attention is called to the true state of things, then they see things for what they are. Some lovers, being caught up in such situation, had their attention called to the true state of things & thus vented: "playing safe & we called it love? They should have played unsafe to hate us, then." The reply of those who called their attention to the true state of things was: "really? They should have played unsafe & not look out for themselves so they can hate you? Hahaha. They loved you, then. They could pretty much still be in love with you now...still playing safe, even safer. Is that not why you aren't together anymore?"

At such points, the bitterness that invades the hearts & souls of lovers, especially being that some betrayals are impossible to come back from, gets them viewing themselves as innocent victims whose innocence & lack of sophistication in worldliness had subjected them to the whim of foolish players. Being wise lovers who'd leveraged their wisdom to enrich & sustain loving affairs, turned out only thinking of deploying that wisdom in the devising of means to turn the table around & equally play the players who'd played them. Truly, he that walks with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed. As it turned out, foolish players who had been so acclaimed for notoriety in the art of seduction & the game of power—got pitiably seduced & subdued by wise lovers, thus the heralding of the masses that "players have been played by lovers." This saw players coming upon lovers with "SORRYs" & "FORGIVE MEs" the lovers wouldn't pay a bit of attention to.

Players had projected their baseness as being responsible for the attraction of everyone of their victims to them. But the latter outcome of events with lovers who they claimed got attracted to them on account of their baseness—got the masses asking: "if baseness attracts everybody & you are trying to put it to us that these lovers are base, how come they are nowhere near any of you? How come they'd rather banter you than accept your SORRYs & FORGIVE MEs? How come their banter isn't optional? How come your SORRYs & FORGIVE MEs are completely ruled out? How come no apologies...only banters?" Players, not wanting to come off as being so easily & cheaply played for the fools they actually are, attempted an offensive word-battle with the lovers. But the lovers wouldn't have it.

-----
PLAYERS
Among the lovers who hate us for seducing & getting them played, none has a Mercedes Benz nor is financially stable like we thought when we made moves on them. Only high number of body counts. So none of them can say they were there when we had nothing. We'd put them in spots where they had no place to go, & they died before fleeing. Now all they can think of is to clap back at us direly.

LOVERS
Truth is: you played us, we played you, no point hiding it...nor to bother explaining, but to get played again, will you? Or, will your fear of us clapping back direly again not let you? Brave up!

PLAYERS
It’s time for you to go. Call it quits with the games.

LOVERS
Call it quits with the games? Why now? Why not then...when you made us lose in a game we never played? A game we knew nothing about. A game you wouldn't tell us about. Yet severally made us come off as losers. Now that we've gotten into the game, played, & won, you want us to call it quits? You just want us out so you can hide your shame while counting your many loses. Call it what it is.
We will, though, so you can get to it already. It's not all bed of roses with you after all...where we would get to revel in sweet lovey-dovey while making confessions of guilty pleasures. That’s why there are no occasions for good memories between someone & someone else...just sexualized relationships from past & present between whoever & whoever...which isn’t supposed to be our business.

PLAYERS
Of course not! We just won’t make you do anything you don’t want to do.

LOVERS
You're not going to make us do anything we don’t want to do? Yet even listening to you say so to us is something we don't want to do...which you are making us do...& we are supposed to believe you’re not going to make us do anything we don’t want to do? You tempters, trying to lure us to our deaths under the guise of hearty concern. Isn’t that your seducing tactics? But to what end, since none of us has a Mercedes Benz nor is financially stable like you thought when you made moves on us? For mere conquest? Like Cleopatra did to Caesar? So you can brag about having caused the fall of the mighty? & you’re determined to do so? By having multiple sex with us just to achieve that feat? Well, you'll have to shag a whole world of us to achieve that feat because we are many.
-----

Impressed by the lovers' systematic handling of the situation, those who had called their attention to the true state of things when the players were having their fill getting the lovers played, deeming their whistle blowing to have served a noble cause, again called the lovers' attention to another set of beings who, unlike them, wouldn't call their attention to the state of things, though being privy to what the players were doing to them. Hence, heralding the lovers for having put the players in their place, they urged them to do same to those set of persons who are very likely to come upon them with "SORRYs" & "FORGIVE MEs" when it's late, for, when apologies would have remediated prevailing inequities, they rather aggravated those inequities. Now it's too late for "SORRYs" & "FORGIVE MEs," & it's only fair that those lots get a taste of their medicine so they'd learn to always do the needful when occasions to do the needful arise. The lovers were told:

"note that certain lots preferred remaining ghosts to you when you needed tangible experiences. Therefore, if they happen to later on come out of the shadows because their ghostly antics failed to afford them their desired result & seek to leverage tangible relations with you for whatever purpose, no matter how "noble," treat them as ghosts...not to mention those who rather remained ghosts, come what may, but now keenly seek to form a sort of rapport with you...treat them as dead things. Damn their apologies & make them live with the fact that it's too late for SORRYs & FORGIVE MEs.

People Questioned:
Why is Christianity the only religion that can be openly criticised, mocked, & disrespected?

The Speaker Replied:
The events that usually come off as a criticism, mockery, & disrespect of the Christian Faith—are no doubt a criticism, mockery, & disrespect...but not necessarily of the Christian Faith. It is only a menace that rubs off on the Christian Faith on account of unrighteous persons such as spoken of by Jesus as being sure to meet unfavorable judgment for being wolves in sheep's clothing, who neither give food nor drink to the hungry & thirsty needy, nor accommodate strangers, nor cloth the naked, nor visit the sick in prison. Rather, they covet neighbors' houses, wives, servants, & so on, despising those God calls by name & fills with the Spirit of God, of wisdom, understanding, knowledge, & all manner of workmanship to design artistic works. Such make gods to go before them—since—in their opinion, the ones who play shepherds' roles over them, bridging the gap between God & them, become so lost in God & can no longer be fathomed on account of their much love for God.

Never taking heed to themselves, they make covenants with the godless & get ensnared by their godlessness, thus opening up their souls to devilish alien frequencies that engender their cheating & robbing of neighbors, undue withholding of the wages of hired workers, injustice in judgment, partiality to the poor, & dishonor of the mighty. The influence of those alien frequencies further sees men among them lying carnally with betrothed women who're unfree for such endeavor. Then the bad news tends to be that they suffer no scourging as consequence of those evils. So they take it even further by turning to mediums & familiar spirits, prostituting themselves with them & becoming very eligible to have God's face set against them to a point of being cut off from God's people.

Yet they parade freely amongst God's elects in view of the world's people who've duly noted them for what they are. Since they identify with the Christian Faith which is supposed to have zero tolerance for such atrocities, their dark deeds rub off on the Christian Faith & duly accounts for the criticism, mockery, & disrespect of the Christian Faith because—even Galatians 5:9 in the Amplified version of the bible says that "a slight inclination to error or a few false teachers perverts the whole conception of faith & misleads the whole church." But as a wise person, do you blame the whole church for the inclination of wolves in sheeps clothing to error & false teaching? Which of the world's numerous Faiths has its trustees living by the books intoto? But then, the fact that the Christian Faith frowns at jungle justice because it isn't aimed at breeding fear but faith—gets insurbodinate trustees seemingly doing all sorts & getting away with them. Howbeit, there are always consequences...like in the case of such persons in bible times who took their brothers' wives & uncovered their brothers' unclothedness, thereby incurring curses of childlessness.

Commendably, some of the deserters eventually take heed & diligently keep themselves lest they forget the experiences that may have preceded or succeeded their initial induction into the Christian Faith while battling beasts of Ephesus to oust them from their lives (the likes of Mary Magdalene will relate more to that). Hence, redressing their steps, they take heed lest the statutes they learnt departs from their hearts...while doing well to teach those statutes to their children & grandchildren. They wouldn't behold all the host of heaven & feel driven to worship & serve them anymore. Sometimes it just so happens that—the moment God looks down on such people to see that they are stiff-necked & seeks to blot out their names from under heaven, only making great & mighty armies out of Christian faithfuls, they, like the brood of vipers who paid John the Baptist a visit at the Jordan to get baptized, turn a new leaf & are again received into the fold like John did to those he tagged brood of vipers, again aligning themselves with the way of truth that sees them no longer being viewed as being far from the kingdom of God. But who broadcasts that abroad?

It is only occasions that make for bad publicity of Christianity that folks, especially those who have no share in God's covenant (Christian or not), loud abroad. Such people become known for what they are...whether consciously or unconsciously. But thank God for the likes of Paul who spread transformative narratives that make for good Christian living, for, inasmuch as many had taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which were fulfilled among those of Paul's time, it seemed good to Paul also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to likewise write to them an orderly account that they may know the certainty of those things in which they were instructed. It is global knowledge how Paul's account in that regard saw those of his time becoming privy to the things in which they were instructed, even following those instructions to the letter, except for beasts of Ephesus who have no share in God’s eternal covenant.

So, Christianity being the only religion that gets openly criticised, mocked, & disrespected is less about the Faith & more about certain lots who constitute the Faith. After all, when Jesus sent angels to the churches in the Book of Revelation, He directed His grievance towards those of the churches whose conducts weren't in line with the dictates of the Christian Faith, not the Faith. Hence it becomes obvious that it's about conducts. Conducts. Conducts. Not the Faith. It is only accusers of the brethren that go beyond faulting fallen brethren to faulting the whole Christian religion on account of misconducts that may have accounted for the fall of those brethren. But when those brethren get restored to Faith, they say nothing...beasts of Ephesus indeed: bad people.

Valentine may have come & gone...but the “spirit of valentine” still looms.

People Asserted:
The best kinds of relationships come when you least expect them.

The Speaker Replied:
Despite what ensued between Esau & Jacob—which resulted in Jacob being sent forth to find himself a decent wife away from home—with whom to build a life together, it can safely be supposed that—it was in the “spirit of valentine” that Isaac & Rebecca acted, by sending Jacob forth to find love away from Esau’s toxicity. Jacob embarked on that safe journey & was most favorably & unexpectedly welcomed by the sight of Rachel on arrival, fulfilling the journey's purpose in line with his parents’ hearty intention for the journey—while giving credence to the supposition that his parents probably acted in the “spirit of valentine.”

The consequence of that journey, in addition to Jacob being favorably & unexpectedly welcomed by the sight of Rachel on arrival, was one that saw him pitching lovely tents, raising modest dwelling places, possessing lands that were promised to his forefathers: lands flowing with milk & honey, becoming a special treasure to God above all people, & fathering a global star. Guess whose womb gave life to that global star: Rachel's...the woman who, at the least expected moment, emerged & became to Jacob what his dear Mother was to his Father.

And that is traceable to the supposition that Jacob's parents, Isaac & Rebecca, probably acted in the spirit of valentine? If so, then there has to be something about valentine seasons that extend beyond the romantic festivity it is ascribed to: perhaps a sort of providential blessedness, of facilitation of destiny, of fulfilment of promises, of granting of requests, of amassing testimonies with which to overcome hitches...& many more. Isaac & Rebecca can be said to have acted in the “spirit of valentine” by sending Jacob to find a wife away from home...which saw Jacob unexpectedly coming upon Rachel & solemnizing one of the best marital union in bible history with her. Isaac's & Rebecca's was no different. Hadn't Isaac's father, Abraham, having dwelt among the Canaanites long enough, noticed that the daughters of Canaan, on account of Noah's curse upon Canaan, had become accursed daughters & very unfit for holy matrimony?...not to mention being co-custodians of Abrahamic blessings? Think about it: accursed women marrying blessed men? Weren’t those daughters of Canaan the very ones who seduced angels, conceived by those angels, & birthed fierce giants?

It was on that basis that Abraham, not wanting his seed to suffer contamination, commissioned Eliezer who ruled over all he had—to find Isaac a wife outside Canaan (as in Jacob's case), making him swear to not take a wife for Isaac from the daughters of Canaan. Eliezer, like Jacob, had embarked on that safe journey & was equally favorably & unexpectedly welcomed by the sight of Rebecca on arrival, fulfilling the purpose of that journey in line with Abraham’s hearty intention for the trip—while likewise giving credence to the further supposition that Abraham, too, acted in the “spirit of valentine” by commissioning Eliezer to find Isaac a wife outside Canaan. Rebekah, upon being brought to Isaac & lifting her eyes to behold him, didn’t just take a veil to cover herself. She immediately assumed the role of the Holy Spirit in Isaac’s life, becoming a comforter per excellence to him, especially Isaac having lost his loving mother whose vacuum that had been to fill.

Rebekah took it further by instantaneously following Isaac into his mom’s tent to become his darling wife...many thanks to Eliezer who had sought her out for Isaac like Abraham requested. Such a lovely union it was, so lovely that, having later journeyed to the land of the Philistines, Abimelech king of the Philistines, looking through a window, saw Isaac showing endearment to Rebekah & coveted the sight his lusty eyes beheld. But just like the daughters of Canaan, he, according to God’s standards, was unfit for the likes of Rebekah——hence God appearing to him in a dream to so sternly warn him against following through on that covetousness. And all these are traceable to the fact that those unions, beyond having supposedly been fostered by the “spirit of valentine,” were mere chance meetings that came about at least expected moments? Indeed, the best kinds of relationships come when one least expects them. Valentine may have come & gone...but the “spirit of valentine” still looms. And so, dear Lord, like You did for Jacob & Eliezer, pass men not—O gentle Savior, hear men's humble cries, & make it such that men, in least expected moments, may also come upon chance meetings that will see them stumbling upon the likes of Rachel & the likes of Rebecca...strategically & divinely stationed at various geographical areas for them...amen & amen!

2braithe:
Are you writing a P.hD thesis?

Is that what it looks like?

qtguru:
Lol not reading that

muyico:
Weldon! Nigeria youths hates reading

Perhaps they need someone to remind them of how much readers can be leaders.

"Someone" Tweeted:
Always keep receipts. People are crazy.

"Whoever" Replied:
Like seriously, because, it is more rational to be paranoid than careless in this crazy world. If someone's behavior seems suspicious, it probably is...which is where keeping receipts really comes in handy, as crazy people, in their craziness, could plunge one into crazy situations & make one come off as equally crazy to individuals who have no prior knowledge of the ones plunged into crazy situations by the crazy ones. That's why folks ought not to get involved in stuff they aren't sure about...nor start things they ain't sure to hold up from start to finish. The human race ought to be laden with persons who look for reasons for everything...persons who pull things apart & figure out how they work instead of simply accepting them as they are...as well as persons who'd rather have the truth than convenient lies because, asking & hoping for things is a way to lose something one never even had. But thanks to receipts, a person's dealings with other persons are clearly defined, for, the more clearly one recognizes who one does not want to be, the clearer one's sense of identity & purpose will be. Therefore, it beholds on persons to simply be prudent & cautious.

Being prudent & cautious might require taking into consideration the existence of ignoble persons who hide behind a façade of vague abstractions & impartiality to disguise their fear of conflict behind a front of false warmth while trying to push others off course or infect others with the vagueness that inflicts them...all the while advancing their own interests at the expense of others, leaving others so aggrieved & in total loss as to how to remediate prevailing inequities. Airing their bitter grievance, such folks, having been so cheated, deprived, pushed off course, & infected with the vagueness that inflicts those ignoble persons who hide behind a façade of vague abstractions & impartiality to disguise their fear of conflict, had thus angrily addressed their subduers:

"that’s why you could stand it as long as we weren't in the picture? Then the moment we came into the picture, you couldn't stand it anymore? You can't stand being pains in our asses? For as long as it takes? Not even half shorter than you stood it before we came into the picture when you couldn't stand it anymore? And you think we will give you the satisfaction of being pains in our asses now until you have your way with us? By turning one-night-stands into movie-nights on the internet & casual hookups into miserably complicated half-relationships? We don’t do anything we are not going to do 100%...neither do we start anything we can’t finish. Guys who don’t want us to get to 100% but to stop halfway need to know this. We carry our own pens at all times because if we are going to write anything, it might as well look good. You’ve seen us...that even when we’re shelving, we sometimes check the last pages, constantly looking for all the information, trying to make the absolute best decisions. Shouldn't that be applaudable? But you want us making bad decisions...like turning to sex competitions to deploy our grievance & secure sex trophies. For what? Gosh!"

"After all, when sex was solving the problem, you all had sex & wouldn't let us have sex so you can solve your problems & burden us with problems. To shut us out of sex, you kept pointing to us that we’re online with the prying eyes of the public looking to watch folks have sex...while those same folks were watching you have not just sex but same-sex sex! Now that it seems like there is something else that's to solve what remains of the problem, you're requiring us to do that shitty thing? We likewise put it to you that we’re still online & the prying eyes of the public are still watching to see things. Tit for tat! The annoying part is the something else that's to solve what remains of the problem. Jerking off? You extend that unconventional enterprise beyond your self-indulging single-sex community to us? Hell hath no fury like women scorned. Yet you turn good-natured ladies into angry women & wouldn't beware? We'll just fix things with you & let you all be!"

Talking about receipts, there you go...like, there you actually really go...& there's more. You see, straight men love bangs...& they make women approachable. But there are unhealthy lots who, not claiming to be healthy, opt to...& insist on enthroning same-sex affairs at the expense of straight persons who'd rather have to do with straight relationships & marriage between both genders just because they want to bully those straight folks into submission & trivialize straight affairs while exalting same-sex affairs. It's a free world after all, & the world's people are at liberty to indulge their cravings unrestrictedly in accordance with their varying appetites & inclinations. But it gets awkward when certain groups tend to pressurize other groups in subscribing to their modus operandi, imposing their indulgences on those groups & insisting they warm up to it mandatorily. So, in a world that revolts against same-sex affairs, it has somehow turned out that, in some human ecologies, same-sex practitioners tend to want to make certain that only a manner of sexuality that pairs men to men & women to women thrives while the natural order that pairs men to women suffers abolishment because they are black devilish kings & queens like Herod, who, not wanting their inequities exposed by the light of newborn Messiahs who do not necessarily eye their thrones, make attempts at frustrating the efforts of straight men & women to consolidate straight affairs in a bid to do away with the sexual activity of conceiving & bearing offspring as it ought to be?

People are indeed crazy, & it's such craziness that warrants keeping of receipts. But then, by conventional standards, keeping of receipts is more or less a formal endeavor that serves as evidence of one undertaking or the other. Hence, should a person get wily & attempt to pull some con, kept receipts are likely to vindicate bamboozled fellows by indicting swindlers who may have exploited the confidence of those fellows to bamboozle them. But that's mostly on official matters. It becomes a different ballgame when the matter is unofficial, hence, no occasion for receipts. Like, when straight folks find themselves in crazy human ecologies where it is ensured that only a manner of sexuality that pairs men to men & women to women thrives while the natural order that pairs men to women suffers abolishment, how does one make & keep receipts that would indict same-sex personalities who exploit one's confidence to con one out of straight affairs in order to shut procreation out because they're black devilish kings & queens like Herod, who, not wanting their inequities exposed by the light of newborn Messiahs who do not necessarily eye their thrones, make attempts at frustrating the efforts of straight men & women to consolidate straight affairs?

The likes of folks earlier mentioned, who, cheated on, deprived of straight affairs, pushed off course, & infected with the vagueness that inflicts ignoble persons who hide behind a façade of vague abstractions & impartiality to disguise their fear of conflict, had gotten into a dilemma as per how to make & keep receipts that would indict same-sex personalities who frustrate the efforts of straight persons to consolidate straight affairs in order to rule out the sexual activity of conceiving & bearing offspring. It was put forward to them that, if those same-sex personalities would not let them consolidate straight affairs in a world that's enriched by straight affairs, they were to make the world to become privy to the line of events that has made & still seeks to make for the world's impoverishment. There were urged to call-out those lots & make their call-out to be to those lots like punches to the gut. But in so doing, they were cautioned to not let themselves be swayed by emotions, as emotions serve no purpose. So they ought not entertain mental images that'd make their imaginations run wild, as, in addition to stirring emotions, images are an extremely effective shortcut that bypasses the head & aims straight for man's heart...in which case they'd overwhelm man's eyes which man deploys to take notice of atrocities like that of same-sex fellows.

That urge was instructive because, once such mental images are entertained & imaginations run wild, one becomes subject to conflicting emotions, which is exactly what con artists like...since the person caught up in such emotions is so easily bamboozled. As an admonition, they were told to pay less attention to immaterial voices & nudges while putting their minds on material consciousness & tangible interactions, because, just as it is hard to bamboozle a person who is happy, it is equally hard to bamboozle a person who has no imagination. The same-sex fellows, in their bid to shut straight persons out of straight affairs, had tried to induce unearthly mental images of same-sex sexual activities to lure straight persons into same-sex sexual activities while killing their interest in straight affairs. But same-sex sexual activities, incapable of providing the pleasure that straight persons need, saw the straight persons staying closed to the same-sex fellows, & it is of a fact that there is nothing an aggressor gains from trying to seduce a target who is closed to him or her because—such targets cannot provide the pleasure & chase that their aggressors need.

The same-sex fellows & the straight individuals had become opposed to each other on all sides. But, while the straight individuals paid no attention to the endeavors of the same-sex fellows, the same-sex fellows, power drunk & obsessed with dominance, wouldn't live & let the straight fellows live. Shameless & not claiming to be healthy, they took to the animalistic tendency of striving to oust the straight fellows from the demography that domiciliated them while having the whole territory to themselves...a sort of Sodom & Gomorrah. The straight fellows, knowing that the reverse ought to be the case, considered them crazy lots with antisocial personality disorder who certainly needed their mental condition looked into. The matter turned out being the receipts the straight fellows needed to hold those lots to ransom, as, having heeded the counsel to make the world to become privy to the line of events of the same-sex personalities that has made & still seeks to make for the world's impoverishment, had stirred the interest of many through the narrative of their exposé. But it wasn't that much of an easy catch, as the same-sex personalities turned out to be conglomerate peoples of cognitive universes who specialize in cock-blocking...Princes of Persia who do nothing but deploy witchy means to ensure that intimacy-seeking cocks remained blocked.

They seemed unassailable until their indulgences were made public by straight fellows, as & multitudes of counsellors, favoring straight affairs, took to dishing out counsels that would make for a total, absolute, abolishment of same-sex endeavors in that demography while making for a thriving of the natural order that pairs men to women in straight unions. Series of counsels by multitudes of counselors had the same-sex fellows going berserk. More like an uproar, the counsels were to them like wild chants of mad masses: echoes of dissatisfaction from intimacy-deprived fire-breathing straight individuals who now wanted to consolidate straight affairs or go bananas. After all, how much worse could the cock-blocking get? Cock-blockers had nothing on them anymore...just as the Prince of the kingdom of Persia had nothing on the man, Daniel, who, having humbled himself before his God & set his heart to understand a certain vision he had, was heard by God the moment he did so, & the answer he sought was immediately sent to him via the agency of an angel. Though the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood that angel for twenty-one days, Michael the archangel came to the saving & the Prince of Persia was ousted, hence the other angel forging ahead to relay the answer to the vision that Daniel had humbled himself before his God & set his heart to understand.

Even so, the cock-blocking same-sex personalities, having assumed the office of the Prince of Persia in the lives of straight individuals, had deployed witchy means to keep straight women from forging intimate bonds with straight men in straight affairs...rendering them so intimacy-deprived while blocking their cocks...& vaginas, because, even intimacy-deprived straight women felt the same way...except for ignoble straight persons who, neither favoring intimacy nor same-sex activities, infamously took to philandering to have their libidos satiated. The noble straight fellows whose resentment for the tyrannizing same-sex personalities was strong enough to justify a retaliation, were thus spurred by multitudes of counselors to make receipts that would indict those lots:

"They know you're conquerors! But they can't stand it! So they sought to first hide in the shadow & orchestrate your failure abstractly before coming out to dare you to stupid witchy contests that would deprive you of your rights to straight affairs if you lose...a loss they'd already have orchestrated abstractly! But you won! If you kept winning, rest assured there wasn't going to be real time contests! If you lost in order for there to be real time contests, to what end would that have been? They're now trying so hard to make it look like they knew what they were doing! Meanwhile they didn't...only just getting to figure things out. So you make deliberate efforts at gathering lovey-dovey facts to relay most skillfully & artfully for straight audiences to relish & not just be entertained but also enlightened, & same-sex Princes of Persia block those works? Which works are they granting access? Let them continue! Never leave any discussion with whoever without gathering facts from the conversation for playwriting! They’ve brought you to this point where they can't manipulate you abstractly anymore. Meanwhile, you've got your talents to keep shining with—long after trashing them all...including the very shitty number one masters who swore that, except they have you in their claws, no one else will. You'll uncover their identities eventually."

"When you do, do what you do: wash their dirty linens in public as well...if you must! Which only means one thing: they're the ones responsible for the dirty linens of fellow straight men & women you've been ignorantly washing in public all the while. As what goes around—comes around, & as what's good for the goose is also good for the gander, theirs must also be washed! No hiding! Casting galore! Money answers all things. This money that answers all things is accessible to all, isn’t it? What's with those who bother others over answers when money is within their reach? Is it that they can’t make money answer to them? So wash their dirty linens in public by writing them out as plays. To scheme their way out of your blacklist, they'll make subtle attempts at vindicating themselves by performing the opposite of the acts they've been discovered to be about...in other to put the public in doubts as to what they hold as truth based on those discoveries. Like, now that they've been found out to be the ugly monsters trying to arrange straight affairs that indulge same-sex practices for you after failing to rope you into same-sex affairs, they'll see how to let go off you & let you have your desired not-arranged straight affair...while disassociating themselves from gay endeavors. So castigate their sins! When you do so, they'll feign righteousness. That way, you detach from them & do your thing your own way! Before you know it, the human ecology wherein you find yourselves would have been so ridded of same-sex sexual practices...inevitably."

Talking about keeping receipts due to crazy lots who constitute the human race, that's right about it, yeah? A kind of receipt that gets the crazed to disassociate from craziness & identify with saneness. Now, as it is more rational to be paranoid than careless, this tends to be a receipt that, paranoically identifying with it, it seems of the essence to heed the counsel of multitudes of straight-affair-favouring counselors to make public the lines of events that impoverish the world...hence the making public of this embarrassing narrative because, truly...people are indeed crazy.

"Someone" Tweeted:
The only time a woman wants just a nice man is when she's in a panic to get married.

"Whoever" Replied:
Spot on, because, prior to such panic moments, young women with age on their side are known to usually go haywire with that superficial shine of youth to points where certain of them, being a bit slutty, tend to only warm up to good times & not wedding bells in the event of it, putting in so much work to win over well-to-do charming princes for vibes & cruise only, since, in their opinion, relationships are potential prisons that would shut them out of the good stuff if they subscribe to it. One would think it is only rakish men who approach women with a truckload of garbage packed in their loins & itching to unload it on the women. But there tends to be a damage that broken hearts cause certain women which wouldn't let them gear toward true advances of genuine nice men who want more than to unload a truckload of garbage in their loins on them...because their broken hearts never quite heal enough for them to see beyond emotional wounds visited on them by past mates.

So one finds that a number of women, too, usually come unto men with a truckload of garbage stored in their vaginas & usually just itch to unload it on men. But the distinguishing factor between such men & women is that...while men itch to unload the garbage in their loins to only revel in good times with women, women take it further by adding other pricey benefits to the delight that derives from unloading the garbage in their vaginas on men, which accounts for their putting in great effort to secure well-to-do charming princes for themselves with gold the princes don't mind them digging. To win the favors of such princes, the women, taking no thought to the idealness of their superficial shine, pronto get choked up about a few compliments of order-giving, emotionally damaged dicks who want nothing but to unload the truckload of garbage packed in their loins on them. After all, they have gold they don't mind the women digging...& nice men do what all the while?

Probably spending their days watching their entire lives being put on hold...hating so much to have to wait & depend on the whim of women they're in love with—who'd only turn attention to the men the moment they're in a panic to get married, since, for them, youth is a time for a kind of fun & games that nice men are too timid & in love to indulge. Actually, it sometimes happens that the fun & games that rock the boats of such women is something that nice men have yet to figure out, & the fact that they have yet to figure it out—makes them utterly uninterested in the fun & games, thus coming off as super boring to the women. It's true that the man who has had experiences of conquests nearly always succeeds where he who is timid & in love fails. Though having no experiences of conquests to boast of, some nice men, however, prove to not be timid & in love enough to watch their entire lives put on hold for women who'd only turn attention to them the moment they're in a panic to get married. Being nice, it is not out of place for nice men to insist on such inconsiderate women as beautiful persons. But then, nothing is so sweet as to triumph over the resistance of beautiful persons. That sees some nice men showing their superiority in knowledge & skill by out-strategizing such women & getting the women to turn around & depend on their whim...surprisingly.

Out-strategizing such women sees some nice men adopting an approach that has them killing the women with kindness, & it usually works. Guess it's not that sheepish to play Mr. Nice Guy after all, because, besides it being how whole towns get won over when that approach is pulled on whole towns, it, as has become evident, is how even Alpha Females get won over. So the men wouldn't give listening ears to concerned individuals who caution them to never be nice men, specifically to inconsiderate women whose boats such niceness is likely to rock...but to be asses because that's how a nice man rids his mind of its potentialities to nurse “simping ideologies.” Know what that is? Making sheep out of able men. But some nice men wouldn't worry about that because, such women, with their base inclination toward all that glitters in their youth, already prove that they can't be trusted when the panic to get married turns their attention to nice men once they become spinsters.

So, some nice men, being "very good bad guys," like Shylock in Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice," device means of getting their pound of flesh. As sharp-edged men who seek to understand the world but have learnt not to trust it, they make it an art to fit themselves into places they never belonged. Certain of such "good bad guys," mastering moral warfare, played the victim while making certain women feel guilty for something unspecified they'd done. That could be a good thing because, when folks seem to share one's exact ideas, one ought to be wary, as such folks could merely be mirroring those ideas to charm. In order words, when people don't seem to share one's ideas exactly, one ought to have no fears: it is only because they can't mirror those ideas to charm. But the women wouldn't know that. Their entire being revolved around all that glitters. So it was easy for the good bad guys to make the women feel like they'd betrayed & taken their niceness for granted.

It wasn't long before the women, speaking in defense of themselves for nothing exactly they had done, said to the good bad guys: "are you listening to yourselves? We took advantage of you? We betrayed you? We barely even know each other. Certainly not well enough for us to do either of those things to each other. As much as it pains us to admit, you’re not dumb enough to let someone you just met to take advantage of you. If we’re not going to be your emotional support Bleep, we sure as hell won’t be your hate Bleep! Get that!" Suffice it to say that, up until that very moment, the men hadn't brought up anything about sex. But thanks to their niceness, they'd managed to get the women to deem it their obligation to them...just not out of hate but on the basis of emotional support. As it turned out, the delight that charming princes spared much gold to have the women indulge them in—was the delight the same women granted the good bad guys as due reward for niceness.

"With great female power comes great female responsibility. Whatever it is, it has to feel good. Something that feels so good can’t be wrong. When nothing feels good, it only means everything is wrong. How is what feels good to be identified? By simply finding the source of happiness within & not relying on others to supply it." This happened to be a lesson the women learned late: one they learned upon getting to that stage where the panic for marriage had already set in...a stage where they'd already devoted their entire attention to some nice men they soon discovered to not be real nice men but very good bad guys. Feeling like the men didn’t have the time or the energy for them, they wouldn't hold them back. So they told the men to go because every day felt like a breakup...with them constantly letting each other down & holding each other back. At some point, everyone was having sex but them. The men's fingers found what they sought: it was left for their eyes to see what they yearned to see. But the women wouldn’t be driven nuts by their crisp fingers. Asked why they tried so hard to demonize & abolish being driven nuts by fingering when there are other means of driving them nuts which can't be demonized or abolished, they made known that the men's fingers in them drives them mad & they say stupid things & make confessions when they're mad.

Hence, for the men, it's always nice to see them mad...& that’s all they cared about. The women's attention then turned to genuine nice men, having become spinsters with panic for marriage setting in aggressively. But the genuine nice men had grievances to air against the women who they testify to having treated them badly in past times because of charming princes with gold for them to dig—as well as good bad guys they mistook for nice men, all the while failing to recognize real nice men...even relegating them to the background in the mating game. For that reason, the nice men, not wanting the women to eat their cakes & have it back, blatantly refused to be last resorts for women whose attention only turned to them by reason of their panic to get married. Worst part is: some of them, at that point, had ceased from being elegant beauties to write home about like they used to be, some even having kids & baby bumps to show for their escapades. Thus, nice men play safe by being careful to not get carried away by lavish affection of despairing women who'd not look the men's way when their beauties burned, leaving them with stories that touch hearts...like this one:

"we look back on those days & regret none of it: not the risks, the shame, nor the total lack of foresight. We’ve had a lot to learn. In your place, if there is pain, nurse it. If there is a flame, don’t snuff it out: don’t be brutal with it. Withdrawal can be a terrible thing when it keeps one awake at night. Watching others forget us sooner than we’d want to be forgotten is no better. We rip out so much of ourselves to be cured of things faster than we should, that we go bankrupt by the age of thirty & have less to offer each time we start with someone new. How you live your life is your business. But remember, our hearts & our bodies are given to us only once. Most of us can’t help but live as though we’ve got two lives to live. One is the mockup, the other the finished version, & then there are all those versions in between. But there’s only one life, & before you know it, your heart is worn out. As for one's body, there comes a point when no one looks at it, much less wanting to come near it. There are bodies that have gotten to points where none wants to look at them, much less come near, except the blind, being pressured to love that body."

The genuine nice men, not being so nice as to blindly love the worn-out bodies of spinsters who gave the best of themselves to charming princes & very good bad guys, only to turn their attention to genuine nice guys they had relegated to the background in the mating game on account of their supposed timidity & boringness, gave the spinsters the cold shoulder. That was their way of not just making the spinsters live with the consequence of their past behavior toward them, but to likewise put forward to young women with age on their side that the only time a woman wants a nice man shouldn't just be when she's in panic to get married. It should be more like a modus operandi, otherwise, things may just turn out like it did for the case study of this narrative...arguably.

Some others, not scared to give it another shot, open up their arms to potential spousal equivalents who come along with what seems like true love. However, to be sure of what they're getting into before getting into it, they opt to bring things into the light for seeming useless examinations, which, from the mouth of two & three witnesses, is how relationships are made to last.

"Someone" Tweeted:
Don’t be afraid when someone loves you back.

"Whoever" Replied:
It is one thing to accept that persons we love are fundamentally unknowable to us. It is another thing to accept that they don’t quite see us, to live with the fact that they trust us...at least not enough to share what’s going on in their lives with us—nor enough to lean on us & let us comfort them. If one claims to love you & you know yourself to be one who responds to the warm loving affection of another towards you, yet you find yourself not responding to the supposed loving affection of one who claims to love you, then they don’t love you. They might only be seeking to use love as a premise to have their way with you. For that reason, many, especially those who've experienced pain on account of such hanky-panky, flee from those who seem capable of inflicting more pain on them because they've got enough in their lives already & get so scared when someone comes their way with "true" love. Some others, not scared to give it another shot, open up their arms to potential spousal equivalents who come along with what seems like true love. However, to be sure of what they're getting into before getting into it, they opt to bring things into the light for seeming useless examinations, which, from the mouth of two & three witnesses, is how relationships are made to last. Hence, the refusal of potential spousal equivalents to let things be brought into the light for seeming useless examinations—makes them obvious for what they most likely are: players...because, wanting to get into a relationship, do they not want the relationship to last?

Then again, it is one thing to seek to bring things into the light for an examination that is supposed to make a relationship last if successfully started. However, the thing about light is that it could blow the examination out of proportion by going beyond examining the ones it is supposed to examine to examining the ones who deploy it for such examination. For instance, certain women who, having deployed the light to examine potential spousal equivalents & vetted them genuine, enjoyed short-lived romance with the overly benevolent men who afforded them queenly propriety, as it wasn't long before the men zoomed off—never to return. The women, confused as to why such men of excellence would exhibit a foolish behavior only ascribable to players, were made to understand that once a woman lets a man into her bed, he'll want to get close, & that means the woman, if with skeletons in her closet, runs the risk of having the man discover her practically insignificant omission of truths she hides from him—which he'll view in bad light, have a bad impression of, & possibly bail out. Such is actually why many stop doing things that remotely resemble relationship.

The women, having had to put up with the shame of bringing things into the light for an examination that was aimed at uncovering the closets of those they feared might have skeletons in their closets, only for the light to point at them as the ones with skeletons in their closets, thus made effort at maintaining a good self-image: "we weren’t used to men getting under our skin or into our heads like that. We hoped a good workout would help shake out the obsessive rumination about exactly how close they wanted to get to us or how close we were willing to let them come. It was exactly the kind of rush the old us would have jumped at. We were tempted." This got the examiners that came with the light asking: "Workout? Workout or sex? You were tempted? Very tempted? It was exactly the kind of rush the old you would have jumped at? For real? Old you for real or the fake old you? Wasn’t it time to break old patterns? Wasn't it time to learn to make better choices?"

So the women, having come off as genuine spousal equivalents only suitable for loyal men void of ugly truths capable of tearing relationships apart, turned out being the ones with ugly truths capable of tearing relationships apart...as was evident in their very own relationship with the loyal men they had bagged. At points like that, many turn to philandering, opting to become foolish players as opposed to remaining wise lovers...causing innocent & unsuspecting lovers emotional traumas that accounts for many persons being afraid when someone genuine shows up & loves them back for real. But how exactly can one tell whether a person who shows up & supposedly loves them back is genuine? A group of divorcees, having fallen out of love & divorced their husbands, had gotten to a point where it seemed like they would never get to experience love again for the rest of their lives. Sympathizing with them, some concerned individuals had asked them: "so nobody loves you?"

Their response to that query reveals a primary & basic way one can tell whether a person who shows up & supposedly loves them is genuine. Their response was: "nobody loves us...except the ones updating us on the situation of things...that we may know the truth." The divorcees, coming down to nothing in terms of love, only felt loved because some persons told them the truth: because they were being treated to verified facts. So, basically, the moment a person shows up & claims to be a true lover, the key factor to look out for—in determining whether he or she is truly genuine, is their propensity toward truthfulness. But those to whom the divorcees so attested—didn't seem to hold the view that truthfulness is attributable to genuine love. Hence, they thus opined in line with their own personal experience: "that’s not love. That’s taking care & we’re tapped out. We don’t have the capacity to care for anyone. Even the care we used to give, we were manipulated into caring. So don't try to fool us into believing they care about you...not to mention loving you. It’s just updates." Now, those lots, averring that the divorcees being updated so that they may know the truth—was merely them being cared for as distinguished from them actually being truly loved—could get one asking: "isn't care a sign of love? Isn't care actually a means of vetting true love?"

It is okay to urge persons to not be afraid when someone loves them back, especially those who have reasons to not open their arms to romantic endeavors, having done so a couple of times & got cheated by the ones they loved. Then again, should falling into that category automatically shut such persons out of lovey-dovey? There's this account of persons who had fallen into that category yet wouldn't succumb to the weight of the ugly experience. Bouncing back from the experience, they had thus decried their naiveness in romantic endeavors: "we look back on those days & regret none of it: not the risks, not the shame, nor the total lack of foresight. We’ve had a lot to learn. In your place, if there is pain, nurse it. If there is a flame, don’t snuff it out. Don’t be brutal with it. Withdrawal can be a terrible thing when it keeps us awake at night. Watching others forget us sooner than we’d want to be forgotten is no better. We rip out so much of ourselves to be cured of things faster than we should—that we go bankrupt by the age of thirty & have less to offer each time we start with someone new. But if you think we wouldn’t quit our jobs & spend the rest of our lives rubbing our ex’s feet & packing their lunches if they said they’d take us back, you are dead wrong. There’s only so many times you can shut somebody out before they stop trying to get in. But then again, would that be worth it at all? Letting someone in when you know you just make it that much easier for them to rip you apart? I mean, seriously, what could be that good about them to make that kind of risk worth it? Wouldn’t it be a smart move to end it when you have the chance? Especially after many failed efforts on their part at keeping things going with deception?"

Those lots, though not succumbing to the weight of the ugly experience that sees many getting scared when someone crosses their path with what seems like genuine love for them, still entertained some degree of paranoia...but only so much as to aid their playing safe & keeping themselves from getting ripped apart again & again. That might probably require bringing things into the light for seeming useless examinations...which is one way genuine love is vetted & how relationships are made to last. But one, in bringing things into the light for such examination, ought to make certain that, should the light blow things out of proportion by turning them into the focus of the examination, doesn't find with or in them the deficiencies they deployed the light to seek out in others. For that reason, inasmuch as it is instructive to not be afraid when someone loves you back, know that there are others who, also afraid to let someone love them back because of hurt, ought not to do so anymore too. Thus, should you be the one who crosses their path & find them loveable, be birds of a feather that flock together. Love them indeed & give them absolutely no reason to be afraid of getting loved back by someone. In order words, love as you wish to be loved.

This is true of a young hopeless romantic scholar, who, having fallen head over heels for a damsel in distress, lent his painstakingly acquired scholarliness to the address of issues that made for her distress, dangerously calling into account political juggernauts of high orders that were responsible for her distress. But he got fooled by the lady the moment she successfully leveraged his brainpower to bare her grievance against the monsters who did her ugly.

“Someone” Tweeted:
A private relationship with a little public flex here & there.

“Someone Else” Retweeted & Said:
I personally will post my man. If we break up, I will post the next man. Life is too short to be doing this hide & seek thing. All for what?

“Whoever” Replied:
Triumph in romantic affairs of such nature forges stronger bonds than superficial friendliness...superficial friendliness like what ensues between passionless platonic lovers who like things simple & lack the patience to pursue hopeless romantics who dazzle & overwhelm them with the kind of romantic roller coaster that’s only obtainable from public flex. In their opinion, public flex is tantamount to dumping one’s deepest, darkest secrets & their ugliest parts on everyone & hoping it doesn’t all go to hell. True to their opinion, it sometimes plays out so, & they can’t but boldly maintain that—that’s what such persons get for vulnerably putting themselves out there, as, even they, having also toed that lane at some point, had taken their romantic affair public with the probable intention of saving & enriching other people’s romantic affairs. As it turned out, they fell short in saving & enriching their very own affair & became helpless victims without any saviors in sight. So they refrain from such endeavors & frown at those who indulge it...making it seem like the public makes preys out of the affairs of those who go public with their romanticism.

But to examine it, of the many affairs which hit the rocks upon being made public, what proportion can be said to have been the public’s fault? Hopeless romantics, proud of, & drunk in love with their sweethearts, make public their romance in hope that their sweethearts move mountains for them...only to be bailed out on—by those sweethearts, with the promise to come through later, being asked to have patience & give it time. For what exactly? For them to come out plain with the truth that they aren’t into the hopeless romantics they’d gotten mad over them? Which would surely be made obvious once the affair goes public? Thus bringing to light the hanky-panky they’d so far played in the supposed affair? So they use “later” & “time” & “patience” to say goodbye before they become obvious as unfaithful lovers, thus embarrassing the hopeless romantics who’d been so proud of what they shared & so wanted to make the public privy it. As a rule, faithful lovers ought to choose the harshest pains of love rather than by their demands cause their partners embarrassment or take pleasure in spurning their partners’ modesty. Those who think only of the outcome of their own pleasure while ignoring the welfare of their partners—should be called traitors rather than lovers. A few who had suffered such pain & embarrassment from unfaithful lovers had thus testified:

“we’d never heard anyone use later & time & patience to say goodbye before. All the later & time & patience they’d been requiring of us—had been them bidding us farewell. But thank God we neither took them, their later nor time & patience seriously. Worst off, there wasn’t going to be a next time. The admonition to be patient & give things time was deception. It was so pathetic! A million lifetimes & they’ll hardly find our kind. They’re likely to show up again & try to rekindle our desire for them when we want it dead. We’re not poets. But someone ones told us to always cease the moment because one never knows when it could all be over. Not knowing when it could all be over, nor that it could be over, we ceased the moment squarely. Now that it’s oddly over, it stays so.”

On that basis, many keenly keep their affair private & strictly away from public eyes, not because of the public’s propensity to shatter their bliss, but because of their significant other's disposition to rupture the affair while they’re right in the middle of lauding the exceptionalness of their couple goals. This is true of a young hopeless romantic scholar, who, having fallen head over heels for a damsel in distress, lent his painstakingly acquired scholarliness to the address of issues that made for her distress, dangerously calling into account political juggernauts of high orders that were responsible for her distress. But he got fooled by the lady the moment she successfully leveraged his brainpower to bare her grievance against the monsters who did her ugly.

While he, greatly fulfilled, yearned to make public the attractive result that ought to stem from a sickening process of battling beasts of Ephesus over a lady, it seemed to him like there were lots who wouldn’t have him do so, making him wonder why they wouldn’t want him delighting in such result despite the sickening process he went through for it...not until it was made known to him by those lots where he stood in the lady’s order of priority. They’d said to him: “she loves you enough to confess those sins involving her & those juggernauts to you, most likely because you’re equipped to facilitate her cheap vulgarism & vengeance against those who did her ugly. But she obviously doesn’t love you enough to get you laid. Know surely that there are guys she’s loved enough to get laid, even when they did absolutely nothing to facilitate her cheap vulgarism & vengeance against those who did her ugly, possibly naming you to them as the fool who came through for her. So, what to do to such lady? She seems wealthy. Therefore don’t be a fool anymore! Use that scholarliness of yours to rip her apart like you did to the juggernauts for her! Play her like hip-hop!”

Now, it is such experiences that make persons refrain from going public with their romance...at least until wedding bells ring. By then they must have been certain the going is bound to go good no matter what. But there are those who keep making subsequent affairs public despite previous, sometimes scandalous & embarrassing experiences caused by unfaithful lovers in public view. Unfazed by such encounters, the personal appeal of such persons don’t seem to change...& suddenly all the places that may have given them the cold shoulder by reason of those encounters—tend to make efforts at warming their way back into the lives of such persons. Furthermore, people who had never looked at them—get all over them. And this is because they wouldn’t be fazed by the pain & embarrassment that derives from ugly situations they get plunged into by unfaithful lovers they mistake for sweethearts. As it sometimes happens, those unfaithful lovers of theirs again get attracted to them on account of their unchanging personal appeal which sees them becoming a great favorite to the public. But very unwilling to afford those unfaithful lovers a chance to be their sweethearts again, many such persons are known to have changed their personal appeal...but only towards those obvious fair-weather lovers. So they get together with someone new, someone better, & laden the public space with their newfound romance, leaving their ex-fair-weather-lovers always standing outside & watching them through the glass (internet)...longing so badly to find a way in...unsuccessfully.

So, yes! Post your man or woman. If you break up, post the next man or woman you get together with. Life is indeed too short to be doing the “hide & seek” thing because, what would it all be for? Then again, if flooding public zones with your romanticism comes off as too much, you might as well make your affair private...but with little public flex here & there every now & then. All good.

hisgrace090:
Men have over chased women giving no room for women to take them seriouse at first.

Exactly, because, though women are known to be easily moved by what they hear, the rampancy of lies & deception on men's part has seen lots of women only paying little attention to men's ripe words while being much better persuaded that they're loved by what they guess than by what they're told.

Hence, many women aren't likely to first proclaim their love to men anymore just because it's a sort of natural order. There are manly acts on men's part that ought to precede, or, better still, trigger that expression. Therefore, the words "I love you" are very likely to come gushing out of a woman's mouth ahead of a man's the moment the man's acts towards her persuades her into guessing she's loved by him.

If after such manly acts she still doesn't utter the words, it could be a case of sheer lack of interest or an art of seduction on her part. The question now is: "at what point does a man's acts towards a woman likely persuade her into guessing she's loved by him?" Short & simple: when his advances towards her cease coming off as tempting to her while conveying a degree of security & satisfaction to her, as the reverse of temptation is security & satisfaction.

AndrewTate:
There are so many teachers these days…

Isn't it the Bible that puts forward that..."in the multitude of counsellors there is safety?" Many teachers is a welcomed development...as long as they ain't teaching nonsense, trash & gibberish.

muyico:
Meaning? Depend on location and tribe. Calabar and edo women gud in doing it

This is actually coming from a region that was formerly part of Cross River State. So....you may not be wrong in that, per say. But it cuts across the entire globe.

"Someone" Tweeted:
Women should be the ones to say "I love you" first...never the men.

"Whoever" Replied:
That may be true, especially when it has to do with men who are such good conversationalists & can rightly be called charmers in the magical sense of the word...very likely to charm women into spewing the words "I love you" ahead of them with their sweet talking, as charm is a way of getting the answer "yes" without having asked any clear question. But there's an exception to this these days, as, though women are known to be easily moved by what they hear, the rampancy of lies & deception on men's part has seen lots of women only paying little attention to men's ripe words while being much better persuaded that they're loved by what they guess than by what they're told.

Hence, many women aren't likely to first proclaim their love to men anymore just because it's a sort of natural order. There are manly acts on men's part that ought to precede, or, better still, trigger that expression. Therefore, the words "I love you" are very likely to come gushing out of a woman's mouth ahead of a man's the moment the man's acts towards her persuades her into guessing she's loved by him. If after such manly acts she still doesn't utter the words, it could be a case of sheer lack of interest or an art of seduction on her part. The question now is: "at what point does a man's acts towards a woman likely persuade her into guessing she's loved by him?" Short & simple: when his advances towards her cease coming off as tempting to her while conveying a degree of security & satisfaction to her, as the reverse of temptation is security & satisfaction.

At such points women go beyond preceding men in professing love—to becoming so mad over those men...even sometimes terrifyingly losing themselves to those men to dimensions where their disposition towards the men depicts them as being spellbound, as evidenced in the outcry of some genuine-loving women against their significant other, who, having successfully charmed the women into guessing they're loved on account of their acts towards the women, turned to seducing games that saw them plaguing the women with their absence. The women, as if hypnotized by the men, had thus helplessly cried out to the men:

"all of it boiled down to one thing only: your cocks had been everywhere! Every girl had touched them! Those cocks of yours! It had been in who knows how many vaginas! How many mouths! The images amused us! At a point it never bothered us to think of you between several ladies' legs as they lay facing you...your broad, tanned, glistening shoulders moving up & down as we’d imagined you on those afternoons when we too had wrapped our legs around your pillows...no thanks to your absence! We’d dreamt it! What we wanted to preserve were the turbulent gasps in your voice which lingered with us for days afterward as we told ourselves that if we could have you like that in our dreams every night of our lives, we’d stake our entire lives on dreams & be done with the rest! We’d been rehearsing for days on what to do when you finally showed up! To have teased you by begging: please don’t hurt us…which would only have meant; hurt us all you want!"

There are proofs to the fact that men do not have to be divine, educated, or experts in any particular field for women to get like that towards them. All it would take for a woman to be like that towards a man is sincerity on the man's part, & the man might just see himself entertaining women whose hearts he wins on account of the number of women who fall in love with him; & of the decided advances that women make towards him by reason of his quality of being open & truthful as opposed to being deceitful & hypocritical.

That will not only show him off as a man of true honor but will likewise make him a great favorite with women, rendering women self-convinced that it will be to their honor to be enrolled in the list of women who are in love with that man, even as they relish the elation that stems from being praised the same way such man's female friends are praised...not to mention when such moments of praise occur in the presence of that man's other female friends.

Being greatly delighted by that, a man needs not be surprised if women testify their admiration of his character by throwing their arms round his neck on the spot & screaming "I love you!" So yes, the words are more likely to be spewed by a woman first, but might have to be triggered by a man. However, it is of the essence to ensure that such trigger isn't false. Thus, look before you leap.

"Someone" Tweeted:
A relationship without physical contact is just a friendship that emotionally benefits the woman.

"Whoever" Replied:
Once a man shows an interest in certain women, they start thinking it means they have the right to tell the man what to do & how to do it, including how they'd like for the man to benefit from the supposed "relationship" he seeks to establish with them...which could mean shutting the man out of physical contact while emotionally benefiting from the "relationship." That has to be one of the least favorite things to play out in a relationship for a man. This could be because such women delusively consider themselves as being way out of some men's league. There are certain women who were asked how they feel about having something to do with religious men who don't drink, don't smoke, don’t warm several women’s beds, & dates only them. Their disappointingly less than ordinary response to that query was that such men were either dealing with anger issues or are inconsistent communicators, or insecure, egotistic, financially unstable, stingy, or have bad bedroom vibes.

Truth be told, some of such women only need men till they get what they want from those men...often pissing off some very good bad guys in the process who make sure they get to find out how much of wrong persons they pissed off, accounting for the many stories that touch the heart in the women's world. To top it off, some of them are cheating-women with higher sex drive than those men, who, in their offensive vanity, testify to only needing one shot to the right spot during sex sessions for those men to go down like tons of bricks, leaving them unsatisfied & wanting for more. In their further testament, they actually admit to sometimes genuinely caring for some of those men, & it is that care that makes them toss the men into the friend-zone rather than let them go because they find the men exploitable & they aren't above exploiting the hell out of the men's low libidos to get what they want. Incidentally, what they want could largely comprise emotional benefits.

On the other hand, some of them are unfeeling headmistresses who are no longer able to reach orgasm nor attain sexual gratification. So they turn to a manner of sexuality which sees them only craving overblown good times that turn them into nightmarish sex-machines that could require the expertise of sex-gods to get them close to the ecstacy that sex affords. Hence, of what use are ordinary men supposed to be to them except to complement that experience with emotional benefits that sex-gods don't know the first thing about? But their humanity catches up with them eventually, & they begin to desire a kind of romantic roller coaster that's only obtainable from intimate affairs involving man & woman. It is at that point that men with whom they seek to build that intimate affair, being privy to their sexuality & habit of having been friend-zoning men they wouldn't indulge in that sexuality, embrace the occasion to pay them back with their own coin.

At that point, the women learn the hard way what "friend-zoning" does to men's ego. There's a seeming disturbing incident involving men who, on face value, came off as such men. Having possibly been tossed into the friend-zone or something of that sort by such women, they wouldn't bring themselves to be anything more than BFFs with the women as distinguished from getting intimate with them like they wanted. But as it turned out, the men went beyond only seeking to derive free-floating sexual benefits from being BFFs with them (like they derived free-floating emotional benefits from the men by friend-zoning them) to adopting a wizardly sexuality that's superstitiously believed to embody magical powers with connotations that have bearings on otherworldliness. Word of the men's manner of sexuality somehow got beyond their inner sex-chambers to the outside world, drawing the attention of nosy meddlers who sought to become privy to the last detail of it at all cost.

But instead of the men, the meddling so constituted the grievance of the women such that, having had it up to their necks, they lashed out at the meddlers while also taking it out on the men for so reducing them to mere objects of systematic investigation on a matter that had depressingly become one of public interest. The public, having branded the women testily selfish ambitious sissies who like to eat their cakes & have it back, further accused them of entertaining BFFs they wouldn't admit to entertaining—just to come off to the public as being anything other than mere pleasure tools to spooky men who only befriended them for sexual benefits with absolutely no strings attached. The now romance-ready women spoke up nonetheless & thus aired their very bitter grievance:

"Do we have BFFs? Yes! So who's standing in the way of that? An eavesdropping audience? Sperm donors? Who’d rather force seminal fluid down our throats than be our BFFs? Seminal fluid that’s been uncovered to be garbage? To be dumped in our bellies? Or it's not garbage but wealth? Saved in men's loins? Transferable into women’s wombs through sex? Without which the wealth can’t be accessed? Who loves this garbage so much as to not want it dumped in women's wombs but rather spilled on them via masturbation when it’s not being forced down our throats? Fellow men? And nonsexual women?"

Those of the public who wouldn't have any of that foul crying by the women, took more shots at their questionable religiosity which was more like their last resort after exhausting all avenues of having it going good for them romantically & all wise, asking: "if it's garbage, it's understandable if you turn away from such transfers. But if it's wealth, what's with the turning away? Don't you all want to be rich? Perhaps there's too much trendy hypocritical religiosity on your part that's standing in the way of even you gold diggers reaching out for that wealth!" Turning to fellow members of the public, they further ranted: "to these ladies, it's always been about winning. So why take anything that has to do with them or anyone of them seriously? For what it's worth, when they're done playing & seek to get serious, that's when to play them because, when men were serious with them, they couldn't care about anything but playing. So, what went around must go around."

Coming to their own defense since they'd become so widely infamous that none sought to contact such infamy by means of some sort of association with them, the women defeatedly maintained that they were merely being self-reliant & autonomous, as, in their words, "being self-reliant is critical. Therefore, to make themselves less dependent on men & the so-called relationship experts, they expanded their repertoire of skills. When circumstances scared them, their imagination tended to take over, filling their minds with endless anxieties. But they would not fret a bit over it since they already knew that focused minds have no room for anxiety or the effects of overactive imaginations. Hence, once they regained their mental balance, they could then face the issues at hand."

Getting confrontational, they added, "if you can’t afford to lose, you won't. Fight or flight. We wanted to choose fight. We wanted to give ourselves over to anger & let it come spilling out. We wanted to see what would happen if we erupted together. We may not be politically correct, but we love ourselves good consensual loving manhandling every now & then. But some men couldn’t relate. They wouldn’t even hold our hands when walking in public. We just followed each other like Israelites coming from Egypt. It was always us closing the distance. So we merely did what we had to do."

Critically considering the submission of those women, which they summed up with the conclusion that "they merely did what they had to do," would that imply that denying men physical contact while deriving emotional benefits from their relationship with those men was them merely doing what they had to do? Or, that, inclining towards a manner of sexuality that saw them only craving overblown good times that turned them into nightmarish sex-machines which required the expertise of sex-gods to get them close to the ecstasy that sex affords—was them merely doing what they had to do?

That would also imply that, the men, having gone beyond only seeking to derive free-floating sexual benefits from them to adopting a wizardly sexuality that's superstitiously believed to embody magical powers with connotations that have bearings on otherworldliness—was the men merely doing what they had to do. After all, they did it to pay the women back with their own coin. So, a relationship without physical contact might be a friendship that emotionally benefits the woman. But what about when the tables turn? How further beneficial is it likely to be? Think about it.

Jennyclay:
These broke men won’t stop to amaze me .

Well, Thank God they know I hate them with passion. I always throw spit after every 3 minutes anytime they approach me. Some of them would even think I’m pregnant not knowing their poverty stinking self disgust me to high heavens

Just Imagine, because of #2500 . If I’m even the lady I won’t dare refund the money let them go and do their worst

Foolish broke men!!

RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT MAN

There's an account of your kind, who, having sought particular kinds of men, crossed paths with good men & wouldn't recognize them because they weren't rich. Eventually uncovering those “broke” men to have been the right men for them after letting them slip through their fingers while having avidly warmed up to the wrong men that weren’t good for them, they thus decried their lack of foresight:

“We know desire when we see it. Yet, this time, it slipped by completely. We went for devious smiles that suddenly lit up rich men’s faces each time they read our minds…when all we really wanted was skin, just skin. It never occurred to us that what totally panicked us when they touched us was exactly what startles virgins on being touched for the first time by the person they desire. Nerves are stirred in them that they never knew existed. That produces far more disturbing pleasures than we’re used to deriving on our own. Our longing for rich men opened us up to their silly seducing games.”

Regretting getting ripped off by the wrong men on account of their wealth…while having let good men pass them by because they were “broke”...& frustratingly facing the impossibility of turning back the hands of time to set things right, they thus further decried their deficiency in far-sightedness:

“How do we go back to sleep no longer virgins? There's no coming back from that. What had been in our heads for so long had gotten out in the real world: no longer afloat in our forever land of doubts.”

So, you may hate & be unavailable for broke men. But it beholds on you to not just love & only be available for rich men…but likewise see to it that you make your dealings with rich men count by rightly equipping yourself to recognize & only warm up to legit rich men…& not just be losing your gaddamn self to “all that glitters”…because, as you may still remember, “not all that glitters is gold.”

...

CaveAdullam:
The problem is that the average person be like "I just want to be myself".

They don't bother about self-improvement. They don't deliberate on how to build character and a worthy personality. They just want a savior to take them and love them for who they are. Meanwhile, when you stir them, and look beyond their surface, they are absolute trash.

Ditto for the average woman. They know that men should be a protector, a provider, a leader, and a savior. But ask them what a woman should be. Then, you'll experience graveyard silence or them trying to make a point like a toddler learning how to talk.

The sexual market like every other market is a gaming center. If you don't know how to play you will lose. If you don't play smart you'll lose. If you leave others to help you play you'll be cheated.

Men want sex without commitment.
Women want commitment without submission.

On this ground, you see many different players trying to get their fill.

However, ...

The game may lead to:

Men having sex due to commitment (chore/boring sex).

Women get commitment due to submission.

Marriage doesn't even stop old players from playing. Lol.

Sex has been codified to be sacred. I have no problem with that. But women should understand that they are not doing men a favor when they both agree to consensual sex. Both loved it and had their libido satisfied.

Therefore, a woman who views sex as sacred must be vigilant not to offer her body to a man who won't be her husband. She must scrutinize every man or suitor that comes her way to not be a leftover of sexual dinner.

Ditto for the man. He must not give a woman commitment when she doesn't love him or have a genuine desire for him. Because in the end, it all ends in heartbreak and premium tears.

In the sexual marketplace, you must be vigilant. You are not a victim as you claim to be.

Thanks.

You all shades of nailed it!

CaveAdullam:


Sincerely appreciate this post. You've done very well.

Being a person of value gives you the ability to screen people you are going to interact with from time to time. To know your enemy you must know yourself. Because both you and your enemy are humans, and humans have the capacity for any behavior, whether for constructive or destructive purposes.

If you want valuable people, be a person of value and provide value. That's an easy way to ensure your sanity and save your time and energy because you are dealing with the right people.

However, your post is only suitable for ideal people in an ideal world.

Your post didn't take into consideration that humans can change depending on whatever factors they are predisposed to in the future.

"If you don't want a cheating partner, don't cheat...".

That's a fallacy.

Because we've read, heard, and must have come across faithful partners who were jilted by their lovers. We've heard of secret children, paternity fraud, etc.

Just because you are good doesn't mean that other people will be good to you. Christ Jesus was still shamed, beaten, persecuted, and crucified despite his most holy nature.

Even among the 12 he selected, there was a doubter (Thomas), liar (Peter), and saboteur (Judas Iscariot).

However, we knew how Christ was able to handle these 3 because he is a human and the 3 were also humans.

Your good partner may turn bad tomorrow. Your loving partner can become hateful tomorrow. People change. Anything can happen.

Will you accuse victims of armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, or r@pe of them being the antagonist or villain before and now reaping what they sowed? If you say yes, then, what about children who suffer the same fate?

What I'm trying to point out here is that a good person can be a victim of negative circumstances in life. Being good doesn't make you an exception.

What's important is that you are aware of the changing behavior of humans, the randomness of life, and everything that lies between. And being prepared and ready to tackle any problem when it arises.

And if Karma is true the world would have been a better place. However, every day we see the wicked live a fruitful life and their victims are left in a predicament.

There's nothing like karma acting on its own. Only a good and fair justice system can maintain law and order and ensure peace and equity.

Thanks.

LET ME ADDRESS WHAT YOU'VE REFERED TO—AS FALACY

Bad things happen to good people, no doubts. That's why victims of robbery, kidnapping, murder, or r@pe...plus children who suffer such fates—are referred to—as "victims of circumstance." It all happened unplanned, not wished for, & there was absolutely nothing they could have done about it. Hence, their case is somewhat out of context as regards the point you're trying to make in line with the topic of discussion. Of those who shamed, beat, persecuted, & crucified Jesus despite his most holy nature, it is said that: "had they known better, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." More so, it is known that—the sole reason for the shaming, persecution, & crucifixion of Jesus was "jealousy & hate." Those who loved him rather opted to be disciples.

But those who got jealous & hated him—were traitors. Would you regard Judas Iscariot as having been any less than a traitor? Yet a secular author who would more likely be expected to be associated with treason (or emotional treason, so to say), put forward that: "faithful lovers ought to choose the harshest pains of love rather than by their demands cause their partners embarrassment or take pleasure in spurning their modesty; as those who think only of the outcome of their own pleasure while ignoring the welfare of their partner—should be called traitors rather than lovers."

The book wherein that principle is attested, is one that, on face value, would be expected to only treat matters that bother on seduction. Yet the cursor is pointed to what should ensue between those who deem themselves "faithful" to their lovers, & that involves, firstly, choosing the harshest pains of love rather than cause their partners embarrassment. In order words, a partner who, having seemingly been faithful in the relationship, only to turn out unfaithful eventually, thus causing their partner embarrassment, was never really faithful because, how can one be faithful yet jilt a lover he or she claims to be faithful to? You talked about paternity fraud. Isn't that a case of an unfaithful partner spurning the other partner's modesty, having only thought of the outcome of their own pleasure while ignoring the welfare of their partner? How is it fallacious to insist that such doesn't play out in unions that are supposed to be between faithful lovers?

A good & loving partner today who becomes a bad & hateful partner tomorrow was never truly a good & loving partner...otherwise, why, in the event of marriage, would spouses be required to avow for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness & in health, to love & to cherish, till death does them part according to God's holy law? Doesn't that accord with the stance of the secular author referenced above that "faithful lovers ought to choose the harshest pains of love rather than by their demands cause their partners embarrassment or take pleasure in spurning their modesty; as those who think only of the outcome of their own pleasure while ignoring the welfare of their partner—should be called traitors rather than lovers?" I don't know about Thomas. But Peter's love for Jesus endured despite his denial of Jesus at some point. Even Thomas, though having doubted the reemergence of Jesus on the scene, still believed & worshiped him upon clearing his doubt.

Judas, on the other hand, got what he deserved, having proven beyond every reasonable doubt to be an unfaithful lover...unlike Thomas & Peter whose humanity momentarily caught up with them. It is not out of place for faithful lovers to miss the mark every now & then, being only but human. But the qualifier, "faithful," becomes completely ruled out when supposed faithful lovers toe paths that make them to become identifiable with jilting, incessant cheating, secret children, paternity fraud, & so on. Of course, others may not be good to a person because the person is good.

But being good can sure exempt good persons from negative situations & circumstances, & there are many testaments to that. Hence, I wouldn't say that my post is only suitable for ideal people in ideal worlds because ideal people in ideal worlds weren't all born as ideal people nor were they all born into ideal worlds. They worked their way into becoming ideal people suitable for ideal worlds. My post, I'd say, is more or less geared towards aiding the picturing of ideal worlds while tendering a blueprint that'd make for inhabiting that ideal world successfully. Whatever the future brings, ideal people in ideal worlds are likely to make ideals out of it. As for Karma, think of it biblically & it, beyond what connotations are conventionally held of it, will extend to texts that ascertain that "people reap what they sow." Then there are sayings like: "garbage in, garbage out, what goes around—comes around, & what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

It may seem like wicked people live fruitful lives while their victims are left in predicament. But a reference to events that ensued in bible days will clear your doubts about the "legitness" of Karma. Jesus, talking about unrighteous persons sure to meet unfavorable judgment for being wolves in sheep's clothing, had said of them that, they, never taking heed to themselves, made covenants with godless persons & got ensnared by their godlessness, thus opening up their souls to devilish alien frequencies that engendered their cheating & robbing of neighbors, undue withholding of the wages of hired workers, injustice in judgment, partiality to the poor, & dishonor of the mighty. Of such persons, it is further made known that they influence of those alien frequencies see men among them lying carnally with betrothed women who are unfree for such endeavor. Then the bad news tends to be that they suffer no scourging as consequence of those evils. So they take it even further by turning to mediums & familiar spirits, prostituting themselves with them & becoming very eligible to have God's face set against them to a point of being cut off from God's people.

Yet they parade freely amongst God's elects in view of the world's people who've duly noted them for what they are. And the fact that the Christian Faith frowns at jungle justice because it isn't aimed at breeding fear but faith—gets insubordinate trustees & wicked persons (wolves in sheep's clothing) seemingly committing all sorts of havoc & getting away with them. Be that as it may, there are always consequences...like in the case of such persons in bible times who took their brothers' wives & uncovered their brothers' unclothedness, thereby incurring curses of childlessness. Meanwhile, the likes of Rehab of Jericho, having been such a good person as to house Israeli spies who were enemies because she revered the God of those spies, got exempted from ruin that ridded Jericho of all inhabitants who dwelt therein. So, averring that being a good person doesn't exempt one from calamities because "anything can happen," I'd say, is the actual fallacy. Goodness pays.

Like you rightly said, if one wants valuable people, one ought to be a person of value while providing value as well, as, that's an easy way to ensure one's sanity & save one's time/energy because one, in such cases, would be dealing with the right people. I deeply appreciate your comment. For one, it spurred me into digging up factual valuable detail. Like, look what you made me come up with! Thanks!

pansophist:


Sorry for the girl who thinks being fine and having a badass curve is enough value. Yea, it's a good value if you want to be a fork material, but wife material? hell no.

It's like a handsome boy seeing himself as husband material. Most women will overlook them if they lack qualities like being a provider, leadership, protector, etc.

Also, beautiful women aint scarce, but rich men are. Being beautiful is not a catch, because beauty is everywhere. Also, the barrier to being called a beautiful girl is achievable by almost all women.

Pick your average girl, wear her a wig, buy her komkom shoes, put on make-up and sexy dresses, then take her pics through doctored angles, and further edit it via an app, then viola, you got a beautiful girl.

If she is fat, then maybe in the next three to six months if she is into a weight loss program, she will be slim and also attractive. The barrier to being a fine/classy chick is very low. Every woman can achieve it.

But it is not the same for men. A man can't just magically make himself wealthy instantly, in fact even in decades, men are still hustling, and the little they get is being sucked away by responsibilities.

Women are born. Men are made. To be a man is not a day job.

Also, a rich high-status man has lots of options, and that beauty will not be the only criteria he is looking for. Peace is one, respect is another, and a genuinely good woman whom he can be himself with.

And for value a person brings to the table, it has always been primarily immaterial value for women, but material and immaterial value for men. The best thing anyone can bring to the table is their character.

But thank you for your comment, I like it. It shows that you see the world in the right way. Because the more you can give, the more you can get and even demand from others.

POINTS TO BE NOTED [PARAPHRASED]

Beautiful women ain't scarce. But rich men are. [Hence], being beautiful is not a catch...because beauty is everywhere. Also, the barrier to being called a beautiful woman is achievable by almost all women. But it is not the same for men [who aren't yet rich]. A man [who isn't yet rich] can't just magically make himself wealthy instantly. In decades, men [would] still be hustling, and the little they get [would still be getting] sucked away by responsibilities, [which may not include feeding the vanities of bad ass women with great curves. With his very limited resources, a man can still manage to find his way around romanticism.

But it's not all bed of roses with a rich man, as a rich man, besides throwing money around to get some curvy bad ass women on his bed for pleasure purposes], has lots of options [when it comes to women], and "beauty" [isn't likely to be the only criteria he'll look out for]. Peace is one, respect is another, and then a genuinely good woman with whom he can be himself. [Summarily, when it comes recognizing the right man [or woman], look out for what they bring to the table]. The best thing anyone can bring to the table is character.

YOU ALL SHADES OF NAILED IT!!

...