AHCB:
The truth according to who/whom?

Might I add, in today's world, the post modernist era, the truth is mightily said to be relative.

*insert eye rolling emoji*

trustyshoess:

*insert eye rolling emoji*

And here you say "they don't like the truth".

Hahaha. Gurl you're funny. Lol

AHCB:
And here you say "they don't like the truth".

Hahaha. Gurl you're funny. Lol

I just can't be arsed for this. Bother someone else please? No offence

trustyshoess:

I just can't be arsed for this. Bother someone else please? No offence

By someone else, you mean you, right?

None taken.

AHCB:
By someone else, you mean you, right?

None taken.

Obviously someone else implies a different person who is not me. So no, I don't mean me.

J

Blackfyre:



You are making the submissive thing sound wrong and misinterpreting it at the same time. Also you should have emboldened the part i did.


Being submissive is not the same as being a Yes woman to everything he says. It's about respecting him as the head of the home. That does not mean if he errs you wont call him to order with respect due to a man that is the head of your home. There is a difference mister.

Go and check the meaning of submission. It is totally different from RESPECT.

trustyshoess:

Obviously someone else implies a different person who is not me. So no, I don't mean me.

Someone else still mean you, cos anybody can be someone else. So this someone else is you. For now, that is. Lol

AHCB:
Someone else still mean you, cos anybody can be someone else. So this someone else is you. For now, that is. Lol

Okay let me make it clearer then. Go bother another person, not me! Clear now?

Jman06:
J Go and check the meaning of submission. It is totally different from RESPECT.

Submission is not being subservient. It's recognizing the man as the head in this context.

Mister, this is some boatload of crap. I understand the need to appear smart, but sincerely this is codswallop.

There is no "tiny distinction'' between "submissiveness" and "submission". "Submissive" is only the adjectival form of the word "submission". Basically, these are different iterations of a word that are all saying the same thing.

Also, in your other post you said something about "self-effacement" being an indicator of self-confidence and intelligence. Now that's just an incredibly ignorant statement. Self-effacement is often seen in a negative light. How can someone who "effaces/diminishes" himself have any self-esteem and/or self-confidence?

Do you even understand the meaning of the words you use, or do just throw them around?

LordKO:


Foremost, submission is akin to slavery thus, the main reason why I termed your OP as trash - your choice of the word wasn't proper. . . What sane and sound men expects from their wives is submissiveness.


You need to understand that as nouns there's a tiny but important difference between submission and submissiveness. While the former is the act of submitting ( meaning that you have no choice whether your opinion/action is correct or not) the latter is the state or quality of being submissive (meaning that you have a choice but agree only because you're understandable).

This tiny but important difference between the two words necessitate the importance of the attribute self-effacing (a woman that doesn't posses effacement as attribute should try and acquire it as an attitude, except one that stupidly nurses the idea of wearing the headship crown in her marriage) - and of course men are expected to be self-effacing too. Before I go on, personally, I am an egalitarian, therefore, I know that being first between equals doesn't mean a master and his servant, I stated this clearly in my OP. Also, like I said in my OP (scantly though):

- Being submissive doesn't equate to being subjugable.

- Being submissive doesn't mean that your man (I have to assume that you have a sane and sound man) wouldn't consider your opinion which is superior to his to stand as a decision.

- Being submissive won't deprive you equality before your man.

- Being submissive doesn't mean that your man will expect you to compromise all the time and yield to be controlled, no - not when you have superior opinion or your action is conscientious.

- Meanwhile, when and where your sane and sound man allows your opinion which is superior to his to stand as decision, that automatically means that he's submissive to you too. So, you can see that submissiveness is like a two way traffic light.

Now, I hope you will see the feasibility of my "mutual conscientious libertarianism" propagation. 90% of troubled marriages/relationships has their root in ethical disparities, so just a change of ethical philosophy will save a whole lot of them. . . When you hear people say that they're divorcing because of "irreconcilable differences" what they mean is that they've ethical disparities without understanding it, and this can easily be solved.

Blackfyre:


Submission is not being subservient. It's recognizing the man as the head in this context.

Lolz...From which dictionary did you get that definition please

You are one of the keenest minds around here.

RaggedyAnn:
, the tragedies of the mentally emancipated woman imprisoned by ancient conventions, smh. It was easier then. When a girl would marry, naïve and incapable, at sixteen; when all she could do was depend on a husband for everything, even her raison d'etre; she would accept a life of submission to him with gratitude. But now, when women have access to the tools to survive independently - education and life skills, when they have begun to have ambitions for themselves, it is inhumane to expect them to silence the spirit inside them that has already begun to breathe and grow.

People point to the Bible whenever they're uncomfortable with change. They selectively try to trap people in a time capsule to keep them in check, so they emphasize static codes. They focus on the 'what' rather than the 'why'. If you focus on the 'why' you can understand objectives, and principles that can evolve over time to suit the prevalent zeitgeist, so long as the objective is met. if you focus on the 'what' you stand the risk of encountering conflict - forcing an obsolete model on an incompatible platform. We live in a very dynamic world, evolution is inevitable. Denying it is counter productive, because instead of people to fit themselves into a tiny cage they've long since outgrown, they'll become suspicious of it, and rebel against it.

That's a really nice article. Well written. Thanks for sharing it.

trustyshoess:

Okay let me make it clearer then. Go bother another person, not me! Clear now?

Em, remember I don't take orders from you?

DarkRebel69:
You are one of the keenest minds around here.

, thanks.

Is your husband on NL? Just asking

Jman06:
Lolz...From which dictionary did you get that definition please

From the context of marriage not dictionary.

DarkRebel69:
Mister, this is some boatload of crap. I understand the need to appear smart, but sincerely this is codswallop.

There is no "tiny distinction'' between "submissiveness" and "submission". "Submissive" is only the adjectival form of the word "submission". Basically, these are different iterations of a word that are all saying the same thing.

Also, in your other post you said something about "self-effacement" being an indicator of self-confidence and intelligence. Now that's just an incredibly ignorant statement. Self-effacement is often seen in a negative light. How can someone who "effaces/diminishes" himself have any self-esteem and/or self-confidence?

Do you even understand the meaning of the words you use, or do just throw them around?

Look at this bumkin. Lol. Kindly look for your small-minded mates elsewhere because I don't join issue with people like you and your ilks. But before I leave you to your stupidity, take it from me that "As nouns the difference between submission and submissiveness is that submission is the act of submitting while submissiveness is the state or quality of being submissive." . . . Ref: http://wikidiff.com/submission/submissiveness. Now, it will only take an insightful mind to extrapolate the tiny but important distinction between the two, refer to my post you quoted. Submissiveness is the euphemism of submission on this subject.

I quote you "Also, in your other post you said something about "self-effacement" being an indicator of self-confidence and intelligence. Now that's just an incredibly ignorant statement. Self-effacement is often seen in a negative light." LOL. You're obviously mentally deranged, because a sane and sound mind in your stead wouldn't have intentionally misquote me just to appear learned. I said that the most intelligent and confident people I know always choose to appear self-effacing - outwardly and diplomatically - I don't remember stating that it's an INDICATOR (as you maliciously ascribed to me) of intelligence and confidence; else I wouldn't have stated the following in one of my previous posts herein "In Igbo parlance we do say "an alpha male dog that fall on the ground for its equal isn't because of fear" - this is an example of what effacement is all about."

Once more, only bumkins and articulate incompetents like you are always boisterous and arrogant. . . you didn't disappoint me of course.

Personally, I have no monopoly of knowledge but then, neither you, your wretched father nor your lunatic mother can ever match me.

Now, vamoose and look for your small-minded mates elsewhere. Bumkin.

AHCB:
Em, remember I don't take orders from you?

But I give orders to you. Now be gone from me!

trustyshoess:

But I give orders to you. Now be gone from me!

Even in your dreams, that's still not possible.

Now go to bed. And hey, remember to pee first. Wouldn't want you wetting the bed now, would we?

Goodnight.

AHCB:
Even in your dreams, that's still not possible.

Now go to bed. And hey, remember to pee first. Wouldn't want you wetting the bed now, would we?

Goodnight.

Below the belt, not surprised. It's Nairaland afterall
Goodnight

LordKO:

Look at this bumkin. Lol. Kindly look for your small-minded mates elsewhere because I don't join issue with people like you and your ilks.

There's no need to get salty. Just admit that you were talking a boatload of crap.

Besides, "bumkin" has to do with ships. It's not a derogatory term, which I assume you think it is. If you meant it as an abuse then you should have said "bumpkin". LOL

But before I leave you to your stupidity, take it from me that "As nouns the difference between submission and submissiveness is that submission is the act of submitting while submissiveness is the state or quality of being submissive." . . . Ref: http://wikidiff.com/submission/submissiveness. Now, it will only take an insightful mind to extrapolate the tiny but important distinction between the two, refer to my post you quoted.

Empty barrels make the loudest noises.

The link to the website that you posted said absolutely nothing about a "tiny difference" (as you opined) between "submission" and "submissiveness". (I just wanted to get that out of the way before you think you have posted a valid link).

For the sake of you and your kind who have insufferably tiny IQs, I will try to explain as simply as I can, in the wild hope that you would eventually see how all what you've been doing is firing blanks (even though I'd have a better chance of persuading a volcano to not erupt than in making you see that you've been talking gibberish).

Now you say "submission" is different from "submissiveness", so let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the two terms:

1) Submission: "the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person."

2) Submissiveness: "the quality of being submissive."

3) Submissive: "ready to conform to the authority or will of others; meekly obedient or passive."

In the foregoing, we can see that submission is defined as the act of accepting or yielding to the authority of another person. Submissiveness is also said to be the quality of being submissive. And to be submissive was also defined as being ready or willing to yield/conform to the authority of others (which is basically the same thing as “submission”).

Like I said, your IQ is tiny. I'm not even trying to curse you or something; I'm just stating a fact. If you cannot see that the two words are literally the same thing, then I have no business exchanging words with you. You're just too dumb.

About the following "Also, in your other post you said something about "self-effacement" being an indicator of self-confidence and intelligence. Now that's just an incredibly ignorant statement. Self-effacement is often seen in a negative light." LOL. You're obviously mentally deranged, because a sane and sound mind in your stead wouldn't have intentionally misquote me just to appear learned. I said that the most intelligent and confident people I know are always self-effacing - outwardly - I don't remember stating that it's an INDICATOR (as you maliciously ascribed) to intelligence and confidence; else I wouldn't have stated the following in one of my previous posts herein "In Igbo parlance we do say "an alpha male dog that fall on the ground for its equal isn't because of fear" - this is what effacement is all about."

You used "intelligent and confident" in your post, and I used "intelligence and self-confidence". Anyone with a remotely discriminating mind would have known that I only paraphrased your words, not alter them.

Stop embarassing yourself in public and do your research. Self-effacement is rarely a good quality.

Once more, only bumkins and articulate incompetents like you are always boisterous and arrogant. . . you didn't disappoint me of course.

Now, vamoose and look for your small-minded mates elsewhere. Bumkin.

Whatever, charlatan. Once again, it's "bumpkin", not "bumkin". LOL.

DarkRebel69:


There's no need to get salty. Just admit that you were talking a boatload of crap.

Besides, "bumkin" has to do with ships. It's not a derogatory term, which I assume you think it is. If you meant it as an abuse then you should have said "bumpkin". LOL



Empty barrels make the loudest noises.

The link to the website that you posted said absolutely nothing about a "tiny difference" (as you opined) between "submission" and "submissiveness". (I just wanted to get that out of the way before you think you have posted a valid link).

For the sake of you and your kind who have insufferably tiny IQs, I will try to explain as simply as I can, in the wild hope that you would eventually see how all what you've been doing is firing blanks (even though I'd have a better chance of persuading a volcano to not erupt than in making you see that you've been talking gibberish).

Now you say "submission" is different from "submissiveness", so let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the two terms:

1) Submission: "the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person."

2) Submissiveness: "the quality of being submissive."

3) Submissive: "ready to conform to the authority or will of others; meekly obedient or passive."

In the foregoing, we can see that submission is defined as the act of accepting or yielding to the authority of another person. Submissiveness is also said to be the quality of being submissive. And to be submissive was also defined as being ready or willing to yield/conform to authority (which is basically the same thing as “submission”).

Like I said, your IQ is tiny. I'm not even trying to curse you or something; I'm just stating a fact. If you cannot see that the two words are literally the same thing, then I have no business exchanging words with you. You're just too dumb.




You used "intelligent and confident" in your post, and I used "intelligence and self-confidence". Anyone with a remotely discriminating mind would have known that I only paraphrased your words, not alter them.

Stop embarassing yourself in public and do your research. Self-effacement is rarely a good quality.




Whatever, charlatan. Once again, it's "bumpkin", not "bumkin". LOL.

LOL. Learn you said no, be effacing you said no too.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/boomkin
boomkin
Also found in: Wikipedia.
bump·kin 1 (bŭmp′kĭn, bŭm′-)
n.
An awkward, unsophisticated person; a yokel.


BYE.

LordKO:

LOL. Learn you said no.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/boomkin
boomkin
Also found in: Wikipedia.
bump·kin 1 (bŭmp′kĭn, bŭm′-)
n.
An awkward, unsophisticated person; a yokel.


BYE.

What is this simpletön doing? LOL

[...]

–Bumpkin: "Unsophisticated person"

–Bumkin: "A short outrigger projecting from the side of the aft part of a square-rigged sailing ship"


You called me a "bumkin" when instead you meant to say "bumpkin". I corrected you, and now you're posting something that doesn't even make any sense. Hehehe.

Yeah, it's for the best that you've said "BYE". You're obviously pretentious and your level of understanding is piss-poor. So yes, BYE!

DarkRebel69:


What is this simpletön doing? LOL

[...]

–Bumpkin: "Unsophisticated person"

–Bumkin: "A short outrigger projecting from the side of the aft part of a square-rigged sailing ship"


You called me a "bumkin" when instead you meant to say "bumpkin". I corrected you, and now you're posting something that doesn't even make any sense. Hehehe.

Yeah, it's for the best that you've said "BYE". You're obviously pretentious and your level of understanding is piss-poor. So yes, BYE!

I quote you "Besides, "bumkin" has to do with ships. It's not a derogatory term, which I assume you think it is."

Truly, you don't have shame.

LordKO:

I quote you "Besides, "bumkin" has to do with ships. It's not a derogatory term, which I assume you think it is. If you meant it as an abuse then you should have said "bumpkin". LOL"

Truly, you don't have shame.

Oh, it's not about shame. What is shame? It's about the fact that your words have not the slightest effect on me.
I know I'm neither a ''bumkin" nor a "bumpkin", so why should I get offended? LOL

Be a man of your word; you've already said "BYE", so bum off already and stop bothering me, "Mr. Bumkin". Hehe.

DarkRebel69:


Oh, it's not about shame. What is shame? It's about the fact that your words have not the slightest effect on me.
I know I'm neither a ''bumkin" or a "bumpkin", so why should I get offended? LOL

Be a man of your word; you've already said "BYE", so bum off already and stop bothering me, "Mr. Bumkin". Hehe.

Next time choose your battle wisely. Lack of insight is a big disease - and no amount of schooling (academic) can cure it, only thoroughly acquired and continuous self-education can. Truly, arguing/dialogging with an articulate incompetent is akin to fighting with a pig; "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

Only an insightful person can extrapolate. And one who can extrapolate will not find it difficult to agree with me that there's a tiny but very important difference between the noun words SUBMISSIVENESS and SUBMISSION - submissiveness is the euphemism of submission on this subject. Just as there's a tiny but important difference between the words; NEED and WANT, GREEDINESS AND COVETOUSNESS, DEMAND AND REQUEST. Even sentences like "I love you" and "I am in love with you" have their tiny but important differences.

I even went to the extent of using Wikidiff to substantiate my claim, yet, some articulate incompetents are still adamant to learn - not surprised, because boisterousness is their thing, they don't like to lose honorably like responsible people do. LOL.: According to http://wikidiff.com/submission/submissiveness: As nouns the difference between submission and submissiveness is that submission is the act of submitting while submissiveness is the state or quality of being submissive. . . Which simply means that while the latter is an act of volition the former is an act of order/force.


A typical example of a bumkin is one that said:

- "Bumkin" has to do with ships. It's not a derogatory term" then after been defeated with fact that bumpkin means "an awkward, unsophisticated person; a yokel," came back within few minutes to further embarrass himself by concurring to my proven fact but without accepting his mental slowness.

- One who doesn't know that the word "indicator" as an active word doesn't mean the same thing as a passive word "appear" - especially in the context I used it, thus, maliciously misquoting me where I stated clearly and directly that most intelligent and confident people I know always appear self-effacing. And of course, it's also only a bumkin that won't understand that a negative word/action doesn't automatically mean an evil word/action - just as the lobby of a house doesn't mean insanity on the part of the architect that created it.

This is my final bye to you bumkin. LOL.

There is nothing wrong with yielding to your Husband. Being submissive doesn't mean you lose your own personality. My Husband loves me and I'm a submissive wife. He loves me enough to consider when something troubles me and to make necessary adjustments for my comfort. He wants me to be happy and I am very happy with him leading our home.

trustyshoess:

But I give orders to you. Now be gone from me!

Vai, when your mouth kon sharp like this?
You used to be somewhat reserved.

LordKO:

Next time choose your battle wisely.

This is my final bye to you bumkin. LOL.

See olodo telling me to choose my battles wisely. Hehe. Even after having his ignorance pointed out... Unbelievable!

You had better go learn the meaning of the words you use before throwing incoherent phrases about. Stark olodo who thinks "submission'' has a different meaning from "submissiveness". Mr. Tiny IQ.

BoleAndFish:
Vai, when your mouth kon sharp like this?
You used to be somewhat reserved.

the "vai" tho. Made me feel like I was being reprimanded by one of my uncles

My mouth has always been sharp, just didn't show it as often as I do now lol

Proudgorgeousga:
I saw this on Twitter and I'd like to know your thoughts.


Tweets by @doreenGLM

I just don't know what the allure is to accepting a future with someone who thinks he has the right to make the final decision on your life.

When women who have not yet experienced marriage, speak about "hoping to be good and submissive wives" I am almost always positive they have
No idea how difficult it is, to have reached a certain age where they have experienced independence and the self validation of being captain
Of their own ships, and having to suddenly deal with accomodating an outside opinion that might be selfishly motivated.

Suddenly, fighting
For what you want, makes you seem like one of those "bitter feminists" who go around thinking they can upend the natural order of things.

How did you get here? You thought submission was going to be easy. You thought "letting a man be a man" would not reduce you this much.

You thought you wouldn't feel this defiant and challenged. You thought he wouldn't expect THIS MUCH from you. You thought he would be fairer
.

Now you have to make even moreadjustments to keep the peace in your home. Now you have to accept that even trying to politely assert your
Opinion, causes him to stiffen up and tell you, "You have started again". The best thing to do now is just Pray and also work on being a

"Better wife", because being a "better you" is no longer as important. Being a wife trumps working on building self validation, and pride in

Making decisions to advance your own life. Now he gets to feel the self validation of the both of you. He can feel like the man he is. He is

Not only proud of his ability to control his life, but he can also control your own life too. He is a man, he makes decisions that are final
He walks around more confidently now because he knows there is a place he can go, where everyone is obedient. Where he can see the challenge

Flash in his wife's eyes, yet watch it leave with a quirk of his eyebrow. She becomes more unsure and anxious, while he becomes more

Confident. God has made her more of a better woman, she starts aligning herself to women in the bible who were meek and obedient. She Convinces herself that they are her heroes. If they could do it, so could she. She has a good job and contributes financially to her home,

But work is different from home. At home she is transformed over 2000 years back into the role of one of her heroes in the Bible.
If you are dating any man who has a passion for the idea of a submissive wife, if you have any love for preserving yourself, leave that man.

So many women are in church trying to deal with the MISTAKE they made of entering a more traditionally structured marriage. It is PAINFUL.

Don't believe the hype, being single is infinitely BETTER than losing yourself to someone who is so selfish that they don't grieve it.

How can you the person who claims to love you, want a meeker version of you? How can they want you to boost them up at your own expense?

How can they be okay with you becoming a child, dependent on their approval, when they met you as a fully functional adult? It is wrong.

Listen to me, do not make this mistake of thinking marriage has to be that hard or this difficult. It only is because you cannot be yourself

You are not a "better woman" because you learned how to "obey better". You have been broken by another person and it is EVIL.



also check out http://thegirlslikeme.com

The Poster ended up with self centered man, most times these kind of women deserve such men.
A man that allows his wife chase her own dreams, do her own thing are often termed "Weak",
More often than not women begin to develop contempt for such men.

But then it takes a real woman to spot a real man,
Dont complain about the man you end up with, it was your call to make.

trustyshoess:

the "vai" tho. Made me feel like I was being reprimanded by one of my uncles

My mouth has always been sharp, just didn't show it as often as I do now lol

Eehn are you serious? I didn't notice it one bit.