Girl 1: My kind of Guy must be TDH, No more, No less!
Girl 2: Hmmm... 'na today I know say you dull, wetin you wan take TDH do?' Mine must be rich, yes, very rich! You can then add the TDH. In short, he must be RTDH!
Girl 1: Well..., not that I want to marry a poor guy o. He should have some money 'sha', at least to keep me comfortable but he must be 'tall, dark and handsome'. I cant afford to have children with big heads and
yellow teeth!
Girl 2: 'Na you know'. 'Money na number 1 for me'. Once the guy is rich, I can be less strict on the other criteria.
Girl 3: [Staring unapprovingly at the two girls] I thought you girls are Christians? Shouldn't the guy's faith be paramount in your criteria? He should at least be born again, good mannered, caring...
Girl 2: [Interrupts] 'Abeg leave banana for monkey. That na your own criteria, I go chop bible?'
Girl 3: See..., one day, that wealth might disappear, what would you do then? His handsome face can also be battered in an accident, would you then leave him? As christians, we must look for enduring attributes in our spouses and not these tangible worthly things that would pass away...
Girl 2: 'Na who tell you say the enduring attributes of your christian brother no fit change'. He too can backslide or become a muslim, he could become bad tempered someday and might even stop caring. Abi na lie I talk?
Girl 3: That's true but....
The above scene feels familiar right? Well, it should be if you are a lady and you are close to, or in your years of 'worry'. Now, to conclude the story, Girl 3 managed to defend herself with the help of another girl (Girl 4) who later joined the conversation introducing bible passages.
Sometimes I wonder how people get to draw the line between what is morally right or wrong. I feel that there are arguments that should be discussed on the basis of reason and rationality cos religion is known to throw up emotions that tend to distort facts. Girl 3 and 4 may win the argument because they played on the head of religion and moral standards but I doubt if the other girls would be convinced.
Now the big questions are; what needs and wants are moral and what needs are not and what is the defining factor? How is it that when Tosin claims to be in luv with Ade because he is born again and gentle, she is praised and seen as virtuous but when it comes to Ada, who loves Chinedu because of his wealth, critisms follows? In my opinion, when we claim to be in luv with someone, it is because we are attracted by that person's personality. An individuals personality, for me, is built on three cardinal attributes: one of them is the physical (beauty, wealth etc), the other is the spiritual while the third is attitude (character). We can be attracted to a person if one or all of the attributes of his personality meet a certain criteria.
If you are flowin in the same spiritual realm as I am, then you'ld agree with me that there should be no difference between Ada (who feels that the financial make up of a man is more important than any other aspect of his personality) and Tosin (who only wants a Godfearing, fire breathing brother Ade) and there should thus be no segregation of choices in terms of morals. It is not a crime if one man's ice cream is another's yoyo bitters! 'abi na by force to like yoyo bitters?' But on a more serious note, who has made us so high a judge as to judge other's preference. Even looking at it logically, the same way Chinedu can loose his wealth is the same Ade can loose his cool temper or even backslide. Both ladies would thus be faced with the same dilenma if anything goes wrong with their preferences.
For my fellow guys, there's nothing wrong if you love funmi because of her 'backside' or 'frontside'. If Funmi happens to pass my street with those features, I would definitely fall in love too, whether she be Usher for church, or choir master for mosque or sacrifice for shrine - and dont you dare call it infatuation!
Girl 2: Hmmm... 'na today I know say you dull, wetin you wan take TDH do?' Mine must be rich, yes, very rich! You can then add the TDH. In short, he must be RTDH!
Girl 1: Well..., not that I want to marry a poor guy o. He should have some money 'sha', at least to keep me comfortable but he must be 'tall, dark and handsome'. I cant afford to have children with big heads and
yellow teeth!
Girl 2: 'Na you know'. 'Money na number 1 for me'. Once the guy is rich, I can be less strict on the other criteria.
Girl 3: [Staring unapprovingly at the two girls] I thought you girls are Christians? Shouldn't the guy's faith be paramount in your criteria? He should at least be born again, good mannered, caring...
Girl 2: [Interrupts] 'Abeg leave banana for monkey. That na your own criteria, I go chop bible?'
Girl 3: See..., one day, that wealth might disappear, what would you do then? His handsome face can also be battered in an accident, would you then leave him? As christians, we must look for enduring attributes in our spouses and not these tangible worthly things that would pass away...
Girl 2: 'Na who tell you say the enduring attributes of your christian brother no fit change'. He too can backslide or become a muslim, he could become bad tempered someday and might even stop caring. Abi na lie I talk?
Girl 3: That's true but....
The above scene feels familiar right? Well, it should be if you are a lady and you are close to, or in your years of 'worry'. Now, to conclude the story, Girl 3 managed to defend herself with the help of another girl (Girl 4) who later joined the conversation introducing bible passages.
Sometimes I wonder how people get to draw the line between what is morally right or wrong. I feel that there are arguments that should be discussed on the basis of reason and rationality cos religion is known to throw up emotions that tend to distort facts. Girl 3 and 4 may win the argument because they played on the head of religion and moral standards but I doubt if the other girls would be convinced.
Now the big questions are; what needs and wants are moral and what needs are not and what is the defining factor? How is it that when Tosin claims to be in luv with Ade because he is born again and gentle, she is praised and seen as virtuous but when it comes to Ada, who loves Chinedu because of his wealth, critisms follows? In my opinion, when we claim to be in luv with someone, it is because we are attracted by that person's personality. An individuals personality, for me, is built on three cardinal attributes: one of them is the physical (beauty, wealth etc), the other is the spiritual while the third is attitude (character). We can be attracted to a person if one or all of the attributes of his personality meet a certain criteria.
If you are flowin in the same spiritual realm as I am, then you'ld agree with me that there should be no difference between Ada (who feels that the financial make up of a man is more important than any other aspect of his personality) and Tosin (who only wants a Godfearing, fire breathing brother Ade) and there should thus be no segregation of choices in terms of morals. It is not a crime if one man's ice cream is another's yoyo bitters! 'abi na by force to like yoyo bitters?' But on a more serious note, who has made us so high a judge as to judge other's preference. Even looking at it logically, the same way Chinedu can loose his wealth is the same Ade can loose his cool temper or even backslide. Both ladies would thus be faced with the same dilenma if anything goes wrong with their preferences.
For my fellow guys, there's nothing wrong if you love funmi because of her 'backside' or 'frontside'. If Funmi happens to pass my street with those features, I would definitely fall in love too, whether she be Usher for church, or choir master for mosque or sacrifice for shrine - and dont you dare call it infatuation!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment, I would love to hear your thoughts!