Here’s my latest theory. A CFA is not CFA.
Hang on, that’s not as dumb as it sounds.
Think about it. CFAs are based on convenience. But as long as two [or more] people are involved in anything, convenience will be relative. Mr A might get hunger pangs while Ms B is busy with Mwaura. Or the lady may want some when the guy has had a long day and just wants to sleep.
In relationships, working relationships that is, the couple compromise. The sister from the red hills might choose to buy a lollipop, or the poor exhausted stud may sip some lucozade and pop a few Viagra for the love of his girl. But in a CFA, there is no care, no obligation. You can simply say you don’t feel like it, and that’s it. Which leaves the Co-CFA in a fix, unless of course he or she has a whole list of Plan B’s. i.e. multiple CFA, or an active LBCG – little black caller group.
But here’s the clincher. The kind of people who operate CFAs can’t have them in multiples. They’re just not wired this way. I explain. See, the CFA is about supply and demand. You want ngingi and your CFA can supply it – at their convenience, not yours. But who gets into a CFA? Generally, smart monogamous people having trouble sustaining ‘normal’ relationships. They’re usually recently broken up and craving their regular dose, or disillusioned with coupling and looking for a parachute. CFA is the logical option.
See, the average [read stupid] population go around having one-night stands. They have them in all shapes and sizes – gloved, ungloved, single, prepaid, married, roofied. And you never know where your shag has been. Their habits may be less than stellar. Or their partner’s habits. Or their partner’s partner’s habits. People don’t remember that when you sleep with someone, you’re effectively sleeping with everyone they’ve ever slept with.
Take scenario A. A shapely teenage girl was hurt as a child, but probably doesn’t remember it, or doesn’t want to talk about it. She flowers, and finds a nice guy, and they get friendly. She can’t tell him what happened because she (a) has no idea, or (b) is afraid he won’t like her anymore. She doesn’t know something has been festering inside her for years. So now you have two sick people. Both of them, years later, get married, and now we have four sick people. And on and on and on. So random shags are pretty much like playing Russian roulette with a loaded gun, a head full of vodka and an itchy trigger finger.
Which is why smart people make CFAs. They figure it’s safer to have one consistent source than to go sipping at random taps, what with the state of NCC these days. Of course, the fact that they are CFA-ing at all proves they’re serially monogamous. They prefer to be with one person at a time.
And this is the problem.
In a functional relationship, people compromise on sex, so that each couple gets some semblance of contentment when it comes to frequency and quality. In a CFA, there’s no discussion. It’s yes or no, depending on the weather. People who try CFAs are really just looking for a cheaper relationship without the trimmings, a generic S/O, so to speak – no birthdays or dates or candles or flowers means no cost, no stress, no drama. But it also means no sex, coz you might call her when her folks are in town, or you might call him at his kid sister’s birthday gig…Plus, more often than not, one of the CFA-ers has more-than-horizontal designs on the other, which just makes it more frustrating.
So. CFA is a hoax. The latest in a string of relationship myths that started when Eve gave Adam the apple and claimed she did it out of love. I like to think it was love that made Adam take it. Or if you believe the animated version, she looked so much prettier when she was evil. Her hair was all wild and sexy, and she had this ‘eat-me’ look in her eyes. If it was love that made him bite the Mac, then he only proves that love is blind and stupid. Too bad it feels good enough to nab us.
As for FWB, well, that one works, but it’s pretty much like juggling fireballs while mono-cycling on titghtrope over a vat of boiling oil. It’s beautiful when it’s right, fatal when it’s not, and the line between is pretty murky…
This whole mess with Nakumatt is pretty disturbing. I think I am unbelievably naïve, but I just don’t see how people can be seriously thinking about suing Nakumatt. Granted what happened was terrible. It’s possible the claims are right, and that maybe Nakumatt shut the doors in a panic, thinking the blast was a ruse and trying to prevent looters. They’re probably feeling pretty hunted – first Thika road and now a mysterious fire!
And I realize the mourners are angry, driven by rage, and wanting someone to pay, to take responsibility, to say they’re sorry. But all the money in the world won’t soothe the pain, or bring back the loved ones, or give the little girl her mummy back. So I can’t help being disgusted that people want to sue!
And the Molo accident. Sigh. I don’t even know what to say there. I was kinda angry when I heard the gava is organising a harambee to treat the burns, since the people who got burnt were stealing ! I hear it happens really often. The trailers are insured, so the drivers just park the truck, sell the oil, then tip it over and claim an accident. Reports are questioning how the trailer crashed on a straight, safe road, so maybe that’s what happened. Some other reports say someone got mad and lit the people up, others say it was just some idiot who lit a cigarette while knee deep in petrol.
But whatever the reason, I’m thinking about the desperation people live in. I don’t know if it’s greed, or just survival. There’s a story that in the Nakumatt fire, while frantic relatives were milling around calling their people, trying to get information, other people were snatching their phones. The Somali boy who lost his mum and sister while he stood nearby unable to get in, had his phone nabbed as he called for help.
A friend of mine was at a funeral once, in shags. It was a close knit community, so everyone around knew what was going on. My friend went to run an errand in a nearby shop. She had the funeral kitty, and was talking on the phone when she got hit by a speeding mat. She flew into the air, and her bag did too, spraying about 20K all over the road. The people around grabbed the money first, then one of them came to inform us what had happened. The girl died, and we never got the money back. Is that cruelty, greed, or poverty?
What makes people risk their lives to go swimming in crude oil just to grab a few litres so they can make a few shillings? None of those looters would have earned more than a sock from that oil, but in shags, a sock is a fortune. Were they unaware of the danger they were exposed to, or were they too desperate to care?
PS: There is this person that I am trying very hard to dislike, simply because I should [and probably because I’m jealous]. The problem is, they are such a sweet person that there is no earthly – or unearthly – reason for my hostility. Which just makes me hate them all the more. I mean how can somebody who should be so bad be so nice?! Woman, grow a dark side, will you!