Hathor5:


If beta males are in charge of this world, that means that they are actually alpha. I don't expect you to understand it because I don't expect much from people who think in two categories.

To be fair, betas actually contribute the greatest to civilization. They are beneficial to you as a woman because they are the willing pawns in your game of manipulations like the betas of the west are doing.

From male perspective, they are actually shit. Now, see where their simping laws have landed them.

Almunjid:

I agree with u. Rules like this does more harm than good most times. But in this case, I support this judgement. The man tried to circumvent spousal responsibilities by not marrying. The lady loved him and she spent about 14 years of her youthful age with him. No any level-headed human would support that her 14 years old common-law marriage to be in vain. She deserves every penny of the monthly 50k alimony.

You obviously didn't read the write up well sir, he didn't try to circumvent spousal responsibilities as you suggested.

ubunja:
there's a reason why the Red Pill movement is unofficially headquartered in Canada. Its the strongest there because misandry is the strongest there.

Sandman is Canadian.

Canada is the world's heaven for feminists. For being a woman, you can get away with almost every misdeed.

The US and some other part of Western/Northern Europe have their share of simping but are no match to Canada.

The only part of Europe that seem not to have this simping madness is the Balkans

Carlyboi:



Well!it only proves that the “world gold digger”is not an exclusive preserve of our African women...and women of all races do date or marry for money,power and fame more often that not lol...it only behove a man to use his sixth sense on these matters of the heart and the flesh!Qed!

Wait, you thought only Nigerian women dig for gold?

Let me laugh first!

I'm sure she's getting similar support from her baby daddy.
Then this one dat konji has put into gbege.
Then she moves to another rich man, maybe wealthier.
Naso person go sidan &do nothing buh chopping money 4 life.
They're looking 4 naija yahoo boys, wen d real yahoo+++ dey wt dem

Martinez39s:
Meghan Markle had to subtly drag Prince Harry back to California. Though the misdanry, systemic war against masculinity, gynocentrism, and feminism are wide spread. I agree that Canada is the champion in that aspect.

Meghan Markle also pressured harry into buying an estate in Canada.

Now, you know why!

SIRTee15:


Don't worry, just wait until it hits u, then we will review your broader mindset.
Just like Mike Tyson said "every boxer has a plan, until they enter the ring and get punched in the face".

That was how that Twitter doctor was supporting rape victims irrespective of circumstances until that girl came for his blokos....
He's got a disciplinary hearing with GMC soon and God help him and his medical licence.

That judgement was a scam and u know it. The lady just opened pension on top the guys head for nothing.
Do u know how many men will be stuck with spousal support if they are forced to account for every relationship with the opposite sex. That's sufficient to bankrupt 99% of men.

Well this is a lesson to all simps like Latner- once a simp for women, u are forever enslaved. The guy even paid off her mortgage while they were dating. Yet it wasn't even considered.

The western nations should continue their stupidity and their pathway to self destruct. He go soon clear for their eyes.
Moral decadence, weak family values n dysfunctional society are the initial symptoms of an empire in decline.

It is funny that his good deeds actually counted against him.

They didn't think 'oh, he paid off her mortgage, he really loved her. What happened line.'

Do good with sense.

Ore ni won.

faithfull18:
It should extend to Nigeria

so that your likes can milk gullible Nigerian men dry abi?

MrBrownJay1:


Exactly!!!! Any person with some little wealth and common sense (whether in love or not), must think of when that love/Union will be over, in order to protect their wealth (because we all know that one day or another, love go sour). The law is there from the get go, it's your job to make sure you protect your wealth at all times.

I know "someone" in Brazil who was changing his gfs every 6 months, regardless of how much he loved them, simply because he knew that staying with them more than 6 months would put his wealth in danger of being part of some love settlement, if ever these women sued him. It's called protecting your wealth.....and unless you put your wealth under some hidden corporation that can't be traced back to you, then that's what most men with money must do.

So far, 50cent and OJ Simpson are the only famous people that have been able to succeed doing that. That's why they were sued and these people are still waiting for their money, even though both are rich.

@bold:

Sad.

Unnatural laws birth unnatural behaviors to beat them.

Well, 3rd wave feminists made it easy:

Get a consent form and hook up.

If you want a kid, get a surrogate and hire a nanny.

EOD.

bukatyne:


Wait, you thought only Nigerian women dig for gold?

Let me laugh first!

How?Ikr I was just saying lol!its a subtle sarcasm!

Dybala11:

so that your likes can milk gullible Nigerian men dry abi?

I don't cohabit , so that cohabiters get to pay since they don't want to do the right thing.

Joystark:

Ask pipo wey don marry.

Are the individuals up there married??

faithfull18:

I don't cohabit , so that cohabiters get to pay since they don't want to do the right thing.

Exactly, but the individuals that are the bone of contention in the scenario there are neither married nor cohabiting. In fact the lady has no kids for the man yet she was claiming and was awarded spousal support by the judge.

Hathor5:


I never hear white men complain about these laws as much as they and their internet sources do. All I see is white men getting married left, right and centre without prenups. Marriage rates are even on the rise again. The only time I hear of these complaints are when they post the contributions of red pillars, a movement which is not even widely known here.

I will ask my white friends and colleagues next week if they have heard of the red pillars next week. I have only heard about it on NL. LMAO

I would be surprised if they knew. The western media does a good job of censoring them and keep them off the attention of the mainstream. You know the reason.

Ishilove:

Take the redpillers serious to your own detriment. Na only online dem sabi make mouth. Last last it is still the same Nigerian women they will end up marrying

The same marriage rate in Nigeria that is falling. Lol.

Not your fault though. The simp thirst and delusion is much around.

Dybala11:

Exactly, but the individuals that are the bone of contention in the scenario there are neither married nor cohabiting. In fact the lady has no kids for the man yet she was claiming and was awarded spousal support by the judge.

A 14-year old committed relationship is almost a marriage. She deserves it and much more because I am sure she was an unofficial wife

Terryishere:
She was working but apparently he wanted her to quit her job so that she could travel with him, big mistake.

The man is worth 100s of millions of dollars, he can afford her to quit her job...

unmask:
Did you miss the part where he proposed and she rejected, because she didn't want to sign a document which would have been a prenup. That law makes no sense...... because it then negates the usefulness of marriage and prenup. It can only make sense if there is a document that both can sign to ensure in the case of a break up, he loses nothing. A pre-relationship.

Wandaful!!!!! You tell your babe you want a prenup before marriage and she refuses to sign one.... And instead of dropping this obvious gold-digging woman, you decide to stay with her for 14yrs. Now when the LAW (that was there before you met this woman) says you need to pay her spousal support, you want to blame the LAW?!?!?! Are you okay?!?!?! The only person to be blamed here is the donkey who knowingly AND willingly stayed with this confirmed gold-digger. Nobody else!!!

victons:
Apart from Berry, most others are untrue, in some cases, they only paid off to have the child in their custody.

Educate yourself on the issue so I don't have to do it for you...or better yet, Google is your friend.

nick50:
..i don't really understand ur question.. does it mean she is physically deformed? doesn't she have hands? can't she work for the money so she can continue living that lavish lifestyle?.. guy are u sure u are with ur senses??

Again, this women wasn't deformed when dude decided she should now never use Keke again and instead should always ride helicopter. The man willingly changed her life, which she is now accustomed to. So if your kids are now going to private school with private driver and $10k pocket money every months, then just because you guys divorce, doesn't mean any of these people should now suffer and change their lifestyle. If daddy/mummy can pay their partner and kids so that they can continue living such lifestyle, then the court of law has decided that they should.

bigfrancis21:
I don’t agree with this. Just because someone changed your life out of his goodwill/good heart doesn’t mean you’re entitled to his money. It doesn’t make sense.

Bro, you are fully entitled to your opinion, but we are not here to discuss what we like or not, we are here to understand and follow the law. The LAW says that after divorce or séparation, spouse/children cannot change lifestyle and that the richer spouse should make sure they continue living the life they have been accustomed to. So until poorer spouse has a job that can sustain such lifestyle and/or they get remarried, then ex wealthy spouse should pay spousal support. Now, anyone with a brain would understand this very simple LAW.

Again, we don't care about what "you" believe is right or wrong, FOCUS ON THE LAW!!!

bukatyne:
@bold:
Sad.
Unnatural laws birth unnatural behaviors to beat them.
Well, 3rd wave feminists made it easy:
Get a consent form and hook up.
If you want a kid, get a surrogate and hire a nanny.
EOD.

Any man/woman should protect their wealth (they have worked all their lives for) the best way they see fit... With these above laws, NO wise wealthy man should get married in the west, unless he is willing to part with his loot. As for any live-in GFs etc, make sure she pays just as much as you do, with EVERYTHING, don't turn her into no lazy telemundo expert cow while you are the only one working, and if you have to give her some money, do that undercover so it cannot be traced back to you. So on paper you guys are on the same level....and when she ultimately leaves, she will go with exactly what she came in with.

@SIRtee15
Again, the LAW is not the problem here, the donkeys who knowingly ignore the LAW are...

faithfull18:

A 14-year old committed relationship is almost a marriage. She deceives it and much more because I am sure she was an unofficial wife

Well it's obvious that she was after his wealth from the beginning, as he wanted her to sign a prenuptial agreement before marriage but she refused to get married with a prenup.
Also, if you think that she deserved access to the man's wealth because they dated then do you think the man is entitled to sex with her for the next 10 years cos they once dated for 14 years??

Arsenate:

I'm disappointed that you are disappointed in realising Poco isn't the sharpest tool in the box. For some bizarre reason, nairalanders think she's intelligent. Completely Bizarre.

You can't take people who consider a clownish troll whose puerile comments emanate from the brain of one with single-digit IQ, always starting with "Damn Nigarrr" intelligent as a serious set of people. They'll sure consider that spent cûnt, a genius.

Dybala11:

Well it's obvious that she was after his wealth from the beginning, as he wanted her to sign a prenuptial agreement before marriage but she refused to get married with a prenup.
Also, if you think that she deserved access to the man's wealth because they dated then do you think the man is entitled to sex with her for the next 10 years cos they once dated for 14 years??

He isn't entitled to anything from her. Read the article

faithfull18:

He isn't entitled to anything from her. Read the article

Then she's not entitled to anything either going by your logic, or was she the only one that was in the relationship for 14 years??
You see, relationship is a two ways thing.

I'm not against spousal support benefits, but how many men do you think it would affect if men were directed to pay spousal support to their ex girlfriends?? How will you feel if you're asked to pay spousal support to your ex boyfriend ma??

In this particular case, they were neither married nor cohabiting, they didn't have any kid in the relationship too.

X

Dybala11:

You obviously didn't read the write up well sir, he didn't try to circumvent spousal responsibilities as you suggested.

Edited. Thanks!

bukatyne:

@bold:

Sad.

Unnatural laws birth unnatural behaviors to beat them.

Well, 3rd wave feminists made it easy:

Get a consent form and hook up.

If you want a kid, get a surrogate and hire a nanny.

EOD.

Like I noted on the first page in my conversation with angelfallz, sensible men will/should continue gaming the system for as long as possible.

Every law, or more specifically, laws that have to do with policing the relationship between men and women, will always have loopholes that can be exploited... and exploited they should.

Cunny man die, cunny man bury am.

crackhaus:

Like I noted on the first page in my conversation with angelfallz, sensible men will/should continue gaming the system for as long as possible.

Every law, or more specifically, laws that have to do with policing the relationship between men and women, will always have loopholes that can be exploited... and exploited they should.

Cunny man die, cunny man bury am.

You have seen the new one from Ghana?

Not eating wife's food or coming home late or anything to hurt the wife emotionally punishable by fine or up to 2 years imprisonment.

Not sleeping with husband also punishable.

@bold:

True.

Skepticus:


To be fair, betas actually contribute the greatest to civilization. They are beneficial to you as a woman because they are the willing pawns in your game of manipulations like the betas of the west are doing.

From male perspective, they are actually shit. Now, see where their simping laws have landed them.

Another alpha male spotted.

bukatyne:


You have seen the new one from Ghana?

Not eating wife's food or coming home late or anything to hurt the wife emotionally punishable by fine or up to 2 years imprisonment.

Not sleeping with husband also punishable.

@bold:

True.

If those laws actually exist (I'm doubtful because I found that news terribly half-arsed), there are still loopholes.

For instance, is there a time duration for how long a man can go home late or not eat his wife's food, before it will qualify as emotional abuse?
What if the man tells his wife he's going on a very important trip while pretending all is well, but secretly he just wants to avoid the house and her food?

What if he is like me who will continue eating a woman/wife's food, coming home early, even having dispassionate sex with her, but can still 100% maintain my emotional disconnect and aloofness, will I qualify as an emotional abuser since they shot themselves in the foot by specifying the criteria for emotional abuse?

Again, I don't think that shít is real.
It even sounds extremely silly just reading it out aloud to myself and I can't imagine how someone could be saying all of that and maintain a straight face all through.
Well he/she could be a professional comic actor, who knows?

Openbusiness:
you didn't hear it from my mouth sir

okay, I've heard you Sir.

At least, now I know.

MrBrownJay1:


The man is worth 100s of millions of dollars, he can afford her to quit her job...



Wandaful!!!!! You tell your babe you want a prenup before marriage and she refuses to sign one.... And instead of dropping this obvious gold-digging woman, you decide to stay with her for 14yrs. Now when the LAW (that was there before you met this woman) says you need to pay her spousal support, you want to blame the LAW?!?!?! Are you okay?!?!?! The only person to be blamed here is the donkey who knowingly AND willingly stayed with this confirmed gold-digger. Nobody else!!!



Educate yourself on the issue so I don't have to do it for you...or better yet, Google is your friend.



Again, this women wasn't deformed when dude decided she should now never use Keke again and instead should always ride helicopter. The man willingly changed her life, which she is now accustomed to. So if your kids are now going to private school with private driver and $10k pocket money every months, then just because you guys divorce, doesn't mean any of these people should now suffer and change their lifestyle. If daddy/mummy can pay their partner and kids so that they can continue living such lifestyle, then the court of law has decided that they should.



Bro, you are fully entitled to your opinion, but we are not here to discuss what we like or not, we are here to understand and follow the law. The LAW says that after divorce or séparation, spouse/children cannot change lifestyle and that the richer spouse should make sure they continue living the life they have been accustomed to. So until poorer spouse has a job that can sustain such lifestyle and/or they get remarried, then ex wealthy spouse should pay spousal support. Now, anyone with a brain would understand this very simple LAW.

Again, we don't care about what "you" believe is right or wrong, FOCUS ON THE LAW!!!



Any man/woman should protect their wealth (they have worked all their lives for) the best way they see fit... With these above laws, NO wise wealthy man should get married in the west, unless he is willing to part with his loot. As for any live-in GFs etc, make sure she pays just as much as you do, with EVERYTHING, don't turn her into no lazy telemundo expert cow while you are the only one working, and if you have to give her some money, do that undercover so it cannot be traced back to you. So on paper you guys are on the same level....and when she ultimately leaves, she will go with exactly what she came in with.

@SIRtee15
Again, the LAW is not the problem here, the donkeys who knowingly ignore the LAW are...

Well laws are made by man and can be changed. In this case, it does not make sense at all and I don't agree with it.

MrBrownJay1:

@Gamesmart
1) it's obvious the woman stopped working and decided to stay home, while this man paid her a monthly salary, gave her a credit card paid off, paid her mortgage etc.... This shows that as soon as they met, she didn't have the need/desire to work, since she was getting free money from her "common law" husband.

And your point is?

He is responsible for her and her decisions?

MrBrownJay1:

2) whether a women earns less than men or not, is irrelevant to you contributing to your own lifestyle. If this woman had a job and was paying her share for everything they did, then this man wouldn't have to fork that much monthly to her.

This is nonsense!

A court should not be ordering any man to be paying for the lifestyle of his girlfriend. End of!

MrBrownJay1:

3) these Laws have nothing to do with gender, as I have clearly stated earlier.

Stop talking nonsense!

The laws were made to favour women. Anybody with a threshold IQ knows that.

It has something to do with gender.

If a bad law was affecting mainly women, it will not last long in a Western country.

MrBrownJay1:

4) nooo, cohabitation law simply means that...if you act like husband and wife (for a certain period of time), then you will be treated as such in the eyes of the LAW.

Stop talking nonsense!

Cohabitation law in Canada says if you live together like husband and wife for 3 years or more, then you will be treated like husband and wife.

It did not exist in this case but the Judge has stretched the meaning.

You know why?

Because the whole society there tries to favour women and the Judge is bias. They make laws to favour women, now the law is being twisted to favour women.

The whole LAW is nonsense in the first place and this stretching makes it even more nonsense!

Stop defending nonsense with nonsense!

bigfrancis21:
Well laws are made by man and can be changed. In this case, it does not make sense at all and I don't agree with it.

There are many laws in this world that I believe make NO DAMN SENSE AND THAT I DONT AGREE WITH as well, but sadly, this discussion is not about that.

Gamesmart:
And your point is? He is responsible for her and her decisions?

The LAW stipulates that yes he is... Remember, focus on the LAW, nothing else.

This is nonsense! A court should not be ordering any man to be paying for the lifestyle of his girlfriend. End of!

You are fully entitled to your opinion, sadly, many courts around the world do order men to pay for the lifestyle that their long term GFs has been accustomed to....

Stop talking nonsense!The laws were made to favour women. Anybody with a threshold IQ knows that. It has something to do with gender. If a bad law was affecting mainly women, it will not last long in a Western country.

Educate yourself so I don't have to do it for you....
- There are NO LAWS on earth that stipulates that women should be lazy and stay home while husband slaves away at work and brings all the finances.
- there are NO LAWS on earth that says that men should contribute for a woman's entire life necessities while she does nothing.
- there are NO LAWS on earth that stipulates that, as soon as a man dates a woman for a certain period of time (or marries her), she becomes his financial responsibility.
- there are NO LAWS on earth that stipulates that men should pay for everything while women contribute to nothing.
- there are NO LAWS that stipulates that men should take care of women.
- there are NO LAWS that says that a man cannot tell his woman to contribute her fair share to the family unit.
.... The above is solely a man's decision, even though the LAW is very clear about what will happen if he does the above and then they separate. Stop blaming the LAW for the foolishness of men.

Stop talking nonsense!Cohabitation law in Canada says if you live together like husband and wife for 3 years or more, then you will be treated like husband and wife.It did not exist in this case but the Judge has stretched the meaning.

AGAIN, Educate yourself on the subject so I don't have to do it for you....
A) this has nothing to do with cohabitation law/rights and all to do with "common law marriage rights and/or conjugal relationships rights and/or unmarried spouses rights".
B) as much as they didn't have the same address, they either slept at his house or hers AND behaved as a couple both privately/publicly AND he was the one paying for her mortgage AND he often called her by his surname AND he took care of all her life's needs AND he gave her a monthly salary and a credit card that was paid for.... FOR FOURTEEN YEARS. Therefore the court of law decided that they were Indeed in a common law marriage aka a conjugal r/ship aka they were unmarried spouses.

You know why?Because the whole society there tries to favour women and the Judge is bias. They make laws to favour women, now the law is being twisted to favour women. The whole LAW is nonsense in the first place and this stretching makes it even more nonsense!

- Did the law forced this man to stay with this woman and take care of her as a husband would, for fourteen years, even though she was adamant she was not gonna marry him nor sign any prenup?!?!
- Should the law be responsible for the stupidity of men, even though this man knew fully well what he was getting himself into?!
- what stopped this man from getting rid of this woman, the minute she said she was not gonna sign a prenup?!
...again, stop confusing fair laws with stupid men who act as donkeys in marriages. This donkey chose to pay for everything, this donkey chose to take care of the needs of this woman, this donkey chose to elevate this woman into a certain lifestyle for 14yrs....not the LAW

Stop defending nonsense with nonsense!

I stand by the LAW while you are the one defending nonsense. whether you agree with the LAW or not is irrelevant to this case... If you are smart and believe that the LAW favors women (you are entitled to your opinion), then you as a smart man should make sure that you are protected against such LAWs you deem unfair. You would be the dumbest donkey if you believe the law favors women and STILL enter into such r/ship without protecting your wealth.