₦airaland Forum

Acidosis:
Used to like the idea but right now, I can't be bothered. Asides the stress you go through, a change of name would not change anything. People would still address you as Mrs (your husband's name) whether you do a newspaper publication or not (not like anyone is going to read it anyway). The fact is that a change of name would make zero impact outside few paper works.

The main and critical documents such as your wife's certificates/documents from birth, even your marriage certificate, would reflect her dad's name. So what's the point? Bank?

However, for aesthetic purposes (e.g. to share same name with the children), a family may decide to consider a change of name.

RisenPhoenix1:
What would be the point of such a marriage. Men can just hire escorts part time. Or restore the concept of concubinage.

angelfallz:
i no gree for that kain sentiment. Woman wey no fit respect you for your own house, no worth am. Haba, you be man, you wan tell me say you no fit generate money again? Na only men wey no get respect for themselves and desperate men dey follow woman wey dey disrepect them walai.

Mindlog:
The system was designed to be stressful.

StPete:
I'm sure those angry and derogatory posts were from the wife. It's obvious. What an uncultured imp without recourse to controlling her emotions in public (or on a public forum)

Liposure:
have you been reading my mind?

Dapcity007:
Bullshit
I knew it you're a Feminist
Rubbish

So you want us to be held to God's standard so you progressive feminist will manipulative our laws to allow for divorce alimony ,while camouflaging under religion

My instincts said I shouldn't trust you, that's why I asked whether you are a feminist

Thank God I followed my guts

angelfallz:
Which boys? I am surprised some people still watch the national team play

aroundtheearth:
I hope so. Make them no disappoint us again. Go Super Eagles!

aroundtheearth:
Ehn ehn, is there a rule that says one cannot resurrect a thread from 6-years ago?

authority2006:
Did you that part? What freedom are we still talking about? May be he should allow her to bring men into his house

Beverlyjean:
Please don't ever go into marriage...remain single all ur life and don't ever allow any man commit to u cos its certain that u have a selfish , greedy and wicked personality... 25000 d is 2.5 million naira monthly, luxury car and even gave her freedom , and now she repays him after 25yrs with divorce on the grounds that she wants total freedom to flex... cos money is now in her wallet to live however she wishes... if the man was giving her only 1000 d monthly, she would not hv gone to court ...u see we women are the cause of most problems in marriages due to greed and selfishness... u think marriage is relationship... the man should even seize her passport cos she will wanna run away from the country... freedom is good but giving absolute freedom can destroy

LordKO:
This isn't entirely true "The Law unfortunately cannot force anyone to be with their partners when they have checked out of the union"

The law seldom grants an unjust divorce, especially where one of the parties involved is still interested in the union. The judge even demonstrated this in his judgment. In a lenient scenario, the judge will penalize her and award damages in favor of the husband, and then let her go.

Of course, the law or anyone can't force someone to stay emotionally connected to their partner; she's long bailed out emotionally from the husband. The object of attraction isn't appealing to her anymore, and as I said above, the husband partly contributed to it through the condoning of nonsense from her. If I were the husband, I'd subject her to some pains and then let her go - one who comes into equity should always come with clean hands because peace is only priceless when obtained under mutual goodness.

thorpido:
She don open eye.She's tired of the eleha status.

aroundtheearth:

aroundtheearth:
1. No
2. No

thorpido:
Good judgement.
If she insists on getting the divorce,then she should be made to pay the Dh 25,000 monthly she has been receiving.

LordKO:
Her action is typical of a self-absorbing and or opportunistic woman (or man); to her type, it's always about her happiness first instead of what's right. Anyway, her husband was partly an enabler of her unhealthy attitude through the condoning of nonsense from her; reward unconscientious acts at your peril.

Romanoff:
All these pain and sadness could have been prevented if she had said no to fornication.

The baby mama life ain't Sugar, Spice and everything nice afterall.

Dapcity007:
What nonsense are you saying with your mouth
Do you think men and women are equal?
Do you think we be held to the same societal standards?
What rubbish

Thompz43:
Hypocrite everywhere...
wetin we go call this one now, if na naija boy to Oyinbo woman now Nairaland for don divided
For the sake of Green card...

GBOKASINCHA:
37 year old and you are this foolish.... 3 years remain before you become a permanent fool at 40

Dpsychologist:
Exactly. Domestic Violence is mostly bidirectional.

GreaterFuture3:
So they Hold this type of wedding Ceremonies? On this Scale? At that age, Stage and Number of Wife?
This is the first time I'm seeing this

angelfallz:
I've never seen where TRP tells men to marry virgins

RisenPhoenix1:
It's all a case of interpretation. If you had said that TRP and feminism clash with your personally favoured interpretation of the Bible, I would not have objected. But you stated 'christianity'. There is no proof that your interpretations are more correct or doctrinal than theirs.

Pentecostal Christianity is the most modern of Kankans. It can easily be traced to its origins, even though pentecostals claim to be following the original form; just like all other Christians. Who's to say what is right?

All those verses you cited fit into the narrative. There is no contextual background that clearly contradicts the interpretation given to them. Listening to Eve did bring grief to Adam, and Joseph did eventually take care of a child not his own.

Did it occur to you that your last statement may be exactly what other Christians think of your own interpretation?

RisenPhoenix1:
1. Your points one and three contradict each other, and this is further emphasized by the bolded. It just goes to highlight what I said; using the Bible to prove/disprove anything is a vague concept depending on the personal interpretation of what one considers to be relevant scripture (yes, there is that clause too).

2. As for 'modern pop' Christianity, I believe he meant the charismatic evangelical flavour which currently makes up most of Nigerian Christianity today, and which you are statistically likely to be a follower of yourself.

RisenPhoenix1:
1. Too many vague concepts are compared. For example; modern feminism has many postulations, as do the different arms of the red pill movement. And the most ambiguous term in your article is... Christian doctrine. What does that even mean?

2. Rollo Tomassi in his 4th book on Religion argued that modern pop Christianity especially, tends to empower the feminist movement. Any attempt to discredit the modern Christian doctrine that does so only results in a "no true Scotsman" fallacy; i.e. if it empowers the feminist movement, therefore it is not true Christian doctrine, and if it is Christian doctrine, it will not empower the feminist movement. Which brings us back to the question, what is true Christian doctrine?

3. Also, there is a redpill blogger called Dalrock who dedicates his time to proving the congruence between the redpill movement and Christianity. Maybe you should look up some of his theories first. Search for dalrock on wordpress

Fixey:
My dear reduce the age to 33 I beg you

Ladyhippolyta88:
You are a fanatic and you should try to see life from a broad view and perspective that is all I have to say.I am done with this back and forth this kind of discuss I prefer it in person I am tired of typing.Suit yourself be tolerant and don't try to dictate for others.

crackhaus:
I'm only here to count the number of people who will pick one philosophy over the other - they are/will be the truly confused and insane people.

If TRP is bad, modern feminism is equally bad.
If modern feminism is bad, then TRP is equally bad.

Two sides of the same coin, is what they are... no more, no less.

It's either everyone on both sides stay mad together, or everyone becomes sane together.

1. I'm not interested in bringing Christianity into the discussion because not everyone identifies as a Christian, and even among those who do, it's only a minute few that adhere to it in the way it's meant to be adhered to.

Modern feminism and TRP are purely social issues the way I see it, not religious issues.
And again like I noted before, you simply can't hate one and love the other because that would definitely make you a misandrist/misogynist depending on which side you belong.