₦airaland Forum

Solofresh2:
You're right. You didn't use the words 'scandal' or 'public meltdown.' My mistake. Let me correct that.
What you did was list marriages and imply they failed or are failing. You said 'same thing is playing out.' You said 'we can fill in the gap.' That's speculation. Different words. Same meaning.

Now to your points.
1. 'Frederick and Ovie had a public scandal and divorced.'If that's true, then that's one marriage. One. Out of the five you listed. But here's the thing I don't know if that's true. And neither do you, unless you have inside information. You're reading headlines.You're filling gaps. That's my point.

2. 'I am filling in the gaps.'You admitted it. You're guessing. You're assuming. You're not testifying. You're speculating. That's exactly what I said.

3. 'Not adding and testifying as if you are the chef.'I never claimed to be the chef. I never said I know Mr Eazi's private life. I said nobody knows ,including you. That's the difference. I'm saying we don't know. You're saying you do.

You admitted you're filling gaps. That means you don't know. And if you don't know, you can't say 'none worked.' You can't say 'they all failed.' You can only say 'I'm guessing.'

This thread is for men who actually lived it. Not for spectators who fill gaps with assumptions.

Filling the gaps is not the same as "ADDING AND TESTIFYING AS IF YOU ARE THE CHEF/COOK WHO SHARED THE FOOD MR EAZI SHOWED!

And you yourself even confessed that they would not talk yet, you say the thread is for them.

Anyway, it has entered front page and you can see everyone is telling you that you are wrong

judewrites:
Which man marries an old woman twice his age for love?? Na serious hustling.

I pity such men.

Tell the op oo

Solofresh2:
You just moved the goalpost three times.

1. You said women can't drive. I said that's a stereotype. You said it was 'a fact in the 80s.' Then you said they drive short distances. Then you said their lower accident rates prove it. That's circular. You still haven't proven your point.

2. You asked me to name a rich woman who married down without being ugly, rejected, or damaged. I named five. You didn't refute them. You dismissed them because they're foreign.

3. Now you're saying foreign examples don't count because their culture is different. But your original claim wasn't about culture. It was about women. You said 'no rich woman would ever marry down unless...' You didn't say 'no Nigerian rich woman.' You said 'rich women.'

If your claim was about Nigerian women, say that. But don't move the goalpost when you're proven wrong and for the record, Nigerian examples exist too.

Stella Damasus married Daniel Ademinokan when she was more famous and established.
Toke Makinwa was more successful than her ex-husband when they married.
Tiwa Savage was already a star when she married TeeBillz, who was her manager, not a billionaire.
You said 'no rich woman.' I gave you examples. You dismissed them. That's not debate. That's denial.

You don't have a case. You have a rulebook you made up, and you're angry that reality doesn't follow it. Your stereotypes aren't facts. They're comfort blankets. And they're falling apart.

You are the one moving post now that you real eyes your error of trying to raise the foreign marriages of foreigners to defend your case which did not work and so now you are calling examples which fall into the conditions i said, Stella, Toke, Tiwa all are burnt products and of course they do not fall into the definition of richer daughters for all of them were grown up b****ies who are marriageable only by their fellow counterpart bad boys as was done.

So, you still got nothing.

And everything you and I said and responded to is already clearly stamped on the thread, so ...

Solofresh2:
Good question. Let me break it down.
A gold digger is someone who pursues a relationship purely for money, with no intention of giving anything back. They take, take, take, and leave when the money stops.A man who marries for money .

It is clear you love self deceits.

What can a poor guy ever give a rich girl that she does not already over have that you now think that if you add an intention to give her back then therefore, you are not a gold digger?

You are just deceiving yourself

Solofresh2:
You just listed five marriages. Let me show you why your list proves nothing.
Frederick Leonard and Peggy Ovire: Still married. No scandal. No public meltdown. You listed them because you assume something is wrong. Where's your evidence?
Darey Art Alade and Deola Ayeni: Still married. 20 years. Three kids. No public drama. You're reaching.
Naeto C and Nicole Chikwe: Still married. Quiet. Private. No scandal. You're reaching again.
Dr Sid and Simi Esiri: Divorced. Yes. That one failed. But one failure doesn't prove a pattern.
D'banj and Lineo Didi Kilgrow: Still married. Tragic loss of their son. But no public marital meltdown. You're reaching.

You're doing exactly what you accused me of,filling gaps with assumptions.You see a quiet marriage and assume it's failing.You see a public marriage and assume it's real.You have no inside information. You have no confessions. You have no proof.

You listed five couples. None of them came out and said 'I married for money and regret it.' None of them said 'I married for love and it failed.' You're just guessing based on vibes and news headlines.That's not evidence. That's speculation. And you've been doing it this whole thread

Cite where I said anything about scandal, public meltdown etc.

Of which did you not hear that Frederick and Ovie had a public scandal and have divorced?

And, of course i am filling in the gaps NOT ADDING AND TESTIFYING AS IF YOU ARE THE CHEF WHO SHARED THE FOOD MR EAZI SHOWED.

Solofresh2:
You just said women can't drive because they drive short distances. Then you said their lower accident rates prove it. That's circular logic. Pick one.But let me give you what you asked for,a rich woman who married down, fought her family, and chose her man:
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.
She was the Queen of England. He was a broke Greek prince with no kingdom and no money.Her family didn't want him. They thought he wasn't good enough.She married him anyway. He gave up his career, his name, and his title to serve her.They were married for 73 years. She called him her "strength and stay."

Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford.
She was the Prime Minister of New Zealand. He was a TV presenter not rich, not powerful, not royal.She earned more than him. She was more famous. She was more powerful.They married anyway. She had his child. He stayed home while she ran the country.

3.Serena Williams and Alexis Ohanian.
She's a billionaire athlete. He's a tech entrepreneur wealthy, but nowhere near her level.
She out earns him. She out fames him. She out everythings him.They married anyway. She chose him. She had his child. She fights for him publicly.

4 Nicki Minaj and Kenneth Petty.
She's a global music icon worth millions. He's a registered sex offender with no money and no status.Her fans hated him. Her family questioned it. She married him anyway.

Meryl Streep and Don Gummer.
She's the most decorated actress in Oscar history. He's a sculptor not famous, not rich, not powerful.They married in 1978. Still together.She out earns him.She out fames him. She chose him.

These women didn't meet your conditions. They weren't ugly, rejected, or damaged. They were rich, powerful, and wanted. And they still married down.
You said 'no rich woman would ever marry down unless she's ugly, rejected, or damaged.' I just gave you five who did it without any of those conditions.

Your case didn't fall. It collapsed.

I didn't say "women can't drive because they drive short distances." I said "Women can't drive was a fact in the 80's and they have lower accidents because they still are not driving and are driving like learners and driving only short distances

Then, you are asking me to prove something that was you who pointed it out.

Then, you are now citing foreign people wey we no know all the way for America and Europe that already have different and weird cultures from us here as a point. This is the definition of kicking the ball into throwing. A clear proof you have no case

Greenbirth:
No man on this earth can ever enjoy woman money in peace.

Tell the op ooo

Ajehkpako4naija:
that guy dey eat dog food na, na indomine, pastries and junk food the woman sabi.

Help me tell the op oo. Hin still dey swim from the effects of Aladdin

deetin:
This is not about Mr Easy because I think the guy is okay , hardworking on his own and not a broke guy … but what I’ve noticed is that , men that marry for money are always subjected to obedience, not like defiance is good but , if your wife is richer than you and foot the bills and she’s literally the source of your income, you can’t go again her wish , not for once if not , you will suffer for it and be punished.. so , men that married for money are always loyal and a slave to their marriage . That is the price that they pay for being such in the first place , grandiose , respectable and rich outside, a slave inside because the rich wife is just using them to cover her own shame of being labeled as an unmarried and unlovable woman . Those men go through a lot , and considering our Naija guys that always go abroad, most of them na once chance , the moment they reach there , it’s like a kidnap, all your life dey the oyinbo hand , the only benefit is that you Dey abroad , you can’t help your family, if your papa or mama die, dem fit no allow you come home , you Dey find better life but now you are a slave inside oyinbo parlor , that’s the reality and if you move , dem go blow your head off with gun or you can run away and become an outcast and wanted in a strange land 😀😀… I’ve seen it

Exactly my point except that I am adding that whether you marry for money or love, the guy go see whuehn!

Especially as richer girls hate to marry downwards. It is an abomination to them.

Solofresh2:
Good day, Nairalanders.

Let's talk about something men rarely admit.
Men who married a woman for her money, not for love.Not gold diggers. Not gigolos. Just men who looked at their options and chose financial security over emotional connection.Maybe she had a rich father. Maybe she was the breadwinner. Maybe she owned property, had a business, or came from a family that could change your life.
You said "I do" but deep down, you knew it wasn't love. It was strategy.
Now my questions are,
Did it work out? Are you comfortable, or are you miserable?
Does she know you married her for money?
Did love ever grow, or did you just learn to tolerate her?
What did you sacrifice—respect, peace, freedom, dignity?
Would you do it again if you could go back?

And for the women reading this. Would you marry a man who married you for your money if he treats you well? Or is love non-negotiable?

This is a safe space. No insults. Just truth.

Let's hear it.

Funny, i did not really see this before. How does a person marry for money and yet he's not a gold digger?

triplechoice:
You're still missing the point. Tell me what his position is that you insist I've "finished proving". You can't because you don't know..

And where did I say Buddhism is not a religion?. I didn't. I said Buddhism is a religion with no creator God who gives commands. That's the point. You're arguing against something I never claimed.

Let SIRTee15 defend his own position. If you reply with another strawman, I'll ignore you.

He has 2 positions
1) morality comes from religion. (His belief but he has kept it aside to ask atheists about their source of morality)

And

2) that your Buddhism is a religion

And see, your words below proves you have changed your statement for you implied that Buddhism is not a religion

I was the one who informed you Buddhism has no creator God who gives commands. So how can the *ignorance be on me " If you had known this from the beginning, you wouldn't have cited Buddhism as proof that morality comes from religion

Solofresh2:
You're comparing two different things.
Tuface and Natasha: Both parties went public. Tuface himself posted. Natasha responded. There were videos, statements, interviews. We didn't fill gaps,we watched a public meltdown in real time.
Mr Eazi and Temi: They posted a wedding. They posted a pregnancy. Then they went quiet. That's not a public meltdown. That's privacy. You filled those gaps with your own assumptions.One couple showed you the fire. The other just stopped posting. You can't treat them the same.

You keep using Tuface and Natasha because it's the only example you have. But it proves my point, not yours.A public fight is not the same as a private silence. Learn the difference

They are the same. Eazi and Temi were also within public knowledge so, you have not pointed out and valid and substantial difference. Funny both men are even musicians and of course they are the easiest to use as theirs is just fresh and i did not expect that you would be opposing this fact.

But if you want a another example then we have Frederick Leonard and delta lady (i no know her name). Funny google still caught Eazi and Teni.

Another one is Darey Art Alade & Deola Ayeni; Naeto C and Nicole Chikwe, Dr Sid and Simi Esiri. 5. D’banj and Lineo Didi Kilgrow

Solofresh2:
Gladly.
'Women can't drive.' Born out of laziness. It's easier to repeat a joke than to look at the data showing women have lower accident rates than men in many countries.
'All men are cheaters.' Born out of laziness. It's easier to generalize than to admit some men are faithful and some women cheat too.
'Rich women never marry down.' Born out of laziness. It's easier to say 'never' than to name the exceptions and ask why they exist.
'Yoruba people love money.' Born out of laziness. It's a stereotype that ignores the millions of Yoruba people who aren't driven by money.
'Igbos are greedy.' Born out of laziness. It's a stereotype that ignores the millions of Igbos who are generous and community minded.

Stereotypes are mental shortcuts. They save you the work of thinking. That's laziness.
Now name one that isn't

Women can't drive was a fact in the 80's and they have lower accidents because they still are not driving and are driving like learners and driving only short distances, so of course they must have lower accident rates.

And in proof of stereotypes being a fact, you still have not pointed out one case of a rich girl who is without any of the conditions i laid down, who willingly and readily happily married downwards even to the point that she fought her family to get it done.

That is where your case falls.

bobestman:
[People were already living on this earth before Adam. Even in West Africa here. Adam's creation is not up to 7000 years at least. Their were people higher in consciousness than Adam who lived here thousands of years before the creation of mortal Adam. The story of the king of the world and the woman is what they mixed up with the Genesis story. Some stories in the bible were before Adam. Many things were mixed up into the bible. Those era were the era where gods actually lived on earth. They ruled earth thousands to millions of years before the mortal Adam was. Where did you think the serpent came from? Or where did Cane ran to when he kpaied his brother ? People were here before the mortal Adam. That story no clear. It's mixed up with the story of the king of the world and the woman which made him fell

It wasn't Eve. Their are different goddesses good and bad. Would you also call the goddess of Revelation 12 that will bring about the birth of the king of the world on earth evil? Their is another which is in Revelation 17,18. Their are many divine mothers. Some of light. Some of darkness. Those beings you see have been since existence and are here in a body. Lilith was of impure seed. Eve was of the pure seed just like the Revelation 12 woman. According to the Bible interpretation, Lilith is like the one who trick the Adam to err or fall into error which brings death. But Eve is the rightful wife he married or given to him to help fulfill his mission. You don't understand these things. It's deeper than what is written

All these are claims you have to prove and with these you are just getting farther and farther from discrediting this thread

Steep:
ywhat evidence do you have to say that absolutely none of the gospels are eye witness testimony?
The writings of the four books of the gospel gives evidence that it was written by people who were eye witnesses themselves or who at least knew and interacted with the eye witness.

Eye witness testimony is one of the highest evidence accepted by the court.

Not to talk of the fact that you cannot say a witness did not see what he claimed to have seen UNLESS, you yourself was a witness present at the scene of the event.

Atheists can dey accept hearsay evidence like say dem no get brein

Have they finished the road now?

Make una do open road oo. Legal vacation don end and I go soon start to dey go court for dat side.

See am! Dem don start. Why your wife dey over stress you na? She no know say she go get belle after she marry and she go still need to enter bus go work?

Make she behave. If you buy keke, she go still shame and she no go enter am. If you buy old moto, na d same thing.

Guy, ignore am and stick to your plan. No change am. Ignore that woman.

Infact dis na sign say she be bad wife

Ken4Christ:
Check my thread: The Controversial Verses - Matthew 5:17-18, Explained. It will answer your questions

Those threads also showed that i proved you were wrong but your bias and wish won't allow you take correction. Anyway, we would see what The Court shall Say

Ahan. It means that the person is a serpent

Now it has also finally come out that some mothers even sleep with their sons, where some girls here were saying it was not possible in cover up.

https://www.nairaland.com/8750035/florida-mom-sex-son-100

Any evil remain wey women no fit do?

Now it has also come out that some mothers sleep with their sons.

https://www.nairaland.com/8750035/florida-mom-sex-son-100

Any evil remain wey women no fit do?

Now it has also come out that some mothers sleep with their sons.

https://www.nairaland.com/8750035/florida-mom-sex-son-100

brain54:
:
Okay you are right.


His wicked wife decided to punish him by starving him.

Imagine after 10years of waiting this is what he gets.

Wicked woman.


Serves eazy right for being a gold digger. Next time he won't dig gold.
:::

Nna, na dem wahala. They were just a reference point of a case I'm sire people are waiting to see how it would play out

Solofresh2:
You're still doing the same thing. You used Eazi as an example. I said you can't know what's happening privately. You're now asking if Eazi didn't happen before Tuface like that proves your point.It proves nothing. Two public relationships.Two public narratives. Two private realities you know nothing about.

'Not one man has come to boast about his success.'That's the point. Men who marry for money and win don't boast. They don't need to. They're comfortable. They're quiet. They're living. The only ones who talk are the failures and the spectators like you who assume failure is the only outcome.
I'm not the one building castles. I'm the one saying, let men speak for themselves. You're the one filling gaps with speculation and calling it truth.

You have no story. You have no evidence. You have assumptions and bitterness. That's not an argument. That's noise.Let the men who actually lived it speak. You've said enough

Oh, so when people were filling the gaps with tuface and Natty, it is because we all lived with them privately, abi?

Solofresh2:
You're still not answering the point. You're just repeating your assumptions and calling them facts.
Stereotypes are also born out of laziness. It's easier to say 'rich women never marry down' than to admit some do and you don't know why.
· 'Your secret wish to marry a richer woman.' You don't know me. You don't know my wishes. You're projecting again. 'Enjoy your denial and wishes but note they always expire.' That's not an argument. That's a parting shot from someone who ran out of points.

You brought stereotypes. I brought nuance. You brought assumptions. I brought reality. You brought bitterness. I brought balance.You lost this exchange the moment you started telling me what I wish for. That's not debate. That's desperation.Enjoy your rulebook. The rest of us will live in the real world

Name one stereotype that is born out of laziness?

Nefort:
How does it change the fact that more men in the research reported higher sexual desires than women? This research was carried out in the West where women are liberal and don't shy away from sexually expressing themselves.

The research failed to capture the fact we all see which is the man's desire for sex is caused by women positively initiating, stimulating and reminding him of sex as proven by the sex reminding clothes women wear everyday immediately you step out of the house.

triplechoice:
No. I haven't proved him right. Religion is man -made, not God -made. SIRTee15 claims all morality is from God or gods. Those aren't the same thing. Even if all my sources were "religious based" that only shows religion shaped me ,not that God authored the codes.

And do you have evidence gods authored those moral codes in religion, apart from the belief they did? This is the question your friend has refused to answer.

You have already finished proving him right, so you can't deny it.

Secondly, Google says the
A+
1Buddhism is a religion Buddhism is widely classified as a major world religion

Solofresh2:
You're doing exactly what you accused me of assuming.
'There was noise, then silence, then boom, then silence again.' That's your interpretation. You don't know what's happening. You're filling gaps with speculation.
'Same thing is playing out with Tuface and Natasha.' Different people. Different relationship. Different dynamics. You can't use one couple's public drama to predict another couple's private reality.
'We can fill in the gap.' No. You can guess. You can assume. You can project. But you cannot know.

Silence doesn't mean suffering. Some couples are quiet because they're happy. Some are quiet because they're private. Some are quiet because they're falling apart. You don't know which one it is.
· Public noise doesn't mean truth. Social media is a highlight reel. You see what they want you to see. Not what's real.
· You're not in their bedroom. You're not in their arguments. You're not in their quiet moments. So stop pretending you know.

This thread is for men who want to share their stories. Not for you to speculate about celebrities you've never met.If you have a story, tell it. If you don't, let others speak

Did Eazi, not already happen even before tuface's own?

And, wow, believing this is so important to you even though not one man has come to boast about his success.

Anyway, enjoy your castles in the air.

Solofresh2:
You just wrote a whole essay based on assumptions, stereotypes, and bitterness.
1. 'Rich women NEVER marry men poorer than them.' False. It happens. Not often, but it happens. And when it does, the man is usually not a loser he's someone with value: status, looks, charisma, potential, or all of the above.What rich women don't marry is a man with nothing to offer. No ambition. No frame. No presence. No future. If you're broke AND aimless, you're right she won't marry you. But if you're broke and building, that's different.

2. 'Only ugly, rejected, or damaged rich women marry down.'
Insulting to women. You're saying a rich woman who marries a poorer man is automatically desperate. That's not truth. That's your cope.

3. 'A rich girl can date you but never marry you.'
Sometimes true. Sometimes false. Some women date for fun and marry for stability. Others marry for love, connection, and compatibility regardless of income.

4. 'Gold digger will never let the poor dig her gold.'
True. A gold digger protects her gold. But not every rich woman is a gold digger. Some are just rich.

5. 'If there was a success story, the man would boast.'
False. Real men don't boast about their marriages. They live them. The loudest men are the ones with the least to show.

Rich women marry men who add value. Money isn't the only currency. Status, confidence, loyalty, intelligence, emotional intelligence,and physical attractiveness all matter.If you have nothing to offer, no woman rich or poor will marry you.That's not about money.That's about value.Stop projecting your bitterness onto every rich woman. Some marry down. Some marry up. Some marry across. It depends on the woman, not your rulebook.

You sound like a man who's been rejected and now needs to believe no one else can win either. That's not truth. That's pain talking

Stereotypes are born out of the fact that man is a creature of habit and apparently your secret wish/desire to marry a richer woman would not let you see.

Anyway, enjoy your denial and wishes but note they always expire

brain54:
:::


You saw me call it tablet.... you didn't see the statement was a simile and was on a lighter note.


You didn't also see were I called it controlled portion....

Eazy is old enough and financially able to afford any damn thing he wishes to eat.

Dude can afford to employ a private chef to feed him whatever he feels like eating.

So you never see poor man wey dey wait for 10 yrs or more before they marry before?


Some wait 20 years or more even born pikin inside the waiting before they eventually marry.


They call it blessed marriage. Like say no be poor man pikin dey wait for years pass make everything balance before marriage


:::

Is it you who portioned and controlled it? No.

So, you can't say it is "controlled portion" for you no dey dia house. So, you are the one adding story to the case.

Secondly, even threads here have proven it, no guy who is ready to marry waits for a girl who is available for marriage for more than 2 yrs, highest

But guy man waited 10yrs to marry rich babe. Bros, your argument no hold

bobestman:
Adam story is just 6000 years old but Lilith was or manifested with the earth which was many years before mortal Adam. She was the other side of light, She was darkness, serpent, death etc. Your story will make some sense if what she had was with the immortal Adam

Life is of twos. Light and darkness. Their was darkness before light came. Their were those of darkness and those of light. Infact the story of Adam predates what they actually wrote and every tribes has their story about the issue.

Those who were of Light were those who came to her domiain earth for some reason. Among them was the king of the universe. When they came she seduced their king and made him sleep with him. The king of light erred and by sleeping with her they became one body cos if you sleep with anyone you became one with her. As he fell others with him fell. The king lost his immortality and their seeds became mortals and have to die for she was death. The fall of the king is what they term the fall of man. The seed of the immortal king has to end what she did to free us from death which his transgression with the woman brought to all future seeds. We lost our immortality and have to die. That King will come in the future to save his people who are of light by ending the work of the woman , ending death too to give us back our immortality and bringing back pure seeds of children of light. Death is the last enemy. Let me see how you will understand first before going further

This is absolute rubbish.

First, the fact that the facts in the Bible was first reported 6000yrs ago does not mean that those facts took place 6000yrs ago especially when we can all reasonably see that the bible was reporting what had already happened.

Secondly, since Eve's destruction of mankind, darkness entered the world and evil filled the earth, so, you are still talking about the point after Eve's fall, which means that Eve is still the same as your purported Lilith as the thread already proves.