₦airaland Forum

Is being picky on someone's height sexist?
Is being picky on someone's weight sexist?

Post yours if you have any

TORONTO — A wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a month in spousal support for 10 years to a woman with whom he had a long-term romantic relationship even though they kept separate homes and had no children together, Ontario’s top court has ruled.

Under Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited — lived together in a conjugal relationship — continuously for at least three years. But that doesn’t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found.

“Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation,” the Appeal Court said. “There are many cases in which courts have found cohabitation where the parties stayed together only intermittently.”

The decision comes in the case of Lisa Climans and Michael Latner, both of Toronto, who began a romantic relationship after meeting in October 2001. At the time, she was 38 and separated with two children, court records show. He was 46 and divorced with three children.

Although they maintained their separate homes, Latner and Climans behaved as a couple both privately and publicly. They vacationed together. He gave her a 7.5-carat diamond ring and other jewelry that she wore. She quit her job and would regularly sleep at his house. They travelled together and talked about living together.

Latner proposed several times and Climans accepted. He often referred to her by his last name. However, he insisted she sign a marriage contract and came up with several drafts. She refused.

Throughout their relationship, the two kept separate bank accounts and never owned property in common. Nevertheless, Latner gave Climans thousands of dollars every month, a credit card, paid off her mortgage and showered her with expensive gifts. He provided her and her children with a “lavish lifestyle,” the court found.
“Theirs was a committed relationship,” the Appeal Court said.

When their 14-year relationship finally broke down in May 2015, Climans asked the courts to recognize her as Latner’s spouse and order him to pay her support. He argued she had been a travel companion and girlfriend, nothing more. As such, he said, they were never legally spouses and he owed no support. An eight-day trial ensued.

In her decision in February 2019, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore sided with Climans. She ruled they were in fact long-time spouses, finding that despite their separate home, they lived under one roof at Latner’s cottage for part of the summer, and during winter vacations in Florida. Shore ordered him to pay her $53,077 monthly indefinitely. Latner appealed.

The higher court leaned heavily on Shore’s analysis, finding she was right to conclude cohabitation can occur even when the parties stay together intermittently.

The Appeal Court did find Shore had made an error in deciding how long Latner would have to pay Climans support based on when they first began cohabiting. While Shore had found that to be almost from the get-go, the higher court said it wasn’t earlier than their first stay together at his cottage, meaning they didn’t reach the threshold for indefinite payments.

Instead, it ordered him to pay her support for 10 years.

Climans and her lawyers declined comment. Lawyers for Latner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

StacyO:
Men,women and children.

Good. I find "society" as a term too ambiguous and at the same time can also be used wrongly to address a wrong component that makes up "society".

A specific group like men or women or children would be better.

Who makes up society @ StacyO?

Somehow in Canada, feminists have been able to pass into law a bill that ensures an ex-girlfriend will be paid alimony by her ex-boyfriend despite both of them never been married and divorced or separated.

Alimony by the way is a COURT-MANDATED ALLOWANCE PAID TO A FORMER SPOUSE BY A DIVORCED OR LEGALLY SEPARATED PERSON.

Feminism is said to be for equal rights for Males and females, how is this equal rights for males? How does this law benefit or protect men's rights? Is feminism not only and truly about promoting female privilege?

Fati2001
Magnoliaa

This, lol.

3.

2.

Story time.

Carlos Rodriguez is a man without a brain.

From birth, this guy was completely normal and nothing on the physical indicators was radically different from peers. As a teenager, Carlos contacted a bad company and started using alcohol and drugs. The tragedy that changed his life occurred when he was 14 years old. Being in a state of alcohol and drug intoxication, Carlos stole a car and got into an accident. During the collision, the teenager flew through the windshield and hit his head on the asphalt. The doctors managed to save his life, but a significant fragment of the skull and brain had to be removed.

Brain Injuries Are Not Always Deadly


A noteworthy fact is that after all operations and period of rehabilitation, the patient, who had lost much of the brain, did not change at all. He retained all the memories and mental abilities. Despite the fact that Carlos Rodriguez is a "man without a brain" (he clearly demonstrates the photo in the article), he continues to smile, is able to support conversation on various topics, quickly and appropriately answers the questions posed. Scientists today do not have a precise explanation of how one can live without the brain and retain most of the mental functions. A popular hypothesis in the scientific community is that the nerve endings in the abdominal part are partially replaced by the traditional organ of thinking.

Do you believe women have the right to divorce? One can suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, “Women were owned as chattel!”. In order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights.

You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.

Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.

But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that don’t become the alpha male who breeds the whole lot of women?

Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselves individually.

Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplus of labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival.

When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage:

Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.
Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.

Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.

The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.
The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.

In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights. In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it.

So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.

(Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property).

This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife’s sexuality was no longer hers to give away.

This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone “stole” the sexuality which was his property.

This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property?

So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.

But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.

The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”

“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the wife. “You are married now, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you!”

For eons, mothers have told their daughters, “Why buy the cow when the milk is free?”

You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The man’s surplus labour.

And benefit from a man’s surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did!
.
She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival. When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves.

She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other women.

Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a man’s labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable.

So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general.

Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive.

Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this.

Have a look around the room you are in.

Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man.

Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood).

Thus, when you hear that “marriage is the foundational building block of society,” you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather, advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty.

Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history.

So, back to the original question: “Do you believe women have the right to divorce?”

My answer is a resounding NO!

Why, you might ask?
.
Because modern marriage has become a FRAUDULENT contract, and therefore women shouldn’t be allowed to marry in the first place!

It is simple. No right to marry equals no right to divorce.

You see, in the 1860’s, the wonderful women’s rights movement combined with the heavy hand of the courts, ruled that custody of the children of a marriage should belong to the mother, not the father. In effect, they strengthened the strongest family bond, that of mother and child which exists everywhere in nature, and vastly diminished the weakest family bond, fatherhood, which exists almost nowhere in nature – but is the bond that creates civilization.

Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.

The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.

Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.

But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.

Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.

If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.

If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?

Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”

That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.

But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)

So what have we got left here?

WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!

What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!

If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.

The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breech of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.

Yup.

But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract.

The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the “vendor” still has the right to make you into this:

“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the ex-wife. “You are divorced now with no legal rights to what you thought you paid for, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you, slave! MY children and I own your labour! You own nothing!”

MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!

MARRIAGE IS FRAUD!

DO NOT ENTER INTO FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS!
.
Nope, let the little ladies and their children go back to living like this:
.

Have nothing to do with them.

Do not oppress them with marriage.

Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home.

Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know?

Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too.

Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down that Bride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking… now move on and think more wholesome thoughts.

Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women can’t stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them.

And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually “selling” to you.

Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support “the herd” of single and divorced mothers along with their feral children. You are not responsible to pay for someone else’s property.

You don’t owe the herd anything. They don’t even want you to be part of the herd.

You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a “good boy.” There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it can’t be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone else’s benefit then.

Give them as few tax dollars as possible.

Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability, so they can return to living like this:

Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy?
.
Why even bother with a cow that doesn’t give milk? Let alone pay for one.

DON’T MARRY!!!

It lowers divorce rates and cuts back on fraud.

#Copied

PBeni:
This is definitely a thought provoking write up. I will be back to give my take on this.

I'll like to read it

alawiiyeyoruba1:
I think surrogacy should be thing we should adopt in this part of the world, no one needs to marry because of the pressure of having kids. However hypocrisy and religion wouldn't let us see road.

Aso-Oke also called Ofi is a type of hand-made fabric usually done by weaving and this art of weaving and styling of this particular fabric material originated from the Yorubas ........ read more on https://alawiiyeyoruba.com/aso-ofi/

It will reduce the issues marriages have, at least those who are forced to marry cause of kids but have no plans of being faithful have another alternative

godliman:
I don't want to be unfaithful to my wife I need a surrogate to give me a child without intimacy. what are the legal implications in Nigeria?

You can read this link.
https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/family-law/840674/legal-approach

I personally think it's better than baby mama drama, or having multiple baby mama's. Paternity fraud also isn't an issue. Baby's custody is FULLY yours. You also don't have to commit to any woman in marriage- if fidelity is not your thing. You can be in multiple relationships at once just don't get any pregnant.

You also have children to call yours when you grow older and even some family company.

virginprincess:
God has already open his eyes to the damsel, angel and beauty queen he's getting married to.

Of cause the easy way out, THE MAN HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED DIRECTLY BY GOD LIKE JOSEPH TO MARY TO MAKE IT WORK BY ALL MEANS, and if he fails will God kill him
You forgot Everyman has free will, God cannot force people to do what they do not want to do

virginprincess:
My own marriage can never be like people's own, it will surely be different, because mine has be ordained by God.

Quit all these religious sentiments, trust me it doesn't work like that. Even the bible says "faith without works is dead", "show me your works and I will tell if you have faith", "also you reap what you sow".

All this things mean if you have no concrete plans to make your marriage work and just this God has ordained it, sorry o.

The ones their marriages failed where atheist abi ?
Na your own them go first do for church?

virginprincess:
Not all men are scum though most are, but we still have few good men and mine hubby is one of the few.

Until you marry him, how can you be so sure? Nobody wished for divorce after marriage but 63 percent of marriages fails these days and the greater percentage of the remaining 27 percent are in unhappy marriages (either the husband or wife or both)

virginprincess:
Marriage favours both genders, it doesn't favour one gender than the other..

False.
It favours women far more.

If not explain this below.

https://www.nairaland.com/6333852/why-women-date-marry-men

mogbolade39317:
:.Space booker, you will pay o

Another one.

Yusufisraelj:
My dear OP, your write up is great and speaks sincerely to reality, but you see reality does not mean its the truth.

This my take

Life is about balance and understanding.

The first thing about any relationship is understand what matters to the other party.

A wife who does not understand that for the time being while they are broke the husband needs to be away so that they can feed properly and live well is not an asset and does not understand the place of temporary adjustment in a given situation.


Equally a man that will choose to ignore his wife and not give her attention bkos he is trying to provide is not being fair to her and that's wrong.

What I can say is this relationship is all about communication, understanding and making necessary adjustment when needed and occasionally finding time to spend with each other to account for those lost time during the adjustment phaze, that's why we have things like vacation.

So the idea of a woman or man choosing between love and money is uncalled for, it shows they don't understand themselves, they don't communicate well and they don't look out for each others interest.

You gave a reasonable answer. I believe in communication but I also believe communication cannot adjust everybody.

Some are more strong willed than others

Jonasbadoo:
This sums it up....

This is the definition of a REAL MAN or MATURED MAN in marriage. Notice no lady has come to bash this trend? The truth stinks so much from it. All I wrote up there is the truth.

FirstSon01:
That's why you should ensure you find one out of the few or not marry.

Yes and keep making enough money just in case.

FirstSon01:
god does not guarantee good marriage, I've many pastors that prayed and fasted before getting married divorce.

what guarantees good marriage is two willing people who love each other and really want each other so bad they're ready to sacrifice (not stupidly though).

Lol... Only few women can love you in that way in marriage. No sacrifice, it's only for better or they walk

virginprincess:
Op, i know that money is important in marriage, but it doesn't guarantee a good marriage, i prefer to marry a guy who doesn't have much but will give me peace of mind and treat me like a queen than a billionaire who will treat me like a piece of rag, what guarantees a good marriage is God and peace of mind not money.

Well it's easier said than done. Even Peter at the critical time denied Jesus not once but 3 good times.

Only when that time come will you be able to beat your brea*ts and say "yes I stood by my word". Until then all you have are good intention, which is not bad in itself.

virginprincess:
.

Space booker, you will pay o

PopSmoke:
very soon we shall know why men has côck on NL

If it will serve to educate why not

Most women only marry men for their needs and wants alone, and any man who is CAPABLE ENOUGH to provide her with not only her needs but wants is the one she says she has LOVE for.

The love is CONDITIONED on the basis that you continue to MEET those needs and wants which will continue to rise althrough the marriage. Failure to meet up with this you lose your respect and you are no longer a CAPABLE HUSBAND but a disappointment. If your fortune doesn't significantly improve within a short period of time, sometimes in years, a ground will be made up as a convenient excuse for a divorce.

Most marriages are not primarily about love, raising a family, companionship, friendship or even sex but MONEY. Money is the drive, your wives want good lives. Hence the advice by most ladies never to date or settle for broke men.

So as a guy make loads of money and when you get married be prepared to make even more but just have it in mind that that will cost you considerable time and that lost time with family will be unappreciated by most wives because they also value your time(attention) but you spent a large part of it trying to make ends meet to please your beloved wives and families. The house you want to build won't pay for itself. The new cars your family needs won't buy themselves. The material things your wive wants won't buy themselves, that responsibility falls on the capable husband. incapable husbands share bills with their wives, they look at her savings, etc. She will be disappointed at you, even without saying a word.

So you spend lots of time hustling to meet your FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS A CAPABLE HUSBAND, but this cost you precious time with family. And failure to give enough attention to your wife will also get you disrespect, quarrel and nagging. Most wives won't leave the marriage cause what they PRIMARILY love you still provide but emotionally they are no longer with you in the marriage. Because you spend so much time hustling instead of been at home, whenever you are home, you won't know much of the things that goes on in your home- you will be just like a fool. Your only role and use will be to just provide money for these, money for that, that's all you will ever be told by your wive and if you dare not ask why or you will be harshly reminded how you are NEVER AT HOME and you abandoned her to run everything. At this point the kids would have noticed there is a problem at home between mommy and daddy because mommy won't be so pleased with you or she can just simply pour her heart in frustration to the kids, and kids hate to see mommy cry or emotional, it makes them cry too.

If these continues due to no particular fault of yours, the demands at work are high, the demands at home are equally as high, you either develop hypertension or depression or become aggressive.

Intimacy will also be scarce with your wife, REMEMBER HAPPY WIFE, HAPPY LIFE. she isnt happy with you, she has a disappointed disposition towards you, YOUR KIDS are now her only source of constant joy and she dots them with love and care. The kids love mommy more cause she is always there for them, they love daddy too but he isn't always available as mommy would want or as they would too. They are kids after all, they won't fully understand dad works 8-4pm everyday even as far as the island. Has to get up at 4 or 5am to meet up at work, has to stay in traffic till 9pm before getting home. Still has task to complete at home, talk to mommy about how her day went, make her happy, still spend time with the kids and that just the nuclear family, his own extended family still demands dads money and time.

A dad who adapts well to this is called A MATURE MAN by his peers. His wife and children are still silently disappointed in him but as long as he doesn't cause trouble in the family he is still a called husband and dad.

Most women don't do these intentionally, they just do it. Most women and wives are secretly disappointed with their husbands, inturn their kids becomes disappointed in dad cause mommy is sad.

An ideal husband for most women is a millionaire or billionaire who has unlimited cash to spend with her and also has all the time in the world to give her and the family all his attention. He must be the CEO of his own million or billion naira company.

Most wives will settle for less attention if they are assured of money but they won't be happy with you. But very few will settle for little income and less attention or little income and all the attention. Love after all is what you can do for her and not any romantic bond you share with her.

If you want to marry as a guy, know the above is how to will go most times. So what will you do?

Zzor

Tohsynetita1:
Great

Are you a guy or a girl?

virginprincess:
Hmm, This is deep.

See truths in it?