₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
It has always been like that— there is no before.

not rampant in our forefathers days ooo. The difference is very clear

press9jatv:
not rampant in our forefathers days ooo. The difference is very clear

You forefathers all had contractual unions, many of which they simply ended by sending the women back to their fathers' home when tired of them to get their money back afterwards. It was always transactional.

press9jatv:
not rampant in our forefathers days ooo. The difference is very clear

In your forefathers days women were more militant in their choices. They chose men of substance to the point that women were 2nd, 3rd, 4th and N amount of wife when it came to marriage.

Women didn't give children to bottom dwelling men like they do today! There were zero baby mothers! Men who were losers didn't get to procreate!

It was the real 20/80! Men are delusional children
today who romanticise the past as if they could ever match up to the men from the past.

Brandiebird:
In your forefathers days women were more militant in their choices. They chose men of substance to the point that women were 2nd, 3rd, 4th and N amount of wife when it came to marriage.

Women didn't give children to bottom dwelling men like they do today! There were zero baby mothers! Men who were losers didn't get to procreate!

It was the real 20/80! Men are delusional children
today who romanticise the past as if they could ever match up to the men from the past.

hmm 🧐

Kobojunkie:
You forefathers all had contractual unions, many of which they simply ended by sending the women back to their fathers' home when tired of them to get their money back afterwards. It was always transactional.

but not rampant

press9jatv:
but not rampant

That is just one of the examples of transactional marriage contracts that existed even during the time of your ancestors. Marriage has always been transactional. At least no man enters into marriage without expecting to selfishly benefit from it, hence the transactional nature of the union.

JASONjnr:
But people should divorce their wife and marry another woman based on legal threats... A woman who gave birth to different children from different men who feels she can easily allege that some had sexual advances at her.....

Did the senate also ban you from saying Natasha?

LoL

laughu laughu, may God help us to love trully.

Brandiebird:
You're quoting *Walt Disney!* relationships have never been what you quoted. It's been a contract since the dawn of time.

Kobojunkie:
That is just one of the examples of transactional marriage contracts that existed even during the time of your ancestors. Marriage has always been transactional. At least no man enters into marriage without expecting to selfishly benefit from it, hence the transactional nature of the union.

hmm 🧐

Brandiebird:
In your forefathers days women were more militant in their choices. They chose men of substance to the point that women were 2nd, 3rd, 4th and N amount of wife when it came to marriage.

Women didn't give children to bottom dwelling men like they do today! There were zero baby mothers! Men who were losers didn't get to procreate!

It was the real 20/80! Men are delusional children
today who romanticise the past as if they could ever match up to the men from the past.

it's different ball game now