₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Your "core of my message" is rather very lame.

That's why you have not engaged with me since page one of this thread, where you lost it by quoting a man written book that tells you a woman is a rib!



And that despite the fact that the same book clearly states that before your God created Adam and Eve to be naked ignorant slaves in his Garden in Eden, God created man[kind] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

But I guess it sums you up that you'd be trying to enslave women in the 21^st century with a book written like 2000 years ago by man and disregard the fact that women now go to school too and can read!

Apparently all your rant is not enlightenment but self seeking justification of your point.

I understand how hard you are seeking to be relevant and get attention with your point of view... Sorry!! Better luck next time.

Farrason:
Apparently all your rant is not enlightenment but self seeking justification of your point.

I understand how hard you are seeking to be relevant and get attention with your point of view... Sorry!! Better luck next time.

You are very free and welcome to understand or believe whatever it is you want to understand or believe because you do not in any way need to justify yourself to me and nor do I need your attention.

I am amused that my opinion and point of view seems to matter and p¹ss you off so much though, and I suggest you ask yourself why for your own health and sanity.

Till we engage again, you live healthy and prosper.

budaatum:
The thing most of you don't quite get is in the following, and especially the italics:

The proposed law also makes it impossible to use lack of sexual relations as an argument in fault-based divorce.

Most of you don't know what "fault-based divorce" is and the consequences of it, and that it applies to both genders. And you can't be bothered to research it, which just shows a serious lack of brain use and is rather pathetically sad.

Of course a person can divorce their partner, including a wife (or husband) who refuses him him (or her) conjugal relations for any length of time. You can always go to court and say you don't want to be married to that person anymore and divorce. You can even claim it's because of refusal of conjugal relations. What you can't do is claim it's their fault, because that has certain consequences, and that consequence is all that France is removing here.

Keep running around in circles.

The results will be out soon for all of us to witness.

Luckysbab:
Keep running around in circles.

The results will be out soon for all of us to witness.

Someone informs me that "The distance between insanity and genius is only measured by success", and from where I'm looking, women have been very successful geniuses, and even insane at times, at removing themselves from the bondage and tyranny of men for centuries so far, and I expect that success to increase as time goes by.

But I agree with you that the results will continue to be out for us to witness, and I pray you live a very long life to witness it in its semi-fullness. Because that success is bound to continue long after I am gone and longer still till you follow me and much longer after we both are gone, since neither of us can possibly stop or turn back the clock of progress.

budaatum:
Someone informs me that "The distance between insanity and genius is only measured by success", and from where I'm looking, women have been very successful geniuses, and even insane at times, at removing themselves from the bondage and tyranny of men for centuries so far, and I expect that success to increase as time goes by.

But I agree with you that the results will continue to be out for us to witness, and I pray you live a very long life to witness it in its semi-fullness. Because that success is bound to continue long after I am gone and longer still till you follow me and much longer after we both are gone, since neither of us can possibly stop or turn back the clock of progress.

Thank you for the well-wishes. I wish you well too.

Dtruthspeaker:
See how you are changing and moving post.

First if a wife refuses to open up to her husband and he forces himself, it is rape. For just as she has a right to end the marriage by removing her consent at any time so also does she have a right to refuse consent to sex at any time.

Secondly, temporary denial of sex for a reasonable time does not amount to denial of sex.

And the fact that she denies you sex does not mean that you have a right to rape her. You too have the remedy of terminating the marriage.

Marriage is not by force and sex is not by force exactly like a job contract

The devil is using people like u and those woke ignorant marriage killers to kill the union of marriage that God designed to help better the world ....

If a woman knows that she isn't ready to give her body at any given time the man asks ...then she should never get married ...

But the same system will say a man that denies supporting his wife financially is committing financial abuse ... women are allowed to say " his money is my money" as long as he's my husband...but they will never accept men saying " her body is my body"....

cr7lomo:
The devil is using people like u and those woke ignorant marriage killers to kill the union of marriage that God designed to help better the world ....

If a woman knows that she isn't ready to give her body at any given time the man asks ...then she should never get married ...

But the same system will say a man that denies supporting his wife financially is committing financial abuse ... women are allowed to say " his money is my money" as long as he's my husband...but they will never accept men saying " her body is my body"....

Shebi she gave her body in the beginning? So it means something is already happening in and to the marriage that is making her withdraw from sex and marriage. Which clearly means that everything whether sex or finances or accommodation should be ready to be terminated immediately quick quick if she does not want to honour the agreement of marriage. So, no sex, just pack her things and keep outside your gate. Shikena. No crime committed

cr7lomo:
Then also...a woman has no right to demand for money from the husband, if he isn't willing to give her.. and if she takes money without his consent...she should be arrested for theft

Sure. An eye for an eye

OvertheTop:
I get your point...
But let us be realistic....
if this goes on for months, what will be your take on the union?

For months, that means she weaponized it and she's got to know she's indispensable. We don't really need to talk too much, we are men!

No one is being trapped. If intimacy dies and both parties are unhappy, separation is an option - rape should never be one.

Ironfaceman:
Lying liar 🤥

You must be silly.

budaatum:
Sorry, but this is not true. My husband and I are equal heads in my family, and he is intelligent and smart enough to know and respect that fact, as am I.

He does not make family decisions without consulting me, and neither do I make family decisions without consulting him. We even consult our children too, out of respect for them, and because we want them to learn to do the same when they get their own families.

But do know that there is absolutely no reason why you must do what I do in my family, because it is not compulsory that you have the same goals that I have for my family.

Making family decisions together doesn't take away the headship of your husband......it's simply for order.

budaatum:
This proposed law is not for the protection of women only Peter. It applies to women too who can no more use lack of sexual relations as an argument in fault-based divorce.

As for rolls and duties in a family, that is for each family to determine, though I don't suppose they can change the fact that the man can not be the pregnant one. But everything else is negotiable, including who pays the rent and puts the food on the family table.

Not true.....except the context of the law isnt clearly understood since we don't live in there culture and environment. But if it affects the dynamics of. marriage and promote no-fault ddirvorce then it's a big No. Family is for everyone and should protect everyone.

Peterlove11:
Not true.....except the context of the law isnt clearly understood since we don't live in there culture and environment. But if it affects the dynamics of. marriage and promote no-fault ddirvorce then it's a big No. Family is for everyone and should protect everyone.

Peterlove11. The dynamics of our marriage must have been affected way before the day that some sort of spirit enters me and I report you to some outside of our marriage people, I think. After then, and only then does the dynamics of our marriage get affected by this French law, don't you agree?

France laws, like all of Europes law, protects everyone regardless of gender, colour, race, sex, tribe, religion, disability, age or even whom one fuqs. They can't be so stup¹ to be creating laws for woman and not for man. That's like 1500AD backwardness, and that's not France.

budaatum:
Sorry, but this is not true. My husband and I are equal heads in my family, and he is intelligent and smart enough to know and respect that fact, as am I.

He does not make family decisions without consulting me, and neither do I make family decisions without consulting him. We even consult our children too, out of respect for them, and because we want them to learn to do the same when they get their own families.

But do know that there is absolutely no reason why you must do what I do in my family, because it is not compulsory that you have the same goals that I have for my family.

Lol.......of course you are equals but for order sake in the home, He is your lord and Head. I know the word Lordship and Headship frightens you

Peterlove11:
Lol.......of course you are equals but for order sake in the home, He is your lord and Head. I know the word Lordship and Headship frightens you

No! No! Peterlove11, "the word Lordship and Headship" does not frighten me. It's the fact that I married a man who thinks "I do" means you are now my lord and my head, that frightens me. Like, what was I thinking, sort of frighten me.

In my house from where you married me, my father was not the lord and the head of my mother. They both worked together equally to raise us their family. Often my mother to be honest. My grandmothers were the same, working with my grandfathers to raise my parents. And my parents raised us to be lords of our own heads. So I don't see, or rather, I can't imagine how much dowry you must have paid my father to allow you to marry his daughter to be honest, such that you become his daughter's lord and head not to talk of his daughter letting you be her lord and her head.

budaatum:
No! No! Peterlove11, "the word Lordship and Headship" does not frighten me. It's the fact that I married a man who thinks "I do" means you are now my lord and my head, that frightens me. Like, what was I thinking, sort of frighten me.

In my house from where you married me, my father was not the lord and the head of my mother. They both worked together equally to raise us their family. Often my mother to be honest. My grandmothers were the same, working with my grandfathers to raise my parents. And my parents raised us to be lords of our own heads. So I don't see, or rather, I can't imagine how much dowry you must have paid my father to allow you to marry his daughter to be honest, such that you become his daughter's lord and head not to talk of his daughter letting you be her lord and her head.

You are still misunderstanding the concept of Headship.....Do you work with an organization? or ever being the boss of a company?. I work with both Male and Female bosses, and I have the top boss which is a Woman, there are purpose is for the proper streamlining of the objectives of the Institution, to achieve a well defined goals. We all work together. And no one is shouting, am your boss up and down even though we all know they are. Leadership is only dysfunctional where pride and rebellion functions, but where understanding and honor reigns, everyone works to there most effective capacity in a free and purposed-full environment. But absence of leadership is what brings chaos and retrogression. In the Home, the husband is the head not to bully his wife up and down ,but to work with her in understanding because she is fragile and weak. The strong serve and protect the weak, while the weak honor and submit to the strong.

I have lived and work amongst the 3 major ethnic groups, and I know the ones where their women are easily triggered by the Headship of their husbands.

Peterlove11:
You are still misunderstanding the concept of Headship.....Do you work with an organization? or ever being the boss of a company?

My marriage is not a company. You did not publish an advert I applied to with a cv. You did not interview me to marry you. We never negotiated terms like pay and start day and leave.

So you can not be my boss. I don't work for you. I was your wife. Now I want divorce! Basically, I quit!

budaatum:
My marriage is not a company. You did not publish an advert I applied to with a cv. You did not interview me to marry you. We never negotiated terms like pay and start day and leave.

So you can not be my boss. I don't work for you. I was your wife. Now I want divorce! Basically, I quit!

And that's the problem......there are no checks and balances. Everything shouldn't be based on how I feel or what I want, it should be in the interest of family. We shouldn't normalise divorce because we can, rather we should rather uphold family because we should.
Then secondly I only gave that analogy to understand the concept of Headship, denying it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We deny the obvious because of pre-existing trauma we've had. Living under the rock doesn't mean the sun doesn't exist.

Peterlove11:
And that's the problem......there are no checks and balances. Everything shouldn't be based on how I feel or what I want, it should be in the interest of family. We shouldn't normalise divorce because we can, rather we should rather uphold family because we should.
Then secondly I only gave that analogy to understand the concept of Headship, denying it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We deny the obvious because of pre-existing trauma we've had. Living under the rock doesn't mean the sun doesn't exist.

I think it is in the interest of our family that we should lead our family with both our heads and not just with your only head, because leading with only your head would be like having two engines in your car and only using one, or, walking with one hand tied behind your back and the other covering your eye.

I'm not saying "it doesn't exist", Peterlove11. Of course it does exist just as you exist. And I am very aware of the many cultures and societies and countries who do dominate girls by depriving them of education so they can be dominated.

I'm saying, it doesn't exist in my marriage.

You ask this very successful dude why he is not heading any woman. It might make you wanna consider.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1xNHUTzBUk?si=MW5BZ-ytTmKmKaIm

budaatum:
I think it is in the interest of our family that we should lead our family with both our heads and not just with your only head, because leading with only your head would be like having two engines in your car and only using one, or, walking with one hand tied behind your back and the other covering your eye.

I'm not saying "it doesn't exist", Peterlove11. Of course it does exist just as you exist. And I am very aware of the many cultures and societies and countries who do dominate girls by depriving them of education so they can be dominated.

I'm saying, it doesn't exist in my marriage.

You ask this very successful dude why he is not heading any woman. It might make you wanna consider.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1xNHUTzBUk?si=MW5BZ-ytTmKmKaIm

Well, he didn't say anything contrary.....he obviously highlighted how women live in denial that Men is there head, and they oftentimes like to equate themselves to their Men. Goodluck and Enjoy the best of Marital bliss