₦airaland Forum

aflyingbird:
lol @ Sagamite calling me a feminist.

So you are not a feminist, just selfish and illogical like the average woman?

cococandy:
But everything you wrote here doesn’t have anything to do with rings. there are no (feminism-driven) laws that mandate people on what to do with engagement rings after the engagement is broken. It’s a personal thing. Some people may want to give it back while others may not want to regardless of their stance on feminism.

You anti-feminists often reach far and wide in search for shyt to toss at feminism. No matter how unrelated.

Well you tried to make the connection. In my opinion, it didn’t stick. Have a wonderful day

You seem not to comprehend the point.

What do you mean by: "There are no (feminism-driven) laws that mandate people on what to do with engagement rings after the engagement is broken"?

You really struggle to comprehend these points:

If a law is likely to, on most occassions, disadvantage women, it would be changed.

If a law is likely to, on most occassions, disadvantage men, nothing would happen even though everyone knows it is wrong.

What relevance is the point of "what people want to do"?

You don't comprehend how laws give people power to use and abuse?

Why should the woman have the choice/right to give it back or not? Did she pay for it?

Does that right of choice make sense to you?

Or it is more sense to say the giver/buyer should choose whether he wants it back or not? And does the law back this simple and right logic?

baby124:
Answer my question. Stop dancing around it now. You know my question hook you well.

No, darling. You are the one that has not answer my question which was asked twice.

You are the one dancing skelewu to my hook.

I ask again: Explain to me how an engagement ring is a "gift".

Only1mi:
Swear down

Okay o.

I shall take your word for it.

MiddleDimension:
my dear, call off that relationship or whatever you call it. truth is if you go ahead and marry her, she will ontinue her behaviour and it will get to a point that you would beat her up and people would start calling you he shameful name ''wife beater''. she can even reprt you to the police and th will jail you. no one will listen to the fact that you have been complaining. people believe that women have the freedom to abuse men and men should not retaliate. when you lift your hand to hit her, they will tell you you are not matue emotionally. they quickly forget the fact that you have been taking it all the while. the society gives women the go ahead to behave badly and assures them that there is no consequence. when office for domestic violence, which it is actually an office for violence against women, is set up, means we are funding women's bad behavior with public fund. how lower can we decend as a civilization? to tell a grown adult female with a bushy vaginaaaaaaa hair that there are no consequencies for action?

who hurts a person the claim they love? just tell me who that person is! @cococandy @sagamite

bummyla:
My Fiancee is fond of making me angry. She takes pleasure in seeing me angry! I think it empowers her somehow!! She like the kind of power it gives her over me.

And I noticed she does not apology when she does so, which is becoming too frequent these days.

She thinks she is irreplaceable, before we both claimed we heard from God concerning our being joined together as Husband & Wife.

I am tired of reporting her to third parties to talk to her.

I am also tired of threatening to call off the wedding, if her new found attitude persists.

I am tired of correcting and warning her.

As I am a happiness fanatic, I will always tell you to end it.

I have no time and interests for persistent arguments. And as I have said previously on NL, I will NEVER go to a marriage counsellor. Fck that!

If she wants to go, let her go.

What I want from a partner is good connection, banter, jokes, caressing, going out, loving behaviours, great conversations, holidays together, reasonably different personalities, selflessness and good passionate fuku faka.

I am very focused and clear on what I want. It really is not rocket science.

Any girl that wants to continuously argue is free to move on. I have no interest in that. I make it clear implicitly and explicitly that I don't like that or I am not into that once it starts occurring, and if my message is not being received and processed, I will leave.

I never hit. Don't do domestic abuse. I just leave.

A girl that wants to provoke you or always want to fight you is not right for you. Period! It is a no-brainer for me.

Worse still when she is fcking too proud to apologise when she is wrong and knows she is the one on the wrong.

I am not saying there should never be arguments in a relationship, that is normal and healthy. But for one person to always want to be the one to rock the boat and poison the connection, not acceptable.

vivaciousvivi:
Please shut your trap and stop spewing smelly saliva all over the place.
You mentioned the point of the thread to an earlier question and I can read so all your baseless rants here are just that...baseless.

Peanuts are not brains, agreed. But neither is the cold space in your head dear sir.

Yeye dey smell!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCIyhUi2zBo

You are so daft, you even struggle to realise that I am calling your brain a peanut as a reflection of your cerebral power?

KAI! Moronic fuuktard to the core.

Shugavee:
said my peace, am done with this topic, its was a gift to her, n she would give it back if she wants to!!! If u want the ring back ask politely , don't think she will forcefully give u! Cause it's hers!! Good day

You can't explain how it is a gift?

You will just defiantly stick with your illogicality as long as you feel it is to your advantage and then froth with anger if others refuse to side with you if something is to your disadvantage?

And when people highlight your hypocrisy, you would scream they are just "sexist" or "misogynists"?

shaybebaby:
An engagement is a verbal contract between two people showing their intention to commit to each other.

As with any other contract, there are express and implied terms when entering into it. Implied contract is a little bit more ambiguous so the law generally looks at the conduct of the parties to determine if there are implicit terms.

The giver of the ring would have to demonstrate that he/she intended for all gifts to be returned in the event of a breakdown in relation or that it was gifted on the condition that the wedding must hold. So they are given the opportunity to demonstrate this fact by law. . If they do, they get their ring back.

Ofcourse with family heirlooms, it is easier to prove this as the gift which is handed down within the family is passed to someone who is believed to be about to join the family. It fits that purpose. Once the person is no longer family, they no longer meet that criteria.

What contract?

How is it a contract?

Do you understand the meaning of a contract?

Which court do you go to when engagement ends? National Indutrial Court? A commercial court?

Oh God! Women never cease to amaze me!

Escobar7, wetin I tell you?

You go shudder till you start generating electricity pass PHCN!

baby124:
In a divorce, male or female can be compensated. Don’t make it a one sided thing to prove your point.

Don't you just love the average woman's logic and rationalisation when something is likely to be to their advantage.

As I stated earlier, this is what feminist push:

Sagamite:
Sorry, darling, there is no tax implications for engagement rings. EVEN if it is seen as absolute gifts.

The laws in the UK are created to favour women.

If a law is likely to, on most occassions, disadvantage women, it would be changed.

If a law is likely to, on most occassions, disadvantage men, nothing would happen even though everyone knows it is wrong.

That is UK for you.

I remember when I told you feminist peeps I was a social observer and could write you volumes; I wasn't kidding, girl.

https://www.nairaland.com/4316979/marriage-finally-over/16#64721687

Pure selfishness!

I bet if a government refuses to deal with domestical violence or a senior government leader vocalises support for it, you would not say it is not because of misogyny since both men and women suffer domestic violence?

baby124:
About engagement ring being a gift, did he give it to her as a symbol of his love and commitment to her. Or did he lend it to her and tell her explicitly that the ring is only conditional on them being married?

He gave it to her as a sign that we should get married.

It is a cultural gesture.

Pure and simple!

Easy logic!

Not rocket science!

No way you can argue otherwise with any warped feminine logic even if you tried from now till Jesu Kristi returns.

But feminine selfishness would find a way to rationalise otherwise. I would soon move to the "contract" rationalisation.

baby124:
In a divorce, male or female can be compensated. Don’t make it a one sided thing to prove your point. About engagement ring being a gift, did he give it to her as a symbol of his love and commitment to her. Or did he lend it to her and tell her explicitly that the ring is only conditional on them being married?

shaybebaby:
An engagement is a verbal contract between two people showing their intention to commit to each other.

As with any other contract, there are express and implied terms when entering into it. Implied contract is a little bit more ambiguous so the law generally looks at the conduct of the parties to determine if there are implicit terms.

The giver of the ring would have to demonstrate that he/she intended for all gifts to be returned in the event of a breakdown in relation or that it was gifted on the condition that the wedding must hold. So they are given the opportunity to demonstrate this fact by law. . If they do, they get their ring back.

Ofcourse with family heirlooms, it is easier to prove this as the gift which is handed down within the family is passed to someone who is believed to be about to join the family. It fits that purpose. Once the person is no longer family, they no longer meet that criteria.

Shugavee:
said my peace, am done with this topic, its was a gift to her, n she would give it back if she wants to!!! If u want the ring back ask politely , don't think she will forcefully give u! Cause it's hers!! Good day

Standing ovation!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcuzB4wlebA&index=106

I love it!

This is why I opened the thread and called the feminists in to comment.

I just fcking love it!

The pure "me, me, me, me, me", "it is alright if it is going my way but an outrage if not".

baby124:
That’s different. In marriage there are laws because of shared property or assets. At a divorce, both are entitled to something that can equitably compensate for their contribution. Staying at home to raise kids within a marriage is not a bad thing. Before a woman can do that, the husband would be in agreement. Raising kids at home is a full time job. This is why we pay a lot of money for
Others to do it for us. Absolutely nothing wrong in a stay at home mother being compensated in a divorce. I don’t even support stay at home without something little going on. What if God forbid the husband dies and she has no source of income whatsoever?

Men, don't you just love the average woman's logical compass?

Logic 1: When it is to the disadvantage of women, and to the advantage of men = It is just plainly wrong

Logic 2: When it is to the disadvantage of men, and to the advantage of women = rationalise it

Here was another case of "rationalisation".

https://www.nairaland.com/4316979/marriage-finally-over/15#64651190



So it is the law is what makes it right?

You still did not explain to me how an engagement ring is a "gift".

Only1mi:
Haba, ask me a reasonable question naw. But truth be told, if it cost that much, I'd still return it. Anyone who knows me knows I don't like any hassle of any form.

AAAAAAHHHHHH!

Only1mi, true talk?

Say the truth and let the devil be ashamed pata pata.

You go return wetin?

Shugavee:
this has nothing to do with feminism firstly!! 2ndly it was a gift n its her decision to make!!! She didnt buy it but it was given to her!!!

How is it a gift?

What was the reason it was given to her for?

Tell me about any other "gift" you know of that is given for one singular intent.

Also tell me about any other "gift" you know of that can be given to you by only one kind of person.

It is about feminism. It shows the selfishness of feminism. Which is really not a shock considering the gender that is primarily advocating feminism.

Escobar7:
Seeing people writing bout ladies choosing to keep an engagement rings makes me shudder. Except you dont know what being engaged is, why societal etiquette requires you as a lady to return the ring of a botched engagement, then your ignorance can be forgiven. It is only logical to give the ring back.

The more you take time to understand the average woman, the more you would shudder.

I have observed them for too long to drop my guard or be a "real man".

Only1mi:
Legally the courts see an engagement ring as a conditional gift that should be returned in the event of a break up. I'd be more than happy to give it back, who wants the reminder of a failed relationship hanging about?

If the ring was worth £400,000 and the law says you don't have to give it back it is yours (an absolute gift), would you?

Remember: If the ring is worth that much, and your engagement just got cancelled, that means you are no more marrying a multimillionaire. Probably back to normal guys.

Would you still return it?

shaybebaby:
The law didn't evolve to protect women, stop being paranoid.

It's to protect the coffers of the tax man. Because there are tax implications when "gifts" are involved.

If the law was not created specifically for the benefit of women, so why did the makers of the law exclude family heirlooms as the only rings that have to be returned?

lakesider:
And Nigeria economy is nt growing ?
Something is wrong somwhere

The banking sector always make money in both the boom and the gloom as they are the intermediaries for all monies, be it profits or debts, hence are more informed and information is power.

baby124:
Was the ring a gift? If yes, then she keeps it. No one begged you to propose with something you cannot afford to lose. The fiancé GAVE her the ring. He did not lend it to her.

Explain too me how an engagement ring can be a gift.

Would you also be saying: "Did anyone beg her to leave her job and stay at home. If you know you don't want to be left destitute, then always go back to work and don't depend on a man. She was raising HER kids, and she wanted to. Kick her out with nothing after divorce".

Selfish a bit?

Shugavee:
simple!! If she returns it fine, if she doesn't, fine!! It's all her choice to make

Why should it be fine if she does not return it?

Did she buy it?

Is she fulfilling the intention it was bought for?

You are a feminist! Remember?

cococandy:
I would give it back.

Wearing your ring means that I agree to marry you.

When that agreement is no longer in place, there is no reason to keep it.

And this topic has nothing to do with feminism.

Well, you got the point and mentality right.

The topic has something to do with feminism because:

a) It exposes the hyprocrisy of feminism, as those fighting for equality and disadvantages of a sex tend to only focus on the disadvantages to one sex only, hence cannot be about equality.

b) I am exposing how laws in certain countries with advanced feminism is actually discriminatory against one gender, and that is not the female gender.

c) I always like to highlight the inherent selfishness of women.

d) I am exposing how feminism has embedded an insidious and sub-conscious premise that women should only have rights, not responsibilities and even courts are following that mantra, hence embedding discrimination against men.

That is why you can see the feminist likes of aflyingbird saying:

"If he is the one that breaks of the engagement, then he should be punish. If she is the one that breaks off the engagement, she should not be allowed to punish him." To feminist like her, that is "equality".

That is not the first time or the only scenario where one hears such illogicality of "equality" from women. Another is when I have heard them say:

"If a man cheats in a marriage, the courts should award her half of his assets".

And when I ask them, what if it is the wife that cheated:

"Oh, then she should not get half".

What great deal. Who wouldn't want that.

Heads, I win; tails, well, I lose nothing.

That selfishness drives this philosophy that women should have all the rights but no responsilities and this should be the basis of legislation. Of course anyone without responsibilities can never be at fault, but those with rights can always be beneficiaries, otherwise they are "victims". Rights gives powers, responsibilities gives obligation. That is what has become the position of feminism and what I have been trying to highlight.

I am a very strong social observation that can see trends others can't see. My brain is live a 360 degrees night-vision-equipped, forensic goggles that panoramically sees what is going on while everyone else is in the dark and looking straight ahead. There are more threads I can create to highlight this. This is just one.

vivaciousvivi:
This is a typical response from a so called full bloodied nigerian male suffering from a serious case of inferiority complex. All the likes of you do when u hear the word "feminist" is to start frothing from d A-hole and get horn.y.

You actually opened a thread to hear what naturally strong-minded and opinionated women have to say over this issue. Smh. Go and collect your ring back from that flossie and stop wasting our time / data with your infantile behaviour.

@ 2buffagain: will add the word Takist to my vocab from now on

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

If you had any brain in your head, you would be able to comprehend the point of the thread.

But I guess peanuts are not brains.

If I waste your data, why don't you text one of your mugu guys to send you a top-up?

MissRaine69:
Life choices

Unfortunately, that is not adequate for the argument.

The point is the injustice and bias.

You can't say "oh make better choices then".

It is like saying women are being sexually harassed at work and the government would not do anything about it, and then you say "oh, they should make better choices about where they work and what kind of work they do".

MissRaine69:
Two countries out of how many? If I was a man I would make sure I get engaged anywhere but those two!
That said
Why would I want to keep it? Punished for what? What’s preferable a broken engagement or a marriage?
The ring will be returned regardless of whose at fault in my case there are things I will fight tooth and nail for but not for this type of memory.

The place you proposed/got engaged would be irrelevant in a UK court.

As for why would you want to keep it; the culture that is dictact for the mumus that engage in it is that "if you really love and value the girl and want to show this", then it is customary you spend anywhere between 1 to 3 months salary on the engagement ring.

That is enough incentive for anyone with a brain not to flush down the toilet.

MissRaine69:
This is why choosing wisely is essential

Choosing what wisely?

aflyingbird:
Daughter of a Lawyer ko. If you were, YOU SHOULD KNOW that an engagement ring can be a gift if given on special days like birthdays, Val's day, Christmas and other holidays. If you were, YOU SHOULD KNOW there are times when people give engagement rings as a form of gift-exchange too. In situations like these an engagement ring is considered a gift and the woman keeps it.

Daughter of a Lawyer ko. With your poor replies and the rate at which you keep posting fake pictures on your profile claiming them as yours, I hear you.

Hell fcking NO!

It is a traditional symbolic gestures intended for only ONE purpose.

MissRaine69:
And there are instances when a man won ...
That’s a reference point

Only in US and Canada. And it depends on the state.

In the UK and Australia, hell no.

MissRaine69:
That’s easy
If I was a man
I will sue for breach of contract
And I will get it back

In the UK?

You would waste your money and lose.

They don't give a shyt about your rights if you are male. Especially white, straight male. It is a loony liberal country that thinks it is okay to discriminate against them. I fully understand these guys anger.

They would know it is wrong and injustice, yet, NOTHING would change because the chief advocates (the press) are all run by liberals. That is why, despite me thinking FOX News are lunatics, Americans should be grateful they have it.

I heard Canada is like the UK too, where liberals control everything and want to force their lunacy on society.

Here is a sample for you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40294530

Canadian judge rules woman can keep $14,300 engagement ring

A Canadian judge has ruled that a woman can keep her C$19,000 ($14,300, £11,210) engagement ring.

Lauren Arbuckle's ex-fiance sued her after their relationship ended because of squabbles over wedding finances.

Devin Sherrington sued for the return of the ring and a $6,000 loan after the three-year relationship fell apart.

A Nova Scotia court found that although she ended the relationship, it was not her idea to break up so she did not have to return the gift.

Small claims adjudicator Gregg Knudsen said that since the 3.25 carat diamond ring was gifted on the condition the two would marry, the entire matter rested on who ended the engagement.

If Ms Arbuckle, a hairstylist and make-up artist, ended it, then she must relinquish the gift, he said. However, if Mr Sherrington, a personal trainer, broke it off, then the gift was rightfully hers.

The couple had been engaged for one year before deciding to call it quits because the two could not agree about how to pay for the wedding.

Ms Arbuckle wanted a lavish affair, while Mr Sherrington wanted something more cost-conscious.

He didn't believe his fiancee could afford her half of the wedding cost, the court heard, and feared he would get stuck paying for the whole bill.

He suggested postponing the wedding but she did not want to. Finally, she decided to end the relationship.

At first, Mr Sherrington told Ms Arbuckle she could keep the ring, text messages show. But later, he asked for it back, as well as money he says he loaned her for a trip to Mexico.

Ultimately, Mr Knudsen found that it was Mr Sherrington who called off the engagement, and so the ring rightfully belongs to Ms Arbuckle - although he also ruled that she had to pay him back about C$3,000 for the Mexico trip.

"I find the postponement was an indefinite postponement, sufficient to treat the engagement as over. Ms. Arbuckle may have ended the relationship but Mr. Sherrington ended the engagement," he said.

But Ms Arbuckle's victory is short-lived, as she has had to file for bankruptcy and all her assets - including the ring - are being held by a trustee.

The warped logic of the judge was that "she ended the relationship but he was the one that ended the engagement".



I don't know how someone can remain engaged to someone they are no more in a relationship with.

That is the sexist and misandrist madness one sees in countries like the UK nowadays. The feminist keep on pushing "victim" while advocating all rights but no resposibilities for women.

shaybebaby:
The law didn't evolve to protect women, stop being paranoid.

It's to protect the coffers of the tax man. Because there are tax implications when "gifts" are involved.

Sorry, darling, there is no tax implications for engagement rings. EVEN if it is seen as absolute gifts.

The laws in the UK are created to favour women.

If a law is likely to, on most occassions, disadvantage women, it would be changed.

If a law is likely to, on most occassions, disadvantage men, nothing would happen even though everyone knows it is wrong.

That is UK for you.

I remember when I told you feminist peeps I was a social observer and could write you volumes; I wasn't kidding, girl.

https://www.nairaland.com/4316979/marriage-finally-over/16#64721687

MissRaine69:
What people choose to do and what’s legal is two different things.
If i was a man and I gave you ring and it did not work out and I asked for it back and you refused I will take you to court and the ring will be returned. It’s a conditional gift in the eyes of the law.
We are not arguing grey areas here it’s what should happen not the Nigerian hijacked version of things.

I am afraid she is right.

Only Ireland, out of all Anglo-Saxon developed countries I checked, had sane laws and regard it as a conditional gift.

US and Canada is dependent on the state/region. Most follow her flawed logic of:

- If a man breaks off the engagement, he should get punished. Men have responsibilities.

- If a woman breaks off the engagement, she should not get the benefit to punish him? Women have rights.

UK and Australia, just blatantly sexist! Only if a man can prove it is a family heirloom would it be returned, otherwise it is hers.

aflyingbird:
Depends. Sometimes engagement rings can be gifts, in this situation the woman keeps it. If the man is the one to break the engagement off for no just reason or he suddenly wants to ditch her for another woman, she can also keep it. If she's the one to break the engagement off, then she has to return it. So depends on the situation.....

So basically, your logic is:

- If a man breaks off the engagement, he should get punished.

- If a woman breaks off the engagement, she should not get the benefit to punish him?

That is logical to you?

Your logical compass is very similar to that of MrBrownJay1

MissRaine69:
It’s not what we think should happen
It’s what happens from a legal perspective
The woman returns the ring regardless of who caused the break up. It’s viewed as a conditional gift.

No, darling.

It depends on the country. That is what I found out that made me create the thread and some yeye 2buffagain and Gerrard59 thought I had gone mad.

In England law, it is regarded as an ABSOLUTE GIFT. Which means the man cannot get it back except the man can prove otherwise. So the burden of proof is on him.

Typical UK!

A man-hating country. The way it creates laws is:

- If the issue is likely mainly affect a man, then it is okay.

- Let women have rights, men have responsibilities.

UK for you!

I don't know how something that was bought for a specific aim that is then cancelled can be regarded as an absolute gift. But trust feminists, they will never complain about such but you see them all over UK TV whining about some nonsense claiming women are victims.

Shugavee:
cause its a gift, u don't tell people to return gifts.. but they return it anyways to forget the memory .... but some people dont care n end it deep down of them immediately

It is not a gift.

It is a marker/symbol of an intention.

I don't know any gift only one kind of person can buy you and that is dependent on a question.