₦airaland Forum

It is because of moronic reasoning of sharing what is made in marriage that gold diggers like this get what they do not deserve.

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2012/07/lap-dancing-wife-awarded-3-million-divorce-settlement

[size=18pt]Lap-dancing wife awarded $3 million in divorce settlement[/size]

A multimillionaire from Australia was ordered to pay $3.25 million to his ex-wife, whom he met while she was working at a lap dance club.

The unidentified man, 58, signed a prenuptial agreement when he and his wife, who is 14 years his junior, married in 2005. They separated two years later.

He claimed that she was a gold digger and their relationship became a loveless one after they married. They have no children. This was his second marriage. His first also ended in divorce with his first wife being awarded $7 million.

A high school dropout, she now lives in an apartment with her truck driver boyfriend.

"(A) change in the nature of intimacy between parties when they marry is not an indication of fraud, coercion or unconscionable conduct. It is indicative of normal human behavior," said judge Robert Benjamin. "These parties were not in the 'first blush' of their relationship in 2005, they had commenced living together about eight years previously."

She deserves 3.25m she never worked for, can never make and did not perform well in school to set herself up to make, all because the money was made in a ....................UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNION!

Intellectual suggestions! Kai!

If a law is there based on her contribution and earning potential, then she would not be able to gold-dig.

MRbrownJAY: ^^^see this crazed man trying to bring me back to his deluded discussion, instead of licking his wounds from what Coogar inflicted on him .....ok let me indulge ONE TIME (no, i wont give you the pleasure to go back and forth again, and humiliate too)

pls sit down and have these following question go through you mind for a minute.......or two:

A) where in this BS article does it say that what people earn during marriage SHOULDNT be shared equally with their partner (is that not what you have been biatching about)?!

B) is that article not about legalizing prenups in the UK, which is also what i have been saying all along (aka if you dont like the law then get a prenup)?

C) where in all what i have written to you, did i ever mentionned that the assets that anyone owned BEFORE marriage should be shared after marriage(since thats what this article is also about)?!

D) what has this "divorce formula" got to do with the stoopid proposal that you brought forward (about people leaving with what they EARNED DURING MARRIAGE, and/or "choose" how much they want to give)?!

E) funny how you are quick to agree with the point that fits your deluded agenda, but then criticize the points that doesnt........why bring your BS article then? take all what is been reported or nothing......but then again, this is narrow minded Saga we are dealing with here, a guy that sees things only his deluded way and no other. lol!

F) it is sad that you never figured out that I NEVER EVER MENTIONNED ASSETS THAT INDIVIDUALS OWN BEFORE MARRIAGE SHOULD BE SHARED as part of the settlement...... i guess you have comprehension issues. this article is actually more what I proposed than what YOU proposed BWAAAAAAAAAH! so WTF are you on about? this is pretty much MY proposal and definitely not what you proposed.... since the assets generated during the union will STILL be shared equally (unless you dreamed of reading something that isnt there). DUH!!!!

FINALLY, since you are only focussing on BS irrelevant issues on this article, let me help you, here is what you should have focussed on (and the most important part of this article):
"The Law Commissioner in charge of reforming divorce law, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, said the organisation is ‘looking at the boundaries of the sharing principle’ and considering what a couple might not share when they break up."
it says the BOUNDARIES of the sharing principle, NOT (like you wanted) that nothing should be shared equally...... which simply means that this is what I (MBJ) proposed: share what is generated during the union, and NOT all the assets of that said couple (aka what someone earned before marriage and brought in this marriage)...... but nice try sha!

pls, no need to reply as you are clearly a waste of my intelligence, bringing stoopid article as this one in order to "try" to be relevant (with your deluded proposal), when it is clearly obvious that you aint!

as for Murray, yes AS FROM TODAY, he can/could be referred as a successful tennis player......but until last week, he had NOT earn that right, and was still considered an unsuccessful mediocre tennis player, now let us all rejoice for this "successful mediocre player", lol.

I am not even going to reply to the garbage you wrote about Thierry Henry(another Saga's poor attempt to get this discussion back on track), because if you dont know that he was part of the French winning team of both WC 1998 and euro 2000, then you have no business talking to me about football!

why dont you instead continue creating new profiles to give hype to yourself, you certainly need it!

Let me be gentle on you and not humiliate you too much on the junk you put up there .........except you insist sha!

"‘It would be far clearer if the law was to state what is to be achieved. Is it trying to compensate people for what they have lost as a result of the marriage, for example, earning capacity?" - Professor Elizabeth Cooke, Law Commissioner.

{Coughs} MBJ argued Goerge Weah is not a failure despite not winning any major title because it is a team sport, not individual, hence a team's failure not his. But then now argues Henry is successful based on his team's performance, hence it is Henry's achievement.

Claus: I just knew this thread would re-awaken once I saw that Andy Murray won the U.S. Open

I'm glad the consultation around reforms is starting. For one, it will prevent the millions currently being wasted on lawyers, and will stop wealthy people being screwed over by their exes (usually at the encouragement of their lawyers).

Thank you.

Hopefully it would also put an end to legalised gold-digging and opportunist robbery.

Showing me all these pictures are irrelevent to me and in the grand scheme of things.

What we need is the name of the person responsible for the maintenance. What financial support are the getting? And how are they utilising it?

If they are not getting sufficient financial support, who is responsible for that and why is it not being given?

We need to start making individual people accountable instead of complaining about the system or culture.

Kai! See babes left, right and centre looking for the legendary Saga lurve.

It is good to be a fine boy sha.

So they are seeing sense finally.

[size=18pt]Divorce law reform may end right to equal share with plans to use formula to divide assets[/size]

[size=14pt]- Proposal would end presumption that former spouses would share marriage proceeds equally
- Instead, divorcing husband and wife could be allowed to keep property and cash they owned before marriage[/size]

Couples who split up may have to divide their assets according to a ‘divorce formula’ {As Saga intelligently proposes}, legal reformers suggested yesterday.

The proposal being mooted by the Law Commission would end the long-standing presumption that former spouses share the proceeds of their marriage equally.

Instead, a divorcing husband or wife could be allowed to keep all the property and cash they owned before their marriage.

The recommendations follow the Commission’s recent consultation on pre-nuptial arrangements.

The reforms are aimed at reducing the acrimony between warring couples and the huge amounts of money wasted on lawyers and court hearings.

But some critics said they could cut the amount a divorced woman might expect to get from her husband. {And so? Lunatics! She should get what she deserves based on her earnings and earnings potential.}

The Law Commissioner in charge of reforming divorce law, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, said the organisation is ‘looking at the boundaries of the sharing principle’ and considering what a couple might not share when they break up.

She added: ‘These are technically difficult questions. They are also very emotional questions because they are important to people at an incredibly difficult time in their lives.

‘The way people respond to them depends upon their own beliefs about marriage and about commitment and responsibility.

‘Most people who have to deal with these questions in practice agree that the current law is inadequate.’ {As Saga said}

Professor Cooke said that a divorce or civil partnership break-up was a miserable experience for the couple and their children. ‘The law can make that misery worse if it is not fair, clear and accessible, by contributing to acrimony and wasted costs.

‘It would be far clearer if the law was to state what is to be achieved. Is it trying to compensate people for what they have lost as a result of the marriage, for example, earning capacity? {This professor must have been reading my work and learning how to think}

Is it trying to move away from what might have been and to think about how long it will take for them to achieve independence?

‘And how far should the law be incentivising independence, trying to encourage people to move on?’

The Commission has already run a consultation deal about prenups, documents drawn up by a couple in advance of their wedding which set out how their assets are to be divided in the event of divorce.

Two new consultations will now cover how far a husband or wife should cover the needs of their former spouse after divorce, and what happens to assets that one party had before the marriage.

The Law Commission will produce a set of recommendations on new laws for the Government next year.

But author and researcher on the family, Patricia Morgan said the plan would ‘devalue’ marriage.{person! So having one party milking or threatening to milk another party is what up-values marriage?}

‘We have already dismantled the connection between parenting and marriage. Now we are taking mutual help and interdependence away. We won’t be sharing any more.’

She added: ‘There is an assumption here that marriage is a transient union and not a lifelong one.’{More moronic statements. So when one party can milk the other is when marriage is capable of being lifelong? Foool, if it has reached a divorce point and these laws are activated it is inevitably a transient union. These laws will not have a bearing on the marriage pre-divorce point, so do not dictate the longetivity.}

The attempt to draw up a new divorce settlement law follows a number of key court decisions. In 2010, the Supreme Court allowed German heiress Katrin Radmacher to keep the greatest share of her £100million fortune according to an agreement drawn up with her husband before their marriage.

The ruling effectively gave prenups legal force in British divorce law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2201371/Divorce-law-reform-end-right-equal-share-prenup-style-proposals.html#ixzz269VRG76D

As I always said, the things I have been saying for years the West finally pick up years later. It is just a typical scenario of my life because I am too advanced in thinking and a pure God. A G-O-mudafcking D!

I am sure when they finally come up with the proposal, it would still be inferior to the one I suggested because their collective intellect of all the Oxbridge guys in the Law Commission is just below mine when it comes to logical thinking. Pure fact!

This is something that should have been done years ago.

And by the way, finally, Murray has now become a successful tennis player yesterday. Prior to that he was an utter failure despite being one of the Top 10 highest earners ever, won many titles and reached 4 grand slam finals to legends.

A shame Thierry Henry would end his career as an unsuccessful football player since he never won European or World footballer of the year.

debrief08: 1st Corinthians 7 : 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I
It is not by force, he knows what he wants, respects himself and respects women, if he doesnt want to marry Paul said it is even good.
No be to marry hold title and dey misbehave na him be marriage. Marriage no be by force, when he wants to he will if he doesnt want to no need for snide comments.

TV01 is a strong and proud advocate of marriage and, from his posts he obviously sees it as a moral duty, necessity and obligation for everyone.

But honestly, to be frank, I have never seen any more irresponsible advice about approach to marriage from anyone than I see from TV01.

ThiefOfHearts: Figured you girls have killed him by now?

See this cute stranger showing her face after extended absence from NL.

[quote author=Busy_body]I see, no wonder

No wonder why she with her scrawny 140lb size 6 cocacola bottle shaped self can stay suspended from the ceiling for 5 hours at a stretch, whilst the only time my 700lb lightweight self tried such, the ceiling came crashing down and the 6 storey building housing the hotel we were about to get down and rendezvous was reduced to rubbles in seconds

A mere 2k for saloon runs, hahaha, may God only keep bringing more of this cheap cheap chewing gum girls like efemena my husband Sagamite's way, so that it will not affect the 97% divorce settlement I am due from him when I divorce his leprous asahwo yansh in 3 years time [/quote]My recollection was that it was my fuku faka fuku faka jamming that shook the ceiling down.

Tgirl4real: Hehehehee...na u know.

Since u've got them plenty, as I asked earlier, what exactly are u missing by not being married?

I will wait for TV to educate me on that.

I really want to know what calamity is looming around the corner and will befall me if I remain unmarried.

Tgirl4real: See dis Ijebusite claiming to be Sagamite...cos of 2k salon money u dey wait for government payment. Efemena...u berra shine ya eye wella. May be na Sagamite go need sign prenup sef.

It is all about shared services o.

You know how many women I have to suppport.

[quote author=Efemena_xy]**scoffs!**

Give Jenny red card!

Or better still, send her packing for one week.

I don tire for her bullying - abi you nor fit control your first wife??

And what about that Dada Osun 'n 2K for my saloon runs you promised moi? [/quote]Jenny dey use juju for bed, after an 8 hour session, anything she asks I agree to.

As per saloon runs, I am waiting for that contract payment from government o.

TV01: ...what is this

Despite the best intentions of many, Saga has steadfastly refused to understand the realities and centrality of the marriage covenant. Instead - even as he ages - he continues to apply a "Logical-Transactional" approach, devoid of all notions of sacrifice (serving the other, unabashed commitment), romance or even pragmatism. Which will either (1) frustrate it from happening (2) frustrate it if it does happen.

Yet many - and for the most part " NL small mummies" - come up in here, flexing as e-wives, e-concubines etc, making Saga feel all is well with his erroneous notion and with the world. Whilst they are just vicariously re-living that equally nonsensical fantasy/falsehood of getting with a bad guy. My man is seemingly oblivious to the fact that a painful dawning approaches?

I sincerely pray that I'm wrong here and Saga is working apace to locate and secure his spouse, whilst e-gaming for side entertainment?

All to play for Bro'. I'm rooting for you...

Sorry, bruv. But I honestly think you are the one that lacks an understanding of realities. Realities are a product of environmental influences. The type of environmental influences you have repeatedly advocated should be ignored and people should bury their heads in the sand.

Let me give you an example of how environments shape thinking and reactions. If me and my friends that grew up in Nigeria start reminiscing over our youth and talk about how our fathers or in some cases mothers beat the shyt out of us when we were wayward or mischevious in youth or how seniors in boarding school beat the shyt out of us for not giving them part of our pocket money, we all laugh hysterically at stories. They are actually fun memories of discipline or even fun adversity.

If a butter Western-raised child talks about his own insignificant smackings, it might evoke tears from him and his peers as people see it as abuse and suffering.

The difference there is the expectations and norms. We laugh because that is what we expected and that is what is happening to every other child (and our peers) and everyone tells us it is what we deserved if we ever complained to others. The UK child will cry because it only happens to them, other kids do not get smacked and everyone tells them it is bad and unwarranted.

DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS!

As long as the environment of marriage has undeniably changed, I will use my intellect to adapt to the change, not bury my head in the sand and sing prayerful wishful thinking hymms saying despite the changed environment and changing outcomes, the outcome for me would remain unchanged. Just listening to majority of women (go and read comments in female publications) or studying divorce cases in the West will make anyone with logical reasoning to adapt his style. A logical-transactionally approach is fundamental as part of the present day arrangement of marriage for any talented man. It is more pragmatic than bury-your-head-in-the-sand wishful thinking. I am from Sagamu, I DO NOT DO FAITH, I DO FACTS!

If any woman is frustrated at an logical-transaction that protects me, then that women most likely DOES NOT HAVE my best interest at heart. I will not put a ring on it. She can sing Beyonce all she likes (all the single ladies, all the single ladies. All the single mudafcking ladies, all the single murrafcking ladies), that fact aint gonna change.

And by the way, at 55, I am an ayounge (a young one)! I am not aged!

I would actually be interested in what painful dawn you think awaits me.

wonlasewonimi: Don't take anything sagamite say online as the gospel, he brags online for self fulfilment.. reality would dawn on him sometime in the nearest future and his supposed intelligence would fail him miserably.

Haterz gonna hate!

The day reality dawns on Messi he is not a good footballer, then reality will dawn on me that I am not smart.

The day reality dawns on Usain he is not fast, then reality will dawn on me that I am not smart.

The day reality dawns on Mohammed and Baba Jesus that they are not religious leaders of Islam/Xtianity, then reality will dawn on me that I am not smart.

Keep on hating. Doesn't change a thing.

Katsumoto: I think you are getting it wrong Sagamite.

The federal government has provided roads for all users. Let us ignore the condition of these roads for the purposes of this debate.

The issue is that, when traveling down from the North to the South, the cattle require grass to chew on. When there is little of grass to chew on, the herdsmen take the cattle onto the properties of others, usually farms, to graze. In the process, they commit two crimes
1. Trespass of private property
2. Destruction of property

When challenged, they commit a third and more serious crime - Murder and/or attempted murder.

Like Ndu_chucks stated, they are nomads and want to live this way but there are simple solutions that reasonable people will employ.
1. Grass is a product which is usually thrown away in many places. The herdsmen can offer to cut grass for free which they can feed to cattle or if time is of the essence, they can pay for it (grass) or hay.
2. The herdsmen can also pay property owners a fee to take cattle onto their property.

The use of someone's property usually requires the payment of a fee or the waiving of that fee by the owner.

It is also impractical to provide secondary cattle routes through all the states of the federation. Land is a very important and expensive resource. If you provide a free path through all the states of the Federation, you will be setting very bad precedents in a nation where many don't want to pay for public services.
1. Others will require similar treatment
2. You will be sending the message that by resorting to violence when you are wrong, you can get your way.

I perfectly understand your arguments and the historical, uncivilised evil that has occurred which is part of the reason for a partly-justified emotional, boiled-up response of people on this thread.

What I am saying is that we should focus on solution development. The middle part of your post does come up with another alternative solution.

The final part (impracticality of a grazing path), I disagree with. No 1, I think providing a path for the herdsman is not going to be sold/communicated as heeding to violence, to me, it is about food security and respect for a culture. The fact they would haveto start paying for using a path will show it is not heeding to any violent stakeholder. No 2, it is all about stakeholder management. Some stakeholders would be happy to sell land. There is enough land and forest in Nigeria and not all are being used at all or being used for farming. There surely can be a way the herdsmen can graze on a land while other activities are taking place close to the land. Just like countries like Kenya have game reserves, you still have the Masai taking their cattle to graze next to Elephants. Cows can graze next to cement factories or mining areas.

The West have provided a similar provision for Travelling Gypsies with caravan camps to accommodate their way of life. Obviously if anyone is killing others they deserve to die but a good solution can reduce that risk.

namfav: nigeria is free for all nigerians, we are talking about land not houses

Are you saying one can own a house but cannot own a land?

How come only Allah can own land but he is not the only one that can own a house?

[quote author=Efemena_xy]I don vex

Not gonna cook for you tonight!

Jenny see wetin you don cause?? [/quote]Keep fronting publicly.

Shakara oloje.

When I jokingly slap your backside, blow you a kiss and instruct you to get me my dinner, you know you will like the feeling and will comply with my request instantly.

Tgirl4real: By then, u will be how old?

I agree to the living together for 10years for someone like you anyway.

I am already 55 years old. Do the maths!

jennykadry: I am tired of talking. I have told these people that saga is not for sale and not available , I don't know what is in his bakassi that is making all these women go crazy

Even efemena cannot keep her hands to herself. I am tired of talking I need action

Bi-abymama, dem no know say I am Mastercard.

Priceless!

[quote author=Efemena_xy]^^ Haba!!

Wetin naw? I just dey jejely for ma corner - dey wait make oga Saga forget the pre-nup agreement naw!

In the meantime, I dey manage my part-time e-hubby Dayo [/quote]What is the name of your babalawo?

If he is really that strong then I MUST have head of him.

Otherwise, you are dreaming.

nagoma: Nonsense ! Land belongs to God. Even your grave doesn't belong to you.

So any stranger can come and sleep in your house tonight since the land and bricks belong to Allah?

Katsumoto: Sagamite & Ajanlekoko

There is no doubt the government should protect the rights and livelihood of the Fulani and other groups in Nigeria. Your position, however, ignores certain facts.

1. There is a law in the land, which everyone else follows. When the Igbo man settles in Kano, he buys/rents property to use for his trade. His senator doesn’t campaign for him to be given FREE land or property.

I think this is a slightly different case.

This is not about settling in a place and it is an historical way of life being inhibited by development without a parallel pull and development of the normadic society to help them progress with it. They are not trying to settle on lands, they want to pass through it like they have historically done to make a living. They are not asking for ownershipfof the property, they are taking advantage of it in a special way.

The law can easily cater for this at a reasonable price because it is good for the nation.

Katsumoto: 2. Fulani herdsmen trespass onto the properties of others and usually damage crops and property

By making appropriate laws and provisions, this can be stopped and avoided.

Katsumoto: 3. When challenged, the Fulani resort to violence and usually maim or commit murder. It is difficult for government and legislators to institute laws and provisions for the benefit of murderers against STRONG public opinion.

You know I believe in the death penalty and in retaliatory violence.

Katsumoto: 4. The position of the Fulani is usually strengthened because others are restricted by obeisance of the laws, Police incompetence, and behind the scenes protection from Hausa/Fulani strongmen
5. The controversial promulgation and implementation of the Land Use Act which to an extent, can’t differentiate between government owned and customary land.

Like I stated earlier, the government can assist the Fulani but the Fulani must also shed its violent ways.

These are all due to incompetence in governance.

A better leadership can avoid all these and accommodate the special plans.

taharqa: Govt does not own any lands in 9ja. They only hold it IN TRUST of d original owners(ie those ppl who own d land even b4 there was an entity called Nigeria), you shld beta read up. Moreova, there is nothing dat gives the govt or any govt or power any where in d world any right to tk my land(esp ancestral lands) witout my approval in order to substain d 'life style' of others(esp when that 'lifestyle' is also a business); i repeat nothing gives d govt d right to do dat...if some of d Nomads want to continue dier 'lifestyle'(ie 4 those of dem dat do not wish to partially settle in Grazing Reserves) then they must be willy to pay LEASE(however small) to d owners of lands through which d grazing lands dat d govt may set aside passes(this is not only sensible cos d nomads are also actuali conducting business and so shld not expect to get dier main resources free in detriment of odas But also cos it clearly emphasizes dat those lands belong to some ppl who are only allowing dem access to their lands 4 an extended period of time)....piece of advice: when u wot to solve a problem esp regarding land issues in Africa(and you shld know dat ANCESTRAL lands is central to an African populatn group identity and so are extremely sensitive) you ought to be willy to engage in sincere difficult thinking instead of bn intellectuali lazy and taking wotever 'reasonable' thing that first comes to mind

Do you smoke weed?

Which type? And where does it originate from?

The government do not own land in Nigeria? But they sell it?

No government in the world has any power over any land? But individuals do?

So it is the weekend and you thought "Fck it! I will go all out on this ish and I ain't puffing and passing"?

person, I suggest you stop smoking by the time you come back to this thread or else you will start roasting.

A man with a brain.

A man with a vision.

A man that understands symbolic leadership.

A man that understands inspirational leadership.

Yet fucktards like Jonathan are ruling the Nation.

taharqa: The problem wit dis yr suggestn is yr utter disregard 4 d rights of others

No 1, I hope you understand the meaning of stakeholders?

If you don't, I suggest you research and read up on it.

taharqa: (those ppl who own d land and also do their business therein- or u think there are any 'ownerless' lands in 9ja?). The rights of d fulanis or any oda ppl should not infringe into d rights of odas 4 any reason wotsoever

No 2, I hope you are aware there are government owned lands in Nigeria?

No 3, I hope you realise there is a process and market for land sales and people that are land owners are main actors in such a market?

AjanleKoko: Makes sense.
They are part of Nigeria, like it or not, and their activities contribute to our GNP. It's perfectly normal to look into creating the access they need to graze. Lord knows that may save many more lives in the future, from needless clashes.

It might also make sense for them to be made to pay a fee for the path since they are making personal profit from using it. It should not be exorbitant fees, just about enough collectively to cover the cost of renting the land, managing the path (nourishing the path with the right grass) and paying for monitoring that the nomadic rearers don't go beyond the boundaries and executing the pricing mechanism (price paid per set of cattle) to be fair to all nomads etc.

The fact of the matter is that these guys are fundamental to the social & ecological structure and food security of the nation. What they are asking for is not unreasonable.

It is not like if they have not been living this way of life for years before the advent of a structured society. It is also their means of livelihood. I strongly believe it is a fundamental right to allow people have, and to protect people's, means of livelihood.

There are 2 ways to address this serious issue.

a) State governments should heed their request and create nomadic grazing paths across Nigeria.

b) These guys should be retrained and supported to convert to animal husbandry farmers.

A decision on which to take should be based on the one that best suits majority of stakeholders and is most productive for the country.

[quote author=Efemena_xy]Wahala dey indeed!

What about their er...biological clocks naw? [/quote]They just need to be good girls and follow my rules.

Many of them don born for me during courtships now self. That should not be a problem.

[quote author=Efemena_xy]Sagamite doesn't believe in getting hitched.

At least, not before he's 80 + [/quote]I need 20 years of courtship to study the babe o.

Then she moves in for another 10 years to see if we can live together, then I will propose.

TV01: Sagamite,

Long time dude. Hope you are well.

How is the search for "Miss Right for Mr Perfect" going? Hope well.

Wifey and I seem to have a social diary chocka with various invites. We often decline and sit tight at home to get quality time to ourselves and Jnr (who incidentally gets even more invites than mummy and daddy and is coo'ed over so much my head just dey swell). Anyway, rest assured when your big day arrives we will clear our decks and ensure we are there - and in whatever capacity you deem fit .

Not to derail, I just wanted to remind you of your earlier assertion that age was not a factor for men looking to marry. And a non-issue, unlike the way it is for women.

A little light reading to correct that erroneous notion - and to gee you up - and disabuse others who may be holding on to it.

http://www.fertilityauthority.com/men-only/getting-started-male-fertility-workup - scroll down on this one
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/health/4500607/Your-partner-cant-conceive-Male-infertility-is-the-most-common-cause.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1387412/Male-fertility-goes-down-after-men-reach-35-due-to-sperm-damage-caused-by-smoking-and-drinking-says-Dr-Stephanie-Bello.html

Apologies for derailing. Happy to take it elsewhere if required.

Best
TVigillintillsagagetsmarriednlderspleasejoinmeinprayerandfastin!

Bruv, I dey o. Hope you are good.

Anyway, bruv, you came short again.

No 1, you bring info from unreliable sources without any link to evidence. One is a woman's website (says alot about their objectivity ), the second is a tabloid (a useless sensationalist publication known for having no professional morals).

No 2, let me go deeper into it for you.


1) http://www.fertilityauthority.com/men-only/getting-started-male-fertility-workup

This link merely makes a statement, nothing to back it up.


2) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/health/4500607/Your-partner-cant-conceive-Male-infertility-is-the-most-common-cause.html

Please know that men that have reproduction medical problems is NOT evidence men's reproduction capabilities generally decline significantly with age. Not one bit an evidence.


3) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1387412/Male-fertility-goes-down-after-men-reach-35-due-to-Fluid-damage-caused-by-smoking-and-drinking-says-Dr-Stephanie-Bello.html

Please know that men that abuse their bodies which then leads to reproduction problems is NOT evidence men's reproduction capabilities generally decline significantly with age. That is like using men that smoke and end up with lung cancer as proof all men tend to end up with lung cancer as they age.

It seems you fell for tabloid sensationalism of news reports with the aim to maximise circulation. Tabloids are pure junk. I have not read one for close to a decade and I have only ever bought a tabloid paper 3 times in my life (during WCs to read about a Super Eagles headline I see). I don't tend to read them.


Bruv, no way in hell is age a significant factor for men looking to marry, like it is for women. Pure undeniable facts.

Marriage? Saga? Bachelor for life, mate!

Tgirl4real: Then...u agree u need a cure.

Nah!

I need admiration and adoration. I am worth it.

If she is playing hard to get then she aint gonna get.

Tgirl4real: *hiss* Fuku faka ko faka fuku ni

Lol. My day has been extremely boring. I knew sum'n will crack me up on NL. That, I to give u.

But Saga, dis ya self-appraisal is becoming an obsession, very soon it will turn to a disease o.

It is already a disease.

I look in the mirror every morning and I am like:

"DAMN NIGGER, o gbona fele fele bi ebiripo to jina gan gan" (You are as hot as ebiripo that is well done and just off the fire).

chaircover: I think ishilove has a crush on saggybobo. she appears each time saga appears

Mo de ti sofun Ti Jenny ba catch e! I no dey sha

Then we have to give it to her and admit she is exhibiting impeccable taste in men.

dayokanu: No steps needed

Just do it

Na Nike go sponsor am?