₦airaland Forum

ronald4lif:
Hmmm, hoping but not when we have pseudo feminists parading everywhere in this part of the world. Needless to mention gutless leaders and political correctness brigade who disguises under the umbrella of activism.

But left for the alimony settlement factor, do you think the institution is worth given a shot?

Well said, nigga.

I don't find the institution attractive and the proposition it offers is really poor.

If you live in the UK and US, I doubt it is worth giving it a shot. It is a loss for most men all round.

If you live in Nigeria or Sweden, then it can be considered if you are so inclined.

baby124:
Again like I said, a marriage is a partnership. In a business partnership it is implied that they are to share all gains and losses eEXCEPT it is expressly stated that they share gains and losses in a stipulated way. Those PWC partners have agreements with the company not so? Same with prenups. If those companies did not enforce agreements then each partner has a right to claim what they think they are worth since beginning the partnership. And to be just and fair that worth will be half of profits and losses within the partnership. Same way it works in business is the way it works in marriages. Now in business you know you can easily form agreements, but marriage is a different ball game. That is why you are here shouting, screeching and throwing your toys out of the pram. You know it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for you to find a woman that will agree to your possibly outrageous agreements before marriage. So you think you should be able to con her, with the option of divorce and you still come out ahead. Well too bad, it doesn't work that way.

What I asked you to explain is why she deserves what she got and you said because it was a partnership hence things should be shared "equally".

Why should it be equally?

And please don't say "because it is a partnership".

ronald4lif:
Well, safe to say the best approach is never to commit oneself to the union or if one must there should be a pre-nup arrangement as conflicting issues that could lead to the marriage breakdown is inevitable. It depends on one's level of tolerance, endurance and the quest to appease the society to view them as one 'happy' couple.

But I can't live and endure life when I've a better option, to be free, independent, happy and unaccountable to anyone. Makes no sense.

The best approach is for the government to correct the law.

TV01:
Literacy is the ability to read and write - agreed. Education is acquiring the lifeskills to function normally in the society, and at the time in which one lives. Knowledge is altogether different. There are vast differentials between people in a society at any point in time.

They were literate and educated for their time, as we are for ours, And our successors of 10, 20 or how ever many generations time turning around and calling us ignorant would be as wrong as what you are doing now. Not least because these things are successive.

The people then had the brains to do exactly what we do now and would if they had the same benefit of hindsight that we have. There is a pernicious myth, that present day men are somehow more intelligent, than our ancestors. Nope!

Yep. Literacy is the ability to read and write.

But a second definition in the dictionary is "the possession of education". It has also become the lingua franca for stating the level of education. Those are the context in which I used them.

They might be literate for their time, but the level of their time is complete illiteracy.

We are too structured and formally educated for any future generation to call us illiterate, so that argument does not carry water. Those that went to Oxbridge even in 1650 are still regarded as literate and educated today because they faced a structured education.

Someone being taught capentry 100 of years ago is illiterate.

By the way, Mohammed was a stark illiterate who could not read and write. I know that 100% because I read it. I am not too sure about Jesus, I bet he too was illiterate in reading and writing as I cannot recall anything he wrote.

The people then were stuuupid and dumb. They brutalised and killed each other at will out of their ignorance and lack of knowledge. Some of them wrote the inconsistent and illogical junk we know today as the Bible and Quran.

TV01:
Firstly I gave allowance for hiccups. Secondly, of all domestic relationships, domestic violence is least prevalent in marriage. Thirdly, it is not always extreme or dangerous; in fact many "relationship types" experience a degree of low level of conflict. Fourthly, if a "spouse" dies at the hads of their spouse, that would not be considered successful by my metric.

What you missed in your metric was people being happy in the set up.

To you, success in marriage was staying together for life exclusively.

While we might have different metrics, in my books, lack of happiness is a failure in life. You have only one life, don't believe the moronic rubbish the Hindus teach you, passed to them by their own medieval illiterates. Enjoy your ONE life, you are not coming back as a cattle of rat.

If you don't enjoy it, you have failed. If you are not happy in a marriage, it is a failed marriage.

TV01:
That is marriage - biblical marriage - as I understand and champion it. It's not for anyone else, and certainly not for those who subscribe to different relationship types. It's close to the one under discussion, and even those forms of marriage that differ from mine are always enacted between two people no?

Well, keep you biblical marriage to yourself and your batch. It is not the ONE!

Neo is the ONE!

TV01:
I'm happy to be labelled a Christian as I'm a bible believer and a disciple of Christ. Assume nothing else !

There is no fear of hell-fire for believers. The gift of god is eternal life. It's that or one perishes - completely ceases to exist - after paying for their sinful deeds, which may be quite heated .

TV

Then I am going to heaven with you too then.

Good news.

I am danicing Kukere now.

ronald4lif:
Quite so. Which makes it draconian and autocratic and reaps one of their right to choices/decisions. Do as I say or get penalised, stay put in the marriage no matter how unhappy you are (that's if there's any such thing as a happy marriage) or get the sharp end of the rod. Very undemocratic and an affront to right to freewill.

Marriage doesn't benefit anyone, not more than cohab couple who didn't perform the ceremonial signing of sheets. It's all a facade and a shadowy display of pretense fuelled by religion.

Get with the programme.

To many women, feminists and their lapdog cretinous "real men": It is awful if you do all these things you say to a woman, but it is okay if done to a man.

That is evidence of "civilisation" and "equality".

Mate, alot of women support this because they are fcking terrified they would be left by their men after their looks fade. So they are happy with a law that would force men to stay with them even if the law is senseless and discriminatory. It is all part of their selfishness.

Mixty, come here and see someone calling you the cretin you are.

Look at No 8.

baby124:
Well I am glad we agree the woman is entitled to something. But the fact is marriage is seen as a partnership. All gains and losses, including property are shared equally except it has been expressly stated on going into such partnerships that there are limitations on what should be shared in the case of a dissolution. So I put it to you to tell me why the man shouldn't pay his half as agreed? Am sure both of them' estate was considered in the decision. I am busy at the moment so can't give a robust reply. However left to your logic, most men will argue and fight that the wife deserves nothing, if the courts leave such issues open to interpretation and value. How do you value a spouses contribution in a marriage? It is simply impossible. This is why a marital Union is a PARTNERSHIP!!!

Nonsense!

Even in partnerships, partners get what they put in.

For example, not all PwC partners get the same pay. There is a valuation process of the worth of each partner and his/her contribution. Some are paid £400K a year, others are paid £2.8m a year.

Even in cases where people go into businesses as partners without signing an understanding, if there is a dispute in future that ends up in court, no sane judge would say it must be split 50/50, he would ask for evidence of contribution and apportion based on it.

Calling something a "partnership" does not justify equal split.

That argument fails!

You want to try again with another one?

TV01:
I may have been guilty of assuming, but then we all can be.

Respect!

{Salutes}

I like it when someone does not try to play "I no go carry last".

TV01:
Evidence of the state of their culture then is both documented and extant. As is it's flourishing sionce then. The term "education" is at best subjective. And if you mean "advanced", I've touched on that.

Would you give you child the education they have then?

Would you even see it as sufficient to live as an educated person.

Mate, lets be frank. They wer uneducated just like our ancestors were uneducated before the Whiteman came.

People teaching you or training you in something is not necessarily an education. Fck it, many Nigerian kids today are not even getting an education even though they go to classes for 6 years.

Nigga, let me even give you a live example. When the Chibok girls were kidnapped, it was during the SSCE exam period. Some escaped. When the BBC was interviewing these girls, NONE I can recall, could do an interview in English. They were using translators.

And these were kids about to do exams that would have been administered in English.

So please, let us know what education is based on the standards that is right.

The writers of the Bible and Quran are illiterates. Medieval ones! No different from those you will find in the villages of Ijebuland bar Sagamu.

TV01:
No need to summarise - take it as written in the first instance

Well, then you metric is wrong.

Because people stay together till they die does not mean a marriage was successful. Even those women that face domestic violence stay exclusively with their tormentor till they die or he kills them. That is not a successful marriage as your metric would suggest.

TV01:
It is your confusion that is glaring and dude, you are not educating anyone, far from it;

1. It is marriage you so pointedly disdain. Show a model that gives society, communities, families, the 2 individuals, and any offspring, the same or superior benefits to marriage - we are waiting

2. In as much as there are different desires, needs and requirements, no one has said that you cannot structure your relationships as you see fit. I've said that repeatedly here. Marriage is what it is. You are the one that disdains it, but is unable to improve on it.

3. Free-form structuring of relationships is fine! But it does not mean every relationship qualifies as a marriage. Ditto, it does no tmena everyone gets to structure their relationship as they like and demand it be called marriage. It's that simple

Your befuddlement in 3 easy steps .

You see, you are sounding confused again.

Why must a marriage be between 2 individuals?

Who the hell are you to tell these 2 individuals to be exclusive if they both want to be swingers?

TV01:
I don't think I could have been clearer; I don't have/run/own a church. I don't belong to/regularly attend/identify with a denomination.


TV

You don't even go to church regularly?

Fck me! I never imagined that.

TV01, you are going to HELL FIRE o.

ronald4lif:
I find the emboldened irrational and devoid of critical thinking even as it is draconian. Please forgive my ignorance but on what premise should anyone forfeit their self-earned wealth to another just because they are a signatory to a ceremonial piece of paper which doesn't worth any value, more than a paper. Why should anyone be ripped off their life acquisition unjustly coz they don't want to conserve a union anymore. A union which is obsolete and doesn't deserve a place in contemporary society.

She believes men should be forced to stay in marriages and if they refuse to stay, then the law should fine them with an obscene part of their wealth.

And this is coming from some of those tellling you that it is a man benefiting from marriage.

That utility "men are benefiting from" somehow does not make men want to stay and they implicitly want to have laws that force men to stay as a protection for them (the charity givers).

baby124:
You are psychologically trying to degrade and deride a wife's role in a man's life so you can justify your argument. It's like giving a dog a bad name to hang it. When you get married, all assets both bring into the marriage becomes a joint property. Whether man or woman. In the event of a separation it is assumed for equitable distribution that half of the joint property is appropriate. If you think she is not worth it, then the duty is on you to prove to the court that she is a robber and other outrageous names you have given wives in divorce situation. The fact is you do not know her reality and what she has endured in such a marriage, and it is not for you to say who is worth what. That is why we have courts. People go into marriage with the understanding that everything they own hence forth is subject to equal distribution in the event of a divorce. If you want to avoid that, protect yourself with a pre-nup. Goodluck getting a girl that will agree with putting up with you and getting zero when you wake up one morning and decide you have had enough of her.

I am not psychologically trying to degrade and deride a wife's role in a man's life.

I am asking you to explain how she is worth what she is being given. What did she do to warrant it?

The floor is yours. Explain and big it up if you feel like it, then it can be deconstructed debated.

While at it, please explain with definition what you see as a wife's role and then valuate it.

Why should all assets brought home be joint property? Why does that make sense? Why should that be the sole proposition?

While you are at it, explain to me which of these two makes more sense and why:

https://www.nairaland.com/2789558/uk-divorce-court-awards-woman/1#40849629

I don't know her but I can deduce from what I know: the case was judged using the moronic laws of the West and came out with a moronic outcome.

Where did I say a girl would get zero? Have you been reading this thread or you are just getting emotional due to your feminine irrationality and pure selfishness?

baby124:
Thank you TV01, Sagamite needs special mentorship from you. I don't know what women have done to him in this life. Before you marry, make sure you marry the right person and for the right reasons. It will stop the possibility of divorce and loss of your wealth. If you stayed with that woman till you died, wouldn't she be entitled to all your wealth? So why are you angry that she is entitled to half when the marriage did not last the rest of time, possibly because of your own indiscretion.

This still does not explain why she deserves his wealth.

Women have not done anything to me. I am just observant, enlightened, logical and direct enough to know most women are supremely selfish and I should always be ready to look out for number 1 when dealing with them .....................Moi!

Most are doing exactly fcking the same, while deceiving mugus that they are they most considerate.

Most women's perspective of equality and fairness is "Me, me, me, me, me".

I am sure you will be one of the first to show rage and throw a tantrum if an article comes on NL about some injustice on a woman. And then wonder why all men and women are not opposed to the injustice. But you eyes would be closed if it was being done to a man.

Typical woman: "Me, me, me, me, me"

I have no hate, I just make sure I handle ya'all to the best of my interest.

baby124:
These laws definitely impose on the more wealthy person the duty to make the marriage work, because the judges take note of the fact that the more wealthy spouse can abuse a divorce process because they have the money.

So in your world, it makes sense to create laws to force people to be in marriages?

Saudi Arabians are brilliant people then. Force those women to be in unwanted marriages and can't get out.

masonkz:
Well, at least he's dropping all the hints he can...so y'all won't be surprised at that point



I'll be patiently waiting for him

I definitely would not be surprised. And I am sure many journalists would not be surprised.

They all know and respectfully and considerably stay off that subject with him.

After retirement, he would be joining Ricky Martin to dance on Gay float at some Pride March.

Mixty:
I am way above you. I dont throw tantrums all around like a demented fellow. You have clearly lost it. If you can humble yourself, I might be able to talk some sense into you.
Meanwhile, stay clear of politics section. Remain buried in romance section, where you and your fellow sex-starved dudes belong. You obviously don't have the intellectual capacity to comprehend political topics.

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

This is coming fromt he cretinous, jobless foool that spends his life in ashawo joints?

Mindfulness:
And how do my views meet any of the criteria outlined above? Not at all.



Deviation tactics. Explain to me how you know which concept of marriage God considers to be the right one.



What greater good and which higher values?




Do you need to mention other monikers for support?

My happiness is not only more important than any religious doctrine, it is also more important than anyone else's. This is how selfish I am. No apologies.



Every living being desires to feel good. Find one that doesn't.




Who told you that there is a cost attached to feeling good? And who told you that feeling good makes others miserable? If everyone finally learned how to take care of their own well-being, we would have nobody to worry about. It is so simple but instead we have plenty of people who depend on others for something they can't do for themselves but expect others to be capable of doing for them. And then we have divorce cases like this with people who think that others owe them anything.

And this is the rubbish premise some Western nations base their laws on.

They say another person should be forced to maintian the life one person has been accustomed to. Not people should maintain the life they can afford to make for themselves based on their own efforts and self-development.

Moronic laws!

Mindfulness:
Gospels are for religious people, I am not one of them.




And you know it how exactly? Let me guess, it is written in the Bible.




It is a logical outcome of marriage since the Christian concept of marriage is a social and religious construct that violates nature.
And your ridicule of feelings won't change the fact that every human being is an emotional being and not only rational. And if you feel that you have to sacrifice your good feelings for an institution, you are free to do so. I will pass. My happiness is more important than any religious doctrine. I am not purely rational, I am very emotional and I love it.

I use the fact that every human being desires to feel good. You use the Bible and call its content a fact, which is more disputable than my standing that it is natural for any being to want to feel good.

TV01, this is another education for you.

You can have your own choice but don't force it on others as the ONE!

Mixty:
I warned you about mentioning my name. i am clearly too sophisticated and civil for you. You lack manners and you are crude. Do you call your lack of civility a product of a "good educational system"? I laugh in greek
You are just a silly jester. Shut da hell up and learn some manners from me!

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

What does your daft arsse know that you moronically think you can judge those above you, cretin?

baby124:
Yes he is not straightforward. I think most judges factor in the fact that these men have hidden away more than half their net worth in offshore accounts. They go through their history of income when determining these issues and one can easily figure out when some information is missing. So they decide to give the women half of what is visible. Women also are too emotional. They can like to give warning ahead of divorce. Then the man has time to rearrange himself. We need to look at where that man is now, since 2009. I am sure he is more than ok. He let her have what he wanted to give her. When you factor in lawyer fees from him and her, she won't be able to maintain the lifestyle for too long on what is left.

"Their" net worth!

How is it "their"?

That does not explain why a court should give her HIS net worth.

Even if he is more than okay, that is not excuse to say then everything is fine.

If a fraudster robs Dangote of $200m, I am sure he would still be okay. That is not a good explanation to say they robbery is justified and the robber deserved the loot.

Mixty:
Lol....
Nah... I ain't a biafran. And I don't support the Biafra cause though I believe every group has the legitimate right to pursue self-emancipation.
I am not a PDP sympathiser too. But PMB dey fall hand day by day.
So, are you a "Sai Baba" zombie?

You are a cretnous fuuktard!

Who the fck is your dumbarse to judge PMB's performance, product of a failed education system?

TV01:
Ok to be precise - you rail against divorce laws and their application, considering them unfair, You also didain marriage as a failed institution.

For divorce, I say work on the relationship at the point of entry, not exit. Without marriage, there could be no divorce. Even where provision is made, it is no tthe preferred or optimal outcome. Work to change the laws if you care to, but in a feminine led worls, good luck with that.

As for marriage, I utterly reject the notion that it is either failed or antiquated. For those that get it and apprehend it, it is a delight. Ask me .

Now you sound less confused.

TV01:
So, you take back the "illiterates" comment then !

No, I don't.

I asked questions about how educated they were. Illiteracy is a general synonym for being educated.

TV01:
At an individual level, the dynamic and expectation may vary somewhat. Some men men think "as long as I have a son", some women, might be, "as long as he provides materially". It can be more, less,or none of those things. But the individual metric of success rests within the definition of what a marriage is.

Generically, by definition, I see marriage as the lifelong exclusive union of a male and female. If it meets this then success. If it has a few hiccups along the way but still prevails, then success. And if, the unon is blessed with children, all the better.

So, to summarise, your definition of marriage success metric is:

"When 2 people stay together exclusively till death do them part"?

Please try as best to modify if I am wrong when you reply.

TV01:
Copout;
1. Whilst different types are all good and fine, we specifically want one that is intrinsically superior to marriage
2. You rail here, show your solution here

You specifically want ONE?

This is where you are getting confused and not coming from an intellectual angle.

There are many people in the world with different desires, different aspirations, different beliefs, different values and different in so many other ways.

You can't satisfy this differences by saying you want to stick with ONE solution and think you have been optimal.

For each batch of people, they would have a superior and preferred model.

This is what I have repeatedly tried to educate your likes on. If you want to have a Christian-arranged marriage with your wife where you both agree that whatever you make in the union is seen as joint earning and you would not separate even if one of you is miserable because Jesu would throw a tantrum in heaven, by all means, do have it.

But that is not what Saga's batch would want. Saga needs to be happy. Saga needs to have the best option at all times. He does not do religion and does not give a hoot about Jesu or Mo or Kristna or whoever. He gives a shyt about making sense and making sensible decisions.

This is where you need to learn: The world does not need ONE and ONE should not be forced on everyone. What should be forced on everyone is ability to make choices.

TV01:
No and nyet !


TV

To be clear, you are saying you do not have your own shushi, but you do go to shushi?

This man and his many cringing and annoying photographs that he somehow feels is helping his image.

He has actually distributed this to media houses and I almost throw-up anytime I see them.

PR Disaster! He needs to fire the person than adviced him to take these junk.

[img]http://africaonline.cc/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Ambode.jpg[/img] https://pointblanknews.com/pbn/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Ambode-Akinwunmi.jpg www.nairaland.com/attachments/1976297_ambodeunnamed_jpegffb73449b8aa3dc6b2c5a4b5d487589d https://cdn.dailypost.ng/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AkinwunmiAmbode61-650x400.jpg?fbe18f

Seun:
Fellow Nairalanders,

Nairaland loves Igbos and Niger Deltans very much. The thought of being separated from them for any reason is unbearable to us, so we have decided that we will reject any attempt by anyone to use Nairaland to promote the idea of removing Igbos and Niger Deltans from Nigeria.

We have updated rule 9 of Nairaland to reflect this decision. It now says:


I'd like to urge all Nairaland members to respect and obey rule 9. Mynd44 is in charge of enforcing it. If you break this rule, you'll be banned.

Thanks,
Seun (Founder Of Nairaland).

You don't need to give such a diplomatic and ingratiating excuse.

You should have just told the agitators to piss off and not thrash the forum with noisemaking.

As much as everyone should have a right to a desire, it should not be an excuse to become a nuisance to others.

If anyone wants to promote Biafra, they should go and open a website/forum for it, get their supporters to congregate and stop being nuisances.

That is how I would have put it. After that, if anyone wants to commit suicide because I did, I would generously offer to buy the noose.

TV01:
You still present as confused - in a number of ways;

1. If marriage can literally never be enjoyed, your campaign should be against marriage, not divorce - why undego the stress of an unhappy union, only to suffer further stress upon divorce - which is surely more likely if the union is unhappy?

2. If marriage is indeed typically unhappy, why do you think your chances of having a string of happy marriages is high?

3. What is stopping you do it Hugh Hefner - or any other style - and championing that. No one is forced to marry or structure their relationships in a way they find unpalatable.

4. You've come again with the medieval illiterates ish. Firstly, books are no twritten by illiterates are they? And evidence abounds of thier accomplishments. Please remind us of when you first had storey building in Sagamu

Where have you seen me "campaign against divorce"?

And you are saying I am the one confused?

The second question, again, does not meet the intellectual threshold.

And who told you I am not doing Hugh Hefner or I have not signed up to his tutorial classes? Who told you I am planning to or forcing people to marry or not to marry? And I am the one confused?

Accomplishment? What fcking evidence? What fcking accomplishment?

What school did Jesus or Mohammed go to?

University of Capentry in Jerusalem and Mecca Institute of Peace and International Diplomacy?

Sagamu was the centre of development as far back as 625BC. It was where scholars travelled far and wide to acquire knowledge from the famous Sagamu Institute of Technology that was founded in 701BC as a Babalawo Training School. It got its university charter in 673BC.

TV01:
Marriage is, was, and always will be fine. It's people who fail at it, due to a lack of undertanding or desire to shape it after their lusts and not it's design. There is always change, and "progress" continues. It does not mean that it is all good or works better.

If it has indeed failed, present something better. You have the scope and the intellect no? All you've managed so far is to rail at divorce laws - which I agree to a degree can be clumsy at best - but find, present and more importantly, practice a better way.

Blaze a trail, let the whole world look and wonder. Let marriage be condenmed by the sheer brilliance and utilty of "Sagamony" ! Afterall, Apple does not spend a plugged nickel dissing Nokia, it simply presents it's products.

It wasn't an argument - it was a statement of fact and evidence of what obtains.

Before I even go into this, tell me your metrics of measuring success of marriage.

TV01:
The God of The Bible

So where was your Jehovah when my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Ashikunu, went to Iperu to kidnap my great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother, Jikutusibe, after defeating her people and forced her into marriage?

Was that also before ya God? Or that was signed and approved by Sango?

TV01:
If a relationship is in the "announcement - announce the optimum one you have put together. Live it and let us marvel. No true intellect spends ages raging against a percieved problem without offering a plausible alternative.

You've dissed marriage to the heavens. Fine. We have heard, now what? All we've seen is wailing about the divorce laws. Give us something to pause and consider mate!

You need to learn to dissociate my arguments about unfair, sexist divorce laws from my argument about the failed institution of marriage and then you will find it simpler and less confusing.

I have actually composed a write-up about the different kinds of adult relationship models we could have and that are available. But since NL went to the dogs, I have vowed never to waste my intellectual content on it, hence why I refuse to open the thread.

You think I would waste such on the cretins that now travail this forum?

When I find a platform to put it on, I will inform and invite you.

TV01:
I have no church, and I'd be the first to say "church girls" must be stressed with due dilligence like any other. And ahead of trying to get you to marry, I need you to understand what marriage is, then find someone that gets agrees or is willing to follow your lead.

We are still waiting for your boast of SagaKids. Apply your domestic ideals, have these kids and raise them optimally within it, as a demonstration on your superior intellect and relationship model.

Till then, it's all wind. Mention me when you come up with something


TV

You have no church?

You no dey go shush?

TV01:
There are marriages and there are marriages - for my type success rate is near enuogh 100% .


Sensible enough to see that you may not be able to make it work. We are looking for men that are together enough and bold enough to make it happen .

You mean the kind of marriage where you are a man that is together enough to bury your head in the sand, stick your finger in the air and bare the compromise-filled union while claiming you are happy?

Abeg, I will pass.

I doubt you can call that a marriage success rate. At best call it a compromise success rate.

People sticking together because they feel their religion, proposed by medieval illiterates, forbids then to leave each other is not a sign of marriage success.

Those are not the kinds of marriages for Saga Saga. I would rather have multiple happy marriages than one miserable compromising marriage.

TV01:
Your view of what a relationship should/could be, should not be confused with what marriage is/should be. And even if we allow plurality of views, yours is not the prevailing or preferred one . Even if we have a codification of marriage in law, some will always view and practice it as way more than a cold, legalistic institution at the behest of government.

I take your point about how it is seriously abused and used as a hustle, but that is not an indictment of marriage, any more than Paul Walkers tragic accident was an indictment of Porsche.

And yes, in a world that is becoming increasingly feminine-centred, people with warped ideologies will seek to pervert marriage and make gaspingly shocking divorce awards - none of this changes marriage in it's essence for those that get it and apprehend it correctly.

Marriage is a failure institution and a failed institution throughout history (if assessed by Christian/Western/Hollywood/Modern metrics).

It would even be more so in the modern world we live. It does not fit with it and we need to find a new better model just like Christianity, Islam, etc do not fit with our modern age.

They might have been expedient in the past, but we as a human race have moved past that past. (Fck me, see Saga rhyming like a rapper. I am too good, men! Who the fck is Jay Z?)

The world is more connected, people are more beautiful, portrayal of sexual images and sexual activities are more proliferated, the family structure is changing, breadwinners are more mixed.

Sticking to your concept of marriage is like the would sticking to coal as the main source of world fuel and want to die to maintain it.

Mate, we have gone to hydrocarbon and about to move to hydro and other green fuels.

TV01:
An unsubstantiated and completely wrong view of historical marriage.

You are calling nonsense to what took place before are very eyes - viewed on widescreens and listened to on radios worldwide . That is historical/traditional/Christian marriage, and those that get that want it, or are free to reject it.

Well, the world if full of deluded and moronic people. This is no an argument.

TV01:
Before Christianity perhaps, but not before God - there was no "before God ". Marriage was before government, as was religion. And most marriages vows are still religiously taken.

Which God?

Sango?

TV01:
If you go clubbing, buy a girl a few drinks, then leave with her, casually letting your friends know as you depart, is that a wedding or marriage . Afterall beverages, tick, glad rags, tick, social announcement, tick.

Saga, bless our hearts with a big celebratory wedding jor - London is becoming increasingly dry and gloomy!/.


TV

I think you don't even grasp the basics of what I noted as a social announcement. This does not meet the intellectual threshold to even bless it with a response.

Continue dreaming!

You are free to send your church girls my way though as one of those always trying to get me to marry. I will help you sample them IN THE NAME OF THA LORD!

masonkz:
Holy sh!t!!!

Ronaldo my biggest crush



Oh yea we all know

He will come out when he is retired.

TV01:
Sagamite, please drop this topic now. You parsing of it is incomplete and irretrievably biased. And why the fixation on divorce? At best, divorce is a bad end to a good thing – why not focus on making the good thing better?

Am sorry, mate.

Never call a thing that has a 50% certified failure rate and a 80% uncertified failure rate a good thing.

In the sane world, any company or investment that has that rate of failure would not be seen as a venture to "focus on making it better", it would be treated as a venture to abandon and never engage in.

TV01:
Moreso when you are not actually married? Why ponder on the out before you actually get in. It’s like a naked man planning how to UnCloth, or a homeless one planning colour schemes ?

Thank the fcking Lord I am sensible enough not to have been in such a mistake venture.

TV01:
Your reductionist approach to marriage – making it a mere contract/transactional arrangement totally misses the point. As does you totally legalistic perspective. The fact that marriage is these days, legally codified, does not make it a legal construct in the first instance, nor place ownership within the gift of State.

You are wrong.

I don't even see it as a contract. I see it as a mere social announcement.

My legalistic perspective is just that it should not be a hustlers market where the state moronically backs one trade party.

TV01:
Many traditional/religious marriages are more akin to covenant relationships. A joining at the spiritual, physical and material levels – especially with the single most important imprimatur of marriage in mind – children.

Spiritual ko, alcoholic ni.

It is a mere social announcement right from time. THROUGHOUT the history of mankind.

TV01:
Even in modern times; here is an excerpt from the wedding of HRH William and Kate Middleton;

Prince William takes the ring and places it upon the fourth finger of Catherine's left hand Prince William says after the Archbishop: With this ring I thee wed; with my body I thee honour; and all my worldly goods with thee I share: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Such vows and the unions they enjoin are far removed from the anaemic, legalistic, transactional based arrangement that pre-occupies you. In truth, you simply don’t get it. And that is the whole point - entry should be with the utmost sobriety, witht e thought of anything other than a natural conclusion to the union being anathema.

And remember, marriage is not forced; you can opt for living apart with no legal codification (boyfie/girlfie), co-habbing, a civil union, or civil marriage in a jurisdiction that allows pre-nups.

Your railing against marriage – or pain at divorce - is utterly pointless. Re-frame and focus on the point of entry, and who you enter with, as opposed to the particulars of a tragic exit. Or simply refrain.

Yes, it does appear in this case that a crusty old feminist judge went to town on him, but that is not about marriage. I wonder what he was actually marrying her for

Now, sorry to bother you, but how far? The rice crop is in, and I’m hungry and ready to party. No one throws down like the Ijebu. Please stop denying some young lady the chance to realise her dreams – hopefully of marriage, not of divorce .


TV

^{mindfulness, see, I distubute refrain equally - in fact, moreso to men}

Nonsense!

Before christianity there has been marriages.

If some want to define theirs by religion, by all means, fine.

That does not mean others have to. In general, it is a mere social announcement where sometimes spirits and other alcoholic beverages are served.

njokusboy:
There's some utility they both enjoy... Dats the more reason why he shouldn't give up his earnings in case of a divorce.... Most of this pple do not even consider that they might divorce at some point... they go in with the "for better, for worse" mentality....
Not knowing that the wife has other plans

Fck you!

Fck off!

NO!

She is doing him a favour. He is the one benefiting from marriage, she does not benefit a dime. She is just doing charity work.

When will you fcking learn this?

But somehow it is the woman, that does not benefit from marriage, that is desperate to enter one and remain in one.




When men start learning that women are inherently selfish, they would soon start knowing how to best handle them with minimal risk and live a fcking great life that benefits them (i.e. the man).

Kimoni:
Buy why did he also sign that piece of paper knowing the risk attached to it naa? It's either he signed it under duress or there is some utility he is going to benefit from executing that piece of paper that is worth the risk. Would we know?

Why do Nigerian women sign the piece of paper when they know they can be thrown out with just the clothes on their back and a few peanuts?

There is some utility they are benefiting from marriage, so if that happens to them it is okay.

If they sign it, then if that happens, then that is their fault and we should accept it that way.

Why do they even sign the paper with a Nigerian man knowing the risk of them being beaten up and he having multiple concubines?

Why do they now open their stuuuupid mouth to complain when those happen to them?

I am just appplying your logic here.

Kimoni:
[size=4pt] Sagamite, all these threads with big grammar on top say you no want share your assets with moi
[/size]

My first question to you is - What is logical about marriage that you want to apply logical rules to it? In your example, why would a Dangote go into legal partnership marriage with a high school drop out? What's logical about that decision?

What is not logical about marriage?

Are you saying people like Dangote should only fall in love with other billionaires? That is your justification for moronic laws? The state should put up laws that force people to marry certain types of people, not who they are attracted to?

Is it China or even North Korea?

Do you know what a "legal partnership" is? How is marriage a "legal partnership"?

SisterCaro:
it doesnt require a high school certificate to know that if you want to do as you please you simply go back to where you came from where rules in society are close to non-existent. I do not know why people relocate to civilised countries and expect them to operate in an uncivilised manner they have always been used to.

Its as simple as this;

1. If you are not the type to be loyal, stay away from marriage. The world will not stop because you are unmarried.

2. When you get married you have a choice to marry in community of property or out of community of property. You also have a choice to have a post-nuptial contract. Its by choice not by force.

3. You can stick to being single, have bastards and only stick to child support if you feel spousal support will be a nightmare. No one will die because you do not have a wife.

Stop acting like people do not have choices. These choices will have consequences favourable and unfavourable. Its as simple as that.

You continue with your utter nonsense crap chat.

What is "civilised" about taking someone's money and giving it to another person?

Or you think I amd the type you would use terms like "civilised" because it is done by "whites" and then I would assume it must make sense?

Where is the sense in the nonsense you followed it up with?

Why should the crap you put up there be the choices?

SisterCaro:
im sure he knew the $2million was part of their joint estate so i don't understand why you are making it your headache personally. Everyone knows before marriage what will happen in case they ever have to divorce so why act like he entered in the marriage blindly? Your opnion will not change the decision given, so i do not know why you want to give yourself a nose bleed over it

What joint estate?

Do you mean HIS estate?

Or what did she contribute to the estate?

So because women in Nigeria know before marriage what will happen in case they ever have to divorce makes it okay to just accept it?

Typical selfish woman.

NewSheriff:
Are you sure about the bolded?

**modified**
I just read your reply to _fkforyou.

Are you sure now?