₦airaland Forum

See ordinary people in UK with sense that is far superior to the one the Silverback Gorilla in Aso Rock has.

Oops! Just notice the focus is on "babies" and "front seat".

It makes sense for them to be in the back seat area.

Let me be frank, and I don't think this would be a popular response, but lets remember I am Sagamite, popularity le lo jefo (Popularity can go and eat efo):

I do not hear of a lot of child deaths or injuries when I was in Nigeria or in the UK because of carrying kids on front seat or kids not using child seats.

As far as I am concerned this is one of those over-do by Oyinbo in their wish to create a risk-free society.

That is not to say there is no danger in such practices, I just think it is low when not driving on motorways. Driving in the neighbourhood with a child in the back seat with seat belts but without a child seat and being stopped by police for that can be a pain in the arse.

ThiefOfHearts:
abeg whether they are pretending or not, wetin be your own./ If he cant figure that out on his own. Na his own wahala

Like the ones who pretend to be into a girl's "mind" and obviously just hanging around for sex, are any different.

epele o Sherlock Holmes, looking to perserve rich man's wealth from "pretenders" 

Did you just think you found a hole in my argument? See your yeye head.

ThiefOfHearts:
You've complained about "gold diggers" yes.

Where?

You dey guess?

I am trying to understand your "gold-digger" term.

Women fancing and marrying men because they are wealthy is different from women pretending to like men to get something from them, you know?

TV01:
Please read in full.

1. is the law unbalanced - for the most part I agree. But the law is not for those that get it right, as it won't be in play.
2. are women illogical - for the most part I agree. But find one that is not and marry her.

I personally "viewed" - apologies for making it sound transactional  - over 250 women before I found the one. And all but a handful were illogical, unpredictable, immature, unprepared, lacked understanding etc. etc (ok, 1 or 2 simply didn't fancy me. They were classified as "loco"  ). Call it what you will.

However, I speak as a man. There are men out there, that are brutal, uncaring, insensitive, immature, unprepared and lack understanding etc. etc.

Neither gender can prosper withought proper marriage.

Best
TV

OK, we are relatively on the same page on the fundamentals. All angles of disagreement will be dealt with when responding to your preceding post.

TV01:
Sagamite,

If the laws are moronic and women illogical (i.e. unpredictable and therefore untrustworthy – you’ve said that much at least), IMO marriage simply becomes a non-option.

I for one would never have married if I felt that to be the case for both these aspects (law/women).

You are wrong.

Marriage can be an option with firm clarity of where you stand and based on the response you get from the person that wants you to marry them.

Anecdotally, maybe over 95% of women are illogical and unpredictable and yet about only 50% of marriages in the West fail and maybe another 30% are unhappily still married.

Despite women being largely unpredictable, there can be adaptations and/or containment men can engage in that can make marriage work. As I said, you take them the way they are and do the best you can.

Hence, you are emphatically wrong in your conclusion. The human psyche is way too complex for you to be so dismissive by coming up with such simplistic conclusion that because of A and B, then marriage is no option.

Then secondly, you got your tail in a twist when you said: I for one would never have married if I felt that to be the case for both these aspects (law/women).

You have confirmed you feel that way from your last post and, if I recall correctly, you are married.

Stop using populist, illogical arguments please.

TV01:
I recall from another thread saying - for those men that want to marry - something along the lines of the following;

1. Prepare yourself
2. Find a woman who is equally prepared and shares (or jointly develop) your aspirations and vision for the union
3. Get married.

If you can’t trust someone (and how can you if you consider their behavior illogical and unpredictable) you can’t satisfy those three rules. Marriage ceases to be an option.

As I said earlier, it is Natwest.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLENf8_GE_Q

There is "another way" you know.

Non-real men like me, can come, dictate what they want with logical clarity and ensure they get it and have a happy marriage.

Maybe your second point caters for that without you knowing, maybe it does not. That is what I call: shares (or jointly develop) your aspirations and vision for the union.

So, again, you are emphatically wrong.

TV01:
If you can, then you have the issue of the law (being an Bottom, or at least unbalanced - and to an extent I agree here). However, the law ceases to be in effect, when you inure your marriage from it and do not require recourse to it.

This, I have to be frank here, is ABSOLUTELY delusional.

You are going to "inure" (oyinbo, baba nla grammar) your marriage from it. How? By wishful thinking?

What guarantee do you have when it comes to it, she cannot decide to seek divorce and enforce the letter of the law. Because she told you she is not that type of woman when you were dating? Because you "wish" she would not or because you think you know everything about her purely based on the "lets impress each other" courtship you hard?

So if there was a divorce, and she says she wants you to fund her lifestyle, what are you going to do? You will tell the Judge:

"My Lord, these laws don't apply to us because we are innocuous, inured, inoculated and innerpatticent of innopioucity of innerpurity from the law?"

Let me correct you: Faith is not air-tight and logical!

Don't use faith as an argument.

Inure in Yoruba means light. This your inure must be from NEPA!

TV01:
Marriage as a transaction can never work or it simply becomes something else entirely.

A man can always refuse to marry a woman who is not wealthier than him. And wealthier to the extent that a breakup means that he will not lose out in the “transaction”. It still misses the point though.

To do away with or re-engineer marriage because of the potential downside if it breaks up is ultimately a loss for society as a whole.

Wake up! Marriage is already something else in the West due to the laws.

Dreaming it is not, will not stop it from being something else.

See cretins coming here to argue CONFIDENTLY someone deserves $21m they never worked for and you are thinking society is still the same.

Society is already at loss.

TV01:
The key is a return to “proper marriage”. The courts did not institute marriage, neither can they fix it. The problem is in the first instance, peoples understanding, approach and expectations. Fix that and the issues, pertinently the divorce one will be exceptions.

Honestly, I am not being rude, this is utter delusional tosh except you can find a way where your "proper marriage" will not be subject to the laws of the land that guides marriage. A real, practical way, not wishful thinking or faith. Something airtight!

Secondly, you are yet to come up with what actions, apart from wishful thinking, you will take to influence and change the philosophical ecosystem that shapes people's behaviours and beliefs (understand, approach and expectations). Behaviours and beliefs that is now rampart amongst majority of delusional modern women that think being married entitles them to half and who are yet to adapt to the relationship rebalance which their financial freedom gives them.

TV01:
I understand the historical unbalance that has left many women at the mercy of hostile men, but I don’t see the solution being for the imbalance to be swung the other way. Apart from the fact that the prevailing air of PC’ness and other lobbies will militate against it, I don’t even believe a legal fix is possible.

The legal thingy is not even my main point. Gender wars – by whatever means – will not benefit either side or society as a whole. My thrust is for men and women to be properly raised to understand and embrace the marriage union.

Taking one aspect – divorce – of marriages that fail and focusing on the unfairness of the legislation around that will not give us a solution.

All it will do it entrench a mindset of us against them, breed increasing hostility and take us further away from regaining the true essence of marriage

Believe me, I have seen the tragedy of acrimonious and messy divorces up close and the triggering issues are never the law. Even if divorce laws were perfect, is divorce end-game?


Best
TV

TV, this is fanciful air.

As one of my friends was told in Lagos when he was giving consulting gimmicks for a proposal: "Oga, show me the practicals".

TV01:
Sagamite,

If the laws are moronic and women illogical (i.e. unpredictable and therefore untrustworthy – you’ve said that much at least), IMO marriage simply becomes a non-option.

I for one would never have married if I felt that to be the case for both these aspects (law/women).

First of all, lets have some clarity on this before I even read the rest.

Are you saying, in your view, that these are not the case?

Another thing, if I recall correctly, you are married. Please tell me how long you knew/courted your wife before your marriage.

denzel2009:
Lmao, Duncan Bannantyne don enter one chance.

Ok why does she need 2 houses?

In the best interest of the children.

In case one house has mosquitos, they can shift to the other. Abi you want make mosquito bite the kids? You want them to suffer? You want to leave them with nothing?

queensmith:
Soo true. Soo long as the point of these laws are understood it isnt difficult appreaciating them.
I would hate to even think of what women are going through in Nigeria with no such laws. In the uk you dont even have to be married to be paying child support, it's deducted nicely from your paycheck before you know it!

Una see when I talk about the same cretins frothing from all sides of the mouth.

Claus:
I completely agree with the bolded bit. The laws in Naija leave women susceptible to too much abuse. A balancing act where one party doesn't have an unfair advantage over the other is the ideal.

You will see the same cretins saying the law is the law frothing from all sides of their mouths when we start discussing this without even justifying it.

Those are the type of people TV01 think say he can expect logical resolution with if a relationship breaks down and you need no protection.

Claus:
Regarding the UK laws, one will only get sympathy from 2 groups of women:

1) those whose male relatives (brother, cousin, son) have been  negatively affected;
2) those who fall in love with (and even decide to marry) divorced men and can see first hand the financial strain imposed on those men.

Na civilised country na, with civlised ways.

Civoski!

Civo, Civo!

[Says with his Yankee accent] Civilisation!

Fucktards!

Q: Why does Saturn have a ring on it.

A: Because God liked it, so he put a ring on it.



When I tell una say na Beyonce, Rihanna and Lady Gaga dey raise una kids, una go think say I dey joke.

debrief08:
That was Oyedepo not Adeboye

Same mu ni!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUrSKuNFlB4

Here is another one.

The wife wants £1,000 a day for the maintenance of 2 kids. Someone tell me which kind of kids need £1,000 a day for their upkeep and even if that kind of extravagant upkeep is good for the kid to be raised in.

In the best interest of the children my arse!

And yet these rich fooools don't know what a prenup is, they are being "gentlemen" and not asking.

Fck that! Not in Sagamu.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2107990/Dragons-Den-star-Duncan-Bannatyne-quietly-divorces-second-wife-Joanne-McCue-years.html

Emperoh:
I won't conclude that the UK system is failing because of this.
These could be comedians in the making for all i care or even Creatives in an AD agency.

As far as i am concerned, these questions are smart even though they are wrong.

But yea. . . . .i am having the laugh of a life time

Absolutely fcking on point.

I loved the maths question:

Expand (a+b)ⁿ

The guy did expand it.

The teacher wrote: "Very funny Peter"

Kutey:
Because everyone here wants to bash women and wives, as if the she should carry herself and the 4 kids and leave n4ked because she wasn't working while her millionaire husband keeps the lot.
Whats about me? I have replied about me when that d1ckhead said i need someone to fund my lifestyle. I don't.

You have nearly 9 pages of people calling wives biatches, golddiggers and saying the most awful things and you come and focus on the one person that says marriage is a partnership and when dissolved whatever has been earned during will be equally shared. That's what UK courts believe and I agree. If you are not happy with the laws of the land then leave, simples. I know a typical African man will be happy to live in a society were women have no rights or value at all, unfortunately for u guys it does not work like that elsewhere. Deal with it.

You are a person!

Say "Yes, Sir".

How is she leaving with nothing? The man has offered $2.5m and $35K a year to her, a working mother. How is that nothing? How is she being offered sums she cannot make herself "leaving with nothing".

Where did anyone say she should leave with nothing, you fcking cretin. Telling someone to leave with what they contributed and $2.5m dash is nothing.

You are a cretin! And that should be confirmed when queensmith is praising you and confirming you are saying what she would have said.

chiozor:
by the way Kutey please who among the sex needs marriage more

Don't mind the person. She wouldn't answer the question.

She was frothing like a mental patient having convulsion because I stated a fact!

pro01:
You must be kidding if you expect these vacuous parasites to respond directly to pertinent questions in bold above. Whenever they see that they've been defeated by superior reasoning and logic, they always resort to sentimental arguments and beating about the bush. I would be over-joyed to see them respond directly to the above issues - but then I know that would never happen.

BTW, no one here is denying what the UK/Western laws stipulate with regard to divorce settlement; what we are questioning is the SENSE and JUSTICE behind the laws. Laws are made for Man, Man was not made for the law. The fact that something is legal does not necessarily make it right. At some point, it was legal to buy and sell fellow human beings as slaves. The fact that it was the law didn't make it right. Going by the foolish responses of the foolish women on this thread, laws should be left alone simply because they are laws. If that were the case you'd all probably be slaves today - serving the intimate needs of your white masters while your male counterparts would be sweating it out on rubber plantations.

Thank you.

The bolded in particular is what proves queensmith and moremi are fucktards!

ThiefOfHearts:
The real question is: Is she lying?

Have you ever seen me complain about a woman and her choice in a man, talkless of one that is wealthy?

[quote author=c.fours link=topic=859170.msg10303502#msg10303502 date=1330558690]we have the same point.
just your cuckoo friend sagamite seems to have a problem with women wanting the best (ie. a wealthy man).
in his world, only men are entitled to the best[/quote]Where does this foool manufacture her rants from?

dayokanu:
So its better to ask women now

Do you really want to have children or you are having children to please me?

if you are having children because you want to, then you shouldnt expect any compensation for having what you wanted

But if you expect me to compensate you for having your children, I better find a surrogate while me and you live together in a childless relationship.

If a woman is still working , Does she still need to be compensated? if yes for what?

Lets see how many women take that offer up.

Compensate you for doing what you want to do badly, you get a lot of joy from and keep the rewards. You must be having a laff.

Kutey:
You are still a dickhead and an as5hole but the statement:
"My proper marriage aspiration is: she would marry me for me, we share when we are married and we stop sharing if it does not work out and live with what we contributed." make me believe there is hope as i agree a 100%. She contributed and brought to life your children. If you don't like it move back to your village.

I have answered all your points but its probably not want you wanted to hear. Me no care.

"I am not marrying cretinous goats like Kutey who would say she is used to a lifestyle and I must fund it while her lazy arse contributes nothing."
Ehrm, I'm not going to boast but I am very hardworking and I earn way way more than is necessary to fund my lifestyle. I am very comfortable indeed  and the last thing I would want to be is a housewife (due respect to those who chose to)
By all means, when you have daughters have them live in fear that they have to take everything that her husband will throw at her including emotional and physical abuse, cheating, HIV, violence. Tell her even if she has children with him she will leave with nothing as she has no value and she is just there to breed his kids.
Some shocking stories on this forum (like my husband comes home and smashes my head everyday, I had 7 miscarriages because of his beatings and a constant blue eye. He has women sleeping in our bed and he has told me he hates me, should I stay with him? and invariably the response is "oh, please my dear pray and be nice to him while he breaks your teeth. Cook him his best meals everyday and submit to him. give him sex 3 times a day and speak to pastor. What God has put together no man shall put asunder."

As for that 1diot that has made rappers his role models and has bitches for babymamas may it be unto you as you have wished.

You are a person!

Say "Yes, Sir"!

Your daft arse is yet to explain your problem with this statement.

"Always have it on your mind which sex is more into marriage. Which sex needs marriage more. Which sex will struggle to get marriage when they need it.

If you want it, it is on my fcking terms."

Fcking ediot! It is me you are trying to dodge a point from?

pro01:
You dey mind these greedy buffoons? They have all been making the same tired and senseless arguments and they are beginning to sound grating. Oh she gave up a career to have HIS children. Oh she invested effort in raising HIS children and 'taking care' of HIS home, and for these reasons she is perforce entitled to a sizable chunk of the man's wealth if she ever files for divorce! I really have to question the sincerity and sanity of any human being that agrees with such asinine arguments.

If bearing children is such an expensive proposition, how much do surrogate mothers get paid? If nurturing children is such an unspeakably difficult task, then nannies would be the highest earners. If 'taking care of the 'home' is an unbelievably demanding job, then housekeepers and maids would all be millionaires wouldn't they? If missing out on a 'great' career (assuming this was done against her wish) made her miss out on her own self-made wealth, then we have to ask: how many Ivy-League educated career women retire with savings/net-worths of uo to $21m? ? ? ?

Seeing how ridiculous these all sound, isn't it clear that these deceitful women are blinded by their greed? And we all know that there is nothing more dangerous than deceit fuelled by greed.

Again, I shamelessly insist that rappers make better role models in matters like this. It's certainly better to have a baby momma or two than stand the risk of losing even 20% of one's net worth to one ungrateful b*itch with a horrifyingly nauseating sense of entitlement.

Don't mind the person called Kutey, I will wait for her.

His children but yet when it comes to divorce she gets "his" children.

Worse still, the woman is a working mother, so making her own money that she is worth.

Even if she was not working, with that wealth, I bet they had Nannies, cleaners and cooks.

An absolute person!

TV01:
Just a point. As much as we are discussing a point around the law being the problem and/or solutoin, you do realise that your arguement submits that women are the real - and irredeemable - problem here? In which case that kind of contradicts your "aspiration" in red. And with that attitude why bother? I certainly wouldn't advise it.

I never said women were the problem? Where did you see that? Please point it out to me. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I said the moronic laws are the problem.

Women are what they are and we have to live with it as best as we can.

Men are what they are and they have to live with it as best as they can.

If you have laws that encourage and indoctrinate women to act in an appalling, selfish way, then don't be surprised when they do.

It is like having laws that make you pay bankers millions and you get greedy, selfish people. Did you think Doctors are made of better blood than bankers?

You think it is because of more intelligence some races don't have forced marriages and some relish it?

It is environmental influences and ideologies (including legislation) that shape behaviours and cultures. And ignoring it is frankly silly and delusional.

TV01:
Anything you can dream up can be overuled by the courts and somethings simply cannot be legislated for or resolved via legal means. This approach will simply exacerbate the gender conflict - already so apparent here - and cannot be the best environment to raise children. Society will suffer.

Believe me, root the prenup on human rights and willingness to marry and she would be in a Nursing home before the courts can resolve it. You will take it as far as the human rights courts.

TV01:
Plus making marriage a legal contract means it is no longer marriage, but a transaction. It does not and cannot restore the true essence of marriage. Can one even begin to enumerate the potential problems and sorry mess this will result in.

- What's to stop a seperate contract to have kids with other men?
- What if she can't deliver on the required number of children
- Presumably if she's not a wife in the traditional sense, she can be with whomsoever she chooses? Children potentially exposed to "all sorts"
- Did you know most child abuse typically occurs where one of the parents is not the birth parent?
- I could go on and on with the "what if?". And the answer isn't more legal clauses, it's a return to proper marriage

It is a transaction in the West. They have made it so legislatively.

Not protecting yourself by signing a prenup would not stop it from being a transaction. It would just mean you have put your life in the hands of another (from a sex known not to be logical) and leave yourself liable to be fcked up in the TRANSACTION!

And your potential problem list is frankly ridiculous.

What has prenup got to do with number of children had?

How does lack of prenup stop a child ending up with step-parents?

TV01:
What the individual or couple want in marriage is everything. If one cannot find someone who will commit to their "proper marriage" aspirations, don't marry. If they can and they both commit to it, the courts and legal rulings count for nothing. At this point - and who knows for sure how things will change? - the obtuse laws and destructive institutions around marriage only apply if you let them.

I'm not blind to it, merely refuse to buy into it.

I've already stated what I feel will be the problems with treating it as or replacing it with a transactional type arrangement. The true essence of marriage is still available if that's what we choose. I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "misogynist" comment, but the aggressive mindset it inculcates is clear and is not the basis for proper marriage.

My mantra continjues to be; get the right understanding, get the right person, then get married.

Best
TV

Don't say "if you can not find someone who would commit to a proper marriage". You will find.

But by now you should know most women themselves don't know what they will do tomorrow. They might tell you never but then ever do it. A wise friend once told me: Never believe what a woman says, believes what she does. I act more on body language and actions of a woman than her words. And don't call that misogynist. If you are observant enough you will see that is how women themselves deal with each other. They know!

You are going to marry some 25 year old and then think you know or she knows what she would do when she is 38 years old? Someone you dated for lets say 2 years.

Please, nigga. It seems you know nothing about women. You are a "real man". I am not.

My proper marriage aspiration is: she would marry me for me, we share when we are married and we stop sharing if it does not work out and live with what we contributed.

I am not marrying cretinous goats like Kutey who would say she is used to a lifestyle and I must fund it while her lazy arse contributes nothing.

Kutey:
You are a d1ckhead. You can go fu<k yourself.

He married her and had a family. He paid for the house, she enabled him to have a family. End of story.

21 mill seems absolutely reasonable to me and i'm sure the courts will agree. It genuinely reflects time spent together and offspring. She might have given up career and who knows what to have 4 pregnancies and take care of the children. I would probably have gone for a higher figure especially if he is worth what they are quoting.

Anyway actually got stuff to do, so keep your foolish arguments coming. I will reply as soon as I can. Arrow

You are a cretin!

Say "Yes, Sir!".

Here the person: He paid for the house, she enabled him to have a family. End of story.

Someone would marry the mooron and reproduce?

Reproduce what? Eggheads?

FCK LAWD!!!

That is the basis of him losing his wealth.

And he did not enable her have a family?

And you were thinking I need to know you personally before I know you are a cretin?

Before we go into your daft rants about her entitlement to 21m, lets first deal with that your moronic challenge of my statement.

You know, the elephant you have been avoiding.

You think it is SAGAMITE from Soyindo ni Sagamu that you can strawman! You are a cretin!

person, disprove me!

Kutey:
For every cretin you call me you are three times an imbec1le, personal insults don't bother me the least cause you don't know me.

"so tell me how it is civilized to throw a man out of his own house and tell him to pay for it."

Its not HIS house, its the family house so the bulk of the family stays there and he should pay because he was the main/sole breadwinner prior to the breakdown of the relationship while she was the main home carer capisc?

You are a cretin!

Say "Yes, Sir!".

It is not his house? He paid for a house and it is not his? FOOOOOL!

So it is civilised he should be homeless and he should also bare the burden of paying and it should not be his house?

That is the civilisation you were referring to?

I don't need to know you personally to deduce you are a cretin from your utterances.

You are an absolute person!

Say "Yes, Sir!".

You missed the other initial argument out. There is an elephant in the room your brain you are dodging.

Disprove me you bloody cretin!

Eran igbe oshi (Bloody bush meat)!

Kutey:
Which one of your idiotic statements do you want explained d1ckhead

The one where you say you will happily abandon your child till 18, then what? lavish them with money and that will make it all ok. Do you think stuff before you type?

Or where your fellow monkeys joined you in quoting jigga (ignorant idiots use rappers as references) rather than people that actually have successful relationships and families. Thats why the babymamas continue to breed things that are more close to animals than humans prone to violence because they have no fathers or good examples in their life.

Are you saying she and her/his children should have left the house for him? I'm pretty sure he can afford another one and since she has sacrificed years looking after the kids surely she should continue to do so. Let the courts decide. If he didn't like the way things work in the UK he should never have come in the first place.

You are a cretin!

Say "Yes, Sir!".

I keep on telling you to say "Yes, Sir" and you are not obliging.

Are you mad? Do you know who I am? Ori e o pe! (You head no correct). FOOOL!

So you could not disprove my statement you quoted and went to look for something else you "think" you could argue.

You are a person!

Say "Yes, Sir!".

Go back and give your arguments on the first moronic challenge you made before we discuss the so-called abandonment of a child.

You think it is SAGAMITE you can strawman?

You are FOOOOOOOOOOL!

Kutey:
ahahah aha ah ah you are actually hilarious I beg, don't go and get hypertension cause of me.

You obviously have issues and need to speak to someone and get the help required

You are a cretin!

Say "Yes, Sir!".

Explain to me how my statement is not true.

person!

People will marry this kind of typical Nigerian she-goat at home and say "I have a wife". Since when did bestiality count as marriage.

Kutey:
Sagamite shut the f*uck up

"Always have it on your mind which sex is more into marriage. Which sex needs marriage more. Which sex will struggle to get marriage when they need it.

If you want it, it is on my fcking terms." Total misogynist.

This comment alone shows what a m0ron you are. You are one of those people that will get married  to a girl playing nicey nicey and then show you true colors after. You think a woman needs you and you are doing her a favor so you will marry for all the wrong reasons. Your own fcking terms? Why don't you take a pole and stick it up your ar5e.

Here in the UK in a CIVILIZED country things don't work that way. You can't throw a woman out on the streets with kids with nothing or little. I hope she gets him for all he worth and more. Married with 4 kids  If he thinks he can get away with village Naija mentality like you have displayed here stayed tuned to the story. As5h0le.

And the fact that you shout louder and try to prove your point more forcefully doesn't make you right so take a chill pill.

You are a cretin!

You are a fcking mooron.

Say "Yes, Sir!".

Why are you hyperventilating like a 1970s airconditioner because of a factual statement? FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

Disprove if you can, you arsewipe!

Cretin, so tell me how it is civilized to throw a man out of his own house and tell him to pay for it.

Civilised country my arse. Moorons vomit platitudes they are fed and think that makes them intelligent.

Bloody cretin!

They should jail the Edmond Okoye muthafcker.

sleekymag:
During my NYSC in Anambra in 2005, the principal of the Anglican secondary school i was posted to, a bachelor Reverend and pastor of a parish in the town, was gay. He had boys that lived with him too, he abhorred females coming close to him, and on one occasion he even made advances at me until he knew i wasn't one of those he could systematically get. This man was a character; my fellow corpers in the same school spotted his gayish behaviours and he was such a clown. Well, he schooled abroad for sometime before becoming a principal, the man was a sharp man, he would cut corners, he was also a loud-mouthed sanguine who would use his queen english to bamboozle the people of that town. He was just something else!

Give the name of the arsewipe and the name of his school.

kkokoma:
The poster is very very very silly! Ibori pleaded guilty to stealing billions on Naira after corrupting the judiciary in Nigeria by bribing them blind, and the poster is trying to imply he is not getting justice! He should be hanged for depriving millions of deltans

They need to arrest that Judge Mercel Awokulehin and hang him!

But I would not be surprised if the Silverback Gorilla leading us appoints him to the supreme court.

Jonathan!

TV01:
I beg to differ. And for a whole host of reasons;

1. Even if nups were perfectly legal and enforceable, they’d still have to be agreed by the parties. What woman in this day and age would not insist on minimum and potentially scaled (if Daddy hits pay dirt at any point) financial payments for “her kids”. Is anyone left in doubt as to the position the “law” will take on this?
2. It doesn’t speak to a potentially more costly issue – emotionally and financially – of access to the children
3. It doesn’t address or challenge the true motivation behind some of the weird political and legal maneuvering. In fact, it plays right into it’s hands per 1. above
4. An even greater reason – and without touching on 4. above - it doesn’t address root issues, such as the nature, benefits and understanding of marriage. Rebalancing and reclaiming it for the key, most basic and ultimately most important societal building block it is. The family.
5.  Marriage is not a business transaction

If you want to overcome all these challenges, come and meet me. I would develop a prenup contract that would beat them piece-easy and will be arguable in any court. It really is not rocket science.

I ain't joking.

TV01:
Let me start form point 5. First. Many of the discussions here typically focus on rich (celeb) type situations, which to be honest are far from the typical “garden variety” divorce.

As has been rightly pointed out, how many – if any – of the discussants here are any better than comfortably well off? And even if you are, a messy and acrimonious divorce can make road-kill of even the most comfortable lifestyle. Not to mention the physical and emotional costs. Anyone reading will have heard of the “broken men” and the “estranged and wayward children”. Very  real possibilities for your ordinary Joe in the event of divorce.

To treat marriage or any part of it “transactionally” is to divorce - excuse the pun - it from its true worth and meaning and strip it of much of it’s value.

In fact, it would be more honest to treat it as a “transaction” end-to-end, which to be honest is what a lot of people do anyway. Merely adding some spiritual and social content at the front-end, then using the courts to reap the profit at close.

Honest end-game here would be a situation (and if I recall there has been one, involving a rich celeb no less) where having kids and providing for their upkeep were based on a pre-agreed legal contract. Is that really what we want?


More later if time permits, but I welcome comment on the little I’ve posted.

Best
TV

What you want is completely irrelevant in the West. Marriage IS a transactional engagement. They have made it that way and you will have to be intellectually blind not to see it. They have destroyed marriage. IT IS BUSINESS and one should treat it like serious business. Don't live in Lululand. As I have said repeatedly: Fck her concept of romance.

If she does not want to get into business, then she should forget marriage and co-habit. Let her choose A or B.

Or C = Eff off!

Always have it on your mind which sex is more into marriage. Which sex needs marriage more. Which sex will struggle to get marriage when they need it.

If you want it, it is on my fcking terms.

I have absolute not an ounce of fcking shame saying it. Virtually all women have no fcking contrition when they are not in love anymore and want to attack their ex. They are ruthless at it and society tolerates it.

Their concept and philosophy of equality and fairness is ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME!

So contractually define equality and fairness well before the love ends and before the BUSINESS of marriage begins.

moremi2008:
Eewww!!!! Stop posting dirty vids of yourself! Look at those saggy mantits! They match yours perfectly!

Stop wearing G-strings and bras, you sick fck.

You think we don't know what you look like?

We say no to phaggots like you.

Sick murrafucker.