₦airaland Forum

LadyFiona:
Adultery is enough ground for divorce in Christian marriage

True.

Stillfire:
Bullseye!

Not true.

Two things here;

1. although it is grounds for divorce, it does not presume re-marriage, and
2. it may seem like it resolves issues, but in truth it just opens a up a whole vista of new ones

Bullseye is very wide of the mark. Think twice.


TV

Stillfire:
Even archaic African cultures allowed for divorce.

Most variations of marriage do - it still remains a tragedy, not an aspiration or a positive. It seems many are keen to valourise it. Before long we'll see a total inversion, marriage will be come a bad thing, a precursor to the "morally desirable" divorce.

And any man that refuses to marry will be denying some young lady the divorce she so richly deserves.

Shior danu .

TV

Stillfire:
I pride myself in being very reasonable for each topic, except Naija men topics of course and that is just for banter purposes.
What I cannot stand is the disingenuous approach TooNoisy has taken just to argue and in turn decry the importance of what these discrimination do in society. The base of the argument is since because Asians were also being discriminated on in the Americas, black people should have sat back under the silly argument that everyone is being discriminated against so let us not 'whine'? Black people fought for civil liberties and everyone blue, black, white, yellow is benefiting from these policies today.
Yes, I always put in historical incidences to emphasize there's nothing wrong in women 'whining' about changing the status quo in their societies. How do policies and legislation come into place - through dialogue, debates to weed out all the potential ignorance that ensues here.
I am not fighting, I'm only weeding out ignorance.

First, I was applauding your historical references, they provide telling insights.

Second, Afro-Americans did not fight for "black rights", the struggle was for basic "civil rights" - which should be afforded to all regardless. That is what caused the groundswell - with others regardless of "race" being compelled to join and support - the truth and moral righteousness of the cause was self-evident.

Black activism in and of itself has left AA as victims, not really making the headway they should. The pathologies that afflict them as a result are obvious.

Feminism - although not playing from a position of oppression - rather privilege - will engender it's own set of pathologies, many already evident. We continue to resist it's malign influence. On NL,in our homes,our fatherland and beyond !


TV

...maybe it's different idiomatic usage, but the way the term "foodie" is being used here conflates it with the term glutton

Foodie = loves food, glutton = loves eating!


TV

Stillfire:
It is very important to highlight issues that bother on discrimination in the society.

Absolutely true - in cases of true discrimination. There should be equal opportunity and open access for all. I’m not even claiming it’s necessarily a panacea, and we may well find the outcomes do not always prove best for individuals or even for society overall.

Stillfire:
Women have chosen to highlight their issues...who the heck is stopping others from talking about their issues?

This is where I feel you miss it somewhat. Identity politics. I like how you always refer to our history and heritage when it comes to societal issues. And one thing I have gleaned from your posts is even when our foreparents acted as two halves, it was always with the common good in mind.

Identity politics has at best limited value – even if started with the right intentions. Like all things institutionalised it tends to take on a life of its own, and become an end in itself.

That sadly is what has befallen feminism. Its ills are manifest and evils apparent. That end has become the pursuit of female privilege and power above all else – even if it comes at the expense of, and inordinate cost to men and children.

It would take an age to enumerate them, but even it’s descent into inanity like free the nipples,and free-bleeding should be enough for anyone to question if at best it has run its course, or outlived its usefulness.

Initiatives such as #heforshe just show that feminists themselves are starting to realise that. Unfortunately it doesn't change their whole ethos.

Pliss, don’t fight again.


TV

Short answer; no!

The very nature of love is that it fades - at least the euphoric tingly kind of love. That feeling of love is not supposed to be the basis of marriage in the first place. That should have been a shared commitment to to the marital journey, and the act "to love", no matter what one feels.

A marriage founded a on a proper foundation will ultimately develop a deeper kind of love, that goes way beyond feeling. Using abstract terms like happiness, peace and love to warrant divorce or otherwise, is so subjective as to render ones vows meaningless.

One could well say "I am not happy that I've lost the freedom of my single days, have no peace because my wife keeps asking me for money and the kids won't keep quiet, and I don't love my wife like before, as her body changed after childbirth.

Using abstract terms terms or phrases like "shitty marriage" to justify divorce is at best justification for selfishly willful behaviour. Even legally, divorce was only permitted for the thre A's - adultery, abandonment and abuse, and even these would have to be quantified.

I suppose there may be are ideologies/religions that may sanction "frivolous" or feelings based divorce sha!



TV

Bukatyne - in the event that you may have innocently missed a mention.,

You posted an entry which both slandered and mis-ascribed things to me. I was so taken aback I had to first give you the benefit of the doubt and query if it was really aimed at me, or that you even wrote it?

An unmitigated diatribe claiming inter alia; that I encourage men to cheat on, and mistreat their wives, that men are superior to women, that I teach women should unilaterally be “trained” how to make their marriages work, and I teach people – especially women – to stay in shitty marriages just to stem divorce. I still find it hard to believe recounting it.

It’s now been two days and you’ve pointedly refused to respond after pointedly insisting it was specifically aimed at me. I am happy to engage anyone, and on most any terms – regardless of what I think about them. I don’t even mind a bit of sledging, as long as there is content and something on which to chew.

And so I have no problem engaging you, despite seriously wondering about you? You are mostly humourless, lack a sense of irony, you love injecting vitriol into discussions, and have no problem being wilfully deceitful - not to mention your poor comprehension and reasoning skills and how poorly read you appear to be..

Add to that you are proving to be both a coward and a weasel – not that I wouldn't have placed good money on that anyway, but it’s good you make it self-evident.

If you had the brass to make the allegations against me and pointedly declare it for emphasis, your own actions demand that you respond. And respond with proof.

Failing that, I expect an unqualified apology for that sour and spiteful attempt to slander me, undo a lot of the work I do here, and, of primary concern and most damagingly, mislead people.

It even presents you with your first genuine opportunity to prove me wrong – I also have you down as inordinately proud, devoid of humility, vulgar and utterly classless.


TV

_{...if anyone would like to throw in their two cents, i.e. our resident post trawling forensic experts, skirt chasers or other sundry activists, please feel free - rest assured, I have more than enough coal...}

coogar:
i wonder why this made the news.
shim will not be the first vulnerable inmate in the prison system. they should put shim in ad-seg, abeg!

Abi?

Transgenders are already catered for in prisons - and no surprises they are even given special priviliges. So much so, that lots of inmates were claiming transgender to benefit.

We shall see the end of this madness.

TV

Mutaino7:
Cc :pickabeau1, Timbuktou, coogar, TV01, Edwife................

Although she is a he - I don't believe one can change sex, and gender is not a thing in my book - as he presents, he is not safe in a male prison.

Secial facilities appears to tbe the answer to this one - Transmale/female correctional units need to be extablished . We must see this folly through.


TV

Timbuktou:
5. Halle Berry herself is a low standard in relationships, low value and only good for the satisfaction of sexxual urges for those who care to patronise her kind. She represents poor choosing and those who have chosen to be with her, especially Aubry and Martinez, are just as poor.

Exactly. Look at the pictures of her with three of the men. You can see her beauty fading. In the last one with Martinez, it obvious that her best days are behind her - she looked mumsyish sef. . As for her having high standards, that's actually a moot point, she will no longer be able to command men of really high status. https://www.nairaland.com/2713542/halle-berry-diva-harridan#39682013

In all likelihood, she will be reduced to a succession of men of lower quality than the ones she's had. The men, will simply move on to younger prettier women. It's a pattern that regularly plays itself out. Is she better than Madonna or J-Lo? who are reduced to getting off with backing singers (i.e. the help )

Timbuktou:
Crazy way to institute equality if you ask me. But what do I know, I'm just a bush caveman spear-wielding misogynist from the heart of Africa.
Btw guys; Coogar, Pickabeau1, TV01, I found this funny trend on twitter #bringbackthepatriarchy. Check it out.

Grunt, grunt... I'm not on twitter, but I'll google it.


TV

cococandy:
Which kind high standard?
Where did you read that one?

That was more Ewuro4 and armyofone

cococandy:
More like some sort of emotional imbalance and yes poor mate selection.

This was more your point - poor mate selection - Tim touched on it as well.

Her first and foremeost problem is that she herself was not "mateable" - in all liklihood, she would have split with pretty much anyone. As both yourself and Tim noted, she has issues - that's the main problem, not her choices, which in any event will be 1. coloured by her issues and, 2. even if she picks a perfect guy her issues will ruin it.

As for the high standards point by Ewuro and Armyofone, that is to essentially say that the relationships failed because the men did not meet up. You could plead that for 1 instance, maybe even 2, but for 4 marriages, a number of other serious relationships and 2 kids by different men, one of whom wasn't a husband? Indeed, her issues would more likely mean she had "low expectations".

One doesn't have the expectation of a merc, buy a 2nd hand Ford and then ditch it, claiming it didn't meet up...and then go on to buy a fairly used Renault


TV

Timbuktou:
Don't known man, it's just crazy. Is it parliament that enacts these laws or do they just delegate femcentric laws to some feminist NGO to take the piss.

It'as not crazy if you are a nutter - especially a feminist one !

There are now mutterings of ending jail time for women - the rational being that only men are inherently violent . I guess they conveniently forgot the DV stats for gay dyke lesbians .

It will either get to a tipping point, at which stage there will be a backlash, or it will lead to the ruination of the West as we know it. Perhaps some combination of the two? Whatever happens, it will do a lot of damage and be a long, hard road to recovery...if!

IS will be happy to fill the gap - it may be so bad, some may even find them preferable. I know who my money would be on in a face-off between them and the radical progressve liberals of which feminism & faggotism are mainstays.


^{cococandy, timbuktou, ewuro4, armyofone - let me get this right, your take is that the problem here is poor mate selection and high standards}


TV

Mindfulness:
Since when does a third party, a lover or a mistress, decide about divorce?

Such a one is a co-conspirator - and should be charged as such in the event of an unjustified marital break-up. I was pleased to see in the other thread this still obtains in Nigeria .

Mindfulness:
In the Christian worldview but not all of us are Christians. And since not all of us are Christians, your Christianity based definition of what a marriage is or isn't is not universal and not mandatory and not necessarily better or superior or the only right one.

True, it is neither mandatory, nor universal - unfortunately for you warped outlook, it is certified the best form

Mindfulness:
You said polygamy didn't benefit society, didn't you?

No, I didn't

Mindfulness:
Another question TV, do you think monogamy is natural?

Don't derail - or otherwise try and justify your wicked ways - I'm finding it totally natural, optimal and rewarding. Happy to slut shame you if you like.

Mindfulness:
You asked for a definition of love in our discussion and I chose this one because I knew that you are a Christian. It does not mean that I agree with the definition, even though it is a nice one, must say. Like you said TV01, I am responsible for what I write, not what you read into it.

No - l requested your definition of love. Obviously, it has no basis in reason or morailty, so you disingenuously presented the biblical one as your own.

Think of the error of your ways. The damage you've done and the harm you've caused. Even non-Christians are blessed with a conscience


TV

Timbuktou:
I recently heard about this and, frankly, I don't understand the rationle behind it. Does abuse suddenly make one a model/worthy citizen or is there some inherent latent value in a person that slaps and punches awaken that these government are awake of?

Rational It's feminist driven policy - not sure the two words belong in the same sentence. Apologies, I am simply not progressive enough to make sense of this. Best call on one of our resident Feminist ideologues.


TV

Mindfulness:
Has anyone said that divorce is the intent or logical outcome of a marriage? Did anyone say that it is a desired outcome? I have not come across such a post, yet.

So what is your point prating on about it? In as much as there are narrow accomodations, they are not for frivolous or selfish reasons like "I loff and want him", even though he's been married for years and has children

Mindfulness:
Why is polygamy an aberration and not benefitting society?

In the Christian wolrdview it is an abberation. Who said it did not benefit society?

Mindfulness:
The sorrows of other people are none of my business.

Of course, that's why you keep quoting "love does no harm" and "love does not seek it's own", or "thinks no evil" or "is kind", from the Bible.


TV

pickabeau1:
1. If one is not happy with a marriage mate and you can divorce with no fault, what is wrong with serial divorces?

What is wrong with not getting married?

pickabeau1:
Afterall some men do it

Doesn't make it right. And unless you have an unthinking "equalist" approach, why should women do it just because men do? Having said that, do women not do this?

pickabeau1:
2. More than the serial divorcing issue is the fact that she may have lied to paint the men bad.. why is this so
A slapped her
B was a chid r@pist
C was this
D was that
Why all this?

Abuse allegations are a clincher, home run - they shut down any argument and cast you as the victim. You garner all the sympathy, no one scrutinises the real detail of the case, and if they do, they are heartless unthinking abuse justifiers

In both the US and UK if a woman is waiting for papers and splits with her husband/partner befoere she is eligible, if she claims abuse, her stay is fast-tracked regardless. Abuse is a serious issue, but it's rararely discussed or dealt with as it should be.


TV

Mindfulness:
I am neither a self-proclaimed advocate nor expert so I am asking the advocate and expert to educate me on the history of marriage and how divorce was never part of it. You are such a perfect role model for Christianity, you won't deny a request, will you?

You are free to take up marriage advocacy. And no, you are not an expert in marriage, just in wrecking them ! Request? From a blasphemer .

Mindfulness:
Let me help you, divorce has ALWAYS been an option in the history of marriage and exclusivity is tied to the Christian doctrine but not universal to all cultures.

Indeed, divorce is an option even in a Christian marriage - does that make divorce the intent, or a logical outcome? Or mean that divorce is a good or desired outcome?

And exclusivity/mongamy being the Christian way does not mean it is only the Christians that practice it. Secondly as you continue to demonstrate your self-seeking and unthinking approach, monagamy exists in pretty much all cultures.

Polygamy being permitted, does not mean it's mandated. And even where it is extant it is always taken up less than monogamy or no-marriage.

Polygamy may appear to make sense in certain s/t situations, but I consider it an abberation, and not benefitting society as monogamy does. Anyway, you are not concerned with monogamy or polygamy, or marriage as such, just justifying exercising your willful unthinking desires.

Mindfulness:
Bukatyne, go a few pages back and have a look at all the research cited there that disproves all the sentimental statements made on this thread, especially with regard to females and math.

I wanted to take the topic further and show how some initiatives narrowed the gender gap in several fields and subjects but someone ran away.

Initiative can indeed change the "gender gap" - they don't change the wirting of men and women. We call that social engineering. I'm always here if you have anything to say - especially where you mirepresent na=marriage or blasphem the bible.

You can't build true happiness on anothers sorrow.


Learner !


TV

So, you feel male superiority is a "popular belief" on this section and instead of addressing it as it raises it's head, you think the best way to tackle it is to insinuate it into a thread where it is not evident, and accuse someone who doesn't espouse it?

And as a marriage advocate, I am "duty-bound" to apportion blame in potential or real divorce situations !

Your own brand of genius and campaigning is beyond me. Carry go


TV

bukatyne:
Christianity was an analogy; it could be islam; Yoruba; hausa etc.



I address issues as they arise if I am interested in doing so; however I must confess there is usually a temptation to call posters out when they are red on thread one and blue on thread two.



Keep living in your little shell; you don't espouse... fine however, you can't speak for others.




It is no fault of mine you do not understand an analogy re the fat and thin stuff; My 'equalist' approach to issues.... what should be my approach? Unequalist? Considering the fact I have been called an anti-feminist and penis worshipper when I call out women who are wrong, I am not fazed. Add that to my on-line titles . A new one is divorce advocate

If you find my posts bland and boring, skip them. It is not difficult. Of course, when it calls out the women, it becomes a rich and refreshing one.




When I do not understand a post, I ask. When I want to call out people, I also do specifically. I called you out because you brand yourself as a marriage advocate and is always missing in action when the husband is at fault.

Read meaning into posts, I have got no time for that.

Thanks for the friendly heads-up... however, absolutely not necessary

What's feminian? and what's your problem with the fact am I feminist?

Mindfulness:
contrary to all research on the topic.

Mindfulness:
Come on now TV, as a self-proclaimed expert on marriage it should be easy for you to educate me on the history and purpose of marriage and how divorce was never a part of it.

"Self-proclaimed" advocate. But now you mention it, I suppose I am quite expert . Again, if you want to engage and set the ball rolling, please do so. If you post anything I deem worth responding to, I may.

Mindfulness:
I am an eternal being, I don't know what death is.

...yet.


TV

Mindfulness:
You have already made your choice to avoid the topic as best as you can because you knew that you could only lose it.

Avoid the topic? Marriage is all I talk about. If you have anything to posit or interesting to share, by all means do. As for "lose it" - that's always a probability - just not against you

Mindfulness:
This is what I love about life.

...then best consider your ways as you approach the first and second deaths


TV

bukatyne:
That post was addressed to you.

I often wonder, is it comprehension, deduction, a memory disorder, an "inferior" IQ , or outright psychosis? Along with your ever present "complexes", it's kind of hard to tell really, as you at times present conditions & symptoms singularly or severally.

So, you call me to a thread I have no interest in - I arrived on page 6. I subsequently made clear my position;

TV01:
This thread is not about marriage, it's about divorce. So no, it's not what my vision is about.

which you had already acknowledged;

bukatyne:
I know you brand yourself as someone passionate about marriage; I was wondering if the picture painted on this thread is what your vision is about.

So please kindly explain how you made the unfathomable leap from there to here;

bukatyne:
@TV01:To have 'passion' for less divorces is not enough; men and women need to be trained on how to make their marriages work.

Then this;

bukatyne:
The emphasis on men because women have been trained for so long unfortunately, a tree cannot make a forest.

Who are my main audience on this forum? Do I not regularly - despite the fact that it could be considered somewhat off - drop comments specifically exhorting men? Have I not written a series of pieces advising men?

And this;

bukatyne:
Men believing it is OK to cheat or throw bullshyte because they paid bride price or did 3 wedding ceremonies or are superior to women is unfortunately NOT an attitude that will help build strong marriages.

Where have I ever said, insinuated or supported anything even remotely like what you typed

And this;

bukatyne:
Teaching people epecially women to stay in shitty marriages so stem the divorce/seperation rate is futile.

Where, when or to whom have I ever advised to stay in a "shitty marriage" - and only in order to "stem the divorce rate"
I can only recall one instance of properly responding to a divorce type situation;
https://www.nairaland.com/1284024/broken-dejected-found-out-wife/2#15635959

And all addressed specifically at me You have been willfully mis-ascribing things to me for as long as I've known you on this forum. I am always happy to be called out and open to challenge, but this kind of thing is simply quite pathetic.

I've advised you previously - stop having soliloquies in your own head and mistaking them for real life. Stop looking for imagined enemies to wage your campaigns against. If the issues are really there address them as they arise and direct your rejoinders to whomsoever raises them.

C'mon Bukatyne, I'm sure you are better than mere nuisance value.


TV

bukatyne:
This your post is all over the place.

TV01...always to the point and on point .

bukatyne:
And sorry, I do not deal with posters per thread/post, I deal with them per their claimed belief system.

No problem with that - especially since my belief system is plain "Christianity" . No hybrids or syncretism - such as "christian feminsit", which may confuse poster and responder

bukatyne:
If moniker analog claims to be a Christian, I relate with him as such. If I see a post he references God, I assume it is God till he tells me he was referring to Allah.

Makes sense so far...albeit repetitively

bukatyne:
The fact nobody has mentioned superiority/inferiority of the sexes on this thread (if it was done, pardon me; I didn't read all posts) doesn't mean it is not a popular belief in this section.

But as ever you trip at the first hurdle - why not address an issue where it arises, instead of reading it into a random thread. That says more about you and your agenda than the actual alleged "theme" .

And no, I don't see it as a popular belief and certainly not one I personally espouse - more evidence of your paranoid equalist agenda. Bukatyne, it's hurting you !

bukatyne:
@combination victim mentality/inferiority complex: Funny funny funny

It's standard diagnosis for sour feminists. Hence (1) Your whining about a "superiority theme" where non exists, and totally off-point rant about women having to be fat then thin? and (2) your "equalist approach to every issue. It's boring and bland - almost every thread there's a comment from you along the lines of "...it would be different if it were a man" or "apply that to the husband". Boring, bland and predictable.

bukatyne:
This is a forum to discuss so we are bound to address them

Address them as they appear and be specific as to who you callout. As well as making more sense, you'd probably get better results. Weak attempts to read meaning into an innocent post so as to further your campaign merely mark you as befuddled. Friendly heads-up !

bukatyne:
In my world, no victim mentality neither is there inferiority complex

It's writ large Bukatyne. Our thoughts and prayers - Christian not Feminian - are with you !


TV

Mindfulness:
I wasn't talking about this post. You avoided talking about the history of marriage and we both know why. Are you ready now?

I have seen ample evidence that you are only intent on pressing for your own desires - the old "do as thy will" commandment. You willfully misrepresent both marriage and love to that end.

If you have anything to say about marriage, say on, if I see anything worth responding to, I may choose to do so - or not .

Mindfulness:
EXACTLY and EXTREMELY HAPPY. No regrets.

You will reap what you sow.


TV

bukatyne:
1. @Women not allowed to do STEM etc: I started this thread remember So I questioned the forced representation first which posters have brought nice points in favour of.

Pele 0! Thread starter. At least this one was a bubbly child

bukatyne:
2. Re soft and hard STEM: I thought they were classified into biological and physical? Your soft and hard was to subtly ridicule the efforts put into the biological sciences (afterall, women populate the biological aka soft sciences So it must be soft)

As someone here says, I am responsible for what I write, not what you read, or read into it. In context we are discussing STEM, particularly the TEM aspect as that is proving the sticking point in term of female participation.

I actualy went back and checked - I referenced Bellongs post which touched on the higher mathematical type demands and specifically noted "TEM". Harder in this sense clearly meant the mathematical requirements.

I even went on to say that women could certainly excel in TEM, just unlikely to do so at the same rate as men, because of mens comparative advantage, and also womens choices. Nothing in that post - or any other - said men were superior to women, or vice-versa, just that they have different relative strengths.

Funny how you love to accuse people of picking snippets from a post, when you have done exactly that here ! If you have nothing else, then the bolded question remains unanswered.

bukatyne:
3.@bold: That was a joke right? I do not know a more popular theme here.

Again, your "equalist" led perspective colours your perception. Many have been discussing relative differences in wiring, strengths and choices - you read - or twist - that to mean claims are being made for superiority - again, I can't help your combination victim mentality/inferiority complex.

bukatyne:
4.@ women's looks: it was an analogy and I was not laying the blame on men; more on 'society' (whosoever makes up the ever present ghostly society).

This is still bogus - are men not judged on more? Their looks, height, pocket, status etc?

bukatyne:
It ties well into the superiority stuff....
When a big woman was seen as the deal, slimmer women were seen as suffering etc.
Now, a slim woman is the deal and bigger women are doing all to be slimmer.

Oily fish

bukatyne:
Doublex also used the analogy of English as a language. Non-English speakers are seen as non-intelligent.

More oily fish - no one said women are not intelligent - just that men and women have different relative strengths and preferences.

Do you have anything else - other than insinuation?


TV

Kimoni:
No point TV01, no point taking her on as our values on marriage are pararell lines that would never meet. Again, why engage someone who is quick to go off on your family during a sane debate? To what end?

Biko, let me try and keep this short fuse of mine under tight lock and key.

I disagree. Tedious as it may be, marriage is a societal artefact - it belongs to us all. So we are in a sense duty bound to treasure it for the benefits it accords.

One way of doing this is to defend it from attack. Her values are hers, marriage is ours. If her values are inimical to marriage, she is free to reject it, not infect or pervert it for everyone.

There is also a duty of care for those who may be listening, some may will swallow her not so subtle lies wholesale without much thought. It's poison.

Saying proclamations of love gives one the right to act as they please to satisfy that feeling is plain wrong in the context of marriage, and blasphemous when she tries to tie it to the biblical prescription for love.

She is almost certainly championing this path because it's one she has trodden - trying to normalise - even moralise - it is a lame attempt at self-justification. Pretty typical for transgressors of her type.


TV

daretodiffer:
I won't use the word ‘many' however I do agree that some divorced are frivolous

We could argue that forever, and back and forth between most and many - first having agreed on what constituted frivolous, but here you go;

AyeeIdris:
But there is a lot of nonsense cases.

TV

Kimoni:
Good news if this is really happening in Nigeria.

I think this was Edwife and byvan03 stance in that "other woman's" thread. Like byvan argued, I also agree they (man and mistress) should be jointly culpable.

Yes 0! I hear so much of no-fault divorce, I actually didn't realise, that not every nation had signed up to it. Only the "progressive", feminist led ones .

I was waiting for you all to deal with mindfulness - who claimed the woman "had a right". I'd honestly like her to tell us what that right is, and explain the underlying principle.

I'd also like her to explain how that "right" overrides a legal, cultural (societal), traditional (historical), moral and for many spiritual recognition of the agreement, contract, vows and covenant(sacrament) the couple made.

The positions such people take are often not even worthy of ridicule. High expectations....


TV

Mindfulness:
You know so much that you avoided a matter-of-fact discussion as usual.

At all. Your post was so plainly dumb - and there is simply no other word that does it justice - that I didn't feel the need to discuss - but out of the kindness of my heart, I'll explain .

Mindfulness:
If the husband is ok with it, I see no problem.
They should have discussed such issues before they married.
I do not believe in prohibition. Nothing good can come out of forced freedom restrictions. Whatever you do in your marriage should be agreed upon and not by force.

Marriage has a number of particulars, one of these is consent, another is exclusivity. If one doesn't agree or desire that fine, marriage they say "is not by force" - but marriage is what it is. The freedom restrictions as termed, are not "forced", they are understood and voluntarily entered into when one agrees to marry.

If agreement means contravening the essence of marriage,, then it is in a sense void - not actually a marriage. And your insinuation is that marriage is simply what the couple choose it to be. No, it's by definition, and it's what they choose it to be within that definition.

Again, you know nothing of marriage, give lousy relationship advice and are an inveterate troll.

Mindfulness:
The one with your wife? You better ask her.

How easily exposed they are. What happened to the kumbaya singing champion of harmony and pursuer of peace ! Now you've been rumbled you've come out fangs bared. You are a transgressor.


TV

bukatyne:
@TV01: To have 'passion' for less divorces is not enough; men and women need to be trained on how to make their marriages work.

Although you prefaced this with my moniker, I take it you are not addressing me specifically? If you are, I couldn't be more puzzled. I don't think anyone on this section is clearer,or enunciates more fully, their mission statement, or whom their main target audience is

bukatyne:
The emphasis on men because women have been trained for so long unfortunately, a tree cannot make a forest.

As above - if it's is me you are addressing directly, I can only guess there is something amiss.

bukatyne:
Men believing it is OK to cheat or throw bullshyte because they paid bride price or did 3 wedding ceremonies or are superior to women is unfortunately NOT an attitude that will help build strong marriages.

You would teach your grandmother to suck eggs - like seriously?

bukatyne:
As a norm, people do not marry to divorce in future. They marry to build a life together irrespective of whether old age/pregnancy/young age/loneliness/companionship/money/whatever reason.

Are you, like, having a conversation in your head with me, that I know nothing about? Not that I would know,mind or care, but repeating that in public is plain odd

bukatyne:
Teaching people epecially women to stay in shitty marriages so stem the divorce/seperation rate is futile.

Ok, who's logged in as Bukatyne and posting sket - and in a way that suggests there are some pathologies that need addressing

This one was incorrectly addressed - please return to sender !


TV

AyeeIdris:
The law allows you to join the party that your spouse is cheating with, to the suit. Nice right. The courts very rarely grants compensation against them though. It is very difficult to prove. This one was easy Cos they had done traditional marriage. we asked for 10 million sef. Court only granted one. My boss was a strong believer in Go big or go home.

I like that the co-cheat is joined to the suit. Even if any actual monetary compensation is only a token, at least they are shamed - and rightly so.

I love shaming - slut-shaming, fat-shaming, divorce-shaming, bitter and frustrated single-shaming, single mother-shaming, pretend single-mother shaming, skirt-surfer shaming

If only they would add shunning join


TV

coogar:
only the state of north carolina upholds such laws where a wife can sue the other woman for criminal conversation & she would pay damages if found guilty.

as per your question, i don't think it can happen when no-fault divorce is the law.

Daa.y.uum...Nigerian law is so advanced . Who was it whingeing about the Nigerian constitution discriminating earlier? If the applied this in the West, the divorce rate would shoot right down.

Almost 80% - depending on who you listen to - of divorces are initiated by women, many of them frivolously. If they knew they wouldn't be rewarded and possibly lose their kids, they'd be incentivised to work on their marriages instead of de-frauding their hard-working husbands.


TV

coogar:
nike was a co-defendant in court.
when a male spouse is accused of adultery, the law mandates the plaintiff to join the adulteress as a respondent........and damaged can be claimed if the adulteress is worth something tangible.

i can't remember if nike paid anything though. she asked N5m from nike but i doubt she got anything. i don comot for area to really follow up the case back then.

I quite like that. Surely that can't happen where "no-fault" divorce is the law?


TV