All the facts are not stated. Like the judge said he has higher earnings potential. More than likely married a trophy wife and hooked her up to the good life, they were living in 7 million pound mansion. You really want us to believe he is worth just 3million? Someone that hasn't worked since 2004 yet maintaining the lavish lifestyle. The guy is a crook and sharper than he is trying to appear. As harsh as it is, he probably has more money than he is revealing to the court.

Hahaha, I dey laugh o, like Baba Sege.

A fool and his money is easily parted. What did he expect before venturing into the state sanctioned legal enslavement christened marriage, even moreso without acceding to a pre-nup.

The institution called marriage is nothing but a humbug designed to tyrannize, enthral and limit human's unflinched right to freedom, independence and social liberty. It's scripted to be lopsided on both sides and financially advantageous to women. What is more depressing is the fact that Western liberal left politicians keeps pandering to women's demand for higher alimony defrayals.

The idea that one party has to forfeit a huge chunk of their hard earned wealth to another, is obdurate, cruel and despicable in all ramifications. For fvck sake a man's acquisition is theirs and shouldn't be tempered with even after a divorce. This is a clear act of banditry and must be condemned by not only the male folk but by everyone who believes in justice and fair play.

After a split everyone should move on with their individual assets and the only hinged interest should be the welfare of the kids. For humanity sake, no be me born you. Whoever enacted alimony legislation must have been mentally imbalanced and a p*ssy. What a sick world we dwell in.

baby124:
All the facts are not stated. Like the judge said he has higher earnings potential. More than likely married a trophy wife and hooked her up to the good life, they were living in 7 million pound mansion. You really want us to believe he is worth just 3million? Someone that hasn't worked since 2004 yet maintaining the lavish lifestyle. The guy is a crook and sharper than he is trying to appear. As harsh as it is, he probably has more money than he is revealing to the court.

Thats what I thought
Meanwhile the 7 million property wasn't mentioned in the settlement.
Who got the property? Him or her?

I am almost sure that he tried to pull a fast one on her and she went and got the best lawyers in town to fight her case and she got more than she initially asked for. Hell hath no fury than a woman scorned

BTW this happened in 2009 and Ive read more on the story thanks to google
He actually resigned from his job in 2004 . . claiming he was fed up of the lavish lifestyle and wanted to downsize
Who does that?
He probably deliberately resigned so that he wont have to pay a big divorce settlement . . who knows
The man is not straight forward sha and he met his match.

Sagamite:


Me?
She would get what she put in plus compensation for any loss as a result of sacrifice that mutually benefits us. This is minimum and a guarantee.

Then I would add extra's based on how good a wife she was, the goodwill I still have towards her and she has not tried any mess of getting more than she is entitled to. I doubt number of kids would be a factor as long as she has at least one for me.

If all is good, I WOULD be extremely generous giving her my money. It should just be my choice, not the fcking choice of some moronic Family Court Judge.

Before or during the marriage?
If most of the money made was after the marriage, does she still walk away with nothing?

meanwhile the majority of women marry broke and up and coming men and most of the money is made during the marriage

So if I marry a young struggling graduate and I come with my suitcase to his studio flat and I am a housewife looking after the home on agreement by us both while he goes to work and he climbs to the top of his career if we divorce after 10 years do I only leave with my suitcase?

babygirlfl:


Read up about Madonna and Halle Berry and their ex-husband. Also read up about mani money. Yes women are parting with their money.

The richer person in the marriage irrespective of the gender usually parts with their money.

just checked Halle Berry and it wasn't mentioned that she paid spousal support, which is is more expensive. Abrahimovic, Chelsea owner paid half is fortune to his wife when they got divorced. that's billions of dollar. Mel Gibson and the rest of them paid huge sums not only in child support, but also in spousal support.

Halle Berry wasn't even asked to pay spousal support, she was asked to pay child support which is just about 20,000 dollar compared to her 4.7m dollar a year income. and she already complained she already feels like she is paying enough money that can fund NASA. she can't do a tenth of what men have always done. this is the equality you guys want, so face it.

Sagamite:


C-Ronaldo is a homosexual.

That was why he did what he did, not because of divorce settlement.

Are you sure about the bolded?

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

Sagamite:


Nonsense!

He should be able to spend his $2m anyhow he wishes.

He should even be able to decide to shyt on it before incinerating it.

What business of it is the government how he spends the money he earned?

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

ronald4lif:
Hahaha, I dey laugh o, like Baba Sege.

A fool and his money is easily parted. What did he expect before venturing into the state sanctioned legal enslavement christened marriage, even moreso without acceding to a pre-nup.

The institution called marriage is nothing but a humbug designed to tyrannize, enthral and limit human's unflinched right to freedom, independence and social liberty. It's scripted to be lopsided on both sides and financially advantageous to women. What is more depressing is the fact that Western liberal left politicians keeps pandering to women's demand for higher alimony defrayals.

The idea that one party has to forfeit a huge chunk of their hard earned wealth to another, is obdurate, cruel and despicable in all ramifications. For fvck sake a man's acquisition is theirs and shouldn't be tempered with even after a divorce. This is a clear act of banditry and must be condemned by not only the male folk but by everyone who believes in justice and fair play.

After a split everyone should move on with their individual assets and the only hinged interest should be the welfare of the kids. For humanity sake, no be me born you. Whoever enacted alimony legislation must have been mentally imbalanced and a p*ssy. What a sick world we dwell in.

Choi! Oga, you dey vex o

All these big big obodo oyinbo grammar on top marriage

Sagamite:


Me?

She would get what she put in plus compensation for any loss as a result of sacrifice that mutually benefits us. This is minimum and a guarantee.

Then I would add extra's based on how good a wife she was, the goodwill I still have towards her and she has not tried any mess of getting more than she is entitled to. I doubt number of kids would be a factor as long as she has at least one for me.

If all is good, I WOULD be extremely generous giving her my money. It should just be my choice, not the fcking choice of some moronic Family Court Judge.

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.

[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?

njokusboy:
It's amazing how somme people think a man's hard earned money automatically become theirs becos they signed a piece of paper proclaiming them man and wife...
What sort of mentality is dat

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?

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?

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

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?

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

Your reductionist approach to marriage – making it a mere contract/transactional arrangement totally misses the point. As does your 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.

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.

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, with the 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}

Sagamite:


Come on, mate.

A footballer that is one of the most talented in history, stupidly rich, seen as good looking and only one girlfriend in his history?

That was arranged as a smokescreen to cover up his homosexuality.

Have you ever heard of any other girl with him?

He is that rich, famous and attractive and he is not pullling hot chics?

He had a mysterious child most likely through surrogacy when he was in his mid-20s. Who the fck does that?

Let me tell you who the fck does that: "A man who is 100% sure he would never marry but who wants kids. That is normally a homosexual man."

Or you think there are many women who would give up their child to a man just because it was a one-night stand?

He knows he would never marry and have the traditional family. So he was like "fck it, I would just have my kids now, thank you".

Mate, he used a surrogate.

He couldn't even have it with his so-called girlfriend then. She must have been handsomely paid and been a good friend to keep her mouth shut so far.

Let me tell you the other signs that tells you straight away that he is gay.

- He overgrooms himself (waxes his leg, shapes/plucked eyebrows, perma-tanned)
- Wears the tightest of trunks at every opportunity
- Is fond of wearing pink clothing
- Is pictured picked up by a man
- He does not talk about his sexuality
- He is hardly ever seen with with girls
- Goes on holidays on boats where all you see is strictly guys
- Actively speaks out in support of homosexuality in Portugal
- Some of his adverts he does are homoerotic
- Give ambiguous answers about his sexuality when directly asked
- Has that ‘funny’ homosexual look

Let me tell you more from the celebrity world.

1) He went to a Rihanna concert, as he was a big fan, and then took pictures with her back stage after the concert.

When she was asked about him and if they were dating, she said "I have a lot of gay friends and support sexual diversity".

She let it slip.

2) An Italian man, Alessandro Proto, was sponsoring a film and they were to rent Ronaldo's flat in NY for shooting. Because they were renting his falt, someone decided to offer Ronaldo a part in the film.

When Alessandro heard, he kicked against this. But as the contract was already signed, if breached, they would have to pay him 20m Euros.

Alessandro said "fck it, no, I will pay him 20m euros not to be in my movie".

The rumour is that Alessandro did not want him in the movie because he was a homosexual.

3) On French TV, a journalist, Daniel Riolo, says:

"Take the example of Cristiano Ronaldo - I'm sure flying off to Morocco three to four times a week to see a friend and cuddle with him might have an impact on his performances eventually."

This is someone who is giving us a full hint as he is in the circle of those that know.

4) Ronaldo recent did an interview with Jonathan Ross in the UK. During the interview, Jonathan asked him if "On whether there is someone special in his life" and Ronaldo laughed and said "A few. I need to figure out who is better.".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/cristiano-ronaldo-lifts-lid-love-6818404

Now that might mean nothing to you. But for someone with a keen eye/ear and a good understanding of Western media people, the person would notice Jonathan Ross never asked him about a "Special woman", he asked about a "Special person", and Ronaldo replied with the same ambiguity.

I can guarantee you people in the press know and they will not want to out him. That was why Jonathan choose his words carefully.

Ronaldo on the other hand answered ambigiously because when he finally comes out, he wants to have a plausible deniability to claim he never lied he was not a homosexual when asked.

If you note in the link, even the Mirror newspaper put a quotation mark on that shyt.

Nigga, they all know. People in the celebrity circles know. They are just nice enough and pro-homosexuals not to out him.

Come on, nigga! Open ya eyes.

You are telling me this man is not a homosexual?

[img]http://elitosphere.files./2014/05/cristiano-ronaldo-vogue-31.jpg[/img]

[img]http://1.bp..com/-wuZBlZBUDt8/U3srrpKrlLI/AAAAAAAAFlg/S4F4NgdyDtw/s1600/ronaldo.jpg[/img]

[img]http://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbN0Da5tRQOHbix8vLn5IieFgO8c8TuzIC9vNP2ACko-bsRAaT[/img]



[img]http://img.s-msn.com/tenant/amp/entityid/BBkDttY.img?h=768&w=1366&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f[/img]

[img]http://tecnogaceta.files./2014/03/wpid-cristiano-ronaldo-gay.jpg[/img]

[img]http://th.queerblog.it/Rw4Wda1yWnrqjLDXCDZNLASmZIA=/fit-in/655xorig/http://media.queerblog.it/2/25a/Foto-Cristiano-Ronaldo-gay-620x339.jpg[/img]

Holy sh!t!!!

Ronaldo my biggest crush



Oh yea we all know

baby124:
All the facts are not stated. Like the judge said he has higher earnings potential. More than likely married a trophy wife and hooked her up to the good life, they were living in 7 million pound mansion. You really want us to believe he is worth just 3million? Someone that hasn't worked since 2004 yet maintaining the lavish lifestyle. The guy is a crook and sharper than he is trying to appear. As harsh as it is, he probably has more money than he is revealing to the court.

And so what if he had higher earning potential, married a trophy wife and his hooked up to the good life?

And so?

How does that justify giving her his money, the one he earned?

ronald4lif:
Hahaha, I dey laugh o, like Baba Sege.

A fool and his money is easily parted. What did he expect before venturing into the state sanctioned legal enslavement christened marriage, even moreso without acceding to a pre-nup.

The institution called marriage is nothing but a humbug designed to tyrannize, enthral and limit human's unflinched right to freedom, independence and social liberty. It's scripted to be lopsided on both sides and financially advantageous to women. What is more depressing is the fact that Western liberal left politicians keeps pandering to women's demand for higher alimony defrayals.

The idea that one party has to forfeit a huge chunk of their hard earned wealth to another, is obdurate, cruel and despicable in all ramifications. For fvck sake a man's acquisition is theirs and shouldn't be tempered with even after a divorce. This is a clear act of banditry and must be condemned by not only the male folk but by everyone who believes in justice and fair play.

After a split everyone should move on with their individual assets and the only hinged interest should be the welfare of the kids. For humanity sake, no be me born you. Whoever enacted alimony legislation must have been mentally imbalanced and a p*ssy. What a sick world we dwell in.

Every single word is fcking well said.

tearoses:



Thats what I thought
Meanwhile the 7 million property wasn't mentioned in the settlement.
Who got the property? Him or her?

I am almost sure that he tried to pull a fast one on her and she went and got the best lawyers in town to fight her case and she got more than she initially asked for. Hell hath no fury than a woman scorned

BTW this happened in 2009 and Ive read more on the story thanks to google
He actually resigned from his job in 2004 . . claiming he was fed up of the lavish lifestyle and wanted to downsize
Who does that?
He probably deliberately resigned so that he wont have to pay a big divorce settlement . . who knows
The man is not straight forward sha and he met his match.

That still does not explain how she logically deserves or is entitled to the sums she got.

tearoses:


Before or during the marriage?
If most of the money made was after the marriage, does she still walk away with nothing?

meanwhile the majority of women marry broke and up and coming men and most of the money is made during the marriage

So if I marry a young struggling graduate and I come with my suitcase to his studio flat and I am a housewife looking after the home on agreement by us both while he goes to work and he climbs to the top of his career if we divorce after 10 years do I only leave with my suitcase?

Both.

She gets what she brings into the marriage and what she made in the marriage.

If most of the money is made during the marriage, she gets what she puts in as one portion.

The other portion is she gets compensation for the agreement which would be based on range calculation based on her true earning potential after considering what she has done and achieved before the agreement.

So if you are an air hostess, you will be compensated by Dangote based on the earning lost by giving up on your hostess career, not compensated as a cement magnate. Pure common sense.

If I have an accident with my car and can't work, I am compensated by my Income Insurance based on my true potential earning loss, not by the market value of my insurance company.

NewSheriff:
Are you sure about the bolded?

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

Are you sure now?

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.

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?

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"?

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.

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).

Sagamite:


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).

Lol...

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.

masonkz:



Holy sh!t!!!

Ronaldo my biggest crush



Oh yea we all know

He will come out when he is retired.

Sagamite:

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.

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

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

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 .

Sagamite:
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.

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.

Sagamite:
Spiritual ko, alcoholic ni.

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

An unsubstantiated and completely wrong view of historical marriage.

Sagamite:
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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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 ?

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.

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.

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}

One of the differences is that you don't use fear to make men believe in the rightness of your standards and notions.

Besides I agree with most of his views on the topic in question. Marriage existed long before Christianity came into existence. Divorce has always been a part of it and should not be a reason why people should part with what they have worked for and an opportunity for others to gain what they haven't worked for.

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!

tearoses:



Thats what I thought
Meanwhile the 7 million property wasn't mentioned in the settlement.
Who got the property? Him or her?

I am almost sure that he tried to pull a fast one on her and she went and got the best lawyers in town to fight her case and she got more than she initially asked for. Hell hath no fury than a woman scorned

BTW this happened in 2009 and Ive read more on the story thanks to google
He actually resigned from his job in 2004 . . claiming he was fed up of the lavish lifestyle and wanted to downsize
Who does that?
He probably deliberately resigned so that he wont have to pay a big divorce settlement . . who knows
The man is not straight forward sha and he met his match.

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.

Mindfulness:
One of the differences is that you don't use fear to make men believe in the rightness of your standards and notions.

Facts, not fear. How one responds to the facts is down to them. Spread your gospel, if it's superior, people will hear it .

Mindfulness:
Besides I agree with most of his views on the topic in question. Marriage existed long before Christianity came into existence. Divorce has always been a part of it and should not be a reason why people should part with what they have worked for and an opportunity for others to gain what they haven't worked for.

Before Christinity, and also before government, but not before God. And provisions for marriage, where narrow, tightly defined and rarely in view.

Your view of divorce, is as a logical outcome of marriage - based essentially on "feelings". You don't use facts, you use deceit.


TV