@davidylan

Guy, you're confused. Try reading the abstract again. Let me break it down for you: They didn't identify which men were g@y and which weren't. They only seperated them based on whether or not they were homophobes. They made everybody watch regular, lesb.ian and g@y pr0n and measured their responses using d|ck size.

The results: everybody got hor.ny while looking at straight and les.bo pr0n while only the homophobes were arou.sed while looking at g@y pr0n. Ergo: homophobes are all repressed f@gg0ts, QED! Its really quite simple.

Now I agree that the sample size was small but then I found this study from a 2 second google search. I'm sure you can find a better one if you try. Also I can name waaay more than 2 homophobes who have turned out to be g@y? There must be thousands of examples all over the internet. Here's a few more for your enjoyment.

http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-man-lover-activists-caught-being-man-lover/joanne

And 1 last thing, try looking up the word homophobe in the dictionary. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

**Edit: The gaddem nairalang word filter keeps messing up my link. Try copy-pasting it into your browser's address bar then changing "man-lover" to "g@y" with an "a" in both places. Should work then.

^^the way the human body is wired, there's no hard and fast rule as to what does or doesnt constitute stimuli. For some, it's a shoe [fetish] while for others, could be a fingernail, smell of collard greens, or something else.

the study itself is flawed by default because the target sample is suspect.

Now, for example, would you yourself not be excited should say a 90 year old lady fondled you and nobody was looking.

LOL. Trouble. Is he saying that there are many available Nigerian men that are ready to give it to him I thought homosexuality was not african

Evil Brain:

@davidylan

Guy, you're confused. Try reading the abstract again. Let me break it down for you: They didn't identify which men were g@y and which weren't. They only seperated them based on whether or not they were homophobes. They made everybody watch regular, lesb.ian and g@y pr0n and measured their responses using d|ck size.

The results: everybody got hor.ny while looking at straight and les.bo pr0n while only the homophobes were arou.sed while looking at g@y pr0n. Ergo: homophobes are all repressed f@gg0ts, QED! Its really quite simple.

that's a really dumb conclusion that is not borne out of the "research" itself.

1. I mentioned earlier and i will say again - in statistics we call something "power" - probability that you will not make a type 2 error and this is primarily determined by your sample size.
- the "researchers" in your paper use 29 men - too small a sample size to come to such a fantastic conclusion about potentially millions of men.
- we are not told that the "researchers" corrected for factors like age, environmental influence, race e.t.c.

2. non-h0m0phones were NOT aroused looking at male p0rn . . . that already defeats the conclusion.

3. Men are NATURALLY aroused with women . . . whether lesbi@ns or not.

It doesnt seem you thought this experiment through at all . . . it says something when the "research" is only cited ONCE in 15 yrs. Perhaps it means no one else but uninformed idiots like you believes such nonsense? Even i have 10 citations in 2 yrs.

Evil Brain:

Now I agree that the sample size was small but then I found this study from a 2 second google search. I'm sure you can find a better one if you try. Also I can name waaay more than 2 homophobes who have turned out to be g@y? There must be thousands of examples all over the internet. Here's a few more for your enjoyment.

You agree that the sample size was small but then went ahead to add QED to the conclusion? On what basis? your own bias?

So what? Because you found the paper on google means you can pass it off as QED?

Yeah you can name more than 2 "h0m0phones" who turned out to be "g@y" and so what? That's probably 100 out of millions of men? too small a sample size.

Besides have you gone to understand what a PHOBIA means or are you simply regurgitating what you hear on CNN?

Evil Brain:

And 1 last thing, try looking up the word homophobe in the dictionary. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Stup1d definition - fear of h0m0sexuals? lol why should we fear them? Its not like they are coming to stick rolling pins in our anuses.

tpia@:

^^the way the human body is wired, there's no hard and fast rule as to what does or doesnt constitute stimuli. For some, it's a shoe [fetish] while for others, could be a fingernail, smell of collard greens, or something else.

the study itself is flawed by default because the target sample is suspect.

Now, for example, would you yourself not be excited should say a 90 year old lady fondled you and nobody was looking.

Guy, have you ever watched g@y pr0n before? Seriously, if your d|ck stands while watching that nasty shiat, then you are a h0m0sexual. Face facts and stop decieving yourself. There's no need to be ashamed about it, I'm not judging anybody. In any case, there are millions of nigerians happily living in the closet.

^^some [or many] people can get excited even watching animals mate, so once again, your basic premise is flawed.

Evil Brain:

Guy, have you ever watched man-lover pr0n before? Seriously, if your manliness stands while watching that shiat, then you are a h0m0sexual. Face facts, and stop decieving yourself. These no need to be ashamed about it. I'm not judging anybody. In any case, there are millions of nigerians happily living in the closet.

your "study" said that did not happen with non-h0m0sexuals. So you mean the non-h0m0s are truly non-h0m0s?

What is this guy talking about?

Besides tpia is a woman.

davidylan:

your "study" said that did not happen with non-h0m0sexuals. So you mean the non-h0m0s are truly non-h0m0s?

What is this guy talking about?

Besides tpia is a woman.

Sweet Jebus, WTF? It's non-HOMOPHOBES not non-h0m0sexuals. A homophobe is someone who hates homosexuals (e.g. Eddie Long). The study suggests that those people tend to be closet h0m0sexuals (e.g. Eddie Long). Seriously, check a dictionary, or google it.

And if you don't like my study's conclusions, then find another one that supports your arguement. Stop trying to twist results to suit your side. You're starting to sound like a global-warming denier.

Also, my apologies to tpia@. Thought you were a guy (can't sleep, browsing on my phone). Girls are allowed to get h0rny while watching g@y pr0n, it doesn't mean you're g@y. I'm curious though, do you get h0rny while watching lesb.ian pr0n?

Definition of HOMOPHOBIA : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

From Mirriam-Webster. Now, do you understand?

Evil Brain:

Sweet Jebus, WTF? It's non-HOMOPHOBES not non-h0m0sexuals. A homophobe is someone who hates homosexuals (e.g. Eddie Long). The study suggests that those people tend to be closet h0m0sexuals (e.g. Eddie Long). Seriously, check a dictionary, or google it.

you already know what i meant. Trying to nitpick over spelling issues does little to hide your own ignorance. The study suggests absolutely nothing . . . that its been cited once in 15 yrs is enough to indicate NO ONE takes it seriously. Again i repeat . . . eddie long is not confirmed g@y neither is his "example" sufficient to label millions of other men.

Evil Brain:

And if you don't like my study's conclusions, then find another one that supports your arguement. Stop trying to twist results to suit your side. You're starting to sound like a global-warming denier.

Daft.

1. Global warming is real science, your nonsensical article is not.

2. I dont need to "find another to support an argument" to refute your study's conclusions. It is a baseless conclusion from a "study" that would not be accepted from a graduate student.

Evil Brain:

From Mirriam-Webster. Now, do you understand?

Nonsense. Look at your own definition . . . i dont subscribe to h0m0sexuality . . . but neither do i have an irrational fear of h0m0sexuals. I have worked with quite a few . . . nothing serious. Its the typical leftist liberal spin . . . when you want to force a perfidy down our throats . . . simply label those in opposition as "anything - phobes".

Do you like to eat eba like i do? No? then you are an "eba-phobe" - with an irrational fear or aversion to those of us who eat eba. See . . . i can make up my own words too. Now to get mirriam webster to print it next yr.

@evil brain

i dont get h.orny at all, meaning i'm frigid.

Homophobia is a term used to refer to a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesb.ian and g@y and in some cases bisexual, transgender people and behaviour

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of a perceived h0m0sexual or in some cases any non-heterosexual orientation.

from the wikipedia.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

davidylan:

Nonsense. Look at your own definition . . . i dont subscribe to h0m0sexuality . . . but neither do i have an irrational fear of h0m0sexuals. I have worked with quite a few . . . nothing serious. Its the typical leftist liberal spin . . . when you want to force a perfidy down our throats . . . simply label those in opposition as "anything - phobes".

Do you like to eat eba like i do? No? then you are an "eba-phobe" - with an irrational fear or aversion to those of us who eat eba. See . . . i can make up my own words too. Now to get mirriam webster to print it next yr.

You seem to think I'm attacking you personally. I'm not. I'm merely pointing out something that seems to be fairly obvious: that closet h0m0sexuals tend to have the most extreme homophobic views. Ted Haggard, the US senator Larry Craig, I've already mentioned Eddie Long.

BTW, I posted a link earlier. If you really doubt if Eddie Long is g@y, you should click on it and check out the picture of him posing in a pink tank-top. G@yest sh|t I ever saw. I've already mentioned Eddie Long.

BTW, I posted a link earlier. If you really doubt if Eddie Long is g@y, you should click on it and check out the picture of him posing in a pink tank-top. G@yest sh|t I ever saw.

And I wasn't nitpicking over spelling. You got confused over the words homophobe and h0m0sexual, admit it. I won't make fun of you, I promise. We all make mistakes, nobody's perfect.

Here's the picture I was talking about: Pastor Eddie Long.


So, what do you think, does he look g@y to you? I think he looks like a flaming h0m0sexual in a pink tanktop, but maybe you disagree. Perhaps he was posting faggy pictures of himself on the internet to attract the h0m0s to hear the word of Gard?

Evil Brain:

@davidylan

Guy, you're confused. Try reading the abstract again. Let me break it down for you: They didn't identify which men were g@y and which weren't. They only seperated them based on whether or not they were homophobes. They made everybody watch regular, lesb.ian and g@y pr0n and measured their responses using d|ck size.

The results: everybody got hor.ny while looking at straight and les.bo pr0n while only the homophobes were arou.sed while looking at g@y pr0n. Ergo: homophobes are all repressed f@gg0ts, QED! Its really quite simple.

This the sophistry used by man-loving-men to justify their deranged behaviour
Let us extend it for you
Anybody who hates h0m0sexuals = repressed homo
anybody who hates paedophillia = repressed paedophille
Anybody who hates necrophile = repressed necrophile
anybody who hates bestiality = repressed zoophile

Face reality and pick one, you must belong in a class if we are to believe your own argument.

Evil Brain:

Here's the picture I was talking about: Pastor Eddie Long.


So, what do you think, does he look g@y to you? I think he looks like a flaming h0m0sexual in a pink tanktop, but maybe you disagree. Perhaps he was posting faggy pictures of himself on the internet to attract the h0m0s to hear the word of Gard?

So based on your own opinions we should now label Eddie Long g@y? So every athlete with muscle tops is most likely g@y too? I did own muscle tops at one time, do i look or sound g@y too? I must not have known it. Maybe i should have that confirmed.

BetaThings:

This the sophistry used by man-loving-men to justify their deranged behaviour
Let us extend it for you
Anybody who hates h0m0sexuals = repressed homo
anybody who hates paedophillia = repressed paedophille
Anybody who hates necrophile = repressed necrophile
anybody who hates bestiality = repressed zoophile

Face reality and pick one, you must belong in a class if we are to believe your own argument.

Couldnt have said it any better. I suppose those of us that detest armed robbers are also repressed robbers too simply waiting for the opportunity to strike.

Is Evil brain g[i]a[/i]y?

davidylan:

So based on your own opinions we should now label Eddie Long g@y? So every athlete with muscle tops is most likely g@y too? I did own muscle tops at one time, do i look or sound g@y too? I must not have known it. Maybe i should have that confirmed.

Every athlete who wears muscle tops and r@pes multiple underage boys is probably g@y in my opinion. I'm not sure about you though. Have you r@ped any boys recently?
@jennykadry No, I'm not g@y. I love the pússy actually. But thanks for asking.

r231:

na naija man Ibo man now. . . . what do you expect

to get paper no easy

What can't Ibo people do for money? Imagine he came to see his family with his man-lover. Shameless people.

sign of endtimes, this it so disgusting,

swaggerboi2011:

sign of endtimes, this it so disgusting,

H0m0sexuality has existed since prehistoric times. There were probably g@y dinosaurs before mankind even existed. Stop deceiving yourself.

Evil Brain:

H0m0sexuality has existed since prehistoric times. There were probably g@y dinosaurs before mankind even existed. Stop deceiving yourself.

Madness has existed since prehistoric times. Time to give mad people equal rights. Give them our daughters as wives, employ them as surgeons, soldiers etc

Evil Brain:

@jennykadry No, I'm not g@y. I love the pússy actually. But thanks for asking.

jennykadry:

Is Evil brain g[i]a[/i]y?

Don't let that answer above fool you. What is the basis for this passionate defence of gay.gots? Afterall they are not helpless infants who cannot defend themselves such that another will now take up the battle for them out of abundance of compassion.

^^seconded

this chika must be mad,were omo

BetaThings:


Don't let that answer above fool you. What is the basis for this passionate defence of gay.gots? Afterall they are not helpless infants who cannot defend themselves such that another will now take up the battle for them out of abundance of compassion.

Lol did you think I believed it even for a second?

semid4lyfe:

Disgusting F-O-O-L this Chika Nwafor

What is disgusting is that we are not standing up more firmly against the creeping spiritual pollution of our land
and they are beginning to proliferate - converting innocent boys to their misguidance by spending heavily on them
they are agitating for more rights. Go to any public health event, they call then MSM instead of Homos now
Christians who control the press are strangely silent

BetaThings:


Don't let that answer above fool you. What is the basis for this passionate defence of gay.gots? Afterall they are not helpless infants who cannot defend themselves such that another will now take up the battle for them out of abundance of compassion.

I could not help but comment after your post; just because someone is willing to defend a certain group of people, does that make them to be in the same boat? There have been human right groups (non man-lover), politicians, professionals (lawyers, social workers / activist ) et al who have aggressively defended these people, does that mean they all g/a/y ? Anyway, I cannot change anyone's mentality, I just  think that such statement is overly flawed, Just my own 2cents

^^^^
Most of these groups defend hom0s as a matter of course - that is what they are set up for by definition.
But I cannot see what rights to practice insani.ty anybody has anyway
afterall who will defend our rights to live among sane people
But an individual crusader launching a spirited defence is different - his motivation is not just altruism

r231:

On what he's getting from the divorce
Chika: ''I am getting where I am living now with my son Boris which is a 3 bedroom flat, my car, my shop, Boris' up keep and him paying me for the next 6 months. Isn't that ok for me? Let him continue f***king around as I don't care anymore''.

Chika continues
''Am single and seriously[b] searching for a honest, sincere and genuine one and not those that will only lay me in bed and take advantage of me or start demanding money like Nigerian guys are doing. [/b] I saw it coming and The fact is that am not shocked at all neither does he even care but the best of it is am on my own once again. My son is all the happiness I have ''

Am I the only person that this dude sounds like a wh-oring man to. Somebody tell him to hush up a bit. I know that it is not easy out there when we all migrate to other lands to make a living but should a man, a full blooded Igbo man like him give himself to being manhandled, abused, s*domized and battered just to get some dough. Isn't that masculine wh-oring of the highest order.   It's flabberwhelming.

out of NL front page please