₦airaland Forum

Alfred C. Kinsey is one of the most controversial figures in American history--and for good reason. An entomologist by training, Kinsey turned from his intense fascination with the gall wasp to the study of human sexuality. He burst upon the American scene with his pioneering 1948 volume, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Eventually, Indiana University was to establish the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction, and the name "Kinsey" was to be associated with progressivist sex education, opposition to traditional sexual morality, and liberation from fixed concepts of "normal" when dealing with human sexuality. The Kinsey Institute has what many consider to be the world's largest collection of pornography, sexually explicit art, and various sexual objects. What the institute does not advertise is its links to data gathered by child molesters and sex criminals.

By any measure, Alfred Kinsey was a tormented and conflicted figure. Raised by a puritanical father and a withdrawn mother, Kinsey's adolescence was marked by sexual turmoil and experimentation. As is now well documented, the young Kinsey was involved in sadomasochistic sexual behaviors and was driven by homosexual desire.

In a groundbreaking biography published in 1997, James H. Jones blew the cover on the Kinsey myth. According to this popular and pervasive mythology, Alfred Kinsey was a scientist who brought his rigorous scientific skills and objective scientific interests to the study of human sexuality. The real Alfred Kinsey was a man whose own sexual practices cannot be safely described to the general public and whose interest in sex was anything but objective or scientific.

From the onset, Jones recognized Kinsey's central role in the sexual revolution. "More than any other American of the twentieth century," Jones acknowledges, "he was the architect of a new sensibility about a part of life that everyone experiences and no one escapes."

Nevertheless, the real Kinsey was hidden from the public. Jones describes his project in these words: "As I burrowed into more than a dozen archives, read tens of thousands of letters, and interviewed scores of people who knew Kinsey in various capacities, I discovered that his public image distorted more than it revealed."

As Jones reports, "The man I came to know bore no resemblance to the canonical Kinsey. Anything but disinterested, he approached his work with missionary fervor. Kinsey loathed Victorian morality as only a person who had been badly injured by sexual repression could despise it. He was determined to use science to strip human sexuality of its guilt and repression. He wanted to undermine traditional morality, to soften the rules of restraint, and to help people develop positive attitudes toward their sexual needs and desires. Kinsey was a crypto-reformer who spent his every waking hour attempting to change the sexual mores and sex offender laws of the United States.
There was more to it than that, of course, and Jones marshals an incredible mountain of documentation to prove this point. In the first place, the adolescent Alfred Kinsey was deeply involved in masochistic self-abuse. In Jones' words, "Somewhere along the line, he veered off the path of normal development and was pulled down a trail that led to tremendous emotional conflict and self-negating physical abuse."

Driven by wild sexual fantasies and determined to overthrow what he saw as a repressive sexual morality, Kinsey eventually dropped his study of insects and turned his study to human sexuality. Tragically, Jones must acknowledge that the world of science "would have been better served had Kinsey not allowed his lust for data to obscure his judgment."

What exactly was Kinsey up to? He and his close band of young male associates went about collecting an enormous body of data on human sexuality, first looking at male and later at female populations. In his research on the sexual behavior of males, Kinsey brought his ideological and personal passions to the forefront of his supposedly scientific work. He arbitrarily decided that human beings are to be located in a continuum of development between heterosexual and homosexual poles. He developed a six-step chart and argued that men and boys are arrayed all along this line between absolute heterosexuality and absolute homosexuality. He would later argue that almost forty percent of all males would have some homosexual experience. Of course, hidden from public view was the fact that Kinsey was doing his very best to rationalize his own homosexuality--or bisexuality as later commentators would explain--and was not at all the objective scientist collecting neutral data from a responsible population base.

Among the many problems inherent in Kinsey's research is the fact that he relied upon reports and sexual studies taken from prison populations, including sex criminals. Therefore, Kinsey's notion of "normal" was drawn from a decidedly abnormal population sample.

The most troubling aspect of Kinsey's research is the data he collected on the sexual response of children--especially young boys. Chapter Five of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male considered the sexual experience of boys, including infants. Kinsey wanted to prove that children are sexual beings who should be understood to have and to deserve sexual experiences. In this chapter, Kinsey is largely dependent upon the data contributed by "Mr. X," a man who had molested hundreds of boys ranging from infants to adolescents. As Jones explains: "Viewed from any angle, his relationship with Mr. X was a cautionary tale. Whatever the putative valued as science of Mr. X's experience, the fact remains that he was a predator pedophile." Over decades, this man abused hundreds of young boys, tortured infants, and, as Jones explains, "performed a variety of other sexual acts on preadolescent boys and girls alike."

Kinsey did not condemn this man, but instead eagerly solicited his "data." As a matter of fact, Kinsey went so far as to attempt to pay Mr. X for further research and once wrote to him, "I wish I knew how to give credit to you in the forthcoming volume for your material. It seems a shame not even to name you."

Those words betray a moral monster of the most horrible depravity and assured criminality. Alfred Kinsey celebrated the fact that this man had sexually tortured children and, as Kinsey's own published work documents, had sexually abused two-month-old infants.

All this was explicit in the data published in Kinsey's 1948 volume, but he was nonetheless celebrated as a sexual pioneer and as a profit of sexual enlightenment.

Unbeknownst to the general public, Kinsey was also involved in sex acts with his staff and in the filming of hundreds of persons involved in sexual activity--including footage taken of his own masochistic sex acts. He and his colleagues paid adolescent boys to perform sex acts on film and turned the Kinsey house into a studio for pornographic documentation. In one incredibly weird twist on the story, Mrs. Kinsey, or "Mac" as she was known, is remembered to have brought refreshments to the participants at the conclusion of their sex acts and video sessions. She was herself filmed in various sexual situations and Kinsey encouraged his associates to engage in sex acts with his wife.

What does the cultural elite now make of all this? The New York Times review acknowledges that the movie takes a great risk "in attempting to deal frankly with its hero's own sex life without succumbing to prurience or easy moralism." In reality, however, the movie doesn't deal frankly with Kinsey's perversions at all. The reviewer concedes, "Sometimes his scientific zeal shaded into obsession, and his methods went from the empirical to the experimental in ways that remain ethically troubling."

Ethically troubling? Is that all The New York Times can muster in response to Kinsey's own self-documented and published reports of child molestation?

In Sex the Measure of All Things: A Life of Alfred C. Kinsey, Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy laments the fact that Kinsey is not given the respect of his fellow scientists that he believed he deserved. Nevertheless, even Gathorne-Hardy acknowledges, "The recent digging up of Kinsey's private life, incidentally, is not going to help him" in this respect.

Gathorne-Hardy wrote his book largely in response to the damage to Kinsey's reputation inflicted by Jones' biography. Amazingly, Gathorne-Hardy claims: "Wherever we know something of his sexuality it is at once apparent that, while it hardly ever, if ever, impaired his integrity as a scientist, it had a decisive effect on his work. And where it does once or twice seem to impair that integrity, the effect is either not very significant-or else it is obvious. There is a transparency."

This is moral nonsense. Of course, this author attempts to make lemonade out of Kinsey's lemons in more than one way. At one point, Gathorne-Hardy goes so far as to claim that Kinsey's bisexuality was a great asset for his scientific work. "Kinsey was bisexual," Gathorne-Hardy notes, "an almost ideal position, one might think, for someone who was studying sexual behavior in both sexes." Who might think this?

We have become a society that celebrates men like Alfred C. Kinsey and produces movies that present such a man as an agent of enlightenment rather than as a tortured soul fighting his internal demons while soliciting data on the sexual molestation of young children--and filming any number of persons involved in any number of perverted sex acts.

In a letter he once wrote to his associate Clarence A. Tripp, Kinsey conceded, "The whole army of religion is our central enemy." Kinsey knew what he was up against, and his ambition was not merely to collect data, but to overthrow the entire structure of Christian morality in the realm of human sexuality.

Instead of being rightly classified as a criminal along with the likes of Dr. Joseph Mengele and other Nazi scientists, Alfred C. Kinsey is now lionized and celebrated in a movie starring Liam Neeson as the supposedly heroic figure. What does this say about Liam Neeson? What does this say about us?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIGzC_Fmh5c

Dr. Alfred Charles Kinsey was an American biologist, professor of entomology and zoology, and sexologist. In 1947, he founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University, which is now known as the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University.

Education and Early Career
Alfred Charles Kinsey was born in Hoboken, New Jersey, June 23, 1894. He attended Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine (1914-1916), graduating magna cum laude with a B.S. in biology and psychology. He received his Sc.D. in biology from Harvard University in September 1919.

Dr. Kinsey arrived at Indiana University in 1920 as an assistant professor of zoology. For the next 20 years, Kinsey studied gall wasps, and established a solid academic reputation for his biology tests and his research in taxonomy and evolution. By 1937, American Men of Science listed him as one of their "starred" scientists.

During his work on gall wasps, Dr. Kinsey developed many of the techniques around recording and organizing data that would come into play in his later research into human sexuality. He took dozens of minute measurements on each tiny wasp, and recorded the data in sheafs of notes, later developing his own coding system for the information - precursors to the detailed sex history questionnaires and recording codes he developed for use by his sex research team.

Transition to Sex Research[b][/b]
In 1938, the Association of Women students petitioned Indiana University to offer a course on marriage for students who were married or contemplating marriage, part of a nationwide demand for similar courses. Dr. Kinsey, popular with students, was invited to coordinate the new course, "Marriage and Family," restricted to senior and married IU students.

Faced with questions from students about sexuality, Kinsey could find little scientific information on human sexual behavior that was not value-laden or based on small samples from clinical trials. His interest in the topic was piqued by this "gap in our knowledge," and he began collecting sex histories, first from his students, and then from groups and individuals in Bloomington and throughout Indiana.

In 1940, President Wells gave Kinsey a choice: to continue either with the marriage course or with his sexuality research project. Kinsey chose to concentrate on his sex research, again crisscrossing the United States, this time to conduct sexual behavior interviews. Over the next few years, Dr. Kinsey sought out funding for his research expenses and began gathering a research team.

In 1947, Dr. Kinsey became the founding director of the new Institute for Sex Reseach (ISR), which published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948 and the complementary work, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female ,in 1953. The two books were wildly popular, and Dr. Kinsey became an American celebrity mentioned in cartoons, novels, and popular music.

He published sexual behavior in human male which suggested that Instruments is not an expression of gender but individual feelings determine their sex.... therefore, there could be a male with a Virginal and women with a penis.

Reimer and John Money Gender Reassignment Controversy: The John/Joan Case

By: Phil Gaetano
Published: 2017-11-15
Keywords:

In the mid-1960s, psychologist John Money encouraged the gender reassignment of David Reimer, who was born a biological male but suffered irreparable damage to his penis as an infant. Born in 1965 as Bruce Reimer, his penis was irreparably damaged during infancy due to a failed circumcision. After encouragement from Money, Reimer’s parents decided to raise Reimer as a girl. Reimer underwent surgery as an infant to construct rudimentary female genitals, and was given female hormones during puberty. During childhood, Reimer was never told he was biologically male and regularly visited Money, who tracked the progress of his gender reassignment. Reimer unknowingly acted as an experimental subject in Money’s controversial investigation, which he called the John/Joan case. The case provided results that were used to justify thousands of sex reassignment surgeries for cases of children with reproductive abnormalities. Despite his upbringing, Reimer rejected the female identity as a young teenager and began living as a male. He suffered severe depression throughout his life, which culminated in his suicide at thirty-eight years old. Reimer, and his public statements about the trauma of his transition, brought attention to gender identity and called into question the sex reassignment of infants and children.

Bruce Peter Reimer was born on 22 August 1965 in Winnipeg, Ontario, to Janet and Ron Reimer. At six months of age, both Reimer and his identical twin, Brian, were diagnosed with phimosis, a condition in which the foreskin of the penis cannot retract, inhibiting regular urination. On 27 April 1966, Reimer underwent circumcision, a common procedure in which a physician surgically removes the foreskin of the penis. Usually, physicians performing circumcisions use a scalpel or other sharp instrument to remove foreskin. However, Reimer’s physician used the unconventional technique of cauterization, or burning to cause tissue death. Reimer’s circumcision failed. Reimer’s brother did not undergo circumcision and his phimosis healed naturally. While the true extent of Reimer’s penile damage was unclear, the overwhelming majority of biographers and journalists maintained that it was either totally severed or otherwise damaged beyond the possibility of function.

In 1967, Reimer’s parents sought the help of John Money, a psychologist and sexologist who worked at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. In the mid twentieth century, Money helped establish the views on the psychology of gender identities and roles. In his academic work, Money argued in favor of the increasingly mainstream idea that gender was a societal construct, malleable from an early age. He stated that being raised as a female was in Reimer’s interest, and recommended sexual reassignment surgery. At the time, infants born with abnormal or intersex Instruments commonly received such interventions.

Following their consultation with Money, Reimer’s parents decided to raise Reimer as a girl. Physicians at the Johns Hopkins Hospital removed Reimer’s testes and damaged penis, and constructed a vestigial vulvae and a vaginal canal in their place. The physicians also opened a small hole in Reimer’s lower abdomen for urination. Following his gender reassignment surgery, Reimer was given the first name Brenda, and his parents raised him as a girl. He received estrogen during adolescence to promote the development of breasts. Throughout his childhood, Reimer was not informed about his male biology.

Throughout his childhood, Reimer received annual checkups from Money. His twin brother was also part of Money’s research on sexual development and gender in children. As identical twins growing up in the same family, the Reimer brothers were what Money considered ideal case subjects for a psychology study on gender. Reimer was the first documented case of sex reassignment of a child born developmentally normal, while Reimer’s brother was a control subject who shared Reimer’s genetic makeup, intrauterine space, and household. while Reimer’s brother was a control subject who shared Reimer’s genetic makeup, intrauterine space, and household.

During the twin’s psychiatric visits with Money, and as part of his research, Reimer and his twin brother were directed to inspect one another’s genitals and engage in behavior resembling sexual intercourse. Reimer claimed that much of Money’s treatment involved the forced reenactment of sexual positions and motions with his brother. In some exercises, the brothers rehearsed missionary positions with thrusting motions, which Money justified as the rehearsal of healthy childhood sexual exploration. In his Rolling Stone interview, Reimer recalled that at least once, Money photographed those exercises. Money also made the brothers inspect one another’s pubic areas. Reimer stated that Money observed those exercises both alone and with as many as six colleagues. Reimer recounted anger and verbal abuse from Money if he or his brother resisted orders, in contrast to the calm and scientific demeanor Money presented to their parents. Reimer and his brother underwent Money’s treatments at preschool and grade school age. Money described Reimer’s transition as successful, and claimed that Reimer’s girlish behavior stood in stark contrast to his brother’s boyishness. Money reported on Reimer’s case as the John/Joan case, leaving out Reimer’s real name. For over a decade, Reimer and his brother unknowingly provided data that, according to biographers and the Intersex Society of North America, was used to reinforce Money’s theories on gender fluidity and provided justification for thousands of sex reassignment surgeries for children with abnormal genitals.

Contrary to Money’s notes, Reimer reports that as a child he experienced severe gender dysphoria, a condition in which someone experiences distress as a result of their assigned gender. Reimer reported that he did not identify as a girl and resented Money’s visits for treatment. At the age of thirteen, Reimer threatened to commit suicide if his parents took him to Money on the next annual visit. Bullied by peers in school for his masculine traits, Reimer claimed that despite receiving female hormones, wearing dresses, and having his interests directed toward typically female norms, he always felt that he was a boy. In 1980, at the age of fifteen, Reimer’s father told him the truth about his birth and the subsequent procedures. Following that revelation, Reimer assumed a male identity, taking the first name David. By age twenty-one, Reimer had received testosterone therapy and surgeries to remove his breasts and reconstruct a penis. He married Jane Fontaine, a single mother of three, on 22 September 1990.

In adulthood, Reimer reported that he suffered psychological trauma due to Money’s experiments, which Money had used to justify sexual reassignment surgery for children with intersex or damaged genitals since the 1970s. In the mid-1990s, Reimer met Milton Diamond, a psychologist at the University of Hawaii, in Honolulu, Hawaii, and academic rival of Money. Reimer participated in a follow-up study conducted by Diamond, in which Diamond cataloged the failures of Reimer’s transition.

In 1997, Reimer began speaking publicly about his experiences, beginning with his participation in Diamond’s study. Reimer’s first interview appeared in the December 1997 issue of Rolling Stone magazine. In interviews, and a later book about his experience, Reimer described his interactions with Money as torturous and abusive. Accordingly, Reimer claimed he developed a lifelong distrust of hospitals and medical professionals.

With those reports, Reimer caused a multifaceted controversy over Money’s methods, honesty in data reporting, and the general ethics of sex reassignment surgeries on infants and children. Reimer’s description of his childhood conflicted with the scientific consensus about sex reassignment at the time. According to NOVA, Money led scientists to believe that the John/Joan case demonstrated an unreservedly successful sex transition. Reimer’s parents later blamed Money’s methods and alleged surreptitiousness for the psychological illnesses of their sons, although the notes of a former graduate student in Money’s lab indicated that Reimer’s parents dishonestly represented the transition’s success to Money and his coworkers. Reimer was further alleged by supporters of Money to have incorrectly recalled the details of his treatment. On Reimer’s case, Money publicly dismissed his criticism as antifeminist and anti-trans bias, but, according to his colleagues, was personally ashamed of the failure.

In his early twenties, Reimer attempted to commit suicide twice. According to Reimer, his adult family life was strained by marital problems and employment difficulty. Reimer’s brother, who suffered from depression and schizophrenia, died from an antidepressant drug overdose in July of 2002. On 2 May 2004, Reimer’s wife told him that she wanted a divorce. Two days later, at the age of thirty-eight, Reimer committed suicide by firearm.

Reimer, Money, and the case became subjects of numerous books and documentaries following the exposé. Reimer also became somewhat iconic in popular culture, being directly referenced or alluded to in the television shows Chicago Hope, Law & Order, and Mental. The BBC series Horizon covered his story in two episodes, “The Boy Who Was Turned into a Girl” (2000) and “Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis” (2004). Canadian rock group The Weakerthans wrote “Hymn of the Medical Oddity” about Reimer, and the New York-based Ensemble Studio Theatre production Boy was based on Reimer’s life.


Sources
Carey, Benedict. “John William Money, 84, Sexual Identity Researcher, Dies.” New York Times, 11 July 2016.
Colapinto, John. "The True Story of John/Joan." Rolling Stone 11 (1997): 54–73.
Colapinto, John. As Nature Made Him: The Boy who was Raised as a Girl. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000.
Colapinto, John. "Gender Gap—What were the Real Reasons behind David Reimer’s Suicide." Slate (2004).
Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis, documentary, written by Sanjida O’Connell (BBC, 2004), Film.
The Boy Who Was Turned Into a Girl, documentary, directed by Andrew Cohen (BBC, 2000.), Film.
“Who was David Reimer (also, sadly, known as John/Joan)?” Intersex Society of North America. http://www.isna.org/faq/reimer (Accessed October 31, 2017).

Congratulations to johnny Depp

1F30M4:
Oh please stfu! If you have no meaningful contribution, just keep scrolling.

You're not the op....why are you so worked up.....the submission touched you somewhere, somehow ?

The op is a gal......it is very surprising.


She is exhibiting this same attitude toward her boyfriend and will most likely behave like her uncle's wife when she get married...


Then why is she concern ?

1) Maybe because it is her beloved uncle that is at the receiving end.

2)Maybe she is worried because the uncle's wife is doing it before she starts her own.....(women don't like competition)... especially with someone ahead

3) Maybe because her uncle's wife is doing her own with a reckless abandon (she even admitted it)

---

Men should understand that they're on there own in marriage

No women takes responsibilities in marriage except when there is an avenue to tell/show the world they are doing it.

Know this, know peace!
Marriage is never a partnership.....it is Husband and a wife arrangement

The problem and the solution is you and your brother..

No dey allow women dictate for you either directly or emotionally...

And you also no dey talk about your brother and his family anyhow in the presence of your wife.

From my experience, women are most often times mischievous, the most painful aspect of their chaotic misbehavior is that, they have no end game nor anything tangible to gain for herself, you and the family as a whole.


So therefore, men/husband need to hold there ground very tightly in order not to be drawn into aimless misadventures by their women.

You and your brother should instruct the wives to stop the nonsense, else (state the consequences).....

---

RESHARPENED:
You're a big ass fool for doing what you did. You had the audacity to raise your hands against another adult simply because you he's your younger brother.

You're a big fool. Don't even bother to apologize 'cause he'll NEVER forgive you.

You're lucky you have a weak brother. I'd have been sure to damage you if you tried that nonsense with me.

No one has the monopoly of damage....the younger brother is very foolish and deserve to be beaten more........

He disrespected is elders before his own wife and kids....he also deserve humiliation before his wife and kids

So that his wife and kids will understand their father's family doesn't condone disrespect.....

JovialJune:
His way of thinking is actually a turn off, in this day and age, people still dey do "I fess you born" comparison? Is he a graduate?

You're not feeling fine

Christianity be thing

There is no provision for many things in the Nigeria constitution.....even the local government not to mention its over advertised autonomy.



The Nigeria constitution, threshold on which the country can be liking to a scam.

Religion and naivety


Religion was originally designed to give human mirage hopefulness in the mist of overwhelming cluelessness of the purpose of life..... anything other than that is a hoax. Modern religion practices is now a Gambling hub.


Meanwhile, the purpose of life does not include living routinely on eggshells to to live another life in the supposed heaven but to live a purposefully meaningful life that will make the earth a conducive abode for all.

finding the purpose of life was what begot the inventions we enjoys today....from Air-conditioning, television, aeroplane, clothing, road, seaport just name it.

And academic field for these inventions....from Medicine and surgery, architecture, engineering, archeology, Geology, astrology, astronomy, theology and so on.

The sad aspect is the theologians are misleading and confusing all other fields.

In actual sense, democracy is a cumbersome and complex system of government, Peter Obi knew this from the onset.

It is difficult to accurately predict the outcome of a democratic election except you play a very tight political game; which without money is no game.


Democratic electioneering process don't usually favour the most competent aspirant.

reidkrugger:
Oga, who nor go, nor know. Marriage is different from dating o. When you get hooked in it and things begin to go south, it's difficult to just pull out of it. And in that time, you'll know the real meaning of pain. I've seen countless people breakdown for the worse because of things like this. And before I even talk any further sef. Are you married?

It is a mistake if you think you've seen it all.

Your question is very lame because I senior you by age and experience to start with.

Arielle:
You're a bloody liar. Show me which man has had a grievious problem caused by his wife that men here will advice him to "man up and take responsibility". If she were an alcoholic with all the attendant challenges of alcoholism, will he stay and help her? If she goes out and sleeps with another man, how many of you will forgive her and accept her back?
You people are a bunch of hypocrites who want what you are not prepared to give yourself. Yul Edochie had a wife he himself told the world was supportive and there for him when he had nothing. But he still stuck his wandering d^ck in other women and proceeded to marry one of them, shaming his wife before the whole world. The 'men' in this forum supported him, saying it was his right. Forgeting that she has rights too and was never told and given the option to enter into a polygamous marriage. Where were your 'for better for worse' adherents then?
It is a choice for the OP to make to keep supporting her husband. There should be no compulsion or guilting her into staying. Because most of you men are extremely disloyal and undeserving of a good woman. That is why many of you find your level with whores, wandering pvssys and lazy grasping women because like calls to like.

You're detailing from the content and defending you view out of context...


Yul Edochie, polygamy are off this very topic

yommyoke:
I'll say no to this your assertion, you hardly see niggas telling another nigga to man up when it comes to marriage problems anymore, it's all "safety first" now.
No one should advise this woman to continue with this deadly adventure, she should end the marriage asap if changes can't be made.
Imagine a man wrecking a business jointly built from scratch, that man must be so useless.
Divorce the idiot, you can consider your love for him later, but consider your children's future first if you already have them.

It is not common that a man advice other men to divorce/breakup with their wives/galfriend over trivial issues...... especially when her good side outweigh the bad sides.....

Do your survey..... husband/boyfriend on average help the person they love out of severe situations than this....men spend fortune to educates, elevate, care and cure terminal diseases/ailments of their wives/galfriend and it won't even ever become a topic.

reidkrugger:
You might be right. But the down side is when you don't know if things are going to ever be normal again. Look at what happened to the late Osinachi. And I'm sure there are a ton of women out there managing their marriage. As for me, she should try talking to him and exhaust every possible avenue doing that. And when it fails, abeg pack your things make you run. Nor be your mama wear your shoe o. Your mental health first before anything.

The world is becoming dump....by taking one incident as a fact to jump into conclusion, then mischievously referencing it for solution to all other unrelated issues.

twinning200:
4 years ago, myself, her and her younger brother were standing outside talking, next thing she said, look at you to my brother, omo i felt embarrased, cos if he wasnt there, its a different thing, i just laughed it off, but deep inside i took serious offense. So there was a time we went for counseling, i pointed out that incident while talking about disregard and disrespect, the counselors told her how bad it is for her to make such statement, and it was part of what she promised never to do again even in other aspect of making someone feel less of themselves, but alas, today she still did it, nothing to discuss about, she knows what shes doing.

You dey follow woman go counselor?

Any woman you cannot handle, cut her off

FERNANDEZISBACK:
If it was working would she have created this thread?if it was would she have laid a complaint and go to her momma's house?
Be real with yaself boy.. marriage ain't a do or die nonsense..

Did you called me boy ?

FERNANDEZISBACK:
Progressive work indeed..even when the signs are clear..this is why people die untimely all in the name of preserving a marriage that might never work..

Did she say the marriage is not working?

She is only concern about his addiction

When a husband is having issues, fellow women advice dissolution of the marriage

When the table is on the opposite side, men advice the man should manup and take responsibility.


Marriage is a progressive work....not a destination.

Reason I disagree with those school of thought that women handles finance better than men.


On average I can't trust any woman with the money she never worked for.....they spend on all manner of needless stuffs.

You're on point

Hmm

I can't argue it nor agree with this


Muslim from ilorin, saki, ogbomoso behave just like the hausas


Muslim from Lagos, Ogun, Oyo are even better than Christians.

godofuck231:
what do you have to say about the sharia lawyer whos the chief Justice of the federation , you think it was a mistake ? The north has made a statement and its loud

Did the chief justice of the federation read LAW or Islamic law ?

What I'm interested in is the relationship between the Nigeria Constitution and the Sharia law.

All the attrosity committed by the Northern Muslim are attempted implementation of sharia laws, Zanfara state under Sen. Yerima, Mohammed yosuf in Maiduguri, mattasinni in Kano, shekau Boko Haram etc

And if you read in-between the line, those condemning this recent act refused to talk about the perpetrators and the motive behind it.........

God1000:
I remember when George Floyd was killed in America by white police officers, Nigerians protested in Abuja and Lagos.

I'm not saying that was bad though, he was a black man like me.

But here is my grouse, Africans and nigerians in particular are always quick to show support when something happens elsewhere, but they will not do anything when it comes to fellow Nigerians.

By now, there should be massive protest across the country demanding for justice, but none of that is happening

No one is holding any vigil for her, why are we doing this to ourselves?

Nigeria is an annex....and in that annexure, Nigeria is the subordinate

godofuck231:
The nigerian constitution was a fraud to sublime Nigerians into economic and power slavery , this was known to the northern leaders who asked for an exemption from this constitution because it was against their religious ethos nigeria is seen to belong to the fulanis because they are in conaivance with the British in raping the country dry

Are you sure @ the bolded ?
If that is true, then Nigeria, a country operating two separate system of Government

Tissaia:
We practice Sharia. Before the white man comes with his weird shorts and creepy helmet

Many things were practiced all over Nigeria in the precolonial era....but as we have accepted the weird shorts and creepy helmet aren't we suppose to abide ? Besides, slaughtering an animal is Crue how much more fellow human....

I'm not a lawyer hence, lawyers should educate us on the technicality on this subject matter.

From my observation, religious people don't usually condemn act(s) perpetrated as far as it was done for the propagate/protection of their belief system's dominance......they re always diplomatic in their speech when addressing outcries from the aftermath of their fellow believers despicable misadventures.

Religion practices have become a no no topic especially in Nigeria.

However, I personally think the overbearing of the Northerners Muslim fanatics can be addressed if we understand the position of the Nigeria law on the activities that are backed by the sharia law.

1) on what ground did Nigeria constitution recognizes Sheria law in the North ?
2) Is sharia law taking to be the customary law in the North ?
3). If the (2) above is the case, are there lawyer(s) that an accused person(s) can engage for defense in sharia court for the purpose of fair hearing.
4). What are the categories of sharia courts i.e. is there an appeal court, supreme court etc
5) which correctional facilities do sharia courts remind an accused person(s) in cases where he/she is not granted bail
6). Which law enforcement agency (apart from isbah) enforces the sharia court verdict
7). Can a non Muslim file a law suite in a sharia court

I personally think the religious violence in the North are under reported.......I have lived in the North, I have first hand experiences and I know the Northerners to a reasonable extent, as a matter of facts.....I know of two professors that redeployed to other University because of the hostile situation in the Muslim dominated North...one to Unijos and Uniagric, Makurdi.