₦airaland Forum

Paulagada:
Because most mature and responsible men are jobless.

oh my gosh!!!!

All i know is that Adam had a job, a beautiful Garden, the whole world, and was the only man in that world - but still Eve cheated.
woman is God's only mistake that i know of.

MissWrite:
Smh.......All I see here is insensitivity and wilful ignorance.

now i must be sensitive to a 9 yr old kid who thinks he is gay? the world is going to shìt while atheists like you type long essays that say nothing.

ignorance of what?
do you even know how pertitions work? or what a pertition is?

MissWrite:
All of the posts you put up have not in the least way shown how anyone is being threatened with boycott and ruin for not reflecting homosexual content.

Homosexuals are fighting for visibility in the media, as they should be. As I stated earlier, the story telling has been skewed in the past and the content ought to be more inclusive. But the decision lies with the producers of the shows to make tweaks wherever they deem fitting. James Bond is a bona fide womanizer; it is fundamental to the character and a gay bond wont play well. There could be a new similar franchise with a gay lead though.

but gays still want a gay bond regardless of profitability. they are pushing an agenda not a story that will play well. you need to educate yourself on agendas.

Gays want to force their lifestyle through movies while you naively shout "Hollywood is trying to be inclusive". you are an atheist and you see nothing wrong with homosexuality but the rest of us do.

that Sesame Street pertition you glossed over is an example of movies given negative attention because of gay issues. if you cant acknowledge that simple one how will you acknowledge others i will give you.

MissWrite:
Are they really? Are they threatened with boycotts and ruin? This is brand new information to me. Tell me, what story was rejected and asked to be re-written because it did not have LGBTQ material? I must report this issue to management at once! ......I was under the impression that people voluntarily added this content to reach a wider audience and to tell a more complete story of human diversity. Which Is why there's usually only one gay character for every lot of heterosexuals. Unless it's a specifically LGBTQ story. I had no idea they were under some compulsion. Travesty! Submit the names to me; I know what to do with them.

and here they now want James Bond to be gay:

https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/06/25/ian-mckellen-is-all-for-a-gay-james-bond_a_22980653/

MissWrite:
Are they really? Are they threatened with boycotts and ruin? This is brand new information to me. Tell me, what story was rejected and asked to be re-written because it did not have LGBTQ material? I must report this issue to management at once! ......I was under the impression that people voluntarily added this content to reach a wider audience and to tell a more complete story of human diversity. Which Is why there's usually only one gay character for every lot of heterosexuals. Unless it's a specifically LGBTQ story. I had no idea they were under some compulsion. Travesty! Submit the names to me; I know what to do with them.

look how gays wanted Captain America to be gay:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/05/captain-america-civil-war-steve-rogers-sharon-carter-bucky-barnes?mbid=social_twitter

Is This the One Flaw in the Otherwise Great Captain America: Civil War?
by JOANNA ROBINSON
MAY 8, 2016 8:50 PM
003  
his post contains spoilers for Captain America: Civil War . If you haven’t seen the film yet or don’t want to be spoiled on anything, now is that time to go. Spoilers ahoy after one more firm warning from Cap.
If you’re not deep into internet culture, you may be unaware of the intensely devoted section of the Captain America fan base who consider Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), not Peggy Carter ( Haley Atwell ), to be the true object of Steve Rogers’ (Chris Evans ) affection. Oh but they’re out there. Just search Bucky/Steve and you’ll see what I mean. But make sure you have the safe search mode switched on first.
When Captain America: Civil War directors Joe and
Anthony Russo went on a publicity tour for the latest installment in Marvel’s
Avengers franchise, they were very careful not to throw cold water on the popular fan theory that Steve “Captian America” Rogers and Bucky “The Winter Soldier” Barnes were more than friends. “People can interpret the relationship however they want to interpret it,” Joe Russo said while visiting China. “People have interpreted that relationship all kinds of ways, and it’s great to see people argue about it what that relationship means to them. We will never define it as filmmakers, explicitly, but however people want to interpret it they can interpret it.”
Even Evans and Stan seemed happy to throw fuel on the Bucky/Steve theories during the publicity tour.
This tweet has been removed.
But despite what Joe Russo said, doesn’t Captain America: Civil War go out of its way to “define” Bucky and Steve’s relationship when Cap smooches Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp ) while Bucky looks on approvingly? Where’s the room for interpretation in that moment? And, leaving aside the vague creepiness of Steve making a move on Peggy’s (very willing) niece, the moment itself wasn’t necessary to the flow of the movie at all.
As was the case in Captain America: Winter Soldier , VanCamp is a hugely appealing (if slightly underused) member of the cast. The film even gave her one of Captain’s most iconic comic book speeches when Sharon and Steve are mulling over how to move forward in the shadow of Peggy’s death. It’s a great moment for her and for the story. And while I think Agent Peggy Carter would have encouraged Agent
Sharon Carter to join in the big fight on the tarmac, in general Sharon’s insider access to the government served the story very well.
But did they have to throw in that kiss? Romance has never been hugely successful in the world of
The Avengers. With the exception of the bittersweet distance between Cap and Peggy and the very useful friction between Tony and Pepper in Iron Man 3 and Civil War , the Avengers love stories have fallen rather flat. Jane and Thor were so spark-less that Natalie Portman’s absence in Thor 3 is neither surprising nor all that damaging to the franchise. The brewing love story between Vision and Scarlet Witch (yeah, it’s in the comics ) is frankly rather creepy given the relative ages of Paul Bettany and
Elizabeth Olson . And Black Widow’s half-hearted love affair with the Hulk was one of the many things that didn’t work in Avengers: Age of Ultron.
In fact, Scarlett Johansson’s hugely popular character is the most fun when she nowhere near romance but, rather, palling around with Hawkeye and Steve. Perhaps it’s Joss Whedon’s influence on Phase 2 of Marvel’s superhero universe, but these characters seem destined to not be happy in a relationship unless, like Hawkeye, they take their love stories completely off the grid.
But Marvel seems to think it
has to have its heroes in heterosexual love affairs in order to maximize audience appeal. But with the franchise slowly making room for women to be more than girlfriends and sidekicks (seriously, Sharon should have been on that tarmac), a love story just for the sake of some kisses and yearning seems out of place in these spirited adventures. Sure, the Sharon and Steve connection served a narrative purpose. It showed that Cap was finally willing to close the door on Peggy. Something he could never do while his Agent Carter was alive. But, honestly, there was more juice in Bucky ogling Steve’s bulging bicep as Cap struggled to ground a helicopter using only gumption and sinew.
So while Marvel was likely never going to make the homoerotic subtext of Cap and Bucky into text, would it really have hurt to keep their relationship more ambiguous? As if to put the nail in the coffin of speculation, Bucky and Cap paused for a moment in the middle of snowy Siberia to reminisce about their days chasing skirts in pre-War Brooklyn. It’s a sweet, human bonding moment but one that also bristles with heterosexual virility. If Disney isn’t inclined to give audiences a gay superhero, couldn’t they have at least left us the dream of Bucky and Cap?

MissWrite:
Thanks for sharing; that was a good read. And I agree wholeheartedly: propaganda is a very potent tool in shaping culture. Truth be told, you cannot escape propaganda. It starts with what you're being told as a child by your parents at home. Religion and the multimedia are agents of propaganda that influence us soon afterwards. It is sociocultural conditioning. It stands to reason then that our current culture is a product of propaganda as well(as used in the text: information). And our current culture is heteronormative because these were the stories that were propagated and popularized for ages. They are the stories that have shaped our thinking and expectations.

If heteronormativity is a product of propaganda (as every homogenous culture must be a product of external conditioning) how does it then have such irrefutable merit? And why must we now stop the propaganda from allowing diversity when it is that same propaganda that excluded these naturally occurring tendencies in the first place?

There are two variables to be considered here: biology and sociology; interior and exterior. The interior is the construct of the individual, and the exterior is the social construct. The individual would find fulfilment in expressing their biology (interior) but social conditioning may put them at variance with that if their preferences are prohibited. Imagine creating an artificial environment where, via propaganda, homosexuality were touted as the only acceptable form of being. A heterosexual person would ultimately feel caged because the exterior cannot change the interior. Social conditioning cannot change biology. It can only force a person to suppress their biology at the expense of their happiness. Since you already started with the Architecture metaphors, there is a popular phrase that comes to mind right now: Form follows function; instead of function follows form. Designing spaces from inside out allows a building spread out organically. Naturally. Truthfully. Working from the outside in, is a sculptural approach that is concerned with political correctness and keeping up appearances at the expense of functional fluidity; often creating awkward spaces that greatly compromise use. By that, I mean that biology must be considered when we chose to apply propaganda to condition our environment.

What Disney want to do is to be more inclusive, so that everyone feels accepted. They are not imposing the gay culture on heterosexuals because they would still cater to a heterosexual audience by telling their numerous sappy love stories featuring princes and a princesses (or some modern derivative). They already deviated from the predominantly white characters to include Arabian and Chinese characters (in Jasmine from Aladdin and Mulan) and they are also contemplating featuring an African princess after the success of Marvel's Black Panther. Does that mean that white people should suddenly feel threatened by some crazy notion that black people want to impose their culture on the world? I think that's just silly. It's all in the interest of diversity and finding new niches that can rake in substantial profits. If anyone seems to be imposing on the other, it is heterosexuals who expect gays to conform to their lifestyle and not the other way round. Gay people only want to be allowed to be themselves. They don't want stories to preclude heterosexuality, they only want stories to stop excluding gays. Why does this matter? Stories give us something to look up to. They make us hopeful. And everyone deserves to see a world of possibilities.

It is expected that there would be more gay people once there is more acceptance in society. But that is only because they would feel safe to come out of hiding.

you are so naive.
here is a Hollywood afticle on the issue :

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/finding-dory-frozen-lgbt-characters-898354

#GiveElsaAGirlfriend to 'Finding Dory': The Online Push for LGBT Characters in Animated Movies
3:43 PM PDT 6/2/2016 by Mia Galuppo
"It's going to get harder and harder to ignore this drumbeat," says GLAAD's Sarah Kate Ellis about the recent Internet-backed call for LGBT representation in animated films.
In the new trailer for Pixar's Finding Dory , there is a brief five-second scene of two women being shocked by a pacifier-sucking octopus that has taken up residence in a stroller once occupied by (presumably) their toddler.
After the trailer debuted, the internet paid no mind to the aquatic invertebrate with an oral fixation, but instead turned its spotlight on the two women. Many took to Twitter and other social media platforms to call them the first same-sex couple seen in a children's animated film, with multiple news outlets reporting on their would-be groundbreaking appearance.
While Disney did not respond to The Hollywood Reporter's request for comment about whether the women in the trailer are, in fact, a couple, the Finding Dory incident comes on the heels of a social media campaign that called for Walt Disney Animation to make one of its most popular princesses in recent memory LGBT.
In May, there was a social media push for Elsa, of Frozen fame, to become Disney's first lesbian princess. The hashtag #GiveElsaAGirlfriend started to trend, with people calling for the sequel to the massively popular Disney feature to include the studio's first prominent LGBT relationship. Frozen 2 will see the return of directors Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck but does not yet have a release date.
"I think we have reached a point of 'enough is enough,'" GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis told THR.
GLAAD declined to comment on the possible LGBT representation in Finding Dory , since its members had not yet seen the film in its entirety, but Ellis did talk about the importance of having LGBT representation in kid's animated features. She said: "These portrayals help real LGBT youth to recognize that they aren't alone and validate their identity."
Other animation studios have already featured LGBT characters in small ways.
2012's ParaNorman featured the first openly gay character in an mainstream animated film. The final scenes of the zombie thriller from Portland-based Laika — the stop-motion company also responsible for Box Trolls and the upcoming Kubo and the Two Strings — saw the jock character Mitch, voiced by Casey Affleck, talking about his boyfriend.
And ahead of its 2014 release, DreamWorks Animation's How To Train Your Dragon 2 made headlines when director Dean DeBlois confirmed that one of the dragon-loving Vikings would come out as gay. After witnessing a marital spat between two other Vikings, Gobber the Belch mutters, “This is why I never married. This and one other reason." The line was ad-libbed by actor Craig Ferguson.
When asked whether Disney could be apprehensive about including LGBT characters in its animated features, Ellis offers: "When you look at the global market, so many of the big studios look to the international box office and there are a number of LGBT issues abroad, so they want to be careful not to be cut out of countries." She adds: "You have a two-year [movie] pipeline and you have a lot of money on the line and then you have one weekend to make up that money."
Three of the top 20 highest-grossing films at the worldwide box office are animated features. Universal's Minions and Pixar's
Toy Story 3 both boast grosses above $1 billion, with Frozen is the ninth highest grossing film of all time, with a global box office of $1.27 billion.
"Films are so important because, not only do they reach small towns in America, but they do reach globally and what comes out of Hollywood is our biggest cultural export," explains Ellis. "We have been pushing them for years at GLAAD but now social media and the community is pushing them on it. It's going to get harder and harder to ignore this drumbeat."

MissWrite:
This is it below. A civil response to an appeal, without repercussions; Sesame Street did not get boycotted or come to ruin over this. It did not even stir enough dust to make it into the list of Sesame Street controversies.
i
The gay community did not pressure Sesame Street to include gay characters , Bert and Ernie were always a part of the show. Because of the public perception that these characters were homosexuals, the gay community asked Sesame Street to corroborate that perception with a wedding between the two. Because 2011 is a long way from 1993 where LGBTQ rights and representation in the media are concerned; and they felt that Sesame Street might be ready to give Ernie and Bert that narrative. But Sesame Street had already stated in 1993, that these were just good friends. A wedding would indicate that 'good friends' like Ernie and Bert are simply closeted gays. Sesame Street did not spurn the gay community for the request, this response below (emphasizing that Ernie and Bert aren't even human, and are devoid of any sexual orientation) suggests that they do not wish to get sucked into taking sides with homosexuals and heterosexuals.

pertitions are a form of force and only a naive person would call a pertition "the gay community asked".

the Sesame Street controversy must show you how c artoons are used to push an agenda.
you should see why it matters that Disney has a gay storyline coming out now.
these stories influence kids. now go google this phrase:
"9 year old boy commits suicide over his sexual orientation."

then tell me: at 9 yourself were you even thinking of sex? let alone your sexual orientation.
cases like this will only increase. and any parent who thinks otherwise to the sexualization of kids will be called bigoted.its a form of force

MissWrite:
You're kidding me, right? You mean Sesame Street was urged to include gay characters and it was resisted? When did this happen? And why isn't it listed as at least one of the dozen controversies in several articles specifically about 'Sesame Street controversies'? Or was it that gays wanted inclusion of gays and heterosexuals shut it down while Sesame Street was only an innocent bystander waiting for the skirmish to end?

First: Was Sesame Street ever boycotted or did it ever come to ruin (at any point in time) over the refusal to reflect gay characters? No.

Now: it was, in fact, heterosexuals who demanded the exclusion of two very fundamental characters of the show - Ernie and Bert, who were publicly perceived as a gay couple because they lived together and were really close like that. The homophobic public ran campaigns in 1993 for those characters to be banned from the show for their homosexuality (these are two characters that have been a part of the show since the pilot episode in 1969) , and the producers had no choice but to publicly state that Ernie and Bert were just good friends. So, who really is the bully here?

take this search phrase to google and read:

‘Sesame Street’ Responds To Call For Bert & Ernie To Wed

MissWrite:
....


We all have a lot to learn. You did not give me that list of stories rejected for lack of LGBTQ content.

I liked Moonlight a lot. It made me very emotional; and I cannot fault the fact that it won three oscars. But I think it's very disingenuous of you to find the fact that the LGBTQ story won 3 oscars when La La Land won 6 that year. I would say it was La La land that swept up the awards last year and not Moonlight. Why did La La Land sweep up the awards? Is there a potential conspiracy theory here?

go and read about The Sesame Street controversy. how they reaisted the calls to include gay characters. thats just one of dozens.

WORDWORLD:
You are an Architect, it's a great privilege indeed because it's as well a mental training to see with the mind's eyes what others do not see and in not just a one point perspective but multiple points perspectives as HOLISTIC AS POSSIBLE both interior and exterior views, 'ESOTERIC and EXOTERIC'.

Don't apply this training to conceptualizing building designs alone but in the understanding of how this very 'VORTEX', our human affairs works by choice of designs.

Such application of privilege will save you from the INVISIBLE HANDS, THE MASTERS OF MANKIND who pull the GULLIBLES like marionette puppets.

Misswrite, there is this book. Called ' PROPAGANDA' it's a MASTER PIECE, written by the very 'ARCHITECT' of main stream media. It's very insightful.

Unless you have read that book, you will remain boxed in the half truth as to the Bolded in your quote.

Noam Chomsky a PROFOUND INTELLECTUAL since the 20th Century and still alive today, very much gifted with indepth understanding and discernment of the structural design behind the architecture of our 'VORTEX' by HIDDEN POWERS, had a talk at Z Media institute in June 1997. He expressed the following:

(Read carefully inorder to understand, ponder if you wish )

"The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.
So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.
This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.
His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.[/b]

—Noam Chomsky

(From Chomsky's "What Makes Mainstream Media
Mainstream": a talk at Z Media Institute, June 1997)

Chubhie, you once asked men to refer you to books that flourishes the intellect, moving our minds in closer proximity to ABSOLUTE TRUTH away from ILLUSION. Take your time to read 'PROPAGANDA' by Edward Bernays. If TRUTH is what you seek, your understanding of this book based on SINCERITY in the quest for GENUINE KNOWLEDGE will emancipate you further from the claws of THE MASTERS OF MANKIND who see us as mere malleable Clay they can knead at will.

Here is the http://www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html

A History of a Weapon: 'PROPAGANDA' By Edward Bernays.

Once again, "[b]Let it be clear that it is EVIL that is opposed to GOOD and not INVERSELY" (Frithjof Schuon, a mentor of mine in the Metaphics)

Another classic is the book by Noam Chomsky himself titled: MANUFACTURING CONTENT.

you guys can write for Africa

MissWrite:
Are they really? Are they threatened with boycotts and ruin? This is brand new information to me. Tell me, what story was rejected and asked to be re-written because it did not have LGBTQ material? I must report this issue to management at once! ......I was under the impression that people voluntarily added this content to reach a wider audience and to tell a more complete story of human diversity. Which Is why there's usually only one gay character for every lot of heterosexuals. Unless it's a specifically LGBTQ story. I had no idea they were under some compulsion. Travesty! Submit the names to me; I know what to do with them.

you have a lot to learn.

go and research why the movie MOONLIGHT swept all awards last year.

MissWrite:
But they aren't forcing their tastes on you. Disney can decide whether the 2% is worth catering to. If their venture becomes a box office flop, they'll realize that the story is redundant. But if it becomes a hit, hurray. It means that the 98% doesn't think it can squash a minority just because they have the numbers to do it. Live and let live.

But Africans need not worry so much; homosexual gestures of endearment on Dstv are typically censored (I think). Other cable tv companies can follow suit. If someone goes out of their way to look for gay content, trust that they need it. They want to know that they aren't alone. And it's not television that made them the way they are. That's not to say that I do not agree with the fact that tv influences culture. I made the exact point in my earlier post.

if they arent forcing their tastes on anyone why are liberals so vocal and aggressive in getting their agenda everywhere? why are movies that resist progressive ideas like homosexuality, Transgenderism etc threatened with boycots and ruin? because movies shape global opinion and humans are creatures that follow. if enough people accept an idea the remaining ones get bullied to follow or else are called bigots etc. in short; it ends with force.

BruncleZuma:
You know that's 8k right?

talk about a shithole economy...

MissWrite:
........no sex on tv is for minors.

In any case, there will be no explicit sex scenes. Just like there are no explicit sex scenes with the heterosexual couples that have been featured all the while. It never goes beyond the kiss.

Disney have influenced us with their stories for ages. They're the reason most girls want Prince Charming and that fairy tale wedding. They're the reason some black girls imagine themselves blonde and blue-eyed. They're also the reason some children who do not fit into these featured categories begin to feel like outsiders from a very young age. Disney are aware of the power they have; and how easily they influence culture by inclusive or exclusive story telling. And only recently have they come alive to the responsibility to reflect diversity. Personally, I think that this is commendable.

Like someone already pointed out, the decision to tune in is still yours. If your religion or sensibilities don't accept the content, then move on to the next one. There are people who do not eat pork; you don't see them attacking retailers for selling it.

its funny how we always think people have a choice in today's world. our tastes, preferences, likes, opinions and desires are always shaped by the media consciously or unconsciously. people have an illusion of choice.
the gay population is just 2% of the total population. yet that 2% must now force its tastes on the 98%. its hillarious.
its the tyranny of the minority whose vote doesnt even count. yet the majority chose a gvt that now pushes the vision of the minority

BlackManta:
the law in America to be specific.

understand my words,

I said the law does not state otherwise.

Which means...the law did not go to the constitution...page whaterver....section whatever and state that homosexuality ain't for minors.

There is nothing to refer if you understood my words properly.

you mentioned the law. support yourself with proof

IamAirforce1:
You're known to be a trouble maker .. lol
I don't have your strength..

its all good. we brothers

IamAirforce1:
Sometimes I reply for replying sake

Not like it's from my heart.

I'm a simple guy so misunderstood.

its from where? your ass?

BlackManta:
The law in the western world did not state otherwise.

Na their society.
Their values...Their laws..Their culture.

No be my business and neither is it yours.

If you dont like the western media.
You cant stick with our local media.

Na your choice.

which law is that? can you refer me to it?

IamAirforce1:
I don't problem with what you think bout me ...

the past 10 messages you have sent my way say otherwise

IamAirforce1:
Lol

I'm done with you

mah niggxr. its all good though. we all have our price

QueenSekxy:
modern day Abraham,airforce wants you to clean your tears,take a deep breath and walk out of his thread.

a plate of food can make him like me. he is that cheap. lol.

IamAirforce1:
Miseducations is a lonely soul

I pray he find a soulmate maybe on Nairaland soon .. since all the girls in his area don reject am finish ...

im not as cheap as you are. it will take more than a plate of food to win my heart boy

the bitch will have to be a Virgin, under 21, very tall and very dumb. thats a very big price to pay to rock with Ubunja

QueenSekxy:
don't mind that hateful soul.

hateful soul? do you even know what a hateful soul is? here. let me show you. meet Deji63, a man who hates Ubunja forever and ever:

Deji63:
Ubunja you are here under PUSSYHOE. Your mamas a hoe, your baby mamas are old hag dirty hoes and your daughters are slacked pussy hoes getting fvcked seriously by your baby mamas drillers. So shut the hell up.

You're a broken deflated vernom filled serpent. Sex starved and hate women so much that you sound frustrated all the time. That's you sucking on your underage daughter slacked pvssy in your profile?

You need mental evaluation AND should be sent to a mental institution ASAP. You are not a normal person . You are sick in the head as well as the mind. Emotionally draned, a sore and dying individual hated by all. We gonna bring your tired head down. So you leave our women the hell alone and go to hell lonely and sad.

BlackManta:
If Disney wants to porn movies, they have every right to do it as they wont be breaking any law.

However porn is always rated 18 and it is not made for minors.

You also have your freedom of choice intact.

You can choose to watch it or not.

It's as simple as that.

so homosexuality is for minors?

Earthquake1:
5/10 is average

so? you think she is Miss World? try again. girls where i stay i like this

not bad. 5/10.

QueenSekxy:
what's paining you?
is it your heart?
is it your soul?

inukwanu akuko.

this modern day Esau pains me. ready to give the heart away for a simple plate of food. WTF!!!
if a girl gifts you a car you will faint then.

IamAirforce1:
Shut up

you have the Cheapest Heart on Nairaland. come and i buy you a 3 course meal and you give me your wife.

QueenSekxy:
this one is taking Air force case to heart.


get a grip of yourself ubuntu.
goodnight.

well its a matter of the heart for Airforce himself isnt it? so om keeping with the theme.



just for a plate of food. a niggxr gives his heart away . what will you give when a woman take your for Breakfast at Tiffany's? your soul?

IamAirforce1:
Lol

Ubunja , eye dey pain you o

airforce im not pained but im surprised that for that simple meal you gona let a woman win your heart. im sure your mother or sisters have made far more delicious meals.
am i right?

QueenSekxy:
You should be the one to piss off with your stupid comment.

does that even look like a rice to you?
mumu.

whatever it is only a starving man will fall in love because of a plate of food.
remember Esau sold his birthright for a plate of food. seems fools will do anything for a plate of food.