₦airaland Forum

True.......if most of the men in the larger world are anything like the majority of NL boys, then there isn't much hope for compatibility.

Dummkopf! Ali Ndume's ilk. Women should marry to reduce prostitution; does he think fucking for their livelihood is all women are good for? That's exactly the kind of mindset that perpetuates prostitution (and a wedding band does nothing to dignify the act of bartering sex for money). If he's worried about prostitution, let him develop schemes that would help more women achieve financial independence: scholarships, business loans, skills training etc. That is, if he's really referring to prostitution and not promiscuity. These chauvinistic fools cannot tell the difference.

I'm not against waiting for love, even if she'll be forty-four by the time he gets out. Maybe sooner (with good behavior), but there's also the possibility that he could get his sentence extended, if he's the type to get himself in trouble. If she loves him and she wants to wait........ Na she sabi.

But the fact that he has asked her to wait for him is worrisome. It just seems extremely selfish, and inconsiderate. It doesn't seem like he loves this woman; if he did, he would not want to hold her back and complicate her life with the repercussions of his bad decisions. That might not be someone worth waiting for. He's desperate to stay connected to the outside world so that he won't be starting from scratch after fifteen years.

Leave him.

Cherrycandy:
Go and take several seats
It's too early to say rubbish

You think men don't have attitude problems as well?

You are confused

Lol. A man's attitude is never the issue in these discussions.

Most of these women who are criticized for having "attitude problems" are the ones who can't take the BS some of these men give. Having a strong sense of self is an attitude problem most African men can't deal with in a woman. They're used to jumping in before the casting is set in a mold; so that they can take advantage of her insecurities and dependency to influence her development.

naijapips04:
For Nigerian girls No doesn't always mean No. Infact majority of Nigerian girls do not give e outright consent most especially for the first sex .

They feel that resisting increases their worth in the eye of the guy. You don't bring foreign maturity into a Nigerian discussion. Girls have taken me to be weak in the past because I consented to the 'No' bullshitt.

Most Nigerian girls are not as matured and enlightened as you are unfortunately. Trust me, no sensible guy wants to force any girl.

What's all this If you had something to contribute to the topic, you could have done it without quoting me to tell me that you couldn't make sense of my comment. Considering what you just typed, it's obvious that my attention isn't needed here. So, the mention was unnecessary.

Tozara:
I think you don't get it.

Does a lady have the right to tell you "STOP" during sex? I think she does. Would it affect you in some way? Pretty much. And stopping immediately might also be difficult, since you're human after all, and not a robot. Can we say she's being unfair to you? Well, it depends on her REASON.

If the reason is important and has got to do with either her physical or mental well-being, you would try to understand, even though it spoiled the mood for you. You shouldn't care about your pleasure alone. Her well-being is more important.

If she did it just because she can, or for some petty reason without caring about your feelings, then yes, she's unfair, and based on whatever relationship that you two might have, and your expectations towards one another, you would be justified to be angry and find her disgusting. Detesting her for this isn't bad. But remember that even though she's being a bastard, a selfish piece of shiit, it's still her right, since it's her body. So, do you think you actually have the right to continue against her wish because you don't want her to treat you like some shitty toy that she can play around with the way she wants? I don't think so. She's an ashole, yeah, and the best you can do is delete her from your life.

If you lent a friend your car to go somewhere, and while he was on his way, enjoying the vehicle, you called and told him to give back your car immediately for no cogent reason than to exercise your power, does he have the right to say "NO"? Of course not. But he would have the right to call you a disgusting person and delete you from his life.

Hats off to you.

naijapips04:
Unfortunately writing good English doesn't translate to been sensible. I've seen your type a lot.

How does this concern me What do you want?

greiboy:
If this your proposed legislation becomes law, it will take 65 years under Nigeria judicial system for any type of justice to occur

First of all, it has too many loopholes that can be abused by both the plaintiff (most likely the lady) and defendant (most likely a man) lawyers i.e. how will the evidence be gathered in such a case, since they both agreed to have sex in the first? Will the word of the plaintiff be enough evidence to prosecute the defendant ? if that is the case, how will a blackmail be separated from a case of real rape?

Secondly, it gives a lot of power to the plaintiff to determine the moment the rape occurred, thereby making it hard for the defendant to make a case, in the event of any rape allegations.

Thirdly, you said somewhere in your post that the defendant can seek redress in the court room. How will that happen without making the case look like a waste of precious effort and resources in the first place. if all that is needed is a simple denial of the rape allegations by the defendant, which is expected,(Your word against mine scenario) why waste precious effort to begin with.

I mean except there is a solid evidence in such case like a video recording as proof, or a third person, which will make the whole thing appear like planned work. it is almost like defeat before trail for the plaintiff.


if I was the lawyer of the defendant, I will play around with this case, until the judge get tired and throws it out

Lol! 65yrs........true, there are inefficiencies and there's potential for abuse. And delay tactics are in every lawyer's arsenal.

greiboy:
I want to be like you

intelligent, a good writer and everything

Lol, thank you but.........see how well you did all on your own. Let me go and read it now...

Tozara:
@ Miss.Write & Fax.ole.

Excellent discussion. You guys both made some valid points. And I must confess, I learned a lot from the both of you.

I think I've been able to pick significant points from each one of your inputs, and I'd like to tell you what I think.

OK.

If Miss.Write's position is the THESIS, and Fax.ole's is the ANTITHESIS, you might as well think of what I'm about to say as the SYNTHESIS.

Miss.Write contends that there should indeed be a legislation against failure to stop after suspension or withdrawal of consent, and believes it should be termed rape. But we all know the bargain that carries----rape is not a joke. It's a serious crime that carries sever punishment, so......

Fax.ole considers it callous to categorize such under RAPE, given the grave consequences it carries for the accused. Hmmm.

I think you guys are both RIGHT [color=darkgreen]AND[/color] WRONG.

I would suggest that we look at it from this angle:

Rape should be classified into different TYPES/LEVELS.

There should be MAJOR rape, and there should be MINOR rape----and there can be other levels inbetween. Some types of rape are more serious than others, and the milder ones shouldn't be treated on par with the really severe ones. Like Fax.ole had pointed out, a rape that happened without any consent at all is not the same as one that happened after the lady had given full consent and in the process of withdrawing it. Both are not equivalent.

So the severe punishment prescribed for rape should not be the same as the punishment for its milder varieties----so that justice can be more JUST and appropriate. The punishment shouldn't be disproportionate to the crime committed. It should be much less severe than the normal penalty for rape.

This way, the lady's right is protected (catering for Miss.Write's concerns), and the man is not punished unjustly (that solves the issue for Fax.ole?).

Tozara, I agree with you absolutely. Dare I say a Daniel has come to judgement?

I'm not disputing the fact that there could be "degrees of rape" that would deserve varying degrees of punishment. But I don't accept that a person should lose their right to protect themselves just because they gave initial consent.

greiboy:
My God !

You can write for ages

Please teach me how to write

Yes, it's therapeutic for me. I don't really expect people to read it though. I don't like reading long epistles myself.....normally, when I see long things like this, I jump and pass . Unless it's a story or my peeps or a reply to my long thing, then I know I started it.

Don't be like me, SSG. , Save yourself.

Faxole:
I'm usually pragmatic when discussing issues like this. I don't just argue for theoretical purposes. I'm usually more concerned about the practical implications of an argument. I find how you are justifying being insensitive quite shocking and morally reprehensible as well. Someone once said that extreme left wing ideology has the potential to undermine society. I've always found that to be quite a profound statement and when I think about issues like this, the validity of the statement continues to shine forth. Ideas like the one you are holding have the potential to turn humans into apathetic robots who don't care about the effects of their actions on others, on the basis that they have rights and freedoms. One of the things that has helped sustain society, is the acknowledgement that an individual's actions have consequences and these consequences can affect others, so when we make a decision to act, we should do it with the awareness of the negative effects it can have on others, even if it temporarily infringes on our so called rights. You don't just sentence a man to jail for years and destroy his reputation and life just because he couldn't pull out after consentingly opening up your legs for him to fuçk.

It's not just insensitive to take the keys from the friend halfway through his journey, it's also selfish, callous and cruel. And the selfishness, cruelty and callousness of that action doesn't seem to faze you. All you care about is imposing your perceived rights. This is the kind of mindset that led to the death of millions of people in the Soviet union and this is the kind of mindset that's going to lead to the collapse of society as we know it. What you feminists actually care about is power and exercising that power over men. You don't care about the consequences of your actions and the implications of your arguments. You don't care whether they are selfish, insensitive, cruel or callous. You just want to exercise power.

I saw: I am done with this argument as the last line when I read this comment earlier. I don't see it anymore. I don't know if this means you've had a change of heart or............. if you're just limiting your word count . But this is my last rant on the issue, I promise. Please just indulge me.

I’m not justifying insensitivity; I’m distinguishing between what constitutes “unlawful behaviour” and what constitutes “insensitive/ irresponsible/ bad behaviour”. It’s not a debate about morality but legality. We are talking about legislations here after all. People aren’t convicted for insensitivities alone; an act must be “against the law” to warrant prosecution.

Jurisprudence is concerned with morality; but morality is subjective. And ultimately, the law is concerned with protecting people and their fundamental rights.

If it were to be legislated that: a person, who has consented to sex, can no longer retract consent and must abandon him/her-self to the activity until both parties have achieved completion of purpose; then the law would be requiring that this person abandon him/her-self to several uncertain minutes in the imminent future, during which they cannot stop the activity (even) for their own protection. In effect, the law would be requiring this individual to relinquish control over their body and remain incapable of seeing to their own safety and well-being. That is a vacuum during which the law prevents the individual from being responsible for themselves. (Who is responsible for this person’s safety in those moments?) The law cannot do that – strip an individual of this right to withdraw from sexual activity (That’s rape. That’s duress).

On the other hand, if it were to be legislated that: a person, who has consented to sex, reserves the right to withdraw consent at any point in course of the activity; then the law acknowledges the individual’s right to be responsible for their own protection.

So, as far as morality goes, the law has its own to maintain. And it cannot “rape” a person. If a person’s rights are to be suspended, they must give written consent (a waiver, or contract) or they must have broken the law. Even if it takes into consideration all those concerns you have listed earlier, the law would reckon that when there are false accusations, entrapment or slander, a person could seek redress in a courtroom. But rendering a person vulnerable is faulty legislation which makes the law itself the perpetrator even before a partner could think of committing anything untoward.

EOOJ:
She has com again Where have u been na

Been about my business. How've you been?

Faxole:
The validity of "No" can be disputed if the circumstances suggest an arbitrary utterance. The validity of "No" can also be disputed if the consequences are harmful in some way to the other party. If we grant that "No" cannot be disputed, then we can as well apply that to every domain of life. We can say that people should be free to say no to the utilization of something that belongs to them, whenever they like, even after saying yes. So going by your argument I could lend my car to a guy to travel with and then half way through his 12 hour journey I could just say "No" and then tell him to fuçk off and find a bus or trek. You cannot dismiss the consequences of saying "No" after already saying Yes. The potential consequences on the other party matters. I think it's quite insensitive to say that the validity of "No" cannot be negotiated, especially after saying yes.

If there isn't a signed lease, you can take back your property from someone at any point you please. It might be insensitive of you, but it's your absolute right. The guy can grumble, but if you're there to relieve him of the keys, he cannot claim he's got a right to drive it to said destination. He cannot insist that, since you already said "yes" you cannot change your mind. Unless there's a contract. The best he can do is call you an unreliable friend and never borrow your car again.

Since we don't know what's happening in the mind of the participants and the potential consequences saying "No" or refusing to pull out may have on either of the partners, why then are we legislating this as a rape crime of which the only victim is the woman?

"No" can be used by anyone. It doesn't matter if it's a woman or a man.

As you've noticed during my argument, I've always been specific about what I'm against. I'm against a woman telling a guy to pull out after consentingly opening her legs for him to fuçk. I know there are cases where a woman can unwillingly open her legs, but I'm specifically referring to the cases of full consent.

Yes, this part is clear to me. I only tried to explain (earlier) that there are non-vindictive reasons for retracting consent. Therefore, a woman who urgently needs her car to drive her sick mother someplace, shouldn't be treated too harshly for retrieving the vehicle from a friend who was only looking to oppress some guys. Sometimes a girl has genuine issues, which is why her request to be left alone should be respected.

If you are familiar with most courtroom cases surrounding this kind of issue, women usually win. And that's why I find the legislation to be dangerous, insensitive and one sided.

. Men are coming from a place where women couldn't even bring these kinds of suits, so I understand how it can feel like you're "losing ground". It's all relative.

kazyhm:
you have tried so well to make sense but is tiring to make sense out of your logic..............you can rest now

Then take a nap. No one is forcing you to do this.

locust:
Misswrite apologies for my outburst, I wasn't a gentleman oya coman do small shakara..

Werey!

No hard feelings, dear.

Faxole:
A guy who is told by a woman to pull out after being shown the green light has the same ability to pull out as does the guy who is raping a sleeping victim who immediately wakes. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the circumstances matter and the results and after effects of both situations differ, and we really need to take them into consideration.

I have issues with legislatively categorizing a situation where a guy refuses to pull out when a woman who has expressed consent, and even allowed him fuçk her for a period of time, asks him to, as rape and attaching punitive measures to it. I know rape is defined as a forceful appropriation of the body of another person to satisfy a sexual need and one could argue, although not conclusively, that refusing not to pull out is tantamount to rape. But rape is also considered rape because of the victim status of the person who's body is being appropriated. I'm finding it hard to see how a woman who already gives a guy green light, kisses him, engages in pre-intimacy with him and opens her legs wide for him to penetrate, and then at an arbitrary point during the penetration insists that the guy pulls out, is the victim, even if he doesn't pull out. In this situation, how is the woman more of a victim than the guy? Who is experiencing more suffering in this situation? Isn't the guy also a victim since his pleasure and happiness has been forcefully cut off for arbitrary reasons after getting his hopes up? Isn't this an equivalent of deception and manipulation which is also a crime, hence making the guy the victim?

If you give "entrapment" the same attention as this, they'll cancel each other out. But you cannot negotiate the validity of "No". You can simply prepare a defense of entrapment. This would protect those who didn't set out to seduce a man to "play with him".

You are also implying in your argument that women have no obligation to be sensitive to the potential negative effects of their actions on a man. The argument is always framed in the opposite direction. Let's be honest. What valid reason could a woman have to insist that a guy pulls out, after kissing, touching, engaging in reciprocal pre-intimacy with him and being pummeled for over a minute? I honestly can't think of one, besides maybe experiencing pain from the intercourse, which in most situations isn't the case. Most women who insist that a man pull out during intercourse do it for arbitrary reasons that I regard as insensitive and of lesser magnitude than the negative effects it would have on the man.

I'm sorry if I implied that women don't have to be sensitive as well. We all have to be. That's why I used "woman/man" to make my point earlier. Sometimes a woman is only ready for some heavy petting. But in the books of a lot of guys, after the pre-intimacy comes the play. It's important that decisions can be made (and can be valid) at every point of the activity. A lot of things can happen in the minds of participants. You insert your penis and she suddenly has a flash of a memory that ruins the whole mood (a demon of the past). And if you continue, you're hurting her in more ways than you can imagine. Guy's aren't without their demons either.

Like I said in another response, there is also the potential problem of cases of malicious intent on the part of women that could spring up as a result of legislating this as rape and attaching punitive consequences. This kind of law gives women too much power and some can abuse this power. Any woman can invite a guy to her home, seduce him, kiss him, engage in pre-intimacy with him and open her pants for him to slot his dick into her, and whenever she likes, even if he is about to cum, she can tell him to pull out and when he doesn't, he is a rapist.

Yes, this is true. Fight it out in a courtroom. But that would be the case either way; the law will give the man or the woman the edge, and the other the motivation to sue.

ubunja:
ha ha ha.
you took it pretty well

.


But thanks, Bunji. I saw you having my back.

Splinz:
For a moment, my thoughts are with all the sexually unsatisfied women out there.

Men have been, in a sense, withdrawing consent for ages, and this is done as soon as they're satisfied. Though I wouldn't say we're selfish by doing so, it's simply a case of no more energy/strength left.

Think for a moment guys. You are penetrating and all of a sudden, you are pushed off without cuming and a command of some sort is issued, 'time off! Consent withdrawn'?

No be craze plus die be that for bloda ubu.nja

Hmm. Salute to all them girls deprived of sexual satisfaction. Mbok, be rest assured that we'll stop at nothing until 30s men are cured and empowered to mount non stop!

Erm... but for the meantime, there should be no 'time off! Consent withdrawn!'.

Truth.

Faxole:
Waking up from sleep to the feeling of another man's dick is tantamount to rape. It's not analogous to a situation where a woman already shows consent after having kissed and engaged in pre-intimacy with a man, but decides that half way through penetration, the man should pull out.

Yes, I agree with you: it's absolutely tantamount to rape. It's the only way to get a hypothetical dick into a straight guy's hypothetical ass. But this is the point: once the dick is in, is it possible to take it out in the midst of his enjoyment when he's asked to remove it? Or would one have to wait it out?

If two gay men begin having sex, after reciprocating an indication of attraction & after kissing and touching, and a minute into intercourse, the guy who is being penetrated tells the other guy to stop. I believe in this instance if the one who is penetrating refuses to stop on the basis of the difficulty of pulling out half way when the gratification he is deriving is so intense, he shouldn't be penalized as a rape offender.

I commend your perspective.

I think the burden of blame should be belong to the one(whether male or female) who obviously lacks the quality of decisiveness. If a woman has apprehensions with having sex with a guy, then let her indicate this before the guy puts his dick inside her. I'd even argue that she shouldn't even begin pre-intimacy since she knows where it can lead. Like someone said, a man isn't a toy that you just tell to start and stop whenever you like.

People like you who are making this argument tend to be unemphatic to the plight of a man who is being told to pull out his dick during sex. It's the equivalent of taking the orgasmic plug off a woman as she just begins experiencing orgasm. It's very hard to do this.

So back to that guy's dick in the straight guy's ass and the justifications you've made for a person who has been given an initial green light: in the moment they're both caught in the same (mechanical) situation. Now in the first instance, I would assume, the guy would be expected to be able to stop immediately his victim wakes up. In the second instance, somehow, he's unable to stop (because he had been given initial consent?). I think that the difficulty to stop would be experienced in both cases. So, I believe that this isn't a question of "can he?" But "should he stop?" in the minds of people who say it's impossible to withdraw consent in this context.


Yes, you're making a solid point when you say that both parties should be comfortable and certain before proceeding. But sometimes a man can read a girl's uncertainty as clear as day, but he's hoping she'll go through with it. He's setting himself up that way. But incidences like the one which inspired this conversation aren't very popular I hope (I don't know): where a girl is into it until she climaxes. That's a rubbish thing to do. Of course we have "users" out there who only need people for their own gratification; tough luck if you end up with one (like guys who don't finish the job on a girl), but it's still no reason to rape someone.

locust:
you could have that power over me in bed.. But I wouldn't touch the labia of your vagina with the helm of a pestle.
Have a nice day too.

Dude, it's okay; we have settled your matter.

Greene66:
Lol apologies.. Just wanted to put an end to your dual with the bro above and also create a diversion to myself.

Yeah.. It's Friday. I'm off work so I got time.

Lmao! Apologies accepted. But don't worry, I wasn't offended; it was an appropriate response and funny in the moment.,

Greene66:
Fvck you.

. I know.

locust:
It is not in my nature to banter words with a girl who thinks initiating subtle jabs wins her points. Keep up with your little jabs and feed on them.

Alright, so.....don't. Don't let me tempt you to go against your nature. I shouldn't have that kind of power over you. Just move on; be you... And have a nice day.

Mindfulness:
In other words, we consider them weak. We think their pe.nises are stronger than their brains. Who is the head of the home again?

. Good question. The penis.

locust:
How you type long sentences without making a valid point or reasonable contribution elude me.

It's not my fault you have trouble keeping up. The best you can do for yourself is stick to comments of your intellectual proficiency. But do you really have to be told?

locust:
How dare you bring in a case of homosexuality in a straight sex scenario and try to use it to gain points? u're unbelievable!

What do you mean by this? You make it sound like I shocked you with sudden homosexual content in the middle of your wanking session . Anyway, I didn't "bring homosexuality into a straight sex scenario" I'm not talking about a straight sex scenario, I'm talking about a man's ability to stop sex halfway through a bout. Whether his object is a man or a woman should be immaterial unless you're supposing that a man's ability to control himself would depend on what kind of sex he was having.


And please, this isn't a game. It's not about scoring points (with whom, sef?). These are real issues which need to be addressed.