₦airaland Forum

LivingFree:
I'm waiting on the other side

Okay, hun.......

LivingFree:
Missing you

Awwww....I miss you too, babe

What have you been up to? Catch up in a bit?

LivingFree:
Miss write

*singing* 'Hello from the otherside'

......heeeey, gorgeous.......how're you doing?

epelumi42:
When I said women should be free... Free from the box that men have placed them in. The patriarchal nature of the society. That's what they need to be free from. Freedom in many sense isn't an illusion unless you wanna get all philosophical. People decide their notion of freedom.

The question is, how do you define the dignity of womanhood without falling back to what the society has defined or what you have formed in your head. Why can't we all decide our notion of morality especially women?

Very well said.

You're another rare gem. There's not enough of you guys in this country. Please, have many sons.

.....

Are you Onila? Your thread just reminded me.......I miss her.

Lol. We should really create a club for people like us so that you realize that you're sooo not alone.

You need to keep a few things in mind CONSTANTLY.

1. It's okay to mess up. Don't take yourself too seriously. If you fall, you get back up and move on. It's nobody's business.

2. People really don't think about you as often as you think. Even when they're staring directly at you, their mind could be on a million other things.

3. Everyone thinks other people are thinking/talking about them (or maybe most people). So if you're nervous about people judging you walk to the offering box, the next person probably is too.

The next thing you need to do is FACE YOUR FEARS. It's the only way to get over them. I used to always pick a table by the corner when I went into a restaurant (or a public space). Not because I liked to sit by the window (although that was cool) but because I felt I would be on display in the middle; and I didn't like the attention. So I favored the periphery. This was ages ago, though. So once I noticed this about me, I consciously went for the center. You'll have butterflies in your belly at first but, after a few times, there's nothing. Get out of your comfort zone; and remember: it's okay to mess up.

Trust me; you'll be fine.

Human beings are desperately selfish. They cannot stay true to anything but themselves. If they are hateful, they corrupt any ideology or supposed God with their own hatred, ignorance and self-serving interests. And they try to give their perversions credibility and durability by staying anonymous while projecting the face of something larger - an idea (or God). Something that people might be too afraid to question; so they're compelled to subject themselves to a crazy person's perversions instead.

Feminism isn't that powerful; people don't mind trashing it when this woman hides behind it with her bleeped-up opinion. But still, she's giving the concept a very bad look. It's the same way people have made God look bad for so long. He's been a refuge for humanity's worst side; like Marjory - that talking mountain of Garbage that the fraggles turn to for wisdom in Fraggle Rock. A monster brought to life by piling up the little things we won't be associated with personally.

People shouldn't have the luxury of masks to spread their trash. They should own it themselves, and face the shame that follows stupid utterances alone.

Mariinee:
I concur but, what about my sister biko?
Is Polygamy allowed?

Lol....

Kai! Lola......No; polygamy is not allowed .....no distractions; allow him to concentrate, biko!

You're too late, by the way. I already climbed a Nepa pole in my Sunday dress, so that he can locate me one hand. OVER HERE!



How've you been, dearie?

WORDWORLD:
Miss.write good morning. I can see you viewing my thread. Did you yawn this morning?

Lol.....No. .....I don't yawn when I wake up. I stretch. But that doesn't destroy your theory; maybe I'm not made for morning wood

Good morning, WW.

Tollzara:
This is golden because it is true. The simple experiment I carried out on that thread already established that fact. You're very right, and that's quite disturbing. Nevertheless, I won't stop fighting it. Patriachial stupidity was not only dangerous for the female folk afferall. It was a brand of stupidity that was always pregnant with fatality at every point in time. Men who think like this need to be aggressively opposed. Not only that, they need the perfect lobotomy. I can bleed as much as women do. I can shed as much tears, and feel just as much. Those who live in denial are only killing themselves, and also help in propagating the myth that scars more fools and punctures more psyches. Even that is a recipe for even more disaster.

Lol, you're right about that. Patriarchal culture holds men to unrealistic standards of strength. Men aren't supposed to be Hercules; they are human. And they should be allowed their humanity and not be made to feel ashamed for it. I'm glad that some men are beginning to speak up, though (like in that thread that addressed sexual abuse by women).


You're fighting the good fight. I am with you on this.

Nice article.

Of course, we should be outraged when men are raped by women. The dirty thing about rape is not necessarily the physical assault, but the fact that one is dehumanized by stripping them of the right to their own bodies. Even if it takes only a few minutes, it can wreck a person’s self-esteem beyond repair. And both men and women are capable of feeling this abuse equally. So, when men are raped by women, it should never be seen as a less serious crime.

Unfortunately (for men; or for humanity), women have a head start in being taken seriously for a series unfortunate reasons. A victim is identified by damages; and long before we took even the woman’s emotional and psychological damages into account, the damage as a result of rape was “the ruin” of a woman. That’s a damage defined by patriarchal values (stipulating that a woman should be pure). A man would never be ruined. He is instead, the ‘ruiner’. And that is his position of strength: that he can engage in the same act (with a woman) and not be stained by it. Would the woman ever be the offender?

Since offense is to be taken, I doubt it.

Men don’t want to be seen as victims. That’s why they would not recognize the scenario you painted on that thread. To accept that a woman has the power to shatter a man’s integrity in any way (to take something that isn’t given, and thereby reduce his self-worth) would be daunting; some men would rather live the lie and pretend that it does not matter. And if they believe that it doesn’t matter (since, in a patriarchal culture, a man’s opinion is all that ultimately counts) it really won’t matter. Women can’t pretend that they have not been shattered by rape; the repercussions for the ‘ruined woman’ were not decided by women. Because of this, women are way more likely than men are to embrace their other traumas (psychological and emotional; which are regardless real) in order to own the indignation (rather than let it be derived). Men might refuse to focus on the fact that they have been violated; and therefore, they would suffer no indignation. This does not apply to children. They have a less robust psyche that denial won’t cure. Because even though they are boys, they accept their vulnerability to adults in general.

For some men, giving into the fact that they can be raped by women would be synonymous to relinquishing power – the claim to indestructibility. So while they may joke about it when women try to get steeper punishment for rapists, they don’t want to be lumped in a category of equal vulnerability. I foresee the House of Men to be divided on this issue for a while longer.

Where proof is concerned, the physical evidence will always be less than solid. For both sexes really. Because we assume that a woman is never aroused when raped and always aroused when she says “yes”. And that is not always the case. Evidence of violence on other parts of the body is usually a dead giveaway; so are traces of rohypnol or even certain levels of alcohol. With such fragile markers, rape is best reported as soon as possible. And, yes; men who become fathers through rape should not be forced to pay child support. They should be given the opportunity to decide whether or not to keep the pregnancy. And if they decide not to, they should relinquish all paternal rights. If they do accept the pregnancy, the act should not mitigate the punishment of the rapist.

HannahHitler:
i have never seen such wisdom on any Nigerian before online.

This response is everything and then some. From a happy gay person, i say thank YOU.

......I'm glad you liked it, Hannah

You're awesome, by the way. Your diary would save someone's life.

FrostyButter:
I can't stop laughing over here... Just listen to your self, cause there a choice to do something makes any choice made justified? Cause that's your irrational conclusion here from all your long talks. So cause people have a choice to be pedophiles, the availability of that choice presented makes any alternative choice eventually arrived at rational? Cause there is a choice to kill someone makes it right? Cause there is a choice to do anything and free will to choose makes it right? Cause that's how you logic works.

You have successfully confused nature with nurture my lady. You need to know the difference, cause the example you cited is an individual who has nurtured his or her mind to a very profane twisted idea. The mind is born like a clean slate, and it's not any one's nature to be gay.

Please please and please. The question here is, is this natural? And the answer is No. If you want to take me on any argument as to the morality, science or anything pertaining to homosexuality, I'm ready to take you on anyday. But sticking to the subject at hand... You have no case. Just rest.

......It's good that you can laugh. At least you got some value out of it, even if the point eluded you. But, I know it was clear enough, and anyone who's got the aptitude will get it. The rest can hopefully laugh like you, in blissful ignorance.

FrostyButter:
There he goes again, making sense out of nonsense... Anything any man does is out of his choosing, it's choice. Stop all these lame attempts to stay woke, and sound radical...

If natural means genetically or biologically determined, then homosexuality is not natural. Decades of scientific research have failed to find a “gay gene” or a sole biological cause for same-sex attraction. The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and even gay researchers recognize that homosexuality cannot be reduced to biology alone. Instead, they acknowledge that social factors seem to play a key role in the development of homosexuality. No evidence suggests that it’s natural for some people to be born gay.

And please please and please stop meddling "Nigerians" in your fact less arguments. I find that very offensive.

Yes. It is choice. Anything a man DOES is his choosing. But choice is selecting between (at least two) options. So, what influences choice? How ever subtle the biases seem, choice is influenced by bias. Even if it appears random, like flipping a coin. The bias is in the flick of the thumb or the direction of the wind.

First, I'll point out that we choose actions. So you can say that having homosexual sex is a choice. And in the same way, having heterosexual sex is a choice too. Because, as you rightly said: anything a man does is his choosing.

The fact that you can accept that homosexual sex is a choice proves that there are options to select from. And why would anyone choose to do anything? First, for survival; second, because they want to (it makes them happy); third; because it is the right thing to do.

When a heterosexual person chooses to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, the choice is easy and may seem like a foregone conclusion. Because his internal desires (wants) are in sync with what is externally permitted (the right thing to do). Your want/desire is definitely of your specific nature (because not all humans are the same) while the right thing to do, is a set of practices people have decided to accept. It is not natural, it is rather how humans are desired to be NURTURED.

When a homosexual person chooses to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, the choice is harder because there is conflict. His internal desires (nature) are not in harmony with what is externally permitted. And if he chooses to go ahead with the act because it is the right thing to do, he would have compromised the second reason for doing things (happiness). And if happiness (or even the promise there of) is essential to survival, then he would lose the will to live if there is no hope of ever finding it. When a person gets to that point, they do not care about doing what is right because it threatens their existence. With their backs against the wall, it becomes more rewarding to challenge the laws.

So, yes; homosexual sex is a choice. Between nature and nurture. As is everything else.



PS: have these scientists found a straight gene? Can they actually call it a straight gene if it also exists in gay people? The bottom line is, they have been unable to explain sexual orientation, whether gay or straight.

marvinsync:
listen some people are just natural rapist


it's in their blood

Homosexuality and rape are fundamentally different.

The body.....
sexual desire is a craving of a person's body. Even sexual desire for someone of the same sex (is a craving of a person's body). Rape, is only so called because a person has failed to seek consent (we'll come back to this); otherwise it would simply be sex (heterosex or homosex) and that would be a craving of a person's biology (body)

The cravings of the body cannot be helped. You either like something or you don't. Like some people have a taste for snails; while some cannot stand them. But the decision to indulge can be helped. You can choose to indulge your urges and be happy; or you can stifle yourself (for whatever reason) and be miserable. You can try to develop a taste for something different (and let it become an acquired taste) but don't be too hard on yourself if it doesn't come to you.

The mind.....
When you are taught that something is wrong, the information does not form part of your biology. The body only learns and stores memories from feeling not thought. If something feels good it remembers; and it leans towards it. When you are taught that something is wrong, the information becomes a part of your psychology. It's a product of a person's socialization - knowledge. For a person who is addicted specifically to rape (taking sex without consent) , the issue is psychological; not biological. Because it is precisely the rebellion against boundaries that is the arousing factor. Many people like to flirt with boundaries for the thrill (of getting caught), but where a person can longer rely on his mental faculties to rule himself, you'd be dealing with a psychopath. And that's what people addicted to rape are. Please don't misunderstand me; not everyone who rapes is a psychopath. Only those who need the sex to be non-consensual to achieve an orgasm. Some people rape because their bodies are turned on, and they don't have the will power to resist. In that case, their urges are perfectly natural; but the fact that they satisfied the urge at the expense of another person, will have its consequences.

And now we get into jurisprudence. The law aims to liberate and not enslave people. The law will not deny a person the opportunity to satisfy his urges, as long as the act is not in detriment to another person. If you are hot for someone, and the person wants to shag you; you are by all means allowed. But where they object, you are required to respect their right to be left alone. Rape and paedophilia (which may both either be homosexual or heterosexual) fall into this category (because children are protected under the age of consent). As for bestiality, as soon as a monkey (they'd be the first ones) can convince a court of law how badly it wanted to be bleeped by a human, we'll come round to it. Until then, we assume the poor monkey was raped.

Lol!

Originalsly:
As early as one becomes sexually aroused...as in when one begins to masturbate...there is no specific age. If a guy is naturally gay... instead of jerking off ..he would be sticking his fingers up his a$$.

The most important organ for sex is the brain. A lot goes on in there during sex to sustain the activity. When a heterosexual man rubs the palm of his hand against his dick, he is probably not imagining a man giving him a hand-job. He thinks about things he would find arousing; like the walls of a vagina. Maybe it gets more specific; he thinks about Aunty Dupe. If a homosexual man rubs the palm of his hand against his dick, he'll think about a boy. But how would you know who a person fvcks in their mind while they masturbate?

After all is said and done, it is the stimulation of our own nerve endings, that bring us to orgasm. A man can stick his dick in a watermelon and still cum.

And, yeah: not all gay couples do anal. Some people just are not into it. Some heterosexual couples avoid the practice as well. The connection between sexual partners is more intricate than finding ways to plug a hole. It could be emotional, visual, tactile - these senses send messages to the brain; and even if you only end up jerking off while clinging to that mental activity, it will get you there.

And those guys who are in touch with their anal nerves actually stick toys up their butt holes while jerking off to intensify their orgasms. Maybe they are natural born bottoms.

Originalsly:
I read the above....but this is the problem..... this is about if being gay is natural....not whether it is right or wrong.... or if we should accept/condemn homosexuality...or whether we should make gays straight by force. On being left handed...that's natural...and that manifests itself from birth. That's my point about homosexuality...if it were natural it would manifest itself from the early years.

What do you mean by the bolded?


How early should it manifest itself for it to be considered natural?

BurningBlade:
your post is non sequitor. How can there be gay virgins, gay celibates and gay priests when they've not experienced gay sex? Is like saying a priest is hetero sexual even though he's never had hetero sex.

You don't need to have sex in order to know if you're heterosexual or homosexual. The urges you have will tell you. A virgin would still know what his/her body wants by paying attention to what arouses them. Which is why sexuality is not an act, but an identity.

Sex is an act. And it can be homosexual, heterosexual, or autosexual.

The fact that a person chooses not to indulge their homosexual urges, does not make them heterosexual or ambiguous. They would just be homosexuals who never do anything (probably to stay on the right side of the law?) The law can only come for you over what you did; not what you are. Because a crime must be an act.

Haywhaie:
It's much to my delight.

And How've you been?

PS: It's Tozara.

........hey! Thought it might be.....but couldn't be sure.

I've been good, sweetie....

Haywhaie:
Brilliant.....just like me.

It is impossible for a sensible person not to fall in love with your brain. Absolutely impossible.

Awwww........thanks for saying that.

IamPlato:
...


Evil Was Never Created, Its An Abstract Essence...


It Exists And Doesnt Exist... We Chose To Do Evil Or Not; it Then Resides In The Mind Of Its Doer.

What he is asking is this: does the concept of good and evil exist in the mind of God?

Everything is inherently selfish. Human beings too. As such, our first moral compass (as babies) is geared towards self-preservation. If it hurts us, it is bad (like snakes, earthquakes, burglars, poison for humans) ; and if it makes us happy, then it is good (like rainbows, food, orgasms). What we consider good or bad, ultimately defines our nature.

But as we get socialized, we are taught external standards of morality. Religion, or secular law.

The state decides good and bad not by focusing on the preservation of the individual alone, but by focusing on the preservation of the collective society. We are allowed to do anything to protect our lives (self defense) but where our lives aren't threatened we must be mindful to let others exist and thrive.

Religion decides good and bad not by focusing on the preservation of the individual, but by focusing on the moral code of the presiding deity. Hence, fornication may make us happy (especially after taking all necessary precautions) and should not violate our body's concept of good and bad; it does not violate another human being's right to exist and thrive (where there are both consenting adults), therefore, it's not against secular law; but it violates the moral code of some religions, therefore, it is considered a sin (ergo evil)

So, God does have a concept of good and bad. And it is highly judgmental. Because, unlike the state, which seeks to preserve another person's right to exist when outlawing specific actions; religion supposedly forbids sin that goes against the nature and purpose of God. Like homosexuality, for example. If it exists, and it is not of God; who is it of?

If evil is of the devil and good is of God, then what is beyond good and evil?

Personally, I do not believe in the distinction of good and evil as absolutes. Which means that there is no God of good and no devil of evil. There is just life in infinite effect. Good and evil are relative concepts that would depend on the point of view in question. And external moral standards are always artificial constructs that interfere with nature in a bid to create order. They often put a human being at odds with himself; but, it's all for the 'greater good', right?

If it is one of the things on your to-do list, and you're able to tick it off......yes; it is a personal achievement. If it isn't on your to-do list, you aren't in any way an underachiever for not being married. We set our goals individually, and go about achieving them.

You have to ask: what makes a person a good driver? Is it safe driving, or fast driving, or being able to manage a half-dead car? Whatever. I'm thinking: safe driving. Less likely to be hazardous in traffic. And to that, the answer will be women; hands down. People make these estimations by assessing road incidences and accidents.

Women drive defensively. I have noticed that...

1. A man is more likely to cut into the road without looking or even indicating, thinking that drivers are mind readers. Women drivers might be. For instance, a woman driver would be more likely to expect such a reckless move than a man driver.

2. A man driver is more likely to be selfish on the road. When he wants to overtake, he thinks only of the clear road ahead of him. A woman driver will check to see what obstacle might be in front of the driver to her right (a ditch, a car which suddenly applied its brakes, etc) in order to anticipate that driver's next move. Because she won't want to start overtaking when the driver is likely to cut in front of her. So she slows down.

3. A man driver is more likely to increase his speed when he sees you indicating to pull into the road; in their mind, that equals sharpness (which is why men drivers behave as described in 1 above) a woman driver is more likely to slow down to let you in.

4. A man driver is more likely to drag at a checkpoint (even if he is intending to park right after). Women drivers are more likely to avoid the bottle-neck effect.

Bonus point: women drivers are more likely to take healthy cars into the road. Their brakes are more likely to work and they are less likely to emit dangerous fumes.


The problem with two defensive drivers is that when both of you neglect right of way to avoid stories that touch, there is a lot of time wasted. For instance, a woman driver, who has right of way in a roundabout, assumes the other driver is ignorant (as so many drivers are) about the rules. She waits. The other driver waits too (men would just drive through if they sense that the other driver does not know her right). This causes momentary confusion, and you'll have to figure out a signal for who's going to start moving.