₦airaland Forum

Xisnin:
1.) You can't employ a child, that is why they are not being paid and the person
they stay with qualifies as a guardian. There is no owner since nobody was bought and sold.
2.) Since most maids are extended family members who are given out by their parents who
are usually in contact, it is not trafficking.
Remuneration don't have to be money. There are many under-18 apprentices who has to serve
their boss for some number of years before being "settled". They are not slaves.
For many of this category of people, it is their one shot to success in life.
3.) You were once dependent on someone's benevolence, that didn't make you an ex-slave
It is isn't labour laws or social laws that make slavery irritating but the slavery itself, after all,
there was a time when slavery was backed by laws.
By your logic, if you have ever bought a goods or service from a person under the age of 18,
you can be said to benefit from slavery.

i like your response. this is why religion never opposed slavery as a vice but rather focused on fundamental rights and dignity of a human.

However, this togo/benin trafficking thing is a bit different. it is not a case of a parent handing over their child to you as a guardian. In this, you pay for the services of the child so this is labour. You pay these monies to someone else (typically not related to the child but brought the child from togo) hence the exploitation by that person. Finally this chuld or the parents do not have a right to withdraw from this contract. The supposed guardian (who is a trafficker) forces the child to serve you. If you reject the child, they simply go serve someone else.

in the maid/external family member scenario, you auto become the guardian of that child.

the under-18 apprentices are not slaves since they are directly going to earn a reward. usually there is an unwritten contract with a fixed term/tenor. They can even ask to be settled midway into the contract. It however could be child labour depending on age limits for child labour.

proudlyYoruba:
For the word 'bini'. I disagree

indeed if the word bini was borrowed from ijaw then it would retain its meaning for water

alas water is ame in benin and bini is just a corrupted version of either ubinu or ile-ibinu

which was the name the itsekiris or yorubas called it after the ogiso era. The previous name was igodomigodo after the first ogiso named igodo

Elose11:
My friend, you started well until you began delving into your so called Benin folklore you know next to nothing about. That so called folklore is as told by the Ijaw.
Benin never migrated from Ife. The Benin folklore says that their ancestors originated from the sky. Therefore, the Benin king then was known as Ogiso, meaning king of the sky.
Ife came in when the kingdom started having internal strives.Since they could not agree on a king among themselves, they then send to their prince who had earlier fled to Ife to escape been killed to come and rule over them.
It was this Benin prince who had become a ruler in ife and is now called oduduwa, that sent his son to rule Benin.
As you can see, my friend, there is no where in Benin folklore where it was said that the Benins migrated from Ife. It was only a Benin prince who had now become the ruler of ife, that sent his son, oranmiyan, to rule Benin in his stead. And only when the Benins requested him to come over and rule over them

indeed. even the yoruba version of the folklore says the binis were in benin already and chased their Ogiso prince and then requested a Yoruba Prince from Ife to rule them.

the binis say it was the prince ekalederan they chased out who became oduduwa (omo-oduwa they call him).

biacan:
Then what is your worth as a man if you hit a woman

what is her worth as a woman if she can assault a man?

she lost the right when she held his shirt and slapped him. The law will take her as first aggressor.

The man only needs to show that his response was not disproportionate.

there is a difference between a woman provoking a man and a woman physically assaulting a man.

Jubilancy:
I like to think of it as employment # tagging it as slavery is way over the top for me

It is slavery !

(1) you cant employ a child - child labor

(2) you don't pay the child the wages but instead pay someone else - human trafficking

all the child gets from you depends on your benevolence e.g. school, food, shelter etc.

employ an above 18 house maid and pay him/her for her services directly.

ivolt:
I am free to call him whatever a like, a fool, a brute, rapist
whatever.
If you need evidence for the case, you will have to head to court.

that is what will stop true victims from getting justice. When court of public opinion does the work of a jury. Court of public opinions are fleeting and can change with the tides.

Meanwhile following your logic, those who call the lady a hoe are free to do so. At the end, the majority voice wins. If most people think she is a hoe for this, she should live with the name or head to court and prove she is not a hoe.

ivolt:
Showing that a story was written about you does not make you win a case of libel.

Take this home with you: Truth(in this case personal and relative) is absolute defense against defamation allegations

for a defamatory claim, the burden of proof is on both parties. The plaintiff (guy) proves that she made the statement and that the statement is defamatory. The defendant (lady) then has to prove that the statement she made is true/factual.

only registered media houses, who are defendants in a defamatory claim, are exempt from the second burden. the burden is then passed to the plaintiff to prove that the defamatory statement is untrue.

tossie101:
Oga u too dumb!!.Or abi u blind too?
read my oost again

there was a typo in your post "should" instead of "shouldn't"

ivolt:
If you can reason properly, you will understand that stories
and possibilities don't win a case, evidence does.

"What if's" are meaningless in a real case.
Even if the guy decides to use that line, he would have
to prove his case and that is the beauty of the
justice system, no one will believe you because say so.

It is always about evidence.

what evidence do you have to call him a rapist

Nobodys:
oga. it's obvious u didn't read the story she posted. according to her, she started struggling and fighting him when he gave her a head. she said she cried and begged. so which story are you quoting??...
I know in this case everyone might be lying. the girl or the guy. buh let's not forget that one of them might be saying the truth
....from what I can depict the guy is trying to save his reputation..... the girl will probably lose in court even if she is saying the truth....and yes a girl can go to a Guy's hux and sleep there without actually wanting Sex. .
.I have seen cases where the girl' s hormones controlled her until the sense of force brought her to her real senses. I have also seen cases where a girl cooked up a story against a guy.....



lesson to all. CONSENT is very very important.wether you have given her head of even fingered her. as long as she didn't force you to do those things. you have no right to force her. no matter what. we are not animals so we shouldn't act like one......if you feel like a girl owes you sex then you. an go to a judge and tell him that and let's see what will be your judgment......

should consent be explictly obtained or implicit (lack of a "No" or a struggle).

ivolt:
No, this would have been avoided if the rapist conducted himself, banned her from visiting him
when she suggested she wants no sex or sent her away when she refused his advances.

did you notice you already addressed him as a rapist? That's the prejudice peeps are talking about. the problem with investigating rape and/or sexual harassment is the grey area surrounding the definition of consent.

Should consent be explicit or implicit (lack of a "No" or a struggle).
how should evidence be collected? there are no recordings of the encounter. it becomes your word against mine


apart from explicit consent being sought before, I cannot find any false-accusation proof approach to ensure victims get justice and innocents are not punished.

generaliy:
Placebo ko, placenta ni.

It's a principle beyond your understanding, I tithe, and it has given me results, if I don't experience it I would think like you.

However, I am not going to argue with you, it'll be futile, i'll only pray you experience the principle someday, cheers

The question is whether tithing as it is today is biblical obligatory. Not whether there are blessings attached to it.

Until Christians understand how futile, useless and possibly counterproductive these "results" are in comparison to the sanctification of our souls. We would stop using it to justify tithing.

safarigirl:
you must not be looking well, because here i am with nobody and nothing, but one aunty has twerked and smashed her way into someone's house.

I get the feeling I'm following the wrong advice. Chaste women are not winning in today's world

Our values determine what we seek. Chaste women cannot be desirable if there are few men who see value in chastity.

dalaman:
You believe masturbation is a sin, yet you are imprisoned by it. Useless compulsive mastubator.

and you think one has to believe something is right because one indulges in it?

or it is impossible to indulge in something one believes it is wrong?

Where has logic gone to??

Achorise:
someone o know used to condem gays, he was real, but the attack was too much, today he's gay.
A woman also insulated one gay boy, and the gay boy lured the woman's only son into the ungodly act, today the boy is gone and is totally into the act.
Lesson to learn,
"never say never"
Don't condem people easily,
Don't hate sinners,
Show love to sinners, with love you can change any sinner.
gay people need help, most of them feel entrap in the wrong body.
I stand for love not hate or prejudice.

the greatest love you can show a man is to lead him to the truth - . If you think homosexuality is wrong then you must tell those you claim to love and who partake in it that it is wrong. you must correct with love though

obowunmi:
If you lie to a woman to have sex with her, you are a RAPIST.

Seriously

Sagamite:
This is a prevalent issue taking place in the UK, where stupid c*nt SJWs and Liberals are bastardising the meaning of "harassment" to suit their nonsense anti-men (misandry) activities as usual.

These morons have turned putting a hand on a woman you know's knees as "sexual harassment", but of course if she puts a hand on your knee it is not. Moronic bastards!

Here is the hierarchy of how it should work in the law for your benefit:

1) Rape - The act of non-consensually putting your sex organ in (or on) the 3 sexual orifices (mouth, anus and pussssssy) of someone else.

2) Sexual Assault - The act of non-consensually touching the sex organs and primary attraction tools of someone else.

3) Sexual Harassment - The repeated act of unwanted sexual proposition after the intended target has clearly expresses their lack of interest/annoyance, worse still, if there is a threat of consequences if they don't acquiesce.

4) Inappropriate behaviour - The act of (i) non-consensually touching someone sexually (in parts that are not their sex organs or attraction tools) repeatly, (ii) exposing ones self to another person who you have no prior consensual intimacy with or (iii) talking sexually to a person who is not interested, and who you have no prior consensual intimacy with, in a PROFESSIONAL setting.

5) Unwanted advances - The act of (i) attempting to woo someone by approaching them verbally, (ii) attempting to woo someone by touching them non-aggressively in a non-sexual organ part of their anatomy ONCE or (iii) sexually propositioning someone until the point they express firm lack of interest/annoyance.

No 1 to 3 should be criminal offences.

For No 4, the naked bit (4ii) should be a light criminal offence while the other 2 should be a caution at best if needed.

No 5 is not a criminal offence and part of life everyone should get used to, otherwise they are free to commit suicide.

Both men and women should be guilty of all if they occur. Not only men as some c*nts would want it to be.

truer words than this haven't been written on this thread so far

Sagamite:
A woman should be free to wear whatever she wants and go out at whatever time she likes without being raped or sexually assaulted. Anyone that does those, should be beaten and jailed (also raped in prison by other men).

That said, any woman that dresses skimpily however she wants and then complains about men ogling her, approaching her and then calling them "pervs" etc. is a pure reetard!

Don't display what you don't want seen and admired.

indeed! Ebuka had a dick print on the BBNaija final episode and ladies sexualized and objectified him. Do we blame the ladies? No. if he wasnt ok with people talking about his dick, he wouldnt show a print/boner.

MhisTahrah:
Wife not sex object.Sex is not a right that comes with marriage.It is not a wife's duty.

...She can't open her legs simply because her husband wants it. She doesn't give up her right to say yes or no the day she gets married.

...Wives do not belong to their husbands.Sex should be based on consent.

...However wives should under no circumstances withold sex from their husbands except there is a genuine reason for this.And even when she does,you have no right to rape her.

there are no clearly defined lines on what's a genuine reason. Even if the reason is flimsy or the wife does it deliberately to punish the husband, he is better of going outside to satisfy his libido than raping his wife.

purem:
Omo see d guy face sef no b here o

During my skul days aswear no any senior or prevet has ever flog me except teachers

1 guy wan try am, bcoz I late kom skul dat day
I tell am say if im cane touch me I go kill am 4 closing tym

Nigga go report me 4 principal nio

if na my school, your own don finish.

boarding houses are quite a different experience

michaelwestern:
1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in anunknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

There are times when speaking in tongues is just personal prayers to God through the Holy Spirit.

Jude 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holyfaith, praying in the Holy Ghost.

the below is the context of 1st Corinthians 14. you must not read it in isolation:

For the one who speaks in a tongue [to an audience unfamiliar with his language], is not speaking to men [in any meaningful way], but to God [since only God would be able to know what was being said]; for no one [in this audience] would understand, but in his spirit he [the speaker] would be speaking mysteries [that which could not be understood due to the language barrier] to his alien audience.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/692-what-are-the-so-called-mystery-tongues-of-1-corinthians-14

it is still other (foreign) tongues and not some mystery language that does not exist on earth

tunjilana:
If a man takes off his trousers in public or wears a boxers with solid erection and walk around in public, is it harassment?

it is provocation but nobody has the right to sexually harass him because of his indecent exposure.

closerange:
Women wear skimpy dresses to appear sexy but cringe when they are addressed as such, as for me, any woman can wear whatever she pleases, the only reason why I frown against skimpy dresses, is because it makes it easier for sexual harrasment or rape to occur, its easier to uncloth a skimpily dressed person...

Secondly, no one is safe after "certain hours", its a pity, that is the way the world is, as a guy, you may be lynched, robbed, maimed or raped, for the girls, you may be robbed or raped... Saying one shouldn't be out at certain hours is simple preventive measure... Same reason we advice people to lock their homes... Its not a perfect world.

even if she walks around naked. or even shower with you. You have no right to touch her without her consent.

The grey area is what defines consent (explicit yes before touch or no objection to touch). Assaulting a lady for being sexually provocative is no grey area. it is an absolute NO.

Khayge:
The thread is a good one.
If you want to verify consent, ask your girlfriend when she's in her right senses of she'd like to have sex with you. She'd probably say NO. When she's Hot, ask her the same question.
We as guys of this generation should try as much as possible to put our urges under leash.
For those that have partners, try to understand your partners... Someone said sex is a 2 way thing.. True, most importantly, the lady's satisfaction should be your utmost desire. You can satisfy her even without sex.

The bottom line is, when she's warmed up, Hot and all in the mood, don't trust her judgement. That's where she needs you as the guy to make the right decision to protect her in spite of how high your adrenaline or testosterone is leading.

so i wait for her not to be in the mood before i ask her? the two bolded statements contradict each other.

Mynd44:
Can we say it is wrong to call all men potential rapists when we men question what women wear based on assault? We say a woman wears a skimpy top hence she asks for it or tempts the man.

We say why are women outside after a certain hour cos we know it is not safe.......isn't that implying that no woman is safe?

for someone who is trying to rationalize, your generalization (the bolded) is terrible.

not all men think is ok to sexually assault a women based on what she wears. Stop generalising.

you post was to discuss what constitues rape. i was waiting to see people citing relevant parts of the law.

I was also waiting to see how we discuss the grey area of consent.

pocohantas:
Well said. But we will make it a big deal. I think people are taking advantage of the poor investigative system in the country. From what I see in the media, accused rapists even have it easier, unlike petty thieves that are stripped on the spot and burnt.

Exactly !

Daeylar:
I support her

100000%

If she wants to marry 4 men then the religion should accept that, her reason is valid also, libido control isn't based on gender
Go Girl!!!


Tozara AlmiqhteeAllah come and see your follower, is what she wants acceptable to you?

she should marry 4 men if she wants to. The religion does not need to accept it. The religion does not need to change because of her needs.

PrinceMario:
That's the problem with the South Easterners. They don't care the source of your wealth. Just make the money through any means and they'll celebrate you, and throwing you chieftaincy title here and there.

Come to think of this; a well known notorious killer still bag a chieftaincy title in the land. Shame!!!

Let Evans gain freedom today and you'll see him been celebrated over there.


Modified:
I woke up to numerous mentions. Well, it's pathetic that some people hate to hear the truth.
I definitely won't reply a single mention.

south south not south east

Sapiosexuality:
Not again!

just realised I mentioned your name. lol

WORDWORLD:
NO WISE MAN WILL EVER WANT A "DUMB VIRGIN" AS A WIFE ONLY A FOOLISH MAN WILL.

how about if he is WISE enough to know that in his PECULIAR scenario, the optimal spouse should be both dumb (better put not as intelligent as him) and a virgin. isnt that wisdom?

Try to disabuse your mind from a one-size-fits-all !

not all intelligent men are sapiosexuals. Not all sapiosexuals are intelligent

greiboy:
That is no irony, it is what we have been induced to believe

An intelligent individual will always find a slowpoke to be disgusting

humans are more diverse than you think. There are intelligent peeps who aren't sapiosexual. Sapiosexuality typically comes from intuition - people who obtain facts by intuition usually like interacting with knowledgeable peeps.