₦airaland Forum

MichaelBlake40:
I kinda disagree with you.In most cases a rapist would go after a indecently dressed lady not necessarily because her body iz 'tempting' but because it will be easier to to tear off her clothes.

Take it this way,assuming you were a rapist(you're not o ) who konji don hold since,wouldn't you find it easier to attack a sheerly dressed lady?

Not true.

Rapists would go after the finest woman they can go for irrespective of how she is dressed.

Whoopi Goldberg dressing indecently is less likely to be raped than Nicole Scherzinger covered up as a Nun.

The rapist would rather work harder to get the Nun outfit off Nicole than the easy Whoopi.

Daeylar:
My analysis is saying, in plain terms, that his argument is bullshit and that a woman covered from head to toe, can be raped just like a woman who is stark ñàked
So this attitude of let's try and put some kind of blame on the victim (victim blaming) and make excuses for the rapist(rape apology) by saying if you were better dressed it wouldn't have happened is nothing more than some victim blaming, rape apologist piece of shīt, and is very disrespectful and insulting to victims.

Which is a total antithesis to his whole point.

You are right on your argument but what I read into his argument in not victim blaming, but victims taking caution.

I think he sufficiently berated rapists, so I did not see any rape apologism in his post.

This is why I said maybe there was some previous beef between you 2.

Daeylar:
I think you shouldn't assume that for me to have a strong aversion to bullshit means I must have had an history with the person,
If it was another moniker there, I still would have called it what it was, bullshit.
Rape apology and victim blaming is and forever will be bullshit.

I still think everything is though

Sweetheart, I said "I think".

I am not aware of anywhere where "I think" is an "assumption", to the best of my understanding, it is a "suspicion".

"Assumptions" are more conclusive than "Suspicions".

Tozara:
LMAO.

Bruv, you will have to wait till, Farano or Rocktation bother to unhide my post.

I can't be weighed down with typing again. It is quite annoying there is no efficiency in correcting the platforms own error.

Mariinee:
The better by far Uni.

Good evening.

Morning, girl.

You mean "Kwara State College of Education, Ilorin"?

EfemenaXY:
Saga??

Whoopiee!! My sagalicious sagamite

Back from the dead...you’ve been missed

So what’s the story? CSA finally caught up with you? Lol, moving to Iceland is a lot better than wasting time and energy here. Have you seen the content of most brainless topics here? Even the thread titles are such an eyesore.

Anyway good to have you back dear

Ahh! Baby, they finally got me o.

Child Support Agency (CSA) sent their special forces unit and police to surround my house at 4am in the morning to catch me forthe 25 kids I have been missing payments for. I was on top of a girl and just came when they busted in, so energy no dey to jump out of the window and run, so they caught me.

I have been in Belmarsh prison since then. I was only able to escape when I sweet-talked one of the female guards and boned her in my cell.

Meanwhile, they seized all my assets. Including my most expensive one and best thing in my life, the Keke Maruwa I saved hard to buy and drive around London. Now na leg I dey leg am for London.

As for forum, since I came in 3 days ago, I have only been able to encourage myself to contribute to 2-3 threads. Everything else is pure retardation!

Apart for people that like my contributions a lot on NL and miss them, I have absolutely NO REGRETS being away. I just feel I owe such people. The forum is the United Retardom!

Mynd44 & Lalasticlala, who are the people moderating the Romance section.

The stupid autobot banned me for 24 hours yesterday after replying to Tozara and hid my response.

It is annoying one can be banned by an autobot because it thinks "the posts are so brilliant, it cannot come from a human brain, it must be an automated AI programme".

WTF?

Daeylar:
Just imagine the dismissive attitude, so because we know that we should move on and get to blaming women?
No attempt to find a solution to stop the rapist doing such,
We just move on to the most important part, blaming women.



Victim blaming 101 people
, a woman should reduce her chance of getting raped, it's on her,
Let's not push responsibility where it actually belongs on the rapist, let's put pressure on the woman,
Let's make her feel that in a way it's her fault for not doing what she should to reduce rape.
How the hell does a woman give a rapist the opportunity to commit crime?






This is trash too, because a rapist can also see a well dressed woman and because she is his spec. He tries to find a means to isolate and rape her, A rapist can monitor a woman he wants to rape for a long time, seeing her wearing different clothes while he waits for a chance to strike, and when both examples I just gave see a chance. He follows the same procedure of this rapist described above. But this poster didn't say anything about that, because it wouldn't fit into his victim blaming game.



Just tell me how this is true? How does a woman send a message to a rapist that he can get away with rape just through her clothes, what kind of mindset is that?
Victim blaming 102,



This is trash because it can be seen that all types of women can be raped.




Yes it would and yes it does, the same way it has eliminated rape of women in Saudi arabia becuase I don't know any other country where the woman is more modestly dressed.

Actually... Come to think of it...
It didn't do shít.
It didn't stop rape there, so we are still saying that?

Why profer a solution that makes it seem like dressing well is the antidote to these type of rape when we can see that it clearly doesn't work. What's the point of dressing well to reduce rape when you can still be raped even while dressing well. Why so much stress on women.


Common sense precautions my ass.



This is work sha

To be frank, I don't think your analysis differs much from his argument that "women's dressing contributes to rape by bad, wrong kind of men" which I had already deduced was his line.

I think your stronger reaction to that statement compared to mine must be rooted in some polemic history between you two.

That said, you are right this one from him is super nonsense: "And the profile of the victim of a rapist is not all women, they prefer to target certain types of women".

ArchangeLucifer:

I like goo-tin.

khiaa:
Naaah, you didn't like me then because I was playing with you and you thought that I meant all of the BS I was saying.

Yes I'm American from centuries back. Maybe someday I will do the Ancestry test to find out who I am.
I could be Nigerian.

If you find out you are not, please don't despair, I could put some Nigerian in you.

I would provide the service for free, just because it is you.

Tozara:
True. I CONTRADICTED myself. I'm human afterall, not a robot that operates by alogrithms and follows strict Aristotelian logic.

Well then, he's permitted to dress that way.

I wasn't talking about HOW THINGS ARE, I was talking about HOW THEY SHOULD BE. I was speaking based on MY moral philosophy, so I wasn't wrong when I said that. I stated my belief, which, of course, I consider absolutely legitimate.

You can have as many partners as you want. The state has no business telling people the kind of arrangement to enter into among themselves. I want to marry 5 wives, is it your marry?

Well, I haven't done any particular research on that. If I've been peddling a medical myth, and it's as you say, then incest can't be criminalized simply on the basis that it is disgusting. A lot of things DISGUST me, but I don't see myself demanding that the government makes them illegal.


The public space is a SHARED domain. You can't just go around having sex ANYWHERE you want. The same way you have no right to start defecating or urinating around as you please.

Based on the highlighted, then we don't need to argue any of these further.

My logical questioning tactic was to disprove your assertion and argument that "we do not have the right to criminalize something using our own emotions and preferences as a basis".

We do! Every sane society, bar none, does. Criminalisation of actions is not only dependent on harm in any society. It is about what is the constitution we want for our gathering.

Since you have demonstrated that you also do, those arguments are now invalid.

Tozara:
But you've been here asserting that women are permitted to dress as they deem fit. So, what if I tell you that immodest dressing is disgusting to see, and I want women covered up in public, in order to crystallise the attempt to integrate indecency in my society and put it in my view? It's fücking disgusting. Women shouldn't dress like that.

What would be your response?

My response would be that I disagree. You are entitled that your opinion.

Then it is up to both sides to get a majority coalition of free-ly thinking supporters to decide what law is formulated.

I think my side would end up winning in both (women dressing and homosexuality).

Tozara:
Cure? Do you believe in medical research to cure Islam, a mental disease? Or Christianity, which is cretinism? How can homosexuality be more toxic than those shiit? If you think homosexuals are sick, the fundamentalists of these cretinous religions are doubly sick.

I wish I did!

But even if I did, they are 6.5bn of them against me. I would lose.

On the other hand, their's is not a mental disease as it is a choice. They are just brainwashed with crap!

Daeylar:
I can agree with everything except this, his points are trash in my opinion.

I agree with the rest of your message

I had a lot of mentions. I flash read his post because of this and it seems well constructed and reasoned. Though not addressing my challenge, I understood because, as he made clear, it was a chain of conversation (which I had not followed or read, so I had to be tolerant).

Feel free to highlight the trashy part, babes.

Daeylar:
The first 3 are gold. The 4th one is amazing
But even at last 3 (4th point inclusive) we will still see some people who will want to rape someone.

This how a suggestion on how to reduce rape is meant to look like, to think like a rapist, to try to figure out what will make them think of and carry out such thoughts of raping a victim. And how to prevent such from happening.

Thanks, you just opened my mind to that,.


Not this insistence on blaming and policing the behaviour of the victim as if the rapist himself is untouchable.

All 1-6 come as a package, babes, not as isolated points.

Each on their own alone would not reduce rape.

Truckpusher:

Wetin?

Tozara:
You mean with his John Thomas exposed?! Of course that would disturb public peace as it would cause unnecessary commotion and draw attention to him. The same way a woman displaying her pussy in the public space wouldn't be acceptable.

Amsorry. How does it disturb your peace?

It would bring WWIII?

Wetin concern you if it draws attention to him/her. Is that not his/her business?

Tozara:
I have the right to do this if I want to. It's a transaction between two people----it's of no other person's concern, not even the government.

Well, it is banned in many countries, including some western ones.

So you were wrong when you asserted that "We criminalize things only based on their consequences for the society---whether the very act of indulging in them causes HARM to others, or interferes with the peace, tranquility, order, and progress of the state".

Tozara:
The government also has NO RIGHT to interfere with this.

My apologies. I missed out "5 more" in my post. I wanted to say ".....marry 5 more".

You still think it is okay?

Tozara:
Incest is disgusting! What kind of a human being gets sexually attracted to his own sibling? I think what's responsible in most cases is that they've been living far apart for most of their childhood. But, as disgusting and strange as it is, no one has a right to make legislation against two consenting adults having sex. But in this case, it can only be permitted as long as it's for gratification, not for procreation. Inbreeding can be HARMFUL to another person - the CHILD - and deliberately orchestrating such wickedness is CRIMINAL.

Well, again it is banned in most countries and nullifies your assertion.

In regards to the argument of procreation, that is weak. The odds of having a child with issues is the same odds of someone with AS blood marrying someone else with AS blood. Far better than the odds of AS/SS marriage or people with some hereditary diseases. If we are not criminalising those, what excuse/argument exist to criminalise incest apart from "It is disgusting"?

Tozara:
Sex in public is unacceptable, for the same reason the man in your first question doesn't have the right to go out with his John Thomas dancing in front of him.

Why not?

How does it harm you or start world war 8?

It is banned because it is disgusting?

Tozara:
I gave that response based on the DEVIANCE FROM NATURE argument. If that's the BASIS for criminalizing it, then everything that deviates from nature should be criminalized as well.

Is that WHY it should be criminalized?

Ok.

It is deviant and disgusting to see is why I am against it.

Criminalising it crystallises the attempt to integrate it in my society and putting it in my view.

Thirdly, I believe in medical reseach to cure it, not accept it.

khiaa:
Yes you have called me that when we first began commenting to each other. I think the thread was about women playing hard to get, I gave my point of view and I could sense that you were sensitive about the situation so I played with your head and you went on an emotional melt down. I didn't really mean what I said. grin I don't understand what you wrote in the post above, remember I'm American.

Fck that! You fib!

That was before we knew each other and you did not intentionally trigger it then. It was after you started trying to intentionally trigger it.

Are you American? No Nigerian heritage?

Everything I wrote was actually translated in the brackets, some translations are in pidgin English because I thought you were Nigerian.

In full English:

"Ahhh! Typical African woman. Shakara. She would say she is not interested. Come and take some kawasaki, she would be fronting. One time! She would open her legs!

Shakara and Kawasaki are a reference to some popular Nigerian music tracks.

Fela used "Shakara" as an expression of when a woman is fronting about not wanting sexual intercourse with a man when she actually does.

Adewale Ayuba used "Kawasaki" as a synomyn for dirty sex in one of his old tracks.

Time2Smile:
I think this point has been made in different iterations on this thread. In an ideal world, no woman will have to worry about rape. But, will live in a less than ideal world where evil minds on on the prow'. So what do we do? Continue shouting rape is bad, real men don't rape? We know that already.

The point is that there are certain things than can be done to reduce the incidence of rape. There is a role for society in term of education, non-tolerance, appropriate laws and implementation of the laws. And, dare I say, there are certain things women can do to reduce the likelihood of being a victim of rape. It is about not giving the rapist an opportunity to commit the crime. In the same vein, there are cultural norms that reduces the prevalence of rape. There is less incidence of rape in Saudi Arabia due to a combination of these factors.

The truth is criminals are more likely to commit a crime if they believe they are likely to get away with it. I don't subscribe to the notion of a rapist seeing a provocatively dressed woman and then losing his senses and then raping her. A more likely scenario is the provocative dress sexually aroused the rapist, and instead of controlling his desire like most men would, he devise a means to lure and isolate the woman to perpetrate the act.(Note here he finds a way to reduce the likelihood of getting caught, he doesn't just grab her on the street and start raping her there and then.) Another thing is that immodest dressing sends a wrong message to his warped mind that he is probably going to get away with it. The truth is that criminals profile their victims. And the profile of the victim of a rapist is not all women, they prefer to target certain types of women

Now, I am aware that this account for only some subsect of rapes and rapists. There are compulsive rapists which only get sexual gratification from forced sex, chiled molesters and peadophiles. No amount of modest dressing is likely to deter these sets of criminals. But, will modest dressing and common sense precautions reduce the incidence of certain type of rapes and reduce the chance of a woman being a victim of rape. YES it would and it does.

You give very good points there but I challenged you because from your own evidence, how people dress is not necessary an indicator of rape levels.

If you know Latin America well, especially Brasil, the way the women dress there na die. Yet they have less rape on your graph than some Muslim countries like Egypt.

Women should have a right to dress in a way that pleases them.

To reduce rape, you need:

- Clear and highly punitive laws for such an offence.

- Strong policing capabilities (including investigations, cctv and management of victims)

- Strong enforcement (arresting and prosecuting)

- Low inhibitions of consensual sexual activities and behaviours (limiting sexual frustration, let people dress as they like)

- Good economy that provides opportunities for men (men with money have hope of fcking, those without don't. The more men are not economically active, the more they miss out and get sexually frustrated)

- Good supply of ashawos (reliable providers of last but professional resort)

moonraker:
I'm good bro. NL is in dire need of your services. You know, the name you call people on here who say rubbish.

"fuccccccccuuuuuktard" that is. lol

The forum needs to be closed down and disinfected. E don pass the level wey I go just dey call people fcktards as the infestation is critical.

ifyalways:
Sagalulu

The one and only omonile for fvctards and cretins, oni Ikoyi of Sagamu and baba debe debe for the girls.

See as babe dey dash me panegyrics!

Kai! O dun mo mi lara. (E dey sweet mi bodi).

Na me. Saga Saga! The one and only! Intelligence personified! The etymology of the word 'Sagacity'! Tosibe father!

khiaa:
Lmao I'm not talking about having SEX with you(God forbid) I'm talking about pushing your buttons and raising your blood pressure to the point that you loose it and call me that word that has me rolling on the floor laughing.

To be honest it's not the word actually it's the fact that you loose your composure and let me get under your skin.

AHH!

Missed that, no be my fault. Na the way my brain work, e dirty baje baje.

God forbid? .....Really? (Gan ni?)

Ahhh! Typical African woman. Shakara. She go say she no dey do. Ko wa gba kawasaki, o ma ma shako (come and take some kawasaki, e go dey front). One time! E go spread!

As I said earlier, you failed. I have never called you person!

Time2Smile:
In as much as I didn't want to comment on this thread, you practically forced me
OH no no, Stop pulling out stats indiscriminately. While I do agree that rape is a problem all over the world, the prevalence greatly differs from one country to another.

Below is a graph of the prevalence rate from the same womanstats website.

While a rapist can never be excused, the fact is that a Muslim woman dressed in Niqab is less likely to be a victim of rape compared to a scantily clad woman in the same situation in Nigeria.
And a woman is more likely to be a victim of rape in Nigeria or USA compared to Saudi Arabia.

And every country has a Wikipedia page on rape.

Are rapists beasts? YES, but to come here and try to say nothing mitigates against rape is ingenuous at best.

Errrr!

Can you explain to me what your point is?

That dressing modestly is why there is less chance of rape in Saudi Arabia?

khiaa:
No it is not, how can they hate men and marry them at the same time?

As I said earlier on the thread, many are: Fcking moronic, men-hating, lesbian c*nts!

The ones that are not lesbians marry "real men": That is, "Yes, yes, darling", moronic wussies and simps!

khiaa:
Maybe if I become the man-hating bytch that you despise I can get a fuktard out of you. The women that hate men aren't feminists they are man haters, there is a difference.

Your titts must be fcking solid double Ds that stand at attention like a Somali pirate sub-machine gun.

Your waist is less than 26 inches, while you have a flat belly, fluffy fcking natural Kardashian twerking arse, nice hips, a face like Kelly Rowland's and when you fck a man, his brain falls out from his mouth while he is moaning in pure ecstacy, and upon all that, your babalawo is stronger than mine and has been in business longer than mine (hence, over 85 years) for you to have a fcking chance in hell.

Mariinee:

Which school are you in?

moonraker:
Holy macro. Sagadi baba. Much respect. havent seen you around. Hope u are well...

Hey, homie.

Just popped in yesterday, guest-starring on this thread.

Am good. How you dey?

Tozara:
No, we don't! We criminalize things only based on their consequences for the society---whether the very act of indulging in them causes HARM to others, or interferes with the peace, tranquility, order, and progress of the state.

Okay. Lets test your argument.

Explain to me how the following harm you or interferes with your peace, tranquility, order, or the progress of the state.

1) A man leaves his how with his suitcase to go to work in his finest birthday suit daggling between his legs.

2) A man decides to go out and pay a woman for sex.

3) A man decides he is not satisfied with 1 woman and decides he wants to marry?

4) A man decides, "You know what? My sister is hot! Am gonna bang her and marry her".

5) A man is walking with his girlfriend on the beach and they are having a fun day out, giggling and so in love, so they decide to take their clothes of and "Get down on it! Get down on it! Feeling good baby"

Tozara:
An abnormality? By what criterion/criteria do you make that judgement? A deviance? A deviance from what? Nature? I must tell you that humanity isn't accountable to nature, and isn't defined by her. CELIBACY, unlike homosexuality is an ACTUAL deviation from nature. But I don't see anyone demanding that it be criminalized.

This is a very weak argument.

You cannot criminalise a non-action; especially when you don't even have a register to know the non-action is occurring and the action also requires the consensual agreement of a second party which is not necessarily available. Very weak argument.

Yes, a deviancy from natures use and intent.

Tozara:
In what way?

Are heteresexuals arrested for kissing in public? Some men find indecently dressed women irritating and disgusting. I suppose the state should make such dressing illegal because some people don't like it, and seeing it in public MAKES THEIR BLOOD BOIL. Nice suggestion, right?

Well, those who try to impose their way of life on others are beasts and should be dealt with. It's the duty of the state to deal with EXTREMISTS of all kind.

Well, that is wrong. No one is allowed to demand for SPECIAL rights, and no one has the right to IMPOSE their preferences on others.

When the oppressed and persecuted fight against oppression and persecution, they must see to it that they do not become oppressors themselves.

FAIRNESS is the objective, not TERRORISM and DOMINANCE. Anything other than this must be fought and resisted.

I shall come to the rest later after you answer those.

armyofone:
I have been good, In fact very good...ask EfemenaXY.
And you ?

Am good, darling.

Mariinee:
Because of fah? Lol. Nope, but I go to school there.

Yep, fah.

Tozara:
Hi, the blazing Sagamite from Sagamu. Salutations!

I love your EGO. Your remarkable estimation of yourself that knows no bound! Reminds me of Nietzsche and his idea of the Übermensch! You have an unbelievable high thymos, no doubt!

I'd love to ask you a question, I hope you don't mind.

You've been a radical and vociferous advocate of rationality, reason, logic and objectivity. But I found out a while ago, through one of the links you gave on this thread, that you HATE gays.

I know we all have different characters, hence different likes and dislikes. Homosexuality is disgusting to me as well [I can't fathom it---it's just errr.... I don't know], but I believe in GAY RIGHTS. I mean, we do not have the right to criminalize something using our own emotions and preferences as a basis.

So, if I may ask, do you also support gay rights? If NOT, can you LOGICALLY and OBJECTIVELY demonstrate why it should be criminalized?

Yes, we are aligned in some things.

I don't hate homosexuals but homosexual acts disgust me and is not something I want to see.

In terms of "gay rights"? What do you term as gay rights?

There are aspects I agree with but majority I don't.

We have a right to criminalise things based on our emotions. That is why we criminalise unclothedness in public and incest, some other countries criminalise polygamy and even prostitution.

Furthermore, I believe it is an abnormality and deviance that needs a cure, not acceptance.

I don't give a damn what homosexuals do in their bedroom but if they keep it in there bedroom they would not have a problem with me. I support the criminalisation because:

1) I don't want it integrated into my life and society.

2) If it is done in the bedroom, no one can arrest and successfully prosecute the person in most cases.

3) I have seen how the homosexual movement has turned out in the UK as intimidators and oppressors.

Let me make it clear to you, there is a homosexual agenda ongoing. I was saying it fcking years ago, people are just waking up to it.

https://www.nairaland.com/818597/7-same-sex-nigerians-demonstrate-nigerian/8#9717780

They talk about "homosexuality tolerance". Fck that, mate. That is not what it is about, they are just hiding behind that tag.

It is about "homosexuality acceptance", even in the UK now, they are forcing people to be "homosexuality advocates".

Okay, now I will go back and answer your questions.

Tozara:


I goofed.



www.nairaland.com/523183/which-following-nairalanders-sharpest-minds

Hahaha. My mistake. The line in blue font was all my brain registered. I didn't take note of the ending where he jokingly accused you of being a "closet gay", automatically implying that you DEFEND them on the gay bashing threads (the complete opposite of my conclusion).

That's some serious goof, right there.

Well, it happens.

Lol. It is actually a "she". We were always kidding around.

Mariinee:
I'm good oh. Long time no quotes, I have missed you fah

Are you from Kwara state?

Tozara:
Oh! My apologies! I read someone accuse you on that thread of hating them, and you didn't deny it [you even seemed to have joked about it], so I assumed it to be true. I'm sorry for the misconception.

Lol!

Can you show me the link? I have my suspicion of who it is and I think it would shock you if I am right.

Tozara:
Hi, the blazing Sagamite from Sagamu. Salutations!

I love your EGO. Your remarkable estimation of yourself that knows no bound! Reminds me of Nietzsche and his idea of the Übermensch! You have an unbelievable high thymos, no doubt!

I'd love to ask you a question, I hope you don't mind.

You've been a radical and vociferous advocate of rationality, reason, logic and objectivity. But I found out a while ago, through one of the links you gave on this thread, that you HATE gays.

I know we all have different characters, hence different likes and dislikes. Homosexuality is disgusting to me as well [I can't fathom it---it's just errr.... I don't know], but I believe in GAY RIGHTS. I mean, we do not have the right to criminalize something using our own emotions and preferences as a basis.

So, if I may ask, do you also support gay rights? If NOT, can you LOGICALLY and OBJECTIVELY demonstrate why it should be criminalized?

Chairman, abeg review whatever you read.

I am pretty much sure I have never stated I hate homosexuals except there has been some big typo on my part.

I can't hate people for something they did not choose to be and cannot change.

Please do that first before we continue.