₦airaland Forum

Max24:
I don't understand what you wrote. Are you saying she does not have common sense because her sex video leaked? When Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky sex video leaked does it mean he does not have common sense or you just like stereotyping women? Fyi, it can happen to anyone, and when it comes to sex no-one is holy including the G.O. It's a natural human urge.

OboOlora:
If she like make she go Harvard go do MSc in Public Health and discover the cure for Cancer, her life is forever ruined.

Internet never forgets!

JessicaRabbit:
I didn't introduce any strawman. I only just highlighted the flaws in your reductionist thinking. Pay close attention. You're the one who implied that certain human experiences must be justified by a specific gene or biological process, and I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of that expectation. And to answer your question: No. One doesn't need to be sexual to be creative, to love, or to explore consciousness, but to suggest that sexuality is somehow divorced from these fundamental aspects of our humanity is ridiculously naive. What I see here is you trying to sever the intrinsic links between human experiences, as if sexuality exists in a vacuum, disconnected from the very essence of our humanity, when in fact it is an integral part of our emotional, social, and cognitive experiences. You can't neatly compartmentalize human nature into discrete, unrelated boxes.

For rhetorical sake, I will emphasize again that your attempts to delegitimize homosexuality by framing it as "unnatural" is EXACTLY what has been used to justify discrimination and oppression throughout history, and I won't let that harmful narrative go unchallenged.

I find it very convenient that you can dismiss love and creativity on one hand as abstract concepts when they don't fit your narrative, and yet you expect sexual attraction to be reduced to a single biological process. A bare faced cop-out if I've ever seen one. So we haven't found a "gay gene". Okay! So flipping what? How is this conclusive proof for you that same-sex attraction can't be a natural part of human diversity? Do I need to remind you that our understanding of human biology is still evolving? And what about the numerous scientific studies that have found evidence of same-sex behavior in various animal species? Are you saying that they are all just deviant outliers?

LOL, what?! Are you taking the piss?

Do you seriously believe that the value of a relationship lies solely in its sexual aspects? Love, companionship, and emotional support are not just mere add-ons to your defining marker of sex. They ARE the very foundations upon which meaningful relationships are built! I shouldn't have to be pointing out these obvious banalities for crying out loud.

By the way, I suppose you're implying that same-sex attraction is somehow artificial or forced, when you use the term "unnatural urges"? Have you ever stopped to consider that sexuality actually exists on a spectrum, and that human experience is far more nuanced than your binary thinking allows? The only thing "unnatural" I can observe here is your absolute dictatorship over what constitutes a legitimate relationship based on your own personal biases and prejudices.

And this is exactly where you're getting tangled in your own biological binary because, for some reason, you find it hard to tell the difference between the origin of our instincts and the entirety of human experience. Our bodies may be wired for reproduction. That much is true. However, our minds and hearts are capable of so much more. You're acting as if our free will as human beings, in tandem with our diverse personalities and emotional complexities, plays absolutely no role in human connection, and that is where you sound like a true reductionist. That being said, I couldn't help but notice that in a hilarious twist of irony, you went ahead to make the same point I was trying to make when you made that comment about enjoying intellectual fireworks with friends: We can and do experience deep connections with others beyond just sexual attraction! So why must we diminish the validity of same-sex relationships just because they don't fit into your narrow definition of biological imperatives?

Whilst you "color inside the lines", please note that you're actively ignoring the loving families that exist despite your disapproval, as well as the scientific consensus that sexual diversity is a natural part of human experience. You'd be better off embracing the beauty of diversity than trying to fit everyone into your narrow, monochrome vision.

It's pretty basic actually. First of all, your use of the term "homosexual community" is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, suggesting that if one event occurs, it will inevitably lead to a series of extreme consequences without providing evidence for such a chain of events. Recall that there are individuals who still identify as bisexual or queer, allowing for potential reproduction. Like I said earlier, human sexuality exists on a spectrum. Furthermore, assisted reproductive technologies like surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, and sperm/egg donation already exist and could continue to evolve, in tandem with adoption and foster care which remain viable options for building families. And that's not even factoring human ingenuity and adaptability. As a species, we've come a really long way since the Stone Ages. Most of the things we've accomplished now would have been considered near impossible then. In years to come, we could potentially discover new solutions and innovations in reproductive technology.

That's because you missed the point. The penguins' ability to raise a chick together, regardless of its origin, shows that they're capable of exhibiting parental care without regard to gender. It's a testament to the flexibility of nature, and a reminder that love and family come in many forms. Plus, in the wild, many species of birds and mammals have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors. So yes, evolution has a more vibrant and diverse palette than your imagination.

Well, I consider being wilfully ignorant to be unnatural, but here you are. As for my submissions, I wouldn't call it "wokism", just a lack of tolerance for intolerance.

One is a consensual relationship between adults and the other is a non-consensual and harmful act against minors. I don't see how they are comparable at all. The survival of the human species is not dependent on individual sexual orientation, as people of all orientations can still contribute to society in various ways.

Labeling someone as a homophobe or transphobe is not an attack, but rather a description of their behavior when they express discriminatory sentiments towards marginalized groups. You need to recognize that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, but when those beliefs perpetuate harm and discrimination, they must be addressed.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but the world doesn't revolve around your personal preferences. Human rights are not up for debate, and neither is the inherent worth and dignity of every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation.

How brave of you to hide behind a facade of faux confidence while casually dismissing ideologies you don't agree with as "wokist". Your intolerance is showing, and it's not a good look for you.

JessicaRabbit:
"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."
- Audre Lorde

The problem here is that your reductionist thinking is actively preventing you from truly embracing the complexity and diversity of human experience. Whether the "gay gene" exists or not, it is still completely irrelevant and a blatant red herring in this conversation. And are you really suggesting that the only things that are natural and valid are those that can be reduced to a single gene or biological process? If so, then what about love, creativity, or consciousness? Can you pinpoint a single "love gene" or "creativity gene"? Do you really expect me to believe that human emotions, desires, and attractions must be justified by some sort of rational calculus? Is it really so difficult for you to acknowledge that human sexuality is a rich, multifaceted, and beautiful aspect of our humanity? It would do you plenty of good to realize that the very concept of "natural" is often used to justify discrimination and oppression. What's natural is not always what's right. And what's rational is not always what's human.

Interesting. For a second there I thought we were discussing grown-up concepts like love, commitment, and basic human rights. But apparently, we need to circle back to Relationship 101. The value of same-sex relationships, my dear, is the same as any other relationship: companionship and emotional support. Shocking, right?

If you reduce human connection to a mere baby-making machine, then romance novels are about as thrilling as reading the appliance manual. Nobody is denying the role evolution plays. Of course we're all wired to seek out mates, but it isn't just physical compatibility we look out for when we're searching for mates. We also crave intellectual fireworks, shared values, and a good laugh once in a while.

Plenty of same-sex couples raise families through adoption or fostering, or have you never heard of uncles who raise their nieces and nephews, or the deep bonds of chosen families? Evolution may nudge us in a certain direction, but it doesn't necessarily dictate our destination. We humans, with our glorious free will, get to color outside the lines.

The ability of a community to thrive and survive in any species is dependent on factors beyond just individual advantages. Cooperation, mutual support, and social bonding are essential for the survival of communities. Evolution isn't just an individualistic process.

Having a laugh? Hardly.

Perhaps you haven't heard the one about the gay penguins who raise abandoned chicks? Evolution has a wilder sense of humor than you think.

You're just letting yourself get carried away by hyperbole here. Conflating sexual diversity with non-consensual behaviors is a misguided and harmful equivalence. Sexual diversity refers to the natural range of human sexual orientations and gender identities, including being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, and others. These identities are a normal and healthy part of human experience, and deserve respect, recognition, and protection.

Then on the other hand, you've got pedophilia and bestiality: harmful and non-consensual behaviors that exploit and harm vulnerable individuals, which are rightly rejected by society. There is a clear distinction here.

I don't quite understand the bit about pride marches and rainbow flags. These are symbols of pride and resilience for a community that has faced historical discrimination and marginalization. All they are seeking is acceptance and inclusivity. How are they attacking anyone's values or beliefs?

Don't worry, I'm sure your fragile worldview can handle a few basic human rights discussions. Maybe take a deep breath and try again.

JessicaRabbit:
How does the existence or non-existence of a "gay gene" make homosexuality any less natural or valid?

I don't see how it is relevant to the legitimacy and value of same-sex relationships.

Human attraction and love are complex phenomena that cannot be reduced to simple genetic determinism.

Evolution isn't just about individual advantages. It's also about the survival and thriving of communities.

What if the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality lies in its ability to promote diversity, creativity, and social cohesion... which are actually all essential for the progress and flourishing of our species?

Sexual diversity is a natural part of the human experience, and pathologizing it will accomplish nothing other than the further stigmatization and marginalization of already vulnerable communities. Don't you think they have it bad enough already?

With all due respect, your stance reeks of the same fear and intolerance that has been used to justify discrimination throughout history. The only backwardness here is the refusal to acknowledge the progress of human understanding and the stubborn insistence on imposing one's own beliefs on others. Your words are not a defense of traditional values, but a thinly veiled attempt to justify discrimination, and I'll have no part in it. Instead, I'd rather stand with those who champion love, acceptance, and the human spirit in all its vibrant colors.

AlbertNewton:
Well, I'm persuaded to believe that homosexuality is genetic or at least mostly so.
However, we need to also keep in mind that even if it is caused by genetic and biological factors, it is notwithstanding an abnormality, a disease, a disorder. It is one of those things that happen as a result of nature messing up; it is an indication of something bad. So while we shouldn't condemn people who are genuinely naturally homosexual (or whatever other variant), we also shouldn't allow homosexuality to fester and thrive in our society.
Essentially, homosexuals (and their relatives) fall into the same category as Thalidomide babies, Parkinson's sufferers, autism or people who have cerebral palsy (using your examples). They are suffering from a sickness which requires a cure. They are an error that needs to be corrected !

sparko1:
This sounds like a personal question so I will ignore, can you discuss about facts.

I am not gay or wish to be but this is an important discussion that requires understanding and discussion.

JessicaRabbit:
Wonderful piece there. The truth is, hate often stems from folks being scaredy-cats of anything outside their beige-walled world. Homosexuality disrupts their neatly colour-coded understanding of gender and sexuality. It forces them to confront the uncomfortable reality that the world isn't black and white. Easier for them to throw a tantrum, than be tolerant and learn something new.

theredaddy:
You need a brain transplant, what is offensive is subjective na like "sexuality matter" even NL has a seluded thread for sexual talks ... what does that tell you, oh sorry yu don't even have a brain

If you believe she said nothing wrong, then go nd unban her account naw, shebi naa you be the presiding judge.
are you trying to feign expose or westernize or whats the drive na me wey dey answer yu sef

theredaddy:
You need a brain transplant, [b]what is offensive is subjective na like "sexuality matter" [/b]even NL has a seluded thread for sexual talks ... what does that tell you, oh sorry yu don't even have a brain

If you believe she said nothing wrong, then go nd unban her account naw, shebi naa you be the presiding judge.
are you trying to feign expose or westernize or whats the drive na me wey dey answer yu sef

maasoap:
Was that what she said? Why una dey like lies like this? She advertised herself as a sex object. Not only that, she literally said that she could be violated anyhow as long as you pay her good money.

Not regardless of what you did. The truth is that you may post some things that violate their terms and conditions but may escape them sanctions if people don't report you. But if your post doesn't violate their rules, 1 million reports can't make your handle blocked

theredaddy:
Stop arguing whats unjustifiable, I am not disputing whether those pages exist or not on facebook or whatever

My stand is clear n simple listen, the moment people find it offensive and report it they will take it down, what the gurl posted if people had not reported against her she will still have account up n running

You keeping shouting it is the price, if a gurl post a nude picture on facebook and ask for 2k .. does it mean it will generate 10m likes & share, or is it only men that follow/comment on that page

your reasoning is sickening or don't you think

JessicaRabbit:
I think the issue here may be with her delivery. Obviously Saida Boj has the right to set her boundaries and expectations, even if it completely disregards social norms. I have absolutely no problem with that. But I feel there are better ways she could have communicated these expectations, without making it look as if men were simply just tools or objects to be used for her self-satisfaction. I think it's the lack of respect for men's agency and consent in her comments that's riling guys up. She really does come across as conceited in that regard. At least, to me.

That being said, I think it's funny how many posters here are using this lady's comments to judge women as an entire category. Not that I'm surprised though. Most people simply do not understand the concept of having personal opinions that may not resonate with everybody.

theredaddy:
There are websites dedicated to promote hookup, prostitution and orgies but NOT social platforms like facebook,tik tok and instagram

Onlys fans is not on the same pedestals as facebook, X and instagram, only fans is private and entails premium membership i.e you intentionally subscribe for explicit content you want to view. private misconduct is allowed not public.

What makes you think women can't report, whose gender image is on the line ?? or does her action & utterances glorify women's image, e.g nobody uses report button more than pocoh antas/friends on NL (fact)

It is no crime to carry olosho and pay 10k, as long as payment is made no Sin, lets assume the lady was your lil sister will you be happy she is prostituting ?
whether 10k or 20m is prostitution a thing of pride in our society? so why do you think the society only frowned at her cos of the ridiculous price ? if it was 10k would Nigerians have celebrated her.

Premium as measurement/scale, aside breast and yansh weytin she carry, is it name, brand, or net worth
if there are explicit and raunchy content on social media like facebook, X e.t.c it is because they are yet to be detected and reported.

theredaddy:
Even though she made no sense, she did nothing wrong by the virtue of her Opinion But advertising and promoting Prostitution on those platform ticks all boxes of wrong.

maasoap:
She didn't do anything wrong, tiktok, Instagram and Facebook just decided to ban her handles only because triggered people reported her? She violated their terms and conditions which you knew that was the case.
She did something wrong with her comments!! She is a bad influence. How will men respect women when a woman publicly announced herself as sex object?

joseph1832:
If you don't see it, there's no need explaining because you can never understand it.

joseph1832:
People just wake up, and decide to be stupid, all in the bid to gain followers and make money.

oluwaseyi0:
Her ban doesn't make sense
You may not agree with her view which I also do agree to

But banning her social accounts just for her non criminal opinion is terrible

PHIPEX:
Airpeace said this earlier though

joseph1832:
With all this noise going on, I want to ask, who struck first?

cococandy:
You see am 🫢

I’m picking sides o. And it will always be the woman’s side. Unless it’s something really egregious that there’s no way to justify it.

I don’t care if that appears biased. Given the whole circumstance of the world being already male centered, it’s rare to find a situation where the marriage fell apart strictly because the woman caused it. In most cases it’s the man’s fault and in some cases it’s a combined effort. But rarely is it just the woman’s fault. Men get away with too much nonsense they’ve forgotten how it feels to be balanced and treat others fairly.

thesicilian:
Who wants to bet this list was purposely made just because of Air Peace

Okiton:




i swear una no get problem in this country

upon wahala wey dey na how to make ponmo soft be ur problem

bring am come i go chop am like that

cococandy:
The topic says a girl was disvirgined for 2k clearly implying this is a young woman starting out in the world and open to dating poor men.

So shaming her for doing it for 2k means y’all are shaming those who date poor men.If she gave her so called virginity for a higher amount then it would be okay to pay the millions to marry her? So you don’t hate women who only date rich yahoo men anymore?

You guys twisted into something that it’s not and I’m the one who is disingenuous? 🙄🙄

Gerrard59:
Connecting continents is pretty possible (Europe and Asia), Europe and Africa (doubt Europeans go gree tho). As for accidents, the Japanese have run the Shinkansen for more than sixty years without an accident. The Chinese have done theirs, and there has not been any major incident. Considering China is bigger in land mass and such trips cover long distances, nice achievement. Japan is very mountainous, so another laudable feat.

franchasofficia:
Every passenger on this flight must have developed serious high bp, and some might have serious panic attack after this flight. God please may you continue to show sinners like me mercy whenever I am on flight. Imagining this alone is giving me serious chills



This is the only reason I hate traveling, how I wished there is train that connect all continents of the world

cococandy:
Let me humor you.

A poor girl dated a poor guy. Both of them poor. Both young. Both working their way through life. The relationship now ends. They part ways. No one owes the other anything. Right? Are you still following? Is your comprehension still intact? Good!

Now few years down the line. A group of dumb guys such as yourselves on this thread come together to make fun of the poor girl because she allowed herself to be disvirgined for indomie. That means she’s cheap and doesn’t deserve a bride price.

Are you seeing where you guys train of thought is disjointed? Where it now appears as if to you MEN in your MALE opinion she did wrong by dating the poor guy in the first place?

I hope one day you people will get a brain a put it to use. Because you’re always contradicting yourselves like morons




It’s gibberish to you because once it comes to vagina matters most of you lose your comprehension skills. Contradicting yourselves up and down

Charly68:
Can this be correct ?