₦airaland Forum

carefreewannabe:
Was Sarah old at 80 at her time?

Yes Carefreewannabe - and the Bible makes the unmistakeably clear; note it says 90 (Bible study 001 for you )

Genesis 17:17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Shall a child be born to a man who is one hundred years old? And shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"

Genesis 18:11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old, well advanced in age; and Sarah had passed the age of childbearing. 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, "After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?"

carefreewannabe:
I am not sure I understand you correctly here, you need to write complete sentences.

Literature 001 for me !

carefreewannabe:
Wrong!

Right, it's bible not grammar

carefreewannabe:
Elderly couples should be treated equally, meaning like young couples and should be free to have unprotected s*ex when they choose to, meaning that it should not be punishable by law but they also should act responsibly. I can see that they are equal under the law (apart from the age difference) and to procreate when they want to (it is not punishable under the law) but are they responsible having a child at this age?

First, if they are equal under the law "apart form age", that is ageist and hence "discriminatory".
Secondly, my eyes are wide open wondering how you can consider sexual congress between 50 something year olds as old

They are "responsible for the child, but not to be held responsile for having a child, in the same way there are no question marks against younger couples, why should there be against older ones.?

Young poor people, homeless, people, drug abusers etc. have children all the time - what sanctions do you suggest for them?

carefreewannabe:
That's just a question. I have my doubts, don't you?

Doubts about the viability, responsibility, morality, or scripturally?

If she can physically concieve, why not? If she can make provision and plan for any eventualities why not, if she is wedlocked, why not, it's clear from the bible.

Busybody .


TV

carefreewannabe:
Some or most? Was there something like the average life expectancy?

No, not in the sense you appear to be thinking.

Adam was created for immortality. The entrance of sin and hence corruption gave rise to death. Life expectancy was in the high hundreds at that point - reducing over time - but by antidiluvian (post flood) times, life expectancy was pretty much what we'd consider within normal range now, if a little higher

Imagine humans with perfect genomes/DNA, in a perfectly balanced world. Huge, mad healthy...Do you not claim "Christian"? Have you not studied the scriptures??

carefreewannabe:
I can pose and answer whichever question I want, it's the world wide web, it's a quite free sphere, you know?

Not in that sense, in an ideological one. I am not totalitarian, not evewn prescriptive ! Equality, freedom, responsibility - remember?

carefreewannabe:
And I do question willful single parenthood, even homos*exual parenthood. I am fan of freedom, not of anarchy.

So you need to square your ideology as equality supposedly demands that non-traditional family types have the right to "anarchy" as you term it.


TV

carefreewannabe:
The people in the Bible got hundreds of years old, didn't they?

Some

carefreewannabe:
The question is whether it is responsible to have kids at this age.

And how is it your place to pose or answer that question?

You don't question willful single parenthood, or homosexual parenthood, both of which deny a child the presence of one of it's biological parents.


TV

ihedinobi2:
Actually, I would have thought that there's a place for forgiveness. What do you think about that?

Absolutely!

In fact, a man properly positioned would not even take offence at her behaviour, just deal with it appropriately. Hence my use of the word "dispassionate" - no emotion.

And to be clear, not that you don't have feelings or express them - just don't let them cloud your judgement. He can even apologise to her. Seriously, for not applying "CAR" taking Charge, taking Action and taking Responsibility.

A man must be clear on where the relationship is going at all points and end it if it becomes untenable for any reason. He let this drag on longer than it should have - no "C" - did not act appropriately or promptly - no "A" - and now we are left with a steaming hot mess. He takes "R".


TV

^{**maybe we should start with CAR? Lets just dive in, and discuss free-form, no need to over-engineer it**}

@Mos123,

I disagree, it's not advice you need, it's heart, and you won't do anything crazy, just something weak - like you've done for the duration of this relationship. It takes balls to do something really crazy. To be blunt you present as pathetic, a wreck of a man.

A woman - not your wife - cheated on you and your took her cheating aass back? No dude - you unceremoniously dump her and get yourself a younger, prettier better endowed and more accomplished model - if you're a man.

What on earth makes you think the pregnancy she aborted was yours. Weak and thick. Ironically if it was yours, that may have sealed it's fate - women don't want to carry children for weaklings.

That's right, she considers you a pathetic weakling - taking a cheating, lying ho back after cheating immediately signals to her that you are spineless - hence her continued cheating.

Proposing marriage on top just gives her carte blanche to do whatever she likes. You may have well tattooed "I'm a loser, please cuckold me" all over your forehead - was it even your idea?

And that's probably the funniest part of your post, "taking revenge in marriage". Revenge on someone that's been playing you like a 2-chord tune? She will cheat on you, deliver another mans spawn into your care, chop your money and and eventually leave you a stuttering wreck, while she moves on to something better, which by the sound of you won't be too difficult.

Revenge? You chump, you don't have the gonads to take revenge - in fact you are already beaten bloody, she's just applying the finishing touches - and with your full co-operation. That's why she's marrying you, she's just wants to toy with you some more and then finish you off.

You opened with "confused and emotionally unstable" and you are plotting coup? It's not too long a shot to wonder if you'll make it out alive. Either way, there certainly won't be much left of you when she's done.

You are not in any way shape or form ready for marriage yet. You actually sound stuck between puberty and adolescence. Marriage, I don't think you could adequately deal with a kindergarten romance. I'm seriously scratching my head wondering how one gets from unfaithful to proposal - with decent women forming orderly queues and taking tickets to get married

Get rid of her - without any sentiment or emotion. Dump her unceremoniously, in fact as harshly as you can without committing a crime. Your healing and growing up starts with you coldly and dispassionately dealing with her - as you should have done ages ago.

Then go back to basics. Understand what it means to be a man, a husband and a father. Get some character and life-experience. Find yourself - I always recommend Christ. Avoid any sort of serious relationship for now.

Start thinking about marriage when you can look at a woman and clearly consider if she'll be a good wife - and turn away without a second glance if shes not. No matter how nubile, endowed, pretty or accomplished she is.


TV

^{I really need to put pen to paper}

mos123:
I'm really confused and don't know how to start. I'm not emotionally stable now, pls moderator or people incharge can help me correct any grammatical blunder in my story.
I'm into long distance relationship and we've been dating going to 2 years now.But my fiancee was being unfaithful but after so much confrontation she changed drastically, though there's still some traces of unfaithfullness but what pained me most is that she aborted pregnancy without my consent. And as a matter of fact she has been taken me for granted all because it seems I love her more than the way she loves me.
But our wedding is in couples of months. I'm really thinking of postponing the wedding or even calling it quit but because of the advance stage we're. But I'm thinking of going for the wedding and pay her back in her own coins after the wedding. Because she makes me feel bad whenever I remember. And she has promised me to be faithful and change a new leaf if I can meet her parents and she meets mine which I granted her. I'm really confused. Pls any advice from mature mind is welcome.

Have a smoker & drinker as mother and role model to my children? No.
Have a smoker & drinker as one who should be acutely aware of and actively managing the health of our household? No.
Have a smoker & drinker in the wife I want to spend a long and active life with, as opposed to nursing due to irresponsible lifestyle choices? No.
Have a co-journeyer who doesn't understand that her body is the temple of God. Hell No.


TV


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIyqcST29wQ

I was unavoidably called away just as this thread reached it's crescedo. It's gone a bit quiet, but I'll make a few comments;

Ohwhy, hope all's well and you have gained some encouragement from what's been said. Please update us with good news

Alutacontinua, thanks, appreciated and well recieved, but we are not even 2 weeks in yet. Anyway, I'm sure I've made better submissions already this year - please follow me more closely !

Ihedinobi, thanks for coming to my defense, but at best they are as worthy as attention - and have as much content - as spittle in the noonday sun. One gets used to the pained shrieks of the damaged and "past-their-expiry-date" harridans on this forum. When I find their time, they will know pharisee !

CocoCandy, for what it's worth, I think you make really insightful points and I've been a fan since day 1 - when you posted your wedding pics. However, I agree with 5minutesmadness in this instance. I was actually about to touch on the same thing before I was called away.

Even generically, I think we should steer away from the 'D" word as much as possible. And after 6 years courtship and barely 2 months of marriage? And with no evidence of abuse, adultery or abandonment? And yes I know hubby had been loose with the word, but the OP was clear that divorce was simply not an option. Even talk of separation would be premature here.

5minutesmadness, I totally got you and admire the way you seek expansive discussion without playing identity politics or forming SJW. Please take this in your stride. I know you get me. Thanks.

Shirley07, missed me huh. You know there's a queue for my attention . That last paragraph to Coco was for you as well, you'd be more thorough in your analysis if you were'nt so baleful. Please, what is the genesis of this anger that's so strong you literally chomp down on words and crunch your sentences . Do you splutter when you speak ? Happy new year and please do let me know if I may be of assistance in anyway; theology, ideological deconstruction, relationship dynamics, spousal hunt etc. We need to sort you out before you implode !


TeeVee

Ohwhy, welcome back, in all the back and forth, we have neglected to congratulate you on your nuptials. How remiss of us. Hearty congratulations; may your union be long, prosperous and fruitful. May it stand storms and inclement weather and as a testimony to what a fulfilling marriage should be all about. Can I get an Amen !

First, let me draw your attention to your two posts; in some respects almost totally contradictory. If you truly knew each other over those six years, then nothing about you both has changed

What has changed, is the situation, and what needs to change is the attitude and approach of you both. This is no longer boyfriend/girlfriendage, it is marriage. Yes he knew you character and background as noted, but he also figured you'd step up once you solemnised your union. Sure, he noticed some things that he probably didn't want in a wife, but he figured once you'd tied the knot you'd "upwife".

You both had slightly unrealistic expectations, and - probably like many - didn't share deeply enough on your vision for your union or confront certain issues. Issues which you possibly both secretly hoped would somehow resolve themselves once wed.

To be honest, I have no real fears for your union, especially now that you've revealed a little more about yourself. The current situation is a heavy one for any man to manage; a wedding and the attendant costs, setting up home and a new baby;and I say man, as men typically take "ownership", if not all the responsibility for this.

He's responding to the situation somewhat immaturely, I don't find his throwing around the 'D' word healthy or leader-like. And he should otherwise learn to tame his tongue with regards to the name calling.

You both need to appraise the situation and your expectations of each other and make the required adjustments. Call him humbly and lovingly, let him know you are aware of the pressure he's under and your appreciation of his efforts. Tell him you know that you both need to support and encourage each other to be the best spouses you can be and build the home you both want - it's never too late to have that vision talk.

Let him know how his words hurt you and that they are simply unacceptable. You are his wife, he is too love you wholeheartedly, that should be your expectation. And No one really benefits from an abusive relationship, no matter how low-level.Take on board his badly-articulated words about where he'd like you to change. Search yourself and commit to making necessary adjustments over time with his support.

Think about being more assertive, you have a home to run, learn to take responsibility and be proactive. Act like you are more than capable of handling the fullness that is coming your way.

Ohwhy:
You all have spoken well. But I wanna say that if my personality was as bad as some people here termed it, I won't have bothered posting this topic. I was frm a poor background when he met me, I never covered this up like most grls would. Infact I showed him where I live the first day we saw each other. He called me humble. Even with my kind of background, I was never materialistic. He loved this about me. (He had the guts to refer to me as poor after we tied the knots)
My kind of person, am a shy person who can hardly look at a person's face for more than 10 seconds. Am not confrontational ( now he wishes I was as aggressive as his friend's wife) I get scared easily I find it hard to ask questions most times . I don't like outrageous kinda dressing, I like to keep it simple, he loved this about me (now he calls me a small girl). Am not rude, am not insultive as I was raised well by my parents. I knew him well and he knows me well. The years of courtship was never filled with pretense because we spent a lot of time together. There was no room for one to pretend.

Ohwhy:
I just got married recently, not up to two months and its not anything like I imagined. We dated for almost 6yrs before we decided to tie the knot.The man I met and fell in love with was everything I ever wanted in a man. He was caring, selfless, a good listener, very understanding. The man i am now married to is nothing close to the man I dated. This one thinks of himself mostly, he calls me names, hurtful names, names that I find hard to forget even till today. I seem to be talking to myself whenever am talking to him. He raises his voice like he's talking to a kid. It shocks me because he knew my character and my personality before he asked me to marry him yet he did. And now he says these things like they just erupted suddenly. You can imagine your own husband keep mentioning divorce when we are barely 2mnths married. I am not a fan of divorce even if we haven't done our church wedding yet. I am pregnant which makes divorce out of the question for me. But this doesn't seem to bother my husband one bit, he seems to have thought everything out perfectly to his own benefit. Am not happy at all. I don't know how much of this I can take. I wanna do what is best for my baby. This sucks bigtime. What to do? Nairalanders pls help!

Once more, wishing you all the very best


TV

^{**ps, the Family section loves wedding piccies **}

Odunharry:
crackhaus and TV01 una be clown,

Only because the OP is a joker !

TV

crackhaus:
Apparently in her mind, this dude has to keep on putting up with her character and personality as he always did for six years.

The brother tried 0 jare - six years for one fish. Jacob sef only did 7 years for Rachel !

Many women nowadays come with a huge sense of entitlement, especially if lauded as fine, but often for no discernable reason ! He obviously considers her a catch, so put up with her nonsense to seal the deal. Now she's "caught", and it's showtime, she needs to play the role ! The better she plays it, the more fulfilling it will be. I think she can turn this around wioth a simple "attitude adjustment"

crackhaus:
And you're indeed right on that bit @bold, maybe it's her turn to put up with him - after all if he could do it for six years, she should at least try to do it for a quarter of that time until both can find a common ground.

The best thing she could do for herself, them and their unborn child is to take a long hard look at herself and to get to grips with the situation as I've discribed.

His threats are just flexing, possibly compounded by her being a bit of a liability - pregnant, not working, all the stress to keep things going is squarely on him, and all she can do is parrot demands and expect him to wait on her hand and foot as she "suffers" through labour. Abeg, make like a hebrew woman and let us hear word.


TV

^{**I really should put something together - perhaps post in the "Boys night out" thread. If there's the demand maybe**}

crackhaus:
Interesting...

After putting up with your attitude/character (which you conveniently failed to expand on) for six years, can you blame him for getting fed up just two months after getting married?
He probably made the mistake of believing you would change after putting a ring on it, only you can help yourself at the end of the day.

...this one has solipsistic, entitlement princess written all over it

It shocks me because he knew my character and my personality before he asked me to marry him yet he did.

i.e. I was a right cow, and not only did he not complain, he brought me extra grass ! Well now he owns you and he's milking you. Deal wid it !

He did her a favour. Bore with the rubbish during courtship and wifed her. A few more relationships like that and she would have hit the wall - hard - and then had to go through the worse situation of struggling to find someone she liked who would even look at her - desperation.

This way she gets to learn on the job instead of being long-term unemployed ! All she has to do is put up with him as he mans up - just like he did for her. If she's smart she'll adopt wisdom and a concilitaroy approach. He's currently "dealing with her" and she can ameriolate that with a little sense and humility.

Notin' spoil

TV


^{**I'm liking this...I think I'll adopt a more consult role from now on...only post when I'm specifically asked to. Perhaps direct people to the relevent parts of my large body or work here on NL **}

Scaredsilent:
I agree with you as well. Even the links I sent to me are is a homophobic version of wikipedia.
http://www.conservapedia.com/

Never heard of it. So funny even from the name you will realise how biased they are

And wikipedia is not biased. It's a well known gay-friendly resource. In fact, try editing it to incude content tha tis not pro-gay and it will be redacted.

Both are resources and both proffer opinions. Or are you taking this source as gospel http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/so-it-turns-out-giraffes-are-gayest-animal-planet231014? !


TV

Timbuktou:
Which is where I think the problem may lie. Perhaps, she may not have gone on with the marriage knowing his true opinion on her personality. She's not the only one he coulda married, that's not wise of him in my opinion. Divorce-whispering after only two months of marriage is ridiculous.

I disagree, I reckon he was aware of her immaturity & solipsism, he pandered to it as boyfriend/girlfriendage, but figured he'd tighten up when things were formalised. She would have seen his flaws as well, but as women typically do, "talked over them" .

Typically when men take on the burden of marriage, they are less accomodating of capricious behaviour. Moreso if he now has to focus to provide for their household. I see him as a bit immature as well, he just needs to spell things out and support her to get where she needs to be.

Let one wake up, the other shape up and then grow together.


TV

zeb04:
he hasn't changed and you know that because you the one leaving with him.

Someone who is alredy threating divorce 2months into marriage.

Please fear God oh
Stop being biased.If you are a christian,give christianly advice.

Where did I offer any advice? Carefreewannabe was interested to know what I thought, I responded in a tongue in cheek manner. Feel free to offer your own advice to the issue, rather than taking it upon yourself to grade other peoples posts or analyse their faith.

Toodles

TV

carefreewannabe:
I would like to read what TV01 has to say about this story.

I smell "entitlement princess". Probably feels she's all that and a bag of chips - any man that gets her is lucky and probably not really deserving.

Oga may well have pandered to this a little during courtship, but no more - he don put a ring on it ! Madam is still forming princess - she's really only a grade II administative assistant for Ikorodu LGA - and doesn't like the fact that reality has bitten. No probs, she'll be fine by the time bambino arrives - she'd better be

He hasn't changed a bit - she woke up !


TV

Superleo:
Your point exactly?

Oh ah, smart-alec !

Superleo:
What are you saying? Homosexual and heterosexual in Animal can never be defined through anything except sex, because we are unaware of their feelings.

...and this is why your attempt at smart-alecarry falls flat - animals don;t act on feelings - like I clearly pointed out, thet are instinct driven. When a dog gets the urge to mate, it will attempt to do so with a mans leg if tha't the only thing available . It doesn;t mean the dog is a Zoophile !

Superleo:
Do you think homosexuality in man/woman is all about sex. Dur! Homosexuality is about feelings.

Nope, cos I have male friends I love, but not sexually. Are my feelings somehowe inauthentic?

Plus the drive for gay-rights is not the right to "feel", it's to do, be and have. That very notion poisons normal healthy male/male companionship as it insinuates feelings are somehow erotic and can/should be expressed sexually.

Superleo:
A heterosexual man might agree to have sex with a homosexual rich guy for money and it doesn't make him gay. Get it!

Make my case for me why don;t you. It's behaviour/action, and should be subject to our higher consciousness. Do animals engage in intercourse for financial gain !

Superleo:
I'm gay/bisexual and I have never had sex with a man or woman but i'm sexually attracted to both- attraction to man outweighs the woman.

Identify yourself how you wish. It's a disorder if the attraction to you same sex is of a sexual nature

Superleo:
What's SSA?

Same-sex attraction. Go and train jor...you don;t have the wherewithal for this discussion. Drop and gimme 50 you weakling !

Superleo:
Man never adopted homosexuality.
I believe no one is born of any sexuality.
Hormorne determines what you be.
At a young age when I wasn't sexually active, I was trying to belong i.e playing daddy's role in childrens playground. I never knew anything about gay. We all share how we will love to marry one day(heterosexual relationship).
I became sexually active at 11 or 12 and was attracted to both gender.

If your orientation/sexuality is not in accordance with your "functionality", there is a prima facie case of dysiorder is there not?

Superleo:
I read it.

Read it again and then study more widely - not just Pink News !


TV

Superleo:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior


Even animals know homophobia is insanity because they don't engage in it.

Firstly, animals are instinct driven, they do not possess higher consciousness like humans
Secondly, what is described as homosexual behaviour in animals rarely includes sex. Even in animals, SSA is an oddity
Thirdly, nothing animals do mirrors the homosexual lifestyle adopted by a small minority of humans
Lastly, try reading the link you posted

TV

Morning SS,

Scaredsilent:
Thanks for the link I just checked it. I honestly dont know where the lady is that wrote this. But from her stand point It looks like she has chosen to walk with God. be more of a single individual. Celibacy if i might say. Thats definitely one thing I am doing. I dont believe in having anonymous sex and throwing my self around defiling my body and mind. As sex is sacred and should be shared between two people.

Her testimony is one among many and for a Christian with SSA I would counsel they read up more on this - if onlt to be fully informed and be considered in the choice they evedntually make. Again, I absolutely believe that God is able to heal fully - i.e. lead previously gay men into wholesome relationships with women.

Scaredsilent:
BUT I WILL NEVER DENY THE FACT OF MY ATTRACTION TO THE SAME SEX.

And you are absolutely right to do so. Whatever the genesis of the issue, don't deny it. Your decision is what will you do about it. Here again, testimonies abound. There are those who believe to healing, those who are content to live a celibate life, and of course those who embrace the homosexual lifestyle whole heartedly. Be that with a rejecting of the scripture, or an attempt to re-interpret them as approving of same-sex relationships in order to affirm their Christianity.

Scaredsilent:
Thats all I am fighting about. People claim it doesn't exist, its a choice, its a "western culture". But the truth is there are gay sons, daughters, wives and husbands, fathers and mothers in Nigeria that are trying to cope with living a well made up lie that they are not sexually atrracted to the same sex.

I don't believe anyone has denied it's existence. The reasons, occurence, scope and morality are what is being discussed.

It may not be choice akin to flicking a switch - although it is for some - it is certainly a choice to act on the attraction. Further, for many it will be a series of experiences that lead to that point.

I sympathise with any living with SSA - especially those who are seeking God. I don't believe those who experience or even act on such should be criminalised or discriminated against. I don't believe we should normalise it and embed it into the culture.

May God be with you. Journey well.
TV

Scaredsilent:
I agree with you that Gods main aim for making sex feel so good was because of procreation. So humans can procreate. But tell me It seems you are a married man. When you want to make love with your wife. Is the first thing in your head to want to have babies from the act. its not....
Because you love your wife body and soul.
Making love to your wife also has a primary function of showing how much you love her. and how much she can make you love her.



You are right here,I would admit. I threw the question back at you when i should have answered it. Homosexuality cannot be as grand heterosexual relationship in the sense of being blessed with a miraculous gift of a bouncing baby. But it shouldn't be every time you deny the existence of love and attraction and base it instead on the benefits of the relationship. Cause that is what you where doing when you asked me that question.



I have said what i had said and quoted the parts in the bible that listed out their major sin. You choose what your want to put your mind on in this part



But you have... You claimed a man is only made systematically for a woman. You said a normal "MAN" is only sexually attracted to a woman.

Like I have been saying homosexuality means attraction to males. The use in the new testament was wrongly interpreted. how come the old testament had no words for homosexuality. But in the old and new testament you see the full word of fornication and adultery.

The word homosexuality never existed until the late 1890s. Thats when they decided to interchange the word for male prostitute.



Then you aren't thinking of the scenario I gave you.

Your entire life will be miserable. As you would see females walking around and you wouldn't be able to have a good public relationship.
You may probably end up looking for love underground and maybe in the laps of a street prostitute!. Just because you can not open up about your feelings for girls.




But your sexless life has ended right?
I also Thank God for You.
Thank God you were able to meet the one who caught your eyes
Thank God you were able to take her to your parents and her to her own parents
Thank God people came for your wedding ceremony! and approved of your love
Thank God you can have a peaceful life and not be judge every time you walk hand in hand with her



So you can see how sad his situation was cause honestly he didn't realise what he was doing or getting him self into looking for love online



Then how can he express his desire in liking guys and not girls. Society does not accept what it doesn't understand and condone



Just because you can see the bad ones does not mean there are no good ones. We punish the entire class for a few number of people noise making. We dont stop to think and see the scared and good ones at the corner of the class trying not to be noticed.

I am Gay. i am 24 years old . I have never had a boyfriend in my life. I am still looking but its hard because all the good ones are hiding in their fake cultural Nigerian life. The underground scene is full of perverts and sexual deviants. Tell me how I can find love when there are people who want to kill me because am gay. Or people looking to steal money from me.



I will continue to sing my song! Till I can sing no more. till future generations of Nigeria see that its ok to be gay. And it gets better. Even though 80% of their home country hates them. that they are unique in their own way.



There is for now but I pray in future there wouldnt be only opposite sex marriage
TV

To be clear when I say that I don't question the "authenticity" of "gay love", I am not endorsing it, I am merely saying I am not questioning the reality or intensity of what they claim to feel.

Biblically it is wrong and no amount of scripture twisting can change that. I only joined this thread to post rejoinders to the "homosexuality is congenital" falsehood and the "biblically we've misread the scriptures" lie. And the other one you introduced; anal sex was wrong then, but advances in science and technology make it right now ! Altogether you've been upfront and civil, and alluded to belief in God, so I'll say this;

If you truly believe in The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, go to Him just as you are. Don't bother to justify or explain or demand. Just go as a sinner - like we all must - and cast your cares and burden on Him. He'll lead you aright. There may be trials and tribulations, but if you trust in Him, you'll get there.

Perhaps see if you can find the original article discussed here; http://www.dennyburk.com/its-okay-to-fight-against-homosexuality/

Best
TV

Scaredsilent:
So you did not choose to be attracted to ladies then. I rest my case. Whether you feel gays dont function to the norm. It still happens. I get a hard on when i see a naked guy.

I am designed to be attracted to ladies - as are all men - anything else is dysfunction.
Some men get hard-ons when they see the fleshy buttocks of a horse, so what?

Scaredsilent:
So can you lie with a man. Since nature doesn't determine that...

Any two people of any sex can lie together, that doesn't make it right does it? Functionally or morally. Men lie with beasts, or get erections when looking at animals. Are you pleading "I feel, therefore it's right/normal"?

Scaredsilent:
Its obvious you cannot handle details of human sexuality. Thus you try to evade my statement of sexual diversity and ways. Arent you not the one who said a man is created for a woman. It will not be possible for a single human to get sexual gratification from masturbation then. if your theory is right. but we do.

So, because people can sexually gratify themselves in various ways, all the ways are natural and moral, healthy and good?

You still ahven;t told us how anal sex in this age is different - i.e. healthier and in no way more harmful than vaginal sex - and hence permissable!

Scaredsilent:
Yes I am cause apparently I am justifying every statement i have made

Only to yourself and only in your own mind.

Scaredsilent:
Sexual AWareness is not a malfunction. What happens at puberty is ability of creating off spring occurs. Some cases show that children who havent reached the age of puberty still exhibit sexual alertness if stimulated. Mostly nerve and autonomous reactions.

So that means that babies are born sexually aware? Ot that response to stimuli means that the stimuli is a good thing. Or that teenagers who express same-sex feelings are going to become adult homosexuals?

Scaredsilent:
Like I have been saying. There nothing wrong with imperfections in life. i dont see cripples as imperfect beings. They are perfect in their own way. God doesnt bring us here to the world to suffer but to succeed against the conflicts of life.

So you admit homosexuality is an imperfection? End of.
My only point has been their acts are dysfunctional and their unions not being marriage.

Please don't wear yourself out trying to justify your acts to me. I've heard it all before, same old strained self-justification and willingness to miss-interpret, butcher, twist, warp and pervert everything to do so.

TV

Scaredsilent:
So your saying Married couples have sex only because they want to have children? Then at least every year in the lives of a couple after marriage they will be conceiving children... Sex is more complicated than that. Paul advise Men to get married if they know they cant control their lustful desires.

Sex is first and foremost about procreation. It's enjoyable & desirous in order to to encourage us to activeley pursue and get on with it.
And as for the marriage you mentioned, it's primary purpose is as a vehicle for having and raising children

Scaredsilent:
Also When a Man and woman have sex together they solve all the world's problem?? I dont get what you are saying... Serial Killers, Corrupt politicians, Armed Robbers all came from the womb of some woman after having your so called natural sex. And they arent adding any value to life...

Because some people are criminals, ergo homosexuality is a good thing/should be acceptable?. Homosexuals, always discuss things from a sexcentric point of view. Justify it first and then argue backwards.

Scaredsilent:
And Please stop using that word "Sodomy" in reference to Homosexuality. because it was not the reason why they were destroyed. if you care to read your bible well you would see another reference to why God destroyed sodom and gomorah.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Haha...that old chestnut. The above merely notes a number of other sins not previously noted. Their main one was SODOMY. Noted in several places and clear from the narrative.

Scaredsilent:
There are many ways to make love to your wife which does not have to do with penetrative sex. Some people decide different ways to have sex. Sex is an affirmation of love. And nothing more. To please your partner mind and body.

I have not questioned the authenticit of homosexual love, or the methods they use to please each other. Neither have I called for them or their acts to be criminalised; my point? Homosexuality is biblically a sin and two people of the same sex cannot marry.

Scaredsilent:
It is wrong. I will not argue that. But I want you to imagine for a second or a minute if you can. If heterosexuality was frowned at by the public, your church and community. Are you telling me you will be able to live your life sexless till you die....

I wonder what the public would consider good if "heterosexuality" i.e. normality were considered bad? How does one respond to such a straw man?

As for living my life sexless - I was prepared to do so in lieu of finding a woman I considered worthy to be my wife, and did - pretty painlessly I might add - before I located her. Thank God

Scaredsilent:
just think about that. wouldnt you try to find a way to get relief from the pressure.

As above

Scaredsilent:
I dont know how old the op is. but when i was 15 and fully in puberty my emotions used to rage a lot. I could have done stupid things if I wasnt in a strict christian home.

Adults are rarely fully formed before 24 years of age so raging hormones - especially in an age where their are so many influences and so much pressure, is probably not the best guide.

Scaredsilent:
What that boy needed was acceptance of his sexuality, by his family and community and HOMOPHOBIC nigeria as a whole.

No, they should accept him, but not how he chooses to express his sexuality - and I fully understand and am sympathetic that it may not be as a result of anything he himself may have initiated.

Scaredsilent:
If he had that he wouldnt start going under ground looking for love when he can find his true love in the open, trust and assurance.

Perhaps true in part, but one of the things that characterises gay relationships is their having numerous anonymous and cursory affairs - even in countries where it is fully accepted. The scenario painted was gay through and through, and not particularly due to his environment. It is practiced openly where I live - gays love anonymous furtive sex, and don;t really subscribe to the notion of monogamy.

Scaredsilent:
Because Slavery is not a sin. Aren't we all Cooperate slaves to the business world. wherever you work or have a job. It was abusive slavery that was not condoned in the bible. Not paying their dues. Not giving them the write benefits. It doesnt not have to be raising a cane and directly flogging your slave.

As ever homosexuals always over-reach in they desperation to rationalise their ways

Scaredsilent:
As for Eunuch. History and write ups has generalize Homosexuals under them because homosexuals have no desire for opposite sex marriage. Do your research and see.

There is only "opposite sex" marriage.
Not desiring it is no sin, practicing sodomy/homosexuality is.


TV

Scaredsilent:
So my dear you choose to be straight ? Where you born straight?
Did you wake up in the morning without a choice in your sexuality that you choose to like girls

I was born functionally intact and the sexual maturation process happened as it was supposed to. Hence I am a man attracted to women. I was designed to like girls, no malfunction. That's how men are fashioned, and vice-versa for women

Scaredsilent:
So its a behaviour to see a girl you are attracted to and like her body? ... Right?

It's a behaviour to choose to lie with her - nature doesn't determine that

Scaredsilent:
Men have mouths and asses that are a perfect fit for another mans johnny
I mean is wide enough to fit y not try...

Let me not encourage you in your confusion by dignifying this perverseness with a response

Scaredsilent:
Men are made for men. Also women and made for women. since they have a full set of fingers to help them in their journey

Are you awarding yourself smileys for wittiness or intelligence - I personally detect neither. Others may sha, look to them.

Scaredsilent:
Child sexuality is concerned with the biological, psychological and social influences upon the sexual development of children, and the range of sensational, emotional and consequent sexual activities that may occur before or during puberty, but before full sexual maturity is established.

And impairment/malfunction may occur anywhere before sexual maturity. Your point?

Scaredsilent:
So God makes errors when women give birth to cripples or blind babies....

No God does not make errors - unlike some I don't worship a god who makes mistakes !
The effects of the fall are physically manifest and some are multiplied and re-enforced by sinful human behaviour


TV

Scaredsilent:
back to the bible...

What about it?

Scaredsilent:
The same Leviticus forbids man from eating pork, pig meat because it is "unclean"... But why do we eat pig meat today? There were reasons then why these laws where enforced because man had not been gotten to the stage where pork/pig meat can be cleanly processed.

Apart from the obvious difference between moral laws and dietary laws, or holiness and health & safety , has sodomy advanced to the level of procreation? Or to obviate the myriad physical and psychological ills that are associated with it? Eating swine can be unhealthy, sodomy is unholy,

Scaredsilent:
Why didn't the bible say womankind should not sleep with womankind as though with mankind?

It did dude; from the same Romans you posted below;
Romans 1: 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
What is it that women were doing against nature, and with one another?

Scaredsilent:
Are Lesbians special that they are allowed to sleep together and fall in love with each other?

Nope, still unholy and unnatural!

Scaredsilent:
God was against this because it was not safe health wise then. Even recent reports will tell you that it is easier to get HIV and AIDS through anal intercourse. And back then It was common practise for people who worshipped Baal to engage in anal sex both MEN and WOMEN

So it's ok now because anal sex is safe !

Scaredsilent:
This same concept was said in Romans 1: 26, 27 ,28

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural

Here Paul was not talking about Lesbians. But he was talking about other sexual practices. Anal sex,MouthAction e.t.c.

That is they didn't practise normal sexual acts with men.

And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.


Here he was talking about "PROMISCUOUS" gays having ANAL intercourse with random partners.

So promiscuous anal sex with random partners is wrong? Pray tell, what was the man in the OP doing !

Scaredsilent:
And at the beginning of this verse its says ALL these people were not Believers or Jews. They disapproved the existence of God and that is why God gave them up to these unclean lifestyles

What would you say about children who developed gay/homosexual attractions with the same sex in a Christian home.

Where they born in a pagan family that God decided to curse them. So they are attracted to the same sex.


Why did Jesus never curse homosexuality. He even mention in Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."




Eunuch aren't only translated as people who cannot have children. they are also people who have no desire to get married to a woman.

The fact that The Lord did not explicitly condemn homosexuality is neither here, nor there - there were lots of ills/sins He did not outright condemn. Slavery for example. What He did do, was point to the union between male and female as the biblically mandated one.

Whether a eunuch has no desire for women or no ability to be with them, that is in no way an endorsement of sodomy.

Your post is shot through with error, riddled through with inconsistencies and smacks of strained justification. Biblically, physical homosexual relationships are a sin. Reject the bible if you will, don't willfully butcher it to justify your desires. Danke!


TV

What happened to the person in OP is simply wrong - neither do I agree with the criminalising homosexual behaviour.

Having said that your post is riddled with error and gay propaganda.

BornSad:
You think sexuality is all about sex? You think being gay is defined only by whom you have sex with? Do you agree with me that a girly guy has no control over his behaviour? Now, do you know that sexual orientation is a behavioural attribute?

Damn right it's a behaviour, but not genetically determined. It's a practice and a choice. Nobody is born gay.

BornSad:
How could you expect a boy who has been girly from birth (an attribute associated with congenital homosexuality) to wake up one morning and decide to change his orientation? You think those girly gay guys you see feel anything for the female folks like you do? You are lucky to be straight and manly but bro, not everyone is.

Babies are not sexual, so please stop spewing that falsehood. What babies are are functionally configured as male or female. Physically templated to be sexually compatible with the opposite sex after the maturation process.

They are not really sexual beings until puberty and they are not even heterosexual as such - there is really no need for the word hetersosexual as it only serves as a distinctive to the abnormality of homosexuality - they are "normal".

BornSad:
Just appreciate your God and remain calm cause you didn't create yourself the way you are.

What God creates is perfect - even if homosexuality were "natural" it would be a coding error, like any other disease. And it is usually as a result of interruption or impairment of the normal maturation process.

Decent advice has been offered. Funny no one addressed the almost incontinent sexual behaviour that characterises gay relationships as noted in baby124' post.


TV

...really enjoyed the ensuing convo here, and especially liked hearing how there are others who understand what the church - or should that be who? - really is.

I also eschew denominationalism and find it hard to become a "member" of a church. I hear those who talk about the importance of fellowship, however, like others, I prefer the scraps of true fellowship and sharing (including here on NL) to the gross error and bad practices in most of the churches to hand.

There are the unchurched, the churched and the true church - "The Lord knows those who are His"

Now to Frozzie

frosbel:
There is this pattern that I was used to and still observing in Christian circles especially in Nigerian Pentecostal/Evangelical circles.

It appears that one of the sole reasons why many people become Christians and remain so , is to avoid Hell Fire and enjoy the bliss of heaven by repenting of SIN and avoiding SIN on a personal level.

First, grammatically you can't have more than 1 sole reason !

Secondly, people come to God for many - often misguided - reasons; healing, comfort, provision - but that's where God isn't like us. I believe even those will have the fact that we should ultimately come to God in Christ Jesus just because He is, presented to them. What they choose to do thereafter is up to them - the cross of faith or the comfort of religion?

Thirdly, as mentioned, I came to Christ and had all my initial growth in what I now consider to be the corrupt institutional church. Does that mean God did not have me? Or that I wasn't His or seeking Him? No, I did everything I was told and went to God every day and said, I know what this MOG says, what that MOG does, but please show me Your way. Ultimately when was strong enough God asked the question are you seeking me or what religion has to offer? I made my choice - by His grace I am His.

Your finger-pointing in this regard is of little merit. God knows those who serve/seek Him and He will judge accordingly. Even as I believe that whilst in the throes of religion I was still Gods own, so are those in whatever denomination, sect - or without any denomination sect - that are truly seeking Him.

The real question is are you?

frosbel:
When I was in deeperlife the emphasis was always on SIN, worrying about it, been defeated by it, praying against it, condemning it in the lives of others , looking for what it is or is not etc. This was a truly dead religion in the most suffocating way. Sadly, I see this same pattern in many churches today.

The worrying thing is that the goal here is not to better mankind or improve the lot of our neighbours or relatives but for selfish purposes, i.e self preservation into eternal bliss and enjoyment with partial or total obliviousness to the suffering and pain around.

Surely there is something fundamentally wrong with this approach when our primary goal is to avoid a torturous hell and make heaven !!


Christian Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure, gain and heaven by AVOIDING SIN and thereby pacifying a God that is always angry and ready to smite you for the slightest wrong you commit.

And there are those who avoid sin to escape hell; so what, they too will be clearly shown. "He will be found righteous when He judges and just when He speaks"

frosbel:
Let's compare this to the Gospel of Christ ;

Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


The true gospel was always about others not ourselves, it was about how to put the interest of others above and beyond our personal interests irrespective of the sacrifice or even suffering involved ( remember the good Samaritan ). It was based on LOVE , LOVE for ALL People both our worst enemies and best friends, it was based on us alleviating the burdens , pain and suffering around us and showing kindness, mercy and compassion to ALL Men.

Yet we see a conflict between the Christ approach and the Christianity approach, one is a personal ambition to make heaven by avoiding sin and the other is a selfless pursuit of the welfare and good of others not expecting any reward.

Could it be that the reason why Nigerian Christians in particular live in abject defeat and are easily overcome by sin and other vices , is primarily due to their pursuit of heavenly bliss by avoiding sin and financial gain by paying their tithes ?? This seems to me to be the main goal among these ones. Would I be wrong to say that Nigerian Christians are practising Christian Hedonism and first and fore mostly after their own welfare and happiness, that is why they can be the most harsh, rude and condescending people to ever relate with, do you agree ?

Go to MFM for example , it is about cursing enemies and not blessing them, go to Christ Embassy it is about positive thinking to the betterment of one's personal life, go to the redeemed it is about daddy GO pronouncing a blessing on one's life due to a seed that was sown, go to deeperlife life it is about immediate heaven after death due to a sinless life , the list is endless.

What happened to doing what is right for the sake of doing what is right and for the love of God and our neighbour , without expecting Any reward whatsoever ?

Nothing, and even the gentiles do such.

frosbel:
"…Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'' - Matthew 7:21-23

In these churches the common testimonies are not about how we paid someone's bills , how we temporarily housed a few homeless friends, how we paid the medical fees of someone we never met , how we forgave a large debt etc, it is always about how God has upgraded my life with a new or bigger house, a new or bigger car, a new partner , Job etc....basically all about me me me me me me me me.

And when they invite you to church , they do not help you learn how to live a contented and peaceful life, instead they lure you with the promise of how God can solve all your problems , heal all your sicknesses, punish your enemies and make you a happier and brighter person. This stinks !

Your thoughts are welcome.

Leave them, those who seek Him will find Him - now who is this Bart you follow - is it the son of Homer !

TV

Surely the scandals emanating out of the church are the fruit of what has been planted? Intellectually there are all sorts of things wrong with the supposition as quoted, and spiritually it reeks of a lack of discernment .

"By their fruits you shall know them" - As a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, a good seed cannot produce a bad tree. You write a letter criticising the scandals and then bury (excuse the pun), the most obvious reason for them?

I write to you as a Christian who is saddened by the series of troubling news emanating from your church, Christ Embassy. I am worried that the seeds you have planted in us through your teachings may no longer germinate as a result of the numerous scandals coming out of the church.

TV

What is this foul-smelling hot mess early on a Saturday morning A tipper load of bovine scatology to ruin the weekend ! Thank God TV01 NL' Foremost marriage advocate and defender of delightful matrimony is at hand - it must be sanitation day !

tobechi20:
MARRIAGE MANIPULATION.....
*Husbands are scarce..... (I wonder when the scarcity begin, and when e go end)

"Good" husbands are scarce, and thinking like this is not helping the situation. Best prepare and start early for your matrimonial adventure

tobechi20:
*Being single is a sin..... (According to Naija's bible version)

Nope, but long-term, the thoughts of the vast majority will turn to marriage - and indeed, society flourishes best that way. As above!

tobechi20:
*Being a single mother is a CRIME...... (Only in Nigeria's constitution)

Nope, it's not a crime, it's a societal ill, and rightly stigmatised, it has no benefits over child-rearing in wedlock and has a cost to society.

tobechi20:
*Divorce is for OUTLAWS..... (Nigeria marriage is for better for worse)

Another societal ill, which should be avoided, and would be vastly reduced if my earlier advice were taken and applied.

tobechi20:
Until Nigerians changes the above mentality, both sex(es) will always be at the fatal receiving ends..... (Both male and female)

There could be changes in approach that would improve things, but overall the emphasis on marriage is the right one.

tobechi20:
Most disastrous marriages in Nigeria are as a result of MARRIAGE MANIPULATIONS. (Check around you)
And 85% of Nigerian marriages are just being managed, because most couples are trying so hard to please the Naija society. ..... (Love lost)

Be as that may be, don't attack marriage, work to better prepare people for it

tobechi20:
Until Nigerians stop asking single ladies when they are getting married.

Anyone who cares about their family or friends will be concerned about their marital prospects and outlook when they are of age.

tobechi20:
Until they stop treating single mothers like second class citizens, just because they refused to abort their babies.

Inverted logic - which characterises this whole post - does refusal to abort cause single mothers?

tobechi20:
Until they stop treating divorcees like worthless pieces of thrash......

Should divorce be lauded? Encouraged?? Celebrated Or even considered a good thing. Did you put any thought into this

tobechi20:
Women would be MANIPULATING men into marrying them, even when it is clear that the man doesn't love them.

Every one is responsible for their own choice - no one is forced to marry. And manipulation would all but disappear if my advice above is taken

tobechi20:
If single mothers are left alone, no woman would be forcing a man to marry her because of pregnancy......(Manipulation)

Are single women forced to get pregnant? Are they best advised to have children without the presence of a committed father. Single mothers pursue marriage hard because of the burden of raising children alone, not the other way round. Honestly?

tobechi20:
If single ladies are not being insulted as if singlehood is a curse, no single girl will be nagging her boyfriend to see her parents or use juju(voodoo) to mesmerise a man..... (Manipulation)

Very few women are cut out for long-term spinsterhood or men for bachelorhood. It's absolutely right that she is prepared and encouraged to marry.

tobechi20:
If divorcees are not seen as worthless, a lot of abused women won't be living with men who are obviously tired of being married who constantly abuse them .... (Manipulation)

If they are correctly prepared and don't do it for selfish reasons, divorce will be rare. Teach them to do it properly not reject whats best for them and society.

tobechi20:
For men.....
You think it's your world, and you go about treating women like thrash, insulting single women by reminding them of their status, calling single mothers prostitutes, and yapping about divorce being a grave sin..... (You are all at the receiving end)
When a single woman gets tired of your tongue lashing, she becomes desperate. And only God knows what a desperate woman can do, because hers claws on any man is permanent..... (Pray never to meet one).
When a single woman becomes pregnant, she forces you to marry her

Yes, it's a mans world - and nothing is changing anytime soon. Despite the best efforts of purveyors of neo-ideologies. And why? Not least 'cos women want it that way !

Now please take this losers charter, this attack on the family, this outrage against society and shove it. It's foul and smellier than a 2buff stanky kitty-kat thread !

Are you married ? And if not, why not, don't you realise there's a best window of opportunity? that good spouses are scarce? That it's best to commit as soon as you are ready and have your children in wedlock? That all the best reception halls are booked until 2020? that good caterers are scarce, that quality aso ebi, decent fuji bands and chauffeured limosines are becoming more expensive by the day, that... !


TV

crackhaus:
When you keep using the words coerce and intimidate, the ladies won't understand but would rather believe it impossible for a woman to do that to a man.

Sir TV, simplify it using that theory of informed consent, thus:

First Instance:
A man wants to have sex with his wife, she disagrees and insists on not being in the mood/being tired - the man still goes ahead and makes love to her.
According to the that law and also supported by women on NL, that woman did not give her consent and as such, has been raped by her husband.

Second Instance:
A woman gets hot for it, she tries to get her husband to give it but he says no (disagrees) citing fatigue or not being in the mood - the woman continues nonetheless and gets on top of him...and given that the male organ has a mind of it's own, it still gets pumped up and erect despite the fact that the owner doesn't really want it.

The issue now being, is there is a female on NL who will agree/admit that this wife has raped her husband, going by the theory of consent (informed or otherwise)...

Simplified enough I guess!

Cheers Crackhaus...it's not like I haven't spelt it out for her - repeatedly! Obsfucation is the ploy here ! Or perhaps CFW is just confirming some dep-seated suspicions I have !

Informed consent and coercion are the basal points for determining if rape has been commited. As women are as able - and if anything more likely - to do this than men, they also should be charged with rape.

Always tring to make it sound like rape is about men using overwhelming force and brutality to have sex with women is a straw-woman

Further, when it comes to the marital setting, I want the state and interfering busy-bodies - especially those who cannot grasp marriage themselves - to butt right out.

And if we are discussing sexual dysfunction/misdemeanours within marriage, we should consider that as sex is both an obligation and a right, therefore, witholding sex should be considered as seriously as coercing it.

Ergo, "marital rape", whilst used to characterise men as brutes is something women are more guilty of. QED !


TV

^{...interefing misandrist busybodies...usually 'cos they can't get quality men of their own - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11244275/New-domestic-violence-law-will-outlaw-coercive-control.html !}

carefreewannabe:
What do YOU think about it? Does ra*pe only take place when there is the penetrative aspect involved?

That is the legal definition. Rape is essentially a crime only men can really commit (I've noted the exception previously)

My thoughts with particular regard to the marital situation is they should just butt out. If there is non-violent coercion stay-out. That's purely a domestic issue.

If there is real violence or physical assault involved, it could be treated as assault/GBH. I stand to be corrected here, but I haven't heard anything plausible to the contrary.

If there is insistence on getting involved in marital sexual affairs, it should be expanded to ensure unwarranted sexual neglect or refusal is incorporated and not weighted or worded so that only husbands are culpable or criminalised. And I'd also like to see the term "rape" removed. Probably re-named as "marital sexual....".

carefreewannabe:
Have you got a problem with it? Why / Why not?

As above

carefreewannabe:
Is it so, what does TV think?

As above

carefreewannabe:
How can a woman coerce a man into s*ex including penetration? Please, I really want to know.

Women can coerce, intimidate or even force men onto sex. But as it is always the man who penetrates, she can never be charged with rape. Men can also have sex without informed consent - and that is the base point for determining rape - that or coercion - not force. In fact, mens biology makes them even more prone to having sex against what their will, or what they know to be in their best interest !

carefreewannabe:
You are talking about equality when biological differences MUST be taken into account. NOBODY is denying these biological differences.

Do the biological differences preclude women coercing, intimidating or forcing men into sex? I think not, hence any law should be equalised.

carefreewannabe:
Because some people chose, as you say, to talk of ra*pe if a penetrative act has taken place. Anything that does not include such an act is considered a se*xual assault, I guess. Now the question is, what YOU think of it?

As above, and in my initial response

carefreewannabe:
If we agree that ra*pe includes the penetrative act, then it makes sense, do you?
A man can still sue a woman on grounds of se*xual assault of some kind.

As above, and in my initial response

carefreewannabe:
It makes sense BUT do you really want the law to put pressure on spouses to sleep with their husbands / wives? Does any sane man want to sleep with a wife who does so because she has to?
You don't mind the law butting butting in in marital affairs in this case?

My preference is that the law keep out altogether - and certainly not weigh in just to criminalise men.
And in a marital union, spouses have to sleep with each other - ATBE. It's conjugal, co1tus is embedded in the union. Without the conjugal aspect, it's not actually a marriage.

carefreewannabe:
And then, what if the husband denies the wife s*Ex? Should he be charged? What if he simply cannot get it up because she has become fat and ugly (which happens quite often )?

He shouldn't deny her as I've stated above.
If her visage causes an equipment malfunction, she should go to the gym, not the courthouse !

carefreewannabe:
Should people pay money and go to jail because of it? How would it help your cause to minimize the number of divorced marriages?

Not sure what people "pay money and go to jail for"


In all I see this more about characterising husbands as violent and brutal, when I know and can personally testify of the burden carried and sacrifice made by husbands for their wives and children everyday.

It's also a slur on marriage, belittling what is still the safest form of relationship for women.

TV

BlackBaron:
Don't know where this fits...but

A lady came to stay the night with a friend,he'd only known her about a week. At about bed time, she had a shower, changed into a towel, oiled up all her body and crashed between 2 guys on a sort of large camp bed sprawled out in the sitting room whenever we watch movies. She had no underwear on (bra or panties were left in the bathroom) At first my friend tried to coax her if she wanted to bang which she declined several times even though almost completely naked except she tightly wrapped herself up in a towel. I also think she had a bit of drink that night whilst we were watching films. As she said no, we all left her and slept off anyway.

In the morning, she was up and when we'd left for work, she quietly grabbed stuff she could lay her hands on; laptops,tablets,etc and absconded whilst someone was using the bathroom.
Now every time I think about it I wondered what her motive was. If she had secs that night, would she have alleged rape in the morning or chosen to blackmail us? If say it got to court, where we stand against something like this especially seeing she chose to lie with guys she wasn't that familiar with. What would the court say about this?

Murky waters. I don't advise any man swim in them. I will say this much;

1. She's a thief and should be charged accordingly .

2. I can't speak conclusively on your conjecture about her motives, but if she had claimed rape - in the West - you would have undergone a very bad experience - even if you got off. And nothing would have happened to her - even if you could prove her allegations were baseless or even malicious.

3. You made yourselves vulnerable for no reason - I hope you learned a valuable lesson.


TV

Carefreewannabe, you have not answered any of the questions I posed and neither have you demonstrated that you understand the prevailing thinking on this issue;

1. The legal definition of rape incorporates a penetrative aspect. A woman cannot be solely charged with raping a man in the UK. As to use of an object, that will be charged as "sexual assault" at best, or possibly using common assault/GBH laws.

2. Marital rape itself is a misnomer, as only a husband can rape his wife, not vice-versa. Ergo, it's a fake, seemingly neutral categorisation that can only be used against men. No woman who coerces her husband into sex or uses sex to coerce her husband to do something will ever be charged with rape - anywhere - you yourself said that much. That is not equal or responsible. Marital rape curtails a husbands freedom relative to his wife'.

3. We don't even have to touch on force, or drugging, as I'm not arguing those to start. Although, I am yet to hear a good reason why a husband that does use force should not be charged with GBH or using assault laws.

4. In any event, the contention around rape the West - US, UK and the others are moving that way if not already there - typically pivots on informed consent/coercion and it is not brought against women. Hence my using the illustration of the Ched Evans case.

5. And if a wife refuses her husband sex for no good reason - no he shouldn't force her - but it should be a chargeable offence. He has a right to sex with her and she does not have the right to deny him for purely capricious reasons. It's implicit and underpins the the conjugal union.

TV

carefreewannabe:
I love it when people say THE WEST. Which countries are THE WEST? How many? Are you familiar with all the laws and the prevailing thinking of the people in these countries? Interesting, enlighten me please.




rape

rape somebody
to force somebody to have sex with you when they do not want to by threatening them or using violence

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/rape_1

Rape is also when you give somebody a drug without them consenting to taking the substance to make them lose control over their mind and / or body and you then have s*ex with them.

Rape is also when somebody loses consciousness, for any reason, and you have s*ex with the person.




Says who?



She can also penetrate him with an object. This is a pervert scenario but thinkable.




Are you 100% sure?



How is the word rape politicized?




Whatever the reason for that is, it does not change the fact that rape takes place whenever a person is forced to sleep with someone against their will, wife or not.




Not in Germany, is it also THE WEST?
Not in Spain, is it also THE WEST?
Not in Poland, is it also THE WEST?

And which law in the UK states EXPLICITLY that having s*Ex with a drunk person is ra*pe?




If she can make him sleep with her against his will, then it is. The question is, can she?




So she has no right to say no? And if she says no, it only counts if he agrees but if he doesn't, then she MUST sleep with him?
Very interesting.



I see.





This is why I asked YOU if a woman can rape a man. Can she?




Se*x is implicit? Does it make sense to you? Explain what it means.



Again, can a woman rape a man?




So if a wife refuses to sleep with her husband, then he has the right to force her to sleep with him?

crackhaus:
In theory, Yes!

But do women see it that way? Hell no!

...'sup Cracky?

Nor mind dem.

If a man coerces his wife - he's a rapist
If a wife coerces her husband - shes' sharp girl

Equality, freedon and responsibility as defined !

TV