₦airaland Forum

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

coogar:
there's hardly any man that doesn't appreciate the male-female dynamism. that is why he proposed to the woman in the first place but men continue to bear the biggest chunk of the brunt in the west. if he's not losing 50% of his wealth, he would lose the house, cars & even the pet dogs. if she's the mean type, she can even put a restraining order against him to see his kids or the house.

I actually meant in terms of being a playa and triggering attration responses in women. It's so ridiculously easy if you know how. Such men can enjoy a wonderful variety of sexual partners, without getting married, and at relatively low risk compared to marriage.

coogar:
when you try to take responsibility & demand high value, you would be promptly labelled a brute, bully, domestic abuser. it's a lose-lose situation.

Here I meant in regulating the kind of women you allow into your orbit. If high quality/status men refused to engage the wrong sort of women, they'd have to shape up. All women typically desire the top 20 -30 % of men.

coogar:
it's a mad mad world.

Ultimately we stand or fall together. This cannot continue or society will not remain as we have known it.

TV

carefreewannabe:
There is a consensus? Among which group of people?

Again whose current thinking exactly?

These responses suggest you are not conversant with the laws or prevailing thought in the West. You really should read up.

carefreewannabe:
You tell me what constitutes rape. Share your views. I will share mine.

Ladies first ! You are trumpeting marital rape, tell us what it is as distinct - unless it's exactly the same - from other forms. And if it's the same, my position remains unchanged based on what has been posted here. And further, I'd refer you to my response immediatley above.

carefreewannabe:
First of all, do you think a man can be raped? And if yes, why? If not, why not?

Legally he cannot be raped by his wife, as it's deemed a penetrative act. There is no statute that covers it in the UK. He will only be deemed to have been raped if his wife assusts another man to forcefully penetrate him

carefreewannabe:
Secondly, I have already said it on this forum, and I need to repeat it in this context, no logical supporter and promoter of equality will deny that there are biological differences between the se*xes.

And this is not recognised by the laws covering rape
And the word rape is loaded and heavily politicised

carefreewannabe:
If he forces and brutalizes her to have s*ex with her against her will then it is not only GBH but rape too.

You haven't shown good reason for that within marriage

carefreewannabe:
If she decides to drink out of her free will and then sleeps with him without being forced to, then it is not ra*pe.

Legally it is

carefreewannabe:
If he coerces her to sleep with her, then it is rape, do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree.
If a wife coerces or intimadates her husband to sleep with her, has she raped him?

carefreewannabe:
If a woman uses s*ex to obtain something and the man decides to give her something in exchange for se*x, then it is a deal between two consenting adults.

A wife has already consented to sex with her husband. Marriage is conjugal and sex is obligatory. What you talk of is something I am not familiar with !

And that is why I say that the term rape is loaded and politicised. It needs to be expanded to capture sexual crimes of the wife against the husband. By deeming it solely penetrative and only a matter of consent or deemed to be coercive when its the woman, the laws here are simply bad.

carefreewannabe:
If a woman withholds s*ex for some reason, then nothing can be done apart to her. The man can leave or cheat.

So you don't understand what marriage is and you are not for equality !

carefreewannabe:
So you can kill your wife or your wife can kill you and it is your business because you are married? Interesting.

Straw-woman (I am for equality ) - sex is implicit in marriage, murder isn't

carefreewannabe:
Nobody is butting into marital affairs unless one of the spouses, most likely the wife, accuses her husband of rape.

Only the wife can accuse her husband of rape.
And what is considered rape is contrary to some historically practiced, widely prevailing and accepted forms of marriage

carefreewannabe:
Any human being should have the right to be protected if needs be even if it is against their spouse.
I thought, this goes without saying.

That doesn't mean a husband should be arbitrarily criminalised for the act of having intercourse with his lawfully wedded spouse does it?


TV

LordReed:
Next time slow down and read before you comment, no where did I mention one body.

Marriage does not make one a soulless dummy that can be used against one's will. Your obligations still require your active and willful participation.

...will an answer to the question be forthcoming? Or are you waiting for consent !


TV

coogar:
•marital rape
•no fault divorce
•child custody battles
•ridiculous divorce payouts
•prenup, etc

all these things have crashed the value of marriage institution & men are mostly the victims. i can't even see it getting any better as there seems to be a force out there determined to swallow marriage values completely.

Long-term men, women and children will suffer the fallout. Yes, individual men may play smart, forsake marriage and just live life. Afterall sex, which was a major dividend for men in marriage, has effectively been divorced from it. A man who appreciates the male-female dynamic and moreso is at least solvent, will have a field day. The only snag would be if he wants children and the best long-term outcome for them.

But that's from a selfish individual perspective. Long term society will come close to collapse. Men built it, men have to take responsibility for turning the tide and retrieving the situation. Setting high standards for ourselves as men, husbands and fathers and demanding high value from women is the way to go.

TV

^{**after clearing all the hurdles to getting married and then taking on the huge burden that comes with it, why do men need a busy-body state, or interfering - typically unmarried - types, adjudicating on the intimacy between them and their wives; and with nebulous crap about consent !**}

coogar:
it must be asked though....
why do you defend marriage when it's clear as daylight that men are being short-changed in the institution? in the western world, is there any merit for men to get married?

Societal flourishing demands it.
Civilisation as we know it cannot persist without it.

I am fully aware of it's low value proposition for men in the West - especially from a legal standpoint - but all told, society works best with men and women harnessing the complimentary natures to raise healthy families.

You can literally opt out of the current value-proposition and create your own. You just need to find a woman that shares your worldview or at least gets it and buys into it. Long-term it's nest for her too.

More widely, a society requires a bithrate of around 2.2 to regenerate itself. Almost all Western societies are unable to meet this as they retreated from first religion and then marriage. Hence the need for massive immigration. With no way of importing like for like - as they are all suffering the same problem - they have to allow in cultures and religions that clash. Long-term unworkable. Or do you think yesterdays attacks were not clearly forseeable?

Even Nigeria with all it's problems would make much headway if we had good solid nuclear families. How many of the current generation can hold decent unions together?


Faith & family

TV

LordReed:
Individual wills have agreed to work together they don't automatically disappear nor will they ever. No party is supposed to make such a unilateral decision, it is to be arrived by consensus which why it is not acceptable for the husband or wife to simply withhold sex.



Same principle, it is neglect whether neglect of provision or the bed.



It might be inchoate to you but it is the reality. When two individuals marry they don't become a one brained one willed two bodied monster, they remain individuals who are choosing to work towards the same goals. Their wills remain theirs even if they give up their self interests for the family.

More of the same. No one said thay became one body. Otherwise where is the sex !

If a man demands sex with his wife and she doesn't want it, but he insists as it's an express part of marriage, so she agrees against her feelings has he raped her? Should he be charged? Noting that legally, there was not informed consent (or it was coerced), the basis for rape.

TV

vivalableue:
When I said implicit consent, I literally mean an open invitation at all times without giving way the need to ask. However, when I look at it, when I agree to be a wife, for example, I'm agreeing that my husband will be the only one who I agree to have sex with me. Not that he can have access to my body regardless if I consent or not, just that he'll be the only one I will give consent to.

In marriage, consent is one side of the coin; the other is that a spouse has a right to conjugal relations and you have understood and accepted that right by marrying them. Of course one expects ones spouse to be receptive/consent to intimacy, but there is also a right to it.

vivalableue:
Oneness means that decisions and actions of each spouse be considered as though the both are doing it. So if one spouse decides to purchase a house, his wife implicitly agrees to do so. However, in the course of a marriage it is reasonable to assume and perhaps even expected to assume that both parties agree to each other activities before the activity is committed. Which is why in my neck of the woods, a couple can legally separate if they allege that one partner is acting on a consistent basis without consulting the other.

I found it hard to pin down what is being outlined here. "Openess" sounds somewhat abstract. Practically I understand that spouses need to discuss and agree and often compromise. I also see why "legally", one spouse acting unilaterally would be grunds for a separation.

vivalableue:
About the divorce for non consummation, I have to consult the law books of my province and get back to you.

Most religious and cultural forms of marriage were sealed and validated by consumation.

vivalableue:
Rape is sex without the implicit consent of both parties, even the withdrawal of consent of one party during the act. In my part of the world, the word party is used, because gay sex is legal, therefore it's possible for one man to rape another, a women to rape another, a man to rape transgender etc

And part of the issue is the fluidity of consent and the different way sex happens for men and women

As far as I know women cannot be charged with raping men unless they do so as an accomplice of another man. It's penetrative as defined

And this without alluding to holy matrimony as I know and practice it. Here a spouses body literally belongs to the other. Conjugal relations are implied and a right.

As you yourself noted, consent can be retracted during the act, the law saws if consent is not informed and explicit, it's not consent. This leaves the door open to criminale men in their homes - even against the wishes of their wives. And I am in no way championing violence or the use of force

I also see it as a slur on marriage, which is actually safest for women. People are free to pursue the rape epidemic, I continue to defend marriage.


TV

coogar:
a brief decision was made when they heard the guys involved were football players. they knew the case would draw attention.

And leave one mans career in tatters and unfairly denied the chance to pursue his livelihood?

coogar:
no date drug was found in her system but prosecutors used the technicality of her high metabolism rate. traces of cannabis & cocaine were found in her system though.

She could equally have taken the drugs alone (before she even met the guys) or consensually with them. Someone who had partied and gotten high through the night, vomited inthe street and urinated in a shop doorway? And non of that means she was raped, just that it's damn murky out there!

coogar:
there's a thin line between consensual sex & nonconsensual sëx. there was no evidence they even slept with her - but the lads confessed to sleeping with her. so the moment the complainant claimed her drink might have been spiked then the police would naturally be interested in the case.

It's not thin mate, it's arbitrary - totally arbitrary. I shake my head at such guys,; you's be mad to even engage such.

coogar:
hahaha!
the laws won't change anytime soon. haven't you seen the new definition of rapë put out by FBI?

Please post, I need to see it, in for a laugh, in for a dozen ! I bet habitual breast-gazers are in trouble !

TV

...my head this morning. This made me laugh! There is so much meat here, a veritable feast;

- Champions of polygamy, this is your cue
- Hungry (along, with the bitter, time-bound etc.) single women, your input is required
- Single men on the make, what do you have to say, please share your rejection experiences, too short, "ball head", no money, no car !
- Femnivores, come and chip in, how are women making themselves unmarriageable
- Feministas, please explain why this is only sorry-arse sisters as marriage is not by fire-or-force, or do-or-die. You don't even need a man
- Smug married ladies, a few teaspoons of haughtiness will help this brew taste better

Please don't delay. I'm on furlough today !

NL parry !


TV

LordReed:
I believe that when discussing the issue of rape in marriage one must put in mind that marriage does not erase individual identity nor does it subjugate individual will. The call of marriage is to freely offer one to the other everything that one has including the body.

Rape in marriage now addresses situations where individual wills are at opposition. Rape is a violent resolution of the battle of wills whereby one imposes his/her will over another. If this happens in marriage it is still rape. Marriage gives no one the right to impose as marriage is about agreement and mutuality.

And if marriage is about agreement and mutuality as you've outlined, having entered the agreement - which is conjugal and implies co1tus - can one party now unilaterally decide to renege on the agreement? Individual identities have agreed to merge and seperate wills too mesh.

If a man freely refuses to make provision for his wife - when he is able to do so and she has need - he can be charged with spousal neglect. Much talk of free wills is at best odd, when they freely enter into the union.

Again, I'm not buying into this "marital rape" is endemic ish. And I'm not swayed by inchoate definitions of what constitutes rape or marriage.

TV

vivalableue:
It's aa complicated question that honestly varies depending on the situation at hand.

Surely we just have to define what rape is and then decide if it applies exactly the same in and out of wedlock?

vivalableue:
In the majority of cases, marriage implies a union of committed adults who agree to stay true to another and to become one. That oneness IMO doesn't mean implicit consent to intercourse. It implies that by the joining together, they resolve to be in one accord.

If the oneness doesn't mean implicit consent to intercourse - why can marriages be nullified in the event of non-consumation? In addition to a clear definition of what constitutes rape, you need a working proposition of what a marriage is.

I for one would be interested to hear what this "oneness" actually entails? Or how being in "one accord" in a conjugal relationship does not implicitly and explicitly demand coital relationships

vivalableue:
So, with that in mind, if one spouse at any moment of time disagrees to have sex, the other must be in accord with that decision. Forcing your spouse to have sex with out their consent not only is rape, but it's also breaking the marriage vows.

You have not defined rape, and your definition of marriage is not one that I am aware is pracrtised anywhere? So you have a plausible sounding conclusion without a premise. And no one is arguing against individual instances of "giving leave to one another", or endorsing violence.


TV