₦airaland Forum

carefreewannabe: Who says "humans are designed to co*pulate with the opposite s.ex"?

Please don't answer a question witrh a question - you are German now, not Nigerian. ! Demonstrate otherwise

carefreewannabe: Who says gender is fluid?

Your same ideology that says "orientation" is fixed - And as above.


TV

kandiikane: If genes are not at play then genes are also not at play in hetereosexuality. It could possibly well be just our environment that influences our sexual orientation.

First, there is no such thing as heterosexuality. It's normality - human males and females are designed to copulate. Fact. Evidenced by outcome, preceeded by functionality and structure.

What is called homosexuality is better termed "abnormality", not least because it affects a small percentage of people and they have the exact same functionality and structure as normal people.

However you view it, it's a disorder.

kandiikane: Actually in regards to paedophilia, I am not talking about those who in their culture can marry a girl once they have started their period but those who are actually just attracted to minors. There has been scientific research done on them. There is a difference in their brains to a normal healthy adult. The side of the brain which registers sexual response is triggered by pictures of children. There is a cross wiring between the sexual response part of the brain and the parental and nuturing part. There is a huge difference in the white matter of a paedophile to that of a typical adult male. Also paedophiles have a lower iq than average.

I believe we are all on the same page regards who we deem paedophiles in terms of pre-pubescents.

Are you claiming the wiring of ones brain is genetically determined? It can be programmed and developed in certain ways. What you've stated is no different for those that cultivate drug habits - are they also genetic?

I have made the point - I appreciate that in many case, it's not a choice as in waking up one morning and deciding for rectum as against vjay.
It can be any number of impressions, actions, traumas, feedback, wiring issues etc that accumulate over time that lead to a strongly embedded inclination that may seem innate. But the crux is it's no the way we designed to operate. So it can never be deemed to be normal - as prevelent or as right.


TV

carefreewannabe: Please spare me with "Christianity today" sources.
If you want to provide evidence, then leave religion out of it.
I am talking about facts here and not religious sentiments.

Here you go:

After 37 Years of Trying to Change People’s Sexual Orientation, Group Is to Disband

IRVINE, Calif. — For 37 years, Exodus International was the leading beacon of the “ex gay” movement, which maintained that gay men and lesbians could change their sexual orientation through prayer and psychotherapy.

But on the opening night of the group’s 38th annual conference here, Exodus International announced that the organization would disband, amid growing skepticism among its top officials and board members that sexual attractions can be changed.

For the past year, the group’s president, Alan Chambers, has been increasingly vocal in proclaiming that therapy could not change a person’s sexual orientation. In a statement posted Wednesday on the group’s Web site, he cited a recent letter he had written to gay men and lesbians.

“I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced,” he said in the letter. “I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents.”

In an interview on Thursday on the campus of Concordia University Irvine, Mr. Chambers said that he believed Exodus International had helped many Christians with same-sex attractions, including himself. But, he added: “Any good we could do in the future would be greatly overshadowed by the real stories of trauma and real stories of shame. So we decided, we can’t do anything but close this down. We can’t just change our name or change our mission.”

The closing of Exodus International signals a major upheaval for the ex-gay movement, which has been the target of increasing criticism.

Professional associations have denounced its focus on reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality as not only ineffective but potentially harmful. At the same time, polls have shown a rising number of Americans are more accepting of homosexuality and approving of gay marriage. Last year, California banned gay conversion therapies for minors, although a legal challenge is pending.

(...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/group-that-promoted-curing-gays-ceases-operations.html


Which question?

I have presented evidence of people who have come out of a homosexual lifestyle - repeatedly. And shown where someone has clearly stated that she chose it. And I can;t show a Christian review of the same article you presented?

Question 1
since humans are designed to copulate with the opposite sex, if they have that function, but not that desire then something is wrong - no?

Question 2
How can orientation which be innate and fixed, but gender be fluid? Afterall orientation is not genetically determined - at best claims are made for it in part - but gender is?


TV

cococandy: Teaching someone what is proper or normal doesn't mean you chain them to do what you've taught.that's what I mean by letting them do what they wish as long as it's not the law.

After having taught them believing they've learned,when they are adults they have the 'freedom' to choose what to follow but must be prepared for the consequences.
So a guy who's chosen randiness shouldn't complain when women are wary around him.(Consequence)

There shouldn't be laws stopping people from let's say wearing what they want to wear or having sex before marriage(things like that)

But parents must teach hoping that when these kids are adults they'll remember but if they decide willingly to go the other way,they are aware and prepared for the consequences.

Gotcha!


TV

parismarc: come on, the Nigerian society doesn't look down on un married men, we all know that.

You honestly believe that?
You didn't just claim that it's not as bad, but that its'non-existent? Really? What did I go through then? From family, friends, younger, older. The relegation , the lack of respect, the plain ridicule - by mostly women?

What is your own experience.


TV

kandiikane: If she has initially been the primary caregiver before the divorce....It doesn't necessarily have to be the birth mother. For example, If the father has been the primary care giver at a tender age breaking that bond at that period can cause issues for them as they grow up. If more fathers become the primary caregivers then it is unlikely the courts with assign the child to their mother especially at such an age unless of course they are unfit parents.

How likely is it that fathers are the primary caregivers and who would actually think that is the best thing?

kandiikane: There are many cases in which fathers do take full custody of the child but again the phrase here is "best interest". This isn't the battle of the sexes, I am certain if more men take on the role of primary caregiver then more kids under the age of 6 will be with them.

Men being the primary caregiver can rarely be what's best - before any question of divorce. Where they are, it's usuall an economic, not care based decision. And it's rarely what happens in practiceThis is the crux, it's not the battle of the sexes, but the way cases are decided are weighted in favour of the woman gaining custody. I haven't even said that's always a bad thing.

kandiikane: I don't know where you got your 10% from but majority of the time, custody issues are settled outside of court and majority of the time it is the father who allows the child to be with the mother. Those who want full custody and cannot agree with the arrangements outside are the ones who go to court.

And where did you get your "majority of the time cases are settled out of court" from?

kandiikane: It is not untrue. I never said men didn't fight for custody, I said men do not fight as much as women because majority of the time when it is settled outside, the father allows the woman custody.

Men don't fight as much because most times it just costs them money and it won't go their way. It's standard advice.

kandiikane: The % you see are those settled outside of course by the parents. In the uk it is only in rare cases do the parent go to court for custody. Just because you are a mother doesn't mean you will get custody, it's about who is the primary caregiver and who has the most time on their hands. I remember reading an newspaper article in which a lady worked and the man stayed at home to look after the children and he was given full custody and the woman paid money to the ex-husband. Before anyone could say anything, he cheated and still got custody and child support, i guess the courts arent as biased as many might think. Whether he cheated or not, he was more fit to take care of the children. Things are changing especially in England and parents are being encouraged to have equal responsibilities. It doesn't make sense to break away the child from the one who is always with them and give it to the other who only spends time with them between 6-9pm and sometimes weekend.

All covered I believe.

kandiikane: I believe everyone should go sit and observe a court hearing when they have time. That is where all the facts are laid out, not the news papers. Even read case summaries instead of making judgements off the top of your head. Know the law.

I'm talking from experience and what I said about "sitting" previously still stands

kandiikane: This statement is untrue and it is only your opinion.

Nope, it's only your assertion about my opinion.

In all, I don't agree with your implication that custody issues are settled in a totally unbiased fashion.

And even where fathers don't fight for custody, it's not that they don't want as much access as possible, which they often don't get, even if court granted, and the same courts can't help. Hence fathers4justice type campaaigns.

And I've seen it live. Mothers can play all sorts of games to frustrate fathers seeing their children - even contravening court orders. The courts however are reluctant ot enforce them as it means the best interests of the child are compromised.



TV

carefreewannabe: You can choose to read this article selectively and even call it sensationalist but geneticists have found similarities in the genetical make-up of gay people, which means that they have more evidence than you have for your statements. Scientific evidence. Not sentiments.

Exactly - similarities in the genetic make-up of "gay people", but those things deemed similarities are also found in non-gay people, so it's not proving anything - and like they strained to say, it's at best suggestive, not conclusive.

Her's the same study from an entirely different perspective - http://www.christiantoday.com/article/research.points.to.genetic.element.in.homosexuality/35856.htm#!
You are the one choosing to read what you want into it.

And you still refuse to answer the question Why?


Orientation which differs from functionality is innate and fixed. But "gender" which is innate & fixed can be fluid?
It's all ideological and you well know it


TV

parismarc: All these would stop the day the Nigerian society stops looking down on single ladies.

If a society has a marriage culture that looks down on single ladies, it will equally look down on single men. Ladies don;t typically marry each other do they?

Ergo, men should be just as desperate, why is that no tthe case?


TV

carefreewannabe: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

Sensationalist headline. Some excerpts;

Dr Bailey said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.

Dr Alan Sanders, associate Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern University, who led the study said that it was it was an 'oversimplification’ to suggest there was a 'gay gene.’

The study builds on work by Dr Dean Hamer from the US National Cancer Institute in 1993 who also found an area of the x chromosome that he believed was linked to male sexual orientation.

Researchers at the University of California believe that homosexuality can be explained by the presence of epi-marks — temporary switches that control how our genes are expressed during gestation and after birth.

Daryl Bem, a social psychologist at Cornell University, has suggested that the influence of biological factors on sexual orientation may be mediated by experiences in childhood. A child’s temperament predisposes the child to prefer certain activities over others.

Interestingly no similar genes have been discovered which influence female homosexuality.

And I could go on.

All suggestive and beliefs, no real proof. And this is citing most of the best efforts to prove it. Plus nothing similar for women? And a proper reading of the findings - carefully omitted here - show that "straight" men have the same gene. It's not only found in "homosexuals" - it was just common to those who claimed to be that way.

At best speculative and more aptly termed junk/ideologically biased science. And the fact remains that since humans are designed to copilate with the opposite sex, if they have that function, but not that desire then something is wrong - no? Why did you overlook this question


TV

kandiikane post=/post/26830383:
Not necessarily, nowadays, parents are judged irrespective of their gender. They look at the best interests of the child and not the gender. If both are equality capable then they are given shared custody. .

The "rulebook" states that the best interest of the child - especially when young - are served by being with the birth mother. Unless she demonstrates serious incompetence or potential to harm the child/ren, she typically gets custody. In upwards of 85% -90% of case where she wants it.

At best Fathers are given shared cuatody or visitation rights. Shared Custody being more likely when the children are older. Capability - of the father at least - is not the big or an equal driver here.

Even the 10% that don't go to women do not all go to men. Some of that is split goes to other relatives such as grandparents.

kandiikane post=/post/26830383:
Many times, the fathers are the ones who allow the child to be with the mother. .

Yes, no problemn with this.

kandiikane post=/post/26830383:
Men hardly fight for the custody of their children during divorce proceedings. If more men are willing to fight for their kids, then there will be more men with custody over their children. .

Untrue and a real bad trope. Men do fight for custody, but as noted before, the mother is best rubric mitigates against them - even where they are more competent or able. In the UK there is a whole mens rights movement about this very thing - http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/

kandiikane post=/post/26830383:
All we always see is the outcome but not the procedure. Maybe, you should go to a few hearings and see for yourself. .

As above - and that's not something I'd reccomend for anyone unless they had to or did so for a living. It may well be worth the unmarried seeing it though, they'd be sure to give greater consideration to their choice of spouse if they did.

kandiikane post=/post/26830383:
If the woman believed the judge was been biased then she should have laid down her facts and made an appeal. For the judge to have given the father custody meant that he was in a better position to look after the children. The west doesn't also play with the welfare of the children.

I did make clear that I wasn't entirely satisfied with the claim in this case.
And the West has priorities - the promotion of LGBT agenda is one of them. From what I've seen the welfare of children is secondary to this.


TV

carefreewannabe post=/post/26830523:
Proof, please.

Carefree, I can't scientifically disprove what hasn't been scientifically proven?
No reputable scientist has, can (or even will)make the claim that homosexuality is biologically determined. Despite lots of funds and effort being spent to prove it, no proof!

It's like asking me to prove that Paedophilia is not genetic?


TV

BananaBender: What you gave doesn't qualify as a reason, more like an excuse.

Like we have different views of what is ideal, we have different ideas of what passes for a reason and an excuse.

BananaBender: You're doing jumping jacks now, I never said that. We all have different views of what an ideal world is. We can only try to make sure whatever law we come up with, is not only beneficial for the majority but tries as much as possible not to deny others their happiness or pursuit of happiness. And it has to be fair.

Burpees are the move. Jumping Jacks are for girlies .
And gay people are not being denied their pursuit of happiness. We are just not agreeing that children, long-standing traditional norms or social convention should all be forced into ensuring that happiness.

BananaBender: WOW! Are u sure?? Who could hv guessed?

The facetiousness of this remark, is matched by the flippancy with which you made it in the first place. A family member or a friend filling the gap left by a father or mother? You are obviously not a wife or mother - and probably always put your own desires first.

BananaBender: Not really. The child still has both homosexual parents. And if lucky, his/her adopted parent stays in communication with the biological parent. I want a link to where you got your research from. I need to read it myself because a lot of things are not making sense.

Two homosexual parents dont make a dual heritage. "If lucky", yeah, as long as the gay desires and vanity are satisfied.

BananaBender: I get it that a child raised by homosexuals might initially struggle with gender identity, gender roles and sexual orientation. Which to me, isn't necessarily a bad thing if parents are willing to educate their children. In fact, it might help eradicate gender roles. [Yaayy!!]

A struggling - and potentially damaged - child is not abad thing, if gay people get their way? Gender? What's that?

BananaBender: The cultural, heritage identity ish isn't working for me. I do not see where they're coming from at all. I need that link.

It's possibly the single most important thing in child wellbeing - I believe Saga posted something?

BananaBender: No active role, so nope. For the most part, heterosexuals do not have sex for the main purpose of reproducing. We have sexually active heterosexuals who are married and do not plan to have kids. Every time a heterosexual gets a vasectomy, diaphragm, or whatever, they fall into the category of 'regular people who choose to use their reproductive capacity in an irregular fashion'.

What we have sex for and what sex is for are two different things.
The fact that gays cannot procreate with each other is a fact. In principle and practice it's always sterile relationship. "Heterosexuals" may not always procreate or have procreative sex. Using your reproductive equipment normally, is first and foremost to use it with a member of the opposite sex.

BananaBender: What's so special about the gay community??

Nothing, that's why we shouldn't change things for them

TV

https://www.nairaland.com/1931502/things-nigerian-women-find-husbands

According to the above thread, the topic of this one should really be "Thread For Those Who are Not Considering Marriage - YET!!!", as 97% of women (adn I'd imagine not to much different for men) will be as some point.

Please don't leave it too long.


TV

I'd like to hear which of our singles here are in the 3% who don't care. Especially with all the "marriage is not for life", "marriage is not for everybody", marriage is not do or die" forming we hear.

Oya ladies, please identify whether you "care" or "care not" as you comment !

swagloverss: "Statistics show that only 3% of single women of marriageable age in Nigeria are undisturbed by their lack of a spouse! The other 97% would do just about anything to become Mrs. Somebody''

TV

kandiikane: What makes you think the dad wasn't a better care giver? Maybe they both worked and he was the one mainly at home. There is a difference between the relationship with the mum and the relationship with child. He may have been a bad hubby or a good hubby(we dont know the full facts) but I am certain he was a good parent for the judge to have given the man the children. If it was such as the woman says she should have appealed. I think she is just bitter that another man can take her husband.

In the West, the mother is almost always given custody. It's not so much about who is the best caregive, as long as the women is competent. Who makes more doesn't matter, as they simply move the funds from husband to wife.

Unless she's not telling something here, I don't see how the judge would have granted him custody - not if details of his lifestyle were known. Other than that, I can only think there may be truth in the activist aim of the judge?


TV

cococandy: Your points are noted.

Just for clarification. I do not champion sexxual freedom for all. I'm leaning more towards teaching sexxual conservatism/restraint for all despite gender

Cool.

And no, I'm not ascribing anything to you. But having said that, it must prove a little problematic to reconcile "let everyone do what they like - as long as they don't cause harm to others" with "leaning towards seexual restraint for all"?


TV

carefreewannabe: Good morning.

I don't want you to disprove anything, I want you to prove something.

You say homes*exuals can change. Prove it.

The homosexual lifestyle is behaviour, ergo it can be changed.
I provided a few links and also invited readers to "goo-goo it" !

I also rejected Picks, admittedly tongue-in-cheek, claim that it was scientifically established.

Homosexuality is not genetically/biologically determined. So what is it that you want me to prove?

In as much as I even use the term "homosexual", thats merely for discussion purposes. There is genetically no such thing. There are no human sub-species and humans reproduce using a male/female binary.

Some people choose to deny the alignment and proper use of this functionality - or do you want me to prove that male and female humans are designed to mate?

And yes, the whole "orientation" babble is a nonsense as well. So please be clear on what you need proving and in the meantime, I'd appreciate if you'd answer this;

If God (or nature or evolution - whatever you subscribe to) created humans to mate as male/female (and I hope you don't need me to prove that, although I can provide picture evidence - not of the mating 0, just the outcome ), why would some be "orientated" in a way that is at odds with their function? And, if you believe this orientation is innate and fixed, is it not clear that something is wrong? Or to sum up;

If orientation is different to function is that not prima facie evidence of an error?


TV

cococandy: no the parents are to blame.they are the ones raising the generation of men who give everyone the impression that sex is all about what a man is which in turn subconsciously makes people misread any innocent gesture a man makes. Even men stereotype others too. A father will most likely leave his daughter or son in the care of a woman rather than a man.

This is not fact and I'm not sure it swings anecdotally either. Firstly, I know of no partents - and definitely not men - here or in Nigeria, who raise their kids to believ that sex is at the core og being a man? Personally, and from a young age, it was always impressed upon me that studies came first - not that I paid any mind to that - but in no way was "seex" put out there as something aspirational.

Although I readily admit that it does suffuse the culture these day - everywhere in fact - I donot see it as emanating from parents. Rather something that parents need to shield their wards from. So perhaps there is some agreement there?

cococandy: some people all their lives have not heard of more than 3 cases where a woman abused a boy. But It does happen. If they reported more,no person can claim ignorant of the fact that female abusers exist as much as male abusers too. Tell me how that won't stop focusing the light on men all the time as the only gender that commits intimate offense.

Again, you may have a point of sorts, but agan, I'll also readily admit that there are likely a lot more male abusers than female. So it's right that we are equally vigilant agianst it happening from both sexes. The problem is statements like this;

ileobatojo: Not all men are molesters obviously

Which make it sound like the men that are not abusers are the exception

cococandy: apart from leading to them reporting abuse more often,it can help growing boys develop intimate consciousness or restraint. Unlike the anything-female-goes attitude some men display. Generally Women are warned severely of sexxual consequences that before we are adults,we have already become sexxually principled.

We don't know how underreported instances of female abuser are, but even if it were fully captured, I still don't think it would be as prevalent as male abusers or punished the same way. And it still wouldn;t remove the unfair characterisation of an unfair impression of men being instinctively being considered as potential offenders.

cococandy: I know a lot of persons won't agree with this point. They believe in male sexuall freedom. I don't begrudge them their opinions. But I think they don't have a right to complain when after championing such behavior,women become wary around men because of what they have been made to believe about men. They can't eat their cakes and have it.

Here agian, I can't help but see this as somewhat off point.
Firstly, the freedom of males can't be untwined from the freedom of females. And are you really saying that there exists a school of thought - and practice - that men should be allowed to make their way through life led by their libidos? And amongst parents?

And if that is indeed so, the charge would be more likely as raapists generally and not simply abusers of children.

Secondly, the push generally, is now more about freedomn for all and all kinds. As women become more libido led, are they being characterised more as abusers? Loose, maybe, promiscuous, possibly, adulterous even in some ways, but not abusers.

cococandy: I didn't see the topic stating categorically that men only sexually molest kids. So that was meant to cover every aspect of sexu'al abuse. That said,do you not see how easy it is for someone who believes men can't do without sex to also believe that a man can do anything even if it's molest a child to get it? So one thing leads to another. When they start believing one,they may involuntarily start believing the other.even when they don't voice it.

Yes, I can see that, and would make it more in line with my thoughts that your position would mean men being generally characterised as abusers, not specifically as abusers of children. The first sentence of the OP does lend more clarity however.

cococandy: agreed. But I can't speak for those who haven't been enlightened about female sex offenders. It's not their fault they only always hear about male offenders

And I agree, and I think we both agree that education about this whole thing shouldn't be sex specific. I'd go further and say that expectations should be the same as well. ALthough my inclination wouldn;t be to champion freedom for all - as I think that's part of what got us in to this mess in the first place.

cococandy: I would like to learn your opinion on what you think contributes to it.even if those my two points are correct,there are probably more reasons why the stereotype holds. So your opinion pls.

I think it's the way men are portrayed - especially in the West. IN nIgeria, if anything I'd be more inclined to say it's perhaps a little fairer, but still not close to the mark. I'd even think all forms of abuse against children are underreported.

But Nigerian men also grow up with mothers, sisters, aunts, female colleagues, schoolmates and neighbours. We are inculcated quite early intyo a culture of valuing children. My love of children and family came first, and mainly, from my time in Nigeria. And to think that Nigerian men are now running scared?

cococandy: Do you still think my opinion of the report cases being a chief contributor to the stereotype is way off the mark?

Yes, because even if women truly didn't commit any abuse and all the reports were of men, and of all their abuse of women and children, it still wouldn't be reason to characterise or imply that most men are abusers or potential abusers. Justr like the stories we hear here doesn't mean that most men are cheats or most marriages are torture chambers.

cococandy: so women are? And if your answer is yes,why?

Not women. Feminism, the media, political lobbies and the like.


TV

Morning,

cococandy: Ok let's leave the church service and programmes aside.

Ok

cococandy: Why does excommunication have to include family and friends who go to that same church with you turning their backs on you?

Probably becuase they see the church as one big family - and moreso as they probably all live in a "comunually minded" manner.

cococandy: Understood that the laws are there for the excesses,how does it help the case of someone who was leaving for their own safety?
Especially when they need a network of support from family and friends at those trying times.

Given that it will mean marriages are established better, such cases shouldbe few and far between.
I would hope they understood this could be the case in some instances and acted accordingly. I'd also imagine living more "communally" would make any abuse more visible. They'd probably have a way of bringing offending men to order.


TV

carefreewannabe: I asked for scientific proof.

Morning,

You want me to scientifically disprove something that has not been scientifically established?

That's beyond even my renowned prowess !


TV

anselm791: My guy, dey your own, if you love kids that much? Make your own. with the rate it's going now, all men are molesters until proven otherwise, and since there's no way to prove, we are back to the notion which states that all men are molesters. Lol

I used to treat the pre-teens in my church to West-End shows. Something I would have loved to do more of when I was young, and which I thought they'd enjoy.

I'd typically take around 4 of them a time - and whoever I was seeing. I loved it. The planning in spring so it would fall during the summer hols, the anticipation the kids had and most of all their sheer joy & happiness. And I really enjoyed it.

But after a while I seriously considered if I wanted to expose myself to the possible flak. How many men would love to show children some love but are put off by this nasty and unfair characterisation?

I took your advice - God blessed me with my own.


TV

carefreewannabe: Can you prove it can be changed? Just curious.

Can you prove it can't?

Google "I came out of a homosexual lifestyle" or variants.

It's a choice
Yes, it may be a strong inclination, but it is not biologically determined
It may be a serious of experiences, traumas, impressions, choices, feedback that builds up, but it is not normal
Giving it up may not be as simple as flipping a switch, but it can certainly be done. It really is a choice.

http://www.prodigalmagazine.com/on-homosexuality-its-ok-to-fight/
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/2012/01/cynthia_nixon_i_1.php


TV

cococandy: They lay the foundation for it.

Men are characterised as abusers and boys are to blame? Sounds suspiciously like blaming rape on scantily clad dressing by women?

cococandy: How many boys report sexxual abuse from older females? That's why the news is everywhere about male molesters but little about female molesters.

Even if boys are more aware of sexxual abuse - and to report it - by older females, how will that remove the unfair stereotype that men are the majority abusers?

cococandy: Because most parents spend so much energy giving daughters sex education that they don't give sons.
So to the little boys,it's no biggie

Say, I agree with you - and in part I do - how does parents giving equal emphasis on sex education to both boys and girls change things, except that it may lead to increased reporting of women. Even where women are indicted as molesters, they are rarely characterised or punished in the same way as men.

cococandy: Older guys act like sexing a woman is an achievement. Hence they brag about their conquests. Inadvertently making any woman around them to feel that the most important thing in men's life is sex.

How does men liking sex lead to the belief that they are sexual abusers of children? Are those that like money implicitly thieves, or lovers of food gluttons? Casanovas? Gigolos, playboys, all yes,but abusers of children?

cococandy: Some will go the length of the earth for sex.

Presumably with women, not children?

cococandy: Do you then wonder why women are subconsciously careful or wary with their daughters around male folks.even when they have no reason to distrust him.

We should be equally wary about both boys and girls. But the truth is the stereotype of men as abusers is not due to the voracious sexual appetite of some men.

To say that the stereotype of men as sexual abusers of children is due to the voracious appetites of some, or the failure of boys to report sexual abuse against them is way wide of the mark.

In the West at least, it's a common feminist trope that all men are violent/abusers/rapist etc. It's pushed by the media and even embedded into the socialisation process. And, it's part of that same trope, media and socialisation that downplays female on child abuse, amplifies male on child abuse and generally characterises males as violent.

It's now so bad, that young boys are medicalised for normal boisterous behaviour - or, simply put, because they don't behave like little girls.

I omit male homosexual abuse for the purpose of this piece, as presumably that's on boys, so although it may well feed the stereotype, should make parents more conscious of the safety of their boys.

Men &/or boys are niether the root or the solution to this unfair characterisation.


TV

pickabeau1: TV!

This science has prevailed on governments to grant them these rights..

Its a moving train

Lol

it was not science it was ideological lobbying.
Cases abound of 1. people who have renounced the lifestyle and 2. people who have willfully chosen it.


TV

cococandy: We can change this stereotype by teaching our boys right.

Only, it's not the boys that are perpetuating or the cause of the stereotype is it?


TV

pickabeau1: They r who they are and they can't change it
Science has shown that to be so also

Can you please point us in the direction of this "conclusive" scientific evidence.

Cheers

TV

BananaBender: Oh! You meant the "things" that lead to abortion.

Only if the thing that leads to abortion is the same and only thing that leads to adoption

BananaBender: @highlighted
And this would include an homosexual family right?

No

BananaBender: You still did not mention how a child that grew up in a homosexual home will suffer identity crises different from the one an adopted child would. May I add, that even children that were brought up by their biological parents still go through identity crises.

I've already answered the former part of your question. And on reflection, the latter part also.

BananaBender: No one can say homosexuals shouldn't have kids because of the sole reason that their children might suffer from identity crises. What about children that grew up in foster homes, what about adopted parents, what will be demanded of single parents??

That wasn't the only reason I gave

BananaBender: We do not live in an 'ideal' society anyway.

And therefore we should not legislate aspirationally or to ensure the best possible outcomes? Sod it, why actually legislate at all?

BananaBender: Agreed. It is the job of the parent to look for a friend or the right family member that can help with that *gap. Homosexuals already do this. At least, the couple I know. Their baby is still very little though.

If a parent is not in situ, that gap can never be breached. I hear this sop a lot, especially from those who don't have children. Raising a child isn't popping around on occasion and going out for a Maccie D's. Do parents with visiting rights ever feel fully/properly involved in the upbringing of their kids? Same thing.

BananaBender: You know, an homosexual couple could get a surrogate to help birth their child. The child doesn't have to be a total alien to the family.

It's still willfully denying a child it's dual heritage. By design. Commoditising children for the selfish desire of adults.

BananaBender: A*nal sex by heterosexuals is also an irregular use of the reproductive capacity - you know that right?

The anus is part of the reproductive system?


TV

cococandy: To get a divorce without clear proof of adultery, according to church teachings, required complete and total celibacy and no hope of ever remarrying. To remarry after a divorce with no clear proof of adultery, invariably and abruptly lead you to being excommunicated from the church entirely, wherein even your own family and close friends would have nothing to do with you.

Harsh huh? But there is reasoning behind it;

1. It focuses one to not just enter marriage anyhow - understand and commit to it with the right person
2. It puts a lid on frivolous divorce - which is becoming more common and hence normal, and aided by lopsided divorce laws
3. If you knew you couldn't simply remarry, you make every effort to get it right and keep it working. Celibacy is a motivator !
4. At a stroke it also reduces a number of societal ills
5. It's close to the bible reading - divorce does not pre-suppose remarriage

Harsh but purposefully so.


TV

Unionised: I don't know if it's just eagerness to please or inferiority complex or immaturity or just plain societal pressure, that's makes a serious minded woman not to DEFINE a relationship before jumping into it.

For fear of losing the guy, a lady would just "play along" until she can't stand the wait any longer.
Meanwhile valuable time has been wasted!!!

My advice to all parties concerned -

A relationship should be CLEARLY DEFINED from the get go.
A monthly REVIEW of progress should be carried out.
An EXPIRY DATE should be set to CLOSE the deal, failing which both parties should go their separate ways and PROSPECT other partners.

Does this sound like a BUSINESS PLAN.
Yes, we should also be OBJECTIVE about our LOVE lives.

Endorsed.

Women need to be more forthright & focused in relationships. Clocks ticking!

I've introduced a more businesslike/administrative approach to my home - and it's bearing juicy fruit.

Businesslike that is, not entrepreneurial !


TV

BananaBender: Adoption should be avoided at all costs?? Is that what you meant to say??

Yes, the things that lead to adoption should be avoided at al costs. There will be instances - unavoidably in some cases - and then adoption comes into view.

Ideally, children should be placed with relatives, failing that a solid family as close to their heritage as possible. And so on down a hierarchy of preference. At the leaset, they should be placed within a solid family setting. Or what are you finding confusing

BananaBender: I'm pretty sure a homosexual couple could do the same for their adopted child. What makes the "affection, love or embrace" different?

For a start, optimally a child needs a parent of each sex. The input from each is different, the psychological and physiological changes each one undergoes in conception, preparation on arrival and through the life of the child differ. The need for opposite sex parents is not just at inception. It's the way it was designed and the way it works best. Simples.

BananaBender: Homosexuals are regular people, you know that right?

Regular people who choose to use their reproductive capacity in an irregular fashion - you know that right?

Blow the horn - sorry about that ! - for homosex all you please, but please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that two people of the same sex produce the same outcomes as two of the opposite sex. Trying to justify the abnormal using the sub-optimal.


TV

lastpage: Aside her, l have maintained decorum with EVERYONE ELSE... and that is me. Lastpage!

But if what you do, is determined by what others do, surely it's not you, it's by them?


TV

BananaBender: Again, how is this "missing identity" different from the experience an adopted child might have in a heterosexual home??

The case of an adopted child is not by design. We recognise it as remedial, unfortunate and to be avoided at all costs. We don't legislate for it as "good and proper".

Plus, a heterosexual couple will graft the child into their lineage. The feeling of affection, love and embrace will not be any different and the child will identify with that.


TV