How Is My Sex Life Your Concern?

Opinion

Somewhere in the world, there’s a forty year old man sleeping with a 17 year old girl.  Are you concerned?  What if I told you that he has been sleeping with her for the past 3 years?  Are you now concerned?  What if I said that she’s in fact his daughter?  Are you very concerned…

Share

Share
Text size
+

Somewhere in the world, there’s a forty year old man sleeping with a 17 year old girl.  Are you concerned?  What if I told you that he has been sleeping with her for the past 3 years?  Are you now concerned?  What if I said that she’s in fact his daughter?  Are you very concerned now?  Angry even?  Then, might I add that he also compels her to entertain his friends?  If you’re not outraged by now, you should really question your humanity, or at least get a mental health examination!

At different points in my portrayal, different sorts of people would have been concerned. You might find that your experience of sexuality numbed you of any emotion until the last piece was painted. However, you finally had cause for concern – Child Abuse and Exploitation!

Aside from our experience of sexuality, our knowledge, understanding, values and beliefs would have dictated at which point we were offended by this man. Is it any of our business who the average person sleeps with, if it is consensual and legitimate? Umm… It really does depend on your definition and understanding of consensual and legitimate.

A 17 year old girl could be sleeping with a 29 year old man she met at a party. Legitimately, according to the law (in most lands) the man is doing no wrong, if the girl consented. But what if they had an arrangement… That he would pay her school fees if she slept with him? Is that real consent? Was the girl coerced or is she making an informed decision for her life? Are you concerned about the choice this girl is making? Do you think her parents might be concerned?

It isn’t all that clear cut is it? Liberal feminists argue for a woman’s choice to prostitute herself for a living. But the consequences of that choice means that the sex trade will never come to an end, and the sex slave who hasn’t made the empowered choice to sell herself remains exploited, while the liberated escort earns her living…

So, what am I saying here? Your sex life may be private to you, but it doesn’t stop me from being concerned about what it is doing to you now, what it will do to you in the long run, and how it is impacting how the world is viewing legitimacy and consensual sex. Your liberation may come at a price for my unborn daughter who may end up being born in a world where nobody will be moved by the actions of the man I earlier described!!!

You may disagree, but I believe that if chastity was still upheld as a value today, we would have:

  1. Less teenage pregnacies
  2. Less abortions
  3. Less cheating husbands/wives (for lack of the other woman/man)
  4. Less broken homes (and single mothers)
  5. Less troubled children (dealing with the impact of divorce and anger between their parents due to marital unfaithfulness)
  6. Less child sexual abuse/exploitation
  7. Less sexual offences (including rape and incest)
  8. Less prostitution and pornography
  9. Less sexually transmitted diseases (particularly HIV/AIDS)!
  10. More happy homes!

And I’m sure there’s more. I can think of another already – a better self image among women and girls!

But this isn’t why I keep harping on about celibacy, abstinence and sexual morality. This is just my way of letting you know that there’s a basis for my concern! The ultimate reason I teach these things is because I’m a Christian.

I know you’re confused by the many Christians you see who do not seem to care about sexual morality. Their lack of adherence to this principle and practice of Christianity does not undermine the Truth, only their witness. I do believe the Christian standard was put in place to save us from all these problems and the sexual confusion that results from promiscuity and sexual immorality.

The bottom line though, I want everyone to come to the knowledge of Christ, and be saved from the coming judgment and destruction. That is a post for another day! I believe God has the answers to the world’s problems, and one of these answers is abstinence. So that is why I stand strong on my Christian beliefs and teach as many as will hear that they should abstain from sexual involvement outside marriage.

This post was inspired by a friend of mine on Facebook, who, as an atheist, objected to my views on THE PETTY THIEF AND THE ARMED ROBBER. Thanks for the inspiration to go deeper into this. Please keep your contributions coming!

Responses

  1. Ufuomaee
    Thanks so much for sharing my post on your platform! I’m loving what others are posting, and will definitely be a regular contributor in this community 🙂 God bless you all!
    3+
  2. Kikiotolu
    If Homosexualism is right…whats wrong with bestiality….

    Sexuality is a very complex shii…..for example prostitution and pornography can’t be said as something we would want to have less of the demands are just too high…

    0
    1. Ufuomaee
      Hi Kiki,

      Would you say the same for drugs? That because the demand for it is too high that we should not be hindered from using, sharing and profiting from it? I don’t know if I misunderstood your comment, so please feel free to clarify 🙂 Thanks for commenting!

      Cheers, Ufuomaee

      0
      1. K. Rukia
        I didn’t bring in bestiality though. Someone else brought it up and I responded.
        You say that “suggesting that in the case of consent, sex between such species would be acceptable – while unable to prove that animals are able to give consent or determine the language by which they would give their consent – is ridiculous”. However I clearly stated that “one cannot always be sure that the animal is consenting to the sexual activity”. I also asked that in a situation where it is clear the animal wants sex with a human, why not? You didn’t answer my question.

        What the age of consent should be is irrelevant. You asked “at what age does it REALLY stop being pedophilia to sleep with a child” and my answer was according to the generally accepted, lawful age of adulthood. In modern times this age is based primarily on science; culture plays a role but is not the major factor.
        Should the age of consent drop to 9 years, it would be because the law has decided, based on science, that this is when a child becomes an adult. If that were to happen, it would be because people have evolved to reach adulthood at 9 years. Why should I be against an adult having sex?

        Re: incest, again you haven’t answered the question. I’d like us to get things straight. Are you against incest because of a natural order or because of your Christian beliefs? If it’s the former, please tell me more about this natural order.

        I’d also like to know more about these “barriers set in place to protect us all sexually.”

        0
        1. Ufuomaee Post author
          Hi Rukia,

          Saying that “one cannot always be sure that the animal is consenting to the sexual activity” is still a ridiculous speculation! Can one EVER be sure? Can an ANIMAL give consent? The answer is no, so why go there and say you can’t ALWAYS be sure, when you will never know! There is no question to answer in such an expression. Like someone else has pointed out in this thread, this is the tactic of a troll, who is just arguing for arguing sake!

          You now reveal the truth about you real agenda by saying: “What the age of consent should be is irrelevant”! Bingo! Thanks for being honest. Don’t bring consent issues into this when you don’t care about consent anyway. You just want to have sex, with whomever. And that’s where many people are right now in this world. And that is why ALL our children are at risk, because the adults that should watch over and protect them as seeing them as potential sex mates – even their own children!

          And Science is just your god, who justifies what you want to justify. Suddenly adulthood begins at 10, yippee!!! More sex flesh on the market! So the scenario painted in my post that no one will be moved by the wicked man’s actions when my unborn daughter is born is actually almost true now! That is just shameful.

          You bring up incest as if it is the most logical defence for your anything goes sex philosophy. But it still boils down to the same issues I am trying to address in the post. I have no need to separate it to consider its validity. The only valid situation for two people to come together to have sex is when they are married and they are unrelated male and female.

          This will be my last response to you, because I am quite aware that you came ready to waste time on a debate you had no intention of learning from. As you said in your follow up comment, you knew before you wrote your first comment that we would disagree forever, you just wanted to challenge me. I am not moved by your challenge, because the truth has not changed. Black hasn’t turned to white.

          I have not dodged your questions, but addressed them, and discarded the red herrings you sought to throw in to confuse the issue. But as much as your sex life concerns me…you are free to it, just as I am free to eat what and when I want. We will just have to manage the consequences together.

          Sincerely, Ufuoma.

          11+
          1. K. Rukia
            1. I think you can be pretty sure a dog wants to have sex with you if he jumps on your back and starts humping. However if the human initiates sex, you can’t be sure the dog wanted it to begin with. That’s what I meant by “cannot ALWAYS be sure”.

            2. What are you on about? I said that what the age should be is irrelevant, because you brought up the question of whether it is better for the age of consent to be 21 rather than 16. I did not say that acknowledging an age of consent is unnecessary or consent is not needed.

            3. “More sex flesh on the market”? You sound hysterical. I clearly and rationally explained that if the age of consent were to become 9, it would be because people now become adults at the age of 9. What does that have to do with more sex flesh on the market? What does an older man coercing a younger girl into having sex have to do with what I said? You confuse me.

            4. I didn’t bring up incest, you did. Remember when you said this: “With such a reasoning, would you also consider incest legitimate…”? I was simply responding to you.
            Now instead of telling me why you believe incest to be wrong, you’re saying that “The only valid situation for two people to come together to have sex is when they are married and they are unrelated male and female”. Simply restating the issue. You have said nothing.

            5. I didn’t come here to waste time, and I feel insulted that you would say that. That I don’t aim to convince you of my position does not mean that I cannot have a healthy debate with you, to challenge your views and have you challenge mine. If you’re not interested in such debate, then say so. Please don’t suggest that I came here to waste your time.

            6. I honestly do not see how you have addressed any of my questions conclusively. Why is incest wrong, why is bestiality wrong, why is sex immoral outside of marriage…nothing. Where are these red herrings that you claim I have thrown in?

            I might be wrong but I get the sense that you’re getting emotional, which is making you think irrationally and jump to strange conclusions (case in point, this statement that had nothing to do with what I said: “And that is why ALL our children are at risk, because the adults that should watch over and protect them as seeing them as potential sex mates – even their own children!”)

            If having your views challenged makes you uncomfortable, then don’t reply my comments. Just ignore and move on.

            5+
        2. Larz
          Sorry Rukia- you lost me at what is wrong with bestality and incest. Everything! Incest has biological implications, it is not natural. Humans beings are not created to cross breed with other animals. Most animals do not naturally breed with other animals. When dogs are in heat, they hump everything including inanimate objects. Those that specifically seek humans before have probaby been abused sexually before by humans. It is like if you see a 10yo soliciting sex, it is most likely that they have been abused before
          11+
          1. K. Rukia
            I’ll refer you to another reply I wrote where I talked about this idea of bestiality being unnatural. I’ll summarise: unnatural does not = wrong.

            Anal sex and blowjobs are also unnatural, following your argument. The anus and the mouth were not ‘created’ to be fucked by a penis.
            Are these things also wrong?

            3+
    2. K. Rukia
      Consent is key. Homo sex is between two consenting adults. The problem with bestiality is that one cannot always be sure that the animal is consenting to the sexual activity. Otherwise, if the animal wants to have sex with a person, I really want to know why not?
      3+
      1. Ufuomaee Post author
        I really don’t know if I should take you seriously here. Are you saying that if we could ascertain that animals are consenting to sex, that it would not be wrong to have sex with them? So, for instance, a horse with a hard on, tries to have sex with a woman, that would be considered legitimate to you if the woman is into it?

        I don’t even know how we crossed into bestiality, jumping across species. It seems to me that the defence is anything goes, as long as we can say ‘yes’. With such a reasoning, would you also consider incest legitimate, if father and daughter (for example) were consenting? And why the arbitrary age of consent…? At what age does it REALLY stop being pedophilia to sleep with a child, if the child is into it?

        Just some questions I have from trying to understand your contribution. Thanks for commenting.

        Cheers, Ufuomaee

        3+
        1. K. Rukia
          With regards to bestiality, again I ask, very simply, why not? It’s not a defence, it’s a valid challenge.

          With regards to having sex with a child, I would argue that a child could never be considered to be in a position to give true consent, because sexual maturity happens during adolescence. I don’t agree with you that the age when childhood ends and adulthood begins is arbitrary at all. The law (in most countries) states that this age is between 16 and 21; this is based on science, not random selection. I think you’ll agree that a 15 year old is not an adult in any sense of the word.

          Incest is an entirely different animal from pedophilia though. (For the sake of keeping issues separate, let’s assume incest is between two consenting adults.) Again I ask, why not?

          1+
          1. Ufuomaee Post author
            Actually, Rukia, it is not at all a valid challenge. In a discussion about human sexuality, throwing in the question of animal sexuality and bestiality and suggesting that in the case of consent, sex between such species would be acceptable – while unable to prove that animals are able to give consent or determine the language by which they would give their consent – is ridiculous! It is a spanner in the works, and it is argumentative, it isn’t a valid challenge in the least.

            Now, you have addressed the diversity of age of consent across the lands… being between 16 and 21 years when childhood ends and adulthood begins. That is quite a gap! My question would be, in such a great divide, would it not be better to put the age of consent at the older and not the younger limit – universally?

            I am glad that you stand against something when it comes to sexuality, being pedophilia. But I suspect that should the age of consent drop to 9 years tomorrow, you would be all for it! The issue here is that age of consent is cultural and it is no way scientifically determined. Culture changes with trends, and the practices we normalise today, will affect what is considered normal tomorrow. For example, it is now considered normal for a family to go out to dinner, and for all of them to be engrossed on their mobile phones!

            With someone who is determined to break every barrier which has been set in place to protect us all sexually, I will not even bother to argue about incest. The fundamental problem here is the lack of respect for natural order.

            Sincerely, Ufuomaee

            6+
        2. Simi
          As much as I agree with arguments on this platform, this by far is rudest. You can convey your side of argument without being condescending or feeling superior. Your arguments should be based on logic and reasoning not the African “because i said so”. Ufuomaee, I think as an intelligent person as your article reads, you can speak on your truth and let others speak on their truth without them feeling attacked. If per chance, their truths do not resonate with you, then, you bring up an argument than explains why their truth is not necessarily yours and not the usual “you are a troll or you are a hater”. Cheers, Simi
          5+
          1. Ufuomaee Post author
            Sorry, since when did “because I said so” become African??? Is this now a racial feud?

            And I’m not sure which comment/s you are referring to. I didn’t call anyone a troll or a hater, but I did address behaviours that were characteristic of trolls online. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

            I have stated my truth, and I have stated the basis for my truth. I have also stated that others can choose to agree or disagree and have their liberties to do what they want… So I don’t know what your comment about me attacking others is about.

            I’m sorry if I’m not sweet like candy about it, but there’s only so much why nots I can handle, after answering the question repeatedly. If you don’t like the answer, state your case and move along.

            4+
  3. Snow
    Now this is a post about the other side of sexuality that I enjoy reading, even though i may not agree with some parts of it or want to dissect it.
    Unlike that other post, (where you oppose their opinion and they try to attack your person) that I cannot even remember sef

    The way you put it forth allows me to listen and perfectly understand where you are coming from. And it means we can engage in a safe discussion about it.

    Well done

    1+
    1. K. Rukia
      I agree with Snow, I think the tone here is not sanctimonious at all and very welcoming to civil debate. The post was like a lesson in how to present an argument in a non-threatening way. Great job!
      2+
  4. dré
    Lovely!

    Something about the though flow and delivery that made me read it a second time.

    Beautifully written! Well done Ufuomaee.. *thumbs up

    3+
  5. Od
    Excellent, Ufuomaee. This is an impressive development of a thought I hinted at in a comment I made on a post made about Polyamory recently. Is it really none of my business if someone else wants to sleep with several people even with full disclosure among them? Is it none of my business how people choose to behave sexually? Am I totally unaffected by other people’s sexual behavior? I don’t think we can successfully isolate ourselves from each other like that?

    I totally agree that the general philosophy people hold to in this is hypocritical. Of course, other people’s sexual behavior affects you. You just don’t want to get involved in debating it because if you do you might bring your own conduct under scrutiny but then one day the things you refuse to question and speak against harm you or your children in some way and you turn into an instant crusader or, worse, you might encourage more sexual predatoriness in yourself or your children because of the erroneous belief that no one can touch the top dog. “The more predatory you are the less likely you are to be a victim.”

    I think it’s tragic that we live in a world where people will not think or permit rigorous scrutiny of possibly harmful personal behaviors all for a fear of being judged. The funny thing is that the judgment actually begins in each person’s own conscience but then they blame society for programming them.

    5+
      1. Od
        (I hate Bleach, btw, Kubo-san just wouldn’t give it a decent finish and I’m patience on two legs with manga), like Ufuoma said, the article already madras that argument. It was up to you to affirm or deny it.

        Still, I’ll indulge you.

        If your sexual behavior does not affect me directly as your mate, it will affect me as a relative to someone you may hook up with or as a friend to them or the legitimization or “delegitimization” of your behavior will put people important to me either as my descendants or as friends in its path.

        Simply put, what you do or don’t do sexually is going to end up in my laps at some point.

        3+
        1. K. Rukia
          Going by your argument everything a person does, sexually or otherwise, could affect someone else, and ‘end up in your lap’. How does the mere fact that something could affect someone else make it a moral issue? Why is it immoral for one to decide not to be ‘chaste’? I still fail to see why sex is a moral issue when driving is not.
          0
      2. Od
        (I hate Bleach, btw, Kubo-san just wouldn’t give it a decent finish and I’m patience on two legs with manga), like Ufuoma said, the article already made that argument. It was up to you to affirm or deny it.

        Still, I’ll indulge you.

        If your sexual behavior does not affect me directly as your mate, it will affect me as a relative to someone you may hook up with or as a friend to them or the legitimization or “delegitimization” of your behavior will put people important to me either as my descendants or as friends in its path.

        Simply put, what you do or don’t do sexually is going to end up in my laps at some point.

        2+
        1. Snow
          on the issue of effects, it extends to everything, even simply waking up when you do.

          We don’t live in a vacuum, our actions affect each other in more ways than we can imagine, your decision to skip work today, harmless as it may seem, could lead to a series of events that’ll lead to the death of someone else and stuff like that.

          2+
        2. woyi_oc
          ” (I hate Bleach, btw, Kubo-san just wouldn’t give it a decent finish and I’m patience on two legs with manga)”

          Hahaha! You had to go and say it! But i get. Instead of him pacing the aizen arc properly, he just rushed things. The mighty esparda were a walk in the park and next thing the Quincy become epic bad asses that kill yamamoto genryusai. A feat aizen-sama (yes, i still consider him great even though he was defeated easily by a blonde,Japanese,teenager who’s name means “STRAWBERRY” )

          0
          1. K. Rukia
            Lol! Love it. That annoying Quincy paradox always gets me. Let’s talk anime! Can I send you an email?
            0
          2. Snow
            Please I like the Quincy arc. I’m just annoyed that Kubo made the Sternritter that mighty strong, almost like the espada would be no match for them,( even my dear Ulquoira and Stark)

            I just want to see Zaraki take on a Sternritter with Nozarashi now. And maybe see how Ishida can hope to defeat Jurgram.

            P.S Bleach over Naruto

            0
          3. Od
            @Woyi_oc, the Aizen arc was epic. If it had ended there, collecting hard copies of the whole manga would have become an ambition for me. But no, Kubo-san couldn’t help himself. Seriously, how does Aizen, as op’ed as he was give way to whatchamacallit and then the Quincy could take out Genryusai no problem and the Soul King is sliced in two like so much bread. It started to seem like some kind of sick joke. I got bored and moved on. Haven’t rest it in months now.

            Naruto was a disappointment too. Apart from Edo-Madara, Pein was the only epic villain that Naruto faced. Compared to him, Hashirama’s mom was an anti-climax. Unless it’s because I haven’t seen the anime of the fight like I did Pein’s. Perhaps the anime will give it life enough to make it less of an annoyance.

            My feeling though is that they stretch the stories unnecessarily to keep the bucks rolling in for as long as possible. But don’t they keep getting royalty for a while after production’s finished? #shrugs

            0
          4. woyi_oc
            is there a reply limit on this thing…? Cause i cant seem to reply a reply to a reply….INCEPTION REPLY! REPLEPTION…? Nah that won’t work.

            Anyway

            Bleach over naruto? seriosuly?? Kishimoto did a way better job in story telling and charcter power balance. AND the good fights in naruto were actually FIGHTS not one sided PWNING. Ichigo just grabbed Aizen sama by the face. BY THE BLOODY FACE. I VEX WHEN I READ THAT COMIC.

            “Naruto was a disappointment too. Apart from Edo-Madara, Pein was the only epic villain that Naruto faced. Compared to him, Hashirama’s mom was an anti-climax. Unless it’s because I haven’t seen the anime of the fight like I did Pein’s. Perhaps the anime will give it life enough to make it less of an annoyance.”

            This dude knows his stuff. But i’m not going to bother with the naruto anime no mire. the bloody studio kept making fillers in the anime even AFTER THE MANGA HAD ENDED!! WHY?? I vex when i see that thing.

            “Rookier” 😛 Sure. what’s ur address?

            ALL 3 of y’all. I strongly recommend the following if you hvent watched them already

            Hunter X Hunter 2011
            Fullmetal alchemist : Brotherhood
            And if you want to watch an anime that won’t end even after the end of the world …ONE PIECE!!!

            0
  6. Ufuomaee Post author
    Your comment is unbelievably on point! You have just closed the argument. In fact, it could be its own post. I don’t know what more to say. Brilliant contribution, thanks for chipping in 🙂
    2+
      1. woyi_oc
        “Naruto was a disappointment too. Apart from Edo-Madara, Pein was the only epic villain that Naruto faced. Compared to him, Hashirama’s mom was an anti-climax. Unless it’s because I haven’t seen the anime of the fight like I did Pein’s. Perhaps the anime will give it life enough to make it less of an annoyance.”

        This dude knows his stuff…! But i’m not going to bother with the naruto anime no more. the bloody studio kept making fillers in the anime even AFTER THE MANGA HAD ENDED!! WHY?? I vex when i see that thing.

        0
    1. seryxme
      It’s official! This is absolutely my best TNC post ever! No question about it.

      First, when I read the post I thought “this chic will be eaten alive”. But the responses have been brilliant! Who would’ve thought? I was really happy for the entrance of Od on the Polyamory post (I have to thank Rukia for that), and now there’s Ufuoma. The combination was more than adequate for this comments section. It’s really awesome to find you two. It’s been a lonely fight for Dejidope all this while with not enough supporting cast. But this, this is just awesome.

      Safe to say, I read every single comment and I’d just like to point some things out. I learnt a great deal on the comments section alone. I just kept digesting new knowledge. And, Ufuoma, I understand your position when you lost patience at some point to continue the discussion, but like Od said, do it sometimes, not just for the sake of responding to the person asking directly, but for the sake of those who will be reading. If you can add a bit more patience and give some more attention to explaining a bit further, it helps readers to expand their knowledge too. It might seem like Od just wasted his time with those responses. I can assure you he didn’t. I learnt so much from his responses. If you have extra knowledge to add to the debate, please do.

      Thank you guys for such an intellectual discourse. Looking forward to reading more from you both.

      3+
      1. Ufuomaee Post author
        Thanks Sery, I appreciate your comment and your counsel for me to have more patience with these things. Point taken.

        I’ll do my best, but I’m not sure what many of you or others do for a living, but this thing is very time consuming, and everyone knows how frustrating it is answering the same question over and over and over again. But, I pray for greater grace and wisdom to handle it better.

        I’ve also been impressed with Od. I think he’s got a gift 🙂

        Have a blessed day!

        0
  7. Snow
    But I gotta ask. How does the decision of two legally consenting adults to have sex under the right conditions affect anyone?

    Keywords being “LEGAL and RIGHT CONDITIONS

    1+
    1. Ufuomaee Post author
      Hi, Snow

      You said you’ve to ask ” the decision of two legally consenting adults to have sex under the right conditions affect anyone?” which was actually the content and focus of my whole post.

      Therefore I’ve got to ask… did you read the post?

      2+
      1. Snow
        Is it any of our business who the average person sleeps with, if it is consensual and legitimate?

        I just saw that question.

        So No, it’s not my business, as long as it is legal and under the right conditions.

        And a 17year old sleeping with anybody at all is legally wrong

        1+
        1. Od
          How do we decide what is legal, Snow? Are laws always right? Do they never change? Why should we even bother with making laws at all?

          I’m deliberately ignoring the issue of consent. I can’t give the attention it might require besides we may still end up studying it in the course of discussion.

          1+
          1. Snow
            I believe there is a system that decides what falls under the banner of legality, a legislative system that people vote for every cycle.
            Posing the question of whether a law is right forces me to ask under which framework you want to ascertain the correctness of the law.

            As for why we bother to make laws, i believe it is to regulate society; to protect people; to enforce rights and to solve conflicts. Laws prevent or deter people from behaving in a manner that negatively affects the quality of life or rights of other people.

            and please why are you really choosing yo ignore the issue of consent

            0
        2. Miss James
          “So No, it’s not my business, as long as it is legal and under the right conditions.”
          This is what happens we allow people tell us their actions are not our business until they are legalized. One day people will give us strong points that stealing should be legalized and they will be very convincing. Ok I know that is extreme but that is my fear, imo, since we like the “imo” tag so much.
          1+
          1. Snow
            I can’t really type out long responses as a reply to your observation was stated by me when i was presenting the fundamental purpose by which the law and all its legalities are created.

            And no i don’t think it is extreme, we are humans and who knows how indefinite our quest for forwarding the frontier is, but that’s why we all don’t have one mind. so we can objectively and peacefully challenge any idea no matter the amount of absurdity it contains.

            So yes, maybe there are a group of people who will one day push for the decriminalization of stealing, and it’s legalization, they would have to present a case for which Stealing (which sometimes causes bodily harm and always infringes on or disregards the consent of the individual)

            0
      2. Ovie
        Great piece Ufuoma. Even though I had read this before on your blog, a second read felt so new and fresh. Well…issues bordering on sex and sexuality always stir up the hornet’s nest. No surprise at the many responses, arguments and counter-arguments this is eliciting. I salute your bravery inspired by a deep seated faith in voicing out that absolutes still in fact exist in a world where relativistic reasoning fueled by self-obsession (individualism is more politically correct I think) holds sway.
        1+
    2. woyi_oc

      Bleach over naruto? seriosuly?? Kishimoto did a way better job (…my not so humble opinion 😛 ) in story telling and charcter power balance. AND the good fights in naruto were actually FIGHTS not one sided PWNING. Ichigo just grabbed Aizen-sama by the face. BY THE BLOODY FACE.

      0
  8. K. Rukia
    Despite the level of respect I have for the writer with regards to the spectacular delivery of the message, I have to say I strongly disagree with the premise of this post. I believe in freedom of the individual, as long as the rights of another are not being encroached upon. I fail to see how two consenting adults having sex encroaches upon anyone else’s rights.

    Let’s look at the ‘benefits’ of chastity you mentioned:

    1. Teenage pregnancies occur because teenagers are not given proper sex education and taught how to use contraception; they do not occur because teenagers have sex. All the preaching in the world will not stop teenagers exploring their sexuality.
    2. Abortions happen because of unwanted pregnancies, which occur mainly because people do not use contraception.
    3. If people would just be honest about wanting to have sex with people besides their partner, we wouldn’t have sex-related cheating because such people wouldn’t be in a monogamous relationship in the first place. As for emotional cheating, chastity ain’t got nothing to do with it.
    4. We wouldn’t have broken homes if people didn’t have illicit sex outside their marriage and get caught. We wouldn’t have people having illicit extra-marital sex if they would just be honest. See (3).
    5. Sex outside marriage wouldn’t result in divorce if people were honest. See (3) and (4).
    6. What does child abuse have to do with chastity?
    7. It has been said time and again that rape has nothing to do with sexual urges. Rape is a violent attempt by the perpetrator to impose their will on the victim and subjugate them. Chastity has nothing to do with rape. As I asked above, what’s wrong with incest?
    8. Prostitution is a societal problem when it involves women who are so economically disenfranchised that they have no other option than to sell the only thing they have. It has nothing to do with chastity, it is an economic problem. When it involves women with economic choice, I don’t see anything wrong with it. Same goes for pornography.
    9. STDs are transmitted when people do not use protection and get tested regularly. They wouldn’t be a problem if people received sex education and easy access to protection. Chastity (ko abstinence) might also reduce the spread, but it is not the only way to reduce the spread.
    10. Guessing this is related to (4) and (5)?

    Basically you’ve credited chastity with things that could very well be achieved if people were given proper sex education, practised safe consensual sex, and had honest relationships. I don’t understand why we must constantly demonise non-marital sex, pornography, etc.

    2+
    1. Ufuomaee Post author
      Hi dear,

      There is a very wise saying that goes “prevention is better than cure”. Chastity, despite all we are taught about it being unattainable, repressive, old fashioned or whatever, is actually NOT UNATTAINABLE, NOT REPRESSIVE AND NOT OLD-FASHIONED!!! In fact, many men like it so much that when they want to settle down, they actually prefer to settle with women who have been chaste than those who have not! Chastity, is rightly appreciated, taught, encouraged and upheld (rather than made to be like a modern-day religious disease or handicap) is infact the ONLY dependable solution to all the problems I listed.

      However, it seems you and many others would rather have a band-aid or a cure, to manage the problems that come with your so called liberty than actually exercise any form of restraint. If there’s a pill, take it. You got a condom, use it. If you get pregnant, kill it! Life goes on… It is foolishness and cannot be considered progress. You are burying your head in the sand to prevent yourself dealing with the real issues, because YOU DON’T WANT TO. That is the bottom line here. It is a ME ME ME, OR ME MYSELF AND I world we live in, so we do not care for any universal standards that may actually be better for all of us.

      Yes, use your cures all you want, but don’t be surprised if worse things than AIDS plague the world, because you wanted to be free. And don’t peddle your cure as the solution to a problem that would not be present if we would all just have been more serious about prevention.

      Peace to you, Ufuomaee.

      5+
      1. K. Rukia
        Chastity may not be unattainable, but it is certainly repressive. The urge to have sex is natural. I’m all for repressing certain natural urges. For example I might have the urge to punch someone in the face when they piss me off. This is natural, but I suppress it because it is wrong to do so. It is wrong because it encroaches on the right of that person to not be punched in the face.

        “Many men like it so much..”??? Are we now celebrating that disgusting double standard that treats a man’s virginity as a non-issue but expects a woman to be a virgin till marriage? Men feel they have a right to virgins because patriarchal society has placed a woman’s right to do with her body as she pleases in the hands of men! “Keep yourself for your husband” is one of those misogynist mantras that illustrate what I mean. I could write a whole post about this but let’s keep that discussion for another day. We digress.

        Why should I exercise restraint in having sex when I want and with whom I want if I do it safely and consensually? What are these real issues that I am burying my head in the sand to hide away from?

        Safe sex is like using a seatbelt in a car. When you drive you risk an accident with another driver so you use a seatbelt. Similarly, when you have sex you risk getting an unwanted pregnancy so you use a condom. Saying that we should abstain from sex to avoid getting pregnant is like saying we should not drive to avoid road accidents. Abstinence is overkill, plain and simple. If someone doesn’t want to drive because they’re afraid of being in an accident, good for them. But saying that it’s immoral for me to drive because it affects you… I just don’t see it.

        You’ve typed a lot of words, but none of them categorically states how sex between consenting adults, married or not, encroaches on other people’s rights.

        2+
        1. Ufuomaee Post author
          I think we will disagree forever. The last thing I want is to spend my whole day arguing on a point that is already well explored in the post. If you disagree, there’s not much else I can do to convince you.

          I like your car analogy by the way. Again it assumes that driving is progress. But excessive driving, drunk driving and amateur driving (as examples of inappropriate uses of a legitimate provision) instead of cycling has done much damage to our world…but that’s another issue 🙂

          I do want to bank on this quote from you:
          ““Many men like it so much..”??? Are we now celebrating that disgusting double standard that treats a man’s virginity as a non-issue but expects a woman to be a virgin till marriage? Men feel they have a right to virgins because patriarchal society has placed a woman’s right to do with her body as she pleases in the hands of men! “Keep yourself for your husband” is one of those misogynist mantras that illustrate what I mean. I could write a whole post about this but let’s keep that discussion for another day. We digress.”

          Don’t get me wrong at all. I am a feminist in that I uphold women’s rights, and believe we are equal. However, it doesn’t make we think we should all go out and sleep around like men… what it does, is, it helps me see why men should reign it in! Many men are celebate and many do abstain from sex to KEEP themselves for their bride. Chastity is not a standard only expected of women, but for all. If it were only to be expected of men, then it would only mean that they is a particular class of women who are made to service these men…because it couldn’t be possible if ALL women were chaste, which is infact what I preach and believe.

          Thanks for the discussion. I wish you a lovely evening 🙂

          4+
          1. Ufuomaee Post author
            I meant to say: “If it were only to be expected of women, then it would only mean that there is a particular class of women who are made to service all men…”
            0
          2. K. Rukia
            You’re right, we will probably disagree forever. I knew that before I typed my first reply, and I have no problem with that, because I didn’t set out to change your mind. What I set out to do was challenge you, but as you’ve decided to dodge my questions, I guess this conversation is over for now.
            0
        2. woyi_oc
          “It is wrong because it encroaches on the right of that person to not be punched in the face.”

          “It is wrong because it encroaches on the right of that person to NOT be punched in the face.”

          You just said it is within a niggaz fundamental human right to be fed a sweet knuckle-sandwich 😀

          0
      2. Larz
        Ufomae- I dont think I agree that many men want to be be with women who are chaste. And of those that want to women that are chaste, most arent themselves. To my knowledge, this goes as far back as our parents generations, and even further.

        Besides, I dont think I agree with women deciding to be chaste just because it is more attractive to men

        2+
        1. Ufuomaee Post author
          Hi Larz,

          Yes, women shouldn’t be chaste because men prefer chaste women, but because it is better for us and our children and the world at large. Men should also be chaste. A man who is able to control himself in this regard will find that his wife heart will be safely entrusted to him.

          Cheers, Ufuoma.

          0
      3. Simi
        “many men like it so much that when they want to settle down, they actually prefer to settle with women who have been chaste than those who have not!” Lol! Women should be chaste because Men like it. Your Argument focuses more on Women being chaste and that is why a lot of women all over the world have been infected by the very men they are being chaste for. Only if these women considered the importance of sex education….. Being chaste is attainable and possible. However, I only respect it if it is done out of respect for your own body and the belief in the sanctity of sex in marriage and not the “i am keeping it for my man” argument. “Keeping it for a man” who does not know the first thing about self control. The irony of it all!
        5+
  9. Chinweike
    Sexual morality, actually morality in general is a very tricky topic. Owing to its arbitrary nature. But what is it with humans and sex though? Why the obsession, I understand of course that sex is literally the reason we are here (well except a couple thousand IVF babies of course), but still, I don’t know. Even from a religious standpoint, it seems rather petty that a deity creates an entire universe is concerned about who you sleep with.

    Take for instance how people are disgusted by bestiality. You can trade, animals, kill them, all without their consent (in a human context that translates as slavery and murder) but the minute you talk about sex with them, all hell breaks loose. The issue of pedophilia, nature has some people attain sexual maturity as early as 10, shouldn’t it be then the “natural order” that people start having sex by that age? Respecting the “natural order” will set women and civilization loads of years back, so let’s not even get into that.

    Now I’m not of course endorsing bestiality or pedophilia (for what it’s worth I’m neither condemning. Okay maybe I do condemn pedophilia but that’s beside the point) I’m only asking questions.

    We don’t live in a vacuum, our actions affect each other in more ways than we can imagine, your decision to skip work today, harmless as it may seem, could lead to a series of events that’ll lead to the death of someone else and stuff like that. It’s only natural that we make to regulate the actions of others, so I suppose that’s why we are so keen to regulate the actions of others, still I think sex gets way more attention that it deserves.
    Let me just commend the general tone of this article, you raised your points without being a dick about it.

    6+
    1. Ufuomaee Post author
      Hi Chinweike, you make some good points in your critique. The issue of how we treat animals and even how we distinguish pets for special treatment, is something that is worthy of exploration.

      So far, I haven’t brought in play the Biblical arguments to make my point, because the majority of my audience on this post are not concerned with what the Bible considers right or wrong. However, on the issue of animals, the Bible teaches us that we are to have dominion over them, and that they are good to us for food too. But to sleep with them is an abomination. It can only be the thought of a depraved mind, who would just as easily eat humans and sleep with animals! It is therefore concerning to me that you shy away from making a stand against bestiality.

      I appreciate what you say that we do not live in a vacuum. And so, everything we do has a consequence on our world – even what we eat! So, me making a point that someone else’s sexual practices will affect me should not be too hard to understand or swallow. I can also understand that my dictating what others can or can’t do can be quite restrictive/opinionated/oppressive (maybe), because they don’t want to have to live by my standards. I certainly eat what I want when I want, and if someone was to try to make a law out of it, I would consider that to be a cause worth resisting.

      I do however, as I pointed out in my post, draw my beliefs from the Bible, which gives me the liberty to eat anything (except other humans), but restricts the contexts in which I may have sex. I understand the logic in this, I respect the wisdom of this, and so I promote it as a solution to a world that has descended in depravity in this regard for a lack of a standard to hold to. It is like someone from a different country (e.g. God from Heaven) where they have very good hygeine practices coming to a land where people poo and pee in the same place they sleep and eat, and never bother to clean up after themselves! That person knows better, and will certainly want to help them get some order and cleaniless… The Bible therefore represents God’s standard for us in this and many other matters.

      Thanks for your contribution!

      6+
      1. Chinweike
        You are right about the majority of people not drawing their morals from the bible, (2 billion Christians to 5 billion non Christians). I’d say for good reason too, I mean, imagine if we all ascribed to stoning brides that aren’t virgins, or kids that are disrespectful, rape, infanticide, slavery etc (I’m sure you’re familiar with the various verses that endorse this in the bible). I don’t mean to ridicule the bible or anything, it sure does have a couple of good stuff, but I’d rather not use it as an authority in terms of moral decisions.

        So you see why your argument of “because the bible said so” doesn’t work for me? You can’t pick and choose parts of the bible to ascribe to, if you’re going to turn to the bible when it says not to have sex with animals but shun where it says to stone brides that aren’t virgins and the rest, well, I can’t take you seriously.

        3+
        1. Ufuomaee Post author
          I don’t pick and choose the parts of the Bible I believe and follow, but I UNDERSTAND the Bible and the different parts of it that make it a coherent whole! That’s where you and I differ.

          I understand from my study of the Bible and through my relationship with God, by His indwelling Spirit that “the law came through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”. Paul said that the Law was like a school master, training us for when the Holy Spirit will come and dwell in those who believe in Jesus, and who will be led by the Spirit of God to do the will of God. I believe that the Law that was given through Moses, was even modified from God’s supreme law of love because of the hardness of men’s hearts…which is why divorce was permitted, though it was not God’s ideal. Jesus said, you have heard it said “an eye for an eye”, but I tell you “turn the other cheek”. Jesus wasn’t advocating for us to continue in the letter of the Law, but to know the Spirit of Truth, which says that hate is one’s heart is as wicked as murder!

          So, I am telling you all this to say, you can’t throw old testament texts at me to deny the truth of God. You don’t understand the scriptures, and you won’t until God puts His Spirit in you.

          And God’s original plan and order for men and women will never change. He made us male and female intentionally. And He ordained marriage and set the boundaries for moral sexuality. You may argue til your face is blue about how everything has progressed since then…but you can’t argue with biology! Men and men and women with women, will result in the end of the world, if not by death due to the imbalance of nature ( with more animals than humans, we will be the hunted), by plague!

          Thanks for again your contribution.

          6+
          1. Chinweike
            *sigh. So it’s the old “you need the holy spirit to understand the bible argument”. Lots of people say that, yet there’s no universally accepted interpretation of the Bible, you’d think a book that important would be easy to grasp. This isn’t really the time or place to discuss about the bible, I’d be happy to indulge you outside of here if you feel like it. [email protected].

            Speaking about biology, you do realize intersex people exist don’t you? They used to be known as hermaphrodite, that’s people that don’t fit under male or female sex, from a biological standpoint, so NO, same sex couples won’t be the end of the world. I should also point out that a lot of other species of animals exhibit traits like asexual reproduction and whatnot, even homosexuality is rife in several other species, some do lead to reproduction, like with certain species of snails (technically they’re hermaphrodite, but still). Let’s not even get into the scientific aspects, where babies are born via methods that aren’t traditional, IVF in particular being the most prominent, with over 150k babies having been born via that method.

            Actually even if humans were to die out, I think the world would not only continue but even last longer than it would. We are the biggest contributors to the demise of our dear planet. There was a time before humans, and there’s almost certainly going to be one after humans. Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9% of them have become extinct, what’s one more?

            1+
          2. Ufuomaee Post author
            why take it off post, when others can learn what the real issues are here? Thanks for your email though.

            *sigh at the great evolution theory. I am not denying that you can read the Bible and understand what you are reading…because it has been translated to simple English afterall. But you will not get the bigger picture…you will not know the Spirit, you will only know what the text of the Book says. Those, who have the mind of Christ, are able to understand the things of the Spirit. It is a spiritual truth that you just can’t get by denying the existence of God. It is a gift of God. To know and love Jesus is a gift of God.

            Yes, even Christians disagree on the Bible. But Jesus is clear that not all who call Him Lord are truly His followers. But those who are, He grants them His Spirit of Truth.

            Now you have brought in hermaphrodites to cloud the issues. Please what percentage of the current living human population are hermaphrodites? Do you know? Is it relevant enough to turn their exception into a free for all? I don’t think so. This is just another red herring to deviate for the issues. And IVF, as good as it is, is not as easy or as effective as natural conception. It is not a suitable alternative. However, I know you realise this because you then consider the fact that I could be right that we will all die out…but that’s cool because according to the much loved evolution theory, 99.9% of all life have already become extinct. So, let’s just get it over and done with right?

            Anyway, have yourself a good day! I have to go and I wish you all the best.

            1+
  10. Kikiotolu
    K. Rukkia seems like a Law student to me. And Miss Ufuomaee is a Christian….

    First thing I was taught in my monastry was not to discuss SEX. Its a confusing and complex topic.

    Consent can’t be the golden rule to decide cos I have seen squirrels rape….and I can remember something in law like there is no rape in marriage(between husband and wife/husband nd husband/wife md wife)

    1+
    1. Ufuomaee Post author
      Hi Kiki,

      I’m surprised to find you here, being a part of a discussion about sex, when you know better than to discuss sex…

      So, what are you hoping to achieve by not discussing sex in this forum where sex is being discussed?

      Cheers, Ufuoma.

      1+
        1. Ufuomaee Post author
          You’ve actually said some things worth addressing… like no such thing as rape in marriage? I’m sorry… if rape is still understood more as a show of power than of love, then it is possible for sex in marriage too rape, when one has said no but is forced to do so…or when it isn’t about the expression of love, but about a show of who’s in control!
          1+
        1. Ufuomaee Post author
          You said a whole lot, and you are still saying a whole lot. You are standing by the fire adding wood, and saying, “I’m not doing anything”. Don’t kid yourself!
          0
      1. woyi_oc
        “Isaiah 5 : 19-26”

        Resolution on the pc i’m using is really low so I was able to make out the words. That and my eye sight is on point. 😀
        Anyway, when you read it, ithink you’ll understand what the human is trying to say.

        0
  11. Miss Sith
    Great job on the article, Ufuomaee.? You’ve managed to raise a lot of issues here, and frankly, I don’t think I can type long enough to air all my views, but I’ll give it a try.
    I’m all for abstinence, if that’s your thing, but I think assuming chastity/abstinence is a solution to teenage pregnancy, prostitution, pornography, child abuse, etc, is a bit shortsighted, and overoptimistic.
    Our insistence on shrouding sex in mystery, and our refusal to accept it as one of the baser urges of humanity is one of the things that drives teenagers to explore their sexuality in the dark, with unsafe practices, leading to teenage pregnancies. Sadly, it’s girls who get pregnant, who get shamed for carrying the evidence of what everyone else is doing in secret. And since we have refused to legalise abortion, they end up in some quack’s house, where they’ll be lucky to escape with their lives.
    The issues of child abuse and rape shouldn’t apply here. They are the result of someone violently imposing his/her will on another. Abstinence has nothing to do with it.
    As for incest, like K.Rukia said, why not? Other than the fact that your offspring (if you’re dumb enough to have any) might end up with genetic defects, or worse, turn out like King Joffrey? We’re all too quick to forget that Abraham married his sister.
    I think it’s also worthy to note that couples get divorced for reasons other than infidelity.
    We preach abstinence mostly because religion teaches us to. That doesn’t make it wrong, but I think we should allow people to make the decision for themselves, and not make them feel guilty when they choose ‘wrong’.
    What’s my point? Placing these many of society’s problems on the shoulders of sexual immorality gives sex way too much credit.
    2+
    1. Ufuomaee Post author
      Hi Sith,

      Thanks for joining the conversation and for the praise on my write-up. I appreciate the compliment.

      It seems to have gone over many readers heads, but I didn’t say in my post that there would be no problems at all if we all strove to be chaste. I said there would be LESS of the problems and more positives to be enjoyed. We are human, and we are not perfect…we will always make mistakes. Even in Christian marriages where both were virgins and both love and fear God, either husband or wife can still fall into temptation… but with more people encouraging them to be faithful to their spouses, rather than more people looking for whose husband or wife to steal, you can be sure that the risk of extra-marital affairs will be greatly reduced.

      They say it takes a village to raise a child. It will take all of us, being committed to this ideal to see the results I highlighted. If I subscribe to it, and but my neighbour doesn’t, she could still try to seduce my husband. If my country subscribes to it, but we keep watching American programmes teaching otherwise, we will erode our values once again. So what I was saying is, if we could all embrace and defend this truth, we would all reap the benefits of LESS of these social ills.

      Regarding incest and bestiality, Larz has rightly addressed it in his response to Rukia. There will always be why nots, like the child who keeps asking why they can’t put their hand in the fire. Why Mommy? Because it will burn you? Why? Because it is hot? Why? Because… If you are truly sincere, you will realise that the problem is not the answer, but that you don’t like the answer.

      Sincerely, Ufuoma.

      2+
  12. Od
    , first, I said that I can’t give that discussion the attention it demands. Today has been pretty demanding mentally for me so I’m not up to it.

    “Laws prevent or deter people from behaving in a manner that negatively affects the quality of life or rights of other people.”

    The above is the summary of your answer. You asked me under what framework I would ascertain the correctness of a law. Clearly, the above offers such a framework for those who adopt it as the reason for having laws. But then the question does arise: “how do we define/determine/identify the right quality of life and rights that we protect with laws?” Who decides what the appropriate quality of life is? And where did these rights come from? Who or what says that people have any rights at all?

    3+
    1. Snow
      i did point to a legislative system as voted for by the people. the system decides with the purpose as earlier stated.

      But if i understand what you mean, you are now posing an existential question, and this is where we and a lot of people are going to vary in extremes,.
      But despite these varying existential ideals, what matters most is the safety of the people and dissolution of conflicts.

      what the law does is consider those various existential ideals when so as to achieve a safe compromise.

      What would a muslim do, if the law made one of their commandments illegal?
      or what would a christian do, if the law forbade praying or preaching in public places ?

      0
  13. Od
    , yes you did. The law is decided by the majority. Now, if the law is decided by the people through a voting system, it is bound to be in perpetual flux because the priorities and preferences of the majority will change as time passes. That means that what you consider legal and I consider unacceptable is still a subject of debate so you cannot say to me that as long as it is legal for two people to have sex in a certain way I have no business with it. If I think it is reprehensible it is my right and actually my civic duty to trigger debates on it until the law will be changed or I can be persuaded to leave things as they are.

    question: yes, indeed I am. You see then that once we come to that point, all the laws become absurd. Because all they do is postpone conflict until there is an arbiter before whom everyone will have to bow. Laws have been made that stripped Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists etc of their rights. And the excuse is always “the safety of the people and dissolution of conflicts” but when you take away my treasured right to dissolve conflict, you alienate me. When you strike out my demands and preferences for the safety of others what about my own safety?

    You cannot escape existential questions this way. Compromise does not safeguard anything indefinitely. People are deprived to reach compromises and they will not endure such loss indefinitely. That is why every manner of right is crawling out of the woodwork these days with everyone triggering existential debate. Polyamory, bestiality, paedophilia, incest, homosexuality, transsexualism, bisexualism, you name it, it’s got a solid “why not?” behind it.

    So, who is going to decide what is safe for everybody? If the majority, then is might not right? If the minority can gain ascendancy some other way, why shouldn’t they?

    If we are going to ask why it is my business when two people decide to have sex within the limits of the existing law, then we had better start validating not just existing law but everything that grants legitimacy and acceptability to that law because I have my own sexual interests to protect.

    4+
    1. Snow
      Whether the law is in a state perpetual flux because the priorities and preferences of the majority will change as time passes, it will be changed with the fundamental purpose upholding it, “Safety of the people and the dissolution of conflicts in a way that protects this safety”

      Now the absolute safety the law tries to provide for is physical, Loss of life, bodily harm and such. Anything that extends beyond this like emotional and psychological is up for debate because there is no universally accepted reference for which this can be correctly ascertained.

      Now saying laws become absurd because of existential ideals due to your perceived postponing of conflict and striping you of your right to resolve such conflict is wrong, because while a system has been voted for to make this laws, another partnering system was also created to resolve said conflicts with guidance from the laws put in place. So you handed over your right to resolve conflict over to an authority. so no need complaining in about it

      Now I’m sure if you can put forward a case for how two people having sex under the right conditions affects you physical (note this is the only scope of safety i’m choosing to address here), i’m sure then it will be considered.

      have been made that stripped Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists etc of their rights. I would be curious as to know an example in this present day that does this.

      We can sit here and talk about effect and the likes, but the only scope of effect that can be shown and proven is physical. Any other is highly debatable, and the issue of consent and voting system ties in here is a way that would be too long to explain and isn’t necessary.

      legitimacy and acceptability is considered (not explicitly granted) when it doesn’t result in physical harm.

      Now if you told me, the only conditions under which sex was allowed to you was marriage because God said so. Then I wouldn’t debate it with you.
      But then if you decide to bring existential ideals into it, I would also bring into the existential purpose of marriage into it and that would be taking your topic out of the religious context in which you approach it.

      Because honestly, if we could examine both sides of the table and exclude any issue that harms another, then you would notice that each side has a valid point.

      I still put forward that I dont see how sex in anyway contributes to the demise of a society, Look through history, and civilizations that have risen and fell, the only constant through it all has been humans, not sex, not power, not money, not love, but humans.

      1+
      1. Od
        I already addressed the first part of this elsewhere in my discussion with you. We can continue there.

        “…but when you take away my treasured right to dissolve conflict, you alienate me.”

        The above statement was meant to read, “…take away my treasured right [in order] to dissolve conflict…” Sorry about the error.

        I said that once we consider existential questions our laws become absurd. The reason is obvious: disparate moral codes cannot produce a coherent legal code. One law that suits one philosophy will deprive another philosophy of rights of expression.

        You also have an interesting point about the consequences of the existence of a legal system. Once we vote certain laws into existence and establish a system for enforcing those laws, you say that we have effectively lost the right to “resolve conflict” by ourselves. I read that to mean that we have subjected our own personal moral code to the law. That is precisely why I have an interest in your moral philosophies and preferences. If your preferences are likely to become law to which I will have to subject my personal moral code I want the right to debate it, do I not?

        I already told you about the laws that approve of gay marriage which have obliged Christians and other religions antagonistic to the practice to accommodate them in ways that go against their moral obligations. That’s an example.

        As I said, your perspective about physical harm is flawed.

        First, here you made my point about how existential philosophies make our laws absurd (which is why you would rather not debate what God commands of me and why you prefer your moral code). As soon as we start tabling our beliefs and convictions, we will find that we cannot make uniform laws that everybody will subject themselves to. That’s why I said that all that we do now with our legal systems is postpone conflict. Soon, we won’t be able to compromise on our various philosophies and that will be a most interesting day to live in, a fearful one but definitely interesting.

        Second, of course the constant has been humans…doing something or neglecting to do something. The story will always be found to involve sex or money or power or any combination of those three. Because they are all important to human beings.

        1+
        1. Snow
          Errrm, when you mention, various philosophies and infringing on your right in order to dissolve conflict. l
          et’s talk about rights. I believe the fundamental right across all scopes of ideals is the right to life. and as long as that is not infringed upon, then the next right on the ladder can be considered. I think it’s a system akin to Maslow’s hierarchy of need.
          for the sake of this let’s consider just three rights here;;life, free speech, and knowledge. with the order being life-speech-knowledge.
          Now the fundamental provision of a law would be to protect the right to life, and once that is achieved, i believe the next rung of the ladder which is speech will be considered. now let’s imagine a case where your right to speech clashes on someone else’s right to life. In a matter of court, which right do you think will be infringed upon to allow for the other?

          And then there is a provision in the U.s Law (i dont know about Nigeria) called The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. you should check it out.

          Now the reason why i would not debate what God commands you to do is because his laws or rules are meant to be followed without any form of examination (that’s something akin to faith)
          Now completing debating existential ideals will mean i approach every question with a bid to thoroughly examine it’s merits and relevance irrespective of origin. And i can’t do that without someone trying to remind me of how God’s laws are not dabateable and such. I’m sure you understand what i mean

          0
          1. Od
            Let me do a small refresh about where we started. You asked why two people cannot have consensual sex if they aren’t breaking the law. And I asked you where the law comes from. Your answer was that we created a system for voting laws. So laws come into existence by popular demand. Then I told you that that is why it matters to me what two people are doing sexually with or without the provision of the law because if I don’t debate their behavior before it becomes a norm it could become a law to which I owe obligations that may contradict my moral code.

            The current talk about rights began as an effort to explain the interaction of different moral codes in the creation of laws. As soon as two or more conflicting worldviews go to work to create a universal legal system, we start fighting over rights and permissions. Because each philosophy or worldview or religion has a different set of rights and permissions. Now, if laws are created for the safety of people as you claim, then violating the rights that a person believes they are entitled to by their own worldview alienates them and can provoke them to retaliation in some form. That retaliation could compromise the safety of people and thus negate the whole point of creating the law in the first place. There is also the fact that the right denied that person could compromise their own physical safety thus also negating the principle you claim is behind creating laws. You can see all this in action in the reported bomb and other attacks on Planned Parenthood clinics and churches etc in America, for instance.

            So, how do we reach a uniform set of rights for everybody? Maslow offers an opinion but what is that to me? If my philosophy means everything to me then unless Maslow is taking it into account why should I care what he says?

            The simple truth is that unless one religion or philosophy or worldview is adopted by all there will always be conflict over rights and privileges and permissions. The law will always serve one or more worldviews in preference to others on one point or another. That is a situation that will not last indefinitely.

            But as long as that situation lasts, because your moral principles or lack thereof is likely to reflect at all in the laws we create to govern the society I live in, you cannot claim or assert the right to do whatever you want without my interference. Rukia, for instance, cannot live her life polyamorously and advocate polyamory either with her actions or her words and demand that I, being a Christian and thus of different philosophical and moral principles than herself, must stay out of it because it might soon be accepted as a norm and even made a law to which I will suddenly owe obligations.

            That is really all our discussion has been about. I say that to help us stay on track and not run off the rails chasing red herrings.

            I have addressed the part you extracted from that commission in another post. I’m not sure what more we can do with it in this discussion.

            About this last bit on God and his commands, I would ask you what makes you say all that you did but I don’t want to seem disingenuous. I haven’t always been a Christian and even when I have been I have known of the popular idea that you cannot question God, that faith makes you little more than a zombie. But given your particular behavior on this platform and in fact the very words that you just used in this post, I confess that it runs counter to reason to expect you to accept a popular idea about the God Christians worship without actually trying to prove whether it is true or false. You must be able to tell by now that I myself make the effort to familiarize myself with philosophies and worldviews that I choose to discuss with.

            Granted that religion, especially Christianity, has co-opted the word ‘faith’, it is still an English word with discernible meanings. One of them is essentially “confidence in something or someone”. And, incidentally, that is the meaning of the biblical use of it. How is confidence ever acquired? Whether you are a scientist or not, you know that to believe something to be true, you must have experienced something that recommended it to you. In other words, you must have tested it in some way.

            In Christianity, it is the same. Even when Jesus Christ came into the world claiming to be deity, he did not simply say, “believe it or die”. He offered proof in countless ways. He demonstrated his superiority over every natural force and every artificial power. And he crowned it all by defying death when he rose again after being killed. When people say today that science can accomplish some of what he did back then, it is always interesting to note that he did it without the science of today and that in many cases he did it without much more than a simple command where scientific knowledge still exerts a lot of complex effort to accomplish the same thing. Christianity does not demand zombie-like behavior. It actually demands massive intellectual involvement.

            Several times in the Bible, God himself commands people who will obey him to not only read the Bible but think critically about what it says (that is, meditate on it). Jesus was constantly rebuking the religious leaders of his day for not bothering to try to understand the Bible in their overzealous devotion to literal interpretations that turned them into big hypocrites. So, Christianity is huge on thought and intellectual engagement.

            That being the case, when anyone tells me that God commands anything, I scrutinize it to see if it lines up, if it makes sense. That is how you even begin to know whether God said anything at all. Granted, sometimes it is not so easy to figure it out but then how many good things come easy, right?

            What I’m saying in essence is that as soon as people start saying that God’s laws are not debatable, it is a sign that something may not be quite right. Although it is true that God’s word is final, you are permitted to test him, if you haven’t already, to prove his claims about himself and know for yourself, experientially, that he is trustworthy but be sure to recognize when you have no more questions to ask and are only digging in because you don’t want anything but your own way. But in claims that other people make about God, you are actually commanded by the Bible to investigate them. You are to accept nothing merely because someone invoked God’s name over it.

            5+
          2. Ufuomaee Post author
            You have some extraordinary levels of patience…and also deep insight and wisdom. This your epistle is so well written and on point. Keeping doing you 🙂
            0
          3. Snow
            One word. Compromise

            Now imagine a world where everyone does as their religion, or personal ethics or belief dictates.
            Now answer why we have laws?

            You keep saying rights, rights as defined by who or what?

            simple truth is that unless one religion or philosophy or worldview is adopted by all there will always be conflict over rights and privileges and permissions. The law will always serve one or more worldviews in preference to others on one point or another. That is a situation that will not last indefinitely.

            I’m sorry to disappoint you but it will last for as long as indefinitely.

            And how exactly did the planned parenthood clinic compromise the physical safety of one individual. dont bring psychological or economic safety into this, because like i said, that is highly debateable.

            I dont have light, the heat is killing me, my skin feels irritating and because of that i cant work, i become lazy, i fall sick and no work means no money, am i right to then attack a PHCN office? because everything here now is from my own pov.

            1+
          4. Od
            , I must beg off after this reply. These discussions have stretched me far past the limits I intended. I can’t continue them and I think we’ve done justice to the issues being examined. Forgive me if I’m cutting off anything you might wish to say after this but I really can’t give the discussion any more attention.

            (1) We have laws to establish some uniform code of conduct for our collective life as a community.

            And, as I said already, that compromise we make to establish that uniformity will cost adherents of each worldview some expression of their worldview.

            There are two possible outcomes of such compromise pursued indefinitely: (i) whole worldviews will be lost until the legal code becomes THE adopted worldview of everyone (like I said already), OR (ii) adherents of different worldviews will grow sick of having their worldview subjugated to a universal legal code and there will be anarchy. I think that both have precedents in history but I’m afraid it will take a bit of research to offer you concrete evidence. But I can tentatively name ancient civilizations from Egypt to Babylon to Rome as some examples of subjugation of worldviews and offer at least Rome and perhaps Greece as examples of anarchy at their demise.

            (2) “You keep saying rights, rights as defined by who or what?”

            Incidentally, that is the same question I asked you and Rukia.

            (3) I think that the antecedents of the human race suggest otherwise, as I already hinted in (1). We’re building up to a new dictatorship. The whole “tolerance” idea is a weird philosophy that is achieving the exact opposite of its professions so that everyone is starting to demand rights even when those rights conflict. Soon, compromise will be out the window and we will need an unparalleled dictator to pull everybody back together. Only this time, I don’t think it will be regional, the world has shrunk too much for that.

            (4) I used the Planned Parenthood and churches example to illustrate what happens when a law frustrates rights that members of a society believe that their worldview grants them. I’m not about to argue about the legitimacy of the legislations that produced Planned Parenthood.

            (5) Really, should you be asking me what is right or wrong? What are we discussing again? 😀 In my worldview, even if someone murdered my entire family before my eyes after doing horrible, dehumanizing things to them I can’t even cuss them out for it. At the worst, I can only appeal to God for justice. So, what do you expect I would advise you in this scenario you painted? 😀

            But what if I were, say, an anarchist? Would I tell you that it’s right then or wrong? 🙂

            Later, Snow.

            0
          5. Od
            Ufuoma, thank you for your kind words. Sometimes it’s just stubborn hope not strictly patience. But for the grace of God, I’m not a patient person at all. 🙂
            0
  14. woyi_oc
    I’ll be real…that talk of bestiality being “okay”(…or was it “Not bad” or….whatever).
    In my eye, looks like a successful attempt at trolling >_>
    5+
    1. K. Rukia
      Why do you think so?
      No one has yet stated categorically what is fundamentally ‘wrong’ with bestiality, besides the issue of consent.
      0
      1. woyi_oc
        Hmm…How do I put this…?

        One of the primary functions, if not the main functions of sexual activity between males and females of the same species is reproduction. As a result, mating with an animals, which share lower than 100% of your genetic material…
        well, biology says that $#!t don’t fly.

        Also my email address got blocked by google. “suspicious activity”, they said.

        2+
        1. K. Rukia
          Reproduction is not the only function of sexual activity. You said it yourself, it’s just one of the “primary functions”. Another function is erotic pleasure, which is probably why a human would have sex with an animal anyway. It’s not like the person is trying to have dog-human hybrid babies or something. What does biology have to do with erotic pleasure?

          So I can’t email you or…?

          0
          1. woyi_oc
            “What does biology have to do with erotic pleasure?”

            A little and a lot.

            Basic sexual response is a biological thing. Hormones, chemicals, electric passing in the brain..you know… stuff. By evolution or intelligent design, humans and all other creatures actually enjoy having sex. lemme quote a line from HOUSE M.D.

            “Do you know what the human body goes through when you have sex? Pupils dilate, arteries constrict, core temperature rises, heart races, blood pressure skyrockets, respiration becomes rapid and your muscles spasm like you are lifting 10 times your body weight….”

            (That’s a lot of things that wouldn’t be welcomed responses to stimuli)

            “…Sex is raw. It’s rough and it’s messy. And if God hadn’t made it so damn enjoyable, the human race would have died out eons ago”.

            Evolution articles I’ve read also say that humans are one of the few creatures that don’t need to wait for HEAT before they desire sex….Sure there’s a peak fertility period buuuuut… as fellow nakedconvo readers and commenters have testified,ain’t no thing. Some women even feel hornier when they on their period and that’s usually the time when there’s no chance of conception. Wait, what was the point of this? Oh yeah, the point is by whatever powers we believe in, sexual desire in female humans has been designed to keep the male around to provide for the offspring by being willing and able to have coitus regardless of “HEAT”. It’s not the same with most animals as most don’t pair bond and raise offspring together.

            On another note,

            You on twitter?
            But in case i get the email active again, what’s your email address?

            3+
          2. woyi_oc
            “Sex could kill you. Do you know what the human body goes through when you have sex? Pupils dilate, arteries constrict, core temperature rises, heart races, blood pressure skyrockets, respiration becomes rapid and shallow, the brain fires bursts of electrical impulses from nowhere to nowhere, and secretions spit out of every gland, and the muscles tense and spasm like you’re lifting three times your body weight. It’s violent, it’s ugly and it’s messy, and if God hadn’t made it unbelievably fun, the human race would have died out eons ago.
            Men are lucky they can only have one orgasm. Do you know that women can have an hour long orgasm?”

            Sigh…I miss house.. ah well.

            Wait…that part about women having an hr long orgasm…Must research

            Twitter: @woyi_oc

            0
      2. Don Flowers
        Rukia, with the respect, I think you an some other folks here argue just for the sake of argument with no intention of advancing society, intelligence or encouraging a robust discuss.

        Beastiality is wrong because it is against the order of nature and because the law prohibits it. You probably don’t believe in any organised religion and I will refrain from attempting to bring anyone up, so let’s talk science.

        A study of Darwin’s thesis on evolution will reveal that the formation and adaptation of of organisms as well as the functions of of the systems within said organisms is guided by use and purpose.

        The penis was not designed by nature for use on the anus of a dog or any other animal whatsoever, nor was the vagina designed for the (dunno if I can call it) ‘penis’ of a dog or horse. The gametes of a human and that of other mammal do not ordinarily mix/combine to form a seed.

        On the part of the law, the relevant portions the Criminal Code, for those in the Southern part of Nigeria, and the Penal Code for those in the North, prohibit any form of sexual relations between humans and animals.

        You can question the law all you want but it does not necessarily make it inapplicable to you, your refusal to accept it will not protect you from prosecution when suspected of being in breach of it.

        I have read, with a great deal of pain I might add, the opinions of certain individuals here who who argue supposedly on philosophical cum legal grounds with even a basic knowledge of the various schools of thoughts within these institutions.

        10+
        1. K. Rukia
          Mr. Flowers,

          Yes, bestiality is illegal, but I asked whether it is wrong, not illegal. I also never said anything about the law being inapplicable to me.
          Besides, the law was made put there by people, and can therefore be questioned and changed if found to no longer be reflective of generally accepted convention. Currently this convention is that bestiality is wrong, and that is what I question.

          You say that bestiality is against the order of nature. But how does that make it wrong? Anything that you find to be ‘unnatural’ is wrong? Is it natural for man to be in space, a vacuum which cannot support life? Is it natural for people to use fertilisers to grow crops in infertile land? That something is ‘unnatural’ has nothing to do with its morality.

          As for human and animal reproductive organs not being designed to reproduce together – as I said elsewhere, reproduction is not the only reason people have sex. People also have sex for the fun of it, and to express affection. Why can someone not express affection for an animal by having sex with them?

          The reason I am interested in this topic is that people who desire consensual sex with their pets are currently banned from doing so by law, which I believe is unfair to them as far as there is no reason doing so is wrong. I’m really trying to see why I might be mistaken, but I am yet to be convinced by anything that has been said so far.

          If you really think that I am arguing for the sake of it, please don’t direct any further comments to me; I’d rather have this conversation with someone who doesn’t think so.

          0
  15. Od
    , you assume that I consider some things moral and others immoral. I think of morality as the undergirding of life, it defines what is good and evil and thus affects everything that is touched by human choice. So, I consider driving a moral question as much as anything else.

    Now, as to why the interconnection of human beings makes anything a moral issue, we come back to existential questions. Does a human life matter at all? Who said it should? If it does, then anything that affects a human life is a moral question.

    In other words, who made human life sacred? If no one did, any question we are asking about what should be acceptable and what shouldn’t be is a meaningless exercise.

    4+
    1. K. Rukia
      *sigh*
      OD, I really like your writing style. You have a way with words. But you have a way of skirting the issue and just philosphising. Pondering existential questions is cool, but not when I’ve asked straightforward questions and you start going off on a tangent.

      You said you agreed with the premise and conclusion of this post. The post basically says two things: 1) that sex is a moral issue and it is morally sound for people to choose chastity; 2) That conversely, it is immoral for people not to choose chastity because of all the harmful effects that come out of that choice
      Based on my understanding of the post, of course if you say that you agree with it, I would deduce that you consider promiscuity (for lack of a better word) immoral, and my question was why. Your definition of morality in general as an ‘undergirding’ of life does not concern me.

      “Anything that affects a human life is a moral question”
      If I interpret that as ‘affects a human being’, it makes no sense. Do you wake up every morning wondering how your choice to go to work or not (which will ‘affect’ the lives of many people) is right or wrong?
      And if I take it that you mean ‘human life’ as in it affects whether a person will live or die, then please show me how the choice to have sex with someone I’m not married to affects someone’s life.

      Human life doesn’t have to be ‘sacred’ for ethics to matter. But for the sake of argument, I’ll humour you. Who made human life sacred? I did, you did, everyone did. I’m pretty sure every individual believes their own life (at the very least) to be ‘sacred’. Happy?

      Anyways, back to the reason I replied you in the first place. You still haven’t told me why you believe people should be ‘chaste’ or abstain from sex, but you wouldn’t also advise them to abstain from driving.

      0
      1. Od
        , for some reason, the reply button does not work well on my browser, so my replies to you may be coming in new sub-threads.

        “Going by your argument everything a person does, sexually or otherwise, could affect someone else, and ‘end up in your lap’. How does the mere fact that something could affect someone else make it a moral issue? Why is it immoral for one to decide not to be ‘chaste’? I still fail to see why sex is a moral issue when driving is not.”

        The above was your post to which I was replying.

        My statement about morality being the undergirding of life was in answer to your assumption that I consider some things a moral question and not others, e.g. sex is a moral question but not driving. I said effectively that I consider both a moral question. That was not skirting the issue.

        You asked how anything that affects another human being is a moral issue and I said that that depends on whether human life matters. If it does, then that’s how something that affects somebody else becomes a moral issue. If it does not, it can’t be a moral issue. Again, that is not skirting the issue.

        Basically, YOU asked existential questions, philosophical questions, and I answered them accordingly.

        I’ll answer your responding post now.

        Why do I myself consider promiscuity immoral?

        For clarity, that question is inquiring into the moral code I have personally adopted. It does not ask me why anyone else does but why I personally consider promiscuity to be immoral. In other words, it requires me to argue for and recommend my moral code to you. That is what I will do now.

        My moral code is the Christian moral code. It is expounded upon in the Bible. The foundation of that code is that there is a God who created everything that exists and placed a value on them. He decided that human life in all of its expressions would be the most valuable thing on earth and provided for the satisfaction of all human needs in such ways that the sanctity of human life need never be breached.

        Sex is a human need. It is also a very powerful drive and it is connected to some very strong emotional centers. It was designed by God specifically for the purposes of bonding between emotionally involved members of different genders. Because it serves as a kind of emotional cement, God created marriage to make it safe for humans to safely and richly explore themselves and their mates sexually without inhibition. Because, also, it was designed for reproduction, God made marriage which is more than a whimsical, purely emotional contract to contain it and protect the needs of each parent and their resulting children.

        For these reasons, sex in every other context is fraught with danger because it arouses defense mechanisms and predatory tendencies in people.

        Sex education is little more than providing a raft for a voyage on a massive, unpredictable ocean when it fails to educate human beings on the proper context for sex. The powerful emotions with which sex is involved makes it a very important gift which must be handled with utmost care. To those who value emotional relationships with other people, sex is a most valued gift which they do not give away carelessly.

        That is why I consider promiscuity and every other form of sexual behavior outside of a heterosexual marriage relationship immoral.

        I meant that “human life”, the whole gamut of all things that involve human beings. I do not wake up in the morning wondering whether my very existence has resulted in someone else’s misfortune. The reason is that in my belief system, it is my actions particularly that I am responsible for. Every time I make a choice about anything it is most important that that choice never result in harm to others. I said, “harm” not “hurt”. I could do good things to and for people that hurt them in the interim but are of benefit to them in the end but things that harm them rob them of benefit even when they are being pleasurable in the beginning. Also, in my belief system, I am not responsible for things I have no knowledge of. That is balanced by a responsibility to learn what I do not know in keeping with my responsibility to build up the quality of life in this world. But it means that I cannot be fretting about whether someone who lives in St Petersburg is affected by choices I made here in Lagos until it comes to my notice that my choices affect them in some way.

        I think that that makes sense. If you don’t, I’m curious to know why.

        @’human life doesn’t have to be “sacred” for ethics to matter’: what is the point of ethics then? Why should I care what you think of your life or whether you think it’s sacred? Ethics is all about making us act with consideration for other people’s experience of life but why should I care about you if human life regardless who the specific human is is not sacred and made so by an authority outside and above the human experience, an authority to whom I would necessarily be obliged?

        Lol. Why would I want to tell anyone to abstain from driving? Wrong analogy. If I were to compare sex with driving, I’d say, go to a driving school, learn the rules and prove yourself a responsible driver, get the license and buy a car and avoid knocking people down in the streets or endangering yourself or other people much the same way I’d tell a young person to learn to value themselves and other people, get married and stay within their own little sexual cocoon with their partner. Again, I tell you, I consider driving a moral issue. If I didn’t, it wouldn’t matter to me that irresponsible drivers endanger the lives of people in the streets (and even in their homes and shops) everyday.

        9+
        1. K. Rukia
          Hi OD,

          I was really hoping you would bring something besides ‘God made it so’ as a basis for promiscuity being immoral.

          “Because it serves as a kind of emotional cement, God created marriage to make it safe for humans to safely and richly explore themselves and their mates sexually without inhibition.”
          “Sex education is little more than providing a raft for a voyage on a massive, unpredictable ocean when it fails to educate human beings on the proper context for sex.”
          What is this proper context? Heterosexual marriage, according to you. Who created heterosexual marriage as the ‘proper context’ for sex? The Christian God. Alright.

          Seeing as I do not ascribe to your Christian moral code (along with billions of other people on the planet), it’s very straightforwarrd for me to say that there is no reason I should be chaste, and my sex life really is none of your business. I enjoyed this post because it didn’t say ‘the Christian moral code says sex outside marriage is not good so everyone should be chaste, therefore your sex life is my concern’. The writer didn’t base the article on religion; she talked about consent and the so-called benefits of chastity, which I evaluated as invalid in an earlier reply.

          Now there is nothing wrong with having your religious beliefs, but if that is what drives your morality then just say so and keep your expectations to fellow believers. What I don’t agree with is trying to extend your moral code to people who are not believers, and telling them that their sex life is your concern. Other Christians’ sex lives might be your concern, but I don’t see why mine should be. If you want to preach Christianity, please go ahead. But don’t pretend that religious mores aside, the idea that promiscuity is immoral makes sense.

          I’ll pick up that driving analogy again. You mentioned that it matters to you when ‘irresponsible drivers endanger the lives of people’. I’ll assume you would be comfortable if the driver proved themself responsible (i.e. by getting a licence, learning the rules, etc). So if someone were having non-marital sex ‘responsibly’ (i.e. consensually, using protection, etc), why should it bother you?

          0
        2. Ufuomaee Post author
          Absolute perfection OD! I was going to respond with my perspective on the driving analogy, but you just did that for me. So on point.

          This is my favourite bit: “Sex education is little more than providing a raft for a voyage on a massive, unpredictable ocean when it fails to educate human beings on the proper context for sex.”

          Spot on! Glad to know you 🙂

          0
  16. Od
    , still hinting at that “butterfly effect” thing, right?

    Yeah, we are affected by events and choices remote from us and that is why there is a very real question we must answer: “why should that matter?”

    If people can be affected adversely by what I eat or my choice to sleep in, then should I really care? If I should, what can or should I do about it?

    See where the root of morality is?

    Btw, I already answered your other post. It was tagged as spam and is awaiting moderation. I don’t think I should try to repost it.

    4+
    1. Snow
      I can’t tell you whether you should care or not.

      I understand the “root of morality”. but doesn’t this mean that every action, or decision is indeed a moral one? even something as generically mundane as laughing? But how many people in the world extend their perception this far when discussing morality?
      That is why i tend to shy away from these talks, because the scope is extremely vast and dynamic.

      Personally, while i try to consider this, I base my decisions and actions on a necessity prerequisite. not whether it’s bad or good, but whether it’s necessary, i only draw the line at physical harm because i feel it is unnecessary. Does that make me a “bad:” person in the eyes of someone else? I do not care. i do what I have to

      0
  17. Od
    , do you realize that if you can’t you really have no business participating in law-making? You should not be casting a vote to tell me anything about how I should behave in the society.

    Yes it does. And everyone thinks about it when it suits them to do so. Laughing, for instance, isn’t a moral issue until your kids look sad because some other kids laughed at them, then we start concocting moral lessons and making rules about it.

    Everyone thinks about it. We all pick sides. Some people claim to reject all claims about the existence of an external arbitrary supreme authority but they still do precisely as you have just done: set themselves up as that authority and arrogate to themselves the rights to determine what is acceptable and what isn’t and then promptly go to work defending it just as such an external authority would do if it existed.

    Yes, the scope seems vast but it’s really just one question: who or what decides what is sacred and what isn’t? Finding the answer gives us the undergirding I talked about, the morality that advises us about what is sacred and what isn’t.

    Your own answer is that necessity is your moral code and you are your own moral authority. Now how is that safe for anybody else? If you do what you consider necessary for you, will it preservey safety or endanger it? How am I provided for in your moral code?

    4+
    1. Snow
      Honestly, you are not provided for in my code. I am not even provided for in my code. Necessity doesn’t have to favor me before i do it. I’m wired that way.

      i do not set myself as an authority to determine what is socially acceptable or not, whatever acceptability i show is extremely personal and is borne out of necessity,

      0
      1. Od
        , ok, the idea that your moral code doesn’t favor you is the most curious thing I’ve heard in a long time. Give me one scenario where your necessity does not benefit you.

        Also, if your code doesn’t care about me, why should I care what you think should or shouldn’t be.law? I’ll always be seeking to undermine your contributions to public discourse because they do not care about me, won’t I?

        1+
        1. Snow
          Giving a scenario would make it seem like i’m giving and unlikely one. So i’ll leave that for time to decide.

          And i never said you should care what i think should be or shouldn’t be law since i am not elected to make such. My contributions to public discourse do not somehow become law so undermining them doesn’t undermine the law

          0
          1. Od
            That is a cop-out, Snow.

            Are you being serious, Snow? How did the laws that exist come into existence? Do the people who make laws do it without your input? Every word you speak on public fora goes toward tilting the balance toward one legislative move or other. That is how laws change and evolve. That is how gay marriage became legal in the US and how prostitution was legalized in parts of Europe. Your comment is really curious.

            1+
          2. Snow
            And that brings us full cycle back to the fundamental purpose behind the creation of laws in a democratic system.

            Once you can answer that question as i have done already in one of my comments somewhere. Now i do not support gay marriage out of some deep personal reason i wont go into. But i dont see how the legalization of gay marriage disrupts the fundamental principles behind formation of laws.

            0
          3. Od

            I actually have been wanting to answer your comment regarding that but I haven’t got around to it. I can start answering it from here though.

            You said that the law is only concerned with physical safety, that it is not concerned with emotional and psychological matters. This is so obviously wrong that I wonder why you said it. Physical safety is tied to emotional and psychological well-being. That is why the law concerns itself with motive. There was at least one state in the US some time ago where it was actually illegal for someone to “steal” another person’s wife’s affections. That is one example of a law that deals directly with emotion.

            Now your claim is that the fundamental principle behind law-making is to protect the safety of the people and resolve conflict. The second still serves the first, so we’ll just say that it is to secure the bodily safety of people.

            Now, let’s use that example of gay marriage that you provided. Imagine that Christianity allows Christians to physically fight back when they are threatened and then that law is passed in the US. One clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses because it violates her Christian faith to do so. She’s thrown in jail because the law refuses to respect her faith. What’s to stop Christians from picking up guns and going to war over it? The economic and psychological safety of Christians have been compromised by that law: the clerk was thrown in jail – a psychological attack; and there was pressure from the public that she should resign if she wouldn’t do her job according to the law – an economic attack. Both compromise her physical safety because the psychological trauma of jail and the economic disempowerment resulting from losing her job could endanger her physical health and ultimately result in her physical death.

            If Christians were allowed by their faith to fight back and they did then that law would have directly endangered the lives of non-Christians.

            That is how the legalization of gay marriage “disrupts the fundamental principles behind the formulation of laws”.

            1+
          4. Snow
            I did say that any scope extending beyond physical is up for debate, since there is no universally absolute frame of reference to measure it against. If I do something and you come and tell me i hurt your feelings, how am i to believe and ascertain that?

            you say the clerk was thrown in jail – a psychological attack; and there was pressure from the public that she should resign if she wouldn’t do her job according to the law – an economic attack. Like I said, when it comes to effects extending beyond the physical, we can only speculate, up can be down, down can be up, left can be right, it’s a perception issue.

            Now you keep saying she was thrown in jail for refusing to issue a marriage license, all i see was someone who was thrown in jail for refusing to do her job. She wasn’t granted the power to make decisions on whom to grant licenses to and who to refuse, she was put in place as a conduit to grant licenses to applications that meet the requirement of the state.

            Take for example the case of the Muslim Flight attendant who refused to serve alcohol to a passenger, because of her religious beliefs. I believe she was suspended,

            The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provides guidelines that protects against discrimination of people who hold sincere religious, ethical or moral beliefs as long as it doesn’t cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer’s business.

            Here is an excerpt:
            The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer’s business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

            Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.

            I believe what the clerk could have done was to refer the application to someone whose beliefs won’t be infringed on upon granting the license. It’s the same things as a conflict of interest issue.

            There are judges (who are also officers of the state) who excuse themselves from cases that clash with their beliefs or issue.

            Now you inagined a scenario where Christianity allows Christians to go to arms when they are threatened. The keyword here is “threatened”, now i would like you to think it through and explain to me how an officer of the state who was punished for refusing to carry out the duties of her office amount to her being threatened, when you take into consideration the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

            1+
          5. Od
            I don’t think you could seriously be saying that it is difficult to determine whether a jail term carries psychological impact or that the loss of a job might not have a negative economic effect in a person’s life. Could you be, Snow? Is it hard to know?

            Of course her welfare was threatened and it was provocative to Christians. That they did not resort to armed violence to solve the problem had at least as much to do with the restraints of their faith as it had to do with the law.

            The point is simply this: the law that you said was made to provide for the safety of people endangered the Christian clerk and gay couples and pro-gay people everywhere.

            Telling me how the law tells her that her faith cannot stop her from carrying out duties that are offensive to her beliefs and convictions just goes on to make my point even more.

            Your solution that she should pass on the job if it offends her moral code fails to take into account that her faith is not.indifferent to the job. She may feel morally obliged to frustrate the job and what then? Is the law still providing for everyone’s safety there?

            1+
          6. Snow
            Yea, a jail term could have the same psychological effect as a high school student facing detention.
            Or the same economical effect as a college student facing expulsion.
            Both students in these cases would have been given a student guide handbook and a form to sign meaning they accept the conditions.

            Like I said, measuring them is subject to high debate.

            Her welfare was threatened because she not only refused to carry out her duties as an officer of the state, she was also trying to disrupt and obstruct the duties of the state. same way a police officer’s welfare can be threatened when they fail to file a complaint or a judge fails to carry out the duties of their office and do not excuse themselves from the issue.

            She is an officer of the state, which means she would have been given forms and guides for her work description and such forms seeing as they come from the state would make provisions for the U.S EEOC, which allows her to remove herself from a conflict of interest issue.

            The law does not tell her that her faith cannot stop her from carrying out duties that are offensive to her beliefs and convictions. But the law does provide for a situation where her faith clashes with her duty as an officer of the state. Telling me that she could have felt morally obliged to frustrate the efforts of a state that provided accommodations for her religious beliefs. Then i’m tired of this debate

            Becasue I dont see how the law that allows her to excuse herself from issues that clashes with her religious beliefs provides for her to frustrate its efforts to accommodate all parties

            1+
          7. Od
            I don’t think it is. Student or officer of state, there is psychological and economic impact that can cause a kickback. I’m not sure what the point of measuring is.

            I think I got you the first time. You are saying that the law provides her with an out so that she does not have to go against her moral principles. The out is that she passes on the job rather than do it herself.

            Now I’ll break down my previous answer to it so that you’ll see more clearly what I was saying in response.

            For Christians, we are not allowed to be overbearing and imposing. A Christian clerk is commanded by her faith to allow other people who choose a different path than Christ to do as they will, so she should state clearly that it violates her moral principles to issue those licenses and let someone else who is comfortable with issuing them to do so. Even if the law does not make such provisions as the American commission you quoted does.

            I hope that that satisfies you. It’s one part of my answer. The second part is as follows.

            Christianity is not the only worldview that is antagonistic to homosexuality. What if it was a worldview that actually demands that its followers react to homosexuality violently? That is, its adherents feel obliged not only to refuse to issue the licenses but actually to prevent the issuing of any licenses to homosexual couples as far as they are able? Would this other legal provision that allows them to recuse themselves from issuing the license make a difference? It would not. You would have, with the creation of a law to allow gay couples to get married, started a war that could compromise physical safety on either side, wouldn’t you?

            That’s what I’m saying. But never mind. I think we both get the point. We will circle the point indefinitely and produce no insights if we go on.

            Thank you for engaging me, Snow. Have a very productive day. 🙂

            3+
  18. Julibravo
    Thanks Ufuomae for sharing your thoughts in such an insightful way. And for doing better job than I did at delivering my points.
    I am glad some of us can have a better understanding here and a decent debate.

    I likey. we should talk more…
    Your Twitter handle please.
    And I look forward to reading more from you.

    2+
    1. Ufuomaee
      That’s high praise Jubi! I appreciate the compliment. You’ll find me at .

      You write beautifully too and your topic titles are hot! I think we have a lot in common 🙂

      Have a lovely evening.

      0
  19. Od
    Rukia, the following,

    “I believe in freedom of the individual, as long as the rights of another are not being encroached upon.”

    is where all the trouble in your answer is. You are essentially saying that as long as I do not infringe on your rights I can do whatever I want. That raises the question what your rights are, doesn’t it? You said later that having consensual sex with someone is not wrong because it’s natural but punching someone in the face who pissed you off is wrong because doing so infringes on his rights. What rights?

    Where do these rights come from? Why should I respect them? If I can have sex with another human being because of a natural biological urge, why should I not punch someone who pissed me off? Did he have a right to piss me off?

    Again, if it is right to have sex with another human being because of a natural biological urge, when they feel hurt because I don’t have the urge to sleep with them anymore, am I wrong to walk away from that and do it all over again? Or are there no sexual rights beyond the right to grab the nearest willing hot body and do the dirty whenever I want?

    In short, what are these rights and who confers them? Why should anyone respect them at all?

    6+
    1. K. Rukia
      Here you go, philosophising again, and skirting the point.

      As long as you don’t infringe on anyone’s rights, yes you can do whatever you want (also within the law). I don’t think that raises any question of what our basic human rights are.
      I have no interest in debating the origin of basic human rights when we all agree that we are entitled to them. If you don’t agree that I don’t have the right to not be punched in the face, then we can debate it. Otherwise I’ll ask you to please focus on the issue at hand. That issue being, what is the relationship between your basic human rights, and another person having sex?

      “are there no sexual rights beyond the right to grab the nearest willing hot body and do the dirty whenever I want?”
      I don’t understand you. I never said anything about sexual rights; we were discussing the morality of chastity. My entire premise is that the choice to have sex or not is neither right nor wrong, when it is consensual. I think you’re confusing morality, (right or wrong) with ‘rights’.

      Again you’ve succeeded in saying many fluffy things and not addressing the question. Whenever you’re ready…

      1+
      1. Od
        , I think you see the difficulty important discussions like this. You were actually asking Ufuoma herself a lot of philosophical questions through yesterday. Remember when you asked “why not?” about bestiality and incest? When worldviews differ, every question is philosophical because we’re making different and even conflicting fundamental assumptions.

        Right here in your response in which you accuse me of wandering off the point and skirting the issue in waxing philosophical you go right on to raise philosophical questions again.

        You deny a need to question our basic human rights and completely forget that questions like “why can I not sleep with anyone I’m not married to?” immediately inquires whether I don’t have a right to and whether even consenting partners may not have rights that are being denied even when they are consenting to sex with me.

        Lol. That’s a lot of negatives. Suffice to say that I am focusing on the issue on hand. I hardly wander off. As a matter of fact, I don’t even address things as fully as I often want to so that the discussion does not get unwieldy. The relationship you asked for is this: when you have sex with someone, they could be my friend or relative both of whom are my concern or your behavior could be accepted as a social norm maybe even an obligatory law that people connected to me or I myself will be obliged to obey. That could interfere with rights that I believe are due to me. So, the question arises again: what rights am I entitled to?

        You mentioned the law so I will assume that the basic rights you keep speaking of are those protected by the law. Correct me if I’m wrong. If I am correct, why do LGBT people feel that they had any right at all when the law in their countries granted them none?

        You called them “rights”, didn’t you? Lol. Doesn’t that give you a clue as to their connection with morality (RIGHT and wrong)? Clearly, morality has a lot to do with what I’m entitled to. If I’m entitled to something, the right thing is to let me have it. The wrong thing is to deny me of it.

        The discussion of chastity, thus, will intersect with an examination of the entitlements involved in sex. Are we entitled to indiscriminate sex once there is a willing partner? If we are not, then chastity is the right way, the moral way. If we are, then chastity is nothing but a fancy word.

        In conclusion, you say that it is not a question of right or wrong as long as the partner is consenting and I’m saying that if the partner should not be consenting at all or you should not be offering at all then it still is a question of right and wrong.

        3+
  20. Amayanabo
    The root of morality lies in your perceptions of truth and what you deem personally to be right or wrong. Your faith also come into the picture here. Rarely do two people share the same root of morality. Even two christians. Your upbringing and personal convictions will tell.
    0
  21. Od
    , that response of yours felt really knee-jerk to me. Like I said, you asked about my own reason for holding the views I do but clearly you wanted me to give you reasons you would like for holding such views. I told you why I do and explained why it makes sense to me and why I would recommend it to you or anyone else. Take a look at your response again. Did you examine my reasons for adopting the worldview I hold? Did you check out my claims and find them wrong? Clearly not. That’s a rather unproductive system of discussion. It’s not like I haven’t tried to give your own arguments benefit of the doubt and examined them on their own merit. I have.

    Again, I’ll tell you. Whether you share my beliefs and philosophies or not, we share the same physical space and cannot avoid interacting. Therefore, our belief systems are bound to interact at some point. If you pick up a guy at the bar and he’s my cousin, it’s kind of my business what you do with him. If you hook up with a random stranger and soon somehow generate or become a contribution to a public debate about what should or shouldn’t be acceptable in sexual behavior in the community I’m going to end up affected because I will acquire new obligations that may be at odds with my beliefs. And if you don’t care about my beliefs, why should I care about your beliefs or lack of them?

    I already told you why my stand on this debate makes sense. You refused to examine my reasons. For instance, is it false that sex can cause significant emotional bonding? If you had even tried to listen past “my moral code is the Christian moral code” your refusal to yield ground would actually begin to be reasonable and intellectual. As it is right now, it is purely whimsical and unreliable.

    I don’t consider use of contraceptives and other forms of protection and acquiring consent etc responsible. Because contraceptives aren’t reliable enough to totally eliminate the possibility of pregnancy and new burdens on the society. Because STIs and STDs are more likely checked and avoided by faithfulness to a single partner than by use of protection. Because consent can be stolen and people can be duped into consensual sex and preyed upon thus, something that wouldn’t be the case in a marriage of the sort I told you about.

    My other answer to your other post was tagged spam. Have to wait for the admin to untag it.

    7+
    1. K. Rukia
      I’m not sure why my response felt knee-jerk to you. I didn’t evaluate your claims because they are based on religion, which by definition is based on faith and not logic. So I don’t see how I could logically examine your reasons for holding a religion-based worldview, or evaluate the claims you made that stem from it. It would be a useless exercise.

      So, if I pick up your cousin at a bar and have sex with him, it’s your business??? And are you truly wary of some indeterminate, mysterious ‘new obligations’ potentially stemming from my sexual activity with random strangers? Sounds like a mighty stretch to me.

      Permit me to end this discussion here. I honestly don’t even know how to respond to the rest of your reply, because it doesn’t make sense to me at all. I wouldn’t know where to begin.

      0
      1. Od
        Rukia, you can’t in one breath say “I don’t get why my comment felt reflexive to you” and in the next explain why you didn’t even evaluate my response before answering. You gave a knee-jerk response. You did not care what my arguments were as soon as you saw that they were Christian arguments. You just said that.

        Now, consider your hypocrisy. You produced a post about polyamory and got upset that posters like Dejidope reacted with finality to you offering your arguments no possibility of legitimacy. When Christians do that you call them judgmental but when you do it you are being what? Logical? Because my arguments are based on a religious viewpoint you unilaterally declare them to have no logic to them and will therefore give them no attention.

        Apart from the tragic but very laughable idea that faith is antithetical to logic, how you could decide that my arguments have no merit without reading them is very curious especially considering that I have not discussed illogically up to now? Or do you have any complaints about my logic so far? I addressed your earlier accusations about my use of red herrings and I haven’t seen you fault my defense yet.

        with my cousin: to whom will he go when it turns sour and he runs into difficulties? You? Or his family?

        obligations: very very curious you should say that. A Christian clerk was fired for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in the United States not very long ago. It was very big news, all over the place. That was the direct result of new legislation that granted homosexual couples the right to get married. It directly clashed with her faith and obliged her to perform duties that were morally opposed to her.

        As I said, your sexual behavior could be legitimized and even made a law in the society that requires me to behave in ways that are unacceptable to me. Therefore, it is my business.

        5+
    2. Ufuomaee Post author
      OD, she is being disagreeable. I’m glad that you have addressed how she hasn’t truly examined the evidence presented. I wrote a whole piece about how her sex life is my concern, and on the same piece she is still asking me HOW IS MY SEX LIFE YOUR CONCERN? again and again and again.

      It is just a time-wasting strategy, no matter how much she denies that it is truly her intent to waste time. That is what is achieved, as we keep trying to provide an answer that she will find agreeable. Better to call it a day, I think!

      5+
      1. Od
        I know, Ufuoma. I don’t often do this just for the benefit of the people I’m discussing with but for others who will read these pages. Also, who knows but that as we all journey things we meet along the road might remind us of things we once kicked against and help us turn around and head in the right direction? Always worth it to simply scatter your seeds and go your way. You never know where they might fall. 🙂
        6+
  22. Od
    , ok, the idea that your moral code doesn’t favor you is the most curious thing I’ve heard in a long time. Give me one scenario where your necessity does not benefit you.

    Also, if your code doesn’t care about me, why should I care what you think should or shouldn’t be.law? I’ll always be seeking to undermine your contributions to public discourse because they do not care about me, won’t I?

    0
  23. Allie

    Ufuoma, I really enjoyed reading your piece and the conversation it has generated. You’ve just acquired yourself a new stalker.
    Od, you’re quite articulate. Do you blog? can I stalk you on twitter or something?

    First time commenter. Do I get a smoothie or something? 😀

    1+
  24. J
    Hi Ufuoma.

    Let me start by saying I am a christian as well so I totally get the point you are trying to make in your article. I have read a huge chunk of the comments and although I am yet to go thru all of it, i should say this, you CANNOT legislate your beliefs (however valid or ideal you may think they are).

    As a result when someone has a contrary opinion or perspective, by all means be polite and accommodating and please (from one writer to another) do not refer to them dismissively as disagreeable or trolls. And in counter arguments try to keep it friendly and instructive rather than condescending and uppity.

    Also, CONSENT IS VALID. And in situations where the individuals(or thing as the case may be) ability to give that is in question the law comes into full effect. In situations where the individual’s consent may have been coerced, the law comes into full effect.But this does not invalidate consent regardless of how unnatural it might be as long as both individuals are not seen to be putting themselves or others in danger (I’ve added this to address incest which of course is wrong for health and breeding reasons).

    I have to admit, nice article, articulate and you raised some interesting points. I understand your concern for the world your unborn little girl has to grow up in and I am equally concerned as well. And while you may want to use your words to express your views and thus get all of them unholy sexual sinners to turn from their unholy ways(lol), your primary duty is to bring up your little girl in the way that she should go knowing that when she’s older and in the world she would not depart from it.

    Finally as much as u are allowed to express your views, people are allowed to have contrary perspectives without bin called disagreeable (an apology to Rukia maybe?) because gain, you CANNOT legislate your beliefs.

    3+
  25. J
    Hi Ufuoma.

    Let me start by saying I am a christian as well so I totally get the point you are trying to make in your article. I have read a huge chunk of the comments and although I am yet to go thru all of it, i should say this, you CANNOT legislate your beliefs (however valid or ideal you may think they are).

    As a result when someone has a contrary opinion or perspective, by all means be polite and accommodating and please (from one writer to another) do not refer to them dismissively as disagreeable or trolls. And in counter arguments try to keep it friendly and instructive rather than condescending and uppity.

    Also, CONSENT IS VALID. And in situations where the individuals(or thing as the case may be) ability to give that is in question the law comes into full effect. In situations where the individual’s consent may have been coerced, the law comes into full effect.But this does not invalidate consent regardless of how unnatural it might be as long as both individuals are not seen to be putting themselves or others in danger (I’ve added this to address incest which of course is wrong for health and breeding reasons).

    I have to admit, nice article, articulate and you raised some interesting points. I understand your concern for the world your unborn little girl has to grow up in and I am equally concerned as well. And while you may want to use your words to express your views and thus get all of them unholy sexual sinners to turn from their unholy ways(lol), your primary duty is to bring up your little girl in the way that she should go knowing that when she’s older and in the world she would not depart from it.

    Finally as much as u are allowed to express your views, people are allowed to have contrary perspectives without bin called disagreeable (an apology to Rukia maybe?) because gain, you CANNOT legislate your beliefs..

    5+
    1. Ufuomaee Post author
      Hi J,

      I understand your need for diplomacy, and I’ve employed that to write the piece and to answer questions about it here. Yes, I’ll admit that I got emotional at times, but I have not resorted to calling anybody names. To say that someone is behaving like a troll or being disagreeable is not calling them names and it is not an unfair assessment based on the evidence. So, I honestly do not see a reason to retrieve those statements nor apologise for them.

      The same people who you are defending do also make assessments about me (and you, since you’re Christian) being sanctimonious because we dare to use the yardstick of the Bible to determine morality. Now, I wouldn’t go crying if someone was to declare that I am sanctimonious or hypocritical or even opinionated. That’s their assessment, and they are welcome to make such assessments based on the evidence I’ve presented them with. I may agree with them or disagree with them, but I won’t tell them they can’t make such an assessment. You have made the assessment of me that I have been “condescending and uppity”. I disagree, but I won’t go crying about it. That’s what you have perceived.

      Now, I think perhaps you are trying to be the nice one here, and help everyone get along. I wasn’t expecting to find much agreement to begin with, but I certainly didn’t intend to spend the next 48 hours arguing a case I’ve already presented and defended. At some point, you just have to close the argument, and that is what I decided to do with Rukia. If you have read all her comments, you will know the many times she has asked WHY NOT concerning bestiality and incest. And if you have read all the other comments, you will also know the number of times an answer was given by several commenters! In light of this, I have to conclude that she is behaving like a child who endlessly asks why just to ruffle some feathers. I don’t have time for that.

      Thanks for your contribution all the same. Being Christian doesn’t mean we will see eye to eye on every point. I have a right to withdraw from an argument that is going no where, and you have a right to entertain it as long as you want.

      Sincerely, Ufuoma.

      4+
  26. DEJIDOPE
    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. –1st Corinthians 6:9-10

    Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” –1st Corinthians 6:16

    Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. –1 Corinthians 6:18

    We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did–and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. –1 Corinthians 10:8

    Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. –Hebrews 13:4

    1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
    For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;

    1+
  27. woyi_oc
    things be getting tense. here, read this.

    “On January 9th, a group of Pekin, Illinois bikers were riding west on I-74 when they saw a girl about to jump off the Murray Baker Bridge. So they stopped. Peter, their leader, a big burly man of 53, gets off his Harley, walks through a group of gawkers, past the State Trooper, and says, “What are you doing? “She says, “I’m going to commit suicide.” While he didn’t want to appear “sensitive,” he didn’t want to miss a be-a-legend opportunity either so he asked, “Well, before you jump, why don’t you give me a kiss?” So, with no hesitation at all, she leaned back over the railing and did just that, and it was a long, deep, lingering kiss followed immediately by another one. After they finished, Peter gets approval from his biker-buddies, the onlookers, and even the State Trooper, and says, “Wow! That was the best kiss I have ever had Honey! That’s a real talent you’re wasting, Sugar Shorts. You could be famous if you rode with me. Why are you committing suicide?” “My parents don’t like me dressing up like a girl.” It’s still unclear whether she jumped or was pushed“

    PEACE OUT

    3+
  28. Asabe
    What I want to say is I am finally seeing a balance on TNC that I didn’t know could exist. For a time, it seemed as if some parties were outnumbered. I am glad difficult questions are being asked and answered and there is a high level of intellectual discourse from the two sides. Snow and Rukia raised brilliant questions and were given equally brilliant responses. Od I am a fan(do you blog?) and ufoma thanks so much for the post. The truth cannot be hidden no matter how much we run away from it.
    6+
    1. thetoolsman
      Hi Asabe. Thanks for the comment. Our goal with this platform is to enable anyone and everyone raise those seemingly difficult questions and open up respectable discussions around them. We’ll keep doing our best to push the site to more people so as to bring in as many with their various views and opinions. Keep spreading the word. Thanks
      1+
  29. Ufuomaee Post author
    Thanks Asabe,

    I’m glad to balance out the scales in God’s favour! I appreciate your comment. Do help me share the post, perhaps we can encourage more of those who still believe in chastity to stand for the truth.

    Have a great day!

    3+
  30. Ann
    Wowwwww!
    This was something! Grammar everywhere, nice post!

    Summary;
    Od delivering sense since 900AD

    Rukia will b happy to exist in Sodom and Gomorrah (dodges bullet).

    Ufuoma will die for Jesus! Yas!!!!!

    Loved it all and I hope I do God proud one day too!

    3+
  31. thetoolsman
    Now I can talk.
    Let me start by thanking Ufuoma for contributing this excellent post. I really really really liked the writing style and if you check my comment on a post on a similar topic published not long ago, you’ll understand why.

    On the topic, I won’t say much because I’m sure many know where I stand but maybe I’ll summarize this way: I’m a Christian, I believe in God and the teachings laid down in the bible. As a result I’ve come to learn and understand that many in this world are not like me and some will never be no matter what I do. Knowing that, it is important I show them that I respect their choices so they can respect and understand mine. That is the only way we can both coexist and feel safe living together in this world.

    For Ufuoma, someone who you’d probably freak out if you found out they read your post did and the feedback was that they enjoyed the style adopted in the post but noticed you didn’t carry that through into your engagement in the comment section. I’ve been there probably more than any writer on this site – responding to comments on such posts and keeping that balance of cool, respect and objectivity can be so tricky but practice makes perfect so please keep writing, keep expressing you. ?

    1+
    1. Od
      I think that’s the trouble with Christians today, Tools, that “live and let live” philosophy that tells us to essentially ignore Christ’s command to preach the gospel. He left the Church behind to tell the world that his is the only way that works, that he is the only true authority over the world and what do we do now? Say that not everyone believes what we do?

      Of course not everybody does. That’s why we preach. We may not force them to believe but we must make it impossible for anyone to have any excuse not to believe.

      Being safe is so far beside the point too that Jesus himself told us to expect not to be safe in this world. So, why should we spend energy playing nice. The world’s stand is uncompromising: talk to me about Christ and I’ll harm you somehow. Is that why I shouldn’t? This world is passing away anyway so itself is not even safe. Why should being safe in it be a big deal at all?

      We should love and do good to everyone but we should never tailor our behavior to suit anyone but Christ.

      3+
      1. thetoolsman
        I think something I’ve noticed on this thread is the fact that we all different understands of the meaning of the term “live and let live”. At no point did I say christians should not perform that which is expected of them in terms of preaching the gospel. It’s a requirement. However, my point has always been the “how”. Perhaps you need to research the origin of groups like Boko Haram, ISIL etc to better understand what I’m getting at and why it is extremely important for us to push the gospel of respect.

        Even before I was old enough to really understand respect for others, I remember feeling very uncomfortable whenever members of a certain church randomly and persistently knocked on our gate with requests to preach the word even after my father made it clear to them that they weren’t welcomed. It sounds so little and so simple but in our world today, it’s those little things that really matter. Our world today is nowhere near what it was during the time of Paul. Yes, there’s wisdom for everything in the bible but context and wisdom from the Holy Spirit is very important.

        4+
    2. ebi
      I was going to just be passing by until I saw this post. took the words right out of my mouth. Although I agree with points raised and style of writing. I do not agree with some of the conclusions. Doesn’t mean I feel the need to air my views by invalidating another persons view..
      This post has one of the most controversial comment section I have seen on here.
      0
  32. Ufuomaee Post author
    Thanks for your contribution Toolsman, and to everyone who has read the post and made the effort to comment too. I’m glad that the tone of the post has encouraged many people to seek civil dialogue in the comments section. I’m sorry that I am not in the same frame of mind as I was when I wrote the post. I originally wrote it in September 2014.

    In 2015, I got exposed to the real field of debating with Atheists. I soon realised I don’t have much a gift debating, as I do with writing blog posts. I can be short in my comments, when I would have taken the time to explain in my posts, because of the realtime interraction. I generally don’t write with a view to debate an issue but to state my case, and I’ll be the first to drop the argument – not because I agree, but because I don’t think arguing is a good witness for a Christian…and usually when debating with Atheists, I’ve found that they employ tactics to make us argue and show our humanity, so that they can say ‘he he! got you! You’re no saint”.

    I’ve never tried to give the impression that I am nice or friendly. I can be nice and I can be friendly, but I realise that the truth is often not nice and often threathening rather than friendly. In such situations, I shamelessly side with the truth, even if it makes me look self-righteous or arrogant.

    I will definitely work on my responses, to maintain the tone of my posts. However, I will add that the tone of my posts over the years have changed too, as I have faced the reality of the battle ground that exists between theists and atheists. I am human, so please forgive my imperfection.

    Sincerely, Ufuoma.

    1+
    1. Od
      Ufuoma , first, I apologize for not responding to you every time you indicated your approval and excitement with my approach to the various discussions. It was encouraging each time although I must mention I’m generally uncomfortable with praise.

      About all this advice that you should be less forceful in debate I have something to say.

      I started debating atheists, agnostics, deists and other faiths and philosophies in 2012. I wasn’t always patient with my opposites but that is never really the issue. That is what I really need you to know.

      Unbelievers are antagonistic to Christ by default. They will accuse you of just about anything to try to neutralize your testimony. They will accuse you of hypocrisy when they are the ones being hypocritical. Of arrogance when it is they who are being arrogant. Of dishonesty when they are the ones lying through their teeth. Guilting you makes you less sure of your testimony and makes them a little more sure of their own imagined righteousness. So, don’t be too quick to take the blame.

      You remember Paul? Once he was arraigned before an authority that I don’t remember right now and as he made his defence the chief priest commanded that he be struck. He answered him that God would strike him and called him a whitewashed wall. The nitpickers in the room told him that he had just insulted a chief priest. He said that he shouldn’t have because God commands us not to speak disrespectfully to authority. Did he really not know it was the chief priest to whom he spoke? I doubt that he didn’t. He was a Pharisee and knew very well who was what. He was telling the chief priest that he was not acting as a chief priest should.

      Think about Jesus. Was he always gentle, meek and mild himself? They killed him for being disrespectful o.

      The important thing is the testimony. Yes, be respectful. Don’t assume the place of God over people. Don’t presume to make decisions for people. But never apologize for calling things as they are. That is your job as a Christian.

      If you feel in debate that someone is being obtuse, you can walk away rather than get angry. But never forget that walking away is not always an option. On public fora, for example, it’s about more than you and him or her or them. Others are listening and watching. Do whatever you need to do to bring the testimony through and clear without any confusion or distortion.

      Grace be with you, Ufuoma.

      5+
      1. thetoolsman
        I’m sorry but I had to come back because of this comment. Let me highlight parts of your comment:

        “….you can walk away rather than get angry. But never forget that walking away is not always an option”

        “Do whatever you need to do to bring the testimony through…..”

        You need to read those lines back to yourself and imagine them being read by someone emotionally vulnerable or psychologically unstable.

        You need to read this > http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/join-us-or-die-birth-of-boko-haram …. and then tell me just how far off you are from doing the things he did.

        Unfortunately I can’t delete this comment because it doesn’t break any of our community rules but reading the comments here has shown me that perhaps we need to review our community rules to protect the weaker ones among us.

        Please please please let us be careful what we say and how we say it.

        0
        1. Ufuomaee Post author
          Hi Toolsman,

          As a newcomer here, being given such a platform, I am very grateful. I also respect your approach a lot. But I think you might be jumping the gun by comparing Od statements to Boko Haram tactics. Reference to Boko Haram is now used to tell Believers everywhere to shut up, because their views are too ‘extreme’. I’m sorry, there’s a major leap going on here, and the motivation is not from faith but from fear.

          If the community rules are to change so that people of faith are not permitted to stand by their views out of ‘respect’ for other views, then the conversation has ended. Respect is two-way. You can disagree respectfully, as I believe Od has done throughout, without being accused of being the reason someone decided to kill themselves or being accused of inciting hatred. I think we need to be careful about the voices we are amplifying and the ones we are silencing.

          Sincerely, Ufuoma.

          1+
          1. thetoolsman
            Many said same (re: jumping the gun) about those who initially criticised people like Mohammed Yusuf.
            I just drew attention to two statements made in his comment which if not properly understood can be described as inciting. I’m not saying this is what OD set out to do here but a lot of times we hurt others without even knowing it and this is why we need to be careful. It may seem like I took them out of context but that’s exactly what people who are psychologically vulnerability do. It’s hard to see, I know, because it took a lot of research and study on psychology for me to get here.

            I have never said the community rules will be change so that people of faith are not permitted to stand by their views! That will NEVER happen.

            What we’re going to look at (and I do not know how exactly we will do this just yet – it might involve bringing in an expert) is a way to protect the vulnerable people among us. With children, it’s easy. We can restrict the contribution age but with such people, I absolutely have no idea.

            0
        2. Ufuomaee Post author
          Maybe a disclaimer at the bottom of every or such posts that you think would have an effect on people who are unstable.

          There’s a lady who’s blog I follow, she writes about respect for husbands, and calls herself Peacefulwife. Throughout her site she has a disclaimer referring people to seek professional help if their situation involves abuse, because she advocates for the authority of husbands in marriages.

          I think you could do that if you are concerned that people will take innocent statements of faith wrongly.

          Cheers, Ufuoma.

          1+
          1. Ufuomaee Post author
            , you said what was needed. I always marvel when I read your comments, which are patient yet convicting, how you manage to address the issues the way you do, time and again. It’s a gift! Well done 🙂
            0
        3. Od
          Please allow me to answer both posts you made for me in this post (commenting is really tasking, you know 🙂 ).

          To the first one, I’m guessing they don’t visit you guys anymore. Cultures have changed since Paul so the way we do things will have to follow suit. But when you talk of respect, try to apply whatever you’re thinking across the board and see if you have issues with Christians specifically or with people generally.

          Right here on this platform, I have people shoving sex in my face with every few posts. I’m not sure if that doesn’t qualify as disrespectful in your books but it does to me. But it does seem that they are only expressing themselves. But when I offer discussions about Christ unsolicited, THAT is disrespectful. At least, that is what your example of that church appears to imply. I think it is hypocritical.

          I’m a Christian. That means that I believe that the world is a better place when everyone is a Christian. Thus I take every opportunity to preach or offer Christ. Of course, it is wiser for me to make sure that I offer him in a way that isn’t inconsiderate and rude, that is, that I try as much as is allowed in Christ to respect whatever the rules of engagement in the place I’m interacting with are. But what if those rules are antagonistic to Christ and are biased against me because of my Christianity? I can’t walk into a strip club and pick up the mic and start preaching from the Bible without permission. I can’t do the same in a mosque. But here? Is it rude to speak of my faith in discussions here that might even require me to speak of it?

          Believe it or not, if new legislation affecting sexuality and marriage happen in Nigeria, this platform will be a contributor to it. Should I not weigh in then if I can?

          I don’t think respect means that I should lose my identity to suit those who want to impose theirs on the society.

          To your second post:

          I understand your position. It’s a difficult one. Not only did you start a platform that demands what I regard as impossible, you also have to protect the entire society from any abuse of it. I appreciate the effort you have to put in all the time.

          Your concern now is that vulnerable people could take my words and head out to constitute security threats to the human community. I agree that that is possible and I could have added deterrents to my post. But I think that it might be a stretch to imagine that such a person would not only be reading this platform but will read what I said to mean that they can pass the testimony of Christ through violence. But then, who knows, right?

          Considering that Christ himself died rather than fight back and before that ran instead of fighting back and commanded his followers to be harmless as doves and move on from wherever they are rejected, it is very difficult to imagine how anyone can successfully argue that they are serving Christ when they are harming people. It takes some form of insanity for that to fit.

          But, like I said, I will try to be even more careful next time. I hadn’t read your community rules in all the time I’ve been visiting your pages so I’m happy to find that my normal conduct has not offended in any of them but I will conform to anything reasonable that you demand of me after now.

          4+
          1. thetoolsman
            I’m going to try to be pick my words here so I’m as clear as possible.

            You said… “Right here on this platform, I have people shoving sex in my face with every few posts.”

            A post is a post, no one forces you to read posts. There’s something here for every one – sports, politics, sex etc. And specifically, recently, we’ve almost had a religious post for every post on sexuality (a development I particularly like if you ask me because it helps us balance the dialogue on the site.) If/when you do read the post, I doubt there’s been any post on sexuality here where the writer came out to boldly trying to convert others. You often find that on the religious posts and Im still not saying it’s a bad thing – if done the right way – like Ufuoma did in this same post.

            To round off on the first point, like I’ve said repeatedly, no one is saying you shouldn’t push your opinion just like others are doing. it’s the HOW that is important.

            On the second point. Im glad you understand where I’m coming from. It’s our responsibility as gatekeepers in the media to protect the vulnerable. And again, in your last comment, you gave me another example I’d like to highlight:

            You wrote:

            “Considering that Christ himself died rather than fight back and before that ran instead of fighting back and commanded his followers to be harmless as doves and move on from wherever they are rejected, it is very difficult to imagine how anyone can successfully argue that they are serving Christ when they are harming people.”

            But previously to Ufuoma, you wrote:

            “Think about Jesus. Was he always gentle, meek and mild himself? They killed him for being disrespectful o.”

            I’m sorry if it seems like I’m singling you out here – it’s honestly not my intention but again, all I ask is that you consider those who can’t see the innocence behind such statements before posting. Thank you.

            1+
          2. Miz
            Toolsman, I understand why you may be led to think that certain lines by Od may cause extremist behavior in some people, but you should also take time out and specifically address lines by some of the other contributors whose lines may incite antichristian violence in atheists and unbelievers. Yes, as likely as an unstable person can commit crimes for religion (like bombing abortion clinics) there are also potentially unstable people here that can attack churches, house fellowships, etc. because of some of the sentiments expressed by others. So, you shouldn’t just ‘warn’ Od, there are others too whose words can lead to the things you are worried about.
            5+
          3. thetoolsman
            Hi there. If you look through the thread, you’ll notice instances where I had to put people like Rukia in order. Some comments were even deleted. Like I said in my comment to OD, I know it may seem like I’m singling him out but it’s not the case.
            0
          4. Ufuomaee Post author
            Hi Toolsman,

            This is to address a point you made in relation to Od’s comment to me about Jesus. Od said they killed Jesus because He was disrespectful. Now disrespect is relative, based on one’s capacity to take offense. Jesus may not have intended to be disrespectful, but that is how he was received.

            Now, even if Jesus was intentionally disrespectful, being disrespectful in no way implies harm to others. Jesus never promoted any form of harm, violence or retaliation to others. But saying that he offended people by standing by the truth in no way suggests that we should hurt or harm others to stand by the truth.

            This is becoming unnecessarily muddy. And the real issue of salvation will never be appreciated if we treat it like it’s a take it or leave it thing. If we really are Christian and are really for the message of Christ, then we shouldn’t be throwing water on those who are on fire for Him, because the Spirit of Christ will never lead us to harm others. Those who harm others are not being led by God’s Spirit.

            Sincerely, Ufuoma.

            0
          5. Od
            I don’t mean to be exasperating or anything, Tools. I just don’t want any wrong assumptions to end up on either side. I believe that I understand you and to some considerable extent I agree with you. As far as making sure that everyone can say their piece goes, this platform was an impressive idea. And it’s not your fault if people of a particular persuasion post more than others. We all have a responsibility to speak up. Your part has been to provide the platform and ensure that everybody plays fair and I think you’re doing an impressive job of it and I have been visiting this platform for quite a while even though I only started commenting with Rukia’s post on polyamory. So if I criticize you at all or your platform, please don’t take it to mean that I dislike you or it. I don’t.

            I think that it is far easier to muzzle Christians than anybody else. The reason is particularly because of something like what you just said: that you doubt that there is any post on sexuality that boldly tries to convert people. Those who have been preaching illicit sex here or anywhere aren’t Christians nau. Why should they be expected to sound like Christians?

            They simply shove an assumption in your face and next thing you know your psychology is adapting to it. Adolescents show up here and assume after reading those posts not only that a lifestyle of illicit sex is not only normal but somehow necessary to humanity and adulthood. Has the effect of conversion not been achieved then? It has but where did you read them ever say, thou shalt have sex or die?

            When Christians talk they do it in a different way. They counter assumptions. They propose different paths. They talk like something needs to be fixed because they feel strongly about it. In other words, they deliberately provoke a reaction. It’s the only way to combat the more subtle suggestions that lock society into destructive habits. A little like shock therapy administered to a body that has shut down and may die otherwise.

            Even my words here prove it. We begin from a premise that something is wrong and needs fixing. Those who preach sex begin from a premise that something is natural and needs no defending or even analyzing. So once you consider it, we Christians are at a disadvantage in expression because we are necessarily offensive when we start talking.

            I do know a subtle technique that is more liked by non-Christians when Christians use it. It does not try to recommend anything. It just asks and asks and asks questions and then appears to wonder about different scenarios and then hypothetically leaves the non-Christian musing about new possibilities. Does it work? In movies and books. In real life, people catch on pretty fast and push you to admit that you are really a Christian and they immediately shut the discussion down or get combative.

            I’m just saying that you should recognize that Christians are generally not popular discussants. People don’t like even a hint of Christianity coming through. Once they see it, they get upset. And how are Christians supposed to talk without owning their own life philosophy?

            Ufuoma’s post was praised here but take a look at the comments that followed. Even those who praised her post were asking questions that her post addressed. And when that was not really going anywhere they pushed into realms of intellectual and logical absurdity. You and others called her on the carpet for getting impatient with those posters but when you look at her as no more than another poster, you’ll see that they were really the ones to blame. But because she’s a Christian, somehow she is a soft target. Maybe because Christians subscribe to a very high moral code.

            Again, I’m not just attacking you and your platform. I am just pointing out examples of a very general problem. Treat Christians as if they are any other ordinary poster, like there’s nothing special about us, and maybe you’ll see that we aren’t always the difficult ones.

            To the other matter:

            The two aren’t contradictory. Jesus never fought back but he clearly was not impressed by “authority” or anyone else. He called things as he saw them. He did not harm anyone but he was not mild about the truth. He called Herod on the carpet. He took on the native government of Israel. He was not impressed by Pilate. But he never harmed anyone.

            The same way, I will never deny anyone any good thing they can benefit from me even if they reject Christ to my face and try to harm me for being a Christian. But I will not let them get away with evil behavior either. I will debate anything they try to push in public that is wrong. I will counter everything evil they try to promote. I will not tire of fighting for good with words and good examples. I will call their behavior the evil that it is. But I will never harm them. Those two things are not contradictory.

            Forgive me if I have tested your patience. If it is any comfort, I truly appreciate the work you’re doing. I’m in media myself so…

            You have all my best wishes. 🙂

            5+
          6. Od
            Miz and Ufuoma, thanks, you guys. If I’d seen your posts before I posted I would’ve said less. Thank you. 🙂
            3+
          7. Miz
            Hi Toolsman, I don’t know why I can’t reply your message directly. I’ve looked through this particular thread and on this particular thread you didn’t call Rukia et al. to order, not once….maybe you inadvertently deleted your messages to them when other comments were being deleted.

            That said, you have mentioned repeatedly that you did not mean to sound like you were singling him out…I believe you, so I can go to sleep now 🙂

            0
          8. seryxme
            A quick word of input here, if it’d be any help. Being a member of the TNC team, I truly understand the position of Thetoolsman (and I’m glad you do, too). Naturally, it’s very tough moderating a platform like this and being able to protect the interests of all parties involved. It is nearly a thankless task, but has to be done anyway to help the community keep growing the right way. I did have a hard time integrating fully initially when I saw how open many of the posts are, but I have come to understand that the true essence of this platform is the ability to help people open up regardless of who they are. I’ve come to appreciate that fact. Even amongst team members, there’s a diversity of opinions and beliefs but the mutual respect is always there.

            Personally, I’m extremely grateful for the entrance of you and Ufuoma to the fray of intellectual discourse on this platform. I’m sure that clearly indicates where my inclinations lie, but perception is important for the growth of a website such as this and that is something the team and the community have to protect. I would never have pointed out any of those things Thetoolsman did because of my general view of things, so I really cannot imagine the several ways his mind has to work to look at things from different sides of the equation so as to help balance things up for everyone. So as much as it might be that you have done no wrong, I’m glad you could see where he is coming from.

            It’s always good that you were able to explain things out the way you do and you (and everyone else in this community) can be rest assured that the platform will remain an open space for expression of personal views in a respectful, harmless manner. That is what TNC’s all about anyway. Thank you guys for understanding.

            2+
  33. Ufuomaee Post author
    Hi Od,

    Thanks for your encouraging and enlightening comment. I have never and will never apologise for being a Christian. I don’t apologise for Christ, therefore I am no apologist. I advocate for Him, not that He need me to either. And Paul, Peter, James and Jesus Himself are my mentors when it comes to being bold in disagreement.

    What I lack is what you highlighted; the grace, courage and humility to persevere to correct and present an answer for those who are listening. Even with that, I believe there is a limit one can go…because sometimes we give people opportunity to mock Christ. Just as they are reading your comments, they are also reading that of your opposition…and we are even outnumbered.

    Jesus also said not to throw pearls before swine. So for me, the struggle is learning the balance and exercising more patience. You are a shining example in that regard.

    Thanks again and I’ve heard you all… Let’s see if I can reign it in a little longer. I pray for empowerment.

    Cheers, Ufuoma.

    1+

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

+