This is even better reasons...
... to avoid women from oppressed countries, just like avoiding women from abusive families.
It's wise to narrow the selection for one's mate among those obviously from loving, fun, healthy, principled ... families, preferably from roughly the same socio-economic and religious backgrounds. It helps reducing the gap of common understandings and the potentials for conflicts and friction in the relationship.
It's wise to accept the person one marries as is. If one ever aspires to make any changes in a person after marriage, even minor ones, one is asking for lots of problems that could eventually destroy the relationship.
One should make a realistic list of changes the potential mate must make for smooth integration into his lifestyle, then estimate how much risks there will be in the relationship.
[QUOTE=George90]How do I know? I have been friends with Nigerians. I have been to Nigeria and seen the attitudes with my own eyes. Nigerian women are oppressed there and are full of hostility towards men and male power. When they come here and are free to do as they please, they get revenge on ANY AND ALL men who cross their paths.[/QUOTE]
Debra Lafave broke the law.
gentlemen,
i’m not going to be drawn into someone’s flame fantasy. where, from a medical view point, i would suggest getting help. suffice it to say that:
1. a paedophile is defined in the o.e.d as an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
2. the law clearly states when a young human is a child and when he / she is not. this differs from country to country and indeed there are degrees of “adulthood actions” permissible, under law, at given ages. it is also commonly accepted in many countries that the age of 16 be kept, in law, as an acceptable age at which a young adult can legally participate in sexual intercourse.
3. as an adult, debra lafave broke the law.
4. debra lafave’s own testimony leaves “her hanging” as a paedophile. she molested a minor.
5. the law protects us all. it is neither here nor there that people mature at different ages. we are all equally required to follow the law. this applies as much to issues on this site as to anywhere else. apart from paedophiles, there are not many adults on this planet that would support the idea of offering anything but appropriate punishment for a person self confessed to “sleeping with…”/ “making out with…” / “making love with…” or just plain molesting an ****d person.
6. it’s self evident that a 14-year-old male child will have raging hormones and would possibly enjoy the experience. to claim that there has been no victim is not only absurd, it’s pathetic, discounting as it so frivolously does the possibility of psychological damage and indeed mental trauma. american jurisprudence is so full of such cases it’s trite for me to “even go there…”. any non-paedophilic adult would have not only not been “attracted” to the child, they would have not allowed anything to happen…
7. i think it's pretty interesting that on a board dedicated to the pursuit of sex between consenting adults, that some feel it necessary to assert moral superiority by offering some form of weak defence to self confessed child molesters. it’s not my place as a surgeon but i would urge a consultation with one of my psychiatric colleagues…
8. debra lafave broke the law. she should burn for that fact, so rope is not needed. plain and simple. we owe it to all children, wherever they might be, in whichever country rich or poor, boy or girl... i hope mr. glitter is listening…
9. enough already…
regards, havanaman
Self evident? Certainly is!
[quote=hardbarg]that certainly does limit any response.
"we are all equally required to follow the law. this applies as much to issues on this site as to anywhere else."
funny thing, just last monday i saw literally millions of self-confessed law breakers mugging for the cameras. no arrests. a few years back i was one of millions of lawbreakers almost every day when i drove 56 mph. i'm afraid i just don't feel guilty about it. laws are often arbitrary. they're certainly enforced arbitrarily. some people see this as a reason to revisit the assumptions that led to the law.
"it’s self evident that a 14-year-old male child will have raging hormones and would possibly enjoy the experience. ... it’s pathetic, discounting ... the possibility of psychological damage and indeed mental trauma."
well, once you've bought into the premise that sex is evil, vile, sinful, shameful and the work of the devil, we sure wouldn't want anyone enjoying the experience. if, for just a moment, you could rise above your puritanical baggage, you just might be able to identify how much of your fire and brimstone morality is based on those assumptions.
it always fascinates me when someone argues that lawyers and politicians can improve on biology.
i won't comment on the personal attacks.[/quote]
it is blatantly clear that in any democracy to campaign for law change is a given. many millions will break laws together when there is a common agreement, of the resident majority, that a particular law is either too stringent or not needed. who can forget the marches against vietnam; who can forget the marches for the c.r.m and the like. has anyone heard about a march or protest to decrease the age of heterosexual sexual consent below the age of the agreed “minor/ child”? never. certainly “not in my name…”. to even compare a driving speed limit protest to this issue is ……... to even approach such an absurd and distasteful comparator is abhorrent, speaking volumes about such “would bees…”
[b]apart from yourself “hardbarg” who introduced the “premise that sex is evil, vile, sinful, shameful and the work of the devil”? no one…..[/b] certainly not me, and i certainly have not now or at any time “bought into that premis”. what’s your hang-up? just let it go. i am just about the biggest unbeliever breathing. i see so much suffering on the table and no redemption when a patient is discharged, shit man, i can prove there is no god and certainly no devil…. for me big daddy, the kid and spooky are just thumbscrews to control the masses, same as with the non-johnson bearded gentleman who parted the waters and the same goes for the turban wearing desert camel trader. [b]“puritanical baggage” along with “your fire and brimstone morality” would seem to be your “cross” [/b]lol
by the way hardbarg, if your going to quote me, have the decency to quote me fully: once you hit the quote button, there is no real need to edit my comments to suit…
[b][red] are we reading of the same “hymn sheet” here: who “argued that lawyers and politicians can improve on biology” for christsake? lol[/red][/b]
regards,
havanaman
an absurd and distasteful comparator is abhorrent - Havanaman
where to start.
> “if your going to quote me, have the decency to quote me fully”
you’re pretty verbose, and hard to keep on point. cutting through the emotionalism to introduce some logic requires editing.
> "we are all equally required to follow the law. this applies as much to issues on this site as to anywhere else."
i’ll try again. you seem to like making dictatorial statements, and expect absolute agreement. unfortunately, as in this case, your statements aren’t exactly true. i just gave some examples. your lecture on democracy (once again off point) shows how you do go on when your pronouncements are not accepted unquestioningly.
> “apart from yourself “hardbarg” who introduced the ‘premise that sex is evil, vile, sinful, shameful and the work of the devil’? ... i can prove there is no god and certainly no devil"
well you got me there, sorta. i could say that “work of the devil” is a figure of speech, but, since it seems to bother you so much, i’ll admit there is no direct evidence of your religious beliefs.
that just leaves evil, vile, sinful, and shameful. everything you say reeks of your demonization of sex. otherwise, how do you get from the young man in question enjoying the experience of having sex with a beautiful young woman (you admitted to that) to mental trauma. i shudder to think of the irreparable damage that would have been done to him if they had shared a pizza.
> “puritanical baggage” along with “your fire and brimstone morality” would seem to be your “cross”
once again, figures of speech, but in this case i would say they correctly convey the sense of your attitudes.
btw, if you’re going to quote me, have the decency to quote me correctly. it's “fire and brimstone predictions.”
> “who ‘argued that lawyers and politicians can improve on biology’ for christsake?”
uh, you did. there’s that problem with logic again. let me take you through this step by step.
in my original post i discussed the unequivocal demarcation between a child and a sexually mature human being as determined by physical changes in our species. in fact, it was the very first thing i said. that’s the biology part.
in your reply, your long, condescending, lecture on the definition of a child uses the terms “law”, “legal” and similar, more than a dozen times (i stopped counting). for example: “the law clearly states when a young human is a child and when he / she is not.” that’s the lawyer and politician part.
maybe there was, in fact, no point to your post, but i was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
xoxoxox,
hb