NewStats: 3,259,609 , 8,170,589 topics. Date: Sunday, 25 May 2025 at 05:03 PM 2h3s65

Seun:
We have just activated a feature that allows you to block people who harass you for a period of time (currently a week).

Enjoy your new power. But that you're also blocking yourself.

So the trick is to be blocking every other week. Got it!

I will dedicate Sundays at 8 p.m. to doing this.


This is the best thing on this site ever, thank you!

Kobojunkie:
You love to read, right? The genesis of the idea, soulmates, comes from Plato's Dialogue: The Symposium. 🤔

Here's a view(not mine) on the content.
It was always a flawed concept/notion from its beginning, but people, being mostly ignorant, disregarded this fact and chose to run with it anyway. Fast forward many 1000s of years, and it is even considered a core belief in many religions/traditions, and cultures.

Here's another link https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/eros/platos-other-half

Okay, so I have a moment to attend to this-

Unfortunately, I am unable to access the link you shared .


But to your opinion or what's contained in the text you shared, it is a most interesting one. I have never come across such a perspective on the subject matter of soulmates before, much less its origin. Then again, I was not exactly, intentionally seeking out pieces that do not encourage my view on soulmates lol. I feel like there's a rational part of my brain that aligns with the excerpt, perfectly. It makes sense. If one objectively think about the idea of soulmates, and what is supposed to happen or not happen before one comes across their soulmate, it is quite restrictive, destructive and gloomy.

And of course, it makes sense that the idea will come from a book written by one of those OG philosophers. There is an article I'm toying with in my head, about love, chivalry and the idea that they are becoming 'lost art' in our generation. But do these concepts truly used to exist in the past or they are fairly recent, fueled by books and entertainment? So apparently Plato, a writer, conjured the ideas of soulmates from his imagination. Romeo and Juliet, Cinderella, The Great Gatsby, um the classic story of one Mr. Darcy (I think Jane Austen wrote it, I can't recall), Titanic, The Fault In Our Stars, NONE of these are real life scenarios, but it seems to me like a lot of people have come to think that because some writers were letting their imaginations run wild, like we're fond of doing, they seem to think these stories were a reflection of life in the past for the average couple. Now these stories have been etched in time, they have become a widespread cultural keepsakes and symbols of love, to the extent where they are the ones dictating cultures and norms for us to follow (art creating life; instead of imitating it like it usually is).

Like I cannot understand how a romantic past of heroic, women-worshipping, swashbuckling, damsel-saving men widely existed alongside the subjugation of women, in general society and under the slavery system.

There's also the story of a particular Queen of too, who was treated so harshly and severely because 'she' couldn't provide a male heir. I have read a number of semi-realistic historical books set in ancient Rome, and I while enjoyed the court intrigues and political machinations, I had to overlook a lot of misogynistic practices and attitudes and utterances in them. Only a few intelligent women who rose to the top were spared of being treated like a chattel or intimacy gadget. The ones who were not Cleopatras and Caesars and Marc Anthonys very much had a fate of drudgery.

So when people talk about these lost art and notions of romantic love, I think they are just superimposing ideas from books and movies onto reality, because stories magnifies real life to the size of a thousand, splendid suns (yeah, pun intended lol). You see it happen in a movie, one particular person recreates it, it goes viral and then millions of other people are doing it, and then for the ones who do not have men performing romance for them, they say oh, it's because men are losing recipes, meanwhile there was never any natural recipe to begin with lol. The man whose does no perform romantic rituals is your average natural man.

This is not to say some of these things are not okay to want or a life to aspire to (this is what the idealistic part of my brain clings to), but they are relatively modern concepts amongst us modern men and women. Even Khalil Gibran sef, some of his poems and books helped contribute to the sacred idea people have of love. Solomon is arguably the greatest (love) poet alive, yet he was a randy goat. David too, a wife snatcher and husband-killer.

We can see the reactions to people like Tuface, Yul, Psquare, who all broke their marriages for side chicks, back in the days the men were x10000000000 worse, and who born you well to leave the marriage because you are one independent woman with your money and business? They want a return to the 'ideals' of the past, with the liberal freedom and human rights the present gives lol.

So anyway, I went on this ... to buttress the fact that a number of beliefs we hold about love and the past most likely comes from books. Even quotes and sayings, etc.

If you read this far, thank you.

pansophist:
They have their own clubs, dating sites, and so forth, without putting it in people's face, or forcing it down the throats of children with their rainbow nonsense.

Like this is literally how I understand their rights to be.

That they can also apply to jobs, attend public events, etc. And everyone knows they are gay, not because they are parroting it everywhere, but just because.

Your previous posts made it sound like giving them access to these rights and privileges will inevitably lead to a slippery slope of all sort of nonsense.

gay rights as an example of slippery slope

But you literally just made reference to gays rights in the first part of this quote. You said they have their own bars, they live peacefully with other people.

Therefore this cannot be true and simultaneously be a slippery slope. A slippery slope is granting one thing, which opens up the door to another thing. Or when one thing is given allowance, it makes it much more easier and inevitable for other similar things to happen.

So evidently, the freedom of existence and of association that gay people enjoy in some countries, while not putting their sexuality in people's faces IS proof that their rights haven't led to a slippery slope, no? That you can point to countries where gay people are granted exclusive spaces and coexist with non-ers peacefully shows that there is no slippery slope that follows the granting of these privileges.


And in countries where you can find a 'slippery slope' resulting from the legalisation of gay rights, I can bet you'll find other excesses too, in other groups of people, due to a structural failure, and not because of homosexuality. That two things happened concurrently doesn't mean one caused the other...

And really the freedom that some homosexuals enjoy in some Western countries, where they don't 'force it down people's throat' is all that's needed and enough to be replicated in the majority of the African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries where homosexuals face extreme violence and victimisation, and the world will be a slightly more better place.

pansophist:
Most importantly, I was pointing out the thinking process of societies that do not gay marriages. Most countries do not gay marriages, but lots of gays live in peace without anyone disturbing them.

Most countries? For example, Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Pakistan, Uganda? You really believe homosexuals in these countries are living in peace without anyone disturbing them? The gay men that are always being paraded in the news for being "caught" in sexual acts, were they doing that in public? Straight men constantly pose as gay men on dating sites to lure gay men to locations where they get beaten up -- those innocent men did not do anything to them.

Even though I don't believe there can be an 'air of peace' alongside a state-sanctioned criminalization, but if there were one or two countries you can point where gay people live peacefully without nobody disturbing or ing them, I'll like to think that there are very fair conditions everyone there lives in, and that's basic gay rights in practice, the way i see it, even if it not written down as law on some paper.

But where I'm coming from, with my 'surprise' at your confounding point is this - how do you criminalize something without having it encroach on people's basic rights (at some point)? If it's not discrimination against them, then how does their rights/its legalization lead to a slippery slope? You either legalise or you don't. And if you don't, how do you make sure their rights to exist are protected and enforced if it's not in the law or socially acceptable?

The 'excesses' of gay people that you point to is simply just a given in human nature. As an average Nigerian, you're used to noise pollution from religious houses- from prayers at dawn to vigils at midnight. You have people walking up to you, knocking on your door, sharing fliers to you and disseminating gaslight-y, propaganda beliefs. There are those who pray on the roadside, on the literal road, and every other cars have to stop, thereby leading to traffic build-up, until they are done praying. The entertainment industry is saturated with sexual objectification. Nollywood is there peddling beliefs about spiritual attacks, money rituals, and the 'evils' of traditional religion. Let's not even get into politics, but the summary is this- humans are excessive in EVERY spaces they find themselves, and they are always trying to push their own will and perspectives down on others. Alpha male redpillers are there. Femininity coaches are there. Even atheists (even though you can find them on NL blaspheming God, I know that in real life they can get killed for doing that, so I understand that I have more social privileges over them in that regard and I don't go crying that they are forcing their unbelief down my throat- as annoying or illogical I find them).

But no one bats an eye at these just because they are already 'normal'. So call out depravity all you want, call out moral decadence as you please, but if any group of people deserves to be called out more for these - it's straight people. It's heterosexuality that should be banned if the fight is against lasciviousness/slippery slope into societal's breakdown.

Do you know how much the pornography industry alone contributes to the way everything is - from families to relationships to spirituality?

cru sufixo:
But quite frankly, these were practices used by our parents, and 98% of us turned out all right.

Abeg, I'm done with NL for today 😂.

That No.3 is very necessary. The rod should never be spared. It's this attitude of copying the western world that has made many GenZ children to turn bad. Today, no respect. A little boy or girl of 9 will be talking to an elder anyhow. Go to some of these so-called posh schools and see how kids talk to their teachers. Nonsense!

Sighs.

Kobojunkie:
You should probably start by researching the myth of soulmates to better understand where that idea comes from and how it, ultimately, runs counter to human nature and behavior altogether.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDvMRvWjI9Q?si=R0wMlrGEwmUh-_hx

Summary pliz.

pansophist:
For example, we see how slippery slope happened to homosexuals. It was first to legalise same-sex relationships, then they fought to be able to marry...


..., injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. The evil you permit because you are not the victim, will haunt you later when it runs out of victims.

This is...most interesting.

Your thought process is confounding.

So you understand the idea that an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere... and gay rights' was a fitting example of how slippery slopes work?

Would it not be the other way round, that it is in criminalising some people's sexual orientation, that other forms of abuse against human rights set in?

If criminalising a sexual orientation is justifiable, I would assume that criminalising procreation based on a defect of nature can be justified as well under the same logic.

I recall a comment of yours too. You said feminism was the catalyst to many "woke" problems we have now. That because women fought for their rights, other 'minorities' too latched onto the momentum, and had the boldness, backing, whatever to demand for rights for themselves too. Not your exact words, but that was the point you were making.

Even though I (personally) think the confluence of Western feminism with many leftist/academic schools of thought has done it a huge disservice (and I think this is how it honestly should be viewed as. So many movements claim to fight for freedom and rights, and their merit should naturally be examined on an individual basis instead of a force-teaming one- 'You're a feminist? Oh, you must this!' 'You want rights for women? Then you must co-sign this.').

But all these aside, it's curious how you believe that injustice anywhere, in any form, is wrong but the women and gay rights movement were floodgates to cultural/moral depravity.

I mean, just like the OP thinks that dwarfs shouldn't procreate, that's exactly the same way some people think women should not be educated, etc. Or that homosexuals deserve to dai.

How would you propose that the injustice women faced in the past was dealt with without feminism/a women's rights movement/whatever term you want to call it? And if women deserve basic rights, why not other groups of people (which includes gays, dwarfs, Blacks)? Are there some people who deserve rights more than others? Where does basic rights stop, and where does the pandering/slippery slope begin? How do you judge or draw the line on this? Who will even be the 'judge?' An in-group or out-group member?

#IComeInPiss

I am struggling to identify mine because so many categories fit. 😂

I wholeheartedly disagree with the thought process, but I wholesomely agree with the conclusion.

Yes, let everyone do chores as they have the capability to.

Makes life much more better.

CrownOfClay724:
I just didn't think it was feasible for me to be cooking after work...

As how?

I don't understand.

Cooking is the duty of men. It's not a matter of feasibility or option- it's non-negotiable.


If it comes to it, you leave your job to be able to focus on your matrimonial duties at home. That's the first and true purpose of any man.

So you'll continue breaking up relationships with women if you keep meeting women who can't cook?

And you'll keep getting older and wasting time?

I don't know who has deluded a lot of you modern men o. Thinking you have choice and standards lmao.

If you don't learn how to compromise or the act of making sacrifices for a relationship, you will grow old and grey in your mother's house.

So razz.

I dreamt of becoming Lilvicky's sidechick, but until now, even his eyeballs, I have never seen. 😥

What is the relevance of a degree to marital compatibility lol?

Alfa males and vivid imaginations (yes, including the silly writer of the story).

Mtcheeeeewwwww.

abobote:
If any woman stands by you, just know that there are no better alternatives for her out there

Wow. 😂


This one is new.

Congratulations to them on their turnaround story.

Hopefully, they will continue to do right by each other (as I assume they've been doing).

I can't believe these kind of nonsense texts used to crack us up back in the day.

It's really crazy how trends and time works. 😭😭😭


I'll watch some old skits from years back, too, that were viral, and I'll be like, "What was ever funny about these jokes?"

It'll seem like the more educated and exposed we get, the more our collective sense of humour 'improves' or changes.

This 2014 corny ass Nairaland sh*t. 😂

JovialJune:
Pele, go back to Nigeria where men are KING.

End of story.


He should even marry three wives on top.

Is Ogbunike Cave among your recommendations?


If it is not, please review your list
ASAP.

I cannot tell you a better location to celebrate the first few nights with the love of your life than in dark crevices and hideouts of big flapping bats.

A week ago?

If she hasn't billed you yet, she's not the one for you. Let her go.


A woman who truly loves you will be after your money.

Wahala wear korkor shoe!

pocohantas:
True sha. He should thank God for civilization and feminism. In the old, warriors would have captured a weak man like him and impregnated his wife.

Leave him. He should not thank God na. 🤣🤣


I just look at some of them parading as alfa meils today and I just say to myself that, do they really think if we were in the times of old, of their forefathers that they like to romanticise, do they think they'll meet the standards of masculinity?


It's the podcast bros that sit down in front of mics and cameras that vex me the most. 😭😭

And they'll be teaching grown men on how to be men or how women have lost 'feminine virtues'. Like yu're a f#####g streamer/YouTube content creator, sit yo' ass down!

Olatara:
Seun will not sell anything.

😂😂😂