Someone has said that here in KD we like to rehash issues over and over again without letting things rest. I will fall to the temptation of doing it here with the hope of shedding light from a different angle.

Recently there was a furore over an ad that was posted here which got me thinking about attitudes of us gay men towards our own kind. Surprisingly some people found no problem with the writer of the ad saying he wants a gay man with an eye for chicks, or whatever derogatory remark he put on there. Some, I suspect, did so because they are acquainted with the poster of the ad and wanted to show solidarity to their friend, but for others, I do not choose to fathom the reason behind it. (Even writing about it now still gets me thinking, WTF! What does that even mean? I am gay and now I am supposed to have an eye for chicks? I can’t do everything!)

It is discriminatory, plain and simple. If we accept this as reasonable, then we should really not have a problem with, for example, bakers who say they won’t bake a cake for a gay couple; neither should we be outraged when gay people or anyone else with any characteristic in the minority of any society get fired from their jobs or denied a loan or evicted from their homes because they don’t identify with the majority.

It is wrong. It is social injustice. Some people hide behind the homophobic environment we find ourselves in as an excuse but failing to see that by so doing, we have adopted the language of the oppressor and use it on ourselves. For some, I believe the lack of consternation to what I perceive to be a vile post stems from an unwillingness to confront and challenge the status quo – a fear of asking questions of the way things are, demanding reasons why things cannot be another way, and a lack of courage to discard it when it fails to provide a reasonable explanation. This is a process that is found in progressive societies which is still sorely lacking in developing ones. We are lost in the mantra ‘as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be…’, not acknowledging that in that regard, slavery will still be acceptable, women would still be considered property and advances in science and technology would not have happened.

It is this unwillingness to challenge to status quo that I wish to address today. I hope in an amateurish way to trace the origin of some of the beliefs we hold and offer ways by which we can start to form new ideas about them.

What we believe today about the world stems from what we learn as children. These lessons are explicitly taught by our parents, teachers, elders and religious leaders and learned implicitly by observations we make of the nature of our world. With regards to homosexuality in our society, it is needless to say that before it was popularised by criminalisation, it was not visible in our society, and when it was, it was only seen as a taboo. And that is what we learnt. Added to this is the message from our various religions which considered it a sin punishable by death and hell (look at Sodom and Gomorrah). Furthermore the limited science taught us then that we only have male and female binary sexualities that should only do what male and female do. For some of us, we faced the addition of being teased by our mates and people of our generation. The effect of all this was to make us doubt the truth we knew about ourselves. The more we were taught and bombarded with this information from the schools, churches, homes and the media, the more we believed there was something wrong with us, till we got to the point (for some of us) when we decided to take action and fit in before things got out of hand.

For some of us, it became a matter of “straightening” our limp wrists, staying our hips that swayed while we walked, quietening those talking hands, deepening our squeaky voices and a host of other measures. Those were however just the outward manifestations. They were preceded by a deeper change within our minds of loathing the very thing which we are because it made fitting into the reality of the society we lived in harder. We learnt the lesson so well taught by our environment and we imbibed it as truth. It was essential to do so because our personal safety and survival depended on it. We had to give up our very nature up because it was the reason why we were always falling into sin, being the victims of bullies and failing to meet expectations. Therefore we learned to hate it, to avoid it, kill every bit of it in us, and not only that, we hated seeing it in others and kept our distance from whoever we spotted it in. Still others went further than avoiding it and spoke out against it, condemning it with all the fibres in their being in a bid to show the world they fit in. A form of overcompensation. This is what I believe gives rise to what is referred to as Internalised Homophobia. This is something we must all confront in ourselves. I know I have.

These inputs from the outside world filters in deep within ourselves that even when we give in to the strong desires of the flesh, we feel guilty about it and seek atonement. So we find ourselves in a battle which ironically was also described in the bible between the desires of our flesh and the need to be good members of the society. Some of us, I have observed, just go with the flow, not giving any mind to each side. Some on the other hand have decided (or maybe just continued with the default position) to go with the lessons we learnt growing up and persist with the battle of trying to achieve whatever prize lies in store for them when (or if) they eventually conquer. Another group have however decided to do what I feel we need to do before we surrender ourselves completely to this situation we find ourselves in. That being to ask of society or whoever wants us to be different from what we are to give us reasons good enough to make us abandon our very being and be like them.

I consider giving up oneself to appease others a great personal sacrifice akin to crucifixion on a cross, and as we are not all messiahs, I believe it should be done for cogent reasons. That is why we need to confront everything we have learnt and ask the difficult questions. Why is it considered abnormal to be gay? What is wrong with a man loving his fellow man or a woman having sex with her fellow woman? Why should marriage only be between a man and a woman? The Holy Book says being gay is a sin – why is that? Who wrote that book? What evidence does it have? Who is the God that said so? How do we know he even exists? Why must I have sex only after marriage? Why should I only marry one husband or wife? These I believe are questions we should ask and find reasonable answers to, otherwise we would live an unexamined life which I think is a great tragedy.

So far I have not seen any reasonable answer to any of these questions from religion. As Alan Sokal puts it (some of us are familiar with this by now):

“Each religion makes scores of purportedly factual assertions about everything from the creation of the universe to the afterlife. But on what grounds can believers presume to know that these assertions are true? The reasons they give are various, but the ultimate justification for most religious people’s beliefs is a simple one: we believe what we believe because our holy scriptures say so. But how, then, do we know that our holy scriptures are factually accurate? Because the scriptures themselves say so. Theologians specialize in weaving elaborate webs of verbiage to avoid saying anything quite so bluntly, but this gem of circular reasoning really is the epistemological bottom line on which all ‘faith’ is grounded. In the words of Pope John Paul II: ‘By the authority of his absolute transcendence, God who makes himself known is also the source of the credibility of what he reveals.’

“It goes without saying that this begs the question of whether the texts at issue really were authored or inspired by God, and on what grounds one knows this. ‘Faith’ is not in fact a rejection of reason, but simply a lazy acceptance of bad reasons. ‘Faith’ is the pseudo-justification that some people trot out when they want to make claims without the necessary evidence.

“But of course we never apply these lax standards of evidence to the claims made in the other fellow’s Holy Scriptures: when it comes to religions other than one’s own, religious people are as rational as everyone else. Only our own religion, whatever it may be, seems to merit some special dispensation from the general standards of evidence.

“And here, it seems to me, is the crux of the conflict between religion and science. Not the religious rejection of specific scientific theories (be it heliocentrism in the 17th century or evolutionary biology today); over time, most religions do find some way to make peace with well-established science. Rather, the scientific worldview and the religious worldview come into conflict over a far more fundamental question: namely, what constitutes evidence.

“Science relies on publicly reproducible sense experience (that is, experiments and observations) combined with rational reflection on those empirical observations. Religious people acknowledge the validity of that method, but then claim to be in the possession of additional methods for obtaining reliable knowledge of factual matters — methods that go beyond the mere assessment of empirical evidence — such as intuition, revelation, or the reliance on sacred texts. But the trouble is this: What good reason do we have to believe that such methods work, in the sense of steering us systematically (even if not invariably) towards true beliefs rather than towards false ones? At least in the domains where we have been able to test these methods — astronomy, geology and history, for instance — they have not proven terribly reliable. Why should we expect them to work any better when we apply them to problems that are even more difficult, such as the fundamental nature of the universe?

“Last but not least, these non-empirical methods suffer from an insuperable logical problem: What should we do when different people’s intuitions or revelations conflict? How can we know which of the many purportedly sacred texts — whose assertions frequently contradict one another — are in fact sacred?”

Given the above, I have no qualms concluding that religion has not provided enough proof for me to justify my not being what I know in my mind to be true. We were told a lot of things as children, ghosts, Father Christmas, fairies, witches and wizards etc. We have never seen them; some we have learnt to stop believing, others we inexplicably cling on to. Like someone said, ‘If you tell me why you don’t believe in another man’s God, I will show you why I don’t believe in yours’. Another has said that the atheist is just like the monotheist, the only difference being that he believes one god less.

A lot of people have issues with gay marriage; this sadly includes some gay people. Part of the reason is because it is not what we have learnt or been taught and we have accepted that world as it is. Some say marriage is ordained by God, an argument which is laughable now in the light of the above quote by Alan Sokal. Marriage is essentially a manmade institution which has been used in various societies for various reasons like establishing ties between kingdoms or influential families, financial gains and the like. Personally, I believe it is a means for essentially showing society who you want to have sex with and appeasing her father so that he agrees to part with his precious daughter. If it is manmade, then in an equal society, everyone should have a right to marry and get the benefits that accrues from such unions. If heterosexual couples get benefits from government for their attraction to each other following their natural disposition, why should the same not be accorded to the homosexual couples? Is our love different from theirs? Again no cogent answer has been given to this question. Rather arguments about no offspring from such unions come up (as if there are no infertile couples), about children needing a father and mother (as if there are no single parents or as if two parents of the same sex are not better than one of any sex going by common logic), about it destroying traditional marriage (as if any straight person is being forced into gay marriage), or that about gay men not being monogamous (as if all straight men are faithful, as if swingers don’t exist, as if it is anybody’s business how any two adults have decided to handle sex within their marriage).

It is easy to see why some of us are afraid of overtly effeminate guys. I use overtly because we are all effeminate or masculine no matter how much we try to hide it. But with a renewed thinking, we should realise the origin of the fear. It is because we have been conditioned to be so and presenting it as wisdom is lying to ourselves. It is true indeed that there is the antigay law, but it is the law that we should challenge and not our fellow gay men. It is easy to then see why that ad was offensive. This not only applies to effeminate guys, views have been expressed about lesbians, transgender etc. These also stem from failing to confront what we have been taught about male and female sex and gender and roles etc.

In this regard there are many issues. As a medical student, there was a lot of bullshit I didn’t understand (and I am now glad I did not) about which gender to raise a child born with sex organs that can’t be categorically said to be male or female. The issue was of course trying to avoid a situation of raising a boy as a girl and vice versa. However given what we know now about transgender people and homosexuality, it is easy to see how this can be a quagmire especially when it is taken into account that the decision is usually made without the consent of the only person who matters, which is the child. We already know there is a difference between someone’s sex and gender. What we need to ask is why will boys be boys and girls behave like girls? Is it because girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice and boys are made of sticks and stones? Is it inborn or is it a learned behaviour? If it is inborn, then why are there some boys that behave like girls? Is it possible that though they have the male sex organs, they also have the same behavioural template as girls? And even if it is learnt, why do some girls learn to act like boys and vice versa? The whole point of all this being that if all these are beyond anyone’s control, why do we feel uncomfortable with people that exhibit some of these varied tendencies. Is it because they are inherently bad or is it because we have been told to do so?

The idea behind this is to get us all to think and challenge what we have been told in years past and discard them if they do not give adequate reasons. Or even if we don’t discard them, develop a healthy level of skepticism to the various doctrines they would force down our throats. These have taken years to form and will not be changed instantaneously. It requires a searching mind that constantly asks questions, is willing to consider opinions different from what you already think you know. Take a look at churches and how they get converts. They preach and get you to accept the premise of sin and salvation through repentance. But they don’t stop there because they know that it will be easy to fall back to your old ways when the euphoria and spiritual atmosphere laden with messages designed to convict you of your sins fades. The next step is to follow you up: Bible classes, prayer meetings, fellowship meetings and what have you. Some less scrupulous ones entice you with desires of the eyes or flesh by sending a ‘sister’ or ‘brother’ just to keep you. The whole goal is indoctrination, because it takes a constant exposure to their views to make it take root deep within and reduce the chances of apostasy.

This is what has been going on in our lives with regards to homosexuality, and to root it out requires similar exposure to a different way of being. That is why visibility of gay and alternate lifestyles in television is important. That is why blogs like Kito Diaries and the numerous gay blogs, vlogs and channels on social media are important. That is why cases challenging injustices to minorities are important. They help show there is another way which is acceptable and can coexist with the already established. They offer an alternate world where we can immerse ourselves in our re-education and journey to self discovery. I grew up through my teenage years believing I was the only man in the world who was attracted to men. This was in the days before the internet became widespread; now you have to live under a rock not to know that there are gay people who are living wonderful lives. We need to continuously engage ourselves in literature, programmes and articles about homosexuality, learn more about it and interact with fellow gay men. That is the way we can start to change, gain a different more fabulous worldview and accept ourselves as normal.

This is also why it is important that we hail people who are brave enough to come out and show the world that we exist and can make useful contributions to the society and not say stuff like, “Why do gay people need to come out? Straight people don’t.” It is because we need to have these people as beacons we can look up to in the moments when our resolve to live as confident LGBT individuals starts to fail. We need to constantly challenge our thinking. Constantly question what we have been told and assumed to be true. I believe a lot of arguments on Kito Diaries can be curtailed if we adopt this approach of opening our mind to different views, not holding unto them as if they are the key to our family fortune and personal happiness, and certainly not by insulting the originator of an opposing view point. In the process of seeking or coming closer to the truth about our very existence and nature, we should use superior arguments against opposing viewpoints and not abuses.

As humans, we live our lives based on what we believe to be true. The beliefs are numerous and vary, depending on our world view. These beliefs (I recently learnt) also determine how we respond to a given situation or event. Sometimes they are personal but other times they affect others. One philosopher brought up the issue of epistemic responsibility which is essentially saying that people should be responsible for their beliefs especially if such beliefs can affect others. Given that responsibility, it becomes necessary that we ensure they are based on sound knowledge. Believing something does not make it true. I say this because I have seen arguments on this blog for which the sole premise is essentially based on the belief of the interlocutor. We all know about the people that believed polio vaccines were made to cause sterility in the country and the resultant setback in the global effort to eradicate the disease. In my profession, I have seen countless cases of people who believed in traditional therapies with disastrous consequences. Bringing it closer to home, some religious beliefs have led to murder, lynching and suicides of the LGBT people. Is it not right to expect that those beliefs stand up to scrutiny before championing them? Should we continue to participate in ideologies that condemn us at every turn, have caused so much anguish to ones just like us and also provide justification for our persecutors?

It is true that there is the law, but it should not prevent our personal development. And when we believe ourselves to be true, we can look for other solutions to our challenges rather than hiding. Why can’t we have a block of flats populated only by gay men so that we don’t have to ask for ‘ultra straight acting gay men with an eye for chicks’ when looking for flat-mates?

I wrote this because I feel there is a need to call us to challenge what we have been told in the past; a requirement for us to infuse our being with every argument for and against all aspects of homosexual existence, an imperative to develop a new philosophy for our lives that reflects the truth we know about ourselves and not that predicated on norms developed by people who would not see us thrive. Like new converts to a religion, we need to read the ‘Word of Homosexuality,’ and meditate on it day and night so that it will permeate every fibre of our being and root out the contrary spirits that have been lodged there over the years.

Written by Dimkpa

Next Donald Trump Promises To Do Everything In His Power To Protect The LGBTQ Community, Twitter Reacts

About author

You might also like

Our Stories 100 Comments

An Opinion About Roles And Stereotypes

FOREWORD: KD Support is now active! Volunteers and people needing virtual support can email us at kds.system14@gmail.com. And now, on to the post of the day… * Human beings have

Our Stories 22 Comments


Dancing On My Own was playing loudly into my ears through my ear pods. I was staring out at the scenic view of the Atlantic Ocean as the Uber took

Our Stories 16 Comments


It was a day like any other in the cold capital city of Plateau State; boring and really shitty, like “kill Ned Stark in the first season of Game of


  1. ambivalentone
    July 22, 07:44 Reply

    Jeez!!! The topic was laid to rest aeons ago. And we are guilty of ‘rehashing’? Uncle, while almost all you have written (which is super long btw) is in support of I think is right, keep up with the times.
    This “…epistemic responsibility which is essentially saying that people should be responsible for their beliefs especially if such beliefs can affect others…” is a double-edged sword for us in a deeply religious society like ours, shey u know?

    • Mandy
      July 22, 07:45 Reply

      Could you expansiate on that please?

      • ambivalentone
        July 22, 08:48 Reply

        What belief does not affect another? Beliefs (based on the sound knowledge of say science) are and will always be contradictory. Science has in this case, both approved and disproved homosexuality, having multiple partners/wives/husbands (barring diseases o). So the question of ‘which belief is right and does not affect the other belief?’ comes to play. I personally think its the actions that follow up on a belief system that should be checked and the underlying principle of “If you can’t accept that shit, don’t do that shit to someone else”

        • Dimkpa
          July 22, 09:30 Reply

          Epistemic responsibility as I understand it and tried to present it has to do with having evidence or a sound basis for one’s belief and is not about a belief affecting another belief. It essentially asks whether it is right to hold a belief without evidence especially if that belief is potentially harmful to oneself and others. You raised a good point about the basis of such beliefs because science and knowledge changes. However one thing to note about science is that the change is as a result of scientists constantly asking questions and once a better point of view is found, the old is rapidly discarded. This is an attitude not found with regard to doctrines and one I feel it would be useful to adopt.

  2. Mandy
    July 22, 07:44 Reply

    Sensei used to be my braingasmic lover. Then Dimkpa came and stole my heart — sorry, brain with THIS!
    Internalized homophobia, religion, self acceptance… all brilliantly tied up with that conclusion:

    “I wrote this because I feel there is a need to call us to challenge what we have been told in the past; a requirement for us to infuse our being with every argument for and against all aspects of homosexual existence, an imperative to develop a new philosophy for our lives that reflects the truth we know about ourselves and not that predicated on norms developed by people who would not see us thrive. Like new converts to a religion, we need to read the ‘Word of Homosexuality,’ and meditate on it day and night so that it will permeate every fibre of our being and root out the contrary spirits that have been lodged there over the years.”

  3. Kenny
    July 22, 07:55 Reply

    This was really long but well written. Issues likes this should be rehashed until we’re all emancipated from mental slavery. Well done Dimkpa ???

  4. Brian Collins
    July 22, 08:34 Reply

    I was liking where this post was coming from and where it was going and prepared to read it till the end until it ‘PMTed’ where it started talking about some God that exists or not and then I lost all interest.
    Anybody can question it all there want, come up with theories of evolution and what not but I will still believe there is a God. I saw what dimkpa tried to do by asking all the other questions about sex before marriage and marrying one man or wife but I must say that I was not fooled.

    • Pink Panther
      July 22, 09:04 Reply

      I’m curious. What did you see him doing there and what weren’t you fooled by? #justasking

    • Dimkpa
      July 22, 09:54 Reply

      Hi Brian, I really did not try to do anything. It seems you think I tried to covertly champion atheism but that is not the case. I have not hidden it here that I do not believe in any religion. I was only trying to advocate that we learn to ask why. Any student of philosophy I think will agree that one of the big questions philosophers have asked over the years deals with human existence which necessarily will touch on God and religion as it is one of the explanations for that existence. One programme, The Big Questions almost always deals with questions surrounding God and religion. I think it would be an omission if there was a discourse on trying to understand our world and religion isn’t mentioned. The answers anyone accepts is entirely up to them but the questions should be asked and religion like any other field is not exempt from providing answers.

      • bain
        July 22, 11:10 Reply

        Don’t believe in religion but believe in God.

      • Tiercel de Claron
        July 22, 13:23 Reply

        Actually,you didn’t ‘try’,you were championing the cause of atheism.Nothing covert about it,but hey,ride on.

        Btw,one of the errors in your writeup I feel the need to correct.The bible didn’t champion/mandate monogamy as we have it today.Credit for that should go to the Romans.
        You failed to ask ‘questions’ on that,yet would have others question their beliefs

    • Delle
      July 22, 15:51 Reply

      ” I saw what dimkpa tried to do by asking all the other questions about sex before marriage and marrying one man or wife but I must say that I was not fooled.”

      Sweetheart, it would be pitiful if you let your staunch adherence to christianity cloud your sense of reasoning.

  5. Conqueror
    July 22, 10:27 Reply

    Just brilliant
    @Pink Panther finally I commented

  6. Chuck
    July 22, 10:34 Reply

    How does a man’s preference/fetish for straight roommates connect to majority/minority discrimination?

  7. bain
    July 22, 11:05 Reply

    Amazing write up,bt the problem is that,there is a God, creator of the universe,say wat u wana ,wat eva is above dah Idea is beyond us,but our problems stems frm religion and belief systems……..(Let’s enter nigeria for a start)……there is redeem church,jehovahs witness,catholic,anglican,synagogue,mountain of fire (even islam) e.t.c,they all claim to worship the same one true God,bt they all do it in totally different ways,that my friends is where the problems is from…….all the different methods n teachings just to worship one God.this kind of ideas of God is what is killing us,evry other problem we face comes straight frm dah point………..n ya I agree with dim,the visibility of people who don’t fit d norms should be showcased on media,leading normal lives,BUT (yes there is a but),lgbts aren’t d only ones marginalized,dey are far more worse cases out there,u think we are at d bottom of d normal pyramid,we r nt,we should be happy sef,cuz iv seen how sesame twins (who their parents can’t afford surgery)are treated….hemaphrodites….ppl with down syndrome n all…..(I know this is an lgbt blog )but we should be thankful for d little breathing space we hv,religion neva seems to talk about those ones bt dey are hated in d society.

  8. Dimkpa
    July 22, 11:08 Reply

    He didn’t ask for a straight roommate. He asked for a gay one with an eye for chics. If you consider that it is possible an effeminate guy here may have wanted that room as well, it then shows how singling out that trait was discriminatory. It got me thinking about why we harbour such attitudes and for me it is, at least in part, learned from what we have imbibed over time.

    • Delle
      July 22, 15:56 Reply

      I’m very sure you have more than this to say?

  9. Bass
    July 22, 13:40 Reply

    This is my first time here. The guy who introduced me to this site just had to do so with this post.
    I want to say I am bi. But I hate my gay side. I’m also a Christian. And I bet u don’t need me to go into details about what my faith has to say about my sexuality.
    I admire girls sometime (or more like lately) even more. So I hope to get married someday and have children and I’ve promise myself that whenever that day shall be, from then henceforth I’ll stick to my wife. And not cheat on her and I bet if I can live without a gay partner I can pledge my fidelity to my wife.
    And I hate to imagine one day my wife finds out I’ve been cheating on her and not heterosexually but homosexually and perhaps by now I’ve gotten grown up children old enough to understand us both and she explains to them. JEEZ!

    • ambivalentone
      July 22, 13:52 Reply

      Well, I can’t say you MUST be gay, but I find no fault in ur thinking, infact applaud it. I sincerely wish u all the best in your desire to remain true to ur marriage.

      • Chuck
        July 22, 15:05 Reply

        At least his values are consistent. If you believe in Christianity etc the rest follows

    • Delle
      July 22, 16:06 Reply

      It wasn’t necessary to have come in here to write this, then. U could have quietly done all those without letting us know. Really.
      And keep hating your gay side, I’m sure it makes you take better selfies.

  10. Delle
    July 22, 15:38 Reply

    Oh my God, Dimkpa, you are the best there is! So enlightening, so TRUE, so relatable, so EVERYTHING! A gem, that’s what you are.

    ” (Even writing about it now still gets me thinking, WTF! What does that even mean? I am gay and now I am supposed to have an eye for chicks? I can’t do everything!)”

    Nothing truer than that.

    My friend constantly talks about how he’s straightening himself up and all of that. How he’s deepening his voice and as a result, I’m to do same to mine or else *ellipses*. How being feminine isn’t gon’ help you in this country. How your femininity as a male is ALWAYS going to be frowned upon by society. How one must totally look forward to getting married to the opposite sex no matter, and all of those shit.
    Now, I’m not saying this isn’t true. I’m not saying this isn’t what’s obtainable, but why the pessimism? Why reiterating something already clearly known just to justify your stance on ‘straightening up?’ Why do you keep reminding we, the non-chalant, proudly gay ones, of our peril in this country?

    Like you rightly said, many of us, do not only cower under the law, we champion it. Inadvertently, spreading hate and bigotry. It pains a notch deeper when the hate is being spewed from a fellow happy fellow. No one wants to be the Gay guy. It’s slowly being relegated to a nocturnal activity. One to be hidden and spoken against in the light of day.

  11. Truth
    July 22, 16:46 Reply

    I knew this was written by a very articulate person. ????

    I’ve always admired you oh this blog, always have and always will; you’ve never faltered.

    Please I want to know who you are, I need more people like you in my life.

    This is everything on my mind. If you can write a book about this, I’ll be part of the sponsors. Bravo!!!.

    Find me if you can.

  12. 'Diii Okpara
    July 22, 21:47 Reply

    Chukwu Nna…so some fellas on here still be trippin? still on top this matter kwa? I mentioned I am bi, and i’ll prefer a flatmate that swings same. Is that too much to ask? Or is the crux of the matter here that it is a common notion that some bi men are perhaps totally gay, but on the DL? If indeed this is my reality, why stew in it?

    I mentioned ‘ultra straight acting’ + ‘an eye for chics’. It’s a preference, just the same way every guy you like may not be available to you(whether gay or not). I’m bi, or would rather identify as such…My problem, my biz.

    At the end of the day, I just may be of help to someone who needs this, and vice versa, whilst making a cool friend in the process, perhaps. Why automatically assume all of this is IH driven or decidedly Anti-PRIDE?

    @Pink biko, since they said this market must sell and will not allow man to rest, the crib is still up…Specs not discounted tho. Abi you sef follow dey vex? Una doo!

    N.B mailto: diiimkpaatgmaildotcum 🙂

    @Chuck Bass: follow up post sighted. The handle tho, have we met before? Holla

  13. felix
    July 24, 01:18 Reply

    Pls where can i get the book word of homosexality ……. I was touched thanks for clearing the air off some things

  14. Justme
    July 25, 06:25 Reply

    I agree that a lot of what we believe stems from what we learn as childhood. In fact I believe that homophobia and our internalizing as children has made many of us unable to forge lasting M2M relationships which has in turn led to the trend towards open relationship and the like. I know you’ve argued convincingly in the past about how variety is the spice of life etc but while we question everything as you suggest, let’s be honest with ourselves, might some of our intellectual behavioral ‘choices’ not just be justifications for actions of such origin but which make us feel good even though they could lead to more problematic emotional states for ourselves and our community?

    • Justme
      July 26, 04:54 Reply

      Apologies for the typos. Meant to say: ‘as children’ instead of ‘as childhood’ and ‘our internalizing of it as children” instead of ‘internalizing as children’.

Leave a Reply