In Which I Wade into the Nigerian Anti-Gay Law Debate

Nigeria has made herself the enemy of the West by banning same-sex marriage, same-sex unions and same-sex associations, with law-breakers facing 14 years in jail.

CNN (International) - Nigeria's premier news channel broadcasting on every, and I mean every, flat screen TV in every bank, shop, office and public area in Abuja 24/7- is particularly pissed about it.

I noticed how much CNN had been pushing the pro-gay agenda prior to this law. One report I remember was when famously gay singer Elton John and famously gay tennis star Billie Jean King spoke to Christianne Amanpour about the recent brouhaha over Russia's anti-gay stance during the Winter Olympics this year.

Will there ever by a Gay Marriage in Nigeria?

And of course CNN's Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon are gay (and Becky Anderson maybe? I always though she was gay. I like to think my gay-dar is strong.) I'm pretty sure they and probably the gay/lesbian CNN producers make sure to highlight injustices against homosexuals around the world and promote gay rights advances wherever it occurs.

Western movies, TV shows and music have also being promoting homosexuality as a 'normal thing,' with gay dads and their adopted daughter on comedy Modern Family and almost every other student coming out as gay in high school musical comedy Glee.

So when Nigeria's President Goodluck Jonathan came riding rough-shod over the Western media’s delicately-handled ‘Operation re-educate the world about homosexuality’ PR exercise, by passing the 'anti-gay' bill into law earlier this month, the West was livid. They threatened to withhold their aid, spoke strongly against the law calling it a violation of human rights, and Canada even cancelled Jonathan's visit to the country in protest.

CNN led the charge against Nigeria. I'm sure the channel is aware of its huge following here as the most watched and most trusted news station in the country, way ahead of the supposed national news channel NTA, which nobody watches, including me, because the picture quality and sound harkens back to the 1970s and the content is drab and mostly government-sponsored.

Nigerians also invest a huge amount to advertise on CNN International. You would think it was a national station the way Nigerian-sponsored adverts for mobile phone networks like Glo, MTN and Etisalat ,and random door and furniture stores advertise heavily on the station, and I hear these ads are not cheap. The CNN (International ) we watch here is also shown in the UK and other English-speaking African countries (America has its own version), but 50% of the adverts are Nigerian.

Plus almost every other personality on the channel's African Voices is Nigerian. Talk about dominance!

So CNN used its popularity in the country to make a point and ran extended news features decrying Nigeria's latest law, with breathlessly apoplectic journalists reporting from Lagos on the various gay-rights abuses they'd heard about. Christianne Amanpour even interviewed Bisi Alimi, the first man to come out on national TV in Nigeria, following which he had to seek asylum in Britain. He spoke passionately and eloquently on the issue; if I was gay I would have been so proud of him as the spokesman for Nigerian gays.

Bisi Alimi, Nigeria's first man to declare himself gay on TV, on CNN a few days ago

As the debates rage on, if you’re in Nigeria you’re in one of these four camps: 

1. Gays and Gay-lovers: Yes! At last, the gays and lesbians have a voice! Roll on happy gay marriages across the nation and civil rights for gay people everywhere! Today debates, tomorrow full acceptance, maybe even a gay President!

2. The Homophobic Majority: God bless Jonathan for putting those nasty gays in their place! If I catch any of those dirty men ehn, I will...Hmm. Imagine leaving the luscious beauty of a woman and handling the nether regions of my fellow man? Tufiakwa! Abeg, if they even dare to protest I will be the first in line to beat those men-chasers. Imagine!

3. The Ignorant Minority: Wait, there are gay people in Nigeria? Since when? I thought it was only a white man’s disease. Wonders shall never end...

4. The Casual Observers: Wow, all this talk about gayness. I don’t really care if they want to bum each other, that’s their prerogative. They want to marry too? Umm, OK, but just NIMBY (Not in my back yard) please.

The emerging voices of Group 1 loudly drowned out by the distaste of Group 2 has taken over the airwaves, with nary a voice from Group 4 even acknowledged.

Group 3 were previously in the dark about matters of same-sex relationships thanks to the culture of ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ prevalent in Nigeria, and only came across images of homosexuality on Western TV, hence its association with white people. (Which is naive of course, because there have always been homosexuals all across Nigeria - I hear the North plays a major role in this scene too - and it's an open secret that some top politicians are men who like to sleep with other men for homosexual/political/spiritual/financial reasons *cough cough*)

I am firmly in Group 4, whereby I am distinctly nonchalant about the whole discussion. As a non-homosexual with no ties to homosexuals and a balanced view of the Bible, I am blasé about the issue.

I’ve had friends that were gay, and I've read testimonials written by secretly gay Christians who are completely tortured by their desire for the same sex and have prayed, fasted and had counselling to dispel it, some even married and had children, but still they can’t shake it off. If they could take a pill and become heterosexual tomorrow, they would do it in an instant. They often question God in tears asking him why He would inflict them with such a reprehensible affliction.

So I’m sympathetic to their plight, and the desire for those who are happy to be gay to live without discrimination. But I'm concerned about their growing confidence and demand for not only acceptance, but full immersion into the mainstream and for their lifestyle to be accepted as alternative rather than deviant.
Lawmakers used the law to say: “No thanks. The West can legalise homosexuality and go to hell in a hand-basket if it wants, but as for we Nigerians and our country, we will serve the Lord (and punish those homos with their anal activities).”


Africans in general are vehemently anti-gay. It's in their blood. The African man that is pro-gay has either spent some time abroad, is well-read and well-versed in Western culture, or is gay himself (much to his own initial horror and shame probably.) But there are also men who tick all three boxes but who remain outwardly homophobic and inwardly tormented.


Then there are small pockets of Nigerian intellectuals and free-thinkers who argue for the rights of homosexuals in their small enclaves of enlightenment. They have been vocal on Twitter and I've also conversed with a few. They are the well-read, often (but not always) foreign-educated young idealists who are embarrassed by the hate spewed against homosexuals by their fellow countrymen, and often regard such homophobes as inadequately-educated religious zealots.

But Jesus never said a thing about homosexuals. Not one thing. He spoke against greed, pride, the love of money and adultery (all of which occur in spades in Nigeria and around the world), but not a jot about gays, which leads me to believe that in heaven's assessment of sin, homosexuality is not number one. Besides, it was pride that got Satan thrown out of heaven, not homosexuality.

But I do believe that being gay is an unnatural aspect of humanity; a glitch in the matrix, a defect in nature. I compared being born gay to being born without an arm once, and somebody took offence. All humans need eyes and all men and women were given sex organs that compliment each other to enable procreation and pleasure; some are born without eyes, and some are born gay.

To put it in another (more crude) way, if all was well with homosexuality sexually-speaking, why would gay men still need 'a hole' and lesbians an 'artificial penis' to satisfy? The normal way works best after all right?

Though some that are born gay (there are children as young as nine who tell their parents they're gay, and gay adults say they've been aware of their sexual orientation for as long as they can remember), but others become gay following homosexual abuse by the same sex in their childhood. I also believe there is a spirit of homosexuality that can rest on some families, i.e. the issue of the man who has three daughters and two of them are lesbians. I was like, wow, in one family? That's got to be a spiritual thing.

So I have a little understanding of the plight of gay people but a distaste for their demands. They are not normal in the full sense of the word, and no I would not want my child to be gay, simply because I wish for my children success, marriage, family and normalcy. And I want grandchildren the old-fashioned way. I don't want my child to be different all their lives or to be ashamed to face God because they feel innately inadequate.

What I don't have is hate for gay people. Why should I hate them simply because they are gay? I've known some lovely gay people, and they are often highly intelligent and hugely hilarious. What they do in their house is their business, but I don't want them to push their agenda or force me to accept their lifestyle as good and pleasing, because I believe it's still wrong to mate with your fellow sex. It's not normal. But if you're gay, it's absolutely fine with me. 

A gay acquaintance and I once quite happily co-existed in a plain of mutual unspoken disapproval about something hugely important to us: he disapproved of my faith, and I of his homosexuality. As long as we didn't go there we got on just fine. I would, for instance, watch a Gay Rights march with some interest, but not join in or cheer. But if one of the marchers got hurt in any ensuing violence, I would call for help and tend to them. I don't support what they do but I support their right to live, work and be.

And I believe there are Nigerians out there who are also viewing these hot debates with a pinch of salt. The world will not end if gays got married, but we don’t want to see them canoodling in the back-row at the cinemas either. The law has come, good, if it is repealed tomorrow, fine.

Recently I had dinner with a group of ex-pats and other returnees to Nigeria, and one of the women, upon hearing I was Fulani, asked me if the Fulani men she's seen dressed flamboyantly in tight, colourful tops and trousers, with their thin waists, long hair, pretty eyes enhanced with eyeliner and delicate ways are gay. I remember asking the same question myself when I came across a group of similarly-dandified Fulani young men. I am told they're not gay, they just like to dress that way. Fine. Odd, but fine.

They are also not, as far as I know, yan daudus, which are effeminate men from the North who dress like women and are mostly gay. No, this class of Fulani men just like to dress prettily, that's all.

So as a card-carrying member of the Casual Observers Group, I declare that nobody should be lynched or beaten or insulted or discriminated against for being gay, but homosexuals should also temper their demand for acceptance with sensitivity: not everyone likes what you do, so if you must, do it quietly and don’t make a scene.

That is all.

I'm a Submissive Woman...What's Wrong With That?

I am not as young or as innocent as I look, yet every time I cross the street with any man, whether I've known him 10 minutes or 10 years, they either hold my arm/hand or put a protective hand on my back and lead me to the other side of the road.

Most Western-minded, proudly independent, 21st Century women would be insulted by this because they feel it patronises them; they can cross the street just as well as any man! I don't. I take it as a compliment that a man acts on his natural instinct to protect when he's with me. Some women, because of the aggressive vibe they give out quench this gentlemanly behaviour in guys, but I'd like to think it is because of my sweet, accommodating nature that men are willing to open doors or pull out chairs for me.

Now I know and they know that I can do these things for myself, but that's not the point. I'm a lover of classic literature like Pride and Prejudice because it describes a time when men were men and ladies behaved decently and were treated with care because they were the fairer sex. I am not insulted by this, and I believe that women that are have either been hurt by misogynistic men or were told that a woman is just as good as a man and doesn't need to be treated differently.

Chivalry: Why Not? 

Well, its their loss. If a man wants to treat me nicely because I am a woman, let him. I know I am just as intelligent as he is, so why should his chivalry make me feel bad?

There's a difference between a man opening a door for you and a man not allowing you to speak in public. Women in certain Middle-Eastern or African countries have the right to demand more fairness because they are been oppressed, but I'm afraid if women get more fairness in the West they might stop having babies, because if men don't have to do it, why should we?!

So its obvious that I am not a feminist. I thank the Women's Movement for the vote, shattered glass-ceilings and the Pill, but it all spun out of control when:

Women Started Acting Like Men

Some women think that if a man can sleep with 300 women and be admired by his peers, why can't she sleep with 300 men and be equally respected? Well, umm...apart from this being a cry for help, nature discourages it. A man produces trillions of new sperm daily throughout his lifetime, whilst a woman is born with about 400 viable eggs, is able to fertilise only one a month, and then they run out when she's 45. Also, women tend to get pregnant after sex whilst men can walk away if they so wish, and the reproduction game is such that whilst a man shoots and deposits, a woman receives and incubates.

All this means that nature has given men the ease and biological efficiency to have sex-and-go a lot, whilst women have to deal with the palaver of periods, pregnancy and ticking biological clocks. It kinda seems as if 'Mother Nature' is a misogynistic man trying to ruin women's fun doesn't it?

Fact is women are BUILT differently from men and it is not everything they do that we should do. Those that want to out-earn, out-drink or out-burp men may feel emancipated now, but a wise man is not looking for a woman to compete with but a mate to build a life with, and a woman that uses her femininity to compliment a man will have a happier home.  

 Women Started Demeaning Men

I dislike watching British adverts these days because of the trend for women to belittle men.  Commercials like Windows 7's Family Photo is one that I actually switch channels to avoid watching. I just get angsty about seeing a woman say things to a man that will cause outrage if the tables were turned. Watch a round of adverts next time you're in front of the TV with this in mind, and you'll see stroppy, domineering women chastising gormless men for being inept. Its never the other way round. Because that would be sexist.

 The ad that makes me mad

The funny thing is that ad executives are overwhelmingly male, so either they're being funny, or worried that if they don't toe the feminist line there would be backlash. It's probably the latter.

I was watching a show about weddings, where it is the norm for the bride-to-be to complain that the groom doesn't help enough etc and then a 'Fairy God-mother' is called to help. But one episode had a wealthy young man who was outspoken about the fact that he'll pay for the wedding, but the bride should make all the arrangements (he was American. I noticed that their adverts are fairer). The female voice-over and 'Fairy God-mother' were indignant: how dare he be so honest about his disinterest and put the bride in a bad light! Didn't he read the memo? Only the bride can complain; the man should just nod and apologise!

The gender role-reversal in the media probably reflects reality. Today most divorces are initiated by the woman who is encouraged to not put up with any dissent... I mean failings in a man. Of course I know that men can be *%*#*@*, but perhaps women don't try so hard anymore?

Women Started Saying They Didn't Need Men

I used to say this. Back when I was young and drunk on the feminist power Destiny's Child sung about. Sure women can and have raised babies who became well-adjusted adults without the help of men, but should they? It's fine if you have no choice, but to make a conscious decision that you want to raise your child without a father is like cutting your nose to spite your face. Children from such homes grow up with daddy issues because it was never supposed to be that way.

Women also say this to mean they can buy their own houses, cars, clothes, weaves, shoes etc without the help of men. That's fabulous. I'm sure the men are quite happy not to have to pay for all these things too. But I personally want my husband to take care of me and be the breadwinner, a man who feels that it is his responsibility to provide for his family.

And in marriage I'll take primary care of the children, (since they grew in my body for nine months and were then fed with my body-juice, it seems fair) cook, clean, work and help my husband be the best he can be, whilst he protects, provides and loves and respects me as the superwoman-mother-wife-lady I am. It'll be great if he'll help with the dishes sometimes, but he doesn't have to.

I want to exemplify the lyrics to that long-forgotten song:

"I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never, ever let you forget you're a man, cause I'm a woman."

It's old-fashioned and I love it. There's something....wholesome about the natural order of things.