Rasta TimesCHAT ROOMArticles/ArchiveRaceAndHistory RootsWomen Trinicenter
Africa Speaks.com Africa Speaks HomepageAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.com
InteractiveLeslie VibesAyanna RootsRas TyehimbaTriniView.comGeneral Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 11, 2017, 04:55:08 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
25515 Posts in 9752 Topics by 980 Members Latest Member: - Roots Dawta Most online today: 64 (July 03, 2005, 11:25:30 PM)
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]

 on: June 29, 2017, 07:19:32 PM 
Started by Jahirae - Last post by Nakandi
Dr. Yosef Ben Jochannan - The African Origin of Christianity
Dr. Yosef Ben Jochannan - The African Origin of Christianity - YouTube

 on: June 29, 2017, 03:22:06 PM 
Started by Jahirae - Last post by Jahirae
Thank You Nakandi and Tyehimba for taking time to respond to me. Both posts clarified the misunderstandings I had about the bible and propelled me to do more research. I am currently learning about simple concepts in African spirituality and already seeing some of the connections being made in the bible. Evidently some are misconstrued or misinterpreted, example the concept of the Christ, thank you for your direction.

 on: June 27, 2017, 07:01:49 PM 
Started by Nakandi - Last post by Nakandi
The art and science of love, like any other art form, can be learned. Love is to be distinguished from obsession, sexual attraction, infatuation, and EGO gratification.

Love and Obsession

Both love and obsession involves fear, attraction, and emotions. The differences are great and yet subtle that many are continually confused. You might ask how can both love and obsession involve fear. Fear - which reflects basic insecurities, can be associated with both love and obsession. The difference is that fear based insecurities that derive from love are naturally a part of the process whereby one gives up control, and acknowledges that they are being guided, directed and controlled by a force that is both bigger and separate from themselves. If one is to love then they must allow love to guide, direct and control them. For love will not be controlled.

Obsession, which is a direct result of wanting to dominate, direct and control others, springs from fear. In fact, obsession is an attempt to regulate fear by controlling the object of that fear, hence the term obsession. These two emotions are so close to each other that in the earliest stages of a relationship they are often confused with each other. One clear indication of the difference is that obsession would want to hold one down, to fix their position in a relationship. Whereas love is all about liberation, freeing the subject of ones love so that they may feel the completeness that only comes when one is able to choose when, where, how and the conditions of love.

Love and sexual attraction

The hardest thing for many to understand is that love and physical attraction are two very distinct emotions. The distinctions between these two emotions become quite clear when one observes the primary goals of each. The primary goal of physical attraction is physical sexual gratification, whereas the primary goal of love is spiritual gratification. Physical sexual gratification is interchangeable and can be accomplished within a group, with any number of different partners, even alone. Spiritual gratification is inclusive and does require devotion of ones partners, and cannot be accomplished as a solitary event. Physical sexual gratification leads to mutual sexual intercourse, spiritual gratification leads to the coupling of two souls.

Physical sexual attractions ultimately lead to sexual frustrations, and sexual anxiety. Love ultimately leads to spiritual healing, and spiritual completeness. Love leads to further acts of love; Physical sex leads to despair.

Love and Infatuation

Next to sexual attraction, infatuation is the next most difficult relationship to distinguish from love. In fact, only time can show the differences. With both love and infatuation, one is constantly concerned with pleasing, comforting, being with, and talking to the other. The difference is that with infatuation, after a certain degree of intimacy, the fire is soon replaced with boredom. Love, as distinct from infatuation, constantly renews itself, recharges itself, and is renewed by itself. Its feeds on itself, infatuation is a fire that quickly burns out, and leaves a bad smell after the smoke has dissipated. Love, even after the first fire has died, still leaves sweetness in the memory. Love lifts, infatuation breaks, love builds, infatuation destroys, love withstands, infatuation expires, love endures, and infatuation retires.

Often love is confused with admiration for a particular persona (ego), as individuals seeing their desired personas they fall in love with their own illusion, thinking it is the other person. Personality gratification is a desire for admiration that is fulfilled by another. In such a relationship, as long as the seekers persona is being fulfilled then the illusion of love is preserved, but when the personality gratifying behavior is not forthcoming then the illusion of love is destroyed. Love, on the other hand, seeks to gratify the other. Ensuring the mutual gratification of both loved ones requires that the courtship phase never die. For it is in courtship that one is constantly trying to please the other, the object of all of ones actions is toward the satisfaction of the other, the subject of all ones desires is the completeness of the other. Consider this, the false personality is about the material things including the body as the object of love, whereas love is about the the true self interacting with that of another.

-Rodney D. Coates


 on: June 27, 2017, 03:25:26 AM 
Started by Iniko Ujaama - Last post by Iniko Ujaama

What Americans Get Wrong About Porn

For six years, I immersed myself in the workings of the adult industry. As editor of the porn blog Fleshbot, I spent hours combing the XXX side of the internet, acquainting myself with all manner of perversions and obscure sex acts. At this point in my career, it’s fairly safe to say that there is almost no pornographic image that would be capable of shocking me. What does shock me, on the other hand, is how ill-informed our public discourse around porn continues to be.

In the 10 years since I wrote my first Fleshbot post, internet porn has skyrocketed in popularity. But even as porn consumption has become a commonplace habit, we continue to treat it as something exotic and inherently perilous to our health and happiness.

The arguments that show up in national publications today — and are often repeated by readers — are not so different from anti-porn screeds written decades before. A recent New York Magazine feature dubbed Pornhub, a top porn site, “the Kinsey Report of our time,” arguing that the breadth of perversity found on the site encourages increasingly exotic sexual exploration among its presumably vanilla viewers; other commentators, including Cindy Gallop, founder of the website MakeLoveNotPorn, have also expounded upon the power pornography holds over our sexual tastes and behaviors. Journalists still seem convinced that, first, if an extreme form of porn exists, it’s common and anyone who watches porn will eventually stumble on it; second, that viewing porn rewires our sexual preferences, often in damaging and terrifying ways; and, of course, that pornography gives children unhealthy ideas about sex.

In a culture where open discussion of sex is taboo and the adult industry is heavily stigmatized, it’s perhaps not surprising that many people think of porn as a highly addictive, transformative substance. But the evidence doesn’t back that assumption up.

It makes sense that journalists, whose jobs require research, might find themselves drawn down the rabbit hole of adult entertainment, fascinated by the increasingly perverse products they happen to uncover. But most porn consumers aren’t journalists or researchers, and usage data suggests their porn habits are vastly more utilitarian. PornHub, the most popular porn site online, reports that the average time spent on the site is just under 10 minutes — less than half the length of a standard porn scene. Ten minutes isn’t enough time to begin to plumb the depths of depravity contained in the videos of PornHub, or to do even the most cursory exploration of unfamiliar genres and sexual acts. It is, on the other hand, just enough time to arrive at a site, find a video that’s in line with your long established sexual preferences, enjoy the best bits and move on to other pursuits.

In my time at Fleshbot, it became abundantly clear to me that people tend to come to porn with their sexual preferences already intact — and that, with some exceptions, those preferences remain fixed. Like PornHub, Fleshbot offers visitors a vast array of content, profiling porn that appeals to consumers with a wide variety of sexual orientations and preferences. Yet when I worked there, being exposed to the wonderfully diverse world of human sexuality didn’t seem to make readers more excited by unfamiliar kinks and sexual interests — if anything, it made my readers more interested in the various tags and filters that would allow them to quickly zoom in on the specific content that met their needs. Straight men who were accidentally exposed to gay porn didn’t suddenly turn gay; vanilla viewers who happened upon photo sets of extreme kink would complain that they should have been better shielded from, say, the sight of extreme bondage. Tellingly, despite the vast diversity of content found on Pornhub, consumers are more likely to turn to tamer content: For the past three years, lesbian porn — a category generally considered to be less hardcore than its heterosexual counterpart — has been viewed more frequently than any other genre.

Long before we’re exposed to pornography, we consume pop culture and have formative experiences that help us understand what kind of people we’re attracted to and what sorts of erotic scenarios intrigue us — and we tend to bring that to porn, and not the other way around. Some people may find their palates expanding with increased exposure to pornography, but that’s often because of an existing curiosity or openness: If you come to porn completely uninterested, or outright turned off by, a specific genre, it’s unlikely that you’ll find yourself converted merely through repeated exposure. (I, for example, have always been made uncomfortable by porn that depicts the beloved characters from my favorite childhood cartoons in flagrante delicto — and no matter how many times I was exposed to those scenes in the course of my work, I was never won over by their eroticism.)

None of which is to say that porn is entirely benign, or that its impact on our sex lives is only positive. There is some truth to the anti-porn claim that it negatively impacts the sexual imaginations and awareness of young people. But that’s largely due to the fact that pornography — which, though sometimes educational, is more frequently a wildly inaccurate fantasy — is consumed in a culture where sex education is minimal, fear-based and often inaccurate; where parents treat the sex talk as a shameful task to be gotten over with as quickly as possible; and where pop culture promotes a confusing virgin/whore dichotomy that encourages sexual exploration while demonizing “promiscuity.” Given all this, it’s unsurprising that porn might leave young viewers confused or even scarred, and that it might negatively impact their ability to relate to future partners. But that says less about the nature of pornography than about the dangers of a culture that delegates something as important and essential as sex education to an industry dedicated to crafting fantasy and entertainment.

It’s easy to criticize porn, and it’s fun to giggle over the exotic and unfamiliar sex acts the adult industry is all too happy to explore. But positioning the porn industry as an all-powerful force that’s here to wreak havoc on our sex lives is a distraction from the actual problem at hand. If we want an alternative to the vision of sex presented in pornography, we need to start by having open, honest and unashamed talks about sex. We need to stop treating sex as a taboo topic, and start treating it as an ordinary aspect of life, one that young people should be educated about in all its weird, wonderful, risky and rewarding complexity. If we create a culture where sexuality is accepted as a healthy, positive part of life, then we’ll be able to appreciate porn for the wild, unrealistic fantasy that it was always intended to be.

 on: June 27, 2017, 02:01:30 AM 
Started by MissJay - Last post by MissJay

I stand by my earlier statement.

You may be missing the fact that if we apply the definition you gave for “softness” then what you posted initially does not make sense.

I also agree with Leslie’s point about the need for private spaces for dark-skinned blacks to work out issues. I do not want to continue further with this as my intention is not about beating up or even appearing to beat up on a dark-skinned black sister or brother.

Take care.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and your interpretation of my opinion about softness defined. Thank you for attempting to be generous with your ideas about what I intended to communicate and share about my lived and deeply personal experiences with care and softness from my perspective. Miscommunication, perhaps on my part...

Do, take and exercise care, Nakandi.

 on: June 27, 2017, 01:25:34 AM 
Started by MissJay - Last post by Nakandi

I stand by my earlier statement.

You may be missing the fact that if we apply the definition you gave for “softness” then what you posted initially does not make sense.

I also agree with Leslie’s point about the need for private spaces for dark-skinned blacks to work out issues. I do not want to continue further with this as my intention is not about beating up or even appearing to beat up on a dark-skinned black sister or brother.

Take care.

 on: June 27, 2017, 12:28:36 AM 
Started by Iniko Ujaama - Last post by Iniko Ujaama
This article provides greater context.

Oxford University blasted for 'insulting' decision to allow students to sit exams at home as it implies women are the 'weaker sex'

 Camilla Turner, Education Editor

11 June 2017 • 7:30pm

Oxford University has been blasted for its “insulting” decision to allow students to sit exams at home in an attempt to close the gender gap, as a leading historian warns that the decision implies that women are the “weaker sex”.

From the start of the next academic year, the University’s History Faculty is to change its exam system to replace one of the five final-year exams with a “take-home” paper.

The move is designed to boost results for female students at Oxford, who are less likely to get a first-class degree in history than their male peers.
Amanda Foreman, a historian who is writing The World Made By Women, said the move was “well intentioned” yet insulting to women.

“The reason why girls and boys perform differently in exams has nothing to do with the building they are in,” said Ms Foreman, who is an honorary research senior fellow in History at the University of Liverpool.

“I think it is extremely well intentioned and I applaud them for taking the matter seriously. But it is so insulting.

"You are saying that the girls can’t take the stress of sitting in the exam room, which does raise one’s anxiety levels. I don’t think girls are inherently weaker than boys and can’t take it. Women are not the weaker sex.”

Ms Foreman said the reason why men outperform women in their degrees is because young men are encouraged to be risk takers, while young women particularly at school are encouraged to be conformist.

“A first class degree is awarded on basis of whether ideas are fresh and new – risk taking behaviour takes you to that point," she said.

Oxford University said that the move is “part of a broader goal of diversifying the History course”. Earlier this month it emerged that the university's History Faculty will introduce a new paper on Middle Eastern, Asian and Indian affairs, after protests against the ‘white’ curriculum.

Male students at Oxford University were six per cent more likely to graduate with first class degree than their female peers in 2016, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency.

Meanwhile, Cambridge University — where the average gender gap is nearly nine percentage points across all subjects — is also reviewing its exam system "in order to understand fully any variations and how we can mitigate them effectively".

Girls do better than boys at both GCSE and A-level exams and outnumber their male peers in higher education. At secondary school level, girls began to outperform boys in exams when more coursework was introduced in the 1990s.

A spokesman for Oxford University said that “take home” exams will “will challenge [students] to research and construct considered historical essays. Timed exams remain an important part of the course, testing skills to complement the other assessed elements.

“This change is part of a broader goal of diversifying the History course in response to a number of factors, including the need to test a greater range of academic skills. The gender gap was also a consideration in this change, although research shows that the causes of the gap are broad do not lie solely in methods of assessment.”

 on: June 27, 2017, 12:23:05 AM 
Started by MissJay - Last post by MissJay

I have intentionally imbued the term softness with some measure of ambiguity, because I wanted to gauge others' sociological imaginations as they reasoned with the issues on the table.

If this is an experience true and close to you and you actually want change, then it is rather odd that you would use this as an academic exercise. It goes against the very nature of the reasoning as it trivializes the real lived experiences of dark skinned people. If that was your true agenda, then I find it reeks of exploitation to advance a personal agenda.

However, if that is not the case then here is a link that I found and still find useful "It Takes Honesty To Reason" http://www.rootswomen.com/articles/It_Takes_Honesty_To_Reason.html

This is precisely how I reason and grapple with things that are close to me. What I have shared with this forum comes from the heart, yet your comment seems to suggest that there is a right way and a wrong way to reason about my own real and lived experiences as a dark-skinned woman. I'm afraid that's just how my brain works at the moment. If this offends your sensibilities, then it speaks more to my point of entry into conscious development and less to the idea that I am using this as an academic exercise.....If there are alternative ways to reason with others, then I would like to learn them. However, I am  feeling quite judged or prejudged, oddly enough, for being who I am at the moment. I just find it odd that you have jumped to the conclusions that you have, given that we do not know each other. Am I missing something?

And, thank you for the link.

 on: June 27, 2017, 12:03:15 AM 
Started by Iniko Ujaama - Last post by Iniko Ujaama
A friend shared this with me today noting in his view the unfair advantage it gives the females over male students.


Oxford Plans To Let Students Take Exam At Home To Help Women Do Better

Oxford University plans to change its final exam policy in 2018 to help female students score better on their history exams.

The college’s History Faculty will make one of its five final exams a take home paper in order to boost female performance on exams after a study revealed that men are more likely to get a first class degree in history than women, the Telegraph reported Sunday.

Thirty-two percent of women will go on to gain a first class degree, compared to 37 percent of men who will do the same, the study showed.

“This course in particular showed one of the largest gender gaps in results between women and men,” a document said regarding the gender gap in Oxford’s History program. “As women and men perform more equally in submitted work, it was proposed that a take-out exam with questions similar to that in a timed exam should be implemented.”

Some have accused the university of insulting women by making the standards lower to accommodate them.

“I think it is extremely well intentioned and I applaud them for taking the matter seriously. But it is so insulting,” historian Amanda Foreman said. “You are saying that the girls can’t take the stress of sitting in the exam room, which does raise one’s anxiety levels. I don’t think girls are inherently weaker than boys and can’t take it. Women are not the weaker sex.”

Oxford University stood by its decision, saying that the gender gap between scores played only a small part in its choice to change the final exam policy.

“This change is part of a broader goal of diversifying the History course in response to a number of factors, including the need to test a greater range of academic skills. The gender gap was also a consideration in this change, although research shows that the causes of the gap are broad do not lie solely in methods of assessment,” the school said in a statement.

 on: June 26, 2017, 11:20:01 PM 
Started by MissJay - Last post by leslie

I agree that this issue cannot and should not be treated as an exclusive issue to dark skinned people (women in particular as we all acknowledge the brunt falls heaviest on her) but can't we multi task? Can we not simultaneously acknowledge and work to address our people's issues all the while demanding respect and change for these very real internal issues?

Within the broader umbrella of feminism, black females receive only token recognition. Even then, those on the frontline are typically academic and fit the mould of the status quo in one way or the other. If feminism is supposed to address the plight of ALL women, and those who are most affected are not given primacy, then feminism as we know it is a sham. True feminism is only possible when those who are most affected by sexism, racism, colourism, featurism, hair texturism, sizism, and so on, are primarily and urgently addressed. If these issues are dealt with in this manner, then all females, including those perceived to be higher up the social hierarchy, can reap the benefits. In this way, females who are more privileged could become informed about their insensitivities and can make moves to address their own complicity in anti-female prejudice, which would give greater weight to the feminist cause. This is not the case when done in reverse as is the current reality. Fighting discrimination cannot be solved by neglecting those most affected.

As radical as this approach may be it in no way invalidates others’ experiences and positions . . . which brings me to your point about addressing these issues simultaneously.

This approach has its place with different groups addressing issues that affect them. In fact, I believe that we in the black community should adopt this method because even within “black feminism”, the views and experiences of those who experience the worst are often silenced in favour of others who are less affected. Dark skinned females need a space to share their pain and to find ways to not only cope but to attempt to find better ways to figure themselves out without the fear of being silenced, or having their pain minimised or lost to the general black experience. Of course, these views also have to be brought to the black community in general as we all need to be aware of the issues that affect each other. This is especially so since light skinned / mixed race ones are considered black and reap the benefits of the black label on top of their light skin privilege.

If and when we decide to discuss female matters on a broad scale with females of all races, then, in order for feminism to work, it is the black woman that must lead the cause changing the face of feminism from white to black. A well-informed fat, dark skinned black woman will bring the deepest levels of sensitivities to the table.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Copyright © 2001-2005 AfricaSpeaks.com and RastafariSpeaks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!