The fuck is the crime??
post
That's crazy man. What if someone is a priest or something like that?
Traditional family = more people to be exploited by religion and capitalists.
I can understand why would someone want to criminalize homisexuality or transexuality. I think those reasons are utterly stupid and deeply immoral, but at least I can see the reasoning behind them. But asexuality?
Homosexuals and asexuals are functionally the same in that they don't want to engage in reproductive sex. This creates a smaller tax base and must therefore be discouraged.
Niger has 7 children per woman.
That's kinda a huge problem. So Africa much like the 1800s in first world countries, you'd have like 9 kids because maybe 3 would make it to 18+. When vaccines, antibiotics, ect were discovered suddenly only like 1 or 2 of these 9 kids died before 18. So we stopped having a ton of kids and had kike 1-3 typically.
In Africa while maybe being behind the are benifiting from medial advances and less kids are dying. But now because of that they're still having 9 kids and they have no food or water because of overpopulation among other things.
What, are they going to make it illegal to not have sex then? What?
Being outwardly celibate is a way lots of different people resist. That is now removed.
You can expect to be used against unmarried women, forcing them to get married. Likely also bound to stigmatize getting married at even a mildly later date than one might have.
It removes any protections LGBTQ folks may have had by staying "single" publicly.
Will likely also result in couples being unable to have children being otherwise persecuted.
Nigerian incels' last hope.
Nigerien*
Nigerian would be someone from Nigeria
Somehow that's even more stupid than criminalizing homosexuality.
What does that even mean, in practice? Mandatory government sex?
The article links to an irrelevant source. What's the actual law?
I would have to go looking too. But, the article makes it clear it's an umbrella anti-gay law.
The actual answer to that question, is that they're going to just ignore the parts that don't make sense, because there's no rule of law anyway. Written laws serve as something more like campaign promises, in an authoritarian state.
It seems, by itself, people within the target group need to have an opposite sex alibi. In practice, and if anyone can find out what the law says exactly, it’s probably targeting people over a certain age who are not married with kids.
It's a proxy for "why aren't you married and having kids?" Niger usually has one of the highest fertility rates per woman, which is a troubling way to measure that.
Source: lived there for years. People take "be fruitful and multiply" very literally.
This is also about censorship. Can't discuss or teach about these things, since they're "criminal". Engineering sexual ignorance.
It's becoming increasing obvious how desperate the elites are getting, now that every woman isn't churning out 5+ children for the meat grinder.
This is Niger, where the mean women has like 7, meaning many have more. IIRC it's the highest rate in the world. Niger is also one of the poorest countries, so there's no real reason they'd want more.
Isn't Africa rather thinly populated in general, or do i remember that wrong?
Edit: just checked, Niger has 23 people/km², while germany has 230 pp/km².
Yeah, Niger is desert, basically. There's a bit of sahel at one end, and of course oases, but it's not a populous place, because of course it isn't.
1/10 of German density is actually impressive as hell, and probably why they're poor even by African standards. Australia might be a better geographic parallel, at 3.7.
If you look at Nigeria, the story is different, and some of the small West African states are going to be even more crowded. Africa as a whole is probably comparable to the next (edit: major) continent. You're averaging over a lot of very different places, once you get to that scale.
Yeah, Niger is desert, basically. There’s a bit of sahel at one end, and of course oases, but it’s not a populous place, because of course it isn’t.
that ok, i understand. but how do you explain that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has 48 pp/km²? that one is surely no desert.
- cameroon 39.7 pp/km²
- Central African Republic 8.6 pp/km²
- Gabon 10 pp/km²
these are all central africa, surely no sahara desert there.
again, germany, 230 pp/km² for comparison.
As you can see on your map, Germany is actually really dense, not typical. Europe has had an easy few centuries, and that, alongside the UK, is the densest part of Europe. If you pick a random patch of civilisation-friendly terrain, it has a greater than 50% chance to be yellow, which is like the empty central parts of Spain.
Looking over the list on Wikipedia, Germany is number 63 out of 245. What's ahead of it is mostly island and city states, with a few other major nations in the mix.
CAR is pretty empty, and that might be down to jungle. Why the jungle would be hard to live in, once you cut down a few trees, is unclear to me as a Canadian (maybe poor soil?). Plus, there are populous jungle regions, like in SE Asia. But, there definitely is a pattern.
DRC south of it is mostly yellow, and to the south-east you hit the dense African Great Lakes region. The white patch in southern Africa is the Kalahari, another desert.
Thanks! Hopefully people can pick out the Sahara themselves, while the red blob in west Africa would be mostly Nigeria.
Same story in both of the Americas, at least. Few people live in the Canadian arctic or the Amazon, plenty live in the New York or Sao Paolo area.
Asia has those mega-population spots, but the empty part is also bigger. With it sitting in front of me the mega-population spots still probably win. Non-Russia Europe is the same size and rough shape as India, but as a "continent" it's pretty dense. while Australia and of course Antarctica are emptier.
Okay, but how many do the nice women have?
(sorry, couldn't resist. The article is horrifying, so i'm escaping into humour)
In June 2026, the nation of Niger became the first nation in the world ++to criminalise asexuality++, as part of a wider crackdown on the LGBTQIA+ community. The country, currently run by a military junta, broadened its anti-LGBTQIA+ laws, increasing the criminalisation of LGBTQIA+ ‘practices’ to include anyone who ‘attempts to’ participate.
The ILGA database says the newly passed laws, Article 25 and 390, are already having life-threatening implications on LGBTQIA+ people in Niger.
Ace people in Niger, alongside people of all LGBTQIA+ identities, can now face 5-10 years in prison and fines worth up to £130K.
The change was significant as it makes Niger the first country to name the asexual community in its law books. However, it begs the question: how does one ban an asexual “practice”, other than to punish people who are not married and those who don’t have babies? To understand, we should see this law as part of a bigger – and growing – global trend among conservatives.
Understand the LGBTQIA+ news
Every Saturday we explain the 🏳️🌈 headlines, help you stay on top of the latest queer content, and a different underrepresented writer shares their unique queer gaze
Try it!
No spam, no ads, unsubscribe anytime - supports queer creatives
Niger’s crackdown on asexual “practices” is not isolated to the West African nation; it’s part of a greater trend of anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric, enforced monogamy and anti-abortion movements worldwide.
In ++2026++, Niger (alongside Burkina Faso and Mali) has strengthened diplomatic ties with Russia, while their military juntas are at war with insurgent groups. This move comes at a time when Russia instituted a ban on “++propaganda++” that promotes childfree lifestyles. But this rhetoric is not isolated to countries we tend to associate with deep-rooted conservative laws.
Meanwhile, conservatives in the U.S. have been shaming childfree women as ++“childless cat ladies”.++ This builds on previous campaigns from the religious right in America, which stated the Respect for Marriage Act ++would lead to asexual marriages++, which they believed would lead to a marriage “inferno”. Groups like the Heritage Foundation equated asexual marriages to “selfishness”.
Zoom out a little, and it's easy to see the hypocrisy of conservative religious people demonising asexuality, considering how much abstinence was preached to me growing up in a conservatively religious home.
Asexuality stands in direct contrast to the religious right’s shaming of ‘childfree’ people, which also often ignores other routes to having children like adoption, and ++family models that show you can be asexual and a parent++. Instead, the decreasing birth rate has been a talking point of right-wing politics for years.
And yet, conservatives do not care to address the many concerns related to raising a child – such as rising costs of childcare, affordable housing, and lack of reproductive justice. They only seem to care about making everyone become a parent.
[...]



top 50 comments