Years ago while in the University my good friend who I later nicknamed Eze mmuo said to me “sex rules the world”. In deed that was a profound statement. Did he mean sex as in gender or sex as that ephemeral pleasure that has in no small measure shaped the destiny of man. Eze mmuo however does not mince words and I knew what he meant. I would however without apology modify Eze mmuo’s statement to be “sex ruins the world”.

Ordinarily when the word sex is used pedestrianly it is used to indicate sex outside of marriage (and when I say marriage, I mean that legitimate union between a man and a woman ordained by God and sanctified by Christ at the wedding feast at Cana. I do not mean that perversion of today that is delivering a sustained assault on man’s oldest institution, the family, that demonic perversion called same sex marriage).

 From Biblical times till now whenever men had succumbed to the allures of the hidden and ephemeral pleasures of the flesh, lives had been ruined, kingdoms crashed, generations subjected to irreversible curses. Prominent men have had their empires crashed by sexual irresponsibility and men of infamy whom have serially eluded capture have been trapped in between the thighs of the fairer sex. Such is how powerful and dangerous a tool sex is. So on that day many decades ago when Eze mmuo cast his cowry shells on the ground and pronounced in that eerie voice “sex rules the world”, I knew he had seen a vision. It did not matter if without consulting Eze mmuo I amended his statement to read “sex ruins the world”, the meaning is the same.

So as I was busy making efforts to be mindful of my affairs, I stumbled on a trending story or news, it trended because it concerned a celebrity, (such things happen daily in this our chaotic world, where everybody is busy hurrying to nowhere but no one takes notice). If it was Eze mmuo that was involved even his tiny community of not more than one hundred citizens would not know, after all he is not the most expensive footballer on this planet of endless and sometimes phenomenal contradictions.

The story I stumbled upon was the allegation of rape against a certain Neymar Da Silva Santos Jr. aka Neymar Jr. the world’s most expensive footballer entertaining the oil sheiks in Paris with silky footballing skills.

The story goes like this, a certain adventurous Najilda Trindade while on a frigate via Instagram, located Neymar Jr. and as is the norm in this present day of confused priorities, she decided that ranking highest in her scale of worldly preference was to have sex with Neymar Jr. and so she made an offer of her body, Neymar accepted the offer. A young boy who has conquered the entertaining world of football, who has conquered poverty, a lad who has at his beck and call whatever luxury or pleasure money can buy. A friend of mine once said that when a man conquers poverty the next thing, he wants to conquer is women, what more when women willingly and consciously throw themselves at him. Neymar with his wealth and celebrity status must have had himself inundated with Najilda-like offers from women of diverse cultures, background and beliefs.

Well the story continues, Master Neymar flew Najilda to Paris and lodged her in a hotel at his own sex-pence (permit my corruption of the word). However, as Najilda later narrated days after the event, the honeymoon she expected was not quite what she got. In her words Neymar was “aggressive, totally different from the boy (mark it ‘the boy’) that I got to know through messages”. Najilda must have made an offer for sex which offer Neymar accepted at his own sex-pence as he flew her to Paris and lodged her in a hotel and she must have enjoyed the passionate French cuisine, however at the point of intercourse, Najilda claimed that she insisted that Neymar should use a condom but Neymar refused and rather than being the passionate and gentle lover she flew all the way from Brasilia to meet, he as she claimed became aggressive and raped her. According to her, she told him to stop but he refused.

Najilda has told her story and Neymar also told his own, both of them have testified at a police station in Brasilia. According to Neymar “what happened that day was a relationship between a man and a woman within four walls, like with any couple”. Rape does not happen as “relationship between a man and a woman within four walls like with any couple”. In fact, those who rape are not couples with their victims. At the least the debate whether a man can rape his wife is still on, there is no conclusion yet. Neymar therefore has by his statement effectively denied the allegation that he raped Ms. Najilda Trindade. Neymar may have conquered another fairer flesh but this one comes with its negative consequences. Some have claimed that it is a blackmail by Ms. Trindade, however I am concerned with the allegation of rape.

Neymar admitted having sex with Ms. Trindade but he claims it was consensual, Ms. Trindade admitted having sex with Neymar (in fact she admitted initiating the move) but claimed that it was not consensual, she claimed she was raped.

Najilda is the accuser, she is the protagonist, she initiated the contact. Was she a seductress out to blackmail a superstar celebrity and extort money. Was she only interested in having sex with Neymar as a mere emotional trophy to keep in her emotional cabinet to be unveiled to her daughter in future (Neymar claimed she asked for a trophy for her daughter). It is not in issue that she initiated the move, sought out Neymar on Instagram and declared to him that she desired to have sex with him. Neymar accepted her offer, flew her to Paris and lodged her in a hotel all for the purpose that linked them sexual intercourse.

Did Neymar actually rape Ms. Trindade. Rape is defined as non-consensual sexual intercourse. Rape is complete upon penetration. The nature of lack of consent is that even if a woman comes into your room where you are alone with her, strips naked and lies down on your bed, she has not consented to have sex with you. Her consent must be positive. It may be argued that the scenario painted above is consent, that the body language of the woman, and her visible actions meant consent but that is not so. However, it would be a defence for the man if he claims that he reasonably believed that the woman was consenting to sex. Again what if the man reasonably believed that the woman who entered his room, stripped herself naked and laid down on his bed was consenting to having sexual intercourse with him and decided to take advantage of that but the woman tells him “Before you have sex with me, you must first dance”. If the man refused to dance and goes ahead to have sex with the woman even though she did not resist him but said to him, “I insist you must dance before you have sex with me” the man has raped the woman.

The Queensland case of Kaitamaki v. The Queen (1985) stretched the issue of consent if you may say, ridiculously. It was held in that case that if at the point of penetration, the man reasonably believed that the victim was consent and during the intercourse the man realized that the victim was no more consenting, if he did not withdraw at that point and continues then he has committed rape. So a man having sex with a woman must be able to know she is consenting and she has withdrawn her consent and stop. So the argument will not be that at the time the man penetrated the victim was consenting and so he could not have raped her, if after penetration she withdrew her consent.

I brought up the Kaitamaki case because many would argue that, that the mere fact that Ms. Trindade made the offer to Neymar and that Neymar went through the expense of flying her into Paris and lodging her in a hotel she consented to whatever happened. The answer is no. Ms. Trindade might have made the offer, came to Paris to meet Neymar for the sole purpose of having sex with him and may have engaged in foreplay with him preparatory to the intercourse but at the moment she allegedly told Neymar to use a condom, she changed her offer by giving a condition and the moment Neymar allegedly penetrated her without a condom rape was complete.

It may also be argued for Neymar that he had already paid for the sex by flying Ms. Trindade to Paris and lodging her a hotel, if that argument could be made, it could also be argued for Ms. Trindade that at the time she made the offer and realizing that sexually transmitted diseases are rampant she reasonably believed that her sexual intercourse with Neymar must be with a condom. Neymar in his public statement never made mention of Ms. Trindade’s demand that he use a condom. If at all this demand was made and refused and penetration ocurred then the offence of rape was committed.

The funny thing is that this event occurred in Paris France but the complaint was lodged in Brasilia and that is where investigation is being conducted. I do not know the provisions of the Brazil Criminal Code, however it seems to me that Brazil is not a proper forum to try the offence.

In the end it might be that Neymar did not rape Trindade and Trindade was only blackmailing the “boy” to secure a big pay cheque. Whatever may be the case, one thing is sure, sexual intercourse took place “within four walls” of a room between Master Neymar and Ms. Trindade, but what we are not sure of was whether it was “like any couple” or ‘like a rapist and his victim’.

I will ask my good friend Eze mmuo to consult the oracle, I already have five shillings the price that opens the mouth of the gods.

Okechukwu Opara.