Curbing Prostate Cancer: When Medical Advice Becomes an Attack on Our Collective Moral Integrity and the Sacredness of Family and Marriage — A Call for Action

On a recent episode of Arise TV’s Perspectives, a health conversation took an alarming and disappointing turn.

The program featured Dr. Rasheed Abassi, Ms Blessing Nkiruka Okoro Blessingceo and and Ms. Stephanie Kadiri (the only panelist whose views differed from the duo), discussing research suggesting that men could reduce their risk of prostate cancer by ejaculating 18 to 21 times per month.

Given the subject matter and the presence of a medical professional, I tuned in expecting an educative, evidence-based conversation.

To my dismay, the program quickly devolved into an unbalanced and ethically troubling discussion that strayed far from medical science.

Instead of remaining within the boundaries of health education, the conversation veered into contentious social commentary, excusing marital unfaithfulness, promoting biological determinism, and dangerously suggesting that extramarital affairs could “save” marriages.

In a nation battling moral disorientation, broken homes, and violence rooted in betrayal and mistrust, it is disheartening, and dangerous, for influential platforms to fuel narratives that undermine the dignity of marriage and the sanctity of vows.

False Generalizations and Dangerous Ideas

During the program, Dr. Abassi and Ms. Okoro advanced sweeping generalizations, including:

• That men are “naturally” polygamous;
• That faithful, monogamous men are non-existent;
• That extramarital affairs are beneficial to marital survival and have, in fact, saved marriages.
• Blessing Okoro, for example, referred to women who demand fidelity in marriage as selfish, saying: “Without side chicks, 90 to 95 percent of marriages would be damaged.” To this, Dr. Abassi responded in open adulation, exclaiming, “Hallelujah!”

Furthermore, Ms. Okoro made disparaging and generalized statements about the female body, implying that it is essentially for sale. While cautioning married women to remain faithful, not out of moral obligation, but merely to avoid emotional attachment during extramarital affairs, she simultaneously glorified prostitution among young girls and undergraduates by presenting it as a legitimate means to financial gain.

What a perspective, so warped!

It stinks to high heaven, I must say, yet it was aired on national television without an iota of caution, responsibility, or decorum.

These sweeping claims were made without any reference to empirical research, sociological studies, or balanced perspectives.

Instead, they leaned heavily on anecdotal assertions, cultural nostalgia, dangerous oversimplifications, and personal opinions presented as though they were established facts.

But history, law, and logic disagree.

Marriage under the Nigerian Marriage Act is not a casual agreement; it is a solemn legal, emotional, and moral covenant between one man and one woman.

When two adults choose to enter into such a commitment, they invoke the weight of their integrity and the trust of society.

Biology may predispose, but it does not excuse betrayal.

Moreover, suggesting that infidelity has no real consequences ignores the reality we live with daily:

• In the United States, nearly 30% of all homicides are linked to domestic violence and infidelity-related conflicts.
• In Nigeria, the celebrated case of Michael Usifo Ataga, CEO of Super TV, serves as a chilling reminder. Ataga was allegedly murdered in a short-let apartment in Lekki by Chidinma Ojukwu, a 21-year-old university student with whom he was reportedly having an extramarital relationship. This is just one of the many cases that are in the public domain today.

Infidelity is not harmless; it is a gateway to emotional devastation, public disgrace, and in some cases, fatal consequences.

Thus, advocacy for infidelity, explicit or subtle, is not neutral. It constitutes an assault on the moral conscience of young men and women alike, encouraging recklessness in place of responsibility, and betrayal in place of trust.

Trivializing Marital Vows and Integrity

A grievous flaw in the Perspectives discussion was the trivialization of marriage vows.

Marriage is a voluntary act; it is not imposed by biological compulsion.

When individuals swear to one man, one woman, they are not swearing to their biology; they are swearing to their values.

To suggest that such oaths are meaningless because of supposed evolutionary impulses is to erode every moral and legal structure that holds human relationships, and societies together.

Misusing History to Justify Moral Decay

The appeal to “our forefathers” as justification for polygamy reflects a dangerous misunderstanding of civilization.

Our forefathers walked barefoot; today, we drive. They fought endless tribal wars; today, we strive for peaceful democracy.

Polygamy certainly existed historically, but so did rivalry, child neglect, broken homes, and deep emotional scars.

Progress demands that we evolve toward better values, not regress into chaotic traditions.

Even assuming, without conceding, that polygamy served our forefathers well, it is important to ask:

Did they marry under the Marriage Act, making a legal and moral commitment to one man and one wife?

If we are confident in our historical model, why not revert fully to their systems or better still, advocate openly for the abolition of the Marriage Act, along with accepting the consequences many still live with today, such as:

• Rivalries between wives and children;
• Inheritance battles;
• Emotional instability among children.

Research consistently shows that children raised in stable, monogamous homes fare better emotionally, academically, and socially (Journal of Family Psychology, 2021).

As a Family Attorney, Family Strengthening, Child Safeguarding and Protection Innovator and Parenting Ideologue with nearly three decades of frontline experience, I have witnessed firsthand the devastating emotional impact that unstable family structures can cause.

The Urgent Need for Responsible Platforms

Television is a powerful influence of minds, especially young minds. With influence comes responsibility.

Medical discussions must stay within the domain of science.

Social commentary must be grounded in research, logic, and a commitment to uplift society, not erode its foundations.

Public figures like Dr. Abassi and Ms. Okoro must recognize that when they speak on national television, their words shape destinies, not just conversations.

In Conclusion

The episode of Perspectives I witnessed was not just disappointing, it was dangerous.

Rather than enlightening viewers on men’s health, it normalized infidelity, trivialized oaths of commitment, and undermined the fragile pillars of family and social stability.

If we are serious about nation-building, we must be serious about protecting marriage, strengthening families, and honoring the values that make true community possible.

We cannot afford to glamorize infidelity and call it “realism.” We cannot afford to lose our sons and daughters to moral confusion under the banner of controversial entertainment.

We must demand better from our platforms, thought leaders, and ourselves.