Sunday, February 27, 2011

Shoot First, ask Questions Later

or... being on your local FemiNazi campus.

The "New England Center for Investigative Reporting" wrote this piece of trash. It is a self-described "nonprofit newsroom based at Boston University."

The article was written in whole or in part by Boston University journalism students Jenna Ebersole and Allison McKinnon.

Jenna and Allison, please grow a brain. I don't even know where to begin. This is your "investigative journalism?" Wow. Well here's a lesson for you that apparently the women's studies program at BU forgot to give you, but my father taught me when I was about 6: there are two sides to ever story. TWO. Not one, but two.

The men in all of these cases of yours have a side too. The police took it. You couldn't get it, but further, YOU DID NOT EVEN PRESUPPOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE WOMEN COULD BE WRONG AND THE MEN EXONERATED OR AT LEAST FOUND TO BE LESS CULPABLE THEN YOU IMAGINE.

You are WOMEN. The people you are demonizing are MEN. It would only make sense that you would be aware of your strong potential for bias and CONSIDER WHAT SIDE THE MAN MIGHT HAVE IN THE STORY.

Let me clue you into reality. Read slowly.

The article starts:
It was supposed to be a fun college version of Friday night at the movies. A group of students at the Massachusetts College of Art and Design in Boston gathered in a classroom building, spending the autumn evening in 2009 drinking rum and Cokes and watching films.

No, that's what the girls thought. The guys thought that they would have an opportunity to get close to some cute (hopefully HOT, they were thinking) girls and flirt with them, charm them and maybe get some physical affection. They're men for chrissake, they're full of hormones. It doesn't make them monsters - but you need to keep an eye on the nature of the beast and not pretend they're girls. THEY ARE NOT GIRLS. They don't look, act, or think like girls. They are men. Get it?

But in the middle of the night, a 28-year-old sophomore said she woke to find a male student, whom she did not know apart from seeing him in class, fondling her, according to a police report. He was found responsible following a campus disciplinary procedure.

She just woke up to find him there? He just busted in and started grabbing her? Is her door not locked? If some strange guy grabbed any girl I've ever met she would start screaming or else strike him. Was he bruised? Was she? Scratched, cut, dishelved, etc.? Anything? The article doesn't say; perhaps she was too drunk to remember. I'm guessing right off that he was more sober than she. She "woke up" to find him there. Was he a cat buglar? I'm guessing he just walked right in, girded his loins and made his play - which she rebuffed eventually.

This is classic he-said, she-said, yet the article does not reach for the first thing the police do: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. Without that, how do you know there has been any crime? Because someone claimed there was? That doesn't mean it actually happened, girls. Don't trust the "victim" because she claims to be a victim. Look for evidence.

Let's get what little we have of his side.

Telephone and e-mail messages for the male student were not returned. When interviewed by campus police, he said the victim was looking at him as he kissed her and didn’t tell him to stop.

He said he began to feel weird because she didn’t seem “into it," the police report states. Asked by police if he put his hands near or under her pants, the assailant “nodded in the affirmative and said ‘I may have,’ ’’ according to the report.

The student’s father then told his son he did not have to answer further questions, the report states.

He kissed her and she let him (not surprising, kissing isn't like being stabbed, dear reader), plus she was drunk and not in her right mind - as always you'll see that his drinking is his responsibility, her drinking is something he's supposed to notice, plan for, and take responsibility for as well. Next? Seems he made another move and it snapped her out of her drunken stupor (or changed her mind - her right) and told him to leave and he did - the poor, stupid guy probably had no idea she was drunk; men seldom understand when women are drunk until they start acting strangely - she was sleepy, or else asleep and he didn't realize why. No screaming, no violence, no 'assault' of any kind took place by either party. He certainly didn't seem to intend to actually hurt her and her intoxicated state probably resulted in him thinking she was fine with what was happening.

In other words, what we have, YET AGAIN, is a couple of college kids drinking, a guy making a move, and a misunderstanding arising. Imagine that.

The "victim" in the case is horrified that the "assailant" wasn't drawn and quartered.

MassArt sanctioned him by placing him on probation until graduation, and ordering him to stay away from the victim and participate in an educational workshop and counseling, according to US Department of Education records obtained by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting. The victim complained to the department’s Office for Civil Rights about the inadequacy of the sanctions, but the agency determined the school did nothing wrong, the records show.

“I’m kind of blown away because what he did to me, in a criminal court, would be a felony,’’ said the victim, a MassArt transfer student, now a senior. “It’s just really weird that his rights come before mine.’’

Sorry Ms. Victim, you're WAY off the mark. Let me help you.

In Massachusetts felonies are often defined as crimes that are the most serious and are more grave than misdemeanors. Felony charges usually offer a prison sentence of at least one year. This amount of time depends on severity of the crime.

Felonies in Massachusetts include rape, fraud, racketeering, burglary, assault and battery, grand theft, aggravated assault, illegal drug use and possession, embezzlement, kidnapping, murder, robbery, and arson.

Burning and killing, madam. Those are serious crimes. Misunderstandings are not. They're not even misdemeanors. Further, we have millions of people in jail for being in possession of some illegal drugs who are otherwise non-violent, tax-paying citizens; you want to add to that men who were too forward?

In your case, Ms. Victim, there is no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to suggest a crime even took place. IN THIS COUNTRY, EVEN IF A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED, UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THE ACCUSED GOES FREE. This can be pretty inconvenient sometimes and downright ugly other times. But it protects the innocent.

Is the man in this case innocent - no. He's guilty of not figuring out the girl he was making a pass at was in a alcohol-induced stupor. Was he taking advantage of her? I doubt it. If he was, he didn't go very far - a kiss and some touching? Some predator he is. He wasn't TOLD by the 'victim' something was wrong until after he did it. You want us to put this kid in jail for that? Are you kidding? Under what law? Illegally making out? If this was gross sexual misconduct or assault, fine, let him do the punishment for that. But what evidence is there of that? Did she scream, cry, push him away, punch him, kick him, etc.? Anything? No. Why not? Because she was too drunk to understand what was happening and he was too stupid.

When guys attempt to "make out" they kiss a girl, usually. Then move a little further and a little further. That's what this guy was doing. He was too scared to talk to her and apparently felt there was something between them. So he may be both stupid and socially awkward - both of those things are not crimes. The school's conclusion? Pretty much my own; she was too drunk to get around to stop him from touching her after he KISSED her, and he was too stupid to realize she was drunk. So they tell him to stay away from her (they should've sent him to a how-to-be-a-lady-slayer seminar). That might've done more good.

If you believe his story, he kissed her and received no negative feedback so he continued even though it felt "weird," but he stopped. Sound like a predator to you? He didn't rape this woman. He stopped. And he did leave. There was no "attack." She wasn't physically harmed. Legally, this is VERY gray. When someone is doing something to please you that you feel is injurious, YOU MUST SAY SOMETHING FAST BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THEY ARE "INJURING" YOU. He had no knife or gun. Until she said something, he thought he was doing something she liked. Stupid, naive, insensitive? Sure. Illegal? No.

Since we don't want things like this to happen, let's be honest about why men hang out with women to begin with, shall we? Its not to watch movies. We can do that with our buddies, thanks. My buddies and I watched movies in college - girls just started showing up - they wanted our attention and we didn't mind because we wanted to hit on them and get some physical affection, eventually. The girls had no pretenses about what we wanted. They were there and they knew what time it was; they kept a firm eye on us and we kept an eye on them to make sure we didn't cross any forbidden lines and there was never any misunderstandings. Modern day college men and women seem to get together and drink and think they are both after the same things for the same reasons; this is just foolish. Let's not be stupid, shall we?

The "authors" are still outraged that this dumb man and others like him aren't hung on the courthouse steps:

The Department of Education’s MassArt decision last October comes even as federal education officials are touting a tougher approach to colleges and universities that fail to adequately punish perpetrators of campus sexual assaults.

Speaking on the condition her name not be used, the MassArt victim said she is fearful of her attacker, whom she regularly sees on campus. She has considered dropping out, she said.

“I have had a hard time being a student at this school in the last year,’’ she said.

She sees him on campus because its a small campus. He committed no legal crime. He pays his tuition. The school cannot just kick him out of school and charge him with a felony because she's upset. That's not the way the law works. If we based the law on crimes with no evidence but someone's word, lots of confused people would be in jail and this would all amount to witch-hunting.

Further she claims she "fears" him. Why? Has he been accused of harassing her, stalking her, threatening her, calling her, contacting her, e-mailing her, or any derivative thereof? No. Just a bad, drunken pass. He stays away from her as he was told. He's probably afraid of her too. Jesus Christ, a misunderstanding with her nearly got him thrown in jail. Would you go near her if you were him?

The authors in this article focus entirely on her feelings as if they were perfect and unfettered truth. This is foolish and childish of them at least and grossly incompetent at worst. Further, they seem to agree with her because they share her feelings on the matter; that men are unthinking predators to be feared and that this 'incident' is a prime example of it. As a logically-thinking adult, I must emphatically say: GIVE ME A BREAK.

But they won't let it go:

The Office for Civil Rights’ effort to crack down on schools failing to adequately punish assailants follows a series of reports on campus sexual assaults led by the Center for Public Integrity and published last year

Adequately punish "assailants"?!?!?! What does that mean? Throw a girl, a guy, emotions and alcohol in a bottle, mix them up and then start convicting people of felonies? That's a good idea, now, isn't it? The authors do not even acknowledge that false rape charges are possible, that they have happened, and that they can ruin a man's life and even put an innocent man in jail. True rapists or sexual predators, I have no pity for. Hang them on the courthouse steps, quite frankly. But you better be GODDAMN SURE that's what you're hanging! Otherwise this turns into a low-grade witch hunt for any man who did something while intoxicated that another intoxicated person believes to be "inappropriate." Again, with all due respect, give me a break. If you walked into a middle eastern country and told them girls and boys with lots of hormones should live in close quarters, party and drink, they would look at you cross-eyed and ask you how you got to be so stupid. Yet that's exactly what's done in this country and ONLY THE MEN who get mixed up in these "incidents" are accused of improper, AND EVEN ILLEGAL!, activity.

This kind of attitude has resulted in universities passing laws requiring a man "ask permission to touch a woman (such as put his hand on her leg) or kiss her." And they say romance is dead. Imagine that. The current thinking, laws, regulations and attitudes between men and women propagated by people like the authors, the mindset that all men should be girls' protectors and 'sense' when they've had too much to drink or are doing something they don't want to do WHILE they are doing it, or else go to jail for it, is what KILLED romance. It is exactly the reason why college campuses are FULL of frustrated, lonely girls who discover the supply of "well-employed, available men" outside of college is actually MUCH WORSE. Would you want to be a guy trying to kiss a girl on one of these campus's? How would you do it? Better make sure she likes you, wants you, is comfortable with everything you are doing ahead of time, isn't inebriated, isn't going to change her mind about what you are doing, and isn't going to accuse you of any Class A felonies afterwards.

This is why guys play videos games. The rules are much clearer and the game is much less work.

Further, bear in mind, dear reader, that colleges are defining "sexual assault" as what happened in the example previously examined here. Was this really a sexual assault? She admits there was no violent sexual attack, only inappropriate groping which her 'assailant' thought was not wanted until after the fact. When did she tell him no? What EXACTLY happened? He's afraid of saying anything that could be used against him - and he should be - and her story leaves many, many unanswered questions. There is no evidence of violence and no evidence GROSS misconduct. Just two careless, intoxicated kids. I am happy to convict this man of misconduct, but there just isn't any hard evidence suggesting it, and the authors of this article refuse to provide any. They have convicted him based solely on the word of an intoxicated person and moved on to save the "hordes" of other female victims on college campuses, nationwide, who are similarly "attacked."

I have seen and read of genuine incidents of valid sexual assault and rape, and a blame-the-victim response to it. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE. Do NOT compare apples and oranges. I have no problem with the guilty doing their well-deserved punishment for genuine crime. But I have no desire to send what would be a taxpaying citizen to jail where he will become a taxpayer EXPENSE for what amounts to an improper sexual gesture that was not, at first, rejected.

The authors need to use their head and quit trying to 'save' every female romantic complaint and focus on GENUINE societal problems and crimes. Would the authors like to help AVOID incidents like this? Then make behavioral recommendations to prevent misunderstandings from happening in the first place.

I would start with suggesting the ladies demand respect and romantic gestures from men; yeah, that's right, demand romance! How do you demand romance? You can start by not dressing like whore, getting drunk, gyrating suggestively on the dance floor and throwing guys come-hither looks (standard weekend college behavior, I've seen plenty of them). Be ladylike, honest and vocal with men at all times. For men: act like gentlemen and treat women with respect - and its easy to treat ladylike women with respect; sorry, respect isn't the first thing that comes to mind when a girl is impersonating Madonna, on-stage. I will always sympathize with the men because I am one and because I know the mindset of a man, intoxicated or not, when surrounded by flirtatious, intoxicated, sexy, scantily-clad college girls; it can't possibly result in anything good for them or for the intoxicated men surrounding them.

The ladies have been told or else have been given the message that dressing VERY provocatively, drinking and acting like a dominatrix around intoxicated men is a good idea; some I believe have divined you will hook a boyfriend this way. THIS IS A LIE. It results in getting no respect, fleeting, bad sex, no intimacy and basically being treated like who you are impersonating: a prostitute. Sorry, this man-fan doesn't like seeing women treated like that. I think they deserve better. But then feminists hate me, so that makes sense.

While I believe men should be held responsible for their actions, I have no doubt you will find dear reader, more gentlemen are to be found in countries that contain women who insist men be gentlemen; they are also the ones that insist ladies act like ladies. And another thing - the ladies in these countries don't have to hunt for dates, as in this one - the men court them. COURT them. Romantically. The ladies have their pick of COURTING GENTLEMEN. Misunderstandings like the one described here are practically non-existent and there are no articles in Cosmo asking where all the "real men" are. But we have "transcended" that way of courtship here.

Look at how well its working for us.


Thursday, February 24, 2011

The Law - Useless...... for you at least, pleb

I don't know how anyone takes the law seriously anymore. When I was a kid it seemed to be somewhat intact - of course reality is that it started crumbling back in the 1920s when excess wealth - mainly funded by stock and equity speculation (sound familiar?) - bought and paid for enough politicians to cause Congress to start passing laws to set prices, interfere with the economy and trade (tariffs) and basically do anything to support their rich friends who were at the top of the capitalist food chain.

Then the mafia became a major player and managed to dodge prosecution for murder, extortion, bribery and the like until the Justice Department and FBI finally cracked down - read that again - the LOCAL POLICE were bought and paid for; it was the Federal police who ultimately enforced the law. And I say that as someone who is no fan of Federal power at all. As the 1920s and recent credit crisis (that's banker speak for credit contraction- a normal and healthy economic phenomenon.) have shown, enough money buys even the Feds, Hell the President is on the take; where do you think his campaign money came from? Little donors like you?

Yeah, right.

This is an example of the local goon squad run amok:

I'll sum up for those unfamiliar with the case. Some off-duty cops had a bachelor party and of course got drunk, and apparently someone had ordered a private stripper (ahead of time). Well if you've never known a frat party brother, when a stripper comes, she doesn't just come alone into a roomful of what could be large, drunk and ornery men. She brings a man for security with her. Its common practice. So the stripper and her man show up to the party (at 4 am), as ordered, and the bachelor had left residence to go somewhere else (WHERE, at 4 am?). So the remaining off-duty cops, instead of apologizing and offering to handle it later, or else negotiate for something to compensate the woman and security guard for their time and trouble, just tell them to both get lost. Well it seems the stripper and her bodyguard were a little ticked (understandably) and demanded some kind of compensation, gas money and the like - the off-duty cops said no way. So the stripper and bodyguard left and went to the street and got in their car. The off-duty cops followed them (you should be wondering why). The bodyguard got out to ask them what they were doing as one of them was photographing his license plate. At that point all four off-duty cops jumped him and beat him up (I mean, how DARE HE challenge their authority!). He sustained cuts, bruises and a fractured eye socket - this is what happens when 4 men beat you up. The stripper claims she was terrified for him and backed the car up towards him. The cops stopped the beating but they had a new problem.... a real cop showed up. You know, IN UNIFORM, ON THE JOB. He talked to his 4 buddies and arrested..... the beaten bodyguard. For assault. I'm not kidding. He actually did this. The 4 off duty cops were without a scratch on any of them. He made no police report (wha?) and threw the victim in jail, but never charged him with a crime (you readers with a brain ought to be screaming at the monitor how you can throw someone in jail without even CHARGING them with a crime as this amounts to arbitrary and capricious detention without cause). And pray tell dear reader, WHAT COP SHOWS UP TO A SCENE WITH 4 MEN WHO HAVE BEEN DRINKING AND ONE BEATEN MAN AND CONCLUDES THE ONE BLOODIED SOBER GUY ATTACKED THE 4 DRUNKS? I have a very good friend who is a cop (and a good one). This guy can tell if you're lying before you can. He was also trained that, guess what, drinking doesn't exactly make most men non-violent; some may just get sleepy (like me) but as my gramps says - alcohol must be mixed with either condoms or boxing gloves because when people take it they seem to want to do one of the other. For these goons, it was clearly boxing gloves. Well the genius on-duty cop decided the drunks standing next to the beaten victim were innocent and telling the complete truth.

Give me a break.

Well the bodyguard was no idiot it seems. He got a lawyer, who of course demanded the police report. The police department claimed it was "investigating," produced no report, suspended the 4 officers WITH PAY for 4 months (that's called a vacation where I come from), and dragged the incident out until everyone more or less forgot about it. Then.... FOUR MONTHS after the incident, they charge TWO of the four men with MISDEMEANOR assault (yawn) and charged the victim with FELONY ASSAULT. Forget the pathetic charges against 2 of the 4 perpetrators - WHAT EVIDENCE suggests that the beaten man assaulted the others? Did he have bruised knuckles? Nope. Did the 4 off-duty cops have bruises, marks, broken bones, etc.? Nope. Did the one NON-POLICE witness see the bodyguard fight back? No. Did the bodyguard make threats before supposedly jumping FOUR men, according to anyone at the scene? No. So then why was he charged with a crime? Well this cute little ploy worked wonders you see; the prosecutors told the beaten man's lawyer "You drop your charges and we'll drop ours." Everyone is then magically acquitted and goes home. The man with the broken eye socket? He gets nothing. NOTHING. The four drunk thugs, who also happened to be cops, that beat him senseless? After a 4 month paid vacation, they went back to work - THEY WEREN'T EVEN SANCTIONED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, NOT BUSTED A GRADE, NOT SUSPENDED, NOTH-ING. The story from the Police department? Well, you see, small pleb, it was all handled by the appropriate authorities, now there's no need to worry, we have handled it, we gave the officers a stern warning and now everyone can go on with their lives. There's nothing to see here, just move along, little pleb, we are the authorities and we make the decisions, so don't ask too many questions, its not good for you.

When I was young that kind of incident would've at least cost the officers their jobs and probably misdemeanor assault charges at least, if not felony charges. Losing their jobs would've been a given and it would've been the least of their worries. Today? A four month TAXPAYER-FUNDED vacation and a return to the same job. THE GESTAPO WOULD BE PROUD, EH COMRADE?

IS THAT SOME KIND OF FUCKING JOKE? These men ARE NOT FIT TO BE POLICEMEN. THEY COMMITTED FELONY ASSAULT - ANY OTHER CITIZEN IN THAT SITUATION IS PROSECUTED AND CHARGED. They clearly ABUSED their authority at a time WHEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ANY! OUT OF UNIFORM they STILL felt ENTITLED to SAVAGELY ATTACK a man in an unprovoked manner and get away with it! Oh I'm sure they'll be sweet little cops now. Like a child who kicks his mom or dad in the leg and receives no admonishment, I'm sure those men have "learned their lesson." The lesson they learned is this: you can assault a ordinary citizen when drunk and receive no punishment AT ALL. These men are authority-drunk, power-hungry apes who feel the law does not apply to them! That they are part of a "special class" who is above the law! The only on-duty cop didn't even write a report! He arrested the victim! What is this, the Soviet Union!?!?!? Why would anyone trust the police? The high and mighty "law" does not apply to everyone equally and this is a clear example of that.

Divorced men who have been arrested when their wife assaulted them, thrown out of their homes and been hit with false restraining orders based on no evidence other than the word of a woman divorcing them are not surprised at this story. Family court routinely ignores due process including the right to question your accuser and hands out what amounts to stealing nearly 40% of your pay for up to 23 years and doesn't bat an eye. Why? Because feminazi, man-hating extremists have bent the law to allow such monstrosities to happen. Period. The constitution is ignored, the bill of rights is ignored, shocked and outraged men are told to "sit down and shutup," and innocent children are given to manipulative women who tell their children lies about their father and/or interfere with the pathetic 2 days a week the father IS ALLOWED by "the court" to see his own children, and then only if he pays their shakedown money, which commonly runs into the thousands for a simple, middle class man.


Tuesday, February 22, 2011



You want to get married. It's taken a while to admit it. Saying it out loud -- even in your mind -- feels kind of desperate, kind of unfeminist
[this is a larger theme: want happiness girls? kick that feminism streak to the curb.NOW].
, kind of definitely not you, or at least not any you that you recognize. Because you're hardly like those girls on TLC saying yes to the dress and you would never compete for a man like those poor actress-wannabes on The Bachelor.

You've never dreamt of an aqua-blue ring box.

Then, something happened. Another birthday, maybe. A breakup. Your brother's wedding. His wife-elect asked you to be a bridesmaid, and suddenly there you were, wondering how in hell you came to be 36-years-old, walking down the aisle wearing something halfway decent from J. Crew that you could totally repurpose with a cute pair of boots and a jean jacket. You started to hate the bride -- she was so effing happy -- and for the first time ever you began to have feelings about the fact that you're not married. You never really cared that much before. But suddenly (it was so sudden) you found yourself wondering... Deep, deep breath... Why you're not married.

Well, I know why.

How? It basically comes down to this: I've been married three times. Yes, three. To a very nice MBA at 19; a very nice minister's son at 32 (and pregnant); and at 40, to a very nice liar and cheater who was just like my dad, if my dad had gone to Harvard instead of doing multiple stints in federal prison.

I was, for some reason, born knowing how to get married. Growing up in foster care is a big part of it. The need for security made me look for very specific traits in the men I dated -- traits it turns out lead to marriage a surprisingly high percentage of the time. Without really trying to, I've become a sort of jailhouse lawyer of relationships -- someone who's had to do so much work on her own case that I can now help you with yours.

But I won't lie. The problem is not men, it's you. Sure, there are lame men out there, but they're not really standing in your way. Because the fact is -- if whatever you're doing right now was going to get you married, you'd already have a ring on it. So without further ado, let's look at the top six reasons why you're not married.

1. You're a Bitch.
Here's what I mean by bitch. I mean you're angry. You probably don't think you're angry. You think you're super smart, or if you've been to a lot of therapy, that you're setting boundaries. But the truth is you're pissed. At your mom. At the military-industrial complex. At Sarah Palin. And it's scaring men off.

The deal is: most men just want to marry someone who is nice to them. I am the mother of a 13-year-old boy, which is like living with the single-cell protozoa version of a husband. Here's what my son wants out of life: macaroni and cheese, a video game, and Kim Kardashian. Have you ever seen Kim Kardashian angry? I didn't think so. You've seen Kim Kardashian smile, wiggle, and make a sex tape. Female anger terrifies men. I know it seems unfair that you have to work around a man's fear and insecurity in order to get married -- but actually, it's perfect, since working around a man's fear and insecurity is big part of what you'll be doing as a wife.

[And you better fucking believe that's what husbands do for wives - DAILY.]

2. You're Shallow.
When it comes to choosing a husband, only one thing really, truly matters: character. So it stands to reason that a man's character should be at the top of the list of things you are looking for, right? But if you're not married, I already know it isn't. Because if you were looking for a man of character, you would have found one by now. Men of character are, by definition, willing to commit.

Instead, you are looking for someone tall. Or rich. Or someone who knows what an Eames chair is. Unfortunately, this is not the thinking of a wife. This is the thinking of a teenaged girl. And men of character do not want to marry teenaged girls. Because teenage girls are never happy. And they never feel like cooking, either.

3. You're a Slut.
Hooking up with some guy in a hot tub on a rooftop is fine for the ladies of Jersey Shore -- but they're not trying to get married. You are. Which means, unfortunately, that if you're having sex outside committed relationships, you will have to stop. Why? Because past a certain age, casual sex is like recreational heroin -- it doesn't stay recreational for long.

That's due in part to this thing called oxytocin -- a bonding hormone that is released when a woman a) nurses her baby and b) has an orgasm -- that will totally mess up your casual-sex game. It's why you can be f**k-buddying with some dude who isn't even all that great and the next thing you know, you're totally strung out on him. And you have no idea how it happened. Oxytocin, that's how it happened. And since nature can't discriminate between marriage material and Charlie Sheen, you're going to have to start being way more selective than you are right now.

4. You're a Liar.
It usually goes something like this: you meet a guy who is cute and likes you, but he's not really available for a relationship. He has some condition that absolutely precludes his availability, like he's married, or he gets around town on a skateboard. Or maybe he just comes right out and says something cryptic and open to interpretation like, "I'm not really available for a relationship right now."

You know if you tell him the truth -- that you're ready for marriage -- he will stop calling. Usually that day. And you don't want that. So you just tell him how perfect this is because you only want to have sex for fun! You love having fun sex! And you don't want to get in a relationship at all! You swear!
About ten minutes later, the oxytocin kicks in. You start wanting more. But you don't tell him that. That's your secret -- just between you and 22,000 of your closest girlfriends. Instead, you hang around, having sex with him, waiting for him to figure out that he can't live without you. I have news: he will never "figure" this out. He already knows he can live without you just fine. And so do you. Or you wouldn't be lying to him in the first place.

5. You're Selfish.

If you're not married, chances are you think a lot about you. You think about your thighs, your outfits, your naso-labial folds. You think about your career, or if you don't have one, you think about doing yoga teacher training. Sometimes you think about how marrying a wealthy guy -- or at least a guy with a really, really good job -- would solve all your problems.

Howevs, a good wife, even a halfway decent one, does not spend most of her day thinking about herself. She has too much s**t to do, especially after having kids. This is why you see a lot of celebrity women getting husbands after they adopt. The kids put the woman on notice: Bitch, hello! It's not all about you anymore! After a year or two of thinking about someone other than herself, suddenly, Brad Pitt or Harrison Ford comes along and decides to significantly other her. Which is also to say -- if what you really want is a baby, go get you one. Your husband will be along shortly. Motherhood has a way of weeding out the lotharios.
[My only reserve here - men don't prefer other people's kids, and you're not a Hollywood movie star, so skip this one and just be really serious about who you pick]

6. You're Not Good Enough.
Oh, I don't think that. You do. I can tell because you're not looking for a partner who is your equal. No, you want someone better than you are: better looking, better family, better job.

Here is what you need to know: You are enough right this minute. Period. Not understanding this is a major obstacle to getting married, since women who don't know their own worth make terrible wives. Why? You can fake it for a while, but ultimately you won't love your spouse any better than you love yourself
[ready that part ten times over aloud. Then repeat.]
. Smart men know this.

I see this at my son's artsy, progressive school. Of 183 kids, maybe six have moms who are as cute as you're trying to be. They're attractive, sure. They're just not objects. Their husbands (wisely) chose them for their character, not their cup size.

Alright, so that's the bad news. The good news is that I believe every woman who wants to can find a great partner. You're just going to need to get rid of the idea that marriage will make you happy. It won't. Once the initial high wears off, you'll just be you, except with twice as much laundry.

Because ultimately, marriage is not about getting something -- it's about giving it. Strangely, men understand this more than we do. Probably because for them marriage involves sacrificing their most treasured possession -- a free-agent penis -- and for us, it's the culmination of a princess fantasy so universal, it built Disneyland.

The bottom line is that marriage is just a long-term opportunity to practice loving someone even when they don't deserve it. Because most of the time, your messy, farting, macaroni-and-cheese eating man will not be doing what you want him to. But as you give him love anyway -- because you have made up your mind to transform yourself into a person who is practicing being kind, deep, virtuous, truthful, giving, and most of all, accepting of your own dear self -- you will find that you will experience the very thing you wanted all along:


Tuesday, February 15, 2011


Think of stories like this the next time you consider all police "good guys" and anyone they might be after a 100% "bad guy."

Two CA Men Sue for False Arrest in DV Cases
February 7th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The misuse of domestic violence laws and faulty police practices when DV is alleged just keep on coming. This case out of San Carlos, California (San Jose Mercury News, 2/4/11) bears some striking similarities to this one out of Atherton, California, just a few miles away (Palo Alto Online, 2/2/10).

In the more recent of the two, it looks like Mark Littell Adams’s wife went to the doctor to have a finger splinted. The doctor decided, on the basis of what we don’t yet know, that Mark had attacked her. So he called the police who, Adams says,

forced their way into his Kelton Avenue home on April 23 without a search warrant or probable cause, and arrested him on suspicion of domestic violence against his wife.


Prosecutors never filed charges against him and, three months later closed their file. Now, Adams has gone to court requesting that a judge make a finding of actual innocence in his case. If the judge agrees, Adams’s arrest record will be expunged. He’s also filed suit for deprivation of his civil rights.

Meanwhile, Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said,

“The evidence wasn’t sufficient enough for us to prosecute, but we also believe the evidence does not show his innocence.”


That’s interesting because, in the earlier case out of Atherton, he said

“It was not sufficient (evidence) to prosecute, but it was not a case where we would agree to declaration of factual innocence.”

Maybe someone should write some new lines for Mr. Wagstaffe. He’s overusing the ones he has. That’s because a judge in the earlier case agreed with the Atherton man police had arrested and in fact issued a formal declaration of innocence.


That case involved a man named Jon Buckheit who was involved with an unnamed woman. He placed a 911 call to police claiming she was being violent toward him, but, in an all-too-familiar outcome, they arrested him, not her.

Like Adams, he was arrested, like Adams he was never charged, like Adams he’s sued the police and county for violation of civil rights, like Adams he claimed actual innocence and like Adams it all came about amid allegations of domestic violence. And in both cases it was the man who was arrested despite there being no obvious evidence of wrongdoing on his part.

One aspect of the Buckheit case that may or may not be present in the Adams case is that a police officer seems to have illegally altered the police report of the incident to include an allegation of child abuse. The officer who actually made the original report testified under oath that it had been altered by another officer.


For his part, Adams says that he’s found it hard to get a copy of the audio tapes of his own arrest. That bears a definite resemblance to the same difficulties Buckheit had in getting his police report. And, in yet a further similarity, Adams says he thinks the audio tapes may have been doctored.

[What was I saying again? Something about tampering with evidence... Where the fuck do we live? Saudi Arabia? Are these police officers or hired goons? They are making a mockery of the entire police force. Why would anyone trust people like this?!?!?!]

We’ll see what happens in the two cases. But what’s happened so far isn’t exactly new. I’ve reported before that police are trained to believe that, in DV incidents, it’s men who are perpetrators and women who are victims, so it’s no great surprise when they act accordingly. Indeed it’s those rare occasions when a woman is arrested on a DV charge that are the exceptions.

The most telling example of all comes from the training materials for Maine police officers answering domestic violence calls. Not only are they written in almost exclusively gender-specific language, their hypothetical examples include not a single one in which officers are instructed to arrest the woman.

That’s true even in the case in which both the woman and the man admit to officers that she hit him and he didn’t hit her. Combined with objective evidence of injury, most people might think she would be the one arrested, but no; police learn that, once again, he’s the correct one to arrest even though he has committed no crime.

That looks a lot like what happened a continent away in the Adams and Buckheit cases.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Runaway Husband Syndrome

Make sure it doesn't happen to you. Because its a vicious and dangerous killer and its on the move. It could gobble up your children at night, it could ruin your life. So be prepared! Learn to spot the signs! Your husband could LEAVE YOU! So check for any sign that he could be going and if you spot something suspicious, why maybe you should leave him first! Call a lawyer! Know your rights! Know what you are ENTITLED to!

[At this point, most divorced men should have killed their computer monitor as many men have been divorced for reasons which still leave their mouths agape, questioning what happened after coming home to a locked door or accusatory state social worker].

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit:

"As a therapist, she had counselled couples on divorce, but Stark was completely unprepared for the disintegration of her marriage."

- Are you freaking kidding me. Nice piece of journalism, dear author. She's a couples therapist who couldn't keep her own marriage together? She saw no signs, held no suspicions, heard no complaints, etc.? Impressive. What intuition. That's like being a professional golfer who can't get par at the local mini-golf. What does she tell her clients? I assume advice she herself cannot take? My guess is that her husband is the Lester Burnham type (See American Dream) and he just goes along with the program. She's too busy having a big, sexy career to notice her husband is a self-loathing schmuck. So was he... until he decided not to be, it seems.

"Three years ago, Montreal author and therapist Vikki Stark took the red-eye flight home from a book tour, eager to be back in her loving husband's arms."

Oh, cute. Check it out - she takes a HARD, HARD flight back from HER OWN book tour, to see her 'loving husband.' I guess his job was to go meet her at the airport and welcome her back from her long trip. A trip that was all about her success and her career. Jesus, I'm already thinking this was one understanding guy. So she has a big shot career. What does he have? What does he contribute to the family, to the relationship? It sounds like she makes the money. I mean, he's at home, apparently, waiting for HER.

"How do you deal with the hit to self-esteem when you feel like an old dish rag he threw away?" she said. "How do we turn anything life throws at us for an opportunity for growth?"

Sorry? He "threw you away?" How? This lady was on her own book tour - hey lady, what was your husband doing? Does he have a career that he LEAVES YOU AT HOME FOR WEEKS AT A TIME FOR? And if he did, would someone whisper the word 'selfish' about him? Would someone ask him what his wife did all alone for weeks? I guess he understood your career.... or you thought he did. But perhaps you running off to your career (like a mistress, nearly), for weeks at a time, made him feel like the one that was a old dish rag that was thrown away? Do ya' think? Just maybe? Emasculating maybe? Yeah.

"More than 400 of women aged 45 to 60 from around the world responded to her online survey, and their stories were mind-boggling."

Around the world? Wow. A whole 400. Blow me down. 400 out of.... what hundreds of millions? You could make it 5000 women and still be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the women in the world. That number does not EVEN BEGIN to portend any sudden-man-leaving crisis. Besides, the reasons for those husbands leaving could be wide and varied and have nothing to do with her situation. Her husband had no role. He couldn't contribute anything she couldn't. The only job left for him was to cook and clean and apparently that wasn't enough for him. He should've told her that a long time ago. Now she has to troll for another poor-luck loser. Study after study shows testosterone-filled, alpha-male, top-earning men are happier than the "even-steven" earning men, and the WIVES of the higher-earning men are happier than the wives of the earning-equal wives, but I guess book-tour genius didn't read those studies. Of course she could've just had a heart-to-heart talk with two dozen non-alpha lesbians but that was too much work as well. She was too busy patting herself on the back for knowing so much. Take a lesson, madam. Relationships are like the ocean or the stock market - just when you think you have them figured out they blow up in your face. Be humbled, priestess.

As always, the author, Ms. Stark, directs the entirety of her book on HIM. What the man did wrong. What he was after. Why she wasn't good enough for him (meaning his false expectations). Blah, blah, blah. What she might've done wrong? Her culpability in his leaving? Non-existent to this woman. In other words, she doesn't really want to know why he left. She wants to make herself feel better; she wants to convince herself it wasn't her fault. At all. Even a little bit. What bunk.

Blissfully we get to the truth, which the author somehow is blown away by. What a moron. Here it is:

"[The men] are often pillars of the community: doctors, dentists, professors, pastors, little league coaches, who seemed to be involved with their families and community.

"People look at the couple and see them as having the model marriage," she said. "That's part of why it's so devastating to friends and family -- if that couple could split up, what marriage is secure?" [Oh Lord - what is this, a NOW poster article for divorce and distrust of all men everywhere?]

In 95 percent of the cases, Stark found, the men ran to other women, almost always younger, but surprisingly not "trophy wives."

"The girlfriend is not sexy and gorgeous," said Stark. "Often she is rather ordinary, not as accomplished as the wife and looks up to him and laughs at his jokes and makes the man feel like he's king of the world."

Holy shit. There you go. You can act surprised now. And I do mean act. So the secret to men's hearts is.... not net total sexiness of a woman? IMAGINE THAT. He's a human being. No kidding. Who'd'a thunk it? So the lady he winds up with is... a feminine woman who looks at him as a provider with a distinct role in the relationship, someone who admires him and needs him. Stunning. Really. I'm blown away. I mean, what MAN (not mangina, ladies) would want a woman like that!?!?! Oh guess what ladies - all men more or less want that. He doesn't want to compete with you to make money or be very successful. That's mostly HIS role. Or at least the one he ENJOYS living. Welcome to THE TRUTH. Men with balls (like me), say it. YOU seldom hear it or believe it when you do. When you out-earn your man or else out-accomplish him, he feels like a second-class citizen because that's what men are supposed to do. You're doing his job better than he can. Congrats. So what do you need him for? And don't give me a load of shit about "wanting" him or "loving him" or any of that other bullshit. Love and want are sweet for kiddie stories. But out in the real world they come and go. Love can be fleeting, I'm sad to say. As Chris Rock said, You can fall in and out of love with your wife several times over the course of your relationship. Now, NEED on the other hand.... Need, IN THE REAL FRICKING WORLD, is truthfully much more dependable. These men have a role with their new ladies. They are needed. They do something she can't do. It makes them feel worthwhile, depended on, needed, relied on. That makes men feel good. GET IT!?!?!? EVERYTHING about their old wife DID NOT make them feel ANY OF THAT. And that is a BAD thing. Comprendé? With his new wife he gets to feel like a MAN. A God-made, chest-thumping gorilla. Not someone's girlfriend with a penis. Kill the word 'partner' someone. It suggests everyone does the same things and should be happy to do the same things. Men have been force fed this shit and they've swallowed it, grudgingly. But the deep down truth is that they fucking hate it. I want to feel like a man and make you feel like a woman. Want to be someone's perfectly equal double's partner? THEN GO PLAY TENNIS WITH MABEL FROM NEXT DOOR. I'm your fucking husband. I make hard decisions, eat people for money, provide, keep the kids inline, and fuck your brains out. Sound so terrible? I've got article after article all over the web and traditional media about girls practically BEGGING to know where all the "men" have gone. Real men sister. The men I describe. Some women turned off by that? No sweat. There is some mangina waiting for them somewhere. The rest? They are smiling ear to ear at what I described. The marlboro man. Trust me. I've talked to them. You might try my little lost author.

It typically works out best when the man has the big shot career and his wife doesn't because if she had one too then tell me who cooks, who cleans, does the laundry and takes care of the kids? Answer: no one. The women's movement claims it'll just magically get done or else you will both do it. Yeah, right. That's been the cause of half the man-woman fights in America. Men just traditionally DON'T CARE as much as women do how clean the house or kitchen is. They just don't. Period. Forcing them to doesn't change reality. And sharing is the 'best' case scenario here. In our above case, wifey is gone away with her bigshot career. So the above list falls solely on hubby's shoulders. I guess he doesn't care. Or more likely, he did, but didn't have the balls to say so because his wife is the family breadwinner. So what happened? He realized he'd rather live life poor with his balls intact.

Me too buddy.

More nonesense:

"Many wives reported their husbands were "disgruntled and unhappy" at work, and figured they couldn't leave the job, but could change partners."

No, they wanted a job they could be more successful at and maybe change your relationship dynamic which is pretty shitty at present.

"According to Stark's research, these runaways appear attentive and engaged before they check out, never mentioning discontent. They are typically "conflict avoiders" and described by their wives as "narcissistic.""

No, they can't admit they feel like a loser because they make squat and live off their own fucking wife. Yes, it is their fault if they are discontent, but don't tell their wife that. But what exactly are they going to say? That he's jealous of his own wife's success? The comeback to that he already knows: "If my being successful is a problem, why don't YOU go out and become a success? I'm not going to be an underachiever so that you can feel better!" And of course, that's all true. But since this guy can't or won't do that, he's made another choice: find a different woman that makes him seem more of a alpha male. Bad choice? Not as bad as deciding to marry a woman who always had more potential than he did. If a man is threatened by that, fine; but don't marry a woman like that. And ladies... for the most part... don't marry guys who are going to resemble your housekeeper more than they will your husband.

"But when they blurt out the news, their reasons are "nonsensical, exaggerated, trivial or fraudulent," she said. Oddly, she reported, most of the men leave between October and January, perhaps because their unhappiness is amplified by holiday stress."

She's reaching here. The holidays make them feel more like a pussy because other guys are giving expensive presents and feeling, you know, LIKE A MAN. While these guys get by just because their wife offers them a joint checking account. Holidays make them feel more pathetic.

"Quite a number of men and women have affairs, and I can understand where marriages do break down," she said, "but to leave without involving a spouse at all?"

Wait, what? Men AND women have affairs? What does that prove? So the men aren't cheating anymore than the women are?

"It's like a parasitic relationship," she said. "He depends on his wife, and when he finds someone else to boost his self-esteem, he hops from the wife to the next partner."

Nope. Not even close. He has no self-esteem with you. Zero. His new lady gives him one. The poor pussy can't even tell you he resents you for emasculating him. Why don't you just bench press more than he can while you're at it.

"When women seek help, often therapists don't understand how devastating it is, said Stark."

This is fucked. And when a man is divorced by his wife, who leaves with his house, his kids and so much of his money he can never have a private life ever again... WHAT DOES THAT GUY FEEL? Why don't you look up divorced male suicide rates and learn a fucking lesson you frigging moron.

"Reality is distorted and the sense of betrayal is huge," she said. "If I can't trust 'George,' who I trusted with my heart and mind, who can I trust? You start to question all relationships."

No kidding. That serial dater breaking some poor woman's heart on page 2 of Dear Abbey? Yeah. Now you know how he trusts women about as far as he can throw them. I imagine you'll do the same. Isn't divorce great!

Go focus on your career. Its your brand new husband. Don't cry and be lonely, it makes a bad professional impression.

Addendum: To buttress my earlier thoughts, examine here, dear reader, there is a central theme at play here: two people in a relationship both sacrifice for one another - this is a tried and true axiom of marriage. When one person is having an AMAZING career, then the other often takes a supporting role - when a man plays the supporting role, this threatens him and that should be understood early on. Secondly, when both people have bigshot careers, that takes a helluva lot of time out of the relationship. Both people will feel "cheated" out of time with the other, and both will demand more and get less. A career can be every bit as demanding as a spouse - even more so. Many successful and "famous" people (Emeril, Martha Stewart, etc.) got divorced along the way. Why? Because they lived at work. They basically married their job. And I don't know anyone who can stay married to two people at the same time. One is hard enough. This is why the "traditional" method (oh, no, be scared! the word 'traditional' was used!) is for the man to have a career and for his wife to stay home with the kids - some people can live with the opposite, but many try to and fail. Many find out that they are not as "flexible" and "liberal" as they thought they were when it comes to gender roles and money. And that's fine. The truth is most men and women want "traditional" roles and studies show that men and women in those roles more often report being happy. What is happening with situations like the one above is that a man - a weak man - who didn't know what he wanted or who lied about what he wanted - swallowed the feminazi "line." That men should somehow feel guilty for not supporting a successful spouse and should eat their pride and their masculinity and accept the fact that they are the "supporting" spouse because their wife "deserves" it.

Deserve has nothing to do with anything here. And her happiness is not superior to his and vice versa. Some men can do it - some just aren't threatened by their wife's success and have their own hopes and dreams that they take responsibility for. But for many men, its just too emasculating. Its not right or wrong - its just the truth, and if it upsets someone's social agenda, I don't give a shit. Men - be who are, period.

Ladies - better really grill your man about how accepting he is about your career, and you better really appreciate him if he is accepting; it generally goes against his nature and as you've seen above.... that can blow up in both your faces.

Further, regardless of your gender, any career that is TOO successful will wind up being your ONLY relationship; this seems to be especially the case for women. When someone talks about being professionally 'successful' you should immediately think they are alone or will be soon. Professional success eventually tends to equal personal failure. And THAT, it should be pointed out, typically hits women MUCH harder than it hits men; again, THIS IS WHY WOMEN MORE NATURALLY ASSUME A SUPPORTING ROLE. Given that most women judge themselves by the success of their relationships, perhaps a bigshot career is not their path to real happiness?

Now its time for our female readers to buy a REALLY nice handbag, down an apple martini and think about going shoe shopping tomorrow; these things are the modern woman's elixir for the chronic love deficiency that makes her deeply unhappy morning, noon, and night.


Friday, February 11, 2011

The Sad State of Affairs

Do I really have to say?

From Yahoo Marriage and Family:

If you told these lines to WOMEN from so-called "conservative" countries they would ask you just how long it took your man to get rid of you as you clearly are a selfish person who does not even BEGIN to understand what it takes to be married. Here, of course, it passes as run-of-the-mill.