The Hollywood Baby Snatcher, womin need babies too..

Look, before we even start I would like it to be known that all women are blameless and should never ever be sentenced to prison because they just have no idea of what they are really doing...

I strongly support any treatment that will ensure that all women will act as normal human beings..

It's got something to do with "feminism"..

And I am really pissed that any of you misogynists actually accuse wommyn of doing anything wrong..

Okay...I am suing..

The Hollywood Baby Snatcher: The sinister story of the woman who stole children and sold them to the stars
By Zoe Brennan
29th January 2009


The baby snatcher: Georgia Tann stole children from their real families and sold them for her own profit

As she watched her baby coughing in her cot in a corner of her tiny apartment, Alma Sipple felt increasingly desperate.

A single mother in Tennessee, she could not afford medical care for ten-month-old Irma. Suddenly, a knock on the door heralded a turn in her fate: there stood a woman with close-cropped grey hair, round wireless glasses and a stern air.

She exuded authority as she explained she was the director of a local orphanage and had come to help. Alma rushed to show the lady her sickly child.

Examining the baby, the woman offered to pass her off as her own at the local hospital in order to obtain free treatment. She warned Alma not to accompany her, explaining: 'If the nurses know you're the mother, they'll charge you.'

Lifting the child from the cot, the woman turned on her heel and disappeared. Two days later, Alma was told her baby had died.

In fact, Irma had been flown to an adoptive home in Ohio. Alma would not see her daughter again for 45 years.

For far from being her saviour, the woman who had taken Irma was a baby thief.

For 30 years, Georgia Tann made millions selling children. A network of scouts, corrupt judges and politicians helped her steal babies. She also targeted youngsters on their way home from school, promising them ice cream to tempt them away from their homes.

Legal papers would be signed saying they were abandoned - most would never see their families again.

How do I deal with women and feminism...Fair question..

Got this interesting comment and feel it necessary to just enlighten a few people on the origins of this blog..

WooZoo ask..

1) You have 4 daughters, what would you recommend, that men tell his daughters, given the fact that the feminist movement is as powerful as it is?

I was fortunate enough to be able to educate my daughters via action rather than words. The situation I found myself in determined that I do one of two things.

1. I either take care of them or
2. I pass it off to someone else.

The second option was not an option..

Twenty five years later, I asked my girls (now aged 28-32) for a get-together to discuss precisely this and my first question was..

Tell me about your child hood ?

They all said " you were there for all of us, we all have memories of you taking us everywhere, to the beach, roller skating, swimming, hiking, camping, walking, gardening, cooking, everything"..

Now I must admit that I did not ask that question because I already knew the answer as I had no idea and didn't have any idea what the response would be. So I was truly amazed with that response..
But I did make a conscious decision that they were my offspring, they were my kids and they were my responsibility and if that is the case I was going to enjoy looking after them..

I realised early on that keeping kids at home, especially four kids under five was going to be a major mistake. So I would organise to be anywhere else but at home. I enjoyed it as much as they did..

2)How, do we get past hating women. I realise that this is my first reaction to the in-justice of it all. I want, to move away from negativity... but I'm unsure of how to go about it?
I don't hate women either, but the in-justice of laws, behaviour, stupidity have me: I admit: confounded.

What are your thoughts?

I have never said or feel that I hate women to begin with. I have loathed them for their actions, denigrated them for their selfishness, ignored them for their privileged attitude but I have never hated them..

You have to remember that there are quite a few women out there that think the same way you and I do. I have a female "PhD" staying with me tonight that is of the same opinion as I, so we are not alone..

What we have to do is get the word out. It is for this reason that we have to FLOOD the web with an incredible amount of MRA sites so that anyone at anytime will stumble upon one and be educated..

They need it and want to be shown that feminism is just another fallacy, another experiment, another joke that will not work..
Even if we just echo each other's sites. Does not matter. You can set your own blog in thirty seconds..

Want to know how, ASK ME..
Be an MRA today..

What's holding YOU back ?

The University of New Hampshire.. The moron epicentre..

I have been monitoring this University just to see how moronic or how stupid the level would reach before I finally had to expose them..

This has taken a year of wallowing in their inane drivel, their politically correct poison and to top it off..
Cow-towing (intentional spelling) feminist abeyance..

Here is one line that has me somewhat flummoxed..

Her speech was enthusiastic and called for change to change.

I know, I know..

But this came from here..

The University of New Hampshire..

They actually printed that comment..

Her speech was enthusiastic and called for change to change.

I am wondering what level of moron that University is actually educating...

Link here..

How about this..

"I think it's [the prison system] something important to be conscious and aware of," said junior Ashley Forsberg.

Really ?

"One of the major social problems in this country is the deterioration of education," she said.

With the new administration announcing a focus on education, she hopes it will address prisons as well.

"It there's a commitment to fix the education system… there must also be a commitment to abolish the prison system," she said.

She felt the connection between the two was a "vicious circle," with prisons taking money away from education, causing more people to wind up prison, causing even more money to be taken from education for the prisons.

This actually makes sense to feminists and women in general, I know, I know..

Ah !! now I have got it. Not removing the prison system per se... No, No..No..No..

Only the privileged princesses ofcourse but they would never confess that if they can help it..

Still want to be converted at your local feminist indoctrinated University ?

Rather chew off my foot..

Hoping to achieve 2000 blog entries but ...

I was hoping to synchronise 2000 posts and 500,000 hits to this blog but all I could come up with was this

1,716 Posts, last published on Jan 30, 2009

Bugger..

I am going to have a wine anyway..

Cheers to all visitors and followers..

Hopefully my effort here has been an eye opener as well as an education. As I have stated on several occasions, I do not hate women at all. My initial motivation was for my four daughters whom I love dearly and found that if I did not make some effort in this age to fight against those feminist monsters I would loose my family to their lies and deceit..

What greater motivation was there..

But if life has demonstrated anything it is that you get what you work for and respect comes those that earn it..

Hopefully I have motivated some new "MRA's" and hopefully I can get some more motivated..



So, you are you waiting for what ?

Women are dependent on men...

It is worth having a look at some of the comments left at the site. Feminists are beside themselves as they try and justify their lying existence and try to dredge up insignificant reasons for their non-existing tolerance..

I found this article on www.antimisandry.com and realised that not everyone would see this article and ofcourse I just had to archive it..

Anything that demonstrates the total ignorance and stupidity of feminism is always welcome..

They should really change their t-shirts to state "this is what an irrelevant sheeple looks like", more suitable and definitely more appropriate after listening or reading their memorised lines and robotic verbal responses..

Sorry, but women are dependent on men
By DR NICK NEAVE
04 December 2006

We live in an age in which women have earned complete independence. So do they need men at all? According to Dr NICK NEAVE, an evolutionary psychologist from Northumbria University, not only do they need men, they are fundamentally programmed to depend on them. Here, Dr Neave, 41, explains his provocative thesis:

You're a successful woman with a job to die for, a fabulous home and a supportive husband, but do you ever get the urge to check his mobile phone for love messages? Or his bank statements for intimate meals a deux that you didn't share? And do you lie awake at night worrying how you'll cope if the worst happens, your fears are proved and your husband walks out?

Don't worry. Your suspicion is only natural. At the risk of sounding extraordinarily sexist, I'm convinced that women, even in the happiest of relationships, are programmed to worry their men are going to abandon them.

And they're terrified - in a way that most men find it frankly impossible to imagine. What's more, if their forebodings come true, women are more inclined to forgive an affair than a man if the shoe is on the other foot. That's not because they're nicer, more easygoing individuals. It's simply because their primeval urge to hang onto a male provider is so strong.

Women in the 21st century may boast that they are truly independent for the first time in our social history. They may tell themselves and each other that they don't need a man. They can even start a family on their own thanks to IVF techniques.

But, while feminists may argue this proves women have finally kicked off the shackles of dependence on men, I'm afraid they're wrong.

In evolutionary terms the huge cultural changes over the past generation amount simply to the merest blink of an eye. It could take another 10,000 years for women to change their thinking.

Quite simply, women are preprogrammed to feel dependent on men. Even today women may be richer and enjoy all the trappings of success but, deep down in their psyche, they fear they can't survive alone.

These women may be shooting up the career ladder and earning more than the men in their lives, but when it comes to relationships men still hold the trump card.

As an evolutionary psychologist, I study patterns of behaviour dating back to the first human societies, and constantly analyse evidence that demonstrates the key differences which have developed between the sexes since men were hunter-gatherers and women were child bearers.

Females are smaller and weaker than males so, in prehistoric times, women and their offspring were prone to being the victims of predators, and violence.

They needed the support and protection of men who didn't just have brute force but also had social status in the group, either through their sheer physicality or the strength of their personality.

That's why women still look for a mate of higher social standing.

If a woman had a relationship with a socially dominant male, she would immediately get greater access to resources because her social standing would be elevated, too.

As we shall see, modern surveys consistently show that women today ape those inherent characteristics by looking for partners who are socially dominant and have the respect of their peers, paying close attention to how men interact with, and are treated by, other men.

Men have a different reason for choosing a mate. The caveman needed to be sure he was raising a child who was genetically his. The best way of doing this was to secure a mate and guard her so she didn't get the chance to stray.

A man's natural instinct may be to have sex with a different woman every day, but to safeguard his relationship (and secure his progeny), he has been forced into a pattern of monogamy. don't even realise what's happening. When couples meet at speed-dating evenings, typically a man will judge a woman on her looks and youth. His priorities are whether she's healthy, interested in sex and can give him children one day. He doesn't care how much she earns or her social status.

Typically, however, a woman's first question will be: 'What job do you do?' It sounds a friendly overture, but what she really wants to know is his social position and earning capacity. Is he an industrious, hard worker, capable of providing for her and their children?

Because of his power, even the ugliest politician on the planet has women lining up to go to bed with him. Were he the local rat catcher, his love life would be a good deal quieter. As American statesman Henry Kissinger put it: 'Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.'

One might argue that it's only natural for today's women in their 30s or 40s to feel dependent on a man. After all, the vast majority were raised by mothers who by and large didn't have careers and were forced to rely financially on their husbands.

Yet study after study proves that today's women in their 20s are just as insecure. In a recent study, two American researchers, John Marshall Townsend from Syracuse University and Gary Levy from the University of Toledo, presented women with photographs of men.

The first group, described as doctors, wore designer ties, smart shirts and sported Rolex watches. The second wore plain shirts and Swatch watches and were described as teachers. The third group wore Burger King uniforms.

Women repeatedly picked doctors as potential boyfriends - even though many of the men in the third category were actually more handsome. Quite simply, to women a man's looks are less important than earning power and social standing.

In another study, male and female medical students were asked to pick their ideal mate from a selection of careers. The majority of men chose nurses. Women, however, picked hospital consultants. This demonstrates that, although every bit as financially successful as their male colleagues, these young women still feel they need men to confer power and social standing to a superior male.

It's no surprise to me that another study this year by sociologists at Virginia University found that couples are happiest in traditional marriages run on old-fashioned gender lines, where the man is the main breadwinner. The report showed conclusively that women who worked were more dissatisfied with their husbands than those who stayed at home.

One of the experts, W Radford Wilcox, said: 'Regardless of what married women say they believe about gender, they tend to have happier marriages when their husband is a good provider.'

Happiest of all were women whose husbands brought in at least two-thirds of the household income, regardless of how much they helped with domestic chores.

In short I suspect women will never feel truly comfortable earning more than their men. The need to rely on a man is driven by such a deep-seated biological urge, I cannot see it ever being eradicated completely.

Only last week, a survey by the Skipton Building Society concluded that many women who are the main breadwinner hold it against their partner for contributing less to the household budget than they do.

While those women might like the material rewards of their high salaries, they also dislike the financial responsibility - perhaps reflectingthe inbuilt genetic imperative to rely on someone else.

It is that instinctive need to rely on a man which makes women so afraid of abandonment. Perhaps that is why women are more attuned to their partner's moods and curious about tiny aspects of his life. And they are much better than men at spotting liars.

Evolutionary psychologists are convinced that these are in part throwbacks to a woman's need to maintain her relationship at all costs.

It's completely irrational for women, who can earn as much as men, to have a terror of being abandoned. Even if she can't work, the welfare state means she's not going to starve. Yet it's a real fear for many women. We have anecdotal evidence of women lying awake at night worrying how they'd cope.

Women are terrified of abandonment. They fear a drop in status or social standing that might come with divorce in a way men - who are driven by very different priorities - simply don't understand.

Even extremely wealthy, successful women have these vestigial anxieties which bear absolutely no relation to the reality of their lives, but are throwbacks to caveman society.

Ironically, although men actually fare less well after divorce and are often less happy, women typically are more frightened of living alone.

Men find it extremely hard to forgive an affair. This dates back to early man's horror of unwittingly raising another man's child. However, women are predisposed to be more tolerant of affairs. It comes down to brutal economics. The thought of your husband having sex with another woman may be devastating. But even worse is the prospect of him pouring all his financial resources her way.

Quite simply, women are so programmed to feel dependent that their subliminal urge to safeguard the home often outweighs the fury of being sexually betrayed.

Terror of being abandoned even drives the beauty industry. Eating clinics report a four-fold rise in the number of middle-aged women seeking help for anorexia and bulimia because they're desperate to look slim and youthful. These problems were once the province of teenage girls.

And while women may claim they are having cosmetic surgery and Botox treatments purely to feel better about themselves, I believe the reason is much more complex. Women are driven by a primeval urge to keep their men by looking youthful and fertile. Sexist? Maybe. True? I fear so.

Link to article..


Oh ! alright then, I 'll serve it with a reduced cream and wine sauce, sprinkled with garlic, herbs and served with a side salad. Heh !! I am a vegetarian too..

Update..
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Women are dependent on men...":

Women are extremely competitive with each other. If only men could understand this. It is not about love. It is about who is the top bitch.

They are not scared much to be alone. They fear to loose power because women are much more cruel than men. When women is missing something important what is considered by top bitches, she is going to be crushed by them they ´ll not miss any opportunity.

Young women are extremely cruel. And they have so much power over men. They know that men ´ll do anything to get them.

I know most men are not going to believe it they prefer to live in illusions. But it is not about men.

I cannot have babies and it doesn´t matter which topic is discussed they ´ll always turn it to "they have baby and I do not". I had to stop to relate to them at all or ´ll loose my mind. Men are angels compared to wom

en.

Australian Letter of the Year..

A comprehensive commentary on the incoherent civil service..

The answer is simple: Don't hire a woman...

The comment below may be something that was never expected by feminists and their ongoing demand for female supremacy. But we have the male-haters like Hillary Clinton to thank for this bit of misandry..

The answer is simple: Don't hire a woman
January 24, 2009
Patrice Lewis

Ha ha. Want to hear something funny? When I was offered this column last year, I honestly wondered if I could find something suitably interesting to write about every week.

I shouldn't have worried. Fortunately, we have our federal government as a constant source of hilarious entertainment.

The latest piece of mayhem, er, legislation to catch my attention is H.R.1388, the Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced (surprise surprise) by Hillary Rodham Clinton in July 2008. This Act takes "critical steps to help empower women to negotiate for equal pay." There's that word – empower – possibly the silliest term to enter our vocabulary in recent history (right along with "sustainable" and "self-esteem"). We're told women are so weak and helpless that we need empowerment from Hillary.

"Every American deserves equal pay for equal work," Hillary sniffs in a link that was removed three days ago. "It is disgraceful that four decades after the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, women in this country still earn only 78 cents on the dollar. The Paycheck Fairness Act is an attempt to right this historic wrong and I am proud to reintroduce it today."

What's not said is why women earn only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns. Could it be women are doing other things besides advancing in their careers? Could it be that they're raising children and running households? These things quite rightfully distract a woman from her outside job. Men tend to pursue their careers with single-minded intent. Women have more important things to do.

Most women, that is. I guess Hillary is the exception. I seem to remember her huffy dismissal of the thought of baking cookies with Chelsea.

Charlie Jones and Jane Smith could have identical jobs – let's say, loan officers in a bank – but it's very likely Charlie has more experience because Jane keeps taking time off to have babies, shuffle her kids around day care, stay home with them when they're sick, and attend school meetings and activities. Charlie does none of that, and so he ends up with a better work record. Jane can only do 78/100ths of the job Charlie can do. See the logic here?

"The Paycheck Fairness Act would address this reality [pay discrepancy] through a number of needed reforms," notes Hillary. "The Act would create a training program to help women strengthen their negotiation skills; enforce equal pay laws for federal contractors; and require the Department of Labor to work with employers to eliminate pay disparities by enhancing outreach and training efforts."

Interesting how it's automatically assumed any pay discrepancies are due to evil men discriminating against women.

What does this mean in plain English? Well, according to Mike Eastman, executive director of Labor Law Policy with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, this legislation would:

* Eliminate the caps on punitive and compensatory damages. [This means a woman can sue McDonald's for a kazillion dollars because 10 years ago when she was a teeny-bopper, she made less money flipping burgers than her boyfriend did.]

* Make punitive and compensatory damages available for even unintentional pay disparities. [Unintentional. That means the boss didn't mean to do anything wrong. Who cares! Sue him!]

* Eliminate employer defenses for pay disparities, such as paying people differently because they work in different parts of the country with different costs of living. [This means no excuse, no matter how legitimate, will cut the mustard. The employer is always wrong.]

* Make it easier for trial lawyers to file large class actions. [Get lots of women together so they can whine in a big group.]

* Impose comparable worth "guidelines," second guessing market forces about the relative worth of different types of jobs. [Oh, my gosh. This means you have to compare one job with a completely different job to make sure women are paid comparably. How does a secretary compare to, say, a plumber? How does a teacher compare to a construction worker? This will be a logistical nightmare.]

* Re-impose debunked statistical analyses and auditing methods used by the Labor Department. [Bring back archaic comparison methods that didn't work to begin with. That's why they were debunked. Helloooo?]

[My comments in brackets.]

Is anyone familiar with the Law of Unintended Consequences? An unintended consequence is when an action results in an unexpected reaction. It often happens when a simple system (such as the government) tries to regulate a complex system (such as the American people). According to a landmark 1936 paper by sociologist Robert Merton, some causes of unanticipated consequences include ignorance, error, immediate interests and basic values.

In other words, when something is touted as "good" for a segment of the populace –children, minorities, women, environmentalists, whatever – it usually backfires because politicians cannot or will not visualize the logical and practical outcome.

What will be the unintended consequences for this legislation? Easy. Employers will be reluctant to hire women.

Oh, not in huge corporations in big cities, of course. Large businesses have Human Resource personnel to make sure they kowtow to the letter of the law. If they don't, Hillary will sniff them out. But in Real America where I live – in small towns and rural areas across the country – the quiet, unspoken ripple effect will be a greater wariness and less frequent hiring of women. Naturally, these small businesses can't admit it for legal reasons, but that's reality.

I've already been told by at least three small businesses that they won't hire a woman because it's too risky. I agree. Look at a woman wrong and you're accused of sexual harassment. Open a door for her and you'll get hassled into enrolling in a "sensitivity" course. Complain when she needs yet another day off to take care of her sick kid, and you're accused of gender discrimination. It sure is a whole lot easier to hire a man!

You see, in Real America the solution is quite simple: Don't hire a woman and all your problems will be solved.

Thanks, Hillary.

Link..

More Peta Flesh..

The Campus Rape Myth:... Number Three..

Columbia University’s Go Ask Alice website illustrates the dilemma posed by a college’s simultaneous advocacy of “healthy sexuality” and of the “rape is everywhere” ideology. Go Ask Alice is run by Columbia’s Health Services; it answers both nonsexual health queries and such burning questions as: “Sex with four friends—Mutual?” and “Will it ever be good for me?” (from a virgin). In one post, titled “I’m sure I was drunk, but I’m not sure if I had sex,” Alice takes up the classic hookup scenario: a girl who has no recollection of whether she had intercourse during a drunken encounter and now wonders if she’s pregnant. Alice’s initial reaction is pure hip-to-free-love toleration: “Depending upon your relationship with your partner, you may want to ask what happened. Understandably, this might feel awkward and embarrassing, but the conversation might . . . help you to understand what happened and what steps you might decide to take.” Absent that pesky worry about insemination, there would presumably be no compelling reason to engage in something as “awkward and embarrassing” as a post-roll-in-the-hay conversation.

But then a shadow passes over the horizon: the date-rape threat. “On a darker note,” continues Alice, “it’s possible your experience may have been non-consensual, considering that you were drunk and don’t remember exactly what happened.” Alice recommends a call to Columbia’s Rape Crisis/Anti-Violence Support Center (officially dedicated to “speaking our truths about sexual violence”). Alice’s advice shows the incoherence of the contemporary university’s multiple stances toward college sex. It’s hard to speak your truths about sexual violence when your involvement with your potential date-rapist is so tenuous that it’s awkward to speak to him. And the support center can’t know whether the encounter was consensual. But Alice declines to condemn the behavior that both got the girl into her predicament and erased her memory of it.

The only lesson that Alice offers is that the girl might—purely as an optional matter—want to think about how alcohol affected her. As for rethinking whether she should be getting into bed with someone whom, Alice presumes, she would be reluctant to contact the next day, well, that never comes up. Members of the multifaceted campus sex bureaucracy never seem to consider the possibility that the libertinism that one administrative branch champions, and the sex that another branch portrays as rape, may be inextricably linked.

Modern feminists defined the right to be promiscuous as a cornerstone of female equality. Understandably, they now hesitate to acknowledge that sex is a more complicated force than was foreseen. Rather than recognizing that no-consequences sex may be a contradiction in terms, however, the campus rape industry claims that what it calls campus rape is about not sex but rather politics—the male desire to subordinate women. The University of Virginia Women’s Center intones that “rape or sexual assault is not an act of sex or lust—it’s about aggression, power, and humiliation, using sex as the weapon. The rapist’s goal is domination.”

This characterization may or may not describe the psychopathic violence of stranger rape. But it is an absurd description of the barnyard rutting that undergraduate men, happily released from older constraints, seek. The guys who push themselves on women at keggers are after one thing only, and it’s not a reinstatement of the patriarchy. Each would be perfectly content if his partner for the evening becomes president of the United States one day, so long as she lets him take off her panties tonight.

One group on campus isn’t buying the politics of the campus “rape” movement, however: students. To the despair of rape industrialists everywhere, students have held on to the view that women usually have considerable power to determine whether a campus social event ends with intercourse.

Rutgers University Sexual Assault Services surveyed student athletes about violence against women in the 2001–02 academic year. The female teams were more “direct,” the survey reported, in “expressing the idea that women who are raped sometimes put themselves in those situations.” A female athlete told interviewers: “When we go out to parties, and I see girls and the way they dress and the way they act . . . and just the way they are, under the influence and um, then they like accuse them of like, oh yeah, my boyfriend did this to me or whatever, I honestly always think it’s their fault.” Another brainwashed victim of the rape culture.

Equally maddening must be the reaction that sometimes greets performers in Sex Signals, an improvisational show on date rape whose venues include Harvard, Yale, and schools throughout the Midwest. “Sometimes we get women who are advocates for men,” the show’s founders told a Chicago public radio station this October, barely concealing their disbelief. “They blame the victim and try to find out what the victim did so they won’t do it.” Such worrisome self-help efforts could shut down the campus rape industry.

“Promiscuity” is a word that you will never see in the pages of a campus rape center publication; it is equally repugnant to the sexual liberationist strand of feminism and to the Catherine Mac-Kinnonite “all-sex-is-rape” strand. But it’s an idea that won’t go away among the student Lumpenproletariat. Students refer to “sororistutes”—those wild and crazy Greek women so often featured in Girls Gone Wild videos. And they persist in seeing a connection between promiscuity and the alleged campus rape epidemic. A Rutgers University freshman says that he knows women who claim to have been sexually assaulted, but adds: “They don’t have the best reputation. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that kind of stuff.”

Rape consultant David Lisak faced a similar problem this November: an auditorium of Rutgers students who kept treating women as moral agents. He might have sensed the trouble ahead when in response to a photo array of what Lisak calls “undetected rapists,” a girl asked: “Why are there only white men? Am I blind?” It went downhill from there. Lisak did his best to send a tremor of fear through the audience with the news that “rape happens with terrifying frequency. I’m not talking of someone who comes onto campus but students, Rutgers students, who prowl for victims in bars, parties, wherever alcohol is being consumed.” He then played a dramatized interview with a student “rapist” at a fraternity that had deliberately set aside a room for raping girls during parties, according to Lisak. The students weren’t buying it. “I don’t understand why these parties don’t become infamous among girls,” wondered one. Another asked: “Are you saying that the frat brothers decided that this room would be used for committing sexual assault, or was it just: ‘Maybe I’ll get lucky, and if I do, I’ll go there’?” And then someone asked the most dangerous question of all: “Shouldn’t the victim have had a little bit of education beforehand? We all know the dangers of parties. The victim had miscalculations on her part; alcohol can lead to things.”

In a column this November in the University of Virginia’s student newspaper, third-year student Katelyn Kiley gave the real scoop on frat parties: They’re filled with boys hoping to have sex. She did not call these boys “rapists.” She did not demonize their sex drive. She merely offered some practical wisdom to the “scantily clad” freshman girls trooping off to Virginia’s fraternity row: “That frat boy really is just trying to get into your pants.” Most disturbingly, she advised the girls to exercise sexual control: “So dance with that good-looking guy. If he offers, you can even go up to his room to get a mixed drink. . . . Flirt. But it’s probably a good idea to keep your clothes on, and at the end of the night, to go home to your own bed. Interestingly enough, that’s how you get them to keep asking you back.”

You can read thousands of pages of rape crisis center hysteria without coming across such bracing common sense. Amazingly, Kiley hasn’t received any of the millions of dollars that feminists in the federal government have showered on campuses to prevent what they call rape.

Some student rebels are going one step further: organizing in favor of sexual restraint. Such newly created campus groups as the Love and Fidelity Network and the True Love Revolution advocate an alternative to the rampant regret sex of the hookup scene: wait until marriage. Their message would do more to return a modicum of manners to campus male—and female—behavior than endless harangues about the rape culture ever could.

Maybe these young iconoclasts can take up another discredited idea: college is for learning. The adults in charge have gone deaf to the siren call of beauty that for centuries lured people to the classics. But fighting male dominance or catering to the libidinal impulses released in the 1960s are sorry substitutes for the pursuit of knowledge. The campus rape and sex industries are signs of how hollow the university has become.

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Her most recent book, coauthored with Victor Davis Hanson and Steven Malanga, is The Immigration Solution.

Campus Rape Myth Link..

The Campus Rape Myth:.... Number Two..

Strange Bedfellows at William and Mary

Anyone who still thinks of sorority girls as cashmere-clad innocents, giggling as they wait by the phone for that special someone to call, won’t understand much of the campus “date rape” scene. A few incidents at the College of William and Mary, a pioneer in sexual-assault awareness, may correct lingering misconceptions.

In October 2005, at a Delta Delta Delta formal, drunken sorority girls careened through the host’s house, vomiting, falling, and breaking furnishings. One girl ran naked through a hallway; another was found half-naked with a male on the bed in the master suite. A third had intercourse with her escort in a different bedroom. On the bus back from the formal, she was seen kissing her escort; once she arrived home, she had sex with a different male. Later, she accused her escort of rape. The district attorney declined to prosecute the girl’s rape charges. William and Mary, however, had already forced the defendant to leave school and, even after the D.A.’s decision, wouldn’t let him return until his accuser graduated. The defendant sued his accuser for $5.5 million for defamation; the parties settled out of court.

The incident wasn’t as unusual as it sounds. A year earlier, a William and Mary student had charged rape after having provided a condom to her partner for intercourse. The boy had cofounded the national antirape organization One in Four; the school suspended him for a year, anyway. In an earlier incident, a drunken sorority girl was filmed giving oral sex to seven men. She cried rape when her boyfriend found out. William and Mary found one of the recipients, who had taped the event, guilty of assault and suspended him.

But in the fall semester of 2005, rape charges spread through William and Mary like witchcraft accusations in a medieval village. In short succession after the Delta Delta Delta bacchanal, three more students accused acquaintances of rape. Only one of these three additional victims pressed charges in court, however, and she quickly dropped the case.

A fifth rape incident around the same time followed a different pattern. In November 2005, a William and Mary student woke up in the middle of the night with a knife at her throat. A 23-year-old stranger with a prior conviction for peeping at her apartment complex had broken into her apartment; he raped her, threatened her roommate at knifepoint, and left with two stolen cell phones and cash. The rapist was caught, convicted, and sentenced to 57 years in prison.

Guess which incident got the most attention at William and Mary? The Delta Delta Delta formal “rape.” Like many stranger rapists on campus, the knifepoint assailant was black, and thus an unattractive target for politically correct protest. (The 2006 Duke stripper case, by contrast, seemingly provided the ideal and, for the industry, sadly rare configuration: white rapists and a black victim.)

Stranger rapes also provide less opportunity for bureaucratic expansion. After the spate of “date rapes,” William and Mary’s vice president for student affairs announced that the school would hire a full-time sexual-assault educator, in addition to its existing sexual-assault services and counseling staff and numerous sexual-assault awareness organizations. Freshmen would now have to attend a gender-specific sexual-assault awareness program. None of this new apparatus—for instance, the “Equality Wheel,” which explains the “dynamics of a healthy relationship”—has the slightest relevance to stranger rapes.

However, the cross-currents of campus political correctness are so intense that they produce some surprising twists. William and Mary’s sexual-assault resources webpage invites visitors to “listen to what people affected by sexual assault are sharing.” It then offers ten audio accounts of sexual assaults, exactly half of which are male. “My experience came very close to killing me,” one man reports. One would need the skills of a Kremlinologist to interpret this gender lineup, and the site doesn’t explain who exactly these voices are—but it’s hard to escape the impression that William and Mary has admitted either a huge gay community or some very beefy women. Diversity politics, gay politics, and the sexual-assault movement produce strange bedfellows.

The Campus Rape Myth...Numer One.

Nothing like good old feminist myth to garner more funds for an imaginary epidemic..

But this is nothing new, feminists have been lying continually about just about everything so this article would come as no suprise to most except one of their own..

They like to keep the sheeple in the dark for obvious reasons..

I have chopped this article into 3 sections because of it's length..

The Campus Rape Myth
The reality: bogus statistics, feminist victimology, and university-approved sex toys

Illustration by Arnold RothIt’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic—but no one calls. Could this mean that the crisis is overblown? No: it means, according to the campus sexual-assault industry, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever imagined. It means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student rape victims to break the silence of their suffering.

The campus rape movement highlights the current condition of radical feminism, from its self-indulgent bathos to its embrace of ever more vulnerable female victimhood. But the movement is an even more important barometer of academia itself. In a delicious historical irony, the baby boomers who dismantled the university’s intellectual architecture in favor of unbridled sex and protest have now bureaucratized both. While women’s studies professors bang pots and blow whistles at antirape rallies, in the dorm next door, freshman counselors and deans pass out tips for better orgasms and the use of sex toys. The academic bureaucracy is roomy enough to sponsor both the dour antimale feminism of the college rape movement and the promiscuous hookup culture of student life. The only thing that doesn’t fit into the university’s new commitments is serious scholarly purpose.

The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed rapes outnumbering attempted rapes by a ratio of about three to two). The girls’ assailants are not terrifying strangers grabbing them in dark alleys but the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria.

This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm. By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding. Victimhood rituals sprang up: first the Take Back the Night rallies, in which alleged rape victims reveal their stories to gathered crowds of candle-holding supporters; then the Clothesline Project, in which T-shirts made by self-proclaimed rape survivors are strung on campus, while recorded sounds of gongs and drums mark minute-by-minute casualties of the “rape culture.” A special rhetoric emerged: victims’ family and friends were “co-survivors”; “survivors” existed in a larger “community of survivors.”

An army of salesmen took to the road, selling advice to administrators on how to structure sexual-assault procedures, and lecturing freshmen on the “undetected rapists” in their midst. Rape bureaucrats exchanged notes at such gatherings as the Inter Ivy Sexual Assault Conferences and the New England College Sexual Assault Network. Organizations like One in Four and Men Can Stop Rape tried to persuade college boys to redefine their masculinity away from the “rape culture.” The college rape infrastructure shows no signs of a slowdown. In 2006, for example, Yale created a new Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources and Education Center, despite numerous resources for rape victims already on campus.

If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic.

None of this crisis response occurs, of course—because the crisis doesn’t exist. During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results—very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.

Koss’s study had serious flaws. Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of California at Berkeley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has pointed out. But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped. Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.

All subsequent feminist rape studies have resulted in this discrepancy between the researchers’ conclusions and the subjects’ own views. A survey of sorority girls at the University of Virginia found that only 23 percent of the subjects whom the survey characterized as rape victims felt that they had been raped—a result that the university’s director of Sexual and Domestic Violence Services calls “discouraging.” Equally damning was a 2000 campus rape study conducted under the aegis of the Department of Justice. Sixty-five percent of what the feminist researchers called “completed rape” victims and three-quarters of “attempted rape” victims said that they did not think that their experiences were “serious enough to report.” The “victims” in the study, moreover, “generally did not state that their victimization resulted in physical or emotional injuries,” report the researchers.

Just as a reality check, consider an actual student-related rape: in 2006, Labrente Robinson and Jacoby Robinson broke into the Philadelphia home of a Temple University student and a Temple graduate, and anally, vaginally, and orally penetrated the women, including with a gun. The chance that the victims would not consider this event “serious enough to report,” or physically and emotionally injurious, is exactly nil. In short, believing in the campus rape epidemic depends on ignoring women’s own interpretations of their experiences—supposedly the most grievous sin in the feminist political code.

None of the obvious weaknesses in the research has had the slightest drag on the campus rape movement, because the movement is political, not empirical. In a rape culture, which “condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as a norm,” sexual assault will wind up underreported, argued the director of Yale’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources and Education Center in a March 2007 newsletter. You don’t need evidence for the rape culture; you simply know that it exists. But if you do need evidence, the underreporting of rape is the best proof there is.

Campus rape researchers may feel that they know better than female students themselves about the students’ sexual experiences, but the students are voting with their feet and staying away in droves from the massive rape apparatus built up since the Ms. article. Referring to rape hotlines, rape consultant Brett Sokolow laments: “The problem is, on so many of our campuses, very few people ever call. And mostly, we’ve resigned ourselves to the under-utilization of these resources.”

Federal law requires colleges to publish reported crimes affecting their students. The numbers of reported sexual assaults—the law does not require their confirmation—usually run under half a dozen a year on private campuses and maybe two to three times that at large public universities. You might think that having so few reports of sexual assault a year would be a point of pride; in fact, it’s a source of gall for students and administrators alike. Yale’s associate general counsel and vice president were clearly on the defensive when asked by the Yale alumni magazine in 2004 about Harvard’s higher numbers of reported assaults; the reporter might as well have been needling them about a Harvard-Yale football rout. “Harvard must have double-counted or included incidents not required by federal law,” groused the officials. The University of Virginia does not publish the number of its sexual-assault hearings because it is so low. “We’re reticent to publicize it when we have such a small ‘n’ number,” says Nicole Eramu, Virginia’s associate dean of students.

Campuses do everything they can to get their numbers of reported and adjudicated sexual assaults up—adding new categories of lesser offenses, lowering the burden of proof, and devising hearing procedures that will elicit more assault charges. At Yale, it is the accuser who decides whether the accused may confront her—a sacrifice of one of the great Anglo-Saxon truth-finding procedures. “You don’t want them to not come to the board and report, do you?” asks physics professor Peter Parker, convener of the university’s Sexual Harassment Grievance Board.

The scarcity of reported sexual assaults means that the women who do report them must be treated like rare treasures. New York University’s Wellness Exchange counsels people to “believe unconditionally” in sexual-assault charges because “only 2 percent of reported rapes are false reports” (a ubiquitous claim that dates from radical feminist Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 tract Against Our Will). As Stuart Taylor and K. C. Johnson point out in their book Until Proven Innocent, however, the rate of false reports is at least 9 percent and probably closer to 50 percent. Just how powerful is the “believe unconditionally” credo? David Lisak, a University of Massachusetts psychology professor who lectures constantly on the antirape college circuit, acknowledged to a hall of Rutgers students this November that the “Duke case,” in which a black stripper falsely accused three white Duke lacrosse players of rape in 2006, “has raised the issue of false allegations.” But Lisak didn’t want to talk about the Duke case, he said. “I don’t know what happened at Duke. No one knows.” Actually, we do know what happened at Duke: the prosecutor ignored clearly exculpatory evidence and alibis that cleared the defendants, and was later disbarred for his misconduct. But to the campus rape industry, a lying plaintiff remains a victim of the patriarchy, and the accused remain forever under suspicion.

So what reality does lie behind the campus rape industry? A booze-fueled hookup culture of one-night, or sometimes just partial-night, stands. Students in the sixties demanded that college administrators stop setting rules for fraternization. “We’re adults,” the students shouted. “We can manage our own lives. If we want to have members of the opposite sex in our rooms at any hour of the day or night, that’s our right.” The colleges meekly complied and opened a Pandora’s box of boorish, sluttish behavior that gets cruder each year. Do the boys, riding the testosterone wave, act thuggishly toward the girls? You bet! Do the girls try to match their insensitivity? Indisputably.

College girls drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during parties. That drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests University of Virginia graduate Karin Agness: it frees the drinker from responsibility and “provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn’t.” A Columbia University security official marvels at the scene at homecomings: “The women are shit-faced, saying, ‘Let’s get as drunk as we can,’ while the men are hovering over them.” As anticipated, the night can include a meaningless sexual encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know. This less-than-romantic denouement produces the “roll and scream: you roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream,” a Duke coed reports in Laura Sessions Stepp’s recent book Unhooked. To the extent that they’re remembered at all, these are the couplings that are occasionally transformed into “rape”—though far less often than the campus rape industry wishes.

The magazine Saturday Night: Untold Stories of Sexual Assault at Harvard, produced by Harvard’s Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, provides a first-person account of such a coupling:

What can I tell you about being raped? Very little. I remember drinking with some girlfriends and then heading to a party in the house that some seniors were throwing. I’m told that I walked in and within 5 minutes was making out with one of the guys who lived there, who I’d talked to some in the dining hall but never really hung out with. I may have initiated it. I don’t remember arriving at the party; I dimly remember waking up at some point in the early morning in this guy’s room. I remember him walking me back to my room. I couldn’t have made it alone; I still had too much alcohol in my system to even stand up straight. I made myself vulnerable and even now it’s hard to think that someone here who I have talked and laughed with could be cold-hearted enough to take advantage of that vulnerability. I’d rather, sometimes, take half the blame than believe that a profound evil can exist in mankind. But it’s easy for me to say, that, of the two of us, I’m the only one who still has nightmares, found myself panicking and detaching during sex for many months afterwards, and spent more time looking into the abyss than any one person should.
The inequalities of the consequences of the night, the actions taken unintentionally or not, have changed the course of only one of our lives, irrevocably and profoundly.
Now perhaps the male willfully exploited the narrator’s self-inflicted incapacitation; if so, he deserves censure for taking advantage of a female in distress. But to hold the narrator completely without responsibility requires stripping women of volition and moral agency. Though the Harvard victim does not remember her actions, it’s highly unlikely that she passed out upon arriving at the party and was dragged away like roadkill while other students looked on. Rather, she probably participated voluntarily in the usual prelude to intercourse, and probably even in intercourse itself, however woozily.

Even if the Harvard victim’s drunkenness cancels any responsibility that she might share for the interaction’s finale, is she equally without responsibility for all of her behavior up to that point, including getting so drunk that she can’t remember anything? Campus rape ideology holds that inebriation strips women of responsibility for their actions but preserves male responsibility not only for their own actions but for their partners’ as well. Thus do men again become the guardians of female well-being.

As for the story’s maudlin melodrama, perhaps the narrator’s life really has been “irrevocably” changed, for which one sympathizes. One can’t help observing, however, that the effect of this “profound evil” on at least her sex life appears to have been minimal—she “detached” during sex for “many months afterwards,” but sex she most certainly had. Real rape victims, however, can fear physical intimacy for years, along with suffering a host of other terrors. We don’t know if the narrator’s “look into the abyss” led her to reconsider getting plastered before parties and initiating sexual contact with casual acquaintances. But if a Harvard student doesn’t understand that getting very drunk and becoming physically involved with a boy at a hookup party carries a serious probability of intercourse, she’s at the wrong university, if she should be at college at all.

A large number of complicating factors make the Saturday Night story a far more problematic case than the term “rape” usually implies. Unlike the campus rape industry, most students are well aware of those complicating factors, which is why there are so few rape charges brought for college sex. But if the rape industrialists are so sure that foreseeable and seemingly cooperative drunken sex amounts to rape, there are some obvious steps that they could take to prevent it. Above all, they could persuade girls not to put themselves into situations whose likely outcome is intercourse. Specifically: don’t get drunk, don’t get into bed with a guy, and don’t take off your clothes or allow them to be removed. Once you’re in that situation, the rape activists could say, it’s going to be hard to halt the proceedings, for lots of complex emotional reasons. Were this advice heeded, the campus “rape” epidemic would be wiped out overnight.

But suggest to a rape bureaucrat that female students should behave with greater sexual restraint as a preventive measure, and you might as well be saying that the girls should enter a convent or don the burka. “I am uncomfortable with the idea,” e-mailed Hillary Wing-Richards, the associate director of the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Women’s Resource Center at James Madison University in Virginia. “This indicates that if [female students] are raped it could be their fault—it is never their fault—and how one dresses does not invite rape or violence. . . . I would never allow my staff or myself to send the message it is the victim’s fault due to their dress or lack of restraint in any way.” Putting on a tight tank top doesn’t, of course, lead to what the bureaucrats call “rape.” But taking off that tank top does increase the risk of sexual intercourse that will be later regretted, especially when the tank-topper has been intently mainlining rum and Cokes all evening.

The baby boomers who demanded the dismantling of all campus rules governing the relations between the sexes now sit in dean’s offices and student-counseling services. They cannot turn around and argue for reregulating sex, even on pragmatic grounds. Instead, they have responded to the fallout of the college sexual revolution with bizarre and anachronistic legalism. Campuses have created a judicial infrastructure for responding to postcoital second thoughts more complex than that required to adjudicate maritime commerce claims in Renaissance Venice.

University of Virginia students, for example, have at least three different procedural channels open to them following carnal knowledge: they may demand a formal adjudication before the Sexual Assault Board; they can request a “Structured Meeting” with the Office of the Dean of Students by filing a formal complaint; or they can seek voluntary mediation. The Structured Meetings are presided over by the chair of the Sexual Assault Board, with assistance from another board member or senior staff of the Office of the Dean of Students. The Structured Meeting, according to the university, is an “opportunity for the complainant to confront the accused and communicate their feelings and perceptions regarding the incident, the impact of the incident and their wishes and expectations regarding protection in the future.” Mediation, on the other hand, “allows both you and the accused to discuss your respective understandings of the assault with the guidance of a trained professional,” says the school’s sexual-assault center.

Rarely have primal lust and carousing been more weirdly paired with their opposites. Out in the real world, people who regret a sexual coupling must work it out on their own; no counterpart exists outside academia for this superstructure of hearings, mediations, and negotiated settlements. If you’ve actually been raped, you go to criminal court—but the overwhelming majority of campus “rape” cases that take up administration time and resources would get thrown out of court in a twinkling, which is why they’re almost never prosecuted. Indeed, if the campus rape industry really believes that these hookup encounters are rape, it is unconscionable to leave them to flimsy academic procedures. “Universities are equipped to handle plagiarism, not rape,” observes University of Pennsylvania history professor Alan Charles Kors. “Sexual-assault charges, if true, are so serious as to belong only in the criminal system.”

Risk-management consultants travel the country to help colleges craft legal rules for student sexual congress. These rules presume that an activity originating in inchoate desire, whose nuances have taxed the expressive powers of poets, artists, and philosophers for centuries, can be reduced to a species of commercial code. The process of crafting these rules combines a voyeuristic prurience and a seeming cluelessness about sex. “It is fun,” writes Alan D. Berkowitz, a popular campus rape lecturer and consultant, “to ask students how they know if someone is sexually interested in them.” (Fun for whom? one must ask.) Continues Berkowitz: “Many of the responses rely on guesswork and inference to determine sexual intent.” Such signaling mechanisms, dating from the dawn of the human race, are no longer acceptable on the rape-sensitized campus. “In fact,” explains our consultant, “sexual intent can only be determined by clear and unambiguous communication about what is desired.” So much for seduction and romance; bring in the MBAs and lawyers.

The campus sex-management industry locks in its livelihood by introducing a specious clarity to what is inherently mysterious and an equally specious complexity to what is straightforward. Both the pseudo-clarity and pseudo-complexity work in a woman’s favor, of course. “If one partner puts a condom on the other, does that signify that they are consenting to intercourse?” asks Berkowitz. Short of guiding the thus-sheathed instrumentality to port, it’s hard to imagine a clearer signal of consent. But perhaps a girl who has just so outfitted her partner will decide after the fact that she has been “raped”—so better to declare the action, as Berkowitz does, “inherently ambiguous.” He recommends instead that colleges require “clear verbal consent” for sex, a policy that the recently disbanded Antioch College introduced in the early 1990s to universal derision.

The university is sneaking back in its in loco parentis oversight of student sexual relations, but it has replaced the moral content of that regulation with supposedly neutral legal procedure. The generation that got rid of parietal rules has re-created a form of bedroom oversight as pervasive as Bentham’s Panopticon.

But the post-1960s university is nothing if not capacious. It has institutionalized every strand of adolescent-inspired rebellion familiar since student sit-in days. The campus rape industry may decry ubiquitous male predation, but a campus sex industry puts bureaucratic clout behind the message that students should have recreational sex at every opportunity.

In late October, for example, New York University’s professional “sexpert” set up her wares in the light-filled atrium of the Kimmel Student Center. Along with the usual baskets of lubricated condoms, female condoms, and dental dams (a lesbian-inspired latex innovation for “safe” oral sex), Alyssa La Fosse, looking thoroughly professional in a neatly coiffed bun, also provided brightly colored instructional sheets on such important topics as “How to Female Ejaculate” (“First take some time to get aroused. Lube up your fingers and let them do the walking”) and “Masturbation Tips for Girls” (“Draw a circle around your clitoris with your index finger”). In a heroic effort at inclusiveness, she also provided a pamphlet called “Exploring Your Options: Abstinence,” but a reader could be forgiven for thinking that he had mistakenly grabbed the menu of activities at a West Village bathhouse. NYU’s officially approved “abstinence options” include “outercourse, mutual masturbation, pornography, and sex toys such as vibrators, dildos, and a paddle.” Ever the responsible parent-surrogate, NYU recommends that “abstinence” practitioners cover their sex toys “with a condom if they are to be inserted in the mouth, anus, or vagina.”

The students passing La Fosse’s table showed a greater interest in the free Hershey’s Kisses than in the latex accessories and informational sheets; very occasionally, someone would grab a condom. No one brought “questions about sexuality or sexual health” to La Fosse, despite the university’s official invitation to do so. NYU is not about to be daunted in its mission of promoting better sex, however. So it also offers workshops on orgasms—“how to achieve that (sometimes elusive) state”—and “Sex Toys for Safer Sex” (“an evening with rubber, silicone, and vibrating toys”) in residence halls and various student clubs.

Similarly, Brown University’s Student Services helps students answer the compelling question: “How can I bring sex toys into my relationship?” Brown categorizes sex toys by function (“Some sex toys are meant to be used more gently, while others are used for sexual acts involving dominance and submission . . . such as restraints, blindfolds, and whips”) and offers the usual safe-sex caveats (“If sharing sex toys, such as dildos, butt plugs, or vibrators, use condoms and dental dams”). UCLA’s Arthur Ashe Student Health and Wellness Center advises on how a man might “increase the amount of time before he ejaculates”; Tufts University’s 2006 Sex Fair featured a “Dildo Ring Toss” and dental-dam slingshots; and Barnard College suggests that participants in sadomasochistic sex, “where ‘no, please don’t’ . . . can be a part of the fun,” agree on a “safeword” that “will stop all play immediately.” A Princeton student who thinks that a “docking sleeve” may be some kind of maritime hardware, or a “suction device” something used for plumbing, had better bone up, so to speak, before playing the school’s official “Safer Sex Jeopardy” game, because these objects are in the “grab bag” categories of penile toys and nipple toys, respectively. Encyclopedic knowledge is advisable: game developers list six types of vibrators, including the “rabbit vibrator,” and eight kinds of penile toys, including the “pocket pussy.”

By now, universities have traveled so far from their original task of immersing students in the greatest intellectual and artistic creations of humanity that criticizing any particular detour seems arbitrary. Still, the question presents itself: Why, exactly, are the schools offering workshops on orgasms and sex toys instead of on Michelangelo’s Campidoglio or Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin? Are students already so saturated with knowledge of Renaissance humanism or the evolution of constitutional democracy, say, that colleges can happily reroute resources to matters readily available on porn websites?

Women do actually abuse children, finally some stats..

Now here is a turnup for the cards. Actually admitting that women are child abusers.

Whoa..

They found that of the 1421 women who did not breastfeed their children in the group, 102 women — or 7.2 per cent — neglected or abused their child in some way.

They actually exist, gee...

"I don't necessarily think that by increasing the breastfeeding rate, we are going to wipe out neglect and abuse," she said.

A double whamy, wonders never cease..

In my little state we have a "Child Commissioner", a totally useless instrumentality designed to primarily ignore any child abuse by any princess and have yet to demonstrate that it does actually protect children from abusive mothers. Not one single case reported as far as I am aware since it's inception..

So what do they actually do apart from create more jobs for the privileged sex ?

The Commissioner for Children does not have the power to provide legal advice or investigate allegations of child abuse or individual complaints about services, agencies or organisations, unless specifically requested to do so by the Minister for Health and Human Services.

So in reality they actually do sweet F...All..

Commonly known as a quango..

Tell me this is not another feminised institution ?

Nursed babies less prone to abuse

• Julia Medew
• January 27, 2009

WOMEN who do not breastfeed their infants are nearly four times more likely to neglect and abuse their child, a world-first study of Australian women has found.

The analysis of about 6000 Queensland mothers and their children also discovered that the longer a woman breastfeeds, the less likely she is to

neglect or hurt her child.

To reach their findings, researchers from the University of Queensland linked data from Australia's largest longitudinal study tracking mothers and their children with substantiated reports of maltreatment recorded by the state's child protection authorities.

They found that of the 1421 women who did not breastfeed their children in the group, 102 women — or 7.2 per cent — neglected or abused

their child in some way.

This was compared to 4.8 per cent of the 2584 women who breastfed their baby for less than four months and just 1.6 per cent of the 2616 women who breastfed their baby for more than four months.

Maltreatment included neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse and sexual assault. Neglect was the most common form identified in the study, but the prevalence of all types increased as the duration of breastfeeding decreased

.

When the researchers adjusted the statistics for 5890 cases to filter out the influence of other factors, they concluded that women who did not breastfeed were 3.8 times more likely to maltreat their child.

For mothers who breastfed for less than four months, the risk was about 2.3 times that of women who breastfed for longer than four months.

Lane Strathearn, author of the research due to be published in the journal Pediatrics next month, said the conclusions were bolstered by research linking breastfeeding to the release of oxytocin, a hormone proven to activate areas of the brain linked to maternal care and behaviour in animals.

The physical bond created during breastfeeding, including eye contact, could also be a factor, he said.

Dr Strathearn concluded that the promotion of breastfeeding could be a relatively simple and cost-effective way of strengthening the relationship between mothers and babies to prevent child neglect and abuse.

"This overarching goal would be best accomplished by promoting parent education and long-term marital stability and by providing economic and social support for new mothers who choose to stay at home with their infants," he sa

id.

Deputy Director of the Women's and Children's Health Research Institute in South Australia, Dr Maria Makrides, said people should not interpret the absence of breastfeeding or low rates as a direct cause of neglect and abuse. "I don't necessarily think that by increasing the breastfeeding rate, we are going

to wipe out neglect and abuse," she said.

Australian Breastfeeding Association president Querida David said the study was consistent with other research.

You mean they are used for something else besides flashing em' in public ?

BBC female personality makes 40 false rape claims..

If this does not make your blood boil than you ain't got none..

Another irritating article about ANOTHER FALSE RAPE CLAIM and guess what ?

Privileged BBC Princess is let off the hook as if nothing happened and the guy is looking at a 10 year listing for RAPE on his record. Even after having been found not guilty and princess denying it ever happened..

I am hoping that this guy has the guts to start suing asap..

That seems to be the only way anything changes..

BBC personality made 40 false rape allegations against her ex-boyfriend whose life remains blighted by her lies
By Antonia Hoyle
25th January 2009

Add to My Stories 'Robert' says his life has been shattered despite being cleared of any allegations

A BBC personality has shattered her ex-boyfriend's life by falsely accusing him of rape.
The woman, who has broadcast to television audiences of millions, accused him of raping her 40 times throughout their two-and-a-half-year relationship.

He was arrested, held in a police cell and handcuffed as police searched his flat for evidence of his crime. But she retracted her allegation weeks later, and the officer investigating the claims described them as 'inconsistent' and 'not credible'.

Despite the lack of evidence, the incident remains on the Police National Computer thanks to a legal loophole, which campaigners say is blighting the lives of falsely accused men.
Even if the 'victim' withdraws their allegation, it will show up under enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks that are undertaken regularly on people who apply for jobs with employers such as the NHS or schools. It will also prevent them from travelling to the United States.
The boyfriend cannot be identified to protect his accuser's anonymity, but wants to make his case public.

He said: 'The lies she told have ruined my life. Yet, while I have lost out on jobs and been left paranoid and scared of women, she has got away without punishment. We're not even allowed to reveal her identity. Rape is a horrific crime, and there is no way I am capable of committing it.
'I don't care how successful she is, she should be sent to prison. Of course, the BBC doesn't know what she has done. But if they were to find out I would like to think they'd sack her.'
Fewer than six per cent of reported rapes result in a conviction, but according to Tim Murray of the False Rape Society, this case is typical.
'Thousands of innocent men are tainted for ever by an unfair system,' he said. 'The accused should have the right to remain anonymous until a conviction. If they are cleared, the incident should be erased from their records.'

Robert - not his real name - is an articulate man in his 50s who met the BBC star in London in 2003. A keen amateur photographer, he was there to take promotional shots. The woman, who we will call Charlotte, was working for a commercial television station and asked Robert if he would take some publicity pictures to help further her career.

Within weeks they had embarked on a physical relationship. 'In addition to being very beautiful she was intelligent and funny. She was, still is, ambitious. Her career and becoming famous meant more to her than anything,' he said.

The pair filmed many of their encounters at his Central London flat, something he said was Charlotte's idea. 'It turned her on and I enjoyed it too,' he said. 'We agreed from the start that we'd have an open relationship. But we didn't just have sex. We cooked together, went to restaurants. I supported her whenever she was down.'

Robert, who separated amicably from his wife, with whom he has two teenage children, ten years ago, was introduced to her friends, but not her family. 'They have strict views on sex before marriage and Charlotte wanted them to believe she was a virgin.'

Still in her 20s, there was a considerable age gap between the two. 'It was flattering at first,' he admits. 'But as the months went by I became more self-conscious about it. Plus, I started to mistrust Charlotte.

She lied to me about her whereabouts. And I knew she wanted to marry another boyfriend.'

By March 2006 he decided to end the relationship. He arranged to visit Charlotte's London home to pick up the keys to his flat from her.

Yet as he was waiting outside in his car, he was arrested. He was taken first to Hendon Police Station in North London, then to Marylebone police station, where he was accused of raping her, spiking her drinks, blackmailing and threatening to kill her.
'I was confused and powerless. I imagined myself in prison for life. I respect women and would not dream of touching one against her will.'

While in custody, Robert, a former employee of an international trading company, suggested the police visit his flat to pick up the DVDs he and Charlotte had made. 'I knew they should prove my innocence,' he said.
Men who are falsely accused of rape can have their lives ruined as the allegations remain on the police's computer (pictured posed by model)
He also thinks the footage was the reason for his arrest in the first place. 'Once I ended the relationship she became paranoid I would blackmail her with the DVDs,' he said. 'But she was judging me by her standards.'
After seven hours, he was released on bail.

'I dreaded telling my children and ex-wife what had happened,' he recalled. 'Charlotte had befriended them, even picking my children up from school. Luckily they supported me from the start.'

In police records, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and seen by The Mail on Sunday,

Charlotte claimed that Robert had been blackmailing her by threatening to sell the DVDs to the Press.

She said he spiked her drink before they had sex and threatened to kill her if she left him. 'It was all nonsense, fabricated to substantiate her claim,' he said. 'She once told me she had been raped twice before. Now I think she uses both the allegation, and sex in general, as some kind of tool to get what she wants.'

As the days passed, the police began to find Charlotte's evidence increasingly 'tenuous'.

The DVDs showed that Charlotte 'would appear to be fully participating in sexual acts'.

On May 18, perhaps knowing her account contained, as police put it, a 'number of inconsistencies', she withdrew the allegation. The police officer recorded the incident as 'no crime'.

Robert then received a letter saying he was released from bail and that no further action would be taken. 'But there was no apology from Charlotte or the police,' he says. His anger was exacerbated when police told him in a letter that 'the matter remains recorded as rape'. It was eventually downgraded to 'an allegation of rape' after he protested.

Although the allegation had been withdrawn, one police officer had written in his records that: 'There is insufficient additional verifiable information to determine that no notifiable offence has been committed.'

Surprisingly, the law permits officers to register their disagreement with the outcome of a case in police records, with potentially devastating repercussions. While Charlotte's anonymity is guaranteed by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act of 1976, Robert's ordeal will remain on his file indefinitely.

He believes he has been rejected from a job as a Home Office interpreter because he failed to clear criminal checks. An application for a US visa requires him to state whether he has ever been arrested for a crime, and he says he did not apply for a job as a photographer in London schools because his records would stop him being offered it.

A police spokesman would not discuss individual cases but said: 'The current Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines state that police forces retain allegations of serious crime for ten years. We are liaising with ACPO and the Information Commissioner about a review of this policy.'

Link Here

At least one woman understands it..

Occasionally I come across a video that makes a bit more sense than most especially when it's one that feminists loathe and would like to see removed..

Scanned image on DV Pamphlet, Only Men do DV..

Here we have an example of the blatant male-bashing and hypocrisy that happens right now and right here where I live..

I have scanned one document that I collected from the Local University. I questioned the female behind the counter about the origin of these brochures, she said " I have no idea, it must say on there somewhere ?", I passed over the brochure and said "maybe you could show me" as I knew that there is no identifying address or id of any kind.

This document is labelled as "If your partners is abusive or violent"..

But the partner is only viewed from the female perspective, not once in this entire sexist document does it mention that women are abusive or bother with any avenue abused males could seek. That is because it does not exist, the only help a man receives from this crowd is a load "F.U" if you dare phone their centre..

See sample...

It makes some outrageous statement and I will definitely be following this up with deadbeat politicians as well as the culprits responsible for this misandry and my suspicions lean towards the Office For Women, bless their little male-hating hearts..

I am a paid up member of one of the National political parties which I joined late last year for this precise reason. Gonna hold 'em accountable..

Gonna make 'em sweat..

Okay..One of the lines on this brochure reads..

"Domestic violence is the most common form of assault in Australia today",

Sex of victim

A trend that is consistently observed in the NHMP
and in international homicide research is that males
are victimised at a significantly higher rate than
females (see for example Brookman 2005; Polk
1994; Mouzos 2000, 2002a, 2003b; Mouzos &
Segrave 2004; Flowers 2002; Miethe & Regoeczi
2004). The 2006–07 year was no exception, with
185 male victims and 81 female ones.

See, they are liars..

"Most domestic Violence is carried out by men",

Men do not have any resources whatsoever where DV is concerned and are less inclined to report it as the LAW is blatantly tilted towards women and he will be jailed at her instigation whether or not she is lying or making false charges is irrelevant. Men are automatically guilty unless demonstrated otherwise and even that requires a massive amount of evidence..

"Nearly 50% of people know someone who is affected by domestic violence".

Typical feminist strawman arguments !

Charles Porter weeps at the Harlem funeral for his son..

We have a fine example on the level of negative regard society and governments instrumentalities view Fathers..

Apparently, domestic violence is not anything that women or mothers DO..

Regardless that the facts states exactly the opposite..

It's always the man's fault and women are always blameless. This misandry I have witnessed right where I live on numerous occasions, even the state-wide "Office for Women" have on their site and brochures that it's always the male and women are really just responding to all that imaginary abuse..

(They can respond however they like and have done by murdering their spouses, much to the joy of the legal system..)

Abuse being summed up as "economic abuse"or "psychological abuse", whatever that is would be subject to interpretation by the so called "victim" obviously..


So we have this article about a Father grieving for his murdered and abused son. Wondering why nothing was done, wondering why walls were put in his way to hide the abusive Mother, wondering why the state would allow a women to abuse without accountability, wondering what he had to do to overcome their political correctness, their anti-Father attitude, their blatant sexism and call them to account. I sincerely hope that he sues all those responsible for this blatant and obvious neglect and makes some changes that allows Fathers to be recognised as human beings and completely necessary in the life of his own children..

GRIEVING DAD'S PAIN

RIPS CITY OVER BOY'S DEATH IN MOM'S CARE

OVERCOME: Charles Porter weeps at the Harlem funeral for his son, Jaquan (inset).

January 4, 2009

The grieving father of an abused, obese 10-year-old Staten Island boy allegedly killed by his mother lashed out at the city yesterday as family gathered for the child's funeral.

Jaquan Porter's emotional father charged that court officials, the Administration for Children's Services and other city agencies failed to help him track the boy and his mother, Melissa Sekulski, as they moved from borough to borough.

"From the Board of Education to the family courts to ACS, nobody helped me see him," a devastated Charles Porter said. "No city officials called to help. It just fell down the drain."

Almost 100 relatives and friends of Jaquan turned out yesterday at the Union Baptist Church in Harlem to mourn the boy, who was home-schooled by Sekulski.

Sekulski, 30, who allegedly admitted to repeatedly beating her son with a belt and stuffing him with junk food until his weight ballooned to 250 pounds, is accused of delivering the death blow to her child on Dec. 26, when she slammed his head into a wall.

She's being held without bail on first-degree manslaughter charges.

Porter, a Harlem resident, said he tried for years to see his son, to no avail. He also accused the city Department of Education of failing to check up on the boy after Sekulski pulled him out of school last year.

Porter wept throughout the funeral as he stared at his son's light blue casket and a poster of a younger, happier Jaquan displayed nearby with the words "We Love You" printed across the bottom.

The boy, whose favourite colour was blue, was dressed in a blue sweater and a dark blue New York Yankees cap. A large bouquet of blue carnations and gerbera daisies was atop the casket.

"I don't want this to happen to anyone else," Porter said. "I don't want this to happen in vain."

He had a message for other dads fighting to see their kids.

"Don't stop fighting. Don't let them tell you that they can't help you," he said. "It takes stuff like this for people to open their eyes."

Secret of the female orgasm is shown to be a hereditary trait..

Again another eye opener on several levels. You could be flogging (I know,pun)yourself over this one for years. You could be blamed for something that is totally beyond your control, you could be spending hours of unnecessary time trying to create the impossible..

Here's a hint..

The genetic effect was stronger for masturbation, which allowed 34 per cent of women to reach orgasm every time,

Only 34% could get themselves off so what chance have you got of achieving the same ?

Excellent blackmail material though, she could blame you for something that she inherited.

She could play the "guilt" factor to ensure that it's all your fault that she did not reach that peak..
Just bear in mind that you have the ultimate response when she complains about not reaching a climax as we all know, we reach one at just the right time, right..

Next time just let her know that it's her DNA that interfered with the outcome, not my problem..

This study has more than 50 people in it so it does have some merit..

Secret of the female orgasm is shown to be a hereditary trait

By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent

THE quality of a woman’s sex life depends largely on her genes, according to research that shows that her ability to have orgasms is as heritable as her blood pressure.

The varying ease with which women reach sexual climax is more heavily influenced by genetic factors than any other, British scientists have found.Inheritance outstrips the contributions made by upbringing, culture or male bedroom skills.

The study of almost 1,400 pairs of female twins revealed that genes affect arousal at least as strongly as they do medical conditions in which their role has long been established, such as hypertension, migraine and depression.

It also suggests that the elusiveness of the female orgasm is evolved, probably because it confers a reproductive advantage that is triggered only with a particularly desirable partner.

Two theories have been advanced to explain this. A climax could make conception more likely when women have sex with an attentive, high-quality mate by flushing sperm higher into the reproductive tract. Alternatively, female orgasms could strengthen pair-bonding, so that any resulting children have the benefit of two parents instead of one.

Either way, orgasm would not work as a mate-selection tool if it could be achieved too easily. It seems instead to rely on subtle physical and psychological clues that mark out men as good father material and discriminates against the reproductive chances of mates who lack them.

“The theory goes that if a man is considered powerful enough, strong enough or thoughtful enough, in bed or in the cave, then he’s likely to hang around as a long-term partner and be a better bet for bringing up children,” Professor Tim Spector, of St Thomas’ Hospital in London, who led the research, said.

The study, which is published today in the journal Biology Letters, sought to establish the extent to which genes and the environment contribute to the female orgasm, by comparing 683 sets of identical twins with 714 sets of non-identical twins. Such studies are one of the chief tools available to scientists seeking to tease out the role of inheritance in human biology and behaviour.

While identical twins share all their DNA and a childhood environment, non-identical twins share an environment but only 50 per cent of their genes. If a trait is more commonly shared by identical than fraternal twins, it probably has a big genetic component.

The participants completed a detailed survey about their sexual histories. They found that while 14 per cent of the women studied had an orgasm every time they had sex, 16 per cent had never reached a climax this way and another 16 per cent seldom did.

Genes were responsible for 34 per cent of this variation, the comparison between identical and non-identical twins revealed, indicating that inheritance is the single most important factor in women’s capacity to orgasm. Though the influence of environment as a whole is greater, no individual element of nurture, such as religious or family background, accounts for more than a few per cent of the differences.

The genetic effect was stronger for masturbation, which allowed 34 per cent of women to reach orgasm every time, with 14 per cent failing ever to achieve a climax. Inheritance accounted for 45 per cent of this variation, reflecting in part the removal of a key variable, the lover’s sexual prowess.

“What these results show, as well as wide variation, is clear evidence that biology is an underlying influence here,” Professor Spector said.

You can’t attribute the differences purely to culture, family upbringing, religion and race.These figures are in the same range as hypertension, which is 45 per cent heritable, and also migraine, depression, and the timing of menopause,” he said

http://anonym.to/?http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article531094.ece#

And ofcourse an appropriate poster from the peta loonies..