Okay maybe another blog..

Update...Feb 28..
Well then again I am thinking why waste the last four years, then lay down and die...

It's difficult..

1,753 Posts

Counter
515,738

Respectable effort even if I say so myself..

Number of things I have noticed over the last couple of years is..

More Men are happy to continue to carry the load..
More women are seeing the damage feminism has planted and promoted..
Men are becoming more organised and furthering the Men's rights issues..

Negative side..

The total idiots that I get comments from totally denying any responsibility and failing to make any effort to further Men's rights regardless of the amount of suffering feminism has installed..

I know those idiots will never be onside and I don't really care. I want to see more Men involved and More Men donating to the cause. The cause needs money to survive so if you have more than you need, make a donation even though regardless of the amount of money you have it is never enough..

Last..

Do a good deed for your fellow man, help and assist instead of ridicule and berate..

All the best to you all, keep up the cause. Make it work. After four years of doing this I am not about to erase it but will keep it as a record to ensure the message still gets across as I get over 400 new hits daily and it's for that reason..

After further thought I decided to boost my other blog..

http://boysraisedbysinglemums.blogspot.com/

Will there ever be any consensus ?

con⋅sen⋅sus

   /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -sus⋅es.

1.	majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2.	general agreement or concord; harmony.

---

Pesronally I am TIRED of the ongoing bickering and back biting where the Men's movement is concerned. There seems to be no effort or support and backbiting seems to be the order of the day..

Every one has their own opinion but no one wants to agree or promote any type of agreeance..

I am dissapointed as I have been on the forefront since early 1990's fighting the scurge that is feminism but I do not see any effort by anyone or very few wanting to get together to fight it..

Needless to say, I am getting tired as I feel I am alone..

I may go the same way as John Dias and call it quits if this does not change..

It really pays to be a WOMAN..

I have said it before. If you pretend to be a women, it really is worth your while..

Imagine going to court dressed as a women, your sentence would not only be halved but in most cases you would be let off regardless of the crime. Nothing escapes this mentality..

Murdered your husband.. oh you poor dear, he must have been a monster..
Murder your kids..oh dear you must have suffered while you lowered them into the bath one at a time..(all five of them)
Microwaved your daughter..oh dear, you must have felt bad and your pms must have been overwhelming..

Regardless, it would seem that if you are a female, anything you do, any women will justify your actions..

Normal female behaviour..

Being a female has distinct advantages as we all know..but I did not realise it was such a windfall..

Robert Franklin

Your Tax Dollars at Work

2009-02-07 at 10:18 am · Filed under blog

I'm not making this up. Apparently, at least in Wisconsin, women can rack up some pretty big bucks just for taking care of their own kids and occasionally those of their friends and relatives. Here's an article about four sisters who basically just traded off care of each others' children and, over the course of three years, banked $540,000 in taxpayer money (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/25/09). And it's all perfectly legal. I wonder what would happen if some guys got together and tried to play that angle.

Truly though, this is the brave new world. I've argued before that women need to give up power over children if they are ever to gain power in the workplace. It seems obvious to me that men and women are in this life together and that the more one does towards childcare, the less he/she will do at the plant or office. There's a tradeoff between a parent's involvement with baby and his/her involvement with work, and relevant statistics bear that out. As I say, I've argued the point before and I'll argue it again.

But here's where I could be wrong. If a third party comes along and takes Dad's rightful place with his child, maybe women can have it all. If, instead of promoting greater father involvement with children we substitute daycare, maybe women can have the kids and the money.

But who might that third party be? The government of course. If we can just get enough taxpayer money for subsidized daycare, then Mom can go to work, come home to baby who's been at daycare all day and have nothing whatsoever to do with Dad. If the only cost to society is billions of taxpayer dollars, fathers separated from kids and kids growing up without fathers, then surely, as Madeline Albright once said of thousands of dead Iraqis, it's "worth the cost." That makes sense, doesn't it?

I've long suspected that that's what a lot of the anti-father crowd is angling for, and certainly there are plenty of calls for ever-increasing levels of government-subsidized daycare. Not coincidentally, those calls are coming at a time when courts and legislatures are doing everything they can to separate fathers from children, and 38.5% of children are born out-of-wedlock. If we assume that what we're doing is what we intend to do, maybe my paranoid fantasy isn't so fantastic after all.

So possibly it's more accurate to see this Wisconsin case, not as a mistake but as a kind of pilot program for the brave new world to come.

Women are harmless, close all prisons..

Unfortunately I have to point you to this feminised outlet but Heh! I am not biased..

That ABC
Yes you have to bear the advertisement..

Also..

Women in control as Percy stated will lead to deterioration and destruction, so what better example..

secondly..

But all women are blameless we are told..
Shut all wimmins prisons as they are really harmless and if they do anything wrong it's because they have some issues or something they would like to manufacture..

How about this ?

Woman Arrested in 40-Year-Old Denver Slaying

Dayton, Ohio, woman arrested in 1968 fatal shooting of man playing pool at Denver bar

DENVER February 7, 2009 (AP)

The Associated Press

This image provided by the Montgomery Ohio Sheriff's department shows the arrest photo of Tina...

This image provided by the Montgomery Ohio Sheriff's department shows the arrest photo of Tina Lester. The 65-year-old woman was wanted in a 1968 slaying in Denverand was arrested Friday Feb. 6, 2009 in Dayton, Ohio, where police say she's been living under an alias. Denver police spokeswoman Sharon Avendano says Tina Lester was arrested Friday on suspicion of first-degree murder in the death of 36-year-old Ronald Schlatter of LaPorte. According to police the arrest resulted from the execution of the oldest outstanding Murder Warrant obtained by the Denver Police Department. (AP Photo/Montgomery County Sheriff)

(AP)
More Photos

A 65-year-old woman wanted in a 1968 slaying at a Denver bar was arrested Friday in Dayton, Ohio, where police say she had been living under an alias.

Denver police spokeswoman Sharon Avendano said Tina Louise Lester was arrested at her home on suspicion of first-degree murder. Lester is accused of fatally shooting 36-year-old Ronald E. Schlatter of the northern Colorado town of LaPorte.

Her arrest stemmed from the "oldest outstanding murder warrant obtained by the Denver Police Department," said Avendano.

Avendano said she didn't know if Lester had an attorney. She had been living in Dayton under the name Agnes Ramey.

Just to keep it moving as they actually need any help..

The woman's statement and ironically applies supremely, right now..

I am the one with the power now, buddy.

February 6, 2009

Texan who died in prison cleared of rape conviction

(CNN) -- A Texas district court judge Friday reversed the conviction of a man who died in prison nearly a decade ago, almost two decades into a prison sentence for a rape he swore he did not commit, CNN affiliate KXAN reported.

Timothy Cole died in prison while serving a sentence for a rape DNA tests show he did not commit.

Timothy Cole was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for the 1985 rape of 20-year-old Michele Mallin. He maintained his innocence, but it was not confirmed by DNA until years after his 1999 death, when another inmate confessed to the rape.

In the courtroom of Judge Charlie Baird Friday afternoon, Mallin, now 44, faced Jerry Johnson, the man who confessed to the rape.

"What you did to me, you had no right to do," she told him angrily, according to Austin's KXAN. "You've got no right to do that to any woman. I am the one with the power now, buddy."

Cole's family also addressed Johnson.

"He'll never have the chance to have children," Cole's mother, Ruby Session, said. "I want you to know he was a fine young man."

Johnson has been in prison since 1985 on two convictions for aggravated sexual assault, according to the Texas Department of Corrections. He was given a life sentence for the rape of a 15-year-old girl, and a jury later tacked on a 99-year sentence for another rape, according to the Lubbock, Texas, Avalanche-Journal. He cannot be charged with the Mallin case, as the statute of limitations has expired.

Johnson also spoke Friday.

"I am responsible," he said. "I say I am truly sorry."

Link..

Yeah right, what do we care, it was just a black boy..
What did the female say ?

"I was positive," she said. "I really thought it was him."

Another example of taking for gospel a female's false charge..

Justice just keeps rolling along as long it's a female that is the supposed victim and it's a man that pays..
Ain't life grand..

The Ultimate Christmas Present..

About my online name: Percy..An MRA Podcast series..

Two podcasts from Percy, this will be of a series on Manhood and Man's struggle with himself and finding his place in society.
Percy, with a Masters Degree, is an expert in his own discipline and not one to be ignored or taken lightly. A Sage of the old world and one determined to educate and assist you with your pursuit in life, whatever that may be.

A series that all Men should listen to..

Listen and learn.

Series No. 1..About my online name: Percy.



Series 2

Tribute to Dontmakehermad.com..

It is always sad to see a prominent site disappear but in this case for positive reasons...
Well done to John and other founders and best wishes for the future..

Bugger me..

Are we actually having an effect..

Unbelievable..

FINALLY..

February 5, 2009

DontMakeHerMad.com has closed its doors

Effective February 5, 2009, DontMakeHerMad.com is ending its operations. This site was created in mid-2006, promoting surveillance as a method of thwarting false allegations of domestic violence. Since that time there has been some progress, both in the legal and cultural arenas. The October 2008 California court ruling in Woods vs. Shewry, from the 3rd District Appellate Court, was a landmark legal achievment for male abuse victims. In addition, the 2008 conference on domestic violence, From Ideology to Inclusion, was also a major cultural success. These successes represent a new and encouraging phase in the burgeoning men's movement within the United States. They, and other victories like them, illustrate a slow transition from a blog-based and forum-based movement to a movement focused on achieving tangible results, especially in the legal arena.

This Web site was a reaction to the injustice of the criminal law system, a system that we believe is hostile to male defendants in domestic violence and abuse cases, and also in family law. But as a Web site, DontMakeHerMad.com was not in itself a sufficiently effective agent of change in these areas, and now we wish to direct our energies in more productive directions.

Lest any of our supporters wonder, we were under no external compulsion or pressure of any kind to close our doors. We simply believe that a maturing movement requires a fresh approach, one that encourages us to ACT more and complain less. Where political action is not the objective, "action" can also be defined as simply helping our fellow man. Whether it is helping an unjustly accused defendant navigate the turbulent waters of the criminal courts, or helping fit parents who have been unjustly separated from their children, or simply helping individuals who need emotional or financial support, these are the tasks that await us outside of a political or legal context. There is much to be done.

If you wish to view our site at a snapshot in time, please visit the Wayback Machine at Archive.org.

Thank you very much for your interest and support!

- The Founders -

What Do Women Want? ..Yawn, again..

Interesting questions philosophers over the past aeons ignored or could not explain for obvious reasons..

So we are basically right back to now..

But never fear, modern researchers, psychologist, therapists and feminists will obvious lie about that topic for some considerable time to come..

Now what ?

Well, obviously more money is forthcoming on top of the billions already spent on that sex to try and find some reasonable explanation...

Will I live that long ?

Freund’s words helped to focus her investigations, work that has made her a central figure among the small force of female sexologists devoted to comprehending female desire. John Bancroft, a former director of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction, traces sexological studies by women at least as far back as 1929, to a survey of the sexual experiences of 2,200 women carried out by Katharine Bement Davis, a prison reformer who once served as New York City’s first female commissioner of corrections.

Didn't feminists state that no studies were ever made on their privileged sex prior to their intervention ?

Really..

women’s sexuality, not only generating an effort — mostly futile so far — to find drugs that can foster female desire as reliably as Viagra and its chemical relatives have facilitated erections, but also helping, indirectly, to inspire the search for a full understanding of women’s lust. This search may reflect, as well, a cultural and scientific trend, a stress on the deterministic role of biology, on nature’s dominance over nurture — and, because of this, on innate differences between the sexes, particularly in the primal domain of sex. “Masters and Johnson saw men and women as extremely similar,” Heiman said. “Now it’s research on differences that gets funded, that gets published, that the public is interested in.” She wondered aloud whether the trend will eventually run its course and reverse itself, but these days it may be among the factors that infuse sexology’s interest in the giant forest.

Excuse the inane drivel but as as usual it's feminist ideology dominated..

You already know about the "we are the product of our environment" bullshit feminists have been ranting about for years and finally this confession is just another example of their lies being exposed again..

because of this, on innate differences between the sexes

This is indeed a major revelation for those incompetents, a revelation only because they were told otherwise and they excepted that without query or any regard for the truth even though it was staring them in the face..

And this..

“Now it’s research on differences that gets funded, that gets published, that the public is interested in.”

They forgot to add that it's only the privileged princesses they are really concerned with ofcourse as they seem to be the only ones with major sexual issues..

Anyway, I cannot read that claptrap, those of you interested..here is the link..

How often has anything good come from the "New York Times" apart from feminist ideology..

I should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking...

More hand wringing from the privileged sex regretting all things feminism but as many have already realised, too little, too late..

Their appeal and need has been squandered on a doctrine that ensured their well rehearsed outcome..

Now that guys like myself have been saying it over and over again, they finally see the obvious and now wallow in their newly found grieve self pity and obvious dismay.

We swallowed the lies..

It would appear that women did have it good in the past but as with any child, the grass is always greener somewhere else so let's destroy the the well sowed, healthy, society sustaining patch we're standing on..

Like I am going feel even a minutiae of sympathy..

Madonna syndrome: I should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking

A playwright who embraced the feminism espoused by her mother and flaunted by Madonna now feels betrayed

Zoe Lewis

I never thought I would be saying this, but being a free woman isn't all it's cracked up to be. Is that the rustle of taffeta I hear as the suffragettes turn in their graves? Possibly. My mother was a hippy who kept a pile of (dusty) books by Germaine Greer and Erica Jong by her bed (like every good feminist, she didn't see why she should do all the cleaning). She imbued me with the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation. I fought with my older brother and won; at university I beat the rugby lads at drinking games. I was not to be messed with.

Now, nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold. I want love and children but they are nowhere to be seen. I feel like a UN inspector sent in to Iraq only to find that there never were any weapons of mass destruction. I was led to believe that women could “have it all” and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dreams - to be a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no.

Ten years ago The Times ran a piece about my play Paradise Syndrome. It was based on my girlfriends in the music business. All we did was party, work and drink. The play sold out and I thought: “This is it! I'm going to have it all: success, power and men are going to adore me for it.” In reality it was the beginning of years of hard slog, rejection letters and living on the breadline. A decade on, I have written the follow-up play Touched for the Very First Time in which Lesley, played by Sadie Frost, is an ordinary 14-year-old from Manchester who falls in love with Madonna in 1984 after hearing the song Like a Virgin. She religiously follows her icon through the years, as Madonna sells her the ultimate dream: “You can do anything - be anything - go girl.” Lesley discovers, along with Madonna, that trying to “have it all” is a huge gamble. I wrote the play because so many of my girlfriends were inspired by this bullish woman who allowed us to be strong and sexy. I still love her and always will, but she has encouraged us to chase a fantasy and it's a huge disappointment.

I may be an extreme case. My views may not represent those of other women of my generation. Perhaps I am just a spoilt middle-class girl who had a career and who has now changed her mind? I don't think so. This month the General Household Survey found that the number of unmarried women under 50 has more than doubled over the past 30 years. And by the age of 30, one in five of these “freemales”, who have chosen independence over husband and family, has gone through a broken cohabitation.

I argue that women's libbers of the Sixties and Seventies put careerism at the forefront, trampling the traditional role of women underneath their Doc Martens. I wish a more balanced view of womanhood had been available to me. I wish that being a housewife or a mother wasn't such a toxic idea to middle-class liberals of yesteryear.

Increasing numbers of my feminist friends are giving up their careers for love and children and baking. I wish I'd had kids ten years ago, when time was on my side, but the problem is not so much time as mentality. I made a conscious decision not to have serious relationships because I thought I had all the time in the world. Many of my friends did the same. It's about understanding what is important in life, and from what I see and feel, loving relationships and children bring more happiness than work ever can.

Linkus interuptus..

Apart from my previous declaration, I will not ignore blatant and obvious stupidity of that other sex..

Ofcourse..

Woman Breaks Record With KKK Breasts

Hiding the Truth About the Pay Gap Between Men and Women..

Besides lying about "Rape", "Single moms", Women's shelters", "Women's education", "Glass ceiling" and now the "Wage Gap", feminists have that amoral blackmailing ability to demand those feckless and spinals leaders in western countries do their bidding, regardless of affect or cost to society. A bit like a child given an order by a drunken mother to get another beer from the fridge..

As feminists do not care or are even aware of the word or meaning of equality they still hide behind that obvious conscious lie, we have those so called leaders granting their every wish without question, not based on any valid justifiable or credible grounds what so ever..

This year we will concentrate of those gutless, gormless wimps, cow-towing to feminism's every wish and in that process destroying yours and my inalienable right to be treated as a human being without prejudice or bias.

Not to be treated as a second class citizen and allowing one sex to be raised above another purely based on feminism's theoretical and unjustifiable fallacies..

I bet you're even prouder today for voting them in, congratulations on a well thought out decision..

Hiding the Truth About the Pay Gap Between Men and Women

A study on the gender wage gap has been removed from the website of the Labor Department — and the timing is suspicious.
February 3, 2009 - by Michael J. Eastman

The debate over pay equity is front and center on the Congressional agenda. The first bill signed into law by President Obama, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, overturns a U.S. Supreme Court decision and vastly expands the opportunity to file pay and other discrimination cases. Another bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, has already passed the House of Representatives and is likely to be considered by the Senate in the spring.

Paying someone less because of their sex is illegal and two federal laws, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, provide the framework whereby victims of pay discrimination can seek redress. However, some argue that these two laws are not effective at eradicating pay discrimination and that the laws must be changed. Central to their argument is the so-called “pay gap,” the difference between the average earnings of men and women.

In debate over the Paycheck Fairness Act, Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, said that today women earn “78 cents for ever dollar that is earned by a man doing the same job with the same responsibilities.” Miller then went on to say “if we are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at the weak sanctions under current law.” President Obama expressed similar sentiment as he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law.

To close the wage gap, Miller and his colleagues support punishing violators of the Equal Pay Act with unlimited punitive and compensatory damages. They also seek to make it harder for employers to justify legitimate pay differences, make it easier for trial lawyers to create large class actions lawsuits, and effectively eliminate the statute of limitations for many types of claims, among other things.

The argument that the pay gap must be closed rests on the assumption that the pay gap is largely attributable to employer discrimination. However, if the pay gap is to be used to justify such significant changes in the law, it seems entirely appropriate to examine the pay gap itself. Does it really measure employer discrimination? Do other factors play a greater or lesser role?

Economists who have studied the pay gap have observed that numerous factors other than discrimination contribute to the wage gap, such as hours worked, experience, and education. For example, Professor June O’Neil has written extensively about how time out of the workforce, or years spent working part-time, can reduce future pay. Likewise, economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth, in her book Women’s Figures, has written about the decisions that women are more likely to make to choose flexibility, a friendly workplace environment, and other nonmonetary factors as compared to men.

Recognizing the importance of unbiased research on the pay gap, the Labor Department recently contracted with CONSAD Research Corporation for a review of more than 50 existing studies as well as a new economic and statistical analysis of the pay gap. CONSAD’s Report, which was finalized on January 12, 2009, found that the vast majority of the pay gap is due to several identifiable factors and that the remainder may be due to other specific factors they were not able to measure.

CONSAD found that controlling for career interruption and other factors reduced the pay gap from about 20 percent to about 5 percent. Data limitations prevented it from considering many other factors. For example, the data did not permit an examination of total compensation, which would examine health insurance and other benefits, and instead focused solely on wages paid. The data were also limited with respect to work experience, job tenure, and other factors.

The Labor Department’s conclusion was that the gender pay gap was the result of a multitude of factors and that the “raw wage gap should not be used as the basis for [legislative] correction. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

The Labor Department’s new report is clearly an important contribution to the debate over pay equity. But where is it? Although it was posted on the Labor Department’s web site just days after it was finalized, it was apparently removed as the transition in power was occurring between former President Bush and President Obama. We don’t know why the report was taken down, but certainly the timing is suspicious.

If the debate over pay equity is to be at the forefront of the Congressional agenda, then the Labor Department and the new administration need to acknowledge that the overwhelming evidence is that the pay gap is not based primarily on employer discrimination. Disclosure of the Labor Department’s report would be a good first step.

Blatant and obvious bias against Fathers in NZ Family Courts..

Benjamin demonstrates exactly what we already know to be true and that also includes every western society where feminists have destroyed legal objectives and sided solely with women.

This is clearly demonstrated daily and for evidence ask ANY Father about his experiences at the hands of those male-hating family courts..

The fascinating thing is that feminists actually believe they are for equality..

For further information regarding the equality that feminists promote see "George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM"..

February 05 2009 Tena tatau katoa,

Recently, as The Political Busker, I wrote and distributed emails laying serious charges against the judiciary, politicians, including an implication against
New Zealand broadcasting. These emails gained replies from various recipients proving that the information was received by some of those with a direct responsibility to engage the information. Among those replies was one from the Minister of Justice, Simon Power's secretary.

My primary allegation has been made over a period of eight years. It lays claim that there has been and remains bias and discrimination in family law, against men and fatherhood and that these claims can be proved. Counter to my argument government and the court rely on a report published by the Law Commission in 2002 about dispute resolution in the Family Court. That document does not resolve the argument as has been suggested by the Principal Family Court judge, Judge Boshier, or supported by the previous Minister of the Courts Rick Barker. The report states that bias is difficult to prove.

Over the eight years I can easily prove bias and discrimination against men and of greater public concern, against fatherhood. The evidence is obvious and overwhelming. Action, non-action, statutes and policies clearly identify that men are at an immediate and improper disadvantage when matters of socialisation, human behaviour or the protection of gender are engaged. It is because the evidence is so obvious that the problem is so extreme. It is because the media refuse to engage the extent of the discrimination and bias against men and fatherhood that our country has such a serious problem.The policies and practices that are being implemented and engaged are to marginalise paternalism. There is an active programme and policy disengaging a father as a natural part of the family unit.

As the primary example, the policy has advanced in granting women full authority over their bodies as relative to pregnancy. This provision has then advanced to allow lesbian couples or single women to give birth to a child with no provision for the child to masculinity. Every human is created from a masculine and feminine, biological and genetic influence and it is a social deprivation for the child to have one gender influence purposefully extracted from the child's development.

Yet the advance of feminism has ignored the need to protect a child to a masculine influence. For the survival of feminism, women have to be able to make such decisions on their own and without any interference from the male gender.Children are now a second consideration to women in matters of human rights and men are represented with no requiring need of any specific protection. The result of these policies and programmes without protecting men in matters of domestic unity is that many families are separated and many children live without the influence, protection or support from their biological and natural fathers.

Yet these facts are not engaged to register urgency with parliament or the media. This is likely because to register the problem, would require a turn around of the implemented policies and programmes. Such a turn around against a significant number of years of directly and globally building women's independence for that construction would be unthinkable. Consequently it is easier to ignore the facts that expose impropriety, social injustice and imbalance than it is to engage them as is legally, morally and socially responsible.

The result of this is that the allegations I have presented over the period of eight years have had to be ignored. Subsequently parent alienation is protected and claims of bias and discrimination in the Family Court are bound to be refuted. This has led to my imprisonment for protest and for me to be made guilty on matters of domestic violence that were never true and remain ridiculous. Irrespective of the media's failed representation on matters of gender bias the fact remains that discrimination against men and fathers has existed and remains protected through the present application of the Family Court.The point of this email is to engage the reader with an argument that has been left in neglect by the general public through a failed representation by the world's mainstream media. It has been too easy to blame men for societal problems. For too long society has failed to articulate that women can be a cause in serious domestic chaos without needing to physically assault any individual.

Additionally, as women gain hold of their independence and access domestic freedom with self security the levels of physical violence committed by women and girls openly increases.On the 1st of July 2003 I stated in parliament from the gallery that New Zealand had an emergency. My claims were again ignored and I was imprisoned relative to a trespass on parliament. The media then, as they do now, refuse to engage the facts that I present. By example they reject my submission relevant to the constitution and the factual event of the most serious possible breach of a parliamentarian's obligation. They refuse to accept that the Care of Children Act 2004 is not a legitimate act and consequently no action or application under its jurisdiction is lawful.

They refuse to accept that this extraordinary information was presented to the judiciary and to parliament within the appropriate period with the judiciary choosing instead to ignore its fact perpetuating instead my guilt of a crime in law that was not in fact properly constituted or objective. The media in New Zealand is instead protecting parliament from this matter and its facts, furthering the status of children to willful marginalisation, and manipulating a society to singularly be a comfort zone for women.I am not guilty of domestic violence, yet my relationship with my son and my daughter has been curtailed for a period of eight years because of, improperly formed and brutal legislation. Apparently the argument I present holds no consequence on society and instead there is a bureaucratic responsibility to ignore its observation.The matter of ignorance to arguments relevant to the most serious improprieties of New Zealand's or other Westminster based systems does not stop upon my argument.

Attached to this letter is a petition organised by Auckland water rights activist Penny Bright. Penny seeks transparency in local government politics. As an individual who is engaged full time on arguments that identify serious improprieties in public administrations, I find it so difficult to equate how any ordinary citizen can excuse themselves from a responsibility to challenge these injustices. There seems to be an active willingness by the public as represented by the media to administer a publicly blinded eye. Why shouldn't there be transparency in local government politics? Why is it so hard for the public to join together to stop their local politicians from irresponsibly if secretly spending and allocating rates money?

Additionally, I have added a link to YouTube, from Australian Chris Wingate. Chris appeals to the public for public juries to engage corruption. Chris's appeal will not be reached unless taken up by a public, represented by the media, who recognise that allegations made against the judiciary, parliament and other public bodies are likely to be substantiated. While it is that the media refuse to engage their own responsibility to report, that there is serious disquiet about the behaviours and performances of publicly paid officials, and from within the highest offices, nobody is secure from the damage of that behaviour.

What is saddest about the information I have provided is that there seems so few New Zealanders with a demeanour to stand against injustice and corruption. Our nation has a reputation for standing strong and proud against impropriety, yet this present generation is harvesting its own impropriety for a lack of stamina and courage to stand against obvious wrongs. In the matter of gender discrimination our families are obviously falling apart. The domestic violence and national levels of violent crime are high, yet we refuse to accept that there is an independent responsibility on fatherhood to compete with these horrendous statistics. Challenges on injustice should not rest alone on the shoulders of one or two, or even a small handful of individuals. Every citizen has a responsibility to open their minds to the facts that our society may well be in a steep decline because of our own ignorance and inability to engage injustice and corruption.

An associate has recently worked hard attempting to get signatures to reconstitute a Trust. With those signatures funds can be collected. Apparently he needs two more signatures. Without funds accessible to engage the demonstrable injustices that exist, and in this matter relevant to family law, fathers and fatherhood will stay relegated in second class citizenship. It is illogical to make a claim that our nation puts its children's interest as the paramount consideration, when we are prepared to willfully and irresponsibly damage the access and association that that child has with their natural and biological dad.
On February 20th 2009, $130.00 is required to pay for the Post Office Box used for a father's coalition. I am unable to cover that cost. This email also serves as a request for that cost to be covered by a donation.

As the Political Busker I am engaged in many actions, before the courts, tribunals and various complaints with commissions. I believe I am an effective challenger of injustices in New Zealand society and easily meet a public value worthy of such a donation.

Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton,
The Political Busker(of a) father's coalition.

Child Abuse: Where would you hide..

Female Intruder suspected of flooding women's refuge centre..

I have listed a few articles on this subject mostly penned by David Usher and Carey Roberts soundly condemning those shelters for what they really are. Feminists toys to ensure they can continually manipulate false and misleading information concerning DV.

Here we have proof that not only was that shelter empty but cleaners did not detect the damage until the weekend was over..Power turned off, packed up until needed..

Whenever feminists rage about the ongoing level of abuse of all and sundry (women only ofcourse) the current situation is always at disastrous levels, DV is such an epidemic, not even the armed forces could stop it. Their exaggerated version ofcourse, it ensures the money continues to roll in even though those shelters are either empty or are just filled with borders or temporary lodgers looking for a place to free load for a couple of weeks or months..

Also, how does one violate a house ?

Also this..

"We bring women and their children in sometimes during the night. What if we had not seen the water and the electricity had been on?"

Another great example of hysterics generated by this moronic media, blowing it out of proportion by making inane comments on situations that did not exist..

Looks like they pissed one of their own off and suffered the consequences..

Intruder deliberately floods women's refuge

South Canterbury's safe haven for women and children has been violated with the Women's Refuge safe house left ankle deep in water.

Women's Refuge and Timaru Police believe a former client is the most likely suspect after a firehose was turned on full at the secret location overnight on Sunday and not discovered until the next morning, when the water was 10cm deep.

Refuge co-ordinator Dawn Rangi-Smith said she was distressed by the wilful damage and believed someone could have been electrocuted.

"We bring women and their children in sometimes during the night. What if we had not seen the water and the electricity had been on?"

She said the incident probably happened on Sunday night as the safe house had last been visited at 3.30pm on Sunday but was empty for the night.

When the cleaners arrived on Monday they saw water pouring onto the street.

"Someone has come in and turned the fire hose on full bore.

"We think it may have been an act of revenge by a woman who stayed here last week.

"We make no apologies that when women stay here they have to join our programmes about the care and protection of their children.

"Some women we have to tell to help themselves so they can help their children."

The water ruined the carpets which would now have to be dumped, she said.

"All the blankets and bedding have to be thrown out and most of the furniture will have to be dumped too.

"We had just shifted our offices to Elizabeth Street, so thankfully thousands of dollars worth of equipment was not damaged."

Housing New Zealand owned the property and would be assessing the damage, she said.

"Our sister refuges have already rung in support and anyone who needs help will be put in safe houses out of the area."

Timaru Police family violence co-ordinator Steve Wills said he was "really disappointed with the wanton stupid behaviour".

"It is possible it has been done by a women who was previously a client there."

"The refuge does some great work helping children and women stay safe and for someone to do that (flood the house) is terrible.

"We have an indication of someone who could have been involved, but we would like to hear from anyone who has any information."

Windows were found open but no forced entry had been made.

The police investigation will continue.

Here is more information feminists do not want to know about..

Iraqi woman had 80 women raped to recruit suicide bombers...

What charming people they are. Women know the benefit of rape and apparently have no qualms about using it as a psychological weapon when it suits them or a game they can play to emotionally blackmail others..

Feminists been screaming about all those goings on in the middle east and it would appear that they had better start looking at their own as well..

Iraqi woman had 80 women raped to recruit suicide bombers

Article from: Agence France-Presse

• Font size: Decrease Increase
• Email article: Email
• Print article: Print

Correspondents in Baghdad

February 04, 2009 09:15am

A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police and confessed to recruiting the women and orchestrating dozens of attacks.

In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.

"We arrested Samira Jassim, known as 'Um al-Mumenin', the mother of the believers, who was responsible for recruiting 80 women'', Major General Qassim Atta said.

"She confessed her responsibility for these actions, and she confirmed that 28 attempts had been made in one of the terrorists' strongholds,'' he said.

Samira Jassim was arrested on January 21. She is allegedly linked to the Ansar al-Sunnah insurgent group.

Two of the attacks for which Samira Jassim admitted responsibility in the video confession took place in Diyala province, in central Iraq, which is considered one of the most dangerous areas of the country.

The Associated Press reports US military figures indicate at least 36 female suicide bombers attempted or carried out 32 attacks last year. Women are often allowed through military checkpoints without being searched, making it easier for them to hide explosives under their traditional robes.

Harriet Harman is an ultra-feminist...

Feminists are quite rightly labelled as lunatics who waddle in the past to promote their sexist agenda and their male-hate rage..

MELANIE PHILLIPS: Harriet Harman is an ultra-feminist gender warrior trapped in a student radical time-warp. Her Orwellian 'equality' agenda is not just sinister - it's unhinged

14th January 2009

Today’s White Paper on social mobility should concern anyone who cares about justice and liberty, for it is not about social mobility at all.

It is in fact a blueprint for imposing ‘equality’ through every single arm of government.

Already, every public authority in Britain is legally bound to ensure that policies do not unfairly discriminate on grounds of race, gender, disability or sexuality – a requirement which has actually brought about much injustice. Now they will be similarly bound to bridge the gap between rich and poor.

And how are they going to do this? Inescapably, by taking away from the better off what they have achieved on the basis that this is unjustified ‘privilege’, and giving it to the poor on the basis that they are unable to achieve by themselves.

And this from a government which has itself spent the last decade destroying the life chances of millions of poor people by undermining the nuclear family, bringing the education system to its knees and trapping more and more people in welfare dependency.

Double act: Instead of actually helping those who have been unable to make it, Gordon Brown and Harriet Harman will instead punish those who have

Instead of genuinely helping those who have been unable to make it, they will instead punish those who have. And they call that ‘fairness’!

Social mobility is actually the antithesis of equality, because if people are able to progress higher up the social and income ladder it follows that others will be left behind.

Social mobility inevitably rests upon a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for what they have achieved. This is the only fair system. Imposing ‘equality’ - which is really a kind of ‘identicality’, a belief that everyone must end up in exactly the same place - is monumentally unfair.

It amounts to institutionalised discrimination based on the highly subjective and ideological prejudices of those in power to decide just who deserves to be privileged and who to be discriminated against.

Accordingly, any moves to apply it are inevitably deeply coercive and in the end unattainable - as was proved so appallingly under Soviet communism. For the British government to introduce this Orwellian agenda is not just sinister - it is positively unhinged.

The person said to be behind this is that middle-class paragon, the Equalities Minister Harriet Harman, who is said to have convinced her Cabinet colleagues of the need to enshrine the class war in law.

In a speech this weekend, she will hail this move as a step towards ‘a new social order’.

‘We want to do more than just provide escape routes out of poverty for a talented few. We want to tackle the class divide,’ she will say.

This is but the latest bit of cack-handed injustice from Harman, an ultra-feminist gender warrior who has spent much of her political career trying to institutionalise injustice against men and privilege women on the basis of ‘sexual equality’.

Much is made of Gordon Brown’s unreconstructed redistributive socialism. But in fact Harman is the most conspicuous example of another important characteristic of this government: its state of fossilised adolescence.

After all, listening to her is a bit like entering a time-warp and being subjected to some ghastly student radical circa 1970 nasally boring on about the class/gender/race struggle. That’s because she - and a number of her ministerial colleagues - were indeed part of that generation of privileged baby-boomers who indulged in adolescent fantasy politics about changing society and human nature - but who, crucially, never grew out of it.

What then happened was that between 1979 and 1997 they were kept out of power by three successive Conservative administrations. And when they finally clawed their way into government, they were then in a position to put into practice the adolescent politics which had been stored in aspic and beyond which they had never progressed.

The way forward is obvious. The Equalities Minister must put her money where her mouth is.

By her own lights, the best way the public school-educated Harman could do her bit to ‘tackle the class divide’ would surely be to step down as an MP forthwith so that a working-class person could take her place.

Warning: PMS alert...

Pms, hormonal imbalance and periods have been banned by feminists and never referred to as it suggests that the privileged princesses may be in some way flawed and not the epicentre of perfection as they promote..

Some of you may need to monitor the situation..

National Alert Levels
Currently Tracking: 15,927
PMS Starting Today: 574
PMS Starting within 5 days: 2,460
Overall Threat Index (1-4): 1

Welcome to PMSBuddy.com!

PMSBuddy.com is a free service created with a single goal in mind: to keep you aware of when your wife, girlfriend, mother, sister, daughter, or any other women in your life are closing in on "that time of the month" - when things can get intense for what may seem to be no reason at all.

For women, this is a great way to give people in your life a heads-up of when you might be feeling a bit irritable without having an awkward conversation.

What's more, we will not only keep you informed, but will give you some free advice on what to do about it. With PMSBuddy.com, there is no reason to ever be blindsided by PMS again.

PMSBuddy.com - Saving relationships, one month at a time!

Where are the kids ? errr..College..

How to screw up History..

The one thing I like about feminists is their consistency..

State a lie often enough is their mainstay and we have even have so called intelligent women aligned with the men's movement that not only agree with this feminist program but they fully support it.

A bit like "we know how much men are suffering and really being screwed, but we don't really give a shit if it affects our privileges" attitude..

You can rely on women's help like you can rely on the scorpion not biting you as you cross the stream...It's what they do..

If I have learned one thing it's this and I wish I had not..
Women will just pay lip service to Men's grievances..
But for any reason, if their station in life is affected, you are on your own..

Revelation this year..Don't trust them until they prove otherwise..

Anyway here is the drivel Universities slate at students..

You have to be twice as good to be equal: 'placing' women in Plymouth's Devonport Dockyard

Rob Bartram ¹ Sarah Shobrook ¹

¹ University College of St Mark and St John, Derriford Road, Plymouth PL6 8BH

Copyright 1998 Royal Geographical Society

ABSTRACT

Summary This paper explores the dynamics of gender relations in Plymouth's Devonport Dockyard. It focuses on the day-to-day, lived experiences of working women in a male-dominated workplace. Two issues are put forward for particular consideration: the first concerns the way in which social structures in the dockyard give rise to a set of gender relations specific to this workplace; the second concerns the relationship between space, place and the fluidity of gendered social boundaries.

---

Here is the actual student's response to this drivel..

The paper is an absolute joke - an account of womens experiences in trying to get a shop in a flipping dockyard and how men made their life a misery while working there etc. Not one mention of the experiences of men or even children. I will give you some ideas I thought I would write for the critique but it is a very dangerous situation as a butch, lesbo feminist professor practically owns the geography department and I have a feeling I would risk more than just a low grade.

So whatever you do, do not tell the truth..
Feminism for you. Lie and cheat is the order of the day and while you're at it make sure you run down all men and boys as they are worthless..

Ever wonder why I loathe feminists ?

Here is his response in full..

Anyway here goes:

It is made clear in the introduction that this paper is intended to be limited to the experiences of women and that it is supposd to contribute to a "wider context" - namely "gender inequalities in the workplace." It is also made clear that the stance this article takes is based on Walby's (1990) argument that "Patriarchy as a 'system of social structures and social practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women.'"
I don't know where to begin to express my utmost disagreement with this 'theory.' I fail to see how 'patriarchy' amounts to men as a group oppressing women as a group. If you went back to the times of the 2 world wars and before it is obvious that both men and women were oppressed in different ways. If one must attribute blame for 'oppressing' or 'exploiting' to one group of people then it would undoubtably be related to social hierarchy - the small minority of men at the top with the greatest influence e.g. government. While women were limited to the home as carers and nuturers men were limited to the workplace as breadwinners and providers. Moreover most men had little or no say in society whatsoever - they were mostly working class workers - coal mines and a variety of others jobs which were dangerous the the health and incredibly dangerous and which women were exempt from (as of 1842 for coal mining). Women may not have had the vote at the same time as men did but it is interesting to note that men could only vote at all if they were prepared to go to war and die for their country! Personally I find it quite disturbing that this article is exploring women's challenges at the workplace and all the trauma that goes with it while tens of thoasands of men were being killed in war - most notable the Battle of the Somme which 100s of 1000s of people - mostly men were killed. And society called this exploitation and oppression of men 'glory.' Emily Prankhurst herself gave flowers of shame to the men who refused to go to WW2. There was no crossing social boundaries for men OR women.

Personally I find it peculiar that there are no interviews of men in this article - how did they come to terms with women entering the workplace? Because there is no mention of men's experiences a person reading this artcile would assume they resisted simply because they are women and that they as a group were exploited by men as a group. But if I were a man brought up to see my purpose as a breadwinner and a supporter of a wife and children I imagine I would resist naturally because I as a man have fewer options that a woman. One could argue that there were social boundaries preventing men from marrying a rich woman and becoming the home carer while she was the breadwinner. If fewer men are employed then the only place for them is unemployment or poverty - a very grim set of options. A situation a woman would be less likely to face. Moreover many men faced debtors prison if they were unable to support their families and so one could argue again that a man would need better paying jobs more. One could even argue that men were just as exploited and 'oppressed.' They had to work or go to jail or live in poverty in general. A woman was more likely to have the options initially of just marrying up and staying at home or live in poverty but Postwar gained the option of not only having the option to work but also to work and be at home. The dark mysterious 'place' that was the workplace in the eyes of a woman became familiar and a gradually broken social barrier but the equilavalent barrier for men as never been explored.

A weak point in the article was the bit which looked at the lack of successful female apprenticeships - it does not mention how many women actually applied as a pose to men. 8 girls and 250 boys successful. How many girls and boys applied? For all one could know it could be 50 girls and 500 men. How do we know? Also how many of these girls planned to start a family and could easily find a man to support them as a pose to men who either needed the money to support himself as finding a woman to support him would be unlikely or because he was brought up to think that it was imperative a man find a good job in order to attract a wife in the first place. My problem with this article is it does not take into account very important factors in the very old dynamics between males and females. Also I find it hard to believe that a great deal of women were applying for these higher up 'longer hour' jobs simply for the reason that women tend to pursue careers with large social networks (as the article itself admits) and fewer hours to faciliate their dream of raising a family and having a job. Female dominance in teaching and human resources is a testament to that as a pose to the lack of female presence (or concern) with higher paid jobs still dominated by men to this day. On this point I found it most interesting that this article somehow associates 'exemption' from dangerous jobs like the nuclear complex as oppression and discrimination. Even today the vast majority of job related deaths are taken by men. One only has to open their eyes to see that this is the case. Oil Rigs, contruction and many others which are better paid that the 'safer' female dominated jobs like teaching and office work for the simple reason that the men are risking their lives and surely deserve better pay for considerably riskier and tougher work.

I would say the lack of female representation in 'dockyard' jobs is hardly a coincidence. Jobs which are male dominated will obviously be full of 'male sexism' and hazing for the simple reason that such hazing has historically been the way men operate to lower other men's self worth such that his job is made easier. There is indeed no room for the weak. A weak man would just as likely be a target as a weak woman. 'You ahve to be twice as good tobe equal' in this case rings true as women entering such 'male dominated' environments would not be emotionally prepared for the tough career that lies ahead. Men and women have been raised differently - men are hazed to 'take it like a man' and call abuse 'messing about' but the same doctrine on women is 'oppression and exploitation.' In the modern day this is not only limited to male dominated environments. I personally have worked in female dominated workplaces in which I have been the recipient of 'reverse sexism,' and arguably sexual harrassment. As far as sexual harrassment is concerned the article loses a lot of credibility with me because of its refusal to give men's experiences in the matter. In a mixed workplace which I understand is not the same as a 'male-dominated environment' there is a very thin line between sexual harrassment accusations and dates. A man's experience could be that his advance on a particular woman could result in either depending on whether or not she liked him. This social relation across space is another important factor in male/female relations which this article ignores. Also as far as the abrupt change in behaviour of the married man in the presence of his wife or at the workplace - this article makes such men out to be pigs when their wives are not around. However it may be a man's experience that he is unhappy in his homelife and he feels a 'male dominated' environment is the only place to unwind. Surely the same could be said for a woman having a miserable home life and then talking about it with her friends in a female dominated environment during lunchbreak e.g. an office.

Overall I find this article completely onesided. I feel that it is so much orientated towards women's experiences that this belongs in a woman's issues subsection rather than 'gender inequalities.' The picture of the woman holding a child while working seeks to show only a woman's experience with no regard to the experience of a man's equivalent boundary (unable to be accepted in a home enviromnent) or even the child's. What about a picture of a man in the workplace while caring for an child? It would make no sense as the idea of a man in the house where than woman is standing with a child would make so sense at all in our social sense of space and place.

Men richer after divorce: He was richer to begin with..

Hang on I just got to get out my "Bullshittillater" out so I can read this article..

I am fighting back the tears, no... really..

So, let's have a look at the reason women get married and not just married to anyone, Noooooo..

Someone that has the ability to work his arse off so she can have the lifestyle she knows she can never attain..

Hence...Marry UP.. Marry a man that makes more money that you do and live accordingly and don't they do that well...ahhhh!!!!........shopping..

So what's the revelation here ?
What's the blatant obvious truth ?
Why is this amazing ?

Man makes money, women spend it...did I miss something ?

Another irrelevant feminised bullshit article, get out your hankies while we ride the path..

Another attempt at increasing the payment made to the privileged princesses as if they don't get enough already..

Marriage anyone ?

Men become richer after divorce

Male incomes rise by a third after a split, while women are worse off and can struggle for years

Divorce makes men - and particularly fathers - significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman's income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years.

The research was carried out by Professor Stephen Jenkins, a director of the Institute for Social and Economic Research and chair of the Council of the International Association for Research on Income and Wealth.

His survey, Marital Splits and Income Changes over the Longer Term, is the first to track the changing wealth levels in Britain associated with a marriage breakdown. The findings have been welcomed by specialist family lawyers, including Resolution and Family Law in Partnership (Flip).

"The general belief that men get fleeced by their divorces while women get richer and live off the proceeds has long been due for exposure as a pernicious myth," said Ruth Smallacombe, a family consultant at Flip. "In reality, women often suffer economic hardship when they divorce. In addition, the resentment caused by unfair financial settlements has many knock-on effects, damaging ongoing relationships with former spouses and a woman's ability to move on with her life."

Jenkins's research found that the incomes of "separating husbands" rise "immediately and continuously" in the years following a marital split. "The differences between the sexes are stark," he said. "But this is not so much a gender thing as a parent thing. The key differences are not between men and women, but between fathers and mothers."

He found that, when a man leaves a childless marriage, his income immediately rises by 25%. Women, however, suffer a sharp fall in income. Their financial position rarely reaches pre-split levels.

Jenkins combined data from 14 different British Household Panel Surveys over 1991 to 2004 with the findings from five European surveys. Recalculating the results using the formula by which the government measures poverty, he established new per capita incomes. Jenkins found that the positive effect on men's finances is so significant that divorce can even lift them out of poverty, while women are far more likely to be plunged into destitution. Separated women have a poverty rate of 27% - almost three times that of their former husbands.

Maintenance paid by former partners also has little impact, said Jenkins, as just 31% of separated mothers receive payment from the father of their children.

"There are only two factors that have an impact on women's financial position, post relationship breakdown," said Jenkins. "The percentage change in income is less if they have worked beforehand and continue working afterwards. The impact is also reduced if they start working after the relationship breakdown. There is also a potential positive impact if she remarries," he added, "although the impact is a small one."

The position can be reversed if a separated man has more children with a new partner while paying maintenance to his first family. The only way to level the playing field is to make men and women more alike in terms of roles in the family and in the labour market. "Until these fundamental issues change, these realities will remain essentially unchanged," he said.

Professor John Ermisch, author of An Economic Analysis of the Family and Lone Parenthood: An Economic Analysis, agreed that women are disproportionately penalised following relationship breakdowns, but said that the margin of unfairness is gradually reducing.

"Employment transition rates reveal that the proportion of women with dependent children who stop working after a marital split has almost halved between the late 1990s and early 2000s, from 16% to 9%," he said.

According to Labour Force Survey data, the proportion of all separating wives in paid work has increased over the 1990s from around 66% in 1993 to 74% in 2002. The proportion of separating women with children who have remained in work has increased from 41% to 58% over the same period, increasing this group's employment rate by 16%.

"The most likely explanations of these trends are increases in women's attachment to paid work, and increases in government rewards to paid work relative to not working, both of which are associated with the various changes in the late 1990s to the system of in-work support," said Ermisch.

Case study: 'I try not to be too bitter'
Elouise and her husband had been married for 20 years when they divorced 18 months ago. They have three children, aged 11 years, 3 years and 18 months old.

"My husband told me we would split everything down the middle. I got a huge shock when I realised he had hired a crack legal team who managed to hide a large proportion of his assets and write off most of his income. I didn't stand a chance. On paper I got 50% of everything. In reality, however, he walked off with enough money to buy a house in town outright and a new car, while also taking the kids on a couple of foreign holidays each year.

"I fight a constant battle not to let myself become overwhelmed with feelings of anger over the differences in our lives. I find it almost unbearable that I have to scrimp and save to bring up the kids, while his lifestyle is noticeably more comfortable and extravagant than when we were together."

Parting by numbers
• Almost half of all marriages in England and Wales will end in divorce.

• At least one child under 16 is affected in 53% of all cases, with nearly two-thirds of them being under 11.

• Since 1997 average age of divorce has risen from 40.2 to 43.7 years for men and from 37.7 to 41.2 years for women, partly due to the rise in age at marriage.

• The highest rate of divorce is among men and women in their late twenties.

Source: www.statistics.gov.uk

Permanent Sexual Arousal Syndrome.

Obviously this woman has not had her wedding cake ?

You know the one where it's the greatest sex deterrent. Gee, guys I thought you knew that one..

So, multiple orgasms, the female dream and nightmare apparently..

Sarah, 24, suffers from Permanent Sexual Arousal Syndrome
ORGASMS: Sarah
By Matthew Acton, 04/11/2007

PRETTY Sarah Carmen is a 200-a-day orgasm girl who gets good, good, GOOD vibrations from almost anything.

The rumble of a train on the tracks, the purr of a hairdryer, the rhythmic drone of a photo-copier are all enough to make her go oh oh oh, ahhhhh.

She had FIVE orgasms during our 40-minute interview. But I can't take the credit—it was just talking about her sex life that set her off.

Sarah, 24, suffers from Permanent Sexual Arousal Syndrome (PSAS), which increases blood flow to the sex organs.

She said: "Sometimes I have so much sex to try to calm myself down I get bored of it. And men I sleep with don't seem to make as much effort because I climax so easily."

As she chatted, Sarah became increasingly flustered.

"Sorry, you'll have to excuse me for a minute. I'll be with you in a sec," she mumbled before letting out a long sigh.

Sarah, from London, developed PSAS after being prescribed anti-depressants at 19.

Stunned

She believes her condition was brought on by the pills.

She said: "Within a few weeks I just began to get more and more aroused more and more of the time and I just kept having endless orgasms.

"It started off in bed where sex sessions would last for hours and my boyfriend would be stunned at how many times I would orgasm.

"Then it would happen after sex. I'd be thinking about what we'd done in bed and I'd start feeling a bit flushed, then I'd become aroused and climax.

"In six months I was having 150 orgasms a day—and it has been as many as 200."

She and her boyfriend split— and new partners struggle to keep up with her sex demands. "Often, I'll want to wear myself out by having as many orgasms as I can so they stop and I can get some peace," she said.

Sarah is a beautician and working in salons filled with whirring hairdryers and skincare gadgets can cause problems.

"If I start coughing and run to the loo, the girls know to fetch the client a magazine or a cup of tea," she said, adding, "Sometimes I'd like to just have a normal life."

Sarah says the Permanent Sexual Arousal Syndrome that she suffers from can cause her to have orgasm at any time of day.

She explained: "Anything can set me off. Even the hairdryers cause funny pulsations through my body.

"As a skin care specialist I have to use tools which vibrate a lot of the time for micro-dermabrasion and they sometimes set me off.

"I find if I'm nervous I'm less likely to get over-excited. So sometimes I try to psyche myself up and worry to control my orgasms.

"Some of my regular customers know my problem. But with new clients it's hard to explain.

"I have been in the middle of a treatment and it's happened and I've had to carry on.

"I was doing a bikini wax and you have to really concentrate and keep your hands very still, and mine go a bit wobbly when I orgasm.

"I had to pretend I had cramp in my foot and just stood there wriggling around on the spot and stifling my moans until it was over."

Sarah's friends think she is the luckiest girl ever, although her family think her behaviour is sometimes slightly odd.

She said: "The best way to describe how I am when I am with my family and I have one of my 'moments' is that I behave like Sheila from Shameless.

"I just get a bid giddy and yelp out and try to control myself. I've never sat down and explained it to my mum and dad.

"They just think I get a bit hyperactive round them.

"My friends think it's great. I have more orgasms in one day than most of them will probably have in a year.

"They say to me that they feel lucky if their boyfriend makes them have one orgasm-some days I have one every ten minutes."

It has proved to be a problem for Sarah in some relationships.

She said: "I dated one guy who was very selfish and he was that way in the bedroom too. He'd just lie back and expect me to please him.

"He just figured that because I could climax without him even having to touch me, he didn't need to do anything to please me.

"I just thought that was rude and inconsiderate. It didn't last very long with him."

Noisy

She has also had embarrassing moments in public. Going to noisy bars and clubs is out of the question as the vibrations send her wild.

"We have to find nice quiet bars," she explained. "I have more orgasms if I have a drink as it relaxes me so I tend to drink very little now.

"It can be a bit embarrassing if I'm tipsy and guys who don't know me talk to me, because I find it harder to hide.

"The most embarrassing thing that has happened was when I answered a market research questionnaire and had an orgasm in front of the researcher.

"She knew what was happening and looked at me like I was a weirdo. I tried to explain that I couldn't help it, but I was blushing so much I had to walk away."

Sarah has even been to a Sex Addicts' Anonymous meeting in despair over her sex drive.

She said: "At first when the problem started I just wanted to have sex all the time, I thought I was a sex addict.

"But when I looked around the room and heard the stories other people told, about how desperate they were for sex, I realised I wasn't like them.

Problem

"With me, it was a means of releasing my orgasm, but now I know I don't have to have sex to do that."

Sarah has looked into the condition and believes it may have been triggered by her taking anti-depressants.

She said: "I've found studies that say that taking anti-depressants and then stopping has an effect on the sexual organs. That is the only thing that explains what happens to me.

"But I've heard of other girls who have the same problem and it just appears out of the blue. I've spoken to my doctor about it but she wasn't a great deal of help but that's mainly because there's very little known about it and no one yet knows how to cure it."

Thanks to her understanding friends and colleagues, Sarah feels like she can now live with PSAS.

She said: "I'm lucky because people around me are very kind and appreciate that sometimes this is a problem for me and it can be embarrassing.

"I need to concentrate on something sad or worrying when I talk to people and I don't want to get carried away."

During our 40-minute interview, Sarah told us she had five orgasms.

Years of dealing with the problem means that sometimes she can hide it quite well.

Her voice goes high pitched and she will lose her train of thought and have to stop talking completely for a few seconds. She says disguises this by coughing when she is in awkward situations.

"But it's also nice to have so much excitement every day! It's strange because it came from nowhere and I guess it could go away just as quickly, so I'm making the most of it while it lasts!"

Television: The greatest Liar..

For those of you like myself that manages to resist the idiot box for good reason but does on the odd occasion when something is actually interesting and not too bloody warped, find something interesting..

Hopefully..

I look at television and deride it with the same contempt I do women's magazines..

They do not have over 20 editors for nothing, remember that..

Television is sanitised poison to the mind, body and soul. It seeks to hypnotise you into inaction..

From the signs in the general population and it's weight issues, it seems to be working well..