Eternal Life Sentence for Sex Offender

You know you've been bad when your next 40 lives will be spent in prison.

Man Woman Gives Birth, America Is Definitely Home of the Free

He is not a he, he is a she with boobs lopped off and testosterone that would increase the size of the clitoris and make it look more penis-like. Let's be real here. A man cannot carry a baby. She was not born with ambiguous genitalia. This "dude" is not a dude. She is a dudette. She is a mother. She gave birth through her vagina. That's right "he" gave birth naturally.

He is a she. I am sick of the politically correct nonsense around this woman. Just because someone has surgery and names herself a man, doesn't make it so. Might make her delusional. And it makes the news media look more insane than average, too,"The new dad walked easily, although he appeared tired, .... Someone opened the door for him." Oh, and can you imagine how this kid is going to feel about "dad". This is just nuts. (Couldn't resist.)

She is free to call herself whatever she wants. This is America. And so I am free to call her a she and so I will.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Violent Rapist? Get Rehabilitated In Vermont

If you've watched the news, you know about the little "missing" girl from Vermont. Well, her remains were found yesterday on her uncle's property. Vermont, it turns out, has a wonderful sex offenders rehabilitation program. Daniel Goleman (of Primal Leadership fame) enthuses in the New York Times fifteen years ago:

The sex offender treatment program in Vermont, among the most sophisticated in the country, showed similar successes, according to a report at the Kent State meeting. In an evaluation of 473 sex offenders who have been released from prison for up to eight years, the average rate of sex crimes in the same period for a comparison group who received no treatment was 38 percent, at least double the rate of those treated for various sex crimes.

For child molesters in the treated group, the rate of sex crimes after release from prison was just 7 percent; for exhibitionists or voyeurs, 3 percent; for rapists, 19 percent. While the figure for rapists is highest, it is still just half that of those who did not receive any treatment.

To be sure, not all sex offenders respond to treatment. Among rapists, for instance, rape is often more an act of violence than of sex. This kind of rapist is less likely to benefit than are those for whom fantasies are more important than violence.

So my take away is that treatment may or may not work and we have no way of telling who it will work on, but we should be thrilled because maybe it will work on someone. And of those treated, one out of five will offend again. That means that one out of five will commit a violent rape again.

Let's just look at Brooke Bennett's case. Her uncle Michael Jacques has done this before:

In 1993, he was convicted of kidnapping and rape committed in June 1992. Court records show that the victim was an 18-year-old young woman he supervised at a fast-food business in Rutland. The records show he and a friend got her drunk and then Jacques alone forced her into his car and over the next four hours raped her several times. The police affidavit says she was choked with a rope around her neck, gagged with a cloth in her mouth, and handcuffed with police-style cuffs. Police say Jacques eventually let her go after he told her he needed help and was going to seek psychiatric counseling.

The victim told police that Jacques said he had killed a 12-year-old girl he raped in Arizona in 1985 because she threatened to go to the police, "so he had to kill her."

And he has been treated in Vermont's stellar program:

The police were unable to confirm his claimed killing of the 12-year-old in Arizona, but Jacques did plead no contest to the charges of kidnap and rape in Vermont. In return, under a plea agreement, he got six years in prison, but was released after serving only four and half with credit for good time.

That 1992 plea deal also required Jacques to complete the sex offender treatment program before he could be released from probation. According to the records, he did complete the therapy program, and was released from state supervision in December 2006. Corrections officials say Jacques completed his sex offender treatment program in 2000.

Do you see how insane it is to release these criminals from prison with or without treatment? If they don't get treatment, nearly half repeat offend. If they do get treatment, only one out of five re-offend--that get caught, anyway.

Since no one knows who will or who won't re-offend, why are any of these people released back into the community? And I don't put the flashers or oglers in the same category as a violent rapist. A violent rapist should know that if he gets convicted, he's in prison for life, period. Sure, some of these guys might reform or go impotent or get too old to have the energy to commit their dastardly deeds. The problem is, since no on knows who will and who won't offend, the risk is too great.

Let them rot in prison. Keep society safe from these freaks. Prison does not reform these jerks. At best, some inhibit their impulses. Let them be free of temptation. Keep them in prison.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Make It An Explosive 4th of July

I'm here to help you, and naturally, if possible. Trouble with erectile dysfunction? Want to be a machine between the sheets? Well, eat yer watermelon menfolk, the effects are similar, if more general than Viagra-type drugs:

Watermelons contain an ingredient called citrulline that can trigger production of a compound that helps relax the body's blood vessels, similar to what happens when a man takes Viagra, said scientists in Texas, one of the nation's top producers of the seedless variety.

Found in the flesh and rind of watermelons, citrulline reacts with the body's enzymes when consumed in large quantities and is changed into arginine, an amino acid that benefits the heart and the circulatory and immune systems.

"Arginine boosts nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, the same basic effect that Viagra has, to treat erectile dysfunction and maybe even prevent it," said Bhimu Patil, a researcher and director of Texas A&M's Fruit and Vegetable Improvement Center. "Watermelon may not be as organ-specific as Viagra, but it's a great way to relax blood vessels without any drug side effects."

On the downside, watermelon has one of the highest glycemic indices of any fruit. It's right up there with a can of Coke or a bagel, for that matter. That is, eating a ton of it rockets your blood sugar up quickly. But then, that could be a good thing, too. You'll get a sugar rush which translates into easy energy for that exercise you'll be getting.

All Good Things Must Come To An End

See, what I meant about the ugly choices? Marrying Rosie O'Donnell can't last long. It's the ending that makes it all worthwhile.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

When A Woman Rapes A Man...

Dr. Helen has a must-read piece about female aggression and rape. I'm reminded of a friend's story of how he lost his virginity at the hands of a babysitter when he was 12 or 13. He was clearly distressed on the one hand but socialized to believe he should be okay with it, on the other. To me, it was clear that the woman had used her position of authority to abuse him. Even the other men at the table shifted uncomfortably upon hearing the story. Every twelve year old boy fantasizes about these things happening, but the consequences when it actually does can be devastating.

This part of the man's letter is especially horrifying:

After most of my drunken stupor wore off around 7 am or so, I awoke again to find her on top of me — this time with a more menacing attitude as she knew I was in a better position to respond physically this time. I had began to wiggle out from under her (taking care not to hurt her baby) when she sternly warned me to “be quiet” and “not be forceful” and made it clear that she would cry rape if I tried to stop it. I was stunned to say the least and not sure how to respond. I could easily have thrown her across the room and off of me, but was concerned for her child and took her threat very, very seriously. She said it so easily that I doubt I was her first.

I weighed my options for a moment and came to the conclusion that a sober, 6 or 7-month pregnant college student of 24 was far more likely to be believed by the authorities than a drunk 19-year old Marine in the best shape of his life. I frequented that club a lot and I’m sure several people saw me leave with her. I was pretty much fucked — in more than one way — at that point.

Rape is about power first, and sex, second. This is rape.

Babies For Love

This is what the world is coming to:

There's a stunning twist to the sudden rise in teen pregnancies at Gloucester High School. Seventeen students there are expecting and many of them became that way on purpose.

Time Magazine first reported that nearly half of the girls confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. None of them is older than 16.

Schools Superintendent Christopher Farmer told WBZ's Bill Shields Thursday the girls had "an agreement to get pregnant."

No parents of the 17 girls were interviewed. What causes a peer group to come up with such a self-defeating scheme? The Superintendent says the girls "lacked love". Teenagers can be mind-numbingly stupid, though. It seems to me that at least a few of these girls had loving families. It's possible that they all had uncaring parents but I doubt it.

I'm putting this one to a vote. It just seems too crazy.

The PRIMARY reason the pregnancy pact happened is because:
	The girls lacked love
	Peer pressure
	Little supervision
	Oversexed culture
	Teenagers are stupid
	The girls lacked a moral foundation
	Media's glorification of sex
pollcode.com free polls

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Best Emails Yet

I know I'm not the lone blogger receiving crazy emails. It's part of the territory. The funniest have been from Nazmul. Yesterday, he sent me this request:

Dear Melissa,

Would you please tell me about clothe free or nude society?

Last week he sent this:

Dear Melissa,

My name is Nazmul, I am 19 years old, right now studying Economics in university and I live in Bangladesh (Bangladesh is located in South Asia).Lately I have learned how operate computer as well as internet. I have gotten your e-mail number through searching internet.I shall write some thing to you honestly. When i was in school,the main topic of our conversation among friends was girls,prostitution,nude,pornography.Since my childhood i have been dreaming to go to America.But now it is impossible to visit USA for a boy of third world country.As a doctor would you please tell me about prostitution,pornography,nude society,child pornography illicit relationship between boys and girls?Hope you will reply to my e-mail.g. Good bye.

I didn't respond to these emails. But I'm tempted to say that in America, people don't wear clothes. People have sex all the time. The only reason for the internet is really good porn. Prostitution is a right confirmed by the constitution. And boys and girls get their sexual education from public school teachers.

Come to America, Nazmul. You'll love our nude society. I would say he has a skewed perspective of America, but, really, who are we kidding?

Right Wing Sparkle Ain't Like Most Girls

Neither am I, Sparkle. Holy crap! I'm so not like most women, I think I might be a ...... oh, never mind.

A Birthday Gift To Remember

So after years of a sexless marriage, a wife provided a novel solution, and later, wrote about it:

Charla apparently had no intention of writing about “the gift,” as she euphemistically refers to it. She was simply a homemaker and marketing consultant, who in 2006 wanted to give her husband a special 40th birthday present.

“This is something no one else would give him,” she said in an interview. “It didn’t cost a lot of money. It was highly memorable. It met all the criteria for a really great gift.”

Brad was less than fully enthusiastic, mostly because, he says, his wife often has big ideas and poor follow-through. After all, she hadn’t been especially generous in that department since they’d had their two children. He paid closer attention when he realized that she was serious.

The gift was sex every day for a year. Another couple made a pledge to do it for 101 days straight.

The couples did "hit the wall" at some point. And when it was over, did they continue their marathon ways? Not exactly:

Today, the Browns report they have sex approximately six times a month, or double their frequency before their adventure. The Mullers decline to discuss their habits, except to say that they fall well within the national average. And, Brad said, the sex is better. “It made it much easier to be open to the idea, more spontaneous,” he said, “So you don’t go back to that always gaming for it and always trying to get out of it.”

Married couples know that sexual needs don't always get met, but it seems that it's also possible to have too much of a good thing. So that makes me wonder, what is the "ideal" for the average coupled person?

The ideal rate of conjugal relations is:
	Every day
	Five times a week
	Three times a week
	Twice a week
	Once a week
	Once every other week
	Once a month
	Quarterly
	Annually
pollcode.com free polls

Casualties of the Sexual Revolution: 1/5 People Have Herpes

Over 1/4 adults in New York City have herpes. Now, I have a serious question to ask everyone: Do you feel that the removal of restrictions on sexual mores since feminism and The Pill liberated women, has been worth the trade off of STD rates and abortion (check out this chart since Roe v. Wade)? (Never mind mental health issues.)

Before answering too quickly, I'm figuring you're an average male or female. In which case, you've had approximately 8 partners for men, a little less for women (and the men report more partners because they go to prostitutes--hi Eliot). Give or take..... Do you regret your couplings? Would you rather not have had sex with these people? And would your opinion change if you ended up with a permanent scourge like herpes or like Obama said, a baby?

It seems to me that one of the reasons we're getting more moderate Republican leaders is because many Americans, while conservative in their ideals, are more liberal in their actions. That's why I believe abortion will be legal for a long time in most states even should Roe be overturned and why STDs will continue to plague people. People profess to believe in chastity before marriage, even conservative Christians, but few actually believe it enough to practice it.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Californians Push Back

The California Supreme Court usurped the will of the people by overturning the results of the previous referendum (Proposition 22) banning gay marriage. Now, the people are fighting back:

An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

La Shawn Barber makes some great points about this, saying:

As I read this opinion, I kept wondering when I’d run into the inevitable discussion about incest and polygamy. Those of us who oppose homosexual “marriage” often argue, with good reason, that allowing two men to “marry” opens the floodgate to allowing just about anyone to marry. I never found that discussion because there wasn’t one. Instead, there’s a footnote. A footnote. From page 79 (emphasis added):

“We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.”

Wait a second. Our nation’s culture has also considered homosexual relationships “inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry,” has it not?

So Californians will fight back. Will the Supremes subvert the will of the people again? They'll try. They say that marriage is a constitutional right. I figure that's just what the framers imagined when they wrote the constitution: We hold these truths to be self evident--that all created beings were imbued by their Creator to have the right to marry whomever and whatever they please.

What do you think?

Gay Marriage.....
	Should be legal
	Should be illegal, but I support Civil Unions
	Should be illegal and the laws as they exist are fine
pollcode.com free polls

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Child Pornography As Art

In America, it's "spiritual marriages" or slut baby clothing. In Australia, it's "art". Either way, exploiting children seems to becoming more normed throughout Western civilization. Make sure to watch the news clip at the link. Even Australia's leftist Prime Minister is appalled.

My question, upon watching all this, is where are the parents? There are laws against child pornography, but there's no law that can stop parents from being complete morons. Why would a parent allow this? The child has no consent. The child will grow up some day and see these images and try to rationalize his parent's failure to protect him and worse, his parents cooperated.

Of course, the art community feels persecuted because police are investigating. Enter the obligatory Nazi references:

Commenting on the decision to shut down the Henson exhibition, he said it was "a sad day that an artist or a gallerist has to edit an exhibition on the basis of public fear".

"It's like Australia's way back in the 1950s again," he added. "It's a reminder that we still live very much in basically a philistine country."

Judy Annear, senior curator of photography at the Art Gallery of NSW, says artists like Henson need to continue to push the boundaries, despite public opinion.

"The day art museums and artists decide that the only thing they can do is react to public opinion is the day that we are in the same scenario as people were in the 1930s in Germany," she said.

So, the Nazi's were preventing children from being exploited? Why, if my cursory understanding of history serves, it was the Nazis who were doing the exploiting. Lampshades were art, no doubt. Hitler hated modernism and artists in general because of his own failings as an artist. What deep chasm in the modern public psyche accounts for the outrage at seeing children exploited?

It is never possible that the artist has crossed a inviolable moral line. Nope. The Australian populace are a bunch of Philistines. How open minded! Only if you agree with the art communities are you a free thinking genius, but if you disagree--you're a Philistine. To the true artist, there are no boundaries. To the average person, artists have no sense.

H/T Reader Dana Hanley

Moonbattery: "Object Marriage"

A woman in Germany married the Berlin Wall and was distraught at her "husband's" destruction. There is no such thing as a slippery slope. No. Such. Thing.


As an aside, VanHelsing at Moonbattery blogs over at Right Wing News with me. His blog is awesome, has loads of information, plus, there's pictures. I know how you guys love pictures. I've added him to the blog roll. Go check him out.

FLDS's Culture of Depravity and CPS' Culture of Duplicity And I'm Sick of Kids Being Harmed By Those Who are Supposed To Help

Fox News shares these absolutely disgusting pictures of FLDS "spiritual leader" Warren Jeffs spiritually sticking his tongue down the child-wife of his "spiritual marriage". No, he and his followers aren't pedophiles. No way.

Now, I know that Texas social workers can behave badly. In fact, any agent of the state I suspect almost as a matter of course. I'm just saying that it's possible that funky stuff is going down in that compound and that sending girls back there will be endangering them. The fact that Texas CPS acts above the law and family courts in general have no constraints engenders doubt even in legitimate cases.

Children will be harmed because of this mess and if f*cking pisses me off. Man, I'm in a bad mood and this kind of shit makes me even more irritated. Oh, and in case American kids are not sexed up enough, LL Cool J is here to help. I thought that guy was supposedly a Christian. Oh, and here's more irritation: imagine being forced to have only one kid and the kid being crushed in a substandard government-built building. Some days I just want to smash some stupid skulls. This is one of those days. Damn. How am I going to sleep with my BP this high?

Sex Changes For Seven Year Olds

Seems a bit young, doesn't it?

Gays Unions, Polygamy, and Marriage, Oh My!--UPDATED

I don't want to do it. I just don't. But I feel compelled, based on Rachel Lucas' provoking prose to do it. Blast that woman and her infernal commitment to casting a spot light on popular culture. So, last week the dumbasses that rule California decided against the people and for the few, the out, the proud and the inclined to marry. It's a clear case of judicial activism, but it's California. No one should be surprised.

Of course, this finding begs the question: Why shouldn't gay people marry? Why can't anyone marry anyone?

First, let's discuss definitions. Semantics--Marriage is, by definition, a union between one man and one woman. Anything else is not marriage. Call it something else, just don't define away marriage.

Second, this discussion is about social sanction not legal remedy. There are legal remedies for people who want to give, share, commit to, or in some way, shape or form, entwine their life with someone else's life. For example, an acquaintance who hated his wife (who hated him) but didn't believe in divorce, gave his true love the Power of Attorney at the end of his life. Well, you don't want someone who hates you deciding when to pull the plug, right? Any person can will anything to anyone for any reason. There are no stoppers there. If you want to mingle your life's possessions with someone else, you are legally free to do it. It's called a contract.

Third, marriage is an ideal. All the clap-trap about same sex partners who love each other being better parents than a father and mother who hate each other is a stupid argument. And a loving father and mother is a better situation for children than loving gay parents--in ideal terms. A child needs both positive male and female role model in their daily lives. And before you start hating on me, there is plenty o' evidence for this. Look at the inner cities where father-involvement and two parent families are scarce. Kids with divorced parents want their parents married. Kids with same sex parents want a "mom" or a "dad"--whichever one they're missing. There are consequences for mucking around with a social arrangement that has worked for thousands of years.

Fourth, polygamy is stupid. By it's very nature, women (and I don't want to hear abut societies where women marry multiple men, let's be real here) are denigrated in polygamous marriage. Go back to the old bible story about Jacob and Leah and Rachel. There will be an alpha female. There just will. The rest of the women are relegated to lesser status. But it's their choice, goes the argument. No it's not. In America, we are all viewed as created equal, therefore we are not going to encourage social relationships built on fundamental inequality. It is wrong. And forget the consenting moronic women who enter these relationships. Kids come from these relationships and they suffer. They don't get a choice about their freak parents. A polygamous relationship is unstable for the kids, it is socially isolating, it is weird. Oh, and lets not even get into the younger, horny guys who can't get a woman because all the old dudes scoop 'em up.

Fifth, marriage the sacrament should be taken out of the government realm. This is where I part ways with many conservatives. What is between a couple and God is between them. A religious ceremony is just that. I think it's a great thing. I'm all for it. I believe that when people marry, they are uniting themselves in ways that are physical, material and spiritual and that no amount of God-avoidance changes that. And that's exactly why many gays want to get married--they want the religious sanction. Their problem is with God and they need to take it up with Him. Find a church that believes the part of the Bible that speaks out against sexual sin is bunk and get unioned there. The same goes for heteros. Marriage as a sacrament is acknowledging God in your marriage. That belongs in a church.

Sixth, marriage is about the children. As a social construct, marriage is meant to protect kids and keep them supported. A man and woman who have sex chance having a child from their union. Birth control does not work 100% of the time. Abortions are the lazy man's answer to unthinking sex. The best environment for a child to be born into is one where there is a committed man and woman. You see, shit happens. Sometimes children have health problems that require one parents 100% devotion. Sometimes one parent gets sick or is otherwise incapacitated. Sometimes a parent loses his or her mind. Sometimes one person loses her job. A two-parent family is a family with back-up. A gay union, in contrast cannot, without going outside the union, create a child. Gay unions are not for the express purpose of having children. They are for the express purpose of displaying commitment to each other. There is a difference. Now, there are childless couples who choose to not have kids. Fine. Marriage is an ideal and not defined by the exceptions.

Seventh, anyone who wants a marriage-like relationship with all the implied benefits should write up a contract. Some (smart) rich people have prenups. Everyone should have them. Explicitly state what your expectations are and put them in writing. Yes, it would be more trouble on the front end, but it would be less on the back end. Too many people head into the biggest decision of their lives without thinking a rational thought. A contract would slow people down. Most people who would never dream of entering a business agreement without a contract, get married without one. The whole, "love, honor, cherish" is rather vague. What does that mean? Because people in committed marriages having children is such a good thing for society, society should encourage these relationships (as it already does, to an extent). Tax breaks, generous whatever the state wants to encourage. Bottom line, make marriage challenging to get into and a sweet deal once it's entered. Societally, we want committed, dedicated, loving, rational people to get married and procreate. That is, we want this if we value the continuation of our species, our society and our culture.

Western Civilization is built on the family, equal rights, and freedom. People are free to enter contracts (not children or animals) with whomever they'd like. People are free to go to the church of their choice and take part of the sacrament of their choice. People are free to get married if they meet the requirements of being a man and a woman of legal age. The problem with Gay "marriage" or polygamous relationships is that neither are a "right", no matter how much the California Supremes want it to be. The will of the people determines what is best for the people. And the people decided against gay marriage. They have thousands of years of evidence and wisdom to back them up--the wisdom that the Constitution itself was written from.

By what authority do the California Supreme Court Justices claim their ruling beyond their own?

Aside: Jeff Goldstein has some of the best views on this topic that have been expressed.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse wonders about Obama: Is he a modern segregationist and support "separate but equal"?

More Mating Madness

So I'm over at Gina's site poking around and whoa! DemocracyRules posts two tomes on what men and women want and cites the research to prove it. Very nice, concise synopsis of current research, by the way.

Here's the first one: What women want.

Here's the second one: What do men want? Part 1 (a part 2 is forthcoming because men are more complicated than women--hey! that's what he says).

Go read it. Interesting stuff.

What's An Election Year Without Discussing Gay Sex?

An election year without many gay sex discussions is just empty somehow. California's Supreme Court remedied that problem. For the next months, everyone will venture forth on this topic. The Left will screech "homophobia!" if anyone says that gay marriage is wrong. The religious will predict the downfall of humanity. McCain and Obama will give suitably vague pronouncements weaseling out of having an opinion. Here's a predicted response:

"We will wait to let the court do it's work. This is a matter for the states to decide."

It will be satisfying as only these discussion can be. Thanks California! You're the best state ever.

Barack Obama Is Gay: A Reverend Said It So It Must Be True

And he says that Oprah is the next Secretary of State--something to look forward to. What do these allegations seem far-fetched or something?

I have decent Gaydar and Barack Obama hasn't triggered any sirens. As discussed before, though, Mr. Obama isn't the manliest of men and doesn't inspire a tremendous amount of kick-ass confidence. Now, his wife Michelle? She scares me. There's no question who would win in a cage-match with that woman. Good money is on her.

What Barack Obama has that inspires so many, besides the awe-inspiring rhetoric, is the androgynous sexiness of a rock star like Prince. People can project their sexuality, their beliefs, their hopes, their everything on this man. He's neither black nor white, male nor female, aggressive nor passive, gay nor straight. He is everything and nothing at the same time.

Will allegations of gayness stick? No. First, it's not true and ridiculous on its face. Second, nothing sticks because nothing can stick to Obama because there has to be something for anything to stick. Can the all-beingness last all the way through the election? Maybe. I keep thinking that he'll have to come up with something, anything, to convince voters he's worthy of a vote, but maybe not. McCain is annoying enough that just existing as an alternative might be enough to succeed.