Monday, February 1, 2010

This is Timber Wolf - ACLAF signing off

It’s taken me a lot of work to get to this particular point in my life. While I have no interest in counting the exact number of days, by my honest estimate, I spent roughly one year of my life seething with anger and rage. I don’t look back fondly on those days, and I have no desire to return to them. Yet they existed, they were difficult, but I think perhaps they were necessary.

I feel that I have been a victim of a misandrist culture, that is, a culture which vilifies, demonizes and hates men and boys. I feel strongly that through a process I don’t fully understand, I gradually began to hate masculinity, and as a consequence felt deep contempt for who and what I am, a man. A deeply conflicted, confused, frail human being, but still very much a man.

I have, in the past blamed feminism for turning my culture into a hotbed of misandry. Perhaps however feminism was the catalyst, and not really the cause. It’s undoubtedly true that men in the past have abused the women close to them, and men with political authority have abused that authority creating a systematic disenfranchisement of the genders, which has, on the whole penetrated society in a number of ways. In the past years, we’ve seen the vast majority of the overt forms of this dynamic overturned or reversed. My understanding is that feminism coins this phenomena patriarchy, something which I have reacted to with great negativity.

I do feel that my “knee-jerk” reaction is for two reasons. First, because being male, I see men on balance in a very positive and honourable light - and patriarchy of course means “rule of the fathers.” As a consequence, I don’t react well to anything that diminishes the pride and honour that men can feel in their legitimate accomplishments. Where feminists have proposed replacing the word patriarchy with the word Kyriarchy, my guard goes down, almost reflexively, since the concept becomes stripped of its exclusively sexist, masculine root. I see, perhaps mistakenly so that attacks on patriarchy are an attack on men. An attack on Kyriarchy would probably mean nothing to me.

The second reason is because feminism has been in my opinion, very disingenuous towards patriarchy. Patriarchy is what humanity adopted, for good or ill, and our presently lofty technological and affluent position is most certainly due do in part or in whole to patriarchy. The vast majority of progress which allows feminists to have any success at all, even to exist in the first place, is thanks at least in part, to having adopted a scientifically rigorous patriarchal system. I therefore on some level perceive feminist rejection of patriarchy as pure subjugation as a betrayal of men. This isn’t to say that subjugation and disenfranchisement are acceptable outcomes. In the past, women demanded that our society change to treat all human beings equally, and this to one raised in the outcome of this demand, that we comply with these demands seems so logically, ethically and philosophically sound that it is beyond questioning.

However, that should not, but sadly does, diminish the fact that the very survival, the very existence of feminist women was purchased by the sacrifice, often the ultimate sacrifice made by men, mostly. Feminists seem only too happy to overlook those men who fought and died to protect hearth, home and most importantly, family. Whether socialized or essential, masculinity makes a very rigid demand of men; that we be willing to fight, and if necessary die, if those close to us should ever be threatened. Masculinity constructs us to be willing to die first, and constructed or not, men find honor, duty, pride, and fulfillment in this simple reality. While almost certainly a sexist construction, I believe the conclusion, that the end result of this impulse is in no way meant to be oppressive; it is the burden that masculinity demands that men carry with them every minute of every day of their adult lives. Biologically, this construction makes sense, and will, at least until human biology changes drastically always be the default survival strategy - women and children FIRST.

I believe that the traditional male domination of certain dangerous occupations was in no way intended to subjugate or oppress women; this domination was brought about because where sacrifice was required, no surviving civilization was willing to sacrifice women or children, at least not in the numbers demanded by primitive conflict. Since even a single male is capable of impregnating a large number of women, the group will survive so long as a single male remains. A single woman and a number of men however almost certainly won’t survive - even in a situation of extreme fecundity, there is a very real limitation on the number of potential offspring. When this fact is coupled with the uncertainty of human pregnancy and birth, earlier societies had no absolutely alternative: when faced with starvation, conflict, or any substantial strife the men die first as much as required, as often as required. Survival was not assured even in these circumstances, but the odds were more favorable for the ones who realized and acted on the principle that if someone must die, the first to do so must be a man. Those who did not adopt this principle in some fashion have simply not survived. At best, they have been absorbed into more aggressive groups.

Men hunt, and women gather, not because the men are misogynists, but because they recognize that they can’t afford to loose women if something goes wrong. I believe that when this willingness to self-sacrifice became firmly constructed, men concluded that they should make decisions. Even if attacked by rivals, the inherent value present in women would hopefully, keep them alive, while the men, would almost certainly all be killed. Since the men as a group believed that they had more to loose, they almost certainly demanded the authority to make decisions for the whole. Since they took the risk, they argued that they should bear the responsibility for the whole, and thus the authority to make decisions on behalf of the whole. With the advent of civilization, this became institutionalized and codified. And here I believe the true subjugation and oppression of women began.

The subjugation of women was not ethically correct. but it is mitigated by having been necessary, or at least, perceived as necessary. The goal was I believe not one of subjugation but one of protection and ensured survival. Now that our human circumstances have changed, it only stands to reason that unequal treatment and injustice begin to end.

However, this correct impulse has I believe resulted in a culture of misandry. The preconditions for misandry, that of being willing to sacrifice for women, and the transgressions of a significant number of men, combined with women’s emancipation and empowerment has resulted in a culture that not only sees men as disposable, but one that sees men as perpetrating evil against women. Positive male role models, and positive portrayals of masculinity are all but gone. The strengths of masculinity have been reconstructed; men have become evil when they are in fact very good.

This persistent rejection of positive male imagery has, I believe damaged me personally. I believe, that I recognized immediately that women were human beings, equal but obviously different to men, so naturally, equality for women was beyond questioning. I believe that I always enjoyed the company of women. But rather than see myself as positive in the lives of women the culture I believe was very poisonous to my budding masculinity. Since I liked women, but was not one of them, I think I came to believe that I would never be fully accepted into the intimate circles of women, and therefore would always be deficient. I recognize now that women should have their space as needed, conflict arose when the culture did nothing to inform me on what I should be as a man. In school, my achievements, my contribution seemed to always be regarded as inferior to female contributions. School of course, had been restructured more to cater to girls than boys, but try explaining this me then, and even boys now. Feminists I believe aren’t interested in the statistics which is unfortunate since they helped contribute to the disenfranchisement and growing subjugation of men. Some individuals I think see this as a necessary historical injustice, which I believe fails on a philosophical level.

In any case, I continued to experience negative a portrayal of men, and thus I believe that I began to hate myself. This manifested, I suspect in a general apathy about myself and detachment from making any substantial investment in my own future; women would never want me, and so I felt largely without purpose, or utility to anything. I found an outlet, as many do in video games, where the thrill of competition could be satisfied, achievement was always rewarded, even if the points are entirely meaningless to society, at least then, they felt like they meant something. It took a very long time, and possibly the birth of my daughter for me to be able to see myself as anything other than a useless lump of flesh. I believe that this very same affliction has become rampant in modern western society. People who doubt that this is happening have only to listen, or examine the inordinate number of women who complain that all their boyfriend or partner does is play video games. Those that do this sadly, do not understand the damage that has been done to men. Those who realize it however can be a crucial source of healing and renewal, but only if they are patient, and extremely devoted. I believe that the explosive expansion of the video game industry is due in no small part to satisfy a primal craving in men for what society has either chosen to deny them, or vilified. Video games fulfill some sort of need within modern young men, and they do this better than women are able, or willing. I believe that it took the birth of my daughter to get me to reverse course, I can’t begin to suggest that the arrival of children will do anything for other men. Almost certainly, it won’t, and we will generally continue a pattern of self-destructive, purely self-serving behavior.

This self hatred also I believe, did substantial damage to my interactions with women, and almost certainly damaged my marriage, probably my education, and my professional career. I have been deeply dissatisfied with my sex-life with my wife not because there is anything wrong with her, but because after the initial infatuation wore off, she quickly realized that while I had enormous potential, the man I was wasn't the kind of man she wanted. It's only through her decision to stay with me, and try to help me see my true potential and inherent strengths that we're still together.

When I began to work outside of people strictly my own age, I think my first supervisors were astounded by my capacity for cynicism and negativity. My hurdle to overcome, yes, absolutely! It didn't help however that I didn't know how else to be. Cynicism and negativity had been my default state for so long that I couldn't imagine any other way to be.

Fortunately, my capacity for introspection and personal change has allowed me to overcome some of the challenges that I faced, and my marriage is back on the right course. Sadly, I feel t hat in this ability to adapt, I am a rare case. I don’t feel this makes me special, I feel that many others will not be so fortunate. Many have argued that family is the building block of society, true or not, I believe that as a consequence many individuals will suffer greatly thanks to the culture misandry. Until we either adapt to the demands of feminism, or we take immediate steps to undo the damage that misandry is doing to men, western society will continue to decline. I believe that it is certain that if we do not act, the less scrupulous elements in the world will destroy, or consume us, and feminists will loose everything they have gained for women, while western men will have failed in their duty to hearth and home. History will show without question that if we do not restore balance, all of the worst elements of patriarchy will strike back, and they will win because we have stolen from men the ability to manifest themselves as powerful noble defenders of the home. If women wait too long to restore this ability in men, then it will be too late as the enemies of freedom will adapt much more quickly than our hamstrung men are able. Some feminists have even gone so far as to blame men, an act which I feel is akin to blaming rape-victims. I believe that the effects of one are no less damaging than the other.

I grow more angry when I realize that the masculine sense of honour demands that we make restitution for our transgression, and that realize that don't think feminists will be willing to accord men the same courtesy. Where we recognized that we have done wrong to women, feminists do not, and likely will not for a very long time. And even if they do recognize what has happened before its too late, I don't believe that women feel the same burden of responsibility that men do. They made the mess, but they won’t help us clean it up. I believe that my personal sense of honour will therefore not allow me to truly reach out to feminists. Until both sides are willing to try to make amends, there can be no peace.

The worst part is, that modern masculinity needs feminism, and feminism needs modern masculinity. I believe that we can only succeed if feminism is strong enough to turn its collective eye to constructing a positive powerful form of masculinity. The old impulse of women and children first will then be able to buttress and support feminism to do what it needs to do for women. We can save each other, history will only care about whether we did or not. I don’t believe modern men have any interest in subjugating or oppressing women. There are misogynists who invest in this behavior to our collective detriment, fortunately they tend to be old, out of touch, and ignored by the progressively minded. Their power is waning, but feminists fail to see the opportunity to seize and utilize that power for the accomplishment or their own objectives. They would however need to turn their attention towards masculinity, and they would need to make it a priority.

Feminists argue, perhaps rightly that men should be taking charge of this, that men need to be the ones to right the sexism. I don’t think we can do this without the help of feminists. We are not organized, and we are largely disenfranchised. Institutions feel comfortable ignoring men, and I believe that this will continue, until the vast majority of people men and women alike realize that we cannot succeed as a culture without the harmonious interaction of the sexes.

But I tire of this. I suspect that there's so much bitterness from feminists and from men who perceive themselves as anti-feminists that any advice, or attempt to heal the divide is doomed to failure. I think I've seen objectively enough to know that we need to work together in spite of ourselves, but that in all likelihood we cannot master ourselves enough to do so.

For myself, I wanted to stop being angry. I wanted to deal once and for all with my old feelings of outrage, and anger. It's my baggage, my issues that I needed to cope with. I only can do that, by rigorous unflinching examination of what I think, and how I feel. I think I've finally done that, I think I can let go of my old prejudices, and I'm happy and willing to grow. I might be completely right about everything I've said, and I might be completely wrong about everything I've said, I'm not sure it really matters. It will matter if I'm wrong, it will matter if this little bit of meditation can make a positive difference. I suppose I show my masculine stripes quite openly – I feel it my duty to try to protect hearth and home, and this is probably my fumbling attempt to meet that challenge. If it could help, then it is my fondest hope that it change the world for the better.

But, since that possibility seems so remote (still wearing the dark-tinted glasses by the look of things) what matters to me, in the now is that in the words of a great man, I came, I saw, I conquered. Or more appropriately I conquered myself, and gave myself the peace and serenity that I deserve.

In this spirit, my past is behind me, my future lies ahead. I step forward.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

"I'm not happy in jail, let me go!" - says girl who killed her mother

February 20, 2008
Mom killer seeks break

One of the "Bathtub Girls" now wants to towel off.

Found guilty in June 2006 along with her younger sister of drowning their alcoholic mother in a bathtub on Jan. 18, 2003, the now 21-year-old, who was 16 at the time, is asking to be freed from a federal women's prison in Kitchener into a Brampton halfway house.

She was in a Brampton courtroom yesterday for an annual review of her sentence under Section 94 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

She and her sister, who hid their involvement in the crime for more than a year before police made the arrests, have served just two years of their 10-year sentences, the maximum allowed for youths convicted of first-degree murder.


Both inmates at the Grand Valley Institution, the two have had no face-to-face communication during their incarceration. They are supposed to serve six years of their sentence in prison and the remaining four under conditional supervision in the community.

According to Crown attorney Michael Cantlon, the judge can either confirm the original sentence or release her from custody and place her under conditional supervision.

Justice Bruce Duncan, who heard the case yesterday, is expected to issue his ruling on April 22.

The two girls were the first two siblings to be convicted of matricide in Canada. Their identities cannot be revealed because they were young offenders when they drugged
and drowned their mother and made it look like an accident in Mississauga. (Source)

Am I the only one who realizes that the only reason that the parole board is entertaining this absurd request is that the criminal is female?

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

An Open Letter to Kay Hymowitz

Dear Madame,
I wish to write this letter with reference to your recent column, "The child-man," which appeared in the Dallas Morning news on Sunday, January 2th.

I've been a men's rights advocate for just over a year, and I can't believe the continuing weapons-grade ignorance and brazen audacity that seems to accompany most women like yourself. If modern young women are frustrated by the lack of eligible men, then they have only themselves to blame; and what you may find even more troubling is that as a twenty-something University educated male, I have absolutely no sympathy for the plight of women my age. None. And neither do virtually all of my male peers. Your continued cries will continue to fall on increasingly ambivalent and apathetic ears . Your words signal a victory for men.

You see, you forget to give credit where credit is due. Men's rights advocates have for years now been telling men to avoid marriage at all costs. The phenomena that many young women find themselves unpleasantly experiencing when they suddenly realize that snapping their fingers is not enough to garner male attention anymore, is actually part of a concerted effort to achieve the exact result which you now lament; men achieving freedom from female domination. An entire generation of young men have grown up under the specter of misandrist divorce; they watched as "mom" gleefully took "dad" for everything he was worth and then some. Marriage, and the resulting divorce, has been the equivalent of a life sentence for far too many men now, it should come as absolutely no surprise that we've chosen to pursue traditionally masculine endeavors. That it does speaks volumes about the audacity, ignorance and stupidity of modern women. Common sense is not very common in women it seems. But more importantly, it overwhelmingly confirms the Men Going Their Own Way philosophy.

Women have consciously chosen to adopt a philosophy which preaches nothing but the destruction of men, and now they are being forced to accept responsibility for their foolish actions. Women have spent the past forty years doing everything they can to destroy the place of good men in western culture. We however, are not so easy to destroy. Would you treat a dangerous serpent as anything but what it is? That madame, is what women have made themselves into with regard to men.

So let this serve as a wake-up call for all the young frustrated women out there. Men will no longer agree to "change" for you.

If men do agree to take women back, and it would be an absolute gift at this point, then it will be on our terms and our terms alone. We will dictate, you will accept, or we will let you rot, and you'll deserve it.

You may think I'm simply a misogynist, and while this may be, you can rest assured that it is female-entitlement culture which has made me into what I am.

And now, I find that I've wasted more than enough time on an ingrate like you. I just bought a copy of Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock, and playing it seems like a much better use of my time than spending any more time trying to make you understand that if women are unhappy, they have only themselves to blame. This situation was not made by men, it was made by women. The only question is, do they have enough balls to accept the responsibility?

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Doc accused of house-call sex

A Toronto surgeon accused of twice having house-call sex with a female patient told the woman his surgery would transform her into a "sexy goddess," a disciplinary hearing heard yesterday.

Professional misconduct proceedings against Dr. Joseph Ka-Hoi Wong began at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario yesterday with the testimony of his alleged victim whose identity is protected by a publication ban.

Wong denies allegations he had sex with the woman during two house calls to her apartment during a five-day period in January 2003.

The woman testified she first went to Wong's Scarborough office in January 2001 to have a scar on her forehead removed but before that initial consultation was over, the doctor talked her into breast augmentation surgery.

"You have the disposition or temperament of a virgin -- he said that in Chinese," the woman said Wong told her.

Although she didn't understand what he meant, she took it as a "compliment but not very professional."

Wong also said implants would improve her looks, she said.


"If you have bigger breasts, you will make most beautiful girl in the world," Wong said, according to the patient, who was testifying before the College's five-person disciplinary panel.

She also said the doctor used the Chinese word for "sexy goddess or sexy baby."

Prosecutor Shaun O'Brien said in her opening statement that Wong admits to making the house calls, but never made any notations in the patient's medical records to indicate what occurred during those visits.

The woman, meanwhile, continued to see Wong for another 17 months and didn't make any allegations public until October 2005.

Defence counsel Tracey Trenayne-Lloyd said in her opening statement that it is around that time the woman is recorded in a phone call demanding $100,000 from the doctor.

She also told the tribunal that the patient saw Wong 19 times and spent almost $20,000 on his services.

"There is no YouTube video of this patient and Dr. Wong having intercourse," Tremayne-Lloyd said. "This case is about credibility and nothing more or less than that." The hearing continues today.


Here's a stupid question: if you think your doctor is not professional, why do you not consult a different doctor? Answer: because you are in some way complicit with that doctor's lack of professionalism!

If the situation was different, say, if my doctor ever tried to shill something stupid like penis-enlargement pills, they would no longer be my doctor! Like everything else, there's something that we're not being told about this story.

Doctor killed his wife through local anesthetic?

Making headlines this week is the story that Toronto doctor killed his wife, who had just won the lottery.

NEWMARKET -- A prominent Thornhill gynecologist told police he could have killed his wife and former $5-million lottery winner in ways that could never be detected, a jury heard yesterday.

"If I was serious about murdering my wife, there are, uh, uh, (ways) I could have taken," Dr. Joseph Roncaioli told Det. Richard McVeity in an taped interview played at his trial.

In the videotaped statement taken fours years ago, Roncaioli, 72, then pinpointed a deadly but undetectable spot on the detective's neck.

"I can kill you in two seconds," Roncaioli said, tapping on the position where he'd insert an ice pick. "I'm not stupid.

"What do you do when you have a general anesthetic? You put people to death and then you bring them back to life ... there are ways ... to kill my wife and I could have done it in very different ways that are non-detectable."

Roncaioli continued that, "there's an old saying in medicine: Shit happens and that's what happened."

The doctor was charged with manslaughter after giving the statement -- six months after his wife, Ibi, 67, died on July 20, 2003. He has pleaded not guilty.

Roncaioli explained that on that day he twice administered local anesthetics to his wife -- once in the morning and again in the afternoon -- to draw blood samples to diagnose her illness.

He said her health had been suffering for six months.

Crown attorney Martin Dionne alleges Roncaioli killed his wife with a lethal cocktail of two local anesthetics -- Lidocaine and Bupiucaine -- and failed to call 911.

"I didn't think a little anesthetic was going to kill somebody," Roncaioli told McVeity.

"My intentions were honourable, but the result was disastrous and it was unintentional." Source

Somethings fishy about this one. General anesthetic to draw blood? At least he's getting a fair trial. Of course, the headline reads, "MD: 'I can kill you in two seconds.'" Looks like the misandrist media has already decided his guilt.

Monday, December 24, 2007

Apparently, 13 year olds can be charged as adults

A 13-year-old boarder at the Toronto-based National Ballet School of Canada faces numerous charges after being accused of sexually assaulting two young classmates.

A 13-year-old student faces 10 sex-related charges.A 13-year-old student faces 10 sex-related charges.

The boarder was freed on bail Saturday after he was charged with sexually assaulting two classmates, aged 11 and 12, the Toronto Star reported Sunday.

He faces 10 charges, including seven counts of sexual assault, two counts of sexual interference and one count of invitation to sexual touching, the newspaper reported, citing police and legal officials.

The teen — an American citizen who cannot be named because of his age — was released into the custody of his parents.

He was arrested Friday after a police investigation determined that students at the school alleged they had been assaulted between September 2006 and October 2007.

"This is a terrible situation and not representative of life at the National Ballet School," Jeff Melanson, the school's administrative director, told the Star.

The investigation started after the Catholic Children's Aid Society received an anonymous tip about the boy, the paper said.

Apparently, 13 year olds can be charged as adults. (Source: CBC News)

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Feminism as a cult evidence: Ignoring or ruthlessly crushing any theory that doesn't conofm

Continuing my penchant for long tittles, I've more evidence to present to support my thesis that feminism is closer to a religious cult than a rational political movement.

In this case we consider what feminists categorically reject any theory, or idea about rape which does not conform exactly with their very narrow definition. This is of course, in spite of any and all evidence which suggests that the conventional wisdom found in feminist theory is anything but.

In my last meditation on MGTOW, I uncovered research which strongly suggests that rape victims themselves see rape as a crime with varying degrees of severity based on whether or not the rapist was known to them, and whether or not the rapist inflicted substantial injury in the perpetration of the crime. I then went on to theorize that since most rapes are committed by someone the woman knows, and since few rapes are reported that it was relatively unlikely that a male rapist who knows his victim would be unlikely to inflict physical harm, and this would in turn reduce the likelihood that the rape would be reported. Therefore, awareness campaigns which do not address the fact that women do not always see rape in the same terms are unlikely to be effective. Therefore, the current feminist consideration of rape is inadequate to addressing the issue.

For evidence, I submit the feminist reaction to comments made by British politician John Redwood. In his comments Redwood openly stated that rape between intimates should be considered a "lover's quarrel." While it could be said that Redwood is effectively trivializing the issue, the weight of the evidence clearly shows that Redwood's comments are not without merit; non-violent date rapes do seem to take on different properties in the mind of the victim than in cases of violent stranger rape. Redwood certainly implies that current feminist-dominated thinking is not adequate; that some reconsideration is needed if the problem is to be solved.

As Richard Dawkins would happily point out, any true scientific approach to the issue would consider the new data and see how it fits with the hypothesis. If it does not fit, then it is the hypothesis, not the data which must change. I happen to agree with this empirical, scientific approach. Furthermore, I don't believe that this approach can be effectively called into question; it is by this method that the human race all agrees that it knows what it knows.

Therefore, if feminists are indeed a rational political movement, comments of this nature supported by evidence would result in consideration by feminists. If feminists are however, as I suspect closer to a religious cult, the data would be considered offensive, blasphemous, and therefore ridiculed, ignored, or suppressed.

Which do you think it was?

As if there was any doubt that the latter would be the result! Yes, see this article on Instead of considering what the man said, the women and men reading the article quickly brand him a "rape apologist," and categorically reject his comments as false. The feminist mind is unable to consider alternatives to accepted dogma, rather his comments only add to feminist paranoia.

The conclusion is inescapable. The categorical rejection of all reason and rationality has more in common with a group of religious fanatics than it does with a group of rational people. Feminists are therefore not rational. Feminism therefore deserves to be treated not as a political movement, but as a cult. Let feminism compete with the rest of the religions for the hearts and minds of followers, but its doctrine has no place influencing politics.

Friday, December 14, 2007

ACLAF Archives (Recreation) - It's not even about Consent

Luke, this one's for you. More post-necromancy!
Some time ago, the UK proposed a law that would turn sex with a drunk woman into rape. Much to the lamentation of cougars (shouldn't it apply to men after all?) and pick-up artists everywhere, The idea behind the bill is that a severely drunk woman cannot legally consent to sex on the grounds that her judgment is impaired. And thus, it is little more than a flimsy pretext to be trotted out whenever the government feels like sending more men to jail. Familiar? Thought so. My understanding is that the proposed law has now been killed, replaced with some other measure to send more people to jail, but this still raises a very important issue regarding our culture, in that this is not even about consent; it's about alcohol, and how we treat, or mistreat the devil's brew in western culture.

Ask any boyscout worth his salt about fire, and he'll tell you that fire is something to treat with respect, and care. We all learned as children that fire can be incredibly useful when used correctly, and absolutely devastating when abused. Just ask the folks in Southern California.

A stinkingly similar rule holds true with alcohol.

Most people love to forget the simple fact that alcohol is a form of poison! Alcohol can fucking kill you if you take too much! Alcohol is something that must be treated with respect. That's why don't allow children to drink, because it can cause them great harm, and they haven't yet demonstrated sufficient responsibility to be trusted to handle something that can be so deadly.

Studies clearly demonstrate that there is some sort of positive correlation between the amount of alcohol consumed by a woman, and the likely hood that she will make a rape accusation, whether the sex is consensual or not.

And here in lies the problem. By entertaining notions that alcohol can be used as a legal excuse for what might be regretted later, the state effectively allows women to regress. How can we trust a person who cannot drink responsibly in our society? How can we trust someone who can't be trusted not to burn down houses? You see, after they screw up, we put these people in jail, or in mental institutions to make sure that they don't ruin it for the mature responsible folks in society; the adults.

Put another way, what did your parents do when you did something wrong, and childish? They sent you to your room! What is jail sometimes but a more grown-up kind of room?

You see folks, an adult who cannot be trusted with booze is no adult! Alcoholism occurs when people loose control over their own lives, and allow alcohol to take control. The only difference between a grown binge drunk, and a child, is that one of these two has a rational human being in control of their lives.

So to get so drunk that you can't see, and sleep with someone isn't rape, it's childish! Anyone who entertains the idea of accusing the person they slept with while drunk is equally childish, and they deserve to be treated like that name sake. Suck it, up buttercup! Either such a person is responsible enough to handle drinking, and therefore takes responsibility for their actions while drunk, or they are someone who can't handle it, and doesn't deserve to drink at all, because they lack the maturity to use the poison responsibly! Alcohol is a privilege, not a right princess!

So you know what? You want us to prosecute? FINE! We'll prosecute! On your way out, turn in your identification, car-keys, and put on the chastity belt that will be provided.

If you're not ready to handle alcohol, how can you possibly believe that you can handle sex?