Archive for the 'Freelancers' Category

Feb 14 2014

Since it’s Valentines Day.

We should talk about what should be the most important part of the holiday. The post dinner/flowers/movie/carriage ride in the park/romantic walk in the park sex. Sex is always, ALWAYS, the perfect ending to any holiday.

So over at The Atlantic, they had a nice article about the myths about that most dreaded of conditions-virginity.

Laci Green grabs a thin sheet of latex, stretches it over the end of an empty toilet paper tube, and starts cutting away with a pair of scissors. "I'm makin' a hymennn," she sings before holding up the finished product to the camera, where, on the other side, more than 700,000 subscribers now await her every upload. "Ta-da!"

Since 2008, the 24-year-old YouTube sex educator has been making informational videos about everything from slut shaming and body image to genital hygiene and finding the G-spot. This particular scene comes from a clip called "You Can't POP Your Cherry (HYMEN 101)" which explains, with the kind of bubbly, web-savvy humor that makes her a popular vlogger, that the hymen isn't a membrane that needs to bleed or be broken during intercourse—it's actually just small, usually elastic folds of mucous tissue that only partially cover the vaginal opening and can, but don’t always, tear if stretched. A year and a half after it premiered, with well more than one million views, Green's video debunking one of the most enduring misconceptions about virginity is also one of the most popular segment she's ever recorded.

So maybe the ex was not really lying to me that it was her first time-right?

Actually I have been with two women who said it was their first time, this was a long time ago-and I was quite ignorant on a lot of things, and furthermore I was trapped as a slave to a lot of really, REALLY , screwed up ideas about what was "moral" when it came to sexual activity. Now some 30 years later, my thinking has radically changed. All sex is good, and people deserve to have as much guilt and consequence free sex as they can get. ( With, of course, the usual caveats about consent, incest, age of consent etc…..).

So it was kind of interesting to read about the actual let down the "first time was for a lot of people". My first time was great-except for the naggging voice screaming "SIN" in the back of my head.  This voice was competing with the one going, "pussy feels great, don't you want to know for yourself?". The latter voice won out-and for what its worth, 30+years of experience have proven him right and the first voice wrong.

So anyway, I found the article interesting as it told the women's point of view:

When Therese Shechter lost her virginity at age 23, it wasn’t the firework-spouting, momentous occasion she had come to expect. On the contrary, it was kind of unremarkable given the hype. Now a filmmaker, Shechter spent much of the past six years working on her new documentary How to Lose Your Virginity, which revisits her experience—including the basement apartment where it happened, now, funnily enough, a flower shop called Bloom—and explores the "myths and misogyny" behind one of society's most institutionalized rites of passage.

Through interviews with historians, abstinence advocates, sex educators, and self-described virgins and non-virgins alike, Shechter learned she's not the only one who had certain ideas about what sex is supposed to be like. There are a number of pervasive and loaded myths about virginity: That having sex for the first time will be an irreversible transformation that changes your body and mind; that there’s a “right” way to lose your virginity, and how you lose it will affect the rest of your life; that it's going to be the most pleasurable, magical feeling; that it's going to be the most painful experience of their lives. These myths persist in part because of a lack of information about what happens to the human body, specifically the hymen, during sex—information that's often not taught in schools, that's not always found online, and that's not always available from medical providers.

“I’ve spoken to lots of women who are just terrified of having sex because they think it’s going to be this horrible pain and [they’ll] bleed gallons of blood,” says Shechter, whose documentary makes its broadcast premiere on February 8 on the Fusion Network and is airing in cities across the U.S. and internationally in coming months.


After spending a good deal of time overseas, its clear Americans and others have some really screwed up ideas about sex. Muslims of course have the worst ideas about the doing the deed, many that have been passed down to them through their history. Asia, in my experience was so refreshing because of the matter of fact attitude I found in so many women about sex. ( The S.O. used to have a very matter of fact attitude about sex-she liked it. Until she stopped liking it or worrying about her hormone levels. That it might leave me more than a little frustrated never enters into her equation. But she knows when to use it to get what she wants still. )

For evidence of just how strongly these ideas about virginity and sex are rooted in popular culture, Shechter points to the number of businesses that profit off them. Genres of pornography fetishize virginity and frequently depict the moment innocent school girls are "corrupted.” Hymenoplasties, or controversial surgeries that "reconstruct" the hymen to induce bleeding during sex as proof of virginity, have become an established practice around the world (stories about the trend have appeared in Time magazine and The New York Times, which, it’s worth noting, called the hymen "the vaginal membrane that normally breaks in the first act of intercourse" in its reporting). In her film, Shechter meets with a wedding dress vendor who markets a dress's virginal qualities as a selling point.


As Susan Sarandon said in the movie Bull Durham, women all deserve to wear white-and as I get more mature-I have come to agree with her fully.


Seriously though-these time worn and completely silly ideas about sex have bad ramifications. They keep both men and women from seeking out needed counseling and contraception. Everyone, yes I said everyone ( even the fat chick) is entitled to lots of completely wild and orgasmic sex. Anything that stands in the way is just plain wrong.

Because hymens vary greatly from person to person, they’re not reliable indicators of virginity—How to Lose Your Virginity even features a film clip from the 1940s saying as much—but the myth that looking at a hymen can reveal whether a woman has had sex can still discourage women from seeking medical care. "The biggest question we're asked is, 'Can a doctor or a boyfriend tell if I've had sex before?' Zeldes says. "Many people think they can, so they're scared to go to a gynecologist or a GYN exam because they're scared, one, that it could make them not a virgin, and, two, someone would be able to tell."

But what Blank and Zeldes say is one of the most widespread consequences—and the one Green says convinced her to make her video in the first place—is simply fear. Myths about virginity cast a shadow of negativity over young people’s attitudes toward sex. They keep can people from taking ownership of their sexualities and bodies through informed decision-making. They can turn what could be a pleasurable and fun experience into an event that’s scary, stressful, and needlessly traumatic.

So hump away boys and girls-its the greatest sensation there is and you don't get near enough of it, and life is short.  Here is to hoping your Valentines Day is a good and erotic one.


Happy (Slutty) Valentines Day!

So when and where was your first time?

3 responses so far

Jan 14 2014

Who needs a sabbatical?

Well it’s been two years since I have right royally pissed off the feminist lobby, and it is January and I am cold. So it is probably a good time to jump back into the pool and piss them off again.

Navy Times had a recent article up discussing the idea of sabbaticals, and how they could “help retain women in ranks”. After all, a military career is hard and all, and it is increasingly getting in the way of having it all:

Across the military services, leaders are experimenting with programs that will give valued officers and enlisted troops, men and women, the incentive to stay. Also, as the Pentagon moves to bring women into more jobs closer to the combat zone, military officials believe it is crucial to keep mid-career female officers in the services so they can mentor those on the front lines.


“We have innovative things we’re trying to retain women in the service,” said Vice Adm. Mark Ferguson, vice chief of naval operations. “It’s about creating the personnel policies that enable someone to say it’s Navy and family, instead of Navy or family.”


In other words, the Navy wants to create a “mommy track”. For what reason, I have no real idea, but it appears they do.

I’ll pause a moment so that you can throw up, and then, scratch your head and utter a cheery, “WTF?!?!”

It seems to me they are not getting the point here.  But I will explain why in a minute. For now, lets remember how hard it is for a service woman to “have it all” shall we?

In October, Katherine left the service and moved from Camp Lejeune to California to be with her fiancé. It was a difficult decision, but in the end, she said, she chose stability.

“For women to have a family and a career, it’s just extremely difficult. And, being in the military, it is extra sacrifice, you have deployments, you have workups, and it just makes it that much more challenging,” she said. “The Marine Corps is a lifestyle, it’s not a job. You dress it, you eat it, you breathe it, you live it. For me, I want to focus on getting married.”

So far, Sarah has chosen to stay in. “I love being a Marine, I love the people I work with,” she said. But not long ago, Rachel said she also is weighing similar issues.

It’s not an uncommon dilemma. More often than men in the military, women choose their family over service.


Here is a news flash madam, yes it is about choices, and when you chose to enter the service you made a choice to deal with these complexities. It’s pretty lousy to get in, decide you don’t like the rules of the game and then instead of coping with them, decide it’s better to change the rules and the playing field.

At the risk of being branded with the “M” word-I will remind you that there were reasons that society evolved into the roles for men and women to play in it. Now I will grant you that those roles are changing and society has to change too-but it seems to me that this goes a bit too far.

First of all, its rather discriminatory towards those men (and women) who are not a part of a dual service couple. (Which is a whole another bad trend that is going on-the service has incentives that encourage Sailors to marry Sailors, but we will set that aside for this discussion). A lot of people cannot afford to lose one year’s earnings (or two) especially if there is a stay at home spouse-or young children to raise. They would probably like a year off too-but they can’t afford one.

Second, the logic here is completely faulty.  Especially this idea that you have to have women to mentor women. I thought the services were supposed to be gender neutral. So isn’t that what you have a chain of command for? Isn’t that what you have standards of professional conduct for? Is that not why the Navy is firing so many men?

As it is, there is far too much of this “women networking with other women“ going on with results that are predictably geared to undermine the chain of command. I’ve written about it before-and we have seen far too many Navy Times headlines that have been predicated by mentors “encouraging” actions that have resulted in disaster.

Furthermore the hand of time stops for no one-and the DOPMA wall is still out there, and you can’t tell me that there are not some tradeoffs that get made in the advancement world when you elect this course. For one thing you are changing year groups-and the dynamics of who you are competing with may change dramatically and not for the better.

The Navy is not, and cannot be, a “family friendly” employer. That does not mean, however, that men and women cannot find a balance and raise a family. But it does involve choices and these choices are sometimes hard ones. I hate to remind folks this-but having to make those choices is not the Navy’s fault. When one chooses to enter a Navy career, you are making a statement as either a man or a woman: You want to do something hard and career worthy. That women are the only ones who can have children is a biological fact-not a hindrance the Navy created. If later on downstream a woman decides that she would rather get out and have a family, that’s a choice for her to make. Literally millions of women make it every year. But please, spare me the flack about the idea that the Navy somehow needs to make “accommodations” for the increasing numbers of women in its ranks. It belies the original reason the women said they wanted to serve-to have the same opportunities as men. Well making choices about family and career is an opportunity.

But it’s unfair, men with a stay at home wife don’t have to make that choice!” BS.  I would remind you that there are choices that are being made by the other family-not the least of which is getting by on a lot less money than the dual service couple. “You make choices and you live with them”.

Well, there is nothing wrong with a sabbatical.” No, there probably isn’t-except when you frame it as a way to “retain women”-and allow them to not have to make hard choices, then you are laying bare the hypocrisy behind the idea –and providing an clear inkling of the double standard that will be enforced in its execution. Why not fix the root problem, which is the Navy’s trying to shove 100lbs into a 50lb career bag, and revise DOPMA, to slow down promotion flow points, and allow officers to serve longer . Maybe give every officer a good 2 year break when he or she attends a civilian university to get a Masters Degree. (It could also have the added benefit of exposing these folks to parts of America that don’t normally see military folks). Bring back some of the “good deal" tours as well.

To pay Phibian a compliment for a change, he’s right when he says, “Again, this isn't harmless. In the zero sum game that is selection, support, promotion, and award – special treatment based on [Gender] is discrimination. It also puts in a perverse incentive to lie, cheat, steal, and to tolerate those among you who do.” In essence you are getting to the heart of what all us nay-sayers said many years ago when we began the great experiment, you will fundamentally change the institution in ways that will ultimately destroy the things that made it worth serving in. The PAO hoopla about these sabbaticals and the idea that somehow the Navy has to get to a 50-50 gender split is just crazy. This is not a corporation-it’s a fighting force. You don't always get everything you want-and you cannot have it all. "You make choices and you live with them." We would do well to remember that.

I used to give dual service couples advice, that I thought at the time made sense and I still do. The powers that be did not like it very much and told me not to pass it on. I ignored them. Basically for a dual service couple-you have to decide who will be CNO and who won't be. In other words you have to decide whose career will come first-and then stick to that strategy. If you both want to be successful you will be childless and or lonely. It does not matter if its the man or the woman-but you have to choose. I still think its a useful thing to ponder-and I've met many dual service couples who follow exactly that course. It works-but evidently CDR Steinem doesn't want to hear it.

2 responses so far

Dec 13 2013

In trying to do good, they just do more harm.

As promised, I am taking this opportunity to offer my thoughts on some provisions of the 2014 Defense Bill that should make anyone with any military experience at all, just a little bit nervous. ( If not downright upset.)

First the good parts ( I guess). The bill revamps the Sodomy section of the UCMJ. Repeal of DADT made this pretty much mandatory for obvious reasons. Consensual Sodomy is now just fine and is not punishable under the UCMJ.  Non consensual sodomy however is still a violation.  So be careful out there, if you go "knocking at the back door" and your GF does not like it, you could be heading to mast. ;-(

In my opinion they should have just done away the Sodomy article all together, along with the one on adultery.  When you have created the convoluted mess that we have,  where you have Sailors dating Sailors and all other craziness-its just unreasonable to have a UCMJ that has a completely unworkable and unenforceable morals provision. These were normally "pile on charges anyway"-and so they should be done away with. So should the one about prostitution IMHO, but I know the do-gooders will never allow that to happen.

Now here is the list of bad things, and it is long ( the ones I vehemently disagree with are highlighted in yellow).:

Sexual Assault and Prevention

  • Extends specified crime victims’ rights to victims of UCMJ offenses.
  • Amends Article 60, UCMJ, to limit the authority of court-martial convening authorities to modify the findings and sentence of courts-martial.
  • Requires that victims be afforded an opportunity to submit matters for consideration by a convening authority before the convening authority takes action on the findings and sentence of a court-martial and limits convening authority consideration to matters considered at trial.
  • Amends Article 32, UCMJ, to change Article 32 proceedings from an investigation to a preliminary hearing normally conducted by a judge advocate to determine whether there is probable cause to prosecute a case.
  • Eliminates the five-year statute of limitations on prosecutions for certain sex-related offenses under the UCMJ.
  • Requires interviews of victims of sex-related offenses to be conducted in the presence of trial counsel, victim’s counsel, or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate if requested by the victim.
  • Limits jurisdiction over specified sex-related offenses to trial by general court-martial and requires a minimum sentence of Dishonorable Discharge or Dismissal for conviction of these offenses.
  • Repeals the offense of consensual sodomy under the UCMJ.
  • Removes the character and military service of an accused from factors a commander should consider in deciding how to dispose of any offense.
  • Prohibits retaliation against service members for reporting a criminal offense.
  • Prohibits enlisting or commissioning in the military of individuals convicted of certain felony sex-related offenses.
  • Requires the Coast Guard to issue regulations requiring timely action on requests for transfer or reassignment by sexual assault victims.
  • Provides for temporary administrative reassignment or removal of service members accused of committing specified sex offenses.
  • Enhances protections for military whistleblowers.
  • Requires DOD IG investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions for reporting certain sexual offenses.
  • Requires a Special Victims’ Counsel program in each service to provide legal counsel to victims of sexual assault.
  • Requires service secretaries to track compliance of commanding officers in conducting command climate assessments.
  • Requires DOD to retain for 50 years certain forms filed in connection with reports of sexual assault involving service members.
  • Requires timely access to Sexual Assault Response Coordinators by members of the National Guard and Reserves who are victims of sexual assault.
  • Requires the Secretary of Defense to report on the adequacy of training, qualifications, and experience of individuals with sexual assault prevention and response duties.
  • Requires assignment of at least one full-time sexual assault nurse examiner to military medical treatment facilities that have a 24-hour emergency room.
  • Assigns additional responsibilities to the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.
  • Assigns additional tasks to the Response Systems Panel and to the Judicial Review Panel established to review matters involving sexual assaults in the military.
  • Requires the Response Systems Panel to submit its report no later one year after its first meeting on its review of systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate sexual assault crimes.
  • Requires review of practices of military criminal investigative organizations, including the determination of whether an offense is founded.
  • Requires Secretary of Defense to identify common core elements that must be included in sexual assault prevention and response training.
  • Requires Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the progress made in developing and implementing a comprehensive policy on the retention of and access to evidence and records relating to sexual assaults involving service members.
  • Requires Secretary of Defense to review the role of the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity in sexual harassment cases.
  • Requires enhanced protections for prospective service members and new service members during entry level processing and training.
  • Requires commanding officers to immediately refer reports of sexual offenses involving service members in their command to the appropriate military criminal investigation organization for investigation.
  • Requires a written report be provided to senior officers within eight days of an unrestricted report of sexual assault to ensure necessary care and support for the victim and timely investigation of the offense.
  • Requires review by the service secretary of a convening authority’s decision not to prosecute certain charges of sexual offenses when the staff judge advocate recommends prosecution, and review by a superior general court-martial convening authority when the staff judge advocate recommends against prosecution.
  • Requires that court-martial convictions, non-judicial punishment, or administrative action for sex-related offenses be noted in the service member’s personnel records and requires that commanders review the history of substantiated sexual offenses of service members assigned to their commands.
  • Requires military service academies to provide training and education on prevention of sexual assault within 14 days of arrival of new cadets and midshipmen and annually thereafter.
  • Requires that service members be notified that they can answer no to the question about consulting with a mental health professional on the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (Standard Form 86) if the consultation relates to the service member being a victim of a sexual assault.
  • Expresses the sense of Congress that commanders are responsible for establishing a healthy command climate where victims can report criminal activity, including sexual assault, without fear of retaliation, and that failure to maintain such a climate is an appropriate basis for relief from command.
  • Expresses the sense of Congress that charges of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses, should be prosecuted by court-martial rather than non-judicial punishment or administrative action.
  • Expresses the sense of Congress that discharges in lieu of court-martial should be used very sparingly for service members who are charged with rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses, and that victims should be consulted about the discharge of the service member whenever possible

– See more at:

Just about all of this is bad-really bad. By undermining the Convening Authoritiy's ability to exercise his responsibility under the UCMJ, you are going to make sure a lot of innocent folks get railroaded.

Most military sexual assault cases are not clear cut. Its not some guy just grabbing a girl, throwing her down and raping her in the closet. Rather they are primarily "buyer's remorse"  types of cases where both parties have probably made some bad decisions, under the influence of love, lust, and / or alcohol-and the issue of consent is most often times not clear cut.

What these changes do is make sure that every case, EVERY case of alleged sexual harassment, will be tried at the highest possible level. Even when the facts of the case don't warrant it. Furthermore, it also raises the possibility that someone who does something clearly wrong will get away with it scot free. Court Martials are Courts. Rules of evidence and cross examination apply-and trust me, defense attorneys will do their best to drag the victim through the mud and make her look like a bigger tramp than Delilah. That is their job. These cases are difficult, and it comes as a surprise to no one who understands the nature of the crime that sometimes getting to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt simply cannot be done. To remove this authority from the chain of command lets commanders off the hook and decreases options for securing justice for victims. I am not a lawyer-but it seems a commander has more authority under a murder charge than on a sexual assault one. In what universe does that make sense?

And I'll be blunt. Not everyone of these "he said, she said" cases needs to go to court martial. In many cases-where it is not a full blown rape or even felony sexual assault, the commander may in fact need to punish both parties. These laws make one sex out to be a preferred class. Guess which one? I'll give you a hint, its not the one with a penis.

Which of course, is what the Congress people want. They want to ensure that folks walk around afraid and on eggshells-while they do nothing about the underlying causes, which set people up for failure to begin with. This why I continue to bridle at these calls that the "military needs to change its culture". Um no. You need to understand the problem you create by putting men and women together in large quantities to begin with. The military culture is just fine.

These trouble makers just want to show they "are doing something". Oh you are doing something all right-something really stupid.

This is a bad business. If you claim to say you want to hold commanders accountable, then you HAVE to provide them the tools they need to do their jobs properly. These provisions do not do that.


One response so far

Dec 10 2013

Marriage re-booted

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has a post up on his blog that postulates something I have believed for a long time. Marriage is no longer a relevant institution and needs to be re-vamped or done away with. He does not come out specifically state what I believe-namely that our ideas about monogamy are silly and have been for a long time; nonetheless he gets to the heart of the matter:

If you look at marriage the way an economist might, it is an exchange of services. Every marriage is different, but at its core you have two people who are choosing to provide one basket of services in return for a different basket. Historically, that meant the man provided protection and financial stability while the woman provided children, childcare, and household management. In modern times, the picture is more smeared, but in all cases the parties are getting something while providing something, including the emotional benefits.

Marriage made sense when the world was inefficient. You married a person nearby who could provide most of your important needs while hoping your lesser needs could also somehow be met. It made perfect sense in the pre-Internet age.

But today you can arrange for any of your individual needs via Internet. You can find lovers who don't want a commitment. You can find people willing to trade sex for travel experiences. You can find surrogates to have your baby, or you can adopt from another country. Then you can find a nanny who is willing to work primarily for room and board. You can find an intellectual partner, a business partner, a tennis partner, you name it. The Internet provides all.

For the first time in history it is feasible to create a virtual spouse comprised of a dozen separate relationships. And each would be optimized. Instead of dragging your spouse to the opera or a baseball game, you go with someone who loves your hobbies as much as you do.

From a transactional standpoint-marriage is a loser. Certainly the idea that there is one special person out there who somehow "completes" you. Do some women make better companions than others? Certainly. But even the best of friends need a break from one another.

When the exchange of services becomes a one way exchange ( e.g.. the S.O. doing all the taking and doing none of the giving-it can be less than fun.)

One of his commenters goes on to more explicitly point out what all of us who have been through the divorce wringer know already, that the system perpetuates marriage despite is now obvious flaws because women want it so.

Enter the legal system. Laws are designed to help society as a whole. Is the man better off because he's now legally bound to stay and help? Certainly not. He's looking for quantity, and sticking around to help is hurting his numbers.

But Marriage 1.0 wasn't invented to help him – it was invented to help her – and society as a whole. This is why religion pushes it. This is why governments push it. The good of the many over the good of the few, or the one. (Thanks Spock.)

But how does Marriage 1.0 do this? It uses TWO STICKS called Alimony and Child Support. Leave a marriage – and get hit with the Alimony stick. Have kids? Get hit with Child Support stick.

Sensible right?

BUT #1: Marriage 1.0 shouldn't worry about keeping a couple together that has no children. The concept of Alimony has no legal purpose for childless couples. Sorry house-moms and dads! Society just doesn't think you add value by being married.

BUT #2: A man who has sex, whether through Marriage 1.0 -OR- "Wild night of sex", will get hit with Child Support.

Waaaait a minute:
If we abolish Alimony, and Child Support happens even without marriage, then what good is marriage?


Exactly. There's nothing left. Since children will be protected in either scenario, there is no longer a need to have it.

Quo es demonstratum

I'm very much on board with Adams idea that you can have several companions. Maybe one who makes a good roommate ( as the S.O. does)-and a couple of others who solve the passion needs. ( Which I need desperately). "One person was never meant to be your everything. That's why you have friends for playing sports, friends from work, friends for going to the theater, whatever. Expecting one person only to fulfill all your needs is a romantic notion (I blame Harlequin romances) that leads to much unhappiness."

The economics ( and the sexual needs of literally millions of disappointed men) demand it.


2 responses so far

Jul 15 2013

Harassment Hysteria

Published by under Freelancers,Military,Sex

I'd like to put in another plug for ROK Drop if I may. It is probably the only military blog trying to drag some sense into the discussion about the supposed "problems with the military culture" ( which was just fine until feminists came along and decided to fuck it up for their own twisted purposes). 

Bottom Line up front: The military does not have a "sexual assault" problem. It has a "buyer's remorse" problem that is fueled by the ease with which one can field a false accusation. This so called problem is being aggravated by politicians and professional feminists who wish to capitalize on the issue to promote their own agendas. The military has a better record on "sexual harassment" and "sexual assault" than a similar sized and aged civilian cohort.

GI Korea has done a real good job of documenting this. You should put it in your read list-if you want a clearer view of the real picture.

The Stars & Stripes pretty much has no creditability on this issue since they continue to peddle special interest propaganda. Notice how they throw in the 26,000 number right after discussing violent rape that could confuse readers into thinking that the 26,000 number was all violent rape incidents. I have already pointed out all the problems with the 26,000 numbeand anyone that describes the number as sexual assaults as the Stars and Stripes did is lying. That number did not represent sexual assaults, it represented an expanded definition of sexual assaults that the survey defined as “unwanted sexual contact” (USC) that could range from someone putting their arm around you without your permission to violent rape. In fact if one looks at the survey results there was in fact very little rape at all. In fact the majority of the 26,000 USC number was reported by males with unwanted touching the top complaint which is something most in the media will not mention. – 

In an earlier post he has a very detailed rundown that proves conclusively that the numbers are exaggerated from a statistical standpoint-and also ignores the ideas of trends, namely that the trend is not upward-its going down.

And he clearly takes on the key issue-buyer's remorse, which is a problem:

This is all the Pentagon says about false accusations out of all the pages in their report. This is 17% of the people investigated for sexual assault being found to be falsely accused and is on a 4% rise since FY09.  This is a fact that is very significant and should be looked into.  It would be interesting to know how many of these 363 people were prosecuted for lodging false reports? I doubt very few of them were.  This number is actually higher because of the cases that went to court martial 307 more were dropped for lack of evidence. How many of these cases were false allegations as well?  Also there was 244 servicemembers who were not convicted of sexual assault during their court martial, but were convicted of other crimes.  Though what they were convicted of was not specified, usually adultery is what they are convicted of.  However, how many of these servicemembers were falsely accused as well?  This is all adds up to a huge number that no one other than the Washington Times is willing to talk about.  This creates concern for many in the military who do not want to be falsely accused of a sexual assault because they fear the system is stacked against them and politicians want to make it even more stacked.  As the US Court of Appeals overturning of rape convictions has shown servicemembers have every reason to fear the system is stacked against them.  Additionally lawyers are coming out and saying the current environment created by the politicians is in fact unlawful as well.

Over many very good postings-GI Korea has taken on this flawed idea that the military has a "rape culture" and thoroughly debunked it."Witch hunts to advance political agendas is not what the US military legal system should be used for.  Unfortunately that is what some people are trying to do and in the process are causing the American public to think the military is filled with a bunch of rapists that uncaring commanders are largely letting these criminals go unpunished.  I hope this posting at least starts a conversation to counter these claims because as I have shown the problem is much more nuanced than what the special interests claim.  This means the solution to the problem needs to be more nuanced than what the special interests are recommending as well."

I've said it before and I will keep saying it-there is no crisis of sexual assault in the military. This is the world you said you wanted in 1992-well, welcome to it.

Fortunately-GI Korea is on the case, pointing out the facts against the lies.

2 responses so far

Apr 16 2012

So let me get this straight…..

The Secretary of State wants to unwind a bit swigging some beer in a Columbian hot spot. And that's OK.


But a hard working member of the military or a Secret Service Agent wants to drink  a few beers and slice off a nice guilt free piece of Columbian tuna-and THAT's somehow a big deal.

Hillary only wishes she had tits and a bubble butt like this!




Double f*cking standard if you ask me.

Moral of the story:

1) Chicks always get away with more than men.

2) ALWAYS pay the girl!

3) Don't go on liberty with the other guys.

4) Curfews suck!

5) The whole morality thing has gotten out of hand.

9 responses so far

Jan 10 2011

It is a blessing

Published by under Freelancers,Technology

To be holed up inside the house because of this:

I needed the time to get caught up on this project. I spent most of the weekend holed up in my “man cave” writing draft after draft of a proposal and taking the occasional break to bang my head against the wall.

It is not that the work is that hard-but it is quite serious. In a lot of ways, the defense contracting business is similar to the world’s oldest profession. How to figure out how to get as much ass in your service-for the lowest possible price the market will bear.

Except, these are real people we are talking about here-and no matter how this turns out, real people are going to get screwed. People I know personally ( and possibly myself), and don’t deserve this kind of disrespect.

So this project weighs on me a lot. I know we have to get it right-and in a normal world we would have well over 60 days to so. With that kind of time this would be a relatively straightforward task and the weekends would be free.

But not our erstwhile task master. Who thinks its a good idea to staff a multi million dollar project in less than two weeks? I don’t-and I don’t know anyone else in the trenches who thinks it is either.

But such is the world we live in.

Snow keeps the phone from ringing-and that’s a good thing. Back to the salt mine……………

7 responses so far

Aug 19 2009

It seems that someone else noticed…..

Published by under Freelancers

That the Philippines is still very screwed up

Regarding former Philippine President Fidel Ramos’ Aug. 14 article, "Cory Aquino’s legacy of enriched freedom": Cory Aquino was undoubtedly a kind, honest and unpretentious president, but she was ineffectual. To attribute "enriched freedom" to her is simply an intellectual exaggeration bordering on flatulence. However one belabors the point, freedom and democracy have not exactly served the Philippines well.

One simply has to look at how the country is lagging behind its other Asian neighbors. To this day, most Filipinos still take pride in being the first democratic and sole Catholic country in Asia — something that identifies the country with the United States and the West. Elsewhere in Asia, nobody cares about these things.

It is high time that naive romantics learn that freedom alone cannot put food on the table, roofs over their heads and warm clothing on their backs. And despite the liberation from tyranny and restoration of freedom back home, we see a growing diaspora of Filipinos seeking greener pastures abroad.



No responses yet

Jun 24 2009

The national disgrace………

Published by under Freelancers

Normally, I adore Filipina women. No, really I do-and not for the reasons you gutter rats may think. While in Japan I got to observe both the good things and the bad things about Filipino society up close;  from time to time in other cities I got do good works of charity for a few ;-);  and at the end of the day, there is something to be said for the challenges that so many of them put up with-while still maintaining a kindred spirit. 

What other country in the world is proud of the fact that its #1 export is people?

Which is why there is one woman in the Philippines I actually loathe-Gloria Arroyo. Over the last few years she repeatedly has admitted that her administration is a complete and total failure.

140,000 women working as maids in Hong Kong? 150,000 working in Singapore? Doesn’t phase her.

500,000 men and women working in the middle east? A great national achievement.

And now-a further admission of the fact that she can’t, or won’t do a damn thing to help Filipinos in their own homeland:

Arroyo calls on Japan to accept more Philippine workers

TOKYO (AFP) ? Philippine President Gloria Arroyo voiced hope on Saturday that Japan will accept more workers from her country under a bilateral economic pact.

In an interview with Japanese public broadcaster NHK, Arroyo hailed Tokyo’s acceptance of Philippine nurses and care workers in line with the economic partnership pact signed between the two countries in 2006.

"This is a milestone because it is the first visible impact on the benefit" of the pact, said Arroyo, who is on a visit to Japan.

Seeking an increase in the number Japan would accept, Arroyo said Manila was ready to send more Philippine workers such as English teachers and information technology engineers to Japan.

Earlier in the day, Arroyo visited an on-the-job learning centre for foreign workers in Tokyo, where 36 Philippine nurses are taking training.

Tokyo is the largest trading partner for Manila, while Manila is the second largest destination for Japanese foreign direct investment after the United States, according to the Japanese foreign ministry.

Arroyo, who arrived here on Wednesday for a working visit, met Prime Minister Taro Aso and discussed economic ties, North Korea’s May nuclear test and other issues.…bwLZzsV8dfsAIg

Like the hostesses need that kind of competition……………

Besides the fact that its a blatant admission the Philippine economy  sucks, lets look at few obvious flaws with this line of thinking:

1) Filipino English is better than say that of-Thai’s. But unless they have lived in an English speaking country, its not the same as an native speaker.

2) Japanese hold Filipino’s in lower regard than the Chinese do-and that’s tough to do.

3)Filipino’s have this nasty habit of "importing" family behind them-if they think they can do it. Ask the US Navy, which had to do a severe crackdown on the practice in the early years of the 21’st century. The Japanese know this and want nothing to do with it.

And finally, there is still one industry that Gloria did not talk about but still gets a lot of Filipino "talent":



Against that backdrop-you think you are going to get Japanese students to Filipino eikaiwa? Not a chance.

But then-Gloria Arroyo was never known for thinking things through.


Surely, you don’t expect me to get the country to work?



3 responses so far

Jun 08 2009

Really depressing numbers…….

Published by under Freelancers,Sex

And no-I’m not talking about the latest unemployment numbers.

Then again maybe I am-how certain segments of the male population in America are being underemployed-literally:

Married men and women, on average, have sex with their spouse 58 times a year, a little more than once a week, according to data collected from the General Social Survey, which has tracked the social behaviors of Americans since 1972. But there are wide variations in that number. Married people under 30 have sex about 111 times a year. And it’s estimated that about 15 percent of married couples have not had sex with their spouse in the last six months to one year, according to Denise A. Donnelly, associate professor of sociology at Georgia State University, who has studied sexless marriage.

Simply terrible-been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Never going there again.

If ever there was an argument for the futility of marriage-and or monogamy in general-that’s it. Marriage survives for only one reason: there is no other viable way to raise children.

Oh other ways have been tried-the kibbutz, the commune, just dumping the child off on the street corner.

None of them have proven really viable yet-and some of the alternatives come with baggage (like jail time for option 3).

So, Americans are left with this depressing state of affairs.

58 times a year? That amortizes out to about  3 times per month. For someone like me-blessed (or cursed) with a strong curve of desire-that leaves one about 12 times a month short. No wonder single guys seem happier. They get some sort of control over the flow. ( especially if they live someplace where “off the shelf” options are available).

Talk about something that needs a stimulus package. Especially if you are part of that really unfortunate 15%.

I mean think about it. Even if you allow 7 days a month for “the Wound of Eve that never heals”, and another 7-8 days a month for being pissed off and unreasonable, tired, depressed or whatever, that should still provide a 12-14 day “window of opportunity.”

I blame romance novels and women’s magazines. For building the act into a mystical experience, rahter than the more correct description Shakespere gave it in Hamlet: ” A good groaning”. Which is amazing  when you consider how many cover items on a woman’s magazine have to do with sex. You would think the subliminal suggestion would pay off.

I also blame Sex in the City.

Maybe David Carradine was married? That’s about the best explanation I can think of………..

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

3 responses so far

Next »