1. A U.S. service member who worked in a military sexual assault prevention program has been accused of a sexual crime. In the latest incident, an Army sergeant first class, assigned to such a program at Fort Hood, Texas, is being investigated for alleged sexual assault, pandering, abusive sexual contact and maltreatment of subordinates.

2. Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski was placed in charge of a branch of the Air Force’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program, and he oversaw a five-person office. In the first week of May, he was arrested on allegations that he attacked a woman and groped her buttocks and breasts in an Arlington, Virginia, parking lot.

3. Jennifer Norris, a retired Air Force veteran, says she was raped, sexually assaulted and retaliated against on numerous occasions by four individuals, over a period that included her time with the Maine Air National Guard. Norris now works with the Military Rape Crisis Center and the organization Protect Our Defenders.

4. In Alaska,, a military jury this month convicted a ­Marine Corps recruiter of ­first-degree sexual assault in the rape of a 23-year-old female civilian but did not sentence him to prison.

5. In Texas, an Air Force recruiter will face a military court next month on charges of rape, forcible sodomy and other crimes involving 18 young women he tried to enlist over a three-year period.

6. In Oregon, an Army staff sergeant pleaded guilty in March to having sex with a 17-year-old girl in a recruiting office.

7. In Arizona, an Army staff sergeant was charged in November with having a sexual relationship with a minor after he allegedly took a 16-year-old student to a park on multiple occasions and exchanged nude photos with her.

8. In Oklahoma, an Air Force staff sergeant was convicted of dereliction of duty by a military court in November after he had sex with a recruit, in a relationship that began with sexually explicit text messages.

9. At Lackland Air Force Base in Texas more than 30 instructors have been investigated on suspicion of abusing or mistreating recruits.

10. A court-martial for Brig. Gen. Jeffery Sinclair, the former deputy commander of the 82nd Airborne is set to begin June 25 on charges that include forcible sodomy, indecent acts, violating orders and adultery. Sinclair is also accused of violating a prohibition against U.S. troops in Afghanistan possessing pornography. A female captain who worked for Sinclair on deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq says Sinclair physically forced her to perform oral sex. The woman says the general also threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone about their relationship.

In his defense, it is alleged that the general said:

‘I’M A GENERAL. I’LL DO WHATEVER THE FUCK I WANT’.

Hey, I’m no expert but that sounds pretty good to me. I’d vote for acquittal and would recommend putting the female captain into military prison for the rest of her life. What impudence!

*****************************
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz8PpSHvBfQ

TINA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGoLq3c4SDc

Thousands of lives will be saved and dozens of airline crashes will be avoided thanks to clever intervention of Turkish Airlines, Europe’s fourth-biggest carrier. Along with a ban on nail polish, Turkish Airlines is banning lipstick for female flight attendants. A spokesperson for Turkish Airlines said the new ban is in keeping with the company’s love of pastel shades in all uniforms. Vivid colors on the part of the cabin crew impairs visual integrity.

Apart from the beneficial effect on visual integrity, the ban will please the 99% of the country that is Muslim. Of course that is only an unintended byproduct of the brilliancy. Turkish men are like bulls who go mad at the sight of red. Even more so since bulls are really colorblind. Turkish men and Muslim men generally who see women in red have a 500% higher rape incidence than men who are spared the disgusting sight. Earlier this year, The flag carrier caused a stir when newspapers published mockups of a new Ottoman-style uniform for stewardesses with ankle-length dresses. After lots of protest, the insistence on these uniforms was dropped.

Bill Maher has done a wonderful show satirizing the fashion industry in Muslim countries. Catch it, if you somehow can.

Several persons convicted of sex crimes in Iowa have been given permits to carry guns. On “both sides of the aisle” the screaming has begun. The general hue and cry is this: “How can it be that such terrible people are allowed to go packing?”

Here is the right response: THE WHINERS ARE A BUNCH OF DOPES. In general, the recidivist rate for so-called sex offenders is lower than for other offenders. This is definitely true in Iowa.

An FBI official, the president of the Iowa State Sheriffs’ & Deputies’ Association, the president of the Iowa State Police Association and two state lawmakers told The Des Moines Register they have public safety concerns after learning that a two-year-old state law on gun permits allows registered sex offenders to obtain a weapons permit.

“It does seem to go contrary to what the whole point or the whole purpose” of the sex offender registry is, said Steve Conlon, Registered Imbecile and deputy unit chief of the FBI Behavioral Science Unit’s Evil Minds Research Museum in Quantico, Va. [SG: That's good information because I thought that only 97.63% of the sex offender registry was directed at keeping guns out of the hands of THE DISGUSTING PERVERTS.]

Self-appointed statistics maven [and underground voyeur] Jerry Dunbar offered this brilliant observation: “My concern of a sex offender having a gun is they try to typically rule in a bullish way to influence people — and just the presence of a gun on a hip could be a threat to get people to cooperate,” said Washington County Sheriff Jerry Dunbar, who is president of the Iowa State Sheriffs’ & Deputies’ Association. Dunbar added, “They intimidate to get what they want.” [SG: What do they want, Jerry, you lame brain. Tell us. By the way, Jerry, go back to school and learn English.]

Rob Burdess, a Newton police detective and the president of the Iowa State Police Association, was unaware that sex offenders are being issued weapon permits until he was asked about it by the Register. He noted that people with felonies or domestic abuse convictions are typically unable to obtain weapon permits, so he questions the logic of allowing sex offenders — even those convicted of non-felony offenses — to carry weapons in public. Burdess is also famous throughout our solar system for his contributions to the field of advanced mathematical logic — a real plus for Iowa State police. Tossing his Statistics For Everyday Cops into the trash bin, Burdess asked the rhetorical question, “Who’s to say they’re not a safety concern with weapons? They’ve already shown propensity to be sexually violent, so the escalation can be the use of weapons.” [SG: Or perhaps homemade bombs which, after all, has always been the dream weapon of drooling perverts.]

JILL LEVENSON presumes to bring light rather than heat to the debate, proving she is a very stupid person. Levenson, a national expert on sexual violence and an associate professor at Lynn University in Florida has the colossal gall to cite facts. Levenson, citing more than three dozen research studies or articles, has written papers and given testimony that shows 5% to 14% of known sex offenders will commit a subsequent sex crime within three to six years after incarceration. That is far lower than rates for other types of crime. [SG: Hey! Who allowed her to testify? She is spoiling the game for the demagogues.]

There are no known studies that review the rates of crimes using guns committed by sex offenders after their initial convictions, according to Conlon of the FBI and researchers at Michigan State University’s School of Criminal Justice. That information would be useful in assessing the level of risk created by giving gun permits to sex offenders, Conlon said. [SG: There are no studies showing the percentage of children under age 9 who like to spend their days chewing on baseball gloves but I, if nobody else, desperately want to know THE FACTS. The data would be useful for something, even if I don't know what.]

National uniform crime data from 2006 — the most recent data available — show that less than 1% of all reported sex offenses included the use of a firearm, according to Jason Rydberg, a graduate student at Michigan State. [SG: We need guns to shoot people like Rydberg who want to spoil our fun.]

Iowa numbers mirror the national trend. Of the roughly 5,750 people on Iowa’s sex offender registry, 47 — or less than 1% — used guns in their crimes, according to data from the Iowa Department of Public Safety.

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, a national organization focused on the prevention of sexual abuse, generally advocates for cases to be reviewed individually when trying to determine whether a sex offender is likely to re-offend or jeopardize public safety. “There’s no blanket way of stating that sex offenders are more dangerous than everybody else,” said Maia Christopher, executive director of the association. [SG: Judge people on their individual merits? Sounds unAmerican to me.]

Republican state Rep. Clel Baudler, a former state trooper, isn’t reassured by the type of research offered by Levenson or groups like the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Baudler, who proudly displays his laminated certificate as a member of the NIA, (National Idiots Association) to all who enter his office offers us this insight into his “thinking”: “If I was a sheriff and you’re a registered sex offender, I’d look at what you were found guilty of and I would have no problem saying, ‘You might be eligible but you’re going to have to sue me to get it. I’ll see you in an administrative hearing and we’ll bring this out in public if that’s what you want.’” [SG: Baudler is my kind of guy. Like him, I believe that after we determine a lascivious pervert is no danger to anybody, let's kill him anyway -- just to be on the safe side and on the side of bigoted morons everywhere.]

Republican Rep. Matt Windschitl indicated that he believes Iowa’s new weapons permit law doesn’t need to be revised to specifically ban sex offenders. People convicted of felonies, including sex offenders, are already prohibited from obtaining a permit, he emphasized.

But the top-ranking Democrat on the House Public Safety Committee disagreed with Windschitl over whether Iowa’s permit law needs revision.

“I wasn’t aware that sex offenders would be given permits,” said Democrat Rep. Bob Kressig of Cedar Falls. “This is definitely a concern.” [SG: If there is one thing inferior to the brain of a Republican it is the brain of a Democrat.]

At a minimum, Kressig would like the Legislature to agree to look at the issue for potential action next year. [SG: A committee to study the ISSUE!]

**********************
I have only one thing left to say: DON’T BAN AUTOMATIC WEAPONS WITH 100 ROUNDS CAPACITY. Without guns how the hell are we going to shoot all the legislators?

I had a 36 hour pass and since I was stationed at Ft. Dix, New Jersey, it was a quick bus ride home. For some reason, instead of going to my actual home, I found myself in an apartment on Howard Avenue in the heart of Brownsville. Believe me, I have no idea why. Five guys were standing around naked. One stood on a small ottoman, playing the Mozart clarinet concerto while below him a young woman was sucking on his penis with real vigor. I remember it was causing him some difficulty hitting all the right notes, and he almost fell off. I knew only one of these five guys and that fellow was singing his own version of the famous Neapolitan street song, Funiculi, Funicula popularized by Mario Lanza. Only this guy was substituting the words “stinky finger, stinky finger.” Granted that in this company, I was out of my depth so I stood there amazed, (astounded and astonished, too) for ten minutes or so and then left. Someone called, “Don’t leave until you first have some hits of mary jane (marijuana). Politely I declined, as I always did and still do. The episode was short but the memory lingers on.

****************************
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJd-SHzqUC4 If you can sing even a lick [pardon the expression in this context] you’ll know when you should jump in with the revised lyrics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3EJqvKhYzY A half hour of your time well spent. That woman. What’s her name, who sleeps in my bed every night went to college on a full scholarship because she could play this damn thing like nobody’s business.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB6U3rzcGkU

If you are one of those weird perverts who don’t appreciate hot sex with children under ten years old, there isn’t much I can do to help you overcome your profound sickness. However, I can show you the high cost of punishing child pornographers.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. vs. Booker struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the Federal Guidelines range. In other words, go for it, Baby. Shove ‘em deep into a hellhole if you feel like it.

The lower courts had to revisit Booker’s sentencing in light of the Supreme Court decision. Booker was re-sentenced by the same judge to the same 30 year sentence he originally received which was longer than the 21 year sentence the judge would have been able to impose had the guidelines not been made merely advisory.

Since United States v. Booker, the federal government has spent nearly $30 BILLION on incarceration, which exceeds the GDP of many countries including North Korea. Of this, over $2 BILLION was spent on incarcerating child pornography offenders; 12,115 have been sentenced (not all to imprisonment, but most) under the guidelines since 2006. What makes this rather startling is looking at other major offense categories. For example, in the same period of time, over four times as many people have been sentenced for fraud offenses (54,813); however, the total cost of incarcerating those individuals was almost a billion dollars LESS! ($2.1 billion for child pornography; $1.3 billion for fraud). In other words, incarcerating 12,115 child pornography offenders cost the public $2.1 billion, while incarcerating nearly 55,000 fraud offenders cost $1.3 billion. Why the difference? Well, because of the increasingly longer sentences imposed on child pornography offender than for any other major offense category. What that translates into is that the actual annual cost per offender is far higher for child pornography offenders than for any other major offense category.

Most of those convicted of this crime are non-violent offenders with no propensity to molest our children. But you should accept this only if you like to go by the evidence. Screw the evidence. If you are a solid Wheaties-eating American, you know bad when it wanders into view. Not only don’t you want these sex maniac creeps to receive sentences limited to federal guidelines, you don’t want them living within traveling distance to your neighborhood. After all, they’ll park their cars close to your kids’ schools and OGLE THE SWEETHEARTS! How much villainy can an upright, God-fearing citizen put up with?

The big news for the past several days is that the Supreme Court has finally gotten around to holding oral arguments on same-sex marriage. The bad news is that hundreds of people have been gathering day and night on the steps of the Supreme Court, holding placards and demanding something be done.

What exactly do they want done? Oral arguments are a charade. Not a single justice has not yet made up his mind on the matter. The arguments are only an occasion for the justices to show off their skills at rudeness. I cannot recall a time when any of the attorneys was able to get out three sentences without being interrupted. It is not unusual for interruptions to begin during the first sentence. The justices don’t want to hear what the presenters have to say; moreover, the presenters are given a limit time in which to make their pitch. The interruptions do not stop the clock. In a few months, the Court will hand down its decision on both the states’ laws and the federal one. That’s the time for people to show up singing and screaming. The only justice who has it right is Clarence Thomas because he alone never participates in the questioning. People think this is because he is too dumb to think of questions. Not so. Clarence is on record as saying that oral argument time is just a show that proves nothing. He is right.

Also overlooked is the fact that the gay rights people are absolutely crazy. What they want is to have the same rights as heterosexuals. Good grief! Is there anything worse than heterosexuality? I speak as an insider.

******************
Okay, here is something worse –newspaper articles about gay marriage. Read this one and weep: [From the Economist.]

“In June 2008 the Supreme Court of California overturned a gay-marriage ban, making it the second state (Massachusetts was first) to legalise such unions. Some 18,000 couples took the opportunity to get married before Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage, won the support of 52% of the state’s voters at a referendum five months later.

But the passage of Prop 8 turned out to be just another step in a complex three-way jig between politicians, judges and campaigners. Gay-rights groups successfully challenged the law, first in a San Francisco district court and then on appeal. A stay was granted, meaning Prop 8 remained in force, as the case made its way through the judicial system; on March 26th it became the first gay-marriage case to reach the Supreme Court. (A second, on the Defence of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to married same-sex couples, was due to be heard on March 27th.)

Many of the 80 minutes the court devoted to Prop 8 were given over to procedural discussions of “standing”—the question of whether the proponents of the amendment had the right to argue their case in court. Californian officials have declined to defend it, so it has been left to ProtectMarriage.com, a pro-Prop 8 group, to make the case. (Similarly, Barack Obama’s administration will not advocate for DOMA; congressional Republicans will do so instead.) In 2011 California’s state Supreme Court granted standing to the Prop 8 backers. But some legal eagles have urged the Supreme Court to rule otherwise, and the justices appear receptive.

Some of the crowd who queued for five days to witness the hearing must have been disappointed by the focus on process. But to judge by their hand-wringing, when the justices issue their verdict in June it will not be a surprise if they reject the case on these grounds. (That would leave the district-court ruling overturning Prop 8 in force, although further legal challenges could follow.) Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote between the court’s liberal and conservative wings, seemed “deeply conflicted,” says Matt Coles of the American Civil Liberties Union, a lobby group. At one point the judge wondered if the court had erred in agreeing to hear the case at all.

If standing is granted, the justices then have several options. Most dramatic would be a ruling that all state bans on gay marriage contravene the equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution. This “50-state solution” is sought by the Prop 8 plaintiffs and gay-rights groups, but it did not get much of an airing before the court.

Less sweeping would be the “nine-state solution”: to overturn bans in California and the other states (including Colorado, which recently passed a civil-union law) that recognise same-sex unions but fall short of marriage. This curious argument, proposed by the White House and presented in court by Donald Verrilli, the solicitor-general, was attacked by both wings of the court. The odds against it have lengthened.

The last option is a California-only verdict. The justices could uphold the appeals court’s ruling that to grant the right to marry only to withdraw it later is unlawful. That would overturn Prop 8 without implications for other states. Or they could uphold the will of California’s voters and leave the law in place. That would disappoint thousands of couples who hope to wed (although polls suggest that Prop 8 would soon be overturned at the ballot box anyway), but would provide solace to states that wish to preserve their bans.

Religiosity strongly predicts opposition to gay marriage: 84% of weekly churchgoers voted for Prop 8. But arguments based on faith, tradition or squeamishness cannot be adduced in court. This has forced advocates into awkward corners. It is in the state’s interest, Charles Cooper, lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, told the Supreme Court, to keep marriage heterosexual in order to regulate procreation. “Nobody thinks that’s what marriage is about,” says Michael Klarman of Harvard Law School, “but that’s the argument they must make.”

What if the court were to rule expansively? Gay-marriage opponents warn of another Roe v Wade that cuts off debate and poisons politics for decades. Their foes cite Loving v Virginia, the 1967 case that overturned bans on interracial marriage without triggering much resentment. That seems the better comparison, and not only because it concerns marriage. Nearly half of Americans oppose gay marriage but more back it, and their numbers are growing quickly (see chart). Fully 64% think gay marriage is inevitable.

If not rights, then votes
It is not hard to see why: support among almost every demographic group is growing, and youngsters are the most liberal of all. Sniffing the political wind, last month many Republicans called on the justices to ditch Prop 8. Hillary Clinton has added her support. In the 2004 election cycle Republicans used gay marriage to whack Democrats; the reverse could happen in 2016.

The change in public opinion found political expression four times over last November. After a string of losses for campaigners Maine, Maryland and Washington became the first states to legalise gay marriage via the ballot box, and voters in Minnesota rejected a proposed ban. Legislatures in six other states and Washington, DC, have approved gay marriage. Several others, including Illinois and Minnesota, are debating bills; some could pass before the court’s ruling.

Both sides of the debate have found uses for this turnaround in fortunes. Six months ago defenders of “traditional marriage” were crowing about their electoral invincibility; they now say America is conducting a vigorous democratic debate that judges should allow to run its course. This argument may appeal to cautious justices.

As for gay-marriage campaigners, their successes have helped repair a split that emerged when the Prop 8 case was filed in 2009. Backers argued that marriage was a civil right that should not be held hostage to electoral whims. Others, fearing backlash from a premature court ruling, preferred a quieter approach, including state-by-state political campaigns.

The political track now looks more viable, but the growth in support that made election wins possible has also reduced fears of backlash. “The momentum on the ground makes people less concerned about whether we are before the court before we should be,” says Brian Moulton, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign, a lobby group. The cause has been helped by ever-louder support from Mr Obama, who appears to see gay marriage as the great civil-rights struggle of the era.

If so, it is being waged for couples like Ms Healey and Ms Dávalos. They plan to marry if Prop 8 is scrapped, but without fanfare. “Marriage is much more serious than a ‘yippee-for-me’ day,” says Ms Healey. The importance of marriage, she adds, is the only thing her opponents get right.”

*******************
If you read this article from beginning to end and didn’t skip anything, you deserve a coconut whip made by the loving hands of Jungle Jim himself.

On average, female nurses earned $51,100 in 2011 while male nurses collected $60,700. But the females are lazy louts. They prefer working part-time. By “part time” I mean they stay home to have the easy life: wash their husbands’ clothing, clean the house, make the beds, do the cooking and shopping and attend to the crying babies. In short, they don’t deserve big bucks.

Men are concentrated in the exotic corners of the profession. They make up 41% of the nurse anesthetists and bring home $148,000 whereas the gals are 92% of licensed practical nurses and they make just $35,000. Good! Down on your knees, ladies and scrub the floors. To further enhance their natural superiority, male nurses are likely to have doctoral degrees and the female of the species doesn’t even know what that is. The bean counters tell us female registered nurses who work full-time still earn 7% less than their male counterparts.

***************************
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doz5w2W-jAY

Only Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas’s pubic hair dresser know for sure but my guess is that Anita would say, “Sir, I knew King David, and you are no King David.” Such issues become intriguing in the light of the recently published, God’s Doodle: The Life and Times of the Penis. By Tom Hickman. Square Peg; 234 pages; £12.99. Buy from Amazon.co.uk.

Richard Rudgley, a British anthropologist, admitted on a television programme some years ago, that once you start noticing them, you “tend to see willies pretty much everywhere”. They are manifest in skyscrapers, depicted in art and loom large in literature. They pop up on the walls of schoolyards across the world, and on the walls of temples both modern and ancient……Yet the penis has also been shamed into hiding through the ages. One night in 415BC, Athens’s street-corner statues were dismembered en masse. Stone penises were still causing anxiety in the late 20th century, when the Victoria and Albert Museum in London pulled out of storage a stone figleaf in case a member of the royal family wanted to see its 18-foot (5.5-metre) replica of Michelangelo’s “David”.

Tom Hickman, a Sussex-based writer and journalist, tells the story of its ups and downs with enthusiasm and a mostly straight face in “God’s Doodle.” I like the theme but not enough to investigate. Like any onanist, you are on your own.

In July 1994, Megan Kanka, a seven-year old New Jersey girl, was raped and murdered by her neighbor, a man twice convicted of sex crimes. All across the nation, outraged parents wanted assurances that this sort of thing would never happen again. Two years later, Bill Clinton signed a bill requiring all states to take action. “Megan’s laws” were born. Typically, these laws require states to notify communities when sex offenders move into their neighborhoods and create lifelong registries to track them. Unfortunately, the laws do not discriminate among the thousands of ways someone can offend. A father who sodomizes his daughter and a 20-year old boy who has sex with his 14-year old girl friend can be put on the same register.

“Sex offender” is an umbrella term for persons who have nothing in common, but the prevailing misconception is that all sex offenders are alike. Before we join those who advocate life imprisonment, castration or even death, we would do well to get beyond the media stereotypes. One common kind of sex offender is the youngster who is ensnared by the beautiful underage girl who passes easily for twenty-three. The media, to deny him any sympathy, call him a man and his “victim” a girl. In jail, the “monster” meets murderers, bank robbers, drug dealers and pimps who regard his crime, not theirs, as atrocities. They take to beating and humiliating him regularly.

So greatly do sexual offenders agitate the emotions that the rest of us do not want to know the specifics of molestation, lest inquiry marks us as perverts, engaging in once-removed voyeurism. However much we “google” to learn what most molesters actually do, we will not learn a thing. Nor will we learn that 80% of pedophiles do not desire genital contact with their victims. (Wilson & Cox, The Child Lovers: A Study of Pedophiles in Society, p 235)

The most common pedophilia is fondling and usually the offender is a teenage girl acting as a babysitter. Common sense tells us that fondling is mere exploration and curiosity about body parts. If we caught all those who fondle 3-year olds who are being bathed, our prisons would be overrun with depraved “monsters”.

The sexual crimes that frighten us most are not the most horrendous – rape and torture – because we can make sense of these. A man who lusts after Catherine Zeta-Jones and finally rapes her is loathsome but not puzzling. We dread the incomprehensible pedophile whose actions allegedly inflict life-long trauma on our children. Contrary evidence does not impress us. For example, a study of 326 college students found that their unwanted childhood incestuous experiences caused them no special adjustment problems. (Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1999)

Other than fondling, exhibitionism and voyeurism are the most common forms of molestation. These are inexcusable but the moral police are frightening us to death. We imagine that sexual assault is on the rise but the Department of Justice reports a decline of 35% over the last ten years. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, sexual abuse of children and teenagers is down 45%. Moreover, 40% of the offenders are themselves children 17-years old or younger. Mostly, these are boys having sex with girls a year or two younger than they are.

Pedophilia is not an objective category but depends on our moral codes. “Depravity” short of rape, torture or murder is largely in the jaundiced eye. Here in the United States, over 200 million people feast on the bits and pieces of cows’ corpses. We think nothing of this but Albert Schweitzer and Mahatma Gandhi saw this as truly depraved. In any case, the age of consent is not written in stone. In Canada and Austria, it is 14. Netherlands is considering 12. This shocks American prudery but no less a mainstream jurist than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg authored a report when she worked for the ACLU recommending the age of consent be lowered to 12. “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code”, Report for the U.S. Commission lon Civil Rights”, 1977.)

The sex registry is a death sentence. William Elliott was put on it when he was 19 for having sex with a girl just shy of 16. A righteous vigilante butchered him. (Literally.) (Boston Globe, April 18, 2006) Elliott’s mother said, “My son was not a pedophile. He loved that girl. Without the registry, he’d still be alive.” This thirst for vengeance by maniacal defenders of the Just and Right is widespread. We need to revamp the sexual crimes code and make it sensitive to fine distinctions. Once we get a grip on our perverted idea about perversion, common sense will show us the rest of the way.

Almost everybody I know thinks to himself, “You can’t blame heterosexuals for being the way they are. They were born that way.” Well, as an excuse, that just doesn’t cut the mustard but we should quit badgering them. Right-handed soldiers sometimes lose an arm in war and, provided they have the will, convert to being left-handed. There are thousands of other sorts of examples. The trouble is this: heteros like being hetero. It is tough to change somebody who likes being the way he is. Sure, now and then, you run across a guy who wishes he could get rid of all his straight impulses but I’m with Shania Twain who belted out her signature number, “That don’t impress me much,” when showoffs came along.

My speculative thesis is that heterosexuality is not a dread disease that can’t be cured. An iron will is all that is necessary but let’s fuhgeddabout it. Homosexuals have always been bad models for conversion for the simple reason that homosexuals like being homosexual. They lack the incentive to undergo what pro-heterosexuals call “TREATMENT” or “THERAPY.” When put in this negative light, it is not surprising that few people are willing to undergo “the CURE.” Many people in the once-upon-a-time strong pro-heterosexual community were baffled by this. They wrongly thought that homosexuals want to be heterosexual and they were prepared to force conversion therapy upon them despite the fact that a few decades ago, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association declared that homosexuality is not a disease.

It is difficult to convert people from an entrenched form of behavior the wrongness of which they have trouble grasping. They resist with all their might, especially when there seems no rational grounds for conversion. Jews are not easily converted to becoming the most vicious Nazis; contemporary southerners do not readily become anti-black racists; thin people do not voluntarily become morbidly obese; people who are passionate lovers of country music are not easily swayed by those who tell them to give up country music in favor of renaissance music. The effort on the part of those bigots who cannot comprehend that heterosexuality is not a frightful, alarming disease inevitably fails. The crusade falls on deaf ears just as the earlier efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality were hopelessly misguided. You recall, if you are old enough, that the straight folks thought linguistic ploys might help. They denounced homosexuals as “homos,” “gay,” “faggots,” “queers,” and “fairies,” only to discover that the objects of their enmity liked these bits of nomenclature. The faggots took arms against a sea of troubles and turned the labels on themselves and, by so doing, took the stuffing out of the bird. POOF, went the would-be insult.

I maintain that all traces of bigotry against straight folks would finally cease, provided the vast majority of queers and faggots abandoned their dogmatic campaign against heteros and became sincerely converted to the belief that heterosexuality is not a manifestation of a seriously diseased mind. Heteros would then come out of the closet and not be ashamed to wear T-shirts that say, “Hetero – and proud of it.” That day is coming.