They’re spot on with their initial statements; our war on drugs has been a failure, people are different and require different solutions and, the bulk of the problems to society are caused by a relative few. They suggest 20% of abusers account for 80% of the problems, I think it’s maybe 5% who account for over 90% of the problems.

Otherwise, I’m not sure they did much thinking.

Their attack on drug legalization, like most others, is that if we legalize drugs then use will skyrocket:

Legalizing possession and production would eliminate many of the problems related to drug dealing, but it would certainly worsen the problem of drug abuse….  If these “hard” drugs were sold on more or less the same terms as alcohol, there is every reason to think that free enterprise would work its magic of expanding the customer base, and specifically the number of problem users, producing an alcohol-like toll in disease, accident and crime.

Actually there is no reason to believe this and numerous reasons to not believe it – if you’ve done much research (which these authors either didn’t or did and ignored). No country that has liberalized their drug policy has seen such an increase. Fewer people, teens in particular, smoke pot in Amsterdam than in the U.S., drug use decreased in Portugal and Switzerland after liberalization, and on and on the examples go.  Prohibition laws have little or no impact on people’s decisions to abuse drugs, but do drive the industry underground, decrease addicts ability to get help, and significantly increase violence.

People don’t obey laws, they obey their beliefs. What we see as law-abiding is often simply an intersection of people’s beliefs with the law.  A change in law will have little impact on people’s beliefs.  People who believe that doing drugs is stupid will still believe that doing drugs is stupid regardless of legality just as people who want to do drugs today do so whether legal or not.

Further, these authors’ equating alcohol with abusive drugs in the way they did is actually one of the few examples where alcohol and abusive drugs make a poor equation. Alcohol is socially acceptable, drugs are not. Even in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, and other places that have legalized all or some drugs, drug use continues to be socially unacceptable. This lack of social acceptance plays a major role in reducing use.  More significantly, drugs have well known and extremely harmful effects, way beyond any negatives of alcohol, and for most people this is what that keeps them from abusing drugs, not fear of arrest.

I like Judge Larry Long’s 24/7 solution of people showing up twice daily for testing and with test failure meaning immediate short-term incarceration. This is a potentially great solution for people who have a substance addiction, whether drugs or alcohol, that has gotten so out of control that it has caused them to put others at risk (DUI, Assault, etc). We can’t afford this for everyone who simply smokes a joint once a day, does a line of coke once a week, or has a glass of wine with dinner, but for those who cross the line of moderate responsibility, it is likely a very good first step solution.

Today with our drug war we have immense problems with drug abuse.  If we legalize drugs we’d still have a lot of problems, though likely somewhat less.  Regardless of legality we need to continue to educate people about the short and long-term harmful effects of all drugs, including alcohol, and we will still need programs like Long’s to deal with those who cannot control themselves.

That they even mention an ID requirement after discussing Long’s 24/7 solution is interesting simply because its usefulness is completely obviated by Long’s program.  Both are focused on the same group of very heavy drug and alcohol abusers.  An ID requirement will provide no benefit not provided by 24/7 testing and, while Long’s program is somewhat difficult to circumvent, an ID requirement is extremely easy to circumvent with fake ID’s, a tip to their bartender or drug dealer, or any number of ways. There is no reason to do something this Orwellian that provides no benefit.

Kennedy’s two programs?  Really?  They are premised on saying “It’s OK to break the law like this, but not like that.” That’s an extremely damaging message to send to society and an extremely damaging precedent to set.  It’s like saying that if you’re going to rape a young girl, just don’t do it in public where it will bother the neighbors, don’t slap or bruise her in the process, and we’ll look the other way.

Just as that would do nothing to reduce rape, Kennedy’s ideas will do nothing to reduce drug abuse nor the bulk of the problems caused by our war on drugs.  At best it slightly reduces on-street drug dealing and some of its associated violence for a brief period.

More importantly, we are a nation of laws and our laws need to mean something.  If we’re going to say that it’s OK to deal drugs so long as you do it in an appropriate venue and don’t kill people, then let’s avoid the ambiguity and encouragement of law-breaking and make it legal to deal drugs so long as you do it in an appropriate venue and don’t kill people.  There is zero benefit to Kennedy’s programs over legalization and a lot of negatives.

———-

Regardless of their merits or lack thereof, these are all after the fact. Long’s program is good, but is dealing with people after they’ve become fairly hard-core addicts, Kennedy’s with people after they’ve become violent drug dealers. Will these do anything to reduce overall drug use, the consequences of that use and it’s commerce, or the consequences of our war on drugs?

Long’s program will help reduce the timeline of addiction. Instead of hard core folks using drugs for nine years, they may now use them for seven.  And, it will help to get the abusers who are most dangerous to society off the street.  Since the only impact is with longer term hard-core users though we’ll only reduce overall drug use and demand by maybe 5%.  We’ll still have the same problems in Mexico and other production countries, along our border with Mexico, and on our city streets.  Producing, smuggling, and selling 95 grams of dope will result in just as much crime and just as many murders as 100 grams.

Far worse, we’ll still have the same problem of people breaking laws so routinely that the concept of law-abiding looses it’s meaning.

Long’s program is a good one regardless of legalization.  Kennedy’s is harmful regardless of legalization.  Neither though do anything to reduce the root harms caused by our war on drugs.  The authors propose these as an alternative to either the war or legalization, but these are only a 1% solution.  It’s like proposing a thimble of water as an alternative to a fire hose.

We’d start with no iPhones (or iPads or Macs or …). These were all created by a one percenter named Steve Jobs. Actually we’d likely have to do away with all electronics since many of the key inventors were one percenters or were financed by one percenters.

And the list goes on and on and on.

The reality is that a functioning society needs a wide variety of people. It needs financiers and brick masons and teachers and plumbers and janitors and CEO’s and even writers.

A preventable tragedy?  Very Likely.

Let’s step back and consider for a moment why George Zimmerman was patrolling his neighborhood in the first place, why he followed Martin, and why he might have confronted Martin.

Zimmerman’s neighborhood had apparently become increasingly plagued by crime; mostly burglaries, but some assaults and drug dealing as well.  Zimmerman and other neighbors had called police numerous times with little to no results.  That can be pretty frustrating when you’re worried if you’ll be next.

Common law, going back to the Magna Carta, recognized people rights to defend themselves and their property wherever they were.  Over time and with modern law enforcement, this was modified a bit to say that you can protect yourself and your property in your home (castle doctrine), but when you enter the public sphere this responsibility now falls largely on law enforcement.  We gave up some rights for the benefits of a more peaceful society with law enforcement.

What happens though when law enforcement doesn’t hold up their end?  At some point any sane person will step up to protect themselves, their property, and their neighbors if law enforcement isn’t doing it’s job.  George Zimmerman and his neighbors apparently decided that it was time.  This situation was also the advent of the stand-your-ground laws in several states.  These laws gave back to citizens some of the rights they had given up earlier.

The Drug War enters this on several levels.  At the top of the list is resources – our law enforcement spends nearly half their time and money investigating and arresting people for drug violations, including stuff as simple as smoking pot.  What if all of this resource were instead directed towards protecting innocent citizens?  Would this lessen the need for neighborhood watch duties like George Zimmerman was performing?

Likewise, spending less time on consenting adult prostitutes (over 95% of all prostitution surveillance and arrests) would give them more time to protect innocent citizens and help women who had not consented to work as a prostitute.  How about spending less time with traffic violations that are revenue generation rather than actual road safety issues?

If law enforcement were once again focusing on keeping innocent citizens safe would this also lessen the need for Stand-Your-Ground laws?

Some gal going at it in a hotel room with some guy for $300 is not a threat.  Someone smoking a joint or doing a line of cocaine is not a threat.  Burglaries and assaults ARE a threat.  Which should they be focused on?

Second, our wars on vice is the cause of a huge chunk of the violent and other crimes in our communities.  It IS NOT the vices that cause these problems, but our wars on them.  You don’t often here of people killing over a turf war on cigarette sales or robbing a house for their next Marlboro.  It happens, but it’s not even remotely as common as that caused by illegal drugs.  Ending our wars on personal vice would significantly lessen the violent and other crimes in our communities caused by these wars.

Just consider George Zimmerman’s neighborhood if personal vice was once again personal, not criminal.  Drug sales and prostitution would take place in more appropriate locales, like within designated business districts, rather than residential neighborhoods like Zimmerman’s.  With market instead of black market prices, there would be less need for people to burglarize others, such as those in Zimmerman’s neighborhood, for their next fix.  This certainly isn’t the only cause of burglaries, but is a major contributor.  And, if law enforcement reverted back to their once primary responsibility of protecting innocent citizens instead of chasing after people for their personal sins then perhaps we wouldn’t need gun toting citizens like George doing their job for them.

And maybe, the next Treyvon won’t happen.

From his side of the story he was in the middle lane on the freeway going about 50 or 55 mph and talking on his cell phone. He said that there was some distance to the car in front of him.

According to his description he was on at least a 6 lane highway. I’ve never seen a 6 lane outside of perhaps an airport with less than a 55mph limit and most are 60 or 65. The prevailing speed on highways such as this is usually 5 – 10 mph over the limit with about 20% of drivers going 15 – 20 mph over. So, we can assume that the prevailing speed of traffic around him was 65 – 75 mph. Gallagher was going below 55 and was not keeping up with the car in front of him. In the middle lane.

He was talking on his cell phone. More than a few studies have indicated that talking on a cell phone is just as distracting as drunk driving. People distracted by cell conversations very often drive much slower than prevailing traffic, do not maintain a consistent speed, drift out of their lane, and make sudden lane changes, often without using their blinker. Other than going slower than prevailing traffic, we don’t know if he was exhibiting any of these other traits.

This is just what we know from his side of the story. It’s safe to assume that the woman behind him and others on the road around him might have some different details to add.

At a minimum it appears Mike Gallagher was impeding the flow of traffic and there’s a high probability that he was a danger and menace to others on the roadway.

Sad conversation or not (he said that this was a very sad conversation), he should have, at a minimum, been in the far right lane, not the middle lane creating problems for other drivers.

Ideally though, he should not have been talking on a cell phone while he was driving. Driving safely, for us and those around us, requires absolutely 100% of our attention. Roadways are extremely dynamic environments and you never know what might suddenly happen in front of, beside, or behind you. We should NEVER do anything else while driving. Not talk on a cell phone, do our hair, eat, text, or anything else whatsoever.

BTW, I do practice what I preach. Even when I’m not driving, if the person I’m talking to is driving then I make it an extremely short conversation and let them know why.

There are emergency situations that might require someone to talk on their cell while driving. I know one surgeon who talked someone else through a prep procedure while he was rushing to the hospital to operate on the patient. Gallagher’s may be an understandable situation. But it doesn’t sound like anyone’s life was at risk so I’m not sure Gallagher’s situation was worth putting others lives at risk.

This is, I think, the same Michael Gallagher who was threatened with arrest in September 2004 for ‘terrorizing’ a woman on the road in Dallas. And the same Michael Gallagher who screams that everyone needs to have sympathy and compassion for him, but shows little for others.

What a whinny blowhard. Time for Gallagher to grow up.

Well, except when TV programming is concerned. Various bike races are available on the internet, but are, thanks to antiquated rules, limited to viewing only within specific geographic areas.

It’s time to do away with these. There are english speakers scattered throughout the world. In the U.S. we have millions of people who speak a variety of other languages (if you doubt this, just try to order something at Wendy’s). Perhaps Sky’s coming NowTV will break through antiquity and gain rights from ASO and others to broadcast a worldwide english language broadcast of races (and other sports).

NOTE: Yes, I am very aware that I’m behind on the Sex Offender series.  Paying projects do have to get priority so hopefully I’ll get the next article out early next week.

My question to Porsche: Why would I want to drive around in a car that people are going to point to and say “That’s the company with the annoying web ads.”?

Though the numbers aren’t yet in full agreement, it appears that divorce is going out of fashion.  For years it was almost fashionable to get divorced, particularly for women who were now earning a good living and wanted to spread their wings and independence a bit.  It appears things are changing.  There’s a growing realization of the harms, often significant, that divorce has on numerous people far beyond the divorcees themselves.  People getting divorces are starting to be viewed negatively instead of congratulated.  Between the realization of the harms and the negative attitudes, people are beginning to think thrice before considering divorce.

Since the mid 1980’s there’s been an increasing number of women not taking their husbands last name when they marry.  This appears to be taking a rather dramatic turn with the number not taking their husbands name beginning to decline rather quickly.  The reasons, according to women, is both to simplify routine paperwork and because taking your husband’s name signifies a greater level of commitment and family cohesion, particularly to children.

California Driving

I was just in Laguna Beach for a few days.

Driving down “the 5” from Orange County Airport.  I was quite surprised when I got to the toll booth to find that they don’t use EZ-Pass.  I thought most states in the U.S. were on this now so people don’t have to get a bunch of different transponders for every individual system and so visitors who bring their EZPass don’t have to use manual toll booths which cause backups, are expensive for the state to operate, and are a PITA.

Surprise number two came at the toll booth – they don’t accept plastic of any sort, cash only.  I had to scrounge through my bag and pockets to come up with enough.  Many of us view California as fairly advanced, clearly not from this experience.

Driving in California is quite different from anywhere else in the U.S.  On the plus side, they don’t drive overly slow on highways.  From Laguna Beach to Carlsbad I drove 80 (in a 65) and was with the flow of traffic.  I think I got passed by more people than I passed, a rarity for me in the U.S.  On the other hand, California drivers rank among the worst for left lane blockers and not using blinkers.  I was quite amazed how often I and others would be stuck behind someone blocking the left lane (of 3 or 4 lanes) with a good chunk of clear highway ahead of them.  The weaving that this causes is extremely dangerous.

Modern Offense

Good thing this gal didn’t grow up prior to now, when most people lived in one-room homes or at best homes with a very minimal wall for a master bedroom.

Florida teen calls cops to report mom having sex

Cops are so mature.

Yesterday morning I was in a café working.  After a bit, a guy and gal sat at the table next to me and proceeded to have a fairly loud conversation, mostly about her life as a plainclothes cop.  There were about 30 people in the café and she was far and away the loudest (and one of the loudest I’ve ever heard).

After about 45 minutes and my head beginning to hurt I asked her, very nicely, if she could talk a bit quieter.  “Whatever” she replied.  The guy commented to her that I must think they’re 5-year-olds (after all is said and done, yep).  She replied to him, clearly for my benefit, that maybe she should look up my license tag and police record.

And cops wonder why they’re losing respect from others so quickly.

Mitt’s Taxes

A lot has been made about Mitt Romney’s seeming low tax rate.  A few thoughts.

• Romney gave over $7 million to charities.  This brings his effective tax rate to nearly 19%.
• Romney paid additional taxes in the form of sales taxes, vehicle taxes, and likely the biggest chunk, real estate taxes.
• Most of his earnings and the cause of his supposedly low tax rate are from capital gains.  A low capital gains rate is critical to all of us.  It’s people investing in new and existing companies that makes us the wealthiest country on earth.  It is these investments that make it possible for all Americans to have a higher standard of living than their counterparts elsewhere.  There is a lot of risk in these investments and while we’re quick to talk about the winners and how low their taxes are, we neglect to talk about all the losers, how much they lost, and how many taxes they didn’t pay.  When the capital gains rates are increased, the rewards begin to be not worth it for the risks involved – and investment and employment declines.
• It’s not just the uber-rich who benefit from capital gains.  By many estimates about 40% of Americans have capital gains income.  AND, much of that (EG, for the not so uber-rich) is actually taxed at about one-third the rate Romney paid.  5% instead of 15%.

Part I – Guys Can Be Such Jerks

Part II – Who Are Sex Offenders?

Preventing Sex Offenses I – Self Prevention

Preventing Sex Offenses II – Playing With Fire

God grant me the serenity to

accept the things I cannot change,

courage to change the things I can, and

wisdom to know the difference.

Our Christianity preaches complete 100% sexual abstinence until marriage.  But, marriage today doesn’t come for most people until their mid to late twenties, and for some, never.  Is this a realistic expectation or are these two somewhat mutually exclusive?

Any expectation that even half of guys, Christian or not, can remain celibate until their late twenties is misplaced.  Aside from locking these guys in solitary confinement, it ain’t gonna happen.

And yes, I’m very aware of the rather obvious issue this raises for Christians who believe in abstinence until marriage.  I’m not saying that this is right or wrong, just that it is what it is.  It is reality.  Most guys are going to have sex often with a variety of cute young girls, about seven of them, before marriage.  The question is not will guys do this, but which cute young girls will they do it with.

There are a gob of people reading that and screaming.  Scream all you want.  Do all the Slutwalks you want.  This isn’t something that’s protestable any more than we can protest if we don’t like it that the earth revolves around the sun.  It is what it is and very likely always will be.  We have no more chance of changing it than of stopping the earth.

Unfortunately we base our expectations on this current unrealistic view of things.  Worse, we then base our decisions on these unrealistic expectations.  Not a recipe for success, just a lot of disappointment, disillusionment, and head banging.

So, who will his first six sex partners be?

Your daughter?  Coaxed in to it on a date with promises of love and affection?  Prom night perhaps?  Raped by her step-father?  Taken advantage of by a friend after she had a bit too much to drink?

That’s today’s reality in the U.S.  It’s reality for Christians as well as non-Christians.  It’s the norm in university dorms from Penn State University to Bethel University.  It’s the norm for the vast majority of twenty-something’s.

Some folks are fine with this.  Certainly most guys are.  But what about those who aren’t OK with it?  Gals who don’t want to have sex until marriage?  Guys who have an uncontrollable sex drive but don’t want to coax their virgin girlfriend in to bed?

There is only one alternative to our current system that I know of.  And whether it’s better or worse is highly debated.  We do say, in the U.S., that it is illegal though.  Prostitution.

———-

Is it better for a guy to use whoever his current girlfriend is to get his sexual needs met or to visit a consenting legal adult prostitute who agrees to have sex with him for $300[1]?  Many of us very strongly want to answer ‘neither’.  We want total abstinence.  Or at least for the guy to wait until she’s the one.  But, ‘neither’ isn’t on the menu.  It is not a realistic option for perhaps 70% to 80% of the guys out there.

This isn’t an easy question and most of us don’t like dealing with issues this tough.  I don’t.  Anyway, today’s reality doesn’t seem all that bad.  At least compared to legal prostitution.  Certainly we can avoid this difficult decision.

We start by saying that all we’ve got to do is keep guys from having sex with a variety of cute young girls.

When that doesn’t work we decide that we’re going to accept guys having sex with our daughters.  After all, everyone is doing it.  Seems a lot better than prostitution.  What harm will it really do?  And besides, regardless of the statistics, it won’t actually be our daughter, but someone else’s.

Perhaps the lesser problem with this approach is that guys who can’t get their sexual needs met via consensual relationships will, lacking an alternative, turn to non-consensual.

Countries with strongly enforced prohibitions against prostitution fairly consistently have about three times the incidences of rape as countries with legal prostitution.  In the U.S., every year, we have about 63 rapes per 100k women.  In Europe it’s about 18.  A girl is three times more likely to be raped in the U.S. than she is in Amsterdam.  She is four times more likely to be raped in the U.S. than in Copenhagen or Germany.  Six times as likely as in Switzerland[2].

A worse problem though might be the impact this policy may have on marriage and families.  Will a guy be as committed to his wife if she’s provided sex to two, or three, or six other guys before him?  If he knows that a nude picture or video she sexted to some guy is now in the hands of tens of thousands of guys on the internet?  Or even just that one other guy?  Will he value her and care for her as much as he would if he’d been her only sex partner?  If he himself had had to earn the right to have sex with her?  What impact will having provided free sex to half a dozen guys who later broke up with her have had on her emotional health?  What baggage does she then carry in to her new family from all of this?  AND, do any of these even matter?

These are far from new issues.  One of the earliest debates on this was Augustine in about the year 400.  Thomas Aquinas followed up around 1270 in his Summa Theologica.  These are perhaps the two greatest moralists in Christian church history and they both stated that prostitution should remain legal and normal.  That it was better than rape, sexual assault, and girls coaxed in to the hay by their boyfriends.

Today we’re saying just the opposite, that rape, sexual assault, and young girls coaxed in to bed by their boyfriends is better than prostitution.

I can hear the screams of all of those disagreeing and saying “no, guys just have to stop having sex with a variety of cute young girls.”

Historically, guys have been expected to visit prostitutes to get their sexual needs met, rather than ‘soil the virtue of innocent girls’[3].  Yet today in the U.S. there is no realistic legal alternative for guys.  For many in the U.S. the risk of sexually assaulting or raping or date raping someone seems much less than the risk of getting busted visiting a prostitute.  And, quicker, easier to arrange, and more of a sure thing than an illegal prostitute.  The risk from coaxing some girl, willingly or semi-willingly, in to bed for his daily orgasm?  Zero.

Some people will argue that the notion of an innocent girl’s virtue is antiquated.  That it doesn’t really exist.  And that’s fine.  For them.  But again, what about those who do believe in it?  Those who believe that it’s best to enter marriage a virgin, at least for the woman?

Prostitution certainly isn’t any kind of panacea.  Your daughter is free, sort of anyway, and that’s hard to compete with.  But allowing for a legal alternative and maybe even encouraging it, will at least take some of the sexual pressure off.  If guys have a viable legal and socially acceptable alternative to get their physical sexual needs met, which are the needs that drive rape, sexual assault, and even consensual sex, then young girls may feel less pressure from them for sex and safer from rape.  Instead of gals offering sex to guys as a way to compete with other girls (and yes, even Evangelical Christian gals do this today), they may find that it is no longer enough of a competitive element to be worth the cost.

——–

One of my first thoughts on this is that the last thing I’d want is my daughter marrying some guy who’d visited prostitutes.  But is the alternative, that he’s had sex with six previous girlfriends, really any better?  (Yes, some guys will have done neither, but we’re talking the majority, not the minority.)

Each of his girlfriend encounters likely took place in one of four scenarios; fully consensual within a relationship, mildly coerced, strongly coerced, date-rape.

In the latter two or three, consider what kind of person he is or that he has become because of these actions.  I’m a strong believer in acclimatization – that someone who’s driven to some level will very likely live other areas of their lives at that new-found level.  If a guy’s sex drive drives him to various actions and deceptions to get free sex from his girlfriends and others, how will he otherwise be impacted?

Is  fully consensual a lot better?  The prostitution guy comes in to his marriage having only experienced physical, non-emotional sex. The consensual girlfriend guy’s prior experience was somewhat more emotional, more like sex within a marriage.  For the first guy, sex with his new wife is new and totally different from all of his previous experience.  It’s levels above non-emotional sex in ways that physical-only can never match.  But for the second guy she’s just number seven (or for a Christian guy, number five), not much different from the previous six.

In all four scenarios, what impact has it had on him that he got it so easily for free?  Does he now place little to no value on sex at any level, physical or emotional?  Does this matter?

A final very pragmatic note.  He is much less likely to have acquired an STD from a legal prostitute than a girlfriend or friend with benefits.

It is critical here that we consider how varied these situations are in reality.  There are many who get past their past.  And their spouse’s.  They are able to leave it behind and have a healthy relationship.

——-

What of the prostitutes themselves?  Do we really want to promote something so harmful?

If you rank all of these varied sexual encounters by emotional and physical harm to the gal, forced prostitution and rape clearly get the top spots.  Prostitution isn’t next though.  A gal who is coerced in to providing free sex to a boyfriend or six, who later break up with her, is more likely to contract an STD and to likely to suffer more short and long-term emotional harm than an off-street prostitute.  A consenting adult prostitute has no unrealistic expectations, she chose to do this, she knows the endgame.  Many say that the worst emotional issue they face is the social stigma if they are discovered.

Ranking these we’d likely have something like[4]:

This is not to say that these prostitutes are not at all harmed, but only that the harm they might suffer is, relative to other sexual encounters, likely somewhat less.

What we are saying with today’s reality is that rather than have 220,000 gals (the estimated number of prostitutes in the U.S.) endure legal and fully consensual prostitution, we’d rather have 22 million endure coerced sex by guys who will leave them for someone else[5].  And, unlike today’s reality where gals are discouraged from dealing with the emotional ramifications of coerced or consensual sex in a temporary relationship (for that would be a rather inconvenient admission of reality), prostitutes are encouraged to do so.

The goal here is to drive these encounters towards the lower end of the harm scale.  From forced prostitution, rape, coerced sex, and street prostitution to legal consensual prostitution.

It’d be great if every incident of forced prostitution and rape could be converted to legal consensual prostitution.  While this would result in about a 10% increase in consensual prostitution over today’s numbers, it would certainly be better than today’s reality.  Realistically, we’d likely not achieve anywhere close to a 100% reduction in these most harmful activities, but a 75% reduction is certainly possible and would put us on par with countries that do have these much lower rates of rape and forced prostitution.

Prostitution isn’t very desirable compared to a world of perfect abstinence and never-any-harm-done consensual sex, but such a world has never existed and likely never will.  On this earth anyway.  Compared to our current reality though, legal prostitution may be very desirable.  Especially for young girls who don’t want to be raped or coerced in to bed.  And would very likely reduce our world high rates of rape, sexual assault, human trafficking for sex, STD’s, teen pregnancies, and abortions.

If we’re lucky, maybe we can achieve the same low rates of rape, sexual assault, abortion, STD’s, teen pregnancy, and human trafficking as Amsterdam.  Our young girls would appreciate that.

Next: Faith, Hope, Love.  … And Sex.

Part II – Who Are Sex Offenders?

Preventing Sex Offenses I – Self Prevention

An engineer was crossing a road one day, when a frog called out to him and said, “If you kiss me, I’ll turn into a beautiful princess.”

He bent over, picked up the frog and put it in his pocket.

The frog spoke up again and said, “If you kiss me and turn me back into a

beautiful princess, I will stay with you for one week.”

The engineer took the frog out of his pocket, smiled at it and returned

It to the pocket.

The frog then cried out, “If you kiss me and turn me back into a

Princess, I’ll stay with you for one week and do whatever you want.”

Again, the engineer took the frog out, smiled at it and put it back into

his pocket.

Finally, the frog asked, “What is the matter? I’ve told you I’m a

beautiful princess, and that I’ll stay with you for one week and do whatever you want. Why won’t you kiss me?”

The engineer said, “Look, I’m an engineer. I don’t have time for sex, but a talking frog, now that’s cool.”

—–

Over and over and over I’ve heard people’s surprise when some guy is found to be a sex offender.  Never be surprised.  Even if he’s an engineer.  Or a college coach.

If we’re driving and approach an intersection where we have the right-of-way but then see a car coming fast down the road to our left, most of us don’t continue through just because we have the right-of-way.

Similarly, everyone, guys and gals, need to use some common sense and take some reasonable precautions against sexual assaults.  Just because you have the right not to be raped or groped doesn’t mean that it’s not going to happen.  And the perpetrator being arrested or sent to jail afterwards will do little to reduce any harm from it.

Most sexual assaults are crimes of opportunity – if he doesn’t have the opportunity to assault you, if you eliminate that opportunity, then you’re spared a potentially huge amount of pain and anguish.  Unfortunately too many people provide too many opportunities.  Why?  Because, unlike in generations past, they don’t have a realistic understanding of the male sex drive.

A judge recently told me that she long ago stopped feeling sorry for most rape and sexual assault victims in her court.  As she put it, if you do something stupid, don’t be surprised if something stupid happens, and the vast majority of cases she saw were, in her opinion, the result of victim stupidity[1].

Reading through rape reports makes it easy to understand how she comes by this.  Despite numerous reports of women being assaulted while running alone in a park or some deserted part of town, one after another still does it, and some get assaulted.  A gal at a party hops in a car with some guy she’s just met and gets raped back at his place.  Did she really not think that sex was at the forefront of his mind?  And on and on the reports go.

Some people complain that this isn’t fair, that young women (and young guys) shouldn’t have to avoid something for fear of being raped.  I agree.  However, it is reality, just like watching out for idiot drivers.  The idiot drivers and rapists should certainly be punished, but again, that will do little for the victim after the fact.

Fair or not, why, after eons of time, do women today still fall prey to these guys and why is it so much worse in the U.S.?  We’ve politically corrected ourselves in to a disaster.  We feed our kids, and ourselves, a bunch of gobbledegook that anyone else in history, and in other countries today, laugh at.

Women today are taught that male and female sex drives are similar or even the same.  And then they wonder why a guy says he loves her and then breaks up with her after they’ve had sex.  Didn’t he feel the same way she did?  (Not exactly – it’s not that he loves her with sex, it’s that he loves sex, …with her, …or whoever else’s legs he can get between.)

How important is sex to guys?  Well over $50 billion per year important.  Just in direct cash outlay, guys in the U.S. spend about $28 billion per year on prostitutes, $8 billion on porn, $3 billion in strip clubs, and untold billions on dates hoping for or expecting a little something in return later.  Then there’s the barter world where sex is traded for grades, sales, job promotions, forgiveness of an arrest, clothes, information, votes, and everything else imaginable.  And this just for the sex guys want in addition to all of that within committed relationships or friends with benefits.

But that’s all consensual sex.  Many guys, about a quarter of them, will venture further if they can’t get what they crave consensually.  And thus date rape, stranger rape, forced prostitution, and other sexual assaults.  And even here guys are willing to spend vast sums of time and money to create the opportunity to get what they want.

Why are so many guys so extremely willing to spend so much money and take so many risks with their careers, health, marriages, and freedom, just for an orgasm?  From Tiger Woods to Charlie Sheen to Herman Cain to Jerry Sandusky to Hugh Grant …to pretty much every guy, why do they keep doing it?

And if sex is that important, how far will they go?  Think about that for just a moment.

Over the past 80 or so years we’ve stopped passing all of this valuable knowledge down from parent to child and generation to generation.  More recently we’ve completely white-washed it with feminist political correctness[2].  On the other side are the parents who get upset about sex education for their 11-year-olds, thinking that they’re protecting their cute innocent little child.  In reality this over protection just leaves their child ignorant and vulnerable down the road (not to mention that their cute little 11-year-old has been talking about sex and maybe doing some things for a long time (Google ‘Kurt Vonnegut  wide open beavers’ for more about what’s going on in little Justin’s head).  None of this is serving us or our children very well[3].

So she’s not just surprised that he didn’t love her as much as she thought, she was surprised when uncle Joe’s hands wandered or her high school math teacher, beloved by all, offers her some special help after school, and wants a little something in return.  Or her best friend is raped when she was running alone through a supposedly safe park.

If we’re as enlightened as we like to think, why has the U.S. become a world leader in rates of rape, sexual assault, STD’s, abortion, teen pregnancy, divorce, and human trafficking?  And we don’t lead by just a few percentage points, but in most of these by multiples – we have two to five times the rate of other developed countries.

Guys crave sex.  They will go to great lengths and take huge risks for some bit of it and nobody has a clue what guy, regardless of how nice and trustworthy he seems, is at what point on the verge of crossing some line.

Most of us likely would not have given a second thought to our daughter visiting King David’s palace.  And more than likely she would have been completely safe 95% of the time.  However, as Bathsheba found out, it’s that 5% of the time that’s the problem.

Being a bit less ignorant (and trusting) and using a bit of common sense may go a long way towards reducing the incidents of rape that have plagued us so heavily.

Point Of No Return

Statistics on rape are horribly murky, but most seem to agree that date or acquaintance rape is considerably more prevalent than stranger rape.  Some estimate that about 20% of teens and as many as 35% of college age women in the U.S. will be date raped.

Do gals today know and understand the fire they are playing with when they sext some guy(s).  Or dress or act or talk provocatively, or lead some guy on during a date, or even just cuddle on the sofa alone with him at night?  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t do any of these things, but we also shouldn’t be surprised if a guy gets all warmed up and then does something about it.  Perhaps he shouldn’t, but shouldn’t have won’t matter much afterwards.

For many guys there is a point of no return.  There is a level of arousal beyond which he no longer possesses enough self-control to make a rational decision or take a rational action – namely, stopping if she says stop.  Legally it is his responsibility to not let himself get to this point when he shouldn’t, realistically extremely few guys will always stop before they reach this point.

Whether he’s pre-planning something or just gets beyond his rational self-control won’t matter much afterwards.  Nor will any punishment he receives.

But there’s an even murkier world.

Buyer Beware

Is consensual sex really consensual?

Well, technically yes.  Perhaps though, only in the same way as purchasing the latest As-Seen-On-TV gadget sometimes is.  This may be another not so great outcome of feminist teaching – that women enjoy casual sex just as much as men and should just go for it.

My friend Mark Regnerus said in his recent Slate article “Sex is Cheap. When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even those who are floundering, just isn’t so bad.”  Indeed, the majority of the male population couldn’t be happier with the new feminism.

However, as Mark and Jeremy Uecker found in their research for “Premarital Sex in America”, it’s not so great for women.  Sex unattached to a long-term relationship (a real one, not a ‘I love you so will you have sex with me now’ relationship) leads to increased depression in women.  They found a correlation between the number of sex partners a woman had and the likelihood of depression.  It’s tempting to consider that cause and effect are reversed and that it’s the depression that’s causing the higher number of sex partners.  In some cases that’s true, but in their interviews they found that it more often started with sex that then lead to depression that led to more sex in hope of a relationship to relieve their depression.  And guys were more than willing to oblige.

Just in the last two weeks I’ve heard two sob stories of gals who’d had sex with some guy and then didn’t get what she expected in return.  And I’ve heard dozens if not hundreds of these stories over the years.  Interestingly in a few of these the girl was actually the aggressor, thinking that sex would cement his commitment.  Not.

BTW, I’ve never heard a guy express the same sorrow.

Are gals being sold a bill of goods?  Making decisions based on false assumptions?  They think they’re getting a quality long-lasting product and instead they’re getting a false promise and flimsy plastic?

If she’s only having sex to gain or bolster a relationship, probably so.  She’s misleading herself, she’s being taken advantage of, and in most cases the result will be just the opposite of what she hopes.  Guys lavish attention on girls who’ll provide them sex or who sext pictures and videos of themselves stripping or masturbating.  But this attention is short lived.  How many guys will then want a serious long-term relationship with her?

For guys there is no necessary link between sex and emotions[4].  None.  Well, except for when some emotions will get him some sex.  Guys crave sex.  They crave the endorphin high they get from seeing some bit of her body or running their hands over her.  Most of all, they crave orgasm with her.  No emotions or relationship necessary.  And guys are indiscriminate about who her is.  A girlfriend, one-night stand, prostitute – all the same.  Romantic, huh.

Guys who’ve overcome opiate addictions nearly unanimously say that giving up opium is a cinch compared to giving up sex.  The only way to satisfy their sex craving is orgasm, with a cute young girl.  To be repeated again tomorrow (or in a few hours).

A recent article in Relevant Magazine quoted Carissa Woodwyk:

“For a woman, it often becomes about the man: I need to please him; I need to make him happy; I need to satisfy his sexual appetite,” Woodwyk says. “For a man, it often becomes about himself.  He feels empowered, strong, invigorated, worthwhile, and alive.  Sex makes him feel like a man.”

I’ll take Woodwyk’s word for it on her first statement, but she’s grossly misled on her second.  For guys it’s physical, it’s about the high and the endorphins and the orgasm.  That’s it.  Nothing more.  All the stuff Woodwyk lists are byproducts that can be had more easily through other accomplishments like sports, business, financial, or leadership.

Now, putting guys sexual cravings somewhat aside, when it comes time for a serious life-long relationship things change a bit.  Here, most guys prefer virgins.  The knowledge sitting in the back of his head that she’s had sex with some other guy, or several other guys, or that she’s sexted nude pictures of herself to a bunch of guys, becomes a huge weak link in his commitment[5].  Shallow, but reality.  Double standard?  You betcha.  Guys put on a lot of bravado about not really caring that much.  Of course, how can they say anything else when they’re trying to get gals panties off?  When you continue talking to them though, particularly after they’ve married, you realize how much they really do care.  No guy wants to feel like a cuckold.

Some guys do get over this issue, but most do not.  Statistically, women who have had sex with only one man, her husband or future husband, appear about three times less likely to end up divorced than women who have had sex with others.  Interestingly, when that first sex occurs with her husband, before or after the wedding, appears to have no impact[6].

We all tend to appreciate and value and take better care of that which we’ve had to work for.  This goes for sex as well.  Guys do not value that which costs them nothing.

On the other hand, thanks to contraception and changes in societal pressure, the costs of sex and multiple sex partners for women, on the surface anyway, seem low or non-existent.  However, if she’s hoping for a long-term relationship someday, with someone who values her, the costs may be just as high as ever.  So, if a gal chooses to have sex and knows the realities, the trade-offs and risks and consequences, go for it.  Just as there are many gals who are quite happy to trade sex for $300 or a passing grade in a class or a promotion, there are some who are quite willing to trade sex for whatever short-term relationship they’ll gain.  And, presumably, others who simply desire sex, regardless of receiving anything in return.

However, getting back to how many sob stories I’ve heard from gals about having sex with some guy who didn’t follow up with what she expected in return, I’d question how many gals are doing so with their eyes and minds open.  Guys may think with their little head, but gals with their emotional head.  And it works out much better for the guy.

Prostitutes get exactly what they expect, $300 cold hard cash.  No disappointment, no misleading ‘I love you’s’.  Gals providing sex in return for a relationship are often sorely disappointed when they don’t get what they expect.

Think about this, the average guy will break up with the first 6 gals he has sex with[7].  A good question to ask then is how will she feel being one of his first 6?

One result.  There are a number of gals walking around with an angry chip on their shoulder towards guys.  They had sex and then felt like they were had (and they likely were).  Being had doesn’t feel good.

And Evangelical Christian guys?  They only have sex with about five cute young girls before marriage.  By age 17, 47% of Evangelical Christian guys, those in our Evangelical Christian youth groups, have had at least one sex partner and a quarter have had three or more[8].  Just wait till they get to their Christian colleges.  So much for that abstinence fairy-tale promulgated in our youth groups.

Abstinence much past about age 18 is not realistic for most guys, Christian or not.  Expecting much else isn’t faith, it’s ignorance.  And an ignorance that causes a lot of harm to a lot of people.

Equality?  Not.

Isn’t this a two-way street though?  Doesn’t this all work the same in the reverse?  What applies to gals also applies to guys and vice-versa?  No.  Not in reality and not Biblically.  But if you want to think that it does, go for it.

Outside of a committed life-long relationship sex is pretty much a one-way deal.  She is giving him sex.  He is taking it from her.  There is no cost for him, there may be a lot of costs for her.  Interestingly, some folks are against her charging $300 to make this a somewhat equal transaction, yet loudly support her giving it away for free.  Go figure.

In an informal online survey we posed this question “You and your boyfriend or girlfriend are planning to have sex tonight for the first time.  You are given a chance to ask a genie one question and you ask about the future of this relationship.  The genie replies that your boyfriend or girlfriend will break up with you next week.  Knowing this, do you still want to have sex with them tonight?”  86% of guys replied yes.  11% of gals replied yes.  That says a lot.

—–

For years, even though I knew the statistics, I’d be surprised at some of the folks busted for sexually assaulting someone, visiting a prostitute, having an affair, or succumbing to temptation with their girlfriend.  No more.  Most guys will never sexually assault anyone, but not a single one will surprise me if they do.  Prostitutes, affairs, and temptations?  I’m more surprised by those who don’t than those who do.