How compatible are you with incest?

Now, not too often does one come across a story that is made even worse by the very media that seeks to cover it. Today’s tidbit of crap comes from Pueblo, Colorado where a 54-year old man was accused of incest and child pornography. He was also charged with video-taping people going to the washroom in his house. Oh, and this:

“Investigators also found an inflatable sheep dressed in fishnet stockings on Wurster's bed, according to his arrest affidavit.”

Sure, it’s all horrible and Richard William Wurster deserves to be hung, tarred, feathered, and beaten with a squirrel. What’s ironically even more depressing, however, is how the message gets articulated to the public. Below is a screenshot of the exact moment I read the article.

Check out the advertisement I outlined in red. It’s for some sort of online, Does it not seem a little sketchy to talk of this “sexual pervert” while at the same time effectively selling sex at the bottom of the screen? Does ABC, the producer of this website (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/5382261/detail.html), not find this inherently self-contradictory?

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe that’s the line we’ve drawn in the sand of sexual deviance: sex with kids and relatives bad, objectified sex with strangers good.

Binge-drinking + rape = your fault

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1888035,00.html

In Britain yesterday, a funny thing happened with the law. The High Court there threw out a case involving the rape of an unconscious and drunk student. Her attacker- another student working as a security guard- admitted to having sex with the woman but claimed she gave consent.

The prosecution- her prosecution- stopped after she admitted to being drunk. "Drunken consent is still consent," they said.

Here's the funny part. Why can't you have sex with a child? You may have heard recently about a teacher in Florida (25-years old) who had sex with one of her students (14-years). If convicted, she faces up to 30 years in prison, a lifetime banned from teaching, registration on a sex offenders list, and a whole bunch of other things. But why? I have no doubt in my mind that the teenage student gave his wilful (very wilful) consent. So what's the problem?

Because consent from a 14-year old or anybody else under the age of majority isn't really considered consent. These people are deemed unable to fully determine, to the best of their ability, right from wrong, good from bad, yes from no. That's something that comes with maturity. And so they are legally incapable of ever giving their full consent. For anything.

In the law, they use the term "mens rae" to describe this: the mental accountability and understanding of the act committed. Only when someone is of 'sound' mind and of sufficient intellectual ability (roughly equated to 16 years of age) can this be possessed. It's the only reason why the insanity plea ever works.

So how does an unconscious and inebriated woman- who obviously is unable to adequately determine right from wrong, good from bad, yes from no- how is she ever able to give consent for sex?

If you drug a woman, knock her out, and rape her, does her inability to speak mean that no crime was committed?

Tomorrow is White Ribbon Day, the international day to speak out against violence against women. If you or anyone else you know is currently in a situation of mental or physical abuse, contact your local authorities immediately. There are thousands of alternatives; none need involve any form of violence.

For a list of available women's shelters in Toronto and across Canada, visit: http://www.nellies.org/resources/shelters.html

http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/advertising

My Gay Wife

Man sues ABC over gay "Wife Swap"

From the cbc.ca website, "Jeffrey D. Bedford of Haileyville filed his $10,225,000 suit in Muskogee's U.S. District Court, claiming that ABC Television misled him by not sending a woman from a heterosexual family to his home."

Let me get this straight: Jeffery agrees to have his wife live with another man. In exchange for this, Jeff expects the other man's wife to come and live with him. This exchange, moreover, will be televised. When the other man's "wife" happens to be a man, Jeff gets his panties in a knot and sues for over $10 million.

You've really got to ask yourself here, what the hell was Jeff expecting? He agreed to go on television and swap spouses. He didn't like the one he received. Would he have complained if he thought his ‘new’ wife was overweight? Ugly? All this points, unfortunately, to one of two things: 1) Jeffrey Bedford agrees to humorously disrupt his marriage for the purposes of televised fun or; 2) he actually wanted to swap wives.

You see his predicament. He's seeking $10 million in part for public humiliation; does this not give the impression that he didn't quite think the televised swapping of wives was inherently funny in the first place? Did he think ABC was producing a documentary on polygamy?

Here’s the best part: “Bedford claims that when he conducted a Bible study for the Haileyville Baptist Church in his home, his gay ‘wife’ invited a gay group as well.” Wow.

If you're keeping track of an Idiot List, make sure you add Jeffery D. Bedford's name to it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20051122/co_po/mansuesabcovergaywifeswap

M-I-C-K-E-Y, Suicide is painless?

Hey, you ever see the comic strip of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Goofy going to the park to pick daisies? Yeah it sure was great! They frolicked in the tall grass, played tag, and had a well-deserved nap under a big sycamore tree. Those sure were great times.

What's that? Where was the rest of the gang? See, you are familiar with the Walt Disney bunch! Well Pluto was back guarding Mickey's house, Snow White was helping the Drawfs with dinner, and Minnie... well, no one quite knew where Minnie was.

Anyway, back to the story. After Mickey and the gang woke up from their nap, they decided to head home for dinner. Donald had to get up early the next day for a job interview and Goofy wanted to finish that model plane he was working on. Mickey just couldn't wait to go home to see his girl, Minnie.

You can imagine his surprise when he caught her cheating on him with some musician-type. Yeah, I know- you don't believe it. You're probably running through a hundred stories, each one giving justification for Minnie hanging out with another man behind Mickey's back. And who knows, that may have actually been true.

But let me tell you kiddies, it sure didn't stop Mickey from trying to kill himself. In print. Across a month’s worth of comics. All penned by Mickey's loving (?) creator, Walt Disney himself.

Seriously, check it out.
www.barnaclepress.com/comics/.../mickey_mouse/index.html

It seems even Mickey Mouse visited the Unhappiest Place on Earth.

"These are the people in yoru neighbourhood"

Montreal pedophile dad sentenced to 15 years

Somehow I don't think Mr. Rogers was thinking about pedophiles during his oft-quoted rhyme about the people that live in our neighbourhoods. Maybe he had never been to Montreal then.

Today's story of crack-pot justice and the need for harsher social penalties comes from the province of Quebec. A Montreal man is convicted of sexually assaulting his *two-year-old daughter* and posting the pictures on the internet. His sentence? 15 years in prison.

But don't worry kids, after he's free (assuming he doesn't get out earlier for 'good' behaviour) he'll be under "strict" surveillance because he's been also declared a long-term offender who's shown no remorse or empathy.

Here's where our judicial system once again drops the ball: The judge said there was sufficient evidence against the man to declare him a dangerous sexual offender, but she noted that the Crown didn't ask for that, so she declared him a long-term offender.

Riiiiiight.

The timing is quite impeccable. When the 32-year-old man is released, his daughter will be just old enough to truly hate him for what he's done. Teen angst has a funny way of playing these things out.

Good thing they'll have two more weeks to rethink the decision: the man will be back in court for pre-sentencing arguments in another case, this time involving the sexual touching of his neighbour's daughter.

Against capital punishment? Fine. You can be the one who explains to the children why this waste of skin was able to perpetually re-offend. I just hope it's not a little girl you know that he meets the next time he's freely walking down the street.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/02/pedophile051102.html