The Duke Lacrosse Team, "Vaginal Bruising," and Feminist Reality - the Rubber Room, That Is.

Double, double, toil and trouble; kettle boil and cauldron bubble . . ." Watching the women of television, from Fox to CNN to CBS and the rest last night, I couldn't help it. Hecate and the hags are back, and the apparitions they are calling are the battered remains of the hundreds of innocent men (of course, to harpies like these, that's an oxymoron) jailed for rape they didn't commit. Anyone who needs to know how that could happen need only to listen to the monotonous - the feminist litanies are all so familiar by now that it's a wonder they haven't been set to operatic music - mental meanderings of what the television networks would foist upon us as examples of superior female intellect. One such intellectual giant averred that whether the Duke University Lacrosse Team players have actually committed rape is immaterial - she is a woman and it's up to her to "support" the "victim." While the woman, an Afro-American officer of one feminist looney tune menagerie or the other, was the only one of her sisters to actually verbalize the viewpoint, the others did so with manner, tone, and tenor.

I was reminded of a purportedly raped co-ed member a government funded organization called the Rape Crisis Center, who told me several years after having sent four men to prison for forty years each that "maybe they didn't know it was rape - but that's up to the woman, isn't it?" You see, in the manner I had begun in high school, I had undertaken a research project of my own - to locate several years after trial rape victims, together with individuals who had received large awards for supposedly permanent injuries. I wanted to see how close the legal system had come to the truth. That, by the way, was two decades before the discovery of DNA testing and the first men released from prison after it had proved them incontrovertibly not guilty.

The femi-nazi (I don't think a lot of Rush Limbaugh, whose coinage that is, but this time he's hit the nail on the head) I spoke of a minute ago also asseverated that a finding of not guilty didn't necessarily mean a man wasn't a rapist. She stopped short of saying, as a feminist Canadian professor and writer did several years ago, that ALL men are rapists.

In twenty-three of the twenty-five rape cases I investigated, the victims of rape (all women, of course - this was the kind of rape we all recognize as rape, not the kind that results from goofy feminist-inspired and forced legislation) conceded, admitted, or whatever word you need to satisfy what's left of your mental programs where the subject is concerned, that they had not been raped in the classic (common sense) sense. Six - I've got it, let's just say they said "said" - said that rape meant they wanted to stop what they'd been doing, the guy didn't. Two said they weren't sure they had picked the right man out of the line-up. Eleven said they knew the man, had known him for several years, and that he had been invited to the woman's house or apartment. One said flatly the only way she could keep her wealthy husband was say that she had been raped. Five of the women told stories similar to the co-ed, and had similarly rationalized reasons for reporting they had been raped.

One of the women who actually was raped in the classic sense was raped by her ex-husband, the other by an ex-boyfriend with whom she had had frequent sex before their break-up.

I'm not even going to bother here with the usual and de rigueur protestations - how I know rape really does occur, I hate rapists (doesn't ever man with any kind of honor?), and all that. Facts are facts. Stubborn things.

But so are politics and political correctness. I don't have any facts, other than what is very apparent - and Bill O'Reilly, the "Factor" guy I often criticize here - stated them succinctly and well last night. "She has two young kids to support," said the supercilious sage of FoxNews, "and no fathers in sight. So, in order to earn money, she chooses to go to strange places and disrobe in front of strange men. Do the math." (Sesquipedalian - it means using big words - as he can be, O'Reilly is also right about the oil companies price-gouging, and like him, I won't every buy another nickel's worth of gasoline from Exxon or Mobil. Screw them.)

The witches of the major media know as little as I about the Duke matter. And they sure as hell aren't willing to ask any of the obvious questions. They haven't even the good grace - not even that of Nancy (whose "grace" you could get in your eye without the need to blink) - to look back at the history of the Joran van der Sloot pillorying, in light of recent discoveries (like the covertly obtained tape recording of van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers).

As I just said, I don't know anything about the Duke case; and I trust nothing the major media say - meaning I don't have an opinion about van der Sloot, either. This is what I do know about cases like the Duke matter, as taken from websites like this one: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=293

Note that as of this writing, one hundred and thirty-one men have been proved innocent of the rapes they were convicted of, and a number of additional cases are being resisted by the state and its prosecutor, something I'll discuss more in a minute. Here's what I do know about the matter of rape and our method of dealing with it:

In reviewing the cases of 110 men convicted of tape and freed after DNA proved they could not have been guilty, the AP (Associated Press) found:

"About half had no prior adult convictions, according to legal records and the inmates' attorneys. While some were picked up for questioning because they were known to police, many had never been in trouble before.

"Eleven of the men served time on death row; two came within days of execution.

"Slightly more than a third have received compensation, mainly through state claims. Some have received settlements from civil lawsuits or special legislative bills. For others, claims or suits are pending; and some had lawsuits thrown out or haven't decided whether to seek money.

"The men averaged 10 1/2 years behind bars. The shortest wrongful incarceration was one year; the longest, 22 years. Altogether, the 110 men spent 1,149 years in prison.

"Their imprisonment came during critical wage-earning years when careers and families are built. The average age when they entered prison was 28. At release, it was 38.

"Their convictions follow certain patterns. Nearly two-thirds were convicted with mistaken testimony from victims and eyewitnesses. About 14 percent were imprisoned after mistakes or alleged misconduct by forensics experts. Nine were mentally retarded or borderline retarded and confessed, they said, after being tricked or coerced by authorities.

"Finally freed - by determined lawyers or their own perseverance - the men were dumped back into society as abruptly as they were plucked out. Often, they were not entitled to the help, such as parole officers, given to those rightfully convicted.

"'The people who come out of this are often very, very severely damaged human beings who often don't ever fully recover,' says Rob Warden, executive director of Northwestern University School of Law's Center on Wrongful Convictions. 'Lightning strikes, they come out,' he says, 'and they're in bad, bad shape. They represent many walks of life - a homeless panhandler, a therapist, a junkie, a mushroom picker, a handyman, a crab fisherman - but almost all were working-class or poor.'

"Of the cases reviewed by the AP, about two-thirds involved black or Hispanic inmates, roughly reflecting state prison populations' racial makeup.

"'All of these people have a certain vulnerability. It may be race, class, mental health issues or personality problems,' says Peter Neufeld, who co-founded The Innocence Project with attorney Barry Scheck at the Cardozo School of Law in New York. About 60 percent of the men were helped by the 10-year-old legal assistance program, the rest by other groups or private lawyers. The first DNA releases came in 1989, according to the Innocence Project. "'they sort of get caught in this Kafkaesque vortex,' Neufeld adds, 'and the rest is history.'"

History? It's a little more than that. The guy who is put away in order to satisfy society - feminist society - doesn't give a damn going down in history. He cares about his life. My investigation, the one I just mentioned here, wasn't the only aspect of what I wanted to learn. After my boys' mom left as part of the deal she made with IRS, I had a whole lot of fun, and what most would call success, with the women. During that time, I asked a lot of questions about things I had wondered about since high school and my first experiences with sex. Repeatedly, women in casual and unsuspecting (concerning my ulterior motives, that is) conversation told me things, gave me statistics exactly the same as those heard in the news, a veritable litany again. I've looked up facts, the actual statistics. Here's an example, one just corroborated a minute ago on several websites:

"Somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes, according to the U.S. Department of Justice."

"In 1995, 354,670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault. (National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)"

"Over the last two years, more than 787,000 women were the victim of a rape or sexual assault. (National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)"

"The FBI estimates that 72 of every 100,000 females in the United States were raped last year. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996.)"

Hmmm. "One every two minutes, there being 525,600 minutes in a year, that would mean 262,800. If I'm splitting hairs here, it's one hell of a hair. Another site says "There are 2 rapes or attempted rapes reported per 1,000 US citizens, which is 530,000 reports of rape per year. That hair must be the size of a sausage!

Another feminists statistician reports, "One in four women has been the victim of rape." Really? Of the 322 women I've known well enough to ask that question, two said they had been raped - both as a teen by her dad. None of the women in my family have been raped, and none of my three wives have been raped. That adds up to 360 women, none of whom have been raped. ?????

The fact is that a review of all the websites purporting to be reporting rape statistics shows statistics, mathematics, logic, and method just about what you'd expect in the land of the just about totally biased on any given question, barely literate, and almost totally innumerate. Shear confusion, I mean. And nobody cares; it's enough for feminism when it makes you feel good and abused.

Here's some more (hysterical people are always kind of funny - The Keystone Kops, Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello and others made a career of it): "A review of Oklahoma University enrolment (sic) data and information supplied by campus police yielded the estimate that the annualized rape risk for 1996 freshmen women at O.U. was 1 chance in 476." Huh? There's something wrong here, isn't there?

But let's see what else some of this might mean: For instance, if there are, say, 15,000 rape convictions annually, and based on new DNA tests a third of those convictions are now found to be false, there are potentially 520,000 FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS a year. And how many of those resulted in an innocent man being executed? I'll do those numbers when I have more time, but off the top of a head pretty good with math (it's a hobby), I'd say about 30 since 1950. That's men killed, largely on feminism's account, who weren't guilty of anything. Remember those ugly cultures who demanded human sacrifices?

Another of the litanies having to do with rape is among the most hypocritical of our best, the one that goes, "rape is a very difficult crime to prosecute." Huh? Tell me another crime that require one witness, and no physical corroboration. If a prosecutor decides to put the woman in front of a jury, and she's actress enough (and I've been there - the "maybe they didn't know it was rape" girl, for instance), he's got a chance of convicting the guy. As a PI, I worked as many as twenty rape cases. Two resulted in convictions, the rest acquittals or dismissal of charges (with the result that the local prosecutor reported to IRS that I was a tax cheat). One jurisprudential judo trick that proved devastating had to do with the instrumentality of the crime. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Never comes up in discussion, does it? Never comes up in court, either. So what?

Well, think about it. Say the crime is murder. No examination, display, entering into evidence, and the rest of the weapon? That wouldn't make a jury suspicious? Remember the O.J. glove? The missing knife? Pick a crime, prosecution of which doesn't require admission of the instrumentality into evidence. In one case I worked, a guy was convicted of rape despite the fact that it wasn't possible for him. Yeah - impotent. Wet noodle in a wildcat's ass. He was present, and didn't decide to fight the other three guys; worse, probably, he testified that he thought the "victim" was having a good time - as she had had some months before with the local college football team.

That last wasn't admissible, of course. How the hell can it be that rational people don't consider that "prejudicial" - a stacked deck?

In another of my cases, this one successful for me, charges were dismissed when the woman recanted after not having been able to recollect noticing that the "instrument" of the crime was ten and a half inches in length, and SIX AND SIX AND THREE-QUARTER INCHES in circumference. And she claimed to have been "sodomized" - in the butt, I mean. Had I not insisted to a defense attorney and prosecutor who were adamantly opposed that examination of the men be done, there's little doubt in my mind that all of the four would have been convicted.

Which raises another question. Have you ever wondered, in this scheme of things - a scheme of things insisted upon by the distaff side of society - that more accused men don't just claim to be impotent? Try to imagine how that might go, things what they are.

Oh, one more thing - touched upon here the other day. "Vaginal bruising." I bring this up because of that physical corroboration I mentioned a minute ago. The woman comes in, says she was raped, picks out the guy she wants to pay the price of her umbrage, and we go through the "rape kit" drill and all the rest. If there's no semen anywhere, that's because he wore a condom. Picture that. How the hell would THAT have gone down? Never mind, your honors, I withdraw the question. Argumentative. Sexist, even. But with nothing else, there is always that de rigueur "vaginal bruising." Okay, guys, picture THAT one. How in the hell do you BRUISE it?! Has anybody EVER had a woman say you bruised her snatch after you had sex?

Now, I'm not going to brag or complain here, but I've been married four times, had three live-in girl friends, and in the years between my second and third, and third and fourth wives, I was what the prudes call "active sexually." I got laid a lot - okay? Several of the ladies liked really energetic - even violent - sex. More, it happened that I was to discover early in life - the widow who introduced me to sex - that I was unusual in the respect that I didn't lose erection after orgasm (save it - any number of the women will corroborate what I say). Many times, a woman and I had sex all night, six or seven orgasms for me. One of my wives managed to give me orgasm forty-nine times in a single week. Not once was any of these women bruised, despite the fact of having been mounted for as long as three hours by a very powerful and athletic male (a state and national judo champion, wrestler, and weightlifter) doing everything in his power to satisfy their urging that he "do it harder." Oh, and by the way - I'm actually somewhat bigger than the average. No "vaginal bruising."

Something's wrong with that, and what's even more wrong is the fact that it's never been exposed for the female fantasy myth that it is. There's not only something wrong with "vaginal bruising" as evidence, there's something damned wrong with a society where an adult writing to adults has to mince words about the most fundamental of all our drives, sex. That is also a sacrifice made by the male to female respect. I once had a grandmother who wouldn't say "leg." preferring "limb." The male organ was "his thing,' and mention of the female private parts meant banishment from the household. History of the nation tells us that the female's continual and absurdly prudish tinkering with the language has resulted in much confusion and resulted grief. Consider "sexual harassment in the workplace." Nowhere has that been more the case that where the subject was the crime of rape. This is ridiculous, and it's time it stopped. Men's lives are more important than female embarrassment.

Now. Let's get down to the really scary facts. The prosecutor in the Duke matter may be playing his cards close to the chest, but something is very, very obvious. That's the fact of both the TV women and their sisters clamor, and its political implications. Assume for a minute that the prosecutor not only has no case - the "victim's" statements are getting more and more inconsistent - and the evidence now suggest that the defense will show that the men she's named were not in the house when she says. What would a politician desirous of keeping his job do? Someone - Gerry Spence, I think - once observed, "You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich."

Sure. Hell yes! He gets the grand jury to save his bacon. Even if they refuse to indict, he's off the hook - he tried. Next election he answers charges of racism, incompetence, and all the rest by putting blame on the grand jury. If the jury indicts, and he goes to court with a case so bad that the court directs a verdict (they hardly ever do that, these sick days), or a jury faced with the ineluctable fact of alibis for the defendants acquits, he's also off the political hook. Piece of cake. And the only people who get screwed - with ruined reputations - are those nasty men, and rich, white ones, at that.

Doesn't all this make your ass tired? It does mine. That we've come to these straits by permitting over-politicized government to abuse our legal system to this extent is enough to make any good man puke. And there is no denying that what I've just posited here concerning the Duke University Lacrosse Team matter is possible. It's likely. None of it will change, either, until males - is there anyone old enough to remember when the term "man" meant a hell of a lot more than gender? - stop it. The subject is one so broad in scope where numbers of possible contributing factors are concerned that I've only "scratched the surface" to use an expression as hackneyed as the "rape litany" I had reference to here, but the male citizenry of this country had better begin saying to women what I'm about to say to Greta van Susteren, Nancy Grace, her surrogate the other night, and all the femi-nazi attorneys who showed up to strew their prurient pearls of panderers wisdom:

"Want to tone down the rhetoric, stop egging on the witch hunt at Duke University a bit, girls? No, I don't suppose so. Well, let me mention that in about ten years, when the price of a barrel of crude oil is about a hundred, fifty dollars and a gallon of gas is ten dollars, there'll be a lot of changes made. Your political power will have decreased in proportion to the cost of energy (that's muscle, without mechanization and technology). Then, maybe you'll feel obliged to SHUT THE HELL UP!"