Friday, March 27, 2009

E is for Exposure, and Explicit

It seems like every day, cases come up in the news that highlight the insanity of our legal system when it comes to the sexes. Today we hear about a teen who posted explicit pictures of herself on MySpace, charged with ‘possession and distribution of child pornography.’ She could face 17 years in jail, and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life, but we are assured that these stiff sentences are unlikely.

So insane: Let’s count the ways:

1. So, posting photos is a crime that can get you put away for almost two decades? And you have to be marked as some kind of sex predator for life? Isn’t this a bit extreme?
2. What she did is a crime, but they will be lenient because she is a woman/girl. A man/boy would probably be also charged with indecent exposure, or the equivalent, no? Sexual Bias, right there.
3. These are pictures of herself – one might assume that one could do almost whatever one wanted with pictures of themselves, no?
4. If a girl is mature enough to want to post her nude body on the web for her boyfriend and other friends to see, isn’t she a bit beyond ‘child’? Teenage women can be extremely precocious, and the law needs to lighten up. These girls will engage in various kinds of sexual behavior, and making them and their partners into felons is both ridiculous and criminal.
5. If you were to look at her MySpace page, those pictures would likely end up in your temporary files area. By looking at them, and by storing them, you are guilty of child pornography. Enjoy your sex-offender status!

How nice it is for the government to jump in and put this girl and her family through a huge sex-offender lawsuit, for a stupid teenage stunt that harmed no one but herself. On the other hand, we should be grateful to the Trenton prosecutor who went ahead with this case, because it shows how scary-crazy these people are and how nuts the law is.

I think most prosecutors would have let this go,

- unless, of course, the perpetrator was male.

My best to you in your struggles…


Thursday, March 26, 2009

E is for Early Learning

It is good to learn, and probably best to learn early… but whose heart can’t help to go out to a very young man, who finds himself learning life’s harsh lessons about the nature of the relationship between men and women at the vunerable age of 13?

If you haven’t heard, this is the story of Alfie Patten of England. Seduced by 15 year old Chantelle Steadman, Alfie was identified by her as the father of her child, and he stuck by her, even as teen after teen came forward, and admitted also sleeping with his beau in the appropriate timeframe. (Chantelle apparently is just a bit sexually active.) Chantelle, on the other hand, insisted that she was in love with Alfie and that he had taken her virginity.

The Telegraph tells us that Alfie was ‘distraught’ at claims that the little bastard (sorry, that *is* the technical term) that Chantelle eventually popped out was not his.

But DNA will tell all, and sure enough, Alfie ain’t the dad. He should be glad, but as he is programmed to a life of slavery to the master-sex and their spawn/vagina droppings (ok, that one was harsh), I am afraid he isn’t.

Still, this particular package of life lessons will hopefully not be lost on the precocious boy, or on any male who reads this story. I suggest the following lessons:

1) Women are much freer with sex than they like you to know. (Bonobos, anyone?)
2) Women lie about their sex lives. (OK, implied by #1, but hey needs to be said.)
3) Women lie about paternity. A Lot. (Also probably implied by #1, but also needs to be said.)
4) A major motivating factor behind all this lying is money.
5) Use a condom! (You probably aren't the first, and as far as you can know, your predecessor may have been a bonobo.)

I think we’ve about covered this one.


Oh, and p.s. where's the 'rape' charge against Chantelle? Don't you think there would have been one if a 15-year-old man impregnated a 13-year old girl?

Friday, March 20, 2009

F is for Food Stamps

So, like perhaps many, I am reduced to below the poverty level by my ex’s expectations of being able to live in the manner to which I would like to become accustomed.
But someone said to me; “Hey! You have your kids a whole lot of the time, and you are below the federal poverty threshold! You should apply for Food Stamps!”

In a different year, a different month, I might not have gone.

But this year, with no interviews, no prospects, no one answering my calls or requests for part-time work, or any kind of work… …with everything up in the air, and out of my hands, - I went.

I mean, I have $2.00 in my bank account, and that doesn’t buy food, and although I have a few extra pounds here and there, the kids need to eat.

So I do some online forms, get an invite to the local SocialServiciesAtorium, (which is almost impossible to find) and arrive in time for my ‘appointment’. Three hours later, they call my name, and I go in.

And what do I find out? I find out that the needs basis for food-stamps is GROSS income. The fact that the courts take all that money away (alimony and support) - 65% of my unemployment income, is immaterial.

Divorced men, it seems, are supposed to shrivel up and die; at which point the insurance that the court requires us to take out against our lives will ensure that even our deaths do not inconvenience our heartless ex-spouses.

The agent who helped me suggested that I go back to court. I told her I had been there, and that they had increased the amount, and the term, and charged me my ex's legal fees, because she was unable to live in the manner which she had expected, or hoped to.

I'd like to expect to eat. She's worried about her ski trips. Inequity? Not in New Jersey, in New Jersey, its...

Just another day in the Gynocracy.


Additional comments:

If you are looking to try and get food stamps anyway, don't bother with the online form, that information is autmatically lost, and will just end up kicking out a 'you must come in for an interview' letter. Call your local contacts for social services, and outline the basic numbers of your case. They can probably tell you if it is worth your time to do anything more.

I also recently passed one year out of work. Unemployment needs to be recertified at that point, and that takes a phone call. No one will tell you this, though. Instead you are told you will recieve a credit for your filing, but that it is not payable. You talk to a human to get the payments flowing again, assuming that you fall within the extended unemployment benefits guidelines.

If you have a LITTLE money, try for assistance with your eating needs. Also call your towns and churches for information about food pantries.

Best of luck!