But I do have an explanation.

When I was in the third grade, I, well, I was somewhat indiscrete with Carol sitting in front of me. As she sat down after sharpening her pencil, I rubbed her bare shoulder and I got a quick response. I carry her imprint on my left knee to this day! She turned and jabbed me in the leg with a very sharp pencil driving the lead deep into my flesh. It is still there next to my scar from surgery for a football injury I received a few years later. I learned to keep my hands to myself! For a while!

When I was in the seventh grade, I was dancing with Nancy in her living room while her parents were upstairs. The music was playing and forgetting the experience with Carol, I got too free with my hands and Nancy pushed me through her storm door—her glass storm door. That was my last dance.

That did it! I was convinced, and committed if not yet converted. I would never impose myself on a female again. Then, when I was converted to Christ and called to preach, I made the decision to not touch and hug the ladies and never to be alone with any unrelated female. I even expect a lady to extent her hand for a common handshake before I extend my hand.

Any man who assumes he has permission to be anything other than courteous, even chivalrous to a lady is a pig who deserves any punishment permitted by law. In fact, I have always believed that a rapist should be executed after a fair, fast trial! I introduced a bill in the Indiana House of Representatives that would require life in prison for rape with the stipulation that the governor could not pardon the felon or give him clemency. Everyone came after my scalp even my “friend” the Governor! He was angry because I was trying to limit his authority while almost everyone else thought I was mistreating rapists by the stiff sentence!

A reporter for the Indianapolis Star asked me why I chose the “extreme life sentence” for rapists and I replied, “Because I can’t get the death penalty!” That penalty would sure eliminate repeat crimes.

I am suspicious of any woman who admits to sleeping with a creep twenty years ago because she was young or was intimidated or was fearful of losing a job or was fearful of not getting a job or would hurt someone’s feelings! That is pure balderdash and won’t pass the smell test. Face it: if a male is an aggressor or rapist, then an unresisting, uncomplaining female is a whore.

The whole #metoo movement needs some parameters. There is a massive difference in introductory conversation with a female, flirting, harassment, hugging/kissing, and rape. The problem is too many people consider them equal infractions. Conversation, even casual flirting with a female is normal and a fact of life for thousands of years.

While it is true that many women have been harmed, almost destroyed by male aggressors, there may be an equal number of men who have been destroyed by angry, vengeful women helped by a bevy of avaricious attorneys.

Actor Morgan Freeman has been accused by CNN that he “sexually harassed or was inappropriate towards women.” CNN reporter Chloe Melas claims Freeman “was sexually inappropriate to her at a press junket” in 2017. One woman said she was the target of demeaning comments by Freeman while another said he looked her up and down and wished that he was in the television studio with her.” I don’t think looking a woman “up and down” or being “sexually inappropriate” are felonies. They are unmanly, ungentlemanly, and unpleasant but not unlawful. In my day, looking at a female, not necessarily with lustful intentions, was known as ogling or eyeing an interesting female. It was also known as gawking, gaping, gazing, or basically looking ridiculous while trying to make an impression.

Another woman charged, Morgan would “come over to my desk to say ‘hi’ and he’d just stand there and stare at me. (More ogling!) He would stare at my breasts.” Most people would agree that it is not illegal or immoral or illicit to say “hi” or even stare at a woman’s breasts. Maybe crass or crude.

CNN spoke to two male witnesses who each reported a separate occasion in which Freeman asked women to twirl! Wow, to twirl! And in public! Maybe I don’t know what it means to twirl.

At a party Freeman went up to women in a circle and would “stand maybe within an inch of their face and just look them up and down and not say anything, and then would move on to the next woman and he’d stand like within an inch of their face and look them up and down and not say anything, and it was really, really strange.” Strange, silly, and stupid but not illegal.

Freeman described what an accuser was wearing during their first meeting, saying, “She had on a dress cut to here.” He added, “She wants to be thought of as serious but you can’t get away from the short dresses.” She was devastated! Maybe I’ve missed something and someone will explain what was illegal or oppressive about that statement. Fact is, I agree with it! I don’t think any decent woman would wear a short skirt with a split up to “here.”

It was charged, “He’d say things like ‘I’d like to have an hour with her’ or make vulgar and sexual comments about women,” the former employee said. Furthermore, “He would be verbally inappropriate and it was just shocking.” I don’t think it is illegal to want to be with a woman for an hour and even the vulgar and sexual comments are not illegal although they would be disgusting, demeaning, and debasing.

Another charge is that he made women feel “uncomfortable.” Last time I checked, though undesirable, it was not illegal.

My wife worked for a major national bank when her boss kissed her on the cheek much to the delight of the office staff. She simply slapped him in the chops as his face flushed with embarrassment. That took care of that! It didn’t happen again. No cops, lawyers, investigators, prosecutors, or judges were involved. No money changed hands.

A woman should “put a man in his place” (and for the rapists, it hasn’t been dug yet) by not dressing like a street walker, being modest, never suggestive, and letting all know she does not come with a price tag. She is not for sale to any person, for any price, or for any promise and if a male pig crosses the line from simple flirting and general male/female banter to sexual aggression, she will give him a black eye or split lip.

That will solve all the harassment except for the most aggressive pigs. Jail should take care of the others.

Look, I am not an advocate for vulgar and aggressive men or rude and crude men; but the distinction must be made between what is illegal, indecent, immoral, and insulting. Morgan is not the kind of person I would want to have as a dinner guest but I will have to hear much more “evidence” than that above to get him fired or jailed.

But then, I too was a sexual aggressor. I was just younger than Freeman. Much younger. We must remember that there are truths and half-truths and while I was a sexual aggressor, that was not the whole truth. When reading of all the sexual accusations, remember you must know the whole story.

Beware of a half-truth; you may have gotten the wrong half.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Everyone knows the media crowd are generally a bunch of unstable, unprincipled, and untrustworthy lowlifes and increasingly that immorality is infecting the general population because of their music, movie, and television influence. If the plunge continues, we will have to change our national symbol from the noble eagle to the nasty buzzard.

But the sexual accusations against men have an ominous portent for America; and men, in general, are in danger. In fact, leftists and other opportunists are using a legitimate issue, i.e. sexual assault on women, as an excuse to attack our basic foundational principles. It seems their goal is to always believe the women, no matter the circumstances, and castigate the men–whether guilty or not!

I just read an ominous piece titled, “Effective Report Writing: Using the Language of Non-Consensual Sex” and funded in part by you, the taxpayer! It is a course that teaches police authorities how to prepare a report that reflects negatively on the trustworthiness of the accused men! It was sponsored by End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) and their website says they are dedicated to “changing the way we respond to sexual assault in our communities. Our goal is to pave the way for survivors to achieve justice and healing, so the decision to come forward and seek help is a safe one. Our vision is to end the cycle of repeat offenses and assure that rapists are held accountable.”

Well, no sane person could disagree with that goal except sex abusers; however, the good ladies are willing to stomp on the Constitution with stiletto heels to achieve their lofty goals. They make that clear with their motto Start by Believing; however, police are supposed to assume any accuser may have ulterior motives. The accuser may want payback; she may want a payday; she may be a scorned woman; or she just may be a dingbat. But no, now police officials are told to consider all accusers as sincere and become an advocate for them!

Any police chief who implements this unlawful, unconstitutional, and unfair plan should be forced to stand before his entire force and be drummed out of the department.

You know, I am surprised that I am constantly surprised. I know that the leftist mind is corrupt so it constantly spews corruption. But, I keep thinking that even they would be queasy about promoting such nonsense. But, no, they keep surprising and shocking me.

Police investigators are told to “record witness statements, especially those that corroborate the victim’s account or provide an implausible or even absurd version of reality.” They are told to “recreate the entire reality of the sexual assault from the perspective of the victim.”

All men are in the crosshairs of these looney ladies but it is really dangerous to be in the crosshairs of police authorities.

Hey, if there is no doubt about a woman being raped, then of course tell the account to best prosecute the pig; however, the police investigator does not know that at the time. Police should give no more credibility to the accuser than to the accused. Remember, he is an accused person at this time not a guilty person. She could be lying in her teeth and he could be totally innocent.

But it gets worse. Police are told to “Recreate the Reality of the Sexual Assault from the Victim’s Perspective.” Not if I’ve been accused! After that statement, emphasized in main word caps, the report has to gall to assert, “While the role of law enforcement is as an unbiased fact finder, a key component of this process is to document and seek to corroborate every aspect possible from the victim’s account of events.” However, she is an alleged victim until evidence proves otherwise.

Officers are told to ask the alleged victim what she felt and thought during the alleged rape. However, if it was consensual and it happened years ago, she may editorialize and say that she was frightened that she would be killed if she did not obey. Or, she may not admit that it was consensual. Men are at the mercy of any dishonest, designing, and disgusting woman.

In this 34-page report, investigators are urged to go beyond being neutral but are asked to “overcome” defense attorneys in sexual assault cases! It is to be assumed that all accusations are gospel truth and this is obvious since victim is used hundreds of times and alleged and accuser don’t even appear once! Is anyone willing to use the words bogus, bias, and bigotry?

Investigators are told that their focus should be on getting statements that “corroborate the victim’s account or provide an implausible or even absurd version of reality.” Wow, there goes all neutrality and presumption of innocent. No matter how absurd!

Investigators are told that when inconsistencies are uncovered during an investigation, they should not prejudice the claims of the female! After all, false accusations seldom happen. Yea, tell that to the boys at Duke University.

Investigators are to “make sure” that the finished report does not resemble a “consensual sexual experience.” What these ladies demand is to start any sexual accusation investigation with presumptive guilt of the man and the angel-like innocence of the woman. Forget ethics, impartiality, honesty, fairness, and justice. Yet, this horrible, irresponsible report has been disseminated across our nation’s law enforcement agencies!

When an accused man presents a robust defense, it is alleged to be victim-bashing. Going into a trial, the woman is told, “You will be believed”; however, if that is acceptable then we can do away with the investigators, judges, and the whole judicial system. Some cities are even piloting pretrial cross-examinations to shield the accusers from a thorough interview so as to not traumatize the victim a second time. Wait a minute. Thus far, no evidence has been developed to prove there was a first time trauma. They even suggest that victim be replaced with survivor. Wow, that’s fair!

It should be remembered, and a reminder should not be necessary, that the judicial system is not to promote any social, moral, economic, or religious agenda. Its main object is justice, not to make a bunch of women giddy with their cause, however noble it may be. Justice for all, female and male should be the end result. The guilty must never escape and the innocent must prevail; but in the real world made up of flawed humans, we know that the ideal does not always prevail. However, going into a case with the presumption of guilt always on the male makes no more sense than going into a case with the presumption of guilt always on the female and both are only a step this side of insanity and a step from legal anarchy.

Most of the media seem to take the position that if a woman said it then that’s all the evidence needed! It doesn’t matter about the circumstances, about her credibility, nothing else matters. She is a woman! As comedian and writer Kurt Metzger factiously said, “ALL women are as reliable as my bible! A book that, much like a women, is incapable of lying!”

Well, the Bible can always be trusted but not all women (or men) can be. The above report is a disgusting, disturbing, and dangerous piece of rubbish that had to be prepared by devious and irresponsible zealots.

Eugene J. Kanin did a study published in Archives of Sexual Behavior titled, “False Rape Allegations” in a “small metropolitan community, 45 consecutive, disposed, false rape allegations covering a 9 year period….” According to the study, the false rape charges constitute 41% of the total forcible rape cases reported during this period. “These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention.” The false charges “reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations.” Now that report makes reflects reality.

All women are flawed creatures like the rest of us so they can lie. False accusations can destroy a man, his family, and his future. All sexual assaults should be seriously looked at and any rapist should be hanged (literally) and any false accuser should be branded with an L on her forehead and horse whipped out of town (figuratively).

After second thought, I believe, no; all right, I’ll settle for figuratively.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.