What Should A Rejected Spouse Do?

What are the options when one partner wants sex far more often than the other?

There are people, including women, who point out that spouses are entitled to sex from each other and that one spouse should not deprive the other except temporarily for mutual consent. As such, one account on Twitter cited an instance in which a wife declined her husband's request for sex, only to wake up later in the middle of the night with him doing things anyway.

The law and our culture both say that this is rape.

The person describing the instance says that the wife should give her husband grace.

(I want to make it clear that it is a major turn-off to me if she doesn't want it, so I wouldn't be in this guy's position even if I believed it was OK.)

In the Biblical framework, spouses owe each other sex. General consent to sex is part of getting married. Don't like it? Don't marry. Of course, people who don't consider the Bible an authority can, with integrity, ignore what the Bible says. But someone who claims to care what the Bible teaches can't.

As far as the law, our laws will force the higher earning spouse to financially support the other spouse, no matter what. By marrying, the higher earning spouse is giving general, ongoing consent to this, and crying "slavery!" later or saying "I don't feel like it" won't change it. And although our laws, in some places, still allow a spouse to sue for "alienation of affection" in the event of an affair and "loss of consortium" for any number of things done to their spouse, other than that, the law does not say one spouse owes the other sex. Think about that. If your wife doesn't feel like sex because her employer committed illegal discrimination against her, you can claim "loss of consortium" as one of the reasons her employer owes you money. But you're not owed sex. Laws aren't always consistent.

The woman who said the wife should give her husband grace, and people like her, would also say a husband viewing porn is a terrible sin, even masturbating without porn would be. In their beliefs, a person's sole sexual stimulant or outlet should be their spouse. No sex outside of marriage is acceptable.

When a caller to Dr. Laura presents the situation of a husband wanting more sex and the wife not wanting to meet him at his level, Dr. Laura usually will provide the options as follows:

A) Wife has sex more often with the husband
B) Husband leaves
C) Husband hires sex workers
D) Husband gets a girlfriend on the side
E) Husband masturbates to porn

She says the wife can pick one. Of course, most of the wives don't want any of those. They want option F, which is just that the husband just be completely sexually frustrated. But in Dr. Laura's mind, even though she isn't a Christian nor a Bible believer in the conventional sense, a husband is owed sex because he's paid for it by laying down his life and signing a state contract that financially obligates him.

While sometimes the wife wants it more than the husband, it is usually the husband who wants it more. The norms of various cultures have dealt with this throughout history with polygyny (multiple wives), prostitution, and mistresses. Most American women reject that. Some of them encourage or "allow" their husband or boyfriend to use masturbation, porn, and toys. Other women don't.

Culturally and legally, there is no shame applied at all to men who stay free and run game, who can have sex any night they want. If one woman isn't in the mood, he just moves on to the next woman in his phone's list of contacts, until he finds one who will welcome him. He doesn't need to share his earnings, or run errands, do chores, romance her, go on long walks, listen to her ramble on, or even buy her dinner. He doesn't need to care for her when she's sick, or deal with her parents or siblings, or even her friends. Nope. All he needs to do is text her when he wants some, and show up. He can repeat this with a different woman every night. Meanwhile, the Good Husband can go night after night, for weeks, months, even years, being rejected and going sexless no matter how good of a husband he is. And if he decides he can't take it anymore, he'll have to give up at least half of everything, pay for two legal teams, and likely pay ongoing alimony, maybe even for life.

Which one of those two guys will most men choose to be, if they really grasp that they have a choice? Of course there's always the "monk mode" choice, too, of staying free and not bothering with the sex. We are seeing men make these choices.

I urge men not to assault or harass or otherwise burden women. Only see them when they want you.

Why Married Men Should Have an Affair

To Whom Does Your Body Belong?

Is It OK For a Spouse to Withhold Sex?

Rejecting Your Man

When A Wife Rejects Her Husband

One Flesh or Not?

How to Prevent Domestic Violence, Cheating, and Divorce

This is how you can prevent domestic violence, cheating, and divorce:

Do not marry.

Do not live together.

Do not promise nor expect exclusivity.

Free Men who want to remain free men in good standing do not engage in rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, stealthing, stalking, or revenge porn.

Free men, if they want sex, run game, which ensures that they don't waste time with women who do not want sex. Free men do not marry nor live with women. Free men do not agree to exclusivity. This prevents domestic violence, cheating, and divorce. It also prevents rape.

More men should be Free Men.

Free Men Are Morally Superior

Rape and sexual harassment are immoral.

If you're a good man, you don't want to rape or commit sexual harassment. According to informed, enlightened, educated people, including women (and we are to believe women), rape includes sexual activity between spouses when there wasn't an enthusiastic desire in both of them to immediately have sex with each other when they started to touch each other. We also know that sexual harassment includes asking for sex when the other person doesn't have an enthusiastic desire to have sex with you at that exact moment.

Knocking Up Teacher

Melissa Pamer and Tony Shin at NBC’s Los Angeles O & O has this story which has been all over the news around here:

A Redlands high school teacher accused of having a baby allegedly fathered by a teen student pleaded not guilty Tuesday to 41 counts of sex and oral copulation with a minor.

Laura Elizabeth Whitehurst, 28, was arrested July 1 after the mother of a Citrus Valley High student contacted school officials about the suspected relationship between her son and the English teacher.

She was charged Monday with crimes alleged to have involved the boy -- who was 16 when the relationship began, according to police -- and two other teen students who are now adults.

Later:

Authorities said Whitehurst had given birth June 18 to a baby fathered by the student with whom she had had a nearly year-long affair. The boy attended the baby’s birth, according to court documents.

Later:

Then, at least two other men came forward and said they had had sexual relations with Whitehurst in 2007 and 2008.

One of the alleged victims spoke to NBC4 Southern California, saying he never felt victimized but wanted to share his story so that others might come forward to tell police about their experiences with Whitehurst.

Finally:

Whitehurst is charged with 30 counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and 11 counts of oral copulation of a person under 18.

If convicted as charged, Whitehurst could face up to 29 years in state prison, the District's Attorney's Office said.

So there's yet another criminal case that's hit the news lately about a young female teacher "having sex" with multiple minor male students. Unless the teacher is decidedly unattractive (this latest one isn't), one of the common responses to this is along the lines of:

Daycare Operator Arrested For Impersonation

Allegedly, 34-year-old Chelsea Nichole McClelland was doing bad things with someone else who was entrusted to her care – kind of like an impersonation of Mary Kay Letourneau. Andrew Blankstein reports at LATimes.com.

A South Los Angeles day-care center operator has been arrested on suspicion of lewd acts with her godson after she was allegedly caught having sex with the 13-year-old in a van, Los Angeles police said Monday.

What does she charge for daycare, though?

McClelland, who was arrested on suspicion of multiple instances of lewd acts with a child, is being held in lieu of $400,000 bail at the Van Nuys jail. McClelland could not be reached for comment, and there was no answer at the number listed for the day-care center.

What, none of the other highly qualified staff will answer the phone?

Last week, Mid-City residents reported seeing a white van repeatedly parked in the neighorhood. Police responded Friday and discovered the boy inside the vehicle. The boy initially told them he was 18, but after being interviewed by LAPD sex crimes detectives, he acknowledged that he was 13.

Yeah, good try.

Police said they believe some of the illegal contact took place when the victim was 12.

But maybe he looked 13. "You don't understand, officer! He's so mature. He's really good at the Wii."

McClelland has three biological children and is the legal guardian of a fourth. At the time of her arrest, she was caring for eight children at her day-care center.

Hey, maybe they can make a TV movie about her, too, and there can be all those news magazine television shows that interview them when she gets out of prison and they reunite and marry.

Now, to be fair, there are some great people out there who operate day orphanages. But even the best ones can't replace a parent.

Do you think she'll lose her godmother status?

UPDATED

Joseph Tarnopolski of Michigan: Admitted (Statutory) Rapist

An 18-year-old male adult having "consensual" sex with a 14-year-old minor girl is statutory rape. Maybe Joseph Ternopolski made the mistake of having sex with a disturbed girl who subsequently committed suicide. Or perhaps he forced himself on a girl who wasn't disturbed and thus was making a true claim about forcible rape, but who couldn't endure both the rape and the fallout, and committed suicide. Either way, Tarnopolski did something very wrong and admitted to doing something illegal. Here's the story from Associated Press Corey Williams.

With their key witness dead, prosecutors on Wednesday dropped criminal charges against the older student, saying they had no case without the accuser's testimony.

How about the confession? That's at least statutory rape.

"People wanted to beat her up — people who were friends of Joe," said Ayla Raines, who also attended Huron High School. "Not to her face. She heard from other people that they wanted to beat her up."

Another student, Calie Bouchard, said 14-year-old Samantha was confronted once in the lunch room by a group of girls who insisted she was lying.

"She started breaking down in tears," Calie said.

Monsters.

Principal Donovan Rowe said school officials investigated the alleged bullying and found nothing overt. Rowe said on occasion he walked behind Samantha as she went from class to class and witnessed no harassment.

And since he didn't see any cheating or doping while walking around for everyone to see, then I guess there's no cheating or doping at the school either.

Huron Township police said Justice brought her daughter to the station on Sept. 27, a day after the encounter with Tarnopolski, to file a sexual assault report. At the time it was considered a statutory rape case, meaning the pair had consensual sex but that she was under the age of consent.

Tarnopolski told WJBK that he had sex with Samantha, but it was a "mutual thing."

It can't be mutual between an 18-year-old and a 14-year-old in this day and age. Not when they are both in high school and she is not responsible for herself.

"She told me she was being extremely bullied, and it was extremely stressful," said 16-year-old Devyn Waldecker, a neighbor in the Huron Estates mobile home park. "People bumped into her in the hallways at school. On two occasions after school, people tried to jump her."

Waldecker, who attends another school, wanted to help the girl she had befriended just this past June, but "really didn't know what to do."

"I told her I was there for her — anything she needed from me," Waldecker said.

Samantha didn't deserve such an ordeal, said Devyn's mother, Shannon Waldecker. "Sam was a very sweet, soft-spoken person and very honest."

A word for Tarnopolski: Even if you suffer no criminal consequence, we never really get away with anything. One way or another, we are held accountable for our sins. If you really didn't force yourself on her, then learn a lesson and never, ever have sex again with someone who doesn't have the age or sobriety or consciousness to consent. If you did force yourself on her, you'd better get yourself under control - if for no other reason than someday, you just might pick a woman who will be able and willing to fight back.

Bullying and suicide has been in the news a lot lately. Will this get the same attention, or are some people more important than others?

He Served 27 Years For a Rape He Didn't Commit

Michael Anthony Green was eighteen when he ended up in custody for a rape he didn't commit. It took 27 years before he was freed from Harris County Jail in Texas. Associated Press writer Juan A. Lozano had the story.

Green, 44, was released after the Harris County District Attorney's Office reopened his case and new DNA tests it commissioned showed he did not commit the 1983 rape of a woman who had been abducted. During a court hearing Friday, a judge ordered that Green be released on a $500 bond, allowing him to be free while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes a final ruling on his innocence.

Unlike the last story I mentioned, the woman in this case was actually raped.

In 1983, four men abducted a woman from a pay telephone in north Houston, taking her to a remote location where three of them raped her. The men drove off, leaving the woman there, and were later chased by police. The men abandoned their car and fled on foot. Green was detained by officers that night as he walked in the area.

The victim could not identify Green in person when he was first detained but later picked him from a photo lineup as one of her attackers. Green was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 75 years in prison. He was the only person convicted in the case.

I would hope the other guys were picked up for other crimes or received justice in some other form. However...

Authorities were able to identify the four men who abducted the women. But because the statute of limitations on the rape has run out, they cannot be prosecuted.

That sucks. However, guys like that don't just commit crime once. If they aren't currently serving time, there has to be something more recent for which they can be busted. Also, I wonder if the woman can still sue them in a civil trial?

Although the article doesn't mention it, you can count on Green suing and getting at least seven figures in a settlement.

One False Rape Accusation

Here's something else from back in February. A New Jersey woman was sentenced to up to three years in prison for falsely claiming she was gang-raped in New York City. Even if she were to serve a full three years, that would still be less time than the time serve by the man she was key to sending away. It was an Associated Press story by Jennifer Peltz.

Biurny Peguero, 27, pleaded guilty in December to perjury, admitting she made up the September 2005 incident that unjustly put construction worker William McCaffrey in jail and prison for nearly four years. A judge overturned his rape conviction in December, with new DNA evidence also playing a role.

McCaffrey had been sentenced to 20 years.

Prosecutors have said she told them she claimed she was raped to make her friends feel sorry for her. Assistant District Attorney Evan Krutoy suggested Tuesday that she may have lied out of anger at a man who had upset - but not attacked - her.

The way the article is written, it sounds like she at least came forward before she had to.

Defense lawyer Paul F. Callan noted that Peguero came forward to clear McCaffrey, approaching a priest and then authorities this year to recant. Meanwhile, new DNA tests had shown that a wound on Peguero's arm came from at least two women — apparently friends she was fighting with — and not McCaffrey.

What are friends for, after all?

Peguero, who has an infant and a 7-year-old, admitted her lie knowing it could mean prison time for her, he said. He pushed for her to get probation instead.

Probation? For putting that guy away and tying up police and the court? What's more, her criminal actions make things harder for actual rape victims. She has a baby? Did she get knocked up before or after her lies were exposed? Guys, she needs to be on your "do not date" list. She a had minor kid already, so she should have already been on the list.

For his part, McCaffrey's lawyer sent Peguero's judge a letter noting she had made a bold move to right the wrong she had committed.

"Although we are upset about her lies that caused, in part, his conviction, we do applaud her courage in coming forward," the lawyer, Glenn A. Garber, said in an interview.

That's gracious.

Scary stuff. Ladies, you are highly unlikely to be falsely accused of rape, but it can happen your male loved ones. Guys, although it might have been unavoidable for this guy, be careful about where you go and with whom, about women being too drunk, and what happens to your DNA.

Update on Sexual Assault Convicts

Yay! As Joseph Serna wrote in the Daily Pilot, California’s Supreme Court rebuffed a request to review a petition (got that?) by three punks who assaulted a teenaged minor. They wanted their convictions overturned and not to have to register as sex offenders.

Warning – the details get disturbing.

Greg Haidl, 25, the son of former Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl, was convicted five years ago of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in 2002. Greg Haidl and his two accomplices, Keith Spann and Kyle Nachreiner, both 25, were minors when they sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl while she was passed out on Haidl's pool table in his garage in Corona del Mar.

The boys inserted a pool cue into her anus and her vagina, where they also inserted a Snapple bottle and lit cigarette, among other items. The group videotaped the attack, which a friend later found and turned over to police.

Note to criminals: Keep evidence of your crime.

The men were seeking to have their convictions overturned because some testimony about the girl's sexual past was not allowed at trial.

I don’t care if she did a chain every weekend. Well, I would care. But it isn’t relevant. It's like saying you are entitled to go into someone's wallet without asking and steal money because that person has previously given away their money to others and you. Only it is worse because it is her body.

If some young man is convicted of running around flashing adult women from ten yards away, and five years down the road he's behaved himself and matured and asks to get his designation as a sex offender removed, that I think is a fair request. But the sex offender registry is made for people who physically abuse other people in the worst ways. These guys had skilled legal representation. They were connected. And they still got convicted. They're guilty.

Read my previous comments on this case.

Another Rapist Off the Streets

When I saw this story, I knew something rotten was going on. Either a guy was being slandered in the worst way, or a defense attorney was adding to the pain of rape victims. The jury decided it was the latter, finding Carlos Aguirre Jr. of Wilmington guilty on all counts. Long Beach Press-Telegram writer Tracy Manzer reports.

The 25-year-old Wilmington man was initially charged with six felony counts stemming from rapes of the victims - ages 14 to 16 - from 2004 to 2006.

Included in the filing was a count of possession of ecstasy and marijuana for sale - drugs that were used to incapacitate his victims - and a count of possession of child pornography for some 120 images found on his computer - featuring an 18-minute video of one victim being raped by Aguirre and a 12-year-old boy.

Six additional rape counts were added to the case shortly before trial.

Prison was made for guys like this. In the old days, he would have been beaten to death by men in the family of these girls. But we’re much gentler and orderly now.

All the counts stem from incidents in which Aguirre was an adult, though jurors heard from several witnesses that he began molesting his niece when she and Aguirre were children.

I would guess someone did something to him when he was younger. But at some point, a person is fully responsible for their actions and must break the cycle.

Aguirre's niece said the abuse started when was 5 and included her uncle forcing her 8-year-old brother to have sex with her as well as the molestation of she and her half-sister at the same time.

Multiple witnesses testified that Aguirre was convicted of raping his other niece when he was juvenile, resulting in the defendant serving two years in a juvenile detention facility.

It obviously didn't help, other than keeping him from hurting innocent people for two years. But I do have to wonder – what kind of parent, knowing what this guy did, allowed him around their children?

[Defense attorney] Russ argued that victim's problems in high school, her struggles with depression and alcohol and her father's taking away her car prompted her to lash out at her uncle.

People do tend to have problems when they've been raped, or are being raised by the kind of people that allow them to be around rapists. Oh, and yeah... a typical reaction of a teen who is mad at a parent is to accuse someone else of rape, right? I know people have a right to a legal defense, but I don’t think I could defend a client in a case that would require me to verbally attack minor rape victims.

He's facing a sentence of more than 100 years plus multiple life terms. The best thing he can do now is admit what he did, apologize, beg for forgiveness, expose anyone else he knows who aided his crimes, and write from prison to warn others how to avoid becoming vicitims of people like him.

Female Victims Matter More

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month – so all of you who have been unaware of sexual assault – become aware, okay? At least for the rest of the month. Ashley Herzog wrote a column about the culmination of the month, "Take Back the Night", and rightly calls out someone for saying that men don't have to "take back the night" because "they already have it".

Crime statistics show that men certainly don't "own the night." In reality, they are three times more likely to be victims of assault by a stranger, and far more likely to be robbed, shot, or mugged. Men are carjacked twice as often. Men are 79% of all murder victims, and about three times as likely as women to be killed by a stranger. And while no one wants to blame the victim, we don’t hesitate to judge male crime victim’s choices. We don't tell them, "Yes, go to the ATM on that isolated corner by yourself at three in the morning. If you get held up at gunpoint, it's a societal problem!"

In the interest of fairness, I don't think most Take Back the Night participants would say it is being taken back from men in general - rather, criminals. Also in the interest of fairness... who is perpetrating the vast majority of these crimes?

That's because we know that robberies, muggings, and random assaults are crimes of opportunity - and certain behaviors make you an easy target.

But when it comes to stranger rape, feminists demand that we abandon all common sense. They went into hysterics when Bill O'Reilly aired a segment about Jennifer Moore, a young woman who was raped and murdered by a stranger. Apparently, O’Reilly was a “rape apologist” for noting that Moore was drunk and wandering the streets of New York by herself at 2 AM. The feminist line is that women are raped simply because they’re “in the presence of a rapist.” That’s true, but it begs the question: what kind of choices make you more likely to be in the presence of a rapist?

Right. As I mentioned in my previous entry, there are behaviors that make someone more likely to be raped, but rape is never okay.

What do feminists hope to accomplish by demanding that women “take back the night”? For the rate of violent crimes against women to go up? For the murder rate to be 50/50? “Taking back the night” is one of those feminist ideas that sounds good on paper, but makes no sense when you start looking at the details.

Perhaps they want crimes against everyone to go down? But Herzog's point is that feminists should not discourage people from being cautious.

Interestingly, women tell researchers they worry more about violent crime. Since we’re victimized less often, we’re probably better than men at assessing risk. What feminists call “living in fear,” I call being appropriately cautious.

Maybe, instead of demanding that women be able to walk alone at night, feminists should promote common sense—and encourage men to use it, too.

Women are mistaken if they think that men don't also have something to fear while walking alone at night. The focus on protecting women who are out at night, when it ignores the fact that men are far more likely to be victims, is sexism in one of its worse forms. The focus should be on general crime prevention.

Sixteen Will Get You Twenty?

That's an old saying about the risks of going after "jailbait" when it comes to sex. But take a look at this:

A high school athletic trainer was placed on three years probation and ordered to perform 240 hours of community service today for having an unlawful sexual relationship with a high school student.

Harold Adam Johnson, 24, San Juan Capistrano, pleaded guilty earlier this month to six counts involving sexual contact with a minor.

He admitted he engaged in a consensual affair – including sex acts in his San Juan Capistrano home and in his car – with a student he met while working as an athletic trainer at Tustin High School in 2008.

Johnson worked at the school for about a year and worked with several athletes in different sports until he resigned in November 2008 while he was under investigation.

Superior Court Judge Gregory W. Jones accepted Johnson's guilty pleas and reduced all felony counts to misdemeanors over the objections of Deputy District Attorney Nikki Buracchio.

Buracchio contended that Johnson should sustain felony convictions, arguing that Johnson took advantage of his position of trust and engaged in a continuous course of unlawful conduct over a lengthy period of time.

Jones, however, said misdemeanor convictions were appropriate because the sexual contact was consensual, the student was 16 and 17 during the course of conduct and was a willing participant who had engaged in some deception to maintain the relationship.

The judge noted that Johnson is a college graduate on his way to a productive life and is not likely to re-offend.

Jones also said that the age of consent in most states for sexual activity is 16.

Wow. Outrageous. A slap on the wrist.

But guess what? I changed the story a little bit. I changed the perp's name and references to the perp's gender, and I removed references to the student's gender. The perp in this case was actually Hope Ashley Jacoby and the victim was a boy. Does that change anything? What if I told you that people tend to find Jacoby attractive? The paper won't even name the boy, which is strange considering the actions and words of hte judge.

I want to look at a few quotes from Larry Welborn's Orange County Register article.

She admitted she engaged in a consensual affair - including sex acts in her San Juan Capistrano home and in her car - with a male student she met while working as an athletic trainer at Tustin High School in 2008.

So can minors consent to sex with adults many years older, or not? Sure, they can consent to abortion without so much as parental notification, but haven't we always heard that minors can't consent to sex?

Jones, however, said misdemeanor convictions were appropriate because the sexual contact was consensual, the male student was 16 and 17 during the course of conduct and was a willing participant who had engaged in some deception to maintain the relationship.

I see. I would be very interested if this judge would apply the same statements if he deals with a similar case where the sexes are reversed.

The judge noted that Jacoby is a college graduate on her way to a productive life and is not likely to re-offend.

Huh? I wonder on what that is based? And plenty of college grads on their way to a productive life do things that warrant prison time.

Jones also said that the age of consent in most states for sexual activity is 16.

So what? California has medical marijuana laws, and other states don't. Different states have different laws. For example, if my wife were to divorce me after ten years, California law would give her alimony for life. I couldn't appeal to the laws of another state to avoid this. This was in California, and is subject to California laws.

Manny of the people commenting on the article on the website are livid, rightfully pointing out that there is a double standard. This woman abused her position of authority. While it is tempting for some to say "lucky boy!", the law must be applied equally, right? Sure, I just wrote about my consensual relationship with an older woman, but I was 19 when that started – it was all legal.

This kid was not old enough to deal with the possibilities of STDs, pregnancy, child support, and the emotional issues.

It looks to me like there was a vagina and/or beauty discount here as far as her punishment and what her record will be. Even if you think this was no big deal and shouldn't be a crime - do you also say that about guys who have sex with underage girls?

He'll Have Trouble Testifying

Looks like this woman had a very good reaction to being raped. Not only does it punish the rapist, but it provides evidence. As for him, if he's like most guys, he'd rather it be his tounge than a certain other bit of his body.

A Murrieta [inland southern California] woman bit off the tongue of an alleged rapist who was arrested at a hospital emergency room where he went for treatment.

Police found the suspect's tongue at the woman's apartment Friday morning.

Yes, but how do we know she wasn't just being cruel to a date? Well, keep reading.

Authorities say the woman had injuries consistent with a violent assault.

Officers say they arrested 32-year-old Ronald McGowan of West Covina, who is a registered sex offender.

Yeah, I suppose she could be a past victim who tracks down guys listed on sex offender websites, and then exacts "revenge". That would make one heck of a Law and Order: SVU episode. But my money would be on the guy having really attacked her, unprovoked. Which makes this a really great story.

Physicians at the Rancho Springs Medical Center could not reattach his tongue.

Like I said... better than something else.

God forbid my wife or daughter or sisters or mother ever find themselves in that situation, but I would hope they would be just as clever. As my wife says, "I'd bite anything he sticks in my mouth."

Pizza Delivery Man Helps Rescue Rape Victim

Kudos to pizza delivery man Chris Turner for helping to rescue a woman who had been kidnapped and raped, and for helping to catch the alleged kidnapper/rapist.

People mentally dismiss people in jobs like his all of the time. But no matter what job a person has (or, doesn't have) they can still make a positive difference in someone else's life.

And who knows what would have happened to her if he had not helped her? She could have ended up tortured more and then murdered.

Dear Margo Advises Catholic Guy About His Dating

HEARTSICK recently wrote in to Dear Margo:

I am a 23-year-old Catholic male. The last serious relationship I was in ended when I was 17.

That wasn’t really a serious relationship. It only felt like it to you.

Even though we dated for three years, we never went "all the way."

Good for you.

Now I am intimidated by women who have more sexual history than I do.

Intimidated? Is that the right word? You should only be intimidated if they are
assaulting you.

I have always believed that one sexual partner for one's entire life is the ideal.

You mean you believe in line with your religion? Wow. Imagine that.

Here comes the fun part.

Recently, a 20-year-old woman whom I care for deeply told me in explicit detail about a sexual experience she had with a 45-year-old man she met on the Internet.

RED FLAGS! (And there’s that “met on the Internet” thing again. It is completely irrelevant. It is like saying “met in a library”. Come to think of it, he might be in the "friend" category for her anyway, making this whole thing pointless.)

She did not mean to have sex with him, she told me, and the circumstances as she explained them sounded like borderline rape.

Hmmmm. So she thought a 45-year-old man simply found her, a 20-year-old, so fascinating and insightful, that he just had to meet her in person, in private? Hey, I speak from experience - when a 45 year old you met online wants to spend time with you and you are 20, they want sex; even if the sexes are reversed. (No, I'm nowhere near 45. You figure it out.)

Okay – let’s go over the possibilities here:

1) She was naïve and showed very poor judgment and wanted to get her ego stroked so badly that she put herself in a very bad situation and was raped. I do not excuse rape, just like I do not excuse grand theft auto, but I think someone who leaves the keys in the ignition and the car door open and unattended is still an idiot.

2) She is not telling you the truth or telling it wholly or accurately. This could be because she doesn’t want to take responsibility for her own actions, so she could be recasting her fornication as rape.

3) She attracts “dangerous” men.

Do you want to be with a woman like that? At the very least, she isn’t ready to be in a healthy relationship. Actually, at 23, you probably have some more time to go before you see someone exclusively anyway. You should be out dating various women so you can be sure to develop a good idea of what kind of woman you enjoy spending time with. Wish someone would have told me that when I was 23.

Think about this – if this woman engaged willingly in fornication with this guy and then later recasts it as rape, she is more likely to do the same with you. False rape accusations are nothing to take lightly.

However, if she was raped, you can hardly call this “sexual experience”. And if she was raped, she should turn that guy in to law enforcement.

I am afraid that if I stay involved with her, the knowledge of that experience will eat away at me.

Leave now. If she was raped, she doesn’t need someone like you adding to her troubles. If she simply had sex she claims to regret, it will still bother you. Either way, it is best to move on.

Doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church have all sorts of people for this guy to turn to for advice in situations like this? It seems to me that writing in to Dear Margo is fishing for getting the exact answer he wants to hear.

Dear Margo responded:

I encourage you to move away from your instinct to "fully understand" or to find and punish this man.

Move away altogether.

It would be a shame to end the relationship because of something basically out of this woman's control.

Would it really? Should everyone volunteer to subject themselves to a relationship with someone with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? We’re not talking a married couple where one spouse gets traumatized. We’re talking about a new dating situation. If he doesn’t want to knowingly enter in to a new relationship with someone who has PTSD, that is his choice and certainly understandable.

Because you say you are intimidated by women more experienced than you are, perhaps a few sessions with a mental health professional will help you over this hurdle.

Be sure to pick a solid Catholic, or at least Biblical counselor. Otherwise, you’ll get someone who will tell you that the solution is to fornicate a lot. Or, you could stick to women who don’t have more “experience” than you. There’s nothing wrong with that. But make no mistake: If someone is raped, that does not mean something is wrong with them or they are sexually impure.

Tracy Denise Roberson of Texas: Why Men Should Protect Themselves

I'm sure there is a reason why this whole thing was entirely the fault of men, but it is Texas, so a woman did get some blame.

A Texas woman who caused her lover's shooting death by falsely crying rape was convicted Friday of involuntary manslaughter.

By “caused” they mean that it wasn’t unreasonable for her to think that her husband would shoot the guy as a result.

In late 2006, Darrell Roberson came home from a late-night card game to find his scantily clad wife with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway.

So while he was out with the boys, she’s also out with the boys. Why did he prefer card games to sex with his wife? Could it be that she was running cold for him, only hot for another man? I suppose it is possible that her husband was neglectful, or that this was his reasonable amount of “guy time”. Either way, his actions indicate he cared about protecting his wife.

Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him.

As he drove off – so presumably he was no longer an immediate threat. Not that I’m saying Mr. Roberson shouldn’t have shot him.

Darrell Roberson initially was arrested, but a murder charge was later dropped and a grand jury indicted Tracy Roberson instead.

During her three-day trial, defense attorneys called no witnesses but blamed LaSalle's death on Darrell Roberson's jealousy and rage.

Yeah, funny that man has rage when someone is supposedly raping his wife.

But prosecutors placed all the blame on Tracy Roberson, showing evidence of the affair with LaSalle, 32, and a text message in which she invited him to her house that evening.

If LaSalle knew she was married, he chose to put himself in a dangerous situation. That doesn’t excuse what happened to him, no more than a woman is to blame if she goes to a guy’s bedroom, takes off her clothes, fondles the guy, and is subsequently raped by him. Even if people make stupid decisions, they should still be protected by law from another person’s force.

So her defense wasn’t able to successfully argue that she wasn’t to blame for her actions because of some hormonal problems? Sheesh. Defense lawyers are losing their touch.

Has this been copied by “Law & Order: SVU” yet?