MEN ARE ALWAYS GUILTY: MICRO MANAGING CAMPUS SEX

MEN ARE ALWAYS GUILTY: MICRO MANAGING CAMPUS SEX

By Domenick J. Maglio Ph.D. Traditional Realist

In our politically correct culture men are always guilty until they prove their innocence. Any male student accused of rape on a college campus has to prove it was either consensual or the incident never happened. We saw this all too well in the Duke Lacrosse incident where an entire fraternity group of men were convicted in the media before any evidence was presented. Last November in Rolling Stone Magazine an article vividly described a fraternity gang rape of a University of Virginia freshman student. It was so descriptive that it caused an outcry in the media against male sexual assaults. Under scrutiny the report eventually fell apart because it was totally made up. This type of incident makes it 100% obvious the burden is on the male to prove his innocence.

Instigated by the bureaucratic “National” Department of Education and the Department of Justice through Title 9, many of the state universities throughout the nation introduced a sexual protocol. This protocol is specifically focused on how students should engage in sexual activity.  There is a series of inhibiting and ridiculous rules before and during their interaction. These legalistic requirements put the onus on the male to prove every one of his actions are approved by his partner.  The initiator, assumed to be the male, has to obtain affirmation, conscious and voluntary written agreement or cellphone video or photo evidence from the female throughout this entire intimate emotional engagement.

These consent contracts are supposedly the intellectual elites attempt to lower the alleged one in five females being raped on campus. It is in reality an attempt to change the natural sexual response of men and women by altering the rules.

Similar to the definition of “what is-“is” the question is “what is rape?” The definition has morphed from physical force against the will of the victim to “I changed my mind,” “I was coerced,” “I was intoxicated” to “you should have known I really did not want to do it.” The definition of rape has been expanded to whatever the female feels is rape at the time.

This consent contract will supposedly empower young females to report more incidents of rape without loss of social reputation or ridicule. It will place every male entering any level of intimacy with a female in serious jeopardy. Obviously only a paranoid or obsessive person would stop at every heightened emotion to get approval to continue.

Most couples in the heat of the moment will not follow all the steps of affirmation. Unfortunately for the male, he has been put on notice that no matter at what stage of the sexual act, even in the middle of ejaculation, he is supposed to ask his partner whether to proceed or not. This is beyond the pale being contrary to the natural sexual response of release. In the back of every male’s mind that has completed a sexual encounter would be “could I be accused of rape or blackmailed?”

These consent contract rules put every male that is involved in sex with a female student in a dangerous position. The “he said-she said with no physical or other verification was usually insufficient to convict a person of rape. This new rigmarole of compliance and the lack of following this inane and unrealistic process makes it easier to convict an innocent man of rape. The burden is on the males even in situations where the females chose to become intoxicated and clearly gave verbal and non-verbal cues to continue. The male will be held accountable for not getting the okay from her. This would be very difficult with the “hookup relationships.” This compliant stipulation holds true even for long -term relationships, morally confused females who might regret their decision and sexually permissive students who are looking to make a few bucks by suing someone.

This only tightens the noose on the male’s being guilty until proven innocent. It is an incredibly stupid and unnatural set of sexual expectations that place more males at a higher risk of being accused and convicted of rape.  It is the politically correct social engineering elite’s world of “you are guilty until you show us the consent contract with crossed t’s and dotted I’s completely filled out with signatures for anything the female alleges.” This is not politically correct. It is incorrect micro managing of students’ personal affairs. It is political dictatorial overreach.

This entire consent contract is preposterous in a free constitutional republic.

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.

NO COUNSEQUENCES, NO ACCOUNTABILITY

NO CONSEQUENCES, NO ACCOUNTABILITY

By Domenick J. Maglio, Ph.D., Traditional Realist

Although authority figures, especially politicians, often say, “I take full responsibility” for an egregious act on their watch, they remain in the position with no disciplinary action taken. They usually blame the opposition or their underlings for the problem or hide under the table.

The whitewashing of irresponsible, reprehensible and illegal behavior has become the new normal. From local to state to national events we are witnessing obvious dereliction of duty and criminal events identified and investigated by authorities without any demotion, firing or criminal actions.

Teachers and other sexually abusive offenders of young children are often given probation without any time served. Their unions often protect employees who steal, drink and drug on the job and railroad engineers responsible for serious fatal accidents. The Dannemora, N.Y. prison escape was a classic example of a bureaucracy without an internal enforcement of the rules. There are people with mental health problems that have exhibited severe violent behavior who are allowed to wander in our communities. The list of once commonly punished offenses is no longer being enforced on almost any level.

When people are not being held responsible for their inappropriate, repulsive or illegal behavior these behaviors proliferate. Anything goes in an amoral and corrupt society.  

Politicians seem to have even greater immunity from being accountable for their actions as long as they are adhering to the progressive agenda. “Does it matter, what difference does it make?” Hillary Clinton’s made this statement to the house concerning the Benghazi incident. It sums up a recurrent theme in our permissive materialistic society.

During the Benghazi fiasco Ambassador Stevens asked for more security four times and did not receive it.  He and three others were brutally murdered. No one has been held accountable even though pertinent emails were not handed over and Hillary’s server was scrubbed clean. These actions took place after congress subpoenaed them from the State Department, which she unbelievably denied. There are many unanswered questions.

There is an epidemic of egregious acts going unpunished. The IRS fiasco targeted conservative organizations for their non-profit status. The GAO’s corrupt waste of money and videotaping of their outrageous parties also went without consequence. The Veteran’s Administration did not allow veterans to receive life and death services so many waited for months and some even died. The EPA dumped more than 3 million gallons of pollutants into the Animas River in Colorado. Over 70 TSA employees were found to be on the NO FLY list while employed as an agent. There has been little to no accountability for these government agency actions.

President Obama promised: “You can keep your doctor with the Affordable Care Act.” His apologists said he could not get his healthcare passed without this 21 times repeated lie. According to “politifact” Obama’s statement was considered the lie of the year. Obama’s healthcare continues to be the law of the land.

Senator, ex governor of New Jersey and hedge fund executive, Jon Corzine, bilked his client’s bank accounts out of billions of dollars. He has never been investigated or has received any consequences for his blatantly criminal behavior.

Jamie Diamond of Chase Bank among others was found to have manipulated the interest rate that banks use to loan each other money and illegally pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars. No one received personal fines or revoking of their licenses. Instead, the shareholders paid a $2.3 billion fine to get the CEOs off the hook. Nothing came out of the CEO’s pocket.

This lack of penalty for illegal behavior goes down the ladder to local politicians, teachers, government employees who are given leave with pay for indecent criminal acts. This lack of appropriate consequences affects us all the way down to parents who shirk their responsibility. Too many parents enable their child to weasel out of consequences when they are in charge and defend them against the consequences of other authority figures.

Leadership starts at the top affecting those beneath in positive or negative ways. This phenomenon has been seen throughout history with great or horrible rulers through the legacy reflected in the people’s lives. Leaders set the tone for the functioning of the people by establishing and maintaining a just society or not. It starts at the tip inspiring upward or corroding downward. When the present leader is righteous and strong unity and production rise while corruption does the reverse.

For accountability to return to this country we need to select moral leaders on all levels of government. When our leaders are conscientious the people in our businesses and families are influenced by their decisions. People generally are more likely to be morally vigilant in their own lives.

Leadership has profound impact on accountability throughout the society. 

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.

AUDACITY OF THE RULING CLASS

AUDACITY OF THE RULING CLASS

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

Instead of allowing the American people to decide the debate of what comprises a marriage the court has imposed it on the people. More than half the states approved the Defense of Marriage Act. Not only did the Supreme Court strike down this act, which was legally passed legislation by both federal and state representatives but the redefinition of marriage will stifle open debate. This act of political will by a razor sharp 5-4 decision has equated heterosexual and homosexual marriage.

The court overreached on the Roe-Wade decision to legalize abortion before a national consensus had been reached. The elites have done it again. This latest social engineering attempt of changing the definition of marriage will not settle the issue. It will further divide the powerful but small number of progressive elite advocates from the people. This radical decision will strike at the heart of our Constitutional Republic. The Constitution and our Bill of Rights especially the First Amendment will be directly in conflict with this attempt at redefinition of marriage.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to validate this Supreme Court decision. The 5-4 majority did not use a rational, well reasoned legal argument to justify the decision as there is nothing in our Constitution that speaks to marriage. Rather they arrogantly injected social justice propaganda to justify the equating of marriage between a man and a woman with a same sex relationship although procreation has historically been the purpose of marriage.

This ruling has lowered the sanctity of the sacred relationship of marriage to the feelings of fulfillment of homosexual couples, as Justice Kennedy noted in his rationale for the ruling. A same sex relationship can be respected and treated in a dignified manner by legal contracts but it will remain profoundly different from the relationship between a man and a woman.

Throughout civilized history the sanctity of marriage was between a man and a woman. In all major religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, marriage has been defined solely as between a man and a woman while homosexual relations have been condemned. This offensive, unwarranted and unjustified tactical decision of redefining marriage is a monumental attack on natural law and religion that will destabilize our law and order.

There will be an inevitable battle between our First Amendment religious rights and the redefining of marriage. It is a shot across the bow of every person of faith.

Many Americans of faith will be unable to practice their beliefs freely. It will cause an unnecessary hardship to them as we have already seen with owners of businesses who have chosen not to be a party to homosexual marriage ceremonies for religious reasons.

This Supreme Court decree will force all God fearing people to deny their beliefs or suffer serious legal consequences for practicing them. As Justice Scalia noted, “opponents to the decision will be crucified” as enemies of the human race by same sex advocates and the media. It will change the experience of being an American. Citizens will not be free to express what their religion dictates. Freedom of speech and religion will no longer be securely protected by the Constitution. There will be a flood of cases against Christian practices and beliefs.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, currently considered an icon by the homosexual community, compared the strong negative reaction to this decision to the Supreme Court’s 1989 flag burning ruling. He forecast the storm would blow over in two or three months attempting to minimize the grave future impact.

Since there is no constitutional justification for this audacious decision, in his closing paragraph on the gay marriage decision, Justice Kennedy sanctimoniously said….” “Their plea is that they respected it so deeply (marriage) that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness excluded from one of civilizations oldest institutions. They ask for equality and dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants that right to them. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of the 6^th Circuit is reversed.”

Instead of specifically identifying what in the Constitution supports this rogue decision he offered psychological babble and self-perceived rejection and slights to the homosexual community to legitimize the decision. He uses political correctness to smear anyone who attempts to deny homosexuals this newfound equal status. There are no longer laws or even social discourse condemning homosexuals to live in loneliness. They have the right to have relationships with who ever they want.

For thousands of years civilized nations did not include homosexuals in the concept of marriage. Marriage was only between a man and a woman and often monetary incentives were given to increase procreation by nations for their survival and vigor.

The only reasons offered to support the decision of redefining marriage are social justice and sympathy for not being equal to historically sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman. The consequences for the social and religious fabric of society are being ignored. Most importantly, this political decision violates the First Amendment of our Constitution.

This ruling class edict needs to be reversed as quickly as possible for the survival of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Republic.

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IS BEING STUNTED BY SELF-CENSORSHIP OF SPANKING

CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT IS BEING STUNTED BY SELF-CENSORSHIP OF SPANKING

By Domenick J. Maglio Ph.D. Traditional Realist

Modern children are exposed from birth to the modern world of electronics. Instant gratification is at their fingertips. These children can press a button, “wa-la,” things happen. Gadgets teach them that there is no limit to their exploring this parallel universe of cyberspace. 

The parents are also integrated into this world as much of their leisure time is devoted to reading and sending messages and interacting with social media sites.  There is little time to observe and instruct their child in the correct way to act and think to be socially, emotionally and morally wholesome.

Modern children are not taught to pay attention to things they do not want to do or learn. They realize they can use their digits to move onto something more interesting on the screen. A child does his “own “thing while the parents do “their own thing.” This is a recipe for poor parenting and a self-absorbed child.

When a young child paints the walls, hits the cat, throws food on the floor, goes into a rage or does other destructive actions, the parent’s hands are tied. They do not respond naturally by spanking him on the backside and saying “no.” Even though female mammals instinctively use their paws to keep their offspring in check.

The historically time tested and accepted behavior of spanking has become outlawed by politically correct propaganda affecting the minds of most of today’s parents. The self-censorship of spanking by parents has had a profound impact on the social, emotional and mental development of too many of our children.

These children are not being trained to listen, follow directions, have limits and anticipate consequences for their impulsive behavior. The mild form of non-listeners is having trouble following simple instructions in school. They are being delicately identified as “learning disabled” instead of being trained to attend to adults.

The more pronounced children are labeled “ADD or ADHD.” Children who exhibit belligerent behavior are labeled with conduct disorder or oppositional defiant disorder. Too many children have not been trained in social interaction and therefore their communication falls in the autistic spectrum category. Children who have not been taught to accept limits often demonstrate self-stimulation and strange behaviors. They could hide under a desk or behind a bush, not answer when called by name and use inappropriate words. Often they will have a vacant look on their face when told to do something by an authority figure.

Moderate spanking is not a cure-all for inappropriate behavior although it would reduce the number of dysfunctional children that have been misdiagnosed.

The simple practice of saying “no” and spanking are attention getters that instill respect of the parent’s power in the child. Children need to learn that there are certain rules they have to follow regardless of whether they want to or not or face real consequences. By internalizing this reality through strong emphasis the child would be less likely to have the audacity to attempt outrageous behavior and develop negative habits. Instead they would receive attention and gratification from doing what the strong parent has defined as appropriate behavior.

The establishment of obedience to what the parent has taught as unacceptable behavior allows the youngster to focus on learning more advantageous actions to earn rewards.

 

Parents should realize a legitimate spank on the behind of a toddler pays great dividends to the child as well as the parent. These parents tend to enjoy their children more, which motivates them to spend more time with the children. The child who is well trained at an early age for minor offences rarely will need to be spanked as he grows older.

There is an obedience transfer to other authority figures that enables the child to be more appropriate and pleasant in the presence of adults. It establishes healthy parameters. Once the fear of the parent is instilled in his mind the child conforms to the parent’s directions.

This simple act of gaining the child’s attention in a loving way will keep the child on the straight and narrow path needed to be successful. Their listening skills and respect for authority will exponentially grow. Although spanking has been labeled as politically incorrect by our “culture police” parents have the responsibility to do what is best for their child’s future. Moderate spanking of a toddler works to increase the child’s listening skills and respect for the parents and other authority figures.

In other words parents doing their duty as parents will make life easier and better for everyone.

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.